Author Topic: A small error in the Sun Stone article.  (Read 902 times)

DP^2

  • Iokan (+1)
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Demi-Human Sympathiser
    • View Profile
A small error in the Sun Stone article.
« on: February 10, 2009, 04:43:25 pm »
I noticed this a while ago, but I haven't been able to point this out until now.

From http://www.chronocompendium.com/Term/Sun_Stone_(Power_of).html
Quote
Power (absorbed) = (950 Watts/meter) (3.14) (0.05 meters)^2 = 7.46 Watts

Energy = Power * Time

65,013,300 years = 2.05*10^15 seconds

E = (7.46 Watts) (2.05*10^15 seconds) = 1.53*10^16 Joules

The total amount of years is incorrect. For one thing, the amount given seems to include 12,000 BC. Since BC years are counted down until the founding of Guardia in 1AD, this means that 12,000 BC should be counted as part of the 65 million years separating the prehistoric era and 1 AD.

Second, the total also counts the years in between 1000 AD and 2300 AD, but not 1000 AD itself, which gives us a discrepancy of 1000 years. If one were to add up all the eras, the total would be at 65,014,300 years.

However, this is still wrong. The only years that should be counted in the total are 65,000,000 BC and 2300 AD, as all the other eras happen in between them, giving us a total of 65,002,300 years. I believe Robo actually tells the party this number if he is in the party when retrieving the fully-charged sun stone.

Also, I did do the calculations to determine the change in power capacity, but they were so minuscule that it wouldn't effect the overall amount already given article.

Sorry if this seems like nitpicking, but it's been bugging me for a long time.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 10:16:41 pm by DP^2 »

utunnels

  • Guru of Reason Emeritus
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2797
    • View Profile
Re: A small error in the Sun Stone article.
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2009, 01:40:45 am »
Nice find.

[offtopic]
Although I always wonder 6500 0000 B.C. is not a exact number since it is a so large number.
Even if it is exact, 2300 is a tiny number compared to it.
[/offtopic]