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 CosmicCometI 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.
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.
Originally posted by CosmicCometMichio 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.
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 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.
Originally posted by CosmicCometdude 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
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.
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.