• 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.

Freezing human body calc makes no sense

Status
Not open for further replies.
6,457
1,187
This calc on here makes no sense to me: So total energy = 62 * 3500 * 38 + 0.65*62*1000*333.55 = 21,688,065 Joules

I understand where the 62 comes from, but what about the other values, I don't know that they are or where they come from
 
I relooked at the calc again, the 1000 is a conversion, I personally think it would be better to use 333550 J/kg instead as to not create confusion

Edit: I did a quick calc for freezing a human body to 0 K, and I ended up with results of 5.904421 times the joules for regular freezing
 
I relooked at the calc again, the 1000 is a conversion, I personally think it would be better to use 333550 J/kg instead as to not create confusion

Edit: I did a quick calc for freezing a human body to 0 K, and I ended up with results of 5.904421 times the joules for regular freezing
Pathetic.
 
Aaaaaaaaaaanyway, I think the questions seem to have been answered properly. I can add the steps in the References for Common Feats page. Afterwards, should we close this thread?
 
Of course. Tell me here when you are done.
 
Do you think it's possible if we can also add some of the accepted and evaluated calculations from here to the page?
 
Actually, for the vaporization part, now that I think about it...

The link it uses for mass of water, this one, states that the adult human body averaged at ~65% water.

We should prolly replace 60% there with 65%.
 
So is it fine if I close the references page now?
 
So is it fine if I close the references page now?
Well, I did notice this
Actually, for the vaporization part, now that I think about it...

The link it uses for mass of water, this one, states that the adult human body averaged at ~65% water.

We should prolly replace 60% there with 65%.
The ice calc uses the 65% for body water mass percentage, no reason to not assume the same in the vaporization calc. The 65% water percentage is more accurate I believe (60-63% is just for males while females are 52-55% as per the link), and thus consistency is maintained. And no tiers would change either.
 
Last edited:
I know I asked this on the slicing swords blog, but the pulv end for steel is 310-1000 J/cc, what value should I be using?
Use the high-end, 310 makes no sense considering v. frag is 568.5 J/cc. Other steels have higher compressive strengths AKA pulv strengths.
 
Oof! We may need to update the destruction values table
Not necessarily, the 310 J/cc value was used as a low-end, but this is an approximation of steel as a whole, not its various forms.

I said to use the pulv of high-end of steel to compensate for the fact that swords today are made of a stronger 1055 grade heat-treated carbon steel, since right now we don't have a compressive strength value for that, but it would not be as low as 310.
 
Well, I did notice this

The ice calc uses the 65% for body water mass percentage, no reason to not assume the same in the vaporization calc. The 65% water percentage is more accurate I believe (60-63% is just for males while females are 52-55% as per the link), and thus consistency is maintained. And no tiers would change either.
Okay. That is probably fine to apply then.
 
Fixed. I also added an absolute zero variant and linked it to Hagane's calc since that has been mostly accepted now. He just needs to fix the -274.15 to -273.15 in his opening line of the blog and that should be that for this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top