The Death Star-II improved?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Well...

1. I knew that Picard would be troublesome at SDN. His claims... I can't even agree with them. They're the absurd equivalent of SW's ICS.
2. I have no problem with someone being banned after admitting vandalizing a wiki.
3. Now, the real issue is what is real vandalism, and what is really "admiited" as "I'm sorry I know I did something very wrong"? No doubt that a proper way to do it at first would have been to go for the forum, but we've all seen how it usually ends: pointless.

All in all, it's just better for Pic to never return to SDN.

[Picard]

That the equatorial trench with the docking bays was inside a super-trench, thus maintaining Saxton's silly 900 km scaling for the DS2? That crap was debunked years and years ago here and here. Simply speaking there is little to no evidence for it anywhere outside Saxton's speculative writings.

I know it is debunked, there is no way some super-trench can exist, only trench that does exist is similar in size to DSI trench. Interesting, first time I got "warning" that I might be (perma)banned was after I disagreed with 900 km figure for DSII.

I can't even agree with them. They're the absurd equivalent of SW's ICS.

Which claims exactly? If you are referring to some of things I claimed on my blog (teraton-level torpedoes, petaton-level firepower for "Die is Cast") I know these are "absurd equivalent of ICS" beacouse I intentionally made them that way. But I never intended to use these figures in debate unless someone used ICS, and I certainly don't think these figures are even close to canon.

2. I have no problem with someone being banned after admitting vandalizing a wiki.
3. Now, the real issue is what is real vandalism, and what is really "admiited" as "I'm sorry I know I did something very wrong"? No doubt that a proper way to do it at first would have been to go for the forum, but we've all seen how it usually ends: pointless.

To be short, I deleted claims of kiloton-level torpedoes from wiki (Wong's figures he got by misinterpreting "Pegasus" incident which someone put there) and replaced these figures with my calculations for same incident (in mod's words: "replaced it with my own BS"), which gave 550 Mt torpedoes (Wong's calculations were for shattering asteroid, which, in context of episode, makes no sense). Soon after, it turned out that it is forbidden to delete anything from wiki, especially their standard myths. Plus after that I stated on forum that original claims are just myths.

We've had a couple of busy little Trekkies visiting the wiki in the last couple of days. Mike Dicenso is trying to refute the well-established limitations of warp drive, while a trektard going by "Picard345" thought he would just erase well-supported statements about photon torpedo yield and replace them with his own BS.

Feel free to join the fun.

Well-supported? You mean "myths-supported"?

Picard has been banned for admitting to vandalism of the wiki. His numerous violations of the rules that have been noted by several supermods are located elsehwere.

The ban is temporary for 7 days, but will be changed to permanent pending approval from the active administrator (Dalton).

Permanent.

All in all, it's just better for Pic to never return to SDN.

I know, and I doubt I would be allowed to even if I try. I got perma-banned and they obviously watch IP adress (I tried making double account on SDN wiki - mod(s) discovered that in less than a day, and blocked my IP adress; I don't want to go throught entire process of changing IP adress just beacouse of that one wiki so I let it go).

[Mike DiCenso]

To be short, I deleted claims of kiloton-level torpedoes from wiki (Wong's figures he got by misinterpreting "Pegasus" incident which someone put there) and replaced these figures with my calculations for same incident (in mod's words: "replaced it with my own BS"), which gave 550 Mt torpedoes (Wong's calculations were for shattering asteroid, which, in context of episode, makes no sense). Soon after, it turned out that it is forbidden to delete anything from wiki, especially their standard myths. Plus after that I stated on forum that original claims are just myths.

That was your big mistake. See, you should never completely erase their BS on Impwiki, just simply take their own way of doing things to heart: For example, look at my mods to their warp drive page, oh sure Ted modified it, but he didn't revert the page because he damn well knows I left their crap in place, and I stated in my mod it was a rebuttal by "trekkies" to "warsies" about inconvient information they try to ignore. Also Ted damn well knows that he can come over to the SFJN Database wiki and do something similar, provided he does not erase out the Trek side of the article.

