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 » Wed May 31, 2017 1:16 pm

2046 wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote: You miss the point. They're rather specific references. I said they could refer to several things about the weapon (or a piece of technology generally).


Well, make up your mind. Is it specific or referring to several possibilities generally?
A false dilemma, for sure. Where did I say that a specific use of a term, a reference say to a physical principle for example, meant only one interpretation was possible?
The thing is, the more specific the term, the narrower the field of plausibilities (unless we spot a major contradiction). That's quite obvious. How can I state that in any clearer way?

Need I remind you that you sided with Mike on the idea that it had a chemical yield, based on a particularly heavy and large chemical explosive weapon?
Cut that out. Your statement is false and an attempt to strawman. I called MOAB "a much closer match in scale and appearance" to the SW shot, which is not claiming anything at all about the bomb's technology.
So you do miss the implication of your position too. When it came to agree on a yield, you agreed with the idea of likening the fictional weapon's effects to that of a real world one, a MOAB. Effects which are what they are precisely because of the design, size and specific reaction of that bomb. In other words, a strong likeliness in observable effects with a naked eye were used to speculate on the fictional weapon's yield.
In similar words to what I already said, if you want to argue that SW uses physics-bending super duper chemicals, OK, but that means the reaction is going to be more and more energetic the better it gets and, soon enough, you'll find yourself looking at a weapon with near nuclear-like yields, yet resulting in cloud sizes and other visual effects that are not too dissimilar to what we see in the episode.
However, in the context of present-day chemical versus nuclear *yields*? Sure I would agree. What possible attack vector do you think that represents?
Agree on what exactly? Please be more specific.
Let's pick the fusion furnace example. It is quite metaphorical as a description of a fusion-based power plant


No, it is a heater and power source. There is no metaphor there. Stop trying to obfuscate.
It is metaphorical on its own terms. Furnace is certainly not a term traditionally used to point to a power plant, and fusion completely fits with the notion of melting elements.
Fortunately, the reference to this device was ensconsed within a greater piece of text that provided a context, providing elements that allowed us to understand that it meant "fusion based power plant".
So why when on one side, when fusion is used in the context of heating and power plants, you gleefully agree that it refers to a physical principle, the nuclear fusion reaction of light elements, but when proton is used in the clear context of a military weapon and high-tech explosive projectiles, you beat around the brush just to avoid admiting it could very well hint at a nuclear weapon too but should strangely rely on a lower power kind of reaction that releases plasma (because that would surely make a very efficient weapon)?
This was a double standard.
All the handed with a totally empty claim such as "there's nothing else remotely fusion-y to the weapons insofar as yield, radiation, et cetera."
Good luck measuring radiation on screen! (rolleyes)
Note also that just as you contradict yourself with photon torpedoes versus proton torpedoes, now you once again contradict yourself by getting cranky about fusion furnaces. Literally, you are taking three different approaches.

Photon torpedo - a generic output common to everything warm is the source of the name
Proton torpedo - must mean hydrogen fusion
Fusion furnace - a leap to suggest fusion rather than melting
Do you make it a personnal goal to miss the point entirely and infusing strawmen in the process or something?
I already covered all of that.
I presume your concern for the latter is based in part on the fact that "fusion (tech)" is a common modifier, undercutting your claim that "proton (tech)" is exactly the same thing.
Try looking for fusion tooling or fusion torch and tell me what you'll find in terms of nuclear devices.
Oh, maybe you meant in the context of Star Wars? Well, in that context, looks like proton is a modifier too. In fact, on screen, it's quite possible that the term proton may have been used more often than fusion!
Antimatter warheads have other unique outputs that would be more reasonable at that point.
Why is annihilation reactions generating photons not "reasonable"?


In the context of nomenclature, a thrown flashlight is a photon torpedo by your measure.
Fail, unless a flashlight has been formerly classified as a weapon by serious sources. I'm trying to find why scientists in the UFP would have so strictly focused on the use of the term photon. And one idea being that it was agreed to provide a more serious sounding yet somehow technically accurate name to a weapon which all observers started to nickname in different amusing ways because it glowed in night (glowtorp, starshot, firestick or worse, etc.).
Not to say that if this reasoning looks problematic to you, you'd actually agree then that photon must refer to something more scientific than the mere idea of the weapon seemingly being about casting light beyond its shell as some kind of after affect or part of its weird design.
If we're sticking with output instead of explosive tech (thus precluding "antimatter torpedo"), tossing out more unique products like pions makes more sense.
Could, could have not. Depends in this specific situation on what was agreed on by the people responsible of giving this weapon a name.
It does not change a fact that photon torpedo is a case that is typically that of a problem, an exception to the rule that most weapons turn out to be aptly named.
And in any case, if photon suddenly refers to output here, why treat protons any differently?
For all we know the proton weapons just puff hot plasma.
1. Because I covered that several times already.


When?
In my posts, where I make it clear that the reasons why photon was selected as part of the descriptor for the Star Trek weapon, in-universe, is a strange case.
On the other hand, proton does not invite us to that kind of acrobatics at all.
All I have seen is you claiming it must and can only be nuclear fusion, and this post in which you say plasma would have to be carried along. Give (or quote) a defense against the notion that the weapon generates and/or unleashes ionized, probably-hot hydrogen gas.
A weapon that would unleash H+ in an efficient, especially energy-efficient way, would be akin to a star. A civilization capable of building Death Stars and transportable fusion power plants would see that as trivial.

How do you expect your plasma to be procuded otherwise? With a system similar to a plasma torch that is actually very fragile and extremely ravenous on energetic requirements before you even begin to produce thermal plasma, to the point where using TNT would be easier and better?
Indeed, given the known existence and behavior of ion weapons in Star Wars, the proton weapons as ionized hydrogen makes the most sense given the shield penetrations at Ryloth. The attempt to wank the weapons into fusion warheads may have thus just resulted in a better understanding of them that's completely opposed to the wanking.
We don't observe the usual field of electric arcs which, amusingly enough, is evidenced in the same episode with the use of anti-robot grenades.
So, an ad hominem after all


You begged for explanation; I told you to leave it be.
Free tip: refrain from throwing gratuitous acccusations like that next time.
The ships were lower than WW2 high-altitude bomber runs, so I can think of no good reason why you're planting a standard there.
The nuclear tests I used as references are all hundreds, perhaps sometimes thousands of feet above ground at most.
A far cry from the altitude those Republican cruisers were hovering at.
Oh god, now you're going to keep arguing that the transports were high up? Seriously?
One thing before dealing with the last point. Your reference to WW2 high-altitude bomber runs reveals one more error from you: The WW2 bombers were not attacked by heavy ordnance fired from the ground. Nor did the bombs they use destroy their targets by mid-air airbursts.

Now, I have to ask. Have you actually watched the relevant part of the CW episode recently? Because it's quite obvious that the cruisers were more than a few hundred feet above ground. If anything, simply consider their wingspan and project that length downwards from any of those cruisers' belly.

Besides, funnily enough, another thing you enetirely miss is that aside from your accusation of wankery on my part, the point I was making was leading to lower figures.
High altitude means lower density of air. Therefore less resistance for fireball expansion and also heating by photons, which can go further through the air medium before being completely absorbed.
Which means that for the same yield, a fireball could be larger at a higher altitude.
Or, for the same fireball size but at a higher altitude, a weapon's yield would be of a smaller yield.
So estimating a yield from a 100 meters wide nuclear fireball at 300 meters above ground could be greater than the figure obtained by looking at a fireball of the same size but at a higher altitude.
Now, that being said, even if it sounds logical, I simply don't know by what factor this could change the yield. It could be minimal or starting to get a little bit significant.

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 » Wed May 31, 2017 1:20 pm

2046 wrote:Got directed to an old thread on Spacebattles and came across a similar discussion, and thought I'd share this part by Ralson that touches on the discussion:

"Wong's calculator says a 1 mt nuke has a fireball duration of 4.5 seconds. In real life, such a weapon's mushroom cloud takes about one minute to stop glowing in the visible spectrum. (source: http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects8.shtml )"

After a full minute you're talking about the mushroom cloud, not the initial fireball.

You'll also note that Wong's 4.5 second fireball extends out to a maximum of 1.4 kilometers diameter for a ground-contact airburst, the highest value compared to "minimum", presumably surface-burst (860m diameter) or airburst (1060 meters). The ten second fireball (not specified as to detonation altitude) at Ralson's link is 5700 feet, which should be something like 1.8 kilometers. To get that figure in an airburst on Wong's calculator would require 3.5-4.0 megatons (YMMV).

