Flak/shields (I know it's often)

[Mad]

A bolt exploding does not need to violate CoE or CoM. Bolts obviously have a lot of potential energy, so CoE isn't a problem -- and we never see a flak burst from directly in front, so there's no reason to suppose that this explosion is isotropic, so it can balance momentum too.

"Flak" theory violates both.

The TIEs shooting at the Falcon on Bespin should be firing shots rated at somewhere around a kiloton. If the bolts detonated, we should see kiloton-level bomb effects. We don't. Where did the energy magically go? We have a violation of Conservation of Energy.

If a bolt flaks, we would expect the explosion to have the same total momentum as the bolt. In other words, its center should be moving at the same velocity as the bolt. However, the explosions we see typically do not follow this. Just look at the explosions on Geonosis in this thread: the explosion has 0 velocity relative to the planet; it's at a stand-still compared to the bolt. Violation of Conservation of Momentum.

[Darwin]

Couldn't the fringe shield reactions cause the bolt to dump a small portion of its energy, while the remaining bolt deflects off elsewhere?

[Mad]

Couldn't the fringe shield reactions cause the bolt to dump a small portion of its energy, while the remaining bolt deflects off elsewhere?

If I'm reading your meaning correctly, then, yes, that is the story behind the "bolt-shield interactions."

The angle of the field and its strength can vary at different locations, so the effects can vary considerably. At some angles and distances, the bolts will pass through with no effect. At others, the visible bolt may become disrupted (effects on the invisible portion are unknown), sometimes partly and other times completely.

Note that this does not, as Stas Bush claims, make the shields "stupid." First, having influence so far out is a natural side effect of force fields. Second, because the majority of the energy is in the invisible portion of the beam, we don't know if the shields are absorbing any energy. The amount of work required by the shields to create a bolt explosion could very well be minimal. Thus, such explosions do not necessarily mean that shields are taking any significant damage that they otherwise wouldn't.

[K. A. Pital]

Illuminatus Primus

The point is you quote tiny bits of post - any which contain the word "flak" - but with little or no clue when this is happening in the novelisation or by what weapons.

You got me angry. You have NOT replied to the following:

Since when are fighter cannons referred to as flak? You are ignoring the argument.

And you have TOTALLY ignored what I said about the following quotes:

But that is TIE fighters' flak, not ISD flak.

There you go, mr. ignorante

TIE guns flak:

Chewbacca howled over the roar of the Falcon's engines. The ship was beginning to lurch with the buffeting flak blasted at it by the fighters.

Solo raced down to the ship's hold and began to work frantically on repairing the malfunctioning hyperdrive unit. It was all but impossible to carry out the delicate repair work necessary while the Falcon shook with each blast of flak from the fighters.

Swerving to avoid the blinding flak from the TIE fighters, Princess Leia and the Wookiee pilot struggled to keep their ship skyborne. But explosions burst all around the cockpit, the din competing with Chewbacca's howl as he frantically worked the controls.

Chewbacca's seat and helped Lando as they flew the Falcon through the exploding flak.

So, it was there in the film. You cannot use out-of-universe things like publishing dates to obfuscate the point. There were also AT-AA walkers further behind which are armed with "flak pods" and AT-AR walkers as well.

You dumbhead, LOOK THE FUCKING QUOTE:

Explosions rocked Luke's ship, tossing it
about violently in the enveloping flak.
Through the window he could see another
walker that appeared to be unaffected by
the full fire power of the Rebel attack
speeders. This lumbering machine now
became Luke's target as he flew, moving in
a descending arc. The walker was firing
directly at him, creating a wall of laser
bolts and flak.
'Just hang on, Dack,' he yelled over the
explosions, 'and get ready to fire that
tow cable!'

AT-ST IS in the fucking movie, but it's absolutely IRRELEVANT for the above quote, which speaks of the AT-AT! Dumb.

Look moron, anyone who check SW ICS can see that the AT-ATs do not mount projectile cannon.

Where does the wall of flak come from, dunderhead?

Anyone who checks a screen shot will see translucent bolts WITH NO FUCKING SHELL IN THEM. TRANSLUCENT ENERGY BEAMS DO NOT HAVE "VT" FUZES, FUCKMOOK.

Anyone, who checks the screen, will understand that there are not only beams, but projectiles AS WELL. It's NECESSARY for the AT-AT to have projectile firing "laser" cannons.

Which if necessary are overriden by the canon film, which shows what might be debris falling away from shield impacts.

Blasters are called projectile weapons. Laser cannons are called projectile weapons. You are ignorant and NOT harmonzinig anything.

which shows what might be debris falling away from shield impacts

The novellisation fucking CALLS the AAT cannons PROJECTILE weapons, there is no NEED for "overriding" anything, as the book ITSELF says these "LASER" cannons are PROJECTILE weapons. DUMB.

However, there is plasma involved in the VD-described weapons' mechanism - possibly a precursor to the particle beam they emit which ignores gravity and drag.

So there NO plasma in the "laser" beam itself, am I correct?

AND THERE'S CANON EVIDENCE THAT TIE FIGHTERS AND AT-ATs DO NOT HAVE PROJECTILE CANNONS. LIVE WITH IT.

Hell no. The canon evidence they MUST HAVE a projectile cannon or a projectile FIRING MODE. Idiot, that's what the CANON, the NOVELLISATIONS, say.
Wherever your evidence comes from. DUMB.

No honest person can look at Star Wars and conclude that those are not supposed to be energy beams. You're a dishonest fuck.

I told you MANY fucking instances where LASERS are called/supposed to be PROJECTILE weapons. The MOVEIMAKERS looked at them if they were PROJECTILE weapons.
You are ROYALLY screwed.

Well damn, what the fuck is this so-called "flak" any good against AT-ATs?

NO ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS, Y'KNOW, THE KIND YOU GET WITH EXPLOSIONS?

You DUNDERHEAD, those ARE flak explosions, the fucking CANON calls them that.
Any good? And WHY is it supposed to be any GOOD? The AT-ATs were IMMUNE to rebel blaster fire!

Flak is not flak shot at slow armored vehicles.

Except it's IDENTICAL to the bursts that the NOVEL and the SCRIPT call FLAK BURSTS.

no one with a brain would proximity fuze tiny warheads against AT-ATs

TINY WARHEADS? You are claiming to KNOW the power of SW fuse projectiles? And WHAT choice exactly did the rebels have? And more than that, SW armor is inefficient against kinetic impacts, where it's heat-dissipative abilities mean nothing.

they do not trail behind, so they must be "pulses along an invisible beam" - not shells.

Did the AT-AT even MOVE enough to be seen in these frames?

AT-AT guns fire flak?

Flak is not the ONLY mode of weapon firing. DUMB DUMB DUMB.

Where's that shell in that translucent bolt, huh?

DUMB. Beams do not require shells. PROJECTILES do.

They don't cause the blast effects described in the novelisation

Shit, Luke's speeder was damaged by those explosions!

about the size of a pilot's head or torso bracketed the speeder with zero blast effects

So why should be a flak burst ALWAYS effective? It ROCKED Luke's speeder, shitloads of these small explosions. And would you be so kind to provide the screenshot, so that we see how you did the SCALING.

The ship is on-fire and terminally damaged, yes, but shield technology is robust (it must be to deal with momentum), and the system may still be active

I KNEW IT COMING.
Are you SANE:

And I'm not even speaking of the fact the shield had to be OVERCOME first, to strike the fucking LAAT.

The structural integrity of the ship is not yet compromised, the hull has generally maintained form.

Structural integrity? You HONESTLY believe that AFTER the shields were overcome and the ship's munitions EXPLODED, it somehow RECHARGED and REACTED with those blasts?
YOU ARE CRAZY.

What is so hard to explain that high canon (canon is published information, by the way) was not direct contradicting the shield generators

Fine. I have now understood your point. So if I now go to the DVD commentaries and find the word "flak", you'll say "shit, they don't understand what they're talking about". I am now even more doubtful of your sanity.

DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK.

I'm NOT debating the beam fact, moron. I'm saying "laser" cannons HAVE to be able of firing projectiles.

and translucent to have shells in them

Translucent? SHOW ME ONE. I have posted a SHITLOAD of screenshots with the LAAT (!), which of them shows TRANSLUCENT beams. Oh, but I can show you OPAQUE beams:



Fuck, I thought there should be some evidence for your claim, so show me your evidence.

"Energy shots" and "laser cannon" are not offering evidence.

The Gungan shield wall was designed to deflect large, slow-moving objects of density and mass such as artillery vehicles and small, fast-moving objects generating extreme heat such as projectiles from weapons fire.

Go to hell.

Did you get your ruler and measure it?

*waves hand" ARE YOU SANE?
Yes, GET a fucking ruler and watch the movie, DUMBHEAD.
Are you going to ARGUE that the blasts in the screenies above shot the craft at the HULL?

And besides, canon has already stated shields can be only microscopic distances from the hull and some even say shields can permeate the hull.

YES. So HOW is that compliable with a INTERACTION with the shield DOZENS OF METRES AWAY? HUNDREDS?

Mike suggested it was explained by vector interactions with force fields.

Vector interactions?

The engineer thinks its plausible but the clueless fuck who doesn't know a thing about force fields and turns cross-eyed when the words "inverse square law" are spoken knows better.

If you are so CLEVER, explain it to me, please.

These craft quite simply do not fire projectiles from their main guns, as much as you'll kick and scream. The facts are stubborn.

You IGNORED the quotes which say FLAK from TIE FIGHTERS, you IGNORED the quote which says FLAK from AT-AT and now you scream "facts". Go to hell.

And the blaster bolts weren't stopped? Proof?

They REACHED the hull, IDIOT. Watch the above screenshots.

Most forcefields in real life do not actually have a boundary; they usually extend into infinity, dropping off in strength with the square of distance.

DROPPING OFF IN STRENGTH, that's what Mike said. So they are supposed to be STRONGER the closer we move to the HULL.

Depending on the interaction of forcefield geometry, vector effects, and incoming bolts, the results could theoretically be somewhat unpredictable, particularly at greater distances from the ship.

YES. Exactly - NOTHING is explained.

interaction of forcefield geometry

Do me a favor, explain THIS. If you can't - you're advocating a theory which you DON'T understand.

the results could theoretically be somewhat unpredictable, particularly at greater distances from the ship

Unpredictable? At greater distances?
You see, it was deflected right on the hull. Even a braindead fuck would understand it looking at the screenshots above.

Because the visible effects are the "tip of the iceburg."

That did NOT answer the question.

Because the force field disrupts the beam and shunts some of its energy into visible light which we see as these flashes.

Always the same energy? That would mean that you could level down a shield by MISSING the craft all the time. Let me show it to you more clearly:

Because the beam is interacting with the force field and these energy loss as waste EM

Energy loss? So you admit the "volumetric" shield loses energy from impacts destined to miss?

No, different vectors interact differently.

Would you care to explain? Some of the above pictures.

So a particle beam cannon can shoot proximity-fuzed shells in a pinch?

What's up with you? WHY do projectiles require physical shells? And if you don't understand what I'm saying: the evidence points towards that, not towards "shields" theory.

There is no mechanism for an energy beam to "partially explode" aside from interaction with deflector shields

Because you say there is none, I should take your word for granted? And once again, which of them are energy beams? Not all (and I'm glad we figured that out at least).

Nice to know the Empire has poorer technology than we do.

So fuzes can't be jammed? Oh silly me.

Oh yeah, if they behave at all like real world force fields, than its idiocy.

A force-field strength is supposed to be increasing the closer you get to the hull, Mike said it. You are now wiggling around - HOW did those blaster hits get to the LAAT or the N1 fighter?

Do Star Destroyers glow white? Are they dissipating it directly?

I actually saw an ISD hit by a HTL to glow red. Whatever that may mean.

that the possibly TJ yield beams lose some energy in the form of EM radiation when interacting with shields (its obviously useful if deflector shields dissipate energy from incoming beams).

USEFUL? Incoming MISSING beams DAMAGE the shield.

the bolt rides the beam which is constant until the bolt meets the target - when the power ramps up to full.

Which EXACTLY proves my point. WHY did the shields catch the beam which already MISSED the fucking ship? DUMB.

Its funny to see you flounder and try to toss out canon though.

Same goes for you, poor baby. You can't understand what's written in the novellisations because you cannot avoid the clear statements they make. TIEs fire flak. AT-ATs fire flak. "Laser" cannons of AATs fire projectiles. Blasters fire projectiles. End of story. You try to say the quotes are "out of context" , but I have SHOWN you the context. "blasted by the fighters", idiot. Prepare the tow cable, idiot.

The same weapon cannot fire cloaked proximity-fuzed shells which look like translucent energy beams and translucent energy beams.

Yes? WHERE did you get that from? "Look like"? You said it; I did not even say they look like, I took your assumption they ARE translucent energy beams, not just look like.

The TIE cannon structure has been revealed and it is not consistent with projectile fire.

FUCK IT. Novellisations RULE over.

who thought that something like a laser cannon could double as shell-firing artillery piece

Something? Care to read TPM, it's literally LASER CANNON and literally PROJECTILES. Care to read AOTC: BLASTERS - PROJECTILES.

I'm not here to do your homework for you.

I have looked up those threads, and they don't have my pictures. Which is what you claimed.

We're not proving the existance of shields by assuming shields cause the effect.

Yes, you do.

What is the splintering TL blast?

A beam? Splintering energy beams? Huh... that sounds to me badly as flak. Actually, that's what the fucking STORYBOARDS say. So you're going to say that people working on the movie were INSANE proposing the explosions to be flak bursts?
And WHY can this "blast" not be a projectile?

Why do projectiles traveling at speed blow up asymmetrically?

Where are lightspeed projectiles blowing up asymmetrically?
And could you please also shed light on this little issue?

Why do the same weapons which fire kiloton range blasts also have tiny man-sized "flak bursts" which have no blast-effects?

Projectiles do NOT have same energy as beams, last time I saw Star Wars. BEAMS have POWER SETTINGS. "Kiloton range" - I didn't see ANY from the AT-AT, except the full powered blast. Other shots from it's cannons were fucking PUNY.

Well sure, you think the Empire has poorer manufacturing quality standards than we do

Fuse jamming says nothing to you. As well as the fact that fuzes aren't 100% accurate.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Misquoting/Quoting Dishonestly


You do not seem to understand. Yes the quote was there, but you gave one or two lines of it and then got all shocked and shaken when people call into question your tactics and motives. It helps when you add the whole thing, which you do NOW. Don't pretend you did this before - you didn't, and that's why I criticized you.


TESB Word Games


Flak does not have to be exploding shells, so the word-game of "it says fighter shot flak" proves nothing. Do I use the laser description to hold that lasers must be actual lasers? Of course not. The use of colloquialisms has been previously established.

What has not been established are magic cannons that do not have physical holes in them (SW ICS) yet can fire both energy beams and solid shells.

The flak as a colloquialism works just fine, and nothing in the novelisation proves the little balls of light are intentionally detonated shells.


