1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to an improved golf club, to an improved method for manufacturing a golf club, and more specifically to conditioning the impact face of a golf club with deep compressive stress using laser peening.
2. Description of Related Art
Shot peening has been suggested for club faces to provide better control and increased distance for golf shots. See, U.S. Pat. No. 5,487,543 by Funk. In particular, Funk describes shot peening the face of a club to impart residual compressive stress and harden the surface of the club, and claims that doing so improves the feel of the club by reducing vibration. Funk suggests that shot peening reduces the coefficient of friction of, and hardens, the club face. Funk applied relatively shallow compressive stress by shot peening on the front surface of the club face, with a peak amount of about 165 MPa at a depth of about 0.002 inches (0.043 mm). We note here that an MPa is a million Pascals. 165 MPa converts to about 24,000 pounds per square inch.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,994,635 by Poyner also teaches shot peening golf club heads “to increase hardness and residual compressive stress.” Poyner, column 3 lines 24-25. However, the Poyner patent focuses on shot peening for the back surface of the ball striking surface to remove [alpha]-case, and to improve fatigue limits. In Poyner, it is suggested that the residual compressive stress in a back surface of a club face should be “as great as about sixty percent of the yield stress of a typical golf ball, which is about 62 MPa.” Poyner, column 4, lines 64-67. Poyner then states, “Residual stresses exceeding 500 MPa may be produced by shot peening of titanium.” Poyner, column 5, lines 5-6. This comment by Poyner appears to be a statement intended to show that shot peening is readily capable of inducing compressive stresses on the back surface of a club face in the range of “as great as about sixty percent of the yield stress of a typical golf ball . . . ”, rather than a teaching to induce residual stress at that level.
Poyner also states that a portion of the “ball striking surface 24 may be peen treated as well, for example, to remove [alpha]-case.” Poyner, column 5, lines 52-60. However, no discussion of the process used for the ball striking surface is provided.
Poyner also states, without discussion, that laser shock peening and abrasive waterjet peening could be applied. Poyner, column 6, lines 16-39.
Any treatment of golf clubs is subject to scrutiny by the United States Golf Association and other similar associations that regulate the manufacturing of golf clubs to insure fair play. See, Procedure for Measuring the Flexibility of a Golf Clubhead, USGA, Revision 2.0, Mar. 25, 2005. One key factor in golf club manufacturing is compliance with such regulations. Poyner found it relevant for example, to point out the golf clubs made as he suggested “approach the target coefficient of restitution of 0.829 (for a relative velocity of 160 ft/sec), which corresponds to the regulated value established by the United States Golf Association.” Poyner, column 5, lines 35-39. The United States Golf Association USGA and other similar associations regulate the manufacturing of golf clubs to insure fair play. One key factor in golf club manufacturing is compliance with such regulations, including Rule 5a, Appendix II of the Rules of Golf, published by the USGA. Poyner found it relevant for example, to point out the golf clubs made as he suggested “approach the target coefficient of restitution of 0.829 (for a relative velocity of 160 ft/sec), which corresponds to the regulated value established by the United States Golf Association.” Poyner, column 5, lines 35-39. To be recognized as acceptable for competition by the USGA and the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews Scotland, a club is limited in the amount of spring-like effect it can create. Spring-like effect is the ability of a clubface to act as a spring (or trampoline), adding extra oomph to a shot. It is tested by measuring the clubface's coefficient of restitution, or COR. This measurement is done using a standardized testing fixture and involves dropping a pendulum against the club face and measuring the time the pendulum is in contact with the face.
If the COR is too high, the club is deemed to act too much like a spring, and is ruled illegal. All clubs have a COR—even persimmon drivers had COR ratings—but all the fuss stemmed from the introduction of high COR metal drivers. Currently, in territories governed by the USGA, the COR limit is 0.830 for all competitions and all handicap rounds. In territories governed by the R&A, the COR limit will be 0.830 as of Jan. 1, 2008. In the meantime, a “condition of competition” is put into effect by the R&A for highly skilled players limiting COR to 0.830 for those players. Others (i.e., recreational players playing handicap rounds or participating in local events in which that condition of competition is not in effect) must adhere to a COR of 0.860 or less.
Another factor monitored by the USGA is known as Characteristic Time which measures flexibility of the club face. See, Procedure for Measuring the Flexibility of a Golf Clubhead, USGA, Revision 2.0, Mar. 25, 2005. Basically, the regulation requires that the Characteristic Time that the head of a pendulum remains in contact with the club face in a test in which the pendulum arm is dropped from a number of set heights, must be less than 239 microseconds.
Although shot peening has been investigated for the purposes of treating golf clubs to harden the surface, reduce the coefficient of friction, induce residual compressive stress and remove [alpha]-case for at least 12 years, no commercial application of the process is known to the present inventor suggesting that the prior art process has failed to provide significant improvement in golf club manufacturing.
