Warhammer 40k: Lava Bomb and Large Fusion Reactor Analysis

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

Warhammer 40k: Lava Bomb and Large Fusion Reactor Analysis

Post by Lucky » Sat Apr 12, 2014 5:24 am

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.
PURPOSE
A Lava Bomb appears to be intended for planetary bombardment, and is likely a weapon used during an exterminatus. It would certainly not be used as a tactical weapon.

YIELD
The speaker appears to be trying to make a Lava Bomb sound as impressive as he or she can without lying, and this quirk can be used as a tool to narrow down the maximum yield a Lava Bomb can have.

The speaker states the yield is gigaton rather then nearly a teraton or half a teraton.
Therefor the yield must be less then 500 gigatons

The speaker states several gigatons rather then a hundred or hundreds of gigatons.
Therefor the yield must be less then 100 gigatons

The speaker states several gigatons rather then tens of gigatons.
Therefor the yield must be less then 20 gigatons

The speaker states several gigatons.
Therefor the yield must be more then 2 gigatons

Therefor the yield of a lava Bomb must be 3 to 19 gigatons

WATTAGE
Assuming a lava Bomb works in a similar fashion to a standard torpedo we can make some reasonable assumptions about the wattage of a Large Fusion Reactor.
BFG Basic Rule Page: 28 wrote:
TORPEDOS
The term 'torpedo' has always been used to describe any long-range missile carried by a spaceship. A typical anti-ship torpedo is over 200 feet long and powered by a plasma reactor, which also acts as a sizable portion of its warhead, turning it into a devastating plasma bomb. The area of the ship given over to the torpedo tubes is a massive space criss-crossed by lifts, hoists and gantry cranes for moving the huge missiles from the armoured magazine silos where they are stored to the launch tubes.

Once a torpedo is launched, the plasma drive propels the torpedo forward at high speed, whilst beginning an energy build-up which will culminate in its detonation. Torpedos have a limited ability to detect a target and will alter course to intercept it they pass within a few thousand kilometers of a vessel.
So we can conclude that the Large Reactor activates after being fired, and then builds up a charge until it destroys itself through some means.

Let's assume it takes 10 seconds to reach the target
3000/10=300 megatons per-second
19000/10=1900 megatons per second

Let's assume it takes 20 seconds to reach the target
3000/20=150
19000/20=950

Let's assume it takes 30 seconds to reach the target
3000/30=100
19000/30=633

Let's assume it takes 40 seconds to reach the target
3000/40=75
19000/40=475

Let's assume it takes 50 seconds to reach the target
3000/50=60
19000/50=380

Let's assume it takes 60 seconds to reach the target
3000/60=50
19000/60=316

Large Fusion Reactor in Warhammer 40,000
High end: 300 megatons 1.9 gigatons per second

Lower end: 50 megatons to 316 megatons per second
(The travel time to the target could easily be longer then 1 minute)

NOTE
BFG Imperial Fleets pdf page 2 of 24 wrote:
The Apocalypse class is an ancient design that is generally believed to have been the precursor of the Retribution class battleship millennia ago. The superior technologies used to construct the multiple lance turrets on the Apocalypse have now all but been forgotten and so the small number of examples of this ship can never be replaced. The loss of even one will always be keenly felt. it has been theorised by Naval strategists that the vessel was specifically created to counter the ever-growing numbers of battleships and grand cruisers that attempted to lead Chaos raiding fleets from the Eye of Terror. in this duty, the Apocalypse has proven itself to be everything the Imperial Navy could have wished for.

The rows of fearsome lance armament along the broadsides of the Apocalypse are its most distinctive feature. It has been noted that these lance arrays are fully capable of operating at a much greater ranges by an engineering process that greatly increases the load-bearing capabilities of their main power relays. However, the array conduits themselves become notoriously unreliable when stressed this far and runaway power drains can easily start to sap energy from the ship's main drives, making the Apocalypse sluggish in the midst of battle. Thus, almost all existing Apocalypse class battleships keep their lance armament limited to medium ranges. Most Segmentum fleets have at least a few examples of Apocalypse still in battle worthy condition, though their numbers are gradually dwindling.
You can't simply pump as much power as you want to through Imperial weapons, and the ships can not properly power their weapons and propulsion systems at the same time.

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

Re: Warhammer 40k: Lava Bomb and Large Fusion Reactor Analys

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Apr 14, 2014 1:26 am

10 seconds to reach a target? Even in game terms, a round extends between 15 minutes and one complete hour if the distance is great.

Or 900 to 3600 seconds if a torpedo takes a full round to reach its target.

Your observations are interesting but they don't solve the fact that this amount of power in such a small craft has massive implications for the larger ones that completely go against the exceptional nature and use of an Exterminatus weapon array, but I don't want to get into that again, this nearly entirely ruined my thread last time.

