Note : the guy that was punched probably is 2 meters tall, since he's alot taller the Ryo who stands 191.4 cm, he's also very big i would say that he probably weights 200 hundred pounds
Avg Specific Heat of a Human: 3470 J/kg-C. Using this calculator, and putting in 663 for change in temperature, we get 142,637,820 J to Char a 62 kg Human. Add the Latent Heat of Water (84,246,840 J) and we get a total of 226,884,660 J.
Low: 10,432.20085 kg / 62 kg * 226,884,660 J = 38,175,908,774.1463 J (High 8-C/Large Building Level+)
Mid: 10,683.69802 kg / 62 kg * 226,884,660 J = 39,096,245,029.1600 J (High 8-C/Large Building Level+)
High: 10,935.19518 kg / 62 kg * 226,884,660 J = 40,016,581,284.1737 J (High 8-C/Large Building Level+)
Eh...disregard the above char calc...it require a low-oxygen environment.
You might want to ask Medeus to do a recalc using a different method then (unless he wrote it up for someone). I just saw it and did some scaling for the rex. Has Dargoo seen the image Rusty uploaded?
Something like this? Never done an explosion calc before.
Going with Height
Y = (1.944823E-3/0.28)^3/1000*1E6 = 3.3509E-4 Tonnes TNT (9-B/Wall Level)
Going with Width
Y = (3.184888E-3/0.28)^3/1000*1E6 = 1.4717E-3 Tonnes TNT (9-B/Wall Level)
This seems to be a lot lower than reducing the rex to char...which we now have a human analog for. Avg Mass of Rex 10,683.69802 kg. To reduce a 62 kg human to char requires 243,247,115.34 J. To reduce the rex to char: 10,683.69802 / 62 * 243,247,115.34 = 41,915,785,862.16 J (High 8-C/Large Building Level+)
Maybe? You can certainly calc it that way if you want.
I wonder if this would be in any way impressive: Big Beam Support
You'd probably get something fairly impressive from him snapping off four sections of what looks like rebar simultaneously. Rebar has a Tensile Strength of 90 KSI = 90,000 PSI / 2.205 = 40,816.32653 kg/in^2. Scale it, calc the cross-sectional area (should just need one, then multiply it by 4), then multiply by the kg/in^2.
So, I took this pic and scaled Cap's head in the bottom right (top of head to bottom of chin) = 75 px = 23.2 cm / 2.54 = 9.13386 in. The chain (first link to the right of his head) measured 22.36068 px = 2.7231904 in.
Then I went to the top panel and scaled the link closest to the rebar: 49 px = 2.7231904 in. The rebar I measured the bottom right one that was broken: 10 px = 0.55575314 in diameter (0.27787657 in radius).
A = pi*0.27787657^2 = 0.2425793 in^2 * 40,816.32653 kg/in^2 = 9,901.19585 kg (per section of rebar) * 4 = 39,604.78 kg (Class 50). {It wouldn't let me upload the pic for some reason...}
Feel free to write it up (had to go to the upload page, upload the pic, then search for it to put it here...most of the time I just upload it straight through).
Eh...it's completely unimpressive...480.40 kg if he was lifting the entire thing that's shown on panel. Without knowing how far it extends off panel, we can probably ignore that one.
It's scaled to the four cross-sectional areas of the little broken sections (I only measured one and assume the four were the same). The scaling is difficult to see in the pic, but there's a thin purple line to the right of where it says t-tinkk. I'm unsure what he means by screw part...the rebar is the "screws".
The General is probably the closest analogue you'll find for the train.
From your comment, it appears as if Step 1 is wrong? Please advise. I used the area of the tree where it was cut, multiplied by the length of the cut portion, multiplied by the pulverization value. [I believe I should use the area that was pulverized (~47% of the total area) multiplied by the length, multiplied by the destruction value instead of the total area of the tree. This works out to 882.2627397 cm^2 * 23.07157889 cm * 18.82269 J/cc = 383,139.514 J - If I use the total area of the tree multiplied by the length of the cut portion, I get 808,556.492 J].
Oh, btw...I think the destruction value for pulverization is wrong in this case. This is a "green" tree, not a cut and dried to 12% moisture. matweb, the site I got the shear strength number from, lists 2730 PSI (18.82269 MPa), so I should probably use that number instead of the 41.85.
