Tsuna’s Choice Battle feat

[YukaSama4]

Yo, so This calc was rejected because of some reasons so, I made this thread to discuss them because there are like 3 or 4 reasons.

1- The 20* sturdier statement.
2- The number of skyscrapers that got destroyed.
3- Did we calculate it in a way that Tsuna destroyed them completely?
__________________________________________________________________________________
So the first reason,
The 20* sturdier statement comes from here, Tsuna punched Torikabuto towards the building and that building wasn't even shattered which confirms that it's sturdier than normal buildings, the Cervello, aka the referees, commented that those buildings are more than 20 times sturdier than normal buildings, saying that the statement isn't reliable is like saying a football referee doesn't know if the stadium is grass or sand lol, furthermore, they said that it's because of the lightning flames which has the hardening element, rejecting that too is like rejecting that the fire can burn.

The 2nd reason,
We assumed that the number is 20 because here, Spanner said that Tsuna is in the middle of a circle which is 3Km in diameter (1.5km all around Tsuna). From this, we see that the base was far away from Tsuna that it doesn't even appear on the radar. Here, the explosion even appeared close to Kikyo and the light covered many buildings across. And then Reborn said the Tsuna blasted away the illusion with sheer force, it's illogical for him to blast only 100 meters for example, and then says that he is out of the illusion because the illusion was 1.5Km all around him.
And also we know that he was far away but the explosion reached a place very close to Kikyo who was about to kill Irie, It's very safe to assume that he destroyed 20 buildings because he has clearly destroyed more than 1.5km distance.

The 3rd reason,
From what I read in the calc, @Xanxussama1010 didn't use the full length of a skyscraper, rather he used the length which appeared to be destroyed in this pic. If the point means another thing, then someone can explain in the comments and it can be adjusted if it seems to be a problem.

Those are all the points I guess.

 

[YukaSama4]

dead verse lmao

 

[XDragnoir]

bump

 

[Nierre]

KHR needs a lively fanbase : pain : seeing this dead hurts. Guess Katekyo Hitman Reborn is never getting reborn... :ahem:

Also following.

 

[YukaSama4]

Amano Akira should pay me cuz I'm the only one on the planet who is trying to upgrade her dead verse

 

[Elizhaa]

Link in 2nd Reasons and 3rd Reasons don't work, so they should be added. You are welcome to make a calculation or request a calculation here.
I will post the past CRT where downgrade to place for more contexts.
I think it would probably be best if the thread was moved to the calc group forum, which I can do if requested.

 

[YukaSama4]

Thanks for replying, thats probably because the thread is one year old, I will update the links after 2 hours

Edit: updated everything now.

 

[YukaSama4]

I think it would probably be best if the thread was moved to the calc group forum, which I can do if requested.

Yeah that would be appreciated

 

[YukaSama4]

Bump

 

[Elizhaa]

Yeah that would be appreciated

Done.

Bump

You can contact calculation group staffs here on the topic.

 

[YukaSama4]

Done.

Thanks

 

[Amelia_Lonelyheart]

I have to agree with Itachi and Damage in the blog page. The term 'sturdy' often refers to physical endurance, and in urban planning, wuld likely refer to how well it can deal with natural disasters (earthquakes, storms, etc), it's most likely not in regards to how it can withstand extreme heat, as that is not really a scenario architects and engineers would have to prepare for. So no, I can't agree with the 20x end.

 

[YukaSama4]

I have to agree with Itachi and Damage in the blog page. The term 'sturdy' often refers to physical endurance, and in urban planning, wuld likely refer to how well it can deal with natural disasters (earthquakes, storms, etc), it's most likely not in regards to how it can withstand extreme heat, as that is not really a scenario architects and engineers would have to prepare for. So no, I can't agree with the 20x end.

Okay, what about the other points?
Btw in this context, it shows how it could take an attack while being not damaged, so it doesn't refer to natural disasters it refers to how much they can withstand attacks

 

[YukaSama4]

Okay, let me explain more about the sturdier statement.

So firstly before everything I'm going to explain where did that come from, Cervillo states here that those buildings are coated by lightning flames.
Now for a better understanding of this, KHR’s energy is called flames, it's not a fire it's an energy just like Ki, but has a different name.
There are 7 types of flames, the one mentioned here is lightning flames, lightning flames were stated in the story to have the ability to harden stuff, aka making them sturdier as the scan mentions. They were shown to withstand other flames because of this attribute. So for example, if I'm using flames of the sky and attacked you while you are coated with that flames, you will be able to take my attack (ofc assuming u are not far weaker than me lol).

