The Death Star's power output confirmed!

[Praeothmin]

This is already taken into account, as I was using demonstrated feats, which would not include waste energy.

Show me a single feat from the movies or TCW, excluding Death Stars, which shows us 200GT, or anything close to it, from a Capital ship gun...

Nor do they contradict it, and I'm not comparing their weapons.

Yes they do, every single time we see the puny firepower displayed when ICS states guns can be so more powerful...

Do you understand what lower limits are? If you saw a bullet going through glass, would you conclude that it could only go through glass? No! That's simply a lower limit.

Do you understand scale?
For the 200GT figure to be right, we would need to assume that every ship in every battle in every movie used their guns at 1/10000th of their full power, even when firing at each other...
We also have to ignore that these supposedly powerful ships can be destroyed by guns rated at 1/100 000th of their full power (AT-TE guns destroying Mugnificiant frigates)...

It's called rapid fire for the purposes of energy and cooling systems.

Really?
And so shooting at a target capable of supposedly taking 1KT shots with 0.2 tons shots faster is going to help?
How?
Explain to me how a weapon firing at 1/2000th of its full power can even damage armor rated to resist 1KT...
This is like you using a BB gun to fire through plated glass...
You will never go through, no matter how many shots you fire, no matter how much more pellets you fire per minute...

Absurd? I've proven that star destroyers have power generation figures in excess of 10^22 watts, so what's so absurd about a 200 gigaton weapon?

I'll come back with calculations of my own, and we'll discuss this a bit more...

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

HEH i found it prommie posted it earlier:

The turbolaser was a heavy laser cannon equipped with large banks of capacitors, allowing them to build up and store far more powerful energy bursts than standard cannons. These capacitors gave huge energy bursts to the beam, greatly increasing its power over standard laser cannons.

They also helped power the galven coils in the barrels of turbolasers. First, a particle beam was generated in the manner standard of blasters and laser cannons. Then even more power was achieved by guiding this laser cannon particle-beam through another stream of energized Tibanna Gas (besides the one used in generating the initial beam, since laser cannons work on the same principle as blasters) to increase its power. The extra capacitors in a turbolaser that store huge amounts of raw energy then contributed to the beam by energizing it even further as it moved to the turbolaser's barrel. The resulting beam carried roughly three or more times the energy of a standard laser cannon beam.

So we have a description that shows clearly that the ship CANNOT generate enough energy quickly enough to allow the turbolasers to fire there more powerful shots and as such it supports the G canon fusion power systems for SW ships.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Show me a single feat from the movies or TCW, excluding Death Stars, which shows us 200GT, or anything close to it, from a Capital ship gun...

Massive red herring. What does this have to do with your earlier claim?

Yes they do, every single time we see the puny firepower displayed when ICS states guns can be so more powerful...

What puny firepower from G canon? Examples please.

Do you understand scale?
For the 200GT figure to be right, we would need to assume that every ship in every battle in every movie used their guns at 1/10000th of their full power, even when firing at each other...
We also have to ignore that these supposedly powerful ships can be destroyed by guns rated at 1/100 000th of their full power (AT-TE guns destroying Mugnificiant frigates)...

What? Your claim was that the asteroid vaporization scene was less than 200 gigatons. Those were from the light turbolasers, and they vaporized the asteroids. Whether or not their firepower was over the energy needed is not known. Therefore, it's a lower limit. How do you know that they fired their guns at 1/10000th of their power? They could have fired them at full power, because we don't know if the energy was overkill or relatively the exact amount needed.

Again, back to the bullet going through glass analogy. If the bullet went through glass, would you conclude that it has limited kinetic energy because it went through glass? No, because that's a lower limit. What the bullet going at 1/10000th of its speed? No, because we don't know if it were overkill or the amount of energy needed.

Really?
And so shooting at a target capable of supposedly taking 1KT shots with 0.2 tons shots faster is going to help?
How?
Explain to me how a weapon firing at 1/2000th of its full power can even damage armor rated to resist 1KT...
This is like you using a BB gun to fire through plated glass...
You will never go through, no matter how many shots you fire, no matter how much more pellets you fire per minute...

