"Star Wars: Death Star" and the destruction of Ald

For reviews and close examination of sources - episode reviews, book reviews, raves and rants about short stories, et cetera.
Post Reply
User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:56 am

Kane Starkiller wrote:Blowing up a planet requires certain amount of power, how it is done is irrelevant.
Not when you want to derive power requirements for said feat to be doable.
You say it takes 1E38 joules (because of a very disputable planetary shield).
Ok, let's say it does require this.
The problem comes from saying all the necessary energy comes directly from the DS's beam, and that said beam is DET.

That's what I'm saying: We don't know how that planet busting force comes to fruition. From the book, a lot of it comes from the DS's main weapon, yes, but there's also the "Hyperspace effect" at play.
If you think it can be done by a certain trick let's hear it.
I have never stated: "I know everything, I can tell you how it's done!"
All I've been saying from the beginning is that, even in the novel, nothing says "The DS's main beam is a DET weapon and is capable of generating the 1E38 Joules required to destroy Alderaan."
What we read is that the Superlaser is powerful, but there's also some exotic chain-reaction at work.
Have you been reading my posts at all? If they are using logarithmic scale then they'll use fractions of logarithmic values.
log(10^9)/log(10^11)=9/11
See? It's very simple.
I think SailorSaturn13 says it all.
But, more importantly, the book says 1/3 of the power, not 1/3 of the logarithmic scale being used to physically quantify the power's level, not 1/3 dB, not 1/3 of anything but power.

Do YOU now understand???

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

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Apr 01, 2008 5:31 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Yes, it is, for the mere reason that the station is not operational, and that the first two shots could only be worth of 1/3 of the power after a one hour recharge, and the third shot is a one hour recharge affair as well.
The power can't be suddenly so different, up to the point where it would even surpass the power of the Eclipse' superlaser.
What is your evidence that Death Star can only recharge at one rate? And the power obviously is suddenly different since it blew the planet apart.
The evidence has already been cited several times.
  • Death Star not fully functional.
  • Shot 1: 1/3 (Motti)
  • Shot 2: 1/3 (Motti and Tarkin's or Tenn's thoughts), recharge time X minutes (1 hour 13 minutes), beam fired two minutes later. Effects with similar effects as 2/3 of a superlaser, crust cracking (see Eclipse).
  • Shot 3: recharge time X+4 or X+6 minutes, beam fired 1 hour and nineteen minutes after third recharged debuted. Planet explodes.
Why do you think the power would suddenly increase like mad when the recharge time is the same, safe for a few minutes? How exactly?
We even see that there's not much difference between 1/3 + 1/3 and 2/3, which of course completely debunks the idea of a logarithmic scale (erroneous use aside).
Mr. Oragahn wrote:I can prove that. The first explosion doesn't affect the whole planet. We see a large crescent, on the low right side of the planet, that is not moving at all, which implies that a whole portion of the surface, during the first half of a second after the beam hit, didn't get affected to the extent you claim, where the mass of the planet would be already expanding.
There is definitely ejecta at the point of impact, but it pretty much stops there.
Image
The planet is expanding before the last of the beam even impacted.
A portion of the crescent's atmosphere expands. In case you didn't notice, it's still blue over there.
There's no where planetary mass expanding in that region, which was your claim regarding the power of the superlaser in its final capacity.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:It is given, if you care to read. We have a recharge time for the third shot which is roughly the same as the second one, a second shot which was said being the same as the first one. Just stop ignoring this, it's largely available and copied many times in this thread.
As I said recharge time is not necessarily limited to a constant rate. Furthermore refusal to accept your assumptions at face value does not equate to ignoring evidence.
They cannot get more than 1/3 for the first two shots, the third shot is recharged roughly as fast as the second one, and you think this allows for a sudden increase of power that reaches beyond e32 joules of total energy?

Mr. Oragahn wrote:It is linear. Get a clue, the addition of two shots at 1/3, or the exposure to one single shot at 2/3 generate extremely similar effects.
That alone denies the existence of a logarithmic scale of power.
How steep is the curve?
What curve? For me, it's not changing to any significant margin.
If you're not using a simple mathematical function for your scale, it's pointless. It's meant to make things simpler. The logarathmic one is relatively easy.
Secondly the description of the effects both from Eclipse and Death Star firing on the prison planet is not precise enough to peg it more precisely than within several order of magnitude: 10^22J-10^29J or so could all fit with the described effects.
Both sources put the 2/3 shot at the same level of destruction, generating gigantic crust cracks.

1/3 shots would still need to have many many teratons of energy to allow the generation of swarms of volcanoes and shifting of tectonic plaques across the whole planet. The biggest earthquakes on Earth started with energies in the low teraton range (but spread over a given time).

There's no evidence that the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary event left continentally huge cracks of the kind mentionned in both book, and that event is measured at more than 100 teratons.
We're seaking multiple continent long cracks or more.

e22-e23 J wouldn't allow the large and long cracks mentionned in both sources. You'd need to toy with the petaton range, and of course the curious affair that the first shot isn't described as blewing a huge crater into the planet, while effects actually indicate energy spreading (hence the other bizarre effect).

e28-29 J would likely be too much. There are no reports of atmosphere drifting away, the atmosphere actually remains in place, and it's precisely indicated in the book that the second shot is of the same level of the first, which didn't kick off much atmosphere either, let dark spots settle where the beam impacted, and that dark layer of clodus covered fires and volcanos and blocked vision.

I'd suppose this could be in the petatons of energy.

The other bizarre enough aspect of the destruction for a weapon that delivers the energy at one point only is that the damage is relatively well spread. Either it uses a far fetched system of an energy wave that travels along the surface of the globe, or what I prefer, it dig a hole in the crust and drops the energy in the core of the planet, which is the best way to radiate it omnidirectionally.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Well, since we're at a point where you seem to have an issue understanding simple words, let me state it for you very clearly: I don't care. It's absolutely fine as it is.

It's not my fault you cannot comprehend the mere fact that the theory has more to do with probabilities than with explaining the physics behind exotic phenomenons, hyperspace rifts, planar ripples of what have you and superluminal boost.
Well then I don't care either. Explain your theory or I see no reason not to stick with the conventional energy transfer.
You realize, of course, that since we know that it's a linear scale, the fact that you admited yourself that if you were to stick with a conventional DET, you'd also have to introduce an explanation to explain why 1/3 of the power of the final capacity - which has nothing to do with logarithmic scales - wouldn't rip the planet apart and why a hell of an energy disappears *somewhere*.

You also realize, I hope, that the book clearly says the destruction of Alderaan involved more energy than the reactor could output:
Death Star wrote: It took no more than an instant. Tenn knew that the beam's total destructive power was much bigger than matter-energy conversion limited to realspace. At full charge, the hyper-matter reactor provided a superluminal "boost" that caused much of the planet's mass to be shifted immediately into hyperspace. As a result, Alderaan exploded into a fiery ball of eye-smiting light almost instantaneously, and a planar ring of energy-reflux - the "shadow" of a hyperspatial ripple - spread rapidly outward.
We'd notice that, then, there are even two of such refluxes, the second being even more powerful than the first. Again, all the reactions occur in real space. Hypermatter (fancy name for tachyonic matter in the EU) is precisely used within constrained real space environments.
Tachyonic matter itself is nothing more than a form of matter that theoretically exists in real space, with the slight difference that it just goes faster than light.

