Observing the behaviour of turbolasers and blasters

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-20 05:37pm

Leap in logic to assume that the shimmering affect was limited to the outer perimeter of the shield--they're stated to be volumetric.

In case you did not notice, he said they exert destabling influences outward, but the actually absorbing surface is relatively close to the hull.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-04-20 05:39pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Leap in logic to assume that the shimmering affect was limited to the outer perimeter of the shield--they're stated to be volumetric.

In case you did not notice, he said they exert destabling influences outward, but the actually absorbing surface is relatively close to the hull.

I'd love to see the proof. It probably comes from whatever BS he tries to sell that involves shields out 50 meters or more.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-04-20 05:41pm

SirNitram wrote:Prove it

It's in the ICS.

Canon shows only ship shields being hulltight.

You'd think that, but it's not, see below.

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.

Again, they're weak out there, and do not have any interaction with matter(again: TPM, Droid Dekas, visual canon, no interaction with solid matter) any rate so it does not matter.

And as for the N-1 fighter, you only think it's hulltight.

Here's my proof:

Pg. 3: Conventional shield technologies use a range of force-field effects. Ray shield, for example, deflect or break up energy beams, while particle shields forcefully retard high-velocity projectiles. Normally, shield intensities diminish gradually with distance from the generator or projector. However, shields projected in an atmosphere tend to have a defined outer surface. Such a boundary becomes super-hot when left still, and mirage like affects are seen. Shields surrounding a moving airborne vessel are less visible, but can impact aerodynamic performance.

(ref: Episode II Incredible Cross-Sections)

It addresses both issues and is fully compatible with canon material.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-04-20 05:44pm

And where does it say, HDS, anything about your supposed, completely unsupported, 50 meter shields necessary to intercept the flak bursts? Wow, it extends a distance from the hull.. Let's leap in logic to huge shields! YEA!

I know I'm grouchy today, but could you possibly not be stupid?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-20 05:46pm

HDS is being stupid?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Purposeful flakbursts that cannot do damage that violate CoE, CoM, and let the bolts keep going afterward?

For you to even think that your vaunted and utterly retarded flakbursts might be wrong, you'd want him to produce exact quotes directly repeating what he says. This is bullshit.

SirNitram wrote:I know I'm grouchy today, but could you possibly not be stupid?

Actually, you're always a little shit.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-04-20 05:48pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:HDS is being stupid?

Purposeful flakbursts that cannot do damage that violate CoE, CoM, and let the bolts keep going afterward?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I'm sorry, did I step in your little ego? I'm so sorry. Funny, of course, because I don't recall flak bursts being unable to cause damage.. They seemed to damage asteroids in Ep II just fine, but I suppose you'll just handwave like always..

SirNitram wrote:I know I'm grouchy today, but could you possibly not be stupid?
Actually, you're always a little shit.

Only when I have to listen to your unsupported bullshit and how you venerate whatever theory you are currently worshipping. Do you have any rebuttals? Any evidence? I've shown my evidence for shields being hull-conforming and close to the hull: Where's yours that they aren't, dickhead? Or do you want to just play the insult game?

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-04-20 05:51pm

SirNitram wrote:And where does it say, HDS, anything about your supposed, completely unsupported, 50 meter shields necessary to intercept the flak bursts? Wow, it extends a distance from the hull.. Let's leap in logic to huge shields! YEA!

Why does it have to say exact figures? It certainly proves my point over yours, unsupported, hardly.

Not that you've bothered to substansiate any actual 50meter figure with calculations or anything, please do so, then again you've not really debated at all in this thread, you've mostly waved your hands and ignored our points(like just now you ignored the fact that your notion about hul hugging shields are false and only mirages) while proclaiming how stupid we all are.

I know I'm grouchy today, but could you possibly not be stupid?

This coming from you right now is hilarious.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-04-20 05:52pm

Any evidence? I've shown my evidence for shields being hull-conforming and close to the hull: Where's yours that they aren't, dickhead? Or do you want to just play the insult game?

And it was shot down, and if there is anyone here playing the insult game it is you.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-04-20 05:53pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:
SirNitram wrote:And where does it say, HDS, anything about your supposed, completely unsupported, 50 meter shields necessary to intercept the flak bursts? Wow, it extends a distance from the hull.. Let's leap in logic to huge shields! YEA!
Why does it have to say exact figures? It certainly proves my point over yours, unsupported, hardly.

