Star wars is fake !
Pikachu of the Borg
Star trek is based on our universe,
uses our planets and it doesn't need any crappy cover-up like
the long time long shit and an star wars uses lasers HA ! star trek's
phasers are more powerful because they use phased energy.
The Death Star is no match more the borg cube and the borg collective
has at least 100 of 'em and there were only 2 death stars.
Kynes Highwind
>
> Star trek is based on our universe,
> uses our planets and it doesn't need any crappy cover-up like
> the long time long shit and an star wars uses lasers HA ! star trek's
> phasers are more powerful because they use phased energy.
Oh, how I wish Mike Wong were around. I'll just have to refer you to his
website:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire.html
Read the "Bad Science" page.
> The Death Star is no match more the borg cube and the borg collective
> has at least 100 of 'em and there were only 2 death stars.
Borg cubes fall routinely and easily to Federation weaponry, which is not
rated at 1% of an ISD's weaponry. Thus, we can assume that they would
fall routinely and easily to ISDs, since they are vastly more powerful.
Federation ships, with their shielding which routinely falls to similar
weak weaponry, often withstand Borg attacks. Thus, we can conclude that
the Borg weaponry would be almost totally ineffective again an ISD, which
had shielding which routinely withstands weaponry of much greater magnitude.
You wouldn't NEED a Death Star.
--
-Kynes Highwind
"It is by will alone that I set my mind in motion."
- Piter de Vries
Robert Williams
Pikachu of the Borg wrote in message ...
>
>Star trek is based on our universe,
>uses our planets and it doesn't need any crappy cover-up like
>the long time long shit and an star wars uses lasers HA !
Yes! Oh what fun this will be to watch, as another clueless newbie is torn
to shreds.
Rob
The Vulcan
>
>Borg cubes fall routinely and easily to Federation weaponry, which is not
>rated at 1% of an ISD's weaponry
Of course, that figure is wrong because ST weapons are more powerful than
your pitiful lasers and ST weapons use charged energy. A fact is that when
federation ships beat the borg it isn't in your stupid SW blunt force way,
they have a smart solution and are creative.
>fall routinely and easily to ISDs, since they are vastly more powerful.
I'm sure they are (in your dreams maybe)
>Federation ships, with their shielding which routinely falls to similar
>weak weaponry, often withstand Borg attacks.
Are you kidding ?
in the battle of Wolf 359, starships were destroyed in a battle by the borg,
all of which were vastly more powerful than your ISD.
>the Borg weaponry would be almost totally ineffective again an ISD
the borg hasn't faced an ISD how do you know ?
>had shielding which routinely withstands weaponry of much greater magnitude.
Your puny SW weapons are of a greater magnitude ? HA !
Sure,
your precious ISD could destroy a few borg cubes but then the borg would adapt
to your weapons and then your ISDs would be assimilated along with the DS and
all your precious jedi a-holes, etc. The borg fleet isn't just 5 cubes you
know, its more like lots.
You say they can't adapt cuz the technology is total different ?
Maybe you're right, but some will survive, maybe trillions !
Kynes Highwind
> I have found your argument illogical
What's up with all the name changes?
>
> >
> >Borg cubes fall routinely and easily to Federation weaponry, which is not
> >rated at 1% of an ISD's weaponry
>
> Of course, that figure is wrong because ST weapons are more powerful than
> your pitiful lasers and ST weapons use charged energy. A fact is that when
> federation ships beat the borg it isn't in your stupid SW blunt force way,
> they have a smart solution and are creative.
"Charged energy?" What, in the name of Eris, is "Charged energy?"
ST weapons are NOT more powerful than SW weapons. For a look at why phasers
are vastly more powerful than turbolasers, I'll give an example.
* Firstly, since you're new, I'll introduce you to the Saxton Asteroid
Calculations. In ESB, we clearly see an anti-starfighter cannon vaporize
an asteroid which appears to be at least 40m in diameter. I won't waste
space on the actual calcs (go to http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire.html
if you really want them) but suffice to say, this establishes a lower limit
of many thousands of TW for turbolasers.
* As a contrast, phasers have a stated power of 1.02GW - or 0.00102TW.
> >fall routinely and easily to ISDs, since they are vastly more powerful.
>
> I'm sure they are (in your dreams maybe)
See above.
> >Federation ships, with their shielding which routinely falls to similar
> >weak weaponry, often withstand Borg attacks.
>
> Are you kidding ?
> in the battle of Wolf 359, starships were destroyed in a battle by the borg,
> all of which were vastly more powerful than your ISD.
And in the battle in First Contact, we see Federation ships absorb several
shots from the Borg cube.
> >the Borg weaponry would be almost totally ineffective again an ISD
>
> the borg hasn't faced an ISD how do you know ?
That's sort of the point of the discussion, isn't it?
> >had shielding which routinely withstands weaponry of much greater magnitude.
>
> Your puny SW weapons are of a greater magnitude ? HA !
Yes.
> Sure,
> your precious ISD could destroy a few borg cubes but then the borg would adapt
> to your weapons and then your ISDs would be assimilated along with the DS and
> all your precious jedi a-holes, etc. The borg fleet isn't just 5 cubes you
> know, its more like lots.
Actually, we've only ever seen the Borg adapt to frequency-based energy weapons
like phasers and disruptors. Turbolaser bolts aren't like that - they're just
a simple plasma weapon, most likely. Also, they have a partially kinetic effect,
and we KNOW how bad the Borg are at adapting to them.
> You say they can't adapt cuz the technology is total different ?
> Maybe you're right, but some will survive, maybe trillions !
Trillions? That's a small fraction of the population of one major Imperial world.
I hate to burst your bubble.
joel frangquist
>
> Star trek is based on our universe,
> uses our planets and it doesn't need any crappy cover-up like
> the long time long shit
You are very psychotic. What is wrong with "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far
away..." That is arguably the coolest thing about STAR WARS.
> and an star wars uses lasers HA !
No it doesn't, but I'll see if someone else is willing to take out the newbie this time.
star trek's
> phasers are more powerful because they use phased energy.
> The Death Star is no match more the borg cube and the borg collective
> has at least 100 of 'em and there were only 2 death stars.
Each of which has more volume than a hundred borg cubes. Heck couple of Super star
destroyers have almost as much volume as a hundred borg cubes. Of course, size matters
not. Then again, neither do numbers when you're talking about one hammer (the Death Star)
vs. a hundred toothpicks (Borg cubes).
joel
SEAN P COLLINS
Kynes Highwind wrote in message ...
>Pikachu of the Borg <magik...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X7aJ2.35085$Mb.17...@newscontent-02.sprint.ca...
>>
>> Star trek is based on our universe,
>> uses our planets and it doesn't need any crappy cover-up like
>> phasers are more powerful because they use phased energy.
>
>website:
>
>http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire.html
I'd like to know how Wong bases science and physics on non-existant
materials and substances, like hypermatter and durasteel, then he accuses US
of not using real physics for Star Trek, even though both Wars and Trek and
fiction and fantasy and can't be based on real world science. But at least
trek pretends to be based on science, it has materials which are at least
based on something that's real, like tritaninum and duranium, which are real
elements with pre-fixes attached, unlike wars materials made entirely from
thin air, like hypermatter, etc. The page is also quite hypocritical and
contradicts even itself, for example, he states in the reasons page that
Sci-fi is supposed to be based heavily on science, then in another spot says
that "Sci-fi should be at least LOOSELY based on science" Which one is it
Wongo?
joel frangquist
> The Borg assimilated thousands of species. Do you think
> that they haven't encounter plasma and ion based weapons before?
This argument doesn't jive. Leaving aside the question of whether SW weapons employ the
sort of plasma or ions that we know and love, there's the questions of time and
probability, and the fact that the argument can be turned around.
How long have the Borg existed? How long have they been assimilating other races? Two
thousand years? As long as the culture of the SW galaxy (at least ten thousand years)?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think so. So why should the Borg have encountered SW
type weapons? What reason do you have to believe that it is probable that such weapons
would be discovered or developed by the Borg or any of the species they assimilated? It
makes no sense to say that technology being used in a culture which has had ten thousand
years of opportunities to discover it is likely to show up in a culture with only a couple
thousand years of technological history.
Then there's the fact that your argument works even better for the other side. Consider
that the SW galaxy also includes thousands of species, if not millions, certainly more
species than the Borg have assimilated. Do you think that none of these species had Borg
like technology?? None of them had anything like transwarp or nanotech?
Either it is likely that the Borg and SW would understand each other's tech, or it is not
likely, but the argument goes both ways. Unless the Borg have existed longer than SW
history, it is certainly not likely that the Borg would understand SW and not vice versa.
If anything, SW's long history as a technological culture, and the number of species in
the galactic system, would give it the advantage.
Personally, I think it is quite likely that SW and the Borg (and all of ST) would NOT
understand each others' technology, having never encountered anything like it. Their
weapons would either be useless against each other, or produce strange, chaotic, and
unpredictable results in battle.
For example, an SD fires an ion cannon at the Enterprise and knocks out life support
systems, phaser array, and navigational shields, having passed half its power through the
main defense shields but having caused no damage to the warp core and nacelles or the
photon torpedo tubes, and only minor damage to the ships computer capability. Meanwhile
the remaining ion cannon energy reacts strangely with the Enterprise shields, causing an
energy flare around the ship which destroys several squadrons of TIE fighters that were
easily punching small, insignificant holes in the Enterprises hull.
Anyway, how long IS the Borg's technological history? Does anyone know? Is there an
answer?
joel
Lord Edam de Fromage
phasers
>are vastly more powerful than turbolasers, I'll give an example.
>
>* Firstly, since you're new, I'll introduce you to the Saxton Asteroid
> Calculations. In ESB, we clearly see an anti-starfighter cannon
vaporize
> an asteroid which appears to be at least 40m in diameter. I won't waste
> space on the actual calcs (go to
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire.html
> if you really want them) but suffice to say, this establishes a lower
limit
> of many thousands of TW for turbolasers.
