A comparison of DC and AC energy in terms of ST vs. SW?

[Butterbean569]

I'm fighting the good fight on a small board I frequent, and I'm getting this lame response:

"The are just L.A.S.E.R.'s there is no doubt about it. They use simple raw photons focused into a single release. There is no change in the beam. Lets say Starwars is DC power and Startrek is AC power. That gives ST weapons a hole nother dimension to play with.... f. Making their weapons more diverse.

Shields seems to also work on some type of AC concept. Allowing them to change their f at anytime they choose. DC has one flaw, it works also on a single f. Where AC can be changed. Simply saying, you can adjust one f to meet the other and they will cancel each other out.

AEAN, Avaition Electrian's Mate Airmen, United States Navy. Hoo ya

I could talk about power till I'm blue in the face, and I started too but deleted it releasing most you would get lost, no offense, so I deleted and tried my best to make it simple above. f = frequency. Also we could talk about wavelengh. That would explain the short range of SW, B5 weapons, ext ext. DC works on that one frequency, it has no wave effect and requires constanct supply of Ea (applied voltage) to maintain itself. Where we have AC that has frequency that you can control quite easily with the right tools with can increase or decrease this wavelength and effect applied voltage. Phasers also operate in "pulses" with leads to believe they are loosely based on the laws of AC.

In short, shields would adapt, weapons would be neutralized (if they managed to get in range), and Star Trek ships would just sit back and take pot shots all day long."


I've tried many times to show that Turbolasers are NOT lasers...but he won't listen. Now he's bringing in this AC/DC stuff. I really don't know anything about this type of thing, so I can't really defend against it...and he's taking that as a concession. I know that I should probably just ignore this guy since he's so damn dense, but I want to stick it to him. SO, assuming that everything he said up there is true, what should my response be? Will AC and DC really cancel each other out like that with 100% effeicency? What would you guys suggest to give this guy a smackdown? I should proly just ignore the idiot...hehe Thanks

[General Zod]

this guy's obviously a moron that doesn't understand how AC/DC current works whatsoever. DC electricity transmit energy straight from the power source to the item itself, while AC current uses an AC Generator to amplify the range of the electricity it's delivering.

This site and this one in particular seem to have some good sources on them about it. also, his comparing AC and DC current to ST and SW universes is idiotic. there is no valid comparison there.

instead of trying to prove to them that your sources are more valid, ask him to back up his claims with canon material, and only canon material.

[Isolder74]

There is another difference(I have Degree in electrical theory so I know this stuff). AC lets you travel the energy longer distances. AC lets you use higher voltages much easier. Only AC lets you use Transformers to step up and down voltage levels. AC does have disavantage in that 120 volt used in your house is the Root Means Squared value of the actual voltage. Actual value of the energy is about 480 volt Peak to Peak. So you see that you get longer transmission at the cost of lost energy cacity.

DC always runs at constant level and as such it is much more efficient at cetting work done. It's disadvantage is to step it down requires a voltage divider array to shunt the unwanted energy away(of course you could use this in another cirtiut). DC cannot travel as far as AC because it feels more resistance from the wire.

An example of this is your power drill

A cordless drill has a smaller moter than a normal drill. This is because the DC motor(universal motors{which will run on either kind of voltage} as usually used in both) produces more torgue than the same sized AC motor. If the batery on your cordless was 120 volts rather than 12 then you would cut through the board like a hot knife through butter. If we took the AC drill and ran it with 120 volts DC generator the motor would be almost un controlable. Trust me I have played around with this in a labratory envoroment where we could tie everything down. DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!

As you can see AC wins because it is cheap to send and use but the DC power is more efficient. this is why many household appiances have rectifiers to change the AC into stepped down DC to run with.

[Sharp-kun]

DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!

*Goes looking for the toolkit*

[Isolder74]

DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!

*Goes looking for the toolkit*

Imagines Sharp-kun with missing fingers:twisted:

go right ahead feel free to try you hand held circular saw too!

[Executor32]

Ooh, sounds almost as fun as that beast of a washing machine from one of Sunday's episodes of Myth Busters. Count me in!

BTW, Sharp-kun, I have but one thing to say to you:

Hito yonde Furinkan Koku no Aoi Ikazuchi!

