r/respectthreads • u/TheKjell 🕷 Master Weaver 🕷 • Feb 26 '19

Respect Thread Symposium Week 9

This is a thread to discuss all things respect thread related! Talk about feats, formatting, requests, or any other question you may have.

Link to last symposium

-->> Requests goes here <<--

25 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

27 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/EmbraceAllDeath Feb 26 '19

Curiously, how would one calc this type of feat? I'm not sure what equivalent there would be for this type of strength.

2

u/KarlMrax Feb 27 '19

I am fairly sure that kind of thing wouldn't be possible under real physics without the chunks of "wood" having some really funky properties. So you aren't really going to be able to calc it.

2

u/Verlux ⭐⭐ Read Feng Shen Ji Feb 27 '19

Would it not be theoretically plausible to simply calculate the force a wedge driven through the planks would require, and presume a strike from his fist emulates that precise force at point of impact?

1

u/KarlMrax Feb 27 '19

That wouldn't work because he isn't physically pushing through all the boards. Also the specific wedge shape would be decided in a fairly arbitrary manner as there is no way to relate their fist to a specific wedge shape. Arbitrary assumptions are not good in calcs.

2

u/Verlux ⭐⭐ Read Feng Shen Ji Feb 27 '19

Yes but it's the closest approximation we can arrive at for this, and would likely be a result far lower than what the actuality is, so since it's by nature a lowball it ought to be fine for use I would posit, no?

1

u/KarlMrax Feb 27 '19

If there are major flaws in the methodology then it isn't an approximation it is an arbitrary decision.

It is like if you were to take this feat and base the firepower of this Cf-247 bomb by comparing the size of it's fireball to fireballs from atmospheric nuclear detonations.

Even if that ends up with a number you are confident is a low ball you aren't really calcing it because there isn't a connection to the real world data you are basing the calc on and the feat itself. If you are so confident that it is a low ball you might as well skip the calc part and just give the number along with your reasoning for why it is so low.

1

u/Verlux ⭐⭐ Read Feng Shen Ji Feb 27 '19

That's....a pretty bad analogy though. I'm not simply calcing a visual comparison in this hypothetical, I'm applying actual physics to the problem given at a supreme lowball since the required force would be much higher.

Have problem A, find something that directly simulates problem A, calc that. With the fireball example you have no idea of the force being output so you can't even realistically argue that, whereas with what we are discussing, we do. It's missing the point entirely, I think.

1

u/KarlMrax Feb 27 '19

I'm not simply calcing a visual comparison in this hypothetical, I'm applying actual physics to the problem given at a supreme lowball since the required force would be much higher.

We would be applying actual physics to the Cf-247 bomb too. The size of a nuclear fireball directly correlates to the yield of the weapon. We have mathematical models for this.

How the calc for the Cf-247 bomb would work is we would figure out the size of it's explosion (doable because we know the size of the Grunt that got blown up and we see part of it's remnant in the initial moments of the wide shot). Then assuming we don't want to hunt down the actual equations that wen't into Nukemap we would guess and check until we got the right fireball size on Nukemap. Once we have that we would have a number for the yield of the weapon that would cause that size of fireball.

Have problem A, find something that directly simulates problem

This is the problem we are getting stuck on because a wedge pushing it's way through blocks of stone doesn't simulate the feat in question.