Alderan's Destruction, Divergant thread of the Tech debate.

[aerius]

And reading Richard Rhodes' Magic Book is going to make you an expert on atomic weapons? An editorial review has this to say about it, note the bolded parts.

From Library Journal
This is a massive work dealing with the history of the people and the science that preceded and then made possible the development of the atomic bomb. Heavily biographical, the book provides portraits of the many players from Szilard and Einstein to Oppenheimer. Rhodes includes detailed explanations of the various scientific discoveries beginning in the late 19th century which culminated in the Manhattan Project. The book is heavily documented and includes a 13-page bibliography. This is a definitive work, well written, with a gripping story. It is not an easy book to read, but it is well worth the effort. BOMC alternate. Hilary D. Burton, Lawrence Livermore National Lab., Livermore, Cal.

If you want to know how nuclear weapons work, go hit up the Nuclear Weapons FAQ instead of reading through some stupid ass book on the history & politics of nuclear weapons. A book I might add which only covers the events up to Japan getting nuked.

[The Dude]

At McGill, it's in the Humanities library.

[Darth Wong]

In short, it's a coffee-table book and not remotely technical in nature. Not surprising at all for a poseur. He's talking to a licensed engineer with direct experience in nuclear power and trying to appeal to the authority of a damned history book.

Once more,

WHERE ARE THOSE CALCULATIONS, STEWART?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Spiffy new title, Stewhead.

BTW this argument's been done to death. No way in hell the DS could have caused the planet to explode by any mechanism other than good old-fashioned DET.

[Darth Wong]

Just in case Stewart has trouble reading bold-faced text:

WHERE ARE THOSE CALCULATIONS, STEWART?

[Stewart at SDI]

Were is it cannon that the DS-1 made so much energy? Nothing in the films mentions this figure. If it comes from the books, radio plays or tapes, it is lessor cannon. According to Lucas himself, that lessor cannon is not equal to the films, wich are the "Whole and only truth".

The energy state of Alderaan was changed by a certain amount of energy... we can calculate the energy. COE dictates it's the minimum energy the DS has produced for the shot.

Not if we change the mechanism and source of the energy that destroyed the planet!

That does not change the effect of magnatude of the power. The accellerating mass argument does not hold water on two counts.

First, the energy required must be less than Newtonian physics sugjests or it would be impossable.

Translation:
I don't believe they could produce that much energy, so it's impossible.

Not at all. It is a suspension of disbelife problem. It does not matter how much energy they made because the engine clearly violates the natural laws and must therefore function under SoD rules.

The suspensiof disbelife is off the charts then.

There are SciFi universes with even higher energy productions...

It does not matter wether the DS used a "HYPER DRIVE" or a "WARP ENGINE" as some of the early books claimed, in either case, the energy to move it was less than Einstinian formula's dictate.

According to our information the DS draws it's energy from a hypermatter reactor.

This has nothing to do with the problem. It does not matter were the energy comes from, only that it is an imposably large figure without using SoD.

Second, if the efficiancy of the power generation device is not perfectly efficiant, the waist energy would vaporise the DS. Since the generation machine is not 100% efficiant, the power must be less than the figure you cite.

So the fact that the DS is NOT vaporized show us the incredible efficiency of the GE's tech... thank you.

No, if we parse the choice by which mechanism requires the least SoD, then the other theory must be accepted. I.E. the DS can not produce that much energy if there is another mechanism that will explain what we see on film but require less SoD.

Sincerely, Stewart.

[Darth Wong]

WHERE ARE THOSE CALCULATIONS, STEWART?

For the umpteenth time, you cannot say that your alternate explanation is feasible without producing calculations to prove your case.

[The Dude]

Were did you read that? Both of the articles that I read had dimentions of 25-50 miles and 31-62 miles. ( see POPULAR SCIENCE.)

http://www.discover.com/en/issues/aug-02/cover/

5 miles.

8 km.

Suck it, bitch.

[The Dude]

In, other news: Stewie spotted on TV:

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/85/85bliar.phtml

[Stewart at SDI]

Of course, the Death Star was especially designed to destroy only planets with ridiculously improbable uranium cores.

Why would you assume that all planets did not have cores containing fisile elements? The reasoning goes something like this. The densest stuff sinks under heavier stuff. That means that the heavy fisile elements eventialy get to the core as the mantle and liquid outer core mix.

So that's a yes; you do believe that the Death Star was designed to destroy only planets with astronomically improbable fissile uranium cores. Here's a hint, fucktard: the (unproven) uranium core theory calls for a FIVE kilometer ball of 99+% U-238. Your "theory" calls for an EIGHTY kilometer ball of 100% U-235.

When you quote defective sources your arguments are by defacto logic also defective. I sugjest that you go read all of the papers on the subject.