Also, just for fun, I converted the 690 PSI for Step 2 to MPa (4.75738) and tried inputting that into your Horizontal Hammering formula as Area of Tree * Length Sheared * Destruction Value = 1861.878609 cm^2 * 25.61740829 cm * 4.75738 J/cc = 226,910.397 J. That's a lot different than the 1,819,234.547 J I got. [Looked that up to double check, realized I should've multiplied by the distance, rather than divided. N*m = J. New value = 119,387.560 J] Using the part of the total area of the tree that was sheared (~53%), rather than the total area of the tree in your formula, this is 979.6158696 cm^2 * 25.61740829 cm * 4.75738 J/cc = 119,387.560 J.
Easy Method = 1861.878609 cm^2 (total area of tree at cut) * 48.688987 cm (tree diameter at cut) * 18.82269 J/cc = 1,706,333.010 J
These two numbers aren't anywhere close to the same...but they shouldn't be. The Easy Method assumes pulverization over the entire length, while the Hard Method uses Pulverization for the portion that was actually cut and Violent Fragmentation for the part that was sheared. [It appears there is no difference between the big long conversion to get from PSI to Joules that I did and simply using your formula adjusted for V. Frag - taking note to only apply it to the actual area that was V. Fragged instead of the total area of the tree].
Long Story Short, I'll adjust the blog using these numbers (including demonstrating that there is no difference for the V. Frag portion between the long conversion method I used and your formula adjusted for V. Frag).
In your general calculation for Horizontal Hammering, shouldn't you use the green value of Live Oak, rather than the 12% moisture value? This number is 5430 PSI (37.43853 MPa) instead of the 8900 PSI (61.36334 MPa) that is used.
http://www.matweb.com/Search/MaterialGroupSearch.aspx?GroupID=278 [This group is for wood in particular, but the table on the left hand side features various other categories that might also be useful.] {I clicked on a few to explore them, some seem to have green values and some appear to not have much information at all}.
My point is, the energy/force to shear a tree at a selected volume in step 2 is what constitutes a destruction at step 1. Any excess energy/force goes to step 3, popping the tree slightly upward.
So if you determine to use shear energy here, the step 1 part becomes irrelevant, not inaccurate. Otherwise it is calc stacking or double counting.
You may update your blog again. And I will check.
Off topic: My simplified model in cutting/hammering a tree is based on the concept that when I saw off a part of the tree, the part that was sawed off becomes pulverised.
I see you use a different model and that in your scenario may make more sense, except for the energy double counting part.
Step 1 has been updated to use the ~47% pulverization. Step 2 is ~53% violent fragmentation.
I initially had the Step 1 calculated wrongly because I thought it used the full tree area multiplied by the distance of the cut. I altered that part using the ratio of the cut vs total diameter (~47%), multiplied that by the total area of the tree, and plugged that into the formula in place of the area. Step 2 uses the other ~53% to calc the violent fragmentation of the rest of the tree. It should be good to go now (straight up Pulverization across the entire length was 1.7 MJ, 47% Pulverization was 0.38 MJ, 53% V. Frag was 0.12 MJ, work didn't change, total for Hard Method = 0.50 MJ).
Starting on page 4, https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr113/ch04.pdf has a bunch of destruction values that include both green and 12% numbers, though they appear to be rounded approximations (2-3 significant figures). The green numbers would apply to anything that's freshly cut (or the tree itself), while the 12% numbers would be applicable to things like buildings/boards (aka our current destruction values). You can see the difference between green and dried is fairly significant.
I noticed later that it gave the numbers in PSI in another table, I converted those and put them in a blog.
“There's a scene where Abby measures the fps of her bow. The last number displayed is 302 fps (92.0496 m/s). Drake hears the window shatter from the first shot so he turns and catches it. Abby shoots him again with no window in the way, so he probably just didn't hear the second arrow coming at him.”
Can you help locate and capture the screen where Abby's bow firing speed is shown? Thanks.
Only create profiles for characters that you are very familiar with/that you know much about, and present evidence or logical arguments for their statistic listings.
Do NOT insert unmotivated ratings into profiles simply because you happen to like or dislike the character or object, and do not change statistics without an accepted content revision thread.
Please do not flood the profile talk pages with large walls of text or images. If you wish to discuss something of importance, you may do so in the appropriate forum section.
Kindly utilize source mode editing. You can change this to your default editing mode in the preferences settings. Feel free to overview this image to observe a basic example regarding how to properly write profile pages in this editing mode.
Behave in a civil and unbiased manner, and do not spam, troll, threaten, or use offensive language.
Use correct grammar and spelling to the greatest extent possible.
See here for a list of common terms used in the wiki community.
If you notice rule-violations, please report them in this forum thread.
If you have further questions, you can contact the current managing staff of the wiki.