Another turbolaser calculation

[Mike DiCenso]

So let's say that SWST wants to keep using his/her's scaling down the reactor arguement. How does SWST arrive at that 158 or whatever number? Is it a linear scaling or a volumetric one?

Does it even hold up? Let's take a look shall we?


We can see several good images here on RSA's site giving us a size for the original Death Star's reactor to the overall volume of the station. Even the DS2 image seems to be in large agreement with the ratio sizes. RSA's scalings seem more or less in agreement that the DS1 reactor was between 8-9 km tall and 17 km wide.

That being done, let's size how that scales down from a linear view. 9,000m/140 m = 64 times difference in linear ratios for height and 17,000/140 = 121 for width . That's assuming that SWST's assumption for reactor size is even correct , and like so many others here, I would like to know where SWST got that number from in the first place.

So now for volume. Using the "flat drum" cylindrical DS reactor chamber shape that we see, we need to calculate the volume using the formula V = pi*r2*h. So plugging the numbers in I get 2,042,820,622,996.76 m cubed. Now we have no idea what SWST is assuming for the shape or anything of the ISD reactor. Most sources suggest a spherical solar ionization reactor, so for fairness' sake I'll go with that. If I did the numbers right: 1,436,755.040 meters cubed. So let's divide that in the DS reactor and we get: a ratio of 1,421,829.44 to 1. Now this even by itself means nothing since we don't know if the DS reactors have a linear scaling in terms of power. If the DS reactor pumps out 1e29 watts, then using the volume ratio nets us 70,331,923,919,088,354,226,228.428 watts.

This is way below his oft claimed 1e23 and 1e24 w numbers for ISD power.
-Mike

[StarWarsStarTrek]

7e22 watts is seven thousand times larger than the highest canon power generation feat of the Enterprise.

You were saying? Depending on calculations (what the Death Star's power generation is, what the scaling is, etc) the calcs may vary by a few OOM's, but they still turn out above the Enterprise.

Btw, the Death Star either scales linearly down or scales linearly down with an added efficiency boost, given that smaller/decent sized reactors may be more efficient. E=MC^2...M, the mass of the reactor, scales linearly, and C is a constant.

[Mike DiCenso]

To be honest, I was being quite generous with the Death Star power generation and going in my assumptions with your previous over-estimate of the Death Star based on what you claimed it's power generation would have to be assuming a massive burst of power into thrusters or other engines (which does not take into account other possible means of movement, such as repulsor lift). However, even in the optimistic interpretation, I still found the output thousands of times lower than what you were claiming (i.e. 1e23 to 1e24 watts). By going with 1e28, or 1e24 watts for the DS power generation, we can bring the reactor outputs for an ISD and the E-D within a mere factor 10-100 of each other, and considerably less given other factors that I and others have pointed out to you.
-Mike

[User1619]

As for the DS power-generation figure, I've already proven many times over that it can't possibly be pumping out that much raw energy: the appearance of the beam, the form of the explosion, the rate of the explosion and particles etc. all proves that there's some sort of energy-shift mechanism at work.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

@Mike:

No, your calculation is highly conservative. Both the Incredible Cross Sections (the original one) and the official Star Wars website list the Death Star as having enough power output to destroy a planet (in the website, it makes it quite indisputable by adding the adjective "raw"). This rules out any chain reaction time weapon, because it states that the Death Star has the POWER OUTPUT to destroy a planet, not a chain reaction time weapon (which a TECHNICAL GUIDE surely would have pointed out). Every other quote, often times from in universe engineers and scientists, all marvel at the power output of the Death Star, not its chain reaction whatever.

e29 joules is assuming that the Death Star puts all of its energy in its day recharge time into recharging the superlaser, with complete efficiency, and that the day recharge time is not due to, say, overheating. It's also assuming the absolute low end calculation of e32 joules.


@Heroheeto

You just joined today, and you're saying that you've proved something over and over again? I'm getting suspicious.

[User1356]

As for the DS power-generation figure, I've already proven many times over that it can't possibly be pumping out that much raw energy: the appearance of the beam, the form of the explosion, the rate of the explosion and particles etc. all proves that there's some sort of energy-shift mechanism at work.

If you are going to sockpuppet and troll it helps if you arent blatantly obvious about it

[Mr. Oragahn]

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.

I'd like to address this part of your post. If the Death Star's power generation ranks at e32 watts but the superlaser is not DET, that is a win for Star Wars.

