It's raining asteroids! TESB topic.

[Phil Skayhan]

Interesitngly enough, I have found atleast 5-10 events of apparent flakbursts in TESB without _any_ bolts anywhere, maybe it's a totally different system? They fire a few lowpowered explosive projectiles to cause concussive effects and such at the same time they fire their blasters and lasers?
That makes alot more sense to me.

What scenes were these?

[His Divine Shadow]

Interesitngly enough, I have found atleast 5-10 events of apparent flakbursts in TESB without _any_ bolts anywhere, maybe it's a totally different system? They fire a few lowpowered explosive projectiles to cause concussive effects and such at the same time they fire their blasters and lasers?
That makes alot more sense to me.

What scenes were these?

It's spread out over the whole TESB ground battle really, but when they first approach the AT-AT's we see bursts erupting in the air around the speeders, it's around 25 minutes into the movie.

[Master of Ossus]

Interesitngly enough, I have found atleast 5-10 events of apparent flakbursts in TESB without _any_ bolts anywhere, maybe it's a totally different system? They fire a few lowpowered explosive projectiles to cause concussive effects and such at the same time they fire their blasters and lasers?
That makes alot more sense to me.

What scenes were these?

It's spread out over the whole TESB ground battle really, but when they first approach the AT-AT's we see bursts erupting in the air around the speeders, it's around 25 minutes into the movie.

There are many scenes in RotJ in whcih you can see explosions in the background without any apparent cause, also. For instance, just after Lando says "Only the fighters are attacking..." he banks the Falcon, and an explosion is visible without any apparent cause.

[Phil Skayhan]

It's spread out over the whole TESB ground battle really, but when they first approach the AT-AT's we see bursts erupting in the air around the speeders, it's around 25 minutes into the movie.

Here we see a burst from a bolt



Then there are many, as you said, with no apparent source. For example the two bursts in these frames:

[Phil Skayhan]

There are many scenes in RotJ in whcih you can see explosions in the background without any apparent cause, also. For instance, just after Lando says "Only the fighters are attacking..." he banks the Falcon, and an explosion is visible without any apparent cause.

Relevant clip at 1/8th speed

[Connor MacLeod]

Wayne, have you even looked up the definition of flak?

http://beta.encarta.msn.com/encnet/feat ... earch=flak

http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?bo ... ry&va=flak

What I was referring to was bolts "exploding" IIRC.

Besides which, the previous comment mentioned about "explosive solids" is a valid one. How do we know these so called "flak bursts" are not physical projectiles wrapped in some sort of field (like Chewie's bowcaster, Zam Wessell's rifle, or proton torpedoes/concussion missiles?)

[Connor MacLeod]

On top of that, flak bursting would be supremely effective in ground combat (such as oh.. . Geonosis?) Yet we hardly ever see it used.

What do you mean, "hardly ever"? We saw it on the ground combat with the walkers around the speeders at Hoth (and it was mentioned in the novelization) and we DID see flak bursts in the air at Geonosis.

If they were in the air, there apparently wasn't much energy being released (which makes me wonder either where the energy went, or why they were deliberately using lower settings, even against enemy vehicles and armor. Or why they would consider such bolts to be effective against targets that are shielded and possess super-dispersive armor, like LAATs)

And why didn't either side use flak bursting on the ground troops themselves? I would imagine a phalanx of LAAT gunships sweeping down and laying down sustained flak-bursts would be quite effective in thinning clonetrooper/droid ranks.

[Connor MacLeod]

I agree with you that that would make more sense. But there seems to be a pattern in Imperial firing when they want to capture a ship. First, fire around the ship using "flak-burst" which drains the shields. Then one shot specifically targeted which causes the loss of at least one section of the shield. We see this with the Tantive IV in the beginning of ANH and the Falcon escaping the asteroid field in ESB.

Even if we ignore the apparent massive inefficiency issues involved with using "flak bursts" to drain shields, why do they not use flak bursts exclusively to drop shields then, first? Why does flak bursting appear to be so random a phenomenon. (And why do fighters do it as well, esb in TESB. you can't tell me that dissipating the energy of a low KT level fighter bolt over a larger surface area is going to make it EASIER to bring down the Falcon's shields.)

