^_^How to rationalize the ICS stats?^_^

[Mike DiCenso]

Again, none that I can recall, and the new compliation entries were not written by Saxton, so I would not expect to see anywhere near as much of that sort of thing.
-Mike

[Lucky]

Where are you getting the e23~24 watts quote from?

That comes from the AoTC ICS itself from the stats for various starships' peak reactor power generation.
-Mike

That is what I thought, but with all the numbers in the book I did not want to just assume.

Why does reactor output matter?

You think a ship that produces e24 W would only be able to fire like a millionth of its through its energy guns?

I don't see how just pumping more power to a system like blasters will make the out put greater? The already have heat problems from just firing at normal power from what I've seen. You'd be likely to destroy the gun.

The ROTS:ICS makes it clear: the entire power production of a Venator's core can be channeled into the weapons.

It sounds like a nifty way to destroy your own ship to me.

How long do you think they could run the reactor like that before it starts to melt?

Easily an hour, if we go by the calcs supposedly supporting those figures.

These are the ships that burn and melt on uncontrolled reentry.

These are the ships threatened by a tiny 200 gigaton.

If they had systems that could contain such energies why build ships that can't keep them out? It sounds like a self destruction system by another name.

@ Mike

The devil's in the details. Even if they removed the technical numbers, there's plenty of clues about the firepower "hidden" in the keys. You can see an example of that in the BDZ thread (description of fuel consumption, more or less direct quantifications of this or that type of gun, etc.). There's one that clearly talks about clone trooper rifles leaving 0.5 m wide craters in walls of some "crete" material, on the AOTC:ICS's page about the AT-TE.

Given the blaster bolt uses "technobabble" to tunnel, and then explodes is it really that big a number?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Given the blaster bolt uses "technobabble" to tunnel, and then explodes is it really that big a number?

Yes. And if a source says that a ship can do X, in general it must be taken as a fact. Here, the power being entirely routed to guns. Even this ability is not the problem. The problem is the power figure.
And yes, no one would produce e24 W if your guns are said to be able to directly exploit that output, if you can't shoot more than e15~17 J.

[Lucky]

Given the blaster bolt uses "technobabble" to tunnel, and then explodes is it really that big a number?

Yes. And if a source says that a ship can do X, in general it must be taken as a fact. Here, the power being entirely routed to guns. Even this ability is not the problem. The problem is the power figure.
And yes, no one would produce e24 W if your guns are said to be able to directly exploit that output, if you can't shoot more than e15~17 J.

Don't we see blasters leaving something like 0.5 m wide craters in walls of the spaceport on Tatooine in A New Hope? Those walls were made out of packed dirt, right?

Couldn't it just be shoddy construction?

Couldn't it be because of some quality the crete stuff has? it could shatter, or explodes when exposed to the proper forces more easily them some other "cretes", but have other traits that make it very useful?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Given the blaster bolt uses "technobabble" to tunnel, and then explodes is it really that big a number?

Yes. And if a source says that a ship can do X, in general it must be taken as a fact. Here, the power being entirely routed to guns. Even this ability is not the problem. The problem is the power figure.
And yes, no one would produce e24 W if your guns are said to be able to directly exploit that output, if you can't shoot more than e15~17 J.

Don't we see blasters leaving something like 0.5 m wide craters in walls of the spaceport on Tatooine in A New Hope? Those walls were made out of packed dirt, right?

Couldn't it just be shoddy construction?

Couldn't it be because of some quality the crete stuff has? it could shatter, or explodes when exposed to the proper forces more easily them some other "cretes", but have other traits that make it very useful?

Of course it's crap construction. That's what the novelization says, and the guns don't leave craters in wawacrete, they chip chunks off the wall, which is entirely different. The best thing we see in general from blasters is Boba Fett's guns leaving fist sized holes in the inner walls of Cloud City, and that's generally attributed to the guns being the equivalent of "hotrods", a bit like Han's.
The AOTC:ICS' claim that clone trooper blaster rifles which can leave 0.5 meters wide craters in any ferrocrete wall is BS.

