The Death Star's power output confirmed!

[General Donner]

1. You use silly false dilemmas. When you find some sources saying hypermatter and others saying fusion, you assume that the contradiction cannot be rationalized and that one must be right. You say this despite the canon rationalization found in the AotC ICS that fusion reactors are used to confine hypermatter reactors to normal space.

2. You assume that your sources showing fusion reaction is more valid than those showing hypermatter reaction, even though both sides are equal level canon. Your support of this is that your sources outnumber mine; even though you have yet to meet my request of you listing out in order your sources, as I have done for mine. Prove that your sources outnumber mine.

I haven't been following all of your voluminous exchange here all that closely, but I think Oragahn's argument is that hypermatter annihilation is actually the same thing as fusion. Which is backed up primarily by a novel ("Rogue Planet") claiming the Death Star could use ice for fuel.

(If I got it wrong then apologies to Mr. O. Sorry also if my post repeats stuff you've gone over before -- it's not easy to follow long threads like this fully attentively... ;) )

Now I'm not sure about that bit (Haven't got the book so I can only check the snippage at SWTC, which is presumably(?) where Mr. O got his quote), but I do know there are multiple independent sources explicitly stating the Death Star using hypermatter (eg the OT:ICS, OT Inside The Worlds, OT Visual Dictionary, the Death Star novel ... ) while others say it uses fusion (eg Technical Journal and IIRC various RPG books). Meanwhile none that I've personally read says it uses both or that they're the one and same. "Rogue Planet" would be the exception, but what it says doesn't seem to mesh with the stuff about hypermatter being tachyonic. So I'm somewhat uncomfortable with that conclusion.

What we do seem to have established is that the power generation of the Death Star is in any case large. Possibly even beyond what fusion can manage, depending. The main sequence star quotes have been already shown (and naturally people drew their different conclusions). But there's also another similar quote from the OT:ITW that hasn't been brought up around here AFAIK:

In order to deliver a spectacular, planet-destroying burst, the station's hypermatter reactor would have to have been able to generate power equivalent to hundreds of supergiant stars.

Some quick calcs using the low end of 200 stars ("hundreds") and stuff pulled from Vickypedia:

Supergiants are among the most massive stars. They occupy the top region of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. In the Yerkes spectral classification, supergiants are class Ia (most luminous supergiants) or Ib (less luminous supergiants). They typically have bolometric absolute magnitudes between -5 and -12. The most luminous supergiants are often classified as hypergiants of class 0.

Supergiants can have masses from 10 to 70 solar masses and brightness from 30,000 up to hundreds of thousands times the solar luminosity. They vary greatly in radius, usually from 30 to 500, or even in excess of 1,000 solar radii. The Stefan-Boltzmann law dictates that the relatively cool surfaces of red supergiants radiate much less energy per unit area than those of blue supergiants; thus, for a given luminosity red supergiants are larger than their blue counterparts.

Going by this definition a supergiant star would generally emit tens to hundreds of thousands of times the sun's output, depending on type and mass. Possibly even more if you take it to include hypergiants. Using a somewhat mid range supergiant like Rigel (luminosity ca 70,000 times Sol) for the baseline for an example calc we get a figure in the 10^33 watts range, assuming I didn't butcher the maths. So if we acknowledge the quote the DS power generation should probably be within an OOM or two of this example estimate.

(Not surprisingly of course Saxton was tech advisor on this book lol XD )

Yet it ought to stand unless it's incompatible with what's said elsewhere. Contradictions of this? Most arguably "Death Star" and that crazy test firing sequence, which I'll really have to read up on. (Though it might fit with the main sequence star bit depending on interpretation.) Any others?

*Note that the galaxy gun is a chain reaction, and IS EXPLICITLY STATED SO. No character ever disguises this fact with thinly veiled statements like they supposedly do with the superlaser. They state it up front and clearly that it is a chain reaction. Ditto with the sun crusher being a chain reaction, and a device that was planned to destroy the universe or something crazy like that. The characters and tech manuals clearly state when something is a funky chain reaction that it is one; yet according to you, they mysteriously don't say anything when it comes to the superlaser.

Here I think you might be on to something. There's actually a quote to that effect by Qwi Xux, one of the Death Star design engineers in the novel "Jedi Search" where she compares the DS to the Sun Crusher.

"This craft is highly maneuverable, and small enough not to be noticed on a systemwide scan, but they still might encounter some resistance. Remember, the Death Star was the size of a small moon. This accomplishes through finesse what the Death Star brought about through brute force.''

With a cold fear inside Han did not want to know the answer to his next question. How could she compare this small ship to the Death Star? But he couldn't stop himself from asking, "And what is it? What does it do?''

Qwi looked at the image with awe, pride, and fear. "Well, we haven't actually tested it yet, but the first full-scale model is basically completed. We call this concept the Sun Crusher, tiny but immensely powerful. One small, impervious craft launches a modulated resonance projectile into a star, which triggers a chain reaction in the core, igniting a supernova even in low-mass stars. Straightforward and simple.''

Emphasis added by yours truly.

It's certainly circumstantial evidence at least.

[Mr. Oragahn]

I haven't been following all of your voluminous exchange here all that closely, but I think Oragahn's argument is that hypermatter annihilation is actually the same thing as fusion. Which is backed up primarily by a novel ("Rogue Planet") claiming the Death Star could use ice for fuel.

(If I got it wrong then apologies to Mr. O. Sorry also if my post repeats stuff you've gone over before -- it's not easy to follow long threads like this fully attentively... ;) )

Not the Death Star but the Expeditionary Battle Planetoid (EBP), sort of an ancestor to the Death Star.
There's basically two sources that go with hypermatter = fusion, and mere stellar fusion. "Rogue Planet" and the databank. That is added to all other EU sources that make the DS' core solely fusion based, plus the ANH and ROTJ novelizations which strongly hint at the battle station having a power generation system akin to that of a star.
"Death Star" and any book written or counseled on by Saxton make hypermatter something else. Both go with tachyonic matter, but said matter is nothing special in that even on Saxton's website for example, it is clear that to know how much energy you'll get when annihilating 1 kg of hypermatter, it will be the same as annihilating 1 kg of antimatter, the difference being that antimatter needs to react with matter, so you need twice the mass of matter. Other than that, only Saxton insists that ships consume absurd amounts of fuel per second, so much that the density of a single fuel silo largely outmasses by several orders of magnitude the mass of the ship that carries it.
SWST tried several times to claim all sources worked together since Saxton claimed that fusion cores were built around annihilation cores, but that's Saxton's baby. Not even "Death Star" goes there, and as a matter of fact, as said above, all other sources simply leave no room for such a dual system, as the fusion process is always defined as the one providing power to the station. This is why I explained that Saxton pretty much ignored all former material and enforced his.
The problem with his writings is that many authors will now think they can rely on the real Star Wars database (let's hope they don't count on wookieepedia), where there would be a long list of fusion based warships and other systems. In fact, all ships used fusion thus far, and only Saxton once again claimed that all ships save the smallest used hypermatter cores.

