From 8d233f1bdcb8bcd374898bec4f4f1a8079a80a9a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sam Brockie Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2023 11:53:33 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Fixed some bibtex warnings. --- paper/references.bib | 7 +++++-- review/letter-01.tex | 16 ++++++++++------ 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/paper/references.bib b/paper/references.bib index df9a3e2..baeaf92 100644 --- a/paper/references.bib +++ b/paper/references.bib @@ -247,7 +247,7 @@ @article{wood_3d_2020 doi = {10.5672/apunts.2014-0983.es.(2020/3).141.10}, abstract = {This study aims to analyze the tridimensional kinematics of the ollie maneuver on the skateboard and to compare static and dynamic maneuver performance, i.e., without and with a previous row, respectively. Six male participants were analyzed. Thirty-four reflective markers were placed on the skateboarder's body and four reflective markers on the board. The tridimensional analysis was captured by eleven cameras (100 Hz) (Vicon (R) system). The analysis of the ollie skateboard maneuver was performed in two different ways: a) without (static maneuver) and b) with (dynamic maneuver) a previous row. The joint angles (ankle, knee and hip), during maximal height center of mass of participants and the skateboard, were compared using the Student's T-test. The correlation between the center of mass of the participant and the skateboard was calculated using the Pearson Correlation. No significant differences were observed in the maximum height of the joint angles and centers of mass of the participants and the skateboard. The maximal height of the participant's and the skateboard's center of mass did not present a significant correlation. The results showed that there is no difference between performing the ollie skateboard maneuver with (static) or without (dynamic) a previous row. However, training to increase the height and improve the performance of the maneuver in general is essential for the skateboarder to achieve a higher score and a greater likelihood of success in sports competitions.}, language = {English}, - number = {141}, + volume = {141}, urldate = {2021-12-22}, journal = {Apunts Educacion Fisica Y Deportes}, author = {Wood, Luana Bianchini and Oliveira, Ana and Santos, Karini and Rodacki, Andre and Lara, Jerusa}, @@ -687,12 +687,13 @@ @article{determan_kinetics_2006 file = {Full Text PDF:/Users/j.t.heinen/Zotero/storage/QUJ8LM5D/Determan et al. - 2006 - Kinetics of the Skateboarding Kickflip.pdf:application/pdf}, } -@article{heinen_optimal_2022, +@mastersthesis{heinen_optimal_2022, title = {Optimal {Skateboard} {Geometry} for {Maximizing} {Ollie} {Height}: {A} {Multi}-{Phase} {Direct} {Collocation} {Optimization} {Study}}, shorttitle = {Optimal {Skateboard} {Geometry} for {Maximizing} {Ollie} {Height}}, url = {https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3A61f4e969-8bd1-4687-9942-b70024b216dc}, abstract = {Skateboarding involves a human controlling a four wheeled vehicle that is steered by tilting the standing surface. The riding mechanics of skateboarding have been well reported [2, 3]. The sport also includes aerial maneuvers such as jumping of stairs, flying off ramps and flipping and rotating the skateboard. The most basic aerial trick is called the ollie. The athlete jumps up while pushing down on the back end of the skateboard’s tail, causing a rotation about the back axle. The upward acceleration due to the rotation together with the tail-ground impact cause the skateboard to go airborne. Midair the athlete drags the skateboard up through frictional contact and levels it out to land the trick. The most concrete performance measure of the ollie is height according to the Olympic judging criteria [4]. To reach maximum height the dynamics such as impact, dynamic response, and torque production are dependent on shape, inertia and mass, which gives reason to assume an optimal shape exists. This leads to the research question: What are the optimal geometric and inertial parameters of a skateboard for an Olympic athlete to reach maximal ollie height. The skateboard geometry is optimized through multiphase direct collocation with the objective of maximal ollie height. A parameterized model is created with scaling mass and inertia properties such that the geometry of the skateboard. Modelling the dynamics of the ollie including impact and friction are done with a point mass human controller that is kineticly and kinematicly mapped to a counter movement jump. A simplistic contact implicit impact scheme is made for a higher order optimization. The ollie height is improved by changing the mass and inertia properties of the skateboard. Multiple optimal board shapes are generated for example a skateboard with a smaller wheelbase can reach higher ollie height compared to an industry standard skateboard.