>
>* As a contrast, phasers have a stated power of 1.02GW - or 0.00102TW.
If you are going to use the Saxton/Wong calculations for Turbolasers, why
not also consider the Phaser effect values from Wong's pages (putting
phasers at far more than 1.02GW I think)
>Actually, we've only ever seen the Borg adapt to frequency-based energy
weapons
>like phasers and disruptors. Turbolaser bolts aren't like that - they're
just
>a simple plasma weapon, most likely. Also, they have a partially kinetic
effect,
>and we KNOW how bad the Borg are at adapting to them.
Nope. They have laser elements, which can be adapted to. And Borg can
withstand solar corona type plasma, so why should your TL plasma be a
threat once it's laser containment is removed?
PAUL JACQUES H.JR
: > Star trek is based on our universe,
: > uses our planets and it doesn't need any crappy cover-up like
: > the long time long shit and an star wars uses lasers HA ! star trek's
: > phasers are more powerful because they use phased energy.
:
: Oh, how I wish Mike Wong were around.
His lies and inconsistencies would be exposed. His rhetorical defence would
be that: Everyone is beneath him that is why he doesn't stay in this NG.
: Borg cubes fall routinely and easily to Federation weaponry, which is not
: rated at 1% of an ISD's weaponry.
Another lie. The Borg assimilated thousands of species. Do you think
that they haven't encounter plasma and ion based weapons before?
: Thus, we can assume that they would
: fall routinely and easily to ISDs, since they are vastly more powerful.
Assumption based on personal opinion and not facts. I can do calcs: TDIC,
BOBW, Pegasus, etc that will show that ST weaponry is far superior than
SW weaponry. About 1270 times more. I call that game: Play the Micheal Wong.
: Federation ships, with their shielding which routinely falls to similar
: weak weaponry, often withstand Borg attacks. Thus, we can conclude that
: the Borg weaponry would be almost totally ineffective again an ISD, which
: had shielding which routinely withstands weaponry of much greater magnitude.
You mean shielding than can be breached by a fighter (ROTJ the SSD).
The so called might of an ISD is myth.
Phong Nguyen
"Kynes Highwind" <ky...@choam.org> wrote:
> The Vulcan <magik...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iycJ2.35322$Mb.17...@newscontent-02.sprint.ca...
> > I have found your argument illogical
>
> What's up with all the name changes?
>
> >
> > >
> >
> > Of course, that figure is wrong because ST weapons are more powerful than
> > your pitiful lasers and ST weapons use charged energy. A fact is that when
> > federation ships beat the borg it isn't in your stupid SW blunt force way,
> > they have a smart solution and are creative.
>
> "Charged energy?" What, in the name of Eris, is "Charged energy?"
>
> are vastly more powerful than turbolasers, I'll give an example.
>
> * Firstly, since you're new, I'll introduce you to the Saxton Asteroid
> Calculations. In ESB, we clearly see an anti-starfighter cannon vaporize
> an asteroid which appears to be at least 40m in diameter. I won't waste
> space on the actual calcs (go to http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire.html
> if you really want them) but suffice to say, this establishes a lower limit
> of many thousands of TW for turbolasers.
>
> * As a contrast, phasers have a stated power of 1.02GW - or 0.00102TW.
>
and to a lesser extent, shielding. They demonstrate a remarkable ability
with the NDF effect to cause extreme amounts of damage compared to
conventional weaponry at the same power level. (a 1.02GW phaser vastly
outpowers 1.02GW turbolasers).
> > >fall routinely and easily to ISDs, since they are vastly more powerful.
> >
> > I'm sure they are (in your dreams maybe)
>
> See above.
>
> > >Federation ships, with their shielding which routinely falls to similar
> > >weak weaponry, often withstand Borg attacks.
> >
> > Are you kidding ?
> > in the battle of Wolf 359, starships were destroyed in a battle by the
borg,
> > all of which were vastly more powerful than your ISD.
>
> And in the battle in First Contact, we see Federation ships absorb several
> shots from the Borg cube.
>
> > >the Borg weaponry would be almost totally ineffective again an ISD
> >
> > the borg hasn't faced an ISD how do you know ?
>
> That's sort of the point of the discussion, isn't it?
>
> > >had shielding which routinely withstands weaponry of much greater
magnitude.
> >
> > Your puny SW weapons are of a greater magnitude ? HA !
>
> Yes.
>
> > Sure,
> > your precious ISD could destroy a few borg cubes but then the borg would
adapt
> > to your weapons and then your ISDs would be assimilated along with the DS
and
> > all your precious jedi a-holes, etc. The borg fleet isn't just 5 cubes you
> > know, its more like lots.
>
> Actually, we've only ever seen the Borg adapt to frequency-based energy
weapons
> like phasers and disruptors. Turbolaser bolts aren't like that - they're just
> a simple plasma weapon, most likely. Also, they have a partially kinetic
effect,
> and we KNOW how bad the Borg are at adapting to them.
>
> > You say they can't adapt cuz the technology is total different ?
> > Maybe you're right, but some will survive, maybe trillions !
>
> Trillions? That's a small fraction of the population of one major Imperial
world.
> I hate to burst your bubble.
> --
> -Kynes Highwind
>
> "It is by will alone that I set my mind in motion."
> - Piter de Vries
>
>
phong nguyen ack...@baka.iname.com / remove baka
Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Kynes Highwind
> Kynes Highwind (ky...@choam.org) wrote:
> : > Star trek is based on our universe,
> : > uses our planets and it doesn't need any crappy cover-up like
> : > the long time long shit and an star wars uses lasers HA ! star trek's
> : > phasers are more powerful because they use phased energy.
> :
> : Oh, how I wish Mike Wong were around.
>
> His lies and inconsistencies would be exposed. His rhetorical defence would
> be that: Everyone is beneath him that is why he doesn't stay in this NG.
You know, Paul, when prompted, I've yet to see you produce evidence of any
of these "lies and inconsistencies."
>
> : Borg cubes fall routinely and easily to Federation weaponry, which is not
> : rated at 1% of an ISD's weaponry.
>
> Another lie. The Borg assimilated thousands of species. Do you think
> that they haven't encounter plasma and ion based weapons before?
Is there any evidence that they have?
> : Thus, we can assume that they would
> : fall routinely and easily to ISDs, since they are vastly more powerful.
>
> Assumption based on personal opinion and not facts. I can do calcs: TDIC,
> BOBW, Pegasus, etc that will show that ST weaponry is far superior than
> SW weaponry. About 1270 times more. I call that game: Play the Micheal Wong.
Your TDIC calcs assume vaporization, not destruction.
I don't know what your BOBW calcs are. Your Pegasus calcs are so horribly flawed
the even Elim Garak, ancient guard of ST in this newsgroup, had to question
them.
> : Federation ships, with their shielding which routinely falls to similar
> : weak weaponry, often withstand Borg attacks. Thus, we can conclude that
> : the Borg weaponry would be almost totally ineffective again an ISD, which
> : had shielding which routinely withstands weaponry of much greater magnitude.
>
> You mean shielding than can be breached by a fighter (ROTJ the SSD).
> The so called might of an ISD is myth.
The shielding was already down, Paul. You've had this rammed down your throat
a thousand times. The entire Rebel fleet concentrated its fire on the SSD,
which was already damaged. It was a freak occurrence.
Kynes Highwind
> In article <JfdJ2.11367$573....@news.rdc1.md.home.com>,
> "Kynes Highwind" <ky...@choam.org> wrote:
> > The Vulcan <magik...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:iycJ2.35322$Mb.17...@newscontent-02.sprint.ca...
> > > I have found your argument illogical
> >
> > What's up with all the name changes?
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Of course, that figure is wrong because ST weapons are more powerful than
> > > your pitiful lasers and ST weapons use charged energy. A fact is that when
> > > federation ships beat the borg it isn't in your stupid SW blunt force way,
> > > they have a smart solution and are creative.
> >
> > "Charged energy?" What, in the name of Eris, is "Charged energy?"
> >
> > ST weapons are NOT more powerful than SW weapons. For a look at why phasers
> > are vastly more powerful than turbolasers, I'll give an example.
> >
> > * Firstly, since you're new, I'll introduce you to the Saxton Asteroid
> > Calculations. In ESB, we clearly see an anti-starfighter cannon vaporize
> > an asteroid which appears to be at least 40m in diameter. I won't waste
> > space on the actual calcs (go to http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire.html
> > if you really want them) but suffice to say, this establishes a lower limit
> > of many thousands of TW for turbolasers.
> >
> > * As a contrast, phasers have a stated power of 1.02GW - or 0.00102TW.
> >
> However, phasers tend to have odd effects when interacting with matter,
> and to a lesser extent, shielding. They demonstrate a remarkable ability
> with the NDF effect to cause extreme amounts of damage compared to
> conventional weaponry at the same power level. (a 1.02GW phaser vastly
> outpowers 1.02GW turbolasers).
Oh, definitely. Wholeheartedly agreed. The effectiveness of phasers varies
wildly with what it's interacting with (I have absolutely no idea why it
has any effect on shields, which are massless, but it does) and I know that.
I just wanted to make a contrast.
But, I appreciate the correction. Too often, it's easy to fall into the trends
of misinformation which I decry.
Wayne Poe
On Sun, 21 Mar 1999, SEAN P COLLINS wrote:
> I'd like to know how Wong bases science and physics on non-existant
> materials and substances, like hypermatter and durasteel, then he accuses US
> of not using real physics for Star Trek, even though both Wars and Trek and
> fiction and fantasy and can't be based on real world science. But at least
> trek pretends to be based on science, it has materials which are at least
> based on something that's real, like tritaninum and duranium, which are real
> elements with pre-fixes attached, unlike wars materials made entirely from
> thin air, like hypermatter, etc. The page is also quite hypocritical and
> contradicts even itself, for example, he states in the reasons page that
> Sci-fi is supposed to be based heavily on science, then in another spot says
> that "Sci-fi should be at least LOOSELY based on science" Which one is it
> Wongo?
