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

net/publication/363093401

Magnus effect = Coanda effect

Preprint · August 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 598

1 author:

Nicholas Landell-Mills
Independent Research
49 PUBLICATIONS 35 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sports explained by Newtonian physics (Force = ma). View project

Animal flight explained by Newtonian physics (flyers) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nicholas Landell-Mills on 18 June 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Magnus effect = Coanda effect
A Newtonian explanation of the Magnus effect on a spinning ball.

Mr. Nicholas Landell-Mills

16 June 2023
Pre-Print DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26989.87520;
CC License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Keywords: Airflow analysis; Coanda effect;
Magnus effect; Newton; physics.
Independent Research
Donate via PayPal or buy me a coffee.

Fig. 1a. Newtonian forces acting on a basketball in flight. .

Abstract
A problem is that there is no agreed or proven equation for the Magnus effect, which can be used to calculate the lift
generated by a spinning ball or rotating cylinder. Newtonian mechanics asserts that spin on a ball in flight creates at least
two separate forces. See Fig. 1a. This Newtonian explanation is significant as it challenges from the prevailing explanations
of the Magnus effect based on relative airflow analysis in wind tunnels and fluid mechanics. Analysis shows that it matters
whether a spinning ball moves through static air, or vice versa, a relative airflow passes over a stationary, spinning ball. The
airflows and resultant forces differ in these situations and Galilean relativity is found not to apply.

The uneven force is exerted on the ball’s lower side in this

1. INTRODUCTION example. The inertia of the air generates a reactive equal
and opposite drag force, which pulls the ball downwards
and backwards. This drag force slows the ball down and
A. The two Newtonian forces summarized. reduces the Magnus effect.

The Magnus effect describes how a basketball with backspin Isaac Newton appears to have incorrectly asserted in 1671
in flight through static air produces lift. The basketball achieves that the curved path observed on a spinning tennis ball,
a higher and more curved trajectory, as compared to a basketball was due to the spin accelerating the air flown through
thrown with no spin. See Fig. 1b. unevenly.

2) The air passed through is pulled around the ball and

downwards due to curved shape of the basketball’s surface
and the Coanda effect. The mass of air re-directed airflow
(m) creates turbulence and decelerates (a), to generate a
large downward force (Force DOWN = ma). The reactive
equal and opposite upward force provides lift and
increases the ball’s upward trajectory.

This process is similar to how a sailboat generates a

Fig. 1b. The Magnus effect observed
on a basketball in flight.
Newtonian mechanics (Force = ma) indicates two separate
and compatible forces that explain the Magnus effect. For
example, a basketball ball’s backspin means that: See Fig. 1a.
forward force by re-directing the wind to create turbulence
behind the sail.
This process is just an example of how the Coanda effect
alters airflow to generate a force, rather than an entirely
new or different effect, called the Magnus effect. In other
words, the Magnus effect is really just a mislabelled
Coanda effect.

1) The mass of static air (m) passed through by the basketball
is accelerated diagonally forwards and upwards, at an
angle that is different to the ball’s trajectory (or flight
path). This action creates a small uneven force (Force
UNEVEN = ma), as compared to the ball’s centre of gravity.
In flight, momentum is transferred form the ball to the air, to
produce the Magnus effect. The ball’s surface texture, rate of
spin, and airspeed affect the magnitude of the forces generated.

1
 Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect

Contents:

1. Introduction ....................................................... 1
2. Background ........................................................ 3

3. Isaac Newton’s Explanation ............................... 5

4. Uneven Drag ...................................................... 6

5. Empirical Equation for Drag .............................. 8
6. Coanda Effect .................................................... 9

7. The Prevailing View ......................................... 11

8. Prevailing View vs. Newton ............................ 13

9. Discussion of Results ....................................... 16

10. Conclusions ...................................................... 17
This space is intentionally left blank.
11. Additional Information .................................... 17
12. References ....................................................... 18

Appendix I – Galilean Relativity Revisited................. 19

Appendix II – Forces Directly Exerted ....................... 21
Appendix III – Relative Airflow Forces ...................... 23

2

2. BACKGROUND
A. The Magnus effect described.
The Magnus effect describes a process of how a rotating
curved surface moving through a fluid can create a force.
For example, a rotating cylinder re-directs relative airflow
(headwind) to generates a force in the opposite direction. Also, a
football kicked with a spin produces a curved flight path. The
flight path curves in the same direction of the spin, relative to
the direction of travel by the football. See Fig. 2a-i.
Fig. 2a-i. The Magnus effect on a stationary rotating
cylinder, and a spinning football in flight.
The Magnus effect observed on ships and wings
The Magnus effect has no impact on conventional wing
airflows in standard configurations. However, airplanes using
rotating cylinders (in the place of the conventional wings) have
successfully flown. However, these aircraft were difficult to
control, inefficient, and were not widely adopted.
Experiments with steamboats fitted with vertical, rotating
cylinders were also successfully demonstrated to create
beneficial forward forces from re-directing a wind. See Fig. 2a-
ii. [14]
Fig. 2a-ii. Rotating cylinders on boats and aircraft. [12][13]
The Magnus effect is worth analysing and explaining for the
following reasons:
- Newtonian mechanics based on actual airflow analysis is
shown to provide a novel and superior explanation of the
Magnus effect, as compared to relative airflow analysis.
This aspect supports the argument that Newtonian
mechanics can explain the lift generated by a wing.
- The Magnus effect is somewhat similar to the Coanda
effect. Both involve a moving object that has a curved
surface interacting with a fluid. It is consistent for
Newtonian mechanics to explain the resultant forces for
both effects.
3
Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect
B. Flight path analysis.
For the example of a football kicked with a spin, additional
comments and observations include:
- In general, the greater the spin on a football kicked, the
greater the curvature of the flight path experienced.
However, a lack of reliable data available means that it is
unclear if spin and curvature are directly proportional.
- Spin is generated on a football kicked by exerting a force
that is slightly off-centre.
- The ball can lose little spin during its flight. The ball is
often observed to remain spinning after it loses forward
motion.
- The gyroscopic effects of a spinning ball are the reverse of
what is observed on a frisbee. See Fig. 2b-i.
For example, spin on a frisbee enhances flight stability, due
to the gyroscopic effects, while generating little Magnus
effect. A rapidly spinning frisbee can be thrown a long
distance in almost a straight line. Whereas, spin on a
football can generate a significantly curved flight path, due
to the Magnus effect.
Fig. 2b-i. Flight path of a spinning
football and frisbee compared.
- A non-spinning football can be kicked further than a
spinning football with a curved flight path.
- The flight paths experience a continuing change in
trajectory, but at a slowing rate of change. See Fig. 2b-ii.
The amount of curvature on a spinning ball’s flight path
increases during the flight, as the forces constantly change
the ball’s direction relative to its flight path. However, after
the initial impetus (e.g. kick) is delivered, the ball’s
velocity and rate of spin slows, which slows the rate of
change of the flight path.
Fig. 2b-ii. Flight path of a spinning football. [11]
- The Magnus effect is observed in a spinning ball’s a curved
flight path through the air in many sports. For example,
football, basketball, golf, …. As well as any spinning
curved surface such as a disc (e.g. frisbee) or cylinder.
 Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect

C. The Coanda effect. D. Cannonball example.

Fluid flow naturally follows a curved surface due to the The first recorded analysis of the Magnus effect was done on
Coanda effect. For example, water falling from a tap is passively experiments with cannonballs in the 19th Century, A cannonball
re-directed to the right (and slightly up) by the curved side of a with backspin achieved a higher trajectory and a longer range, as
spoon due to the Coanda effect. According to Newtonian compared to a cannonball with no spin. [14] See Fig. 2d.
mechanics, this action creates a small turning force, due to the
change in momentum of the water flow. The reactive equal and
opposite force pushes the spoon sideways to the left (and
slightly downwards). See Fig. 2c-i.

Fig. 2d. Magnus force generating lift

on a cannonball in flight with backspin
according to Newtonian mechanics.

E. Prevailing explanations summarized.

All prevailing explanations of the Magnus effect use relative

airflow diagrams and analysis. Diagrams show a stationary ball
(or cylinder) exposed to a relative airflow. See Fig. 2e.
Fig. 2c-i. Spoon experiment
demonstrating the Coanda effect.

Wind tunnel experiments

Wind tunnel experiments demonstrate airflows arising due to

the Coanda effect on the topside of a curved airplane wing, as
well as turbulence that can arise.. See Fig. 2c--ii.

Fig. 2e. Forces on non-spinning and spinning balls

described using relative airflow analysis.

The preferred equations for the Magnus effect include:

- Kutta-Joukowski equation for a rotating cylinder. [1]
- NASA’s equation for the ideal theoretical lift of a
Fig. 2c--ii. Airflow on curved spinning, smooth ball: [1]
and flat wings. [20][21]
Lift = (4 * π2 * radius3 * spin * air density
* velocity) * 4 / 3
In general, wings produce a stronger Coanda effect with
laminar (smooth / non-turbulent) airflow at a lower AOA, higher - Empirical equation for lift:
airspeed, and where the wings are deepest (largest chord, such as Lift = 0.5 (Velocity2 * Air Density * Wing Area
near the fuselage). Conversely, the Coanda effect is weakest at * Lift Coefficient)
high AOA, slower airspeeds, and where the wings are narrow
(small chord, such as at the wing tips). See Fig. 2c--iii. There is no agreed equation to calculate the forces generated
by the airflows produced by the Magnus effect, as established by
an agreed experimental proof. Even NASA’s website identifies
numerous theories and equations for the Magnus force, and that
many equations do not correspond well to reality. [1]

Additional concerns of the prevailing explanations include:

- Equations for a spinning ball differ to equations for a
rotating cylinder, but the same diagrams are used to
describe the airflows and forces.
Fig. 2c--iii. Smooth vs.
- The prevailing equations are often extremely complex
turbulent wing airflows. [20]
and plagued by a number of theoretical problems.
The flat undersides of wings are typically designed to push air - Explanations are rarely supported by an example
down without inducing any Coanda effect. calculation to illustrate the theory provided.

