Is the Death Star II weaker than Death Star I?

[Batman]

It wouldn't have to; and clearly it doesn't in the case of the DSII, since we know from cannon that the settings were modified when firing on cap-ships in ROTJ.
That said, it isn't a bad assumption that it would look different; it just turns out to be a false assumption in this case.

It IS a bad assumption since it is based on NOTHING WHATSOEVER other than you wanting it to be the case.
We KNOW from MOVIE CANON that hand blaster discharges look essentially the same as low-power ship weapon discharges that shatter or outright vapourize asteroids. We know for a fact from movie canon that weapons visually identical to the DS superlaser DO have immeasurably lower yields. So I ask again, what is the basis for you assuming that different yields would be noticeably visually distinguishable?

[Terralthra]

Stun looks different because it is different. Stun is not a low-powered blast of the same type as the non-stun settings. Stun (blue donuts) are to the red blaster shots as ion cannons are to turbo-lasers. You'll note that the ion cannon shots are noticeably different visually from the typical TL shot.

cf. The Krytos Trap for stun shot/blaster bolt differences..

[BountyHunterSAx]

I did, actually. It's the reason that I didn't push the point. I said at the beginning that of the four assumptions, the second was the most easily challenged. And batman, I've already answered that question - read back to see where.

-AHMAD

[Batman]

No you haven't. You showed that a stun shot looked different than a kill shot. You never showed how a high yield kill shot would look different from a low yield one.

[BountyHunterSAx]

You asked me what my basis was; not to prove it. If you asked me to show 'where did I prove it' or you said, 'I want to see your proof of it'; again I would have told you that it I didn't prove it because it was false, and would have referred you to this thread where I have stated such at least four or five times.

And yes; since the stun and the blast came out of the same weapon, but looked different, I would say that - while an inaccurate conclusion, it's hardly a stupid conclusion to say that "Six supporting beams from the DSI/DSII should not be needed for a cap-ship shot." Granted, that isn't a provable claim; but it's certainly not baseless. Or to rephrase, that claim has no basis in provable fact, but it does have a basis in "looking-right". Does that prove shit? no. Did I know that going in from the beginning? yes.

Why then did I do this anyway? Because - and pay attention here - NOWHERE IN THE FILM CANNON IS THE DS1/DS2's POWER SETTING REFERENCED! The closest we get is Palpatine saying it's armed and operational. Now, I accept that the film is not the extent of canon; and since sources outside the film directly state that such power settings DO exist, the argument was axed SEVERAL POSTS AGO. This is a fact that I agreed readily to, since I said in my original post that it makes sense that power settings ought to exist.

Of course, 'ought-to-ness' isn't proof, and in light of all the other things (6 support beams, same appearance (whereas the one other time in film we saw a weapon fired at 2 variant settings it had different appearance), etc.) it seemed possible enough that the DS1/DS2 did not indeed have the varied settings; or at any rate that us saying 'they must exist' would be too large a jump in logic. I have not, since finding out the settings existed, argued that:

*) The DS's super-laser is not scalable
*) The DS2 < DS1 in power.
*) The DS2 shooting capships represents the extent of its power


-AHMAD

[Terralthra]

You will do far better if you just drop it, instead of trying to defend the reasonability of assumptions that you have already conceded turned out to be wrong.

[BountyHunterSAx]

Drop it as in concede the argument? Because I did that many posts back. Or drop it as in refrain from posting in this topic further; which I can do and haven't?

-AHMAD

[Batman]

You asked me what my basis was; not to prove it.

And the basis was that a stun shot looked different than a kill shot. Which hasn't got ANYTHING to do with a high power kill shot looking different than a low power one, which was your claim WRT the the DS2 ship killshots not looking any different than the DS1 Alderaan one.

And yes; since the stun and the blast came out of the same weapon, but looked different, I would say that - while an inaccurate conclusion, it's hardly a stupid conclusion to say that "Six supporting beams from the DSI/DSII should not be needed for a cap-ship shot."

Yes it would be because it is supported by NOTHING WHATSOEVER!!!!!!!!!!!
You will now explain in detail the workings of the DS superlaser or conceed you have no clue as to wether or not the tributary beams are needed even at low power settings.