If you're looking for nonsense, you can also look at the page about the Utapaun P-38 fighter. It claims that each wing holds an engine annihilating 3.1 kg of fuel per second. Yes, it goes as far as to claim that the fighters have annihilator cores as well, and produce about 133.18 megatons. Those reactors power several systems in the ship, and the high-power laser cannons of such a fighter can "accumulate power to energize laser cannons."
Of course the last ICS is still full of accelerations in the thousands of gees, for any kind of ship, and has fighter-sized crafts reach peak speeds well above 10 km/s in atmosphere, something I'd like to see as well.
It will also claim that shields are needed in hyperspace to protect from collisions with "interstellar gas" and "dark particles"... providing support to the idea that hyperspace is not some other dimension or layer of space, but real space... just faster... which is a prerequisite to the argumentation you'll see pop up at times that ships reach hyperspeed with raw acceleration. I know, it's silly, but it still appears at SDN every once in a while.
It also claims, again, that laser cannons fire strobes of massless energy. Of course, wouldn't it be that hard to stick to the vast majority of the EU which has always claimed that bolts were a complex mix of photons and other non-massless particles.
But that's just Saxton insidiously placing his ideas.

Buzz droid missiles have accelerations of 10,000 g (sure thing), trifighter exhaust at near c, droid gunship missiles again have 10,000 gees of acceleration, carry a super-compressed fusion warhead, and much heavier missiles, supposedly used to destroy targets, can have yields 600 times superior. Considering the size of the warhead of the normal missile, you can easily have many kilograms of fusion fuel available. These ships also come with exotic super defense fuel, and their fuel tanks are quite huge to begin with. Juggernauts can blast the heat of a nuclear bomb into a small spot, gives a range of 30 km to rocket/grenade launchers. Hell, even a lightsabre' blade is said to be massless. It puts an escape pod acceleration at 300 g, deemed slow even for a civilian ship.

Is that the stuff you'd like to rationalize? :)

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Don't we see blasters leaving something like 0.5 m wide craters in walls of the spaceport on Tatooine in A New Hope? Those walls were made out of packed dirt, right?

Couldn't it just be shoddy construction?

Couldn't it be because of some quality the crete stuff has? it could shatter, or explodes when exposed to the proper forces more easily them some other "cretes", but have other traits that make it very useful?

I am not impressed with 0.5m craters to be honest, i own a small but successful landscaping and ground work company so take it from somebody that has clobbered his fair share of concrete in the past that knocking huge chunks out of beams happens a lot from even single blows of a sledge hammer.

The thing that really holds concrete together are the rebars, if it was not for them a concrete support beam would crack from what most people would consider very weak blows.

Corners and edges are especially vulnerable to low impacts and very large chunks can come away again from seemingly low impacts.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Don't we see blasters leaving something like 0.5 m wide craters in walls of the spaceport on Tatooine in A New Hope? Those walls were made out of packed dirt, right?

Couldn't it just be shoddy construction?

Couldn't it be because of some quality the crete stuff has? it could shatter, or explodes when exposed to the proper forces more easily them some other "cretes", but have other traits that make it very useful?

I am not impressed with 0.5m craters to be honest, i own a small but successful landscaping and ground work company so take it from somebody that has clobbered his fair share of concrete in the past that knocking huge chunks out of beams happens a lot from even single blows of a sledge hammer.

The thing that really holds concrete together are the rebars, if it was not for them a concrete support beam would crack from what most people would consider very weak blows.

Corners and edges are especially vulnerable to low impacts and very large chunks can come away again from seemingly low impacts.

The methods of destruction are completely different. SW weapons do it thermally. They cannot count on the blunt mass of a hammer.
The fact it's a crater is used to claim that matter is removed mostly by heat. Indeed, there's no guarantee to obtain at least a 0.5 wide crater otherwise: you could easily end with something that looks elongated, cracked in various ways and across different lengths.
And since they refuse to consider that blaster bolts can be explosive...

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

The methods of destruction are completely different. SW weapons do it thermally. They cannot count on the blunt mass of a hammer.
The fact it's a crater is used to claim that matter is removed mostly by heat. Indeed, there's no guarantee to obtain at least a 0.5 wide crater otherwise: you could easily end with something that looks elongated, cracked in various ways and across different lengths.
And since they refuse to consider that blaster bolts can be explosive...

I know KE is differant but i was more refering to HOW concrete tends to break. A lot of the time the point you hit is not where it breaks, in fact when hitting walls or beams the pint that is hit is usually in the middle of the large lump that falls off.

So the heat from the weapon would only need to effect a relativly small central point to knock out a large crater, it would not need to heat the entire area of the crater at all as the expansion of the small central point would do the job.

