FANDOM

19,459 Pages

• Antvasima closed this thread because:
05:12, April 14, 2019

Hello.

A while ago Numbersguy created the following page:

I do not know if the calculations are correct, but the principle itself is good.

Would the current calc group members be willing to collectively create such a page that is easy to use as a reference for our members?

Here are lists of such feats calculated by Ugarik and Votron5:

Edit:

Here is a blog that assembles a lot of these calculations, and that is currently gradually being evaluated by DontTalkDT:

• Getting hit by a vehicle calcs are wrong. You suppose to use mass of the person who got hit not mass of the vehicle

• Okay. I would appreciate if somebody could ask all of the current calc group members, along with DontTalkDT, Assaltwaffle, and Kaltias, to comment here, as such a page in itself seems like a useful idea.

• I tried to make a blog about it recalculating some of them here

• Okay. Thank you for the help.

• Ugarik, the guy has to survive getting struck by the speeding vehicle first, otherwise, being sent flying by it will have no meaning whatsoever.

• You can also ask Arbitrary to reply here, if you wish.

• You also forgot to assume whether the characters are in a bracing position, if that's so, then it'd reduce the damage even further, as Antoniofer told.

• Is anybody interested in informing the calc group about this thread? I think thatsuch a reference page would be very useful for the wiki, so it would be good if they could collaborate to write it.

• I have informed most of the calc group members like Kep, Therefir, Antoniofer, Arbitrary himself, Bambu and a few others about this thread.

• Okay. Thanks.

• Welcome.

• KLOL506 wrote:
Ugarik, the guy has to survive getting struck by the speeding vehicle first

I know it but the mass of the vehicle doesn't matter unless he was crushed between a vehicle and a wall

• Wouldn't matter, he'd still have to survive the initial impact point where the car crashes into him. Most of the impact is spread out in case the person braces.

• I would appreciate if you inform the remaining calc group members, along with DontTalkDT, Assaltwaffle, and Kaltias as well.

• Sure.

• Thanks.

• Kaltias said that he will check the thread later.

• Okay. It would be good if they could collaborate to write a common feats reference page.

• Yes, I think so too.

• About the car feat, i think that the way to calc it is that one:

The linear momentum of the car+person system needs to remain the same. Linear momentum is m*v

Total momemtum = Person's mass*Person's speed + Car's Mass*Car's Speed.

The person is standing still, so their momentum is 0.

When the person gets hit, the momentum changes to (Person's mass + Car's mass)*New speed.

Due to the law of conservation of momentum. this two formula are equivalent.

Car's Mass*Car's Speed = (Person's mass + Car's mass)*New speed ->

CM*CS =(PM + CS)*NS -> NS = (CM*CS):(PM+CS).

Now that we have the speed, plug it into the KE formula using the mass of the person i think

• Does this mean that the guy still has to survive getting hit by the car first?

• If you mean "tanking the full kinetic energy of the car", no

• So, what would the final results be?

• The blog looks pretty good so far on paper. Kaltias' version of vehicle impacts also looks legit though. Wall busting calcs look good, and both of DT and Kepekley's comments on falling also look good.

• So, what energy levels would Kaltias's formula yield?

• KLOL506 wrote: So, what would the final results be?

KE of the person = 0,5*Person's Mass * Speed^2.

Speed = (CM*CS):(PM+CS) as found above

KE = 0,5*PM*((CM*CS):(PM+CS))^2

This is the general formula.

The values vary based on the vehicle and the speed of course.

For example, using an average car in a neighborhood (Values taken from Arbitrary's and Ugarik's blogs):

KE = 0.5*70*((1500*11.176):(70+11.176))^2 = 1,4926846058709125262407272598081 x 10^6 J, which is Wall level

I'd be really glad if someone could check the math because i legit haven't calculated this kind of stuff in the last four or five years so my math is rusty to say the least lol

• OOF.

BTW, is that value 1.492 megajoules? I'm getting kinda confused with the commas.

EDIT: NVM I figured it out. It is 1.492 megajoules. Sheesh. THIS IS PRETTY HIGH-END ON THE WALL-LEVEL SPECTRUM. I never thought you had to have more dura than the car's actual KE output. Yeesh.

• Just don't get "," and "." signs mixed up though.

• I'm not getting them mixed up, that's how we write numbers in Italy.

I'll write it in scientific notation so we can avoid getting confused

• Damn, man, to think the guy would have to take much more energy than the car's KE itself. OOF to the highest degree.

• Oh okay, sorry about that. But It's usually the opposite in most places.

• That seems odd to be honest where is the extra energy coming from exactly?

Also there should be a clear distinction about what kind of scenario is being calculated in the first place

For example, you would normally expect this (warning: deer gets harmed) to happen, the one getting hit is sent flying as a result. For this one you definitely can't use the full KE of the vehicle.

Whereas in fiction you could see something like this, the one tanking it makes the vehicle stop dead in its tracks. This one is actually scalable to the total KE as it was practically nullified upon impact.

• There's also the fact that even a slow-moving car of good weight (1500 kilos is not that far off from modern-day hypercars) can badly damage another car even if you go at the tip or even uproot large metal poles and moderate-sized trees.

• I also read in this article that it takes about 9920J to snap the arm-bone if you use perpendicular 50 degree attacks.

• AguilaR101 wrote:

For example, you would normally expect this (warning: deer gets harmed) to happen, the one getting hit is sent flying as a result. For this one you definitely can't use the full KE of the vehicle.

Pretty sure we're not using it that way to figure out AP, only the durability.

• AguilaR101 wrote:
That seems odd to be honest where is the extra energy coming from exactly?

It does, that' why i asked if someone could check it.

I'll retry.