Why don't you grow some balls, e-mail him and ask him, instead of posting
this uninformed, misrepresentative bullshit?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Visit the Ultimate Starwars vs.Startrek Database
http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html *Comparative analyses
lo...@h4h.com *Pictures and .wavs
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Wayne Poe
On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Kynes Highwind wrote:
> > You mean shielding than can be breached by a fighter (ROTJ the SSD).
> > The so called might of an ISD is myth.
> The shielding was already down, Paul. You've had this rammed down your throat
> a thousand times. The entire Rebel fleet concentrated its fire on the SSD,
> which was already damaged. It was a freak occurrence.
Oh, you'd better not point this out, Kynes. You'll be accused of trying to
stop a thread you're "bored" with.
Kynes Highwind
>
> Kynes Highwind wrote in message ...
> news:X7aJ2.35085$Mb.17...@newscontent-02.sprint.ca...
> >>
> >> Star trek is based on our universe,
> >> uses our planets and it doesn't need any crappy cover-up like
> >> the long time long shit and an star wars uses lasers HA ! star trek's
> >> phasers are more powerful because they use phased energy.
> >
> >website:
> >
> >http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire.html
>
>
> materials and substances, like hypermatter and durasteel,
In conditions where it would be necessary to use durasteel, Mike takes the
conservative route (as any person with an actual science education would)
and uses IRON. I think we can all agree that iron would be easier to
vaporize, melt, bend, etc. than something so durable it's called "durasteel."
>then he accuses US
> of not using real physics for Star Trek, even though both Wars and Trek and
> fiction and fantasy and can't be based on real world science.
Then why are you here?
> But at least
> trek pretends to be based on science, it has materials which are at least
> based on something that's real, like tritaninum and duranium, which are real
> elements with pre-fixes attached, unlike wars materials made entirely from
> thin air, like hypermatter, etc.
"Matter" is real. "Hyper" is a prefix. Thus, hypermatter. It's just as valid
a naming scheme as "tritanium," whatever the hell that is.
>The page is also quite hypocritical and
> contradicts even itself, for example, he states in the reasons page that
> Sci-fi is supposed to be based heavily on science, then in another spot says
> that "Sci-fi should be at least LOOSELY based on science" Which one is it
> Wongo?
Saying X should be AT LEAST something and then saying X should be something
is not a contradiction if the second measure is higher than the first. I.e.
"Your pool should be filled with at least one inch of water." Then, later,
"I'd recommend your pool be filled up all the way." Is that a contradiction?
No.
Kynes Highwind
>
> On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Kynes Highwind wrote:
>
> > > You mean shielding than can be breached by a fighter (ROTJ the SSD).
> > > The so called might of an ISD is myth.
>
> > The shielding was already down, Paul. You've had this rammed down your throat
> > a thousand times. The entire Rebel fleet concentrated its fire on the SSD,
> > which was already damaged. It was a freak occurrence.
>
> Oh, you'd better not point this out, Kynes. You'll be accused of trying to
> stop a thread you're "bored" with.
Oops. Sorry! hehe ;)
Kynes Highwind
>
> > of not using real physics for Star Trek, even though both Wars and Trek and
> > trek pretends to be based on science, it has materials which are at least
> > based on something that's real, like tritaninum and duranium, which are real
> > elements with pre-fixes attached, unlike wars materials made entirely from
> > contradicts even itself, for example, he states in the reasons page that
> > Sci-fi is supposed to be based heavily on science, then in another spot says
> > that "Sci-fi should be at least LOOSELY based on science" Which one is it
> > Wongo?
>
> this uninformed, misrepresentative bullshit?
>
LOL! Agreed! I'd love to see all these detractors go toe-to-toe with the
people they're insulting.
Phil Connolly
Pikachu of the Borg <magik...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<X7aJ2.35085$Mb.17...@newscontent-02.sprint.ca>...
>
> Star trek is based on our universe,
> uses our planets and it doesn't need any crappy cover-up like
> the long time long shit and an star wars uses lasers HA ! star trek's
> phasers are more powerful because they use phased energy.
> The Death Star is no match more the borg cube and the borg collective
> has at least 100 of 'em and there were only 2 death stars.
>
hear hear! i think that star wars was and is good movie watching, but
all(basically)their technology is inferior to ST's.
Laser's! hah! what a load of crap they'd do to a star trek ship with
shields hey!
plus i would think there are way more than 100 borg cubes, plus they may
have even larger ships we havent seen yet
what about species 8472 (see scorpion part 1 and 2) or whatever it is??
they would toast even a super star destroyer in a couple of shots. Why
bother talking about the federations ships when there is these super powers
out there.
and there is also the species from voyager episode 'distant origin' using
their technology, they completely locked the voyager crew out of their own
computer! they shut down shields, weaponry etc. in no time at all. Plus
they beamed the entire ship inside them. who needs tractor beams??
Paul J Oh
SEAN P COLLINS wrote:
> I'd like to know how Wong bases science and physics on non-existant
> materials and substances, like hypermatter and durasteel, then he accuses US
> of not using real physics for Star Trek, even though both Wars and Trek and
> fiction and fantasy and can't be based on real world science. But at least
> trek pretends to be based on science, it has materials which are at least
> based on something that's real, like tritaninum and duranium, which are real
> elements with pre-fixes attached, unlike wars materials made entirely from
> thin air, like hypermatter, etc. The page is also quite hypocritical and
> contradicts even itself, for example, he states in the reasons page that
> Sci-fi is supposed to be based heavily on science, then in another spot says
> that "Sci-fi should be at least LOOSELY based on science" Which one is it
> Wongo?
Aren't you supposed to be on the Warsies' side now?
Throughly confused after the "Convert or Die" thread,
Paul
--
Funniest Headline I've Seen Recently:
"Ted Turner Apologizes to Poland"
Michael January
wrote:
>Phong Nguyen <phong_ng...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message news:7d47dj$fll$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
>> In article <JfdJ2.11367$573....@news.rdc1.md.home.com>,
>> "Kynes Highwind" <ky...@choam.org> wrote:
>> news:iycJ2.35322$Mb.17...@newscontent-02.sprint.ca...
>> > * As a contrast, phasers have a stated power of 1.02GW - or 0.00102TW.
>> >
>> However, phasers tend to have odd effects when interacting with matter,
>> and to a lesser extent, shielding. They demonstrate a remarkable ability
>> with the NDF effect to cause extreme amounts of damage compared to
>> conventional weaponry at the same power level. (a 1.02GW phaser vastly
>> outpowers 1.02GW turbolasers).
>
>Oh, definitely. Wholeheartedly agreed. The effectiveness of phasers varies
>wildly with what it's interacting with (I have absolutely no idea why it
>has any effect on shields, which are massless, but it does) and I know that.
>I just wanted to make a contrast.
>
Mmm, yes why does it interact with massless shields?
Secondly, it is stated that phasers operate by interfering with the
subatomic bonding in the atoms with which it interacts, but SW hulls
are bonded at the subatomic level which implies non-standard subatomic
bonds.
There is no guarantee that phasers will affect these bonds.
We already know that the effect varies widely depending on the nature
of the targeted material, but material that is not even natural?
---------------
Michael January
---------------
Hand me my lightsabre ... It's the one that says "Bad Mother Fucker"
Marc
<7d3j0k$avl$1...@barcode.tesco.net>:
>Yes! Oh what fun this will be to watch, as another clueless newbie is
>torn to shreds.
Why waste your time on such an obvious troll? Just ignore the child.
Marc
joel frangquist
> hear hear! i think that star wars was and is good movie watching, but
> all(basically)their technology is inferior to ST's.
> Laser's! hah! what a load of crap they'd do to a star trek ship with
> shields hey!
See what I mean? ST newbies come in here with these stupid assumptions which suggest that
a) they haven't watched the SW movies (or they would know that SW ships and planets have
shields, too.)
b) they haven't read the other posts on this NG (or they would know that SW weapons aren't
simple lasers)
c) they haven't read any sites on the Web that deal with SW tech (or, again, they would
know that everything they say is wrong).
As we have talked about, SW newbies don't do this. (Although if they did, I'd be just as
angry). It's really arrogant to come on this NG and post ignorant things like this,
especially when there happens to be a current thread about the FAQ, containing the URL to
phongs site, where you can see previous arguments.
> plus i would think there are way more than 100 borg cubes, plus they may
> have even larger ships we havent seen yet
> what about species 8472 (see scorpion part 1 and 2) or whatever it is??
> they would toast even a super star destroyer in a couple of shots.
Do you know how big a super star destroyer is? The only thing 8472 could do to destroy an
SSD in a couple of shots or less is to use the multiple ship weapon that they used to
destroy Borg planets. (And gee, doesn't that method look exactly like what the Death Star
does??)
Why
> bother talking about the federations ships when there is these super powers
> out there.
Well, for one thing, we know that one Federation ship plus the Borg are a match for 8472.
And no one has proved to anyone's satisfaction that the Borg could beat the Empire. Also
see below.
> and there is also the species from voyager episode 'distant origin' using
> their technology, they completely locked the voyager crew out of their own
> computer! they shut down shields, weaponry etc. in no time at all. Plus
> they beamed the entire ship inside them. who needs tractor beams??
Sorry, didn't see that episode. How much extra space did they have? Voyager is a lot
smaller than an SD.
Anyway, by saying we should talk about 8472 and the like, you are basically conceding that
the Feds suck. So there. I think that is why these kinds of discussions are generally
not allowed on this NG; fits under the unlikely alliances clause, too, perhaps. Or if
they are allowed, most people are still interested in the Feds anyway, i.e., that's the
real subject of the NG. Feel free to disagree, it would be interesting to see this
discussed in the FAQ thread.
joel
Michael January
<Lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Kynes Highwind wrote in message ...
