WH40K - 40K misc numbers... (SDN)

VS debates involving other fictional universes than Star Trek or Star Wars go here, along with technical analysis, detailed discussion, crossover scenario descriptions, and similar related stuffs.
User avatar
Mith
Starship Captain
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:17 am

Re: WH40K - 40K misc numbers... (SDN)

Post by Mith » Tue Nov 19, 2013 1:58 am

Did some calcs based upon 40k's massive torpedoes. According to the source, they're 200 feet long. Assuming a plasma warhead, which as indicated in other sources, fusion technology, we can base its power based on the mass of an IBM MIRV nuclear warhead. According to Atomic Rockets, a UGM-133 Trident II warhead has a mass of 58,500 kilograms and is about 13 meters long. Wikipedia says its slightly heavier (59,000 kilograms), but they seem to agree upon length. In any case, we'll assume the former. According to the site, the maximum theoretical expected yield for a fusion warhead is 1 megaton per kilogram, but our warheads aren't that efficient; they're closer to 1 megaton to 500 kilograms. To calculate this method, a Trident II's warhead is estimated on the sight to have a mass of 160 kilograms. Using this method we get 320 kilotons. Wikipedia suggests a possible slightly higher mass, with the original yield of its warheads at 300 kilotons, but with a claim that it was later upgraded to about 475 kilotons. In total, the missile carries a total of 2.560 megatons worth of explosives, assuming a load-out of 8 warheads.

Using this as a basis for Warhammer 40k's missiles, we'll assume that the warhead and the missile all scale together. At 200 feet, the missile is 4.545x larger than the US's Trident which comes in at about 44 feet in length. Assuming the equal of 8 MIRV warheads, we'll have 1,280 kilograms of warhead for us to work with. Now, this is a bit low-balling it, since the torpedo isn't an ICBM and more room could be dedicated to the warhead. To be fair, we can increase this mass to 1,500 kilograms. Add in the larger size and we get a warhead that weighs in at 6,817.5 kilograms (the missile itself would weigh up to around 265,882.5 kilograms). A missile this large today, going with the method we have from Atomic Rockets, indicates that this weapon would have a yield of 13.635 megatons.

However, it's likely that Imperium fusion warheads are more advanced than what we're used to today--but they can't be too advanced since Into the Storm cites atomic warheads, that though out of date, are capable of being loaded onto torpedoes or used on macrocannons. Game Mechanics I don't generally trust too much, but the weapon was in general, half as powerful as the plasma torpedo.

In any case, a reasonable idea would be that Imperial warheads are 250 kilograms to a megaton, which would effectively double our yield to 27.27 megatons. If we're really generous, we could suggest kilograms to a megaton, for 54.54 megatons, which I think is the upper end.

However, what we can say for sure is that these weapons cannot exceed 6,817.5 megatons since that would be the highest theoretical yield that a fusion warhead would produce.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/r ... onvent.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-133_Trident_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W87

The length for the 40k Imperium Torpedo can be found in the Blue Book under torpedoes and in Battlefleet Koronus under the same section. Blue Book lists them as being over 200 feet, where as Battlefleet Koronus suggests them at being around 60 meters or just under 200 feet, so I took the higher of the two numbers.

In any case, if we were to dip into game mechanics (as much as I despise to), the atomic warhead appears to be a sort of MIRV system, so that might account for its relevant damage, but the yield for such a weapon is very limited. Typically, fission warheads are limited to about 500 kilotons, with the largest ever produced being 750 kilotons by the UK, due to being limited in regards to critical mass. The most you could expect each of the warheads then to be, is probably in that range, though perhaps Imperial science increased it to a megaton or two.

In regards to the torpedo themselves, in-game, they're capable of inflicting on average, around 24 points of damage, which is about a third of what most of the largest ship have in terms of health (torpedoes ignore shields) and frigates tend to have a hull integrity of 35 or so. In other words, smaller ships like frigates would be crippled by a hit from a plasma torpedo and this would deal heavy damage to even larger ships.

Shall we go over?

Low-End:13.635 megatons
Mid-Range: 27.27 megatons
High Middle: 54.54 megatons
High End: 6.817 Gigatons

At most, a Imperium Frigate will be utterly crippled by 6.817 gigatons. Of course, with more reasonable methods, these ~60 meter long warheads only carry between 27 - 54.5 megatons. Certainly an impressive bomb, but it doesn't really put forth the implication that the Imperium can laugh off gigatons of energy.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: WH40K - 40K misc numbers... (SDN)

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Nov 20, 2013 3:35 pm

Very nice calcs.
I might point out that thermonuclear warheads are two stages fission bombs with an intermediary small fusion stage that amplifies the initial first fission stage.
We're yet to develop a real pure fusion warhead.

In space, I'd also assume the designers to have made the casing of the warheads rather heavy in order to maximize the creation of high speed ejecta, to get lots of momentum and therefore blast through armour. It is not specified if their torpedoes use focused warheads (using hypersonic fluidified metal as a main penetrator), nor what those warheads really look like. There's an inherent waste of room in a multi-warhead MIRV that a single warhead delivery system wouldn't suffer from. But there's also a geometric waste of reactants as the warhead gets bigger to increase the overall yield. One would prefer a honeycomb system rather than one big ball of reactants.

