1.Restatement of the Problem
Explain the “sweet spot” on a baseball bat.
Every hitter knows that there is a spot on the fat part of a baseball bat where
maximum power is transferred to the ball when hit. Why isn’t this spot at the end of
the bat? A simple explanation based on torque might seem to identify the end of the
bat as the sweet spot, but this is known to be empirically incorrect. Develop a model
that helps explain this empirical finding.
Some players believe that “corking” a bat (hollowing out a cylinder in the head
of the bat and filling it with cork or rubber, then replacing a wood cap) enhances the
“sweet spot” effect. Augment your model to confirm or deny this effect. Does this
explain why Major League Baseball prohibits “corking”?
Does the material out of which the bat is constructed matter? That is, does this
model predict different behavior for wood (usually ash) or metal (usually aluminum)
bats? Is this why Major League Baseball prohibits metal bats?
2.Analysis of the Problem
2.1 Analysis of Problem I
First explain the “sweet spot” on a baseball bat, and then develop a model that
helps explain why this spot isn’t at the end of the bat.
[1]
There are a multitude of definitions of the sweet spot:
1) the location which produces least vibrational sensation (sting) in the batter's
hands
2) the location which produces maximum batted ball speed
3) the location where maximum energy is transferred to the ball
4) the location where coefficient of restitution is maximum
5) the center of percussion
For most bats all of these "sweet spots" are at different locations on the bat, so
one is often forced to define the sweet spot as a region.
If explained based on torque, this “sweet spot” might be at the end of the bat,
which is known to be empirically incorrect. This paper is going to explain this
empirical paradox by exploring the location of the sweet spot from a reasonable angle.
Based on necessary analysis, it can be known that the sweet zone, which is
decided by the center-of-percussion (COP) and the vibrational node, produces the
hitting effect abiding by the law of energy conversion. The two different sweet spots
respectively decided by the COP and the viberational node reflect different energy
conversions, which forms a two-factor influence. This situation can be discussed from
the angle of “space-distance” concept, and the “Technique for Order Preference by
Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)” could be used.
[2]
The process is as follows:
first, let the sweet spots decided by the COP and the viberational node be “optional