FANDOM


  • Antvasima
    Antvasima closed this thread because:
    07:46, March 8, 2020

    The problem

    If an object is destroyed as a result of some attack we calculate the energy output of the attack using the original volume of the object and the destruction value of the material the destroyed object is made of. According to Naruto Forums (and that's the only source we have), the fragmentation value is equal to the shear strength of the material, violent fragmentation is equal to the tensile strength and pulverization is the compressive strength. But we never questioned the credibility of the source.

    Fragmentation is defined as "the energy needed to make something fall apart in large fragment"  while the definition of shear strength is "the strength of a material or component against the type of structural failure when the material or component fails in shear" As you can see those definitions do not line up quite well and the same reasoning can be applied to violent fragmentation and pulverization values as well. So there reasonably comes the question: "does this whole thing even make some sense?"

    What should we do instead

    The energy needed to destroy a particular object is indeed proportional to the original volume of the destroyed object however shear, tensile and compressive strength do not determine the amount of energy per unit volume. But there is a material property that does. 

    Toughness -  is the amount of energy per unit volume that a material can absorb before rupturing.  

    Unfortunately, I couldn't find any toughness table for common materials. So how can it be calculated? Toughness can be determined by  integrating the stress-strain curve by the following formula: 

    CodeCogsEqn

    Where sigma is the stress and epsilon is the strain. f indicates the point of rupture.

    Unfortunately, most materials have random stress-strain relation so it's really hard to find a function one can integrate. Hopefully, we can still measure it by measuring the area under the material's stress-strain curve using paint.net. You can also do the same thing with the load-displacement curve and then devide the result by the original volume of the specimen

    (for those who found this page I can tell you that it's basically the same formula. Young's modulus is inversely proportional to toughness and there is 1/2 because the area under the elastic region has a shape of a right triangle via Hook's law)

    Finding toughness for some common materials

    So now we need to find some of those values...

    Concrete

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtvm7YNsSU0
    Concrete
    Area under the curve: 18134 px20 MPa - 77 px

    0.05% - 56 px

    Toughness: 18134*(20/77)*(0.05/100/56) = 0.042 J/cm^3



    Stone



    Sandstone limestone
    Limestone:

    area under the curve: 166400 px

    1000 psi - 6.895 MPa - 77 px

    0.0005 (unitless) - 129 px

    Limestone's toughness: 166400*(6.895/77)*(0.0005/129) = 0.058 J/cm^3

    Sandstone:

    area under the curve: 71070 px

    2000 psi - 13.79 MPa - 79 px

    0.002 (unitless) - 112 px

    Sandstone's toughness: 71070*(13.79/79)*(0.002/112) = 0.22 J/cm^3



    Wood



    Wood

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqAFSKlALwkThe area under the curve: 16260 px

    100 kN - 69 px

    10 mm - 94 px

    Work of deformation: 16260*(100/69)*(10/94) = 2507 J

    The specimen is 25x10x15 cm wooden block so its volume is 3750 cm^3

    Toughness: 2507/3750 = 0.67 J/cm^3



    Soil



    Source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hzizh7dB9A

    There were 3 samples

    Soil
    Soil2
    Soil3

    1. Area 81492 px

    0.05 MPa - 67 px

    1% - 84 px

    Toughness: 81492*(0.05/67)*(0.01/84) = 0.0072 J/cm^3

    Using the same method sample 1 and sample 2 got 0.016 J/cm^3 and 0.011 J/cm^3 respectivily so I don't know which one should we pick



    More Information

    There are a couple of things people need to understand.

    1. Toughness determines the minimal amount of energy required to rapture the material. There is no way we can find v.frag or pulv values using it. The best thing a can suggest is to set v.frag 10 times above the toughness and pulverization 10 times above v.frag. If anyone has a better idea I'm willing to hear it

    2. This method is still not perfectly accurate. Idealistically the material needs to be completely solid and the impact needs to be perfectly flat and perpendicular to the surface of the destroyed object. But I guess we can ignore it because I believe it's the best we can do.

    3. Pulverization value base on compressive strength can still be used for feats like this one because in order to make a hole like this one needs to compress the concrete inside the wall. The mechanical work of pressing this hole inside should be equal to the compressive strength times the volume.

      Loading editor
    • M3X

      Well, you proved the current method we use to calc the destructions value isn't accurate at all, but your method relies on assumptions as well, as you pointed in the 3 points of the last part. 

      Waiting for more imput to see if people have a better ideia, as you said in the first point. I might help with suggestions soon

        Loading editor
    • This looks important.

        Loading editor
    • Shall hear from more people about this.

      Oh no, the mods, admins and bcrats must be highlighted about this.

        Loading editor
    • Actually, this is up to DontTalkDT and the calc group to decide. Somebody should ask all of them to comment here: VS Battles Staff

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Antvasima. I will notify them of this thread.

      And I believe this should be Staff-Only and a Calc-Group member-only thread. Or maybe just Calc Group only thread.

        Loading editor
    • To be honest, I knew the method we used was inaccurate and could be improved, but I thought it was something that was already understood and used simply because it was the best we could do under our natural conditions.

      But with the recent changes being made in most of our calculations methods, I realize that I was just being innocent about it lol . It seems like a good idea to us if we can improve it even further.

        Loading editor
    • I added "Staff only" at the top of this thread.

        Loading editor
    • This looks interesting. Some more staff input, especially DT, is needed.

        Loading editor
    • I knew that the absence of sources with this method would bring problems one day, and a thread like this was about to happen sooner or later. However, I will wait for more input before accepting Ugarik's proposal, I would like to know what DontTalkDT thinks about this.

        Loading editor
    • Is this formula complicated to use for doing new versions of our old calculations? We may have to use the standard destruction values if they at least give approximately correct results. It isn't good if only the most skilled calculators can provide new calculations by using this method.

        Loading editor
    • If I have understood well this new method, it shouldn't be complicated to use, Ugarik is only updating the destruction value of materials we usually use, like 6 J/cm^3 (Current destruction value of concrete) to 0.042 J/cm^3 (New destruction value of concrete).

      However, I'm a confused whether these new values depend on the area/volume of the destroyed object or not. If Ugarik did this method with an existing calculation, it would be really helpful.

        Loading editor
    • Okay.

        Loading editor
    • Some people may think that more proper way to calculate is is by using ΔV (volume change after impact) instead of the original volume of an object.

      It may sound like it makes sence but it's not the case.

      Let's say a cylindrical object becomes 2 times wider. It mean its volume will increase 4 times. How will it affects work needed to rupture it? Since the cross sectional area is now 4 times greater the force you have to be pressing it with will also increase by 4 times. If force becomes 4 times greater so is work of deformation.

      If the object becomes 2 times longer it voleme becomes 2 times greater. Cross sectional area does not increase so the force remains the same. By since now the cilinder is 2 as long you need to maintain this force for twice the distance so the work still becomes 2 times greater.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote: Is this formula complicated to use for doing new versions of our old calculations? We may have to use the standard destruction values if they at least give approximately correct results. It isn't good if only the most skilled calculators can provide new calculations by using this method.

      The formula is the same as before but the destruction values are different not. The formula above is used to find those destruction values anyone can use

        Loading editor
    • Okay. We already have other site-wide revisions at the moment though, particularly for Regeneration, and redoing several hundred calculations will be an absolutely staggering task to deal with long-term.

        Loading editor
    • Not to mention updating all of the profiles that scale from them.

        Loading editor
    • I should mention that almost all the profiles here will be affected by this revision.

      Again, let's wait for DT to give his opinion on this matter. There are still many other calc members who haven't responded to this yet.

      Not to mention that not all calcs involve concrete, sandstone or limestone and use different materials, even wood has multiple types that can't be brought down to one average. We'd have to find countless values for these things.

        Loading editor
    • Therefir wrote: I'm a confused whether these new values depend on the area/volume of the destroyed object or not. If Ugarik did this method with an existing calculation, it would be really helpful.

      They do not. The method is the same. Now one needs to destroy about 350 thousand cubic centimetres of concrete to get wall level rating (about 70 cm tall concrete cube)

        Loading editor
    • Sorry but should we check on the current value for compression strength for materials first, then divide them by a certain ratio to get frag and v frag values? (If compression values can be used for pulverisation feats, which is what we should be doing currently)

      Also, do we need to take into account some objects are much easier to frag but much harder to pulverise? Say we have absurdly high pulverisation values for glass and ceramics but we are all sure we can destroy glass cups and ceramics cups much easier than destroying metal cups.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Ugarik's proposal to use toughness for fragmentation. However, I disagree with just multiplying 10 for violent fragmentation and pulverization, that's completely random without any justification. I am not sure how to find those values though.

      I'm going to wait for more staff input on this first

        Loading editor
    • Anyway this might have to take a while, since as Antvasima said, there are multiple other site-wide revisions at the moment.

        Loading editor
    • I always knew our fragmentation values aren't 100% accurate since it isn't exclusively Joules/cc, as the shape of the object among other things. Plus, there are many different levels of fragmentation. And some elements and compounds don't always have static hardness or toughness values. Whether an temperature can effect stuff like that greatly.

      Anyway, this is something that requires more staff input, especially from DontTalk, and we're already in the middle of other projects.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, this probably has to wait.

        Loading editor
    • Assuming this does go through:

      Ugarik, I'm still confused. How does one measure stress or strain?

        Loading editor
    • Regardless if this is accepted or not, we have several ongoing massive site revisions at the moment:

      • The tiering system revision fallout.
      • The regeneration revision.
      • The removal of links to illegally uploaded material.

      And this on top of the upcoming forum move. As such, I do not think that this is realistic to apply for quite a long time.

