Two different fences i need them to be about the same in a baseball field

  • Thread starter Thread starter fences
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Baseball Field
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around determining the appropriate height for a right field fence to match the difficulty of hitting home runs over a left field fence that is 15 feet farther away and 4 feet high. Participants note that the closer fence is generally easier to hit home runs over, suggesting that the right field fence will need to be significantly higher to equalize the challenge. A mathematical approach using projectile motion equations is proposed to calculate the necessary height for the right field fence based on various distances. Calculations indicate that the height of the right field fence could range from approximately 12.5 feet to 19 feet, depending on the distance from home plate. The conversation highlights the complexities of designing symmetrical baseball fields and the impact of fence height on gameplay.
fences
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Theres a right field fence and a left field fence
the left field fence is 15 feet farther than the right field
the fences are 4 feet high in left field i need to know how high to make the fence in right field to have equal difficulty to hit a home run to right field
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi and welcome.
There's not enough data yet, to be able to make a calculation (at least for a non baseball player). Could you, perhaps, suggest the highest and furthest that a baseball can travel and the relevant dimensions of a park (?? right word?).

Two free tickets for the correct solution?
 
The closer fence will most likely always be easier to hit a home run on. An out to the warning track in left field will be a home run in right, unless the wall is extremely high. Even then, look at fenway. The green monster is 36'2" high and is only 300-315 feet from home plate, and routine popups to left are home runs or doubles.

Is there any particular reason you want to do this? Most parks generally are not symmetric like this.

edit: I just realized 4 foot fence is really short... You sure you want fences that one can simply reach over (unless it is for little league)?
 
Not an expert on the subject, but here is how I would solve it.

Using the simple http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory_of_a_projectile" , you have the following equations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory_of_a_projectile#Height_at_x":

939be4f0fab1698937920cf1208e0044.png


Where y0 = 0 and \theta = 45° (\theta is the angle at which the projectile is launched; 45° is the value that will give the greatest distance). Knowing y (the height of the left field fence, 4ft) and x (the distance between the player and the fence), you can find the initial velocity v.

Using the same equation with the same v but with x that is 15 ft shorter, you can find the new value of y (the height of the fence 15 ft closer for the same projectile path). Re-arranging for your problem, you get:

y_{R} = \left( x - 15 \right) - \frac{\left( x - 15 \right) ^{2}}{x^{2}} \left( x - 4 \right)

Where y_{R} is the height of the RIGHT field fence and x is the distance between the player and the LEFT field fence. Solutions for this equation are:

x = 50 ft --> y_{R} = 12.5 ft;
x = 75 ft --> y_{R} = 14.6 ft;
x = 100 ft --> y_{R} = 15.6 ft;
x = 150 ft --> y_{R} = 16.7 ft;
x = 200 ft --> y_{R} = 17.3 ft;
x = 250 ft --> y_{R} = 17.6 ft;
x = 300 ft --> y_{R} = 17.9 ft;
x = 350 ft --> y_{R} = 18.0 ft;
x = 400 ft --> y_{R} = 18.1 ft;
x = \infty --> y_{R} = 19 ft;

I did not try for other angles to see how different are the results.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top