4
 Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect

3. ISAAC NEWTON’S EXPLANATION

A. Isaac Newton’s explanation of the Magnus effect.

It is possible that Isaac Newton came close to accurately

describing the Magnus effect in the 17th Century, when he wrote
in a letter about the theory of flight: “I had often seen a Tennis
ball, struck with an oblique Racket, describe such a curve line.
For, a circular as well as a progressive motion being
communicated to it by that stroak, its parts on that side, where
the motions conspire, must press and beat the contiguous Air
more violently than on the other, and there excite a reluctancy
and reaction of the Air proportionably greater.” [15]

Newton appears to claim that one side of the tennis ball

exerted a more aggressive force on the air, in order to create an
equal and opposite reaction. This implies that the force exerted
was not aligned to the ball’s centre of gravity, which caused the
curved flight path in the direction of the sin. See Fig. 3a-i.

This space is intentionally left blank.

Fig. 3a-i. Uneven strength of the forces
exerted by the tennis ball on the air.)

However, this explanation does not make much sense. If the

air was accelerated unevenly as sown in the diagram above.
Then the resultant uneven drag generated across the ball, would
pull the ball in the direction opposite to the spin (and not in the
same direction as the spin). See Fig. 3a-i.

Fig. 3a-ii. Correct explanation of

the drag created by backspin.

Newtons explanation of the curved path of a tennis ball

appears to be similar to this paper’s explanation of the curved
path of a football due to the uneven drag forces arising by the
ball’s spin, as described below.

Contrary to the relative airflow model, Newton did not

describe the Magnus force as being perpendicular to the tennis
ball’s direction of travel. Instead, Newton identified that the
force causing the curved flight path, was acting at an oblique
angle to the tennis ball’s direction of travel.

Newton does not appear to have provided an equation or any

more detail in what seems to be an off-hand analysis done out of
curiosity. It is supposed that the force exerted on the air by the
tennis ball, which Newton refers to is the 2 nd Law of Motion,
Force = ma.
5
 Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect

4. UNEVEN DRAG B. Direct forces on a non-spinning ball – Drag.

Mass flow rate

A. Newtonian mechanics used to explain drag.
The forces acting on a spinning football with a curved flight
are not in balance. The spin creates uneven forces relative to the
ball’s direction.
The football exerts forces directly against the static air that it
flies through. Newtons Laws of Motion describe the
relationship between the motion of an object (e.g. football) and
the forces acting on it. Therefore, it is appropriate to use
Newtonian mechanics to explain the forces acting on a football
in flight.
Actual airflow analysis is also appropriate to analyse the
airflows created by a football in flight, as this reflects what
actually occurs in practice.
The static mass of air flown through each second (m/dt) in the
path of the non-spinning ball is accelerated to a velocity (dv)
sideways and slightly forwards. This action creates a forward
force on the air (Force FORWARD = m/dt * dv).
The inertia of this air allows for a reactive, equal and opposite
backwards force to be generated against the ball, which is called
drag (i.e. parasitic drag). In other words, Force FORWARD / drag is
the force required to push the air out of the ball’s path. This
process is summarized by the following Newtonian equations
using the mass flow rate: See Fig. 4b.
Force FORWARD = ma = m/dt * dv = Drag
Units: N = kg/s * m/s

Consequently, actual airflow analysis using Newtonian

mechanics is applied to explain: See Fig. 4a.
- Movement of a non-spinning football.
- Movement of a spinning football.

Fig. 4b. Forces created on a non-spinning ball,

using actual airflow analysis.

Momentum

There is no net gain or loss of momentum, energy and mass

Fig. 4a. Trajectory of a football
kicked with and without a spin.
Definitions:
- m = Mass of air the ball flies through.
- m/dt = Mass per unit time. The mass flow rate.
- dt = Change in time (i.e. per second).
- dv and v = Change in velocity of the air; and the
velocity that the air flown through is accelerated to
in one second. i.e. ‘dv = v’.
- a = dv/dt (acceleration).
in the process of generating drag. The ball transfers a small
amount of momentum to the air, slowing the ball down slightly
each meter flown, as summarized by the following equation:
Momentum = ma = d(mv)/dt
Units: N = (kg m/s) /s
Both equations above for the mass flow rate and momentum
are based on Newtons 2nd Law of Motion (Force = ma). These
equations are correct, complimentary, and produce the same
values from different perspectives.
Wake airflows

Key equations: The air accelerated by the ball faces resistance from the
- Momentum = mv [1] surrounding atmosphere, so cannot go very far away from the
- Force = ma = m * dv/dt [1] ball. As the ball pass forwards, it overtakes this mass of air
= m/dt * dv [1] accelerated. The air is then pulled backwards to fill the void of
= d(mv)/dt [1] low air pressure in the ball’s wake, helped by the Coanda effect.
The air then decelerates, causing turbulence behind the ball.
It is estimated that the football’s airspeed is initially a lot
faster than the velocity to which the air flown through is As the wake airflows created are approximately even and
accelerated. i.e. The football is travelling a lot faster than it balanced, no additional forces arise. However, a spinning ball
accelerates the air away from it. creates uneven wake airflows, and therefore creates lift, as
described below.

6

C. Direct forces on a spinning ball – Drag.
If spin is added to the ball in flight through static air, then the
direction that the air is accelerated away from the ball changes to
the direction of the spin. As a result of the spin, the air passed
through by the ball is accelerated air diagonally forwards and
upwards (i.e. unevenly), in the direction of the spin.
More precisely, at the point of contact between the ball and
the mass of static air, the ball’s spin accelerates the air
molecules away from the ball in the direction of the spin. The
direction of acceleration is different from the direction of a non-
spinning ball. See Fig. 4c-i.
Fig. 4c-i. Forces created by the Magnus effect.
on a ball using actual airflow analysis.
The reactive net equal and opposite backwards force (drag)
generated, also shifts direction to be aligned with the direction
opposite to the spin. See Fig. 4c-ii.
Fig. 4c-ii. Drag created on a spinning football,
shown using actual airflow analysis.
The direction of the drag force acting on the ball is different
to the ball’s direction of travel, causing the ball to alter it
trajectory. Importantly, the reactive net drag force pulls the ball
backwards and downwards, in the direction opposite to the ball’s
spin (and not in the direction of the ball’s spin, as described by
the Magnus effect).
Consequently, this dynamic cannot explain the curved flight
path of a spinning football, as described by the Magnus effect.
The forces generated by uneven drag are thought to be
relatively small, and therefore, not particularly significant. The
uneven drag arising due to the backspin exerting a force directly
on the air is also illustrated in Fig. 4c-iii.
Fig. 4c-iii. Uneven drag acting
on a spinning basketball.
7
Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect
In contrast to the explanation provided above, Isaac Newton
asserted in 1671 that the curved path observed on a spinning
tennis ball, was due to the spin accelerating the air flown
through unevenly.
D. Uneven forces directly exerted by spin.
The explanation above of how the ball’s flight path is affected
by spin exerting uneven forces directly on the air, can be
illustrated by the following simple classroom-type of
experiments of balls hitting the ground:
- Basketball dropped with backspin (see below).
- Tennis balls with spin (see Appendix II).
- Basketball dropped with lateral spin (see Appendix II).
The forces exerted directly by the balls hitting the ground, is
the same as the forces exerted by the ball hitting the air; Except
the ground provides significant resistance to the ball on contact.
Whereas the air provides only marginal resistance to the ball’s
spin , and therefore, generates smaller forces.
Basketballs dropped with backspin
A basketball with no spin is dropped vertically. It bounces up
wand down on the same spot on the ground. See Fig. 4d-i.
On the other hand, if a spinning basketball is dropped directly
downwards (vertically) towards the ground. After hitting the
ground and bouncing upwards, the basketball is observed to:
See Fig. 4d-i.
- Bounce in the direction opposite to the spin. In contrast,
the Magnus force acts to create a force in the same
direction as the spin.
- Reverse the direction of spin.
Fig. 4d-i. Basketball spin reverses.
On hitting the ground, the basketball’s spin exerts a force at
an oblique angle to the vertical downward direction of travel.
Consequently, the resultant equal and opposite force pushes the
basketball at an angle that is different to its initial trajectory
(flight path), which is not vertically up and down. See Fig. 4d-ii.
Fig. 4d-i. Forces acting on a
basketball due to spin.

