The flow field behind spinning baseballs at two different seam orientations was investigated, and compared with a smooth sphere, to isolate effects of seams on the Magnus effect at Reynolds numbers of 5×104 and 1×105. The rotational speed of the three spheres varied from 0-2400 rpm, which are typical of spin rates imparted to a thrown baseball. These spin rates are represented non-dimensionally as a relative spin rate relating the surface tangential velocity to the freestream velocity, and varied between 0-0.94. Mean velocity profiles, streamline patterns, and power spectral density of the velocity signals were taken using hot-wire anemometry and/or stereoscopic particle image velocimetry in the wake region. The sphere wake orientation changed over a range of relative spin rates, indicating an inverse Magnus effect. Vortex shedding at a Strouhal number of 0.25 was present on the sphere at low relative spin rates. However, the seams on the baseball prevented any consequential change in wake orientation and, at most spin rates, suppressed the shedding frequency exhibited by the sphere. Instead, frequencies corresponding to the seam rotation rates were observed in the wake flow. It was concluded that the so-called inverse Magnus effect recorded by previous investigators at specific combinations of Reynolds number and relative spin rate on a sphere exists for a smooth sphere or an axisymmetrically dimpled sphere but not for a baseball near critical Reynolds numbers, where the wake flow pattern is strongly influenced by the raised seams.
Taylor–Couette flow with a low aspect ratio cylinder suffers from end effects due to the finite-span of the gap between the cylinder sides and the secondary flow in the region below the inner cylinder. We experimentally explore these end effects by varying the cylinder aspect ratio between 6.67 and 40 for a range of wall gap widths and bottom gap heights. For these geometries, end effects (i.e. non-ideal Taylor–Couette flow) can be substantial due to both features of the finite-span and the bottom secondary flow. In some cases, the finite-span effects extended between 20% and 30% of the way into the Taylor–Couette flow region, and the secondary flow at the bottom accounted for nearly half of the total measured torque. By taking these effects into consideration, our high aspect ratio results agreed well with those obtained by Taylor (Taylor 1936 Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 157 , 546–564. (doi: 10.1098/rspa.1936.0215 )) at considerably higher aspect ratios. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Taylor–Couette and related flows on the centennial of Taylor’s seminal Philosophical Transactions paper (part 1)’.
The foundational differences of steady and unsteady jets issued into a laminar boundary layer crossflow are considered. Jets have been used widely for flow control applications, due to their ability to enhance mixing and mitigate separation, but it is unclear what role jet steadiness plays in flow control effectiveness. Here we compare experimentally unsteady (synthetic) and steady rectangular jets issued into a flat-plate laminar boundary layer with varying orifice pitch and skew. The coherent streamwise vortices produced by unsteady jets were shown to be much stronger than those produced by steady jets, despite producing similar flow patterns. These differences are rooted in how vorticity is generated in the orifice, through either a Stokes layer (unsteady) or a Blasius boundary layer (steady). Exploring the time- and phase-averaged vorticity transport equation reveals that the time-varying vorticity term is the reason for the enhanced vortical structure. When considering flow control metrics, we find that the unsteady jet produced greater added momentum in the boundary layer and added vorticity when compared to a momentum-matched steady jet. Both the steady and unsteady jets produced similar jet penetration characteristics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.