Pulverization Calcs

[GodlyCharmander]

So, in a particular group, where we also do Powerscaling, the standard pulverization feats, which we use from both here, and other Wikis which seems to agree on the method, got confronted by supposedly far more accurate way to calculate said feats involving pulverization.
This is the source for his formula, and here an example of him using said method in a calc


Quoting some of his arguments for the assumed standard pulverization calcs being wrong:

"The compressive strength needed to compress concrete is far lower then the strength needed to pulverize it.";

"And there's also the issue that compressive strength doesn't account for impact loads or impact strikes in general. Which is what All Might's smashed did.";

"Either way, the equation is used by actual scientist, so it should be fine to use. It's just another method of calculating the feat.";

"First of all, the standard formula we use ain't even valid. Pulverization is compressive strength, and you only use that when a character slowly uses pressure to crush something. Like slowly crushing a rock. It doesn't account for sudden impact loads, like someone blasting a hole clean through a wall.";

Source for Impact Loading

I'd like to see the opinions of the more knowledgeable members of the Staff.

 

[Jackof_noTrades068]

3 Gigaton all might
That’s crazy if that form of Pulv can be applied more
Might even be able to get High 7-C Kaiju 8
Or casually High 6-A Honkai

But long story short compressive strength(slow compression) will get its own thing and pulverization via impact strikes/quick bursts will be their own thing correct?

 

[KLOL506]

So basically actual pulverization is much more OP than compressive strength, eh?

Problem is, we tried using the Kuz-Ram model, but it was too complicated to use for a variety of other materials (As it's reliant on rock factor and it varies wildly on different types of rock), plus we unfortunately can't use it for non-rock materials like wood or for metals. I talked with ChemistKyle about this who works in the coal industry and I learned all of this from him (Sadly he isn't here anymore).

EDIT: Yeah, using the Kuz-Ram model pulverization is way, way more OP than compressive strength, holy shit. Using our current values for pulv. for concrete I don't even get any higher than 1.7 kilotons for this feat.

I guess compressive strength is prolly gonna get its own separate values. But again, if we can't use said formula for all materials it's gonna get too inconsistent and all over the place. I do like the formula tho, hopefully we can look into the topic further down the line.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

3 Gigaton all might
That’s crazy if that form of Pulv can be applied more
Might even be able to get High 7-C Kaiju 8
Or casually High 6-A Honkai

But long story short compressive strength(slow compression) will get its own thing and pulverization via impact strikes/quick bursts will be their own thing correct?

I guess so. Every pulverization feat by sheer/sudden impact, or KE would probably be affected by this, which I assume is the far majority, and a LOT of verses who have said feats will get an exponential increase.

But I don't know if that's even applicable, I just provided the information from Fuzzle (Who made the calc), so I will let the experts discuss.

 

[KLOL506]

I guess so. Every pulverization feat by sheer/sudden impact, or KE would probably be affected by this, which I assume is the far majority, and a LOT of verses who have said feats will get an exponential increase.

Pretty much a ton of pulv. feats since most are rapid.

Sad thing is, we'd need a formula that is applicable to all forms of materials, not just rock so we're kinda... well, stuck with what we have right now.

I initially tried to propose this formula over using toughness for our frag and v. frag and pulv values as the Kuz-Ram model was a more reliable and thoroughly-tested formula (more accurate than using toughness for sure) that actually involves smashing rock but then ChemistKyle told me that to obtain values to pass through a mesh screen (Basically akin to dust) we'd resort to using crushing machines instead of blasting and he said it'd only be applicable to fragmentation and then he also told me it'd become too inconsistent and messy as not all rocks are the same and they have wildly varied powder factor values.

 

[Ari64-SP]

Actually that leads to the question, why is compressive strength used for pulverization? i mean, usually it will have the same results as yield or shear strength. This difference is how the force is applie.

 

[KLOL506]

Actually that leads to the question, why is compressive strength used for pulverization? i mean, usually it will have the same results as yield or shear strength. This difference is how the force is applie.

Prolly because it was the closest we got to reducing stuff to tiny dust-like particles in a crushing manner I guess.

Also no, a lot of scientific journals show the compressive strength of metals to be greater than their shear and yield strength. A lot of our destruction values use various pdfs from scientific research papers to determine what values are used for our Table of Destruction Values.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

@Antvasima
This might be important.

 

[Jackof_noTrades068]

@Antvasima
This might be important.

Since you aren’t staff you can’t tag him
Your are gonna have to message him on his wall
But the problems KLOL mentioned makes this method seems like for now it’s not feasible to implement for everything

 

[Antvasima]

KLOL506 makes sense to me.

@DontTalkDT @Ugarik @Jasonsith @Damage3245 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Mr._Bambu @Executor_N0 @Armorchompy @KieranH10 @Migue79 @DMUA @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Therefir @Wokistan

What do you think about this?

 

[Armorchompy]

I don't have any real math skills, all I really know how to do is learn a formula and apply it, so I have no opinions here.

 

[Jasonsith]

Prolly because it was the closest we got to reducing stuff to tiny dust-like particles in a crushing manner I guess.

