Theory of Technique is Dead

[nyiregyhazi]

Hey, you forgot to mention my Grieg in that post.

If you want to reference it to that, look at the chords at the end. There's a singular motion- not a down and then up. Compare to the octaves where there's the far stiffer impact and then reversal that you refer to. It's possible to do the equivalent of the singular arm motion with the hand. It causes just a tiny movement that continues as you arrive at the keybed (around the point where finger contacts key), but that directs energy away instead of into creating impact- just the same as the singular arm push does. Why are you too closed-minded to even try this out?

[keyboardclass]

That was a joke (at your expense).

[nyiregyhazi]

That was a joke (at your expense).

If you have no interest in actually thinking about that under discussion- why are you posting? Whilst typing here, I've been making this a particular point of focus in my practise. It's phenomenally useful to improving the flow and ease of various Chopin Etudes- notably op. 10 no. 2 and op. 25 no. 6. What are you hoping to gain from simply repeating the age old ideas that led you to your current limitations? How is perpetuating the untruth that you can only bang straight down into a keybed and then stop going to lead to improvement? Why would any rational person not want to seek to improve QUALITY of contact from the outset?

[keyboardclass]

Because sadly we don't all have psuedoscience to come to the rescue.

[keyboardclass]

oops

[nyiregyhazi]

Because sadly we don't all have psuedoscience to come to the rescue.

You don't know anything about science. You are simply too closed-minded to entertain anything outside of your current understanding. If it were not for the very real improvements that have stemmed from considering very real science regarding the nature of impact and stress, I'd never even have mentioned it.

Respond with another unsubstantiated off-topic insult if you will, but I won't be replying unless it is relevant to the topic.

[keyboardclass]

You don't know anything about science.

No, it's psuedoscience I'm less than fluent in!  and I don't think anyone's going to miss your replies in this thread either.

[pianisten1989]

Finally! Can we maybe discuss without him saying "I've for everything that works. However, what you're doing doesn't" as a response to everything.

I haven't really followed anything, for obvious reasons. Why it his theory dead?

[keyboardclass]

I haven't really followed anything, for obvious reasons. Why it his theory dead?

Because Matthay had the last word.  There's nothing of real relevance to playing to discover. Writing subsequent to his just forms an exegesis of his teaching.

[nyiregyhazi]

Because Matthay had the last word.  There's nothing of real relevance to playing to discover. Writing subsequent to his just forms an exegesis of his teaching.

So, in other words, you (as a pianist who cannot play even the relatively easy octave passage in that Grieg without clear signs of physical discomfort and straining) feel you have enough personal experience with the outer limits of piano playing to proclaim that Matthay didn't miss anything? He did. He missed exactly the things which you have not learned to do to a high standard- ie. he failed to cover the specifics of how it is possible to stop excess momentum causing heavy impacts DURING contact with the keybed. Matthay made the mistake of warning about keybedding AFTER the inevitable contact had already been made- rather than explain how to make healthy contact DURING the moment. In this day, to say Matthay covered all is tantamount to saying that Lord Kelvin had been right when he proclaimed:

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics. All that remains is more and more precise measurement"

back in 1900. Claiming that denial of the scope for pianists to use time-travel constitutes "pseudo- science" is not likely to be of any assistance.

[pianisten1989]

So, in other words, you (as a pianist who cannot play even the relatively easy octave passage in that Grieg without clear signs of physical discomfort and straining) feel you have enough personal experience with the outer limits of piano playing to proclaim that Matthay didn't miss anything? He did. He missed exactly the things which you have not learned to do to a high standard- ie. he failed to cover the specifics of how it is possible to stop excess momentum causing heavy impacts DURING contact with the keybed. Matthay made the mistake of warning about keybedding AFTER the inevitable contact had already been made- rather than explain how to make healthy contact DURING the moment. In this day, to say Matthay covered all is tantamount to saying that Lord Kelvin had been right when he proclaimed:

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics. All that remains is more and more precise measurement"

back in 1900.

Seriously, we don't want to discuss with you. Can you please just be quiet?

[keyboardclass]

So, in other words, you (as a pianist who cannot play even the relatively easy octave passage in that Grieg without clear signs of physical discomfort and straining)

I'm neither reading or commenting further - how dare you!