So what you're saying is you have no proof for your bullshit. Thank you.

Not that you've bothered to substansiate any actual 50meter figure with calculations or anything, please do so, then again you've not really debated at all in this thread, you've mostly waved your hands and ignored our points while proclaiming how stupid we all are.

I'm sorry, don't you like someone pointing out you're shitting all over actual evidence? Pointing out situations in gross contradiction to your theory is debating, by the way.. But I suppose you'll just declare yourself the winner(Again), dance around whatever altar you have to your little theories(Again), and chant about how you won. There's someone else who does that too, except he was VI'd and eventually banned.

I know I'm grouchy today, but could you possibly not be stupid?
This coming from you right now is hilarious.

Uh-huh. Do you have any evidence for your claims before you declare final victory?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-04-20 05:54pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:
Any evidence? I've shown my evidence for shields being hull-conforming and close to the hull: Where's yours that they aren't, dickhead? Or do you want to just play the insult game?
And it was shot down, and if there is anyone here playing the insult game it is you.

Funny, I don't see anything that could shoot down actual canon posted here. Must be in your head.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-20 05:56pm

SirNitram wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:HDS is being stupid?

Purposeful flakbursts that cannot do damage that violate CoE, CoM, and let the bolts keep going afterward?

Pot. Kettle. Black.
I'm sorry, did I step in your little ego? I'm so sorry.

Because saying that you're supporting something that makes no fucking sense has something to do with my ego? Or are you just spewing feces from your throat again?

SirNitram wrote:Funny, of course, because I don't recall flak bursts being unable to cause damage.. They seemed to damage asteroids in Ep II just fine, but I suppose you'll just handwave like always..

Since when were flakbursts, and not DET blowing asteroids in the Ep. II chase? Screencaps? Possibly.

This will significantly change the yield calcs because not all the energy is going in the target from an explosion. I'm glad you brought this enlightenment to our attention.

SirNitram wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Actually, you're always a little shit.
Only when I have to listen to your unsupported bullshit and how you venerate whatever theory you are currently worshipping.

Actually you were insulting HDS first. And you're generally a condescending asshole.

SirNitram wrote:Do you have any rebuttals?

I posted all the problems with flakbursting and you dismissed it with "well I say they look like flakbursts." w00t. Especially when our theories and such do not contradict visuals, you'll have to do better.

SirNitram wrote:Any evidence?

The ICS2 quote specifically mentions breaking up energy bolts and decreasing shield effects gradually with distance while simultaneously accounting for

SirNitram wrote:I've shown my evidence for shields being hull-conforming and close to the hull: Where's yours that they aren't, dickhead?

Saxton directly accounts for shimmering affects, but clearly states that shield effects slowly diminish with distance from the hull. That's no direct contradiction of canon, and thus you'll have to point out a direct contradiction until your bitching is worth anything.

And I'm playing the insult game?

SirNitram wrote:Or do you want to just play the insult game?

You're one of the most patronizing little fuckers I've ever encountered. Insults aren't the point. You simply are a little fucking asshole, and that's my point. No alterior motives, just I think you're a fuck.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-04-20 05:57pm

SirNitram wrote:I'm sorry, did I step in your little ego? I'm so sorry. Funny, of course, because I don't recall flak bursts being unable to cause damage.. They seemed to damage asteroids in Ep II just fine, but I suppose you'll just handwave like always..

I got this whole sequence on the computer and I have not been able to find a single shred of evidence for your assertion, you better prove it now.
Infact I saw several bursts that did not have the slightest effect on a very nearby asteroid.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-04-20 05:58pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:
SirNitram wrote:I'm sorry, did I step in your little ego? I'm so sorry. Funny, of course, because I don't recall flak bursts being unable to cause damage.. They seemed to damage asteroids in Ep II just fine, but I suppose you'll just handwave like always..
I got this whole sequence on the computer and I have not been able to find a single shred of evidence for your assertion, you better prove it now.
Infact I saw several bursts that did not have the slightest effect on a very nearby asteroid.

