Actually, model airplane engines are capable of turning about 35-40,000 rpms depending on the size and type.... Turbochargers hit these numbers too. So not saying its right, but 70,000 certainly isn't unreasonable.
for all the stupid douche bags do u have any idea what is 70,000 rpm looks like , it would had made a whole in his hand if such a thing was possible , retards!!
i did this and i,m sure i got 100000 rpm the ball exploded, Callaway ,POS, blew the shit outta the funnel, and my hand was around the funnel, hurt good for a bit, was lucky,
Not 70,000 rpm, more like 20,000. Anyway, I did this once with an air compressor and the spinning golf ball almost ate through my leg! You have to be careful.
So, Um the last digit on the meter is behind a decimal point. The last number shown before the blue screen is 7,018.2. Now I've done a bit of math. At 70,000 RPM the force from centripetal acceleration on the surface of the ball would be over 10,000,000 Kg. It would tear itself apart (maybe). Also -and I know this doesn't fit with what I say ether- at the end he said something like fifty/sixty one thousand... I can't quite make it out.
Golf balls are nearly fluid on the inside. They deform very easily. The fact that it's nearly spherical at "70,000 rpm" makes me skeptical. Also, to all these pricks with thesauruses instead of degrees: You're not fooling anyone.
@WillBlocher Modern golf balls are solid all the way through. The do not deform easily. I've cut a lot of them in half with a pvc pipe shear. The are made of a hard rubber like material. Some have a solid core, others have two to four layers of core material under the skin. The balls with the liquid center have been gone for 20 years.
Go to my page to earn easy points which can be redemed for anything on amazon. (Link in description - under website) The points you earn can be redemed for cash through paypal, check, etc. There are no viruses on the site and all personal information will be kept safe. Get points by competing in games, completing daily tasks and survays. The website gets money from adds and so they can afford paying for things you buy off amazon.com. SHIPPING IS FREE. ALREADY THERE ARE 2000+ members.
@Darkcloud9071 Actually given the fact that they are using compressed air the ball will stay relatively the same temp. The force of the air is providing a cushion which in turn keeps the ball from touching the hand allowing it to spin. I say if anything the ball maybe drops a few degrees. I dont know the point at which air stops cooling something down and begins to heat something up from friction. His compressor cant force air out the nozzle fast enough to heat the ball by air friction alone.
I think your optical tachometer is picking up the dimples and not the ball itself...paint a stripe from one end of the ball around to the opposing end and try it.
@hubbsllc Down in the comments he claims to have a magnetic strip on the ball. I don't understand how it could possibly stay on the ball at that speed though.
@minero1986 To determine that you'd have to do some shear stress calculation for a solid sphere, and then compare that amount to the maximum amount of stress a golf ball can take. Actually if you knew how rigid it was you could probably just calculate how much of an oblate shape it would get. I've seen clips of people pressing golf balls, and they can go pretty far without breaking them.
@twaddlegenerator Not wanting to be bothered with matters such as physics, known parameters or pesky math, I dare anticipate your disdain for principles of acoustics.
In the same way that the sound of the passing spokes on a bicycle wheel would poorly indicate the wheel's RPM, the 300 to 450 dimples in the rapidly spinning golf ball's surface create a harmonic whine -- skewing perception.
Chew on 70,000 RPM. That means 1,167 rotations per second -- a skin speed of 350 mph.
@MichaelRMcCoy would be nice if we could know there was something on one side of the ball that made the sound, cuz I narrowed it down to 1020 Hz with my tone generator :D
@twaddlegenerator Basic math doesn't matter? And you seek a meaningful discussion following such an absurd assertion?
Your kidding, right?
When you hear a kid riding his bicycle by -- with the wheel spokes rubbing a balloon attached at the forks, does the sound indicate the RPMs of the wheel?
Of course not.
The golf ball has dimples, it is in motion, contacting a stream of compressed air.
Guesswork seems much more natural to you than reason -- especially that pesky math thing.
@twaddlegenerator Pretty hard to overlook the fact that you're avoiding some of the most basic math imaginable -- relating to the most indisputable facts surrounding the claims in the video.
It's all in the golf ball's diameter [a known factor] and escaping 175 psi air [also a known factor].
The most optimum diameter orifice used to direct the air's flow would be around 3/32", [smaller over-restricts and larger results in lower velocity].
@SirGoP2 EDIT: Hey, I looked at a couple of different tables of air flow. They both got the air flow to over 20 CFM at 175 psi through a 3/32" orfice.
One of them mentioned you could factor it down a bit due to a sharp-edged orfice, which landed it at around 15 CFM.
Still, that would leave the air flowing out of the orfice at like 900 mph, considerably higher than 125 mph.
@twaddlegenerator Before chiming in, wouldn't it be a good idea to review the record? This, of course, only if you place any meaningful value on your credibility.
Covering the same points time and time again truly bores me silly.
Pay attention:
A 70,000 PRM golf ball has, [and must have], a skin velocity exceeding 530 mph.
175 psi air escaping through a 1/8" orifice is a quarter of that. -- at best.
Period.
It's physics. Do the math. Try again. Then formulate a compelling, fact based comment.
@PegLegRacer well, while i see your perspective, the momentum that was kept with this ball almost 10 seconds and the major lack of friction due to the speed of the ball could lead to something, it could lead to something
Ok... lots of doubt from other posters on what RPM the ball is spinning. There are several ways to determine this:
1. Analyze the frequency of the sound being generated by the golf ball, and divide that by the number of dimples on the circumference.
2. Optical tachometer is the best option, but what needs to be done first is to spin the ball, to find it's natural axis. Then color the top 1/2 of the ball so the tach sees an alternating signal.
anyone who thinks that is spinning at 1,350 rpm are mad.I dont know if its 70,000 rpm but its deffo over 20,000 rpm so maybe the tacho is right people
I did that same(about 14yrs ago) with a lever knob (black round knob with hole in it that you can screw it on the lever) and floated it in the air with compressed air pistol head... And the just pull the pistol away quickly and see the ball bouncing around the hall like pinball... I had luck since after few tries the knob just exploded into pieces. Shrapnels everywhere. None lost sights or anything else happened, but it gave us a lesson.
@Skatelandkillah A golf ball is 1.68 inches in diameter, denoting a 5.28 inch circumference. 5.28 times 33 RPS is 174.2 inches per second, which is 442 cps [1 cm = .394 inch].
Where you got 137 cps I can't imagine.
A golf ball cannot be tacked as can a sailboat, and the speed of a golf ball propelled solely by compressed air cannot exceed the speed of that escaping air -- where contact is made with the ball's skin.
Doing so would defy ground-level physics, in addition to common sense.
There is no way that that golf ball was spinning at 70000rpm, at that speed the centrifugal force in the ball would be roughly 5200N (1200 pounds) yet the ball didn't even begin to lose shape.
