Alderan's Destruction, Divergant thread of the Tech debate.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2004-02-26 05:31am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:If he has to, I might be forced to track Stewart down and snuff him...

You're skating on thin ice there bub.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-26 05:57am

Apologies.

harbringer · Post by **harbringer** » 2004-02-26 08:56am

My experience is that the terminally stupid take care of themselves. And yes I might have personal experiance lmao.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-02-26 04:29pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:If he has to, I might be forced to track Stewart down and snuff him...

I'd rather you be forced to think before you say something for once. It'd do the board a lot more good than "snuffing" Stewart.

Stewart at SDI · Post by **Stewart at SDI** » 2004-03-20 12:17am

More bullshit. Entropic particle collisions in a chaotic debris field can easily fling material back toward the original location. The fact that there was so little of this material indicates that the vast majority of the planet is, in fact, nowhere to be seen.

On the contrairy, for the dencity of the field to be as high as shown in the film when the Falcon enters the system, the entire remains of the planet must still be there. If Solo came out of Hyperspace beyond the DS, then the volume of space would be at least several diamiters from the planet's prior pos.

My "POCKET REF" by Thomas J. Glover states the mass of the Earth as 1.317^25 pounds or by my calculator 6^21 metric tons in nice round numbers. If Alderan were approximately the same mass as Earth, then the total energy would be about 4.32^32th or about seven orders of magnatude less than that cited in the book. IIRC The variables cited above could lower this figure by a factor less than ten but no more in my oppinion. Still a prodigious amount of energy.

For the second time, what book? I have never seen this book you speak of, and your failure to name it does not build confidence.

I was quoting from this site and do not know which book it was that was mentioned.

The above is not realivant to our discussion because SoD requires that the planet explode and so it must. We are just arguing on the total power needed to do the job. All of the above figures are approximate, since TV does not have sufficiant resolution to get closer than this.

Disagrements? Sincerely, Stewart.

Read this before you waste any more of our time with your dishonest and ignorant bleatings.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... eraan.html[/quote]

Stewart at SDI · Post by **Stewart at SDI** » 2004-03-20 12:41am

1.385 planetary diameters per second is more than 17000 km/s, which is more than 5% of c, fool. Can't you operate a fucking calculator?

5% is significant? Some here have said 50%C for the fragments.
17,000,000x17,000,000/2000=1.45^11x6.21^21=~9.0^32

That is five to seven orders of magnatude differance that the numbers being mentioned on this site. It is still an insignificant differance though. The planet is still gone. Our discussion hinges on how much energy and the lower the figure is, the less the DS had to generate, control and dissipate waste energy.

It is the wast energy that is one of the biggest problems for the DET model. If only one millionth of the energy in question were absorbed that would be ~9^26th? This is an absurdly high figure of efficiancy! Almost 100,000 times higher than anything around today?

If the DS were made of solid steel it would mass~7.24^15 metric tons. What temperature would 9^26J. of energy raise it to? 1.24^11J/ton?

I would like someone to check my math just to be sure that I didn't screw it up. I would also like it if someone would run the fiugures with a more reasonable mass for the DS and with the higher energy figures quoted on this site.

What does the DS do with the wasted heat?

Stewart at SDI · Post by **Stewart at SDI** » 2004-03-20 12:49am

At least you are not propagating this funny/stupid "fusion/fission-bomb planet" theory... this theory is so horrible stupid that's even hard to laugh about.

Yes I am. It is my theory that the DS some how caused the core of the planet to fision, just like a nuclear bomb.

I take the last figure that you agree that the absolute minimum of the DS1 must be the grav. binding energy of the planet... I don't know what's wrong with you pocket calculator, but others in this thread have already proven your "good limit" of 4E32 joule wrong...

No, I dispute that the gravitational binding energy is not the lower limet. If all the mass of the planet had escape velosity, why would the fragments shown in the film clearly be moving parrallel to and in the same direction as the Milenium Falcon as it approched the last known pos of the planet?

You have to be very carefull about the assumptions that you start with if you are going to get good data.