5. EMPIRICAL EQUATION FOR DRAG
A. Empirical equation for drag.
The logic for using Newtonian mechanics to explain drag is
supported by the assertion that Newtonian mechanics can easily
explain the empirical equation for drag, as shown below: [1]
Drag = 0.5 (Velocity2 * Surface Area
* Air Density * Drag Coefficient)
All the parameters of the empirical equation for drag
(velocity, air density, surface area and drag coefficient) affect
the mass of air displaced each second (m/dt) and/or the velocity
to which this air is accelerated downwards (dv). Therefore, it is
possible to use Newtonian mechanics to explain the empirical
equation for drag. See Fig. 5a-(i-ii).
Fig. 5a-i. Newtonian mechanics explains the
empirical equation for drag on a non-spinning ball.
Fig. 5a-iii. Mass of air flown through
by a ball each second.
Force = m/dt * dv = Drag.
The empirical equation can be re-stated to correspond more
closely to the two elements of the Newtonian equation for the
forward force (m/dt and dv), as follows: See Fig. 5a-i.
(1) The Newtonian and empirical equations for drag are
equated, as they describe the same force exerted on the football:
Newtonian = Empirical equation
Force FORWARD = Drag
m/dt x dv = 0.5 (Velocity2 * Surface Area
* Air Density * Drag Coefficient)
(2) The equation above is revised as follows:
m/dt = (Velocity * Surface Area * Air Density) (a)
x dv * 0.5 (Velocity * Drag Coefficient) (b)
(3) Then the two parts of the Newtonian equation (m/dt and
dv) are correlated to two different parts of the empirical equation
of drag, (a) and (b) as follows: See Fig. 3e-ii.
8
Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect
m/dt = Velocity * Surface Area * Air Density (a)
= (Velocity * Surface Area) * Air Density
= Volume /dt * Air Density
= m/dt
dv = 0.5 * Velocity * Drag Coefficient (b)
This analysis provides useful insight into the drag coefficient;
which can be defined by the effectiveness at which air is
accelerated away from the football to a velocity (dv). This
depends on factors such as the shape of the football, the surface
material, and the angle that the ball hits the air. This aspect is
consistent with the current description of the drag coefficient.
The mass of air flow through each second by the football
(m/dt) depends on the volume of air flown through and the air
density. In turn, the volume of air flown through depends on the
football’s velocity and the surface area facing the direction of
flight.
Example: Drag quadruples if velocity doubles
For example, Newtonian mechanics can explain why drag is
proportional to velocity squared, in the empirical equation for
drag. Specifically, why drag quadruples if a football’s velocity
doubles. The Newtonian explanation is that for a football flying
through static air twice as fast: See Fig. 5a-iii.
- The ball flies through twice the mass of air each second (2
* m/dt), which it pushes out of its path.
- As the ball’s momentum has also doubled, the air flown
through is accelerated away from the ball to twice the
velocity as before (2 * dv).
The combined effect is to quadruple the forward force exerted
by the football on the air, and therefore, quadruple the equal and
opposite drag force generated, as shown by the equation:
4 * Force FORWARD = 2m/dt * 2dv = 4 * Drag
Fig. 5a-iii. If the ball’s velocity doubles;
then drag quadruples.
Summary
The analysis above shows that Newtonian mechanics explains
the physics of the empirical equation for drag, which fluid
mechanics and other theories fail to do.
The empirical equation for drag is a mathematical description
of how drag is observed to vary with different parameters in
practice. Until now there has been no adequate explanation of
the physics involved. This explanation is new and has not been
presented elsewhere before.

6. COANDA EFFECT
A. Stationary rotating cylinder.
Newtons Laws of Motion that describes the relationship
between the motion of an object and the forces acting on it, can
be applied to explain the forces generated by a the Magnus
effect on a rotating cylinder or spinning football in two
situations:
- A relative airflow is re-directed by a stationary object.
- A static air mass is accelerated by a flying object, to create
actual airflows.
B. Relative airflow re-directed.
The Newtonian explanation of the Magnus effect arising from
a relative airflow re-directed by a stationary, rotating cylinder is
similar to the prevailing view. See Fig. 6b-i.
Fig. 6b-i. Relative airflow
on a rotating cylinder.
Two airflows are evident:
- The upper airflow: On the windward side of the cylinder,
the upper airflow is initially redirected up and around the
curved topside of the cylinder, helped by the Coanda
effect. [19] On the leeward side of the cylinder, the airflow
is then pulled diagonally downward at a steep angle.
- The lower airflow: On the windward side of the cylinder,
the lower airflow is redirected diagonally downward at a
low angle, due to the angle-of-attack (AOA) between the
air and the cylinder.
Definitions:
- m = Mass of air the wings fly through.
- m/dt = Mass per unit time. The mass flow rate.
- dt = Change in time (i.e. per second).
- dv and v = Change in velocity of the air; and the
velocity that the air flown through is accelerated to in
one second (downwash velocity). i.e. ‘dv = v’.
- a = dv/dt (acceleration).
Other equations:
- Kinetic Energy = K.E. = 0.5 mv2 [1]
- Momentum = mv [1]
The Newtonian approach can be explain the forces generated
by the relative airflow re-directed in two ways: See Fig. 6b-ii.
- The mass flow rate (Force = m/dt * dv).
- The change in momentum (Force = d(mv)/dt).
9
Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect
Fig. 6b-ii. Newtonian forces
acting on a rotating cylinder.
Mass flow rate (Force = m/dt * dv)
Simply put, the rotating cylinder re-directs a mass of air each
second (m/dt) diagonally down and backwards. The air
decelerates to a velocity (dv) when it interacts with undisturbed
airflow, to create turbulence. This action creates a backward
force (Force BACK), as summarised by the equation:
Force BACK = ma = m * dv/dt = m/dt * dv [1]
The inertia of the air provides resistance to the backward
force, producing a reactive equal and opposite forward force
(Force FORWARDS), as shown by the equation:
Force BACK = Force FORWARDS
The equations above are combined as follows:
Force BACK = Force FORWARDS = m/dt * dv
Simplified to: Force = m/dt * dv
Units: N = kg/s * m/s
Change in momentum (Force = d(mv)/dt
There is no net gain or loss of momentum, energy and mass
in the process of generating lift. Momentum and kinetic energy
is transferred from the relative airflow to the cylinder, by de-
accelerating the air re-directed downwards to a lower velocity
(dv or v). This action generates a force, which can be expressed
by the equations: See Fig. 6b-ii.
Force DOWN = ma = m * dv/dt = d(mv)/dt [1]
K.E. = 0.5 mv2 [1]
The momentum and kinetic energy used to generate lift are
calculated using the same factors; ‘m’ and ‘v’.
Due to the inertia of the air, the downward force generates a
reactive equal and opposite forward force, which provides lift.
Combining the equations above allows lift to be expressed as the
change in momentum of the air accelerated diagonally down:
Force DOWN = Force FORWARDS (Lift) = d(mv)/dt
Or simply: Lift = d(mv)/dt
Units: N = (kg m/s) /s
The two methods and equations above are based on Newtons
2nd Law of Motion (Force = ma). Both equations are correct,
complementary, and produce the same values for the forces
generated from different perspectives.

C. Forces form relative airflows.
The forces and process described above for a stationary
rotating cylinder exposed to a relative airflow according to
Newtonian mechanics, are the same as those forces created by a
paraglider, boat sailing into wind, and an albatross dynamic
soaring. See Appendix III.
This means that the Newtonian explanation of the forces
generated from airflows is consistent with how forces are
generated elsewhere.
D. Additional considerations.
According to the mass flow rate, the force generated (Force =
m/dt *dv) depends on the factors that affect the mass of air re-
directed and the velocity to which this air decelerates (dv),
which includes:
- The speed of the cylinder’s rotation (spin rate).
- The speed of the relative airflow
- The texture of the cylinder’s surface.
- The effectiveness of the Coanda effect.
Additional considerations:
- In addition to the forces described above, the relative
airflow exerts a force directly against the cylinder, pushing
it backwards. However, this force is not of interest or
relevant to the analysis. Consequently it is not considered
any further.
- The forward force can be analysed between a vertical
vector for lift, and a horizontal vector for the forward force.
See Fig. 6b-ii.
- Downwash may not be generated on all spinning objects
(e.g. balls or cylinders), in flight in which case no
downward and no upward force (Magnus force or lift) is
generated. Nonetheless, the spinning object may generate
enough drag to achieve a curved flight path. See the
explanation in the section below.
- If no airflow is re-directed, then no force can be created due
to the Magnus effect (Coanda effect).
- The wake airflow can descend diagonally downwards a
long distance below the rotating cylinder.
- There is plenty of evidence from past experiments that air
can be re-directed 90° around a curved surface, such as a
rotating cylinder, due to the Coanda effect. [19]
- The use of the Coanda effect to generate lift is not new.
Aircraft rely on the Coanda effect to pull air over the
curved shape of the wings. Many remote-controlled aircraft
have been built using the Coanda effect.
- The spin speed (rotation speed) of the ball and the nature of
the ball’s surface determine the angle and velocity that the
air is accelerated away from the ball. Consequently, this
dynamic also affects the curvature of the flight path
observed.
10
Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect
This aspect explains why a smooth ball surface generates
significantly less Magnus effect, as compared to a rough
surface seen of golf balls or footballs.
- The Newtonian forces acting on a rotating cylinder or a
spinning football exposed to a relative airflow are the same.
In other words, there’s no difference in how the forces are
calculated for a rotating cylinder or a spinning football.
E. Actual airflow analysis.
The Newtonian approach for a rotating cylinder in flight
applies actual airflow analysis, instead of relative airflow
analysis. The approach is similar to relative airflow analysis
except the rotating cylinder accelerates the mass of air flown
through downwards, rather than re-directing an airflow that
decelerates. See Fig. 6e-(i-ii).
Fig. 6e-i. Magnus effect generating
lift on airplanes. [9]
Fig. 6e-ii. Newtonian forces acting on
a spinning football in flight,
using actual airflow analysis.
The Newtonian forces acting on a rotating cylinder or a
spinning football in flight are the same. In other words, there’s
no difference in how the forces are calculated for a rotating
cylinder or a spinning football.
The calculation of the forces involved is as follows:
- The wing flies through a mass of air each second (m/dt),
which it accelerates to a velocity downwards (dv), to create
a downward force, as shown by the equation:
Force DOWN = m/dt * dv
- Momentum is transferred form the cylinder or football to
the air. The downward force can be calculated using the
Newtonian equation for the change in momentum:
Force DOWN = d(mv)/dt
- These two methods above of explaining lift are based on
Newtons 2nd Law of motion (Force = ma). Both equations
are correct, complimentary, and produce the same values
for lift through different perspectives.
- The inertia of the air generates a reactive equal and
opposite upward force.