        Loading editor
    • As much as I hate to admit it, I have to agree with Antvasima. I don’t like things being disorganised or plainly incorrect on our profiles, but there probably isn’t going to be enough time to truly and thoroughly handle these changes for quite a while.

      One potential way to at least get some of it handled would be to make a thread where people can mention profiles that would definitely be affected by these changes. But a full site-wide sweep and revision of all the affected profiles isn’t realistic at the moment.

        Loading editor
    • DarkGrath wrote:
      As much as I hate to admit it, I have to agree with Antvasima. I don’t like things being disorganised or plainly incorrect on our profiles, but there probably isn’t going to be enough time to truly and thoroughly handle these changes for quite a while.

      One potential way to at least get some of it handled would be to make a thread where people can mention profiles that would definitely be affected by these changes. But a full site-wide sweep and revision of all the affected profiles isn’t realistic at the moment.

      But such changes have to be made uniformly to all character profiles else profiles will be not ready for versus debates or really biased.

      Maybe people can start discussing how different materials get destroyed at different states and which values and/or miltipliers be applied, then we apply those agreed figures to relevant feats.

      This will be causing least disturbances to the current many massive projects.

        Loading editor
    • Besides, we still need more people to at least look at this first and DT doesn't seem to have responded yet. Before we talk about how this applies to the entire wiki as a whole (Which it will if accepted), we actually need people accepting it in full.


      BTW Ugarik, does this apply to only brittle materials being destroyed or is metal also affected?

        Loading editor
    • I am just saying that we would have to postpone such an enormous undertaking for several months at least, given our current situation in the wiki.

        Loading editor
    • Anyway, we should wait for more input on this.

        Loading editor
    • Yes.

        Loading editor
    • KLOL506 wrote:

      BTW Ugarik, does this apply to only brittle materials being destroyed or is metal also affected?

      Technicaly metals should also be affected but becaose of their high ductility it's not gonna be that different 

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, I don't think the really strong metals like steel are going to be too different. It's mostly stuff like fragmenting dirt clots aren't much of feats to begin with. Plus, pulverization seems pretty accurate given that's how much to crumble something into a salt/powder like substance.

        Loading editor
    • I'm still confused as to how one calculates the toughness of materials.

        Loading editor
    • Does this only effect pulv calcs?

        Loading editor
    • No, this affects fragmentation, violent fragmentation and pulverization calcs

        Loading editor
    • Truth Bullets wrote:
      I'm still confused as to how one calculates the toughness of materials.

      To do the calculation you need to do a toughness test using a machine that tests the reaction of a material under some stress, this results in a stress-strain curve, then we use integration to find the area under the curve at certain points and the result of that area will be the toughness in dimensions that are proportional to j/cm³.

      Then, after that we simply multiply that value to find the energy to destroy the material. The hard part is to find the value, Ugarik used youtube videos where the test is done to find the value of certain materials, but this is still far below from what we have in our current chart in specific values.

        Loading editor
    • Truth Bullets wrote:
      No, this affects fragmentation, violent fragmentation and pulverization calcs

      No, only frag and v. frag. Ugarik himself noted that pulverization calcs using compressive strength of a material is still okay.

        Loading editor
    • I think Ugarik is only talking about feats where characters actually compress stuff.

        Loading editor
    • I don't really see an issue if I'm honest. Like both things take an assumption in how the thing was destroyed. I'm fine with our current system. I don't think there's much more to say outside of this. 

        Loading editor
    • When I was about to learn of Freezing feats, someone made a revision.

      And now that I want to do a fragmentation calc, this comes up.

      Dread to the Lawmasters.

        Loading editor
    • KLOL506 wrote: No, only frag and v. frag. Ugarik himself noted that pulverization calcs using compressive strength of a material is still okay.

      I said only in specific cases like the one I linked in the last paragraph

        Loading editor
    • NVM Spino later corrected it and told me.

        Loading editor
    • Btw I don't think NarutoForums uses tensile strength for violent fragmentation, they use the high-end of shear strength or uniaxial compressive strength.

      Is there a "high-end" for toughness?

        Loading editor
    • Now would vaporization be fine along with violent fragmention?

        Loading editor
    • I think vaporization is its own thing

        Loading editor
    • Vaporization is fine, we are currently discussing about fragmentation, violent fragmentation and pulverization.

        Loading editor
    • Following. This is interesting.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, Vaporization is not an explosion value at all, it's just converting solid/liquid to a gas through heat. The calculation has its own methods.

        Loading editor
    • What about the methods described here? Specifically the Kuznetsov equation (can't find source for its use in the post) or powder factor?. Powder factor is measured in explosives to shatter a volume of rock but we can easily convert weight of explosives to joules, and the powder factor of types of rock shouldn't be too hard to find. If the kuznetsov equation doesn't actually mean what the reddit poster thinks it means, then I'm not sure how violent frag or pulverization would work.

        Loading editor
    • I'm fine with what we are useing right now then

        Loading editor
    • @Jaakubb Sounds good, but is that violent fragmentation or pulverization?

        Loading editor
    • I'm pretty sure powder factor does NOT refer to pulverization (probably named powder factor because of gunpowder or something, I'm not an expert). What do we consider fragmentation vs violent frag?

        Loading editor
    • Fragmentation: Applied when the matter that was destroyed was turned into fairly large and distinguishable pieces.

      Violent Fragmentation: Applied when the matter that was destroyed was turned into small but still distinguishable pieces.

      Pulverization: Applied when the matter that was destroyed was turned to dust. We usually use this value when we see no remains of the matter that was destroyed in the aftermath of the attack.

        Loading editor
    • I can vaguely recall someone saying that the extent of fragmentation should be based not on how big each fragment is compared to the original object, but based on how big each fragment is. I'm probably wrong though, this is off the top of my head.

      Also, to bring up this calc again because I'm too lazy to find other calcs that are like this, why is it considered pulverization? If it was fragmentation or violent fragmentation, couldn't the matter have just been launched off screen? Or just fallen off the mountain to a point that isn't on screen? The first example only applies to explosions, and the second one to stuff with slopes and whatnot.

        Loading editor
    • I'm not sure, but it is considered pulverization when we see no remains of matter.

      Anyway we should wait for Ugarik to take a look at the powder factor stuff to see if it works for violent fragmentation.

        Loading editor
    • Basically this is a summary of the values for destroying a boulder. Splitting the boulder into smaller but still relatively large pieces of rock is fragmentation. Smashing them into tiny pebbles is violent fragmentation. If there's not a single shard of rock remaining and just rock salt left, it's pulverization.

        Loading editor
    • Jaakubb wrote: What about the methods described here? Specifically the Kuznetsov equation (can't find source for its use in the post) or powder factor?. Powder factor is measured in explosives to shatter a volume of rock but we can easily convert weight of explosives to joules, and the powder factor of types of rock shouldn't be too hard to find. If the kuznetsov equation doesn't actually mean what the reddit poster thinks it means, then I'm not sure how violent frag or pulverization would work.

      So 7.7404 j/cc

      The mean particle size is 16 cm though, sound more like fragmentation than violent fragmentation.

        Loading editor
    • I don't understad what is rock factor

        Loading editor
    • But anyway it's surpisenly close to by thoughness value assuming 100 cm is the lagest possible size

        Loading editor
    • So the frag value for rock is slightly lower than the one we have huh

      Weird.

      EDIT: That value seems to only be for limestone, we need a value for sandstone and other rocks as well.

        Loading editor
    • I don't understand why doesn't this equation have volume of the rock value. It abviously should be there

        Loading editor
    • IDK, I find the equation too complicated for my own taste.

        Loading editor
    • KLOL506 wrote:
      IDK, I find the equation too complicated for my own taste.

      Are you talking about powder factor or Kuznetsov equation? Either way we only have to solve it once for each common material (eg rock steel blah blah) and we get the values.

        Loading editor
    • What about wood tho? Pretty sure people don't use dynamite to blow up trees and get their wood.

        Loading editor
    • I guess we can keep our current system for other materials?

        Loading editor
    • I guess that would work. For wood at least.

        Loading editor
    • I suppose we would have to keep our current values for materials we can't calculate a more accurate value, yes.

        Loading editor
    • The others which we can calc tho, like Spino did for limestone using the Kuznetzov equation via Jakuub's calc, prolly can be used, but I don't think we have any calc that uses limestone yet.

      Bear in mind that not all rock or wood is the same and may differ depending upon the location or geography of the feat taking place.

        Loading editor
    • Isn't this rather silly though

        Loading editor
    • Agree with Bambu

        Loading editor
    • Kinda gonna have to agree with Bambuu here.

        Loading editor
    • Wood has toughness value of 0.67 J/cm3. 25x15x10 cm wooden block was destroyed by 2506 joules of work

      Surpisenly it'sway more durable than rock and concrete because of it's high ductility even though wood is not nearly as strong

        Loading editor
    • Actually calling wood more durable might be wrong because if you slam wooden and concrete block into each other wood will be destroyed while concrete remains in one piece. This is because weeker materials always absord energy first

        Loading editor
    • AKA using toughness for wood is iffy at best.

        Loading editor
    • There are many different types of wood also.

        Loading editor
    • I already pointed that out tho

        Loading editor
    • If pulverization is staying compressive strength, it also need a change. 200 MPa isn't 200 j/cc, as it's actually 200000000 pascals, whereas 1 pascal = 1 joule per meter.

      200 MPa would be more like 2000000 j/cc

        Loading editor
    • J/cc actually refers to j/cm^3, not J/m^3. You got the units mixed up.

      Also 200 MPa is actually 200000000 J/m^3.