[pianisten1989]

Because Matthay had the last word.  There's nothing of real relevance to playing to discover. Writing subsequent to his just forms an exegesis of his teaching.

Ah, ok. Then I don't agree with you. I think it's always possible to develop...

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm neither reading or commenting further - how dare you!

If you think you are an advanced virtuoso who can play thunderous Lisztian octaves without strain, you're living in denial.You have no business claiming to be in a position to proclaim a specific technical method complete. What kind of deluded person would think themself to be in a position to imply that they have such a comprehensive understanding of the full spectrum of technical possibility, that they are able to proclaim a particular method is comprehensively "complete" and nothing else is necessary? For such a person not to even be a very advanced pianist makes it all the more ludicrous. Even great virtuosos continue to make new discoveries. It would take a fool to believe that they have understand enough about technique, to say Matthay has it all. To put him on such a pedestal simply illustrates the extent of your ignorance regarding piano technique.

[keyboardclass]

If you can't play the ball, then don't play at all.

[pianisten1989]

If you think you are an advanced virtuoso who can play thunderous Lisztian octaves without strain, you're living in denial.You have no business claiming to be in a position to proclaim a specific technical method complete. What kind of deluded person would think themself to be in a position to imply that they have such a comprehensive understanding of the full spectrum of technical possibility, that they are able to proclaim a particular method is comprehensively "complete" and nothing else is necessary? For such a person not to even be a very advanced pianist makes it all the more ludicrous. Even great virtuosos continue to make new discoveries. It would take a fool to believe that they have understand all there is to understand about technique, and preclude anything else from arising.

I've seen a few of your videos on youtube. You are far from a virtuoso pianist, with rather bad tone, wrong notes, and many things are very uneven. To claim yourself as an technical expert is almost rude. You are the one who never ever wants to develop yourself, since you say that we are all wrong. Stop being such a bloody hypocrite! And no, don't respond to this. CAUSE I DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS ANYTHING WITH YOU!!!

[nyiregyhazi]

I've seen a few of your videos on youtube. You are far from a virtuoso pianist, with rather bad tone, wrong notes, and many things are very uneven. To claim yourself as an technical expert is almost rude. You are the one who never ever wants to develop yourself, since you say that we are all wrong. Stop being such a bloody hypocrite! And no, don't respond to this. CAUSE I DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS ANYTHING WITH YOU!!!

So don't. That would be fine by me.

I'm not in denial about my own technique. I'm far from happy with it and I'm under no delusions about being in a position where I could possibly say I have understood 100% of what there is to be understood. I don't respond to criticisms of my technique with delusional responses that suggest myself to be beyond criticism. However, please note that most of my videos are from a number of years ago- before I started studying technique with reference to principles of science.

[pianisten1989]

So don't. That would be fine by me.

I'm not in denial about my own technique. I'm far from happy with it and I'm under no delusions about being in a position of having understood 100% of what there is to be understood. I don't respond to criticisms of my technique with delusional responses that suggest myself to be beyond criticism. However, please note that most of my videos are from a number of years ago- before I started studying technique with reference to principles of science.

Well, it's more or less impossible to have a discussion with anyone when you always say "however, what you do are wrong". Well, I'm done. Have fun thinking you are perfect. Bye %"&("

[keyboardclass]

I'm far from happy with it and I'm under no delusions about being in a position of having understood 100% of what there is to be understood.

Misunderstood 100% more like.

[venik]

YES! Could I have made any more clear that this is exactly what I am saying? That momentum is REDIRECTED to be absorbed into inertia instead of sent into impact and compression?

As for the nonsense about 4 times the energy (calculations that YOU constructed), I'm not even going to bother (particularly considering your strawman pretence that I claimed forces are not directional- I said that ENERGY is not directional. Feed words into somebody else's mouth.). If you feel it takes new energy input for something to have its velocity changed by hitting the ground, then feel free to base calculations around that (and then presumably pretend that I'm the one to blame for that error too).

Energy is scalar because it includes energy created by things such as heat. Inside scalar quantities you can have vectors. Otherwise we wouldnt be able to use force and velocity to calculate energy.

