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

[General Zod]

Apparently, he conducted the following real-estate deal on Juen 23, 2003:

201 S. Central Ave., Rockford; Stewart F. Davies to Assignment Properties Inc., $16,000

Wasn't he boasting that the real estate taxes he paid on his property were more than most people's houses were worth?

I knew property values were depreciating in the US, but jeez!

maybe he's judging the property value with other properties nearby, without bothering to do some work and see what most places go for. if that's the case then his neighborhood would be really shitty.

[Ender]

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.

Yes, but not in the purity and types this requires

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

Or like you get from regular atomic decay, thus the planet would have exploded eons earlier?


And prove that the DS beam was made up of fast neutrons like you are now claiming.

[Ender]

Wrong, you yourself stated that the core of the planet could fission like a nuclear bomb, which would indicate that said core is made out of unstable, fissionable isotopes. Otherwise it wouldn't be like a nuclear bomb.

(Technically you can get almost any matter to undergo fission, but this doesnt mean you can make a fission bomb out of just any sort of matter, either. There is a reason certain kinds of unstable isotopes are used in making the bombs, after all.)

The stable isotopes are also used to make bombs,

No, because they are, get this, STABLE!

because they fission when struck by high energy nutrons.

So according to you, we use thermal fuels in our bombs. I guess all my training by the Navy was flat out wrong then, huh?

They only use the less stable isotopes because of the efficiancy of the process and to make the bomb small enough to put on a plane instead of a cargo ship.

We use unstable isotopes because it is nigh on impossible otherwise, nothing to do with size constraints.

The "un-stable" isotopes make a small bomb practicle. The small bomb makes the "Hydrogen" bomb possable. That makes the "Fision-Fusion-Fision" bomb possable. Those are all of the biggest and most efficiant types made.

Hey look, its the first scientifically accurate claim you have made.

Which bears on your ludicrous notion that the core of a planet can fission like a nuclear bomb how exactly?

If the core of the planet is made of Thorium, Urainium and Plutonium a powerfull burst of high energy nutrons would fission much of the matierial there. (Due to it's extreem compression under so much weight.)

It would also be impure as fuck and most would not be able to be fissioned because even if it was in the purities you require, basic elemntal decay would have set it off long ago.

With so much mass as the whole planet to act as a tamper and Nutron reflector, a large portion of the rest would also fission due to very high energy nutrons that might otherwise escape.)

No, most of the surrounding mass would absorb the neutrons rather then reflect them back. At best those sent back would be thermalized, so again, you are a waste of organic matter.

If these books form the basis of your understanding of nuclear physics (not that I'm going to believe you read either book much less properly understand them), then they must not be very good if you think that the core of a planet is some giant atom bomb just waiting to go off.

Again I do recomend them as some of the best un-classified matierial on the subject.

I reccomend you actually read them because if they are anything close to accurate, they will state that you are talking out your ass.

From your statement above, it is clear that you do not have a clear idea of how various differant forms of fission, nuclear weapons and reactors work as they relate to the many differant types of fisile isotopes and elements. It is also abundantly clear that you have not read any of the papers on the Fisile core theories. I recomend that you go to the library and get the back issues of "POPULAR SCIENCE" I think it was that had a fair article in simple terms that you might find interesting. It was in 2001 or 2002 IIRC. It's on the cover so you should not have to much trouble finding it.

So, despite the fact that your ignorance runs rampant here (you actually think that the iron and hafnium surrounding the core in the mantle would be good reflectors despite their use as control rods) you think the other person needs to go read up?

NEWSFLASH FUCKER: I'M A GOD DAMNED NUCLEAR ENGINEER, AND I'M TELLING YOU YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

[Ender]

Since it is a canon observation that the Death Star produces more energy than all of mankind has produced in its entire existence simply by accelerating itself, it is a foregone conclusion that their energy generation systems are far more effective than ours. Why shouldn't their energy dissipation systems also be far more effective?

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".

We watch it in the movies

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. The suspensiof disbelife is off the charts then. 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.

We watched it do it.

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.

