• 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.

Calculating lifting strength via crushing

Gripping is a lifting motion much like pulling or pushing, but, of course, actually lifting something over your head is much harder than gripping it, so I am unsure.
 
Inflated results as in, it could be beyond what is realistic, or higher than expected? Just because something gives high results isn't indicative of incorrectness, otherwise we'd never consider black hole feats, mass-energy, or lightning dodges.
 
Really doubtful method. In this case Izuku has already built enough energy in his hand before crushing the stone.
 
I feel case by case basis makes sense here (For example if it's clearly done via pure strength then it's good)
 
A common difference between lifting strength and striking strength is how do you build energy before pushing someone. There are also one fundamental thing that I'd like to note.
Our wiki's lifting strength shows how much mass a character can move against Earth's gravity, assuming that the given mass has no initial velocity and the force given to the mass from the character's side exceeds the force that Earth's gravity gives to the mass.

What about the difference? Lifting strength assumes that you move some mass with no given initial energy, while striking strength - with some given initial energy.
 
I got nothing more to say, this isn't a widely acknowledged method and I'd like DontTalk to give an opinion considering (speaking for myself, at least) I'm just a guy who learned how to do stuff from the wiki articles and a bit of online digging.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
I got nothing more to say, this isn't a widely acknowledged method and I'd like DontTalk to give an opinion considering (speaking for myself, at least) I'm just a guy who learned how to do stuff from the wiki articles and a bit of online digging.
Click to expand...
This method is wrong. Why? Izuku hit stones with some given amount of initial energy, it means that when his hand hit the stone, the hand already had some energy to hit with. It messes up the whole process of lifting strength calculation (LSC) because LSC assumes that the amount of initial energy is about zero and when you use LSC to calculate something's lifting strength based on punches that actually possess initial energy to hit with, it just becomes unreliable, trust me.
 
Why unreliable? Izuku had his built-up energy's assist to push the rock. Why this is a problem? Well, duh, Izuku pretty much instantly transferred his kinetic energy to the rock, thus that rock will be instantly pushed, possessing Izuku's transferred kinetic energy. If he tried to push it with zero joules of initial energy, the results would be different as Izuku would need to constantly push it for seconds and longer, thus the rock wouldn't possess a sudde increase in energy amount.

Don't mess with Image Helpers. They are badass too!
 
I guess that one can write a resume of the document, but since my pc stop working and now I'm using a laptop with 1 GB of RAM, is pretty diffcult to write blogs properly; so at least, I wouldn't be able to do it.
 
Uh

Lifting strength can be gained via calculating force of an object accelerating, and that uses kinetic energy, what is the difference here
 
Mr. Bambu said:
Uh

Lifting strength can be gained via calculating force of an object accelerating, and that uses kinetic energy, what is the difference here
Click to expand...
Doesn't really explain what is lifting strength. It is true that it is made via calculating force of an accelerated object, but the difference is that the calc was made when given initial energy has existed. And it is bad. Under normal circumstances Lifting Strength requires that the character could lift and support a given amount of mass under Earth's gravity for at least a short amount of time.

P.S.: My bad, I reject my points about pushing that I gave. Lifting Strength says: "Lifting movements also allow the body's tendons to help out by storing the energy, then releasing it in a sudden burst..."

The Izuku calc should be fine as long as the lifting strength... Wait wait wait wait wait. The force that is needed to crush a rock is actually developed by the objects colliding. Thus, the force is developed by a momentum, which can be calculated by multiplying mass to *speed* (Yes, speed!), and we can calculate the colliding force by multiplying momentum to a time interval.
 
Then I think that the given result of the calc is actually an extreme lowball of Izuku's lifting strength because he managed to do it with his hand's muscles only... Holy crap! Since that the hand's muscles take a part in both crushing and lifting force, this calc is absolutely okay!
 
So Class 25 for crushing a finger-sized bone is also bs... wait, it's not.

