Snowflakes
 

This beautiful example of crystallized water is one of nature's hexagonal miracles.

Why are snowflakes hexagonal ?

Mr.Clever Dick may blurt out "Hydrogen bonding", but unless Mr.Clever Dick is conversant with molecular Physics or Chemistry, then he is totally oblivious as to what Hydrogen bonding is, or the molecular mechanics involved and why it results in tiny water droplets becoming a beautiful hexagonal snowflake.

A very interesting topic, look it up and improve your knowledge.

Hexagons in Nature are a very common phenomena. Why nature favours this geometric shape is unbelievable and in some cases a mystery. Only squares, equilateral triangles and regular hexagons can be fitted together so there is no wasted space.

Why do bees construct their honeycomb in connected hexagons ? They are only insects not mathematical experts who can calculate the optimum shape to construct a platform with minimum energy and waste of space. So why an "accidental" hexagon ?

Many crystals are hexagonal. The Giants Causeway in Northern Ireland, turtle shells, The Devils Postpile in California and further examples.

Re: Snowflakes
 

Because they look cool?

Re: Snowflakes
 

Just out of interest - you can check it on the web, the largest snowflake ever observed was reportedly 15 inches wide and 8 inches thick. I assume wide means corner to corner.

This is the record-holder for the largest known snowflake. It was found in Ft. Keough, Montana in 1887.

I bet if that hit you on the head, it would be curtains.

One UK gallon of water weighs 10 lbs.

With a length from corner to corner of 15 ins. a regular hexagon has an area of 146.142 sq.ins. x depth of 8 ins, Volume = approx 1,169 cub.ins.

One UK gallon has a volume of 277.42 cub.ins.

That snowflake allowing for 50% air content would weigh - 0.5 x 1169 x 10/277.42 = 21 lbs.

That would descend at one hell of a speed and momentum - then BANG - you are gone !

Re: Snowflakes
 

Except you seem to have forgotten to take account of the fact that ice is only some 92%ish the density of water (hence it floats). So (if we assume your assumptions are correct) the TRUE mass would be less than your estimate.

Cheers

Grim

Re: Snowflakes
 

Remind me to read more of your post just before bed time, it will save me counting sheep :LOL:

Re: Snowflakes
 

OK Grim,

So my 21 lbs. is not quite correct eh ? I only meant to give some idea of weight, not aim to get a Nobel Prize.

Its just an estimate of weight and IMO a very good one, don`t take it too seriously. So Grim, instead of just saying "the TRUE mass would be less than your estimate.", which is next to useless, give your own calculated estimate of weight. I did at least have a good try.

AND Grim, unless you never read my post properly, I did allow a generous 50% air content. The density of ice is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with snowflakes.

You cannot have a common density for a snowflake, which is not solid ice, too many variables. A snowflake is comprised of a complex and integrated web structure of ice crystals and air. Which my dear Grim is why I made a rough guess of allowing a 50% air mix. So your 0.92 x water density for ice is of no interest at all.

Oh come off it Grim and enjoy the party, it is just a bit of scientific fun, not an examination.

Even half my estimated weight if it makes you ecstatic, would mean that 10 lbs. falling from around 2,000 feet or so would give you one almighty big clonk.

Example - a skydiver descends at about 124 mph in full spread. A 21 lb. weight would descend at very near the same speed.

Although records are records, a fragile ice/air mass of 10-21 lb. falling at about 90-100 mph must shatter to pieces on impact, unless it landed in a mighty deep snow drift. I cannot understand how they measured this record breaking snowflakes size when shattering on impact is certain. Sounds like a 19th Century leg-pull to me.

---------- Post added at 06:24 ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 ----------

:) I know it is a LOL, but my post is a stimulant for excess brain activity to the scientifically minded. Perhaps in your case, counting sheep may be a more productive endeavour as a passport to the land of nod.

Re: Snowflakes
 

Wow, someone's a bit touchy this morning. Reading your post makes me think you're the one that needs to kick back and join the party.

