More Trektardism

[DogsOfWar]

Why does the SW.com databank have the DS1 at 120km and the DS2 at 160km if the later is really supposed to be >900km?. Does any official material directly support this figure?

Old numbers die hard. Witness the SSD...

[Darth Servo]

Why does the SW.com databank have the DS1 at 120km and the DS2 at 160km if the later is really supposed to be >900km?. Does any official material directly support this figure?

The old SW RPG used those numbers, poorly researched but made "official" anyway.

[Stark]

Why does the SW.com databank have the DS1 at 120km and the DS2 at 160km if the later is really supposed to be >900km?. Does any official material directly support this figure?

Because it's shit?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Why does the SW.com databank have the DS1 at 120km and the DS2 at 160km if the later is really supposed to be >900km?. Does any official material directly support this figure?

Old numbers die hard. Witness the SSD...

What's an SSD? Is that more Rebel Slang coming from an honourable Imperial Officer?

[Darth Ruinus]

Why does the SW.com databank have the DS1 at 120km and the DS2 at 160km if the later is really supposed to be >900km?. Does any official material directly support this figure?

Old numbers die hard. Witness the SSD...

What's an SSD? Is that more Rebel Slang coming from an honourable Imperial Officer?

Super Star Destroyer, another way of saying the Executor classes and such.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Old numbers die hard. Witness the SSD...

What's an SSD? Is that more Rebel Slang coming from an honourable Imperial Officer?

Super Star Destroyer, another way of saying the Executor classes and such.

Apparently you didn't get the joke, it was my clever way of saying that the Super Star Destroyer nonsense is over, it was disinformation for the Imperial Senate, and the Rebels turned it into slang, it's just Executor-class Star Destroyer, or ExSD as I call it (To differentiate it from the Eclipse-class Star Destroyer or EcSD).

[DogsOfWar]

What's an SSD? Is that more Rebel Slang coming from an honourable Imperial Officer?

This Imperial Officer is lazy

[Lord Revan]

What's an SSD? Is that more Rebel Slang coming from an honourable Imperial Officer?

Super Star Destroyer, another way of saying the Executor classes and such.

Apparently you didn't get the joke, it was my clever way of saying that the Super Star Destroyer nonsense is over, it was disinformation for the Imperial Senate, and the Rebels turned it into slang, it's just Executor-class Star Destroyer, or ExSD as I call it (To differentiate it from the Eclipse-class Star Destroyer or EcSD).

actually it's Executor- class star dreadnaught

besides use of rebel slang can be on purpose disinformation

[OmegaGuy]

I just say SSD, more people know what I'm talking about.

[TC Pilot]

I'm uncertain how to procede now that JMSpock has pulled out a Darkstar "chain reaction" theory, since I have little idea what I would be talking about to contradict the claim.

If anyone would be willing to take over in that respect, I would appreciate it.

[Darth Wong]

I'm uncertain how to procede now that JMSpock has pulled out a Darkstar "chain reaction" theory, since I have little idea what I would be talking about to contradict the claim.

If anyone would be willing to take over in that respect, I would appreciate it.

You mean Darkstar's bizarre idea that SW weapons have the magical ability to convert any kind of matter into pure energy at point of contact in a self-sustaining chain reaction that would be the holy grail of efficient power generation, yet their power generation is limited to nuclear fusion?

[TC Pilot]

...

Well, when you put it that way....

[Starglider]

You mean Darkstar's bizarre idea that SW weapons have the magical ability to convert any kind of matter into pure energy at point of contact in a self-sustaining chain reaction that would be the holy grail of efficient power generation, yet their power generation is limited to nuclear fusion?

Much as I hate to defend Darkstar in any sense, has he actually made any claim that SW weapons other than the DS superlaser work like this? Of course ATOC's micro-superlasers made the 'the DS superlaser uses entirely different physics to the rest of SW tech' argument even weaker than it was previously.

[Darth Wong]

You mean Darkstar's bizarre idea that SW weapons have the magical ability to convert any kind of matter into pure energy at point of contact in a self-sustaining chain reaction that would be the holy grail of efficient power generation, yet their power generation is limited to nuclear fusion?

Much as I hate to defend Darkstar in any sense, has he actually made any claim that SW weapons other than the DS superlaser work like this? Of course ATOC's micro-superlasers made the 'the DS superlaser uses entirely different physics to the rest of SW tech' argument even weaker than it was previously.

Isn't it implied in the existence of said micro-superlasers, not to mention the obvious fact that even if the Death Star was the only platform with this ability (a preposterous assumption for many reasons), it should also be able to use it to generate power? He claims that the DS superlaser has this magic holy grail super mass-energy conversion ability but its own power reactor is limited to nuclear fusion, because the Empire doesn't have the technology for anything more powerful.

