Mike DiCenso wrote:Email list? Hardly. It's copies of a number of exchanges by the people on said list, though not complete, it is still sufficent to show an interest on Saxton part in Versus debating:
Brian,
> The bolt hits one side, and superheats it. This superheated material
> superheats the next part, which superheats the next part, until all of
> the mass is superheated. This happens faster than the expansion stress
> can shatter the asteroid.
Mostly right, but needs clarification of the mechanism of heat transfer.
A small mass in the path of the beam receives the initial heat deposit.
This mass expands (due to its overpressure) at a rate that exceeds the
sound speed within the solid. Thus solid matter is swept up by this blast
wave (the correct physics term) without feeling any precursor disturbance.
(The blastwave outruns any vibration or conductive warming.) Kinetic
energy of the expansion is thermalised directly within the upswept
material; it is instantly vaporised at the blastwave if the energy is
great enough.
NB. the mechanism of heat transfer within the asteroid is blastwave
expansion, not passive heat conduction. The expanding gas simply sweeps
up the material in its path, dissociating it at the atomic level upon
contact. In the SW case, there's no chance for solid fragments to
survive.
If you input somewhat less than the vaporisation energy of the whole
asteroid, then the blastwave will grow to the radius where the shock
temperature is diminished below the vaporisation temperature of the rock.
Propagating outwards from that stage: a disruptive shockwave or vibration
in the solid. Fragmentation is likely throughout the surrounding,
surviving solid matter.
If the energy from the weapon is injected too slowly then passive heat
conduction and vibration may be efficient enough to spread the heat
throughout the asteroid without a violent blastwave.
Curtis.
sean:
Lord Poe's correct, though: the asteroid Groumall destroyed with the planetary disruptor is very close to the first asteroid's size--maybe just a hair larger.
I measured the disruptor bolt's size relative to the BoP's keel, right before impact (see McC's "Battle038." Outstanding vidcaps btw, McC!).
As we established, the Bird's engineering hull is about 25m wide. The bolt is easily a fifth that--almost 6m wide by my measurements.
Compare that to McC's "Asteroid09," a frame or two before the bolt actually connects. In that image, I find the
In the above exchange, Saxton clearly has an interest in the Cardassian Freighter
Gromall's destruction of an asteroid. Anyone reading the numerous other exchanges will note that the context of all these exchanges is... *gasp*... versus debate between Trek and Wars!
Given the rather apparent open nature of the various exchanges, how could he not know what he was involved with here?
And then there's this quote that still haunts you...
Wayne,
> I'll get some AOTC images, that can be scaled more precisely.
http://www.babtech-onthe.net/download/wayne/
Here are 15 images from the AOTC asteroid chase (temporary link). A few of
these are
successive frames.
Most of these are near misses, and show the scale next to Obi-Wan's fighter.
One shows decent scale against Slave1.
The fighter is about 8x4 meters, so some of these red-glowing asteroids are
10-15 meters in diameter, others are probably 5 or so (eyeball).
Some asteroids fragmented, others vaporized. But these that are glowing
red, and are still roughly spherical, satisfy the lower limits we calculate.
5 meters- ~4 terajoules (1 kiloton)
10 meters- ~30 terajoules (7 kilotons)
15 meters- ~106 terajoules (25 kilotons)
It is possible that we undercalculated this for the ICS, or some of the
larger ones may have been hit twice. Things happen so fast, it's hard to
tell even frame by frame. But the scaling here is more reliable than most
of the ones in TESB, they all either fragmented or vaporized (most of them),
and this is fighter-scale weaponry. These things make it a better
comparison to Trek.
Two asteroids in TESB must be on the order of 40 meters:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/bigasteroid.jpg
http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/asteroids9.jpg
These both turned white-hot, remained roughly spherical (limited
fragmentation), and vaporized. That would take at least 2000 terajoules
(475 kilotons).
Brian
Who is this "we" Brian Young speaks of here, and if none but Curtis Saxton was involved in working on AOTC ICS, then why is he stating this?
-Mike
O_o
Is that genuine?
Because if it is, not only does it clarly shows Saxton's involvment, and at least, sufficient interest in vs debates, but Brian's slip would also suggest that Saxton broke his NDA.
Brian's words are most puzzling.
Cpl Kendall wrote:Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Or:
3) He used Wong's, others' and his own calculations in the ICS, which ended, for some reasons, unnecassarily beefing up Wars, with little concern about fitting with previously known envidence, nor with movies, nor about even abiding by scientific rules he's supposed to follow, in that one should always seek the most simple explanation. (ex: turbolaser nature explanation)
Besides, what about not always seek and favour upper limits?
He doesn't seem to care about that either. (ex: 900 km wide DSII)
All of which would have violated his None Disclosure Agreement with LFL. Which if they found out about would have left him open to fical repurcussions and would throw the validity of his work in doubt. Do you understand what a NDA is and why a professional would do his up most to keep it. If you have proof that he violated it than make it. Serious proof, not unfounded ramblings and slanderous accusations.
1. No, in this case, it would not mean he has violated the NDA he signed with LFL, but that he did used other people's calcs for his work. This solution does not say that he had other people participate to the creation of the ICS.
If you were a bit less defensive, you'd have seen that this option wasn't claiming he broke his NDA.
2. I understand what a NDA. As a matter of fact, I happened to sign one with one of the richest, wealthiest and most powerful companies to exist on Earth. So I fully understand the implications and ramifications of breaking such contracts.
The "vast majority" of debators either moved out of debates as a whole (where are those many SB key members which don't seem there anymore since 2002?), or still dispute those figures, or resigned instead of wasting time arguing with brickwalls.
The others just appear misinformed on many things, or occupy the room left, repeating the same inanities found on SDN.
So where are these people that dispute these figures? All I see are the people that occupy SFJ and the odd troll or misinformed youth that wanders into SDN in the summer.
Those who dispute the figures are here, at least.
They still were seen at Spacebattles in the early 2002.
I must applaud how Wong's doctrine, and how his sockpuppets managed to enforce, with so much success, the idea that once the ICS says something, it's not to be disputed, and all other EU contradicting sources are to be dismissed.
Ever consider that perhaps these sources are right and you just so happen to be screeching into the wind?
I did, but I don't see evidence that I'm screeching into the wind.
Saxton's work on the Technical Commentaries was so good that he was contracted to do the ICS.
Yes, his work is, at last, very informative, though inacurrate from time to time - especially more since he reshaped his comments to fit with his latest views for 2020.
We can see, for example, how he went from the 270 km wide DSII for the 900 km wide one.
With no good reason, that is.
IF LFL thought his work was so out to lunch do you think that he would have been offered the job?
I'm not in LFL's heads. This extrapolation is not important. There could be plenty of reasons why they took him instead of another.
The main one would probably be the combination of this:
Big site.
PhD.
Fan of Star Wars.
Without weighing the other elements. Possibly because lots of people at LFL don't understand a shit about what Saxton says, or didn't even consult other LFL members to know if someone else was better suited for this task.
Besides, who cares about what the so called majority thinks? It does certainly not make your position better, nor right.
When the majority has the facts on it's side it certainly does.
Yes, *when* being the key word. That majority of some doesn't seem to, however.
Then, please, engage the conversations, make points, prove yourself right, provide evidence, instead of talking about how we're just so delusional and dead wrong, disconnected from reality.
I'll keep that in mind.
We're waiting for you. Anyone is free to participate, as long as it's constructive, sufficiently honest and respectful.