The momentum is not "redirected" without unnecessary energy input by you. You said so yourself the key lifts your finger when it is relaxed. So why bounce like this when you have a free energy source (after it's depressed) of the weight of the hammer.

When two objects collide they act a *force* on eachother depending on each's momentum. It is not magic, there are forces. In the case of the piano player, to *use* this force requires an energy input to make the body rigid so the energy is not dissipated. Being that the body is so non-rigid, essentially 0 rigidity without tension, the energy input will be equal (and then greater) than the energy output of the force of the impact. For a few reasons, first you have a negative mechanical advantage (lever is closer to folcrum). And a chain is only as good as it's weakest link, you have to match the force with your own body at the lever of impact in order to feel the force of the actual full impact. Otherwise you cannot bounce. Your arm just flops and the table takes the momentum. And there is no bounce just as when you slap your hand on a table. Now if you were to 'follow' through with the flop you would "press" away from the table and lift your hand or your self.

I can't believe you still don't believe me about the 4x the energy. This is like the first thing you learn in conceptual physics. You have to change double the momentum, and then you have half the time to do it (cause it's going faster). It results in quadruple the energy.

You cannot simply redirect momentum a complete 180 degrees from it's direction, without some sort of energy input. Redirecting momentum at all takes energy input. Redirecting in complete 180 degrees requires the most energy, which is what you are doing. And I wouldn't even consider this a redirection as you pass through the origin of the vector when doing this. Once again your true colors of "arm-chair physicist" is coming through. No one I know in their right mind would consider a complete 180 degree turn of a force or velocity a "redirection" That vector is in complete opposition of the "original."

Just to clear this ridiculous nonsense up once and for all, when you throw a ball upwards to be released at 10 m/s per second and let it come down again, let's (very conservatively) say it reaches at least 5 m/s before returning to the height where it set off from. Based on your theory for how calculations are to be made, the ball changed velocity by 15m/s or more, before returning to the starter height. So are you going to feed that figure into the equation? Where is all this kinetic energy being created between start and finish? Based on your theory for how to perform calculations, by the time the ball reached the height it started at, we'd have created a whole bunch of magical free energy. I can scarcely believe that I'm having to argue on such a simple (not to mention pianistically irrelevant) matter.

hahahaha. This is pathetic.

A ball thrown up at a velocity of 10 m/s will have the same velocity on the way down (-10m/s) when it reaches throwing height. Minus wind resistance and air friction. If the ball came down at 5 m/s that is one *very* windy day. Windy in a upwards fashion none the less. lol.

And then you have the "brilliance" to say this is a conservative estimate...

Face.
Palm.

And this example you're giving me is not an impact, but a constant acceleration of gravity. A completely different problem. In this case only one of the "v^2"'s is actually changing and that is the momentum. The other velocity, of the change in momentum, is unchanging. In simpler terms the change in momentum is happening at the same velocity in both the up and the down swing, which tells us that the acceleration of gravity is constant (9.8m/s/s). That's good, I like the gravity to be constant.

If this change of "15 m/s" were to happen in the same time frame as a 7.5 m/s change, impossible in terms of gravity, then yes the energy required would be quadruple. Not in this poorly constructed problem of yours though.

Do you really treat discussion of science like a defence lawyer treats a court case- purely with a view to hoping to "win" at all costs? Or can you honestly not see what transparently bogus use of the equation you made? Are you going to file a patent on your energy creation scheme- or are you going to admit that you completely misused the equation?

You have made absolutely no argument against my "equation" you have only stated that it is wrong. I'm very happy that "science" as your calling it, doesn't work on statements alone. If it were it wouldnt be very useful, and hardly scientific.

It is your equation with the gaping hole in it, and you still haven't addressed the paddle ball issue. Which by the way is a much fairer comparison to your theory, than your "issue" was in comparison to mine. Mine has the same actions only in different places, yours is a completely different situation.

[nyiregyhazi]

I can't believe you still don't believe me about the 4x the energy. This is like the first thing you learn in conceptual physics. You have to change double the momentum, and then you have half the time to do it (cause it's going faster). It results in quadruple the energy.

