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.