@Skatelandkillah Of course the escaping air can be heard. In any event, your math is wrong and would hold no meaning were it correct.
Pay attention.
The relevant math to determine the ball's maximum RPM can be deduced assuming [at best] 175 psi escaping air and knowing the circumference of the ball.
Drag coefficient and the air's effectiveness on the ball's surface, not to mention a wildly random ball equator all act to betray the ball's maximum speed, which is air speed or lower [110 mph].
@Skatelandkillah I am very familiar with the sound of escaping 175 psi air -- the speed of which does not exceed 110 mph. Knowing the circumference of a golf ball, and under the most ideal of conditions, the ball's skin will not exceed that speed. From there, it's 6th grade math.
Note: drag coefficient of grass vs smooth concrete is a matter of apples and oranges.
Spinning a golf ball at 2,000 RPM [33 revolutions per second] by hand would be of great interest to the good folks at Guinnes.
@MichaelRMcCoy So youre telling me you know the speed of a gas just because you know its pressure? Ever heard of FLOW? The pressure is irrelevant. Are you telling me the 175psi in my compressor tank has a velocity of 110mph??
@danetp The pressure is irrelevant? Your kidding right?
Flow is a function of pressure. All things being the same, accurately measure the speed of escaping air through any sized orifice that you choose, then lower/raise the pressure at the source.
Then remeasure.
Flow is a result of pressure, diameter of the orifice, the storage capacity [for prolonged use] and temperature/humidity [to a smaller degree].
Why is a 175 psi system preffered over a 125 psi system? It's called stored energy.
@Skatelandkillah I would strongly suggest, if your credibility is of any value to you, to run this stuff past your brain before typing -- i..e. the 'demonstration' has nothing to do with golf clubs delivering [via a competent golf enthusiast] a sound 550 [or so] joule force to a golf ball.
Pay attention. The variables are clear. Basic math and known factors.
A golf ball [look it up] driven with 175 psi air through a [at best] 1/16 inch orifice.
@MichaelRMcCoy I'm guessing your just a troll so this will fall on deaf ears. Skatelandkillah is right. Golfers routinely put 8,000 rpm's or more spin on a golf ball. The balls spin back between 8 and 10 feet. The balls make no sound that can be detected by human hearing after they land on the green, NONE! I saw a trick shot that rolled back 50 feet, no sound. This ball is screaming. Your estimate of 2,000 RPM is , shows an ignorance of the real world. 2000 RPM is nothing to a golf ball.
@Yefattbasterd, momentum and force. taking a basic example a big ball can hit a smaller ball, under the right conditions the smaller ball can go faster then the big was was going initially.
not saying you are wrong with the implication of it going 70k rpm is practically impossible in this video, as i agree. However your calculation would be incorrect. The speed of the air although important due to force restrictions, doesn't actually define the speed. Just because the air wasonly going say 100mph. it does not limit the golf ball to this.
@zarwalski1 Uhhh yes it does.. Where pray tell is the extra energy/velocity to spin the ball coming from? If the ground/air going past a wheel/ball is going as you stated 100mph it does limit the surface speed of the wheel/ball to 100mph. If the ball were a disk (and its not) you could move closer to the axis and increase speed.
@MichaelRMcCoy Actually sailboats may be limited by the drag coefficient between the hull and the water but technically a land sail sled and ice sail sled can go much faster than the wind speed and have been clocked at over 100mph with only a 50 mph wind speed. This is due to the pressure differential from the back to the front of the sail essentially pulling the sail forwards. As for this video I completely agree with you that 70,000 rpm seems highly unfeasible and no proof is demonstrated as y
@MichaelRMcCoy Whoa whoa whoa my friend. Lighten up! What logic am I disputing? You clearly missed point #1!! I'm on your side!! So defensive!! Next time I'll be sure to put a 'LOL' in, yes?
@mattjns Oops. And sorry. Maybe a bit heavyhanded. But surely, you've seen folks resort to attacking one's spelling [even grammar] when the power of the facts shines through.
Please, accept my apology. And I appreciate your appreciation of the facts.
@danetp Whether I was there or not is irrelelant. The elements, techiques & physics are predictable & repeatable. A golf ball is around 1.68 inches in diameter & 5.28 inches in circumference. Spinning at 70,000 RPM [1,166 revolutions per second] equates to 513 feet per second or 350 mph.
The speed of escaping 175 psi air with a 3/16" orifice is about 52 mph -- 77 mph with a 1/8" orifice & 106 mph with a 1/16" vent.
@mattjns Actually, I'm not a bad speller, but I focused more on the point than I should have on proof reading, especially when the batteries in my wireless keyboard were running low.
And I can always count on the spelling police to come out of the woodwork when the logic of the matter cannot be disputed.
Speaking of propriety "There's" is a contraction of 'there is' or 'there has' -- and is used in the singular.
The detector is sensing variations in the balls surface during its spin -- meaning the dimples. Most golf balls have between 300 and 450 dimples in their total surface, which translates into about 35 to 52 dimples per circumference in any random direction.
So, divide that so-called "70,000 RPM" by 35/52 for the actual RPM.
A ball spin of 2,000 to 1,350 RPM is much more likely and accurate.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@MichaelRMcCoy really? were you there? there is a piece of reflective tape on the ball that the emitted light from the tachometer reflects off of and thus is reflected back to the tachometer. does not count the dimples. cheers
@danetp A piece of reflective tape placed on the golf ball's surface would have, on average, a 1 in 275 chance of being detected during a random, high-speed spin. The "reflector" is not held in alignment at the equator of the ball's spin, [the ball's axis/poles are wildly random and changing], so implying that the detector indicated "70,000 RPM" as a result of the reflective tape is simply impossible -- and ridiculous.
@MichaelRMcCoy The balls axis would not be random once the thing started spinning, gyroscopic forces would resist the axis changing directions.. How ever I think a black line going all the way around the ball causing 2 white pulses per rev would have been better.. then you could see if it was aligned properly. Then divide the result by 2. But even then (with tape also) I believe the dimples on the ball would skew the results unless the tach's sensitivity can be adjusted..
@Yefatbastard Even without both poles fixed, a gyroscope's unfixed [upper] pole wanders unpredictably -- even wildly. In this demonstration, gyroscopic forces are in play, but not nearly as much as the imprecise angle by which the stream of escaping air is applied to the ball's skin. I can assure you, the air stream is not being directed at a fixed [zero degree lattitude] equator -- allowing the poles not only to constantly change, but to change quickly and archaically.
@MichaelRMcCoy Gyroscopic forces resist rotation on all axis/poles except the "fixed" axis/pole of rotation. The rotation axis is, lets say on the X axis "horizontal" (perpendicular to the air nozzle) leaving the Z axis (up and down) as well as the Y axis (parallel to the air nozzle) and all points in between "locked" in place by gyroscopic forces.. Must be why we use them in our satellites.. I agree this video falls short of a controlled science experiment. But they weren't trying to make one.
