GySgt. Hartman wrote:I was just made aware of the fact that The ICS describe ion cannons as firing
an electrical discharge to disrupt the control circuits of an enemy craft without destroying it.
(p. 20, Y-Wing)
It is clear from the movies that this "electrical discharge" travels at speed well below
c.
True to a certain extent. The Hoth Ion cannon didn't appear to travel at or near c (or at least the visible part didn't, if ion cannons also have a "tracer" part like lasers and turbolasers do.) but they were also clearly relatavistic.
Plus, we also know ion engines can reach relatavistic speeds (indeed, they in fact need to be very close to the speed of light to be even remotely efficient.) so it is reasonable to infer that ion cannons could also impart similar velocities.
From this follows that the beam must consist of heavy particles, presumably charged ones.
Well, they'd HAVE to be charged particles. Neutral partticles aren't quite going to have that sort of effect, I don't think. It doesnt neccesarily need to be heavy particles, though (I presume you mean, heavy ionized atoms.)
This beam of charged particles can be aimed, whereas an "electric discharge" would simply use the way of lowest resistance.
unless the electrical discharged was part of the beam of charged particles.
In TESB, we see a shot from an ion cannon bypass a transport and hit an ISD - not on his nose, but below the tower.
yes.
The hull of the ISD should offer some protection from a simple discharge ( Faraday cage), yet the effect of the it seems to be pretty localized, instead of travelling all over the hull.
Assuming it has nothing to do with penetrating the shields, that may simply be due to the ionization effects, or it may be due to the superconducting nature of SW armor. A beam of charged particles would not behave in that fashion either (it would penetrate fairly deeply and blast out a nice chunk of the hull.)
How can we reconcile this canon observation with the canon statement from ICS, or is there simply an unlucky choice of words in the ICS?
I don't see what the problem is.