Question about Turbolasers

[keen320]

I figure this question has been addressed before, but I don't know what to search for or how to find the answer. Sorry I have to do a new topic.
Anyway:
Why don't Star wars turbolasers make huge explosions when they hit? They're supposed to be orders of magnitude more powerful than nukes, wouldn't the blast blind you at the least, or incinerate your retinas or something?

[BLACKSUN2000]

Yeah because particle beams behave exactly like nukes...oh wait...

Ask yourself somthing, when have you ever seen a turbolaser impact a planetary surface? Or anything quantifiable for that matter?

Exactly, there is no film evidence that contradicts it.

[Agent Sorchus]

This is rather hard to address, but I believe that the best answer is that you rarely see turbolasers firing on targets that are not shielded. Shield interaction is going to through off our expectations for shots significantly. The best shots we see of ships firing on unshielded targets is from ESB, and none of the shots are from the heavy guns. Rather all the shots come form the (hidden) light or medium weapons on the ship.

There most definitely is a flash from one shot. When the AT-AT's fire on the Hoth shield/power generator there is a flash and fireball, which are both quite visible at 17 kilometers.

Ask yourself somthing, when have you ever seen a turbolaser impact a planetary surface? Or anything quantifiable for that matter?

There are impacts on quantifiable asteroids in ESB, but the shots don't come form the big guns. It is more that the big guns must remain unquantified while we are quite certain of the lesser guns abilities. So really watch it with that sarcasm, it is making you say things you shouldn't.

[Professor Dire]

Also to consider is that DK's writers may have dialed the weapon yield a bit high for all the
ICS/VE books. There seemed to be some pretty big number that struck me as written large
to look scary to the reader.

I have read up some on the science of fission/fusion weapons in near vacuum and the same
limitations for newtonian drives play out very harshly for reaction warheads. In an atmosphere
the gassious envelope does a lot to harness energy forms that just project from the core.
These unimpeded forms of radiation have no opportunity to become mechanical or thermal
forces because there isn't enough matter around for them to excite.

[BLACKSUN2000]

Also to consider is that DK's writers may have dialed the weapon yield a bit high for all the
ICS/VE books. There seemed to be some pretty big number that struck me as written large
to look scary to the reader.

Right because you say so right?

Those numbers are fine. Yes you're right you can't tell the yield of those weapons ESPECIALLY in space.

[Darth Hoth]

Why don't Star wars turbolasers make huge explosions when they hit?

In the vacuum of space, explosions will look very different than on Earth, since there is no atmosphere. Also, one must consider the material properties of the target; magic sci-fi materials have thermal properties different from real-life such.

They're supposed to be orders of magnitude more powerful than nukes, wouldn't the blast blind you at the least, or incinerate your retinas or something?

The energy in an electromagnetic beam weapon is very tightly directed; this is the same reason as for why laser beams are not generally visible. So, you could have a very powerful beam and still do not cause much damage in other directions than the point of impact (although there will probably be some energy rflected from the target, and so on).

Yeah, conservation of energy doesn't even apply to them!

Why should it not?