So if you are trying to get yield from measurement of burst, it is important to know where you are in the process, assuming the method can work reliably at all as more than a ballpark estimate the way we laymen might do it.
Wong's calculator certainly has its problems (including the probability that the formula he used corresponds to a time when the fireball is yet to reach its final size, regardless of where it is generated in regards to the ground), but it's not alone and that would probably warrant a thread of its own. I noticed way too many discrepancies between effects of the early 50s tests in comparison to the calculators used one and two decades later.
If I find time for that, I'll get into it in greater details.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Another nerf for SW firepower...

Post by 2046 » Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:38 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
2046 wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote: You miss the point. They're rather specific references. I said they could refer to several things about the weapon (or a piece of technology generally).


Well, make up your mind. Is it specific or referring to several possibilities generally?
A false dilemma, for sure. Where did I say that a specific use of a term, a reference say to a physical principle for example, meant only one interpretation was possible?


"Proton = fusion" is the shining example, of course. I note your 'when did I say that was the only possibility?' rhetorical evasion, but also note the claim that we cannot 'dismiss' the term as being anything but your assumption.

By the way, "false dilemma" is bullshit. You claim specific = several, which is nonsense.
So you do miss the implication of your position too. When it came to agree on a yield, you agreed with the idea of likening the fictional weapon's effects to that of a real world one, a MOAB. Effects which are what they are precisely because of the design, size and specific reaction of that bomb.


A specific yield does not require a specific reaction. Your attempt to insert a specific reaction into my statement is bullshit.
This was a double standard.


No, the double standard is when you continue to defend your obfuscation while also admitting that the context makes it obviously false, at which point you inexplicably prosecute your attack as if I, not you, have done something improper.
All the handed with a totally empty claim such as "there's nothing else remotely fusion-y to the weapons insofar as yield, radiation, et cetera."
Good luck measuring radiation on screen! (rolleyes)


Cute evasion, but the point remains. Do you see anything characteristic of fusion?

Note also that just as you contradict yourself with photon torpedoes versus proton torpedoes, now you once again contradict yourself by getting cranky about fusion furnaces. Literally, you are taking three different approaches.

Photon torpedo - a generic output common to everything warm is the source of the name
Proton torpedo - must mean hydrogen fusion
Fusion furnace - a leap to suggest fusion rather than melting
Do you make it a personnal goal to miss the point entirely and infusing strawmen in the process or something?
I already covered all of that.


That's it? That's your whole response?
I presume your concern for the latter is based in part on the fact that "fusion (tech)" is a common modifier, undercutting your claim that "proton (tech)" is exactly the same thing.
Try looking for fusion tooling or fusion torch and tell me what you'll find in terms of nuclear devices.


Fusion torches aren't nuclear? I thought that was the whole point of the drive system.
Oh, maybe you meant in the context of Star Wars? Well, in that context, looks like proton is a modifier too. In fact, on screen, it's quite possible that the term proton may have been used more often than fusion!


So it means fusion because the term is used a lot in Star Wars? I guess "I have a bad feeling about this" means "they're shooting fusion torpedoes at us!"

Why is annihilation reactions generating photons not "reasonable"?


In the context of nomenclature, a thrown flashlight is a photon torpedo by your measure.
Fail, unless a flashlight has been formerly classified as a weapon by serious sources.


Evasion.
I'm trying to find why scientists in the UFP would have so strictly focused on the use of the term photon. And one idea being that it was agreed to provide a more serious sounding yet somehow technically accurate name to a weapon which all observers started to nickname in different amusing ways because it glowed in night (glowtorp, starshot, firestick or worse, etc.).


Declaration of stupidity of Trek folk.
If we're sticking with output instead of explosive tech (thus precluding "antimatter torpedo"), tossing out more unique products like pions makes more sense.
Could, could have not. Depends in this specific situation on what was agreed on by the people responsible of giving this weapon a name.


Evasion.
It does not change a fact that photon torpedo is a case that is typically that of a problem, an exception to the rule that most weapons turn out to be aptly named.


Alternate evasion.

Seriously, I give an example that breaks your argument (alongside the fact that the claim you make is completely dissimilar to what we see on-screen) and all the sudden it's Dance Party USA in here.
I make it clear that the reasons why photon was selected as part of the descriptor for the Star Trek weapon, in-universe, is a strange case.
On the other hand, proton does not invite us to that kind of acrobatics at all.


Oh FFS, just look at that bullshit.

Based on your own imagination, you claim "photon" is an odd wacky outlier while "proton" can only mean one thing because for some reason it is gravely serious.
All I have seen is you claiming it must and can only be nuclear fusion, and this post in which you say plasma would have to be carried along. Give (or quote) a defense against the notion that the weapon generates and/or unleashes ionized, probably-hot hydrogen gas.
A weapon that would unleash H+ in an efficient, especially energy-efficient way, would be akin to a star. A civilization capable of building Death Stars and transportable fusion power plants would see that as trivial.


Devastating rebuttal. Oh, wait…
Indeed, given the known existence and behavior of ion weapons in Star Wars, the proton weapons as ionized hydrogen makes the most sense given the shield penetrations at Ryloth. The attempt to wank the weapons into fusion warheads may have thus just resulted in a better understanding of them that's completely opposed to the wanking.
We don't observe the usual field of electric arcs which, amusingly enough, is evidenced in the same episode with the use of anti-robot grenades.


1. I wasn't aware those were ion grenades.
2. The Rebel ion cannon didn't produce a "field of electric arcs".

Regarding your odd effort to claim the transports (not cruisers) were at high altitude:
more error from you: The WW2 bombers were not attacked by heavy ordnance fired from the ground. {…} it's quite obvious that the cruisers were more than a few hundred feet above ground.
"A few hundred feet" isn't relevant to your argument that Republic transports were at WW2 high-altitude bombing run heights. You need 25,000 or so. That's barely within the effective range of German flak cannons like the 88 (32k max), but also in the upper ordered flight level range of Allied bombers.

Put very simply, we see the transports from ground level, and they aren't high enough to make a tremendous impact in smoke puff radius. I'm not even sure they'd technically need to be pressurized at the altitude they were holding.
Besides, funnily enough, another thing you enetirely miss is {…} the point I was making was leading to lower figures.


I don't condone error, 'beneficial' or otherwise.

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 » Thu Jun 08, 2017 5:09 pm

2046 wrote: "Proton = fusion" is the shining example, of course. I note your 'when did I say that was the only possibility?' rhetorical evasion, but also note the claim that we cannot 'dismiss' the term as being anything but your assumption.
Be specific please.
By the way, "false dilemma" is bullshit. You claim specific = several, which is nonsense.
It's not. A specific term can open the door to a few but more than one specific meanings.
So you do miss the implication of your position too. When it came to agree on a yield, you agreed with the idea of likening the fictional weapon's effects to that of a real world one, a MOAB. Effects which are what they are precisely because of the design, size and specific reaction of that bomb.


A specific yield does not require a specific reaction. Your attempt to insert a specific reaction into my statement is bullshit.
You agreed on the yield because of what the explosion looked like in relation to a given chemical weapon.
You change the weapon type (and the reaction it relies on to generate energy) and you'd get a different yield, even if the final fireball could be of same size.
Have you, by chance, actually attempted to measure the size of the fireballs created by the MOAB from videos? You would be quite surprised and would perhaps better understand my point.
This was a double standard.


No, the double standard is when you continue to defend your obfuscation while also admitting that the context makes it obviously false, at which point you inexplicably prosecute your attack as if I, not you, have done something improper.
Sure thing, Perry Mason. That's just your fancy way of casting smokescreens, but nowhere proving me wrong.
All the handed with a totally empty claim such as "there's nothing else remotely fusion-y to the weapons insofar as yield, radiation, et cetera."
Good luck measuring radiation on screen! (rolleyes)


Cute evasion, but the point remains. Do you see anything characteristic of fusion?
o_O'
Wait. Just a sec.
I need to pause.
*breathes*
Okay. Trying not to laugh.
Let's see.

Are you exactly asking me to tell if a fireball looks fusionish or not, onscreen? That, from a freaking CGI show?

What a defense...
This is bombing really quickly.
Note also that just as you contradict yourself with photon torpedoes versus proton torpedoes, now you once again contradict yourself by getting cranky about fusion furnaces. Literally, you are taking three different approaches.

Photon torpedo - a generic output common to everything warm is the source of the name
Proton torpedo - must mean hydrogen fusion
Fusion furnace - a leap to suggest fusion rather than melting
Do you make it a personnal goal to miss the point entirely and infusing strawmen in the process or something?
I already covered all of that.


That's it? That's your whole response?
My "whole response" can actually be found several posts earlier, which will incidentally provide all the context you need too.
I presume your concern for the latter is based in part on the fact that "fusion (tech)" is a common modifier, undercutting your claim that "proton (tech)" is exactly the same thing.
Try looking for fusion tooling or fusion torch and tell me what you'll find in terms of nuclear devices.