FinalSpeed = (MassCar*InitialSpeed):(MassPerson+MassCar)

Using the values above this is 10,677707006369426751592356687898 m/s

KE of the person is 3990,4699419854760842224836707371 J

Ok, that makes more sense. Guess i messed up the numbers somewhere above

It's low end wall level, which i guess makes sense when you consider the fact that people irl can survive that and bones have wall level dura

• That's the value for the person sent flying btw. If someone outright stops the car without being ragdolled, use the KE of the vehicle

• 3990 joules is Street level tho. What about the impact with the car itself? He'd have to survive that.

• Kaltias wrote:
That's the value for the person sent flying btw. If someone outright stops the car without being ragdolled, use the KE of the vehicle

Can't we just use speed of the car and mass of the person?

• I'm not sure why you would use the mass of the person when the thing being stopped is the car...

• @Ugarik

It isn't quite as accurate because the speed of the car/person changes as soon as the total mass increases.

It's essentially the reason why a car slamming into a thick wall is stopped dead in its tracks

@KLOL

The impact with the car would be the KE of the car I suppose, but a person being ragdolled isn't surviving the full energy

• Kaltias wrote:

@KLOL

The impact with the car would be the KE of the car I suppose, but a person being ragdolled isn't surviving the full energy

Well he'd still be taking some of the car's KE, and you'd still need to calculate the energy he generates while being sent flying several meters into the air or being slammed onto the floor.

• That's what the momentum formula does

• So what would the values be if the guy got slammed into the floor instead of being sent flying?

• You mean into a wall? Probably the KE of the car (you'd still need to use the momentum formula to find the car's speed though)

• It is quite accurate in this case because the car is almost 20 times as heavy as the persone who gets hit. I think your formula shuld be used in cases where mass of 2 objects colliding is decently close.

• I agree that the difference isn't huge, but it's still a 10% difference in the results so i'd use momentum for greater accuracy

• Not just into a wall, but into a road too.

What if the vehicle is like a truck and has enough surface area to cover the whole body head to toe?

• Same formula, but with mass and sped of a truck.

Granted, if it collapsed a wall you are better off calculating that

• I heard this being talked about in Bambu's wall before so I want to ask. What should be the value for uprooting a tree?

• So, if the car crashes you into a wall (suppose you're in front of the wall to make sure you don't get sent off flying into the horizon), the entire KE of the car scales to you, yes?

• Yes

• What about getting run over by an 18-wheeler?

• Kaltias wrote:
Yes

NAIS.

• It would require a separate calc

• We'd need that too, since sometimes right after the car crashes, the car might just run them over.

• I have updated the first post with links to these blogs:

• For the car-crashing feats, Arbitrary's one should be edited with the following "THIS ONLY APPLIES WHEN THE CAR CRASHES YOU INTO A WALL". As Kaltias notes, the KE of the car will scale to you in full if you still latch onto the car and it ends up crashing you into a wall.

Otherwise, in the case of being sent flying, Kaltias's corrected recommendation IMHO seems better than Ugarik's.

• Well, I am far too out of practice with mathematics to be of help wih evaluations.

• KLOL506 wrote:

Otherwise, in the case of being sent flying, Kaltias's corrected recommendation IMHO seems better than Ugarik's.

It is better but will barely make any difference

• Well, we eventually need to assemble all of the final and accepted versions of the calculations into a single page.

• Most of the car crash feats here involve crashing the victim into a wall or some other sturdy object, so I don't think it calls for a massive downgrade. Not like we have a lot of characters with feats like this.

• Would it be a good idea to include some of the calculated common feats linked here in the final page?

• Also, does somebody have a suggestion for more common feats that should preferably be calculated?

• Getting run over/crushed by cars, breaking, snapping and crushing various types of bones, surviving at deep underwater trenches where the pressure is enormous enough to crush even military-class submarines, dodging various bullet calibers at point-blank range, etc.

• Okay. Those mostly seem like good suggestions.

• And apparently, normal human bones might not just be Street level, they might actually be Street level+ (and on the high-end spectrum of it) via this article (And this is for weakened arm bones, so to speak. Spines and legs might reveal higher results, and the result might be even greater in peak-bodied humans without unusually-high levels of density).

• There was also another scientific article that confirmed that it would take upto 520 psi to crush skulls based off of the Mountain's feat, so adding that wouldn't be much bad either.

• We scale from energy though.

• I know, but anything that goes above 520 psi, we can scale to the skull-crushing feat we have calc'd here.

• I don't think that it works like that.

• Oh well. But our bones would have Street level+ dura anyway.

• Okay.

• That means an upgrade for CH is in order.

• There's also this that was never properly looked at.

I think we should start looking for some feats of CH. Kep said he'd look into it before his ban.

Ordinary bones themselves would be Street level+ judging by the full-speed tackles of CH, and having more weight than the average human due to his peak-bodied structure and having a skeletal system 8x as dense as most ordinary athletes, it absolutely fits.

• Let's strictly focus on the original purpose of this thread.

• Okay.

• Thanks.

• Bad news Ant.

I've asked most of the expert calc members on the neck snap feat. No one other than XING06 was able to give me a clear-cut answer.

• The idea of a common feats page is good. Is there anything I need to help on?

• @Spino

Well, KLOL506 came up with some suggestions for feats to be calculated earlier.

It would also be good if you help out with evaluating the blogs that I linked to above.

I was hoping that the calc group could collaborate regarding this task.

•  KLOL506 removed this reply because: NVM 06:31, December 23, 2018
This reply has been removed
• @KLOL

I found this article on the net execution by hanging was done with the intention to snap the victim's neck.

According to the article the neck is subjected to 1,000 and 1,250 foot-pounds of torque after 9foot drop which translates to roughly 1355.818 to 1694.772 joules of energy.

• There's a problem tho.

That kind of force can also be used to decapitate humans clean, and in wikipedia it's also said to only slightly fracture the neckbone, not completely sever it like in movies and whatnot. There's still the muscles and the blood vessels too. Sometimes, it won't even break the neck or do any harm to the victim other than give him a brutal death.

