• 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 Simpsons revison

Status
Not open for further replies.
WeeklyBattles said:
My guy how did you get a higher yield of th xplosion than th explosion itself? You have to divide the yield by the surface area of the person not multiply
Click to expand...
My dude, we do not use surface area, we multiply the yield with cross-sectional area, which is a lot lower than surface area (40-50% the size of surface area). Clearly says so in the rules.

Again, this is just a limitation of the formula in our Explosion Yield Calculations page since it was never meant to measure the yield of an explosion at distances that close. It only works if you're like, a meter or further away from the boom. You can ask Executor N0 and DontTalkDT if you want to know more.
 
Last edited:
We use surface area for every explosion calc that involves a person caught in the blast what do you mean? Its even on the explosion calcs page

And you still multiplied instead of divided which makes zero sense
 
WeeklyBattles said:
We use surface area for every explosion calc that involves a person caught in the blast what do you mean? Its even on the explosion calcs page
Click to expand...
No we don't use surface area, we use CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA as clearly stated in the Explosion Yield Calculations page

We multiply the yield with Cross-sectional area, which is explicitly stated in the Explosion Calculations page to be:


"The amount of energy that hits a target if r meters away from an explosion is E=I*CA, where I is calculated as described above (The yield in tons) and E is the energy the target is hit by. CA is the crossectional area of the target. That is the area of the largest cross section of the target that is orthogonal to the direction the explosion expands into. That is not half the surface area of the target, but less than that. For a sphere for instance this would not be 4*pi*r^2 / 2, but instead pi*r^2 as that is the area of the largest cross-section which, in this case, is a circle with the same radius as the sphere laid through its center (in such a way that it is orthogonal to the expansion of the explosion)."

This is DT's own words which he added to the page after further consultation.
 
Ive called some other calc members to back me up on this a the calc group themselves have both told me and enforced the use of using surface area for explosion calcs
 
WeeklyBattles said:
We use surface area for every explosion calc that involves a person caught in the blast what do you mean? Its even on the explosion calcs page

And you still multiplied instead of divided which makes zero sense
Click to expand...
Yes, I multiplied it with cross-sectional area, not surface area, as the Explosion Yield Calculations page clearly says.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
Ive called some other calc members to back me up on this a the calc group themselves have both told me and enforced the use of using surface area for explosion calcs
Click to expand...
This was actually discussed in full in this thread (Which is how the newer explanations for cross-sectional area came up) but sure, I can call up DontTalkDT if you like.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
If its truly cross-sectional area then i have about two dozen calcs that need to be redone, many of which you approved
Click to expand...
Don't forget that you still need the distance between the dude and the explosion, or else it's useless.

And do note that not every character has the same cross-sectional area, it depends wildly on body types.
 
I'm pretty sure at least a majority of those calcs were in fact using cross sectional area, they just labelled it as surface area because of poor terminology.
 
KLOL506 said:
Don't forget that you still need the distance between the dude and the explosion, or else it's useless.

And do note that not every character has the same cross-sectional area, it depends wildly on body types.
Click to expand...
Point blank
 
DMUA said:
I'm pretty sure at least a majority of those calcs were in fact using cross sectional area, they just labelled it as surface area because of poor terminology.
Click to expand...
Pretty much this LOL
 
DMUA said:
I'm pretty sure at least a majority of those calcs were in fact using cross sectional area, they just labelled it as surface area because of poor terminology.
Click to expand...
They werent, i was xplocitly toldto not use that math
 
WeeklyBattles said:
Point blank
Click to expand...
Point blank as in? Centimeters? Half a meter?

Remember, the yield only scales in full if-

1. The explosion happens inside of your body

2. You cover it with your body to stop it from spreading out, like what they do in the movies in acts of honor and such, or you cover it with your hands like Superman did

3. You're literally face-hugging/bear-hugging the bomb (Like, holding it close to your chest carrying it or something) and/or standing/crouching/sitting right on top of it, and the bomb is smaller than you

Anything else and it does't fully scale.
 
Last edited:
KLOL506 said:
Point blank as in? Centimeters? Half a meter? or is it straight up in the face?

Remember, the yield only scales in full if-

1. The explosion happens inside of your body

2. You cover it with your body to stop it from spreading out, like what they do in the movies in acts of honor and such, or you cover it with your hands like Superman did

3. You're literally face-hugging the bomb and/or standing/crouching right on top of it
Click to expand...
Number 3 but that does not scale to the full yield in any circumstance unles you want to change the rules of the wiki
 
WeeklyBattles said:
They werent, i was xplocitly toldto not use that math
Click to expand...
Then you were told wrong.

By the way, KLOL is also right. You do remember how I showed that surface area at a certain distance can straight up increase the result, right? Of course that obviously doesn't make sense, but the math breaks down if they're straight up right next to the epicenter, so we just use the full yield.
 
DMUA said:
Then you were told wrong.

By the way, KLOL is also right. You do remember how I showed that surface area at a certain distance can straight up increase the result, right? Of course that obviously doesn't make sense, but the math breaks down if they're straight up right next to the epicenter, so we just use the full yield.
Click to expand...
He multipied instead of divided, the yield is in the kilograms of TNT
 
WeeklyBattles said:
He multipied instead of divided, the yield is in the kilograms of TNT
Click to expand...
I multiplied with cross-sectional area as stated to do so in the page and my example of the yield is in tons of TNT, as the formula relies on you using tons of tnt for yield and meters in radius. If you divided the yield with cross-sectional area, the actual amount they tanked would be much higher, and not lower.