[Darth Wong]

The guy who proposed this idiocy about AC vs DC power is obviously an imbecile. I'll bet money he's using the "circular logic" proof of turbolasers being lasers: simply make up two different ways of describing a laser, and then keep bouncing back and forth between the two of them.

For example:

"it's a laser!"
"how do you know that?"
"it's a beam of photons!"
"and how do you know that?"
"because it's obviously a laser!"
"and how do you know that?"
"because you can tell it's just a beam of photons!"

Etc. More advanced techniques involve three or four different ways of saying "laser".

[Isolder74]

Of course then there are Rasars and Masars Which use the same concept but do not use photons per see

The truth of the matter is most people do not know what a laser really is.

[Butterbean569]

You hit it on the head Wong. I've been trying to explain to him that they're not but he won't listen. I'm going to call him out on the circular logic, and if he continues I'm going to go ahead and give up on the debate. No need for me to get more frusturated (not to mention become more idiotic) because of arguing with him lol

[Dooey Jo]

If he keeps playing the name-game (turbolaser = laser because it has "laser" in it's name), you can always ask him what a Star Destroyer is capable of... It's called a Star Destroyer so by his reasoning, it must be able to destroy a star!

[Drooling Iguana]

Of course then there are Rasars and Masars Which use the same concept but do not use photons per see

The truth of the matter is most people do not know what a laser really is. :lol:

I thought Rasers and Masers still used photons, just not photons in the visible range.

[BoredShirtless]

Look, just ask him to explain how turbolasers travel so many times slower then the speed of photons if they "are just L.A.S.E.R.'s" [and like sticking dots between the letters of the acronym wins him any points].

[Slartibartfast]

Of course then there are Rasars and Masars Which use the same concept but do not use photons per see

The truth of the matter is most people do not know what a laser really is.

I thought Rasers and Masers still used photons, just not photons in the visible range.

Masers use microwaves. I think.

[Isolder74]

Of course then there are Rasars and Masars Which use the same concept but do not use photons per see

The truth of the matter is most people do not know what a laser really is.

I thought Rasers and Masers still used photons, just not photons in the visible range.

Rasar = Radar(or radio waves) Amplified by Stimulated Emited Radiation
Masar = Microwaves Amplified by Stimulated Emited Radiation.

You seee Radio waves and Microwave do no have photona but can still be amplified by construcive interference and energy stimulation. A laser is simply and form of phase coherent radiation that is created by boincing it between two mirrors and passing it through some moderating material that emites light at that frequency.

[GySgt. Hartman]

And microwaves are... EM-waves of a larger wavelength than IR. Says the picture (you have to scroll down ~1 screen).

[GySgt. Hartman]

And microwaves are... EM-waves of a larger wavelength than IR. Says the picture (you have to scroll down ~1 screen).

So they use photons. The only difference betweem L-, R-, and Masers is wavelength.

[BoredShirtless]

Electromagnetic energy can be treated as both quanta of photons and waves. The official name for this dual nature is the "Wave-Particle Duality."

[Isolder74]

Electromagnetic energy can be treated as both quanta of photons and waves. The official name for this dual nature is the "Wave-Particle Duality."

Yet Radio and Microwaves act almost totally like waves. The longer the wavelength it seems and the more wavelike the Em Radiation behaves. Figure out why that happens and you may be entitles to a Nobel Prize!

[PainRack]

Yet Radio and Microwaves act almost totally like waves. The longer the wavelength it seems and the more wavelike the Em Radiation behaves. Figure out why that happens and you may be entitles to a Nobel Prize!

That still ignores the fact that they transmit energy through photons.

[Ma Deuce]

As you can see AC wins because it is cheap to send and use but the DC power is more efficient. this is why many household appiances have rectifiers to change the AC into stepped down DC to run with.

