Trek fanboys arguments make Death Star more impresive?

[spaceviking]

Maybe I just misunderstood some of the Star Trek fan boys arguments...

but take the argument the Death Star only uses nuclear fusion for energy and that Alderaan was destroyed by creating a type of fusion chain reaction of the planet.Wouldn't this be a greater feat then what the death star is actually capable of?, it still destroyed a planet but used way less energy. Its also still capable of using hyperdrive, which would make it pretty damn energy efficient compared to warp if it was powered by nuclear fusion

[Feil]

So, you would say that a match is more impressive than a fragmentation grenade, because both of them can destroy a cardboard box, but the match does it with less energy input?

[The Romulan Republic]

So, you would say that a match is more impressive than a fragmentation grenade, because both of them can destroy a cardboard box, but the match does it with less energy input?

A flawed analogy, because the match and the grenade both destroy the box, but in very different ways. The OP is talking about claims that the Death Star achieves the exact same effect through fusion.

Though I would say that such claims probably don't make the Death Star seem more impressive, so much as they make it (or the proponents of these claims) seem silly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think its possible to achieve that effect with fusion as we understand it.

[Isolder74]

How about comparing a dry ice bomb to the grenade?

[Serafina]

Well, we have defined effects and thus a well-defined lower limit for the energy.
The energy is the same, if its produced by the death star or the planet does not matter.

And if we leave out the stupid claims (like a core out of fissible heavy elements), it IS more impressive - after all, with this the Empire could produce energy at any point of their choice, with efficiencies far better than matter-antimatter.

[Surlethe]

And if we leave out the stupid claims (like a core out of fissible heavy elements), it IS more impressive - after all, with this the Empire could produce energy at any point of their choice, with efficiencies far better than matter-antimatter.

Efficiencies far better than matter-antimatter? Matter-antimatter has perfect efficiency; you can't get any better than that.

[bz249]

Sure its quite a feat gaining the energy required to accelerate a planetary mass to thousand kilometers per second (basically the Alderaan vanished from the scene... so the debris should have such velocity if not more) using only the energy released from the most stable element (the iron in the Alderaan core). One requires very advanced physics for that or magic.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sure its quite a feat gaining the energy required to accelerate a planetary mass to thousand kilometers per second (basically the Alderaan vanished from the scene... so the debris should have such velocity if not more) using only the energy released from the most stable element (the iron in the Alderaan core). One requires very advanced physics for that or magic.

I'm pretty sure that the Death Star blew up Alderan by blasting it with a giant superlaser, and not by using energy from anything in Alderan's core. What exactly are you trying to say here, because its honestly not clear to me.

[bz249]

I'm pretty sure that the Death Star blew up Alderan by blasting it with a giant superlaser, and not by using energy from anything in Alderan's core. What exactly are you trying to say here, because its honestly not clear to me.

I have hoped the emoticon will tell my opinion.

Basically there are no chain reaction which can extract energy from a planetary core, because it is composed of iron (and that's the dead end... the lowest energy state nucleus). It is also impossible to gain energy using the planetary gravitational field for numerous reasons. So that leaves us only one explanation: the Death Star superlaser pumped in enough energy to blast the planet.

This is also in a good correlation with the visual evidence.

[Teleros]

What exactly are you trying to say here, because its honestly not clear to me.

That the Empire has knowledge of some very advanced physics / magic, which is impressive.

[Serafina]

And if we leave out the stupid claims (like a core out of fissible heavy elements), it IS more impressive - after all, with this the Empire could produce energy at any point of their choice, with efficiencies far better than matter-antimatter.

Efficiencies far better than matter-antimatter? Matter-antimatter has perfect efficiency; you can't get any better than that.

Um, yes, that was the point...if the mentioned treky claims are true, then the Empire can initate some kind of reaction that produces more energy than matter-antimatter. They HAVE to, otherwise they wont gain the necessary energy.

They can do that in canon, anyway - one word: Hpyermatter.

[bobnik]

Efficiencies far better than matter-antimatter? Matter-antimatter has perfect efficiency; you can't get any better than that.

Er, not really. To get perfect efficiency you need to be able to make use of ALL of the energy your reaction could POTENTIALLY release. In the case of matter/antimatter you need to a)get all of your reactants to react - which is more difficult than you'd think, especially in bombs, and then b) collect or perfectly direct all the energy from the reaction.

[Batman]

Efficiencies far better than matter-antimatter? Matter-antimatter has perfect efficiency; you can't get any better than that.

Er, not really. To get perfect efficiency you need to be able to make use of ALL of the energy your reaction could POTENTIALLY release. In the case of matter/antimatter you need to a)get all of your reactants to react - which is more difficult than you'd think, especially in bombs, and then b) collect or perfectly direct all the energy from the reaction.