>>ST weapons are NOT more powerful than SW weapons. For a look at why
>phasers
>>are vastly more powerful than turbolasers, I'll give an example.
>>
>>* Firstly, since you're new, I'll introduce you to the Saxton Asteroid
>> Calculations. In ESB, we clearly see an anti-starfighter cannon
>vaporize
>> an asteroid which appears to be at least 40m in diameter. I won't waste
>> space on the actual calcs (go to
>http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire.html
>> if you really want them) but suffice to say, this establishes a lower
>limit
>> of many thousands of TW for turbolasers.
>>
>>* As a contrast, phasers have a stated power of 1.02GW - or 0.00102TW.
>
>
>If you are going to use the Saxton/Wong calculations for Turbolasers, why
>not also consider the Phaser effect values from Wong's pages (putting
>phasers at far more than 1.02GW I think)
>
>>Actually, we've only ever seen the Borg adapt to frequency-based energy
>weapons
>>like phasers and disruptors. Turbolaser bolts aren't like that - they're
>just
>>a simple plasma weapon, most likely. Also, they have a partially kinetic
>effect,
>>and we KNOW how bad the Borg are at adapting to them.
>
>
>Nope. They have laser elements, which can be adapted to. And Borg can
>withstand solar corona type plasma, so why should your TL plasma be a
>threat once it's laser containment is removed?
>
I thought the Borg were destroyed by a mere solar flare, since when
did they withstand it?
Kynes Highwind
> Kynes Highwind wrote in message ...
> >ST weapons are NOT more powerful than SW weapons. For a look at why
> phasers
> >are vastly more powerful than turbolasers, I'll give an example.
> >
> >* Firstly, since you're new, I'll introduce you to the Saxton Asteroid
> > Calculations. In ESB, we clearly see an anti-starfighter cannon
> vaporize
> > an asteroid which appears to be at least 40m in diameter. I won't waste
> > space on the actual calcs (go to
> http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire.html
> > if you really want them) but suffice to say, this establishes a lower
> limit
> > of many thousands of TW for turbolasers.
> >
> >* As a contrast, phasers have a stated power of 1.02GW - or 0.00102TW.
>
>
> If you are going to use the Saxton/Wong calculations for Turbolasers, why
> not also consider the Phaser effect values from Wong's pages (putting
> phasers at far more than 1.02GW I think)
Wong's page gives phasers an attack strength of 1-10TW against starship
armor. Ouch. For ST. :D
> >Actually, we've only ever seen the Borg adapt to frequency-based energy
> weapons
> >like phasers and disruptors. Turbolaser bolts aren't like that - they're
> just
> >a simple plasma weapon, most likely. Also, they have a partially kinetic
> effect,
> >and we KNOW how bad the Borg are at adapting to them.
>
> Nope. They have laser elements, which can be adapted to. And Borg can
> withstand solar corona type plasma, so why should your TL plasma be a
> threat once it's laser containment is removed?
If they're so good at adapting to KE, why was Picard able to shoot those
two Borg in FC?
Kynes Highwind
> Anyway, by saying we should talk about 8472 and the like, you are basically conceding that
> the Feds suck. So there. I think that is why these kinds of discussions are generally
> not allowed on this NG; fits under the unlikely alliances clause, too, perhaps. Or if
> they are allowed, most people are still interested in the Feds anyway, i.e., that's the
> real subject of the NG. Feel free to disagree, it would be interesting to see this
> discussed in the FAQ thread.
By the current rules of the FAQ, a topic like "Species 8472 vs. an ISD" IS allowed;
what would not be allowed is "Borg, Federation, and Dominion vs. Wedge." The former
is a fair matchup which could realistically occur. The second is just plain
silly.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>> withstand solar corona type plasma, so why should your TL plasma be a
>> threat once it's laser containment is removed?
>If they're so good at adapting to KE, why was Picard able to shoot those
>two Borg in FC?
There is more to plasma than KE. And those Borg in FC were recently
assimilated using a very small original complement of Borg knowledge and
Tech disconnected from the collective by four hundred years.
I once asked for evidence of non-existence of KE shields from a source
other than FC, but no one responded. Would you care to now?
Lord Edam de Fromage
<36f7f450...@ct-news.iafrica.com>...
>>Nope. They have laser elements, which can be adapted to. And Borg can
>>withstand solar corona type plasma, so why should your TL plasma be a
>>threat once it's laser containment is removed?
>I thought the Borg were destroyed by a mere solar flare, since when
>did they withstand it?
Source? If it what I am thinking, were those not ex-borg in a non borg
vessel?
Since when ahve they withstood solar coronas? Well, let's take a quick
look. Every other major ship in Trek can withstand some period in a solar
corona(it varies depending on which episode you watch). The Borg have
assimialted thousands of species, and their ships are far superior to any
other shown (it takes tens of ships to destroy a Borg cube), so all the
evidence indicates the Borg can withstand solar coronas for some period of
time. (check "SW Plasma Weapons" on dejanews for more reasons).
Now, what evidence do you have that the plasma component of the TL bolt
will have any effect on a Borg cube, once it has lost it's containment?
Even something as simple as a magnetic field would stop the plasma once it
has lsot containment.
Kynes
> Kynes Highwind wrote in message ...
> >> Nope. They have laser elements, which can be adapted to. And Borg can
> >> withstand solar corona type plasma, so why should your TL plasma be a
> >> threat once it's laser containment is removed?
>
> >two Borg in FC?
> There is more to plasma than KE. And those Borg in FC were recently
> assimilated using a very small original complement of Borg knowledge and
> Tech disconnected from the collective by four hundred years.
Well, we've never seen how Borg would respond to direct EM transfer.
Obviously, they wouldn't just be able to "adapt" the way they do to
phase-coherent weaponry; you can't cancel out phase-incoherent things
that easily. So they'd have to distribute the energy somehow; any proof
that they can do this?
> I once asked for evidence of non-existence of KE shields from a source
> other than FC, but no one responded. Would you care to now?
We assume non-existence until existence is proven. Do you care to prove
that the Borg DO have KE shielding?
--
-Kynes
Aaron Parsons
Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
> Michael January wrote in message
> <36f7f450...@ct-news.iafrica.com>...
> >>Nope. They have laser elements, which can be adapted to. And Borg can
> >>withstand solar corona type plasma, so why should your TL plasma be a
> >>threat once it's laser containment is removed?
>
> >I thought the Borg were destroyed by a mere solar flare, since when
> >did they withstand it?
>
> Source? If it what I am thinking, were those not ex-borg in a non borg
> vessel?
>
> Since when ahve they withstood solar coronas? Well, let's take a quick
> look. Every other major ship in Trek can withstand some period in a solar
> corona(it varies depending on which episode you watch). The Borg have
> assimialted thousands of species, and their ships are far superior to any
> other shown (it takes tens of ships to destroy a Borg cube), so all the
> evidence indicates the Borg can withstand solar coronas for some period of
> time. (check "SW Plasma Weapons" on dejanews for more reasons).
>
> Now, what evidence do you have that the plasma component of the TL bolt
> will have any effect on a Borg cube, once it has lost it's containment?
> Even something as simple as a magnetic field would stop the plasma once it
> has lsot containment.
A TL bolt doesn't have containment anymore than water coming out of a hose
does. Plasma generates its OWN magnetic field - remember the whole deal about
the very definition of plasma being superhot gaseous charged particles? Why
don't you go look at Wong's analysis of Descent 2 on his Fed shielding page
for the full story.
Aaron
Aaron Parsons
Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
> Kynes Highwind wrote in message ...
> >> Nope. They have laser elements, which can be adapted to. And Borg can
> >> withstand solar corona type plasma, so why should your TL plasma be a
> >> threat once it's laser containment is removed?
>
> >If they're so good at adapting to KE, why was Picard able to shoot those
> >two Borg in FC?
>
> There is more to plasma than KE. And those Borg in FC were recently
> assimilated using a very small original complement of Borg knowledge and
> Tech disconnected from the collective by four hundred years.
>
> I once asked for evidence of non-existence of KE shields from a source
> other than FC, but no one responded. Would you care to now?
Excuse me, but why do we have to prove non existence? We don't and it's
nearly impossible to prove a negative. It's simple logic that "if no
evidence, then it doesn't exist".
Aaron
Michael January
<Lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Michael January wrote in message
><36f7f450...@ct-news.iafrica.com>...
>>>Nope. They have laser elements, which can be adapted to. And Borg can
>>>withstand solar corona type plasma, so why should your TL plasma be a
>>>threat once it's laser containment is removed?
>
>>I thought the Borg were destroyed by a mere solar flare, since when
>>did they withstand it?
>
>
>Source? If it what I am thinking, were those not ex-borg in a non borg
>vessel?
>
>Since when ahve they withstood solar coronas? Well, let's take a quick
>look. Every other major ship in Trek can withstand some period in a solar
>corona(it varies depending on which episode you watch). The Borg have
>assimialted thousands of species, and their ships are far superior to any
>other shown (it takes tens of ships to destroy a Borg cube), so all the
>evidence indicates the Borg can withstand solar coronas for some period of
>time. (check "SW Plasma Weapons" on dejanews for more reasons).
>
>Now, what evidence do you have that the plasma component of the TL bolt
>will have any effect on a Borg cube, once it has lost it's containment?
>Even something as simple as a magnetic field would stop the plasma once it
>has lsot containment.
>
>
And we also know that a mere freighter in SW has the capability to
approach within 1000km of the surface of a neutron star and conduct a
rescue mission with no prior modifications of its standard equipment.
Big Deal.
-------------------
Michael January
-------------------
Captain: SSD Assassin
Flagship of the Imperial Super-Corporation Leviathan Enterprises
Incorporated in the 17th year of the Emperor Palpatine
Lord Edam de Fromage
>A TL bolt doesn't have containment anymore than water coming out of a
hose
>does. Plasma generates its OWN magnetic field - remember the whole deal
about
>the very definition of plasma being superhot gaseous charged particles?
