The Problem with Destruction Values We Use (Staff only)

[KLOL506]

NVM, they only divided the energy yield with the J/cc value to get the minimum volume you'd need to achieve 7-A, 6-C and so on. Doesn't affect the actual yield.

And assuming we take fist-sized debris (5-7 cm) as the basis for frag like the quarry blasters would recommend, nothing much would really change.

 

[KLOL506]

Still tho, what does this formula represent? Young's modulus of the material * surface area of the derbis * tension of the material

 

[KGiffoni]

I think we should always aim for what is most accurate, even if it would take lots of time in order to revise all the calcs. If the values are to be changed, i think it's a given that if we were to change frag/v.frag/pulv/etc values we would have to update every calc with the new ones. At least that's how i think. I mean, after all it's just plugging new values into calcs already made.

 

[Jaakubb]

Lots of stuff would probably have to be halved or divided by three or somewhere in that range. Dont know about violent frag and pulv though.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I think we should always aim for what is most accurate, even if it would take lots of time in order to revise all the calcs. If the values are to be changed, i think it's a given that if we were to change frag/v.frag/pulv/etc values we would have to update every calc with the new ones. At least that's how i think. I mean, after all it's just plugging new values into calcs already made.

Obviously accuracy should be aimed for. But whether or not this is even more accurate than what we currently do comes down to how you assume the thing was broken.

 

[KLOL506]

I agree with Bambuu.

 

[KLOL506]

Also even if the current system stays even that is lacking a lot of values for other materials we use. Though that is less likely to be as massive as what Ugarik is promoting.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

Our current system is lacking a lot of values but it is extremely easy to just google the shear strength or compressive strength, while it is hard to find the toughness or power factor.

 

[KLOL506]

I am also doubting the methods Ugarik has used to find his toughness values. Powder factor isn't that hard to find, and I already posted my links, most of which give us a value between 0.4-0.9 kg/m^3 but is nevertheless complicated to use ATM. Toughness values on the other hand, are basically non-existent on google, and I don't think Ugarik's way of figuring out toughness is even used by the scientific community (Because, well, pixel-scaling).

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that is is better to continue handling things in the current manner if the replacement is not even a certain improvement and considerably harder to get the right values for.

Help with finding and inserting accurate currently missing values into our relevant instruction page would be appreciated of course.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with Antvasima

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

I did find some of the missing values, but our current method for finding destruction values can be easily searched with a simple Google.

Toughness and powder factor on the other hand, is barely even heard of by many people.

 

[KLOL506]

Also this makes me ask another question

Shouldn't crater feats use compressive strength due to the feat involving pressing down on the material?

 

[KLOL506]

BTW, I also agree with Ant.

And finding new values for our current method wouldn't likely affect anything at all. Calcs for that material would work only if the materal is strictly specified to be that one type or can be defined by its geographical location or appearance.

 

[Ugarik]

Since many people don't understad how exactly kinetic energy can cause objects to shatter, how KE is more relavent than force or momentum and what compression test has to do with it I guess I will explain it.

Let's say you have a 1200 kg car moving at 20 m/s. You can easily say that its kinetic energy is 240000J. That value simply indicates how long your braking distance is going to be if you want to stop it by pushing the opposite direction (the same way momentum indicates how much time it takes to stop it). So if one desides to stop this car by pushing it the opposite direction with the force of 10000 N the car will push them 24 metres back.

Now if that car colides with stationary concrete block, the block is going to push it back using its own resistance with the average force of 557000 newtons (that value is taken from the compression test). The stopping distance is going to be only 43 cm. That's basicly how much the concrete is compressed during the collision. Of caurse the block is not going to withstand such a huge deformation considering it's only 30 cm long. In fact that block can only withstand 0.065 cm of displacement untill it fails (also from the compression test)

 

[KLOL506]

KE is a big no-no for obvious reasons for destruction feats tho.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

What reasons?

 

[KLOL506]

It's mentioned in our KE standards page, as the actual destruction value would take priority over ramming into said object at said speed and destroying it.