}, language = {en}, + school= {Delft University of Technology}, urldate = {2023-06-13}, author = {Heinen, Jan}, year = {2022}, @@ -753,6 +754,8 @@ @incollection{betts_using_2016 abstract = {The direct transcription method has been used to solve many challenging optimal control problems. One such example involves the calculation of a low thrust orbit transfer between libration point orbits. The recent implementation of high order discretization techniques is first described and then illustrated by computing optimal low thrust trajectories between orbits about the L 1 and L 2 Earth-Moon libration points.}, + booktitle={Space Engineering}, + publisher={Springer}, author = {Betts, John}, month = jan, year = {2016}, diff --git a/review/letter-01.tex b/review/letter-01.tex index 628e0e5..28dca20 100644 --- a/review/letter-01.tex +++ b/review/letter-01.tex @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ \documentclass{letter} -\usepackage{hyperref} + \signature{The Authors} \address{} \begin{document} @@ -9,11 +9,16 @@ We are glad that you both liked the paper and appreciate the helpful comments. We believe we have addressed all of your feedback by making changes to the paper. Below we detail the changes we made. -\section{Reviewer 1} +\textbf{Reviewer 1} -Your question about friction is important. An ollie can be performed without any foot-board friction at the front foot, but you will not be able to ollie very high. In the associated MSc thesis appendix Fig. 29(a), we show a simulation of an ollie with low foot-board friction that achieves a lower max height. After the ollie was invented, skaters began applying more grippy surfaces to the deck and today's decks are covered with a high grip sandpaper. The front edge of the skater's front shoe rapidly wears down from the friction. Two of the authors of this paper are skateboarders and can personally attest to the role front foot-to-board friction plays in performing quality ollies. Removing the grip tape or trying to do it barefoot are fraught, for example. To improve the paper, we have added the time histories of the front and rear foot friction magnitude to each of the three simulation figures. By examining \(\dot{s}_1,\dot{s}_2\) and the friction curves you can see when static and dynamic friction are occurring. We've added some commentary in the text describing the friction forces during the different phases of the first simulation. +\begin{quote} +\dots Do you think how much the effect of this dragging up motion is? I mean, the contribution of the friction force between the board and fore foot to the Ollie height at the timing of t5. +Can you show the effect in your simulation? \dots +\end{quote} -\section{Reviewer 2} +Your question about friction is important. An ollie can be performed without any foot-board friction at the front foot, but you will not be able to ollie very high. In the associated MSc thesis appendix Fig. 29(a), we show a simulation of an ollie with low foot-board friction that achieves a lower max height. After the ollie was invented, skaters began applying more grippy surfaces to the deck and today's decks are covered with a high grip sandpaper. The front edge of the skater's front shoe rapidly wears down from the friction. Two of the authors of this paper are skateboarders and can personally attest to the role front foot-to-board friction plays in performing quality ollies. Removing the grip tape or trying to do it barefoot are fraught, for example. To improve the paper, we have added the time histories of the front and rear foot friction magnitude to each of the three simulation figures. By examining \(\dot{s}_1,\dot{s}_2\) and the friction curves you can see when static and dynamic friction are occurring. We've expanded ``3.1 Base Skateboard Optimization'' with commentary in the text describing the friction forces during the different phases of the first simulation. + +\textbf{Reviewer 2} Point 1 @@ -37,7 +42,7 @@ \section{Reviewer 2} “During wheel-ground contact, we use a sliding joint for the rear wheel contact to eliminate the ground reaction forces from the equations of motion (EoMs).” Probably, I misunderstood. Were the ground reaction forces in the vertical direction considered? \end{quote} -We changed the sentence to ``During the wheel-ground contact phase, we use a sliding joint for the rear wheel ground contact to avoid having to expose the ground reaction forces in the \glspl{eom} derivation.'' The ground reaction forces are present, but they are non-contributing forces in that phase. +We changed the sentence to ``During the wheel-ground contact phase, we use a sliding joint for the rear wheel ground contact to avoid having to expose the ground reaction forces in the eom derivation.'' The ground reaction forces are present, but they are non-contributing forces in that phase. Point 4 @@ -72,6 +77,5 @@ \section{Reviewer 2} We have added ``with respect to the human''. \closing{Sincerely,} - \end{letter} \end{document} \ No newline at end of file