Trekkies are taking shots at the asteroid calcs again.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-27 03:24pm

I know that Ep2 ICS pretty much makes the asteroid calcs a mute point, but I'd still like information on the following post.

Firefly wrote:when sd.net talks about the weapons firepower of the ISD, it does some bad math here and there. for example, sd.net refers to the asteroids to come up with an average power of 1500 J to vaporize an asteroid. ok, i'll go with that. however, bad math comes into play next. this is what the site calculates:

since Watts = Joules/sec ... and the asteroid was vaporized in 1/15 sec...

1500 TJ / (1/15 sec) = 22500 TW

woah woah woah. you can't do that. i'll explain in a bit, but let me show u how he arrives at the conclusion of 22 GT turbolasers.

(what sd.net says...) 22500 TW per small turbolaser (TL). the large ones are roughly 125 times the size, so they should be roughly 125 times more powerful (2.8 million TW). there are 12 large turbolasers and 120 small ones on an ISD. each turbolaser shoots roughly once every 2 seconds. therefore, the large turbolasers equal roughly 94 million TJ (22 GT), and the small ones equal 750,000 TJ (179 MT).

Power of Small Turbolaser
22500 TW
Power of Large Turbolaser
22500 TW * 125 = 2,812,500 (or 2.8 million) TW

however, according to calculation:

Power of all Large Turbolasers (combined)
2,812,500 TW * 12 = 33,750,000 TW = 67.5 million TJ (NOT 94 million) = 16 GT

Power of all Small Turbolasers (combined)
22500 TW * 120 = 2,700,000 TW = 5.4 million TJ (NOT 750,000) = 1.3 GT

of course, 16 GT and 1.3 GT is still really powerful. heck, even though sd.net screwed up, the smaller turbolasers are actually more powerful than what the site stated.

however, this is all still wrong. let me point out all the flaws with the site.

1. First of all, he started with a value of joules (1500 TJ), then changed it to watts (22500 TW), then somehow changed it back to joules and made the original value even larger (750,000 TJ).
2. the change from 1500 TJ to 22500 TW shouldn't have been done in the first place, because that would be saying that the turbolasers can fire every 1/15 of a second. that's not the case, since turbolasers can only fire every 2 seconds according to sd.net. so what would the TW value be? 750 TW. not very impressive, eh?
3. also, the 1500 TJ, converted to gigatons, is only 0.00036 GT, or 0.36 MT. that's rediculously small.
4. you can't do a direct proportion of size to increase the power of the larger turbolasers. sd.net says that large ones are 125 times the size of small ones; therefore, it should be roughly 125 times more powerful. WRONG! SORRY! there's actually no way to tell how much more powerful the large turbolasers are. heck, they might even be just as powerful as the small ones. it could be that the larger size means an older model, or perhaps they have more stability than the smaller ones, or have better targeting.
5. he is also taking the COMBINED TOTAL of all weapons and massing them together as one. this means that, in order for the ISD to be that powerful, ALL turbolasers must hit its target. that, of course, is impossible.

so what does all of this mean? an ISD, having 12 large turbolasers and 120 small ones, has a minimum output of 198,000 TJ, or 47.37 MT. that is for the COMBINED strength of ALL their turbolasers. granted, that's only the MINIMUM, but that's still WAAAAAY small.

So tell me, where's the error(s)?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-27 03:25pm

Darth Wong needs to smack this asshole down.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-27 03:49pm

Its Contradicted By Offical ICS Numbers of 200 Gigatons on Medium Turbolasers

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2003-01-27 03:55pm

His error begins by having inaccurate data to begin with on the minimums. While Mike did the essential quick and dirty on the asteroid I've spent a LOT mroe time looking into it. Simply redirect him to the site in my .sig.

When you are done that remind him that the energy content of a TL (and consequently range) is largely determined by the size of the bolt. A bore which is 125 times larger than another bore will output a bolt volume 125 times greater (with 125 times the energy capacity) for a bolt of the same length. Now given that increasing volume actually means you can store even more energy per unit volume (greater volume means your spin imparts more rotational KE into the toal system) AND that the heavier bolts are universally longer even if we assume the same energy density as a LTL bolt the HTL bolt will have MUCH more than 125 times the energy capacity.

You might also point out that the BOLT is rated at 22500 TW. The bolt acts over the course of 1/15th of a second delivering more than 1500 TJ thus it delivers 22500 TW no matter what the doofus thinks.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-27 04:01pm

Firefly wrote:when sd.net talks about the weapons firepower of the ISD, it does some bad math here and there. for example, sd.net refers to the asteroids to come up with an average power of 1500 J to vaporize an asteroid. ok, i'll go with that. however, bad math comes into play next. this is what the site calculates:

since Watts = Joules/sec ... and the asteroid was vaporized in 1/15 sec...