Fusion torches aren't nuclear? I thought that was the whole point of the drive system.
. . .
I don't even know if I even remotely need to answer that question.
I mean, I was just telling you that the term fusion, used as a common modifier alongside another word (it has to modify something, right), wouldn't necessarily (and actually) refer to the nuclear reaction, as a response to your incorrect method.
Oh, maybe you meant in the context of Star Wars? Well, in that context, looks like proton is a modifier too. In fact, on screen, it's quite possible that the term proton may have been used more often than fusion!


So it means fusion because the term is used a lot in Star Wars? I guess "I have a bad feeling about this" means "they're shooting fusion torpedoes at us!"
More like musing about the so-called commonality of that "fusion" modifier in SW, in fact.
In the context of nomenclature, a thrown flashlight is a photon torpedo by your measure.
Fail, unless a flashlight has been formerly classified as a weapon by serious sources.


Evasion.
Has a flashlight been formerly classified as a weapon by serious sources?
No. I rest my case.
OTOH, we're talking about a proton cannon that is shown being used as a weapon, aren't we?
I'm trying to find why scientists in the UFP would have so strictly focused on the use of the term photon. And one idea being that it was agreed to provide a more serious sounding yet somehow technically accurate name to a weapon which all observers started to nickname in different amusing ways because it glowed in night (glowtorp, starshot, firestick or worse, etc.).


Declaration of stupidity of Trek folk.
How? As a point of comparison, does "droid popper" sound serious to you? Would that be an official, technical name for the weapon, its classification and weapon manuals?
If we're sticking with output instead of explosive tech (thus precluding "antimatter torpedo"), tossing out more unique products like pions makes more sense.
Could, could have not. Depends in this specific situation on what was agreed on by the people responsible of giving this weapon a name.


Evasion.
It really does depend on what was agreed on by the people responsible of giving this weapon a name.
Also, how come am I the one evading when you've only been sniping thus far and didn't contribute in the slightest to reaching a perhaps convincing reason behind the photon torpedo's name?
It does not change a fact that photon torpedo is a case that is typically that of a problem, an exception to the rule that most weapons turn out to be aptly named.


Alternate evasion.
How?
Seriously, I give an example that breaks your argument (alongside the fact that the claim you make is completely dissimilar to what we see on-screen) and all the sudden it's Dance Party USA in here.
You have one example that poses a problem, to which I already said that most weapons tend to be aptly named.
Or do we need to go through the exhaustive list of all modern weapons and see how many times their names actually fit with the weapon's mechanism or purpose?
I make it clear that the reasons why photon was selected as part of the descriptor for the Star Trek weapon, in-universe, is a strange case.
On the other hand, proton does not invite us to that kind of acrobatics at all.


Oh FFS, just look at that bullshit.

Based on your own imagination, you claim "photon" is an odd wacky outlier...
You have not proved it to be a recurring template though. You're the one using it as an example that photon wouldn't refer to anything substantial about the weapon's mechanism, behaviour or purpose.
... while "proton" can only mean one thing because for some reason it is gravely serious.
No, just because proton is a specific reference and that unless you're finding a reason to reject the very few mechanisms it evokes, I see no reason to pretend it's a term tacked to the weapon just for the fun of it.
All I have seen is you claiming it must and can only be nuclear fusion, and this post in which you say plasma would have to be carried along. Give (or quote) a defense against the notion that the weapon generates and/or unleashes ionized, probably-hot hydrogen gas.
A weapon that would unleash H+ in an efficient, especially energy-efficient way, would be akin to a star. A civilization capable of building Death Stars and transportable fusion power plants would see that as trivial.


Devastating rebuttal. Oh, wait…
Who is the one claiming it has to be a kind of low power plasma, like a ionized hydrogen, somehow relevant if one wanted to use it as an efficient war-level weapon?
Not me, for sure.

Which brings me to this question: Could you present a convincing case of a plasma not originating from a nuclear-reaction that could fit with the attributes of the proton cannon?
Indeed, given the known existence and behavior of ion weapons in Star Wars, the proton weapons as ionized hydrogen makes the most sense given the shield penetrations at Ryloth. The attempt to wank the weapons into fusion warheads may have thus just resulted in a better understanding of them that's completely opposed to the wanking.
We don't observe the usual field of electric arcs which, amusingly enough, is evidenced in the same episode with the use of anti-robot grenades.


1. I wasn't aware those were ion grenades.
2. The Rebel ion cannon didn't produce a "field of electric arcs".
1. Fair point. They're not technically named that way, enjoying a colloquial term such as "droid popper", which is described as an Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP) grenade on the official databank. It disables droids standing close to it when it detonates (they don't blow things to bits). What we observe is that it generates electric arcs. This is plasma. Here's how Wikipedia describes plasma: "It can simply be considered as a gaseous mixture of negatively charged electrons and highly charged positive ions, being created by heating a gas or by subjecting gas to a strong electromagnetic field." Not exactly a ion grenade per se I guess...
2. I didn't talk about that weapon in particular, although that's an interesting point. Its projectiles did produce plenty of flashes of light all across the ISD though. Let's also note that ion torpedoes did produce similar patches of bright light AND electric arcs in Rogue One. They produced little damage to the hull but much more damage to the internal systems.
Regarding your odd effort to claim the transports (not cruisers) were at high altitude:
more error from you: The WW2 bombers were not attacked by heavy ordnance fired from the ground. {…} it's quite obvious that the cruisers were more than a few hundred feet above ground.
"A few hundred feet" isn't relevant to your argument that Republic transports were at WW2 high-altitude bombing run heights.
My "argument" didn't make mention of WWII bombers...
You need 25,000 or so. That's barely within the effective range of German flak cannons like the 88 (32k max), but also in the upper ordered flight level range of Allied bombers.
I didn't say they were that high either.
Put very simply, we see the transports from ground level, and they aren't high enough to make a tremendous impact in smoke puff radius. I'm not even sure they'd technically need to be pressurized at the altitude they were holding.
All fine and dandy but what does it have to do with my point. I don't have to go through any kind of "effort" here. Just watch the video and remember that I'm only pointing out that for the same fireball radius, the higher the explosion, the lower the yield.
That's just a scientific note.
Besides, funnily enough, another thing you enetirely miss is {…} the point I was making was leading to lower figures.


I don't condone error, 'beneficial' or otherwise.
LOL! Aren't you tired of your Lordish posturing? :D
Sorry pal, but the one being in error is you here.
I'm saying the ships hovered at an altitude well superior to that of the nuclear tests I used for reference, which happened quite close to the ground for air bursts.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Another nerf for SW firepower...

Post by 2046 » Thu Jun 08, 2017 6:49 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
2046 wrote: "Proton = fusion" is the shining example, of course. I note your 'when did I say that was the only possibility?' rhetorical evasion, but also note the claim that we cannot 'dismiss' the term as being anything but your assumption.
Be specific please.
You repeat the argument in this very post!

"No, just because proton is a specific reference and that unless you're finding a reason to reject the very few mechanisms it evokes, I see no reason to pretend it's a term tacked to the weapon just for the fun of it."
By the way, "false dilemma" is bullshit. You claim specific = several, which is nonsense.
It's not. A specific term can open the door to a few but more than one specific meanings.
A few, but more than one? That clears it up.
A specific yield does not require a specific reaction. Your attempt to insert a specific reaction into my statement is bullshit.
You agreed on the yield because of what the explosion looked like in relation to a given chemical weapon.
You change the weapon type (and the reaction it relies on to generate energy) and you'd get a different yield, even if the final fireball could be of same size.
What the hell are you talking about? I'm not talking about the products of a reaction, I'm talking about the yield. A one megajoule explosion is a one megajoule explosion. A one megawatt explosion is a one megawatt explosion.

At best, you could try now to claim that you referred to either reaction products (chemical detonation byproducts versus nuclear fallout) or that you really meant that a kiloton nuclear explosion might have a different power output than a kiloton chemical explosion, but I think we both know you'd be full of it and that you actually meant something completely nonsensical.
This was a double standard.


No, the double standard is when you continue to defend your obfuscation while also admitting that the context makes it obviously false, at which point you inexplicably prosecute your attack as if I, not you, have done something improper.
Sure thing, Perry Mason. That's just your fancy way of casting smokescreens, but nowhere proving me wrong.
Uhh, you already agreed that you were wrong. But, you kept insulting me about it. What the hell?
Are you exactly asking me to tell if a fireball looks fusionish or not, onscreen? That, from a freaking CGI show?
I'm old enough to remember a whole page ago when you thought you could prove it was fusion via on-screen details.