So because of that those buildings can withstand attacks, that's what it actually means in this context. And because of that, they are 20 times more able to withstand attacks than normal buildings because they are coated by that flame that has this attribute/ability.

For more context, here for example Torikabuto used an attack that hit the building and shattered it causing it to fail, Dino and Basil say they could pierce that building which is extra hardened in comparison to normal buildings, meaning it literally means what I already explained above, they are more durable and can withstand attacks 20 times more than normal buildings.

 

[DMUA]

rejected calc

"huh maybe I didn't-"

this should work in the comments

This saga will never end huh

Anyways, sturdier might not necessarily mean it's more heat resistant, but there's not that much reason to assume a big distinction anyways considering this is a setting where massive heat attacks are a thing, unless someone less powerful is just fine melting this stuff in comparison to the one guy punching it and his fist essentially bouncing off

That said, on another more important note, we got a lot stricter on vaporization feats since that was made. We usually assume pulverization in cases like this unless vaporization is explicitly stated, since heat doesn't necessarily always turn stuff into vapor.

 

[YukaSama4]

Anyways, sturdier might not necessarily mean it's more heat resistant, but there's not that much reason to assume a big distinction anyways considering this is a setting where massive heat attacks are a thing, unless someone less powerful is just fine melting this stuff in comparison to the one guy punching it and his fist essentially bouncing off

already explained that above in my last comment that it means that because of the lightning flames attribute

That said, on another more important note, we got a lot stricter on vaporization feats since that was made. We usually assume pulverization in cases like this unless vaporization is explicitly stated, since heat doesn't necessarily always turn stuff into vapor.

The feat isn't calced yet so we can change that when we re calc it again, rn I want to talk about the main topics in regard to the feat

 

[Therefir]

Yuka has a point, the statement was made when the durability of the building was being tested, not when it was being affected by a natural disaster.

And this is an anime, the author purposely inflated the durability of the building to make the feats more impressive. The statement would be completely irrelevant if it were about resistance to natural disasters.

 

[YukaSama4]

To summarize:

1) In the context of the statement it cant mean anything other than that as it was attacked by Tsuna pushing Torikabuto and it could withstand that.

2) Lightning flames in KHR possess this attribute that makes things sturdier (can resist/withstand other flame types attacks) and those buildings are coated it.

 

[YukaSama4]

Bump

 

[Amelia_Lonelyheart]

I'm okay with the calc after thinking about it, but I thin the x20 end should be a 'possibly' end. So like, At least 7-B/A (whatever end the original was at), possibly High 7-A.

 

[YukaSama4]

Alright, so if everyone here agreed on it, I would like to talk about vaporization stuff if it should be used or no, I will ask DMUA to comment here again to see if he agrees with the 20 times sturdier or not

 

[XDragnoir]

I'm okay with the calc after thinking about it, but I thin the x20 end should be a 'possibly' end. So like, At least 7-B/A (whatever end the original was at), possibly High 7-A.

If this helps, KHR's multiplier have been accepted already

 

[YukaSama4]

So 3 CGM agreed with the purpose of the thread as it seems and no one has objections toward other points, now I want to talk about the calculation, whether we should apply pulverization or vaporization.

From the page of calculations:
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. The value is 214.35 (j/cc).

"We usually use this value when we see no remains of the matter that was destroyed in the aftermath of the attack"

Vaporisation: Applied when the matter that was destroyed was vaporised during the attack. Much like for Pulverization, we usually use this value when we see no remains of the matter that was destroyed in the attack, but in addition there has to be a considerable amount of visible vapor and/or character statements that imply vaporization, usually the latter. The value is 25700 (j/cc).