It is desirable to improve golf clubs and golf club manufacturing processes, while remaining within the guidelines set for fair play by the golfing associations. Also, it is desirable to improve golf clubs to enhance the playing experience for golfers.
A method of manufacturing a driver, or other types of golf club, is described that includes inducing residual compressive stress by high intensity laser shock peening to form an array of laser shock peened impact zones on the club face. The technology herein provides for laser shock peened with laser pulses having irradiance greater than 4 GW/cm2, with spot size greater than 4 mm2. In embodiments described the irradiance is greater than 6 GW/cm2, with spot size greater than 9 mm2. The technology imparts residual compressive stress of more than 400 MPa penetrating to a depth of more than 0.2 mm, forming substantially larger volumes of material in the club face including residual compressive stress, and at substantially greater magnitude of compressive stress in the manufactured golf club, than anticipated in the prior art. Unlike the shot peening anticipated in the prior art, laser shock peening, even at the intensities unheard of in the prior art and described herein, does not induce increased hardening in the face nor damage the face of the club.
While it has been discovered that high intensity laser shock peening covering substantially the entire club face yields surprising and improved results in performance of the golf club, a process is described herein including laser shock peening a pattern that covers an interior area leaving the perimeter unpeened, inducing a stress gradient between interior area and the perimeter of the club face results in even greater reduction of the characteristic time characteristic of the club.
Furthermore imparting multiple layers of arrays of laser shock impact zones on the club induces even greater depth and magnitude of compressive stress, and yields improved clubhead performance as described herein.
In addition, the technology described herein is readily applied to assembled club heads, without damaging or marring surfaces of the clubs, unlike the shot peening techniques described in the prior art.
The laser shock peening described herein can be applied to both the outside and inside surfaces of the club face to provide improved endurance for the clubhead, particularly in the region of stress risers on the inside surface of the club face.
Other aspects and advantages of the present invention can be seen in the drawings, the detailed description and the claims which follow.
A detailed description of embodiments of the present invention is provided with reference to the
A process for treating the impact face of golf clubs to achieve a response that provides increased release speed of the golf ball without increasing the Coefficient of Restitution (COR) of the club beyond acceptable limits, or while maintaining and actually reducing COR is described. This process imparts a deep and high intensity residual compressive stress into the club face resulting in an increase in the ball release speed and a decrease in the COR. The increase in release speed enables a struck ball to travel farther; maintaining the COR provides for a club that meets international standards for permitted competitive use. Furthermore, the characteristic time CT measurement is actually reduced for clubs treated in the manner described.
This improvement in club performance by employing laser peening can be achieved using a range of laser peening parameters and laser systems. One example embodiment was manufactured using laser peening at 6 GW/cm2, with 16 J/pulse output on target, over an area of 3.5 cm tall by 5.4 cm wide using a 3.85 mm square spot size and two layers of peening with pulse duration of approximately 18 ns. The surface of the club was cleaned with acetone followed by alcohol and then covered with 2 layers of Aluminum tape. The laser peening system is described below with reference to
An alternate treatment may use lower energy pulses with 0.5 to 1.0 Joules with treatment spot sizes in the range of 0.5 to 1.0 mm (0.02 to 0.04 inches) on the side. Preferably spot sizes greater than 1.0 mm on a side are utilized to assist deeper penetration of the compressive stress. A pulse duration in the range of 7 ns to 100 ns is useful for peening the clubs, although pulse lengths can be varied as needed for a given laser system. It could be done with round spots rather than square. It could be done with a laser with lower pulse energy and smaller spots. It is anticipated that a lower limit will be in the range of 2 GW/cm2 and 4 to 6 layers of laser peening. The graph in
Prior to laser peening, a club was tested using a mechanical testing machine. In this first test a club speed of 102 mph was used to strike the ball and a ball speed of 130 mph was measured giving a ball to club speed ratio of 1.4 to 1. After laser peening the ball speed increased to 150 mph, giving a ball to club speed ratio of 1.6 to 1. The test was repeated on a second club and the result at a club head speed of 93 mph gave essentially the same results, that is, an increase in the ball speed to club speed ratio from 1.4 to 1.6.
To be recognized as acceptable for competition by the United States Golf Association (USGA) and the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews Scotland a club is limited in the amount of spring-like effect it can create. Spring-like effect is the ability of a clubface to act as a spring (or trampoline), adding extra oomph to a shot. It is tested by measuring the clubface's coefficient of restitution, or COR. This measurement is done using a standardized testing fixture and involves dropping a pendulum against the club face and measuring the time the pendulum is in contact with the face. Before laser peening the clubs had a COR of 0.828 and after peening this was reduced to 0.822.