Invisible AT-AT Projectile Weapons


Do not beg the question of where the flak came from. Need I remind that Hobbie Klivian dies in the novelisation but not the film and he goes on to survive elsewhere? The novelisation is not filmic canon, and can be revised (however rare this is).

Anyway, SW ICS gives clear views of the cockpit and blaster mechanism. There is no space for ammunition belts. There are no shells in observed translucent beams. The little balls of light at Hoth do not exhibit the blast effects - THEY DO NOT FIT THE NOVELISATION'S DESCRIPTIONS. Therefore, we must conclude that the little balls of light are not the described flak bursts, and we must also see that AT-ATs do not have projectile weapons.

This is simply something you must deal with. Other vehicles may have that wiggle room - the AT-AT clearly does not. Perhaps the novelisation confuses the major walkers with smaller, marginal designs (extriniscally the original heavy walkers may have mounted heavy AA but this does not appear in the film).

You have to deal with the evidence. You cannot simply say, "there should be projectiles" and ignore the fact they cannot fit, are not observed in bolts, and the proposed film flak bursts do not have the explosive atmospheric effects attributed to the novelisation's flak bursts. You cannot simply say they should be there and wave off the physical form of the AT-AT and the clarifications by other canon. That's handwaving.


Multi-Purpose Guns


You propose to fix everything by having weapons which are amalgations of radically different technologies. The cannon are at once massless particle beam cannon, and mass drivers. First of all, a mass driver needs to be hardened against recoil and the bore needs to be conditioned to deal with harsh friction from the projectile. A particle beam weapon needs a particle generator, needs an accelerator, and involved collimating devices which focus the beam. This weapon needs to be equipped to deal with waste heat problems and inefficiencies most importantly.

These design pressures are at once counterintuitive and contradictory. The bore size ideal for given projectiles for a particular use is going to be far different then the bore needed for an efficient beam weapon of the same yield. More importantly, the collimating components will kind of abstruct the slug.

Canon has provided us with cutaways and views of the weapons emplacements. Walkers mount small, external guns with no visible ammunition feeds - as appropriate for a quick-firing automatic weapon of its calibre. The Snowspeeder cannon have narrow collimating elements - ruling out a hollow gun barrel - and no ammunition feed and reloading mechanism.

The TIE Fighter is another impossible candidate. The guns are tipped by solid red domes. There is no physical aperature, ruling out physical projectiles. This is canon analysis of the simple model. It is irreconcilable with your ad hoc explanations (which I may add are conceptually ridiculous from the start from any realistic scientific or engineering perspective).

Your methodology is very poor from an empirical perspective. You wish to shoehorn radically different weapons systems into the same equipment which consistently fires and operates in an observably uniform manner. Its not logical.

Some "laser" or "blaster" weapons may actually be projectile cannon and somewhat resemble energy beams. However, the concept must be either a.) official or b.) at least allowed by canon observation of the weapons systems, and both must meet the c.) criteria of not firing translucent beams.

Deal with it.


AAT Projectile Cannons


Want to quote the novelisation, genius? Want to prove their not refering to the "foot-mounted" shell-launchers?


Novelisation Claims


No novelisation states that the cannons must be radically different weapons systems in one package. That is your theory. Do not confuse what you consider the evidence demanding it with an actual outright statement of your theory.


Novelisation Flakbursts


The novelisation describes clouds of exploding flak, buffeting speeders - this is inconsistent with the depiction of the small balls of light which cause zero damage and zero atmospheric effects. Do not confuse your conclusion (little balls are novelisation flakbursts) with the evidence (novelisation describes atmospheric explosions of flak, film shows undestructive little balls of light). The novelisation does not identify the appearance of flakbursts consistent with what you are identifying them with in the film. That's your conclusion, not your premise, buddy.

Sorry, but "identical" would be large explosions causing atmospheric effects that would toss and turn speeders like ships in rough seas. This is never observed. The balls of light do not do anything to anything and do not cause shock waves or rock speeders around. The description is not consistent, despite your desperate attempt to demand it is.


Deflector Shields - damaged LAAT


This is imbecilic - hits can be scored without total shield loss, such as the hits scored on the Delta-7 Aethersprite of Obi-Wan in AOTC. Just like a sinking battleship has not had its entire armor belt annhiliated, the robust shield mechanism may still be active and capable of disrupting shots even if its ability to actually stop hits and dissipate incoming fire has failed.

Damaged vessels in SW routinely maintain inertial compensators and tensorial integrity fields even by extremely heavy damage - and Dr. Saxton indicates that these systems together with shielding and the superconducting armored hull form a mutual framework for maintaining the structual integrity of the vessel and the defense of the ship.

The Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology specifically states that shield projectors will fail rather than destroy the whole shield system - it is explicit that the defense will be lost without the destruction of the shield system itself. The defensive force fields may be breached and compromised, but that does not mean they simply vanish. And quite frankly, bleeding off some KJ of energy from kiloton-range bolts hardly means the shields are actually "functioning."

And the munitions did not cook-off; unless you believe nuclear weapons are like nitroglycerine. Even many high explosives are more stable than that. Its often a complex mechanism to release enormous energies.


The fact of the matter is that the hull was relatively intact and whole while the ship began to sink to crash.


Deflector Shields - AOTC ICS and EGtW&T


"Shield energy permeates the ship's hull and wraps the vessel in layers of energy that extend anywhere from a few millimeters to several centimeters away from the hull."
- Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology

"Conventional shield technologies use a range of force-field effects....Normally, shield intensities diminish gradually with distance from the generator or projector. However, shield projected in an atmosphere tend to have a defined outer surface. Such a boundary becomes super-hot when left still, and mirage-like effects are seen."
- AOTC ICS


Suspension of Disbelief


You just are too stupid to get it. I suppose if GL get on the out-of-universe DVD commentaries and says Luke's lightsabre in TESB is green, not blue, it becomes true?

There was no explicit canon contradiction against shield domes, it was just stupid so we tried to get it changed.


Translucent Beams


I find it ironic you show a translucent beam partially bursting. Since we can somewhat see through it, where is your vaunted shell?


Novelisations Redux

The Gungan shield wall was designed to deflect large, slow-moving objects of density and mass such as artillery vehicles and small, fast-moving objects generating extreme heat such as projectiles from weapons fire.

That says what about the AAT armament? Oh yeah - fuck nothing. What does it prove about the main gun versus the foot projectile cannons? Oh yeah - fuck nothing. It talks about the design purpose of the Gungan shield.

I suppose if you read that Kevlar vests are designed to stop bullets, that proves that someone attacking someone wearing a Kevlar vest was not using flame throwers too?


Hull-hugging Hits


Explained by vectors and this:

"Shield energy permeates the ship's hull and wraps the vessel in layers of energy that extend anywhere from a few millimeters to several centimeters away from the hull."
- Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology

You're still stroking to the Trek bullshit idea that the force field must be a bubble like entity with a single operative surface. You don't understand that the shield is a volume, not a surface. You think I've justed moved the surface to dozens of meters away and it does the same job as right next to the hull.

Like I said before, you do not understand shit about real world force fields, what I am saying, or anything else. Again: inverse squared law.


Vectors


I have not done vector calculus and other applications thereof. However, the resident engineer has, and thus I do appeal to his relevent authority.

The question is how large the volumetric shield effect is. Most forcefields in real life do not actually have a boundary; they usually extend into infinity, dropping off in strength with the square of distance. Depending on the interaction of forcefield geometry, vector effects, and incoming bolts, the results could theoretically be somewhat unpredictable, particularly at greater distances from the ship. The bolt that hit the Tantive IV, for example, would have harmlessly passed by it if its shields had a clearly defined outer boundary, since there would be no reason to make this boundary larger than the ship itself.

Why don't you PM him if you think he looked at the same films you did and was off his hinges. Be my guest.


How Close Was That Hit Again?


Look idiot, I posted explicit quotes that show that shields can exist millimeters from the hull. The hit you, if blocked, would be entirely consistent with canon shield description. You have no evidence to suggest it MUST have hit bare hull.


Energy Requirements


Disrupting the beams and causing some light to escape is not at a cost to the shield integrity, shithead. The very fact it was emited proves it: the shield is battered by absorbing energy. The emitted energy is side-effect of interaction when passing through the force field. Its a tiny cost to the beam, not to the shield.

And you're assuming the shield designers have a choice between Treknobabble bubble shields and the volumetric shield. They don't: AOTC ICS reveals that is just an intrinsic property of them.

And about your silly-ass shape idea: the little balls of light are not hyperphysical objects, they are simply flashes of light without shape. They saturate the film medium, causing little white circles.


Close Hits


Ok, imbecile, its very obvious. Oblique glancing hits are disrupted - the bolt; a carrier wave and disturbance along a constant beam - is effected by passing obliquely through the force field, and this releases relatively small amounts of light and heat. Hits which are approximately perpendicular to the shield do not experience the same interactions, and are instead outright absorbed by the shield.


Why the Filmic Balls of Light Make Shitty Flakbursts


These small balls of light are equivalent to less than a pound of TNT going off; they exhibit zero atmospheric effects and very poor indicators of directly observable power. If this is the limit of fuzed charges for SW, how are they ANY GOOD AT ALL against shielded fighters which absorb KILOTON RANGE energy beams?

[K. A. Pital]

Illuminatus Primus

UPDATE on: TESB word games? You claimed the novellisation is incorrect in it's descriptions, that it's flawed and confused walker types. But you forgot the SCRIPT which says:

Barely keeping his seat in the tumbling ship, Dack struggles to set up his harpoon gun.
Luke swings his speeder around and heads toward an oncoming walker. Laser bolts and flak fill the air, creating a deadly obstacle course for the tiny craft.

Luke's speeder and Rogue Two fly in formation, banking from right to left and flying above the erupting battlefield. Flak bursts all around them.

Luke, glancing over, sees Rogue Two on his left. His ship shudders as flak bursts nearby.

Desperately, Luke works the controls of his flak-buffeted ship.

What's the MATTER with you? There are no "word games", the novel confused NOTHING. Or is the script also flawed?
Moreover, I have PROVIDED the "A New Hope" STORYBOARDS for LASER shots which say FLAK obviously:

LAZER START / STOP
To and from ships (flak)

LAZER START / STOP
From T.I.E. ship Flak

Do I need to interpret "from T.I.E. ship Flak"? Or you will concede that WORD games are YOUR part, not mine. I am following the evidence.

TESB Word Games
Flak does not have to be exploding shells, so the word-game of "it says fighter shot flak" proves nothing. Do I use the laser description to hold that lasers must be actual lasers? Of course not. The use of colloquialisms has been previously established.

It was you who said that flak means AA artillery fire. Not me. Actually, YOU heavily advised this interpretation of the meaning of the word. Thus I asked you to bring forth proof of any AA artillery on TIEs. You brought none. Now you say: colloquialism.
Vakundok earlier brought forth yet more proof that literal interpretation of "flak" as of AA guns is impossible, but you paid no attention to that. Neither to the quote from Wikipedia, which describes the "flak" mechanism.

do not have physical holes in them (SW ICS)

Which episode ICS. And why ICS? Care to show a screenie from the movie? No?

The flak as a colloquialism works just fine

It doesn't, and I repeat: since WHEN are fighter weapons are referred to as "flak"? Because the ONLY refuge you have is the definition of "AA fire", the claim is flawed. Fighter weapons are not referred to as flak.

Now WATCH here:

flak
1 : antiaircraft guns
2 : the bursting shells fired from flak

Now WHICH of the two you admit? I call you out to answer
WHAT anti-aircraft guns do TIE fighters have. I call you out to answer what kind of anti-aircraft guns do Cloud City cars have. What sort of AA artillery do AT-ATs have.
It was YOU who insisted on the first interpretation, clearly proven by vakundok and me NOT to be viable!

There shells are usually fitted with different types of fuzes (barometric (air pressure), time-delay, or proximity) to send exploding "flak" into a specified area. The classic example of a large, long-range anti-aircraft gun the German 88 mm gun. Long range weapons of this sort were replaced outright with the introduction of missile systems in the 1950s.

Goddamit, PAY attention to your OWN word-games and wiggling!

There is NO way to wiggle with words like you do.

shocked and shaken when people call into question your tactics and motives

I'm not shocked, I am sorry That is all. The fact I did wrong has nothing to do with the fact flak quotes refer to TIEs.

you didn't, and that's why I criticized you

I admit.

Need I remind that Hobbie Klivian dies in the novelisation but not the film and he goes on to survive elsewhere?

I have read threads on that issue. Hobbie THOUGHT as if he was dying, but ejected nonetheless.

At that instant, Hobbie's burning ship
crashed through the walker cockpit like a
manned bomb, its fuel igniting into a
cascade of flame and debris. For a second
there were human screams, then fragments,
and the entire machine crashed to the
ground.

So he set his speeder on a collision course and ejected.
That's the explanation I heard.

Anyway, SW ICS gives clear views of the cockpit and blaster mechanism.

What the fuck has the SW ICS to do with novellisations? Novels are CLEARLY superior.

The little balls of light at Hoth do not exhibit the blast effects - THEY DO NOT FIT THE NOVELISATION'S DESCRIPTIONS.

What did ROCK Luke's speeder, if not the explosions?

Therefore, we must conclude that the little balls of light are not the described flak bursts

First of all, they are. Novellisation says they rocked Luke's ship, and they did. Novel does NOT say flak inflicted any damage on the AT-AT (on the contrary)! But they aren't shield-beam interaction for sure, since that would mean invisible beams without a tracer.

Perhaps the novelisation confuses the major walkers with smaller, marginal designs

extriniscally the original heavy walkers may have mounted heavy AA but this does not appear in the film

The smaller "ear cannons" of the AT-AT, IIRC, have NEVER been observed to fire BEAMS.

You cannot simply say, "there should be projectiles" and ignore the fact they cannot fit, are not observed in bolts

Where do they NOT fit?

and the proposed film flak bursts do not have the explosive atmospheric effects attributed to the novelisation's flak bursts

What? How did you derive that? They do. And SOME of the bursts are pretty much speeder-sized (some are even bigger).

This weapon needs to be equipped to deal with waste heat problems and inefficiencies most importantly.

It is said that SW beam weapons have waste heat problems, and very serious ones. Coolant circulating.

The bore size ideal for given projectiles for a particular use is going to be far different then the bore needed for an efficient beam weapon of the same yield. More importantly, the collimating components will kind of abstruct the slug.

What do you mean?

Canon has provided us with cutaways and views of the weapons emplacements.

C-canon. Which is ye olde official level.

Walkers mount small, external guns with no visible ammunition feeds

Yes. That actually bugs me how EU calls that tube on the AT-ST a grenade launcher. Where is the munition feed? Surely if the feed is there, it's not bigger than the feeds you cannot figure on an AT-AT.

The TIE Fighter is another impossible candidate. The guns are tipped by solid red domes.

Solid red domes? In the movie? Care to show.

This is canon analysis of the simple model.

