Dihedral Wing misconceptions regarding Wing Tsun IRAS (Failure)

[Dr._Tzun_Tzu]

I'm not obligated to get into a quoteblock war with you, DTT, any more than I am to prove a negative, which is what you just asked me to do twice. I don't have to disprove that something vaguely similar to something your WC teacher showed you in between bouts of tickling and got-your-nose exists in engineering.

Actually you are. You can not just come into a style forum debate, make a few juvenile insults and poetic as-smarts, and think thats OK. Even if it is a chunner thread. You have to either pick apart an argument or make a counter argument. Clever insults don't cut it here.

Further more, you cherry picked only my post, without reading the thread for context. We are getting somewhere here and don't need your nonsense. Why don't you go back to shaving your scrotum for battle, or whatever it is you have been doing.

I am sorry you can't read and make deductions nor inferences from it. The toe-in effect which in aircraft is called wing dihedral is a concept in physics. It creates a V geometry around the direction of force for stability. It automatically adjusts the structure back on line.

In a sprawl, the toe-out creates a heel-in V along the line of force, since the direction here is away from behind. If the force changes to either side, the foot is now aligned with its longest side at a tangent to the force. It is also using V geometry.

The white hot engines of the heavens themselves could run on chain-punching, that doesn't make wing tsun valid. You are under obligation to prove that this works for human beings and the complete lack of anyone using your duckwalking in high level competition is on my side.

I have never seen anyone roll truck tires in the cage nor have they ran up stadium stairs, taped an arm to their body, Punched each others hands (focus mitt), nor do the shrimp and roll in perfectly straight lines, but I have seen fighters do these things in TRAINING. The point about the Jig and a rifle is that the adduction stance you see in Chi Sau is for tuning the aim. Our punches go to the same place in front of our torso and we aim by turning our torso. The strange geometry in chi sau is an exercise to tune and strengthen the body to improve the alignment we use. You will not see it in the ring anymore then you will see a fighter with a kettlebell or a Bosun Ball.

So your argument is based on a negative. I thought you said we can't prove a negative?

There was a nice video of a WT in the Cage in Germany, fight number 11, in the WT in MMA thread. It keeps being taken down from youtube. It showed the effects of this training quite clearly, but you fanatical types never accept proof so what does it matter?

edit: another upload of it:

YouTube - Marcus Schatz - Josef Hornacek / German Cage Fight 2005

Toe-in apparent at 0:13-0:15, he is using IRAS from here to 1:08 with the "toe in shorts"(pun intended) hold, and though difficult to see, at 1:23 his right foot is turned in to align with his elbow to the scapula area. Not to mention he wins with elbow to the back and his WT is obvious through out.

[Hedgehogey]

Actually you are. You can not just come into a style forum debate, make a few juvenile insults and poetic as-smarts, and think thats OK. Even if it is a chunner thread. You have to either pick apart an argument or make a counter argument. Clever insults don't cut it here.

Further more, you cherry picked only my post, without reading the thread for context. We are getting somewhere here and don't need your nonsense. Why don't you go back to shaving your scrotum for battle, or whatever it is you have been doing.

There is no context which can redeem this. You are not "getting somewhere". The industry is not about to be revolutionized by you two plucky nerds.

I am sorry you can't read and make deductions nor inferences from it. The toe-in effect which in aircraft is called wing dihedral is a concept in physics. It creates a V geometry around the direction of force for stability. It automatically adjusts the structure back on line.

In a sprawl, the toe-out creates a heel-in V along the line of force, since the direction here is away from behind. If the force changes to either side, the foot is now aligned with its longest side at a tangent to the force. It is also using V geometry.

That's beautiful and wonderful and completely irrelevant. Sprawling works because it drops the center of gravity neatly down and away in the exact opposite direction from where your opponent wants it to go. The position of your toes really doesn't matter that much, although I concede that if someone tried to sprawl in your pigeon toed sentai pose on a shooter with real drive they'd probably rip their own ACL.

I have never seen anyone roll truck tires in the cage nor have they ran up stadium stairs, taped an arm to their body, Punched each others hands (focus mitt), nor do the shrimp and roll in perfectly straight lines, but I have seen fighters do these things in TRAINING. The point about the Jig and a rifle is that the adduction stance you see in Chi Sau is for tuning the aim. Our punches go to the same place in front of our torso and we aim by turning our torso. The strange geometry in chi sau is an exercise to tune and strengthen the body to improve the alignment we use. You will not see it in the ring anymore then you will see a fighter with a kettlebell or a Bosun Ball.

