Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

Post by roughly » Thu, Aug 01, 2024, 1:59 AM UTC

croes wrote: post #15

samldev wrote: post #5

I was a college swimmer, qualified for Olympic Trials in 2012 and 2016. There are absolutely slow and fast pools. It basically comes down to two things: 1. The depth - which is only 7ft in Paris, unusually shallow for a competition pool. 2. The sides. Does the water spill over the sides into the gutters, or smash into a wall and bounce back, creating more chop. A trained eye can see all the swimmers in Paris struggli…

>A lot of this is perception vs. reality,” he said. “If you were to talk to many very accomplished coaches, they would say the pool has to be a minimum 3 meters deep. Most of our research shows that anything over 2 meters is frivolous. … Obviously, some depth is very important. But after a certain point, it's diminishing return. Maybe it's just the swimmers and not the pool as such

Post by philip1209 » Thu, Aug 01, 2024, 2:16 AM UTC

Post by jjulius » Thu, Aug 01, 2024, 2:43 AM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #197

jjulius wrote: post #169

This is entirely just my own opinion... I completely understand why you might not want a slow pool in a competition like this, but the emphasis on it being "not ideal for record setting" is weird to me. I guess I just don't understand the constant quest to set better and better records. Do we really always need to be hitting new world records? What's the point of that, why does that need to be a thing? If records lik…

The Olympic committee mandates that new facilities get built for every Olympics, which is partly why the games are so damn expensive everytime. With that in mind though, what is the point of a world event like this if, given the time and resources, we're not going to try and optimize for peak performance for the participants given that for many of them it's the career peak? I'd argue plenty of blame to go around thou…

Post by SoftTalker » Thu, Aug 01, 2024, 3:04 AM UTC

ssl-3 wrote: post #215

teddyh wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gold is an excellent conductor Actually, gold is a worse conductor than both copper and silver, and only a little better than aluminum. > and does not corrode in air This is the real reason for plating contacts in gold. But gold wires would be a bad idea, since they would be worse than both copper and silver wires.

Aluminum is also an excellent conductor.

Post by askvictor » Thu, Aug 01, 2024, 3:21 AM UTC

madaxe_again wrote: post #106

samldev wrote: post #5

I was a college swimmer, qualified for Olympic Trials in 2012 and 2016. There are absolutely slow and fast pools. It basically comes down to two things: 1. The depth - which is only 7ft in Paris, unusually shallow for a competition pool. 2. The sides. Does the water spill over the sides into the gutters, or smash into a wall and bounce back, creating more chop. A trained eye can see all the swimmers in Paris struggli…

I actually did a fairly lengthy research project on pretty much exactly this as a physics undergraduate - I wasn’t looking at swimming specifically, but rather boundary separation and Reynolds number in an open channel of varying depth. The setup was simple - a constant head vessel to provide a constant but adjustable flow of water in from one end, and a little plastic boat sat in the middle of the channel, attached…