Came here the Shadiversity channel, great video I'll check out more of your stuff. Hard to beat a weapon that is that simple, guess that why the wooden spear or bow style long stick weapon is found everywhere. When something is simple and can be provided by nature (long thin tree) and is marginally durable humans will use it. Keep it up.
In many places swords and spears were only used by guards or soldiers due to cost and governing laws. However, anyone that looks crippled or old could carry a cane or similar item. Even if you don't know martial arts, having such an "improvised weapon" could be surprisingly effective and cheap.
Yeah. But doesn’t make it “better,” like Shad claims. A stick is found easily in nature, but a gun is not. I’d still say a gun is a better weapon. Not comparing a gun to nunchaku, but saying that point is only one aspect to think about. In the city, I’d more likely find my belt than a stick, and the belt can be whipped just like the nunchaku can. So doesn’t it make it better to train if you’re in the city downtown instead of the woods? The problem is limiting oneself because they think one specific point is better, so the whole weapon is better (aka Shadiversity thinking).
@@mattbronsil6336 I assume that shade is talking melee weapons through out human history. The video is Chucks vs stick, not guns vs stick, although if you know the 20 foot rule you should know guns aren't that surefire. If your going to say a belt works as a chuck, then any hard long object is a "stick". 2x4's, rebar, pipes can be found in the city.
Interesting that the two handed grip. Increases most striking values by 50%, that's the general rule of thumb that a lot of RPGs use for two handed weapons. That might be more realistic than I have it credit for, even though damage and hp is way abstract. Also interesting that there is scientific backup as for why the traditional styles use weapons in a certain way. Always a pleasure to see these kind of analyses. Thank you for your work.
Well, most of it seems to come from the increase in apparent mass. Or you could turn it around and say: "Even though the apparent mass increases, and the force is put into the strike with 2 arms, those two factors balance out such that the strike reaches the same velocity". And the apparent mass obviously would increase to "the stick itself, * the left arm and * the right arm", instead of "the stick itself and * the right arm". (*= "some unknown portion of...") I would have been surprised if the increase was lower than 30%. However, I also wouldn't have been surprised of a 100% increase, if the kinetic linkage was able to connect all the way to the torso.
Have you considered testing multiple strikes in rapid succession? I feel as though the two points of control when using two hands may lead to a larger boost via prevention of bounce back and speed speeding recovery, when compared to one hand.
If a similar text gets run in the future, maybe you can swap between the stick and the nunchuck between each strike to help reduce variance involved in human performance.
Very interesting. I love these videos. Curious if you are also curious about a few things I am curious about: 1) You have done striking down and striking to the side. With the nunchaku, I have a theory that a strike going up into the target (such as hitting under the chin) would be much stronger with the nunchaku. 2) The nunchaku force is supposed to hit at the end of the nunchaku, not in the middle of the free chaku. Do you have a way to test this? 3) What about an analysis of a non-swinging, straight jab or other similar strike with the end of the weapon? My thought, again, is that nunchaku would be stronger. While shorter, you're hitting with two sticks with the nunchaku and probably feels much more painful. This is the type of stuff that keeps me up at night. Glad your videos so far have given me more sleep lately. :)
Thanks for your comment and questions. Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to develop the equipment that would be necessary to give an accurate, reliable, scientific 2D mapping of force per unit area with respect to time. This is what you would need to measure the effects of striking with particular surface areas - such as the ends of the nunchaku. In terms of general impact characteristics such as momentum and energy, those strikes would still be lower, but the potential impact force per unit area would be a lot higher. As another example, in our case, we have a lot of barehand strikes with small areas of the fingers and hands, that are much lower energy than normal strikes, but that affect much smaller areas of the target leading to higher impact pressure at the point of contact. The technology exists and I could design and build the equipment, it's just very expensive at the moment.
I've not watched the whole video, but I feel confident that you won't later invalidate my comment. When you mentioned feather vs ball, I immediately thought of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (love it). So you can imagine my joy are seeing the clip, even it was was so very short. A quote, because it seems so relevant to testing beliefs on RUclips: “Why don't you go and have a look? Pragmatism?! Is that all you have to offer?”
@@WushuEngineer Having watched the whole video, I don't have a lot to add. But: 1. I enjoyed the dramatic beginning. And 2. Another RandGareD quote, for the katana holy wars: “Audiences know what to expect, and that is all that they are prepared to believe in.”
Thanks for the comment and suggestion. I have actually owned an unbreakable umbrella for the last 10 years. It's the best umbrella I've ever owned and has been on a few adventures/misadventures with me. I am thus a bit reluctant to put it through its paces, but I have thought about it in the past and I will seriously consider what you suggest.
To me it seems like the nunchaku's primary advantage is being easier to pack or keep hidden, with an added benefit of being slightly more nimble, ability to trap weapons, and losing 2H benefits in the process. While the stick's main advantages is ease of/instinctive basic use and better availability, keeping the 2H benefits, with the added benefit of potentially giving support while traveling. So mainly logistical benefits.
Thanks for making this awesome video! It's exceptionally great to see a video on this type of subject that features instrumental methods, statistical data analysis, and objectivity; that it's also Australian content is a massive bonus for me. I know that I'm completely ignorant when it comes to actually using or practicing any sort of weapon or martial art, and I don't have a horse in this race either, so I hope you'll be patient with the potentially stupid thought/question that follows. Does the traditional use of nunchaku resemble a 'flexible stick' or a 'tethered projectile'? For context, my previous exposure to nunchaku technique pretty much consists of watching Bruce Lee movies and demonstrations, which seem to emphasise an accelerating flick motion and strikes with the tip. Having once received a bruise the size of three fifty-cent coins in a tea-towel fight, I wondered whether relatively light nunchaku could concentrate kinetic energy at the point of impact in a way that might be more akin to a projectile than a blow. I hope that's a constructive question and that I haven't wasted your time too much.
Thanks for your comment. No, I don't think that your question is stupid or inappropriate. Briefly stated, my answer as to whether a nunchaku can be used as a projectile-like weapon or flexible stick, would be "yes". Or "all of the above". Weapon use can typically be modified to meet specific needs during a fight. As such, I wouldn't make hard and fast rules about exactly how a weapon is employed, because it can, should and will change depending on the circumstances. In some instances, for example, rapid, flick-action type striking may be sufficient and called for, in other instances, a strong, over-arching swinging strike may be required. Not to mention the use of nunchaku in grappling situations, for instance, where the strikes are potentially performed with the projecting part of the held baton, or with the two batons held together or wrapping around limbs, etc. Rapid, flick-action striking can deliver high-velocity strikes, but may be lacking in apparent mass, which may be appropriate, depending on the circumstances. Alternatively, a heavier strike closer to the centre of mass of the swinging baton may be called for and appropriate, again depending on the context. There will always be a trade-off in striking characteristics, that has to be managed and appropriate to achieve the desired result.
I'd be interested in the two-handed grips as demonstrated by Punch Professor, where you hold both sections at the end and strike near the cord with combined pushing and pulling. In practice, it seems to land quite heavy from applying follow-through directly at the point of impact instead of fighting leverage.
Thanks for the comment. I'll look into it although it may be a bit hard to do the technique justice in a test using the Impulse Block if there are multiple force vectors involved. I'll have to think about it...