If the COR is too high, the club is deemed to act too much like a spring, and is ruled illegal. All clubs have a COR—even persimmon drivers had COR ratings—but all the fuss stemmed from the introduction of high COR metal drivers. Currently, in territories governed by the USGA, the COR limit is 0.830 for all competitions and all handicap rounds. In territories governed by the R&A, the COR limit will be 0.830 as of Jan. 1, 2008. In the meantime, a “condition of competition” is put into effect by the R&A for highly skilled players limiting COR to 0.830 for those players. Others (i.e., recreational players playing handicap rounds or participating in local events in which that condition of competition is not in effect) must adhere to a COR of 0.860 or less.
Putting compressive stress on the front face and the ball imparts an additional compressive load there. Because the front face has started out in a convex shape, the peening here adds compressive stress to both the front and the back face with strong tensile stress going into the center region of the face. The loading from the ball would create compressive stress on front and tensile load on the rear side which could change the dynamics (effective spring like behavior, that is deflection vs. time, of the surface when loaded by impact with the ball. We measure the spring-like behavior of the face using the R&A approved pendulum test and for the pendulum we are actually less spring-like.
As illustrated in
The basic optical path from the input optics 102 to the target workpiece includes just two turns in this embodiment, which are controlled using high-speed, high-resolution gimbals. The optical path includes a segment 120, between the transmitting mirror 105A and the receiving mirror 106A, which is essentially straight and has a variable length through air, and a variable direction defined by the angle setting of the transmitting mirror gimbal. The variable length is controlled by the robot 108 based on the positioning of the optical assembly 107 when moving the beam line to a target location on the surface of the workpiece 109. Likewise, the variable direction is set using the gimbals 105, 106 according to the positioning of the optical assembly 107. In the embodiment illustrated, the segment 120 extends through free air, that is without an enclosure such as a tube. In other embodiments, a telescoping tube or other enclosure could be provided so long as it is sufficiently adjustable.
The water robot 111 is used to deliver the transparent tamping layer to the surface of the treated part. An alternative system integrates a water delivery vessel on to the robot 108 along with the robot mounted optical assembly 107.
A process chamber 130 is illustrated, including an access door 131 for technicians, a parts access door 132 which allows access to the parts holder 110, and a shutter 104 for admitting the laser radiation. The process chamber 130 allows provision of a controlled environment for the operation of the robot 108, with a parts holder 110 used to provide only limited positioning functions for the laser peening operation. The process chamber 130 is mounted on a platform, such as a foundation or movable plank, and the transmitting mirror gimbal 105, robot 108 with the robot mounted optical assembly 107, the robot 111 and the rotatable parts holder 110 are all mounted thereon in a fixed spatial relationship. The laser 100 and input optics 102 are mounted on separate stages, closely coupled with the process chamber 130.
The alignment laser AL50 in one embodiment comprises a continuous-wave (CW, i.e. non-pulsed) laser to verify correct alignment and, if necessary, to enable feedback adjustments to the alignment in between laser shots. In one embodiment, the alignment laser AL50 comprises a diode-pumped Nd:YLF laser which produces relatively low output power (<500 mW). The alignment laser AL50 has the same wavelength as the peening laser 300, or is otherwise configured so that the reflecting and focusing properties of the alignment beam through all of the optics can be reliably used for alignment of the high power beam.
The divergent output from alignment laser AL50 (<500 mW) is collimated by lens L50 and combined with the high power beam path at polarizing beam splitter P50. Using half waveplate WP50, the polarization of the alignment laser is set to S-polarization so that it reflects at the polarizer on the beam line 303. A small portion of the high power beam transmitted in P-polarization is reflected at the polarizer P50, and a small portion of the alignment beam is transmitted through polarizer P50 to the camera C50. Diagnostic camera C50 detects the positions of the alignment and high power beams, and provides feedback for achieving precise co-alignment. The camera is placed at the focus of lens L51. When the far field (focal point) of the small leakage of the high power beam reflected from the surface of polarizer P50 precisely overlaps the focal point of a portion of the alignment beam that transmits through the polarizer P50, then co-alignment is confirmed. Waveplate WP50 can be rotated to allow the fraction of alignment beam transmission through the polarizer P50 to be adjusted.
In embodiments of the system in which the output of the high power laser is not round, rotation of the cross-section of the beam caused by the transmitting and receiving mirrors is compensated in the field rotator optics. For example, in a laser peening system, a square beam cross-section, or other rectangular shape, is preferred. Depending on the relative angle between the plane containing the incident and reflected beams on the gimbal-mounted transmitting mirror M55 and the plane containing the incident and reflected beams on the gimbal-mounted receiving mirror M56 (see
It may be desirable, e.g. for off-axis peening, that the polarization state of the beam not be orthogonally aligned to the square beam shape. Waveplate WP51, placed in the high power beam path, will allow the polarization to be rotated to an arbitrary linear state. Like the field rotator, it will be mounted in a remotely-controlled rotational stage and the polarization will rotate at twice (2×) the rate of rotation of the stage.