Now I'm not sure about that bit (Haven't got the book so I can only check the snippage at SWTC, which is presumably(?) where Mr. O got his quote), but I do know there are multiple independent sources explicitly stating the Death Star using hypermatter (eg the OT:ICS, OT Inside The Worlds, OT Visual Dictionary, the Death Star novel ... ) while others say it uses fusion (eg Technical Journal and IIRC various RPG books).

The OT:ICS never said what hypermatter was. The OT ITW is made with the cooperation of Saxton, so here goes another "reliable" source.
I don't know about the OT VD. Is that one old? It may merely repeat what the oldest ICS said. It may even and still speak of fusion.

What we do seem to have established is that the power generation of the Death Star is in any case large. Possibly even beyond what fusion can manage, depending. The main sequence star quotes have been already shown (and naturally people drew their different conclusions). But there's also another similar quote from the OT:ITW that hasn't been brought up around here AFAIK:

In order to deliver a spectacular, planet-destroying burst, the station's hypermatter reactor would have to have been able to generate power equivalent to hundreds of supergiant stars.

Some quick calcs using the low end of 200 stars ("hundreds") and stuff pulled from Vickypedia:

Supergiants are among the most massive stars. They occupy the top region of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. In the Yerkes spectral classification, supergiants are class Ia (most luminous supergiants) or Ib (less luminous supergiants). They typically have bolometric absolute magnitudes between -5 and -12. The most luminous supergiants are often classified as hypergiants of class 0.

Supergiants can have masses from 10 to 70 solar masses and brightness from 30,000 up to hundreds of thousands times the solar luminosity. They vary greatly in radius, usually from 30 to 500, or even in excess of 1,000 solar radii. The Stefan-Boltzmann law dictates that the relatively cool surfaces of red supergiants radiate much less energy per unit area than those of blue supergiants; thus, for a given luminosity red supergiants are larger than their blue counterparts.

Going by this definition a supergiant star would generally emit tens to hundreds of thousands of times the sun's output, depending on type and mass. Possibly even more if you take it to include hypergiants. Using a somewhat mid range supergiant like Rigel (luminosity ca 70,000 times Sol) for the baseline for an example calc we get a figure in the 10^33 watts range, assuming I didn't butcher the maths. So if we acknowledge the quote the DS power generation should probably be within an OOM or two of this example estimate.

(Not surprisingly of course Saxton was tech advisor on this book lol XD )

Pretty much why I don't take it seriously, as anything he touched.

What is funny is that the formulation of that line from the OT:ITW doesn't say that the Death Star's core does produce that power.
It essentially says that if the Death Star had to mass scatter the planet with the very power of its core, it would have do produce that much power. It never says that it did it.
But I'm being a bit playful here. :)

Yet it ought to stand unless it's incompatible with what's said elsewhere. Contradictions of this? Most arguably "Death Star" and that crazy test firing sequence, which I'll really have to read up on. (Though it might fit with the main sequence star bit depending on interpretation.) Any others?

Well, anything that says it runs on fusion. The mass of fuel it would have to "burn" via fusion would just not work, and that's assuming that reaction is 100%. At such scales, a mere drop of a percent means prodigious masses of fuel that go to waste, and therefore much more than need to be carried by the station. See one of my latest posts for the relevant figures.

*Note that the galaxy gun is a chain reaction, and IS EXPLICITLY STATED SO. No character ever disguises this fact with thinly veiled statements like they supposedly do with the superlaser. They state it up front and clearly that it is a chain reaction. Ditto with the sun crusher being a chain reaction, and a device that was planned to destroy the universe or something crazy like that. The characters and tech manuals clearly state when something is a funky chain reaction that it is one; yet according to you, they mysteriously don't say anything when it comes to the superlaser.

Here I think you might be on to something. There's actually a quote to that effect by Qwi Xux, one of the Death Star design engineers in the novel "Jedi Search" where she compares the DS to the Sun Crusher.

"This craft is highly maneuverable, and small enough not to be noticed on a systemwide scan, but they still might encounter some resistance. Remember, the Death Star was the size of a small moon. This accomplishes through finesse what the Death Star brought about through brute force.''

With a cold fear inside Han did not want to know the answer to his next question. How could she compare this small ship to the Death Star? But he couldn't stop himself from asking, "And what is it? What does it do?''

Qwi looked at the image with awe, pride, and fear. "Well, we haven't actually tested it yet, but the first full-scale model is basically completed. We call this concept the Sun Crusher, tiny but immensely powerful. One small, impervious craft launches a modulated resonance projectile into a star, which triggers a chain reaction in the core, igniting a supernova even in low-mass stars. Straightforward and simple.''

Emphasis added by yours truly.

It's certainly circumstantial evidence at least.

It's nothing definitive. Brute force is like that raw power of earlier on. Actually, it is not even as good as raw power. Besides, considering the basic needs of energy, it can safely be called brute force.
The fact remains that any honest observation of what happened to Despayre completely busts the DET position.
Or one can simply look at the movie, and notice that what happens to the planet when it is hit by the superlaser is a far cry from what should have happened with DET.

Why on Earth is that simple fact impossible to grasp from the DET camp is beyond me. In my opinion, they're just dishonest and know they must keep up with the lie.
The Brits said it anyway, the bigger the lie the better, and you need to keep going on with it.

[General Donner]

There's basically two sources that go with hypermatter = fusion, and mere stellar fusion. "Rogue Planet" and the databank. That is added to all other EU sources that make the DS' core solely fusion based, plus the ANH and ROTJ novelizations which strongly hint at the battle station having a power generation system akin to that of a star.

Databank is some kind of online stuff I take it?

SWST tried several times to claim all sources worked together since Saxton claimed that fusion cores were built around annihilation cores, but that's Saxton's baby. Not even "Death Star" goes there, and as a matter of fact, as said above, all other sources simply leave no room for such a dual system, as the fusion process is always defined as the one providing power to the station. This is why I explained that Saxton pretty much ignored all former material and enforced his.

At least for the Death Star Saxton doesn't seem to have invented hypermatter, though he did define it in his books. The Death Star was using hypermatter already in the VD (published in 1998, years before he got onto the Lucasfilm payroll). The book was written by David West Reynolds. Though he did break with earlier canon (the Tech Journal and etc).

Hypermatter for smaller ships is however a Saxtonian invention.

The OT:ICS never said what hypermatter was. The OT ITW is made with the cooperation of Saxton, so here goes another "reliable" source.
I don't know about the OT VD. Is that one old? It may merely repeat what the oldest ICS said. It may even and still speak of fusion.

It definitely says "hypermatter" in any case, and AFAIK nothing more specific. I'm leery of quoting it since I own only a foreign language edition that I'd have to back translate to English, but I doubt they'd make hypermatter up instead of fusion if it wasn't in the original.

I think there's been a concerted effort to overwrite the old fusion reactor, given how hypermatter tends to show up in most of the recent DS related sources. Saxton's been particularly active in it, but he wasn't the one to initiate it AFAIK and isn't the last author to use it.

