TargetTalk

luftskytter wrote:Governing body membership and competence don't always go hand in hand.

Corrected.

Sparks wrote:

Kloss wrote:Saying this, without explain why you think that, it is a little superficial.

I did explain it, a few posts back.

I didn't redefine anything, I just explained the physic concepts;

No, you didn't. Those are not the physical concepts.

Sparks,
I am sorry, I know you already hate me, but I need to say that you didn't.
If you meant your post your post on September 29th at 3.35 am (sorry, I can't copy and paste).
I can understand your point of view of an engineer, but here, it is most physics.
If a gyroscope has a source of power or doesn't have it, doesn't mean is active or passive.
It depends on the systems. If we consider the "System earth" a car at 100 miles per hour is really going 100 miles per hour. Inside the "system car" that is going at 100 miles per hour, your speed is 0.

Then you stated: anything else is active. For you this means being precise?

As you said, that difference was coined by the engineering community. Ok, I respect them, but under a physical point of view, they are wrong and those kind of events are ruled by physics.

Again, everything will depends on if ISSF will use an engineering point of view like yours or a physical point of view. Is it ok if I set it like this? So I can say something that is not in line with what you say without being attacked. Ok?

Gregorz, I don't understand anything about rifle and cylinders, you can come up with another barrel and telling me whatever you want.
I am just a physics expert, precisely lasers, that came up with a comment on a pure consideration about a gyroscope without any application on rifles, pistols and etc.

Kloss wrote:...
If a gyroscope has a source of power or doesn't have it, doesn't mean is active or passive.
It depends on the systems. If we consider the "System earth" a car at 100 miles per hour is really going 100 miles per hour. Inside the "system car" that is going at 100 miles per hour, your speed is 0.

Perfectly right.

Grzegorz wrote:Perfectly right.

Perfectly wrong.
You're trying to draft a rule to govern stabilisation devices. They're control systems, plain and simple. The correct lexicon is the one that is used to build the things, to do the math that models them, and which has been in use for this since the 1800s. Pick up any textbook on the subject and look up the definition for active and passive.

Sparks wrote:

Grzegorz wrote:Perfectly right.

Perfectly wrong.
...

Sparks, it is really funny. You are trying to fight against the Newton's laws and the relativity of movement :-)

Let's give up. It starts to tend to the "academic discussion". And this is not the topic.

I have already agreed that adding the word "active" would be the best POSSIBLE solution.

......and then to interpret.

Grzegorz wrote:Sparks, it is really funny. You try to fight against the Newton's laws and the relativity of movement :-)

No, I just think that if you're going to criticise ISSF for imprecise rules and language, you should have an accurate lexicon yourself...

Sparks wrote:

Grzegorz wrote:Sparks, it is really funny. You try to fight against the Newton's laws and the relativity of movement :-)

No, I just think that if you're going to criticise ISSF for imprecise rules and language, you should have an accurate lexicon yourself...

Ok, Sparks, you got what you deserve - first learn to read what has been already written. In my posts, I support changes in the ISSF Rules, but you had no time to read it probably. You are too concentrated on your own posts,... probably...

The point is, that as more the rules are complicated, more difficult is to apply them. The current tendency is to describe "everything" and this is simply impossible. As the ISSF judge I represent opinion that rules should be more general, simplified and more space should be given to jury members. Their decisions should base on simplified rules and supported by the Technical Committee interpretations.

Sparks wrote:

Grzegorz wrote:Sparks, it is really funny. You try to fight against the Newton's laws and the relativity of movement :-)

No, I just think that if you're going to criticise ISSF for imprecise rules and language, you should have an accurate lexicon yourself...

Gergorz, you know, when somebody doesn't want to accept the evidence, is really clear that is not agree a priori. Doesn't depend what you are saying, this people just consider who you are and not what you are talking about.
Sparks, I have been nice with you and tried to understand you and you didn't. You started a worthless polemic. Then from a serious talk you were doing, you are going to be ridiculous in front of everybody. Do you see it? Probably not, because you will do everything you can to disagree with somebody that doesn't agree with you.
Don't worry I don't need a textbook. Maybe you need one, actually not a text book; but a physics book and an entry level something like first year of college.
By the way, about my language, I apologize with everybody if English is only my fourth language and sometimes I can be not really clear.

Grzegorz wrote:

Sparks wrote:

Grzegorz wrote:Sparks, it is really funny. You try to fight against the Newton's laws and the relativity of movement :-)

No, I just think that if you're going to criticise ISSF for imprecise rules and language, you should have an accurate lexicon yourself...

