how many cannons the Delta-7 has?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-09-04 11:02pm

I think the beam splitters purpose can be deduced from it's role. What if that model of weapons purpose is to defeat swiftly moving but lightly/non-shielded targets? If you are going against something who's main defense against destruction is not being hit, then a weapon that can fill space with more bits of individual fire makes some good sense, since even if they are weaker that the sum of the shots, any hit is a good hit. Consider that StarWars is full of fighters who are build to be small, speedy, and so cheap that they pop out of the factory in a plastic bulb. A weapon that increases it's volume of fire in exchange for power per shot would be just what the Wookiee ordered.

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2004-09-05 01:36am

Connor MacLeod wrote:Its not neccesarily a tracer, just a harmless side effect (which is not just indicated by the AOTC ICS - the EGW&T call sthe visible botl a "harmless side effect." ) of the weapon's nature/creation. The fact it CAN be used as a tracer (Shadows of the Empire, Wraith Squadron, Cracken's Rebel Field guide, EGW&T) is only an incidental advantage. In fact, the EGW&T suggests the "visible" nature is simply a preferential setting, not neccesarily even a requirement for capital scale weapons.)

Hmm. I'll give you that one, hadn't read my ICS in a while. But I did to double check your quote, and it does read in such a way that it seems reasonable to put my fear away for now. Let's just hope no additional text comes out and screws it up.
About the visible/invisible bit: I read the relevant quotes in the EGWT and the AOTCICS, and it suddenly made me think: would we see any visible effects on the sheilds if they were hit by a turbolaser that emits in the non-visible spectrum? I mean, they have to emit light of some wavelength as per the ICS (because if they could avoid it the bolts would have a less limited range), but if we don't have to see the bolts fired, and we don't have to see much of a visible sheild interaction, then the ROTJ space battle might have been a lot more intense than it looks.

Now, back to the OP:

What if that model of weapons purpose is to defeat swiftly moving but lightly/non-shielded targets?...increases it's volume of fire in exchange for power per shot

Gil, I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Are you suggesting that the beam is split so that mulitple bolts fire simultaneously and scatter a bit so as to create a better chance for a hit? Or are you talking about rate-of-fire, which basically just brings back the suggestion that they serve a cooling function for some component that's in the very end of the barrel, probably the aiming lens/mirror/whatever?

Now, as for splitting, there's two possibilities here. One is that the Falcon's lasers actually were fired split, but the part of the beam with the visible patch ended up entirely on one side of the split. Now, I can't think of any direct reason why this is actually impossible, but it sends warning signals all through my skull that say "unlikely". The other is that simultaneous splitting must be thrown out entirely, because the Falcon's guns are the only example we have, and it shouldn't have been turned off because when the Falcon was firing at TIEs - your typical hard-to-hit easy-to-damage target - only one visible shot was being fired from those double barrels.

As for their being used for cooling, the rate of fire wasn't even all that high, so... nope, makes more sense then. He upped the power of the quadlaser, so it's likely that at some point in the rest of the gun there's be components that weren't designed to channel that amount of energy without quickly overheating. That puts your rate of fire through the floor. In order to get a reasonable ROF back, you've got to put in better parts, or add in things like the splitter.
As for the Aethersprite, I'm going to guess that for some reason the splitter and low-quality emitters were cheaper than an better emitter. It's also possible, if less likely, that that particular size of laser emitter had been outpaced technologically by laser cannon development, so no single emitter could do the job.
And there's really no reason that you couldn't have it fire from one or both emitters, depending on what switch you throw.

Anything about beam-splitting being good against shields might as well be dropped, because the only evidence for it is that one sentence in that disreputable book. Besides, ignoring the Essential Guides is an, er, essential part of coming up with something that actually makes sense.

Course, you could rationalise it by making up some special property of sheilds such that they destabilize locally if you hit them with two beams of sufficient power at just the right distance apart, thus allowing the next shot greater penetration, but there's just no evidence for it, so why bother?

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2004-09-05 05:27am

Alan Bolte wrote: About the visible/invisible bit: I read the relevant quotes in the EGWT and the AOTCICS, and it suddenly made me think: would we see any visible effects on the sheilds if they were hit by a turbolaser that emits in the non-visible spectrum?

