Redcloak may have passed Chem, but...

[Geordnet]

:redcloak: "[Ti Elementals] are just as strong [as Earth Elementals] and 40% lighter." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0423.html)

Density of Stone: (http://geology.about.com/cs/rock_types/a/aarockspecgrav.htm) ~2.8 g/cm3

Density of Titanium: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium) 4.5 g/cm3


...He flunked materials science. :smalltongue:

[ryu]

Depends. Are they taking up the same size category? Perhaps the titanium elemental is slightly hollow?

[Steward]

He's evil. Self-aggrandizing lies are part and parcel. :D

[137beth]

But the density of the Earth is closer to 5.5 g/cm^3. Titanium is closer to 20% lighter than Earth.

Yes, I noticed this the first time I read the strip:smalltongue:
And yea, the answer is probably that they are slightly different sizes.

[Geordnet]

But the density of the Earth is closer to 5.5 g/cm^3.
That's almost entirely because 35% of the earth's mass is concentrated in the extremely dense Fe-Ni core. The "Earth" that is under consideration is really just the crust, which is ~3 g/cm3 (http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~mstrick/AskGeoMan/geoQuerry57.html)

Now, if Redcloak had summoned Aluminum Elementals instead, (2.7 g/cm3) that'd be different... :smallwink:

(Personally though, I would have gone with something like Magnesium, at 1.738 g/cm3... Or better yet, Lithium (0.535 g/cm3) with some Resist Acid enchantments.)

[Knaight]

That's almost entirely because 35% of the earth's mass is concentrated in the extremely dense Fe-Ni core. The "Earth" that is under consideration is really just the crust, which is ~3 g/cm3 (http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~mstrick/AskGeoMan/geoQuerry57.html)

Now, if Redcloak had summoned Aluminum Elementals instead, (2.7 g/cm3) that'd be different... :smallwink:

(Personally though, I would have gone with something like Magnesium, at 1.738 g/cm3... Or better yet, Lithium (0.535 g/cm3) with some Resist Acid enchantments.)

Given that the silicon elemental looked like sand, I don't see why we are assuming pure titanium. For one thing, pure titanium is quite soft (as is generally the case with pure metals, including iron), and thus would behave very differently when colliding with a wall. Thus, it is entirely possible that there is some sort of complex lattice structure, made in an titanium alloy that is full of open spaces. If it is only as strong as stone, that much is basically required.

[Amphiox]

How do we know that a regular Earth Elemental is made of pure stone?

For all we know, it has an iron-nickel skeleton, semi-liquid magma bodily fluids and internal organs, and a basalt-granite skin, just like the actual earth, and has a similar density of about 5.5.

[Fishman]

For that matter, how do we know that a Titanium Elemental is the same size as an Earth Elemental? It may be possible that an Earth Elemental is stone, but that the equivalent-strength Titanium Elemental is still lighter because it requires less Titanium Elemental to achieve the same effect despite its greater density.

Frankly, we have to figure that Redcloak knows what he's talking about: There's not really any useful information we can extract that outright contradicts him.

[7RED7]

It's not about the density, it's about how much of it you need to get the same job done and what the resulting difference in mass is.
Hence why I wasn't cheating by using more obscure aircraft aluminum alloys in an old finite element analysis project instead of the go-to steels when we were told "haha, you're not allowed to use titanium to beat the mass restriction on this bracket".

[Yendor]

Figures in the SRD suggest an earth elemental weighs about 2.5-2.7 times as much as a water elemental of the same size. If we assume it's the same shape, its density would be that of a typical stone. For Redcloak's "40% lighter" claim, he'd have to go to something like calcium or rubidium, which are reactive, but too soft. Beryllium is slightly denser, but much harder. I'm not sure how well it would work for smashing things, though.

[DaveMcW]

Compressive Strength of Granite: (http://webpages.sdsmt.edu/~lstetler/merlot/rock_mechanics.htm) ~200 MPa

Compressive Strength of Titanium: (http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MTP641) ~970 MPa

So you need 4.85 times as much rock to achieve the same strength.

If we assume an earth elemental's innate magic gives it ~1.8 times the strength of normal rock, we get:

200 / 2.8 * 1.8 = 129 final strength

And if we take 60% of the earth elemental's mass in titanium, we get:

970 / 4.5 * 0.6 = 129 final strength

Just as strong, and 40% lighter!

[Vargtass]

Thanks, DaveMcW! Points for extra effort! I approve, and now does not have to repeat your analysis (or Redcloaks).

[Amphiox]

Compressive Strength of Granite: (http://webpages.sdsmt.edu/~lstetler/merlot/rock_mechanics.htm) ~200 MPa

Compressive Strength of Titanium: (http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MTP641) ~970 MPa

So you need 4.85 times as much rock to achieve the same strength.

If we assume an earth elemental's innate magic gives it ~1.8 times the strength of normal rock, we get:

200 / 2.8 * 1.8 = 129 final strength

And if we take 60% of the earth elemental's mass in titanium, we get:

970 / 4.5 * 0.6 = 129 final strength

Just as strong, and 40% lighter!

Should we assume then that the amount of magical energy that is used to strengthen the earth elemental by the 1.8 factor is used up in the titanium elemental to make up for titanium being a more difficult material to obtain or shape into an elemental?