7. THE PREVAILING VIEW
A. Relative airflow diagrams.
All prevailing explanations of the Magnus effect use relative
airflow diagrams and analysis. Diagrams show a stationary ball
(or cylinder) exposed to a relative airflow. The diagram is
intended to represent a moving ball passing through a static air
mass. On the leeward side of the spinning ball, the relative
airflow above and below the ball is re-directed downwards, in
the direction of the spin to create the Magnus effect (Force
MAGNUS). See Fig. 7a-i.
Fig. 7a-i. Forces on non-spinning and
spinning balls described using
relative airflow analysis.
The curved flight path of a spinning football illustrates how
relative airflow analysis is used to explain the Magnus effect.
See Fig. 7a-ii.
Fig. 7a-ii. relative airflow analysis used to
explain the Magnus effect.
B. Wind tunnel experiments.
The diagram above replicates the airflows observed in a wind
tunnel where smoke is blown over a spinning ball or rotating
cylinder. Doubtlessly the relative airflow approach is used
because wind tunnels are simpler and cheaper as compared to
throwing balls through clouds of smoke. See Fig. 7b-i.
Fig. 7b-i. Wind tunnel experiments with
rotating cylinder and spinning baseball. [16][17]
11
Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect
C. Galilean relativity.
Advocates of this approach argue that the relative airflow
diagrams are accurate based on the assumption of Galilean
relativity. Assuming that all movement is relative, it does not
matter to the analysis of the physics involved in the Magnus
effect whether the ball or air is stationary or static.
Consequently, the explanation for a Magnus effect based on
relative airflow analysis is the same for the spinning football and
rotating cylinder. See Appendix I.
D. Prevailing explanations and equations.
Similar to the mixture of theories on how lift is created, the
prevailing explanations for the Magnus effect all use relative
airflow analysis and include:
- Fluid mechanics. Such as the Kutta-Joukowski theorem
for the lift generated by a rotating cylinder, as shown by the
equation: [1] See Fig. 7d.
L=r*V*G
Abbreviations:
L = Lift per unit length along the cylinder.
V = Velocity V of the airflow.
r = Density of the airflow.
G = The strength of the vortex G.
Fig. 7d. Kutta-Joukowski theorem for
lift generation on a rotating cylinder and wing. [1]
- Bernoulli’s principles of fluid mechanics; low air pressure
creates a force.
- Pressure gradient / pressure differential.
- Vortices.
- The influence of boundary layers.
- The empirical equations of lift for a wing in flight: [1]
Lift = 0.5 (Aircraft Velocity2 * Air Density
* Wing Area * Coefficient of Lift)
- Newtonian mechanics. The change in momentum of the
airflow downward by a spinning ball, generates an equal
and opposite upward force, called the Magnus effect. See
Fig. 7a-i.
This is simply a list of common explanations of the Magnus
effect, and not an exhaustive list of all the theories.
A review of a sample of explanations of the Magnus effect
shows that there is no consensus on the physics involved.

E. Key problems of relative airflow analysis.
The key problems of relative airflow diagrams and theory are
summarised as follows:
1) There is no explanation of how momentum is transferred
from the airflow to the rotating cylinder to create a force.
To create a force for the Magnus effect, momentum
needs to be transferred from the relative airflow to the
rotating cylinder. However, there is no explanation of
how this transfer of momentum occurs and the transfer is
not evident in wind tunnel experiments.
Also, if the cylinder gains momentum from the relative
airflow, then the airflow should slow down on the
leeward side. But there is no evidence that this occurs.
Note that due to the use of relative airflow, this transfer
is the reverse of what happens in practice, where the
rotating cylinder transfer momentum to the air as it
creates the Magnus effect (Magnus force).
2) The key forces are not aligned. The forces created by the
relative airflows is typically shown in diagrams as
displaced slightly from each other. This means that the
forces generated are not equal and opposite, which is
strange and unexplained. See Fig. 7e-i.
Fig. 7e-i. Forces created on a ball by the
Magnus effect, using relative airflow analysis.
3) Why the Magnus force acts perpendicular to the relative
airflow is unexplained. The direction of the turbulence
created on the leeward side on a rotating cylinder can
vary. But despite this dynamic, the direction of the
Magnus force is assume to be constant.
4) There is no evidence that wind tunnel experiments
blowing smoke over a stationary, rotating ball accurately
reflects what is observed in practice for a spinning ball
in flight. For example, there is no video evidence of a
football fling through stationary smoke-filled air to
confirm that the wind tunnels are accurate. .
5) This approach does not adequately explain why
increasing the surface roughness increases the strength
of the Magnus effect observed. Surely increased surface
roughness slowdown the relative airflow, and reduces
6) This approach does not provide an equation to enable the
calculation of the Magnus force.
7) Does not allow for the calculation of drag, and cannot
explain the empirical equation for drag:
12
Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect
Drag = 0.5 (Velocity2 * Surface Area
* Air Density * Drag Coefficient)
8) Lack of correlation between the upper and lower
airflows, with the forces generated.
In wind tunnel experiments with relative airflows there were
two separate airflows: above and below the spinning cylinder, as
described below: See Fig. 7b-i above.
- The upper airflow is initially re-directed upwards in front
of the cylinder on the windward side. This upper airflow is
pushed in the same direction as the (clockwise) rotating
cylinder, due to surface friction with the cylinder.
Then the upper airflow is pulled downwards on the leeward
side, in the wake behind the cylinder, by the rotation of the
cylinder. Advocates claim that this action creates the
Magnus effect. See Fig. 7e-iii.
Fig. 7e-iii. Relative airflow analysis
of a rotating cylinder. [1]
- It is unclear why the Magnus effect is driven only by the
upper airflow on the leeward side of the cylinder. The
airflows on the windward side and the lower airflows were
simply excluded or ignored.
Advocates of relative airflow analysis claim that these other
airflows do not contribute towards the creation of any force
without any convincing justification.
The selective use of airflow to generate forces is illogical
and inconsistent. This problem arises irrespective of which
theory is used to explain the forces created.
- The lower airflow is re-directed downwards, against the
direction of spin of the cylinder, in front of and behind the
cylinder. This lower airflow pattern is opposite to the
claims by advocates that airflow is re-directed in the same
direction as the direction of spin. This airflow is not
considered to contribute towards the Magnus effect or to
detract from the size of the Magnus effect created.
Advocates of relative airflow analysis claim that this
feature arises due to the flow separation and/or friction
between the lower airflow and rotating cylinder. However,
this does not alter the problem that the impact of the lower
airflow on the Magnus effect is ignored.
In summary, there is a long list of problems with the
explanation of the Magnus effect based on relative airflows.
 Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect

8. PREVAILING VIEW VS. NEWTON B. Spinning football in flight.

The prevailing view and Newtonian mechanics produce

different explanations of how a spinning football in flight
through static air generates a force due to the Magnus effect, as
A. Stationary rotating cylinder. described below: See Fig. 8a-i.

The prevailing view and Newtonian mechanics produce a
similar explanation of how a stationary rotating cylinder
exposed to a relative airflow generates a force due to the
Magnus effect. See Fig. 8a-i.
- The prevailing view uses fluid mechanics and relative
airflows to explain the forces created by a spinning
football. The football pulls the relative airflow around it,
similar to a rotating cylinder.
- Newtonian mechanics applies actual airflow model to
explain the forces created by a spinning football
accelerating the mass of air passed through.

Fig. 8a-i. Prevailing view vs. Newtonian mechanics

for a rotating cylinder exposed to a relative airflow.

Problem: Direction of the force generated

Fig. 8a-i. Explanations of the Magnus force
from relative and actual airflow analysis.
Key differences between the Newtonian and prevailing views
include:
- The direction of the force generated is somewhat
Relative and actual airflow models both predict that a
different.
spinning footballs flight path will curve as observed in practice.
- The Newtonian approach attributes the ability of the
See Fig. 8a-ii.
curved surface to re-direct relative airflow to the Coanda
effect.
- The prevailing view ignores the lower airflow re-
directed downwards, the Newtonian approach does not.
- The Newtonian approach takes into account flow-
turning and the change in momentum of the relative
airflow. The prevailing view does not.

It is unclear why the force generated according to the

prevailing view is always at 90° to the direction of the relative
airflow. This dynamic is regardless of variations in the factors
that impact the Magnus effect. For example, the angle that the
relative airflow is re-directed does not alter the perpendicular
direction of the force generated.
Fig. 8a-ii. Relative vs. Actual airflow
It could be argued that the re-directed airflow descends
analysis (drag only).
diagonally downwards in the diagrams above. However, relative
to the rotating cylinder and the initial trajectory of the relative Relative and actual airflow models both predict that a
airflow, the re-directed airflow descends almost vertically cannonball’s flight path increases in range when it has backspin,
downward. This means that the airflow’s change in momentum as observed in practice. [14] See Fig. 8a-iii.
is generating an equal and opposite force that is almost vertical
upwards, i.e. lift.

In contrast, the force generated according to Newtonian

mechanics varies with the angle the relative airflow is re-
directed. For example, if the relative airflow is re-directed to a
steeper angle, then the direction of the force generated also
changes correspondingly.

The relative airflow can be re-directed at different angles

depending on factors such as: the texture of the cylinder’s Fig. 8a-iii. Magnus force acting on a
surface, the rate of spin, the speed of the relative airflow, ….. spinning cannonball in flight.