We have enough evidence that you get more destruction than the energy the beam can deliver, not the other way round, and of course, enough evidence that exotic phenomenons do happen.

The fact that the reactor managed to attach an exotic reaction to the superlaser does in no way provide evidence of the power level you think of, most obviously because you could not estimate the energy necessary to shift matter into hyperspace with a superluminal boost.
I've seen SDN peoples argue that it was an acceleration fueled by raw energy. That would be most absurd, as it would mean infinite energy requirements before reaching c, which proves that the hyperspace phenomenon is exotic and cheats physics - like if we didn't know already!

And the phrasing is nothing more than saying, for example, that the reactor of any SciFi weapon of doom provided the [name of exotic effect] used to deal damage. Again, I find the parallels with Star Trek most amusing regarding S8472 and the Xindi superweapon, as they do exactly the same stuff as the Death Star, but take more time to do so. Still, the damage they do comes the reactor, no matter whatever exotic effect it attaches to the beam, because I think we both know planets don't blow up on their own.

So sure, it had to come from the reactor. This is no way means the Death Star reactor invalidated what was stated as a fact a line above about reactions occuring in normal space.

You'll just have to sit with the fact that the superlaser has a power that is capped below what you thought, and that the destruction it provides largely owes it to a gizmo fancy effect imbued within the superlaser.

Which is just fine, because without any mention of a planetary shield, neither by the ANH novelization nor the Death Star novel, the effects of the beam of the unprotected planet largely show that the real DET there is within the range of the effect described as part of 1/3 shots, and that only full saturation shots (3/3) manage to trigger exotic effects which range beyond what looks like a level of destruction in the petaton range.


Mr. Oragahn wrote:I don't say it's a chain reaction that generates the boost. Or whatever you understand there, maybe you get it as chain reaction.
Then why do you claim it's a chain reaction then? You said that description within the novel supports your claim but if the "hyperspce boost" has nothing to do with your chain reaction claim then it doesn't support it in any way does it?
The problem is what you understand by chain reaction actually.
Pretty much everything is a chain reaction, just like a bullet that hit material, then interaction x generates effect y which in turn does effect z etc. until sparks fly everywhere and you get a hole in a wall.

In our context, chain reaction is loosely used in opposition to direct energy transfer. I try to distance myself from the CR idea. Maybe my choice of words is not the best in that case. I suppose it would be just better to stick with non-DET and that's all.

Now, again, I consider that there's a good part of DET involved in the chaos, but that's not all.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Aw... It doesn't require formulas, for crying out loud.
It's all about saturating a world with enough superlaser energy/matter and the effects you obtain when you reach certain thresholds of power. I assume you can understand that, right, because it's not very complicated.
What is there to understand? Again you explain nothing. What is this "superlaser energy/matter"? Saturating the planet with energy until it reaches the energy threshold of gravitational binding energy is exactly the conventional theory.
I'm not arguing about a mere saturation of energy to obtain most "normal" effects. I'm talking about saturating a target with enough superlaser stuff, whatever it is, that at some points to different non conventional effects occur, both being very energetic, and the second one literally opening some hyperspace hole in the middle of the target.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Don't pull that nonsense over me about verifying a theory for a fictional universe. Nearly no theory can be verified as long as no new material is created to provide further meat to study after the theory has been formulated.
We're not in a test lab, and I don't happen to have a Death Star under hand. *sigh*
Interesting. So you are absolutely sure that conventional theory doesn't apply but when asked to support your claim (not a theory since a theory actually requires more than the word "exotic") suddenly it's a "fictional universe" and you don't have to defend your theory at all.
I'm sure because I don't believe there's a shield over Alderaan, because the effects of the superlaser hitting the planet are most bizarre in the film, because mere energy doesn't create rings, because the novel clearly says that you can't get that much energy from the reactor (it merely picks the words from the ANH novelization while adding the cap on the reactor's capacity), because of the inconsistency of effects between shots of the same power (Despayre) and other things I'm forgetting atm.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:You really didn't get it. The more a theory involves fictional and far fetched elements such as a superlaser, the less it can be reproduced by trying to obtain a corresponding point of reference in real life - which is the only way to reproduce tests - but you completely miss the point that it's all about getting a bigger bang for the buck.
Then why should I even consider your claims?
Because they fit and I even base them on the EU, which I don't always do.
You strung together two words "exotic" and "reaction" called that a theory and then said "sorry but the theory is so far fetched I can't even begin to explain or support it". Well that's too bad but it doesn't make your "theory" any less useless and irrelevant.
Your point would be right if you didn't invent nonsensical rules and ignored half of the data.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Not up to the point where it goes above the superheated atmosphere and already super heated soil. There's no reason why the dark - non superheated - soil would manage to reach higher altitudes than the atmosphere on fire unless what was on fire cooled down significantly.
Who says it wasn't superheated? The superheated dust was blown into space and cooled down since it has very low volume to surface area ratio.
A very low amount which would, somehow, manage to escape the fireball.
A concentration which, first, wouldn't be enough to block the light from the hot matter beneath, which would spread and thus become even less dense, and a concentration of matter which would heat up faster than it cooled as it would return towards the planet, while the hot matter would still be present there.
The time needed to radiate the energy would be immense. I mean, even hundreds of gigatons would require a couple of minutes to cool down, and such fireball wouldn't really be blocked by the matter ejected from their own energy.

If anything, it may actually point to another odd effect. Just one more.
I just love the double standard dance. This is some serious denial, really.
Stay on topic please. We are not discussing Species 8472 now.
It's a fitting analogy on many points nonetheless, thus the mention.
Read of 10^6W and 10^7W off a logarithmic chart. You'll notice that 10^6W is 6/7 or 10^7W.
If such a chart exists, it's bollocks. 6/7 e7 watts doesn't certainly not give e6 watts. 6/7 of 10 e6 watts gives 8.57... e6 watts.
log(10^9)/log(10^11)=9/11
Let's say that the absolute power of the Death Star, completed, is e33 W (I don't agree with this value, but I take because it makes calcs simple).

1/3 is also 11/33. if you were right, it would mean 1/3 or that high output is e11 W. Thank you, your weapon isn't even worth a kiloton of firepower.

Kane Starkiller
Jedi Knight
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am

Post by Kane Starkiller » Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:48 pm

SailorSaturn13 wrote:Have YOU not read what I wrote? It is FORBIDDEN (!!!) to work so with physical values!
Forbidden by whom? Emperor Palpatine? Imperial Senate? Association of Imperial scientists?
SailorSaturn13 wrote:"One third of a power" has a PHYSICAL meaning - the one which I gave previously. It does not rely on any human-given denotion or scale.
Yes it does. If you compare logarithmic values of power then the fraction will change.
SailorSaturn13 wrote:A scale is just a convenient way to write down physical values. Now when you inroduce a scale, you also create a mathematical apparatus which answers, among others questions like "If this is how I denote such power, JUST HOW do I denote a third of it?" And this translates to "divide the number by 3" if the denotion is linear "OFFSET the number by a logarithmus of 3" if the denotion is logarithmic.

