StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:But AFAIK vaporization when material reaches melting point occurs automatically in space because of the effects of vacuum, which is the real problem i have.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:Thanks man, that will help.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:I've visited it allready and it has been very usefull. Altough i couldnt find an answer to this particular question from there. Im just in the middle of a debate with one jackass who constantly insists that calculations based on vaporization energies must be thrown out of the window because of the effect of vacuum.

1st. He claimed that since some of the largest asteroids in the Hoth field had large craters and holes in them, all of them must be quite hollow etc. I pointed out to him that the large ones would be more prone to impacts from the smaller ones.

2nd. Since the field was formed by two colliding planets, he insists that the density of the asteroids would be very tiny (because of the liquid parts of the planet boiling and turning to vapor and then forming up asteroids).

And guess why he insists on all this? It all started from an argument that because Darksaber shows a max of kiloton level firepower for SSD weapons, AOTC:ICS numbers do not apply because the tech of the Empire has OBVIOUSLY degradated.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote: 2nd. Since the field was formed by two colliding planets, he insists that the density of the asteroids would be very tiny (because of the liquid parts of the planet boiling and turning to vapor and then forming up asteroids). I pointed out the problems with this by looking at the colorization of the asteroids and the multi-megaton compression bomb line.

We have ONE example of a large asteroid that has a "large hole" in it, and we know that the hole was created by the space slug. As for craters... ask him if he thinks the Moon is hollow (hey, it's got craters!).

Most liquids on a planet are at the surface. It's entirely possible that there were "low density" ice asteroids in the field, but they wouldn't even account for 1/10 of 1% of the total field. Furthermore, ask him for proof that the two planetoids that collided had significant amounts of liquid.

There is NO high-end number from Darksaber, only low-end. Just because there's ONE account of a blast obliterating an acre (note, however, that the text doesn't say ONLY an acre) that would not account for "forest fires" that are visible from space. Even the largest forest or brush fires on Earth aren't visible with the naked eye from space (though the smoke is).

Ender wrote:

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote: 2nd. Since the field was formed by two colliding planets, he insists that the density of the asteroids would be very tiny (because of the liquid parts of the planet boiling and turning to vapor and then forming up asteroids). I pointed out the problems with this by looking at the colorization of the asteroids and the multi-megaton compression bomb line.

Bobby tried that once. Then MoO pointed out that if the asteroids were sillicon dioxide the energy value would skyrocket (to something like 300 MT)


As for Darksaber, also point out that the fact that we see fires from orbit means JS, as if a multi GT bomb went off we would also see fires from orbit, they would just be on the edge of the crater.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:Few more issues the moron brought up.

1st. He claimed that since some of the largest asteroids in the Hoth field had large craters and holes in them, all of them must be quite hollow etc. I pointed out to him that the large ones would be more prone to impacts from the smaller ones.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:2nd. Since the field was formed by two colliding planets, he insists that the density of the asteroids would be very tiny (because of the liquid parts of the planet boiling and turning to vapor and then forming up asteroids). I pointed out the problems with this by looking at the colorization of the asteroids and the multi-megaton compression bomb line.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:And guess why he insists on all this? It all started from an argument that because Darksaber shows a max of kiloton level firepower for SSD weapons, AOTC:ICS numbers do not apply because the tech of the Empire has OBVIOUSLY degradated. I made some calcs lf the TESB asteroids to counter his Darksaber argument and pointed out that even if the asteroids were only ice, and only melting energies were accounted for, it would still require 4 kilotons to bring those 40m asteroids to their melting points.

TBH, page 102 wrote: Solo's last maneuver had been to strafe the Star Destroyer. Then he'd gone off the scopes. Dengar figured Solo must have gone back into the asteroid field. Perhaps Solo had shut down systems for a bit, so that his own ship seemed no more than an asteroid, but as Dengar sped into the asteroid field himself, he saw that even Solo himself wasn't crazy enough to risk such a maneuver. Rocks the size of his ship hurtled toward him, and these weren't the soft carbonaceous chrondites that his weapons might punch a hole through- these were nickel-iron rocks that could smash him to pieces.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:Few more issues the moron brought up.

