Energy weapon impacts...

SF: discuss futuristic sci-fi series, ideas, and crossovers.

Moderator: NecronLord

ArX
Redshirt
Posts: 4
Joined: 2010-06-24 08:35am

Energy weapon impacts...

Post by ArX » 2010-06-28 01:49am

If we place some 20 kiloton nuke on the ground and blow it up I think we all know
the effect that have on the people around it but... What about energy weapons ?

What would be the effect of firing some 20 kiloton star wars blaster bolt or star
gate goauld "staff" bolt straight down at the surface of some planet ?

Would it make big nuke like explosion, or would the blast continue deep down
underground and only make minor bang on the surface ?

User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11409
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by Lord Revan » 2010-06-28 10:57am

there's no fast and simple way to answer this, it could be anything from a "nuke without the fallout" to a "laser drill" based on minor charecteristics of the weapon in question as for your examples both seem somewhere between the extremes I mentioned, meaning there would be major devastation but not quite to the same extent as a nuke of similar yield.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n

User avatar
GrandMasterTerwynn
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6772
Joined: 2002-07-29 06:14pm
Location: Somewhere on Earth.

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by GrandMasterTerwynn » 2010-06-28 11:41am

ArX wrote:If we place some 20 kiloton nuke on the ground and blow it up I think we all know
the effect that have on the people around it but... What about energy weapons ?

What would be the effect of firing some 20 kiloton star wars blaster bolt or star
gate goauld "staff" bolt straight down at the surface of some planet ?

Would it make big nuke like explosion, or would the blast continue deep down
underground and only make minor bang on the surface ?
It depends on the nature of the weapon, and if it employs any handwavium bullshit. If you shot an 83.68 terajoule laser at a planet, the effects will depend on the laser's frequency. Most useful laser wavelengths are heavily attenuated by the atmosphere. An X-ray or UV laser would uselessly expend all that energy high in the atmosphere. A near-infrared laser would make it all the way down . . . at which point you'd end up with a blast effect very much like a kiloton-range nuclear weapon, only without the radioactive fallout. (The laser would shred everything at its point of impact, creating a cloud of hot plasma. This cloud of hot plasma would go on to absorb the rest of the laser pulse and expand rapidly, generating a supersonic shockwave of superheated air.

tl;dr version: Twenty kiloton laser of an appropriate wavelength will make a big boom on the ground.

As for some handwavium plasma weapon, what happens depends on how deep into the atmosphere the bolt's magic containment field holds it together. So you'll either get a multi-kiloton energy release high up in the atmosphere; or closer to the ground where it can do some damage. If the magic containment field manages to hold the bolt together until it has penetrated the ground, then you'll have an underground energy release that will behave just like an underground nuclear initiation. Only without the highly radioactive byproducts.

Ryu
Youngling
Posts: 67
Joined: 2010-07-02 05:46pm

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by Ryu » 2010-07-06 11:42pm

20kt star wars blaster? Where in the hell did you get that ludicrous estimate? From Michael? He thinks the turbolaser is a thermal weapon, and it isn't. Any estimate he could make on the subject is therefore bunk by default.
My name is Ms. Anthropy. Hajimemashite.

One who believes bigger is better should try giving birth. An infant is the biggest thing that ever passes through there, but is it the most enjoyable experience?

Technological advancement isn't everything. (Yeah, I said it.) In fact, if two items perform exactly the same, one being more advanced is a bad thing. -Jeremy Williams

They say that the best weapon is one where you never have to fire it. I respectfully disagree; I prefer... the weapon you only have to fire once. -Tony Stark, "Iron Man"

User avatar
Ghost Rider
Spirit of Vengeance
Posts: 27779
Joined: 2002-09-24 01:48pm
Location: DC...looking up from the gutters to the stars

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by Ghost Rider » 2010-07-07 12:22am

Ryu wrote:20kt star wars blaster? Where in the hell did you get that ludicrous estimate? From Michael? He thinks the turbolaser is a thermal weapon, and it isn't. Any estimate he could make on the subject is therefore bunk by default.
If you want to refute said item, you just might want to put the proof forward rather then make empty accusations.
MM /CF/WG/BOTM/JL/Original Warsie/ACPATHNTDWATGODW FOREVER!!