Also, the force generated by hanging is via pulling, not twisting or using blunt force to leave the neckbone in pieces, much like what is done in fiction.

• I found some blogs that could be added to the Feats page:

The energy to crush a skull.

Dissapating a nimbus cloud.

• The skull crushing calc was accepted long ago, but I wonder why it wasn't in the Attack Potency page.

• @Antvasima

I think the various "Energy to destroy" in the trivia section of the Attack Potency page should be moved to this new common feats page.

• Thank you for the help.

• Votron5 wrote: @Antvasima

I think the various "Energy to destroy" in the trivia section of the Attack Potency pages should be moved to this new common feats page.

Yes. Agreed.

• I also agree with this proposal.

• I would appreciate if somebody could remind all of the calc group members, along with DontTalkDT, Assaltwaffle, and Kaltias, to help out here, as it is important for the wiki to get this page done.

• I already have notified them of it, but most of them still haven't responded.

• Votron5 is carrying out his own general item destruction calcs.

• Okay. You can mention to them that I would appreciate the help.

• Notified donttalk and assalt

• Okay. Thanks.

• My main issue with stuff like this is "typical" feats often vary. Saying THIS value for breaking a boulder is subjective to the size of the boulder. Unless it is something of uniform size this can't apply. Busting a building, snapping a tree, or smashing a boulder all would vary heavily, far too much to actually put a concrete label on.

That said, I can help out in getting a bunch of standard feats together I suppose.

• Those feats can be generalized when we're dealing with written media like books that have no visual cues for us to determine the size of objects destroyed, trees probably not barring specific mentions of the type of tree.

for boulders though, a rock has to have a minimum size to be classified as such so it's not impossible to guesstimate a minimum value for boulderbusting feats.

• @Mr. Bambu

Thank you for the help.

• So is there anything needing to be calced atm?

• Punching a hole through doors like Batman, breaking the bones and spine of an average-sized human with a casual punch or kick (Weakened bones can apparently can withstand Street level+ energy, and by break I mean snapping the entire thing into two pieces or shattering the bones altogether), smashing windshields (Ordinary glass and gorilla glass), making deep dents in cars to the point of severe deformation and punching holes through them like Spider-Man and bending steel rods.

• I will probably start drafting the page in a blog if I have time, but I would appreciate help from other calc group members since I do not have time to calculate all feats.

How do you prefer the page to be, though, simply listing the values or the whole calculation?

• Nah, some details will be fine too.

I have contacted several calc members but sadly they seem to be busy. Maybe you guys'll have a better chance at contacting them.

• Started creating a draft containing all feats Antvasima linked to + a few by other calc group members. Will calculate more feats myself soon.

• The skull crush calc also needs to be added.

• I've got a calc on my Google Drive for characters who are stated or shown to wipe the visible sky off of normal clouds which I never bothered to post...guess I will now.

• Thank you to everybody who are helping out.

I would appreciate if you could collaborate to verify that the calculations are all correct.

• This also needs to be looked at, as normal humans have lived long enough after being burned for extended periods of time and lived to tell the tale.

• Calculating the punching through door feat.

@Kepekley23 As an admin you should be able to edit my blog, right? (unless I'm mistaken) Feel free to add it there.

• So far this looks good, but I haven’t looked over it all as of now.

• Have the calculations from the Attack Potency and Durability notes sections been incorporated into the list?

• Yes. Now adding my own calculations.

• Okay. Thank you. I would appreciate if other calc group members help out with evaluating the new calculations.

• By smashing windshields do you mean destroying the whole thing? @KLOL506

• YEP. Smashing the thing in one go.

• So I guess I should calculate the fragmentation of the whole thing?

• Sure.

Don't forget Gorilla Glass. And bulletproof glass.

• How strong is gorilla and bulletproof glass?

• I don't know if you can calc any of these glasses. At least not accurately, I don't think.

Bullet resistant glass's strength doesn't come from how much energy it can take. The reason why it stops bullets is became it's panes of glass sandwiched together with polycarbonate like plywood. The polycarbonate is what catches the bullet. It's pretty much expected for the first two or three panes to be busted through before the bullet stops.

As for gorilla glass, there are 6 generations of it with each generation becoming harder. I can't find any info on its shear strength or tensile strength.

• We'll try all generations of gorilla glass.

• Bulletproof glass could be calced if you knew the tensile/shear strenght which is overall higher than normal glass because of the addition of layers of materials better suited for that kind of stress, sort of like concrete reinforced with rebar having a much better shear strenght than plain concrete.

• Can we just calculate the KE of a bullet as the durability of the glass?

• I guess? Though, this wouldn't be fragmentation since it is just penatrating the glass rather than shattering it.

• Can we somehow use the bullet's surface area to calculate the shear/tensile/whatever strength of the glass?

• Maybe? I think you could find the PSI or MPa of the glass by figuring out the newtons of the bullet then the surface area. If say, the bullet hits with 4000 newtons on an area of 4 inches, it would be around 1000 newtons for every inch, or 224 PSI. Convert PSI to MPa to find J/cc which would lead to it's fragmentation energy.

Not exactly skilled with math or physics so this might be more than a little wrong

• I would appreciate if somebody can ask DontTalkDT to evaluate the full feats list. You can tell him that I would appreciate the help.

• @Antvasima I'd wait until I finished the blog first.

Btw does anyone know the fragmentation, violent fragmentation and destruction values for plastic?

• Okay.

• Nope, couldn't find any proper links.

• Finding the mechanical strength for all plastic is all but impossible. Plastic can range wildly in terms of strength and it is likely something that has to be calced on an individual basis.

Here is a website I found showcasing different mechanical strengths for plastic.

• I'd mostly go for the strongest and most common forms, like Polycarbonate and PVC.

