ST Galaxy vs Star Destroyers

[Ender]

So long as you can also cite how long we've known a temperature at which an incandescent surface will glow green, sure.

The invisible beam theory is consistant with observations. I'm yet to see another theory that is.

Ignoring, you know, recoil. As in there's no recoil. Whether this is better or worse than inconsistant recoil, that's another kettle of fish.

Lets say the the recoil from a massless beam is X. And lets say the gun is mounted in such a way (through physical bracings, forcefields, etc) that it can handle up to X amount of force without shifting. When the gun initially fires, X force is applied, and so is Y from the release of gases and such in the barrel. X=Y is sufficient to make it rock back. But once the barrel explosion is done, it will slide back because now there is no excessive force pushing it back.

No "warm up time" or anything.

[Alyeska]

So long as you can also cite how long we've known a temperature at which an incandescent surface will glow green, sure.

The invisible beam theory is consistant with observations. I'm yet to see another theory that is.

Ignoring, you know, recoil. As in there's no recoil. Whether this is better or worse than inconsistant recoil, that's another kettle of fish.

Lets say the the recoil from a massless beam is X. And lets say the gun is mounted in such a way (through physical bracings, forcefields, etc) that it can handle up to X amount of force without shifting. When the gun initially fires, X force is applied, and so is Y from the release of gases and such in the barrel. X=Y is sufficient to make it rock back. But once the barrel explosion is done, it will slide back because now there is no excessive force pushing it back.

No "warm up time" or anything.

Thats pretty much what I was thinking about for the SPHA-Ts. That would explain the initial push back on the barrell as well as the bodies of the things.

[Ender]

I'd point out that the "neutrino counterbeam" idea on Dr Saxton's page is worse then the idea that it just uses a bunch of repulsors to help anchor itself because the gun would be under double the amount of stress then.

[Darth Wong]

I'd point out that the "neutrino counterbeam" idea on Dr Saxton's page is worse then the idea that it just uses a bunch of repulsors to help anchor itself because the gun would be under double the amount of stress then.

And the force exerted by the repulsors would somehow magically constitute action without reaction? The gun will be under double the amount of stress no matter how you slice it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Which is absurd. The compensator can absorb nearly all of the recoil, then fights the recoil to return the barrel to the start position? Its irrational. And its more complex than, say, "the barrel slides back with the expulsion of waste gases, while much heavier mechanisms handle the beam's recoil itself."

Why is that irrational? Why is it less rational then it ejecting waste gases from the last firing cycle?

Most weapons I know of remove waste during or at the end of the firing cycle not the start.

What Ender said is pretty much what I've been trying to say. I don't see why that is irrational, and it would fit facts of what we do know.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Which is absurd. The compensator can absorb nearly all of the recoil, then fights the recoil to return the barrel to the start position? Its irrational. And its more complex than, say, "the barrel slides back with the expulsion of waste gases, while much heavier mechanisms handle the beam's recoil itself."

Why is that irrational? Why is it less rational then it ejecting waste gases from the last firing cycle?

Most weapons I know of remove waste during or at the end of the firing cycle not the start.

What Ender said is pretty much what I've been trying to say. I don't see why that is irrational, and it would fit facts of what we do know.

Ender just agreed with me about gases, tool.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

I'd point out that the "neutrino counterbeam" idea on Dr Saxton's page is worse then the idea that it just uses a bunch of repulsors to help anchor itself because the gun would be under double the amount of stress then.

At least we can assume the gun could survive this. Can you imagine the SPHA-T anchoring itself to a small hill, then as it fires, it shears the hill flat off? Or as it fires, a huge "footprint" is inscaped onto the ground.

History Field Trip, 100 years after the battle:
Teacher: Students, as you may have noticed, we are now standing in a field of craters. These are the relics of a battle fought 100 years ago. Two kilometers to our front was where a battery of SPHA-Ts fired. They anchored themselves to the ground nearby so they won't fly away when they fire. When they fired, their recoil produced these craters.

10 year olds look at craters, trying to imagine the force involved in making craters hundreds of meters wide.

Teacher: Now over there, you see a flat hilltop. It was once a curved hilltop, but a SPHA-T latched onto its top as an anchor, but they miscalculated the strength of the hill. The top was sheared off and deposited to the side. The SPHA-T went off flying several kilometers before it was deposited...

Not to mention this method puts undue stress on the tractors, also doubling the stress and over very small areas.

[Ender]

Which is absurd. The compensator can absorb nearly all of the recoil, then fights the recoil to return the barrel to the start position? Its irrational. And its more complex than, say, "the barrel slides back with the expulsion of waste gases, while much heavier mechanisms handle the beam's recoil itself."