Stewart at SDI · Post by **Stewart at SDI** » 2004-03-20 12:50am

Patrick Degan wrote:If this clown Stewart really is connected with the Strategic Defence Initiative, we have one reason at least why the project's gotten nowhere.

I am not and never have claimed to be associated with that project.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-03-20 12:50am

Stewart at SDI wrote:
At least you are not propagating this funny/stupid "fusion/fission-bomb planet" theory... this theory is so horrible stupid that's even hard to laugh about.
Yes I am. It is my theory that the DS some how caused the core of the planet to fision, just like a nuclear bomb.

Unfortunately for you, fission reactions would require a ball of solid uranium twice the Earth's mass. This fact shows you not only are wrong, but are lying about any comprehension of the physics involved.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-20 12:51am

Stewart at SDI wrote: Yes I am. It is my theory that the DS some how caused the core of the planet to fision, just like a nuclear bomb.

Stewart at SDI · Post by **Stewart at SDI** » 2004-03-20 12:52am

Darth Wong wrote:
Stewart at SDI wrote:What is the efficiancy of the mechanism that generates, controles and directs the energy required to destroy the planet? IE, what pecentage of the energy generated was absorbed by the machine that did it?
Something much smaller than the billions of percent efficiencies required for your alternate theory.

Who ever said that my theory required billions of % efficiancy? We are discussing the efficiancy of the DS laser mechanism. Nothing else.

Stewart at SDI · Post by **Stewart at SDI** » 2004-03-20 01:00am

Patrick Degan wrote:
Stewart at SDI wrote:What is the efficiancy of the mechanism that generates, controles and directs the energy required to destroy the planet? IE, what pecentage of the energy generated was absorbed by the machine that did it?
Irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial so far as the observed effects of the superlaser are concerned. The weapon delivered sufficent energy to blow a terrestrial planet apart in a tenth of a second.

No it is very realivant. If the energy all came from the DS, then some of it was waisted durring production, transport and discharge. How much must then be dissipated by the mechanism bears directly on our discussion.

With my theory, the total energy is much lower and is something that the DS might have actualy been faintly, future possably able to do. With the DET Model some of the energy to destroy the planet must have been lost in the machine. The DET numbers are so huge that the efficiancy must be millions of times beyond anything we can forsee. Then the energy dissipation mechanism must also be millions of times more effective than anything we can think of now.

how do you explain the dicrepancy?

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2004-03-20 01:04am

Stewart at SDI wrote:
Yes I am. It is my theory that the DS some how caused the core of the planet to fision, just like a nuclear bomb.

Since when is the Earth's core made of unstable isotopes?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-20 01:07am

Stewart at SDI wrote:With my theory, the total energy is much lower and is something that the DS might have actualy been faintly, future possably able to do. With the DET Model some of the energy to destroy the planet must have been lost in the machine. The DET numbers are so huge that the efficiancy must be millions of times beyond anything we can forsee.

Yet again you demonstrate your idiocy. There's no such thing as an efficiency beyond 100%, so the increase in efficiency from modern systems (80% or more) to the Death Star (very close to 100%) cannot possibly be on the order of millions of times.

Then the energy dissipation mechanism must also be millions of times more effective than anything we can think of now.

Since it is a canon observation that the Death Star produces more energy than all of mankind has produced in its entire existence simply by accelerating itself, it is a foregone conclusion that their energy generation systems are far more effective than ours. Why shouldn't their energy dissipation systems also be far more effective?

how do you explain the dicrepancy?

The only discrepancy is between you and reality.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-20 01:07am

Stewart at SDI wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Stewart at SDI wrote:What is the efficiancy of the mechanism that generates, controles and directs the energy required to destroy the planet? IE, what pecentage of the energy generated was absorbed by the machine that did it?
Something much smaller than the billions of percent efficiencies required for your alternate theory.
Who ever said that my theory required billions of % efficiancy? We are discussing the efficiancy of the DS laser mechanism. Nothing else.

You're a moron; your theory requires a nuclear fission reaction in the Earth's core which has efficiencies on the order of billions of percent.

Stewart at SDI · Post by **Stewart at SDI** » 2004-03-20 01:14am

You assume that the Falcon came out of hyperspace where the center of Alderaan's mass was projected to be. I don't need to explain why this is stupid.

