DQOTH (Dumb question of the day) on the PM5
- pagomichaelh
- 1k Poster
- Posts: 103
- Joined: February 13th, 2020, 8:45 pm
- Location: Tafuna, American Samoa (14.295°S 170.70°W)
DQOTH (Dumb question of the day) on the PM5
What is the scale of the time (horizontal 'x') axis on the force curve?
5'7" 152# b. 1954
Re: DQOTH (Dumb question of the day) on the PM5
As far as I know: distance, where the total length is the drive length
Package maintainer of OpenRowingMonitor, the open source Rowing Monitor
Re: DQOTH (Dumb question of the day) on the PM5
The post on the C2 blog linked below says that the X axis units are time.
https://www.concept2.com/blog/improving ... kJE3k6J1tg
But it also says that the Y axis is "power application" which is clearly incorrect, since power and force are two totally different things.
So, take it all with a grain of salt.
https://www.concept2.com/blog/improving ... kJE3k6J1tg
But it also says that the Y axis is "power application" which is clearly incorrect, since power and force are two totally different things.
So, take it all with a grain of salt.
- Carl Watts
- Marathon Poster
- Posts: 4747
- Joined: January 8th, 2010, 4:35 pm
- Location: NEW ZEALAND
Re: DQOTH (Dumb question of the day) on the PM5
It has no clearly defined units, what you are really looking for is the right overall shape.
Things like the ideal seamless transition from the legs to the arms etc.
Things like the ideal seamless transition from the legs to the arms etc.
Carl Watts.
Age:58 Weight: 104kg Height:183cm
Concept 2 Monitor Service Technician & indoor rower.
http://log.concept2.com/profile/863525/log
Age:58 Weight: 104kg Height:183cm
Concept 2 Monitor Service Technician & indoor rower.
http://log.concept2.com/profile/863525/log
Re: DQOTH (Dumb question of the day) on the PM5
With OpenRowingMonitor we generate both, and they are indeed slightly different curves. Bad transitions will be visible on both, but slightly different as handle velocity becomes more present. According to the BLE specifications, the PM3 and PM5 generate force curves in forces-lbs (which can be transformed in Newtons).
Looking back at the PM3 setup, which introduced the force curve, it would be highly impractical to take a time based approach: the sensor reporting flywheel position is triggering based on flywheel position (i.e. a magnet passing the coil), not time based. As speed and even acceleration are far from constant (hence the need for a force curve), there is no easy way to provide nice consistent curve. In theory one could do a x-y plot where both x and y vary, but that doesn't translate well to the CSAFE interface that gets the same (???) force curve data without x-axis data.
During the drive, the flywheel position and handle position are directly linked (via the chain). And thus each position report by a sensor always represents x cm handle travel. This makes the measurement points extremely easy to plot and providing only Y-data is then extremely acceptable. Additional benefit is that these points can easily be projected onto physical handle position in the stroke for easier diagnosis of issues. OpenRowingMonitor and RP3 thus explicitly report using the length of handle travel on the X-axis of the curve. As force x distance = work, it also is a more meaningful measure, as "the area under the curve" is in fact a meaningful thing in physics.
The new sensor setup with a PM5 could allow a time-based measurement setup. But a PM5 also can be retrofit to the old sensor, and BLE and CSAFE still get the data without x-axis data. So to keep things consistent across versions and backwards compatible, it would make sense to keep the same approach. But then again, nothing is impossible.
Package maintainer of OpenRowingMonitor, the open source Rowing Monitor