Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,508
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    joxey
    Newest Member
    joxey
    Joined

February 16th Disco


Bostonseminole
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

 

High was 39F and temp has fallen back to 37F. Didn't end up losing all that much. About 2 inches and some of that was compaction.

 

image.thumb.png.eec466490b5574a9ffbbd6da29cc68e3.png

 

 

AWT.  I figured around a foot when you posted that yesterday.  10” at worst left.  Pretty embarrassing for those thinking a Xmas torch was event remotely possible, much less even mentioning it.

Not even a blip for you.  The loss was way out-gained by the SWE addition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

AWT.  I figured around a foot when you posted that yesterday.  10” at worst left.  Pretty embarrassing for those thinking a Xmas torch was event remotely possible, much less even mentioning it.

Not even a blip for you.  The loss was way out-gained by the SWE addition.

There was no way he was going to lose much, To short a duration and temps and dews remained low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, powderfreak said:

AWT.  I figured around a foot when you posted that yesterday.  10” at worst left.  Pretty embarrassing for those thinking a Xmas torch was event remotely possible, much less even mentioning it.

Not even a blip for you.  The loss was way out-gained by the SWE addition.

As soon as there was siggy CAD showing up, we knew it wasn’t going to take a hard hit. 

The key to pack retention as you are well aware of is basically:

1. Get some liquid equivalent in the pack (check.....already had the high water content 17” storm on Feb 1-2 surrounded by the multiple powder events)

2. Limit the exposure to high dewpoints > 37F (check....had maybe a few hours barely exceeding that number today)

3. Cool the pack back down quickly. If the core temp of the pack is very cold, a day or two of sunny 40-50F weather will do far less damage than if the pack is already pretty mild/soft/ripe. Energy is wasted warming up the pack rather than phase transitioning the ice crystals into water. (Check....very cold air advecting in behind storm)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, White Rain said:

You have some decent pack there left. To your point on number 3. Wouldn’t the snow temperature largely be irrelevant compared with the fact that after the pack is completely frozen versus ripe as you say,  more mass of snow would need to phase transition (enthalpy of fusion) and this is the reason the pack takes significantly more energy to melt out. The energy needed from the temperature difference would be mostly negligible in comparison? My background on this is as a ChE but enjoy thermodynamics discussion.

Specific heat of ice at 0C is 2.108 J/g C (less at lower temperatures) so say the snow is at 14F (18F below freezing or 10C), this amounts to ~ 21 J per gram compared with the 334J per gram needed to phase transition the snow to water at 32F. The temperature being at 14F vs 32F would result in only a 6% increase in energy needed to melt.  

 

You are definitely correct LE is by far the more important factor. That’s why fluff melts out so much faster regardless of how cold it may have been the day before. 

I still consider a variable that may be 5-10% part of the equation as mattering though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, dryslot said:

What a bitch to clean this crap up, Tough getting the blower under it to pick it up and throw it, Kept wanting to ride over the top.

We had all sleet, 2.0" from 0.76" LE.  With decent ratios that's a 8-12" dump.  Some very light frdz at the end but no effect on the surface.  Worst part of clearing was the unstable footing from those tiny ball bearings.  Would've been easier to clear the 8-12.  :P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, tamarack said:

We had all sleet, 2.0" from 0.76" LE.  With decent ratios that's a 8-12" dump.  Some very light frdz at the end but no effect on the surface.  Worst part of clearing was the unstable footing from those tiny ball bearings.  Would've been easier to clear the 8-12.  :P

Definitely would have preferred snow, Does not seem to want to do that this year, I had a little zr on top of that and by the time i was able to get to it, You could walk right on top of it and i knew that was a bad sign, 150' driveway was a chore even for the JD tractor, I had to actually push down on the handle to force the leading edge to get underneath it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dryslot said:

Definitely would have preferred snow, Does not seem to want to do that this year, I had a little zr on top of that and by the time i was able to get to it, You could walk right on top of it and i knew that was a bad sign, 150' driveway was a chore even for the JD tractor, I had to actually push down on the handle to force the leading edge to get underneath it.

Many years ago (mid 60s) while I was at our NNJ home during semester break, we had 3" of IP followed by about 0.4" zr.  Had to wear the creepers to climb the small hill from lake to house and kids were skating in their back yards.  I couldn't mar the surface with a heel-stomp and I was nearly as big then as now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, White Rain said:

Thanks for the reply. I agree its not completely negligible, especially on cooler days where you resist phase change longer. Bigger point was it is minimal compared with the un frozen liquid water in the pack that make it ripe and release. 

I assumed fluff also melted out faster due to more surface area being exposed to ambient, not sure if this is a significant contributor. 

I never noticed this as much as I did in March 2015. Because of 8"+ in the pack and how dense it was, even in the March sun it seemed like it took forever to melt. Compare that to now where even this time of year, fluff goes quick in the sun. Frankly I was astonished how tenacious it was back then. I know people think higher elevations melt out slower due to temps, and part of that is true. But at higher elevations (even interior low spots) more water in the pack makes it harder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...