13

Relative and actual airflow analysis can be compared based
on how well they explain what is observed in the physics world.
The results are summarized below in Table 8a.
Table 8a. Results of relative and actual airflow
analysis explanations of observations.
Relative Actual
Analysis Analysis
Observation:
Curvature of flight path No Yes
Distance travelled No Yes
Airflow patterns realistic? No? Yes?
Lift from airplane wings No Yes
The observations are described and the different explanations
of relative and actual airflow analysis are compared below:
C. Curvature of flight path.
Observation: The curvature of the flight path of a spinning
football increases towards the end of the trajectory. At this
point, the football altitude and airspeed are declining rapidly.
However, the football is still spinning rapidly. See Fig. 8b.
Fig. 8b. Flight path of
a spinning football. [11]
The observation above is inconsistent with relative airflow
analysis and the reverse of what the model predicts. The Magnus
force depends on the speed of the relative airflow. Therefore, if
the football’s airspeed is declining, then the size of the Magnus
force should also decline. This dynamic predicts that the
curvature of the flight path should decrease towards the end of
the trajectory. However, the revers is observed in practice.
The observation above is consistent with actual airflow
analysis. As the football’s airspeed declines the rate of spin
increases relative to the football’s airspeed. This dynamic
increases the angle that air is deflected by the spinning, and
increases the deviation (curvature) of the flight path; consistent
with what is observed in practice.
14
Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect
D. Distance travelled.
Observation: A ball kicked with a lateral spin is observed to
travel approximately the same distance as a ball kicked
without a spin. The key additional difference between a
spinning and non-spinning ball is the trajectory of the ball. See
Fig. 8c-i.
Fig. 8c-i. Similar distances travelled by
a non-spinning and spinning football.
The observation (2) above is inconsistent with relative airflow
analysis, which claims that the Magnus force is created in
addition to all other forces acting on the football. Consequently,
any Magnus effect should transfer additional momentum from
the football to the air. This action would reduce the football’s
airspeed, and therefore, reduce the distance travelled by the
football, as compared to a non-spinning football. This does not
happen in practice.
The observation (2) above is consistent with actual airflow
analysis. The spinning simply alters the direction of the air
accelerated by the football, and therefore, the direction of the
drag generated. No forces were added or reduced. The total
amount of drag arising remains largely the same.
Consequently, spin only alters the direction of the football,
not its airspeed nor the distance the football travels. The main
difference between a spinning and non-spinning ball is the
trajectory of the ball. This dynamic is consistent with what is
observed.
In contrast to the lateral spin, a ball with a back spin can
travel further than a ball with no spin. The first observation for
this dynamic was in the 19th Century on the extended range of
cannonballs that had a backspin. In this case, the Magnus effect
generates a vertical lift force due to the backspin. Similarly, a
forward spin shortened the range of the cannonballs, as the
Magnus effect pulled the cannonball downwards. [14] See Fig.
8c-ii.
Fig. 8c-ii Flight path of cannonballs. [14]

E. Airflow patterns realistic?
Observation: It is unclear if either model accurately depicts
the actual airflow patterns experienced by a spinning football
in practice.
There is a lack of experimental evidence of spinning balls or
rotating cylinders moving forwards through static air to
accurately highlight the actual airflows produced. The relative
airflow model is based on wind tunnel experiments and the
assumption of Galilean relativity. Whereas, the actual airflow
model is new and unproven. For example, good quality images
of non-spinning and spinning balls passing through smoke in
controlled experiments were not available. See Appendix I.
Consequently, there is no proof or certainty that either model
represent what actually occurs for a spinning football passing
through static air. If the model used to explain the Magnus effect
is based on the wrong airflows. Then the forces and explanations
predicted by the model were also wrong.
Anecdotal evidence indicated that non-spinning balls moving
through static air produced different wake airflow patterns as
compared to the relative airflow diagrams of a non-spinning
ball. See Fig. 8d-i.
Fig. 8d-i. Wake airflow patterns for a
smoking ball dropped from a height. [10]
Nonetheless, the actual airflow analysis is more consistent
with what is observed in the physical world. Namely that a
spinning ball moves through static air. Whereas the relative
airflow approach describes the reverse; a stationary spinning ball
exposed to relative airflows.
The airflows created by the front of a car in a wind tunnel,
were compared to what is observed in practice of a car driving
on a dirt road. This comparison indicates that actual airflow
analysis provides a more accurate depiction of what occurs in
practice, rather than the theory proposed by relative airflow
analysis. See Fig. 8d-ii.
Fig. 8d-ii. Airflow on a car in wind tunnels
vs. a car on a dirt road. [9]
15
Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect
F. Lift from airplane wings.
Observation: The relative and actual airflow models can be
applied to help explain the lift generated by airplanes with
rotating cylindrical wings using the Magnus effect, rather than
conventional tear-drop shaped wings. See Fig. 8e-i.
Fig. 8e-i. Magnus effect airplanes. [9]
The use of rotating cylinders to generate lift is inefficient, as
compared to conventional thin and curved airplane wings, for
several reasons:
- Significant upwash drag arises. Before the air flown
through is accelerated downwards, the cylinder pushes the
air upwards, which is an unnecessary effort.
- This dynamic aspect is because the rotating cylinders
(wings) are pushing air at a low angle to the horizontal
plane, almost directly forwards, as shown by the Force
FORWARD in the diagram below. If this Force FORWARD is split
into vectors, it indicates significant horizontal induced drag
and little vertical lift is generated. See Fig. 8e-ii.
Fig. 8e-ii. A rotating cylinder wing vs.
conventional airplanes wing.
The actual airflow approach helps to explain why aircraft
using Magnus effect wings are inefficient at generating lift. A
rotating cylinder does not accelerate the air flown through to a
steep angle downwards, leading to a lot of energy being lost
accelerating air horizontally backwards. To generate vertical lift,
the cylinders probably need to spin very quickly in order to push
the air flown through downwards at a slight vertical angle. In
comparison, conventional wings of an airplane in stable
horizontal flight accelerate the air flown through downwards at
near vertical angles.
The prevailing analysis asserts that the Magnus effect is
produced in a perpendicular direction to the relative airflow. If
that were correct, this would make the wings with the Magnus
effect highly efficient. However, this is not the case.
There may be other significant differences in how efficiently
forces are generated by relative and actual airflows. The analysis
above indicates that actual airflows are likely to be extremely
inefficient at generating lift on a wing.
 Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect

9. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
D. Coanda effect.

This paper speculates that a spinning ball or rotating cylinder

A. Newtonian mechanics (Force = ma). pull the airflow around its curved surface due to the Coanda
effect. The Magnus effect is merely an example of the Coanda
effect, just mislabeled.
This Newtonian approach to explain the Magnus effect, as
described above, is consistent with how airflows produced by a
conventional airplane wing and sail generate a force, as
explained in separate papers. [3][4] E. Comment.

It is puzzling that so many scientists for so many years have

B. Lack of data and experiments. adopted relative airflow analysis to examine the Magnus effect
while using actual airflow analysis provides a superior model.
This analysis of the Magnus effect is mostly theoretical and
This research also demonstrates that ideas commonly
based on anecdotal evidence in some areas. A lack of reliable
considered to be true by the scientific community, are in fact
data and experiments that were available made it impossible to
false. If the Magnus effect has been mis-understood, then what
quantify some of the comments or assertions. The Magnus effect
else is wrong that we believe to be true? It is wrong to think that
does not appear to have attracted significant funding or interest
progress is achieved only by expanding our knowledge base.
to research extensively. Nonetheless, many aspects of the
Progress is also achieved by correcting our past errors.
analysis presented are evident from personal experience playing
sports or otherwise.

The relative airflow model also lacks experimental proof. It

was not possible to find real-world example calculations
demonstrating how to apply to any theory or equation that used
relative airflow analysis to explain the Magnus effect observed
in the physical world.

The actual airflow model of the Magnus effect based on

Newtonian mechanics can be tested for accuracy by
experimentation. It has not yet been tested due to its novelty and
lack of funding or interest to test it.

Consequently, additional research is needed to confirm the

deductions and assertions made in this paper. The strength and
direction of the Magnus effect may depend on the rotating object
This space is intentionally left blank.
and whether the fluid is stationary or moving in actual terms.

In particular, additional research is needed to asses if the

strength and direction of Magnus effect depends on whether the
object or air is stationary or moving; or vice versa.

C. Impact of direct forces on lift.

The uneven drag described above, which is created by the

forces directly exerted on the air, can help explain why the
Magnus effect is an inefficient form of generating lift from
spinning cylinders as wings on airplanes. See Fig. 9c.