Which model? The shooting model? Are the red domes observable? Is it observed in the actual footage? Are the red domes observed to emit "beams"? Is it the TIE fighter or the T/A? And is it not possible for red domes to open?

You wish to shoehorn radically different weapons systems into the same equipment which consistently fires and operates in an observably uniform manner. Its not logical.

I can say the same about you. You wish to go with an inconsistent theory of shield, which would require total weirdness and shields operational on exploded ships with shields long overcome. You wish to reject the evidence from novellisations, as it does not fit some official sources.

Some "laser" or "blaster" weapons may actually be projectile cannon and somewhat resemble energy beams.

I am glad you have admitted it.

However, the concept must be either a.) official

It is. AOTC, ESB and TPM novels are canon (all canon IS official).

or b.) at least allowed by canon observation of the weapons systems

It is allowed by canon observation. Lesser guns of the AT-AT were never seen to emit beams.

and both must meet the c.) criteria of not firing translucent beams.

I disagree with this criteria above. But let's take that for a time being - fine. Show me TIE fighters firing translucent beams and lesser AT-AT cannons firing translucent beams, show me AOTC droids firing translucent beams on the LAATs. Since you have not shown - there you go.

Want to quote the novelisation, genius?

I have done that in a post long ago:

The Federation was quick to test the shield's effectiveness. On a signal from Droid Commander OOM-9, who in turn was responding to a command from the deep-space control center, the tanks opened fire, their laser cannons sending round after round into the covering. Searing beams hammered into the shield and shattered ineffectively against the liquid energy surface, unable to penetrate.

Observations:
a) laser cannons
b) beams
c) liquid energy surface (whatever that may mean)

Within their protective covering, the Gungans waited patiently, weapons ready, trusting the strength of their shield.
Astride his kaadu, Jar Jar Binks flinched and squirmed fearfully,
muttering various prayers to ward off the destruction he was certain would find him otherwise. Relentlessly, the Trade Federation cannons continued their attack, streamers of energy lancing from their barrel mounts, pounding at the covering. The flash and burn and explosion were blinding and deafening, but the Gungans held their ground.

d) streamers of energy.

Finally, the Trade Federation guns went still. Try as they might, they could not break through the Gungan energy shield.

e) energy shield (which obviously consists of particles)

Within their protective canopy, the Gungans cheered and brandished their weapons triumphantly.
[...]
The Gungan shield wall was designed to deflect large, slow-moving
objects of density and mass such as artillery vehicles and small,
fast-moving objects generating extreme heat such as projectiles from weapons fire.

f) projectiles from weapons fire

Here you go.

No novelisation states that the cannons must be radically different weapons systems in one package.

It is derived upon the novellisations, and there is no way getting round it.

The novelisation describes clouds of exploding flak, buffeting speeders

It does not describe CLOUDS, at least the last time I read it:

The walker was firing directly at him, creating a wall of laser bolts and flak.

And the flak WAS buffeting speeders. Watch Luke's AT-AT run - the speeder shakes violently from the explosions.

this is inconsistent with the depiction of the small balls of light which cause zero damage and zero atmospheric effects

The flak buffeting the speeders is ABSOLUTELY consistent with what is seen in the movie, sir.

Do not confuse your conclusion (little balls are novelisation flakbursts) with the evidence (novelisation describes atmospheric explosions of flak, film shows undestructive little balls of light).

Those undestructive balls of light were shaking the speeders. Which is CONSISTENT with the novel.

Sorry, but "identical" would be large explosions causing atmospheric effects that would toss and turn speeders like ships in rough seas.

Sorry, but that "effects which would toss and turn speeders" are your exaggeration solely. The speeder WAS shaking violently and tossed, but the novel does not say it should have been "turned over".

The description is not consistent, despite your desperate attempt to demand it is.

It IS. A quick run-though:
Angrily, Luke fired his

ship's guns at a walker, only to receive a hail of Imperial fire power that shook his speeder in a barrage of flak.

Shook his speeder.

Explosions rocked Luke's ship, tossing it about violently in the enveloping flak.

Toss about. Which is exactly what was happening with Luke's ship. It was going up and down, tossed by the explosions.

LAAT

This is imbecilic - hits can be scored without total shield loss, such as the hits scored on the Delta-7 Aethersprite of Obi-Wan in AOTC.

I have never seen anything that would claim the Delta's shield survived the impact.

Just like a sinking battleship has not had its entire armor belt annhiliated, the robust shield mechanism may still be active

You know... you're really pushing it too far. Watch the explosion of HMS "Hood". The LAAT is not just 'sinking' (or falling down for that matter), it EXPLODED.

Damaged vessels in SW routinely maintain inertial compensators and tensorial integrity fields even by extremely heavy damage

Damaged. Not destroyed. Hell, maybe you'll watch the explosion one more time? It left a burning carcass.

it is explicit that the defense will be lost without the destruction of the shield system itself.

I understand the above point. The shield failed. But it somehow was still active after the explosion.

And the munitions did not cook-off; unless you believe nuclear weapons are like nitroglycerine.
...
The fact of the matter is that the hull was relatively intact and whole while the ship began to sink to crash.

You have to watch that ISD HTL explosion. The ISD has the command tower INTACT despite the reactor exploding, but no one in a sane mind would say the shield is still active.
As for munitions, there was definitively no nuclear "big boom" explosion. But the fact is - don't try to push "nuclear" argument as if "nuclear" sounds big and scary. One of the minimal exploded thermonuclear yields was:
0.39028025 kilograms of TNT. 1,8 megajoules, IIRC.

Deflector Shields - AOTC ICS and EGtW&T

"Shield energy permeates the ship's hull and wraps the vessel in layers of energy that extend anywhere from a few millimeters to several centimeters away from the hull."
- Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology

THANK YOU! I have been waiting for that.

from a few millimeters to several centimeters away from the hull

Do you just UNDERSTAND this quote? There is no place for DOZENS or HUNDREDS of metres wanking.

"Conventional shield technologies use a range of force-field effects....

There you go. A range of force field effects. Not a fucking "always the same principle of extending to the ridiculous".

Normally, shield intensities diminish gradually with distance from the generator or projector.

Yes. YES (updated with newer pics with commentaries):

However, shield projected in an atmosphere tend to have a defined outer surface. Such a boundary becomes super-hot when left still, and mirage-like effects are seen."

SHIT. And you claimed this to be "IRRELEVANT of the defined surface, the shield STRETCHES far from the hull". Do you see how flawed your argument is?

Suspension of Disbelief

I suppose if GL get on the out-of-universe DVD commentaries and says Luke's lightsabre in TESB is green, not blue, it becomes true?

As long as we have a green lightsaber shot in ESB, it's quite true. If we have none - it's not true. But then, I said, NOTHING contradicts the fact they are flak explosions, except the refusal to admit obvious evidence.

There was no explicit canon contradiction against shield domes, it was just stupid so we tried to get it changed.

Actually, I think that there were several sources which said they are not shield domes, so the contra was present.

I find it ironic you show a translucent beam partially bursting. Since we can somewhat see through it, where is your vaunted shell?

SHOW ME a translucent beam partially bursting. In the air, the "flak" effect, not an explosion against the ground.

I suppose if you read that Kevlar vests are designed to stop bullets, that proves that someone attacking someone wearing a Kevlar vest was not using flame throwers too?

Except the fact Kevlar wouldn't save you from a flamethrower. But the gungan shield stopped TPM projectiles (and there is MOVIE evidence they are projectiles, you presented it YOURSELF, dammit!).

bubble like entity

I NEVER said that. The ship's shield sticks to it's HULL, regaining the SHIP's shape, not some "bubble".

Hull-hugging Hits

Explained by vectors

See pictures above. I would've KILLED the idiot who produced such a "shield"

and this:
"Shield energy permeates the ship's hull and wraps the vessel in layers of energy that extend anywhere from a few millimeters to several centimeters away from the hull."

Again, that evidence points AGAINST your RIDICULOUS claim that the shield interaction can occur on distances of METRES, DOZENS and HUNDREDS of metres.

Why don't you PM him if you think he looked at the same films you did and was off his hinges.

I will. Particulary the above pictures

How Close Was That Hit Again?

I posted explicit quotes that show that shields can exist millimeters from the hull.

IDIOT, that's the POINT of hull-huggling shields, CMs, MMs, BELOW the hull. NOT somewhere in a shitload TEN or 100 metres AWAY from the hull.

The hit you, if blocked, would be entirely consistent with canon shield description. You have no evidence to suggest it MUST have hit bare hull.

IDIOT, I say it hit the SHIELD, not the HULL, I'm not an idiot TREKKIE. The SHIELD, which is NEAR to the hull. NOT stretching anywhere to produce silly "INTERACTION" on RIDICULOUS distances and make up RIDICULOUS claims about a flying carcass with a still operational shield!

The emitted energy is side-effect of interaction when passing through the force field. Its a tiny cost to the beam, not to the shield.

TINY COST? Kiloton-powered (as per you) beams explode from a MINOR interaction with a DISSIPATING BORDER of the shield.
Idiotic.

And you're assuming the shield designers have a choice between Treknobabble bubble shields and the volumetric shield.

I am assuming if they CAN, as per the books, make the shield extend no further than CENTIMETRES from the hull, there is no IDIOTIC NEED for idiotic INTERACTION on RIDICULOUS distance!

And about your silly-ass shape idea: the little balls of light are not hyperphysical objects, they are simply flashes of light without shape.

AOTC smoke DOES NOT have shape and does not rise up? What's up with you, man...

Close Hits

Oblique glancing hits are disrupted - the bolt; a carrier wave and disturbance along a constant beam - is effected by passing obliquely through the force field, and this releases relatively small amounts of light and heat.

I repeat to you again, WHAT is the point of receiving ANY energy from a bolt which would MISS if you made your fucking SHIELDS a bit CLOSER to the hull. Moron, the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology SAYS shields are CMs, MMs, and maybe even BELOW the hull, but not HUNDRED METRES AWAY.

Hits which are approximately perpendicular to the shield do not experience the same interactions, and are instead outright absorbed by the shield.

APPROXIMATELY PERPENDICULAR?
Oh sure. WATCH the screenshots. They are NOT absorbed, moron, they are DEFLECTED. DEFLECTED. From the very HULL. NEAR the HULL. The shield DEFLECTS bolts NEAR the hull.

Evidence TRUMPS you.

These small balls of light are equivalent to less than a pound of TNT going off

I have told you the near-minimal yield of a thermonuclear explosive.

If this is the limit of fuzed charges for SW, how are they ANY GOOD AT ALL against shielded fighters which absorb KILOTON RANGE energy beams?

MAYBE BECAUSE THE FIGHTERS DON'T HAVE A PARTICLE SHIELD RIGHT THERE YOU MORON.
Maybe because their PARTICLE shield is WEAKER than the RAY shield, IDIOT. Or they have NO shield at all: SNOWSPEEDERS, TIES, AT-ATs!

[K. A. Pital]

All
UPDATED the reference with ANH storyboard quotes. The misplaced ESB script quotes are coming in a while; it would be put into ISD cannons flak.

Illuminatus Primus

Actually, there is enough in this quote to end all "many metres away" wanking FOREVER. You claimed that somehow the ICS and EGWT support the "shield interaction" many metres away, but they DON'T.

"Shield energy permeates the ship's hull and wraps the vessel in layers of energy that extend anywhere from a few millimeters to several centimeters away from the hull."

There is NO support for your ridiculous claim of "shield interaction" at dozens of metres in AOTC, ESB and HUNDREDS of metres in space combat.

There is CLEAR statement that the shields extends from x millimeters to x centimeters. NO place for wanking.

"Conventional shield technologies use a range of force-field effects....Normally, shield intensities diminish gradually with distance from the generator or projector. However, shield projected in an atmosphere tend to have a defined outer surface. Such a boundary becomes super-hot when left still, and mirage-like effects are seen."

There is NO support for your ridiculous claim that the OUTER SURFACE is IRRELEVANT, and the shield is spread many metres AWAY from that outer surface.
There is NO support for the ridiculous claim of yours that IDENTICAL explosions occuring on DIFFERENT ranges do it via shield "interaction", which CANNOT be the case, since SHIELD INTENSITIES DIMINISH GRADUALLY with distance form the generator or projector.

And since it is KNOWN that shields CAN be contained in MILLIMETERS around the HULL, it effectively BURIES the ridiculous claim of yours that ALL SW SHIELDS are naturally FLAWED to get damage from MISSING BOLTS:




There is NO wiggling space left. Shields ARE millimeters/centimeters away from the hull, NOT dozens and hundreds of metres.
Shields DO NOT get damaged from missing bolts, and have NO inherent flaws which YOU are attributing to them.

Thus WHATEVER produces flak explosions, it's NOT shield interaction, if you're a SANE person, and you go with EGWT and ICS evidence.

UPDATE: A CURRENT GRAPHIC SUM UP:

And, lastly, the ridiculous theory of faraway shield interaction not only contradicts EGWT, but also the EU evidence of the ABSENCE of shields on:
1) ordinary TIE fighters
2) AT-ATs
3) snowspeeders

Thus this theory is NOT anywhere acceptable, and evidence TRUMPS it.

P.S. Lastly, should I PM Mike "Admiral Kanos" or "Mike Wong"?

[K. A. Pital]

-deleted, wrong post-
There are NAUGHTY quotes up there now. Storyboards - that's one.
Script: that's TWO:

BLUE LEADER
Good shooting, Blue Six... watch it, you've got one on your tail.
John D's smile instantly disappears from his face as he looks around, but can't see the ship behind him. His ship shudders as a laserbolt explodes nearby, creating flak out the cockpit window.

Just a taste of things I put up for reference. Enjoy. Nuff said.

[Mad]

If this is the limit of fuzed charges for SW, how are they ANY GOOD AT ALL against shielded fighters which absorb KILOTON RANGE energy beams?

MAYBE BECAUSE THE FIGHTERS DON'T HAVE A PARTICLE SHIELD RIGHT THERE YOU MORON.
Maybe because their PARTICLE shield is WEAKER than the RAY shield, IDIOT. Or they have NO shield at all: SNOWSPEEDERS, TIES, AT-ATs!

Weak particles shields? Riiiiight....

Gigantic chunks of glowing stone appeared out of the nothingness, barely shunted aside by the ship's deflectors. The strain caused the Millennium Falcon to begin shuddering violently.

"What the--?" a thoroughly startled Solo muttered. Next to him, Chewbacca offered no comment of his own as he flipped off several controls and activated others. Only the fact that the cautious Solo always emerged from supralight travel with his deflectors up--just in case any of many unfriendly folks might be waiting for him--had saved the freighter from instant destruction.

So that the particle shields are weak aren't a viable theory. Of course, particle shielding won't even matter unless the explosion shoots out particles, the ray shielding will take care of thermal effects.

So, how can these "flak bursts" be sub-kiloton and be any threat to shields like the Falcon's?

How do you rationalize AotC:ICS's (and several other sources) invisible energy beams with sublight visible tracer with these flak bursts? Where do they come from?

