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.

[Stephen]

Because they look cool?

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 !

[GrimUpNorth]

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

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Wittmann

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.

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

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

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

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

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

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.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Wittmann

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.

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 .

Cheers

Grim

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.

[heero_yuy]

If you want a really big hexagon try this one:



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

qm51f424da.jpg

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Wittmann

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

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 .

Cheers

Grim

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

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

Resolution and accuracy. Two entirely different things.

Originally Posted by Wittmann

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.

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 Chris

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.

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.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Resolution and accuracy. Two entirely different things.

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

Cheers

Mr North

Originally Posted by Wittmann

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

Is that what you call it?

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