The Death Star's power output confirmed!

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Hey Picard, see if you can notice the contradiction you make in between points 1 and 2.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Don't forget to reply to those posts, SWST:

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 502#p32502
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 135#p33135

Thank you.

[Picard]

Hey Picard, see if you can notice the contradiction you make in between points 1 and 2.

Yes I do. But while Star Trek explains technology by using actual science (thought some concepts got outdated / disproved since making of series they were used in), and Star Wars canon gives almost no explanation, Star Wars EU often gives BAD explanations. So, here we go with your contradiction ;-).

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Hey Picard, see if you can notice the contradiction you make in between points 1 and 2.

Yes I do. But while Star Trek explains technology by using actual science (thought some concepts got outdated / disproved since making of series they were used in), and Star Wars canon gives almost no explanation, Star Wars EU often gives BAD explanations. So, here we go with your contradiction ;-).

...did you actually claim that Star Trek explains technology using real science?

Do you suppose that solid neutronium is somehow real science? Or a crack in an event horizon? Or magical energy beings? Or subspace? Or the abuse of the word quantum for no reason? Or vaporizing object in atmosphere with no vapor? Or warp cores displaying the same halo ring affects that you nitpick the Death Star for? Or light magically going several thousand times faster than it should when it suites the plot? Or phasers violating conservation of momentum? Do you ever wonder why Star Trek's supposed science, the little that is not flat out true, is often times proven false after a few decades? Maybe it's because of the fact that Star Trek grabs onto every new scientific theory that comes out, regardless of whether or not any of them have solid evidence supporting them. Ever wonder how the warp signature of the Enterprise is disrupted...by the gravitational pull of the moon...from Earth orbit?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Hey Picard, see if you can notice the contradiction you make in between points 1 and 2.

Yes I do. But while Star Trek explains technology by using actual science (thought some concepts got outdated / disproved since making of series they were used in), and Star Wars canon gives almost no explanation, Star Wars EU often gives BAD explanations. So, here we go with your contradiction ;-).

Well, frankly, SW's EU can hardly be said to go into details of anything, especially if compared to Star Trek which is choke-full of pseudo science.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Don't forget to reply to those posts, SWST:

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 502#p32502
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 135#p33135

Thank you.

SWST. Don't forget about those posts of mine. You told me you'd look after the longest one at least, and the other is very short and pretty much smacks your entire position, so you're ought to prove it wrong as well. Oh, you also have to deal with ALL the quotes I provided in that same thread (links at the beginning of this other post), instead of ignoring most of them.
I'm just reminding you of your... obligations.
Unless you want to concede right now?

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Despayre, eh?

The apparent progressive firepower of the shot each time can be explained multiple ways. The out of universe explanation is that the author forgot the fact that actually mass scattering the planet at escape velocity is the most difficult part of the task. It could very well be deemed contradicted by the clearly e38 joules of the Death Star blast in G canon.

As for an in universe explanation, it can easily be that the 33% power was in reference to 1) the part of the hypermatter reactor already finished and workable and 2) the amount of energy available to use/already charged up.

Either way, the account quite clearly disproves the chain reaction theory, because it shows quantifiable events occurring in ways that elude any chain reaction.

But, as I recall, the first blast of the superlaser caused the oceans to boil, right? This would require energy in excess of e26 joules, as I recall. The superlaser in single digit figures was able to blow up a Rebel cruiser; note that if the Rebel cruiser could have been blown up with a <1% power setting, they'd simply have set it to that number. That means that it takes e24 joules to overwhelm the shields of a Rebel cruiser, even if you assume that by single digit numbers they mean 1%.

In fact, every time anyone in Star Wars: Death Star; or any book, for that matter, talks about the superlaser, they marvel at the power of the laser. Never once is it brought up by a member that the superlaser isn't really that powerful and is just a chain reaction; they are awed by the raw energy of it, not its chain reaction.