Why
>don't you go look at Wong's analysis of Descent 2 on his Fed shielding
page
>for the full story.
Been there, seen that. Presented Mr. Wong with several alternatives,
including the opinion of a plasma physics PhD student. Oh, what a
surprise. He didn't reply.
Whilst a plasma is a charged gas, overall it is neutral. Anything one
charged particle generates is cancelled by the opposite charged particles.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>And we also know that a mere freighter in SW has the capability to
>approach within 1000km of the surface of a neutron star and conduct a
>rescue mission with no prior modifications of its standard equipment.
>
>Big Deal.
no, irrelevant deal. Answer the question or withdraw the comment. I don't
want to hear about neutron stars, I want to hear about your proof that the
plasma in a TL bolt is dangerous to a ship once it is freed from the
laser.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>> I once asked for evidence of non-existence of KE shields from a source
>> other than FC, but no one responded. Would you care to now?
>Excuse me, but why do we have to prove non existence? We don't and it's
>nearly impossible to prove a negative. It's simple logic that "if no
>evidence, then it doesn't exist".
If there is no evidence you take the balance of probabilities. Looking at
all the evidence, do borg or do borg not have KE shields? Every time
someone wants to prove they don't they bring up FC. I jsut want to know if
this is the only case, or if there is any other evidence elsewhere.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>Well, we've never seen how Borg would respond to direct EM transfer.
>Obviously, they wouldn't just be able to "adapt" the way they do to
>phase-coherent weaponry; you can't cancel out phase-incoherent things
>that easily. So they'd have to distribute the energy somehow; any proof
>that they can do this?
Lasers are sometimes phase coherent, depending on the process used.
Remember, it is not 'normal' em energy, but coherent EM energy.
>> I once asked for evidence of non-existence of KE shields from a source
>> other than FC, but no one responded. Would you care to now?
>We assume non-existence until existence is proven. Do you care to prove
>that the Borg DO have KE shielding?
I prefer a balance of probabilties. Worf could make a small KE shield.
Borg should ahve that knowledge. There are situations where the existence
of KE shielding explains several oddities. I was just wondering if there
was anywere else where you couldprove Borg did not have KE shielding.
Kynes
> Since when ahve they withstood solar coronas? Well, let's take a quick
> look. Every other major ship in Trek can withstand some period in a solar
> corona(it varies depending on which episode you watch). The Borg have
> assimialted thousands of species, and their ships are far superior to any
> other shown (it takes tens of ships to destroy a Borg cube), so all the
> evidence indicates the Borg can withstand solar coronas for some period of
> time. (check "SW Plasma Weapons" on dejanews for more reasons).
>
> Now, what evidence do you have that the plasma component of the TL bolt
> will have any effect on a Borg cube, once it has lost it's containment?
> Even something as simple as a magnetic field would stop the plasma once it
> has lsot containment.
Withstanding simple exposure to a solar corona isn't much. At the surface of
Sol, for example, the power intensity is 60MW/m^2. Assuming the Borg cube was
1km on a side and was tangent to the sun, 1km^2 would be exposed. It would
absorb, then, only 60GW on that side - which is barely anything at all!
Kynes
> >> other than FC, but no one responded. Would you care to now?
>
> >nearly impossible to prove a negative. It's simple logic that "if no
> >evidence, then it doesn't exist".
>
> If there is no evidence you take the balance of probabilities. Looking at
> all the evidence, do borg or do borg not have KE shields? Every time
> someone wants to prove they don't they bring up FC. I jsut want to know if
> this is the only case, or if there is any other evidence elsewhere.
No. If there's no evidence that a society can do something (I don't necessarily
mean on-screen demonstration, but at least some sort of evidence) then we
assume they can't. If we see them FAIL to do it, i.e. First Contact, then
we KNOW they can't.
Kynes
> Kynes wrote in message ...
> >Well, we've never seen how Borg would respond to direct EM transfer.
> >Obviously, they wouldn't just be able to "adapt" the way they do to
> >phase-coherent weaponry; you can't cancel out phase-incoherent things
> >that easily. So they'd have to distribute the energy somehow; any proof
> >that they can do this?
>
> Lasers are sometimes phase coherent, depending on the process used.
> Remember, it is not 'normal' em energy, but coherent EM energy.
...and?
>
> >> I once asked for evidence of non-existence of KE shields from a source
> >> other than FC, but no one responded. Would you care to now?
>
> >We assume non-existence until existence is proven. Do you care to prove
> >that the Borg DO have KE shielding?
>
>
> I prefer a balance of probabilties. Worf could make a small KE shield.
> Borg should ahve that knowledge. There are situations where the existence
> of KE shielding explains several oddities. I was just wondering if there
> was anywere else where you couldprove Borg did not have KE shielding.
>
Just because you think the Borg "should" have the knowledge to make KE
shields doesn't mean they DO. Worf can also fight with a bat'leth and
likes to eat gagh. Do you assume these things of the Borg, as well?
The incident in First Contact is all we need to show, conclusively, that
the Borg do not have KE shields.
Aaron Parsons
Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
Easy - TL bolts damage other ships. Otherwise, why would they be weapons at
all? If you don't think that a few hundred thousand terawatts worth of
charged particles are dangerous to ST ships at all, then why does really
really bad stuff happen whenever they DO encounter charged particles even in
diffuse quantities? This kind of argument is inane to the point of almost
being worthless in itself.
Aaron
Time0ut
No it isn't. They were Borg not connected to the collective. We have
see KE shielding in Voyager.
>
Kynes
Why would this affect the Borg's ability to use their latent KE shielding?
It wouldn't.
Wayne Poe
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
> >I thought the Borg were destroyed by a mere solar flare, since when
> >did they withstand it?
> Source? If it what I am thinking, were those not ex-borg in a non borg
> vessel?
Oh, come on! "Ex-Borg?" They were STILL Borg, just Borg commanded by Lore.
That ship was a Borg ship, and as shown in Voyager's "Dark Frontier", Borg
ships come in many shapes. The episode was "Descent part 2." BTW.
> Since when ahve they withstood solar coronas? Well, let's take a quick
> look. Every other major ship in Trek can withstand some period in a solar
> corona(it varies depending on which episode you watch).
Not without metaphasic shielding. Which the Borg don't have, otherwise
they would have followed the E-D.
> The Borg have assimialted thousands of species, and their ships are far
> superior to any other shown (it takes tens of ships to destroy a Borg
> cube), so all the evidence indicates the Borg can withstand solar
> coronas for some period of time. (check "SW Plasma Weapons" on dejanews
> for more reasons).
That's not what the canon shows. The Borg have also encountered ion storms
before, yet as "Dark Frontier" shows, they still take heavy damage.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Visit the Ultimate Starwars vs.Startrek Database
http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html *Comparative analyses
lo...@h4h.com *Pictures and .wavs
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Wayne Poe
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
> >If they're so good at adapting to KE, why was Picard able to shoot those
> >two Borg in FC?
> There is more to plasma than KE. And those Borg in FC were recently
> assimilated using a very small original complement of Borg knowledge and
> Tech disconnected from the collective by four hundred years.
Bull. Come on. Ex-Borg, and now this? You mean to say the BORG QUEEN
somehow suffered a lobotomy so she couldn't pass on 400 years of Borg
knowledge? She IS the collective, remember?
> I once asked for evidence of non-existence of KE shields from a source
> other than FC, but no one responded. Would you care to now?
Not that we NEED any more evidence, but how about "Best of Both Worlds?"
A drone on the bridge has to bodily throw a charging Worf away from him.
No KE shield there. The landing party jumps Locutus and hypos him in the
neck. No KE shield there. In "Descent part 1," Data breaks the neck of a
Borg. No KE shield there.
Michael January
<Lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Michael January wrote in message <36fbf1ae...@ct-news.iafrica.com>...
>>And we also know that a mere freighter in SW has the capability to
>>approach within 1000km of the surface of a neutron star and conduct a
>>rescue mission with no prior modifications of its standard equipment.
>>
>>Big Deal.
>
>
>no, irrelevant deal. Answer the question or withdraw the comment. I don't
>want to hear about neutron stars, I want to hear about your proof that the
>plasma in a TL bolt is dangerous to a ship once it is freed from the
>laser.
>
>
Your argument was based on ST ships approaching to within 'touching'
distance of stars and therefore having shields capable of withstanding
plasma weapons. I have just shown that SW shields have similar
properties, and have to stand up to plasma weapons regularly. The
ability to approach close to a star is common to both shield types,
and does not indicate any difference in shield power.
My argument stands, but you obviously missed your own point.
Wayne Poe
On Fri, 26 Mar 1999, Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
> Aaron Parsons wrote in message <36FAA2DA...@nospam.intercom.net>...
>> A TL bolt doesn't have containment anymore than water coming out of a
>> hose does. Plasma generates its OWN magnetic field - remember the
>> whole deal about the very definition of plasma being superhot gaseous
>> charged particles? Why don't you go look at Wong's analysis of
>> Descent 2 on his Fed shielding page for the full story.
> Been there, seen that. Presented Mr. Wong with several alternatives,
> including the opinion of a plasma physics PhD student. Oh, what a
> surprise. He didn't reply.
I askeed Mr. Wong about this. He said no one named "Lord Edam" has ever
sent him an e-mail. Did you send it to him under your real name?
> Whilst a plasma is a charged gas, overall it is neutral. Anything one
> charged particle generates is cancelled by the opposite charged particles.
Mr. Wong:
Really! Then why does the plasma volume in a modern-day experimental
fusion reactor produce a magnetic pinch effect, hmmm?
Wayne Poe
On Fri, 26 Mar 1999, Kynes wrote:
> > I prefer a balance of probabilties. Worf could make a small KE shield.
> > Borg should ahve that knowledge. There are situations where the existence
> > of KE shielding explains several oddities. I was just wondering if there
> > was anywere else where you couldprove Borg did not have KE shielding.
