StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Stas Bush wrote:

I'd love to see someone's reasoning as to why this power generation technology drops off six orders of magnitude's worth of efficiency (is efficiency the right word?) just because of scaling.

... Hmm.. Isn't nuclear power badly scalable in real life and requires large reactors to run? Perhaps hypermatter is somewhat the same in SW; this could explain fusion used for lesser shpips and small ground vehicles.

You can make a small nuclear reactor; by far the biggest space consumer in a nuclear power plant is all the stuff that supports the reactor, ie- the cooling systems etc. In fact, the electrical generators dwarf the reactors.

In any case, I seriously doubt it was an accident that the miniature power generators in the Trade Federation battleship in Episode 1 looked like scaled-down versions of the DS2 main reactor. It was intended to show that it's working on the same basic tech base.

In any case, I seriously doubt it was an accident that the miniature power generators in the Trade Federation battleship in Episode 1 looked like scaled-down versions of the DS2 main reactor. It was intended to show that it's working on the same basic tech base.

So then, yet less reasons to reject the facts. In fact, there are no reasons.

They just want to reject the numbers because they think this doesn't compute (just cause they are that bad at math, perhaps). I no longer want them to see any "truth", I'm tired.

Having spent years arguing with creationists, their tactics are quite familiar to me. They say one thing which makes no sense, and when challenged, they make up some rationalization to defend it, but this rationalization relies on another thing which doesn't make sense, so they make up a rationalization for that too, and you end up going around in circles.

And all the while, it's as obvious as the nose on your face that they don't have a day of science education past high school, but they think they're doing a really good job of covering that up.

Actually I was amazed reading you argue with Creationists, DW.

I mean, those people will cling to their BS no matter what arguments you present; there's no effect whatsoever, just wasted time. I wonder why you waste your time on a task so totally wasted by their own ignorance, even made impossible.

Same here. People who think this shit up, they don't want to arrive at any conclusions other than their pre-destined ones (Venator fuel consuption is wrong), thus whatever we argue and no matter how hard, I already see this being futile.

Screw the EU.

P.S. Oh, and who's this Erik guy? Another Dark Star incarnate? The WotC thread is hopelessly derailed; (I merely suppose that) Sarli would later close it and say that it was due to "contradictory posting" or whatnot, bullshit, because of his idiotic followers spewing out impossible bullshit right there and not stopping even after rebutted thorougly.

If they don't buy Dankaya, Caamas or Bothawui take a direct quote from SlaveShip and shove it up their ass.

FTeik, think we haven't quoted it yet? "Gigatonnage range explosions doesn't mean gigaton power". Yesh. If you're asking "what the fuck", so am I. What is this? Gigaton explosions and not gigaton powered guns?

But, but ... its from K.J.Weter. Not this dispicable Saxton-fellow.

Darth Wong wrote:

Master of Ossus wrote:

Vympel wrote:

One guy argued that you could destroy mines by collapsing the entrances, and you could destroy arable land by setting it on fire.

I love the way he claims that by targeting fault lines and volcanoes he can easily get the planet to do "30-80% of the work for you." In other words, he's going to get the planet, at a bare minimum, to release energy equivalent to some... 60 million Krakatoa eruptions.

You can't make this shit up.

He must have thought that Wing Commander was a scientific documentary.

Not even WC3 went around saying it was a general rule applicable to every planet. Of course even the idea itself in WC3 is pure bullshit but the idiot in question is taking the bullshit one step further.

Here's another gem: some moron over on that board apparently thinks that the ISD's reactor is wasteful and inefficient because... the ship doesn't need that much power except while it's in combat. What a backasswards way of looking at the thing. I guess he believes that the purpose of the reactor is to make sure the crew stays comfortable and not to deliver power to the guns and engines.

How the fuck does that make sense? Does he believe the power output of modern warships - the horsepower of their propellers - is always at maximum? Do coasting speeds reflect "waste"? What a retard.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:How the fuck does that make sense? Does he believe the power output of modern warships - the horsepower of their propellers - is always at maximum? Do coasting speeds reflect "waste"? What a retard.

It's really no more ridiculous than 99% of creationist arguments. Once you've seen how low the bar can go on anti-scientific bullshit, nothing surprises you any more.

Whats even worse is that IF we assume his position is accurate, it would mean the ships don't have ENOUGH power during a fight--when they need it the most. Hey buddy, you're a writer, not an engineer. Stop trying to think you're the latter because you just make a fool out of yourself.

ISD Captaian: divert power to shields and guns.

ISD flunky: sorry sir. The designers figured we only needed power sufficient for patroling.

Captain: If we survive this, I'm going to kill someone.

ISD Captaian: divert power to shields and guns.

ISD flunky: sorry sir. The designers figured we only needed power sufficient for patroling.

On a side note, I think that snipping their replies and preparating them is worthless as they never actually understand the arguments we present.

I challenged those who reject Saxton's calculations on fuel and firepower to provide a canon reason to do so and show their own mathematical model which works. I'm sure they won't show anything though...

It's not the total amount of energy used that's the problem.
It's the peak output that is the problem.