We watch it do it.

[General Zod]

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.

a better question would be why SHOULD we assume that the cores contain fisile elements?

[Ender]

Yet again you demonstrate your stupidity. First, as mentioned SEVERAL TIMES TO YOU IN THE EARLIER THREAD, the theory calls for a 5km ball, not an 80km ball.

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.)

Second, you need 1E38 J, not 4E32 J.

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.

Because that is the kinetic energy of the fragments, and Conservation of Energy is a law of physics.

Third, this "uranium droplet" would not be composed of 100% fissile material, you moron, or it would have gone off already!

Of course not I would expect it to be 99.3% U-238, just like all the rest of the U we have found anywere else on the planet.[/quote]

How fucking stupid can you be? Don't you realize that most uranium is useless for that purpose, which is why uranium in which the fissile isotope has been removed is called DEPLETED uranium and considered garbage?

You have just proven your ignorance beyond all shadow of a dought![/quote]It helps if you can fucking spell if you are going to call someone else ignorant.

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. That is why all larger Thermonuclear weapons get 50% or more from the Depleated Urainium sleeve that is placed around the thermonuclear "Secondary". At least one isotope of Thorium, U-233, U-235 and all the isotopes of plutonium that I can remember will all fission when struck by so-called slow "thermal" nutrons which is why they are used to make small Fission bombs. It is easy to get slow nutrons but hard to make fast ones.

I recomend that you read Richard Rhodes's THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB and DARK SUN. They are probably the best un-clasified works on the subject and after you have read them you will not be so ignorant on the subject.

Christ, your ignorance of physics is amazing.
1) fast neutrons are easy to get, hence why reactors must artifically thermalize them to use them
2) Depleted Uranium has fuck all to do with nuclear weapons, we use plutonium, we haven't used uranium since the days of fat man and little boy. So your claims there are solid shit.

[phongn]

It's not just the neutron energy; it's the density. The funniest part is Stewart's belief that you can somehow shove such an incredibly dense beam of neutrons through more than 6000 km of crust, mantle, and outer core to completely saturate an 80km wide sphere of uranium so that you get neutron capture in every single uranium atom throughout that sphere, before the sheer superheating effect of this neutron beam blows apart the planet and/or the target sphere

2) Depleted Uranium has fuck all to do with nuclear weapons, we use plutonium, we haven't used uranium since the days of fat man and little boy. So your claims there are solid shit.

Ender -- no, we did use it in the tamper, though nowadays we apparently use a mix of U235 & U238 in the tamper as its more efficient.

[Tribun]

Shouldn't that be in the Myth page, under the "Death Star trick" section?

"The uranium-core myth".

[Ender]

Utterly irrelevant. The possibility that the superlaser system may not operate at 100% efficency does not negate the observed phenomenon of the weapon delivering enough energy to blow apart a terrestrial-sized planet very violently.

It is realivant. If a compeeting theory can explain the effects seen, without having to suspend our disbelife on the efficiancy of the mechanism, THEN IT IS THE BETTER THEORY and it must take president over the infirior one that it replaces. (According to the rules on this web site, anyway?)

Your theory is inferior because it is the less scientifically plausible one. It requires purity levels impossible to attain, efficiency you won't get, and an explosion resulting from a reaction that consumes more energy then it releases.

Further, you are yet to show that the waste heat is an issue, since we don't know the specifics of the materials used in the Death Star and their heat dissipation mechanisms.

Your laughable (and unoriginal) theory has been dealt with and shredded several dozen times before.

But answering a posit with a false argument does not win the debate, no mater how many times it has been mooted.

No, repeating the facts does. Like we are doing now.

And as has been pointed out already, the fact that the superlaser blasts apart an entire planet is observed evidence that it can deliver the energy required.