Strawman. I didn't claim that Obi Wan's starfighter could take kiloton level blasts.

I'll come back with calculations of my own, and we'll discuss this a bit more...

Calculations of your own? From where? Remember that mine uses solely G canon.

[Praeothmin]

Massive red herring. What does this have to do with your earlier claim?

It has to do with the fact you claimed movies and generator scaling indicated 200GT guns, I said nothing in the movies (G-Canon) support anything close to that value from any ship, the exception being the DS...

What puny firepower from G canon? Examples please.

AT-TE guns which, in ICS, are close to 1/2KT, Republic gunship missiles, at 1KT according to ICS, seen fired in AotC, nowhere near 1KT, Trade Federation spheres supposedly capable to tanking GT shots, downed by Sphat-Ts shooting decidedly sub-KT shots, and the list goes on, and on, and on...

Your claim was that the asteroid vaporization scene was less than 200 gigatons. Those were from the light turbolasers, and they vaporized the asteroids.

Actually, if you look at the sequence again, some of these shots came from the dorsal part of the ISD, where only HTLs are found.
If HTLs are triple digit GT at max power, the "vaporizing" incidents in TESB, where asteroids were no more than 20-40 meters according to scalings done here, are in the low KT.
From KT to GT, that's 2 orders of magnitude of difference.

Here's the calc:
If the biggest asteroid being vaporized was 70 meters in diameter, then Volume of 70 meter asteroid = 179 594.38 m³ or 1.7959e+5
Mass of asteroid = 1,413,412,650 kg
Heat Capacity of iron = 447 J/kg•K
Initial temp of asteroid = ~200 K, normal for objects in space
Final temp of asteroid = 1853 K for melting
The density of pure iron is 7870 kg/m³
Boiling point: 3023 K -200K, initial temp = 2823K
To vaporize 1kg of Iron = 447J/kg.K x 2823K = 1,261,881J
Vaporization of 70 meter asteroid: 1,784,000,000,000,000 Joules, or 426.39 KT.

So, from 426.4KT to 200GT, that would be 0.002% of full power...
And I've been extremely generous with the asteroid's size...

Strawman. I didn't claim that Obi Wan's starfighter could take kiloton level blasts.

No, you keep claiming the ICS is right and backed up by Canon.
Well the ICS says Jango's guns are close to 1KT, yet when we see them fire at asteroids, fracturing parts of them, not even vaporizing them, this is nowhere near 1KT shots.
The Jedi starfighter, again according to the ICS, is also rated at 1KT max...
By accepting the ICS, you are:
A-Ignoring what is shown on film;
B-Accepting the absurd notion that a vehicule who's main purpose is to fight against similar vehicules cannot tank even 0.001% of it's main gun's power?
Modern fighters need missiles, not their main guns, to destroy another plane in 1 shot.
Jango firing all guns blazing is like the F-14 using it's machine guns while dogfighting.
Your bullet analogy is like the F-14 without missiles, capable of firing bigger bullets but wasting its time shooting the smaller ones...

Calculations of your own? From where? Remember that mine uses solely G canon.

Mike Wong's also, supposedly, yet when you look at his work closely, you notice a lot of "forgottent" facts, or questionable scalings...
I just want to make sure the numbers used in the calculations are correct...

[Mr. Oragahn]

HEH i found it prommie posted it earlier:

The turbolaser was a heavy laser cannon equipped with large banks of capacitors, allowing them to build up and store far more powerful energy bursts than standard cannons. These capacitors gave huge energy bursts to the beam, greatly increasing its power over standard laser cannons.

They also helped power the galven coils in the barrels of turbolasers. First, a particle beam was generated in the manner standard of blasters and laser cannons. Then even more power was achieved by guiding this laser cannon particle-beam through another stream of energized Tibanna Gas (besides the one used in generating the initial beam, since laser cannons work on the same principle as blasters) to increase its power. The extra capacitors in a turbolaser that store huge amounts of raw energy then contributed to the beam by energizing it even further as it moved to the turbolaser's barrel. The resulting beam carried roughly three or more times the energy of a standard laser cannon beam.