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 8&start=33

Now, proving the weapon is fusion based on on-screen details is something you find laugh-worthy and try to deride as foolishness.

Please pick a single position and stick with it.
Try looking for fusion tooling or fusion torch and tell me what you'll find in terms of nuclear devices.


Fusion torches aren't nuclear? I thought that was the whole point of the drive system.
. . .
I don't even know if I even remotely need to answer that question.
Concession accepted, then. Now, please find "proton" as a modifier where it must mean nuclear devices, e.g. "proton engine", "proton beam", et cetera.
I mean, I was just telling you that the term fusion, used as a common modifier alongside another word (it has to modify something, right), wouldn't necessarily (and actually) refer to the nuclear reaction, as a response to your incorrect method.
That's not my incorrect method. You're the one claiming "proton" is a modifier that must and can only mean "fusion" in Star Wars, and whereas in Star Wars we actually get "fusion" as a modifier meaning (gasp) "fusion", you then attempted to toss out real modern examples like it mattered, and you still failed.

Anyone can call anything whatever they want, in the real world, but if you're the one trying to make an argument that "proton" can only mean "fusion", it's death to your claim when "fusion" is actually used to mean "fusion" in the same universe.
In the context of nomenclature, a thrown flashlight is a photon torpedo by your measure.
Fail, unless a flashlight has been formerly classified as a weapon by serious sources.


Evasion.
Has a flashlight been formerly classified as a weapon by serious sources?
No. I rest my case.[/quote]

No, you lie by trying to twist and contort your way out of acknowledging the defeat of your BS. You claimed a photon torpedo is named with the modifier "photon" because it unleashes photons, and I am pointing out the stupidity of your claim. This is being done in the larger context of how you contradict yourself with photon, proton, and fusion as modifiers, as with how proton torpedoes are supposedly nuclear, to you, because "proton". But, by your own standards regarding photon torpedoes, proton torpedoes need only unleash protons . . . yet you just deny this without the slightest valid reason other than to whine and obfuscate and make up stories where crack-smoking Starfleet nerds just decided to make up a funny term.

Your inability to understand what I've done to your argument or your unwillingness to admit it are not my problem.
As a point of comparison, does "droid popper" sound serious to you?
Irrelevant. You're claiming "photon torpedo" is a nonsense term but "proton torpedo" is not.
Also, how come am I the one evading when you've only been sniping thus far and didn't contribute in the slightest to reaching a perhaps convincing reason behind the photon torpedo's name?
It's the nature of your argument. You're the one who must prove that "proton" = "fusion". By pointing out that photon torpedoes break this super-serious nomenclature scheme you think exists (or "thought", since you now wanna bring up "droid popper" as if it is a real name), and by pointing out your astonishing waffling when it comes to nomenclature criteria, I am running your positive claim through the ringer.

I have not been foolish enough to make an unsubstantiated and irrational positive claim in the fashion you have. That's why it is soooooo unfair and your safe space beckons.
Who is the one claiming it has to be a kind of low power plasma, like a ionized hydrogen, somehow relevant if one wanted to use it as an efficient war-level weapon?
Not me, for sure.
Last I checked, it seemed like Star Wars includes the concept of ionized particles as a weapon.
Which brings me to this question: Could you present a convincing case of a plasma not originating from a nuclear-reaction that could fit with the attributes of the proton cannon?
I don't have to convince you. Ion cannons and the radioactive fog of blaster bolts and such are all I need point to. I don't have to fricking build one to show you how it works any more than I had to spell out every step and part involved in the firing of the superlaser to point out what it did. The fact that charged particles are already weapons in Star Wars is more than sufficient evidence to serve as a counterpoint to your OMG IT MUST BE FUSION nonsense.
We don't observe the usual field of electric arcs which, amusingly enough, is evidenced in the same episode with the use of anti-robot grenades.


1. I wasn't aware those were ion grenades.
2. The Rebel ion cannon didn't produce a "field of electric arcs".
1. Fair point.
Since you acknowledge the error in your "electric arc" rebuttal to the concept of ion weapons in Star Wars being of explanatory power regarding proton cannons, then why do you not change positions? I said:

"Indeed, given the known existence and behavior of ion weapons in Star Wars, the proton weapons as ionized hydrogen makes the most sense given the shield penetrations at Ryloth. The attempt to wank the weapons into fusion warheads may have thus just resulted in a better understanding of them that's completely opposed to the wanking."

Do you have a response other than arcing?
All fine and dandy but what does it have to do with my point. I don't have to go through any kind of "effort" here. Just watch the video and remember that I'm only pointing out that for the same fireball radius, the higher the explosion, the lower the yield.
That's not what you attempted to defend before regarding high altitudes, but your backpedal here is acceptable.
LOL! Aren't you tired of your Lordish posturing? :D
1. All I said is that I don't condone error, and you get all offended.

2. I'm nothing remotely special and on the low end of the participants here, but I do get great amusement when you act like you're the best mind in the universe and everyone else is stupid then deride me as arrogant. The fact is, little man, compared to one as low in character and honesty as you, most of the folks here are effing deities, and you should respect your betters.

The difference between them and me is that you've been more insulting to me lately, so I'm less likely to restrain myself from pointing out how low you're going. If you don't want to be looked down upon, then stop trying to out-slime the scum at the bottom of the pond.
I'm saying the ships hovered at an altitude well superior to that of the nuclear tests I used for reference, which happened quite close to the ground for air bursts.
Since you'll simply shift positions again if I poke at this with a stick, I'll leave it be.

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 Jun 09, 2017 6:31 pm

2046 wrote: You repeat the argument in this very post!

"No, just because proton is a specific reference and that unless you're finding a reason to reject the very few mechanisms it evokes, I see no reason to pretend it's a term tacked to the weapon just for the fun of it."
Then obviously we're not on the same frequency. Perhaps if you explained what I try to evade instead of being vague and thinking that counts as a point, I could eventually provide a clarification.

You agreed on the yield because of what the explosion looked like in relation to a given chemical weapon.
You change the weapon type (and the reaction it relies on to generate energy) and you'd get a different yield, even if the final fireball could be of same size.
What the hell are you talking about? I'm not talking about the products of a reaction, I'm talking about the yield. A one megajoule explosion is a one megajoule explosion. A one megawatt explosion is a one megawatt explosion.

At best, you could try now to claim that you referred to either reaction products (chemical detonation byproducts versus nuclear fallout) or that you really meant that a kiloton nuclear explosion might have a different power output than a kiloton chemical explosion, but I think we both know you'd be full of it and that you actually meant something completely nonsensical.
You agreed on a given yield for the proton cannon based on the visible effects of the GBU weapon (as a ground burst if only that). This weapon is chemical and has a specific behaviour.
Compare with a low-yield nuclear detonation at ground level.
The yields are much different, yet the fireball are of similar size.
For a 1 KT nuke, the nuclear weapon effect calculator provides a figure of .045 miles radius for the fireball. It's an average figure.
The website reveals the way to obtain the proper figures:
Maximum Fireball Radius and Minimum Height of Burst for Negligible Early Fallout (Ch. II)

The maximum fireball radius presented on the computer is an average between that for air and surface bursts. Thus, the fireball radius for a surface burst is 13 percent larger than that indicated and for an air burst, 13 percent smaller.
So for the surface burst radius, we need to multiply by 1.13. This also means that the surface fireball has a radius 1.2769 times greater than the airburst's.
So the ground-contact fireball, pancaked, has a radius of 0.05085 miles, 81.835 meters.

I'd first point out something that I need to let out because it could be misleading. That MOAB did not behave like a thermobaric weapon would, such as the Russian FOAB, since the later is an air-burst device that casts a covering layer of particles above its target, then the cloud in question gets ignited at a secondary stage (and both stages are clearly distinct).
The GBU-43/B appears to be following the steps of the Daisy Cutter and other ground penetrators, so I suppose they're more conventional, but it's said to have a thin hull made of aluminium in order not to interfere the least with the blast effect (source), which puzzles me since this is supposed to be a bunker buster and I thought the idea was to have a very solid and dense head for good ground penetration.

Anyway;
So now, here's the video that would allow us to measure a ground-contact fireball produced by the GBU (said to carry 8 tons of explosive, contrary to the current figure of 11 tons):
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video ... -43b-video
In fullscreen, I measure the bomb's length at around 1 cm. The squished fireball turns out to be roughly 16~17 cm wide.
According to wikipedia, the bomb is 9.1885 meters long.
This makes the fireball about 151.61025 meters wide, thus a radius of 75.8 meters.

