Originally posted by ScreamPaste
Well, they are, just not all in one place.
Indeed.
Originally posted by ScreamPaste
We agree on general mass, I think you're over estimating it, but I still don't get where you make the massive jump to achieve a critical failure point of hundreds of tons of force.
First of all, I owe you an apology for my insulting comments. You do not have to call someone "stupid" or "buttface" to actually insult someone.
I posted an image of the tree to support my mass and I explained how I over estimated by a factor of 10 at one point. Still does not matter very much, at all.
To the second point, I addressed that already and posted a link to an academic paper. I cannot make it anymore clear.
Originally posted by ScreamPaste
All it takes is a tree to grow at a (particularly) bad angle to fall over, I've got a bunch of shit to do today but I'll come back and go over the numbers again at some point.
While I agree, this does not apply to the situation at hand. It was a vertical tree. The "numbers" cannot be faulted because they came from a source outside of both you and I: real academic work in excavation.
Originally posted by ScreamPaste
The force required to uproot a stump horizontally is /quite/ different from an actual tree for several reasons.
No, not at all. In fact, the forces can be considered greater due to the way the horizontal pulls occur:
1. They are actually at an angle and not directly horizontal to the stump.
a) This means that better leverage can occur with the tree.
2. The tree's mass has to be affected, as well, for the initial effort.
a) Because of that, the initial effort required is greater than horizontal tractor pull.
3. After the tree is moved, it becomes much easier due to several factors.
a) Loosening of the soil.
b) breaking of some of the roots.
c) The mass of the tree lending support to the felling of the tree due to the mass assisting with the help of gravity in breaking the roots and freeing itself from the soil.
4. Their is an even bigger reason why his efforts are harder than the excavators: it is very cold and has been very cold in that area for a while and the ground would be frozen, making it much more difficult to break it free of the soil, not to mention the roots.
5. It takes the tractors and cranes much much longer to do their uprooting than it did Edward, meaning, he's applying much more force per unit time.
Originally posted by ScreamPaste
1. The leverage you love so much to go on aboot.
Addressed and this point is irrelevant.
Originally posted by ScreamPaste
2. The weight of the tree itself plays a factor in uprooting itself horizontally.
Address this, already.
Originally posted by ScreamPaste
3. Trees are designed to fight gravity, and in large groups, IE, forests, the natural way you tend to find the things, have little to fear from wind or other horizontal forces.
I believe you have that opposite.
Trees are "designed" to resist falling over which is why the scientist said that, on average, 5 times as much effort has to be applied to the horizontal pulls compared to vertical ones.
Originally posted by ScreamPaste
Looking at the shot of the tree as it falls shows that it is not 1m at the base. <_< .
Looking at the shot it's probably a bit larger than 1 meter in diameter, at the base. Keep in mind, he's prolly about 4 feet up on the tree.
Originally posted by ScreamPaste
From the stump.
Edward's not /that/ short. .
He's 6'1" and bent over quite a bet with a lean. He is also not applying his hands where the top of his head is; he's applying them around where the bottom of his face, is. It's about 4' or less.
Originally posted by ScreamPaste
You are clearly aware it takes less force to do so with an actual tree present because you've gone on about leverage before, really, the only thing to be laid to rest here is the exact way that leverage would scale.
"The forces can be considered greater due to the way the horizontal pulls occur:
1. They are actually at an angle and not directly horizontal to the stump.
a) This means that better leverage can occur with the tree.
2. The tree's mass has to be affected, as well, for the initial effort.
a) Because of that, the initial effort required is greater than horizontal tractor pull.
3. After the tree is moved, it becomes much easier due to several factors.
a) Loosening of the soil.
b) breaking of some of the roots.
c) The mass of the tree lending support to the felling of the tree due to the mass assisting with the help of gravity in breaking the roots and freeing itself from the soil.
4. Their is an even bigger reason why his efforts are harder than the excavators: it is very cold and has been very cold in that area for a while and the ground would be frozen, making it much more difficult to break it free of the soil, not to mention the roots."
5. It takes the tractors and cranes much much longer to do their uprooting than it did Edward, meaning, he's applying much more force per unit time.