In other words, your so-called theory requires some FOUR THOUSAND times as much uranium as anyone has ever theorized to exist at Earth's core, it requires that it be 100% fissile (but somehow stable enough to not go off on it's own accord). Secure your tinfoil hats, kids.

I would sugjest that you check your facts. Then read Richard Rhodes books on the bomb then read all of my posts. You might then learn enough to discuss the topic at hand without looking like and ignoramious.

You're always good for an unintentional laugh.

As to becomming a bomb, remember 99.7% of Uraimium is stable unless hit by a "Fast" Nutron, like the DS fires?

1) Prove that the DS fires fast neutrons.

Logic dictates that it must in the absence of any other theory that does not violate the rules of science and SoD.

2) Show the energy balance for stable uranium 238 being struck by fast neutrons to produce fissile plutonium, and the subsequent fission. Translate this into a minimum mass (and therefore diameter) of uranium core needed to provide the observed energy output (1e38J).

You obviously do not understand the reactions above.
1. Fast nutron hits U-238. They figure that only 7-8 nutrons started the first atomic blast. Think what would happen with 10^100!?
2. It fissions just like U-233 or U-235. Releasing energy and radiation.
3. A small percentage of the nutrons generated are fast enough to sustain a chain reaction in U-238. Enough to cause more efficiancy in such a dence mass.
4. With such a large influx of fast nutrons to start the chain reaction, all the mass and it's inertia of the Earth tamping the blast and all of the fisile elements fractions presant, some fusion of the inner Nickle/Iron core is almost certain.

3) Suck it.

It has less hair than the DET theory! Live with it!

[The Kernel]

Logic dictates that it must in the absence of any other theory that does not violate the rules of science and SoD.

Then show us HOW the Death Star being a DET weapon violates the laws of physics. Since you have no idea what powers the Death Star (it might have a singularity at its core after all) you have no cause to simply dismiss the DET theory.

[Master of Ossus]

Why would you assume that all planets did not have cores containing fisile elements? The reasoning goes something like this. The densest stuff sinks under heavier stuff. That means that the heavy fisile elements eventialy get to the core as the mantle and liquid outer core mix.

1. I assume it's reasonable to believe that less than 80 fucking km's of the core is non-fissile material.

When you quote defective sources your arguments are by defacto logic also defective. I sugjest that you go read all of the papers on the subject.

Point to a paper that shows what he said to be wrong.

I would sugjest that you check your facts. Then read Richard Rhodes books on the bomb then read all of my posts. You might then learn enough to discuss the topic at hand without looking like and ignoramious.

Can you learn to cite a source properly?

Logic dictates that it must in the absence of any other theory that does not violate the rules of science and SoD.

You mean like the DET theory?

You obviously do not understand the reactions above.
1. Fast nutron hits U-238. They figure that only 7-8 nutrons started the first atomic blast. Think what would happen with 10^100!?
2. It fissions just like U-233 or U-235. Releasing energy and radiation.
3. A small percentage of the nutrons generated are fast enough to sustain a chain reaction in U-238. Enough to cause more efficiancy in such a dence mass.
4. With such a large influx of fast nutrons to start the chain reaction, all the mass and it's inertia of the Earth tamping the blast and all of the fisile elements fractions presant, some fusion of the inner Nickle/Iron core is almost certain.

Thanks for proving you don't know a damn thing about nuclear physics. Show the ENERGY BALANCE for this reaction.

And, again, in larger letters.

CONSTRUCT AND POST THE ENERGY BALANCE UTILIZED BY YOUR THEORY TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH ENERGY THE DS WOULD NEED TO IMPART ON THE CORE OF THE PLANET TO CREATE THIS EFFECT.

[The Dude]

When you quote defective sources your arguments are by defacto logic also defective. I sugjest that you go read all of the papers on the subject.

I don't need to quote sources at all to show that your arguments defy basic thermodynamics. Anyway, please provide specific references. Only moron science-fakers are so vague. You're not a moron science faker, are you, Stewie?

I would sugjest that you check your facts.

Checked 'em. They're correct.

Then read Richard Rhodes books on the bomb then read all of my posts. You might then learn enough to discuss the topic at hand without looking like and ignoramious.

*brak* Read Richard Rhodes *brak* Stewie wanna cracker *brak*

Provide specific citations or shut the fuck up, asshat..

Logic dictates that it must in the absence of any other theory that does not violate the rules of science and SoD.

A magically-fissile uranium ball of unprecedented size, but which still manages to come up six orders of magnitude short on the energy requirements, is your idea of not violating the rules of science?

AHAHAHAH

Four words, moron: First Law of Thermodynamics

1. Fast nutron hits U-238. They figure that only 7-8 nutrons started the first atomic blast. Think what would happen with 10^100!?

