Yo, Hero

[Vzearr]

Agnaa, let me get it right, you believe because there are cracks at the end of the crater that we should use fragmentation.

I won't be the first to say this but physics just doesn't work that way, if a crater forms, and there's a bunch of cracks at the end of it, that doesn't mean the destruction came out with cracks like the ones you see in the wall. In fact, the only destruction we see implies pulverization, you're assuming something that is clearly not the truth.

Compressive strength is what suits this feat best.

 

[Vzearr]

fwiw I do disagree with that part of the calc.

The source for it is just "well this is the thickness of the guy's chest" which has absolutely zero relevance to the depth of a crater made by throwing him into a wall. Ditto with the second calc; the depth of a crater made by a dart is not necessarily equal to the length of the dart's tip, and from the scans of the feat it doesn't even look like it caved in that far. The gradation of the wall's material just does not line up with that much of a slope being present.

You can clearly see his chest is imbedded into the wall.

 

[Chariot190]

fwiw I do disagree with that part of the calc.

The source for it is just "well this is the thickness of the guy's chest" which has absolutely zero relevance to the depth of a crater made by throwing him into a wall. Ditto with the second calc; the depth of a crater made by a dart is not necessarily equal to the length of the dart's tip, and from the scans of the feat it doesn't even look like it caved in that far. The gradation of the wall's material just does not line up with that much of a slope being present.

I mean, if you wanna get a better depth that's fine, I have no problem wanting to iron out kinks like that, best to be accurate, fair, and all that stuff, tbh I think it's still slightly inflated, he's visibly embedded in chest deep given how his body aligns with the crater and moves along the wall including parts of him that would be on the same plane as his chest, but I don't really think scaling his ass with a baggy jacket is accurate to him in a tight shirt, probably more like 15cm tops tbh, then again I haven't pixel scaled it myself so idk, but it'd def tanking the value.

The dart one I agree on, I don't actually like the pixel scaling much at all.

though the less deep it is, the less the dust argument holds up because there'd be less volume converted, especially because in actual compression, most of the dust gets pushed and wedged into the microfractures and cracks said compressing creates along the surface of the crater, aka, all those jagged and lines we see.
But, unless it's a few mm deep only, my point remains the same elsewhere for the prior argument.

 

[Agnaa]

Agnaa, let me get it right, you believe because there are cracks at the end of the crater that we should use fragmentation.

I won't be the first to say this but physics just doesn't work that way, if a crater forms, and there's a bunch of cracks at the end of it, that doesn't mean the destruction came out with cracks like the ones you see in the wall.

Not the entirety of it, ofc, but the shell 1mm closer I suspect would've only been destroyed to a slightly greater extent, slightly more for the next 1mm shell, etc. I don't think pulv over the entire volume of the cavity is a great approximation due to that, given how low the destruction visibly is at that frontier.

You can clearly see his chest is imbedded into the wall.

Not entirely, I think it's more like halfway through chest depth-

probably more like 15cm tops tbh

Yeah, that.

though the less deep it is, the less the dust argument holds up because there'd be less volume converted, especially because in actual compression, most of the dust gets pushed and wedged into the microfractures and cracks said compressing creates along the surface of the crater, aka, all those jagged and lines we see.
But, unless it's a few mm deep only, my point remains the same elsewhere for the prior argument.

Hm, I see.

 

[KLOL506]

I remember calcs like these in TokRev where I had grievances with the depth measured, and further arguments... let's just say they didn't prove fruitful. They were a major reason for the values being so overrated at times, less so for the destruction value used.

 

[Floxy178]

I'm going to ignore how you said "doesn't make sense to me" as if we're talking about something that is vibes based, and say concrete can only endure so much strain before snapping, that is my point.

I said that it's inaccurate. Even though I was more or less sure about that I don't like to talk with 100% confidence as there's always chance that I missed something, misunderstood, etc. I'm not talking based on "vibe", reason is literally stated in the same sentence?

I can go more in depth if need be, we can be hyperanal and calculate every single mechanical property for this specific wall, concrete, and the area and damage dealt to it, by factoring in plate theory, analyzing shear plug failure, and bending stresses on top of the obtained strain points.
But that isn't needed to prove my point, we don't actually need to go that far into figuring this out because the initial step already shows it just isn't gonna happen that way.
The argument is that actually, a whole volume of the wall, which in this case would be a 30cm wall, was actually blown back out. In order for that to occur the wall at the forefront would need to push back the wall behind it, in order for that to happen it would undergo strain, strain that, based on the depth of the indent, which would be 20cm~. At such a cave in, the entire area around the crater would shear off the wall, making extremely thick notable cracks around the central mass, but this isn't the case, and in fact, the crater slopes and smoothes out and aligns basically perfect with the surrounding area.
But, under this context, that entire center volume should completely disconnected from the surrounding architecture. That isn't the case, so that argument is simply false. Concrete and brittle material like rock doesn't enable stuff like that really, at least, in the way it's being argued and the way the manga presents this interaction. And, of course, it's because of this as well, that the inner surface of the crater would have cracks and jagged surfaces, ignoring that's also how compression functions and when you compress something like rock it creates microfractures that permeate and fuse to create larger fractures and even some of the material being compressed gets lodged into the new cracks filling up and a whole slew of other mechanics and interactions that also makes the "it's not completely smooth" argument not be entirely solid either.

It would be more complex, of course, all of this can be more complex, we can go even more in depth if we wanted but we don't need to. All that matters is proving if the argument as presented is or isn't possible within the frame of reference and context with the information we have at hand, and it simply isn't. I mean, if it'd appease you I'll waste an hour digging for values, research papers, get the needed plug in values, and calculate the additional formulas I mentioned but like man this is starting to push it for something that should have never even be questioned to begin with based on how we do things alone, let alone this is one of the few times it's actually probably correct on a pure physics standpoint.
Like I get it, the verse has been wanked, we wanna be careful, but the most basic crater known to man isn't it.

I didn't ask for proving "push" case being impossible with unnecessary complexity. I just said that even though I agree with that, one sided compression case doesn't work either for the same reason.

Yeah it would crack due to the tensile wave and spalling? It should, but it'd co-exist with the compression too.
I already mentioned that though, but that doesn't change the fact the crater was pulved, compressed, and the current arguments simply aren't actually possible while working with concrete or the panel presented.

Pulved, sure I don't disagree with that in general and literally said in my post that "it's neither push nor compression but destruction of affected volume". But compressed? It's impossible unless wall is unrealistically thick, and you kinda proved that yourself in your initial post.

Yes, all the time, constantly, I linked like a dozen accepted calcs even, a bunch even used pulv explicitly because the feats were compression based. I could link even more, there's hundreds.

Or maybe because they were simply interpreted as pulv?

As I just said and linked, we do, a lot, a bunch. All the time. Accepted even. If we include uneval'd calcs by notable members including CGM's, it'd spike even higher too.
Also at that point the wiki would be just wrong, you can't take a value for something, then pretend it doesn't apply to said thing and apply it to this other thing, like I know we fudge the numbers a bit when we shouldn't but there's a difference between simplicity and shortcuts and just being ignorant, thankfully though, the wiki doesn't do that and we do, in fact, use compression strength for compression feats, so, we ain't that bad.

Okay thanks for clarifying. My question that isn't much relevant because my claim is compression not being case anyway.

