Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday June 23 2015, @07:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the badmin-tonnes dept.

Badminton play is characterized by the unusual flight dynamics of the shuttlecock. Although world-class players can launch the projectile almost 140 m/s off the racket (the fastest tennis serves are only about 70 m/s), since aerodynamic drag is the dominant force it not only allows the shuttlecock to travel at manageable speeds by the time it crosses the court, but it permits an analytic solution for the flight path. A very approachable open-access paper by Cohen et al. in the New Journal of Physics covers everything from the history of the game to the effects on the gameplay from subtle differences in shuttlecock design.

Abstract:

The conical shape of a shuttlecock allows it to flip on impact. As a light and extended particle, it flies with a pure drag trajectory. We first study the flip phenomenon and the dynamics of the flight and then discuss the implications on the game. Lastly, a possible classification of different shots is proposed.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by islisis on Tuesday June 23 2015, @08:55PM

    by islisis (2901) on Tuesday June 23 2015, @08:55PM (#200096) Homepage

    If the statement is misleading I should say it motivates the economic practice. The problem is born out of scale.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2015, @09:17PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2015, @09:17PM (#200104)

    It's irrelevant anyway because badminton shuttlecocks don't use down. And if you're killing geese to get feathers, you are definitely a moron - if you're killing geese for the meat and collecting feathers in the process, well, then the feathers are a by-product and there's no real problem there.

    Down can be (if you're not an incompetent fool who has no business around anything more complex than a chew toy) harvested from live birds without much drama, and there's no problem with that because the birds' biology handles it as a normal process, with a lower net environmental cost than pretty much anything petrochemically based.

    Conflating the construction of down comforters with the construction of shuttlecocks in this sense only confuses the issue.

    Of course, there's always plan B: ban down collection and petrochemical extraction. Might make someone happy (though I have no idea who, since most environmentalists I've met love them some soft, fluffy, warm coats) but it still won't prevent shuttlecocks from being constructed.