Likely, any damaging ones are from dedicated weapons platforms, as they were on the first Death Star:

Soon a web of annihilation began to envelop the station as energy weapons, electrical bolts, and explosive solids ripped out at the oncoming rebel craft.

The flak at the Battle of Yavin was most likely from these "explosive solids." Other weapons used were turbolasers ("energy weapons") and ion cannons ("electrical bolts"), though these would not have had damaging flak effects even if they sometimes looked like flak.

I suggest you read my turbolaser and blaster theory (well, an early version of it), which handles this quite easily:

"Flak bursts" occur when the decay pulse is disrupted by something (usually the target's shields), sometimes causing a burst of more decay. In any event, the diffuse plasma cloud is disrupted, creating a mostly harmless flash of light and explosion. The beam itself continues to be pumped out by the weapon the entire time.

This neatly explains why the turbolaser-bursts are essentially harmless, and works perfectly with the bolts that cause a flash yet continue forward.

There is no evidence to make us believe that such interactions have any substantial effect on shield performance. So, no, this does not make shield system designers "idiots."

[Illuminatus Primus]

Condense this shit or I'm not replying, fuckhead. I warned you about employing the "snippy quoting tome" style of debate earlier, and its the strategy of bullshitters.

And you're just wrong. AOTC ICS tells us that shields dissipate outward indefinitely. EGtW&T must be talking about the lower limit of the shield. This is harmonization. Like an imbecile, you take the nicer quote for your bullshitting (EGtW&T and pretend AOTC ICS did not describe the shields as force fields (indefinitely dissipating) or what it itself said about dissipation).

You HARMONIZE, so EGtW&T is describing the inner edge or the zone where the shield absorbs incoming fire most effectively. You do NOT throw one quote out for another. And besides, Courtship of Princess Leia has the Falcon's shields ultimately extending nearly one hundred meters out.

And laser bolts exploding is totally explained by the current theory (Mad's theory). It does not follow that the same cannons are simultaneously mass drivers and particle beam weapons. And it is not my problem you can't even find ICS for a cursory examination - maybe you should TRUST THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ACCESS TO MORE COMPLETE INFORMATION AND HAVE ARGUED THIS VERY SUBJECT AT LENGTH MANY TIMES INSTEAD OF WALTZING IN HERE AND PRETENDING YOU KNOW BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE. That said, my scanner does not work. But I have indicated unambiguously where my evidence is be found. Go find it.

And like I said, if Mike thinks vector interactions with volumetric force fields explains the myriad effects above, but you do not. Why DON'T YOU PM HIM? That would be simple and resolving of misunderstanding, but you'd also get your shit ruined, so of course you won't do that.

[drachefly]

A bolt exploding does not need to violate CoE or CoM. Bolts obviously have a lot of potential energy, so CoE isn't a problem -- and we never see a flak burst from directly in front, so there's no reason to suppose that this explosion is isotropic, so it can balance momentum too.

"Flak" theory violates both.

The TIEs shooting at the Falcon on Bespin should be firing shots rated at somewhere around a kiloton. If the bolts detonated, we should see kiloton-level bomb effects. We don't. Where did the energy magically go? We have a violation of Conservation of Energy.

You make the unstated assumption that the energy is all released. If some of the energy is NOT released (i.e. remains potential energy), we do not need to see a full blast.

If a bolt flaks, we would expect the explosion to have the same total momentum as the bolt. In other words, its center should be moving at the same velocity as the bolt. However, the explosions we see typically do not follow this. Just look at the explosions on Geonosis in this thread: the explosion has 0 velocity relative to the planet; it's at a stand-still compared to the bolt. Violation of Conservation of Momentum.

The VISIBLE portion violates it, but none of us are working under the assumption that the visible portion is the entire beam.

That does leave the mystery as to why even the visible portion acts this way. Note that the explosion seems not to be moving in respect to the planet, but due to the rapid nature, can we be sure that it is not instead still in respect to the firing craft? Your very TL theory suggests that beams have complex structure and prolonged internal interactions with the firing device. Thus, giving the rest frame of the firing device a preferred role in the dynamics of the shot is not unreasonable.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You make the unstated assumption that the energy is all released. If some of the energy is NOT released (i.e. remains potential energy), we do not need to see a full blast.

Potential energy where? Then what is the point of flakbursting the bolt if you get .01% of the energy being released? This implies a side-effect of something unintentional, not something done on purpose.

The VISIBLE portion violates it, but none of us are working under the assumption that the visible portion is the entire beam.

Bzzt. Beams cannot detonate on command. They have no fuze.

That does leave the mystery as to why even the visible portion acts this way. Note that the explosion seems not to be moving in respect to the planet, but due to the rapid nature, can we be sure that it is not instead still in respect to the firing craft? Your very TL theory suggests that beams have complex structure and prolonged internal interactions with the firing device. Thus, giving the rest frame of the firing device a preferred role in the dynamics of the shot is not unreasonable.

This is absurd. The bolt has observed relative velocity (and thus momentum) with the background in each shot. If it simply stops, than that momentum has gone nowhere. The gun frame is precisely irrelevent, as we're dealing with observed relative velocity.

[K. A. Pital]

Illuminatus Primus
Maybe you'd reply to

Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:30 am

- it's rather short.
Or, just reply to my schemes (which essentialy have come to house the most of my argument) and my quotes (which you blatantly ignore)

Now come out and PROVE

And you're just wrong. AOTC ICS tells us that shields dissipate outward indefinitely.

It DOES NOT. I challenge you out to prove it does. The quote you provided is consisted with EGWT's "layers of energy" extending FROM several mms TO several CMs.

Conventional shield technologies use a range of force-field effects... Normally, shield intensities diminish gradually with distance from the generator or projector. However, shield projected in an atmosphere tend to have a defined outer surface. Such a boundary becomes super-hot when left still, and mirage-like effects are seen."

WHERE is the support for your RIDICULOUS claims of INDEFINITE stretching of shields? It just says about gradual diminishing - same as EGWT! Moreover, it says that shields in atmosphere have an OUTER BOUNDARY (which, actually, is not the case if you believe the silly "infinite" stretching.

EGtW&T must be talking about the lower limit of the shield. This is harmonization.

WHAT? Show me INDEFINITE stretching of the shield. Otherwise CONCEED that the quotes have NO support for you whatsoever.

Like an imbecile, you take the nicer quote for your bullshitting (EGtW&T and pretend AOTC ICS did not describe the shields as force fields (indefinitely dissipating) or what it itself said about dissipation).

I have ANALYZED the ICS quote and have shown WHY it REFUTES your INDEFINITE theory. Because the TPM-AOTC shots are INCOSISTENT with your theory if presented against the ICS quote. If we go by the ICS quote, the ONLY way to make sence out of those shots is to make the shield NEAR THE HULL.

You HARMONIZE, so EGtW&T is describing the inner edge or the zone where the shield absorbs incoming fire most effectively. You do NOT throw one quote out for another.

Except I do NOT throw out the ICS quote, you dolt. Deal with it.

And besides, Courtship of Princess Leia has the Falcon's shields ultimately extending nearly one hundred meters out.

And WHAT do I care for that shit book, the CANON dictates otherwise.

And laser bolts exploding is totally explained by the current theory (Mad's theory).

Okay. I'll deal with Mad then. Maybe he'll stand on better grounds to defend HIS theory.

And it is not my problem you can't even find ICS for a cursory examination - maybe you should TRUST THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ACCESS TO MORE COMPLETE INFORMATION AND HAVE ARGUED THIS VERY SUBJECT AT LENGTH MANY TIMES INSTEAD OF WALTZING IN HERE AND PRETENDING YOU KNOW BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE.

It seems to me, dear sir, you have nothing left to say. "Complete" evdence means NOTHING, CANON rules above.
And I repeat, dear "harmonizer", harmonize THAT:

And, lastly, the ridiculous theory of faraway shield interaction not only contradicts EGWT, but also the EU evidence of the ABSENCE of shields on:
1) ordinary TIE fighters
2) AT-ATs
3) snowspeeders

And like I said, if Mike thinks vector interactions with volumetric force fields explains the myriad effects above, but you do not. Why DON'T YOU PM HIM?

I WILL, I just asked "WHERE do I PM Mike!!"

That would be simple and resolving of misunderstanding, but you'd also get your shit ruined, so of course you won't do that.

I said I'll do, and I'll DO.

Mad
Sorry, I should have asked you about the theory in the first place.

Weak particles shields? Riiiiight....

Gigantic chunks of glowing stone appeared out of the nothingness, barely shunted aside by the ship's deflectors. The strain caused the Millennium Falcon to begin shuddering violently.

Ever made precise calculations upon a book description? How "gigantic" were the chunks? The deflectors barely "shunted" them "aside".

Compare that to asteroids exploding against ISD shields, for example: explosion is absorbed, the asteroids are not "barely shunted away"

How do you rationalize AotC:ICS's (and several other sources) invisible energy beams with sublight visible tracer with these flak bursts? Where do they come from?

From projectile explosions.
It's up to you to rationalise the fact that it says "laserbolt exploded in a flak burst", not to me.

"Flak bursts" occur when the decay pulse is disrupted by something (usually the target's shields), sometimes causing a burst of more decay. In any event, the diffuse plasma cloud is disrupted, creating a mostly harmless flash of light and explosion. The beam itself continues to be pumped out by the weapon the entire time.

I am asking you now:
1) is it true then that to make harmless flashes of light the shield has to be damaged even from MISSING bolts?
2) is it true that there are explosions without bolts/tracers? Explain.
3) Is it true that the shields were INCAPABLE of disrupting blaster fire in AOTC-TPM on ANY distance but no more than millimeters-centimeters to hull?
4) Is it true that the target's shields make EQUALLY harmless explosions at DIFFERENT ranges (by magnitudes!), thus ABSORBING EQUAL ENERGY FROM EVERY MISSING SHOT?
5) HARMLESS - dealt below:

Likely, any damaging ones are from dedicated weapons platforms, as they were on the first Death Star:

Yes?
No. I have quoted once, I will quote twice:

BLUE LEADER
Good shooting, Blue Six... watch it, you've got one on your tail.
John D's smile instantly disappears from his face as he looks around, but can't see the ship behind him. His ship shudders as a laserbolt explodes nearby, creating flak out the cockpit window.

X226. INT. LUKE'S STARSHIP - COCKPIT - TRAVELING
(344)
CU. Luke concentrating on his targeting device, hardly noticing the laserbolts streaking around him from Vader's ship. The X wing shudders under the impact of a flak burst.

Y226. EXT. LUKE'S STARSHIP - TRAVELING
(344A)
CU. Artoo as the flak explodes around him.

And storyboards:

DESCRIPTION
CLOSE UP LUKE concentrating on his targeting device, hardly noticing the laser bolts streaking around him from Vader's ship. The X-wing shudders under the impact of flak burst.

DESCRIPTION
CLOSE UP ARTOO as the flak explodes around him.

DESCRIPTION
[LUKE'S SHIP] CLOSE UP ARTOO as a large burst of flak engulfs him leaving a smoking shell of twisted metal where little Artoo once stood. The arms go limp on the smoking little droid.

And, sir Mad, I actually have the novellisations screaming to me "quote!". They show flak inflicts damage. And I would not refrain from quoting if I need to.

This neatly explains why the turbolaser-bursts are essentially harmless, and works perfectly with the bolts that cause a flash yet continue forward.

The following questions arise:
1) what about the bolts that do NOT continue any further?
2) what about the fact that only SOME of the bolts shot in the PROXIMITY of the ship's hull are "disrupted", but others not?
3) what about the fact that this "disruption" is absolutely irregular, since one time you get an exploded bolt, but other times bolts pass in proximity with NO effect at all?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Are you just stupid or what?

The ICS says shields have force field effects, and I have an engineer saying force fields gradually decrease into infinity, numbnuts.

And by Leland Chee, the earlier publication has precedence, so if anything is wrong, its the EGtW&T.

And you're clearly a moron - the little balls of light in the filmic canon - the subject we are debating - do not cause the atmospheric blast effects quoted in the novelisations. Conclusion: THEY ARE NOT YOUR VAUNTED FLAKBURSTS.

And your very storyboard quotes contradict your thesis; if Artoo's destruction is "going up in a cloud of flak" than "flak" is just another way of saying laser fire, and the "flak bursts" are just the shield interactions (of various strength) being described. You have yet to prove there are physical shells in what appear by all empirical analysis to be energy beams which are intentionally fuzed to detonate at small fractions of their total energy. Vector interaction with volumetric force-fields (an observed phenomenoa in ANH) explains using real-world scientific principles the effects better than non-existant shells disguised as energy beams.

And this length is becoming ridiculous. Did Scooter rub off on you during your debate with him?

All of our terms have been described in canon...so...

WHERE ARE YOUR SHELLS, ASSHOLE?

[Mad]

Ever made precise calculations upon a book description? How "gigantic" were the chunks? The deflectors barely "shunted" them "aside".

Let's make up some reasonable numbers, shall we? The Falcon was coming out of hyperspace, so let's pretend its velocity was only .1 c as it was decelerating. Let's also pretend that these "gigantic chunks" were 10 kg. That's 4.5e15 J or about a megaton. Each. Yeah, the Falcon's particle shields would have ignored the "flak bursts" we see onscreen in the movies.

Got any evidence that the "flak bursts" we see onscreen are anywhere near the megaton range?

Compare that to asteroids exploding against ISD shields, for example: explosion is absorbed, the asteroids are not "barely shunted away"

An ISD is also much bigger and more powerful. What's your point?

From projectile explosions.

No problem there, as long as they aren't from turbolaser weapons.

It's up to you to rationalise the fact that it says "laserbolt exploded in a flak burst", not to me.

We already know we're not dealing with real-life lasers, why do you have to assume that "flak burst" means precisely what it does in real-life as well? It could simply mean an explosion from enemy fire.

I am asking you now:
1) is it true then that to make harmless flashes of light the shield has to be damaged even from MISSING bolts?

No. The shield would barely notice that anything has happened, considering how weak the energy release is. The majority of the beam continues on invisibly. It's a drop in the bucket, and would add barely energy to the shield heat sinks.

2) is it true that there are explosions without bolts/tracers? Explain.

Yes. I'd expect that they come from dedicated weaponry, such as the "explosive solids" mentioned during the Battle of Yavin.

3) Is it true that the shields were INCAPABLE of disrupting blaster fire in AOTC-TPM on ANY distance but no more than millimeters-centimeters to hull?

Typical blasters appear to behave quite differently from turbolasers. The entire bolt appears to propogate at a sublight velocity, and their make-up is unknown. They would appear to be less sensitive to disruption than the visible (and essentially harmless) portion of a turbolaser, so it's only where the shield is really strong (next to the hull) where blasters are really affected.

4) Is it true that the target's shields make EQUALLY harmless explosions at DIFFERENT ranges (by magnitudes!), thus ABSORBING EQUAL ENERGY FROM EVERY MISSING SHOT?

