Lookism ap uprade

[Viott]

Lookism : Johan is opening a big crater

vsbattles.fandom.com

Thanks to this calculation, johan, johan-level characters and characters stronger than johan will move up from 9-A to 9-A+.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks simple enough.

 

[Dinozxd]

I have one concern about the calc:

The volume that's subtracted from the second kick only takes Gun's chest depth into account, where it should also take the crater depth which was pixel scaled here (the blue line, bascially) into account as well.

Edit: Extra minor concern, the initial crater's width seems to be more than the pixel scaled value, as it appears to be larger Gun's chest width. I say we should pixel scale this panel for the initial crater.

 

[Viott]

The volume that's subtracted from the second kick only takes Gun's chest depth into account, where it should also take the crater depth which was pixel scaled here (the blue line, bascially) into account as well.

To find the volume in the second stroke, I multiplied the area by the depth (blue line).

So, volume : area * depth
The blue line I found is the depth and I multiplied it by the area to find the volume.

Edit: Extra minor concern, the initial crater's width seems to be more than the pixel scaled value, as it appears to be larger Gun's chest width. I say we should pixel scale this panel for the initial crater.

I agree with that.

 

[Dinozxd]

To find the volume in the second stroke, I multiplied the area by the depth (blue line).

Yeah, you did...?

That's not what I'm talking about though. You only used Gun's chest depth for the initial crater (which was the result of Johan's first kick), even though you were supposed to include the depth you pixel scaled here to the depth of the initial kick as well, as it was caused by the initial kick as well.

 

[Viott]

Yeah, you did...?

That's not what I'm talking about though. You only used Gun's chest depth for the initial crater (which was the result of Johan's first kick), even though you were supposed to include the depth you pixel scaled here to the depth of the initial kick as well, as it was caused by the initial kick as well.

Fixed

 

[Dinozxd]

Fixed

You forgot to add the 40 cm depth to the initial crater.

 

[Viott]

You forgot to add the 40 cm depth to the initial crater.

I added it for the second crater, not the first.

 

[Viott]

Yeah, you did...?

That's not what I'm talking about though. You only used Gun's chest depth for the initial crater (which was the result of Johan's first kick), even though you were supposed to include the depth you pixel scaled here to the depth of the initial kick as well, as it was caused by the initial kick as well.

The big crater was not made on the first kick but on the second kick.

 

[Dinozxd]

The big crater was not made on the first kick but on the second kick.

Can you prove that or?

We only see the crater getting wider, not deeper.

 

[Viott]

Can you prove that or?

We only see the crater getting wider, not deeper.

The small crater in the center of the crater is the crater that Johan makes on the first hit and on the second hit he makes a bigger crater.

 

[Dinozxd]

The small crater in the center of the crater is the crater that Johan makes on the first hit and on the second hit he makes a bigger crater.

This does not prove anything whatsoever. You're suggesting that the crater gets compressed inwards, which includes the 40cm depth as well.

 

[Viott]

This does not prove anything whatsoever. You're suggesting that the crater gets compressed inwards, which includes the 40cm depth as well.

I'm trying to prove that it was done in two strokes and yes, adding 40 cm was a mistake so I corrected it again.

 

[Dinozxd]

I'm trying to prove that it was done in two strokes and yes, adding 40 cm was a mistake so I corrected it again.

You still have to include the 40 cm depth to the initial crater... That was the whole point i made.

 

[Viott]

You still have to include the 40 cm depth to the initial crater... That was the whole point i made.

At first I didn't understand what you meant, but now it makes sense.
And I fixed it.

 

[Dinozxd]

At first I didn't understand what you meant, but now it makes sense.
And I fixed it.

Think u misunderstood again. You forgot to include Gun's chest depth as well to the depth of the initial crater.

 

[Viott]

Think u misunderstood again. You forgot to include Gun's chest depth as well to the depth of the initial crater.

What do you mean, I already did that.

 

[Dinozxd]

What do you mean, I already did that.

Adding the 40 cm depth to the initial crater as well was my argument.

 

[Viott]

Adding the 40 cm depth to the initial crater as well was my argument.

I repeat, I have already done this.

Check my updated calculation again.

 

[Dinozxd]

I repeat, I have already done this.

Check my updated calculation again.

Oh I got confused by the formatting mb.

 

[Viott]

Oh I got confused by the formatting mb.

I understand.

 

[Dinozxd]

I did a quick re-check on the volumes, but upon applying the semi-ellipsoid formula, 2/3*(height/2)*(width/2)*depth, on the dimensions I got 257179.62677 cm^3 for the initial crater and 3935020.89733 cm^3 for the final crater, which makes the actual volume of the big crater 3677841.27056 cm^3.

This downgrades the feat to 747.705130305 Megajoules (Small Building Level+)

 

[Viott]

First, use a half ellipse instead of a half ellipsoid for the final crater.

As for the first crater, it looks like this:
2/3 * pi * 66.1299907925 * 43.3782851055 * 42.8062424544 : 257179.62677 cm³


So everything's fine.

 

[Dinozxd]

First, use a half ellipse instead of a half ellipsoid for the final crater.

Why exactly? That's not an ellipse, the crater gets smaller and deeper as you go to the center. Ellipses don't.

