Lightsaber+shields=?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-07-02 06:35pm

Lord Revan wrote:
Darth_Zod wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Gil, what about descriptions of the blade having no mass, and that when thrown, the weapon spins not with its centre of mass not at ~1/3 the length of the blade but at the halfway point along the length of the handle?
When a jedi throws his lightsaber, doesn't he use the Force to direct it as opposed to it simply being a physical throw?
It would be harder throw the saber if the jedi would have to make the saber rotate from some other point then its center of mass and the benefit would be irrelevant compared to cost.

so. . .what exactly are you saying here? we've been given several examples of force use in combat, with relatively little effort. Various d20 sourcebooks even list this feat as an application of the Force, iirc.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-07-02 06:40pm

Zod, you're ignoring the fact that the damn blade has no mass, according to official (maybe canon) description. No mass in the blade means that the weapon's CoM is halfway along the handle, because that's how physics and common sense works.

Besides, this is nothing more than a distraction from what's become the main issue...

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2004-07-02 06:42pm

Darth_Zod wrote:
Lord Revan wrote:
Darth_Zod wrote: When a jedi throws his lightsaber, doesn't he use the Force to direct it as opposed to it simply being a physical throw?
It would be harder throw the saber if the jedi would have to make the saber rotate from some other point then its center of mass and the benefit would be irrelevant compared to cost.
so. . .what exactly are you saying here? we've been given several examples of force use in combat, with relatively little effort. Various d20 sourcebooks even list this feat as an application of the Force, iirc.

it is easier to just direct the movement of center of mass with the Force then direct the movement of both the center of mass and center of rotation. I think the throw a combination of physical throw and Force power remember that lord Vader pull his hand back before the throw to get more power to it.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-02 06:43pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Big ones will take a few days, once I get access to a friends video capture equipment. However, their main purpose is to show that there is an honest-to-god rod there, one which casts a shadow and everything, since you seem to think I'm lying and there is no object visible at all. I do have a small image of what I'm talking about, but I'd perfer a big screenshot where you can see everything.

I don't suppose you'd mind posting the small one first. I think I know what you're referring to.

I haven't changed theories at all, but I have elaborated on the one I've already had. There clearly is a rod there and I've elaborated that I think in an in-universe context that it is the physical portion of the blade itself. This isn't changing theories, it's being more descriptive.

Doesn't jive real well with your staunch insistance that many things can survive lightsaber contact, but that's not really relevant.

Via interaction with the material no doubt. I thought Spanky covered that in another thread about lightsabres, about material shearing generating heat.

And this does not affect the inanimate carbon rod... why?

It's not there, but it is here. Why else would the rod be there if it wasn't part of the blade? Just hanging out?

Frankly I've no idea, but then I can't say your theory makes a great deal more sense to me.

Nope, it's the shield flickering out in places, not that the rod is poking out if it.

And we've seen shields flicker out in places precisely when?

Sure it does. I think the lightsabre blade is a telescoping rod which emits a energy field and vibrates to allow tremendous cutting power and cause heating effects in objects.

I'm having a hard time figuring out why vibrating an inner part is going to have any effect on the rather exotic atomic interactions that the "shield" is causing.

The shield doors in TPM glow visibly.

Yes, and you can see through them. In other words, not like a lightsaber.

How exactly can I do any different? Unless you are accusing me of lying, of course, which I have no reason to do.

How is frankly not my problem, Gil. Clearly you are trying to present an argument in a very rigorous manner. If you want to be absolutely 100% literal in the interpretation of Suspension of Disbelief, I don't think it's a big thing to ask for you to present evidence that lightsabers are swung in a manner that shows a massive blade.

Otherwise we're talking about "well it looks like..." and I'm not real big on such things.

If there is a rod emitting a shield and it is vibrating, wouldn't the shield vibrate with it?

Ah, so the rod is now a shield emitter now. Very impressive given the small space this compressed rod must fit in, given the shape of the emittor on Luke's ROTJ saber.

If shielding technology is so cheap and compact, one wonders why it is not in wider use. If one can fit a shield generator and projector in something the size of a small baton that can deflect AT-AT hits (Dark Empire) and blaster cannons (Darksaber 176). Heck, the shielding systems on Rebel speeders can't take a single AT-AT hit.

I haven't changed theories, I've elaborated on the one I already have. All of this is irrelevant, since anyone with eyeballs can see the damn thing themselves.

We shall see, shalln't we?

As an aside, on the movie prop, I'm not seeing a great deal of evidence for any sort of rod coming out.
One
Two

Note that the narrowest part of the saber is rather narrower than the apparent "rod" present in Obi-Wan's saber.
Not really. The rod isn't that wide.

Besides, according to your theory, this isn't there:
http://www.egosystem.com/starwars/image ... _shine.jpg
Oh yes, not there at all, huh?

