The currently accepted DBS lifting strength calculation

[GodlyCharmander]

I'm... I'm sorry, but what is this?
Assumed hollowness, saying the bulding is made out of one material, a 26m bulding having a comparable weight to a 200m real life one... Remaking this using Square Cube Law, this weights under 200 tons (Class K), so the current calculation should really be removed from the profiles.

 

[KLOL506]

I'm... I'm sorry, but what is this?
Assumed hollowness, saying the bulding is made out of one material, a 26m bulding having a comparable weight to a 200m real life one... Remaking this using Square Cube Law, this weights under 200 tons (Class K), so the current calculation should really be removed from the profiles.

More like it needs a tweak in the hollowness part.

3264.8*(1-0.8)= 652.96 m^3.

Multiply with steel density of 7850 kg/m^3, and you get 5,125,736 kg (Still Class M)

 

[GodlyCharmander]

More like it needs a tweak in the hollowness part.

3264.8*(1-0.8)= 652.96 m^3.

Multiply with steel density of 7850 kg/m^3, and you get 5,125,736 kg (Still Class M)

Why using an assumed hollowness instead of a real life building?

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Also, buildings are made of multiple materials

 

[KLOL506]

Why using an assumed hollowness instead of a real life building?

Not all buildings are made the same. We assume hollowness for a lot of things.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Not all buildings are made the same. We assume hollowness for a lot of things.

In which scenario a 26 meters building would weight 5000 tons? Because that simply does not exist. That's not a thing.

Square Cube is far more accurate than assumptions on hollowness and materials. We're not using a less accurate, inflating method with no reason instead of the more accurate one.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

I'm pretty sure a 5000 ton 80%-hollow building made of pure steel (that's also not a thing) would fall on it's own weight

 

[LIFE_OF_KING]

Average density of a reinforced concrete is 2500Kg/m^3. I don't see how it is possible to use 8000Kg/m^3 or 7850Kg/m^3

 

[KLOL506]

In which scenario a 26 meters building would weight 5000 tons? Because that simply does not exist. That's not a thing.

Square Cube is far more accurate than assumptions on hollowness and materials. We're not using a less accurate, inflating method with no reason instead of the more accurate one.

In a scenario where said 26 meter building is made in a futuristic shape and does not share the same geometry as the real-life example you just brought up.

 

[KLOL506]

Average density of a reinforced concrete is 2500Kg/m^3. I don't see how it is possible to use 8000Kg/m^3

I was gonna use half concrete and half steel, since rebar is used in making buildings.

Oh well.

652.96*2500= 1,632,400 kg (Still Class M)

 

[KLOL506]

I'm pretty sure a 5000 ton 80%-hollow building made of pure steel (that's also not a thing) would fall on it's own weight

It's Dragon Ball, our laws mean nothing there, especially when they have tech well beyond our caliber and can store entire buildings in capsules.

Also I recalculated the mass using reinforced concrete above. It's around 1632.4 tonnes now.

 

[LIFE_OF_KING]

A 380 metre building can weigh 350000 tonnes, it is not so impossible for a 27 metre building to weigh 1600

 

[GodlyCharmander]

In a scenario where said 26 meter building is made in a futuristic shape and does not share the same geometry as the real-life example you just brought up.

Don't know what kind of geometry you've been studying, but that's very similar to a rectangle

No amount of geometry will allow for something to be tens of times heavier than it's supposed to be.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

A 250 metre building can weigh 350000 tonnes, it is not so impossible for a 27 metre building to weigh 1600

It... It is though. That's exponential volume. We can use Square Cube Law, which LITERALLY uses the same material and volume and downscale it to the building rather than assuming a random hollowness and use a random material (again, buldings are made out of SEVERAL materials)

 

[GodlyCharmander]

It's Dragon Ball, our laws mean nothing there, especially when they have tech well beyond our caliber and can store entire buildings in capsules.

Also I recalculated the mass using reinforced concrete above. It's around 1632.4 tonnes now.

