Destructionator XIII wrote:
Yeah, that's a reasonable argument, unlike "X KJ output means X KJ is all it can handle".
If shields were really physical objects, then they would not immediately lose integrity the moment the power goes out. Why would there have to be a shield generator projecting the defensive shield around the second Death Star? By your reckoning, shields are a physical object, so destroying the "projector" wouldn't do anything.
Good question! It is probably because you are representative of the typical vs debater.
Ah, what an
amazingly relevant response.
Power might be needed to keep the shields assembled, like some kind of magnetic containment or similar magic.
And brilliant analysis, too. So if the power goes out, do the shields magically disperse into nothingness? You propose that they are physical objects; so does this mean that they have a melting and boiling point? Are shields gaseous? That would explain why they magically disappear whenever they are not being held together by this magical magnetic containment field.
But wait; why not use this magical containment field to strengthen, oh, I don't know, durasteel, or Trek steel, instead of shields? Since the latter appear to be so fragile, they immediately disperse (faster than the eye can see!) whenever they are
not being held together.
The ICS thing is completely different, it says "peak shielding" which doesn't necessarily mean output at all. In fact, it can mean all kinds of things, the most likely of which aren't what most VS debaters read into it. I talked about this at length in a thread, in this forum, some months ago.
What are you talking about? The unit used is watts, and Saxton also advised the Inside the World of Classic Star Wars, with this:
With its gleaming command walkway and two-meter (seven-feet)-tall transperisteel viewports, the Executer's bridge provides unobstructed views of quarries and kills. The ship's shielding - equivalent to the total power of a medium star - makes such displays of Imperial arrogance possible.
Which was quite obviously one of Saxton's ideas. Power = power output.
This shows that there probably is a relationship, but there's no reason to expect it to be one-to-one (and indeed, that's fucking ridiculous; sunlight would collapse it).
Of course it's ridiculous. After all, we are going by the lowest showings, right? Like SW turbolasers having firepower that compares unfavorably with 18th century ships of the line?
You don't even know what the line's technical context was. Did they measure the shield's response to the sensor ping? Does the shield have a kind of potential energy holding it together? (tho that wouldn't be "output") Does it have idle waste heat that they measured? (if it is waste heat, what was the timeframe of the measuement?)
Wait, why would any of this be immediately followed by the conclusion that a single photon torpedo should be able to defeat it?
And you are again attempting to rationalize a pathetic showing, when the purpose of this thread is to
use these showings and compare them to the equally ridiculously low feats of the other side. Otherwise, you can easily rationalize the pathetic firepower of turbolasers displayed in
Inferno, for example, and then the topic simply reverts back to SW v ST.
Or was the number more abstract than a direct measurement?
Representative indeed.
Since when do I have to see all of an episode to draw conclusions from a statement? If I actually took something out of context, you may have a point. Otherwise, nice job at completely snipping out my point.