Compression is compression,

Different conditions? Normally we have evenly distributed compressive stress across two opposing faces. But for cases like that feat the stress distribution becomes highly non-uniform and object may fail when applied stress is below its nominal compressive strength.

There's not even a pebble drawn on the ground afterward, and there wasn't any in the impact either (mins like ), there's legit zero evidence of any resulting debris and whatnot, besides a single, not even 1cm big pebble.
If, and I'm not being hyperbolic here, you can calc the volume of those miniscule pebbles and subtract it from the rest of the volume, if about 19098/19100th of the volume is straight up gone (so it already qualifies by our standards), that being about 3-4cm3 to the total volume, straight up over 99.96% of the material, somehow is enough to cause this level of scrutiny. At this point, there's a major disconnect between what's written on the wiki, what 90% of people do on the wiki, where our values even come from, anf like a few random people.

We use V.Frag for when things get reduced to pebbles and what not, 0.04% being reduced to pebbles isn't exactly what I would call encompassing, so I would definitely say 40J/cc is what would and should be used.

We don't see ground near that wall (if it's known please correct me). If we see that and there aren't any pebbles, it's not that I oppose pulv end anyway.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you to Agnaa and all the others who are trying to help out in this thread.

Would the best solution here be that Chariot190 or one of our current calc group members calculates these feats themself instead, so we get reliable results?

Also, in my view Vzearr seems harmless, well-intended, and used to help us out a lot with staff tasks. The problems he caused were mostly due to his severe mental illness at the time, and he was publicly honest regarding it on his own initiative due to a bad conscience. So I do not think that our members should treat him badly.

 

[Chariot190]

Spoiler: .

I said that it's inaccurate. Even though I was more or less sure about that I don't like to talk with 100% confidence as there's always chance that I missed something, misunderstood, etc. I'm not talking based on "vibe", reason is literally stated in the same sentence?
It isn't inaccurate to the point, the thread, the context, or anything of the sort (unless you consider a few percent a relevant degree of error? In which case I will actively run the numbers with the other steps and formulas if need be).

I didn't ask for proving "push" case being impossible with unnecessary complexity.

You're debating that basic stain calculus is simplifying the 100% mechanical properties of how a quick paced impact compressing a crater into a concrete wall is somehow faulty, missing the point that it was to prove concrete's brittle nature and absolute strain limit, even at its most basic, is so tiny at best, that it shoots down the argument that there being cracks on its inner surface somehow detracts from it being compression (when it's actually extremely realistic and should be the case), or how the crater is actually a sheared mass being pushed out the other side of the wall (due to concrete's brittle nature, if what was actually happening was sheared push mass, the lip of the crater wouldn't actually curve like and line up with the surrounding wall to the extent that it does) and that's why it's concaved.

I just said that even though I agree with that, one sided compression case doesn't work either for the same reason.

It does? Based on the 40Mpa compressive value and the mechanical properties of concrete, the arguments presented aren't fair, consistent, or vary from unlikely to objectively impossible, to arguing against facets that detract from it when in reality they're realistic, not unrealistic.

It works because that's what is shown, we know it's compressed, we know the mass wasn't sheared off based on the art ironically.
It's not anymore complex than that, and if we make it more complex to appease you, the end result is still going to be the same. Technically it'd leave an even smaller margin of error.

Pulved, sure I don't disagree with that in general

Then why are you arguing just to argue?

and literally said in my post that "it's neither push nor compression but destruction of affected volume".

It's all 3 depending on the context.
If someone wants to calc a feat that is strictly pushing on a surface, squashing it inward, let them, it's fine, happens all the time.
If someone wants to slap pulv on a hole that got punched out by Goku and there's nothing left we can see, let them, it's fine, happens all the time.
And even further we use pulv for cutting feats to most of the time (We should probably be using a mix of compression and shear but nope, we use pulv for that too).
Our pulv values applies to both by our standards and is actively used in every verse from Chainsaw Man, to One Piece, and everything inbetween.
Technically speaking, the "turn everything to dust" value should be astronomically higher than compression, which we use as a proxy for pulv, but that's beside the point.

But compressed? It's impossible unless wall is unrealistically thick, and you kinda proved that yourself in your initial post.

The wall could be 1cm thick, it would change nothing by itself.
What matters is the depth of the compressed material relative to the wall. The current calc is 20cm~, tbh I think it's probably more like 15cm~, and I used 30cm as a lowend (could be as thick as 45cm~).
None of these values conflict with, or make compression impossible, it doesn't need to be "unrealistically thick" to undergo compression (Where are you even getting this from? It's the middle of a building wall too, it could flex horizontally instead for all we know, this isn't an actual argument or rebuttal, and what even defines thick enough for you? You say impossible? On what premise? What's the math that says it's impossible to compress a material with a so-and-so ratio between indent and total thickness when force is applied over a 700cm2 area in a fraction of a second?).

Or maybe because they were simply interpreted as pulv?

Huh? I said what I said because, in the blog's very own words, because it's compression, the material is compressed, and they're accepted on that virtue, because of course they are.

There's nothing to argue here, there is no maybe, read the blogs first before pulling that card.

Okay thanks for clarifying. My question that isn't much relevant because my claim is compression not being case anyway.

You're arguing the compression only works if it's compressed from two sides, which, literally isn't a thing.
That makes compression far more likely, which of course it would, instead of one force being applied, it's two intersecting forces being applied. Of course it's going to basically force compression no matter what you do as long as the force is enough because every other option is essentially cut off due to the extra opposing factor which leads to the only options being it compresses, or the thing compressing it stops.

This doesn't mean compression doesn't happen under a single applied vector though, it could be done as simply as dropping a heavy weight on a surface one-way.
Or for an actual example you'd see yourself, if you take a hammer and strike a brick wall right now, you're going to pulv and compress the direct impact zone. It might not be a whole lot of compression and pulv, it might only be a few mm thick over a few cm2, but you can and would, and the stronger you are, the bigger the surface of the applied force, and a bunch of external factors would effect it accordingly, and as you do it, there'll also be fracturing, and other stuff which is to be expected. It isn't like you apply force and it exclusively only picks a set value between big chunks, lil chunks, or nothing, that isn't how energy transfers and if the arguments have devolved this deep into realism and material mechanics, well at that point it's just self-sabotaging.
This is essentially that on a larger scale, dude grabs the lad, slams him into a wall, the wall craters and compresses inward.

Different conditions? Normally we have evenly distributed compressive stress across two opposing faces. But for cases like that feat the stress distribution becomes highly non-uniform and object may fail when applied stress is below its nominal compressive strength.

Conditions don't change if compression is compression, all conditions do is effect how that compression comes to be and the ease at which it is done.
You can split a rock in dozens of ways too, everything from high impact localized energy to an explosion, but none of that changes the rock is split in the end.
Same here, the end result is still compression.
Unless it was done slowly, over time, or in a way that wouldn't scale to the character in question, ie, conditions that compromise the feat's integrity, it doesn't matter and this conversation is the definition of pointless semantics. Unless for some reason we want to apply the most ludicrous standards and force the dude to calc it as if he was writing a thesis on it, but that's beyond unfair and would only really change the outcome by a handful of percent for hours of extra work.