We also have to consider the ranges and speeds in typical naval engagements: the vast majority of the rocket might be dedicated to fuel. We also know that most warheads have no guidance systems at all (as pointed pages ago) : expensive systems include remotely guided vehicles or, even rarer, fire and forget systems with onboard AI, both which would reduce the volume for fuel or nuclear explosive. That easily reduces the overall ordnance to a tactic of spray and pray, and that could only work over such large distances if the ships had predictable paths.
Therefore little manoeuverability and not so impressive accelerations, confirming the figures we find in Rogue Trader.

Let's not forget that terminal velocity. There's lots of KE and momentum to get there that nicely adds to the device's warhead. Some of them would also have a mixed contact-time-fuse so the warhead detonates after a theoretical penetration solely due to the mass and speed of the torpedo and its nose's penetration capability.
Some advanced torpedoes might even use a former on-contact pre blast in order to gouge a small hole for the rest of the payload to get deeper into the armour and get a bigger bang for that buck. I don't remember any such case though, and I may have to look into one of my referenced Warhammer 40000 books in order to find an exemple of such an advanced design.

User15046
Redshirt
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: WH40K - 40K misc numbers... (SDN)

Post by User15046 » Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:52 pm

No time to discuss the old 8 shell bombardment right now, but I'll discharge the requested quote now..

Death of Integrity
Bright explosions flared on the side of the hulk, round blisters of fire welling up on its rough skin. Those less sophisticated than the adepts called such rounds lava bombs. Each contained a large fusion generator. In the brief moment the fusion generator operated, the bomb generated several gigatons of explosive energy, hotter than the surface of a star. Weapons like that could crack a planet’s crust, given time.
They were equally effective against the space hulk.
And we know they can be fired in salvos of eight equating to at least 16 gigatons per salvo, to a likely max of 72 gigatons for a strike cruiser. Double that for a Battle Barge. Multi- to me- always implies single digits.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: WH40K - 40K misc numbers... (SDN)

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Nov 26, 2013 3:58 pm

Magos wrote:No time to discuss the old 8 shell bombardment right now, but I'll discharge the requested quote now..

Death of Integrity
Bright explosions flared on the side of the hulk, round blisters of fire welling up on its rough skin. Those less sophisticated than the adepts called such rounds lava bombs. Each contained a large fusion generator. In the brief moment the fusion generator operated, the bomb generated several gigatons of explosive energy, hotter than the surface of a star. Weapons like that could crack a planet’s crust, given time.
They were equally effective against the space hulk.
And we know they can be fired in salvos of eight equating to at least 16 gigatons per salvo, to a likely max of 72 gigatons for a strike cruiser. Double that for a Battle Barge. Multi- to me- always implies single digits.
Duh, any weapon can crack a planet's crush, given time.
That quote sounded so new, like a glaring attempt to shoehorn the old 1st Ed Space Hulk fluff piece, that it had to come from some recently published book.
Spot on:

"Death of Integrity is an upcoming novel by Guy Haley in the Space Marine Battles (Novel Series). It is set to be published in September 2013."

This is bound to happen. Authors looking for background info to cram into their books will most likely cross the path of Connor's dreck, and even if they are objective, for all sorts of reasons (like doing little research for one or not thinking it through), will either by ignorance, laziness or fanboyism, go for such figures.
It's another case of an easily dealt-with quote. Simply put, there's a simple rule that trumps all in 40K: if the firepower you give to warships comes remotely close or even bests what an Exterminatus array can achieve, then you're not thinking straight.
I insist on the array, because an Exterminatus isn't just about the nature of the order (although it's already an enormous deal in-universe to unleash that kind of firepower), but also about the nature of the weaponry itself and its power.

Besides it's another quote that doesn't make sense, science wise.
The weapon uses fusion. I assume it's a torpedo that carries a fusion device. It is not even just a fusion warhead which might, eventually, be crammed with fusion friendly reactants. It is a generator, ie, a device which only a fraction of its mass and volume is going to be allocated to the fuel per se.
If anything, they might roll both thruster and fusion generator into one. Best way to avoid wasting room, but it makes both systems less efficient and, of course, the longer the range, the less reactants that remain. In truth, a thruster would make a very mediocre explosive device.

Take a look at the Saturn V.
The device is already over 110 meters long (!) and 10 meters wide. That's considerably longer than the official figures Mith referenced.
Payload to LEO is 260,000 pounds (120,000 kg), and TLI is 100,000 pounds (45,000 kg).
A Low Earth Orbit is about 300 km. Even if we picked the highest figure and went with 1kg = 1 MT, we'd get a yield of 120 GT.
Now, a ground to space rocket is a different beast. It uses different stages, each optimized to provide the best thrust for a specific altitude delta.
Not so much problems in space. The whole thrusting components could be one big block. Fuel would obviously be stored in the middle of the torpedo.
But we're still dealing with the generator needing room, and its weight requiring more fuel to propel.
It would be very interesting to take a look at all examples of fusion generators of the Imperium to know what kind of volume we should expect in light of the energies meant to be produced.
Besides, the process itself being very sensible (proper heat and pressure are needed, and any error like a leak or weaker point) could literally "defuse" the sort of super-critical fusion core.
Perhaps it would rely on an unstable design which would make the missiles only suited to shoot at large space hulks at short range.
Or perhaps those missiles are exceptionally huge, and represent small ships on their own.
In other words, if the information is to be taken at face value, we'd have to consider that the devices used against space hulks are absolutely unique and impossible to use for normal warfare, and their deployment would make HQ as nervous as it would get once someone would suggest Exterminatus.

