Enterprise nil v. Death Star II

[Lord Poe]

AH! Rereading the thread I see that it was YOU who said "Can you name one time the ejection feature actually worked on the E-D?"

My response to THAT little digression (other than "who cares?)" is "name one time when they actually tried to use it."

"Cause and Effect" "Timescape", "Parallels", "Generations"...

[Dalton]

Insurrection, but that was the E-E.

[Worlds Spanner]

AH! Rereading the thread I see that it was YOU who said "Can you name one time the ejection feature actually worked on the E-D?"

My response to THAT little digression (other than "who cares?)" is "name one time when they actually tried to use it."

"Cause and Effect" "Timescape", "Parallels", "Generations"...

You win this round then.

[JodoForce]

Photon torpedoes are antimatter weapons.

The extent to which you're right and I'm an idiot is utterly shocking.

So I'm going to back way off and use this newly reminded fact (I can't believe how stupid I am) to look at the antimatter bomb argument again.

Never mind all of my shit about they don't carry antimatter weapons. I'm stupid.

New tack: If a photon torpedo is essentailly an antimatter bomb, and it obviously can't do in a ship in one go, let alone an imperial ship, why does anyone think that beaming an antimatter bomb on the the other ship would do this? The only argument that might work is that if you beam it right into the power core or something you can get the other ship, but it seems to be that any weapon would do this just fine, and there's no reason to glorify antimatter as some be-all end-all Trek weapon from God.

Because in the innards of Star Destroyers, compartments are only sealed from each other by blast doors and thin walls, not metres of neutronium armor?

Also the failings of the transporter could make the antimatter bomb disperse into many compartments at the same time

[xcountryman03]

ever wonder why no one attacked the DS from the side oposite the super laser?

[Keevan_Colton]

ever wonder why no one attacked the DS from the side oposite the super laser?

Because its covered in surface guns.....Jebus H. Crimbo you're either a potted plant that's learned to operate a computer or a sock puppet......

[Ted C]

ever wonder why no one attacked the DS from the side oposite the super laser?

Because its covered in surface guns.....Jebus H. Crimbo you're either a potted plant that's learned to operate a computer or a sock puppet......

Cut him a little slack, Keevan. He could be a 12-year-old, too.

[Keevan_Colton]

Cut him a little slack, Keevan. He could be a 12-year-old, too.

Its one thing not to read the site....
Its another not to read the announcments....
But to not even read a thread throughly before posting that.....

*mutters about newb's*
I'm out of slack for today already

[Darth Servo]

ever wonder why no one attacked the DS from the side oposite the super laser?

Because its covered in surface guns.....Jebus H. Crimbo you're either a potted plant that's learned to operate a computer or a sock puppet......

Cut him a little slack, Keevan. He could be a 12-year-old, too.

Did you see the thread he started? He's your standard "borg adaptation is infinite" trekkie.

[Darth Servo]

ever wonder why no one attacked the DS from the side oposite the super laser?

Because the damn thing can TURN. Or didn't you notice that even when they had engaged the Imperial fleet on the OPPOSITE side of the DS from the rebel fleets original position, the SL was STILL aimed in teh general direction of the rebels. Furthermore, the thing can fire off axis.

[xcountryman03]

ok a) not a 12 year old, just trying to get the ropes of this forum (and now tryign to recover my tarnished reputation)
and b) that was just soemthing me and my roomate were joking about just as i read this

I hate the title newb and i know i've proved in my first post of how much of one i am but please i just found this site and felt like posting

[Striderteen]

Funny thing about antimatter-matter reactions: they produce pure energy in the form of gamma rays. This makes them good for overloading shield systems, but it also makes them totally useless against a solid object -- they don't cause any kind of physical damage.

Wouldn't want to be near one, though; gamma ray radiation is quite lethal.

[Ender]

Funny thing about antimatter-matter reactions: they produce pure energy in the form of gamma rays. This makes them good for overloading shield systems, but it also makes them totally useless against a solid object -- they don't cause any kind of physical damage.

[sean connery] Boy, I think you might be legally retarded[/sean connery]
Lets think about this: It doesn't hurt a solid object, but it is deadly to you, a solid object. Does that really follow in your mind?

Gammas will interact with the nuclei of atoms, undergoing photoelectric effects and producing recoil electrons which then electrostatically interact with the other atoms. The big picture end result is the material becomes hotter. Which means enough gammas will melt or vape the material.

So yes, gamma radiation is quite good at destroying solid objects, you just need enough of it.

[Ender]

What they really need is a system that "scrams" automatically. Even the Russians had these on their Nuclear Subs. Now as for Chernobyl that is another matter! The E-D has a safety system that makes Chernobyl look safe! I read a book by a Russian Engineer who defected shortly after Chernobyl(partly because he was a whistle blower) in the book he stated that the sideways mounted control rods made it immpossible to shut down the reactor if power was lost. To scare you there are 14 of this type of reactor still running in Russia include 3 reactors at Chernobyl

The real danger from Chernobly is that it was designed to have a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity. In other words, if something went wrong, the core would just get hotter and hotter rather then automatically shutting down like it does in US reactors.

