What evidence is there for MJ blasters and GJ tank weapons

[Vespane X]

So generally the numbers are ridiculed around the net, while people like Wong, Brian and Saxton think these numbers match what's seen on screen. Most people simply state these weapons are going to go off like bombs of equal yield, and handwave them as ludicrous, what do you guys think?

[NecronLord]

I am surprised there's that much question about this. Hell in the SW vs ST regard, there are outright statements of megawattage for phasers.

An explanation of why it doesn't look like a multi-GJ bomb is available in video form on Brian Young's excellent "Beam Weapons" video here which explains in some depth how a beam weapon ought to behave.

[Vespane X]

Noone got anything then? I thought Saxton based all the stats on hard evidence?

[StarSword]

I'm not somewhere I can watch videos right now and I wouldn't mind reading the reasoning.

[Thanas]

Noone got anything then? I thought Saxton based all the stats on hard evidence?

Look to the post above yours.

[Lord Revan]

I'm not somewhere I can watch videos right now and I wouldn't mind reading the reasoning.

to summerize Brian Young's vid beam weapons are more focused then bombs and thus the bomb like effects tend to collateral damage (aka side effects of the main damage) and therefore beam weapons not causing as big a visible blast as a bomb of same yield isn't so odd.

[Vance]

His theory is 1 gigajoule of blaster energy results in 1 cubic meter of collateral. So a terajoule laser cannon would only be 10*10*10 meters. Extrapolating from there he reckons a multi-teraton will vaporize a larger city but not do much beyond that.

He explains this in the "Blasters to turbolaser" video.

[malguslover]

His theory is 1 gigajoule of blaster energy results in 1 cubic meter of collateral. So a terajoule laser cannon would only be 10*10*10 meters. Extrapolating from there he reckons a multi-teraton will vaporize a larger city but not do much beyond that.

He explains this in the "Blasters to turbolaser" video.

that doesn't make any sense.

For that to happen it would have to keep the adjacent particles from moving.

There's a reason why if a bomb explodes you don't have to be next to it to be hurt by the force of it.

Its the same reason why no action star can slowly walk away from an explosion and not be dead.

[seanrobertson]

Brian can't log into SD.net at the moment, so I'm posting this in his stead:

http://www.scifights.net/beams.mov

[Connor MacLeod]

His theory is 1 gigajoule of blaster energy results in 1 cubic meter of collateral. So a terajoule laser cannon would only be 10*10*10 meters. Extrapolating from there he reckons a multi-teraton will vaporize a larger city but not do much beyond that.

He explains this in the "Blasters to turbolaser" video.

that doesn't make any sense.

For that to happen it would have to keep the adjacent particles from moving.

There's a reason why if a bomb explodes you don't have to be next to it to be hurt by the force of it.

Its the same reason why no action star can slowly walk away from an explosion and not be dead.

Yes and no. A cubic meter of iron or rock injected with that gigajoule might only be mostly melted. Whilst a cubic metre of air would probably be heated to hundreds of thousands if not millions of degrees (which for all intents and purposes is analogous to a nuclear explosion - the soft x-rays releaesd by a nuclear reaction are, IIRC, absorbed within the first few feet/metres in a matter of milli/microseconds.)

The sticking point here is with the actual parameters involved with blaster/target interaction: how it delivers energy to the target, how quickly it does, and over what surface area (or volume) it does so. Nuclear explosives and high explosives are 'explosive' because they release lots of energy very quickly in a relatively confined area. Most 'realistic' lasers I have seen proposed do much the same (laser 'pulses' delivered in centimeter/millimeter spot sizes over a span of microseconds or nanoseconds.) to inflict damage via mechanical rather than thermal effects. If the blaster bolt delivers the sum total of its energy into a relatively confined area in a very short period of time, then yes it could be quite explosive. But if the mechanism for heating is not nearly as fast or delivers that energy over a larger volume, then it would not neccesarily be 'explosive' in the sense of TNT (there are lots of different kinds of 'explosions' and not all of them are instantly fatal EG gunpowder, BLEVEs, etc.)