So we have a description that shows clearly that the ship CANNOT generate enough energy quickly enough to allow the turbolasers to fire there more powerful shots and as such it supports the G canon fusion power systems for SW ships.

I'm not sure of that. The description (is it a mish mash of everything from The Essential Guide? Looks like it) only says what is needed to go from blaster bolts to laser cannons to turbolaser cannons.
Everytime, energy is mentioned as needed for an extra pass.
I don't get the interpretation you do. It just says, to me, that the weapons put another stage of energetic processing to transform the projectile into its third stage, the turbolaser variant.

[Mr. Oragahn]

AT-TE guns which, in ICS, are close to 1/2KT, Republic gunship missiles, at 1KT according to ICS, seen fired in AotC, nowhere near 1KT

Actually 100 kilotons.
The ICS also claim the missiles have "over the horizon" ranges. I'd really like to see evidence of that as well.

Actually, if you look at the sequence again, some of these shots came from the dorsal part of the ISD, where only HTLs are found.
If HTLs are triple digit GT at max power, the "vaporizing" incidents in TESB, where asteroids were no more than 20-40 meters according to scalings done here, are in the low KT.
From KT to GT, that's 2 orders of magnitude of difference.

Here's the calc:
If the biggest asteroid being vaporized was 70 meters in diameter, then Volume of 70 meter asteroid = 179 594.38 m³ or 1.7959e+5
Mass of asteroid = 1,413,412,650 kg
Heat Capacity of iron = 447 J/kg•K
Initial temp of asteroid = ~200 K, normal for objects in space
Final temp of asteroid = 1853 K for melting
The density of pure iron is 7870 kg/m³
Boiling point: 3023 K -200K, initial temp = 2823K
To vaporize 1kg of Iron = 447J/kg.K x 2823K = 1,261,881J
Vaporization of 70 meter asteroid: 1,784,000,000,000,000 Joules, or 426.39 KT.

So, from 426.4KT to 200GT, that would be 0.002% of full power...
And I've been extremely generous with the asteroid's size...

Well it has to be a tad in excess of that, otherwise parts of the asteroids opposite to the point of impact of TL bolts may only fragment.

As I pointed out in a thread in the "other website" section (I may find the link later on), Wong pointed out that for vaporization to occur due to thermal shock, the pressure shockwave had to travel to a given minimal speed through the asteroid - basically, the heat comes from a residue of the deformation of the material and then its attempt to return to its normal shape, so you need a given amount of excess of energy, thus speed, to get the extra joules left in each kilogram of the asteroid so it actually goes beyond melting and gets vaporized.

The problem being that with smaller scaling for those asteroids, the mere fact that we do see some asteroids not being entirely vaporized within one frame (I'm thinking of the one we clearly see reduced to black bits stacked over the white matter, only to become totally white in the next frame) means that the shockwave didn't cover the asteroid's entire length sufficiently fast. And when you check out the framerate and the size of the asteroid, you end with a shockwave speed quite below the minimum for vaporization (either the supersonic figure Saxton claimed and which Wong initially used, or the one Wong provided on his mechanical heat page, the one that's hard to find on his website).
This means that actually very little to none of the asteroid's mass should have suffered vaporization, going by the physics.

No, you keep claiming the ICS is right and backed up by Canon.
Well the ICS says Jango's guns are close to 1KT, yet when we see them fire at asteroids, fracturing parts of them, not even vaporizing them, this is nowhere near 1KT shots.
The Jedi starfighter, again according to the ICS, is also rated at 1KT max...
By accepting the ICS, you are:
A-Ignoring what is shown on film;
B-Accepting the absurd notion that a vehicule who's main purpose is to fight against similar vehicules cannot tank even 0.001% of it's main gun's power?
Modern fighters need missiles, not their main guns, to destroy another plane in 1 shot.
Jango firing all guns blazing is like the F-14 using it's machine guns while dogfighting.
Your bullet analogy is like the F-14 without missiles, capable of firing bigger bullets but wasting its time shooting the smaller ones...

It's even more problematic because the ICS figures clearly put the shield rates in range of the weapon rates.
And the Aethersprite firepower is a topic I know quite well, considering what I wrote about it here and at SBC, around 2007.
The bolts from Slave-I hit very small asteroids (a few meters wide), crack them into large blocks of rock, and these blocks fly away at miserable speeds - clearly nothing you get to see on Youtube videos for rock blasting with dynamite.

