thefight Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 was thinking about physics of block and plate pinching and how u could improve ur lift and was wondering if anyone could check my work, i didnt use symbols in case anyone did not know what they stood for: max friction force = normal force * coefficient of friction(constant) sum of all forces = mass * acceleration max friction force - gravitational force > mass * acceleration (normal force)(coefficient of friction)>(mass)(acceleration) + 9.8mass torque = radius * force force = torque/radius (torque)(coefficient of friction)/radius>(mass)(acceleration) + 9.8mass torque=how hard u squeeze the block or plates coefficient of friction=how slippery the block or plates are radius=how far from where the fingers meet the block or plates are held mass=mass of block or plates acceleration=how quickly the blocks or plate are accelerating off the ground Quote
pdfk20 Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 who cares .... Quote Pete Kerr, 165lbs Goals: Close current hard #3 Dominate #3 again 16/06/12 CCS several hard #3's, MM2 replica etc #3 Cert MMS #3.5 Close a brand new #3.5 out of the packet MM3 100kg 2HP Finish in the top 3 in this years WSH under 82.5kg class
egg_uk Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 who cares .... LOL Quote Goals Get Stronger Lift what I haven't lifted Close what I haven't closed
CoC#3 Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 who cares .... lol aren't you a chemistry grad? Quote real name: Sam Solomi
tspinillo Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 Put the fancy book learning aside. Try picking them up, then adding a bit more weight each workout. Quote Awaiting reprisal. Proud Blob50 parent.
wscorpion Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 was thinking about physics of block and plate pinching and how u could improve ur lift and was wondering if anyone could check my work, i didnt use symbols in case anyone did not know what they stood for:max friction force = normal force * coefficient of friction(constant) sum of all forces = mass * acceleration max friction force - gravitational force > mass * acceleration (normal force)(coefficient of friction)>(mass)(acceleration) + 9.8mass torque = radius * force force = torque/radius (torque)(coefficient of friction)/radius>(mass)(acceleration) + 9.8mass torque=how hard u squeeze the block or plates coefficient of friction=how slippery the block or plates are radius=how far from where the fingers meet the block or plates are held mass=mass of block or plates acceleration=how quickly the blocks or plate are accelerating off the ground You already gave your own answers. either: - increase the torque (by training for it) - decrease the coefficient of friction, use chalk - radius, if you have a smaller radius, you will have a better grip (up onto a certain point) - mass, decrease the mass and it will be easier - acceleration, slowly lifting it will make it easier It's nice to try to get a theoretical approach to this, but there are much more factors then just the ones you just gave. For example: - you can have a good or a bad day - changing the position of your fingers only a few mm could have a huge difference - does the object have corners or does it have a rounding edge? - how much do you focus and get psyched up? - do you believe it's possible to lift that weight, or do you think it's impossible? - how much exercises did you do in advance, you could get tired... etc... Just keep it basic and lift more weight on every workout, surely you will increase your lift Quote Mark Vogels -------------------- "Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right."
