Posted by: Jeff M () on Tue Nov 7 17:13:05 2006

> Hi All
>
> Torque applied at the handle of the bat is a major factor in the generation of bat speed. Yet, while reading posts on other boards, I noted that there are a number of coaches who still maintain that torque is not a major. JJA states the following in a post.
>
> “We've been over this and over this. There is absolutely zero evidence for any significant torque being applied by the hands in a baseball swing. Not a single person outside of you and Mankin believe so (OK, maybe SB). Not Dr. Adair, not the hundreds of researchers out there in the golf community, nobody. Hand torque does not play an important role in the baseball swing or the golf swing for that matter.”
>
> I demonstrate in the following video clip how torque is applied at the handle during the swing. -- http://www.batspeed.com/media/TorqueHigh.wmv – If any of you still believe torque is not a major factor, please explain how the demo was misleading.
>
> I have stated that in a good swing, about 50% of the bat speed generated comes from the CHP and about 50% from torque. JJA contends that since my tests show I generated about 45 to 50 mph from both the CHP and torque, I should produce 90 to 100 mph when applying both in my swing. – I must say that I am surprised that someone who proclaims to have good knowledge of engineering principles would make such a statement.
>
> The principle that f=ma or f=mvv is taught in 9th grade physics. It should certainly be obvious to an Engineer that doubling the force applied to the bat would not result in doubling the bat speed. – Below is a post from an Engineer on JJA’s statement.
>
> Jack Mankin
> ##
>
> Posted by: Tom Waz (sluggoking@msn.com) on Fri Nov 12 06:25:41 2004
>
> Hi All
> > >
> > > JJA contends that since I have stated that about 50% of the bat speed comes from torque (THT & BHT), and since rql acquired about 65 mph with a one-handed swing (mostly CHP - little to no torque), this means a batter using both CHP + torque should generate 130 MPH. He implies that this is a paradox that must be answered if torque is a major factor in generating bat speed.
> > >
> > > With JJA’s line of thinking, I would point out that there is an equal paradox to be answered if we contend that a CHP is a major factor in generating bat speed. – If a batter (as in Nick’s clip) can attain 65 mph by extending the hands in a straight path (mostly torque – little CHP), and if bat speed from a CHP is a major factor, then this batter should be able to attain 130 mph if he took his hands in a circular path.
> > >
> > > Jack Mankin
> > >
> > > Tom Waz and Mike Myers, need your help. You guys can better answer JJA’s paradox than I. (I was considering F=mVV )
> > >
> > > Jack Mankin
> > >
> >
> > Jack,
> >
> > I was thinking more of KE = 1/2(MVV) where KE is Kinetic Energy. The problem with this equation is that it is for objects moving in a straight line. There is a formula F = MVV/r which oddly enough is for objects rotating in an arc. In both cases, doubling the energy or force only increases the velocity by 1.41 (the square root of 2). So if either force could accelerate the bat to 65 mph their combined effort would result in a velocity of only 92 mph not 130.
> >
> > I would like to have spent more time to verify that these equations apply to our example but didn't think I could get to it for a few days and didn't want the thread to die.
> >
> > I'll give you an update if I find any faults in my reasoning over the next couple of days.
> >
> > Tom Waz
>
> I found a some time today to review this problem and feel confident we're using the correct formulas.
>
> I also agree with Tom Guerry's statement that there are probably some inherent limitations in perfectly applying one force while executing the other.
>
> The equations also do not account for wind resistance. Imagine the force of the wind while holding the bat straight out from a car window traveling 65 mph. Now try to image starting with that resistance and trying to add another 27 mph to get to our hypothetical 92 mph in the last third of your swing.
>
> Hope this info helped.
>
> Tom Waz

++++++
Jack,
I’m not sure if you’re asking a question, or pointing out inconsistencies in Tom Waz. Anyway…torque is an influence which changes rotation producing angular acceleration which is dependant on moment of inertia based on my boy Newton’s second law. That said the application of torque exists in the baseball swing. With that we conclude rotational motion involves angular momentum associated with conservation leading to rotational kinetic energy. Moving forward with the baseball swing, we find the following basic chain – mechanics, force, muscle action, torque, energy and then power. This is basic health related physics. Again I state, that there is clearly torque in the baseball swing. I can elaborate if needed.
Jeff M
++++++