Observing the behaviour of turbolasers and blasters

[His Divine Shadow]

The only problem I find with massless particles, really, is it contradicts what we see as far as recoil..

Actually consistency wise there would be some slight recoil even from a massless weapon, using the approximated MJ range figures one would have some recoil, weaker than a real gun, but surely noticeable recoil, which could even show up.

There is a recoil calculator on my homepage for massless particles.

But ofcourse if there is some stasis field or whatever unknown function it could throw off calculations on that too, but meh, thats all too far out there for my tastes.

Ofcourse it could be the tibanna gas too, I believe the tibanna gas is ammo and that it's excited by a laser and releases a large amount of radiation in return, which is harnessed by the rifle's collimation circuits into a coherent energy bolt.

Inefficiencies and such could manifest as left over tibanna gas that was not converted(to christianity) and is as such, ejected through the barrel.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Here's the problem: you have the bolt going FTL inside the stasis field. In order for the bolt to start at the back of the beam and work its way forward, it'd have to actually travel faster inside the stasis field than the massless, c-velocity particles are. However, the ICS2 description specifically says that the beam is lightspeed, while the pulse is less than the speed of light.

I don't think the bolt is a physical entity. I think its just a region of lateral light emission. This way (though my theory was mostly just some random thing I threw out--as Nitram points out) the partial weakening of the inherent stasis affect would travel along the stasis field over the beam, so that it is moving strictly sublight because it isn't inside the field--where its weakened, massless quanta traveling at c escape as light.

This is why my theory has the visible pulse starting at the front of the beam, and working its way backwards, relative to the beam.

This is precisely what I said to Nitram, who pointed out apparently it would have to go backward in time relative to the perspective. I'm going to have to look through Special Relativity again, because I'm not sure exactly how this applies if we're not regarding the visible pulse as an actual physical entity of the beam.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The pulse starts when the beam is fired, but the beam starts off too weak to cause any damage.

So the pulse is just an area of decay in the the lightspeed beam, right?

Not a sublight thing thrown out coincident with the beam, right?

The beam powers up while the pulse is traveling along it. The bolt's velocity is pre-determined by the targetting computers based on the distance of the intended target, so that it reaches the target after a set amount of time -- the same amount of time it takes the beam to gain enough power to hit full-strength.

Firstly, why would they do this? Secondly, this means a single barrel could not fire another shot until the first one hit the target, because it is actually projecting the beam that whole time.

This also explains why the delay is usually pretty consistent (longer delays for more powerful shots, shorter delays for weaker shots)

It ignores the longer pulses for more powerful shots.

why an A-wing could fly through a visible bolt with no damage (beam was still too weak to cause damage), why SotE describes the invisible damaging portion as coming after the visible portion, and a few other things as well.

But we still have no explanation at all for blasters.

Perhaps a hybrid of our theories or such? Perhaps "spinning" involved with scaled-up blaster weapons negates inherent stasis affects that "condense" the c beam in blaster weapons? I'm just throwing out ideas.

We still have to account for what Nitram mentions in ESB, how things work for continuous beam weapons, recoil issues, and we have to deal w/ off-axis firing and bolts reorienting themselves after firing, usually associated somehow with the changes in the firing craft's acceleration/position.

[Mad]

So the pulse is just an area of decay in the the lightspeed beam, right?

Not a sublight thing thrown out coincident with the beam, right?

Correct on both counts.

Firstly, why would they do this?

Perhaps the weapon has to be charged up, so that delay is inevitable. The intentional timing of the bolt helps to make things easier for readjusting the beam in mid-flight.

Secondly, this means a single barrel could not fire another shot until the first one hit the target, because it is actually projecting the beam that whole time.

I was thinking that the weapons can fire multiple "starter" beams at once, since they don't require much power to sustain. So multiple shots can be charging up at once, each started one at a time, then the main burst is released in sequence.

It ignores the longer pulses for more powerful shots.

How so? A more powerful shot will let out a stronger starter beam, perhaps by letting out more particles, thus there being more decay.

But we still have no explanation at all for blasters.

All too true.

Perhaps a hybrid of our theories or such? Perhaps "spinning" involved with scaled-up blaster weapons negates inherent stasis affects that "condense" the c beam in blaster weapons? I'm just throwing out ideas.

I was thinking that a hybrid of our theories would work well. I haven't been able to work out the details to my satisfaction yet. I was thinking something along the lines of this:

For ship-mounted weapons, the stasis field would be cancelled out. This way the starter beam is active the whole time, thus allowing for the course correction we see of the bolts in midflight by the targetting computers.