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

Re: Warhammer 40k: Lava Bomb and Large Fusion Reactor Analys

Post by User15046 » Sat Apr 19, 2014 8:54 pm

And they are said to be able to beat down even the mightiest warships in only a handful of "salvos". So battleships may be able to withstand some dozens or hundreds of gigatons before being destroyed (Armada book), based on this example. Single shots often cripple or "vaporize" escorts.

Image

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

Re: Warhammer 40k: Lava Bomb and Large Fusion Reactor Analys

Post by Lucky » Sun Apr 20, 2014 5:43 am

Magos wrote:And they are said to be able to beat down even the mightiest warships in only a handful of "salvos". So battleships may be able to withstand some dozens or hundreds of gigatons before being destroyed (Armada book), based on this example. Single shots often cripple or "vaporize" escorts.

Image
1) You're being extremely vague. You need to provide the full quotes that they are talking about Lava Bombs, and given how rare Lava Bomb are in 40K fluff I doubt they are talking about lava bombs.

2) What does that picture have to do with anything in this thread?

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

Re: Warhammer 40k: Lava Bomb and Large Fusion Reactor Analys

Post by Lucky » Sun Apr 20, 2014 6:09 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote: 10 seconds to reach a target?
I'm just trying to be conservative. Ten seconds seemed like a reasonable high end given the target isn't going to move, and the weapon is designed to target planets. The numbers ultamately run counter to the higher end claims for reactor output as I recall.

There isn't a reason to be at maximum range while there are good reasons not to get too near.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Even in game terms, a round extends between 15 minutes and one complete hour if the distance is great.

Or 900 to 3600 seconds if a torpedo takes a full round to reach its target..
What source gives the intended in universe length of a round?

Mr. Oragahn wrote: Your observations are interesting but they don't solve the fact that this amount of power in such a small craft has massive implications for the larger ones that completely go against the exceptional nature and use of an Exterminatus weapon array, but I don't want to get into that again, this nearly entirely ruined my thread last time.
1) If you have a more detailed description of the weapon then please share it with us. The quote given does not provide the dimensions of a Lava Bomb, and I do not see a reason to assume a Lava Bomb must be the size of a standard starship to starship torpedo which is 200 feet (96.96 meter) (2/3 of a Foot Ball field long) long.

2) The total yield is really irrelevant to the question of reactor output. What matters is the wattage of the reactor, and the dimensions. Reactors are not made to store energy, and weapons output is limited by things aside from reactor output.

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

Re: Warhammer 40k: Lava Bomb and Large Fusion Reactor Analys

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Apr 21, 2014 3:10 pm

Lucky wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Your observations are interesting but they don't solve the fact that this amount of power in such a small craft has massive implications for the larger ones that completely go against the exceptional nature and use of an Exterminatus weapon array, but I don't want to get into that again, this nearly entirely ruined my thread last time.
1) If you have a more detailed description of the weapon then please share it with us. The quote given does not provide the dimensions of a Lava Bomb, and I do not see a reason to assume a Lava Bomb must be the size of a standard starship to starship torpedo which is 200 feet (96.96 meter) (2/3 of a Foot Ball field long) long.
There's no reason to believe a lava bomb is of the size of a massive IoM battleship either. Yet that's the minimal requirement for its assessed power production to leave the range of "farcical" and enter that of "might become barely acceptable".
2) The total yield is really irrelevant to the question of reactor output. What matters is the wattage of the reactor, and the dimensions. Reactors are not made to store energy, and weapons output is limited by things aside from reactor output.
Hence why I talk about power. That is the reactor output for you.
Besides, you're wrong. A reactor could well be designed to amass energy under the form of hyper energized particles.
Fact is, even our current low power fission generators DO hold their energy and deliver a fraction of it through heat. A simple design tweak or flip of a switch would allow a reactor of that kind to pile up energy.
A better system, applied to fusion and as I described in my thread, could easily be linked to a weapon: the core would simply deliver all of its payload in a direction which is applied by the weapon system, through the use of electromagnetic fields for example. This would be the easiest way to obtain a plasma lance. Considering the size of a lava bomb's warhead/reactor, it could easily be uniquely dedicated to power a single plasma lance and provide power levels close to critical without ever going critical because the plasma lance would precisely be the exhaust system to purge the reactor of its energy. That's very basic here. And this means we have silly amounts of power for one single and not so big weapon system (probably the size of a Star Wars turbolaser cannon).

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

Re: Warhammer 40k: Lava Bomb and Large Fusion Reactor Analys

Post by Lucky » Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:57 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote: There's no reason to believe a lava bomb is of the size of a massive IoM battleship either. Yet that's the minimal requirement for its assessed power production to leave the range of "farcical" and enter that of "might become barely acceptable".
This is a radical distortion of anything stated.

A starship is far more then a reactor and propulsion system. A Lava Bomb could have a warhead the size of a Retribution or Apocalypse Class Battleship's main reactor and the weapon would still be far smaller then a Retribution Class Battleship.

