Batman wrote:Mr. Oragahn wrote:Batman wrote:Should any of the canon sources ever attribute that much power to the DL-44 and fail to be contradicted by higher canon sources, yes?
Not sure to get what you say. I think the initial point is simple, however. With TLs and blasters showing no difference in effects, why would the downscaling work from the Death Star superlaser, to a capital ship's TL, and not from, say a capital ship turbolaser, and a blaster?
So are you saying than canon sources DO attribute that much firepower to the DL-44?
Eh? I'm asking you, to be blunt, why you cherry pick and only apply your downscaling argument to only segments of choice?
Very well. For the time being, I assume that TLs, the DS superlaser and hand blasters work on the same principles. So how exactly does this disprove 200GT MTLs?
That's the problem. Your assumption is flawed.
Seriously, shit will rain the day a SDN member will acknowledge the very different effects the superlaser had on Alderaan, than all the effects turbolasers have on natural targets.
Namely, understand that the e38 joules figure is the result of the secondary explosion, not the first, and that the second happened way after the beam finished hitting the planet.
What I find most surprising is how, geeks, nerds, much like us, spend hours and hours on making measurements from blurred pictures and argue over a couple of pixels, count duration frame by frame, literally arguing over the medium used in such cases, and yet grandfully miss, by will or by lack of care or attention, the very exclusive attributes of the superlaser.
Yes, these observations are only available on Robert's site. We know that one of SDN's prime rules is not to tolerate the use of cals and observations from members who've been banned from SDN.
And we also know how it would hurt a lot of you, SDN members, to even admit even once that Robert did a good job on many points.
But your typical SDN member is so brainwashed by Wong's Inquisition mentality that there's no hope ever seeing this happen anytime soon.
Basically, there's just an awful amount of evidence that the superlaser is a very special piece of technology, which makes it sensibly different from a mere turbolaser scaled up.
I know, there's some old EU source that said one day that it
was a scaled up turbolaser.
Of course, we also know that back then, efforts made to properly observe and explain phenomenoms from the film weren't always met with wonderful accuracy (WEG's era, for anyone who knows).
We also understand that at this time, there wasn't that much technical analysis to find about Star Wars, many "theories" didn't exist, and the films were still available on low quality video mediums, which would, of course, lead to inaccurate interpretations of canon facts. Besides, it was quite a given that the authors of the EU sources didn't spend that much time freezing videos, going frame by frame, to properly observe crucial facts.
Another question would be... what happened to the rather noble and logical mentality, that was to dismiss a claim from a guide, or from the EU, that could never match the movie material?
I've only seen a few weirdos who'd literally argue, for example, despite all measurements, that the Executor was not 17.6 km long, but more 8 or 12 km long, and still considered that your typical ISD was 1.6 km long, just because EU sources said so.
The idea was that any fan's measurement from the video couldn't outrank the sayings of an official source, be it the Starwars.com website or any EU book/CD.
And so much for evidence.
A similar example would be how the EU says that Sullust is a brown/red planet, while the novelisation speaks of a blue planet. But according to logic above, it is a brown/red planet.
That method doesn't seem to work that much at SDN, when it comes to certain crucial concerns that could lead to their beloved universe being reduced in grandeur, in a way or another. So we are not surprised that even the most simple observations are forgotten, ignored, dismissed, for the sheer sake of being sure that a certain shared vision remains unchallenged.
Point being,
the superlaser does not exactly, nor sufficiently, act like a turbolaser.
Blaster bolts have much more in commmon with laser cannons and turbolasers than the superlaser ever will.
Ah, there's also that absurd idea that laser cannons are many orders of magnitude weaker than turbolasers. This used to dismiss, for example, the EU's references about terajoules of energy exchanged by starships and stations exchanging fire in heated battles.
Nevermind that the same EU source also says that an ISD, later one, fires terajoules of energy. Nevermind if the Golan station that was attacked did have countless racks of turbolaser batteries. Nevermind that such ships (2 New Republic Assault Frigates) can cripple the sides of and ISD's shields (as seen in Zahn's first trilogy). Nevermind that RPG guides insisting that turbolasers aren't even one order of magnitude more powerful than laser cannons. Nevermind if the EU has shown TIE ships sport small turbolasers.
And who gives if a
portion of the EU argues that laser cannons and turbolasers fire pure light, since other EU sources, such as the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology (pages 80 and 88) clearly say that they're mixed bags of particles, energized with light?
What about the fact that the SW Visual Dictionary, which sports an explanation as to how blaster bolts work, associates this description to a picture of the Death Star's turbolaser?
What about the fact that blasters, according to some, are very different than laser and turbolasers, and yet, according to an EU source, Vader's TIE fighter was equipped with heavy blasters, which behaved the exact same way than TIE laser cannons and X-Wing laser cannons?
How could those things travel at c since they're clearly not said to be pure light in any sense, since they're clearly mixed and will interfere with each other?
In the end, who just gives what the contradictory EU explanations say, since the films clearly show that they behave the same frakin' way, and even more, look exactly identical?
Probably some EU fan who can't admit that a lot of the EU stuff released in the past, didn't go through a necessary filter of consistency, and that Saxton's intervention does nothing to make the case better.
Wars has the power generation technology to create the superlaser. Wars has the power channeling technology to create the superlaser. 200GT MTLs are child's play by comparison.
That's not my point. Certain reactor technologies need to be of a given minimal volume. That's why we don't have fission reactors the size of a hand ball.
Thus far, all superlasers have been associated to enormous power plants. Given that a superlaser displays particularily exclusive effects, it is strongly likely that we may never see a considerably smaller generator to make a superlaser what it is.
It is cleary not a solid point to argue on, I admit, but still worth the notice.