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.