LEsoftballdad
DFP Vendor
Done.You too. Animal must return!
Done.You too. Animal must return!
Correct actor, but it's the wrong movie........or else what?
View attachment 27276
<<<<< Better?Correct actor, but it's the wrong movie...
Much.<<<<< Better?
Shows the bat bending before the vibration reverberates in the bat. Looks like the grip matters.I'll just throw this video in here for visual evidence of the delay between contact and grip movement.
So you are admitting to acting like a petulant child rather than being an idiot..tough choice (not sure which one I would have chosen tbh)
Which part of that Nathan paper (the paper, not the website) that I linked to used data from the Cross study (which did use a rubber ball and aluminum plate) ? Read the paper and get back to me.
In that paper Nathan states that the analysis for contact closer to the handle is more complex and not included in that paper. You and I both don’t know how close that has to be so for you to state that the grip matters for a majority of contact is not based on anything. I will admit that at some contact location it might matter (what “matters” entails is a different story and related to how the wave reflects back for the various end conditions in the below video eg fixed vs loose) My contention is that with the dampening effects of the connector with two piece bats I highly doubt the wave will propagate back to the contact point in time with enough amplitude such that the grip matters for any reasonable contact point. That is however, just a theory and I could be wrong. For one piece composite bats there is a better chance the grip might matter for off barrel contact but I have no idea where that contact point is…and neither do you unless you have data or a theory which you would like to share.
I have already stated that grip matters in terms of generating bat speed. I have swung a bat before believe it or not..
To answer @Rolling Hard 's question, the only thing that matters here is how long the bat and ball are in contact and how fast the wave propagates from the contact point to the hands and back to the contact point. Changing the ball will change how long the ball is in contact with the bat and how large of an amplitude the wave have as it propagates. The wave amplitude has secondary (nonlinear) effects on the propagation speed.
If you want to discuss this intelligently I am game. If you just want to run your mouth then don’t bother responding.
For those of you actually interested in the physics of what we are talking about, here is a video of wave propagation and reflection. In the video the hand can be thought of as the ball contacting the bat and producing a wave and the hand holding the bat is the place in the demonstration where the wave is reflected back.
As I stated, I was simply giving an example of what transverse wave propagation (and its reflection) looks like as this is what we (or at least I) are talking about here. The visual (eg qualitative behavior) would be the same in a bat but obviously the quantitative results would be different for a bat. Wasn't using that to prove anything.Boy you really twisted off on a tangent. Now you are talking about hands holding ropes to prove your theory?
Which part of that Nathan paper (the paper, not the website) that I linked to used data from the Cross study (which did use a rubber ball and aluminum plate) ? Read the paper and get back to me.
He can't speak up, his brain hurts.You have an issue with any of the physics I have presented? If so speak up..
I thought one was against lab coats because he talked derogatory against them, but then I see he asked if someone else had a lab
coat because he didnt like his opinion. So I have no idea if both have lab coats now and we need to trust science...although, im pretty sure
I have heard that the past 3 years and didnt like it said 24/7 the past 3 years either