Pretty much why I don't take it seriously, as anything he touched.

What is funny is that the formulation of that line from the OT:ITW doesn't say that the Death Star's core does produce that power.
It essentially says that if the Death Star had to mass scatter the planet with the very power of its core, it would have do produce that much power. It never says that it did it.
But I'm being a bit playful here. :)

Heh, I actually did note that as well. Maybe he had to work out a compromise with Hidalgo and the other anti-Saxtonite LFL people? :)

Though, under the standard canon rules, don't we have to accept it anyway, even if Saxton isn't very well liked around here? As canon at least, even if overridden by other stuff?

Well, anything that says it runs on fusion. The mass of fuel it would have to "burn" via fusion would just not work, and that's assuming that reaction is 100%. At such scales, a mere drop of a percent means prodigious masses of fuel that go to waste, and therefore much more than need to be carried by the station. See one of my latest posts for the relevant figures.

That goes without saying of course. The issue then would be whether the DS is really powered by fusion or hypermatter as a broader issue.

It's nothing definitive. Brute force is like that raw power of earlier on. Actually, it is not even as good as raw power. Besides, considering the basic needs of energy, it can safely be called brute force.
The fact remains that any honest observation of what happened to Despayre completely busts the DET position.
Or one can simply look at the movie, and notice that what happens to the planet when it is hit by the superlaser is a far cry from what should have happened with DET.

Why on Earth is that simple fact impossible to grasp from the DET camp is beyond me. In my opinion, they're just dishonest and know they must keep up with the lie.
The Brits said it anyway, the bigger the lie the better, and you need to keep going on with it.

Despayre obviously precludes it. The film shows effects inconsistent with DET, but not necessarily with high firepower. (We can safely know the transfer mechanism is magic, but Warsies also tend to point out that doesn't necessarily mean the input energy is small.)

What gets me thinking here is that she seems to be comparing the DS onboard power generation with the "trick" mechanism of the Sun Crusher -- ie, induce supernova by technobabble. Which would imply the station has a substantial need for input energy the unanimously chain reaction weapons don't. (Like STVSSW said.)

Basically, for those it's always been chain reactions and technobabble and nothing else has ever been said about that. The DS by comparison has indications both for high firepower (in some sources, at least) and for technobabble/magic stuff.

[Mr. Oragahn]

If one doubts that fusion is clearly identified as a source of power for starships, there's "Tyrant Test" to cite as an example among many (that is, outside of a RPG guide).

"How would I know?" exclaimed Lando. "I don't even know something
as elementary as what makes her go, what energy source we're tapping
when we touch a trigger point. It takes fusion generators to drive a
hyperspace engine for a capital vessel---everyone knows that, right?
But the radmeter says there are no fusion generators aboard." Lando
shook his head. "I'm half ready to throw my hands up and just say it's
magic."

For the fun of it, it flies completely against Saxton's own observations.

345

They were in the inflatable dome that served the temporary Talasea camp as an officers' mess, unwinding over beer and brandy that tasted something like ship's fuel.

...

Wedge took another pull from his petrochemical-flavored brandy.

Star Wars ships use petrochemicals as fuel?

The performance characteristics of most starships and their weapons, particularly the big vessels like star destroyers, hint at more compact energy sources, with efficiencies close to or exceeding what would be expected from perfect annihilation. If the drives are annihilation-based, then any kind of matter could be used as fuel, so long as it was easy to store and handle within the ship. Other novels mention more primitive energy sources, such as fusion. These are probably not sufficient for some feats like powering the jump to hyperspace, but may have a peripheral role in sustaining the primary energy-generation process (whatever that may be).

I find it funny that he conveniently found no source mentioning fusion as the method to generate power on so many warships.

Oh, I also wonder how would SDNers react if they were to find that Saxton himself wondered if SW ships used petrochemicals as fuel...

Echnos is located on a moon that circles the sixth planet in the Tinn system. A tremendously large gas giant, Tinn VI, emanates a particularly strong negative magnetic field. This field strips unprotected ships of their magnetic bottle shielding, causing their power-generating fusion reactors to become unstable. Once affected, a ship dares not operate its main power for fear of losing hydrogen containment.

"What's ethromite?" Tash asked.
Zak answered, "It's one of the minerals used to create the fusion reactions that power starship engines."

There are few ships that use separate systems to propel the ship while generating power.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Databank is some kind of online stuff I take it?

Yes.

At least for the Death Star Saxton doesn't seem to have invented hypermatter, though he did define it in his books. The Death Star was using hypermatter already in the VD (published in 1998, years before he got onto the Lucasfilm payroll). The book was written by David West Reynolds. Though he did break with earlier canon (the Tech Journal and etc).
Hypermatter for smaller ships is however a Saxtonian invention.

But at that time, before Saxton got hired, the easiest thing to do was to go with hypermatter being fusion, and stick something special about it that made it superior to regular fusion, somehow.
That, unfortunately, couldn't stand since Saxton had to shoehorn his own paradigm to support claims of starships showing thouands of gees of raw acceleration and gigatons to teratons of firepower.
Since his vision was so at odds with SW, his additions were bound to clash with former facts. LFL didn't know anything about Saxton's motivations and didn't even pay much attention to his works and his relations with SDN and the whole debate. They just picked him because they got impressed by his credentials.

The OT:ICS never said what hypermatter was. The OT ITW is made with the cooperation of Saxton, so here goes another "reliable" source.
I don't know about the OT VD. Is that one old? It may merely repeat what the oldest ICS said. It may even and still speak of fusion.

It definitely says "hypermatter" in any case, and AFAIK nothing more specific. I'm leery of quoting it since I own only a foreign language edition that I'd have to back translate to English, but I doubt they'd make hypermatter up instead of fusion if it wasn't in the original.

I think there's been a concerted effort to overwrite the old fusion reactor, given how hypermatter tends to show up in most of the recent DS related sources. Saxton's been particularly active in it, but he wasn't the one to initiate it AFAIK and isn't the last author to use it.

If the VD stuck with hypermatter and only hypermatter, not trying to explain it, there wasn't such a big problem. Thus far, I only know "Death Star" that is the first souce, outside of Saxton's work, to make hypermatter different.

There could be a way to reconcile Death Star with all other sources excepted anything written or affected by Saxton (ICS, ITW): claim that hypermatter cores can be that hypermatter core isn't exactly a strict reference to a single type of reaction, but more like a nomenclature for a type of reactor wherein hypermatter is involved.
Hell, "Death Star" never claimed that hypermatter was actually being annihilated at all. In that novel, hypermatter is said to come from hyperspace, and interestingly enough, one of the older guides offers a schematic view of an ISD that puts the solar ionization reactor beneath they hyperdrive, and there's a straight connection between them. One could suggest that hyperdrives are used to initiate, accelerate or boost the fusion reaction in some way or another.
It would be offering some enhancement: based on the second quotation from Death Star (second orange quotation from this post), a connection to hyperspace may allow the laws of physics to be partially cheated. This would not be a wild cheat like Alderaan or Despayre were, since they ended in an explosion -and that instability would also fit with the demise of that ISD-II chosen to host a prototype hypermatter core- but may allow to gain more energy nonetheless. Perhaps this moderate boost could only be obtained when the hyperdrive is brought online, and thus only when the ship is going to travel through hyperspace (and "scoop" hypermatter?). Therefore, that boost of power could only apply for a ship flying through hyperspace. This would allow the greater ships to accomplish even superior FTL speeds, or at least reduce the consumption of fuel relative to the size of the hypertunnel or the ship's mass.