Comparing that with the radius obtained from the nuclear calculator, on one side we have a weapon with an explosive payload worth 46 GJ and, and on the other hand, a nuclear weapon with a yield of 4184 GJ, almost a hundred times greater, yet both had fireballs of similar radii.

Are you exactly asking me to tell if a fireball looks fusionish or not, onscreen? That, from a freaking CGI show?
I'm old enough to remember a whole page ago when you thought you could prove it was fusion via on-screen details.

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 8&start=33

Now, proving the weapon is fusion based on on-screen details is something you find laugh-worthy and try to deride as foolishness.

Please pick a single position and stick with it.
Perhaps you're too old. In which case, please reread my post:
Me wrote:If anything, a proton-based projectile from Star Wars ought to be closer to a nuke than a GBU bomb that carries a lot of explosive material and would have to weigh close to ten tons. The proton device will typically have a high energetic output for a lower mass of reacting material. I think that's the point and advantage of using anything proton based actually, relying on a fusion reaction to generate the explosion.
I'm not even declaring the weapon to be nuclear based on visuals, but on the name of the weapon. See?
That is, essentially, the core of my argument since day one.
I'm baffled I actually need to repeat that as if we had not been exchanging points over several pages already. I also made it clear how I wasn't at ease with the visuals in that show.
You should probably stick that somewhere in your brain because I don't intend on repeating myself.

Also, I actually laughed at your absurd request that I should provide sound evidence for intricate details such as radiation.
Your words were: "there's nothing else remotely fusion-y to the weapons insofar as yield, radiation, et cetera."

To which, in fact, you have hardly provided any clarification and I'd really love to know how the hell you have debunked the idea of that yield being nothing remotely fusion-y, just as much as how you plan on measuring radiation on screen (can't wait!), or even knowing what the random "et cetera" stuff is, since you seem to think it adds value to your argument.

Fusion torches aren't nuclear? I thought that was the whole point of the drive system.
. . .
I don't even know if I even remotely need to answer that question.
Concession accepted, then. Now, please find "proton" as a modifier where it must mean nuclear devices, e.g. "proton engine", "proton beam", et cetera.
By observing the behaviour of the weapon, we can actually remove some options of interpretation.
Like, for one, neither a proton engine nor a proton beam would produce explosive projectiles.
Eventually you may argue that the cannon fires a blob of bottled up jam-packed protons of a specific energetic level (a multiple of MeV per proton) but then that would render any comparison with the GBU moot because the devices would be very different in design and mechanism and you'd be finding it quite difficult to actually give it a proper yield. You would also have to consider under which conditions protons can be found to be free from their electrons. Then, likely taken in the direction of highly energetic situations which do point to an initial fusion reaction responsible for the creation of those highly energetic particles.
Therefore meaning the projectile would be a bottled concentration of the fireball produced by a nuclear fusion... which would be a hell of a convoluted design since you can constrain the fireball, you actually have the means to create an advanced fusion bomb that can explode at a distance because you can bring both pressure and heat to the point the fuel would fuse in mid-air.
Following that, you'd have to find a way to guess the concentration of those particles for the overall density, especially in order to reach an ability to deal damage to the extent observed on screen. That would require a lot of speculation as there's little information available regarding the behaviour of explosive volumes made of constrained highly energetic plasma, since it belongs to the realm of science fiction. Although one may find values regarding the release velocity of particles based on their energy and their initial quantity in the projectile.
Now, that would be a lot of work and you could give yourself respite by simply noticing that we're still seeing nuclear fusion being involved at some point.

I mean, I was just telling you that the term fusion, used as a common modifier alongside another word (it has to modify something, right), wouldn't necessarily (and actually) refer to the nuclear reaction, as a response to your incorrect method.
That's not my incorrect method. You're the one claiming "proton" is a modifier that must and can only mean "fusion" in Star Wars, and whereas in Star Wars we actually get "fusion" as a modifier meaning (gasp) "fusion", you then attempted to toss out real modern examples like it mattered, and you still failed.

Anyone can call anything whatever they want, in the real world, but if you're the one trying to make an argument that "proton" can only mean "fusion", it's death to your claim when "fusion" is actually used to mean "fusion" in the same universe.
Because in the wide variety of sources, langages, species and industrial builders of technologies and weapons, there could not be a variation in the terms used to describe the same stuff?
Flat/appartment.
Lift/elevator.
Etc.

Whether you go for protons being the fuel used in a sort of advanced nuclear bomb or look at the source of the fancy proton-based projectile being nuclear fusion, you still deal with nuclear fusion in the end.

All in all, we're a far cry from looking at a CHEMICAL weapon's behaviour upon detonation and using this as the basis of estimating the yield of the proton weapon.
Has a flashlight been formerly classified as a weapon by serious sources?
No. I rest my case.
No, you lie by trying to twist and contort your way out of acknowledging the defeat of your BS. You claimed a photon torpedo is named with the modifier "photon" because it unleashes photons, and I am pointing out the stupidity of your claim.
More precisely, all you do is to reject everything without ONCE actually trying to provide a plausible explanation, because you used the photon torpedo as a case where the qualifying term photon was irrelevant to the weapon (without any proof and any way of knowing for sure). It's a bit too easy, dontcha think?
My point has been one of honesty and I actually bothered looking into the term photon to know why UFP scientists, engineers and manufacturers decided to stick with it.
Contrary to your absurd automatic rejection of everything, saying that photon was kept because the weapon does mainly damage through highly energetic photons AND also shines like a star in space, hence light, hence photons, isn't far from being ridiculous.
This is being done in the larger context of how you contradict yourself with photon, proton, and fusion as modifiers, as with how proton torpedoes are supposedly nuclear, to you, because "proton". But, by your own standards regarding photon torpedoes, proton torpedoes need only unleash protons . . . yet you just deny this without the slightest valid reason other than to whine and obfuscate and make up stories where crack-smoking Starfleet nerds just decided to make up a funny term.

Your inability to understand what I've done to your argument or your unwillingness to admit it are not my problem.
What a nice litany of strawmen we have here. You cannot possibly be missing the point that much, can you? Or are you doing it on purpose, to stir up flames perhaps?
If you could actually use your memory and read what I typed instead of making shit up, perhaps we could get somewhere.

"But, by your own standards regarding photon torpedoes, proton torpedoes need only unleash protons"

Why should the reasoning used to understand the reason behind the choice of the term photon for one unique kind of weapon be applied down to the letter to another completely different type of weapon?
Haven't I already said, many times, that the specific term used for the weapon's name could refer to different things strictly relative to the weapon, like mechanism, function, behaviour or even appearance? Haven't I said that in general, weapons tend to be aptly named? Or that for all intents and purposes, there does not seem to be a problem with the use of proton in proton cannon, whereas photon in photon torpedo may require more rumblings?

Of course I did all of that.
How come I'm the one obfuscating things when you're essentially rebooting everything repeatedly?

"make up stories where crack-smoking Starfleet nerds just decided to make up a funny term."

I didn't say they tried to make a funny term but that they actually tried to find one that would fit and sound more scientific —not funny nor stupid— than the lingo stuff that may be used to describe it by, for example, your average red shirt (hence my comparison with droid popper from Star Wars).
I'll repeat myself here.
Contrary to your absurd automatic rejection of everything, saying that photon was kept because the weapon does mainly damage through highly energetic photons AND also shines like a star in the darkness of space, hence light, hence photons, isn't far from being ridiculous. It's actually one the best options thus far.
As a point of comparison, does "droid popper" sound serious to you?
Irrelevant. You're claiming "photon torpedo" is a nonsense term but "proton torpedo" is not.
I didn't say it's a nonsense term. That is your invention. So if you could get that out of your head, maybe you could understand my point and get beyond that absurd knee-jerk reaction.
I said it's a term that sticks to what it does or looks like. There are weapons, especially pre-medieval weapons, named from their appearance. There is nothing silly here.
As an example, naming the photon torpedo a light torpedo wouldn't have been totally out of bounds here considering it looks like a shining source of light in darkness.

ALSO, I don't plan on repeating myself over and over on this simple concept. Either you get it or find some imaginary friend to harass with your memory leaks.
Also, how come am I the one evading when you've only been sniping thus far and didn't contribute in the slightest to reaching a perhaps convincing reason behind the photon torpedo's name?
It's the nature of your argument. You're the one who must prove that "proton" = "fusion". By pointing out that photon torpedoes break this super-serious nomenclature scheme you think exists (or "thought", since you now wanna bring up "droid popper" as if it is a real name), and by pointing out your astonishing waffling when it comes to nomenclature criteria, I am running your positive claim through the ringer.