> Just because you think the Borg "should" have the knowledge to make KE
> shields doesn't mean they DO. Worf can also fight with a bat'leth and
> likes to eat gagh. Do you assume these things of the Borg, as well?
This Worf-field Elim trolled and Edam is regurgitating hasn't been used
outside of a holodeck, has it? No evidence shows such a thing would work
OUTSIDE of one.
> The incident in First Contact is all we need to show, conclusively, that
> the Borg do not have KE shields.
Right, since the Borg Queen IS the collective.
Wayne Poe
On Sat, 27 Mar 1999, Time0ut wrote:
> >The incident in First Contact is all we need to show, conclusively, that
> >the Borg do not have KE shields.
> No it isn't. They were Borg not connected to the collective.
Bullshit. The Borg Queen IS the collective.
> We have see KE shielding in Voyager.
On a Borg drone? Proof? Which episode? Would have come in handy when
S-8472 ripped a dozen of them to shreads with their claws and left them in
a pile in "Scorpion."
Michael January
<Lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Aaron Parsons wrote in message <36FAA2DA...@nospam.intercom.net>...
>
>>A TL bolt doesn't have containment anymore than water coming out of a
>hose
>>does. Plasma generates its OWN magnetic field - remember the whole deal
>about
>>the very definition of plasma being superhot gaseous charged particles?
>Why
>>don't you go look at Wong's analysis of Descent 2 on his Fed shielding
>page
>>for the full story.
>
>
>Been there, seen that. Presented Mr. Wong with several alternatives,
>including the opinion of a plasma physics PhD student. Oh, what a
>surprise. He didn't reply.
>
>Whilst a plasma is a charged gas, overall it is neutral. Anything one
>charged particle generates is cancelled by the opposite charged particles.
>
Are you talking about ion cannons or Turbolasers? ion cannons fire
charged particles, Turbolasers fire energised (superheated) gas at
high velocities.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>Your argument was based on ST ships approaching to within 'touching'
>distance of stars and therefore having shields capable of withstanding
>plasma weapons. I have just shown that SW shields have similar
>properties, and have to stand up to plasma weapons regularly. The
>ability to approach close to a star is common to both shield types,
>and does not indicate any difference in shield power.
No, SW ships encounter combinations of Laser and plasma weaponry (TL
bolts), or ionised aprticle weaponry(ion canons). Where is the plasma-only
weaponry that would result if you removed the laser component of a TL
bolt?
>My argument stands, but you obviously missed your own point.
Nope, you have failed to account for the removal laser component of the TL
bolt. TL weaponry is not pure plasma weaponry.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>No. If there's no evidence that a society can do something (I don't
necessarily
>mean on-screen demonstration, but at least some sort of evidence) then we
>assume they can't.
Go ask Elim for the evidence indiating a possibility of KE shields. He's
posted it hundreds of times. Whilst none of it is absolute proof it can be
taken as an indication.
If we see them FAIL to do it, i.e. First Contact, then
>we KNOW they can't.
Unless there is some way of explaining the scene where they can't do it,
as I have already supplied. now, ignoring all that, is there anywhere else
where Borg are shown to ahve no knowldge of KE shielding?
I'm not going to claim they do have, because all there is to support the
argument is interpretation. I just want to see the examples of them
definitly not having it.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>> >Well, we've never seen how Borg would respond to direct EM transfer.
>> >Obviously, they wouldn't just be able to "adapt" the way they do to
>> >phase-coherent weaponry; you can't cancel out phase-incoherent things
>> >that easily. So they'd have to distribute the energy somehow; any
proof
>> >that they can do this?
>>
>> Lasers are sometimes phase coherent, depending on the process used.
>> Remember, it is not 'normal' em energy, but coherent EM energy.
>
>...and?
If it is phase coherent energy, they can adapt to it as they would all
other phase coherent energy. You appeared to be claiming that, since
lasers are phase-incoherent they will struggle to adapt to them. If we
assume ideal lasers it will not be a problem.
>Just because you think the Borg "should" have the knowledge to make KE
>shields doesn't mean they DO. Worf can also fight with a bat'leth and
>likes to eat gagh. Do you assume these things of the Borg, as well?
>The incident in First Contact is all we need to show, conclusively, that
>the Borg do not have KE shields.
it is an indication that new borg do not have KE shielding. There are
other indications that borg in general do have KE shielding. I was just
wondering if there was any other argument besides the (already explained
possible contradiction) of FC. If you ignore FC completely, what is your
argument?(disclaimer : I am not trying to prove Borg have KE shields, I
just want to hear all the arguments. I have heard Elim's side, now I want
to hear yours.)
Lord Edam de Fromage
>>> A TL bolt doesn't have containment anymore than water coming out of a
>>> hose does. Plasma generates its OWN magnetic field - remember the
>>> whole deal about the very definition of plasma being superhot gaseous
>>> charged particles? Why don't you go look at Wong's analysis of
>>> Descent 2 on his Fed shielding page for the full story.
>> Been there, seen that. Presented Mr. Wong with several alternatives,
>> including the opinion of a plasma physics PhD student. Oh, what a
>> surprise. He didn't reply.
>I askeed Mr. Wong about this. He said no one named "Lord Edam" has ever
>sent him an e-mail. Did you send it to him under your real name?
All private e-mails are sent using my real name from my real account. The
subject was "Your wrong about the Descent Plasma", posted back near the
begining of february.
>> Whilst a plasma is a charged gas, overall it is neutral. Anything one
>> charged particle generates is cancelled by the opposite charged
particles.
>
>Mr. Wong:
>
>Really! Then why does the plasma volume in a modern-day experimental
>fusion reactor produce a magnetic pinch effect, hmmm?
Mr. Wong, your reply does not appear to be in keeping with the concept of
the original post. Perhaps because Wayne did not tell you the full facts?
However, whilst you are correct in reminding me of the pinch effect, this
does not help in containing the plasma once the method of generating the
magnetic field is removed.
The original post was implying a plasma is capable of generating it's own
magnetic field to keep it in the bolt format shown in TLs, probably
because it is a charged gas (moving charges -- magnetic field and all
that). This is not true. The fields generated by a plasma that may contain
the plasma are eliminated by opposing fields(in the absense of external
factors). To contain a plasma column or stream you require some manner of
applying an external confinement(such as a current to induce a magnetic
field). This can be accomplished using a laser beam, but once the laser
beam is removed (as the original concept explained) you will lose the
containment of the plasma.
I accept you are a qualified scientist. I accept you may have greater
knowledge on the subject than myself, but I do not see how magnetic pinch
effects (a result of a magnetic field induced by a current flowing in the
plasma) will be useable in confining a Tl bolt without any method of
applying the central current.
Kynes
> Kynes wrote in message ...
>
> necessarily
> >mean on-screen demonstration, but at least some sort of evidence) then we
> >assume they can't.
>
> Go ask Elim for the evidence indiating a possibility of KE shields. He's
> posted it hundreds of times. Whilst none of it is absolute proof it can be
> taken as an indication.
If he'd like to chime in and give it here?
> If we see them FAIL to do it, i.e. First Contact, then
> >we KNOW they can't.
>
>
> Unless there is some way of explaining the scene where they can't do it,
> as I have already supplied. now, ignoring all that, is there anywhere else
> where Borg are shown to ahve no knowldge of KE shielding?
BOBW - several drones are attacked bodily.
FC - several drones are attacked bodily.
Etc. Every time we see an encounter with the Borg, we see them get *physically
attacked.* So it's hard to believe that they DO have KE shielding.
> I'm not going to claim they do have, because all there is to support the
> argument is interpretation. I just want to see the examples of them
> definitly not having it.
OK.
Time0ut
>Time0ut <tim...@adhype.com> wrote in message news:36fc6848....@news.surfsouth.com...
>> On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 23:06:47 GMT, "Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> wrote:
>> >The incident in First Contact is all we need to show, conclusively, that
>> >the Borg do not have KE shields.
>>
>> No it isn't. They were Borg not connected to the collective. We have
>> see KE shielding in Voyager.
>
>Why would this affect the Borg's ability to use their latent KE shielding?
>It wouldn't.
Individually, or in small groups, they don't have the means to provide
the KE shielding just as they don't have the ability to heal the
drones instantly. (7 of 9 stated that drones can be regenerated
instantly with the minds of million)
There were simply not enough Borg in FC to accomplish that task.
Note, we also didn't see any tactical drones in FC, but they exist and
would be impervious to bullets due to their armoured substructure.
Lord Edam de Fromage
it,
>> as I have already supplied. now, ignoring all that, is there anywhere
else
>> where Borg are shown to ahve no knowldge of KE shielding?
>
>BOBW - several drones are attacked bodily.
>FC - several drones are attacked bodily.
>
>Etc. Every time we see an encounter with the Borg, we see them get
*physically
>attacked.* So it's hard to believe that they DO have KE shielding.
KE shielding that does not prevent low-velocity attacks, but does prevent
high energy attacks.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>> If it is phase coherent energy, they can adapt to it as they would all
>> other phase coherent energy. You appeared to be claiming that, since
>> lasers are phase-incoherent they will struggle to adapt to them. If we
>> assume ideal lasers it will not be a problem.
>
Isn't that the whole poitn of why I am in this thread? The Borg can
probably adapt to the laser component of the TL bolt (assuming it is an
ideal laser), leaving the plasma/tibanna gas component. The Borg can
withstand plasmas('SW "Plasma" weapons' and others), so once your TL has
lost the laser element it will not be as effective. All that wil remain is
the plasma. If the tractor beam is magnetic in nature, that would stop the
plasma. Any strong EM field would stop the plasma, and we know the borg
are capable of generating strong EM fields (the cutting laser, tractor
beam, shields etc.).
Michael January
>Lord Edam de Fromage <Lord...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7dm0p7$gak$2...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Kynes wrote in message ...
>>
>> >No. If there's no evidence that a society can do something (I don't
>> necessarily
>> >mean on-screen demonstration, but at least some sort of evidence) then we
>> >assume they can't.