Why is that irrational? Why is it less rational then it ejecting waste gases from the last firing cycle?

Most weapons I know of remove waste during or at the end of the firing cycle not the start.

What Ender said is pretty much what I've been trying to say. I don't see why that is irrational, and it would fit facts of what we do know.

Ender just agreed with me about gases, tool.

Score, I'm half drunk and still solving puzzles.

[Ender]

I'd point out that the "neutrino counterbeam" idea on Dr Saxton's page is worse then the idea that it just uses a bunch of repulsors to help anchor itself because the gun would be under double the amount of stress then.

At least we can assume the gun could survive this. Can you imagine the SPHA-T anchoring itself to a small hill, then as it fires, it shears the hill flat off? Or as it fires, a huge "footprint" is inscaped onto the ground.

If you watch beneath the tanks in TPM, the grasses don't even flatten. So it appears the repulsors are applying their force in a way that this would not be a concern.

Not to mention this method puts undue stress on the tractors, also doubling the stress and over very small areas.

Actually, if you plated the bottom of the thing, the surface area would be greater, as right now its just them little legs.

But I think a lower yield for the gun can be argued anyways, based off of intensity.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Based off the fact that there's no shield interactions visible and the beam appears to begin causing hull damage instantaneously too, maybe?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Ender just agreed with me about gases, tool.

Unless I misunderstood, it is not in the context at which you were describing it.

Here's what I'm understanding so far.

You're saying that observed motion isn't recoil at all, but a venting process.

Ender is saying it is both.

I admit that I didn't read it as closely as I should have though. Therefore, touche sir.

Though it should be noted that I've only been refering to the SPHA-Ts.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Ok, waste gases remain in barrel, expelled as side-effect of firing sequence, the recoil of which rocks the barrel backward. The recoil of the beam is handled automatically and invisibly by much more robust and heavy systems.

[Alyeska]

IP, you did initialy argue that there was no recoil on the guns. You posted that movie file as proof that wasn't recoil, but something else. Or at least that is exactly how your argument came across to Kamakazie Sith and me.

[Alyeska]

Here is something to consider about the SPHA-Ts. We all agree that tanks, or at least treads are better then legs. Except I noticed something with the SPHA-Ts. Those legs acted like springs.

[Kane Starkiller]

Here is a thought about turbolasers tracking ability in TESB asteroid scene and ROTJ Wedge's cockpit scene.
If the turbolasers are plasma as some official sources have suggested then a projected magnetic field could be used to force the plasma bolts to change course along with the fighter.
It would also explain the use of a strong magnetic field around the first Death Star as a way to ward of plasma.

[Ender]

Here is a thought about turbolasers tracking ability in TESB asteroid scene and ROTJ Wedge's cockpit scene.
If the turbolasers are plasma as some official sources have suggested then a projected magnetic field could be used to force the plasma bolts to change course along with the fighter.
It would also explain the use of a strong magnetic field around the first Death Star as a way to ward of plasma.

At what temperature will plasma glow green? Why will slow moving plasma not arc visably in gravity? Why do the plasma bolts not swiftly expand to nothing due to their internal pressure? Why would damage be delivered before the plasma comes into contact with the target? Why would several gigatons worth of energy only glow as though it were only a handful of kilowatts?

The plasma theory is flat out unworkable with all observed evidence.

[Kane Starkiller]

At what temperature will plasma glow green? Why will slow moving plasma not arc visably in gravity? Why do the plasma bolts not swiftly expand to nothing due to their internal pressure? Why would damage be delivered before the plasma comes into contact with the target?

Well if you put it that way.
So not plasma, but charged particles whose trajectory could be still controled by a magnetic field.

Why would several gigatons worth of energy only glow as though it were only a handful of kilowatts?

From what I can tell all glows are subdued for the audience, for example we should go blind when watching Tatooine suns in outer space.

[Perseid]

Heres two things that I've found out from reading most of the EU books (I know there not high in terms of Canon but their still Canon)

1. All energy weapons in SW make use of Tibanna (hope i spelt it right) gas, which would explain the "recoil" that you see could either be the Tibanna gas being fed into the firing system, which could in theory give the TL's their colour, or the venting process that Illuminatus Primus suggested.

2. Towards the end of the NJO series (one of the last books) Han's blaster is described as firing a "Supercharged Particle Beam" at a blast door control to lock the Vong on the other side.

So quite possibly TL's could be a uber powered version of blasters, which is a safe assumption.

However I'm not much of an expert on Particle Beams so I'm sorry I can't back up this theory with calcs

[Mad]

Well if you put it that way.
So not plasma, but charged particles whose trajectory could be still controled by a magnetic field.

