Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

name the guys that have the weakest piercing durability at 100 ton..

here is my list

1. Rulk
2. Hulk
3. Lobo

100 ton covers such a broad range.

I could say Namor would probably be a good pick for that. You could also probably think of some low class 100s that can easily be pierced by certain things.

Wonder woman.

Why would Lobo be tagged as weakest durability? The phucker laughed off a mulit planet wrecking blast, and black holes.

Rulk got stabbed in the chest by punisher with just a boot knife...

Hulk certainly isn't number 2. Rulk is up there though, it seems like nearly anything sharp enough can cut him.

Ugh.

I hate the term 'piercing durability'.

One of the biggest misconceptions ever created in fiction.

Wonder Woman even getting welts from bullets is retarded.

And Busiek with his Thor is 'weak to bullets' dumbphuckery.

I remember talking to Gail Simone online and she was trying to push the notion that, logically, Wonder Woman should be bullet proof as well as no sell most bladed objects unless they're magical or unbreakable, but she was being fought with over it.

Link?

I don't like Gail Simone but she's absolutely right.

If a single Superman punch doesn't make her bleed, yet a bullet is shown to penetrate her skin, all else being equal, that would have to mean that the bullet produces more pressure than Superman's fist.

Lol. Fiction Writers. Rarely well informed.

Originally posted by "Id"
Why would Lobo be tagged as weakest durability? The phucker laughed off a mulit planet wrecking blast, and black holes. I know about his blunt force durability, but he seems to be weak when it comes to sharp objects..

Originally posted by Reacting2
I know about his blunt force durability, but he seems to be weak when it comes to sharp objects..

There is no such thing.

Pressure is what produces cuts.

A planet exploding produces a shit ton more pressure than something like a bullet.

Seriously, words like 'blunt' durability vs 'piercing' durability have no basis in reality. Likewise the word 'sharp' vs 'blunt' isn't really meaningful either, as those terms are relative.

A sword maybe considered 'sharp' to us, but it will be considered 'blunt' to something that is smaller than the width of the sword's edge.

Can a hammer cut better than a sword? Yes. Provided that it is swung with enough force to overcompensate for the fact that it has a greater striking area. Since Pressure is simply Force divided by Area.

Originally posted by CosmicComet


Can a hammer cut better than a sword? Yes. Provided that it is swung with enough force to overcompensate for the fact that it has a greater striking area. Since Pressure is simply Force divided by Area. the sword would still cut better if it was swung with as much force as the hammer.

your argument is flawed tbh, pressure indeed cause cuts but its related to the sharpness in order to find what will cause cuts.

throwing a basket ball will not cut you, but throwing a needle with much less pressure will.

you make no sense

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
the sword would still cut better if it was swung with as much force as the hammer.

Idiot. I didn't say SAME force.

If they are swung at the same force, obviously the one with the smaller surface area provides more pressure. Since pressure is just a matter of force divided by area.

I said you have to swing the hammer with enough force to OVERcompensate for the fact that its surface area is wider.




You're not even understanding basic arithmetic. Your comprehension is flawed, and that has nothing to do with me.

Force and Area are both the components that determine Pressure.

It's a matter of simple division. Ergo, more pressure, easier penetration.



You aren't even using the terminology right.

A needle is not going to produce a cut if it produce LESS pressure than a basket. Pressure is what causes the cut in the first place. You mean FORCE.

The needle can be thrown with a lot less force than a basket and still cause a cut, but if the basket is thrown with more force, it can compensate for its greater surface area.




You're dumb as phuck.

LOL reported for ignorance, you cant really be that thick can you?
you make no sense at all. stop pulling things out of your ass.

Tell me, what, exactly, did you not understand?

Is simple arithmetic too difficult a concept to grasp?

Originally posted by CosmicComet
Tell me, what, exactly, did you not understand?

Is simple arithmetic too difficult a concept to grasp?

Piercing durability exist weather you like it or not.

a hammer cannot cut like a knife can, if the hammer had enough PSI applied to it( like the psi on the tip of a sword when pressure is applied), it will destroy the object you are trying to cut unless its HUGE

so no a hammer will not cut hulk better that a sword,

taking a large chunk out of hulks body is not "cutting" him

Originally posted by "Id"
Why would Lobo be tagged as weakest durability? The phucker laughed off a mulit planet wrecking blast, and black holes. and also been riddled by bullets..

Lobo
Wonder Woman

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Piercing durability exist weather you like it or not.

No. It does not. It's basically a misconception that has propagated since the early DnD days.

PSI is PSI. Everything produces PSI.

Pressure is the only thing (disregarding heat for a second), that causes damage in the first place. Force does nothing if its applied over too wide an area.

There is no magical, unexplained quality about a sword or a knife that makes for better cutting ability. It's just easier to do with a smaller surface area.



What, exactly, is your point meant to be?

What you aren't understanding is that a cut is not determined by how thin the area of damage is. A cut means penetration period.

If a hammer and knife are both swung in such a way that the pressure is equivalent, then the end result is simply that the hammer will produce a wider cut than the knife would. This is actually preferable, obviously, since its more damage.

Oh, and one more thing. PSI is a unit of pressure. You wouldn't be 'applying pressure' on the sword to produce PSI, moron, you're applying Force to produce PSI.



A hammer will cut the hulk butter than a sword if its swung with enough force to produce more pressure than a sword.

