StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Apparently the 300GJ composite beam turrets cannot be 300GJ because th explosions are too piddly according to people, now I am no expert at this but since the weapon is for all pratical reasons a laser in how it does damage, doesn't that make the visuals fit?
Anyone here good at this? I'd like some backing up or calcs or stuff.
I got a clip here:
http://hisshadow.123hostnow.com/misc/me ... /300gw.avi

Ahhh HDS provider of the five second movie

Make that one Second

Sigh. I suppose I must point out once again that gigaWATTS and gigaJOULES are not the same. Watts is a measure of power, whereas joules measure energy. These are not interchangeable. A watt is one joule/second. The weapon's output is measured in joules/shot, which seems a bit unusual, since the weapon's firing duration changed, but it is possible that the gunners were able to control the duration of their fire but not its power. The firepower in ICS, according to my simplified calculations, is EASILY consistent with what we saw in the movie. It probably has to power to vaporize a few cubic meters of silicon dioxide, which is consistent with what we saw, per shot. It is not an inconsistency within the movie and the ICS.

I can only hear it. I can't see it. Where do I get the codec?

Master of Ossus wrote:Sigh. I suppose I must point out once again that gigaWATTS and gigaJOULES are not the same. Watts is a measure of power, whereas joules measure energy. These are not interchangeable. A watt is one joule/second. The weapon's output is measured in joules/shot, which seems a bit unusual, since the weapon's firing duration changed, but it is possible that the gunners were able to control the duration of their fire but not its power. The firepower in ICS, according to my simplified calculations, is EASILY consistent with what we saw in the movie. It probably has to power to vaporize a few cubic meters of silicon dioxide, which is consistent with what we saw, per shot. It is not an inconsistency within the movie and the ICS.

IIRC most shots were around 1 second, so joules and watts are interchangable in this particular situation, especially since we aren't actually calculating anything (minor errors in the numbers won't make a great deal of difference).

Howedar wrote: IIRC most shots were around 1 second, so joules and watts are interchangable in this particular situation, especially since we aren't actually calculating anything (minor errors in the numbers won't make a great deal of difference).

You are not remembering correctly. The shots were of varying duration. One shot lasted for as long as 1.5 seconds, while another was merely a fraction of a second. Once the DVD comes out you will be able to see clearly that there was a difference between many of the shots.

Incidentally, even if all of the shots do last for exactly one second, watts and joules are still not interchangeable. They measure different things. The fact that one is dependent on another is irrelevent. It is like saying that 60 miles per hour is interchangeable with 60 miles if the car is traveling for one hour. While it simplifies our calculations, the two still measure different things, even if the shots all lasted for exactly one second.

Okay, its been a while since I saw it.

Of course I know that watts and joules measure different things, I'm not a VI. What I am saying is that a 300GW beam that fired for one second could be considered a 300GJ beam in this situation. Of course, knowing that it didn't fire for a second, it doesn't really matter.

Sorry, Howedar. I know you're not a Village Idiot. That is reserved for people like DarkStar.

Incidentally, I agree that it is a very strange way of measuring firepower on such a weapon. I think watts would have been more reasonable, but we have joules and so we have to figure out what that is referring to. I guess that the best explanation is that they do have variable durations but not variable yields.

Perhaps they have both variable durations and variable yields.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:Perhaps they have both variable durations and variable yields.

That would make far more sense. It would also make more sense for the yield to be dependent on the duration, but that is not what was in ICS. I really think that they probably do have variable yields/durations, and that the firepower listed is a maximum (before heat, or something else starts hurting the weapon), but I can't prove it, and saying anything other than what is in ICS is speculation. It would make more sense, though.

Master of Ossus wrote:Sigh. I suppose I must point out once again that gigaWATTS and gigaJOULES are not the same. Watts is a measure of power, whereas joules measure energy. These are not interchangeable. A watt is one joule/second. The weapon's output is measured in joules/shot, which seems a bit unusual, since the weapon's firing duration changed, but it is possible that the gunners were able to control the duration of their fire but not its power. The firepower in ICS, according to my simplified calculations, is EASILY consistent with what we saw in the movie. It probably has to power to vaporize a few cubic meters of silicon dioxide, which is consistent with what we saw, per shot. It is not an inconsistency within the movie and the ICS.

But most shots where around 1 second or so, hence comparing this to a 300GW laser would work.

I still don't see what the problem is here. Let's say that a long shot pumps 300GJ into the ground. That's equivalent to the energy released by detonating 70 tons of TNT (maybe a hundred or so modern bombs?), which seems far too high.

Consider the fact that the beam could be swept through large arcs in a fraction of a second and that even at such high traversal rates, it could easily slice through many inches of armour plating (look at the cross-sections of battle droids sliced in half). I think it's pretty obvious that the weapon was designed for armour/shield penetration.

Therefore, it might have drilled deep into the ground when firing. This would not have the same effect as 70 tons of TNT; it would vapourize perhaps 20 tons of ground material, most of which is underground where the expansion shockwave will be muffled.

Darth Wong wrote:I still don't see what the problem is here. Let's say that a long shot pumps 300GJ into the ground. That's equivalent to the energy released by detonating 70 tons of TNT (maybe a hundred or so modern bombs?), which seems far too high.

Consider the fact that the beam could be swept through large arcs in a fraction of a second and that even at such high traversal rates, it could easily slice through many inches of armour plating (look at the cross-sections of battle droids sliced in half). I think it's pretty obvious that the weapon was designed for armour/shield penetration.

Therefore, it might have drilled deep into the ground when firing. This would not have the same effect as 70 tons of TNT; it would vapourize perhaps 20 tons of ground material, most of which is underground where the expansion shockwave will be muffled.