I was just pointing out your fundamental error. If you make 'statements' on a forum then you need to understand there is a kind of peer review from people who will always be cleverer or more knowledgeable than you.

I did assume that you were trying to be accurate by your use of three decimal places but obviously not.

Maybe I should have said something along the lines of wow what a scientifically accurate post BUT saying things like that is how things like this happen.

One last thing - my friends call me Grim, you can call me Mr North :D.

Cheers

Grim

Re: Snowflakes
 

I wish I had never given that mammoth snowflake example.

The real purpose of this thread is to of course discuss the hexagonal beauty of snowflakes, but also to consider the unusual predominance of hexagons throughout the natural world.

It is a fascinating phenomena for the scientifically inclined.

Re: Snowflakes
 

If you want a really big hexagon try this one:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/at...3&d=1427364984

And no it's NOT Photoshopped. Saturns North polar region by Cassini

Attachment 26013

Re: Snowflakes
 

My brain is stimulated enough during the day planning complex DWDM fibre circuits. I tend to kick back and relax in the evening.

---------- Post added at 11:33 ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 ----------

:tu:

Re: Snowflakes
 

Resolution and accuracy. Two entirely different things.;)

Re: Snowflakes
 

And yet you're content to warn other people against estimates, shorthand and assumptions with delightful terms like "Mr Clever Dick".

You got called out. Tough luck. Pwnt.

Re: Snowflakes
 

Not caught out at all Chris, when you have to estimate, you have to estimate, everybody in engineering and science do it all the time, so yes I am very content.

To estimate the weight of a hexagonal snowflake comprising air and ice crystals, with all the variables involved would have driven Einstein crazy, but I did it, albeit a bit rough and crude, nevertheless I did it and it was a good estimate whether you approve or not. I don`t see anybody else having a try.

Tease your own brain by trying to find the area of a regular hexagon, let alone the weight of an aerated hexagonal mass. - it is not easy.

I was not even thought about in the 19th Century let alone there to take part in such a remarkable venture, so actually weighing this large snowflake is not an option. Hence a fairly rational and logical estimate. You have something against making estimates do you ?

"Mr.Clever Dick" ? Surely you have met him on your travels, I have met hundreds of them.

Just enjoy the thread, don`t get too worried about poor old Wittmann and his estimates, he is only trying to insert some scientific interest in the Forum and is quite competent to do so.

Re: Snowflakes
 

A statement confirmed by the OP in post 3 of this very thread.

Cheers

Mr North

Re: Snowflakes
 

Is that what you call it?

Incidentally, you know what they say about people who refer to themselves in the third person.

Re: Snowflakes
 

I do not understand what that statement is supposed to mean or refer to. Doed not appear to be related to anything on this thread.

But what I do understand is that guessing, estimating, call it what you like, the physical parameters of a snowflake in terms of accuracy, is an impossibility. Any estimate can only be a wild guess, but a wild guess is better than nothing.

Re: Snowflakes
 

Everyone else has already went over the mass, but, the assumption that the mass of a snowflake would decide its descent velocity is flawed at best.

As you already said, snowflakes are complex things, but one constant is that they all generally fall at a gentle rate compared to hail and rain because they are less dense than these items. So, while large, the density of the snowflake should be comparable to a small one, so should fall at the same rate.

After all, a feather weighing a tonne would still fall like a feather because it is other factors, like surface area and aerodynamics, drag etc that determine the fall rate, the same applies here. The reason it would've been able to be observed, and likely isn't a wind up is for that reason, it would likely have fell to the ground safely, like most snowflakes.

Re: Snowflakes
 

Do you really believe all that you have said ? Preposterous.

You are wrong in practically every word. You must have left school whilst in short pants to say things like that. How utterly ridiculous.

If a feather weighed a ton, it would drop like a ton. It would no longer be a feather. Mass, shape and surface area determine drag. Terminal velocity is proportional to mass. The reason a feather floats down slowly is that it has a tiny mass and a large surface area. If it weighed a ton, it would drop like a ton and make a huge crater in Mother Earth`s crust on impact.

