We've launched the new forums! Read more here

The PuttOut Pressure Putt Trainer Review

ShotScope
Jman said:
It is a 10 by design.

IMO, BirdieBall's run a lot faster than indicated, one of the many reasons I didn't care for their mat.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, thanks, Jman! That may explain why my miss is usually a little short...
 
Jman said:
It is a 10 by design.

IMO, BirdieBall's run a lot faster than indicated, one of the many reasons I didn't care for their mat.
Click to expand...

Weird hijack here but if the miss is long do you think that a BB would help?
 
Jman said:
BB?...
Click to expand...
He's asking if his miss is normally long, would a BB (BirdieBall) be better since it runs faster. Thus getting him accustomed to the quicker mat and making his long miss better.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
I got into an "argument" with an OEM this week about this training aid. I reiterated the info in the great review by @Jman about how far the ball is returned is how far the ball would have gone passed the hole and they swore they have measured it out to say its false. So I am confused, because I enjoy the gadget as much as anybody.

Im going to rig a mechanical putting arm to test it out when I get a chance.
 
JB rocking the mad science I like it!!

I’m still a big fan of this gadget, even if it’s not super exact with the return distance, it’s still a dang good gauge of how hard you hit your putt.
 
I just bought the mat and trainer from a fellow THPer for my dad this winter. He loved mine
 
dazeedmonds said:
JB rocking the mad science I like it!!

I’m still a big fan of this gadget, even if it’s not super exact with the return distance, it’s still a dang good gauge of how hard you hit your putt.
Click to expand...

I agree my friend.
 
It's high school physics. The motion energy that the ball has is what gets the ball up on the device. Same amount of energy (minus small amount of friction) is then transformed back to motion energy when ball starts to fall due to gravity. Terminology might be little off as English is not my native language. Anyhow, coming down the ramp the ball has same mass and speed I.e same amount of energy as it had entering the ramp. Ergo it will travel the same distance as it would go past the hole.
 
JB said:
I got into an "argument" with an OEM this week about this training aid. I reiterated the info in the great review by @Jman about how far the ball is returned is how far the ball would have gone passed the hole and they swore they have measured it out to say its false. So I am confused, because I enjoy the gadget as much as anybody.

Im going to rig a mechanical putting arm to test it out when I get a chance.
Click to expand...

I actually had this exact thought about a week ago. I was hitting some pretty hard putts on my Puttout and the ball seemed to return back way less than what I would expect it to go past the hole on a real green. I'll be tuning in to what you discover on it. Either way it's still a fantastic aid.
 
jlaakso said:
It's high school physics. The motion energy that the ball has is what gets the ball up on the device. Same amount of energy (minus small amount of friction) is then transformed back to motion energy when ball starts to fall due to gravity. Terminology might be little off as English is not my native language. Anyhow, coming down the ramp the ball has same mass and speed I.e same amount of energy as it had entering the ramp. Ergo it will travel the same distance as it would go past the hole.
Click to expand...

That is what I assumed. Yet certain testing showed otherwise and they were pretty adamant, so I think some further testing is in order.
 
Slope, grain, green speed will all play a part in that as well. Fast green down hill is going to be a lot different than shaggy green up hill.

I don’t think it can be a perfect science, but it can give you an idea at least.
 
JB said:
That is what I assumed. Yet certain testing showed otherwise and they were pretty adamant, so I think some further testing is in order.
Click to expand...
There is always loss of course. And I think that there is a limit to this theory in practice. If you hit too hard, the ball starts to bounce on the curvature which adds friction compared to pure rolling. Anyhow, I'm also eager to see the results. All hypothesis should be tested in practice. Even if I do believe in science and theories, I am also quite pragmatic. Paradox, ehh? :)
 
jlaakso said:
There is always loss of course. And I think that there is a limit to this theory in practice. If you hit too hard, the ball starts to bounce on the curvature which adds friction compared to pure rolling. Anyhow, I'm also eager to see the results. All hypothesis should be tested in practice. Even if I do believe in science and theories, I am also quite pragmatic. Paradox, ehh? :)
Click to expand...

NAILED it.
 
jlaakso said:
There is always loss of course. And I think that there is a limit to this theory in practice. If you hit too hard, the ball starts to bounce on the curvature which adds friction compared to pure rolling. Anyhow, I'm also eager to see the results. All hypothesis should be tested in practice. Even if I do believe in science and theories, I am also quite pragmatic. Paradox, ehh? :)
Click to expand...

i-can-understand-nine-words-in-that-book-now.jpg
 
JB said:
Im going to rig a mechanical putting arm to test it out when I get a chance.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be simpler, and provide the same result, to use a ramp to send a ball into the device?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 
jlaakso said:
It's high school physics. The motion energy that the ball has is what gets the ball up on the device. Same amount of energy (minus small amount of friction) is then transformed back to motion energy when ball starts to fall due to gravity. Terminology might be little off as English is not my native language. Anyhow, coming down the ramp the ball has same mass and speed I.e same amount of energy as it had entering the ramp. Ergo it will travel the same distance as it would go past the hole.
Click to expand...