When nothing works it's completely easy and fun and not at all a desperate cliche to confuse conditioning with drilling. First of all, the activities you listed belong to one of two categories

1: Physical conditioning, that is building the musculature neccesary for fighting

2: And drilling, practicing the actual techniques

That you lumped them together and that I have to hammer basic athletics concepts into your hydrocephalic head is a bigger condemnation of the culture of kung fu than anything matt thornton could write.

With running and lifting tires, those are physical conditioning excercises. They build musculature and endurance.

With shrimping and focus mitts, those are ways of drilling technique in a way we actually use in actual matches. I know I keep coming back to you, but i'm hoping that your burning sense of shame that you're not as cool as us MMA jock types eventually catches up to you.

So your argument is based on a negative. I thought you said we can't prove a negative?

You can't. You asked me to prove that your kung fu cargo cult shenanigans were invalid concepts for fighting. That's asking me to prove a negative.

There was a nice video of a WT in the Cage in Germany, fight number 11, in the WT in MMA thread. It keeps being taken down from youtube. It showed the effects of this training quite clearly, but you fanatical types never accept proof so what does it matter?

One guy in one amatuer level comp puts WC on the same level as SAFTA.

[Permalost]

Well, I'm smirking at the cargo cult and Levi-Strauss references. Carry on.

[vinhthekid]

... wait did i just hear someone advocate toes down for a sprawl?

[It is Fake]

Oops moved from here:
Wing Chun - debate on technical differences - No BS Martial Arts

[meataxe]

DTT's analogies of toe-in, dihederal, etc. make no sense in explaining his stance. In terms of physics, it is just pure nonsense and an attempt to make parallels where none exist. Maybe there is some valid reason for the stances, but I don't know, don't care and will probably never bother to find out. Regardless of the value of the stance, the examples given are pure nonsense. I do not approve.

Hedge, OTOH, is being a sanctimonious twat. I'm OK with that however, as he is being an *entertaining* sanctimonious twat. That makes a difference. I approve.

Levi-Strauss... that's rich!

[Dr._Tzun_Tzu]

edit: I just draw sketches.....and a WT man will not lean back like that computer chunner.

DTT's analogies of toe-in, dihederal, etc. make no sense in explaining his stance. In terms of physics, it is just pure nonsense and an attempt to make parallels where none exist. Maybe there is some valid reason for the stances, but I don't know, don't care and will probably never bother to find out. Regardless of the value of the stance, the examples given are pure nonsense. I do not approve.

Generally you should explain why they do not make sense, but that would require you to actually know what I am talking about. Your opinion that it dosn't make sense is a nice contribution though thank you.:bduh:

Maybe I should elaborate with my non-science generalizations to give you something to actuall pick apart.

Wing Dihedral (no that is not a new spelling of _ing __un) is used in aircraft to improve flight stability. In simplified terms, planes are falling downward due to gravity and lifting upward due to lift from the wing. The when the aircraft rolls to one side, the direction of lift is no longer in direct opposite to the pull of gravity, which can cause the plane to lose elevation and more importantly, it requires the pilot to rotate the plane back to level flight. This is very difficult to do, so a dihedral angle is added to the wing on each side, creating a V effect . With the dihedral added, when an aircraft rolls to one side, the wing on that side has its lift become more in line against gravity and the other wing is less in line with gravity. This differential creates an uneven lift relative to gravity with more lift being on the rolled side, causing the aircraft to roll the other way. This automatically returns the aircraft to level flight, freeing the pilot from having to struggle with maintaining level flight. ( I am purposely ignoring the turning effect this creates for sake of simplicity). Since this rotation is around the point of the V, it is often called the centerline in physics.

In the IRAS stance, for my analogy, the force of an incoming attack is comparable to the pull of gravity, which in WT training terms is also called the centerline. The toe-in creates a V which is used in the punch mechanic to align the foot, knee, hip, and shoulder, so do not confuse that here with the V force concept I am comparing to the Wing Dihedral. Adduction creates a pull between the two sides of the body. Inner rotation of the legs and hip thrust combine with adduction to create forward force. The forces this creates do come out from the knees toward the centerline which compares to the force of lift in the Wing dihedral.

When our torso is turned it releases some adduction/inner rotation pressure on the side we turn to and it increases the pull of adduction/inner rotation on the side we turn away from. When the force coming in is released, the side with increased pull brings us back to the center position an if the force remains, the increased pull holds us in position. If the direction of incoming force corrects to our torsos turned position, then the rotation/adduction on that sidekicks in, and our free leg swings back to maintain a tangent to the incoming force with the line connecting our legs. This is the result of the two opposing forces on either side of the centerline maintaining their balance.





