Drag coefficient of a sphere ()

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the drag coefficient of rough spheres, particularly in relation to styrofoam balls in an airstream. It highlights that the drag force can be higher for rough surfaces, but this is influenced by the Reynolds number, which depends on the object's size and the air velocity. The air flow from the lab's SF-9216 supply is confirmed to be turbulent, and the Reynolds number can be calculated using specific fluid dynamics equations. Understanding the Reynolds number is crucial for determining the flow conditions around the sphere and how surface texture affects drag. Accurate measurements of air density, viscosity, and flow velocity are essential for this analysis.
pavelbure9
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
While writing a physics report, I obtained a data that
for balls of rough surfaces, there is a higher drag force and thus
the ball can stay stable at a much smaller angle when put up in an airstream.
However, while analyzing this result, I found out that the drag coefficient is not always
bigger for rough spheres : it depends on the reynolds number of the flow.
I would really like to know whether the flow past a sphere
(in my experiment, styrofoam balls) is attached flow (Stokes flow) and steady separated flow, separated unsteady flow, separated unsteady flow with a laminar boundary layer at the upstream side, or post-critical separated flow, with a turbulent boundary layer.
Put simply, what is the reynolds number of the air coming out of an air supply?
For further information, the air supply used in our lab was SF-9216, PASCO.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
After discussion with an intimate physics professor, we reached contradicting results:
like in the case of golf balls, the rough surface can make air pockets,
or when the air meets a certain condition (some sort of Reynolds number boundaries)
the drag coefficient is bigger for rougher spheres.
Also, we concluded that the air flow from the supply is turbulent.
Could you please help us out? Thank you!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The reynolds number is not determined by your air supply. It is based on the size of your object and the velocity of the air around it. Assuming that your supply gives a reasonably smooth flow (not always a guarantee), you can calculate the reynolds number using the equation Re = ρvL/μ, where ρ is the density of the fluid (air, in this case), v is the velocity of the fluid, L is a characteristic dimension of your object (for a sphere, this would be the diameter), and μ is the viscosity of the fluid. Density and viscosity can be calculated or looked up on a table based on the temperature and pressure of the air in your lab, and you should be able to measure your flow velocity directly (or if you do not have that capability, it may be specified in the manual of your air supply).

Once you know the reynolds number, then you will have a better idea of what kind of flow conditions your sphere will have around it, and that will determine the effect that dimples will have.

(Wiki even has a fairly nice image showing the relevant flow regimes: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Reynolds_behaviors.png)
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top