What is the actual weapons range of Millenium Falcon?

[ClaysGhost]

This is not that large a weapon is it? This seems to be a lighter TL actually, MT range I'd guess.

With that efficiency, the thing should be radiating at at least GW rates, without the magic neutrino stuff.

Secondly we do not know enough about the weapon and the components that create it, and where they are(layout), the actual turret being manned here can just be a part of the whole weapon assembly that is in some sealed compartment, and likely, larger volume(easier cooling).

I would have thought that the "business end" itself would require some cooling with that power level. Incidentally, the blokes don't seem to have too much trouble turning this weapon, despite it having to cope with MT output energies.

There are those options, but there is also the option for the gunner to choose that, or choose a particular area say to target and hit.

I see.

Thats been the official line for a very long time, they where supposed to offset that with lots of TIE's, but they botched that too thanks to Tarkin's overconfidence.
....

Right.

That's the bit I don't understand. Why is the eyeball immune when an optical sensor is not? It seems intrinsically silly

That is the crux of the matter.

Yes.

[Kazeite]

Actually, the DS superlaser does look like a turbolaser bolt, only a much brighter one.

To quote Connor, "It is a silly proof." Using similar logic one could say that trek phasers are like turbolaser bolts, only a much brighter ones!

As for the merging effect, there is no reason to assume that this is impossible for normal turbolasers,

Then why only few selected weapon emplacements are seen using this effect?
One continous beam is much effective than blast, as demonstrated in Ep2 scene where clone army rescures Jedi from arena.

and the "different effects on target" are highly questionable; we've seen miniature superlasers on the LAAT's and they create the same effects as any turbolaser when they hit stuff.

But we do not know if the minature superlaser on the LAAT's are the same weapon. They don't produce "brighter pulses along the dimmer beam", and there's no delay in merging effect.

Or the weapon has a non-square power waveform. Do I have to spell everything out for you kiddies?

Yes, I would very much appreciate that.

Yes, really. I freely admit that I'm kinda confused here. How come that weapon has constistent propagation delay despite distance?

Didn't you ever think to ask why propagation DELAYS tend to be more consistent than propagation speed?

And the answer is because "the weapon has a non-square power waveform", yes? You are probably rolling your eyes right know, but this really is complicated to me.

[His Divine Shadow]

One continous beam is much effective than blast, as demonstrated in Ep2 scene where clone army rescures Jedi from arena.

Bad logic, baaaad logic, a concentrated blast delivers it's energy much more quickly than a beam and is therefore more effective against shields and armor than a beam, which is more effective for collateral damage on lightly armored objects.

To quote Connor, "It is a silly proof." Using similar logic one could say that trek phasers are like turbolaser bolts, only a much brighter ones!

It does not matter, offcial evidence says it's a scaled up turbolaser.

[His Divine Shadow]

With that efficiency, the thing should be radiating at at least GW rates, without the magic neutrino stuff

I don't believe efficency rates have been discussed yet, but they're useless since we have no idea on how, where and over what volume the weapon creates the beam, as for how much it should radiate where and how, you're making unsupported assumptions about that, we have no idea on how large the weapon in question is.
========================
Pg. 16: Coolant pump circulates a superfluid with enormous heat capacity to moderate the shield matrix during critical power spikes that cannot be radiated away quickly
========================
-Episode II Incredible Cross-Sections
This coolant is likely used to ferry the heat to a location where it can be radiated away.

Here you can see a TL turret:
http://h4h.com/louis/jpgs/tlstat.jpg

I would have thought that the "business end" itself would require some cooling with that power level.

Sure it probably requires some cooling, but likely the beam is only channeled through the "bussiness end", not formed there.

Incidentally, the blokes don't seem to have too much trouble turning this weapon, despite it having to cope with MT output energies.

I don't know what you are talking about now.

[ClaysGhost]

I don't believe efficency rates have been discussed yet, but they're useless since we have no idea on how, where and over what volume the weapon creates the beam, as for how much it should radiate where and how, you're making unsupported assumptions about that, we have no idea on how large the weapon in question is.

Where did the MT figure come from?

========================
Pg. 16: Coolant pump circulates a superfluid with enormous heat capacity to moderate the shield matrix during critical power spikes that cannot be radiated away quickly
========================
-Episode II Incredible Cross-Sections
This coolant is likely used to ferry the heat to a location where it can be radiated away.

I see. Superfluids are great.

Sure it probably requires some cooling, but likely the beam is only channeled through the "bussiness end", not formed there.

Not disputing that.

Incidentally, the blokes don't seem to have too much trouble turning this weapon, despite it having to cope with MT output energies.

I don't know what you are talking about now.

That turret's inertia.

[Kazeite]

Bad logic, baaaad logic, a concentrated blast delivers it's energy much more quickly than a beam and is therefore more effective against shields and armor than a beam, which is more effective for collateral damage on lightly armored objects.

I wasn't discussing power of the beams, but efficiency. Bolt - one shot, one kill. Beam - one shot, many kills.

And DS laser didn't appear to have any problems with power

It does not matter, offcial evidence says it's a scaled up turbolaser.