If blaster bolts release some sort of plasma 'blast' or a large amount of EM radiation (or some massless analogue) it could be 'bomb like' on penetration, depending on how far the 'energy' penetrates into the matter before interacting. If blaster bolts were a particle beam (or contained/released particles) however, its not improbable for it to penetrate a considerable distance in most forms of matter before interactions occur, especially if they were 'neutral' particles.

Since we don't have alot of precise, non-contradictory information on how blasters work (even if we just restrict ourselves to the movies they can be pretty contradictory) you could contrive it either way.

[malguslover]

Brian can't log into SD.net at the moment, so I'm posting this in his stead:

http://www.scifights.net/beams.mov

That made no sense what so ever.

So he is saying "beam" weapons take the same force say as a nuclear bomb and focuses it???

The reason why say a battleship canon can do that is because its using kinetic force. It's not an explosive force. Same with say Bunker buster bombs. Its not that they concentrate the explosion its that it uses kinetic force. This is why bullets don't cause explosions when they hit something.

He also uses the term vaporize incorrectly. Vaporize is turning a liquid into a gas. He seems to think it means turning a solid into well nothing.

You can not vaporize dirt. I mean you can't even give it a phase change.


I watched his video on Beam weapons as well where he uses a laser pointer as his demonstration.

He seems to be confused. Light has not physical form. Its light you can't push something with light. The weapons we see in Star Wars aren't light based. We see them affect the physical world around them. They clearly have some sort of volume to them.

When they hit their targets we see people react to them. Light can not have any type of force.


I dont' want to be rude but i'm not sure he understands what he is talking about. I'm probably going to get flamed by this but it seems like he is taking tiny pieces of information together and putting them together to make his own science really.

[Formless]

Vespane X, you do realize that before joining an internet community one should first read a few threads, lurk a while, and otherwise get to know the community, right? Your query of the board seems to indicate you did none of the above, because otherwise you would know the community consensus already. Yes, most people here agree with the ballpark Mike and others give, if not necessarily the exact yields given by Saxton due to the Incredible Cross Sections books he helped write (which are licensed and everything).

You sound like you came in here after reading a few pages off the main website, didn't look at the dates on those pages, and assumed that Mikes calcs were still contentious. In fact, most of the larger internet has never heard of Mike, Brian, and Saxton, so any claim that their numbers are "generally ridiculed around the net" is not a claim that anyone is going to take seriously, if they don't just assume you are trolling. Some people here can get trigger happy like that, FYI. Like Batman. ( )

[SilverWingedSeraph]

This guy is claiming that light imparts no force and that stone and dirt cannot be vaporised, and claiming someone ELSE doesn't understand science. He's clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

[Formless]

Vespane X =! malguslover . I considered addressing the latter and his inability to make sense of what is being argued, but I decided against it. He's just going to have to get used to things sailing over his head.

[malguslover]

This guy is claiming that light imparts no force and that stone and dirt cannot be vaporised, and claiming someone ELSE doesn't understand science. He's clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

umm vaporization is turning liquid into gas.

Sublimation is turning a solid into a gas.

are you trying to claim that light exerts a force on objects? Light has no mass.

[Formless]

For starters, the difference between sublimation and vaporization is so much semantic nitpicking. You were acting like it was a huge mistake that made his argument incoherent. Second, light has momentum, despite being massless. It can, in fact, push things. Look up a photon sail on whatever search engine you prefer. OR a photon drive. OR just go to Atomic Rockets and scroll to the bottom of his Engines List. The failure to make sense of Brian's video is on you, not him. There are other places you can go to where this is explained, although for the purposes of Star Wars it doesn't even need to be. Its a fictional gun with fictional effects, blowing shit up is just what it does.

[malguslover]

For starters, the difference between sublimation and vaporization is so much semantic nitpicking. You were acting like it was a huge mistake that made his argument incoherent. Second, light has momentum, despite being massless. It can, in fact, push things. Look up a photon sail on whatever search engine you prefer. OR a photon drive. OR just go to Atomic Rockets and scroll to the bottom of his Engines List. The failure to make sense of Brian's video is on you, not him. There are other places you can go to where this is explained, although for the purposes of Star Wars it doesn't even need to be. Its a fictional gun with fictional effects, blowing shit up is just what it does.