You mean high-energy charged particles, right? You know what those are? Plasma. And if they're low-energy charged particles, then you've got a gas cloud. So it's still unworkable.

Not to mention the power requirements of creating a magnetic field that can affect the bolts so far out...

From what I can tell all glows are subdued for the audience, for example we should go blind when watching Tatooine suns in outer space.

Suns in Star Wars, however, look bright. We've got lense flare and other effects. Turbolasers don't look bright like that, and they don't light up their surroundings enough. And people who see them don't act like they're particularly bright, either.

[J_Cayman]

So what you are saying that the visible bolt is a byproduct of the real beam that cannot be avoided yet they can control how much after the visible bolt is fired a real beam will be released.

No. You still seem to conceive the bolt and the beam as separate components. They are not. The bolt and beam are one. The bolt is a side effect that travels along the beam as it is being fired.

It is kind of like this (by someone figuring out the theory).

Yet we never see turbolasers used at long range even if it would be useful. A barrage fire from first Death Star at a few 100km range or fire from Star Destroyers at battle of Endor before the rebels decided to engage them at point blank range.

The novelization does point out in ROTJ that:
1) The Imperials are holding back.
2) There were longer-range firefights. Since we only saw a tiny fraction of the battle, presumably they did the firing while we didn't notice.
3) Jamming.
4) Don't get me started on close range Star Trek combat...

And why do gunners wait for the visible bolt to impact the enemy ships even at extremly close range(like medical frigate vs SSD).

The gun does take a certain amount of time to recharge. They aren't losing any time that way. Besides, the bolt is a inherent property.

I said advantage UNTIL they move to closer range like SoA/Endor.

Precisely. When you remember a Trek advantage, you would simply not consider the Slow Torp Visuals - all you'd remember is the range and so of course it'd be effective. Yet when Wars does the same trick, you'd immediately remember how slow Wars bolts are.

Another thing to note is interdiction fields. Considering in all of the cases the imperials didn't want to let the rebels escape they might have had to stay in close quarters to prevent the rebels from hyperspacing out.

However I am not certain of the ranges for these fields and cannot be certain.

[Darth Wong]

Not to mention the power requirements of creating a magnetic field that can affect the bolts so far out...

That is an important point which most of the promoters of the "confined plasmoid" theory have never seriously considered; the ability to project a magnetic "bottle" at long range with sufficient strength to confine megatons or gigatons worth of energy into a narrow bolt could effortlessly be used in order to directly assault an enemy vessel, even without the plasma.

[Striderteen]

Not to mention the power requirements of creating a magnetic field that can affect the bolts so far out...

That is an important point which most of the promoters of the "confined plasmoid" theory have never seriously considered; the ability to project a magnetic "bottle" at long range with sufficient strength to confine megatons or gigatons worth of energy into a narrow bolt could effortlessly be used in order to directly assault an enemy vessel, even without the plasma.

The "confined plasmoid" theory seems to be built around the assumption that it's possible to create some kind of self-sustaining containment bubble.

[Darth Wong]

The "confined plasmoid" theory seems to be built around the assumption that it's possible to create some kind of self-sustaining containment bubble.

Oh yes, the field that maintains itself. Totally stupid idea, by the way. And the same caveat would apply: such an immensely strong field would be quite lethal even if it contained no plasma, and in fact, it would move much faster without all of that mass to hold it back.

[Striderteen]

The "confined plasmoid" theory seems to be built around the assumption that it's possible to create some kind of self-sustaining containment bubble.

Oh yes, the field that maintains itself. Totally stupid idea, by the way.

Indeed. I haven't finished my degree yet, but two years of Caltech undergraduate physics is more than sufficient to understand why a self-sustaining containment field is utterly impossible.

And the same caveat would apply: such an immensely strong field would be quite lethal even if it contained no plasma, and in fact, it would move much faster without all of that mass to hold it back.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Are you saying that if you can somehow (magic technobabble) produce a self-sustaining containment bubble, you might as well just shoot said energy bubble at the target without bothering to put anything in it?

[Illuminatus Primus]

IP, you did initialy argue that there was no recoil on the guns. You posted that movie file as proof that wasn't recoil, but something else. Or at least that is exactly how your argument came across to Kamakazie Sith and me.

Obviously if the barrel slides backward, there's a force pushing it. But that force is not rationally the counterforce from the beam emission, because the duration pushing down the barrel is less than the firing sequence, and the observed movement is not consistent with the amount of counterforce from such a beam. The force depressing the barrel must be something else; I attribute both the flash at the initiation of the beam and the barrel slide to the explosive ejection of waste gas out of the barrel tip, similar to the expulsion of plasmas seen upon the firing of XX-9 turrets in ANH.