Yes, evidently, but mr. Wongs proof is still silly

[His Divine Shadow]

[I wasn't discussing power of the beams, but efficiency. Bolt - one shot, one kill. Beam - one shot, many kills.

And thats only in that particular situation, against any armor or shields, quick pulses are more effective.
And when we're dealing with small-arms fire, quick pulses are more efficient too.

[Kazeite]

If quick pulses are indeed more effective against anything, I'll ask again: why only few selected weapon emplacements are seen using this effect? (if we assume that they are indeed mini DS superlasers?)

It was Wong original argument that DS superlaser is basically a set of quick pulses being fired one after another. That kind of weapon would be ultra effective against anything than some TL bolts with sustainable rate of fire of 1 shot per 2 seconds.

Now, I though about something... bigger guns seem to have smaller RoF than smaller guns, aren't they?

[Durandal]

Yes, I recognise it. I hadn't realised that somebody decided that a large target like the DS should have no significant anti-fighter capability.

You mean something like, oh I dunno, TIE Fighters?

What of the quote in which it's said "They can jam every sensor on your ship except your eyes"? What sort of targetting computers are these? And why are they engaging at ranges less than a modern missile?

Jamming.

Yes, one to load the shell...oh, wait. What shell. And why does a society hundreds of thousands of years ahead of these battleships staff them the same way? You aren't going to argue that an 18th century frigate has the same crew as a 20th century frigate?

You're being ridiculous. Hasn't it occurred to you that the crew may be there to perform quick maintenance operations or to replace the gunner if he is injured? Look at the ICS' depiction of a turbolaser gunnery station. The thing is fucking huge. One person isn't going to take care of it by himself.

Prove that you'd get symmetrical shear from this sort of (necessarily very concentrated) gravitational field. Distortion isn't going to stop dead away from the ship.

Use some common sense. It's obvious that the Empire can concentrate gravity, otherwise they wouldn't have the same gravitational pull in the same direction everywhere in the Death Star's interior, would they?

Interesting off-topic thought: How do the decks on the Death Star look? The Technical Journal shows them as horizontal decks, but that's just absurd, even though we got that implication in the film. That would mean that, once a crewman goes from an interior deck to the city sprawls on the surface, the direction of gravity would change from downward with respect to the floor plating to inward toward the Death Star's center.

I've been discussing the recoil because that's what I was approached with as an objection to effective targetting computers on fighters by another poster, altering the alignment of the barrel. As for the mass, are you saying that SW cannot produce uprated turret motors/servos/magic to handle this? They routinely accelerate ships, people etc at thousands of g and up to objectionable velocities, but a large turret is beyond them? I can accept that the system is not designed to engage fighters, hence the poor performance against them. I can't believe that they'd find the extra mass anything but a trivial matter if they had to build a more power anti-fighter weapon.

Those would be light turrets that were placed on the Death Star II for, you guessed it, anti-starfighter defense. There is utterly no conceivable reason why anyone would design multi-gigaton turrets to defend against starfighters. It's not that the Empire doesn't have the technology; it's that they didn't think it was necessary for the Death Star. They'd have been right, too, had it not been for the exhaust port.

[ClaysGhost]

You mean something like, oh I dunno, TIE Fighters?

And they used a lot of those, didn't they?

Jamming.

Why have we seen various computers and droids on Rebel starfighters operating apparently without a problem in this jamming?

You're being ridiculous. Hasn't it occurred to you that the crew may be there to perform quick maintenance operations or to replace the gunner if he is injured? Look at the ICS' depiction of a turbolaser gunnery station. The thing is fucking huge. One person isn't going to take care of it by himself.

What sort of SW weapon is powerful enough to penetrate the turret and then kill only one of the crew? Those guys are standing in a huddle. One shot, they're dead.

Use some common sense. It's obvious that the Empire can concentrate gravity, otherwise they wouldn't have the same gravitational pull in the same direction everywhere in the Death Star's interior, would they?

That's not what I asked to be demonstrated. Gravitation obeys rules. Concentrate the field (in this particularly bizarre way), and you will create shear, distortion, whatever you like, and the shear obeys rules too.

Interesting off-topic thought: How do the decks on the Death Star look? The Technical Journal shows them as horizontal decks, but that's just absurd, even though we got that implication in the film. That would mean that, once a crewman goes from an interior deck to the city sprawls on the surface, the direction of gravity would change from downward with respect to the floor plating to inward toward the Death Star's center.

Gravitation in starships is famously corrupt, no matter the franchise involved. It's entirely possible that they have deck-by-deck control on the DS; no physics objections, since the totally "flat" gravity on starships in sci-fi doesn't make physical sense anyway. I don't suppose any non-plan views were shown of decks during the search for Leia in ANH, were they?

Actually, recall the MF entering the DS1 and the emperor's shuttle entering DS2. They both entered through the equator, didn't they? And the landing bay was horizontal, so at ninety degrees to the surface tangent at that point. That seems to imply at least that the equatorial section has horizontal decks.