      1000000 J/m^3= 1 J/cm^3

        Loading editor
    • Has somebody asked DontTalkDT and Antoniofer to comment here?

        Loading editor
    • I didn't, I wasn't implying that a pascal was 1 j/cc. It's supposed to be .001 j/cc.

      1 MPa is 1000000 pascals/j/cm, so 200 MPa would be 200000000 j/m^3

      That's not correct. You divide the j/m^3 by 100 to get j/cm^3. What I said the first time was right

        Loading editor
    • Truth Bullets wrote:
      I didn't, I wasn't implying that a pascal was 1 j/cc. It's supposed to be .001 j/cc.

      1 MPa is 1000000 pascals/j/cm, so 200 MPa would be 200000000 j/m^3

      That's not correct. You divide the j/m^3 by 100 to get j/cm^3. What I said the first time was right

      Buddy I don't know if you know this but a m^3 is quite literally a million times larger than a cubic centimeter. 

      100cm^3*100cm^3*100cm^3=1,000,000cm^3=1m^3

      This thread is still ultimately pointless, frankly, since it just comes down to deciding whether we make one assumption or another. But that's not how volume works. 

        Loading editor
    • Well, if this would require the staff spending thousands of hours of work revising our fundamental standards for most of our profile pages, and wouldn't be a significant improvement, it seems very unrealistic to apply.

      I would still prefer to see what DontTalkDT thinks though.

        Loading editor
    • Not sure where you got that. 1 J/m^3= 0.000001 joule/cm^3. All the converters online state so. So you don't divide J/m^3 with 100, you divide it with 1000000 to get J/cm^ so you're quite off the mark.

      Even a simple google search states that 200 J/cm^3= 200 000 000 pascals or 200 MPa

      EDIT: This was in reply to Truth Bullets

        Loading editor
    • "The pascal is also equivalent to the SI unit of energy density, the joule per cubic metre."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_(unit)

      If you want to talk about a simple google search, look up "joule per meter to joule per centimeter." 1 joule per meter is .01 joule per centimeter.

      This might be different for volume, however

        Loading editor
    • We don't use J/m^3 tho, we use the J/cm^3

        Loading editor
    • Truth Bullets wrote:
      "The pascal is also equivalent to the SI unit of energy density, the joule per cubic metre."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_(unit)

      If you want to talk about a simple google search, look up "joule per meter to joule per centimeter." 1 joule per meter is .01 joule per centimeter.

      This might be different for volume, however

      Nope. I did the google search and 1 J/m^3= 1e-6 or 0.000001 J/cm^3

      Again, we also don't use Joule/meter or Joule/centimeter for destroying stuff (That's not how volume works anyhow, volume is 3-dimensional, what you're talking about is 1-dimensional, and touchable stuff is most of the time in 3 dimensions). We use joule/cubic meter and joule/cubic centimeter. Big difference. Also Bambu's already said his piece.

      Again, read your wikipedia link. It clearly states meter^3, not just meter.

        Loading editor
    • Truth Bullets wrote: If pulverization is staying compressive strength, it also need a change. 200 MPa isn't 200 j/cc, as it's actually 200000000 pascals, whereas 1 pascal = 1 joule per meter.

      200 MPa would be more like 2000000 j/cc

      If someone wants to ask a basic question like this one they should probably use my message wall. It's better to keep this thread clean rather than discussing dimentions of SI units

        Loading editor
    • I do think using toughness would be slightly more accurate than shear strength, but I am not sure if it is worth such a huge revision.

        Loading editor
    • @Truth Bullets I wanna try to help you out here. Volume is three dimensions, not one.

      If volume was one dimensional, then yes, a meter would be 100 times bigger than a centimeter. But volume is three dimensional. Volume is 100×100×100, or 100^3, or 1,000,000 times bigger.

      I hope that clears up the misconception.

        Loading editor
    • Bump

        Loading editor
    • Has somebody asked DontTalkDT?

        Loading editor
    • I already have but he still hasn't responded.

        Loading editor
    • I did, too.

        Loading editor
    • Well, I haven't seen him for a while. He is likely busy IRL.

        Loading editor
    • He edited his user page saying "He'd be back soon"

        Loading editor
    • Okay. We should probably wait then. This particular thread is in no hurry, given that the suggestion is extremely unrealistic to apply within the near future anyway.

        Loading editor
    • Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan wrote:
      I do think using toughness would be slightly more accurate than shear strength, but I am not sure if it is worth such a huge revision.

      Well it might sound resonable but destroction value of concete from toughness is actually 140 times lower than the one we use right now. (6 j/cm^3 vs 0.042 J/cm^3)

      If you think toughness value seems unrealistic keep in mind that 6 j/cm^3 means that in order it break a concrete block one needs to drop it from 230 meters height on a comtilely solid surface. Toughness value says that height is only 1.6 meters. Now tell me a drop from what height do you expect a concrete block to fall apart (it doesn't depent on the size of a block btw)

        Loading editor
    • DontTalkDT seems to be back in the wiki. Somebody can ask him to comment here if they wish.

        Loading editor
    • This is still all just different methods of destruction though. Like yeah we currently use a higher assumption but it isn't worth revising over something so minor, I think. Like this is a revision that A. will literally never get done, ever, in decades of time, and B. is optional.

        Loading editor
    • Also using the splat calculator using the weight of an ordinary concrete masonry unit (17-ish kg) and 1.6 meters I get Athlete level+ results. Which is not really how things work here.

        Loading editor
    • KLOL506 wrote:
      Also using the splat calculator using the weight of an ordinary concrete masonry unit (17-ish kg) and 1.6 meters I get Athlete level results. Which is not really how things work here.

      Wait I dont get it.

        Loading editor
    • A concrete masonry unit is also known as a cinder block.

      I used this to figure out the energy. You just need to slap the distance travelled and the mass of the object into it to get your answers.

      I used the distance Ugarik mentioned which he said would be required to shatter a cinder block.

        Loading editor
    • No I mean like how is it not how things work here?

        Loading editor
    • as in shattering 17 Kilograms of concrete is a very hard thing for a normal athlete to do

        Loading editor
    • Like it literally assumes that even an athlete would be able to shatter a 17 kg cinder block with a punch.

        Loading editor
    • This would also imply that anyone could punch a hole through a concrete wall easily. (I measured my fist to be 7.8 cm in length * 7.5 cm in width with a ruler and with the average concrete wall being 8 inches or 20.32 cm thick, 7.8*7.5*20.32= 1188.72 cm^3 and 1188.72*0.042 J/cc49.92624 J

      I'm pretty sure this is nowhere near close to actually being able to punch a hole through a solid brick-and-mortar wall IRL. Even 9mm bullets with almost 10 times the energy and having their energy concentrated at one small point can only make small holes into the thin sides of cinder blocks at best, not completely shatter them like .50 BMG rounds would.

        Loading editor
    • Oops yeah that was kind of a bruh moment on my part.

        Loading editor
    • Anyhow, I'm thinking toughness values can only be used for breaking things in half as opposed to completely shattering them.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah I was about to say its possible to break concrete. What exactly is fragmentation anyways? Spino said it was breaking into large and distinguishable pieces but splitting seems to fit into that category.

      I'm pretty sure I remember seeing this epic one with this russian dude though who split like two times as many blocks, can't find it though.

        Loading editor
    • Fragmentation is about destroying objects in its entirety, and while splitting does fit the "large and distinguishable" category it's usually done by breaking things into two pieces by striking it in the middle AKA snapping them in half. For example, like the video you showed where most of the blocks are still intact and only the middle section is shattered. Or suppose a log being broken in half.

      Also the karate chop (Or rather, a punch as seen in your video) requires technique and usually when red bricks are used they're hollowed out for safety (Of course solid red bricks are used too but the technique is more or less the same as with breaking concrete blocks).

        Loading editor
    • That's actually a punch but still, splitting is a bit easier than shattering the thing

        Loading editor
    • NVM it's a punch but the end-result is still the same.

      Also separated concrete blocks are nothing compared to a finished concrete wall as seen in buildings.

      Also basically what DMUA said.

        Loading editor
    • I also found here about Xcano talking about this exact topic but Assalt and the other calc members later dismissed it as a bait post. He and Amelia (Formerly Darkanine) did get a link in the PM as I saw in Assalt's wall here before getting banned but I have no idea if Assalt's mind or Amelia's has changed since then.

      Just to be sure, contacting Assalt and Amelia about this would be helpful.

        Loading editor
    • Amelia has left the wiki for reasons that shouldn't be discussed publicly. And yeah, Xcano's attitude was definitely bait. But AssaltWaffle's good to ask.

        Loading editor
    • Aight.

      Sorry for asking about Amelia. I had no idea that she left at all.

        Loading editor
    • Got a response from Amelia. She said that she's got zero experience with stuff like this so she really can't give a good opinion for it but will go for it if it's accepted.

      Guess we're stuck with waiting for Assalt and DT.

        Loading editor
    • DMUA wrote: as in shattering 17 Kilograms of concrete is a very hard thing for a normal athlete to do

      That is because the material one's using to strike with needs to be harder than the material that takes the strike. If an athlet takes a hammer he will break it even with 160 J swing. Though if he uses a wooden hammer or his fist the concrete block won't be broken even if there's a lot more kinetic energy behind

        Loading editor
    • KLOL506 wrote: This would also imply that anyone could punch a hole through a concrete wall easily. (I measured my fist to be 7.8 cm in length * 7.5 cm in width with a ruler and with the average concrete wall being 8 inches or 20.32 cm thick, 7.8*7.5*20.32= 1188.72 cm^3 and 1188.72*0.042 J/cc49.92624 J

      Oh, I forgot to tell you. It needs to be an isolated chunk of something rather than a hole.