1st. He claimed that since some of the largest asteroids in the Hoth field had large craters and holes in them, all of them must be quite hollow etc. I pointed out to him that the large ones would be more prone to impacts from the smaller ones.

2nd. Since the field was formed by two colliding planets, he insists that the density of the asteroids would be very tiny (because of the liquid parts of the planet boiling and turning to vapor and then forming up asteroids). I pointed out the problems with this by looking at the colorization of the asteroids and the multi-megaton compression bomb line.

And guess why he insists on all this? It all started from an argument that because Darksaber shows a max of kiloton level firepower for SSD weapons, AOTC:ICS numbers do not apply because the tech of the Empire has OBVIOUSLY degradated.

I made some calcs lf the TESB asteroids to counter his Darksaber argument and pointed out that even if the asteroids were only ice, and only melting energies were accounted for, it would still require 4 kilotons to bring those 40m asteroids to their melting points.

seanrobertson wrote:Bingo.

A little more ammo:

Tell him that's at least two hasty generalizations or leaps in logic.

1--Holes, like the one in which the space slug lived in, mean those large rocks are "totally hollow."

2--"Some asteroids are hollow, therefore all asteroids are hollow."

As you correctly point out, he's also context-dropping. Huge asteroids are going to be hit with more stuff. Small ones aren't.

Yes. What we observe suggests that the asteroids are dense. His speculations to the contrary are irrelevant.

Ugh. That's rough.

Ask him how weapons could become 1,000x or more times less energetic over the course of a few years? Magic?

Better yet, since he's probably claiming that Daala used HTLs, ask him how the passage of a few years "degrades" turbolaser output by 8 orders of magnitude. He'd better provide non-circular evidence to that effect (which he can't).

Yep.

Remind the clod that canon suggests FAR higher firepower. _Darksaber_ is contradicted left and right in the films alone; introducing the _ICS_ is overkill, really.

And in the event of a contradiction, what wins?

Of course, you can debate him on official stuff, canon, or both. I myself would just cut him off at the knees about that, but if you want a real potent one-two punch, address _Darksaber_ with the things Adam pointed out. You could even come away acting as if you were generous to indulge him with that example

Darth Servo wrote:Didn't you mention this idiot before?

IIRC, the Darksaber quote under discussion mentions Turbolaser batteries and this only covers the small point defense weapons. The Turbolaser turrets (not mentioned in the quote) are what dish out the 200+ GT level blasts. No contradiction after all.

Do you realize how inherently self-contradictory your position is? You admit that lowering the pressure level lowers the temperature needed to boil, yet claim the same amount of energy is needed? How is that possible? Less heat = less energy. Even preschoolers are able to handle such a concept.

If your engineer friend told you such a contradictory thing, he is either lying about being an engineer, or simply lying about the facts.

At vacuum, water boils at it’s melting point. Take a cup of water at room temperature and lower the pressure on it enough, and it will boil from the heat your forehead gives off. Your forehead is not producing heat of fusion. At below the Triple Point of pressure (which varies from substance to substance) anything will sublimate directly from solid to gas, and at a lower temperature than

Sure, and your scaling is done by who? The engineer who claims heat of fusion is needed in space?

And that means what? Idiot, you tried to claim that somehow the luminosity of the asteroids somehow contradicts them having a vacuous internal structure. Now you try to weasel out of it?

Ah, your memory is so fleeting, and your brain so ineffective. I did mention that, although most of the planet is molten and the majority of it would have such a foamy internal structure, major chunks of the crust would not be molten at the time of impact and thus would retain the solid nature.

What does that have to do with what I just said you idiot? Notice my quote, I’m talking about real-live volcanic rocks and how a pressure change causes gas to bubble. Then you mumble something about iron mixing in as if that’s relevant. Idiot, the iron is already mixed in with it, and even if it was how does this affect the basic argument?