This is shown by the fact that the superlaser is a bunch of very large turbolasers combined and amplified, so there is no reason for there to be a magical chain reaction that strangely remains undefined and self contradictory.

[Admiral Breetai]

despayre?

good lord are EU writers so out of ideas they steel the name off of Marvel planets (that ironically got BDZ'ed) and characters?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Despayre, eh?

The apparent progressive firepower of the shot each time can be explained multiple ways. The out of universe explanation is that the author forgot the fact that actually mass scattering the planet at escape velocity is the most difficult part of the task. It could very well be deemed contradicted by the clearly e38 joules of the Death Star blast in G canon.

When the e38 J figure itself is already highly debatable on its own, even before starting to take a look at any part of the EU.

As for an in universe explanation, it can easily be that the 33% power was in reference to 1) the part of the hypermatter reactor already finished and workable and 2) the amount of energy available to use/already charged up.

1. Ha, that's a special one. Do you understand that even that funny claim doesn't solve anything, because the discrepancy exists within the same referential, that is, the destruction of Despayre, and not, say, the blasting of Despayre and the blasting of Alderaan? Or perhaps you think they finished building the reactor between the first and third shot, while said reactor was actually online and charging the capacitors, hm?

2. So your other "solution" is basically to say but it's 1/3 of the capacitors' complete charge.
...
I mean, I love how you don't even bother to explain how it clarifies anything.
Flash news: it solves jack shit.
It is stated in the book that they charge the capacitors at full for each salvo.
Besides, even if they used only 1/3 for each of the three shots, it would just be a third of e32 or e 38 J, every single time (plus whatever the reactor is pumping out since it's also working during any firing sequence). So it would totally fail to fit with the effects of the first two shots.
As expected, you don't really seem to understand the problem there either.

Either way, the account quite clearly disproves the chain reaction theory, because it shows quantifiable events occurring in ways that elude any chain reaction.

Ah, it does?
It merely completely reinforces the idea that it's a total rape of physics at every turn of a page. Just that.
Call your solution chain reaction theory or reactive pixie dust at this point, it's not really important anymore.

But, as I recall, the first blast of the superlaser caused the oceans to boil, right? This would require energy in excess of e26 joules, as I recall.

Remember the very first page of that thread you started. Remember Mike's post, which you conveniently brushed away.
You seem to switch your memory off when it suits your arguments.
JMS explained in that same thread why your position was irritating, and you proved you wouldn't even bother reading the thread, instead preferring, as usual, to reboot everything and deny the existence of any single form of observation and conclusion you didn't want to hear about.
Here, I say that the only quote you rely on may be heavily conflictual towards the text from the novelization.
Again, I'm only linking to posts from this thread.
JMS gave you evidence of what most main sequence stars were in this post. That data was repeated several times, here, in another thread (if not two other threads), but you've constantly ignored it. Notably bits like this one: "Red dwarfs do everything at a slower rate. Since they’re a fraction of the mass of the Sun, red dwarfs generate as little as 1/10,000th the energy of the Sun."
Oh, look, it's also the same post wherein JMS copied and pasted the entire description of all three shots at Despayre. As understood, we were getting nowhere (that's the post which directly follows JMS'). It's also at that very moment that you very clearly decided to ignore ALL quotes from there on.
That was page 10, btw.
Top of page 11 and Mike warns you about your behaviour, and repeats the threat at the page's mid height.
Your behaviour thus far has been the equivalent of giving him the middle finger.
The rest of the thread has mainly been about you politely and very subtly trolling people for three more pages.

Heck, when both Death Stars exploded, did we see evidence of a release of energy coming anywhere close to what a star like Sol would routinely output? Yet the book Death Star is absolutely clear that the reactor was online at that very moment, with capacitors choke full of energy.
Perhaps you really need to admit that things are very fishy when it comes to the superlaser and its tied reactor design.