Just think what would happen if you actually did some math!! Oh wait, you can't, because you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

3. A small percentage of the nutrons generated are fast enough to sustain a chain reaction in U-238. Enough to cause more efficiancy in such a dence mass.

Really??? What percentage?? What is the relationship between density and efficiency? Enlighten us. Provide specific references.

4. With such a large influx of fast nutrons to start the chain reaction, all the mass and it's inertia of the Earth tamping the blast and all of the fisile elements fractions presant, some fusion of the inner Nickle/Iron core is almost certain.

Define "some fission". Show that this "some fission" is in any way relevant to a 1e32-1e38J explosion. This is not a second grade science report; your fanciful claims must, you know, have some basis in reality to be taken seriously.

It has less hair than the DET theory! Live with it!

Wrong. Your theory fails the most fundamental of tests: the first law of thermodynamics. It also fails parsimony by assuming an unobserved actor: your magically-fissile uranium ball that's thousands of times more massive than any even theorized to exist at Earth's center.

[Darth Wong]

WHERE ARE THOSE CALCULATIONS, STEWART?

[Stewart at SDI]

I use standard gamming practices that I learned in the service and write the rules to cover how things work. Then there is no limet to what you can do, just how the mechanism works. I also have a spread sheet program that lets you build out a unit, star ship, shipette, shuttle, station or missile, that then computes the cost and several other factors for that unit. In this way everyone pays the same for what they get. (Almost.) It works in any fantacy space setting, ST, SW, B-5, Buck Rogers, ECT.

So, basically your "simulation" was based on firepower estimates for the GE that were shown to be inaccurate, but also takes the UNBELIEVABLE step of "balancing" how much each unit costs each side? And you brought this up to SUPPORT your arguments of Federation superiority?

No I brought this up to answer a question from another board member.

My game is based on abstract ideas that let the builder choose the scale of the weapons that they put on their unit. It does not matter which "Universe" you are in, you chose lots of little guns or fewer bigger ones. The programe just tells you the reallitive cost of the two units, in that Universe.

I make the statement that ST is more advanced than SW because of my expiriance in Weapons System Analysis and my personal observation of the source matierial.

It's $20 if you want to give it a try and I'll give you the program if you send me a critique.

Sincerely, Stewart.

So, Stewie, you're marketing games that use materials copyrighted by Paramount, I see. Do you have expressed written permission? What would Paramount say if I decided to send them an e-mail?

Go ahead. All I said was that my game was set in the ST universe, And I have not used any item that they can claim as origional copy writed matierial. My own copy write was issued several years ago.

You should give it a try. You might learn something about tactics and stratigy. Sincerely, Stewart.

[The Dude]

I make the statement that ST is more advanced than SW because of my expiriance in Weapons System Analysis and my personal observation of the source matierial.

And your ignorance of fundamental analytical principles.

[Master of Ossus]

[snip confession that the simulation had nothing to do with anything other than a "personal" examination of the two universes, and was therefore completely worthless in terms of evidence in his first post, here]

Go ahead. All I said was that my game was set in the ST universe, And I have not used any item that they can claim as origional copy writed matierial.

Except, of course, the name "Star Trek."

My own copy write was issued several years ago.

I assume that this "copy write" shares something in common with your eight "PhD plus" personas in that it doesn't exist.

You should give it a try. You might learn something about tactics and stratigy. Sincerely, Stewart.

Or I might be wasting $20. Given your habit for slip-shod analyses, I think I'll keep my money, thank you.


Edit: Almost forgot!

WHERE ARE THOSE CALCULATIONS, STEWART?

[The Kernel]

Since Stewart is only picking and choosing which arguments he wants to fight, AND he is just going in circles at this point (I'm right because I have a lot of experience in the matter which I refuse to prove ) perhaps everyone should simply end their replies to him with:

WHERE ARE THOSE CALCULATIONS, STEWART?

[DPDarkPrimus]

Wait, I know!

Stewie, if you have a "copy write", then what is the number assigned to it?

You would, of course, have this easily accessible, as you want to have it available to throw at anyone who violates it.

[Stewart at SDI]

I use standard gamming practices that I learned in the service and write the rules to cover how things work. Then there is no limet to what you can do, just how the mechanism works. I also have a spread sheet program that lets you build out a unit, star ship, shipette, shuttle, station or missile, that then computes the cost and several other factors for that unit. In this way everyone pays the same for what they get. (Almost.) It works in any fantacy space setting, ST, SW, B-5, Buck Rogers, ECT.

So, basically your "simulation" was based on firepower estimates for the GE that were shown to be inaccurate,

How are the firepower estimates inacurate? Who showed them to be less than truthfull and what does that have to do with my game?

but also takes the UNBELIEVABLE step of "balancing" how much each unit costs each side?