You're effectively arguing compression is only done that way, it can't be done another way, when that is factually incorrect. And unless it's an absolute, it isn't an argument, and most certainly doesn't mean we pretend to apply or treat the material in the feat as something it isn't, ie, frag, over what we actually see.

We don't see ground near that wall (if it's known please correct me).

We literally see bro laid out flat on the ground.
So unless someone picked him up and dragged him, which based on the ch link I was given, I am going to assume he's still in the general vicinity of where he just got laid out as nobody had moved or touched him and he's out cold.

If we see that and there aren't any pebbles, it's not that I oppose pulv end anyway.

So, let me get this straight. You agree it applies for pulv. You agree it fits our standards. But you still felt the need to argue points that are true because I didn't go an extra mile I don't need to do to prove my point on top of things like arguing it isn't compression because there's no two opposing forces or the wall needs to be an arbitrary undefined thickness for compression to occur?

Like this shouldn't even have gotten this far.
There's cracks? Yep concrete is brittle, it will spall when compressed.
No dust? A bunch of compression irl creates microfractures that permeate and fuse into larger cracks, and any residue from the compression (like dust) is pushed inward due to said compression and fills in the cracks to a degree, like stuffing playdough into a keyboard or something psychotic like that. This is mostly the case when the object doing the compressing covers the majority of the area being compressed. Which is the case here, as bro's back and upper body acts as a sort of plug or plate that pushes residue further inward and is the object that's being used to compress the material inward (This obviously doesn't apply to more malleable material like metals).
This doesn't apply to the dart feat tho so lmao, that one might actually make no sense scientifically unless we really do assume it just had so much force behind it even the dust got obliterated.
The lad slam hits both of those. If I were to pick something unrealistic about it, it'd be the fact it's a circular crater when given the angle he was swung at, it should be more like a slightly curved obtuse or rhombus trapezoid-esque chunk
And honestly that should have been it, everything else requires a bunch of extra assumptions like the ejected back wall, but even those assumptions don't really hold up under scrutiny.

Would the best solution here be that Chariot190 or one of our current calc group members calculates these feats themself instead, so we get reliable results?

I'm way to busy doing huge overhauls for a few verses of my own atm (really want to get that huge Zelda one out for Halloween for the vibes, and Baken is on my ass about the usual), to actively partake and dive into a verse I'm not even fond of. I'm only arguing here because this specific feat by all accounts is fine on basically every lv and while I might dislike the verse, being unfair to it isn't gonna fix it either.

Though if people throw the relevant scans at me and source for ch in case I need to fact check stuff, I will be willing to throw it a bone when I get time, but I'm not gonna like go read it to calc stuff for it either.

Also, in my view Vzearr seems harmless, well-intended, and used to help us out a lot with staff tasks. The problems he caused were mostly due to his severe mental illness at the time, and he was publocly honest regarding it on his own initiative due to a bad conscience. So I do not think that our members should treat him badly.

Tbh I don't think this is malicious either. It's just a dude wanting funny numbers for a verse and basically throwing out ways and seeing if they stick.
Now they might not stick, but nobody is gonna crucify a CSM goon for asking if using KE is fine for a specific feat either, just say nuh uh and move on. Not sure why we're holding that degree of scrutiny to every feat though even when they're fine. Dude should probably just ask CGM's or talk about it in a discussion thread first instead of making a calc or whole CRT on it every single time. Only do that after people go "aight ig that might work".

Regardless, I'm out for now, not that my word means a damn thing here, but I'm vehemently supportive of using 40J/cc, that being compression/pulv, for the first feat. The rest are either fine already, pushing it, or shouldn't be used anyway so agree with Agnaa and KLOL.

 

[Floxy178]

It isn't inaccurate to the point, the thread, the context, or anything of the sort (unless you consider a few percent a relevant degree of error? In which case I will actively run the numbers with the other steps and formulas if need be).

No. You treat displacement as ε which is straight up wrong. It's not "simplification" or anything but just incorrect.

It does? Based on the 40Mpa compressive value and the mechanical properties of concrete, the arguments presented aren't fair, consistent, or vary from unlikely to objectively impossible, to arguing against facets that detract from it when in reality they're realistic, not unrealistic.

It works because that's what is shown, we know it's compressed, we know the mass wasn't sheared off based on the art ironically.
It's not anymore complex than that, and if we make it more complex to appease you, the end result is still going to be the same. Technically it'd leave an even smaller margin of error.

What? You're arguing that even a millimeter change is what object can endure at most and at the same time that how it doesn't contradict a crater with ~25cm depth being compressed to wall with 30cm thickness? I'm not asking for some "super complex version of calc" to appease me, I'm literally saying even without that it's clear as day how it's impossible for concrete.

Then why are you arguing just to argue?

I'd like to kindly remind you that I said I don’t disagree with conclusion, but just arguments.

The wall could be 1cm thick, it would change nothing by itself.
What matters is the depth of the compressed material relative to the wall. The current calc is 20cm~, tbh I think it's probably more like 15cm~, and I used 30cm as a lowend (could be as thick as 45cm~).
None of these values conflict with, or make compression impossible, it doesn't need to be "unrealistically thick" to undergo compression (Where are you even getting this from? It's the middle of a building wall too, it could flex horizontally instead for all we know, this isn't an actual argument or rebuttal, and what even defines thick enough for you? You say impossible? On what premise? What's the math that says it's impossible to compress a material with a so-and-so ratio between indent and total thickness when force is applied over a 700cm2 area in a fraction of a second?).

Because otherwise compressed depth will be a significant part of thickness and thus exceed maximum possible strain that you yourself calculated?

Huh? I said what I said because, in the blog's very own words, because it's compression, the material is compressed, and they're accepted on that virtue, because of course they are.

There's nothing to argue here, there is no maybe, read the blogs first before pulling that card.

I see. My bad

You're arguing the compression only works if it's compressed from two sides, which, literally isn't a thing.
That makes compression far more likely, which of course it would, instead of one force being applied, it's two intersecting forces being applied. Of course it's going to basically force compression no matter what you do as long as the force is enough because every other option is essentially cut off due to the extra opposing factor which leads to the only options being it compresses, or the thing compressing it stops.

This doesn't mean compression doesn't happen under a single applied vector though, it could be done as simply as dropping a heavy weight on a surface one-way.
Or for an actual example you'd see yourself, if you take a hammer and strike a brick wall right now, you're going to pulv and compress the direct impact zone. It might not be a whole lot of compression and pulv, it might only be a few mm thick over a few cm2, but you can and would, and the stronger you are, the bigger the surface of the applied force, and a bunch of external factors would effect it accordingly, and as you do it, there'll also be fracturing, and other stuff which is to be expected. It isn't like you apply force and it exclusively only picks a set value between big chunks, lil chunks, or nothing, that isn't how energy transfers and if the arguments have devolved this deep into realism and material mechanics, well at that point it's just self-sabotaging.
This is essentially that on a larger scale, dude grabs the lad, slams him into a wall, the wall craters and compresses inward.

What? That's a massive straw man. In my first post I said that compressive strength values that we take won't apply to that and in the second one I say why they differ. And now you're saying to me "one sided compression is still compression" as if I said that it's not.