Sometimes we can choose the path we follow. Sometimes our choices are made for us. And sometimes we have no choice at all

Saying and doing are chocolate and concrete

Ryu
Youngling
Posts: 67
Joined: 2010-07-02 05:46pm

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by Ryu » 2010-07-07 12:31am

Ghost Rider wrote:
Ryu wrote:20kt star wars blaster? Where in the hell did you get that ludicrous estimate? From Michael? He thinks the turbolaser is a thermal weapon, and it isn't. Any estimate he could make on the subject is therefore bunk by default.
If you want to refute said item, you just might want to put the proof forward rather then make empty accusations.
Give me some time to assemble evidence. How about I meet you and Michael Wong in a new thread in two weeks or concede the point? For purposes of clarification, this would mean I post before 9:30 (GMC-8) July 20, 2010.

EDIT: I would need his approval as well, before I start.
My name is Ms. Anthropy. Hajimemashite.

One who believes bigger is better should try giving birth. An infant is the biggest thing that ever passes through there, but is it the most enjoyable experience?

Technological advancement isn't everything. (Yeah, I said it.) In fact, if two items perform exactly the same, one being more advanced is a bad thing. -Jeremy Williams

They say that the best weapon is one where you never have to fire it. I respectfully disagree; I prefer... the weapon you only have to fire once. -Tony Stark, "Iron Man"

User avatar
adam_grif
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2755
Joined: 2009-12-19 08:27am
Location: Tasmania, Australia

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by adam_grif » 2010-07-07 04:12am

This isn't going to be pretty.

But I do believe we have a sub-forum specifically for such debates? The arena? The colloseum? Something like that.
A scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.

At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: 'What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.

The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, 'What is the tortoise standing on?'

'You're very clever, young man, very clever,' said the old lady. 'But it's turtles all the way down.'

User avatar
Teleros
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1544
Joined: 2006-03-31 02:11pm
Location: Ultra Prime, Klovia
Contact:

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by Teleros » 2010-07-07 06:23am

Terwynn - I wonder what the crater would be like afterwards. Smaller radius but deeper perhaps?

adam_grif - yes, it's the Coliseum.

Ryu - good luck :P .

User avatar
Ghost Rider
Spirit of Vengeance
Posts: 27779
Joined: 2002-09-24 01:48pm
Location: DC...looking up from the gutters to the stars

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by Ghost Rider » 2010-07-07 09:06am

Ryu wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:
Ryu wrote:20kt star wars blaster? Where in the hell did you get that ludicrous estimate? From Michael? He thinks the turbolaser is a thermal weapon, and it isn't. Any estimate he could make on the subject is therefore bunk by default.
If you want to refute said item, you just might want to put the proof forward rather then make empty accusations.
Give me some time to assemble evidence. How about I meet you and Michael Wong in a new thread in two weeks or concede the point? For purposes of clarification, this would mean I post before 9:30 (GMC-8) July 20, 2010.

EDIT: I would need his approval as well, before I start.
Or how about you demonstrate your proof?

I am not debating you. You made an empty claim, cited the wrong person, and thus in accordance to the rules of the board your are puttering on, have to back up your statement. You do understand this minor bit or are we going to have you bitch about your philosophical meanderings again?
MM /CF/WG/BOTM/JL/Original Warsie/ACPATHNTDWATGODW FOREVER!!

Sometimes we can choose the path we follow. Sometimes our choices are made for us. And sometimes we have no choice at all

Saying and doing are chocolate and concrete

User avatar
LaCroix
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4847
Joined: 2004-12-21 12:14pm
Location: Sopron District, Hungary, Europe, Terra

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by LaCroix » 2010-07-07 12:15pm

ArX wrote:What would be the effect of firing some 20 kiloton star wars blaster bolt or star
gate goauld "staff" bolt straight down at the surface of some planet ?
I'd love to see your proof for these yields. We have seen blaster rifles and Goauld staffs used and shot to the ground, resulting only in small craters and scorch marks. That's not even the equivalent of a kilogram TNT, lest a kiloTON.

If the Goauld staffs were kiloton range, and given the melee-stile attacks they do, every fight would be rather short, as the first hit on an enemy, the ground or a lonely tree results in a fireball which incinerates everything in a 100 m radius, and destroys all structures in a 2 km radius. Not even the Gliders show anything in the kiloton range.