The transport telescope, formed from lenses L52 and L53, serves to enlarge the square beam and to relay an optical image across the free-propagation path to the processing head comprising the robot mounted optical assembly. Through this telescope, the beam is magnified in one embodiment by about 1.4× from a nominal dimension of 23 mm square to 32.5 mm. This has three functions. The first is that the beam area is increased by 2× on the transmitter and receiver mirrors, lessening the risk of optical damage. The second function is that the relay distance of the telescope is increased by the magnification squared (i.e. 2×) making it possible to provide a well defined beam image at the distant treatment plane. Finally, magnifying the beam increases the Raleigh range (defined as twice the confocal parameter) by 2× with a 1.4 times magnification, improving the free-space propagation characteristics of the beam. This third function is important since the optical relay telescope and the beam delivery telescope in the processing head have been optimized for a single propagation distance. However, as the processing head is maneuvered within a ±45 degree processing solid angle, the actual propagation distance between the gimbals can vary by up to ±1 m. This variation can be even larger in the case of the arrangement for in situ laser peening of large parts as shown in
The transmitter and receiver gimbals are of similar design and specifications in an embodiment of the system. The motor for a representative system in each axis has a resolution of 25 μrad (5.2 arcsec), a repeatability of 50 μrad (10.3 arcsec), and an absolute accuracy of 100 μrad (20.6 arcsec). These specifications are for the actual reflected beam; the values for the mirror angles are 2× smaller. The transmitter and receiver mirrors are 4 inches in diameter in a representative embodiment, and have a high damage threshold coating that efficiently reflects the beam over an angle of incidence range of 15-55 degrees.
The relay imaging system illustrated in
Beam diagnostics on the processing head provide for sensing shot-to-shot energy measurements, alignment diagnostics, and output beam profile diagnostics. Diagnostic beam splitter DS50 directs a small fraction (about 0.8% for example) of the incoming beam to the diagnostic components on line 403 through lens L54, and diagnostic beam splitter DS51. A calibrated pyroelectric energy meter ED50 placed in the beam which propagates through the diagnostic beam splitter DS51 will provide shot-to-shot energy measurements at the processing head. The diagnostic beam splitter DS51 directs a portion of this beam to alignment diagnostics including diagnostic beam splitter DS52, optical shutter OS50, diagnostic beam splitter DS53, lens L55, camera C51, camera C52, lens L56, mirror M57 and camera C53. The telescope consisting of lenses L54 and L56 forms an image of the high power square beam at the output aperture of the laser on camera C53. This also corresponds to the spatial profile, scaled in size, at the treatment plane on the surface of the part. Lenses L54 and L55 place an image of the beam at the plane of the receiver gimbal mirror M56 onto camera C51. Camera C52 is placed at the focus (far field) of lens L54 so that the position of the alignment beam on this camera indicates the pointing angle from the receiver gimbal. The optical shutter OS50 is closed during high energy peening in order to protect the alignment cameras from the high power beam since C51 and C52 are set up to be used with the low power CW alignment beam.
For the purpose of context, in a system utilized for laser peening club heads mounted on a fixed stage, or on a rotating stage; as described above; the distance from the receiver gimbal and the target plane in a typical system may be from about 0.5 to about 1.5 meters. The distance however can be longer or as shorter, depending on the particular use of the beam delivery system and practical limitations on sized of components.
The automation of the active beam delivery system including the transmitter and receiver gimbals can be accomplished with a software controlled robot system including a program acting as a “controller in charge,” executing the laser peening process by manipulating the beam delivery tool. A previously defined process map for a given part is traversed by the controller, which will fire the laser, as needed. A higher level system can be configured to transfer process control from the robot system to a central controller. This controller would direct the laser (via fire triggers), beam delivery gimbals, as well as the two process robots. Other control system configurations can be applied as suits the particular embodiment, including for example a remote computer for centralized actuation of in situ processing.
The process variables for each laser spot on a part consist of a (x, y, z) target location, an incidence angles (θ, φ) on the target location, the square beam rotation parameter, and the distance of the processing head from the treatment surface (determining spot size). As the robot controller (or a higher level central controller) prepares to move the processing head to the next processing spot, it broadcasts the parameters to the gimbal controller logic so that appropriate adjustments to the transmitter and receiver gimbal angles, as well as the field and polarization rotations, can be made in coordination with robot motion. Based on the calibrated position of the robot, the parameters should include the computed (x, y, z) position of the center of the receiver gimbal, the (θ, φ) angle to the part, and the square beam rotation. When the gimbal controller logic has finished the move and the gimbals have settled, it will notify the robot controller which can then fire the laser and move to the next processing spot.
In order to direct the high power beam from the transmitter gimbal mirror to the center of the receiving gimbal mirror and then to orient the receiving gimbal mirror to deliver the beam accurately down the optical axis of the processing head, the gimbal controls are calibrated to the coordinate system used by the robot controller. Mapping of the coordinate system can be done, for example, by causing the robot controller to step through a known set of calibration positions, based on its own coordinate system. At each position, the beam can first manually, then under feedback control, be optimally directed to match each position. From the position data broadcast by the robot controller for each point and the gimbal angles required to match these positions, a consistent coordinate system can be constructed for the gimbal controller logic.