Take your own example. First off, you wont find "10^7 Watt" in a logarithmic chart, you only find 10^7. And the difference is crucial, because 10^7 Watt is also 10^14 erg/s. Applying your "method" to this, we get 10^12 erg/s as "6/7" of 10^14 erg/s, which translates to 10^5 Watt being 6/7 of 10^7 Watt as well as 10^6 Watt... get the idiocy?
Second do you know why logarithmic chart was invented at all? It was to simplyfy multiplying and dividing , because in log-chart "multiplying and dividing look like addition and subtraction" get it? LOOK LIKE. Multiplying, on a log scale looks (is performed) like addition. And dividing - like subtraction. What you do is a pure mathematical manipulation with zero physical meaning.

Or do you argue that, as 2 KV = 2000V and 3 KA = 3000A, we get 6 KWt = 2 KV*3 KA = 2000 V * 3000 A = 6000000 Wt, like some pupils do???
Yes a convenient way to write down certain values. It can also be a convenient way to compare those values. Secondly as I already pointed out and you ignored nowhere in the quote are watts mentioned only fractions of power. Secondly what is the point of that erroneous calculation example? Obviously if someone forgets he is working with a logarithmic value he will make erroneous calculations. If you are aware in which scale you are working then you know that division is actually subtraction in logarithmic scale. Thus 12/14 is 12-14 or -2. Therefore P1=log^-1(-2)*P2 where log^-1 means we are using the inverse function of log. Since P2=10^14 then P1=0.01*10^14=10^12.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:The evidence has already been cited several times.


* Death Star not fully functional.
* Shot 1: 1/3 (Motti)
* Shot 2: 1/3 (Motti and Tarkin's or Tenn's thoughts), recharge time X minutes (1 hour 13 minutes), beam fired two minutes later. Effects with similar effects as 2/3 of a superlaser, crust cracking (see Eclipse).
* Shot 3: recharge time X+4 or X+6 minutes, beam fired 1 hour and nineteen minutes after third recharged debuted. Planet explodes.



Why do you think the power would suddenly increase like mad when the recharge time is the same, safe for a few minutes? How exactly?
We even see that there's not much difference between 1/3 + 1/3 and 2/3, which of course completely debunks the idea of a logarithmic scale (erroneous use aside).
Why would I think it increases? I don't think it, the effects (blowing up the planet) clearly point to a massive increase.
Quantify "not much difference". I already explained there is no information to make a precise estimation of either hits.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:A portion of the crescent's atmosphere expands. In case you didn't notice, it's still blue over there.
There's no where planetary mass expanding in that region, which was your claim regarding the power of the superlaser in its final capacity.
Every point on the planet expands as I have proven with the screenshots. And the blue is expected for a planet that is being heated up to millions of K.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:They cannot get more than 1/3 for the first two shots, the third shot is recharged roughly as fast as the second one, and you think this allows for a sudden increase of power that reaches beyond e32 joules of total energy?
The planet exploded therefore the power was obviously drastically increased. The only alternative explanation I have heard is "chain reaction" which you openly refuse to even define.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:What curve? For me, it's not changing to any significant margin.
If you're not using a simple mathematical function for your scale, it's pointless. It's meant to make things simpler. The logarathmic one is relatively easy.
Let's say that the base of the logarithm is 10^13 and the formula is Power_log=log(Power_lin-10^25).
On the logarithmic scale Power_log1=1, Power_log2=2, Power_log3=3
Thus 1/3 power:
1=log(Power_lin-10^25)
Power_lin-10^25=(10^13)^1
Power_lin-10^25=10^13
Power_lin=10^25+10^13=10^25

2/3 of power:
2=log(Power_lin-10^25)
Power_lin-10^25=(10^13)^2
Power_lin=10^26+10^25=1.1*10^26

3/3 of power:
3=log(Power_lin-10^25)
Power_lin-10^25=(10^13)^3
Power_lin=10^39
Mr. Oragahn wrote:The other bizarre enough aspect of the destruction for a weapon that delivers the energy at one point only is that the damage is relatively well spread. Either it uses a far fetched system of an energy wave that travels along the surface of the globe, or what I prefer, it dig a hole in the crust and drops the energy in the core of the planet, which is the best way to radiate it omnidirectionally.
There is nothing bizarre about that. Seismic waves causing global earthquakes and huge tsunamis. Dust loading and ejecta that causes global fires etc.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:You realize, of course, that since we know that it's a linear scale, the fact that you admited yourself that if you were to stick with a conventional DET, you'd also have to introduce an explanation to explain why 1/3 of the power of the final capacity - which has nothing to do with logarithmic scales - wouldn't rip the planet apart and why a hell of an energy disappears *somewhere*.
We "know" no such thing since you never provided any evidence for it being linear scale. Above I have an explicit mathematical formula that explains the observations and there is no need for your two undefined words which you generously call a theory.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:You also realize, I hope, that the book clearly says the destruction of Alderaan involved more energy than the reactor could output:
No it doesn't. It says that beam's total POWER was greater than matter-antimatter reaction LIMITED to real space. Therefore there is more to hypermatter power generation than matter-antimatter annihilation IN THE REALSPACE like for example annihilation of HYPERMATTER which is NOT LIMITED TO REAL SPACE.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Hypermatter (fancy name for tachyonic matter in the EU) is precisely used within constrained real space environments.
Tachyonic matter itself is nothing more than a form of matter that theoretically exists in real space, with the slight difference that it just goes faster than light.
"Tachyonic" matter is ANY matter that travels faster than the speed of light. Secondly hyperspace and faster than light are constantly interchanging terms in SW literature so I would like some evidence that hypermatter is not in fact considered in this context to be the kind of matter not limited to real space.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:We have enough evidence that you get more destruction than the energy the beam can deliver, not the other way round, and of course, enough evidence that exotic phenomenons do happen.

The fact that the reactor managed to attach an exotic reaction to the superlaser does in no way provide evidence of the power level you think of, most obviously because you could not estimate the energy necessary to shift matter into hyperspace with a superluminal boost.
I've seen SDN peoples argue that it was an acceleration fueled by raw energy. That would be most absurd, as it would mean infinite energy requirements before reaching c, which proves that the hyperspace phenomenon is exotic and cheats physics - like if we didn't know already!
The fact that it doesn't require inifinite amounts of energy doesn't mean it somehow requires insignificant amount of energy. Star Wars Imperial Sourcebook states that Star Destroyer consumes more energy in a single hyperjump than what many planetary civilizations consume in their lifetime. Earth's yearly energy consumption is 5*10^20J. Assuming "lifetime" is 100 years then it's total consumption would be 5*10^22J. And this is from a ship specifically designed to travel through hyperspace. Accelerating planetary matter can only be more difficult. Assuming ISD has a mass of 5.5*10^10kg then accelerating even 1% of planetary mass to hyperspace would require 5*10^34J.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:The problem is what you understand by chain reaction actually.
Pretty much everything is a chain reaction, just like a bullet that hit material, then interaction x generates effect y which in turn does effect z etc. until sparks fly everywhere and you get a hole in a wall.