I called him on this years ago, and he tried to defend it by saying that it's historically always been harder to make power reactors than weapons out of any given scientific principle. But that's quite false; it's much easier to make a nuclear reactor than a nuclear bomb. It's easier to make a primitive fire than a primitive firearm. Etc.

[Batman]

Since there's no conceivable way the DS superlaser works like that that DOESN'T require inventing lots of stuff completely failing to be backed up by Wars canon and is in direct contradiction to real world physics when the visuals are perfectly in line with a DET weapon why, exactly, is that relevant?

[Batman]

WRT Starglider, not Mike. I need to work on my typing speed.

[Starglider]

Isn't it implied in the existence of said micro-superlasers, not to mention the obvious fact that even if the Death Star was the only platform with this ability (a preposterous assumption for many reasons), it should also be able to use it to generate power?

It's a silly argument, both on parsimony grounds and the fact that there's plenty of evidence that SW tech can handle the raw power densities required for a simple DET superlaser. However it isn't completely nonsensical. In principle there could be some bizarre physical effect that only manifests at extremely high power densities, much higher than anything a normal turbolaser or ship reactor could achieve, but still orders of magnitude lower than than the power density of a beam capable of blasting apart a planet at c-fractional velocities. If the upper threshold for the effect manifesting was that high, using it for power generation would be rather problematic, because you'd have to generate, store and discharge a vast amount of power to get the process going, then you have to absorb a huge amount of released energy in one go. This 'theory' (if it deserves to be called that) allows the superlaser beam generating mechanism to be a simple scale up of the ATOC weapons while having a vastly greater yield-to-power-input ratio (due to being large enough to benefit from this magical total-conversion effect).

This kind of thinking would slot right into Trek, where we get a new physical principle or named particle in every third episode - which may well be why it's so popular with Trektards.

I called him on this years ago, and he tried to defend it by saying that it's historically always been harder to make power reactors than weapons out of any given scientific principle.

I imagine he just assumed that nuclear weapons are easier to make because they came before commercial power reactors. Of course research reactors were used to make the plutonium for the first weapons, and could have been mated with existing turbogenerator gear if there had been a pressing need for them. There wasn't so they weren't, until well after the war.

But that's quite false; it's much easier to make a nuclear reactor than a nuclear bomb. It's easier to make a primitive fire than a primitive firearm.

I don't think the reverse generalisation applies either though. It depends on the principle and the technology involved. Weapons typically operate at much higher power densities, but with a much lighter duty cycle. The appropriate comparison for a firearm is really an internal combusion engine, which /are/ more difficult to make because they have to stand up to many millions of internal explosions rather than just a few thousand.

[Darth Ruinus]

I was reading through that thread, and JMSpock seems to think the Death Star doesnt have any proof on it side for supporting all the power needed to destroy a planet, but, isnt that stated right out in the opening crawl of ANH?

[Batman]

That might be out of universe and is technically dialogue. Of course, the Death Star has all the proof it needs for having the power to destroy Alderaan in...having destroyed Alderaan.

[Darth Wong]

It's a silly argument, both on parsimony grounds and the fact that there's plenty of evidence that SW tech can handle the raw power densities required for a simple DET superlaser. However it isn't completely nonsensical. In principle there could be some bizarre physical effect that only manifests at extremely high power densities, much higher than anything a normal turbolaser or ship reactor could achieve, but still orders of magnitude lower than than the power density of a beam capable of blasting apart a planet at c-fractional velocities. If the upper threshold for the effect manifesting was that high, using it for power generation would be rather problematic, because you'd have to generate, store and discharge a vast amount of power to get the process going, then you have to absorb a huge amount of released energy in one go. This 'theory' (if it deserves to be called that) allows the superlaser beam generating mechanism to be a simple scale up of the ATOC weapons while having a vastly greater yield-to-power-input ratio (due to being large enough to benefit from this magical total-conversion effect).

The really sad thing is that even this remote possibility still requires that there be some kind of phenomenally high activation energy, and the sole purpose of his argument is to knock down DS superlaser energy requirements to some miniscule fraction of the actual work (23.5 gigatons according to him, ie- not even enough to make a crater visible from space with the naked eye). So this idea is a non-starter for him. The activation energy in this case is so low that you'd need that much just to accelerate the DS to useful interplanetary speeds.

This kind of thinking would slot right into Trek, where we get a new physical principle or named particle in every third episode - which may well be why it's so popular with Trektards.

This goes beyond the norm even for Trektards.

