- 10,866
- 12,234
Hmmm... ok. Would something like
suffice?For details on the Faster than the Eye rating see here.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
suffice?For details on the Faster than the Eye rating see here.
No it doesn't. It divides the mass of a skull by bone density to get a volume. Where is it being treated as a cube-shaped bone?The problem with it is that it treats the skull as just a cube made of bone,
Thank you for helping out.
Now we just need to deal with the skull-crushing debacle.Thank you for helping out.
What is left to do here then?
KatBoi said he was gonna do some work on the area of the piston used to crush the skull once he got back from vacation but other than that the only people I really know of that can handle this type of stuff is prolly Spino.Okay. If you write a summary, I could ask some calc group members for input.
Did I? I thought we shifted to your dimensional analysis solution and I was going to check the math.KatBoi said he was gonna do some work on the area of the piston used to crush the skull once he got back from vacation but other than that the only people I really know of that can handle this type of stuff is prolly Spino.
@Spinosaurus75DinosaurFanKatBoi said he was gonna do some work on the area of the piston used to crush the skull once he got back from vacation but other than that the only people I really know of that can handle this type of stuff is prolly Spino.
So it seems like we have two separate sources saying 1100-1200lbs to crush a human skull, so we're at a point of making sure we have a sound way to get an energy value out of that, yeah?I found another value here which says 1200 lbs.
I'll just use the same formual.
For comparison's sake I'll assume the Japanese researchers mean the value in psi.
1200 psi= 8273709 pascal.
Skull area= 0.03 meters
8273709*0.03= 248211.27 newtons
Skull height= 0.22 meters
Calc (Work= force times distance): 248211.27*0.22= 54606.4794 J (Wall level)
Honestly I myself am not sure, since the values say lbs instead of psi.So it seems like we have two separate sources saying 1100-1200lbs to crush a human skull, so we're at a point of making sure we have a sound way to get an energy value out of that, yeah?
Based on the method above, we are calling skull crushing at about 50x the high end of a professional boxer's punch (1000 J, based on some googling). As a common sense check, this seems like the math above is giving us a reasonable energy output for splattering a skull. This would also be the energy equivalent to shooting someone multiple times in the face (also in line with skull destruction).
I wish I had the expertise to judge if this calc is physically sound, but I'm just bad at classical mechanics. So as I see it, the only issue we could be running into is, "right answer based on the wrong math" imo.
Yeah lol, hence the caveat at the end. My barrier here is that my physics background is all related to chemistry. I have zero structural/mechanical engineering experience.Honestly I myself am not sure, since the values say lbs instead of psi.
I was mostly talking about solid shotgun slugs. Mostly based on this vid I recently found.Yeah lol, hence the caveat at the end. My barrier here is that my physics background is all related to chemistry. I have zero structural/mechanical engineering experience.
Edit: In response to your edit, I'd need to look up the speed and weight of the shot that scatters from a shotgun to get a KE value. The comparison I was making was to a single shot from a handgun.
To deal with the calc for skull-crushing.Can somebody remind me and others what we currently need to do here please?
AFAIK Spino did say he knew some values for skull-crushing but he's been busy as of late.Okay. If you need help from specific calc group members, I can help you with contacting them.
Okay.AFAIK Spino did say he knew some values for skull-crushing but he's been busy as of late.
1100 pounds is what I've used in the past which seems in line with what is found above
It says pounds of force but I'm pretty sure the crushing tests definitely did not involve a rapid strike, they themselves state to have mostly involved compressing the skull like in most hydraulic crushing videos you see. And as the above comments discussed, the values were gotten by compressing the weakest parts of the skull.This is a striking force right? Does that translate into striking energy and how so? (And lifting strength too?)
Quote source where it says "Skull top area= 0.03 meters"I found another value here which says 1200 lbs.
I'll just use the same formula.
For comparison's sake I'll assume the Japanese researchers mean the value in psi.
1200 psi= 8273709 pascal.
Skull top area= 0.03 meters
8273709*0.03= 248211.27 newtons
Skull height= 0.22 meters
Calc (Work= force times distance): 248211.27*0.22= 54606.4794 J (Wall level)
I calculated it based on the length and width of the average skull I found here. The link says the skull is 15 cm wide and 20 cm long. Matches the wikipedia head size values here, 1 (Head breadth) and 7 (Glabella to back of head) are our main numbers there.Quote source where it says "Skull top area= 0.03 meters"
1100-1200 lbs value was decided as the most appropriate. Sources here, here and here (Archive vn link here). The first link explicitly mentions compression being used, and the second link outright says "1100 pounds of pressure", which can't mean anything other than compressive strength or PSI.And since we have a few value sets for skull crushing, we are yet to choose one most appropriate
DontTalk already handled the Faster-than-eye portions of the CRT.What are the conclusions here so far?
For now I'd just recommend using bullets as the baseline for skull-busting, like shotgun shells or the .500 S&W Magnum blowing up heads easily, based on these videos (Those are around 3000-3700 J IIRC) (And this, which involves some elephant gun rounds).I think the people trying to calc skull crushing at above 9-C are kinda missing the point.
In real life fields of science, when you do all your math and the result ends up with something different, then that's just a problem with your math. You can't really throw away what actually happened, so something must be wrong with what theoretically should have happened. Empirical testing trumps hypothetical math, every time.
I've already demonstrated with a very generous calc that even the heaviest elephant ever under rather wankish conditions flat out cannot be 9-B, and elephant skull crushing is rather well documented and certainly was not constantly using 10k pound elephants. We know from historical testing, then, that skull crushing can be done at sub 9-B amounts of energy output. As such, any calcs that contradict this without finding some issue there first are just kinda wrong by default, because testing always beats numbers.
I'd said that I couldn't find a good way to calculate it myself, but could find stuff to show that it couldn't be 9-B. Maybe someone else finds a better way to calc it, and we have a better value than >1072J or whatever the world record punch is rn. That would be neat, and more power to you if you find a way to do that, but if you run the numbers and come up with a higher minimum value than what we know really did accomplish the job in reality... it's just incorrect.
I really do think that all we can do in the meantime is just put it as a vaguely superhuman 9-C.
I think 300 joules is not too far off. The video I linked above shows it only takes 350 joules to crush a small cylindrical block of reinforced concrete. And something tells me that a human head is even less durableSeems better than nothing, at least. It doesn't exceed the elephant thing but also doesn't let people be like "hmm this technically is calcless so it is 300 joules."