StarWarsStarTrek wrote:Mr. Oragahn wrote:
It powers a lot of things and none of the barrels ever reaches the size of the planetary TL's bore. I think the barrels are like 3 meters wide at best, for the HTLs on an ISD-II
Point taken. A planetary turbolaser is probably more powerful than an individual heavy turbolaser bolt, although this is still disputable. For example, the ground turbolaser battery would have the disadvantage of having to fire upwards through the atmosphere, in which case its reactor would also have to be safe enough so as to not damage the environment, because there is no endless space to radiate to.
They seem to cope with thermal issues very easily in SW, like in many SF universes. Their hypoconductors are top rate in many ways I guess. So this isn't a problem. Besides, if you think about the bolt itself losing energy through friction, the ISD would be at a disadvantage here, since the longer the bolt would fly (and thus unavoidably lose coherency, nothing is eternal), the greater the friction as it would descend into the atmosphere.
A ground piece as the advantage of its bolt dealing with the highest amount of friction at the time it's all fresh. Besides, it's solely designed as a planetary piece, contrary to a space ship which is widely used to patrol and attack other space ships.
It's possible and probable, but not explicitly defined. Did Han shoot first, or did Greedo?
The new guide supersedes the older one, that's fairly simple.
It's hard to get anything huge, even on the high end, when working from a small city.
Claiming megatons would be absurd.
Even small cities would include spaceports that have ships lifting and reaching escape velocity within seconds. A space age society consumes far more energy than you might think.
A society as a whole, perhaps, but ships which can travel to any star system have certainly
nothing to do with a city, otherwise on this same faulty logic, Coruscan't power consumption can be used to determine Naboo's.
The OS is generally seen as the less reliable source of all official sources. I guess it's just a notch above the fluff on a SW mug.
Still, raw energy or not, the way it's unleashed has nothing to do with pure DET.
There's also no reason to take that literally.
I could say the same about TCW, but people here support it because "zomg! George Lucas helped make it!" and, as a hidden reason, "zomg! It supports Star Trek!".
The former one, the one that is not a skewed bias, also applies to the Star Wars website.
Also because even the official canon policy used for the EU places TCWS above the EU, including (at best) the OS.
But I can understand why you do not trust the Star Wars website on such things, since some of the content there is sketchy and unreliable. I do not trust the Star Wars databank, nor do I trust TCW with more than storylines and character traits. TCW is not, in any way, reliable either.
That's a matter of tastes. The reliability of the OS is a matter of facts. It's the source that mindlessly repeated the wrong sizes for several crafts and vehicles, and I think it even introduced some of its own at some point.
The OS's data, which often changes, is a randomly pieced up summary of cherry picked pieces from all the EU. It has always been like that, even at some point doing nothing more than copying whole chunks of some guides, be they new or from the WEG era.
The other problem with the OS is that it's not fixed in time with specific editions. One update can easily erase the former data and all is lost, even if no contradictions could be found between the old data and the new data, reworded differently. The destruction of older sources, that's something scholars HATE.
Hence why the OS is at the bottom of the evidence pit. You can't know when the current data will just be dumped. It makes it very unreliable, and people will simply prefer one source that's fixed in time.
As for whether or not it's DET, it hardly matters. What matters is how much energy was expended; given that you have considered the possibility, one can therefore conclude that the Death Star is indeed expending e32 joules or more. Whether this is through DET or some weird hyperspace attack is irrelevant.
Oh, it matters. It matters greatly, because it draws the line between the Death Star's own core and some region of hyperspace.
What I think happens when a superlaser sufficiently saturates a target is largely described in the thread I keep telling you to read and eventually bump.
If you have watched Stargate, think of the zatnikatel gun. The third shot triggers a chain reaction into the target, assuming it's already been shot twice within a small enough amount of time, and is human sized or less. The only difference with the Death Star superlaser is that the frontier between a fraction of the SL and a full powered shot is not as contrasted as it is between the second shot and the third shot of the zatnikatel gun.
Pardon? The Enterprise is now a measure of power. Could you please rephrase that, and if it means what I think it might mean, could you provide evidence of that?
The Enterprise has a power output of about 10^19 watts. What is so confusing about that?
Your sentence. Bad English. And what's confusing is where you get such evidence.
PS. As further evidence of the Death Star not being a chain reaction weapon or some other voodoo, seperate sources have claimed that the superlaser is really a series of turbolasers being combined and amplified by some sort of crystal. If I recall correctly, George Lucas mentioned this idea in his drafts. It's a really, really, really powerful and amplified turbolaser, not some technoblabble chain reaction that somehow converts matter into antimatter or some other weird process.
This has already been addressed repeatedly. Go read the appropriate threads.
I may have to report you for your insistence.
As said before, there are DS threads for you to refresh if you think you have any superior evidence. If you had read anything of what has been said here, you'd know that "your interpretation" could go very low, way below e32 J as a matter of fact.
We already covered that. You're telling me nothing new. Don't insist pushing your arguments here if they're nothing new.
We didn't already cover that.
Yes we did. Nothing of what you present is fresh at all. You would know that if you had read the threads in question. Obviously you didn't. Don't expect me to pay any more attention to your tired position. Been there done that.