@Yefatbastard If the air stream were applied to a zero degree lattitude equator, I'd be more inclined to buy the [somewhat] fixed poles. But fixed [maintained] poles whould be the only way to keep the airstream on a fixed equator -- for any length of time..
Also, gyroscopic forces are profoundly more predominant with a spinning disk [as in a gyroscope] than with a spinning sphere -- i.e. the planet earth's poles would be wildly fluxuating were it not for the stabilizing effect of our moon.
@MichaelRMcCoy And you are an expert on this video, yet actually know nothing about how the rpm's were tested. You can say something as elaborate as you like, and go into every related detail of rpm's and possibilities. The fact is, you don't know shit about this video.. Despite being an online expert who can post on a youtube video, i feel like i'm waisting my time even posting this. Probably because youtube is a waste of time.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@MichaelRMcCoy are you telling me that this ball is spinning at "random"? ever roll a ball across the floor? i can promise you that it rolls consistently straight not chaotically or randomly. Remember this was done by 6 mech engineers. actual appliers of science, not physicists who sit on their asses and push pencils all day
@danetp Why are you arguing? That's not 70,000 rpm no matter how you twist and turn it. The golf ball would most likely break at such a high rate. I would say 10,000 RPM at best and that is still pretty darn good if you ask me.
@danetp I would think that at least one of the 6 "mech techs" would be versed at basic physics. I assure you, the air stream is not being applied to the ball at an equator exactly between stationary poles. Paint dots at the poles on any sphere and spin it any way you wish - the poles will wander wildly - and more pronounced the higher the speed.
I'm not a physicist, still, could you actually believe that an all encompassing, mindless retort about physicists could do your credibility any good?
@danetp I'm sorry, I know this is a conversation between you and MichaelRMcCoy, but as a physics post-graduate student (masters and PHD at Oxford, currently doing post-doct), I'm telling you, you are wrong about the detector regardless of the 6 mech engineers. MichaelRMcCoy is right. Everything engineers know is because of physics. We invented the whole field. Engineering is just applied physicists with less knowledge. Instead they just focus on one thing, physicists learn it all.
@MichaelRMcCoy You are an idiot. I think it is funny that you are frantically tapping away at your keyboard trying to sound smart, but you have no concept of what is actually going on in the video. I work with turbines, and I have an ear that is quite well tuned to about those RPM's. I can assure you that the tach is pretty close to spot on.
@Super73VW Mindless retorts from self-proclaimed RPM experts. Wow, what a way to crush the simple physics.
A 70,00 RPM golf ball would have [to have] a skin velocity of 530 mph. Quite a feat -- being propelled with escaping compressed air with a velocity of 125 mph or less.
These are the facts, they cannot be avoided. Ignoring them is the essence of wanton ignorance.
Yeah, those pesky realities of physics and basic 6th grade math are quite troublesome, you nitwit.
@MichaelRMcCoy it doesn't have to be in alignment at the equator. Draw a ring around a ball, and rotate it on an arbitrary axis, and you'll find your eye crosses the line twice per rotation no matter what. Any change in the axis will be biased by the direction of the air flow and angular momentum, it won't be any more "random". than a spinning top.
@imjinc2k Did you actually think that one out before posting? What is the result when the drawn line begins to mimic the effective equator? The air flow is not applied to a zero degree [dead center] equator. Short of fixed poles and a precisely defined equator [impossible with the conditions demonstrated in this video] the resulting spin will be wildly chaotic.
Place two dots at the poles on a ball -- then a lined equator.
Next, spin rapidly with air pressure -- while filming.
@MichaelRMcCoy and what is the probability of the line consistently becoming the equator in your "random axis" scenario? Oh that's right.. nearly impossible. Did YOU think about this before posting?
@MichaelRMcCoy I think you are trying to sound smart by using a calculator and tossing random numbers out there. unfortunately, the guy who made this video is not an idiot
@favre4beast I made no such assessment of the video poster -- merely that the 70,000 RPM claim is quite impossible [and grossly exaggerated] given the know factors.
Please, don't make stuff up -- check the prior posts if you place any value on your credibility.
Check my "random numbers". Given the known dimensions of a gold ball and the speed of escaping 175 psi air, it's really just a matter of 6th grade level math.
Or, like most, you can go with the cool whine that the ball makes, and guess.
@MichaelRMcCoy I never said it was my career..? i have used compressed air to rotate something really fast though, and that is what I meant. no need to act cool on youtube.. 1 in a million chance that someone you know in real life will actually see it or care (I spent years calculating that probability in my nuclear fallout shelter)
@favre4beast "Coolness" is not an objective -- only to address the facts.
Outlandish claims deserve meaningful analysis.
With the "experience" that you claim, you should be versed at the maximum speed of escaping 175 psi air. At 70,000 RPM, the ball's surface would be moving at 500 plus mph, quite impossible with a max air speed of 125 mph [the ball's sole source of propulsion].
@MichaelRMcCoy Okay, this isn't worth wasting my time over. I will repeat though, your numbers were pulled from your lovely looking anus, and I have tried this in REAL LIFE. I hereby declare this flame war 'over'. =)
@MichaelRMcCoy A ball spin of 2,000, to 1,350 rpm's huh? How the fuck did your comment ever get 12 thumbs up? Your description could make a fucking elephant commit suicide with a handgun. Nice try though, I guess their are AT LEAST 12 more retards who read your comment. Why are you posting physics on a fucking youtube video anyway? I won't even go into detail about fucking online video shit.
@AmoralEngineer Well slugger, It's clear that with such compelling substance and methods of rebuttal that you bring to the table, we, the mere fact-checkers and independent thinkers, don't stand a chance.
I bow to your superior intellect and debating skills.
@theknexkid101 Out of ideas, resorting to mindless retorts -- how I love originality. Venture from your parent's basement, at least occasionally, nitwit.
@MichaelRM im looking at a golf ball and the holes are not in a patteren so your dimple theory is shit and get off youtube and try this at home and come back with your results and then tell me that your dimple theory is posible
0:54 Who called the fire department?
kasteman1 23 hours ago
And when that explodes and rips apart... Good bye eyes and fingers
Randomnick123 5 days ago
Actually, model airplane engines are capable of turning about 35-40,000 rpms depending on the size and type.... Turbochargers hit these numbers too. So not saying its right, but 70,000 certainly isn't unreasonable.
andTO86 4 weeks ago
my grandad lost his teeth doing the very same thing.
epster123ify 1 month ago
i tried that and the golf ball i used exploded so be safe it was a nike mojo btw
ACEI985 1 month ago
70,000 rpm = 1166 rps which is like 1166 revolutions per second , is that possible ???u guys r freaking kidding me rite
owaisiqbal83 2 months ago
seems legit
2013farmerboy 2 months ago
for all the stupid douche bags do u have any idea what is 70,000 rpm looks like , it would had made a whole in his hand if such a thing was possible , retards!!
owaisiqbal83 2 months ago
@owaisiqbal83 u so smert! like a hole group of signtists smert!
