StarDestroyer.Net BBS

By my figures a Acclamator should be able to kill another with less than a single broadside; or collapse its shields with just two turrets volleys.

Calculations:

Peak shielding is 7.0E22W
The yeild of a single Acculamator TBL 8.4E20J
The time its take a TBL bolt to transfer its energy to its target 0.08 sec.

The shield peak power over the bolts impact duration:
(7.0E22W)(0.08s) = 5.6E21W

A single turret has a combined yield of 3.421J.
Two turrets have the combined yield of 6.7E21J
* Enough to temporaily collapse the shields

A broadside yield is 4.1E22 J, so 3.54E22J strike the now unshielded surface. Assuming all the heavy guns can be fired forward simultaneously.
Then a Acclamator could easily score a one hit broadeside kill against another.


Possible Problems:
1. Maybe broadside bolts do not all arrive simultaneously due to the positioning of the guns along the vessels length. Although there should be no problem firing the rearward guns slightly ahead of the forward batteries; and timing them to hit simultaneously.

2. Perhaps the vessels cannont fire all its weapons simultaneously or at full power.



Your thoughts?

Thoughts?

Its a Transport not a Fighting Ship

shouldn't the impact duration be longer? .08 seconds seems short.

This was explained before. 7e22W is mearly how much the shields can take without taking any damage. Anything under 7e22W will do 0% damage, anything over with do a % of damage to the shields.

Once again, a theory is debunked by the Grand Admiral.

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:

This was explained before. 7e22W is mearly how much the shields can take without taking any damage. Anything under 7e22W will do 0% damage, anything over with do a % of damage to the shields.

Forgive my ignorance, but where was this explained before. Because clearly that is not the correct way to use watts by definition.

It's likely that they do have relatively weak shielding. They're transports, not full fledged capital ships. If they have to tangle with an ISD of course, they'd loose.

Spartan wrote:Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:

This was explained before. 7e22W is mearly how much the shields can take without taking any damage. Anything under 7e22W will do 0% damage, anything over with do a % of damage to the shields.

Forgive my ignorance, but where was this explained before. Because clearly that is not the correct way to use watts by definition.

IIRC it was an e-mail from Saxton. Though I cannot remember.


Anyways, it may be using watts incorrect, but it makes sense.

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:

IIRC it was an e-mail from Saxton. Though I cannot remember.

Anyways, it may be using watts incorrect, but it makes sense.

Thanks, I'll search for the quote, he must have a reason for writing the shield output that way.

Spartan wrote:Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:

IIRC it was an e-mail from Saxton. Though I cannot remember.

Anyways, it may be using watts incorrect, but it makes sense.

Thanks, I'll search for the quote, he must have a reason for writing the shield output that way.

Shields are energy absorption and reradiation devices. The stated ICS value identifies the rate at which shield energy is dissipated per second (hence the "Threshold") - anything above it is absorbed and stored in heat sinks, but this starts to lead to reduction in effectiveness, and eventual failure.

I should probably point out that the actual shield analysis was far more complex than he was able to put in the book. But what is stated is essentially correct (according to the explanations Curtis has given me as well.)

IIRC, the quality of this shield system is shown by examining the numbers for the Naboo Transport's ones... Remember the prefixs.

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Spartan wrote:Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:

IIRC it was an e-mail from Saxton. Though I cannot remember.

Anyways, it may be using watts incorrect, but it makes sense.

Thanks, I'll search for the quote, he must have a reason for writing the shield output that way.

Shields are energy absorption and reradiation devices. The stated ICS value identifies the rate at which shield energy is dissipated per second (hence the "Threshold") - anything above it is absorbed and stored in heat sinks, but this starts to lead to reduction in effectiveness, and eventual failure.

I should probably point out that the actual shield analysis was far more complex than he was able to put in the book. But what is stated is essentially correct (according to the explanations Curtis has given me as well.)

What he said.

It would be nice to have the quotes, but I suppose we can't expect that.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if a sci-fi warship had enough firepower to blow up it's sister ship in a single volley..... after all, with things like the Sun Crusher around....

I wonder how the ICS would be if there was a higher limit on word count...

OK, some basic pointers on energy and power:

1. According to the ICS shields can dissipate energy at a rate of X watts. This is the rate at which they can DUMP energy to the environment.
2. An energy weapon will transfer part of its energy to the system.
3. If the rate of energy transfer is below X watts, it will have no effect whatsoever because the system will be able to dump the energy as quickly as it comes in.
4. If the rate of energy transfer is above X watts, it will be stored in the system until it is dumped out. For example, if it is 4X watts, then 3/4 of it will enter the system, and if it took T seconds to input this energy, then it will take 3T seconds for the system to dump this energy into space. The system's ability to store energy is not quantified by the ICS; we can only speculate, based on its survivability in battle against its level of weaponry.
5. One of the ICS figures shows the dissipation rate being greater than the ship's max reactor output. This is NOT a typo. Please think about this.

Imagine the analogy of a kitchen sink. The drainpipe is of a certain size, and it can remove water at a rate X gpm. If you pour water into the kitchen sink at some rate lower than X, you won't fill the sink at all. If you pour water into the kitchen sink at some rate higher than X, you will slowly fill the sink. If you can keep this up until you fill the sink, then you will overflow it. If you can't, then it will just drain out again.

In the case of the Acclamator, we know how big the drainpipe is. We know the rates at which water is typically poured into the sink. We just don't know how big the sink is.

I don't suppose anyone has a compilation of the emails where Saxton explained all this? Someone on SB once said that they got in trouble for posting his letters there, but could someone point me in the right direction?

Ender wrote:I don't suppose anyone has a compilation of the emails where Saxton explained all this? Someone on SB once said that they got in trouble for posting his letters there, but could someone point me in the right direction?

No. Curtis generally sends E-mails in confidence, and does not want his off-hand remarks used as evidence in the kind of discussions we participate in. If he wants it published, he'll put it on his site.

I can only state an explanation that makes sense, which is the same thing I would do if anyone else had written the ICS, irrespective of whether I'd communicated with him.

That makes sense. I guess I'll just have to hope he gets to do another book where he can compile all the stuff he had to cut short like he said he wanted to do in that interview.

This made me think:

Are there some "Militarized Acclamators" out there who sacrifice troop carrying capacity for extra shielding???*

Perhaps there are even Acclamators out there converted into pure warships, with the troop quarters replaced with power-generating facilities for more shields and weapons.....

*I got the idea from Iain M.Banks' sci-fi novels, which often featuren "de-militarized" starships. (which means that they still are armed, however)