Is this an ICS typo, or some horrible miscalculation?

PSW: discuss Star Wars without "versus" arguments.

Moderator: Vympel

Post Reply
User avatar
Darth Garden Gnome
Official SD.Net Lawn Ornament
Posts: 6029
Joined: 2002-07-08 02:35am
Location: Some where near a mailbox

Is this an ICS typo, or some horrible miscalculation?

Post by Darth Garden Gnome »

Or am I just a scientific ignoramus? Well thats why Im consulting you, anyways to the point. In the AOTC:ICS, it states that the Naboo cruiser (seen in AOTC) has a peak reactor output of 3 X 10 12 Megawatts, and the shielding6 X 10 12 Megawatts.

Later it states the Acclamators peak reactor output is 2 X 10 23 watts, and shielding is 7 X 10 22 watts.

Now is it just me or would the puny, civilian class starship have higher reactor and shiled output then the mighty warship? I dont have any graphic calculators on me so excuse me for not doing the calculations myself.And even though the exponet is double in size, the prefix mega- has gotta make you wonder, whats goin on here?
Leader of the Secret Gnome Revolution
User avatar
Crown
NARF
Posts: 10615
Joined: 2002-07-11 11:45am
Location: In Transit ...

Post by Crown »

Mega = 10x6 so;

peak reactor output = 3x10x18W

sheilding = 6E18 W

sitll at least 4 to 5 order of magnitude greater for the Acclamators!
Image
Η ζωή, η ζωή εδω τελειώνει!
"Science is one cold-hearted bitch with a 14" strap-on" - Masuka 'Dexter'
"Angela is not the woman you think she is Gabriel, she's done terrible things"
"So have I, and I'm going to do them all to you." - Sylar to Arthur 'Heroes'
User avatar
Darth Garden Gnome
Official SD.Net Lawn Ornament
Posts: 6029
Joined: 2002-07-08 02:35am
Location: Some where near a mailbox

Post by Darth Garden Gnome »

Thank you for clearing that up, Crown.
Leader of the Secret Gnome Revolution
User avatar
Crown
NARF
Posts: 10615
Joined: 2002-07-11 11:45am
Location: In Transit ...

Post by Crown »

Actually thank Mr Wong, he's page provided very convinient scientific abreviations and constants, it's on his imperial page click science and then constants! :D
Image
Η ζωή, η ζωή εδω τελειώνει!
"Science is one cold-hearted bitch with a 14" strap-on" - Masuka 'Dexter'
"Angela is not the woman you think she is Gabriel, she's done terrible things"
"So have I, and I'm going to do them all to you." - Sylar to Arthur 'Heroes'
User avatar
Executor
Youngling
Posts: 138
Joined: 2002-07-07 04:06pm
Location: South East England

Re: Is this an ICS typo, or some horrible miscalculation?

Post by Executor »

[quote="Darth Garden Gnome"]Or am I just a scientific ignoramus? Well thats why Im consulting you, anyways to the point. In the AOTC:ICS, it states that the Naboo cruiser (seen in AOTC) has a peak reactor output of 3 X 10 12 Megawatts, and the shielding6 X 10 12 Megawatts.

Later it states the Acclamators peak reactor output is 2 X 10 23 watts, and shielding is 7 X 10 22 watts.
[quote]

The Acclamators still stronger like Crown said, but there has there is a mistake in that passage. The reactor has 3e12 Mega Watts, but the shielding is 6e12 Mega Watts, twice what the reactors peak is
Kazuaki Shimazaki
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2355
Joined: 2002-07-05 09:27pm
Contact:

Possible Rationalizations

Post by Kazuaki Shimazaki »

1) It is a juxtaposition of the two numbers.
2) The number does not literally state the number of joules consumed every second, but some other measure, like peak shield resistance (flood more than 6E18W into the shield and it'll collapse at once, even if it was in pristine condition before that).
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Is this an ICS typo, or some horrible miscalculation?

Post by Darth Wong »

Executor wrote:The Acclamators still stronger like Crown said, but there has there is a mistake in that passage. The reactor has 3e12 Mega Watts, but the shielding is 6e12 Mega Watts, twice what the reactors peak is
How do you know that's a mistake? A shield system dissipates energy at a certain maximum rate. This does not have to be limited by the maximum reactor output. In real-life, an air conditioner can move 7000 BTU's while only consuming 3000 BTU's; this is not a "mistake"; it is due to the fact that the system is moving energy, not generating it.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Executor
Youngling
Posts: 138
Joined: 2002-07-07 04:06pm
Location: South East England

Re: Is this an ICS typo, or some horrible miscalculation?

Post by Executor »

Darth Wong wrote:
Executor wrote:The Acclamators still stronger like Crown said, but there has there is a mistake in that passage. The reactor has 3e12 Mega Watts, but the shielding is 6e12 Mega Watts, twice what the reactors peak is
How do you know that's a mistake? A shield system dissipates energy at a certain maximum rate. This does not have to be limited by the maximum reactor output. In real-life, an air conditioner can move 7000 BTU's while only consuming 3000 BTU's; this is not a "mistake"; it is due to the fact that the system is moving energy, not generating it.
I only say its a mistake because all the other ships that have reactor and shield data have the shields at somewhere around 20-35% of the reactor peak.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Is this an ICS typo, or some horrible miscalculation?

Post by Darth Wong »

Executor wrote:I only say its a mistake because all the other ships that have reactor and shield data have the shields at somewhere around 20-35% of the reactor peak.
A smaller ship needs a proportionally stronger shield to have a chance of survival. The shield dissipation in excess of reactor power was no mistake; I know for a fact that it was done deliberately.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Post by Master of Ossus »

The shields can absorb/deflect more energy than is pumped into them because it is more efficient to absorb/deflect energy than it is to fire it. Otherwise, there would be little point in having shields. It would be a better strategy just to add weapons and try and hit your enemies with the first shot. The efficiency of deflector shields makes them a necessity on SW ships, and it allows a ship to continue to fire slightly less energy (the shields do take SOME power) for a longer period of time. Because, in almost all combat scenarios, the end result is more power being cranked out in the long run, this is considered a better overall strategy.

In other words, if you shoot something at me and take a certain amount of power to do that, I don't need to spend that much power to neutralize the shot.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
User avatar
His Divine Shadow
Commence Primary Ignition
Posts: 12791
Joined: 2002-07-03 07:22am
Location: Finland, west coast

Post by His Divine Shadow »

Get Masterconverter, it rocks
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who did not.
Post Reply