Wrong again. The fact that the planet explodes does not favor any one theory. Only that it does explode. It is up to us to find THE THEORY that requires the least conjecture and suspension of disbelife. The DET model fails on many fronts. I propose that you list all of the defects with my theory that you can point out in current common science, then make a list of all the things that we must suspend our colective disbelife to make yours work. It is not fair to list the piont that my theory makes the DS less powerfull than you would want to belive as a defect.[/quote]List any provable defects with DET that are not tautological in nature or require circular reasoning. I can handle yours now:

1) impossible purity
2) claims of wrong isotopes
3) existance of planet that should have gone boom long before
4) a mass based weapon moving at C
5) a reaction that is a net energy loss would cause an explosion
6) tossing CoE out the window
7) Ignores Conservation of Momentum as well as the debris field shifted
the secondary explosion disproves the chain reaction theory
9) the surrounding material would absorb rather then reflect neutrons
10) only blows up certain planets when was designed to handle all

I can go on if you would like shitnugget.

The fact that the Death Star was never affected by any observable problem with disposal of waste heat testifies to the capacity of its energy control and transport system.

Not true again. The fact that they had atleast one "small, unshielded, thermal exhaust port" is proof that they had at least some concerns on this matter. Other wise the film is silent on the matter and we are left to make better conjecture than your last sentance.

So the evidence that they have a mechanism to deal with it is proof they can't handle it?

Your defective logic is showing.

Rebutting your own argument now?

[Ender]

Yes I am. It is my theory that the DS some how caused the core of the planet to fision, just like a nuclear bomb.

So it is actually your position that a material mostly made up of iron, was induced to fission?

Do you know anything whatso ever about nuclear physics?

Yes, do any of the posters on this board?

...Says the moron to the nuclear engineer.

If the pressure is high enough, Iron will undergo "FUSION" and add to the energy liberated by the fission in the "DEPLEETED MATIERIAL CORE". AFTER ALL, IT IS HOW ALL THE HEAVIER ELEMENTS WERE MADE.

1) I asked fission, you talk fusion. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
2) Fusion of iron and beyond is a net energy loss, so no energy is added.

No, I dispute that the gravitational binding energy is not the lower limet. If all the mass of the planet had escape velosity, why would the fragments shown in the film clearly be moving parrallel to and in the same direction as the Milenium Falcon as it approched the last known pos of the planet?

Because it flew through it moron.

Realy? What do you base this hypothisis on?[/quote]What we see in the movies dipfuck.

You have to be very carefull about the assumptions that you start with if you are going to get good data.

Like your assumptions that you can induce anything to fission?

If you had read my post you would know that I only possited that "HEAVY" elements will fission in this case, JUST AS WE ALREADY KNOW THEY WILL WHEN HIT WITH FAST NUTRONS![/quote]I've shot this to hell several times here in previous posts, I feel no need to do so again.

Again I recomend that everyone on this board read Rhodes books on the history of Nuclear weapons.

Sincerely, Stewart.[/quote]I reccomend you shoot yourself.

[Master of Ossus]

Out of curiosity, what would the recoil be like in firing a neutron beam like that, and maintaining it for as long as the DS did? How much energy would the DS's engines need to be simultaneously pumping out just to keep it in the same position relative the planet?

[Darth Wong]

Out of curiosity, what would the recoil be like in firing a neutron beam like that, and maintaining it for as long as the DS did? How much energy would the DS's engines need to be simultaneously pumping out just to keep it in the same position relative the planet?

Impossible to say, since the beam would blow the planet apart long before it could possibly achieve appreciable neutron capture in the mythical 80km uranium sphere at the centre. I don't see how one can even generate an energy estimate for it, given that the requirements are simply not possible.

That's why he keeps mumbling about a "burst of high-energy neutrons" without bothering to quantify just how large that burst would have to be. Every nuclear detonation in the history of the world has been accompanied by a "burst of high-energy neutrons", but it didn't set off uranium in the ground.

[18-Till-I-Die]

I dont want to be a neusence, but hasnt the time limit expired by now? Is this little shit gone yet or what? It's been at leats 24 hours and he's come up with bupkiss, so is he gone completely or is this a temperary purge?

[DPDarkPrimus]

I find it amusing that the fact he DOES HOLD A COPYRIGHT actually makes it worse for him, than if he had simply lied about having one.