Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=52249
But can it fire 4 bolts at once or just 2.(Falcons guns have 8 barrels can only 4 bolts (almost at once).Spanky The Dolphin wrote:It has two double-barreled cannons.
How?Illuminatus Primus wrote:I believe its like the Falcon; the emitters are fed by a single cannon, and that implies to me its simply a beam splitter to increase shield (but not armor) penetration effectiveness.
Yeah, I just looked at the ICS2, and I think that's exactly what they show.Illuminatus Primus wrote:I believe its like the Falcon; the emitters are fed by a single cannon, and that implies to me its simply a beam splitter to increase shield (but not armor) penetration effectiveness.
Multiple weaker shots are more effective than a single stronger shot of equal firepower due to how shields operate. Having more shots makes it easier to wear them down and break the energy peak.Lord Revan wrote:How?Illuminatus Primus wrote:I believe its like the Falcon; the emitters are fed by a single cannon, and that implies to me its simply a beam splitter to increase shield (but not armor) penetration effectiveness.
it didn't as har as I can see.Mange the Swede wrote:This is off-topic, but did the AOTC ICS show the Delta-7 with deployable wings (flight stabilizers)?
Wouldn't that be less effective since you are spreading out the amount of time that the total energy is hitting the shield? If you put one unit of energy in the emitter and it splits it into four shots that each hit the target one after another, that means it will take at least four times as long for all of that unit of energy to hit.Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Multiple weaker shots are more effective than a single stronger shot of equal firepower due to how shields operate. Having more shots makes it easier to wear them down and break the energy peak.
I think that's how it basically works.
No, the shots are split, so they are coincident and the wattage is identical.Gil Hamilton wrote:Wouldn't that be less effective since you are spreading out the amount of time that the total energy is hitting the shield? If you put one unit of energy in the emitter and it splits it into four shots that each hit the target one after another, that means it will take at least four times as long for all of that unit of energy to hit.
They're not supposed to, or there'd be no point to splitting the shot. Apparently shields can concentrate its deflection ability on single hits more easily than multiple ones; perhaps this is why there seem to be a plateau for turret and gun sizes even as you move up into the Empire's mightiest battleships.Gil Hamilton wrote:This is even worse of a problem is the target and the turret are moving relative to each other, which means each shot might not hit the same spot on the defensive field of the target.
I wouldn't say identical, since you are bound to lose power due to inefficiency in the beam splitter.Illuminatus Primus wrote:No, the shots are split, so they are coincident and the wattage is identical.
I'm not sure I follow. StarWars shields aren't point defenses that target and shoot down individual shots, they are energy fields. If you spread out energy across the field at several points, at any one point you the effect is going to be less intense that if you focused all your energy on one point. That would decrease the chances of getting through the shield, as at a given point (where the seperate bolts hit) the amount of energy is four times less. If all the energy hit at the same place on the field, it would have more impact on the shield at that point, increasing the odds of penetration.They're not supposed to, or there'd be no point to splitting the shot. Apparently shields can concentrate its deflection ability on single hits more easily than multiple ones; perhaps this is why there seem to be a plateau for turret and gun sizes even as you move up into the Empire's mightiest battleships.
Sure intensity is, assuming that the shield is a field. Field intensity is the vector sum of all the forces exerted by a field at a given point in the field. You'd better believe that the intensity of energy being applied to a given point on an energy field is an issue, since the more energy being exerted on a single point of that field, the more its counteracting the intensity of the field. Ergo better odds of defeating the shield at that point.Illuminatus Primus wrote:Except its not like a physical barrier; intensity is not an issue.
Turbolaser commentaries wrote: In this image, the Millennium Falcon's cannons have an enlargement close to the end as well. At first glance, this appears to be similar to the forked cannons present on Imperial walkers, but differences appear upon close inspection. Perhaps the device described above is housed inside the barrel? This would provide lower firing arcs, but would protect the device from micro-meteorites, etc. It does appear that the twin bolts are traveling at slightly different angles from their respective barrels.