Also no, a lot of scientific journals show the compressive strength of metals to be greater than their shear and yield strength. A lot of our destruction values use various pdfs from scientific research papers to determine what values are used for our Table of Destruction Values.

If you go for real science we should actually go for measuring the cracks made with the destruction then multiply only the volume of the material reduced to dust times the compressive strength value - the degree of cracks will be the percentage of the compressive strength of the object. But this will involve hefty amount of math. Doable, but very very hefty.

And will likely downgrade a lot of "violent fragmentation" and "mild fragmentation" feats.

But on the other end, this is the actual scientifically accurate thing to do. Even better if we distinguish compressive strength against tensile strength and shear strength.

 

[Armorchompy]

I know changes of such magnitude have been rejected in the past because of their scope being too much for the wiki, but I do think it is a worthwhile effort as long as we accept it can be done gradually- as long as the math isn't impossible to do for most users trying to do a calculation (or idiots like me).

 

[Antvasima]

Well, we are overwhelmed by other wiki revisions right now, so as you referred to, I don't know if this is remotely realistic to apply.

 

[Armorchompy]

I mean, are we, really? The biggest Staff Discussions at the moments are:

• Bleach Revision- there is literally always one of these
• Naruto Revision- same as above
• One Piece Revision- none at the moment I think but I bet one's gonna pop up anytime soon
• Glyph Creation Revision- not exactly wiki-wide
• Upscaling- concluded
• Some Dimensional Stuff- might be important, idk
• Fanart- completely unrelated to our tiering system

Not saying nothing's going on right now but nothing here is that huge, and again, I said this could be done over time.

 

[Antvasima]

Here are just the unfinished current wiki revisions projects that I have noted down at the moment, and after they are finished, we preferably need to focus on adding infoboxes at the top of around 24,000 character profile pages.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/wiki-project-adding-the-discussions-template-to-pages.110023/

https://vsbattles.com/threads/the-remains-of-the-tiering-revision-part-2.114339/

https://vsbattles.com/threads/type-1-corruption-isnt-corruption.115751/

https://vsbattles.com/threads/removal-of-multiple-personalities-as-a-power.113215/ -> https://vsbattles.com/threads/multiple-selves-thread.115305/

https://vsbattles.com/threads/immeasurable-speed-characters-updating-second-round.109871/

https://vsbattles.com/threads/realms-with-starry-skies-feats.109653/

https://vsbattles.com/threads/glyph-creation-revision.108874/

 

[Armorchompy]

Doesn't seem like a few of these are that sweeping, but even then, if this isn't fine to do right now, that doesn't mean we can't agree to do it later.

 

[Antvasima]

Several of them require editing over 1000 pages in an organised manner, and we are very short on volunteers.

Anyway, I will wait for DontTalk and the others and see what they think about this.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Thought we agreed this doesn’t work in our system and that the current values fit better?

 

[KieranH10]

This seems interesting, while I do agree that compressive strength doesn't really correlate to pulverisation in a lot of real life cases iirc, I also agree that's it's a fair alternative to the actual full scientific ways to calculate feats of destruction, we'd be making essentially our most simple calcs here one of our the most tedious. And the edits would be pretty hefty too as has also been mentioned.

I don't really have a definitive opinion that sides with either case right now. I'll see what others think.

 

[Executor_N0]

My opinion on "not totally accurate formulas" are the same as the ones that we learn in school like Newtonian Kinetic Energy or the Ideal Gas Law. They aren't representations of what happens in reality, but in some cases they are a good enough representation that the difference between the ideal scenario and the real one is so small, that it doesn't hurt to use the less accurate formula because it's more simple.

So, if this was like "it's just an ideal version of what happens and the difference between the ideal and the reality under most of the circumstances is very small", then for most cases I wouldn't have a problem of using the formulas that we already use. However if the difference in some situations is big, then I don't see reason to using the current formula in relation to a more accurate one.

Although the formula that is being proposed already is very specific from what I can find. In the best case I think if it's in the right conditions, we should use the more accurate formula. If not, we still can use the old one. At least until more accurate formulas for other situations are found. Of course it's going to make the math for some situations harder, but I still think that being more accurate when the differences between "ideal" and "real" are so different is the right thing to do.

At best, don't say that a calculation that uses a more accurate formula is "wrong", because the standards are for a less accurate formula.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Pretty much a ton of pulv. feats since most are rapid.

Sad thing is, we'd need a formula that is applicable to all forms of materials, not just rock so we're kinda... well, stuck with what we have right now.

I initially tried to propose this formula over using toughness for our frag and v. frag and pulv values as the Kuz-Ram model was a more reliable and thoroughly-tested formula that actually involves smashing rock but then ChemistKyle told me that to obtain values to pass through a mesh screen (Basically akin to dust) we'd resort to using crushing machines instead of blasting and he said it'd only be applicable to fragmentation and then he also told me it'd become too inconsistent and messy as not all rocks are the same and they have wildly varied powder factor values.

KLOL sums it up nicely, I also seem to recall this being brought up at some point. The equation simply can't be used as well as the blanket we currently have. What we have is basically the same in terms of the result of destruction, this equation would technically be more accurate for some and completely destroy other calculations (pulverizing things like, say, metal, wood, etc).