Conditions don't change if compression is compression, all conditions do is effect how that compression comes to be and the ease at which it is done.
You can split a rock in dozens of ways too, everything from high impact localized energy to an explosion, but none of that changes the rock is split in the end.
Same here, the end result is still compression.
Unless it was done slowly, over time, or in a way that wouldn't scale to the character in question, ie, conditions that compromise the feat's integrity, it doesn't matter and this conversation is the definition of pointless semantics. Unless for some reason we want to apply the most ludicrous standards and force the dude to calc it as if he was writing a thesis on it, but that's beyond unfair and would only really change the outcome by a handful of percent for hours of extra work.

You're effectively arguing compression is only done that way, it can't be done another way, when that is factually incorrect. And unless it's an absolute, it isn't an argument, and most certainly doesn't mean we pretend to apply or treat the material in the feat as something it isn't, ie, frag, over what we actually see.

Dude, compressive strength values are nominal values from standardized tests. Obviously condition will matter.

Besides that, you missed "without breaking" part. Compressive strength isn't just "pressure needed to be able to compress object". However for concrete even 1% volume change is beyond its compressive strength so object will fail before you'll reach that compression. You simply won't be able to compress it significantly without breaking.

We literally see bro laid out flat on the ground.
So unless someone picked him up and dragged him, which based on the ch link I was given, I am going to assume he's still in the general vicinity of where he just got laid out as nobody had moved or touched him and he's out cold.

If so then as I said previously pulv should be fine but maybe I'm sleepy asf but I don’t see anything like that from imgur of calc in the OP. Later I'll look for the chapter maybe that one's missing a scan.

So, let me get this straight. You agree it applies for pulv. You agree it fits our standards. But you still felt the need to argue points that are true(?) because I didn't go an extra mile I don't need to do to prove my point on top of things like arguing it isn't compression because there's no two opposing forces or the wall needs to be an arbitrary undefined thickness for compression to occur?

Already addressed above what I disagree with.

Important edit:
Wait, @Chariot190 do you argue for literal compression of material or pulverization due to compression process? I think I might have misunderstood it as former one.

 

[Agnaa]

Would the best solution here be that Chariot190 or one of our current calc group members calculates these feats themself instead, so we get reliable results?

I don't think there's much reason to get into this, considering how the verse is about to be locked down. I think it's unlikely we could get any recalcs done in time, and I don't think we should rush to do so.

I still think there's merit to the discussion currently happening about these sorts of crater feats in general, but I do also think that merits its own thread.

 

[Chariot190]

Spoiler: .

No. You treat displacement as ε which is straight up wrong. It's not "simplification" or anything but just incorrect.

Huh?
I'm not arguing displacement, I'm actively arguing against it.
Displacement effects ε because ε is how much it can "bend" before snapping. And the entire argument is based around if the crater was metaphorically displaced instead of compressed, and how in actuality it doesn't need to snap and all that or whatever and all this other stuff when that's objectively false. If it was dislodged, we'd know it.
If you aren't following the rest arguments being made, please do not argue.

What? You're arguing that even a millimeter change is what object can endure at most and at the same time that how it doesn't contradict a crater with ~25cm depth being compressed to wall with 30cm thickness?

Yeah? The compression can still and does happen?
The opposing argument, which is what that was in reply toward, is saying it got sheared and ejected and the wall is not compressed, but in actuality, the cave in we see is just the wall having been pushed backward.
My argument was that can't be the case due to how the crater is drawn and lines up with the surrounding wall because the surrounding area would be snapped off in order to push the material forward if what's happening as concrete can't just deform like that like a malleable substance, so, saying there's like a plug the wall's whole depth, which, in order to push the material out the back of the wall, would require the "plug" to shear off the surrounding wall, can not be the case, as concrete's strain limit would suggest that less than 1mm of push would lead to snappage.
We know this isn't the case because the crater is stilling connected to the surrounding wall, yet concrete's strain limit makes this impossible to be the case.

This was argued under the premise of how malleable material, like a napkin, can be pushed, and the material will deform under the pressure and be pushed back. Concrete doesn't behave that way.

This doesn't effect if it's compressed. As it can still be compressed, or hell even fragmented or cracked in the strict area of impact, and more in the localized area, all this argument was for, is to show why the "plug" pushing argument can't be the case in the way the feat is presented to us.

This doesn't detract from compression, and in fact makes it basically guaranteed.
We know the concrete isn't being snapped off the wall and pushed deeper in due to strain failure so that's out the window.
We know the material is gone all the same though, nothing spills out after the feat, nothing spills out as it happens, and we know it wasn't pushed out the other side.
We see microfractures along the craters surface which aligns with irl compression of rocky substances and most of the damaged residue would in turn be pushed into said cracks due to the surface of the object compressing covering the majority of the area as it applies the force, which is a realistic interaction.

You're acting like because I said concrete snaps it also contradicts compression, it doesn't, as the concrete is cracked still over the area of the area I'm arguing got compressed, your point would only work if, ironically, the crater was completely smooth because at that point it wouldn't make any sense at all to apply the mechanical property to the argument. But in the end this proves that the shearing couldn't have happened because we straight up do not see the wall sheared off the surroundings and concrete isn't rubber.

I'm not asking for some "super complex version of calc" to appease me, I'm literally saying even without that it's clear as day how it's impossible for concrete.

It isn't. And I'm about to write a calc blog for literally every common material used in the calculation table with a make your own with the depth/area value being interchangeable with the entire ten step process just so I never have to hear this argument again from anyone.

I'd like to kindly remind you that I said I don’t disagree with conclusion, but just arguments.

Stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

Because otherwise compressed depth will be a significant part of thickness and thus exceed maximum possible strain that you yourself calculated?

Yeah? Which is precisely why it'd be compression and not displacement? As if it was displaced the cracks and wall around the effected area would be displaced?

I see. My bad

Why are you arguing before you check stuff?

What? That's a massive straw man. In my first post I said that compressive strength values that we take won't apply to that

Case and point.
You don't need two intersecting applications of forces to use said value, the fact most feats are only one way, doesn't discredit the value from being used, it means the feat is actually higher and we're lowballing it.

and in the second one I say why they differ.

As below.

And now you're saying to me "one sided compression is still compression" as if I said that it's not.

You literally just said as much. You're arguing that we don't or shouldn't use the value because it's not two-sided, when if anything we should find an even higher value.

Dude, compressive strength values are nominal values from standardized tests. Obviously condition will matter.

Yeah, sure, but not in the way you're arguing. The only difference here would increase the energy required to actually compress the material, not lower it. So arguing about external conditions and how that compression is applied is a waste of both our time, like why argue the conditions are different so it don't count when the variable simply makes the feat even more impressive and we'd be downplaying it?

Besides that, you missed "without breaking" part. Compressive strength isn't just "pressure needed to be able to compress object". However for concrete even 1% volume change is beyond its compressive strength so object will fail before you'll reach that compression. You simply won't be able to compress it significantly without breaking.

Yeah? Which is why the fact there's a bunch of cracks and microfractures being on the inner surface of the crater, is not only fine, but should be expected because the concrete undergoes cracking and splintering before it gets compressed? Again, reminder that one of the arguments presented is that the crater should be extremely smooth to count when that isn't realistic.

