Olympic Advantage (High/Long/Triple Jumps)

  • Thread starter Thread starter FeDeX_LaTeX
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the impact of altitude on high, long, and triple jumps, highlighting that gravity's variation is minimal compared to the effects of reduced atmospheric pressure at higher elevations. It suggests that athletes can achieve better performance at altitude due to increased runway speed and jump phase advantages. The conversation references Bob Beamon's controversial jump at Mexico City, where wind gauge misjudgment affected record validation. Additionally, it mentions Carl Lewis's notable performances and the debate surrounding his potential world record due to judging errors. Overall, altitude and environmental conditions play a significant role in jump performance and record-setting.
FeDeX_LaTeX
Science Advisor
Messages
436
Reaction score
13
Hello;

I have been wondering this for a while. The Earth is not spherical, so the force of gravity is not the same everywhere on the Earth. Does this mean that it is better to set a world record in high/long/triple jumping in a country with a higher altitude?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i'm pretty much one of the most knowlegeable guys you will ever find anywhere concerning athletics ( not braggadocio - it's likelihood from experience )

gravity per se has little effect on horizontal jumps re: lower g

the effect of gravity is much more significant a factor thru reduced atmospheric pressure with altitude than variations of 9.81 m/s^2 around globe - it's only fractionally less g at mexico city

you can ball-park quantify here :

http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/wind/index.html

but to save you labour :

compare 10.00s at your chosen altitude with sea-level ( 0 wind each )

the ratio has to be ^2 to gauge advantage ( higher altitude helps once thru greater runway speed & again thru jump phase )

apply that as correction factor

( can also use it for HJ )

the legend is Bob Beamon & Mexico

that jump was screwed by wind gauge judge ( they swapped nationality judges constantly back then due to politics - the guy for Beamon was clueless ) who rounded 2.0 - 3.0 m/s winds to 2.0 when he should have rounded to 0.1, making it something 2.0 ++ m/s & illegal for record purposes ( but of course, still the win - whoever jumps furthest wins ) - it's likely this part-time judge was thrilled to "make" a WR

Beamon had likely wind likely close to 3m/s

the estimate i got for it 0 altitude/0 wind is ~ 8.60 - 8.65m

Carl Lewis never broke outdoor WR ( had indoors of 8.79m - vastly superior to beamon )

Mike Powell beat Carl in '91 with existing WR of 8.95m to 8.91m ( albeit the runway was illegally hard, offering more than 65% permitted energy return )

Carl was robbed of a legendary jump in '82 by an incompetent judge who foul-judged him despite no mark on the plastiscine

download jump here ( its 8.3 MB download at "The Perfect Jump" - i back fan call - he got extraordinary height for him, when he was a noted "flat" trajectory guy because of his incredible speed )

http://www.arielnet.com/media/

fan discussion here :

http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=23788&hilit=ariel

& check wiki :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Lewis

He achieved his 10.00 s clocking the same weekend he leapt 8.61 m twice, and the day he recorded his new low-altitude record 8.76 m at Indianapolis, he had three fouls with his toe barely over the board, two of which seemed to exceed Beamon’s record, the third which several observers said reached 30 ft (about 9.15 m). Some say Lewis should have been credited with setting a world record with that jump, claiming the track officials misinterpreted the rules on fouls.[18]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top