Yes really. That's a matter of reactor efficiency, not reaction efficiency. M/AM annihilation IS perfect. That you may not be able to get it to happen with all of your reactant or incapable of harnessing the released energy has no bearing on the efficiency of the reaction.

[Formless]

Efficiencies far better than matter-antimatter? Matter-antimatter has perfect efficiency; you can't get any better than that.

Er, not really. To get perfect efficiency you need to be able to make use of ALL of the energy your reaction could POTENTIALLY release. In the case of matter/antimatter you need to a)get all of your reactants to react - which is more difficult than you'd think, especially in bombs, and then b) collect or perfectly direct all the energy from the reaction.

Yes really. That's a matter of reactor efficiency, not reaction efficiency. M/AM annihilation IS perfect. That you may not be able to get it to happen with all of your reactant or incapable of harnessing the released energy has no bearing on the efficiency of the reaction.

... and reactor efficiency is all that fucking matters, that's the point. Yeah, the reaction is 100 % efficient, but how do you propose you are supposed to harness the large proportion of energy that gets released as neutrinos, for example? Antimatter is good, but it isn't so implausible to suppose that another process could have a better reactor efficiency because it doesn't waste as much energy in unusable forms, or is easier to react properly, and is thus for all practical purposes a more efficient way to produce useful energy than antimatter.

You'd think this would be obvious.

[Batman]

And you'd be wrong. When Surlethe mentioned better efficiency than M/AM was impossible due to M/AM being perfect he was OBVIOUSLY talking about reaction efficiency. Reactor efficiency matters when and ONLY when you're actually discussing reactors.
I can't recall any specific reactors being mentioned in this thread.

[Formless]

When you talk about energy production and the Empire's energy production capabilities, you don't have to explicitly mention reactors for that to be the topic, dumbass. Context obviously isn't one of your strong points, is it?

[Batman]

It's obviously considerably better than yours. Show me the post in this thread bringing up reactor efficiency before mine, please.

[Formless]

Batman, you dense piece of shit-- Surlethe was responding to this:

Well, we have defined effects and thus a well-defined lower limit for the energy.
The energy is the same, if its produced by the death star or the planet does not matter.

And if we leave out the stupid claims (like a core out of fissible heavy elements), it IS more impressive - after all, with this the Empire could produce energy at any point of their choice, with efficiencies far better than matter-antimatter.

Which was a response to claims about how the Death Star produces energy. Ergo he was talking about the Death Star's reactor. He doesn't have to use the word "reactor" for that to be what he is talking about, you fucking ignoramus. Reactor efficiency is implied to be part of what he means by "efficiency." Seriously, did you fail first grade reading? I don't see why this should be so hard to comprehend.

P.S. and edit: Emphasis added for the illiterate.

[Batman]

There's someone with a reading comprehension problem here alright but it sure as hell is not me.
No, Surlethe was NOT talking about reactor efficiency as evidenced by the very fact that he DID say M/AM is perfect. He was talking about reaction efficiency where indeed you CAN'T do better than M/AM on account of it being, well, perfect.

[Formless]

And he was responding to someone who was talking about reactor efficiency, you idiot. What the hell do you think produces energy if not reactors? Good grief, I was never talking about Surlethe's point, and neither was Oberst Tharnow. Surleth was talking about Oberst Tharnow's point, or rather missed it entirely. As have you.

[Batman]

The only one here who missed anything entirely is you. Surlethe saying 'better efficiency than M/AM impossible because M/AM is perfect' painfully obviously means he's talking about reaction efficiency.

[Formless]

Reaction efficiency != reactor efficiency. How. Dense. ARE. You? I'm not talking about Surlethe's point, Surlethe was trying to refute someone else's point and failed. THAT is my point, retard.

[Batman]

Curious, I thought that was MY point. And the ONLY one claiming Oberst Tharnow was talking about reactor efficiency is YOU. From his own posts it is obvious that he, too, is talking about reaction efficiency.

Um, yes, that was the point...if the mentioned treky claims are true, then the Empire can initate some kind of reaction that produces more energy than matter-antimatter. They HAVE to, otherwise they wont gain the necessary energy.
They can do that in canon, anyway - one word: Hpyermatter.

He's WRONG about hypermatter being more efficient than M/AM of course (it merely has a ludicrously high fuel density and gets around having to lug around all that much fuel mass all the time) but there's nothing in hypermatter that requires the violation of e=mc^2, which IS what would be required for something to be more efficient than M/AM anihilation.

[Formless]

*Sigh* All right, fair enough. Although, for the reasons pointed out already, hypermatter could be more efficient from a practical standpoint in terms of usable energy it produces, even if it doesn't have as good a reaction efficiency as M/AM reactions. Agreed?

[Batman]

Sure it could. So could solar energy or simple wood fires, if your conversion mechanisms sucks sufficiently.