Why would using the same factors for any side who built any type of a given ship not be balenced if the game was fair? Why should your Star Destroyers cost three times as much as mine?( Other than I like to win, but not as much as I like to win while using less! It's much more rewarding to beat a big ship with a smaller one.)

And you brought this up to SUPPORT your arguments of Federation superiority?

No, I replied to a question from another poster.

I stated that ST was supirior to SW based on my Expiriance as a Weapons System Analist and my personal observations of the sourc matierial from both venues.

It's $20 if you want to give it a try and I'll give you the program if you send me a critique.

Sincerely, Stewart.

So, Stewie, you're marketing games that use materials copyrighted by Paramount, I see. Do you have expressed written permission? What would Paramount say if I decided to send them an e-mail?

No, I do not use anything that is copy writed by Paramount. I said that my game is generic but set in the Star Trek Universe. You may use the game system to play other settings at your whim. My copy write was issued several years ago.

Sincerely, Stewart.

[RedImperator]

Add intellectual property law to the list of things you don't understand, Stewie. The Star Trek "universe" is owned by Paramount--you set your game in it and then make money selling it, you're violating copyright, even if you don't use a single established character, setting, or plotline. Unless, of course, Paramount has you under contract to develop an officially liscensed product, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to see some documentation before I'll believe that.

[Howedar]

Perhaps the Stratigic Defense Instatute [sic] is the writer's department for Paramount. It would explain both his apparent Star Trek game as well as the last ten years of Star Trek plotlines.

[Stewart at SDI]

I suggest you, Stewart, produce numbers, not bullshit. Our figures were for 100% efficiency fission.. The kind only undergone by the unstable isotopes. Moving to stable isotopes reduces the energy released and increases the size of the Uranium core you insists exists.

U-238 is much easier to fission with a fast nutron than U-233, U-235 or Pu-239 are with a slow "thermal" nutron. It has a higher cross section and gives off more nutrons and energy when it does fission. They use 233 and 235 and P-239 in weapons because we can not easily get fast nutrons with out a Hyrdogem bomb to make them, slow nutrons are the natural byproduct of decay. Given equal densities of nutron flux a chain reaction with fast nutrons and U-238 will be several times as efficiant as a similar reaction in U235 or Pu-239 with the same number of slow nutrons.

Further, your claim that we don't need 1e39J is quite laughable. The calculations to prove Alderaan's energy state was elevated to 1e39J are trivially easy to reproduce.. Or are you so under-qualified that you'd need eight 'phd plus' individuals to do it for you?

I do not dispute the mathematics, which I assume are flawless. I dispute the assumptions that they were made under. You know what they say, Garbage in, Garbage out! Those numbers were derived from starting with a number, the gravity well energy, then working backward to find the question. If not all of the planet's mass was accellerated to escape velosity, then the answer to the problem is wrong!

Other sites show the pixel measurements and they come up with lower figures than you do. But that is irealivant to this discusion, which is based on the efficiancy of the DS laser as a machine. I say is is more unbeliveable to think that the weapon would be so efficiant than it is to say some other mechanism is responcable for what we see on film.

[Stewart at SDI]

Were did you read that? Both of the articles that I read had dimentions of 25-50 miles and 31-62 miles. ( see POPULAR SCIENCE.)

You can provide exact figures but not exact references (i.e. publication date, page #)?? Bullshit.

What makes you think it takes that much energy to blow up a planet? There are several compeeting theories and the better ones come up with much less energy than that, generated by the overcomeing gravity model.

It's called observation, fucktard.

Several isotopes of Thorium and U-238 (Depleated Urainium.) all fission when struck by fast nutrons like those generated in D-D and D-T reactions in thermonuclear weapons.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!!! BWAHAHAHAHA

Do you KNOW why U-238 is stable? It's because it requires a net input of energy to cause it to fission!!!


BWAHAHAHAHAHAH

U-238 fission consumes more energy than it releases! It is a net-loss reaction!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Your ignorance is showing. Did you know that THE MAJOR component of ALL larger weapons is U-238? It is used as a sleve wraped around the fusion secondary in ALL larger yeald weapons, providing more than 50% ot the total yeald!

If Rhodes books are to thick for you, try the 1ST NUCLEAR WEAPONS DATA BOOK.

[Howedar]

From here

Isotopes capable of fission are called fissionable isotopes.
The most common fissionable isotope is uranium-238 (often referred to by its chemical symbol, U238).
Large quantities of U238 exist in nature, but U238 does not fission very easily.
For this reason, while U238 can be used to fuel some types of nuclear reactors, it cannot be used to create a nuclear explosion.