Late Breaking Pitches (Respect for Junk Ballers)
- Thread starter lhowser
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
Wow...great responses! I may not have any answers but I can see I ask good questions!
I hate it when work interferes with softball...
Ken, thanks for pointing out the discrepancy. I re-checked and you were right.
Now, I'm confused...RevFire and Briggs say one thing, and the NASA guys are saying something different. (Could I be wrong??? Oh no...not that.
Glad you guys don't have my address, or I would be eating crow for a month...)
I did talk to the NASA guy some time ago about the Magnus Force generally. He said that there is no theoretical understanding of the Magnus Force. They have the equations that are accurate, but that is pretty much it. There are explanations about pressure differentials, but the math doesn't work. (I.e., if you start with pressure differentials and create equations, you never can get close to the lab equations.)
Ken, thanks for pointing out the discrepancy. I re-checked and you were right.
Now, I'm confused...RevFire and Briggs say one thing, and the NASA guys are saying something different. (Could I be wrong??? Oh no...not that.
Glad you guys don't have my address, or I would be eating crow for a month...)I did talk to the NASA guy some time ago about the Magnus Force generally. He said that there is no theoretical understanding of the Magnus Force. They have the equations that are accurate, but that is pretty much it. There are explanations about pressure differentials, but the math doesn't work. (I.e., if you start with pressure differentials and create equations, you never can get close to the lab equations.)
Last edited:
Gbucz
WNY native now in Charlotte, NC
I know the bowling is not totally appropriate but the fundamental understanding of arc and velocity relationship can be made easily there.
Gbucz
WNY native now in Charlotte, NC
That is correct. The equations for the arc are exponential and with respect to time. Since the distance is finite the time become dependant on the velocity. Higher velocity means less time. More break occurs.
OK, this thread finally got me to de-lurk, as it touches on something that I've been curious about for a while.
Are there any fastpitch movement pitches that are not based on the Magnus Force?
I'm curious because everything I've read so far on this forum has been about the Magnus Force, but I've also seen mention of another physical mechanism involved in making a ball move. Check out the Veritaseum video "How To Curve A Baseball Or Swing A Cricket Ball"
How To Curve A Baseball Or Swing A Cricket Ball - YouTube
which talks about movement due to one side of the ball being smooth and the other side rough. This sounds like the principle behind a scuff ball. I'm not sure that I am getting the physics right, but there is turbulent flow around the rough side and laminar flow around the smooth side. The end result is a force causing the ball to move toward the rough side.
The application seems to be more easily seen for cricket. However, the video also include MLB video of a pitch where the Magnus Force would be up and in to the RHB due to spin -- but the pitch actually breaks away. The explanation is that the spin axis is such that there is a large smooth patch on the left (catcher's viewpoint) and the spinning laces present a rough surface on the right. The ball therefore breaks towards the rough side and away from the RHB.
The baseball discussion begins at 1:54 in the video, and the MLB footage starts at around 3:21.
What do people think?
Are there any fastpitch movement pitches that are not based on the Magnus Force?
I'm curious because everything I've read so far on this forum has been about the Magnus Force, but I've also seen mention of another physical mechanism involved in making a ball move. Check out the Veritaseum video "How To Curve A Baseball Or Swing A Cricket Ball"
How To Curve A Baseball Or Swing A Cricket Ball - YouTube
which talks about movement due to one side of the ball being smooth and the other side rough. This sounds like the principle behind a scuff ball. I'm not sure that I am getting the physics right, but there is turbulent flow around the rough side and laminar flow around the smooth side. The end result is a force causing the ball to move toward the rough side.
The application seems to be more easily seen for cricket. However, the video also include MLB video of a pitch where the Magnus Force would be up and in to the RHB due to spin -- but the pitch actually breaks away. The explanation is that the spin axis is such that there is a large smooth patch on the left (catcher's viewpoint) and the spinning laces present a rough surface on the right. The ball therefore breaks towards the rough side and away from the RHB.
The baseball discussion begins at 1:54 in the video, and the MLB footage starts at around 3:21.
What do people think?
I can learn! Thanks for the explanation. I've tried to google this stuff before, but most sites use equations and terminology that I can't follow.
sleepy,
One thing I noticed, and I'm not sure it matters, is that the MLB pitcher is using a splitter grip. In this case, it slowed the spin down to about 4 revolutions over the distance travelled. I'm wondering if the slow spin, combined with the orientation of the seams keeping that smooth side facing the batter made the difference. If the ball had been thrown with regular spin and with the same axis of rotation, I wonder if the effect would have been different?
One thing I noticed, and I'm not sure it matters, is that the MLB pitcher is using a splitter grip. In this case, it slowed the spin down to about 4 revolutions over the distance travelled. I'm wondering if the slow spin, combined with the orientation of the seams keeping that smooth side facing the batter made the difference. If the ball had been thrown with regular spin and with the same axis of rotation, I wonder if the effect would have been different?