Those would be light turrets that were placed on the Death Star II for, you guessed it, anti-starfighter defense. There is utterly no conceivable reason why anyone would design multi-gigaton turrets to defend against starfighters. It's not that the Empire doesn't have the technology; it's that they didn't think it was necessary for the Death Star. They'd have been right, too, had it not been for the exhaust port.

I've been quoted MT and multi-GT for the TLs (or a particular TL) on the DS now. It's not really relevant to the issue, but out of interest what is the range in energy of these secondary weapons?

Again incidentally, why didn't the Rebels attack the port from above?

[Mad]

He can see the ship plainly. The computer can see the ship because it's outlined on the targetting display. It looks like he's lining up on it himself.

Except that the ship on the targetting display shows angles that the fighter can't see while the ship is bouncing around on the display (but not in front of Vader's fighter). Obviously, it's a computer-generated image pulled from the fighter's database of known combat craft, and not a wireframe image of the sensor scans.

Or, if you insist that it is an image of the actual fighter (though I'd still say that it is augmented with "known" data to compensate for jamming reducing clarity), then the fact that it is changing angles on the screen but not in reality indicates that the sensors are receiving screwed up optical data (short-range targetting computers use optical sensors, including visual-band, as per Connor's quote earlier).

No matter how you look at it, Vader's optical sensors were being jammed.

That has all the problems I stated before. R2D2, Luke's targetting computer, they're all working.

Artoo is examining equipment at extremely close range. Why should he be jammed when we already know that jamming is overcome at close range?

Luke's targetting screen was also bouncy and didn't follow the path of the target TIEs.

The attack runs against the port never got a solid lock except at close range, again, due to jamming. (The novelization has pilots in the trench complaining that all short- and long-range sensors are being affected by jamming; this would include the optical sensors, which are relied on for short-range targetting computers.)

Vader's computer can process an image to the point that the background has been removed and the X-wing is outlined on the display.

Already handled.

The computer knows where the target is, it should be pin the tail on the donkey time even if blasters don't do c, since the range was miniscule in that scene.

The computer doesn't know where the target is. Didn't you notice how the targetting screen had a fighter bouncing around in wasy that didn't agree with the actual fighter's motion?

It may be very good if the DS ever engaged tanks. Against starfighters it's useless, and there's no need for that to be so with 100,000 years (or however many it is) of technological advancement behind it.

Of course it's useless against starfighters. The movie even said so! You seem to forget that along with 100,000 years of sensor advancements, there have also been 100,000 years of ECM advancements.

Quite simply, SW optical sensors can be defeated by SW jamming. We can debate as to precisely how this is done, but the fact remains that it is done.

[Durandal]

And they used a lot of those, didn't they?

What're you going to do? Send out all your fighters and have the cram into the trench? No, best to do what they did: send out your best pilot (Vader) to pick them off one-by-one. It would have worked perfectly if Han hadn't had a change of heart.

Why have we seen various computers and droids on Rebel starfighters operating apparently without a problem in this jamming?

Because jamming affects communications and sensors. It's not an EMP. Aside from that, dogfighting is dogfighting, no matter where you are. It takes place at close ranges.

What sort of SW weapon is powerful enough to penetrate the turret and then kill only one of the crew? Those guys are standing in a huddle. One shot, they're dead.

Okay, so how does this address anything about maintenance concerns? Or did you just skip the rest of the paragraph? A large, complex station like a heavy gun can't be run by just one person.

That's not what I asked to be demonstrated. Gravitation obeys rules. Concentrate the field (in this particularly bizarre way), and you will create shear, distortion, whatever you like, and the shear obeys rules too.

You asked for a demonstration of a gravitational distortion being contained. I provided one. The Empire obviously can make gravitational distortions cut off at arbitrary distances.

Gravitation in starships is famously corrupt, no matter the franchise involved. It's entirely possible that they have deck-by-deck control on the DS; no physics objections, since the totally "flat" gravity on starships in sci-fi doesn't make physical sense anyway. I don't suppose any non-plan views were shown of decks during the search for Leia in ANH, were they?

Actually, recall the MF entering the DS1 and the emperor's shuttle entering DS2. They both entered through the equator, didn't they? And the landing bay was horizontal, so at ninety degrees to the surface tangent at that point. That seems to imply at least that the equatorial section has horizontal decks.

Exactly, same thing in RoTJ, though the Emperor's tower's gravitational pull was directed toward the center of the station. And the orientation of the decks seemed to be consistent. The way to design that station would have been to use spherical shells for decks.

I've been quoted MT and multi-GT for the TLs (or a particular TL) on the DS now. It's not really relevant to the issue, but out of interest what is the range in energy of these secondary weapons?

Because you don't need multiple gigatons of firepower to destroy a starfighter.

Again incidentally, why didn't the Rebels attack the port from above?

Because then they would have been coming down on a vector normal to the surface. It would have made them extremely easy to hit, even for large capital ship weaponry. The amount of maneuvering that would have been required to evade fire would have made locking on to the port impossible.

[ClaysGhost]

What're you going to do? Send out all your fighters and have the cram into the trench? No, best to do what they did: send out your best pilot (Vader) to pick them off one-by-one. It would have worked perfectly if Han hadn't had a change of heart.