In other words, you get to see a firepower that's perhaps one or two OOMs above the firepower of a modern tank, with energy bolts obviously "drilling" inside the asteroids before exploding (the proof being the way hot matter and rocks expand, compared to the bolts' trajectories and obvious points of impact).

[StarWarsStarTrek]

It has to do with the fact you claimed movies and generator scaling indicated 200GT guns, I said nothing in the movies (G-Canon) support anything close to that value from any ship, the exception being the DS...

The exception being the Death Star. Thanks. That exception is still evidence.

AT-TE guns which, in ICS, are close to 1/2KT, Republic gunship missiles, at 1KT according to ICS, seen fired in AotC, nowhere near 1KT, Trade Federation spheres supposedly capable to tanking GT shots, downed by Sphat-Ts shooting decidedly sub-KT shots, and the list goes on, and on, and on...

You mean the SPHATs that, in ROTS, shot from a hanger of a star destroyer (implied in G canon and confirmed in C canon, making it G canon according to canon policy, search it up if you have issues with it) ripped a km long ship in half, creating a hole the size of several football fields? Yeah, so sub kiloton.

Actually, if you look at the sequence again, some of these shots came from the dorsal part of the ISD, where only HTLs are found.
If HTLs are triple digit GT at max power, the "vaporizing" incidents in TESB, where asteroids were no more than 20-40 meters according to scalings done here, are in the low KT.
From KT to GT, that's 2 orders of magnitude of difference.

Here's the calc:
If the biggest asteroid being vaporized was 70 meters in diameter, then Volume of 70 meter asteroid = 179 594.38 m³ or 1.7959e+5
Mass of asteroid = 1,413,412,650 kg
Heat Capacity of iron = 447 J/kg•K
Initial temp of asteroid = ~200 K, normal for objects in space
Final temp of asteroid = 1853 K for melting
The density of pure iron is 7870 kg/m³
Boiling point: 3023 K -200K, initial temp = 2823K
To vaporize 1kg of Iron = 447J/kg.K x 2823K = 1,261,881J
Vaporization of 70 meter asteroid: 1,784,000,000,000,000 Joules, or 426.39 KT.

So, from 426.4KT to 200GT, that would be 0.002% of full power...
And I've been extremely generous with the asteroid's size...

*sigh* If someone shoots a bullet and it goes through glass, does that mean that it was fired at extremely low power because it went through glass? No! It does not establish the upper limit; it establishes the lower limit. Just because it went through glass does not mean that it could only go through glass. How do you know that it couldn't also go through 2 sheets of glass? Or 3? or 4? Or more?

Another example; if someone wacks a tank with a stick and it does no damage, would you conclude that the tank's armor is equal to the kinetic energy of a stick? No! That's a lower limit, not an upper limit.

The conclusion? Those turbolasers hitting the asteroids might have been pretty darn powerful, hence why they vaporized the asteroids. You're assuming that they only vaporized the asteroids and that there was no overkill, but there could have been. Again, the bullet vs glass analogy.

No, you keep claiming the ICS is right and backed up by Canon.
Well the ICS says Jango's guns are close to 1KT, yet when we see them fire at asteroids, fracturing parts of them, not even vaporizing them, this is nowhere near 1KT shots.
The Jedi starfighter, again according to the ICS, is also rated at 1KT max...
By accepting the ICS, you are:
A-Ignoring what is shown on film;
B-Accepting the absurd notion that a vehicule who's main purpose is to fight against similar vehicules cannot tank even 0.001% of it's main gun's power?
Modern fighters need missiles, not their main guns, to destroy another plane in 1 shot.
Jango firing all guns blazing is like the F-14 using it's machine guns while dogfighting.

Notice how Jango Fett's laser cannons were firing at a RoF of several hundred rounds per minute? He didn't fire them at full power (note how the ICS states max) because to do so would drain his power supply and overheat the turrets so that he wouldn't be able to fire more than a few shots.