Likely, the shields aren't absorbing any energy. The shields aren't very strong at the ranges we see, so the disruption is minor and requires very little from the shield system. Depending on several factors, the bolt may not even be disrupted. Would you be worried if somebody sprinkled a couple of drops of water in your 10 gallon bucket?

5) HARMLESS - dealt below:

The ones we see onscreen are harmless.

Yes?
No. I have quoted once, I will quote twice:

BLUE LEADER
Good shooting, Blue Six... watch it, you've got one on your tail.
John D's smile instantly disappears from his face as he looks around, but can't see the ship behind him. His ship shudders as a laserbolt explodes nearby, creating flak out the cockpit window.

Looks like the bolt hit the shields and caused an explosion. That'd rock the ship (momentum transfer from the energy content of the beam to the physical shield system).

X226. INT. LUKE'S STARSHIP - COCKPIT - TRAVELING
(344)
CU. Luke concentrating on his targeting device, hardly noticing the laserbolts streaking around him from Vader's ship. The X wing shudders under the impact of a flak burst.

Y226. EXT. LUKE'S STARSHIP - TRAVELING
(344A)
CU. Artoo as the flak explodes around him.

So explosions against the shields. Interestingly, we don't actually see this in the movie.

And storyboards:

DESCRIPTION
CLOSE UP LUKE concentrating on his targeting device, hardly noticing the laser bolts streaking around him from Vader's ship. The X-wing shudders under the impact of flak burst.

DESCRIPTION
CLOSE UP ARTOO as the flak explodes around him.

DESCRIPTION
[LUKE'S SHIP] CLOSE UP ARTOO as a large burst of flak engulfs him leaving a smoking shell of twisted metal where little Artoo once stood. The arms go limp on the smoking little droid.

We don't actually see the scenes go anywhere like this, though. Artoo is largely intact in the movie as we see the shields greatly weakened that final shot before impact. Aside from that, the bolt struk him directly, then there was an explosion from vaporized metal.

What does this mean? That means that the "flak" is actually just the explosion itself, based on the events in the actual scene. In the scene where Artoo was fried, the "flak" was just parts of him being vaporized. That's the only way your scene can make any sense at all because there was obviously no conventional flak burst in that scene.

And, sir Mad, I actually have the novellisations screaming to me "quote!". They show flak inflicts damage. And I would not refrain from quoting if I need to.

Go for it. I have a feeling they'll just be interpreted much the same way the Artoo scene goes, or refer to the "explosive solids" weapons platforms flak (which would be much more like the traditional flak we'd expect).

The following questions arise:
1) what about the bolts that do NOT continue any further?

The chain reaction was disrupted to the point where it could no longer continue. No problem here.

2) what about the fact that only SOME of the bolts shot in the PROXIMITY of the ship's hull are "disrupted", but others not?

Angle, velocity, orientation of the shield, strength of the shield, movement of the beam, termination of the beam, and perhaps other factors can easily lead to a wide range of effects.

3) what about the fact that this "disruption" is absolutely irregular, since one time you get an exploded bolt, but other times bolts pass in proximity with NO effect at all?

See above.

As a further note, some flashes could be attributed to vaporization of small bits of material such as airborn debris.

[K. A. Pital]

Illuminatus Primus
No, its YOU who is stupid. You take the quotes for what you WANT them to be, not what they are

Does Incredible Cross-Sections quote claim INDEFINITE STRETCHING OF SHIELDS? Is the EGWT incorrect?

Conventional shield technologies use a range of force-field effects...

Somehow that becomes:

The ICS says shields have force field effects

Normally, shield intensities diminish gradually with distance from the generator or projector.

Which is perfectly consistent with EGWT:

"Shield energy permeates the ship's hull and wraps the vessel in layers of energy that extend anywhere from a few millimeters to several centimeters away from the hull."

But not ANYWHERE consistent with YOUR claims:

AOTC ICS tells us that shields dissipate outward indefinitely.

However, shield projected in an atmosphere tend to have a defined outer surface. Such a boundary becomes super-hot when left still, and mirage-like effects are seen."

Illuminatus thinks that this means:

AOTC ICS says that shields gradually dissipate irregardless of defined surfaces in atmosphere.

We have now seen that ICS claims NOTHING of the sort. Fucker.

Moreover, Illuminatus suggested the EGWT incorrect (which means shields CANNOT be contained within CM or MM range from the hull.
He thinks SW shields are inherently flawed:

Illuminatus suggests (as AOTC ICS correctly says) that

absorbtion ability dramatically decreases as the shields dissipate (inverse-cubed law would've told you this though).

He advises me to get a physics class, and exhibits extraordinary ignorance. He clearly does not comprehend. Their shields are UP now:

A hailstorm of laserfire blasted the new arrivals, but the gunships had their shields up, covering the debarkation of their warriors.

BLASTER shots are NOT absorbed, but rather DEFLECTED near the very HULL.

He says he's HARMONIZING evidence. But he tried to refute EGWT, and he also obviously has the problem which he refuses to admit:

And, lastly, the ridiculous theory of faraway shield interaction not only contradicts EGWT, but also the EU evidence of the ABSENCE of shields on:
1) ordinary TIE fighters
2) AT-ATs
3) snowspeeders

Atmospheric effects of AT-AT flak bursts in the TESB

[And you're clearly a moron - the little balls of light in the filmic canon - the subject we are debating - do not cause the atmospheric blast effects quoted in the novelisations. Conclusion: THEY ARE NOT YOUR VAUNTED FLAKBURSTS.

But you are fucked up:

One All Terrain Armored Transport machine fired, barely missing the banking craft. A burst of gunfire blew another speeder into a ball of flaming oblivion that lit up the sky.
Luke saw the explosion of his squadron's first casualty as he looked from his cockpit window. Angrily, Luke fired his ship's guns at a walker, only to receive a hail of Imperial fire power that shook his speeder in a barrage of flak.

Explosions rocked Luke's ship, tossing it
about violently in the enveloping flak.

Luke and Zev could see the destruction of
the walker as they flew overhead, banking from right to left to avoid the flak bursting around them. When they finally leveled off, their craft were shaken by explosions from the walkers' cannons.

Let's see the atmospheric effects of the flak bursts.
Any shithead watching the movie would understand that the speeder was shaking from flak bursts. But not IP. Any idiot would understand the speeder was rocked and tossed about. But not IP.
Let's see now which atmospheric effects IP thinks they have:

These small balls of light are equivalent to less than a pound of TNT going off; they exhibit zero atmospheric effects and very poor indicators of directly observable power.

Nothing is said about atmospheric effects which IP wants so badly in the ESB novel. Only that the bursts rocked, and tossed Luke's speeder. And what else does IP think?

The novelisation describes clouds of exploding flak, buffeting speeders - this is inconsistent with the depiction of the small balls of light which cause zero damage and zero atmospheric effects.

Thus, longing it so badly, Illuminatus Primus was incorrect. Clouds are not anywhere described in the novel.
TOSS ABOUT, ROCK, SHAKE and BUFFET are all verbs APPLICABLE to the movie scenes where Luke's speeder is ROCKED, SHAKEN and TOSSED ABOUT by the FLAK BURSTS. The word BUFFET also is NOWHERE to be seen in the novellisation's AT-AT flak description, BUT in the script:

Barely keeping his seat in the tumbling ship, Dack struggles to set up his harpoon gun.
Luke swings his speeder around and heads toward an oncoming walker. Laser bolts and flak fill the air, creating a deadly obstacle course for the tiny craft.

Luke's speeder and Rogue Two fly in formation, banking from right to left and flying above the erupting battlefield. Flak bursts all around them.

Luke, glancing over, sees Rogue Two on his left. His ship shudders as flak bursts nearby.

Desperately, Luke works the controls of his flak-buffeted ship.

That is all. The description from the scripts and novels IS the same as movie evidence. Fuck, the script CLEARLY describes MOVIE events, and the novel ALIKE.

IP, are you dishonest or what?

ANH flak bursts - any indication of SHIELD INTERACTION?

And your very storyboard quotes contradict your thesis; if Artoo's destruction is "going up in a cloud of flak" than "flak" is just another way of saying laser fire, and the "flak bursts" are just the shield interactions (of various strength) being described.

You wonder how he derived it? I wonder too:

DESCRIPTION
CLOSE UP ARTOO as the flak explodes around him.

DESCRIPTION
[LUKE'S SHIP] CLOSE UP ARTOO as a large burst of flak engulfs him leaving a smoking shell of twisted metal where little Artoo once stood. The arms go limp on the smoking little droid.

He MISQUOTED the storyboard: "going up in a cloud of flak" he puts in brackets as if it were a quote. Which is NOWHERE to be seen in the storyboard.
And do you understand the logic:
A) if Artoo's destruction is "going up in a cloud of flak"
B) than "flak" is just another way of saying laser fire, and the "flak bursts" are just the shield interactions

A => B, per Illuminatus Primus.

IP, you're screwed royally.

SHELLS?

WHERE ARE YOUR SHELLS, ASSHOLE?

Where is your "SHIELD INTERACTION", ASSHOLE?

As of where the shells are: IP obviously thinks there must be shells.

flak
1 : antiaircraft guns
2 : the bursting shells fired from flak

I have also posted the Wikipedia quote below:

There shells are usually fitted with different types of fuzes (barometric (air pressure), time-delay, or proximity) to send exploding "flak" into a specified area.

The first meaning is inapplicable to TIE fighters and cloud cars, and hardly applicable to AT-ATs and LASER explosions explicitly called FLAK BURSTS.
Even if in a non-literal sence (although IP first tried the ULTRALITERAL first meaning):

As for "flak streaking by" - all flak intrinsically means is anti-aircraft fire. Anti-fighter guns spewing beams at fighters could be called flak and it would be perfectly reasonable. Flak is literally an abbreviation of the German Flugzeugabwehrkanone - aircraft defense guns.

Thus we come to the second meaning, which IP ALSO interprets literally. What he means is SW projectiles, to have FLAK effect, must have SHELLS. Although it may NOT be the case - particle "beam" split he does not take into account. Beams splitting have been observed in SW.

As for me I'm mostly convinced that it's flak (which is flak-like mechanism of explosion, not literally flak), not shields in the OT as well as in newer movies.

Whatever the mechanism is, it MUST be so. And here is what I said about the "no-beam-bursts":

Containment fields operating in VT fuse mode can explain these, the beam-shield interaction - not really, since there is no beam to interact with and most definetely no shield.

He insisted on transparent beams NOT having shells. Are there no transparent MATERIALS in SW? Is GAS not transparent? And lastly, there are MANY opaque beams shot in SW. MANY MANY of them.


There you go, Illuminatus Primus. Summed up your nonsence.

[K. A. Pital]

Mad
A screenie for the beginning, one of my very favorite ones. Just for the sake of visual pleasure (headkilling to rationalise things like this one with shield interactions, but it's just one of many):


I'll try to keep it short, so 1 counterargument for each 1 argument.

Gigantic chunks of glowing stone appeared out of the nothingness, barely shunted aside by the ship's deflectors. The strain caused the Millennium Falcon to begin shuddering violently.

Let's make up some reasonable numbers, shall we? The Falcon was coming out of hyperspace, so let's pretend its velocity was only .1 c as it was decelerating. Let's also pretend that these "gigantic chunks" were 10 kg. That's 4.5e15 J or about a megaton.

So you think MF did not decelerate before it came out of hyperspace? Watch A New Hope - they show how the ship comes out of hyperspace. The speed is not anywhere relativistic, and collisions begin on normal speed. The "chunks" are also shown in the movie, so why don't we use it's screenshots?



There you go. Look at the asteroid and how fast it moves.

An ISD is also much bigger and more powerful. What's your point?

My point is the smaller ships have weaker particle shields.
TIEs, AT-ATs, SNOWSPEEDERS have NO shields. Refute the evidence or accept the evidence? And lastly, the Falcon's particle shield may have been already dumped down by hits by the time flak was used (but that is not really necessary; the problem would not exist either way, since the Falcon did not hit asteroids at relativistic speed.

No problem there, as long as they aren't from turbolaser weapons.

ANH storyboards says they are from LASER/TURBOLASER weapons. There are obviously projectile weapons called BLASTERS (AOTC, novel) and LASER CANNONS (TPM - novel, TPM - movie).
And there are problems with the references towards the TLs, Blasters and Laser Cannons operating same principle. Example of that can be found on SW.com, in the "Turbolaser" article, movie section:

Similar weaponry of a smaller scale was employed aboard the Millennium Falcon, and the Trade Federation battleships of a generation previous.

And in the "Blaster" article, EU section:

The interior mechanisms of a tiny hold-out blaster, a blaster pistol, a large blaster rifle, and a turbolaser cannon are based on the same theories and principles. A squeeze of a trigger emits volatile blaster gas into a conversion chamber, where it is excited by energy from the weapon's power source. The agitated gas is then funneled through the actuating blaster module, where it is processed into an intense particle beam. A prismatic crystal focuses the beam, and passes it through a refinement chamber which "galvens" the beam into its final bolt.

We already know we're not dealing with real-life lasers, why do you have to assume that "flak burst" means precisely what it does in real-life as well? It could simply mean an explosion from enemy fire.

Explosion from enemy fire? Did any of the WWII explosions from tank weapons, fighter weapons, artillery EVER called flak? The colloquialism argument, which IP also suggested, is inapplicable.
Moreover, if they ARE explosions, nothing is wrong as long as it's not SHIELD INTERACTION. Because it contradicts the MOVIE, NOVEL and ICS&EGWT evidence of shield operation.

The shield would barely notice that anything has happened, considering how weak the energy release is. The majority of the beam continues on invisibly.

OK. Now I understand your point. And where is the support to the theory that beams can exist without tracers, or lose their tracers and move on? And the invisible bolt which moves on - should it cause damage, because it has not lost it's energy (a miniscule fraction of it, as per you, and the tracer thereby)?
And there are problems, you know:

Just one of many. If they just "scratch" the tracer off the bolt, but the invisible part still PROPAGATES, carrying away the uber-kilotons in it, where is the explosive effect on sand dunes?


There is also a total "why" regarding the bolts which are "disrupted" in an absolutely irregular fashion. Many bolts fly through, one is disrupted. Or (like in the above screenie) two bolts travelling on a parallel course, of which the OUTER bolt is disrupted.

And lastly, it's still damage, even if insignificant. What's the point of making such shields, if you CAN contain shields within a range boundary? [look ICS and EGWT quotes and how Primus wrongly interpreted them]
The EGWT is clear on that matter.

Yes. I'd expect that they come from dedicated weaponry, such as the "explosive solids" mentioned during the Battle of Yavin.

I also think they come from dedicated weapons (or projectiles from standard weapons), but how come they exhibit the same effects as the claimed "shield interaction"?

Typical blasters appear to behave quite differently from turbolasers. The entire bolt appears to propogate at a sublight velocity, and their make-up is unknown.

