The lightest touch

[Chris McKinley]

Conn,

Let me address your particular hypothetical in a little more detail just to give an idea of what's actually at play here. We know from physics and Newton's laws of motion that the net force on an object (me, in your hypothetical) is a result of the vector sum of all the individual forces acting upon that object. I'm also only going to address the most relevant forces involved, leaving out air resistance, tensile coefficients of the various tissues in my body, etc. or else the whole thing would get very rocket science-y in a hurry, and those forces are negligible for our purposes.

In this case, for simplicity, we have gravity exerting a force of 100 Newtons on me (my current weight is 220 lbs, or 100kg) so far since I am stationary. I also have the ground pushing up on me with a balancing force, or normal force, of 100N as well.

Finally, we have friction. I'm assuming, again for simplicity, that we're both on a horizontal ground surface with no incline. I'll also use a static coefficient of friction for myself as being the same as that for rubber on concrete, roughly similar to the rubber soles of my shoes on the ground. This value is 1.0. Calculating the friction force is done by using the formula F = uR, where F is the force necessary to overcome the friction, u is the friction coefficient, and R is the normal force on the body, given as equal to its weight.

We have F = 1.0 x 100N, such that F = 100N. This means that it takes 100N of force to overcome the friction alone in order to move me along a horizontal plane. So, the following diagram illustrates the four basic forces in question:




So far, we know that Ffrict = 100N. Fnorm and Fgrav are identical balancing forces, each with a value of 100N. This means that it would take at least 100N, or 220lbs, of force applied to me just to get me started moving in a horizontal plane.

Now, you also mentioned applying an uplifting force to me. This would reduce the amount of friction force that you would have to overcome, but it would do so at the expense of having to overcome at least some of the gravity force acting on me. Let's say that, arbitrarily, you wanted to reduce the amount of Fapp, or applied force, that you would have to use in order to move me horizontally down to just 20lbs of applied force. This converts to 9.0718474N. Using our equation for the amount of force necessary to overcome friction from above, F = uR, we get:

9.0718474N = u x 100N, where 100N is still my weight, which is identical to the Fnorm. So what we're trying to determine is just what friction coefficient you would need in order to balance this equation, which is the same as saying "How much do you need to reduce friction in order to move me with 20lbs of force?" The answer is that u must equal 0.09071847, which is a little less than the friction coefficient for ice on ice. Since we know that the friction coefficient itself doesn't actually change, we determine that what we really need to calculate is just how much of my weight is necessary to overcome in order to push me with 20lbs of force. That formula is still F = uR, where F = 9.0718474N and u still equals 1.0, so that rearranging the equation to solve for R, we get R = F/u, or R = 9.0718474N.

This means that in order to push me with just 20lbs of force applied horizontally, you would need to neutralize all but 20lbs of my weight. This means that you would have to lift me with a net total of 200lbs of force to reach that goal. Now, this all assumes that I'm roughly a simple cube of material. Obviously I'm not, but just as obviously, we see that it's not enough simply to lift me up then move me, unless your biceps are capable of lifting 200lbs before you push forward. What we have learned here is that it is also necessary to unbalance me along the longitudinal axis of my body so that I become "top heavy" and begin to fall in the desired direction when you begin to apply Fapp, the horizontal force.

Unbalancing me longitudinally over my center of gravity will significantly reduce the amount of Fapp you need, since you will no longer need to overcome all of the friction acting on me before part of me (roughly the top half) will begin to move. Calculating this exact figure gets very mathematically cumbersome at this point, but suffice it to say that the take-home lesson is that unbalancing another person first is damn near a necessity in order to move them with what we might call "minimal" force.

As to how much force is necessary in order to elicit pain, that is not only a separate question, but one for which the answer is not consistent even within a single individual, nevermind over an entire population. IOW, too subjective to answer meaningfully.

[Walk the Torque]

Hey Chris, thank you for explaining your point with such a degree of exactitude. As you have echoed my statement of pushes and strikes being quite separate topics, I will say only that the amount of force required to push someone is not really of great concern to me in this thread. It is the contact pressure that is (well timed, well placed, incrementally applied and therefore) light, and the subject of my assertion that pushes can be ridiculously light.