Now, that all said, this topic is dangerously drifting towards where it will be redirected to the "Other Websites" forum quite soon.
-Mike

[Lucky]

Proton torpedoes, while not being exactly high-yield weapon (~1 kt) are still highly manouverable (scene when Luke fired them in DSI reactor shaft), so I think chimney cap is better explanation (althought from movie we know that proton torpedoes are not able to harm DSII reactor so it is not issue - but "explosive warheads" (at least per Croatian translation) being better than proton torpedoes? (It seems Lando was talking about armor penetration capability but Wedge was referring to size of reactor so...)

star Wars reactors tend to be rather touchy, and blow up if you hit they with relatively small explosions when they are working. The reactor on Hoth is a prime example.

All the proton-torpedos do in Ep.4 is make one near 90 degree turn, and then seemingly go in a straight line, and in ROTS we see missiles that aren't all that good at not hitting things they should not. I doubt the missiles could make it to the reactor as the fighters which out fly them could barely do it.

It is most likely that the ducts would be shielded and armored on the inside.

[Picard]

Maybe, but if one thing is certain, it is that there is no way Empire might have equipped DSII with micro-conduits in any reasonable time.

Star Wars reactors tend to be rather touchy, and blow up if you hit they with relatively small explosions when they are working. The reactor on Hoth is a prime example.

Diesel-fueled nuclear reactor? Althought I think that hydrogen-oxygen fusion reactor is better choice (or deuterium-oxgen).

See, you should never completely erase their BS on Impwiki, just simply take their own way of doing things to heart: For example, look at my mods to their warp drive page, oh sure Ted modified it, but he didn't revert the page because he damn well knows I left their crap in place, and I stated in my mod it was a rebuttal by "trekkies" to "warsies" about inconvient information they try to ignore. Also Ted damn well knows that he can come over to the SFJN Database wiki and do something similar, provided he does not erase out the Trek side of the article.

They warned me about that after I was banned.

To return to topic... if I remember correctly, in RotJ novelization it is mentioned that Lando & co. had to evade several "walls" inside whatever they were flying throught, which partially blocked it. Lando managed to squeeze Falcon throught one such opening, damaging some parts on ship and losing big antenna. Now, these walls could be used in addition to "chimney cap" - Imperials were about to mount it on top of exhaust port, preventing fighters from flying inside, while these "walls" were to be used to stop any lucky shots that passed under that cap. It might be that they planned to use ECM to disable proton torpedo navigation system (provided torpedoes have any such thing in first place, althought it seems likely), thus slamming any lucky torpedoes into walls.

[Lucky]

Maybe, but if one thing is certain, it is that there is no way Empire might have equipped DSII with micro-conduits in any reasonable time.

Star Wars reactors tend to be rather touchy, and blow up if you hit they with relatively small explosions when they are working. The reactor on Hoth is a prime example.

Diesel-fueled nuclear reactor? Althought I think that hydrogen-oxygen fusion reactor is better choice (or deuterium-oxgen).

If you set off an explosive on a reactor, or even just shoot the reactor in Star Wars there is a reasonable chance you will set off a chain reaction causing the reactor to explode.

[Picard]

You know what happens when you ignite hydrogen and oxygen in closed space? I think that happened to Death Starandthat unlucky ISD that exploded in RotJ.

[Lucky]

You know what happens when you ignite hydrogen and oxygen in closed space? I think that happened to Death Starandthat unlucky ISD that exploded in RotJ.

The problem is that in the real world if you strap a block of C-4 to a reactor or shoot a reactor with a bullet you will not cause a chain reaction that basically makes it so the reactor is not there anymore, but a Star Wars reactor will have a chain reaction that destroys the ship.

I seem to remember an episode of Star Wars: the Clone Wars in the second season that has little Boba Fett destroy a Venator by shooting the reactor with a blaster rifle. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

[Mike DiCenso]

Not exactly. That's "Death Trap" where Boba manages to shoot the reactor core controls, causing the ship to lose power and crash on the surface of the planet Vanqor, where it suffers severe damage, but generally remains intact. Go take a look at the "E-D Saucer Section Crash Vs Republic Cruiser Crash" with the links back to Mastertoon.com and the episodes for details.
-Mike

[KirkSkyWalker]

One way or another, I won't be making new account on SDN anytime soon. I'm in process of making my website and I plan to adress these points on it. As for when I will upload it, I have no idea. It might be month, six months, year, I don't know. But I obviously hit them where it hurts and I'm glad for that.

