Another turbolaser calculation

[Mike DiCenso]

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

All of which was completely debunked in the power generation thread from a few months back. That kind of energy generation is only possible, if the damn thing blows up. But even granting you that, several main sequence stars could easily be a reference to red dwarf stars, which are the most common type of main sequence star in existance, which in turn would reduce the Death Star down to no more than 1e24 w range power.
-Mike

[Admiral Breetai]

9.9/10 that it is Breentai.

so desperate you have to resort to making a blatantly false claim KSW and I have gone up aggain each other just as viciously as we have..only he's not the type to try and frame another poster

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

BAHAHAHA AHAHHAAB OH SHIT..AHAHAHAHA OH DUDE WHAAHAHA FUNNIEST POST EVER

seriously since you basically parrot wong constantly you saying this is entirely hypocritical

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

it isn't the rest of your post is just irrelevant lies or nonsense

[Mike DiCenso]

9.9/10 that it is Breentai.

so desperate you have to resort to making a blatantly false claim KSW and I have gone up aggain each other just as viciously as we have..only he's not the type to try and frame another poster

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

BAHAHAHA AHAHHAAB OH SHIT..AHAHAHAHA OH DUDE WHAAHAHA FUNNIEST POST EVER

seriously since you basically parrot wong constantly you saying this is entirely hypocritical

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

it isn't the rest of your post is just irrelevant lies or nonsense

All right, this stops right here, or I start handing out warnings and bans. Both of you knock it off.
-Mike

[Mr. Oragahn]

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.

Now I'm going to have to report you. There's no reason to make an effort and be kind towards you if you refuse to make the minimal effort of reading the appropriate threads instead of repeating the same old claims ad nauseam.

[User1619]

@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").

Here's the official link, where it just says the following:

From the Movies
The Death Star was the code name of an unspeakably powerful and horrific weapon developed by the Empire. The immense space station carried a weapon capable of destroying entire planets.

[Mike DiCenso]

SWST needs to retract his previous statement since the Databank entries for the Death Star in the movie and EU has no mention anywhere about the battestation's superlaser possessing the raw power to destroy a planet. This may constitute evidence of SWST's dishonesty in these debates.
-Mike

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

SWST needs to retract his previous statement since the Databank entries for the Death Star in the movie and EU has no mention anywhere about the battestation's superlaser possessing the raw power to destroy a planet. This may constitute evidence of SWST's dishonesty in these debates.
-Mike

I thought it was the opening crawl of ANH that said something like "the Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet" or some such that warsies tend to latch onto.

Ignoring that it is in regards to its capability rather than a reference to raw energy.

[Praeothmin]

The SW.com entry also says that, from the EU:

Much of its interior space was devoted to systems required to maintain its massive superlaser and power plant. At the heart of the Death Star is a gigantic hypermatter reactor. Within this chamber burned a fusion reaction of prodigious proportions, fed by stellar fuel bottles lining its periphery.

So it does seem to be fusion, probably using Hypermatter...

Also:

Facilitating the Death Star's realspace propulsion were a network of powerful ion engines that transformed reactor power into needed thrust. In order for the Death Star to be a viable threat, it needed to be mobile. Using linked banks of 123 hyperdrive field generators tied into a single navigational matrix, the Death Star could travel across the galaxy at superluminal velocities.

And concerning its size, while the "profile" says 160km, the text says:

The Death Star was 120 kilometers in diameter. Much of its interior space was devoted to systems required to maintain its massive superlaser and power plant. At the heart of the Death Star is a gigantic hypermatter reactor.

And:

Behind the Scenes
During the design process, the Death Star underwent a number of iterations, though the idea of an immense mechanical sphere was the present in all versions. Some early concept models were silvery in color, and sported a number of mechanical "blisters" on the surface. Another version had the immense laser dish on its equator.

In the finished film, the Death Star was a combination of whole models (including one that measured 120 cm in diameter), sectional models (particularly for the station's visible surface during the trench runs), and matte paintings.

So things do indeed point out to 120km diameter...

[Mike DiCenso]

This is sufficent grounds I think to warrant a warning to SWST over his dishonest behavior.
-Mike

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Excuse me?

http://www.starwars.com/databank/technology/superlaser/

The Death Star's prime weapon unleashed unthinkable levels of raw energy capable of tearing apart entire worlds.