• Well the layer of plastic for windshields is PVB, and mat web says it's tensile strength is 19.6 MPa. Shear strength is 0.577 of tensile strength.

• Now we need violent fragmentation.

• Seems fine. The tensile strength of PVB is consistent with what I've found.

• I made this blog calculating what some fictional gas/propane tank explosions would yield figured it could be useful as a feat on the page, though if necessary I could post it in the calcs evaluation first.

• The link's broken...

Edit: Nvm

• fixed

• I have asked DontTalkDT to help us out with this.

• I have already PM'd him about the neck-breaking calc.

• We still need a calc of decapitating the head off.

• That we do.

• I was told to post evaluations of these calcs here. I will do so over time, that way I don't have to debate dozens of calcs at once.

Let me start with saying that when it comes to the page it should be listed where certain values are from and what is assumed. E.g. In the first calc, which vehicle is assumed and where is its weight from?

In that regards, global average weight seems to be 62kg. Possibly a better reference value than 70kg. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That aside let's get into checking the calcs:

1. Vehicle Calc: Usually we for the most part assume that full KE of attacks scales for simplicity, but I suppose using momentum is fine here. It should be warned that calculating speed feats from momentum is usually not accepted (for the same reason as KE).

However in regards to the calcs logic: It says that it is assumed that the car sends the person flying. What is calculated is a perfectly inelastic collision, though. That means the formula holds exactly then if the person is not send flying, but instead is pasted onto the windshield of the car.

I think it is more or less the low-end assumption, though.

2. Human Falling: Seems fine. One should probably calculate how high a character has to fall from for that to apply.

Approximating that border without air resistance: 53 m/s / 9.8 m/s^2 = 5.4081632653061224s drop time.

r = (1/2)*a*t^2 gives the distance covered by such a long fall.

(1/2)*9.8*5.4081632653061224^2 = 143.316326530612242302 m

So one would have to drop about 143.3m before this calc gives the correct value, I believe.

3. Human shaped hole: What you want is the crossectional area, which is not half the surface area. This estimates cross-sectional area of a human as 0.68 m^2. Whether it is a very good estimation is quite debatable, though. If someone finds or calculates better estimates, that would be good.

Why 7/8th? That value seems to come out of nowhere. Not that it is an unreasonable value, it just seems kinda random.

Aside from that we should make note of the assumption that steel doors are at least as thick as the human is.

• Actually, the average US car weighs in at over 1800 kilograms.

And 70-75 kg is usually the accepted value for a healthy human.

• It's kind of important to know that not every human is very healthy though; that's why 62 kg is the average. Same with the average body temperature being 97.5 degrees fahrenheit being the average as opposed to 98.6 degrees fahrenheit being the healthy temperature.

• So it should be preferable to adjust all to 62 kg instead?

• I don't know. It is uncommon with so tiny people in fiction, unless they are women.

Maybe a few different standardised body weights for normal men, highly athletic men, and women would be better?

• I am not sure if that is necessary. The results are going to be quite close.

• Well there is a difference between a 55 kilograms slim woman and a 110 kilograms highly athletic man.

• But fiction always tends to show healthy-bodied adults taking the crashes and whatnot, so....

I suggest using both the average and healthy weights in that case.

• Fair enough, but I want to hear DonTalk's thoughts. Though, of course if said character has an official weight, we use that.

• Doesn't what is healthy weight depend on gender and height? Or is that some average of healthy weight?

Aside from that it depends on how many value we want to calculate. If we want to do two one could do both averages. One could probably also split ideal weight for man and woman.

• Yeah, Healthy weight does depend on height and gender yes, and average height varies from country to country also.

• That seems fine to me.

• I don't think the Being completely bulletproof calc should have been added, it opens a can of worms about the mechanics of surface area of attacks/piercing damage which is a topic that hasn't actually been resolved.

• Okay. I suppose that we might have to remove it then.

I have similar concerns about the skyscraper calculation causing lots of problems, due to our members starting to assume that they can use it for any large building-wrecking feat.

• No, that's not how the calc works. This calc assumes you use a basic building that qualifies to be a skyscraper, not a building that's larger than the average skyscraper itself. For those buildings we'll have to deal with different calcs.

For example, destroying the One World Trade Center is vastly different from blowing up the Empire State Building not only because of the structure and materials, but also because of the design itself.

• I already know that feats such as melting a Skyscraper being calc'd at 7-A where as vaporizing one is Low 7-B makes it pretty cut and paste that it's flawed. Obviously heating the same object to the 3rd state of matter requires more energy than heating it to only the 2nd state. So we do need those calcs to be redone.

And I do remember the bullet proof calc being inflated; as being immune to handguns is only like a Wall level durability feat. And while the calc was done using some strangely composite bullet, the main part is that it should have had the volume of the bullet compared to a fist rather than the whole human body. Which would result in no more than Small Building level as opposed to City Block level.

• I believe a .950 JDJ round was used, not a composite bullet. Although the speed of a .220 was used.

• And Lina himself said you'd need 8-B dura to stand up to the strongest of rounds. 9-B dura was only for ordinary handguns.

EDIT: Scratch that. It exceeds 125,000,000 joules in Lina's calc, which is 9-A. And this is for .45 ACP.

• For the Kinetic energy, it was done combining the fastest bullet ever fired, which was a lightweight bullet IRL, with the heaviest bullet ever fired, which was slow IRL. And then for penetration, it was the smallest bullet ever fired, volume wise despite having the mass of the heaviest bullet, which would give it an unrealistic density and compared it to the volume of a human body. Still, the calc was outdated and should have been compared to the fist rather than the body; so it's not valid to give a 100% bullet proof character like Robocop or Terminator 8-B durability just from that moment.

• I suppose we'll have to recalc it.

