VS Battles Wiki Forum

Thank you!

I'm not sure how to accurately get KE here, as I cannot get the weight of the cubes. Wolfram's cubes are not solid cubes of metal, they're just a bunch of metal stuff he forced together. There will be gaps due to the varying shapes of these pieces, we can even visibly see they don't stick cleanly together.

For a safe way I could remove 50% of the volume to account for the gaps, but I'm not certain how that will even turn out.

But I have a feeling the results will be absurd. Based on what I'm reading, should I be using the KE of all the cubes or only the cube from the furthest away?

No problem!

Yeah, for cubes or sphere compacted together, you assume there's a bit of hollowness. I did a calc for Silver where he compacted a bunch of junk into a tightly packed sphere that could roll down the road at supersonic speeds. And got 10% hollowness accepted. It's up to you what you think a fair hollowness assumption is, it'll likely get accepted like mine did.

Yeah, the results would prolly be high. But if it is super outlierish, you can just use the original method. I usually add ISL as another end in case it's deemed an outlier. That said, only use the KE of the cube furthest away. Not all of them. Only reason you'd need to acount for all the cubes is if they were situated side by side. But they're pretty spread out in this feat.

One last important note. If the area of the explosion isn't a sphere, but a different shape, use the surface area of the shape it took for the ISL formula. For example, if an explosion for whatever reason expanded in the shape of a cube, instead of 4*π*r^2*KE, you'd do 6*a^2*KE. Same applies for any other shape.

Interesting, this is different from the one on the calculation page.

area of the larger object or explosion/area of the object x the initial value =

Is there any calculations you've done or seen where those methods are used and accepted?

How does this formula work exactly, could you explain it? Something feels strange to me.

Yep. From what I understand, vs wiki developed the version on the ISL page as a low-ball version of the actual Inverse square law formula. It's used in-case the feat might be an outlier or something like that. But in my opinion, if the feat is an outlier, that's on the feat itself. Doesn't make sense to use a lowballed version of the formula.

I've done one, but I never really pushed for it to be accepted since it's a feat for an more obscure verse. I believe I've seen a few get accepted using ISL formula tho, yeah. This blog explains ISL pretty well. Heck, vs wiki even uses a modified version of the formula for calculating ISL on celestial bodies. It's how we set the boundaries for Multi-Solar System level up to Universe level. Here's one calc I remember that used the formula.

To put it simply, Inverse square law means as a force expands outwards omnidirectionally (In any shape of course), it will lose more intensity from a distance based on its surface area. That's why inverse square law formula makes you calculate the surface area of the shape, and then multiply the intensity of the blast from a distance by the surface area to get its strength at the epicenter of the blast.

The shape I'm using for this explosion is a rectangle, since it fills up the entire screen. It goes off screen so it'd be a bit of a low ball and it's impossible to find Bakugo's distance at all. But I feel like it's the best choice in this case, though the results are without a doubt going to be an outlier. 8-A was already pushing the boundaries.

Unless I can work magic.

So I'll be going off of that.

A rectangle surface area works I guess. That would drop the results some, so maybe that helps . I personally would've used something more like a cone since it starts out from Bakugo's fists and expands outwards from there.

And 8-A is pushing boundaries? Isn't Bakugo Tier 7 or smth on his page?

I would do that but it's literally impossible to find the distance from Bakugo to the cubes. There is no shot that I can use, and I can't make a distance up.

So I'm just going to measure what I can see of the explosion.

You could unironically probably just use the radius you calc'd for the explosion in the blog already since it expanded at least that size before coming into contact with the projectiles. I'll see what you do tho.

Edit: Nvm. The one furthest from the explosion is way closer to the screen than the blocks close to the explosion. Tho couldn't you also pixel scale the distance the smallest cube is from the screen to get explosion size?

I did something like this. The shape of the explosion should be fine, as it covers the full background before coming towards the screen.

I'm using the formula on the inverse square law page, as I'm not certain how to use your formula for a rectangle.

Could show me how that would work? Don't want to mess this up and look like an idiot, need to make sure I cover all of my basis.

You just look up the formula to calculate a rectangle's surface area. Multiply the surface by the KE of the cubes.

The formula you posted is just area*energy? Took me took long to notice that. I was focused on something else.

That's absurd, I'm getting 14 Megatons. Yeah that's 100% an outlier, not even going to bother.

I'm curious on why the distance and the object's area isn't used. Now I don't understand how the formula on the wiki works at all, since it does use those things.

I may start asking some questions to the other calc group members about this.

Yep, just Area x Energy.

If it's just an outlier, yeah, you can just dismiss that method. You can always use the other methods after all.

Because the area of the object doesn't matter. Inverse square law is about getting the intensity of a blast from a certain distance. You can use it to calculate the power of the blast from a distance, or at the epicenter/origin point.

I think it's worth asking, yeah.

This was very informative, thank you very much.

The method you've mention appears to be correct, though I'll still ask someone about the formula used on the calculation page at some point.