[Mr. Oragahn]

I wouldn't call that dishonest (or perhaps I missed some point). I'd just say it's more like a violation of debating etiquette. Namely rebooting this debate while ignoring former arguments, claims, counter claims, evidence, logic and facts presented before, here and other threads.
Basically cherry picking and broken record tactics. It's glaring, it's tiring, and I don't know why he keeps insisting.
That's absurd. If he wanted to continue the debate, he could do it in the right thread, after acknowledging what has been said.
I really want a debate to go on, but this is not the way to go, unfortunately.
Oh wait. Strike that. It is dishonest debating.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

I wouldn't call that dishonest (or perhaps I missed some point). I'd just say it's more like a violation of debating etiquette. Namely rebooting this debate while ignoring former arguments, claims, counter claims, evidence, logic and facts presented before, here and other threads.
Basically cherry picking and broken record tactics. It's glaring, it's tiring, and I don't know why he keeps insisting.
That's absurd. If he wanted to continue the debate, he could do it in the right thread, after acknowledging what has been said.
I really want a debate to go on, but this is not the way to go, unfortunately.
Oh wait. Strike that. It is dishonest debating.

Notice how none of your accusations have a shred of evidence posted to back them up?

It's tiring when you accuse me of these things, while your side answers assertions of proof with this:

you know

*

And none of you try and correct it. It's only wrong when I make a mistake, but your side can continue to make double standards and admit to doing it, but that "we Warsies deserve it" and you do not say a word.

*Breentai said this. This was his full response, not out of context. Why is this ok?

[Mr. Oragahn]

I wouldn't call that dishonest (or perhaps I missed some point). I'd just say it's more like a violation of debating etiquette. Namely rebooting this debate while ignoring former arguments, claims, counter claims, evidence, logic and facts presented before, here and other threads.
Basically cherry picking and broken record tactics. It's glaring, it's tiring, and I don't know why he keeps insisting.
That's absurd. If he wanted to continue the debate, he could do it in the right thread, after acknowledging what has been said.
I really want a debate to go on, but this is not the way to go, unfortunately.
Oh wait. Strike that. It is dishonest debating.

Notice how none of your accusations have a shred of evidence posted to back them up?

Kid me. Nothing, absolutely nothing of what you present is new. Mike even blasted that main sequence star weekly power production figure with substantiated facts from verified astrophysics:

"Class M is by far the most common class. About 76% of the main sequence stars in the solar neighborhood are Class M stars."

I removed the three footnotes related to this claim, two of which being nota benes:

"These proportions are fractions of stars brighter than absolute magnitude 16; lowering this limit will render earlier types even rarer while generally adding only to the M class.
This rises to 78.6% if we include all stars."

Which could fit with the higher end figures I attached to the DET part of the superlaser shots at Despayre, if we assume that the quotation from the "Death Star" book meant that power could be generated under normal conditions and not as a result of a cascading failure inside the core, or at the very least prove that we don't reach the 2e32 J threshold (at best, we reach around n~e30 J).

EDIT: And this tells you that most of those red dwarf stars are dim ones, close to brown dwarfs (which may or may not be part of the main sequence: diagrams put them there, but generally if they don't reach fusion, they're considered out). Luminosity is about a thousandth of Sol. That's going to be around e28~29 J over a week.

Then, the validity of the content of the OS has already been addressed before.
All of this is nothing new. You must be some kind of fool, I don't know. The threads are there for all to see, so you just can't say no, nothing existed before like some kind of weird solipsism.

The Death Star superlaser question has been debated to death here, and anything remotely new we could read at SBC was brought back here to be discussed.
We have threads about the Death Star, the superlaser, multiple references about planetary shields which were never used before in the SWvST debate; mostly because the damaging quotes were conveniently brushed aside by Wongies.

It's tiring when you accuse me of these things, while your side answers assertions of proof with this:

you know

*

And none of you try and correct it. It's only wrong when I make a mistake, but your side can continue to make double standards and admit to doing it, but that "we Warsies deserve it" and you do not say a word.

*Breentai said this. This was his full response, not out of context. Why is this ok?

