Ryuko Matoi Upgrade

[Lina_Shields]

Moon level Ryuko via Kinetic Energy?

Most of the credits go to The Living Tribunal and DodoNova for the calculation. I just made the calc based on their advice, that is all.

Anyways, yay or nay?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Looks alright to me

 

[Ryukama]

The Kinetic Energy is the exact same method DontTalk had originally used. There doesn't seem to be anything in the Kinetic Energy Feats page that disallows KE being used for a feat like this. And using the KE of the dispersion of Life Fibers doesn't seem too different than using the KE of cloud splitting.

So as long as the math itself in that end is good, then this seems fine to me.

 

[Golden_Void]

Seems legit.

 

[Antvasima]

Hopefully some calc group members will check this up.

 

[KinkiestSins]

Yeah, fine for me as well.

 

[Lina_Shields]

Keep in mind that while DontTalk used a hollowness value of 1%, I used a hollowness value of 10% in that calc.

10% is the value of hollowness that most building calculations use, so I thought that it would be more valid here.

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

If the calc members accept the calc, then it's fine with me.

 

[KinkiestSins]

I havent seen kill la kill in a while, but what factor would make it destruction compared to kinetic energy?

I would assume since ryuko is using a physical feat here, it would probably be kinetic energy, no? Again, I havent seen it a while but just a food for thought.

 

[Thebluedash]

Keep in mind that while DontTalk used a hollowness value of 1%, I used a hollowness value of 10% in that calc.
10% is the value of hollowness that most building calculations use, so I thought that it would be more valid here.

But this isn't a building, DontTalk's 1 percent is better.

 

[Lina_Shields]

What is the justification for 1%? It seems too low, I think.

Edit: Perhaps I should have meant general structures, and not necessarily buildings.

 

[Thebluedash]

10% hollowness for building, if due to buildings having funitures,etc inside them.

Life fibers = clothes. It doesn't have anything inside. 1% is high enough.

 

[Thebluedash]

Also how do you even compare a building to life fibers? Hollowness varies for different objects. You can't do the hollowness that we use for building on a car lets say.

 

[LordAizenSama]

I think Blue makes sense here.

 

[KuuIchigo]

I don't see how it's justified just because it's low to you you choose a high number to get an upgrade.

Anyways, I prefer DT's calc.

 

[ScarletFirefly]

Why is 1% being used here exactly? Is there something that applies this value or what?

 

[Lina_Shields]

The life fiber cocoon that surrounded the Earth was completely hollow inside. It was more along the lines of a webbing where all the parts of said structure are

• perpendicular to each other
• intersect each other

I'll draw a diagram tomorrow to show you what I mean here.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Perhaps we should stick with the previous calculation then.

 

[ScarletFirefly]

The 1% DT used is also an assumption. The life fibers have gaps in the knitting, but there's no actual value to what percentage this gaps amount to.

 

[LordAizenSama]

>The perspective doesn´t let one accurately scale them, so we will have to make an estimation how much of the volume actually was life fiber. Given how huge the gaps seem and taking into account the knit I would say 1% is actually high enough of a number.

~DontTalk

 

[Lina_Shields]

I would like the rest of the calc group members to evaluate this thread.

 

[Thebluedash]

10% is a high value, we use that for huge building structures. Sometimes even lower.

Using 10% here is completely absurd, 10% would be a high high end.

 

[ScarletFirefly]

@LAS so an assumption.

 

[Ryukama]

@Scarlet Both 1% and 10% assumptions. But if DT and the other Calc Members decide 1% is a more reasonable assumption then sure thing.

 

[Thebluedash]

@Scarlet read my text above Firefly.

Both are assumptions yes, but one is a high end to a point, where it shouldn't be used, and the other is an alright end.

 

[LordAizenSama]

And we always go safe with the low-end with such assumptions (which is still actually quite high here considering it is fibers) Why do you want to go with a higher assumption? Just to upgrade your verse?

 

[ScarletFirefly]

If Dash is fine with 1% sure. But we need the opinion of other calc group members as well.

 

[Kaltias]

DodoNova tried to calculate the hollowness and he found 7% iirc. Which was the problem with this?

 

[Thebluedash]

"Which was the problem with this?"

Sorry what do you mean?

 

[Kaltias]

Why the 7% wasn't accepted?

 

[Thebluedash]

I wasn't here for that.

 

[Kaltias]

It's here

 

[Antvasima]

Well, DontTalk was one of our most intelligent members when he was still here, so I trust his judgement. 10% also does seem like a very high estimation to me.

 

[ArbitraryNumbers]

I thought we typically used 90% hollowness for building calcs?

 

[Thebluedash]

I thought we typically used 90% hollowness for building calcs?

Nope.

 

[ArbitraryNumbers]

Shoot, I've got some calcs to revise then.

 

[ArbitraryNumbers]

Wait, does 10% hollowness mean that we only use 10% of the building, or does it just mean we exclude 10%?

 

[Thebluedash]

we only use 10% of the building.

 

[KinkiestSins]

we only use 10% of the building.

To be more accurate, dont you mean you use 10 percent of the volume of a cylinder/prism to calculate the total mass of a building, correct? Or am I missing something here?

 

[Thebluedash]

We use it for that sometimes I suppose (like this calc). Normally we just use it with j/cm for destructive values.