-
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)
- Thread starter Ugarik
- Start date
- Status
- 489
- 139
I didn't, I wasn't implying that a pascal was 1 j/cc. It's supposed to be .001 j/cc.
1 MPa is 1000000 pascals/j/cm, so 200 MPa would be 200000000 j/m^3
That's not correct. You divide the j/m^3 by 100 to get j/cm^3. What I said the first time was right
1 MPa is 1000000 pascals/j/cm, so 200 MPa would be 200000000 j/m^3
That's not correct. You divide the j/m^3 by 100 to get j/cm^3. What I said the first time was right
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 22,786
- 22,313
Buddy I don't know if you know this but a m^3 is quite literally a million times larger than a cubic centimeter.Truth Bullets said:
100cm^3*100cm^3*100cm^3=1,000,000cm^3=1m^3
This thread is still ultimately pointless, frankly, since it just comes down to deciding whether we make one assumption or another. But that's not how volume works.
- 167,863
- 76,487
Well, if this would require the staff spending thousands of hours of work revising our fundamental standards for most of our profile pages, and wouldn't be a significant improvement, it seems very unrealistic to apply.
I would still prefer to see what DontTalkDT thinks though.
I would still prefer to see what DontTalkDT thinks though.
- 32,835
- 38,108
Not sure where you got that. 1 J/m^3= 0.000001 joule/cm^3. All the converters online state so. So you don't divide J/m^3 with 100, you divide it with 1000000 to get J/cm^ so you're quite off the mark.
Even a simple google search states that 200 J/cm^3= 200 000 000 pascals or 200 MPa
EDIT: This was in reply to Truth Bullets
Even a simple google search states that 200 J/cm^3= 200 000 000 pascals or 200 MPa
EDIT: This was in reply to Truth Bullets
- 489
- 139
"The pascal is also equivalent to the SI unit of energy density, the joule per cubic metre."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_(unit)
If you want to talk about a simple google search, look up "joule per meter to joule per centimeter." 1 joule per meter is .01 joule per centimeter.
This might be different for volume, however
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_(unit)
If you want to talk about a simple google search, look up "joule per meter to joule per centimeter." 1 joule per meter is .01 joule per centimeter.
This might be different for volume, however
- 32,835
- 38,108
Nope. I did the google search and 1 J/m^3= 1e-6 or 0.000001 J/cm^3Truth Bullets said:
Again, we also don't use Joule/meter or Joule/centimeter for destroying stuff (That's not how volume works anyhow, volume is 3-dimensional, what you're talking about is 1-dimensional, and touchable stuff is most of the time in 3 dimensions). We use joule/cubic meter and joule/cubic centimeter. Big difference. Also Bambu's already said his piece.
Again, read your wikipedia link. It clearly states meter^3, not just meter.
- 11,099
- 4,323
I do think using toughness would be slightly more accurate than shear strength, but I am not sure if it is worth such a huge revision.
- 1,160
- 186
@Truth Bullets I wanna try to help you out here. Volume is three dimensions, not one.
If volume was one dimensional, then yes, a meter would be 100 times bigger than a centimeter. But volume is three dimensional. Volume is 100×100×100, or 100^3, or 1,000,000 times bigger.
I hope that clears up the misconception.
If volume was one dimensional, then yes, a meter would be 100 times bigger than a centimeter. But volume is three dimensional. Volume is 100×100×100, or 100^3, or 1,000,000 times bigger.
I hope that clears up the misconception.
- 10,787
- 1,635
I did, too.
- 31,463
- 34,329
He edited his user page saying "He'd be back soon"
- 1,178
- 407
- Thread starter
- #99
Well it might sound resonable but destroction value of concete from toughness is actually 140 times lower than the one we use right now. (6 j/cm^3 vs 0.042 J/cm^3)Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
If you think toughness value seems unrealistic keep in mind that 6 j/cm^3 means that in order it break a concrete block one needs to drop it from 230 meters height on a comtilely solid surface. Toughness value says that height is only 1.6 meters. Now tell me a drop from what height do you expect a concrete block to fall apart (it doesn't depent on the size of a block btw)
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 22,786
- 22,313
This is still all just different methods of destruction though. Like yeah we currently use a higher assumption but it isn't worth revising over something so minor, I think. Like this is a revision that A. will literally never get done, ever, in decades of time, and B. is optional.
- 32,835
- 38,108
- 32,835
- 38,108
This would also imply that anyone could punch a hole through a concrete wall easily. (I measured my fist to be 7.8 cm in length * 7.5 cm in width with a ruler and with the average concrete wall being 8 inches or 20.32 cm thick, 7.8*7.5*20.32= 1188.72 cm^3 and 1188.72*0.042 J/cc= 49.92624 J
I'm pretty sure this is nowhere near close to actually being able to punch a hole through a solid brick-and-mortar wall IRL. Even 9mm bullets with almost 10 times the energy and having their energy concentrated at one small point can only make small holes into the thin sides of cinder blocks at best, not completely shatter them like .50 BMG rounds would.
I'm pretty sure this is nowhere near close to actually being able to punch a hole through a solid brick-and-mortar wall IRL. Even 9mm bullets with almost 10 times the energy and having their energy concentrated at one small point can only make small holes into the thin sides of cinder blocks at best, not completely shatter them like .50 BMG rounds would.
- 648
- 97
Yeah I was about to say its possible to break concrete. What exactly is fragmentation anyways? Spino said it was breaking into large and distinguishable pieces but splitting seems to fit into that category.
I'm pretty sure I remember seeing this epic one with this russian dude though who split like two times as many blocks, can't find it though.
I'm pretty sure I remember seeing this epic one with this russian dude though who split like two times as many blocks, can't find it though.
- 32,835
- 38,108
Fragmentation is about destroying objects in its entirety, and while splitting does fit the "large and distinguishable" category it's usually done by breaking things into two pieces by striking it in the middle AKA snapping them in half. For example, like the video you showed where most of the blocks are still intact and only the middle section is shattered. Or suppose a log being broken in half.
Also the karate chop (Or rather, a punch as seen in your video) requires technique and usually when red bricks are used they're hollowed out for safety (Of course solid red bricks are used too but the technique is more or less the same as with breaking concrete blocks).
Also the karate chop (Or rather, a punch as seen in your video) requires technique and usually when red bricks are used they're hollowed out for safety (Of course solid red bricks are used too but the technique is more or less the same as with breaking concrete blocks).
- 32,835
- 38,108
I also found here about Xcano talking about this exact topic but Assalt and the other calc members later dismissed it as a bait post. He and Amelia (Formerly Darkanine) did get a link in the PM as I saw in Assalt's wall here before getting banned but I have no idea if Assalt's mind or Amelia's has changed since then.
Just to be sure, contacting Assalt and Amelia about this would be helpful.
Just to be sure, contacting Assalt and Amelia about this would be helpful.
- 31,463
- 34,329
Amelia has left the wiki for reasons that shouldn't be discussed publicly. And yeah, Xcano's attitude was definitely bait. But AssaltWaffle's good to ask.
- 1,178
- 407
- Thread starter
- #119
That is because the material one's using to strike with needs to be harder than the material that takes the strike. If an athlet takes a hammer he will break it even with 160 J swing. Though if he uses a wooden hammer or his fist the concrete block won't be broken even if there's a lot more kinetic energy behindDMUA said:
- Status