What matters in context to ship vs ship firepower is that a star destroyer's power generation can now be reasonably scaled down from that of the Death Star's.

We would get to a power generation of e26 watts, vs the e19 watts of the Enterprise.

Of course, in the process, you completely removed the non-DET part.
It doesn't really matter, because SW ships fall to power well below even those e19 W you pull out of nowhere for the Enterprise.

That means that a star destroyers produces ten million times more energy than the Enterprise.

Which, consequently, means that a single star destroyer outpowers all of Starfleet!

How does the nature of the superlaser matter in this case? It's main dispute is because it would affect the Death Star's power generation capabilities, which would in turn affect those of star destroyers.

The vast majority of EU sources put the power production of SW ships coming from fusion. You can't obtain those numbers as above with fusion and the volumes at play.
So why insist? You think I'm going to just let it go because you repeat yourself like a broken record or something?

7e22 watts is seven thousand times larger than the highest canon power generation feat of the Enterprise.

You were saying? Depending on calculations (what the Death Star's power generation is, what the scaling is, etc) the calcs may vary by a few OOM's, but they still turn out above the Enterprise.

Btw, the Death Star either scales linearly down or scales linearly down with an added efficiency boost, given that smaller/decent sized reactors may be more efficient. E=MC^2...M, the mass of the reactor, scales linearly, and C is a constant.

Why don't you scale up from observed blaster/laser cannon effects? The Essential Guide even gives an idea of the scaling power between a blaster, a laser cannon and a turbolaser, each later being the former plus some added process.

I'd like to point out that Picard and Admiral Breetai consider the EU non canon. FYI.

In fairness, however, this is SWST's thread, his/her's OP, so the call belongs to him/her on what is allowed. If SWST is trying to argue solely without benefit of ICS, then it makes it that much harder to prove his/her's case.
-Mike

You're right. I wasn't trying to filter out sources, I have no problem these days to rely on the EU.

The script for the episode specifies that Data was about to say per second.

And the show has shown that he was interrupted. So the script is describing something which has simply never happened, and never would.
It's not acceptable.

He could have easily said per hour, it's widely done today. He could have said per a given quantity of matter, but that doesn't mean it's consumed in one second. We also use such formulations today. This one is particularly interesting since we know that UFP heavy ships destroyed due to warp core overloads tend to be largely - although incompletely - vaporized, which points to events rated in the gigaton range, with most likely a large amount of AM being consumed in the process.

The calculations you are looking for are here in the old "Phaser/warp power" thread from nearly three years ago.

Thanks.

Basically the lower limit here is around four gigatons. With the ability of the E-D's hull to tank 12,000 degree C temperatures, this would be a fairly lower limit to the amount of antimatter in a Galaxy-class starship's warpcore in any given second.
-Mike

But that's the outer hull, and resistance to heat isn't the same as strength, which is also what matters when there's a multi-gigaton explosion starting inside your ship.

[User1619]

As for the DS power-generation figure, I've already proven many times over that it can't possibly be pumping out that much raw energy: the appearance of the beam, the form of the explosion, the rate of the explosion and particles etc. all proves that there's some sort of energy-shift mechanism at work.

If you are going to sockpuppet and troll it helps if you arent blatantly obvious about it

Beat it creep

[User1619]

The vast majority of EU sources put the power production of SW ships coming from fusion. You can't obtain those numbers as above with fusion and the volumes at play.
So why insist? You think I'm going to just let it go because you repeat yourself like a broken record or something?

That seems to be the plan, i.e. operation "all mouth, no ears."

I'd like to point out that Picard and Admiral Breetai consider the EU non canon. FYI.

In fairness, however, this is SWST's thread, his/her's OP, so the call belongs to him/her on what is allowed.

Not beyond the OP.

[mojo]

now the question is, who is the puppeteer?

and for god's sake swst, i JUST FUCKING CALLED YOU ON THIS. either the death star novel is evidence or it isn't. if it isn't, you can keep pretending the death star is a det weapon. if it is, THEN IT ISN'T. it's not that difficult to understand. make up your mind.

