Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Explanation for Ball Through the Stumps

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Yaseen Dadabhay

unread,
Nov 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/3/97
to

but wouldnt a cricket ball be able to create enough energy , given that a
spin bowler bowls at 90kmh+ and medium to fast bowlers at an average of
120-150kmh.How much energy would a ball of this speed create ?

SMF USER

unread,
Nov 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/4/97
to

In article <345e176b...@news.global.co.za>, elvis@the_king.org says...
>
>On 3 Nov 1997 02:12:21 GMT, ara...@mail.utexas.edu (atif rahim) wrote:
>
><snip!>
>>Here is how and why it happened. There is a phenomena
>>in physics known as tunelling. The theory suggests that things (eg
>>particles) confined by a barrier will at times (though very infrequently)
>>will just tunnel through that barrier and appear on the other side of the
>>barrier. This was the real reason why the ball went through the wickets.
>
>
>But surely this must require a great deal of energy in order to
>provoke the neccesary molecular excitation?
>

Actually that is what is unusual about the theory that something that does not
have enough (in the classical sense) energy would still tunnel through.

AndyHo...@hotmail.com

unread,
Nov 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/4/97
to

If you include kinetic energy, it might even exceed E=mc^2.

Mad Hamish

unread,
Nov 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/6/97
to

On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 18:41:26 GMT, elvis@the_king.org (Bob Dubery) wrote:

>On 3 Nov 1997 02:12:21 GMT, ara...@mail.utexas.edu (atif rahim) wrote:
>
><snip!>
>>Here is how and why it happened. There is a phenomena
>>in physics known as tunelling. The theory suggests that things (eg
>>particles) confined by a barrier will at times (though very infrequently)
>>will just tunnel through that barrier and appear on the other side of the
>>barrier. This was the real reason why the ball went through the wickets.
>
>
>But surely this must require a great deal of energy in order to
>provoke the neccesary molecular excitation?
>

>In which case we must assume that there was a *lot* of spin on that
>ball (the forward momentum would not, at Mushtaq's pace, provide
>sufficient energy).
>
>Following on from that can we assume that Mushtaq does indeed give the
>ball more of a tweek than Warne does?

Well if it was his googly it's probably the consistantly biggest spinning ball
I've seen.

****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************

Mad Hamish

Hamish Laws
h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au
h_l...@tassie.net.au


0 new messages