• 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.

Is Smoke from Craters Enough Evidence to Assume Vaporization?

Lightbuster30

Lightbuster30

6,594
1,708
I ask because smoke is technically just ash particles in the air and I see plenty of characters who generate a puff of smoke when their attacks hit rock. The problem therein, is the fact that when rock is not really something you can turn to smoke and instead melts and vaporizes, you're supposed to see steam, not smoke. So if someone makes a crater/hole in rock with no visible material save for a puff of smoke, is it safe to assume vaporization, as smoke would indicate heat? See, since you can't turn rock to smoke, you could probably write it off as pulverization. The problem with that is that the presence of smoke implies that the rock was superheated, which means the rock would have to be raised to immensely high temperatures and that in turn would mean pulverization is not accurate since you have to take into account the temperature change.

So, is a stream of smoke coming out of rock a safe bet for vaporization, and if not: Is there an alternate method we can use for it?
 
Smoke is treated as vaporization as long as there isn't a significant amount of ash remaining, yeah
 
DMUA said:
Smoke is treated as vaporization as long as there isn't a significant amount of ash remaining, yeah
Click to expand...
What if there's black burn marks around the craters but not in it?
 
Well, if it does happen, burn marks would still count
 
But why though? Wouldn't this just be unjustified extrapolation? This could lead to very inflated results. We can't just assume that a nuke vaporized an entire crater because there's a mushroom cloud.
 
Maybe Damage, Alex, Executor, and Ugarik.
 
How long of a pause constitutes necroposting? I want to get back to this later. Not too much later though, of course.
 
Jaakubb said:
But why though? Wouldn't this just be unjustified extrapolation? This could lead to very inflated results. We can't just assume that a nuke vaporized an entire crater because there's a mushroom cloud.
Click to expand...
On a smaller scale, you'd be able to see pretty easily if it's not all vaporization

Or even on a bigger scale, there should be plenty of pieces left behind if it's actually not all vaporized
 
What scales are considered "small" or "large". Also, what if the pieces are just pulverized? They could be just launched extremely far away from the crater so you can't see them.
 
Like, I dunno. Not city scale.

Possibly, but then you'd be able to point to dust instead of vapor, and debris being launched.
 
DMUA said:
Possibly, but then you'd be able to point to dust instead of vapor, and debris being launched.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the burden of proof actually be for proving vapor instead of dust because of Occam's razor? Why are we putting an explanation that makes more assumptions over one that makes less assumptions?
 
Vapor can be proven quite easily, dust would settle and stick closer to the ground unless moved by wind, Vapor naturally goes upward due to how hot it is, and keeps coming even when a ton of it is blown away
 
<img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/4094/4926598356_309c408677_b.jpg" alt="Image result for sedan yield"/> This crater was produced by a 104 kiloton bomb. Just because there was smoke coming out after the explosion, do we assume that the entire crater was just vaporized? Sure, in nukemap, crater lips are quite large, but in this case it's not as noticeable because it was not detonated at a large distance from the surface of the ground. For reference, the hiroshima bomb was detonated half a kilometer above the ground. Of course not as much dust is going to be launched to a position far from the explosion.
 
Has anybody asked additional calc group members for help here?
 
Yes smoke abviously shouldn't be used as an evidence for vaporization as it always accures above any crater in real world with no vaporization whatsoever
 
Thank you for the evaluation. I think that makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Flashlight237
Issues Regarding Vaporization
Replies
8
Views
1K
Antvasima
Antvasima
VersusJunkie54
About craters
Replies
1
Views
438
VersusJunkie54
VersusJunkie54
Ezaru
Curled Up Strings
Replies
0
Views
205
Ezaru
Ezaru
Rakih_Elyan
What tier is this?
Replies
5
Views
434
Rakih_Elyan
Rakih_Elyan
TheGenghistKhan
How to calculate the vaporization of a city?
Replies
0
Views
814
TheGenghistKhan
TheGenghistKhan
Back
Top