I've read this thread from the first one to this one, and this one is the first stab anyone's took at anyone. That is called a "flame" and it's very frowned upon by the forum community. If you'll read the very beginning of my comment, you'll see that I did not disagree with anyone about "sweet spots" or bat speed or bat size. I just simply stated a fact. And yes I've played the game, and no, I'm not very good at it. I also didn't spend much time trying to improve much further than my already meager abilities as a batter after I realized I needed to study for my classes instead of doing something I did enjoy, even if I did stink at it. But that's all beside the point. The fact you took a direct shot at me prompts me to not sink to your level but to clarify myself further apparently. Sweet spots, bat speeds and size; yes they are all variables that weren't taken into account when the tests were conducted, and much more accurate and most likely different results would have occurred. My whole point was this: would I rather get hit with a stick made of cork, or a stick made of hickory? Cork absorbs a lot of energy, while hardwoods don't and tend to repel it instead of absorb it. I don't even need to really think that over. Did you not finish reading the rest of the post before you took a rude pot shot? The main I was stating was the simple fact of energy absorption, and nothing else. As a counter point to the cork fact I then talked about batters trying to increase the mass and density of their bats with lead shot and the particularly clever use of record needles. So It's not like I don't know anything about baseball, it's a sport of talent and timing and especially understanding what makes or breaks a good pitch or a good hit, whether it be scuffing the ball or corking the bat or just relying on just using your talents correctly and getting the job done during the duel. I'm a musician, so I wouldn't expect a person that's not to understand the selection of different materials in everything from stringed instruments to brass and woodwinds to percussion. The different woods, the different metals and other things used to help achieve the desired tone of a particular instrument. The reason I bring that up is because the sounds and tones desired will be affected by the energy absorption inherent to different woods, guitars in particular, and in that way, just like bats. And they have "sweet spots" too, just like bats. Build one right, put the hardware in the right spots (just like cork in a bat) and you can fully exploit the wood in your hands to great advantage. They hit the ball where the cork could not be fully exploited and got poor results, I never disagreed. With everyone already pointing this fact out, I thought I didn't have to, I even pointed out the fact that they didn't try a loaded bat, just the corked one. Even issued a challenge of a do over that included using more dense bats to go along with everyone else's calls for redoing the corked test, I just didn't mention it because everyone else already had. Apparently I was wrong and should have been much more clear. If I'm repeating myself, sorry, I just don't want anyone to be unclear about my previous post anymore. P.S.: Pot shots and instigating (aka, flaming) remarks directed at a person or persons on any forum is extremely looked down upon by the rest of the forum community and the flamer, well, they get a bad rep real quick with the mods. I know I said that before, just wanted to be clear. Please try to exercise more courtesy and politeness when posting, at the very least, use some tact and be very general in regards of a disagreement instead of very specific and rudely attack a single person who made no ill-willed comment in the first place. It only makes the flamer look aggressive and irresponsible. It's just plain bad manners. You were correct that I'm not good at baseball, but that doesn't mean I don't understand it. But hateful, uninformed assumptions make the poster, whomever they may be, look ignorant. BTW, I help my brother-in-law coach little league. I may be bad at ball, but I know what sportsmanship is, and that post was not a very good example of what sports are supposed to help teach a person from an early age through the rest of their life. So please play nice.
There are more physics happening than just a bat striking a ball moving in the opposite direction. It may seem that simplifying the problem to the bare minimum of variables is the correct way to determine if a corked bat will hit a ball farther than a regulation bat. Unfortunately when you do this you also lose the reason for a corked bat to be used: increased bat velocity and/or larger bat diameter.
If you consider the bio-mechanics and how a bat develops velocity you will come to the conclusion that the bat moves mostly along it's centerline (non-rotaional) until just before it strikes the ball. For an instant the wrists stop moving forward and the linear motion of the bat becomes rotational. This movement is perfected by professional baseball players; and the bat speed developed by a pro should be used as a baseline. The transition from translational to rotational velocity is a function of the moment of inertia of the bat; and a bat with a lower moment of inertia and a higher linear velocity (should be the case with a corked bat) will develop a much higher rotational velocity. It is NOT simply a factor of equal force applied to both bats will generate a -marginally- higher velocity in the corked bat. I suspect that the velocity gain from corking a bat (when swung by a player) is much greater than if you simply applied the same amount of force to a single axis machine.
