The Problem with Destruction Values We Use (Staff only)

[Assaltwaffle]

While I can understand the system needing an update considering the sketchy-ness of the Narutoforum's source, I will give a warning for this: whatever you plan to shift to, if necessary, must be absolutely iron-clad. This change would be absolutely gargantuan. There are so many calculations that ride on our definitions of Frag. and V. Frag.

I will say, however, there needs to be definitions for Frag. and V. Frag. if nothing else. For example, if I shatter a mountain into 15 million pieces, those pieces are still going to be larger than if I shatter a normal rock into 10 pieces. So should the value be based on a percentage of the original object's size, or a fixed size?

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Assaltwaffle about that we would have to be 100% certain before even considering to apply such an enormous task, and do not think that it is remotely realistic to perform for a long while in the first place.

 

[Ugarik]

I can definatly say that in case of toughness size of the derbis absolutely does depend on the original size of a destroed object. Thoughness is basicaly stress times strain while strain is simply "by how many percent an object becomes shorter (or longer) when deing deformed".

 

[KLOL506]

I agree with Assaltwaffle about that we would have to be 100% certain before even considering to apply such an enormous task, and do not think that it is remotely realistic to perform for a long while in the first place.

Not to mention that some of the standards of the tiers will also have to be revised.

 

[KLOL506]

as in shattering 17 Kilograms of concrete is a very hard thing for a normal athlete to do

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 behind

Uh, you're confusing a fully-built wall with a singular concrete block (As in, your usual concrete masonry units).

 

[KLOL506]

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

Oh, I forgot to tell you. It needs to be an isolated chunk of something rather than a hole.

Mind explaining what you mean by "isolated chunk of something rather than a hole?"

Because I'm pretty sure no one punches holes through building walls with just the intention of going for an isolated part of anything most of the time.

 

[Jasonsith]

Now someone should mention it:

I smell some overlapping areas between striking strength and attack potency. Which makes the striking strength part redundant unless we give it a new meaning.

E.g. Striking strength should be measured in Newtons of kilogram force on Earth instead of joules of energy.

Or be replaced with piercing strength which focuses on pressure.

Also area of effect. This is one that surprisingly fee would have voiced out.

I mention the above because piercing and impact spreading are some big factors when we consider destroying objects. Apart from the percentage of object being destroyed.

 

[KLOL506]

AFAIK we can't use pressure-based stuff here or force-based stuff, as it would completely defeat the purpose of AP existing.

And neither can we use Area of Effect due to the mess it created with stuff like planet-busting and what not. AP would again as a whole be affected by this.

 

[KLOL506]

Also Ugarik for the Kuz-ram equation I don't think we can assume random particle size for our own as that's apparently dependant on the powder factor and rock factor, both of which are set to have a minimum requirement for destroying rock.

 

[KLOL506]

Anyway, managed to fix the LaTEX mess from jakuub's link and this is the formula for the particle size where:
x_m = mean particle size (cm)

A = rock factor,

K = powder factor (in kg/m^3)

Q = mass of explsovies (in kg)

RWS = relative weight strength of the explosive (Apparently blastex is used and its RWS is 0.84)

X_m= A*(K^-0.8)*(Q^0.167)*((1.15/0.84)^0.905)

Once you figure out your powder factor AKA mass of explosives multiply it with blastex's energy density of 740 cal/g or 3098232 J/kg of explosive used per cubic meter (I used this converter to convert from cal/g to joule/kg).

Rock factor and powder factor are apparently set and the mass of explosives is also apparently the same as powder factor.

Some powder factors here (Or just use the average of 0.75 kg/m^3 here, the other link gives almost equal values AFAIK but using separate rocks is better IMHO).

Though I should note that this doesn't work for stuff that isn't stone. AKA you can't use this for metal or wood. Rock factor is within 7-13.