If you're going to use this argument, why are we using real life values in the first place? If physics are not a factor, then why use a real life density if said density could not hold its own weight? That's bullshit, I'm sorry.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

380m Building = 350.000 Tons

26.5M Building = (26.5/380)^3*350000 = 118.7 Tons (Class K)

Bruh.

 

[KLOL506]

It... It is though. That's exponential volume. We can use Square Cube Law, which LITERALLY uses the same material and volume and downscale it to the building rather than assuming a random hollowness and use a random material (again, buldings are made out of SEVERAL materials)

250m Building = 350.000 Tons (Highest End)

26.5M Building = (26.5/250)^3*350000 = 416.8 Tons (Class K)

Bruh.

This flies in the face of your own argument.

In the link it states a house to be 70 tons and 25 feet tall (7.62 m).

The building in Dragon Ball is 26.5 meters tall.

70*(26.5/7.62)^3= 2944.223317 tons (Class M)

 

[GodlyCharmander]

This flies in the face of your own argument.

You can't be that dense. I corrected it, it's a 380m bulding, it weights 118 Tons.

In the link it states a house to be 70 tons and 25 feet tall (7.62 m).

The building in Dragon Ball is 26.5 meters tall.

70*(26.5/7.62)^3= 2944.223317 tons (Class M)

THAT'S A DIFFERENT SHAPE, WHAT THE ****?

 

[GodlyCharmander]

IT'S A DIFFERENT STRUCTURE, A DIFFERENT SHAPE

Square Cube Law CANNOT be used. What the actual ****?

 

[KLOL506]

Also I see the math screwed up in the link there as well.

Using the actual formula for the Empire State building, which is apparently 50 times taller than the 70-ton 25ft tall house (7.62 m times 50 is 381 m)...

70*(381/7.62)^3= 8750000 tons. Something ain't right here.

 

[KLOL506]

You can't be that dense. I corrected it, it's a 380m bulding, it weights 118 Tons.

THAT'S A DIFFERENT SHAPE, WHAT THE ****?

Dragon Ball building is not a rectangle, it has two jutting edges on the left side (One on the top and another on the bottom).

le facepalm

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Also I see the math screwed up in the link there as well.

Using the actual formula for the Empire State building, which is apparently 50 times taller than the house (381)...

70*(381/7.62)^3= 8750000 tons. Something ain't right here.

IT'S A DIFFERENT STRUCTURE--
Thankfully you just proved that Square Cube Law cannot be used for different shapes and structures. As you said
"ThIs fLIeS InTo YouR OwN ArGuMeNt"

 

[KLOL506]

IT'S A DIFFERENT STRUCTURE--
Thankfully you just proved that Square Cube Law cannot be used for different shapes and structures. As you said
"ThIs fLIeS InTo YouR OwN ArGuMeNt"

Well guess what, you can't use the Empire State Building as a basis for square-cubing the mass of the Dragon Ball Building either. They aren't the same shape.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Dragon Ball building is not a rectangle, it has two jutting edges on the left side (One on the top and another on the bottom).

le facepalm

I'm sorry, I know I shouldn't be laughing at this.

But can you take this seriously? Or do you HONESTLY think two square-shaped slight edges will make a huge difference in the final result?
Do you HONESTLY think a 130 Tons result will be turned into 1000 Ton because of these edges?

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Well guess what, you can't use the Empire State Building as a basis for square-cubing the mass of the Dragon Ball Building either. They aren't the same shape.

Yes I can? It's a rectangle shape, it's FAR more similar to the DB building than a god damn HOUSE. (A house is usually a box, not a rectangle)

 

[GodlyCharmander]

You know what? We can do it the hard way.

If we ignore the edges, and consider only the rectangle (aka 95% of the god damn structure), we get the result I calculated:
128.3 Tons (Class K)

Now, who believes if we calculate the two box-shaped edges we will get to Class M? Please raise your hand.

Yeah no. The Square Cube already got me the MAJORITY of the mass of the building.

 

[KLOL506]

You know what? We can do it the hard way.