[F.Harr]

Compressive Strength of Granite: (http://webpages.sdsmt.edu/~lstetler/merlot/rock_mechanics.htm) ~200 MPa

Compressive Strength of Titanium: (http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MTP641) ~970 MPa

So you need 4.85 times as much rock to achieve the same strength.

If we assume an earth elemental's innate magic gives it ~1.8 times the strength of normal rock, we get:

200 / 2.8 * 1.8 = 129 final strength

And if we take 60% of the earth elemental's mass in titanium, we get:

970 / 4.5 * 0.6 = 129 final strength

Just as strong, and 40% lighter!

I had a web of responces up to this point. Then I decided that this settles the issue pretty-well. Earth elementals are probably bigger and thus weigh more.

I think this whole elemental Elemental thing might be something Redcloak cooked-up after his first chem class when he saw that there was just this huge gaming FLAW in how people were doing things. Typical teenaged behavior, I think. Good for him, though, he added something to setting.

[Gift Jeraff]

Compressive Strength of Granite: (http://webpages.sdsmt.edu/~lstetler/merlot/rock_mechanics.htm) ~200 MPa

Compressive Strength of Titanium: (http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MTP641) ~970 MPa

So you need 4.85 times as much rock to achieve the same strength.

If we assume an earth elemental's innate magic gives it ~1.8 times the strength of normal rock, we get:

200 / 2.8 * 1.8 = 129 final strength

And if we take 60% of the earth elemental's mass in titanium, we get:

970 / 4.5 * 0.6 = 129 final strength

Just as strong, and 40% lighter!

They're not rocks, they're minerals.

[Tiiba]

Granite is a rock.

[zero]

(...)
Just as strong, and 40% lighter!

LOL! So I happen to be a Mechanical Engineering professor. You sir, just got an extra credit :smallbiggrin:

[King of Nowhere]

Only thing I don't like in that calculation is that 1.8 factor, which is completely arbitrary and made only to get the result right.
I think redcloak was comparing titanium to iron. In that sense, there are surely many titanium alloys that are strong as steel and 40% lighter. the comparison with an earth elemental is a bit inappropriate maybe.

[F.Harr]

"Granite is a rock."

Not only that, it's a metamorphic rock!

I got passing grades, too.

[Draz74]

"Granite is a rock."

Not only that, it's a metamorphic rock!

I got passing grades, too.

No, granite is igneous. Its metamorphic version is gneiss.

[F.Harr]

No, granite is igneous. Its metamorphic version is gneiss.

I wouldn't have gotten this wrong back in the eighties.

:(

[Fan67]

Only thing I don't like in that calculation is that 1.8 factor, which is completely arbitrary and made only to get the result right.

I beg to differ!

The calculations in question made upon hypothesis that Redcloak has some ranks in Knowledge (what the hell he is talking about), so given the Density values from the initial post of this topic DaveMcW provided adequate formulas to second Redcloak's point.

So the 1,8 factor is no more arbitrary than 2.8 density value of the rock in question. Given another rock density, this factor would be adjusted to give the same result.

[Procyonpi]

This thread is incredibly nerdy and I love it.

[Geordnet]

If we assume an earth elemental's innate magic gives it ~1.8 times the strength of normal rock
*cough*thatscheating*cough*

The point about strength/weight ratios is well made, though. And we might have evidence that very dense Elementals might be hollow, since that Osmium Elemental didn't sink into the rock with each step... :smalltongue:

[F.Harr]

This thread is incredibly nerdy and I love it.

Ain't it just.

By the way, I have a spreadsheet that converts metric to non-metric units.

You know, in case you don't like megapascals.

[lio45]

I beg to differ!

The calculations in question made upon hypothesis that Redcloak has some ranks in Knowledge (what the hell he is talking about), so given the Density values from the initial post of this topic DaveMcW provided adequate formulas to second Redcloak's point.

So the 1,8 factor is no more arbitrary than 2.8 density value of the rock in question. Given another rock density, this factor would be adjusted to give the same result.

Exactly.

If you want to nitpick, you could also say that DaveMcW's choice of 100% granite for the Earth Elemental is also arbitrary.

The point is, it's easy to show using all the real world facts about all the relevant materials that a Stickverse Earth Elemental -- whatever THAT is made of exactly -- CAN very well weigh (meaning that's it's very possible) ~167% of a Stickverse Titanium Elemental of the exact same strength. (Note that no one said in comic that their sizes were absolutely identical, so there's also flexibility there.)

I'd approach that from the exact same angle as DaveMcW and others: I would assume Redcloak is right, and the conclusion (the composition and size of a Stickverse Earth Elemental) would follow as to satisfy the premise.

[Goosefeather]

Granite is a rock.

"They're not rocks, they're minerals" is a reference (to Breaking Bad) :smalltongue:

[King of Nowhere]

I beg to differ!

The calculations in question made upon hypothesis that Redcloak has some ranks in Knowledge (what the hell he is talking about), so given the Density values from the initial post of this topic DaveMcW provided adequate formulas to second Redcloak's point.

So the 1,8 factor is no more arbitrary than 2.8 density value of the rock in question. Given another rock density, this factor would be adjusted to give the same result.

