Range of 'lasers'

[Marc Xavier]

Mushing everything together and making up stuff is not the best way to result in a compromise.

That's why there's a damn Canon hierarchy in the first place...

I take it then, that you didnt vote "Formulate a harmony between all three" on How to deal with a topheavy multi-level contradiction?

As I said, I'm trying to work as much material as I can together. Just because I'm doing that doesnt mean that I'm ignoring the canon hierarchy.

And isnt "making up stuff" (theories) based on what evidence we have the point of alot of the ideas posted on this board?

[Illuminatus Primus]

If by this you mean the TOT retains an extra level of complexity over beam theory, I suppose my reasoning for it is that I'm trying to make sure the theory conforms to as many sources as possible (both canon and official). And since some sources do make mention of plasma (like the Star Wars Visual Dictionary and the AOTC Visual Dictionary) and others indicate some form of "laser pulse" or "energy bolt," I'm trying to form a harmony.

See, Marc, here's where we ran into the problems.

Most space-based laser cannon and turbolasers can be amptly explained by the lightspeed bolt with a power delay and visible pulse.

However, distinctly sublight bolts have been seen, particularly in ground-based blaster cannnon and hand weapons. The strongest candidate for these is some sort of glowing projectile (blasters can be projectiles according to Ep. II novelisation) which can fly level (presumably with the help of repulsorlifts), or some sort of high-energy visible particles confined by a field generated by a small projectile with a level flight program maintained by said repulsorlifts.

Glowing fragments falling from the impacts at the Gungan shield by the AAT blaster cannon support some sort of projectile.

Its a false dilemma to require all Star Wars weapon systems to be identical. Its far more satisfying to canon observation, official harmonization, and Occam's Razor to theorize that blasters might not be the same as lasers, and blasters be a colloquialism for various kinds weapons. This allows a minimum of abuse to Occam's Razor, and maximum use of official accounts.

[His Divine Shadow]

If by this you mean the TOT retains an extra level of complexity over beam theory, I suppose my reasoning for it is that I'm trying to make sure the theory conforms to as many sources as possible (both canon and official). And since some sources do make mention of plasma (like the Star Wars Visual Dictionary and the AOTC Visual Dictionary) and others indicate some form of "laser pulse" or "energy bolt," I'm trying to form a harmony.

I'd like to note those only refer to Blasters, and as has been suggested, there can be many kinds of blasters.
I think it's alot more logical, and easier, to say there are many different kinds of weapons.[/quote]

[Marc Xavier]

Most space-based laser cannon and turbolasers can be amptly explained by the lightspeed bolt with a power delay and visible pulse.

To be entirely honest, I've yet to find a cohesive explanation which explains the inner workings of "beam theory."

I took a pretty long read into this old thread and the closest I came to one was your essay on page 6. But then (apparently) that theory proved unworkable after you said you did some reading up on special relativity. I remember a bunch of talk about stasis fields and reverse time travel (?) having to be invoked. But if that's all bunk, please point me in the direction of the currently held theory?

However, distinctly sublight bolts have been seen, particularly in ground-based blaster cannnon and hand weapons. The strongest candidate for these is some sort of glowing projectile (blasters can be projectiles according to Ep. II novelisation) which can fly level (presumably with the help of repulsorlifts), or some sort of high-energy visible particles confined by a field generated by a small projectile with a level flight program maintained by said repulsorlifts.

Is there any directly visible indication of an actual projectile inside of ground-based blaster cannons and handheld blasters?

I remember that Spanky The Dolphin pointed out this page, and noted the picture next to the caption "The Last Thing You'll Ever See" and I noticed that the bolt was translucent, even viewed from dead-on.

Here's the same picture, widescreen.


If I understand the theory correctly, there should be some sort of "glowing projectile" in the center of this bolt.

Glowing fragments falling from the impacts at the Gungan shield by the AAT blaster cannon support some sort of projectile.

I would note that those glowing fragments falling from the impacts at the Gungan shield can also be explained by the TOT.

Its a false dilemma to require all Star Wars weapon systems to be identical.

I don't require them to be identical. I'm not saying that any theory that distinguishes different modes of operation between blasters and turbolasers is automatically bunk. My theory just doesn’t happen to invoke that.

I'd like to note those only refer to Blasters, and as has been suggested, there can be many kinds of blasters.
I think it's alot more logical, and easier, to say there are many different kinds of weapons.

However, Bryan Young does note in his Turbolaser Commentaries (hosted on this site), that the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology states that "TL technology and blaster technology are similar."

By describing a theory that explains both blaster and turbolaser technology, the TOT is just trying to be in line with that.

Its far more satisfying to canon observation, official harmonization, and Occam's Razor to theorize that blasters might not be the same as lasers, and blasters be a colloquialism for various kinds weapons. This allows a minimum of abuse to Occam's Razor, and maximum use of official accounts.

As I understand it, the set of theories that call for a blaster with a projectile in it and some form of exotic pulse beam weaponry for turbolasers ignore the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology on the point Bryan Young described.

[Illuminatus Primus]

To be entirely honest, I've yet to find a cohesive explanation which explains the inner workings of "beam theory."

Ask Mad in PM for exclusive details. Ask HDS for vids showing the exact sort of bolts changing direction in flight predicted by his theory.

Don't expect technobabble and pretty graphics though.

Is there any directly visible indication of an actual projectile inside of ground-based blaster cannons and handheld blasters?

The canonical novelisation says so. I do not have to point out otherwise.

If I understand the theory correctly, there should be some sort of "glowing projectile" in the center of this bolt.

I suppose you missed the "blasters are colloquialism" part of the above rant. Some of them are still currently unexplainable.

I would note that those glowing fragments falling from the impacts at the Gungan shield can also be explained by the TOT.

How's that, your magic liquid? DW's statement on it works simpler and works better with Occam's Razor.

Its a false dilemma to require all Star Wars weapon systems to be identical.

I don't require them to be identical. I'm not saying that any theory that distinguishes different modes of operation between blasters and turbolasers is automatically bunk. My theory just doesn’t happen to invoke that.

Which makes it unfavorable in comparison to the various other theories because of Occam's Razor.

I'd like to note those only refer to Blasters, and as has been suggested, there can be many kinds of blasters.
I think it's alot more logical, and easier, to say there are many different kinds of weapons.

However, Bryan Young does note in his Turbolaser Commentaries (hosted on this site), that the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology states that "TL technology and blaster technology are similar."

By describing a theory that explains both blaster and turbolaser technology, the TOT is just trying to be in line with that.

I suppose you missed where he said "many kinds of blasters." And similar could be as simple as Tibanna being used in both modes of operation, however different they may be.

As I understand it, the set of theories that call for a blaster with a projectile in it and some form of exotic pulse beam weaponry for turbolasers ignore the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology on the point Bryan Young described.

Some blasters may operate with a lightspeed beam and pulse exactly like turbolasers (most likely the "damage before impact, high speed, translucent beams"). Needless to say, others, perhaps the Clonetrooper rifle, are different as described. And your TOT doesn't work for totally translucent bolts like the one you show above, anyway.

[Darth Wong]

To be entirely honest, I've yet to find a cohesive explanation which explains the inner workings of "beam theory."

The AOTC ICS describes it quite clearly. One must completely discard its explanation (which is quasi-canon, by the way) in order to subscribe to a "plasma bolt" theory. The other official references describe plasma being part of the turbolaser's mechanism but they do not specifically state that the plasma is launched out of the barrel as the bolt. In fact, it appears to be used in the inner mechanism and is discharged out the barrel as waste material (see below):


The current beam theory is based on the AOTC ICS which states that turbolasers fire lightspeed particles, and that the visible "bolt" is some sort of rider on a carrier wave (if you look at the DS superlaser, you can see these pulses moving along the beam). The delay before damage would be caused by a slight power ramp-up delay in the weapon, which would explain why the bolts seem to go slower or faster depending on how far away the target is.

Is there any directly visible indication of an actual projectile inside of ground-based blaster cannons and handheld blasters?

It is just one of several possible theories, but the projectile is presumably very, very small for a hand blaster. A tank gun's projectile would be considerably larger.

If I understand the theory correctly, there should be some sort of "glowing projectile" in the center of this bolt.

Why should the projectile itself glow strongly?

I would note that those glowing fragments falling from the impacts at the Gungan shield can also be explained by the TOT.

No they can't. A cylindrical containment beam will not form "fragments", and you admit as much. So you resort to surface tension from your liquid outer shell in order to briefly hold the bolt together. Unfortunately, this idea fails on numerous levels. If the plasma core contains enough energy to blow huge chunks out of concrete walls upon impact, it contains enough energy to heat up a liquid shell long before the bolt hits anything. Moreover, liquid surface tension is utterly insignificant next to the expansive pressure of high-temperature gases (need I remind you that high-temperature gases are what propels a battleship shell out of the gun?).

While the hand blaster issue is still somewhat inconclusive, the falling fragments from the Gungan shield definitely suggest some sort of physical projectile coming from that tank gun.

I don't require them to be identical. I'm not saying that any theory that distinguishes different modes of operation between blasters and turbolasers is automatically bunk. My theory just doesn’t happen to invoke that.

If it is explicitly stated that turbolasers and hand blasters must use the same mechanism, then provide the quote. Otherwise, it sounds like you're overanalyzing an implication, and ignoring direct evidence. Didn't you notice that if hand blaster bolts don't detonate on contact they ricochet cleanly (DS trash compactor, TPM hangar bay), while if turbolasers don't detonate on contact they splinter (Tantive IV, X-wing engine)?

As I understand it, the set of theories that call for a blaster with a projectile in it and some form of exotic pulse beam weaponry for turbolasers ignore the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology on the point Bryan Young described.

The EGWT suggests that blasters and turbolasers might be based on the same principle. However, it is hardly explicit, and the canon ANH novelization states quite clearly that the DS used "explosive solids" as part of its defensive weaponry.

[Marc Xavier]

To be entirely honest, I've yet to find a cohesive explanation which explains the inner workings of "beam theory."

The AOTC ICS describes it quite clearly. One must completely discard its explanation (which is quasi-canon, by the way) in order to subscribe to a "plasma bolt" theory.

