Tyralak

Didn't we see Valeris use a phaser to vaporize a steel pot in Star Trek VI, though?  Of course, a steel pot is probably a lot thinner than any armor.

This is true, and it's a very important scene. It's hard to say if the pot was aluminum or stainless steel. Either way, it's a good example. Especially considering the complete disintegration of the pot.

A couple of things here. Rock and armor are two entirely different things. Phasers are fantastic at drilling through and disintegrating rock, not so much armor and dense metal. Even solid granite is nearly three times LESS dense than iron. Iron also has a greater heat capacity, and better dispersive effects. Of course Phasers would have an explosive effect on rock. Rock heats unevenly, is prone to fracture, and contains small pockets of trapped air and moisture. Almost universally we have seen in Trek that armor and dense metals pose more of a challenge to Phasers than other objects.

There is also quite a bit of discussion about projectile weaponry against armor, which has absolutely ZERO to do with Phasers. Kinetic weapons and beam weapons have entirely different effects on armor. 
 
Now, the one example you gave about the Noranium is excellent, because we are given numbers, we have screen time we can measure, and visual evidence. We can get a good idea of the amount of energy used. Once we have that information, we can compare that with the energy needed to melt through 3 inches of steel plating. The only pieces of information we don't have is the heat capacity of Noranium, and the total volume of metal vaporized. Going over the clip, they certainly didn't vaporize a pile of Noranium. They did, however, in short order, melt enough of it to release some nasty fumes. Here's the clip.
 

OK, a lot of these examples being given are either irrelevant or full of unknowns. We don't know the composition or density of these various crates and containers, so I'll stick to what we do know. You say a hand Phaser could kill a Sherman tank. A Sherman tank has 3 inch thick armor. If you can show me where a hand Phaser has taken out at least 3 inches of armor plating, or even steel, I will agree.

Do you not think a phaser can kill a tank?  Say, an old Sherman?   If you think it could, what evidence do you have that an AT-ST would be more difficult?

No, I don't actually think a hand Phaser could kill a tank. At least not in one shot, maybe if you focused on it for a while, or you took out the treads, then fused the joints so it couldn't fire at you. Now a CRM 114 would trash both a Sherman tank and an AT-ST. I'm pretty sure given a few shots, it could take down an AT-AT, but not the Starfleet equivalent of a sidearm.

Off-topic, but yes* and yes.

 

(* There are caveats, mostly related to rather dated material, but the overall view is still sound.)

OK. This I have to hear. How do you reckon a hand phaser can destroy an AT ST?

OK. How many of you play this amazing game? I've been completely enamored with it for the last 8 months or so. 

It not like Starfleet did not know that Earth target they did.  Only thing real did was send NX Enterprise out try convince not to. Thing I done if I was charge first build fortified space station must state art weapon systems that heavy armed and fortified space station they had. For example least one space station orbit Jupture. Armed it to teeth the same rest of them. Long range powerful weapons. Also build fortified space station orbit the sun arm weapon greatest bang for the buck. Also spread the population itself around having. NX Enterprise more powerful all but one Xindi race. Space station like take fleets worth of attacks simple heavy weapons and more power to weapon first place. One station able to withstand attack for 30 of warship send to attack Earth.

Last thing done try make sure human population was spread out much possible in solar system and beyond. Work having more secret location as well Twilight the human longer topic secret location done way before hand.

At that point in time, Earth didn't have those kind of resources. Remember, the NX-01 was a prototype. Earth was more or less reliant on the Vulcans for any sort of military assistance.

No, it was something I meant to delete.I was testing a board function.

This is the Tomb of Sir Nitram, AKA Martin Kemmish. Pictures and text provided by his wife, Lady Tevar.

Martin F. Kemmish, 32 of Charleston, WV passed away on Tuesday, June 17, 2014 at CAMC

Sir Nitram with his loving wife, Lady Tevar.

Sir Nitram relaxing at home.

Sir Nitram posing.