Yes, exactly: it is a factor that is made up just to get the right result. It is not a phisical constant, nor a parameter to be fitted. The job I'm doing involves a lot of mathematical fitting of experimental data, and I could never get away with just introducing factors just to get the right result.
we were trying to fit the equation [[density of titanium]/[compressive strenght titanium]]/[[density of rock]/[compressive srenght rock]]=x, where x is the mass of an amount of titanium required to have the same strenght of a rock of mass 1. except we already know x, it was provided in the comic to be 0.6, so the calculation don't add. so a new arbitrary parameter y is included, to make the calculation work. and that y turns out to be 1.8. but what we did was just to fit y, an arbitrary parameter that was introduced just to fix a calculation that wouldn't work otherwise.
Except I'm just now thinking that several times in the story of science an arbitrary parameter was added to fix a theoretical calculation to the real physical phenomenon, and it was later discovered that this arbitrary parameter actualy dependds on some other physical phenomenon that wasn't known at the time. So I won't completely deny the possibility of its existence. I'll just say that my papers would never, ever pass a peer review if I made my data fit in such a way.

Also, if we're having a nerdhood contest, i intend to show what I've got :smallbiggrin:

[Jay R]

It's not a dirt elemental or a rock elemental, it's an earth elemental. The appropriate density is that of the earth, which is mostly iron/nickel.

[hamishspence]

In our world, yes- we don't necessarily know the composition of the OoTS world. Sometimes planets in a D&D setting are hollow.

There's four elemental planes- each with a fairly even overall density and apparently infinite size. Earth elementals are native to the Plane of Earth- which may not closely resemble any particular Material Plane planet in overall composition.

[Tiiba]

"They're not rocks, they're minerals" is a reference (to Breaking Bad) :smalltongue:

Thordammitsomuch.

[lio45]

Yes, exactly: it is a factor that is made up just to get the right result. It is not a phisical constant, nor a parameter to be fitted. The job I'm doing involves a lot of mathematical fitting of experimental data, and I could never get away with just introducing factors just to get the right result.
we were trying to fit the equation [[density of titanium]/[compressive strenght titanium]]/[[density of rock]/[compressive srenght rock]]=x, where x is the mass of an amount of titanium required to have the same strenght of a rock of mass 1. except we already know x, it was provided in the comic to be 0.6, so the calculation don't add. so a new arbitrary parameter y is included, to make the calculation work. and that y turns out to be 1.8. but what we did was just to fit y, an arbitrary parameter that was introduced just to fix a calculation that wouldn't work otherwise.
Except I'm just now thinking that several times in the story of science an arbitrary parameter was added to fix a theoretical calculation to the real physical phenomenon, and it was later discovered that this arbitrary parameter actualy dependds on some other physical phenomenon that wasn't known at the time. So I won't completely deny the possibility of its existence. I'll just say that my papers would never, ever pass a peer review if I made my data fit in such a way.

Also, if we're having a nerdhood contest, i intend to show what I've got :smallbiggrin:


Actually, as I said, the way I see it is this. (Putting my previous post in an equation. The variables in blue can all vary in order to make Redcloak right.)


[[density of titanium]*[volume of Ti elemental]/[compressive strength titanium]]/[[density of whatever exact mix of rocks a standard EE is made of in Rich's universe]*[volume of standard Earth Elemental/[compressive strength of whatever exact mix of rocks an EE is made of]]=0.6


And if we'd rather take JayR's opinion that Rich's Standard Stickverse Earth Elemental is made of Earth, we have:

[[density of titanium]*[volume of Ti elemental]/[compressive strength titanium]]/[[density of our Earth]*[volume of standard Earth Elemental/[compressive strength of the mix of rocks our Earth is made of]]=0.6


Redcloak said Ti elementals were 40% lighter for the same strength, so assuming he's right, then the Ti elementals he summoned were somewhat smaller physically, in order to be 40% lighter.

We've never seen a TiE and an EE side by side, so I don't see why a TiE and EE of the exact same strength would ALSO happen to have the exact same size.

[Geordnet]

Yes, exactly: it is a factor that is made up just to get the right result.

I'd approach that from the exact same angle as DaveMcW and others: I would assume Redcloak is right, and the conclusion (the composition and size of a Stickverse Earth Elemental) would follow as to satisfy the premise.

Given another rock density, this factor would be adjusted to give the same result.
This is the textbook definition of Begging the Question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question), a huge logical fallacy. That sort of invalid logic could be used to "prove" anything, which means it proves nothing.



If you want to nitpick, you could also say that DaveMcW's choice of 100% granite for the Earth Elemental is also arbitrary.

So the 1,8 factor is no more arbitrary than 2.8 density value of the rock in question.
There is a huge difference between arbitrarily choosing an approximation of an unknown constant to test a theory, and adding an entirely new term specifically to validate your desired conclusion.

Miko would be proud... :smallamused:



Now, could we get back to discussing this in a more reasonable manner? Here is a list of arguments which might explain the discrepancy:

Ti elementals might be smaller than Earth elementals for the same value of "strength".
Ti elementals might be hollow.
Earth elementals might be denser than normal rock (presumed density 5.5 g/cm3, just like Earth).
Redcloak was just wrong.