There is also the problem that there just isn't much room in the hull for the reactor(s?), fuel, and everything the crew needs to live. There is something like 2/11 of the between the guns and the engines on an Apocalypse class battleship and less on a Retribution class.

To make matter worse the Imperium of Man isn't known for it efficient use of resources. It seems like when ever you see the insides of a ship it has vast amounts of poorly used space*.

*I believe the Dawn of War Extermanotus clip.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Hence why I talk about power. That is the reactor output for you.
Power has too many definitions.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Besides, you're wrong. A reactor could well be designed to amass energy under the form of hyper energized particles.
That's not used to generate energy though.

Mr. Oragahn wrote: Fact is, even our current low power fission generators DO hold their energy and deliver a fraction of it through heat.
Last time I checked that was called less then 100% efficiency. The whole point is to get as much energy out of the reaction as possible.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: A better system, applied to fusion and as I described in my thread, could easily be linked to a weapon: the core would simply deliver all of its payload in a direction which is applied by the weapon system, through the use of electromagnetic fields for example. This would be the easiest way to obtain a plasma lance. Considering the size of a lava bomb's warhead/reactor, it could easily be uniquely dedicated to power a single plasma lance and provide power levels close to critical without ever going critical because the plasma lance would precisely be the exhaust system to purge the reactor of its energy. That's very basic here. And this means we have silly amounts of power for one single and not so big weapon system (probably the size of a Star Wars turbolaser cannon).
Funny how the quote concerning the Apocalypse Class says they can't or at least don't do that. They at best lost the technology to do that, and at worst never had it.

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

Re: Warhammer 40k: Lava Bomb and Large Fusion Reactor Analys

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:29 pm

Lucky wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote: There's no reason to believe a lava bomb is of the size of a massive IoM battleship either. Yet that's the minimal requirement for its assessed power production to leave the range of "farcical" and enter that of "might become barely acceptable".
This is a radical distortion of anything stated.
How? I'm merely pointing out how big the lava bomb would have to be, according to the power figures you gave, to start fiting with the rest of the universe.
I didn't distort anything. I dind't even misquote anything.
Please don't make false claims such as these.
A starship is far more then a reactor and propulsion system. A Lava Bomb could have a warhead the size of a Retribution or Apocalypse Class Battleship's main reactor and the weapon would still be far smaller then a Retribution Class Battleship.
Which would mean it would take very little volume for the ship in question to have more of these reactor/warheads.
Which obviously does not solve the problem of the warhead already producing too much power for its size.
There is also the problem that there just isn't much room in the hull for the reactor(s?), fuel, and everything the crew needs to live. There is something like 2/11 of the between the guns and the engines on an Apocalypse class battleship and less on a Retribution class.
And yet I'm pretty sure that even 1/20 of the volume of such a starship would provide ample room for a huge quantity of those reactor/warheads.
To make matter worse the Imperium of Man isn't known for it efficient use of resources. It seems like when ever you see the insides of a ship it has vast amounts of poorly used space*.

*I believe the Dawn of War Extermanotus clip.
That is true but the ships are so huge and vast that any waste in specific symbolic chambers doesn't need to automatically translate as a massive volumetric waste for the rest of the ship's systems, such as the power plants.
However, we're talking about warheads. That is, already a fraction of the volume of a projectile that's supposedly stored in large quantities inside a starship.
And thus far, you have not provided one single piece of evidence that would require either of us to believe the lava bombs are humongous beyond the usual range of projectiles fired by those warships.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Hence why I talk about power. That is the reactor output for you.
Power has too many definitions.
When you made your calculations and got numerous power output figures, you didn't seem to have a problem with the definition of power, which is the same I use. Why the sudden confusion?
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Besides, you're wrong. A reactor could well be designed to amass energy under the form of hyper energized particles.
That's not used to generate energy though.
Huh, the reactor would obviously be able to generate those particles. Do you have to explain everything?
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Fact is, even our current low power fission generators DO hold their energy and deliver a fraction of it through heat.
Last time I checked that was called less then 100% efficiency. The whole point is to get as much energy out of the reaction as possible.
How is that a problem? The more advanced the tech is, the less waste there might be. Which means the users of this advanced power technology will have even more liberty at managing the amount of energy stored and the power output. Soon, it will become nothing more than a question of rate of reaction and the size of exit valve.
Something rather well expected for Warhammer 40000, even if they're on the decline.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: A better system, applied to fusion and as I described in my thread, could easily be linked to a weapon: the core would simply deliver all of its payload in a direction which is applied by the weapon system, through the use of electromagnetic fields for example. This would be the easiest way to obtain a plasma lance. Considering the size of a lava bomb's warhead/reactor, it could easily be uniquely dedicated to power a single plasma lance and provide power levels close to critical without ever going critical because the plasma lance would precisely be the exhaust system to purge the reactor of its energy. That's very basic here. And this means we have silly amounts of power for one single and not so big weapon system (probably the size of a Star Wars turbolaser cannon).
Funny how the quote concerning the Apocalypse Class says they can't or at least don't do that. They at best lost the technology to do that, and at worst never had it.
No, what the quotation says is that the Apocalypse-class benefited from a superior power relay technology that allowed to dramatically drain most of the ship's power output, all put into the lances.
It never says this class of ships used reactors inside each single lance turret. The lance turrets were linked to the ship's power source.
It is a design decision, where the makers once thought it better to have a choice over what the power should be used for, instead of having reactors entirely dedicated to weapons.
It doesn't change the fact that with the things those ships do, channeling the super hot particles into a stream straight out from a reactor placed inside the very weapon's structure would be a child affair.