You might ridicule this as the typical warsie variable yields argument, but it's in accordance with modern combat too. Or actually, modern weapons typically don't have easily adjustable yields like Star Wars or Star Trek weapons do, but still; machine guns, for example, can overheat, and firing shotgun rounds out of it at such a RoF would have ridiculously large recoil, accuracy issues and heating issues.

It's a matter of heat, recoil and energy.

Your bullet analogy is like the F-14 without missiles, capable of firing bigger bullets but wasting its time shooting the smaller ones...

Not only do you miss the point of the analogy, and even assume the opposite of what it means, but why would the star destroyer fire its heavier turbolasers when it merely was vaporizing relatively small asteroids?

Mike Wong's also, supposedly, yet when you look at his work closely, you notice a lot of "forgottent" facts, or questionable scalings...
I just want to make sure the numbers used in the calculations are correct...

Examples please of these "forgotten" facts or questionable scaling that you claim.

[Admiral Breetai]

wait why are you posting some one elses work..then demanding..another person verify it for you

boy talk about blind jumping..

[StarWarsStarTrek]

wait why are you posting some one elses work..then demanding..another person verify it for you

boy talk about blind jumping..

Where did I do that? He made the claim that it was incorrect, and I asked him to prove it. I was not the one to bring it up.

And please, stop adding in unnecessary "..."s or ".." in between your phrases.

[Admiral Breetai]

I've been debating SD'ners for a very long time and I can tell when some one either parrots wong entirely or heavily basis everything he does on the man...

it is very clear that is the type of person you are so my comment stands, why are you posting another persons work then demanding some one else confirm or debunk it

[Praeothmin]

The exception being the Death Star. Thanks. That exception is still evidence.

Yes, evidence the DS can fire 200GT, but you still haven't provided any evidence ISDs can, showing me once again you missed the point...

You mean the SPHATs that, in ROTS, shot from a hanger of a star destroyer ripped a km long ship in half, creating a hole the size of several football fields? Yeah, so sub kiloton.

I too believe it was a Sphat-T that fired and ripped in half that heavily damaged enemy ship...
You know a football field is 109.7 meters long and 48.74 meters wide, right?
You do know that the 900 meter ship that was ripped apart was about 100 meters wide, right?
So a whole "the size of several football fields" would have ripped a hole greater than the ship itself... :)

The conclusion? Those turbolasers hitting the asteroids might have been pretty darn powerful, hence why they vaporized the asteroids. You're assuming that they only vaporized the asteroids and that there was no overkill, but there could have been. Again, the bullet vs glass analogy.

I fully agree the asteroid example in TESB is a lower limit example, and that they were more likely not firing at full power.
I do not accept the bullshit excuse that they were firing at 0.002% full power in this incident...
SW has never shown this level of control in their weapons...
10%, I'd accept, no problem, but 0.002%?
Nope, not a chance in hell...
And you missed the point of this example as well...

Notice how Jango Fett's laser cannons were firing at a RoF of several hundred rounds per minute? He didn't fire them at full power (note how the ICS states max) because to do so would drain his power supply and overheat the turrets so that he wouldn't be able to fire more than a few shots.

You calculated that?
And my point (which you once again missed) is that firing faster at a puny power level will not yield a kill if your opponent is capable of tanking much higher power shots.
Take your Tank example: Hitting it with a stick multiple hundred times a minute will not make the stick damage the tank more, because the stick cannot damage the tank due to its armor being so strong...

but why would the star destroyer fire its heavier turbolasers when it merely was vaporizing relatively small asteroids?

Problem is, from the angle of a few shots, we do know for a fact, that they were fired from the dorsal guns, and, due to the models seen in the movies, that only HTLs are found on the dorsal side of the ISD...

Examples please of these "forgotten" facts or questionable scaling that you claim.

For TESB, he uses bad scalings of asteroids, ignores the shots coming from the dorsal side and thus assumes only MTLs and LTLs are fired, ignores the fact Jango's weapons were fired at less than 1% their rated power in the ICS, etc...
Basically, and strangely enough, he makes the same bad assumptions you do...

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Yes, evidence the DS can fire 200GT, but you still haven't provided any evidence ISDs can, showing me once again you missed the point...