thefight Posted June 15, 2007 Author Posted June 15, 2007 i dunno i was just kinda bored and found it interesting lol Quote
aquilonian Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 i dunno i was just kinda bored and found it interesting lol I got a big kick out it. It was quite a nice post. I think however that generally this is one of the biggest mistakes, made in the many fields not just of strength but everything else. Using different JARGON only confuses and brings people appart. Only useful to make people "feel" that they are part of an exclusive group. If I was EXPLAINING to a weighlifter/bodybuilder/powerlifter ect. I would not use the TERMS used here. Instead of "bounce forced negatives" or "overcrush", I might use "forced reps" or "isometric hold" respectively. I think It should go even further like "close as far as you can, and then assist until closed...repeat", or "close then squeeze as hard as you can". Its the same thing, exept everyone can understand it. nobody is excluded. I feel similarly about abreviations like BFN and OC. Many people from different countries read places like this and seeing that makes it very confusing. But I do recognize the validity in jargon and abbreviations. Some of us cant type too fast, and some just plain dont want to take the time to write everything out. If they did their posts would look very long like THIS ONE. Although I did'nt say much in it.... Nice reply White scorpion! Quote
Jedd Johnson Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 There IS a technique for hex block lifting so that when you pick it up it does not shift and try to rip out of your hand. No doubt about it. I would not know the physics to describe it, I would only be able to show you how to do it. Quote The GOLD STANDARD Feat in Plate Pinching: 2x45s Pinch Get Your Copy Here: How to Pinch 2x45s Ebook Diesel Crew Store: http://www.dieselcrew.com/store/shop
MalachiMcMullen Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 (edited) Something that would be very interesting/slightly useful would be the physics of closing grippers. Trying to figure out a theoretical value in inch/lbs or nm's or kg would be neat to know. It seems like it would be simple but a gripper would be a decent physics problem, at least one I wouldn't want to work with. That way we could see just how much crushing force it takes to close a #4, is it really 365lbs? or more like 200? or even 500? Edited June 15, 2007 by MalachiMcMullen Quote Zach Coulter Goals #1- The Planche
thefight Posted June 16, 2007 Author Posted June 16, 2007 Something that would be very interesting/slightly useful would be the physics of closing grippers. Trying to figure out a theoretical value in inch/lbs or nm's or kg would be neat to know. It seems like it would be simple but a gripper would be a decent physics problem, at least one I wouldn't want to work with. That way we could see just how much crushing force it takes to close a #4, is it really 365lbs? or more like 200? or even 500? put a 365 lb weight on it and see if it closes... but really it might be somewhat difficult to measure because of the difficulty in measuring the force and the fact that the spring isnt linear...if u could prevent the gripper from turning left or right and could hang a weight on the very end or at a measurable spot on the gripper it might be possible tho Quote
superfeemiman Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Something that would be very interesting/slightly useful would be the physics of closing grippers. Trying to figure out a theoretical value in inch/lbs or nm's or kg would be neat to know. It seems like it would be simple but a gripper would be a decent physics problem, at least one I wouldn't want to work with. That way we could see just how much crushing force it takes to close a #4, is it really 365lbs? or more like 200? or even 500? put a 365 lb weight on it and see if it closes... but really it might be somewhat difficult to measure because of the difficulty in measuring the force and the fact that the spring isnt linear...if u could prevent the gripper from turning left or right and could hang a weight on the very end or at a measurable spot on the gripper it might be possible tho Have you heard of the redneck gripper calibrator? Quote #2 Right hand -- 12/17/06 Parallel, 2/11/07 CCS, 5/9/07 No-set ///// Left hand -- 2/11/07 Parallel, 4/7/07 CCS, 5/9/07 No-set #3 #4(lol)
MalachiMcMullen Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Have you heard of the redneck gripper calibrator? Yes. But it doesn't measure in torque figures does it? You just hang weight off one handle and see how much it takes to get the handles to touch right? I was thinking of a more exact figure, probably wouldn't be far off but I think it would be neat to see what it takes if you go purely by math but thats just me. Quote Zach Coulter Goals #1- The Planche
superfeemiman Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Have you heard of the redneck gripper calibrator? Yes. But it doesn't measure in torque figures does it? You just hang weight off one handle and see how much it takes to get the handles to touch right? I was thinking of a more exact figure, probably wouldn't be far off but I think it would be neat to see what it takes if you go purely by math but thats just me. I meant that toward thefight because it sounded like he was describing the calibrator. Quote #2 Right hand -- 12/17/06 Parallel, 2/11/07 CCS, 5/9/07 No-set ///// Left hand -- 2/11/07 Parallel, 4/7/07 CCS, 5/9/07 No-set #3 #4(lol)
thefight Posted June 22, 2007 Author Posted June 22, 2007 Have you heard of the redneck gripper calibrator? Yes. But it doesn't measure in torque figures does it? You just hang weight off one handle and see how much it takes to get the handles to touch right? I was thinking of a more exact figure, probably wouldn't be far off but I think it would be neat to see what it takes if you go purely by math but thats just me. torque is just force*radius so u could get the torque with that Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.