"Much like for Pulverization, we usually use this value when we see no remains of the matter that was destroyed in the attack, but in addition there has to be a considerable amount of visible vapor and/or character statements that imply vaporization"

Now from what I understood both are the same thing but with pulverization, we will see nothing left of the matter while with vaporization we will see a considerable amount of visible vapor or a statement.
So it does not necessarily mean that there must be a statement, we should have either a large amount of vapor or a statement or both, right?
The X burner (the attack that was used) in the feat does show a lot of vapor, for example, it has a previous feat where it showed this, also this feat showed a considerable amount of vapor. So unless I'm missing something here, the concept of vaporization matches with this feat more than pulverization.
DMUA said that now a statement is needed but the page doesn't say this from what I understood, so either the page needs to be updated or we should apply vaporization.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Hey, sorry, I've been working a lot lately. My apologies for being late, especially since it seems you had others agree?

As for the durability of the buildings: physically, durability is measured in a lot of ways. A material's durability changes quite a lot depending on the methodology used to "destroy" it. I don't think this is a particularly reliable statement in regards to the calc, given they specifically state they're talking about shattering it, whereas the ultimate method used to destroy it is melting, which deals with entirely different physical properties.

I must admit the second point is on about something I'm not grasping, so for now I'll forego speaking on it, but the third point by the OP is... blatantly untrue.

Xans calc'd all three dimensions of a skyscraper, and multiplied by 20. As far as I can tell, no modifications were made to this.

The calc is still bad in my book.

 

[YukaSama4]

No problem, thanks for the input!
So as for this

I don't think this is a particularly reliable statement in regards to the calc, given they specifically state they're talking about shattering it, whereas the ultimate method used to destroy it is melting, which deals with entirely different physical properties.

I explained it above but let me bring it again.

There are 7 types of flames, the one mentioned here is lightning flames, lightning flames were stated in the story to have the ability to harden stuff, aka making them sturdier as the scan mentions. They were shown to withstand other flames because of this attribute. So for example, if I'm using flames of the sky and attacked you while you are coated with that flames, you will be able to take my attack (ofc assuming u are not far weaker than me lol).

So because of that those buildings can withstand attacks, that's what it actually means in this context. And because of that, they are 20 times more able to withstand attacks than normal buildings because they are coated by that flame that has this attribute/ability.

So as I said, even if it was melting (which is not) lightning flames are coating the buildings, making them 20 times sturdier.
Lightning flames have this ability to harden matter or stuff like that to resist other flame types, so yeah it also means they are 20 times more resistant to other flames aspects/attacks.

I'm going to put an example so can everyone get this point.
So in chapter 313 Lambo (a lightning flames user) fought against a guy whose flames possess the best explosive power and strength between all flames of earth, he created a mountain and strengthened it with his flames, Lambo used the lightning flames, using the hardening effect he made the Iron thorn that he was wearing much more efficient and destroyed that mountain.
So this attribute can work against any other type of flames, it doesn't really matter if its the sky flames (that u say it melts) or any other flames, its like saying u are attacking me with Kamehameha so I put a ki barrier on my body that left me unharmed. Even while its named "flames" its an energy and it can block each other

I must admit the second point is on about something I'm not grasping, so for now I'll forego speaking on it

Tsuna was in an illusion that surrounds him, it made a circle of 3km diameter around him, he blasted the illusion with a force so he destroyed at least 1.5km range which is why we assumed 20 buildings. This stage is full of buildings so no there are not any empty places it's full of skyscrapers as it was shown by an image at the beginning of a chapter in this arc.
So each time has a base, Tsuna was far away to the point that he is not shown near the base on the radar, yet his flames reached that place and the light covered the whole area as the scan shows so that's a supportive point that he at least destroyed 1.5km (probably even more)

Xans calc'd all three dimensions of a skyscraper, and multiplied by 20. As far as I can tell, no modifications were made to this.

I will talk to him, and tell him to change that.

 

[DMUA]

The X burner (the attack that was used) in the feat does show a lot of vapor, for example, it has a previous feat where it showed this, also this feat showed a considerable amount of vapor. So unless I'm missing something here, the concept of vaporization matches with this feat more than pulverization.
DMUA said that now a statement is needed but the page doesn't say this from what I understood, so either the page needs to be updated or we should apply vaporization.

Vapor and smoke are two completely different things in this context. Smoke is going to be generated by any significant amount of flames, no vaporization needed. You can take this to the extreme of a nuke. A grand majority of the impact isn't going to be vaporized, but there's still the massive mushroom cloud.

I dunno why it wasn't updated but I definitely remember Dargoo making a push to revise how we treat vaporization and everyone kinda went along with it.