Since our civilization began in 1997, several of our great warriors have become one with the Force. This is the place where we honor their memories, remember their lives, and exaggerate their deeds. Post stories, remembrances, and pictures however you like. Keep in mind, however, that flame wars and personal attacks will not be tolerated, and will be deleted immediately.

Jason, I can't see this turning into anything but a bloodbath for the 10 Federation soldiers. As much as I would love the Federation to win each and every contest, ground combat is not something UFP ground forces can win. While I agree that Phasers can be more powerful than blasters, that doesn't change the fact that blasters are still deadly, and UFP soldiers don't wear armor. While it's questionable if Stormtrooper armor could be much protection against Phasers, it's better than nothing at all. Not to mention that 1000 - 10 odds are insane no matter what.  

That's a bit of a subject-change deflection, but we'll roll with it.   At least there was no attempt to defend the fallacy itself.

Not everything I say is an attempt at some sort of cheesy parliamentary debate tactics. I was genuinely interested in where you stood on these ships' composition.

I don't claim to know the composition of an ISD's superstructure, hull, or armor.   Indeed, the perilously low ship counts indicated by Dodonna's quote (at least including the novelization reference which Brian totally skips over when discussing it) might make more sense if we presume that the Death Star was constructed as simply as possible whereas the fleet was made of greater materials which required more lead time or resource acquisition or what-have-you.   It's one thing to make a steel warship, but quite another to make a carbon fiber boat.  But, that's purely conjectural.

 

That said, steel would not be terribly inconsistent with the way in which Grievous's claw dug into the Invisible Hand's hull, or the way the ISD bridge tower was obliterated by an asteroid, et cetera, but you could say the same about any number of materials.   However, I'm more interested in demonstrated capability than assigning names.  If a name's assigned in canon then we have to roll with (e.g. fusion), but other than that the Rumplestiltskin game is only useful for pondering purposes and conjecture.   It's not a good idea to assign a name to something in your own head and then try to limit the canon from that.

 

This is certainly true in regards to the Holy Grate.   In that instance, an event which no one would reasonably assume to be related to iron or steel is assigned that designation, requiring all manner of ad hoc rationalizations (e.g. "all the vapor of metal expanding hundreds of times in volume was sucked down the chute, leaving only a puff of smoke giving no indication of that wind-tunnel velocity") to try to keep afloat.   It's silly.  

 

If you're bent on Rumplestiltskinning it, I'd just as soon call it hydrofoamed permacrete.  Certainly the behavior would be more consistent.   Have you ever seen red- or recolored-back-to-the-pre-SE-version-white-hot metal cool in 1/24th of a second?  (Of course, that's where it would be helpful to abandon the whole yarn where anything that has a red or magenta coloration to it due to red light falling upon it is suddenly red-hot, but that's another story.)

 

Besdes, we wouldn't bother making a real-life detention-block garbage chute grate out of wrist-thick bars of iron or steel, and we certainly wouldn't do so if our shipbuilding technology featured techniques like hydrofoaming (and poorly-framing) wall material to save weight.

 

But in any case, as I said, "As for the Holy Grate itself, I will be addressing that in my own good time based on the rough outline I have in mind, in text, and in audio notes."   The points above only scratch that surface.

You do have to know what sort of material and its properties you're dealing with if you're going to do any sort of accurate calculations. Also, the theory I have regarding Blasters and Turbolasers (which will be the subject of my second video, if I ever have time to make it) really renders the composition of the grate moot. However, when looking at massive shipbuilding projects, we have to consider what would be the most reasonable material to use. Would they build shittons of ships out of unobtanium and crystallized unicorn farts, or would they use a common, cheap material? I'm not saying Star Destroyers are huge chunks of hollowed out iron. That would frankly be insane. However, a mostly steel superstructure WOULD make sense. The hulls aren't that thick either. "Jedi Crash" shows the hulls to be about a meter thick.

Hence my reference to armor in the mix, right after blue milk. That sequence was supposed to obviate the fallacy of distribution (division, specifically, but really the composition one's page is far more descriptive, if you merely invert the points) wherein my rule of thumb generalization based on many parts was claimed as proof of a separate and unequal specific. 