I would disagree on this point. I'll explain why:


The quote, as I understand it, reads as follows:

Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The visible 'bolt' is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed...The light given off by visible bolts depletes the overall energy content of a beam, limiting its range. Turbolasers gain a longer range by spinning the energy beam, which reduces waste glow.

Now, I'll break it down.


E2ICS says:

Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed.

These are the containment tubes which hold the turbolaser bolt together as it travels over the long distances to it's target. Larger versions of these tubes were used to encase the devastating energy bolts from the DEATH STAR's tributary beams (see: A New Hope).


E2ICS says:

The visible 'bolt' is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed

The bolt is a glowing pulse of plasma, surrounded by a liquid wall, that travels through the containment tubes at less that lightspeed. It emits light transversely through stimulated emission of photons along a desired wavelength (such as red, purple, orange, or green). This is why it's referred to a "laser" bolt in the movie novelizations and other sundry EU novels, such as The Bacta War, Agents of Chaos I - Hero's Trial, Shadows of the Empire and others.

E2ICS says:

The light given off by visible bolts depletes the overall energy content of a beam, limiting its range

The light emitted by the bolt bleeds off some of it's energy into the containment tube, causing some of the energy that was originally in the turbolaser bolt to strike a target before the bolt actually arrives.



This effect, although interesting, is actually a misfire of the turbolaser weapon (which explains it's rarity). Not all of the energy which bleeds off of the bolt is absorbed into the tube, and the energy which is transferred into the tube actually disrupts it. This means that the tube cannot remain coherent over as long as a distance, and it's range is hampered.


E2ICS says:

Turbolasers gain a longer range by spinning the energy beam, which reduces waste glow.

Spinning the containment tube around the bolt actually facilitates the generation some extra spin-sealed tibanna.

Spin-sealing, according to Galaxy Guide 2: Yavin and Bespin, is a process which involves subjecting certain gasses to intense pressures and temperatures as to alter it's chemical properties. This process will often produce products which intensify the energy of light that is passed through them.

In addition, the TOT forwards that:

Spin-sealing actually also helps to purify the gas and transforms some of the tibanna into a slightly different substance. This transformed tibanna has different properties than the rest of the tibanna (a much higher heat of vaporization, for one). When spin-sealed tibanna is excited by enough energy from a power source, the transformed tibanna tends to diffuse out from the rest of the tibanna, forming a contiguous layer that comes to rest on the surface of the plasmatic mass.

Once you already have spin-sealed tibanna and you expose that turbolaser bolt to high temperatures (as you pumped it full of energy in the actuation chamber before it was launched) and pressures (by spinning the tube around the bolt, increasing the centripetal force which contains it), you actually cause more of the tibanna to transform into the substance that forms the liquid wall. In other words, the wall thickens and more light is absorbed by it, and the amount of waste glow is reduced. This means that spinning the containment tube will actually reduce the amount of light given off by the bolt, and hence allow the containment tube to remain intact over longer distances.

The other official references describe plasma being part of the turbolaser's mechanism but they do not specifically state that the plasma is launched out of the barrel as the bolt.

Source: The Official Star Wars Fact File: Turbolasers
"At the point of discharge, the magnetic seal at the mouth of the containment chamber releases, and a ring pulse guides and accelerates the excited atoms along the barrel and out of the apparatus. The visible effect is a condensed bolt of green, glowing plasma, directed at high velocities (although nowhere near the speed of light) toward a target. Less refined or impure Tibanna will yield different colour bolts, ranging anywhere from red to blue to green."

Also note: Source: The Official Star Wars Fact File: Turbolasers
"The mechanism of a turbolaser is not all that dissimilar to that of a hand blaster."

The two quotes below concern blaster weapons, not turbolasers. However, given the quote above, I cite them as relevant.

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 components 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.

Clone troopers are issued plasma guns of two types. Like all standard blaster weapons, these guns create a charged plasma bolt using a small amount of Tibanna gas. Blaster weapons free clone troopers from the need to carry projectile ammunition but are notoriously hard to aim due to the inherent instability of plasma bolts.

In fact, it appears to be used in the inner mechanism and is discharged out the barrel as waste material (see below):

The Turbolaser Operational Theory would explain those globs as a partial misfire of the weapon (I don't believe the globs are often seen outside of this instance). Some of the tibanna either stuck to the bottom of the barrel, or for some reason (perhaps it was not highly charged enough) it was not accelerated as quickly out of the barrel and basically "floundered" below the actual main bolt.

According to The Official Star Wars Fact File article on Turbolasers, the weapons shoot plasma in a condensed, glowing green bolt, not as "waste material."

The current beam theory is based on the AOTC ICS which states that turbolasers fire lightspeed particles, and that the visible "bolt" is some sort of rider on a carrier wave (if you look at the DS superlaser, you can see these pulses moving along the beam). The delay before damage would be caused by a slight power ramp-up delay in the weapon, which would explain why the bolts seem to go slower or faster depending on how far away the target is.

Indeed, I do recall the pulses moving along the tributary beams (and the main beam if I recall correctly).

However, I don't exactly understand the whole concept you're explaining. The "wavelength" of the beam would be directly proportional to the distance?

How does this theory account for laser bolts that travel along a different vector than where the barrel is pointing? An entirely different weapon?

Is there any directly visible indication of an actual projectile inside of ground-based blaster cannons and handheld blasters?

It is just one of several possible theories, but the projectile is presumably very, very small for a hand blaster. A tank gun's projectile would be considerably larger.

I understand. Is there an example where such a projectile is directly observed?

If I understand the theory correctly, there should be some sort of "glowing projectile" in the center of this bolt.

Why should the projectile itself glow strongly?

Because Illuminatus Primus is the one who suggested it.

I would note that those glowing fragments falling from the impacts at the Gungan shield can also be explained by the TOT.

No they can't. A cylindrical containment beam will not form "fragments", and you admit as much. So you resort to surface tension from your liquid outer shell in order to briefly hold the bolt together. Unfortunately, this idea fails on numerous levels. If the plasma core contains enough energy to blow huge chunks out of concrete walls upon impact, it contains enough energy to heat up a liquid shell long before the bolt hits anything. Moreover, liquid surface tension is utterly insignificant next to the expansive pressure of high-temperature gases (need I remind you that high-temperature gases are what propels a battleship shell out of the gun?)

That depends on what the heat of vaporization of the liquid wall is. No ordinary liquid that we know of would be able to handle the kinds of temperatures and pressures that would be required of Tibanna. If you assume that Tibanna is constrained by the limits of non-exotic matter, then of course you will reject any argument for exotic behaviors or properties.

In an analogous situation, no energy beam process that we know of in real life can account for the blatantly odd behavior of turbolasers. If you assume that the energy transfer processes of turbolasers are constrained by the limits of modern particle physics, then any physical model used to describe turbolaser bolts becomes nonsensical in that context (see, Observing the behaviour of turbolasers and blasters) because it requires something outside of our physics.

There is no such thing as proving what they are with todays science, asking for it is nonscensial.

The TOT presupposes an exotic surface tension strong enough to hold together these globs for that short amount of time.

While the hand blaster issue is still somewhat inconclusive, the falling fragments from the Gungan shield definitely suggest some sort of physical projectile coming from that tank gun.

The glowing construct that the TOT provides is a physical projectile.

If it is explicitly stated that turbolasers and hand blasters must use the same mechanism, then provide the quote. Otherwise, it sounds like you're overanalyzing an implication, and ignoring direct evidence.

New evidence, cited from the Official Star Wars Fact File, Turbolasers:

"The mechanism of a turbolaser is not all that dissimilar to that of a hand blaster. When a blaster is fired, a small volume of high-energy gas moves from the gas chamber to a conversion enabler, commonly called an XCiter. There, energy from the weapon's power source excites the gas. In the case of hand-held weapons, this is achieved with a small power pack, which a reactor or power generator is necessary with larger weapons. The excited gas passes into an actuating blaster module, where it is processed into a beam of intense energy particles, coupled with light."

"At the point of discharge, the magnetic seal at the mouth of the containment chamber releases, and a ring pulse guides and accelerates the excited atoms along the barrel and out of the apparatus. The visible effect is a condensed bolt of green, glowing plasma, directed at high velocities (although nowhere near the speed of light) toward a target. Less refined or impure Tibanna will yield different colour bolts, ranging anywhere from red to blue to green."

"A PLASMA: Imperial turbolaser technology uses intensely focused lasers to energize compact pockets of Tibanna gas until the weak molecular bonds of the gas break down. Once that occurs, a second beam of photons is introduced. This excites the free molecules to such a high temperature that the electrons on the individual atoms break away and form plasma. These pockets of plasma are retained in a small magnetic bottle at the base of the turbolaser barrel, until the moment the weapon discharges."


Bryan Young's exact quote:

The controversial EGW&T states that TL technology and blaster technology are similar and describes the firing process this way:

When a blaster is fired, a small amount of high-energy blaster gas moves from the gas chamber to the gas conversion enabler (commonly called an XCiter). There the gas is excited by energy from the weapon's power source, which is a small power pack for hand weapons and a reactor or a power generator for a larger weapon. The excited gas passes into the actuating blaster module, where it is processed into a beam comprised of intense energy particles coupled with light.

In addition to the Official Fact File information, Bryan Young says that the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology states that "TL technology and blaster technology are similar". Is his statement incorrect?

Didn't you notice that if hand blaster bolts don't detonate on contact they ricochet cleanly (DS trash compactor, TPM hangar bay), while if turbolasers don't detonate on contact they splinter (Tantive IV, X-wing engine)?

Yes. The Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory addresses this issue in describing the behavior and characteristics of magnetic field deflectors.

The following exchange from the Death Star trash compactor scene in A New Hope is important:

After they land in the compactor:

Han: ...what an incredible smell you've discovered!
Leia: (makes a face)
Han: Let's get outta here... (hoists up his gun and points it at the wall) (to chewie) get away from there.
Luke: No, wait!
Han: (shoots his blaster, causing a small crisis as it bounces around the walls)

After the bolt stops bouncing:
Luke: Would you forget it I already tried it, it's magnetically sealed!
Leia: Put that thing away or you're gonna get us all killed!

This bouncing effect would be a result of the charged particles in the bolt interacting with a magnetic seal in the trash compactor's walls. It is possible that something similar was afoot (although I would need to review the TPM scene) in the hanger bay instance that you mention.

