You be the judge

Terry R. McConnell said:

Spectators at a recent track meet were treated to a
strange sight during the 100m finals. One of the
competitors showed up for the race wearing a cumbersome
looking vest loaded on its backside with a number of small
spring loaded weights. As might be expected from the
additional weight, the competitor got off to a relatively
slow start. However, at measured intervals during the race
the weights were forcefully fired from his back with a
loud "ping", to the visible delight of the spectators.
With each such firing the athlete received a small but
noticable "kick", so that by the end of the race he had
nearly caught up to the leaders.

The principle involved is the familiar law of conservation
of momentum from physics: in effect, the projectiles fired
from the competitor's back constituted a weak form of
thrust. In an event where mere hundredths of a second
separate success and failure, even the small incremental
kick from the rearward-departing weights might make a
crucial difference.

After the event the officials were seen to confer at
length near the finish line, a conference that, according
to at least one bystander, occasionally became quite
heated. In the end, the competitor was disqualified for
having received outside assistance during the race.

In a subsequently filed protest, the competitor held, with
perhaps some justification, that any aid received could
not be considered as having come from the outside. He had,
after all, used only his own muscular effort to compress
the various springs before the race. Don't trackside
announcers often refer to athletes "coiling themselves
into the blocks," similarly storing up energy that will be
used only later? Thus, already, a 100m race can be said to
begin before the gun is fired. Why should it not begin
hours, or even days before, at the time the athlete first
began to store up energy for the race?

I'd have to side with the organisers. Whilst he may have put
the energy in himself, the fact that he is using a device
(rather than his body) to store energy in must surely be
against the spirit of running. Taken to it's logical
conclusion, if you allow a device like that, how do you ban
a gigantic seige catapult or trebuchet that the athlete may
have spent days winding up so that it can throw him down the
lane on the day. It's all his energy so where's the
difference?

Tim

--
Remove the obvious to reply by email.

Tim Downie <[email hidden]> wrote: ...

Quoted message said:

I'd have to side with the organisers. Whilst he may have
put the energy in himself, the fact that he is using a
device (rather than his body) to store energy in must
surely be against the spirit of running. Taken to it's
logical conclusion, if you allow a device like that, how
do you ban a gigantic seige catapult or trebuchet that the
athlete may have spent days winding up so that it can
throw him down the lane on the day. It's all his energy so
where's the difference?

That would be a long jump, not running ;-)

However, by the above reasoning, would it be illegal to use
a shoe that can store energy that would be put in by the
athlete? Dozens of shoe commercials/advertisements claim
that they can store/regenerate/regurgitate the athlete's
energy and bestow it upon the athlete on his next step.

jobs

June 17 ? April 1

"Terry R. McConnell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Spectators at a recent track meet were treated to a
strange sight during

the

Quoted message said:

100m finals. One of the competitors showed up for the race
wearing a cumbersome looking vest loaded on its backside
with a number of small spring loaded weights. As might be
expected from the additional weight,

the

Quoted message said:

competitor got off to a relatively slow start. However, at
measured

intervals

Quoted message said:

during the race the weights were forcefully fired from his
back with a loud "ping", to the visible delight of the
spectators. With each such firing the athlete received a
small but noticable "kick", so that by the end of the race
he had nearly caught up to the leaders.

The principle involved is the familiar law of conservation
of momentum

from

Quoted message said:

physics: in effect, the projectiles fired from the
competitor's back constituted a weak form of thrust. In an
event where mere hundredths

of

Quoted message said:

a second separate success and failure, even the small
incremental kick

from

Quoted message said:

the rearward-departing weights might make a crucial
difference.

After the event the officials were seen to confer at
length near the finish line, a conference that, according
to at least one bystander, occasionally became quite
heated. In the end, the competitor was disqualified for
having received outside assistance during the race.

In a subsequently filed protest, the competitor held, with
perhaps some justification, that any aid received could
not be considered as having come from the outside. He had,
after all, used only his own muscular effort to compress
the various springs before the race. Don't trackside
announcers often refer to athletes "coiling themselves
into the blocks," similarly storing up energy that will be
used only later? Thus, already, a 100m race can be said to
begin before the gun is fired. Why

should

Quoted message said:

it not begin hours, or even days before, at the time the
athlete first

began to

Quoted message said:

store up energy for the race?