@@WushuEngineer I know what you mean. Instead of hitting straight inward, you're coming at an angle with a wedge effect. I imagine there will be a high standard deviation.
Interestingly Professor's unorthodox striking technique with nunchaku seemed to be much more about control and speed than brute force. Also seems that nunchaku is really good at single-handed use as addition of force was not so big as in rigid baton.
I think one thing we could look into is if the impact block could be set on some form of standing target or hanging target, something with give, to see if that expands the difference further for impact duration differences. I assume that would be harder to set up and measure well but it would be really interesting if you could manage to set such up.
Thanks for your comment. It is possible that it would make a difference. However, the impulse block itself has approximately 15cm of “give” in the form of the foam block spring. If the impulse block were to be mounted on a moving target, the energy absorbed by the moving target during the impact essentially represents “lost energy” that won’t be accounted for in the measurements. In addition, it would be quite difficult to set that up due to the weight and complexity of the equipment.
@@WushuEngineer I assumed such issues would occur, still would be interesting if it could be set up reasonably well and practically. I appreciate the prompt response and data. It was quite interesting and the discussion is useful as I'm currently both writing a fantasy novel and an RPG system and want to try to maintain as close representation of reality as is reasonable so the presented information is helping me cement some of these details. I'm also just generally interested in martial history and data.
Would you say that this takes into account the fact the nunchaku strikes once and bounces away, while the stick hits multiple times because your arms are holding the rigidity of the stick into the target similarly to a stick hitting a drum?
Thanks for your comment and question. Sustained force applied at the moment of impact is the primary reason for the significant difference between the test results of the two weapons in terms of apparent mass and impulse. It is easier for me to create a momentary bridge between my body and the target through the rigid stick at the moment of impact, providing a momentary pushing force and preventing the weapon from bouncing off the target as quickly as the nunchaku does. This leads to the impulse and apparent mass associated with the stick being considerably higher than that of the nunchaku.
Thanks for your comment and question. The load cell used in the tests is a product made by Loadstar in the states. They sell the load cell and the accompanying software as a boxing training kit. If you take a look at the Loadstar website, you should be able to find it there. Let me know if you encounter any grief trying to find it and I'll pull up some links. This software will provide you with force-time data only. The advanced Impulse Block method that we applied in the video is actually a method that we invented, so it does not yet have any accompanying software to automate the process of conversion to Impulse and Momentum. At the moment it is supported by prototype impact velocity measurement equipment and a series of proprietary interconnected spreadsheets. We're still in process of publishing our first paper on the method, so it will be some time before the Impulse Block Equipment package breaks out into the realm of commercial products. Hopefully sooner rather than later, though. Holding thumbs.
Wouldnt the tip of the stick to do more damage then the mid-length point? It doesent matter that much with regards to testing but I think you would transfer more energy and maybe have a higher velocity if you did use the point. Im also suprised that each hit had so much variety between them. It strikes me that the stick is overall better then the nunchucks though. You dont need any form of training to use the stick, while the results are very close together and sometimes favour the stick.
Tip has higher velocity but because of longer lever on striking side the weight and momentum from the body is transferred to the target less efficiently. Also center of mass of the weapon affects the result, sword with low center of mass has weaker tip strikes than an axe with very high center of mass.
Thanks for your comment and question. As per OutAndAbout’s reply, with every weapon there is an optimal point of percussion. This is the “sweet spot”, which represents the optimum point in terms of striking characteristics. Shifting away from that optimum point of percussion will allow some characteristics to improve, but other characteristics will decrease. As an example, moving closer to the point at which the weapon is held might increase the apparent mass but will represent a significant decrease in impact velocity. Moving further away from the optimum point of percussion towards the tip of the weapon may result in an increase in impact velocity, but a significant decrease in apparent mass. Thus, if you are trying to showcase the optimum striking characteristics of a weapon, you would typically strike at the optimum point of percussion, which in the stick’s case is closer to the centre of mass.
I'm curious, why is the P-value on the effective mass of the nunchaku so high? Also this might be my own ignorance, but I'd imagine that the nunchaku perform better when using their flexibility to store kinetic energy via rotation prior to the motion of a strike? I.e. you spin it around and then swing and the end should go faster; but I don't usually see people doing this when referencing the maximal striking ability of the weapon or performing tests. Is that not true? I dunno or really care if it would catch up to the stick either way, but I am curious if it makes a difference, because in my experience holding and swinging nunchaku around it certainly *felt* that way.
Thank you for your comment and questions. The high P-value indicates that the difference between the effective mass of the nunchaku when wielded one-handed and two-handed is not statistically significant, ie. it is likely that there is no difference other than that due to chance. The more similar the values, the higher the p-value will be. As far as spinning the nunchaku repeatedly before impact is concerned, I encourage you to take a look at my previous nunchaku videos in which I addressed this idea and performed tests with an analogue (tennis ball on a cord) to show the differences between a single swing and repeated rotations prior to striking. In summary, continuously swinging an unbalanced load is biomechanically inefficient for a human wielder. It costs a lot of energy just to keep the object swinging at a constant rotational speed, let alone speeding it up (that may be why it “feels” faster - because you’re performing more work/spending more energy). In tests, a single swing proved capable of generating greater or similar impact velocities as compared to multiple rotations prior to impact.
@@WushuEngineer Thank you for your answer, I think I was misreading the chart on what the P-value represented. I had another thought in regards to effective mass though. Since the power of the flute, especially on two handed swings is likely tied to the recruitment of extra effective mass, would that mean that the nunchaku are potentially more effective for someone of a slight build? If the effective mass is unchanged by a changing body system, then it should also I would think not drop. I didn't notice any reference (at least in this video) to your own height and weight; perhaps it's worth running the tests again with a smaller person to see if it offers any insight?
@@TheLordGojira Yes, I believe that you may be correct in that the weapon’s performance may potentially be less dependent on the size and weight of the wielder. I ruminated a bit in the video about how the weapon might be considered a more “yin” or “softer” weapon than the flute and may play into a more mobile, agile fighting approach employed by a lighter fighter. I think that repeating the tests with a smaller wielder may be a beneficial experiment. I’m pretty average in terms of height and weight, so I’m not particularly small. I’ll consider your request, time and energy permitting.
I think rotational energy doesn't play much of a role in how you should actually strike with a nunchaku. They're not quite as effective when used as a flail rather than with a whipping motion or with a strike that basically throws the striking end into the target rather than a rotating strike. There is some rotation involved no matter how you strike with them but I'm no expert on the physics of things but just speaking about how they feel when I use them to strike. My response to both Shad and Milani Fitness on this particular subject (centripetal vs centrifugal force for nunchucks): ruclips.net/video/d28PZ3RXzHE/видео.html
Hi, have you ever done comparison of energy and force for swing vs thrust with 1 and 2 handed weapons (for example flute or something that might represent swords and polearms)?
Thanks for your comment and suggestion. We have not yet looked at thrusting with 1 and 2-handed weapons. It should be a fairly simple investigation, so I will definitely consider doing that in the near future.