In our context, chain reaction is loosely used in opposition to direct energy transfer. I try to distance myself from the CR idea. Maybe my choice of words is not the best in that case. I suppose it would be just better to stick with non-DET and that's all.

Now, again, I consider that there's a good part of DET involved in the chaos, but that's not all.
In other words you have no theory at all but you just don't like the conventional energy transfer theory. Thus the chain reaction is only defined by it's proponents insistence that it somehow lowers Death Stars energy requirement. You practically admit as much by freely abandoning your in any case undefined theory stick with "non-DET".
Basically your theory (just as Darkstar's) can be summed up by "I don't care how or why but there is no way Death Star is as powerful as claimed".
Mr. Oragahn wrote:I'm not arguing about a mere saturation of energy to obtain most "normal" effects. I'm talking about saturating a target with enough superlaser stuff, whatever it is, that at some points to different non conventional effects occur, both being very energetic, and the second one literally opening some hyperspace hole in the middle of the target.
As I already pointed out to Praethomin hypermatter reactor is only said to provide the superluminal boost at full power. Meaning that the prison planet shootings did not involve any superluminal boost.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:I'm sure because I don't believe there's a shield over Alderaan, because the effects of the superlaser hitting the planet are most bizarre in the film, because mere energy doesn't create rings, because the novel clearly says that you can't get that much energy from the reactor (it merely picks the words from the ANH novelization while adding the cap on the reactor's capacity), because of the inconsistency of effects between shots of the same power (Despayre) and other things I'm forgetting atm.
I explained all of these objections in this and other thread.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Because they fit and I even base them on the EU, which I don't always do.
How do they fit? You can't simply say "planet was destroyed due to exotic reaction" and then declare "it fits".
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Your point would be right if you didn't invent nonsensical rules and ignored half of the data.
Like I already explained to you and others on this board not taking your assumptions (that scale must've been linear) and undefined claims ("exotic" reaction) at face value is not ignoring data. If by "nonsensical rules" you mean logarithmic scale I actually explicitly defined how they can explain the situation. Far more than what you have said with the word "exotic".
Mr. Oragahn wrote:A very low amount which would, somehow, manage to escape the fireball.
A concentration which, first, wouldn't be enough to block the light from the hot matter beneath, which would spread and thus become even less dense, and a concentration of matter which would heat up faster than it cooled as it would return towards the planet, while the hot matter would still be present there.
The time needed to radiate the energy would be immense. I mean, even hundreds of gigatons would require a couple of minutes to cool down, and such fireball wouldn't really be blocked by the matter ejected from their own energy.

If anything, it may actually point to another odd effect. Just one more.
How do you know what amount would there be, whether it would block light (by the way who said that it had to block all light merely increase the contrast so that it appears black to the observers). How fast would it spread? Does the book define anywhere how long the "black spot" even lasted? Does the book quantify what time after the impact does the black spot form? You cannot know how much time it would take for the matter to cool down if you don't have the volume to surface ratio. As I said since we are talking about dust that ratio is small and thus the cool down period will be low.

User avatar
SailorSaturn13
Bridge Officer
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:45 am

Post by SailorSaturn13 » Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:13 pm

Forbidden by whom? Emperor Palpatine? Imperial Senate? Association of Imperial scientists?
By common rules of handling physical values.

Yes it does. If you compare logarithmic values of power then the fraction will change.
AGAIN, FOR ESPECIALLY GIFTED IN SCIENCE: PHYSICAL QUANTITY power is not logarithmic, or linear, by itself. The denotion scale is. A third of power is DESCRIBED as a third of number in linear scale and as a slightly smaller number in logarithmic scale. Had the author wanted to say what you mean he said, he wouldn't say "third of power" , but "power with third of logarithms on Starkiller's scale". He didn't.
Secondly as I already pointed out and you ignored nowhere in the quote are watts mentioned only fractions of power.
Yes, so what? They don't need to mention watts precisely because a third remain a third regardless of units. And I already mentioned it.
"Death Star Full Power" (DSFP) is a power unit just like joule. They fired three times at 0.33 DSFP, destroyed Alderaan with 1.00 DSFP and the second Death Star could make shots in excess of 2 DSFP. The only question JUST HOW MANY JOULES is a DSFP? Not THAT much
Secondly what is the point of that erroneous calculation example?
Point is that if we use your "method" of calculating fractions of power, we get totally ridiculous results. Applying "logarithmic scale 6/7" to 10^7 Wt in Watts gives us 10^6 Wt. Applying the same to 10^7 Wt in erg gives us 10^5 Wt. Hence the result of such "fraction-taking" is totally arbitrary.

And therefore NO ONE sane person actually working with those values would EVER mean "one third" like this. And yes, I guess that anyone dumb enough to mention such "one third" explanation to Vader would be strangled at once!
If you are aware in which scale you are working then you know that division is actually subtraction in logarithmic scale. Thus 12/14 is 12-14 or -2. Therefore P1=log^-1(-2)*P2 where log^-1 means we are using the inverse function of log. Since P2=10^14 then P1=0.01*10^14=10^12
.

Concession accepted that taking fractions of values means offset(i.e. subtraction) on logarithmic scale. So 1/3 means (after taking log) (0-0.5) = -0.5.
Why would I think it increases? I don't think it, the effects (blowing up the planet) clearly point to a massive increase.
Quantify "not much difference". I already explained there is no information to make a precise estimation of either hits.
The EFFECTS on the planet increase. There are two explanations:
1) they were increasing power with each shot drastically and used DET.
2) the effects on the planet are non linear due to some non-DET technobabble.

The first assumption requires to disregard canon (see below for "1/3" quote), to make an absurd assumption that rechargement for the second shot was done at a minuscule (< 10^-13) fraction of reactor power, runs contrary to movie visuals, to disregard the Hyperspace quotes etc.
It is therefore an IMPOSSIBLE ABSURD assumption.
The second is all what is left and requires just to disregard a default assumption that no energy is produced on planet. As this is simply a default it can be disregarded. So this is what happens: the station pours three times the same amount of energy, but some hyperspace-related effect makes planet respond more and more violently to it. When the cumulative shot power reaches a threshold, planet explodes.

Let's say that the base of the logarithm is 10^13 and the formula is Power_log=log(Power_lin-10^25).
On the logarithmic scale Power_log1=1, Power_log2=2, Power_log3=3
Thus 1/3 power:
1=log(Power_lin-10^25)
Power_lin-10^25=(10^13)^1
Power_lin-10^25=10^13
Power_lin=10^25+10^13=10^25

2/3 of power:
2=log(Power_lin-10^25)
Power_lin-10^25=(10^13)^2
Power_lin=10^26+10^25=1.1*10^26

3/3 of power:
3=log(Power_lin-10^25)
Power_lin-10^25=(10^13)^3
OK now that's going over the roof. Now you introduce not one, but TWO arbitrarities! NO one in his mind would use this as a scale to define his "One third" in such a way! And how would a power of, say 10^20 J pass into such a scheme? Via "minus infinity" or what?!! You have not only ZERO knowledge of physics, but of mathematics as well.