I think it is possible. What do you think?

Pretty much why I don't take it seriously, as anything he touched.

What is funny is that the formulation of that line from the OT:ITW doesn't say that the Death Star's core does produce that power.
It essentially says that if the Death Star had to mass scatter the planet with the very power of its core, it would have do produce that much power. It never says that it did it.
But I'm being a bit playful here. :)

Heh, I actually did note that as well. Maybe he had to work out a compromise with Hidalgo and the other anti-Saxtonite LFL people? :)

Though, under the standard canon rules, don't we have to accept it anyway, even if Saxton isn't very well liked around here? As canon at least, even if overridden by other stuff?

Conflicts are dealt with on a case by case basis. But there are no announcements made when a conflict is noticed by fans.
If anything, and if it had not been so unreliable in the past, the online database, which by its nature is easy to update and would be the latest source of LFL's position on a given topic, would help settle this. In this database, a hypermatter core is a fusion core.

Well, anything that says it runs on fusion. The mass of fuel it would have to "burn" via fusion would just not work, and that's assuming that reaction is 100%. At such scales, a mere drop of a percent means prodigious masses of fuel that go to waste, and therefore much more than need to be carried by the station. See one of my latest posts for the relevant figures.

That goes without saying of course. The issue then would be whether the DS is really powered by fusion or hypermatter as a broader issue.

See my suggestion above that a hypermatter core is an enhanced fusion core. That's not the same as Saxton's theory by the way, where one annihilation core is embedded inside a fusion core and both run on two different fuels.

Despayre obviously precludes it. The film shows effects inconsistent with DET, but not necessarily with high firepower. (We can safely know the transfer mechanism is magic, but Warsies also tend to point out that doesn't necessarily mean the input energy is small.)

Actually, the DETists do claims, as the name states it, that the input is raw, simple, pure and complete. The core produces X, dumps it directly by particles into the planet, planet goes boom. Basically.
That other warsies outside of SDN may not agree with DETists is welcome, but they've hardly been vocal at all. SDN has certainly been very good as being the leading front in the debate. They clearly repelled any dissenting opinion from the SW camp. Like the dislike of TheForce.net's plebe.

What gets me thinking here is that she seems to be comparing the DS onboard power generation with the "trick" mechanism of the Sun Crusher -- ie, induce supernova by technobabble. Which would imply the station has a substantial need for input energy the unanimously chain reaction weapons don't. (Like STVSSW said.)

Like I said.
I do claim that the superlaser does provide a substantial amount of energy via DET. I formerly rated it in the teratons/petatons, but looking at the Despayre case, it would actually be in the gigaton/teraton region, with the energy still spread in a way that's not as blunt as if you slammed a projetile into the crust of a planet, or fired a beam of photons at it.
That said, the neutrino coupled charge could explain why energy spread so well, as it would get deep into the planet instead of being stopped at the crust.

SWST goes with pure DET, which simply doesn't work.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

I haven't been following all of your voluminous exchange here all that closely, but I think Oragahn's argument is that hypermatter annihilation is actually the same thing as fusion. Which is backed up primarily by a novel ("Rogue Planet") claiming the Death Star could use ice for fuel.

Yet the novel SW: DS, the same source that Mr. O himself uses, quite explicitly describes the function and behavior of hypermatter, and it's drastically different from any fusion we know of.

The rebuttal to this is very circumstantial (speculating based on fuel source). Explicit descriptions > guessing based on fuel.

It's nothing definitive.

Gosh you love grasping at straws, don't you? The quote explicitly states that the DS busts planets through "brute force" and CLEARLY CONTRASTS THIS with the sun crusher, and you still think that it does not support DET?

Obviously you'll say that "brute force" could mean "lots of DET to trigger a chain reaction", even though the chain reaction accounts for over 99.9999999999% of the effects based on your theory, and therefore calling the Death Star a brute force weapon as the quote says would be laughably misleading.

What is more likely and believable: that the DS being described as a brute force weapons means that it blows up planets using solely (gasp!) brute force energy transfer, or that it using 0.00000000001% 'brute force' and the rest is a chain reaction (aka "finesse", which is CONTRASTED from the DS)?

Once you realize that your interpretation of the quote (DS used a lot of brute force, enough to qualify as a "brute force weapon" and NOT as a finesse weapon, even though according to you MOST of the DS's energy is from figurative finesse!) is far more wobbly and contrived than the obvious translation of "brute force = direct energy trasnfer, duh", you'll go on to just dismiss it as "being outnumbered" by your unquantified quantify of quotes. Sources supporting me:

AotC ICS
RotS ICS
SW DS novel
Laws of Thermodynamics
OT: ITW
Jedi Search
SW database superlaser entry
SW ICS

I count eight; maybe seven if you don't count the laws of thermodynamics, even though the DET theory conforms with it far better than magically grabbing said energy with "tech-magic" as you described it.

Oh, and I don't give a shit if you dislike Saxton's work, it's still canon, and it's still supported by several other sources, like the ones on this list that were not written by Saxton. Oh, and Saxton was a consultant with the OT: ITW; the actual authors had to have agreed to publish the information and, of course, Lucasarts and by extension George Lucas had to approve of it.

[Mr. Oragahn]

It's nothing definitive.

Gosh you love grasping at straws, don't you? The quote explicitly states that the DS busts planets through "brute force" and CLEARLY CONTRASTS THIS with the sun crusher, and you still think that it does not support DET?

Obviously you'll say that "brute force" could mean "lots of DET to trigger a chain reaction", even though the chain reaction accounts for over 99.9999999999% of the effects based on your theory, and therefore calling the Death Star a brute force weapon as the quote says would be laughably misleading.

What is more likely and believable: that the DS being described as a brute force weapons means that it blows up planets using solely (gasp!) brute force energy transfer, or that it using 0.00000000001% 'brute force' and the rest is a chain reaction (aka "finesse", which is CONTRASTED from the DS)?

Once you realize that your interpretation of the quote (DS used a lot of brute force, enough to qualify as a "brute force weapon" and NOT as a finesse weapon, even though according to you MOST of the DS's energy is from figurative finesse!) is far more wobbly and contrived than the obvious translation of "brute force = direct energy trasnfer, duh", you'll go on to just dismiss it as "being outnumbered" by your unquantified quantify of quotes. Sources supporting me:

AotC ICS
RotS ICS
SW DS novel
Laws of Thermodynamics
OT: ITW
Jedi Search
SW database superlaser entry
SW ICS

I count eight; maybe seven if you don't count the laws of thermodynamics, even though the DET theory conforms with it far better than magically grabbing said energy with "tech-magic" as you described it.