As described above, there are four calibration cameras mounted to the processing head. Each of these has a separate alignment role. There are two representative modes of operation using the alignment cameras. In the first, the cameras will be used only to periodically confirm correct beam alignment to the processing head optical axis such as during a calibration procedure or before the processing of each part or group of spots on a part. The second mode of operation will involve closed-loop optimization of the pointing angles in between each laser shot. The process applied in a given application therefore includes a single calibration step using the low power laser, continuous calibration between each laser shot, or some intermediate regime.
In one embodiment, the outputs of each of the four diagnostic cameras are fed into a 4-channel frame-grabber. Onboard image machine-vision processing will offload computational demands from the control computer, allowing maximum throughput. Each camera is capable of triggered operation in an embodiment of the system, so that image acquisition can begin immediately, on demand, without the need to wait for the next CCD refresh cycle. A description of examples of the function of each of the four cameras is provided in the following sections.
The gimbal position camera is denoted as C51 in
The gimbal angle camera is denoted as C52 in
The near-field camera is denoted as C53 in
The process camera is depicted in
The basic architecture of a master oscillator/power amplifier configuration with a regenerative laser amplifier including an SBS phase conjugator mirror system and relay telescope with a baffle is shown in
In operation, a master oscillator 708 supplies an input pulse which has S-polarization. The pulse reflects off polarizer 702, proceeds through an isolation rotator 740, remaining unchanged in polarization, and is further reflected off polarizer 706 into a ring shaped optical path defined by mirrors 711-717, proceeding for this ring transit in a counter-clockwise direction off of the polarizer 706.
In the ring, the beam enters the 90 degree rotator 780 which rotates the beam by 90 degrees to the P-polarization. The pulse proceeds through mirrors 711 and 712 along optical path 719 through relay telescope 720.
The telescope 720 includes a vacuum chamber 722 having a first lens 724 mounted by a vacuum tight seal 726, and a second lens 728 mounted by vacuum tight seal 730. A baffle 729 at the telescope focal point inside the vacuum chamber 722 blocks off angle beams and ghost reflections.
From telescope 720, the beam proceeds through mirror 713 into and through the slab 750 where it is reflected by mirrors 714 and 715 back through the slab 750. Near unity fill of the pumped volume is accomplished by a first zig-zag pass and a second zig-zag pass which are essentially mirror images about the direction of propagation. In this way, the second zig-zag pass will tend to extract gain from regions that may have been missed in the first pass.
From slab 750, the beam is reflected off mirror 716 along path 742 through telescope 720, off mirror 717 where it is reflected back into polarizer 706. Since the beam has been rotated by the 90 degree rotator 780 from the S-polarization to the P-polarization, the P-polarized beam is transmitted by polarizer 706 to 90 degree rotator 780 to proceed through the ring counter-clockwise a second time. However, during this second pass through the ring, 90 degree rotator 780 rotates the polarization by 90 degrees back to the S-polarization. Therefore, when the beam reaches the polarizer 706 at the end of a second pass through the ring, it will be reflected into SBS phase conjugator 760, through the second intra-cavity relay telescope 770.
The beam proceeding back out of the SBS phase conjugator, still having the S-polarization, but reversed phase error, will be reflected by polarizer 706 in a clockwise direction to mirror 717 where it will proceed along path 742 through telescope 720 to mirror 716. From mirror 716, the beam will proceed through slab 750 a first time and be reflected back through the slab 750 a second time by mirrors 714 and 715. Proceeding out of slab 750, the beam will be reflected off mirror 713 and proceed back through telescope 720 and mirrors 712 and 711 to 90 degree rotator 780. The 90 degree rotator 780 will rotate the polarization by 90 degrees back to the P-polarization and transmit the beam to polarizer 706, thus completing a third pass through the ring, but this time in the reverse direction from the first two passes.
Since the beam has a P-polarization, the beam will pass through polarizer 706 and proceed clockwise through the ring for a fourth pass through the ring, or a second pass in the reverse direction. At the end of this fourth pass through the ring, the 90 degree rotator will rotate the polarization back to the S-polarization causing the beam to reflect off of polarizer 706 out of the ring and into isolation rotator 740. By this point, the net accumulated phase error is essentially zero, providing a wavefront corrected output pulse. The isolation rotator 740 will rotate the polarization of the beam to the P-polarization enabling the beam to pass through polarizer 702 as a high energy output pulse.