        Loading editor
    • While I can understand the system needing an update considering the sketchy-ness of the Narutoforum's source, I will give a warning for this: whatever you plan to shift to, if necessary, must be absolutely iron-clad. This change would be absolutely gargantuan. There are so many calculations that ride on our definitions of Frag. and V. Frag.

      I will say, however, there needs to be definitions for Frag. and V. Frag. if nothing else. For example, if I shatter a mountain into 15 million pieces, those pieces are still going to be larger than if I shatter a normal rock into 10 pieces. So should the value be based on a percentage of the original object's size, or a fixed size?

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Assaltwaffle about that we would have to be 100% certain before even considering to apply such an enormous task, and do not think that it is remotely realistic to perform for a long while in the first place.

        Loading editor
    • I can definatly say that in case of toughness size of the derbis absolutely does depend on the original size of a destroed object. Thoughness is basicaly stress times strain while strain is simply "by how many percent an object becomes shorter (or longer) when deing deformed".

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:
      I agree with Assaltwaffle about that we would have to be 100% certain before even considering to apply such an enormous task, and do not think that it is remotely realistic to perform for a long while in the first place.

      Not to mention that some of the standards of the tiers will also have to be revised.

        Loading editor
    • Ugarik wrote:

      DMUA wrote: as in shattering 17 Kilograms of concrete is a very hard thing for a normal athlete to do

      That is because the material one's using to strike with needs to be harder than the material that takes the strike. If an athlet takes a hammer he will break it even with 160 J swing. Though if he uses a wooden hammer or his fist the concrete block won't be broken even if there's a lot more kinetic energy behind

      Uh, you're confusing a fully-built wall with a singular concrete block (As in, your usual concrete masonry units).

        Loading editor
    • Ugarik wrote:

      KLOL506 wrote: This would also imply that anyone could punch a hole through a concrete wall easily. (I measured my fist to be 7.8 cm in length * 7.5 cm in width with a ruler and with the average concrete wall being 8 inches or 20.32 cm thick, 7.8*7.5*20.32= 1188.72 cm^3 and 1188.72*0.042 J/cc49.92624 J

      Oh, I forgot to tell you. It needs to be an isolated chunk of something rather than a hole.

      Mind explaining what you mean by "isolated chunk of something rather than a hole?"

      Because I'm pretty sure no one punches holes through building walls with just the intention of going for an isolated part of anything most of the time.

        Loading editor
    • Now someone should mention it:

      I smell some overlapping areas between striking strength and attack potency. Which makes the striking strength part redundant unless we give it a new meaning.

      E.g. Striking strength should be measured in Newtons of kilogram force on Earth instead of joules of energy.

      Or be replaced with piercing strength which focuses on pressure.

      Also area of effect. This is one that surprisingly fee would have voiced out.

      I mention the above because piercing and impact spreading are some big factors when we consider destroying objects. Apart from the percentage of object being destroyed.

        Loading editor
    • AFAIK we can't use pressure-based stuff here or force-based stuff, as it would completely defeat the purpose of AP existing.

      And neither can we use Area of Effect due to the mess it created with stuff like planet-busting and what not. AP would again as a whole be affected by this.

        Loading editor
    • Also Ugarik for the Kuz-ram equation I don't think we can assume random particle size for our own as that's apparently dependant on the powder factor and rock factor, both of which are set to have a minimum requirement for destroying rock.

        Loading editor
    • Powder factor
      Anyway, managed to fix the LaTEX mess from jakuub's link and this is the formula for the particle size where:

      x_m = mean particle size (cm)

      A = rock factor,

      K = powder factor (in kg/m^3)

      Q = mass of explsovies (in kg)

      RWS = relative weight strength of the explosive (Apparently blastex is used and its RWS is 0.84)

      X_m= A*(K^-0.8)*(Q^0.167)*((1.15/0.84)^0.905)

      Once you figure out your powder factor AKA mass of explosives multiply it with blastex's energy density of 740 cal/g or 3098232 J/kg of explosive used per cubic meter (I used this converter to convert from cal/g to joule/kg).

      Rock factor and powder factor are apparently set and the mass of explosives is also apparently the same as powder factor.

      Some powder factors here (Or just use the average of 0.75 kg/m^3 here, the other link gives almost equal values AFAIK but using separate rocks is better IMHO).

      Though I should note that this doesn't work for stuff that isn't stone. AKA you can't use this for metal or wood. Rock factor is within 7-13.

      Some more details about the Kuz-Ram model here

        Loading editor
    • KLOL506 wrote:

      Antvasima wrote:
      I agree with Assaltwaffle about that we would have to be 100% certain before even considering to apply such an enormous task, and do not think that it is remotely realistic to perform for a long while in the first place.
      Not to mention that some of the standards of the tiers will also have to be revised.

      Probably just Wall Level. All the other tiers are fine, theyre meant to be arbitrary. With wall level though, i could see someone destroying a wall at WAY less than 15 kilojoules or whatever the limit was. Idk, maybe the calcs will reaffirm our current wall level measurement. The thing is though, apparently shatterng a skull is considered Wall Level even with the current requirement so i cant help but doubt that it would take less than our current limit for Wall Level. Also nice job finding more info about the kuz ram model. Edit: Yeah I remembered right, it was 15 kilojoules.

      Jasonsith wrote:
      I smell some overlapping areas between striking strength and attack potency. Which makes the striking strength part redundant unless we give it a new meaning.

      E.g. Striking strength should be measured in Newtons of kilogram force on Earth instead of joules of energy.

      Or be replaced with piercing strength which focuses on pressure.

      Also area of effect. This is one that surprisingly fee would have voiced out.

      I mention the above because piercing and impact spreading are some big factors when we consider destroying objects. Apart from the percentage of object being destroyed.

      I know youre just using newtons as an example, but i still dont think this would work at all. Pretty sure striking strength is actual physical damage while AP covers a whole bunch of non-physical possibly non-combat applicable things like certain forms of reality warping. Also i agree pressure should be used, but not at any more than tier 9. In layer tiers accounting for focusing energy into a single point will over complicate calcs just to get a little more accuracy, and i cant imagine any situations where using pressure vs just the energy output would have benefits that outweigh these problems.

        Loading editor
    • Our baseline for Wall level used to be 5000 Joules, but it also depends on what the wall is made of as well as the size and thickness of the wall.

        Loading editor
    • Why'd we raise it to 15 kilojoules? What kind of wall are we talking about? I know its arbitrary but it doesnt seem right to give a profile of someone/thing who can hit/tank twice the energy of a 12 gauge slug street level. Also it was kinda weird that one pascal was assumed to be one joule for jaw dropping (not sure if other skull calcs do this). I doubt anyone has hands or a skull with surface area even close to a square meter. Not saying we should use pressure instead of joules because of the problems I mentioned earlier and the fact that most high tier characters either use point blank explosions, punches (hands cant have THAT much variation in surface area for a punch to make any significant difference) or penetrating weapons. Penetrating weapons are already meant to focus energy into a small area in fiction anyways.

        Loading editor
    • Using the Kuz-ram model, I think we might get frag values very close to the ones we currently have but in that case it really wouldn't be much of a change and would be worthless altogether.

        Loading editor
    • I believe it was because the strongest punch ever recorded was desired to be less than Wall level

        Loading editor
    • Jaakubb wrote:
      Why'd we raise it to 15 kilojoules? What kind of wall are we talking about? I know its arbitrary but it doesnt seem right to give a profile of someone/thing who can hit/tank twice the energy of a 12 gauge slug street level. Also it was kinda weird that one pascal was assumed to be one joule for jaw dropping (not sure if other skull calcs do this). I doubt anyone has hands or a skull with surface area even close to a square meter. Not saying we should use pressure instead of joules because of the problems I mentioned earlier and the fact that most high tier characters either use point blank explosions, punches (hands cant have THAT much variation in surface area for a punch to make any significant difference) or penetrating weapons. Penetrating weapons are already meant to focus energy into a small area in fiction anyways.

      Because we decided to use the 15 kJ .50 BMG as a standard for baseline Wall level since those rounds can destroy cinderblocks.

        Loading editor
    • I guess maybe it wouldnt change anything? But skepticism is good, and the narutoforums sources seem sketchy anyways, so it would consolidate the values. Although I can see why no one would want to calc this. Could be a waste of time.

        Loading editor
    • I mean, the reddit link you gave already has a value for limestone which is shockingly close to the one we have but then there's the issue of metals and wood.

      However, whenever possible we should have values of different types of rocks as well if we can properly identify it based on its appearance and geographical location.

        Loading editor
    • The 7 million joules seemed more than just normal frag. The pieces were said to be 5cm each. On the other hand, the simple powder factor calc they did at the top used what quarry blasters mean when they say "broken" which I think would be closer to normal frag. It was calced to be just a little under a megajoule.

      Why is 50 bmg baseline though? If we're going by cinderblocks, cinderblocks can be destroyed with less than 15 kilojoules. If were going by how iconic the 50 cal is, I'd say its commonly considered "higher tier" among powerful weapons. Doesnt seem appropriate for a baseline.

        Loading editor
    • I believe it's the fragmentation of Cinder Block, not just breaking it in two pieces or something.

        Loading editor
    • Jaakubb wrote:
      The 7 million joules seemed more than just normal frag. The pieces were said to be 5cm each. On the other hand, the simple powder factor calc they did at the top used what quarry blasters mean when they say "broken" which I think would be closer to normal frag. It was calced to be just a little under a megajoule.