Besides which, you haven't explained HOW a flak burst is supposed to be more effective at penetrating the shields than a concentrated barrage of normal bolts, or a steady stream of lower powered bolts (which would be as effective and not engender the inefficiencies the flak-burst would.) I've already cited that CONCENTRATED fire is repeatedly employed to penetrate shields, and that we know reduced/variable power shots are quite possible.

Also, when the Falcon makes it run from Mos Eisley in ANH, there are no direct hits witnessed (we see flashes directly in front of the cockpit ), yet shields were being drained.

No direct hits? We see the Falcon being pursued by the ISD, and its firing directly at its aft. IIRC they were inflicting direct hits. As for the "flashes" and the cockpit, given the cockpit's location, it would not be impossible to see flashes of impacts (which do occur when the ship is hit directly as well, I might add) striking the ship. The cockpit, IIRC is rather obscured on the right side by the bulk of the ship as it is.

Obviously, what I consider flak you can see as shield interaction in the above examples (except perhaps the last considering the location we see the flashes). But in each case, why didn't the Imperials do as you suggest they should do?

Who says they weren't? They may not neccesarily have been using a large number of reduced-power "splinter" shots (possibly because such wo uld not be powerful enough to overcome the shield dissipation threshold), but they certainly could have been employing concentrated fire from multiple batteries (which would be effective in penetrating the shields)

You still seem to be operating under the assumption that a flak burst is somehow going to be *better* at weakening shields than normal bolts, for some reason. The onyl way I can conceive of flak bursting actually being effective at draining shields is with a large number of bolts, or very powerful ones (since you have to accomodate for the wasted energy and the reduced intensity that flak bursts will invariably engender.) In fact, it strikes me as an even worse idea (the damage is less localized, for one thing, and risks damage to more of the ship than a single bolt striking would.)

Apparently, I missed this discussion the last time it went around so if you have a link available I'd appreciate it. I'm not aware of this being on Mike's tech pages. Unless you're referring to the TL Commentaries. I'm open minded on this subject, though clearly I'm leaning toward "flak bursts".

Its eight pages, but some of the relevant commentary appears here:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... &start=150

Alsp, Mike makes a brief mention of it here:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/AOTC/Revelations-2.html

"The "flak bursts" around the gunships help substantiate the presence of ray shields; if a ray shield is a volumetric refraction/scattering phenomenon (as demonstrated by the Tantive IV in ANH) with a highly reflective boundary condition at the hull, near misses could potentially undergo a runaway scattering effect in which they disperse into showers of smaller bolts, which in turn disperse into yet smaller showers, thus giving the appearance of a "flak burst"."


Mike expounded a bit more in a PM to me I quoted in the above discussion that I also posted:

OK, compare the two theories. A TL has several known characteristics;
it is
massless (hence the lack of gravity drop), collimated (hence the
beam-like
appearance and propagation, unlike a plasma which would simply expand
into a
cloud), and it does not appear to contain any kind of physical
mechanism or
device.

So, we have:

Theory 1: The TL somehow magically flak-bursts, but only in close
proximity to
the target, despite no conceivable method of proximity detection.

Theory 2: There is some interaction with a 3D volumetric effect of
shields
which causes the TL to somehow flak-burst.

Both explanations work, but there are key differences in terms of the
number
of unknowns. Since no technological apparatus travels along with the TL
bolt,
theory #1 requires an unknown INTRINSIC characteristic of TL's which
causes
them flak-burst, and it also requires an unknown INTRINSIC
characteristic
which causes them to do so only in reasonably close proximity to the
target.
Theory #2 employs a known technological device (shields), a known
volumetric
effect (from Tantive IV), and requires only an unpredictable
interaction with
that volumetric effect.

Theory #2 requires fewer unknowns.

As I said, I think Mike's theory works better than the assumption that shielding neccesarily extends that far (even though I demonstarated its quite possible to argue that, even if it is only using EU evidence.)

[Darth Garden Gnome]

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... &start=150

*hangs head in shame*

Why is everyone ignoring the TPM incident? It's perfectly good proof of a shield/bolt interaction. We see the bolts strike the shield, and explode. We know they've struck the shield because in an atmosphere they are invisible.

In all of the scenarios in space (the TESB Falcon/Avenger scenes especially) the same effects of the TPM event is witnessed, just the shield is invisible because it's in space!

[Lord Poe]

Wayne, have you even looked up the definition of flak?

Yes, I know wha the fuck "flak" means. And I know they can't be written off as "shield interactions".

What I was referring to was bolts "exploding" IIRC.

