Absolute proof that Sarli is an ignorant moron

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-02-05 12:16pm

Oh well. He rejects the position of reason. I don't think much else can be done. He's in a position of authority, and we're not.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2007-02-05 01:19pm

Woah, I'm a member there! I only ever posted on the D&D board, but now I'm motivated to do something in this thread...

Meest · Post by **Meest** » 2007-02-05 03:22pm

What's with his safe in the atmosphere ranting. We see the Falcon leave without any sign of going to full thrust in ANH. Is he totally forgetting about repulsorlifts, his calculations are coming out of nowhere to try and make his numbers reasonable.

His F-18 and 747 examples are just silly and go against his own logic, an F-18 is catapulted from an aircraft carrier while a 747 has hundreds of feet of runway to get off the ground. How can they be considered baselines for anything.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2007-02-06 02:15am

The yellowbellied motherfucker just deleted my post.

Darwin · Post by **Darwin** » 2007-02-06 04:12am

Elfdart wrote:The yellowbellied motherfucker just deleted my post.

He deleted all the recent posts that weren't about energy output and fuel matters. =/ At least they're open fodder for new threads.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-02-06 04:33am

It's not the fact that he deleted them that pissed ME off, it's the fact that he did it under the reasoning that they were off-topic when they have EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE GOD DAMN TOPIC! Who brought up nuclear weaponry and nuclear winter, he did, and when he is proven wrong, he has a hissy fit and says it's off-topic. Why was he talking about nuclear weapons? He was trying to refute Saxtons numbers on Turbolasers. Why were we talking about the planetary shield? Because we were discussing about how when you scale the Death Star down the numbers match up with the Turbolasers ratings, which he is trying to refute!

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2007-02-06 12:14pm

And the thread was closed because:

Driving a thread further-off-topic by questioning why/arguing about certain topics have been declared "Off Topic" is not the way to keep a thread open.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2007-02-06 12:29pm

'The Customer is Always Right'. Maybe someone should say that, next time the product released or the service rendered by WOTC is substandard or shoddy.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2007-02-10 06:32pm

Let us assume that repulsors operate by the manipulation and emission of force carrying particles. force carrying particles move at a uniform speed in a vacuum, be they photons or gravitons and irregardless of energy. Thus their momentum follows the equation of F=e/c, itself derived from F=ma and E=mc^2

Let us then consider atmospheric drag - as an object moves through a medium (such as the atmosphere) it will experience resistance and shed momentum and energy moving through the medium. Thus to maintain a constant velocity a constant value of force must be applied. This value is defined by the formula f=1/2V^2*A*Cd*p where
V = velocity
A = area
Cd = drag coefficient, a dimensionless value
p = density

Cd varies for the craft, for most cars is is ~0.3, for a bike and rider it is ~.9, for an artifical satillite it is 2 (a brick has a value of 2.1 for those curious about the value for something as aerodynamic as a brick).
Density depends on the fluid, for a standard atmosphere like that of earth it is 1.225 (easily found using the barometric formula)

Now given that we know the equivlence of force for the two equations, we can substitute and combine to get E=1/2V^2*c*A*Cd*p

Thus estimating the cross sectional area of various craft and using the published top speeds, we can get a minimum power output for their reactors.

The ARC-170 has a top speed of 44,000 km/h or 12,222 m/s. It is not overly aerodynamic (most SW craft are not, having been designed for space combat operations) so we will use the vaule of 2 for the drag coefficient, and I visually estimate its cross sectional area to be 6 m^2 based off the ships height, wingspan, and how much of the resultant box it appears to fill. (If someone would do more precise measurements I'd be much obliged.)
Plug and play and the minimum reactor output for an ARC-170 is 3.29*10^17 watts.

Note that this is completely independent of the craft's mass. No kind of mass-lightning space-warp inertia-negating field will alter this. Similar calculations are easily performed for other craft.

Note that since we know a minimum reactor output, we can then determine the mass being accelerated (the mass that the universe would react to - or the amount left over after the field has done its reduction) in a manner similar to that described by Dr. Saxton, using the photon momentum equation above and treating ion engines like photon drives. Divide this energy by the ships acceleration (in m/s^2) and the speed of light (c, 3*10^8 m/s) and you get a shade over 43 tons.

To find what its actual mass would be, or what the ground would experience after it has landed and turned off its engines, you would multiply this by the provided corrective factor of 1.44*10^6, giving the ARC-170 a mass of 62 million tons.

One must wonder how such craft are able to land.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2007-02-11 05:19am

Sweet.