The biggest counter-argument for A is that the Ti elementals still looked Huge+ in-comic, bringing into suspect whether they could really be launched farther than boulders.

Counter-arguments for C include the greater density requiring that Earth elementals be significantly smaller than same-size-category Water elementals, and this still failing to address how the Ti elementals flew farther than boulders.


Personally, I'm thinking the answer might be B now...

[Lorin]

[[density of titanium]*[volume of Ti elemental]/[compressive strength titanium]]/[[density of whatever exact mix of rocks a standard EE is made of in Rich's universe]*[volume of standard Earth Elemental/[compressive strength of whatever exact mix of rocks an EE is made of]]=0.6

What are we doing here? We are discussing a comedic fantasy webcomics of course! Why are you asking?

[Jay R]

In our world, yes- we don't necessarily know the composition of the OoTS world. Sometimes planets in a D&D setting are hollow.

There's four elemental planes- each with a fairly even overall density and apparently infinite size. Earth elementals are native to the Plane of Earth- which may not closely resemble any particular Material Plane planet in overall composition.

Yes, but we now know that Titanium elementals are 40% less dense than whatever earth elementals are made of.

[lio45]

This is the textbook definition of Begging the Question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question), a huge logical fallacy. That sort of invalid logic could be used to "prove" anything, which means it proves nothing.

Not at all... because in this case, we're not trying to prove that Redcloak is right, we're trying to prove that Redcloak CAN be right (in other words: that there are enough remaining flexible variables in canon for his statement to be possibly true).




Now, could we get back to discussing this in a more reasonable manner? Here is a list of arguments which might explain the discrepancy:

Ti elementals might be smaller than Earth elementals for the same value of "strength".
Ti elementals might be hollow.
Earth elementals might be denser than normal rock (presumed density 5.5 g/cm3, just like Earth).
Redcloak was just wrong.


Our point (actually, I don't want to presume and speak for others, so let's make that MY point, but I nonetheless suspect it's our point) is precisely that you can scratch the fourth item off that list, because the three ones above it (or any combination of them) are possible.


Edit:


What are we doing here?

Competing with our Italian friend in that nerdhood contest... :D





Yes, but we now know that Titanium elementals are 40% less dense than whatever earth elementals are made of.

Actually, unless I'm mistaken, we don't know anything about respective densities, just that a TiE sized to be "just as strong" is ~40% lighter than an EE.

[Geordnet]

Not at all... because in this case, we're not trying to prove that Redcloak is right, we're trying to prove that Redcloak CAN be right (in other words: that there are enough remaining flexible variables in canon for his statement to be possibly true).
Um, what? :smallconfused:

You don't need to prove that...



Our point (actually, I don't want to presume and speak for others, so let's make that MY point, but I nonetheless suspect it's our point) is precisely that you can scratch the fourth item off that list, because the three ones above it (or any combination of them) are possible.
ERROR: non sequitur. Does not compute. :smalleek:

[lio45]

Um, what? :smallconfused:

You don't need to prove that...



ERROR: non sequitur. Does not compute. :smalleek:


You might want to read the OP (your OP) again.

[King of Nowhere]

Actually, as I said, the way I see it is this. (Putting my previous post in an equation. The variables in blue can all vary in order to make Redcloak right.)


[[density of titanium]*[volume of Ti elemental]/[compressive strength titanium]]/[[density of whatever exact mix of rocks a standard EE is made of in Rich's universe]*[volume of standard Earth Elemental/[compressive strength of whatever exact mix of rocks an EE is made of]]=0.6


Yes, but I took the volumes out of the equation because they are not really independent variables. redcloak clearly states that titanium elementals are "just as strong", and that means [Volume titanium]*[strenght titanium]=[volume earth]*[strenght earth]

Now, making calculations on a screen without wiritng them on a piece of paper and with very long names is quite dificult, so I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the end result simplifies to my equation. After all, in this calculation, we are not intersted in the absolute volume of the elementals, but only in their ratio, and that can be calculated easily by the respective strenght.

this means that yes, they have different volumes (or one of them is hollow, which I count as equivalent to having different volume for the sake of this calculation)

So, getting down to it


Now, could we get back to discussing this in a more reasonable manner? Here is a list of arguments which might explain the discrepancy:

Ti elementals might be smaller than Earth elementals for the same value of "strength".
Ti elementals might be hollow.
Earth elementals might be denser than normal rock (presumed density 5.5 g/cm3, just like Earth).
Redcloak was just wrong.



A and B do not explain anything really. just because titanium elementals have a smnaller full volume, that do not imply that at a volume when they are of equal strenght, the titanium one wheights 40% less. And D would be totally anticlimatic.
So I'd just go for C. After all, there are so many kinds of rock, and no indication as to what it may refer. Just because granite is the most common rock on the litosphere, it means nothing for the composition of an elemental. Also, we took compressive strenght. there are just many more definitions of strenght.
I say that if an earth elemental is made mostly of iron, and they are the same size, then redcloak statement is correct enough. But on the other hand there's magic involved, so it is possible the "strenght" of an elemental is not related to the young's modulus of the material it is made of, otherwise air elementals would be absolutely pointless.
That last statement brings me to the conclusion that elementals are empowered by narrativium (see the science of discworld for an exaustive discussion on narrativium). Basically, their strenght comes not from the material, but from what we associate with such material. we associate air with tornadoes, so air elemental have destructive tornado-like power. We associate earth with stability and resistance, so earth elementals are tough and strong. We associate titanium with high-tech low-wheight alloys, so titanium elementals are lighter.