That's it. Pressure is what determines penetration in this situation.



Yes. It is.

Cutting is breaching the skin by the base definition. That's it. And taking away chunks of something comes by way of a 'cut' being produced in the first place.

you have a misconception of what a "cut" is.
if its big enough its not a "cut" just a large would.

if a got a hole blown through my stomach do i go to the hospital and tell them ive been "cut"?

i guess people who get blown up by grenades and missles and such in war were just "cut"?
lol

Rulk getting pierced by Punisher's knife with HUMAN strength!

Tranquilizer darts? IIRC WW and Hulk have those

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
you have a misconception of what a "cut" is.
if its big enough its not a "cut" just a large would.

if a got a hole blown through my stomach do i go to the hospital and tell them ive been "cut"?

i guess people who get blown up by grenades and missles and such in war were just "cut"?
lol

No.

That would be you. A grenade blowing you up happens because it produces a lot of pressure, and thus it causes a really huge cut.

I need you to quantify how small the area of damage has to be to be termed a 'cut'.

It would be a useless definition anyway. Since the pressure is that causes the breach in the first place.

If you have an X PSI threshold, then neither a hammer or sword swung to produce the same pressure will cut you if they produce less than X PSI. The only difference in that situation, is that the hammer's equal PSI output will be felt over a wider area than the sword, since it has more square-inches of surface area hitting the target than the sword would.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
No.

That would be you.

I need you to quantify how small the area of damage has to be to be termed a 'cut'.

It would be a useless definition anyway. Since the pressure is that causes the breach in the first place anyway.

If you have an X PSI threshold, then neither a hammer or sword swung with the same pressure will cut you if it produces less than X PSI. The only difference in that situation, is that the hammer's equal PSI output will be felt over a wider area than the sword, since it has more square-inches of surface area hitting the target than the sword would. I think when people here on this forum are talking about cuts, they are talking about small piercing woulds that a knif or sword would cause, not large wounds the area of a hamer. so although what you are saying is true it is still moot to the thread.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
There is no such thing.

Pressure is what produces cuts.

A planet exploding produces a shit ton more pressure than something like a bullet.

Seriously, words like 'blunt' durability vs 'piercing' durability have no basis in reality. Likewise the word 'sharp' vs 'blunt' isn't really meaningful either, as those terms are relative.

A sword maybe considered 'sharp' to us, but it will be considered 'blunt' to something that is smaller than the width of the sword's edge.

Can a hammer cut better than a sword? Yes. Provided that it is swung with enough force to overcompensate for the fact that it has a greater striking area. Since Pressure is simply Force divided by Area. Michio Kaku would most likely disagree with your logic there, bud. He actually did an episode on sharpness/surface area, cutting and pressure.. but, he was more versed in it then you and I.

Cosmic and Colossus, seriously shut up.

Cosmic, stop bashing. Disagreeing with a total stranger on the internet is not something to get mad about.

Lol. Guys, just imagine Pym against a sword. When he shrinks down, the sword blade will seem like a hammer's edge, and vice versa when he enlarges.

As for the topic, WW.

Originally posted by Nietzschean
Michio Kaku would most likely disagree with your logic there, bud. He actually did an episode on sharpness/surface area, cutting and pressure.. but, he was more versed in it then you and I.

Unlikely. What could he possibly say about pressure that I didn't already? I'm not presenting my 'hypothesis' or interpretation of something, I'm simply explaining reality.

'Sharpness' is nothing but a relevant term.

Pressure is what causes cuts. The only thing the thinness of an area does is make pressure easier to administer--nothing more.

A hammer produces pressure, a knife produces pressure--everything that creates force produces pressure. If swung with the same force as the hammer, the knife produces more a lot more pressure and thus cuts easier. So in order to create more pressure with the hammer, all one has to do is swing it with enough force to negate its larger surface area.

Easier said than done of course--as the knife's surface area would literally be thousands of times smaller, so the hammer would have to be swung with at least that much greater force just to get an equal amount of pressure.

vo2iE94iAoA

Originally posted by CosmicComet
Unlikely. What could he possibly say about pressure that I didn't already? I'm not presenting my 'hypothesis' or interpretation of something, I'm simply explaining reality.

'Sharpness' is nothing but a relevant term.

Pressure is what causes cuts. The only thing the thinness of an area does is make pressure easier to administer--nothing more.

A hammer produces pressure, a knife produces pressure--everything that creates force produces pressure. If swung with the same force as the hammer, the knife produces more a lot more pressure and thus cuts easier. So in order to create more pressure with the hammer, all one has to do is swing it with enough force to negate its larger surface area.

Easier said than done of course--as the knife's surface area would literally be thousands of times smaller, so the hammer would have to be swung with at least that much greater force just to get an equal amount of pressure.

vo2iE94iAoA dude just let it go, comics dont do logic, so some guys that can tanlk hulk punches are stabed by steel knife by some street level dude

I don't care.

I just hope you realize how stupid it is to be able to tank an exploding planet with casual ease (Lobo), and then be penetrable by bullets (assuming they are ordinary).

In reality, if anyone here were durable enough to withstand a planet exploding, would you REALLY fear bullets at all? I would hope not--that would take some extreme stupidity--which is not impossible admittedly, as fiction writers appear to be that stupid on most occasion.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
I don't care.
even if you dont, Rulk still gets pierced by high caliber machine guns and steel knives