The nunchaku being faster makes perfect sense since like any flexible weapon it is capable of generating momentum at a speed that even could be heard in the air while it is being swung also it makes perfect sense why it is also important to control the momentum after it was generated by the user since the striking mass of the weapon will ricochet back to the user after contact with a target have been done 🤔
@43:39 "subjectively I can feel that less energy is required to rapidly accelerate the nunchaku.." That appears to be reflected in the lower power values for the nunchaku vs flute in the tables, if power here is an indication of your work done. Is that correct? When comparing one vs two handed for each weapon, power difference was minimal in either case, while many other factors increased significantly. That would indicate that the improvements are due to technique (number of hands on) and not human effort. Which, ultimately is the goal right? "More damage, same effort" In the case of a stick, staff, flute (and likely sword), that pays off big. For nunchaku, not so big. But still that increase didn't exhaust you any faster than one handed.
Thank you for your comment. Good observation, it got me thinking. However, when it comes to human energy expenditure VS energy output, the relationship is not necessarily direct because of the complexity of the human system. As an example, a comparison between fit/trained and unfit/untrained people performing the same amount of work will not necessarily result in the same energy expenditure. This complex relationship between human energy consumption and energy output is one of the reasons that many scientific papers report on the perception of effort rather than performing an exhaustive scientific analysis of true energy expenditure. So, my subjective perception of effort in this case does give an indication of energy expended in the task. If we want to make the analysis more exhaustive when measuring human energy expenditure, we must typically go to measuring gas exchange (O2 consumption and CO2 production). However, in the case of short-duration events like weapon strike analysis, this method cannot be effectively used. We thus have to look at comparing EMG activity in major muscle groups in order to get a more accurate indication.
Thanks for your comment. The Impulse Block study has been successfully completed and the method has been found to be valid and reliable. This study is currently being prepared for publication, and we will upload a video with relevant links as soon as it is published. If you are interested, this is one of our previous papers, which was published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology on the control of respiratory pressures and neuromuscular activation to increase force production in martial arts practitioners - link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-021-04800-7
Does it make a difference if you hit with the end or middle part of the stick? Gut feeling would say if the impact point is only the end of the stick it should be harder, not sure about the math.
So the question would be a hammer, like a sledge hammer, would it transfer the same amount of power with the head as if the strike would hit shorter and conect with the handle.
@@skyvenrazgriz8226 bigest force can be achieve when placement is where specified stick,hammer whatever have center of gravity and at couple diffrent point baseball bat feg from centrę of gravity to like 4/5 its lenght etc👌🏻
There's a optimal part you want to hit with with each weapon. If you stray away from that part you'll get increase in one way but decrease in another. One is apparent mass and the other is impact velocity. Further you stray away from the hand the apparent mass will decrease and impact velocity will increase. So the end of the stick will not most of the time be the optimal area, for a very basic weapon like a stick the optimal area of impact would be a little higher than the mid point of the weapon.
Hmmm......... do you have the connections to have someone build a stick throwing device to have a stick with the same characteristics as one end of your nunchaku at the same speed (as it is unlikely to throw it by hand that fast) with enough precision to test swung vs. thrown? As for having to explain carrying a stick, well if you have a good walking stick it can turn into a combat staff just by changing your grip. Looks like you live in a fairly wooded area so only so much explanation needed.
Thanks for the comment and suggestion. Making a stick throwing device may be a little tricky although not impossible. Your suggestion has relevance as a comparative test, so I will consider it. However, development time may be an issue due to work pressures. In terms of carrying a stick, I should have clarified the context I had in mind in my video. I do actually carry a stick or the like around with me when I go on walks in the bush around my property. In this environment, carrying something like a stick is perfectly reasonable and acceptable, as you point out. Out in the bush where I live, the worst kind of threat you’re likely to face is potentially a snake, feral dog or (if you’re really lucky/unlucky, a feral pig). These kinds of threats are relatively rare and can most often be avoided unless a surprise meeting occurs. In comparison, the threat posed by two-legged animals when moving around in urban environments is slightly more common and harder to avoid. In an urban environment, carrying something like a walking stick is a rare sight and is typically going to illicit unnecessary attention (depending on the circumstances, of course).
So Nunchucks are significantly faster and have more unpredictable angles of strikes and are more concealable/compact as well as lighter. So those are three advantages over flute... Am I missing something?
Interesting to see the unconscious bias in the starting conditions for both of these weapons in choosing to measure the stick from end to end in a straight line and choosing to measure the nunchaku from end to end from the end of one stick to the end of the other with the cord in between as though it is a single stick. You could have easily only measured the length of the two sticks when placed together ignoring the length of the cord entirely and instead measured the width of the cord in this orientation and treated it as two separate sticks placed together side by side instead of pretending it was a single stick with a long length of cord with very little mass contained between them or have the single stick equal the length of the two sticks of the nunchaku when placed side by side to have three close to equal stick sections being measured including the cord width. Then you could have made both of the single shorter sticks of the nunchaku as long as the single longer stick and had a cord and both sticks extend to a length far greater than a single stick when in actual use. But again, no matter what the length difference you would of naturally had between both those weapons in actual use, you would still need to have both weapons starting at equal mass for the test to be fair. Seems both the length bias and mass test limitation would always favor one weapon over the other for this test when both weapons are treated as a one long stick. You could have also tried folding both sticks over onto each other holding both at once and tried striking with both together - how nunchauku are sometimes less commonly used. This would essentially make the 'stick' half the length with the same mass in half that length and work like the single longer or shorter stick when being swung. What would the difference be here if the total mass is spread out over a much longer single stick compared with the total mass being condensed into half the length when they were being placed together and swung like a baton - both with either one or two-handed swings?
Let me begin by stating what should be obvious to you. Starting off by accusing someone of something, such as unconscious bias for instance, is very “online” behavior and not what I would consider a respectful or polite way of starting a conversation. You could have easily begun with a simple question instead of an accusation. In answer to your line of inquiry, you seem to think that weapon mass is more important than the length of the weapons in this instance. However, the equation for calculating kinetic energy involves half the mass and the velocity squared. Velocity thus affects kinetic energy far more than does mass. This is an important consideration when it comes to weapon length when weapons are being swung in an arc as in the tests performed in this video. The nunchaku was measured from end-to-end stretched out because that is how the weapon unfolds and impacts when it is swung in an arc. Here, weapon length directly affects impact velocity due to the rotational mechanics at play. Thus, weapon length affects kinetic energy far more so than does weapon mass, at least in the tests performed in this video.
@@WushuEngineer I was simply making an observation that I found interesting. Sorry for the unintended offense caused by what you took to be a disrespectful accusation. "you seem to think that weapon mass is more important than the length of the weapons in this instance." No, it was just a question as I was curious. Thanks for your explanation, though.
isn't the point of nunchaku to build momentum by getting it spinning and moving rather than a single strike? also, weren't nunchaku derived from farming implements during times when straight forward weapons were outlawed? so, nunchaku were adapted out of need rather than intentionally designed as a weapon.