>>
>> Go ask Elim for the evidence indiating a possibility of KE shields. He's
>> posted it hundreds of times. Whilst none of it is absolute proof it can be
>> taken as an indication.
>
>If he'd like to chime in and give it here?
>
>> If we see them FAIL to do it, i.e. First Contact, then
>> >we KNOW they can't.
>>
>>
>> Unless there is some way of explaining the scene where they can't do it,
>> as I have already supplied. now, ignoring all that, is there anywhere else
>> where Borg are shown to ahve no knowldge of KE shielding?
>
>BOBW - several drones are attacked bodily.
>FC - several drones are attacked bodily.
>
>Etc. Every time we see an encounter with the Borg, we see them get *physically
>attacked.* So it's hard to believe that they DO have KE shielding.
>
>> I'm not going to claim they do have, because all there is to support the
>> argument is interpretation. I just want to see the examples of them
>> definitly not having it.
>
>OK.
>--
>-Kynes
>
>"It is by will alone that I set my mind in motion."
> - Piter de Vries
>
>
Yeah, that is several cases where drones DON'T have KE shields. Edam
(I won't call him Lord) would only need to mention one case where they
DO have personal KE shields for his and Elim's argument to stand up,
otherwise it is pure conjecture.
Michael January
unknown, but inferred by the fact that the laser is not actually fired
at the enemy, only the superheated plasma.
let me quote your own argument back to you, since you have obviously
changed tack:-
[you said:]
>Since when ahve they withstood solar coronas? Well, let's take a quick
>look. Every other major ship in Trek can withstand some period in a solar
>corona(it varies depending on which episode you watch). The Borg have
>assimialted thousands of species, and their ships are far superior to any
>other shown (it takes tens of ships to destroy a Borg cube), so all the
>evidence indicates the Borg can withstand solar coronas for some period of
>time. (check "SW Plasma Weapons" on dejanews for more reasons).
>
>Now, what evidence do you have that the plasma component of the TL bolt
>will have any effect on a Borg cube, once it has lost it's containment?
>Even something as simple as a magnetic field would stop the plasma once it
>has lsot containment.
bad english and spelling aside, it appears that you are inferring that
plasma alone cannot affect ST shields because of your ability to
approach close to stars. Barring of course the incident where a group
of Borg ships were destroyed by a mere solar flare (plasma) travelling
significantly slower than light (maximum 2000km/sec for large powerful
flares) and they were several million kilometers away, which means not
only did they have time to evade, but that the flare itself would have
expanded significantly, thus dissipating it's energy over a very large
area.
What containment for TL's?, nowhere does it say the laser is fired,
only the plasma. The plasma affects SW ships shields fine, and both SW
and ST ships have been observed approaching close to stars with little
or no ill effects.
I ask you again, what makes your shields different (barring the
incident mentioned above, which counts against you)?
Michael January
<Lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Kynes wrote in message ...
>
>>> >Well, we've never seen how Borg would respond to direct EM transfer.
>>> >Obviously, they wouldn't just be able to "adapt" the way they do to
>>> >phase-coherent weaponry; you can't cancel out phase-incoherent things
>>> >that easily. So they'd have to distribute the energy somehow; any
>proof
>>> >that they can do this?
>>>
>>> Lasers are sometimes phase coherent, depending on the process used.
>>> Remember, it is not 'normal' em energy, but coherent EM energy.
>>
>>...and?
>
>
>If it is phase coherent energy, they can adapt to it as they would all
>other phase coherent energy. You appeared to be claiming that, since
>lasers are phase-incoherent they will struggle to adapt to them. If we
>assume ideal lasers it will not be a problem.
>
>>Just because you think the Borg "should" have the knowledge to make KE
>>shields doesn't mean they DO. Worf can also fight with a bat'leth and
>>likes to eat gagh. Do you assume these things of the Borg, as well?
>
>>The incident in First Contact is all we need to show, conclusively, that
>>the Borg do not have KE shields.
>
>
>it is an indication that new borg do not have KE shielding. There are
>other indications that borg in general do have KE shielding. I was just
>wondering if there was any other argument besides the (already explained
>possible contradiction) of FC. If you ignore FC completely, what is your
>argument?(disclaimer : I am not trying to prove Borg have KE shields, I
>just want to hear all the arguments. I have heard Elim's side, now I want
>to hear yours.)
>
>
Our argument is simple ... there has never been an episode where a
Borg displayed a personal or body KE shield.
There has also never been an episode where a Borg drone did NOT suffer
physical bodily damage when attacked physically.
OTOH, there have been many episodes where Borg HAVE suffered physical
damage when attacked physically.
Kynes
> >> other phase coherent energy. You appeared to be claiming that, since
> >> lasers are phase-incoherent they will struggle to adapt to them. If we
> >> assume ideal lasers it will not be a problem.
> >
>
>
> Isn't that the whole poitn of why I am in this thread? The Borg can
> probably adapt to the laser component of the TL bolt (assuming it is an
> ideal laser)
A weighty assumption. Perhaps you should find some evidence.
>, leaving the plasma/tibanna gas component. The Borg can
> withstand plasmas('SW "Plasma" weapons' and others)
Their ability to disappate energy is not unlimited. Our weapons are of a strength
that they have never faced before (if they had, and had adapted, the Federation's
weapons would be nothing more than toys -- yet they destroyed several cubes.)
Lord Edam de Fromage
>>Nope, you have failed to account for the removal laser component of the
TL
>>bolt. TL weaponry is not pure plasma weaponry.
>
>unknown, but inferred by the fact that the laser is not actually fired
>at the enemy, only the superheated plasma.
We see effects of the bolt that are best described as some laser (or other
invisivble) component hitting the target before the main visible plasma.
What is your source for the laser not being fired?
>let me quote your own argument back to you, since you have obviously
>changed tack:-
>
>[you said:]
>>Since when ahve they withstood solar coronas? Well, let's take a quick
>>look. Every other major ship in Trek can withstand some period in a
solar
>>corona(it varies depending on which episode you watch). The Borg have
>>assimialted thousands of species, and their ships are far superior to
any
>>other shown (it takes tens of ships to destroy a Borg cube), so all the
>>evidence indicates the Borg can withstand solar coronas for some period
of
>>time. (check "SW Plasma Weapons" on dejanews for more reasons).
>>
>>Now, what evidence do you have that the plasma component of the TL bolt
>>will have any effect on a Borg cube, once it has lost it's containment?
>>Even something as simple as a magnetic field would stop the plasma once
it
>>has lsot containment.
>bad english and spelling aside,
I am here to debate, not go over what I avoided in school. Consider the
points given, not the way they were given. if you struggle to understand
what I am saying tell me and I will try again.
it appears that you are inferring that
>plasma alone cannot affect ST shields because of your ability to
>approach close to stars.
I am asking why we must assume the plasma of a TL bolt is going to act any
different to any other plasma. Will it be as bad as the stellar coronae?
Will it be counterable by the Borg? You tried to say SW weaponry will
damage Borg cubes because it is plasma weaponry. Where is the purely
plasma weaponry of SW? it is all combinations of lasers and plasmas, isn't
it?
Barring of course the incident where a group
>of Borg ships were destroyed by a mere solar flare (plasma) travelling
>significantly slower than light (maximum 2000km/sec for large powerful
>flares) and they were several million kilometers away, which means not
>only did they have time to evade, but that the flare itself would have
>expanded significantly, thus dissipating it's energy over a very large
>area.
source/episode?
>What containment for TL's?, nowhere does it say the laser is fired,
>only the plasma.
source? I have not seen anything saying only the plasma is fired, and some
aspects of TL effects are best described as a laser component accompanying
the plasma.
How else is the plasma going to stay in it's bolt form up to the large
ranges of TLs (several seconds travel time) if it has no containment?
(Known)Methods of containing plasmas are Magnetic fields, Electric fields
or combinations of the two. Without these, the plasma will disperse.
The plasma affects SW ships shields fine, and both SW
>and ST ships have been observed approaching close to stars with little
>or no ill effects.
Yes, as you keep saying. But what will make the plasma of the TL bolt
different to any other plasma when the laser component has been removed?
>I ask you again, what makes your shields different (barring the
>incident mentioned above, which counts against you)?
Nothing, other than the fact the Laser component of the TL bolt can be
removed, leaving only the plasma component. Will the plasma component on
it's own be dangerous to the Borg?
Lord Edam de Fromage
>> probably adapt to the laser component of the TL bolt (assuming it is an
>> ideal laser)
>A weighty assumption. Perhaps you should find some evidence.
Assuming ideal theoretical operation of a device SW has had for many
millenia and uses as a significant part of it's primary weaponry is a
weighty assumption? Theoretically, Lasers emit photons with identical
frequency, phase, polarization and direction. It is an inherent property
of laser operation. When you desing a laser, that is what you are striving
to achieve. In a little under 50 years, we have managed to produce lasers
very close to this theoretical ideal. Yes, we have a few problems
maintaining all the properties at a suitable level. But how long have SW
been designing and using lasers?
Now, in light of this fact, and the predilection of some posters to defend
the use of scientific theories, why should I have to provide evidence SW
lasers are ideal? Surely, it is up to you to find the evidence to the
contrary? Where is there any evidence that SW lasers are anything other
than the theoretical ideal laser?
>>, leaving the plasma/tibanna gas component. The Borg can
>> withstand plasmas('SW "Plasma" weapons' and others)
>
>Their ability to disappate energy is not unlimited. Our weapons are of a
strength
>that they have never faced before (if they had, and had adapted, the
Federation's
>weapons would be nothing more than toys -- yet they destroyed several
cubes.)
your weapons (as best evidence currently indicates) do not use exotic
materials and theories to gain their power as ST weapons do. SW eapons use
traditional methods advanced to higher energies.
But there is evidence of Borg using traditional methods at high energies
as well, in cutting lasers and the such.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>>> Unless there is some way of explaining the scene where they can't do
it,
>>> as I have already supplied. now, ignoring all that, is there anywhere
else
>>> where Borg are shown to ahve no knowldge of KE shielding?
