Help understanding coefficient formula

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter andyfive
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Coefficient Formula
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the coefficient formula for determining the coefficient of drag (CD_Size) based on the size of dimples on a golf ball, specifically the equation CD_Size = R1·(-3.125·(c/d)+0.25). R1 represents a weight ratio and is calculated using values from figure 5 of the referenced paper. Participants agree that R1 and R2 are fitting constants, with R1 estimated to be close to 1. The calculation involves substituting values into equation 8 and averaging them for accuracy.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of coefficient of drag (CD) concepts
  • Familiarity with mathematical modeling and fitting constants
  • Ability to interpret scientific papers and figures
  • Basic knowledge of golf ball aerodynamics
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the paper referenced for detailed methodology on calculating R1
  • Study mathematical modeling techniques for fitting constants
  • Explore the impact of dimple size on golf ball aerodynamics
  • Learn about coefficient of drag calculations in fluid dynamics
USEFUL FOR

Aerodynamics engineers, sports scientists, and anyone involved in the design and optimization of golf balls or similar aerodynamic objects.

andyfive
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I am trying to understand an equation which I have come across for determining a coefficient based on the size of dimples on a golf ball :

CD_Size = R1·(-3.125·(c/d)+0.25)

In the description, it indicates that R1 indicates a weight ratio of CD_Size.

Can anyone please explain what R1 is and how it is to be calculated?

FYI. the paper this came from can be found on this link :

http://www.ijimt.org/papers/419-D0260.pdf

Many Thanks,

Andy.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
A quick look at that paper suggests to me that R1 and R2 are just fitting constants. R1 can be calculated by taking values from figure 5 and substituting them into equation 8 (or better yet, doing it for all values and then taking an average). R1 looks to me to be very close to 1, perhaps slightly less.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Benit13 said:
A quick look at that paper suggests to me that R1 and R2 are just fitting constants. R1 can be calculated by taking values from figure 5 and substituting them into equation 8 (or better yet, doing it for all values and then taking an average). R1 looks to me to be very close to 1, perhaps slightly less.

Thanks for your reply Benit13. I see what you are saying. Effectively, working backwards from the results in figure 5 to obtain R1. I have not come across the term 'weight ratio' (or as you describe it, fitting constant). They do not seem to explain how they have derived these 'weight ratios' in the paper or why they are used. Still, many thanks again, your reply has really helped.

Andy.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
30K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
17K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
13K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
485
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K