Same for Blasters - the boarding scene would have zoomed out to a nice view of the Corellian Corvette exploding right after the first shots were fired if they were 20kiloTON

Hiroshima was done by a 15 kiloton bomb!

I assume you are confusing kilotons with kilojoules.
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay

I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.

Ryu
Youngling
Posts: 67
Joined: 2010-07-02 05:46pm

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by Ryu » 2010-07-07 03:06pm

LaCroix wrote:
ArX wrote:What would be the effect of firing some 20 kiloton star wars blaster bolt or star
gate goauld "staff" bolt straight down at the surface of some planet ?
I'd love to see your proof for these yields. We have seen blaster rifles and Goauld staffs used and shot to the ground, resulting only in small craters and scorch marks. That's not even the equivalent of a kilogram TNT, lest a kiloTON.

If the Goauld staffs were kiloton range, and given the melee-stile attacks they do, every fight would be rather short, as the first hit on an enemy, the ground or a lonely tree results in a fireball which incinerates everything in a 100 m radius, and destroys all structures in a 2 km radius. Not even the Gliders show anything in the kiloton range.

Same for Blasters - the boarding scene would have zoomed out to a nice view of the Corellian Corvette exploding right after the first shots were fired if they were 20kiloTON

Hiroshima was done by a 15 kiloton bomb!

I assume you are confusing kilotons with kilojoules.
He's referring to a turbolaser, and yes, that estimate is several orders of magnitude too high even with that.
My name is Ms. Anthropy. Hajimemashite.

One who believes bigger is better should try giving birth. An infant is the biggest thing that ever passes through there, but is it the most enjoyable experience?

Technological advancement isn't everything. (Yeah, I said it.) In fact, if two items perform exactly the same, one being more advanced is a bad thing. -Jeremy Williams

They say that the best weapon is one where you never have to fire it. I respectfully disagree; I prefer... the weapon you only have to fire once. -Tony Stark, "Iron Man"

Ryu
Youngling
Posts: 67
Joined: 2010-07-02 05:46pm

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by Ryu » 2010-07-07 03:09pm

Ghost Rider wrote:
Ryu wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:If you want to refute said item, you just might want to put the proof forward rather then make empty accusations.
Give me some time to assemble evidence. How about I meet you and Michael Wong in a new thread in two weeks or concede the point? For purposes of clarification, this would mean I post before 9:30 (GMC-8) July 20, 2010.

EDIT: I would need his approval as well, before I start.
Or how about you demonstrate your proof?

I am not debating you. You made an empty claim, cited the wrong person, and thus in accordance to the rules of the board your are puttering on, have to back up your statement. You do understand this minor bit or are we going to have you bitch about your philosophical meanderings again?
Again, give me some time. I'll post a several thousand word essay on the matter. Until then, I have to gather images for comparison, and write a decent multi-paragraph essay, as I intend to try to combat Michael Wong's essay on the issue.
My name is Ms. Anthropy. Hajimemashite.

One who believes bigger is better should try giving birth. An infant is the biggest thing that ever passes through there, but is it the most enjoyable experience?

Technological advancement isn't everything. (Yeah, I said it.) In fact, if two items perform exactly the same, one being more advanced is a bad thing. -Jeremy Williams

They say that the best weapon is one where you never have to fire it. I respectfully disagree; I prefer... the weapon you only have to fire once. -Tony Stark, "Iron Man"

Ryu
Youngling
Posts: 67
Joined: 2010-07-02 05:46pm

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by Ryu » 2010-07-07 03:10pm

Teleros wrote:adam_grif - yes, it's the Coliseum.[/quote

Shit, this is going to be nasty.
Ryu - good luck :P .
I'm going to need it...
My name is Ms. Anthropy. Hajimemashite.

One who believes bigger is better should try giving birth. An infant is the biggest thing that ever passes through there, but is it the most enjoyable experience?

Technological advancement isn't everything. (Yeah, I said it.) In fact, if two items perform exactly the same, one being more advanced is a bad thing. -Jeremy Williams

They say that the best weapon is one where you never have to fire it. I respectfully disagree; I prefer... the weapon you only have to fire once. -Tony Stark, "Iron Man"

User avatar
GrandMasterTerwynn
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6772
Joined: 2002-07-29 06:14pm
Location: Somewhere on Earth.

