VS Battles Wiki Forum

Considering this whole frame thing, I ended up wondering if I should do the same with the storm calculation as well.

Instead of using 1 frame I used 12 or 0.5 seconds. However I'm not certain if this is correct due to the storm expanding at the same time and the fact that the white line thing I'm using to find the distance of the clouds isn't moving in a straight line but in a circle. Meaning the distance I get would be incorrect.

Like imagine starting at a circle horizontally, it'd look like a line. The two end of that "line" at the left and right are actually further away from the camera than the middle of the line. This change becomes even greater since the storm is also expanding in size, which would mess with the distance gotten even more.

That's why I think using a longer timeframe would give a more inaccurate result.

The speed result didn't even change that much going from 48225.75 m/s to 42020 m/s. So I think using 1 frame here would be more accurate. Do you agree or disagree?

Using 1 frame should be fine here, it's not like we could accurately measure the distance it's spinning over an extended distance with such an angle.

Also the expansion speed it's not even consistent, it was getting faster as well making the use of longer time-frames inaccurate.

We can somewhat accurately determine the rotation around its own axis which is about like 1/4 of the circumference. Measuring the speed is kinda weird anyway cause only the outer part would be rotating at that speed. All the parts further inside the Strom would be rotating at a slower speed due to the same amount of circumference having less distance.

I think I could try to take that into account, but maybe we should just go back to using the full dispersion of the storm, after the explosion, to avoid further complications.

There's a part of the storm that hasn't been measured, so I will be working on that.

It's done.

With this method we don't need to find the rotation around the axis, so hopefully this is the last calc iteration of this feat.

I don't know man. I know I am not as good at clacs as you are but I think leaving out the rotation part for the sake of simplicity just because the previous flaws are hard to fix seems kinda weird. Also I wouldn't use that high of a radius personally because of this shot:

The explosion isn't necessarily the whole radius the cloud was blown away. We only see parts of the cloud being blown that distance while the other parts would only have to travel the dispersion radius of the image I linked.
If we wanted to make it as simple as possible we could use the explosion yield formula too but I think the results would be too low then.

I just don't really want to waste my time on something which is probably gonna yield 6-C results, and we can't even add both results together because they are separated feats.

What's wrong with the radius? We can see in one of the frames I provided that the storm was indeed dispersed away all that distance.

And the clouds way higher above are intact so the dispersed clouds only had one direction to disperse.

I'm pretty sure this was the method we used until TheRustyOne found one we could get higher results by measuring the spinning energy of the storm, which admittedly I always thought it was weird, but now we know it was because TheRusty is measuring the movement of the outer part of the storm.

If we used a method to find the spinning speed inside the storm it would yield far lower results.

Why can't we add the rotation to the dispersion? I'm kinda confused.
We only see the clouds partially dispersed in that direction. The explosion kinda blocks most of the view but we see the end result of the dispersion. While we do see that a small part of the cloud was moved a large distance the aftermath of the dispersion is a lot smaller than the used radius. I already linked the image and the difference is actually HUGE.

I don't get what you mean by using "end result of the dispersion" I get the exact same results using that image.


No seriously what do you mean by this huge difference.

As for the spinning energy, using TheRustyOne's measurements:

Circumference of the storm = 67261.5 m

Rotation around its own axis = 67261.5/4 = 16815.37 m

However, that is not the distance we are looking for, that's just the full rotation distance of the storm. TheRusty measured a frame where the storm rotates what appears to be at least 10 degrees.

Rotation of The Storm around its own axis during that frame = 360/10 = 36 = 16815.37/36 = 467.09 m

Speed = 467.09/0.04 = 11677.25 m/s

Energy = 0.5*878501558348*(11677.25)^2 = 14.31 Gigatons of TNT (Island level)

It's because you assumed the entire storm was dispersed off the frame when we only see small parts of it moved that distance. Most of the storm was only dispersed the radius of the aftermath I showed in an image. The radius and therefore the speed would be much smaller. Basically I am saying that you used too much of a radius. The rotation value you got looks pretty accurate but logically the rotation speed of the outer part would only apply to the outer part of the storm.

Is this is what are you referring to when saying I used to much radius?

I have modified the calculation using that image to get the radius of the dispersion during that frame.