From Bryan Young's Turbolaser Commentaries:
"It is also interesting to note that blaster rifle bolts seem to be deflected by magnetism. In the A New Hope garbage-chute scene, Luke explains to Han that the chute is 'magnetically sealed' after his blaster bolt ricochets several times . . . Of course, the door was magnetically sealed, which prevented it from being 'knocked down.' Perhaps the bolt ricocheted on the armor, and the magnetic seal has no bearing on the bolt's path."


The Tantive-IV incident was the actual ship's shield dealing with the turbolaser bolt, as the Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory explains:

In a best-case scenario, a ray shield will reflect a [turbolaser] bolt entirely by effectively "bouncing" the confinement beam away from the ship and shunting the plasma along another vector and into open space. The shield achieves this through the use of a series of carefully angled and controlled ultrathin electrostatic repulsion fields. Given that the fields are perfectly angled and the weapon being deflected is not too powerful, a ray shield can toss away fire without taxing its energy reserves. But the heavier a bolt is, the stronger a confinement tube is required to hold it, and in some cases the ray shields are not strong enough or angled correctly to effectively turn an offending confinement beam away.

In such a case, a second alternative comes into play. If a shield is not powerful enough (or not angled exactly) to bounce a bolt along a harmless trajectory, the shield may actually compensate by splintering the confinement beam into a series of smaller and more manageable sub-tubes.

As for the X-Wing situation (which I went over in the post I made on Mon Jul 28, 2003 at 8:38 pm), that is not a splintering effect as seen on the Tantive IV (for the reasons stated in that post).

The EGWT suggests that blasters and turbolasers might be based on the same principle. However, it is hardly explicit,

Is Bryan Young's statement incorrect? Also, see the Official Star Wars Fact File information cited above.

and the canon ANH novelization states quite clearly that the DS used "explosive solids" as part of its defensive weaponry.

A New Hope, novelization:
Imperial efficiency was in the process of compensating for this strategic oversight. Soldiers scrambled to man enormous defensive-weapons emplacements. Servodrivers thrummed as powerful motors aligned the huge devices for firing. Soon a web of annihilation began to develop the station as energy weapons, electrical bolts, and explosive solids ripped out at the oncoming rebel craft.

The novel appears to be describing three different weapons systems, here. Energy weapons, electrical bolts and explosive solids (presumably missiles). This doesn't appear to have anything to do with turbolasers.

Incidentally, the "explosive solids" could possibly be the "shadow bombs" mentioned in Star by Star and could be used to provide a possible explanation for the instances in Star Wars where "flak" explosions are seen without an actual turbolaser.



Now, I will pose a few questions.


If this is a lightspeed beam weapon (but not a laser), why does it most often cause damage at speeds lower than light (when the bolt hits)?



Why are bolts sometimes opaque?




Why are turbolasers so often referred to as lasers by narrative and even technical sources?
See: Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones Novelization, A New Hope Novelization, Empire Strikes Back Novelization, Return of the Jedi Novelization, Destiny's Way, The Bacta War, Shadows of the Empire, Enemy Lines II - Rebel Stand, The Krytos Trap, Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology, Star Wars Sourcebook



Why are turbolasers often more bulbous at the front end and tapering at the back end?
See: Bryan Young's Turbolaser Commentaries


How can a laser bolt explode?

Lando opened the upper hatch. In the distance he glimpsed the three TIE fighters approaching the Falcon, their laser guns brightening the twilight sky with streaks of hot destruction. Lando stretched his body out of the hatch and reached to grasp the battered warrior and pull him inside the ship. Just then Falcon lurched as a bolt exploded near it, and almost threw Luke's body overboard. But Lando caught his hand and held on tightly.

See also:

The ship was rocked again by the concussion of another laser explosion.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I love how the Fact File, a third-party licensed release which is not used as a source material for further publications and is fucking ripped from a watered-down version of Xavier's own explanation, is used to justify a hack-job pasting together of everything regardless of author's intent and Occam's Razor. And this is over the ICS, which was written by an astrophysicist and the ICS is used as source materials for the movies themselves.

Incidentally, the "explosive solids" could possibly be the "shadow bombs" mentioned in Star by Star and could be used to provide a possible explanation for the instances in Star Wars where "flak" explosions are seen without an actual turbolaser.

Shadow bombs were conceptualized by the Jedi and are modified proton torpedoes hurled by the ejection charge and telekenesis into their targets.

They are not the explosive solids.

[Marc Xavier]

I love how the Fact File, a third-party licensed release which is not used as a source material for further publications and is fucking ripped from a watered-down version of Xavier's own explanation, is used to justify a hack-job pasting together of everything regardless of author's intent and Occam's Razor. And this is over the ICS, which was written by an astrophysicist and the ICS is used as source materials for the movies themselves.

Illuminatus Primus, do me the favor of reading my post and how it deals with the ICS. And the fact that you don’t like the source doesn’t change it. "Official Star Wars Fact File"

Incidentally, the "explosive solids" could possibly be the "shadow bombs" mentioned in Star by Star and could be used to provide a possible explanation for the instances in Star Wars where "flak" explosions are seen without an actual turbolaser.

Shadow bombs were conceptualized by the Jedi and are modified proton torpedoes hurled by the ejection charge and telekenesis into their targets.

They are not the explosive solids.

Red herring, Illuminatus Primus. Shadow bombs were mentioned as a incidental point.


You're attacking the source instead of the argument because of the implications. I would much prefer to discuss this topic with Mike Wong, I find discussion with him to be insightful.

Please respond in the form of a new post, rather than a post edit.

[Darth Wong]

E2ICS says:

Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed.

These are the containment tubes which hold the turbolaser bolt together as it travels over the long distances to it's target.

An energy beam is not a containment forcefield. Sorry, but that doesn't work. If you're going to twist the language that much, I might as well say that a physical projectile is an energy beam because mass and energy are equivalent.

E2ICS says:

The visible 'bolt' is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed

The bolt is a glowing pulse of plasma, surrounded by a liquid wall, that travels through the containment tubes at less that lightspeed.

A glowing pulse moving along a lightspeed energy beam can hardly be interpreted as a blob of liquid moving through a tube unless you're being seriously abusive to the language.

It emits light transversely through stimulated emission of photons along a desired wavelength (such as red, purple, orange, or green). This is why it's referred to a "laser" bolt in the movie novelizations and other sundry EU novels, such as The Bacta War, Agents of Chaos I - Hero's Trial, Shadows of the Empire and others.

By that loose definition, our Sun is a laser.

This effect, although interesting, is actually a misfire of the turbolaser weapon (which explains it's rarity). Not all of the energy which bleeds off of the bolt is absorbed into the tube, and the energy which is transferred into the tube actually disrupts it. This means that the tube cannot remain coherent over as long as a distance, and it's range is hampered.

How do you figure energy beams can be fired over enormous distances such as the shot from outside a solar system at one of its planets, if it requires a containment tube throughout its whole length? If they can produce such powerful containment fields at such great range, why don't they just start throwing ships around?

<snip a lot of descriptions of your theory which are dependent upon the theory being accepted in the first place, as well as a lot of references to the Fact Files which are so important that they are not even published in Lucasfilm's home country>

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 components as a coherent energy bolt.

Fired "as a coherent energy bolt" could just as easily be interpreted as the plasma inside the weapon being used to produce a laser.

Clone troopers are issued plasma guns of two types. Like all standard blaster weapons, these guns create a charged plasma bolt using a small amount of Tibanna gas. Blaster weapons free clone troopers from the need to carry projectile ammunition but are notoriously hard to aim due to the inherent instability of plasma bolts.

And yet they were aiming at targets several kilometres away in AOTC, and these supposedly unstable plasma bolts can ricochet around a trash-compactor dozens of times without breaking up. Moreover, it states clearly (in fact, all sources state clearly) that range and cohesion are maintained through the use of collimation rather than travelling forcefields, and that simply won't work with plasma.

The characteristics of blaster bolts simply do not correspond to the characteristics of plasma. If we can use our understanding of lasers to dismiss a literal interpretation of the word, I don't see why we can't do something similar to a much lower-order source than the canon films in which "laser" was heard.

The Turbolaser Operational Theory would explain those globs as a partial misfire of the weapon (I don't believe the globs are often seen outside of this instance). Some of the tibanna either stuck to the bottom of the barrel, or for some reason (perhaps it was not highly charged enough) it was not accelerated as quickly out of the barrel and basically "floundered" below the actual main bolt.

Except that a containment field from the gun should not allow this while maintaining cohesion at long distance for the rest of the bolt. It should actually be strongest at the point of origin, not weakest.

However, I don't exactly understand the whole concept you're explaining. The "wavelength" of the beam would be directly proportional to the distance?

Ramp-up delay, not wavelength. Why does it always take a similar amount of time for a blaster bolt to "reach" its destination regardless of range? The weapon takes a little bit of time to reach full power on the beam after the trigger is pulled, so the movement of the visible pulse is adjusted to provide a visual cue to help the gunner compensate for this delay.

How does this theory account for laser bolts that travel along a different vector than where the barrel is pointing? An entirely different weapon?

It accounts for it just as easily as your theory does, since your theory requires a containment tube projected from the barrel. Both theories actually have trouble here, which is why I suggest that not every weapon works on the same principles: hardly an unreasonable postulate given the wide variety of weapons in SW. Even different models of hand weapon might work on different principles.

It is just one of several possible theories, but the projectile is presumably very, very small for a hand blaster. A tank gun's projectile would be considerably larger.

I understand. Is there an example where such a projectile is directly observed?

Well, the railgun on top of the AT-TE is an example of an observed projectile weapon in SW which looks just like a blaster bolt. So it demonstrates, if nothing else, that you can't easily tell the difference. And blaster bolts which ricochet cleanly off shielding do certainly suggest a solid component, because that's the only thing which can plausibly hold together like that. If it's small enough you wouldn't see it, but we're talking about theories, and a containment field produced by a moving device is much more reasonable than one projected at great distances from the barrel of every weapon.

In fact, the movement of the barrel which you cite as disproof of the beam theory (most obvious in the ANH trash compactor scene) also handily defeats your own theory, leaving some sort of tiny projectile as the leading theory. It's the only one which makes sense, and the fact that none of the books describe it hardly weakens it against all of these other mechanisms which are also not described in the books.

