StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Although I hate descending into DVD frame by frames, but there might be a solution to the old light-speed versus vsisble burst blaster problem. I noticed that while things start to burn or disintegrate after being shot but before the visible beam hits, but tend to explode when it does. Perhaps the charged plasma-that's-not-quite-plasma is essentially an explosive projectile to disrupt the burned matter?

This would vaguely similar in practice to certain anti-tank armor-piercing technologies, although the theory and technology is quite different.

Shouldn't this be in PSW?

Its possible, but I think its unlikely. For starters, that'd be a lot of plasma stored in a very small space (scout trooper pistols, anyone?).

Off to PSW

Smiling Bandit wrote:Although I hate descending into DVD frame by frames, but there might be a solution to the old light-speed versus vsisble burst blaster problem. I noticed that while things start to burn or disintegrate after being shot but before the visible beam hits, but tend to explode when it does. Perhaps the charged plasma-that's-not-quite-plasma is essentially an explosive projectile to disrupt the burned matter?

The problem is, that if you have some sort of energy beam of any worthwhile energy level firing along the path of a physical projectile, some of that energy is going to be transferred to said projectile. If we're talking a parrticle beam, this means you're dumping photons into the partticles, which causes them to scatter randomly (thus disrupting the beam), and if its a physical projectile, its not only goign to exert force from the momentum of the energy, but heating of the projectile is going to disrupt the path of the beam as well.

In other words, the combination of the two effects tend to hamper the effectiveness of either component: the physical projectiel (or particle beam) is absorbing energy (and possibly even scattering) the energy beam portion (or massless portion of the weapon, if you prefer), while the enerrgy beam is dumping energy into the projectile/particle beam (scattering it or damaging it).=[ppl

Moreover, this is essentially the same principle behind the power "ramp-up" notion - there is a delay before the majority of the energy is delivered (perhaps for targeting purposes, maybe its a "charge up" bit, etc..) Superlasers (both the micro-superlasers like the LAAT as well as the Death STar's have something of a delay before firing.)

[/quote]
This would vaguely similar in practice to certain anti-tank armor-piercing technologies, although the theory and technology is quite different.[/quote]

Like what? I don't know of any hybrid weapons that would work on that principle.. unless you're thinking of the kinds of projectiles that penetrate and then explode.

Wrong forum. You'd think I'd be able to tell them apart.

Well, my thought was that it might have one barrel but multiple mechanisms to damage targets. I have no idea how they might do that, but I suppose they could have one stage (the invisible one), which travels at a very high velocity, possible C. The other sectionwould be fired at almost but not quite the same time. It could use a minor form of the DS-type merged-beam technology. Multiple beams could be fired and merged into one blast before leaving the barrel, just cut short unlike the DS beam or the AotC gunships.

But you would be right for some blasters where their is no split-damage. Oh well, it was just a thought.

Like what? I don't know of any hybrid weapons that would work on that principle.. unless you're thinking of the kinds of projectiles that penetrate and then explode.

Oh, I just meant the idea of having a two-stage weapon. Some anti-armor weapons use a multi-stage weapon to beat armor.

That sounds overly complicated.

Smiling Bandit wrote:

Wrong forum. You'd think I'd be able to tell them apart.

Well, my thought was that it might have one barrel but multiple mechanisms to damage targets. I have no idea how they might do that, but I suppose they could have one stage (the invisible one), which travels at a very high velocity, possible C. The other sectionwould be fired at almost but not quite the same time.

Might work.. a bit overcomplicated (it would probably work more like an Omega's main guns in B5, but it would require alot of internal workings and probably compromises to fit a projectile launcher as well as a beam weapon in there.,.) You'd have to be careful to prevent the beam frfom striking the projectile, though.

There might be an issue with "dual recoil" - the beam firing, then eht projectile firing.

It could use a minor form of the DS-type merged-beam technology. Multiple beams could be fired and merged into one blast before leaving the barrel, just cut short unlike the DS beam or the AotC gunships.

How would that work with a projectile? You can't really "combine" projectiles.

But you would be right for some blasters where their is no split-damage. Oh well, it was just a thought.