Thus, the beams passing through the amplifier illustrated in
The single-frequency master oscillator 708 in
An example process for peening a club head using a system like that described above is described. First we receive the club and wipe the surface with acetone to clean off any dirt, adhesive or anything left from packaging. Then we wipe it with alcohol to remove any residue of acetone. Next we apply a first layer of tape and a second layer of tape as shown in the FIG. 6—this provides a protective layer to keep from tarnishing the surface in case the first layer is breached by the peening pulse. Now we set up the laser for peening. We adjust the energy until we measure 16 J per pulse at the laser/club interaction point. The laser energy is absolutely calibrated with a calorimeter on a regular schedule and this is referred to a relative calorimeter that constantly monitors the laser energy. We set the pulse duration at 18 ns by looking at the output pulse shape on a fast oscilloscope. 18 ns is set at the full width of the pulse at half of maximum amplitude—the pulse looks something like a Gaussian (bell) shaped curve. In order to have 6 GW/cm2 irradiance at the target we set the spot size on a side at that target to be x=Sqrt((16 J/18 ns)/6 GW/cm2)=0.385 cm. The way we set the spot size is to take advantage that the laser is coming to a focus with an F number of about 1.9. Thus the beam is getting smaller as one gets further away from the final lens. We just move closer to or further away from this lens until we find the spot where the beam is of the desired size. We check the spot size using paper sensitized to show a “burn” when the laser light hits it. We physically measure the size of the burn. With the first two parameters set and spot size correct, we peen a layer on the golf club. We turn on the water for the tamping layer and begin putting down one pulse after another moving the beam from spot position to spot position. Referring to photo in
The 6 GW/cm2 represents the power density of the laser energy on the target. The larger this value, the greater the energy deposited and thus the higher the pressure in the shock wave and the more intense and the deeper the peening. The pulse duration, 18 ns in our embodiment, represents how long the laser energy is being delivered. The shock pressure lasts about twice as long as the laser pulse duration. When the pulse arrives at the target, a shock wave is generated within 1 ns and begins to travel through the ablative layer and into the golf club face compressing the material as it propagates. It propagates at the speed of sound into the material, at a speed of about 5000 m/s. When the pulse ends after about 18 ns, the plasma will start to cool and the pressure drop in about 36 ns. This drop in pressure, also propagates into the metal but it is now propagating in material that has been densified by the shock wave and will travel faster. It can eventually catch up to the initial shock wave and results in the shock front being dissipated. If the pulse duration is too short, the dissipation occurs at a shallower depth and the resulting depth of compressive stress is not sufficient. If the pulse duration is set longer, more energy is required out of the laser to keep the fluence at the same 6 GW/cm2 level. A higher energy laser is more difficult and more expensive to build. Subsequent layers increase the depth of the imparted residual compressive stress, using the same laser system.
Another important factor is the spot size. The spot size determines the physical extent of the pressure pulse generated for doing the peening. But as the pulse propagates into the metal, the fact that the spot is of finite size “propagates” in from the edges, rarefying the intensity from the edges toward the middle of the shock spot. So the spot is effectively getting smaller at the same rate it is propagating into the material. In laser peening we typically want the shock to penetrate a millimeter or more so we are best to make the spot size reasonably greater than 1 mm on a side. This if one peens with a laser energy of 1 J rather than 16 J, the spot size has to decrease by a factor of square root of 16, that is by 4 times. Square spot sizes from about 1.0 to about 4.0 mm on a side are representative of sizes expected to produce results, with greater spot sizes preferred.
By peening only one side we minimize stretch and add some curvature and probably importantly, leave the front surface with a much higher level of compressive stress than the back face. We end up with a significant imbalance in stress with the front face being more highly compressive.
Laser peening imparts compressive stress relatively deeply, greater that 0.2 mm, and more preferably greater that 0.4 mm, including about 0.8 to 1.2 mm or more. Further, laser peening results in minimal cold work on the surface, and does not induce increased hardness.
The club face embodiment shown does not include grooves in the impact area of the ball striking face, as is typical for drivers. The grooves are put into clubs to spin stabilize the ball in flight. However, in the large drivers they are not able to put the grooves in the hitting area because the grooves are stress risers, even for shallow grooves, and the stress risers lead to fatigue failure.
Deep stress induced as described herein would put a protective layer deeper than the depth of the grooves and thus prevent the cracking. Thus we can make more stable drivers that include grooves.
As illustrated in the photo of
The depth of stress and the integrated amount of compressive stress produced by laser peening distinguishes further over shot peening.
Laser peening as described here puts down a defined, regular pattern of spots and shot peening is clearly a random process. Prior art U.S. Pat. No. 5,487,543 by Funk describes using a shot size of MI-170 means 0.017 inch nominal diameter shot. In metric units that is 0.4 mm shot, or roughly ten times smaller in size and 100 times smaller in area than the spot size used in the example above. If a larger shot size were used, the shot would get so large and thus massive that he would dent up the club. Also shot peening impact is spherical and the laser peening described herein is blunt, that is a square uniform intensity pressure pulse. The laser peening described herein goes in a few tens of nanoseconds and his goes in microseconds to milliseconds—that is 3 to 6 orders of magnitude slower. To get 100 percent coverage with his random, round spots hitting the surface, he needs, in this random process to cover some areas as much as 8 times, and still there is a finite probability of less than 100% coverage in some areas. To get 100% coverage the laser peening described herein needs to hit each area once and only once. Twice as used in the example described above provides 200% coverage. Three layers of peening results in 300% coverage and so on.