This has been stated long before you even posted, why are we retreading the exact same things now?
You're cycling back around to points already expressed and factored for as if everyone doesn't already know?
Literally
Even if a material has high af compression (like high-psi concrete), the impacts would stil create tensile wave reflections that cause spall (chips popping off), radial and concentric cracks (this should be more concentrated towards the lip), and delamination under the crater too. And it depends on material too, concrete, stone, or ceramics are brittle. They'd fail by cracking once local tensile stress exceeds their (much lower, usually anyway) tensile strength or fracture toughness, which is to say, by overcoming the compressive strength, you, by default, will always create cracks by default at the edges of the affected compressed area, - About 50 posts ago.

As just one of the numerous times this had been mentioned.

If so then as I said previously pulv should be fine but maybe I'm sleepy asf but I don’t see anything like that from imgur of calc in the OP. Later I'll look for the chapter maybe that one's missing a scan.

It'd be fine based strictly on the album in the op, you don't see any debris there either do you?
And no, I had to ask dude for a ch link to double check myself because I wanted to be sure it was pulv/compression, and that they weren't being disingenuous and right after a bunch of fragments or something spilled out of the crater. This doesn't happen, we never see anything. It's like ch28 or something, apparent it isn't animated tho given I asked.

Already addressed above what I disagree with.

Your disagreement is based on, what I'm convinced at this point, is a misunderstanding of the argument and conversation chain and in which the argument was even presented.

Important edit:
Wait, @Chariot190 do you argue for literal compression of material or pulverization due to compression process? I think I might have misunderstood it as former one.

Both? This wiki uses compression as pulv. Technically that's wrong, technically pulv is way higher, but we use it as a proxy.So if a material is completely dusted, voided, or destroyed beyond visible evidence, we use our stand-in compression values for lack of a better option.
The wiki also uses compression for compression, based on the fact the value comes from compression.
Both are true, both apply, and that's how we've always done things for over a decade with hundreds of calcs accepted on the basis of both fronts.
The fact this articular feat falls under both, makes this entire argument utterly baffling.

Now please for the love of God, stop arguing just to argue, actually check stuff before you argue, follow the conversation before you argue, and correct me if i'm wrong but arguing just to argue on a CGM thread where even I've hit up a staff every time I've posted just so I don't pre-emptively get in shit, ain't exactly it either.

I don't think there's much reason to get into this, considering how the verse is about to be locked down. I think it's unlikely we could get any recalcs done in time, and I don't think we should rush to do so.

While I agree it's a pointless endeavor, that feels counterproductive though right?
The verse is about to be locked down because of shoddy calcs, scaling, and lack of reliable people to help it out.
So we wait until reliable people come to help out.
That make sense.
But how can reliable people come to help out if in your own words we should just leave it to the side and shrug? Like bro in the OP is trying to iron it out, and we ain't exactly helping he's kinda pushing it tho by trying to buff every single feat instead of just asking for ways to do them precisely that would fit within standards and the context of the feat, but that's beside the point.

Ant is right, CGM's and others who already have shown some degree of reliability should probably start doing calcs for the verse, given the group who was have shown a consistent pattern of extreme inflation or a bunch of lil boosts that add up when not applicable, so unless we suddenly get some new goons who join the wiki who are really into this specific verse and just so happen know how to calc from the get go, and can do so in a precise and accurate way, this shit is never going to be solved.
Like hell there's quite a few CGM's who haven't done a calc in like a year, get them to flex that title a lil bit. If people want to wait to like, november? I'd be willing to do a few too, though I'm not reading it to find stuff so that'd be on the opposing party (Obviously ch and ep for reference sources would be beneficial as to fact check if the feat even happens the way it's being asked to be calced).

I still think there's merit to the discussion currently happening about these sorts of crater feats in general, but I do also think that merits its own thread.

Mayhaps but are we really going to revise the entire wiki because of the most basic crater feat where the ultimate accurate solution would be to create a secret 4th value for true complete material obliteration between current pulv and vaping/atomic destruction.

 

[Antvasima]

I am inclined to agree with the arguments in Chariot's last preceding post here.

 

[Floxy178]

Huh?
I'm not arguing displacement, I'm actively arguing against it.

Never said you do?

Displacement effects ε because ε is how much it can "bend" before snapping.

That's wrong. And I didn't say displacement doesn't affect ε at all?

And the entire argument is based around if the crater was metaphorically displaced instead of compressed, and how in actuality it doesn't need to snap and all that or whatever and all this other stuff when that's objectively false. If it was dislodged, we'd know it.
If you aren't following the rest arguments being made, please do not argue.

Yeah and your argument about that is closer to debunking volume being compressed to the wall than push case.

Yeah? The compression can still and does happen?
The opposing argument, which is what that was in reply toward, is saying it got sheared and ejected and the wall is not compressed, but in actuality, the cave in we see is just the wall having been pushed backward.
My argument was that can't be the case due to how the crater is drawn and lines up with the surrounding wall because the surrounding area would be snapped off in order to push the material forward if what's happening as concrete can't just deform like that like a malleable substance, so, saying there's like a plug the wall's whole depth, which, in order to push the material out the back of the wall, would require the "plug" to shear off the surrounding wall, can not be the case, as concrete's strain limit would suggest that less than 1mm of push would lead to snappage.
We know this isn't the case because the crater is stilling connected to the surrounding wall, yet concrete's strain limit makes this impossible to be the case.

This was argued under the premise of how malleable material, like a napkin, can be pushed, and the material will deform under the pressure and be pushed back. Concrete doesn't behave that way.

This doesn't effect if it's compressed. As it can still be compressed, or hell even fragmented or cracked in the strict area of impact, and more in the localized area, all this argument was for, is to show why the "plug" pushing argument can't be the case in the way the feat is presented to us.

"opposing argument" can you stop repeating why pushing case doesn't work which isn't even my argument?

It isn't. And I'm about to write a calc blog for literally every common material used in the calculation table with a make your own with the depth/area value being interchangeable with the entire ten step process just so I never have to hear this argument again from anyone.

Good luck with proving how compressing most of the volume won't cause complete crush of material.

Stop arguing for the sake of arguing

What? If I don't disagree with conclusion but disagree with reasoning you're using for it I'm somehow not allowed to argue against it?

You're the one who argues just for the sake of arguing with messages like "I can do a complex calc if I wanted to" even though I mentioned several times that I agree with push case not working, I just mentioned that your calculation is irrelevant for proving push/bending case not working and don't see why my agreement should stop me from addressing that. You keep saying that it'll be just small error when the problem is about being completely irrelevant/wrong. (and no, repeating it again, I DON'T ask you to make most accurate version this case or whatever, that's something you pulled up yourself?)

Yeah? Which is why the fact there's a bunch of cracks and microfractures being on the inner surface of the crater, is not only fine, but should be expected because the concrete undergoes cracking and splintering before it gets compressed? Again, reminder that one of the arguments presented is that the crater should be extremely smooth to count when that isn't realistic.

This has been stated long before you even posted, why are we retreading the exact same things now?
You're cycling back around to points already expressed and factored for as if everyone doesn't already know?
Literally
Even if a material has high af compression (like high-psi concrete), the impacts would stil create tensile wave reflections that cause spall (chips popping off), radial and concentric cracks (this should be more concentrated towards the lip), and delamination under the crater too. And it depends on material too, concrete, stone, or ceramics are brittle. They'd fail by cracking once local tensile stress exceeds their (much lower, usually anyway) tensile strength or fracture toughness, which is to say, by overcoming the compressive strength, you, by default, will always create cracks by default at the edges of the affected compressed area, - About 50 posts ago.