You know, if its there, and the novelizations says its flak, then we need to live with that. Not call it something else.

Besides which, the previous comment mentioned about "explosive solids" is a valid one. How do we know these so called "flak bursts" are not physical projectiles wrapped in some sort of field (like Chewie's bowcaster, Zam Wessell's rifle, or proton torpedoes/concussion missiles?)

Because we don't se launchers on TIE fighters and Walkers.

[His Divine Shadow]

Because we don't se launchers on TIE fighters and Walkers.

We see on AT-AT's those smaller weapons above the chin mounted ones, they could fire small projectiles, possibly a TIE could have a similar system.

[His Divine Shadow]

Because we don't se launchers on TIE fighters and Walkers.

We see on AT-AT's those smaller weapons above the chin mounted ones, they could fire small projectiles, possibly a TIE could have a similar system.

Though I don't think we've seen any TIE situations that require this though.

[Lord Poe]

On top of that, flak bursting would be supremely effective in ground combat (such as oh.. . Geonosis?) Yet we hardly ever see it used.

What do you mean, "hardly ever"? We saw it on the ground combat with the walkers around the speeders at Hoth (and it was mentioned in the novelization) and we DID see flak bursts in the air at Geonosis.

If they were in the air, there apparently wasn't much energy being released (which makes me wonder either where the energy went, or why they were deliberately using lower settings, even against enemy vehicles and armor.

Or the bolt loses cohesion at a certain range, and detonates. How? Fuck if I know. But it would explain this low power concern of yours, and fits with what we see onscreen.

Or why they would consider such bolts to be effective against targets that are shielded and possess super-dispersive armor, like LAATs)

Eh?

And why didn't either side use flak bursting on the ground troops themselves? I would imagine a phalanx of LAAT gunships sweeping down and laying down sustained flak-bursts would be quite effective in thinning clonetrooper/droid ranks.

Was either side interested in taking prisoners, or just in the enemies' defeat? Why use flakbursting, which is akin to a grenade attack where your troops and the enemies are intertwined, when you can use pinpoit fire?

[His Divine Shadow]

Or the bolt loses cohesion at a certain range, and detonates. How? Fuck if I know. But it would explain this low power concern of yours, and fits with what we see onscreen.

So you're saying it can be just a random thing?
That would fit too, and possibly the probability of such things occuring might be increased in the presence of volumetric shields and the energies being radiated from their surfaces, and inside an atmosphere.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Yes, I know wha the fuck "flak" means. And I know they can't be written off as "shield interactions".

And it also can't be written off as "energy bolts exploding in a speherical fashion like a bomb" either. What it CAN be written off as is simply anti-aircraft fire, which the DS1 was putting out at a tremendous rate.

Besides which, the previous comment mentioned about "explosive solids" is a valid one. How do we know these so called "flak bursts" are not physical projectiles wrapped in some sort of field (like Chewie's bowcaster, Zam Wessell's rifle, or proton torpedoes/concussion missiles?)

Because we don't se launchers on TIE fighters and Walkers.

The DS1 was armed with projectile launchers. It's canon, after all.

AT-STs also carry physical weaponry.

[Lord Poe]

So you're saying it can be just a random thing?

Sure. That's what's seen onscreen.

That would fit too, and possibly the probability of such things occuring might be increased in the presence of volumetric shields and the energies being radiated from their surfaces, and inside an atmosphere.

Hell, whatever. I'm just worried about canon will be ignored because everything isn't tied up in a pretty bow.

[Mad]

Or the bolt loses cohesion at a certain range, and detonates. How? Fuck if I know. But it would explain this low power concern of yours, and fits with what we see onscreen.

Keep in mind that we're talking about lightspeed beams with a visible bolt side-effect... turning the beam off may cause particles generated by the side effect to explode in a flak-like manner... wouldn't do much damage, but it could cause atmospheric disturbance. The flak would be more of a side effect, with the real damage being from the beam that missed. Could be another reason for timing the bolts so they're near the target when the beam cuts off.

[Lord Poe]

Or the bolt loses cohesion at a certain range, and detonates. How? Fuck if I know. But it would explain this low power concern of yours, and fits with what we see onscreen.

Keep in mind that we're talking about lightspeed beams with a visible bolt side-effect... turning the beam off may cause particles generated by the side effect to explode in a flak-like manner... wouldn't do much damage, but it could cause atmospheric disturbance. The flak would be more of a side effect, with the real damage being from the beam that missed. Could be another reason for timing the bolts so they're near the target when the beam cuts off.