In vacuum, water flash-boils at it’s melting point, not it’s boiling point. Idiot, of course you have to pay energy for every gram vaporized. The thing is, the lower the pressure, the less energy you have to actually pay. Even you’ve managed to agree that less heat is needed in lower pressure, how you can possibly say that and then claim that the same amount of energy is needed is beyond me.

Oh, and you claim that stone requires more energy to vaporize than iron. Most interesting, obviously whoever this Mike Wong is disagrees, I notice he has an asteroid calculator on his site designed to show how much energy is required to destroy them. Let’s see, 40 meter asteroid:
Granite:
Melt: 49.3 kilotons
Vaporize: 245.9 kilotons
Iron:
Melt: 80.4 kilotons
Vaporize: 479.1 kilotons
At this point the level of dishonesty you’ve displayed is nothing short of amazing. You lie about everything in order to get your way, don’t you?

Let's take a good look here. Do you see any liquid phase past the triple point? Of course not, because as I've said over and over, as pressure lowers the boiling and melting points become the same and matter goes directly from solid to gas. I don’t know how many times I’ve had to point this out now, obviously your stupidity extends well beyond your lack of science, or else you’re just using a wall of ignorance. At the Heat of Fusion Temperature (Actually well below that in vacuum) the material directly sublimates from solid to gas. As I’ve said over and over, stupid. And although you would want to put more than heat-of-fusion energies into something to make sure it doesn't recool into a largely solid mass, you also don't even need heat of fusion to actually melt it in low pressure, making even heat-of-fusion a generous estimate.

1: Asteroid Density:
We already know, thanks to Righteous Fist of Heaven, that the asteroid field was made up of two colliding planets.
What do we know about planets? They tend to have a solid crust with a molten interior. The interior is under vast pressure from the surface pushing down on it.
What happens to a liquid under pressure when the pressure is suddenly released? Dissolved gasses in the liquid bubble out violently. This holds true for everything from a suddenly-opened champagne bottle to a diver who gets the bends when he rised from the depths too quickly (Dissolved gas in his blood bubbles) to hot lava, which bubbles and usually winds up freezing as foamy rock like scoria or pumice which actually floats on water. Certain volcanic stones, notably Obsidian and Basalt, have few bubbles, but they typically are from long-standing flows in which the gas has had time to escape before the lava cooled.

We know from volcanoes alone that underground magma has loads of such dissolved gas in it, typically sulphurous fumes. Upon shattering in the impact, the core and the mantle of the planet would go from unholy amounts of pressure to almost none, while simultaneously being exposed to such low pressure that they would exceed their boiling point. As the gasses turn the liquids into froth, they boil with their own vapors and freeze at the same time from evaporative cooling. The net result is quite likely to be asteroids that are almost entirely vacuum or diffuse gas with little solid material, asteroids, in short, with density lower than water. The crust would, of course, be mainly solid fragments so you'd wind up with a few of those mixed in the batch.

The result for our debate? The TESB Asteroid shot could easily have been against a very lightweight asteroid with a density lower than styrofoam. This fits:
A: Scientific and observed facts (Real-life examples pointed out above).
B: All canon and official information (Doesn't contradict Darksaber, doesn't contradict ANH, doesn't contradict TESB, fits with "Asteroids were planets" theory, Doesn't contradict numerous "Terajoules of Firepower" quotes.) The only real sticking point against this is the "Megaton Compression Bomb" bit, but we have no idea what a compression bomb is or why an asteroid would mysteriously explode, which suggests some sort of shield interaction.

As we've pointed out repeatedly, using all the canon is superior to ignoring some and picking and choosing. This explanation fits all the canon and known science. It is the superior theory, since yours does not fit all the facts, contradicting Darksaber.

1: ICS Hulls vs. Asteroids: We see quite clearly an asteroid wiping out a Star Destroyer. The ICS, however, describes hulls with immense strength alloyed with neutronium. Even with the shields down, such armor should laugh at asteroids. Yet it clearly does not. This is conclusive proof that either: The ICS is contradicted and should be ignored (I dislike this option on principle, I like using all the canon) or else the ICS refers to ships far more powerful than the Empire's best weapons (The most reasonable explanation that doesn't contradict any canon.)