Well, that's not to say it *couldn't* work - its already been established there are different varieties of blasters. I'd say what you are proposing is more like a "combination" type weapon. An enerrgy-beam type blaster and a projectile-type blaster in the same mounting.

Oh, I just meant the idea of having a two-stage weapon. Some anti-armor weapons use a multi-stage weapon to beat armor.

It might work against armor, but it might not against shields (SW shields have separate shields for kinetic/projectile attacks and radiation/energy weapons, remember?) Depends on how the projectile inflicts damage, I suppose.

Oh, I just meant the idea of having a two-stage weapon. Some anti-armor weapons use a multi-stage weapon to beat armor.

Some missiles have dual HEAT warheads to defeat reactive armor, but it doesn't work the way you're talking about. The first just clears a path so that the second can attack the vehicle itself.

I prefer to think of an invisible "barrel" or tube instead of a bottle for a plasma-burst (to keep the EU-explenation) with both components doing damage, although that wouldn´t work with the AotC:ICS-explenation and have difficulties of its own.

Aside from other thinks i don´t like the idea of a projectile, because that would mean different calibres for different orders of firepowers.

That sounds overly complicated.

Yup. I though of an improved mechanism: a two-stage blaster with essentially two gun systems. One draws juice and prepares while the other is firing. The one that fired moves slightly to the side, clearing the barrel for the next part. But it'd have to be very, precise, fast, and shock tolerant. Maybe for the heavy turbolasers.

How would that work with a projectile? You can't really "combine" projectiles.

Projectile is a bad word. I meant more of a concentrated quasi-energy blast that seems to explode or what a'la the DS/Clone Wars hopper.

It might work against armor, but it might not against shields (SW shields have separate shields for kinetic/projectile attacks and radiation/energy weapons, remember?) Depends on how the projectile inflicts damage, I suppose.

Without knowing more about the shields no one could say.

Some missiles have dual HEAT warheads to defeat reactive armor, but it doesn't work the way you're talking about. The first just clears a path so that the second can attack the vehicle itself.

Yeah. When I wrote that I was thinking of the invisible portion cutting through the shields (or through the top few atoms of armor and the shields, and the plasma/whatever cutting through thereafter. I completely forgot to write that because I was rushing to pour out my thoughts.

Oh that's great...

...except that it's still overly complicated and there's also no evidence for such an irrationally complex firing mechanism to exist.

Yes, that's about the long and short of it.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Oh that's great...

...except that it's still overly complicated and there's also no evidence for such an irrationally complex firing mechanism to exist.

Not entirely true. There are some official mentions that lean towards a "hybrid" weapon. But what he's really proposing is more of an application of two separate weapons.

Now that several people have started to discern the problems involved with the reconciliation of film and text, does any body have any idea that can explain what we all saw?

It is clearly impossable to equate film and text. If we are to have any kind of rational conversation, then we need a working hypothisis that follows all the natural laws of nature or we must invent some new effect.

Which is it to be?

Stewart at SDI wrote:Now that several people have started to discern the problems involved with the reconciliation of film and text, does any body have any idea that can explain what we all saw?

It is clearly impossable to equate film and text. If we are to have any kind of rational conversation, then we need a working hypothisis that follows all the natural laws of nature or we must invent some new effect.

Which is it to be?

Do us a favor and shut up.

Not enough you roam the SWvST board, now you pollute here as well.....

wouldn't it make more sense to say it is a particle beam weapon that is slower than light with several emited radiation side effects that would explain the result???.

I am no physicist so while I am prepared to make a stab at this maybe mike or someone could help flesh this out??.

I missed the part where this assertion was made, where you could see damage before the bolt hit. I've seen this mentioned before as well, but not the substance of the claim. Could someone point me to this? Thanks.

harbringer wrote:wouldn't it make more sense to say it is a particle beam weapon that is slower than light with several emited radiation side effects that would explain the result???.

Particle beams are (relatively speaking) generally much lower mass than bullets (they derive most of their destructive effects from very high - in fact usually relatavistic) velocities. They by default travel slower than light (anything under c is technically slower than light after all), but

The particle beam woudl also be subject ot the same gravitational pull a projectile would. Even more, it would tend to scatter rather nastily in an atmosphere (this is one of the primary limitations of partticle beam weapons, in fact.)