Why not use TIES in numbers? They are supposed to be used this way, aren't they? At the very least you surround the ace with enough fighters that getting to him is a real problem. They don't have to fly in the trench at all, and I thought there were still X-wings wandering about outside the trench anyway.

Because jamming affects communications and sensors. It's not an EMP. Aside from that, dogfighting is dogfighting, no matter where you are. It takes place at close ranges.

The eye is a sensor. There is nothing special about the eye. The rebels were able to communicate effectively via voice (radio?).

Okay, so how does this address anything about maintenance concerns? Or did you just skip the rest of the paragraph? A large, complex station like a heavy gun can't be run by just one person.

This was mentioned before, and I expressed then that I found minor maintainence during combat surprising. The weapon should be reliable to operate for a (maybe limited, but certainly not tiny) time without heavy maintainence. Reliability is a virtue.

Actually, wouldn't you expect a station that big to be mainly, or at least partly maintained automatically? SW has apparently sophisticated droid technology, and, for example, R2D2 always has... something in some piece of equipment.

You asked for a demonstration of a gravitational distortion being contained. I provided one. The Empire obviously can make gravitational distortions cut off at arbitrary distances.

Not really. I asked for an example of a gravitational displacement without distortion of the image. All gravitational lenses have not a point, nor a line, but a volume of focus.

Exactly, same thing in RoTJ, though the Emperor's tower's gravitational pull was directed toward the center of the station. And the orientation of the decks seemed to be consistent. The way to design that station would have been to use spherical shells for decks.

Yes, the Emperor's tower. Do we know where the throne room was in the station at all? I'm not sure how a spherical design would maintain gravitational consistency between decks, in the radial direction. With an (apparently) zero-curvature field it's clearer that the field strength couldn't drop off much vertically.

Because you don't need multiple gigatons of firepower to destroy a starfighter.

No, but I asked for the range in energy. kT to hundreds of GT, or just MT to hundreds of GT?

Again incidentally, why didn't the Rebels attack the port from above?

Because then they would have been coming down on a vector normal to the surface. It would have made them extremely easy to hit, even for large capital ship weaponry. The amount of maneuvering that would have been required to evade fire would have made locking on to the port impossible.

As I see it, they can come down on the port from a far larger solid angle, with more ships at once and with far more options for maneovreability than they can flying down that narrow trench in groups. They had X-wings engaging TIES above the surface, outside the trench without being instantly hit by lots of TL fire.

[Durandal]

Why not use TIES in numbers? They are supposed to be used this way, aren't they? At the very least you surround the ace with enough fighters that getting to him is a real problem. They don't have to fly in the trench at all, and I thought there were still X-wings wandering about outside the trench anyway.

Because it obviously wasn't required. Need I remind you that the squadron which was launched handled the Rebels without much of a problem. If Solo hadn't shown up, Vader would have easily destroyed Luke. Furthermore, Tarkin was just being an overconfident dolt ("Evacuate?! In our moment of triumph?!").

The eye is a sensor. There is nothing special about the eye. The rebels were able to communicate effectively via voice (radio?).

Notice how filled with static the transmissions were. A civilization like that would have probably eliminated static by that point.

This was mentioned before, and I expressed then that I found minor maintainence during combat surprising. The weapon should be reliable to operate for a (maybe limited, but certainly not tiny) time without heavy maintainence. Reliability is a virtue.

So just because they should be reliable, no one should be on-hand to fix a problem in case it crops up? Please never become a server administrator.

Actually, wouldn't you expect a station that big to be mainly, or at least partly maintained automatically? SW has apparently sophisticated droid technology, and, for example, R2D2 always has... something in some piece of equipment.

There's an apparent anti-droid bias in the galaxy. Perhaps they don't want droids touching heavy or dangerous equipment.

Not really. I asked for an example of a gravitational displacement without distortion of the image. All gravitational lenses have not a point, nor a line, but a volume of focus.

As Mike said, bending light by a small fraction of a degree isn't really noticeable, but it's enough to throw sensors off.

Yes, the Emperor's tower. Do we know where the throne room was in the station at all? I'm not sure how a spherical design would maintain gravitational consistency between decks, in the radial direction. With an (apparently) zero-curvature field it's clearer that the field strength couldn't drop off much vertically.

The spherical shell design wouldn't maintain consistency with natural gravity, but for a civilization with such precise control over gravity, that shouldn't be a problem. It would, however, maintain the direction of the pull when going from the interior to the surface.

No, but I asked for the range in energy. kT to hundreds of GT, or just MT to hundreds of GT?

Lighter cannons are in the lower megaton range, I think.

As I see it, they can come down on the port from a far larger solid angle, with more ships at once and with far more options for maneovreability than they can flying down that narrow trench in groups. They had X-wings engaging TIES above the surface, outside the trench without being instantly hit by lots of TL fire.

Yes, but they still wouldn't be able to get a clear shot because they'd be too busy dodging the turbolaser fire. Skimming the surface cuts the arc of fire they're exposed to down immensely.

