Why do the dimples on golf balls, the stitches on base balls,
and the fabric on tennis balls all make them go farther? In other
words, why does turbulence cause something to obtain less friction
rather than more?
Brad
It has a lot to do with the Reynold's number of small elements
of the surface.
Add some dimples or hairs or other odd additions and the surface's
effective Reynold's number is increased and as a result lift is
increased (especially if the 'ball' is spinning - watch what
cricket bowlers do to their balls (one side is more polished than
the other - ie the smooth side has a lower Reynold's number than
the other).
If you want a more precise explanation refer to fluid mechanics
texts in particular those that deal with turbulent boundary layers
and wakes about spheres.
Essentially, the roughened surface results in the early development
of a turbulent boundary layer about the surface of the ball ,
substantially reducing the wake and thereby reducing the effect
drag (by perhaps 50%)--- it flies farther for the same effort.
I think (but am not sure) that the reason is something like as
follows.
If the ball is roughened then when it is moving it causes nearby
air to rush away, therefore causing a pressure reduction nearby.
Now when a golf ball flies through the air, due to its spin the
relative speed between the upper surface and the air is greater
than the relative speed between the lower surface and the air. This
means that the pressure of air above the ball is lower than the
pressure of the air below the ball, and this pressure gradient
causes lift. This effect is obviously going to be exaggerated the
more effect the moving ball has on nearby air, therefore it is
better for it to be slightly roughened.
With cricket, the bowlers don't polish the ball to give it extra
lift or make it fly farther - rather to make it swing to one side.
Same principle though. In cricket, the question of why reverse
swing works is still open - though there are many theories. Also
the question of why swing bowling is more effective in overcast
conditions - something which is empirically true - has not been
answered.