You've been denying facts from the get go. You've been refusing to even read one single post from the threads which you *should* read before claiming having anything new. You can debate well, so why the heck don't you pay a modicum of attention to those threads?
What's the problem? I don't really care what Breetai says, he's probably pissed off by what you've been doing which pretty much anyone here can see.
I like the fact that you defend your claims, and you actually offer a good reverse perspective here, so your additions are still appreciated, and it's good and all, but only when done in good faith.
So tell me. Why don't you want to read those damn threads?
We don't even know you for crissake. You're an anon on those boards like almost anyone else bar a few, so don't tell me it's a question of ego admitting being wrong, dammit!
It would really suck seeing you go at SDN just because you can't get the final word here. Guess what? You simply can't at the moment, because we do know where we're going in this debate.
And I think it would suck to learn that you're just here trying to troll most of the members so some of them may snap, just for you to say to some other friends on another board "oh lookie, "SFJN's *cough* civlized plebe *cough* is full of shit" or some such.
Dude, I'm being honest here. Kind as much as I can be. There's really no ill intention here. Just... pull off or something, dunno.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

So your claims are:

1. I do not respond to posts

2. My arguments have been repeated many times before


Well...

1. Do you honestly expect me to respond to every single response that is posted in debates, many of which overlap and say the same thing as the response before? Do you realize that some of the longer debate can take up to an hour to respond to? Do your realize that I have other things to do other than debate everybody?

If you have something that I really want to respond to, you can post it directly to me, or PM me, or whichever. Most rebuttals to me say the same thing, just from different people with different wording.

For the "main sequence star" thing, true, it could be a red dwarf. However, the calculations for what it would be if it were an M class star (which is probably what a relative layperson would be referring to, being more well known by the populace), it just so happens to conveniently be almost exactly what the lower limit for blowing up a planet is. The Saxtonian model is therefore heavily supported by Star Wars: Death Star. There are two possiblities:

1. "Main sequence" is referring to a star like our sun

2. "Main sequence" is referring to a red dwarf, even though a layperson would probably have specified red dwarf

1 is supported by mathematical calculations from the DET theory (these calculations are rarely disputed; whether it is DET is disputed) based on the film footage. 2 is not supported by the DET theory or the chain reaction theory.

Is it a coincidence that 1 happens to fit oh so well with the DET theory (which is the more scientifically plausible theory, and fits with Occam's razor)?



2. Some have, but this is a byproduct of the fact that the SW vs ST debate has been going on for many decades by now, and all of the best arguments have pretty much been stated and repeated. However, my reasoning is unique; if I were simply to copy and paste other arguments, I would have been out-debated easily and have been unable to come up with a response. This also applies to the Star Trek side; how many times has the chain reaction theory been repeated over and over again?

But some of my arguments are original, such as my BDZ vs quantum torpedo calculation.

[Mr. Oragahn]

So your claims are:

1. I do not respond to posts

2. My arguments have been repeated many times before


Well...

1. Do you honestly expect me to respond to every single response that is posted in debates, many of which overlap and say the same thing as the response before? Do you realize that some of the longer debate can take up to an hour to respond to? Do your realize that I have other things to do other than debate everybody?

If you have something that I really want to respond to, you can post it directly to me, or PM me, or whichever. Most rebuttals to me say the same thing, just from different people with different wording.

For the "main sequence star" thing, true, it could be a red dwarf. However, the calculations for what it would be if it were an M class star (which is probably what a relative layperson would be referring to, being more well known by the populace), it just so happens to conveniently be almost exactly what the lower limit for blowing up a planet is. The Saxtonian model is therefore heavily supported by Star Wars: Death Star. There are two possiblities:

1. "Main sequence" is referring to a star like our sun

2. "Main sequence" is referring to a red dwarf, even though a layperson would probably have specified red dwarf

1 is supported by mathematical calculations from the DET theory (these calculations are rarely disputed; whether it is DET is disputed) based on the film footage. 2 is not supported by the DET theory or the chain reaction theory.

Is it a coincidence that 1 happens to fit oh so well with the DET theory (which is the more scientifically plausible theory, and fits with Occam's razor)?



2. Some have, but this is a byproduct of the fact that the SW vs ST debate has been going on for many decades by now, and all of the best arguments have pretty much been stated and repeated. However, my reasoning is unique; if I were simply to copy and paste other arguments, I would have been out-debated easily and have been unable to come up with a response. This also applies to the Star Trek side; how many times has the chain reaction theory been repeated over and over again?

But some of my arguments are original, such as my BDZ vs quantum torpedo calculation.

As I already said too many times, just bump the goddamn appropriate thread.
I'm out of that circus.