The technique can be applied to drivers or “woods” manufactured using hollow metal club heads, after assembly of the club head, or on a club face plate before assembly. The technique can be applied to irons as well, and particularly long irons.
An example process for peening a club head using a system like that described above is described. First, the surface of the club is wiped with acetone to clean off any dirt, adhesive or anything left from packaging. Then it is wiped with alcohol to remove any residue of acetone. Next we apply a first layer of tape and a second layer of tape as shown in the FIG. 6—this provides a protective layer to keep from tarnishing the surface in case the first layer is breached by the peening pulse. Now the laser is set up for peening. The energy is adjusted to 16 J per pulse at the laser/club interaction point. The laser energy is absolutely calibrated with a calorimeter on a regular schedule and this is referred to a relative calorimeter that constantly monitors the laser energy. The pulse duration at 18 ns by looking at the output pulse shape on a fast oscilloscope. 18 ns is set at the full width of the pulse at half of maximum amplitude—the pulse looks something like a Gaussian (bell) shaped curve, although the rising edge of the pulse is much steeper due to the stimulated Brillioun scattering used within the laser amplifier. In order to have 6 GW/cm2 irradiance at the target we set the spot size on a side at that target to be x=Sqrt((16 J/18 ns)/6 GW/cm2)=0.385 cm. The spot size is set by taking advantage of the fact that the laser in this embodiment is coming to a focus with an F number of about 1.9. Thus the beam is getting smaller as one goes further away from the final lens. The target is moved closer to or further away from this lens until the beam is of the desired size. The spot is actually an image of reduced area of the output near field intensity profile of the laser. The spot size can be checked using paper sensitized to show a “burn” when the laser light hits it, and physically measuring the size of the burn. With the first two parameters set and spot size correct, an array of laser shock peened impact zones is caused on the golf club, by turning on the water for the tamping layer and putting down one pulse after another moving the beam from spot position to spot position. Referring to photo in
The 6 GW/cm2 represents the power density of the laser energy on the target. The larger this value, the greater the energy deposited and thus the higher the pressure in the shock wave and the more intense and the deeper the peening. The pulse duration, 18 ns in this embodiment, represents how long the laser energy is being delivered. The shock pressure lasts about twice as long as the laser pulse duration. When the pulse arrives at the target, a shock wave is generated within 1 ns and begins to travel through the ablative layer and into the golf club face compressing the material as it propagates. It propagates at the speed of sound into the material, at a speed of about 5000 m/s. When the pulse ends after about 18 ns, the plasma will start to cool and the pressure drop in about 36 ns. This drop in pressure, also propagates into the metal but it is now propagating in material that has been densified by the shock wave and will travel faster. It can eventually catch up to the initial shock wave and results in the shock front being dissipated. If the pulse duration is too short, the dissipation occurs at a shallower depth and the resulting depth of compressive stress is not sufficient. If the pulse duration is set longer, more energy is required out of the laser to keep the irradiance at the same 6 GW/cm2 level. A higher energy laser is more difficult and more expensive to build. One layer of peening with an 18 ns pulse duration, puts in a good intensity and depth of compressive stress and produces improvements in characteristic time.
Another important factor is the spot size. The spot size determines the physical extent of the pressure pulse generated for doing the peening. But as the pulse propagates into the metal, the fact that the spot is of finite size “propagates” in from the edges, rarefying the intensity from the edges toward the middle of the shock spot. So the spot is effectively getting smaller at the same rate it is propagating into the material. In laser peening we typically want the shock to penetrate a mm or more so we are best to make the spot size reasonably greater than 1 mm on a side. Thus if one peens with a laser energy of 1 J rather than 16 J, the spot size has to decrease by a factor of square root of 16, that is by 4 times. Square spot sizes from about 1.0 to about 4.0 mm on a side are representative of sizes expected to produce results, with spot sizes having areas greater than 9 mm2 preferred.
By peening only one side, stretch of the club face is minimized; and some curvature is added; and probably importantly, the front surface is left with a much higher level of compressive stress than the back face. A significant imbalance in stress results with the front face being more highly compressive.
The club face embodiment shown does not include grooves in the impact area of the ball striking face, as is typical for drivers. The grooves are put into clubs to spin stabilize the ball in flight. However, in the large drivers they are not able to put the grooves in the hitting area because the grooves are stress risers, even for shallow grooves, and the stress risers lead to fatigue failure.
Deep stress imparted as described herein, would put a protective layer deeper than the depth of the grooves and thus prevent the cracking. Thus one can make more stable drivers that include grooves.