The superlaser in single digit figures was able to blow up a Rebel cruiser; note that if the Rebel cruiser could have been blown up with a <1% power setting, they'd simply have set it to that number. That means that it takes e24 joules to overwhelm the shields of a Rebel cruiser, even if you assume that by single digit numbers they mean 1%.

Not necessarily. There's no proof that they were aiming at a non-wasteful shot here. They blasted the whole 3 km wide cruiser to ionized dust, along the swarm of 500 fighters sent against it.
500 fighters which were already scrambled by the way, so most likely some good distance away from the cruiser.
The blast just erased all rebel forces at once.
No more, no less. Unless you have some solid proof that they were concerned about not wasting a single joule on that demonstration, your claim is moot.

In fact, every time anyone in Star Wars: Death Star; or any book, for that matter, talks about the superlaser, they marvel at the power of the laser. Never once is it brought up by a member that the superlaser isn't really that powerful and is just a chain reaction; they are awed by the raw energy of it, not its chain reaction.

Because even with the technobabble physics-raping side of it, it's still an immense amount of power that is unleashed.
You fail again.

This is shown by the fact that the superlaser is a bunch of very large turbolasers combined and amplified, so there is no reason for there to be a magical chain reaction that strangely remains undefined and self contradictory.

There's ample evidence that it's just much more than that.
Evidence provided a gazillion times, here and here, over there, beneath that rock, around that tree, behind that wall, under your seat, in your mom's bathroom and pretty much everywhere else on this forum.
It's actually unacceptable that at this point, you could still dare to make such an ignorant claim. It just can't be. We're well past the point of a honest mistake or even slightly obtuse debating.
We're dealing with something else. Which brings me to this other point, which I'd humbly call "my conclusion".
There are several possibilities about what you could be. I hesitate thus far between:

1. You are some dude with considerable medium to long term memory disorders. Then, to put it bluntly, you're a pointless debater if you can't remember the colour of your yesterday pants.
2. You are a neutronium dense idiot who can't understand anything that tries to get through your skull, even if under the form of a neutrino tightbeam.
3. You are a goddamn experienced troll. Somehow, the choice of "StarWarsStarTrek" as a nickname would fit with this train of thought. That's probably the kind of absurdly uninspired nickname anyone having just one goal in mind -trolling the shit out of this place- would pick. It's just so neutral and insipid, it boggles the mind that anyone would find anything exciting or fun about it. I mean, anyone, and I mean anyone, would still try to bring a bit of something in his nickname, even if it's total gibberish. I can only wonder what the next one will be, after your final ban. Perhaps you'd like to try something along the lines of "themed forum", "web bulletin board" or "new debater"?
   Mmm strike that, none of them manage to get as tepid and blank as the one you picked.

I would personally go for option three, although I can't be sure of anything. That said, option one is certainly not sustainable, as evidenced by your very convenient selective memories.

[General Donner]

On topic -- I haven't read the book ... but is there any chance the "one third" bit might refer to a logarithmic scale of energy? That could solve the inconsistency, if we're dealing with an e38 joules Death Star.

Otherwise I have a hard time reconciling the scene in any case given the wildly disparate effects.

[Mr. Oragahn]

On topic -- I haven't read the book ... but is there any chance the "one third" bit might refer to a logarithmic scale of energy? That could solve the inconsistency, if we're dealing with an e38 joules Death Star.

Otherwise I have a hard time reconciling the scene in any case given the wildly disparate effects.

No, and Kane Starkiller already tried that. It would be quicker to rewrite the very fabric of the English language than spin doctor the clear formulation of simple fractions into some obscure logarithmic scale.
You can read that part of the debate, but imho it's a bit of a waste of time, as KS kept pushing that for several pages, all for nothing.
It's as straight forward as "I'm going to use this system's power at a third of what its maximum capacity".