      Why is 50 bmg baseline though? If we're going by cinderblocks, cinderblocks can be destroyed with less than 15 kilojoules. If were going by how iconic the 50 cal is, I'd say its commonly considered "higher tier" among powerful weapons. Doesnt seem appropriate for a baseline.

      Nah, that's for per cubic lb. We use metric. For metric we get 3.098 megajoules. Also the average powder factor according to the links I posted above states it to be around 0.75.

      And 5 cm particle in and out of itself is pretty large. V. frag should be considerably smaller than that.

        Loading editor
    • The powder factor they used was pounds of explosives per cubic yard. Pounds of explosives was already converted into plain joules. The block was a cubic yard, and there are about 764555 cubic cm in a cubic yard so 983076 divided by divided by 764555 gives about 1.3 joules per cubic cm.

        Loading editor
    • The powder factor used in the links I provided below use kg/m^3.

      Also he found the energy by multiplying the 0.7 lb/cy with the volume in cy to get the value of 1404394 joules/lb

      1404394 joule/lb = 3096158.782 joule/kg per cubic meter. I used a converter here

        Loading editor
    • Yeah he did get 1404394. That's the value for I pound of blastex. He then multiplied it by 0.7 because you only need 0.7 lbs of blastex to break a cubic yard of limestone and got 983076. Not sure if he got the powder factors wrong, pdfs are weird on mobile.

      So 3097158 joules in a kg of explosives? You dont need a full kilogram of explosives to break the cubic meter OR cubic yard of rock.

        Loading editor
    • I think he got the powder factor wrong as most other sites I go to usually have 0.4 kg/m^3 for very weak rocks, not for hard rocks like limestone.

      EDIT: on the second note he didn't provide any link for the powder factor of limestone.

        Loading editor
    • Ugarik
      Ugarik removed this reply because:
      Double
      08:53, January 29, 2020
      This reply has been removed
    • 30×15 cm fiber reinforced concrete block fails at 360 J during a compression test.

      That doesn't mean that 360 J punch can make a hole in a wall of the same size but in order to properly explain it one needs to understad Poisson's effect and stress tensor.

        Loading editor
    • So would it double up to around 2.6 j/cc? I dont want to go through the pdfs right now, it's weird on mobile.

        Loading editor
    • Prolly.

        Loading editor
    • Though like Bambu said, it's still silly to assume one thing for rock and another for other materials not rock (Like metals which can't actually shatter unless you use extremely brittle forms of it). In the end, all of them are just assumptions and not really worth wasting the time for. Not to mention with what Ugarik said right now, it seems that using toughness would now open a whole other can of worms.

        Loading editor
    • We could change some of the frag values using the powder factor stuff first. I'd rather be inconsistently correct than consistently incorrect.

        Loading editor
    • There's another problem. For example, destroying a mountain would undeniably give us bigger fragments than destroying an apartment wall. How do we determine what fragment size is right in that case?

      Not to mention that not everything is made of limestone.

        Loading editor
    • For limestone, we can just find the j/cc with powder factor. It's actually a pretty simple, just find kg of explosives per cubic meter, use the explosive energy of one kilo of explosives to get joules per cubic meter and then divide by 1000000 to get j/cc. Seems easy enough to keep track of, and it's a one time thing for a couple different types of rock. Thing is though, not all explosives are created the same, so either stay consistent with using dyno nobel sources or find the energy density of the new explosive each time we go outside the manufacturer of blastex, dyno nobel.

      But then again, maybe quarry blasters have an even higher standard for "breaking" than the ones met by most feats in this wiki that involve "destruction." In some videos where the dudes punch through concrete, it's not always just one clean crack. It sometimes shatters a significant amount.

        Loading editor
    • Then maybe we should use those higher standards instead for the sake of accuracy. They'd prolly match our current values anyway so no harm done.

      And I'm pretty sure no one uses only limestone for big stuff anymore (Since cement and concrete are a thing), even less so for mountains.

      And apparently there's no powder factor for cement or concrete. I've checked all over and can't find any even though those two are the only other materials I can think of besides rock where you can use powder factor.

        Loading editor
    • I don't understad what point you are trying to make if we all can see that concrete blocks fall apart when they are droped from less than 2 meter height

        Loading editor
    • Dropping isn't punching and neither is compressing. That's basically our point. Your links basically show the values coming from compressing stuff.

      Also the Kuz-ram model seems to be a more accurate representation of destroying rock than toughness.

      What about this formula you mentioned in the previous References for Common Feats thread: Young's modulus of the material * surface area of the derbis * tension of the material

        Loading editor
    • Dropping isn't punching and neither is compressing. That's basically our point

      Both dropping and punching create kinetic energy which is used to destroy an object. No matter what he source of that kinetic energy is the amount of energy needed to cause the fractural failure is the same or otherwise trying to measure durability in terms of energy would be pointless. Compression is different but it can still be used to calculate the amount of kinetic energy needed to break a particular object.

      Also the Kuz-ram model seems to be a more accurate representation of destroying rock than toughness

      I honestly doubt anyone of us understads how this model works and the only reason some people would prefere using it is because the results we are going will get from it are going to be much closer to what we want them to be

        Loading editor
    • Well, the kuz-ram model if used with the minimum starting powder factor gives us considerably lower values than what we have so not quite. Not to mention it is basically defined as info on basic rock fragmenting in quarries according to the links I just uploaded

      For example, 0.7 kg/m^3 of powder factor according to the links would wield a measly 2167312 J/m^3 or 2.167312 J/cm^3 with 1 kg/m^3 being equivalent to 3096160 J/m^3 or 3.09616 J/cm^3. The number drops to 1.3 megajoules if we use weaker rocks as our baseline (As in, using 0.4 kg/m^3 for powder factor according to the links posted above). Then again, like Jakuub said, quarry blasters know more about this than us so their words might hold more consistency than ours.

        Loading editor
    • The most important thing is that the frag values have to be consistent with what we consider to be "fragmentation". So yeah I trust quarry blasters more than some dude on narutoforums. So what if we have to decrease frag values? It just proves our old values are false. But then again it would be pretty tedious to go and revise every single calc. Would you rather go through the trouble of revising every single calc, keep going with the lie, or just discard the calcs that use these? Maybe revising wouldnt take THAT much time, it is just one value, but you never know...

        Loading editor
    • No, it would still be a gargantuan project to go with. Frag, v. frag and pulv calcs exist for a lot of tiers on this site for basically anything related to smashing stuff. But as your link suggests jakuub, their definition of fragmenting rocks prolly means the debris size has to be smaller than what the starting powder factor is. They prolly assumed 5 cm particle size due to it being similar to fist width, but that's just me.

      Regardless, while the formula looks good in practice, I'd still wait for confirmation from DT at this point.

      EDIT: I just checked, Mountain level to Island level also get affected since we got their values from frag, v. frag and pulv. And it seems we managed to figure out the blast radius by basing the values on the frag, v. frag and pulv. values.

        Loading editor
    • Mountain level to island level are just arbitrary though I'm pretty sure. If they arent, let's just make them arbitrary. So we dont have to change those levels.

        Loading editor
    • NVM, they only divided the energy yield with the J/cc value to get the minimum volume you'd need to achieve 7-A, 6-C and so on. Doesn't affect the actual yield.

      And assuming we take fist-sized debris (5-7 cm) as the basis for frag like the quarry blasters would recommend, nothing much would really change.

        Loading editor
    • Still tho, what does this formula represent? Young's modulus of the material * surface area of the derbis * tension of the material

        Loading editor
    • I think we should always aim for what is most accurate, even if it would take lots of time in order to revise all the calcs. If the values are to be changed, i think it's a given that if we were to change frag/v.frag/pulv/etc values we would have to update every calc with the new ones. At least that's how i think. I mean, after all it's just plugging new values into calcs already made.

        Loading editor
    • Lots of stuff would probably have to be halved or divided by three or somewhere in that range. Dont know about violent frag and pulv though.

        Loading editor
    • KGiffoni wrote:
      I think we should always aim for what is most accurate, even if it would take lots of time in order to revise all the calcs. If the values are to be changed, i think it's a given that if we were to change frag/v.frag/pulv/etc values we would have to update every calc with the new ones. At least that's how i think. I mean, after all it's just plugging new values into calcs already made.

      Obviously accuracy should be aimed for. But whether or not this is even more accurate than what we currently do comes down to how you assume the thing was broken. 

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Bambuu.

        Loading editor
    • Also even if the current system stays even that is lacking a lot of values for other materials we use. Though that is less likely to be as massive as what Ugarik is promoting.

        Loading editor
    • Our current system is lacking a lot of values but it is extremely easy to just google the shear strength or compressive strength, while it is hard to find the toughness or power factor.

        Loading editor
    • I am also doubting the methods Ugarik has used to find his toughness values. Powder factor isn't that hard to find, and I already posted my links, most of which give us a value between 0.4-0.9 kg/m^3 but is nevertheless complicated to use ATM. Toughness values on the other hand, are basically non-existent on google, and I don't think Ugarik's way of figuring out toughness is even used by the scientific community (Because, well, pixel-scaling).

        Loading editor
    • I also think that is is better to continue handling things in the current manner if the replacement is not even a certain improvement and considerably harder to get the right values for.

      Help with finding and inserting accurate currently missing values into our relevant instruction page would be appreciated of course.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Antvasima

        Loading editor
    • I did find some of the missing values, but our current method for finding destruction values can be easily searched with a simple Google.

      Toughness and powder factor on the other hand, is barely even heard of by many people.

