Protons or Photons?

[PayBack]

If we can create metallic hydrogen now, I find it unlikely the feds couldn't make torps out of them that far into the future... possible I spose but unlikely IMNSHO... especially as the containment that's complicated and expensive now, is used all over the place there.

[Batman]

If we can create metallic hydrogen now, I find it unlikely the feds couldn't make torps out of them that far into the future... possible I spose but unlikely IMNSHO... especially as the containment that's complicated and expensive now, is used all over the place there.

We can create metallic hydrogen now? By all means DO enlighten me.

[Batman]

What about Heavy Rockets and Space Bombs? Are those canon or not?

Err-I assume you're talking about the Wars EU, right? In which case, unless they're overridden by higher canon yes they are.

[Batman]

What about Heavy Rockets and Space Bombs? Are those canon or not?

Err-I assume you're talking about the Wars EU, right? In which case, unless they're overridden by higher canon yes they are.

Of course, if the source you got them from happens to be a computer game I can't think of a SW source that isn't higher than that canon.

[OmegaGuy]

I only know of them from computer games but I think there might have been a faint mention in one of the Rogue squadron books.

[PayBack]

If we can create metallic hydrogen now, I find it unlikely the feds couldn't make torps out of them that far into the future... possible I spose but unlikely IMNSHO... especially as the containment that's complicated and expensive now, is used all over the place there.

We can create metallic hydrogen now? By all means DO enlighten me.

Dude what in my posts makes me deserving of the attitude?

Consider yourself enlightened..

http://www-phys.llnl.gov/H_Div/GG/metalhydrofact.html

[Batman]

We can create metallic hydrogen now? By all means DO enlighten me.

Dude what in my posts makes me deserving of the attitude?

If you are that sensitive I doubt you're going to like this board all that much.

Consider yourself enlightened..
http://www-phys.llnl.gov/H_Div/GG/metalhydrofact.html

Much obliged, and I do consider myself enlightened, as I did not know that beforehand.
As that link doesn't have anything on creating and storing metallic H with any reasonable ease I fail to see how it is indicative of the Feds being able to do.
'Technically possible' does not equal 'it can be done large scale cost-effective'.

[PayBack]

I'm not sensitive I was just wondering if it was something I said or just the way you are.

And no it doesn't have information on storage but I thought it included some on creation.

As to it being cost effectively on a large scale, it has to be rather speculative. Though my knowledge of both is limited I believe the creation and containment (are we able to contain it? IIRC they only make it for split seconds) of anti-matter isn't any easier.

[Batman]

I'm not sensitive I was just wondering if it was something I said or just the way you are.

It's the way sd.net is. Better get used to it.
Mind you, if that fact actually is common knowledge chances are I'm the one who's going to suffer, not you.

As to it being cost effectively on a large scale, it has to be rather speculative. Though my knowledge of both is limited I believe the creation and containment (are we able to contain it? IIRC they only make it for split seconds) of anti-matter isn't any easier.

Since the containment of antimatter at all is already problematic why do you surmise the Feds have the means to contain anti metallic hydrogen, and do so with the ease required to make it a viable fuel/explosive?

[Ender]

Is there any reason you can't have anti metalic hydrogen? And if not, why don't the feds make their torps out of those?

because when you try to make more complex atoms out of positrons and antiprotons and antineutrons, you get really bad, really fast radioactive decay. While its possible to do it with higher tech, it is apparently a significant engineering problem.

[Ender]

And the manufacture of metallic hydrogen is easy; if you play fast and loose with the definition of "manufacture" - harvest it from the core of brown dwarves and gas giants.

[PayBack]

Since the containment of antimatter at all is already problematic why do you surmise the Feds have the means to contain anti metallic hydrogen, and do so with the ease required to make it a viable fuel/explosive?

Because until Enders post above I was unaware of any reason they couldn't use it for weapons. There's a huge difference between bottling something up for use as a weapon, and using it as a power source. If they can use anti-matter as fuel source, I didn't see it as being that hard to lock anti metal hydrogen away in a torp.

[Stark]

They probably don't use extremely dense M/AM charges in their weapons due to effciency: they may only be able to create an efficient, relatively-simultaneous reaction with low densities of reactant. They are holding the charge in tiny pockets of matter and antimatter with forcefields, after all.

[Connor MacLeod]

Wait, protorps are thermonuclear?

What the hell did you think they were?

proton-scattering energy warheads

[Darth Wong]

Thermonuclear warheads are technically fission-fusion weapons that use a fission bomb in order to create the necessary conditions for fusion. We have never made a real-life pure-fusion bomb because we lack the technology to do so, and this is one of the reasons why we rely on relatively large and bulky multi-stage weapons in order to get high-yield devices such as the big Russian "Tsar Bomba" device.

The SW civilization, by virtue of having far superior weapons in general such as superlaser technology, should be able to initiate fusion much more easily than we can. Perhaps they use a variant of ICF technology but with superlasers and large chunks of frozen D-T.

As for making anti-metallic hydrogen, one obvious reason to avoid them would be stability. You could destroy a fusion bomb and it wouldn't blow up; it would just fall apart. But if you destroy a fully charged M/AM bomb, it will go off.

However, it should be noted that this kind of thing only works for warheads which operate in the megaton range, and that the proton torpedo is not necessarily a fusion device; the text is unclear on its exact operating mechanism. Once you start getting into the gigaton range, your warhead's mass becomes prohibitively large; a 100 gigaton deuterium fusion warhead would require more than a half-million kilograms of deuterium fuel; a rather excessive amount to be sure, no matter how densely it is stored. Even with matter/antimatter, such a large warhead would require almost 5000 kg of fuel, which is still absurdly excessive for warheads which can be pushed around on ordinary carts by human beings.

