• 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.

The Problem with Destruction Values We Use (Staff only)

Status
Not open for further replies.
When I was about to learn of Freezing feats, someone made a revision.

And now that I want to do a fragmentation calc, this comes up.

Dread to the Lawmasters.
 
KLOL506 said:
No, only frag and v. frag. Ugarik himself noted that pulverization calcs using compressive strength of a material is still okay.
Click to expand...
I said only in specific cases like the one I linked in the last paragraph
 
NVM Spino later corrected it and told me.
 
Btw I don't think NarutoForums uses tensile strength for violent fragmentation, they use the high-end of shear strength or uniaxial compressive strength.

Is there a "high-end" for toughness?
 
Yeah, Vaporization is not an explosion value at all, it's just converting solid/liquid to a gas through heat. The calculation has its own methods.
 
What about the methods described here? Specifically the Kuznetsov equation (can't find source for its use in the post) or powder factor?. Powder factor is measured in explosives to shatter a volume of rock but we can easily convert weight of explosives to joules, and the powder factor of types of rock shouldn't be too hard to find. If the kuznetsov equation doesn't actually mean what the reddit poster thinks it means, then I'm not sure how violent frag or pulverization would work.
 
I'm pretty sure powder factor does NOT refer to pulverization (probably named powder factor because of gunpowder or something, I'm not an expert). What do we consider fragmentation vs violent frag?
 
Fragmentation: Applied when the matter that was destroyed was turned into fairly large and distinguishable pieces.

Violent Fragmentation: Applied when the matter that was destroyed was turned into small but still distinguishable pieces.

Pulverization: Applied when the matter that was destroyed was turned to dust. We usually use this value when we see no remains of the matter that was destroyed in the aftermath of the attack.
 
I can vaguely recall someone saying that the extent of fragmentation should be based not on how big each fragment is compared to the original object, but based on how big each fragment is. I'm probably wrong though, this is off the top of my head.

Also, to bring up this calc again because I'm too lazy to find other calcs that are like this, why is it considered pulverization? If it was fragmentation or violent fragmentation, couldn't the matter have just been launched off screen? Or just fallen off the mountain to a point that isn't on screen? The first example only applies to explosions, and the second one to stuff with slopes and whatnot.
 
I'm not sure, but it is considered pulverization when we see no remains of matter.

Anyway we should wait for Ugarik to take a look at the powder factor stuff to see if it works for violent fragmentation.
 
Basically this is a summary of the values for destroying a boulder. Splitting the boulder into smaller but still relatively large pieces of rock is fragmentation. Smashing them into tiny pebbles is violent fragmentation. If there's not a single shard of rock remaining and just rock salt left, it's pulverization.
 
Jaakubb said:
What about the methods described here? Specifically the Kuznetsov equation (can't find source for its use in the post) or powder factor?. Powder factor is measured in explosives to shatter a volume of rock but we can easily convert weight of explosives to joules, and the powder factor of types of rock shouldn't be too hard to find. If the kuznetsov equation doesn't actually mean what the reddit poster thinks it means, then I'm not sure how violent frag or pulverization would work.
Click to expand...
So 7.7404 j/cc

The mean particle size is 16 cm though, sound more like fragmentation than violent fragmentation.
 
I don't understad what is rock factor
 
But anyway it's surpisenly close to by thoughness value assuming 100 cm is the lagest possible size
 
So the frag value for rock is slightly lower than the one we have huh

Weird.

EDIT: That value seems to only be for limestone, we need a value for sandstone and other rocks as well.
 
I don't understand why doesn't this equation have volume of the rock value. It abviously should be there
 
IDK, I find the equation too complicated for my own taste.
 
KLOL506 said:
IDK, I find the equation too complicated for my own taste.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about powder factor or Kuznetsov equation? Either way we only have to solve it once for each common material (eg rock steel blah blah) and we get the values.
 
What about wood tho? Pretty sure people don't use dynamite to blow up trees and get their wood.
 
I guess that would work. For wood at least.
 
The others which we can calc tho, like Spino did for limestone using the Kuznetzov equation via Jakuub's calc, prolly can be used, but I don't think we have any calc that uses limestone yet.

Bear in mind that not all rock or wood is the same and may differ depending upon the location or geography of the feat taking place.
 
Kinda gonna have to agree with Bambuu here.
 
Wood has toughness value of 0.67 J/cm3. 25x15x10 cm wooden block was destroyed by 2506 joules of work

Surpisenly it'sway more durable than rock and concrete because of it's high ductility even though wood is not nearly as strong
 
Actually calling wood more durable might be wrong because if you slam wooden and concrete block into each other wood will be destroyed while concrete remains in one piece. This is because weeker materials always absord energy first
 
AKA using toughness for wood is iffy at best.
 
There are many different types of wood also.
 
If pulverization is staying compressive strength, it also need a change. 200 MPa isn't 200 j/cc, as it's actually 200000000 pascals, whereas 1 pascal = 1 joule per meter.

200 MPa would be more like 2000000 j/cc
 
J/cc actually refers to j/cm^3, not J/m^3. You got the units mixed up.

Also 200 MPa is actually 200000000 J/m^3.

1000000 J/m^3= 1 J/cm^3
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SomebodyData
  • Locked
Calc Group Discussion: The Issue with Dragon Ball's Planetary Calculations
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
Dalesean027
Dalesean027
M3X_2.0
Soil vaporization value
Replies
32
Views
2K
Dalesean027
Dalesean027
Katipax
Kuz-Ram Related Inquiry
Replies
0
Views
497
Katipax
Katipax
Vzearr
  • Locked
Revolutionization Of Our Fragmentation, Violent Fragmentation, And Pulverization Values
Replies
38
Views
4K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Crimsonobu
PTJ durability / lifting strength
Replies
1
Views
978
Black_Cat49
Black_Cat49
Back
Top