Doesn't the description of the ARC-170 on the Hasbro-toy give the vessel some 10^17 Watt just for shields?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-02-12 12:34pm

Ender wrote:The ARC-170 has a top speed of 44,000 km/h or 12,222 m/s ...

I don't have my books with me. Does it actually say that it can go that fast in atmosphere? What atmospheric density are we assuming?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2007-02-12 01:05pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Ender wrote:The ARC-170 has a top speed of 44,000 km/h or 12,222 m/s ...
I don't have my books with me. Does it actually say that it can go that fast in atmosphere? What atmospheric density are we assuming?

Max. Airspeed (in standard atmosphere): 44,000 kph (27,341 mph)

In the WEG games standard atmospher were for earth-like planets, so I went with Earth's atmospheric density. 1.225 kg/m^3 Granted that's at sea level and typically the craft would go far higher into the atmosphere when it went hypersonic, but 1) As things like the Tatooine's Ghost show that isn't always the case, and 2) the change in density as we go up is not enough to throw off the calcs by much.

Wyrm · Post by **Wyrm** » 2007-02-13 09:47pm

Ender wrote:Let us assume that repulsors operate by the manipulation and emission of force carrying particles. force carrying particles move at a uniform speed in a vacuum, be they photons or gravitons and irregardless of energy. Thus their momentum follows the equation of F=e/c, itself derived from F=ma and E=mc^2

Um. Power, not energy, so F = P/c.

Right, Ender? Otherwise, your units don't work out.

Ender wrote:Now given that we know the equivlence of force for the two equations, we can substitute and combine to get E=1/2V^2*c*A*Cd*p

Change E to P: P = (1/2) v² c A C_d ρ

I think your other figures are right.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2007-02-13 10:04pm

Wyrm wrote:
Ender wrote:Let us assume that repulsors operate by the manipulation and emission of force carrying particles. force carrying particles move at a uniform speed in a vacuum, be they photons or gravitons and irregardless of energy. Thus their momentum follows the equation of F=e/c, itself derived from F=ma and E=mc^2
Um. Power, not energy, so F = P/c.

Right, Ender? Otherwise, your units don't work out.

Ender wrote:Now given that we know the equivlence of force for the two equations, we can substitute and combine to get E=1/2V^2*c*A*Cd*p
Change E to P: P = (1/2) v² c A C_d ρ

I think your other figures are right.

no
wiki link 1
wiki link 2

These equations give the values for energy. However, this is the energy required each second as otherwise the resistance means that you will not be able to sustain this velocity.

Its good to see people checking things instead of blindly trusting them though.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2007-02-13 11:45pm

Ender, do you assume gravitons to be massless or massive particles?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2007-02-14 12:05am

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Ender, do you assume gravitons to be massless or massive particles?

gravity propegates at C, as do all force carrying particles, therfore they must inherently be massless.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2007-02-14 12:27am

Ender wrote:
Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Ender, do you assume gravitons to be massless or massive particles?
gravity propegates at C, as do all force carrying particles, therfore they must inherently be massless.

Indeed? The W boson is the mediator of the weak force and it has a mass of 80GeV/c^2.

Edit: Theory seems to assume Graviton is massless. Though whether it is correct or not is another thing.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2007-02-14 01:36am

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:
Ender wrote:
Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Ender, do you assume gravitons to be massless or massive particles?
gravity propegates at C, as do all force carrying particles, therfore they must inherently be massless.
Indeed? The W boson is the mediator of the weak force and it has a mass of 80GeV/c^2.

Edit: Theory seems to assume Graviton is massless. Though whether it is correct or not is another thing.

A quick check reveals you are correct - my source is an old physics text that predates their discovery. Considering that the book is as old as I am, I probably need to hit e-bay and get an updated version.

Regardless, gravity has been measured to propegate at C, and that is what matters for these calcs.

Wyrm · Post by **Wyrm** » 2007-02-14 12:53pm

Ender wrote:no
wiki link 1
wiki link 2

These equations give the values for energy. However, this is the energy required each second as otherwise the resistance means that you will not be able to sustain this velocity.

In other words, energy delivered per unit time (second)... ie, power. We're both right.

Its good to see people checking things instead of blindly trusting them though.

Agreed.

ADDEDNIU... ADDEN... ADDED SHIT:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Indeed? The W boson is the mediator of the weak force and it has a mass of 80GeV/c^2.

Edit: Theory seems to assume Graviton is massless. Though whether it is correct or not is another thing.

Gravitaitonal waves (of which gravitons are quantinizations of) are calculated to propagate at c. Propagation at c implies traveling on null rays, which is only possible if the wave has no rest mass.

(... ADDENDUM! That's what this is!)