Physics of Combat: The Science of Fighting on SKY 1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Warren Dudley
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the physics of combat, including martial arts, weaponry, and the scientific principles that could be applied to enhance understanding and effectiveness in these areas. Participants explore various angles related to mechanics, biomechanics, and the potential for scientific integrity in media representations of combat.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the scientific depth of the proposed show, suggesting it may rely more on visuals than actual science.
  • One participant highlights the importance of understanding mechanics in martial arts, particularly concepts like center of mass, torque, and vector addition of forces in strikes.
  • Biomechanics and anatomy are noted as critical areas for understanding the physical aspects of combat.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need for a reputable scientific advisor to ensure the program's scientific integrity and to avoid misinformation.
  • Concerns are raised about focusing on superficial aspects of martial arts, such as breaking boards, rather than the physiological effects of strikes on human tissue.
  • Suggestions are made to consult military research organizations for insights into the physics of weaponry, although security restrictions may limit the information available.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of skepticism and interest regarding the scientific approach to the topic. There is no consensus on how to effectively integrate science into the show, and multiple competing views on the importance of various aspects of combat physics remain evident.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the broad scope of the discussion, which includes various forms of combat and their scientific underpinnings. There are concerns about the potential for misinformation and the need for rigorous scientific validation of claims made in the show.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those involved in media production related to combat, educators in physics and biomechanics, martial artists seeking a deeper understanding of their discipline, and researchers in military technology.

Warren Dudley
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi Guys,

Ricochet TV are currently developing a show called 'The Science of Fighting' for SKY 1 in Britain.

Does anyone know of any interesting angles regarding the physics of combat, war, martial arts etc??

Thanks a lot.

Warren

www.ricochet.co.uk
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I somehow doubt that it will involve much actual science, and more fancy computer visuals with no meaning.

Martial arts, well its all mechanics really. Unless you start going into ki theory.

Important to the science of the throws used in jiu-jitsu is the idea of the centre of mass, theirs axis and the effects of applied torque (specificall how torque applied off-axis makes things rotate).

Strikes are vector addition of forces coming from rotation of joints (eg.the tangential force cause by hip rotation) and longtitudinal motion. Also included is conservation of energy and momentum, the effects of collisions and how elastic you can approximate them (the lost kinetic energy goes mostly into the other guys face!). And of course pressure exerted and stress/strain measurements.

Biomechanics is of huge importance to as is anatomy, particiularly muscles structure nerve endings and the freedom of movement for joints.

What in particular were you interested in?
 
The brief is really broad at the moment. Weapons , war, fighting, hand to hand combat, martial arts, battle clothing, future fighting etc...and the science/physics involved in making them better/successful.

Sorry its a little vague... but so am i where this is concerned!

W
 
Since the spectrum is so broad at this point, the first thing I would ask is what do you want to do to set yourself apart from the hundreds of other shows that have done this approach? I'll tell you that the best thing you could do is to find your show a REPUTABLE and knowledgeable scientific advisor. If you truly are interested in the scientific aspects of combatives and ESPECIALLY martial arts, you're going to need someone to bounce stuff off of to ensure the scientific integrity of your program. There are thousands of charlatains and people who don't know what they are spouting (basically telling lies). If you do one thing, don't be a sounding board for those people. If there is something that can not be proven or duplicated through a scientific method, it's bunk (ref. George Dillman).

I saw an article on BBC online about a Kung Fu school somewhere in London I think, that had a supposed physics student taking lessons and trying to explain what she was doing. It was what you should strive to not be. The story and associated website were just plain bad. I'll see if I can't dig up the links.
EDIT: Here is the website I mentioned: http://www.kungfuscience.org/access.asp"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Looking at the kung fu science thing another thing I'd mention is not to get too precoccuopied with breaking boards. To quote Bruce Lee:

"Boards don't hit back"

In the end a punch is supposed to hurt a person by damaging his skin, muscle and other tissues. Remember that, some biologists and bio-engineers might be able to tell you about the various strain responses of human flesh.

As for missiles etc, Try talking to military research organisations like Qinetiq, DSTL and MBDA. They won't be able to tell you any specifics because of the security involved in their work, but they might be able to tell you something more general.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
8K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K