I imagine he just assumed that nuclear weapons are easier to make because they came before commercial power reactors. Of course research reactors were used to make the plutonium for the first weapons, and could have been mated with existing turbogenerator gear if there had been a pressing need for them. There wasn't so they weren't, until well after the war.

I don't think he assumed anything. I think he'll just say anything he feels he needs to in order to convince himself that he came out swinging and landed a good shot. And since his preferred audience of kiddie Trektards won't know the difference, I guess that's good enough for his ego.

I don't think the reverse generalisation applies either though. It depends on the principle and the technology involved. Weapons typically operate at much higher power densities, but with a much lighter duty cycle. The appropriate comparison for a firearm is really an internal combusion engine, which /are/ more difficult to make because they have to stand up to many millions of internal explosions rather than just a few thousand.

Except that's a very highly refined reactor, so it's an even more inapplicable comparison to primitive firearms. We've been using coal in furnaces to do useful work for many centuries, and we did so in order to make the steel that we used in order to produce the first firearms.

[Darth Wong]

I was reading through that thread, and JMSpock seems to think the Death Star doesnt have any proof on it side for supporting all the power needed to destroy a planet, but, isnt that stated right out in the opening crawl of ANH?

This is like saying that if lightning strikes you and you die, you can't prove the lightning caused it. What the fuck else caused it then? Spontaneous combustion that was just set off by the harmless lightning bolt? Oops, that's pretty much Darkstar's argument.

[Starglider]

The really sad thing is that even this remote possibility still requires that there be some kind of phenomenally high activation energy,

Yes, the best it can do is knock the beam energy down a few orders of magnitude, but the DS's hyperspace and sublight maneuvering, shielding, surface batteries, the 'half the power of the whole star fleet' line and the ability of the beam to near-instantly overload planetary shields (which it would have to do before starting a chain reaction) still put the lower DET yield wildly beyond anything seen in Trek (with the sole exception of the Species 8472 planetkiller beam).

(23.5 gigatons according to him, ie- not even enough to make a crater visible from space with the naked eye).

Hah, I didn't realise he was that retarded. Let me guess, the superlaser wouldn't be able to penetrate the Enterprise-D's shields - not that it matters since the Enterprise D is already immune to lasers of any kind.

I don't think he assumed anything.

Nuclear weapons do supply a good example (the archetypal example in fact) of a physical process that is much harder to harness for power than for weapons; nuclear fusion. We've had fusion bombs since the mid 50s, but fifty years later we're still a couple of decades away from practical fusion power reactors. But this just confirms that a physical process of this nature can exist, there's no evidence that it actually does exist in the case of the SW superlaser.

Except that's a very highly refined reactor, so it's an even more inapplicable comparison to primitive firearms. We've been using coal in furnaces to do useful work for many centuries, and we did so in order to make the steel that we used in order to produce the first firearms.

The physical principle employed by both firearms and internal combustion engines is using rapid combustion to create a high pressure which is used to drive a piston. Combustion alone is a much more general process, too general to be useful here; furnaces heat things up but don't produce mechanical energy that can be used to do arbitrary jobs. Steam engines do, but external combustion is still a substantially different design. Internal combustion is close enough that a few inventors did actually build gunpowder-fueled engines before switching to more practical fuels.

[Batman]

The really sad thing is that even this remote possibility still requires that there be some kind of phenomenally high activation energy,

Yes, the best it can do is knock the beam energy down a few orders of magnitude, but the DS's hyperspace and sublight maneuvering, shielding, surface batteries, the 'half the power of the whole star fleet' line and the ability of the beam to near-instantly overload planetary shields (which it would have to do before starting a chain reaction) still put the lower DET yield wildly beyond anything seen in Trek (with the sole exception of the Species 8472 planetkiller beam).

DO elaborate, given that it's physically impossible to destroy a planet in that fashion by modern physics and no mechanism BEYOND that was ever presented in VOY.

[Ryan Thunder]

A question somebody else asked me about this got me thinking; since the beam is so thin (relative to the world, that is), would it be more likely to just punch a hole straight through the planet, rather than causing it to explode?

The guy was trying to use that to justify all this random hand-waving palm fuckery (e.g. the Death Star changed the value of some physical constant around the planet and therefore only needed to expend a trivial amount of energy to it to achieve what we saw onscreen, therefore the Imperium blah blah blah... )

I'd like to have an answer for him; I just can't think of one myself, and haven't seen it addressed anywhere.

[Batman]

A question somebody else asked me about this got me thinking; since the beam is so thin (relative to the world, that is), would it be more likely to just punch a hole straight through the planet, rather than causing it to explode?

Since it DID cause the planet to explode, what the hell kind of question is that?