This deliberate redefining has to stop.


ALL CANON STATEMENTS ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD THE WAY A TYPICAL PERSON WOULD UNDERSTAND THEM!
Exception only applies when same or higher level canon directly states the phrase has to be understood differently. If there are two roughly equally used meaning, we can select, but introducing an obscure, absurd meaning is practically as bad as disregarding the quote entirely - and can only be done under same conditions - contradiction with higher canon.

What you do is simply a case of intellectual dishonesty! If I did the same I could assume for example that Alderaan was a "planet" 30 km in diameter with artificial gravity generator, that(generator), when blown, produced the rings... and so on.

Kane Starkiller
Jedi Knight
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am

Post by Kane Starkiller » Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:06 pm

SailorSaturn13 wrote:By common rules of handling physical values.
Your unsupported claims do not somehow gain credibility if you underline them. Logarithmic scales are indeed used in real life and there is nothing mathematically wrong in expressing two logarithmic values as a fraction.
SailorSaturn13 wrote:AGAIN, FOR ESPECIALLY GIFTED IN SCIENCE: PHYSICAL QUANTITY power is not logarithmic, or linear, by itself. The denotion scale is. A third of power is DESCRIBED as a third of number in linear scale and as a slightly smaller number in logarithmic scale. Had the author wanted to say what you mean he said, he wouldn't say "third of power" , but "power with third of logarithms on Starkiller's scale". He didn't.
So what if he didn't? Again you are assuming that he used linear scale. It is not an unreasonable assumption under normal circumstances but as the events of the book prove first shot was obviously not 1/3 of the total power. Thus another explanation is required.
SailorSaturn13 wrote:Yes, so what? They don't need to mention watts precisely because a third remain a third regardless of units. And I already mentioned it.
"Death Star Full Power" (DSFP) is a power unit just like joule. They fired three times at 0.33 DSFP, destroyed Alderaan with 1.00 DSFP and the second Death Star could make shots in excess of 2 DSFP. The only question JUST HOW MANY JOULES is a DSFP? Not THAT much
Yes a third is a third. So what? It can be used to compare values on linear as well as on logarithmic scale. What portion of log(1000) is log(10)? Answer me.
SailorSaturn13 wrote:Concession accepted that taking fractions of values means offset(i.e. subtraction) on logarithmic scale. So 1/3 means (after taking log) (0-0.5) = -0.5.
What does that have to do with comparing logarithmic values and expressing their values as fractions? Again log(10^43)/log(10^55)=43/55. You treat a fraction as a substraction if you want to get back to linear values.
Namely 10^43/10^55=10^-12, therefore if you want to get back from logarithmic scale to linear you have log^-1(43-55)=10^-12.
SailorSaturn13 wrote:The EFFECTS on the planet increase. There are two explanations:
1) they were increasing power with each shot drastically and used DET.
2) the effects on the planet are non linear due to some non-DET technobabble.

The first assumption requires to disregard canon (see below for "1/3" quote), to make an absurd assumption that rechargement for the second shot was done at a minuscule (< 10^-13) fraction of reactor power, runs contrary to movie visuals, to disregard the Hyperspace quotes etc.
It is therefore an IMPOSSIBLE ABSURD assumption.
The second is all what is left and requires just to disregard a default assumption that no energy is produced on planet. As this is simply a default it can be disregarded. So this is what happens: the station pours three times the same amount of energy, but some hyperspace-related effect makes planet respond more and more violently to it. When the cumulative shot power reaches a threshold, planet explodes.
Prove that higher recharge rate is impossible. Again underlining, bolding or capitalizing your claims does not make them evidence.
SailorSaturn13 wrote:OK now that's going over the roof. Now you introduce not one, but TWO arbitrarities! NO one in his mind would use this as a scale to define his "One third" in such a way! And how would a power of, say 10^20 J pass into such a scheme? Via "minus infinity" or what?!! You have not only ZERO knowledge of physics, but of mathematics as well.

This deliberate redefining has to stop.


ALL CANON STATEMENTS ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD THE WAY A TYPICAL PERSON WOULD UNDERSTAND THEM! Exception only applies when same or higher level canon directly states the phrase has to be understood differently. If there are two roughly equally used meaning, we can select, but introducing an obscure, absurd meaning is practically as bad as disregarding the quote entirely - and can only be done under same conditions - contradiction with higher canon.

What you do is simply a case of intellectual dishonesty! If I did the same I could assume for example that Alderaan was a "planet" 30 km in diameter with artificial gravity generator, that(generator), when blown, produced the rings... and so on.
Let me see if I understand correctly. I provide an explicit mathematical formula that explains the how "1/3" of the power could still be many orders of magnitude beneath the full power thus explaining the discrepancy. You on the other hand go with the "some non-DET technobabble" as you put it without even beginning to describe or support it and then you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty? The formula above might not be the epitome of elegant solution and I certainly don't claim that is exactly the conversion involved but it certainly beats any undefined physical phenomenons that conveniently reduce Death Star's power.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:15 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:Your unsupported claims do not somehow gain credibility if you underline them. Logarithmic scales are indeed used in real life and there is nothing mathematically wrong in expressing two logarithmic values as a fraction.
Yes there is. It leads to confusion about what the logarithm actually refers to. I recommend you check out a college algebra textbook and open to the chapter on logarithms. It should be chock full of examples underlining the fact that fractions of power, magnitude, etc relate to linear changes in logarithmic scales.

Actually, I should challenge you to find a single college algebra textbook encouraging that kind of mathematically sloppy thinking with a 3/5 or higher star rating on Amazon.

Kane Starkiller
Jedi Knight
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am

Post by Kane Starkiller » Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:42 pm

Like I said. It's not perfect. But it's above and beyond what you have which is to say nothing other than claims of an "exotic" reactions.
What do the college physics and math books say about some "exotic" reactions which can somehow blow up a planet with a miniscule amount of energy?

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:15 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:What do the college physics and math books say about some "exotic" reactions which can somehow blow up a planet with a miniscule amount of energy?
They say "Use Hypermatter..."

:)

User avatar
SailorSaturn13
Bridge Officer
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:45 am

Post by SailorSaturn13 » Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:43 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:Like I said. It's not perfect. But it's above and beyond what you have which is to say nothing other than claims of an "exotic" reactions.
What do the college physics and math books say about some "exotic" reactions which can somehow blow up a planet with a miniscule amount of energy?
Physics change. Rules stay. 100 Years ago, physical books considered impossible to blow up a whole town with a single bomb. Or to fly outside Earth's atmosphere.
But even then, no one really working in acoustics assumed that one third of 60 dB is 20 bD - it is 55 dB (or 50, depending on scale). Never had. Never will, if he wants to make his work correctly. Such meaning is simply nonexistant in science or engineering.
Logarithmic scales are indeed used in real life and there is nothing mathematically wrong in expressing two logarithmic values as a fraction.
Mathematically, nothing. Physically, everything.
For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel wrote: * To calculate the ratio of 1 kW (one kilowatt, or 1000 watts) to 1 W in decibels, use the formula

GDB = 10*log_10(1000W/1W) = 30 dB

* To calculate the ratio of 1 mW (one milliwatt) to 10 W in decibels, use the formula

GDB = 10*log_10(0.001W/10W) = -40 dB
So ration of powers is expressed in linear decibels, not in decibel/decibel fraction.
And no one but complete moron would do otherwise, for many reasons, some of them stated before.