But for blasters, there's a strong stasis effect that allows the weapon to point in a different direction after the weapon is fired. For blasters, the entire beam and pulse is let out much more quickly, at the cost of a strong stasis field that slows the weapon down to low sublight velocities. This releases the user from having to hold the weapon pointed at a target as long as turbolasers have to do, though correcting the bolts in mid-flight is impossible.

We still have to account for what Nitram mentions in ESB,

Three possible explanations off the top of my head:
* The weapon took longer to charge up than normal due to a malfunction in that gun.
* The shot was charged up longer than normal for a more powerful hit
* Or, using the hybrid theory mentioned earlier, this bolt was a misfire that had stasis effects slowing it down.

how things work for continuous beam weapons,

Something about the way they're fired that there's a lot more decay, I'd think. They should be much easier to explain than blasters are, in any event.

recoil issues,

Perhaps the act of letting the beam out, which starts the decay process at the tip of the beam, causes recoil? Vented gasses from the initial burst? Gasses from the previous burst finally being let out?

and we have to deal w/ off-axis firing

Whatever it is, it's the same thing that allows the Death Star blasts collect together into a little ball before being shot out at the target. I'm not too concerned with that since I don't think different methods for off-axis firing would change the overal ideas I've presented.

and bolts reorienting themselves after firing, usually associated somehow with the changes in the firing craft's acceleration/position.

Actually, this is one of the things my theory addresses best. Since the visible bolt is riding along the beam, any changes in the beam's position will naturally change the bolt's position. It's when they don't change position as the weapon moves around (such as is the case with blasters and some instances of TIE fighter weapons fire) that things get difficult to explain under my theory.

[The Silence and I]

I can't comment on turbolasers yet, but I have examined hand blasters in great detail from Episodes I and II, and a little from the Classic Trilogy. And I now favor, as (I think) Mike Wong does, the idea that some form of projectile is being fired which projects the visible bolt.

Reasons:
>>Recoil--=--Many blaster discharges display recoil, especially if the implied bolt power is greater than normal, or if there is a close up view. This effect is observed in all blaster makes in Episodes I and II, from the Battle Droids to the Superbattle Droids to the Naboo security blasters to Jango's blasters. At some point, all these weapons displayed clear recoil, although sometimes they did not. Because U/c=Force, blaster bolts cannot be explained with massless particles only (this would require blaster energies well into the hundreds or even thousands of megajoules, even at low power shots!)

>>Flash--=--Most blaster shots are accompanied by a bright flash, sometimes small (battle Droid's blaster), sometimes very large (Han's blaster) sometimes missing. There is no reason for a flash if massless particles are emitted only-there must be something else.

>>Low Velocity--=--Let's face it, blaster bolts move slowly. Really slowly. This immediately rules out particle weapons, which rely on K.E. mostly to do in a target (they must travel at high velocities), this rules out ordinary projectile weapons as well. Also, the damaging component is the visible bolt, as Jedi block that, and only that, damage waits until the bolt hits, and multiple shots can be fired in multiple directions before the first shot has hit the target--disproving the requirement for a beam with a power spike, or anything else with a beam as the theory.

>>Failure To Curve to the Ground--=--At the low velocities observed, some curving should be seen, unless the beam is massless. But the beam has to have mass to explain the recoil, and that component should visibly fall to the ground. It doesn't. A guided projectile could expalin this.

>>Colour--=--This is mainly evidence against plasma. Plasma would glow white hot. Not orange, or red, or (laugh) green.

>>Funky Behaviour--=--Blaster bolts have been seen to bounce off grass, miss obvious targets from a clear firing angle and do, well, wierd things.

So I propose hand blasters fire small, guidable projectiles that emit an energy field around them-this field is the damaging component. For some unknown reason the bolt has to travel slowly, but it was realized this would give blasters unacceptably short range. So the projectile became guidable, with onboard direction sensors that correct its path as needed to maintain a straight, true course. The field around it prevented homing ability as sensors that small could not penetrate the field effectively. Each projectile represented a "packet" and had a maximum energy limit. Higher power shots required more packets, and resulted in more mass=more recoil. The flash could be as simple as chemical propellant (shrug). Funky behavior could be glitches in the guidance system due to damage or, just well, a glitch.