AOTC novel says blasters are projectile weapons (that could mean SOME of them are, as people interpret).

so it's only where the shield is really strong (next to the hull) where blasters are really affected

Strange, but how come then STRONG blasts explode harmlessly many metres away? Someone in this thread suggested that energy accumulates and explodes where the TRACER is (I'll look up his source), thus it would mean that TOTAL energy of the blast would be nullified in the tracer's explosions.
And there is also the problem of MANY sources claiming blasters, laser cannons and turbolasers operating same principles. Refuting them is not harmonizing.

AOTC and TPM blasters aren't the only hull-close bolt hits (these are just a few of the innumerous examples!):


And I doubt that at the beginning of battle the ISD's shields are anywhere depleted, as with Devastator:

Bolts (not from blasters, but from TIE laser cannons) reach the MC hull and are NOT stopped at any distance with ANY interaction at all - they actually don't even show any interaction.


And how is that possible? How did the fighter manage to get into the hangar at all - is there a hole in the shield?


You see, it's VERY difficult to prove that SW shields CANNOT be contained within a small distance from the hull. And if that inherent flaw cannot be proven, the idea of faraway interaction becomes meaningless (not to mention that it already contradicts evidence).

The ones we see onscreen are harmless.

They do exactly the effect the novels describe [debate with Primus]

Looks like the bolt hit the shields and caused an explosion.

Actually, it doesn't. None of the described flak bursts in the novels/scripts mention any shield whatsoever. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of the absence", but how come then TIEs, AT-ATs and snowspeeders have NO shields? Refuting evidence is not harmonizing it.

So explosions against the shields. Interestingly, we don't actually see this in the movie.

Doesn't Artoo explode?

Aside from that, the bolt struk him directly, then there was an explosion from vaporized metal.

That could be mixed with the flak burst. Actually, the screenshots show that:

That means that the "flak" is actually just the explosion itself, based on the events in the actual scene.

I have said that flak does not require physical shells; however, you can't simply attribute the flak to explosion, since there are two different explosions going off.

Go for it. I have a feeling they'll just be interpreted much the same way the Artoo scene goes

For now. Quoting now.
AT-AT flak:

Barely keeping his seat in the tumbling ship, Dack struggles to set up his harpoon gun.
Luke swings his speeder around and heads toward an oncoming walker. Laser bolts and flak fill the air, creating a deadly obstacle course for the tiny craft.

It's impossible to interpret these as shield interactions - they can't fill the air, neither create any obstacle. Not to mention snowspeeders have no shields (!).

Luke saw the explosion of his squadron's first casualty as he looked from his cockpit window. Angrily, Luke fired his ship's guns at a walker, only to receive a hail of Imperial fire power that shook his speeder in a barrage of flak.

It's hard to come by with any "shield" explanations of this flak sentence as well.

Explosions rocked Luke's ship, tossing it about violently in the enveloping flak. Through the window he could see another walker that appeared to be unaffected by the full fire power of the Rebel attack speeders. This lumbering machine now became Luke's target as he flew, moving in a descending arc. The walker was firing directly at him, creating a wall of laser bolts and flak.
'Just hang on, Dack,' he yelled over the explosions, 'and get ready to fire that tow cable!'

Shield interactions cannot create any walls of flak. The walker is the AT-AT. Illuminatus Primus already conceded on the quote and had the "don't ask me where it came from, the AT-AT can't fire flak".
I then asked him if the smaller (ear) AT-AT cannons were ever observed to fire TRANSLUCENT BEAMS, which he ignored and never responded.

TIE flak:

Chewbacca howled over the roar of the Falcon's engines. The ship was beginning to lurch with the buffeting flak blasted at it by the fighters.

It's also incredibly hard to monkey with words here. It's not "harmless tracer explosions", it's buffeting flak blasted by the fighters.

Solo raced down to the ship's hold and began to work frantically on repairing the malfunctioning hyperdrive unit. It was all but impossible to carry out the delicate repair work necessary while the Falcon shook with each blast of flak from the fighters.

Uh-oh, if the above quote was bad, this one is no better. "Blast of flak" leaves no place for wanking to any "shield interpretations", even if you manage to somehow convince me that "flak bursts" could be interpreted as shield-beam interaction. Blasts of flak from TIE fighters ruin any attempt of saying "flak is just the explosions".

Cloud car flak:

One of the cloud cars opens fire on the Falcon, its flak rocking the ship.

HAN: (into transmitter) No, I don't have a landing permit. I'm trying to reach Lando Calrissian.
More flak bursts outside the cockpit window and rattles the ship's interior.

These quotes are all posted in the FIRST post in this thread, for everyone's reference.

The chain reaction was disrupted to the point where it could no longer continue. No problem here.

There is. It requires the ABSORBTIONS of energy of a MISSING bolt. MISS=DAMAGE to SHIELD.

As a further note, some flashes could be attributed to vaporization of small bits of material such as airborn debris.

Haven't seen any, but... if you provide the screenies. I'm not particulary bothered to provide any screenshots you advise, except Episode I (someone stole my RIP!).

[Darth Wong]

Stas Bush, you are a fucking ignorant moron. Your arrogant airs of superiority with regard to IP's statement on forcefields warrant this kind of condemnation, because there is nothing worse than an ignoramus who thinks that everyone else is ignorant for disagreeing with him.

A) You claim that the statement "force field effects" and "shield intensities diminish gradually with distance from the generator or projector" somehow contradict IP's statement "AOTC ICS tells us that shields dissipate outward indefinitely". I suggest you grow a fucking brain, because you are clearly demonstrating that you are an idiot. ALL real-life force-fields dissipate outward indefinitely, you shithead. Magnetic fields, gravitational fields, whatever. That's what it means to diminish gradually with distance, you shithead. They generally diminish according to the inverse-square law; this does not mean that they suddenly hit a wall and drop to zero strength, fucktard. As for atmospheric interactions, that would involve a threshold of field strength interacting with atmospheric density.

B) You base a considerable portion of your claim on the use of the word "flak" in the scripts and novels. What you completely ignore, of course, is the use of the words "laser" and "energy beam", both of which are completely incompatible with a fused explosive device. If you're going to appeal to script and novel terminology, you're barking up the wrong tree.

C) You cited the Furry Idiot theory of turbolaser operation. That in itself demonstrates your stupidity, since the Furry Idiot theory so badly mutilates its scientific terminology and principles that it should be considered an intellectually toxic substance. The idea of an easily produced liquid retaining super-hot plasma due to "surface tension" despite this plasma being able to vapourize the finest armour the Empire can make is so fucking stupid that words fail to describe it or its adherents.

D) You base your entire argument upon your persistent assumption that it is impossible for shields to have variable geometries or volumetric effects, seizing upon what you view as inconsistencies or contradictions, when we have canon dialogue that shields can be angled and adjusted at will.

E) You ignore the fact that some bolts do fly off into the distance indefinitely without "detonating". If the "explosive fused device" theory or Furry Idiot theory were valid, then 100 percent of bolts should detonate.

F) You appeal to the authority of the EU, thus proving that you are a moron, since the whole point of the flakburst argument is to challenge the position of the EU. This is like using Bible quotes in order to prove the Bible's claims.

[K. A. Pital]

A) You claim that the statement "force field effects" and "shield intensities diminish gradually with distance from the generator or projector" somehow contradict IP's statement "AOTC ICS tells us that shields dissipate outward indefinitely". I suggest you grow a fucking brain, because you are clearly demonstrating that you are an idiot. ALL real-life force-fields dissipate outward indefinitely, you shithead.

IP omits words from the quote which alter the meaning of it:

Conventional shield technologies use a range of force-field effects...

They "use" a range of force-fields effects.

ALL real-life force-fields dissipate outward indefinitely, you shithead

Nevermind that it's not a real-life forcefield, and ICS says about a range of force-field effects, and says that some shields projected in the atmosphere have an outer boundary.

B) You base a considerable portion of your claim on the use of the word "flak" in the scripts and novels. What you completely ignore, of course, is the use of the words "laser" and "energy beam", both of which are completely incompatible with a fused explosive device. If you're going to appeal to script and novel terminology, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Actually, I understand the contradictions when either "flak" or "lasers" are interpreted literally.
The problem is not because of word games with "flak" - rather because of the novellisation's descriptions. Harmless tracer explosions against the shield cannot be an obstacle to the craft, cannot be blasted at anyone, neither can they create any wall.

C) You cited the Furry Idiot theory of turbolaser operation. That in itself demonstrates your stupidity, since the Furry Idiot theory so badly mutilates its scientific terminology and principles that it should be considered an intellectually toxic substance.

I read the thread with his claims and I am now convinced his theory is not viable.

D) You base your entire argument upon your persistent assumption that it is impossible for shields to have variable geometries or volumetric effects, seizing upon what you view as inconsistencies or contradictions, when we have canon dialogue that shields can be angled and adjusted at will.

I always thought that canon dialogue refers to power redistribution from shield sector A to shield sector B. Nevermind though, I'm ready to take up your version. If the shields can be adjusted, they have to be adjusted to be AS CLOSE to the hull as possible, not to have them damaged by missing shots (many of which already missed the craft by magnitudes).

E) You ignore the fact that some bolts do fly off into the distance indefinitely without "detonating". If the "explosive fused device" theory or Furry Idiot theory were valid, then 100 percent of bolts should detonate.

Actually, I do not ignore it. That's the question I'm curious of.
IF the explosions were shield interactions, then ALL bolts coming near a ship at a certain distance should explode. Most certainly they should NOT reach the hull, because the shield intensity is increasing. If the shield can stop bolts at a distance of tens of meters away from the hull, why are bolts striking the hulls of shielded ships? Or am I wrong?

Proximity fuse should is not 100% effective, and there's fuse jamming.

F) You appeal to the authority of the EU, thus proving that you are a moron, since the whole point of the flakburst argument is to challenge the position of the EU.

I only point out to contradictions within the EU.
Actually, I would even refrain from using a source so self-contradictory as EU. But IP started it first with ICS and EGWT.
My reference in the first post only included Novels, Scripts and Storyboards.

[Darth Wong]

They "use" a range of force-fields effects.

How does that affect the point?

Nevermind that it's not a real-life forcefield,

Ah yes, the "appeal to uncertainty to support utter bullshit" technique. If you're going to use the word "forcefield" in order to prove something, don't change your tune when it blows up in your face. That's the kind of dishonest bullfuckery that I expect from Trektards.

and ICS says about a range of force-field effects, and says that some shields projected in the atmosphere have an outer boundary.

So? How does that refute the point? Did you even read what I wrote, dipshit? If anything, it only worsens your position, since the existence of multiple forcefield techniques is incompatible with your method of proof which employs the assumption that one can make generalizations about SW forcefield behaviour from specific incidents.

Actually, I understand the contradictions when either "flak" or "lasers" are interpreted literally.

The problem is not because of word games with "flak" - rather because of the novellisation's descriptions. Harmless tracer explosions against the shield cannot be an obstacle to the craft, cannot be blasted at anyone, neither can they create any wall.

Why the fuck do they have to be harmless?

I read the thread with his claims and I am now convinced his theory is not viable.

I always thought that canon dialogue refers to power redistribution from shield sector A to shield sector B. Nevermind though, I'm ready to take up your version.

How the fuck does "angle the deflector shield" mean "power redistribution from shield sector A to shield sector B"?

If the shields can be adjusted, they have to be adjusted to be AS CLOSE to the hull as possible, not to have them damaged by missing shots (many of which already missed the craft by magnitudes).

Once again, you rely on your assumption that there is no volumetric effect. Once again, you act like an idiot by using your own conclusion as part of your premises, hence falling into the circular logic trap.

These fucking pictures are annoying. Expressing your argument as a GIF does not strengthen it, fucktard. You are assuming that forcefield interactions must always employ a simple-minded "it enters boundary, it is always affected, it stays outside boundary, it is never affected" assumption, which is just you restating your fucking conclusion as a premise again. Why the fuck can't it be some kind of vector interaction, which would be consistent with "angling" the deflector and which would produce interactions which are necessarily more complex than your simple-minded model?

E) You ignore the fact that some bolts do fly off into the distance indefinitely without "detonating". If the "explosive fused device" theory or Furry Idiot theory were valid, then 100 percent of bolts should detonate.

Actually, I do not ignore it. That's the question I'm curious of.

No it isn't, since you present no explanation whatsoever. The shield-interaction explanation is an attempt to explain this; what is your explanation?

IF the explosions were shield interactions, then ALL bolts coming near a ship at a certain distance should explode. Most certainly they should NOT reach the hull, because the shield intensity is increasing. If the shield can stop bolts at a distance of tens of meters away from the hull, why are bolts striking the hulls of shielded ships? Or am I wrong?

You are changing the subject from a gaping hole in your theory to what you perceive as a weakness in the shield-interaction theory based on your insistence on applying your boundary assumption to it, hence shoving a square peg into a round hole. Since you have actually presented no theory whatsoever, I call you on that. What the fuck is your theory?

WHY THE FUCK DON'T 100% OF THE BOLTS EXPLODE, ASSHOLE? AND WHAT IS YOUR THEORY?

Proximity fuse should is not 100% effective, and there's fuse jamming.

That's fucking stupid; even if a tiny fraction went awry, you would still see almost all of them detonate. Moreover, you have no theory as to what would make them detonate; you have acknowledged that the Furry Idiot theory is unworkable but you have presented no theory of your own. As for "fuse jamming", that's retarded; now you're just making up shit to support your position because you don't want to admit error.

Actually, I would even refrain from using a source so self-contradictory as EU. But IP started it first with ICS and EGWT.
My reference in the first post only included Novels, Scripts and Storyboards.

Your first post was a joke. It appealed to the use of the word "flak" and your subjective interpretations of writers' intent.

[K. A. Pital]

They "use" a range of force-fields effects.

How does that affect the point?

They do not use all the effects of a forcefield, but a range of these. So "shields dissipate indefinetely" is not derived upon the ICS quote.

Ah yes, the "appeal to uncertainty to support utter bullshit" technique. If you're going to use the word "forcefield" in order to prove something, don't change your tune when it blows up in your face.

I'm not using the word "forcefield" to prove anything. If anyone does it, it's you:

ALL real-life force-fields dissipate outward indefinitely, you shithead. Magnetic fields, gravitational fields, whatever. That's what it means to diminish gradually with distance, you shithead. They generally diminish according to the inverse-square law; this does not mean that they suddenly hit a wall and drop to zero strength, fucktard.

You used the word "force-fields", not me. But all the ICS says is the shields using a RANGE of force-field effects.

They generally diminish according to the inverse-square law

Thus a shield at a range of Y cannot exhibit same interaction at a range of X, am I correct? The shield is getting more and more intensive the closer you move to the hull. So how do you explain the hull-striking bolts?

If anything, it only worsens your position, since the existence of multiple forcefield techniques is incompatible with your method of proof which employs the assumption that one can make generalizations about SW forcefield behaviour from specific incidents.

If forcefield technique A is a lot more effective than technique B, and a ship can use A instead of B, then it's obvious B is worthless.
Thus a shield which does not catch missing bolts is a helluvalot more effective then a shield which gets damaged by missing bolts.