Oh, and I don't give a shit if you dislike Saxton's work, it's still canon, and it's still supported by several other sources, like the ones on this list that were not written by Saxton. Oh, and Saxton was a consultant with the OT: ITW; the actual authors had to have agreed to publish the information and, of course, Lucasarts and by extension George Lucas had to approve of it.

I'm much more interesting into a rationalization of as many sources as possible, and I think I have found that solution.
Brute force vs a missile that begins a slow chain reaction doesn't mean that the brute force can't be a chain reaction either. Just that it's far more violent, immediate and straight.
Nothing is perfect but we're there. As I pointed out, none of the listed effects of Despayre talk about a massive explosion, which would be what would have happened. The author provides a detailed description but omits what would be most expected. So clearly even the way the energy is deposited into the planet is more subtle than complete brute force like a gigaton/teraton laser beam would.
That's plenty of details you don't seem to care about, and instead you focus on small bits picked from vague descriptions, summaries which are not meant to be as accurate as a fully detailed rundown of the destruction brought upon a planet as we get in "Death Star".
Even the database mentions hypermatter, fusion and raw power. So obviously there has to be a solution that ties all that, and once it's found, all other "brute force" and "raw power" references found elsewhere can be pointed at this solution.

Calling the Death Star a finesse weapon, btw, would be patently silly, no matter if technobabble is involved. On screen, it still happened within a fracton of a second and made a huge mess of the planet. So just pretending you have the higher ground on semantics when it's painfully obvious that you don't.

As for the sources supporting you...

AotC ICS - doesn't speak of the Death Star. It's also largely contradicted by 99.99% of the EU when it comes to power production levels.
RotS ICS - same deal.
SW DS novel - doesn't support you, it shoots you down violently. Stop lying. You haven't even been able to explain what happened to Despayre. I did.
Laws of Thermodynamics - Bullshit. Laws of thermodynamics don't allow what we know happened to happen. Besides, it's not because a theory claims that energy comes from elsewhere than reactor core that it violates said laws. But we know your grasp of science is quite mediocre anyway.
OT: ITW - same deal as with the ICSes Saxton wrote.
Jedi Search - "brute force" dealt with.
SW database superlaser entry - totally false, it's completely against you.
SW ICS - just says hypermatter, so you get no point.

I'm just too fucking lazy to listing the sources that agree with me. I already presented several here:

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 408#p32408
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 409#p32409
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 428#p32428

Yes, for the reminder, I'm again posting those links. I wonder if you will again claim that I never posted them, despite the truth.

Oh, and I don't give a shit if you dislike Saxton's work, it's still canon, and it's still supported by several other sources, like the ones on this list that were not written by Saxton. Oh, and Saxton was a consultant with the OT: ITW; the actual authors had to have agreed to publish the information and, of course, Lucasarts and by extension George Lucas had to approve of it.

Saxton's work is certainly not supported by others sources. You're just lying through your teeth.
It doesn't matter if he was author or consultant, because you can easily detect his own touch in those books, all those details that go towards legitimizing the bullshit he put in the AOTC and ROTS ICSes.
And should we laugh when you say that George Lucas approved the ITW? :D

Mmm... as expected, nothing new over the horizon. I'll soon post something that is more like my own blurb of EU fiction if I had to rationalize all that.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

I'm much more interesting into a rationalization of as many sources as possible, and I think I have found that solution.

If you want try and rationalize as many sources as possible, explain why you want to outright dismiss:

The Saxton ICS's
The OT: ITW
The quite explicit descriptions of hypermatter in SW: DS
The superlaser entry in the database
The SW ICS (you attempted to rationalize it, but admitted that it was weak, and said that it was simply outnumbered and contradicted)

Without even bothering to try and rationalize them.

Brute force vs a missile that begins a slow chain reaction doesn't mean that the brute force can't be a chain reaction either. Just that it's far more violent, immediate and straight.

That's not what brute force implies. You're just pulling definitions of "brute force" out of your ass while ignoring the very obvious and rational definition of it because it doesn't suite you.

Nothing is perfect but we're there.

Brute force quite obviously means DET. Is this so hard for you to understand? Brute force does not mean that there's a chain reaction component that's quintillions of times more powerful than the DET (aka brute force) portion of the attack. If that were so, it would not be a brute force weapon, it would be a "finesse" weapon, something that the DS was explicitly contradicted with.

As I pointed out, none of the listed effects of Despayre talk about a massive explosion, which would be what would have happened. The author provides a detailed description but omits what would be most expected. So clearly even the way the energy is deposited into the planet is more subtle than complete brute force like a gigaton/teraton laser beam would.

Once again, I have already provided rationalizations for this isolated incident. There is no need to throw out the various sources that quite clearly point to a direct DET brute force Death Star.

That's plenty of details you don't seem to care about, and instead you focus on small bits picked from vague descriptions, summaries which are not meant to be as accurate as a fully detailed rundown of the destruction brought upon a planet as we get in "Death Star".
Even the database mentions hypermatter, fusion and raw power. So obviously there has to be a solution that ties all that, and once it's found, all other "brute force" and "raw power" references found elsewhere can be pointed at this solution.

Indeed there is. Hypermatter reactors are confined to real space and encased by fusion reactors. The hypermatter reactor powers a superlaser with huge amounts of raw power that can destroy planets through brute force.

See? Your rationalization (that hypermatter = fusion) would mean completely throwing out the explicit descriptions of hypermatter in SW: DS, descriptions that are very different from fusion.

Calling the Death Star a finesse weapon, btw, would be patently silly, no matter if technobabble is involved. On screen, it still happened within a fracton of a second and made a huge mess of the planet. So just pretending you have the higher ground on semantics when it's painfully obvious that you don't.

Brute force is hardly semantics. Brute force means that the weapon blew up a planet through sheer power, not through some magical chain reaction.

As for the sources supporting you...

AotC ICS - doesn't speak of the Death Star. It's also largely contradicted by 99.99% of the EU when it comes to power production levels.

It speaks of hypermatter and energy levels that are scaled up to DS level heights.

RotS ICS - same deal.

See above.

SW DS novel - doesn't support you, it shoots you down violently. Stop lying. You haven't even been able to explain what happened to Despayre. I did.

Your silly double standard of thinking that all of your supporting examples must be rationalized while mine can be dismissed as being "outnumbered" (as you did with the SW: ICS after you a silly attempt to rationalize it) is annoying.

Laws of Thermodynamics - Bullshit. Laws of thermodynamics don't allow what we know happened to happen. Besides, it's not because a theory claims that energy comes from elsewhere than reactor core that it violates said laws. But we know your grasp of science is quite mediocre anyway.

The laws of thermnodynamics state that when a giant freaking laser hits a target and the target explodes, it was the result of energy being imparted by the giant freaking laser, not some magical wizard.

OT: ITW - same deal as with the ICSes Saxton wrote.

Actually, the OT: ITW specifically mentions the power generation of the DS as being that of several hundred supergiant stars.

Jedi Search - "brute force" dealt with.

