Bill Brasky
Diamond Member
- May 18, 2006
- 4,324
- 1
- 0
A perfect example of why I love this forum. :laugh:Originally posted by: CycloWizard
OK, it looks like the relationship for weight gain with time is the following:
dW/dt = D*c*(v_d*a+v_r*b)
Where dW/dt is the rate of weight gain (the rate of getting soaked)
D is the rain 'density' (drops/m^3 or some such)
a is the person's 'thickness' (front to back)
b is the person's height
c is the person's width (shoulder-to-shoulder)
v_d is the rain's falling velocity
v_r is the velocity that the person is moving forward
Integrating gives the right-hand-side multiplied by t, where t is time in the rain and the left-hand-side becomes the total weight change.
W = D*c*(v_d*a+v_r*b)*t
I treated the person as a rectangular prism moving at a constant velocity, along with other standard assumptions you all mentioned above (rain falls straight down, constant density, constant velocities of rain and the person). Just looking at the equation tells me that the rate at which you get wet will always be higher for the person running (since v_r is higher). However, you need to determine the time required to get from place to place to know which will have a larger net wetting effect. I'll throw this in Excel and see how it comes out. It may even be that the answer differs for the fat guy over the tall guy, but if you're tall and fat, you're going to get soaked no matter what.![]()
Edit: It looks like the net weight change is always lower for running. However, the walking skinny guys get as wet as the really fast, running fat guys. There is an asymptote at high velocities for each body type.
Usually I walk since I'm a firm believer in umbrellas. But without one, running makes the most sense to me.