What's A Nanosecond?

[cabinetman]

This could use a good caption!!
.

.

[Uncle Cracker]

I certainly wouldn't want to get hit with a golf ball that's nearly as big as a child...

[crokett]

I certainly wouldn't want to get hit with a golf ball that's nearly as big as a child...

How strong does the child have to be to hit a golf ball as big as himself?

[dlminehart]

Umm . . . Photoshop? Weird lighting on the ball.

[poolhound]

Umm . . . Photoshop? Weird lighting on the ball.

I think I would tend to agree, the blurring around the ball looks "photochopped"

[pelligrini]

"FO.. ,sorry dad"

[RodKirby]

My definitions of the question:

1. The amount of time I have, to respond when LOML speaks to me - REGARDLESS of what I'm doing!

2. The amount of time I have, to do what she has "asked" me to do - REGARDLESS of what I am doing!

Failure on my part, of either of these, results in WWIII (and I don't mean woodworking)

[LCHIEN]

Technically speaking, people really don't have any idea how short a nanosecond really is.

I'm not an expert in golf, I follow tennis and baseball, where the velocity of the ball pitched or served is around 90 to 130 mph. Assuming the golf club is a bit longer than the tennis racket and the angular velocity is the same, I'm guessing golf ball velocities leaving the club face will be around 150 mph... a quick check on the internet seems to confirm this. Apparently the record is 204 mph, but that was a pro, so 150 mph is probably tops for a child, maybe 100 mph is more realistic.

Anyway we'll be very generous and use 150 mph which equates to around 225 feet per second.

Now how far is that ball?
A typical 35mm camera with a 50mm lens has 39.6 degree field of view. Most cameras for recreational use will be similar to this. In the photo the ball takes up 1/3 of the field of view. By the way, someone commented on how fuzzy it was, I’m not commenting on the veracity, but if it were real life it would be fuzzy because its moving fast and its too close to the lens (depth of field seems to be set towards the background). Anyway, assuming the ball takes up 13 degrees and a golf ball is 1.68” diameter, then its is about 7.4” away from the camera's focal plane. Some cameras use a optical viewfinder which you have to put your eye to, others use a LCD display and you could be 10" away. Let's assume a viewfinder; add another inch to the camera thickness, call it 8.5” to the guy's face.

At 225 ft. per second, that’s 2.5 milliseconds to impact.
Or, as we say in engineering, roughly 2,500,000 nanoseconds.

I'll bet he can't blink, though. It takes about 50,000,000 nanoseconds to blink.

[pierhogunn]

Admiral Hopper figured out that in 1 nano second, an electron can travel about 11 inches

that was one **** smart woman

[pelligrini]

Loring, did you take into account of the probability that it is a plastic ball to go along with the plastic club? The dimple pattern suggests a formed plastic ball.

I would agree that the blurriness could be attributed to the depth of field.

[BobSch]

A nanosecond is the time between hitting Send and realizing you sent an email to the WRONG person.

[cabinetman]

Technically speaking, people really don't have any idea how short a nanosecond really is.

I'm not an expert in golf, I follow tennis and baseball, where the velocity of the ball pitched or served is around 90 to 130 mph. Assuming the golf club is a bit longer than the tennis racket and the angular velocity is the same, I'm guessing golf ball velocities leaving the club face will be around 150 mph... a quick check on the internet seems to confirm this. Apparently the record is 204 mph, but that was a pro, so 150 mph is probably tops for a child, maybe 100 mph is more realistic.

Anyway we'll be very generous and use 150 mph which equates to around 225 feet per second.

Now how far is that ball?
A typical 35mm camera with a 50mm lens has 39.6 degree field of view. Most cameras for recreational use will be similar to this. In the photo the ball takes up 1/3 of the field of view. By the way, someone commented on how fuzzy it was, I’m not commenting on the veracity, but if it were real life it would be fuzzy because its moving fast and its too close to the lens (depth of field seems to be set towards the background). Anyway, assuming the ball takes up 13 degrees and a golf ball is 1.68” diameter, then its is about 7.4” away from the camera's focal plane. Some cameras use a optical viewfinder which you have to put your eye to, others use a LCD display and you could be 10" away. Let's assume a viewfinder; add another inch to the camera thickness, call it 8.5” to the guy's face.

At 225 ft. per second, that’s 2.5 milliseconds to impact.
Or, as we say in engineering, roughly 2,500,000 nanoseconds.

I'll bet he can't blink, though. It takes about 50,000,000 nanoseconds to blink.

Can't you be more precise than that?
.

[TB Roye]

It is still going to hurt when it hits dad or drives the camera back into his eye. I though it looked like a large plastic ball like my grandkids have. I have seen them hit one of those balls pretty hard and it will sting.
Tom

[ironhat]

Nanosecond: The unit of time measurement on the planet, Ork.

[LCHIEN]

Loring, did you take into account of the probability that it is a plastic ball to go along with the plastic club? The dimple pattern suggests a formed plastic ball.

I would agree that the blurriness could be attributed to the depth of field.

Actually, I have to admit I did not take a good look at the club, let alone the ball. The club being plastic (a toy) makes me say my estimate of 150 mph for the ball travel is probably way, way over... a SHORT, PLASTIC club and a TOY ball and a SMALL Child maybe we're looking at 20-30 mph absolute tops... haha. Gives the photog an extra 10 million nanoseconds or so to flinch.