Additionally; the angle of contact between the bat an ball; the angle of attack of the bat; the contact location on the bat; and the spin imparted to the ball are all factors in how far it can be hit. You can't just crack off some fly balls in the shop and say it was a scientific comparison. The test machinery should be capable of accurately reproducing the result (a 400' home-run hit) before you compare one bat to another. Each bat should be tested/adjusted to achieve optimal distance before you make statistical averages.
On the issue of the cork "absorbing" energy; I don't buy it. If the hysterisis of the bat was doing anything it would be adding energy back to the ball rather than taking it away. Cases in point are both aluminum bats and metal golf drivers. Both are now optimized to "release" stored energy back to the ball by increasing contact time. If the bat were deflecting significantly enough this would be happening; but I suspect that if it were the wood grain would lose it's structural integrity and the bat would split apart (maybe that's why corked bats tend to split in half every so often).
This article in Scientific American Frontiers (Baseball Tech) shows how an Aluminum bat develops more power due to reduced weight and increased hysterisis:
I can see where you're going with that about the cork, it makes a lot of sense put in that context. Quick sidenote: when I said hardwoods don't, I meant don't as much. Anyways, using the guitar analogy again in comparison; I play a solidbody electric with a mahagony body and maple top. The mahagony "soaks up" more of the energy for warmer tone, while the maple reflects more because it's harder and give a brighter tone. In this case the energy is through string vibrations. Even though it soaks up some of the energy, it also stores it, leading to sustain, which is the release of the energy. Think Slow-Mo of what a corked bat is doing much, much faster. Am I following correctly? When I say absorb I should be thinking "storing" instead. And then the rapid release of the stored energy back through the harder outer wood. Gather, store, release. Is that kind of close there? To get good tone, an electric like my Les Paul has the hardware and electronics mounted in prime locations to gather,store, and then release the energy of string vibration. I know that's an instrument and the other's a bat, but I'm trying to line up what are actually very close similarities between them i've never thought about before. You're basically saying "gather, store and release" right? Just different applications. If not, let me know, I don't want to cause hair-pulling, but like I've stated, I was never the best at sports, but I do like them a lot. And yes, I do know I'm still being kind of simple about it, but I'm really only trying to address the core (no pun intended) of why (or how) it's done. What's going on inside the bat, if you will. As far as that goes, I've been trying to remove the biggest variable in the history of science, us. It's impossible to completely do so, but a bat swing is like a fingerprint, unique to each batter. So I'm just mainly interested in the bat itself. When the ball comes it could be less density and more speed "corked", more mass versus less mass "loaded". This is why the record needle bat intrigued me, technically, it would have more mass (probably not by a lot) but it would weigh less than to be loaded with lead shot. Wonder which is more effective in a physical test. But, the human X factor comes back in again.
[quote]There is a problem with the way they tested the corked bat. Muscles produce a force that swings the bat. Depending on the weight of the bat, the muscles will get the bat to swing at a given speed. A corked bat is lighter, so will swing faster when a person is swinging it.[/quote]
I agree.
It's astonishing that they missed this detail; it has been discussed here explicitly many, many times, and more often than not has been mentioned as the sole reason for corking.
Thank god this discussion was arleady started or I would have ranted like crazy. Anyways. The problem of this myth is that they only tested if the bat was springier, which is true it isn't. The cork does make the bat lighter however as cork is lighter than wood. This allows the batter to swing faster. This was the main problem. The machine mythbusters created went at the same speed each time, regardless of weight. When Adam said that it was easier just to get a ligher bat: this is true, but if I can get a bigger bat (36') that can cover more of the plate for the same weight as a 32' bat, I'm going to go with the bigger bat. Also as the velocity of the bat increases as a result of the lighter bat, the force imparted on the ball is greater making it go further. I am amazed how many times this fact has been said on the boards and yet they did not take that into account. I just did the math and it all adds up. Also the simple law of syllogism can give us a little insight as well. A Corked bat is a lighter bat. A lighter bat can be swung faster. A faster swing means more force imparted on the ball. The more force imparted on the ball, the further it travels.
They would have gotten better results if they'd have used Grant's batting machine. Leave the ball still and have it hit by the bat (corked & un-corked).
The cannon shotting the ball, and the way the bat was spun around, just doesn't quite work because they were adjusting the swing speed to connect with the ball.
