Some clarification on weapon effects related to yield...

[Flight Recorder]

I've seen a few Trekkie arguments on the net discounting high-level yields of some ship weaponry on the basis that they don't show "explosions that would amount to a high yield weapon". They were given the example of Slave I's front cannons and their energy output... then dismissed them because they didn't vape Obi-Wan on the landing platform, nor caused any significant damage.

But I'd just like some clarification on the nature of starfighter weaponry. I know they don't act like a bomb would when hitting a target, but if it is for example stated in the megaton range, then what actually shows it in the megaton range? If hitting a solid, non-shielded target (like the landing platform) in Episode II, then where does that energy go?

[wookieeloaf]

laser cannons are not designed for area damage they are designed to focus all their power directly where they hit.And it looks like it pierced holes straight through the platform.And him getting blownn into the air was just excess power.

And p.s their biased trekkie fanboys try to ignore them

[Ted C]

It's entirely like that blasters and turbolasers, being directed energy weapons, have the same sort of energy adjustment capability you might find in... oh... phasers. That said, it wouldn't be prudent for Boba Fett unleash megaton-range firepower from his ships weapons onto a platform on which his father was standing. He presumably dialed the power output of the weapons down to an anti-personnel setting.

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

Basically, what shows it as being in the megaton range is that it does an amount of work that could only be done by megatons' worth of energy.

The classic trek-example is the Reliant's phasers, from The Wrath of Khan, cutting a trench out of the side fo the Enterprise; Assuming the Enterprise was made of titanium, work out the amount of energy required to vapourise a cubic metre of titanium, multiply that by the amount of hull melted away and divide by the length of time it took, and there's the power output.

In that case, I think it turned out to require as much energy as a nine kiloton bomb going off, every second. Rock is very difficult to vapourise, we're talking about achieving temperatures sufficient to turn silicon to gaseous form here, so the outputs are large.

Another problem is how heat propagates. If the structure happens to be very thermally conductive, which something designed to resist energy weapons damned well ought to be (or landing jets for that matter)- then you could simply be trying to heat too large a mass for it to do much at all;

this number is plucked off the top of my head, don't take it as gospel- but it's quite possible Jango was firing on full power, and the pad's heat management systems meant the only result he got was to heat the cubic kilometre of ocean nearest to the station (where the thermal management system dumps waste heat), by about 0.01 degC.

[Simon_Jester]

On the other hand, if you pump that much energy into a solid target, I'd expect to get a lot of spalling and explosive heating off the surface; it really ought to be more impressive than "BZZZT" and suddenly there's a glowing trench in a solid metal plate. If nothing else, the material immediately around it should be absorbing enough energy that thermal expansion would break it up. My armor may be able to survive being heated to 500° C just fine, granted, but can it survive being heated by 500°C in under a millisecond?

For me, it's a bit troubling...

[BLACKSUN2000]

Assuming the Enterprise was made of titanium, work out the amount of energy required to vapourise a cubic metre of titanium, multiply that by the amount of hull melted away and divide by the length of time it took, and there's the power output.

Mike's Sw vs ST in 5 minutes page say that phasers are chain reaction weapons. So aren't using their power to do all the work in the "vaporising".

[Simon_Jester]

Debatable. The chain reaction effect doesn't seem to work as well against metal or rock as it does against organic matter (hand phasers that can disintegrate a grown man only scorch or pockmark a metal plate). And it seems to work exceptionally well against a gaseous target (I recall one instance where they were actually worried about what would happen if they put too much power into their phasers on a wide-angle setting because the chain reaction could blow the atmosphere off the planet).

So if there's a chain reaction effect from phasers, it's quite possible that Trek armor is selected for material properties that make it resistant to that reaction. I know I'd try to make it out of something that wouldn't fall apart entirely the moment a phaser touched it.

[Batman]

On the other hand, if you pump that much energy into a solid target, I'd expect to get a lot of spalling and explosive heating off the surface; it really ought to be more impressive than "BZZZT" and suddenly there's a glowing trench in a solid metal plate. If nothing else, the material immediately around it should be absorbing enough energy that thermal expansion would break it up. My armor may be able to survive being heated to 500° C just fine, granted, but can it survive being heated by 500°C in under a millisecond?
For me, it's a bit troubling...

Well we ARE dealing with materials with pretty insane capabilities here. Also, you have to remember that we rarely if ever actually see a full power fighter-scale leave alone capship hit up close. It's usually either infantry-scale/dialed down fighter weapons (the aforementioned Slave 1 landing platform scene), hits on shields (fighter combat) or a distant look at something on the target going OOMPF some way.

Mike's Sw vs ST in 5 minutes page say that phasers are chain reaction weapons. So aren't using their power to do all the work in the "vaporising".

Debatable. The chain reaction effect doesn't seem to work as well against metal or rock as it does against organic matter (hand phasers that can disintegrate a grown man only scorch or pockmark a metal plate).

Yet the same hand phaser can phasorize a largish cooking pot.

And it seems to work exceptionally well against a gaseous target (I recall one instance where they were actually worried about what would happen if they put too much power into their phasers on a wide-angle setting because the chain reaction could blow the atmosphere off the planet).

That phaser effectiveness is decidedly dependant on target density is not news, nor is the fact that they're apparently a lot less eficient gainst metal. That DOESN'T mean they act brute force against starship hulls/'armour' (IIRC we actually see hull phasourisation once or twice in DS9, though I don't have episodes handy ATM).

So if there's a chain reaction effect from phasers, it's quite possible that Trek armor is selected for material properties that make it resistant to that reaction. I know I'd try to make it out of something that wouldn't fall apart entirely the moment a phaser touched it.

*Doesn't fall apart' isn't quite the same thing as 'blithely ignores NDF'. SOME, quite possibly A LOT of the destruction phasers do against starship hulls is likely DET, but they do indeed very likely NOT do all of their damage the old-fashioned way.

[BLACKSUN2000]

Yet the same hand phaser can phasorize a largish cooking pot.

correct. I can't remember the name of the TNG episode but there was an incident where they caused a material to burn with their phasers that required very high temperature to melt. I'll look up the episode as soon as I can.

Riker led an away team to the surface of some planet and they were running around a scrapyard and got ambushed.

*Doesn't fall apart' isn't quite the same thing as 'blithely ignores NDF'. SOME, quite possibly A LOT of the destruction phasers do against starship hulls is likely DET, but they do indeed very likely NOT do all of their damage the old-fashioned way.

That's what I was trying to say...They don't do all of their damage via DET.