As far as I know this explains everything about hand blasters, and requires nothing too exotic or technobablely.
>>An intersting observation I made: Clone Trooper rifles do not seem to use the same technology as classic blasters! They lack clear recoil, lack flashes and even appear different on screen. They are also thicker, which leads me to believe light sabres will be unable to effectively block them(I realize they will probably be blocked anyway in Episode III, but right now the evidence says 'no').

[SirNitram]

We really need a WTF smiley.

Why? Because people seem to be madly humping the idea of a lightspeed portion, when, amazingly, I never see indication of a lightspeed component in any of the movies, with any of the turbolasers. The closest we get are the largest, heaviest guns in SW, the Superlasers, which clearly are far, far faster than any of the others.

So, as far as I'm concerned, any theory that demands a Lightspeed Portion that is more than a targetting laser has a big fucking problem ahead of it, and no one here seems to want to deal with that...

(BTW: The premature destruction does not demand a lightspeed component, merely that some portion of the beam is invisible and extends in front of the visible bolt)

[The Silence and I]

Thank you SirNitram, I'm glad somebody came out and said that.

[Mad]

The Silence and I: I agree pretty much with your assessment. I'm not sure if there is a guided projectile being fired, but I'm open to the possibility. The turbolaser theory I've been talking about clearly does not work for blasters, as I've said all along. However, I do believe that a hybrid between my powerspike theory and another theory will be able to mesh both turbolaser and blaster behavior into a more or less unified theory that somehow relates the two as having some major details in common, though differences in operation account for their different behavior.

SirNitram: ICS2 and some newer (post-ICS2, though some pre-ICS2 books like SotE mention invisible and visible portions of turbolaser weaponry) books describe lightspeed components to turbolasers. Since these are official sources, any theory that explains both onscreen behavior and incorporates ICS2's lightspeed beams, no matter how complicated that theory may be, will be inherently superior to a theory that only explains onscreen behavior but ignores ICS2. The reason is because one uses all available data, while the other has to ignore data in order to work.

[His Divine Shadow]

>>Low Velocity--=--Let's face it, blaster bolts move slowly. Really slowly.

If you look at AOTC when they fire at long ranges, they propagate at over 1km/s, I've gauged the speed on lower ranges too:

When Jango was firing on Obi-Wan on Kamino, the bolts moved at an approximate speed of 125m/s, range was approximately 10 meters.

When the Droid Deka's in TPM fired on the retreating Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan at an approximate range of 45meters the bolt speed was around 200-210m/s

In AOTC when the Clone trooper fired on the fighters outside the cave where Dooku went into the bolts moved at around 400m/s, this was at a range of ~90meters, ofcourse I might have foobared this, the range might be alot longer.

Mike Wong has noted propagation rates of over 1km/s in TESB and AOTC if I recal correctly.

They are also thicker, which leads me to believe light sabres will be unable to effectively block them(I realize they will probably be blocked anyway in Episode III, but right now the evidence says 'no').

The thickness may merely be an glow that does not accurately depict the thickness of blaster bolts, infact, they might be millimeter thing, or micropscopic since in the Zahn books, it is heavily implied that lightsabers make microscopic cuts.

[SirNitram]

SirNitram: ICS2 and some newer (post-ICS2, though some pre-ICS2 books like SotE mention invisible and visible portions of turbolaser weaponry) books describe lightspeed components to turbolasers. Since these are official sources, any theory that explains both onscreen behavior and incorporates ICS2's lightspeed beams, no matter how complicated that theory may be, will be inherently superior to a theory that only explains onscreen behavior but ignores ICS2. The reason is because one uses all available data, while the other has to ignore data in order to work.

And yet all these theories throw out other peices of Official Data, which includes descriptions of both plasma and true laser properties. Yet somehow they do not matter, only the theory held in favor this second this.

Given the massive discrepencies in Turbolaser claims and passages, I see no reason at all not to treat them as theories themselves, and compare them to evidence. Of course, all of them fall flat, but that might just mean that turbolasers, like Hyperdrive, are not completely understood, even if they are used.

And, HDS, if you aren't aware of why any theory involving a LS component that damages falling on it's face, I suggest you re-read my posts in this thread.

[The Silence and I]

HDS, that is far faster than I would have guessed, but it is still so much slower than a massless beam/bolt that it is absurd. However it does seem agreed upon that blasters and turbolasers are nothing if not different technologies.

When the Droid Deka's in TPM fired on the retreating Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan at an approximate range of 45meters the bolt speed was around 200-210m/s

Just out of curiosity, if this is the blast door cutting scene how do you get a range of ~150 feet (~45m)! Or do you mean after they had run down the hall?