Ok, Sparks, you got what you deserve - first learn to read what has been already written. In my posts, I support changes in the ISSF Rules, but you had no time to read it probably. You are too concentrated on your own posts,... probably...

The point is, that as more the rules are complicated, more difficult is to apply them. The current tendency is to describe "everything" and this is simply impossible. As the ISSF judge I represent opinion that rules should be more general, simplified and more space should be given to jury members. Their decisions should base on simplified rules and supported by the Technical Committee interpretations.

Ah, I don't know if you saw it, but I support the changes also.

As far as I recall from my engineering studies, active versus passive is a question of if the vibration damping system has a supply of energy to draw from in order to dampen the vibrations.

A gyroscope would appear to, in that it has rotational energy in it, and if I recall my physics, the act of opposing movement actually consumes part of this stored energy.

Passive systems do not have energy, but simply absorb the energy of the movement, and convert it to heat through frictional losses.

If this is to be incorporated in a rule, a clear engineering definition needs to be used that is not based on an example. The engineering definition has to be such that when someone comes up with a new solution, the rule can be clearly applied. If it is based on examples (like a stationary car being hit), it gets too confusing to determine if the example is a good parallel to the actual scenario.

Your 200 bar gyroscope is active. It has a stored energy source, and draws from it to achieve its end.

ShootingSight wrote:As far as I recall from my engineering studies, active versus passive is a question of if the vibration damping system has a supply of energy to draw from in order to dampen the vibrations.

A gyroscope would appear to, in that it has rotational energy in it, and if I recall my physics, the act of opposing movement actually consumes part of this stored energy.

Passive systems do not have energy, but simply absorb the energy of the movement, and convert it to heat through frictional losses.

They have. Elastic potential energy, gravitational potential energy, ...

Your 200 bar gyroscope is active. It has a stored energy source, and draws from it to achieve its end.

:-) You say: it is active, ok, in fact it depends on how you define the reference sytem, but ok... You know it, because I have described in detail what is inside this "virtual absorber". The point is, how jury members could judge this case having no possibility to open it, and seeing a device with a nice label "Superpassive absorber". As more detailed rules are, less space for a judge decision exists. And that has been the only reason I gave this example. Not to follow the academic discussion on engineering and physical definitions of the systems.

I repeat: Rules should be simplified and more space for jury members should be given when they are taking decision. That's my point.

jhmartin wrote:

David Levene wrote:It seems somewhat unfair to criticize the ISSF for what others think the rule will say.

C'mon David .... they (ISSF) don't know what it means, of course it's fair to criticize when they only have a vague concept.

A vague concept should be left out of published rules until it was defined enough that one could, at least, at least determine what the "spirit of the rules" is they are trying to enforce.

Which "vague concept" has been included in published rules; certainly nothing about vibration reduction.

Hopfully we will understand the spirit of the rule when it is published.

Sparks wrote:

BenEnglishTX wrote:Does ISSF have any "spirit of the rules" rule?

They do, and I wouldn't mind so much really, but a rule like that has to be a two-way sort of thing.
So yes, competitors have to engage with the spirit of the rules (which is the same in any sport ie. to ensure a level playing field so that you're measuring the athletes and not who has the bigger budget/best chemist/whatever); but equally, the organising body has to engage too. That means the rules have to be as good (ie. fit for purpose, easy to understand, well-articulated, considered, etc) as possible.

The summary that we've been talking about is a pretty decent example of the opposite - where the organising body believes that the "spirit of the rules" rule is a one-way sort of thing.

Hard to disagree with this point.

KatoomDownUnder wrote:

Sparks wrote:

BenEnglishTX wrote:Does ISSF have any "spirit of the rules" rule?

They do, and I wouldn't mind so much really, but a rule like that has to be a two-way sort of thing.
So yes, competitors have to engage with the spirit of the rules (which is the same in any sport ie. to ensure a level playing field so that you're measuring the athletes and not who has the bigger budget/best chemist/whatever); but equally, the organising body has to engage too. That means the rules have to be as good (ie. fit for purpose, easy to understand, well-articulated, considered, etc) as possible.

The summary that we've been talking about is a pretty decent example of the opposite - where the organising body believes that the "spirit of the rules" rule is a one-way sort of thing.

Hard to disagree with this point.

So, a number of you are advocating a 2000 page rule book for 2013/1st: with more pages for subsequent re-printings?

Grzegorz wrote:They have. Elastic potential energy, gravitational potential energy

Elastic potential energy and gravitational potential energy do not appear out of the aether. Bricks don't just appear ten metres up in the air, for example.