I observe a distinct lack of rebuttal. How does the rod fit in there, particularly when it's a shield generator? Are shield generators really that small? An AT-AT-shot-deflecting generator can be fit into a space the size of a pocketwatch?

This does not in any way jive with what we know about the space and power requirements of other SW shield generators.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-07-02 06:46pm

Lord Revan wrote:
it is easier to just direct the movement of center of mass with the Force then direct the movement of both the center of mass and center of rotation. I think the throw a combination of physical throw and Force power remember that lord Vader pull his hand back before the throw to get more power to it.

Of course it's a combination of physical and force power, but the blade is being guided by the force itself. The fact it's telekinetically guided should mean that the center of mass accounts for exactly squat. When has center of mass ever been an issue for applications of force telekinesis before?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-02 06:47pm

Thanks for that catch, guys: Vader's saber does indeed spin about its handle in ROTJ.

Gil, why does your inanimate carbon rod apparently possess no mass?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-07-02 06:51pm

Darth_Zod wrote:
Lord Revan wrote:
it is easier to just direct the movement of center of mass with the Force then direct the movement of both the center of mass and center of rotation. I think the throw a combination of physical throw and Force power remember that lord Vader pull his hand back before the throw to get more power to it.
Of course it's a combination of physical and force power, but the blade is being guided by the force itself. The fact it's telekinetically guided should mean that the center of mass accounts for exactly squat. When has center of mass ever been an issue for applications of force telekinesis before?

Burden of proof is yours. And address my reply, Zod, concerning lack of mass in the blade, which you conviently ignored to go after a trivial and unburdened Force aside.

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2004-07-02 06:53pm

Darth_Zod wrote:
Lord Revan wrote:
it is easier to just direct the movement of center of mass with the Force then direct the movement of both the center of mass and center of rotation. I think the throw a combination of physical throw and Force power remember that lord Vader pull his hand back before the throw to get more power to it.
Of course it's a combination of physical and force power, but the blade is being guided by the force itself. The fact it's telekinetically guided should mean that the center of mass accounts for exactly squat. When has center of mass ever been an issue for applications of force telekinesis before?

Rotation from any other place then the center of mass is unbalanced as thing rotate naturally from their COM. So you're the jedi guiding the movement of the saber and its COM for no good reason what so ever. I think it's much more simple to that the saber has its COM in the handle.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2004-07-03 01:25am

Hmm, a lightsaber as an "energized" vibro blade? Interesting.

Just to add one little thing:

2. No, it does not. No other material has demonstrated reflectivity of blaster bolts at anything but very oblique angles. If there were a material that were completely resistant to blasters (never mind that you accuse me of the no-limits fallacy), why would it not be used on the outside of ships, for armor, and so forth?

Do you mean like the "magneticcally sealed" walls of the DS Garbage masher? Or various shields (Gungan handheld shields, Droideka personal shields, etc)?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-03 01:51am

I didn't know that shields were considered materials, nor did I know that magnetic fields were considered materials.

Conner, as can usually be expected, has come up with a final nail in the coffin. The OT Visual Dictionary has a cutaway of Vader's saber. There is no extending rod to be found. Furthermore it states the following:

OT Visual Dictionary p.6 wrote:Lightsabvers tend to follow a similar basic structure, although many are very individualized by their Jedi builders. While the pure energy blade has no mass, the electromagnetically generated arc wave creates a strong gyroscopic effect that makes the lightsaber a distinct challenge to handle. Operating on the complex principle of arc-wave energy, it requires focusing elements made from naturally-occuring crystals that cannot be synthesized.

This official if not canon statement explicitly and conclusively refutes any sort of rod inside a lightsaber blade. In light of the fact that the visuals in ANH can be interpreted another way (strange atmospheric effects, different light transmittance at different angles, etc) while the above statement cannot, it is difficult to conceive of a rod inside a lightsaber.

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2004-07-03 01:56am

In a related analogy, should we assume that all the characters from (for an example) Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within are some sort of nonhuman genetic offshoot race since their skin doesn't look quite right? Or should we assume that their skin doesn't look quite right because of imperfect SFX. Gil, aimed straight atcha, still waiting for a response to these.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-07-03 01:58am

Howedar, how many optical illusions look completely solid and cast shadows, hmm? A New Hope overrides that as it is canon as you can get and your excerpt is not.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-03 02:03am

I await refutation of all of my other arguments, Gil. One would not want people to think that they were skirting the points that they could not address.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-07-03 06:00pm

Howedar wrote:I don't suppose you'd mind posting the small one first. I think I know what you're referring to.

I did anyway. See the end of my last post.

Doesn't jive real well with your staunch insistance that many things can survive lightsaber contact, but that's not really relevant.

