Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittmann
I only meant to give some idea of weight, not aim to get a Nobel Prize.
|
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy
Resolution and accuracy. Two entirely different things.  |
Precision and accuracy.
---------- Post added at 14:13 ---------- Previous post was at 13:58 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stop It
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.
|
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittmann
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.
|
Same to you
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittmann
Mass, shape and surface area determine drag.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittmann
Terminal velocity is proportional to mass
|
No it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittmann
If it weighed a ton, it would drop like a ton and make a huge crater in Mother Earth`s crust on impact.
|
Well, that's one thing you got roughly right. It'd make a crater, though not a huge one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittmann
Come off it
|
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittmann
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittmann
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.
|
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth
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.
|
---------- Post added at 14:28 ---------- Previous post was at 14:25 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
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....
|
Surely exhibiting any actual knowledge of the subject matter at hand, even if only speculatively, will result in insults and ridicule from the OP?