Jesus Christ! Look at the example I gave you! If you used the overall CHANGE in velocity to calculate kinetic energy then it would illustrate ENERGY CREATION if you threw a ball in the air! You used the equation wrongly! The variable is velocity- NOT CHANGE OF VELOCITY!!! Are you going to tell me that the example I gave you does indeed involve energy creation? Your bogus method of calculation would suggest it does! It doesn't work if you feed in the change in velocity! Kinetic energy is calculated from the MAGNITUDE of a velocity at an instant in time. It is not based on changes to velocity. I am absolutely stunned to see such a schoolboy error in one of the most basic equations in the whole of mechanics. I'm even more stunned that you are hoping to defend it.

"You have to change double the momentum,"

No "you" don't! The landing stops the momentum. It takes ZERO added energy input for something in motion to be stopped by colliding with something. You are omitting the collision. What kind of absurd logic would casually leave that out and base calculations on it not happening? Your means of debate is to create any old scenario that is nothing faintly like that being described and argue against that?

"You cannot simply redirect momentum a complete 180 degrees from it's direction, without some sort of energy input. Redirecting momentum at all takes energy input. Redirecting in complete 180 degrees requires the most energy,"

You've never seen what happens when a rubber ball contacts the ground? That's exactly what happens to the momentum and there is no additional "energy input" beyond the kinetic energy already present during impact. What are you hoping to achieve by passing off such nonsense for fact? You honestly studied physics?

I am not going to argue further with somebody whose level of argumentativeness is enough to openly LIE about physics before conceding this to be loaded with errors:

"And finally, back to the trampoline thing:
A hand which hit's the ground going 10 m/s and bounces back up at 10 m/s has had a 20 m/s change in velocity. Comparing the energy of bouncing to crashing, a bouncing hand (all else equal, i.e not a comparison to my method) has *4 times* as much energy put into it.
KE = .5mv^2.
Double the change in velocity means quadruple the change in energy."

There is one change of 10m/s that occurs with no additional energy input upon landing. The initial energy dissipates. Then there is then ANOTHER change in velocity that is ALSO to 10m/s (MEANING THE MAGNITUDE HAS NOT DOUBLED!!!). There are two identical levels of kinetic energy to be added together from each of the two stages (even if you assume the impossibility of zero conservation of energy in a "bounce"). Go and lie about physics somewhere else.

[venik]

Jesus Christ! Look at the example I gave you! If you used the overall CHANGE in velocity to calculate kinetic energy then it would illustrate ENERGY CREATION if you threw a ball in the air! You used the equation wrongly! The variable is velocity- NOT CHANGE OF VELOCITY!!! Are you going to tell me that the example I gave you does indeed involve energy creation? Your bogus method of calculation would suggest it does! It doesn't work if you feed in the change in velocity! Kinetic energy is calculated from the MAGNITUDE of a velocity at an instant in time. It is not based on changes to velocity. I am absolutely stunned to see such a schoolboy error in one of the most basic equations in the whole of mechanics. I'm even more stunned that you are hoping to defend it.

"You have to change double the momentum,"

No "you" don't! The landing stops the momentum. It takes ZERO added energy input for something in motion to be stopped by colliding with something. You are omitting the collision. What kind of absurd logic would casually leave that out and base calculations on it not happening? Your means of debate is to create any old scenario that is nothing faintly like that being described and argue against that?

"You cannot simply redirect momentum a complete 180 degrees from it's direction, without some sort of energy input."

You've never seen what happens when a rubber ball contacts the ground? Where is the "energy input"? What are you hoping to achieve by passing off such nonsense for fact? You honestly studied physics?

I am not going to argue further with somebody whose level of argumentativeness is enough to openly LIE about physics before conceding this to be loaded with errors:

"And finally, back to the trampoline thing:
A hand which hit's the ground going 10 m/s and bounces back up at 10 m/s has had a 20 m/s change in velocity. Comparing the energy of bouncing to crashing, a bouncing hand (all else equal, i.e not a comparison to my method) has *4 times* as much energy put into it.
KE = .5mv^2.
Double the change in velocity means quadruple the change in energy."