I doubt it, they've got their own canonical dogma, and anyone who doesn't concur is called a "Trektard-troll" and booted out of their little world.

[KirkSkyWalker]

You know what happens when you ignite hydrogen and oxygen in closed space? I think that happened to Death Starandthat unlucky ISD that exploded in RotJ.

The problem is that in the real world if you strap a block of C-4 to a reactor or shoot a reactor with a bullet you will not cause a chain reaction that basically makes it so the reactor is not there anymore, but a Star Wars reactor will have a chain reaction that destroys the ship.

A fusion-reactor is slightly different from nuclear. Like "about a million times more powerful" different-- or comparing a coal-fire to an H-bomb.

[Lucky]

The problem is that in the real world if you strap a block of C-4 to a reactor or shoot a reactor with a bullet you will not cause a chain reaction that basically makes it so the reactor is not there anymore, but a Star Wars reactor will have a chain reaction that destroys the ship.

A fusion-reactor is slightly different from nuclear. Like "about a million times more powerful" different-- or comparing a coal-fire to an H-bomb.

What are you trying to say?


A fusion reactor is not a bomb. If containment in the real world is lost then the reactor stops working, and there is nothing dangerous from what I've read on them.

In Star Wars if containment is lost the reactor, and often the ship or building is no longer there.

[KirkSkyWalker]

The problem is that in the real world if you strap a block of C-4 to a reactor or shoot a reactor with a bullet you will not cause a chain reaction that basically makes it so the reactor is not there anymore, but a Star Wars reactor will have a chain reaction that destroys the ship.

A fusion-reactor is slightly different from nuclear. Like "about a million times more powerful" different-- or comparing a coal-fire to an H-bomb.

What are you trying to say?


A fusion reactor is not a bomb. If containment in the real world is lost then the reactor stops working, and there is nothing dangerous from what I've read on them.

Ahem--- there are no real working fusion-reactors, so you're not in the real world when you quote "facts" about them as evidence.

In Star Wars if containment is lost the reactor, and often the ship or building is no longer there.

A fusion reactor, much like an anti-matter reactor, will explode if containment is lost, since the reaction takes place at the atomic level-- unlike with current nuclear fuel which operates by fission.

Again, you're comparing apples and atom-bombs.

[Lucky]

Ahem--- there are no real working fusion-reactors, so you're not in the real world when you quote "facts" about them as evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
Yes we have fusion reactors that work, but are not commercially viable yet, and they have been around for years.

A fusion reactor, much like an anti-matter reactor, will explode if containment is lost, since the reaction takes place at the atomic level-- unlike with current nuclear fuel which operates by fission.

Again, you're comparing apples and atom-bombs.

A fusion reactor will not explode like an anti-matter reactor because the fusion reaction will stop once containment is lost because the requirements to artificially cause a fusion reaction will be lost, and the plasm will cool very quickly. They also need to be powered constantly when active or the requirement to cause a fusion reaction will be lost.

An anti-matter reactor will be a problem if containment because you are dealing with anti-matter.

[Who is like God arbour]

A fusion reactor will not explode like an anti-matter reactor because the fusion reaction will stop once containment is lost because the requirements to artificially cause a fusion reaction will be lost, and the plasm will cool very quickly. They also need to be powered constantly when active or the requirement to cause a fusion reaction will be lost.

It is correct that a fusion reactor has no chain reaction that can get out of control like in a fission reactor.

But a fusion reactor is under great pressure. The more powerful a fusion reactor is, the greater the pressure in it is. And if the containment fails, this pressure does not vanish miraculously. A fusion reactor that releases "millions of times the power of a typical main-sequence star" would behave like a huge bomb when containment fails suddenly.

That even more if the magnetic approach is used. Then strong fields are developed in coils that are held in place mechanically by the reactor structure. Failure of this structure could release this tension and allow the magnet to "explode" outward. [O]

Insofar, a fusion reactor can indeed explode like a bomb.