Actually I do not think that shields cannot or do not dissipate indefinetely. It's just the case that the range of this dissipation from X to near 0 is millimeters or centimeters away from the hull.

Moreover, the EGWT quote is not favouring the indefinite long range interaction theory. If shields can be contained withing millimeters/centimeters near the hull, there is no point in letting them waste power on needless interaction with MISSING bolts.

And actually HOW can shields have an outer boundary, as per ICS, if they are inherently flawed to interact on an indefinetely long distance?

Why the fuck do they have to be harmless?

Because that's what both Mad and IP said constantly:

Mad's turbolaser theory:
"Flak bursts" occur when the decay pulse is disrupted by something (usually the target's shields), sometimes causing a burst of more decay. In any event, the diffuse plasma cloud is disrupted, creating a mostly harmless flash of light and explosion. The beam itself continues to be pumped out by the weapon the entire time.

There is no evidence to make us believe that such interactions have any substantial effect on shield performance. So, no, this does not make shield system designers "idiots."

Second, because the majority of the energy is in the invisible portion of the beam, we don't know if the shields are absorbing any energy. The amount of work required by the shields to create a bolt explosion could very well be minimal.

I thus challenged him forth to prove that the "disrupted" missing bolts:
a) can exist without tracers at all
b) only cause very-very little damage to the shield, not losing energy
c) and propagate further with their kiloton-range explosions

Energy Requirements
Disrupting the beams and causing some light to escape is not at a cost to the shield integrity, shithead. The very fact it was emited proves it: the shield is battered by absorbing energy. The emitted energy is side-effect of interaction when passing through the force field. Its a tiny cost to the beam, not to the shield.

Same opinion. Flak bursts = shield interactions = harmless to shield. Because if they are NOT harmless, then the whole point of stretching shields goes kablooie - it would mean shields GET damaged from missing bolts. And this is what IP and Mad are desperately refuting, this is why they need the explosions to be harmless.

But I even remove the word harmless, so you can see the argument:

tracer explosions against the shield cannot be an obstacle to the craft, cannot be blasted at anyone, neither can they create any wall.

You can't BLAST the "shield interaction" at someone. Because that's what you get with "flak = shield interaction". You can't create a WALL of shield interaction.
Even Illuminatus Primus acknowledged the point, and suggested to refute the novellisation (!):

Where does the wall of flak come from, dunderhead?

Do not beg the question of where the flak came from. Need I remind that Hobbie Klivian dies in the novelisation but not the film and he goes on to survive elsewhere? The novelisation is not filmic canon, and can be revised (however rare this is).

How the fuck does "angle the deflector shield" mean "power redistribution from shield sector A to shield sector B"?

I was thinking of the other quote, sorry.

Once again, you rely on your assumption that there is no volumetric effect.

No. I do not rely on the assumption; I rely on the fact that there is close-to-hull interaction on shielded ships.

You are assuming that forcefield interactions must always employ a simple-minded "it enters boundary, it is always affected, it stays outside boundary, it is never affected" assumption, which is just you restating your fucking conclusion as a premise again.

And you have an explanation for that? I did not state that there is a "boundary" at all in this picture (there is a dissipating shield!). But the shield intensity at distance X is established! If shield can "explode" a bolt at distance X, why it cannot "explode" several other bolts at the same range? And how come it explodes bolts same on different ranges?

Why the fuck can't it be some kind of vector interaction, which would be consistent with "angling" the deflector and which would produce interactions which are necessarily more complex than your simple-minded model?

Explain how it works; I will conceed if it explains how a forcefield explodes the bolts randomly around the ships, but lets other bolts pass through and strike the hull.

No it isn't, since you present no explanation whatsoever. The shield-interaction explanation is an attempt to explain this; what is your explanation?

Fuse jamming; proximity fuse inaccuracy.

IF the explosions were shield interactions, then ALL bolts coming near a ship at a certain distance should explode. Most certainly they should NOT reach the hull, because the shield intensity is increasing. If the shield can stop bolts at a distance of tens of meters away from the hull, why are bolts striking the hulls of shielded ships? Or am I wrong?

You are changing the subject from a gaping hole in your theory to what you perceive as a weakness in the shield-interaction theory based on your insistence on applying your boundary assumption to it, hence shoving a square peg into a round hole. Since you have actually presented no theory whatsoever, I call you on that. What the fuck is your theory?

My theory is that either there are either physical or force-field contained projectiles, which produce flak bursts.

That's fucking stupid; even if a tiny fraction went awry, you would still see almost all of them detonate.

First of all, fuse jamming is not stupid. Why should they all detonate? If fuse jamming is effective enough?

Moreover, you have no theory as to what would make them detonate; you have acknowledged that the Furry Idiot theory is unworkable but you have presented no theory of your own.

There are projectiles, which explode in flak bursts. Some of them may be transparent (there's nothing wrong with transparent materials?). It's also possible that it's a force-field contained gas, with force-field projected by either the GUN (if there's no way to get round transparency) or from inside the opaque beam.

It appealed to the use of the word "flak" and your subjective interpretations of writers' intent.

Even IP acknowledged the quotes are hard to get around and sought to refute the ones he did not like. My quotes aren't "subjective" interpretations - shield interactions aren't objects to create any obstacles, and shield interactions can't be blasted at something.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And your very storyboard quotes contradict your thesis; if Artoo's destruction is "going up in a cloud of flak" than "flak" is just another way of saying laser fire, and the "flak bursts" are just the shield interactions (of various strength) being described. You have yet to prove there are physical shells in what appear by all empirical analysis to be energy beams which are intentionally fuzed to detonate at small fractions of their total energy. Vector interaction with volumetric force-fields (an observed phenomenoa in ANH) explains using real-world scientific principles the effects better than non-existant shells disguised as energy beams.

Don't misrepresent me, you lying bitch. My stance has remained the same: you are semantics whoring.

[Mad]

Mad
A screenie for the beginning, one of my very favorite ones. Just for the sake of visual pleasure (headkilling to rationalise things like this one with shield interactions, but it's just one of many):

How is this any different from any others, except for distance? The effects appear to be random, the longer it is in the field the greater a chance of an interaction.

There's also the chance that the bolt simply hit some debris in orbit.

Why would anyone set a fuse to trigger so far away from the Falcon, anyway? It's pointless to have flak explode that far away. (And why does it violate Conservation of Momentum?)

So you think MF did not decelerate before it came out of hyperspace? Watch A New Hope - they show how the ship comes out of hyperspace. The speed is not anywhere relativistic, and collisions begin on normal speed. The "chunks" are also shown in the movie, so why don't we use it's screenshots?

<snip>

There you go. Look at the asteroid and how fast it moves.

Hyperspace is defined as FTL, how can you decelerate before exiting? The transition and deceleration apparently occured during the "reversion" part, where the stars return to streaks. Considering there's a huge field in all directions all around them, they would have had to pass through it somehow.

Another possibility is that the rock we saw there was flying toward the planet, having been ejected by some kind of collision further away and thrown back toward the planet's expected location. I don't really see how else the rock could be so close to the location of the ex-planet, considering the exit velocity of most of it. Also, look at RotJ for the speed of the Falcon just after reverting from hyperspace, that rock should've flown by much, much faster unless it was moving in the same direction as the Falcon at a lower velocity.

Where's your evidence that particle shielding is weak? Also, do keep in mind that only physical shrapnel would affect the particle shields. A supposed energy release from an "energy beam" would affect the ray shields, since it does not consist of physical fragments to hit the shields.

My point is the smaller ships have weaker particle shields.
TIEs, AT-ATs, SNOWSPEEDERS have NO shields. Refute the evidence or accept the evidence? And lastly, the Falcon's particle shield may have been already dumped down by hits by the time flak was used (but that is not really necessary; the problem would not exist either way, since the Falcon did not hit asteroids at relativistic speed.

I've already mentioned that debris could be a part of it. Lots of stuff can fly around during battle, so this would not be unexpected in an atmospheric environment.

ANH storyboards says they are from LASER/TURBOLASER weapons. There are obviously projectile weapons called BLASTERS (AOTC, novel) and LASER CANNONS (TPM - novel, TPM - movie).

Then it appears that "flak" has been redefined, just as "laser" (energy weapon) and "lightspeed" (hyperspace) have.

And there are problems with the references towards the TLs, Blasters and Laser Cannons operating same principle. Example of that can be found on SW.com, in the "Turbolaser" article, movie section:

Similar weaponry of a smaller scale was employed aboard the Millennium Falcon, and the Trade Federation battleships of a generation previous.

And in the "Blaster" article, EU section:

The interior mechanisms of a tiny hold-out blaster, a blaster pistol, a large blaster rifle, and a turbolaser cannon are based on the same theories and principles. A squeeze of a trigger emits volatile blaster gas into a conversion chamber, where it is excited by energy from the weapon's power source. The agitated gas is then funneled through the actuating blaster module, where it is processed into an intense particle beam. A prismatic crystal focuses the beam, and passes it through a refinement chamber which "galvens" the beam into its final bolt.

The thing is, turbolaser and blaster effects differ when we break them down. Blasters don't exhibit the "bolt redirection" that has been observed in capital- and fighter-class energy weapons. There is obviously some kind of difference, even though the principles between the two may be very similar.

Why don't blasters "flak burst"? Wouldn't that be useful against living targets? Imagine how quickly the Tantive IV could've been cleared! Even misses would be hits!

Explosion from enemy fire? Did any of the WWII explosions from tank weapons, fighter weapons, artillery EVER called flak? The colloquialism argument, which IP also suggested, is inapplicable.

Technically, we aren't dealing with "aircraft," either, you know. We also know that "laser" and "lightspeed" have been redefined. It's not a stretch that "flak" has also been redefined. In fact, the Artoo scene supports it.

Moreover, if they ARE explosions, nothing is wrong as long as it's not SHIELD INTERACTION. Because it contradicts the MOVIE, NOVEL and ICS&EGWT evidence of shield operation.

It contradicts your preconceived notion of the operation, you mean.

OK. Now I understand your point. And where is the support to the theory that beams can exist without tracers, or lose their tracers and move on?

It's a chain reaction. Should the chain be disrupted, the reaction will stop. The fact that the beam exits far in front of and behind the visible bolt, but invisibly, proves that the beam can exist without the visible bolt in some circumstances.

And the invisible bolt which moves on - should it cause damage, because it has not lost it's energy (a miniscule fraction of it, as per you, and the tracer thereby)?

Yes, just as is the bolt were still there.

And there are problems, you know:
[/url]http://www.journals.ru/attach/78/7781/193551.jpg[/url]

The point of this image?

Just one of many. If they just "scratch" the tracer off the bolt, but the invisible part still PROPAGATES, carrying away the uber-kilotons in it, where is the explosive effect on sand dunes?

And just where did these "uber-kilotons" go under your theory of no interaction at all? Your argument is no better equipped to handle that picture.

There is also a total "why" regarding the bolts which are "disrupted" in an absolutely irregular fashion. Many bolts fly through, one is disrupted. Or (like in the above screenie) two bolts travelling on a parallel course, of which the OUTER bolt is disrupted.

I already told you, there are so many variables that such irregularities are natural. Further, these interactions are the exception, not the norm. Most bolts that miss appear to fly by as if nothing occured at all.

It's like wireless data transmission. For some wireless communication protocols, for example, 3 copies of each data packets are sent to the receiver. The packets are then compared bit by bit, and the 2 bits that agree are assumed correct. This is because wireless communication is so unreliable because of all the things that can cause random problems.

Likewise, these shield interactions are random disruptions. Sometimes something happens, usually nothing happens until the bolts get to where the shield is really strong.

And lastly, it's still damage, even if insignificant. What's the point of making such shields, if you CAN contain shields within a range boundary? [look ICS and EGWT quotes and how Primus wrongly interpreted them]
The EGWT is clear on that matter.

Are you sure "damage" is the right word? Is a magnet "damaged" when something interacts with its magnetic field?

I also think they come from dedicated weapons (or projectiles from standard weapons), but how come they exhibit the same effects as the claimed "shield interaction"?

A flash of light is a flash of light.

AOTC novel says blasters are projectile weapons (that could mean SOME of them are, as people interpret).

Right. Turbolasers, on the other hand, are called "energy beams" by most sources. As you can see, there are major differences in the final product, and emperical data from the movies supports this.

Strange, but how come then STRONG blasts explode harmlessly many metres away?

Perhaps it has to do with the direction of pushing. Pushing a bolt sidewise in a field can disrupt it, while pushing it back usually has no effect.

Someone in this thread suggested that energy accumulates and explodes where the TRACER is (I'll look up his source), thus it would mean that TOTAL energy of the blast would be nullified in the tracer's explosions.

That theory is not compatable with mine, nor do I know of any evidence to support it.

And there is also the problem of MANY sources claiming blasters, laser cannons and turbolasers operating same principles. Refuting them is not harmonizing.

Emperical evidence from the movies requires them to be different. Turbolasers and fighter lasers exhibit bolt redirection, while blasters don't. Several sources say turbolasers "strike at lightspeed" while blaster effects on the trash compactor walls and against lightsabers are incompatable with this notion. Harmonization requires that the internal mechanics of the typical version of the two weapon types to be very similar, but with some differences to produce a different end product.

AOTC and TPM blasters aren't the only hull-close bolt hits (these are just a few of the innumerous examples!):

And I doubt that at the beginning of battle the ISD's shields are anywhere depleted, as with Devastator:

Bolts (not from blasters, but from TIE laser cannons) reach the MC hull and are NOT stopped at any distance with ANY interaction at all - they actually don't even show any interaction.

The vector of the shield angling versus the vector of the bolt is a real possibility here, as mentioned above.

And how is that possible? How did the fighter manage to get into the hangar at all - is there a hole in the shield?

This is silly. We already know that the strongest portion of a shield is next to the hull. We're discussing turbolaser bolts here, not TIE fighters. And we don't have any evidence as to what is required to disrupt the glowing chain reaction. It could be very small.

You see, it's VERY difficult to prove that SW shields CANNOT be contained within a small distance from the hull. And if that inherent flaw cannot be proven, the idea of faraway interaction becomes meaningless (not to mention that it already contradicts evidence).

It likely requires more power to contain them (like a second shield vectored in the opposite direction), which would ultimately make the shields weaker than otherwise. Not containing them would be the cheaper and more energy-efficient solution.

Actually, it doesn't. None of the described flak bursts in the novels/scripts mention any shield whatsoever. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of the absence", but how come then TIEs, AT-ATs and snowspeeders have NO shields? Refuting evidence is not harmonizing it.

Do we see the shields? No. So why would the script mention them? Does the novel ever describe shield effects?

Doesn't Artoo explode?

Considering that his surface looked mostly intact when he was pulled out of the X-wing, no.

That could be mixed with the flak burst. Actually, the screenshots show that:

The bolt hit the front of the dome, there's no way it could explode in flak behind him as that shows. It must've been an internal explosion forcing its way out the other side.

I have said that flak does not require physical shells; however, you can't simply attribute the flak to explosion, since there are two different explosions going off.

