TL Flak bursts

[Patrick Ogaard]

Sorry about goofing up the quotes.

[Connor MacLeod]

As I understand the ICS interpretation, (and I believe I've said this before) - they aren't lasers. The fact the DS can combine all those tributary beams proves this. What they are is a massless particle of some unknown type (it could be one we know of or we think exists or may not know of) that decays into photons to deliver thermal damage to targets (and also to create teh visible "pulse" along the beam)

Second, I've also said this - combining a plasma weapon with a "laser" is kinda redundant in the same turret. Separate turretes would be more sensible. And there's also the potential problem of the laser further heating your plasma, causing it to spread further (if we also ignore the problems with containing it for any appreciable length of time, and such.)
If such plasma weapons exist, they're probably very short ranged (1 LS or less, due to the instability of any known containment... and a technobabble containment field is no better/worse than the unknown massless particle.)

Third, and while I am aware this is and always has been a "generally accepted fact", the whole "flak burst" thing is still up in the air. Frankly I'm still waiting to know why the flak burst is really needed, or why it would be better than the "stutterfire" setting we already know lasers and turbolasers are capable of (lower powered, faster firing shots - usually produce dozens or hundreds per burst at lowest intensities)

[ClaysGhost]

On the neutronium side, obviously the problem (aside from the negative connotations) is that neutronium or superdense materials are often treated as technobabble magic that does anything.
The likeliest thing is that it would act as the Star Wars equivalent of depleted uranium armor: useful when integrated into a matrix of conventional armor but not the Ultimate Secret Defense/Weapon.

I'm not going to repeat my objections to neutronium word for word, but I summarise:

A) How do you attach it to the armour? Neutrons ignore electrons.

B) How do you make it stable without applying neutron star levels of pressure? Neutronium is one big nucleus, and big nuclei aren't stable at all.

C) Nobody has an equation of state for neutronium, and we don't have a heat capacity for a completely nucleon-based material (the mechanism for thermal conduction will lie in the nucleons, not electrons, unlike the known elements). On what basis are we predicting its bulk properties?

D) What happens when the power fails, the pressure keeping the neutronium intact gives and the stuff decays? The radiation would be considerable.

E) It's, er, not exactly massless.

From what I've gleaned to date, the Star Wars justification seems to be that the neutronim-laced armor provides extremely good protection against EM and particle radiation and provides thermal superconductivity of the sort apparently seen on AT-ATs. Lighter vehicles either have fewer layers or no neutronium cladding (durasteel) at all, which would explain how vehicles like the Trade Federation tanks and Imperial AT-STs can get themselves blown to bits by light vehicular blasters that apparently could (literally) not even scratch the finish on an AT-AT.

Surely the neutronium, if it is thermally superconductive, will simply carry the heat to the other component materials in the armour (thermally speaking) which then vapourise?

Instead of neutronium, I propose hyperarmour. It does for defence technology what hypermatter did for power generation, without any of the problems of neutronium being subject to physical enquiry.

I don't think TLs use plasma (or even ionized gas) except as a tracer. Really long distance fire in vacuum likely would not work well, explaining why even lightweight fighters like the basic TIE models all use the longer-ranged laser cannon. In fighters, apparently the only major uses are on the older models of the Z-95 Headhunter and the B-wing starfighters that apparently carry several autoblasters to greet more maneuverable opponents with a hail of fire at close range. In one case, the fighter in question is old and normally carries other weapons (presumably missiles, torpedoes and the like) on hardpoints, while in the other, the blasters act as a rapid fire close range weapon to make up for lacking dogfight maneuverability against small and agile opponents like the various TIE fighter series. The Z-95's blaster range is expressly stated (Han Solo at Stars' End) to be shorter than that of the laser cannon of CSA IRD fighter prototypes.

Fair enough.

[His Divine Shadow]

Vaders TIE fighter in ANH had heavy blaster cannons instead, due to some limits of some nature.

[Patrick Ogaard]

Regarding neutronium: as it's official (particularly per the AOTC ICS), we've pretty much got to accept the stability and properties of neutronium in the Star Wars universe. The relevant quote regarding the Acclamator is: "Enemy fusion rockets barely score the super-dispersive neutronium-impregnated hull cladding." Beyond that, it's a matter of taste.

Unfortunately, looking at page 3 of the AOTC ICS, my assorted concepts are tossed out of the window by official material. Officially, Star Wars "Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The visible "bolt" is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed. Therefore, targets can explode instants before the "bolt" actually arrives."

Thus, my new idea is as follows for laser cannon and turbolasers: they fire exotic (or strange, or charmed, or whatever) photons (or equivalent massless particles/waves) that decay spontaneously into conventional photons over time. For some reason, imparting spin to the beam can reduce the energy-draining glow.

Unfortunately, that amounts to not much more than slightly reformulating what the book itself says.

[His Divine Shadow]

Didn't make make a big fuss about this and that neutronium was stable outside a neutronstar enviroment?

[ClaysGhost]

Regarding neutronium: as it's official (particularly per the AOTC ICS), we've pretty much got to accept the stability and properties of neutronium in the Star Wars universe. The relevant quote regarding the Acclamator is: "Enemy fusion rockets barely score the super-dispersive neutronium-impregnated hull cladding." Beyond that, it's a matter of taste.

I think it's pure, unrefined madness

Thus, my new idea is as follows for laser cannon and turbolasers: they fire exotic (or strange, or charmed, or whatever) photons (or equivalent massless particles/waves) that decay spontaneously into conventional photons over time. For some reason, imparting spin to the beam can reduce the energy-draining glow.

Unfortunately, that amounts to not much more than slightly reformulating what the book itself says.

I'd prefer "other massless particles" to photons. Photons don't spontaneously decay. Particles containing quarks (strange, charmed etc) wouldn't be massless.

I'm also unsure as to why only part of the beam appears to decay at any one time, when I'd expect an inverse exponential brightness profile from beginning of beam to end (fewer particles survive to decay the further you go with the beam). Plus the spin is problematic - what keeps the beam spinning at long range? You need some sort of magic containment field, again.

[omegaLancer]

well a massless particle that would decay would be an Axion.. they decay in the present of magnetic fields into photons...

they have not been detected at this time.

[ClaysGhost]

well a massless particle that would decay would be an Axion.. they decay in the present of magnetic fields into photons...

they have not been detected at this time.

They don't couple at all well to matter. I have to think that their utility as a weapon would be limited.

[omegaLancer]

actual it depends the first version proposed for the Axion would have react too well with normal matter.. ripping baryons apart ( thru the altering the magnetic momentum ( altering spin).. but when none of the of the by product of such reactions were observed, a newer wimpier version was propose...and now that no indication of this weak reacting axion has been detect, it may be time to go back to the drawing board..

The first version would have been a very usefull weapon, transforming boson to fermions and fermion to boson....naaaa too much like star trek technobabble weaponary