GODOFLAMBS 2 months ago
@owaisiqbal83 cool right :D
DrSpecialBrown 2 months ago
lol I typed on google "70000 rpm"
ZLau13 2 months ago
"what to do in free time" uhm let me think about it....
what about shoving nitrate oxide up your ass!
mo3tassem1998 2 months ago
@mo3tassem1998 Or shoving your boyfriends dick up yours
RedneckRacing27 2 months ago
@protegeaustin Is that good enough grammar for you. Your just pissed off because you can't do math yourself.
protegeaustin 2 months ago
@protegeaustin I like how you're raging at him about grammar, yet you can't spell "You're."
xDJaycee 2 months ago
@Crzclwn Hey you only have so many characters per comment you fuck stick. So shut ur fucking whore lips you little bitch.
protegeaustin 2 months ago
Seems to me the golf ball would self-destruct well before 70k rpm. Do you think the meter was counting the dimples in the ball?? Later, Rick.
popnstart 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
they are still trying to catch it..
ChunderPlunder 3 months ago
i did this and i,m sure i got 100000 rpm the ball exploded, Callaway ,POS, blew the shit outta the funnel, and my hand was around the funnel, hurt good for a bit, was lucky,
killerkooodaaa 3 months ago
it's more of an instrument error as the ball is totally uniform, it is harder to get a correct reading when all relative points look the same
azndaudau 3 months ago
so a golf ball , a funnel, and an air nozzle pull up to a drag strip...
terminalfx 4 months ago
if that was hard rubber....
you'd have lots of holes in your shop
DIYOutdoorsmen 4 months ago
now i have to go find danetp comments oh joy.
TheAnimator54 5 months ago
i call false reading from the symmetric dimples on the ball
militantmindset 5 months ago
just think about how far it would travel in the air, probably around the frikken world
Mdonkin961 5 months ago
At 70000 rpm, the surface of the ball would be spinning at over 560km/h (350mph). I'm skeptical.
orniver 5 months ago
Do that but shoot it out of the spoon with a .22. that would be cool.
jfkdidmymom 5 months ago
that was cool
thedoubledeus 5 months ago
Dammit, now I need to go hunting for danetp's comment.
ExistUNDRGROUND 5 months ago
Not 70,000 rpm, more like 20,000. Anyway, I did this once with an air compressor and the spinning golf ball almost ate through my leg! You have to be careful.
BRyanS72 5 months ago
The golf ball probably spun around that shop for like, 5 minutes.
TranceFur 5 months ago
All of you are tools arguing about stupid crap on the internet. great job but whoever won is still just another internet troll.
StormyGoldbeast 6 months ago
So, Um the last digit on the meter is behind a decimal point. The last number shown before the blue screen is 7,018.2. Now I've done a bit of math. At 70,000 RPM the force from centripetal acceleration on the surface of the ball would be over 10,000,000 Kg. It would tear itself apart (maybe). Also -and I know this doesn't fit with what I say ether- at the end he said something like fifty/sixty one thousand... I can't quite make it out.
gizmoguyar 6 months ago
How funny would it be if it flew out and fucked up his face?
smithyboi6 6 months ago 2
Golf balls are nearly fluid on the inside. They deform very easily. The fact that it's nearly spherical at "70,000 rpm" makes me skeptical. Also, to all these pricks with thesauruses instead of degrees: You're not fooling anyone.
WillBlocher 6 months ago
@WillBlocher Modern golf balls are solid all the way through. The do not deform easily. I've cut a lot of them in half with a pvc pipe shear. The are made of a hard rubber like material. Some have a solid core, others have two to four layers of core material under the skin. The balls with the liquid center have been gone for 20 years.
bogushavis 5 months ago
@bogushavis Thanks for updating my golf ball knowledge. Though, I am still skeptical of the 70,000 rpm claim.
WillBlocher 5 months ago
YOU REALLY NEED A GIRLFRIEND !!
thespinner1112 7 months ago
this is basically a Tesla engine
woodworker489 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Go to my page to earn easy points which can be redemed for anything on amazon. (Link in description - under website) The points you earn can be redemed for cash through paypal, check, etc. There are no viruses on the site and all personal information will be kept safe. Get points by competing in games, completing daily tasks and survays. The website gets money from adds and so they can afford paying for things you buy off amazon.com. SHIPPING IS FREE. ALREADY THERE ARE 2000+ members.
ChuckNorrisKnows 7 months ago
All I heard was raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaape!!!!! Really high pitched.
oddersisadog 7 months ago 3
ok all this talk about math makes want to nuke a school
aeryt100 8 months ago
@aeryt100 So I was sitting in my calculus class when the kid next to me head exploded. The teacher turned around and said, " Mind=blown."
Airsoftpsyco1423 6 months ago
@protegeaustin But then the whole population of YouTube realized that you had way to much time on your hands. Lol how did you get all of that?
Ory619 8 months ago
@Ory619 its pretty simple math, only took a few minutes
protegeaustin 8 months ago
@Ory619 He's on the internet. If he couldn't find that information on here, I'd be laughing at his stupidity.
mysteryloser24 6 months ago
*In one revolution a golf ball will cover 5.278 inches roughly (becuz it has a diameter of 1.68 inches). 2 x PI x r = circumfrence.
*5.278 in x 70000 rpm = 369460 inches per minute.
*369460 ipm / 12in(1 ft) = 30788.333 feet per minute.
*30788.333 fpm / 60sec(1 min) = 513.139 feet per second.
*now u can take 513.139 fps and divide it by 1.46667 to find mph (roughly).
* the ball is spinning at 349.867 mph.
*these r just rough estimates, not exact calculations
protegeaustin 8 months ago 23
@protegeaustin what i dont get is, how is that ball not getting super hot, must be a ton of friction
Darkcloud9071 4 months ago
@Darkcloud9071 Actually given the fact that they are using compressed air the ball will stay relatively the same temp. The force of the air is providing a cushion which in turn keeps the ball from touching the hand allowing it to spin. I say if anything the ball maybe drops a few degrees. I dont know the point at which air stops cooling something down and begins to heat something up from friction. His compressor cant force air out the nozzle fast enough to heat the ball by air friction alone.
protegeaustin 4 months ago
@protegeaustin cool beans
Darkcloud9071 3 months ago
@Darkcloud9071 I think the golf ball was spinning on an air cushion created by comporessed air hose and the funnel was used to support it
calvintrainer1212 6 days ago
@protegeaustin I dont believe you since you wrote BECUZ
PatrickTheMOCR 3 months ago
@protegeaustin
You're able to do all these math equations, and yet you can't even bother using correct grammar? What the fuck man.