[His Divine Shadow]

Where did the MT figure come from?

Oh I just made it up, I thought that was clear, oh well *shrugs*
Oh and a request, whats the formula used to calculate recoil of a laser weapon based on it's power(please affix example so I can understand it, since I suck at reading forumula's)?

I see. Superfluids are great

Yup, I'd say they bring a warm fuzzy feeling into my heart, but they're so effective they instantly remove all heat from it.

[Darth Wong]

The pulse is not carrying all (or even a significant fraction of) the energy and therefore momentum of the weapon, as I understand it. Since I have no idea how long the invisible beam acts over (although it's longer than the pulse) I assumed 1 second.

You also confused the kiloton yields of fighter weapons (whose accuracy is limited by their fixed-axis nature) and the megaton-gigaton yields of the DS turrets which we were discussing, hence your figures are off even if you use a 5-second time.

Yes, I recognise it. I hadn't realised that somebody decided that a large target like the DS should have no significant anti-fighter capability.

Obviously, thousands of TIE fighters do not constitute "significant anti-fighter capability" in your mind. Perhaps you felt it should not have any heavy surface weapons?

What of the quote in which it's said "They can jam every sensor on your ship except your eyes"? What sort of targetting computers are these? And why are they engaging at ranges less than a modern missile?

Modern jammers can't distort space-time. Are you not capable of reading the canon novelization? The Death Star uses huge DISTORTION FIELDS which are so powerful that they actually LOWER the maneuverability of starfighters. This is canon; deal with it.

Yes, one to load the shell...oh, wait. What shell. And why does a society hundreds of thousands of years ahead of these battleships staff them the same way? You aren't going to argue that an 18th century frigate has the same crew as a 20th century frigate?

Leap in logic; you are assuming that any advanced system, regardless of what stupendous amounts of energy it must handle, should have a crew of just one. That is beneath stupidity. Okay, what if a TL turret is more like a nuclear power plant than a WW2 battleship turret; then its crew would be ... oh yeah, it would be hundreds of fucking people.

Duh. And a Death Star does not have access to a lot of energy, particularly when it has tractor beams and artificial-grav systems which obviously accomplish similar functions, albeit on a smaller scale?

These jammers apparently exist on other ships too.

Nowhere near as powerful, since we could see that fighter performance was better in ROTJ than it was in ANH.

As for artificial gravity, everyone from ST to B5 appear to be able to generate it. They must have access to DS-like energy resources, then.

Your moronic leaps in logic do not concern me. Artificial-grav means that they have the ability to control gravity more finely than you admit; it does not necessarily lead to DS-level power generation. Don't be a jack-ass.

Prove that you'd get symmetrical shear from this sort of (necessarily very concentrated) gravitational field. Distortion isn't going to stop dead away from the ship.

I don't need to prove that, since it is canon. Instead, you must prove that it is IMPOSSIBLE, even given the observed gravity-control capabilities of SW technology.

I've been discussing the recoil because that's what I was approached with as an objection to effective targetting computers on fighters by another poster, altering the alignment of the barrel. As for the mass, are you saying that SW cannot produce uprated turret motors/servos/magic to handle this?

Of course they can, jack-ass. But high-powered motors will tend to decrease the rise time at the expense of other parameters such as settling time and positioning error. Control systems are a TRADE-OFF, dumb-ass. If you think you can just solve every control problem by simply using more powerful motors, you're a moron.

They routinely accelerate ships, people etc at thousands of g and up to objectionable velocities, but a large turret is beyond them? I can accept that the system is not designed to engage fighters, hence the poor performance against them. I can't believe that they'd find the extra mass anything but a trivial matter if they had to build a more power anti-fighter weapon.

Perhaps you should try going to school, then.

It would appear we've found yet another person who can babble quantum physics with confidence but doesn't understand the most elementary principles of high-school physics.

The last time I remember discussing quantum physics here was during a thread in which people were talking rubbish about neutronium, and attempting to apply high-school physics to it (specifically, the periodic table). Personally, I'm not interested in it. It's very arcane.

You do not appear to be interested in elementary kinematics either. The control system theory of second-order systems is based on the simple damped spring-mass system and is about as arcane as the suspension on a typical automobile.

[ClaysGhost]

You also confused the kiloton yields of fighter weapons (whose accuracy is limited by their fixed-axis nature) and the megaton-gigaton yields of the DS turrets which we were discussing, hence your figures are off even if you use a 5-second time.

Yes. There were two separate weapons discussions in this and I mixed them up there, sorry.

Obviously, thousands of TIE fighters do not constitute "significant anti-fighter capability" in your mind. Perhaps you felt it should not have any heavy surface weapons?

Did we see thousands of TIEs deployed against the Rebel attack? No. Even having this capability, it was not used. Either they didn't have it (which is stupid) or the command staff didn't use it (also stupid).

Modern jammers can't distort space-time. Are you not capable of reading the canon novelization? The Death Star uses huge DISTORTION FIELDS which are so powerful that they actually LOWER the maneuverability of starfighters. This is canon; deal with it.

