Seismic Charges and Versus debates

[Kane Starkiller]

First off why are your images scaled up and horribly compressed? I'm getting 3DPI quality on yours and 72DPI for mine.

I don't have a clue. I have a POWER DVD player and use it's screenshot tool.

I understand that perspective can fuck up any measurement but I dont think I really made such drastic mistake like in a screenshot you provided.


However I think it's more important to determine the effective radius of the charges.
Here:+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/as ... stance.jpg
we can see that the distance between seismic charge and the camera is no more than 100m.
This image:+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/shockwave1.jpg
shows us the creation of the planar shockwave(this is the SECOND flash not the first one mind you).
This image:+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/shockwavefinal.jpg
is taken 11 frames later and it show the shockwave reaching the camera.
Since the shockwave crossed no more than 100m in 0.44s then the speed of the shockwave is no more than 230m/s. Since the shockwave lasted about 10s the effective radius is 4600m.
Now I don't doubt the seismic charge cut cut through a multi kilometer asteroid bases on what we've seen in the film. Since it would take about 100Mt to fragment a 4.6km radius this would seem like a reasonable lower limit for the charge. The lower limit could drop if the seismic charge was closer to the camera thus diminishing the propgation speed of the shockwave.

I am sceptical however to the 12Gt figure in the ICS.

[Robert Walper]

I am sceptical however to the 12Gt figure in the ICS.

I'm personally not concerned whether or not the mine can or cannot destroy multi kilometer asteroids based upon it's effects and energy potential. I just don't like the constantly thrown around figures of "multi kilometer asteroids destroyed" when the visual evidence, from my perspective, doesn't seem to support that assertion.

[Lord Revan]

The problem is that never the blast stop (or even slow down) anything, but a lower limit (we see what it can do, but don't what it can't do)

[Robert Walper]

The problem is that never the blast stop (or even slow down) anything, but a lower limit (we see what it can do, but don't what it can't do)

And we go by lower limits, not arbitrarily picked numbers of "kilometer asteroids" because they "look big".

[Kane Starkiller]

Error correction: I typed radius for the effective range where it shoud have said diameter.

[Lord Revan]

The problem is that never the blast stop (or even slow down) anything, but a lower limit (we see what it can do, but don't what it can't do)

And we go by lower limits, not arbitrarily picked numbers of "kilometer asteroids" because they "look big".

it still can't used counter the ICS what is what Kane seem want (unless we have a figure from higher canon that counterdicts the ICS (which probaly won't get as we don't see how big the blast is) we can throw away the ICS).

[SirNitram]

For what it's worth seismic mines always looked like they used some kind of technobabble effect instead of DET to me. I'm surprised some Trekkies didn't exploit this.

Oh, they did; it's just the Pro-Wars side actually understands what 'DET' means. While some means of technobabble is undoutably involved with the planar disc being.. Well, a planar disc, anyone with functioning eyes will see that direct energy transfer is sure as fuck the method. Look at the replay carefully; the rock is literally being pulverized, like it was hit by a hammer, or perhaps a pick(As it's splitting along lines in places). This is definately the transfer of energy.. kinetic energy.

Most direct energy transfer weapons in sci-fi being thermal, this might confuse someone who hasn't quite got a grasp of DET, so here's the ten penny way to tell is a weapon isn't DET: Is it getting something for nothing? Is the matter 'disappearing' without a massive cloud of scalding vapour? Is the weapon's effect continuing despite the firing stopping(S8472 and the Xindi sphere show this blatantly)? These aren't DET; physics has no method to do either.

Please, before you throw the term around again, learn what it means. It's annoying to watch it become some buzzword.

[Meest]

Did a quick recreation in 3D, using a camera lens ILM uses. I set it to 50mm, as 5mm is extremely wide.

Several of Fujinon¹s HA10x5B-10 wide-angle HDTV Cine Style zooms were used extensively in production of the special effects and pick-up shots. "The Fujinon 5 to 50mm zoom (HA10x5B-10), helped us match the principal photography beautifully," explained Episode II Producer Rick McCallum.

I lined up objects of the same size of the ones on screen(without rotating and skewing them too much), using 1.5m for the charge. Obi's fighter ends up being 115m away from the charge, and assuming the fighter is ~halfway cleared gives a minimum of 100m if Obi is at the midpoint. Added a box to fill in the assumed volume of the asteroid, giving it 10m or so away from the charge and overhanging Obi's fighter, the measurements of that ended up being 190mx55mx25m, so the scale matches. Without knowing how deep and far Obi goes under it's going to be a rough estimate, but he does fly for a few more frames under it suggesting this is a lower limit. Even without the box estimate the fact he's 115m away from the charge gives the lower limit and being generous in saying he's halfway under the asteroid when that shot is towards the beginning of his flyby.