There is one change of 10m/s that occurs with no additional energy input upon landing. The initial energy dissipates. Then there is then ANOTHER change in velocity that is ALSO to 10m/s (MEANING THE MAGNITUDE HAS NOT DOUBLED!!!). There are two identical levels of kinetic energy to be added together from each of the two stages (even if you assume the impossibility of zero conservation of energy in a "bounce"). Go and lie about physics somewhere else.

Once again, you're talking about a completely different scenario than a collision you're talking about gravity. This is actually the complete opposite of my scenario where energy required is quadrupled.

To compare this collision to gravity you would have 2 balls, one on two different planets...a planet with twice as much gravity and one with regular gravity. The ball would have to be thrown at twice the speed on the one with twice as much gravity, to conserve energy and thus quadruple the energy. Then the analogy is coherent with the reality of accelerating an object upward 20 m/s instead of 10 m/s.

Once again, under your theory playing paddleball would kill somebody with the energies involved.

Under your theory, since the earth is moving around the galaxy which is moving in the universe, and we are traveling at overall about 450,000 miles an hour. Playing paddle ball would take more energy than it does to fly to the moon and back, much much more.

Luckily energy is dependent on the *observed* velocity, and not the overall velocity.

It takes as much energy to accelerate something from 20 m/s to 30 m/s as it does to accelerate it from 0 m/s to 10 m/s, ignoring friction. By your understanding the 20 to 30 m/s would take 400 more Joules than 0 to 10. This is laughably, pitifully, and understandably false.

To prove this, simply look at the equation acceleration = force/mass. and Work (energy) = force x distance. If the acceleration and distance is the same, then the force is the same, then the work done is the same, then the energy done (work) is the same.

You seem to have a vast misunderstanding of what conservation of energy really means. What it means is that energy cannot disappear and appear. It doesn't mean that energy cannot be transferred which is what is happening in my scenario. Quadruple the work must be done to *accelerate* (not velocity) an object twice as fast, giving the object quadruple the energy. Acceleration is key in energy, velocity is *IRRELEVANT*.

To shoot a mirror, useless, semantic, question back at you which you asked me in this post. Are you creating energy by letting gravity accelerate the object?

Obviously the answer is no, and the object had the energy already it was just transferred from potential to kinetic, and from your hand throwing.

[nyiregyhazi]

Once again, under your theory playing paddleball would kill somebody with the energies involved.

You're not even familiar with the nature of a closed system then- or inertial reference points? I have nothing further to say to a person who would try to argue that kinetic energy is calculated from the the square of a change in velocity, rather than from absolute velocity. On that theory, objects would be carrying kinetic energy after they were decelerated to a velocity of zero, upon landing.

I don't believe that you're such an ignoramus as to believe such nonsense yourself. You're just trolling.

[venik]

I would LOVE an answer to the paddle ball problem. I've allready given you the answer to yours 3 times now?

[venik]

You're not even familiar with the nature of a closed system then- or inertial reference points? I have nothing further to say to a person who would try to argue that kinetic energy is calculated from the the square of a change in velocity, rather than from absolute velocity. On that theory, objects would be carrying kinetic energy after they were decelerated to a velocity of zero, upon landing.

I don't believe that you're such an ignoramus as to believe such nonsense yourself. You're just trolling.

You're using work and kinetic energy interchangeably...

So ignorant.

[keyboardclass]

I don't believe that you're such an ignoramus as to believe such nonsense yourself. You're just trolling.

So this guy spends a huge amount of his time showing you the errors in your ideas, as you are constantly requesting posters to do, and teaching you physics in the bargain, and you call him a troll!  I don't think gratitude is in your book is it?

[nyiregyhazi]

I would LOVE an answer to the paddle ball problem. I've allready given you the answer to yours 3 times now?

YOU used kinetic energy in YOUR ridculously miscalculated figiures. I am working with YOUR bungled data as you presented it. Calculate work if you like, to add to the simplification. It won't illustrate any bullshine about four times the energy. I answered regarding the paddle ball. INERTIAL REFERENCE POINTS. The whole planet is moving through the galaxy at rapid speed. However as a CLOSED SYSTEM the kinetic energy occurs within a point of reference- not with regard to the absolute velocity at which we move through the universe.

If your ridiculous claim about changes in velocity were true, consider a situation where v went from 10 to 8. Let's say the mass is 1. So the change would be 2.