User avatar
Mith
Starship Captain
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:17 am

Re: Warhammer 40k: Lava Bomb and Large Fusion Reactor Analys

Post by Mith » Sun Apr 27, 2014 9:28 pm

Lucky wrote:
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.
PURPOSE
A Lava Bomb appears to be intended for planetary bombardment, and is likely a weapon used during an exterminatus. It would certainly not be used as a tactical weapon.

YIELD
The speaker appears to be trying to make a Lava Bomb sound as impressive as he or she can without lying, and this quirk can be used as a tool to narrow down the maximum yield a Lava Bomb can have.

The speaker states the yield is gigaton rather then nearly a teraton or half a teraton.
Therefor the yield must be less then 500 gigatons

The speaker states several gigatons rather then a hundred or hundreds of gigatons.
Therefor the yield must be less then 100 gigatons

The speaker states several gigatons rather then tens of gigatons.
Therefor the yield must be less then 20 gigatons

The speaker states several gigatons.
Therefor the yield must be more then 2 gigatons

Therefor the yield of a lava Bomb must be 3 to 19 gigatons
Several means 'just a few'. So 19 gigatons is silly. The most one might etch out of it is 7-9 gigatons, but generally it means 3-5 gigatons. You forgot about the term 'dozen' too. Ie; "it was a dozen gigatons" or "dozens of gigatons were released". That's more likely than "tens of gigatons" to be honest.

In any case, let's have a look at how large those warheads would have to be then, since they directly state them as being fusion warheads. According to wikipedia, the mass to energy power for fusion is two orders lower than antimatter in terms of possible energy. Antimatter is 9*10^16 joules or 90 PJs. That would make the maximum energy for fusion per kilogram 900 TJs (9*10^14 joules). So to equal just 90 PJs (enough for about 21 megatons), you'd need 100 kilograms of fusion material.

Assuming maximum efficiency with fusion material, you would need 23,244 kilograms of fusion material. That's over 51,000 pounds. Keep in mind, this is JUST the actual fusion material required. And it rivals the mass of 1960s fighters like the F-111b (80,000 lb or 36,000 kg). And this is assuming 100% efficiency, which I don't think is proven. If we assume even 50% efficiency, then we're talking about 46,488 kg of fusion material required. The actual warhead itself is going to be huge and by comparison, so will be the rocket that fires it.

This doesn't prove gigaton-level energy weapons, missiles, and macro-cannons. It destroys it.
Last edited by Mith on Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Warhammer 40k: Lava Bomb and Large Fusion Reactor Analys

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:01 am

Thing is, the weapon systems are huge.

Aside from these conventional yields making fun of so many of those prolongated Exterminati that only scorched planets, another problem being that they're called reactors, instead of simply "nukes", implying that their power levels could actually be harnessed in safe conditions to obtain similar outputs in controlled conditions.
And of course, if a single one of these reactors fits inside the tip of a torp, then it takes no genius to understand that no matter the inefficiencies and volume waste the IoM seems used to, scaling up such reactors does lead to Connorish power outputs that just keep making even less sense in light of about everything, and again Exterminatus procedures and their relative special weapon arrays.

That's like that cretinous moment in ID4 with Goldblum getting drunk because OMG they're going to fire a piddly nuke (not even a megaton one) against an über death spaceship, right above a city that's already been totalled.

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

Re: Warhammer 40k: Lava Bomb and Large Fusion Reactor Analys

Post by User15046 » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:25 pm

Lucky wrote:
Magos wrote:And they are said to be able to beat down even the mightiest warships in only a handful of "salvos". So battleships may be able to withstand some dozens or hundreds of gigatons before being destroyed (Armada book), based on this example. Single shots often cripple or "vaporize" escorts.