Yea, we all know what a fine conductor hard vacuum is, nyet? But, as expected, handwaving. We only see bolts explode in that scene, so we should assume those that hit the asteroids and cause the asteroids to explode(Much like, you know, a flak explosion), must not be flak bursts.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-04-20 06:04pm

So what you're saying is you have no proof for your bullshit. Thank you.

Rather the opposite, you have no proof, so you just keep in flinging shit.

I'm sorry, don't you like someone pointing out you're shitting all over actual evidence?

Ahhh, so that would the flakbursts you said caused damage, but when on inspection of the claim, no such thing was found, no visual evidence is presented by you either, just boastfull claims.

Or no wait, maybe it's the hullhugging shield notion of yours! Oh sorry, again we have evidence that shields extend an unknown distance away(your moaning about your unproven 50meter distance is just whining)

No wait, it's the idea that such shields would interfere with events like the trench run, but noo, here we have TPM showing how ray shields do not interefere with matter at all...

Pointing out situations in gross contradiction to your theory is debating, by the way..

Point out these situations, you've done so, was not able to find a contradiction, ignored the fact

But I suppose you'll just declare yourself the winner(Again), dance around whatever altar you have to your little theories(Again), and chant about how you won. There's someone else who does that too, except he was VI'd and eventually banned

Funny, this seems to be exactly what you are doing, the hypocrisy is thick enough to cut with a knife.

Uh-huh. Do you have any evidence for your claims before you declare final victory?

Do have the slighest shred of anything even resembling evidence? It'd be nice if you could produce anything but your usual barrage of nitpicks and constant claims of victory and boasts about contradictions, while failing to live up to a single one.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-04-20 06:05pm

Oh yes, pointing to a direct contradiction of the theorized requirement of your shield interaction idea is a nitpick. Thank you for reminding me why I ignore this subforum.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-20 06:11pm

SirNitram wrote:We only see bolts explode in that scene, so we should assume those that hit the asteroids and cause the asteroids to explode(Much like, you know, a flak explosion), must not be flak bursts.

What the hell?

So every bolt must be exploding in a flakburst? Hell since almost all of the bolts would have hit the Starfighter, why would it be set in a flakbursting mode? Are you claiming all laser bolts have a proximity fuse that causes them to blow up when they're near something?

And by the way, 2 kilotons of energy detonating right next to a small rock will do SOMETHING to it, one would believe.

SirNitram wrote:I'm sorry, don't you like someone pointing out you're shitting all over actual evidence? Pointing out situations in gross contradiction to your theory is debating, by the way.. But I suppose you'll just declare yourself the winner(Again), dance around whatever altar you have to your little theories(Again), and chant about how you won. There's someone else who does that too, except he was VI'd and eventually banned.

Cut this horseshit.

I'm sick and fucking tired of every other moron coming up and making "Oh you're like Darkstar" fucking ploys and then having the audacity to accuse others of pointless flaming. Fuck you Nitram. I'm glad you don't stay in this subforum much. You're a dipshit.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-04-20 06:13pm

SirNitram wrote:Yea, we all know what a fine conductor hard vacuum is, nyet? But, as expected, handwaving. We only see bolts explode in that scene, so we should assume those that hit the asteroids and cause the asteroids to explode(Much like, you know, a flak explosion), must not be flak bursts.

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!
Hand waving by me?

And yeah, a 1KT> burst of radiation wouldn't have affect them the slightest, despite it being only 10-15 meters away, Hehehehehehee.....

Also, every instance of an exploding asteroid is not in the form of an omnidirectional burst, no, it matches up with how it would look like if a directed weapon of some sort had it it, if there was a flakburst, the entire side of the asteroid should heat up, all the asteroids in the vicinity should heat up, but nope, no such luck, only impacts occuring that could only come from a hit with a directed energy weapon.

Looks like you've turned into a regular DarkStar here, your original claim is that flakbursts where affecting asteroids in this scene, yet when it's found out that they do, you bring up a red herring about vacuum and conduction whilst calling your opponent on handwaving, when this is exactly what you are doing youself.