 

[YukaSama4]

I dunno why it wasn't updated but I definitely remember Dargoo making a push to revise how we treat vaporization and everyone kinda went along with it.

I mean if it wasn't updated it's either the thread wasn't accepted or someone forgot to update it

Vapor and smoke are two completely different things in this context. Smoke is going to be generated by any significant amount of flames, no vaporization needed. You can take this to the extreme of a nuke. A grand majority of the impact isn't going to be vaporized, but there's still the massive mushroom cloud.

I'm saying that vaporization makes sense more than pulverization for this feat.
But yeah I don't mind using pulverization tho, it's just that I think vaporization is more suitable.

 

[Therefir]

The way in which the vaporization values were calculated is entirely independent of the shear/crushing strength of the material, so I fear the 20x statement would only be applicable if you are using pulverization in this feat.

 

[YukaSama4]

The way in which the vaporization values were calculated is entirely independent of the shear/crushing strength of the material, so I fear the 20x statement would only be applicable if you are using pulverization in this feat.

As I said I don't mind using pulverization, if it makes more sense to all of u then I can calc it with pulverization

 

[Therefir]

I'm fine with using vaporization for this feat, as there is plenty of steam and the attack itself supports vaporization.

The 20x statement could still be used in other feats involving fragmentation or pulverization.

 

[YukaSama4]

I'm fine with using vaporization for this feat, as there is plenty of steam and the attack itself supports vaporization.

The 20x statement could still be used in other feats involving fragmentation or pulverization.

Fine, I will do a calc for that if this is fine by others, thanks very much for the input!

 

[YukaSama4]

I have another suggestion, which I think is much more accurate.
I will use the vaporization and x20 sturdier statement, but I will remove the assumption that the attack destroyed 20 buildings and only use the number of the destroyed buildings that are shown on the screen which is 6 or 7 probably.

I chose this because if we removed the 20 sturdier statement and kept the assumption of 20 destroyed skyscrapers it will be weird since we removed a trusted statement and kept an assumption, So yeah I'm saying to remove this assumption instead of removing the statement.

What do you think?

 

[XDragnoir]

I have another suggestion, which I think is much more accurate.
I will use the vaporization and x20 sturdier statement, but I will remove the assumption that the attack destroyed 20 buildings and only use the number of the destroyed buildings that are shown on the screen which is 6 or 7 probably.

I chose this because if we removed the 20 sturdier statement and kept the assumption of 20 destroyed skyscrapers it will be weird since we removed a trusted statement and kept an assumption, So yeah I'm saying to remove this assumption instead of removing the statement.

What do you think?

i think using pulverization and 20x is better, it's not like vaporization is super important here.

 

[YukaSama4]

I'm not talking about what's more important for the verse, I'm talking about what makes the most sense, vaporization matches with this feat much more than pulverization.
And if we were to choose between those then I will choose to ignore the assumption of the 20 buildings rather than ignore a canon statement with clear vaporization for X burner feats.
We can also get the opinion of the knowledgeable members on the verse, I will call them here if that's the only point left in this thread

 

[Therefir]

Why did they even assume 20 buildings were destroyed, I see 6 at most.

Anyway, if you use the vaporization values you can't use the 20x statement because the strength of the material is not directly related to its heat capacity.

I still recommend using vaporization instead of x20 pulverization because the result is higher that way, even with the multiplication.

However, I don't think the feat gives any substantial results anymore, so maybe you shouldn't even bother.

 

[YukaSama4]

Why did they even assume 20 buildings were destroyed, I see 6 at most.

Yeah I covered that point in the OP

 

[YukaSama4]

So a summary after 2-3 months cuz I was busy the feat should get a calculation based on these points:

1- Calc the volume of the parts that were destroyed on the screen and use it, don't use the whole volume of a skyscraper because Tsuna didn't destroy them completely to the ground.
2- Either you use the 20 times sturdier statement or use the vaporization value, using both won't get accepted.
3- For the number of skyscrapers that got destroyed, it seems that we shouldn't assume 20 or any number like that based on the 1.5km distance as Therefir said, rather we should only use the number of the skyscrapers that were shown to be destroyed on the screen which was 6 or 7.

The calc should get redone taking into account those points, or don't even bother yourself trying to do that because you won't get something special lol.

And we are done here now.