For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure they aren't insanely large. I would be surprised if a fully loaded fire-log macerator caused more than a ~20-50 meter radius of injury. Mostly, they look terrifying. The mechanics of them are more along the lines of a saw dust cannon and less along the lines of an exploding grain silo. Read: because they won't all ignite at once, they won't cause a shockwave, meaning their damage will pretty much only extend as far as the fire.

20-50m radius is still a ~120-300 foot diameter. That's a MASSIVE fireball.
 
Last edited:
At the time no one had explained just how insane the diameter on those things was. I am retroactively ruling that the team downsized them (cf character agency based on in-universe knowledge), since I doubt they would have said "Hey, let's make a whole ton of these things that are too big to use in any combat we've ever been in and cannot be thrown to minimum safe distance without an artificial assist."

Like I said, if you want to make ginormous ones you can. It'll only take a few minutes and a dozen or so explosives. The ones you have, however, are of a size that is reasonable to use in normal ninja fights.

We didn't even pack a few in the medium range? :( I'd figure 200-300 ft is a reasonable range for a ninja to throw, (as opposed to the close to a thousand a full size one would take) and we're definitely the sort of ninja who will happily envelop a building in flame just to improve our sightlines.
 
We didn't even pack a few in the medium range? :( I'd figure 200-300 ft is a reasonable range for a ninja to throw, (as opposed to the close to a thousand a full size one would take) and we're definitely the sort of ninja who will happily envelop a building in flame just to improve our sightlines.
Since when were macerators thousands of feet in diameter in their damage output? Do you have any math or sources to back that up? My understanding is that they'd be a lot more like the video below, which, while impressive, isn't anywhere close to 1000 feet in diameter.

 
We didn't even pack a few in the medium range? :( I'd figure 200-300 ft is a reasonable range for a ninja to throw, (as opposed to the close to a thousand a full size one would take) and we're definitely the sort of ninja who will happily envelop a building in flame just to improve our sightlines.

A ninja SHOULD be able to throw that far. Farthest javelin throw is 104.80 m. You can get a lot more force into a javelin than a kunai, but kunai weigh less and are also thrown by ninja with bullshit strength.
 
Also, keep in mind Macerators are directional, and so the fireball will be as well. I give ~50-50 odds of surviving holding a fire-log macerator out at arms length and setting it off.
 
Does anyone have any thoughts on riding the Pangolins into battle after Blue 1 is defeated?

How about creating like half a dozen earth clones and outfitting them with earth weapons, having them ride the chef into battle?

Can you say battle bus?

We will of course herald our arrival with all manner of fire and explosions.
 
Last edited:
We should outline our tactical and strategic goals and logic with our teammates. They know much more about their abilities and how they can contribute more effectively than we do.
 
Last edited:
We should outline our tactical and strategic goals and logic with our teammates. They know much more about their abilities and how they can contribute most effectively than we do.
Yes of course the first hour or so of this in character will be planning plotting debriefing and stern finger wagging accompanied by veiled threats
 
Yes of course the first hour or so of this in character will be planning plotting debriefing and stern finger wagging accompanied by veiled threats
Alongside some less-than-veiled threats so that our less-socially inclined teammates realize that something fucky is going on with our social-spec teammates.
 
Alongside some less-than-veiled threats so that our less-socially inclined teammates realize that something fucky is going on with our social-spec teammates.
Hazou's version of veiled is normal threats.

Hazou's version of unsubtle gets us a small riot.
 
Since when were macerators thousands of feet in diameter in their damage output? Do you have any math or sources to back that up? My understanding is that they'd be a lot more like the video below, which, while impressive, isn't anywhere close to 1000 feet in diameter.



Err, yes. That's what started this whole line of discussion.

Hmm, maybe I am a bit miscalibrated on ninja throwing strength then.

