6 ms·
Do you get less wet if you run in the rain?
- vinutheraj 17y agoConclusion: To get to a specific place you get more wet by walking. To travel for a specific period of time you get more wet by running.
- run4yourlives 17y agoIn other words, running in the rain gets you more wet, given that all running is doing is reducing your exposure time. (Yes, sometimes that exposure time can result in you coming out ahead, but it's not really answering the question) EDIT: What the hell's with the downmods? What is this, reddit?
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y agoIf I've parsed that correctly, you're wrong. The following are true: For a given amount of time, running in the rain makes you more wet. For a given distance, running in the rain makes you less wet. Running reduces your exposure time by more than the increase in rain_per_time. Perhaps I've simply mis-understood you.
- run4yourlives 17y agoYou've basically repeated what I said. My point is that reducing your exposure time is basically altering a different variable in the equation. If you control that variable by not running to a place where the exposure to rain stops, it becomes clear that by running you will get more wet than if you were simply walking. And yes I understand that practically, running to a dry spot is the whole point.
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y agoNope, I still don't understand you. One more try, then I'll give up. You originally said: In other words, running in the rain gets you more wet, given that all running is doing is reducing your exposure time. The running is reducing your exposure time, and that reduce is enough to get you less wet. Hence your claim that it gets you more wet is nonsense. What have I misunderstood?
- run4yourlives 17y agoThe running is reducing your exposure time, and that reduce is enough to get you less wet. Um, the "exposure time" variable is exactly that. The act of running causes you to increase your rain exposure, so unless I'm missing something, at some point the "exposure time" will become long enough that the act of running is rendered ineffective, and then actually becomes worse. (For example, if you ran around in a circle for a set time, instead of from point to point). Like I said, I do get that by that point it may not functionally matter, and that if you ran from your car to the store you will not be as wet as if you walked, but it is important to understand the subtleties in order to properly understand why.
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y agoNope, I give up. It seems to me that what you're saying is either trivially true and therefore completely pointless, or simply wrong. I can't believe you're as clueless as my parsing/reading seems to make you, so I guess we're just talking past each other. Maybe others will understand you and gain something from it, but I doubt there's much to be gained by you continuing to explain to me, and me trying to understand. Thanks for trying.
- staticshock 17y agowhat he means is that running gets you more wet per time unit compared to walking
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y agoBut isn't that completely obvious? Surely he must mean more than that, otherwise his "contribution" is completely pointless.
- xiaoma 17y agoI've been running on and off for the past 16 years. In my experience, I do not get as wet while running in the rain as I would just standing in it. I think there must be a missing variable, such as excess water whisking off more quickly, greater evaporation due to heat transfer or maybe something else.
- iigs 17y agoPerhaps a more forward posture causes the front of your body to be "shaded" by the rest of your body, leaving the front (that you notice more) drier?
- mronge 17y agoI've spent a lot of time learning math (have a CS degree, which required lots of math). But sadly, I'm not comfortable enough with differential equations to come up with a solution like the first part. It makes sense once someone else has done it, but I wouldn't have gotten that far. Perhaps I just need more practice. Practice makes perfect with math like everything else?
- ajross 17y agoYour CS degree required "math", but not much calculus or analysis. If your degree was in, say, mechanical engineering instead (or anything in the family of applied physics), you'd be much more comfortable with the differential equations. But then, you'd probably have a harder time with discrete stuff like statistics, and the number theory behind RSA would completely baffle you. Yes, basically. You just need more practice.
- lliiffee 17y agoYou don't really need much math to understand this. Imagine that a person is a perfect cube. The amount of rain hitting the top of this cube is constant-- does not depend on the speed of the cube. The amount of rain hitting the front of the cube is proportional to how fast the cube is moving. From this insight, everything else is algebra.
- mronge 17y agoI was referring to coming with the differential equation first presented. Understanding it is one thing, but coming up with it independently is different.
- mdakin 17y agoI wonder if the multivariate nature of this problem is throwing you off more than the differential equation aspect of it. If you know multivariable calculus you can think about this problem at a higher level of abstraction (vector fields and flux). The integral you see is the output of the thinking at that higher level of abstraction. I bet with proper background and practice you could set things like this up rather easily. You just need to learn to think about the problems at the proper abstraction level and then develop some intuition by actually doing lots of problems.
- yummyfajitas 17y agoI once asked this question on a calculus exam.
- wvl 17y agoThis question is the reason I went into engineering. I learned calculus by correspondence in high school. Solving this problem transformed calculus in my mind from just some abstract problems to solve into something useful. It was a big turning point for me, and focused my interests in areas of applied math.
- yan 17y agoWhat contributes to how I feel when I arrive isn't the factor of my wetness, but how long I spent being rained on.
- req2 17y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak-end_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak-end_rule begs to differ.
- yan 17y agoIt can beg all it wants, I'm still gonna run :) I stop thinking about being in the rain as soon as I'm sheltered, so I'd rather minimize being in an unpleasant situation.
- aik 17y agoInteresting rule, however I disagree with the extent of the assumptions taken from the experiment in the wiki, because: Blasting the second group with a less painful noise AFTER a more painful noise will result in a sense of relief when the less painful noise occurs. I believe this relief has a big impact on what people remember. Also, I believe the second group would insist on increased unpleasantness if the less painful noise preceded the more painful noise. Nonetheless, I believe there is some truth to the rule.
- amalcon 17y agoI, like you, try to optimize a different thing than the article: I want the time at which my wetness level is normal to be as soon as possible. As such, it makes sense for me to run to shelter if only because I will get to start drying off sooner. Oddly enough, all three optimizations lead to the same conclusion: that the best thing to do in any case is to run until you escape the rain.
- bradlane 17y agodidn't the mythbusters test this in one of their first couple of seasons? iirc, they did, and came to the same conclusion
- thorax 17y agoThey originally said if you ran you got more wet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_%28season_1%29#Who_Gets_Wetter.3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_%28season_1%29#Who_... But then they changed their mind after that show: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_episodes:_Season_3#Who_Gets_Wetter.3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_episodes:_Season_3#...
- run4yourlives 17y agoI won't argue the conclusion, just introduce an anecdotal observation. When it is spitting or raining very lightly, sit in a stopped car and watch the rain on the window. Now, speed that car up to about 80km and see what happens. Disregarding spray from other vehicles, odds are that there will be more rain on the windshield in the same amount of time. Like I said just an observation.
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y agoYes, but for a given distance you get less rain on the windscreen when you drive fast, rather than driving slowly.
- run4yourlives 17y agoOf course, because you've substantially reduced your exposure time. But the act of increasing your speed itself actually causes you to come in contact with more raindrops, not less.
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y agoPer unit time, yes. Per unit distance, no. I'm just not getting you. I'm giving up.
- ekanes 17y agoNice. A fun/rational way to look at what is at heart an emotional decision. :) Another angle on this is that running spreads the wetness over more surface area (less on top, more on front). If you're wearing a hat, you might choose to walk, etc.
- tlrobinson 17y agoI used to ride my bike to class in the rain, and I would always get more wet than if I walked.