As just one of the numerous times this had been mentioned.

How tf object developing cracks before failure in any way debunks the idea of compressive strength not being used if object doesn't fail under compression??? Cracking stress is lower, and you can't treat compressive strength value as what's needed to compress without breaking it, cracks won't be enough.

Also, your 2 claims literally can't work together.

1. You're saying thay displacement of same volume will result in failure, that material like concrete won't be able to endure it. So it's not a possible case for the feat.

2. You're also saying that compressing that volume to the wall while opposite side remains the same is possible, and there being cracks are fine.

Do you get what's the problem here? If you argue for 2nd point(compression case being possible) then push case will be possible. If you argue for 1st point(push case being impossible) then compression case isn't possible either.

Because stress in a body under given force is higher the more the body is constrained from deforming. Free boundaries reduce the internal stress for the same applied force. So for the same applied force, axial stress is maximal when the ends are fixed. If ends are free to move, stress decreases because part of the deformation is accommodated by displacement rather than strain.

In short, depending on material there can be 3 situations based on same visibly affected volume and same amount of damage:

1. Push case and compression case both work.
2. Neither push case nor compression case works.
3. Push case works but compression case doesn't.

There isn't any 4th situation(compression case working but not push case) possible as if compression case works then push case will have lower internal stress that if anything means it'll have less damage. If you take push case being impossible then compression case which has higher internal stress can't be possible either.

It'd be fine based strictly on the album in the op, you don't see any debris there either do you?
And no, I had to ask dude for a ch link to double check myself because I wanted to be sure it was pulv/compression, and that they weren't being disingenuous and right after a bunch of fragments or something spilled out of the crater. This doesn't happen, we never see anything. It's like ch28 or something, apparent it isn't animated tho given I asked.

Because that album doesn't show that part? Anyway I looked for the chapter and saw that part yeah. Not that my opinion matters on this but I'd be fine with pulv.

Your disagreement is based on, what I'm convinced at this point, is a misunderstanding of the argument and conversation chain and in which the argument was even presented.

Looking at what you wrote below that, no.

Both? This wiki uses compression as pulv. Technically that's wrong, technically pulv is way higher, but we use it as a proxy.So if a material is completely dusted, voided, or destroyed beyond visible evidence, we use our stand-in compression values for lack of a better option.
The wiki also uses compression for compression, based on the fact the value comes from compression.
Both are true, both apply, and that's how we've always done things for over a decade with hundreds of calcs accepted on the basis of both fronts.
The fact this articular feat falls under both, makes this entire argument utterly baffling.

No if it's not possible(just compression/deformation). At least not for concrete.

Now please for the love of God, stop arguing just to argue, actually check stuff before you argue, follow the conversation before you argue, and correct me if i'm wrong but arguing just to argue on a CGM thread where even I've hit up a staff every time I've posted just so I don't pre-emptively get in shit, ain't exactly it either.

So will you be happy if I say "I agree with pulv" instead of "I agree with pulv but not using pulv value for compression interpretation for this feat as neither feat fits definition of compressive strength nor such compression is possible for material like concrete"?

Like come on, if you think that it was pointless to point out disagreement for the reasoning if I agree with it based on different interpretation then what was the point of lengthening this?

 

[Agnaa]

While I agree it's a pointless endeavor, that feels counterproductive though right?
The verse is about to be locked down because of shoddy calcs, scaling, and lack of reliable people to help it out.
So we wait until reliable people come to help out.
That make sense.
But how can reliable people come to help out if in your own words we should just leave it to the side and shrug? Like bro in the OP is trying to iron it out, and we ain't exactly helping he's kinda pushing it tho by trying to buff every single feat instead of just asking for ways to do them precisely that would fit within standards and the context of the feat, but that's beside the point.

Ant is right, CGM's and others who already have shown some degree of reliability should probably start doing calcs for the verse, given the group who was have shown a consistent pattern of extreme inflation or a bunch of lil boosts that add up when not applicable, so unless we suddenly get some new goons who join the wiki who are really into this specific verse and just so happen know how to calc from the get go, and can do so in a precise and accurate way, this shit is never going to be solved.
Like hell there's quite a few CGM's who haven't done a calc in like a year, get them to flex that title a lil bit. If people want to wait to like, november? I'd be willing to do a few too, though I'm not reading it to find stuff so that'd be on the opposing party (Obviously ch and ep for reference sources would be beneficial as to fact check if the feat even happens the way it's being asked to be calced).

Mayhaps but are we really going to revise the entire wiki because of the most basic crater feat where the ultimate accurate solution would be to create a secret 4th value for true complete material obliteration between current pulv and vaping/atomic destruction.

Look, I don't want our standards for TR to change, but most people voted for "lock the verse until trusted users can be found to maintain it".

I don't fully know what that means, or how they expect to find users more trusted than the ones we already have. But I don't think it would involve "Have the person we just unbanned over issues with TR suggest recalcs to CGMs".

If they wanted existing TR fans to simply be shepherded by our CGMs, I think they would've specifically asked for that.

I think this is a dumb way to go forward, but I repeatedly argued against it, and was ultimately outvoted. I'm not going to sneak changes that go against this clearly imminent decision just because I disagree with it.

If you think you can change people's minds, please DM them these arguments and see if you can get a miracle, but I'm not holding out hope for that.

 

[KLOL506]

I said I would never evaluate a calc for this mid-ass verse ever again but **** it.

​

Soichiro Craters A Wall​

I accepted this but I realised how lowballed it is.

Just because we see large slices of concrete at the deepest point of the volume, doesn't lead to the conclusion that the whole thing was fragmented with fragments that size, hell, it's contradicted by the fact we see pebbles and pulverised bits coming out of the crater.

What we see is that 99 percent of the volume has disappeared, therefore pulverisation should be the route here.​

Yeah no. This is in no way a low-ball. It's worse actually.

Taking one gander at that crater there is no way in hell y'all actually thought this was chest depth of 10 inches or 25.4 cm. At best, eyeballing it would put it at 1-3 cm, I contacted some CGMs who said trigonometry or pythagoras would get those results as well (And even with that the angles don't exactly help), but I'm not smart enough to go that far, and I'm sure no one will waste even five minutes for this mid verse.

​

Ten Kunimiya craters a wall​

Same as above.​

Dart tips are usually way shorter than that. Using fingernails for pixel-scaling is the least accurate way possible to gauge the size of the dart due to how skewed the scales can get with hands being drawn oversized or fingernails almost never maintaining a consistent size (Unless it's IRL stuff and even then). I wouldn't accept this size unless someone here can get the dart near a proper full body shot with the dart being in close proximity to said body and not being at an angle.

Then there's the matter of the crater itself. IDK why we're trying to scale the crater depth with the tip instead of trying to gauge the penetration depth separately with the main body (At a close eyeballing glance it barely reaches half the length of the main body of the dart discounting the tip, and even then the angle doesn't exactly do it justice). Suffers the same problem as the last one.

To say these are low-balls is just downright disingenuous. Not gonna tackle the rest of the feats as Agnaa already took care of that and explicitly said you were basically breaking discussion rules, accident or no, mental instability or no. Rule violation's a rule violation, end of story.