1. Heat, 2. energy, 3. recoil. With these 3 things figured out, there is no reason why an ISD can't fire 200 gigaton turbolasers. I've already explained how they have the capability to fire 200 gigaton turbolasers.

I too believe it was a Sphat-T that fired and ripped in half that heavily damaged enemy ship...
You know a football field is 109.7 meters long and 48.74 meters wide, right?
You do know that the 900 meter ship that was ripped apart was about 100 meters wide, right?
So a whole "the size of several football fields" would have ripped a hole greater than the ship itself... :)

Who says that I was talking about width and not length? The fact is that the feat is not sub kiloton.

I fully agree the asteroid example in TESB is a lower limit example, and that they were more likely not firing at full power.
I do not accept the bullshit excuse that they were firing at 0.002% full power in this incident...
SW has never shown this level of control in their weapons...
10%, I'd accept, no problem, but 0.002%?
Nope, not a chance in hell...
And you missed the point of this example as well...

The excuse? Who needs an excuse for a lower limit? Do you know what a lower limit means? If a weapons designed shows off a new handgun and it easily goes through glass, would it be reasonable for a military dude to say "why did it go through glass, which would be a fraction of the kinetic energy of a low powered handgun?"

No! Because it's a lower limit. If a nuclear bomb easily vaporizes a puddle of water, and somebody claims that said nuke was a megaton, does he/she need to explain why it vaporized a water puddle?

It's called overkill.

You calculated that?
And my point (which you once again missed) is that firing faster at a puny power level will not yield a kill if your opponent is capable of tanking much higher power shots.
Take your Tank example: Hitting it with a stick multiple hundred times a minute will not make the stick damage the tank more, because the stick cannot damage the tank due to its armor being so strong...

I did not claim that Obi Wan's starfighter could take kiloton level blasts. It could take a blast of about a ton with minimal damage, but a kiloton? Probably not.

Problem is, from the angle of a few shots, we do know for a fact, that they were fired from the dorsal guns, and, due to the models seen in the movies, that only HTLs are found on the dorsal side of the ISD...

Uh, I haven't confirmed that, but if it's true, it could be because the heavy turbolasers were the ones that were best positioned to take out the asteroids in that situation.

But again, a lower limit that is performed without any noticeable effort says absolutely nothing about the upper limit. We know for a fact that the turbolasers are > or = several kilotons, but how much greater we don't know.

For TESB, he uses bad scalings of asteroids,

Uh, 10 meters is a pretty good estimate based on the size of the star destroyer in poportion to the asteroids.

ignores the shots coming from the dorsal side and thus assumes only MTLs and LTLs are fired,

Again, lower limits do not at all determine upper limits.

ignores the fact Jango's weapons were fired at less than 1% their rated power in the ICS, etc...

Again, rapid fire =/= full powered shots.

Basically, and strangely enough, he makes the same bad assumptions you do...

Gasp! What if I'm Mike Wong?

A little off topic; how would you guys react if Mike Wong openly made an account here? Ban him instantly? Lol. Just a question.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

A little off topic; how would you guys react if Mike Wong openly made an account here? Ban him instantly? Lol. Just a question.

This is not SDN and we do not ban people for having oposing viewpoints, even if they are assholes.

For 100% proof of that all you need do is login.

[Mr. Oragahn]

A little off topic; how would you guys react if Mike Wong openly made an account here? Ban him instantly? Lol. Just a question.

Ban him, of course. Why do you ask? It's Mike Wong, after all.

[Admiral Breetai]

I'd ask him how he was feeling after dealing with 4chan since it must of felt terrible to pwned by lunatics like that

Wong usually does not show up though i don't recall him ever taking the field in a board war rather delegating such things to servo or poe..or some one so him showing up here after SWST attacked seems unlikely

and honestly since wongs site is responsible for gems like this

They actually did a calc at SD.net based on the disparity in firepower over, and other tech and it would take several thousands of years with thousands of Federations to beat a single Star Destroyer.

Oh yeah and put it into further perspective, 500 Federation warships have less power than a single heavy turbolaser on a Star Destroyer.

maybe you should stop parroting them SWST