- 32,835
- 38,109
Therefir's proposal tried making that limit around 2500 m, no?
Suspected as much.
-
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.
Cloud Calculations
- Thread starter Therefir
- Start date
- Status
- 10,915
- 12,390
Thefir's proposal in the OP was to use the density value at 6km for storm clouds and the current value for everything below 2500 m (as in those realms the air density is higher than the current value).
That's a very simple approximation, of course. Meaning Pro: It's easy. Contra: It's off by a decent amount.
I think since we have more accurate alternatives it's best to use them.
That's a very simple approximation, of course. Meaning Pro: It's easy. Contra: It's off by a decent amount.
I think since we have more accurate alternatives it's best to use them.
- 32,835
- 38,109
Hmmmmmm, fair point I suppose.
- 2,328
- 2,813
For clouds several kilometers thick, would the air density used for mass be the air density at the cloud base, the top, or the middle?
- 17,337
- 27,154
this means cloud calcs will have to be redone all around no matter the altitiude?
- 32,835
- 38,109
Possibly. Clouds below 2000 meters get a significant buff. Anything above gets a nerf.
- 17,337
- 27,154
Oh wait yeah idk why i'm tripping over this that means my current cloud calc that uses 600m is about to be buffed to hell
- 2,328
- 2,813
But if the cloud base is say, 500 meters off the ground, but the whole cloud is 3000 meters thick, then part of it is below 2000 meters and part of it is above 2000 meters, so is it buffed or nerfed?
- 17,337
- 27,154
if possible I'd assume you can measure the distance between the two and use different results per each and combine the final product
- 32,835
- 38,109
The part below 2000 meters is buffed, the other part above 2000 meters is nerfed. So, both.
Then you combine the results of both.
- 10,915
- 12,390
All of the above if you ask about my version. In my calculation, I integrated over the density formula, so that at each height I use the density of that specific height to find the mass.
- 2,328
- 2,813
Oh yeah- you got a 1m2 cloud going from 0 to 1000 meters to be 1167.62 kg
Averaging the densities of air at 0 and 1000 meters (1.225 + 1.112 = ) 1.1685, and then using that, the result would've been 1168.5 kg for the cloud, which is very very close to 1167.62 kg.
So could I just average the densities at the cloud base and top to approximate?
- 10,915
- 12,390
Hard to say. I don't think a simple linear approximation like that will ever be off very much, but obviously, it gets worse as clouds get thicker and I think also at certain altitudes (the ones where the density change is exponential for example)
So for now that or Thefir's method of taking the density in the middle are probably ok, but if I finish that calculator using that would still be better (and equally easy).
- 32,835
- 38,109
We can wait for your method then.
- 10,915
- 12,390
Btw. since it factors into the cloud/air density now we should probably update the cloud calculations page with the height at which each cloud type typically floats. (i.e. meters between sea level and the bottom of the cloud)
Does anyone feel motivated to look that up for each cloud type?
Does anyone feel motivated to look that up for each cloud type?
- 13,267
- 21,152
I'm bored so I'll look into it and see what I find
- 17,337
- 27,154
I'm also doing jack shit (playing apex on pc) if additional help is needed and from the top of my head I can say cumulus clouds are in the 1,000 to 5,000ft range
- 32,835
- 38,109
- 13,267
- 21,152
I'm gonna link multiple source statements for each one and we can determine what's best to use for each:
- Cirrus Clouds: Between 15,000 feet and 30,000 feet (between 4572 meters and 9144 meters), greater than 20,000 feet (greater than 6000 meters), 20,000 feet to 40,000 feet (6000 meters to 12000 meters)
- Stratus Clouds: Under 6500 feet (1981.2 meters), 2000 feet to 4000 feet (609.6 meters to 1219.2 meters), typically below 6000 feet (1828.8 meters) and no higher than 8000 feet (2438.4 meters)
- Cumulus Clouds: Between 1000 feet and 5000 feet (between 304.8 meters and 1524 feet), 2000 feet to 3000 feet (609.6 meters to 914.4 meters), below 2000 meters (yes I know it's Wikipedia but I was working with slim pickings here)
- Stratocumulus Clouds: Between 1000 feet and 4000 feet (between 304.8 meters and 1219.2 meters), 1200 feet to 6500 feet (365.76 meters to 1981.2 meters), 2000 feet to 6500 feet (609.6 meters to 1981.2 meters)
- Nimbostratus Clouds: 2000 feet to 10,000 feet (609.6 meters to 3048 meters), 6500 feet (1981.2 meters), 500 meters to 5500 meters (again Wikipedia, but again I'm working with slim pickings)
- Cumulonimbus Clouds: 2000 feet to 45,000 feet (609.6 meters to 13716 meters), between 2000 and 5000 feet (between 609.6 meters and 1524 meters), 500 to 16000 meters (you know what I'm gonna say about Wikipedia)
- 17,337
- 27,154
Bump
Will we still wait for @Therefir or is the option @DontTalkDT what we'll move forward with since it's proven to work and works well
Will we still wait for @Therefir or is the option @DontTalkDT what we'll move forward with since it's proven to work and works well
- 10,915
- 12,390
I will look into which heights from the sources is best in a bit, but for now: My calculator is done.