Let me double-check my intuitions:
  • Energy Content
    • Charcoal/Coal: 29.3 MJ/kg (source)
      • Effectively wood with the non-volatile elements removed, meaning no energy wasted on heating water and other non-flammable components of wood.
    • Hardwood (total): 14.9 MJ/kg (source)
    • Hardwood (macerated): 12 MJ/kg
      • My assumption is that it is significantly easier to extract energy from very finely powdered wood than logs. Most of the saved energy would come from not having to heat the water and other byproducts as much to propagate the combustion.
      • There's a decent chance this would be higher than the Hardwood total number, since we would skip over much of the non-volatile elements of the wood. I am, however, choosing to be conservative.
    • Hardwood (extractable): 10.4 MJ/kg (source)
    • TNT: 4.184 MJ/kg (source)
      • TNT holds its own oxygen and is optimized for stability as well as explosive power. Our energy content for the other fuel numbers above assumes that the fuel is burned with exposure to air and the oxygen in it, which the macerator will provide.
  • Macerator Storage Size: 100 kg
  • In Megatons of TNT per Macerator:
    • Megatons/Macerator = (x :: MJ/kg of substance) * (100 :: kg of substance/Macerator) * (1 / 4.184 :: kg of TNT/MJ) * (10-9​ :: Megatons / kg of TNT) = x * 2.4 * 10-8​
    • Coal: 7 * 10-7 ​Megatons/Macerator
    • Hardwood (total): 3.56 * 10-7 ​Megatons/Macerator
    • Hardwood (macerated): 2.86 * 10-7 ​Megatons/Macerator
    • Hardwood (extractable): 2.48 * 10-7 ​Megatons/Macerator
  • ~2 lbs per kg
  • Fema chart (source page 4-11):
    • Now that chart is meant for damage given buildings, glass and the like, but it's a good first pass?
Basically we are aiming for around 400-600 ft directly above the enemy team, while staying about 500-800 ft away from the enemy's location on the ground. This will fuck the enemy up without destroying the building or risking deadly injuries.

@eaglejarl: Does this sound reasonable for Keiko or the pangolin without a rod, atlatl, or the like?

Those numbers aren't the size of fireball just safe distance, and they're an overestimate since I forgot to take into account that the charts I cited are built around shrapnel and glass damage assumptions.

Plus a macerator distributes the particulates evenly into the target volume. Unlike the sawdust cannon, the entire fuel air mixture will be at near the optimal ratio for combustion. Also, all of it will combust at basically the same time, because the embers that act as ignition sources will be distributed throughout the target.

The fire-log macerators would be much more efficient than a sawdust cannon, probably by orders of magnitude.

Also, keep in mind Macerators are directional, and so the fireball will be as well. I give ~50-50 odds of surviving holding a fire-log macerator out at arms length and setting it off.

The directionality is a parameter, chosen at inscription time. The conic output doesn't really make sense for a number of use cases, including acting as a hiding in the mist analogue for Noburi's personal use, or attachment to a kunai. (Imagine a random cone with its origin on a kunai exploding, that extra variance is bad in a fight, since it's basically random whether that cone is even pointed at your enemy.)

The conic output was meant mostly for ejecting stone or shrapnel at high velocity.

The ability to choose between spherical and conic before infusion was part of the second round macerator specification.
 
Last edited:
Those numbers aren't the size of fireball just safe distance, and they're an overestimate since I forgot to take into account that the charts I cited are built around shrapnel and glad damage assumptions.
Those number estimates assume two critical things which I think are incorrect and both lead to vast overestimates of damage in your numbers.
  1. The numbers compare fire log total possible energy expenditure to explosive damage. However, explosives do a lot more in terms of damage than a fire log macerator would. Explosives create shockwaves and shrapnel, which cause the primary damage. Fire-log macerators do not cause this so far as I'm aware. They're more slow burn fireballs than instant explosives, as it takes time for the embers of the fire to hit dust and combust and hit more dust. It isn't some sort of compressed air explosive, and it doesn't have anything aside from naturally occuring air providing an oxidizing agent. Destructive power drops of immensely when you increase the amount of time the "explosion" can occur over. Based on video evidence of the phenomena we are replicating occurring, I'm pretty sure these things will "explode" over the course of ~5 seconds, rather than the milliseconds which TNT explodes over. I expect this to reduce the explosive energy output by ~2-5 orders of magnitude.
  2. The numbers assume 100% combustion. This seems unlikely, as you will be, at the very least, limited to the oxygen available in the area that the wood is released in and likely to hit inconsistencies with fuel-air mixtures in terms of mixing well. I expect this to reduce the energy released by about a factor of 2, in addition to number 1 above.
If you assume that all the energy of the log is instantly released, as in it immediately and entirely explodes, yes you do get that sort of damage. You wouldn't however, get any fire, which begs the question where the explosion is coming from. Fortunately, we actually have multiple sources of people doing exactly the sort of attack we're simulating, and so can use that to estimate the damage. It seems strange to rely on math built off faulty assumptions rather than video evidence of the thing we are doing.