Image
1) You're being extremely vague. You need to provide the full quotes that they are talking about Lava Bombs, and given how rare Lava Bomb are in 40K fluff I doubt they are talking about lava bombs.
Armada said
Bombardment cannons are equally devastating in ship-to-ship combat, capable of blasting apart any capital ship in just a few salvos.
Execution Hour mentions a single salvo from a bombardment cannon "vaporizing" an escort:
Furies launched from the Machaurius swept away the wave of torpedoes fired by the Infidels, immediately blunting the Chaos attack. Even as the crews of the enemy raider vessels’ torpedo rooms struggled to reload more of the titanic ordinance missiles into the firing tubes, the Imperial ships struck back. Four squadrons of Starhawks swarmed out of the Machaurius’s launch bays, forming up into attack formation and quickly speeding towards the line of enemy escorts.
Even before they got there, the line had disintegrated. The Arbites strike cruiser’s formidable bombardment cannons opened fire, their linier accelerator systems hurtling a stream of lethal magma bomb warheads through the void at something approaching quarter light speed. The salvo of warheads exploded across the line of Chaos ships with terrifying accuracy. One of them disappeared in a white flash, a hundred thousand tonnes of metal and machinery simply vaporized out of existence. Another tumbled out of formation, already breaking apart into burning fragments.
2) What does that picture have to do with anything in this thread?
Those turrets are bombardment cannons.

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

Re: Warhammer 40k: Lava Bomb and Large Fusion Reactor Analys

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Apr 30, 2014 12:38 pm

Magos wrote: Execution Hour mentions a single salvo from a bombardment cannon "vaporizing" an escort:
Furies launched from the Machaurius swept away the wave of torpedoes fired by the Infidels, immediately blunting the Chaos attack. Even as the crews of the enemy raider vessels’ torpedo rooms struggled to reload more of the titanic ordinance missiles into the firing tubes, the Imperial ships struck back. Four squadrons of Starhawks swarmed out of the Machaurius’s launch bays, forming up into attack formation and quickly speeding towards the line of enemy escorts.
Even before they got there, the line had disintegrated. The Arbites strike cruiser’s formidable bombardment cannons opened fire, their linier accelerator systems hurtling a stream of lethal magma bomb warheads through the void at something approaching quarter light speed. The salvo of warheads exploded across the line of Chaos ships with terrifying accuracy. One of them disappeared in a white flash, a hundred thousand tonnes of metal and machinery simply vaporized out of existence. Another tumbled out of formation, already breaking apart into burning fragments.
Doesn't require to be taken literally. Execution Hour and Shadow Point form a duo, written by the same author, and needless to say, they clearly provide enough solid evidence that flies against any volition of firepower figure inflationism.

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

Re: Warhammer 40k: Lava Bomb and Large Fusion Reactor Analys

Post by Lucky » Fri May 09, 2014 3:58 pm

Magos wrote:
Armada wrote: Bombardment cannons are equally devastating in ship-to-ship combat, capable of blasting apart any capital ship in just a few salvos.
Execution Hour mentions a single salvo from a bombardment cannon "vaporizing" an escort:
Execution Hour wrote: Furies launched from the Machaurius swept away the wave of torpedoes fired by the Infidels, immediately blunting the Chaos attack. Even as the crews of the enemy raider vessels’ torpedo rooms struggled to reload more of the titanic ordinance missiles into the firing tubes, the Imperial ships struck back. Four squadrons of Starhawks swarmed out of the Machaurius’s launch bays, forming up into attack formation and quickly speeding towards the line of enemy escorts.
Even before they got there, the line had disintegrated. The Arbites strike cruiser’s formidable bombardment cannons opened fire, their linier accelerator systems hurtling a stream of lethal magma bomb warheads through the void at something approaching quarter light speed. The salvo of warheads exploded across the line of Chaos ships with terrifying accuracy. One of them disappeared in a white flash, a hundred thousand tonnes of metal and machinery simply vaporized out of existence. Another tumbled out of formation, already breaking apart into burning fragments.
That talks about magma bombs. Are you arguing that the guy talking about Lava Bombs meant Magma Bombs?

If the speaker can't get the name of the weapon right, then anything said can't be trusted to be true.

Magos wrote: Those turrets are bombardment cannons.
They look to be lance turrets and weapons batteries firing to me given they seem to be shooting energy, but it's 40K, and the art work is the most unreliable thing in the setting.

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

Re: Warhammer 40k: Lava Bomb and Large Fusion Reactor Analys

Post by Lucky » Fri May 09, 2014 4:04 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote: How? I'm merely pointing out how big the lava bomb would have to be, according to the power figures you gave, to start fiting with the rest of the universe.
I didn't distort anything. I dind't even misquote anything.
Please don't make false claims such as these.
You're the only one who thinks a Lava Bomb would be the size of the ship carrying it. Distorting what I said, putting words in my mouth, mocking me because you lack evidence to support your view, eta take your pick as to what you want to call it, but stop doing it.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Which would mean it would take very little volume for the ship in question to have more of these reactor/warheads.
Which obviously does not solve the problem of the warhead already producing too much power for its size.
1) Since I've never seen anyone provide more information about Lava Bombs, I'm going to have to assume you are making panicked assumptions about a Lava Bombs dimensions, or not providing information like you should be.
BFG PDF Basic Rules wrote: Ordnance includes missiles the of skyscrapers to swarms of small attack craft such as fighters and bombers.
With typical anti-ship torpedos being over 200 hundred feet long, a lava bomb could be miles long. It's already believed we can build 2 mile high skyscrapers with our technology if we wanted to.