I don't know who that Guy Haley is btw.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: WH40K - 40K misc numbers... (SDN)

Post by sonofccn » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:52 pm

@Magos: Thank you for providing the quote
Mr. Oragahn wrote:It's another case of an easily dealt-with quote. Simply put, there's a simple rule that trumps all in 40K: if the firepower you give to warships comes remotely close or even bests what an Exterminatus array can achieve, then you're not thinking straight.
Isn't that a little over simplistic? It's just that, this isn't just some Saxtonesq fan calc derived from overestimating some vague and flowery quote. Its a fairly straightforward canonical statement and while I'd concur the greater bulk of evidence, including the existence of Exterminatus weapons, contradicts Magos's quote it strikes me as counter-intuitive to just discard it out of hand.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:In other words, if the information is to be taken at face value, we'd have to consider that the devices used against space hulks are absolutely unique and impossible to use for normal warfare, and their deployment would make HQ as nervous as it would get once someone would suggest Exterminatus.
An interesting notion through I am unclear how taking the provided text at "face value" mandates we assume the above. Further Magos claimed these were "magma bombs" utilized, as far as I can tell, by a Marine's bombardment canon and therefore shouldn't be too terribly unusual. Barring statement to the contrary of course within the novel.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: WH40K - 40K misc numbers... (SDN)

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:25 pm

sonofccn wrote:@Magos: Thank you for providing the quote
Mr. Oragahn wrote:It's another case of an easily dealt-with quote. Simply put, there's a simple rule that trumps all in 40K: if the firepower you give to warships comes remotely close or even bests what an Exterminatus array can achieve, then you're not thinking straight.
Isn't that a little over simplistic? It's just that, this isn't just some Saxtonesq fan calc derived from overestimating some vague and flowery quote.
Actually, that's most likely what's behind the fluff information used by the author.
It's so transparent. See second part of this message. ;)
Its a fairly straightforward canonical statement and while I'd concur the greater bulk of evidence, including the existence of Exterminatus weapons, contradicts Magos's quote it strikes me as counter-intuitive to just discard it out of hand.
Hence why I try to settle for a plausible and midly acceptable interpretation at the end of my former post. But as you recognize, my reasoning is equally that straightforward. Especially for anyone having paid attention to the subject of Exterminatus operations.
And the fact that, if you actually leave the selective interpretations of SDN/SBC and the particularly rabbig 40K wankers, the majority of quotes actually don't support the giga/tera/peta-tons figures.
Because, between the posts made by Connor which I hadn't time to go through, and multiple references I picked but didn't post here for an equal lack of time, from books he hasn't ever adressed, there would be even more evidence of much more reasonnable yields.
Even this prime idiot recognizes that some of the largest Titans could eventually exchange fire with warships (which are, as I understand, at least 1 km long), and Titans certainly don't come with gigaton firepower, no matter what.

There's a legion of inflated interpretations, as you can see here: http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 9&start=30.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:In other words, if the information is to be taken at face value, we'd have to consider that the devices used against space hulks are absolutely unique and impossible to use for normal warfare, and their deployment would make HQ as nervous as it would get once someone would suggest Exterminatus.
An interesting notion through I am unclear how taking the provided text at "face value" mandates we assume the above. Further Magos claimed these were "magma bombs" utilized, as far as I can tell, by a Marine's bombardment canon and therefore shouldn't be too terribly unusual. Barring statement to the contrary of course within the novel.
Although lava and magma are extremly close semantics wise, one should go with the proper term, that is, either lava OR magma.
Now, magma bombs are well known, we have references on this forum and their firepower is nowhere close to those gigatons.
In this case, the author would just be guilty of either wanky fanboyism, poor research or scientific ignorance. Maybe all of that.
I bet you just need to be a super fan and have above decent writing skills, plus a bit of luck, to eventually get a fan fiction into an official book.
Here's an example of scientific ignorance where rule of übercool reigns: Prospero Burns, with its self-contradictory data and obvious scientific inanities, like supposedly gigatonesque or teratonesque mushroom clouds that would obviously reach far above heights equal to that of the Fenris' Aett (The Fang*, their citadel), or the fact that fission is too limited to provide that kind of firepower regarding the volume of reactants (atomics are fission based, and we know the Imperium still uses fission-power in several of its devices... that plus the fact, well, they say it's fission).

Here's where I posted my comments on this quotation, later in this very thread: http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 678#p36678
As we can see, it's totally absurd, and the book obviously needs to be taken as an in-universe epic tale told to citizens of the Imperium, somehow.
HeartlessCapitalist at Sciforums had a quick glance at it.
For the reminder, IvanTih has been trying to push the high yield numbers on multiple forums.
As you'll see below, I finally deal with the Aett-tall mushroom clouds (and shit, I have better things to do, but my nerdy side just defeated my thought-stronger resolve to claim the corpse of my nefarious procrastinating deamon).