Sure it does. I don't hold to the idea that the lightsabre can destroy anything and therefore anything that it cannot must be an optical illusion.

And this does not affect the inanimate carbon rod... why?

Because it's doing the shearing.

Frankly I've no idea, but then I can't say your theory makes a great deal more sense to me.

Sure it makes sense, the telescoping rods is what generates the glowing effect of the lightsabre as combined with the shield it is covered in is the honest real cutting instrument of the weapon.

And we've seen shields flicker out in places precisely when?

Irrelevant. We see the glowing part of the lightsabre flicker out plenty of times in ANH (practically all over the place) and there is the rod.

I'm having a hard time figuring out why vibrating an inner part is going to have any effect on the rather exotic atomic interactions that the "shield" is causing.

Because rapidly vibrating edges make excellent cutting tools.

Yes, and you can see through them. In other words, not like a lightsaber.

How many different varietys of shields have we seen in StarWars? What's another?

How is frankly not my problem, Gil. Clearly you are trying to present an argument in a very rigorous manner. If you want to be absolutely 100% literal in the interpretation of Suspension of Disbelief, I don't think it's a big thing to ask for you to present evidence that lightsabers are swung in a manner that shows a massive blade.

I'd have to have video files and you'd have to have the eye for it, something I cannot provide on either counts until I get access to my friends video equipment..

Otherwise we're talking about "well it looks like..." and I'm not real big on such things.

Fine, then consider that point withdrawn. It's not a major point anyway.

Ah, so the rod is now a shield emitter now. Very impressive given the small space this compressed rod must fit in, given the shape of the emittor on Luke's ROTJ saber.

Which is why the generator is in the handle and the rod emits it.

If shielding technology is so cheap and compact, one wonders why it is not in wider use. If one can fit a shield generator and projector in something the size of a small baton that can deflect AT-AT hits (Dark Empire) and blaster cannons (Darksaber 176). Heck, the shielding systems on Rebel speeders can't take a single AT-AT hit.

Not my problem to answer. Probably because they damnedably expensive to produce. But it's really irrelevant, the point is we can see the damn rod in the blade.

I observe a distinct lack of rebuttal. How does the rod fit in there, particularly when it's a shield generator? Are shield generators really that small? An AT-AT-shot-deflecting generator can be fit into a space the size of a pocketwatch?

This does not in any way jive with what we know about the space and power requirements of other SW shield generators.

Are you blind, or something? Can you not see the damn thing or what?

--

I await refutation of all of my other arguments, Gil. One would not want people to think that they were skirting the points that they could not address.

Done, now answer the damn question. How the hell does an optical illusion have a solid appearant, have shading consistant with the lighting of the room and cast a freaking shadow? Or can you not actually see the damn thing and I need to get a bigger image with little arrows pointing out these things? I mean, lightsabres cast shadows all the time, there are too many examples in StarWars to count. Kind of a trick, if there is no physical object in there.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-03 08:04pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Sure it does. I don't hold to the idea that the lightsabre can destroy anything and therefore anything that it cannot must be an optical illusion.

Then provide evidence that there is any material in SW that can resist a lightsaber for minutes on end. Please don't just mention your rod again, as that would be circular logic.

And this does not affect the inanimate carbon rod... why?
Because it's doing the shearing.

Does that mean, say, that the tip of a propane torch does not heat up because it is what is emitting the heat?

Sure it makes sense, the telescoping rods is what generates the glowing effect of the lightsabre as combined with the shield it is covered in is the honest real cutting instrument of the weapon.

You've managed to leave out many points in this particular statement.

Irrelevant. We see the glowing part of the lightsabre flicker out plenty of times in ANH (practically all over the place) and there is the rod.

Circular logic. You cannot say that the ANH instance is evidence of shield flicker when the statement is made in order to support the idea of shields in lightsabers.

Because rapidly vibrating edges make excellent cutting tools.

On a physical blade, yes. A lightsaber is not a physical edged blade. Please provide evidence that vibrating a shield will enhance its cutting ability.

How many different varietys of shields have we seen in StarWars? What's another?

It's one more level of complexity piling onto your theory, Gil.

I'd have to have video files and you'd have to have the eye for it, something I cannot provide on either counts until I get access to my friends video equipment..

Fine, then consider that point withdrawn. It's not a major point anyway.

Noted. You can now address the point that Vader's saber in ROTJ rotates around the hilt, conclusively demonstrating that the blade has no mass.

Which is why the generator is in the handle and the rod emits it.

Does not address the point. I believe I was referring to the generator.

Not my problem to answer. Probably because they damnedably expensive to produce. But it's really irrelevant, the point is we can see the damn rod in the blade.

Evidence? Luke was able to build his own with, at most, the very limited resources of the Rebel Alliance, who would most likely spend said limited resources on other things.