The maneovreability of star fighters is a separate issue from sensors being jammed. Why is the human eye immune? If light has been bent by the distortion field, the eye will not know any differently from any other type of optical sensor.

Leap in logic; you are assuming that any advanced system, regardless of what stupendous amounts of energy it must handle, should have a crew of just one. That is beneath stupidity. Okay, what if a TL turret is more like a nuclear power plant than a WW2 battleship turret; then its crew would be ... oh yeah, it would be hundreds of fucking people.

SW Fighters manage enormous power outputs, yet often have a crew of one. The power available to surface warships has increased over the last 200 years, yet the crew required has decreased.

As for artificial gravity, everyone from ST to B5 appear to be able to generate it. They must have access to DS-like energy resources, then.

Your moronic leaps in logic do not concern me. Artificial-grav means that they have the ability to control gravity more finely than you admit; it does not necessarily lead to DS-level power generation. Don't be a jack-ass.

Spacetime requires a certain amount of mass-energy to achieve a certain field. Do more sophisticated theories of light enable us to escape the energy cost for producing a photon? Of course not. It's the same as it always was. Does fine control over light result in a reduced energy requirement? No. So it is with spacetime. Fine control is not a magic free lunch.

I don't need to prove that, since it is canon. Instead, you must prove that it is IMPOSSIBLE, even given the observed gravity-control capabilities of SW technology.

Canon? Canon, that there's no shear? Well, then, since SW's gravity corresponds to no such force that I'm familiar with, I can't disprove it: it's magic, not a real force.

Of course they can, jack-ass. But high-powered motors will tend to decrease the rise time at the expense of other parameters such as settling time and positioning error. Control systems are a TRADE-OFF, dumb-ass. If you think you can just solve every control problem by simply using more powerful motors, you're a moron.
.
.
.
You do not appear to be interested in elementary kinematics either. The control system theory of second-order systems is based on the simple damped spring-mass system and is about as arcane as the suspension on a typical automobile.

I have worked with op-amps and the like, I do know that control systems generally proceed by negative feedback and I should have applied it to this instance, and to not do so was exceptionally daft. Apologies.

Tell you what. I'll ignore kinematics, if you ignore quantum physics and gravitation. How does that sound?

[Mad]

Did we see thousands of TIEs deployed against the Rebel attack? No. Even having this capability, it was not used. Either they didn't have it (which is stupid) or the command staff didn't use it (also stupid).

Tarkin was overconfident. As I understand it, it was Vader's decision to send fighters, and even then, he could only send the fighters under his command.

The maneovreability of star fighters is a separate issue from sensors being jammed.

No, it isn't.

As the quotes were given to me:

Pg. 181: "Also, their field generators will probably create a lot of distortion, especially in and around the trench. I figure that maneuverability in that sector will be less than point three."

Pg. 194: "Maintain visual scanning. With all this energy flying, they'll be on
top of you before your scope can pick them up. Remember, they can jam every instrument on your ship except your eyes."

Pg. 203: "Blue Ten sounded equally concerned. "You should be able to pick up the target by now." ... "I know. The disruption down here is unbelievable. I think my instruments are off. Is this the right trench?" ... "All short and long range scopes are blank," Blue Ten reported tensely. "Too much interference here. Blue Five, can you see them from where you are?""

Pg. 214: "Vader's remaining wingman looked around in panic for the source of the attack. The same distortion fields that confused rebel instrumentation now did likewise to the two TIE fighters."

It is clear that the distortion fields both reduced maneuverability and interferred with the scanners.

Why is the human eye immune? If light has been bent by the distortion field, the eye will not know any differently from any other type of optical sensor.

We don't know for sure. However, as I just quoted, all short and long range sensors were affected. Including this one:

Star Wars Sourcebook:
Electro Photo Receptors (EPRs)
These are the simplest sensing devices. They combine data from sophisticated normal light, ultraviolet (UV), and infrared (IR) telescopes to form a composite holo or two-dimensional picture. Useful only at shorter ranges. Most targeting sensors use EPRs.

Essential Guide to Weapons & Technology, p114
A number of standardized sensors are used by ships across the galaxy. Electro-photo receptors, also known as EPRs, are short-range visual scanners that gather data provided by normal light, infrared, and ultraviolet telescopes; they are also the primary sensors used in targeting computers.
---

Again, it's clear that visual-band optical sensors are used for targetting systems. These same sensors were jammed, while the human eye wasn't.

As I said before, it doesn't matter why. What happened must be accepted. We can debate as to just how it happened, but nothing can change the fact that it did happen.

I'm not sure if you're trying to debate how it happened or if you're trying to prove it didn't happen... you've let up a bit on trying to deny it after my apparently ignored post, which could mean that you're silently agreeing, or that you just don't want to confront it. You haven't said either way. But I decided I'd toss the above quotes in as undeniable evidence to be used in the rest of the discussion.

[ClaysGhost]

Except that the ship on the targetting display shows angles that the fighter can't see while the ship is bouncing around on the display (but not in front of Vader's fighter). Obviously, it's a computer-generated image pulled from the fighter's database of known combat craft, and not a wireframe image of the sensor scans.

