Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory

[His Divine Shadow]

The fact that it is impossible is the point. You presented your theory in noncontiguous bits and pieces in this thread, giving me very little more than ad hoc slower than light "like lasers or masers" particles who's nature and characteristics you admittedly can not define outside of what your theory needs them to be. Since you claimed that you strive to be "as technically, factually and scientifically accurate as possible" I asked you (nine times) to explain your theory in such a manner

And I have, just because we cannot explain them precisely in todays scientific terms does not invalidate us from making observations and indeed, noting that they do have some identifiable qualities, and also they show what they cannot be.

Thank you for admitting that you cannot explain your theory in such terms

Infact no such theory exists at all, it cannot.

Yes, I do. In light of your claim to strive be as "technically, factually and scientifically accurate as possible" I thought it a prudent question to ask. Because your inability to answer it in such terms is a demonstration that the theory requires some fiction

Merely observing the behaviour is enough, one can then theorize, only in the vaugest manner ofcourse, how it might do it, it might travel in a tight helix, it might be a delayed reaction, it might be an exotic form of energy.

You replied in the negative. If you recant on this position, please indicate so.

I believe you take the words out of their meaning here, to observe and note the behaviour of a blaster/turbolaser clearly suffices as what I've said we're doing, that is being accurate.

See above. If you can not create a cohesive scientific, technical, and factual argument, then simply say so. Or, as I put to you previously:

I do not have to, I have said this, I will keep saying this, it is the truth, and what I have done so far is clearly scientific, technical, and factual.
I have observed their behaviour and deducted from that what properties they must have and what they cannot be, that is enough.

No, you are not required to answer it. But I won't ignore the fact that you choose not to.

Do not ignore the fact that I have answered it before either, I have quoted from Saxton's site, I have referenced to the movies and described what sort of behaviour they exhibit(they do not glow white hot like stars, they do not expand at the speed of sound when leaving the barrel, they are translucent, they are not visibly affected by gravity(indicating, if we assume the bolt propagates forward at STL velocities it should be massless)) and what that implies, I also referenced to a particular book(Destiny's way)

It seems apparent that you might try and make a big deal out of this so here are quotes:

"Ten seconds," Han told Leia and Dorja, and reached for the triggers to the concussion-missile tubers.

Anticipation drew a metallic streak down his tongue. He felt a prickle of sweat on his scalp.

"Five." he triggered the first pair of concussion missiles, knowing that unlike the laser cannon, they did not strike at the speed of light."

(ref: Destiny's Way)

Turbolasers strike at the speed of light.

Pg. 3: Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The visible "bolt" is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed...The light given off by visible bolts depletes the overall energy content of a beam, limiting its range. Turbolasers gain a longer range by spinning the energy beam, which reduces waste glow.

(ref: Episode II Incredible Cross-Sections)

I will also refer to the DS style weapons in AOTC, which are based on TL technology, also strike at lightspeed.




OK, so what have we learned? We have learned that they are not plasma weapons, thats one certainty atleast.
We have learned that they strike at the speed of light.
We have observed bolts to move laterally, indicating they are merely ripples along a beam and not independant entities.
We have observed that they seem not to be affected by gravity in any observable manner, indicating they are likely just ripples along an invisible beam.
We have observed they are translucent, indicating that they are not composed of any actual heated matter(as in a theoretic plasma weapon)

[Marc Xavier]

The fact that it is impossible is the point. You presented your theory in noncontiguous bits and pieces in this thread, giving me very little more than ad hoc slower than light "like lasers or masers" particles who's nature and characteristics you admittedly can not define outside of what your theory needs them to be. Since you claimed that you strive to be "as technically, factually and scientifically accurate as possible" I asked you (nine times) to explain your theory in such a manner

And I have, just because we cannot explain them precisely in todays scientific terms does not invalidate us from making observations and indeed, noting that they do have some identifiable qualities, and also they show what they cannot be.

This is a non-point. I did not request that you make observations and indicate some identifiable qualities. What I asked was for you to produce a coherent "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" theory.