Crzclwn 2 months ago
haha thats class:D
mccartney2k9 8 months ago
I love how many fails there were in trying to stop the ball from spinning
MrAnthonyBaxter 8 months ago
Yeah, that was fast. But reading through the comments made it clear that it was for sure not 70,000rpm. Change the title.
MortifiedPenguin100 8 months ago
@MortifiedPenguin100 Uh, the instrument clearly said 70,000 rpms. Trust the instrument, not the people who may know nothing that weren't even there.
ACEGAMER120 8 months ago 2
RASENGAN!!
founoe 9 months ago 10
I think your optical tachometer is picking up the dimples and not the ball itself...paint a stripe from one end of the ball around to the opposing end and try it.
hubbsllc 9 months ago 2
@hubbsllc Down in the comments he claims to have a magnetic strip on the ball. I don't understand how it could possibly stay on the ball at that speed though.
bogushavis 5 months ago
I like how everyone cares enough to argue with this "danetp" fool.
beckuda 9 months ago
72k rpm - 570km/h on surface, the ball would explode
minero1986 9 months ago
@minero1986 To determine that you'd have to do some shear stress calculation for a solid sphere, and then compare that amount to the maximum amount of stress a golf ball can take. Actually if you knew how rigid it was you could probably just calculate how much of an oblate shape it would get. I've seen clips of people pressing golf balls, and they can go pretty far without breaking them.
SirGoP2 9 months ago
@twaddlegenerator Not wanting to be bothered with matters such as physics, known parameters or pesky math, I dare anticipate your disdain for principles of acoustics.
In the same way that the sound of the passing spokes on a bicycle wheel would poorly indicate the wheel's RPM, the 300 to 450 dimples in the rapidly spinning golf ball's surface create a harmonic whine -- skewing perception.
Chew on 70,000 RPM. That means 1,167 rotations per second -- a skin speed of 350 mph.
Absurd on its face.
MichaelRMcCoy 9 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy would be nice if we could know there was something on one side of the ball that made the sound, cuz I narrowed it down to 1020 Hz with my tone generator :D
SirGoP2 9 months ago
@twaddlegenerator Basic math doesn't matter? And you seek a meaningful discussion following such an absurd assertion?
Your kidding, right?
When you hear a kid riding his bicycle by -- with the wheel spokes rubbing a balloon attached at the forks, does the sound indicate the RPMs of the wheel?
Of course not.
The golf ball has dimples, it is in motion, contacting a stream of compressed air.
Guesswork seems much more natural to you than reason -- especially that pesky math thing.
Try again.
MichaelRMcCoy 9 months ago
they should use these in engines for cars Idk what for but it spins real fast, :/ lol
1ThompsonDesigns 9 months ago
@twaddlegenerator Pretty hard to overlook the fact that you're avoiding some of the most basic math imaginable -- relating to the most indisputable facts surrounding the claims in the video.
It's all in the golf ball's diameter [a known factor] and escaping 175 psi air [also a known factor].
The most optimum diameter orifice used to direct the air's flow would be around 3/32", [smaller over-restricts and larger results in lower velocity].
125 mph air cannot propel a ball at 350 mph.
Period.
MichaelRMcCoy 9 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy where does the figure 125 mph come from btw? I can't remember where I left my textbook on fluid mechanics
SirGoP2 9 months ago
@SirGoP2 EDIT: Hey, I looked at a couple of different tables of air flow. They both got the air flow to over 20 CFM at 175 psi through a 3/32" orfice.
One of them mentioned you could factor it down a bit due to a sharp-edged orfice, which landed it at around 15 CFM.
Still, that would leave the air flowing out of the orfice at like 900 mph, considerably higher than 125 mph.
SirGoP2 9 months ago
@twaddlegenerator Before chiming in, wouldn't it be a good idea to review the record? This, of course, only if you place any meaningful value on your credibility.
Covering the same points time and time again truly bores me silly.
Pay attention:
A 70,000 PRM golf ball has, [and must have], a skin velocity exceeding 530 mph.
175 psi air escaping through a 1/8" orifice is a quarter of that. -- at best.
Period.
It's physics. Do the math. Try again. Then formulate a compelling, fact based comment.
MichaelRMcCoy 9 months ago
0 :58 "You'll never catch me now!"
TheClassyCoconut 9 months ago
@TheClassyCoconut troll
iRollBluntz 9 months ago
If these are "Scientists" of the future, good bye flying cars.
PegLegRacer 10 months ago
@PegLegRacer you'r telling me that scientist's can't dick around every once in a while?
EcksFacktur 10 months ago
@EcksFacktur I'm not saying its bad to dick around, but I see no future for "Golf Ball Spinning" technology.
PegLegRacer 10 months ago
@PegLegRacer well, while i see your perspective, the momentum that was kept with this ball almost 10 seconds and the major lack of friction due to the speed of the ball could lead to something, it could lead to something
EcksFacktur 10 months ago
FAIL
321beth321 10 months ago
Where are the 6 engineers? I just see a couple of auto mechanics messing around?
spicymeatsandwich 10 months ago
Ok... lots of doubt from other posters on what RPM the ball is spinning. There are several ways to determine this:
1. Analyze the frequency of the sound being generated by the golf ball, and divide that by the number of dimples on the circumference.
2. Optical tachometer is the best option, but what needs to be done first is to spin the ball, to find it's natural axis. Then color the top 1/2 of the ball so the tach sees an alternating signal.
Great vid! Just need to reaffirm the results...
NexxuSix 10 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy
no offence but stfu
jgrygs 10 months ago
anyone who thinks that is spinning at 1,350 rpm are mad.I dont know if its 70,000 rpm but its deffo over 20,000 rpm so maybe the tacho is right people
Funkmastabuzz 10 months ago
Comment removed
Funkmastabuzz 10 months ago
Very cool people
762gunr 10 months ago
And MichaelIRMccoy is apparently either a fluid dynamics expert, or he designed and installed the compressed air system at the facility in the video.
colourbarsdjr 10 months ago
I actually tried that before when i was cleaning my shoe
it was fun at first but when i stop it burnt my hands.....
ebilpiggy 10 months ago
wow who cares whats happening! the ball was spinning super fast and it was sweeeeeeeeet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i love this
PvPrevent 10 months ago
lol that would be very cool if you could do it with an egg
alexarmy3 10 months ago
@alexarmy3 the egg would explode probably
theknexkid101 10 months ago
@theknexkid101 exactly :)
alexarmy3 10 months ago
I did that same(about 14yrs ago) with a lever knob (black round knob with hole in it that you can screw it on the lever) and floated it in the air with compressed air pistol head... And the just pull the pistol away quickly and see the ball bouncing around the hall like pinball... I had luck since after few tries the knob just exploded into pieces. Shrapnels everywhere. None lost sights or anything else happened, but it gave us a lesson.