Artoo was hit on the front of the dome, then there was an explosion behind him. The novel says that flak engulfed him, yet the explosion is behind him. The "flak" that engulfed him was the explosion from himself. There really isn't any other way to interpret it when faced with the ballistics of the scene.

AT-AT flak:

Barely keeping his seat in the tumbling ship, Dack struggles to set up his harpoon gun.
Luke swings his speeder around and heads toward an oncoming walker. Laser bolts and flak fill the air, creating a deadly obstacle course for the tiny craft.

It's impossible to interpret these as shield interactions - they can't fill the air, neither create any obstacle. Not to mention snowspeeders have no shields (!).

There is no link to the laser bolts creating the flak. These appear to be two separate weapon types.

Luke saw the explosion of his squadron's first casualty as he looked from his cockpit window. Angrily, Luke fired his ship's guns at a walker, only to receive a hail of Imperial fire power that shook his speeder in a barrage of flak.

It's hard to come by with any "shield" explanations of this flak sentence as well.

No evidence of lasers being used there.

Explosions rocked Luke's ship, tossing it about violently in the enveloping flak. Through the window he could see another walker that appeared to be unaffected by the full fire power of the Rebel attack speeders. This lumbering machine now became Luke's target as he flew, moving in a descending arc. The walker was firing directly at him, creating a wall of laser bolts and flak.
'Just hang on, Dack,' he yelled over the explosions, 'and get ready to fire that tow cable!'

Shield interactions cannot create any walls of flak. The walker is the AT-AT. Illuminatus Primus already conceded on the quote and had the "don't ask me where it came from, the AT-AT can't fire flak".
I then asked him if the smaller (ear) AT-AT cannons were ever observed to fire TRANSLUCENT BEAMS, which he ignored and never responded.

I have not looked at the AT-AT's weapons loadout. However, I do know that none of those passages require the laser weapons to be the source of the flak.

TIE flak:

Chewbacca howled over the roar of the Falcon's engines. The ship was beginning to lurch with the buffeting flak blasted at it by the fighters.

It's also incredibly hard to monkey with words here. It's not "harmless tracer explosions", it's buffeting flak blasted by the fighters.

Solo raced down to the ship's hold and began to work frantically on repairing the malfunctioning hyperdrive unit. It was all but impossible to carry out the delicate repair work necessary while the Falcon shook with each blast of flak from the fighters.

Uh-oh, if the above quote was bad, this one is no better. "Blast of flak" leaves no place for wanking to any "shield interpretations", even if you manage to somehow convince me that "flak bursts" could be interpreted as shield-beam interaction. Blasts of flak from TIE fighters ruin any attempt of saying "flak is just the explosions".

Considering the utter patheticness of the "flak bursts" we see around the Falcon while it is chased by TIE fighters, there is no way they could shake the Falcon around. The "flak" must be references to anti-fighter guns scoring hits to the shields and shaking the ship. Either that, or the Falcon is made out of paper mache. Physics demands that the word "flak" has been redefined in SW, just as "laser" and "lightspeed" have been.

Cloud car flak:

One of the cloud cars opens fire on the Falcon, its flak rocking the ship.

HAN: (into transmitter) No, I don't have a landing permit. I'm trying to reach Lando Calrissian.
More flak bursts outside the cockpit window and rattles the ship's interior.

These quotes are all posted in the FIRST post in this thread, for everyone's reference.

Same here as above.

There is. It requires the ABSORBTIONS of energy of a MISSING bolt. MISS=DAMAGE to SHIELD.

It would require even more power from the shields to deliberately block the effect, which would be sheer stupidity. SW shields don't really take "damage" in the sense you're thinking, anyway. You appear to still be operating on the old "shields take damage in percentages" concept, though it has been discarded in the past couple years for theories that make much more sense than the old "video game logic" ever did. Heat and momentum is transfered to the system and energy is expended. Energy is not always absorbed into the system, though, if the bolt deflected away instead.

Saxton has a good write up of it on his new power page. It basically goes along with how I believed shields to operate based on my conversations with others, but Saxton words it better than I ever managed to.

Haven't seen any, but... if you provide the screenies. I'm not particulary bothered to provide any screenshots you advise, except Episode I (someone stole my RIP!).

The debris would not necessarily be visible at the ranges we're talking about.

[K. A. Pital]

Illuminatus Primus

Don't misrepresent me, you lying bitch. My stance has remained the same: you are semantics whoring.

Semantics whoring? You admitted the AT-AT case. And now you're trying to show that your "position" remains "the same" with Artoo case.

I have already explained, and the problem remains: I'm not monkeying with the meaning of "flak", unlike you. And it's not because of the fucking WORD flak, it's because of the DESCRIPTIONS of the novellisation (which you ADMITTED and tried to REFUTE, and I have your QUOTES). Got it?

Mad

How is this any different from any others, except for distance? The effects appear to be random, the longer it is in the field the greater a chance of an interaction.

Random? Wow. That's a nice theory. I'm completely fucked up then - because I can't argue against a theory which explains NOTHING.

There's also the chance that the bolt simply hit some debris in orbit.

Invisible? TIE bolts are small enough. You may check the DVD, but I doubt there would be any debris present, neither in this case nor in many others of the same sort.

Why would anyone set a fuse to trigger so far away from the Falcon, anyway?

Why wouldn't Falcon jam the fuse exlposions?

And why does it violate Conservation of Momentum?

And do flak bursts on Earth violate CoM? Do the millions of particles it split into continue on the same vector the bolt was moving? Why?

Hyperspace is defined as FTL, how can you decelerate before exiting? The transition and deceleration apparently occured during the "reversion" part, where the stars return to streaks. Considering there's a huge field in all directions all around them, they would have had to pass through it somehow.

The effects and the ANH scene is clear. Neither interrupted by anything, nor exhibits any effects from collision (which the ANH novel describes).
Thus the only possible solution is: the collisions only started AFTER the Falcon decelerated. Hyperspace is also defined as an "alternate dimension". Neither is there ANY field around them when they come out of hyperspace, which they have to "come through". They fly without ANY shaking towards that rock, and then ONLY does the Falcon begin to bob. And the next scene shows them in a meteorite shower.

Also, look at RotJ for the speed of the Falcon just after reverting from hyperspace, that rock should've flown by much, much faster unless it was moving in the same direction as the Falcon at a lower velocity.

Do you claim to fully know the Falcon's decelerating capabilities? It decelerated to normal speed in 280 milliseconds in the ANH frames I've shown you.

Where's your evidence that particle shielding is weak? Also, do keep in mind that only physical shrapnel would affect the particle shields. A supposed energy release from an "energy beam" would affect the ray shields, since it does not consist of physical fragments to hit the shields.

First of all, it's up to you to prove that small ship's particle shields are strong. I haven't seen anything of the sort. But I have seen Falcon lose it's dish in ROTJ DSII corridor run, and how it has flown through tight places like asteroid encavements. So where's your proof? And do particle shields also stretch out like ray shields?

I've already mentioned that debris could be a part of it. Lots of stuff can fly around during battle, so this would not be unexpected in an atmospheric environment.

Except it was happening (with Falcon in particular) in a space enviroment.

Then it appears that "flak" has been redefined, just as "laser" (energy weapon) and "lightspeed" (hyperspace) have.

You have the same problem as IP before you. The novellisation's descriptions. As they're below, no comments yet.

The thing is, turbolaser and blaster effects differ when we break them down. Blasters don't exhibit the "bolt redirection" that has been observed in capital- and fighter-class energy weapons. There is obviously some kind of difference, even though the principles between the two may be very similar.

I'm not sure whether blasters never exhibit that, I need a huge frame-by-frame track job now.
But nonetheless: they are different, so what is the same principle? How can PROJECTILE weapons operate same principle as ENERGY beams, especially it's so thoroughly described:

The interior mechanisms of a tiny hold-out blaster, a blaster pistol, a large blaster rifle, and a turbolaser cannon are based on the same theories and principles.

(I'm not really high on using EU at all, though...)

Why don't blasters "flak burst"? Wouldn't that be useful against living targets? Imagine how quickly the Tantive IV could've been cleared! Even misses would be hits!

Maybe because such small weapons lack the ability, like Earth pistols and rifles don't flak burst.

Technically, we aren't dealing with "aircraft," either, you know.

Yeah.

We also know that "laser" and "lightspeed" have been redefined. It's not a stretch that "flak" has also been redefined. In fact, the Artoo scene supports it.

It's a stretch because of the descriptions, not because of the actual meaning of the word.

It's a chain reaction. Should the chain be disrupted, the reaction will stop. The fact that the beam exits far in front of and behind the visible bolt, but invisibly, proves that the beam can exist without the visible bolt in some circumstances.

Thus a missing bolt, as par your theory, pummels the shield not - it's just disrupted and becomes invisible, so where's the DAMAGE after that?

And just where did these "uber-kilotons" go under your theory of no interaction at all? Your argument is no better equipped to handle that picture.

It is better equipped, Mad. In my argument, there are no kilotons to deal with. There are projectile weapons. All.

Further, these interactions are the exception, not the norm.

Pretty much of them for exceptions, don't you think (you need more screenies, seriously?) And what's the point of your theory? It predicts nothing; just states the bolts react randomly, and cannot even explain WHERE does the energy go, if it's not damaging the shield and not left in the bolt.

This is because wireless communication is so unreliable because of all the things that can cause random problems.

I understand. SW shields are unreliable? Geesh. And I thought them to be a supreme shielding technology.

Sometimes something happens, usually nothing happens until the bolts get to where the shield is really strong.

Sometimes? 1/4, 1/3, 1/2 of the fired bolts disrupted - nothing? And if 100% of the bolts disrupted in case A, but then 0% disrupted in case B? Both cases - shielded craft?

Is a magnet "damaged" when something interacts with its magnetic field?

Not really. So then WEAPONS of SW are shit. Because the bolts interact with a shield, not really damage it in any way, but LOSE their energy. Kilotons in it, as per you. Oh my.

Right. Turbolasers, on the other hand, are called "energy beams" by most sources. As you can see, there are major differences in the final product, and emperical data from the movies supports this.

I acknowledge there are/maybe energy beams. That does not change the fact SOMETHING must have fired projectiles in the flak scenes.

That theory is not compatable with mine, nor do I know of any evidence to support it.

OK.

Turbolasers and fighter lasers exhibit bolt redirection, while blasters don't.

OK. I'll have to look up on this one. And not all fighter shots, as well as not all TL shots, exhibit any sort of redirection.

The vector of the shield angling versus the vector of the bolt is a real possibility here, as mentioned above.

Vector? Explain, please, how it works; then I'll be fine with it. Shields stretching to infinity cannot disrupt incoming straight for the hull bolts, but disrupt the ones missing the craft?
If a bolt moves against a shield, it's intensity is INCREASING the closer to the hull. So it must be affected somehow. And if the intensity is ONLY near the hull, how does such an unintensive shield disrupt bolts 10-100> meters away? They shouldn't be affected in the slightest, much less LOSE their energy, but that is what happens.

We already know that the strongest portion of a shield is next to the hull. We're discussing turbolaser bolts here, not TIE fighters. And we don't have any evidence as to what is required to disrupt the glowing chain reaction.

OK, particle shields aside (I thought your theory has them operating same as ray shields).
You don't have any evidence? Then how are you claiming to have a theory? Where does the energy go from that disrupted bolts, I ask you, if they REALLY contain incredible amounts of energy?

It likely requires more power to contain them (like a second shield vectored in the opposite direction), which would ultimately make the shields weaker than otherwise.

Strangely enough, but why in the Empire would it make them any weaker? The part which is near the hull is as strong as usual; more than that, if they lose anything it's the worthless ability of getting pummeled by missing shots. One missing shot contains a whole lot of energy, as per your theory. The shield is only strong near the hull. So reducing the worthless "indefinite stretching" would only strengthen the shield.
Also, I have never heard of any problem of the sort that shields are weaker if contained near the hull; neither Solo, nor any ship commander ever acknowledged that in SW, to my mind.

Do we see the shields? No. So why would the script mention them? Does the novel ever describe shield effects?

Novels do describe shields effects sometimes. I'll have to have a quick rundown, that would take time. As for shield effects - if there were any, the script/storyboards would have indicated their presence, wouldn't it?

Considering that his surface looked mostly intact when he was pulled out of the X-wing, no.

Agreed, but... it does not follow:







Note how badly screwed is Artoo from an internal explosion, but the following frames (see last one) represent him nearly intact.

The bolt hit the front of the dome, there's no way it could explode in flak behind him as that shows. It must've been an internal explosion forcing its way out the other side.

The "lightball" explosion is caused by the FIRST bolt. And there's the second bolt which does not explode, but rather hits R2's DOME, triggering the second explosion (the one which erupts behind R2).

There is no link to the laser bolts creating the flak.

No evidence of lasers being used there.

I have not looked at the AT-AT's weapons loadout. However, I do know that none of those passages require the laser weapons to be the source of the flak.

Yes. But IP tried to refute it because AT-AT has NO projectile weapons. Thus I said that they have weapons capable of both projectile and beam firing modes. Very well.
But... there are problems here as well. IP was correct - the AT-AT fires "laser" bolts. And THEY explode into flak:






Thus the novel and script descriptions DO attribute flak to "bolts" fired from AT-AT. And the DO describe this "flak" in a way that there is no possibility to interpret it as "shield interactions" without triggering one's bullshit detector.

I'm also curious whether these are heavily shielded rebel troopers:




And also there's still the exploded LAAT which IP adressed as if it's shields were still operational to disrupt bolts meters away:

Considering the utter patheticness of the "flak bursts" we see around the Falcon while it is chased by TIE fighters, there is no way they could shake the Falcon around.

And yet, in the movie the Falcon is shaking.

The "flak" must be references to anti-fighter guns scoring hits to the shields and shaking the ship.

Firstly, no AA guns on TIEs. Secondly, you can't blast shield interaction at anyone. Flak blasted at somebody is a description thorough enough to leave no place for "interpretation".

Either that, or the Falcon is made out of paper mache.

Why so? Because visible effects of the flak look small? Oh damn. I thought visible stuff isn't the only stuff in the movie (look at you own invisible debris theory).

Heat and momentum is transfered to the system and energy is expended. Energy is not always absorbed into the system, though, if the bolt deflected away instead.

Mad, are you claiming deflector shields do NOT get damaged from DEFLECTING the bolts? Am I correct?

The debris would not necessarily be visible at the ranges we're talking about.

If you're serious on that, why are you looking out for someting huge and visible in those flak bursts?

A mirror consumes no power when it reflects a ray of light. An initially concentrated light beam may diffuse in an opaque fog, without the fog requiring power input — this is an example of passive scattering. Analogously, the perfect deflection or splintering of incoming blaster fire may require little or no energy consumption.

He's right on this one (if we assume that the faraway interaction is correct). So where does the energy GO? I'm very curious about that - vhere does the energy from a "splintered" beam go? Not in the beam, not in the shield.. where?

[Illuminatus Primus]

An AT-AT does not have projectile weapons. Post proof or retract.