Some more details about the Kuz-Ram model here

 

[Jaakubb]

Not to mention that some of the standards of the tiers will also have to be revised.
Probably just Wall Level. All the other tiers are fine, theyre meant to be arbitrary. With wall level though, i could see someone destroying a wall at WAY less than 15 kilojoules or whatever the limit was. Idk, maybe the calcs will reaffirm our current wall level measurement. The thing is though, apparently shatterng a skull is considered Wall Level even with the current requirement so i cant help but doubt that it would take less than our current limit for Wall Level. Also nice job finding more info about the kuz ram model. Edit: Yeah I remembered right, it was 15 kilojoules.

I smell some overlapping areas between striking strength and attack potency. Which makes the striking strength part redundant unless we give it a new meaning.
E.g. Striking strength should be measured in Newtons of kilogram force on Earth instead of joules of energy.

Or be replaced with piercing strength which focuses on pressure.

Also area of effect. This is one that surprisingly fee would have voiced out.

I mention the above because piercing and impact spreading are some big factors when we consider destroying objects. Apart from the percentage of object being destroyed.

I know youre just using newtons as an example, but i still dont think this would work at all. Pretty sure striking strength is actual physical damage while AP covers a whole bunch of non-physical possibly non-combat applicable things like certain forms of reality warping. Also i agree pressure should be used, but not at any more than tier 9. In layer tiers accounting for focusing energy into a single point will over complicate calcs just to get a little more accuracy, and i cant imagine any situations where using pressure vs just the energy output would have benefits that outweigh these problems.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Our baseline for Wall level used to be 5000 Joules, but it also depends on what the wall is made of as well as the size and thickness of the wall.

 

[Jaakubb]

Why'd we raise it to 15 kilojoules? What kind of wall are we talking about? I know its arbitrary but it doesnt seem right to give a profile of someone/thing who can hit/tank twice the energy of a 12 gauge slug street level. Also it was kinda weird that one pascal was assumed to be one joule for jaw dropping (not sure if other skull calcs do this). I doubt anyone has hands or a skull with surface area even close to a square meter. Not saying we should use pressure instead of joules because of the problems I mentioned earlier and the fact that most high tier characters either use point blank explosions, punches (hands cant have THAT much variation in surface area for a punch to make any significant difference) or penetrating weapons. Penetrating weapons are already meant to focus energy into a small area in fiction anyways.

 

[KLOL506]

Using the Kuz-ram model, I think we might get frag values very close to the ones we currently have but in that case it really wouldn't be much of a change and would be worthless altogether.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I believe it was because the strongest punch ever recorded was desired to be less than '''Wall level'''

 

[KLOL506]

Why'd we raise it to 15 kilojoules? What kind of wall are we talking about? I know its arbitrary but it doesnt seem right to give a profile of someone/thing who can hit/tank twice the energy of a 12 gauge slug street level. Also it was kinda weird that one pascal was assumed to be one joule for jaw dropping (not sure if other skull calcs do this). I doubt anyone has hands or a skull with surface area even close to a square meter. Not saying we should use pressure instead of joules because of the problems I mentioned earlier and the fact that most high tier characters either use point blank explosions, punches (hands cant have THAT much variation in surface area for a punch to make any significant difference) or penetrating weapons. Penetrating weapons are already meant to focus energy into a small area in fiction anyways.

Because we decided to use the 15 kJ .50 BMG as a standard for baseline Wall level since those rounds can destroy cinderblocks.

 

[Jaakubb]

I guess maybe it wouldnt change anything? But skepticism is good, and the narutoforums sources seem sketchy anyways, so it would consolidate the values. Although I can see why no one would want to calc this. Could be a waste of time.

 

[KLOL506]

I mean, the reddit link you gave already has a value for limestone which is shockingly close to the one we have but then there's the issue of metals and wood.

However, whenever possible we should have values of different types of rocks as well if we can properly identify it based on its appearance and geographical location.

