Destruction Value Conversion Figures

[Flashlight237]

Hey. We currently use J/cm³ for destruction values. Wouldn't it be nicer to allow people to go through less hassle by giving people a couple figures to convert that into? Basically, this:

1 Megapascal=1 J/cm³=1 MJ/m³

I listed the Megapascal because that is literally where we got the j/cm³ thing from, and 1 MJ/m³ because 1 cubic meter is literally a million cubic centimeters, thus I feel the shortcut should be encouraged.

 

[KLOL506]

Yeah this is fine.

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Therefir @CloverDragon03 @DMUA @Dark-Carioca @DemonGodMitchAubin @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Migue79 What do y'all think?

 

[CloverDragon03]

Seems fine

 

[Therefir]

As an addition it should be harmless.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Skip the megapascal thing. Causes way more issues than it solves, as people will try to use it wrong. (and it's not the same dimensions)
MJ is ok, but is it useful? Our AP chart has no megajoule values, so I'm not sure why you would want to end up with that as the unit for the end result.
Something like tons of TNT per m^3 or so would probably be more useful.

 

[Flashlight237]

MJ is ok, but is it useful? Our AP chart has no megajoule values, so I'm not sure why you would want to end up with that as the unit for the end result.
Something like tons of TNT per m^3 or so would probably be more useful.

Let's see...

1. We already have practically every macro SI unit in the book in our AP chart among other things in the wiki. What's wrong with sticking to SI? You know, the thing every science entity TELLS US to use?
2. A lot of scientific formulae, regardless of whether we use it or not, use SI units (ex. joules and megajoules, cubic meters, again joules and megajoules, etc), which are made to be universal around the concepts they represent, much unlike non-standard units which only represent specific uses (ex. tons of TNT for explosives; bushels for crop harvests; calories for nutrition (and that gets used wrongly there; nutrition calories are actually kilocalories), etc). In fact, I'm pretty sure the only two formulae on this wiki that doesn't use SI units are the two explosion formulae we got, one of which is largely archaic as NUKEMAP ditched that formula for a more up-to-date formula.
3. Practically every volume in calcs is recorded in a certain amount of cubic meters, so going for Megajoules/Cubic Meter means a lot less hassle for users than going off the rails with a non-standard unit like you're proposing. Seriously, with MJ/m³, all you're doing is dividing by 4184 in the end. With j/cm³, you have to multiply by 100³ then divide by 4.184*10^-9, and throwing a non-standard unit like Tons of TNT in the middle rather than doing what everyone else does and throwing it in the end is just gonna make people, calc group members included, wonder what the hell is going on.

We're not the stereotypical "intentionally tries to avoid the metric system" Americans around here. Stick with SI, and I trust you that nobody here is getting hoit.

Skip the megapascal thing. Causes way more issues than it solves, as people will try to use it wrong. (and it's not the same dimensions)

I literally show people how to use Megapascals in my work. That's not mentioning the fact that we literally stole the idea from the Outskirts Battledome (which explicitly used shear strength and compressive strength for their destruction values, ALL of which used megapascals), and that is still one of the reasons why the OBD sees this site as laughing joking ********. If you seriously don't like Megapascals, kindly delete the entire destruction chart from the calculations page because every value there is extracted from Megapascal values for shear and compressive strength.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Let's see...

1. We already have practically every macro SI unit in the book in our AP chart among other things in the wiki. What's wrong with sticking to SI? You know, the thing every science entity TELLS US to use?
2. A lot of scientific formulae, regardless of whether we use it or not, use SI units (ex. joules and megajoules, cubic meters, again joules and megajoules, etc), which are made to be universal around the concepts they represent, much unlike non-standard units which only represent specific uses (ex. tons of TNT for explosives; bushels for crop harvests; calories for nutrition (and that gets used wrongly there; nutrition calories are actually kilocalories), etc). In fact, I'm pretty sure the only two formulae on this wiki that doesn't use SI units are the two explosion formulae we got, one of which is largely archaic as NUKEMAP ditched that formula for a more up-to-date formula.
3. Practically every volume in calcs is recorded in a certain amount of cubic meters, so going for Megajoules/Cubic Meter means a lot less hassle for users than going off the rails with a non-standard unit like you're proposing. Seriously, with MJ/m³, all you're doing is dividing by 4184 in the end. With j/cm³, you have to multiply by 100³ then divide by 4.184*10^-9, and throwing a non-standard unit like Tons of TNT in the middle rather than doing what everyone else does and throwing it in the end is just gonna make people, calc group members included, wonder what the hell is going on.

