How far could a golf ball be propelled at STP?

Gummer:


Not to mention the smoking crater you left in the grass. How are you going to replace a divot like that?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gummer:

The charge belongs on the back of the club head, as I said.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gummer:

I have a better solution for you. The problem is, you can /intend/ your swing to deliver either maximum power, or best accuracy. But not both. How many times have you wound up, then clubbed the ground 8" behind the ball with a wild swing? Plenty embarrassing, yeah. So you make sure to actually hit the ball on your next attempt, and you're a little timid. What's needed isn't more power, but a way to accurately apply all of the power that you're capable of unleashing.
We're going to use an inertial guidance system. Place the club head right up against the ball, right where you want it to make contact. Now, push a button, wait for the LED indicator to glow steady, and your club is initialized. That's it. No explosives, no drama, just wail on the ball with all you've got and the system commands the club head to return to *exactly* the position where it was initialized. Sweet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/19/2012 01:22 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Then why don't you specify exactly where you see that? Nothing I described clashes with any electronics. I haven't described how the club head would be steered, but that's irrelevant at this point.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gummer: ...

Then you shouldn't have any trouble specifying which part of "such" is impossible with today's electronics technology. What are you waiting for? I asked, you could have done it already.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And I have a better one for you, Lets just go to blunderbuss golf, You cram it down the barrel after you add your black powder charge, aim and fire.
Where ever it lands, you pick it up, and repeat.
Going to make putting REAL interesting.
[Of course you probably think you need to place the charge on the back of the stock.] jk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/20/2012 05:06 PM, jk wrote:

...

Are you going to swing your apparatus, or just hold it down?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Neither, Aim and fire. jk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/21/2012 11:15 PM, jk wrote:

Real interesting putting. You'll have to fire up, of course, so the ball can drop into the hole. You should use an inertial guidance system. The spinning ball can be steered with a gyroscope.
Nobody has said what STP means. I'll guess Standard Tenperature and Pressure.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gummer:

And someday I'll laugh at the excessive size of that thing.

Confirmed stupid. You copy data *once* to a cheap hard drive, and think that you have your junk backed up for posterity. You claim that I don't know anything about electronics when I tell you that those itty-bitty magnetic blips fade away, especially as they become ittier and bittier on huge single platter disks and they're not repeatedly rewritten.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Greetings Beryl, You apparently responded to something that Gunner wrote. You may not know that he is probably brain damaged. He has had, according to him, at least one stroke fairly recently and his behavior suggests other brain insults as well. Treating him as if he has gross mental deficits may be going too far. But then again maybe, maybe not. Cheers, Eric
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/23/2012 05:37 PM, Gunner Asch wrote: ...

A bit flawed? Your source is gobbledygook. Unintelligible. Rubbish. You haven't identified any problem with mine.

I'm sure the debris field around your place damps anyone's interest in breaking in.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/23/2012 12:48 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

That's significantly worse than the 0.44% Violent Crime Rate reported by the source I offered.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gummer:

Really. It's 16% worse. Do you need help solving the problem?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/25/2012 02:25 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
...

LOL, you can't do this. Let's make a fraction with the numbers, okay? Start your Windows Calculator. Enter 51, then divide by(/), and enter 44. That's 55/44, a fraction. Still okay? Now, click the equal sign (=). What's the answer? Is it bigger than 1? How much bigger than 1 is it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gummer:

Depends on the size of the numbers. And that's why your simpleminded subtraction exercise (which does bring your abilities to their limits anyway) is idiotic. .07% might mean 1 person in one population, and 100 people in another. For shitty little Taft, it's 6 people.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gummer:

Grinning, laughing idiot... Taft's population, 9-thousand-whatever, can be rounded off to 10,000 and this will be very accurate, and easy enough for even a Tafty to understand.
.44% is 44 violent crimes by my source. .51% is 51 violent crimes by your source. That .07% difference that you think is laughable is 7 additional violent crimes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gummer:

"Which seem to show up" is worthless. You don't even know what your source has for stats, it's garbled nonsense. And I had to point that out to you, you were to stupid to see it.
.is actually 23,000
Nowhere close. Your source and mine show the same 9K population.

My best effort is above. All done trying, time to give up. You can't grasp easy math.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gummer:

Which would simply mean more crimes! The rate is still the rate, that isn't changing!! My GAWD you are stupid!!!
ROTFL!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gummer:

Sorry, buddy, you're caught lying again. There is no 23,000. Your retarded website shows 325 total crimes in a population of 9,184.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.