Inverse Square Law - Why is it not the "inverse" formula anymore?

[GodlyCharmander]

Hey, so. ISL page states that, to figure out how much energy an explosion would have at a distance, you would use I = P/ 4π(r^2), where I is the intensity of the blast at that distance, P is the intensity of the epicenter of the blast, and r is the radius/distance between the target and the epicenter.
Then, we multiply thay by the cross section of the target to get a value.

What about the other way around? I have seen this done before on this wiki, but, if that formula works, wouldn't it apply the other way around? If so, is it allowed to be used?

Because, if we know the value "I" already, but don't know the value "P", wouldn't P = 4π(r^2)×I apply? Logically, it should, absolutely.

"If the epicenter has x energy, it would have y intensity at n distance", therefore,
"If n distance has y intensity, the epicenter has x energy". Does that make sense?

 

[Thelastmlg]

Pretty sure this is how we find the AP of solar system level and above, though the formula is different

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Pretty sure this is how we find the AP of solar system level and above, though the formula is different

I don't understand why this isn't listed in the ISL page as well.

 

[KLOL506]

I don't understand why this isn't listed in the ISL page as well.

Yeah, I've been wondering about why the "Reverse-inverse-square law" was never added to find the true yield of an explosion at the epicenter based on how much remaining energy it has left in the edge. It would be very helpful to use this to calculate destruction of certain objects in the cosmos too. If only Assalt were here, he'd fix this up in a jiffy. But he's not here anymore.

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 Would you be willing to write up a proper draft? For both on the ground and in outer space and stuff? For reverse inverse square law that is?

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Yeah, I've been wondering about why the "Reverse-inverse-square law" was never added to find the true yield of an explosion at the epicenter based on how much remaining energy it has left in the edge. It would be very helpful to use this to calculate destruction of certain objects in the cosmos too. If only Assalt were here, he'd fix this up in a jiffy. But he's not here anymore.

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 Would you be willing to write up a proper draft? For both on the ground and in outer space and stuff? For reverse inverse square law that is?

I have a hypothesis that said "Reverse ISL" isn't used because it creates too high of a result for smaller feats. Although that shouldn't be an argument, it isn't an inaccurate method.

For example, the feat I was calculating involved a building being fragmented (9-A) from 28m away from the blast, becoming a 8-A+ feat from that alone.

 

[Thelastmlg]

4-A is nearly a trillion times greater than 4-B because of this, i really don't like the "inflanted result" argument, i'm fine with it on assumptions and multipliers, but not accurate calcs

 

[GodlyCharmander]

4-A is nearly a trillion times greater than 4-B because of this, i really don't like the "inflanted result" argument, i'm fine with it on assumptions and multipliers, but not accurate calcs

It might not be that, that's just a guess of mine. It might not have it's own page just because, y'know?

It is an accurate method, and a mathematically appropriate, so it's absolutely valid imo. If it brings high results, incompatible with a particular verse's scaling, then it's not the method that's at fault, it is the writter of that particular scene for making an outlier.

 

[Executor_N0]

Yeah, I've been wondering about why the "Reverse-inverse-square law" was never added to find the true yield of an explosion at the epicenter based on how much remaining energy it has left in the edge. It would be very helpful to use this to calculate destruction of certain objects in the cosmos too. If only Assalt were here, he'd fix this up in a jiffy. But he's not here anymore.

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 Would you be willing to write up a proper draft? For both on the ground and in outer space and stuff? For reverse inverse square law that is?

I'm unsure with what you mean with that. The formula is still the same and is just being used to find a different variable, and that has already been used before in multi planetary destruction feats.

 

[KLOL506]

I'm unsure with what you mean with that. The formula is still the same and is just being used to find a different variable, and that has already been used before in multi planetary destruction feats.

Yes, that's what I'm talking about.

 

[DontTalkDT]

The application is technically already mentioned on the page.

Finding the resultant yield of an explosion

and Example 1 shows that and how such a calculation can be done.
Does it need a more explicit explanation?

 

[GodlyCharmander]

and Example 1 shows that and how such a calculation can be done.
Does it need a more explicit explanation?

While using both the Surface Area of the explosion and the target seems to work, I don't see how the formula takes into account how far the target is. My calculation which uses Reverse ISL was corrected by a member who believed such a method could not be done, linking the ISL page as an attempt to debunk my calc, so I think a more explicit explanation would be preferable.

The example 1 seems to not take distance into account as I said, as in, if a brick is vaporized by a 10m radius explosion, the value of the epicenter will be different depending on where the brick stands from the explosion itself. A brick being vaporized at the very edge of said radius means the explosion still carried that much energy at the end of it, while a brick being vaporized halfway through that radius means the explosion was strong enough to do that at "that" point, but not necessarily at the edge, thus, giving off lower results.

 

[DontTalkDT]

While using both the Surface Area of the explosion and the target seems to work, I don't see how the formula takes into account how far the target is. My calculation which uses Reverse ISL was corrected by a member who believed such a method could not be done, linking the ISL page as an attempt to debunk my calc, so I think a more explicit explanation would be preferable.

The example 1 seems to not take distance into account as I said, as in, if a brick is vaporized by a 10m radius explosion, the value of the epicenter will be different depending on where the brick stands from the explosion itself. A brick being vaporized at the very edge of said radius means the explosion still carried that much energy at the end of it, while a brick being vaporized halfway through that radius means the explosion was strong enough to do that at "that" point, but not necessarily at the edge, thus, giving off lower results.

The method does take distance into account, as the distance determines the surface area of the explosion.
I guess I could change it to say "radius of the explosion when the brick is hit" or something. Would that solve the issue?

 

[KLOL506]

The method does take distance into account, as the distance determines the surface area of the explosion.
I guess I could change it to say "radius of the explosion when the brick is hit" or something. Would that solve the issue?

Yeah, that could work.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

The method does take distance into account, as the distance determines the surface area of the explosion.
I guess I could change it to say "radius of the explosion when the brick is hit" or something. Would that solve the issue?

Yes, that would work. I believed we need the radius of the entire blast when compared to the object in question.

Does that mean "P = (4π(r^2)I" doesn't work?

 

[LaserPrecision]

Bump

I know the thread's over a month old, but I am curious about this. I've seen Inverse-square law calculated in two different ways depending on if it was small scale, or on a cosmic scale. Wondering why it's different

 

[LaserPrecision]

Does P = 4π(r^2) formula work, and if so, is there a reason we use the formula listed on the Inverse-square law page instead, and is that inverse square law method even an existing one? When googling inverse square law, I didn't see a method quite like it. If it is a real method, is it more viable than the former method?

 

[LaserPrecision]

Bump

 

[LaserPrecision]

Bump

 

[LaserPrecision]

Bump