Granted, that isn't a provable claim; but it's certainly not baseless.

Yes it is.

Or to rephrase, that claim has no basis in provable fact, but it does have a basis in "looking-right"

IOW it does NOT have a base.

Does that prove shit? no. Did I know that going in from the beginning? yes.
Why then did I do this anyway? Because - and pay attention here - NOWHERE IN THE FILM CANNON IS THE DS1/DS2's POWER SETTING REFERENCED!

So? To anybody NOT stupid beyond comprehension (i.e. not you) it's painfully obvious that you don't fire a weapon that is dial-a-yield as supported by tons of canon evidence at 100% when 0.000001% will do the job.

Of course, 'ought-to-ness' isn't proof, and in light of all the other things (6 support beams, same appearance (whereas the one other time in film we saw a weapon fired at 2 variant settings it had different appearance)

So apart from the size what WAS the difference in appearance between the DS superlaser and the ones used by the Republic gunships in AotC?

[BountyHunterSAx]

You will now explain in detail the workings of the DS superlaser or conceed you have no clue as to wether or not the tributary beams are needed even at low power settings.

That's fair enough. I do not know the detailed workings of the DS superlaser. I do not concede that I have no clue as to whether or not the tributary beams are needed because it was mentioned on the main page that the beams interacted and fed power on the page that discussed the myth about lasers.

That said, I *do* concede that I do not know enough about the DS super-laser to provably say what a low-power shot would or should look like compared to a high-power shot.

-AHMAD

[Darth Servo]

I do not concede that I have no clue as to whether or not the tributary beams are needed because it was mentioned on the main page that the beams interacted and fed power on the page that discussed the myth about lasers.

But you do NOT know that it is necessary to eliminate one of the beams to change the setting, as opposed to just reducing the power level of just one or more of them. If eliminating a tributary beam were required for power level adjustment, the thing would be limited to only nine settings; x/9 the firepower of the max planet killer blast.

Just going on gut impressions (yeah, I know those are pretty worthless) I'd say the main function of the tributaries are for targeting, not power settings.

[Connor MacLeod]

The point of the tributary beams probably has more to do with adjusting the firing axis (allowing the beam to fire more off axis) and building the magnitude of energy to destroy a planet (cooling isuses perhaps) than it does with the actual setting.

Besides we know (from internal shots of the superlaser beam, ie the tiny beams in the shaft with the two Imperials) that even if tributary beams played a role in adjusting the power, there are alot more than just those big eight beams.

I was tempted to just actually quote the essential guides, ,but why is tha tneccessary? The whole "rechage" issue is quite bloody simple.

We know for a fact that the Death Star needs to build up power between shots (hours). This means it needs some sort of energy storage devicee between the reactor and the shot (a capacitor fo some type, perhaps). Since the energy released into the whole "superlaser conversion process" will come from that stroage unit.

What this also means is is that its quite simple to control the power output of the weapon by how much energy the reactor dumps into the storage unit. Its pretty much obvious that it should be able to alter its recharge from between 1 second or the full recharge time (about 1/3 a day to a day as I recall, depending on the source.)

Fractional-second "rechage" should not be impossible either, either by having power diverted to other systems (such as the engines, or the anti-ship weapons) or by altering the power output of the reactor itself (who says the reactor has to operate at peak capacity all the time?)

Its also quite likely for the superlaser to have a "single second" recharge of the storage unit, and then the superlaser utilizing only part of the energy for multiple shots (any delays in firing may invlove issues such as targeting, cooling, or other considerations.)

[bz249]

As far as I remember in the novelization it is written that Jerjerrod was planning to destroy the Endor after the shield generator was destroyed and Rebel fighters entered the DSII just for the fun of destroying something green or something like that... so while Endor maybe smaller than Alderaan and have no shield, however it is valid proof that Death Star II CAN EASILY blow up planets.

[BountyHunterSAx]

It also proves more than that; it proves that there isn't a tremendous time-lapse between changing the settings and building up the power needed for a planet-shot (at least for the DSII).

In other words, it shows that the power-storage system on the DSII is dis-jointed with the blast-intensity settings. Otherwise Jerjerrod would have had no hope of destroying Endor in any time-frame short enough that its destruction would harm the rebels on it.

-AHMAD