- 32,835
- 38,108
Not exactly sure how the earth's curvature would change the yield of the explosion tho. It'd be just basic pixel-scaling at that point using the new curvature formula we've been using since last year.
-
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.
Guidelines for Surface Explosions
- Thread starter Antoniofer
- Start date
- 10,903
- 12,342
Adding pre-computed values from the existing formulas seem uncontroversial.
The 20psi revision you suggest on the other hand is probably more controversial. I mean, usually we measure not the shockwave since comics and stuff often don't really show it. We usually scale the area inside the fireball or what you want to call it for energy beam explosions and then go with the reasoning that inside this area every human would certainly have died and hence the "near-total fatalities"-value applies (which is 20 psi).
If you have an explosion where you scale the shockwave and a human might actually survive in that distance, I guess using the other values makes sense.
The 20psi revision you suggest on the other hand is probably more controversial. I mean, usually we measure not the shockwave since comics and stuff often don't really show it. We usually scale the area inside the fireball or what you want to call it for energy beam explosions and then go with the reasoning that inside this area every human would certainly have died and hence the "near-total fatalities"-value applies (which is 20 psi).
If you have an explosion where you scale the shockwave and a human might actually survive in that distance, I guess using the other values makes sense.
- 9,978
- 2,015
- Thread starter
- #44
So I believe you suggests that for explosions with no real point of reference (like causing destruction or causing death) we consider the fireball as the 20 psi point, isn't it? Isn't the fireball radius considerable different than the 20 psi one according to online calculators?
Guess you agree with explosions that do not fit the destructive criteria at certain distance to use a different overpressure value, even if there's no proof that the explosions would or not kill every human within the radius, right?
Guess you agree with explosions that do not fit the destructive criteria at certain distance to use a different overpressure value, even if there's no proof that the explosions would or not kill every human within the radius, right?
- 15,442
- 15,410
That’s true, it is usually implied that anything within the fireball itself gets destroyed, but in cases where it doesn’t, I guess that should use a different PSI?
- 16,121
- 12,619
What if we just use airblast for that? Even if it's a ground blast, it should still be more accurate since that formula doesn't use PSI, so it's better then guessing. Maybe. Idk
- 9,978
- 2,015
- Thread starter
- #47
The airburst equation does use overpressure, but is already considered into the equation (20 psi); the more simplified equation for airburst is yet unknown.
- 10,903
- 12,342
The 20psi radius is usually much larger, so it would at least be a low end, I think.
But it often is less about the fireball itself than about the fact that we can be fairly certain that a normal human would have died in that radius.
If we can't assume that near-total fatalities apply for some reason, then another psi value fitting the destruction should be used.
As often in fiction, whether near-total fatalities should be assumed is a pro vs con issue. If there is a lack of destruction where destruction should be that's a big con. But there could be pro's to consider to counter that.
- 9,978
- 2,015
- Thread starter
- #49
Hm, would need to check a calculator to confirm that, although my pc is ruined and my attemp of laptop do not leave me enter few sites. If that relationship between fireball and explosion is true then I guess I would have no problem assuming such a thing, although its imortant to notice that not all fireballs are explosions, thos ethat carries almost no pressure are combustions and should use other equation to determinate the yield.
- 13,816
- 14,899
Back to the 20 psi thing:
I do not know if it is any good, but a 20 psi overpressure actually represents a "heavy blast damage radius" or "near-total fatality radius" while a true "fireball radius" is effectively "liquifying/pulverising/vaporising radius" and is significantly a much smaller radius. While a 5 psi can still make up for a "moderate blast damage radius" and buildings can still be fragmented and organisms hurt or killed, and a 1 psi radius or the so-called At around 1 psi, glass windows can still be expected to break but is already but an explosion with a certain yield, if having a certain "heavy blast damage radius", will have a much larger "light blast damage radius radius". (Source: primarily nukemap, but a wiki page about a nuclear explosion states something similar)
I wonder if it would be good if we add in the 5 psi and the 1 psi part for describing an explosion having a smaller damage to surroundings.
