Talk:Snowmaking

	Sports portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of skiing and snowboarding articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Skiing and SnowboardingWikipedia:WikiProject Skiing and SnowboardingTemplate:WikiProject Skiing and SnowboardingSkiing and Snowboarding articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Inferior?[edit]

I totally disagree that "most enthusiasts" consider man-made snow to be "inferior" to naturally occurring snow. Show me some proof! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.173.181 (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what kind of skiing you want to do. Snow is frozen water and the density of the snow is what makes it feel different to the skier. Man-made snow can definitely be made to be more like powder but it is very expensive and doesn't stay on the trails. The denser snow is what is going to provide a good base and allow a ski resort to open sooner or stay open later. A ski resort is selling lift tickets but more directly selling snow to ski on. Snowmaking provides the operator with more control over something that is usually left to Mother Nature and her whims. This is why snowmaking is a requirement if a ski area wants to host a World Cup ski event.

Dave the snowmaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.180.240 (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two big problems I see are #1 that snowmaking is too expensive for big ski areas. That is a purely subjective comment. Resorts like Sunday River in Maine and Okemo in Vermont have huge snowmaking systems. In fact, many eastern resorts have big snowmaking systems. And, the comment about change in the climate has no relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.58.226 (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleanup[edit]

This article is a complete mess, especially near the top. as for the comment by 65.126.58.226, it should be enough to say: snowmaking is costly as it uses a lot of energy and water. The cost limits its use. 115.129.11.37 (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made some fairly extensive edits down to Water and Air. Basically I tried to do two things. One, to rewrite the document as simply and concisely as possible. Two, to remove anything that didn't make sense, or was unneccessary. For example, I removed the sentence Some systems can use up to 13,500 horsepower (10,100 kW) at full capacity.. This doesn't make sense or is irrelivant, I can't figure out which. The article is talking about efficiency, but the power usage by itself is meaningless. It is like saying a truck used 50L per 100km... Is this a small truck or a large semi trailer. Or, is the sentence giving upper limit on on the size of snow guns? Then it should state so explicitly. I also removed references to climate change as the aim of snowmaking is to improve snow reliability and extend the season. This aim exist regardless of whether the climate is changing. 115.129.11.37 (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fake snow[edit]

The lemma Fake snow should not be redirected to this article because it's not the same thing. Fake snow is something that is only supposed to look like snow but is not made of frozen water, such as fake snow in movies when some substances are used to provide a make-believe of winter, like salt or plastic flakes or some sort of foam. These have nothing to do with snow from snow cannon as described in this article. Also, fake snow can be made of cotton wool and other substances or simply of white paint on an object to imitate snow on Christmas trees or other Christmas decoration. I think this is what the article Fake snow should be about, and NOT a redirect to snowmaking as this is a different lemma. --Maxl (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Done.—Anne Delong (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]