No way it carries, its to humid

 

 

Baseballs travel further in higher humidity, all else being equal.

 

Mind explaining how added resistance makes the ball go farther?

No way it carries, its to humid

 

 

Baseballs travel further in higher humidity, all else being equal.

 

That doesn't make sense to me just based on the general principles of physics. Also, isn't that why in colorado they put balls in a humidor? We're at sea level and its humid, to me that seems like it would weigh the ball down.

No, the general physics indicate that a baseball would travel farther in higher humidity.

 

To explain -

 

The two main forces that dictate the distance a baseball travels are the drag force and the magnus force. Under vacuum conditions, both of these would be zero. Since we don't play in vacuum conditions, the trajectory of the baseball is affected largely by air density. This is obvious.

 

You can gather that a baseball would travel farther under conditions with lower air density. Higher relative humidity is less dense than dry air is. Air saturated with moisture is less dense because it contains a higher relative concentration of water molecules. Water molecules typically have less mass than the individual gases of air. In other words, water molecules have less mass than diatomic oxygen and nitrogen do, so higher humidity would supply lower air density and would cause the baseball to travel further.

 

This is different than storing the baseball in a humidor. This practice does not pertain to the air density. Conditioning the baseball in such a way, lowers the coefficient of restitution (a measure of the elasticity of the impact between bat and ball) and causes the ball to travel at a lower speed for a shorter distance.

I think, the confusion is that people are assuming that humidity provides greater dynamic pressure upon the ball in flight because "the water molecules get in the way."

 

The molecular mass of water is about 18u, while the masses of diatomic nitrogen and oxygen are 28u and 32u, respectively. The dry air has more of the higher weight molecules per unit volume and actually provides more "resistance."

I think, the confusion is that people are assuming that humidity provides greater dynamic pressure upon the ball in flight because "the water molecules get in the way."

 

The molecular mass of water is about 18u, while the masses of diatomic nitrogen and oxygen are 28u and 32u, respectively. The dry air has more of the higher weight molecules per unit volume and actually provides more "resistance."

 

 

 

Ah alright, now I feel dumb for not realizing this. >_

In conclusion and extreme layman's terms:

 

Balls go farther in humid air because it's less dense so there's less sh*t in the way.

 

Balls from a humidor don't go as far because the balls are softer, meaning there's more give when the bat hits it.

In conclusion and extreme layman's terms:

 

Balls go farther in humid air because it's less dense so there's less sh*t in the way.

 

Balls from a humidor don't go as far because the balls are softer, meaning there's more give when the bat hits it.

 

Pretty much. However, I would rephrase my saying that the sh*t in front of the balls in humid air is lighter. Density is mass dependent, so it isn't so much the number of molecules, but how much they weigh. At higher temperature (another advantage in Miami), there is less stuff in the way, making home runs easier.

 

The original study is pretty good, especially since it seems like it was conducted merely as a side-hobby for a physics professor. I don't know how accurate these Pitch F/x systems are in MLB ballparks, but the numbers are at least plausible.

 

It is important to note that just because the ball carries better in one park, it does not make it a hitter's paradise. For example, the study estimates that the atmospheric conditions at Coors Field add about 30 extra feet to a home run in comparison to the average MLB park. This is an extreme case, so the distance between a park in Miami and one in Kansas City might not be as much. I'm sure he has the exact figure. I myself would be curious to see what he estimated to see how much farther a ball hit in Miami travels compared to an average. Obviously this would be much less than 30 feet, which is a distance that could easily negated by having deeper and higher fences.

 

He did try to combine the element of carry with the park dimensions to rank the home run hitting "ease" of each part, but he's basing this entirely on the mean initial speed off of the bat required to hit a ball out of the park (this claims that Joe Robbie is one of the better hitter's park in MLB). However, I find this part of the analysis to be a bit questionable and he himself admits that it might be lacking precision.