Lightning feats CRT

[Muuuuh]

But how does it gain more voltage and energy as it goes down, then?

View Voltage as the pressure in a garden hose, the smaller the space an amount of energy must pass, the greater the voltage.

 

[DMUA]

But if the current is thinner how does the voltage raise?

These sound like dumb questions but I don't really know anything to do with the through science of things

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I feel like most, if not all the cases of these calculations are:

• Artistic exaggeration
• Using the flash/light produced by the bolt to find the radius when it can be conflated with the bolt itself due to the former point.
• Using the crater produced by the bolt, which, if anyone is familiar with how lightning works irl, doesn't make any sense. These tend to be rejected as it stands, thankfully.

Even if we find a theoretically "correct" way to do these calcs the results reek mass-energy in terms of inflating stats for a feat which is never associated with the level of power it produces.

I get we don't do 'authorial intent', but almost universally making a lightning bolt isn't associated with being some kind of nuclear powerhouse in the same way creating a rubix cube isn't.

 

[DMUA]

Luminosity can definitely inflate things, but I don't think an inch wide current can leave a meter wide crater on the ground

If it's an outlier or otherwise inconsistent that's another ordeal, but if there's an indication the current is as wide as it appears, it should be completely fine.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Luminosity can definitely inflate things, but I don't think an inch wide current can leave a meter wide crater on the ground

Actually, it ca. Especially in loose material such as dirt or sand, but even sometimes in stone.

I wouldn't say luminosity inflates things as much as it makes any measurement of the bolt in a medium that isn't reality impossible to get accurate.

If it's an outlier or otherwise inconsistent that's another ordeal, but if there's an indication the current is as wide as it appears, it should be completely fine.

A bolt containing energy in the megatons would leave craters far larger than what you'd see in pretty much any of the feats calced. It's inconsistent with the damage it actually causes, if anything.

 

[DMUA]

Actually, it ca. Especially in loose material such as dirt or sand, but even sometimes in stone.

Seinfeld Distorted Theme Song

TFW you just wanted to upgrade Cole MacGrath, end up starting a whole movement, then immediately get hit with this

 

[DMUA]

What about something like this, where if you stand in the lightning bolt at all you get damaged? That seems like something that would be pretty indicative of current

 

[Spinoirr]

Or when the lightning you made doesn't even reach the ground because someone or thing stopped its current

 

[Andytrenom]

In terms of luminosity making measurement difficult, does how close you are to the bolt affect things? Just a hunch but I don't think distinguishing the source of light from the light given off should be as troublesome from 5 feet away as multiple miles away

In regards to the mass energy comparison, that is usually more a matter of assuming the mechanism of a feat, rather than the appropriate result. It's better to consider creation feats having an unknown or scientifically unquantifiable mechanism if left unexplained but if actually stated to be mass energy that is what we use. This isn't really the same situation with lightning feats which can be more easily assumed to abide by lightning physics

 

[DMUA]

Light would still effect how big it appears, as you wouldn't see something an inch wide from miles away

If it's up close it's less likely to be portrayed with such brightness, but realistically it should just bathe the entire area in light

 

[Andytrenom]

Yeah but not bathing the area in light could just be an artistic choice to properly show the lightning bolt

 

[DMUA]

it's wierd

 

[DMUA]

Actually, to elaborate with the bloodstained calc on how we can still reliably get a current size

Wouldn't specific sizes like this also count, as it states a specific size as opposed to how bright it is?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

What about something like this, where if you stand in the lightning bolt at all you get damaged? That seems like something that would be pretty indicative of current

To be entirely honest that doesn't even seem to look like lightning as much as it looks like a generic energy blast.

Which, if the attack isn't even acting or looking like lightning to begin with, shouldn't that mean we don't apply RL lightning stats under our lightning calc rules?

 

[DMUA]

I honestly don't see where you're coming from in that regard

The entire setup for the fight involves a storm hanging over the battlefield and it very clearly resembles lightning in sound and visual effects (especially at the last few frames when most of the energy disipates)

Edit: actually I linked the feat a few seconds before I meant to, heck

 

[DontTalkDT]

For the protocoll, I'm personally pretty neutral on using this method.

One could legitimately argue that there is no particular reason why the A/m^2 of ultra big lightning should be a specific constant.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

One could legitimately argue that there is no particular reason why the A/m^2 of ultra big lightning should be a specific constant.

Actually, yeah, this.

Might I ask were the constants used in the calcs came from in the first place, and how they apply to the relation between a bolt's size and energy output?

 

[DontTalkDT]

The voltage used is the voltage of real lightning.

The A/m^2 value is the result of taking the amperage of real lightning and dividing through the cross sectional area of real lightning.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

The A/m^2 value is the result of taking the amperage of real lightning and dividing through the cross sectional area of real lightning.

That implies that there's a legitimate relationship between the cross-sectional area of a lighting bolt and its amperage, and it's defined by that specific equation.

That's more what I was asking for a source on, it sounds more like an unrelated constant and an equation were smashed together under the assumption of upscaling from size = more energy.

I'll admit, I don't have very high knowledge on the physics behind electricity, which is why I'd love all the nitty-gritty details.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Sooooo... what are the conclusions here?

 

[DMUA]

Lightning Math is basically entirely dead save dor in very specific circumstances

That said, I actually tested lightning math on IRL lightning to see if it was consistent (Something I should have probably considered before all this mess began)

Assuming a one inch diameter and a timeframe of 120 microseconds, it actually gets something close to actual lightning values

.5 inches is 0.0127 meters, ¤Ç├ù0.0127^2 is 0.0005067074790 square meters

Times 9.57×10^7 is 48491.905749630

Times 10^8 is 4849190574963

Times 0.00012 is...