Come off it, pick up your text books and start again.

Have you never heard the oldie - "What falls faster, a pound of feathers or a pound of peas ?"

Re: Snowflakes
 

Yey, you confirmed my thoughts exactly, unable to actually step back and think about what you're saying.

Not only do you disregard density completely, but do so in spectacular style. A quick question for you, how heavy is an iceberg? If the answer is "A lot" now ask why do they not fall to the bottom of the ocean? When you answer that, come back to me and remember that a pound of feathers only falls the same rate as a pound of peas in a vacuum.

If mass only determined rates of falling etc, planes would never work, birds couldn't fly etc etc.

Note: If a feather weighted a tonne, it would be flipping huge in area, and thus, the same dynamics of drag would apply. It would still fall, like a feather.

Edit: Remember, Mass and Weight are 2 different things. :)

Re: Snowflakes
 

So you're saying that a small piece of lead with the same mass as a feather if dropped at the same time from the same height would fall to earth in a similar fashion to the feather and come to rest at the same time? Not on this planet with its atmosphere it won't.

Cheers

Mr North

Re: Snowflakes
 

Wrong again Grim. Sorry old chum, ya can`t win `em all.

The feathers/peas/mass comparison is not dropping these objects from 2,000 feet where air resistance looms up - called drag in the industry. It concerns dropping them from a few feet, where gravity is the only factor in the equation.

A feather with the same mass as a piece of lead as per your example, when dropped from a few feet will both hit the ground at exactly the same time on this very Planet we all love.

Any idiot knows that air resistance or drag is paramount in determining the terminal velocity of a specific body mass falling from a great height and is proportional to body mass and surface area.

Ever heard of a parachute Grim ?

Re: Snowflakes
 

I'd stop digging if I were you. I point out the flaw in your argument (that you're ignoring drag) then you ask if I've ever heard of a parachute - which despite your post above would be quite useful to have even for a fall from below 2000 feet.

Admit you're a good example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing and there are many people out there (and on here by the looks of it) who seem to know a little bit more about a lot more things than you do.

Waiting for you're FINAL post on the matter like you seem to do in all your threads.

Cheers

Mr North

Re: Snowflakes
 

No need to be rude Grimbo although from your posts it must be difficult not to be.
If I have a little knowledge, then it is a hell of a lot more than the people you so kindly refer to.

OK Grimbo, I admit that I made a mistake and apologise for it. A stupid over-sight on my part. Start again.

Even at a few feet, shape comes into it since air resistance does matter when a body is light and has a relatively large area.

A single feather with the same mass as a piece of lead, both having the same shape when dropped from a few feet, will hit the ground last due to the feathers many segregated strands creating drag. But a bag of feathers weighing one pound and a bag of peas weighing one pound will hit the ground at the same time.

In a vacuum, the identical feather and lead particles will hit the ground at the same time.

Now Grimbo, I resent your insulting personal remarks,which are quite unnecessary, so you are going on my Ignore list.

Re: Snowflakes
 

Having resorted to ignoring everyone, except the Mods, I reckon the OP will be arguing with himself soon. Maybe it's many years of 'distinctive and distiguished' experience doing just that which has led to him referring to himself in the first and third person in the same post... :D

Re: Snowflakes
 

Just quote Mr North's posts. ;) :LOL:

Re: Snowflakes
 

Rate we're going everybody's gonna be on quotes. :LOL:

Re: Snowflakes
 

Ok :)

Re: Snowflakes
 

Think I'll use Mr North all the time from now on. I won't bother quoting our learned friend as I'm on ignore so won't get a response ;) but from my experience in life it's often the case that when someone feel the need to claim they are intelligent it's normally diametrically opposed to the reality!

The thing that astounds me is he wants a 'scientific' debate but I pointed out an error in a statement (quite politely for me I thought) and I end up being called Grimbo (quite like that one too - I could use that one at Christmas - Grimbo at Crimbo!!). I wonder what the response would have been if I'd have questioned the snowflakes are 50% air assumption?