        Loading editor
    • KLOL506
      KLOL506 removed this reply because:
      wrong reply
      07:50, January 31, 2020
      This reply has been removed
    • Also this makes me ask another question

      Shouldn't crater feats use compressive strength due to the feat involving pressing down on the material?

        Loading editor
    • BTW, I also agree with Ant.

      And finding new values for our current method wouldn't likely affect anything at all. Calcs for that material would work only if the materal is strictly specified to be that one type or can be defined by its geographical location or appearance.

        Loading editor
    • Since many people don't understad how exactly kinetic energy can cause objects to shatter, how KE is more relavent than force or momentum and what compression test has to do with it I guess I will explain it.

      Let's say you have a 1200 kg car moving at 20 m/s. You can easily say that its kinetic energy is 240000J. That value simply indicates how long your braking distance is going to be if you want to stop it by pushing the opposite direction (the same way momentum indicates how much time it takes to stop it). So if one desides to stop this car by pushing it the opposite direction with the force of 10000 N the car will push them 24 metres back.

      Now if that car colides with stationary concrete block, the block is going to push it back using its own resistance with the average force of 557000 newtons (that value is taken from the compression test). The stopping distance is going to be only 43 cm. That's basicly how much the concrete is compressed during the collision. Of caurse the block is not going to withstand such a huge deformation considering it's only 30 cm long. In fact that block can only withstand 0.065 cm of displacement untill it fails (also from the compression test)

        Loading editor
    • KE is a big no-no for obvious reasons for destruction feats tho.

        Loading editor
    • What reasons?

        Loading editor
    • It's mentioned in our KE standards page, as the actual destruction value would take priority over ramming into said object at said speed and destroying it.

        Loading editor
    • KLOL506 is correct.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, I was trying to explain real world's physics that fiction doesn't always follow. Anyway mechanical damage, such as fragmentation, is always done by mechanical type of energy, like KE.

      Any punch or strike has KE, and calculating that energy directly is not allowed but we still can this calc it based on destruction values. I was trying to explain how this energy actualy causes damage.

        Loading editor
    • Why is it not allowed?

        Loading editor
    • Because most fictional stories have their own laws of physics.

        Loading editor
    • ^

      Or they just don't obey any.

        Loading editor
    • That doesn't explain to specifically what is different. If they don't follow any laws of physics, couldn't that make everyone unknown?

        Loading editor
    • Fiction treats speed and AP non-linearly; it's full of small/sleek Tier 7 characters who aren't even Subsonic in terms of feats in the verse, which they should logically be Relativistic as far as physics are concerned. While at the same time, it's also full of Buff Relativistic characters who don't even exceed Wall level in terms of feats in the verse, which they should logically be Low 7-B by the same logic.

        Loading editor
    • Medeus is correct. Thank you for helping out.

        Loading editor
    • That doesn't explain why we shouldn't use the theoretical power of the punch that caused the destruction, rather than the destruction it caused.

        Loading editor
    • I don't think you guys are addressing ugarik's point. Pretty sure he's saying that it takes different amounts of energy to shatter something in different situations (e.g. is it fixed to something?). But I'm pretty sure the stuff broken during feats is nearly always fixed to the ground anyways (e.g. a hill).

        Loading editor
    • Ooooooooooh.

      But yeah, most stuff shattered in fiction is usually fixed to the ground and not separated.

        Loading editor
    • The God Of Procrastination wrote:
      That doesn't explain why we shouldn't use the theoretical power of the punch that caused the destruction, rather than the destruction it caused.

      Because it'd lead to highly inflated results that could potentially be highly inconsistent with other feats in a verse, unless the object is large. It's why we don't use KE for one person carrying a small object or swinging swords at supersonic or hypersonic speed for slicing bullets anymore.

        Loading editor
    • It would only apply when the verse depicts the shockwave as a feat of strength, and not equal to the power of the punch itself. Also, I'm pretty sure that most verses do treat the energy as expanding from the fist or whatever.

        Loading editor
    • More or less, also AoE would greatly affect how that punch is carried out but for obvious reasons fiction doesn't abide by that. Same reason why DB characters can focus their planetary-to-universal punching power in their ki blasts and concentrate it to one point to avoid collateral damage.

        Loading editor
    • Except when they don't. There are also verses where it shows up, but gives underwhelming results.

        Loading editor
    • There's also another problem that even in IRL KE is not used to determine strength of basically any living creature including humans, but force is. Like in the case of where scientists use force instead of KE to measure the lethality of a punch. Not saying that KE isn't applicable, just that it doesn't give out the full picture.

        Loading editor
    • Force doesn't, either, but that may be right.

        Loading editor
    • Force doesn't, yeah, there are a lot more variables in play when it comes to destroying objects.

        Loading editor
    • I have to unsubscribe from this thread due to time constraints. You can notify me later via my message wall if you need my help after you have reached a conclusion.

        Loading editor
    • KE is used for weapons though. Also joules are used for punches from time to time. Like a karateka could punch with maybe up to 100 joules but a boxer punching with full force could go up to 1000 (not sure, i just vaguely remember this). And animal vs animal fights are usually just decided by body mass, speed, and whether or not the animal has sharp claws/etc.

        Loading editor
    • KLOL506 wrote: There's also another problem that even in IRL KE is not used to determine strength of basically any living creature including humans, but force is. Like in the case of where scientists use force instead of KE to measure the lethality of a punch. Not saying that KE isn't applicable, just that it doesn't give out the full picture.

      I have already explained why KE is more suitible for stuff like punches. It's true that most scientist measure punches in terms of impart force but that impact force is litteraly the result of the KE change of your arm.

        Loading editor
    • Wait what's the point of this KE vs force thing? This shouldnt get any more sidetracked

        Loading editor
    • Damaging force of a punch is more based on a combination of KE and precision. Like a 2 Megajoule punch and a 2 Megajoule body slam would be the same AP, but the 2 Megajoule punch would hurt 16.6x more in a general consensus. Though, the damage is harnessed towards a specific part of the body rather than spread out.

      I agree this shouldn't be derailed however.

        Loading editor
    • KLOL506
      KLOL506 removed this reply because:
      replied to the wrong comment
      05:15, February 2, 2020
      This reply has been removed
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      Damaging force of a punch is more based on a combination of KE and precision. Like a 2 Megajoule punch and a 2 Megajoule body slam would be the same AP, but the 2 Megajoule punch would hurt 16.6x more in a general consensus. Though, the damage is harnessed towards a specific part of the body rather than spread out.

      basically like bullets. They do waaaaaaay more damage than their given energy yield

        Loading editor
    • And that is why pressure should be the standard metric.

        Loading editor
    • We can't do pressure for striking strength because it can't converted to energy, unless it's overpressure.

        Loading editor
    • KLOL506 wrote: basically like bullets. They do waaaaaaay more damage than their given energy yield

      No they don't. They cause as much damage per unit of volume as they soppose to. Their cross-sectional area is relativity small so they got deeper and obviously depth of a wound is more important than surface area.

        Loading editor
    • KLOL506 wrote: Still tho, what does this formula represent? Young's modulus of the material * surface area of the derbis * tension of the material

      I was trying to extract work from Young's modulus but it's not how it works. The actual formula is here or you can use my method

        Loading editor
    • Imo pressure should be used up to Tier 9-A.

        Loading editor
    • Technically, it is already noted that is true pressure is better than energy regarding Tier 9 and below characters. But it would inherently make our system unbalanced to apply pressure rather than energy into the tiering system. We do rate normal humans based on their punching ability and not via body slamming; otherwise every non physically impaired adult would be 9-C or above. I'm pretty sure most people can tell certain details in Vs Threads but as far as profiles and calculation blogs are concerned, we stick to the system.

        Loading editor
    • Ugarik wrote:

      KLOL506 wrote: basically like bullets. They do waaaaaaay more damage than their given energy yield

      No they don't. They cause as much damage per unit of volume as they soppose to. Their cross-sectional area is relativity small so they got deeper and obviously depth of a wound is more important than surface area.

      An equal amount of energy put onto a significantly smaller surface area is going to deal more damage than if it's against a larger surface area. 3,000 joules spread across your body is going to hurt, but it's not going to kill you. 3,000 joules imparted from a .308 round will detonate your skull like a watermelon.

      So energy yields being treated as universal is definitely an issue. It's a massive and systemtic issue. One so large that you pretty much have to understand that our system of VS matches is just for fun and should never be taken seriously. Someone who is 7-C for tanking an explosion of that magnitude is not actually that strong. Even at point blank, unless your body is curled ontop of whatever the explosive device is, you're going to eat less than 10% of that energy at absolute maximum. On the other hand, if you're 7-C from tanking a punch that has that energy, you've eaten almost the entire energy yield of that punch over a smaller surface area. So not only did one tank 10% of the energy yield, one tanked it over a surface area of about 1.7m^2, while the other tanked it over a surface area of a couple square centimeters.

      The divide I just described to you gives durability difference of up to 100,000x or more, depending on the context and exact numbers, yet we treat them as equals. But we overlook that because we literally have to without uprooting the entirety of the system.

        Loading editor
    • Wow. That's just, waaaaaaaaaay too massive to be dealt with without unmaking the wiki as a whole.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, the surface area of each attack makes all the difference, + your whole body tanking something verses just your fist is another story. I noted that on average, a body slam does 0.06 times the damage done by a punch doing the same energy yield.

        Loading editor
    • Ideally, if we could restart the system, we'd probably have been better served by adding a "taken over the surface area equal to the average man" or something similar to our AP tables. That way surface area could have been accounted for. Too deep for that now, though.

