ST weapons vs. SW weapons. How they work?

[Kartr_Kana]

It has been stated time and time again that Star Wars weapons pack much more energy then Star Trek ones. What if the energy being mesured is applicable energy rather then total energy.

Proton torpedos are supposed to hurl protons at the target. All or almost all of the torpedos energy is focused at the target.
Photon torpedos combine matter and anti-matter to cause a large omnidirectional blast.
If these two statements are true then the applied energy of the Proton torpedo is nearly 100% while the applied energy of the Photon is much less. I do not know the math in order to discover how much energy the Photon torpedo is actually delivering to the target. If anybody has the knowledge/time?

Turbolasers are supposed to be plasma weapon that have been focused until all the ions are traveling in the same direction. I think it is supposed to be a plasma "laser" if that makes sense. anyway all of the energy is focused in one direction.
Romulan Plasma torpedos is (from my limeted understanding of them) merly plasma encased in an electro-magnetic field. The field collapses on impact and releases the plasma. The plasma readiates outward in all directions diluting the damage.

If these statements are true then ST weapons may use/put off as much as SW ones but does it in a random and undirected manner (Much like Starfleet its self), wheras SW weapons unleash all their hideous energys against one target.

[Junghalli]

Here's how I think it works from what I've seen.

Turbolasers: sprays really really hot plasma at the target.
Proton torpedos: handwavium tech, no clue how they work.
Phasers: causes some kind of bizzare molecular breakdown chain reaction.
Disruptors: some kind of particle beam I think.
Romulan plasma weapon: same as turbolaser but less powerful.
Photon torpedo: a missile with a warhead full of antimatter, basically.
Resonator torpedo: handwavium tech, no clue how they work.

Wars weapons are way more powerful than Trek because Wars has much better power generation.

[Praxis]

It has been stated time and time again that Star Wars weapons pack much more energy then Star Trek ones. What if the energy being mesured is applicable energy rather then total energy.

Proton torpedos are supposed to hurl protons at the target. All or almost all of the torpedos energy is focused at the target.
Photon torpedos combine matter and anti-matter to cause a large omnidirectional blast.
If these two statements are true then the applied energy of the Proton torpedo is nearly 100% while the applied energy of the Photon is much less. I do not know the math in order to discover how much energy the Photon torpedo is actually delivering to the target. If anybody has the knowledge/time?

Turbolasers are supposed to be plasma weapon that have been focused until all the ions are traveling in the same direction. I think it is supposed to be a plasma "laser" if that makes sense. anyway all of the energy is focused in one direction.
Romulan Plasma torpedos is (from my limeted understanding of them) merly plasma encased in an electro-magnetic field. The field collapses on impact and releases the plasma. The plasma readiates outward in all directions diluting the damage.

If these statements are true then ST weapons may use/put off as much as SW ones but does it in a random and undirected manner (Much like Starfleet its self), wheras SW weapons unleash all their hideous energys against one target.

It's quite simple really, to calculate the applied energy of a photon torpedo. Draw a wall. Put a point on that wall. Draw a circle around that. Almost exactly 50% of the energy (aka the circle) will go into the target, and 50% will go away.

Of course, this number is a maximum and is even smaller if:
A) The torpedo explodes even a tiny distance away from the target
B) The target is really small
C) The target is curved and not a flat wall (like, say, a ST shield?)

[Batman]

It has been stated time and time again that Star Wars weapons pack much more energy then Star Trek ones. What if the energy being mesured is applicable energy rather then total energy.
Proton torpedos are supposed to hurl protons at the target. All or almost all of the torpedos energy is focused at the target.
Photon torpedos combine matter and anti-matter to cause a large omnidirectional blast.
If these two statements are true then the applied energy of the Proton torpedo is nearly 100% while the applied energy of the Photon is much less. I do not know the math in order to discover how much energy the Photon torpedo is actually delivering to the target. If anybody has the knowledge/time?

Who cares, since the photorps totalyield is already pathetically low compared to Wars?
A good ballpark figure for contact detonations is 50% yield delivered. That's a physically impossible upper limit but it beats having to factor in target silhoutte relative to detonation et al. At least for me.

Turbolasers are supposed to be plasma weapon that have been focused until all the ions are traveling in the same direction.

Dude, that theory was ditched eons ago. They're massless lightspeed weapon of an unknown nature.

anyway all of the energy is focused in one direction.

One would hope so.

Romulan Plasma torpedos is (from my limeted understanding of them) merly plasma encased in an electro-magnetic field. The field collapses on impact and releases the plasma. The plasma readiates outward in all directions diluting the damage.

If you say so.

If these statements are true then ST weapons may use/put off as much as SW ones but does it in a random and undirected manner (Much like Starfleet its self), wheras SW weapons unleash all their hideous energys against one target.