Ok I have to stop you right there. It is not nitpicking. Sublimation and vaporization are two very different things. Sublimation is a solid going straight to gas completely skipping over a liquid phase change. Additionally dirt can not become a liquid thus it can't be vaporized. In fact dirt can't even become a gas. Dirt can not undergo a phase change. When was the last time you ever heard anyone say that dirt was a gas and could be condensed back into dirt?


You also realize that Photon drives aren't real right?


Yup Star Wars guns are just fictional with fictional effects which is why you can't apply science to it in this way. Would you apply science to Harry Potter? or the Bible?

[Batman]

It is semantics nitpicking given that the very first definition m-w gives is
'to convert (as by the application of heat or by spraying) into vapor', so no matter how a physics textbook may define it, the common usage (at least in this context) of 'vapourize' is simply 'turn something into gas'
Second, what makes dirt so extra special that unlike every other material in the universe, it cannot be melted? I'd count sand as dirt and I DO seem to recall there being some connection between it and glass.
And while we haven't built any yet, I'm very much afraid the physics behind photon drives-or sails-are very real. Photons DO have momentum.

And I rather do seem to recall people on this board have applied physics to Harry Potter on numerous occasions (and probably the bible, too). You seem to be under the misapprehension that since it's fictional, we can't analyze it period. We may never be able to explain how a blaster does what it does, but we can take a look at what it does.

[malguslover]

It is semantics nitpicking given that the very first definition m-w gives is
'to convert (as by the application of heat or by spraying) into vapor', so no matter how a physics textbook may define it, the common usage (at least in this context) of 'vapourize' is simply 'turn something into gas'
Second, what makes dirt so extra special that unlike every other material in the universe, it cannot be melted? I'd count sand as dirt and I DO seem to recall there being some connection between it and glass.
And while we haven't built any yet, I'm very much afraid the physics behind photon drives-or sails-are very real. Photons DO have momentum.

And I rather do seem to recall people on this board have applied physics to Harry Potter on numerous occasions (and probably the bible, too). You seem to be under the misapprehension that since it's fictional, we can't analyze it period. We may never be able to explain how a blaster does what it does, but we can take a look at what it does.

Dirt is a mixture.
let me put it this way
If you light a human on fire does he melt?

Yes Photons do have momentum but there is a LOT of qualifiers on that. its not as you are trying to say photons have momentum thus they can move objects.

No photon drives and solar sails are still in the theoretical land of science. There is no way to produce even close to the amount of energy for a photon drive to work.

Same with Solar sails they are still in the theoretical realm. They don't exist.

We can analyze it but I would say you have to take it with a grain of salt. I mean the only way these function if you ignore a lot of what they do. I dread to ask but do they try to explain how a lightsaber works?

[Formless]

Ok I have to stop you right there. It is not nitpicking. Sublimation and vaporization are two very different things. Sublimation is a solid going straight to gas completely skipping over a liquid phase change.

Sublimation is a phase change, you moron, despite your claims. Someone skipped chemistry class, didn't they.

Additionally dirt can not become a liquid thus it can't be vaporized. In fact dirt can't even become a gas. Dirt can not undergo a phase change. When was the last time you ever heard anyone say that dirt was a gas and could be condensed back into dirt?

Its called "lava", moron. All dirt is just powdered rock mixed with organic materials (like water and animal piss, both liquids). Want to talk vaporized dirt? Go outside and look up. Every element that can exist came from the stars. Yet obviously there are no solids inside that big shiny ball of gas called The Sun.

You also realize that Photon drives aren't real right?

How do you function? I tell you to look it up, and you automatically dismiss it as "not real?" I would explain the difference between something being "not real" because no one has ever made one and something being impossible, but at this point you are either too stupid to get it, or a semantic whoring troll. Either way, what a waste of time.

Yup Star Wars guns are just fictional with fictional effects which is why you can't apply science to it in this way. Would you apply science to Harry Potter? or the Bible?