AC motors do have their applications, most notably the traction motors of locomotives. Diesel-Electric and Electric locomotives have used DC motors since their inception, but not until the last decade have AC traction motors seen widespread use on locomotives. Before we get into the advantages of AC traction, a few notes about DC traction motors on locomotives: Modern DC-Traction Diesel-Electric locos use an AC-DC power setup, that is, they use the diesel engine to drive the alternator, which sends AC current through a rectifier, and then DC power to the motors. (In older Diesels, they used a DC generator that fed power directly to the motors, but later found alternators to be more reliable and less maintenence-intensive)

The trouble with using DC for driving a wheeled vehicle is that when you apply current to the motors, you are increasing both torque and power (kind of like having a car with only one gear setting in it's transmission). DC still does a good job in locomotive traction motors despite this, thanks to the fact that even the earliest diesel and electric locos have methods for dealing with wealslip, such as sanders (which blow sand between wheels and rails to increase traction when needed), and wheelslip control devices that reduce power to axles that are slipping (wheelslip control is much more effective on modern locomotives, thanks to computers).

AC traction diesel locomotives use inverter banks to "chop" the rectified DC power from the alternator back into AC power. The reason for this arrangement is that the inverters (managed by a computer) can adjust the frequency of the AC power being fed to the traction moters, so that the torque and power of the motors can be adjusted independently (like an automobile transmission), creating better wheel-to-rail adhesion and allowing an AC locomotive to exert around 20% more tractive effort (drawbar pull) than an equivalent DC loco before it's wheels start slipping. Also, since they have no commutators and brushes, AC motors are much more durable than DC motors, and can withstand high power/low speed conditions for much longer without overheating, making AC freight locos perfect for lugging really heavy trains at low speeds. There are a few catches: First, AC-traction freight locos cost about 30% more than their DC equivalents (a fact which has influenced several North American railroads to only buy AC locos for tasks where they have a definite advantage over DC, and others have not bought any ACs at all). AC freight locos also do not seem to have any advantage over their DC equivilents at higher speeds (60mph or greater). This is not to say AC can’t be used for high speed applications. AC freight units can be spotted frequently on light, fast trains, such container stack trains, or TOFC (trailer on flat car). The high-speed electric trains in Europe primarily use AC traction as well.

[Isolder74]

Very well done Ma Duce!


BTW the European trains(and most of them as well) use a type of motor we electrical guys like to call a squirel cage motor. The faster trains use something called a Liner Indution motor to pull them where the rails serve as the squirel cage of the unit. Most AC moptor designed as AC motors are intended to run on 3 phase power which triples the torque the engine produces. Most of these are induction motors and since the rotor only has to be a pair of rings held togather by steel rods(hence the nickname squirel cage) {a universal motor requires a coiled armature. To make it run one 3 phase reqires 3 sets of coils}. Many tower crains use Liner induction motors to move the cab along the boom. A Maglev train can be called the untimate liner induction motor.

THese motors run on the induced cufrrent that gets built up as the current in the ac signal changes. Since the amount of moving parts is greatly reduced in this type of motor it alows the flexibility of AC power with nearly the efficiancy of the DC motor of the same voltage rating.

PS a Aternator is a three phase power generator.

[His Divine Shadow]

Rasar = Radar(or radio waves) Amplified by Stimulated Emited Radiation
Masar = Microwaves Amplified by Stimulated Emited Radiation.

You seee Radio waves and Microwave do no have photona-

WHAT???

[Isolder74]

Rasar = Radar(or radio waves) Amplified by Stimulated Emited Radiation
Masar = Microwaves Amplified by Stimulated Emited Radiation.

You seee Radio waves and Microwave do no have photona-

WHAT???

Do no = do not

did not notice dropped T

[His Divine Shadow]

Rasar = Radar(or radio waves) Amplified by Stimulated Emited Radiation
Masar = Microwaves Amplified by Stimulated Emited Radiation.

You seee Radio waves and Microwave do no have photona-

WHAT???

Do no = do not

did not notice dropped T

No, that whole radio and micro waves do not have photons stuff.
They do have photons, they're the same thing as ordinary light, which is also EM radiation, the only thing 'special' about visible light is that our eyes recieve it.
The only difference between the various types of electromagnetic radiation is the amount of energy found in the photons.

[PainRack]

No, that whole radio and micro waves do not have photons stuff.
They do have photons, they're the same thing as ordinary light, which is also EM radiation, the only thing 'special' about visible light is that our eyes recieve it.
The only difference between the various types of electromagnetic radiation is the amount of energy found in the photons.

You know, this feels a tad like SB again, where two other gits have to recorrect someone before they admit their mistake.