Nope. PTs are KT level even with their complete yield. Visible damage done by the plasma torp is nothing much. The released energy is certainly higher than the damage done but the disparity in power is just way to vast.

[The Original Nex]

Turbolasers are NOT Plasma weapons. It is physically impossible given what is observed onscreen.

Read the main site's article on Turbolasers, it has several threories as to how they work, as well as other articles about Phasers, and various missile/torp weapons (both Wars and Trek).

[Kartr_Kana]

Ok I will re-read the turbolasers commentary. It has been a long time since I did that.

[SPOOFE]

ST weapons vs. SW weapons. How they work?

"Somehow".

[Kartr_Kana]

TLs and assorted tech are unexplainable, which makes comparison difficult. I wonder what this mysterous energy that both SW and ST refer to. any ideas?

[Batman]

TLs and assorted tech are unexplainable, which makes comparison difficult.

err-so are NDF weapons. You can't compare function, as both are unexplainable. Which leaves comparing effect, which is easy enough. What's your point?

I wonder what this mysterous energy that both SW and ST refer to. any ideas?

Good luck with that one.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Don't know, don't care.

[Kartr_Kana]

I would like to know the way that TLs could work according to what we know about physics. I am obssed by figuring them out for some reason.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

That kind of goes beyond what's actually known.

[SPOOFE]

err-so are NDF weapons. You can't compare function, as both are unexplainable.

Well... there are certain levels of "function". We know that NDF "somehow" uses a chain-reaction, material-dependent mechanism for its initial blast to "feed" on. The exact nature of this functionality, of course, is inexplicable.

Turbolasers are, as mentioned, massless, multi-component "energy" weapons that, again, "somehow" work.

So we know a few minor, superficial details, but no real significant knowledge.

[Kartr_Kana]

Excuse my ignorance but what does NDF stand for? What if the energy that is often refered to in ST and SW was some form of "pure" energy that incorperates all forms of energy that we know of. Or it could be the "strings" in string theory, if the "energy" is actually strings it would answer all the problems that we have explaining TLs and lightsabers and phasers shields and the whole shebang.

[Lone_Prodigy]

What, precisely, do you mean? Proton torpedos can pack yields in the hundreds of megatons, while Photon torpedos have only been shown have single-digit megaton yields, if that! A hundredfold increase in firepower is not the result of being a shaped charge instead of an undirected blast, and remember– Slave 1, a small patrol ship, carried 10 gigaton seismic mines. In TNG, it would take most of the 250 Photon Torpedos onboard the Enterprise to shatter a 10km diameter asteroid. Since that would take only 1 gigaton, a max-yield for Photon Torpedos is 5 megatons. However, keep in mind that this asteroid was hollow. Now, remember: Slave 1 carried at least 6 seismic mines. Each Seismic Mine is a 10-gigaton weapon. See the different? 60 gigatons on a tiny patrol ship or 1 gigaton on a 600 meter warship. A single ISD could make the entire Trek galaxy it's bitch until it runs out of fuel eventually.

Now, as for NDF: it stands for the phaser's mechanism (I can't remember it off the top of my head). Basically, the weapon isn't "pure energy" or any other bullshit, but instead it's a chain reaction. A weapon that can vaporize a person (without creating vapor, no less, which is impossible) is barely able to scratch light metals like aluminum. In other words, Federation capital-ship phasers would be useless against Imperial armor even if (by some act of Q) the Imperial shields had recieved a cup of Coca-cola dumped all over the control board. Take a look at the main website– Federation firepower and Imperial firepower are not even in the same six orders of magnitude for comparable ship size.

[Kartr_Kana]

my current theory is on the nature of Star Wars weapons:

Turbolaser/Laser/Blaster family of weapons:
Stage 1; Plasma is created in the firing chamber of the weapon, this plasma is encased in an EM field. Stage 2; as the plasma enters the barrel the protons are accelerated down the barrel.
The protons are accelerated while the electrons/neutrons are not. The electrons and neutrons are contained in an EM field and give off the disticntive glow of the weapon. The protons are accelerated like in one of our atom smashers. The protons out run the the rest of the blast, this is very visable in turbolaser bolts becase they accelerate the protons much faster due to their greater length. Damage to the target is determined by the speed of the protons and the number of protons. Turbolasers with their long, large bore barrels do a lot more damage then the shorter narrower barrels of star fighter lasers. Star fighter lasers do more damage then personal weapons for the same reason.
Stun and flak settings are similar to each other. Stun sets a wide EM field of short length this field contains few Ions and those are not accelrated which explains the shorter range of stun blasts. Flak sets a normal EM field of varying strength, the field contains the full amount of Ions but does not accelerate the protons as much as a normal setting would.

Comments? I am being driven from my computer so I will finish this later.