2) As things stand, I fail to see where you would put extra specialty weapons.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: And yet I'm pretty sure that even 1/20 of the volume of such a starship would provide ample room for a huge quantity of those reactor/warheads.
And yet they have a hard time powering energy weapons and propulsion at the same time, and can't or don't fix the problem by simply adding reactors/generators.

Perhaps you know of some fluff concerning the number of reactors on a given type of ship?

Mr. Oragahn wrote: That is true but the ships are so huge and vast that any waste in specific symbolic chambers doesn't need to automatically translate as a massive volumetric waste for the rest of the ship's systems, such as the power plants.
However, we're talking about warheads. That is, already a fraction of the volume of a projectile that's supposedly stored in large quantities inside a starship.
And thus far, you have not provided one single piece of evidence that would require either of us to believe the lava bombs are humongous beyond the usual range of projectiles fired by those warships.
1) Wasted space, and tens of thousands of humans along with everything that goes with that kind of takes up a lot of space.
BFG PDF Basic Rules wrote: The area of the ship given over to the torpedo tubes is a massive space criss-crossed by lifts, hoists and gantry cranes for moving the huge missiles from the armoured magazine silos where they are stored to the launch tubes.
This sounds like it takes up a lot of space.

2) There has not been any data given as to the dimensions of a Lava Bomb given in this thread, and I certainly don't have any as it seems to appear in a single source that I don't own. All the given quote states is that the Lava Bomb has a large fusion reactor as a warhead, but we don't know how large a large fusion reactor is.

Mr. Oragahn wrote: When you made your calculations and got numerous power output figures, you didn't seem to have a problem with the definition of power, which is the same I use. Why the sudden confusion?
I can read my own mind, but I have a very limited ability to read other people's minds, and you will note I purposely did not use the word power.

Mr. Oragahn wrote: Huh, the reactor would obviously be able to generate those particles. Do you have to explain everything?
The reactors generate energy that is then turned into electricity, and carried by cables to the weapons.
BFG PDF Basic Rules wrote: Engine Room Damaged. The engine room is rocked by explosions, forcing all hands to tend to the reactors. The ship may not make any turns until the damage is repaired.

BFG PDF Campaign Rules wrote: REFITS TABLES
The ship’s engines are fitted with additional systems or improvements have been made to the power generators and energy relays in some fashion. Roll a D6 on the following table:

D6 Engine Refit

1 Secondary Reactors. The ship’s additional power generators allow it to put on a tremendous burst of speed for short lengths of time. The ship rolls an extra 2D6 when
on All Ahead Fullspecial orders.

2 Evasive Jets.The hull of the vessel is studded with powerful short-burn engines which allow it to drastically turn to avoid incoming fire. At the start of the enemy shooting
phase, the ship may take a Leadership test. If it is passed, the ship may make a single 45° turn immediately. However, the ship may not go on to special
orders during the next turn.

3 Manoeuvring Thrusters. Additional thrusters along the length of the ship allow it to turn much more quickly. The ship reduces the distance it needs to move before
turning by 5cm.

4 ArresterEngines. The ship has a number of secondary engines mounted near its prow, which enable the vessel to reduce speed rapidly. When attempting to Burn Retros
or Come to New Heading special orders, the ship may add +1 to its Leadership.

5 Auxiliary PowerRelays. The rear of the ship is criss-crossed with additional cables and pipelines, feeding more power to the engines. The ship gains +5cm to its speed.

6 Navigational Shields. The ship is enveloped in low-frequency shields designed to shunt aside debris and other impediments as the ship moves. The ship does not suffer
reductions to its speed for moving through Blast markers (this includes gas and dust clouds and similar effects).
BFG PDF Ships of Mars wrote: Augmented Weapon Relays: Weapon batteries shift left
on the gunnery table before all other modifiers are applied. Lance hits count double on rolls of a 6
Mr. Oragahn wrote: How is that a problem? The more advanced the tech is, the less waste there might be. Which means the users of this advanced power technology will have even more liberty at managing the amount of energy stored and the power output. Soon, it will become nothing more than a question of rate of reaction and the size of exit valve.
Something rather well expected for Warhammer 40000, even if they're on the decline.
Given the IOM pumps electricity from the engine room to the weapons and drives. The weapons batteries (laser cannons, missile launchers, rail guns, fusion beamers and graviton pulsars), lances, and engines all run on the same grid. Pumping too much electricity through a cable will destroy it, cook the crew, melt the ship, eta.