1500 TJ / (1/15 sec) = 22500 TW

woah woah woah. you can't do that. i'll explain in a bit, but let me show u how he arrives at the conclusion of 22 GT turbolasers.

Actually, modern pulse lasers are rated for the pulse, not averaged to include downtime. He's full of shit.

(what sd.net says...) 22500 TW per small turbolaser (TL). the large ones are roughly 125 times the size, so they should be roughly 125 times more powerful (2.8 million TW). there are 12 large turbolasers and 120 small ones on an ISD. each turbolaser shoots roughly once every 2 seconds. therefore, the large turbolasers equal roughly 94 million TJ (22 GT), and the small ones equal 750,000 TJ (179 MT).

He's a lying cunt. The 750,000 TJ figure comes from BDZ calcs, not the asteroids. He's mixing and matching conclusions from different parts of the page to make it appear as if I've played with the numbers, the lying little shit.

however, this is all still wrong. let me point out all the flaws with the site.

1. First of all, he started with a value of joules (1500 TJ), then changed it to watts (22500 TW), then somehow changed it back to joules and made the original value even larger (750,000 TJ).

Pure bullshit; the 750,000 TJ figure comes from the BDZ section of the page, not the asteroid section.

2. the change from 1500 TJ to 22500 TW shouldn't have been done in the first place, because that would be saying that the turbolasers can fire every 1/15 of a second. that's not the case, since turbolasers can only fire every 2 seconds according to sd.net. so what would the TW value be? 750 TW. not very impressive, eh?

Five hundred times the entire combined power generation of present-day planet Earth is not very impressive? Sure, whatever

3. also, the 1500 TJ, converted to gigatons, is only 0.00036 GT, or 0.36 MT. that's rediculously small.

Notice how he completely ignores the fact that this is a Hoth-asteroid lower limit, and other incidents indicate a much higher lower limit.

4. you can't do a direct proportion of size to increase the power of the larger turbolasers. sd.net says that large ones are 125 times the size of small ones; therefore, it should be roughly 125 times more powerful. WRONG! SORRY! there's actually no way to tell how much more powerful the large turbolasers are. heck, they might even be just as powerful as the small ones. it could be that the larger size means an older model, or perhaps they have more stability than the smaller ones, or have better targeting.

It is a reasonable assumption; most weapons do, in fact, follow such scaling laws. The onus is on him to show why the error in this method would be greater than an order of magnitude.

5. he is also taking the COMBINED TOTAL of all weapons and massing them together as one. this means that, in order for the ISD to be that powerful, ALL turbolasers must hit its target. that, of course, is impossible.

Actually, it is that powerful regardless of whether it can bring all of that power to bear on one target. He is actually arguing that it is NOT "that powerful" if it can't bring all of its power to bear at one point; what kind of logic is that? By that token, since a nuclear power plant's output is split up among countless 120V AC sockets in peoples' homes, its rated power output is wrong

so what does all of this mean? an ISD, having 12 large turbolasers and 120 small ones, has a minimum output of 198,000 TJ, or 47.37 MT. that is for the COMBINED strength of ALL their turbolasers. granted, that's only the MINIMUM, but that's still WAAAAAY small. So tell me, where's the error(s)?

Where's the errors? *snicker* Here's a list:

He assumes that a huge turbolaser has no more firepower than a small one (a precise multiplier of 125 as opposed to, say, 50 may be debatable, but a multiplier of 1 is ridiculous).
He ignores every piece of evidence on the entire turbolaser page except for the asteroid calcs
He treats a lower limit as an upper limit

And he generally makes an ass out of himself. This is the kind of bullshit debating tactic that anyone can clearly see is wrong if they bother to read the page he's critiquing (which he obviously hopes they won't). Classic Trekkie bullshitter.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven · Post by **Rightous Fist Of Heaven** » 2003-01-27 04:24pm

Case closed

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-01-27 05:14pm

Darth Wong wrote:
4. you can't do a direct proportion of size to increase the power of the larger turbolasers. sd.net says that large ones are 125 times the size of small ones; therefore, it should be roughly 125 times more powerful. WRONG! SORRY! there's actually no way to tell how much more powerful the large turbolasers are. heck, they might even be just as powerful as the small ones. it could be that the larger size means an older model, or perhaps they have more stability than the smaller ones, or have better targeting.
It is a reasonable assumption; most weapons do, in fact, follow such scaling laws. The onus is on him to show why the error in this method would be greater than an order of magnitude.

Or let's use some common sense: if a cannon 125 times the bore can't output at LEAST 125 times the energy, why bother with a big cannon at all? Just duct-tape 125 small cannons together.

In this case, is it a leap of logic to assume it IS at least as powerful?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-27 05:40pm

Darth Servo, please direct the link to this idiot so I can watch you smack the lying little shit down.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2003-01-27 07:06pm

infoceptor.com/ibb serious discussion forum

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-27 07:12pm

Why do these people incessently take lower limits and claim that they are upper limits? What kind of reasoning is that? Seriously, how can someone not realize that when you see a weapon do something, it must be AT LEAST that powerful. Isn't this just common sense?