Your definition of brute force is contrived to fit with your theory and you know it. The obvious definition of brute force supports DET. Stop trying to grasp at straws.

SW database superlaser entry - totally false, it's completely against you.

You lie.

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

Nowhere in this database entry is the word fusion even mentioned.

SW ICS - just says hypermatter, so you get no point.

We know from the SW: DS that hypermatter is some sort of tachyonic source, very different from fusion. The SW: ICS provides evidence that this hypermatter reactor is what directly powers the superlaser.

I'm just too fucking lazy to listing the sources that agree with me. I already presented several here:

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 408#p32408
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 409#p32409
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 428#p32428

Yes, for the reminder, I'm again posting those links. I wonder if you will again claim that I never posted them, despite the truth.

Define several. I have 7 to 8.

Saxton's work is certainly not supported by others sources. You're just lying through your teeth.

Saxton's work definitely is. Note how Dankayo's atmosphere was taken off by 3 ISD's in a BDZ, and note that BDZ's are stated and implied to take at most a few hours.

It doesn't matter if he was author or consultant, because you can easily detect his own touch in those books, all those details that go towards legitimizing the bullshit he put in the AOTC and ROTS ICSes.

Woah, Saxton was a consultant on a book and his touch can be seen in them! Gasp, what horror! Surely a consultant shouldn't do that, right?

And should we laugh when you say that George Lucas approved the ITW? :D

Oh, so Saxton is publishing books illegally? Wow, he's more badass than we thought.

Mmm... as expected, nothing new over the horizon. I'll soon post something that is more like my own blurb of EU fiction if I had to rationalize all that.

Yadayadayada.

"Several hundred supergiant stars" = your argument is dead. It's a very explicit statement, and your rebuttal is filled with circumstantial arguments that require multiple connections in logic. Typically, an explicit statement > a conclusion derived from a statement that involves multiple logic steps ("X says is uses fuel Y, and fuel Y is typically used for fusion, so the DS probably uses fusion" vs "the DS uses a hypermatter reactor which is composed of tachyonic matter" or "the DS has the power output of several hundred supergiant stars").

[Mr. Oragahn]

I'm much more interesting into a rationalization of as many sources as possible, and I think I have found that solution.

If you want try and rationalize as many sources as possible, explain why you want to outright dismiss:

The Saxton ICS's
The OT: ITW
The quite explicit descriptions of hypermatter in SW: DS
The superlaser entry in the database
The SW ICS (you attempted to rationalize it, but admitted that it was weak, and said that it was simply outnumbered and contradicted)

Without even bothering to try and rationalize them.

Brute force vs a missile that begins a slow chain reaction doesn't mean that the brute force can't be a chain reaction either. Just that it's far more violent, immediate and straight.

That's not what brute force implies. You're just pulling definitions of "brute force" out of your ass while ignoring the very obvious and rational definition of it because it doesn't suite you.

Nothing is perfect but we're there.

Brute force quite obviously means DET. Is this so hard for you to understand? Brute force does not mean that there's a chain reaction component that's quintillions of times more powerful than the DET (aka brute force) portion of the attack. If that were so, it would not be a brute force weapon, it would be a "finesse" weapon, something that the DS was explicitly contradicted with.

As I pointed out, none of the listed effects of Despayre talk about a massive explosion, which would be what would have happened. The author provides a detailed description but omits what would be most expected. So clearly even the way the energy is deposited into the planet is more subtle than complete brute force like a gigaton/teraton laser beam would.

Once again, I have already provided rationalizations for this isolated incident. There is no need to throw out the various sources that quite clearly point to a direct DET brute force Death Star.

That's plenty of details you don't seem to care about, and instead you focus on small bits picked from vague descriptions, summaries which are not meant to be as accurate as a fully detailed rundown of the destruction brought upon a planet as we get in "Death Star".
Even the database mentions hypermatter, fusion and raw power. So obviously there has to be a solution that ties all that, and once it's found, all other "brute force" and "raw power" references found elsewhere can be pointed at this solution.

Indeed there is. Hypermatter reactors are confined to real space and encased by fusion reactors. The hypermatter reactor powers a superlaser with huge amounts of raw power that can destroy planets through brute force.

See? Your rationalization (that hypermatter = fusion) would mean completely throwing out the explicit descriptions of hypermatter in SW: DS, descriptions that are very different from fusion.

Calling the Death Star a finesse weapon, btw, would be patently silly, no matter if technobabble is involved. On screen, it still happened within a fracton of a second and made a huge mess of the planet. So just pretending you have the higher ground on semantics when it's painfully obvious that you don't.

Brute force is hardly semantics. Brute force means that the weapon blew up a planet through sheer power, not through some magical chain reaction.

As for the sources supporting you...

AotC ICS - doesn't speak of the Death Star. It's also largely contradicted by 99.99% of the EU when it comes to power production levels.

It speaks of hypermatter and energy levels that are scaled up to DS level heights.

RotS ICS - same deal.

See above.

SW DS novel - doesn't support you, it shoots you down violently. Stop lying. You haven't even been able to explain what happened to Despayre. I did.

Your silly double standard of thinking that all of your supporting examples must be rationalized while mine can be dismissed as being "outnumbered" (as you did with the SW: ICS after you a silly attempt to rationalize it) is annoying.

Laws of Thermodynamics - Bullshit. Laws of thermodynamics don't allow what we know happened to happen. Besides, it's not because a theory claims that energy comes from elsewhere than reactor core that it violates said laws. But we know your grasp of science is quite mediocre anyway.

The laws of thermnodynamics state that when a giant freaking laser hits a target and the target explodes, it was the result of energy being imparted by the giant freaking laser, not some magical wizard.

OT: ITW - same deal as with the ICSes Saxton wrote.

Actually, the OT: ITW specifically mentions the power generation of the DS as being that of several hundred supergiant stars.

Jedi Search - "brute force" dealt with.

Your definition of brute force is contrived to fit with your theory and you know it. The obvious definition of brute force supports DET. Stop trying to grasp at straws.

SW database superlaser entry - totally false, it's completely against you.

You lie.

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

Nowhere in this database entry is the word fusion even mentioned.

SW ICS - just says hypermatter, so you get no point.

We know from the SW: DS that hypermatter is some sort of tachyonic source, very different from fusion. The SW: ICS provides evidence that this hypermatter reactor is what directly powers the superlaser.

I'm just too fucking lazy to listing the sources that agree with me. I already presented several here:

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 408#p32408
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 409#p32409
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 428#p32428

Yes, for the reminder, I'm again posting those links. I wonder if you will again claim that I never posted them, despite the truth.

Define several. I have 7 to 8.

Saxton's work is certainly not supported by others sources. You're just lying through your teeth.

Saxton's work definitely is. Note how Dankayo's atmosphere was taken off by 3 ISD's in a BDZ, and note that BDZ's are stated and implied to take at most a few hours.

It doesn't matter if he was author or consultant, because you can easily detect his own touch in those books, all those details that go towards legitimizing the bullshit he put in the AOTC and ROTS ICSes.