Or, if you insist that it is an image of the actual fighter (though I'd still say that it is augmented with "known" data to compensate for jamming reducing clarity), then the fact that it is changing angles on the screen but not in reality indicates that the sensors are receiving screwed up optical data (short-range targetting computers use optical sensors, including visual-band, as per Connor's quote earlier).

No matter how you look at it, Vader's optical sensors were being jammed.

But Vader can see clearly enough to hit his target. How?

That has all the problems I stated before. R2D2, Luke's targetting computer, they're all working.

Artoo is examining equipment at extremely close range. Why should he be jammed when we already know that jamming is overcome at close range?
[/quote]

How close were Vader's TIE and the Y-wings/X-wings in the trench? Somebody must have scaled that.

Luke's targetting screen was also bouncy and didn't follow the path of the target TIEs.

The attack runs against the port never got a solid lock except at close range, again, due to jamming. (The novelization has pilots in the trench complaining that all short- and long-range sensors are being affected by jamming; this would include the optical sensors, which are relied on for short-range targetting computers.)

They can see the port and the trench walls well enough to fly along the trench towards the port. Why can't the optical sensors?

apparently ignored post

I actually didn't see it - sorry about that.

I'm not sure if you're trying to debate how it happened or if you're trying to prove it didn't happen...

I'm trying to debate how it happened. The nature of the jammers interested me. Gravitationally based jammers (jammers that purely work by distorting spacetime) either are not the only component or are not involved at all if the eye can see enough to target but the sensors cannot. I do not think that the properties of "distortion fields" and gravitational fields are coincident.

[Darth Wong]

Yes. There were two separate weapons discussions in this and I mixed them up there, sorry.

OK.

Did we see thousands of TIEs deployed against the Rebel attack? No. Even having this capability, it was not used. Either they didn't have it (which is stupid) or the command staff didn't use it (also stupid).

No one has ever denied that Tarkin was arrogant and stupid.

The maneovreability of star fighters is a separate issue from sensors being jammed.

Wrong. It was specifically stated in the briefing that the jammers would interfere with fighter maneuverability.

Why is the human eye immune? If light has been bent by the distortion field, the eye will not know any differently from any other type of optical sensor.

Who said anything about the eye being immune? By the time your sensors are any good in that kind of jamming, you're so close to the target that you might as well just use your eyes. What do you find incomprehensible about this?

SW Fighters manage enormous power outputs, yet often have a crew of one. The power available to surface warships has increased over the last 200 years, yet the crew required has decreased.

So you assume that a heavy turbolaser turret MUST have a crew of just one, or it MUST be manual? You have made the absurd claim that it is a manually controlled weapon even though every official source contradicts you. In order to override those sources, you need rather compelling evidence, and your claim that crew requirements might decrease over time falls so far short of that requirement it isn't even funny.

Spacetime requires a certain amount of mass-energy to achieve a certain field. Do more sophisticated theories of light enable us to escape the energy cost for producing a photon? Of course not. It's the same as it always was.

Correct. It also makes FTL travel impossible; perhaps you fail to recognize the nature of sci-fi analysis. If something is canon and even our most acrobatic intellectual rationalization attempts fail, then we have no choice but to simply accept that they must have discovered some phenomenon we are unaware of. If you don't like it, why are you even bothering to discuss sci-fi at all?

Does fine control over light result in a reduced energy requirement? No. So it is with spacetime. Fine control is not a magic free lunch.

Cart before the horse; we already know the energy requirement is reduced, unless you seriously think the Millenium Falcon has sufficient mass/energy for 1g downward acceleration in its passenger area. Again, I ask if you get the whole concept of sci-fi analysis; we don't throw our brains out the window, but at the same time, we must be prepared to accept the possibility of heretofore unknown phenomena if we are left with no choice.

Canon? Canon, that there's no shear? Well, then, since SW's gravity corresponds to no such force that I'm familiar with, I can't disprove it: it's magic, not a real force.

Why don't you just get the fuck out of this forum then? If we're going to act like that, then there's no FTL, no Death Star, no warp drive, no phasers, no turbolasers, no nothing. It's one thing to say that an oncreen character obviously flubbed an explanation, but it's quite another to say that something which obviously happened onscreen is impossible and should be dismissed from analysis as mere magic. How can we possibly presume to waste time discussing any of these issues as if these things exist when we refuse to acknowledge their observed characteristics as legitimate?

I have worked with op-amps and the like, I do know that control systems generally proceed by negative feedback and I should have applied it to this instance, and to not do so was exceptionally daft. Apologies.

Tell you what. I'll ignore kinematics, if you ignore quantum physics and gravitation. How does that sound?

You did not have to ignore kinematics; that was an error on your part. However, the existence of a low-energy method for distorting space-time is a canon NECESSITY in both Star Wars and Star Trek, unless you think you've found a way to explain our canon observations without it.

[Connor MacLeod]

Well, I'm just trying to lower myself to your level. Since you don't seem to understand that EU is not accurate in portraying SW universe, I may as well prove my point by using Eu evidence.