What are we doing here? We are discussing a comedic fantasy webcomics of course! Why are you asking?
Because it is FUN! Liking that kind of discussion is exactly what makes me a nerd.

[Rakoa]

Dear Lord below, the urge to give all of you wedgies is overpowering me.

[Geordnet]

You might want to read the OP (your OP) again.
Error at synapse: 0xc52b858b

...No, seriously, you're just speaking nonsense now. :smallmad:



Yes, but I took the volumes out of the equation because they are not really independent variables. redcloak clearly states that titanium elementals are "just as strong", and that means [Volume titanium]*[strenght titanium]=[volume earth]*[strenght earth]
(Unsupported assumption highlighted.)

What we know is that the Ti elementals looked pretty big; consistent with the way Rich draws Huge creatures. They certainly seemed at least as big as the boulders that wouldn't have reached the walls if launched from the same catapults (implying that the Ti elementals were lighter than similar-sized boulders).


Now, making calculations on a screen without wiritng them on a piece of paper and with very long names is quite dificult, so I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the end result simplifies to my equation. After all, in this calculation, we are not intersted in the absolute volume of the elementals, but only in their ratio, and that can be calculated easily by the respective strenght.
Which is a valid way of doing it, provided you make your assumptions clear (which you did).


I still find the one hole in your arguments to be the fact that you didn't take into account the fact that perfectly normal, non-elemental boulders were out of range of the walls, and ergo implied to be heavier than the Ti elementals.

[lio45]

Yes, but I took the volumes out of the equation because they are not really independent variables. redcloak clearly states that titanium elementals are "just as strong", and that means [Volume titanium]*[strenght titanium]=[volume earth]*[strenght earth]

I don't agree that it automatically means that.

"Just as strong" means "just as strong", not "exactly as big".

Why couldn't it mean that part of the reason Ti elementals are actually quite a bit lighter is because they don't need to be exactly as big to be "just as strong"?



FYI: strength. That was my free contribution to your next English Language Skill Point. ;)

(I'm no native speaker either, and I won't improve unless people point this sort of thing out to me, so I'm treating others like I want to be treated.)

[lio45]

Error at synapse: 0xc52b858b

...No, seriously, you're just speaking nonsense now. :smallmad:

Dude.
Your OP concludes that Redcloak's wrong.

Several people have found ways to explain how Redcloak CAN be right.

You then called that Begging the Question.

Begging the Question would be "I assume Redcloak is right, and (chain of reasoning) that leads me to conclusion: Redcloak is right."

What was done instead was "I assume Redcloak is right, and it does not lead me automatically to a contradiction, so Redcloak CAN be right".

That's as on topic as can be...

[malloyd]

Um, it was immediately obvious to me that this number comes from the common rule that titanium whatsits are 40% lighter than ordinary whatsits that turns up in any number of games make your weapons or armor out of unusual materials rules.

The number appears to come from modern steel parts being replaced with a Ti part with the same tensile strength. Which is probably why Redcloak has "just as strong" in there, it's likely the phrasing in the rules set the number was pulled from.

[veti]

(Personally though, I would have gone with something like Magnesium, at 1.738 g/cm3... Or better yet, Lithium (0.535 g/cm3) with some Resist Acid enchantments.)

From what I remember, those two metals are not only extremely soft, but also have a distressing very entertaining tendency to react violently in contact with water. Even if you rule that "Protection from Acid" would prevent this, it would only last a few rounds after someone emptied a bucket of water over their heads.

If there's one thing Malack's fate should have taught us, it's: if you're going to have a fatal vulnerability to something, make it something rare. Superman is vulnerable to kryptonite - good choice, incredibly rare. The Wicked Witch of the West was vulnerable to water, and look what happened to her.

[Amphiox]

No, granite is igneous. Its metamorphic version is gneiss.

Very nice!

[Amphiox]

So the 1,8 factor is no more arbitrary than 2.8 density value of the rock in question. Given another rock density, this factor would be adjusted to give the same result.

Basically what we have here is a bit of world building. Based on observed data (and on the assumption that the observations are accurate, ie Redcloak is not wrong), we have generated an equation with two variables, one being the density of an Earth Elemental and the other being the Magic-Strengthening Coefficient.

(There is also the assumption that the sizes of the two elementals are the same, and that Titanium in the stickverse possesses the same density as titanium in the real universe, of course).

Naturally the Magic Coefficient can be anything (it's magic). But the density of the Earth Elemental is actually constrained. We may not know what it is exactly, but we know what range it will fall into. From this we can determine the range of the Magic Coefficient in the Stickverse. That number can be used in the future with additional data to derive more nerdly insight into how magic works in the Stickverse....

[137beth]

From what I remember, those two metals are not only extremely soft, but also have a distressing very entertaining tendency to react violently in contact with water. Even if you rule that "Protection from Acid" would prevent this, it would only last a few rounds after someone emptied a bucket of water over their heads.