• I don't think it should be implemented here, or recalced at all unless the current piercing damage argument is solved in the first place. The methodology used there can easily be applied the other way and be used to find the piercing AP of characters, meaning a baseline 9-A character becomes able to to hurt a 7-C just by picking up a knife and I doubt that's something everyone can agree with.

• It would only be used for real-life purposes, if anything, not fiction as a whole, as fiction generally has bullets effortlessly go high into 9-B without trouble.

• In our standards the durability to be completly bullet proof would be the KE of the bullet with greatest muzzle energy. I don't think the calc was intended to be used on profiles and it essentially uses a way of quantifying durability which is incomaptible with our practices (It would only make sense if we measured AP in energy over area, instead of just straight up total energy).

That aside, let me look through a few more of the calcs in the blog:

4. Digging: Source for choice of height and width should be added. For the final page it should be warned, that this only applies for a real bursting out, not for slower digging. Mathematically ok, I think.

5. Leaping unto roof: Looks fine.

6. Throwing to horizon: Wouldn't a normal human become basically invisible long before reaching the horizon purely because of its visible size becoming too small?

Aside from that this seems fine.

7. Jumping over the clouds: I'm not sure about 2000m as standard cloud height assumption. There are clouds which commonly are below that and clouds generally can vary a lot.

That aside, if we are talking about a pure (non-supernatural) jumping or throwing feats there are few cases were using a timeframe is the most appropiate method. Generally the velocity of an object that is launched upwards is entirely determined by its peak height.

Formula is (close to earth): initial speed = sqrt(2*9.81*peak height). So in this case sqrt(2*9.81*2000) = 198 m/s

Using 70kg for now: 0.5*70* 198^2 = 1.37214e6 J

• Thank you for the help with evaluating the calculations.

• DontTalkDT wrote: 6. Throwing to horizon: Wouldn't a normal human become basically invisible long before reaching the horizon purely because of its visible size becoming too small?

Depends on whether the throw is on the point of view of the thrower or the audience, since there are people who can identify others at a distance of nearly 2 miles.

• So the bullet calc should be removed?

• Kepekley23 wrote:

Depends on whether the throw is on the point of view of the thrower or the audience, since there are people who can identify others at a distance of nearly 2 miles.

Hm... interesting. Though unless its stated to be invisible for such a reason, the drawing limitations would mean that at a size of less than 1 pixel a person can certainly not be seen anymore.

So as far as a standard use calc goes this has very limited use. It can stay, though, as long as the requirements are made clear on the final page.

Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan wrote: So the bullet calc should be removed?

Yes.

Next batch of evaluations:

8. Destroying Door: Seems ok.

9. Destroying a car: That density of plastic link gives me a 404.

"To find shear strength from tensile strength, just divide tensile strength by 1.74 "? Should I know where that's from?

Aside from that looks ok.

10 . Destroying a tree: Personally I would say, if we assume white oak size, we should also use white oak wood, if we can.

Is ok, though.

11. Destroying Wrecking Ball: Is ok.

• I’d be hard pressed to identify someone at 2 miles out. It’s hard enough at 500+ meters.

• My problem with some of these feats is that some of them aren't that common.

Rarely ever do you see cars and trees being completely shattered or fragmented. Usually when you see a car get destroyed, it just blows up, but the main body of the vehicle is still in one piece, just really beat up. As for trees you normally see them getting chopped down.

And who on earth has a feat of crushing a king piece to dust?

• Nah, usually the cars get reduced to char like in GTA, where nothing remains, not even the doors or tires.

• BTW, how much energy would be required to blow up an average wooden shed?

We also need a calc of destroying gigantic doorways.

• I think that it is good to have a rather diverse list of feats for easy to use reference.

• I agree with Ant on this one. You can never know what kind of weird feats fiction can have in store for us.

Anyway, we'll need a common calc for blowing up sheds made of wood, stone, steel and whatnot.

I also wonder how we got 22.1 megajoules as the value for baseline 9-A.

• DontTalkDT wrote:----

Next batch of evaluations:

8. Destroying Door: Seems ok.

9. Destroying a car: That density of plastic link gives me a 404.

"To find shear strength from tensile strength, just divide tensile strength by 1.74 "? Should I know where that's from?

Aside from that looks ok.

10 . Destroying a tree: Personally I would say, if we assume white oak size, we should also use white oak wood, if we can.

Is ok, though.

11. Destroying Wrecking Ball: Is ok.

9. Sorry about the URL I may have made of mistake when posting it. http://www.tregaltd.com/img/density%20of%20plastics[1].pdf use the entire URL

Sorry about not putting a link. Shear strength can be found from ultimate tensile strength by a using a certain percentage of it. The percentage is just an estimation, not a concrete number. Doing further research I may have to fix that portion of my blog since usual percentage taken from UTS is 60%, not 74%, though i can be that high.

10. I will recalc that if that is deemed necessary.

• I would appreciate help to get this done, as it would be very useful for the wiki.

• I've contacted everyone I could find Ant. I got no one else left. Sorry if I appear short-handed.

Maybe you should try putting it on the Official Highlights Thread.

• Well, we don't need the entire community to come here, just most of the calc group members.

• I did contact the entire calc group community, but DT seems to be a bit busy.

This calc of Composite Human also went unnoticed for a long while.

• Okay.

• The 9-B calc has comments locked for some reason?

Just got off of work but I have the next couple days off for specific help if someone needs me.

• I will try to unlock the comments.

• So I calculated this a while back, using the same method as this feat. Ugarik has said that we shouldn't use digging in order to justify a character's AP, no matter how fast it is. Could we get some more calc member opinions on this, since it is one of the common feats listed in AN's blog.

• I would also appreciate some input for that.

• If you're digging as in physically sending things behind you at speed, KE of stuff can be used. Getting the mass of that earth might be difficult but in theory possible. In that case you provided he does seem to destroy it to get through it, though I'm unsure if in context that's correct so I can't really speak much more for that.

