-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
CAPE Calcs and Storm Feats (Staff only)
- Thread starter Mr. Bambu
- Start date
- 9,978
- 2,015
Isn't that more a question about Enviromental Destruction? If I interpreted well what Matt said, the character hit the ground it create a shockwave that clear the sky (or perhaps cause a rain?), then KE is used.Antvasima said:
- 9,978
- 2,015
Ehh, I always prefer to use low-end if there's nothing suggesting a higher result, in case of storms is nearly impossible since we're never going to see the actual thickness.
- 15,637
- 5,392
More ED stuff?
Yes, I specifically included All-Might's feat to say that ED feats caused by physical attacks are applicable for scaling.
Like, at tha point your physical attack is causing the phenomena, not some unrelated power.
Yes, I specifically included All-Might's feat to say that ED feats caused by physical attacks are applicable for scaling.
Like, at tha point your physical attack is causing the phenomena, not some unrelated power.
- 32,359
- 20,298
I think the technicalities are defeating the very point of this thread.
- 9,978
- 2,015
The thread is pretty much finished... I think, what are we waiting now?
@Bambu, practical utilities I guess, if the profile has the at least if someone use the argument "it can be higher" then just look at the other end in order to known the highest result; it also works for supporting other calcs.
@Bambu, practical utilities I guess, if the profile has the at least if someone use the argument "it can be higher" then just look at the other end in order to known the highest result; it also works for supporting other calcs.
- 10,904
- 12,343
I have created a prototype for a cloud calculations page. Opinions would be nice.
Also if someone can find a better cloud thickness for stratus clouds then me, that would be great.
Edit: I guess I will start recalcing the values in the Standard Storm calculation tables tomorrow, to fit the changed cloud height... So many values... <.<
Also if someone can find a better cloud thickness for stratus clouds then me, that would be great.
Edit: I guess I will start recalcing the values in the Standard Storm calculation tables tomorrow, to fit the changed cloud height... So many values... <.<
- 11,099
- 4,323
Is the difference just the pronouns? If so I will quickly copy it over.
Also mentioned KE
Also mentioned KE
- 16,606
- 1,791
Question since this relates to storms. Which type of standard does a blizzard fall under?
- 15,637
- 5,392
I'd assume a blizzard would be the same as creating a storm, however there's also the energy of lowering ambient temperatures to the point where snow is possible.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 22,786
- 22,313
- Thread starter
- #137
Mmhmm. No problem.
I believe, unless I'm mistaken, this thread can be closed and a new one can be opened for an effort to collect blogs that need upating and recalcing them ASAP.
I believe, unless I'm mistaken, this thread can be closed and a new one can be opened for an effort to collect blogs that need upating and recalcing them ASAP.
- 10,904
- 12,343
So, I have updated all values of the storm calculation page now.
It would be good if everyone could just pick 1-2 random entries from each table and check if that result is correct, so that we can have confidence in the new values.
The Cloud Calculations page has been created
It would be good if everyone could just pick 1-2 random entries from each table and check if that result is correct, so that we can have confidence in the new values.
The Cloud Calculations page has been created
- 15,332
- 7,563
The mass of a cloud is the exact same as the mass of the water that was vaporized to condense it, as per the law of conservation of mass, so assuming that condensation is somehow lower violates physics.
- 40,470
- 12,953
@Kep. So what are you getting at?
Sorry if that sounds rude. Not my intent.
Sorry if that sounds rude. Not my intent.
- 15,332
- 7,563
That this smells like bullshit, if you want me to jump at everyone and ride a hype train.
- 40,470
- 12,953
Ah. I figured, but I wanted to make sure.
Keep in mind, I never supported CAPE, so if you think that, you have my support.
Keep in mind, I never supported CAPE, so if you think that, you have my support.
- 15,332
- 7,563
I'm not saying that CAPE is wrong, brother. It is definitely right. I'm rejecting that stuff about condensation using 0.0005kg/m^3.
- 40,470
- 12,953
Then in the words of Abridged!Marik Ishtar...
IGNORE ME!
ovo
IGNORE ME!
ovo
- 10,904
- 12,343
What is a cloud? *throws wine glass* A miserable little pile of secrets.
Is a cloud just the condensated liquid? Or is a cloud a mixture of the liquid and the gas?
Depending on what you want a cloud to be what the density of a cloud is changes.
If you calculate something via condensation you are only condensating the liquid in the cloud. You don't condensate air. (Unless you cool it to -194┬░C lel)
If you calculate CAPE, then you are calculating energy available for an updraft, which carries the entire room occupying mixture of substances, meaning you also need the air.