Momentum is defined in physics as the product of velocity and MASS. It matters not how fast the nunchaku spins, the momentum and resulting energy will always be at best the same compared to a stick a same length and mass. Yes, the nunchaku can spin faster, but that is because the hitting part has lower mass. It compensates the lack of mass with extra velocity. The end energy delivered to a target will always be determined by the wielder himself. Nunchakus aren't some sort of magic weapon that summon extra impact energy from nowhere. If this was true, all our energy problems could be cheaply solved. Furthermore, the stick has the advantage of being rigid and allowing the wielder to use their own body mass to add to the momentum of their strike, allowing them to hit harder. As for the historic record, nunchakus were used by farmers to break grain. Sticks wouldn't be appropriate for this task as they could bend and break and also hurt the farmer's hand in the long run. Nunchakus were historically never used for combat because they are just uneffective for this purpose. The myth of the nunchakus came in the 1970s and 1980s when Bruce Lee introduced them in his movies. Before that time, everyone knew that nunchakus were not designed for combat. And nowadays we have to come up with SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to prove this once basic knowledge. And still we have people trying to make excuses for this excellent farmer tool, but terrible "weapon"
I recommend making a singular video explaining the measuring system in place for all tests you do. Then that will make the rest of the videos a lot shorter and more interesting to follow for people that follow you for a long time. Or at the very least put some time stamps regarding explanation. Having a 20 minute methodology introduction is currently what's keeping me from subsribing.
I'm watching the video at 1.5 speed, but to help it get more attention I'm going to watch it again at normal speed. It's likely too late, but I'm glad this video got made and that it got another response. My fellow Americans are so dumb, 12:40, not everyone is an American. There is reason why Metatron has mail sleeves, he also can't have firearms.
As an American and gun owner, I hate the gun "trump card" argument. I can tell you that most people making that argument have probably never had to use a gun to actually kill another person.
The nunchuck takes less energy out of your arm to strike than the stick, and the chuck hits surfaces differently than with just blunt force. A guy tested the stick vs the chucks on coconuts, the chuck cracked the coconut, the stick did not. This was likely how the chuck was impacting the surface of the coconut, which is similar to the action of a whip lashing the object.
Thank you for your comment. It is possible that the nunchaku does impact the surface differently and this could subtly alter the force distribution at the point of impact. Unfortunately, monitoring the force distribution at impact is outside of the scope of our equipment at the moment. In one of my older videos (ruclips.net/video/fpEat7OQueI/видео.html), I tested the flute/stick, nunchaku and tonfa against free-hanging coconuts. All three weapons were easily capable of smashing a coconut. However, the nunchaku neatly bisected the coconut without leaving a large fracture pattern whereas the flute/stick and tonfa caused extensive fracture patterns. This was quite an interesting result. However, I only did one test with the nunchaku in which this phenomenon was exhibited. Further tests would be required to verify that this is a unique characteristic of the nunchaku.
@@WushuEngineer It makes sense that if you lean into the stick its bearing your weight, where as the nunchuck is detached, so the weight is just in the speed and thrust of it. But I think the chucks are not as expedient when using them with two hands strikes. This youtuber tested them out on coconuts, but the wood he was using was bamboo, and he was using one handed strikes, the chuck split the coconut, perhaps a whipping action is better with lighter wood than blunt force, not sure. ruclips.net/video/Xvqfoe_7rlI/видео.html
Any wooden weapon can crack open coconuts as long as the wielder is strong enough. One thing with nunchucks is that the weaker you are the more advantageous it's and stronger you are the more disadvantagous it is. This is due to nunchucks not delivering the mass you put behind all that much but instead using the weight of the whipped end. Which means if you're strong your power won't be carried to the impact as much however if you're weak your weakness won't matter as much. One more thing is that the nunchucks can bounce off of the target object way more easily, so when you hit a thing with the intent of cracking it open cleaner the nunchucks will do it better since it will bounce off the target before it can deliver a strong enough energy to completely crush it to pieces. Think of it like a trampoline, as long as the movement keeps on going it will lose it's energy so you can fall from higher onto a trampoline than you could on a hard surface without getting any harm.
@@kaanmuhammedgunes1879 The nunchuck can hit actually like a whip, so its a lashing, it produces different injuries than a stick, you can get pieces of fractured bone tiny little areas that were nicked or grazed by the chuck, its really not funny. With two arms though, yeah a stick if you lean into it because its baring your weight will have more force, but one handed, I think the chuck is deadlier. A big guy, with huge muscles, wielding a solid hardwood chuck is going to be quite scary if he knows how to use it, a smaller guy like myself I like lighter wood, where speed is the advantage, you literally can't see the strikes they're happening so fast, which I could prove in a video at some point, and lighter wood is still going to be a one hit weapon on human impact.
hmm you think this measuring system is unique? id like to know what the boxing industry which involves hard hits and knowing how hard a person can hit would say about that but nope you are the first to comprehensively measure such things .... can i sell you some ocean front property ... on mars?
That was an unnecessarily belligerent comment. In future, I would recommend that you do your research before making grand sweeping statements about anything. We are sports scientists who are in regular communication with other sports scientists in the industry. Therefore, we can speak with a high degree of authority in this area. If you were to do a full review of the scientific literature in this field, you would find that there is no reliable and standardised method that can provide meaningful data allowing comparison across different studies. Our method has been independently tested through the University of Southern Queensland and has been found to be valid and reliable. This study is currently being prepared for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. In addition, it has been accepted for an oral presentation at the 13th Australasian Biomechanics Conference in November this year, for which the novelty of a study is one of the criteria that is reviewed for abstract acceptance.
Judging by numbers there is no practical difference. Not to mention the fact baton is heavier than equally long nunchaku and that adds force. In use recoil is also significant thing. There is a reason why threshing is done with flail instead of staff. Looks like Shitiversity still fails miserably trying to disprove reality.
@buffalo wt In physical sense they have comparable effect so myth of nunchaku being "weak" is busted. It is just one aspect of whole weapon which is way more complex topic. Greater potential of rigid weapon is quite worthless when it can't be made use of and leaves hands shaking from recoil. Nunchaku and other flexible and semi-flexible weapons have practically negiligible recoil so they can be used to smack things over and over again. Of course most reliable test would have to with weapons of identical physical properties with only difference being flexibility. When someone has already thrown civility and respect away there is no reason to follow such rules.
Наука
Came here the Shadiversity channel, great video I'll check out more of your stuff. Hard to beat a weapon that is that simple, guess that why the wooden spear or bow style long stick weapon is found everywhere. When something is simple and can be provided by nature (long thin tree) and is marginally durable humans will use it. Keep it up.
In many places swords and spears were only used by guards or soldiers due to cost and governing laws. However, anyone that looks crippled or old could carry a cane or similar item. Even if you don't know martial arts, having such an "improvised weapon" could be surprisingly effective and cheap.
Yeah. But doesn’t make it “better,” like Shad claims. A stick is found easily in nature, but a gun is not. I’d still say a gun is a better weapon. Not comparing a gun to nunchaku, but saying that point is only one aspect to think about. In the city, I’d more likely find my belt than a stick, and the belt can be whipped just like the nunchaku can. So doesn’t it make it better to train if you’re in the city downtown instead of the woods?
The problem is limiting oneself because they think one specific point is better, so the whole weapon is better (aka Shadiversity thinking).
@@mattbronsil6336 I assume that shade is talking melee weapons through out human history. The video is Chucks vs stick, not guns vs stick, although if you know the 20 foot rule you should know guns aren't that surefire. If your going to say a belt works as a chuck, then any hard long object is a "stick". 2x4's, rebar, pipes can be found in the city.
@@eviljagtech not sure if you are agreeing with me or trying a counter argument, but you just proved my point.