[Isolder74]

What they really need is a system that "scrams" automatically. Even the Russians had these on their Nuclear Subs. Now as for Chernobyl that is another matter! The E-D has a safety system that makes Chernobyl look safe! I read a book by a Russian Engineer who defected shortly after Chernobyl(partly because he was a whistle blower) in the book he stated that the sideways mounted control rods made it immpossible to shut down the reactor if power was lost. To scare you there are 14 of this type of reactor still running in Russia include 3 reactors at Chernobyl

The real danger from Chernobly is that it was designed to have a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity. In other words, if something went wrong, the core would just get hotter and hotter rather then automatically shutting down like it does in US reactors.

This would be because these reactos were built to get even with the US on numbers of reactors opperating. The result of trying to get parity with the West caused the Soviets to cut corners in more places than just at the design of reactors like Chernobyl. Chernobyl was built to make more power than its size could really handle. Gamma rays being harmFul is why US Reactory are encased in lead lined concrete shrowds. Chernobyl and other reactors like it do not have a heavily reinforced chambers surrounding the reactor so when a steam explosion popped the reactor vessel(held on mainly by only the weight of the lid) there was nothing between the outside and the now smoldering graphite in the reactor(which now started burning because it is now exposed to air venting further ratioactive dust) and the outside world. What's worse the backup units for the coolent system, used more power to operate than the mains. They are not there for use in a emergency since they would barely be able to handle pumping the coolent around but to give operators a piece of mind and make it look like they are thinking about safety.

[JodoForce]

to get even with the US on numbers of reactors opperating

Why that must be one of the most retarded things I ever heard said

Chernobyl was built to make more power than its size could really handle.

Why did they need to do that if they just wanted to play the numbers game?

[Isolder74]

to get even with the US on numbers of reactors opperating

Why that must be one of the most retarded things I ever heard said

Chernobyl was built to make more power than its size could really handle.

Why did they need to do that if they just wanted to play the numbers game?

because their reactors had to look like they perfomed better then US reactors of the same size. The whole mine is better than yours thing.

[Striderteen]

Funny thing about antimatter-matter reactions: they produce pure energy in the form of gamma rays. This makes them good for overloading shield systems, but it also makes them totally useless against a solid object -- they don't cause any kind of physical damage.

[sean connery] Boy, I think you might be legally retarded[/sean connery]
Lets think about this: It doesn't hurt a solid object, but it is deadly to you, a solid object. Does that really follow in your mind?

Gammas will interact with the nuclei of atoms, undergoing photoelectric effects and producing recoil electrons which then electrostatically interact with the other atoms. The big picture end result is the material becomes hotter. Which means enough gammas will melt or vape the material.

So yes, gamma radiation is quite good at destroying solid objects, you just need enough of it.

Okay, I oversimplifed there. My apologies.

Gamma ray radiation is highly lethal to most organisms, but that’s because it causes radiation poisoning. Gamma rays are extremely ineffective at destroying physical objects; although an intense dose of gamma radiation can indeed melt or even vaporize, the concentration of gamma rays from a point source like a bomb drops off very rapidly as you move away from the source, so the radiation will drop below effective vaporization level very quickly. This leads to a very small physical destruct radius relative to the energy level of the weapon; with a modern nuclear weapon, for example, the gamma kill radius is only a few meters, while the kill radius of the blast shockwave is several miles.

You’d be much better off using matter-antimatter weapons to tear down the shields, then attacking the hull with thermonuclear or even chemical warheads.

[Ender]

Okay, I oversimplifed there. My apologies.

Gamma ray radiation is highly lethal to most organisms, but that’s because it causes radiation poisoning. Gamma rays are extremely ineffective at destroying physical objects;

Radiation poisoning is a result of them physically destroying your body. The molecules in your cells are being ionized and broken apart.

although an intense dose of gamma radiation can indeed melt or even vaporize, the concentration of gamma rays from a point source like a bomb drops off very rapidly as you move away from the source, so the radiation will drop below effective vaporization level very quickly. This leads to a very small physical destruct radius relative to the energy level of the weapon; with a modern nuclear weapon, for example, the gamma kill radius is only a few meters, while the kill radius of the blast shockwave is several miles. You’d be much better off using matter-antimatter weapons to tear down the shields, then attacking the hull with thermonuclear or even chemical warheads.

Jesus. You do know that thermonuclear and m/am warheads work the same way, right? In an atmosphere the radiation superheats the air, causing the shockwave. The photons from the blast cause the same reactions I described above. There will be the same fireball.

In space, the only difference between nuclear warheads and m/am warheads is that per volume the m/am weapon is far more powerful.

Please go read the nuclear weapons FAQ before you continue.