EDIT: In case it ain't clear, I'm more in favor of continuing to use what we have.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the input.

How divergent are the results for the current method that we use in comparison with the more exact formula?

The main issue here is that nobody would be willing to check though likely over 10,000 blogs, redo all of the ones that use the old method, and then start content revision threads for them, so I do not know what we can realistically do in that regard in any case.

Encouraging our members to use a better method from now onward, if it is not too complicated, might be an idea though.

 

[KLOL506]

If you go for real science we should actually go for measuring the cracks made with the destruction then multiply only the volume of the material reduced to dust times the compressive strength value - the degree of cracks will be the percentage of the compressive strength of the object. But this will involve hefty amount of math. Doable, but very very hefty.

And will likely downgrade a lot of "violent fragmentation" and "mild fragmentation" feats.

But on the other end, this is the actual scientifically accurate thing to do. Even better if we distinguish compressive strength against tensile strength and shear strength.

I doubt this would even be possible, crack propagation is wildly unpredictable and at times might not even be determinable depending on the situation. And reducing to dust as already explained above, requires a lot more energy than compressive strength due to more factors like impact load and whatnot being at play (As compression is a slow process where you slowly crush something to small pieces, as opposed to actually blasting away things into small dust particles rapidly and quickly which is more or less covered by the Kuz-Ram model) as OP already concluded, so it would make it even more messy and inconsistent, worse still the Kuz-Ram model AKA the rock-blasting model (Which we determined that it wouldn't wildly change our current values for rock, would more or less keep them the same as we have right now, and is the actual real scientific method for blowing up rock, and definitely more accurate than toughness) can't really be used for anything other than rock. ChemistKyle also told me that it can only be used for fragmentation, not violent frag or pulv as the latter two would require crushing machines which really don't fit our standards for rapid pulverization to dust.

As said before, I'm still in agreement with Mr. Bambu. And most of what I summed up was mostly inspired from what DontTalkDT told me in the message walls with Ant.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. We should probably continue as previously then.

Btw, KLOL506, you can still become a calc group member whenever you wish.

 

[KLOL506]

Okay. We should probably continue as previously then.

Btw, KLOL506, you can still become a calc group member whenever you wish.

Hopefully it's by August, my new PC is almost finished.

 

[KLOL506]

Okay. We should probably continue as previously then.

I guess this would also require a new rule in the discussions forum, we have one in the Calculations page, but I think a Discussions Rule would be much better.

 

[Antvasima]

I guess this would also require a new rule in the discussions forum, we have one in the Calculations page, but I think a Discussions Rule would be much better.

What do you mean? Wouldn't it be better to mention our conclusions here in an already existing calculations instructions page?

 

[KLOL506]

What do you mean? Wouldn't it be better to mention our conclusions here in an already existing calculations instructions page?

Well it's already there in the Calculations page so I think we can link this thread there as well if you like then.

 

[Antvasima]

We should not link to incoherent discussions in the forum for important information. We should either place it in the regular pages themselves, or at worst in explanation blogs.

 

[KLOL506]

We should not link to incoherent discussions in the forum for important information. We should either place it in the regular pages themselves, or at worst in explanation blogs.

Well, any idea on which regular page would fit the bill for this one?

 

[Antvasima]

Maybe the calculations instructions page in which the values for fragmentation, pulverisation, and vaporisation for different materials are listed? Unless I have misunderstood this thread that is.

 

[KLOL506]

Maybe the calculations instructions page in which the values for fragmentation, pulverisation, and vaporisation for different materials are listed? Unless I have misunderstood this thread that is.

We have the values in the main Calculations page and not in the Calculation Instructions page IIRC (We don't have a Calculations Instructions page)

Are you talking about the Calculations Introductions and References page?

 

[Antvasima]

I was referring to the calculations page linked above. I did not intend to be overly specific, as I did not remember which of the calculations instructions pages that contained the lists for this.

Anyway, would a footnote be acceptable to place in the page in question?

 

[KLOL506]

I was referring to the calculations page linked above. I did not intend to be overly specific, as I did not remember which of the calculations instructions pages that contained the lists for this.

Anyway, would a footnote be acceptable to place in the page in question?

There is already a footnote in the main Calculations page that was written in by DontTalkDT a year or two ago regarding this very same topic, right below the Table of Destruction values, we could just link this thread there and that'd pretty much be it.

 

[Antvasima]

I disapprove of linking to discussion threads in wiki pages for other purposes than versus discussions, but if necessary, @DontTalkDT might be interested in expanding on the footnote.

 

[KLOL506]

I disapprove of linking to discussion threads in wiki pages for other purposes than versus discussions, but if necessary, @DontTalkDT might be interested in expanding on the footnote.

Should we put it as a Discussions Rule then?

 

[Antvasima]

I do not know if it would be appropriate.

Does this topic come up a lot?

 

[KLOL506]

I do not know if it would be appropriate.

Does this topic come up a lot?

Not really, no.

Well in any case we can then just wait for DT to come up with additional footnotes from this specific thread to add to our already-existing footnotes on the Calculations Page.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.