Randomnick123 10 months ago
I guess he's American. Only someone this ignorant and stupid can be an American.
PrinceOfDarkness2k7 10 months ago
@Skatelandkillah Yeah, that pesky science, hard physics and basic math are a pain in the ass.
Just go with guesswork, what you believe and sidestep the facts.
MichaelRMcCoy 10 months ago
@Skatelandkillah A golf ball is 1.68 inches in diameter, denoting a 5.28 inch circumference. 5.28 times 33 RPS is 174.2 inches per second, which is 442 cps [1 cm = .394 inch].
Where you got 137 cps I can't imagine.
A golf ball cannot be tacked as can a sailboat, and the speed of a golf ball propelled solely by compressed air cannot exceed the speed of that escaping air -- where contact is made with the ball's skin.
Doing so would defy ground-level physics, in addition to common sense.
MichaelRMcCoy 10 months ago
There is no way that that golf ball was spinning at 70000rpm, at that speed the centrifugal force in the ball would be roughly 5200N (1200 pounds) yet the ball didn't even begin to lose shape.
TheNannySkexis 10 months ago
@Skatelandkillah Of course the escaping air can be heard. In any event, your math is wrong and would hold no meaning were it correct.
Pay attention.
The relevant math to determine the ball's maximum RPM can be deduced assuming [at best] 175 psi escaping air and knowing the circumference of the ball.
Drag coefficient and the air's effectiveness on the ball's surface, not to mention a wildly random ball equator all act to betray the ball's maximum speed, which is air speed or lower [110 mph].
MichaelRMcCoy 10 months ago
@Skatelandkillah I am very familiar with the sound of escaping 175 psi air -- the speed of which does not exceed 110 mph. Knowing the circumference of a golf ball, and under the most ideal of conditions, the ball's skin will not exceed that speed. From there, it's 6th grade math.
Note: drag coefficient of grass vs smooth concrete is a matter of apples and oranges.
Spinning a golf ball at 2,000 RPM [33 revolutions per second] by hand would be of great interest to the good folks at Guinnes.
MichaelRMcCoy 10 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy So youre telling me you know the speed of a gas just because you know its pressure? Ever heard of FLOW? The pressure is irrelevant. Are you telling me the 175psi in my compressor tank has a velocity of 110mph??
danetp 10 months ago
@danetp The pressure is irrelevant? Your kidding right?
Flow is a function of pressure. All things being the same, accurately measure the speed of escaping air through any sized orifice that you choose, then lower/raise the pressure at the source.
Then remeasure.
Flow is a result of pressure, diameter of the orifice, the storage capacity [for prolonged use] and temperature/humidity [to a smaller degree].
Why is a 175 psi system preffered over a 125 psi system? It's called stored energy.
MichaelRMcCoy 10 months ago
@Skatelandkillah What in the world does that have to do with anything?
Please -- for the sake of everyone -- stop. Think. Ponder it -- only then, comment.
MichaelRMcCoy 10 months ago
@Skatelandkillah I would strongly suggest, if your credibility is of any value to you, to run this stuff past your brain before typing -- i..e. the 'demonstration' has nothing to do with golf clubs delivering [via a competent golf enthusiast] a sound 550 [or so] joule force to a golf ball.
Pay attention. The variables are clear. Basic math and known factors.
A golf ball [look it up] driven with 175 psi air through a [at best] 1/16 inch orifice.
No rocket surgery required pal.
Try again.
MichaelRMcCoy 10 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy I'm guessing your just a troll so this will fall on deaf ears. Skatelandkillah is right. Golfers routinely put 8,000 rpm's or more spin on a golf ball. The balls spin back between 8 and 10 feet. The balls make no sound that can be detected by human hearing after they land on the green, NONE! I saw a trick shot that rolled back 50 feet, no sound. This ball is screaming. Your estimate of 2,000 RPM is , shows an ignorance of the real world. 2000 RPM is nothing to a golf ball.
bogushavis 5 months ago
@Yefattbasterd, momentum and force. taking a basic example a big ball can hit a smaller ball, under the right conditions the smaller ball can go faster then the big was was going initially.
zarwalski1 11 months ago
@zarwalski1 you are comparing apples to oranges.
Yefatbastard 11 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy
not saying you are wrong with the implication of it going 70k rpm is practically impossible in this video, as i agree. However your calculation would be incorrect. The speed of the air although important due to force restrictions, doesn't actually define the speed. Just because the air wasonly going say 100mph. it does not limit the golf ball to this.
zarwalski1 11 months ago
@zarwalski1 Uhhh yes it does.. Where pray tell is the extra energy/velocity to spin the ball coming from? If the ground/air going past a wheel/ball is going as you stated 100mph it does limit the surface speed of the wheel/ball to 100mph. If the ball were a disk (and its not) you could move closer to the axis and increase speed.
Yefatbastard 11 months ago
@zarwalski1 A sailboat cannot, even through the use of skilled tacking, cannot exceed the speed of the available wind.
Sorry, but the velocity of the skin of the golf ball would be limited by the speed of pressurized air being applied.
MichaelRMcCoy 11 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy Actually sailboats may be limited by the drag coefficient between the hull and the water but technically a land sail sled and ice sail sled can go much faster than the wind speed and have been clocked at over 100mph with only a 50 mph wind speed. This is due to the pressure differential from the back to the front of the sail essentially pulling the sail forwards. As for this video I completely agree with you that 70,000 rpm seems highly unfeasible and no proof is demonstrated as y
surfinggod23 11 months ago 2
@MichaelRMcCoy Whoa whoa whoa my friend. Lighten up! What logic am I disputing? You clearly missed point #1!! I'm on your side!! So defensive!! Next time I'll be sure to put a 'LOL' in, yes?
mattjns 11 months ago
@mattjns Oops. And sorry. Maybe a bit heavyhanded. But surely, you've seen folks resort to attacking one's spelling [even grammar] when the power of the facts shines through.
Please, accept my apology. And I appreciate your appreciation of the facts.
Peace bro.
MichaelRMcCoy 11 months ago
you wasted a titleist?
asianpersuasian123 11 months ago
Touch it.
einarknutsen 11 months ago
@danetp Whether I was there or not is irrelelant. The elements, techiques & physics are predictable & repeatable. A golf ball is around 1.68 inches in diameter & 5.28 inches in circumference. Spinning at 70,000 RPM [1,166 revolutions per second] equates to 513 feet per second or 350 mph.