Now you see..THIS is the kind of stuff I like! Integrate the canon; don't treat it like a red headed stepchild!

[Phyre]

Maybe the energy is contained in a small, electromagnetic field, like a bowcaster uses. Once they loose that field, for various reasons, the energy is no longer contained, and disperses. Makes (a small ammount of) sense.

[Phil Skayhan]

Even if we ignore the apparent massive inefficiency issues involved with using "flak bursts" to drain shields, why do they not use flak bursts exclusively to drop shields then, first? Why does flak bursting appear to be so random a phenomenon. (And why do fighters do it as well, esb in TESB. you can't tell me that dissipating the energy of a low KT level fighter bolt over a larger surface area is going to make it EASIER to bring down the Falcon's shields.)

Don't know why they don't exclusively use it and flak bursting doesn't appear to be random; seems to appear rather deliberately to me. And I'm not saying flak burst bring down shields quicker. Perhaps I should have said "more gradually" rather than "controlled".

Besides which, you haven't explained HOW a flak burst is supposed to be more effective at penetrating the shields than a concentrated barrage of normal bolts, or a steady stream of lower powered bolts (which would be as effective and not engender the inefficiencies the flak-burst would.) I've already cited that CONCENTRATED fire is repeatedly employed to penetrate shields, and that we know reduced/variable power shots are quite possible.

Again, I did not say it would be more effective. What I am saying is that it may be an attempt to reduce the chance that damage will occur to the object of capture (DS plans, Han & Co.).

So yes, concentrated fire will penetrate shields, but if you're sending a hail of firepower at a ship you want to capture and the first of that volley penetrates, what will happen to that ship? We saw what one splinter shot did to the T4 and Falcon ("One more hit one the rear quarter and we're done for"). What if it had been followed directly by one or two more shots that had already been fired before the initial penetrator hit?

And yes, variable power shots are possible, but is there a minimum power level required for a TL cannon? I don't know, do you?

Also, when the Falcon makes it run from Mos Eisley in ANH, there are no direct hits witnessed (we see flashes directly in front of the cockpit ), yet shields were being drained.

No direct hits? We see the Falcon being pursued by the ISD, and its firing directly at its aft. IIRC they were inflicting direct hits. As for the "flashes" and the cockpit, given the cockpit's location, it would not be impossible to see flashes of impacts (which do occur when the ship is hit directly as well, I might add) striking the ship. The cockpit, IIRC is rather obscured on the right side by the bulk of the ship as it is.

They were firing over the ship

Yeah, and those flashes were really obscured in front of the cockpit.

Obviously, what I consider flak you can see as shield interaction in the above examples (except perhaps the last considering the location we see the flashes). But in each case, why didn't the Imperials do as you suggest they should do?

Who says they weren't? They may not neccesarily have been using a large number of reduced-power "splinter" shots (possibly because such wo uld not be powerful enough to overcome the shield dissipation threshold), but they certainly could have been employing concentrated fire from multiple batteries (which would be effective in penetrating the shields)

The on-screen evidence says they weren't. Why the hell do they repeatedly shoot and around over the Falcon? Please tell me of an instance where any two shots from an ISD battery struck the Falcon.

You seem to have an idea of what the Imperials should do and somehow see shooting around a ship as direct concentrated fire. How?

<snip>
Thanks for the info.

[Phil Skayhan]

Okay, assimilating Mike's comments and trying to apply them....

Couldn't it be intentional for the Imperials to make use of this shield interaction effect on bolts to achieve what I was saying above: cause a "flak burst" which gradually weakens the shields without causing unwanted damage to the ship and its contents that they desire to capture?

[omegaLancer]

It is amazing that in the light of countless proof,both visual and written that we are still agruing about the existant of the Flak burst.

The main agruement against it, is the fact the antiflak crowd state that there is no known mechanism that would allow a pulse of energy to explode like a missile.

That is incorrect. Modern research in optics has uncover a host of special conditions that allow such behavior to occur. Soliton, light bullets and Kerr focusing, can create self focusing bundles of laser energy that can exhibit the whole range of behavior that we see turbo and SW lasers demostrating.

In the case of light bullets, they can be created to be unstable so after a fix period of time the packet falls apart releasing a shower of smaller bolts of energy.