We're not the stereotypical "intentionally tries to avoid the metric system" Americans around here. Stick with SI, and I trust you that nobody here is getting hoit.

The SI unit would just be joules, which we use. Megajoules is a derived unit. There is little reason to have both.

The main reason we would add units is because doing so is in some way useful for us. Like, adding different volume units (i.e. per m^3 or per km^3) would be useful, as that would save us the work when the source gives us the value in that unit. We wouldn't need to always convert to cm^3 anymore.

For the energy unit, units are useful which match the AP chart, as you can then take that output and look it up in the chart, without having to first convert them to a different unit.

I just don't see a use case for a MJ value. Like, say you have some destruction value of 5 MJ/cm^3. You do your scaling and get a value of 100 cm^3. So you multiply and get 500 MJ/cm^3... and now you have to convert that to either J or tons of tnt to look up which AP it is and having it in MJ gives you no intutive sense of how impressive it is either.

On the other hand, you could just use the same destruction value in the form 5000000 J/cm^3. Then you do the same calculation and get directly that the result is 5e8 J. That you can look up directly in the AP chart.

I just don't understand in which situation you would want to do the former instead of the latter, if you have both options.


So yeah, J/m^3 is a good units to have. So would be J/km^3. Tons of TNT / m^3 and Tons of TNT / km^3 could also be useful. They are just as easy to look up in our chart and have the advantage of the numbers not getting so large.
If you want to just do the Joules value, that's fine. I just don't see why we would do MJ.

I literally show people how to use Megapascals in my work. That's not mentioning the fact that we literally stole the idea from the Outskirts Battledome (which explicitly used shear strength and compressive strength for their destruction values, ALL of which used megapascals), and that is still one of the reasons why the OBD sees this site as laughing joking ********. If you seriously don't like Megapascals, kindly delete the entire destruction chart from the calculations page because every value there is extracted from Megapascal values for shear and compressive strength.

The destruction values come from that, but we use the destruction values, not the pressure.

It's like force is a factor/pressure in tensioning a spring, but it's a bad idea to equate that force/pressure to the energy you need to tension it. The fact that it mathematically works out doesn't change the fact that it's not the same thing.

And when I say it would do more harm, then I mean that people would take the pressure value and apply it to completely different things.

 

[Flashlight237]

The SI unit would just be joules, which we use. Megajoules is a derived unit. There is little reason to have both.

We literally use a derived unit as it currently stands. Why are you okay with centimeters yet not megajoules?

The main reason we would add units is because doing so is in some way useful for us. Like, adding different volume units (i.e. per m^3 or per km^3) would be useful, as that would save us the work when the source gives us the value in that unit. We wouldn't need to always convert to cm^3 anymore.

Bro, that's literally the same argument I've made for MJ/m^3, only ya picked volume instead of energy.

I just don't see a use case for a MJ value. Like, say you have some destruction value of 5 MJ/cm^3. You do your scaling and get a value of 100 cm^3. So you multiply and get 500 MJ/cm^3... and now you have to convert that to either J or tons of tnt to look up which AP it is and having it in MJ gives you no intutive sense of how impressive it is either.

What are you on about? If we're going off the example provided under the given values listed, if we just kept it at 500 MJ, you just divide by 4184 to get 0.1195 tons of TNT. Likewise, you would write that as 500000000 joules and then have to divide by 4.184*10^9 joules to get the same result. The main difference is how these numbers shrink.

