New formula for glass breaking feats.

[HorrorHistory]

Bump

 

[VanderSalva]

To be clear, is this single-glazed? Tempered?

The source, page 8, says float glass. Architectural glass, not tempered.

 

[HorrorHistory]

Bump

 

[ShockingPsychic]

I know of four whole verses that are currently relying on this thread lol

 

[Perequeliri993]

I... suppose I should address this, as the... not creator, but the one who brought this formula to the staff's attention, and creator of the blog in the OP.

I personally believe that the formula should be mostly alright - the formula accounts for the fact that the higher the area, the smaller the N/m² required. At least it should work in the case of an object breaking glass that is perpendicular to the ground, and that the object is not way smaller than the window.

I do have to mention that the pdf's formula didn't account for destruction of the window (which is, admittedly, what causes the butterfly effect), but damage, like a rock hitting a window, cracking it, but not destroying it. For that reason, I believe what someone else said before here could be used, and take not the radius of the breakage, but that of the offending object. Could this be low balling it? Yes, but better safe than sorry.

 

[Perequeliri993]

Bump, bump bump, bumpbumpbumpbumpbump bump bump

 

[Agnaa]

DT seems to have argued against the usability of this method, without receiving a proper response.

The problem here is that it basically tries to use a proper approach and then in the middle turns around and throws our hugely oversimplified stuff in the mix. I think the result essentially is a best of both worlds scenario, where the pressure is taken from one approach but then applied to a way too huge volume for that.
So, not really sure about that approach.

I think he means "worst of both worlds", here.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

Both.

 

[rpmblack]

BUMP

 

[ByArrow]

Bump

 

[Greatsage13th]

Ah...

 

[Greatsage13th]

Technically the bigger the main fracture happens, the weaker the attack is. So, regular glass breaking feats would mostly be in the low ranges of 9-C.

 

[Greatsage13th]

Technically the bigger the main fracture happens, the weaker the attack is. So, regular glass breaking feats would mostly be in the very low ranges of 9-C, since most of them haven't gone above 1000 joules.

Since the main fracture is always quite big.

 

[Greatsage13th]

Bump

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

Since the main fracture is always quite big.

Edit.

 

[Greatsage13th]

Edit.

Edit?

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

You made a reply that should have been an edit.
I admit the animation and popup when you do are annoying, though.

 

[Greatsage13th]

Ah. my bad.

 

[Greatsage13th]

The consistent issue with glass feats is that any values and methods we've used up to this point have returned strictly absurd values, predictably because our hazy guesswork system of pseudo-science ignores a lot of the minutiae in any given physical feat. We have an imperfect system that creates progressively more ridiculous results. In very high tiers, this isn't really noticeable in many instances- but down at the bottom, where 10-C feats return 9-C to 9-B results because the distance between tiers is very very small, it becomes an issue.

Take a look at those example calculations. Literally anyone can break a window. I've done it. Practically anything can. Weapons are only necessary for most instances because the alternative is cutting the hell out of your hand.

Because it's such a human level thing to do, why would directors and producers shy away from doing it? So we will have an endless sea of objectively human level characters producing feats our wiki seems content to describe as Wall level. Superhuman! For shattering glass! It's not hard to imagine, that second feat is missing the mark by only about 3%.

Humans can break glass windows. This seems so fundamentally known that it is actually hard to find much evidence on the subject (perhaps also because of the danger implicit in actually doing it). Destroying a window shouldn't be considered a 9-C feat, whatever our botched system of mathematics dictates.

I agree with Bambu on this, although I admit I cannot judge if the above method is even sound to begin with.

I've actually broken a window with my bare hand, cut my hand doing so in fact, when I was still in elementary school. I see this on the same level as falling from normal height. Are system isn't 100% accurate and the more precise/lower we try to get, the more obvious that imprecision becomes.

When dealing with obviously human level feats, like breaking some glass or falling from a reasonable height, just because the "results" give us a certain value doesn't mean we should actually use it. All of the calculations in the OP look extremely human level to me, I very much hesitate in believing these results should be used.

Note: My knowledge on the formula itself is very limited, as I said above I cannot truly say if it's accurate or not. This is just an issue I have with these feats in general.

As an individual who has broken a glass window on accident before from being shoved. Yes, humans in general have been able to break glass on numerous occasion. However, not all irl glass breaking feats can be considered to be 9-C. Let's look at the image below:

The theory in place states that a damaged glass with a small main breakage (The center (origin of breakage) up until the region where a frosted effect can be seen) would essentially mean the glass is capable of dealing with higher tension due to less edge damage and fewer weak points present within its structure, which will point towards a much larger force has been imparted to break that glass.

So, it means that the larger the radius of the main breakage, the lesser the force is imparted as the large main breakage radius would mean that the glass has a lot more weakness present within itself.

To summarize the above, by following the logic: the formula would provide far higher values for glass breaking feats with extremely small breaking points as opposed to breaking points that are as large as the glass itself.

Which would mean the feat below would have a lower value than most glass breaking feats if it assumes the main breakage is as wide as the window itself:

 

[Agnaa]

How does that actually end up working out in terms of values?

If you're saying that certain IRL glass breaking feats performed by humans wouldn't be 9-C, could you calculate some to demonstrate that?

 

[Greatsage13th]

How does that actually end up working out in terms of values?

As in?

If you're saying that certain IRL glass breaking feats performed by humans wouldn't be 9-C, could you calculate some to demonstrate that?

I can try and see if what I said holds up when I have found time to find some examples to calculate it.

Edit: I'll at least prove my previous statement regarding the fact that most feats calculated with this method rarely exceeds 3 digits.

 

[CatLover313]

Has this been dropped? I was very curious on the results of the thread

 

[Greatsage13th]

Has this been dropped? I was very curious on the results of the thread

It's not going to work. The joules you get from this just seems a tad bit too much once you think about it in comparison to other things.

I honestly can't agree with the fact that with this formula, a glass breaking feat would have more kinetic energy than a pro athlete throwing a javelin.