 

[Jaakubb]

The 7 million joules seemed more than just normal frag. The pieces were said to be 5cm each. On the other hand, the simple powder factor calc they did at the top used what quarry blasters mean when they say "broken" which I think would be closer to normal frag. It was calced to be just a little under a megajoule.

Why is 50 bmg baseline though? If we're going by cinderblocks, cinderblocks can be destroyed with less than 15 kilojoules. If were going by how iconic the 50 cal is, I'd say its commonly considered "higher tier" among powerful weapons. Doesnt seem appropriate for a baseline.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I believe it's the fragmentation of Cinder Block, not just breaking it in two pieces or something.

 

[KLOL506]

The 7 million joules seemed more than just normal frag. The pieces were said to be 5cm each. On the other hand, the simple powder factor calc they did at the top used what quarry blasters mean when they say "broken" which I think would be closer to normal frag. It was calced to be just a little under a megajoule.
Why is 50 bmg baseline though? If we're going by cinderblocks, cinderblocks can be destroyed with less than 15 kilojoules. If were going by how iconic the 50 cal is, I'd say its commonly considered "higher tier" among powerful weapons. Doesnt seem appropriate for a baseline.

Nah, that's for per cubic lb. We use metric. For metric we get 3.098 megajoules. Also the average powder factor according to the links I posted above states it to be around 0.75.

And 5 cm particle in and out of itself is pretty large. V. frag should be considerably smaller than that.

 

[Jaakubb]

The powder factor they used was pounds of explosives per cubic yard. Pounds of explosives was already converted into plain joules. The block was a cubic yard, and there are about 764555 cubic cm in a cubic yard so 983076 divided by divided by 764555 gives about 1.3 joules per cubic cm.

 

[KLOL506]

The powder factor used in the links I provided below use kg/m^3.

Also he found the energy by multiplying the 0.7 lb/cy with the volume in cy to get the value of 1404394 joules/lb

1404394 joule/lb = 3096158.782 joule/kg per cubic meter. I used a converter here

 

[Jaakubb]

Yeah he did get 1404394. That's the value for I pound of blastex. He then multiplied it by 0.7 because you only need 0.7 lbs of blastex to break a cubic yard of limestone and got 983076. Not sure if he got the powder factors wrong, pdfs are weird on mobile.

So 3097158 joules in a kg of explosives? You dont need a full kilogram of explosives to break the cubic meter OR cubic yard of rock.

 

[KLOL506]

I think he got the powder factor wrong as most other sites I go to usually have 0.4 kg/m^3 for very weak rocks, not for hard rocks like limestone.

EDIT: on the second note he didn't provide any link for the powder factor of limestone.

 

[Ugarik]

30×15 cm fiber reinforced concrete block fails at 360 J during a compression test.

That doesn't mean that 360 J punch can make a hole in a wall of the same size but in order to properly explain it one needs to understad Poisson's effect and stress tensor.

 

[Jaakubb]

So would it double up to around 2.6 j/cc? I dont want to go through the pdfs right now, it's weird on mobile.

 

[KLOL506]

Prolly.

 

[KLOL506]

Though like Bambu said, it's still silly to assume one thing for rock and another for other materials not rock (Like metals which can't actually shatter unless you use extremely brittle forms of it). In the end, all of them are just assumptions and not really worth wasting the time for. Not to mention with what Ugarik said right now, it seems that using toughness would now open a whole other can of worms.

 

[Jaakubb]

We could change some of the frag values using the powder factor stuff first. I'd rather be inconsistently correct than consistently incorrect.

 

[KLOL506]

There's another problem. For example, destroying a mountain would undeniably give us bigger fragments than destroying an apartment wall. How do we determine what fragment size is right in that case?

Not to mention that not everything is made of limestone.

 

[Jaakubb]

For limestone, we can just find the j/cc with powder factor. It's actually a pretty simple, just find kg of explosives per cubic meter, use the explosive energy of one kilo of explosives to get joules per cubic meter and then divide by 1000000 to get j/cc. Seems easy enough to keep track of, and it's a one time thing for a couple different types of rock. Thing is though, not all explosives are created the same, so either stay consistent with using dyno nobel sources or find the energy density of the new explosive each time we go outside the manufacturer of blastex, dyno nobel.