For the first two, yes. I would observe the effects of certain events, then apply a hypothesis if possible. If there is no known mechanism for the events, I would accept that and because its fiction I would accept that the mechanism will be unknowable until the author gives us more information. Do you know what science even is? Its not just a body of knowledge, its a methodology of investigation, and a philosophy; hence why the knowledge changes over time. This post is such a stereotypical troll.

The bible is a slightly different story, because people claim that its totally not fiction. It contradicts observation, so I disbelieve its contents. Anyway, if others wish to educate you (i.e. waste their time) they can do so. I have better things to do than repeat what should be common knowledge to a probable troll. (in fact, if I hadn't wrote all this before I saw Batmang's post, I wouldn't be posting it)

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Sublimation is turning a solid into a gas.

So you can be a nitpicking fuckwit, good for you. Most people would still refer to it a vaporisation just because it's easier and still gets the point across.

are you trying to claim that light exerts a force on objects? Light has no mass.

Light has no rest mass. Light does, in fact, exert force upon objects. It is a tiny amount of force. This was proven in 1900. 113 years ago. You're 113 years behind the times. Look up 'Nichols radiameter'.

Additionally dirt can not become a liquid thus it can't be vaporized. In fact dirt can't even become a gas. Dirt can not undergo a phase change. When was the last time you ever heard anyone say that dirt was a gas and could be condensed back into dirt?

The constituent atoms of stone and dirt are, however, capable of undergoing phase change. Are you claiming that you could subject dirt to endless quantities of heat without anything occuring? Are you saying it can't be melted? Dirt is largely silica. Silica has a boiling point of 2,230 degrees Celsius. It can be melted, it can be converted into a gaseous state. Ergo it can be vaporised or "sublimed", if you want to be a nitpicky prick about it.

[malguslover]

Ok I have to stop you right there. It is not nitpicking. Sublimation and vaporization are two very different things. Sublimation is a solid going straight to gas completely skipping over a liquid phase change.

Sublimation is a phase change, you moron, despite your claims. Someone skipped chemistry class, didn't they.

Additionally dirt can not become a liquid thus it can't be vaporized. In fact dirt can't even become a gas. Dirt can not undergo a phase change. When was the last time you ever heard anyone say that dirt was a gas and could be condensed back into dirt?

Its called "lava", moron. All dirt is just powdered rock mixed with organic materials (like water and animal piss, both liquids). Want to talk vaporized dirt? Go outside and look up. Every element that can exist came from the stars. Yet obviously there are no solids inside that big shiny ball of gas called The Sun.

You also realize that Photon drives aren't real right?

How do you function? I tell you to look it up, and you automatically dismiss it as "not real?" I would explain the difference between something being "not real" because no one has ever made one and something being impossible, but at this point you are either too stupid to get it, or a semantic whoring troll. Either way, what a waste of time.

Yup Star Wars guns are just fictional with fictional effects which is why you can't apply science to it in this way. Would you apply science to Harry Potter? or the Bible?

For the first two, yes. I would observe the effects of certain events, then apply a hypothesis if possible. If there is no known mechanism for the events, I would accept that and because its fiction I would accept that the mechanism will be unknowable until the author gives us more information. Do you know what science even is? Its not just a body of knowledge, its a methodology of investigation, and a philosophy; hence why the knowledge changes over time. This post is such a stereotypical troll.

The bible is a slightly different story, because people claim that its totally not fiction. It contradicts observation, so I disbelieve its contents. Anyway, if others wish to educate you (i.e. waste their time) they can do so. I have better things to do than repeat what should be common knowledge to a probable troll. (in fact, if I hadn't wrote all this before I saw Batmang's post, I wouldn't be posting it)

I never said sublimnation wasn't a phase change. Please show me where I did say that


You are actually saying that Lava is just liquid dirt?

Ok haha you're trolling me.

As I said above Photon drives and Solar Sails are all theoretical. In theory they might work if we could produce enough power. Of course if we could generate that much power in the first place we really wouldn't need them.