The information is glaringly inspired by Connor's absolutely laughable and equally impossible interpretation of an older piece of data from Storm of Iron where going for giga/tera/peta-tons figures is as retarded as it is shamlessly dishonest, as I largely and accurately demonstrated.
The information from the latest book quoted by Magos is then mixed to some information from Fallen Angel wherein "magma" = fusion.
Add a pinch of selective picking from the infamous and equally outdated 1st Ed Space Hulk fluff and its hyper-gigaton Hellfire missiles (not magma, nor lava) and voila!
Mundane weapons that pee all over Exterminatus processes and arrays!

One MIGHT say let's say those were HEAVY [lava] (instead of magma) bombs, but that also fails, since even HEAVY magma bombs are reported to be used to pound planetary ground defenses to rubble and support troop deployment.
Yeah, with gigaton-level weapons, lol, a firepower which in the form of a barrage would actually turn an entire large country's surface into swiss cheese within a handful of minutes.
Can it beg to get even more retarded, really??



-----
* About the Fang, the wiki pages says the following regarding its defenses:

"Dark shafts cut miles into the mountainside conceal potent defence lasers that are capable of blasting apart even the most heavily armoured spacecraft. These huge weapons are as ancient as the Chapter itself, the geothermal reactors that power them testament to the precious technology from the distant past."

Perhaps are we dealing with some arcane geothermal core tech which can extract star-like levels of power? :P
I expect it to be well understood that tapping teraton levels or more of energy for energy based weapons (lasers) in the nearby magma is going to cause more damage to the mountain range itself than any possible attack.
Using gigatons is already crazy considering that the mountain is still a large slab of rock in the end, even if it was pushed up artificially (hell, I wouldn't even advise tapping megatons out of a geothermal plant unless you could tap the entirety of the planet... which is obviously not the case here considering the facts obtained from the schematics).
We even see the location of the geothermal engines and their relative size on this plan.
The power limitations are rather obvious. Geothermics are about extracting energy from the surrounding matter. Even if the large shaft was like a mile wide, the convection would be massively limited and couldn't allow too much energy to be tapped to the risk of hardening the rock and provoking massive quakes due to the sudden contraction of matter. Not to say that there's a limit to the heating, the transfer of energy.
Oh and the problem of having mere rock actually pile up that high naturally. Thankfully, if the plan if of any indication, we can see the height of the two gates, which themselves would have no reason to be considerably taller than they are wide. The entrances allow for a hundred men to walk side by side. Say about 100~150 meters wide. More interesting being the description of the Fangthane, which we can clearly spot on the plan:

"The Fang at the gate level, would have to pass up through the Fangthane to enter the higher galleries. In a fortress of wonders, the Fangthane has an awe-inspiring quality all of its own. Its walls soars high up into the dark, hundreds of metres, gently curving toward a roof lost in gloom. The entire populace of the Hould, hundreds of thousands of souls, could assemble in its cavernous space, filling the frozen chamber floor."

The Hould isn't even reaching a 1 million pop, which you'd expect if the Aett was that of a huge installation, considering hive figures. It is actually a very small number.


Image


Now, on the schematics, the entire Aett is about 60.77 times taller than the Fangthane. With a 999 meters high Fangthane (just picking a high figure here), the entire Aett would be 60.709 km tall.
Which fits quite well the "above the atmosphere" bit.
Now, time to pick the nuclear mushroom scale: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ecloud.png
Even with the high end, we'd expect to reach like hundreds of megatons for the nuclear explosions for Prospero Burns, and obviously much less if we don't use a kilometer tall Fangthane.
For the reminder, a 500 meters tall Fangthane will be about 1 km long or wide, according to the plan, which is far more than enough to truly cram "hundreds of thousands of souls".
This would bring the Aett to a height of 30 km, and nuclear explosions around 12~13 megatons.
At 400 meters high, Aett comes out with a height of 24.308 km and you get less than 8 megatons for your mushroom.
Not to say that they could easily be produced by collective fire. So that would require dividing the total yield into several ordnance pieces.
Hence saying that Prospero Burns is a flowery litterary rendition built on Stuff of Legend might very well be a severe understatement.

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: WH40K - 40K misc numbers... (SDN)

Post by Lucky » Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:27 am

Magos wrote:No time to discuss the old 8 shell bombardment right now, but I'll discharge the requested quote now..

Death of Integrity
Bright explosions flared on the side of the hulk, round blisters of fire welling up on its rough skin. Those less sophisticated than the adepts called such rounds lava bombs. Each contained a large fusion generator. In the brief moment the fusion generator operated, the bomb generated several gigatons of explosive energy, hotter than the surface of a star. Weapons like that could crack a planet’s crust, given time.
They were equally effective against the space hulk.
And we know they can be fired in salvos of eight equating to at least 16 gigatons per salvo, to a likely max of 72 gigatons for a strike cruiser. Double that for a Battle Barge. Multi- to me- always implies single digits.
Your quote seems self contradictory.

On one hand it describes Lava Bombs as if they are reactors that are melting down like Chernobyl do to time being relevant to how destructive Lava Bombs are, and the fact they are stated to use reactors.

On the other hand, the quote seems to describe Lava Bombs as if they are simply thermonuclear bombs.

I'm not sure this quote is very reliable?

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: WH40K - 40K misc numbers... (SDN)

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Nov 30, 2013 1:24 am

Lucky wrote:
Magos wrote:No time to discuss the old 8 shell bombardment right now, but I'll discharge the requested quote now..