 

By Brian's reasoning, the Star Destroyer's an ironclad, for all intents and purposes. If I wanted to play tit for tat, I'd attribute the point to Brian, noting that he just made that argument without realizing it.

Humor me then, if you would. What do you think an ISD is made of and what is your opinion on the material of which the infamous grate is constructed?

Here's more demonstration of both the fallacy and the rationale for my take on the video compared to the diplomatic version:

 

Blue milk? Made of steel. Armor? Steel. Clothes? Steel.

Fallacy.

Clearly in this context, when he says everything, he's referring to the construction of buildings and ships. Iron is cheap and abundant. Makes sense.

And that really fits in with the more authentic Star Wars realism perspective that was prevalent before fusion and steel became re-imagined as hypermatter and neutronium in recent years.

 

The TPM novelization refers to Coruscant as steel alloys and glass. The ascension cables were steel-clawed. The ANH script refers to the door sealing the chasm that Luke and Leia swing over as steel. The ANH novelization refers to the Death Star exterior as steel and references its "steely horizon". The RotJ novelization refers to Boba as "steel-masked" and Luke's hand as being made of steel. The floor of the Emperor's room in the Death Star is made of steel. The Imperial shuttle has a "steely hull", and its landing ramp is described as chilly steel. The bunker corridors are made of steel. Melted steel floats amongst the debris of the final battle.

 

And, of course, there's the hydrofoamed permacrete and other weight-saving measures of that nature as I've mentioned before and will no doubt mention repeatedly.

 

These bits don't support super-dense ships, but instead point toward more readily-comprehensible densities and masses.

You make a powerful point there, in fact I mentioned it to Brian and he just put out a video agreeing with you on it.

Watched that this morning. Since, I had never seen the film in question, or read the novel, this was interesting. While Disney did a great job of taking out the trash as regards the EU, we now have another (albeit smaller) problem. There will inevitably be disagreement between printed and film sources. This time though, there is no "lower canon" The books and films are on equal canon footing. So, how do we rectify situations like this? I suggest we follow George's "latest version" standard. Whichever one was filmed/written last takes precedence in case of disputes. It seems to me to be the only way to do it that avoids the appearance of cherry picking.

Reminds me of a quote from the late SirNitram, back in the good old days. The first lines are quotes from the person he's addressing.

Quote #304 -- SirNitram -- Quotable Posts

 

> Judge SB as you would have others judge ASVS.

 

You really want me to do that? Okay. Here we go, don't say you didn't

ask for it.

 

ASVS has a bunch of maniacal crack smoking donkey fuckers who are

quite willing to tell each other just what part of the evolutionary

tree they fell out of, and how many ugly sticks hit them after impact.

The debates are based purely off science, and the denizens mercilessly

beat those who are trolls. If you are stupid, you will be weeded out,

through flaming to a cinder or KFing.

 

SB has a bunch of maniacal crack smoking donkey fuckers who cry to

moderators if someone says a bad word, or if they just can't come up

with a good counter-argument. The debates are based off bias and who

shouts the loudest without being banned, and the mods suppress anyone

who seems to be making waves. If you are stupid, apparantly, you are

considered a master debator.

 

I can hear the reply. 'Waaaah! You don't know SB! You've never been!'.

This will probably come from Isil'Whatever.

 

You crack smoking donkey fucker. I have. I went, I lurked, I posted. I

saw such monumental stupidity that I was amazed they haven't

accidentally killed themselves brushing their teeth. Claims that ST

weapons have thousand-kilometer ranges without a shred of proof, and

if you quote Slave Ship they go psycho.

 

I judged SB as I judged ASVS. There's a reason I'm here. I like my

brain cells, and they at least get a rudimentary workout here.

I frankly think this is a good idea. If nothing else, an excellent thought experiment. What ways can we come up with for SW to have more realistic levels of power generation and still perform the same feats?