Interesting that the two handed grip. Increases most striking values by 50%, that's the general rule of thumb that a lot of RPGs use for two handed weapons. That might be more realistic than I have it credit for, even though damage and hp is way abstract.
Also interesting that there is scientific backup as for why the traditional styles use weapons in a certain way.
Always a pleasure to see these kind of analyses. Thank you for your work.
Well, most of it seems to come from the increase in apparent mass. Or you could turn it around and say: "Even though the apparent mass increases, and the force is put into the strike with 2 arms, those two factors balance out such that the strike reaches the same velocity".
And the apparent mass obviously would increase to "the stick itself, * the left arm and * the right arm", instead of "the stick itself and * the right arm". (*= "some unknown portion of...") I would have been surprised if the increase was lower than 30%. However, I also wouldn't have been surprised of a 100% increase, if the kinetic linkage was able to connect all the way to the torso.
Great video, you went into it with no preconceptions and outlined the result in a fair and unbiased way. Mad respect.
Have you considered testing multiple strikes in rapid succession?
I feel as though the two points of control when using two hands may lead to a larger boost via prevention of bounce back and speed speeding recovery, when compared to one hand.
Thanks for your comment. That sounds plausible and it may be something I could look at in a future video.
Found your video because Shad mentioned it in his! Great and informative video!
I have to admit, that intro got me good, I love it.
If a similar text gets run in the future, maybe you can swap between the stick and the nunchuck between each strike to help reduce variance involved in human performance.
nice video. came here from shadiversity. nice comprehensive review and testing.
Shad sent me, glad he did. More please!!!
Thanks shad for this goldmine
Very interesting. I love these videos. Curious if you are also curious about a few things I am curious about:
1) You have done striking down and striking to the side. With the nunchaku, I have a theory that a strike going up into the target (such as hitting under the chin) would be much stronger with the nunchaku.
2) The nunchaku force is supposed to hit at the end of the nunchaku, not in the middle of the free chaku. Do you have a way to test this?
3) What about an analysis of a non-swinging, straight jab or other similar strike with the end of the weapon? My thought, again, is that nunchaku would be stronger. While shorter, you're hitting with two sticks with the nunchaku and probably feels much more painful.
This is the type of stuff that keeps me up at night. Glad your videos so far have given me more sleep lately. :)
Thanks for your comment and questions. Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to develop the equipment that would be necessary to give an accurate, reliable, scientific 2D mapping of force per unit area with respect to time. This is what you would need to measure the effects of striking with particular surface areas - such as the ends of the nunchaku. In terms of general impact characteristics such as momentum and energy, those strikes would still be lower, but the potential impact force per unit area would be a lot higher. As another example, in our case, we have a lot of barehand strikes with small areas of the fingers and hands, that are much lower energy than normal strikes, but that affect much smaller areas of the target leading to higher impact pressure at the point of contact. The technology exists and I could design and build the equipment, it's just very expensive at the moment.
@@WushuEngineer great answer. Thank you.
I've not watched the whole video, but I feel confident that you won't later invalidate my comment. When you mentioned feather vs ball, I immediately thought of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (love it). So you can imagine my joy are seeing the clip, even it was was so very short.
A quote, because it seems so relevant to testing beliefs on RUclips: “Why don't you go and have a look? Pragmatism?! Is that all you have to offer?”
Thanks for your comment. I originally had a longer clip in the video, but it got copyright claimed. So I had to chop most of it out.
@@WushuEngineer Having watched the whole video, I don't have a lot to add. But:
1. I enjoyed the dramatic beginning. And
2. Another RandGareD quote, for the katana holy wars: “Audiences know what to expect, and that is all that they are prepared to believe in.”
Dude, that's what that was? That was like half a second.
Haven't watched the whole video yet as I need to find time to do so, but I did watch the cold open and I love your humor
So have you thought about getting an unbreakable umbrella and doing some tests with that? Maybe comparing it with a regular umbrella.
Thanks for the comment and suggestion. I have actually owned an unbreakable umbrella for the last 10 years. It's the best umbrella I've ever owned and has been on a few adventures/misadventures with me. I am thus a bit reluctant to put it through its paces, but I have thought about it in the past and I will seriously consider what you suggest.
To me it seems like the nunchaku's primary advantage is being easier to pack or keep hidden, with an added benefit of being slightly more nimble, ability to trap weapons, and losing 2H benefits in the process. While the stick's main advantages is ease of/instinctive basic use and better availability, keeping the 2H benefits, with the added benefit of potentially giving support while traveling. So mainly logistical benefits.
It has crap defense though, how is it going to help if your opponent it carrying around Cloud’s Buster sword
earned my subscription by sheer scientific methodology and earnest representation of data.
Thanks for making this awesome video! It's exceptionally great to see a video on this type of subject that features instrumental methods, statistical data analysis, and objectivity; that it's also Australian content is a massive bonus for me.
I know that I'm completely ignorant when it comes to actually using or practicing any sort of weapon or martial art, and I don't have a horse in this race either, so I hope you'll be patient with the potentially stupid thought/question that follows. Does the traditional use of nunchaku resemble a 'flexible stick' or a 'tethered projectile'?
For context, my previous exposure to nunchaku technique pretty much consists of watching Bruce Lee movies and demonstrations, which seem to emphasise an accelerating flick motion and strikes with the tip. Having once received a bruise the size of three fifty-cent coins in a tea-towel fight, I wondered whether relatively light nunchaku could concentrate kinetic energy at the point of impact in a way that might be more akin to a projectile than a blow. I hope that's a constructive question and that I haven't wasted your time too much.
Thanks for your comment. No, I don't think that your question is stupid or inappropriate. Briefly stated, my answer as to whether a nunchaku can be used as a projectile-like weapon or flexible stick, would be "yes". Or "all of the above". Weapon use can typically be modified to meet specific needs during a fight. As such, I wouldn't make hard and fast rules about exactly how a weapon is employed, because it can, should and will change depending on the circumstances. In some instances, for example, rapid, flick-action type striking may be sufficient and called for, in other instances, a strong, over-arching swinging strike may be required. Not to mention the use of nunchaku in grappling situations, for instance, where the strikes are potentially performed with the projecting part of the held baton, or with the two batons held together or wrapping around limbs, etc. Rapid, flick-action striking can deliver high-velocity strikes, but may be lacking in apparent mass, which may be appropriate, depending on the circumstances. Alternatively, a heavier strike closer to the centre of mass of the swinging baton may be called for and appropriate, again depending on the context. There will always be a trade-off in striking characteristics, that has to be managed and appropriate to achieve the desired result.
@@WushuEngineer Thank you so much for your considerate and well-explained reply!
I'd be interested in the two-handed grips as demonstrated by Punch Professor, where you hold both sections at the end and strike near the cord with combined pushing and pulling. In practice, it seems to land quite heavy from applying follow-through directly at the point of impact instead of fighting leverage.
Thanks for the comment. I'll look into it although it may be a bit hard to do the technique justice in a test using the Impulse Block if there are multiple force vectors involved. I'll have to think about it...
@@WushuEngineer I know what you mean. Instead of hitting straight inward, you're coming at an angle with a wedge effect. I imagine there will be a high standard deviation.