Death of Integrity
Bright explosions flared on the side of the hulk, round blisters of fire welling up on its rough skin. Those less sophisticated than the adepts called such rounds lava bombs. Each contained a large fusion generator. In the brief moment the fusion generator operated, the bomb generated several gigatons of explosive energy, hotter than the surface of a star. Weapons like that could crack a planet’s crust, given time.
They were equally effective against the space hulk.
And we know they can be fired in salvos of eight equating to at least 16 gigatons per salvo, to a likely max of 72 gigatons for a strike cruiser. Double that for a Battle Barge. Multi- to me- always implies single digits.
Your quote seems self contradictory.

On one hand it describes Lava Bombs as if they are reactors that are melting down like Chernobyl do to time being relevant to how destructive Lava Bombs are, and the fact they are stated to use reactors.

On the other hand, the quote seems to describe Lava Bombs as if they are simply thermonuclear bombs.

I'm not sure this quote is very reliable?
Chernobyl was a fission reactor that reached critical mass (not super critical mass).
The whole generator thing almost makes it sound like they're using a power plant technology that's known by the Imperium to turn awfully unstable and proved to be only relevant if weaponized.
The other problem is that since it's a generator, it implies a certain lapse of time before the final conditions are primed, or so. Which means the generator has to be activated before hand, and that would require some calculation with some logic engine, which are not a commidity that's easily found on ordnance.
Perhaps the idea was that the generator kept increasing the artificial small star until the containment system failed and boom?

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: WH40K - 40K misc numbers... (SDN)

Post by sonofccn » Sat Nov 30, 2013 1:26 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Actually, that's most likely what's behind the fluff information used by the author.
It's so transparent. See second part of this message. ;)
I am aware of your opinion both then and now. Suffice it to say even we assume your supposition is indeed correct and Guy Haley did indeed obtain his firepower "fluff" from a fan calculation it does not alter what he has wrote is now "canon fact" which is something we should discard/ignore/rewrite only under the most grevious and strict conditions. Anything else risks anarchy.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Hence why I try to settle for a plausible and midly acceptable interpretation at the end of my former post.
And you are certaintly entitled to that but I'm afraid that by trying to make everything "gel" one will develop just as insular and predetermined a methology as a saxtonite. Afterall everything can be rationalized and "plausible" and acceptable" are relative terms.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:And the fact that, if you actually leave the selective interpretations of SDN/SBC and the particularly rabbig 40K wankers, the majority of quotes actually don't support the giga/tera/peta-tons figures.
Because, between the posts made by Connor which I hadn't time to go through, and multiple references I picked but didn't post here for an equal lack of time, from books he hasn't ever adressed, there would be even more evidence of much more reasonnable yields.
Even this prime idiot recognizes that some of the largest Titans could eventually exchange fire with warships (which are, as I understand, at least 1 km long), and Titans certainly don't come with gigaton firepower, no matter what.
Forgive me but I am not challenging you on 40K firepower but your criteria for determining "acceptable" or inacceptable evidence. Your previous post you simplified it to an If X then Y statement to dismiss a direct canon statement.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:In this case, the author would just be guilty of either wanky fanboyism, poor research or scientific ignorance. Maybe all of that.
I bet you just need to be a super fan and have above decent writing skills, plus a bit of luck, to eventually get a fan fiction into an official book.
I couldn't say. However whatever quality or criteria is employed it is unlikely to have been of a higher grade for the previous books than for the latest.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:As we can see, it's totally absurd, and the book obviously needs to be taken as an in-universe epic tale told to citizens of the Imperium, somehow.
At issue is once we start arbitrarily picking and choosing what canon is "acceptable" we are no longer debating 40k or Trek but rather our own personal fan interpetations.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: WH40K - 40K misc numbers... (SDN)