I have not been foolish enough to make an unsubstantiated and irrational positive claim in the fashion you have. That's why it is soooooo unfair and your safe space beckons.
Still, no sign of any reasonnable suggestion for the photon term thus far, unfortunately. :(
Who is the one claiming it has to be a kind of low power plasma, like a ionized hydrogen, somehow relevant if one wanted to use it as an efficient war-level weapon?
Not me, for sure.
Last I checked, it seemed like Star Wars includes the concept of ionized particles as a weapon.
When they're specifically identified as ion based, they do nothing of what we see in the CW episode.
So please answer the question.
Which brings me to this question: Could you present a convincing case of a plasma not originating from a nuclear-reaction that could fit with the attributes of the proton cannon?
I don't have to convince you.
If you want to be taken seriously, you should actually consider working on the convincing part of your "argument".
Ion cannons and the radioactive fog of blaster bolts and such are all I need point to. I don't have to fricking build one to show you how it works any more than I had to spell out every step and part involved in the firing of the superlaser to point out what it did. The fact that charged particles are already weapons in Star Wars is more than sufficient evidence to serve as a counterpoint to your OMG IT MUST BE FUSION nonsense.
Ion based weapons don't behave like the proton cannon's projectiles did. ad lib
As for the radioactive fog —an after-effect of little consequence to hulls I suspect— are you going to claim that the proton cannon was in fact a... fog thrower? :D :D :D

1. Fair point.
Since you acknowledge the error in your "electric arc" rebuttal to the concept of ion weapons in Star Wars being of explanatory power regarding proton cannons, then why do you not change positions? I said:

"Indeed, given the known existence and behavior of ion weapons in Star Wars, the proton weapons as ionized hydrogen makes the most sense given the shield penetrations at Ryloth. The attempt to wank the weapons into fusion warheads may have thus just resulted in a better understanding of them that's completely opposed to the wanking."

Do you have a response other than arcing?
Haven't you realized thus far that the ion weapons we know of in Star Wars and the proton cannons' projectiles are nothing alike?
Hoth's big ion cannon didn't even begin to blow huge chunks of superstructure when hitting an ISD squarely in TESB. Compare that to what the Acclamator had to endure.
All fine and dandy but what does it have to do with my point. I don't have to go through any kind of "effort" here. Just watch the video and remember that I'm only pointing out that for the same fireball radius, the higher the explosion, the lower the yield.
That's not what you attempted to defend before regarding high altitudes, but your backpedal here is acceptable.
My backpedal?
Backpedalling you meant?
If so, where from? What did I attempt to "defend" exactly?
You're stupidly obsessing over a simple sidenote I made about the relation to fireball size and altitude. No more, no less.

I explained that fact way too many times already and you know it. You can also go check the post where this all started, if you're not too lazy, or read the quotation below.
Former page, mid height:
Me wrote: As a sidenote, there's an additional element that could contribute to reducing the correct yield of the explosions in the CW episode: altitude.
The higher the explosions happen, the lesser the air density. These are just two speculations on my part but with lesser air density, energy could be radiated further away before being largely absorbed. Also, the growing fireball would meet less resistance. It looks like the Acclamators were flying something like 2~3 km above ground.
You love to claim you can easily admit making mistakes. Now would be a good time to prove it!
1. All I said is that I don't condone error, and you get all offended.
Amused, you mean, by your pathetic posturing. You're in complete error but you try to look almighty instead of just saying OK I was wrong, moving on.
It's just part of that bizarre personnal feud you seem to have with me that you love to shoehorn everywhere, wherein you'd rather die than admit the slightest mistake against me.
It's sad, somehow, since you could save yourself all that pretense if you would just realize the futility of your position that you've clinched to for two pages now.
2. I'm nothing remotely special and on the low end of the participants here,
Thanks for the flashnews, captain obvious.
but I do get great amusement when you act like you're the best mind in the universe and everyone else is stupid then deride me as arrogant. The fact is, little man, compared to one as low in character and honesty as you, most of the folks here are effing deities, and you should respect your betters.
You have a problem here, not me. Dragging the other members here by claiming I disrespect them is the exact same proxy tactic you used in the Planetary Defense thread. It's crass, it's lame, and above all it is not surprising.
It's also the unfortunate sign that you've reached the bottom of your argumentative skills.
The difference between them and me is that you've been more insulting to me lately, so I'm less likely to restrain myself from pointing out how low you're going. If you don't want to be looked down upon, then stop trying to out-slime the scum at the bottom of the pond.
You're in no position to lecture me on manners.
Despite an order by Mike asking both of us to play nicely, you decided to open hostilities with your scornful kuddos, just for the kicks I suppose.
Now, if you have anything of value to say about the remark I made on the former page, like some scientific observation, say it now.
I'm saying the ships hovered at an altitude well superior to that of the nuclear tests I used for reference, which happened quite close to the ground for air bursts.
Since you'll simply shift positions again if I poke at this with a stick, I'll leave it be.
Oh, nice. What could you possibly poke with that limp stick of yours now?
I keep telling you that you're in complete denial of your glaring error, hoping you'd actually come to your senses.
Unable to drop it with dignity, you yap back at me with some asinine accusation that I'd try to "shift positions again"... LOL!
"Tis but a flesh wound!", your motto.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Another nerf for SW firepower...

Post by 2046 » Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:08 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
2046 wrote: You repeat the argument in this very post!

"No, just because proton is a specific reference and that unless you're finding a reason to reject the very few mechanisms it evokes, I see no reason to pretend it's a term tacked to the weapon just for the fun of it."
Then obviously we're not on the same frequency. Perhaps if you explained what I try to evade instead of being vague and thinking that counts as a point, I could eventually provide a clarification.
The topic at this point is the way in which you are vacillating between specificity and broadness, often within the same sentence. To this observer, it seems that when you wish to make a claim the evidence is very specific, but when provided alternatives suddenly things are broad.

The above repeat argument tells us that "proton is a specific reference" and that we mustn't ignore your argument that it refers to a fusion weapon lest we be accused of pretense and argumentative jocularity. However, when pressed on how you arrive at this singular and specific conclusion and that doing so is logically bogus, you'll happily convert to the belief that it could mean many things . . . and then circle back around to your argument that it could only be fusion.

This is literally taking almost every position on the matter, explicitly, yet continuing to push your only-fusion argument.
You agreed on a given yield for the proton cannon based on the visible effects of the GBU weapon (as a ground burst if only that). This weapon is chemical and has a specific behaviour.
Certain weapons have specific behaviors, yes . . . a real-life grenade doesn't look all that impressive when it explodes, yet its shrapnel can kill at a distance. A fuel-air explosive is truly a freaky site.

But, of course, we aren't talking about any of those things.

You claimed that you could assert on the order of a kiloton of yield from the visuals, and that it was nuclear. You seem to be unaware of the fact that whenever you create a point-source of extremely high energy and pressure, it will expand. There are variations in mechanism and among chemical weapons variations in velocity and shockwave speed, et cetera, but a megajoule deposited explosively into the atmosphere by Explosion A is going to look very similar to a megajoule from Explosive B
We've been over your abuse of that already. Don't cherry-pick.

I'm old enough to remember a whole page ago when you thought you could prove it was fusion via on-screen details.

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 8&start=33

Now, proving the weapon is fusion based on on-screen details is something you find laugh-worthy and try to deride as foolishness.

Please pick a single position and stick with it.
Perhaps you're too old. In which case, please reread my post:
Me wrote:If anything, a proton-based projectile from Star Wars ought to be closer to a nuke than a GBU bomb that carries a lot of explosive material and would have to weigh close to ten tons. The proton device will typically have a high energetic output for a lower mass of reacting material. I think that's the point and advantage of using anything proton based actually, relying on a fusion reaction to generate the explosion.
I'm not even declaring the weapon to be nuclear based on visuals, but on the name of the weapon. See?
It's just so super-cool how, with the subject being your references to visuals, you quote only the portion of your post that has nothing to do with them, then claim I'm wrong. I guess the part where you claimed the weapons were impossible to see and tried to tie that in to your beliefs didn't happen?
Also, I actually laughed at your absurd request that I should provide sound evidence for intricate details such as radiation.
Don't lie. As you say, "Your words were: "there's nothing else remotely fusion-y to the weapons insofar as yield, radiation, et cetera."" . . . that's not demanding you prove the presence of radiation, but your efforts to fixate on that and suggest I demanded you geiger-counter your screen is disingenuous at best . . . a skeezy lying attempt at mockery in the place of argument by a desperate peddler of falsities at worst.

More later...

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 » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:51 pm

2046 wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Then obviously we're not on the same frequency. Perhaps if you explained what I try to evade instead of being vague and thinking that counts as a point, I could eventually provide a clarification.
The topic at this point is the way in which you are vacillating between specificity and broadness, often within the same sentence. To this observer, it seems that when you wish to make a claim the evidence is very specific, but when provided alternatives suddenly things are broad.