Besides, several of the quotes I provided about superlasers show that full thirds of the weapon, either from the Death Star or close to what the DS' SL can achieve, don't blast full thirds of a planet: they tend do be described burning continents.
It doesn't even matter, because during the whole Despayre incident, they kept firing the weapon with the same level of charge, and despite that, the effects kept getting bigger way beyond the point of multiplying 1/3 by 3 (or 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3).
What was clearly logarithmic (sort of) were the effects, not the power.

[Praeothmin]

Yeah, the quote said "1/3 power", not "1/3 log power measurement"...

[StarWarsStarTrek]

When the e38 J figure itself is already highly debatable on its own, even before starting to take a look at any part of the EU.

Claiming that the effects of an e38 joule; the planet being "blown to space dust" and large, fast moving asteroid fields being encountered when the Falcon arrived, are being caused by a blast of less than e38 joules is essentially claiming that the superlaser represents a perpetual motion machine.

The kinetic energy of what was once the planet is e38 joules, yet according to you was caused by less than e38 joules. So the Death Star's superlaser accelerates a planet to e38 joules using less than e38 joules?

And there's no way for the planet itself to magically gain this energy from itself either. Therefore, you're claiming that the superlaser violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Unless if you think that the planet was not really scattered into debris, despite the script and the novel stating so, debris quite obviously being seen scattering, and Han Solo encountering an asteroid fields, and that the mass somehow magically disappeared. Or got converted into energy, which then gets back to the same violations of thermodynamics.

1. Ha, that's a special one. Do you understand that even that funny claim doesn't solve anything, because the discrepancy exists within the same referential, that is, the destruction of Despayre, and not, say, the blasting of Despayre and the blasting of Alderaan? Or perhaps you think they finished building the reactor between the first and third shot, while said reactor was actually online and charging the capacitors, hm?

As I remember, the first and second shot occurred a day or several hours in between each other, while the second or third occurred just an hour in between, implying that the hypermatter reactor was improving in between the shots. Given that there was probably a huge team of engineers examining the results, this is a decent explanation.

2. So your other "solution" is basically to say but it's 1/3 of the capacitors' complete charge.
...
I mean, I love how you don't even bother to explain how it clarifies anything.
Flash news: it solves jack shit.
It is stated in the book that they charge the capacitors at full for each salvo.
Besides, even if they used only 1/3 for each of the three shots, it would just be a third of e32 or e 38 J, every single time (plus whatever the reactor is pumping out since it's also working during any firing sequence). So it would totally fail to fit with the effects of the first two shots.
As expected, you don't really seem to understand the problem there either.

It's not an irreconcilable problem. It's an inconsistency, but one that does not fit any better with a chain reaction, which is not magically going to work better on the second or third shot. The best explanation is that the superlaser was getting improved in the time in between the shots, or that it was simply still warming up the first time, having never fired at such high power before, meaning that the first shot was probably far less efficient, and far more was probably lost as waste heat.

Ah, it does?
It merely completely reinforces the idea that it's a total rape of physics at every turn of a page. Just that.
Call your solution chain reaction theory or reactive pixie dust at this point, it's not really important anymore.

It's not a total rape of physics at all, the Death Star novel explicitly attributes the hypermatter reactor to having the weekly power output of several main sequence stars.

It's funny how you claim that there's a "rape of physics" at every turn of the page, despite the fact that the shot you described lasted for a few pages. I suppose that we should analyze the split second fireballs of quantum torpedos as implicating sub kiloton yields, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHTtOMWRysg

Remember the very first page of that thread you started. Remember Mike's post, which you conveniently brushed away.
You seem to switch your memory off when it suits your arguments.
JMS explained in that same thread why your position was irritating, and you proved you wouldn't even bother reading the thread, instead preferring, as usual, to reboot everything and deny the existence of any single form of observation and conclusion you didn't want to hear about.
Here, I say that the only quote you rely on may be heavily conflictual towards the text from the novelization.
Again, I'm only linking to posts from this thread.
JMS gave you evidence of what most main sequence stars were in this post. That data was repeated several times, here, in another thread (if not two other threads), but you've constantly ignored it. Notably bits like this one: "Red dwarfs do everything at a slower rate. Since they’re a fraction of the mass of the Sun, red dwarfs generate as little as 1/10,000th the energy of the Sun."
Oh, look, it's also the same post wherein JMS copied and pasted the entire description of all three shots at Despayre. As understood, we were getting nowhere (that's the post which directly follows JMS'). It's also at that very moment that you very clearly decided to ignore ALL quotes from there on.
That was page 10, btw.
Top of page 11 and Mike warns you about your behaviour, and repeats the threat at the page's mid height.
Your behaviour thus far has been the equivalent of giving him the middle finger.
The rest of the thread has mainly been about you politely and very subtly trolling people for three more pages.

Is this supposed to have anything to do with the post you quoted? With a few stupid accusations of trolling thrown in at that.

Heck, when both Death Stars exploded, did we see evidence of a release of energy coming anywhere close to what a star like Sol would routinely output? Yet the book Death Star is absolutely clear that the reactor was online at that very moment, with capacitors choke full of energy.
Perhaps you really need to admit that things are very fishy when it comes to the superlaser and its tied reactor design.

Funny; the ANH novel states that the Death Star collapsed into a phenomona temporarily the most tombstone in this corner of the cosmos; I suppose that the Death Star's reactor is more powerful than neutron stars and black holes.

Not necessarily. There's no proof that they were aiming at a non-wasteful shot here. They blasted the whole 3 km wide cruiser to ionized dust, along the swarm of 500 fighters sent against it.
500 fighters which were already scrambled by the way, so most likely some good distance away from the cruiser.
The blast just erased all rebel forces at once.
No more, no less. Unless you have some solid proof that they were concerned about not wasting a single joule on that demonstration, your claim is moot.

In order for the calculation to blast to scale to break even with the Enterprise's e19 joule entire ship output, the blast would have to have been five orders of magnitude overkill, which is hardly splitting hairs, which is what you are claiming, as much as it is their engineers doing their numbers wrong by five orders of magnitude.

Because even with the technobabble physics-raping side of it, it's still an immense amount of power that is unleashed.
You fail again.

What amount of energy? The measly double digit gigatons that darkstar claims?

There's ample evidence that it's just much more than that.
Evidence provided a gazillion times, here and here, over there, beneath that rock, around that tree, behind that wall, under your seat, in your mom's bathroom and pretty much everywhere else on this forum.
It's actually unacceptable that at this point, you could still dare to make such an ignorant claim. It just can't be. We're well past the point of a honest mistake or even slightly obtuse debating.
We're dealing with something else. Which brings me to this other point, which I'd humbly call "my conclusion".
There are several possibilities about what you could be. I hesitate thus far between:

And I have no obligation to go around and find this evidence you claim has been posted somewhere in the hundreds of pages of this board.

1. You are some dude with considerable medium to long term memory disorders. Then, to put it bluntly, you're a pointless debater if you can't remember the colour of your yesterday pants.
2. You are a neutronium dense idiot who can't understand anything that tries to get through your skull, even if under the form of a neutrino tightbeam.
3. You are a goddamn experienced troll. Somehow, the choice of "StarWarsStarTrek" as a nickname would fit with this train of thought. That's probably the kind of absurdly uninspired nickname anyone having just one goal in mind -trolling the shit out of this place- would pick. It's just so neutral and insipid, it boggles the mind that anyone would find anything exciting or fun about it. I mean, anyone, and I mean anyone, would still try to bring a bit of something in his nickname, even if it's total gibberish. I can only wonder what the next one will be, after your final ban. Perhaps you'd like to try something along the lines of "themed forum", "web bulletin board" or "new debater"?
   Mmm strike that, none of them manage to get as tepid and blank as the one you picked.

I would personally go for option three, although I can't be sure of anything. That said, option one is certainly not sustainable, as evidenced by your very convenient selective memories.