Hence CAPE and KE calculations which move not just the liquid, have to use a higher density, than condensation calculations which don't care about the air at all.
If you are referring to a cloud, which mass are you referring to?Kepekley23 said:
Is a cloud just the condensated liquid? Or is a cloud a mixture of the liquid and the gas?
Depending on what you want a cloud to be what the density of a cloud is changes.
If you calculate something via condensation you are only condensating the liquid in the cloud. You don't condensate air. (Unless you cool it to -194┬░C lel)
If you calculate CAPE, then you are calculating energy available for an updraft, which carries the entire room occupying mixture of substances, meaning you also need the air.
Hence CAPE and KE calculations which move not just the liquid, have to use a higher density, than condensation calculations which don't care about the air at all.
- 15,332
- 7,563
That sounds like making ambiguities where they don't exist.
Water vapor in 20 degrees Celsius has a density of 0.7kg/m^3 (a few orders of magnitude ahead of the low number being thrown around for clouds), and the mass of a cloud is equal to the mass of water vapor that was vaporized to condense it. I don't think you got the point here.
Water vapor in 20 degrees Celsius has a density of 0.7kg/m^3 (a few orders of magnitude ahead of the low number being thrown around for clouds), and the mass of a cloud is equal to the mass of water vapor that was vaporized to condense it. I don't think you got the point here.
- 10,904
- 12,343
A cloud isn't made up just out of water vapor and an updraft is not only transferring water vapor either. CAPE requires the density of the gas liquid mixture that makes up the cloud, not just of the liquid and certainly not just of the water vapor.
Condensation needs only the liquid mass and since a cloud is a mixture the amount of this liquid is indeed less than 0.7 kg/m^3. If it were 100% water vapor you would suffocate in a cloud, which you don't.
Condensation needs only the liquid mass and since a cloud is a mixture the amount of this liquid is indeed less than 0.7 kg/m^3. If it were 100% water vapor you would suffocate in a cloud, which you don't.
- 15,332
- 7,563
Nobody ever said it was just water vapor, that was you just now. In fact, that only proves my point further.
Again, the mass vaporized is equal to the mass that is condensed, so if you use that puny 0.0005 density for every storm cloud that is formed you will end up violating physics because the mass you'll obtain is way lower than what you initially had when the water was vaporized to form it.
Again, the mass vaporized is equal to the mass that is condensed, so if you use that puny 0.0005 density for every storm cloud that is formed you will end up violating physics because the mass you'll obtain is way lower than what you initially had when the water was vaporized to form it.
- 10,904
- 12,343
Ok, so first for strom clouds we use 1-3 g/m^3.
Second... your entire argument is based on data which you don't even have shown.
From where do you have data on how much water was vaporized to form the cloud (which cloud even)? I don't see any obvious problems with the water circle, especially considering that not 100% of water that evaporates even lands in clouds (air moisture and stuff).
Considering how giant clouds are I honestly have no problem believing that this density on liquid water suffices to make sense for the water content.
As it stands the sources speak against your feeling on liquid water content of clouds.
Second... your entire argument is based on data which you don't even have shown.
From where do you have data on how much water was vaporized to form the cloud (which cloud even)? I don't see any obvious problems with the water circle, especially considering that not 100% of water that evaporates even lands in clouds (air moisture and stuff).
Considering how giant clouds are I honestly have no problem believing that this density on liquid water suffices to make sense for the water content.
As it stands the sources speak against your feeling on liquid water content of clouds.
- 8,438
- 3,294
I gotta agree with DT here. 0.0005 kg/m^3 has numerous sources to back it up. Also a relatively small amount of evaporated water spreads out into a huge cloud. Clouds have a lot less density than water despite the mass of the water evaporates being equal to the mass of the cloud.
- 15,332
- 7,563
@DontTalkDT
Again, mass is mostly conserved when the water evaporates to form into a cloud. There is still the same amount of material, the only difference is that it is more stretched (or spread) out once it condenses into a cloud.
And I'm talking about cumulonimbus.
Again, mass is mostly conserved when the water evaporates to form into a cloud. There is still the same amount of material, the only difference is that it is more stretched (or spread) out once it condenses into a cloud.
And I'm talking about cumulonimbus.
- 32,359
- 20,298
I'm split in the middle here.
- 15,332
- 7,563
The final density of the cloud is irrelevant here, Assalt. Unless you are talking CAPE or KE, which I am not. What is important is the mass. If the mass of the cloud is the same as when it was evaporated, and we know the mass of water evaporated, then when it's condensed to form rain the result of condensation will be equal to the result of vaporizing that much water.
TL;DR; Condensation does not change.
TL;DR; Condensation does not change.
Similar threads