Woah, Saxton was a consultant on a book and his touch can be seen in them! Gasp, what horror! Surely a consultant shouldn't do that, right?

And should we laugh when you say that George Lucas approved the ITW? :D

Oh, so Saxton is publishing books illegally? Wow, he's more badass than we thought.

Mmm... as expected, nothing new over the horizon. I'll soon post something that is more like my own blurb of EU fiction if I had to rationalize all that.

Yadayadayada.

"Several hundred supergiant stars" = your argument is dead. It's a very explicit statement, and your rebuttal is filled with circumstantial arguments that require multiple connections in logic. Typically, an explicit statement > a conclusion derived from a statement that involves multiple logic steps ("X says is uses fuel Y, and fuel Y is typically used for fusion, so the DS probably uses fusion" vs "the DS uses a hypermatter reactor which is composed of tachyonic matter" or "the DS has the power output of several hundred supergiant stars").

All of this is fine, but you will first provide an explanation of why a delayed explosion occurred.
Then, assuming you can cleverly cover that point, you'll try to explain what happened to Despayre.
Oh, and the database's article on the Death Star mentions fusion and hypermatter, and contrary to your stupid belief that there's an unknown type of fusion that no one but you knows, that pretty much seals it as far as the database is concerned.
Yes, we know. Fusion is not fusion.
Then, let me add one more question here.
What "fusion" are you thinking of exactly here, since you reject nuclear fusion and obviously fusion as melting isn't a good candidate here?
How far will we have to redefine words? Why are the known definitions not good, according to you?

[General Donner]

But at that time, before Saxton got hired, the easiest thing to do was to go with hypermatter being fusion, and stick something special about it that made it superior to regular fusion, somehow.
That, unfortunately, couldn't stand since Saxton had to shoehorn his own paradigm to support claims of starships showing thouands of gees of raw acceleration and gigatons to teratons of firepower.

Saxton had his own ideas on how stuff worked, and it wasn't always compatible with previous EU. Or even always the movies in some cases. He basically took the high end examples of a very inconsistent franchise and based everything else on them -- I'm sure you could do that with Star Trek TOS or SG-1 and end up with similar numbers. Case in point, some guy at SpaceBattles wrote a ST Mirrorverse fic based on that years ago. Despite having multi-gigaton phasers, it was quite good reading. IIRC he never complete it though.

That said, I think the point with hypermatter originally was to redefine it away from a fusion reaction. (Even if Reynolds and the LFL continuity crew had no idea what "hypermatter" was really supposed to be.) Apparently they too were unhappy with the fusion powered Death Star. If they'd wanted it to be just fusion, why not stick to the old canon fusion generators from the Tech Journal (and etc)? Why invent a completely new concept and terminology for it?

That references to fusion have overall been replaced with hypermatter in books published in the years since also tend to reinforce this, IMHO.

There could be a way to reconcile Death Star with all other sources excepted anything written or affected by Saxton (ICS, ITW): claim that hypermatter cores can be that hypermatter core isn't exactly a strict reference to a single type of reaction, but more like a nomenclature for a type of reactor wherein hypermatter is involved.
Hell, "Death Star" never claimed that hypermatter was actually being annihilated at all. In that novel, hypermatter is said to come from hyperspace, and interestingly enough, one of the older guides offers a schematic view of an ISD that puts the solar ionization reactor beneath they hyperdrive, and there's a straight connection between them. One could suggest that hyperdrives are used to initiate, accelerate or boost the fusion reaction in some way or another.

The way I hear people (=Warsies) talk about it, the hypermatter would be tachyonic matter that comes into the reactor somehow from hyperspace. They derive the energy by decelerating the tachs to near c velocities. If I got it right, tachyons are basically inverse matter as far as relativity's concerned -- ie, they are normally FTL and build up relativistic energy when they decelerate towards the c-boundary, which they can't cross. So it doesn't need annihilation, just some kind of interaction and siphoning off the energy into realspace. Depending, you should be able to get basically annihilation yield (or even more!) off the particles if you can do this, since relativistic mass can exceed rest mass. That could actually fit the "more than annihilation energy" quote without being something retarded, couldn't it?

No idea if that's correct, of course. I haven't read the book, just quotes online, and I'm certainly no PhD astrophysicist myself, so I don't know how feasible that would be to SW science and engineering.

It would be offering some enhancement: based on the second quotation from Death Star (second orange quotation from this post), a connection to hyperspace may allow the laws of physics to be partially cheated. This would not be a wild cheat like Alderaan or Despayre were, since they ended in an explosion -and that instability would also fit with the demise of that ISD-II chosen to host a prototype hypermatter core- but may allow to gain more energy nonetheless. Perhaps this moderate boost could only be obtained when the hyperdrive is brought online, and thus only when the ship is going to travel through hyperspace (and "scoop" hypermatter?). Therefore, that boost of power could only apply for a ship flying through hyperspace. This would allow the greater ships to accomplish even superior FTL speeds, or at least reduce the consumption of fuel relative to the size of the hypertunnel or the ship's mass.

I think it is possible. What do you think?

I'd say it fits the evidence about as well as Saxton's stuff with fusion cores providing energy for initiating and containing hypermatter interactions, if we just look at the text. If I understand you right (Never to be guaranteed ... Heh ... ;) ) basically both of you are trying to describe some kind of mixed fusion/hypermatter interaction that will account for the varying EU descriptions. The difference would be Saxton's model says most of the nergy comes from the hypermatter, while you think most of it still comes from the fusion and the HM is auxiliary/incidental to the process.

Or am I mistaken here?

My issue with either kind of "mix" interpretation is, there seems to be a quite clear divide between fusion and hypermatter in most EU. Except for Saxton and possibly "Death Star" (that ISD with improved protype power plant), no books claim hypermatter powers ordinary starships even incidentally -- it's basically always fusion this or that. Whereas the DS was originally treated the same, but seems to have been ret conned as hypermatter powered. There's also that quote from the ROTS novel Darkstar likes waving around where it says basically all starships are powered by fusion of the roughly stellar kind (=hydrogen). The Death Star is special, it seems like to me.

Conflicts are dealt with on a case by case basis. But there are no announcements made when a conflict is noticed by fans.
If anything, and if it had not been so unreliable in the past, the online database, which by its nature is easy to update and would be the latest source of LFL's position on a given topic, would help settle this. In this database, a hypermatter core is a fusion core.

I tend to take anything online-only with a grain of salt. If they can't be assed to print it, it probably isn't very important. But that's just me... ;)

Actually, the DETists do claims, as the name states it, that the input is raw, simple, pure and complete. The core produces X, dumps it directly by particles into the planet, planet goes boom. Basically.
That other warsies outside of SDN may not agree with DETists is welcome, but they've hardly been vocal at all. SDN has certainly been very good as being the leading front in the debate. They clearly repelled any dissenting opinion from the SW camp. Like the dislike of TheForce.net's plebe.

