• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Status
Not open for further replies.
It could be a difference in the way the force is applied maybe, I reckon that value assumes the neck is crushed as opposed to just pulled at its weakest points which is what happens when a person is hanged.
 
AguilaR101 said:
It could be a difference in the way the force is applied maybe, I reckon that value assumes the neck is crushed as opposed to just pulled at its weakest points which is what happens when a person is hanged.
Also applies when you break them via karate-chopping or punching (or stomping, which results in all the bones breaking, and that's the commonest form of the feat).

The calc assumes that you destroy only that one big vertebra, BTW. And the lamina is unaccounted for, which would wield higher results if calc'd with the right values.
 
Is absorbing a planets entire energy a common enough feat?, I think it would be useful.
 
Yeah, crushing bones is more often than not going to be superior to ripping someone's head off because the latter only requires you to separate the head from the neck at its weakest points.
 
ArbitraryNumbers said:
(Snaps neck, vaporizes bathtub, breaks lock, shatters windshield, destroys chimney, melts tank, and punts corpse past the horizon)
Snapping necks and shattering windshields as well as punting a person past the horizon are all common.
 
How reliable is this calculator, can someone check?

It looks like it could be extremely useful to figure a yield for small explosions and other effects caused by them when we have known distance (tremors, windows breaking, houses being damaged, people having their eardrums ruptured etc).
 
I will ask DontTalkDT if he is willing to continue to help out here.
 
Assalt replied, and sadly, he doesn't possess enough knowledge on evaluating the neck-breaking calc.

I told DT about it a few months back and he said the same thing.
 
DontTalkDT said:
9. Destroying a car: That density of plastic link gives me a 404.

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

Aside from that looks ok.
According to his sourses copper and even aluminium is way more durable than iron and even steel which clearly doesn't seem right
 
The probably depends what's defined as "Durability"; some things penetrate easily but require a lot more energy to fragmentize/pulverize/ect in the sense.
 
I've calced that crushing a stone in hard requires 9 to 35 tons of force. This might sound wanked but keep in mind that stones can withstand weight of a semitruck and even phisicaly strong people can't crush an egg
 
I don't know if this is common enough, but how much force would be needed to shatter a coffee cup/mug in your hand?
 
It's really hard to calculate because preasure won't be distributed evenly every due to the shape (since it's hollow inside)
 
I would like to make a common feat page on my own soon.

With some good estimation calculations as well.
 
Perhaps somebody could politely remind DontTalkDT and the calc group members about this thread.
 
Next batch. A bit out of order 'cause something caught my eye scrolling through.

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

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

13. Destroying blades: Looks ok.

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

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

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

16. Crushing Golf ball: seems fine.

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

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

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

Enthalpy of fusion missing again, I think.

The water is assumed to be 44┬░C hot? Isn't that a bit too hot? At least for an average bath, I know hot baths are a thing as well.
 
DontTalkDT said:
17. Destroying barrel: I usually see the hoops not being destroyed during such feats. Should be ok, though.
Assassin's Creed begs to differ. (In those games, barrels get vaporized)
 
LordGriffin1000 said:
Do we have a calc for surviving a lightning strike or no?.
No we don't.

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

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

@KLOL506

I don't think that we can scale durability from Lightning Feats anymore. As you can see in the page, it is both partially a form of durability negation, and nowhere near the entire energy of the lightning bolt is withstood by humans.
 
@Antvasima: I would have thought once we are through with checking everything and things are corrected where necessary we make a page for it. In that process the formulation and overall structure can be improved. In particular making as clear as possible which things have to be given to apply which calc.


Next batch:

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

19. Skull Curshing: Should be ok.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aside from those things ok, I guess.
 
Antvasima said:
@KLOL506

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

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

That is correct, yes. We should probably wait until we can create the intended page itself. Sorry about the head glitch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top