You said, yourself that

Infact no such theory exists at all, it cannot.

This directly contradicts your above statement that you "have" produced a "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" theory. Please do not contradict yourself any longer.

Yes, I do. In light of your claim to strive be as "technically, factually and scientifically accurate as possible" I thought it a prudent question to ask. Because your inability to answer it in such terms is a demonstration that the theory requires some fiction

Merely observing the behaviour is enough,

Not in response to a question that requested you do more than that.

I asked you to produce a "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" theory. You have not. In fact, you just claimed it was impossible to do so. Your post seems superfluous, because it was already established in my previous post that you have already admitted that being "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" in explaining a comprehensive theory of turbolasers is impossible. Why are you still claiming that you have produced a theory which you, yourself, said was impossible to produce?

one can then theorize, only in the vaugest manner ofcourse, how it might do it, it might travel in a tight helix, it might be a delayed reaction, it might be an exotic form of energy.

So you also wish to indicate that your ultimate theory, whatever it turns out to be, will be very vague. Understood.

You replied in the negative. If you recant on this position, please indicate so.

I believe you take the words out of their meaning here, to observe and note the behaviour of a blaster/turbolaser clearly suffices as what I've said we're doing, that is being accurate.

Accurate in the sense of inventing a panacea particle who's properties are only defined by what your theory needs. However, my request was to be "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" as you said you strive to be.

See above. If you can not create a cohesive scientific, technical, and factual argument, then simply say so. Or, as I put to you previously: ["Are you therefore saying, trying to describe the operation of turbolasers in a 'technically, factually and scientifically accurate' fashion 'usually results in nonsense.' ?"]

I do not have to,

Well no, you don't have to. But you already did:

Infact no such theory exists at all, it cannot.

Moving on,

I have said this, I will keep saying this, it is the truth, and what I have done so far is clearly scientific, technical, and factual. I have observed their behaviour and deducted from that what properties they must have and what they cannot be, that is enough.

Again, this is the same non-point. I did not request that you make observations and indicate some identifiable qualities. What I asked was for you to produce a coherent "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" theory.

You said, yourself that

Infact no such theory exists at all, it cannot.

So which is it? Did you state a coherent theory which you said was impossible or not?

No, you are not required to answer it. But I won't ignore the fact that you choose not to.

Do not ignore the fact that I have answered it before either, I have quoted from Saxton's site,

Yes, and I asked you how such quotes supported your assertion of massless, slower than light (propagating?), "like masers or lasers" particles. Instead of explaining how they do so in a coherent and logical fashion, you claimed it was "just an analogy."

I have referenced to the movies and described what sort of behaviour they exhibit(they do not glow white hot like stars, they do not expand at the speed of sound when leaving the barrel, they are translucent, they are not visibly affected by gravity(indicating, if we assume the bolt propagates forward at STL velocities it should be massless)) and what that implies, I also referenced to a particular book(Destiny's way)

Yes, all you said was "Movies, ICS, Destiny's Way and so on" without explaining details.

It seems apparent that you might try and make a big deal out of this so here are quotes:

I thank you for finally providing the evidence instead of just saying the names of the sources.

"Ten seconds," Han told Leia and Dorja, and reached for the triggers to the concussion-missile tubers.

Anticipation drew a metallic streak down his tongue. He felt a prickle of sweat on his scalp.

"Five." he triggered the first pair of concussion missiles, knowing that unlike the laser cannon, they did not strike at the speed of light."

(ref: Destiny's Way)

Turbolasers strike at the speed of light.

You have claimed massless and slower-than-light (propagating?) particles coupled with some form of other "particles that move at C" who's nature you also have not described.

As for terms of movie canon, in some instances, turbolasers do strike at lightspeed from what I've gathered of other people's arguments.

If anything, this quote supports the minor part of your sketchy theory that the massless, slower than light (propagating?) "like lasers or masers" particles are coupled with your undescribed "particles that move at C." I did not dispute this point, I simply asked you to explain the details. You did not and have informed me that it is impossible to do so in your theory.

