- 9,978
- 2,015
Its about this calc made by Lina Shields, the scalling and physics is well done, but when were calculed the elipsoide volume was used the diameter of the elipsoide rather than the radious, making the result 8 times higher than it should, the real result would be ~1.6 m^3; another mistake (not as big tho) is the one of the 3 diameters of the elipsoide were assuming, being the the 1.52 m used, wherever one is used that could increase/decrease the result in 15.4%
The other part is that the mass of the diamond created were already calculated in being ~1200 kg, when the mass of the granite were calculed in ~3600 kg (done with the correction from above), that means that only 1/3 of the granite were turned into diamond, making the result another 3 times bigger than it should.
So the real yield would be 24 times smaller than the showed in the calc, however, I made a blog about converting carbone to diamond, that if yet accepted, could increase the real result in 10%.
I made the calc with the corrections done, and after other corrections from Kkapoios it would put Cerebella (and anyone who is at her level) 8-B (~11.28 tnt tons), but it needs to be evaluated first.
The other part is that the mass of the diamond created were already calculated in being ~1200 kg, when the mass of the granite were calculed in ~3600 kg (done with the correction from above), that means that only 1/3 of the granite were turned into diamond, making the result another 3 times bigger than it should.
So the real yield would be 24 times smaller than the showed in the calc, however, I made a blog about converting carbone to diamond, that if yet accepted, could increase the real result in 10%.
I made the calc with the corrections done, and after other corrections from Kkapoios it would put Cerebella (and anyone who is at her level) 8-B (~11.28 tnt tons), but it needs to be evaluated first.
