-
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
- 15,332
- 7,563
Let me exemplify what I'm talking about here.
You have 5 billion cubic meters of water, you vaporize that. I'll stick to shortcuts, so just apply the latent heat of vaporization and ignore heat capacity change for now.
5,000,000,000*1000kg m3 = 5e+12kg.
5e+12*2264760 = 1.13238e+19 joules.
Mass of our resulting storm would also be 5e12kg, because, again, the mass is conserved.
Assuming you want to condense that, we apply the latent heat of condensation of ~2,400,000j/kg, ignoring heat changes and dewpoint for now that would slightly change the final result.
5e+12*2400000 = 1.2e19 joules.
As you can see, both results are in the same order of magnitude and very close to each other. Condensation is roughly equal to the vaporization of water, as any metereologist should tell you, so it makes absolutely no sense to pretend that condensation is several orders of magnitudes lower in result. It isn't.
You have 5 billion cubic meters of water, you vaporize that. I'll stick to shortcuts, so just apply the latent heat of vaporization and ignore heat capacity change for now.
5,000,000,000*1000kg m3 = 5e+12kg.
5e+12*2264760 = 1.13238e+19 joules.
Mass of our resulting storm would also be 5e12kg, because, again, the mass is conserved.
Assuming you want to condense that, we apply the latent heat of condensation of ~2,400,000j/kg, ignoring heat changes and dewpoint for now that would slightly change the final result.
5e+12*2400000 = 1.2e19 joules.
As you can see, both results are in the same order of magnitude and very close to each other. Condensation is roughly equal to the vaporization of water, as any metereologist should tell you, so it makes absolutely no sense to pretend that condensation is several orders of magnitudes lower in result. It isn't.
- 31,350
- 34,083
I'm also feeling rather neutral regarding vaporization, condensation, freezing clouds, but I strongly agree with keeping the 1.003 kg/M^3 for CAPE and KE feats, but we already got those out of the way.
But based on what Kep is saying, vaporizing water, will keep the mass the same, but increase the volume, and lower the density? And condensation does the opposite in using the same mass, but making it denser with less volume?
But based on what Kep is saying, vaporizing water, will keep the mass the same, but increase the volume, and lower the density? And condensation does the opposite in using the same mass, but making it denser with less volume?
- 9,978
- 2,015
Wait, I do not understand, sorry if I ask you Kep but how that example debunk the current density of clouds (0.0005 g/m^3)?
- 8,438
- 3,293
Sorry for asking this, but why was 1.003kg/m^3 kept for KE and CAPE? I missed out on the bulk of the conversation.
As of now I am strongly against keeping 1.003kg/m^3.
As of now I am strongly against keeping 1.003kg/m^3.
- 32,358
- 20,298
I strongly agree with keeping the 1.003 kg density as well.
- 10,866
- 12,234
@Kep: Condensation and Vaporization would even give exactly the same results. But I fail to see your point.
A Cumulonimbu cloud has 1-3 g of liquid water in 1 m^3 of space. What that means is that 1-3g of water from the air moisture condensed into said 1-3 g of liquid water. And that 1-3g of air moisture came from 1-3g of water that was vaporized, using the same amount of energy as needed for the condensation.
There is no mass being lost here.
A Cumulonimbu cloud has 1-3 g of liquid water in 1 m^3 of space. What that means is that 1-3g of water from the air moisture condensed into said 1-3 g of liquid water. And that 1-3g of air moisture came from 1-3g of water that was vaporized, using the same amount of energy as needed for the condensation.
There is no mass being lost here.
- 15,332
- 7,563
@Antonio
The density of water vapor that forms these clouds is nowhere as low as 0.0005 unless the temperature is near the hundreds
The density of water vapor that forms these clouds is nowhere as low as 0.0005 unless the temperature is near the hundreds
- 32,358
- 20,298
^ This is a factor often ignored.
- 15,332
- 7,563
@DontTalk
If you used the median density to obtain the entire mass of the storm you would get a result that is much lower than the initial water mass.
If you used the median density to obtain the entire mass of the storm you would get a result that is much lower than the initial water mass.
- 10,866
- 12,234
Because those have to do with movement, so to say. You don't usually just move the water droplets in a cloud, when moving a cloud. You also move the air that is mixed with them. The entire air + water droplets mixture together has a density of about 1.003 kg/m^3, hence that is used for those feats.Assaltwaffle said:
- 31,350
- 34,083
@Assalt, we explained it in multiple posts above; especially from Executor N0's post. 1.003 kg/M^3 is the cloud air compound density, and it requires excessive amounts of potential energy in order to reach it in the first place. And it's still scientifically requires the energy of inputting that density combined with the volume for CAPE and KE feats, the latter needs to be proven that the clouds were physically moved though.
- 8,438
- 3,293
@DontTalkDT
But if you account for a full 1.003kg/m^3, that assumes that all the air in the area was moved. This usually is never the case, as only a vacuum would be left behind. In such cases a mushroom cloud is formed, as the air rockets back in to fill the vacuum that the blast left behind. In the cases of moving away huge clouds yet not leaving behind a vacuum, counting the air as part of the mass moved seems dubious, especially if omnidirectional.
For it not the leave a vacuum the air would need to be replaced immediately, which cannot be done with an omnidirectional blast.
But if you account for a full 1.003kg/m^3, that assumes that all the air in the area was moved. This usually is never the case, as only a vacuum would be left behind. In such cases a mushroom cloud is formed, as the air rockets back in to fill the vacuum that the blast left behind. In the cases of moving away huge clouds yet not leaving behind a vacuum, counting the air as part of the mass moved seems dubious, especially if omnidirectional.
For it not the leave a vacuum the air would need to be replaced immediately, which cannot be done with an omnidirectional blast.