You do realize that, in the time you spent writing this, you could have gone and searched up this proof that you claim is on this board, and have posted it, and have actually done something constructive?

It's a red flag that somebody is bullshitting when their excuse for not posting evidence takes more energy than it would to just post the evidence!

Moreso, you are making factually incorrect claims that you are important enough for me to divert hours of my day to troll you, in which case I would be a troll far more competent than you ever will be a debater.

[Mr. Oragahn]

When the e38 J figure itself is already highly debatable on its own, even before starting to take a look at any part of the EU.

Claiming that the effects of an e38 joule; the planet being "blown to space dust" and large, fast moving asteroid fields being encountered when the Falcon arrived, are being caused by a blast of less than e38 joules is essentially claiming that the superlaser represents a perpetual motion machine.

Yeah, whatever.
It's not like the speed and position of the asteroid field hasn't been adressed within the last two weeks, when you were posting.
To make it simple, it would be hard for an asteroid field to remain there. Besides, if the asteroids had kept the speed at which the visible part of the planet blew out, MF would have been hit by c fractional bits.

The kinetic energy of what was once the planet is e38 joules, yet according to you was caused by less than e38 joules. So the Death Star's superlaser accelerates a planet to e38 joules using less than e38 joules?

You assume that e38 J is correct.
It is not, as evidenced numerous times.

And there's no way for the planet itself to magically gain this energy from itself either.
Therefore, you're claiming that the superlaser violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Ha?
No, I'm merely saying that strange phenomena took place, and that the energy, most of it actually, didn't come from the superlaser, although the superlaser still rates, in terms of raw energy, very high.

1. Ha, that's a special one. Do you understand that even that funny claim doesn't solve anything, because the discrepancy exists within the same referential, that is, the destruction of Despayre, and not, say, the blasting of Despayre and the blasting of Alderaan? Or perhaps you think they finished building the reactor between the first and third shot, while said reactor was actually online and charging the capacitors, hm?

As I remember, the first and second shot occurred a day or several hours in between each other, while the second or third occurred just an hour in between, implying that the hypermatter reactor was improving in between the shots. Given that there was probably a huge team of engineers examining the results, this is a decent explanation.

Re read the quote JMS provided in that thread.
Obviously, you have not even clicked on the links.
You are wrong and wasting my time.

2. So your other "solution" is basically to say but it's 1/3 of the capacitors' complete charge.
...
I mean, I love how you don't even bother to explain how it clarifies anything.
Flash news: it solves jack shit.
It is stated in the book that they charge the capacitors at full for each salvo.
Besides, even if they used only 1/3 for each of the three shots, it would just be a third of e32 or e 38 J, every single time (plus whatever the reactor is pumping out since it's also working during any firing sequence). So it would totally fail to fit with the effects of the first two shots.
As expected, you don't really seem to understand the problem there either.

It's not an irreconcilable problem. It's an inconsistency, but one that does not fit any better with a chain reaction, which is not magically going to work better on the second or third shot. The best explanation is that the superlaser was getting improved in the time in between the shots, or that it was simply still warming up the first time, having never fired at such high power before, meaning that the first shot was probably far less efficient, and far more was probably lost as waste heat.

No, the charging is quite specific. They said 1/3, and all three shots were fired at that yield. All following recharge times were roughly similar.
I presented the theory, in the "Death Star" thread, that the superlaser saturates a target, so much that past a given thresholds, some out of DET effects begin to manifest, and past another threshold, the increase is almost exponential and the energy reaches levels enough to scatter a planet.
I also posit that if the saturation effect is brought to its maximum at once, the effects are even greater, and you get the hyperspace reflux ring.
It's as good as any other theory, but I'm yet to find one that is better.

Ah, it does?
It merely completely reinforces the idea that it's a total rape of physics at every turn of a page. Just that.
Call your solution chain reaction theory or reactive pixie dust at this point, it's not really important anymore.

