See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234534404

The Roberto Carlos Spiral

Article · October 2009

CITATIONS READS

0 1,172

4 authors, including:

Christophe Clanet Guillaume Dupeux

École Polytechnique École Polytechnique
241 PUBLICATIONS 11,426 CITATIONS 14 PUBLICATIONS 479 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Christophe Clanet on 13 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

The spinning ball spiral

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2010 New J. Phys. 12 093004

(http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/12/9/093004)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 18.9.61.111
This content was downloaded on 04/12/2015 at 07:43

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

 New Journal of Physics The open–access journal for physics

The spinning ball spiral

Guillaume Dupeux, Anne Le Goff, David Quéré
and Christophe Clanet1
PMMH, UMR7636 du CNRS, ESPCI, 10 rue Vauquelin, 75005 Paris, France
and
LadHyX, UMR7646 du CNRS, Ecole Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau, France
E-mail: clanet@ladhyx.polytechnique.fr

New Journal of Physics 12 (2010) 093004 (12pp)

Received 3 March 2010
Published 2 September 2010
Online at http://www.njp.org/
doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/9/093004

Abstract. We discuss the trajectory of a fast revolving solid ball moving in a

fluid of comparable density. As the ball slows down owing to drag, its trajectory
follows an exponential spiral as long as the rotation speed remains constant:
at the characteristic distance L where the ball speed is significantly affected
by the drag, the bending of the trajectory increases, surprisingly. Later, the
rotation speed decreases, which makes the ball follow a second kind of spiral,
also described in the paper. Finally, the use of these highly curved trajectories is
shown to be relevant to sports.

Contents

1. Introduction 2
2. Experimental facts 2
3. Model 5
3.1. Drag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Lift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. The ideal spiral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Variation in the rotation speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. The ‘real’ spiral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Application to sports 9
5. Conclusions 10
References 11

1
Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.

New Journal of Physics 12 (2010) 093004

1367-2630/10/093004+12$30.00 © IOP Publishing Ltd and Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft
2
1. Introduction

Since Galileo, spheres have been used by physicists to probe movement and friction [13, 14, 27].
In the context of hydrodynamics, in particular, the motion of a solid sphere (radius R, velocity
U0 , density ρs ) in a quiescent liquid (viscosity η, density ρ) is the paradigm for characterizing
the laws of friction at low and high Reynolds numbers.
For low Reynolds number (Re = ρU0 R/η  1), Stokes [30] established that the drag force
experienced by the solid during its motion is F = 6πηU0 R. This very classical result was then
verified by several authors in the range Re < 1 [8, 24]. For high Reynolds numbers, Newton [22]
was probably the first to propose an heuristic expression for the drag: F = 1/2CD ρU02 π R 2 ,
where CD is a coefficient provided by the experiments. According to Eiffel [12], CD is
of the order of 0.4, a value later confirmed in the range 103 < Re < 2 × 105 [28]. For
intermediate Reynolds numbers (1 < Re < 103 ), the asymptotic expansion method proposed by
Oseen [23] led to lots of theoretical developments [4]. Beyond Re ≈ 2 × 105 , the resistance
crisis experienced by the sphere once the boundary layer becomes turbulent has also been
studied in depth [1, 17, 29].
For spinning spheres, according to Barkla and Auchterloniet [2], the work seems to go back
to Robins [25] and then Magnus [18], who got the credit for the associated lift force. Besides
these academic studies, the widespread use of balls in sports also motivated many studies, in
baseball [21] and golf [9] in particular, a review of which can be found in [20]. Most of these
studies consider a lift force FL = 1/2CL ρU02 π R 2 , where the lift coefficient CL is known to
increase with the spin parameter S = Rω0 /U0 .
Here, we study the trajectory of spinning spheres in water and try to understand their
surprisingly curved trajectory, an example of which is presented in figures 1 and 2. In figure 1,
the trajectory is decomposed into eight images, whereas in figure 2, the same sequence is
presented within a single image by superimposing the successive positions of the ball. Both
figures reveal a spiral trajectory. With solid friction and rotation, similar curved trajectories
can be obtained, for example in French billard [6] and in lawn bowls [7]. In figure 2, we also
observe the formation of an air cavity behind the sphere, a consequence of the high speed of
penetration [5, 10, 11, 15, 16, 19, 32]. The bending of the trajectory starts as soon as the ball
enters the bath, as reported in [31] for vertical impacts. Our aim here is to focus on the spiral
trajectory and to discuss its relevance to sports.

