The Pitcher's Mound

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Hornbein
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the geometry of a pitcher's mound, specifically calculating the radius of a sphere from which the mound is derived. Participants explore various mathematical approaches and reasoning related to trigonometry and spherical geometry, with a focus on the relationship between chord length, chord height, and the radius of the sphere.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a method involving a right triangle with legs of 108 inches and 10 inches, leading to a calculated radius of 98.5 feet.
  • Another participant claims to obtain a radius of 588.2 inches through a graphical method.
  • Several participants suggest that the problem can be approached by solving for the radius given the chord length and chord height, with some agreeing on the same radius as the previous participant.
  • One participant mentions a formula related to the vertical drop at a distance from the center, yielding a radius of approximately 583 inches or 48.6 feet.
  • Another participant references the Sagitta Theorem, indicating a radius of 588 inches or 48.6 feet, while expressing uncertainty about their earlier solution.
  • Additional mathematical relationships are presented, including equations involving sine and cosine functions to derive the radius.
  • Some participants share links to external resources for further context on the pitcher's mound and its historical significance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the radius of the sphere, with multiple calculations yielding different results. There is no consensus on a single correct radius, and some participants acknowledge uncertainty in their solutions.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various mathematical approaches and theorems without resolving the discrepancies in their calculations. The discussion includes assumptions about the geometry involved and the specific definitions of terms used.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in geometry, trigonometry, or the physics of sports may find this discussion relevant, particularly those exploring mathematical modeling of physical structures.

Hornbein
Gold Member
Messages
3,791
Reaction score
3,062
A screwy problem in basic trigonometry that I thought up.

A pitcher's mound is ten inches high and 18 feet in diameter. Suppose that this is a section of a ball. What is the radius of that ball?

Another way of looking at it is this. You have a large ball. Drill a hole in it ten inches deep. The bottom of the hole is part of a plane that is perpendicular to the shaft. The intersection of that plane with the surface of the ball is a circle with diameter 18 feet. What is the radius of the ball?

Consider a right triangle with legs of 108 inches and ten inches. The arc tangent is 5.29 degrees. So the radius of the sphere is 108"/sin(5.29) + 10" = 98.5 feet.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Graphically, the radius I obtain is 588.2 inches.

Radius of sphere.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker
Hornbein said:
A pitcher's mound is ten inches high and 18 feet in diameter. Suppose that this is a section of a ball. What is the radius of that ball?
Isn't this simply a matter of solving for radius, given chord length and chord height?

I get the same answer as lbewkan lnewquan lebowski post 2.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: phinds, WWGD and berkeman
You can also note that ##R-\sqrt{R^2-x^2}\approx x^2/2R## is the vertical drop at distance ##x## from the center. So ##R\approx x^2/2\Delta h## is 583", or about 48.6'.

I think @Hornbein stated the diameter in the OP.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Alvin Diaries
DaveC426913 said:
Isn't this simply a matter of solving for radius, given chord length and chord height?

I get the same answer as lbewkan lnewquan lebowski post 2.
Yes and this is a problem well known to those who grind ~spherical mirrors...... see Sagitta Theorem . Its not just for baseball!



"
 
Ibix said:
You can also note that ##R-\sqrt{R^2-x^2}\approx x^2/2R## is the vertical drop at distance ##x## from the center. So ##R\approx x^2/2\Delta h## is 583", or about 48.6'.

I think @Hornbein stated the diameter in the OP.
I posted this because I wasn't sure my solution was correct, which it evidently wasn't. Trusting the Sagitta I get 588" = 48.6'. I should have done (108"/2)/sin(5.29 degrees)) = 48.8 feet. A good approximation.

 
Last edited:
R(1-\cos \theta)=h
R \sin \theta =r
Thus
R=\frac{r^2}{2h}+\frac{h}{2}
 
  • #10
  • #11
I hadn't heard that. I always figured it was to give a speed advantage.

I just looked at the history of the pitcher's mound. Apparently it was introduced in 1893 and could be any height up to fifteen inches. In 1950 it was set to exactly fifteen inches. In 1969, in response to an increase in the advantage that pitchers had over batters (1968 was the "year of the pitcher"), the height was reduced to ten inches.

An interesting article. Pitchers used to get a running start and then throw underhand. But since there were no balls or strikes batters could wait all day for the perfect pitch!

https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2016/03/pitchers-mound-get-introduced-baseball/
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 83 ·
3
Replies
83
Views
13K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
16K