If there's one thing Malack's fate should have taught us, it's: if you're going to have a fatal vulnerability to something, make it something rare. Superman is vulnerable to kryptonite - good choice, incredibly rare. The Wicked Witch of the West was vulnerable to water, and look what happened to her.
On the other hand, having a Lithium elemental blow up on top of the castle wall would be very, very good for Redcloak. Extended Protection from Acid only needs to last long enough for the elementals to reach the wall.

[Amphiox]

From what I remember, those two metals are not only extremely soft, but also have a distressing very entertaining tendency to react violently in contact with water. Even if you rule that "Protection from Acid" would prevent this, it would only last a few rounds after someone emptied a bucket of water over their heads.

Water? Who needs water? Those two metals have a only slightly less spectacularly violent reaction with air.....

[Amphiox]

On the other hand, having a Lithium elemental blow up on top of the castle wall would be very, very good for Redcloak. Extended Protection from Acid only needs to last long enough for the elementals to reach the wall.

For that purpose a Cesium Elemental would work even better.

[137beth]

For that purpose a Cesium Elemental would work even better.

Cesium is substantially heavier than Lithium, though.

Then again, its still lighter than Titanium, so RC's catapults should be able to handle it!

[Geordnet]

Dude.
Your OP concludes that Redcloak's wrong.

Several people have found ways to explain how Redcloak CAN be right.
Ok, before you were saying "that Redcloak can be right", not "how Redcloak can be right". These are two distinct things, with a very important difference between them.

Trying to prove the former is pointless, since the mere fact that I have made a logical argument that Redcloak is not right implies that I think the alternative is a viable option to begin with.


Begging the Question would be "I assume Redcloak is right, and (chain of reasoning) that leads me to conclusion: Redcloak is right."

I would assume Redcloak is right, and the conclusion (the composition and size of a Stickverse Earth Elemental) would follow as to satisfy the premise.
Your logic there reads "Redcloak is right -> composition is such -> Redcloak is right ". If that logic isn't circular, then I've got a ticket to R'lyeh to sell you.


What was done instead was "I assume Redcloak is right, and it does not lead me automatically to a contradiction, so Redcloak CAN be right".
Which proves exactly nothing that wasn't already assumed. :smalltongue:



From what I remember, those two metals are not only extremely soft, but also have a distressing very entertaining tendency to react violently in contact with water. Even if you rule that "Protection from Acid" would prevent this, it would only last a few rounds after someone emptied a bucket of water over their heads.
First off, I said Resist Acid, which would last until it expired. Second, Magnesium just kind of bubbles a bit after long-term submersion, so there's no worries there.

Finally, how many buckets of water do you think are laying around on the walls? :smallamused:



From this we can determine the range of the Magic Coefficient in the Stickverse. That number can be used in the future with additional data to derive more nerdly insight into how magic works in the Stickverse....
Yes, we must derive the Universal Thaumaturgical Constant! :smallbiggrin:


Water? Who needs water? Those two metals have a only slightly less spectacularly violent reaction with air.....
Only at high temperatures, though (i.e., in very strong fires). There's a Resist spell for that, too. :smallwink:

[Amphiox]

Finally, how many buckets of water do you think are laying around on the walls? :smallamused:

If this is your standard fortress prepared to defend an assault, they should have lots of buckets of boiling oil and water ready to go on the walls.

However, if we are already considering uses for these elementals that exploit their chemistry, beyond "go and kill those guys", there are plenty of other uses that could be applied.

You could set up an array of say 10 Lithium and Manganese elementals and create and giant battery for augmenting your spellcasters' lightning spells, for example. (The same array could also be positioned to be a lightning rod that will absorb all lighting thrown in your direction by the enemy, and store the charge for your spellcasters to throw back at the enemy, too.)

[Knaight]

It's not a dirt elemental or a rock elemental, it's an earth elemental. The appropriate density is that of the earth, which is mostly iron/nickel.
The phrase "earth" also has a secondary meaning that routinely encompasses soil. An earth elemental could be dirt just as easily as an imitation of "the earth", with rock making a lot of sense as highly compact soil*.

*A remarkably incomplete definition of rock to be sure, but the idea of rocks as soil but harder and better does fit the more ancient, pre-scientific view of elements that Redcloak was avoiding.

[Tryfan]

Depends. Are they taking up the same size category? Perhaps the titanium elemental is slightly hollow?

So far this seems to be the most sensible suggestion - that the Ti elemental could be hollow. When making things that size out of metal they tend to be hollow, I can't think of any metallic structural element more than a few inches across that would be solid (I beams etc thicknesses are not more than that). Lead counterweights possibly but they're not really structural.

Earth on the other hand - from earth dams through to castle walls making a solid structure a few feet thick out of rock/rubble/earth is pretty common.

[gerryq]

A big lump of lithium would react violently with water, releasing hydrogen which would ignite. That's not a problem with magnesium. Also, while thin strips of magnesium burn brightly in air, big lumps of it are hard to ignite. (Steel wool burns a bit in air too, for that matter, but generally we just worry about steel things rusting over time.)

All that said, I would suggest that Ti elementals and the rest are simply variant forms of Earth elementals with slightly different properties, and perhaps an affinity to certain types of earth in the case of e.g. silicon elementals.

