User blog:Friendlysociopath/Friendly Does Calcs?

Indeed he does. However, I mainly do them only for myself and don't follow any specific formats or rules, so they may or may not be applicable to other sites; they're just for me and my Deathbattles.

However, it's been requested that I post at least a few of them, so I'll leave them here in case anyone wants to take a look. I will again state that, these are not made to match the criteria of other sites. As such, it's possible they wouldn't be accepted at some site or another. I do not care.

Note: Many of these are parts of conversations and I just copy+pasted them.

Maka cuts through Gopher's blast
Probably the most spite-filled calc I've ever done- I was told Maka was only building and decided, 'The hell with you' and whipped up this scene to work with.

First, we need our premise, obvious as it might be. http://www.mangareader.net/soul-eater/64/18 Here we see Gopher fire his projectile and destroy two mountain-tops. Interestingly- they appear to be blasted into more or less dust as for the most part there is a giant hole with relatively few stones of decent size where the rock had been. As Maka later cuts directly through a larger blast later- this could be theorized to be the amount of power she can output. In fact, she cuts through it so hard that her attack still manages to hit Gopher and harm him through his armored wings, so well beneath her total power.

Next up- how much rock was destroyed? Hard to say as we only see the rock destroyed in the one scan and never again or with more information- but an idea has struck me for a possible method. Here http://www.mangareader.net/soul-eater/64/16 we see Maka is perhaps 3/4ths the size of the number 4. Various scenes in those chapters show trees approaching half the size of the numbers. So if the number was 4 feet tall, Maka would be 3 and the trees would be 2. Maka's stated height is 5'3, 5'4 after the time-skip. The Gopher battle is post time-skip. So Maka's height is 1.626 meters. Divided by .75 = 2.168 meters for the numbers. Half of that is 1.084 meters for the trees.

Now, we have to state our assumptions as the other things are relatively easy to visually gauge. The main assumption being to gauge the rock shattered as if it was a perfect cone, the others being that the second mountain-top was the same size and that it's all shattered, not just half and the rest of it falling over. Given the amount of rock we see falling in the second scene, the amount destroyed does not seem remotely unfair as we should be seeing a hella lot more rock falling, and the first scene indicates rather strongly most of the rock is just obliterated. I'd rather not pixel-scale the back mountain like I did the front because it's some distance away and because we don't have a good tree straight-up and visible to start with.

Now the scene does not help all that much with gauging the size of the cone. I will admit that and probably be very annoyed by it. However I'm not trying to get this calc accepted by any particular site as of yet and they all have different rules on this point and will have their own ways of wanting to fix it. As such- 'de image'

For reference, the red line is 71 pixels tall, the green line goes from 206 to 884, so 678 pixels along the x axis, and the orange line goes along the y axis from 9 to 1341, so 1332 pixels. The red line is the height of the tree, the green line is the diameter of the bottom of the cone, and the orange line is the height. So 71 pixels = 1.084 meters. Now what we want is the volume of the cone/mountain, which first requires us to know the radius of the circle. 678 / 71 = 9.55x larger than a tree. We then multiply this by our 1.084 to get the diameter, 10.35 meters. Half of that gives us our radius, 5.175 meters. Next we need the height, 1332 / 71 = 18.76x larger than a tree. We then multiply this by our 1.084 to get the height, 20.34 meters. <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"LucidaGrande","TrebuchetMS",Verdana,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-weight:normal;">Volume here becomes child's play so long as the cone assumption is accepted, solving for volume gives us 570.43 meters cubed of rock. <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"LucidaGrande","TrebuchetMS",Verdana,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-weight:normal;">And so long as the assumption of both mountain-tops being equal is held, that doubles to 1140.86 meters cubed of rock.

The Vsbattles site uses values cited in Narutoforums, which are as follows

<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"LucidaGrande","TrebuchetMS",Verdana,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.35px;font-weight:normal;">Rock fragmentation=8 j/cc <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"LucidaGrande","TrebuchetMS",Verdana,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.35px;font-weight:normal;">Rock violent fragmentation=69 j/cc <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"LucidaGrande","TrebuchetMS",Verdana,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.35px;font-weight:normal;">Rock Pulverization>200j/cc-214 j/cc

<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"LucidaGrande","TrebuchetMS",Verdana,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-weight:normal;">Pulverization is smashing the entire thing to dust so it doesn't quite fit that. Violent fragmentation means you can still see pieces but otherwise the debris is too small to make out. Seems perfect.

<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"LucidaGrande","TrebuchetMS",Verdana,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-weight:normal;">570.43 meters cubed becomes 570,430,000 cubic centimeters. <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"LucidaGrande","TrebuchetMS",Verdana,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-weight:normal;">69 x 570430000 = 39,359,670,000 Joules or 9.41 tons of tnt. <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"LucidaGrande","TrebuchetMS",Verdana,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-weight:normal;">This could be doubled to 18.82 tons of tnt.

<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"LucidaGrande","TrebuchetMS",Verdana,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-weight:normal;">I know they had the possibility of 120 Joules/cc instead of 69 but choose 69 for lowball purposes. However I happen to think a substantial portion of the mountain being reduced to dust is fair judging by the scans, so I'm going to use 120 for the hell of it.

<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"LucidaGrande","TrebuchetMS",Verdana,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-weight:normal;">120 x 570430000 = 68,451,600,000 Joules or 16.36 tons of tnt. Doubled that would be 32.72 tons of tnt.