Conn,



As to how much force is necessary in order to elicit pain, that is not only a separate question, but one for which the answer is not consistent even within a single individual, nevermind over an entire population. IOW, too subjective to answer meaningfully.

Again I am interested in surface pressure, on a living breathing person. Not really amount of force.

If I have missed something feel free to point it out.

All the best

Conn

[Chris McKinley]

Conn,

What you appear not to be understanding is that, in terms of the physics, there is no distinction between the force necessary to move someone and either "contact pressure" or "surface pressure". It is completely irrelevant what object, item, or part of the anatomy comes in contact with the person one intends to move, nor is it relevant how the force is generated, nor over what time period it is applied. Again, that force, called the applied force or Fapp in my explanation above, is either sufficiently large enough or it is not. Through which contact surface it is applied has absolutely no bearing on the amount of force required.

[Bhassler]

Again, that force, called the applied force or Fapp in my explanation above, is either sufficiently large enough or it is not.

So can this question be reframed as "how much force is necessary for fapping?"

[Chris McKinley]

Doh!

I believe that would be a thousand years of powah!

[Bhassler]

Slightly more on topic, but still tangential, is the question of perception. What is the process for differentiating between all the events within an action, in terms of timing, forces (inclusive of both magnitude and direction), etc.? A common example is the "unbendable arm" type of parlor trick. To most people it feels like the arm is very strong, but with the right skillset one can feel that a big part of the trick is that the force being applied isn't really going into the arm, it's being distributed throughout the system. To use the jargon du jour it's at least as much jujitsu as IP, but I wonder how many people can accurately perceive that (including the one doing the demo).

To me that's a meta question that speaks to the OP.

[Walk the Torque]

Chris , Bhassler,

All this does raise the question then as to why when a push is generated from different areas of the body one (both pushed and pusher) can tell the difference. It is easy to note if someone's push is "army" or coming from elsewhere in their body. There is also a remarkable difference in the penetrative quality between such strikes done either way.

Moreover, if the person pushing is adept in projecting intention to beyond the target or projecting the "perceived" starting point of the push, say a foot beyond the person being moved, there is also a very tangible difference from the perspective of both. It also appears to change the surface pressure.

[Chris McKinley]

All this does raise the question then as to why when a push is generated from different areas of the body one (both pushed and pusher) can tell the difference. It is easy to note if someone's push is "army" or coming from elsewhere in their body.

That may be, but it has absolutely nothing at all to do with how much force is required to move a person, or any other object in the universe, for that matter.

There is also a remarkable difference in the penetrative quality between such strikes done either way.

Ah, but this is a matter of something called impulse momentum, which is simply a fancy way of saying that strikes that come from "behind the hand", so to speak (i.e., from the rest of the body), tend to produce a wave of momentum that arrives through the striking hand all at once and discharges the force over a small period of time. The force must still be of exactly the same sufficient magnitude to move that target, but for now, we're discussing the time over which that force is discharged. The extra penetrative quality is due to two things. 1) The greater amount of total force that is produced by whole-body movement vs. that generated by just the muscles of the striking arm alone, and 2) the fact that since the whole-body strike tends to deliver its force over a relatively shorter period of time, it tends to induce greater hydrostatic shock to the body's soft tissues. Since those tissues are primarily water, it becomes relevant that water does not compress very much. Force delivered into the body over a very short period of time tends not to allow the water in the tissues to dissipate that force very well. The kinetic energy is transferred into the water in the tissues which then displaces the cells of the tissues, sometimes damaging them. That same amount of force delivered slowly would be distributed and dissipated throughout the body.

Sorry to burst a bubble, but subjective intent has absolutely no bearing on the physics of the situation in and of itself. We've got to be careful not to mix esoteric metaphors into a discussion of the actual physics. What congruent intent may do is to facilitate the firing of all of the appropriate motor units without either hesitation or antagonistic tension due to incongruent firing. It is the improvement in motor syncrony that produces a more efficient (and therefore potentially slightly more powerful) strike. Intent itself, being a subjective abstract, has no effect. Of course, here's where the lumpkins in the peanut gallery usually introduce pseudo-science into the mix via an erroneous understanding of quantum physics by stating that intent causes quantum phenomena which result very specifically in what can only be called telekinesis. Unfortunately, that's not how it works and telekinesis, to all of our consternation, does not exist.