        Loading editor
    • Let's not go into too much detail and we definitely can't rewrite the whole system. But adding various footnote clarifications would be better. As a side note, if someone literally eats a bomb and they withstand it detonating inside their mouth, I'm sure they'd scale.

        Loading editor
    • Or if someone literally crouched on it or were standing on top of it. (I mean, not all bombs are big enough to be put into your mouth)

      I mean we already apply inverse square law to those not close enough to the bomb.

        Loading editor
    • KLOL506 wrote: Or if someone literally crouched on it or were standing on top of it.

      I mean we already apply inverse square law to those not close enough to the bomb.

      We do, but our consideration for handing out full-yield is way too easy. Even if someone is standing on top of the bomb, they're not going to take 100% of the energy. Not even close.

      If they close their mouths around it or curl ontop of it, yeah, they're tanking 100% or close enough to it.

        Loading editor
    • It also depends on the initial size of the bomb; like if it's the size of a pinky finger, but detonates larger than it looks, than standing on it could scale to the character. But sitting on a Nuke that's bigger than you are that detonates isn't something that fully scales.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote: It also depends on the initial size of the bomb; like if it's the size of a pinky finger, but detonates larger than it looks, than standing on it could scale to the character. But sitting on a Nuke that's bigger than you are that detonates isn't something that fully scales.

      Yeah. Here is an example that scales 100%. Sitting on a hydrogen bomb wouldn't scale 100%.

        Loading editor
    • Either way I don't think there's any reliable way to carry out the changes without basically rewriting the system AKA the wiki from scratch.

      Guess we should leave the system as is.

        Loading editor
    • Assaltwaffle wrote:

      An equal amount of energy put onto a significantly smaller surface area is going to deal more damage than if it's against a larger surface area. 3,000 joules spread across your body is going to hurt, but it's not going to kill you. 3,000 joules imparted from a .308 round will detonate your skull like a watermelon.


      No. 3000 joules with surface area of a bullet can potentially make a 10 meter deep hole in your body. 3000 joules spread across the entire body will squeeze it by a milimeter. Sure, the first impact will kill you unlike the second but effected volume remains the same. 

        Loading editor
    • And most importantly. Why are we even discussing it? 

        Loading editor
    • You're confusing damage dealt with volume affected, Ugarik.

      Also I don't think that's how bullets work, otherwise .308 rounds wouldn't be blowing up heads and ripping limbs apart, and neither would .50 BMG rounds do the same.

        Loading editor
    • Squeezing your body by a millimeter will not harm you. Punching a 5 inch hole through your sternum will.

        Loading editor
    • Not to mention people can actually survive being tackled into the ground with that kind of force in sports all the time.

      Bullets on the other hand, well, a shotgun can obliterate large parts of the skull and send it flying in all directions.

      We're discussing it because it has a lot to do with how punches work.

        Loading editor
    • I think it wouldnt be too bad to just remake Tier 9 and Tier 10 accounting for surface area.

      Most high tier attacks are explosions, beams and punches anyways. When they use swords or blades, it's almost always accounted for in-universe so that would solve that.

        Loading editor
    • No, as Assalt said, other tiers would be affected by this as a whole due to even explosions being mixed into the whole pressure problem.

        Loading editor
    • Explosion durability feats could just be halved if needed. Just use inverse square law or something. I dont get why pressure units would become necessary.

        Loading editor
    • Also I'm pretty sure 50 cal can bust heads open and dismember.

        Loading editor
    • It's still going to make the Attack Potency chart look messy if we applied that. Yes, we keep the pressure vs Joules of energy in mind in Vs Threads and we use inverse square law for calculating durability. But our AP chart will stick to the formula from beginning to end.

        Loading editor
    • Jaakubb wrote: Also I'm pretty sure 50 cal can bust heads open and dismember.

      Any rifle round or shotgun slug is going to bust open heads. A .50 BMG (I'm assuming you mean BMG since that's what people think of when they hear ".50 cal") has an order of magnitude more energy than a 5.56x45 round. It will completely blow someone's head apart and tear off limbs.

        Loading editor
    • Alright, I agree with DDM. We should still put on the profiles something like "higher with penetration" or something along the lines of that.

        Loading editor
    • Assaltwaffle wrote:

      Jaakubb wrote: Also I'm pretty sure 50 cal can bust heads open and dismember.

      Any rifle round or shotgun slug is going to bust open heads. A .50 BMG (I'm assuming you mean BMG since that's what people think of when they hear ".50 cal") has an order of magnitude more energy than a 5.56x45 round. It will completely blow someone's head apart and tear off limbs.

      Yeah. I agree 

        Loading editor
    • I think the whole "higher with penetration" stuff was rejected due to this pressure debacle.

      It would also only apply to very few IRL weapons if accepted. Especially rifles, shotguns and anti-materiel sniper rifles using .50 cal rounds. Not like they exceed Tier 9 so eh, not really worth such a small change.

        Loading editor
    • How would "higher with penetration" cause pressure problems? AP would still be listed exactly the same (total joules) except with that small addition. AP is supposed to measure a lot of stuff, even non combat applicable stats, isnt it?

        Loading editor
    • Penetration is combat applicable tho

      Again, pressure is a whole different metric, and even with the pressure included the feats are not going anywhere near high-end 9-B.

        Loading editor
    • Pretty much only handgun calibers would barely move if we took bullet area into account. Some would get into 9-A and 8-C, with most, at bare minimum, becoming high into 9-B.

        Loading editor
    • If some were to get into 9-A and 8-C I'd suspect it'd be tank shells but those are massive for their size.

        Loading editor
    • KLOL506 wrote: Penetration is combat applicable tho

      Again, pressure is a whole different metric, and even with the pressure included the feats are not going anywhere near high-end 9-B.

      Thats my point. If we can list non combat applicable things, why cant we account for pressure? It'll just be a sort of footnote like "possibly much higher."

        Loading editor
    • Because 1, it's not the same unit as energy is (Pretty sure most inapplicable-in-combat maneuvers are still in joules) and 2, it literally wouldn't leave 9-B unless it's tank shells we're talking about but those are massive anyway.

      If it's overpressure tho, that's a completely different story, because that is the only one that can actually be used to find energy but it's not related with bullets so no point talking about that.

        Loading editor
    • Also, penetration resistance is often less about direct durability and more about an object being really hard. Like often times, a 9-B robot is less susceptible to bullets than a 9-A Giant animal. Though it goes without saying the latter has more blunt force trauma resistance. Also interesting to note soft/squishy objects tend to resist blunt force more than a lot of metals do.

        Loading editor
    • DDM is correct.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote: Also, penetration resistance is often less about direct durability and more about an object being really hard. Like often times, a 9-B robot is less susceptible to bullets than a 9-A Giant animal. Though it goes without saying the latter has more blunt force trauma resistance.

      Pound for pound, the animal's flesh is less durable. Since the aninal is so big though, a tiny gunshot wound isnt going to affect them much unless it hits a major artery or whatever. You need a big gun to kill an elephant for example or other big game.

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • I guess I should've been more specific as to what constitutes a "big gun." Basically you can't kill an elephant with a 9mm glock, with the exception that you are really lucky and shoot right at a weak spot of the skull right into the brain or something like that. The same would apply to a robot though.

      This is less important, but I want to clarify that if the robot doesnt have a weak spot, then that's not really a fair comparison. What counts as "more damage" or "less damage" also largely has to do with where the damage is done. If theres no weak spots, you cant really fairly compare it. DDM's point was that objects handle being penetrated better than others because of hardness and not dura, but in this case it's not about hardness but rather about the presence or lack thereof a weak spot. Two different things.

      DDM, also by hardness, do you mean how durable a chunk of a character is compared to a chunk of the other character that is the same size? Basically durability density?

        Loading editor
    • Hardness is the ability to resist scratching last I checked. Toughness is what determines how much energy it can take before penetration is imminent

      Also you can kill an elephant with something waaaaaaaaay weaker than a 9mm, you can kill one with a 22 LR through the head but it's not gonna be humane in the least bit.

        Loading editor
    • What does scratching have to do with penetration? DDM probably wasnt using the definition of hardness that means scratching anyways though.

        Loading editor
    • A bullet would simply bounce off a plate of Titanium or Iron, and also durability in general isn't linear for different reasons. Copper normally isn't as durable as steel, but it requires more energy to fragmentation among other things. penetration is due to the sharpness of the object which harder objects are inherently sharper but not always tougher. Sharpening a sword too much actually makes it more breakable.

        Loading editor
    • Copper is more malleable isnt it?

      Also I dont think that a material being sharp will protect it from being damaged. A material being sharp helps it CAUSE damage

        Loading editor
    • Jaakubb wrote:
      What does scratching have to do with penetration? DDM probably wasnt using the definition of hardness that means scratching anyways though.

      I just said that tho, that hardness is not what we use to deal with penetration, we use toughness.

        Loading editor
    • KLOL506 wrote: We can't do pressure for striking strength because it can't converted to energy, unless it's overpressure.

      I mean like pascals.

        Loading editor
    • That's a different thing from the lbs of force commonly used in punches. Also that'd affect the whole tiering system as Assalt just mentioned AKA the entire wiki would be rewritten from scratch.

        Loading editor
    • In practice, most people would be in the same tier, the only ones who would change much are large and small size users, and weapon users. OK, that second one is pretty big.

        Loading editor
    • No, even AP as a whole would get affected.

        Loading editor
    • So, reminder on what we're going to do with pulverisation feats?

        Loading editor
    • If the current system stays, pretty much nothing.

      If it doesn't, we need to figure out other stuff like area of effect and force first. Which would basically mean restarting the wiki from scratch. Simply using toughness isn't gonna cut it then. Though pulverization feats involving pressing into a wall and creating a smooth crater would be fine regardless.