Soo, let's look here:
Nitram: "They seemed to damage asteroids in Ep II just fine"(actual quote)

HDS: "I went through the sequence and I could not verify your claim, infact several bursts occured near an asteroid and had absolutely no effect on the asteroid in question"

Nitram: "Yea, we all know what a fine conductor hard vacuum is, nyet? You dirty hand waver"

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-04-20 06:16pm

SirNitram wrote:Oh yes, pointing to a direct contradiction of the theorized requirement of your shield interaction idea is a nitpick. Thank you for reminding me why I ignore this subforum.

Ah yes, another direct contradiction that turns out not to be so direct after all(I am not sure what he's bitching about now, but if I would guess its that shields not specifically stating 50meters, the unsupported figure he has not bothered to even prove yet), bitching and moaning to follow I am sure, we already have this nice display of DS like behaviour anyway.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-20 06:17pm

SirNitram wrote:Oh yes, pointing to a direct contradiction of the theorized requirement of your shield interaction idea is a nitpick. Thank you for reminding me why I ignore this subforum.

And he wraps it up with bullshit and then a concieted, snooty little condescension.

As I said, a condescending little shit.

Wrapped it up right as predicted.

Hell we wouldn't want you to leave!

All Nitram, all the time, baby!

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » 2003-04-21 09:13pm

HDS: That makes more sense, thanks (from a while back, TPM destroyer droids ranges--I'm too lazy right now to look again for that quote).

What's the issue here? We see bolts flash as they pass shielded vessels, we see bolts do nothing as they pass shielded vessels, we see bolts flash after passing non-shielded objects, we see bolts flash after passing hard vacuum. We see parts of bolts flash while the rest continues after passing shielded vessels. We see these flashes cause no apparent damage, ever. SO,

I propose a different theory (based entirely on what I can see, not any of the EU or novels): Larger weapons can be set to fire distracting shots. That is, perhaps these bursts are intentional and can interfere with sensors, or simply the human eye (which can win a dog-fight). They are not ordinary shots, and are low power, intended to scare or blind a vessel. In addition, if a bolt is comprised of several small projectiles (yes yes, I am trying to connect my other theory to larger weapons) then a few could be set to burst while the rest continue for who knows-what-reason.

Any takers? Am I dead wrong? Or will each of you guys stay convinced you are correct and the other guy is wrong/stupid/whatever. (seriously, I mean this as light-heartedly as I can--I am not attacking any of you!!!)

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-21 09:27pm

The Silence and I wrote:we see bolts flash after passing non-shielded objects, we see bolts flash after passing hard vacuum.

Cite examples of any flashes not coincident with a shielded vessel.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-04-22 01:47am

The Silence and I wrote:What's the issue here? We see bolts flash as they pass shielded vessels, we see bolts do nothing as they pass shielded vessels, we see bolts flash after passing non-shielded objects, we see bolts flash after passing hard vacuum

Honestly, I cannot recall either of these things happening, please cite the material in which it occured.

Any takers? Am I dead wrong? Or will each of you guys stay convinced you are correct and the other guy is wrong/stupid/whatever. (seriously, I mean this as light-heartedly as I can--I am not attacking any of you!!!)

This theory still falls on the account that ship mounted weapons have been observed to have behaviour fitting in with that of an invisible beam, one cannot connect a projectile of some form with the larger weapons.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2003-04-22 05:27pm

SirNitram wrote: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.

I'm not aware of any other official references that directly contradict the ICS2 description. I could be forgetting something, or perhaps I haven't seen it yet. Could you provide me with some quotes to back up your assertion that there is official data that I'm neglecting?

Probably the most difficult to include is the Visual Dictionary description, which I'll include here as found on HDS' site as long as I have it up:

Star Wars: The Visual Dictionary, page 7 wrote:Common blaster weapons use high-energy gas for ammunition, activated by a power cell and converted into plasma. The plasma is released from a magnetic bottle effect to fire through collimating componets as a coherent energy bolt. Inherent instabilities limit the ability to precisely aim a blaster bolt, but knowing one's weapon well can strengthen marksmanship. Plasma energy is dissipated as the bolt travels, limiting range as the energy as the energy becomes incoherent. Longer range is developed by longer blast tubes, which align the plasma carrier waves more closely through additional galven circuitry, lens crystals, or other collimating devices.