Cheers

Mr North

Re: Snowflakes
 

Excellent

Re: Snowflakes
 

Surely the composition of air/snow depends on the size of the snow crystal - they start off as tiny dendritic snow crystals, as they grow in size the become hexagonal, and as they get bigger, they become dendritic again....

Re: Snowflakes
 

I know, that's why I said 'if we assume your assumptions are correct' in my first post.

Cheers

GrimboAtCrimboUpNorth

Re: Snowflakes
 

Ahhhh - I see....

I was assuming that your assumptions around his assumptions were well-founded, when in fact I should have been assuming otherwise, I presume?

Re: Snowflakes
 

Have you ever thought about opening a detective agency, then going into hiding and employing glamorous female ex-cops to do your legwork? Each week you could set them on the trail of some bad guy, after giving them their instructions via a beige squawkbox.

You could call them Grimbo's Bimbos.

Re: Snowflakes
 

I love how anything he says can be hand waved away "I was assuming, or it was just fuzzy maths" yet anything said by anyone else gets treated with derision for the hint of the slightest mistake.

I mess up, all the time (Edit: Like there, apologies mods!), and I'll gladly accept when I do, because I'm a flawed human being and frankly, I am wrong more than I'm right, but bloody hell.

Re: Snowflakes
 

You're going to get a very big ignore list quite quickly if thats all it takes.


(btw, feel free to try and add me ;))

Re: Snowflakes
 

You know what they say about assuming something :D

Re: Snowflakes
 

Don't you need a secret code for that? :confused:


;)

Re: Snowflakes
 

:LOL:

Re: Snowflakes
 

Well I'm glad you're modest enough to admit you're not going to be winning a Nobel Prize with your posts.

---------- Post added at 13:58 ---------- Previous post was at 13:54 ----------

Precision and accuracy.

---------- Post added at 14:13 ---------- Previous post was at 13:58 ----------

Not quite right. The density is not directly related to how fast it falls. The actual acceleration and terminal velocity of an object in freefall in Earth's atmosphere is directly related to it's weight (which we can safely assume to be directly proportional to mass) compared to it's drag coefficient (which we cannot safely assume is directly proportional to it's density).

Density, at best, is only approximately proportional to drag when considering simple, symmetrical shapes (e.g. a sphere). For anything even slightly more complex, e.g. a cube, drag will vary depending on which side or angle is facing down. Think of a sheet of paper falling vertically, vs. falling horizontally for example. When you get to the drag of complex objects with various sticking out bits there's additional factors to account for such as turbulence, vortexes, and separation. For something as complex as a 15" snowflake it'd be almost impossible to even approximate and could only really be determined accurately through direct measurement.

In any case, even the basic aerodynamics of a huge snowflake vs. a regular one are going to be so different that we can't say they will fall at the same rate, or even a vaguely similar rate.

---------- Post added at 14:21 ---------- Previous post was at 14:13 ----------

Same to you

Well you seem to have a basic, though incorrect grasp on physics. Congrats.

However mass has no effect whatsoever on drag, and shape and surface area can be approximately related to drag but not always.

No it isn't.


Well, that's one thing you got roughly right. It'd make a crater, though not a huge one.

You've said that so many times to so many people I'm not even sure what it means.

Have you never heard the oldie - "What falls faster, a pound of feathers or a pound of peas ?"[/QUOTE]

---------- Post added at 14:25 ---------- Previous post was at 14:21 ----------

Wrong again Wittman, though in your case it seems you can't win anything.

Drag is a fully important factor when dropping an object from any height. Gravity is not the only factor at a few feet.

Do you really believe all that you have said ? Preposterous.

You are wrong in practically every word. You must have left school whilst in short pants to say things like that. How utterly ridiculous.

By your own reckoning, "What falls faster, a pound of feathers or a pound of peas" when dropped from a few feet?