- 10,866
- 12,234
Ehm, no.Kepekley23 said:
If I take a cloud that is 100 m^3 in volume and has 10 kg of water in it, than the Liquid water content is 1 kg / m^3, irregardless of the density of said water. And if I multiply said liquid water content with the cloud volume than I precisely get the amount of water in the cloud.
- 32,358
- 20,298
Are we really going back to the very beginning of the thread?
- 9,978
- 2,015
@Assault, well, one of our new rules is to not use KE when the cloud/storm form, so verses has been adjusted by that. In clouds/gog causes, then we use enthalpy of creation (inverse vaporization).
- 31,350
- 34,083
@ Assalt, I doubt it would just be without air in that area. Blowing a cloud from one place to another does require a great degree of air manipulation, and there's still another body of air moving in place of that spot. In fact, if blown from a distance, there's another giant body of air being blown in between the character and the cloud being blown that could be factored in for even higher results.
- 15,332
- 7,563
I think there's a high possibility we're all not even getting what the other person is saying in return
- 32,358
- 20,298
There is no rule that forbids using KE for storm forming, in many cases you can clearly observe the clouds moving and get KE.
- 10,866
- 12,234
Neither can you cause a blast that moves all the water droplets and leaves all the air in place. That would require micro management of force. That fiction fails no acknowledge consequences should be nothing new.Assaltwaffle said:
And for CAPE that isn't exactly an argument to begin with.
- 8,438
- 3,293
@DT
I guess that is true as well. I wish there was a way to know how much for the air was moved. All of it would imply 1.003kg/m^3, and a vacuum, but moving exclusively water droplets is similarly nonsensical.
I guess that is true as well. I wish there was a way to know how much for the air was moved. All of it would imply 1.003kg/m^3, and a vacuum, but moving exclusively water droplets is similarly nonsensical.
- 9,978
- 2,015
Unless the mass of cloud is moved from one point to another then no, clouds forming means that there appeared in the sky (the water circle stuff), they may be moving, but just due to the standard air but it doesn't means they moved from outside horizon to that point; gradual forming neither counts as movement, since is just a more random way of forming.Matthew Schroeder said:
- 31,350
- 34,083
Well, if clouds form faster than they naturally should that would give the impression that someone was moving them. Same with characters making clouds inside a building/fortress, or in outer space.
- 32,358
- 20,298
You mean the Soul King Palace ovoDarkDragonMedeus said:
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Silver Supporter
- 22,734
- 22,226
- Thread starter
- #186
Yeah no, I'm with Anton. Unless the cloud is fully formed before hand, I'd say KE should not be used at all for cloud creation to avoid inflated stats. The exception I might argue for is global storms, since it is exceedingly unlikely to form, but an argument was presented against that earlier.
So no. KE is only for fully pre-formed storms.
So no. KE is only for fully pre-formed storms.
- 11,099
- 4,323
What are we discussing now? I wake up and see a shit ton of msgs.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Silver Supporter
- 22,734
- 22,226
- Thread starter
- #188
1. Some folks wanna use KE still despite that being discussed way earlier.
2. A brief discussion was had regarding whether, in KE, ALL air was moved and therefore we should use just water. However, while neither end is a good option (since moving all air would leave a vacuum and water droplets would be, as DT put, micro-management force), it is better to assume air is moved rather than saying only water content is moved.
3. Other stuff too I guess whatever man I'm tired.
2. A brief discussion was had regarding whether, in KE, ALL air was moved and therefore we should use just water. However, while neither end is a good option (since moving all air would leave a vacuum and water droplets would be, as DT put, micro-management force), it is better to assume air is moved rather than saying only water content is moved.
3. Other stuff too I guess whatever man I'm tired.
- 11,099
- 4,323
I agree with Mr. Bambu and Antoniofer.
- 9,978
- 2,015
@Spino, Kep and Assault returned to the wiki and they are actching up with the revision, and everything that imply. Basically the problem really in that Kep and few members suggest to use the density of 1.003 kg/m^3 when creating clouds/fog rather than the 0.5 g/m^3. I personally agree with DT points, we already showed several sources suggesting that last density.
- 15,332
- 7,563
Assaltwaffle actually believes that everything should use 0.005 instead of just CAPE and KE.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Silver Supporter
- 22,734
- 22,226
- Thread starter
- #192
Right. 0.5g/m^3 is a standard for actual water content. Using air for creating clouds, which are made of water in case anyone has recently forgotten, is nonsensical.
- 9,978
- 2,015
@Kep, DT already explained Assault about the density stuff, and I think he catched the idea better (judging by his last comment but not sure).
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Silver Supporter
- 22,734
- 22,226
- Thread starter
- #194
As for Assalt. Using 0.0005 g/m^3 is good for vaporizing a cloud or creating one, that much makes sense. But suggesting using that over the density of air is equally as nonsensical as my last post. If you move a chair, would you believe you're not disturbing the surrounding air? Additionally, CAPE is explicitly energy derived from air parcels- not just water content.
- 15,332
- 7,563
Vaporizing a cloud?
- 11,099
- 4,323
Wait so there's a new cloud density? Damn I missed a lot of things in this revision.
- 15,332
- 7,563
> 0.5g/m^3 is a standard for actual water content
No, 0.2g/m^3 is the average. 0.5g/m^3 is the density brother.
No, 0.2g/m^3 is the average. 0.5g/m^3 is the density brother.
- 9,978
- 2,015
Is basically the same value for vaporizing water.Kepekley23 said:
- 15,332
- 7,563
@Antonio
As far as I know, turning a gas into a...gas isn't possible. Did you mean condensation?
As far as I know, turning a gas into a...gas isn't possible. Did you mean condensation?
Similar threads
