• 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.

Updated Lugia calc

As I've mentioned when we discussed this on my profile, I think taking the value of 5.2e+19 Joules/day that NASA got, then multiplying that by 40 days is more reliable than only taking the volume. Less fan calculating means a lower margin of error
 
Hate to seem like I'm derailing the thread, but a reputable source one attempted to carbon date the shroud the Turin, but the method done was faulty. What's to say the same for the value of 5.2e+19 Joules/day?

Also, for the original calc, I was more focused on getting the mass of rainfall to use for each of the methods

Edit: I did some reverse calculations, and it seems to get that value they either used a latent heat value that is 8.446% off from the value that we use, or assume the starting temperature is 54.3055˚C, which dosen't make sense since according to here sea water ranges in temperature between –2˚C to 36˚C
 
Last edited:
Hagane_no_Saiyajin said:
Hate to seem like I'm derailing the thread, but a reputable source one attempted to carbon date the shroud the Turin, but the method done was faulty. What's to say the same for the value of 5.2e+19 Joules/day?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant because you would need to prove that the source is incorrect in this case. An unrelated case is, well, unrelated.

Plus, your calc was faulty as well. You multiplied meters^3/day by days and said that resulted in kg, which is wrong. You would get meters^3, and from there, you have no reliable way to get mass and do condensation.
 
Tbf the old calc could use with a sprucing up but I agree with Clover this method do be a tad sus.

Also completely unrelated things being incorrect has zero effect on if this is right or wrong, at that point you may as well say all our values could be wrong, which obviously isn't happening.
 
Chariot190 said:
Also completely unrelated things being incorrect has zero effect on if this is right or wrong, at that point you may as well say all our values could be wrong, which obviously isn't happening.
Click to expand...
The logic I go with is, "If you're able to replicate a calc and get the same values as it, then it should be correct". Please keep in mind I was able to replicate the value of 2.1E+16 cm^3/day or 2.1E+10 m^3/day
 
A fan calculation is far more prone to scrutiny than a more reputable, scientific source, so I would always take the latter over the former
 
Who's more likely to be right tho, you using various of fan formulas to get a type of result. Or NASA.
Like, you could be right, but be real lad, if the values seem to be off from ours, chances are the fault is on us.
 
Chariot190 said:
Who's more likely to be right tho, you using various of fan formulas to get a type of result
Click to expand...
They're not really fan formulas though, NASA uses them too, and they're practically in the public domain anyway.

A fan formula would be more like my crazy formula that I came up with to figure out the volumes of a trunkated cone
 
Hagane_no_Saiyajin said:
Edit: I did some reverse calculations, and it seems to get that value they either used a latent heat value that is 8.446% off from the value that we use, or assume the starting temperature is 54.3055˚C, which dosen't make sense since according to here sea water ranges in temperature between –2˚C to 36˚C
Click to expand...
A bit of an update on this, I decided to try getting the latent heat of condensation by plugging 36˚C into this formula, and it it came surprisingly close to the value NASA was using, it was only 1.692% off.

And if I made the value NASA was using equal to the formula it turns out that the temperature equals 19.0609˚C, practically near room temperature!

This makes me wonder though, are we using the incorrect latent heat of condensation?
 
Not sure what this is supposed to tell me.

I still stand by the fact that scientifically approved articles should take precedence over a fan calc
 
I’m not fully sure. All I know is that using the 5.2e+19 Joules/day value that NASA gets, then multiplying it by 40 days should yield the best result for the calc

Also, High 6-C+ doesn’t start until 550 gigatons, so it’d just be High 6-C
 
I like to go by the logic of since the ratios for AP can be considered multiplied increments and not linear increments, this means the mid-point of the AP is the square root of the ratio times the low end. For High 6-C for example, 100 gigatons times the square root of 10 means High 6-C+ doesn’t start until 316.228 gigatons. I rather not try to argue about this considering the ratio for 4-B is 686.97 billionx
 
Last edited:
Hop supports Therefir and Clover's opinion, as there is little need to make an exception to the rule. It's extremely small, both in an accuracy context, and in an actual VS Battle context.
 
I had changed the calcs on Lugia's page, but I won't change any of the stats until we figure out which end is usable
 
The margin is so little, and it just makes more sense to use the one that uses the least amount of fan-calculated steps. You'd need to prove that a fan calculator is more reliable than NASA.

So I'd stick with my calc
 
Hagane_no_Saiyajin said:
I won't change any of the stats until we figure out which end is usable
Click to expand...
The calc gives varying results depending upon the method:

Using condensation gives High 6-C+ results (496.68 Gigatons or 497.13 Gigatons as Clover so sticks with)

Using gravitational potential energy gives 6-C+ results (23.804 Gigatons to 47.608 Gigatons)

Using rotational kinetic energy gives 7-A to High 7-A+ results (0.10506 Gigatons to 3.0697 Gigatons)

And using a similar method to the original calc of force times distance gives 6-C+ to 6-B results (72.2496 Gigatons to 11.4109 Teratons)

Although we could be possibly giving Lugia Class T lifting strength here considering that flapping its wings is causing the storm to have a centripetal force of 2.64408672310287E+12 N to 7.72560035968698E+13 N
 
Hagane_no_Saiyajin said:
Wouldn't NASA be using this formula though too?
Click to expand...
I mean, probably?

I mean for all I know, this difference is the result of a small margin of error on the end of one of the two. Regardless, it's not worth this lengthy discussion
Hagane_no_Saiyajin said:
The calc gives varying results depending upon the method:

Using condensation gives High 6-C+ results (496.68 Gigatons or 497.13 Gigatons as Clover so sticks with)

Using gravitational potential energy gives 6-C+ results (23.804 Gigatons to 47.608 Gigatons)

Using rotational kinetic energy gives 7-A to High 7-A+ results (0.10506 Gigatons to 3.0697 Gigatons)

And using a similar method to the original calc of force times distance gives 6-C+ to 6-B results (72.2496 Gigatons to 11.4109 Teratons)

Although we could be possibly giving Lugia Class T lifting strength here considering that flapping its wings is causing the storm to have a centripetal force of 2.64408672310287E+12 N to 7.72560035968698E+13 N
Click to expand...
Condensation is definitely best here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Arceus0x
  • Locked
The Ho-Oh upscale
Replies
31
Views
3K
Arceus0x
Arceus0x
ProfessorKukui4Life
Pokemon: Ho-Oh & Lugia Upgrades
Replies
35
Views
4K
Arceus0x
Arceus0x
Powerscalingcat
OPM-Ocean too large pls nerf (PE + size downgrade for ENO, + AP recalc + downgrade for heldback serious punch)
Replies
19
Views
2K
Powerscalingcat
Powerscalingcat
YmTheSuper
Naruto: Part 1 calc problems and replacements
Replies
13
Views
1K
YmTheSuper
YmTheSuper
MrTayman616
Re:Zero Continent Calc Downgrade
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
Dalesean027
Dalesean027
Back
Top