As illustrated in the photo of
The depth of stress and the integrated amount of compressive stress produced by laser peening distinguishes further over shot peening.
Experiments have been conducted using club heads for metal woods having machined titanium face plates with an average thickness of about 3 mm. the face plates have raised areas on the center of the back surface in approximately the shape of a parallelogram with rounded corners. The vertical faces of the parallelogram are canted towards direction of the shaft. The face plate is about 1.5 mm thicker at the raised center for a total about 4.5 mm. A number of patterns were tested, including those shown in
In these experiments, the spot size of the laser beam used for inducing the laser shock peened impact zones is square with sides measuring 3.85 mm (area greater than 14 mm2). The array of impact zones includes squares within the grid that measure 3.47 mm on a side. This results in a 5% overlap between each spot and its neighbors on all four sides. As shown in the Figures, a grid of 19×31 squares is overlaid on an image of the club face, and the selected locations for the zones in an array of laser shock peened impact zones are highlighted according to the pattern applied.
The club face can be characterized by falling within a rectangular area defined by outermost projections of a crown, a sole, a heel and a toe of the club head. In the illustrations shown, the grid of 19×31 squares would be reduced by about one row and one column to define this hypothetical rectangular area resulting in an 18×30 square grid, having 540 spots. As can be seen, the pattern of
The patterns shown in
Although a number of combinations of patterns were tested, the results on six representative clubs are presented in Table I, showing unexpected and surprising results achieved by the laser shock peening technology described here. In the Table, the first column identifies the club, the second column shows the measured characteristic time before peening (Start CT), columns 3 through 6 show characteristic time measurements after each layer of peening (Layer 1 CT, Layer 2 CT, Layer 3 CT, Layer 4 CT). The last columns in the table show the change in characteristic time measurements, compared to the starting characteristic time after each layer of peening.
For the first club, peened over substantially the entire face, after two layers the reduction in characteristic time was about 10.5 μs. In contrast, for the second club peened with the rectangular pattern leaving a perimeter unpeened, but covering a substantial portion of the club face, the reduction in characteristic time after two layers was over 20 μs. After four layers of laser shock peening, reduction in characteristic time was 37.7 μs. Similar results were achieved in club 3 where the reduction in characteristic time after the second layer was 14.9 μs and after the third layer was 22.6 μs. The oval pattern of club 3 may be preferred for aesthetic reasons, and seems to provide results as good or better than the other patterns. In club 4, in which the smaller rectangular pattern was applied, significantly less reduction in characteristic time was achieved. In fact, the results for the fourth club showed a smaller reduction in the characteristic time than achieved in the first club in which substantially the entire club face was peened. The fifth club was peened using the oval pattern. As can be seen, the results using the oval pattern compare with those of the second club with a reduction in characteristic time after three layers of 28.9 μs. The sixth club in this example was peen using a slanted oval pattern as illustrated below the bars in
Surface stress was measured for a club face peened with one layer, two layers and three layers, showing over 400 MPa stress after one layer (about 450 MPa), over 600 MPa stress after two layers (about 630 MPa) and then a reduction after three layers to about 450 MPa. The residual stress in the surface at over 400 MPa is much higher than anticipated in the prior art, and the reduction in surface residual stress after three layers suggests that an important parameter is deep compressive stress penetrating
Therefore, these test results demonstrate that it is desirable to apply multiple layers of peening over a portion of the club face, leaving a stress gradient in the club face. The club face has high intensity compressive stress at depths much greater than anticipated in the prior art without damage to the surface, and without significant clubface hardening. The spot sizes used are also much greater than anticipated in the prior art, further contributing to a greater depth of compressive stress, and leaving a pattern of minimal deformation of the surface of the club face. The test results suggests that it is desirable to peen a pattern covering more than one third, and less than all of the club face, and that applying multiple layers improves the results.
While the present invention is disclosed by reference to the preferred embodiments and examples detailed above, it is to be understood that these examples are intended in an illustrative rather than in a limiting sense. It is contemplated that modifications and combinations will readily occur to those skilled in the art, which modifications and combinations will be within the spirit of the invention and the scope of the following claims.
The benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/804,775, filed 14 Jun. 2007 is claimed, and such application is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/US2007/013993 | 6/14/2007 | WO | 00 | 11/4/2010 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2007/146398 | 12/21/2007 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4768787 | Shira | Sep 1988 | A |
5029865 | Kim | Jul 1991 | A |
5487543 | Funk | Jan 1996 | A |
5945157 | Lee et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
6309309 | Beach et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6623376 | Poynor | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6818854 | Friedman et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6994635 | Poynor | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7367900 | Kumamoto et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
20040192465 | Erb et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO-2004078278 | Sep 2004 | WO |
Entry |
---|
United States Golf Association “Procedure for Measuring the Flexibility of a Golf Clubhead” Rev. 2, Mar. 25, 2005, 9 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20110045922 A1 | Feb 2011 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60804775 | Jun 2006 | US |