StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The ICS says this about the composite beam turrets on the LAAT:
"Firing dish exploits non-superpostion of blaster energy to compose variable tributary beams into a finely aimed, intense composite beam"

Does this mean that blaster energy is unlike say a laser, able to naturally combine somehow? Or that the turret somehow forces the energy to do so?

I think it's forced to combine, they say "firing dish", the dish has the purpose of creating the necessary...(%##$&&)... to combine the tributaries.
Sort of constructive interference.

I find the wording to be inconclusive.

such technobabble is almost worthy of ST

I think it just means it takes advantage of the fact the individual tributary beams are not combined to merge them together into what is effectively a single, more powerful beam. The main advantage (besides the ability to fire off center to a greater degree) is that it effectively concentrates the energy of several bolts onto a single point (think about it.. 2-3 bolts converge, merge at that single point, then fire outwards at the target.)

meNNis wrote:such technobabble is almost worthy of ST

Its only technobabble if you're too dumb to understand it

meNNis wrote:such technobabble is almost worthy of ST

Um...yeah. It says that, since the thing is made up of several, smaller beams, it can focus its power for a more precise and powerful beam.

That may be my most vehement hatred currently: people calling something technobabble when its not.

His Divine Shadow wrote:The ICS says this about the composite beam turrets on the LAAT:
"Firing dish exploits non-superpostion of blaster energy to compose variable tributary beams into a finely aimed, intense composite beam"

Does this mean that blaster energy is unlike say a laser, able to naturally combine somehow? Or that the turret somehow forces the energy to do so?

Well, the dish exploits a property of plasma beams, so it isn't forcing them to do anything they don't do naturally, otherwise it would say the beam forces a non-superposition of blaster energy.

And it's non-superposition, so unlike (for eg) laser beams they don't pass over each other - whereas a similar groups of lasers would just give a brighter spot where they cross and keep going afterwards, the blaster beams combine where they hit and continue as a single beam.

Lord Edam wrote:Well, the dish exploits a property of plasma beams, so it isn't forcing them to do anything they don't do naturally, otherwise it would say the beam forces a non-superposition of blaster energy.

It's not plasma though, it doesn't look like plasma, it doesn't act like plasma, hence it's not plasma.

No, I go with the other explanations.

I don't think anyone actually takes the plasma brainbug seriously anymore either.

His Divine Shadow wrote:

Lord Edam wrote:Well, the dish exploits a property of plasma beams, so it isn't forcing them to do anything they don't do naturally, otherwise it would say the beam forces a non-superposition of blaster energy.

It's not plasma though, it doesn't look like plasma, it doesn't act like plasma, hence it's not plasma.

No, I go with the other explanations.

Then change "plasma" to "blaster" - same idea, with less objectionable wording.

Lord Edam wrote:Well, the dish exploits a property of plasma beams, so it isn't forcing them to do anything they don't do naturally, otherwise it would say the beam forces a non-superposition of blaster energy.

That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. I had no idea that there was a such thing as a natural property of plasma beams, particularly since plasma cannot "naturally" form collimated beams at all.

meNNis wrote:such technobabble is almost worthy of ST

Except when you consider that ICS was written by a Ph.D. astrophysicist.