First of they had Adam swing a bat to see how fast can he swing the bat. when he swung it look like somthing from little league because he has no batting mechanics. When he swung his bat speed was only 60 mph. When testing they try to 80 mph baseball with a robot arm. It wrong the only way to test this right with a major league player to hit the ball for you or somone with correct batting mechanics with a cork and noncork
Adam and Jamie did this all wrong they need to do is have a professional ball player or someone with the right batting mechanics to hit the ball for them. Trying to hit a 80 mph ball with 60 mph bat speed of course it wont work
Another problem this myth gives is reaction time. The guys used the air cannon so the release was a few feet from the bat. A lighter bat, which cork gives you, will also allow for more reaction time so you can swing later and see more accurately if the pitch is a ball or strike. This will also allow you to hit the ball better. However, again this is another human element, which their rig failed to take into account.
To modify a wooden bat to a corked bat, a hole approximately 1/2-inch in diameter is drilled down through the thick end of the bat roughly six inches deep. CRUSHED CORK,SUPER BALLS, SAWDUST, or other similar material is compacted into the hole and the end is typically patched up with glue and sawdust. Placing cork beyond roughly six inches into the bat threatens the bat's structural integrity and makes it more susceptible to breakage. Corked bats breaking while in play during games is the most typical way that their use is discovered. Using a corked bat in Major League Baseball is in violation of Rule 6.06 (d)
Yes, yes and yes! Nearly all above points are valid and, IMO, correct. I just wanted to point out some evidence in their own video that I believe proves what we're generally saying.
A corked bat is beneficial because, if done correctly, it reduces the mass of the bat without reducing the effect it can have on a baseball. That is, it doesn't take away the "sweet spot."
What it does do is allow a hitter to generate more bat speed. The faster his or her velocity is, the farther the ball will travel. To quote Ron Fairly, the most obvious baseball color commentator in history, "if you hit the ball hard, it will go far."
I think this point can be seen in the video of their tests. When testing the solid bat, it was timed nearly perfectly to hit the ball squarely as it exited the cannon. But when testing the corked bat, the bat was in fact slightly ahead of the ball when it was fired. To me that proves the bat is easier to swing, and thus accomplished the goal of corking. It provides slightly greater reaction time and the possibility of generating greater velocity to hit the ball further.
But that's all been said. I also wanted to mention that I wouldn't be surprised if Major League Baseball didn't have a hand in how the myth was tested. I am in absolutely no way calling into question the integrity of the MB staff whatsoever. But I don't think Major League Baseball would want a popular television show to scientifically prove that this form of cheating is in fact beneficial. That is why I believe they were so careful to only test whether or not a corked bat would cause a ball to go farther than a solid bat given the same velocity of bat and ball. And that's true.
But as it's been said, that's not the goal of the corked bat.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: barrec,
This is exactly the issue with the corked bat. A corked bat lets you swing the bat faster, giving the bat more momentum. More momentum - more energy transfer - ball goes farther. This is one case where Jamie and Adam apparently having little background in baseball may have undermined the test.
(Also, I would have loved them to bring in Rocket for the 400 mph cannon test. His eyes would have bugged out.)
Study: Doctored bats go 2 percent farther That's a 408-foot homer vs. 400-foot out Carl T. Hall, Chronicle Science Writer
Corking a baseball bat really may help a power hitter -- at least until he gets caught.
Engineers at the University of Massachusetts Baseball Research Center in Lowell, Mass., recently put corked bats to the test in one of the most careful laboratory studies ever attempted of bats hiting baseballs.
Scientists led by the center's director, James A. Sherwood, concluded that a corked bat, similar to the one that got Sammy Sosa ejected Tuesday night, produced about a 1 percent increase in the speed of the batted ball.
That translates into about 2 percent more distance, other things being equal, or 8 feet on a 400-foot flyball. It doesn't seem like much, but in some ballparks could make the difference between a home run and a long flyball caught at the warning track.
The tests were done with a mechanical hitter rigged to swing both the corked and uncorked bats at exactly 66 mph, as measured 6 inches from the tip of the barrel. Balls arrived at 70 mph.
So even at a constant bat speed, balls jumped faster off the doctored bats. The reason appeared to be that the corked bats deformed more under the impact of the pitched ball, producing a sharper bounce back, something known as the "trampoline effect." As further evidence of this, the corked bats also began to show signs of stress, cracking with the grain after as few as three impacts.
"The ball's impact puts a big force on the bat, and that deforms the bat. If the bat is essentially hollow inside, it deforms more," said Mont Hubbard, an engineer at UC Davis who also has studied the biomechanics of baseball.
Bat speed, not the springiness of the bat, is by far the most important factor in determining how far a batted ball will go in normal circumstances. Other studies suggest it's in fact easier to accelerate bats that are lighter at the barrel end, although some argue that a corked bat is little or no better in this respect than a well-turned but lightweight legal bat.
