Education and demonstration – Physical education
Reexamination Certificate
2002-03-01
2004-09-07
Cheng, Joe H. (Department: 3713)
Education and demonstration
Physical education
C434S252000, C434S257000, C473S131000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06786730
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND
1. Technical Field
This invention relates generally to systems and methods for monitoring ergonomic motion, and more particularly to a system and method for learning and teaching a preferred repetitive movement by establishing a spatial region and monitoring entry or exit of the spatial region by way of a feedback alarm.
2. Background Art
Athletes are constantly looking for ways to improve their technique. This is especially true in the game of golf. To paraphrase Homer Kelley, author of
The Golfing Machine
, a golf stroke is not a basic procedure, but rather basic geometry involving the geometry of the circle and the physics of rotation. In other words, golf is not a game of proper positions, but rather a game of proper alignment. Many a weekend golfer becomes frustrated when told to “keep your arm straight” or “keep your head down” without a sufficient explanation as to why. It is of little comfort when an advisor's only justification is “because Jack Nicklaus did it that way.”
However, with a little bit of scientific analysis, the golf stroke, as does all athletic activity, becomes understandable and may be analyzed with more precision. This is true because the fundamental laws of physics govern athletic activity just as they do the tasks of everyday life. Simply put, everyone must obey the laws of physics in every activity. They govern life in the twenty-first century just as they did in the first century. Understanding their effect on the golf swing brings clarity to the mystery of golf. In the words of Kelley, “When the facts are understood, the illusions not only cease to mislead but can be utilized.”
This is best illustrated by way of example. A simple example is the concept of the swing plane in golf. Referring now to
FIG. 1
, illustrated therein is a golfer
100
addressing a ball
101
. The club shaft
102
represents the first line
104
in the swing plane equation. The imaginary line running from the ball
101
to the target
106
, known as the “target line”
103
, forms the second line. To swing a golf club with maximum efficiency and mechanical advantage, these two lines—the shaft line
104
and the target line
103
—must always intersect. In geometric terms, two intersecting lines are known as “coplanar” lines. Many teaching professionals and scientific analysts suggest that the optimum golf swing is one in which the golfer always keeps the club shaft
102
, and thus the line
104
represented by the club shaft
102
, coplanar to the target line
103
.
To see why this would appear to be true, imagine what would happen if the two lines
103
,
104
were not coplanar, i.e. intersecting, at the moment the golfer
100
tried to make contact with the ball
101
(known as the “impact point”). In other words, if the shaft line
104
did not point to and intersect the target line
103
when the club head
105
got to the ball
101
, the golfer
100
would miss, or “whiff”, the ball
101
. Whiffing the ball, as anyone who has played golf knows, is responsible for many a profane word, thrown or broken club and unpleasant disposition.
The golfer has only a finite amount of energy with which to strike the ball. If the club shaft and target line become “skew”, i.e. not coplanar, then the golfer would need to use some of that finite power to physically redirect the club into a coplanar alignment with the target line. If he does not do so, he will miss the ball. Energy that is used in redirection cannot be used to propel the ball towards the target. Simply put, when the club gets out of plane, the golfer loses both control and distance. Many teachers suggest, therefore, that the easiest way to swing, with the most power and most mechanical advantage, within the limits of human motion, is thus to always keep the club shaft and target line coplanar. This coplanar relationship is generally known as being “on plane”.
Golf instructors who are proponents of this approach have developed numerous teaching aids to help the golfer stay on plane. One such device is a rigid circle, often made of plastic pipe. The circle represents one plane upon which the golfer swings. The problem with this solution is that the circle represents one fixed plane at a fixed angle. For the human golfer, it has been suggested the plane angle actually shifts to a more upright angle during the back swing, and then to a flatter angle during the downswing. In other words, while the golfer is swinging, the club shaft and target line are always coplanar, but the angle of that plane actually changes relative to the ground. With the plastic pipe, however, the angle of the plastic circle stays constant. Thus, when the golfer is in a portion of the swing in which the angle of his plane is greater than that of the plastic circle, the circle ceases to be effective as a training aid. He may still have the club “in plane”, yet will not be in contact with the circular ring. This is illustrated in FIG.