10 squared/2=50
8 squared/2=32

If you system worked even for changes to kinetic energy, we could subtract 2 squared from 50. That would suggest that an object that went from 10m/s to 8 carries a figure of 46 Joules- where it carries 32. Your calculations are WRONG! You cannot use changes to velocity in an equation that refers to the square of an ABSOLUTE figure.

I can't believe I'm actually having to explain such foundation level errors in mechanics from somebody who claims to have studies the subject to advanced level...

[richard black]

It takes as much energy to accelerate something from 20 m/s to 30 m/s as it does to accelerate it from 0 m/s to 10 m/s, ignoring friction.

Ah, but does it, though? This is actually a standard physics paradox: the energy appears to depend on your frame of reference. There is a way out (of course!) but it's not blindingly obvious.

[nyiregyhazi]

So this guy spends a huge amount of his time showing you the errors in your ideas, as you are constantly requesting posters to do, and teaching you physics in the bargain, and you call him a troll!  I don't think gratitude is in your book is it?

What he has failed to grasp is the foundation level fact that an equation based on proportionality to a square cannot be used for incremental changes. There is no proportionality to the variable itself. 

That is not "physics" that anyone should be taught. It goes to show the importance of placing factual accuracy, before being hell bent on "correcting" someone. Unfortunately you can't correct someone by churning out a string of factual errors. The one that would deny conservation of momentum if a person dropped a rubber ball was perhaps the most interesting of all.

[keyboardclass]

Maybe this will clarify.  I know which paddle is going to move the pram.  Presumably so does everyone else.

[mike_lang]

Maybe this will clarify.  I know which paddle is going to move the pram.  Presumably so does everyone else.

Is this really an apt analogy?  It doesn't account for gravity, nor the minimal amount of force required to depress a key (I assume this is your point, though I haven't bothered to keep up with the prior posts). . .

[keyboardclass]

The point is the stick, a rigid structure, will deliver a far greater force than the string (which can actually deliver none).

[nyiregyhazi]

The point is the stick, a rigid structure, will deliver a far greater force than the string (which can actually deliver none).

Oh dear. So the implication is that the stiffer your arm the better? What you have forgotten is that the arm is neither one singular rigid solid structure or one singular floppy structure.

If I straighten my thumb into a key (without any muscular pressure from the arm), it's neither stiff nor floppy. It's just moving naturally. However, it offers zero scope for loss of energy transmission into collapse (without requiring muscular seizure). There is only movement, not stiffness. This low effort motion can make for a very big sound, with very low impact and stress (although it takes time to develop the thumb muscles for a really big tone). There's nothing else between the energy source and the key that could ever buckle in a way that would compromise acceleration. It's travelling the other way.

How about if we use our arms to push the pram? Would you start with a rigid arm? Not exactly a great way to achieve acceleration- even if the arm succeeds in being as flawlessly rigid as a block of steel. Or would you use an action that eliminates the give in the joints simply by initiating movement- hence no requirement of fixation? If something is moving one way, it can't double back. Plus it contributes acceleration by moving. It's possible to achieve the closest thing possible to lossless transmisison without a single fixation occurring.

[keyboardclass]

Next scenario - if there's a hinge in the stick and it isn't fixed in anyway it is the same as the string - no force can be transmited.

[nyiregyhazi]

Next scenario - if there's a hinge in the stick and it isn't fixed in anyway it is the same as the string - no force can be transmited.

As I said, in my described action the thumb is straightening. So it's the same as the hinge contributing acceleration- rather than lying slack. To be analagous, that hinge requires hydraulics to represent the muscles. As well as hanging dead or being held rigidly, joints can also be used for MOVEMENT.

[keyboardclass]

Joints apply no force, muscles do.

[nyiregyhazi]

Joints apply no force, muscles do.

Who said joints apply force? I said joints are used for movement. They are. If you want to be a competent pedant, then you need to observe more carefully before seeking to pick up on errors. Making an inaccurate correction is very poor pedantry- especially when you "correct" a point that was not made.

Also, you didn't raise any points regarding the matter under discussion.

[keyboardclass]

So it's the same as the hinge contributing acceleration-

Only muscle can do that.

[nyiregyhazi]

Only muscle can do that.