Fig. 9c. Magnus effect airplanes. [9]

16

10. CONCLUSIONS
A. Fluid mechanics is sub-optimal.
Contrary to what is commonly believed, this paper asserts
that relative airflow model using fluid mechanics fails to
accurately explain the Magnus effect and what is observed in the
physical world. This approach has numerous theoretical
problems, lacks experimental proof, and fails to provide an
accepted equation to calculate the Magnus force generated.
Therefore, all the prevailing explanations and theories of
the Magnus effect based on relative airflow analysis are wrong
(i.e. false). It does not matter which theory or equation is
applied to explain the Magnus effect if it uses the relative
airflow model. This conclusion is extremely significant.
B. Newtonian mechanics explains the Magnus effect.
The actual airflow model using Newtonian mechanics
better explains the Magnus effect and what is observed in the
physical world. It better explains the airflows and resultant
forces generated by stationary and moving objects that rotate.
The Newtonian solution is simpler, easier to understand, and
more straightforward, as compared to the relative airflow model.
The Newtonian approach can be measured by experimentation,
and therefore confirmed or refuted. See Fig. 10b-i.
Fig. 10b-i. Actual airflow model used
to illustrate the Newtonian forces acting on
a spinning basketball in flight.
An insight is that the airflows and forces generated by wind
tunnels (i.e. relative airflows) differ to those for rotating cylinder
moving through static air. Galilean relativity does not apply in
these circumstances. This aspect is illustrated using images of
cars, due to a lack of appropriate images of spinning balls.
For example, a car driving on a dirt road pushes the air passed
through in all directions away from it and produces significant
wake turbulence. This airflow pattern is very different to the
neat, streamlined laminar airflows produced in a wind tunnel.
See Fig. 10b-ii. See Appendix I.
Fig. 10b-ii. Wind tunnels vs. Practice. [9]
17
Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect
11. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Author: Mr. Nicholas Landell-Mills, independent researcher.
Corresponding email: nicklandell66@gmail.com
Personal background: The author is British, currently living
in France, and was born in 1966 in Botswana. The author is
dyslexic. The author held a private pilot’s license (PPL) for 18
years. He flew and maintained a small, single-engine, home-
built airplane (Europa XS monowheel, registration: G-OSJN).
Academic qualifications: The author is a graduate of The
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. He was awarded a
M.A. degree class 2:1 in economics and economic history in
1989.
Professional background: The author qualified as an
accountant (ACA) in England & Wales, as well as a Chartered
Financial Analyst (CFA). He worked in finance for 24 years in
numerous countries for different companies.
Author Contributions: This paper is entirely the work of
the author, Mr. Nicholas Landell-Mills.
Affiliations: None.
Acknowledgements: None.
Disclaimer: All data in the manuscript is authentic, there are
no conflicts of interest, and all sources of data used in the paper
are identified where possible.
ORCID ID: 0000-0003-4814-0443
Project duration: This paper is one of the products of nine
years research in applied physics (2014 – 2023) into how objects
fly, sail, fall, and swim.
Funding: This paper was self-funded by the author.
Project costs: The direct expenses used to write this paper
were minimal and included things like a computer, internet
access, and living expenses. However, the opportunity cost of
the salary forgone by not being employed while conducting the
research for over eight years, was substantial.
Request for financial support: This paper could not have
been produced through the established academic and scientific
systems. There is no intention to publish this paper or its
contents in an academic journal, as then it would no longer be
available for free to all. If you found this research to be useful,
valuable, informative, entertaining, or otherwise worthy. Then
kindly thank, support, and encourage the author with a financial
donation via:
- PayPal.com at: https://paypal.me/landell66
- Or buy me a coffee: https://bmc.link/zhJIg4zRCW
Thank you!
 Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect

12. REFERENCES

[1] NASA, Glenn Research Centre. www.grc.nasa.gov

Unpublished papers by the author:

[2] N Landell-Mills (2019), How airplanes generate lift is disputed.
Pre-Print DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34380.36487.
[3] N Landell-Mills (2019), Newton explains lift; Buoyancy explains
flight. Pre-Print DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16863.82084.
[4] N Landell-Mills (2019), Sailing downwind faster than the wind;
Pre-Print DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33918.33600..
[5] N Landell-Mills (2021), Galilean relativity revisited using wings..
Pre-Print DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19517.38886.
[6] N Landell-Mills (2019), Albatross’ dynamic soaring explained by
Newton. Pre-Print DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29669.55527.
[7] N Landell-Mills (2021), Relative airflow analysis is flawed. Pre-
Print DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19517.38886
[8] N Landell-Mills (2023), Is low air pressure on top of a wing a
cause or consequence of lift? Pre-Print DOI:
10.13140/RG.2.2.31272.03846 .

Additional references:
[9] Image from Wiki Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/
[10] This is the world's smokiest ball; uploaded: Jul 27, 2021;
YouTube Channel: NileRed Shorts;
https://youtu.be/KwWGoabYZSM
[11] Presentation on the Magnus effect by Harriet Carter, Mar 19
2019; online at Prezi, https://prezi.com/p/tmloi9o9eyb3/spin-and-
magnus-force/ . This space is intentionally left blank.
[12] DMS Holland: The magnus effect; Nov 23, 2015, on the DMS
Holland channel, https://youtu.be/_XMT5aBBaMI
[13] R. Fischer; Flettner Rotorflugzeug; Graduation project about the
Magnus effect; http://inter-ex.com/deutsch/interex27/bild501.htm
[14] J. Seifert, A review of the Magnus effect in aeronautics, Progress
in Aerospace Sciences, Volume 55,2012, Pages 17-45, ISSN
0376-0421, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2012.07.001 . (
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376042112000656 )
[15] ‘A Letter of Mr. Isaac Newton … containing his New Theory
about Light and Colors’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society, No. 80 (19 Feb. 1671/2), pp. 3075-3087.
[16] Image taken from Wikiwand;
www.wikiwand.com/en/Magnus_effect
[17] Wind tunnel photographs; Rod Cross, Physics Department,
University of Sydney; taken from two books. One is “See the
wind blow” by Professor F. Brown from University of Notre
Dame, published in 1971. And “An album of fluid motion”, first
published in 1982 by Professor Milton Van Dyke, from Stanford
University.
[18] The Reverse Spinning Basketball Problem, uploaded Jun 29,
2019, YouTube Channel: The Action Lab.
https://youtu.be/2ugSbej4wqQ
[19] R. Wille And H. Fernholz, Report on the Coanda effect. Journal
of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , December 1965 , pp.
801 – 819; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112065001702
[20] Image licensed from Critical Past; www.criticalpast.com .
[21] Source: youtube: Phoenix FD 3.0 - Wind Tunnel; Nov 2016;
https://youtu.be/IOLaoHbuVGY
[22] Source: jetphotos.net
[23] 'SPECTACULAR! A-380 Condensation and Vortices on Landing
at Zurich Kloten Airport,' uploaded on 15 Jul 2017, on youtube
channel PlanesWeekly. Link:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaRb46vv_bQ
[24] Removed.

18

APPENDIX I – GALILEAN RELATIVITY REVISITED
A. Background – Galilean relativity defined.
Galilean relativity states that the laws of motion are the same
in all inertial frames of reference. It is also called Galilean
invariance. An often-used illustration of Galilean relativity is
two stationary trains parked next to each other. If one trains
moves, an observer inside one of the trains cannot tell whether
their train or the other train is moving. See Fig. I-a-i.
Fig. I-a-i. Two trains stopped
at a station platform.
Galilean relativity applies best to two objects.
This paper asserts that Galilean relativity is a thought
experiment that only applies to two objects. If more objects are
considered, such as the ground and the air in the atmosphere,
then it is easily possible to deduce which object is moving and
which is stationary. The wheels of the moving train rotate,
whereas the stationary train’s wheels do not.
In the example above, the observer’s uncertainty as to which
train is stationary and which is moving is easily resolved by
looking out of the window at the station platform. The
observer’s confusion is temporary.
In addition, if the inside of the train was not enclosed
environment, with a large open window, and the observer was
exposed to the atmosphere outside of the train. Then the
observer is less likely to be confused as to which train is
moving, because the observer would feel the wind through the
window if their train was moving.
As soon as the observer references a third object, such as the
platform or the atmosphere, then it is clear which train is moving
relative to all objects around it. In the analysis of wings,
airflows, and the generation of forces from these airflows, the
ground is the benchmark to judge whether an object is moving.
Contrary to the prevailing views held in aeronautics, this
analysis explains how different airflows, and therefore, forces
(e.g. lift) are generated by:
- A wing flying through static air to actively accelerate air
downward to generate airflows and forces.
- A stationary wing or a boat sailing into the wind, can
passively re-direct relative airflows to generate a force.
The analysis above does not establish whether an object is
moving in actual terms in relation to the universe. This is an
entirely separate consideration that is not relevant to the analysis
of wing airflows. It is beyond the scope of this paper.
19
Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect
Illustration with cars.
The assertion that Galilean relativity is a thought experiment
that only applies to two objects is further illustrated using the
example of moving and stationary cars. The moving car exerts a
force to accelerate air in the atmosphere out of its path and away
from it. Due to the air’s inertia, this action generates drag. The
airflows generated produce turbulence behind the moving car. In
contrast, a stationary car generates no airflows. See Fig. I-a-(ii-
iii).
Fig. I-a-ii. A moving vs. stationary car.
Fig. I-a-iii. A moving car generates
drag and turbulence.
A stationary car exposed to relative airflows (wind) in a wind
tunnel generates laminar airflows and little turbulence. These
airflows are very different to those around a car moving through
static air. See Fig. I-a-iv.
Fig. I-a-iv. A stationary car in a wind
tunnel exposed to a relative airflow.
By only looking at the airflows around the car it is possible to
judge which car is moving, and which is stationary. This means
that the ground is a fixed reference point, which can be used to
judge whether an object is moving through the atmosphere.
The same principle applies to wings; the relative airflows
analysis based on wind tunnel experiments differ significantly
from what occurs in practice. This example is not claiming that
the airflows for cars are similar to those for wings; either in a
wind tunnel or in practice. It is only asserted that the airflows
experienced in wind tunnels differ from what is seen in practice.
Summary
Galilean relativity cannot be applied to the analysis of wing
airflows. More precisely, a stationary wing in a wind tunnel
exposed to the relative airflow (wind), is not the same as a wing
moving through static air. These are different actions that result
in different airflows and forces, as explained below in terms of
passive and active forces.

