h a l f b a k e r yAmbivalent? Are you sure?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Ultra-light carbon fibre is commonly used in hockey sticks today, so why not expand its usage by introducing it to another sport...
...Like baseball. Think about it- I'm sure at least some batters are tired of hitting the ol' slugger all day, anyway. The light weight of a carbon fibre bat could easily
increase their power and swing speed. Keep baseball modern!
Goooogle is your friend
http://falconsports.com/base/
[angel, Apr 14 2005]
NI3 in action
http://jchemed.chem.../MOVIES/NI3IOD.html
[DenholmRicshaw, Apr 16 2005]
[link]
|
| |
It would actually decrease the power of the hits. |
|
| |
Bat with less mass = less inertia = less mtion/power/momentum transferred to the ball. |
|
| |
The swing speed wouldn't increase enough to make up for this drop. |
|
| |
Steel bat compared to steel encased sytrofoam bat. |
|
| |
Which makes a bigger dent? The one with more mass and more momentum/inertia. The one that makes the bigger dent hits the ball harder, even if the swing is slower. |
|
| |
I think carbon fiber is used in hockey sticks for strength. |
|
| |
Actually, carbon fibre hockey sticks are hollow, so they are used for the fact that they're light and flexible. Of course, in baseball, the bat would probably not be hollow. |
|
| |
I think used for strength. Hockey sticks break easily, unless made of as trong material. |
|
| |
It would still decrease the power of the hit. Take a heavy steel bat, and a lighter steel bat. Hit something. Compare dents. The more massive one does more damage. |
|
| |
A semi-truck at 40 mph creates more damage than a hatchback at 60 mph. |
|
| |
A semi-truck at 80 also does more damage than a hatchback at 20. And a hatchback at 300 probably does more damage than a hunchback at 30. How do I translate this arbitrary mass and velocity information to something conclusive or even predictive about baseball bats of various materials? |
|
| |
Hatchback baseball perhaps or is that hunchback baseball [half]? |
|
| |
IIRC, some batters used to drill out the end of their wooden bats and fill the hollow with cork, then hide it with a wooden plug. "Corked" bats were lighter and would swing faster, and I imagine were easier to steer in mid-swing. They were illegal.
This is to point out that lighter bats are sometimes better. I'm sure there's a trade-off somewhere, but as long as the bat is not so light it goes "poof" there's something to be said for higher speeds. Golf clubs are pretty dang light in comparison, but they work. |
|
| |
Hockey sticks, on the other hand, seem to be glorified scoops, rather than impact generators. Light weight allows quicker manipulation, there. |
|
| |
The aim is to impart as high a velocity as possible to the ball. In cricket, the bat is swung to store kinetic energy and then some of this energy is transferred to the ball when hit. As the bat is the energy storage device, its weight is useful (KE = mass x square of velocity) as a useful amount of kinetic energy can be stored without having to swing the bat at the speed of sound. |
|
| |
In hockey, by comparison, a shot is played by putting the stick in contact with the ball and then accelerating it. Here, the stick itself doesn't have to store energy until contact is made; all energy is put into the ball during the acceleration period. Thus it is not mass which is useful, but stiffness so that force can be transmitted from the player to the ball. Carbon fibre is good for stiffness and has low mass, hence it is useful for hockey sticks. |
|
| |
I propose that we add "carbon-fibre
magic" (and indeed, "carbon nanotube
magic") to our stand alongside "GM
magic" in our repertoire of m-f-d-
reasons. |
|
| |
I agree, [Basepair], and would add magnets to the list of things that seem to be magic to most people. |
|
| |
Regarding weight: As metnoined, lighter bats are generally considered better than heavier bats--the increased swing control compensates for decreased inertia. |
|
| |
I believe part of the problem with "corked" bats was also that they were "springier", and the increased rebound force also allowed farther hits. |
|
| |
What about a diamond bat? |
|
| |
Shit, it's just jesus and me up again. Makes one feel a wee bit cautious. |
|
| |
Why not a nuclear tipped bat? |
|
| |
Put a sub-critical mass of suitable fissile material at the sweet spot of the bat. A good hit will compress the material suitably, send it critical and impart a superb extra kick to the ball. |
|
| |
OK - there might need to be some extra safety equipment. |
|
| |
Speaking of compression: What about a compressed bat. Use the convenient built in crank (or upgrade to solar powered model) to squeeze your bat for a power hit out of the park. Steroids no longer required. |
|
| |
A nitrogen triiodide tipped bat would be very gratifying. |
|
| |
It explodes at the slightest touch, makes a massive sound and produces a lovely cloud of purple iodine vapour (link). |
|
| |
How about an ultrasonic bat. It zeroes in on incoming objects with > 20kHz echolocation. Hang it on the rack after use. |
|
| |
[DesertFox], I guess that means you play baseball with an anvil, then? |
|
| |
(I think) - Metal bats are banned from pro baseball because they make it too easy to hit a homer. |
|
| |
What is needed is a bat that is *less* effective. Also a sport that is less boring would be nice... |
|
| |