I also came up with an idea a few days ago that I kicked around with a few friends. What if the ships aren't actually generating much at all? What if they're USING all the power the calculations seem to indicate, but they aren't GENERATING it? The example I thought of was two ships. They both cross the ocean. They both are the same size and require the same energy to move. However, one is powered by a diesel engine, and must generate all of the energy required for ocean crossing. The other is a sailing ship, and generates none of it's own power, except for the electrical, communications, navigation, and life support systems. The energy used to move it across the ocean is collected from the surrounding environment. (wind, waves, and currents) In Stargate we see ZPM modules used. They collect vacuum energy instead of generating it. This isn't without precedent in SW either. The Force is EXACTLY that. It's an "energy field that surrounds all living things" which Force sensitive beings draw from. In the (now non-canon) Knights of the Old Republic, the Rakata Infinite Empire used Hyperdrives which were powered by the Force. I'm not saying that SW technology is Force based, but why should we be limited to the idea that 100% of the power needed is generated on-site?

Dudes/geeks don't take this the wrong way.

 

*This is NOT a troll comment*

 

I loved all the Star Wars films except Ep #1 and love TNG/DS9/VOY, but how can you guys argue over and over for years and years about which cannon is stronger and which shield gives more protection, take some drugs fuck some prostitutez kill a pensioner.

 

There is more interesting things in life than the same debates you have been having since you were 12, don't take this wrong I love you all I'm just a bit amazed that you still have the same arguments/debates.

 

Lots of love Eat Shit And Die X

A fair question, ESAD. However, the reason we do it is simply because we enjoy it. The same reason people debate literature, music, and sports. It's our hobby.

They probably wouldn't be necessary against snowspeeders, but it would be idiotic for them to be designed with such light opponents in mind - as a rule of thmb they should be protected against their own firepower.

 

Why should they be? Naval ships and tanks can't handle a volley of their own firepower. In fact, other than bunkers, I have a hard time thinking of any instance where a vehicle's defensive systems are stronger than its offensive capability.

To be fair I think the case for flak-bursting laser bolts in sw (as stupid and retarded and unexplainable as it is) is pretty compelling I think. The Falcon chase sequence in the asteroid belt for example. Shots which stray far from the Falcon appear to burst in the blackness of space. 

They aren't unexplainable at all, actually. My personal theory is that blasters/lasers/turbolasers in SW are closer to Hellbores than actual lasers as we know them. A highly charged bolt of plasma temporarily contained within a magnetic field. They have a certain range before the field decays, and loses containment.  

Why?  We've already got a much simpler solution staring us in the face: it's the ultimate BFG.  There's no need to go jumping through hoops to come up with a mechanism that involves vastly lower power levels when its not necessary, and indeed would leave unexplained phenomena that the BFG theory explains nicely.

Do we want the correct answer, or just the easy one? The BFG theory works, yes. However, we should explore what would happen to a planet if a piercing beam of high energy were to penetrate to its core. This way we can develop a true lower limit by factoring in secondary effects. It's always good to establish an upper and lower limit, so the range of possibilities is narrowed down. Without resorting to NDE weaponry (There is no canon evidence of NDE technology in SW) or mystical Hyperspace handwaving, what is the lowest amount of energy required to achieve the destruction seen onscreen, utilizing secondary effects? After all, It's easier to put together a house if you have a floor.

Earth is considered geologically active, but it is not ready to just pop as far as I'm aware (and as I hope). A quick google search came up empty, but I don't think there's quite enough energy stored tectonically to blow up an entire planet.

 

A 9.0 richter scale earthquake releases a 'mere' 480 Mt (4.8*10^20 J) of energy, to reach the 10^38 J needed to mechanically blow up a planet would require the pent up and simultaneous release of 2.083*10^17 earthquakes of 9.0 magnitude.

 

Incidentally, certain starquakes may be able to tear apart a planet.

True. Possibly instantanious fusion of the heavy elements in the core? My whole reason for this line of thought, is to account for any possible secondary reactions which could have aided the destruction.

Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB92yoK242s

Who?

Someone from the original Usenet days of ASVS. He was a good friend, and a very nice person.