If you want to get as pedantic as possible about it, 4 feet = 1.22 meters.
Average vertical force required to uproot trees that have a smaller mass and are also not in frozen soil: 60kNm.
Required force for a semi-horizontal pull: 5 times greater for trees in that same diameter range.
Edward's tree falls into the top-end of that range.
5*60kNm = 300 kNm.
Solve for force in the lever formula:
300000 Nm = f*1.2192
f = 245901.64
245901.64 = 245.90 kNm
That still does not take into consideration that the ground is frozen, it takes much longer to pull up the stumps with the machines; and the mass of the tree makes it more difficult, initially, to move cause of a stupid little physics property known as "inertia".
Originally posted by ScreamPaste
If 5 feet of lever can make that significant of a different that your math does not imply super-elephants I'll merrily concede, but I doubt it'll happen. I'll come back to it in a few days most likely, though. Stuff to do. --->Bender--->concert--->Pursue female I have no chance with ----> THEN internet math.
5 feet? I strongly disagree based on a little test I did. I'm 3" shorter than Robert Pattison and my hands come up to about the 5' marker when I put them at about face level when standing straight up. He's not standing straight up, though; he's leaned over quite a bit. Four feet is a much more accurate measure. I actually want to say it's less than that because I'm hitting around the 3'6" mark when I lean forward and place my hands at about the same position as Edward.
Originally posted by ares834
I would also like to point out that if it take more than a hundred tons of force to push over a tree, something is going to give... Likely the hand going straight through the tree...
Wah? He's going to stick his hand through 3 feet of green wood (some of it frozen)? The APA would disagree with you.
Just guessing, but the highlighted areas on the pic below, wouldn't they be vulnerable if Ed gets ahold of IM? I can't imagine Ed having a problem ripping off IM's arms.
Also, according to the OP, they are fighting in a forest, which means IM must land to engage Ed. I can't see him targeting a fast mover like Ed through the forest canopy.
Iron Monger > Edward in strength. While that tree-knocking Eddy did is most impressive, it not like he tore his way out of the ground which consisted of steel, dirt and concrete as Iron Monger did.
BTW, here's a Dodge with a 12V Cummins 5.9 Liter diesel (about 215hp and 440lb-ft), yes, the stump is smaller than Eddy's.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Not an answer.
Yeah, it kind of was:
The Iron Man suit (which is stronger/tougher version in IM2) while at low-low powers did well against Iron Monger and wasn't just ripped apart like a tin-can.
So Edward (who isn't as strong as Monger) is going to have a hard time trying to get through its durability.
Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, it kind of was:The Iron Man suit (which is stronger/tougher version in IM2) while at low-low powers did well against Iron Monger and wasn't just ripped apart like a tin-can.
So Edward (who isn't as strong as Monger) is going to have a hard time trying to get through its durability.
Did Monger TRY to rip IM apart?
Originally posted by Robtard
Iron Monger > Edward in strength. While that tree-knocking Eddy did is most impressive, it not like he tore his way out of the ground which consisted of steel, dirt and concrete as Iron Monger did.BTW, here's a Dodge with a 12V Cummins 5.9 Liter diesel (about 215hp and 440lb-ft), yes, the stump is smaller than Eddy's.
Dead stump is much easier to pull out than an alive one which is what that study was on about: excavators cannot wait for the stump to dry out.
I may have to agree with you on Ironmonger, though. I forgot about the concrete floor feat. However, I'm still not too sure about that. I found a video on youtube that talked about wood being stronger, pound for pound, than solid industrial steel. I digress, though, as it only withstood 7000 pound force (7000 pound force is what the force is of weight due to gravity...basically, it is simulating 7000 lbs sitting on something.) Hmm. Well, it's hard to say, but, I'll have to give it to Ironmonger UNLESS we can figure out Ironmonger's mass. His mass significantly helped him punch through that. To what extent, I don't know.
STILL...I appreciate you being objectivity about this and not jumping on the Twi-hate bandwagon. It's easy to hate twilight...and those are definitely good reasons. I would like it if people had a bit more objectivity.
Edit - RJ made a good point about the whips whiplash had. It explains why those whips didn't rip right through Ironman but yet his suit isn't very durable beyond titanium and gold.