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Nov 30, 2013 4:29 pm

sonofccn wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Actually, that's most likely what's behind the fluff information used by the author.
It's so transparent. See second part of this message. ;)
I am aware of your opinion both then and now. Suffice it to say even we assume your supposition is indeed correct and Guy Haley did indeed obtain his firepower "fluff" from a fan calculation it does not alter what he has wrote is now "canon fact" which is something we should discard/ignore/rewrite only under the most grevious and strict conditions. Anything else risks anarchy.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Hence why I try to settle for a plausible and midly acceptable interpretation at the end of my former post.
And you are certaintly entitled to that but I'm afraid that by trying to make everything "gel" one will develop just as insular and predetermined a methology as a saxtonite. Afterall everything can be rationalized and "plausible" and acceptable" are relative terms.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:And the fact that, if you actually leave the selective interpretations of SDN/SBC and the particularly rabbig 40K wankers, the majority of quotes actually don't support the giga/tera/peta-tons figures.
Because, between the posts made by Connor which I hadn't time to go through, and multiple references I picked but didn't post here for an equal lack of time, from books he hasn't ever adressed, there would be even more evidence of much more reasonnable yields.
Even this prime idiot recognizes that some of the largest Titans could eventually exchange fire with warships (which are, as I understand, at least 1 km long), and Titans certainly don't come with gigaton firepower, no matter what.
Forgive me but I am not challenging you on 40K firepower but your criteria for determining "acceptable" or inacceptable evidence. Your previous post you simplified it to an If X then Y statement to dismiss a direct canon statement.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:In this case, the author would just be guilty of either wanky fanboyism, poor research or scientific ignorance. Maybe all of that.
I bet you just need to be a super fan and have above decent writing skills, plus a bit of luck, to eventually get a fan fiction into an official book.
I couldn't say. However whatever quality or criteria is employed it is unlikely to have been of a higher grade for the previous books than for the latest.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:As we can see, it's totally absurd, and the book obviously needs to be taken as an in-universe epic tale told to citizens of the Imperium, somehow.
At issue is once we start arbitrarily picking and choosing what canon is "acceptable" we are no longer debating 40k or Trek but rather our own personal fan interpetations.
You are considerably wrong with all of that. I don't know where you're going with that and your insistance to pick at my paragrpahs doesn't appear useful at all.
The point of my process is to isolate outliers and establish a coherent pattern, which is what we always do in versusdom, even if we know that each universe has its own contradictions.
The fact that Warhammer 40000's canon policy also leaves things very open and recognizes the adoption of a style being largely epic, legendary, flowery and sometimes heavy on low-grade metaphors certainly spices things up, but also allows us to understand that when things don't make much sense, if we cannot isolate very special circumstances and contexts, we cannot accept some data. This is a point largely understood by those who have tried for years to enforce one single coherent view where ships zipped at tens of thousands of gees and exchanged already gigaton-level firepower with what would somehow amount of the smallest weapon batteries and where point defense systems would immediately rate in the megatons. They simply consistently distorted and filtered out the elements they didn't like, and they did that many, many times. In comparison, I'm a totalist.
What I do with Magos' quote is put it in context and compare it with other facts.
I never denied it was canon, so stop your silly strawman, it's irritating and serves no purpose. The point is that if some elements of canon cannot be rationalized to fit into what appears, to me, to be the coherent line of interpretation, then they're outliers.
And outliers get noted but then discarded by fans of absolutely ALL fictions.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: WH40K - 40K misc numbers... (SDN)

Post by sonofccn » Sun Dec 01, 2013 2:51 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:You are considerably wrong with all of that. I don't know where you're going with that and your insistance to pick at my paragrpahs doesn't appear useful at all.
The point of my process is to isolate outliers and establish a coherent pattern, which is what we always do in versusdom, even if we know that each universe has its own contradictions.
The fact that Warhammer 40000's canon policy also leaves things very open and recognizes the adoption of a style being largely epic, legendary, flowery and sometimes heavy on low-grade metaphors certainly spices things up, but also allows us to understand that when things don't make much sense, if we cannot isolate very special circumstances and contexts, we cannot accept some data. This is a point largely understood by those who have tried for years to enforce one single coherent view where ships zipped at tens of thousands of gees and exchanged already gigaton-level firepower with what would somehow amount of the smallest weapon batteries and where point defense systems would immediately rate in the megatons. They simply consistently distorted and filtered out the elements they didn't like, and they did that many, many times. In comparison, I'm a totalist.
What I do with Magos' quote is put it in context and compare it with other facts.
I never denied it was canon, so stop your silly strawman, it's irritating and serves no purpose. The point is that if some elements of canon cannot be rationalized to fit into what appears, to me, to be the coherent line of interpretation, then they're outliers.
And outliers get noted but then discarded by fans of absolutely ALL fictions.
Per your apparent desire for me to block quote your response:

1.) Firstly the issue is not whether I believe an example should be overruled or discarded via the greater wieght of evidence. Indeed had you been as forthcoming when you responded to Magos we wouldn't be having this discussion so therefore it could be considered somewhat of strawman on your part. My query was directed towards the implied methodology you were utilizing. To writ:
Mr. Oragahn Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:58 am wrote:It's another case of an easily dealt-with quote. Simply put, there's a simple rule that trumps all in 40K: if the firepower you give to warships comes remotely close or even bests what an Exterminatus array can achieve, then you're not thinking straight.
Which seems to imply that even should Magos obtain a greater majority of examples which show gigaton plus firepower for ship weapons you would call for thier dissmisal based on that "simple rule". Which is vastly different from saying the vast majority of observed example peg shipboard weapons at a lower tonnage.

I queried this statement for clarification:
Old Sonofccn wrote:Isn't that a little over simplistic? It's just that, this isn't just some Saxtonesq fan calc derived from overestimating some vague and flowery quote. Its a fairly straightforward canonical statement and while I'd concur the greater bulk of evidence, including the existence of Exterminatus weapons, contradicts Magos's quote it strikes me as counter-intuitive to just discard it out of hand.
Your response seemed to reinforced my interpetation of your statement:
Mr. Oragahn Thu Nov 28, 2013 7:25 am wrote:Hence why I try to settle for a plausible and midly acceptable interpretation at the end of my former post.
Indicating you have a presupposed idea of what is "plausible" and "acceptable" concerning the example and that it is somehow wrong or unacceptable if it doesn't meet this critieria.

So I once more request clarification on what you meant in your post on Tuesday November 26th.

2.) Further, in my subsequent post, I did raise the alarm regarding the arbitrarly choosing which evidence is acceptable and which isn't. Rejecting certain examples as stylised myth or "epic tale " because of "self-contradictory data and obvious scientific inanities" is at best a dangerous game. In such an enviroment any "facts" become purely subjective based on that individual's particular sense of "plausible". I do not think this is a minor fear but I welcome your explanation how you straddle such fraught difficulties.

