- #36
jamesrc
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 477
- 1
You've got the right inertia formula (there's no reason to include the dimples in the golf ball in the inertia calculation since our model makes other assumptions that make that kind of thing negligible).
When I use your initial conditions with my simulation, I get a hang time of ~9.1 s, a peak of ~40m and a range of ~230 m.
That's using a constant angular acceleration. When I put in the decaying spin rate, that knocks off about 80 m of the range and halves the hang time.
I also forgot to mention before that I think you have the Magnus force twice as high as it should be (at least according to where I've seen the Magnus Force in a form like yours). So when I include that and use the decaying spin rate based on our crude model of that, I get a ~9m peak, a ~141.5 m range, and ~3.4s of hang time.
How do those results compare with yours?
One more note: you probably already realize this, but as long as you're not considering lateral forces on the ball, this is just a 2d problem. If you're going to include 3D effects later, you're approaching it the right way.
When I use your initial conditions with my simulation, I get a hang time of ~9.1 s, a peak of ~40m and a range of ~230 m.
That's using a constant angular acceleration. When I put in the decaying spin rate, that knocks off about 80 m of the range and halves the hang time.
I also forgot to mention before that I think you have the Magnus force twice as high as it should be (at least according to where I've seen the Magnus Force in a form like yours). So when I include that and use the decaying spin rate based on our crude model of that, I get a ~9m peak, a ~141.5 m range, and ~3.4s of hang time.
How do those results compare with yours?
One more note: you probably already realize this, but as long as you're not considering lateral forces on the ball, this is just a 2d problem. If you're going to include 3D effects later, you're approaching it the right way.