Pg. 3: Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The visible "bolt" is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed...The light given off by visible bolts depletes the overall energy content of a beam, limiting its range. Turbolasers gain a longer range by spinning the energy beam, which reduces waste glow.

(ref: Episode II Incredible Cross-Sections)

I will also refer to the DS style weapons in AOTC, which are based on TL technology, also strike at lightspeed.

I look forward to it. If possible, for clarity sake, please present all information and evidence you can to support the assertion that the "DS style weapons in AOTC" operate "on TL technology"

OK, so what have we learned? We have learned that they are not plasma weapons, thats one certainty atleast.

I will postpone my response to this point until the time that I post my Turbolaser Operational Theory.

We have learned that they strike at the speed of light.

...despite the fact that we occasionally see damage dealt to a target before the visible bolt hits, we still see that the damage does not impact its target at the speed of light. However, energy or massless particles would travel exactly at, or very close to, the speed of light.

I will postpone further response to this point until the time that I post my Turbolaser Operational Theory.

We have observed bolts to move laterally, indicating they are merely ripples along a beam and not independant entities.

You seem to be making points against a theory which I have not yet articulated.

We have observed that they seem not to be affected by gravity in any observable manner, indicating they are likely just ripples along an invisible beam.

Possibly. I will postpone my response to this point until the time that I post my Turbolaser Operational Theory.

We have observed they are translucent, indicating that they are not composed of any actual heated matter(as in a theoretic plasma weapon)

Again, possibly. I will postpone my response to this point until the time that I post my Turbolaser Operational Theory.


I ask that you please refrain from taking points from your other thread and posting them here, as if responding to my theory. My Turbolaser Operational Theory has not been posted here for review. As I have said before, I am in the process of research, and am setting up the theory to line up with as much film and official Lucasfilm material as possible. I understand your eagerness to get into the discussion. I ask you to be patient.

[ClaysGhost]

I think the problem may be that it's difficult to say anything about your shielding theory until you describe what exactly it's shielding against.

[His Divine Shadow]

First off, must you make such loooooooong replys? Is it not possible to cut it down?

This is a non-point. I did not request that you make observations and indicate some identifiable qualities. What I asked was for you to produce a coherent "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" theory

They're the same really, in a situation such as this, we have to satisfy ourselves with this.
We can make some theories that are vauge enough, but wich could be accurate enough, like a power variation in the beam and such.

This directly contradicts your above statement that you "have" produced a "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" theory. Please do not contradict yourself any longer

Any source of contradiction stems only from a differing interpreptation.
To me, my observations are a cruical part of any such theory.

I asked you to produce a "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" theory. You have not. In fact, you just claimed it was impossible to do so

We're getting there, we must first however observe and deduct the properties of what we're observing in order to get tot he phase of trying to figure what might make it do that.
As I said, I find the two to pretty much mean the same thing.

So you also wish to indicate that your ultimate theory, whatever it turns out to be, will be very vague. Understood

Ofcourse, it might be something like "There is a power variation along the beam"

Accurate in the sense of inventing a panacea particle who's properties are only defined by what your theory needs. However, my request was to be "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" as you said you strive to be

That is what I am doing here, I am going as far as I can without making up particles and such, I keep that strictly off limits.

Again, this is the same non-point. I did not request that you make observations and indicate some identifiable qualities. What I asked was for you to produce a coherent "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" theory

Still under construction one might say, so far we can only eliminate certain possibilities and note observed behaviour.

So which is it? Did you state a coherent theory which you said was impossible or not?

I have not completed my theory yet, phase 1 is not entierly complete, if you will look at the other thread you will see that several people are working on possibilities.

Yes, and I asked you how such quotes supported your assertion of massless, slower than light (propagating?), "like masers or lasers" particles. Instead of explaining how they do so in a coherent and logical fashion, you claimed it was "just an analogy."

Yes, they appear to have very similar behaviour to such particles.

