Too bad. Not my fault if you're a tl;dr type Seriously though, are you saying it owuld have been better if it were one solid chunk of paragraphs? I personally find that harder to read through, especially when you have to cross-link points from a lengthy reply.Ford Prefect wrote:First of all, could you not do that? I have a massive aversion to people needlessly (and it is almost always needless) splitting posts into little chunks.
I'm guessing you didn't read all of my reply.And honestly, you're reading so much into this that it's mindblowing. I'm not even vaguely surprised that you mentioned Aina standing above the beam cannon and thus making the allusion that it's some sort of funky technobabble weapon which we can't conclude anything off, but what exactly is the problem with taking it at face value? A big laser beam blew up a mountain, and exhibited more or less appropriate side effects. I mean, yes, there are some funky things going on there, but why do you care? We could spend all day talking about things like waste heat and radiation and recoil and how a couple of Doms somehow managed to produce that much energy, but I don't see the point. What matters is that we can come to a reasonable conclusion which fits into the context of the setting, not one which comes up with an endless array of silly 'justifications'.
1.) I never said it HAS to be a funky technobabble beam weapon that we cannot conclude anything off of. I said that the complications in analysis make it HARD to calculate and it probably would be far simpler just to say "technobabble." There is a difference.
2.) How are we taking it "at face value?" I was taking it at face value, and that's the start of the problem. What you're saying is "why can't we just ignore the specifics and go with the intent?" Which is fine if you don't want to derive calculations from it, because otherwise this is like saying you can calculate phaser firepower from visuals because the NDF part doesn't matter Can't have it both ways, dude. At least not without working for it. (Analysis being difficult? OMGWHATASHOCK! )
3.) You want a relatively "simpler" approach? Go with the earlier non-mountain bits. Melting through or slicing holes through Gundams. The beam looks to be quite wide, it looks like it would have melted a sizable volume. Hell, you could calc the beam based on a rough estimate of how much ground it melted.
EX: eyeballing it with the chick above the beam emitter, it lokos to be say, 20 meters or so (could be alot larger, or could be smaller.. I'm not up on the mecha scalings in these things and I'm too lazy to bother with the "official" stats right now) If we assume the beam vaporizies a 20 m diameter cylinder to a dpeth of say, 5 meters.. it would take 7 TJ to melt that much (using Mike's "1 hour, one meter" BDZ variables from the SW firepower page) from a single shot, or nearly 2 kt minimum. There would still be issues, but far less, and it could go higher (beam diameter could be greater, or less, the beam could cut deeper into the ground, etc.) A single or double digit Kt/sec beam will also be no problem recoil wise, since looking at the official stats those things probably mass several thousand tons easily or may float on antigrav (I suppose you could argue the levitation device also acts as an anchor to counter momentum)