2. Experimental facts

The projectiles used in this study are balls made of either polypropylene (ρs ' 920 kg m−3 ) or
polyacetal (ρs ' 1400 kg m−3 ), a few millimetres in size. Spin and high velocities (20–50 m s−1 )
are achieved using a slingshot, consisting of a forked stick attached to a pocket by two rubber
strips. The velocity can be varied by tuning the average tension applied to the rubbers, whereas
the spin is controlled by the difference in tension between them: the motion is a pure translation
when the extension of the two arms is symmetric, and spinning occurs when one strip is more
stretched than the other. Both translational and spin velocities at the moment of impact U0 and
ω0 are measured on the images recorded with a high speed video camera. Rotation is made
visible by drawing a line on the equator and illuminating the spheres.
The effect of spin is illustrated in figure 3. Without rotation (ω0 = 0), the ball goes straight
(figure 3(a)). With a bottom spin (ω0 > 0), figure 3(b) shows that the ball deviates upwards;

New Journal of Physics 12 (2010) 093004 (http://www.njp.org/)

3

Figure 1. Chronophotography of the impact of an iso-density sphere (R =

3.5 mm) penetrating a bath of water at U0 = 35 m s−1 and spinning at ω0 ≈
1200 rad s−1 . The time step between images is not constant. t = 0 is the impact
time, t1 = −0.5 ms, t2 = 2.8 ms, t3 = 13 ms, t4 = 42 ms, t5 = 76 ms, t6 = 101 ms,
t7 = 169 ms and t8 = 216 ms. The arrows indicate the sphere velocity.

Figure 2. Multi-pose image showing the trajectory of the ball of figure 1. The
time step between successive ball locations is 1t = 10 ms. This image reveals a
spiral trajectory.

it is even able to escape from the bath (last two images). Finally, for top spin (ω0 < 0), the
ball deviates downwards (figure 3(c)). We focus now on the bottom spin case and show in
figure 4(a) the trajectory of a polypropylene ball (ρs /ρ = 0.92) of radius R = 3.5 mm thrown
in a water bath at a velocity U0 = 27 m s−1 , with a spin rate ω0 = 1000 rad s−1 and an impact
angle θ0 = 70◦ (defined from the vertical). In this trajectory, the constant time step between
two data is 1t = 384 µs. Clearly, the velocity of the ball decreases as it moves through water
(figure 4(a)). The evolution of the ball velocity is reported in figure 4(b) as a function of the
curvilinear location s (s = 0 at impact). The semi-log presentation stresses that the velocity
decreases exponentially with s. The characteristic length of the decrease is here 5.5 cm. Despite

New Journal of Physics 12 (2010) 093004 (http://www.njp.org/)

4

Figure 3. Effect of spin on the trajectory of a sphere (density ρs ) after impact

in water: (a) U0 = 33 m s−1 , R = 3.5 mm, ρs = 1410 kg m−3 , ω0 = 0 rad s−1 ,
time step between images 1t = 2 ms. (b) U0 = 20 m s−1 , R = 2.4 mm, ρs =
920 kg m−3 , ω0 = 1740 rad s−1 , 1t = 3.75 ms. (c) U0 = 24 m s−1 , R = 2.4 mm,
ρs = 920 kg m−3 , ω0 = −1740 rad s−1 , 1t = 3.2 ms. The trajectory bends only if
spin is present and the sign of its curvature changes with the sign of the spin.

