FiveFrameSwing
Banned
Again - my from my unchallenged scientific perspective on this, by this community, this is incorrect.
Here is a more complete scientific report snigglet that was actually developed at MIT around the sport of Cricket that actually addresses, AND DOES NOT IGNORE Reynolds:
"We have seen that during the course of a typical shot, the ball decelerates through
the drag crisis, its boundary layers transitioning from turbulent to laminar. When the
ball is spinning, one expects the drag crisis to be crossed first on the retreating side,
where the velocity difference between ball and free stream is minimum. There would
thus arise a situation in which the boundary layer is turbulent on the advancing side,
and laminar on the retreating side. The resulting delay of boundary layer separation
on the advancing side would lead to an asymmetric wake, with air in the wake being
deflected in the direction of the retreating side, giving rise to the reverseMagnus effect,
and a lift force opposite that expected (CL < 0; Figure 6d). As the ball decelerates
further, both boundary layers will transition to laminar, and the lift anticipated on
the basis of the traditional Magnus effect (CL > 0) will be restored. To summarize,
as a typical shot decelerates through the drag crisis, its Magnus force will change
sign twice, as the retreating and advancing boundary layers transition in turn from
turbulent to laminar."
This report proved the interaction between Reynolds and Magnus (again the part ignored in the other thread) AND also proved the "assymetric" and latent forces that can act on a ball midflight causing it to have a "late-break".
ANYONE here (including me) that has claims their complete understanding of the co-dependent effects of Magnus and Reynolds on a moving ball is selling wetlands in the Sahara.....
Before coming up with a theory to explain a "jumping" action of a riseball ....... let's first have evidence that such a feat actually occurs.