Corking a bat, in other words, is just one way to shave some weight off the business end of the lumber. But it does appear to be an effective method to cheat.
"It takes weight out of the end of the bat, and that's where the weight is important," Hubbard said. "So you can swing that bat faster."
A corked bat, he added, "gives you two effects -- more bat speed, and the bat is springier. So if you hit it right the ball goes farther. That's why it's illegal."
Calculations by Robert Adair, a Yale University physicist and author of "The Physics of Baseball," concluded that a corked bat, 1.5 ounces lighter than a solid-wood bat of the same design, would be lighter, effectively shorter and easier to get around on a fastball.
The difference in power would be negligible, though, by his reckoning, because of the trade-offs that come with a lighter bat -- the bigger the mass of any object in a collision, the more force is generated.
Adair figured that a corked bat would not drive the ball any farther, but might allow the hitter to hit more often "with good timing."
Knowing he is using an illegal bat might also give a player a psychological edge, perhaps a little extra jolt of adrenaline along with the risk of getting caught, further quickening the swing.
But baseball is full of mysteries. Maybe no one but Sosa, who said he used the altered bat by mistake, really knows what he might have been thinking.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hitting foul Sammy Sosa, power hitter for the Chicago Cubs, was ejected from Tuesday's game against the Tampa Bay Devil Rays for using a corked bat.
Tampering with a bat
1) A hole is drilled about six to nine inches into the end of a baseball bat.
2) Hole is filled with cork or some other light material. It doesn't increase performance, but is used to muffle the hollow "boom" sound created by the altered bat instead of the familiar "crack!"
3) The bat end is carefully sealed with a solid wood plug that matches the grain and color of the bat.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why do it A new study shows a hollowed out bat filled with cork squeezes and snaps back more than a solid bat when hitting a ball. That adds about 1 percent more speed and 2 percent more distance, to the batted ball in laboratory tests. A 400-foot flyball would go about 408 feet, according to this formula. .
Cork lightens the bat by a few ounces, speeding up the batter's swing to meet the ball 6 inches sooner .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sources: Robert Adair, "The Physics of Baseball"; "A Study of the Barrel Constructions of Baseball Bats" by Lawrence P. Fallon and James A. Sherwood; Associated Press E-mail Carl T. Hall at chall@sfchronicle.com.
Baseball bats are produced using two different types of wood; maple and ash. Ash is lighter and the batter can create more bat speed. Maple has a greater density and is heavier. The concept of a corked bat is where you have a maple bat and take away some of the weight so the batter can swing a bat with more density with the velocity of an ash bat.
It appeared to me that they only used ash bats in their experiments.
"One of baseball's unwritten rules is "Do anything you can get away with." Stormin' Norman followed that rule to the letter. He once boasted, "I owe my success to expansion pitching, a short right field fence, and my hollow bat." Cash even went a step beyond just bragging about his cheating. He demonstrated in sports magazines for all the kids in America how to doctor a bat. It took him only about an hour to turn his bat into an unlawful piece of lumber. Cash bored a hole about eight inches deep and half an inch wide into the fat end of the bat. He left most of the hole empty but plugged the top couple of inches with cork sawdust and glue so it looked like a regulation bat. With the Cash touch, the mass of a 36 ounce bat had the whiplash quickness of a 32-ouncer. And this could add up to 50 feet to the distance the ball traveled. In 1961 Cash hit 41 homers, collected 132 RBI's and won the batting title with a .361 average -- all with an illegal bat."
They should have let a mojor leaguer swing both bats for speed then use that. THey also should have thought about other ways to cork the bat. Lastly they she have made sure that the bat was corked so the cork didnt go to the sweet spot
Originally posted by barrec: ...I think this point can be seen in the video of their tests. When testing the solid bat, it was timed nearly perfectly to hit the ball squarely as it exited the cannon. But when testing the corked bat, the bat was in fact slightly ahead of the ball when it was fired. To me that proves the bat is easier to swing, and thus accomplished the goal of corking. It provides slightly greater reaction time and the possibility of generating greater velocity to hit the ball further...
Exactly, looking at the high speed, the corked bat was further through the swing since it was moving faster because it was easier to swing. If Adam had adjusted the timing so that both bats hit the ball at the same point in the swing, then we could see a more accurate result.
sammy sosa admitted using corked bats in exibition events to put on a show by hitting more home runs for the crowd. many batters have knowingly used corked bats and bragged about the results. well if it really took half of the energy out the hit it would be unlikley for sammy to hit even a single home run so obviosly the tests were flawed