So, having nothing to contribute, you have decided to point out random facts that we are all aware of- regardless of the fact that nobody stated or implied otherwise. Great. Once your argument hits a dead end (seeing as we estabilished that the stiff ball contributes less acceleration), simply turn to pedantry against a strawman. You should run for local government.

[keyboardclass]

Here's our stick with a muscle added.  Notice the muscle's job is to keep the stick RIGID i.e. not allow the hinge to bend.  It will now work just as well as the non-hinged stick.

[nyiregyhazi]

Here's our stick with a muscle added.  Notice the muscle's job is to keep the stick RIGID i.e. not allow the hinge to bend.  It will now work just as well as the non-hinged stick.

No it won't. It contributes zero acceleration- unlike the straightening stick. And seeing as nothing is perfectly stiff, even with the utmost muscular tension it will involve some level of lossage. When it starts bent and straightens, it both eliminates danger of collapse and actively provides acceleration.

What do you think you are going to prove? That stiff muscles are the best way to play the piano? There are many other ways to eliminate the possibility of slack causing loss in transmission. Fixation to prevent negative movement is actually less effective than (the greater ease) of a positively directed movement. As they say, attack is the best form of defence. To prevent negative lossage, simply add a positive action. Fixation contributes less.

[nyiregyhazi]

Also, if the energy is sourced via straightening in the centre of the stick, there will be less impact. Even if the paddle is pushed back, it will still stabilise for a good enough contact, provided it has reasonable mass. With the right level of mass it can help to stabilise yet also serve to absorb the recoil, like a shockabsorber. However, if you have a stiff stick, the momentum of the paddle will go crashing into impact. It will follow through, like a carriage goes plowing into the next in a train crash. Here you have your equivalent of heavy contact at the keybed.  

[keyboardclass]

No it won't. It contributes zero acceleration- unlike the straightening stick.

What do you think a straight stick is?  A bunch of closely knit fibers!  And what is a muscle?  A bunch of closely knit fibers!  A contracted muscle and a stick are really quite the same thing so there's no difference between stick and stick+hinge+muscle.

[nyiregyhazi]

What do you think a straight stick is?  A bunch of closely knit fibers!  And what is a muscle?  A bunch of closely knit fibers!  A contracted muscle and a stick are really quite the same thing so there's no difference between stick and stick+hinge+muscle.

I am talking about contractING muscle and a straightENING stick- not contractED muscles or a straightENED stick. ContractING muscle contributes acceleration of by doing so. ContractED muscle can only hope to be stiff enough to minimise lossage of the momentum from further back.

You don't seem to grasp that I explicitly stated that BOTH the stiff stick AND the contractED muscles are crap ways to pass on energy. That they are very much comparable is exactly the point I had made to you.

[keyboardclass]

You don't seem to grasp that I explicitly stated that BOTH the stiff stick AND the contractED muscles are crap ways to pass on energy.

You don't seem to grasp they are the most effectivety way to 'pass on energy'.  Kinda why cars have a drive shaft.

[nyiregyhazi]

You don't seem to grasp they are the most effectivety way to 'pass on energy'.  Kinda why cars have a drive shaft.

So would you try to accelerate a pram by first straightening your arms out, locking your joints up as tightly as possible and only then charging through the pram? Or do you start with bent arms and simply straighten out your joints to put it into motion and into release? Were you ever in any sports teams at school? If not, perhaps it's the former? I'm guessing it's probably the latter. If not, though, I wouldn't enter any pram acceleration contests just yet.

Seeing as you went to the trouble of constructing this exceedingly relevant and productive analogy, why don't you take the time to consider the practical implications of it?

[keyboardclass]

Defend yourself with fresh fruit if you wish, I'll take the pointed stick!

[nyiregyhazi]

Defend yourself with fresh fruit if you wish, I'll take the pointed stick!

I have no doubt that you will. You are totally dependent on such fixations in your videos.

[keyboardclass]

I have no doubt that you will. You are totally dependent on such fixations in your videos.

Ah yes, my videos!  How did I ever survive such grueling punishment!

[richard black]

Gosh, this is an impressively badly-argued debate. Does anyone have a clue what any of these posts is on about, beyond the absolute outline basics?