3.) Lastly I wish to lodge an additional and new comment that I believe you are being overly harsh and dismissive on Guy Haley, a person whom you admit to not knowing,accusing him of "wanky fanboyism, poor research or scientific ignorance" as well as suggestively implying his work is on the quality of "fan fiction " all for disagreeing with the numerical value he assigned to a facet of his published work. I do not find that particuarly "nice" or conductive for impartial analysis.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: WH40K - 40K misc numbers... (SDN)

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:53 am

sonofccn wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:You are considerably wrong with all of that. I don't know where you're going with that and your insistance to pick at my paragrpahs doesn't appear useful at all.
The point of my process is to isolate outliers and establish a coherent pattern, which is what we always do in versusdom, even if we know that each universe has its own contradictions.
The fact that Warhammer 40000's canon policy also leaves things very open and recognizes the adoption of a style being largely epic, legendary, flowery and sometimes heavy on low-grade metaphors certainly spices things up, but also allows us to understand that when things don't make much sense, if we cannot isolate very special circumstances and contexts, we cannot accept some data. This is a point largely understood by those who have tried for years to enforce one single coherent view where ships zipped at tens of thousands of gees and exchanged already gigaton-level firepower with what would somehow amount of the smallest weapon batteries and where point defense systems would immediately rate in the megatons. They simply consistently distorted and filtered out the elements they didn't like, and they did that many, many times. In comparison, I'm a totalist.
What I do with Magos' quote is put it in context and compare it with other facts.
I never denied it was canon, so stop your silly strawman, it's irritating and serves no purpose. The point is that if some elements of canon cannot be rationalized to fit into what appears, to me, to be the coherent line of interpretation, then they're outliers.
And outliers get noted but then discarded by fans of absolutely ALL fictions.
Per your apparent desire for me to block quote your response:

1.) Firstly the issue is not whether I believe an example should be overruled or discarded via the greater wieght of evidence.
Well I do. If there's no way to make it fit with the majority, even under the extreme acrobytics of special circumstances, then bye bye.
Obviously, the majority can only change and shift towards the other side if more elements that are close to outliers are produced, so they bring the norm towards them. But such is not the case.
Why the fuck do I have to explain that again?
I think it's actually clear enough for anyone who can read what I actually stand for there.
It's not sheer fluke. It's, as we say, documented.
Now do you know anything about outliers? Do I have to lecture you about that as well or can you just buzz off?
Indeed had you been as forthcoming when you responded to Magos we wouldn't be having this discussion so therefore it could be considered somewhat of strawman on your part. My query was directed towards the implied methodology you were utilizing.
To writ:
Mr. Oragahn Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:58 am wrote:It's another case of an easily dealt-with quote. Simply put, there's a simple rule that trumps all in 40K: if the firepower you give to warships comes remotely close or even bests what an Exterminatus array can achieve, then you're not thinking straight.
Which seems to imply that even should Magos obtain a greater majority of examples which show gigaton plus firepower for ship weapons you would call for thier dissmisal based on that "simple rule". Which is vastly different from saying the vast majority of observed example peg shipboard weapons at a lower tonnage.
Not really. Another strawman I see.
If he gets more of those quotes (and I mean MOOAAR), obviously the balance of probabilies will be tipped. However, one would still need to make that fit with the Exterminatus processes and pattern. He's not even there yet and I don't think he'll ever be.
I queried this statement for clarification:
Old Sonofccn wrote:Isn't that a little over simplistic? It's just that, this isn't just some Saxtonesq fan calc derived from overestimating some vague and flowery quote. Its a fairly straightforward canonical statement and while I'd concur the greater bulk of evidence, including the existence of Exterminatus weapons, contradicts Magos's quote it strikes me as counter-intuitive to just discard it out of hand.
Your response seemed to reinforced my interpetation of your statement:
Mr. Oragahn Thu Nov 28, 2013 7:25 am wrote:Hence why I try to settle for a plausible and midly acceptable interpretation at the end of my former post.
Indicating you have a presupposed idea of what is "plausible" and "acceptable" concerning the example and that it is somehow wrong or unacceptable if it doesn't meet this critieria.
Indeed. As per the obvious methodology I explained above. And the fuck ton of evidence I've been posting over this board, which you obviously happily ignore.
So I once more request clarification on what you meant in your post on Tuesday November 26th.
Too late to care. Sorry.
2.) Further, in my subsequent post, I did raise the alarm regarding the arbitrarly choosing which evidence is acceptable and which isn't.
Arbitrarily? Oh yes, my position is so totally arbitrary. I just make stuff up. Why don't you take those awesome Dick Tracy skills you've displayed thus far and put them to good use in every single thread I made about 40K. I'm sure your remarks will be valuable.
Rejecting certain examples as stylised myth or "epic tale " because of "self-contradictory data and obvious scientific inanities" is at best a dangerous game.
What the hell? No it is not, you punk. It's called using intelligence and memory.
So one can establish a solid pattern.
In such an enviroment any "facts" become purely subjective based on that individual's particular sense of "plausible". I do not think this is a minor fear but I welcome your explanation how you straddle such fraught difficulties.
Geez, that prose. o_o'
3.) Lastly I wish to lodge an additional and new comment that I believe you are being overly harsh and dismissive on Guy Haley, a person whom you admit to not knowing,accusing him of "wanky fanboyism, poor research or scientific ignorance" as well as suggestively implying his work is on the quality of "fan fiction " all for disagreeing with the numerical value he assigned to a facet of his published work. I do not find that particuarly "nice" or conductive for impartial analysis.
Lodge whatever you want wherever you think it fits. Who cares about what I think of Guy Something? I just gave my opinion and pointed out the most likely way he grabbed this piece of info. Strike that, not most likely. The only way it actually happened. :)

If you don't like the methodology here, sad for you, not going to change it.
Really, get a life (I'm serious here, DO IT) and stop polluting that thread with this asinine silly rhetoric of yours.
Note, btw, that my original answer to your post was much shorter.