--
*********************************************************-
***************
Terry R. McConnell Mathematics/215 Carnegie/Syracuse, N.Y.
13244-1150 [email hidden] 229B Physics Bldg
barnyard.syr.edu~tmcOpen ↗
*********************************************************-
***************

I find the defendant.........boring.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Terry R. McConnell) said:

Spectators at a recent track meet were treated to a
strange sight during the 100m finals. One of the
competitors showed up for the race wearing a cumbersome
looking vest loaded on its backside with a number of small
spring loaded weights. As might be expected from the
additional weight, the competitor got off to a relatively
slow start. However, at measured intervals during the race
the weights were forcefully fired from his back with a
loud "ping", to the visible delight of the spectators.
With each such firing the athlete received a small but
noticable "kick", so that by the end of the race he had
nearly caught up to the leaders.

The principle involved is the familiar law of conservation
of momentum from physics: in effect, the projectiles fired
from the competitor's back constituted a weak form of
thrust. In an event where mere hundredths of a second
separate success and failure, even the small incremental
kick from the rearward-departing weights might make a
crucial difference.

After the event the officials were seen to confer at
length near the finish line, a conference that, according
to at least one bystander, occasionally became quite
heated. In the end, the competitor was disqualified for
having received outside assistance during the race.

In a subsequently filed protest, the competitor held, with
perhaps some justification, that any aid received could
not be considered as having come from the outside. He had,
after all, used only his own muscular effort to compress
the various springs before the race. Don't trackside
announcers often refer to athletes "coiling themselves
into the blocks," similarly storing up energy that will be
used only later? Thus, already, a 100m race can be said to
begin before the gun is fired. Why should it not begin
hours, or even days before, at the time the athlete first
began to store up energy for the race?

it's still an unfair advantage. the dude shoulda left his
bedsprings at home.

Cam

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Tim Downie <[email hidden]> wrote: ...

Quoted message said:

I'd have to side with the organisers. Whilst he may have
put the energy in himself, the fact that he is using a
device (rather than his body) to store energy in must
surely be against the spirit of running. Taken to it's
logical conclusion, if you allow a device like that, how
do you ban a gigantic seige catapult or trebuchet that
the athlete may have spent days winding up so that it
can throw him down the lane on the day. It's all his
energy so where's the difference?

That would be a long jump, not running ;-)

However, by the above reasoning, would it be illegal to
use a shoe that can store energy that would be put in by
the athlete? Dozens of shoe commercials/advertisements
claim that they can store/regenerate/regurgitate the
athlete's energy and bestow it upon the athlete on his
next step.

That's certainly different from storing up energy before the
race and having access to it during the race.

The original story sounds like a bad urban legend. I can't
imagine that they's allow someone to start the race with
such a device or that the kick it gave him would be enough
to overcome the bad start in the race due to the extra
weight. I mean, these races only last about 10 seconds.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Th-
en it was every other day. . . ."
- Homer J. Simpson

URA an [censored]. Go study the laws of psychics.

[email hidden] (Terry R. McConnell) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Spectators at a recent track meet were treated to a
strange sight during the 100m finals. One of the
competitors showed up for the race wearing a cumbersome
looking vest loaded on its backside with a number of small
spring loaded weights. As might be expected from the
additional weight, the competitor got off to a relatively
slow start. However, at measured intervals during the race
the weights were forcefully fired from his back with a
loud "ping", to the visible delight of the spectators.
With each such firing the athlete received a small but
noticable "kick", so that by the end of the race he had
nearly caught up to the leaders.

The principle involved is the familiar law of conservation
of momentum from physics: in effect, the projectiles fired
from the competitor's back constituted a weak form of
thrust. In an event where mere hundredths of a second
separate success and failure, even the small incremental
kick from the rearward-departing weights might make a
crucial difference.

After the event the officials were seen to confer at
length near the finish line, a conference that, according
to at least one bystander, occasionally became quite
heated. In the end, the competitor was disqualified for
having received outside assistance during the race.

In a subsequently filed protest, the competitor held, with
perhaps some justification, that any aid received could
not be considered as having come from the outside. He had,
after all, used only his own muscular effort to compress
the various springs before the race. Don't trackside
announcers often refer to athletes "coiling themselves
into the blocks," similarly storing up energy that will be
used only later? Thus, already, a 100m race can be said to
begin before the gun is fired. Why should it not begin
hours, or even days before, at the time the athlete first
began to store up energy for the race?