 

[Vzearr]

Taking one gander at that crater there is no way in hell y'all actually thought this was chest depth of 10 inches or 25.4 cm. At best, eyeballing it would put it at 1-3 cm, I contacted some CGMs who said trigonometry or pythagoras would get those results as well (And even with that the angles don't exactly help), but I'm not smart enough to go that far, and I'm sure no one will waste even five minutes for this mid verse.

It is very clearly, not 1cm. I don't even know how you could ever come to that conclusion, my apologies. I disagree with you here, your reasoning has no basis.

 

[KLOL506]

It is very clearly, not 1cm. I don't even know how you could ever come to that conclusion, my apologies. I disagree with you here, your reasoning has no basis.

10 inches is the length of the average forearm fully stretched out, or the chest of a healthy, working-out adult of average height. The dude getting cratered in is a twink.

On top of that, the scan of the feat straight up does itself no favors for the crater depth, if it really were that deep, the kid getting cratered would literally be able to fit inside that crater, it ain't that hard to figure out.

Your disagreement with my conclusions however, are duly noted.

 

[Chariot190]

Spoiler: yap derailment

Never said you do?

I mean, kind of did but I will assume I misread it or you just worded it in a misleading way then.

That's wrong. And I didn't say displacement doesn't affect ε at all?

You can't say it's wrong, then in the same line say actually you didn't say it.
You're actively contradicting yourself.

And no, it isn't wrong. To displace material you need to move it, to move it from the rest of the material you must physically push it, and by pushing it, you act against the strain, which in turn will cause it to snap if pushed past a certain threshold.

Yeah and your argument about that is closer to debunking volume being compressed to the wall than push case.

It isn't. In fact, I would like to ask you to physically prove and math out why that's the case, otherwise cease this line of argument because simply saying something without material backing is just hyper extending this thread.

You keep saying actually I'm debunking my own argument. When that isn't the case, the only way this would be the case, is if I was arguing it under a feat where the concaved area was completely smooth, it is not, it is cracked, it has microfissures, and all the like.
Compression can coexist with the basic material strain of the compressed area.
Pushing, can not, because to push it out, it would need to shear the central volume off the surrounding wall as concrete can not actually bend and deform like that while staying elastic and deforming, as such, the cncaved area wouldn't just be blown inward, but the area, think of it like a plug, would be sheared off the inner wall, but it isn't, the crater creates a slope that aligns with the rest of the wall, it's still connect on the sides. So, if the argument is that in actuality, that volume was pushed back, which in turn would mean it would have to push the material behind it back to, (Which would also mean the depth of the destruction would have to extend the entire wall's thickness, not just the crater's depth), then the "crater", would be visibly disconnected and snapped off the surrounding wall, much like a plug or cork.

"opposing argument" can you stop repeating why pushing case doesn't work which isn't even my argument?

If it isn't your argument, do not enter a conversation where that is actively the topic at hand and then argue it isn't the case.

Good luck with proving how compressing most of the volume won't cause complete crush of material.

Huh? It would? That's part of compression and is even seen in the feat itself with the inner surface of the crater being heavily cracked?

What? If I don't disagree with conclusion but disagree with reasoning you're using for it I'm somehow not allowed to argue against it?

I would say arguing for the sake of arguing is a bit detrimental especially if it leads to a back and forth derailment of the original topic. If it doesn't actually matter to the verdict, it's a bit roundabout, no?

You're the one who argues just for the sake of arguing with messages like "I can do a complex calc if I wanted to" even though I mentioned several times that I agree with push case not working,

I mean I can? Your initial point was that it was simplified to the actual total mechanical interaction, which is true.
But my point wasn't that it's perfect, it was to show that the push case simply isn't possible based on even the most preliminary steps and mechanical science involved.

If you agree the push case doesn't work, then there's literally no other option at play here as the material wouldn't have been ejected out the other end in that scenario, so, if it's destroyed...?

I just mentioned that your calculation is irrelevant for proving push/bending case not working and don't see why my agreement should stop me from addressing that.

Yet it isn't, it's relevant, based on the prior argument involving material deformity and materials such as how a tissue can be deformed under stress without complete shearing.
The calculation, was to show how a napkin, and other such materials, and a brittle substance like concrete, do not behave and deform the same way, and if one where to argue that the concrete simply was pushed through like a cylindrical mass or "plug" or "cork", the top edges around the circular area of the feat would also be snapped off and sheared.

You keep saying that it'll be just small error when the problem is about being completely irrelevant/wrong. (and no, repeating it again, I DON'T ask you to make most accurate version this case or whatever, that's something you pulled up yourself?)

Well, it's relevant, agree to disagree I guess given we've both derailed this enough as it is.

How tf object developing cracks before failure in any way debunks the idea of compressive strength not being used if object doesn't fail under compression???

Because it did? What are you even arguing?
"Besides that, you missed "without breaking" part. Compressive strength isn't just "pressure needed to be able to compress object". However for concrete even 1% volume change is beyond its compressive strength so object will fail before you'll reach that compression. You simply won't be able to compress it significantly without breaking."

Is what you said right? You're arguing that it isn't compression because it doesn't break first?
Well it does, and did?
There's a crater. The crater's volume is, well, a crater.
Do we see cracks? Then it broke under the pressure first.
Realistically, it broke under the pressure being being compressed, we obviously just don't see the whole nearly instant process relative to the energy of the impact and speed with how it's drawn, but we see the end result that aligns well enough.
Or are you saying that the whole wall should have shattered? Why? It's a, comparatively, small area over the side of a multiple story building? That's also completely fine? We have a term called the Poisson’s effect, which is when you compress (or stretch) a solid in one way, it tends to expand (or contract) in the perpendicular directions, the common example used back in school was just how if you squeeze a rubber eraser, it gets thinner top-to-bottom but bulges sideways.
Given we're talking about a wall that looked to be well over 10m, or however long that alley was, this is well within reason? The actual crater only cavers a very negligible total surface? The cracks and fissures we see would have compressed residue, and the bulging over the width of the wall would account for anything else to the point it'd be basically imperceptible.

Cracking stress is lower, and you can't treat compressive strength value as what's needed to compress without breaking it, cracks won't be enough.

It does crack tho, that's like, the entire reason why people were arguing it as frag originally?

Also, your 2 claims literally can't work together.

1. You're saying thay displacement of same volume will result in failure, that material like concrete won't be able to endure it. So it's not a possible case for the feat.

Yep. If it truly was pushed out the back side of the wall, the crater would not align with the rim and line up with the wall, it would be sheared off on its internal sides like a plug. This isn't what is shown to us. The argument prior for it was simply some materials can be deformed like that and still align just fine.
Concrete can not do that, if this was true, the crater would not be shown the way it is seen.

2. You're also saying that compressing that volume to the wall while opposite side remains the same is possible, and there being cracks are fine.

Yep.
Cracks make sense, in fact there should be, realistic compression also creates microfractures that permeate and fuse into larger cracks, and the material atop that is being compressed down, gets essentially shoved into this cracks like filling up a tray or gash.
The opposite of the wall, tbh there should be a bit of spalling, but some spalling due to the tensile wave would just add to the feat, and would not detract from the material that got compressed. It would simply add some additional destroyed volume we can't calculate onto the feat, but given we can't exactly see that, we can't exactly add onto it so we just ignore it.