2
.
Another such training aid is a rigid arm that couples to the center of the club shaft and affixes to a wall. When the golfer swings, the rigid arm causes the shaft to trace a circular motion that resembles the swing. The problem with this aid is that it is based upon the premise that the head is the center of the swing. Many teachers suggest, however, that in reality, the center of the swing is (for the right handed golfer) much closer to the left shoulder. (The fundamental structure in the golf swing being a form III lever assembly formed by the left shoulder, the hands and the club head.) When the left shoulder moves back away from the target line during the follow through, the rigid arm coupled to the fixed wall is incapable of following the shoulder. Consequently, the golfer is thrown off plane during the follow through.
While swing plane works well as one illustrative alignment, there are many other alignments that must be monitored as well. These include shoulder alignment, torso alignment, hip alignment, arm alignment, hand alignment, and head alignment, just to name a few. Additionally, some professionals subscribe to alternate approaches. They may teach techniques that do not embrace the coplanar approach. They instead teach systems that each have their own signature alignments.
It would be advantageous to be able monitor these alignments of the golf swing, as well as provide feedback to the golfer when a preferred motion was not made. Additionally, there are similar needs with respect to other ergonomic motions, including other sports, physical therapy, work related human motion, animal training and the like. There is thus a need for a system that is capable of monitoring human ergonomic motion and providing feedback to assist the user in learning preferred techniques of motion.
REFERENCES:
patent: 3895366 (1975-07-01), Morris
patent: 4337049 (1982-06-01), Connelly
patent: 4375674 (1983-03-01), Thornton
patent: 4458266 (1984-07-01), Mahoney
patent: 4545576 (1985-10-01), Harris
patent: 4713686 (1987-12-01), Ozaki et al.
patent: 4774570 (1988-09-01), Araki
patent: 4777530 (1988-10-01), Kondo
patent: 4827412 (1989-05-01), Form
patent: 4891748 (1990-01-01), Mann
patent: 4894716 (1990-01-01), Aschwanden et al.
patent: 5008745 (1991-04-01), Willoughby
patent: 5111410 (1992-05-01), Nakayama et al.
patent: 5249967 (1993-10-01), O'Leary et al.
patent: 5253070 (1993-10-01), Hong
patent: 5287177 (1994-02-01), Kim
patent: 5342054 (1994-08-01), Chang et al.
patent: 5396284 (1995-03-01), Freeman
patent: 5638300 (1997-06-01), Johnson
patent: 5657076 (1997-08-01), Tapp
patent: 5797805 (1998-08-01), Lubell et al.
patent: 5846086 (1998-12-01), Bizzi et al.
patent: 5868578 (1999-02-01), Baum
patent: 5882204 (1999-03-01), Iannazo et al.
patent: 5904484 (1999-05-01), Burns
patent: 5907819 (1999-05-01), Johnson
patent: 5984684 (1999-11-01), Brostedt et al.
patent: 6049281 (2000-04-01), Osterweil
patent: 6069655 (2000-05-01), Seeley et al.
patent: 6130707 (2000-10-01), Koller et al.
patent: 6154133 (2000-11-01), Ross et al.
patent: 6261189 (2001-07-01), Saville et al.
patent: 6298144 (2001-10-01), Pucker, I
Bleckley Delmar
Drawdy Oswald
Kelnhofer George
Accelerized Golf LLC
Burrus, IV Philip H.
Cheng Joe H.
LandOfFree
Ergonomic motion and athletic activity monitoring and... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Ergonomic motion and athletic activity monitoring and..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Ergonomic motion and athletic activity monitoring and... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3188564