Good news is the density it gives (by using 1m thickness and 1m area) approximately matches the table and if one looks at the value from 0 to infinite one gets the correct weight of a 1m^2 air pillar (10322kg). So it seems to work.
I still would like a few of you to make sure everything works correctly before we take it into big use. It would suck to later on redo all calcs because I made a small mistake somewhere.
Good news is the density it gives (by using 1m thickness and 1m area) approximately matches the table and if one looks at the value from 0 to infinite one gets the correct weight of a 1m^2 air pillar (10322kg). So it seems to work.
I still would like a few of you to make sure everything works correctly before we take it into big use. It would suck to later on redo all calcs because I made a small mistake somewhere.
- 17,337
- 27,154
now I'm a bit of a dummy so since this is new to me so please work with me, I'm trying to translate a calc I did into this calculator to check the kg what exactly is the 1m^2 representing I know its the area above which the cloud/air floats (in m^2) or rather I guess what I'm asking is how exactly I should be applying the previous method into this new calculator
pi*(viewing distance)^2*(cloud thickness) am I correct in saying that I'm no longer using the viewing distance we used prior or would that be what we're using in m^2
pi*(viewing distance)^2*(cloud thickness) am I correct in saying that I'm no longer using the viewing distance we used prior or would that be what we're using in m^2
- 10,915
- 12,390
The "Area above which the cloud/air floats" would be calculated as pi*(viewing distance)^2, where viewing distance is the same number as in the original calc. (assuming that was in m^2)
The "cloud/air thickness" is the number you used as cloud thickness before. (assuming that was in m)
And the "Height of cloud/air bottom above sea level" is a new number you have to determine. (either via scaling or by cloud type)
The "cloud/air thickness" is the number you used as cloud thickness before. (assuming that was in m)
And the "Height of cloud/air bottom above sea level" is a new number you have to determine. (either via scaling or by cloud type)
- 17,337
- 27,154
okay so this is what I've got
pi*(2,082.52799m)^2 = 13,624,844.92m^2
I used 600m cloud thickness for the cumulus cloud
and 600m for the height of my air bottom above sea level
this net me 9,178,195,055.64826 kg
that's significantly higher than what I got before and since this is from below 2000m I assume that's the buff as said previously
- 10,915
- 12,390
If your previous calc was correct it should be 1.11x higher. So notably higher, but probably not a big upgrade for the character.
But yeah, it is indeed a buff due to higher density close to the ground.
- 17,337
- 27,154
ah yeah I actually stupidly read it wrong so don't mind that, my calc previously got 8,199,431,660kg compared to the now calculated 9,178,195,055.64826 kg
- 10,915
- 12,390
Probably downgraded since storm clouds are tall boys.
- 2,328
- 2,813
Calculator's working well for me! (My cloud calc straddles the 2000 meter mark so the output's basically the same for me)
Last edited:
- 17,337
- 27,154
I've checked all the results and I'm indeed getting a 1.11x increase I made sure to check for each of the relevant values and the final results
- 13,267
- 21,152
I'm using the measurements of this calc I made mainly because I want to see how it might be affected.
So the area would be pi * 706469.83^2, or 1.5679677e+12 m^2. Thickness would be 8000 meters as storm clouds normally are. And for the altitude, I'll use 2000 feet (609.6 meters) based on the sources I've sent.
The final result for the mass is 9,856,006,914,848,036 kg (or about 9.856007e+15 kg) compared to the previous 1.25813728e+16 kg. Does that sound right?
So the area would be pi * 706469.83^2, or 1.5679677e+12 m^2. Thickness would be 8000 meters as storm clouds normally are. And for the altitude, I'll use 2000 feet (609.6 meters) based on the sources I've sent.
The final result for the mass is 9,856,006,914,848,036 kg (or about 9.856007e+15 kg) compared to the previous 1.25813728e+16 kg. Does that sound right?
- 32,835
- 38,109
So which of these heights should be used as the standard?
- 2,328
- 2,813
Depends on the kind of cloud. Cutting stratus clouds should be different than cutting cirrus clouds.
[Edit: Oh wait you meant the standard levels for each type of cloud since there's multiple estimates per each type]
- 32,835
- 38,109
The second one, yes.
- 17,337
- 27,154
half day bump
- 10,915
- 12,390
We will definitely put ranges on the page, as clouds obviously vary a lot, so we probably don't need too selective here.
- Cirrus: I trust the NOAA and university more than that other page. So I would say 4572m to 9144m is good.
- Stratus: 609.6m is the only lower end so we take that. I think 1828.8 is a good upper end, given the data and the fact that I don't trust the first side in the slightest.
- Cumulus: I would use first source as most credible. So 304m to 1524m.
- Stratocumulus: 403m to 1219m as first source seems most credible again.
- Nimbostratus: 609 to 3048m sounds good as wikipedia also says about 3000m as upper end.
- Cumulonimbus: I think 609.6 to 16000 is a good range to take IMO.
- 32,835
- 38,109
Surface area of the entire Earth.
- 4,751
- 1,655
https://www.weather.gov/media/owlie/cloud_chart.pdf
Btw, here is a fully detailed chart made by NOAA as well regarding cloud types.
- 13,267
- 21,152
Sounds good to me. Only question then is how do we determine what to use from the range in individual calcs?
- Status
Similar threads