Therefore, even if logarithmic scale were used in SW, they STILL would understand a fraction of power as a shift in scale - and not as fraction in scale.
Again you are assuming that he used linear scale.
I assumed he spoke about POWER, not scale number. No one refers to a third of scale number as a third of power, UNLESS the scale is linear and those two things fall together.
t is not an unreasonable assumption under normal circumstances but as the events of the book prove first shot was obviously not 1/3 of the total power. Thus another explanation is required.
Prove it. And no you cannot use planet's reaction to do so. That planet reacts linear to shots is never stated in book, it's an unjustified assumption by you. Canon supercedes physics, which means postulating a new entity is always better than disregarding canon.

Yes a third is a third. So what? It can be used to compare values on linear as well as on logarithmic scale. What portion of log(1000) is log(10)? Answer me.
Mathematically - 1/3. But NO ONE SANE will claiim that 10W is a third of 1000W just because of that. And no one sane will claim 10 dB POWER is 1/3 of 30 dB POWER. Note, btw that dB is dimensionsless, while power is not!

There is only one meaning of "one third of power" - and it is the one I gave before: three thirds combined make the whole power. And if you say "a third of number in arbitrary logarithmic scale", than this is simply not one third of power, as stated in the canon!
You treat a fraction as a substraction if you want to get back to linear values.
And when speaking about power, everybody (who works in field) wants to "go back to linear values"
Prove that higher recharge rate is impossible. Again underlining, bolding or capitalizing your claims does not make them evidence.
You postulate a sudden and unmentioned increase of recharge rate of 13 magnitude orders?

The recharge for second shot went for a hour although it could be done in less than microsecond?

Let me see if I understand correctly. I provide an explicit mathematical formula that explains the how "1/3" of the power could still be many orders of magnitude beneath the full power thus explaining the discrepancy. You on the other hand go with the "some non-DET technobabble" as you put it without even beginning to describe or support it and then you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty? The formula above might not be the epitome of elegant solution and I certainly don't claim that is exactly the conversion involved but it certainly beats any undefined physical phenomenons that conveniently reduce Death Star's power.
On the contrary: canon supercedes physics. Disregarding canon statement (and understanding it in a way no one but Warsies do IS disregarding) is much, much worse than changing universe physics.
Generally the physics in universe is at the merci of author, he wants planets easily exploding - they are. He wants them reacting nonlinear to some sorts of energy - they are. In SW there are also canon issues - physics given by lower canon is superceded by higher - by that's irrelevant here.
Words are also defined by author - and we, the readers , cannot understand them like we want. Each word has to be understood in its normal meaning. If there are two, OK - bet in this case there aren't. Not to mention that it is billion times more probably that physic laws will change than that people actually buildingsomething big like DS1 will resort to such formulas to define "one third". And no we do not introduce exotic reaction - we just transfer it from reactor to the planets, which fits canon much better.
Last edited by SailorSaturn13 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:29 am, edited 2 times in total.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:35 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:Like I said. It's not perfect. But it's above and beyond what you have which is to say nothing other than claims of an "exotic" reactions.
What do the college physics and math books say about some "exotic" reactions which can somehow blow up a planet with a miniscule amount of energy?
They say absolutely nothing about it in general. Once in a while, one might comment on the practical impossibility of blowing up a planet.

However, what you're doing is something that the textbooks intentionally and directly discourage, in order to justify conclusions that were highly questionable in the first place. Trying to redefine the meaning of the word "third" simply does not work.

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

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:10 am

KS, you believe that most people would use a scale that measures in log of a complex function representing the maximum power of the superlaser.
The simple mistake you make is that with a logarithmic scale, 1/3 of the superlaser power is a purely erroneous formulation, as it would be 1/3 of the log of the superlaser power.

The most clever way to speak of Despayre shots would have been to say a millionth or a billionth of the final power, or x points on scale "alphazeta som'thing".

The very fact that you have to bring it through the logarithmic grinder literaly defeats your argument.

I'm tired of your spin. Look, even Motti didn't give a rat's ass about saying it was just 30 percent of the DSFP (just borrowing S13's unit), instead of coming with the proper fraction.
They were going in for a quick estimation, one you don't have to break your mind into pieces and working it through translations of logarithmics functions not even properly applied to be understood (yes, as S13 largely points it, your use of the fraction is wrong).

Point being, you're completely spinning the meaning of a mere fraction into completely meaningless distorted babble based on an irrelevant exercise in mathematics.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:The evidence has already been cited several times.


* Death Star not fully functional.
* Shot 1: 1/3 (Motti)
* Shot 2: 1/3 (Motti and Tarkin's or Tenn's thoughts), recharge time X minutes (1 hour 13 minutes), beam fired two minutes later. Effects with similar effects as 2/3 of a superlaser, crust cracking (see Eclipse).
* Shot 3: recharge time X+4 or X+6 minutes, beam fired 1 hour and nineteen minutes after third recharged debuted. Planet explodes.


Why do you think the power would suddenly increase like mad when the recharge time is the same, safe for a few minutes? How exactly?
We even see that there's not much difference between 1/3 + 1/3 and 2/3, which of course completely debunks the idea of a logarithmic scale (erroneous use aside).
Why would I think it increases? I don't think it, the effects (blowing up the planet) clearly point to a massive increase.
Quantify "not much difference". I already explained there is no information to make a precise estimation of either hits.
We know that the 1/3 + 1/3 and the direct 2/3 have roughly similar effects. The difference can be explained by the fact that one weapon delivers the energy all at once, while the second does it over more than one hour and a quarter, with two shots separated by one hour and fifteen minutes.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:A portion of the crescent's atmosphere expands. In case you didn't notice, it's still blue over there.
There's no where planetary mass expanding in that region, which was your claim regarding the power of the superlaser in its final capacity.
Every point on the planet expands as I have proven with the screenshots.
Not the crust of the crescent. The atmosphere expands, that's all.
And the blue is expected for a planet that is being heated up to millions of K.
Geez. It is blue, because it's the fucking planet's atmosphere for crissake. If you watched the whole sequence, you'd notice that this blue doesn't grow out of the explosion, as if it was as hot as a blue star. No, this blue region is already there.
If you can't get that from the very picture you post, it's sad.
Besides, all other zones don't show any blue while they become superheated. It is not because some parts become super heated that they would automatically turn blue either.

