Originally Posted by Wittmann (Post 35767326)

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.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 35767379)

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

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35767386)

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

Originally Posted by Wittmann (Post 35767418)

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 21 lb. falling at about 100 mph must shatter to pieces on impact. 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.

Originally Posted by Wittmann (Post 35767418)

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.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 35767434)

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

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 35767434)

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

Originally Posted by Wittmann (Post 35767418)

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.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35767517)

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.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35767484)

Resolution and accuracy. Two entirely different things.;)

Originally Posted by Wittmann (Post 35767526)

he is only trying to insert some scientific interest in the Forum