If you need to go from point A to point B and it is raining, would you
stay drier by running (therefore reducing time exposed to the rain,
but also contacting more rain with your frontside due to your
velocity) or by walking (therefore reducing contacting rain with your
frontside due to less velocity but getting your shoulders and head
wetter due to increased time exposure to rain)?

You do stay drier by running..

This was elaborated in more detail here:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=447597

That assumes 'other things being equal' of course :

 probonopublico-ga's comment exhibits an atitude, which
if generally accepted, would make science impossible - 
as it tends to bring real life issues into simplified idealised
models which can be scientifcally anlysed and solved.

It is possible that when running, you will trip and fall into a puddle,
break your nose and be taken to the hospital  
in an ambulance, driven by mad driver, who will cause an accident ..
but it is unlikely.
Since you posted this to category of science, not cartoon making,
we neglect those possible scenario, but do caution you: 
-- be careful when running and 
   recognise these conclusion as probalistic
   and valid within the assumptions of the model.


Hedgie :-)

Rain is not constant so any of the scenarios are possible.

hiya richie rich,

As I recall it you stay drier by walking. 
Some time ago this was tested and could be vieuwed on Discovery Channel.
Perhaps you can contact them to get the results?

AM

I you run 10 miles per hour instead of walking one mile per hour, you
would stay dryer over one mile running the distance in 6 minutes.
Exceptions would occur occasionally if the walking speed is almost as
fast as the running speed.   Neil

Of course, there are a lot of very wet scientists.

I find it extremely amusing that:
 
"probonopublico-ga's comment exhibits an attitude, which if generally
accepted, would make science impossible"

Keep up the good work, Bryan!

In forty-five minutes we'll be bringing up the rear on New Year's here
in the Pacific North Wet, where we all test these theories on a daily
basis . . .   :)

ts

I recall that Government scientists proclaimed that Saddam Hussein had
'Weapons of Mass Destruction'.

Well, where are they?

Personally, whenever I walk in the rain, I prefer to use an umbrella
rather than depend on the untested theories of some so-called
scientist.

Remember Gene Kelly? 

Would he have sang and danced so joyously with only some bizarre
scientific theory to rely on?

Hedgie,

Quote .. "It is possible that when running, you will trip and fall
into a puddle, break your nose and be taken to the hospital
in an ambulance, driven by mad driver, who will cause an accident ..
but it is unlikely".

Could this be interpreted as "Probo's preamble being compared to an
improbable prerequisite to proboscis puncture, puddles and pedestrian
permeability" ?

I have to run around in my shower to get wet. So all theories are
quite easily debunked.

Phil

Actually it depends on several factors:
a) How fast you walk versus how fast you run
b) How much is your vertical versus your horizontal area
c) How fast the rain falls

Roughly speaking, if we consider rain as a uniform distribution
of drops in space then the amount of drops (=water) that comes into
contact with you is approximately:

a) Proportionate to your horizontal area (=head area) * rain fall
speed * time spent in rain
b) Proportionate to your vertical area * movement speed * time spent in rain

If "time spent in rain" grows (slow walking speed) you get very wet
horizontally but only a little wet vertically. If you go very very
fast, you get minimum amounts of water horizontally (on your head) and
great amounts of water vertically (on your torso). For some "movement
speed", say X, the sum of water (on your head/horizontal and on your
torso/vertical) is minimum. You can differentiate the rough function
above wrt movement speed and find a global minimum.

Anyway, this is a rough sketch based on several assumptions. If the
"math" above does not make sense, forget it.

PKT.

As far as I can see you have ignored wind.
If the wind is at your back, you should run or walk at the speed of
the component of the wind blowing in the direction you are walking. If
you do this no rain should hit your front or back. If the rain is
vertical or blowing into your face, you should run as fast as you can.
The amount of rain hitting your front or back is constant for a given
distance, but the less time you're outside the less rain will hit the
top of your head and shoulders.

Yes, time and distance are truely important factors, but one thing I
know is that the density of rain is greater horizontally than
vertically.  I don't run in the rain at times I even go through
puddles for lack of care.  At the end, I may be more wet than the
person who ran, but who looked more foolish?

Esteemed commentators

 It looks like each time a comment is added, these old old answers
jump back to the view - so when bradtv-ga on 15 Feb 2005 19:14 PST 
added his comment, I have looked again and saw all these comments.

They illustrate good skeptical attitude to science and computer 
models in general and show a lot of common sense. (Or is it comment sense?).

One thing which I notice, that few people bother to read what was already
discovered (and mentioned in the asnwer) namely:
" This was elaborated in more detail here:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=447597
"
That was a  simplified model which correctly quantifies the effect 
of angle of incidence (rain on person or car)
(affected by wind, running, and angle of rain drop path)
 instead many come with simplified models which are wrong or useless.

But reason I came back to comment is this nasty attack
 From: probonopublico-ga (who we thought dies in a duel in Peru??) who says 

" I recall that Government scientists proclaimed that Saddam Hussein had
'Weapons of Mass Destruction'"

   I do not recall any scientist who said that. Not even CIA said that.
   It was cooked up between politician and Mr Blair was one of them.

 If  you start blaming all scientists or all americans for follies 
of neocon policies- you really will mess things up. I am disappointed 
seeing the cheap and undesrved shot.

 Please respond,  Brian.

How are preparations for invasion progressing?
Will all scientist be arrested by invading army?

Hedgie