[GaryR]

Sorry to burst a bubble, but subjective intent has absolutely no bearing on the physics of the situation in and of itself. We've got to be careful not to mix esoteric metaphors into a discussion of the actual physics. What congruent intent may do is to facilitate the firing of all of the appropriate motor units without either hesitation or antagonistic tension due to incongruent firing. It is the improvement in motor syncrony that produces a more efficient (and therefore potentially slightly more powerful) strike. Intent itself, being a subjective abstract, has no effect. Of course, here's where the lumpkins in the peanut gallery usually introduce pseudo-science into the mix via an erroneous understanding of quantum physics by stating that intent causes quantum phenomena which result very specifically in what can only be called telekinesis. Unfortunately, that's not how it works and telekinesis, to all of our consternation, does not exist.

I think way towards getting congruent intent is too visualize what you want the result to be. This can simply be to take his center and strike. It doesn't have to be perfect in execution, chances are, it won't be. But if it works and it's dynamic, that's what counts. Basically use result/advance visualization, intuition, and relentless intent.

Chris highlighted how intent etc. is seem by some as a mystic mind game, telekinesis etc. While there is still a possibility something like that exists, believing or not doesn't matter, IMO. My belief will be proportional to the evidence, but I will TRY anything, the proof is in the pudding, if it works, it works. There are degree's of skill etc., but not this is not a contest, its a discussion.

[Interloper]

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the meaning of "intent" as it is used in internal body training. A lot of research has been ongoing in the past decade on how the brain functions -- and which part(s) -- to translate non-verbal but willful intent into firing neurons and muscular action. It's nothing new.

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/ho ... s/307161/0

Intent is something we all tend to take for granted because when we reach for a bottle of beer, we just "do" it. It's not a verbal-cognitive process. The verbal-rational part of the brain actually kicks in long after we've actually already decided to nab the beer bottle.

Intent, as such, is critical to internal body method for creating and maintaining all of the connections, movements and dynamic tensions/opposing forces that we exploit to create a unified structure, to absorb and neutralize force, and to generate and express force. We learn to wilfully and consciously use intent to establish a complex web of manipulations, from pressurizing-depressurizing the thoracic and abdominal body cavities to bowing the curves of the spine, elbows and knees and willing the transfer of kinetic energy from the ground and across the kuas and lower back, in a constant and fluid process.
All while engaging in fighting.

[GaryR]

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the meaning of "intent" as it is used in internal body training ... ... [yada yada yada] .

No, I don't misunderstand, and Chris certainly doesn't as I'm sure he will address this himself, it seems as though your post was directed at one or both of us?

My suggestion of visualizing the result is a wonderful tool, after all, you do simply intend the goal to have the beer in your hand, reaching should be auto-matic I also did not say that was the "meaning" of intent, I said "I think way towards getting congruent intent is too visualize what you want the result to be"... Or perhaps the comment was directed at Chris or someone else...

Nonetheless, again you have provided "very little of what could even liberally be called insightful information", in fact it seems like a cut/paste from the sphere thread, and many others...

[Interloper]

Intent isn't "visualizing," though I suppose you could imagine an image of yourself doing something... but that would slow down the process by adding another task for the brain to perform. Intent in the context I'm using it is non-verbal and non-visual, and is pretty direct to action.

As for what constitutes "insightful information," that is entirely subjective. I keep waiting for someone to ask an intelligent question about how intent is utilized for creating structure and power, but instead there is a lot of hostility and ridicule. Why would anyone want to participate further in such a "discussion"?

[GaryR]

As for what constitutes "insightful information," that is entirely subjective. I keep waiting for someone to ask an intelligent question about how intent is utilized for creating structure and power, but instead there is a lot of hostility and ridicule. Why would anyone want to participate further in such a "discussion"?

It is subjective to an extent, but much of what you posted is vague/standard generic IMA fair. It's not hostility per se, but a call for ON_TOPIC specificity, and description/demo that has repeatedly been asked of you and your group.

The call of the question from the OP was : "What is the minimum amount of pressure one needs to inflict pain/damage with an empty hand?

Also how and why is it possible?"