But then again, maybe quarry blasters have an even higher standard for "breaking" than the ones met by most feats in this wiki that involve "destruction." In some videos where the dudes punch through concrete, it's not always just one clean crack. It sometimes shatters a significant amount.

 

[KLOL506]

Then maybe we should use those higher standards instead for the sake of accuracy. They'd prolly match our current values anyway so no harm done.

And I'm pretty sure no one uses only limestone for big stuff anymore (Since cement and concrete are a thing), even less so for mountains.

And apparently there's no powder factor for cement or concrete. I've checked all over and can't find any even though those two are the only other materials I can think of besides rock where you can use powder factor.

 

[Ugarik]

I don't understad what point you are trying to make if we all can see that concrete blocks fall apart when they are droped from less than 2 meter height

 

[KLOL506]

Dropping isn't punching and neither is compressing. That's basically our point. Your links basically show the values coming from compressing stuff.

Also the Kuz-ram model seems to be a more accurate representation of destroying rock than toughness.

What about this formula you mentioned in the previous References for Common Feats thread: Young's modulus of the material * surface area of the derbis * tension of the material

 

[Ugarik]

Dropping isn't punching and neither is compressing. That's basically our point

Both dropping and punching create kinetic energy which is used to destroy an object. No matter what he source of that kinetic energy is the amount of energy needed to cause the fractural failure is the same or otherwise trying to measure durability in terms of energy would be pointless. Compression is different but it can still be used to calculate the amount of kinetic energy needed to break a particular object.

Also the Kuz-ram model seems to be a more accurate representation of destroying rock than toughness

I honestly doubt anyone of us understads how this model works and the only reason some people would prefere using it is because the results we are going will get from it are going to be much closer to what we want them to be

 

[KLOL506]

Well, the kuz-ram model if used with the minimum starting powder factor gives us considerably lower values than what we have so not quite. Not to mention it is basically defined as info on basic rock fragmenting in quarries according to the links I just uploaded

For example, 0.7 kg/m^3 of powder factor according to the links would wield a measly 2167312 J/m^3 or 2.167312 J/cm^3 with 1 kg/m^3 being equivalent to 3096160 J/m^3 or 3.09616 J/cm^3. The number drops to 1.3 megajoules if we use weaker rocks as our baseline (As in, using 0.4 kg/m^3 for powder factor according to the links posted above). Then again, like Jakuub said, quarry blasters know more about this than us so their words might hold more consistency than ours.

 

[Jaakubb]

The most important thing is that the frag values have to be consistent with what we consider to be "fragmentation". So yeah I trust quarry blasters more than some dude on narutoforums. So what if we have to decrease frag values? It just proves our old values are false. But then again it would be pretty tedious to go and revise every single calc. Would you rather go through the trouble of revising every single calc, keep going with the lie, or just discard the calcs that use these? Maybe revising wouldnt take THAT much time, it is just one value, but you never know...

 

[KLOL506]

No, it would still be a gargantuan project to go with. Frag, v. frag and pulv calcs exist for a lot of tiers on this site for basically anything related to smashing stuff. But as your link suggests jakuub, their definition of fragmenting rocks prolly means the debris size has to be smaller than what the starting powder factor is. They prolly assumed 5 cm particle size due to it being similar to fist width, but that's just me.

Regardless, while the formula looks good in practice, I'd still wait for confirmation from DT at this point.

EDIT: I just checked, Mountain level to Island level also get affected since we got their values from frag, v. frag and pulv. And it seems we managed to figure out the blast radius by basing the values on the frag, v. frag and pulv. values.

 

[Jaakubb]

Mountain level to island level are just arbitrary though I'm pretty sure. If they arent, let's just make them arbitrary. So we dont have to change those levels.