The speed of escaping 175 psi air with a 3/16" orifice is about 52 mph -- 77 mph with a 1/8" orifice & 106 mph with a 1/16" vent.
No way to get around it -- the math says it all.
And you're mistaken.
MichaelRMcCoy 11 months ago 9
@MichaelRMcCoy There's two things I can guarantee, you sir, are; #1 fantastic at physics & #2 a terrible speller.
mattjns 11 months ago
@mattjns Actually, I'm not a bad speller, but I focused more on the point than I should have on proof reading, especially when the batteries in my wireless keyboard were running low.
And I can always count on the spelling police to come out of the woodwork when the logic of the matter cannot be disputed.
Speaking of propriety "There's" is a contraction of 'there is' or 'there has' -- and is used in the singular.
Two" is not used to denote a single.
"There are" would be the correct term.
MichaelRMcCoy 11 months ago
The detector is sensing variations in the balls surface during its spin -- meaning the dimples. Most golf balls have between 300 and 450 dimples in their total surface, which translates into about 35 to 52 dimples per circumference in any random direction.
So, divide that so-called "70,000 RPM" by 35/52 for the actual RPM.
A ball spin of 2,000 to 1,350 RPM is much more likely and accurate.
MichaelRMcCoy 11 months ago 37
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MichaelRMcCoy really? were you there? there is a piece of reflective tape on the ball that the emitted light from the tachometer reflects off of and thus is reflected back to the tachometer. does not count the dimples. cheers
danetp 11 months ago
@danetp A piece of reflective tape placed on the golf ball's surface would have, on average, a 1 in 275 chance of being detected during a random, high-speed spin. The "reflector" is not held in alignment at the equator of the ball's spin, [the ball's axis/poles are wildly random and changing], so implying that the detector indicated "70,000 RPM" as a result of the reflective tape is simply impossible -- and ridiculous.
MichaelRMcCoy 11 months ago 37
@MichaelRMcCoy The balls axis would not be random once the thing started spinning, gyroscopic forces would resist the axis changing directions.. How ever I think a black line going all the way around the ball causing 2 white pulses per rev would have been better.. then you could see if it was aligned properly. Then divide the result by 2. But even then (with tape also) I believe the dimples on the ball would skew the results unless the tach's sensitivity can be adjusted..
Yefatbastard 11 months ago
@Yefatbastard Even without both poles fixed, a gyroscope's unfixed [upper] pole wanders unpredictably -- even wildly. In this demonstration, gyroscopic forces are in play, but not nearly as much as the imprecise angle by which the stream of escaping air is applied to the ball's skin. I can assure you, the air stream is not being directed at a fixed [zero degree lattitude] equator -- allowing the poles not only to constantly change, but to change quickly and archaically.
MichaelRMcCoy 11 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy Gyroscopic forces resist rotation on all axis/poles except the "fixed" axis/pole of rotation. The rotation axis is, lets say on the X axis "horizontal" (perpendicular to the air nozzle) leaving the Z axis (up and down) as well as the Y axis (parallel to the air nozzle) and all points in between "locked" in place by gyroscopic forces.. Must be why we use them in our satellites.. I agree this video falls short of a controlled science experiment. But they weren't trying to make one.
Yefatbastard 11 months ago
@Yefatbastard If the air stream were applied to a zero degree lattitude equator, I'd be more inclined to buy the [somewhat] fixed poles. But fixed [maintained] poles whould be the only way to keep the airstream on a fixed equator -- for any length of time..
Also, gyroscopic forces are profoundly more predominant with a spinning disk [as in a gyroscope] than with a spinning sphere -- i.e. the planet earth's poles would be wildly fluxuating were it not for the stabilizing effect of our moon.
MichaelRMcCoy 11 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy At this point I have to ask if you know the shape of the gyros used in the Gravity Probe B Satellite? and why.
Yefatbastard 11 months ago
@Yefatbastard I agree, a controlled, laoratory experiment was not implied -- only a "70,000 RPM golf ball".
And for no other reason except that the escaping air would not exceed 100 - 110 mph, the speed of the ball's surface could not possibly exceed that.
I've been around compressors enough to recognize that a fairly standard 175 psi unit was used.
As mentioned prior, a 70,000 RPM golf ball would denote a skin velocity of 350 mph -- which, under the given factors, is impossible.
MichaelRMcCoy 11 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy And I agree that the ball was not spinning at 70,000 RPM. But quite a bit more than 2000.
Yefatbastard 11 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy And you are an expert on this video, yet actually know nothing about how the rpm's were tested. You can say something as elaborate as you like, and go into every related detail of rpm's and possibilities. The fact is, you don't know shit about this video.. Despite being an online expert who can post on a youtube video, i feel like i'm waisting my time even posting this. Probably because youtube is a waste of time.
AmoralEngineer 11 months ago
@AmoralEngineer A laser tachometer was used on a spinning golf ball. Grasping the relevant factors requires no genius.
Do you run this stuff past your brain before typing?
MichaelRMcCoy 11 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy "Do you run this stuff past your brain before typing?" <--- that's a good one.. lmao.
Not being able to post a comment with out resorting to cursing is a big clue to intelligence.
Or at least the size of ones vocabulary.
If youtube is such a waste of time why is he here?
Yefatbastard 11 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy Ahh the triumph of reason over stupidity is great to see.
thaiblacky 11 months ago
@thaiblacky I couldn't agree more -- and thanks.
MichaelRMcCoy 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MichaelRMcCoy are you telling me that this ball is spinning at "random"? ever roll a ball across the floor? i can promise you that it rolls consistently straight not chaotically or randomly. Remember this was done by 6 mech engineers. actual appliers of science, not physicists who sit on their asses and push pencils all day
danetp 10 months ago
@danetp Why are you arguing? That's not 70,000 rpm no matter how you twist and turn it. The golf ball would most likely break at such a high rate. I would say 10,000 RPM at best and that is still pretty darn good if you ask me.
RealCadde 10 months ago
@danetp I would think that at least one of the 6 "mech techs" would be versed at basic physics. I assure you, the air stream is not being applied to the ball at an equator exactly between stationary poles. Paint dots at the poles on any sphere and spin it any way you wish - the poles will wander wildly - and more pronounced the higher the speed.
I'm not a physicist, still, could you actually believe that an all encompassing, mindless retort about physicists could do your credibility any good?
MichaelRMcCoy 10 months ago
@danetp Hey man, don't get butt hurt because you got proven otherwise.
TheSmexyViet 10 months ago
@danetp haha you're trying so hard to sound smart. It's really cute.