Edit: related: this is why implosion seals are so deadly -- they don't rely on external reactions to gain their power, but instead get it from the act of being unseals, while fire-log macerators get their power from a chemical reaction afterwards.
 
Last edited:
Well, for one there will be ignition points spread throughout the entirety of the cloud. Rather than having to spread from one point the fireball will start simultaneously at thousands of points. Which will drastically increase the speed at which the explosion happens.

Basically, we do not have "multiple sources of people doing exactly the sort of attack we're simulating" because the sort of attack we're simulating is not possible with a sawdust cannon.
 
Last edited:
Well, for one there will be ignition points spread throughout the entirety of the cloud. Rather than having to spread from one point the fireball will start simultaneously at thousands of points.
That doesn't get around the issue of fuel-air mixture, which I'm pretty sure is the primary reason it takes a long time to ignite. Also, displaced tongues of fire are unlikely to ignite dust -- it's the heat that does that. As a macerator would mix up the hot and cold stuff, this will make the temperature much closer to the non-on-fire temperature than the on-fire temperature. Personally, I'd assume that ~half of the fire-log macerators we use will fail to ignite as they don't have a solid flame source to rely on but will instead need to be ignited by the embers of the fire hitting other embers.
 
Do firelog macerators eject the dust at speed or not? I think If it ejects it at speed it'll ensure a better fuel-air mixture. Maybe not enough to matter though.
 
Do firelog macerators eject the dust at speed or not? I think If it ejects it at speed it'll ensure a better fuel-air mixture. Maybe not enough to matter though.
I believe it ejects it at speed, which will be very similar to a sawdust cannon. In my mind, the best case scenario is that you get a fire that builds over the course of ~0.5 seconds in a reasonable sized area. However, that's still orders of magnitude more time than TNT takes to explode, and thus not going to make a shockwave or shrapnel, and thus not be relevant for the injury radius on the FEMA chart. Basically, it'll be a large ball of fire but with minimal impact outside the ball of fire, aside from the normal impacts of standing next to large flames.
 
The numbers compare fire log total possible energy expenditure to explosive damage. However, explosives do a lot more in terms of damage than a fire log macerator would. Explosives create shockwaves and shrapnel, which cause the primary damage. Fire-log macerators do not cause this so far as I'm aware.

Yes, hence why I stated up front that I had revised my estimates down from when I had written that initial estimate. I even did it for those exact reasons.


They're more slow burn fireballs than instant explosives, as it takes time for the embers of the fire to hit dust and combust and hit more dust. It isn't some sort of compressed air explosive, and it doesn't have anything aside from naturally occuring air providing an oxidizing agent. Destructive power drops of immensely when you increase the amount of time the "explosion" can occur over. Based on video evidence of the phenomena we are replicating occurring, I'm pretty sure these things will "explode" over the course of ~5 seconds, rather than the milliseconds which TNT explodes over. I expect this to reduce the explosive energy output by ~2-5 orders of magnitude.

I dispute 5 seconds, because of how macerators work it should be a lot faster. See the next bit, especially how ignition occours. I figure around half a second to a second. I did mention in a seperate post that more of the energy
would be released as radiative heat than my initial estimate.

The numbers assume 100% combustion. This seems unlikely, as you will be, at the very least, limited to the oxygen available in the area that the wood is released in and likely to hit inconsistencies with fuel-air mixtures in terms of mixing well. I expect this to reduce the energy released by about a factor of 2, in addition to number 1 above.

I agree with your first few points, hence me saying, in the post you quoted, that I revised those numbers down for the reasons you state.

But the whole point of macerators is that they evenly distribute particulates in a volume of air. They were designed to produce an even mixture with an even mass ratio of payload to air throughout. Getting very high efficiency for this use case was why I designed the macerators the way I did.

Ignition is also different than a traditional fuel air explosive, since instead of a single point of ignition and a blast wave that accelerates, we get a whole pile of simultaneous ignitions through the volume. This means we get lots of tiny little blast fronts that don't sum together. So again, we get a blunted shockwave.

I'm annoyed because none of this is new and was worked through before you even asked for the math, albeit over a series of posts.
 
Last edited:
Do firelog macerators eject the dust at speed or not? I think If it ejects it at speed it'll ensure a better fuel-air mixture. Maybe not enough to matter though.

According to the spec, they don't eject it at all. The dust just appears distributed in the air, the total volume of air it appears in and the speed the dust is moving when it appears can be varied by slightly tweaking the seal when it's written.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top