Fastpitch Discussions

by **Poseidon** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:26 am

We just moved from Iowa to Nova Scotia (Canada). My daughter would be a great ambassador for Anderson and the Nanotek here in the maritimes. Many parents are looking into buying a Techzilla after seeing how well it performs.

Let's start a Anderson revolution in Canada

by **Tumblebug** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:53 pm

I just got a bat with a picture in the box from Daylightkate! I threw away the bat and kept the picture. I'm thinkin I'll send her a NanoTek for another photo.

by **Skarp** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:17 am

Tumblebug wrote:I'm still workin on it but I don't believe DunninLA is completely accurate. I am looking for some data I filed somewhere but I can tell you that in terms of distance one ounce heavier bat = about 4 ft and 1 mph = about 4 ft. I'm still looking for the velocity calculation and chart. I don't want to do it over . . .

Did you find this yet? My understanding is that DunninLA is is essentially correct...that increases in weight affect energy proportionally, whereas increases in speed affect energy exponentially. (This is why a relatively tiny meteor striking the earth is an extinction level event). The implication of course is that one should never sacrifice bat speed to move up in weight, which I believe comports with conventional wisdom on the topic. Other reasons include better bat control, the ability to watch the pitch longer before committing to a swing, etc.

But I am interested in seeing the chart you mention.

by **Tumblebug** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:44 pm

Skarp wrote:
Tumblebug wrote:I'm still workin on it but I don't believe DunninLA is completely accurate. I am looking for some data I filed somewhere but I can tell you that in terms of distance one ounce heavier bat = about 4 ft and 1 mph = about 4 ft. I'm still looking for the velocity calculation and chart. I don't want to do it over . . .

Did you find this yet? My understanding is that DunninLA is is essentially correct...that increases in weight affect energy proportionally, whereas increases in speed affect energy exponentially. (This is why a relatively tiny meteor striking the earth is an extinction level event). The implication of course is that one should never sacrifice bat speed to move up in weight, which I believe comports with conventional wisdom on the topic. Other reasons include better bat control, the ability to watch the pitch longer before committing to a swing, etc.

But I am interested in seeing the chart you mention.

I bailed out of this discussion because it is quite a bit more in depth across several fairly complex subjects to be accurate without some sacrifice to gross generalization for the sake of brevity. It would take a fairly long paper to appropriately treat each necessary tangent that warrants attention. With that said I’ll reposition myself with regard to DunninLA’s point and agree that it is essentially correct and file it under the category of “close enough” and move on.

The chart I was talking about was not easily located after discovering that past computer network issues make it entirely possible that it is altogether lost forever. We are wildly busy with development in our engineering department so I abandoned the effort. If I run across it I’ll forward it to you but do not hold your breath . . . Sorry about that.

by **daylightkate** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:39 pm

Tumblebug wrote:I just got a bat with a picture in the box from Daylightkate! I threw away the bat and kept the picture. I'm thinkin I'll send her a NanoTek for another photo.

Glad you liked it and I'll take you up on that offer! Eat your heart out KeKambuS :mrgreen:

by **Tumblebug** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:58 am

daylightkate wrote:
Tumblebug wrote:I just got a bat with a picture in the box from Daylightkate! I threw away the bat and kept the picture. I'm thinkin I'll send her a NanoTek for another photo.

Glad you liked it and I'll take you up on that offer! Eat your heart out KeKambuS

If you send me that pic with you holding that bathing suit instead of wearing it your NanoTek is on it's way. :lol:

by **daylightkate** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 10:33 am

Thanks TumbleB, received the new bat today.

by **KekambuS** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 10:41 am

daylightkate wrote:
Tumblebug wrote:I just got a bat with a picture in the box from Daylightkate! I threw away the bat and kept the picture. I'm thinkin I'll send her a NanoTek for another photo.

Glad you liked it and I'll take you up on that offer! Eat your heart out KeKambuS