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by GrandMasterTerwynn » 2010-07-07 03:21pm

Ryu wrote:He's referring to a turbolaser, and yes, that estimate is several orders of magnitude too high even with that.
Hello little sockpuppet. I can't help but notice that this is the second time you've made this assertion without really offering to back it up. You've been asked to demonstrate your proof once already.
Again, give me some time. I'll post a several thousand word essay on the matter. Until then, I have to gather images for comparison, and write a decent multi-paragraph essay, as I intend to try to combat Michael Wong's essay on the issue.
What, and give you the chance to obfuscate by dumping a steaming pile of bullshit that we'll have to sift through to work out what your points actually are? Or give you the chance to run away and hide and hope people forget before returning to snipe once more? How about you start laying out your argument right now?

Ryu
Youngling
Posts: 67
Joined: 2010-07-02 05:46pm

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by Ryu » 2010-07-07 03:29pm

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:
Ryu wrote:He's referring to a turbolaser, and yes, that estimate is several orders of magnitude too high even with that.
Hello little sockpuppet. I can't help but notice that this is the second time you've made this assertion without really offering to back it up. You've been asked to demonstrate your proof once already.
Again, give me some time. I'll post a several thousand word essay on the matter. Until then, I have to gather images for comparison, and write a decent multi-paragraph essay, as I intend to try to combat Michael Wong's essay on the issue.
What, and give you the chance to obfuscate by dumping a steaming pile of bullshit that we'll have to sift through to work out what your points actually are? Or give you the chance to run away and hide and hope people forget before returning to snipe once more? How about you start laying out your argument right now?
In both cases, no. But, considering what I'm up against is an essay that obviously took time, and Since my nearest posting opportunity will be 2 weeks from now, I reckon that's fair enough. I'll see you then, and goodbye.
My name is Ms. Anthropy. Hajimemashite.

One who believes bigger is better should try giving birth. An infant is the biggest thing that ever passes through there, but is it the most enjoyable experience?

Technological advancement isn't everything. (Yeah, I said it.) In fact, if two items perform exactly the same, one being more advanced is a bad thing. -Jeremy Williams

They say that the best weapon is one where you never have to fire it. I respectfully disagree; I prefer... the weapon you only have to fire once. -Tony Stark, "Iron Man"

User avatar
Ghost Rider
Spirit of Vengeance
Posts: 27779
Joined: 2002-09-24 01:48pm
Location: DC...looking up from the gutters to the stars

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by Ghost Rider » 2010-07-07 03:31pm

Ryu wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:
Ryu wrote:Give me some time to assemble evidence. How about I meet you and Michael Wong in a new thread in two weeks or concede the point? For purposes of clarification, this would mean I post before 9:30 (GMC-8) July 20, 2010.

EDIT: I would need his approval as well, before I start.
Or how about you demonstrate your proof?

I am not debating you. You made an empty claim, cited the wrong person, and thus in accordance to the rules of the board your are puttering on, have to back up your statement. You do understand this minor bit or are we going to have you bitch about your philosophical meanderings again?
Again, give me some time. I'll post a several thousand word essay on the matter. Until then, I have to gather images for comparison, and write a decent multi-paragraph essay, as I intend to try to combat Michael Wong's essay on the issue.
Oooooooooor, you could get to the heart of the matter and demonstrate the math behind why you think Brian(note the link...the writer is not Mike) was off. And do you have even the slightest clue what an order of magnitude is?

I mean if he was that far off, it would as simple as going his values for iron, the amount of joules he used, any number of things. Your blithering of some monster essay with pictures and such not aren't needed if the man made this egregious an error.
MM /CF/WG/BOTM/JL/Original Warsie/ACPATHNTDWATGODW FOREVER!!

Sometimes we can choose the path we follow. Sometimes our choices are made for us. And sometimes we have no choice at all

Saying and doing are chocolate and concrete

Ryu
Youngling
Posts: 67
Joined: 2010-07-02 05:46pm

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by Ryu » 2010-07-07 03:36pm

Ghost Rider wrote:
Ryu wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote: Or how about you demonstrate your proof?

