Shane Warne - Revolutions Per Second

[Swervy]

'S'not really humble-pie, it's just admitting one's mistakes, and it's certainly not a case of developing it, it's just a case of having the chance to display it.

well its something you just wouldnt have done a while ago..so bravo to you

 

[Richard]

I honestly don't think it is something I'd not have done a while ago.

It used to annoy me greatly when people said "he'll grow out of it" and I still firmly believe that not to be the case.

 

[Gloucefan]

lmao at some of the discussions on this board.

For the sake of argument though could I quite safely say that Warne puts more than say... 50 revoultions per second on the ball?

Would most agree with this?

 

[nightprowler10]

50 per second? That'd be pushing it, IMO.

 

[Ikki]

He says when he was younger he could really make it fizz. Like you could hear it fizz through the air.

 

[Perm]

He says when he was younger he could really make it fizz. Like you could hear it fizz through the air.

That doesn't suprise me much, I'm not much of a cricketer but when I try and imitate Muttiah Muralitharan my brother who is batting can hear the whole fizzing through the air.

 

[Steulen]

in fairness, i havent read through ALL the relevant thread, but from the parts i did read (think it pretty much covered the debate) i didnt seem to get the impression that Richard was claiming his research was the be all and end all. He just said that he watched it on a camera with 78fps (cant remember the exact number) and made a calculation, and defended himself for doing it.

Now i think the figures are a bit high personally (mind you, my A level physics is an E, so i'm even worse off). But i have to defend him here, you could measure 80revs/sec on a 78fps camera . If you have a clear mark on the ball that you use to measure from, and you notice the balls doing 1.1 rotations per frame, every frame, then thats 85.8 rev/sec. However, you'd need 2 marks on opposite sides of the ball, because the uneven number of turns a frame would mean for a while the markers on the wrong side of the ball to see. I doubt Richard did this, hence why i'm slightly doubting his results, but the theories there people!

No, you cannot, at least not accurately. The most basic rule of signal sampling says it all really: the sampling rate must be at least twice the highest frequency of the signal you're sampling. So to establish 80 rps, you will need a sampling rate of 160 sps. Without looking up the thread, I believe I also posted this there.

 

[Richard]

I certainly posted it earlier in this thread.

It IS possible to discern 30 revs per second with 75 frames-per-second footage.

 

[Steulen]

Indeed, as 75 > 2*30

 

[BoyBrumby]

The thread is this one, and I quite clearly showed how what I was doing was not impossible.

Nah. There must've been another. That wasn't it.

I assure you, that's the only thread where such discussions were made.

No, you cannot, at least not accurately. The most basic rule of signal sampling says it all really: the sampling rate must be at least twice the highest frequency of the signal you're sampling. So to establish 80 rps, you will need a sampling rate of 160 sps. Without looking up the thread, I believe I also posted this there.

That must be the thread I remember too, because it doesn't seem like you replied in the one Richo linked to. So it has been discussed elsewhere despite his assurances...

 

[Richard]

It hasn't - not with me involved, anyhow.

 

[prakesh]

There's validity in those I did - the Giles and Croft ones.

Well that would hardly be difficult, using just the naked eye at normal speed.

 

[Richard]

Most people with any sense realise that the naked eye cannot be used for such things.

You, of course, have none, so that's not surprising.

 

[prakesh]

Most people with any sense realise that the naked eye cannot be used for such things.

You, of course, have none, so that's not surprising.

How many hands did you need to count Giles's revs?

 

[Richard]

I just used the second-hand, the minute and hour ones were not neccessary.

 

[Ikki]

That doesn't suprise me much, I'm not much of a cricketer but when I try and imitate Muttiah Muralitharan my brother who is batting can hear the whole fizzing through the air.

You can imitate Murali? LOL, why aren't you playing for NZ?

 

[Richard]

Think Perm was probably being only quasi-serious there...

 

[Perm]

You can imitate Murali? LOL, why aren't you playing for NZ?

Because I don't play proper cricket, just backyard stuff. I never claimed to be able to bowl as well as him, just in a style that is similar to his.

 

[Ikki]

It was a "tongue-in-cheek" comment guys.

 

[Richard]

Love the way Rich and Perm don't get KaZo's tongue-in-cheekness and think KaZo didn't get Perm's tongue-in-cheekness...