Mr. Oragahn wrote: No, what the quotation says is that the Apocalypse-class benefited from a superior power relay technology that allowed to dramatically drain most of the ship's power output, all put into the lances.
It never says this class of ships used reactors inside each single lance turret. The lance turrets were linked to the ship's power source.
It is a design decision, where the makers once thought it better to have a choice over what the power should be used for, instead of having reactors entirely dedicated to weapons.
It doesn't change the fact that with the things those ships do, channeling the super hot particles into a stream straight out from a reactor placed inside the very weapon's structure would be a child affair.
This sort of think sounds like the kind of reasoning that leads to things like the attack of the clones and revenge of the sith ICS. What you think would be a good idea has no bearing on what is actually done in the setting.

All IOM ships have an engine room where all the reactors are held, and then cables carry the output.

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

Re: Warhammer 40k: Lava Bomb and Large Fusion Reactor Analys

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat May 10, 2014 2:31 pm

Lucky wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote: How? I'm merely pointing out how big the lava bomb would have to be, according to the power figures you gave, to start fiting with the rest of the universe.
I didn't distort anything. I dind't even misquote anything.
Please don't make false claims such as these.
You're the only one who thinks a Lava Bomb would be the size of the ship carrying it. Distorting what I said, putting words in my mouth, mocking me because you lack evidence to support your view, eta take your pick as to what you want to call it, but stop doing it.
Please. You're the one abusing fallacies here, notably strawman arguments and even double-strawman arguments in fact, claiming I put words in your mouth, which doesn't even happen once in the part you quoted.
Contrary to your lie, I never believed that the lava bombs are of the size of the ships carrying them.
What I said, in rather very simple terms, is that it WOULD NEED to be of that such size to start to move from "total rubbish" to "barely acceptable".
The reason for that is quite simple, as it has to do with power production vs size of ship.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Which would mean it would take very little volume for the ship in question to have more of these reactor/warheads.
Which obviously does not solve the problem of the warhead already producing too much power for its size.
1) Since I've never seen anyone provide more information about Lava Bombs, I'm going to have to assume you are making panicked assumptions about a Lava Bombs dimensions, or not providing information like you should be.
Thing is, nothing in the book alludes to the lava bombs being huge instead of some ammo that fits in broadside tubes or the larger turreted bombardment cannons.
BFG PDF Basic Rules wrote: Ordnance includes missiles the of skyscrapers to swarms of small attack craft such as fighters and bombers.
With typical anti-ship torpedos being over 200 hundred feet long, a lava bomb could be miles long. It's already believed we can build 2 mile high skyscrapers with our technology if we wanted to.
You'd think lava bombs being that big would have warranted a remark from the author in a form or another.
2) As things stand, I fail to see where you would put extra specialty weapons.
Could you reword that please?
Mr. Oragahn wrote: And yet I'm pretty sure that even 1/20 of the volume of such a starship would provide ample room for a huge quantity of those reactor/warheads.
And yet they have a hard time powering energy weapons and propulsion at the same time, and can't or don't fix the problem by simply adding reactors/generators.

Perhaps you know of some fluff concerning the number of reactors on a given type of ship?
I believe I read some examples of ships housing more than one reactor, and in other instances, the power generation room taking a lot of a ship's volume.
Still, the only limit is about volume and power relays and nothing else. The fact they trade those advantages for spacious rooms for parade is their problem.
Anyway, let's remember that I'm simply pointing out that there's lots of room they could convert to more power cores and relays if they wanted to. Any empty volume that's useless can be scavanged for useful purposes.
It only takes hardware and organization. Let's also notice that it's nothing to do with my point (which is to compare the size of a lava bomb, which are described as fusion reactors, and the size of a ship's reactor space to understand their power production capability) and I was only replying to a specific part of your reply.
In other words, I don't really intend to continue this little subdiscussion.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: That is true but the ships are so huge and vast that any waste in specific symbolic chambers doesn't need to automatically translate as a massive volumetric waste for the rest of the ship's systems, such as the power plants.
However, we're talking about warheads. That is, already a fraction of the volume of a projectile that's supposedly stored in large quantities inside a starship.
And thus far, you have not provided one single piece of evidence that would require either of us to believe the lava bombs are humongous beyond the usual range of projectiles fired by those warships.
1) Wasted space, and tens of thousands of humans along with everything that goes with that kind of takes up a lot of space.
BFG PDF Basic Rules wrote: The area of the ship given over to the torpedo tubes is a massive space criss-crossed by lifts, hoists and gantry cranes for moving the huge missiles from the armoured magazine silos where they are stored to the launch tubes.
This sounds like it takes up a lot of space.
This is not defining wasted space. It's defining how this space is put to proper use.
My point is that there is no evidence that the room wasted for symbolic sections of the ship is a reliable example of the pattern applied to the rest of its important and practical sections. If anything, we have citations of crews living many years in cramped sections.
2) There has not been any data given as to the dimensions of a Lava Bomb given in this thread, and I certainly don't have any as it seems to appear in a single source that I don't own. All the given quote states is that the Lava Bomb has a large fusion reactor as a warhead, but we don't know how large a large fusion reactor is.
I actually do know, and I will soon post the quotations. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that I was totally right about the size of those lava bombs.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: When you made your calculations and got numerous power output figures, you didn't seem to have a problem with the definition of power, which is the same I use. Why the sudden confusion?
I can read my own mind, but I have a very limited ability to read other people's minds, and you will note I purposely did not use the word power.
What? You calculate power figures yet you "purposely" don't use the word power? Whatever the silly reason you concoct lately for you not to use the word power is irrelevant, I'm afraid.
Or perhaps you're just backpedaling because you didn't know the definitions of power...
My words hardly allowed you to misunderstand the meaning of power unless you didn't know about the word power.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Huh, the reactor would obviously be able to generate those particles. Do you have to explain everything?
The reactors generate energy that is then turned into electricity, and carried by cables to the weapons.
BFG PDF Basic Rules wrote: Engine Room Damaged. The engine room is rocked by explosions, forcing all hands to tend to the reactors. The ship may not make any turns until the damage is repaired.
Thanks, but totally irrelevant. There's a reason why I embed quotes. It's to understand the context.
BFG PDF Campaign Rules wrote: REFITS TABLES
The ship’s engines are fitted with additional systems or improvements have been made to the power generators and energy relays in some fashion. Roll a D6 on the following table:

D6 Engine Refit

1 Secondary Reactors. The ship’s additional power generators allow it to put on a tremendous burst of speed for short lengths of time. The ship rolls an extra 2D6 when
on All Ahead Fullspecial orders.

2 Evasive Jets.The hull of the vessel is studded with powerful short-burn engines which allow it to drastically turn to avoid incoming fire. At the start of the enemy shooting
phase, the ship may take a Leadership test. If it is passed, the ship may make a single 45° turn immediately. However, the ship may not go on to special
orders during the next turn.

3 Manoeuvring Thrusters. Additional thrusters along the length of the ship allow it to turn much more quickly. The ship reduces the distance it needs to move before
turning by 5cm.

4 ArresterEngines. The ship has a number of secondary engines mounted near its prow, which enable the vessel to reduce speed rapidly. When attempting to Burn Retros
or Come to New Heading special orders, the ship may add +1 to its Leadership.

5 Auxiliary PowerRelays. The rear of the ship is criss-crossed with additional cables and pipelines, feeding more power to the engines. The ship gains +5cm to its speed.

6 Navigational Shields. The ship is enveloped in low-frequency shields designed to shunt aside debris and other impediments as the ship moves. The ship does not suffer
reductions to its speed for moving through Blast markers (this includes gas and dust clouds and similar effects).
I see a mention of cables and pipes.
Are they electric cables, optical cables or plasma conduits?
I see no mention of electricity.
And how is that relevant?
They have a vast array of technologies based on plasma, of all sizes. They obviously know how to channel plasma from point A to point B.
So yes, they could either have one single central power core, or smaller dedicated cores.
BFG PDF Ships of Mars wrote: Augmented Weapon Relays: Weapon batteries shift left
on the gunnery table before all other modifiers are applied. Lance hits count double on rolls of a 6
Looks like they can put more power relays. Interesting.
The reason they barely modify their ships is because they can barely allow to repair them in some cases, they're old and sometimes falling apart, and take a huge time to build.
They wouldn't be crying like babies about the loss of ships like they do if they could mass produce them in a hearbeat.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: How is that a problem? The more advanced the tech is, the less waste there might be. Which means the users of this advanced power technology will have even more liberty at managing the amount of energy stored and the power output. Soon, it will become nothing more than a question of rate of reaction and the size of exit valve.
Something rather well expected for Warhammer 40000, even if they're on the decline.
Given the IOM pumps electricity from the engine room to the weapons and drives. The weapons batteries (laser cannons, missile launchers, rail guns, fusion beamers and graviton pulsars), lances, and engines all run on the same grid. Pumping too much electricity through a cable will destroy it, cook the crew, melt the ship, eta.
How is that a reply to me? Could you stop shifting goalposts please?
Mr. Oragahn wrote: No, what the quotation says is that the Apocalypse-class benefited from a superior power relay technology that allowed to dramatically drain most of the ship's power output, all put into the lances.
It never says this class of ships used reactors inside each single lance turret. The lance turrets were linked to the ship's power source.
It is a design decision, where the makers once thought it better to have a choice over what the power should be used for, instead of having reactors entirely dedicated to weapons.
It doesn't change the fact that with the things those ships do, channeling the super hot particles into a stream straight out from a reactor placed inside the very weapon's structure would be a child affair.
This sort of think sounds like the kind of reasoning that leads to things like the attack of the clones and revenge of the sith ICS. What you think would be a good idea has no bearing on what is actually done in the setting.
OK. Did you even try to read what I wrote? Because that's required to debunk an argument, you know?
It's not "a good idea". It's a fact, since that's how their reactors work and their plasma lances work as well, plus all the other plasma based designs they use. Geez.

Post Reply