[Lucky]

Of course it's crap construction. That's what the novelization says, and the guns don't leave craters in wawacrete, they chip chunks off the wall, which is entirely different. The best thing we see in general from blasters is Boba Fett's guns leaving fist sized holes in the inner walls of Cloud City, and that's generally attributed to the guns being the equivalent of "hotrods", a bit like Han's.
The AOTC:ICS' claim that clone trooper blaster rifles which can leave 0.5 meters wide craters in any ferrocrete wall is BS.

We see a storm trooper's weapon burn/vaporize a metal grate in "A New Hope", and given the way real world concrete breaks when stressed .5 meters in not that impressive.

If you're looking for nonsense, you can also look at the page about the Utapaun P-38 fighter. It claims that each wing holds an engine annihilating 3.1 kg of fuel per second. Yes, it goes as far as to claim that the fighters have annihilator cores as well, and produce about 133.18 megatons. Those reactors power several systems in the ship, and the high-power laser cannons of such a fighter can "accumulate power to energize laser cannons."

Those numbers are silly.

Of course the last ICS is still full of accelerations in the thousands of gees, for any kind of ship, and has fighter-sized crafts reach peak speeds well above 10 km/s in atmosphere,

As I recall Star Wars has magic mass lighting, magic anti-gravity tech, magic inertia dampers, magic energy shields.

I also seem to recall it being said in the ICS that they can only use those accelerations in straight lines, and I seem to recall another source posted on this site that said those accelerations could not be used in combat do to the mass lowering tech.

What mach is 10km/s?

It will also claim that shields are needed in hyperspace to protect from collisions with "interstellar gas" and "dark particles"... providing support to the idea that hyperspace is not some other dimension or layer of space, but real space... just faster... which is a prerequisite to the argumentation you'll see pop up at times that ships reach hyperspeed with raw acceleration. I know, it's silly, but it still appears at SDN every once in a while.

I would figure that all that is handled by the hyperdrive, and can't be used in any other circumstances, or they would.

It also claims, again, that laser cannons fire strobes of massless energy. Of course, wouldn't it be that hard to stick to the vast majority of the EU which has always claimed that bolts were a complex mix of photons and other non-massless particles.
But that's just Saxton insidiously placing his ideas.

Blasters, lasers, and turbolasers are all the same technology as I understand it, and are technobabble no matter how you cut it. They are best described as a blob of plasma like stuff contained in an energy "bottle" that explodes when the "bottle" breaks.

I don't recall seeing blaster bolts falling like bullets, but at the same time they are very much stl weapons.

Buzz droid missiles have accelerations of 10,000 g (sure thing),

Already covered above.

trifighter exhaust at near c,

Why would this matter?

droid gunship missiles again have 10,000 gees of acceleration,

Accelerations have already been covered.

carry a super-compressed fusion warhead, and much heavier missiles, supposedly used to destroy targets, can have yields 600 times superior.

600 time superior to what?

Considering the size of the warhead of the normal missile, you can easily have many kilograms of fusion fuel available. These ships also come with exotic super defense fuel, and their fuel tanks are quite huge to begin with. Juggernauts can blast the heat of a nuclear bomb into a small spot, gives a range of 30 km to rocket/grenade launchers. Hell, even a lightsabre' blade is said to be massless. It puts an escape pod acceleration at 300 g, deemed slow even for a civilian ship.

They are silly except for the massless light saber blade. Such a blade really should be at least near massless.

Is that the stuff you'd like to rationalize? :)

I'd go with Saxy used the wrong sufixes, and added a few zeros in the wrong place on accident?

Maybe they are an unknown Star Wars mesurerment?

[Praeothmin]

What mach is 10km/s?

Roughly Mach 30-31...

[Mr. Oragahn]

The methods of destruction are completely different. SW weapons do it thermally. They cannot count on the blunt mass of a hammer.
The fact it's a crater is used to claim that matter is removed mostly by heat. Indeed, there's no guarantee to obtain at least a 0.5 wide crater otherwise: you could easily end with something that looks elongated, cracked in various ways and across different lengths.
And since they refuse to consider that blaster bolts can be explosive...

I know KE is differant but i was more refering to HOW concrete tends to break. A lot of the time the point you hit is not where it breaks, in fact when hitting walls or beams the pint that is hit is usually in the middle of the large lump that falls off.

So the heat from the weapon would only need to effect a relativly small central point to knock out a large crater, it would not need to heat the entire area of the crater at all as the expansion of the small central point would do the job.