(a) (b) (c)

y (cm) U (m/s) (rad/s)
2 100 104

-2
0
( s)

-4
10 1000

-6

-8

-10

1 100
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
x (cm) s (cm) t (ms)

Figure 4. (a) Trajectory of a ball (radius R = 3.5 mm, density ρs = 920 kg m−3 )
impacting water with a velocity U0 = 27 m s−1 , a spin ω0 = 1000 rad s−1 and
an inclination angle θ0 = 70◦ . The time step between two data points is
1t = 384 µs. (b) Evolution of the corresponding velocity as a function of the
curvilinear location s in a semi-log plot. (c) Time variation of the corresponding
rotation speed ω of the ball.

New Journal of Physics 12 (2010) 093004 (http://www.njp.org/)

5
a strong variation in the velocity, the spin rate ω remains almost constant as the ball moves
through water, as demonstrated in figure 4(c). This difference is discussed in the following
section and is shown to be the key fact to account for the spiral trajectory.

3. Model

3.1. Drag
The motion of the sphere of mass M is described in the Serret–Frenet coordinate system (t, n)
introduced in figure 2. We first focus on the direction t. The Reynolds number Re = ρU0 R/η
is of the order of 104 , which implies a drag F ≈ 1/2ρU 2 π R 2 · CD , with CD ≈ 0.4 [28]. The
equation of motion along t thus is written as
ρ
 
dU 1
M 1 + CM U = − ρU 2 π R 2 · CD . (1)
ρs ds 2
In this equation, CM stands for the added mass coefficient, which, for a sphere, is of the order of
1/2, independent of the speed U [3]. Using the condition U (s = 0) = U0 , equation (1) can be
integrated as
U (s) = U0 e−s/L (2)
with
8 ρ̄ ρ ρs
 
L= R with ρ̄ = 1 + CM . (3)
3 CD ρs ρ
The velocity thus decreases exponentially in water, with a characteristic penetration length
L ≈ 7ρ̄ R ≈ 10R. This behaviour agrees with the results displayed in figure 4(b). We deduce
from such measurements the value of L for different systems. Our data are presented in figure 5
as a function of the length ρ̄ R and compared to the results obtained by May [19] and Truscott
and Techet [31]. All the data collapse in the same curve, L ≈ 7ρ̄ R, in good agreement with
equation (3). This comparison underlines that the entrained air cavity visible in figures 1–3 does
not significantly affect the drag on the sphere. The time variation of the velocity can finally be
deduced from equation (1), which classically yields U (t) = U0 /(1 + t/τ ), where τ = L/U0 is
the characteristic slowing time of the ball.
In equation (1) and in the above discussion, we neglected the effect of gravity. This
assumption remains valid as long as the drag F is large compared to the Archimedean force
4π/3(ρs − ρ)g R 3 . Using the expression for the drag, we conclude that the low gravity regime
is achieved as long as U  U ∗, where U ∗2 = 8/3CD |ρs /ρ − 1|g R. This condition is always
fulfilled in the iso-density case but it fails otherwise at the ‘end’ of the trajectory, when the
velocity of the ball vanishes. In this paper, we focus on the hydrodynamic effects and do not
address the classical gravitational problem. Our conclusions thus hold above the critical speed
U ∗, which in our case (ρs /ρ ≈ 1.2, R ≈ 4 mm) is approximately 10 cm s−1 , much smaller than
the impact speeds (≈10 m s−1 ).

3.2. Lift
Along the direction n, the equation of motion can be written as
ρ
 
dθ
M 1 + CM U2 = FL , (4)
ρs ds
New Journal of Physics 12 (2010) 093004 (http://www.njp.org/)
6

Figure 5. (a) Characteristic length of penetration L as a function of ρ̄ R. The

symbols
and  show the results of May [19] and Truscott and Techet [31],
respectively. The symbol  is used for our results. Equation (3), that is L ≈ 7ρ̄ R,
is represented by the solid line. (b) Initial curvature (dθ/ds)0 of the ball trajectory
as a function of ω0 /U0 · 1/ρ̄. The symbol  is used for the data of Truscott and
Techet [31] and the symbol  for our results. The solid line shows the fit of
(dθ/ds)0 = 0.14ω0 /U0 · 1/ρ̄.