Exactly. It could be vaporizing far more ground than what is immediately apparent, or it could be melting an even greater volume of rock. I think what happened here was that the people assumed that all of that 300 GJ of energy was transferred to kinetic energy. They thus failed to take into account all of the energy that was converted into thermal energy and photons upons striking a target.

Hmm, well, where did the 20 tons of rock go? Shouldn't it shoot upwards in a huuuge cloud of dust?

Darth Wong wrote:I still don't see what the problem is here. Let's say that a long shot pumps 300GJ into the ground. That's equivalent to the energy released by detonating 70 tons of TNT (maybe a hundred or so modern bombs?), which seems far too high.

Fillers of the Mk80 series, possibly the world's most common bomb series. The fillers are Tritonal explosive, which is a mixture of RDX and TNT

Mk.82 500lbs/250kg 192lbs/86kg 38.4%
Mk.83 1000lbs/500kg 385lbs/192.5kg 38.5%
Mk.84 2000lbs/1000kg 945lbs/472.5kg 47.3%

You'd need about six B-52s to unload 70 tons of explosives..

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:I still don't see what the problem is here. Let's say that a long shot pumps 300GJ into the ground. That's equivalent to the energy released by detonating 70 tons of TNT (maybe a hundred or so modern bombs?), which seems far too high.

Fillers of the Mk80 series, possibly the world's most common bomb series. The fillers are Tritonal explosive, which is a mixture of RDX and TNT

Mk.82 500lbs/250kg 192lbs/86kg 38.4%
Mk.83 1000lbs/500kg 385lbs/192.5kg 38.5%
Mk.84 2000lbs/1000kg 945lbs/472.5kg 47.3%

You'd need about six B-52s to unload 70 tons of explosives..

Correction to my last post.

Tritonal is a 80/20 mix of TNT and aluminum powder, not TNT and RDX.

So what's the problem? Modern bombs convert more of their chemical energy into kinetic energy when detonated than this weapon in SW does. The SW weapon converts more of its energy into thermal energy, instead of kinetic, when it is fired. What's the problem? That 6 B52s only carry as much energy as an LAAT unleashes in one shot? That's not necessarily bad for the B52s, as more of their energy is more efficiently used to destroy macroscopic targets, whereas the weapon in SW destroys a target more completely. I don't see a problem with consistency here.

His Divine Shadow wrote:Hmm, well, where did the 20 tons of rock go? Shouldn't it shoot upwards in a huuuge cloud of dust?

Depends on how wide and deep the hole is. If it's a very deep, narrow hole (or channel, to be more precise, since long shots were invariably swept along a considerable distance), a lot of its energy will be wasted underground, and the expansion pressure will be largely trapped so that you get more ground-shock than surface ejecta.

Keep in mind that 20 tons of rock is only about 7.5 cubic metres. If a beam is swept through an arc big enough to cover a 20 metre distance and it drills 20 metres deep, that's a slot less than 2 cm wide (assuming that there are no subterranean levels below the arena floor and assuming that the weapon's yield is not adjustable).

Master of Ossus wrote:So what's the problem? Modern bombs convert more of their chemical energy into kinetic energy when detonated than this weapon in SW does. The SW weapon converts more of its energy into thermal energy, instead of kinetic, when it is fired. What's the problem? That 6 B52s only carry as much energy as an LAAT unleashes in one shot? That's not necessarily bad for the B52s, as more of their energy is more efficiently used to destroy macroscopic targets, whereas the weapon in SW destroys a target more completely. I don't see a problem with consistency here.

Umm, are you replying to? All I did was provide some relevant information on bomb buster and an example for comparison.

There was no "problem"

I was actually not quite sure what you were trying to say in your post. On the one hand, you seemed to understand perfectly well how much energy was involved, and what that would do, but on the other hand you also seemed to be saying that the SW weapon was comparable to B52 bombs in some respect. I didn't mean to attack you, or anything, I was just trying to make sure that everyone understood how the SW weapon did not necessarily have to cause an explosion to have lots of energy involved in it. Sorry about that, Sea Skimmer.

Darth Wong wrote:Keep in mind that 20 tons of rock is only about 7.5 cubic metres. If a beam is swept through an arc big enough to cover a 20 metre distance and it drills 20 metres deep, that's a slot less than 2 cm wide (assuming that there are no subterranean levels below the arena floor and assuming that the weapon's yield is not adjustable).

Well, we did see several shits with impacts on the ground, and each time the explosion was different in size and violence.

His Divine Shadow wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Keep in mind that 20 tons of rock is only about 7.5 cubic metres. If a beam is swept through an arc big enough to cover a 20 metre distance and it drills 20 metres deep, that's a slot less than 2 cm wide (assuming that there are no subterranean levels below the arena floor and assuming that the weapon's yield is not adjustable).

Well, we did see several shits with impacts on the ground, and each time the explosion was different in size and violence.

That can be explained easily by Darth Wong's theory. The variations in size can easily be caused by differences in the way the ground is structured beneath the arena, and remember that the beam is only a few centimeters wide, so much of that pressure would be absorbed underground. By 'shits' I assume you mean 'shots.'

Yeah well, no editing

Anyhow, I don't think variable yields are that farfetched, blasters have them, laser cannons have them, turbolasers have them, superlasers have them, this is based on the superlaser, wich is in turn based on all the other technologies I just listed so...

His Divine Shadow wrote:Yeah well, no editing

Anyhow, I don't think variable yields are that farfetched, blasters have them, laser cannons have them, turbolasers have them, superlasers have them, this is based on the superlaser, wich is in turn based on all the other technologies I just listed so...

I don't think that they're farfetched, either, I just wonder about the units in the ICS. Perhaps that is a maximum yield, much like most of the other firepower statistics in the book are.