You're also changing the rules to suit yourself. You cant get the EU thrown out by your bullshit claims, so then you turn around and use it How sad that you can't even stay consistent to your own theories.

Of course, you also don't realize that your bullshit tactic has been shot down innumerable times before as well. Nice effort at a cheap, useless trick.

I know. They are simply yet "another example of technology unnafected by jamming."

you could get much the same effect by pointing out that a lever would be unaffected by EW Jamming.

If by the phrase "lack of actual evidence" you mean "lack of evidence that I'm not ignoring", then yes, I am desperate.

Its not evidence. Its not even an apt analogy. Its wishful thinking, at best.

And you suggest that final conclusion was that TL are indeed lightspeed weapons, in spite of movie evidence? My God...

Fine then, answer this dipshit: how come we never see any measurable drop in a planetary enviroment due to gravity, or never see blaster bolts jar Jedi Arms when they deflect them? Both should happen if the beams weren't massless.

[Kazeite]

You're also changing the rules to suit yourself.

Not myself, but yourself.

You can't get the EU thrown out by your bullshit claims,

Yes I can, but you won't take cognizance of that, so what else am I supposed to do?

How sad that you can't even stay consistent to your own theories.

How sad you accuse me of being inconsistent with my theories.

To sum this up, SW film show consistently small ranges of weapons. (in addition to epIV-VI scenes don't forget epI fighter attack)

Some EU sources show big range. Other show small range. Now, why should I ignore canon evidence and some portions of EU in favor of other portions of EU?

you could get much the same effect by pointing out that a lever would be unaffected by EW Jamming.

I assume you are joking, because I cannot imagine that you're apparently watching movies on lever, since you confuse relatively sophisticated piece of technology with simple lever

Its not evidence. Its not even an apt analogy. Its wishful thinking, at best.

That's exactly I can say about your addiction to EU

Fine then, answer this dipshit: how come we never see any measurable drop in a planetary enviroment due to gravity, or never see blaster bolts jar Jedi Arms when they deflect them? Both should happen if the beams weren't massless.

Since you're already confusing levers with 'window' diplays I'm not confused that you're confusing mass of the bolt with its speed

[Kazeite]

Double post, sorry.

[His Divine Shadow]

You're obviously fucked in the head if you think there's a contradiction between the movies and official material, just shut the fuck up if you refuse to listen to reason and be objective, you're dishonest and untrustworthy.

And you ignore Lucasfilm policy with your constant nitpicks about the EU, just shut up, stop fucking whining, the EU is acknowledge, so fuck it, don't mention it as if to indicate that it's bad evidence.

And canon visuals show ranges of 75.000km so just STFU with your made up inconsistencies.

[Connor MacLeod]

Not myself, but yourself.

Uh huh. You're just full of selfless intent.

Yes I can, but you won't take cognizance of that, so what else am I supposed to do?

Live with the fact that the EU is an accepted part of the SW timeline, dipshit. The rest of us realize that, I dont see why you can't see it.

How sad you accuse me of being inconsistent with my theories.

How is that sad? Its perfectly true.

To sum this up, SW film show consistently small ranges of weapons. (in addition to epIV-VI scenes don't forget epI fighter attack)

Some EU sources show big range. Other show small range. Now, why should I ignore canon evidence and some portions of EU in favor of other portions of EU?

OH yes. ROTJ was REALLY short ranged. Of course, the gaping hole in your little false dilemma fallacy is that nothing in canon exclusively LIMITS the ranges in SW to the ranges you claim. Once it becomes obvious that you are trying to artificially create a contradiction where none exists, your b ullshit theory collapses in on itself.

I assume you are joking, because I cannot imagine that you're apparently watching movies on lever, since you confuse relatively sophisticated piece of technology with simple lever

I obviously underestimated your capacity for stupidity. The point with the lever reference was that your "technology example" was utterly irrelevant to the issue of targeting and jamming. Hence why, by your dumbass logic, why a lever is as much of an example of "technology not affected by jamming" as the rear windows on TIEs.

That's exactly I can say about your addiction to EU

No you can't. Unlike your little bullshit theories, the inclusion of EU in the SW timeline is explicitly approved by LFL. This issue has been discussed numerous times both on this board and on Mike's site. If youa re too idiotic to accept this fact, thats not my problem, hatfucker.

Since you're already confusing levers with 'window' diplays I'm not confused that you're confusing mass of the bolt with its speed

Nice dodge, shitwad. I am guessing you're too stupid to actaully provide an explanation?

Lets spell it out for your substandard intellect. An object with significant mass ("significant" relative to a massless particle - IE a bullet) would be influenced by gravity. This influence would cause a steady downward pull on said object, resulting in an arcing trajectory. Blaster bolts habitually do NOT exhibit this tendency towards arcing.

Furthermore, any object with a significant mass (again, relative to massless particles) would exhibit momentum. Thus, if TL bolts had mass, we should be seeing said bolts jarring Jedi arms wh en the bolts strike lightsabers. Since they do not, this argues they are massless.

My God, this has to be the most blatant example of your stupidity to date.