Another nerf for SW firepower...

For polite and reasoned discussion of Star Wars and/or Star Trek.
User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Another nerf for SW firepower...

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:10 pm

2046 wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:1. You're missing the point.


No, you claimed kiloton yield, and now you don't. You may wish to continue arguing about other things for whatever reason, but that's your own affair.
The part of your post I replied to made no mention of kiloton yields and only mentionned "impressive effects".
Please decide if you want to talk about the yield of the proton cannon or the "impressive effects" of different types of chemical weapons I have compared.

Also, as a reminder, I had revised my numbers on page 3 after analyzing footage of better quality from various videos :
Me wrote: To conclude, the fireball from the TCWS I had measured, the one that illuminated the cruiser's hull, turned out to be 100 meters wide on average. Meaning that in both cases, regardless of the weapon type, it would make all the estimated yields thus far superior to what a proton-based shot is actually capable of.
That is, either it's below 1 KT and perhaps in the low-four to three digits gigajoule nuclear range, or it's even inferior to a GBU's worth of explosive chemical energy.
This was actually presented as evidence against your claim that explosions should be similar, joule for joule, regardless of the weapon's design. I have simply demonstrated that this is utterly false with a simple comparison of various weapons across the entire length of that thread.


You appear to be arguing against your own strawman. As I said early on, "one mustn't confound the flame of combustion from a detonation or deflagration and an actual nuclear fireball of superheated air. A fuel-air explosive, for instance, could easily create a vast flame, but applying nuclear fireball calculations to it will lead one far, far astray."
Obviously, but what makes you think I confounded both? It's particularly interesting that you'd go back through the thread to find a sentence from you that you don't even apply at all. In the end, the methodology remains very simple. We've got a given fireball with specific dimensions measured on screen, and then we argue over whether this weapon was chemical or nuclear in design.
My point, again, being that claiming an explosive chemical design for the projectile fired by a CIS' proton cannon is far fetched if not plain out wrong, at least when compared to the weapon it was compared to at the beginning of this thread. The projectile would be considerably bigger and massive. The GBU-43M cannot be shrunk and the explosion we saw on camera was largely pancaked as it exploded against the flank of a mountain.
What you are apparently trying to argue against is the fact that identical proverbial point sources of extreme temperature and pressure will expand the same way regardless of origin, which is true. That is not the same as claiming a joule's worth of combusting gasoline and a joule's worth of TNT and a joule's worth of nuke will behave the same.
Your abstraction was in direct reply to my statement that you overlooked how the GBU worked.
Talking about joules or megajoules being deposited into an atmosphere regardless of the weapon's design (the generation and/or delivery method) is useless because you have to pay attention to how this was done and what the energy actually energized, yet you tried to elaborate some completely abstract situation with your example of Explosions A and B and refering to joules only, denying the importance of the weapon's behaviour. Of course a joule is a joule, like an atom of iron is an atom of iron, but that's grossly divorced from the discussion we're having since we're comparing different weapon designs and behaviours.
So I'm not seeing where you're trying to go with that.

Therefore, it's probably simpler to ask you if you think, or perhaps have some kind of evidence from the episode, that the proton cannons are firing some rather solid, big and dense projectiles similar to a GBU-43. Do you?
(we will leave concerns such as recoil and muzzle air blast out for the moment)
And yet to even make the obvious argument all you are doing is trying to compare different elements of explosions, confounding and mis-scaling them as you've done through the thread (which is why I haven't bothered looking at your examples from this page).
This is just silly beyond words! You're judging my position and claiming that I confouded and misscaled several cases of explosions and their elements (plural) without even looking at the material I provided, most of which on this very page (I made a mistake on only one case, much much earlier on, because of an incorrect size attribution regarding the bullseye area of the first shot(s) of the Tumbler-Snapper series).

For the part that concerns us, I have focused on fireball growth and dimensions of different explosions. But then perhaps you won't care at all until you actually remove yourself from this abstract case you clinch to, wherein you purely compare a joule to another joule, which is absolutely useless to the extreme.
So, you're not even accomplishing your goal against a strawman of your own design.

In any case, since your initial claims . . . kiloton yields for the proton cannon and that it must be a nuclear weapon . . . are dead on arrival, I consider the matter closed. But please, continue your noise-making.
So you're just claiming that this weapon couldn't be nuclear in design... just because. How clever. I claim it's a possibility that shouldn't be handwaved, but you, you have simply relentlessly argued any position BUT the nuclear one. There is a stringent lack of objective scientific methodology on your side.
Your only vacuous counter was if I could "see anything characteristic of fusion", anything "remotely fusion-y" to this weapon such as "yield, radiation, et cetera."
I can't even insist enough on how broken this demand is, for the yield is a point I largely detailed (and then again I don't see how any energetic release could argue against fusion since it's just a matter of quantity of reactants), and the radiation is not something you could observe on screen (duh²).
"Et cetera" obviously doesn't count, in case you didn't notice.
So you talk about noise but all I can hear here is you click-reviving this thread, supposedly (I assume) to present a cogent point that is yet to come.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Another nerf for SW firepower...

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat Sep 23, 2017 1:13 am

That's it. No more. The thread is locked.

Post Reply