Why do you say this? I did not make any such assumption.

They must surely not come out at the expected center of the planets mass but shurely short of it. After all, who wants to hit the planet?

Since they were woried that they could not fly threw a star, logic would dictate that they also should not fly threw a planet. Since all of the "metiors" courses are parrallel to the Falcons the only logical conclusion is that their navigation was spot on and they came out on a course directly tword the Planet's expected possition.

Furthermore, assuming that Alderaan was Earth-like, the fastest any particle would need to go to clear the planet's potential well is 11.2 km/s. If a significant portion of the planet's mass was moving that slowly, we'd have observed a large concentration of mass remaining after the explosion. Since the entire space taken up by the planet was cleared, we can safely conclude that you're wrong.

Wrong Explosions do not work like that. When anything explodes, the space were it used to be gets empty very quickly. After 50% expansion of the radius, 89% of all the mass is beyond the origional sphere of the planet. By the time that the expansion reaches 100% beyond the origional surface, only about 1.2% remains in that origional volume. The more it expands, the less is left behind. After expanding several diamiters there would be almost nothing left behind.

The only way out of this dilemma, is for a significant portion of the planet not to have escape velocity and thus be falling back into it's origional volume.

Stewart at SDI · Post by **Stewart at SDI** » 2004-03-20 01:28am

Unfortunately for you, fission reactions would require a ball of solid uranium twice the Earth's mass. This fact shows you not only are wrong, but are lying about any comprehension of the physics involved.

Were are you getting your figures? That is the stupidest thing I've read on this board, ever.

A ball 80klicks OD would mass about ~5^18 kilos at surface dencity more at core pressures. That amount of fisile mass times 20,000 tons of TNT equivilant each equals 4.5^32 Joules. Unless I've screwed up the math in my head some place.

I have read at least two articles that claim that there must be a ball of Urainium/Plutonium in the center of the Earth to explain the heat and magnetic field for so many billions of years.

CDiehl · Post by **CDiehl** » 2004-03-20 01:31am

Before Darth Wong comes in here and crushes Stewart, there's something that's really getting on my nerves. That would be Stewart's spelling.

Hey, Stewie, news flash: there is no A in "Institute," and only one I in "Strategic." You claim to have military and scientific training, and you can't spell those two words. Also, you claim to have lived in Germany for some years, yet you can't spell the names "Stuttgart," Heidelberg" and "Planck." Just once before I die, could you please use the correct spellings of "density," "spherical," "careful" and my personal favorite, "frame?" I am doing this from memory, so I am sure there are more. Please, spare me the argument you have previously offered, that your inability to spell doesn't invalidate your points. Normally, I would agree with that, and I and most people can tolerate an occasional error. Nobody's perfect, but I am not going to tolerate consistent and baffling misspelling of words a person should reasonably be expected to know.

Stewart at SDI · Post by **Stewart at SDI** » 2004-03-20 01:37am

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Stewart at SDI wrote:
Yes I am. It is my theory that the DS some how caused the core of the planet to fision, just like a nuclear bomb.
Since when is the Earth's core made of unstable isotopes?

No one ever said the core was composed of unstable isotopes. Ordinary U-238 the depleated, Stable type will most certainly fission when bombarded with fast neutrons. The bomb works because U-233 and U-235 will fision when struck by a "slow" thermal neutron.

In Hydrogen bombs the yeald is boosted dramaticly by encasing the fusion secondary in a sleve of U-238 wich fisions when struck by fast neutrons from the D-D and D-T reactions. Typicaly more than half the energy from these types of bomb is from fission of the sleve around the secondary.

I recomend both books by Richard Rhodes "THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB" and "DARK SUN" to get the best un-clasified education on this subject available.

Stewart at SDI · Post by **Stewart at SDI** » 2004-03-20 01:46am

Yet again you demonstrate your idiocy. There's no such thing as an efficiency beyond 100%, so the increase in efficiency from modern systems (80% or more) to the Death Star (very close to 100%) cannot possibly be on the order of millions of times.