I am not debating you. You made an empty claim, cited the wrong person, and thus in accordance to the rules of the board your are puttering on, have to back up your statement. You do understand this minor bit or are we going to have you bitch about your philosophical meanderings again?
Again, give me some time. I'll post a several thousand word essay on the matter. Until then, I have to gather images for comparison, and write a decent multi-paragraph essay, as I intend to try to combat Michael Wong's essay on the issue.
Oooooooooor, you could get to the heart of the matter and demonstrate the math behind why you think Brian(note the link...the writer is not Mike) was off. And do you have even the slightest clue what an order of magnitude is?

I mean if he was that far off, it would as simple as going his values for iron, the amount of joules he used, any number of things. Your blithering of some monster essay with pictures and such not aren't needed if the man made this egregious an error.
Yes, but the thing is that I need to prove my opinion, that the typical blaster is a kinetic weapon, not a thermal one. This will take longer. While it is true that I could write up a more than sufficient essay in two days, I won't be able to post again for two weeks. It isn't as simple as a clalculation, I need more comprehensive proof to get past all the flying sparks and scorch marks.
My name is Ms. Anthropy. Hajimemashite.

One who believes bigger is better should try giving birth. An infant is the biggest thing that ever passes through there, but is it the most enjoyable experience?

Technological advancement isn't everything. (Yeah, I said it.) In fact, if two items perform exactly the same, one being more advanced is a bad thing. -Jeremy Williams

They say that the best weapon is one where you never have to fire it. I respectfully disagree; I prefer... the weapon you only have to fire once. -Tony Stark, "Iron Man"

User avatar
LaCroix
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4847
Joined: 2004-12-21 12:14pm
Location: Sopron District, Hungary, Europe, Terra

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by LaCroix » 2010-07-07 04:37pm

Ryu wrote:
LaCroix wrote:
*snip*

Hiroshima was done by a 15 kiloton bomb!

I assume you are confusing kilotons with kilojoules.
He's referring to a turbolaser, and yes, that estimate is several orders of magnitude too high even with that.
[/quote]

BULLSHIT! He is using the term BLASTER, which is a teerm only used for hand-held weapon, and he uses it in the same sentence with a Goauld Staff, which is also a hand weapon.

I won't dogpile you on the Turbolaser bullshit, as the other posters have this well under control
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay

I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.

Ryu
Youngling
Posts: 67
Joined: 2010-07-02 05:46pm

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by Ryu » 2010-07-07 04:42pm

LaCroix wrote:
Ryu wrote:
LaCroix wrote:
*snip*

Hiroshima was done by a 15 kiloton bomb!

I assume you are confusing kilotons with kilojoules.
He's referring to a turbolaser, and yes, that estimate is several orders of magnitude too high even with that.
BULLSHIT! He is using the term BLASTER, which is a teerm only used for hand-held weapon, and he uses it in the same sentence with a Goauld Staff, which is also a hand weapon.

I won't dogpile you on the Turbolaser bullshit, as the other posters have this well under control[/quote]

Yes, but Brian's essay, from which he got the number, was about turbolasers.

And no, there are some weapons mounted on starfighters referred to as "blaster" cannons.
My name is Ms. Anthropy. Hajimemashite.

One who believes bigger is better should try giving birth. An infant is the biggest thing that ever passes through there, but is it the most enjoyable experience?

Technological advancement isn't everything. (Yeah, I said it.) In fact, if two items perform exactly the same, one being more advanced is a bad thing. -Jeremy Williams

They say that the best weapon is one where you never have to fire it. I respectfully disagree; I prefer... the weapon you only have to fire once. -Tony Stark, "Iron Man"

User avatar
Norade
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2424
Joined: 2005-09-23 11:33pm
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by Norade » 2010-07-07 04:58pm

LaCroix wrote:BULLSHIT! He is using the term BLASTER, which is a teerm term only used for hand-held weapon, and he uses it in the same sentence with a Goauld Staff, which is also a hand weapon.

I won't dogpile you on the Turbolaser bullshit, as the other posters have this well under control
Actually the term blaster is used in terms of star ship weaponry you ignorant retard. Look up the main armament of a Z-95 headhunter some time.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...