---------- Post added at 14:25 ---------- Previous post was at 14:25 ----------

:tu:

---------- Post added at 14:28 ---------- Previous post was at 14:25 ----------

Surely exhibiting any actual knowledge of the subject matter at hand, even if only speculatively, will result in insults and ridicule from the OP?

Re: Snowflakes
 

Good points, and something I completely forgot to factor in, apologies. After all, feathers indeed fall in fits and starts as its shape means it catches the air at certain points more than others.

And yes, if such a snowflake was created, it would need direct observation to know just exactly how it would've fell. A quick search does say that larger snowflakes appear to fall more slowly in very cold weather as it acts like a parachute, but we can only speculate how a very large snowflake could fall.

Re: Snowflakes
 

This thread reminds me of this one bet it goes the same way to

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/26...e-feather.html

Re: Snowflakes
 

Oh the days when you could post as "Guest"...

Re: Snowflakes
 

It has never been possible here. "Guest" is what happens when you spit out your dummy and ask the team to delete your account. ;)

Re: Snowflakes
 

Thats why I can't remember when it actually was then :)

Re: Snowflakes
 

I'm not sure if the OP is a troll, certainly all the postings inevitably end up the same way, I don't know why he bothers trying to 'educate us' especially when he ends up being corrected on numerous points anyway.

I reckon within 3 months he'll have moved onto a new bridge.

Re: Snowflakes
 

What utter uneducated rubbish you speak. If you devoted your small and limited brain resources to considering the predominance and reasons for Natures hexagons instead of trolling and making absurd, insulting remarks about people, you may with great difficulty and doubt, learn something.

But if making offending remarks and not science is your interest in life, then each to his own. It takes all kinds to make a world. May I suggest you find another bridge, more suited to your tastes.

Re: Snowflakes
 

.....or a new polygon...

Re: Snowflakes
 

With the courtesy of Wikipedia, here is the definition of a regular hexagon, just for those super brains who do not know what an equilateral polygon is :-

A regular hexagon is defined as a hexagon that is both equilateral and equiangular. It is bicentric, meaning that it is both cyclic (has a circumscribed circle) and tangential (has an inscribed circle).

The common length of the sides equals the radius of the circumscribed circle, which equals (2xsqrt3)/3 times the apothem (radius of the inscribed circle). All internal angles are 120 degrees.

A regular hexagon has 6 rotational symmetries (rotational symmetry of order six) and 6 reflection symmetries (six lines of symmetry), making up the dihedral group D6.

The longest diagonals of a regular hexagon, connecting diametrically opposite vertices, are twice the length of one side.

From this it can be seen that a triangle with a vertex at the center of the regular hexagon and sharing one side with the hexagon is equilateral, and that the regular hexagon can be partitioned into six equilateral triangles.

NOW, why does Nature love this mathematical shape ?
Instead of persecuting the OP for raising a very scientific question, strain your limited brain capacity and answer that, if you possibly can divert from posting insults. There is always hope.

Re: Snowflakes
 

You're so charming, I can't think why anyone would want to persecute you.

Re: Snowflakes
 

Definitely a troll, no one's that abrasive without it being deliberate. No more feeding from me (hopefully I'll be added to the ever growing ignore list)

Re: Snowflakes
 

:LOL: Someone who thinks Wikipedia is a source of accurate data.

---------- Post added at 16:55 ---------- Previous post was at 16:54 ----------

I expect him to do the same to me shortly, hopefully someone will keep quoting me ;)

Re: Snowflakes
 

So basically, you're a troll who knows how to quote Wikipedia?

Mucho talento. Sorprendente!

Re: Snowflakes
 

Like this?

Though I don't know if Len from Bedford (the most obnoxious individual I've ever had the misfortune to meet - so must be the same person as the OP because there couldn't be two people so vile) will see it as I think I'm still on his ignore list.