Harold Buck said:

In article <[email hidden]>, jobin@REMOVE-DEEZ-

WORDS.hotmail.com.edu said:

Tim Downie <[email hidden]> wrote: ...

Quoted message said:

I'd have to side with the organisers. Whilst he may
have put the energy in himself, the fact that he is
using a device (rather than his body) to store energy
in must surely be against the spirit of running.

this is similar to a story i read last week about a mountain
bike race. turns out most of the race was on asphalt. so
some of the competitors chose to ride road bikes. and
soundly trounced those silly enough to ride big-tired
mountain bikes.

as technology makes more things possible for the average
person, the rules are gonna be stretched. and if prize money
is involved, it'll be very difficult for the organizers.

the rule book will need to get bigger and very well defined.
perhaps, like golf. certain shoes will be legal. anything
else will not be. if the book included something about
"spirit" of the race, the organizers could have the last
word. altho this example is obviously goofy, there will be
some that are borderline. looks difficult to me...thehick

psychics?? heh heh, i didn't know they also follow
scientific methods.

Quoted message said:

URA an [censored]. Go study the laws of psychics.

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Terry R. McConnell) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Spectators at a recent track meet were treated to a
strange sight during the 100m finals. One of the
competitors showed up for the race wearing a

....

(Terry R. McConnell) said:

Thus, already, a 100m race can be said to begin before the
gun is fired. Why should it not begin hours, or even days
before, at the time the athlete first began to store up
energy for the race?

If he coils up the springs whilst under starter's orders,
fine by me.

[email hidden] (Terry R. McConnell) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Spectators at a recent track meet were treated to a
strange sight during the 100m finals. One of the
competitors showed up for the race wearing a cumbersome
looking vest loaded on its backside with a number of small
spring loaded weights. As might be expected from the
additional weight, the competitor got off to a relatively
slow start. However, at measured intervals during the race
the weights were forcefully fired from his back with a
loud "ping", to the visible delight of the spectators.
With each such firing the athlete received a small but
noticable "kick", so that by the end of the race he had
nearly caught up to the leaders.

This is nothing new. If follows the well established Unload
Principle. Runners that go to the nearest porta-john moments
before the race and unload any unnecessary weight experience
remarkable speed improvements. Unloading during the race, as
this fellow tried to do, might be optimum, but some might
consider it rude.

"Tim Downie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Terry R. McConnell said:

Spectators at a recent track meet were treated to a
strange sight during the 100m finals. One of the
competitors showed up for the race wearing a cumbersome
looking vest loaded on its backside with a number of
small spring loaded weights. As might be expected from
the additional weight, the competitor got off to a
relatively slow start. However, at measured intervals
during the race the weights were forcefully fired from
his back with a loud "ping", to the visible delight of
the spectators. With each such firing the athlete
received a small but noticable "kick", so that by the
end of the race he had nearly caught up to the leaders.

The principle involved is the familiar law of
conservation of momentum from physics: in effect, the
projectiles fired from the competitor's back constituted
a weak form of thrust. In an event where mere hundredths
of a second separate success and failure, even the small
incremental kick from the rearward-departing weights
might make a crucial difference.

After the event the officials were seen to confer at
length near the finish line, a conference that,
according to at least one bystander, occasionally became
quite heated. In the end, the competitor was
disqualified for having received outside assistance
during the race.

In a subsequently filed protest, the competitor held,
with perhaps some justification, that any aid received
could not be considered as having come from the outside.
He had, after all, used only his own muscular effort to
compress the various springs before the race. Don't
trackside announcers often refer to athletes "coiling
themselves into the blocks," similarly storing up energy
that will be used only later? Thus, already, a 100m race
can be said to begin before the gun is fired. Why should
it not begin hours, or even days before, at the time the
athlete first began to store up energy for the race?

I'd have to side with the organisers. Whilst he may have
put the energy

in

Quoted message said:

himself, the fact that he is using a device (rather than
his body) to

store

Quoted message said:

energy in must surely be against the spirit of running.
Taken to it's logical conclusion, if you allow a device
like that, how do you ban a gigantic seige catapult or
trebuchet that the athlete may have spent days winding
up so that it can throw him down the lane on the day.
It's all

his

Quoted message said:

energy so where's the difference?

