1 / 34

Baseball and Physics

1927 Yankees: Greatest baseball team ever assembled. 1927 Solvay Conference: Greatest physics team ever assembled. Baseball and Physics. MVP’s. Introduction: Description of Ball-Bat Collision. forces large (>8000 lbs!) time is short (<1/1000 sec!)

andren
Download Presentation

Baseball and Physics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 1927 Yankees: Greatest baseball team ever assembled 1927 Solvay Conference: Greatest physicsteam ever assembled Baseball and Physics MVP’s

  2. Introduction: Description of Ball-Bat Collision • forces large (>8000 lbs!) • time is short (<1/1000 sec!) • ball compresses, stops, expands • kinetic energy  potential energy • bat compresses ball….ball bends bat • bat is very flexible! • hands don’t matter! • GOAL: maximize ball exit speed vf • 1 mph  4-5 ft • Question: What does vfdepend on?

  3. “Lab” Frame Bat Rest Frame vrel vball vbat vf eAvrel Kinematics: Reference Frames vf = eA vball + (1+eA) vbat • eA  “Collision Efficiency” = “Ball Exit Speed Ratio” - 0.5 • property of ball & bat • weakly dependent on vrel • near “sweet spot” eA  0.2  vf 0.2 vball + 1.2 vbat BESR Conclusion:vbatmuch more important than vball

  4. vball Vball,f Vbat,f Conservation Laws and eA • Momentum Conservation vball,f = eAvball vbat,f = r(1+eA)vball r = mball/mbat • Coefficient of Restitution e  (vball,f+vbat,f)/vball  • Energy Conservation fball = frecoil = fdis =

  5. . . . CM b Kinematics: recoil factorrand coefficient of restitutione • typical numbers • mball = 5.1 oz • mbat = 31.5 oz • k = 9.0 in • b = 6.3 in • r = .24 • e = 0.5 • eA = 0.21 = +  0.16 + 0.08  0.24 • All things equal, want rsmall • But….

  6. . . . CM b Kinematics: Where Does the Energy Go? • Hit ball • Recoil of Bat (r) • Dissipation in ball and bat (e) = +  0.16 + 0.08  0.24 • All things equal, want rsmall • But….

  7. (½ mv2) What is the Ideal Bat Weight? Conclusion from Players: Lighter seems to be better!

  8. vbat I-0.3 vbat I-0.5 • vBAT(6”) = 1.2 mph/(1000 oz-in2)(vf=1.5  0.3 mph)

  9. “bounciness” of ball Kinematics: Coefficient of Restitution (e): (Energy Dissipation) • in CM frame: Ef/Ei = e2 • massive rigid surface: e2 = hf/hi • typically e  0.5 • ~3/4 CM energy dissipated! • probably depends on impact speed • depends on ball and bat!

  10. COR: Is the Ball “Juiced”? • MLB:e = 0.546  0.032 @ 58 mph on massive rigid surface

  11. CM 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Putting it all together (rigid bat)... vf = eA vball + (1+eA) vbat

  12. CM Putting it all together (realistic bat)... vf = eA vball + (1+eA) vbat

  13. III. Dynamics Model for Ball-Bat Colllision: Accounting for Energy Dissipation • Collision excites bending vibrations in bat • Ouch!! Thud!! • Sometimes broken bat • Energy lost  lower vf (lower e) • Bat not rigid on time scale of collision • What are the relevant degrees of freedom? see AMN, Am. J. Phys, 68, 979 (2000)

  14. The Essential Physics: A Toy Model bat ball Mass= 1 2 4 rigid  << 1 m on Ma (1 on 2)  >> 1 m on Ma+Mb (1 on 6) flexible

  15. A Dynamic Model of the Bat-Ball Collision y 20 Euler-Bernoulli Beam Theory‡ y z • Solve eigenvalue problem for free oscillations (F=0) •  normal modes(yn, n) • Model ball-bat force F • Expand y in normal modes • Solve coupled equations of motion for ball, bat ‡Note for experts: full Timoshenko (nonuniform) beam theory used

  16. f1 = 177 Hz f3 = 1179 Hz f2 = 583 Hz f4 = 1821 Hz nodes Normal Modesof the Bat Louisville Slugger R161 (33”, 31 oz) Can easily be measured (modal analysis)

  17. Measurements via Modal Analysis Louisville Slugger R161 (33”, 31 oz) FFT frequencybarrel node ExptCalcExptCalc 17917726.526.6 58258327.828.2 1181117929.029.2 1830182130.029.9 Conclusion: free vibrations of bat can be well characterized

  18. F=kxn F=kxm Model for the Ball 3-parameter problem: k nv-dependence of  m COR of ball with rigid surface

  19. Putting it all together…. ball compression • Procedure: • specify initial conditions • numerically integrate coupled equations • find vf = ball speed after ball and bat separate

  20. General Result energy in nth mode Fourier transform Conclusion:only modes with fn  < 1 strongly excited

  21. Results: Ball Exit Speed Louisville Slugger R161 33-inch/31-oz. wood bat only lowest mode excited lowest 4 modes excited Conclusion:essential physics under control

  22. CM nodes Application to realistic conditions: (90 mph ball; 70 mph bat at 28”)

  23. The “sweet spot” 1. Maximum vf (~28”) 2. Minimum vibrational energy (~28”) 3. Node of fundamental (~27”) 4. Center of Percussion (~27”) 5. “don’t feel a thing”

  24. 3 Displacement at 5” 2 1 y (mm) 0 -1 impact at 27" -2 -3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 t (ms) Boundary conditions • Conclusions: • size, shape, boundary conditions at far end don’t matter • hands don’ t matter!

  25. T= 0-1 ms Time evolution of the bat T= 1-10 ms

  26. Time evolution of the bat 1.0 ms 0.8 ms 0.6 ms 0.4 ms 0.2 ms impact location

  27. Wood versus Aluminum • Kinematics • Length, weight, MOI “decoupled” • shell thickness, added weight • fatter barrel, thinner handle • Weight distribution more uniform • ICM larger (less rot. recoil) • Ihandle smaller (easier to swing) • less mass at contact point • Dynamics • Stiffer for bending • Less energy lost due to vibrations • More compressible • COReff larger

  28. tennis ball/racket Effect of Bat on COR: Local Compression • CM energyshared between ball and bat • Ball inefficient:  75% dissipated • Wood Bat • kball/kbat ~ 0.02 • 80% restored • eeff = 0.50-0.51 • Aluminum Bat • kball/kbat ~ 0.10 • 80% restored • eeff = 0.55-0.58 Ebat/Eball kball/kbat  xbat/ xball >10% larger!

  29. Wood versus Aluminum: Dynamics of “Trampoline” Effect “bell” modes: “ping” of bat • Want k small to maximize stored energy • Want >>1 to minimize retained energy • Conclusion: there is an optimum 

  30. Where Does the Energy Go?

  31. eA vf COR Which Performance Metric? eA or COR or vf (my most important slide)

  32. Things I would like to understand better • Relationship between bat speed and bat weight and weight distribution • Location of “physiological” sweet spot • Better model for the ball • Better understanding of trampoline effect for aluminum bat • velocity dependence • wall thickness dependence • Effect of “corking” the bat

  33. Summary & Conclusions • The essential physics of ball-bat collision understood • bat can be well characterized • ball is less well understood • the “hands don’t matter” approximation is good • Vibrations play important role • Size, shape of bat far from impact point does not matter • Sweet spot has many definitions • Aluminum probably outperforms wood!

More Related