Ion Cannon:
Missle/torpedo class of weapons:
Lightsabers:
Notes:

[Darth Wong]

It's fine except for the minor problem that it makes about as much physics sense as invisible flying gnomes guiding the plasma through the air. You might as well just say "they're rayguns" and leave it at that, rather than inventing a physics-termed explanation which does not in fact respect physics at all.

[Kartr_Kana]

I am no physics major so I will accept your statement that it does not obay the rules of physics and just shut up about this subject. And leave it to someone who does have a degree in physics to try and explain it.

[Mad]

Comments?

You should check out my theory. It attempts to tie together lots of stuff (including EU) and explains oddities in the films that yours cannot address (damage before impact and bolt redirection, both of which occur multiple times and in more than one movie).

[Kartr_Kana]

Darth Wong can you tell me where my physics are faulty? Maybe I can learn something from this.

[Darth Wong]

Darth Wong can you tell me where my physics are faulty? Maybe I can learn something from this.

OK:

my current theory is on the nature of Star Wars weapons:

Turbolaser/Laser/Blaster family of weapons:
Stage 1; Plasma is created in the firing chamber of the weapon, this plasma is encased in an EM field. Stage 2; as the plasma enters the barrel the protons are accelerated down the barrel.

OK so far, but plasmas make poor projectiles in atmosphere for many reasons.

The protons are accelerated while the electrons/neutrons are not. The electrons and neutrons are contained in an EM field and give off the disticntive glow of the weapon.

Free neutrons will not be contained in an EM field. They are neutral, ie- no charge, so they will fly right through magnetic containment and escape. Also, there is no reason for them to glow the way blaster bolts do. The neutrons will fly away and the electrons will not be contained because an EM field must be projected by something; it cannot subsist on its own.

The protons are accelerated like in one of our atom smashers. The protons out run the the rest of the blast, this is very visable in turbolaser bolts becase they accelerate the protons much faster due to their greater length.

Damage to the target is determined by the speed of the protons and the number of protons. Turbolasers with their long, large bore barrels do a lot more damage then the shorter narrower barrels of star fighter lasers. Star fighter lasers do more damage then personal weapons for the same reason.

So they're basically ion cannons, which would beg the question of what ion cannons are. Also, a high-powered invisible proton beam would create visible effects in atmosphere.

Stun and flak settings are similar to each other. Stun sets a wide EM field of short length this field contains few Ions and those are not accelrated which explains the shorter range of stun blasts. Flak sets a normal EM field of varying strength, the field contains the full amount of Ions but does not accelerate the protons as much as a normal setting would.

You're treating "EM field" as a magic term. EM fields have known characteristics, and one of them is that they decrease in strength rapidly as you move away from the origin. This means that the EM field produced by a blaster according to this theory would be ridiculously powerful near the blaster itself while weakening with range, which would in turn force us to ask why the user is not killed or stunned (not to mention metallic objects in his vicinity being affected).

[Kartr_Kana]

Thank you Darth Wong I guess I have to go back to the drawing board then. Do protons act like Electrons? I mean do they short out electronic devices?

Mad your theory does not make much sense to me. Carrier beams does not make much sense by what I have seen. The blaster/laser/Turbolaser bolts all seem to act like energy 'bullets".

[Mad]

Mad your theory does not make much sense to me. Carrier beams does not make much sense by what I have seen.

What makes you think it's a carrier beam? You're getting the theory completely backwards if that's what you think it's talking about.

The blaster/laser/Turbolaser bolts all seem to act like energy 'bullets".

Bullets don't alter their flightpath, yet SW lasers/turbolasers do:

Exapmles from ESB. Also, note how the asteroid takes damage before the bolt impacts. Neither behavior is consistent with a "bullet" theory. (Lines added to show the trajectory change.)

example from RotJ. Note how the bolts stay in front of the X-wing even though it is pitching up. A crewman on board one of the starships watching would see the bolts changing path to stay in front of the X-wing. "Bullets" would have shot straight ahead instead, and thus "dropped" out of the pilot's field of vision. (The way they do when playing a computer game such as X-Wing Alliance.)

Any theory that attempts to explain the behavior of SW lasers/turbolasers will have to explain those oddities, as they occur in other places as well.

[Star-Blighter]

Excuse my ignorance but what does NDF stand for? What if the energy that is often refered to in ST and SW was some form of "pure" energy that incorperates all forms of energy that we know of. Or it could be the "strings" in string theory, if the "energy" is actually strings it would answer all the problems that we have explaining TLs and lightsabers and phasers shields and the whole shebang.

Ok, first of all "pure energy" is a myth. There is no such thing what so ever.

Energy can take on many forms, be it thermal, chemical, electromagnetic, or kinetic in nature but there is no actual "pure energy" as it is simply scifi construct without any base in real physics.