Again, my point was not about claiming there were no parts of the planet being thrown into space. My point was that the other side of the planet didn't have its crust inflate and moved upwards.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:They cannot get more than 1/3 for the first two shots, the third shot is recharged roughly as fast as the second one, and you think this allows for a sudden increase of power that reaches beyond e32 joules of total energy?
The planet exploded therefore the power was obviously drastically increased. The only alternative explanation I have heard is "chain reaction" which you openly refuse to even define.
My take on it was about the threshold caused by the saturation of the superlaser into an unique target. Call that CR or not, it's not important.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:The other bizarre enough aspect of the destruction for a weapon that delivers the energy at one point only is that the damage is relatively well spread. Either it uses a far fetched system of an energy wave that travels along the surface of the globe, or what I prefer, it dig a hole in the crust and drops the energy in the core of the planet, which is the best way to radiate it omnidirectionally.
There is nothing bizarre about that. Seismic waves causing global earthquakes and huge tsunamis. Dust loading and ejecta that causes global fires etc.
Way to miss the point.
Can you care to actually read what people say?
It is most bizarre, as long as you ponder the lack of description about a super crater, massive ejecta or else, while there's enough energy dumped into the planet to cause massive earthquakes all across the planet.
That's why I liked the idea of the beam drilling the crust and depositing energy within the planet.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:You realize, of course, that since we know that it's a linear scale, the fact that you admited yourself that if you were to stick with a conventional DET, you'd also have to introduce an explanation to explain why 1/3 of the power of the final capacity - which has nothing to do with logarithmic scales - wouldn't rip the planet apart and why a hell of an energy disappears *somewhere*.
We "know" no such thing since you never provided any evidence for it being linear scale. Above I have an explicit mathematical formula that explains the observations and there is no need for your two undefined words which you generously call a theory.
It explains nothing because it's very unclear and wrong even on the simple use of words and units.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:You also realize, I hope, that the book clearly says the destruction of Alderaan involved more energy than the reactor could output:
No it doesn't. It says that beam's total POWER was greater than matter-antimatter reaction LIMITED to real space. Therefore there is more to hypermatter power generation than matter-antimatter annihilation IN THE REALSPACE like for example annihilation of HYPERMATTER which is NOT LIMITED TO REAL SPACE.
No, because the reaction in the reactor occurs in real space, and is a real space reaction. Hypermatter is even said as being constrained to real space (AOTC:ICS -- ouch).

Basically, the DS novel says it's still hypermatter, but the reactors aren't capable of the outputs claimed in the ICS.

You'll, of course, notice that with the output being capped as such, with the superlaser definitively made exotic in its higher outputs, and with the diameter of the station upped to 160 km instead of 120 km, any downscaling of energy density to the size of a core of an ISD will lead to much lower figures than the recent nonsensical stuff we got served with.
Oh yes, I'm sure you see the connection and that's why you can't stand it.
Secondly hyperspace and faster than light are constantly interchanging terms in SW literature so I would like some evidence that hypermatter is not in fact considered in this context to be the kind of matter not limited to real space.
Because of the reason I typed two paragraphs above. Read AOTC:ICS.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:We have enough evidence that you get more destruction than the energy the beam can deliver, not the other way round, and of course, enough evidence that exotic phenomenons do happen.

The fact that the reactor managed to attach an exotic reaction to the superlaser does in no way provide evidence of the power level you think of, most obviously because you could not estimate the energy necessary to shift matter into hyperspace with a superluminal boost.
I've seen SDN peoples argue that it was an acceleration fueled by raw energy. That would be most absurd, as it would mean infinite energy requirements before reaching c, which proves that the hyperspace phenomenon is exotic and cheats physics - like if we didn't know already!
The fact that it doesn't require inifinite amounts of energy doesn't mean it somehow requires insignificant amount of energy.
Oh but the evidence thus far has clearly established that the output is capped, and alone can't reach planet busting levels without a very major help from hyperland.
Star Wars Imperial Sourcebook states that Star Destroyer consumes more energy in a single hyperjump than what many planetary civilizations consume in their lifetime. Earth's yearly energy consumption is 5*10^20J. Assuming "lifetime" is 100 years then it's total consumption would be 5*10^22J. And this is from a ship specifically designed to travel through hyperspace. Accelerating planetary matter can only be more difficult. Assuming ISD has a mass of 5.5*10^10kg then accelerating even 1% of planetary mass to hyperspace would require 5*10^34J.
Ha, again, that one. It never gets old, doesn't it huh?
It may have never occured to Wong, nor you, that nowhere it implies that the energy figure mentionned is before the jump.
You do realize that it would be most stupid to generate star level of power just to make a microjump, right?
You also do realize that Star Wars' EU officially has trips that last weeks, if not more, and that any consumption relevant to travel is also relative to time and distance of said trip.
Of course, this totally flies above your head, because it's so much easier to get a fix of wank by swallowing completely nonsensical interpretation that disregards even most logical ways to measure total consumption.


Mr. Oragahn wrote:The problem is what you understand by chain reaction actually.
Pretty much everything is a chain reaction, just like a bullet that hit material, then interaction x generates effect y which in turn does effect z etc. until sparks fly everywhere and you get a hole in a wall.

In our context, chain reaction is loosely used in opposition to direct energy transfer. I try to distance myself from the CR idea. Maybe my choice of words is not the best in that case. I suppose it would be just better to stick with non-DET and that's all.

Now, again, I consider that there's a good part of DET involved in the chaos, but that's not all.
In other words you have no theory at all but you just don't like the conventional energy transfer theory.
No, that's not "in other words", because you clearly don't get the simple point of it. Call the extra gain of energy a question of CR or not, it's not a big problem, because again, my point is not to claim how it exactly happen.
Thus the chain reaction is only defined by it's proponents insistence that it somehow lowers Death Stars energy requirement.
Obviously.
You practically admit as much by freely abandoning your in any case undefined theory stick with "non-DET".
There's nothing new. You can read many topics about the Death Star, I always considered, fundamentally, that it was both DET and exotic (for the extra energy).
It rather fits well with other bits of EU, notably how Han in Vector Prime thought only the Death Star could completely vapourize a 20 km wide rocknall.
Basically your theory (just as Darkstar's) can be summed up by "I don't care how or why but there is no way Death Star is as powerful as claimed".
You're conveniently missing the fact that I consider the book itself dispelling the idea that the reactor can produce planet busting levels of energy on its own. This has nothing to do with the fact that it could be right or wrong. It's just that you can't even see the evidence (from my point) I rely on to formulate the theory.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:I'm not arguing about a mere saturation of energy to obtain most "normal" effects. I'm talking about saturating a target with enough superlaser stuff, whatever it is, that at some points to different non conventional effects occur, both being very energetic, and the second one literally opening some hyperspace hole in the middle of the target.
As I already pointed out to Praethomin hypermatter reactor is only said to provide the superluminal boost at full power. Meaning that the prison planet shootings did not involve any superluminal boost.
Yes, I know. That's why I said the superluminal boost was another exotic effect.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:A very low amount which would, somehow, manage to escape the fireball.
A concentration which, first, wouldn't be enough to block the light from the hot matter beneath, which would spread and thus become even less dense, and a concentration of matter which would heat up faster than it cooled as it would return towards the planet, while the hot matter would still be present there.
The time needed to radiate the energy would be immense. I mean, even hundreds of gigatons would require a couple of minutes to cool down, and such fireball wouldn't really be blocked by the matter ejected from their own energy.