The chlorine elemental could be a specialised type of air elemental. (The mercury elemental has not been seen yet.)

[Hamste]

Compressive Strength of Granite: (http://webpages.sdsmt.edu/~lstetler/merlot/rock_mechanics.htm) ~200 MPa

Compressive Strength of Titanium: (http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MTP641) ~970 MPa

So you need 4.85 times as much rock to achieve the same strength.

If we assume an earth elemental's innate magic gives it ~1.8 times the strength of normal rock, we get:

200 / 2.8 * 1.8 = 129 final strength

And if we take 60% of the earth elemental's mass in titanium, we get:

970 / 4.5 * 0.6 = 129 final strength

Just as strong, and 40% lighter!


Now the question is why doesn't the titanium elemental have this innate magic to make it stronger? Or atleast why it has it to a lesser extent.

[F.Harr]

If there's one thing Malack's fate should have taught us, it's: if you're going to have a fatal vulnerability to something, make it something rare. Superman is vulnerable to kryptonite - good choice, incredibly rare. The Wicked Witch of the West was vulnerable to water, and look what happened to her.

Oh, yeah. A good lesson to learn.


If this is your standard fortress prepared to defend an assault, they should have lots of buckets of boiling oil and water ready to go on the walls.

However, if we are already considering uses for these elementals that exploit their chemistry, beyond "go and kill those guys", there are plenty of other uses that could be applied.

You could set up an array of say 10 Lithium and Manganese elementals and create and giant battery for augmenting your spellcasters' lightning spells, for example. (The same array could also be positioned to be a lightning rod that will absorb all lighting thrown in your direction by the enemy, and store the charge for your spellcasters to throw back at the enemy, too.)

That is really creative.

Anyway, back to the point:

We KNOW Redcloak was right because we SAW him be right. We have experimental evidence that the TiE are as strong as EE at .4 the weight. What there is to do now is figure out HOW what passes for facts in the OotSvers came about. Are EE's made of dirt? Maybe. Are they made out of a representative sample of every element on planet OotS? Maybe. Are they being created from the Plane of Earth? Maybe. Is there some factor that we, as yet, don't know that could be at work? Probably.

Many things are possible because this isn't our world, just a parody of a game invented in our world.

Also, The TiE is probably as big as the EE for the reach. But likely not as dense, perhaps hollow.

"Now the question is why doesn't the titanium elemental have this innate magic to make it stronger? Or atleast why it has it to a lesser extent."

Maybe because it's just one type of element rather than a bunch.

[crayzz]

ρ(Fe)=7.874
ρ(Ti)=4.506

ρ(Ti)/ρ(Fe) = 4.506/7.874 = 0.5722 ~ 0.6

I always assumed it was just a play on the properties of Titanium. Titanium is used because it's just as strong as iron, but about 40% lighter.

[Ghost Nappa]

I came to the OP expecting something about him failing Physics or Literature or something.

Turns out it was a thread on calculating the properties of Titanium relative to a similar yet distinct summoned creature of unknown size and composition (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Earth_Elemental).

You couldn't have just said "He probably failed Social Studies." NOOO, that would have been too easy...

[King of Nowhere]

Originally Posted by King of Nowere View Post
Yes, but I took the volumes out of the equation because they are not really independent variables. redcloak clearly states that titanium elementals are "just as strong", and that means [Volume titanium]*[strenght titanium]=[volume earth]*[strenght earth]
I don't agree that it automatically means that.

"Just as strong" means "just as strong", not "exactly as big".

Why couldn't it mean that part of the reason Ti elementals are actually quite a bit lighter is because they don't need to be exactly as big to be "just as strong"?



FYI: strength. That was my free contribution to your next English Language Skill Point. ;)

(I'm no native speaker either, and I won't improve unless people point this sort of thing out to me, so I'm treating others like I want to be treated.)
YEs, that's implied by my equation: that they are likely to be of different sizes, because if titanium is stronger than a same amount of earth, then it takes less to be "just as strong". a smmaller size could be achieved by having the titanium elemental shorter, thinner, or hollow, whatever.

Also, thanks for the contribution to my language skills, but I'm likely to forget it soon. the position of the "h"s in a word is the one thing of english I could never get right.

[F.Harr]

YEs, that's implied by my equation: that they are likely to be of different sizes, because if titanium is stronger than a same amount of earth, then it takes less to be "just as strong". a smmaller size could be achieved by having the titanium elemental shorter, thinner, or hollow, whatever.



OR! They could have whipped it up like egg-whites.

[Knaight]

ρ(Fe)=7.874
ρ(Ti)=4.506

ρ(Ti)/ρ(Fe) = 4.506/7.874 = 0.5722 ~ 0.6

I always assumed it was just a play on the properties of Titanium. Titanium is used because it's just as strong as iron, but about 40% lighter.

Calling it just as strong as iron is a bit of an oversimplification. For one thing, iron is basically only used in alloys of some sort, which have wildly varying strengths, for another there's the matter of tensile strength vs. compressive strength, shear resistance, etc. These don't consistently line up well.

[Techwarrior]

I know when I read that strip, I made no assumption about the compressive strength of either one. I assumed they just had the same Strength score, and that in the physical description found in the Monster Manual for each one, the average weight of a Titanium Elemental was 40% less than that of an Earth Elemental.