That depends on what the heat of vaporization of the liquid wall is. No ordinary liquid that we know of would be able to handle the kinds of temperatures and pressures that would be required of Tibanna. If you assume that Tibanna is constrained by the limits of non-exotic matter, then of course you will reject any argument for exotic behaviors or properties.

Wrong; I reject any argument for exotic behaviours which are not NECESSARY as theories, or which are incompatible with observation. If they had a liquid which could comfortably retain integrity withot melting or deforming against a superheated high-energy core plasma for as long as a half-second, why don't they coat their ships with this liquid as a defensive technique?

The TOT presupposes an exotic surface tension strong enough to hold together these globs for that short amount of time.

In other words, the TOT requires an imaginary magical substance which is liquid yet has far greater resistance to damage than any solid armour substance known to SW technology. Do you not see the problem here?

In addition to the Official Fact File information, Bryan Young says that the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology states that "TL technology and blaster technology are similar". Is his statement incorrect?

I don't know; I would have to review the source quote. But you obviously don't know either, since you haven't produced the source quote yourself.

Luke: Would you forget it I already tried it, it's magnetically sealed!
Leia: Put that thing away or you're gonna get us all killed!

How does that quote prove that there's a containment tube projected from the barrel, through which a liquid blob moves?

This bouncing effect would be a result of the charged particles in the bolt interacting with a magnetic seal in the trash compactor's walls. It is possible that something similar was afoot (although I would need to review the TPM scene) in the hanger bay instance that you mention.

The bouncing effect is not the problem; the bolt's failure to break apart despite the loss of your "containment tube" is the problem.

The Tantive-IV incident was the actual ship's shield dealing with the turbolaser bolt, as the Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory explains:

That works just as well for the beam theory, so there's no point bringing it up here.

As for the X-Wing situation (which I went over in the post I made on Mon Jul 28, 2003 at 8:38 pm), that is not a splintering effect as seen on the Tantive IV (for the reasons stated in that post).

Since I'm too lazy to answer this long post while looking up that one as well, I will simply point out that it is either a splintering effect of some sort (meaning that it does not remain cohesive) or it is superheated material being blown off the engine. Either way, you still have no examples of space-based weapons ricocheting cleanly, the way hand weapon shots do.

The novel appears to be describing three different weapons systems, here. Energy weapons, electrical bolts and explosive solids (presumably missiles). This doesn't appear to have anything to do with turbolasers.

It proves that the Empire does not limit itself to weapons based on a single operating principle, despite some of the official literature's claims to the contrary.

If this is a lightspeed beam weapon (but not a laser), why does it most often cause damage at speeds lower than light (when the bolt hits)?

Already dealt with many, many times, including once in this very thread. Is the concept of a power ramp-up delay so complex that you need a greatly detailed explanation?

Why are bolts sometimes opaque?

The generation of sufficient light will blot out whatever's behind it, particularly on film where you can saturate the medium. Try again.

Why are turbolasers so often referred to as lasers by narrative and even technical sources?

Lasers are much more easily explained as lightspeed beam of exotic particles than a blob of liquid moving through an invisible tube.

Why are turbolasers often more bulbous at the front end and tapering at the back end?

That's the shape of the pulse. The DS pulses were also not perfectly cylindrical.

How can a laser bolt explode?

It can't. But it could conceivably interact oddly with a volumetric shielding effect. It certainly works better than your explanation, which simultaneously postulates that:

1. The liquid blob inside the tube explodes the instant the containment tube is lost
2. The liquid blob inside the tube can maintain integrity against the energy within for an extended period of time

Your theory is not self-consistent, Mark. You revise the strength of this liquid blob of yours depending on what you want to explain at any given time.

The ship was rocked again by the concussion of another laser explosion.

You seriously think that the word "laser" in a novelization somehow favours a "liquid blob moving through a tube" theory better than a "lightspeed energy beam" theory?

[Connor MacLeod]

The ANH novelization makes at least two references to projectile/solid weapons - "explosive solids" and at least one "projectile" reference, in addition to the energy bolt/beam and the electrical bolts.

It should be noted as well that the novel appears to distinguish TWO kinds of energy weapon beside the "electrical bolts" - one reference comments on "energy bolts" and "sun-bright beams" If I remember the reference correctly.

The AOTC novelization refers to blasters as "projectile" weapons as well. We should add to that that Zam Wessel's rifle (an electromagneticly-propelled projectile weapon, supported by the visuals in the movie itself) is also referred to as a "blaster." There is also Chewbacca's bowcaster, of course.

Insofar as the EGW&T, it is true that a similarity is inferred between blasters and laser cannons. There are other references in various sources to substantiate this as well. However, one must also note that the various sources (novels, tech books, whatever) tend to be somewhat inconsistent in blaster/laser/turbolaser "nature": Some embrace the "massless beam" theory (which fits with the aOTC definition well - the Star Wars Encyclopedia, West end games, and novels like Cloak of Deception, Destiny's Way, and Rebel Stand also support it.) Others tend to embrace something more akin to a charged particle weapon, or a hybrid laser/particle weapon (the EGW&T, Star by Star, Darth Maul Shadow hunter, the SWTJ, and others.) A few embrace a plasma bolt weapon as well, but usually for blaster weapons (TIE Fighter pocket manual, AOTC VD, OT VD, and a few novels like Children of the Jedi, Shatterpoint, and Planet of Twilight - though the last couple either suggest it is strictly hand weapons, or do not explicitly refer to laser/turbolaser/blaster weapons as being plasma-based.)

Obviously, the term "blaster", or even "laser/turbolaser" suggests a more diverse an open-ended interpretation than some sources suggest. It could very well be that the term "blaster" is a catch all for energy weapons like lasers and particle beams (and even hypervelocity projectiles) - this is similar to how DEW's encompass many different kinds of disparate weaposn systems under the US's old SDI research.

[Marc Xavier]

An energy beam is not a containment forcefield. Sorry, but that doesn't work. If you're going to twist the language that much, I might as well say that a physical projectile is an energy beam because mass and energy are equivalent.

Yet you say:

If we can use our understanding of lasers to dismiss a literal interpretation of the word, I don't see why we can't do something similar to a much lower-order source than the canon films in which "laser" was heard.

Dismiss "lasers" for 1 theory but say that "containment forcefield" is unworkable for another.

A containment forcefield made of particles which carry energy. Energy beams.

They carry force, (somewhat like a tractor beam).

A glowing pulse moving along a lightspeed energy beam can hardly be interpreted as a blob of liquid moving through a tube unless you're being seriously abusive to the language.

See above. Turbolasers are purported to not be lasers, despite how many times they are referred to as such by narrative and even technical sources. Given that and the fact that the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology apparently refers to plasma as "energy particles coupled with light," It's not reasonable to demand a singular interpretation in defiance of the other sources.

It emits light transversely through stimulated emission of photons along a desired wavelength (such as red, purple, orange, or green). This is why it's referred to a "laser" bolt in the movie novelizations and other sundry EU novels, such as The Bacta War, Agents of Chaos I - Hero's Trial, Shadows of the Empire and others.

By that loose definition, our Sun is a laser.

"Laser" is an acronym for "light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation." The energy from the plasma "pumps" the matter in the liquid barrier into an excited state, when the electrons revisit their lower states, they emit light along a specific wavelength. That's what the TOT describes.

Do you take issue with the definition of "laser" that I provided?

How do you figure energy beams can be fired over enormous distances such as the shot from outside a solar system at one of its planets, if it requires a containment tube throughout its whole length? If they can produce such powerful containment fields at such great range, why don't they just start throwing ships around?

If the tube were capable of traversing this distance that doesn't mean that the tube was powerful enough to throw ships around with. If the force exerted by the tube was strong enough to shove ships around, wouldn't they also shove the ship which is the source of the force?

<snip a lot of descriptions of your theory which are dependent upon the theory being accepted in the first place, as well as a lot of references to the Fact Files which are so important that they are not even published in Lucasfilm's home country>

It's totally irrelevant where they came from. It is the Official Fact File.

Your interpretations ignore official material:
Source: The Official Star Wars Fact File: Turbolasers
"At the point of discharge, the magnetic seal at the mouth of the containment chamber releases, and a ring pulse guides and accelerates the excited atoms along the barrel and out of the apparatus. The visible effect is a condensed bolt of green, glowing plasma, directed at high velocities (although nowhere near the speed of light) toward a target. Less refined or impure Tibanna will yield different colour bolts, ranging anywhere from red to blue to green."


In light of this, your previous statement:

The other official references describe plasma being part of the turbolaser's mechanism but they do not specifically state that the plasma is launched out of the barrel as the bolt.

Is incorrect.

Clone troopers are issued plasma guns of two types. Like all standard blaster weapons, these guns create a charged plasma bolt using a small amount of Tibanna gas. Blaster weapons free clone troopers from the need to carry projectile ammunition but are notoriously hard to aim due to the inherent instability of plasma bolts.

And yet they were aiming at targets several kilometres away in AOTC, and these supposedly unstable plasma bolts...

Take issue with the publishers of the AOTC Visual Dictionary, not me. And the quote has to do with accuracy, not range.

...can ricochet around a trash-compactor dozens of times without breaking up.

Restated:

Yes. The Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory addresses this issue in describing the behavior and characteristics of magnetic field deflectors.

The following exchange from the Death Star trash compactor scene in A New Hope is important:

After they land in the compactor:

Han: ...what an incredible smell you've discovered!
Leia: (makes a face)
Han: Let's get outta here... (hoists up his gun and points it at the wall) (to chewie) get away from there.
Luke: No, wait!
Han: (shoots his blaster, causing a small crisis as it bounces around the walls)

After the bolt stops bouncing:
Luke: Would you forget it I already tried it, it's magnetically sealed!
Leia: Put that thing away or you're gonna get us all killed!

This bouncing effect would be a result of the charged particles in the bolt interacting with a magnetic seal in the trash compactor's walls. It is possible that something similar was afoot (although I would need to review the TPM scene) in the hanger bay instance that you mention.