Literally the only problem people have with this formula is that it gives much higher results than they think it should, but if we were to be guided by a logic as absurd as that, then ripping out a spine should not be Class K, or creating a storm in a few seconds should not be 6-C.
 
creating a storm in a few seconds isn't 6-C since we don't use KE for storm creation feats anymore, only movement feats

but yeah the other points are solid
 
It's basic mechanics of materials, it's not rocket science, to crush a solid object with a given cross sectional area you're going to need to apply a force equivalent to its compressive strength

Bone has a compressive strength of 150 MPa, that is 150,000,000 Newtons per square meter, meaning that it won't be crushed unless you apply the exact pressure.

If you imagine a bone to have a cylindrical shape and a dimater of 1 inch you would need to apply roughly 76006.12186462499 newtons of force or 7750 Kgs to break it, which is very close to the scenario presented in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os98s9kBlOI&feature=youtu.be&t=145s

Regarding the Deku calc, you don't multiply the value just because he uses one hand, compressive strength already accounts for the force being applied in both directions.
 
inb4 we find some way to turn striking strength into lifting strength via equations and invalidate having the values seperate in the first place

Suffice to say I don't like nor accept the method, although since I'm not on the calc group this is just me throwing my two cents in.
 
I mean if you don't like the rock thing being high you can go outside and try and crush a chunk of asphalt or stone or a brick into dust with your hands then compare that to just lifting it.
 
And yet, that's just what the compressive strength of these materials are. Concrete supports hold up the mass of entire skyscrapers after all, but I can still smash a cinderblock with a hammer pretty easily.
 
Wokistan said:
And yet, that's just what the compressive strength of these materials are. Concrete supports hold up the mass of entire skyscrapers after all, but I can still smash a cinderblock with a hammer pretty easily.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty bad comparison, considering multiple supports are in strategically placed areas to divide the strain are used to hold up a building.

And like you said, you can smash one of them with a hammer rather easily. That doesn't mean the top of the hammer can suddenly hold up the wieght you implied the concrete could.
 
Many buildings will be build on the foundation of a hard stone plot, especially in places with softer land. The weight will still be evenly distributed yes, but that doesn't change the fact that its the weight of a building eventually being placed down on the stone base and the risk of failure is usually more when movement comes into play as opposed to buildings crushing themselves with their own weight.

Steel actually does have rather high compressive strength, but its not as good when it comes to forces of torsion and the like. Getting high results may seem weird, but that just how some materials are.
 
Wokistan said:
Many buildings will be build on the foundation of a hard stone plot, especially in places with softer land. The weight will still be evenly distributed yes, but that doesn't change the fact that its the weight of a building eventually being placed down on the stone base and the risk of failure is usually more when movement comes into play as opposed to buildings crushing themselves with their own weight.
Click to expand...
The stone base of the building where the strain is divided on is a solid weighs much more than the pillars you were discussing earlier, and again, you're speaking as if all of the stress is placed on the base, while the stress is technically everywhere in the structure, just more intense in some places; which are properly reinforced and placed to distribute it.

Quoting the Lifting Strength page:

Unlike most forms of attacks, a lift is a slow, sustained motion which allows for many more muscles fibers to be recruited into the movement more easily, generating much more energy than a fast movement used in combat. Lifting movements also allow the body's tendons to help out by storing the energy, then releasing it in a sudden burst, acting like a spring, further amplifying energy output. As a result, striking energy, based on real-life ratios, is usually much lower than lifting energy.
I fail to see how Deku's crushing feat is any different than a swift jab or punch that can break quantities of stone much larger than that in into finer pieces. There's a reason why we evaluate both statistics separately, and I'd like us to rewrite the rules if we want to break them.
 
That's how materials work, if you want to crush stuff like that you need to apply that force, wether or not our wiki's standards would accept it as a valid feat of lifting strength is another story.
 
I also noticed that the method do not accounts for the mass of the object destroyed, yielding the same for either hollow or compact objects.

A suggestion for se if the result is accurate, one can compare the result for bending a aluminium can (the one I posted above) with the method suggested by OP and see how much they differ.
 
Because you're using the method wrong and assuming cans have the same cross sectional area as a solid chunk of concrete.

It should be pretty obvious you can't use it for hollow objects.
 
The calc do not account for cross sectional area, it just plain use someones hand's surface area.

Why wouldn't it work for hollow objects, or at least, why wouldn't use the same equation? Similar of what pulverizing a compact rock to a hollow building, we do not differ at the moment we use the constant.
 
