Posted by: Mike Myers (mike.myers@bell.ca) on Fri Oct 22 14:27:48 2004

>>> Hi Jack,
>
> I would still like to resolve the conflict identified. You have since conceded, if bat force is constant, then bat velocity is linear.
>
> However, do you believe this is the case? Your dragster analogy suggests you believe bat acceleration (and thus force) is increasing.
>
> If you believe bat velocity increases more in the last unit of time then the first unit of time during a swing, then swing force must be increasing throughout.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike. <<<
>
> Hi Mike
>
> I agree that with a constant applied force, the increase in velocity attained is on an increasing upward linear slope as pointed out with Tom’s gravity example – to 32 fps the first second – to 64 fps the second – 96 fps …etc. That is a linear increase in velocity from a constant force.
>
> However, with a constant force (gravity), if we plot the distance a mass has dropped, it is an exponential up-slope. 0 ft to 32 ft to 96ft to 192ft to 320ft …etc. This is the point I was trying to make with the dragster/bat-travel analogy. --- Note: I understand that the mass does not drop 32 ft in the first second – it accelerated to 32 fps. However, the actual numbers traveled will also plot an exponential increase from a constant force applied.
>
> Jack Mankin.
>
>

Ok. But in your dragster post, you indicate:

"Bonds and Sosa may only attain 3 or 4 mph bat-head velocity during pre-launch torque. But this does not mean their contact velocity is only increased by 3 or 4 mph."

Given force is constant, isn't this exactly what it means?

If so, then have we not demonstrated pre-launch torque cannot contribute significantly to overall batspeed?

(Thanks for discussion Jack - just trying to resolve logic.)

Mike.