Interestingly Professor's unorthodox striking technique with nunchaku seemed to be much more about control and speed than brute force. Also seems that nunchaku is really good at single-handed use as addition of force was not so big as in rigid baton.
I think one thing we could look into is if the impact block could be set on some form of standing target or hanging target, something with give, to see if that expands the difference further for impact duration differences. I assume that would be harder to set up and measure well but it would be really interesting if you could manage to set such up.
Thanks for your comment. It is possible that it would make a difference. However, the impulse block itself has approximately 15cm of “give” in the form of the foam block spring. If the impulse block were to be mounted on a moving target, the energy absorbed by the moving target during the impact essentially represents “lost energy” that won’t be accounted for in the measurements. In addition, it would be quite difficult to set that up due to the weight and complexity of the equipment.
@@WushuEngineer I assumed such issues would occur, still would be interesting if it could be set up reasonably well and practically.
I appreciate the prompt response and data. It was quite interesting and the discussion is useful as I'm currently both writing a fantasy novel and an RPG system and want to try to maintain as close representation of reality as is reasonable so the presented information is helping me cement some of these details. I'm also just generally interested in martial history and data.
Would you say that this takes into account the fact the nunchaku strikes once and bounces away, while the stick hits multiple times because your arms are holding the rigidity of the stick into the target similarly to a stick hitting a drum?
Thanks for your comment and question. Sustained force applied at the moment of impact is the primary reason for the significant difference between the test results of the two weapons in terms of apparent mass and impulse. It is easier for me to create a momentary bridge between my body and the target through the rigid stick at the moment of impact, providing a momentary pushing force and preventing the weapon from bouncing off the target as quickly as the nunchaku does. This leads to the impulse and apparent mass associated with the stick being considerably higher than that of the nunchaku.
Cool stuff!
I'm very curious about the load cell and accompanying software. I have a need to test foam tipped arrows in a similar fashion
Thanks for your comment and question. The load cell used in the tests is a product made by Loadstar in the states. They sell the load cell and the accompanying software as a boxing training kit. If you take a look at the Loadstar website, you should be able to find it there. Let me know if you encounter any grief trying to find it and I'll pull up some links. This software will provide you with force-time data only. The advanced Impulse Block method that we applied in the video is actually a method that we invented, so it does not yet have any accompanying software to automate the process of conversion to Impulse and Momentum. At the moment it is supported by prototype impact velocity measurement equipment and a series of proprietary interconnected spreadsheets. We're still in process of publishing our first paper on the method, so it will be some time before the Impulse Block Equipment package breaks out into the realm of commercial products. Hopefully sooner rather than later, though. Holding thumbs.
@@WushuEngineer wow thanks for the reply. This information is all very helpful. I will hop on their site and take a look.
Wouldnt the tip of the stick to do more damage then the mid-length point? It doesent matter that much with regards to testing but I think you would transfer more energy and maybe have a higher velocity if you did use the point.
Im also suprised that each hit had so much variety between them. It strikes me that the stick is overall better then the nunchucks though. You dont need any form of training to use the stick, while the results are very close together and sometimes favour the stick.
Tip has higher velocity but because of longer lever on striking side the weight and momentum from the body is transferred to the target less efficiently. Also center of mass of the weapon affects the result, sword with low center of mass has weaker tip strikes than an axe with very high center of mass.
Thanks for your comment and question. As per OutAndAbout’s reply, with every weapon there is an optimal point of percussion. This is the “sweet spot”, which represents the optimum point in terms of striking characteristics. Shifting away from that optimum point of percussion will allow some characteristics to improve, but other characteristics will decrease. As an example, moving closer to the point at which the weapon is held might increase the apparent mass but will represent a significant decrease in impact velocity. Moving further away from the optimum point of percussion towards the tip of the weapon may result in an increase in impact velocity, but a significant decrease in apparent mass. Thus, if you are trying to showcase the optimum striking characteristics of a weapon, you would typically strike at the optimum point of percussion, which in the stick’s case is closer to the centre of mass.
I'm curious, why is the P-value on the effective mass of the nunchaku so high?
Also this might be my own ignorance, but I'd imagine that the nunchaku perform better when using their flexibility to store kinetic energy via rotation prior to the motion of a strike? I.e. you spin it around and then swing and the end should go faster; but I don't usually see people doing this when referencing the maximal striking ability of the weapon or performing tests. Is that not true?
I dunno or really care if it would catch up to the stick either way, but I am curious if it makes a difference, because in my experience holding and swinging nunchaku around it certainly *felt* that way.
Thank you for your comment and questions. The high P-value indicates that the difference between the effective mass of the nunchaku when wielded one-handed and two-handed is not statistically significant, ie. it is likely that there is no difference other than that due to chance. The more similar the values, the higher the p-value will be. As far as spinning the nunchaku repeatedly before impact is concerned, I encourage you to take a look at my previous nunchaku videos in which I addressed this idea and performed tests with an analogue (tennis ball on a cord) to show the differences between a single swing and repeated rotations prior to striking. In summary, continuously swinging an unbalanced load is biomechanically inefficient for a human wielder. It costs a lot of energy just to keep the object swinging at a constant rotational speed, let alone speeding it up (that may be why it “feels” faster - because you’re performing more work/spending more energy). In tests, a single swing proved capable of generating greater or similar impact velocities as compared to multiple rotations prior to impact.
@@WushuEngineer Thank you for your answer, I think I was misreading the chart on what the P-value represented.
I had another thought in regards to effective mass though. Since the power of the flute, especially on two handed swings is likely tied to the recruitment of extra effective mass, would that mean that the nunchaku are potentially more effective for someone of a slight build? If the effective mass is unchanged by a changing body system, then it should also I would think not drop.
I didn't notice any reference (at least in this video) to your own height and weight; perhaps it's worth running the tests again with a smaller person to see if it offers any insight?
@@TheLordGojira Yes, I believe that you may be correct in that the weapon’s performance may potentially be less dependent on the size and weight of the wielder. I ruminated a bit in the video about how the weapon might be considered a more “yin” or “softer” weapon than the flute and may play into a more mobile, agile fighting approach employed by a lighter fighter. I think that repeating the tests with a smaller wielder may be a beneficial experiment. I’m pretty average in terms of height and weight, so I’m not particularly small. I’ll consider your request, time and energy permitting.
I think rotational energy doesn't play much of a role in how you should actually strike with a nunchaku. They're not quite as effective when used as a flail rather than with a whipping motion or with a strike that basically throws the striking end into the target rather than a rotating strike. There is some rotation involved no matter how you strike with them but I'm no expert on the physics of things but just speaking about how they feel when I use them to strike. My response to both Shad and Milani Fitness on this particular subject (centripetal vs centrifugal force for nunchucks): ruclips.net/video/d28PZ3RXzHE/видео.html
Hi, have you ever done comparison of energy and force for swing vs thrust with 1 and 2 handed weapons (for example flute or something that might represent swords and polearms)?
Thanks for your comment and suggestion. We have not yet looked at thrusting with 1 and 2-handed weapons. It should be a fairly simple investigation, so I will definitely consider doing that in the near future.