User avatar
LaCroix
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4847
Joined: 2004-12-21 12:14pm
Location: Sopron District, Hungary, Europe, Terra

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by LaCroix » 2010-07-07 05:29pm

Norade wrote: Actually the term blaster is used in terms of star ship weaponry you ignorant retard. Look up the main armament of a Z-95 headhunter some time.
My bad, then. Still, the use of "blaster" and "Goauld staff" in the same sentence and as exchangeable devices implies that he was talking about hand held weapons.
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay

I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.

User avatar
Captain Seafort
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1698
Joined: 2008-10-10 11:52am
Location: Blighty

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by Captain Seafort » 2010-07-07 05:50pm

LaCroix wrote:My bad, then. Still, the use of "blaster" and "Goauld staff" in the same sentence and as exchangeable devices implies that he was talking about hand held weapons.
As with "blaster", "staff weapon" is used as a generic term for anything from a Jaffa's personal weapon to the main armament of a Ha'tak, and the example of a 20 kT weapon makes it pretty clear (at least to me) that the question wasn't about specific weapons, but your generic sci-fi energy bolt.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe - Albert Einstein

User avatar
Norade
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2424
Joined: 2005-09-23 11:33pm
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by Norade » 2010-07-07 05:53pm

Captain Seafort wrote:
LaCroix wrote:My bad, then. Still, the use of "blaster" and "Goauld staff" in the same sentence and as exchangeable devices implies that he was talking about hand held weapons.
As with "blaster", "staff weapon" is used as a generic term for anything from a Jaffa's personal weapon to the main armament of a Ha'tak, and the example of a 20 kT weapon makes it pretty clear (at least to me) that the question wasn't about specific weapons, but your generic sci-fi energy bolt.
You're not the only one, that was what sprang to mind when I saw it as well.

As for what they might look like, I would guess a deeper but not so wide crater followed by much the same effects as a large scale explosive device. That said, I'm no expert on these things so I could be 100% wrong.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27289
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by NecronLord » 2010-07-07 09:00pm

LaCroix wrote:I'd love to see your proof for these yields. We have seen blaster rifles and Goauld staffs used and shot to the ground, resulting only in small craters and scorch marks. That's not even the equivalent of a kilogram TNT, lest a kiloTON.

If the Goauld staffs were kiloton range, and given the melee-stile attacks they do, every fight would be rather short, as the first hit on an enemy, the ground or a lonely tree results in a fireball which incinerates everything in a 100 m radius, and destroys all structures in a 2 km radius. Not even the Gliders show anything in the kiloton range.

Same for Blasters - the boarding scene would have zoomed out to a nice view of the Corellian Corvette exploding right after the first shots were fired if they were 20kiloTON

Hiroshima was done by a 15 kiloton bomb!

I assume you are confusing kilotons with kilojoules.
As mentioned above, the phrase 'staff cannon' has been applied to goa'uld ship-borne armaments by various people including magazines not to mention the technical site run by various people here (back in the day) - goa'uld staff can easily be imagined to include kiloton range armaments given that. For example, Apophis' super-ship's main guns would count as such a thing.

He also used the term in quotation marks; suggesting he was referring to the type of blast, which was visually and audibly similar on motherships.


As for the actual question, I think that's been adequately answered but I should note that actual goa'uld weapons seem to have a reasonable kinetic component, somehow. So it's possible that a goa'uld staff blast would generate a larger earthquake and crater than an equivalent nuke.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
LaCroix
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4847
Joined: 2004-12-21 12:14pm
Location: Sopron District, Hungary, Europe, Terra

Re: Energy weapon impacts...

Post by LaCroix » 2010-07-08 05:11am

I stand corrected.

Anyway, a blaster bolt like that entering the atmosphere should result in an effect like a huge lightning strike - a column of ultra-bright ionized air, possible resulting in a column of fire around it, hitting the ground and erupting in a huge fireball, pressure wave and mushroom cloud. The sound must be awesome - the mother of all thunder-claps, followed by the growl of the actual impact.

I agree that the Goauld weapon would definitely leave the deeper crater and less fireball, and probably would "detonate" underground after penetrating a good bit.

Thus, I assume the destruction caused by 'staff bolt' would be not as widespread, but more severe at the point of impact, while a blaster bolt would be between the staff and a real nuke in terms of destruction, as a bomb is much better suited to cause area effects.
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay

I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.

Locked