A couple of recent snowflakes re aggregation and fractal properties-
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals Volume 23, Issue 4 , February 2005, Pages
1111-1119
A local cellular model for snow crystal growth Clifford A. Reiter
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...282b20478222a5

preprint at-

http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~reiterc/mvp/sfn/sfn_pp.pdf

and

Universality in snowflake aggregation
Authors: C. D. Westbrook, R. C. Ball, P. R. Field, A. J. Heymsfield
ics/0310164

http://arxiv.org/abs/phys


--
regards,
David
add '17' to Waghorne to reply

A couple of recent snowflakes re aggregation and fractal properties-
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals Volume 23, Issue 4 , February 2005, Pages
1111-1119
A local cellular model for snow crystal growth Clifford A. Reiter
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...282b20478222a5

preprint at-

http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~reiterc/mvp/sfn/sfn_pp.pdf

and

Universality in snowflake aggregation
Authors: C. D. Westbrook, R. C. Ball, P. R. Field, A. J. Heymsfield
ics/0310164

http://arxiv.org/abs/phys


--
regards,
David
add '17' to Waghorne to reply

A couple of recent snowflakes re aggregation and fractal properties-
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals Volume 23, Issue 4 , February 2005, Pages
1111-1119
A local cellular model for snow crystal growth Clifford A. Reiter
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...282b20478222a5

preprint at-

http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~reiterc/mvp/sfn/sfn_pp.pdf

and

Universality in snowflake aggregation
Authors: C. D. Westbrook, R. C. Ball, P. R. Field, A. J. Heymsfield
ics/0310164

http://arxiv.org/abs/phys


--
regards,
David
add '17' to Waghorne to reply

ics/0310164

http://arxiv.org/abs/phys

should be-

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0310164


--
regards,
David
add '17' to Waghorne to reply

ics/0310164

http://arxiv.org/abs/phys

should be-

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0310164


--
regards,
David
add '17' to Waghorne to reply

ics/0310164

http://arxiv.org/abs/phys

should be-

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0310164


--
regards,
David
add '17' to Waghorne to reply

ics/0310164

http://arxiv.org/abs/phys

should be-

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0310164


--
regards,
David
add '17' to Waghorne to reply

Joe Hunt wrote:



It always amazes me how they say that no two snowflakes are exactly the
same. They obviously have verified this by checking every one that has
fallen from the sky, that would be ludicrous, however, I feel it must be
based on some mathematical theory. This has similarities to a calculation
I did at GCSE Biology which showed why no two people look alike, was to do
with genotypes and chromosomes IIRC.

I think "alike" should be "identical" - there are plenty of people who
look alike. I've seen that I have at least a couple of doubles. Once I
was watching tennis on TV and saw myself in the crowd, and another time
someone showed me a newspaper picture of a group of people at a CAMRA
meeting. There was I, pint in hand as usual, but I couldn't remember the
occasion - then realized that was because it wasn't me.

Graham

Joe Hunt wrote:



It always amazes me how they say that no two snowflakes are exactly the
same. They obviously have verified this by checking every one that has
fallen from the sky, that would be ludicrous, however, I feel it must be
based on some mathematical theory. This has similarities to a calculation
I did at GCSE Biology which showed why no two people look alike, was to do
with genotypes and chromosomes IIRC.

I think "alike" should be "identical" - there are plenty of people who
look alike. I've seen that I have at least a couple of doubles. Once I
was watching tennis on TV and saw myself in the crowd, and another time
someone showed me a newspaper picture of a group of people at a CAMRA
meeting. There was I, pint in hand as usual, but I couldn't remember the
occasion - then realized that was because it wasn't me.

Graham

Joe Hunt wrote:



It always amazes me how they say that no two snowflakes are exactly the
same. They obviously have verified this by checking every one that has
fallen from the sky, that would be ludicrous, however, I feel it must be
based on some mathematical theory. This has similarities to a calculation
I did at GCSE Biology which showed why no two people look alike, was to do
with genotypes and chromosomes IIRC.

I think "alike" should be "identical" - there are plenty of people who
look alike. I've seen that I have at least a couple of doubles. Once I
was watching tennis on TV and saw myself in the crowd, and another time
someone showed me a newspaper picture of a group of people at a CAMRA
meeting. There was I, pint in hand as usual, but I couldn't remember the
occasion - then realized that was because it wasn't me.

Graham