How durable do you have to be to endure the explosion of Dynamite?

[The_man_with_the_Midas_touch]

Title. Here is a picture of the dynamite for reference. its six sticks of dynamite tapped together. The playable character of the game can tank a direct explosion of this without dying, so I'm wondering how durable that would make them.

 

[Thelastmlg]

Wikipedia claims one stick = 1 MJ

6 MJ is high end wall level.

 

[Kyleb79]

Adding onto Thelastmlg's answer.

Wikipedia states that such Dynamite stick is 0.19 kg, 33mm (3.3cm) in diameter, and 200mm (20cm) long. The picture itself seems to show Dynamite as larger. Though it shouldn't be any large amount larger. Though just a heads up, the term "tanked" is normally taken weirdly, as I take it as "taking/absorbing an attack with little to no effect that could affect themselves" so if it's them being injured by it, they'd likely not get an "At least" rating for Wall level.

I originally thought Wall level+ was 10.467MJ, though as Thelastmlg said, it's Wall level+.

 

[KLOL506]

Adding onto Thelastmlg's answer.

Wikipedia states that such Dynamite stick is 0.19 kg, 33mm (3.3cm) in diameter, and 200mm (20cm) long. The picture itself seems to show Dynamite as larger. Though it shouldn't be any large amount larger. Though just a heads up, the term "tanked" is normally taken weirdly, as I take it as "taking/absorbing an attack with little to no effect that could affect themselves" so if it's them being injured by it, they'd likely not get an "At least" rating for Wall level.

I originally thought Wall level+ was 10.467MJ was Wall level+ though as Thelastmlg said, it's Wall level+.

Nah, Wall level+ indeed starts at 10.467 MJ.

 

[Kyleb79]

Nah, Wall level+ indeed starts at 10.467 MJ.

Ahh.

 

[EliminatorVenom]

I thought that we treated something like 6 explosives exploding together as simply 6 attacks of one single level, instead of adding up the energy of all of them.

In any case...

• If we can add energy, thelast answered that very well.
• If we can't, then it is above 1 MJ, but we don't know by how much.
• If we factor area of contact and how much energy has been transferred, this would be significantly lower.

As this is something on the lower tiers, it is rare for someone to apply the third point, so there's that.

 

[Kyleb79]

I thought that we treated something like 6 explosives exploding together as simply 6 attacks of one single level, instead of adding up the energy of all of them.

I originally thought that as well. Though we apparently calculate feats by dividing how many hits it takes.

I remember a feat by destroying a door took a few attacks they divided it by that number, which would mean it'd take the multiplied number to do the feat in one strike.

That sounds confusing so let me put it in simple words.

It takes 6 MJ's to destroy something we have a 1MJ punch, using the logic we use with the dividing attacks, we'd need 6 punches to achieve the 6 Megajoule feat. The character supposedly takes all those "punches" at once. Unless I'm wrong and are missing something.

 

[The_man_with_the_Midas_touch]

The item itself makes one large explosion, not multiple smaller ones, if that clears anything up.

 

[Kyleb79]

The item itself makes one large explosion, not multiple smaller ones, if that clears anything up.

Which should be 6 MJ using the division logic.

 

[EliminatorVenom]

I originally thought that as well. Though we apparently calculate feats by dividing how many hits it takes.

I remember a feat by destroying a door took a few attacks they divided it by that number, which would mean it'd take the multiplied number to do the feat in one strike.

That sounds confusing so let me put it in simple words.

It takes 6 MJ's to destroy something we have a 1MJ punch, using the logic we use with the dividing attacks, we'd need 6 punches to achieve the 6 Megajoule feat. The character supposedly takes all those "punches" at once. Unless I'm wrong and are missing something.

To be honest, I disagree a lot with the logic of dividing attacks, we use them because we assume that the energy accumulates but I dislike that assumption. In real life you can't break a wall by punching it until the amount of joules to break it is reached.