TL;DR if digging is done through destruction (digging being a broad term), then it can be used, and if digging involves fairly large bits of earth being hurled around then that, too, can be used. Otherwise, probably no dice.

• Can anyone make a calc of shattering a bench in one kick, like in here?

• Is anyone willing to summarise what needs to be added/changed? My mid-terms will end tomorrow.

• Votron5 corrected his carbusting calc.

I added in a cannon-busting calc by Bambu in the comments section.

We need a calc of vaporizing barrels too, because apparently, some characters can tank explosions powerful enough to vaporize gigantic wooden crates and barrels in one go.

• You can also check through DontTalkDT's evaluations of your calculations.

• DT hasn't checked all of them yet, I think.

• No, but it is a start.

• If we don’t have some sort of calc for quite literally destroying walls of varying sizes, that would come in handy.

• That is true, but it also depends on the material.

• Well, we can get down to using the wall’s material/mass as a variable, or assume it to be a few basic materials (wood, stone, brick)

• Okay. Steel as well, probably.

• Agreed. If someone could calc that, I’d surely appreciate it.

• The issue with "varying size" is that exact phrase. wall size varies heavily. It'd probably be better to calc them individually.

• And what would be a good way or formula to do so?

• ...as in, to calc destruction?

Get volume via eyeballing the general shape (pixel scaling if an image is available) and multiply by appropriate destruction value. Generally, a whole wall segment will be a rectangular prism with potentially hollow pieces.

• Interesting. I have something I’m interesting in calcing, but it may be a tad difficult.

Say, any reliable sources to find the energy to fragment materials, such as what Voltron used?

• We have (most) destruction values listed there. Wood can be found on the one link if you're referring to a wooden structure.

Trust me, if you're looking to get into calculations, read all of those and a lot of other calc blogs. That's how I learned boyo, and I'm no smarter than anyone else on this wiki (arguably dumber so yeet bois have at it)

• Kek, alright. Thanks.

The feat I’m calcing is a tad bit irregular, as it shatters a flat roof and part of the walls around it. If I do calc it, it’s unlikely to be exceptionally accurate.

• Feel free to shoot me a message personally when/if you do it/need help boyo. Always happy to lend a hand even if it ain't a verse I know about/am fond of.

• Alright, I’ll hit you up when I get home and get the time.

Figuring out the materials used in fictional buildings can be awfully hard.

• If it is an industrial building, generally concrete/cement.

If it is a house the same can be said though wood is also fairly common (my house is made of wood, for example).

Eyeballing it works.

• It’s probably concrete or cement, from the looks of it and how it seems to be broken.

Knowing that it’s concrete or cement, the next hardest will be figuring out what volume is being broken off.

I can contact you now with some information if you want to look the feat over.

• sure, best to take it off of this thread though.

• Alright, I’ll put it on your wall.

• How about we calc something like creating a hurricane/tornado? Like the actual energy one would generate by spinning hard enough or something?

• I don't think that's common enough of a feat tbh, and there are far too many variables that can change the result.

• Can anyone do a calc of violently fragmenting and vaporizing wooden barrels? We only have a calc of fragmenting one.

• Mid-terms finally over, phew. What needs to be added/edited/removed?

• I think that DontTalkDT still has some exams to do, but you can make the corrections that he has already suggested in the meantime.

• Mr. Bambu wrote: Tornado

That calc is filled with issues adressed by the very first comment on the blog, the scale of the tornado assumed for the calc is also far beyond the majority of fictional tornados so its useability is limited to characters explicitly creating a large-scale EF3 tornado.

• I don't doubt it, we discussed it far earlier. But saying we can't have a somewhat golden standard for a Tornado would be false, in my eyes.

• A lot of explosive firearms like the AT4 and SMAW have their base warheads uncalc'd, only having the justification that they can blow up cars and whatnot.

• Should we delete the tornado profile page, and create a calculation page for it instead?

• Antvasima wrote:
Should we delete the tornado profile page, and create a calculation page for it instead?

Since the calc members seem to agree with your notion, I don't see any problems with it.

• Well, it seems easier if they rewrite the page from a profile to a calculation instruction, but it obviously has to be as accurate as possible.

• Antvasima wrote: Should we delete the tornado profile page, and create a calculation page for it instead?

I agree with this too.

• Probably best to rework it rather than delete it. DT had a CRT up on it a while back I believe- the concept of change was accepted, the specifics of said change was not specified.

Basically, F3 as an assumption for a supernatural tornado is fine in general- rarely do fictional characters generate some small fling and F3 is where it becomes truly serious. However, the page itself needs to account for all of them. Additionally, the size of the suggested tornado is rather immense- it assumes a 1 km wide top and a 1 km height. The latter is not absurd, the former is.

• But all tornadoes are different. There should be a standard tornado calc, but not a profile I think.

• I think that Mr. Bambu makes sense.

• Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan wrote:
But all tornadoes are different. There should be a standard tornado calc, but not a profile I think.

Varies is indeed a rating. They do vary heavily, and if the page must go then that's fine I suppose, but a standard calc is needed due to how common this feat of creating a tornado is.

• Ok. I suppose this makes sense.

• Well, what I intended to suggest above is that the page should be rewritten so it turns into a calculation instruction with a list of standard size results instead.

• You can ask DontTalkDT, Executor N0, Kepekley23, and Antoniofer for help if you wish.

• Feel free to do whatever you guys want with my tornado/hurricane blog

• Can you provide a link to your blog post?

• I have edited the feats according to DontTalk's instructions, can someone come over and check if I missed something? There were so many messages while I was having my mid-terms, I feel like I must have missed something.

• Btw what do you guys think of this calc? It seems like a random guess tbh, but is there a way to actually calculate ripping off a head?

• It's pretty odd tbh. according to this article from wikipedia, 1-3 meter drops were the standard back then and they resulted in decapitations sometimes when the person was too heavy.

using this calculator gives around 2205.00 joules for a 75kg person falling from 3 meters.

so maybe we could use that.