- 9,978
- 2,015
- Thread starter
- #51
Bump
I see adding the table yield/radius table is uncontroversial, but we haven't reach a clear conclusion about using different overpressure values.
I see adding the table yield/radius table is uncontroversial, but we haven't reach a clear conclusion about using different overpressure values.
- 9,978
- 2,015
- Thread starter
- #52
Btw, I updated the blog, expanded it with few additional guidelines such not using the equation for combustions or AoE attacks that carries little or no pressure, and few examples of what should be used the equations. Also removed the relationship of heat and pressure, that the 0.4-0.5 hasn't beed really confirmed.
- 9,978
- 2,015
- Thread starter
- #53
Bump
- 167,862
- 76,484
Surface Explosions: Effects and Radius
vsbattles.fandom.com
@Amelia_Lonelyheart @Armorchompy @KLOL506 @DemonGodMitchAubin @DontTalkDT @KieranH10 @TheRustyOne @DragonGamerZ913 @Migue79 @Jasonsith
What do you think about this?
- 15,442
- 15,410
Looks fine to meSurface Explosions: Effects and Radius
@Amelia_Lonelyheart @Armorchompy @KLOL506 @DemonGodMitchAubin @DontTalkDT @KieranH10 @TheRustyOne @DragonGamerZ913 @Migue79 @Jasonsith
What do you think about this?
- 13,228
- 21,044
Looks good
- 9,978
- 2,015
- Thread starter
- #63
Very well, if there's no objections and people seems to agree, perhaps the guideline should already be created, or maybe expand the former explosion ones. What do you think it would be the best, @Antvasima?
- 167,862
- 76,484
I do not remember enough of this discussion, and calculations are not my area anymore nowadays, so I usually defer to what @DontTalkDT and the calc group members think is best.
- 9,978
- 2,015
- Thread starter
- #65
Men, sure the bureaucratic methods to get stuff accepted/rejected has slowed down lately... Could you @Antvasima at least paste the last table of the blog (AP/radius relationship one) in the Explosion Surface guideline?
- 32,835
- 38,108
Hmmmmm, where should it be pasted? In the Explosion Yield Calculations page? If so, where?
- 9,978
- 2,015
- Thread starter
- #67
In the Explosion Radius/Area page should be good, here: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Explosion_Radius/Area
- 32,835
- 38,108
Hmmmmmmm, maybe make a new headline for the ground-based stuff and then stick the table inside?
- 9,978
- 2,015
- Thread starter
- #69
That is more or less the idea, yes.
- 167,862
- 76,484
Anyway, the general problem here is that I have ADHD and constantly switch between hundreds of different revisions from day to day, so I cannot properly keep track of the contents of the more complicated ones, and don't want to accidentally mess up our mathematical instruction pages.
Also, my experience is that it is safest if DontTalk has the final say regarding said instruction pages.
- 32,835
- 38,108
The other group members and I have accepted it as per the above comments. Not sure about DT, prolly should ask him again, since we'll need him to help out with the edits anyway.
I'm a bit busy ATM tho so I don't think I'll be able to help out with the edits for a while.
- 9,978
- 2,015
- Thread starter
- #73
At the very list DontTalkDT accepted the part with using the explosion radius estimations from the blog, that I consider it should be added to the Explosion Radius/Area page. He has no longer commented about the part about the use of overpressure based in the destruction caused by the explosion, but the rest of the calc members seems to be fine with it.
- 167,862
- 76,484
Okay. Thank you for the replies.
@DontTalkDT
Would you be willing to apply the revisions that you consider acceptable based on this thread please?
@DontTalkDT
Would you be willing to apply the revisions that you consider acceptable based on this thread please?
- 167,862
- 76,484
- 9,978
- 2,015
- Thread starter
- #78
Someone capable to edit the guidelines just need to add the radius estimations from the blog to the area/radius guideline, as it the part that has been universally accepted.
- 32,835
- 38,108
Similar threads
