Reinforced concrete stuff usually has a bigger footprint than the pillars you showed, plus even if it did have rebar, it'd also need the steel chunks being damaged or flung out, merely damaging the concrete portion isn't gonna cut it.
Like I said, you could push for v. frag, but pulv is pretty much outta the books here unless we see all of it being turned to dust.
Ah youre right
Because the formulae are different.
what doth that mean
info, i guess
Something like "following" in indonesian
And according to pascal's law "the result can be interpreted as a pressure change caused by the change of potential energy per unit volume " doesn't it mean that the 610 joule/cc is potential energy used to pulverized the reinforced concrete ?,then to call it (the attack) using kinetic energy is not wrong since potential enery is equivalent with kinetic energy.
To use v.frag for it is little unfair for me,since most of the part turned into a dust.
The dust clouds aren't that big and we see more pebbles fall out than dust clouds.
Ignore this guy, he's kinda cringe and has a weird attraction to Ultraman and Kamen Rider smh smh
Yeah, Agree... Using pulvarization looks exaggerated
Dust can also form from normal frag feats, doesn't mean we should just also apply a pulv value willy nilly to scenarios where we see large chunks getting busted.
I think the dust cloud doesn't need to be big, but my point is,the chunks won't even fit in 10% of the area that got destroyed,I did some edit for it.
I ignored it because I think those chunks is the chuncks we see in third panel.
There a decent amount of large chunks in the pillar itself if you look closely, darker in color than the cracked surface of the pillar.I ignored it because I think those chunks is the chuncks we see in third panel.
And those are not a large chunks,it looks large because it's a close up picture,if you matching the shading lines,you'll see that the chunks is actually small.
Actually, now that I look at the calc, it seems to be frag, he sent most of the large-sized fragments outward which explains why there are so many less fragments near the pillar itself.
**** yes, the argument I proposed earlier.
Artistic inconsistency is most likely the best explanation for this.
Yeah but we can't see any chunk in the next page,mean that the chunks aren't pulverized directly.
lol, noIgnore this guy, he's kinda cringe and has a weird attraction to Ultraman and Kamen Rider smh smh
And because of that it can also be counted as pulverization, because the most important is the aftermath of the attack.
It is also imperative that the site of the destruction be in close vicinity, your shot doesn't show that.
Evidence points to the contrary, site of destruction shows debris left behind, and the shot you showed is way too far for the debris to actually be properly visible, thus actually preventing us from accurately gauging the severity of the destruction.
this is the art inconsistent that we are talking about.
Yeah but we can't see any chunk in the next page,mean that the chunks aren't pulverized directly.
this is what of my second point talking about,this is so funny i can't
.
There are some things that I disagree with from your statements.
Problem is, there's no rebar to see in the panels, and your scans make it difficult to determine whether the damaged portion actually belong to those tall pillars or not.
Irrelevant to the point at hand when we're now discussing the severity of the destruction.
I don't have to, Occam's razor does it for me. Guy kicks into wall and sends several large fragments flying into the distance, pillars are just normal concrete with no rebar in sight, think of it like normal concrete walls.
I've already explained why your assumptions for the level of destruction and material used are wrong after being given assistance from other members but if you don't wanna budge from it I can request another calc member to look at it.
even if we can't see the rebar we should still assume that the pillars of the building are made of concrete especially a pillar on that size. @GreatIskandar14045 has sent the chapter above if you want to know more.
We have discussed about KE above, Just want to tell you and @GreatIskandar14045 that it is right to call it KE.
No, it's not what it means.
I just think your statement doesn't make sense, let's end this because if it continues like this this debate will not end, it's good if the admin wants to give a little comment.
Even if it was, you'd need evidence to show the rebar was destroyed, as I once suggested using reinforced concrete for a calc of a similar feat and Bambu suggested against it, saying that the rebar was more or less untouched and it was just the concrete that was smashed.
Not sure how that's relevant to finding out the severity of the destruction anymore tho?
You might wanna read that carefully. It explicitly states "when the matter that was destroyed was turned to dust".
Cool, I've already contacted Bambu, who is both a calc member and admin, and has had experience with feats like these before, even more so than me.
first of all to say it's just normal concrete just because we can't see the rebar or the character doesn't destroy the rebar is something wrong, in testing the stresses that reinforced concrete can withstand, either by compressive strength or tensile strength, the test will stop when the the reinforced concrete is fractured even if it's only small crack the test will be stoped (you can watch some video about it), that means the value obtained from the test comes from the fracture of the part you call "normal concrete" in reinforced concrete, meaning that if a character only makes small cracks in a reinforced concrete, we still have to use the destructive value of reinforced concrete ,and actually we have to do additional calculations for the rebar if a character completely destroys the entire reinforced concrete. (I copied my previous comment)
why do you think so when we use the destruction value of 1 cubic centimeters of some material as a reference for doing calculations. shouldn't we think of "the matter that got destroyed" as 1cm³ part of the matter that was destroyed and not the whole thing?.
the reason why we ignored it is because it just a small part,and it won't change the results that much,just like how I Ignored the small fragments.
Yeah let's end it here.
Like I said, I tried recommending reinforced concrete for a Fast and Furious calc once, Bambu said no because no rebar was there.
You do realize that it was referring to every single cm^3 being needed to be turned to dust to qualify for applying pulv on it, yeah?
The small, more visible fragments take priority over the insignificant dust clouds that would likely have no meaning on the yield anyway because such a tiny sliver of it got turned to dust.
That and Tinodesu is proposing we use reinforced concrete instead of normal concrete even though there's no rebar visible, this was his response as to why we should use reinforced concrete instead of normal concrete.
So uh, use normal concrete then?
According to your statement if small chunks are left it would be fragmentation,then tell me how this calc can be accepted as pulverization : Dave & Baji Keisuke .
The first one is compressive strength, pressing a crater into the ground. Same deal for the second one. Compressive strength, little to no debris.