It may otherwise serve the purpose of focusing the beam just before it exits the barrel. But this does not explain the varying firing angles once the bolts have exited the barrels. The EGW&T states that this device splits the bolt into 2 smaller bolts. In this image, it is clear that this is simply not the case. Also, there are no clear advantages in splitting a blaster bolt into weaker bolts, as this would probably be less effective against shields.
However, images of the quad-gun do suggest that there are two openings at the end of the barrel. But the fact remains that only one bolt is seen leaving each barrel when the gun is fired. Perhaps the two openings alternately release the bolt, to control overheating? Another possibility is that the two openings fire simultaneously, and the resulting small bolts combine to form one bolt, similar to the firing method of the Death Star's superlaser.
You'd be better off pointing out the fact that the "bolt splintering/visible flash" phenomenon is proof of this, although its liklier that shields have a volumetric effect rather than just area (so depth can be just as important as the other dimensions.)Gil Hamilton wrote:Sure intensity is, assuming that the shield is a field. Field intensity is the vector sum of all the forces exerted by a field at a given point in the field. You'd better believe that the intensity of energy being applied to a given point on an energy field is an issue, since the more energy being exerted on a single point of that field, the more its counteracting the intensity of the field. Ergo better odds of defeating the shield at that point.Illuminatus Primus wrote:Except its not like a physical barrier; intensity is not an issue.
Yeah, I know it makes no sense whatsoever rationally, but it is C canon, and I can't find any explicit contradiction... I think you could try to dismiss it on the grounds that the other sources involving shield mechanics analysis contradict it. But I don't know how firm that is.Connor MacLeod wrote:Actually I think Gil has a point, Primey. Shields (and Armor) actually have superconducting properties (the energy is spread across a larger surface area to reduce overfall effect) Deliberately diffusing the bolt only makes it EASIER to dissipate it.
On top of that, it would also induce some rather interesting range limitations (you extend the range of the beam by makinig it more coherent, not less. I believe this also may have some effect on the energy loss of the bolt itself.)
Frankly the "splitter" aperture on the Falcon's guns makes no real sense, unless it has some sort of "superlaser" like function (maybe it gives the bolt better off-axis firing, or some such - the capability is observed against the Sentry TIEs when escaping the DS in ANH.)
I think you need to actually read the quote in question:Illuminatus Primus wrote:Yeah, I know it makes no sense whatsoever rationally, but it is C canon, and I can't find any explicit contradiction... I think you could try to dismiss it on the grounds that the other sources involving shield mechanics analysis contradict it. But I don't know how firm that is.
simply "diffusing" the bolt is meaningless (in fact, Cracken's Reble Field Guide makes mention of "dispersing" a blaster bolt, and that doing so does in fact greatly reduce its damage!)EGW&T, page 80 wrote: The unusual splitter coupling slightly disperses the energy beam, forcing the target's shields to deflect energy simultaneously from two hits and increasing the liklihood of overloading the shields and inflicting greater damage.
Its not neccesarily a tracer, just a harmless side effect (which is not just indicated by the AOTC ICS - the EGW&T call sthe visible botl a "harmless side effect." ) of the weapon's nature/creation. The fact it CAN be used as a tracer (Shadows of the Empire, Wraith Squadron, Cracken's Rebel Field guide, EGW&T) is only an incidental advantage. In fact, the EGW&T suggests the "visible" nature is simply a preferential setting, not neccesarily even a requirement for capital scale weapons.)Alan Bolte wrote:Um, something really bugging me here folks. About all our explanations of laser and turbolasers:
If the lightspeed beam does the damage, and the visible part is just a tracer, then what does the appearance of tracer fire and tracer-sheild interaction tell us about laser emission and laser-shield interaction? How can it possibly tell us much of anything except for the trajectory of the beam?
Not if you spread what is normally a single full powered bolt into two smaller half-power bolts (particularily if those half powered bolts are not hitting the same area). That would still dictate that such an impact would be EASIER to deflect than an "undiffused" bolt. (based on how shields work)Illuminatus Primus wrote:That's what I thought; that it was suggesting that two coincident hits were more difficult for a shield to deflect than a single beam equal to the sum of their energy.