quote
Dimples. When the surface of the ball is covered with dimples, a thin layer of air next to the ball (aerodynamicists call it the boundary layer) becomes turbulent. Rather than flowing in smooth, continuous layers (a laminar boundary layer), it has a microscopic pattern of fluctuations and randomized flow. Here's the good part: a turbulent boundary layer has better tires. It can better follow the curvature of the ball's profile.
quote
OMG - this scary bit of actual science may really resolve the question !
But before we jump to that conclusion let's look the watery netherworld to see if it ... err - holds water.
If we start by looking way back to the beginning of this thread we'd see Stan W's post asking if we shouldn't in fact be looking at sharkskin. Maybe he's holding something back ( he is after all reputed to sail faster than the wind
). So if we examine sharkskin we could liken it to a microdimpled surface whereas ordinary inhabitants of the deep have mere scales - think elongated dimples. Ergo the shark is extremely efficient as it successfully runs down its prey. Now without looking at smooth skin creatures we'd only see half the argument - and where better to look but those smooth surfaced creatures - crabs and lobsters ( and maybe jellyfish and such ) - clearly no match for the shark. So our fully warranted conclusion should be that dimples - even better microdimples - are far superior to smooth shelled water borne vessels. ( Methinks after this yarn a well earned Sunday afternoon libation is also warranted )