 

[Antvasima]

KLOL506 is correct.

 

[Ugarik]

Yes, I was trying to explain real world's physics that fiction doesn't always follow. Anyway mechanical damage, such as fragmentation, is always done by mechanical type of energy, like KE.

Any punch or strike has KE, and calculating that energy directly is not allowed but we still can this calc it based on destruction values. I was trying to explain how this energy actualy causes damage.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

Why is it not allowed?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Because most fictional stories have their own laws of physics.

 

[Migue79]

^

Or they just don't obey any.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

That doesn't explain to specifically what is different. If they don't follow any laws of physics, couldn't that make everyone unknown?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Fiction treats speed and AP non-linearly; it's full of small/sleek Tier 7 characters who aren't even Subsonic in terms of feats in the verse, which they should logically be Relativistic as far as physics are concerned. While at the same time, it's also full of Buff Relativistic characters who don't even exceed Wall level in terms of feats in the verse, which they should logically be Low 7-B by the same logic.

 

[Antvasima]

Medeus is correct. Thank you for helping out.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

That doesn't explain why we shouldn't use the theoretical power of the punch that caused the destruction, rather than the destruction it caused.

 

[Jaakubb]

I don't think you guys are addressing ugarik's point. Pretty sure he's saying that it takes different amounts of energy to shatter something in different situations (e.g. is it fixed to something?). But I'm pretty sure the stuff broken during feats is nearly always fixed to the ground anyways (e.g. a hill).

 

[KLOL506]

Ooooooooooh.

But yeah, most stuff shattered in fiction is usually fixed to the ground and not separated.

 

[KLOL506]

That doesn't explain why we shouldn't use the theoretical power of the punch that caused the destruction, rather than the destruction it caused.

Because it'd lead to highly inflated results that could potentially be highly inconsistent with other feats in a verse, unless the object is large. It's why we don't use KE for one person carrying a small object or swinging swords at supersonic or hypersonic speed for slicing bullets anymore.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

It would only apply when the verse depicts the shockwave as a feat of strength, and not equal to the power of the punch itself. Also, I'm pretty sure that most verses do treat the energy as expanding from the fist or whatever.

 

[KLOL506]

More or less, also AoE would greatly affect how that punch is carried out but for obvious reasons fiction doesn't abide by that. Same reason why DB characters can focus their planetary-to-universal punching power in their ki blasts and concentrate it to one point to avoid collateral damage.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

Except when they don't. There are also verses where it shows up, but gives underwhelming results.

 

[KLOL506]

There's also another problem that even in IRL KE is not used to determine strength of basically any living creature including humans, but force is. Like in the case of where scientists use force instead of KE to measure the lethality of a punch. Not saying that KE isn't applicable, just that it doesn't give out the full picture.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

Force doesn't, either, but that may be right.

 

[KLOL506]

Force doesn't, yeah, there are a lot more variables in play when it comes to destroying objects.

 

[Antvasima]

I have to unsubscribe from this thread due to time constraints. You can notify me later via my message wall if you need my help after you have reached a conclusion.

 

[Jaakubb]

KE is used for weapons though. Also joules are used for punches from time to time. Like a karateka could punch with maybe up to 100 joules but a boxer punching with full force could go up to 1000 (not sure, i just vaguely remember this). And animal vs animal fights are usually just decided by body mass, speed, and whether or not the animal has sharp claws/etc.

 

[Ugarik]

There's also another problem that even in IRL KE is not used to determine strength of basically any living creature including humans, but force is. Like in the case of where scientists use force instead of KE to measure the lethality of a punch. Not saying that KE isn't applicable, just that it doesn't give out the full picture.

I have already explained why KE is more suitible for stuff like punches. It's true that most scientist measure punches in terms of impart force but that impact force is litteraly the result of the KE change of your arm.

 

[Jaakubb]

Wait what's the point of this KE vs force thing? This shouldnt get any more sidetracked