581902868.99556 Joules, 0.1390781235649 Tons, Small Building level+

... Must have accidentally used 1200 microseconds on my test.

 

[Antoniofer]

I share my doubts with Dargoo's, I think than that constant appeared just cuz someone decided to divide te current by the area of the lightning, with not further elaboration aside of that; stuff that its kinda arbitrary and just a coincidence.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

That said, I actually tested lightning math on IRL lightning to see if it was consistent (Something I should have probably considered before all this mess began)

Of course I'll point out that correlation does not equal causation; there's a theoretically infinite number of equations you could make up which could take the bolt's average radius + average timeframe and output our value for average energy but give out ridiculous results outside of that one data set.

However, I'd like to demonstrate an issue with a calc of my own.

This kind of falls apart when this is used in tandem with pixelscaling, which I'll demonstrate on a real bolt right here:


Using 20 ft for the tree. Looks to be far bigger than that but I'll do a conservative estimate.

20 * 8.5 / 42 = 4.04 feet

4.04 feet is 1.231392 meters, ¤Ç├ù1.231392^2 is 4.76367943152 square meters

Times 9.57×10^7 is 455884121.597

Times 10^8 is 4.5588412e+16

Times 0.00012 is...

5.4706095e+12 Joules, 1307.50 Tons, Small Town level

If the brightness of the bolt causes the math to fail this bad with real life pictures, I'd imagine what we see from bolts exaggerated through fiction is equally outrageous.

 

[DMUA]

If I left the implication luminosity didn't inflate values for anything but extremely specific circumstances where it is indeed provable the current is that large, my apologies, but yes I can see the point.

 

[Spinoirr]

Now if the writer shows the bolt and light are different by drawing an outline around the bolt to show the light or the light is stopped by someone who controls particules before it disappears then what?

 

[DMUA]

No one does that.

 

[AnonymousBlank]

Challenge accepted

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Now if the writer shows the bolt and light are different by drawing an outline around the bolt to show the light or the light is stopped by someone who controls particules before it disappears then what?

This works until you consider that could just be multiple shades of light.

 

[Andytrenom]

Once again, are you really going to get this much inflation from a bolt observed up close, instead of miles away?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Once again, are you really going to get this much inflation from a bolt observed up close, instead of miles away?

You'd kind of expect greater inflation from brightness when the bolt is smack-dab in your face, and this is without going into how the math used here is actually related to lightning/electricity in general.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

To be honest lightning seems immensely... inflating, tier wise.

I bet 99% of the authors/artists that make them don't even know that lightning is a few cm wide at best. I feel like this is like energy to mass, or kinetic energy by virtue of moving, and should not be used unless it's consistent or confirmed in-verse.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I bet 99% of the authors/artists that make them don't even know that lightning is a few cm wide at best

I like to assume the best of authors because it's very easy to take a "we know more than thou" attitude against writers when we're looking at their works with the benefit of hindsight. I feel like it's more that lightning being scientifically accurate isn't important to telling an interesting/engaging story, so they don't need to put effort in that department.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

I said that because I had absolutely no idea about it till I saw it, so I was assuming that they were just normal blokes like me.

But yes, that's true too. Most people know "faster is stronger" but ignore it in stories.

 

[Andytrenom]

According to DMUA, the brightness from a bolt up close would just bathe the area in light and it's hard to imagine anyway that at point blank range light from lightning would just appear to end around such distinct edges instead of doing that

It should be clear in these cases that it isn't the realistic effect of luminosity being depicted but rather the actual lightning bolt,

 

[DMUA]

I doubt it TBH

even if you aren't completely blinded by a point blank blast, I don't think that means the artistic depiction now represents current instead of lightning bolts being really bright

 

[Andytrenom]

What's more likely tho, that they're implenemting a real phenomenon that makes lightning appear wider than it is despite ignoring the realistic effects of lightning's brightness at close range or that that they're just depicting the actual bolt rather than its brightness?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

If the bolt isn't being portrayed realistically to begin with, why are we using realistic standards to judge it?

This isn't me saying we can't judge superhuman feats at all, by the way, I just think we're veering off the edge in physics to the point where calculations would be disingenuous in judging these kinds of feats, as what we've been doing has a questionable relationship with the actual physics of electricity.

Precedent (Pocket Realities, for example) does say that we can just make up numbers to satisfy our system, though, although if we're doing that I'd prefer that we discuss it as such.

 

[Andytrenom]

If a flame doesn't burn everything around it in same fashion it would in real life does that mean we can't calc it according to real life standards? If a giant projectile moving at supersonic speeds doesn't create a sonic boom does that mean we can't judge it according to real life standards?

A feat defying physics in one way doesn't mean using physics to judge it becomes impossible in its entirety, just because lightning doesn't perfectly abide by realistic effects of luminosity doesn't mean using real life physics to judge it is a problem

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Repeating this:

This isn't me saying we can't judge superhuman feats at all, by the way

Although if we're trying to visually identify part of the lightning and it's already ignoring how we'd visually identify it normally, that presents an issue, no? It'd be like calcing a bullet dodge when we can't identify where the bullet came from or when it was fired.

just because lightning doesn't perfectly abide by realistic effects of luminosity doesn't mean using real life physics to judge it is a problem

Except we aren't using real life physics to judge it to begin with. We're using a constant related to lightning (not even that, an average) fed through an equation in which we have no confirmation about its relation to lightning.

 

[Andytrenom]

>Except we aren't using real life physics to judge it to begin with.

So I take it the formulas and constants/averages aren't real life physics?