where FL = ρ0U RC n is the lift force resulting from the circulation 0 = 2π R 2 ω. In the limit of
low Reynolds numbers (Re < 1), Rubinow and Keller [26] have shown that we have Cn = 1/2.
For large Reynolds numbers (Re ≈ 105 ), Nathan [21] collected the data obtained by several
authors on the lift force experienced by spinning balls in air. From these results, we deduce
Cn ≈ 0.13.
Since our experiments are done in water with an entrained air cavity, we found it useful to
measure Cn . For this purpose, we focused on the impact region (s < L), where the dynamical
parameters (U, ω) are constant, so that equation (4) predicts a constant curvature for the ball
trajectory,
3 Cn ω0
 
dθ
= . (5)
ds 0 2 ρ̄ U0
This initial curvature is presented in figure 5(b) as a function of the inverse length ω0 /ρ̄U0 ().
In the same figure, we also report the data extracted from Truscott and Techet [31] ().
Equation (5) nicely predicts the initial curvature of the trajectory, and the best fit on both sets of
data suggests Cn ≈ 0.1, a value comparable to the one deduced from Nathan [21]. There again,
the air cavity behind the ball does not affect the evaluation of the lift, a consequence of the
entrainment of a water boundary layer around the projectile.

New Journal of Physics 12 (2010) 093004 (http://www.njp.org/)

7

Figure 6. Characteristics of the ideal spiral for a spinning ball: the trajectory of
the ball is plotted in the plane (x, y) for U0 = 32 m s−1 , R = 3.6 mm, θ0 = 67◦ ,
ω0 = 743 rad s−1 and ρs /ρ = 1.4. The experimental data are presented with the
 symbol, while the theoretical shape (equation (6)) is drawn with a solid thin
line (y = 0 is the surface of the water bath).

3.3. The ideal spiral

The next step in the derivation of the ball trajectory is to assume that the circulation 0 remains
(almost) constant during the motion, that is, over timescale τ . This assumption is suggested by
figure 4(c) and we discuss it further in section 3.4. Then, for 0 = 2π R 2 ω0 , equation (4) together
with (2) implies

θ (s) = θ0 + 1S es/L − 1 ,
 
(6)

where 1 = 4Cn /CD ≈ 1 and S = ω0 R/U0 . The deviation of the ball from its initial orientation
θ0 thus increases exponentially with the curvilinear coordinate s, which defines the spinning ball
(ideal) spiral. The characteristic length L for which the spiral coils up precisely is the penetration
length expressed by equation (3).
We compare in figure 6 the observed trajectory () to equation (6) (solid line). The
comparison is made in the plane (x, y) using the geometrical relations dx/ds = sin θ ,
dy/ds = −cos θ and for S ≈ 0.09, the value of the spin parameter in this experiment. The
theoretical prediction is in close agreement with the experimental path up to the point where
the ball escapes from the bath, whose surface is defined by y = 0.
An ideal spiral would converge to a centre C (figure 6) located at a distance D from the
impact point. Since C is approached when θ(s) − θ0 is of the order of π (corresponding to a
U-turn of the ball), we obtain from equation (6) D ≈ L ln[1 + π/1S]. The distance D is a linear
function of L and slowly diverges (as ln 1/S) when the spin number goes to 0. Conversely,
for large spin numbers, the spiral centre is expected to converge towards the impact location
(D ≈ L/S).
New Journal of Physics 12 (2010) 093004 (http://www.njp.org/)
8
(a) (b)
0
1
0,8

0,7

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,08

t (s)

Figure 7. Spinning ball spiral obtained with R = 3.5 mm, ρs /ρ = 1,

U0 = 31 m s , ω0 = 1200 rad s and θ0 = 26 . (a) Trajectory of the ball in
−1 −1 ◦

the (x, y) plane (), compared to both the ideal spiral (thin solid line) and
the
√ ‘real’ spiral (thick solid line). (b) Time evolution of the rotation rate
ω0 /ω − 1.