But the argument was never there'd be spalling or fragmentation in the back on top of the compression, it was that the compression we see, the crater, actually isn't one, and it appears that way due to the volume being dislodged and pushed back, which is what the argument you opted to reply toward was commenting on.

But, it'd be fine either way because what a material compresses, it also bulges to the sides and given how wide this wall is too, that helps account for that facet.

Do you get what's the problem here? If you argue for 2nd point(compression case being possible) then push case will be possible. If you argue for 1st point(push case being impossible) then compression case isn't possible either.

I am going to ignore that framing give I have been actively warned for using that precise phrasing of a question before, and just say see above.

Because stress in a body under given force is higher the more the body is constrained from deforming. Free boundaries reduce the internal stress for the same applied force. So for the same applied force, axial stress is maximal when the ends are fixed. If ends are free to move, stress decreases because part of the deformation is accommodated by displacement rather than strain.

This statement is correct in isolation. But you're ignoring how it's a fundamental principle of solid mechanics (specifically, statically indeterminate systems). A constrained body (so fixed ends) will develop higher internal stresses for a given applied load than the, idk you said body so let's use that term, the body that is free to expand or contract (a roller support for example). This is because the constraints generate reactive forces that contribute to the internal stress state.

But again, this ignores what is actually drawn, what is actually seen, the most basic principles preveting the only alternative, and how in actuality, as ironic as it might be, now you're over simplifying the mechanical properties. This would be a good argument if the crater and what was behind it, was also the entire wall's volume, but it isn't, it's not even 0.10% of the total objects volume and dimensions.
A quick paced, precise, powerful strike, very much can be localized compression with doing all this other stuff. Much like how you can strike a concrete wall with a hammer and simply compress the impact zone with shattering the entire brick.

The reason strain and snapping was even brought up, was again, in regards to the pushing dislodgement argument.

In short, depending on material there can be 3 situations based on same visibly affected volume and same amount of damage:

1. Push case and compression case both work.
2. Neither push case nor compression case works.
3. Push case works but compression case doesn't.

This is straight up false, and also a false dichotomy. Even something like how much ass the object in question is relative to the affected volume, can completely alter if these are possible or not.

There isn't any 4th situation(compression case working but not push case) possible as if compression case works then push case will have lower internal stress that if anything means it'll have less damage.

Yes there is? Again, false dichotomy.
There's technically dozens of variables, but that's beside the point.

It's compression because, well, it follows every rule we have for it, no visible debris, it's done with an application of force and area that would enable compression, the volume didn't just vanish and the fissures and yadda yadda, I've said all this.

It isn't dislodging because it simply didn't snap off the rim yet it must to actually dislodge it back.

Both can, in fact, co-exist despite your claims otherwise.

If you take push case being impossible then compression case which has higher internal stress can't be possible either.

Or it literally can't be dislodged because it is quite literally not dislodged and the argument was it could be dislodged because other materials can bend and stay connected but the argument against it is not concrete if it was pushed back and dislodged it'd snap off the rim of the crater.

Because that album doesn't show that part? Anyway I looked for the chapter and saw that part yeah. Not that my opinion matters on this but I'd be fine with pulv.

Well why wouldn't you check before arguing that front?

No if it's not possible(just compression/deformation). At least not for concrete.

Well you're straight up wrong on that front whether or not you're right or wrong becausethe wiki does literally do that.
But, yes, it is possible, not quite sure why you keep saying it isn't without any actual evidence,

So will you be happy if I say "I agree with pulv" instead of "I agree with pulv but not using pulv value for compression interpretation for this feat as neither feat fits definition of compressive strength nor such compression is possible for material like concrete"?

Not really given it's not an interpretation, it just is, it's that or dislodge, and it definitely isn't displacement.
Concrete can in fact do that, if you're arguing the strain for some reason prevents compression, it doesn't, as the area affected by the slam/feat here is indeed cracked and snapped apart along the area where the force had been applied, there's just extra steps that happen afterward involving the volume being, well, actively compressed, but the inner surface of the crater being jagged accounts for that facet, unless you want to get extremely indepth in which case see above for various things like the budging over large distances and trust me when i say I have first-hand experience with this shit given my house has been torn apart the past two months fixing pipes within the foundation, and walls. Even a simple hammer strike can compress concrete without causing the whole wall to spontaneously explode or whatever it is you've been arguing.

Like come on, if you think that it was pointless to point out disagreement for the reasoning if I agree with it based on different interpretation then what was the point of lengthening this?

Because your disagreement undermines the argument presented in regards to one of the opposing side's points. I vehemently disagree with your reasoning for such, and you've shifted goalposts multiple times from stating it was simplifying the mechanics to just saying it isn't true without backing, while ignoring the context in which that point was even made and the context in which this argument is even happening under (that being some dude slamming this other dude into a wall and how that may or not be compression), and just a whole bunch of other things. As unfortunate as it might be, I would like to be as precise as possible within reasonable constraints. Obviously we can't ask every calc to do a 20 step mechanical engineering process with overly complex pixel scaling and trigonomics to get exact dimensions and the relation between the effected material and the surrounding objects and environment, and etc. But we should still like, at least get in that ballpark which I feel we aren't doing here.

But, having discussed this with KLOL, I'm like 90% convinced the volume is still inflated. At a glance it's easy to mistake, but based on shirt collar and more, I don't actually think we're looking at a 20cm deep crater.

It is very possible to calculate it though, assuming his body is in direct contact with the wall, we can get the angle at which his back, neck and head bend/tilt in relation to the center of impact, get that angle, and from the angle, the sloop of the crater, and then apply some basic trigonometry to get the true depth without needing to guess.
Unfortunately, it is very low, very, very, very low, like within single digit cm, and not even high, I mean like a few tops (which also shoots down the hole "20cm crater cant compress on 30cm wall" even if that wasn't already not the case), but all the same, we gotta go back to the mines on this one. But it's low enough now to where I really do not think it's even worth calcing. making this whole thread pointless now, as such, I welcome whoever to personally DM a fuckton of TR feats, calced, not calced, even shit that they might not even think is good just do it anyway. I will go over them at a later point, pick out what's actually worth a damn, and attempt to throw the verse a bone while working alongside a few notable CGM's for extra input so there's absolutely no way there'd be any **** up as there'd be multiple second opinions on how they'd be done before arriving at a conclusion. As such I propose we just, close this thread, I'll contact Vzearr or whoever the hell for sauce, and then just the rest as outlined above with the additional aid mentioned.

 

[Vzearr]

Let's take a gander at his leg, his butt is indented into the crater and half of his upper leg were inside the crater. Single digits is absurd.

 

[KLOL506]

@Agnaa @Mr. Bambu @DontTalkDT @DMUA @CloverDragon03 @Therefir @Migue79 @Dark-Carioca @Executor_N0 @Dalesean027 @Armorchompy @SeijiSetto @DemiiPowa @Flashlight237 @SunDaGamer @Psychomaster35 Apologies for wasting your time with this kerfuffle, but we really need this to be put to bed in light of our concerns with the crater depth.

 

[KLOL506]

Let's take a gander at his leg, his butt is indented into the crater and half of his upper leg were inside the crater. Single digits is absurd.

Worst possible place to gauge the depth. His torso isn't even remotely bended deep enough to cover that depth, which only leads to one conclusion: It isn't deep enough accommodate him.

 

[Agnaa]

Locking as per consensus.