Pulverization Calcs

[KLOL506]

Can I suggest this as one of the footnotes?

"We have also tried using the more-accurate Kuz-Ram model used in rock-blasting which would serve our purposes for accurately calculating the destruction of rock, and that pulverization strength in real life calculated via the Kuz-Ram model is much higher than compressive strength which we currently use for our pulverization feats due to other factors like compressive strength being a slow process unlike true pulverization (Reducing to dust particles) and that compressive strength does not account for impact loading or impact strikes which refers to rapid punching which is common in fiction, but eventually it was discovered it could only be used for normal fragmentation and pulverization, that it varied wildly depending upon rock type, and even then it could not be used for non-rock materials like metal, wood and the like, as discussed in <thread link>."

I know it's a bit too big but any suggestions to make it smaller while keeping the same points are welcome.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

I'm late but I think that it is acknowledged that our destruction methods are wrong but we do not have the ability, at least as of now, to change the wiki's system on a large scale.

 

[KLOL506]

I'm late but I think that it is acknowledged that our destruction methods are wrong but we do not have the ability, at least as of now, to change the wiki's system on a large scale.

Yeah, that's what we concluded, and unless we can find one proper single method that accurately covers all materials properly in the same blanket like what Bambu mentioned (The Kuz-Ram model can't be used on non-rock materials Despite being more accurate than toughness), I'm afraid we really can't do much about it. This thread covered the Kuz-Ram model and how it while being more accurate wielded higher results than what we use now (And that actual pulverization AKA reducing to dust is more OP than compressive strength which we currently use for pulv as compressive strength doesn't account for impact loading but the Kuz-Ram model does) but as it turns out, the Kuz-Ram model really can't be used for anything other than rock and it varies wildly per rock type, and to obtain v. frag and pulv. values you'd need to use a machine to slowly crush them into small particles to get them through the mesh filter.

 

[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.

Anyway, DT is currently asleep, he told me he'll look over it when he wakes up.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

So it seems like our current fragmentation values are inflated while our pulverisation values are lowballed

 

[KLOL506]

So it seems like our current fragmentation values are inflated while our pulverisation values are lowballed

Slightly inflated or possibly more or less the same (Using the Kuz-Ram model the rock frag values would prolly be similar to what we have now, and v. frag might be higher, I used the formula to see for myself and I got higher v. frag values based on the debris sizes ChemistKyle recommended me, but then he said that it'd vary upon rock type as not all rocks are the same in composition and have different debris sizes to qualify and different powder factors to blast them open, but then he told me that to obtain values for v. frag and compressive strength and higher you'd have to use a crushing machine instead and thus it was limited to frag) and pulv. values are lowballed, yes (But again, this is for rock only, since the Kuz-Ram model doesn't work for anything other than rock), and we don't exactly have one single formula that can be effectively used accurately on all materials (Since, well, Kuz-Ram is made for rock-blasting and rock-blasting only, you don't exactly use it to blast apart metals or wood, using one formula for one material and another for other materials would get too inconsistent and messy).

But then again, v. frag of materials rely on either high-end shear strength or low-end compressive strength, and using low-end compressive strength in that regard is a low-ball since it doesn't account for impact loading like OP stated.

 

[Antvasima]

Can I suggest this as one of the footnotes?

"We have also tried using the more-accurate Kuz-Ram model used in rock-blasting which would serve our purposes for accurately calculating the destruction of rock, and that pulverization strength in real life calculated via the Kuz-Ram model is much higher than compressive strength which we currently use for our pulverization feats due to other factors like compressive strength being a slow process unlike true pulverization (Reducing to dust particles) and that compressive strength does not account for impact loading or impact strikes which refers to rapid punching which is common in fiction, but eventually it was discovered it could only be used for normal fragmentation and pulverization, that it varied wildly depending upon rock type, and even then it could not be used for non-rock materials like metal, wood and the like, as discussed in <thread link>."

I know it's a bit too big but any suggestions to make it smaller while keeping the same points are welcome.

This seems fine to me, but as you said, we should wait for DontTalk.

 

[KLOL506]

This seems fine to me, but as you said, we should wait for DontTalk.

I'm okay with that. Let's see if he has any advice for my footnote.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Slightly inflated or possibly more or less the same (Using the Kuz-Ram model the rock frag values would prolly be similar to what we have now, and v. frag might be higher, I used the formula to see for myself and I got higher v. frag values based on the debris sizes ChemistKyle recommended me, but then he said that it'd vary upon rock type as not all rocks are the same in composition and have different debris sizes to qualify and different powder factors to blast them open, but then he told me that to obtain values for v. frag and compressive strength and higher you'd have to use a crushing machine instead and thus it was limited to frag) and pulv. values are lowballed, yes (But again, this is for rock only, since the Kuz-Ram model doesn't work for anything other than rock), and we don't exactly have one single formula that can be effectively used accurately on all materials (Since, well, Kuz-Ram is made for rock-blasting and rock-blasting only, you don't exactly use it to blast apart metals or wood, using one formula for one material and another for other materials would get too inconsistent and messy).

But then again, v. frag of materials rely on either high-end shear strength or low-end compressive strength, and using low-end compressive strength in that regard is a low-ball since it doesn't account for impact loading like OP stated.

If you guys wish to mention all those consideration, then I think the note sounds fine.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. Would you be willing to place it somewhere appropriate in the calculations page?

Or should it be placed somewhere else as well?

 

[DontTalkDT]

I have done so. I think putting it there is enough.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

Is there anything left to do here, or can we close this thread?

 

[Earthyboy]

I know I'm a bit late to the thread. But if it helps, I organized this document for Mpa values if needed. For compressive, tensile, and yield strength. It's not finished, but I hope it'll help with the revisions here.

 

[KLOL506]

Thank you for helping out.

Is there anything left to do here, or can we close this thread?

Nah, there's nothing left to do here, you can close it if you wish.

 

[KLOL506]

Nah, there's nothing left to do here, you can close it if you wish.

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

Thanks. I will do so then.