Technically thats what the "massless" theory suggests - the only difference being that its massless instead of low mass particles.

Stewart at SDI

Now that several people have started to discern the problems involved with the reconciliation of film and text, does any body have any idea that can explain what we all saw?

It is clearly impossable to equate film and text.

Yes, I believe that is why the film is canon and the text is not.

If we are to have any kind of rational conversation, then we need a working hypothisis that follows all the natural laws of nature or we must invent some new effect.

Which is it to be?

Why can't we just state our observations without justifying them with our current understanding of physics? Maybe attempting such a hypothesis would be like trying to use Newtonian physics to describe an observed relativistic phenomenon.

Even more, it would tend to scatter rather nastily in an atmosphere (this is one of the primary limitations of partticle beam weapons, in fact.)

Technically thats what the "massless" theory suggests - the only difference being that its massless instead of low mass particles.

Conner

The gravity might to a degree be neutralised by a good targeting system that I would presume to be fitted, but would some of the parts of this beam stabilize it in atmosphere like (but different of course since it cannot possibly be one...) using a laser to create a path for the beam?? (as we do today).

And Stewart there is this thing called suspension of belief. A turbolaser in the star wars universe works and may (depending on size) provide 200GT of power to the target. This is true because George Lucas has said so (and yes he had input into the ICS books). Unless you know more than George you needn't comment.

harbringer wrote:And Stewart there is this thing called suspension of belief. A turbolaser in the star wars universe works and may (depending on size) provide 200GT of power to the target. This is true because George Lucas has said so (and yes he had input into the ICS books). Unless you know more than George you needn't comment.

It's sort of ironic, really, especially since only a day ago Fish-Stew himself claimed:

Stewart at SDI Treehouse wrote:But the SW EU stuff is even fuller of really stupid gaffs and contradictions to the movies than the worst part of the ST Cannon... This is compounded by Spielburg and the movie writers who colectivly knew less hard science AND martial technology than any of the ST writers.

And now an highly placed SW source written by a PhD of astrophysics is blowing the legs (and the majority of the torso) of his yapping away.

I hate to say this but what do you really expect from stewart? intelligence? wit?. As for Saxton he is very educated and probably far smarter than I am so I will take his stuff on faith. He also states that George Lucas ok'd the ICS (and used a name from ATOC ICS from memory) so thats good enough for me too. Eventually Stewart will figure out he can throw tantrums, invent whatever the hell he wants and it still won't stop SW from having better ships than the Enterprise and troops far better equiped and trained than anything in the alpha quad.

FTeik wrote: Aside from other thinks i don´t like the idea of a projectile, because that would mean different calibres for different orders of firepowers.

You do see this demonstrated, though, in the various classes of weapons. Your larger weapon systems have larger bore diameters. As you have greater power output in the bolt, assuming you can't increase the density of the bolt itself, it must either elongate, or have a wider crossection. I am sure that the bolt collimators can accomodate both approaches, but not to an extreme either way.

Stewart at SDI wrote:Now that several people have started to discern the problems involved with the reconciliation of film and text, does any body have any idea that can explain what we all saw?

Well, I found the article on Turbolasers describing the purported early-incineration effect. So much of the argument seemed to step around the short sequence with shooting the asteroids. Are there other cases to back this up? Otherwise, I would take it to be a one-time gaffe with SFX timing, and not worth taking the time to explain.

Stewart at SDI wrote:Now that several people have started to discern the problems involved with the reconciliation of film and text, does any body have any idea that can explain what we all saw?

It is clearly impossable to equate film and text. If we are to have any kind of rational conversation, then we need a working hypothisis that follows all the natural laws of nature or we must invent some new effect.

Which is it to be?

Notice how the useless troll makes no attempt whatsoever to contribute anything resembling an idea of his own. He just demands that others do so. Blow me, trolling idiot.

Mind you, the last time he tried to explain something physically, he ended up arguing that an asteroid can glow white-hot without being hot, and that "soft lumps of talc" can resist deformation when struck by multi-ton metallic objects