It's not a total rape of physics at all, the Death Star novel explicitly attributes the hypermatter reactor to having the weekly power output of several main sequence stars.

It's funny how you claim that there's a "rape of physics" at every turn of the page, despite the fact that the shot you described lasted for a few pages.

Oh shit, are you now arguing over my expression?

I suppose that we should analyze the split second fireballs of quantum torpedos as implicating sub kiloton yields, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHTtOMWRysg

I couldn't care less about quantum torps.
This thread has nothing to do with Star Trek, so keep your off topic red herrings to yourself.

Remember the very first page of that thread you started. Remember Mike's post, which you conveniently brushed away.
You seem to switch your memory off when it suits your arguments.
JMS explained in that same thread why your position was irritating, and you proved you wouldn't even bother reading the thread, instead preferring, as usual, to reboot everything and deny the existence of any single form of observation and conclusion you didn't want to hear about.
Here, I say that the only quote you rely on may be heavily conflictual towards the text from the novelization.
Again, I'm only linking to posts from this thread.
JMS gave you evidence of what most main sequence stars were in this post. That data was repeated several times, here, in another thread (if not two other threads), but you've constantly ignored it. Notably bits like this one: "Red dwarfs do everything at a slower rate. Since they’re a fraction of the mass of the Sun, red dwarfs generate as little as 1/10,000th the energy of the Sun."
Oh, look, it's also the same post wherein JMS copied and pasted the entire description of all three shots at Despayre. As understood, we were getting nowhere (that's the post which directly follows JMS'). It's also at that very moment that you very clearly decided to ignore ALL quotes from there on.
That was page 10, btw.
Top of page 11 and Mike warns you about your behaviour, and repeats the threat at the page's mid height.
Your behaviour thus far has been the equivalent of giving him the middle finger.
The rest of the thread has mainly been about you politely and very subtly trolling people for three more pages.

Is this supposed to have anything to do with the post you quoted? With a few stupid accusations of trolling thrown in at that.

I clearly proved that you are trolling this very thread, by ignoring evidence from it, numerous times, and that since page 1, and against several warnings.
I'm talking of evidence which was already present in other older threads and which were already referenced when you started to present your claims.
You can complain all you want, that's not going to move me. It's a bit late to play the victim here.

Heck, when both Death Stars exploded, did we see evidence of a release of energy coming anywhere close to what a star like Sol would routinely output? Yet the book Death Star is absolutely clear that the reactor was online at that very moment, with capacitors choke full of energy.
Perhaps you really need to admit that things are very fishy when it comes to the superlaser and its tied reactor design.

Funny; the ANH novel states that the Death Star collapsed into a phenomona temporarily the most tombstone in this corner of the cosmos; I suppose that the Death Star's reactor is more powerful than neutron stars and black holes.

I'd rather see the quote than attempt understanding your sentence. Thank you.

Not necessarily. There's no proof that they were aiming at a non-wasteful shot here. They blasted the whole 3 km wide cruiser to ionized dust, along the swarm of 500 fighters sent against it.
500 fighters which were already scrambled by the way, so most likely some good distance away from the cruiser.
The blast just erased all rebel forces at once.
No more, no less. Unless you have some solid proof that they were concerned about not wasting a single joule on that demonstration, your claim is moot.

In order for the calculation to blast to scale to break even with the Enterprise's e19 joule entire ship output, the blast would have to have been five orders of magnitude overkill, which is hardly splitting hairs, which is what you are claiming, as much as it is their engineers doing their numbers wrong by five orders of magnitude.

What the fuck?
Is that all you can do? Dodge with some red herrings when I blast your arguments apart?
Again, I don't care about Trek. It has no place in this thread, get that shit out of it.
Mike already told you to stop derailing topics that way.
Don't you get it, genius?

Because even with the technobabble physics-raping side of it, it's still an immense amount of power that is unleashed.
You fail again.

What amount of energy?

Large. As far as I'm concerned, I rate the DET part of the superlaser at teratons/low petatons.