If we ignore the edges, and consider only the rectangle (aka 95% of the god damn structure), we get the result I calculated:
128.3 Tons (Class K)

Now, who believes if we calculate the two box-shaped edges we will get to Class M? Please raise your hand.

Yeah no. The Square Cube already got me the MAJORITY of the mass of the building.

That would mean the building is like 99% hollow (Less than 0.5% solid) if we used steel, slightly thicker if we used concrete. Do you seriously expect me to believe that when we clearly see thick-ass flooring in that building with significantly thick walls? You ask yourself this. That would be like paper-thin levels of hollowness. Do you seriously expect a building of that caliber to even be able to withstand anything to begin with? Terrible joke is terrible.

 

[KLOL506]

I'm sorry, I know I shouldn't be laughing at this.

But can you take this seriously? Or do you HONESTLY think two square-shaped slight edges will make a huge difference in the final result?
Do you HONESTLY think a 130 Tons result will be turned into 1000 Ton because of these edges?

Honestly, ask yourself that.

130000 kg / 2500 kg per m^3= 52 m^3

(52/3264.8)*100= 1.59% solid.

Now you tell me whether that kind of solid level percentage makes sense for a building of this magnitude. Even Dragon Ball architects wouldn't be this stupid.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

That would mean the building is like 99% hollow (Less than 0.5% solid) if we used steel, slightly thicker if we used concrete.

Congratulations on figuring out why we should NEVER use just one material to calculate a complex structure's volume,

Do you seriously expect a building of that caliber to even be able to withstand anything to begin with?

Didn't you say:

It's Dragon Ball, our laws mean nothing there, especially when they have tech well beyond our caliber and can store entire buildings in capsules.

 

[KLOL506]

Didn't you say:

Stronger materials =/= higher density all the time in Dragon Ball

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Btw, obviously it's not 1.5% solid, there are MULTIPLE less denser materials in a building.

 

[KLOL506]

Congratulations on figuring out why we should NEVER use just one material to calculate a complex structure's volume,

I was gonna suggest half concrete and half steel but you pulled up the BS square-cube law when you knew it'd make the building paper thin.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Stronger materials =/= higher density all the time in Dragon Ball

Then that applies to my argument of a 5000-ton building not being able to withstand that?

 

[KLOL506]

Btw, obviously it's not 1.5% solid, there are MULTIPLE less denser materials in a building.

No, buildings would be a lot more solid than that, and they are mostly made of reinforced concrete and steel

Either way, Class K for a building that size is a crapshoot.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

"BS square-cube law"

Oh yes, physics and equal mass distribution is bullshit.

when you knew it'd make the building paper thin.

Apply the same density reduction on the empire state building, it'd give off around the same solid result, because you decided to use just one density, lmfao

 

[KLOL506]

Then that applies to my argument of a 5000-ton building not being able to withstand that?

It's not 5K tons anymore, reinforced concrete density (Which most prolly includes steel but I haven't found any references to steel being used in the links above) knocks it down to 1632 tonnes.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

No, buildings would be a lot more solid than that, and

That's what I said. The building is far more solid than 1.5%, but because it has LESS denser materials in it.

they are mostly made of reinforced concrete and steel

Bullshit. They're made from MULTIPLE materials.

Either way, Class K for a building that size is a crapshoot.

Find me one 26m building weight anywhere higher than 500 Tons, I honestly dare you.

 

[KLOL506]

Oh yes, physics and equal mass distribution is bullshit.

Only when you get values that low and assume buildings to be paper thin.

 

[KLOL506]

That's what I said. The building is far more solid than 1.5%, but because it has LESS denser materials in it.

Majority of it is glass, reinforced concrete and steel so the other "multiple" materials don't mean jackshit.

Bullshit. They're made from MULTIPLE materials.

Look above.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Only when you get values that low and assume buildings to be paper thin.

I'm sorry, but physics are not entitled to your belief.

I don't care. I already explained the building is far more solid than 1.5%, you got to that conclusion through a stupid method, removing the density from one material, when a building is made out of SEVERAL.