Ah, then the problem is with the fact they're using the hand's surface area as opposed to the cross section.

You can't use it for hollow objects because their structure doesn't distribute the force the same way a solid one would unless placed in an specific manner so the direction of the force would be perfectly perpendicular to its cross section, the material can be deformed or "crushed" long before the compressive yield is actually reached if you apply the force in a different direction,which is something the hollowness of an object facilitates.

Even under the assumption the force was applied perfectly so the material was only subject to compressive stress, the result would be substantially less than that of a solid one because of its smaller cross section.

This is more or less the area one should use, though IRL it takes far, far less force to deform a cylinder when you crush it from the sides/horizontally as opposed to doing it from above/vertically

Cross sections
 
AguilaR101 said:
That's how materials work, if you want to crush stuff like that you need to apply that force, wether or not our wiki's standards would accept it as a valid feat of lifting strength is another story.
Click to expand...
Then we should change the standards before we allow calcs that would directly contradict them.

And I fail to see why we couldn't apply the same logic for feats of striking strength, as you could derive force from them.

What distinguishes feats of lifting strength is that, well, they should actually be lifting, not crushing or striking something. The feat in question here isn't Deku actually lifting anything, he's just applying his striking strength on a relatively tiny rock. It's not like he can apply that same force in, say, lifting a stack of dozens of cars.

And honestly if this type of attitude with calcs continues we should just merge Lifting Strength with Striking Strength as both can be expressed in force.
 
The calc by itself doesn't contradict anything, the results of said calc being applied to lifting strenght seemingly contradict our standards for what is actually considered lifting strength, Deku's feat would actually be grip strength, which in real life isn't that far off from lifting strength.

And technically there isn't any reason that we couldn't use the method to derive lifting strength from striking strength since in real life they both can be measured in units of force/newtons, the problem is obviously that fiction doesn't follow real life logic and has characters who can strike with force to bust planets struggling like punks against 40 tons of weight, hence the separation, it has less to do with the statistics being irreconciliable and more with fiction being bad at keeping them consistent.

And honestly we need either categories for lifting strength, or make it so it strictly applies to a single type of lifting motion, a 1000lbs deadlift vs a 1000lbs shoulder press isn't the same, the former is achievable by worldclass strongmen and the latter would actually be a display of superhuman strength
 
If our standards for lifting strength is inaccurate feel free to make a CRT changing it. Otherwise I'm pretty sure crushing is part of lifting strength.

I think Antoniofer makes sense though.
 
I don't see how grip strength is related to lifting strength any more than striking strength is. Heck, different muscles and movements are involved in all three of them. And like I've said, we already have the rules laid out on the Lifting Strength page, I'd advise you guys make a CRT for that before ignoring them.
 
The lifting strength page quite clearly says lifting is considered a slow, sustained motion; which is what crushing is. That's why crushing feats have always been considered part of lifting strength, just like pushing, pulling and tearing.
 
Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
The lifting strength page quite clearly says lifting is considered a slow, sustained motion; which is what crushing is. That's why crushing feats have always been considered part of lifting strength, just like pushing, pulling and tearing.
Click to expand...
What?

Crushing is an extremely fast movement, and is by no means 'sustained' like lifting, especially considering the feat that is being debated above, which is Deku swiftly crushing a tiny stone in his hand.

>have always

What, has this been discussed before or something? This is the first time I've seen crushing feats being discussed for lifting strength.

Tearing is explicitly stated on the page to be looked at with skepticism, btw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Naito-desu
Calculating Lifting Strength via handling absurd amounts of recoil
Replies
3
Views
909
Naito-desu
Naito-desu
Viott
Lookism Lifting Strength uprade
Replies
5
Views
1K
Starter_Pack
Starter_Pack
TheRustyOne
  • Locked
MHA: Attack Potency and Lifting Strength Upgrades
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
Damage3245
Damage3245
Agnaa
Indentation Calcs
2 3
Replies
112
Views
9K
Agnaa
Agnaa
LIFE_OF_KING
Bloodborn - Downgrades
Replies
0
Views
841
LIFE_OF_KING
LIFE_OF_KING
Back
Top