Yes, all you said was "Movies, ICS, Destiny's Way and so on" without explaining details

Details in other thread.

You have claimed massless and slower-than-light (propagating?) particles coupled with some form of other "particles that move at C" who's nature you also have not described.

I have claimed many things, however I am constantly refining things, given the new info in the other thread, I am no longer sure they are slower than light, they might indeed be lightspeed weapons with a simple timed delay.

I look forward to it. If possible, for clarity sake, please present all information and evidence you can to support the assertion that the "DS style weapons in AOTC" operate "on TL technology"

OK, step-by-step, the compound lasers in AOTC are clearly precursors to the superlaser technology in the Death Star.

-Official evidence speaks of turbolaser pulses in the superlaser beam we see in ANH(and we see pulses)
(http://www.hisdivineshadow.com/search/link.asp?ID=35)

-In the novel Rouqe Planet the earliest draft of the Death Star is shown, the superlaser assembly is reffered to as a "Massive core powered turbolaser"
(http://www.hisdivineshadow.com/search/link.asp?ID=936)

-The superlaser apart from being a beam looks alot like a turbolaser(very weak evidence in itself yes, but it supports the evidence at hand atleast)

-The ICS by Curtis Saxtons mentions these weapons and speaks of their shots as "blaster energy"

You seem to be making points against a theory which I have not yet articulated

Not at all, I am merely listing observations that I have made.

I understand your eagerness to get into the discussion. I ask you to be patient

"My" theory is a kind of collaboration with several people, we are proceeding slowly, I would have to reccomend you to be patient and not form any overtly long or articulate theories just yet.

BTW, more quotes on the nature of turbolasers:
http://www.hisdivineshadow.com/search/link.asp?ID=788
http://www.hisdivineshadow.com/search/link.asp?ID=426 (they do have momentum, like lasers for ex.)

http://www.hisdivineshadow.com/search/link.asp?ID=900

[Marc Xavier]

First off, must you make such loooooooong replys? Is it not possible to cut it down?

Usually I find it necessary to examine your theory in great detail, which requires a long reply. Sometimes I find it necessary to simply demonstrate, at some length, your pattern of counterproductive behavior. But, yes, in fact I can cut it down; I will be very, very brief here.

I have pointed out incorrect statements on your part and contradictions you have made with your previous statements. The reason that this thread continues is because of your unwillingness to plainly admit that you said something incorrect. When I point out such instances of incorrectness or failure to admit such incorrectness, you often shift the point instead of simply conceding an error and fixing whatever you have to say from that point on.

You've asserted that producing a cohesive and "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" theory is impossible. Now you said "We're getting there." This is an example of a contradictory stance. If it is impossible, say so. If it is not, say so. Choose one, not both.

Either way I look forward to seeing your theory in its complete coherent form, as whatever and whenever it may materialize. But until that time do not claim that you have constructed a "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" theory, especially when you have already said that such a theory cannot exist.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You've asserted that producing a cohesive and "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" theory is impossible. Now you said "We're getting there." This is an example of a contradictory stance. If it is impossible, say so. If it is not, say so. Choose one, not both.

There can be a logical description of what turbolasers do and a vague suggestion of what their nature might be. This is logical. Pretending he can scientifically explain the mechanism is going to plunge this debate into foolish technobabble. The whole idea is come up with ideas that do not depend on making up stuff like ST.

[His Divine Shadow]

Precisely, thanks.

[Marc Xavier]

Pretending he can scientifically explain the mechanism is going to plunge this debate into foolish technobabble.

This is, and has been, my point. It's not possible without making Sh*t up:

Yes, I do. In light of your claim to strive be as "technically, factually and scientifically accurate as possible" I thought it a prudent question to ask. Because your inability to answer it in such terms is a demonstration that the theory requires some fiction (IE, you must make Sh*t up ).

I'm simply asking His Divine Shadow to be consistent in his claims about this fact. If he wishes to construct a vague theory of what the nature of Turbolasers might be, then fine. But if he is to do so, he should refrain from claiming that he can do more.