From Bryan Young's Turbolaser Commentaries:
"It is also interesting to note that blaster rifle bolts seem to be deflected by magnetism. In the A New Hope garbage-chute scene, Luke explains to Han that the chute is 'magnetically sealed' after his blaster bolt ricochets several times . . . Of course, the door was magnetically sealed, which prevented it from being 'knocked down.' Perhaps the bolt ricocheted on the armor, and the magnetic seal has no bearing on the bolt's path."

Moreover, it states clearly (in fact, all sources state clearly) that range and cohesion are maintained through the use of collimation rather than travelling forcefields, and that simply won't work with plasma.

Incorrect, as you brought up with the Episode II Incredible Cross-Sections:
"Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The visible 'bolt' is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed...The light given off by visible bolts depletes the overall energy content of a beam, limiting its range. Turbolasers gain a longer range by spinning the energy beam, which reduces waste glow."

The characteristics of blaster bolts simply do not correspond to the characteristics of plasma. If we can use our understanding of lasers to dismiss a literal interpretation of the word, I don't see why we can't do something similar to a much lower-order source than the canon films in which "laser" was heard.

The Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones Novelization, A New Hope Novelization, Empire Strikes Back Novelization and the Return of the Jedi Novelization are not "much lower-order" sources than the films, yet the narrators of these pieces refer to them as lasers.

Except that a containment field from the gun should not allow this while maintaining cohesion at long distance for the rest of the bolt. It should actually be strongest at the point of origin, not weakest.

If there is a space between the magnetic ring and the barrel, some tibanna could slip out of the magnetic bottle. Note also that this "wash" isn't glowing. It's quite possible that this is some extra "liquid" that got caught in the mechanism.

Ramp-up delay, not wavelength. Why does it always take a similar amount of time for a blaster bolt to "reach" its destination regardless of range?

Similar amount of time?

Spoofe noted some time ago in Observing the behaviour of turbolasers and blasters that it's "well-known" that there is a large variation in the propagation speeds of blaster bolts throughout the Star Wars saga.

your screen caps of the Naboo transport being shot at demonstrates another interesting phenomenon... in that scene, you can see energy blasts travelling faster than turbolaser shots seen in, say, TESB. In fact, I think it's well-known that there's a HUGE variable between the propogation speeds of blaster bolts throughout the series. What would cause this? A mechanism of the targetting computer? Why would it ever be desireable to slow down the speed of your blast?

I also noted in that thread, the following:

Another theory on massed observations of weapons fire shows a consistant delay in fired shots, they always take 2-4(sometimes 6) frames to travel to their targets

Consistent? "2-4(sometimes 6)" represents a variation of as much as 300 percent.

How does this theory account for laser bolts that travel along a different vector than where the barrel is pointing? An entirely different weapon?

It accounts for it just as easily as your theory does, since your theory requires a containment tube projected from the barrel. Both theories actually have trouble here, which is why I suggest that not every weapon works on the same principles: hardly an unreasonable postulate given the wide variety of weapons in SW. Even different models of hand weapon might work on different principles.

So, as I suggested, you postulate an entirely different weapon.


My theory, however, does not. It explains the non-aligned bolts with the surface tension. Might I also note that turbolaser bolts which are not lined up with the barrel have an odd habit of vanishing? (See the first shot of an exterior blaster cannon at the Battle of Yavin in A New Hope) Under the TOT, that's what we should be seeing.

Is there an example where such a projectile is directly observed?

Well, the railgun on top of the AT-TE is an example of an observed projectile weapon in SW which looks just like a blaster bolt. So it demonstrates, if nothing else, that you can't easily tell the difference.

It "looks just like a blaster bolt." Is the projectile that is supposed to be inside of it directly observed? How do you know it is a railgun and not a blaster? What distinguishes it? I would like to see this blaster bolt, please. Do you have screenshots?

And blaster bolts which ricochet cleanly off shielding do certainly suggest a solid component, because that's the only thing which can plausibly hold together like that.

Except, perhaps, an exotic amount of surface tension.

If it's small enough you wouldn't see it

So, it's not observed.

but we're talking about theories, and a containment field produced by a moving device is much more reasonable than one projected at great distances from the barrel of every weapon.

There are two forces to keep a beam coherent in TOT, a long term force (the tube) and a short term force (the surface tension).

In fact, the movement of the barrel which you cite as disproof of the beam theory (most obvious in the ANH trash compactor scene) also handily defeats your own theory, leaving some sort of tiny projectile as the leading theory

The exotic surface tension explains the temporary cohesion in the lack of a containment beam.

It's the only one which makes sense, and the fact that none of the books describe it hardly weakens it against all of these other mechanisms which are also not described in the books.

I refer you to the Episode II: Incredible Cross Sections and the Official Star Wars Fact File as support of various parts of the TOT. According to your own admission, the projectile theory has no canon or official backing.

Wrong; I reject any argument for exotic behaviours which are not NECESSARY as theories, or which are incompatible with observation. If they had a liquid which could comfortably retain integrity withot melting or deforming against a superheated high-energy core plasma for as long as a half-second, why don't they coat their ships with this liquid as a defensive technique?

This is why:
"The Victory-class Destroyer's weaponry was neither as extensive nor as powerful as that of the larger ships, but the turbolasers and double turbolaser batteries still ate away at the Hedgemony Deuce. Liquefied weapons congealed into metal threads, and at least one secondary explosion blasted a small chunk of Direption into space."
Isard's Revenge, Pg. 107-108

"Turbolaser fire had hit so fast that the latter half of the ship had been liquified. An amorphous blob of metal fringed with condensed metal mist, like the down from a silvery bird, trailed in the ship's wake."
The Krytos Trap, Pg. 242

We're talking about a substance that is able to stay in liquid form at insane heat levels. Relieved of the intense temperatures present in an active turbolaser bolt (IE, cooled), it is possible that the transformed tibanna which forms the liquid wall might disassociate or become useless.

Also, the heat of vaporization of the tibanna could be higher than the melting point of a starship's hull, I cite the two melting hull incidents above. Just because the transformed tibanna would remain in a liquid form does not mean that the hull behind it would not be melted by the heat diffusion from the tibanna to the hull.

The TOT presupposes an exotic surface tension strong enough to hold together these globs for that short amount of time.

In other words, the TOT requires an imaginary magical substance which is liquid yet has far greater resistance to damage than any solid armour substance known to SW technology. Do you not see the problem here?

This odd fact would be the exact reason why tibanna is such a strategically valuable substance.

In addition to the Official Fact File information, Bryan Young says that the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology states that "TL technology and blaster technology are similar". Is his statement incorrect?

I don't know; I would have to review the source quote. But you obviously don't know either, since you haven't produced the source quote yourself.

No, I do not have the source handy. I do however, have the Official Fact Files quote:
"The mechanism of a turbolaser is not all that dissimilar to that of a hand blaster."

So in trying to form a theory that explains both blasters and turbolasers, the TOT falls in line with this source.

The bouncing effect is not the problem; the bolt's failure to break apart despite the loss of your "containment tube" is the problem.

As I noted above, the exotic surface tension explains the temporary cohesion in the lack of a containment beam. You forward the projectile theory in contradiction with Bryan Young's quote about the Essential Guide, and you ignore the Official Fact Files information.

The Tantive-IV incident was the actual ship's shield dealing with the turbolaser bolt, as the Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory explains:

That works just as well for the beam theory, so there's no point bringing it up here.

I didn't bring it up, Mike,

Didn't you notice that if hand blaster bolts don't detonate on contact they ricochet cleanly (DS trash compactor, TPM hangar bay), while if turbolasers don't detonate on contact they splinter (Tantive IV, X-wing engine)?

I just demonstrated how my theories explain the incident.

As for the X-Wing situation (which I went over in the post I made on Mon Jul 28, 2003 at 8:38 pm), that is not a splintering effect as seen on the Tantive IV (for the reasons stated in that post).

Since I'm too lazy to answer this long post while looking up that one as well, I will simply point out that it is either a splintering effect of some sort (meaning that it does not remain cohesive) or it is superheated material being blown off the engine.

Could you please explain how non-exotic superheated X-wing hull material glows green? As I've heard many times, green is not a thermal color.

Either way, you still have no examples of space-based weapons ricocheting cleanly, the way hand weapon shots do.

Might I note a similar situation in regards to the projectile theory:

...the fact that none of the books describe it hardly weakens it against all of these other mechanisms which are also not described in the books.

The novel appears to be describing three different weapons systems, here. Energy weapons, electrical bolts and explosive solids (presumably missiles). This doesn't appear to have anything to do with turbolasers.

It proves that the Empire does not limit itself to weapons based on a single operating principle, despite some of the official literature's claims to the contrary.

What the quote shows is that

the canon ANH novelization states quite clearly that the DS used "explosive solids" as part of its defensive weaponry

"explosives solids" have nothing to do with turbolasers or blasters.

If this is a lightspeed beam weapon (but not a laser), why does it most often cause damage at speeds lower than light (when the bolt hits)?

Already dealt with many, many times, including once in this very thread. Is the concept of a power ramp-up delay so complex that you need a greatly detailed explanation?

I appreciate detailed explanations, but no they are not always necessary.

Why are bolts sometimes opaque?

The generation of sufficient light will blot out whatever's behind it, particularly on film where you can saturate the medium. Try again.

Are you contending that the green bolt here


and the red bolt here


are so bright that they blot out what's behind it? The red bolt is not as bright as the white explosion behind it, yet it is opaque. And, are issues of "saturating" the film even allowed in this discussion?

TOT explains these instances in reference to Tibanna's "ravenous" energy-consuming behavior and malformed bolts, it does not necessitate stepping out of the Star Wars universe and making speculations about the film media.

Why are turbolasers so often referred to as lasers by narrative and even technical sources?

Lasers are much more easily explained as lightspeed beam of exotic particles than a blob of liquid moving through an invisible tube.

You didn't answer my question. Turbolasers are not lasers. All of the references to lasers and laser bolts can be explained by the stimulated emission portion of the TOT.

Light amplified by the stimulated emission of radiation can hardly be interpreted as a thoroughly exotic non-photonic decay/carrier beam unless you're being seriously abusive to the language.

Why are turbolasers often more bulbous at the front end and tapering at the back end?

That's the shape of the pulse. The DS pulses were also not perfectly cylindrical.