B. Passive and active forces – analysis of actual airflows.
Airplane wings are used to explain passive and active force
generation.
Contrary to the prevailing view that favours relative airflow
analysis to explain the forces generated by an airfoil in all
situations. The actual airflows observed from a wing in flight
through static air are significantly different to the airflows seen
from a wing exposed to a relative airflow (headwind) in a wind
tunnel. Consequently, the resultant forces are also different.
Galilean invariance does not apply in this situation. See Fig. I-b-
(i-ii).
Fig. I-b-i. Actual wing airflows analysed. [22]
Fig. I-b-ii. The passive and active creation
of forces based on actual airflows.
In both situations, the resultant forces can be described by the
same Newtonian equation (Force = m/dt * dv) as explained
below. See Fig. I-b-ii.
1) A mass of air each second (m/dt) from oncoming relative
airflow (headwind) can be passively re-directed by a
stationary airfoil. This airflow decelerates (dv) on contact
with the undisturbed wind at the trailing edge of the airfoil
to produce turbulence. This action creates a backward
force (Force BACK = m/dt * dv), and therefore, a reactive
equal and opposite forward thrust is also generated.
For example, a sailboat, wind turbine blade, and a glider
wing soaring into the wind can passively generate forward
thrust by re-directing a relative airflow (headwind).
2) A moving airfoil can actively accelerate a mass of static
air each second (m/dt) flown through to a velocity (dv)
diagonally down and slightly forwards. This action creates
a downward force (Force DOWN = m/dt * dv). The reactive
equal and opposite upward force generated (Force UP)
provides lift. For example, this is how an airplane wing
20
Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect
can generate lift.
This paper describes airflows actively created by a wing in
flight as absolute airflows, to differentiate them from the
relative airflows experienced in wind tunnels.
In other words, sailboats and airplane wings generate
different airflows, and therefore, generate different forces. For
example, doubling the number sails doubles the thrust generated
by a sailboat, but doubling the number of wings on an airplane
increases the lift generated only a little.
The key differences between passive and active forces include:
- The direction of the force generated by an active force is
almost perpendicular to the wing’s alignment. But passive
forces generate thrust in a similar direction as the wing.
- Momentum is transferred from the relative airflow (wind)
to the wing in passive force generation, and vice versa in
active force generation.
- The wake airflows produced are different:
The passive forces arising from relative airflow, produces
wake airflow turbulence at the trailing edge of the wing.
In contrast, the active forces arising from the static air
accelerated downwards by a wing in flight, produces
laminar wake airflow, which is only turbulent at the centre
of the two wingtip vortices. See Fig. I-b-iii.
Fig. I-b-iii. Turbulent vs. smooth
wake airflows. [9][23]
To put it another way, the prevailing method by fluid
mechanics using relative wing airflow analysis (which is based
on wind tunnel experiments) to analyse how an airplane wing
generates vertical lift in flight, is flawed for the reasons
described below:
- Relative wing airflow diagrams and analysis fail to
explain the actual wing airflows observed in flight and
the resultant forces generated. [7]
In particular, wake airflow turbulence observed in wind
tunnel experiments behind the trailing edge of the wing,
is not observed behind wings in flight.
- A re-evaluation of wind tunnel experiments shows that
the prevailing view of how a wing accelerates the upper
and lower airflows is false. [8]
Instead, relative airflows over a wing are shown to passively
generate turbulence and forward thrust according to Newtonian
mechanics.
 Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect

This forces acting on the spinning tennis balls is explained in

APPENDIX II – FORCES DIRECTLY EXERTED more detail below.

- A tennis ball with topspin adopts a lower trajectory after

hitting the ground and bouncing.

A. Classroom experiments.

The explanation above of how the ball’s flight path is affected

by spin exerting uneven forces directly on the air, can be
illustrated by the following simple classroom-type of
experiments of balls hitting the ground:
- Basketball dropped with backspin (see below).
- Tennis balls with spin (see Appendix II).
- Basketball dropped with lateral spin (see Appendix II).
Fig. II-b-iii. Tennis ball trajectory with topspin.

B. Tennis balls with topspin and backspin.

The flight trajectories of tennis balls with topspin and
backspin are observed to alter after they hit the ground and
bounce upward. See Fig. II-b-i.
- A tennis ball with topspin adopts a lower trajectory after
hitting the ground and bouncing.
- A tennis ball with backspin adopts a higher trajectory
after hitting the ground and bouncing.
More precisely, the topspin creates an increased backward
force on contact with the ground. The reactive equal and
opposite forward force from the topspin, accelerates the
ball’s forward (horizontal) speed; causing the tennis ball to
adopt a lower trajectory.
Momentum is transferred from the spin in the tennis ball, to
the forward movement of the tennis ball through the air.
Consequently, topspin can increase the tennis balls’
velocity. See Fig. II-b-iii.

- A tennis ball with backspin adopts a higher trajectory

after hitting the ground and bouncing.

More precisely, the backspin creates an increased forward

force on contact with the ground. The reactive equal and
opposite backward force, accelerates the ball’s backwards;
causing the tennis ball to adopt a higher trajectory.

Momentum is transferred from the spin in the tennis ball, to

Fig. II-b-i. Tennis ball trajectories.
To be clear, the analysis above is focused on the trajectory of
the tennis balls after it bounces off the ground. The objective is
to demonstrate how spin on a ball affects it’s interactions with
the ground, and therefore, the air as well.
the backward movement of the tennis ball through the air.
Consequently, backspin can decrease the tennis balls’
forward velocity. Sufficiently fast backspin can cause the
tennis ball to bounce backwards. See Fig. II-b-iv.

The analysis in this section is not in relation to how the

Magnus effect influences the tennis ball’s flight path before it
bounces. (For reference, a tennis ball with backspin is observed
to generate lift to raise its flight path trajectory upwards, prior to
hitting the ground, due to the Magnus effect.)

The resultant forces arising on contact with the ground, for a

topspin and backspin, can be shown as vectors. See Fig. II-b-ii.

Fig. II-b-iv. Tennis ball trajectory with backspin.

Fig. II-b-ii. Forces acting on a tennis ball

from spin shown as vectors.

21
 Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect

C. Basketballs dropped with lateral spin.

The explanation of spin and drag between a ball and the air
above, is also consistent with how a basketball spinning laterally
is observed to reverse their spin after hitting the ground and
bouncing upwards. To be clear, a lateral spin is in a different
plane to a backspin or topspin.

More precisely, simple classroom-type of experiment drops a

basketball vertically downwards with a clockwise lateral spin.
After hitting the ground and bouncing upwards, the spin is
observed to reduce or reverse to an anti-clockwise spin. [18]
See Fig. II-c.

Fig. II-c. Basketball spin reverses.

The explanation for the spin reversing is that when the

basketball hits the ground, the clockwise spin exerts a lateral This space is intentionally left blank.
force in the ground. The reactive equal and opposite force
reverses the spin to be anti-clockwise. The physics is similar to a
ball hitting the ground and bouncing upwards, except that it
applies to the spin (lateral rotation of the ball on its axis).

The basketball has two types of momentum, one due to its

downward trajectory, and one due to its spin.
- The momentum of the ball due to its downward movement
reverses direction after hitting the ground and bouncing
upwards.
- Similarly, the momentum of the spin reverses direction
after hitting the ground. A small amount of the ball’s
momentum is lost during this process.

The ability of the basketball to reverse its spin depends on the

rate of spin and the texture of the surface of the ground and the
ball’s mass. A faster spin and a round ground texture are
observed to provide increased spin reversal. There needs to be
sufficient grip or frictional resistance by the ground to generate
the equal and opposite force. Also, the greater the ball’s angular
momentum, then the stronger the equal and opposite force
generated.

22

APPENDIX III – RELATIVE AIRFLOW FORCES
A. Overview.
Below passive force generation from relative airflows,
explained by Newtonian mechanics based on the mass flow rate,
is applied to explain:
- Paragliding
- Kitesurfing
- Sailing into the wind
- Albatross dynamic-soaring
- Gliders soaring
- Kite soaring
The physics is fundamentally the same for all of these
processes. A relative airflow is re-directed to create turbulence
and thrust (Thrust = m/dt * dv). See Fig. III-a-i.
Fig. III-a-i. Passive force generation from a
relative airflow (wind) for different objects.
To be clear, the relative airflows experienced by a wing
soaring, are similar to the airflows observed in a wind tunnel.
These airflows can be (badly) depicted by the standard relative
airflow diagram. See Fig. III-a-ii.
Fig. III-a-ii. Redirected airflows in a wind tunnel
and a relative airflow diagram.
23
Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect
Thrust (forward force)
The amount of thrust (forward force) passively generated
depends primarily on the amount and speed of air re-directed by
the wing, as well as the AOA.
The stronger the wind (higher airspeed), then the greater mass
of air redirected each second (higher m/dt) by the wing, and the
greater the potential deceleration of the wind (higher dv)
produced. Therefore, the greater the force/thrust generated
(Thrust = m/dt * dv). Consequently, then the greater the
momentum transferred from the wind to the wing.
Three forces generated by a wing from relative airflow
Fig. III-a-iii. Redirected airflows create
three forces acting on an airfoil.
According to Newtonian mechanics, a relative airflow re-
directed by a wing or wind turbine blade, produces three
separate forces: See Fig. III-a-iii.
1) Thrust, which is the main force passively generated from
the turbulence that slows down the wind, as summarized
by the equation: Thrust = m/dt * dv.
The additional two minor forces are described below:
2) The minor turning force caused by the upper airflow being
re-directed by the Coanda effect. This force arises due to a
change in the direction and momentum of the upper
airflow. It generates an equal and opposite force near the
leading edge of the wing, which pulls the wing diagonally
up and backwards.
3) The minor backwards force caused by the lower airflow
pushing directly against the wing. This small backwards
force pushes the wing downwind, and closely
approximates parasitic drag on the wing.
These two minor forces above are of negligible importance,
and therefore, do not receive significant attention in the analysis
presented. A more detailed consideration of these two forces is
beyond the scope of this paper.