That is all.

[His Divine Shadow]

We clearly have differing opinions, what Ilumanitus suggested is what I feel to be accurate, scientifc and technical.

[Ender]

I've also noticed a section in your technopedia listed as "fusion reactors." While there's been confusion in the past, I hope you note that the Episode 2 ICS clarifies that "most starships contain fusion reactors that confine more powerful hypermatter annhiliation cores."

It would seem that "fusion reactor" does not refer to nuclear fusion in the Empire, but rather is a colloquialism for some exotic hyperphysical process from which energy is acquired involving the annhiliation of "hypermatter."

How do you reach that interpretation? I read that as "Fusion reactors power the system needed to contain and use the hypermatter reactor". Kinda like how for a M/AM reactor you need to keep the AM away from any matte with an EM field, here you need to keep the hypermatter confined so it doesn't wreak merry hell.

[Ender]

Protection against nonsolid artillery such as lasers and turbolasers are the responsibility of the second shielding system, ray shielding. Ray shielding is a much more energy-intensive affair than particle shielding and as such these shields are only raised during situations where their protection is expressly necessary. They must be properly angled during battle situations in order to provide maximum protection against an onslaught from non-concussion weaponry, as their powers to absorb, reflect, or disperse energies from nonsolid weapons (left) explicitly depends on properly calculated trigonometry. A ray shield that is not properly angled to protect against a ray weapon approaching on a certain vector can "miss" the bolt entirely, providing no impediment and allowing it to directly strike the hull. These occurrences are rare, however, as Imperial computer technicians and shield operators spend years in training to learn how to effectively operate the complex deflection mechanisms necessary to protect ships like Imperial Star Destroyers. A talented shield deflection officer is one of the most prized assets to an Imperial commander, as they can significantly increase the durability and effectiveness of a vessel's defense screens.

Is there an actual source for this, or is this just a made up thing to add a class for the game?

[Marc Xavier]

Is there an actual source for this, or is this just a made up thing to add a class for the game?

The Star Wars Sourcebook talks about ray shields consuming more power than particle shields, hence the part about "Ray shielding is a much more energy-intensive affair than particle shielding and as such these shields are only raised during situations where their protection is expressly necessary."

Also, there are a few references in ANH to angling the deflector shield (Han asks Chewie to do this twice, if I recall correctly) from which I built the portion about the "properly calculated trigonometry" from.

The last part, however:

These occurrences are rare, however, as Imperial computer technicians and shield operators spend years in training to learn how to effectively operate the complex deflection mechanisms necessary to protect ships like Imperial Star Destroyers. A talented shield deflection officer is one of the most prized assets to an Imperial commander, as they can significantly increase the durability and effectiveness of a vessel's defense screens.

really doesn't have to do much with the "how they work" portion of the theory as much as it is anecdotal speculation as to why "miss" occurrences are not more common, given the various vectors that weapons assault ships from in the Star Wars movies.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'd personally discard that bit, simply because of the reams and reams of examples of one-man-fighters w/ no problems at all.

And if all shielding systems could calculate trajectories that well of the incoming fire, not only would it have to be sublight, which it official is not, but it would also make no sense, since they'd just use point-of-impact shielding, which does exist. The fact they don't use this probably means they cannot usually calculate all the impact trajectories like that.

[Marc Xavier]

I'd personally discard that bit, simply because of the reams and reams of examples of one-man-fighters w/ no problems at all.

Well those shields would be entirely computer controlled.

And if all shielding systems could calculate trajectories that well of the incoming fire, not only would it have to be sublight, which it official is not, but it would also make no sense, since they'd just use point-of-impact shielding, which does exist. The fact they don't use this probably means they cannot usually calculate all the impact trajectories like that.

I dont follow, exactly . Please rephrase.

[His Divine Shadow]

Well those shields would be entirely computer controlled.

So, what purpose would there be in purposely degrading performance by replacing the computer with a person?