[Illuminatus Primus]

And yet all these theories throw out other peices of Official Data, which includes descriptions of both plasma and true laser properties. Yet somehow they do not matter, only the theory held in favor this second this.

The "heirarchy" of Official Data (something I distinctly remember you, yourself arguing in favour of), demands that the ICS2 interpretation is more canonical than previous interpretations. Furthermore, no source directly points out plasma. Most sources simply state that Tibanna is excited by energy from a blaster cell and then a blaster is collumated and ejected from the muzzle. The "true laser" only refers to the TL, and if that. The laser itself is never said to be fired as the weapon.

And, HDS, if you aren't aware of why any theory involving a LS component that damages falling on it's face, I suggest you re-read my posts in this thread.

He's right--propogation of damaging blast is simply too slow to be light-speed unless we assume Mad's interpretation, which I find decidably unwieldly. Anything calling for multiple beams tied still to a single barrel bothers me--its reminscient of Xavier's claims that multiple "containment" beams for plasma are being fed from a long linear barrel.

The only other workable interpretation is that the damaging component is another pulse which is usually co-incident with the visible pulse. This also bothers me I do not consider it worthy of analysis.

I understand Saxton's reasons--whatever they are--they are not plasma. Their trajectories are those of luxons.

Ultimately the gravity-defying trajectories mean one thing--either they are somehow tied to some beam moving at c or they're simply immune to observable gravitational affects.

[SirNitram]

And yet all these theories throw out other peices of Official Data, which includes descriptions of both plasma and true laser properties. Yet somehow they do not matter, only the theory held in favor this second this.

The "heirarchy" of Official Data (something I distinctly remember you, yourself arguing in favour of), demands that the ICS2 interpretation is more canonical than previous interpretations. Furthermore, no source directly points out plasma. Most sources simply state that Tibanna is excited by energy from a blaster cell and then a blaster is collumated and ejected from the muzzle. The "true laser" only refers to the TL, and if that. The laser itself is never said to be fired as the weapon.

Indeed, there is that, however, every interpretation I've heard of the ICS2 quote results in something that simply flies in the face of what we observe. I have alot of respect for Dr. Saxton, but I frankly don't buy his theory. It does not wash with the observed combat. It should be thrown out with all the others.

And incidentally, there are quite a few which state it's laser light, or where it shows properties of being light. I'll pull a quote later, as pointless as it is.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Indeed, there is that, however, every interpretation I've heard of the ICS2 quote results in something that simply flies in the face of what we observe. I have alot of respect for Dr. Saxton, but I frankly don't buy his theory. It does not wash with the observed combat. It should be thrown out with all the others.

You complain that people prop up ICS2 over other interpretations which are never specifically contradicting of it--admit that it is higher in canonical heirarchy, but then want to throw out ALL sources after pointing out that official is not always in league with ICS2?

Though I must agree.

We must compile all the quotes, and pictures and list the properties of TLs, continuous beam weapons, and blasters throughout the movies.

We must list the properties and speculate on what can cause all of these.

Then we gather all quotes from official stories, not source materials.

We attempt to revise our speculations and properties list.

Lastly, we see what we can deal with from the Official theories, in order over canonicity--first dealing with the ICS2 interpretation, and then the others.

[SirNitram]

My objections, Illuminatus, is how all of the theories which people tout and cheer for all fall in front of Canon. And in big ways. The lightspeed propagation speed is what irks me the most, because, in my humble experience, this subforum has embraced it in much the same way I embrace Tev when we're getting really, really kinky. That, and they seem to love furiously grabbing hold of any excuse to declare Flak Bursting nonexistant, despite, well, the many times we see it.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Flakbursting is undoubtably bullshit.

The bursts do not equal the yield of the bolt--never cause damage, and would be tactically useless.

The only logical explanation is shield-bolt interactions.

[Vympel]

Advance warning for everyone- this is going to be the final turbolaser thread we see on PSW. The issue pops up every few months, so let's see where this one goes, I'll stickify it etc etc

*yawn*

time for me to go to bed- it's late over ehre.

[His Divine Shadow]

And, HDS, if you aren't aware of why any theory involving a LS component that damages falling on it's face, I suggest you re-read my posts in this thread.

I don't believe I have advocated that in my recent posts here.

[His Divine Shadow]

HDS, that is far faster than I would have guessed, but it is still so much slower than a massless beam/bolt that it is absurd. However it does seem agreed upon that blasters and turbolasers are nothing if not different technologies

I'd say different applications of the same common ground for both weapon technologies, which seems to be the usage of tibanna gas, possibly laser excitement wich causes the gas to discharge a large amount of radiation that is then harnessed by the weapon in differing manners.