• 2205 Joules is when they snap the victim's neck. Sometimes is results in decapitation because the victim gained weight in prison. But that's an unknown amount higher than 2205 Joules.

• Well, even if we use for 300 kgs (which is alarmingly overweight and easily heavier than any person who got decapitated) the energy doesn't go past 8820.00 joules. As far as this particular method is concerned, decaps don't seem to go beyond 9-C.

• Seems reasonable, though we need a standard value for decap

• But oddly, breaking a human necks is Street level+.

• It could be a difference in the way the force is applied maybe, I reckon that value assumes the neck is crushed as opposed to just pulled at its weakest points which is what happens when a person is hanged.

• I remember someone telling me strings make a difference to the AP. Maybe we have to take that into account. How thick are hanging ropes?

• AguilaR101 wrote:
It could be a difference in the way the force is applied maybe, I reckon that value assumes the neck is crushed as opposed to just pulled at its weakest points which is what happens when a person is hanged.

Also applies when you break them via karate-chopping or punching (or stomping, which results in all the bones breaking, and that's the commonest form of the feat).

The calc assumes that you destroy only that one big vertebra, BTW. And the lamina is unaccounted for, which would wield higher results if calc'd with the right values.

• Is absorbing a planets entire energy a common enough feat?, I think it would be useful.

• Why is vaporizing a bathtub a common feat

• I just copied it from another blog. I've already removed a few uncommon feats, will remove more later.

• If I ever manage to write a book somebody is going to vaporize a bathtub just so that feat gets used

• I’d love that scene

“Now I shall take all you love mortal”

(Vaporizes bathtub)

• (Snaps neck, vaporizes bathtub, breaks lock, shatters windshield, destroys chimney, melts tank, and punts corpse past the horizon)

• LordGriffin1000 wrote: Is absorbing a planets entire energy a common enough feat?, I think it would be useful.

What type of energy are we talking about?

• KLOL506 wrote:

Yeah, crushing bones is more often than not going to be superior to ripping someone's head off because the latter only requires you to separate the head from the neck at its weakest points.

• @AguilaR101 the planets life energy I guess.

• ArbitraryNumbers wrote: (Snaps neck, vaporizes bathtub, breaks lock, shatters windshield, destroys chimney, melts tank, and punts corpse past the horizon)

Snapping necks and shattering windshields as well as punting a person past the horizon are all common.

• How reliable is this calculator, can someone check?

It looks like it could be extremely useful to figure a yield for small explosions and other effects caused by them when we have known distance (tremors, windows breaking, houses being damaged, people having their eardrums ruptured etc).

• Bump

• I will ask DontTalkDT if he is willing to continue to help out here.

• DontTalkDT says that he thinks he will have the time to continue from the 2nd to the 11th of February.

• I see.

• Assalt replied, and sadly, he doesn't possess enough knowledge on evaluating the neck-breaking calc.

I told DT about it a few months back and he said the same thing.

• Okay.

• DontTalkDT wrote:

9. Destroying a car: That density of plastic link gives me a 404.

"To find shear strength from tensile strength, just divide tensile strength by 1.74 "? Should I know where that's from?

Aside from that looks ok.

According to his sourses copper and even aluminium is way more durable than iron and even steel which clearly doesn't seem right

• The probably depends what's defined as "Durability"; some things penetrate easily but require a lot more energy to fragmentize/pulverize/ect in the sense.

• This is true. All of the different physical properties are absolutely not universal and may seem very counter-intuivitive at times.

• I've calced that crushing a stone in hard requires 9 to 35 tons of force. This might sound wanked but keep in mind that stones can withstand weight of a semitruck and even phisicaly strong people can't crush an egg

• I don't know if this is common enough, but how much force would be needed to shatter a coffee cup/mug in your hand?

• It's really hard to calculate because preasure won't be distributed evenly every due to the shape (since it's hollow inside)

• Ugarik wrote:
and even phisicaly strong people can't crush an egg
• There most likely was a small crack in the shell

• bump

• I would like to make a common feat page on my own soon.

With some good estimation calculations as well.

• Perhaps somebody could politely remind DontTalkDT and the calc group members about this thread.

• Next batch. A bit out of order 'cause something caught my eye scrolling through.

12. Breaking off a lock: Still uncertain about the 1.74 estimate.

That aside, if such a lock is broken, I think rather rarely the entire shackle is fragmented?

13. Destroying blades: Looks ok.

14. Destroying chimney: Not sure about those chimney measurements being generic.
this or this give some other ideas, though I don’t know about height. Also it seems kinda small, so maybe something else is meant there.

I suppose this is decent if nothing generic can be found.

15. Spiral staircase: I don’t think spiral staircases have sufficiently generic sizes to justify a standard calc for them.

16. Crushing Golf ball: seems fine.

17. Destroying barrel: I usually see the hoops not being destroyed during such feats. Should be ok, though.

32. & 33. Pool stuff: I would suggest a 2m deep 4 to 8 lane short course pool as a low end, being more common IMO. See here for size.
The freezing calc is missing the enthalpy of fusion, I believe.

34 & 35 Bath stuff: Half a bath full would be 75.7/2 = 37.85 liters, no?
They talk about the ancient unit, which I don’t think is supposed to be the actual measurement?

Enthalpy of fusion missing again, I think.

The water is assumed to be 44°C hot? Isn't that a bit too hot? At least for an average bath, I know hot baths are a thing as well.

• Do we have a calc for surviving a lightning strike or no?.

• DontTalkDT wrote:

17. Destroying barrel: I usually see the hoops not being destroyed during such feats. Should be ok, though.

Assassin's Creed begs to differ. (In those games, barrels get vaporized)

•  KLOL506 removed this reply because: F 21:47, February 11, 2019
This reply has been removed
• Ugarik wrote:
There most likely was a small crack in the shell

Ummmmmmmm .....