[Admiral Breetai]

now the question is, who is the puppeteer?

and for god's sake swst, i JUST FUCKING CALLED YOU ON THIS. either the death star novel is evidence or it isn't. if it isn't, you can keep pretending the death star is a det weapon. if it is, THEN IT ISN'T. it's not that difficult to understand. make up your mind.

of course we can totally count on SWST to make a valiant and honest stand and return to this thread and address both our challenges to him rather then invent some nonsense excuse and bail like some sort of coward

[Mike DiCenso]

@Mike:

No, your calculation is highly conservative. Both the Incredible Cross Sections (the original one) and the official Star Wars website list the Death Star as having enough power output to destroy a planet (in the website, it makes it quite indisputable by adding the adjective "raw"). This rules out any chain reaction time weapon, because it states that the Death Star has the POWER OUTPUT to destroy a planet, not a chain reaction time weapon (which a TECHNICAL GUIDE surely would have pointed out). Every other quote, often times from in universe engineers and scientists, all marvel at the power output of the Death Star, not its chain reaction whatever.

e29 joules is assuming that the Death Star puts all of its energy in its day recharge time into recharging the superlaser, with complete efficiency, and that the day recharge time is not due to, say, overheating. It's also assuming the absolute low end calculation of e32 joules.

The SW website is not a canon source. Even if it were, "unthinkable amounts of raw energy" does not equal a DET weapon of 1e32 or 1e36 J weapon as I pointed out in my previous post. It's a simple concept. The ICS is the only source that even really claims that. And the ANH novelization clearly outranks the SW databank, claims the Death Star uses matter-energy conversion powered by a big nuclear fusion power plant. So that puts paid to anything else right there as it's second-tier G-level canon.
-Mike

[Picard]

The script for the episode specifies that Data was about to say per second.

...and I included that in that page.

For comparision:

http://picard578.hostoi.com/startrek-vs ... _core.html

http://picard578.hostoi.com/startrek-vs ... power.html

"Power output" section.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

now the question is, who is the puppeteer?

9.9/10 that it is Breentai.

But I apologize if I am incorrect, since it can be pretty much anybody.

and for god's sake swst, i JUST FUCKING CALLED YOU ON THIS. either the death star novel is evidence or it isn't. if it isn't, you can keep pretending the death star is a det weapon. if it is, THEN IT ISN'T. it's not that difficult to understand. make up your mind.

Hint: when Darkstar makes an argument, do not immediately follow him and take his lead. Look over it for yourself first.

Let's look at an important part of the quote that darkstar ignores:

"Tenn knew that the beam's total destructive power was much bigger than matter-energy conversions limited to realspace. At full charge, the hyper-matter reactor provided a superluminal "boost" that caused much of the planet's mass to be shifted immediately into hyperspace."

Ok, so in this case, we are assuming that the EU = canon. Otherwise, this discussion would be irrelevant.

We know that it is the hypermatter reactor that causes the shift into hyperspace. We know from earlier in the book that smaller hyperspace reactors are available and are used on star destroyers, which is supported by the EU.

We also know from earlier in the book that the hypermatter reactor for the Death Star was:

1. Equal to the weekly output of several main sequence stars
2. The biggest challenge of building the Death Star

One seals the deal here; it proves that the Death Star's hypermatter reactor is indeed as powerful as us Warsies predict. Two proves that, even if the superlaser is not completely DET, it still requires a shit-load of energy.

In fact, since we are using the EU as a source, we know that a star destroyer uses more energy in a hyperspace jump than many nation-states will use in their life time. This hypermatter reactor is boosting much of the mass of a PLANET into hyperspace. The energy needed to do that would quite roughly match the energy needed to destroy a planet.

We also know that not all of the planet was shifted into hyperspace; only "much" of it. Even if only 10% of the planet was not shifted into hyperspace, given the e38 requirement calculated from the speed of the matter being dispersed, we still get e37-ish joules plus the "boost". Using the e32 joules, we still get e31 joules plus the "boost", which still takes a reactor equivalent to the weekly output of several main sequence stars.

See? Either way, the Death Star is proof of Star Wars's extreme power generation capability.

[Picard]

Hint: when Darkstar makes an argument, do not immediately follow him and take his lead. Look over it for yourself first.

One hint you are quite happy to ignore when it comes to Wong.

Ok, so in this case, we are assuming that the EU = canon. Otherwise, this discussion would be irrelevant.

So it is irrelevant. As for rest of your assumptions, you conveniently ignore every bit of canon evidence there is - evidence which points to fusion reactor. In short, your calculations might be fun to do, but are, contrary to your last sentence in post, irrelevant when it comes to discussion.