Just out of curiosity, if this is the blast door cutting scene how do you get a range of ~150 feet (~45m)! Or do you mean after they had run down the hall?

After they have run down the hall

[His Divine Shadow]

The bursts do not equal the yield of the bolt--never cause damage, and would be tactically useless.

The only logical explanation is shield-bolt interactions.

Add to that, that the whole bolt can release a similar burst when passing close the edges of a shield and still be intact and travel along fine after that, clearly the most fitting explanation is that part of the bolt quanta is turned into possibly photons due to a destabilizing influence that might occur from passing too closely to a shield, results may vary, we've seen splintering, partial conversion to radiation(bursts) which might leave the bolt coherent or destabilize it further.

[SirNitram]

Flakbursting is undoubtably bullshit.

The bursts do not equal the yield of the bolt--never cause damage, and would be tactically useless.

The only logical explanation is shield-bolt interactions.

Come back when you watch the movies. Shields don't extend twenty or thirty fucking meters from the hull.

[His Divine Shadow]

Shields don't extend twenty or thirty fucking meters from the hull.

They do(ICS2), they're just very weak out there, they're most powerfull close to the hull, and as we see in TPM(droid dekas), ray-shields have no effect on inert matter, so they do not have to react with anything, infact, destabilizing bolts is probably all they can do at that range.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Flakbursting is undoubtably bullshit.

The bursts do not equal the yield of the bolt--never cause damage, and would be tactically useless.

The only logical explanation is shield-bolt interactions.

Come back when you watch the movies. Shields don't extend twenty or thirty fucking meters from the hull.

Ok, so Nitram wants me to believe that there are flakbursts despite--

1. Bolts going through supposed bursts.
2. Bursts being equal to a negligible quantity of bolt yiled
3. Bursts being too inefficient to reach the wattage threshold of the shields, and thus incapable of real damage
4. Tactically useless.

Flakbursts violate CoM, CoE, are completely fucking useless, and we've seen bolts go through supposed bursts.

Furthermore we've had quotes on extended shields (HDS has a lot of these) AND occupy volume.

Since the bolts have been observed to keep going through "bursts" than it follows the shield just happens to exert destabilizing affects on near-misses--that does not mean the actual shield barrier is 20-30 meters from the hull. That is a leap-in-logic on your part.

Flakbursts are fucking stupid.

[SirNitram]

Shields don't extend twenty or thirty fucking meters from the hull.

They do, they're just very weak out there, they're most powerfull close to the hull, and as we see in TPM, ray-shields have no effect on inert matter, so they do not have to react with anything, infact, destabilizing bolts is probably all they can do at that range.

Prove it. Canon shows only ship shields being hulltight. I'm sure you'll throw some quote about X-wings having shields out fifty meters or whatever bullshit figure it was, but this was clearly not the case in the Trench, where we see them in a smaller space than that BS quote's required shield space, and of course, the lovely N-1 Starfighter, seen to deploy it's shields back to full power, entirely hulltight.

So where's your proof, again?

[SirNitram]

Flakbursting is undoubtably bullshit.

The bursts do not equal the yield of the bolt--never cause damage, and would be tactically useless.

The only logical explanation is shield-bolt interactions.

Come back when you watch the movies. Shields don't extend twenty or thirty fucking meters from the hull.

Ok, so Nitram wants me to believe that there are flakbursts despite--

1. Bolts going through supposed bursts.
2. Bursts being equal to a negligible quantity of bolt yiled
3. Bursts being too inefficient to reach the wattage threshold of the shields, and thus incapable of real damage
4. Tactically useless.

Flakbursts violate CoM, CoE, are completely fucking useless, and we've seen bolts go through supposed bursts.

Furthermore we've had quotes on extended shields (HDS has a lot of these) AND occupy volume.

Since the bolts have been observed to keep going through "bursts" than it follows the shield just happens to exert destabilizing affects on near-misses--that does not mean the actual shield barrier is 20-30 meters from the hull. That is a leap-in-logic on your part.

Flakbursts are fucking stupid.

Pity they're canon. Show me some peice of Canon which disproves what everyone else sees. This is why I hate coming in here: It's a damn circle jerk over whoever's theory is in vogue. We see them flakburst, will you fucking deal already? Or will you mindlessly venerate your precious theory which doesn't wash with observations?