In group 1 and 2 the wing is compared to the IRAS, in group 3 the difference in lift is compared to the difference in pull, both automatically create stability around the centerline due to mechanics. In 4 the incoming force is released and the increased pull realigns the torso's centerline on the tangent to the line between the two feet. In other words, at a tangent to adduction. In 5 the incoming force changes to direct toward the turned torso. Here the stance feet placement aligns itself to have adduction make a tangent to the incoming force. This causes the free leg to swing back and creates rotational forces again in what was the standing leg, as both feet are now parallel to the force.

[BackFistMonkey]

aerodynamics does not apply to where you keep your weight on your foot and your foots placement .


* edit *

he he oops I spelled it areodynamics the first time


*/edit*

[TheRuss]

(Disclaimer: I am not an aerospace engineer or a pilot)

Your explanation of dihedral wings didn't make any sense, so I went and looked it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihedral
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cs/q0055.shtml

0) We start with the plane flying straight ahead (relative to the fuselage), with lift being provided by the wings' angle of attack.
1) The pilot begins a banked right turn by lowering the left ailerons.
2) This simultaneously increases the left wing's lift (roll to pilot's clockwise) and drag (yaw to the pilot's left, called "adverse yaw").
3) Because of the roll and yaw, the plane is no longer traveling in the same direction as its fuselage is pointed - the plane is moving toward the pilot's front-right. In other words, the direction of airflow across the right wing is not only front-to-back but outside-to-inside.
4) If the wing has an "effective dihedral", it has not only a slope from front-to-back but from outside-to-inside, meaning that the dihedral increases the right (low and forward) wing's effective angle of attack relative to a wing without the outside-to-inside slope.
5) Higher effective angle of attack = more lift = the low wing is pushed back up towards being level with the high wing.

Note for anyone trying to figure out the Wikipedia entry: it discusses the system in terms of a roll disturbance. Let's assume it's a roll to the pilot's clockwise. In this case, the wings cause the plane to "sideslip" to the side of the wing that has rolled down (the right wing). No yaw to speak of, but the plane is no longer moving in the same direction as the fuselage points - once again, it's going to the front-right, and effective dihedral will increase the low (right) wing's lift, thus correcting the roll.

( I am purposely ignoring the turning effect this creates for sake of simplicity)

Note to DTT: If the plane were traveling in the direction its fuselage was pointing, the dihedral of the wings will only affect the plane's roll stability by the keel effect - the angle of attack would be unchanged by the effective dihedral. Thus, ignoring the "turning effect" didn't simplify anything - it invalidated it.

Summary for the tl;dr crowd:

Wing dihedral has nothing to do with martial arts.

[Dr._Tzun_Tzu]

aerodynamics does not apply to where you keep your weight on your foot and your foots placement .

I would hope that readers would understand that the aerodynamic lift created by the wing only occurs in the aircraft and its comparable force in the IRAS stance does not require avionics as it is a muscular force. I am comparing the mechanics of geometry and force in two analogical structures, not the TYPE of force.

But then there are people like you.....

If someone was using bullet mass and acceleration as an analogy to punches would you complain that the arm is not powered by gunpowder? You probably would.

......

Note to DTT: If the plane were traveling in the direction its fuselage was pointing, the dihedral of the wings will only affect the plane's roll stability by the keel effect - the angle of attack would be unchanged by the effective dihedral. Thus, ignoring the "turning effect" didn't simplify anything - it invalidated it.

Summary for the tl;dr crowd:

Wing dihedral has nothing to do with martial arts.

Actually, I left turning out to simplify things. As you pointed out the Dihedral is a part of the turn process, but so what? A plane with a flat wing can also turn. So turning is irrelevant to the forces I am discussing. But thanks for playing.

I was strictly comparing lift across what you call the "keel effect" to an IRAS turn about the Centerline. If the "keel effect" is not the result of the mechanics of the dihedral, then you have a point.

[DerAuslander]

Do you even have a degree in physics?

Cuz every engineer I know would say that you're full of shit.

[Aesopian]

Does the chain punch take Bernoulli's principal into account?

[Lu Tze]

I don't know, but I'm sure the steady flow of bullshit coming from DTT in this thread does.

[DerAuslander]

So, Wing Chun was founded on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

[Dr._Tzun_Tzu]

Do you even have a degree in physics?

Cuz every engineer I know would say that you're full of shit.

Do you even know any engineers?

Does the chain punch take Bernoulli's principal into account?

no, but what does that have to do with dihedral or IRAS? Nothing!

I don't know, but I'm sure I have over 3 thousand posts and I still won't pony up to support this site.........

Fixed that for you.