The nunchaku being faster makes perfect sense since like any flexible weapon it is capable of generating momentum at a speed that even could be heard in the air while it is being swung also it makes perfect sense why it is also important to control the momentum after it was generated by the user since the striking mass of the weapon will ricochet back to the user after contact with a target have been done 🤔
@43:39 "subjectively I can feel that less energy is required to rapidly accelerate the nunchaku.." That appears to be reflected in the lower power values for the nunchaku vs flute in the tables, if power here is an indication of your work done. Is that correct? When comparing one vs two handed for each weapon, power difference was minimal in either case, while many other factors increased significantly. That would indicate that the improvements are due to technique (number of hands on) and not human effort. Which, ultimately is the goal right? "More damage, same effort" In the case of a stick, staff, flute (and likely sword), that pays off big. For nunchaku, not so big. But still that increase didn't exhaust you any faster than one handed.
Thank you for your comment. Good observation, it got me thinking. However, when it comes to human energy expenditure VS energy output, the relationship is not necessarily direct because of the complexity of the human system. As an example, a comparison between fit/trained and unfit/untrained people performing the same amount of work will not necessarily result in the same energy expenditure. This complex relationship between human energy consumption and energy output is one of the reasons that many scientific papers report on the perception of effort rather than performing an exhaustive scientific analysis of true energy expenditure. So, my subjective perception of effort in this case does give an indication of energy expended in the task. If we want to make the analysis more exhaustive when measuring human energy expenditure, we must typically go to measuring gas exchange (O2 consumption and CO2 production). However, in the case of short-duration events like weapon strike analysis, this method cannot be effectively used. We thus have to look at comparing EMG activity in major muscle groups in order to get a more accurate indication.
I actually would appreciate the testing metgod paper link or doi.
Great content actually. Thanks a lot.
Thanks for your comment. The Impulse Block study has been successfully completed and the method has been found to be valid and reliable. This study is currently being prepared for publication, and we will upload a video with relevant links as soon as it is published. If you are interested, this is one of our previous papers, which was published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology on the control of respiratory pressures and neuromuscular activation to increase force production in martial arts practitioners - link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-021-04800-7
@@WushuEngineer thank you for.your reply.
will take a look on a paper.
later.
My best wishes to the Wushu Scientist.
"This. . . Is my BOOMSTICK!"
Imagine that. . .
It would be a lot of work, but I would definitely be interested in the muscle group tests.
Does it make a difference if you hit with the end or middle part of the stick?
Gut feeling would say if the impact point is only the end of the stick it should be harder, not sure about the math.
So the question would be a hammer, like a sledge hammer, would it transfer the same amount of power with the head as if the strike would hit shorter and conect with the handle.
@@skyvenrazgriz8226 bigest force can be achieve when placement is where specified stick,hammer whatever have center of gravity and at couple diffrent point baseball bat feg from centrę of gravity to like 4/5 its lenght etc👌🏻
There's a optimal part you want to hit with with each weapon. If you stray away from that part you'll get increase in one way but decrease in another. One is apparent mass and the other is impact velocity. Further you stray away from the hand the apparent mass will decrease and impact velocity will increase. So the end of the stick will not most of the time be the optimal area, for a very basic weapon like a stick the optimal area of impact would be a little higher than the mid point of the weapon.
Here from Shad's recommendation. Very awesome video! But... this accent. Australia? I would have bet money you were South African.
You would have won.. we've been in Australia for close to 20 years, but the accent lingers still. Thanks for your comment.
marking 1 hand and 2 hand footing may help with better strike duplication
Stick VS Nunchaku... gun wins
i liked that intro made me 😆
Hmmm......... do you have the connections to have someone build a stick throwing device to have a stick with the same characteristics as one end of your nunchaku at the same speed (as it is unlikely to throw it by hand that fast) with enough precision to test swung vs. thrown?
As for having to explain carrying a stick, well if you have a good walking stick it can turn into a combat staff just by changing your grip. Looks like you live in a fairly wooded area so only so much explanation needed.
Thanks for the comment and suggestion. Making a stick throwing device may be a little tricky although not impossible. Your suggestion has relevance as a comparative test, so I will consider it. However, development time may be an issue due to work pressures. In terms of carrying a stick, I should have clarified the context I had in mind in my video. I do actually carry a stick or the like around with me when I go on walks in the bush around my property. In this environment, carrying something like a stick is perfectly reasonable and acceptable, as you point out. Out in the bush where I live, the worst kind of threat you’re likely to face is potentially a snake, feral dog or (if you’re really lucky/unlucky, a feral pig). These kinds of threats are relatively rare and can most often be avoided unless a surprise meeting occurs. In comparison, the threat posed by two-legged animals when moving around in urban environments is slightly more common and harder to avoid. In an urban environment, carrying something like a walking stick is a rare sight and is typically going to illicit unnecessary attention (depending on the circumstances, of course).
So Nunchucks are significantly faster and have more unpredictable angles of strikes and are more concealable/compact as well as lighter. So those are three advantages over flute... Am I missing something?
Crear vid dude, ill check the previous one
Interesting
Came here from Shadiversity
Shad sent me here, I'm glad he did
Maybe there is a difference to heavier fighting flails !
Science AND martial arts. I'm in.
Interesting to see the unconscious bias in the starting conditions for both of these weapons in choosing to measure the stick from end to end in a straight line and choosing to measure the nunchaku from end to end from the end of one stick to the end of the other with the cord in between as though it is a single stick. You could have easily only measured the length of the two sticks when placed together ignoring the length of the cord entirely and instead measured the width of the cord in this orientation and treated it as two separate sticks placed together side by side instead of pretending it was a single stick with a long length of cord with very little mass contained between them or have the single stick equal the length of the two sticks of the nunchaku when placed side by side to have three close to equal stick sections being measured including the cord width. Then you could have made both of the single shorter sticks of the nunchaku as long as the single longer stick and had a cord and both sticks extend to a length far greater than a single stick when in actual use. But again, no matter what the length difference you would of naturally had between both those weapons in actual use, you would still need to have both weapons starting at equal mass for the test to be fair. Seems both the length bias and mass test limitation would always favor one weapon over the other for this test when both weapons are treated as a one long stick.
You could have also tried folding both sticks over onto each other holding both at once and tried striking with both together - how nunchauku are sometimes less commonly used. This would essentially make the 'stick' half the length with the same mass in half that length and work like the single longer or shorter stick when being swung. What would the difference be here if the total mass is spread out over a much longer single stick compared with the total mass being condensed into half the length when they were being placed together and swung like a baton - both with either one or two-handed swings?
Let me begin by stating what should be obvious to you. Starting off by accusing someone of something, such as unconscious bias for instance, is very “online” behavior and not what I would consider a respectful or polite way of starting a conversation. You could have easily begun with a simple question instead of an accusation. In answer to your line of inquiry, you seem to think that weapon mass is more important than the length of the weapons in this instance. However, the equation for calculating kinetic energy involves half the mass and the velocity squared. Velocity thus affects kinetic energy far more than does mass. This is an important consideration when it comes to weapon length when weapons are being swung in an arc as in the tests performed in this video. The nunchaku was measured from end-to-end stretched out because that is how the weapon unfolds and impacts when it is swung in an arc. Here, weapon length directly affects impact velocity due to the rotational mechanics at play. Thus, weapon length affects kinetic energy far more so than does weapon mass, at least in the tests performed in this video.
@@WushuEngineer I was simply making an observation that I found interesting. Sorry for the unintended offense caused by what you took to be a disrespectful accusation.
