3 ms·
"Science for more than a half-century has found ways to complicate the matter ..." Peterson, T. C. and Wallis, T. W. R. (1997), Running in the rain. Weather, 5
by j1o1h1n 11y ago
"Science for more than a half-century has found ways to complicate the matter ..."
Peterson, T. C. and Wallis, T. W. R. (1997), Running in the rain. Weather, 52: 93–96. doi: 10.1002/j.1477-8696.1997.tb06281.x
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1477-8696.1997.tb06281.x/pdf http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1477-8696.1997....
But all this is model and theory. What about reality? To predict the weather four
days in advance you may want to use a model, but to truly determine whether a walker
or a runner would get wetter in the rain one can simply conduct an experiment. ...
we purchased two identical pairs of hats, sweat shirts and pants, ... Departing
at the same time, Dr Wallis ran the lOOm at a velocity of 4.0ms-' while Dr Peterson
walked the same distance at 1.4ms-'. The total water absorbed by the walker was
0.217kg and by the runner 0.130 kg.
Running, therefore, produced a decrease in wetting of 40 per cent.
- delazeur 11y agoThis calls for follow-up research on how the absorption ratio varies with distance traveled. Please excuse me while I apply for some grant money.
- giardini 11y agoArgumentum de evolution: I find it intriguing but also somewhat self-satisfying that the natural response (to run), placed in our DNA by evolution, is confirmed by both mathematics and experiment. One wonders why one should have asked at all!8-))
- logicrook 11y agoActually, if you run fast enough, you can get wetter because of water projections by you legs/feet. You can end up with a wet back, wet lower legs, and nearly dry front. As delazeur said lower, this calls for follow-up research!