3.4. Variation in the rotation speed

The ‘ideal’ spiral derived in equation (6) is a good approximation for the ball trajectory as long
as the rotation speed ω remains close to its initial value ω0 . This assumption is valid for the
‘shallow’ spiral presented in figures 4 and 6, but cannot be used for the ‘deep’ spiral displayed
in figures 1, 2 and 7. In the latter figure, we first show the ball trajectory (figure 7(a)) and
observe that the ‘ideal’ spiral (thin solid line) only captures the data () in the first part of the
trajectory (s < L). At larger distances, figure 7(b) makes it clear that the rotation rate of the ball
decreases, from ω0 to 0.3 ω0 at the end of the movement. This decrease of the rotation speed
obviously lowers the lift, so that we expect the actual trajectory to be less curved, as observed
in figure 7(a).
In order to model the decrease in ω, we assume that the angular momentum MR 2 ω changes
due to the torque of viscous forces acting on the surface of the ball, and we introduced ν = η/ρ
for the kinematic viscosity. The viscous torque does not exist without rotation (see figure 3(a))
and originates from the difference in velocity Rω between the √ two sides of the ball. The
boundary layer thickness associated with the rotation √ scales as ν/ω (typically of the order of
30 µm), from which we deduce a viscous stress η Rω/ ν/ω. Since the stress is applied over the
surface area R 2 , we obtain the following angular momentum equation, ignoring the numerical
coefficients,
dω Rω 3
MR 2 ∼ −η √ R . (7)
dt ν/ω

New Journal of Physics 12 (2010) 093004 (http://www.njp.org/)

9
Equation (7) can be integrated, which leads to the time evolution of ω,
ω 1 1 ρs R
= , where τω = √ . (8)
ω0 (1 + t/τω ) 2
β ρ ω0 ν
The spin velocity of the ball thus decreases over a characteristic time τω (where β is a numerical
constant, whose value is discussed below). The trajectory remains close to the ideal spiral as
long as the travelling time t (s) = τ (es/L − 1) is smaller than τω (we recall that τ = L/U0 ). One
√
thus expects to leave the ideal spiral when s becomes larger than L ln[1 + U0 / ω0 ν ], that is, a
few times L, as observed in figure 7.
Conversely, if τω < τ , ω decreases quicker than needed to make the spiral, and the
corresponding lift force vanishes before curving the trajectory. One thus expects a linear
propagation of the ball in this limit, which corresponds to impacts in viscous liquids (ν >
U02 /ω0 ). For the parameters in our experiments (U0 ≈ 30 m s−1 ; ω0 ≈ 1000 rad s−1 ), this limit
corresponds to oils at least 1000 times more viscous than water.

3.5. The ‘real’ spiral

In order to account for the variation in the spin rate during the ball motion, we re-write the
equation of motion along the n-direction (4) as an equation for the curvature,
dθ 1S s/L ω
= e . (9)
ds L ω0
Since ω/ω0 = 1/(1 + τ/τω (es/L − 1))2 , this equation can be integrated, which yields
es/L − 1
θ (s) = θ0 + 1S h i. (10)
τ
1+ τω
(es/L − 1)
In the limit τ/τω  1, the evolution of the local angle reduces to the ideal spiral (6). However,
even if τ/τω is small, its product with the exponential term es/L can lead to an observable effect
of the spin decrease. For β = 3.1, the trajectory obtained with equation (10) is drawn with a
thick solid line in figure 7(a), showing fair agreement with the data. At long distances, equation
(10) predicts that the ball follows a straight line, deviating from the impact direction by an angle
1Sτω /τ proportional to the spin number S.

4. Application to sports

The physical origin of the spinning ball spiral lies in the difference in velocity dependences
of lift and drag, which are linear and quadratic, respectively. This behaviour is specific to high
Reynolds number flows around spinning spheres. In our experiments, we used water to minimize
the effect of gravity and to reduce the spatial scale of the spiral L ∼ ρ̄ R. However, the spinning
ball spiral should also exist in air, and we discuss here its influence in ball games.
For different sports, table 1 shows the ball size, the density ratio, the maximum ball
velocity, the characteristic spin parameter and the size of the field, L. In the special case of
baseball, L represents the distance between the pitcher and the batter. Using these data, we
also display the penetration length L = 7ρ̄ R and the length scale U02 /g on which gravity acts.
By comparing L and U02 /g, one can identify sports dominated by aerodynamics (table tennis,
golf and tennis) and sports dominated by gravity (basketball and handball). In between, we