See, the larger the number you divide by, the less impressive a number would appear. In Exhibit A, you would see that the megajoules value is divided by a four-digit number whereas with Exhibit B, you're dividing by a 10-digit number, meaning that number shrunk a literal million times more. What would people think would be more impressed by if you showed them what I put out here? The 9-digit number that was divided by ten orders of magnitude, or the three-digit number that is divided by four orders of magnitude?

By the way, MJ/m^3 is more likely to keep numbers small (5 MJ/m^3) than J/m^3 (5000000 J/m^3 or 5*10^6 J/m^3; you're using more characters either way.)

 

[DontTalkDT]

We literally use a derived unit as it currently stands. Why are you okay with centimeters yet not megajoules?

Because centimeters is useful for when you are given something that is measured in centimeters.

Bro, that's literally the same argument I've made for MJ/m^3, only ya picked volume instead of enegy.

Because if you do a calc, volume is the unit you are given by the circumstances. If you calc "destruction of a 1 x 100 x 10 cm cube of stone" then you have a centimeter value given. So if we have that as a unit in the destruction values, we save the work of converting the unit into some other unit before being able to work with it.

Contrary to that, the energy unit is not given to us. We can choose which output unit we wish to have when we write down the destruction values. The circumstances of the calc don't dictate them to us.

A destruction value converts an input (a volume) into an output (an energy). So the two units in it aren't equal in purpose, since one needs to match the input and the other does not.

What are you on about? If we're going off the example provided under the given values listed, if we just kept it at 500 MJ, you just divide by 4184 to get 0.1195 tons of TNT. Likewise, you would write that as 500000000 joules and then have to divide by 4.184*10^9 joules to get the same result. The main difference is how these numbers shrink.

See, the larger the number you divide by, the less impressive a number would appear. In Exhibit A, you would see that the megajoules value is divided by a four-digit number whereas with Exhibit B, you're dividing by a 10-digit number, meaning that number shrunk a literal million times more. What would people think would be more impressed by if you showed them what I put out here? The 9-digit number that was divided by ten orders of magnitude, or the three-digit number that is divided by four orders of magnitude?

By the way, MJ/m^3 is more likely to keep numbers small (5 MJ/m^3) than J/m^3 (5000000 J/m^3 or 5*10^6 J/m^3; you're using more characters either way.)

You are still missing the point.

Yeah, you can take the MJ value and convert it to joule. Or you can take the MJ value and convert it to tons of TNT. Both gets you to the goal of having it in a unit listed in our Attack Potency chart.
But why would you want to first calculate a MJ value to then convert it when you could have just used a destruction value that gives you the converted result straight away?

In the end you will always need the result in a unit in the AP chart. And MJ is not in it.

Name me one example in which MJ would be the end result of a calc, instead of having to be converted into a different unit to be used.

 

[Flashlight237]

Because centimeters is useful for when you are given something that is measured in centimeters.

In a practice where most calcs have length values measured in meters? Most verses are not Pikmin and most large objects aren't measured in centimeters like humans. Name a time when a tree (height or spread is usually used), a house, or a mountain is measured in centimeters.

But why would you want to first calculate a MJ value to then convert it when you could have just used a destruction value that gives you the converted result straight away?

Literally the only difference between calculating megajoules and calculating joules is you don't have to convert meters into centimeters before converting it into tons of TNT (more commonplace than joules in Vs debating entities). That's not including the smaller divisor (4184 vs 4.184*10^9). It's more convenient given, well, most volumes are calculated in cubic meters. The only times where cubic centimeters are more valuable are for the Pikmin calcs I did.

Name me one example in which MJ would be the end result of a calc, instead of having to be converted into a different unit to be used.

Closest I got are heat calculations, where latent heat and specific heat values are often listed as kilojoules (one SI prefix under Mega-, but still uses something other than joules) in scientific references (ex. https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/U...Amanda_the_Adventurer:_The_Buildings_Are_Dead! ; https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/References_for_Common_Feats#Vaporizing_an_Average_Human ). This bearing in mind that scientists don't really care about our antics.

Megajoules, I got megajoules as an end result in a Felix calc using meters and denoting both J/cm³ AND MJ/m³ (the latter being used): https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Flashlight237/Felix_the_Cat_Calcs_(1919_to_1936)