[Robert Walper]

The problem is that never the blast stop (or even slow down) anything, but a lower limit (we see what it can do, but don't what it can't do)

And we go by lower limits, not arbitrarily picked numbers of "kilometer asteroids" because they "look big".

it still can't used counter the ICS what is what Kane seem want (unless we have a figure from higher canon that counterdicts the ICS (which probaly won't get as we don't see how big the blast is) we can throw away the ICS).

Does the ICS state the asteroids as being multi kilometer in size?

[Darth Wong]

Please, before you throw the term around again, learn what it means. It's annoying to watch it become some buzzword.

What "term"? "DET" is something that Darkstar made up out of thin air in order to pretend that "DET" is some kind of special mechanism when in fact everything that doesn't involve an exothermal reaction is basically "DET". In short, what you have is "exothermal reaction" and EVERYTHING ELSE. By calling everything else "DET", Darkstar seeks to pretend that "everything else" is a special mechanism for which you need to produce evidence. In reality, you must produce evidence for an exothermal reaction, and what Darkstar calls "DET" is the default model for every situation.

[SirNitram]

Please, before you throw the term around again, learn what it means. It's annoying to watch it become some buzzword.

What "term"? "DET" is something that Darkstar made up out of thin air in order to pretend that "DET" is some kind of special mechanism when in fact everything that doesn't involve an exothermal reaction is basically "DET". In short, what you have is "exothermal reaction" and EVERYTHING ELSE. By calling everything else "DET", Darkstar seeks to pretend that "everything else" is a special mechanism for which you need to produce evidence. In reality, you must produce evidence for an exothermal reaction, and what Darkstar calls "DET" is the default model for every situation.

....Which is pretty much what I said. If we aren't dealing with obvious magic, it's under that catchall. It's not like direct energy transfer is some new flashy term... It's used on your site from before Darkstar.(Or at least Direct Heat Energy Transfer is, on the NDF page.)

I'm just trying to spell it out so we don't get stupid posts like 'It doesn't look like a normal explosion.. SO IT'S NOT DET!'

[Darth Wong]

....Which is pretty much what I said. If we aren't dealing with obvious magic, it's under that catchall.

I know; what I guess I'm trying to get at is that I think we should try to avoid even using the term at all, since that inadvertently legitimizes it despite the fact that it's a completely made-up and useless term. It's like making up a colour name for "everything but brown".

[SirNitram]

....Which is pretty much what I said. If we aren't dealing with obvious magic, it's under that catchall.

I know; what I guess I'm trying to get at is that I think we should try to avoid even using the term at all, since that inadvertently legitimizes it despite the fact that it's a completely made-up and useless term. It's like making up a colour name for "everything but brown".

Given that non-DET events are almost entirely magic supertech, it's more like a name for 'Every colour but grendelpoddy'. Still, we cannot undo the damage with a wave of the wand; only by informing those new to the debates is there a real way to keep things from becoming dumb.

[Lord Revan]

Does the ICS state the asteroids as being multi kilometer in size?

no which is frankly irrelevant as we see on screen what the Charge can't destroy (all asteroids it hits, it destroys). OK lets try a analogy if pour a regular drinking glass of water into an empty tank and it doesn't fill up, we know that it can hold a sinlge glass, but we don't much water the will hold in total, what Kane is trying is to say because to him tank filling with a glass of water didn't look right you can throw technical specs of the tank, get it know?

[Crown]

....Which is pretty much what I said. If we aren't dealing with obvious magic, it's under that catchall.

I know; what I guess I'm trying to get at is that I think we should try to avoid even using the term at all, since that inadvertently legitimizes it despite the fact that it's a completely made-up and useless term. It's like making up a colour name for "everything but brown".

Given that non-DET events are almost entirely magic supertech, it's more like a name for 'Every colour but grendelpoddy'. Still, we cannot undo the damage with a wave of the wand; only by informing those new to the debates is there a real way to keep things from becoming dumb.

He's like the Republican Party, he likes to name things like; the death tax, the we are coming to get your children's inheritance tax, etc, etc, and so on, and so on.