Yes, but why?

How can a laser bolt explode?

It can't.

But the stimulated emission plasma bolt of the TOT can.

But it could conceivably interact oddly with a volumetric shielding effect.

Could you expound on this a little, please?

It certainly works better than your explanation, which simultaneously postulates that:
1. The liquid blob inside the tube explodes the instant the containment tube is lost

Incorrect.

sometimes turbolaser bolts will impact a target in such a way that the liquid wall component of the bolt will remain intact for a short time after the collision, causing the bolt to behave like a liquid rather than a plasma.

The surface tension of the liquid wall can keep the tibanna bolt intact for several seconds without the need of a containment beam. Exactly how long the bolt retains cohesion depends on the temperature of the core plasma, the temperature of the edge plasma, the density and the size of the bolt (which also affects the gas' convection rates); dense and hot masses of tibanna will tend to lose their cohesion and come apart, sometimes explosively (left). Bolts with different attributes may be more likely to simply dwindle out

The liquid blob inside the tube can maintain integrity against the energy within for an extended period of time

Correct.

Your theory is not self-consistent, Mark. You revise the strength of this liquid blob of yours depending on what you want to explain at any given time.

The difference between the two situations is the presence of a containment beam and it's absence. The actual strength and coherence time of the bolt in the absence of the containment tube, as the TOT says, depends on "the temperature of the core plasma, the temperature of the edge plasma," and "the density and the size of the bolt".

You, however, require entirely different mechanisms (for weapons that look the same) to compensate for when one theory does not correctly account for an observed behavior. This is done in defiance of the Official Fact Files quote, and Bryan Young's statement about the Essential Guides.

[Marc Xavier]

Having trouble posting, might want to look into this:

Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 30 seconds exceeded in /var/www/html/includes/functions_search.php on line 62

Deleted Re-Posts. This sometimes happens to me, usually I have to close my browser, open it again and login in for it to be fixed. ~ Crown

[Darth Wong]

On surface tension

Mark, you're missing the entire point. If a liquid has enough surface tension to hold together and not vapourize against turbolaser energy, then it would work as a defensive measure. The claim that turbolaser energy is incapable of vapourizing or even deforming a liquid wall is utterly fantastic (not to mention bearing no resemblance whatsoever to anything called physics), and despite your denials, it DOES beg the question of why they don't use it as a defensive measure.

Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence, and you have failed to provide any. Your only response to this point was to quote a pair of incidents where starship armour was blown away, leaving melted tendrils behind. You tried to suggest that the turbolaser energy was incapable of vapourizing the metal, hence it might be considered incapable of vapourizing a liquid container. This is, quite frankly, a totally irrelevant rebuttal for two reasons:

1. The fact that some melted armour is left behind after a TL impact hardly means that (as you suggest) the turbolaser was incapable of vapourizing the armour. If you vapourize part of a ship, there will obviously be a portion between the vapourized part and the undamaged part which is merely melted.
2. It takes much more than surface tension to retain a shape against internal pressure. You are using surface tension as some sort of magical catch-all to describe what is basically solidity. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of surface tension or anything remotely scientific; you might as well call it "magical containment mojo".

On the word "laser"

It is one thing to interpret a word in a non-literal way: lasers could very easily be changed to describe other kinds of energy beams. However, a liquid blob moving through a containment pipe is much farther from a laser than any kind of energy beam is, so stop trying to use the word "laser" to support your liquid blob theory over the beam theory. If anything, it supports the beam theory far more than it supports any liquid-blob theory.

On official literature

Official literature, unlike canon, is subordinate to science, which is why nobody accepts the stupid idea of TIE fighter wings being solar panels. And if some official literature spouts the idiotic idea that you can keep plasma together out of the barrel by merely collimating it, then it is obviously wrong. The use of collimation to extend range and accuracy is consistent with an energy beam, not a plasma. And the concept of spin does not change anything.

Moreover, you should stop disregarding the ICS explanation while upholding the much lower-order Fact Files (I remind you once again that LFL does not even publish them in its own home country) as irrefutable evidence. This kind of inconsistency is indicative of someone who just doesn't want to let go of a pet theory.

On the entire concept of liquidity

I suggest you research the nature of surface tension and liquids. If you spin a liquid blob and its surface tension is so ridiculously high that it doesn't break up, then you will not get a long, shaped pulse. It will actually tend to expand in the radial direction of spin.

Or, to put it another way, I can't believe you're demanding that the mechanism of a glowing pulse along a carrier wave be explained completely, when your theory not only fails to explain it as well but actually contains mechanisms which directly CONTRADICT it.

The first thing you should see from your liquid-blob theory is the turbolaser bolt changing from an elongated shape to a sphere as internal pressures distort the liquid blob. That is the DEFINITION of liquidity, and in a ricochet or the absence of your cylindrical containment field (which you admit not to apply if the barrel is moved), that is precisely what we should see.

[FTeik]

Until now i viewed a Turbolasers as a weapon, that fired a laserbeam/blast, which was followed by a plasmabolt.

This way the weapon would
- attack ray- and particle-shields,
- be able to create flak-bursts,
- we would have an explenation for the vanishing of the bolt after some time,
- the limited range of the plamsa-component would explain incidents of (very) close ship-combat.

Seems to me i would have to change that view, but can somebody explain to me why? I´ll admit i´m a little lost.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Until now i viewed a Turbolasers as a weapon, that fired a laserbeam/blast, which was followed by a plasmabolt.

This way the weapon would
- attack ray- and particle-shields,
- be able to create flak-bursts,
- we would have an explenation for the vanishing of the bolt after some time,
- the limited range of the plamsa-component would explain incidents of (very) close ship-combat.

Seems to me i would have to change that view, but can somebody explain to me why? I´ll admit i´m a little lost.

Plasma is not translucent, not green, and is not massless, so it would arc and not follow straight lines in the movies, which are the mark of high-fractional-C, or C propogating beams. Plasma is very difficult to make part of the argument.

And flakbursts appear to be some bizarre affect caused by shields. Some shots in AOTC have the beam going through flakbursts.

The idea is that shields have no real defined edge, and can "bleed off" energy from passing energy beams, which manifests in flakbursts.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Illuminatus Primus, do me the favor of reading my post and how it deals with the ICS. And the fact that you don’t like the source doesn’t change it. "Official Star Wars Fact File"

Do you not understand canon heirarchy? The Incredible Cross Sections are even used as sources in producing the films. They are canonical in equal standing with the movie novelisations. The ONLY source higher than them is the films themselves.

And your bastardization of claiming that your containment tubes are the same thing as energy beams with a visible pulse is quite frankly absurd. It also is quite dishonest in blatent contradiction to the author's intent. I read your post, and quite frankly, its bullshit.

You're twisting semantics to fit your pet theory. And your vaunted Star Wars Fact Files are not even published in America. They're vastly lower than Shadows of the Empire and even the Essential Guides in the canon heirarchy.

Red herring, Illuminatus Primus. Shadow bombs were mentioned as a incidental point.

How is it a red herring. Shadow bombs cannot be the explosive solids mentioned in the novelisation, because they had not been invented yet.

You're attacking the source instead of the argument because of the implications. I would much prefer to discuss this topic with Mike Wong, I find discussion with him to be insightful.

Your argument is flawed because it redefines the far more canonical Incredible Cross-Sections interpretation to suit your pet theory which does not follow science. Your priorities in developing your theory are flawed.

Please respond in the form of a new post, rather than a post edit.

Please call me dishonest if that's what you mean, rather than replying with this dismissive, holier-than-thou crap. I posted that edit before anyone else posted, it was not a post facto attack on a later argument.

Your character jab is baseless and offensive.

[Marc Xavier]

Plasma is not translucent, not green,

Incorrect.

Official Star Wars Fact File
"At the point of discharge, the magnetic seal at the mouth of the containment chamber releases, and a ring pulse guides and accelerates the excited atoms along the barrel and out of the apparatus. The visible effect is a condensed bolt of green, glowing plasma, directed at high velocities (although nowhere near the speed of light) toward a target. Less refined or impure Tibanna will yield different colour bolts, ranging anywhere from red to blue to green."

"A PLASMA: Imperial turbolaser technology uses intensely focused lasers to energize compact pockets of Tibanna gas until the weak molecular bonds of the gas break down. Once that occurs, a second beam of photons is introduced. This excites the free molecules to such a high temperature that the electrons on the individual atoms break away and form plasma. These pockets of plasma are retained in a small magnetic bottle at the base of the turbolaser barrel, until the moment the weapon discharges."

and is not massless

Never said it was.

so it would arc and not follow straight lines in the movies

Except for the anti-gravitational properties mentioned months ago (Emphasis mine):

Tibanna gas: a gas found in the atmosphere of many gas giants, it is useful because it can produce large amounts of energy when light passes through it. Thus, it can be used in large blasters to multiply the weapon's output. It also has certain anti-gravitational properties, and has exceptional properties as a hyperdrive coolant. The best tibanna gas is compressed and spin-sealed, since this kind of tibanna is four times as powerful as regular tibanna. Spin-sealing requires a great deal of energy to do artificially. Fortunately for many weapons manufacturers, the tibanna found in the atmosphere of Bespin is naturally spin-sealed. Much of Bespin's tibanna gas is produced as a waste product by the beldons that inhabit the gas giant's Life Zone. (The Empire Strikes Back, The Art of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, Galaxy Guide 2: Yavin and Bespin, The Illustrated Star Wars Universe.

Might I also note, that Mad's theory, the theory that you yourself told me to look at when I asked for explanation of the beam theory, uses this exact piece of evidence that I brought up.

"First, the massless particles decay into massive particles with antigravity properties. These antigravity properties are probably related to the use of "anti-gravitational Tibanna gas" in creating the beam."

, which are the mark of high-fractional-C, or C propogating beams.

Incorrect, as per above.

Plasma is very difficult to make part of the argument.

It really isn't that hard, FTeik, and the TOT theory is a lot more than a simple plasma bolt. Illuminatus Primus, like His Divine Shadow, simply has an extreme aversion to the plasma theory.

And flakbursts appear to be some bizarre affect caused by shields.

Mixing observation and argument.

Some shots in AOTC have the beam going through flakbursts.

I can explain this in TOT as well.