We would if the EM energy contained in the "bolt" is released in the form of visible light (such as the "glow" we typically see.) Remember that the invisible "beam" itself is not composed of EM energy (Photons don't combine like the superlaser does, remember.), but that the massless particles that comprise a turbolaser or laser beam DO decay into EM energy (hence why we see the glow, ,as well as the observed thermal effects. Also keep in mind this is in line with some of the "official" descriptions of lasers and turbolasers- "packets" of light energy... or a "beam" composed of energy particles.. or things like that.)

I mean, they have to emit light of some wavelength as per the ICS (because if they could avoid it the bolts would have a less limited range), but if we don't have to see the bolts fired, and we don't have to see much of a visible sheild interaction, then the ROTJ space battle might have been a lot more intense than it looks.

Not neccesarily, since I believe not all EM energy is in the visible spectrum. In fact, IIRC, visible light tends to encompass a smaller part of the overall EM spectrum. I imagine one could conceivably have a "non-visible" bolt and still experience dissipation of the bolt's overall energy content.

As for "alot more intense than it looks" that depends on how you interpret things. If they were exchanging massive broadsides, there might very well be delays between shots (targeting purposes, recharging, etc.) Keep in mind as well that a fair bit of the battle does occur at long ranges, and we wouldnt neccecsarily see all the bolts being exchanged (some can be downright narrow or not particularily bright - see the Avenger firing on the Falcon when it tries to ram the bridge in TESB)

Gil, I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Are you suggesting that the beam is split so that mulitple bolts fire simultaneously and scatter a bit so as to create a better chance for a hit? Or are you talking about rate-of-fire, which basically just brings back the suggestion that they serve a cooling function for some component that's in the very end of the barrel, probably the aiming lens/mirror/whatever?

I believe he's discussing rate of fire analogous to the "stutter fire" or splinter-shot mode we see in the NJO - there does in fact seem to be an inverse relationship between rate of fire and the power-level of the weapon

Now, as for splitting, there's two possibilities here. One is that the Falcon's lasers actually were fired split, but the part of the beam with the visible patch ended up entirely on one side of the split. Now, I can't think of any direct reason why this is actually impossible, but it sends warning signals all through my skull that say "unlikely". The other is that simultaneous splitting must be thrown out entirely, because the Falcon's guns are the only example we have, and it shouldn't have been turned off because when the Falcon was firing at TIEs - your typical hard-to-hit easy-to-damage target - only one visible shot was being fired from those double barrels.

"splitting" obviously has some sort of benefits, otherwise there wouldnt' be much point to the "superlaser" design, wouldn't you think? (which is a glorified compound weapon - from a few beams in the case of the LAAT's micro superlasers to hundreds, thousands of smaller tributary beams in teh case of the Death Star. For that matter, official descriptions of turbolasers suggest they are compound weaponry as well, which meshes with the fact that superlasers have been described as a compound turbolaser.) What we would see with the Falcon's quad guns would be simply another example of a 'compound' weapon just like the LAAT's guns, turbolasers, and superlasers (the Falcon HAS been described as having turbolasers after all, which might refer to the design of the weapon rather than its power output.)

As for their being used for cooling, the rate of fire wasn't even all that high, so... nope, makes more sense then. He upped the power of the quadlaser, so it's likely that at some point in the rest of the gun there's be components that weren't designed to channel that amount of energy without quickly overheating. That puts your rate of fire through the floor. In order to get a reasonable ROF back, you've got to put in better parts, or add in things like the splitter.

I estimated that the Falcon's ROF for the quad guns was comparable to Slave-1's rate of fire against Obi-Wan's fighter in AOTC. (we're talking 10+ bolts per second, easily) That's rather 'high' indeed.

Anything about beam-splitting being good against shields might as well be dropped, because the only evidence for it is that one sentence in that disreputable book. Besides, ignoring the Essential Guides is an, er, essential part of coming up with something that actually makes sense.

Er, whats so difficult about it to understand. It says that the splitter coupling creates "two" bolts (presumably overlapping) - delivering twice the energy onto a single impact point. This CAN both improve the effectiveness of overwhelming shields and increasing damage. This makes the weapon, as I have pointed out, analogous to other "compound" weapons like superlasers (and with the accompanying benefits therein)

Course, you could rationalise it by making up some special property of sheilds such that they destabilize locally if you hit them with two beams of sufficient power at just the right distance apart, thus allowing the next shot greater penetration, but there's just no evidence for it, so why bother?

Hitting it with effectively two shots (hinting at a "double power" bolt) in the same place is more effective than hitting it with two shots that hit side by side (its a matter of intensity, as Gil mentioned.)