[Marc Xavier]

Well, as good as computers are--or can get--I still think there is something to be said for good old human skill, experience and intuition. Perhaps it's the same reason that some turbolaser guns use people as well (something we see in the movies).

[His Divine Shadow]

Well, as good as computers are--or can get--I still think there is something to be said for good old human skill, experience and intuition. Perhaps it's the same reason that some turbolaser guns use people as well (something we see in the movies).

I understand this is a common sentiment, but frankly, it's bunk, it would only speak of lousy computers if anything, and looking at examples of SW computer technology, thats self contradictory

[Marc Xavier]

Well, then as an analogous question, why do human gunners man some turbolasers? Perhaps there is a similar sentiment among the Imperials. Droids are constantly treated as inferior beings, hence that whole issue of "no droids" in the Cantina.

Also, I picked this up, because I remembered something like it from playing the Rogue Squadron game for N64 and decided to do a little research:

TIE/D
pilotless TIE/droid unit fighters run by onboard droids, designed by Arndall Lott following the Battle of Endor. Lott used the Katana fleet as an inspiration, seeing that the automated systems could work if implemented correctly. Lott originally automated the AT-AT, but his early work suffered from lack of computer power. The TIE/D has received the best automation the Empire could afford, and could be used as independent fighters or computer-slaved squadrons. However, the initial TIE/Ds were not very powerful, and were only effective in large numbers. The TIE/D measured 6.1 meters, and resemble the center section of a TIE Fighter with squared-off TIE Interceptor-like wings which were flat and tilted. The TIE/D was armed with a pair of laser cannons, and lacked a hyperdrive. A Cybot Galactica Ace-6 combat droid brain is the heart of the ship, but was shown to be greatly inferior to human pilots. The TIE/D, although produced in large volumes to overwhelm New Republic starfighters, was primarily produced by the nuclear furnaces and factories of World Devastators. When these were destroyed over Calamari, the primary sources of the TIE/Ds were eliminated. (Dark Empire, Star Wars: Dark Empire Sourcebook, The Star Wars Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels)

Emphasis added. I don't want to state a hard-spun claim here, because frankly I don't know very much about computational technology in the Empire. I remembered something like this and wanted to bring it to the table to see what the common response to it is.

To be entirely honest, I'm not sure. I mean, in A New Hope, Han tells Chewie at least twice to "angle the deflector shield."

I'm not trying to imply anything about computers with that sentence, it's just a small supposition based on what I've watched in the movies. It may be right or wrong. If it's really that much of a problem, the reference to Imperial shield technicians can be easily removed.

[His Divine Shadow]

Well, then as an analogous question, why do human gunners man some turbolasers? Perhaps there is a similar sentiment among the Imperials. Droids are constantly treated as inferior beings, hence that whole issue of "no droids" in the Cantina.

That would be a likely idea for such a sentiment yes.
Ofcourse TL turrets are not really manually controlled really, it works more in the vein of gunners monitoring stuff like coolant, refire rates, hit ratios and whatnot, maybe one gunner selects targets based on other information and the computer targets and fires.

[Marc Xavier]

Well, then as an analogous question, why do human gunners man some turbolasers? Perhaps there is a similar sentiment among the Imperials. Droids are constantly treated as inferior beings, hence that whole issue of "no droids" in the Cantina.

That would be a likely idea for such a sentiment yes.
Ofcourse TL turrets are not really manually controlled really, it works more in the vein of gunners monitoring stuff like coolant, refire rates, hit ratios and whatnot, maybe one gunner selects targets based on other information and the computer targets and fires.

Perhaps shield technicians would do something along those lines too, then, but for shields instead of guns.

[hvb]

Thats what I think too: they (weapons/shields/etc operators) set policies and priorities;

the computers act in accordance with these directives to choose which shield angles to strengthen with the available energy/which components to protect the most
respectively for guns: which targets to engage/with what firepattern and percentage of available energy to engage with;

the operators then monitor the work of the computer and makes human intuition based adjustments/shifts from damaged components to redundants/swears, then calls for the fucking mechanic (who is likely a droid too )