I agree compleatly. some of the best machines today are ~99% efficiant. (miniature super conducting electric motors) That meens that ~ONE percent of the input energy is waisted by the machine, typicaly as heat. If ONE percent of the 4^32J suposedly generated by the DS were absorbed by it, that would leave 4^30J to be dissipated by the machines cooling system.Therfore, if the 99% could be increased 1,000,000 times the cooling system would only have to dissipate 4^24J. Get the idea.

Divide the energy above by the DS mass and find out how much energy each ton must absorb or dissapate.

Interesting numbers, isn't it?

Then the energy dissipation mechanism must also be millions of times more effective than anything we can think of now.

Since it is a canon observation that the Death Star produces more energy than all of mankind has produced in its entire existence simply by accelerating itself, it is a foregone conclusion that their energy generation systems are far more effective than ours. Why shouldn't their energy dissipation systems also be far more effective?

how do you explain the dicrepancy?

The only discrepancy is between you and reality.[/quote]

Stewart at SDI · Post by **Stewart at SDI** » 2004-03-20 01:51am

You're a moron; your theory requires a nuclear fission reaction in the Earth's core which has efficiencies on the order of billions of percent.

How do you figure that? At 100% a 80 kilometer ball of Fisile metal at sea level dencity yealds 4.45^32J. I assume compression due to pressure would only increase the efficiancy beyond that wich we expect from common nuclear weapons today.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2004-03-20 02:07am

Stewart at SDI wrote:
Connor MacLeod wrote:
Stewart at SDI wrote:
Yes I am. It is my theory that the DS some how caused the core of the planet to fision, just like a nuclear bomb.

No one ever said the core was composed of unstable isotopes. Ordinary U-238 the depleated, Stable type will most certainly fission when bombarded with fast neutrons. The bomb works because U-233 and U-235 will fision when struck by a "slow" thermal neutron.
Wrong, you yourself stated that the core of the planet could fission like a nuclear bomb, which would indicate that said core is made out of unstable, fissionable isotopes. Otherwise it wouldn't be like a nuclear bomb.

(Technically you can get almost any matter to undergo fission, but this doesnt mean you can make a fission bomb out of just any sort of matter, either. There is a reason certain kinds of unstable isotopes are used in making the bombs, after all.)

In Hydrogen bombs the yeald is boosted dramaticly by encasing the fusion secondary in a sleve of U-238 wich fisions when struck by fast neutrons from the D-D and D-T reactions. Typicaly more than half the energy from these types of bomb is from fission of the sleve around the secondary.
Which bears on your ludicrous notion that the core of a planet can fission like a nuclear bomb how exactly?

I recomend both books by Richard Rhodes "THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB" and "DARK SUN" to get the best un-clasified education on this subject available.

If these books form the basis of your understanding of nuclear physics (not that I'm going to believe you read either book much less properly understand them), then they must not be very good if you think that the core of a planet is some giant atom bomb just waiting to go off.

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2004-03-20 02:32am

Of course, the Death Star was especially designed to destroy only planets with ridiculously improbable uranium cores.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2004-03-20 02:38am

Hey Stewie, do you design Star Trek games?

http://zappa.brainiac.com/spaceship/spa ... wartdavies

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2004-03-20 03:10am

The Dude wrote:Of course, the Death Star was especially designed to destroy only planets with ridiculously improbable uranium cores.

I'm surprised the idiot hasn't tried this logic to explain the TESB asteroid. Reminds me of this idiot from SB who once claimed that neutron beams would induce nuclear fission in ISD hulls

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Alderan's Destruction, Divergant thread of the Tech debate.

Re: The energy required to blast the planet to smitherines.

Re: The energy required to blast the planet to smitherines.

Re: The energy required to blast the planet to smitherines.

Re: The energy required to blast the planet to smitherines.

Re: The energy required to blast the planet to smitherines.

Re: Energy efficiancy question?

Re: The energy required to blast the planet to smitherines.

Re: Energy efficiancy question?

Re: The energy required to blast the planet to smitherines.

Re: The energy required to blast the planet to smitherines.

Re: Energy efficiancy question?

Re: The energy required to blast the planet to smitherines.