Cheers Grim

Re: Snowflakes
 

Yes :D

Re: Snowflakes
 

"under" :D

Re: Snowflakes
 

Crap, gotta go to Bedford tomorrow on the bike to pick up some car parts... Will I be safe from this Len???

Re: Snowflakes
 

For the first time I totally agree with you.

Re: Snowflakes
 

Very safe, he's all bark and no bite.

Cheers

Grim

Re: Snowflakes
 

althouguh you may need to look out for a dodgy dilli in his chair - he may bite ;)

Re: Snowflakes
 

And somewhat disappointingly the OP's status is now 'guest' so I suspect we'll hear no more from him-well at least in that incarnation anyway.

I was wondering if we ever were going to get his explaination as to why hexagons crop up so often in nature, or his understanding of the true nature of gravity - we'll all just have to resign ourselves to living in ignorance as indeed we are doomed to never know what made his TV spontaneously turn itself off.

A sad, sad day indeed.

Re: Snowflakes
 

Gremlins :)

Re: Snowflakes
 

That's always my first assumption - much more likely than a faulty HDMI cable with a cracked core or dodgy socket!

Re: Snowflakes
 

Time perhaps for the thread to go the same way as the OP?

Re: Snowflakes
 

Indeed - I suspect he'll return ;) (If indeed all of his incarnations really left / got booted - we shall see)

Re: Snowflakes
 

How about we stick to the topic?

Are they really all that unique?

Re: Snowflakes
 

That's about the only bit of you that still works :)

---------- Post added at 06:59 ---------- Previous post was at 06:58 ----------

Sad indeed, he just wanted us all to be a little bit wiser and bask in his colossal intellect, if only he'd stuck around we'd all know about snowflakes and Maggy would know by now if they really were that unique

Re: Snowflakes
 

Well they possibly are, the structure of the water molecule greatly favours ice crystals forming a hexagonal lattice structure (although twelve-sided snowflakes have sometimes been observed). The six 'arms' of this structure grow independently and chaotically and indeed only a fraction of snowflakes are actually symmetrical. Because this growth is completely random then it is not likely that two snowflakes would grow in identical manners. - but it is certainly not a rule that all snowflakes have to be dissimilar.

Going back to the 'largest snowflake' postings from earlier in this thread, there is no evidence that this 15 inch snowflake ever existed - it was just a claim that someone reported seeing one of that size. The largest properly measured and recorded snowflakes are more like 2-3 inches across. It is unlikely (but not impossible) that a snowflake could grow to 15 inches across, they are quite delicate structures and it is more probable that wind shear as they descend would break them up.

Lastly the density of a snowflake drops rapidly with diameter. The OP's 'generous' estimate of 50% air is nothing like it. The actual mass of a hypothetical 15 inch snowflake would be a small fraction of what he though it would be and its terminal velocity (another topic which there seemed to be a bit of confusion about) would be higher than normal snowflakes but not greatly so.

Re: Snowflakes
 

I don't know if Jem is more accurate than *that other person* or not, but their style of presentation is gentler and rather less THIS IS HOW IT IS and if you dare question me I will PUMMEL you with my superior INTELLECT

Cartman - Respect my authoritah! springs to mind with the OP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1vKDM7wfiA

Re: Snowflakes
 

Re: Snowflakes
 

Well they say if you have an infinite pool of monkeys hitting a typewriter randomly for an infinite duration you will sooner or later get the complete works of Shakespeare out of one of them. So given an infinite multiverse, any possible shape and configuration of snowflake would theoretically occur an infinite number of times.

Very true. And in fact, they never even claimed to see one of "that size" (15 inches), just something akin to the size of a pan I believe was the actual description.

I love the topic of beautiful snowflakes,especially the REAL BIG ones :)

Nature can be amazing Maggy!

Re: Snowflakes
 

I remember a good few years ago at the end of a snow fall the last minutes had giant flakes 4-5" across but not many. They looked dish shaped as well and seemed to be acretions of already large flakes. No wind whatsoever and the temperature was close to freezing. Must have been special conditions for that to happen.