My Hero Academia: Wolfram's Giant Cube Attack

[TheRustyOne]

Okay discussion time.

This calc is currently Low 7-B+, though is not in use due to upgrades that happened.

However I've done my own version of the calculation, which has updated the results to High 7-A. Which has been accepted by Therefir.

The difference between them? Therefir uses a small cube to measure the size of the bigger cube. While I do the same, I use a cube that is much closer to the bigger cube.

As you can see here, Therefir is using a cube that is closer to the camera than the big cube is. Obviously this is a low balled result as we have no idea how far away the smaller cube really is.

Something like this is acceptable, however I found a better shot to measure the size of the cube. When Wolfram was building it, we can see cubes being drawn into the bigger cube.

My calc is still a low ball as Wolfram hasn't finish adding all of the material to the cube yet, so it gets bigger than this. However I believe this is a more accurate shot to measure the cube is without a doubt closer to the bigger cube, since Wolfram is drawing it inside of the bigger cube to increase its size. And it doesn't get smaller or bigger the closer it gets.

I guess to make a long story short, do you think my updated calc is more accurate. Or is there an issue with what I'm doing here?

 

[Damage3245]

Will post my thoughts on this in approximately 11 hours.

 

[Mapl3Sy4up]

It’s more accurate using something much closer to the cube than father away

And therefir was the one to say yours is good to go, the One to make the other calc, so I feel that his approval is a good mark of which one seems more accurate

 

[TheRustyOne]

"A board serving as a workshop for the calc group, to more easily discuss different calculations and wiki projects. Other members should only comment if they can provide information, or it is otherwise useful for a discussion."

Say it right here.

I already labeled all that in the OP. Only calc group members can accept or reject a calculation.

 

[Damage3245]

It’s more accurate using something much closer to the cube than father away

And therefir was the one to say yours is good to go, the One to make the other calc, so I feel that his approval is a good mark of which one seems more accurate

I respectfully disagree. Therefir may very well think that Rusty's is more accurate and he if he posts that, then that is totally fine, but a calc group member accepting a calc is not a blanket approval that the version of the calc they're accepting is the most accurate one. Multiple calcs of the same feat can all be accepted independently.

EDIT: Rusty is correct anyway that only Calc Group Members should be addressing this.

I just had to respond to this.

 

[Damage3245]

Now, I don't necessarily think that Therefir's calc is better than the new one proposed by Rusty - but Therefir's calculates a more complete movement instead of calcing only a single frame.

Generally speaking if the full motion for an object is on-screen then when calcing the kinetic energy of it, the full distance / timeframe should be used. Paying specific attention to only a single frame can inflate results sometimes due to how these things are animated. Sometimes full timeframe isn't appropriate due to cinematic timing where characters can have whole conversations while a feat is happening - but that doesn't apply here.

So using the full movement of the cube on-screen there:

Scan 2

Large Cube Size = 215.16 m (54.4 px)

Screen Height = 630 px

Scan 3

Large Cube Size = 215.16 m (399.2 px)

Screen Height = 630 px

These scans take place nine frames apart.

Angular Size = object size*panel height in pixels/[object height in pixels*2*tan(70deg/2)]

Distance From Screen = 215.16*630/[54.4*2*tan(70deg/2)] = 1779.28864736 m

Distance From Screen = 215.16*630/[399.2*2*tan(70deg/2)] = 242.468192425 m

Distance Traveled = 1779.28864736 - 242.468192425 = 1536.82045493 meters

This took place in nine frames and the movie runs at 25 fps.

Timeframe = 9/25 = 0.36 seconds

Speed = 1536.82045493/0.36 = 4268.94570814 m/s

Kinetic Energy = 0.5*(80182665104.6)*4268.94570814^2 = 7.3062033e+17 Joules

This is what should be used for the new calc, I believe. Using a more complete distance and more complete timeframe for the full feat.

 

[TheRustyOne]

I've changed the calc accordingly, how does it look?

 

[Damage3245]

Looks good. I've left an evaluation on the blog.

 

[TheRustyOne]

I'd like to hear Therefir's thoughts as he accepted it.

But I do find your reasoning acceptable and decided to update it accordingly.

 

[Therefir]

I think what Damage says makes sense and I had that same dilemma when calculating similar feats, that using several frame is more accurate when there are frames where there is no movement (or lazy animation).

 

[Hk1488]

Now, I don't necessarily think that Therefir's calc is better than the new one proposed by Rusty - but Therefir's calculates a more complete movement instead of calcing only a single frame.

Generally speaking if the full motion for an object is on-screen then when calcing the kinetic energy of it, the full distance / timeframe should be used. Paying specific attention to only a single frame can inflate results sometimes due to how these things are animated. Sometimes full timeframe isn't appropriate due to cinematic timing where characters can have whole conversations while a feat is happening - but that doesn't apply here.

So using the full movement of the cube on-screen there:



This is what should be used for the new calc, I believe. Using a more complete distance and more complete timeframe for the full feat.

Dude thank God we share the same opinion. What a G you are bro.

 

[TheRustyOne]

"A board serving as a workshop for the calc group, to more easily discuss different calculations and wiki projects. Other members should only comment if they can provide information, or it is otherwise useful for a discussion."

Really guys?

 

[SuperStar]

My bad I forgot this was calc group members only

 

[Damage3245]

Dude thank God we share the same opinion. What a G you are bro.

This comment is unnecessary.

Everyone, please bear in mind what Rusty has said about who should be contributing to this thread.