Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Do you get less wet if you run in the rain?

news.bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 35 posts

Re: Do you get less wet if you run in the rain?

#21

Post by run4yourlives »

RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #18
run4yourlives wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 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?

If 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.

You'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.

Re: Do you get less wet if you run in the rain?

#22

Post by run4yourlives »

RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #19
run4yourlives wrote: post #13

I 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.

Yes, but for a given distance you get less rain on the windscreen when you drive fast, rather than driving slowly.

Of 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.

Re: Do you get less wet if you run in the rain?

#23

Post by mdakin »

mronge wrote: post #6
lliiffee wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You 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.

I was referring to coming with the differential equation first presented. Understanding it is one thing, but coming up with it independently is different.

I 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.

Re: Do you get less wet if you run in the rain?

#24

Post by iigs »

xiaoma wrote: post #20
vinutheraj wrote: post #2

Conclusion: 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.

I'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.

Perhaps 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?

Re: Do you get less wet if you run in the rain?

#26

Post by RiderOfGiraffes »

run4yourlives wrote: post #21
RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If 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.

You'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.

Nope, 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?

Re: Do you get less wet if you run in the rain?

#27

Post by staticshock »

RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #18
run4yourlives wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 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?

If 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.

what he means is that running gets you more wet per time unit compared to walking

Re: Do you get less wet if you run in the rain?

#28

Post by run4yourlives »

RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #26
run4yourlives wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'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.

Nope, 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?

The 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.

Re: Do you get less wet if you run in the rain?

#29

Post by aik »

req2 wrote: post #9
yan wrote: post #7

What contributes to how I feel when I arrive isn't the factor of my wetness, but how long I spent being rained on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak-end_rule begs to differ.

Interesting 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.

Re: Do you get less wet if you run in the rain?

#30

Post by RiderOfGiraffes »

run4yourlives wrote: post #28
RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, 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?

The 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…

Nope, 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.

Post reply on HN