The difference, I think, is that while the athlete who
launched himself from a catapult or trebuchet would indeed
be the first to reach the finish line, he would do so as
only a greasespot.

Tim Downie said:

I'd have to side with the organisers. Whilst he may have
put the energy in himself, the fact that he is using a
device (rather than his body) to store energy in must
surely be against the spirit of running. Taken to it's
logical conclusion, if you allow a device like that, how
do you ban a gigantic seige catapult or trebuchet that the
athlete may have spent days winding up so that it can
throw him down the lane on the day. It's all his energy so
where's the difference?

Certainly, the use of a catapult by a long-jumper would have
to be restricted. The competitor with the biggest catapult
would surely win, if he survived. It would cease to be an
athletic competition, and become an engineering competition.

Clearly, a runner should not use wheels, bycycles,
catapults, or any other mechanical device. There has to be a
line drawn, in the rules, to prohibit such mechanical
assistance.

To keep things fair, the rules should be simple and clear. A
'bright line' is easier to avoid crossing. And, when a
violation does occur, is easier for the offical to enforce.

What about having springs in the shoes?

If the springs are compressed, before the race, then that
stored energy could certainly assist a runner or jumper.

If we allow springs in shoes, what is the difference between
little springs (as in the Nike "shox" shoes) and _really_
_big_ _springs_ ? A couple of really big springs could store
just as much energy as a catapult. I really don't see any
difference between springs and catapults. After all, a
catapult is just a really big spring, plus a lever arm and
basket to throw the stone.

Suppose a runner took really big springs, mounted them in a
pair of shoes (between the insole and the outer sole), spent
a month of labor to compress them, and then use a latch to
hold them in the compressed position. At the start of the
race, he lets the latch loose... and flies to the finish.
Would that be fair?

Where, exactly, should the 'bright line' be? Should spring-
shoes be allowed?

Steve

It sounds pretty gimmicky and attention getting. Ignore it
and it will go away.

Grandepatzer said:

[email hidden] (Terry R. McConnell) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Spectators at a recent track meet were treated to a
strange sight during the 100m finals. One of the
competitors showed up for the race wearing a cumbersome
looking vest loaded on its backside with a number of small
spring loaded weights. As might be expected from the
additional weight, the competitor got off to a relatively
slow start. However, at measured intervals during the race
the weights were forcefully fired from his back with a
loud "ping", to the visible delight of the spectators.
With each such firing the athlete received a small but
noticable "kick", so that by the end of the race he had
nearly caught up to the leaders.

This is nothing new. If follows the well established Unload
Principle. Runners that go to the nearest porta-john
moments before the race and unload any unnecessary weight
experience remarkable speed improvements. Unloading during
the race, as this fellow tried to do, might be optimum, but
some might consider it rude.

Steve Hansen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Certainly, the use of a catapult by a long-jumper would
have to be restricted. The competitor with the biggest
catapult would surely win, if he survived.

I'd really, REALLY like to see this. And I'm quite sure
people would pay $$$ on pay-per-view to see that. I know I
would. I have several regulars here I'd like to volunteer
for the job, and I even volunteer to help them build it.

Steve Hansen said:

Tim Downie said:

I'd have to side with the organisers. Whilst he may have
put the energy in himself, the fact that he is using a
device (rather than his body) to store energy in must
surely be against the spirit of running. Taken to it's
logical conclusion, if you allow a device like that, how
do you ban a gigantic seige catapult or trebuchet that
the athlete may have spent days winding up so that it can
throw him down the lane on the day. It's all his energy
so where's the difference?

Certainly, the use of a catapult by a long-jumper would
have to be restricted. The competitor with the biggest
catapult would surely win, if he survived. It would cease
to be an athletic competition, and become an engineering
competition.

You mean, like cycling (helmets) or bob-sled (winter
olympics) or swimming (body suits)? Plenty of sports are
already engineering competitions. I guess the argument is
whether running should be one, so as to ban fancy shoes and
lightweight/aerodynamic clothing while we're at it.

Quoted message said:

Clearly, a runner should not use wheels, bycycles,
catapults, or any other mechanical device. There has to be
a line drawn, in the rules, to prohibit such mechanical
assistance.

I agree, of course. But engineering and mechanical
assistance is already there. We could argue as to the degree
of significance, but it's there.

eNo