Mosquitos Have Little Trouble Flying in the Rain 186
sciencehabit writes with an interesting article about the (surprisingly not well studied) effects of rain on flying insects. From the article: "When a raindrop hits a mosquito, it's the equivalent of one of us being slammed into by a bus. And yet the bug will survive and keep flying. That's the conclusion of a team of engineers and biologists, which used a combination of real-time video and sophisticated math to demonstrate that the light insect's rugged construction allows the mosquito to shrug off the onslaught of even the largest raindrop. The findings offer little aid in controlling the pest but could help engineers improve the design of tiny flying robots."
Bats, unfortunately, aren't so lucky: "...these furry fliers need about twice as much energy to power through the rain compared with dry conditions."
Figures. (Score:5, Funny)
You have to work your ass off to keep the things you like alive/going (plants, cars, house, etc), yet pests like mosquitoes, bankers, and politicians you just can't get rid of no matter how hard you try.
The Wooden Wonder (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, Mosquitos could fly in the rain. However they would have trouble dropping their bombs accurately and obviously the recon version wouldn't get good photos.
The night fighter version would fare better with its radar, if there were any German bombers up there to intercept.
But of course sometimes they had to fly in bad weather, such as just before D-Day.
Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects (Score:1, Funny)
I always thought that was because of their +2 racial bonus to Craft (metalwork) checks.
Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality (Score:5, Funny)
*sigh* I don't understand these bus analogies. Can someone please give me a car analogy instead?
Re:Why don't they? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects (Score:5, Funny)
Dropping a bus on a horse, a human or mouse at the bottom of a thousand-yard mine shaft will still wreck the bus. Wouldn't be good for the creatures either (probably kill the mosquito too).
Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects (Score:5, Funny)
AIUI, you assume wrong. The horse's terminal velocity is considerably higer (and considerably more terminal) than that of the mouse.
and thus you strengthen his point. The mouse wins with conservative estimates. The mouse wins by more when you take into account more detailed explanations.
Maybe he should have said "even if you assume..."
This is called the principle of conservation of mice.
Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects (Score:5, Funny)
But your mouse remains safe, as predicted.
Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects (Score:5, Funny)
What about a spherical horse in a vacuum?
Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality (Score:5, Funny)
But the bus analogy is still wrong, because the entire point of the article is that the mosquito is not smashed by the raindrop. Instead the mosquito simply merges into and falls with the drop, then escapes before the raindrop hits the ground.
So, it's more like phasing through the front of an oncoming bus, landing comfortably in one of the seats, then escaping out the rear before the bus plows into a concrete wall.
*sigh* I don't understand these bus analogies. Can someone please give me a car analogy instead?
It's like a raindrop that hits a Yugo. The raindrop merges into the Yugo. The Yugo stops because the electricity fails. You get out, a little wet because of the leaking roof, but still OK.
Re:Matter of chance (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, there's only one way to settle this once and for all. BRB
Effect of Rain on Mosquito Behaviour (Score:5, Funny)
In Winnipeg, it isn't that mosquitoes can't fly in the rain, they just don't like it very much. Usually, your basic Winnipeg mosquitoes just jack a car and drive to their next victim. If the driver's lucky, the mosquitoes will let him go instead of keeping him for an en route snack. If there's a dog or cat in the car...don't ask. It won't be seen again.
Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects (Score:5, Funny)
Force = dP / dt
P = mass * velocity
A mouse weights around ~20g , a horse around ~450kg. If we assume that both of them have the same velocity when touching the floor, the horse will experience a force that is ~22000 times higher. Easily explains the splashing... ( I could go more and calculate an approximation of the value force itself, but I think this is enough )
Yes. But the real question is: What would happen to a bag filled with 22,500 mice (weighing a total of 450kg)?
Would the mouse-bag make a splash like the horse? Or would each individual mouse walk away with a slight shock?
Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects (Score:5, Funny)
The whole point was to show, that the difference between a mouse and horse isn't small, but rather gigantic.
Thank you, sir! This would never have occurred to me if you hadn't brought it up. Now I better understand why my parents would never give me a horse as a child; it wouldn't fit in the cage with the mice, and it would splash if I accidentally dropped it.
Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects (Score:5, Funny)
Give me a break, I wanted to write that comment that was as short, as quick, and as simple as possible.
You didn't even take relativistic affects into account. What if the horse and mouse are being dropped near a large mountain? And what about the possibility of quantum tunneling?
You're just lazy and sloppy, that's all.
Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects (Score:5, Funny)
A man, a horse, and a mouse walk into a bar...
"Barkeep," the man says "I need 3 pints of beer and access to your roof."
"Here you are," the barkeep says as he gives him the beer and keys to to roof.
Then he looks at the horse and asks "Why the long face?"
The horse pondered for a moment and then replied
"Well, basic physics gives the first line of the following.
Constant density and the definition of velocity gives the second, and the formula for the volume of a sphere gives the third.
(energy gained from gravity)
= (gravity constant) * (mass of object) * (distance it fell in a given time)
= (different constants) * (volume of sphere) * (velocity of sphere)
= (different constants) * (cube of radius) * (velocity of sphere)
The other half is more approximate. The first line is pretty much trivial from the setup. The second line is from the formula for the surface area of a sphere and from the basic physics fact that the energy of an object is proportional to the square of its velocity. The rest is algebra.
(energy lost to moving air out of the way)
= (constants) * (amount of air moved per unit time) * (energy imparted to each molecule of air)
= (constants) * [(surface area exposed) * (distance it fell in a given time)] * (velocity of sphere squared)
= (constants) * [(radius squared) * (velocity)] * (velocity squared)
= (constants) * (radius squared) * (velocity cubed)
At terminal velocity, these two are equal. Simple algebra gives the answer from here.
(constants) * (cube of radius) * (terminal velocity) = (constants) * (square of radius) * (cube of terminal velocity)
(constants) * (radius) = (square of terminal velocity)
(terminal velocity) = (constants) * sqrt(radius)
The large sphere has large radius, so large terminal velocity. Incidentally this is the formula from the Wikipedia page I linked, though my assumptions were very, very approximate and are probably different from the ones used to derive it.
In summary, this asshole is going to shove me off a roof just to prove a point, physics says they'll both survive, but I'm fucked."
Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects (Score:4, Funny)
Excellent, so I can toss mice off the top of my building all day long and not have to worry about killing them.
Suck it PETA. Throwing these mice is intrinsic to testing the catacopter.
I routinely get smashed by giant bodies of water (Score:4, Funny)