New Journal of Physics 12 (2010) 093004 (http://www.njp.org/)

10

Table 1. Specifications for different sports. The first three sports are dominated
by aerodynamic effects (L  U02 /g). For the last two sports, gravity dominates
aerodynamics (L  U02 /g). In between, we identify sports for which both gravity
and aerodynamics can be used to control the ball’s trajectory. In this table, L is
the size of the field except for baseball, where it stands for the distance between
the pitcher and the batter.
2R ρs /ρ U0 L L U02 /g d
Sport (cm) (m s−1 ) S = Rω0 /U0 (m) (m) (m) (m)
Table tennis 4.0 67 50 0.36 2.7 9.3 255 1
Golf 4.2 967 90 0.09 200 141 826 7
Tennis 6.5 330 70 0.19 24 73 499 5
Soccer 21 74 30 0.21 100 54 92 7
Baseball 7.0 654 40 0.17 18 160 163 7
Volleyball 21 49 20 0.21 18 35 41 5
Basketball 24 72 10 28 60 10
Handball 19 108 20 40 71 40

find sports where both gravity and aerodynamics play a comparable role (soccer, volleyball and
baseball). Indeed, in the first category of sports, the spin is systematically used, while it is not
relevant in the second category, and it only appears occasionally in the third one, in order to
produce surprising trajectories.
Focusing on sports where aerodynamics plays a role, we observe that the penetration
length, which is also the characteristic length of the spiral, is generally larger than the size
of the field. Since the spin parameter is smaller than one, the spiral centre (section 3.3) will lie
outside the field. This suggests that the ball trajectory (6) can be expanded for s/L  1. In this
limit, the spiral reduces to a circle of curvature (5), and we can evaluate
√ the length d by which
the ball deviated from its initial direction by its own size R: d ≈ 2L R/1S. This distance is
shown in the last column of table 1. It is found to be systematically smaller than L, the field
size, which makes relevant the use of spin effects to control the trajectory of the ball.
The case of soccer, where L is twice as small as L, is worth commenting on. The ball
trajectory can deviate significantly from a circle, provided that the shot is long enough. Then
the trajectory becomes surprising and somehow unpredictable for a goalkeeper. This is the way
we interpret a famous goal by the Brazilian player Roberto Carlos against France in 1997
(http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=crSkWaJqx-Y). This free kick was shot from a distance
of approximately 35 m, that is, comparable to the distance L for which we expect this kind
of unexpected trajectory. Provided that the shot is powerful enough, another characteristic of
Roberto Carlos’ abilities, the ball trajectory brutally bends towards the net, at a velocity still
large enough to surprise the keeper.

5. Conclusions

We have studied the motion of spinning spheres at high Reynolds number and in the limit of low
gravity. In this regime, we showed that the curvature of the ball trajectory changes as it moves,

New Journal of Physics 12 (2010) 093004 (http://www.njp.org/)

11
following law (9), rewritten here as
dθ ω(s) 1
∼ · . (11)
ds U (s) ρ̄
We have identified the characteristic length L ∼ 7ρ̄ R over which the ball slows down and coils.
Using this length, we have classified different phases in the ball trajectory. (i) In the initial
phase (s/L  1), neither the velocity nor the spin varies, and the ball follows a circular path
whose curvature C0 can be deduced from (11): ω0 /ρ̄U0 . (ii) As s approaches L, the velocity is
changed but the spin is only weakly affected. This difference in behaviour is all the larger since
√
dimensionless number ω0 ν/U0 is small. In this phase (s/L ≈ 1), the spinning ball coils up
and forms a spiral. (iii) The last phase of the flight is reached when both the velocity and the
spin decrease (s/L > 1). The trajectory then deviates from the spiral and tends to a straight line
as the ball stops.