• LordGriffin1000 wrote:
Do we have a calc for surviving a lightning strike or no?.

No we don't.

We also don't have a calc for bending steel or rebar.

• @DontTalkDT

Thank you for the help. The accepted calculations should probably be fine to use then. Perhaps they can be copied to another blog post?

@KLOL506

I don't think that we can scale durability from Lightning Feats anymore. As you can see in the page, it is both partially a form of durability negation, and nowhere near the entire energy of the lightning bolt is withstood by humans.

• @Antvasima: I would have thought once we are through with checking everything and things are corrected where necessary we make a page for it. In that process the formulation and overall structure can be improved. In particular making as clear as possible which things have to be given to apply which calc.

Next batch:

18. Destructive force of winds: In principle correct. 1 m^3 is not really a meaningful measure, but a low-end I think.

19. Skull Curshing: Should be ok.

20. Nimbus Clouds: This are too many assuptions. "Can be" classifies a high end and I wouldn't count on general base sizes to start with as they are potentially completly variable due to wind and stuff.

To that comes that assuming a standard timeframe like this is a bad idea. Such things should be evaluated based on the contect of the story.

For this in particular I would just keep to what we have on cloud calculations.

21. Shaking the earth: I think this one was checked before in the calc grop forum. There was an extended version of that in a blog as well, wasn't there?

22. Creating a storm: This should be go. Not because being problematic, but because the results already are on the storm / cloud calculations page. No reason to have them twice.

23. Breaking all bones in a humans body: To start with I wish to point out that I would never assume a statement on all bones being broken is literal. We have bones that already are less than 5 mm long. Such statements should just be taken to mean that several/lots of bones were broken.

That aside... 88kg bodymass? That is far above average in most countries.

Aside from those things ok, I guess.

• Antvasima wrote:

@KLOL506

I don't think that we can scale durability from Lightning Feats anymore. As you can see in the page, it is both partially a form of durability negation, and nowhere near the entire energy of the lightning bolt is withstood by humans.

Yes, I can see that.

We still need a calc for bending rebar and steel tho. Those are hella common feats.

• @DontTalkDT

That is correct, yes. We should probably wait until we can create the intended page itself. Sorry about the head glitch.

• Has anyone calced destruction values for types of wood? I know a couple of feats that involve large logs/entire trees being completely destroyed

• Splitting trees in half badly needs a calc.

• Agreed (would also nominate reading a head off)

• Tearing
• GyroNutz wrote: Has anyone calced destruction values for types of wood? I know a couple of feats that involve large logs/entire trees being completely destroyed

Check the door calc on my blog, there are values of fragmentation and pulverization of wood

• Thanks

This should be linked in the op, methinks

• GyroNutz wrote:

This should be linked in the op, methinks

Okay.

• GyroNutz wrote:
Has anyone calced destruction values for types of wood? I know a couple of feats that involve large logs/entire trees being completely destroyed
• gais

B E N D I N G S T E E L

• Hmm that’s actually a good one

• Hellbeast1 wrote:
Hmm that’s actually a good one

Anything to get Deadpool out of Class 1 lifting strength

• Comic or Movie?

• Movie.

• Can someone make a list of feats needing to be calculated?

• Sure.

• Bending steel
• Bending rebar
• Denting cars with physical strikes to the point where holes start to form
• Splitting trees in half
• Breaking a tire in half like in the Bollywood movies and like Reeve Superman
• What about destroying or crushing a diamond and wrecking a thick metal table?

• Assembled1801 wrote:
What about destroying or crushing a diamond and wrecking a thick metal table?

For the table part, we'll have to gather the dimensions of a high-end office table made of strong oak (FYI, tables like these are more commonly broken in fiction).

Then, using the same dimensions, we just swap in the frag values of oak for steel.

• KLOL506 wrote:
Assembled1801 wrote:
What about destroying or crushing a diamond and wrecking a thick metal table?
For the table part, we'll have to gather the dimensions of a high-end office table made of strong oak.

Then, using the same dimensions, we just swap in the frag values of oak for steel.

What about a diamond crushing calc?

• We'll have to find the dimensions of the diamond and its energy values first.

• KLOL506 wrote:
We'll have to find the dimensions of the diamond and its energy values first.

You can look it up on Wikipedia.

• I believe someone told me about the strength of diamonds when I was new to this wiki, gotta look that up.

• Found it faster than expected. 1200 J/cc Now we need the dimensions of the diamond.

• Also I'll remove the chimney and staircase calculations, due to them being not common and standard enough.

• That's for tearing aka pulling it apart, crushing(pulverization) would be 110,000 j/cc

• What about a metal table busting calc?

• AguilaR101 wrote: That's for tearing aka pulling it apart, crushing(pulverization) would be 110,000 j/cc

Aha indeed, 1200 is for fragmentation.

I calculated the steel rod to be Wall level. One of the links contains a slur word however, and I'm asking Antvasima can he help me bypass the filter.

• Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan wrote:

AguilaR101 wrote: That's for tearing aka pulling it apart, crushing(pulverization) would be 110,000 j/cc

Aha indeed, 1200 is for fragmentation.

I calculated the steel rod to be Wall level. One of the links contains a slur word however, and I'm asking Antvasima can he help me bypass the filter.

Atomisation energy of diamond is 210081 J/cc

Given diamond is already "luxuriously structured carbon", the given pulverisation energy makes sense.

• Unfortunately the only way for me to bypass the filter is to remove the word in question, and then important members would sooner or later get banned for long periods by the Fandom staff.

• Probably be good for a content mod or above to remove/replace/censor that word. Though we'd need to know what that word is. Don't actually say the word obviously, but show a censored version or a meaning of the word to help know which one.

• It is the c-word for female genitalia.