 

[Kyleb79]

To be honest, I disagree a lot with the logic of dividing attacks, we use them because we assume that the energy accumulates but I dislike that assumption. In real life you can't break a wall by punching it until the amount of joules to break it is reached.

Yeah I myself agree. Punching something over and over again shouldn’t add up, it should stay the same consistency damaging something on the level it is. Though we seem to use the logic of dividing AP via hits for unknown reasons.

 

[KLOL506]

I thought that we treated something like 6 explosives exploding together as simply 6 attacks of one single level, instead of adding up the energy of all of them.

Nah, that would happen only if the explosives exploded separately like a chain reaction, if they're stacked up and detonated at once, then we combine the full yield of all those explosives.

 

[KLOL506]

• If we factor area of contact and how much energy has been transferred, this would be significantly lower.

This requirement sorta goes out of the window if the explosion takes less than 23 cm away from your body (This is assuming that the explosion strikes your 0.68 m^2 cross sectional area, but the taller and heavier you are the larger your cross-sectional area and thus the higher the yield you tank).

Inverse-square law only really works properly once you're farther than 23 cm from the bomb. If you're any closer than that threshold, inverse-square law goes up shit creek and at that point area of contact really doesn't matter anymore.

 

[EliminatorVenom]

This requirement sorta goes out of the window if the explosion takes less than 23 cm away from your body (Assuming 0.68 m^2 cross sectional area, but the taller and heavier you are the larger your cross-sectional area and thus the higher the yield you tank).

Inverse-square law only really works properly once you're farther than 23 cm from the bomb. If you're any closer than that threshold, inverse-square law goes up shit creek and at that point area of contact really doesn't matter anymore.

That is a very interesting fact. Thanks!

 

[Thelastmlg]

So basically if you tank the explosion on your face you always scale to the full yield? Even if the blast is far bigger than you like a nuke?

 

[KLOL506]

So basically if you tank the explosion on your face you always scale to the full yield? Even if the blast is far bigger than you like a nuke?

No, the bomb needs to be smaller than you or about your size. Also if it's a nuke the shelling alone would make sure you're never anywhere near that close to the main explosive anyway. Shelling's got to be at least a foot or two thick, minimum.

If the bomb is smaller than you tho, like say, the size of a small gunpowder barrel, then yes, it'll scale in full, but you need to be like, really, really close to it (Like have it "right under your ass" or "in your face" sort of close, or "bear-hugging" sort of close).

The explosion size itself however (As in the big boom with the cloud and the superhot fireball), really won't matter in the long run, as long as the main bomb itself or more accurately, the explosion source, remains smaller than you or is the same size as you. The main factor is the distance you are from the epicenter, and then after you find the yield tanked using the inverse square law after figuring out the distance between you and the main explosion source's epicenter, you multiply it with cross-sectional area (Which is 40-50% the total value of total surface area depending upon your height, weight and body type).

But like I already said, if you are 23cm away from the bomb or closer (Which is definitely not gonna happen with something as fat as a nuke unless you actually cut it open and got that close to its uranium/plutonium core or whatever), cross-sectional area becomes completely irrelevant, and the math related to inverse-square law itself completely breaks down. And of course, there's obviously the fact that not all people are the same size or type even.

 

[Kyleb79]

So basically if you tank the explosion on your face you always scale to the full yield? Even if the blast is far bigger than you like a nuke?

The OP implies it’s point-blank to say the least.

 

[KLOL506]

That is a very interesting fact. Thanks!

So yeah, the inverse-square law was never made to handle crazy-close distances to small-sized bombs. The formula itself was designed for explosions that are not point-blank.

 

[KLOL506]

The OP implies it’s point-blank to say the least.

Then it should be fine to scale to the full yield.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Depends on how far away you are from the dynamite when it detonates, but assuming point blank, it's 9-B as others said above.

 

[KLOL506]

Depends on how far away you are from the dynamite when it detonates, but assuming point blank, it's 9-B as others said above.

Ye.