The above repeat argument tells us that "proton is a specific reference" and that we mustn't ignore your argument that it refers to a fusion weapon lest we be accused of pretense and argumentative jocularity. However, when pressed on how you arrive at this singular and specific conclusion and that doing so is logically bogus, you'll happily convert to the belief that it could mean many things . . . and then circle back around to your argument that it could only be fusion.

This is literally taking almost every position on the matter, explicitly, yet continuing to push your only-fusion argument.
I'd rather see you quoting me saying that proton "could mean many things" and that those "many" things would be getting far away from a nuclear reaction being involved; thus far you're the one having made such a claim as far as I can tell, and that was strictly related to the few plausible reasons explaining why we didn't see the projectiles... something that is totally independant of the topic relative to protons, quite obviously.
I think it's more like you *think* I said such a thing and there comes your confusion.
I only explored the plasma venue the moment you said it was a good alternative, which you used for defending a low yield approach without any form of evidence thus far, and all it led me to was another case of nuclear reaction, this time being used to generate the projectile.
After all, how many constructive interpretations have been made regarding the use of the term proton? Two? Two and a half at best? That's hardly broad.
You agreed on a given yield for the proton cannon based on the visible effects of the GBU weapon (as a ground burst if only that). This weapon is chemical and has a specific behaviour.
Certain weapons have specific behaviors, yes . . . a real-life grenade doesn't look all that impressive when it explodes, yet its shrapnel can kill at a distance. A fuel-air explosive is truly a freaky site.

But, of course, we aren't talking about any of those things.

You claimed that you could assert on the order of a kiloton of yield from the visuals, and that it was nuclear. You seem to be unaware of the fact that whenever you create a point-source of extremely high energy and pressure, it will expand. There are variations in mechanism and among chemical weapons variations in velocity and shockwave speed, et cetera, but a megajoule deposited explosively into the atmosphere by Explosion A is going to look very similar to a megajoule from Explosive B
At those low yields? I don't think so, especially after the comparison I provided between the '62 calculator's figure for ground contact nuke and what we saw the MOAB do. One largely produces a blast with its own reactants being propelled away and energized, the other does it by heating up the air. The two methods are so radically different that it would be a fluke that they'd share the same effects, including the fireball's attributes.
Also, the Russian FOAB (2007) produces ground fireballs of sizes relatively similar too. The thing with the FOAB is that it's a two stage weapon: the fuel is literally pulverized in all directions and forms a blanket. It shows that even prior to ignition (the second phase), the design can propel the fuel across a large volume, and then triggers it to create the air-depleting fireball.
It's absolutely obvious that different compositions and bomb designs will produce different effects.

Another example:
Operation Sailor Hat, 500 tons of TNT, Charlie shot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation ... at#Effects USS Atlanta (Cleveland-class Light cruiser), length: 185.95 m
USS England (Leahy-class cruiser), length: 162 m

The USS Atlanta is said to have been the primary test ship, each time moved closer to the blast center for each successive ground explosion.
You can already see that regardless of which of the three ground shots we're really looking at, the still hemispheric fireball is largely wider than the length of the closest ship.


Other example.
Operation Blowdown (such poetry): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blowdown, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIQr62lZbsM
The sphere contained a total of 45 tons of TNT of explosive energy. That's less than a tenth of the Sailor Hat ground tests.
It's hard to spot the sphere on the video but going in slow motion, one can spot a white reflective thingy above the treetops. Could be the sphere, could be the sloped roof of the tower a few meters above the sphere.
"A spherical charge of 50 short tons (45 t) of TNT was detonated on a tower 136 feet (41 m) above ground level and 69 feet (21 m) above the rainforest canopy."
The sphere was 4 meters wide and located just one level below the roof.
An original material video is found here and is useful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S-HASqHHF0
At exactly 13:44 on the video and 00:13:43:05 on the original material (the counter loops at every 23 frames), we can measure the bomb's width on screen. I get about 5 millimeters, therefore 0.8 meters per millimeters on screen.
At 14:33 on the video, 00:13:43:06 on the original material, the bomb explodes and the first frame of the fireball can be measured. It's already about 160 millimeters wide, so 128 meters wide in reality.

This same moment can reached at 00:14:33:17 from a more distant view. The 128 meters wide fireball takes 60 millimeters on my computer's screen.
One frame later, the fireball measures 9.5 cm on screen. One more frame and it reaches 11 cm in size.
Several frames later, when the fireball is stabilized and engulfed in the darker cloud of particles, it's more than double that size!

Yes, that puny and virtually ground-contact bomb, 45 tons of explosives, produced a fireball that was easily between 240 and 260 meters wide in size.

I believe this definitely settles the idea that we should expect similar fireball sizes at low yields regardless of the weapon's design and its use or that joule for joule, said fireballs would be very similar.

We've been over your abuse of that already. Don't cherry-pick.
Excuse me?
It's a calculator, based on experimental evidence from nuclear tests.
Also, what do you mean by abuse?

Perhaps you're too old. In which case, please reread my post:
Me wrote:If anything, a proton-based projectile from Star Wars ought to be closer to a nuke than a GBU bomb that carries a lot of explosive material and would have to weigh close to ten tons. The proton device will typically have a high energetic output for a lower mass of reacting material. I think that's the point and advantage of using anything proton based actually, relying on a fusion reaction to generate the explosion.
I'm not even declaring the weapon to be nuclear based on visuals, but on the name of the weapon. See?
It's just so super-cool how, with the subject being your references to visuals, you quote only the portion of your post that has nothing to do with them, then claim I'm wrong. I guess the part where you claimed the weapons were impossible to see and tried to tie that in to your beliefs didn't happen?
Rewinding this a bit, for the sake of contextual accuracy.
This started with me saying:
Are you exactly asking me to tell if a fireball looks fusionish or not, onscreen? That, from a freaking CGI show?
I see I need to edit that part and provide a clarification, and also reword things in order to comply with Mike's latest intervention; it's time to do a little summary of things at this point.
The problem really is about how far can we take visuals at face value. In live action, we tend to believe that things a more realistic. In a CGI show that took liberties, it's a very complicated endeavour. Measuring a fireball seems OK because regardless of what the weapon is supposed to be, the producers will want a big explosion to convey a sense of power. So although it was interesting, at least for me, to grab so much information about nuclear and conventional tests, there are limits to how far we can go with that.
As we note, those explosions produce huge puffs of smoke that vanish and there's just no way this can happen. Video gamers have been making these VFX for sure, as they're used to see explosions' clouds vanish almost immediately.
Although not at ease doing the measurement, the only reason I did so is because it's on the merits of the fireclouds' sizes that a comparison was initially made by Mike. My point was that if you were going to use the size for claiming a yield, then you had to consider the alternatives. Hence why I demonstrated that nukes would fit too.
The additional point was that with projectiles apparently being totally invisible, it would quickly dispute the use of solid or liquid chemicals as reactants. Adding this to the size of the cannons' bore, therefore greatly limiting the density of fuels too, it only left the door open to transparent materials.
All of this has been in reaction to what you and Mike did: using the explosion as proof. I already said I'm not too comfy using visuals, but if one is going to do it that way, then certain things have to be pointed out.

This, however, wasn't my main argument. For CGI and anime, I tend to pay closer attention to scripts and general ideas, eventually leaving some extra free room for very general visual clues (like the colour of a planet seen from space and not look too much into that).
To me, the term proton is therefore much more reliable and that's why one should focus on it. I could do without visuals for all I care. But I wouldn't ditch the term. To me visuals are more than secondary.

Still, I don't see how you can decide of the weapon's minute composition and intricate workings on the basis of the same hastily cobbled visuals from a cartoonish CGI show that was so cheap it couldn't even afford rendering grass.
There are limits to what we can actually extract, in terms of evidence, from that material. This, again, being why I dislike using that show at all.

The fireball size was an attempt at trying a scientific analysis of the dubious material. Without the fireballs, we can make any kind of claim about the yield, which can only be constrained by what we decide the weapon to be as a premise (like the term proton).
As I said above, one would observe, too, that the fireballs disappear, yet that's just not the way it works for all the weapons we know of. Cloud of particles don't get magically pushed into that invisible realm called LALALAND by a fairy's will.
This video tackles the subjet of exploding hydrogen, although at normal concentrations. It would wonderfully explain the disappearance of a fireball alone (and probably a huge amounts of blaster bolts too from the movies), but not that of the vapour cloud that has been formed. Besides, the formed clouds are quite opaque and dark, which hints at a rather not so clean/perfect reaction either, almost soot-like, which would probably require a certain quantity of solid materials, which considering the chronical representation of the projectiles, would be very problematic.
What's to be done of this? I don't know and I'd say that fortunately, nobody here made any claim based on the residue's disappearance. I wouldn't push the argumentation in that direction either, that would just be absurd as far as I'm concerned due to the reliability of visuals.

