• 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.

Regarding Melting and Vaporizing things

PowerPikachu2 said:
Why's Vaporeon tagged? Not sure how the water type is involved with this...
Click to expand...
My best guesses are: A. It was a typo of "vaporization" when checking for tags to enter. B. Acid Armor (Japanese name Òü¿ÒüæÒéï Liquefy ) is a move Vaporeon & a few other Pokemon can learn. It's had descriptions like: "Melts the user's body for protection.", "The user alters its cellular structure to liquefy itself" & Vaporeon itself has Pokedex entries like "Its cell structure is similar to water molecules. It will melt away and become invisible in water.".

So I guess Vaporeon was a tag either because typo or because Vaporeon is a somewhat notable -but ultimately, not too significant in this discussion- user of abilities that involve some form of melting, primarily one's self?
 
> troll blogs

While the titles are evocative, each thread there is accurate, I wasn't making a joke thread attacking the Wiki or whatever.

Frag/violent frag/pulverization/etc. is flawed. It isn't actual science. Nor is "cloud dispersio" or even angsizing. They're all flawed formulas and I haven't seen anybody bring up for a long, long time.
 
I think Xcano brings up some valid points.

However this is a discussion for another thread. We're focusing on vaporization and melting for now.
 
Angsizing seems like an easy fix. The rest seems more controversial so I wouldn't put my opinion on them yet. But yeah, like Numbers says this isn't the place. @Xcano maybe you could make a calc discussion thread?
 
Going by what Assaltwaffle and some other calculators said to me his posts above don't even hold up to any scrutiny.

Besides this is a severe derailment.
 
@LordXcano

None of your claims line up. At all.

In your post, the definition for Fragmentation is "shearing strength". Your definition for Violent Fragmentation is "ripping something apart/half". To shear is to tear apart or rip. Here is a video of bolts undergoing shear failure. They are torn in half.

So you're already not on to a good start.

To boot, none of the known shear or compression forces for any of the known materials line up when converting psi to joules/cm^3. None of them. So they weren't based on what you're saying, and even if they were you'd need some serious elaboration. You don't give that and none of your claims line up with existing information.
 
I very much agree on the issues of cloud dispersion sans the AoE Fallacy, and I do agree when he says it's wrong for people to assume violent fragmentation even when the fragments are kilometers in length.

But like I said. Perhaps this is best for another discussion.
 
I do get the fragmentation to Pulverization calc's have their share of limitations, since there are countless levels of fragmentation, but we have a whole low end to high end result options. Kinetic energy of it exploding such as all the chunks moving at great speeds is another alternative. AssaltWaffle I agree with on this topic though.

But I heavily disagree with the Cloud and Dimensions one and came from misunderstandings. Cloud feats one was basically arguing against the DC =/= AP debate all over again. Moving Clouds requires excessive levels of air manipulation and which air density is greater than some may think. No one's downgrading Wario's Low 5-B feat ever. Those who try will have to smell his farts Also, lack of destruction proves it should be lower than the destruction feat? Tell that to Superman getting killed by an attack that didn't even have City level AoE or Darkseid's Omega Beams being deflected by an ordinary brick.

And as for the Dimensions blog, just no. We aren't revising our Tiering system, ever. It isn't the whole anyone has access to the 4th Dimension is automatically infinitely superior to all 3-D characters. It's just enough power to destroy 4-D Space-Time Universes or 5-D Multiverses and so on, and Attack Potency used against durability on that level. Yes, there are finite 3-D characters with hax that manipulation the 4th dimension and beyond, but that's off topic.

Anyway, let's please stick to the main topic and those other problems are reserved for other threads, or not at all in the Dimensions blog especially. This is regarding the melting or vaporization of Skyscrapers is the topic here.
 
Should I or someone else actually qualifed for the matter make another thread?
 
Here is a useful link containing values for melting various materials.

Link

It includes melting of steel, concrete, glass, rock, and other materials. I think it'd be best to use those values.
 
It's best to go with latent heat for melting instead of relying on extremely variable values from the OBD.
 
So should any calculations page values be adjusted, or has this already been done?
 
Would this mean calculations involving ice need to be redone? If so, by what values & formula, if I may ask?
 
I was planning on revising our ice calc standards soon, since we use nitrogen to calc the frozen mass, which is an extreme high-end.
 
Ah. I assume that's for freezing things, rather than melting them? I've done a calc involving ice before, but it was calculating the mass of a pre-existing block of ice & the density I used was from here: https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/AlexDallas.shtml

For melting, it supposedly takes 333 to 333.55 joules per gram to melt ice: https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth/92Mod11Prob2.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_fusio

Assuming I understand all that right anyway. Sorry about the kind of irrelevant post.
 
@Kepekley

Okay. You can ask one of our administrators to temporarily unlock the page when you need it.
 
I thought that it was included somewhere. Sorry if I misunderstood.
 
No, not quite. It's just that our model for ice creation feats seems to be an extreme high end as of now.
 
Why don't we make the energy necessary to create ice equivalent to the energy necessary to destroy it? It's how anime seems to portray it (dude capable of creating X amount of ice in one go is as powerful as dude capable of destroying X amount of ice in one go), so maybe using fragmentation would be better?

Of course, that's for creation. If something is being legitimately frozen, then we'd use the values necessary for fusion.

Warning be given that the chance exists that some verses will get really hardcorely nerfed from this. 9-B Senran Kagura, maybe?
 
Fiction in general, if you may. But if it's still not an argument, we can have "7-A, higher with her strongest armors" Erza Scarlet in all keys prior to the second timeskip's "enhanced by emotions" section by applying the most physically reasonable calculations to her materialization feats, that is, E=mc┬▓, but you probably don't wanna take that premise to its logical extremes.
 
We do that if mass-energy conversion is explicitly stated, otherwise its the GBE of the object.
 
In other words, destruction values. It's the same for what I said. Using a destruction value for creation is only sensible, and the meaning behind is the same.
 
It takes less energy to break ice than it does to spontaneously freeze everything.
 
Exactly. And freezing stuff is a different feat from creating ice, which compares to the former calc you mentioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Flashlight237
  • Locked
Melting in the Destruction Chart
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
Dalesean027
Dalesean027
ProfessorKukui4Life
Big Bang Questions & Clarifications
Replies
36
Views
3K
William_Joee
William_Joee
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
Tiering System Revisions: Tier 0
5 6 7
Replies
251
Views
84K
Antvasima
Antvasima
DontTalkDT
Regarding the 2ms perception thing
2
Replies
77
Views
7K
Arnoldstone18
Arnoldstone18
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System
12 13 14
Replies
530
Views
156K
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
Back
Top