Now, realistically, SW weapons do not scale linearly. Darth Wong's multiplier is MUCH too low, given scaling examples from the DS to hand weapons, and then back up to capital ship-level weapons.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-01-29 01:36am

Don't forget the 3.5 MT TL bolts knocking the Falcon askew

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-01-29 01:45am

Master of Ossus wrote:Why do these people incessently take lower limits and claim that they are upper limits? What kind of reasoning is that? Seriously, how can someone not realize that when you see a weapon do something, it must be AT LEAST that powerful. Isn't this just common sense?

That assumes the person one is dealing with possesses said quality to begin with. Having come from several years of debating on SB.com, I tend to be skeptical of anyone having "common sense" until they prove otherwise.

Now, realistically, SW weapons do not scale linearly. Darth Wong's multiplier is MUCH too low, given scaling examples from the DS to hand weapons, and then back up to capital ship-level weapons.

Yep. I've tried some truly bizarre scaling methods. For example, try scaling "up" from an X-wings lasers to ISD TLs yields conservative values that would be literally orders of magnitude lower than what the ICS indicates. I assume scaling down from ICS figures would be likewise ludicrous. The same would no doubt apply to trying to "Scale down" an acclamator's TLs to the laser cannons (assuming one knew how big the lasers were).

I have done even more conservative scalings of MTL-HTL that are smaller than the 125x figure Mike used (he used a smaller figure for his LTLs), but based on the same methods.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-01-29 03:02am

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:Why do these people incessently take lower limits and claim that they are upper limits? What kind of reasoning is that? Seriously, how can someone not realize that when you see a weapon do something, it must be AT LEAST that powerful. Isn't this just common sense?
That assumes the person one is dealing with possesses said quality to begin with. Having come from several years of debating on SB.com, I tend to be skeptical of anyone having "common sense" until they prove otherwise.

Common sense is less common then you would think. I can't remember who said that, was it Frued?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-29 08:39am

If common sense were valuable, it wouldn't have taken humanity 30,000 years to figure out the concept of momentum (which some people still don't entirely understand).

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-29 10:42am

Vympel wrote:Darth Servo, please direct the link to this idiot so I can watch you smack the lying little shit down.

link

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-29 10:45am

Thanks, I found my way there earlier today and laughed my ass off.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-01-29 10:50am

Keep whoompin ass Servo...if for nothing else...the guy thought Anderson's site to be correct on some things.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-01-29 03:22pm

That Firefly guy sure is grasping at straws, isn't he?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-29 03:41pm

You guys can feel free to join me at any time. Their arguments are incredibly easy to take apart, but its quite time consuming replying to all of them.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-01-29 04:34pm

Tempting, and I might just do that if it gets any more ridiculous over there.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-29 05:01pm

They're quoting shit from RSA's site. How much more ridiculous can it get?

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-01-29 06:29pm

Gaaaah! The stupidity! THE GOGGLES DO NOTHING!

Darth Servo, I commend you on your patience in fighting this idiots, I gave up in the fourth page, going through their posts was too much.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-01-29 06:42pm

I read through these earlier and my eyes just continued to widen and my head shook with the utter bullshit from these guys. The one that made me laugh outloud was the one idiot that possited that the asteroid struck by the Stardestroyers was filled with some form of accelerant like hydrogen that aided in its destruction.

Its funny how when its Trek they don't feel the need to go through these ridiculous contortions of the truth BUT when it comes to Wars there just HAS TO BE another explanation. We CANNOT accept what is on the screen. Also in this theme of contorting the truth we have the other idiot claiming that the asteroids were not vaporized because there could have been really teeny tiny rocks left over from the blast and we just don't see it on the screen THUS contradicting EU. What class of fucktard are these folks???

There is a hilarious picture thats floating around on this board of a cleric turning undead and the tag line has the undead moaning in pain and going: "No!! The Logic!! It Burns!!" THAT sums it up for me. If anyone can find it please let me know because its worth saving to my hard drive.

Darth Servo - hats off to you and your patience.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-29 08:53pm

Stravo wrote:Its funny how when its Trek they don't feel the need to go through these ridiculous contortions of the truth BUT when it comes to Wars there just HAS TO BE another explanation. We CANNOT accept what is on the screen.

Can I quote you on that? Well, I guess I just did. Can I quote you on that on the other board?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-01-29 09:25pm

Feel free. Any contribution I can make to the extermination of Trektard zombies would be awesome!

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Trekkies are taking shots at the asteroid calcs again.

Trekkies are taking shots at the asteroid calcs again.

Re: Trekkies are taking shots at the asteroid calcs again.

Re: Trekkies are taking shots at the asteroid calcs again.