Just a thought.

[crayzz]

Calling it just as strong as iron is a bit of an oversimplification. For one thing, iron is basically only used in alloys of some sort, which have wildly varying strengths, for another there's the matter of tensile strength vs. compressive strength, shear resistance, etc. These don't consistently line up well.

I'm aware.

From wikipedia: "In its unalloyed condition, titanium is as strong as some steels, but 45% lighter."

As strong as alloyed iron, 40% lighter. Yeah, it's more complicated than that. but it's basically an accurate summary of why engineers choose titanium over iron. Similarly, redcloak chose titanium over earth, hence speaking to the affect of, "just as strong; 40% lighter."

[lio45]

YEs, that's implied by my equation

I saw that, but my point was that I don't agree that your equation is valid in this case.

It's valid (and it does imply the volumes) if we declare that "just as strong" means "the amount of force needed to punch through it is the same, so the thicknesses are in the inverse ratio of the material strengths, and the volumes are in the same ratio as the thicknesses".

The way I see it, though, is that when Redcloak says "just as strong", he means "can do the same things, not more, not less".

In other words, Techwarrior's words in fact (he did ninja me on that point), "just as strong" means the two creatures have the same STR score.

[F.Harr]

I saw that, but my point was that I don't agree that your equation is valid in this case.

It's valid (and it does imply the volumes) if we declare that "just as strong" means "the amount of force needed to punch through it is the same, so the thicknesses are in the inverse ratio of the material strengths, and the volumes are in the same ratio as the thicknesses".

The way I see it, though, is that when Redcloak says "just as strong", he means "can do the same things, not more, not less".

In other words, Techwarrior's words in fact (he did ninja me on that point), "just as strong" means the two creatures have the same STR score.

I can't see what else it would mean in a game paredy context.

[warrl]

Also, thanks for the contribution to my language skills, but I'm likely to forget it soon. the position of the "h"s in a word is the one thing of english I could never get right.

"ht" is somewhat unusual in English. And when it does occur, usually either the letters are in different syllables ("hightower") or the h is silent along with the g that is just before it ('height") - or both. Actually I can't think of a word (as opposed to an acronym or abbreviation) exception to that... but English is such a cacographic chaos (http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j17/caos.php), I know better than to say there aren't any. (And probably someone will point out a facepalming-obvious one.)

"th" is quite a bit more common, being the most common way of spelling two common sounds (the initial sounds of "thin" and "then").

[F.Harr]

"ht" is somewhat unusual in English. And when it does occur, usually either the letters are in different syllables ("hightower") or the h is silent along with the g that is just before it ('height"). Actually I can't think of a word (as opposed to an acronym or abbreviation) exception to that... but English is such a cacographic chaos (http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j17/caos.php), I know better than to say there aren't any.

"th" is quite a bit more common, being the most common way of spelling two common sounds (the initial sounds of "thin" and "then").

I believe those two sounds are allophones. So, yeah. Also, it's not a chaotic mess. It's a loosely-structured mess. A system of systems, as one author put it.

[Amphiox]

I came to the OP expecting something about him failing Physics or Literature or something.

Turns out it was a thread on calculating the properties of Titanium relative to a similar yet distinct summoned creature of unknown size and composition (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Earth_Elemental).

You couldn't have just said "He probably failed Social Studies." NOOO, that would have been too easy...

Well, we can surmise from how he handled his hobgoblins that he probably did fail Social Studies. But it also appears that he's a quick on-the-job learner....

[hopeful1212]

"ht" is somewhat unusual in English. And when it does occur, usually either the letters are in different syllables ("hightower") or the h is silent along with the g that is just before it ('height") - or both. Actually I can't think of a word (as opposed to an acronym or abbreviation) exception to that... but English is such a cacographic chaos (http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j17/caos.php), I know better than to say there aren't any. (And probably someone will point out a facepalming-obvious one.)

"th" is quite a bit more common, being the most common way of spelling two common sounds (the initial sounds of "thin" and "then").

OK, here you go: "yacht" :smallcool:

But, yeah, you're right in general.

[Geordnet]

OK, here you go: "yacht" :smallcool:
That 'h' is still only there as part of the digraph "ch", so it's the same case as "gh".

[malloyd]

I believe those two sounds are allophones.

No, difference in voicing. There aren't many minimal pairs, but there are a few - teeth/teethe and either/ether are the usual examples.

Incidentally, English uses a following h in a lot of places another language might use an accent mark instead, or invent an entirely new letter. The digraphs th, sh, ch, and wh all use it that way, as do ph, rh, and zh, found mostly in borrowed words.

[F.Harr]

No, difference in voicing.

That wouldn't make them not allophones.


There aren't many minimal pairs, but there are a few - teeth/teethe and either/ether are the usual examples.

THAT would make them not allophones. Good point.


Incidentally, English uses a following h in a lot of places another language might use an accent mark instead, or invent an entirely new letter. The digraphs th, sh, ch, and wh all use it that way, as do ph, rh, and zh, found mostly in borrowed words.

So? English and Dutch are the only two modern languages I know that use the Roman alphabet without adornment other than j, v (as a separate letter), w and z.