The fact is that the SW laser technology is so advance and so powerful that they would have master the creation of such light bullets. It would explain the vast range of TL, the composite beam of the Superlaser, flak bolts.

if the French can do it:

ULTRA-INTENSE LIGHT FILAMENTS have successfully been sent through laboratory "fog" that approximates atmospheric conditions. This is an important step which should benefit several laser applications, such as free-space laser communication, monitoring of pollution, and range finding (see figure at http://www.aip.org/mgr/png/2003/194.htm ). Open-air laser light shows feature bright beams seemingly traveling interminably through the sky. But in general water droplets are an avid absorber of laser light. Now a group of physicists at the Universite Claude Bernard Lyon in France have used ultra intense (10^14 watts/cm^2), ultrashort (120 femtosecond) laser pulses to create "light filaments," streaks of light only 150 microns wide but hundreds of meters long, which can propagate through an artificial cloud of water droplets without losing much energy. The filaments form up through two competing nonlinear optical effects: the "Kerr effect" in which high intensity light modifies the index of refraction in the transmission medium (in this case air and water vapor) in such a way as to cause self-focusing; and the creation of a defocusing plasma effect. The French researchers now plan to test their scheme in the open atmosphere under controlled conditions. (Courvoisier et al., Applied Physics Letters, 14 July 2003; contact Jean-Pierre Wolf, wolf@lasim.univ-lyon1.fr, 04072-43-13-01; text at www.aip.org/physnews/select

So can the Empire.

[Phyre]

It is amazing that in the light of countless proof,both visual and written that we are still agruing about the existant of the Flak burst.

The main agruement against it, is the fact the antiflak crowd state that there is no known mechanism that would allow a pulse of energy to explode like a missile.

That is incorrect. Modern research in optics has uncover a host of special conditions that allow such behavior to occur. Soliton, light bullets and Kerr focusing, can create self focusing bundles of laser energy that can exhibit the whole range of behavior that we see turbo and SW lasers demostrating.

In the case of light bullets, they can be created to be unstable so after a fix period of time the packet falls apart releasing a shower of smaller bolts of energy.

The fact is that the SW laser technology is so advance and so powerful that they would have master the creation of such light bullets. It would explain the vast range of TL, the composite beam of the Superlaser, flak bolts.

if the French can do it:

ULTRA-INTENSE LIGHT FILAMENTS have successfully been sent through laboratory "fog" that approximates atmospheric conditions. This is an important step which should benefit several laser applications, such as free-space laser communication, monitoring of pollution, and range finding (see figure at http://www.aip.org/mgr/png/2003/194.htm ). Open-air laser light shows feature bright beams seemingly traveling interminably through the sky. But in general water droplets are an avid absorber of laser light. Now a group of physicists at the Universite Claude Bernard Lyon in France have used ultra intense (10^14 watts/cm^2), ultrashort (120 femtosecond) laser pulses to create "light filaments," streaks of light only 150 microns wide but hundreds of meters long, which can propagate through an artificial cloud of water droplets without losing much energy. The filaments form up through two competing nonlinear optical effects: the "Kerr effect" in which high intensity light modifies the index of refraction in the transmission medium (in this case air and water vapor) in such a way as to cause self-focusing; and the creation of a defocusing plasma effect. The French researchers now plan to test their scheme in the open atmosphere under controlled conditions. (Courvoisier et al., Applied Physics Letters, 14 July 2003; contact Jean-Pierre Wolf, wolf@lasim.univ-lyon1.fr, 04072-43-13-01; text at www.aip.org/physnews/select

So can the Empire.

Good point. And, a side thing, I found a good drawing of the Eclipse-class Star Destroyer here: http://mitglied.lycos.de/STARWARS_Bluep ... clipse.jpg

[JodoForce]

Grrr! I demand that SPOOFE come out and answer me!!

[SPOOFE]

Grrr! I demand that SPOOFE come out and answer me!!

Is your ego really that fragile?

There were two explanations forwarded for this in this thread and my picture was shown as possible proof for both. 'I missed nothing'?

There was NO explanation as to why there was no debris from the destruction of the bridge tower, and your low-quality, highly-pixelated, artifact-ridden image proves nothing. I've seen the video clip (hell, it's saved to my hard drive, and it's running in loop even as I type). Perhaps the clip I got was poorly ripped and wound up being terribly dark, but in it, the apparent lower edge of the Executor is not visible.