Even the SDN people don't generally claim it's just a DET mechanism nowadays. At least they didn't in their own "Death Star" (novel) threads. Now instead they've fallen back on the idea that hyperspacing a planetary mass takes even MORE energy than just blowing shit up. Somewhat like 10^42 joules I believe was quoted in one of them. (Based on Wong's old estimate for jump energy of an ISD and assuming it scales linearly with mass.) Which doesn't mean DET obviously, but it still fits the "brute force" quote and Saxton's ITW power generation figures quite well, so they're still happy with it ... ;)

Like I said.
I do claim that the superlaser does provide a substantial amount of energy via DET. I formerly rated it in the teratons/petatons, but looking at the Despayre case, it would actually be in the gigaton/teraton region, with the energy still spread in a way that's not as blunt as if you slammed a projetile into the crust of a planet, or fired a beam of photons at it.
That said, the neutrino coupled charge could explain why energy spread so well, as it would get deep into the planet instead of being stopped at the crust.

Sorry, I'm a bit dense today ... you mean most of the beam would be neutrinos, and that's what actually does most of the damage, with the teraton range beam effects being the photonic/whatever component (which was consistent, while the neutrinos were 1/3rd or something power before)?

How would a neutrino weapon even work? Wouldn't you need a stupid amount of them to affect basically anything? (Other than perhaps Ringworld scrith and similar wankium ;) ... )

SWST goes with pure DET, which simply doesn't work.

Pure DET doesn't work with what we have. If that's his argument I'm not supporting that. But even a non DET beam can have significant "brute force" power as part of its mechanism.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Nobody said that the superlaser was funky and exotic, given that it's powered by some sort of tachyon hypermatter reactor. But DET does not exclude funky effects. Having a sec explosion or having weird halo rings does not mask the fact that the planet was still blown to rubble and its mass omnidirectionally overcoming GBE, nor should an intelligent person come to the hilariously insane leap in logic that "exotic reactor used to generate e32 joules" means "exotic reactor really just generated e21 joules and the rest of the energy came from voodoo land!". Exotic energy source means in this case using exotic nature to generate MORE energy to do X, not to do X somehow by using LESS energy.

On the flipside, explain how YOUR theory explains it. Oh, no, it can't. So this is not a point in your favor. We know from both thermodynamics and various EU sources that the DS's reactor is what powers the superlaser, nothing else, and the superlaser is what blows up the planet, nothing else. Whether this energy is "normal", funky or some sort of crazy pixy dust is irrelevant.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

But DET does not exclude funky effects.

Actually it does.

Having a sec explosion or having weird halo rings does not mask the fact that the planet was still blown to rubble and its mass omnidirectionally overcoming GBE, nor should an intelligent person come to the hilariously insane leap in logic that "exotic reactor used to generate e32 joules" means "exotic reactor really just generated e21 joules and the rest of the energy came from voodoo land!". Exotic energy source means in this case using exotic nature to generate MORE energy to do X, not to do X somehow by using LESS energy.

As it has been pointed out to you on many occasions the fact is that most of the planets mass was shifted to hyperspace so the entire planet was not blown to rubble nor did all its mass need to overcome GBE in fact only a fraction needed to do so.

There is also the fact that the explosion we see in G canon is way too small for e32j by a VAST margin.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Actually it does.

No, it doesn't. The DET theory states that the hypermatter reactor and only the reactor powers the superlaser, and the superlaser and only the superlaser directly transfers energy onto the planet.

As it has been pointed out to you on many occasions the fact is that most of the planets mass was shifted to hyperspace

Prove it. If you use a quote with the word "much" in it as proof of "most", I will laugh hardly.

so the entire planet was not blown to rubble

Stop lying.

The small green planet of Alderaan is blown into space dust. -ANH script

With this weapon, the Death Star reduced Alderaan to rubble. -SW canon database superlaser

nor did all its mass need to overcome GBE in fact only a fraction needed to do so.

Which surely explains why in the movie you clearly see the planet's mass EXPANDING OUTWARDS FASTER THAN ESCAPE VELOCITY instead of slowing down down and collapsing upon itself.

Which surely explains why you do not see the majority of the planet's mass suddenly disappear as you would see if "most" of the planet's mass was shifted into hyperspace.

BTW, what do you mean by a fraction of the mass? 40%? 10%? 1%? Because even 1% of the planet's mass being scattered at escape velocity would mean e30 joules of energy.

There is also the fact that the explosion we see in G canon is way too small for e32j by a VAST margin.

What explosion? Do you realize that the "explosion" we see is the planet's mass violently expanding? Or did you actually expect a fireball when the superlaser destroyed the freaking atmosphere and scattered it too?

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

No, it doesn't. The DET theory states that the hypermatter reactor and only the reactor powers the superlaser, and the superlaser and only the superlaser directly transfers energy onto the planet.

A DET weapon would not cause the ring and other odd effects we see so in G canon it is not a DET weapon.

Prove it. If you use a quote with the word "much" in it as proof of "most", I will laugh hardly.

Nitpicking words now are you?.

For the sake of the discussion "much" or "most" are indications of considerably more than 50%.

Stop lying.

No lie is involved as "much" (if you prefer that one) of the planets mass was shifted into hyperspace prior to the explosion.

The small green planet of Alderaan is blown into space dust. -ANH script

Contradicted by G canon as we see large asteroids.

With this weapon, the Death Star reduced Alderaan to rubble. -SW canon database superlaser

See above.

Which surely explains why in the movie you clearly see the planet's mass EXPANDING OUTWARDS FASTER THAN ESCAPE VELOCITY instead of slowing down down and collapsing upon itself.

We do not see all the planets mass do so we only see a fraction of it doing so.

But go ahead and post a image proving all of it was.

Plus escape the velocity from a planet with much of its mass gone (and as such its gravity reduced) is far less than one with all its mass.

Which surely explains why you do not see the majority of the planet's mass suddenly disappear as you would see if "most" of the planet's mass was shifted into hyperspace.

We do see the majority of its mass disappear and we see that there is far less ejecta from the explosion than there should be in fact we hardly see any at all.

BTW, what do you mean by a fraction of the mass? 40%? 10%? 1%? Because even 1% of the planet's mass being scattered at escape velocity would mean e30 joules of energy.

Less mass means less gravity to overcome.

What explosion? Do you realize that the "explosion" we see is the planet's mass violently expanding? Or did you actually expect a fireball when the superlaser destroyed the freaking atmosphere and scattered it too?

Considering the size of the explosion/expansion and the position and range of the camera we see it from very little of the planets mass was left to expand at all.

[sonofccn]

Having a sec explosion or having weird halo rings does not mask the fact that the planet was still blown to rubble and its mass omnidirectionally overcoming GBE, nor should an intelligent person come to the hilariously insane leap in logic that "exotic reactor used to generate e32 joules" means "exotic reactor really just generated e21 joules and the rest of the energy came from voodoo land!"

What about the mass energy conversion line from ANH novelization, the one third superlase beam failing to have a third of planet scattering energy, the death stars exploding without planet busting intensity.* How do you explain or refute all of it? How does your theory explain it beyond "Boom...big...very big"

*Any and all quotes available should you request them.