I'd think the energy that is sending the ball back out of the ramp would be more comparative to the distance that it was sent in from, as opposed to the distance it would have gone past the hole.....

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 
mdowney58 said:
I'd think the energy that is sending the ball back out of the ramp would be more comparative to the distance that it was sent in from, as opposed to the distance it would have gone past the hole.....

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Nope. Its a standard conservation of energy problem in physics. The speed that the ball has when it enters the ramp will be the speed it has when it comes back down to the same level (minus a tiny amount of energy lost due to friction).

So, if the friction force is the same in both directions between the ball and the putting mat, the ball will slow down to a stop the same way, and the distance it travels before it stops would also be the same in either direction.

Thanks for the recent discussion. It's given me a new problem for my AP Physics students to solve - and maybe a lab to test this idea!
 
Grins said:
Nope. Its a standard conservation of energy problem in physics. The speed that the ball has when it enters the ramp will be the speed it has when it comes back down to the same level (minus a tiny amount of energy lost due to friction).

So, if the friction force is the same in both directions between the ball and the putting mat, the ball will slow down to a stop the same way, and the distance it travels before it stops would also be the same in either direction.

Thanks for the recent discussion. It's given me a new problem for my AP Physics students to solve - and maybe a lab to test this idea!
Click to expand...

Love this! SCIENCE!
 
Grins said:
Nope. Its a standard conservation of energy problem in physics. The speed that the ball has when it enters the ramp will be the speed it has when it comes back down to the same level (minus a tiny amount of energy lost due to friction).

So, if the friction force is the same in both directions between the ball and the putting mat, the ball will slow down to a stop the same way, and the distance it travels before it stops would also be the same in either direction.

Thanks for the recent discussion. It's given me a new problem for my AP Physics students to solve - and maybe a lab to test this idea!
Click to expand...

My head hurts so thank you.
 
jlaakso said:
There is always loss of course. And I think that there is a limit to this theory in practice. If you hit too hard, the ball starts to bounce on the curvature which adds friction compared to pure rolling. Anyhow, I'm also eager to see the results. All hypothesis should be tested in practice. Even if I do believe in science and theories, I am also quite pragmatic. Paradox, ehh? :)
Click to expand...

mdowney58 said:
I'd think the energy that is sending the ball back out of the ramp would be more comparative to the distance that it was sent in from, as opposed to the distance it would have gone past the hole.....

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Grins said:
Nope. Its a standard conservation of energy problem in physics. The speed that the ball has when it enters the ramp will be the speed it has when it comes back down to the same level (minus a tiny amount of energy lost due to friction).

So, if the friction force is the same in both directions between the ball and the putting mat, the ball will slow down to a stop the same way, and the distance it travels before it stops would also be the same in either direction.

Thanks for the recent discussion. It's given me a new problem for my AP Physics students to solve - and maybe a lab to test this idea!
Click to expand...



Ball go up ramp and come back down??
 
Grins said:
Nope. Its a standard conservation of energy problem in physics. The speed that the ball has when it enters the ramp will be the speed it has when it comes back down to the same level (minus a tiny amount of energy lost due to friction).

So, if the friction force is the same in both directions between the ball and the putting mat, the ball will slow down to a stop the same way, and the distance it travels before it stops would also be the same in either direction.

Thanks for the recent discussion. It's given me a new problem for my AP Physics students to solve - and maybe a lab to test this idea!
Click to expand...

This is exactly how I have always understood it. Apparently testing showed something else, so I am going to rig something up after all of this travel to give it a whirl. Im wondering if its the way the leading edge of the design sits on a green causing a bump.
 
JB said:
This is exactly how I have always understood it. Apparently testing showed something else, so I am going to rig something up after all of this travel to give it a whirl.
Click to expand...

I am sure there are ways to get different results but the basic premise makes sense.

If you putt uphill obviously it will roll back farther with the PuttOut than it would run past the hole. If someone is focused on getting it to give false results than I think they have other problems.
 
c0ncept said:
I am sure there are ways to get different results but the basic premise makes sense.

If you putt uphill obviously it will roll back farther with the PuttOut than it would run past the hole. If someone is focused on getting it to give false results than I think they have other problems.
Click to expand...

No other problems other than trying to figure out if something works as far as I know.
But there is a bit about it being uphill that does change the dynamic a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top