The definition is simple and centuries old - A passive system or component consumes energy; it does not produce it.

Trying to confuse a simple definition is not helpful in this context.

I repeat: Rules should be simplified and more space for jury members should be given when they are taking decision. That's my point.

Sure. But - and I'm only a class B judge so I might be wrong about this - haven't we've done this for decades anyway? ie. if there's something like this that is so hard to call, the jury on the spot makes the call and forwards a report on to ISSF so they can investigate in more depth?

Dunno about you, but as a judge and an engineer, I thought that that system worked reasonably well. My problem is what happens when the rulebook isn't well-written because not every judge is an engineer and a doctor and a sports psychologist and a mettalurgist and a telepath; if the rules aren't well-written you need to be one or all of these things to figure out what the writers meant, and how it applies to what you're observing.

Spencer wrote:So, a number of you are advocating a 2000 page rule book for 2013/1st: with more pages for subsequent re-printings?

I think Hemmingway might have taken you up on the notion that "more pages" is the same as "better written"...

Sparks wrote: Elastic potential energy and gravitational potential energy do not appear out of the aether. Bricks don't just appear ten metres up in the air, for example.

Trying to confuse a simple definition is not helpful in this context.

So, stop doing it! Since several posts I propose to stop this academic discussion, and you? You are continuing, continuing, continuing... When Kloss wrote something about cars, you agressed him. Now, you are blablaing on any bricks. Gosh...

I repeat: Rules should be simplified and more space for jury members should be given when they are taking decision. That's my point.

Sure. But - and I'm only a class B judge so I might be wrong about this - haven't we've done this for decades anyway? ie. if there's something like this that is so hard to call, the jury on the spot makes the call and forwards a report on to ISSF so they can investigate in more depth?

Exactly, and that is what I have been doing several times. And what? Do you see any contradiction beetwen that and my opinion??

Dunno about you, but as a judge and an engineer, I thought that that system worked reasonably well. My problem is what happens when the rulebook isn't well-written because not every judge is an engineer and a doctor and a sports psychologist and a mettalurgist and a telepath; if the rules aren't well-written you need to be one or all of these things to figure out what the writers meant, and how it applies to what you're observing.

Yes! Of course, it worked resonably well. And what? Do you see any contradiction beetwen that and my opinion??

Concerning the second part of your post - the rulebook must be well written, and I believe it will be. But I am affried it becomes to complex, and my opinion, as repeated each time, is: Simplify rules, interpret them on the ISSF web page if needed, and give more space to the jury members for their decisions.

Grzegorz wrote:So, stop doing it!

I'm not. I suggested a very simple way to phrase the rule based on the terminology that has been used when describing this kind of thing for over two hundred years, and you went off on some daft tangent about how it should be down to the local judges (and that's not mentioning the other tangent on here trying to redefine terms that have been established since before the grandparent of any poster here were born). And frankly, I've no desire to get into some aggressive shouting match over it with some random stranger, so tone it down a notch or two please.

Our difference is in where we draw the line regarding what is in the purview of the local jury to rule on.

It should not be down to the local jury to decide if "Vibration Reduction System" excludes active or passive devices; that should be in the rules.

Whether or not a given device is active should be a local call, but there's no reason ISSF can't issue notices about specific devices, they way they did about kineso tape specifically.

Sparks wrote:

Grzegorz wrote:So, stop doing it!

I'm not...

Oh, yes! And still you are.

Our difference is in where we draw the line regarding what is in the purview of the local jury to rule on.

It should not be down to the local jury to decide if "Vibration Reduction System" excludes active or passive devices; that should be in the rules. Whether or not a given device is active should be a local call...

And you even start to manipulate messages... The sentence written by you above is a direct presentation of my opinion given in this topic! - The word "active" should be included, and decision whether a device is ok or not should be given by the Technical Control Jury of a competition.

Kloss was maybe a "random stranger" but he was right. You do not read messages written by other users. You disagree as a rule. Funny :-)

Ok, I have no time to play more, I have presented my opinion clearly, I suppose (at least for whose reading posts of other users from time to time:-). This weekend we have the ESC YOUTH LEAGUE FINAL, it will be surely possible to discuss the topic with other ISSF judges. In real ;-)

Probaly just me cause I'm non-english, but 'befóre the shot is released', imo, thats befóre that trigger shot's gone off. So that doesnt include any recoil damper, vibration device, etc, cause that only comes into play áfter the shot is released?