Never-mind the fact you didn't address the OP question---It appears the segway to intent was brief and put to bed early. Even if not put to bed, your post doesn't seem to have even directly addressed what little intent info is in the thread, but I did skim, so perhaps I missed something???

"Sorry to burst a bubble, but subjective intent has absolutely no bearing on the physics of the situation in and of itself. We've got to be careful not to mix esoteric metaphors into a discussion of the actual physics."

Back to topic?

[Chris McKinley]

Interloper,

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the meaning of "intent" as it is used in internal body training. A lot of research has been ongoing in the past decade on how the brain functions -- and which part(s) -- to translate non-verbal but willful intent into firing neurons and muscular action. It's nothing new.

Certainly not to me. I'm not sure to whom your comment here was directed, but in my case, there's a very good chance that my understanding of the matter far exceeds that of your entire cadre of Harden method stylists all put together. As a former neurophysiologist, I not only participated in exactly this type of research in conjunction with the genetics and physics departments at the University of Oklahoma, I've also helped to lead studies into this area that are still under non-disclosure burden from the U.S. government. While it is certainly possible that the model postulated by Ajemian et al that you referenced may serve to provide further elucidation into the nature of the neurophysiology of consciousness/synaptic matrix interface, the issue is certainly nothing close to settled. Thus far, we must be cautious to avoid inducing an explanation for that which is yet unknown by convenience or similarity.

At the very least, it is wildly premature to speak authoritatively or with certitude regarding this model as a full and comprehensive explanation for the phenomenon of intent and its role in generating motor unit activation.

Intent isn't "visualizing,"....

In fact, it very well might be. The Francis Crick Institute provides world-class cutting-edge research into the role of the visual cortex in the nature of human consciousness. There is no established orthodoxy into the issue at current, as it represents one of the greatest unknown frontiers in all of science.

I keep waiting for someone to ask an intelligent question about how intent is utilized for creating structure and power, but instead there is a lot of hostility and ridicule

Do not place the burden of eliciting value out of your statements on the readers. That responsibility is yours alone. Instead of waiting for someone to ask an intelligent question, you might consider providing an intelligent description of "how intent is utilized for creating structure and power". It is just as reasonable to ask why anyone would want to try and ask just the right question of you in order for you to offer an intelligent answer when we as forum members have consistently received disdain and dismissive insults regarding our abilities from the man whose methods your group claims to advocate. In contrast, for instance, I keep waiting for a representative of that group to offer an intelligent if simple description of how they perform/train even one single movement from the method about which we are so repeatedly told is so superior to our own. So far, none has been forthcoming from you, Dan or any other member of your group. Should you choose to break ranks and actually provide even a simple description as has been so repeatedly requested, I assure you that I will respond to the offering with neither hostility nor ridicule, but simply objective impartiality.

[D_Glenn]

八卦转掌换式眼法口诀

两眼圆睁六路观，四面八方看周全。双眼随手如闪电，瞻前顾后左右看
头顶端正三面观，旋转躲闪旋风般。观定对方换法变，随机应变发换先。
当场动手眼神先，乘虚攻击莫迟延。一举一动双眼看，全在双睛神一团
对方变换看胯肩，肩胯齐动手脚添。动手输招不输眼，手眼身法眼当先
眼随心变换随眼，虚实进退眼先观。

Bagua's turning palms, changing, methods of using the eyes.

Both eyes need to be open to the six pathways in front of you, attentively observe in all directions. Both eyes need to follow the hands like following a glimpse of lightning, gaze at the front hand, be mindful of the back hand, guard against the left and the right. The head is held upright to observe the 3 sides, spin and turn, dodge like a whirlwind. Watch for and determine the opponents changes in order to transform them. Follow the source, adapt to their change, attack (fa) and transform it before it arrives. At that time show intent with the eyes as the hands strike and take advantage of their momentary lapse, attack without delay. In one move you will have used one to transform both of theirs as they stand by passively with their eyes fixated on your one hand. Observe the opponents hips and shoulders to see their changes. The shoulders and hips move simultaneously with the movement of the limbs. Use the touching [crossing] of the hands to feel their intentions not their eyes. Hand, eye, body movement the eyes move first. The eyes follow the heart, the changes follow the eyes. To know whether to advance or retreat first observe with the eyes.


.