The idea is that shields have no real defined edge, and can "bleed off" energy from passing energy beams, which manifests in flakbursts.

That's his theory. TOT has it's own explanation of flakbursts, one which does not require shields that have no clearly defined edge, constantly change shape, and have no defined nature in relation to real-world physics.


Other responses:

Do you not understand canon heirarchy? The Incredible Cross Sections are even used as sources in producing the films. They are canonical in equal standing with the movie novelisations. The ONLY source higher than them is the films themselves

See my reply to Mike Wong below. The Official Star Wars Fact File uses the ICS explanation and the plasma explanation. TOT is a meshing of the two.

Please call me dishonest if that's what you mean, rather than replying with this dismissive, holier-than-thou crap. I posted that edit before anyone else posted, it was not a post facto attack on a later argument.

I apologize if I offended you, that was not my intent. I saw your original post, began a reply, and in the midst of my reply, more was added to the post. I posted that in case you were in the midst of another post edit.

[Marc Xavier]

On surface tension

Mark, you're missing the entire point. If a liquid has enough surface tension to hold together and not vapourize against turbolaser energy, then it would work as a defensive measure. The claim that turbolaser energy is incapable of vapourizing or even deforming a liquid wall is utterly fantastic (not to mention bearing no resemblance whatsoever to anything called physics), and despite your denials, it DOES beg the question of why they don't use it as a defensive measure.

I did not claim that turbolaser energy is incapable of vaporizing or even deforming a liquid wall.

Again, I refer to the TOT:

The surface tension of the liquid wall can keep the tibanna bolt intact for several seconds without the need of a containment beam. Exactly how long the bolt retains cohesion depends on the temperature of the core plasma, the temperature of the edge plasma, the density and the size of the bolt (which also affects the gas' convection rates); dense and hot masses of tibanna will tend to lose their cohesion and come apart, sometimes explosively. Bolts with different attributes may be more likely to simply dwindle out.

There are two forces to keep a beam coherent in TOT, a long term force (the tube) and a short term force (the surface tension).

The enormous surface tension holds it together for a short time, and then it fails. I did not claim that turbolaser energy is incapable of vaporizing or deforming an exotic liquid wall. As I said in the TOT, "how long the bolt retains cohesion depends on the temperature of the core plasma, the temperature of the edge plasma," and "the density and the size of the bolt." In the case of large turbolaser weapons, this turns out to be a very short time. In the case of lower-powered and smaller weapons (like blasters) it can be longer.

Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence, and you have failed to provide any.

Might I quote you,

[The tiny projectile theory] is the only one which makes sense, and the fact that none of the books describe it hardly weakens it against all of these other mechanisms which are also not described in the books

The fact that the bolt remains coherent when the barrel is not pointing along it's path (for a short time) and then vanishes (See the first shot of an exterior blaster cannon at the Battle of Yavin in A New Hope)

The fact that a turbolaser bolt hit an X-Wing engine and "splattered" in a distinctly liquid-like pattern:

Your only response to this point was to quote a pair of incidents where starship armour was blown away, leaving melted tendrils behind. You tried to suggest that the turbolaser energy was incapable of vapourizing the metal, hence it might be considered incapable of vapourizing a liquid container. This is, quite frankly,

...not what I said.

I noted the incidents from The Krytos Trap and Isard's Revenge as an example of what happens when turbolasers come in contact with the hull of a ship. Damage is incurred, and sometimes even the hull itself melts, or is blasted into a "condensed metal mist, like the down from a silvery bird".

I then suggested that it is possible that if you cool the transformed tibanna to temperatures such that it would not melt the hull once it came in contact, the liquid may lose it's exotic properties.

I also noted that the heat of vaporization of the liquid tibanna may be higher than the melting point of the hull. So, when turbolaser blasts came tumbling in, the liquid tibanna may heat to a temperature of X degrees. At X degrees, the exotic tibanna liquid remains liquid. However, at X degrees, the hull of the star destroyer might be past it's melting point and turn into a mass of congealed metal threads.

a totally irrelevant rebuttal for two reasons:
The fact that some melted armour is left behind after a TL impact hardly means that (as you suggest) the turbolaser was incapable of vapourizing the armour. If you vapourize part of a ship, there will obviously be a portion between the vapourized part and the undamaged part which is merely melted.

This is irrelevant, because it's not what I said. Please see above.

It takes much more than surface tension to retain a shape against internal pressure. You are using surface tension as some sort of magical catch-all to describe what is basically solidity. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of surface tension or anything remotely scientific; you might as well call it "magical containment mojo".

There is no such thing as proving what they are with todays science, asking for it is nonscensial."

Before you deride the TOT as "magical containment mojo" as you put it, I would like to see you explain, using modern scientific terms, the beam theory.



As for maintaining shape:

At the moment of impact,

the (lightspeed) containment beams are shut off (notice that the bolt is a tiny bit thicker. Now that there's no containment tube, the turbolaser plasma expands like any other heated substance)

On the word "laser"

It is one thing to interpret a word in a non-literal way: lasers could very easily be changed to describe other kinds of energy beams

[l(ight) a(mplification by) s(timulated) e(mission of) r(adiation).]

It's very specific.

However, a liquid blob moving through a containment pipe is much farther from a laser than any kind of energy beam is, so stop trying to use the word "laser" to support your liquid blob theory over the beam theory. If anything, it supports the beam theory far more than it supports any liquid-blob theory.

Again, I cite the TOT:

Less refined or impure tibanna will yield liquid walls with different spectral absorptions, resulting in bolts ranging anywhere from red (common for blaster weapons) to purple to yellow or orange. This aspect is sometimes used to help differentiate between friendly and unfriendly fire in a battle situation. Sometimes, impurities are purposely injected into the tibanna bolt, next to (or inside of) the liquid wall in order to facilitate the stimulated emission of photons along a desired wavelength (not unlike a pumped gas laser) during the bolt's journey. This is why turbolaser bolts are sometimes referred to as "laser pulses" or "laser bolts."

The turbolaser construct shines along a specific wavelength due to the stimulated emission of photons which occurs in the liquid wall. This is why turbolaser bolts are sometimes referred to as "laser pulses" or "laser bolts."

Laser, as in l(ight) a(mplification by) s(timulated) e(mission of) r(adiation), the literal meaning of the acronym.

Not thoroughly exotic non-photonic decay/carrier beams.

On official literature

Official literature, unlike canon, is subordinate to science,

And this, Mike, is perhaps where we truly deviate. Please show me the Lucasfilm's canon/official policy quote that says the fictional Star Wars universe always must be constrained by our current understanding of physics?

which is why nobody accepts the stupid idea of TIE fighter wings being solar panels. And if some official literature spouts the idiotic idea that you can keep plasma together out of the barrel by merely collimating it, then it is obviously wrong.

No, Mike. It's a piece of evidence with a clearly defined place in the Lucasfilm canon/official hierarchy. You reject it out of hand because of the implications that it has.

The use of collimation to extend range and accuracy is consistent with an energy beam, not a plasma. And the concept of spin does not change anything.

See my explanation in an above post about spin sealing.

Moreover, you should stop disregarding the ICS explanation while upholding the much lower-order Fact Files (I remind you once again that LFL does not even publish them in its own home country) as irrefutable evidence. This kind of inconsistency is indicative of someone who just doesn't want to let go of a pet theory.

I'll provide some background information on this point.

The Official Fact File explanation is not inconsistent with the Episode II: Incredible Cross Sections information. In fact, it uses the Episode I ICS information:

The ICS quote:

Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The visible 'bolt' is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed...The light given off by visible bolts depletes the overall energy content of a beam, limiting its range. Turbolasers gain a longer range by spinning the energy beam, which reduces waste glow

Quote from the Official Fact File

THE POWER OF LIGHT: Like most energy weapons, turbolasers fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The 'bolt effect' seen when a turbolaser is fired is actually a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed. The light emitted by such bolts depletes the overall energy content of a beam, limiting it's range. Thus, turbolasers gain a longer range by spinning the energy beam, reducing waste glow.

The Official Fact File, the same source (the same article) which describes the turbolaser bolt as plasma, and says that blasters and turbolasers are "not all that dissimilar," also uses the ICS information, nearly quoting it word for word.

Despite what you claim, I am not disregarding the ICS explanation at all, in fact (in my post I made on Tue Jul 29, 2003 at 11:36 pm) I broke down the ICS explanation sentence by sentence and explained how it's interpreted in TOT.

Your point is invalid.

On the entire concept of liquidity

I suggest you research the nature of surface tension and liquids. If you spin a liquid blob

We're not spinning the blob. We're spinning the containment beam.

Turbolasers gain a longer range by spinning the energy beam, which reduces waste glow

and its surface tension is so ridiculously high that it doesn't break up, then you will not get a long, shaped pulse. It will actually tend to expand in the radial direction of spin.

See above.

Or, to put it another way, I can't believe you're demanding that the mechanism of a glowing pulse along a carrier wave be explained completely, when your theory not only fails to explain it as well but actually contains mechanisms which directly CONTRADICT it.

Incorrect. See the point above about the Official Fact File and how it uses the ICS information.

The first thing you should see from your liquid-blob theory is the turbolaser bolt changing from an elongated shape to a sphere as internal pressures distort the liquid blob. That is the DEFINITION of liquidity, and in a ricochet or the absence of your cylindrical containment field (which you admit not to apply if the barrel is moved), that is precisely what we should see.

This depends on how long the bolt is in flight, the relative density and charge of the turbolaser plasma and the liquid wall and any effects the magnetic wall may have on the bolt (I assume you're talking about the trash compactor scene).



Now, for some other portions of my previous post:

The other official references describe plasma being part of the turbolaser's mechanism but they do not specifically state that the plasma is launched out of the barrel as the bolt.

I provided the following:

At the point of discharge, the magnetic seal at the mouth of the containment chamber releases, and a ring pulse guides and accelerates the excited atoms along the barrel and out of the apparatus. The visible effect is a condensed bolt of green, glowing plasma, directed at high velocities (although nowhere near the speed of light) toward a target. Less refined or impure Tibanna will yield different colour bolts, ranging anywhere from red to blue to green.

This is an example of an official reference stating that plasma is what is launched out of the barrel as a bolt. You claimed no such reference exists. This position is incorrect.

