From Gizmodo, this shows battery size in the new iPad versus that of the iPad 2. The battery in the former is 70 percent bigger than that of the latter. Something’s not right here.
70 % bigger? The area is 189 % bigger or (given the attempt to make it look three-dimensional) 591 % bigger volume.
I got 391.3% greater volume
Its linear size is 1.7 times bigger, so the volume is 1.7 to the power of 3 = 4.913 times bigger.
Which means its volume is 391.3% bigger.
It’s not an image of a rectangular prism. It’s an image of a cylinder. Your math is for that of a rectangular prism. See my comment below for the image my colleague did with (nearly) the correct math.
Ah, no, it’s not the amount of green liquid that represents battery size. It’s the number of prancing unicorns floating in the green liquid that represents battery size!
This increases from 3 prancing floating unicorns to… erm… 9… a 300% increase…
Okay, so the guy who designed this not only doesn’t understand area or volume, he/she also can’t count.
Except that the increase from 3 prancing unicorns to 9 prancing unicorns represents only a 200% increase. Can’t wait to count the unicorns! Waiting for delivery in Berlin.
Oops, well spotted. I meant 300% the original size. Rookie mistake… :(
I think you mixed up “former and latter.” The older version is the “former,” the newer one is the “latter.”
Nope. He mentioned the new iPad first, making it “former” and the new iPad “latter.”
FWIW, my colleague fixed the image for them deep in the comment thread. His image is here: http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gk3gsoa8tatjpg/cmt-medium.jpg
He conceded, “the new battery is actually about 2x the volume of the previous, so it would need to be a few pixels smaller in each direction.”
“Something’s not right here.”
The gawker properties aren’t really known for their accuracy.