A references for common feats page continuation

[Agnaa]

By the way we can not calculate the energy to destroy a particulas object from its volume like we do on this wiki. Only pulverization feats are correct

http://web.archive.org/web/20170322...luttershit-sucks-and-we-need-something.34025/

 

[Jasonsith]

Agnaa, Ugarik:

Maybe I can start a new thread in Calc Group Discussion board to discuss about this.

Because this involves a HUGE revamp in measuring destruction feats for a real lot of destruction feats.

I can summarise the effect of the potential direction if what Ugarik says is accepted:

1.) We will have a set of material destruction feats by different methods of treatment (compressive strength for pushing or punching, tensile strength for being pulled, etc.).

2.) For the current destruction feat by striking force, unless the said target is destroyed into dust, we should establish a scale to determine how fine the target is reduced to. Like how much the volume of the target is cracked away into dust.

KLOL506:

I realise I do not have

• the density and compressive strength of
  • alumina
  • Chobham armour
• the density of
  • military grade armor steel
  • Rolled homogeneous armour

So the tank destruction feat may have to be suspended.

 

[KLOL506]

Yes. A calc discussion thread is best for this.

No problem about the tank feat.

 

[Agnaa]

@Jason @KLOL That sounds way too hasty for what's been barely half a dozen messages on the topic.

 

[KLOL506]

Either way, this seems a bit out of my expertise. Regardless, I have contacted all calc group members I know of to check this out.

 

[DMUA]

You can just use steel for steel, but I dunno about the other stuff

 

[KLOL506]

You can just use steel for steel, but I dunno about the other stuff

Not the tank thing, the other one by Ugarik, man.

 

[DMUA]

Well that's already kinda been answered

 

[KLOL506]

Well that's already kinda been answered

By Agnaa?

Because if what Ugarik states is accepted (Then again he doesn't have any link to prove it and I doubt most of our verses adhere to the laws of physics much) or at the very least accepted, the whole wiki will need to revise its standards.

 

[Jasonsith]

Sword slashing blows speed from peak and superhumans? What speed level would it be?

I have made some updates. Some are borrowed from the Composite Human profile.

 

[KLOL506]

I have made some updates. Some are borrowed from the Composite Human profile.

Looks good.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I was asked to talk here. I'm the one that gave Agnaa that link, as it pretty much answers Ugarik's problems. Pulv and V. Frag are originally from there and Frag essentially boils down to "this is the best we can do".

 

[KLOL506]

I guess that answers that then and our current system is fine as is.

 

[KLOL506]

Bump

I think we may have new values for muzzle velocities on flintlock pistols and 18th century muskets according to this article.

 

[Assembled1801]

Diving or felling all away into a water?

 

[KLOL506]

Diving or felling all away into a water?

Depends upon the context.

 

[KLOL506]

Bump

 

[KLOL506]

Bump.

I was asked by Ant to comment here again.

So I found some new info for musket muzzle velocities and flintlock pistol velocities with more credible sources.

Muskets were capable of shooting at velocities over 400 m/s to potentially 550 m/s according to Benjamin Robins back in 1742 as the Brown Bess page and Robins' book New Principles of Gunnery 1742 mentions, and this article representing the renowned-and-more-scientifically-accurate Graz shooting tests confirms that muskets as far back as the 16th century could also hit similar speeds if not faster, but they were still in the supersonic range. I believe that they are more scientifically accurate than the sources Numbersguy used from Deadliest Warrior. Here's another article on the matter

P.S.- Gunpowder in the 18th century really wasn't better in the 16th and 17th century until Lavosier fixed it in 1788 according to wikipedia's sources, and soldiers usually poured in more gunpowder to achieve such results, but Robins easily managed such speeds with half the gunpowder load.

Also flintlock pistols are mentioned in wikipedia to have speeds of 250 m/s, but the article above (the Graz shooting tests) also says that flintlocks could indeed go faster than this.

And now that this calc about cannonballs has been accepted, I believe these should also be put in the Projectile Dodging Feats page.

If you have difficulties checking the links, here:

https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/MCR/article/view/17669/22312#no10

https://www.arc.id.au/RobinsOnBallistics.html

https://www.arc.id.au/CannonBallistics.html

 

[Jasonsith]

So we can have more weapon profiles?

And any consensus on tiering the typical AP and speed of those projectiles?

 

[KLOL506]

Muskets hit hilariously hard according to those articles, over 3500 joules with calibers weighing in at over several tens of grams. Street level is fine for them.

And the speeds are already given in those articles, ranging from high-end Subsonic+ to Supersonic (250 m/s to 385 m/s) for pistols and flat-out Supersonic for rifles (Well above 400 m/s and peaks out at 550 m/s for the Brown Bess and other comparable rifles)

 

[KLOL506]

We need to find out which medieval and 18th century firearms have a name tho.

 

[Crzer07]

Nice, although anybody who can fight multiple people at once should be superhuman in speed. Which would include most 9-C's.

 

[Assembled1801]

Nice, although anybody who can fight multiple people at once should be superhuman in speed. Which would include most 9-C's.

IP Man should need one.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Nice, although anybody who can fight multiple people at once should be superhuman in speed. Which would include most 9-C's.

why

 

[KLOL506]

why indeed LOL

Only thing they'd be superhuman in is attacking speed, not combat speed, reactions or movement.

 

[Crzer07]

Well if you are going to solo a gang of people you need the stamina of said gang of people, even if the combined AP of a group of thugs don't stack up to your own you still won't be walking out without taking in hits. Anyway you can find the true answer by going up to 4 guys irl and try to beat them up if you think you won't be touched. Though I don't know what your personal physical stats are, if you're 10-B+/10-A (if you work out regularly you should be around there) don't go after 10-C's.