Now, certain parts are easy to mesh with the ICS2 description. Energy is dissipated as the bolt travels as the makeup of it becomes incoherent. This sounds a lot like the decay description of the beam causing the visible bolt. Bringing in the SotE description of an ionized marker as not being the damaging component, we can assume a kind of decay where first the beam particles decay into ions, which emmit light. In order for this to reduce the energy of the attack significantly, they'd have to be high-energy ions, or plasma, anyway.

Notice that the VD description says it decays from a "coherent energy bolt" into plasma. The bolt itself is not a plasma weapon. The largest problem is that it talks about the bolt as the main portion.

Well, then again, that's not really much of a problem... I've been saying all along that blasters don't seem follow the theorized operation of turbolasers. And even so, the description of this is pretty close to that of the ICS2 description in several important aspects.

Also, descriptions of real-world laser-like effects would only support the ICS2 description, which fires lightspeed beams which would be very laser-like when the main pulse is fired.

So where's the incompatable descriptions that can be used to build a superior theory to ICS2's description?

My theory attempts to merge as many descriptions as possible together, and I note where it fails so that I can attempt to enhance it. So I'm all for new data...

By the way, I just got a new idea... maybe turbolasers decay in two stages. The first stage of decay turns the lightspeed-traveling massless bolts into the same kind of invisible sublight massive particles that blaster bolts consist of. Then they decay into ions which release photons to make up the visible bolt. A turbolaser basically charges up the particles with a kind of mass-energy conversion into massless particles, wheras blaster weapons don't have the power required for that kind of conversion, so it's as if they fire partially decayed turbolaser shots.

That could harmonize things pretty well, if it stands up. Comments?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-22 05:37pm

Mad wrote:By the way, I just got a new idea... maybe turbolasers decay in two stages. The first stage of decay turns the lightspeed-traveling massless bolts into the same kind of invisible sublight massive particles that blaster bolts consist of.

The pulse must be composed of c traveling components--it cannot be massive particles at any time, including blasters--because they have flat trajectories. The only possibilities for flat bolts are part of c beam or gravity-defying massive particles.

Mad wrote:Then they decay into ions which release photons to make up the visible bolt.

Ockam's. Its simpler to go from unknown massless quanta--photons.

Ions require whole atomic nuclei with incomplete or overfilled electron shells.

Mad wrote:A turbolaser basically charges up the particles with a kind of mass-energy conversion into massless particles, wheras blaster weapons don't have the power required for that kind of conversion, so it's as if they fire partially decayed turbolaser shots.

Flat bolts =

1. Pulse along c beam.

2. Gravity defying massive particles. Only possibilities.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2003-04-22 06:00pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:The pulse must be composed of c traveling components--it cannot be massive particles at any time, including blasters--because they have flat trajectories. The only possibilities for flat bolts are part of c beam or gravity-defying massive particles.

Yeah, I forgot about the gravity-defying part while coming up with the new idea.

Ockam's. Its simpler to go from unknown massless quanta--photons.

Ions require whole atomic nuclei with incomplete or overfilled electron shells.

Let me be more specific: I meant that the particles decay into charged particles -- specifically, I was thinking of just electrons -- which then emmit light so we can see the pulse.

The reason for the charged particle stage is because SotE mentions an "ionized marker," which is not the damaging component. Merging as much official data as possible requires that I give a reason for the visible bolt to be considered "ionized." (Any theory that doesn't address the bolt somehow being ionized is ignoring an official source, and therefore incomplete.)

Flat bolts =

1. Pulse along c beam.

2. Gravity defying massive particles. Only possibilities.

In some instances (blasters, some TIE attacks), we can't have a pulse along a c-beam. (Unless we use your stasis ideas, but your ideas don't follow the order of events described in other sources [bolt comes before the beam becomes damaging], and, worse, appears to require a FTL transmission inside of the stasis field. So it still has problems.)

In other instances, we have to have a pulse along a c-beam. These would be HDS' clips.

Anyway, I don't really like the idea of gravity defying particles. They'd have to have a weakened attatchment to gravity since the Vong can still attract the bolts with their dovin basals. They're exotic particles, it seems, but still... Something that doesn't require gravity defying particles yet still explains everything else would be superior. But something that explains all observed events and fits in all official data, even if it requires those particles, would be superior to something that ignores data.