The measly double digit gigatons that darkstar claims?

It's his number and... in light of Star Wars, it's not measly at all.
Oh sure, that's what? a medium TL for an ICSer? I understand the shock.

There's ample evidence that it's just much more than that.
Evidence provided a gazillion times, here and here, over there, beneath that rock, around that tree, behind that wall, under your seat, in your mom's bathroom and pretty much everywhere else on this forum.
It's actually unacceptable that at this point, you could still dare to make such an ignorant claim. It just can't be. We're well past the point of a honest mistake or even slightly obtuse debating.
We're dealing with something else. Which brings me to this other point, which I'd humbly call "my conclusion".
There are several possibilities about what you could be. I hesitate thus far between:

And I have no obligation to go around and find this evidence you claim has been posted somewhere in the hundreds of pages of this board.

We put links, we repeated it. You have an obligation to read it or shut up, if you intend to repeat your baseless claims like a broken record.

1. You are some dude with considerable medium to long term memory disorders. Then, to put it bluntly, you're a pointless debater if you can't remember the colour of your yesterday pants.
2. You are a neutronium dense idiot who can't understand anything that tries to get through your skull, even if under the form of a neutrino tightbeam.
3. You are a goddamn experienced troll. Somehow, the choice of "StarWarsStarTrek" as a nickname would fit with this train of thought. That's probably the kind of absurdly uninspired nickname anyone having just one goal in mind -trolling the shit out of this place- would pick. It's just so neutral and insipid, it boggles the mind that anyone would find anything exciting or fun about it. I mean, anyone, and I mean anyone, would still try to bring a bit of something in his nickname, even if it's total gibberish. I can only wonder what the next one will be, after your final ban. Perhaps you'd like to try something along the lines of "themed forum", "web bulletin board" or "new debater"?
   Mmm strike that, none of them manage to get as tepid and blank as the one you picked.

I would personally go for option three, although I can't be sure of anything. That said, option one is certainly not sustainable, as evidenced by your very convenient selective memories.

You do realize that, in the time you spent writing this, you could have gone and searched up this proof that you claim is on this board, and have posted it, and have actually done something constructive?

See, the constructive part is like the whole chunk of my post that contained links to very relevant posts, but you demonstrated times and times again that you don't even read what other people wrote.
So don't even dare talk about me not being constructive.
And for that other trolling round, I'll report you.

It's a red flag that somebody is bullshitting when their excuse for not posting evidence takes more energy than it would to just post the evidence!
Moreso, you are making factually incorrect claims that you are important enough for me to divert hours of my day to troll you, in which case I would be a troll far more competent than you ever will be a debater.

Yeah, whatever, enjoy the rest of your time here before you go running at SDN.

[General Donner]

No, and Kane Starkiller already tried that. It would be quicker to rewrite the very fabric of the English language than spin doctor the clear formulation of simple fractions into some obscure logarithmic scale.
You can read that part of the debate, but imho it's a bit of a waste of time, as KS kept pushing that for several pages, all for nothing.
It's as straight forward as "I'm going to use this system's power at a third of what its maximum capacity".

I'll have a look at it. Sorry, what thread did you say that was in again?

Besides, several of the quotes I provided about superlasers show that full thirds of the weapon, either from the Death Star or close to what the DS' SL can achieve, don't blast full thirds of a planet: they tend do be described burning continents.
It doesn't even matter, because during the whole Despayre incident, they kept firing the weapon with the same level of charge, and despite that, the effects kept getting bigger way beyond the point of multiplying 1/3 by 3 (or 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3).
What was clearly logarithmic (sort of) were the effects, not the power.

Don't several of those quotes refer to superlaser platforms vastly smaller than the DS, though? Much of the stuff from the DESB for example was talking about the Eclipse ISD if I remember it right.

But if it's written in "Death Star" the way you say it was, then yes obviously that doesn't work remotely like any non-magical energy transfer.