If you recant on this position, please indicate so.

Ramp-up delay, not wavelength. Why does it always take a similar amount of time for a blaster bolt to "reach" its destination regardless of range?

I responded with observations made by SPOOFE (emphasis mine):

your screen caps of the Naboo transport being shot at demonstrates another interesting phenomenon... in that scene, you can see energy blasts travelling faster than turbolaser shots seen in, say, TESB. In fact, I think it's well-known that there's a HUGE variable between the propogation speeds of blaster bolts throughout the series. What would cause this? A mechanism of the targetting computer? Why would it ever be desireable to slow down the speed of your blast?

I also noted in that thread, the following:

Another theory on massed observations of weapons fire shows a consistant delay in fired shots, they always take 2-4(sometimes 6) frames to travel to their targets

Consistent? "2-4(sometimes 6)" represents a variation of as much as 300 percent.

If you recant on this position, please indicate so.

Well, the railgun on top of the AT-TE is an example of an observed projectile weapon in SW which looks just like a blaster bolt. So it demonstrates, if nothing else, that you can't easily tell the difference

I responded with:

It "looks just like a blaster bolt." Is the projectile that is supposed to be inside of it directly observed? How do you know it is a railgun and not a blaster? What distinguishes it? I would like to see this blaster bolt, please. Do you have screenshots?

I still await a response.

Since I'm too lazy to answer this long post while looking up that one as well, I will simply point out that it is either a splintering effect of some sort (meaning that it does not remain cohesive) or it is superheated material being blown off the engine.

I responded with:

Could you please explain how non-exotic superheated X-wing hull material glows green? As I've heard many times, green is not a thermal color.

I still await a response.

The generation of sufficient light will blot out whatever's behind it, particularly on film where you can saturate the medium. Try again.

I responded with:

Are you contending that the green bolt here


and the red bolt here


are so bright that they blot out what's behind it? The red bolt is not as bright as the white explosion behind it, yet it is opaque.

I still await a response. If you recant on this position, please indicate so.

But it could conceivably interact oddly with a volumetric shielding effect.

I responded with:

Could you expound on this a little, please?

I still await a response.

[Connor MacLeod]

Redirection of a TL bolt off the ground (inside the shield, no less) without scattering or splintering. I would love to see how this is explained outside of a non-massless beam weapon (or maybe a projectile weapon.) without scattering or breaking containment.




On top of that, I am curious just which Fact File number you draw that definition of turbolasers from (regarding the "plasma" definition?) I've been collecting them myself when I can, and insofar as I am aware, none of the ones I've seen have presented that.

I'm also a bit curious as to what evidence specifically you are using to support this notion that TLs have a liquid component to them. Even accepting the notion that some type of "plasma" weapon exists, the liquid element still is a complete unknown unsupported by any evidence I am aware of (and seems to be far more complex than neccessary.)

[Marc Xavier]

Redirection of a TL bolt off the ground (inside the shield, no less) without scattering or splintering. I would love to see how this is explained outside of a non-massless beam weapon (or maybe a projectile weapon.) without scattering or breaking containment.

Quoting you in a post that you made in the "AT-AT 'maximum firepower'" thread in the Pure Star Wars forum on Wednesday, Jan 15, 2003 at 3:34 pm:

In TPM, we see bolts bouncing off the ground in between the Gungans and Trade Federation ground forces. It seems probable that most shields (planetary and non) interact or "ground" themselves, at at least some of the shielding effect protects the ground.

To continue,

I am curious just which Fact File number you draw that definition of turbolasers from (regarding the "plasma" definition?) I've been collecting them myself when I can, and insofar as I am aware, none of the ones I've seen have presented that.

Fact File #45.

I'm also a bit curious as to what evidence specifically you are using to support this notion that TLs have a liquid component to them.

The liquid wall contention is my own supposition based on observations made of turbolaser behaviors like this:

Even accepting the notion that some type of "plasma" weapon exists, the liquid element still is a complete unknown unsupported by any evidence I am aware of (and seems to be far more complex than neccessary.)

See above.

And what's the alternative? Several widely different theories for weapons that all look the same, but each of their definitions tailor made to explain each "strange" occurrence or behavior demonstrated? All while doing so in violation of the Official Fact Files quote?

Beam theories for some weapons, projectile theories for others, despite the fact that Mike Wong already said that the projectile theory had no support in any of the books, and the Episode II ICS theory can be brought in line with the TOT?

[Connor MacLeod]

I refer you to the Episode II: Incredible Cross Sections and the Official Star Wars Fact File as support of various parts of the TOT. According to your own admission, the projectile theory has no canon or official backing.

Actually, the "projectile" theory does have canon backing:

"Count Dooku was a fencer, following an older fighting style, one more effective against lightsabers than against projectile weapons like blasters. The Jedi on the whole had abandoned the old fighting style, considering it almost irrelevant against the enemies of the present galaxy"

AOTC novel page 342

Moreover, it should be noted that the AOTC VD also indicates that Zam Wessell's rifle is a projectile weapon, despite the fact the novelization calls it a blaster. This, in addition to Chewbacca's bowcaster (EGW&T), reference to concussion missiles/proton torpedoes/energy shell launchers on Trade Federation tanks, and the AT-TE gun (AOTC ICS) suggests that there IS more than sufficient canon/official backing for the notion of "projectile" firing blasters.

In terms to your allegations a bout the "bolt", it must be noted that not all blaster bolts are transparent:

transparent:



opaque:



The projectile could be present in the opaque bolt, or it may be too small to readily see in the transparent one (or simply not easily seen - tracer rounds are visible, yet we don't see the bullet in the glow - but its there.)

[Connor MacLeod]

Quoting you in a post that you made in the "AT-AT 'maximum firepower'" thread in the Pure Star Wars forum on Wednesday, Jan 15, 2003 at 3:34 pm:

In TPM, we see bolts bouncing off the ground in between the Gungans and Trade Federation ground forces. It seems probable that most shields (planetary and non) interact or "ground" themselves, at at least some of the shielding effect protects the ground.

Which proves your theory how? How does a plasma bolt bend at an angle like that in the scene withotu breaking or even scattering, pray tell? Quoting my own responeses back to me doesn't rebut my point.

[quote
The liquid wall contention is my own supposition based on observations made of turbolaser behaviors like this:

[/quote]

So you see something glowy and green and assume it must be a liquid? Yes, very scientific. And how exactly did this "liquid" avoid from being turned into a gas?
And even if this IS a liquid, by observed fact, the quantity present required to be visible like that would in fact argue FOR the projectile theory.

See above.

And what's the alternative? Several widely different theories for weapons that all look the same, but each of their definitions tailor made to explain each "strange" occurrence or behavior demonstrated? All while doing so in violation of the Official Fact Files quote?

So what about the SWE? WEG? WOTC? The official website? The EGV&V? None of those advocate a plasma theory, in fact they describe a weapon that is distinctly massless. So I guess we should ignore all those in favor of the FAct files?

In fact, the "multiple weapons theory" Mike presented does a far better job of maintaining internal consistency with canon and official sources than yours does, particularily since it does not require elaborately complicated theories, nor pointless pseudoscience technobabble.

Beam theories for some weapons, projectile theories for others, despite the fact that Mike Wong already said that the projectile theory had no support in any of the books, and the Episode II ICS theory can be brought in line with the TOT?

I dont recall him saying that, since he's alluded to projectile weapons more than once in the past (on his site and on the boards), and even if he did, there is in fact canon proof for it. (I might add he DID cite canon proof in the form of the AT-TE gun, which is clearly labeled as a "Mass driver.")

[Marc Xavier]

I refer you to the Episode II: Incredible Cross Sections and the Official Star Wars Fact File as support of various parts of the TOT. According to your own admission, the projectile theory has no canon or official backing.

Actually, the "projectile" theory does have canon backing:

"Count Dooku was a fencer, following an older fighting style, one more effective against lightsabers than against projectile weapons like blasters. The Jedi on the whole had abandoned the old fighting style, considering it almost irrelevant against the enemies of the present galaxy"

AOTC novel page 342

Finally, the AOTC quote. If this is what the book says, then indeed it can be interpreted as evidence for projectile theory.

Now, here is how it works with the TOT:

Simply put, the plasma construct is a projectile.

Now, At the same time, it makes it possible to make sense of other novelization quotes, such as the following from the Empire Strikes Back Novelization:

"The ship was rocked again by the concussion of another laser explosion."


Mike Wong rightly notes that a laser bolt can't explode. But the TOT stimulated emission (laser) plasma bolt can.

So now the TOT is known to line up with the Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones Novelization as well as the A New Hope Novelization, Empire Strikes Back Novelization and the Return of the Jedi Novelization in which the narrators refer to the weapons as lasers.

Moreover, it should be noted that the AOTC VD also indicates that Zam Wessell's rifle is a projectile weapon, despite the fact the novelization calls it a blaster.

Which works fine with the TOT.

This, in addition to Chewbacca's bowcaster (EGW&T), reference to concussion missiles/proton torpedoes/energy shell launchers on Trade Federation tanks, and the AT-TE gun (AOTC ICS) suggests that there IS more than sufficient canon/official backing for the notion of "projectile" firing blasters.

This works fine with the TOT as far as I see. But, as for what you're saying, how so?

In terms to your allegations a bout the "bolt", it must be noted that not all blaster bolts are transparent

You do me a disservice, sir, as your posting of those pictures seems to indicate that you have not read the Turbolaser Operational Theory. The TOT deals with both transparent and opaque bolts.

The projectile could be present in the opaque bolt,

or just not be there.

or it may be too small to readily see in the transparent one

or just not be there.

(or simply not easily seen - tracer rounds are visible, yet we don't see the bullet in the glow - but its there.)

or it might just not be there.

[Marc Xavier]

Connor MacLeod, if you want to provide excerpts, definitions, quotes, and screenshots from the official or canon source material to discuss, I have no objection of discussing them with you.

But rattling off acronyms, not reading the theory and saying what amounts to basically "na uh!" is not how I choose to conduct a debate.

Bring evidence to the table. Cite it clearly, succinctly, and completely. If you have an observation or a question, bring it forward and I will discuss with you. But do not quarrel with me for the simple sake of being antagonistic.