Custom Bats Cricket Forum

Companies => Custom companies => B3 Cricket => Topic started by: Mfarank on May 25, 2020, 04:20:35 PM

Title: Cleft density
Post by: Mfarank on May 25, 2020, 04:20:35 PM
Can someone please enlighten me as to how B3 calculate the density of their clefts? I know the basic idea is mass/volume but what is the unit?
Title: Re: Cleft density
Post by: Mfarank on May 25, 2020, 04:59:56 PM
After playing around with the units of a cleft i have come up with the mass as 60.85 ounces and a volume of 0.1431 cubic feet. And the number was 425.3 so i am guessing this must be it
Title: Re: Cleft density
Post by: brokenbat on May 25, 2020, 05:14:22 PM
After playing around with the units of a cleft i have come up with the mass as 60.85 ounces and a volume of 0.1431 cubic feet. And the number was 425.3 so i am guessing this must be it

You’re on the right track but 425 is impossibly low density (based on what I recall). But it’s definitely in the 400s so you’re within the ballpark.
Title: Re: Cleft density
Post by: Mfarank on May 25, 2020, 05:16:54 PM
You’re on the right track but 425 is impossibly low density (based on what I recall). But it’s definitely in the 400s so you’re within the ballpark.
Looking at a few of the trott posts people have had clefts under 400 so surely not impossibly low density.
Title: Re: Cleft density
Post by: Kulli on May 25, 2020, 05:23:43 PM
Wasn’t 400 their starting point for an average cleft?
Title: Re: Cleft density
Post by: Mfarank on May 25, 2020, 05:25:36 PM
Wasn’t 400 their starting point for an average cleft?
I assume so as im talking about the whole cleft pre-handling and shaping
Title: Re: Cleft density
Post by: brokenbat on May 25, 2020, 06:05:50 PM
Oh sorry. My bad. You guys are right.
Title: Re: Cleft density
Post by: bigblue365 on May 25, 2020, 08:01:54 PM
After playing around with the units of a cleft i have come up with the mass as 60.85 ounces and a volume of 0.1431 cubic feet. And the number was 425.3 so i am guessing this must be it
How is the density calculated?
Title: Re: Cleft density
Post by: edge on May 25, 2020, 08:14:33 PM
Kg/m^3, I'd guess
Title: Re: Cleft density
Post by: Mfarank on May 25, 2020, 08:41:46 PM
Mass over volume is the formula. Units is the key. The most commonly used metric units for density are kg/cubic meter and when i put the values in the answer was 425.7
Incidentally when i switch to imperial units (cause you know God save the Queen) and calculate with oz/cubic feet the answer is almost the same (425.3) so it must be one of the Two
Title: Re: Cleft density
Post by: edge on May 25, 2020, 08:52:47 PM
Mass over volume is the formula. Units is the key. The most commonly used metric units for density are kg/cubic meter and when i put the values in the answer was 425.7
Incidentally when i switch to imperial units (cause you know God save the Queen) and calculate with oz/cubic feet the answer is almost the same (425.3) so it must be one of the Two
Exactly? It shouldn't be... On the subject of units, the UK is not America, we may use imperial units on road signs but you won't find them used for actual work.
Title: Re: Cleft density
Post by: Mfarank on May 25, 2020, 08:55:14 PM
Corrected to "almost" the same  :D this was a fun excercise for revising high school math. I had forgotten how to calculate area of a triangle
Title: Re: Cleft density
Post by: Psi on May 25, 2020, 11:32:51 PM
Exactly? It shouldn't be... On the subject of units, the UK is not America, we may use imperial units on road signs but you won't find them used for actual work.

Yeah but we do quote bat weights in pounds and oz don't we???
Title: Re: Cleft density
Post by: LDifa on May 26, 2020, 07:38:13 PM
from memory average density of a cleft was 400

If a shape you liked was 2lb 10 but you wanted 2lb 8 then you could need a lower density - i think a density of 10 was an ounce

favourite shape at 2lb 8 would need a 380
Title: Re: Cleft density
Post by: Chalkie on May 27, 2020, 12:05:10 PM
from memory average density of a cleft was 400

If a shape you liked was 2lb 10 but you wanted 2lb 8 then you could need a lower density - i think a density of 10 was an ounce

favourite shape at 2lb 8 would need a 380

I think this is correct as had a couple of B3 bats under 400, one as low 369.

Copying in @Butterfingerz for an official response

Title: Re: Cleft density
Post by: Butterfingerz on May 27, 2020, 01:59:21 PM
I think this is correct as had a couple of B3 bats under 400, one as low 369.

Copying in @Butterfingerz for an official response

Hi all, sorry I can’t disclose how we calculate the density (company secret), everything else you’ve said about averages and value of 10 being roughly an ounce is correct.
Title: Re: Cleft density
Post by: ch1p on May 27, 2020, 02:06:46 PM
Doesn't Tom just count all the little air pockets in each cleft Rich? :D
Title: Re: Cleft density
Post by: Chompy9760 on May 28, 2020, 12:00:49 AM
I guess I can disclose the method I came up with for calculating the approximate density of the partmades.  :D
As my partmades were not uniform and had differing ammounts cut from them, I decided to accurately measure their displacement, rather than use a tape measure and attempt to calculate their volume.

(https://i.imgur.com/wWx6BGl.jpg)

I had a short length of 250mm PVC pipe, sealed one end and filled it to the top with water.
The partmade was then put in a large garbage bag and lowered into the water until the bottom of the lathe mark on the handle was level with the water.
From there, the partmade was removed from the pipe, and I measured how far down the water level was from the top.  Simple Pi R^2 H to get the displacement, weight/displacement=density.
The only innacuracy is that the volume of the entire handle isn't measured, but I figure all the handles should be fairly similar, so it should be close enough for getting relative densities between the partmades I had.
Despite all six partmades looking pretty much the same, their volumes varied from 3.65 to 3.87 L.
Their ranking from lightest to heaviest was not the same as their ranking from least dense to most dense, but there wasn't much in it.