 

[Andytrenom]

I don't know if that has been suggested yet but, how about throwing a baseball through a wall and leaving a clean hole?

I'm talking about situations where there's no pieces of the wall falling around or the hole is shown to be smoking, so pulverization and vaporization ends would be good

 

[Jasonsith]

I don't know if that has been suggested yet but, how about throwing a baseball through a wall and leaving a clean hole?

I'm talking about situations where there's no pieces of the wall falling around or the hole is shown to be smoking, so pulverization and vaporization ends would be good

I have made a table here.

 

[Andytrenom]

I don't think I understand it very well

 

[Jasonsith]

I don't think I understand it very well

You have a baseball. You throw it through a wall/ceiling/floor at a thickness and it leaves a clean hole. You know the wall composition and pulverisation end is presumed.

As the median radius of an average baseball is around 3.725 cm, you choose the thickness of the wall from table 1 to get the volume of the wall pulverised, then select the material and level of destruction (pulverisation) here and get your answer.

E.g. Character A threw a baseball, it punched a clean hole through a door.

Assume the door is 4.445 cm thick and is made of white pine wood,

Volume of destroyed door part = pi * 3.725 ^ 2 * 4.445 = 193.7644912 cc.

Energy required to pulverise a white pine door by throwing a baseball to create a clean hole = 193.7644912 cc * 33.0948 J/cc = 6412.597082 J (Street Level)

My tables are there to quickly derive the volume destroyed and energy required.

 

[Imaginym]

I know that the vaporization of a human has been calculated before, but what of disintegrating a human? Turning them to dust or ash? Can that be calculated?

 

[Assembled1801]

Dodging semi auto to automatic gunfires? What speed would it be?

 

[KLOL506]

Depends on context.

 

[Jasonsith]

Dodging semi auto to automatic gunfires? What speed would it be?

This can be referred from Projectile Dodging Feats.

 

[KLOL506]

What Jasonsith said.

 

[Jasonsith]

Just putting it here first:

[/URL]
The minimum skin thickness on, for example, DC-8 and DC-9 airplanes is .127cm (0.050 in.). Thickness varies between airplanes based on a number of factors. Most important is the load distribution the airplane will experience when it is flying. On another typical commercial airplane type, the 727, minimum skin thickness is .097 cm (0.038 inches).

It may be useful in determining the energy required to break an airplane wing.

In fact this may be useful in determining the AP of Dan Hibiki as he can punch and break a wing of Boeing C-17 Globemaster III which has a rough chord length of 6.86m and a material thickness of 0.127cm for one wall (assuming breaking two walls for each wing to break).
A human fist can be 6 cm wide.
Volume = 686 cm x 0.127 cm x 2 x 6 cm = 1045.464 cc
Destruction energy of aluminium = 40000 PSI = 275.79 megapascales = 275.79 J/cc
Energy required to break an aircraft wing in 1 Kyoryuken = 1045.464 cc x 275.79 J/cc = 288328.5166 J (Wall Level)

Once accepted this becomes another feat justification for Dan Hibiki and anyone who can tear off an airplane wing in one go.

 

[Absaddie]

Just putting it here first:

[/URL]
The minimum skin thickness on, for example, DC-8 and DC-9 airplanes is .127cm (0.050 in.). Thickness varies between airplanes based on a number of factors. Most important is the load distribution the airplane will experience when it is flying. On another typical commercial airplane type, the 727, minimum skin thickness is .097 cm (0.038 inches).

It may be useful in determining the energy required to break an airplane wing.
In fact this may be useful in determining the AP of Dan Hibiki as he can punch and break a wing of Boeing C-17 Globemaster III which has a rough chord length of 6.86m and a material thickness of 0.127cm for one wall (assuming breaking two walls for each wing to break).
A human fist can be 6 cm wide.
Volume = 686 cm x 0.127 cm x 2 x 6 cm = 1045.464 cc
Destruction energy of aluminium = 40000 PSI = 275.79 megapascales = 275.79 J/cc
Energy required to break an aircraft wing in 1 Kyoryuken = 1045.464 cc x 275.79 J/cc = 288328.5166 J (Wall Level)

Once accepted this becomes another feat justification for Dan Hibiki and anyone who can tear off an airplane wing in one go.

He can do it with any hit really. Did you take into account how high he must have sent it flying? Same thing happens here, I know it's Guile but it acts the exact same

https://youtu.be/s_QTJpaRZMw?t=141

 

[Absaddie]

sorry if this doesn't count for common feats but I feel it should
Doing a punch before a semi-automatic handguns shot can even move very far at all

He can also punch in the time it takes for the gun to start shooting (with both the punch and the little gun explosion fire being in the same frame)



The speed something would need to catch fire as well should definitely be considered.

 

[Jasonsith]

Jerry Miculek, holding dozens of national and international handgun, rifle, and shotgun titles, and being one of the fastest revolver shooters in the world, was capable of emptying a five-shot revolver in 0.57 seconds in a group the size of a playing card.

Time for making one shot with a handgun = 0.57s / 5 = 0.114 s

With an arm movement speed of 5 m/s, one can already stretch an arm for 0.57 m (within arm's length). So not a wise choice to gun a boxer point blank.

It takes "only" 6,000 km/h or 1666.667 m/s or ~Mach 4.9 to catch a human body on fire by sheer running friction and air compression. So an average Japanese male adult at 25-29 weighs at 66.82 kg and he should only need to get 0.5 * 66.82 * 1666.667^2 = 92,805,555.56 J (Small Building level) to cover himself with fire. Of course I am not talking about people learning pyrokinesis.

And one is likely surviving his own fire such generated for quite a time since durability to tank covered in fire is "only" 26550.3233 J/s.

 

[KLOL506]

We use 62 kg as the average tho.