Consider what it means from an engineering perspective if you have a power plant that, 99.99% of the time is running at only 5%-10% of its capacity, even in the middle of combat, which is more or less what Saxton's numbers suggest a Star Destroyer is doing.

Any engineer who designed a power plant this way would end up being fired. It is massively inefficient to over-engineer to that degree, even for the Empire.

Odd. The A4W nuclear ractors in a Nimitz class carrier typically operate at only about 12% power. Yet Westinghouse didn't fire all their engineers. Its almost like this person has no idea what the heck they are talking about. But that can't be the case - if they didn't know anything they would defer to actual experts.

And people, when we are going back 10 years to old arguments, it helps to go back 10 years and get old refutations.

http://daltonator.net/fanfics/essays.html
you want ISD firepower Read throug, summarize, then apply. Don't copy paste.

And I skipped a lot of that, did no one bring up the Dondonna quote yet? Even with the starfleet consisting of 1 billion ships, the average peak power is 10^27 watts.

Stas Bush wrote:On a side note, I think that snipping their replies and preparating them is worthless as they never actually understand the arguments we present.

I challenged those who reject Saxton's calculations on fuel and firepower to provide a canon reason to do so and show their own mathematical model which works. I'm sure they won't show anything though...

Those kind of people never do. Math is a completely alien concept to them. They probably don't even know what a "mathematical model" is. They only understand two kinds of "models"; the kind you glue together and these.

I love the way the kiddie who has obviously never been within 500 yards of an actual engineering school is trying to explain how engineering is done. How typical of anti-science morons; these are the same fucktards who tell scientists that they don't understand how science is supposed to be done.

The really funny thing about his idiotic "no engineer would design something that runs at 1% capacity most of the time" argument is that he's posting it from a home internet connection which probably runs at less than 1% of its capacity most of the time. Internet surfing traffic is typically what engineers refer to as "bursty". When you're not actually downloading something, it's pretty much idle.

Real warships with nuclear reactors is a prime example. The idiot probably thinks that US and USSR must have routinely fired their engineers who made nuclear cruisers, submarines and carriers

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/cards/ ... ictory.jpg

oh, hey, look at that - a star destroyer (victory class at that) bombarding a planet from orbit, with explosions clearing the atmosphere and the surface glowing a nice molten sillicon-dioxide reddish orange.

oh, hey, look at that - a star destroyer (victory class at that) bombarding a planet from orbit, with explosions clearing the atmosphere and the surface glowing a nice molten sillicon-dioxide reddish orange.

Even if that's a moon, the amount and scale of damage done by that SD are hideous.

P.S. Does anyone has recoil shots from EIII/EI? How would a ship of 10^11 kg mass react to recoil equivalent to a gigaton (10^18j)?

Stas Bush wrote:

oh, hey, look at that - a star destroyer (victory class at that) bombarding a planet from orbit, with explosions clearing the atmosphere and the surface glowing a nice molten sillicon-dioxide reddish orange.

Even if that's a moon, the amount and scale of damage done by that SD are hideous.

P.S. Does anyone has recoil shots from EIII/EI? How would a ship of 10^11 kg mass react to recoil equivalent to a gigaton (10^18j)?

Dr Saxton briefly covers that on his engine page. They would act like thrusters yes, but positioning, sporadic firing, center of mass and scale of the craft and battlespace make it negligible.

Darth Wong wrote:I love the way the kiddie who has obviously never been within 500 yards of an actual engineering school is trying to explain how engineering is done.

That wasn't his fault! All the engineering schools in the country got that restraining order just to spite him!

How typical of anti-science morons; these are the same fucktards who tell scientists that they don't understand how science is supposed to be done.

The really funny thing about his idiotic "no engineer would design something that runs at 1% capacity most of the time" argument is that he's posting it from a home internet connection which probably runs at less than 1% of its capacity most of the time. Internet surfing traffic is typically what engineers refer to as "bursty". When you're not actually downloading something, it's pretty much idle.

Brilliant. May I borrow that?

Master of Ossus wrote:Here's another gem: some moron over on that board apparently thinks that the ISD's reactor is wasteful and inefficient because... the ship doesn't need that much power except while it's in combat. What a backasswards way of looking at the thing. I guess he believes that the purpose of the reactor is to make sure the crew stays comfortable and not to deliver power to the guns and engines.

Note to self: We should spread his names to every single engineering sch in the country where the moron resides. Lest he goes there and spouts such nonsense and send the faculty members to the local mad house. More importantly, never let him design a bridge. The bridge would collapse at the slightest twitch because the idiot for the engineer decided it a waste of resources to make sure the bridge could support any meaningful weight.

What the hell is he talking about? No idiot would complain about having too much of power.

Master of Ossus wrote:Brilliant. May I borrow that?

Sure.

Wasn't the Tsar Bomba 50MT, not 60MT?

OmegaGuy wrote:Wasn't the Tsar Bomba 50MT, not 60MT?

Correct, though originally there was some debate of whether it was 57 MT or 50 MT, but since then, almost all sources point to 50 MT.