B. Paragliding.
Put simply, the paraglider wing steals momentum from the
wind by re-directing the wind (relative airflow) to slow it down
and passively generate a force. The wing pulls the paraglider
forward.
The paraglider wing with a positive AOA passively re-directs
a mass of air each second (m/dt) from the apparent wind
(relative airflow), helped by the Coanda effect on the topside of
the wing. The re-directed airflow pushes against undisturbed
apparent wind trailing edge of the wing, creating turbulence.
The turbulence provides something to push against and causes
the re-directed airflow to decelerate to a reduced velocity (dv).
This action generates a backward force, as described by the
equation: See Fig. III-b-(i-ii).
Force BACK = m/dt * dv
The inertia of the air provides resistance to the backward
force, which allows for the generation of a reactive equal and
opposite forward force (Thrust) which pushes the paraglider
wing ahead:
Force BACK = Force FORWARDS (Thrust) = m/dt * dv
Simplified to: Thrust = m/dt * dv
Fig. III-b-i. Paragliding. [9]
Fig. III-b-ii. Forces acting on a paraglider.
The downward force due to the paraglider pilot’s weight
(caused by gravity) provides resistance against the downwind
force of the wind.
The paraglider pilot’s weight pulls the glider downwards and
functions in a similar manner to the keel of a boat sailing into
the wind. In the absence of the paraglider pilot’s weight, the
paraglider wing would simply be blown backwards (downwind)
by the wind. This dynamic allows the paraglider wing to
maintain a positive AOA, and therefore, generate forward thrust.
24
Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect
C. Kitesurfing.
Put simply, the kite steals momentum from the wind by re-
directing the wind (relative airflow) to slow it down and
passively generate a force. The kite pulls the kitesurfer forward;
which is similar to how a person wakeboarding alongside a
motorboat is pulled forward.
The kite with a positive AOA passively re-directs a mass of
air each second (m/dt) from the apparent wind (relative airflow),
helped by the Coanda effect on the topside of the kite. The re-
directed airflow pushes against undisturbed apparent wind at the
trailing edge of the kite, creating turbulence. The turbulence
provides something to push against and causes the re-directed
airflow to decelerate to a reduced velocity (dv). This action
generates a backward force, as described by the equation: See
Fig. III-c-(i-ii).
Force BACK = m/dt * dv
The inertia of the air provides resistance to the backward
force, which allows for the generation of a reactive equal and
opposite forward force (Force KITE) which pushes the kite ahead:
Force BACK = Force KITE (Thrust) = m/dt * dv
Simplified to: Thrust = m/dt * dv
Fig. III-c-i. Kitesurfing. [9]
Fig. III-c-ii. Forces acting on a kitesurfer.
The kitesurfer’s board functions in a similar manner to the
keel of a boat, it provides resistance against the downwind force
of the wind. In the absence of the board pushing against the
water, the kitesurfer would simply be blown backwards
(downwind) by the wind. This action allows the kite to maintain
a positive AOA, and therefore, generate forward thrust.

D. Sailing into the wind.
Put simply, the sail steals momentum from the wind by re-
directing the wind (relative airflow) to slow it down and
passively generate a force.
Boats sailing into the wind on a close haul tack at a positive
sail AOA, passively re-directs a mass of air each second (m/dt)
from the apparent wind (relative airflow), helped by the Coanda
effect on the leeward side of the sail. The re-directed airflow
pushes against undisturbed apparent wind at the trailing edge of
the sail, creating turbulence. The turbulence provides something
to push against and causes the re-directed airflow to decelerate
to a reduced velocity (dv). This action generates a backward
force, as described by the equation: See Fig. III-d.
Force BACK = m/dt * dv
The inertia arising from the wind slowing down allows for the
reactive equal and opposite force (Thrust). The thrust generated
pushes the sail ahead. This dynamic is summarized by the
equations: See Fig. II-a-i.
Force BACK = Force FORWARDS (Thrust) = m/dt * dv
Simplified to: Thrust = m/dt * dv
Fig. III-d. Newtonian forces acting on a sailboat.
The force generated by the sail pushes against the turbulence
behind the sail, and not directly against the sail as commonly
believed.
The boat’s keel provides resistance against the downwind
force of the wind pushing against the hull and the sail. In the
absence of the keel, the boat would keel-over onto its side, or
simply be blown downwind by the wind. This dynamic allows
the sail to remain vertical and a maintain a positive AOA, and
therefore, generate forward thrust.
25
Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect
E. Albatross dynamic soaring.
Put simply, the albatross’ wing steals momentum from the
headwind by re-directing the wind (relative airflow) to slow it
down and passively generate a forward force (thrust). The
albatross’ wings propel the bird forwards.
The albatross’ wing with a positive AOA passively re-directs
a mass of air each second (m/dt) from the apparent wind
(relative airflow), helped by the Coanda effect on the topside of
the wing. The re-directed airflow pushes against undisturbed
apparent wind at the trailing edge of the wings, creating
turbulence. The turbulence provides something to push against
and causes the re-directed airflow to decelerate to a reduced
velocity (dv). This action generates a backward force, as
described by the equation: See Fig. III-e-(i-ii).
Force BACK = m/dt * dv
The inertia arising from the wind slowing down allows for the
reactive equal and opposite force (Thrust). The thrust generated
pushes the albatross forwards and up, allowing it to soar. This
dynamic is summarized by the equations: See Fig. II-a-(i-ii).
Force BACK = Force FORWARDS (Thrust) = m/dt * dv
Simplified to: Thrust = m/dt * dv
Fig. III-e-i. Coanda effect and turbulence
on an albatross’s wing.
Fig. III-e-ii. Newtonian forces acting on
an albatross’s wing dynamic-soaring.
Similar to a paraglider, the downward force due to the
albatross’s weight (caused by gravity) provides resistance
against the downwind force of the wind. The albatross’s weight
functions in a similar manner to the keel of a boat. In the
absence of this weight, the wing would simply be blown
backwards (downwind) by the wind. This dynamic allows the
wing to maintain a positive AOA, and therefore, generate
forward thrust.
Soaring favors albatrosses due to their high aspect ratio
wings. Their long wingspans maximize the Coanda effect. the
mass of air re-directed downwards each second (maximizes
m/dt), and therefore, the thrust generated (Thrust = m/dt * dv).

F. Gliders soaring.
‘Soaring’ refers to a glider wing that passively generates a
forward force (thrust) from a headwind (relative airflow)to gain
altitude and airspeed when flying into the wind. For example, a
glider slope soaring or dynamic-soaring. A glider can soar into a
headwind (relative airflow), irrespective of whether the
headwind is rising or horizontal. The physics of a glider soaring
is similar to an albatross dynamic-soaring into the wind.
Put simply, the glider’s wing steals momentum from the
headwind by re-directing the wind (relative airflow) to slow it
down and passively generate a force.
The paraglider wing with a positive AOA passively re-directs
a mass of air each second (m/dt) from the apparent wind
(relative airflow), helped by the Coanda effect on the topside of
the wing. The re-directed airflow pushes against undisturbed
apparent wind at the trailing edge of the wing, creating
turbulence. The turbulence provides something to push against
and causes the re-directed airflow to decelerate to a reduced
velocity (dv). This action generates a backward force, as
described by the equation: See Fig. III-f-(i-ii).
Force BACK = m/dt * dv
The inertia of the air provides resistance to the backward
force, which allows for the generation of a reactive equal and
opposite forward force (Force KITE) which pushes the glider
ahead:
Force BACK = Force FORWARDS (Thrust) = m/dt * dv
Simplified to: Thrust = m/dt * dv
Fig. III-f-i. Glider soaring.
Fig. III-f-ii. Newtonian forces acting
on a glider soaring.
‘Soaring’ includes slope soaring or dynamic-soaring.
Soaring favors gliders and birds (e.g. albatrosses) with high
aspect ratio wings. Their long wingspans maximize the Coanda
effect. the mass of air re-directed downwards each second
(maximizes m/dt). Consequently, this aspect maximizes the
thrust generated (Thrust = m/dt * dv).
26
View publication stats
Independent Research – Magnus effect = Coanda effect
G. Kites soaring.
Similar to an albatross or glider dynamic-soaring, a kite is
pushed back and upwards by the wind (relative airflow), which
can be explained by the same Newtonian physics.
Initially, on the ground the wind simply blows an untethered
kite downwind until the control line is fully extended. No
upward force on the kite is possible if there is no tension in the
control line from the kite to the observer. i.e. The control line
tethered to the observer on the ground prevents the kite from
being pushed downwind.
Once the kite is airborne just above the ground, and control
the line attached from the ground to the kite is fully extended.
Then the underside of the kite with a positive AOA, re-directs
the relative airflow (wind) downwards. At this point at upwards
force is generated.
A key difference between a kite and an albatross wing is that
negligible airflow is re-directed by the topside of the kite. Also,
the kite’s sharp edges on the leading edges limit the potential of
the Coanda effect to re-direct airflow on the topside of the kite.
Similar to dynamic-soaring, the re-directed airflow pushes
against undisturbed apparent wind at the trailing edge of the
kite, creating turbulence. The turbulence provides something to
push against and causes the re-directed airflow to decelerate to a
reduced velocity (dv). This action generates a backward force, as
described by the equation: See Fig. III-g.
Force BACK = ma = m * dv/dt = m/dt * dv
The inertia arising from the wind slowing down allows for the
reactive equal and opposite force (Thrust). The thrust generated
pushes the kite forwards and up. This dynamic is summarized by
the equations: See Fig. II-a-(i-ii).
Force BACK = Force FORWARDS (Thrust) = m/dt * dv
Simplified to: Thrust = m/dt * dv
Fig. III-g. Forces acting on a kite.