I observe a distinct lack of rebuttal. How does the rod fit in there, particularly when it's a shield generator? Are shield generators really that small? An AT-AT-shot-deflecting generator can be fit into a space the size of a pocketwatch?

This does not in any way jive with what we know about the space and power requirements of other SW shield generators.
Are you blind, or something? Can you not see the damn thing or what?

Please address the point, Gil.

Done, now answer the damn question. How the hell does an optical illusion have a solid appearant, have shading consistant with the lighting of the room and cast a freaking shadow? Or can you not actually see the damn thing and I need to get a bigger image with little arrows pointing out these things? I mean, lightsabres cast shadows all the time, there are too many examples in StarWars to count. Kind of a trick, if there is no physical object in there.

There are natrual phenomina that affect light without being solid physical objects. Gravity comes to mind. A cloud of smoke will likewise cast a shadow, that does not make it a rod of metal. The transmittance of light, or lack thereof, is not conclusive proof for a physical rod inside the blade of a lightsaber.

I also note that you have not explained how the rod can fit in such a small space as the end of Luke's ROTJ saber, nor how the shield generator would fit inside that. Note that, since the length of the bulb on the end is no more than about 2cm, since lightsaber blades vary only slightly in diameter over their length, and that the "rod" is wider than the narrowest part of Luke's ROTJ saber, the individual sections of the rod must be astronomically thin, probably on the order of the thickness of a sheet of paper.

Most damning of all, the width of a given lightsaber's blade is not constant. Please explain this in light of the fact that you mantain there is a solid blade in there.

Luke's saber, pencil-thin. Saber essentially static.
Luke's saber, thick. Saber essentially static.

Vader's saber, thick as his hand. Saber essentially static.
Vader's saber, demonstratably thinner than the hilt. Saber essentially static.
Vader's saber, no more than 2cm wide judging from Luke's face. Saber essentially static.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-07-03 11:14pm

Gil, congradulations, your a fucking idiot. VFX errors can never be taken as canon. The fact that its an ERROR should be a slight hint.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-07-03 11:58pm

Especially effects errors that are officially aknowledged by the creators, which would include Kenobi's lightsabre in the scene in question.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-04 01:04am

Have a quote for that, Spanky?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-07-04 01:16am

Unfortunately I don't. I do know that people from ILM and Lucasfilm have made written statements concerning that the physical mechanism used for the lightsabre effects in ANH (the rotating reflective rod) wasn't always reliable and only looked convincing part of the time.

I think one of them might be in the first big ILM book, which I own but can't access right now. But I'll see if I can look it up tomorrow as well as in a few other sources.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-04 01:31am

I would be most pleased if you could find such a thing. It would certainly save us all a headache trying to analyze a rather inconsistant visual effect.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-07-04 02:59pm

You're in luck, Howedar. While I was able to find the passage in Thomas G. Smith's book Industrial Light & Magic: The Art of Special Effects, I found an even better, more specific qoute on the official site's Databank:

Star Wars.Com Databank wrote:The technique for realizing a lightsaber onscreen has varied throughout the years. In the pre-digital days of the original trilogy, a variety of methods were use to create the lightsaber effect both practically (on-set) and optically (during post-production).

One version had a motorized hilt that spun a blade covered in reflective material. The blade, when lit, did indeed glow in front of the camera, but it lacked the color and hazy corona that surrounded the pure white blade as seen in the finished film. These blades were cumbersome and fragile, and required a power source for the tiny motor. They did not make good sparring weapons, and the glow was colorless and inconsistent - a tilt at the wrong angle would cause the blade to lose all its vibrancy from the camera's point of view.

Most of the lightsaber luminosity seen in the classic trilogy was the result of rotoscoping. Years ago, rotoscoping described the process of laying tracing paper over a blow-up of a film frame, and tracing, frame by frame, the necessary animation. This animation was typically painted onto an animation cel - a transparent sheet of acetate. Those cels would then be photographed one frame at a time, and optically composited into the frame.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2004-07-04 10:14pm

If Gil was trying to actually 'defend suspension of disbelief', he'd accept that an obvious effects error (seen only once and never again when the blade is pointed towards the camera) is supposed to look like a normal lightsabre blade, in the same sense that we suspend disbelief and accept that the models in the movie are in fact supposed to be giant starships.

But he's not. His irraitonal, evidence-less non-theory is a crock, and I doubt it serves any purpose than to stir shit and allow Gil to be difficult.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-06 12:19am

I observe a distinct lack of rebuttal from Gil.

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2004-07-06 04:23pm

A beautiful sound, is it not? Second only in attraction to a concession, but I suppose one takes what one can get.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-07-06 05:19pm

Indeed. I only wish that IP could have responded to Gil, because he was one of the primary opponents against Gil the last time he did this, and pounded him. But he seems to have been absent the past few days.