References

[1] Achenbach E 1972 Experiments on the flow past spheres at very high Reynolds numbers J. Fluid Mech.
54 565–75
[2] Barkla H M and Auchterloniet L J 1971 The Magnus or Robins effect on rotating spheres J. Fluid Mech.
47 437–47
[3] Batchelor G K 1967 An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
[4] Benjamin T B 1993 Note on formulas for the drag of a sphere J. Fluid Mech. 246 335–42
[5] Bergmann R P H M, van der Meer D, Gekle S, van der Bos J A and Lohse D 2009 Controlled impact of a
disk on a water surface: cavity dynamics J. Fluid Mech. 633 381–409
[6] Coriolis G 1835 Théorie Mathématique des Effets du Jeu de Billard (Paris: Jacques Gabay Editeur) http://
gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k29318f.image.f1
[7] Cross R 1998 The trajectory of a ball in lawn bowls Am. J. Phys. 66 735–8
[8] Davies C N 1945 Proc. Phys. Soc. 57 259
[9] Davies J M 1949 The aerodynamics of golf balls J. Appl. Phys. 20 821–8
[10] Duclaux V, Caille F, Duez C, Ybert C, Bocquet L and Clanet C 2007 Dynamics of transient cavities J. Fluid
Mech. 591 1–19
[11] Duez C, Ybert C, Clanet C and Bocquet L 2007 Making a splash with water repellency Nature Phys. 3 180–3
[12] Eiffel G 1909 Recherches expérimentales sur la résistance de l’air exécutées à la tour Eiffel (Paris: Librarie
aéronautique) http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5675046x.zoom.r=Eiffel.f11.langFR
[13] Galilei G 1638 Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences (New York: Dover) http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/
bpt6k512641.image.f2.langFR
[14] Geiger H and Marsden E 1909 On a diffuse reflection of the α-particles Proc. R. Soc. A 82 495–500
[15] Glasheen J W and McMahon T A 1996 A hydrodynamic model of locomotion in the basilisk lizard Nature
380 340–2
[16] Lohse D 2003 Bubble puzzles Phys. Today 56 36–41
[17] Lyotard N, Shew W L, Bocquet L and Pinton J-F 2007 Polymer and surface roughness effects on the drag
crisis for falling spheres Eur. Phys. J. B 60 469–76
[18] Magnus G 1853 Über die Abweichung der Geschosse, und: Über eine abfallende Erscheinung bei rotirenden
Körpern Annalen der Physik 164(1) 1–29
[19] May A 1950 The virtual mass of a sphere entering water vertically J. Appl. Phys. 21 1285–9
[20] Metha D 1985 Aerodynamics of sports balls Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 17 151–89
[21] Nathan A M 2008 The effect of spin on the flight of a baseball Am. J. Phys. 76 119–24
[22] Newton I 1687 Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica lib. 2 prop. 33

New Journal of Physics 12 (2010) 093004 (http://www.njp.org/)

12

[23] Oseen C W 1910 Über die Stokes’sche Formel, und über eine verwandte Aufgabe in der Hydrodynamik
Ark. Math. Astronom. Fys. 6 No. 27
[24] Pruppacher H R 1968 An experimental determination of the drag on a sphere at low Reynolds numbers
J. Appl. Phys. 39 4129–32
[25] Robins B 1805 New Principles of Gunnery ed R Hutton (first printed in 1742)
[26] Rubinow S I and Keller J B 1961 The transverse force on a spinning sphere moving in a viscous fluid J. Fluid
Mech. 11 447–59
[27] Rutherford E 1906 Phil. Mag. Ser. 6 12 143
[28] Schlichting H 1955 Boundary-Layer Theory (New York: McGraw-Hill)
[29] Smith M R, Hilton D K and Van Sciver S W 1999 Observed drag crisis on a sphere in flowing He I and He II
Phys. Fluids 11 751–3
[30] Stokes G G 1851 On the effect of internal friction of fluids on the motion of pendulums Trans. Camb. Phil.
Soc. 9 8–106
[31] Truscott T T and Techet A H 2009 Water entry of spinning spheres J. Fluid Mech. 625 135–65
[32] Worthington A M and Cole R S 1900 Impact with a liquid surface studied by the aid of instantaneous
photography. Paper II Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 194 175–99

View pub
New Journal of Physics 12 (2010) 093004 (http://www.njp.org/)