"you seem to think that weapon mass is more important than the length of the weapons in this instance."
No, it was just a question as I was curious. Thanks for your explanation, though.
isn't the point of nunchaku to build momentum by getting it spinning and moving rather than a single strike?
also, weren't nunchaku derived from farming implements during times when straight forward weapons were outlawed?
so, nunchaku were adapted out of need rather than intentionally designed as a weapon.
Momentum is defined in physics as the product of velocity and MASS.
It matters not how fast the nunchaku spins, the momentum and resulting energy will always be at best the same compared to a stick a same length and mass.
Yes, the nunchaku can spin faster, but that is because the hitting part has lower mass. It compensates the lack of mass with extra velocity. The end energy delivered to a target will always be determined by the wielder himself. Nunchakus aren't some sort of magic weapon that summon extra impact energy from nowhere. If this was true, all our energy problems could be cheaply solved.
Furthermore, the stick has the advantage of being rigid and allowing the wielder to use their own body mass to add to the momentum of their strike, allowing them to hit harder.
As for the historic record, nunchakus were used by farmers to break grain. Sticks wouldn't be appropriate for this task as they could bend and break and also hurt the farmer's hand in the long run. Nunchakus were historically never used for combat because they are just uneffective for this purpose. The myth of the nunchakus came in the 1970s and 1980s when Bruce Lee introduced them in his movies. Before that time, everyone knew that nunchakus were not designed for combat.
And nowadays we have to come up with SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to prove this once basic knowledge. And still we have people trying to make excuses for this excellent farmer tool, but terrible "weapon"
I said it! I said it! Maybe not the whole word but I said it!
the shad fans cometh
I recommend making a singular video explaining the measuring system in place for all tests you do. Then that will make the rest of the videos a lot shorter and more interesting to follow for people that follow you for a long time. Or at the very least put some time stamps regarding explanation.
Having a 20 minute methodology introduction is currently what's keeping me from subsribing.
Thanks for your comment. That is a fair point, and I will consider doing this in future videos.
I'm watching the video at 1.5 speed, but to help it get more attention I'm going to watch it again at normal speed.
It's likely too late, but I'm glad this video got made and that it got another response.
My fellow Americans are so dumb, 12:40, not everyone is an American. There is reason why Metatron has mail sleeves, he also can't have firearms.
As an American and gun owner, I hate the gun "trump card" argument. I can tell you that most people making that argument have probably never had to use a gun to actually kill another person.
The nunchuck takes less energy out of your arm to strike than the stick, and the chuck hits surfaces differently than with just blunt force. A guy tested the stick vs the chucks on coconuts, the chuck cracked the coconut, the stick did not. This was likely how the chuck was impacting the surface of the coconut, which is similar to the action of a whip lashing the object.
Thank you for your comment. It is possible that the nunchaku does impact the surface differently and this could subtly alter the force distribution at the point of impact. Unfortunately, monitoring the force distribution at impact is outside of the scope of our equipment at the moment. In one of my older videos (ruclips.net/video/fpEat7OQueI/видео.html), I tested the flute/stick, nunchaku and tonfa against free-hanging coconuts. All three weapons were easily capable of smashing a coconut. However, the nunchaku neatly bisected the coconut without leaving a large fracture pattern whereas the flute/stick and tonfa caused extensive fracture patterns. This was quite an interesting result. However, I only did one test with the nunchaku in which this phenomenon was exhibited. Further tests would be required to verify that this is a unique characteristic of the nunchaku.
@@WushuEngineer It makes sense that if you lean into the stick its bearing your weight, where as the nunchuck is detached, so the weight is just in the speed and thrust of it. But I think the chucks are not as expedient when using them with two hands strikes. This youtuber tested them out on coconuts, but the wood he was using was bamboo, and he was using one handed strikes, the chuck split the coconut, perhaps a whipping action is better with lighter wood than blunt force, not sure. ruclips.net/video/Xvqfoe_7rlI/видео.html
Any wooden weapon can crack open coconuts as long as the wielder is strong enough. One thing with nunchucks is that the weaker you are the more advantageous it's and stronger you are the more disadvantagous it is. This is due to nunchucks not delivering the mass you put behind all that much but instead using the weight of the whipped end. Which means if you're strong your power won't be carried to the impact as much however if you're weak your weakness won't matter as much. One more thing is that the nunchucks can bounce off of the target object way more easily, so when you hit a thing with the intent of cracking it open cleaner the nunchucks will do it better since it will bounce off the target before it can deliver a strong enough energy to completely crush it to pieces. Think of it like a trampoline, as long as the movement keeps on going it will lose it's energy so you can fall from higher onto a trampoline than you could on a hard surface without getting any harm.
@@kaanmuhammedgunes1879 The nunchuck can hit actually like a whip, so its a lashing, it produces different injuries than a stick, you can get pieces of fractured bone tiny little areas that were nicked or grazed by the chuck, its really not funny. With two arms though, yeah a stick if you lean into it because its baring your weight will have more force, but one handed, I think the chuck is deadlier. A big guy, with huge muscles, wielding a solid hardwood chuck is going to be quite scary if he knows how to use it, a smaller guy like myself I like lighter wood, where speed is the advantage, you literally can't see the strikes they're happening so fast, which I could prove in a video at some point, and lighter wood is still going to be a one hit weapon on human impact.
hmm you think this measuring system is unique? id like to know what the boxing industry which involves hard hits and knowing how hard a person can hit would say about that but nope you are the first to comprehensively measure such things .... can i sell you some ocean front property ... on mars?
That was an unnecessarily belligerent comment. In future, I would recommend that you do your research before making grand sweeping statements about anything. We are sports scientists who are in regular communication with other sports scientists in the industry. Therefore, we can speak with a high degree of authority in this area. If you were to do a full review of the scientific literature in this field, you would find that there is no reliable and standardised method that can provide meaningful data allowing comparison across different studies. Our method has been independently tested through the University of Southern Queensland and has been found to be valid and reliable. This study is currently being prepared for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. In addition, it has been accepted for an oral presentation at the 13th Australasian Biomechanics Conference in November this year, for which the novelty of a study is one of the criteria that is reviewed for abstract acceptance.
Judging by numbers there is no practical difference. Not to mention the fact baton is heavier than equally long nunchaku and that adds force.
In use recoil is also significant thing. There is a reason why threshing is done with flail instead of staff.
Looks like Shitiversity still fails miserably trying to disprove reality.
@buffalo wt In physical sense they have comparable effect so myth of nunchaku being "weak" is busted. It is just one aspect of whole weapon which is way more complex topic. Greater potential of rigid weapon is quite worthless when it can't be made use of and leaves hands shaking from recoil. Nunchaku and other flexible and semi-flexible weapons have practically negiligible recoil so they can be used to smack things over and over again.
Of course most reliable test would have to with weapons of identical physical properties with only difference being flexibility.
When someone has already thrown civility and respect away there is no reason to follow such rules.
@@vksasdgaming9472 Cope
@@sirkana Git gud n00b lol lol Lmao rofl
@@vksasdgaming9472 If you need to smack someone with a stick to save your life, I don't think you are gonna care too much about your hands hurting.
@@victorro8760 Tell me how nunchaku can deliver over 100% of energy back to input?