In order to pack that kind of power into a container of reasonable mass, you need either a reaction which produces >100% energy conversion (which is impossible) or some kind of bizarre sci-fi explanation like the "complex mass" described in the ICS where the bulk of the reactant matter somehow exists at a 90 degree angle to reality and doesn't manifest itself as real inertia.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Wait, protorps are thermonuclear?

What the hell did you think they were?

proton-scattering energy warheads

So wait are they?

It seems like that is the decided explaination, or is that the same as a nuke or what?

You'll excuse me i may be missing a joke or pun here, if so my bad.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

What the hell did you think they were?

proton-scattering energy warheads

So wait are they?

It seems like that is the decided explaination, or is that the same as a nuke or what?

You'll excuse me i may be missing a joke or pun here, if so my bad.

My understanding is that what is meant by 'proton-scattering' is the nuclei of the target has its Strong Force inhibited, forcing the target to convert into high-energy protons, neutrons, electrons, and perhaps the nuclei of other light elements where the strong force hasn't been completely neutralized.

This has the potential to make the warhead's 'yield' dependent on the mass of the target within the area of effect, and independent on the warhead's 'actual' yield.

Perhaps this is related in some way to the NDF a phaser produces?

[Jedi Guardian]

Ok i am really not all that smart I don't know what half of this stuff means please don't iinsult me if its real simple but I just need to know which of these similar sounding is better

[xerex]

ok for stupid people like me........if a proton torpedo is esentially a nuke what is a phoyon torpedo ? something to do with light ?

[xerex]

ack ! photon i mean

[Knife]

ok for stupid people like me........if a proton torpedo is esentially a nuke what is a phoyon torpedo ? something to do with light ?

Litterally, yes. However, from 30 years of Trek, we know that a PT is a M/AM warhead. As such, it would still suffer from how much M/AM you can stuff into that ~2m long tube they call a torpedo(plus engines, plus anit matter containment system, plus sensors and targeting shit, ect)

The TNG tech manual had how much anti matter was in a PT, but it's a non cannon source. I believe that ammount is the source for the usually accepted ~64MT number for a PT. But remember, that amount is sphereical, only some of that would be on target. A impact trigger would give 50% of that to the target, a proximity trigger would give less.

[Jedi Guardian]

Ok I learned from a very reliable source that, if you must know it was an engineer, Photons are the particle form of light. They have almost no mass. Protons, along with neutrons, are subatomic particles making up the neuclleus of an atom. They are very massive. I still have almost no clue which is better but so far i'm leaning towards Protons.

[Ender]

What the hell did you think they were?

proton-scattering energy warheads

So wait are they?

It seems like that is the decided explaination, or is that the same as a nuke or what?

You'll excuse me i may be missing a joke or pun here, if so my bad.

Its a nuke - the "proton scattering" bit can be put down to describing the plasma and alpha particles released int he explosion if it must. Both the ROTJ novel and the OT ICS are clear though - starfighter missiles are nukes.

[Ender]

However, it should be noted that this kind of thing only works for warheads which operate in the megaton range, and that the proton torpedo is not necessarily a fusion device; the text is unclear on its exact operating mechanism. Once you start getting into the gigaton range, your warhead's mass becomes prohibitively large; a 100 gigaton deuterium fusion warhead would require more than a half-million kilograms of deuterium fuel; a rather excessive amount to be sure, no matter how densely it is stored. Even with matter/antimatter, such a large warhead would require almost 5000 kg of fuel, which is still absurdly excessive for warheads which can be pushed around on ordinary carts by human beings.

The largest warheads have never been shown to be handeled by humans Mike, in fact the only references to missile ordinance I can recall involve special devices for their transport and loading - big droids and special loaders.

In order to pack that kind of power into a container of reasonable mass, you need either a reaction which produces >100% energy conversion (which is impossible) or some kind of bizarre sci-fi explanation like the "complex mass" described in the ICS where the bulk of the reactant matter somehow exists at a 90 degree angle to reality and doesn't manifest itself as real inertia.

However Mike, the maths work out suggesting they are in fact standard nukes. Consider the Venator and Victory. The Venator's dry mass is greater by virtue of its greater volume (assumption of a standard density; yes the Venator has those hangers but most of any ship is empty space and the heavy armor on the Venator is thicker. Further comments on Dr S's pages suggest a common density was used for all ship calcs). And they have approx the same reactor output. Yet the Venator can pull an additional 700 Gs over the Victory. By all rights and respects the opposite should be true. But you end up with the Victory needing to be 8.9*10^11 kgs heavier for the published values to work. This however is easily explained - the heavy weaponry carried by the Victory are proton torpedos - 80 launchers with a magazine of 20 if you cross reference sources. This idea that the difference is the missiles is supported by the fact that the Victory 2, which lacks the heavy torpedos, is faster then the Victory 1; yet engineering constraints ruel out a brand new powerplant design.

WRT the torps, assume 50% of the mass of these missiles is the casing and engines and propellent, and that the reaction is only 50% efficient, and that the reaction is pure hydrogen fusion, not the more efficient deutritium fusion, and each one works out to 16 TTs - right in the range needed to be competitive with other cap ships.

It never ceases to amaze me how the deeper you dig into SW, the more consistent the math is.

[Ender]

ok for stupid people like me........if a proton torpedo is esentially a nuke what is a phoyon torpedo ? something to do with light ?

An antimatter warhead. antimatter annihilation releases high energy gammas as a result - photons. Hence the name.