        Loading editor
    • I think the only changes put forward here that have any merit are:

      Putting a footnote in the AP section about penetration

      Redoing fragmentation values with powder factor

      Possibly redoing v. frag and pulv

      The first two seem reasonable and shouldnt be too hard.

        Loading editor
    • I don't think we'll be able to simply use powder factor for rocks and stick with our current system for other materials at the same time for the reasons Bambu noted, not to mention powder factor is plenty tough enough to use as is, and that powder factor would wield more or less the same results as our current system.

      Also area of effect and force will prolly never see the light of day due to what Assalt said.

        Loading editor
    • I really want to see DontTalk's response before we reach 500 replies. 

        Loading editor
    • I've messaged him twice but he's still unavailable.

        Loading editor
    • DontTalk is still quite busy by the looks of it.

        Loading editor
    • When asked about the destruction values I said before that I don't really know either. I'm not very knowledgable on these engineering topics.

      Soooo... I can't really give much valuable input on this. I guess it probably makes sense.

      One question I have: This is uniaxial compressive stress in the videos. Would something like punching a hole in the ground not be more triaxial compressive stress?



      In any case I'm with Antvasima on the fact that we can, from a practicle perspective, not apply this anytime soon.

        Loading editor
    • Well there's that.

      Should we close this thread then?

        Loading editor
    • DontTalkDT wrote:
       

      One question I have: This is uniaxial compressive stress in the videos. Would something like punching a hole in the ground not be more triaxial compressive stress?

      Yes, this method work for insolated chunks only. In fast punching a hole in the ground is way more complicated .

        Loading editor
    • @DontTalkDT

      Thank you for the evaluation.

      @KLOL506

      It seems like this suggestion has been rejected, yes.

        Loading editor
    • Powder Factors would apply only to explosions involving rock. Fragmentation would reduce things to an average of ~15cm size (Note that is an average over total volume exploded, some pieces may be up to 2m in size down to less than 5cm). Violent Fragmentation (what the mining industry refers to as Crushing) would be uniform destruction to ~ 3cm. Pulverization would be uniform destruction to passing a 200 mesh screen - 0.0074cm.

        Loading editor
    • Either way, we need a method that'd apply to all materials and not just one such material.

      With Ugarik stating that rapid punches are even more complicated, I'm afraid that this suggestion will have to be rejected as DT and Ant have stated.

        Loading editor
    • So should we close this thread?

        Loading editor
    • No, I said that punching a hole in a solid object can not be calculated this way.

      Tomorrow I'm going to post a picture demonstrating what toughness is on Newtonian mechanics level for a better understading

        Loading editor
    • Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan wrote:
      Fragmentation: Applied when the matter that was destroyed was turned into fairly large and distinguishable pieces.

      Violent Fragmentation: Applied when the matter that was destroyed was turned into small but still distinguishable pieces.

      Pulverization: Applied when the matter that was destroyed was turned to dust. We usually use this value when we see no remains of the matter that was destroyed in the aftermath of the attack.

      I was mainly just explaining what I'm mostly sure blasters/miners consider the sizes involved to be. It should be noted, however, that Violent Fragmentation (Crushing) and Pulverization would be done by machines to further break down the particle size, so the powder factors would only be applicable for Fragmentation anyway.

        Loading editor
    • ChemistKyle89 wrote:
      Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan wrote:
      Fragmentation: Applied when the matter that was destroyed was turned into fairly large and distinguishable pieces.

      Violent Fragmentation: Applied when the matter that was destroyed was turned into small but still distinguishable pieces.

      Pulverization: Applied when the matter that was destroyed was turned to dust. We usually use this value when we see no remains of the matter that was destroyed in the aftermath of the attack.

      I was mainly just explaining what I'm mostly sure blasters/miners consider the sizes involved to be. It should be noted, however, that Violent Fragmentation (Crushing) and Pulverization would be done by machines to further break down the particle size, so the powder factors would only be applicable for Fragmentation anyway.

      That just throws a wrench into using powder factor as a whole then.

        Loading editor
    • Well, I still do not think that this seems like a realistic change to apply. We do not nearly have the resources to apply it.

        Loading editor
    • Not to mention that most of our frag feats don't involve isolated chunks anyway so it all breaks down to how stuff is destroyed for what Bambu already stated (Accuracy matters but in a place where it's not even close enough to make a meaningful difference and will cause more harm than good by applying to the wrong places, it really wouldn't work out), plus this is never gonna get solved even after the forum shift for what Bambu and Assalt have stated even if we do have the resources. Plus, toughness alone isn't gonna cut it, there's surface area and area of impact to consider too which are a whole new can of worms to deal with.

        Loading editor
    • Is there a way to back-calc how much explosives you would need to achieve the three particles sizes using the Kuz-Ram model or something else that you would only have to solve once and then change depending on rock composition? [Where's a blasting engineer when we need one? I'm just a chemist.]

        Loading editor
    • I think it's a few comments up top but the debris size might vary depending upon rock type like the redditor said. And there's a clear difference between shattering and crushing.

      Though Ugarik doesn't seem content on going with this either.

        Loading editor
    • KLOL506 wrote:
      Powder factor
      Anyway, managed to fix the LaTEX mess from jakuub's link and this is the formula for the particle size where:

      x_m = mean particle size (cm)

      A = rock factor,

      K = powder factor (in kg/m^3)

      Q = mass of explsovies (in kg)

      RWS = relative weight strength of the explosive (Apparently blastex is used and its RWS is 0.84)

      X_m= A*(K^-0.8)*(Q^0.167)*((1.15/0.84)^0.905)

      Once you figure out your powder factor AKA mass of explosives multiply it with blastex's energy density of 740 cal/g or 3098232 J/kg of explosive used per cubic meter (I used this converter to convert from cal/g to joule/kg).

      Rock factor and powder factor are apparently set and the mass of explosives is also apparently the same as powder factor.

      Some powder factors here (Or just use the average of 0.75 kg/m^3 here, the other link gives almost equal values AFAIK but using separate rocks is better IMHO).

      Though I should note that this doesn't work for stuff that isn't stone. AKA you can't use this for metal or wood. Rock factor is within 7-13.

      Some more details about the Kuz-Ram model here

      Could you solve this for Q then use X_m = .15m (15cm) for Frag, 0.03m (3cm) for V. Frag, and 0.000074m (0.0074cm) for Pulverization? Then adjusting your Rock Factor and Powder Factor to account for the rock composition?

      ... Actually, the more I read, it seems like X_m changes depending on rock composition and/or uniformity index.

      Nope. Big Nope. Way too complicated. I vote we leave it like it is.

        Loading editor
    • Well shit, seemed interesting to me at first.

        Loading editor
    • Reddit moment

        Loading editor
    • Should we close this thread?

        Loading editor
    • Let's wait for Ugarik's new photo tomorrow, then you can close it if you want to.

        Loading editor
    • Okay.

        Loading editor
    • You know I'm not going to pretend I possess great knowledge of what exactly you guys are talking about here, but I will say this:

      At some point accuracy has to give in the face of practicality. We're ultimately just a bunch of people doing this for fun, and applying some insanely complex standards that ultimately limit our production output of calcs and generally slow that side of the wiki to a crawl, while making it far more awkward for anyone to pick up is just counterproductive.

      We can afford simplification. We can't afford overcomplication.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Crabwhale.

        Loading editor
    • That is absolute truth. This wiki's unreasonable obsessiveness is getting out of control.

        Loading editor
    • I mean so far in my opinion it's just one assumption to another assumption, although I'll wait for Ugarik's explanation on toughness.

        Loading editor
    • Cropfist wrote:
      That is absolute truth. This wiki's unreasonable obsessiveness is getting out of control.

      Well making every calculation requiring a material science university bachelor degree is nice in theory but a big no in practice - like this is a literature review on fictional characters fighting after all - hell this site is for indexing characters' fighting prowess with the same set of standards in the first place.

        Loading editor
    • I also agree with Crabwhale.

        Loading editor
    • Thoughness123

      Here we have a 0.2 m^3 concrete block with thoughness of 0.5 J/cm^3. Compressive strength of that block is 10 MPa and it's ductility is 10% (meaning it can loose 10% of its original length without fracturing)

      And we also have a metal ball with KE of 100,000 J. Everything else we can see from the picture. Stress-Strain Curve is at the bottom-left.

        Loading editor
    • Now you can crearly see that if we increase the volume of the block by 2 time the ammount of energy in can absorb will also become 2 times higher. (The wider the block is, the higher maximum impact force would be. And if you make it two times longer, the maximum deformation will increase from 0.1 m to 0.2 m) 

        Loading editor
    • I also agree with Crabwhale.

        Loading editor
    • The problem is that thoughness value is about 100 times lower than shear or tensile strength (at least for brittle materials). Shouldn't in be noted that destroying an isolated chunk takes much less energy than ponching a hole?

        Loading editor
    • Fiction doesn't have isolated chunks to destroy stuff most of the time so I don't know if that would even work out always. Not to mention that area of impact, pressure and angle of impact would also come into play here like Assalt and the others including myself have said, not just toughness (Which just adds a shitload more effort to deal with and would uproot our entire system). And that punching strength is measured mainly in force, not joules, with force already being a unit we can't even get to align with our energy system as is.

      At the end of the day, like Crabwhale said, this is just a site for fun, and making things this complicated to understand becomes counterproductive and highly impractical to the point where it holds no advantage even if accurate by a small margin.

        Loading editor
    • Since the proposals have been rejected, I think we should close this thread.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. I will do so. My apologies Ugarik.

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.