Think about it this way - which is likelier to be more effective at punching through assuming equal energy outputs - a single heavy turbolaser bolt, or dozens of smaller bolts combined (but not neccesarily focused on the same spot.)

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2004-09-05 05:38am

By the way, insofar as the Aethersprite goes, I doubt the "beam splitter" described on the Aethersprite's guns is the same thing (or neccesarily has the same effect) as the splitter on the Falcon's guns. For one thing, the beam apertures are recessed pretty far back in the hull (at least a meter) and any compounding woudl require the beam to converge at least a meter away frorm the emergence points (meaning that the requisite focusing fields must also be generated a meter away frrom the guns.) Given the apparent "poor" off-axis firing ability of those guns (recessed as they are), and their description as "dual" lasers suggests that the ship has more or less four cannons, not two.

(In contrast, the Falcon, also possessing some sorrt of splitter coupling, appears to technically be an "octet", not a "quad" mounting - however, it can be treated as a quad because the "bolt" it creates is actually a composite of two separate, overlapping bolts, based on the descriptions of the EGW&T.)

EDIT - its probably unlikely that the Falcon's "quad" guns can fire in "octet" mode, though its not neccecsarily impossible either. Maybe that's one of the benefits of a "compound" weapon.

Darwin · Post by **Darwin** » 2004-09-05 03:59pm

just thinking about things..

if the beam splitter is specifically for shield penetration, the best way for it to fire would be for one blast to be slightly delayed behind the first. so you have two equally powerful shots, one hitting the shield an instant after the other, producing a longer peak for the shields to have to disperse.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2004-09-06 05:14am

Darwin wrote:just thinking about things..

if the beam splitter is specifically for shield penetration, the best way for it to fire would be for one blast to be slightly delayed behind the first. so you have two equally powerful shots, one hitting the shield an instant after the other, producing a longer peak for the shields to have to disperse.

I dont think that work. Successive shots of approximately the same power would not overwork the shields the way two shots striking simultaneously (at the same point, no less) would. It still makes more sense to have two simulaneous impacts.. which is what the text describes anynhow.+

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-09-06 11:24am

Darwin wrote:just thinking about things..

if the beam splitter is specifically for shield penetration, the best way for it to fire would be for one blast to be slightly delayed behind the first. so you have two equally powerful shots, one hitting the shield an instant after the other, producing a longer peak for the shields to have to disperse.

The problem is that you're spreading out the time of impact. Even if shot number two is a quarter second behind the first, that extra amount of time gives it greater time in which to disperse the total output of your attack. After all, the two shots are still about the same output as the total shot* of the weapon. Dumping the total output of the weapon as quickly as possible into the defensive field is the best way to overcome it at that point since it has less time to disperse it. Staggering the shot so it takes longer only makes the field generators job easier.

*(assuming efficient beam splitting, but when you are dealing with the power output of SW weapons it better be close to perfect)

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » 2004-09-06 08:23pm

What about the angling nature of the shields? The use of the word "angle" means to me there is more going on than simply re-distributing shield power from quadrant to quadrant. Perhaps if the shields are incorrectly angled their effective dissipation rating drops, which may be enough to cause damage even if the shot is theoretically too weak. Thus splitting the beam may allow an increased chance of defeating the deflection angle.
Certain actions and statements support this idea, for example the Tantive IV's return fire surely cannot exceed the shield rating on a Star Destroyer, yet they fired away regardless, perhaps draining engine power.
Another example would be asteroids; they are considered dangerous to star wars craft, yet at the speeds evidenced in TESB the energy of a collision between the Falcon and all but the very large asteroids shouldn't exceed the shield rating on that craft. (a hundred meter wide asteroid moving at 300 m/s would have only 44 tons of TNT worth of K.E.; to achieve a K.E. of one MT, the same asteroid would have to move at ~45,000 m/s--I think we can all agree this speed was not observed in the movie.) Now, momentum is a factor, but the super materials space craft are made of seem strong enough to me to allow for a shield mounting that can handle these momentums; I don't know what the limit is, but the same asteroid at 300 m/s would have 1.23e9 kg*m/s, but as this is a large asteroid, most of this momentum would not be transfered to the Falcon.
So unless momentum is more dangerous than I think it is asteroid impacts should not threaten the shields on the Falcon, but as the potential for many impacts from various angles exist in a dense asteroid field the danger could be an inability to angle the shields against all the impacts. If a total angling failure occurs, perhaps it could result in a direct hull impact. Similarly, splitting the beam could improve the chances for fooling the angling computer and scoring a more damaging shot.