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: WH40K - 40K misc numbers... (SDN)

Post by Lucky » Tue Dec 03, 2013 1:27 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote: Chernobyl was a fission reactor that reached critical mass (not super critical mass).
The whole generator thing almost makes it sound like they're using a power plant technology that's known by the Imperium to turn awfully unstable and proved to be only relevant if weaponized.

The other problem is that since it's a generator, it implies a certain lapse of time before the final conditions are primed, or so. Which means the generator has to be activated before hand, and that would require some calculation with some logic engine, which are not a commidity that's easily found on ordnance.
Perhaps the idea was that the generator kept increasing the artificial small star until the containment system failed and boom?
Way to latch on an irrelevant detail, and miss the point.

1) My analogy was to show the difference between a reactor destroying its self and a bomb.

2) I fail to see where a Lava Bomb is required to explode to do the described damage? It just need to create a big blob of plasma around itself, and the less explosive a Lava Bomb is the more the name makes sense.A gigaton is a set amount of energy, but the Lava Bomb clearly does not release all the energy at once, but rather over time.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: WH40K - 40K misc numbers... (SDN)

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Dec 03, 2013 9:37 am

Lucky wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Chernobyl was a fission reactor that reached critical mass (not super critical mass).
The whole generator thing almost makes it sound like they're using a power plant technology that's known by the Imperium to turn awfully unstable and proved to be only relevant if weaponized.

The other problem is that since it's a generator, it implies a certain lapse of time before the final conditions are primed, or so. Which means the generator has to be activated before hand, and that would require some calculation with some logic engine, which are not a commidity that's easily found on ordnance.
Perhaps the idea was that the generator kept increasing the artificial small star until the containment system failed and boom?
Way to latch on an irrelevant detail, and miss the point.
I didn't know your entire post was irrelevant, because I'm rather sure the snippet about Chernobyl represents a very negligeable portion of my post, which is largely about the fictional imperial weapon's design and its workings.
1) My analogy was to show the difference between a reactor destroying its self and a bomb.
I know. Hence my post.
2) I fail to see where a Lava Bomb is required to explode to do the described damage?
Aside from the fact that those gigatonnes of energy aren't going to come out of nowhere, you forgot that:
Death of Integrity wrote: Bright explosions flared on the side of the hulk, round blisters of fire welling up on its rough skin. Those less sophisticated than the adepts called such rounds lava bombs. Each contained a large fusion generator. In the brief moment the fusion generator operated, the bomb generated several gigatons of explosive energy, hotter than the surface of a star. Weapons like that could crack a planet’s crust, given time.
They were equally effective against the space hulk.
It just need to create a big blob of plasma around itself, and the less explosive a Lava Bomb is the more the name makes sense.A gigaton is a set amount of energy, but the Lava Bomb clearly does not release all the energy at once, but rather over time.
Sense like in a bomb that doesn't blow up? :|

The reason it could be called lava bomb is not because it looks like a lava lamp, but because it cracks crusts that bleed lava.
However, we already know that it didn't require such levels of destruction for inhabitants of the Imperium to call devices magma bombs, when they barely were worth melting a few city blocks.
Without the "explosive", I would be entitled into considering those weapons like cranked up melta-guns of some sort.
The effects of such weapons are indeed very exotic.

Some authors think that a reactor's plasma is like a super thick soup that's mega hot and equally behaves (and looks like) lava. We got the same in one of the books I dealt with which had a Titan with a breached power core with "boiling" plasma.

The only way to make sense of that is if plasma = fuel. That is, plasma describes a thick flowing substance which, if not properly put through a nuclear reaction, will actually turn into a super hot soup and literally boil and perhaps reach some kind of critical mass level.
But in no way that works in tandem with explosive energy.

The implications of plasma = fuel are rather far reaching and equally interesting for 40K.

But the problem with the torpedoes from the quote remains whole, since we have gigatonnes of explosive energy.
You need a violent one shot reaction here.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: WH40K - 40K misc numbers... (SDN)

Post by sonofccn » Wed Dec 04, 2013 7:45 pm

Some apros music (Royal Guardsmen Snoopy's Christmas)
@Mr. Oragahn

Reply noted. However with the encrouchment of the Christmas season, the resulting difficulties and responsibilities thereof as well as the less then festive undertones slipping into our posts I do not see the need of our back and forth going into the coming weeks. To that end I would like to offically request an armistace till sometime in Janurary. Hopefully such time will allow us to reflect on our disccusion as well as perhaps allow any emotions to settle.

So, if I don't have a chance to say it in the intervene, have a merry Christmas Mr. Oragahn and a happy new year.

Post Reply