So yes, there are limits, and my point is that if you're going to use visuals, then you can actually find a reason not to exclude nuclear reactions because of what they produce (see the air bursting tests), but overall this discussion is doomed to be sketchy as heck because of Hollywood, the material, etc.


As a sidenote, if one were to argue that "proton" can mean hydrogen and then claim that the projectile is just one big science fictionish self-contained bag of concentrated hydrogen constrained by some fancy gizmo force field, we'd want a projectile that doesn't reach the state of liquid hydrogen or it would turn visible.
As per this source, we can say that it would mean looking at a density greater than 71 kg/m³. Its energetic density as a gas would be around 33.3 kWh/kg according to this source.
33.3 kWh/kg = 33.3 x 3600 = 119.88 MJ.
So, in a best case scenario leaving out all the requirements for hydrogen to actually combust at 100%, I think we'd be looking at a projectile with an energetic density well below of 119.88 x 71 = 8,511.48 MJ/m³. But we're going to use that figure here. The explosion would barely be visible though.
At this point, we do need to use visuals again. On the plus side, the show has demonstrated a rather consistent respect for overall proportions of ships and characters, so I suppose one can say that the size and shape of a proton cannon is reliable to some degree too.
What one can see is that a proton cannon's bore is so small that you couldn't cram a battle droid's torso into it. So using a diameter of .5 m is fair. Using a cylinder with a radius of .25 m as the template shape for the projectile and being very generous with the length by using 3 meters, we obtain a total volume of .6 m³, providing a final impossible to reach yield of 5,106.888 MJ.

But then again, the explosion would be rather extremely clean, even if very bright.

Also, I actually laughed at your absurd request that I should provide sound evidence for intricate details such as radiation.
Don't lie. As you say, "Your words were: "there's nothing else remotely fusion-y to the weapons insofar as yield, radiation, et cetera."" . . . that's not demanding you prove the presence of radiation, but your efforts to fixate on that and suggest I demanded you geiger-counter your screen is disingenuous at best . . . a skeezy lying attempt at mockery in the place of argument by a desperate peddler of falsities at worst.
Please tell me how are you capable of claiming that a weapon that detonates on screen —and only shows a fireball— has "nothing remotely fusion-y (...) insofar as yield, radiation, et cetera" just based on visuals.
Or how you think these visuals would actually contradict the notion of a nuclear weapon of some sort? The show can't even agree on how to portray these projectiles, from totally invisible and obviously fast projectiles, to much slower red beams, the later incidentally producing such small flak bursts that they could just as well be coming from totally different weapons.
More later...
Standing by!

Edited in order to avoid offering a reason for any hostile reply.

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 » Tue Aug 15, 2017 10:18 pm

Passing by... adding a thing here.
2046 wrote:
Also, I actually laughed at your absurd request that I should provide sound evidence for intricate details such as radiation.
Don't lie. As you say, "Your words were: "there's nothing else remotely fusion-y to the weapons insofar as yield, radiation, et cetera."" . . . that's not demanding you prove the presence of radiation, but your efforts to fixate on that and suggest I demanded you geiger-counter your screen is disingenuous at best . . . a skeezy lying attempt at mockery in the place of argument by a desperate peddler of falsities at worst.
Just for the reminder, in case you ever plan on actually providing the second part of your post, this is what you did publish a few chapters earlier:
You wrote:
Me wrote:All the handed with a totally empty claim such as "there's nothing else remotely fusion-y to the weapons insofar as yield, radiation, et cetera."
Good luck measuring radiation on screen! (rolleyes)
Cute evasion, but the point remains. Do you see anything characteristic of fusion?
Indeed, that's not demanding I prove the presence of radiation —and any other "fusion-y" thing— at all, obviously!
So unless you have conceded, then follow my counsel for your future reply: drop that claim at once.
Thanks.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Another nerf for SW firepower...

Post by 2046 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:02 am

I have no wish to feed the troll so won't be doing a point-by-point breakdown in this closing summary, but I am amused how the post two up from here features the argument that mere tons of TNT are sufficient to create fireballs larger than that observed in the Star Wars episode discussed.

Suffice it to say that the claim of nuclear weaponry at Ryloth is unsupported, as is the claim of kiloton yields. No amounts of obfuscatory whining and/or misunderstandings/misrepresentations of evidence, nuclear weapons amd their effects, or the statements of other users can cause them to appear in the canon.

The rest is futile noise.

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 » Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:12 pm

2046 wrote:I have no wish to feed the troll so won't be doing a point-by-point breakdown in this closing summary, but I am amused how the post two up from here features the argument that mere tons of TNT are sufficient to create fireballs larger than that observed in the Star Wars episode discussed.

Suffice it to say that the claim of nuclear weaponry at Ryloth is unsupported, as is the claim of kiloton yields. No amounts of obfuscatory whining and/or misunderstandings/misrepresentations of evidence, nuclear weapons amd their effects, or the statements of other users can cause them to appear in the canon.

The rest is futile noise.
I see that the ban hasn't convinced you of stopping throwing insults either. I thought that you'd have someting constructive to add after all that time; at the very least to correct for example that silly request for proving the on-screen existence of something inherently invisible such as radiations. ;)
You shouldn't have come back if it were to call me a troll (purely gratuitous accusation, just like the rest you typed) despite the ample evidence that I substantiated my position more than you ever did, notably on the idea that there is indeed room for this unique CIS weaponry to be nuclear in design. The name of the weapon and its behaviour is what opens the door to this possibility. As for the yield, the low kiloton range would be the upper end of the spectrum in such case anyway.

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

Re: Another nerf for SW firepower...

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:32 am

Enough. You've both had your say. Any more and not only will this result in another ban, but also likely a lock on the thread.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Another nerf for SW firepower...

Post by 2046 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:01 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:I see that the ban hasn't convinced you of stopping throwing insults either.


Your insults are above and I am not permitted to respond? I think not.
I thought that you'd have someting constructive to add after all that time; at the very least to correct for example that silly request for proving the on-screen existence of something inherently invisible such as radiations. ;)


That request exists only in your mind. Neither directly nor by reasonable inference have I made such a request, as I already corrected you on directly and, when that failed to move you, via well-deserved mockery. Your continued references to your self-created notion are mere trolling.
I substantiated my position more than you ever did


You literally conceded a couple of posts ago when you admitted a relatively small amount of TNT could've made a more impressive effect. The rest of your conjecture as to the origin of the explosion is self-contradictory nonsense, as previously described at length.

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 » Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:30 pm

2046 wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:I see that the ban hasn't convinced you of stopping throwing insults either.


Your insults are above and I am not permitted to respond? I think not.
Those "insults" as you say predate the ban.
Again, now would be a good time to consider the usefulness of the ban as an opportunity to close this thread cleanly.
I thought that you'd have someting constructive to add after all that time; at the very least to correct for example that silly request for proving the on-screen existence of something inherently invisible such as radiations. ;)


That request exists only in your mind. Neither directly nor by reasonable inference have I made such a request, as I already corrected you on directly and, when that failed to move you, via well-deserved mockery. Your continued references to your self-created notion are mere trolling.
Obviously.
I substantiated my position more than you ever did


You literally conceded a couple of posts ago when you admitted a relatively small amount of TNT could've made a more impressive effect. The rest of your conjecture as to the origin of the explosion is self-contradictory nonsense, as previously described at length.
1. You're missing the point. 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.
2. You're again forgetting something here, the little fact that the explosion in question was produced by a fairly considerable amount TNT; actually a voluminous slab of explosive material. Quite different than the stuff fired by the proton cannons! You do know that the less matter you have to use as reactants for a given explosion, the greater the energy density of the reactants has to be if you want to obtain the same amount of energy in the end? Hence the whole idea of jumping from chemical reaction to fission to fusion to annihilation eventually if you must work from progressively smaller amounts of reactants whilst trying to obtain the same energetic outputs. That's a point that is really nothing new in this thread, nor to this forum and your experience as a debater, so I don't understand why you cannot wrap your head around it and still think that you only have to look at the effects of a chemical weapon's explosion to establish a parallel between a proton cannon and a bunker buster, yet constantly and totally neglecting to consider how a typical proton cannon's projectile would have a hard time being anything like a solid, heavy bunker buster type of projectile, if only for the size alone.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Another nerf for SW firepower...

Post by 2046 » Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:22 pm

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.
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."

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. 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).

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.

Post Reply