12science21 10 months ago 13
@danetp haha where do you think your math comes from you tool? without physics there would be no engineering... what an ass
SkinnyMann66 10 months ago 15
@SkinnyMann66 engineering came before physics
suirall 8 months ago
@suirall *physics is a science, *science is how the world works
*the world came before man
*man invented engineering
*physics came first
sirskull21 7 months ago
@danetp I'm sorry, I know this is a conversation between you and MichaelRMcCoy, but as a physics post-graduate student (masters and PHD at Oxford, currently doing post-doct), I'm telling you, you are wrong about the detector regardless of the 6 mech engineers. MichaelRMcCoy is right. Everything engineers know is because of physics. We invented the whole field. Engineering is just applied physicists with less knowledge. Instead they just focus on one thing, physicists learn it all.
belliveau5 10 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy You are an idiot. I think it is funny that you are frantically tapping away at your keyboard trying to sound smart, but you have no concept of what is actually going on in the video. I work with turbines, and I have an ear that is quite well tuned to about those RPM's. I can assure you that the tach is pretty close to spot on.
Super73VW 10 months ago
@Super73VW Mindless retorts from self-proclaimed RPM experts. Wow, what a way to crush the simple physics.
A 70,00 RPM golf ball would have [to have] a skin velocity of 530 mph. Quite a feat -- being propelled with escaping compressed air with a velocity of 125 mph or less.
These are the facts, they cannot be avoided. Ignoring them is the essence of wanton ignorance.
Yeah, those pesky realities of physics and basic 6th grade math are quite troublesome, you nitwit.
MichaelRMcCoy 10 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy it doesn't have to be in alignment at the equator. Draw a ring around a ball, and rotate it on an arbitrary axis, and you'll find your eye crosses the line twice per rotation no matter what. Any change in the axis will be biased by the direction of the air flow and angular momentum, it won't be any more "random". than a spinning top.
imjinc2k 10 months ago
@imjinc2k Did you actually think that one out before posting? What is the result when the drawn line begins to mimic the effective equator? The air flow is not applied to a zero degree [dead center] equator. Short of fixed poles and a precisely defined equator [impossible with the conditions demonstrated in this video] the resulting spin will be wildly chaotic.
Place two dots at the poles on a ball -- then a lined equator.
Next, spin rapidly with air pressure -- while filming.
Observe chaos.
MichaelRMcCoy 10 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy and what is the probability of the line consistently becoming the equator in your "random axis" scenario? Oh that's right.. nearly impossible. Did YOU think about this before posting?
imjinc2k 10 months ago
@imjinc2k I appears that you are trying to make my point, albeit poorly. An unfixed axis means an unfixed equator. Welcome to entropy.
MichaelRMcCoy 10 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy I think you are trying to sound smart by using a calculator and tossing random numbers out there. unfortunately, the guy who made this video is not an idiot
favre4beast 10 months ago
@favre4beast I made no such assessment of the video poster -- merely that the 70,000 RPM claim is quite impossible [and grossly exaggerated] given the know factors.
Please, don't make stuff up -- check the prior posts if you place any value on your credibility.
Check my "random numbers". Given the known dimensions of a gold ball and the speed of escaping 175 psi air, it's really just a matter of 6th grade level math.
Or, like most, you can go with the cool whine that the ball makes, and guess.
MichaelRMcCoy 10 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy I actually deal with this stuff in REAL LIFE, not what your 6th grade teacher taught you, please don't make fool of yourself
favre4beast 10 months ago
@favre4beast "Dealing with this stuff in real life".
Now, there's an impressive career choice.
What a cool whine the ball and air make -- gotta be 70.000 RPM, right?
Well slugger, looks like the power of your physics and skills of debate just trumped us all, eh?
MichaelRMcCoy 10 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy I never said it was my career..? i have used compressed air to rotate something really fast though, and that is what I meant. no need to act cool on youtube.. 1 in a million chance that someone you know in real life will actually see it or care (I spent years calculating that probability in my nuclear fallout shelter)
favre4beast 10 months ago
@favre4beast "Coolness" is not an objective -- only to address the facts.
Outlandish claims deserve meaningful analysis.
With the "experience" that you claim, you should be versed at the maximum speed of escaping 175 psi air. At 70,000 RPM, the ball's surface would be moving at 500 plus mph, quite impossible with a max air speed of 125 mph [the ball's sole source of propulsion].
That pesky math just won't go away -- sorry.
MichaelRMcCoy 10 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy Okay, this isn't worth wasting my time over. I will repeat though, your numbers were pulled from your lovely looking anus, and I have tried this in REAL LIFE. I hereby declare this flame war 'over'. =)
favre4beast 10 months ago
@favre4beast The familiar tactic. Escape grasshopper -- run like the wind laddie. And leave my anus out of it.
MichaelRMcCoy 10 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy A ball spin of 2,000, to 1,350 rpm's huh? How the fuck did your comment ever get 12 thumbs up? Your description could make a fucking elephant commit suicide with a handgun. Nice try though, I guess their are AT LEAST 12 more retards who read your comment. Why are you posting physics on a fucking youtube video anyway? I won't even go into detail about fucking online video shit.
AmoralEngineer 11 months ago 2
@AmoralEngineer Well slugger, It's clear that with such compelling substance and methods of rebuttal that you bring to the table, we, the mere fact-checkers and independent thinkers, don't stand a chance.
I bow to your superior intellect and debating skills.
MichaelRMcCoy 11 months ago 2
@AmoralEngineer Correction. It is now 29.
MichaelRMcCoy 10 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy u r dumb and u werent there so stfu and it wouldnt spin randomly
theknexkid101 10 months ago
@theknexkid101 Wow, slugger. I guess you showed me -- with all that in-depth analysis, eh?
MichaelRMcCoy 10 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy ok ill use depth
the golf ball will go in a relitively circular pattern because the air is moveing in one dirrection thus the ball would go in one direction
hence what bitch king kong aint got shit on me
theknexkid101 10 months ago
@theknexkid101 Don't boil over your brain bucket with all that depth.
MichaelRMcCoy 10 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy hahaha u make me laugh hahaha thats so funny hahaha i f***** love these dam 13 year old kids who think they know every thing hahaha
theknexkid101 10 months ago
@theknexkid101 Out of ideas, resorting to mindless retorts -- how I love originality. Venture from your parent's basement, at least occasionally, nitwit.
MichaelRMcCoy 10 months ago
@MichaelRMcCoy all i got left is, you god dam trolls allways trolling people get a life
theknexkid101 10 months ago
@theknexkid101 And some wonder why I worry about our educational system -- and its results.
Try not to get your head stuck in the keyboard.
MichaelRMcCoy 10 months ago
@MichaelRM im looking at a golf ball and the holes are not in a patteren so your dimple theory is shit and get off youtube and try this at home and come back with your results and then tell me that your dimple theory is posible
theknexkid101 10 months ago
@theknexkid101 Once again, facts and science get trounced through staggering skills of debate.
MichaelRMcCoy 10 months ago