But the "force" applied to the concrete is different. The bolt will likely deliver its entire energy over, what? 1/50th of a second?
The mace, will deliver all of its kinetic energy at once, and the deceleration caused by the resistance of the wall will be considerable. You literally bring to a dead stop, in a very, very small fraction of a second, the mace formerly swung at something like a couple meters per second.
As I see it, heating the concrete with a bolt is a slower phenomenon, less open to breaking.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

But the "force" applied to the concrete is different. The bolt will likely deliver its entire energy over, what? 1/50th of a second?
The mace, will deliver all of its kinetic energy at once, and the deceleration caused by the resistance of the wall will be considerable. You literally bring to a dead stop, in a very, very small fraction of a second, the mace formerly swung at something like a couple meters per second.
As I see it, heating the concrete with a bolt is a slower phenomenon, less open to breaking.

Hey you would understand the science of it better than me dude i barely understand the science behind most of this stuff, im just chuffed to fuck it involves summat i have direct experiance with for a change :).

I thought it would help to mention how concrete breaks and that heating a small area to pop out a relativly large crater would be more about the depth the heat and resulting expansion it caused got too more than the need for it to cover the entire area of the crater.

There is also the matter of the concrete being a support so it being under stress in the first place and as such prone to breaking at certain points and over larger areas than it would if it was not under stress.

It also depends a lot on the stone to sand ratio and the quantity of cement are variable depending on the type of job you are doing, concrete can also degrade.

Either way its a crappy material to judge firepower on as you can batter it for ages leaving a few marks or hit it once and have it crater/crack and collapse in several places (typically it does the one you want LEAST to happen when you are working with it).

[Mr. Oragahn]

Of course it's crap construction. That's what the novelization says, and the guns don't leave craters in wawacrete, they chip chunks off the wall, which is entirely different. The best thing we see in general from blasters is Boba Fett's guns leaving fist sized holes in the inner walls of Cloud City, and that's generally attributed to the guns being the equivalent of "hotrods", a bit like Han's.
The AOTC:ICS' claim that clone trooper blaster rifles which can leave 0.5 meters wide craters in any ferrocrete wall is BS.

We see a storm trooper's weapon burn/vaporize a metal grate in "A New Hope", and given the way real world concrete breaks when stressed .5 meters in not that impressive.

Breaking when hit with a mace is not the same as breaking because of application of heat over a duration measured in only tens of a full second. Often you'll see a bolt covering about twice its distance in one frame (at framerates of 23.9~25 fps).
And having done my own fair amount of measonry, I know that concrete won't let itself be nicely cratered. It's more of the "fuck off" nature and cracks will be more than random.

As for the metal grid, this one has always been odd. One can focus on the amount of metal vaporized, but someone else will notice that it happened right next to three people wearing no masks at all.

If you're looking for nonsense, you can also look at the page about the Utapaun P-38 fighter. It claims that each wing holds an engine annihilating 3.1 kg of fuel per second. Yes, it goes as far as to claim that the fighters have annihilator cores as well, and produce about 133.18 megatons. Those reactors power several systems in the ship, and the high-power laser cannons of such a fighter can "accumulate power to energize laser cannons."

Those numbers are silly.

Yes, but how do you rationalize them?
Or how do you rationalize the claim that there's an annihilation core there?
:(

Of course the last ICS is still full of accelerations in the thousands of gees, for any kind of ship, and has fighter-sized crafts reach peak speeds well above 10 km/s in atmosphere,

As I recall Star Wars has magic mass lighting, magic anti-gravity tech, magic inertia dampers, magic energy shields.

Which allow them for acceleration at best in the couple hundred of gees. We've seen ships try to escape certain death in ROTJ and it was nothing that formidable.

I also seem to recall it being said in the ICS that they can only use those accelerations in straight lines, and I seem to recall another source posted on this site that said those accelerations could not be used in combat do to the mass lowering tech.

Yes, there's a point, first brought by l33telboi for all I can recall, saying something along those lines. Still, you're yet to see any evidence of such accelerations beyond Saxton's fancy assumption that the whole Imperial fleet circled Endor in a flash... while completely overlooking the evolution of shadows over the moon when seen from space, which would argue for like many dozens of minutes of approach if not several hours.
Anyone can cherry pick evidence, and of course anyone can solely focus on the big ONE case, and forget ALL the more numerous small cases which are much less impressive... making the big ONE case an outlier, by definition.

It also claims, again, that laser cannons fire strobes of massless energy. Of course, wouldn't it be that hard to stick to the vast majority of the EU which has always claimed that bolts were a complex mix of photons and other non-massless particles.
But that's just Saxton insidiously placing his ideas.