As for the first crater, it looks like this:
2/3 * pi * 66.1299907925 * 43.3782851055 * 42.8062424544 : 257179.62677 cm³

forgot to take gun's chest depth into account. I edited that.

 

[Viott]

Why exactly? That's not an ellipse, the crater gets smaller and deeper as you go to the center. Ellipses don't.

Because a half circle

The figure most resembles a semi ellipse.

 

[Dinozxd]

The figure most resembles a semi ellipse.

It doesn't. Semi ellipses get smaller as they get deeper like I said. This crater also does get smaller as it gets deeper.

 

[SeijiSetto]

Why're you multiplying the area by the depth? The depth isn't consistent across the impact crater, it varies across the whole thing (purple line is very rough approximation), like a quarter of an ellipsoid.

 

[Viott]

Why're you multiplying the area by the depth? The depth isn't consistent across the impact crater, it varies across the whole thing (purple line is very rough approximation), like a quarter of an ellipsoid.

Is ellipsoid the best for volume?

 

[SeijiSetto]

Is ellipsoid the best for volume?

You're already modelling its cross-section as a semi-ellipse so yeah, I'd just get the volume of an ellipsoid using all 3 of your measurements, then cut it in 4 (side view) since that's what's visible.

 

[Viott]

You're already modelling its cross-section as a semi-ellipse so yeah, I'd just get the volume of an ellipsoid using all 3 of your measurements, then cut it in 4 (side view) since that's what's visible.

The width seems to be more, so it can't be only half of that?


Can't it be cut in half instead of four?

 

[Dinozxd]

Can't it be cut in half instead of four?

Halfing an ellipsoid would pretty much mean that it's a semi ellipsoid, which Seiji disagreed with.

I did a quick re-check on the volumes, but upon applying the semi-ellipsoid formula, 2/3*(height/2)*(width/2)*depth, on the dimensions I got 257179.62677 cm^3 for the initial crater and 3935020.89733 cm^3 for the final crater, which makes the actual volume of the big crater 3677841.27056 cm^3.

This downgrades the feat to 747.705130305 Megajoules (Small Building Level+)

What I can understand from is comment is pretty much dividing these volumes by two as I used a semi ellipsoid here.

 

[SeijiSetto]

Halfing an ellipsoid would pretty much mean that it's a semi ellipsoid, which Seiji disagreed with.

what i disagreed with in my earlier comment was doing surface area * depth. that's the formula for the volume of a prism, which this shape is very much not.
i do disagree with using 1/2, because that's just an ellipsoid cut in half, which this shape is not.

The width seems to be more, so it can't be only half of that?

i mean, to me the lines look to be going mostly straight down by the time they hit the ground. slightly curved inwards but not enough to make a significant difference, hence why i said 1/4 it.

 

[Dinozxd]

i do disagree with using 1/2, because that's just an ellipsoid cut in half, which this shape is not.

Yeah i said you rejected using half of an ellipsoid and suggested to use 1/4 of an ellipsoid.

 

[Viott]

what i disagreed with in my earlier comment was doing surface area * depth. that's the formula for the volume of a prism, which this shape is very much not.
i do disagree with using 1/2, because that's just an ellipsoid cut in half, which this shape is not.


i mean, to me the lines look to be going mostly straight down by the time they hit the ground. slightly curved inwards but not enough to make a significant difference, hence why i said 1/4 it.

Is he okay now?

 

[SeijiSetto]

Is he okay now?

I said divide the volume of the full ellipsoid by 4. You're calculating the volume of a semi-ellipsoid (half of one), so you only need to divide it by 2 (because 1 / 2 / 2 = 1/4)

 

[Viott]

I said divide the volume of the full ellipsoid by 4. You're calculating the volume of a semi-ellipsoid (half of one), so you only need to divide it by 2 (because 1 / 2 / 2 = 1/4)

Fixed

 

[SeijiSetto]

Fixed

I think your volume is wrong?
I'm looking at it now, the 3 axes of the half-ellipsoid are a = 448.7cm (height), b = 205.6cm (width, you measured it as the whole width so you have to cut in half), and c = 40.7cm deep.
When I plug that into V = (2/3)pi(a*b*c), I get 7.87e6 cc.
Then you would cut this in half, subtract the volume of the initial crater, then apply pulv.

You don't write out the formula because you're using a calculator but that also makes it hard to see what went wrong IF something did.

 

[Viott]

I think your volume is wrong?
I'm looking at it now, the 3 axes of the half-ellipsoid are a = 448.7cm (height), b = 205.6cm (width, you measured it as the whole width so you have to cut in half), and c = 40.7cm deep.
When I plug that into V = (2/3)pi(a*b*c), I get 7.87e6 cc.
Then you would cut this in half, subtract the volume of the initial crater, then apply pulv.

You don't write out the formula because you're using a calculator but that also makes it hard to see what went wrong IF something did.

I made a mistake by using half the height.

Is the current calculation good now?

 

[SeijiSetto]

I made a mistake by using half the height.

Is the current calculation good now?

It's fine now. Might wanna change the OP from "9-A to 8-C" to just higher into 9-A.

 

[Viott]

It's fine now. Might wanna change the OP from "9-A to 8-C" to just higher into 9-A.

Okay, I changed it.

Can you leave a comment so that my current calculation is accepted?