If anything, it may actually point to another odd effect. Just one more.
How do you know what amount would there be, whether it would block light (by the way who said that it had to block all light merely increase the contrast so that it appears black to the observers). How fast would it spread? Does the book define anywhere how long the "black spot" even lasted? Does the book quantify what time after the impact does the black spot form? You cannot know how much time it would take for the matter to cool down if you don't have the volume to surface ratio. As I said since we are talking about dust that ratio is small and thus the cool down period will be low.
That's lots of babble to evade the problem. Could you explain just simply why, while the superlaser would hit the surface and even heat up the atmosphere to some extent before hand, there'd be so much cool enough matter expelled ahead of the fireball, and why it would be dense enough to mask the much greater amount of super heated matter, and why that cooler matter supposedly sitting above wouldn't actually spread over the surface of the planet, instead of just rising vertically into the sky as you claim?
If anything, the cooler matter would be expelled sideways, with any superheated matter going up, only to be preceded by a nearby atmosphere already on fire.
Your claims don't make any sense.
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SailorSaturn13
Bridge Officer
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:45 am

Post by SailorSaturn13 » Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:28 pm

As I already pointed out to Praethomin hypermatter reactor is only said to provide the superluminal boost at full power. Meaning that the prison planet shootings did not involve any superluminal boost.
And when the third shot was fired the total power injected into planet was... 1 DSFP.

Basically your theory (just as Darkstar's) can be summed up by "I don't care how or why but there is no way Death Star is as powerful as claimed".
While your can be summed up by I don't care how or why but there is no way Death Star is restricted to what what such an object physically can give".

User avatar
SailorSaturn13
Bridge Officer
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:45 am

Post by SailorSaturn13 » Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:23 pm

Star Wars Imperial Sourcebook states that Star Destroyer consumes more energy in a single hyperjump than what many planetary civilizations consume in their lifetime. Earth's yearly energy consumption is 5*10^20J. Assuming "lifetime" is 100 years then it's total consumption would be 5*10^22J.
Such q journey, according to NJO, can take up to 3 weeks, or up to 2000000 secs. the required power production is thus 2.5*10^16 Wt - 25000TW. Seems OK.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:05 pm

Geez. It is blue, because it's the fucking planet's atmosphere for crissake
Watch your temper, please. I'd rather this thread didn't get out of hand.

Roondar
Jedi Knight
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:03 pm

Post by Roondar » Sat Apr 05, 2008 2:00 pm

kane starkiller wrote:
Roondar wrote: Secondly, we never see any alleged collisions with the Deathstar. If this was Startrek, that would be enough for you to claim that nothing did in fact hit the Deathstar or at the very least that we can't quantify it.
Except the Death Star is designed to blow up planets. Do you think that the Imperials would just hope Death Star will be missed by all fragments? Never mind that Death Star novel explicitly states thousands of fragments hit the shields.
Considering that no fragments are to be seen anywhere near the DS at all mere minutes after Alderaan was blown up and the Millenium Falcon shows up I see little reason to accept it was hit by a ton of fragments.

Especially since the explosion on screen already showed big chunks of matter suddenly 'disappearing' before they got anywhere near the origin point of the superlaser.
roondar wrote: If we assume Alderaan to be Earth sized, it will have a radius of about 6400 km. That translates to a volume of ~1,1 * 10^12 km^3.

As Alderaan explodes, it starts taking on much more volume. The DS is alleged to be at 75000 KM from Alderaan as it goes boom, so our radius goes from 6400 km to 75000 km. Volume is increased to ~1,8 * 10^15 km^3. Or roughly four orders of magnitude.

The Deathstar on the other hand occupies only (at the high end) a sphere of 160KM. This is equivalent to ~1,7 * 10^7 km^3 or roughly 0,000001% of the volume of Alderaan at the time the explosive matter reaches the DS.
That is not how you calculate the fraction of the planet that will hit Death Star. Fragments won't just magically stop to uniformly fill out the volume as they expand. They will continue to expand as a spherical shell of certain thickness. Thus the fraction of the fragments that will hit the Death Star is calculated by the dividing the total area of the expanding shell at the distance Death Star is with the crossectional area of Death Star. Area of the shell is 4*75,000^2*pi or 7*10^10km while the crossectional area of Death Star is 60^2*pi or 11,309km/s therefore Death Star will absorb 1.6*10^-7 fraction of energy released by Alderaan's explosion.
Actually, this is wrong. It's really rather simple to calculate which part of Alderaan could have hit the DS.

The DS will be hit by a cone of debris originating from Alderaan. I will now determine the size/volume of the cone. This will give us the maximum part of the volume of Alderaan which can hit the DS.

Pieces outside of the cone will miss the DS altogether, due to the angles involved.

The full cone is 160 km (radius), 75000 km (height).
The actual debris in that cone will never be more than the top 6400 km of it, because this is the radius of Alderaan before it explodes (i.e. this determines the top end of matter involved).

Since a cone can be fully calculated using the radius and height as the two sides of a right angled triangle, we can use a 160km by 75000km triangle as the starting point.

In other words, the DS will be hit by (as absolute maximum) by the matter included in a cone which can be calculated using the fraction of the triangle that is used for the whole volume. The triangle we use will be right angled and have a height of 6400 km.

Folowing simple trigonometry we can see that the full triangle will be as follows:

a^2 + b^2 = c^2 ==> 160^2 + 75000^2 = c^2. Outcome is that C = 75000,17 km.

The angle at the top of the triangle will then be 0,12223 degrees.
Since we know the length (6400km) of the long side of our second triangle, we can calculate the short side. This comes out to 1365,3 meters or roughly 1,4 km.

The volume of a cone with a base radius of 1,4km and a height of 6400 km is equal to V = 1/3 * b * h, where h is the height and b is the surface area of the base.

First of, b will then be 1,4^2*Pi = 6,1575 km. The height is known, so the actual cone will have a volume of 1/3 * 6,1575 * 6400 = 13136,04 km^3.
(If combined, this is a sphere with a radius of roughly 14,6 km)

Alderaan has a total volume of V = 4/3 * pi * r^3 => 1,01981 * 10^12 km^3.

Of this an absolute maximum of 1,3136 * 10^4 km^3 will hit the DS, or one 83.591.874th of the total volume. This comes out to 0,000008%. So yeah, I was off by almost one order of magnitude. Still much less than 0,1% though.

The real value will be lot lower than this upper limit due to all sorts of fun stuff like vaporised matter, the explosion not being at a right angle to the DS, part of Alderaan being given a superluminal boost away from the DS, big chunks of 'Alderaan matter' disappearing mid explosion (watch it and see for yourself), the DS beam itself (which does the cutting, vaporising, and wonky stuff) being part of that volume, etc.

Post Reply