Blasters, lasers, and turbolasers are all the same technology as I understand it, and are technobabble no matter how you cut it. They are best described as a blob of plasma like stuff contained in an energy "bottle" that explodes when the "bottle" breaks.

I don't recall seeing blaster bolts falling like bullets, but at the same time they are very much stl weapons.

Oh but they claim technobabble only to handwave the problems raised by anyone who observes Saxton's theory of true spinning lasers (some priceless nonsense).
All that supposedly with the evidence of some bolts hitting before they're actually seen hitting, notably the incident of the asteroid in TESB, or eventually Luke's hand showing a scorch mark nowhere where the beam hit.
You could shrugg it off as a VFX glitch, or you could come with a theory like some bolts's contaimned tend to bleed forward to some degree, and say that such bolts are less efficient or lose their range much quicker, and are very rare, lack precision, and that's all.

Buzz droid missiles have accelerations of 10,000 g (sure thing),

Already covered above.

Never seen in the movie. We even see how long it takes for these missiles to do a 180°. That's their performance, no bullshit dialing down.

trifighter exhaust at near c,

Why would this matter?

Depends on the fuel. I'm yet to see that it's extremely efficient.

droid gunship missiles again have 10,000 gees of acceleration,

Accelerations have already been covered.

No ICS shows evidence of mass lightening mounted on missiles, assuming it's that efficient to begin with.
No, it's just silly numbers, from beginning to end.
It's an acceleration of 98 km/s².

carry a super-compressed fusion warhead, and much heavier missiles, supposedly used to destroy targets, can have yields 600 times superior.

600 time superior to what?

To the first bit you quoted, the normal missile.

Considering the size of the warhead of the normal missile, you can easily have many kilograms of fusion fuel available. These ships also come with exotic super defense fuel, and their fuel tanks are quite huge to begin with. Juggernauts can blast the heat of a nuclear bomb into a small spot, gives a range of 30 km to rocket/grenade launchers. Hell, even a lightsabre' blade is said to be massless. It puts an escape pod acceleration at 300 g, deemed slow even for a civilian ship.

They are silly except for the massless light saber blade. Such a blade really should be at least near massless.

Near massless is not massless as if only made out of photons. That said there is more flexibility in the evidence to argue that it's a blade of light than claim laser bolts are true lasers.

Is that the stuff you'd like to rationalize? :)

I'd go with Saxy used the wrong sufixes, and added a few zeros in the wrong place on accident?

Maybe they are an unknown Star Wars mesurerment?

Hardly. The metric systems is used all over the place in the EU.

[Mr. Oragahn]

But the "force" applied to the concrete is different. The bolt will likely deliver its entire energy over, what? 1/50th of a second?
The mace, will deliver all of its kinetic energy at once, and the deceleration caused by the resistance of the wall will be considerable. You literally bring to a dead stop, in a very, very small fraction of a second, the mace formerly swung at something like a couple meters per second.
As I see it, heating the concrete with a bolt is a slower phenomenon, less open to breaking.

Hey you would understand the science of it better than me dude i barely understand the science behind most of this stuff, im just chuffed to fuck it involves summat i have direct experiance with for a change :).

I thought it would help to mention how concrete breaks and that heating a small area to pop out a relativly large crater would be more about the depth the heat and resulting expansion it caused got too more than the need for it to cover the entire area of the crater.

There is also the matter of the concrete being a support so it being under stress in the first place and as such prone to breaking at certain points and over larger areas than it would if it was not under stress.

It also depends a lot on the stone to sand ratio and the quantity of cement are variable depending on the type of job you are doing, concrete can also degrade.

Either way its a crappy material to judge firepower on as you can batter it for ages leaving a few marks or hit it once and have it crater/crack and collapse in several places (typically it does the one you want LEAST to happen when you are working with it).

I think "Pop heating" would work really well if you use the minimum heat of an explosive turned into overpressure. You get much less pop heating with a typical Star Wars bolt.
Although I consider that they can be explosive by nature, they are certainly not as "blasty" as detonation weapons would.

[Praeothmin]

they are certainly not as "blasty" as detonation weapons would.

How do you figure this?
Every Blaster bolt that hits something creates an explosion, even when hitting a "soft" target (watch the Cell Block fight, between 2:30 and 3:00, when guards are hit, you see a small explosion like when a hard target is hit)...
While the explosion is smaller then when they fired on the automated defenses, we can rationalize it as saying the humans didn't have any energy couplings running through them, adding to the explosive effect...