By analyzing Star Wars if it was real is the same thing as the people who claim the bible is real.

[Batman]

Second, what makes dirt so extra special that unlike every other material in the universe, it cannot be melted? I'd count sand as dirt and I DO seem to recall there being some connection between it and glass.
And while we haven't built any yet, I'm very much afraid the physics behind photon drives-or sails-are very real. Photons DO have momentum.
And I rather do seem to recall people on this board have applied physics to Harry Potter on numerous occasions (and probably the bible, too). You seem to be under the misapprehension that since it's fictional, we can't analyze it period. We may never be able to explain how a blaster does what it does, but we can take a look at what it does.

Dirt is a mixture.

So's pretty much everything else on this planet. There's all kinds of stuff in seawater. Curious. Still liquid. And you know what? It can still be vapourized. Gosh. Did you know that plastics and alloys melt if you heat them enough? Maybe I should inform the media. Here everybody knew only pure elements could melt and now this.

let me put it this way
If you light a human on fire does he melt?

If you use something with a high enough burn temperature, yes, absolutely.

Yes Photons do have momentum but there is a LOT of qualifiers on that.

Not unless you manage to prove Einstein wrong.

its not as you are trying to say photons have momentum thus they can move objects.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. We may not be able to make it happen yet but the math behind it have been verified beyond the shadow of a doubt.

No photon drives and solar sails are still in the theoretical land of science. There is no way to produce even close to the amount of energy for a photon drive to work.

Currently. Now disprove the math or shut up. Your very own words were 'are you trying to claim that light exerts a force on objects? Light has no mass.' No qualifiers like how 'we cannot make light do much in the way of work for now', a blanket statement that due to not having mass, light cannot exert force. You can either conceed that you were wrong, or you can prove that Einstein was. Your move.

Same with Solar sails they are still in the theoretical realm. They don't exist.

Irrelevant. You didn't say 'we can't make it work today', you made a blanket call stating that light can't exert force on a massive object.
Given that part of this discussion was about a video discussing turbolasers, that's not really a relevant point. Especially as it's physically impossible for turbolasers to be purely photonic weapons.

We can analyze it but I would say you have to take it with a grain of salt. I mean the only way these function if you ignore a lot of what they do. I dread to ask but do they try to explain how a lightsaber works?

Somehow. We're likely never going to come up with an explanation that works within the laws of physics as we know them, just like we're never going to find a viable operating mechanism for a phaser. Doesn't mean we can't try to analyze its effects.

[malguslover]

Sublimation is turning a solid into a gas.

So you can be a nitpicking fuckwit, good for you. Most people would still refer to it a vaporisation just because it's easier and still gets the point across.

are you trying to claim that light exerts a force on objects? Light has no mass.

Light has no rest mass. Light does, in fact, exert force upon objects. It is a tiny amount of force. This was proven in 1900. 113 years ago. You're 113 years behind the times. Look up 'Nichols radiameter'.

Additionally dirt can not become a liquid thus it can't be vaporized. In fact dirt can't even become a gas. Dirt can not undergo a phase change. When was the last time you ever heard anyone say that dirt was a gas and could be condensed back into dirt?

The constituent atoms of stone and dirt are, however, capable of undergoing phase change. Are you claiming that you could subject dirt to endless quantities of heat without anything occuring? Are you saying it can't be melted? Dirt is largely silica. Silica has a boiling point of 2,230 degrees Celsius. It can be melted, it can be converted into a gaseous state. Ergo it can be vaporised or "sublimed", if you want to be a nitpicky prick about it.

It exerts an negligible force if you really want to get into hence the reason photon drives aren't real and really aren't possible. To create a working photon drive you would have to generate more power then the sun.

You are really using a Radiometer as your example?

[malguslover]

If you use something with a high enough burn temperature, yes, absolutely.

There are not enough facepalms in the world for this statement.

You actually just said you could melt a human.


ok im done here

Feel free to ignore me. I thought this site had some smart people on it but wow I mean you said human beings could melt.

I'll stick to theforce net site. Never thought I would say there are more intelligent people there.