Again, cross-sectional area is explicitly smaller than surface area, they are not the same thing, and you need to multiply it with the yield. Dividing the yield with surface area would give slightly lower results but the Cross-sectional Area is more accurate.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so the entire cross-sectional explosion surface inverse square law calculation business essentially is meant to calculate the percentage of the explosion that hits you. So if you get that using those formulas increases the result beyond 100% of the explosions power, then something is wrong.
Like I noted on the explosion page, that can be because it isn't always as simple as using crossectional area, particularly then if the explosion is very close to the person in question. That's because the crossectional area is only a (very good) approximation the actual area that one would need to use.
What exactly the correct area is, is a bit hard to describe. Basically, if one sees the source of the explosion as a lamp and build a sphere around the person, with the source of the explosion in the center, then what we wish to do is to take the percentage of the explosion yield, that is equal to the percentage of the shadow of the person on the sphere to the spheres total surface.
So in certain very close scenarios calculating the durability from an explosion at close range just gets more complicated, but is technically possible. It probably would need some case-by-case fiddling, though.

In the case of hugging a small bomb the percentage of the explosion tanked would be close to 100%, although likely not quite 100% due to some little gaps remaining. Unless you're very close to the border of a tier, it likely makes no difference in tier at least.
I should also mention that in ancient times, before even I had any influence on such decisions, it was once decided that point-blank range explosions are usually ok to be assumed to scale in full, for better power scaling / simplification / fictional logic reasons or something. Basically like we assume characters scale even if attacks they tanked resulted in some minor environmental side effects because the difference between full power and what is tanked shouldn't be significant. (or more generally why we scale characters without much considerations of whether they tanked 100% of the energy beam or just 90%)
Nobody ever decided it changed, so I always assumed that was still the standard. 🤷‍♂️ Even the explosion yield page technically only talks about non-point blank range explosions for the durability section. So yeah. Take that as you like.
 
DontTalkDT said:
Ok, so the entire cross-sectional explosion surface inverse square law calculation business essentially is meant to calculate the percentage of the explosion that hits you. So if you get that using those formulas increases the result beyond 100% of the explosions power, then something is wrong.
Like I noted on the explosion page, that can be because it isn't always as simple as using crossectional area, particularly then if the explosion is very close to the person in question. That's because the crossectional area is only a (very good) approximation the actual area that one would need to use.
What exactly the correct area is, is a bit hard to describe. Basically, if one sees the source of the explosion as a lamp and build a sphere around the person, with the source of the explosion in the center, then what we wish to do is to take the percentage of the explosion yield, that is equal to the percentage of the shadow of the person on the sphere to the spheres total surface.
So in certain very close scenarios calculating the durability from an explosion at close range just gets more complicated, but is technically possible. It probably would need some case-by-case fiddling, though.

In the case of hugging a small bomb the percentage of the explosion tanked would be close to 100%, although likely not quite 100% due to some little gaps remaining. Unless you're very close to the border of a tier, it likely makes no difference in tier at least.
I should also mention that in ancient times, before even I had any influence on such decisions, it was once decided that point-blank range explosions are usually ok to be assumed to scale in full, for better power scaling / simplification / fictional logic reasons or something. Basically like we assume characters scale even if attacks they tanked resulted in some minor environmental side effects because the difference between full power and what is tanked shouldn't be significant. (or more generally why we scale characters without much considerations of whether they tanked 100% of the energy beam or just 90%)
Nobody ever decided it changed, so I always assumed that was still the standard. 🤷‍♂️ Even the explosion yield page technically only talks about non-point blank range explosions for the durability section. So yeah. Take that as you like.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the heads up. I guess we could add new rules to the page for what would make you qualify scaling to the full yield then?

Maybe include the three points I made.
 
If we maintain the point-blank explosion thing, then I would personally go with the more general: If the character touches the source of the explosion and/or absorbs almost the entire blast then it is point-blank. Of course, that is assuming the explosion doesn't destroy all the parts close to the source (like blow off the arm or something).
Although the three points work as well.
 
DontTalkDT said:
If we maintain the point-blank explosion thing, then I would personally go with the more general: If the character touches the source of the explosion and/or absorbs almost the entire blast then it is point-blank. Of course, that is assuming the explosion doesn't destroy all the parts close to the source (like blow off the arm or something).
Although the three points work as well.
Click to expand...
I mean, the entire point of scaling to the full yield is to come out more or less unharmed and to recover as if nothing happened, to lose limbs in the process would completely defeat the point of scaling to the full yield.
 
DontTalkDT said:
If we maintain the point-blank explosion thing, then I would personally go with the more general: If the character touches the source of the explosion and/or absorbs almost the entire blast then it is point-blank. Of course, that is assuming the explosion doesn't destroy all the parts close to the source (like blow off the arm or something).
Although the three points work as well.
Click to expand...
I guess the three points should work then. Should I edit them in or would you like to do the honors?
 
Can I have a summary of this explosion stuff? I might need to redo a couple of calculations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Jason_Courne
The Simpsons: 8-A, Supersonic+, Intelligence Upgrade and minor revisions
2
Replies
75
Views
6K
Jason_Courne
Jason_Courne
Oiguana2701
8-C Tournament | Maguma Vs Bart Simpson 7-0-0
Replies
28
Views
2K
DaReaperMan
DaReaperMan
koopa3144
Peppino Spaghetti vs Homer Simpson (7-0-0) (Grace)
Replies
20
Views
3K
koopa3144
koopa3144
hockame
0-0-0 Bart VS Rumble McSkirmish
Replies
16
Views
979
It_is_i_wyatt
It_is_i_wyatt
koopa3144
Bart Simpson vs Fancy Pants Man
Replies
5
Views
995
koopa3144
koopa3144
Back
Top