>>
>>BOBW - several drones are attacked bodily.
>>FC - several drones are attacked bodily.
>>
>>Etc. Every time we see an encounter with the Borg, we see them get
*physically
>>attacked.* So it's hard to believe that they DO have KE shielding.
>>
>>> I'm not going to claim they do have, because all there is to support
the
>>> argument is interpretation. I just want to see the examples of them
>>> definitly not having it.
>
>(I won't call him Lord) would only need to mention one case where they
>DO have personal KE shields for his and Elim's argument to stand up,
>otherwise it is pure conjecture.
If you ahd bothered to read my post you would have seen I have no
intention of claiming Borg have KE shielding. I am just trying to find out
what is used as evidence against the shields. A plausible explanantion for
FC has been given hundreds of times, so I wnated to see if there was
anywhere else that could be used as evidence of non-shielded Borg, just to
find out if it was another SW-clinging-to-their-only-hope argumetn, or if
it had any real substance.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>Our argument is simple ... there has never been an episode where a
>Borg displayed a personal or body KE shield.
There have been several episodes where the existence of KE shielding is
the only plausible explanation for apparently stupid decisions.
>There has also never been an episode where a Borg drone did NOT suffer
>physical bodily damage when attacked physically.
That have never been mentioned.
>OTOH, there have been many episodes where Borg HAVE suffered physical
>damage when attacked physically.
Yes, but those are never used. Everyone keeps screaming FC FC FC. There is
a plausible explanation for FC. If that is the only evidence it is a very
weak argument.
Michael January
<Lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Michael January wrote in message <36ffbe5e...@ct-news.iafrica.com>...
>
>>>Nope, you have failed to account for the removal laser component of the
>TL
>>>bolt. TL weaponry is not pure plasma weaponry.
>>
>>unknown, but inferred by the fact that the laser is not actually fired
>>at the enemy, only the superheated plasma.
>
>
>We see effects of the bolt that are best described as some laser (or other
>invisivble) component hitting the target before the main visible plasma.
>What is your source for the laser not being fired?
Novelisations (of the movies), descriptions of TL's in official
sources. Exactly which asteroids showed signs of being hit before the
main visible plasma hit them?
>
>
>>bad english and spelling aside,
>
>I am here to debate, not go over what I avoided in school. Consider the
>points given, not the way they were given. if you struggle to understand
>what I am saying tell me and I will try again.
>
I indicated what I understood you to be saying, if what you are saying
is different to what I have interpreted, please correct me.
>
> it appears that you are inferring that
>>plasma alone cannot affect ST shields because of your ability to
>>approach close to stars.
>
>I am asking why we must assume the plasma of a TL bolt is going to act any
>different to any other plasma. Will it be as bad as the stellar coronae?
>Will it be counterable by the Borg? You tried to say SW weaponry will
>damage Borg cubes because it is plasma weaponry. Where is the purely
>plasma weaponry of SW? it is all combinations of lasers and plasmas, isn't
>it?
Assuming the laser component is fired and 'contains' the plamsa as you
contend, which I don't pretend to understand, if the laser is stopped
by your shields, then the plasma will impact on the same shield. Do
you propose removing the laser component some distance from your ship?
so that the plasma has time to disperse before impact? How much time
will it take to disperse? By how much does this reduce the range?
>
> Barring of course the incident where a group
>>of Borg ships were destroyed by a mere solar flare (plasma) travelling
>>significantly slower than light (maximum 2000km/sec for large powerful
>>flares) and they were several million kilometers away, which means not
>>only did they have time to evade, but that the flare itself would have
>>expanded significantly, thus dissipating it's energy over a very large
>>area.
>
>
>source/episode?
I don't recall the name, but it was an episode where a Borg cube was
destroyed by a stellar flare (even though it was some distance from
the originating star)
>
>
>>What containment for TL's?, nowhere does it say the laser is fired,
>>only the plasma.
>
>source? I have not seen anything saying only the plasma is fired, and some
>aspects of TL effects are best described as a laser component accompanying
>the plasma.
the only thing we see in the movies is the plasma charge, unless you
wisht to call the green bolt a laser?
>
> How else is the plasma going to stay in it's bolt form up to the large
>ranges of TLs (several seconds travel time) if it has no containment?
Never seen a TL stay on-screen for several seconds, third of a second,
half a second maybe, in which scenes do we see a TL take several
seconds to hit the target?
>(Known)Methods of containing plasmas are Magnetic fields, Electric fields
>or combinations of the two. Without these, the plasma will disperse.
Over time, yes. But given the velocity of firing, the dispersion rate
is not fast enough to cause significant dispersion for quite a
distance.
>
>The plasma affects SW ships shields fine, and both SW
>>and ST ships have been observed approaching close to stars with little
>>or no ill effects.
>
>
>Yes, as you keep saying. But what will make the plasma of the TL bolt
>different to any other plasma when the laser component has been removed?
It may only need to be the same as any other plasma, i.e., solar
flares, which have been observed to damage ST ships.
Why should it be different?
>
>>I ask you again, what makes your shields different (barring the
>>incident mentioned above, which counts against you)?
>
>
>Nothing, other than the fact the Laser component of the TL bolt can be
>removed, leaving only the plasma component. Will the plasma component on
>it's own be dangerous to the Borg?
>
(Slow, not even 0.1c ) Stellar flares damaged/destroyed Borg ships
which stood up easily to Federation firepower.
SW plasma weapons are superheated /energised to a point where the
energy level is close to breaking up the plasma into sub-atomic
particles. Some calcs of TL temperature even demand that this is the
case, however, since sub-atomic particles are no longer plasma by
defn, this is contended to be contradictory to the canon/offical
description of plasma.
In other words, the temperature alone of the plasma (besides the
velocity) approaches the temp of that of stellar flares. Also SW
plasma is fired at velocities greater than the plasma of solar flares,
implying a greater KE component.
However, we don't know the mass of the plasma, so can't calculate the
KE component. The closest we come to possible KE are in official
novelisations mentioning gigaton recoils on firing.
Michael January
it has substance
Michael January
Not really, FC is a movie, hence the highest canon and so is mentioned
first and quite rightly too. Episodes come second, and here too there
are examples.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>>We see effects of the bolt that are best described as some laser (or
other
>>invisivble) component hitting the target before the main visible plasma.
>>What is your source for the laser not being fired?
>Novelisations (of the movies), descriptions of TL's in official
>sources. Exactly which asteroids showed signs of being hit before the
>main visible plasma hit them?
I have not seen any of them specifically say the laser is removed. Infact,
all I have seen is saying the laser is combined with the plasma. When did
I mentiona steroids getting hit? The inspiration for much of my data is
Mr. Young's and Saxton's in depth analysis of TL operation, checked
against my own copies. Go read them, then come back and tell me why there
can not be any laser fired with the TL plasma.
>I indicated what I understood you to be saying, if what you are saying
>is different to what I have interpreted, please correct me.
Nope, it was near enough. I just don't like people commenting on my
spelling or grammar. I would rather people judge the arguments on their
content rather than their text book correctness.
>>I am asking why we must assume the plasma of a TL bolt is going to act
any
>>different to any other plasma. Will it be as bad as the stellar coronae?
>>Will it be counterable by the Borg? You tried to say SW weaponry will
>>damage Borg cubes because it is plasma weaponry. Where is the purely
>>plasma weaponry of SW? it is all combinations of lasers and plasmas,
isn't
>>it?
>
>Assuming the laser component is fired and 'contains' the plamsa as you
>contend, which I don't pretend to understand, if the laser is stopped
>by your shields, then the plasma will impact on the same shield. Do
>you propose removing the laser component some distance from your ship?
>so that the plasma has time to disperse before impact? How much time
>will it take to disperse? By how much does this reduce the range?
Nope, the laser will be removed by the same method as phasers and any
other adaptable weaponry. The plasma will then be left to impact on the
shields, or the hull or whatever. But, my contention is that once the
laser has been removed the plasma will no longer have anything to keep it
in it's bolt form, so will not be as effective as originally intended.
Plasma can be defelected by electric or magnetic fields, which we know the
Borg can generate, so the TL will not be anywhere near as powerfull
against the Borg as it would against non-adaptive ships.
>>source/episode?
>I don't recall the name, but it was an episode where a Borg cube was
>destroyed by a stellar flare (even though it was some distance from
>the originating star)
A single Borg cube? That could be descent part 2. It seems to be the
standard "Borg can't handle plasma". I am working on an indepth analysis
of this episode, and will provide it to the group once it is completed.
>>>What containment for TL's?, nowhere does it say the laser is fired,
>>>only the plasma.
>>
>>source? I have not seen anything saying only the plasma is fired, and
some
>>aspects of TL effects are best described as a laser component
accompanying
>>the plasma.
>the only thing we see in the movies is the plasma charge, unless you
>wisht to call the green bolt a laser?
You should not be able to see the laser. This has been dealt with often
enough in this group, so you should know by now. Lasers are invisible
unless there is something to reflect the light. You will however be able
to see the effects of the laser.
>> How else is the plasma going to stay in it's bolt form up to the large
>>ranges of TLs (several seconds travel time) if it has no containment?
>Never seen a TL stay on-screen for several seconds, third of a second,
>half a second maybe, in which scenes do we see a TL take several
>seconds to hit the target?
What are the quoted ranges of TL bolts? Several light seconds. What is the
velocity of TL bolts? Massively sub light.
conclusion : at large ranges, TL bolts take several seconds to reach their
targets. We have never seen a TL fired at greater than close range where
the camera has remained on the bolt for the duration of the flight.
>>(Known)Methods of containing plasmas are Magnetic fields, Electric
fields
>>or combinations of the two. Without these, the plasma will disperse.
>Over time, yes. But given the velocity of firing, the dispersion rate
>is not fast enough to cause significant dispersion for quite a
>distance.
Plasmas(as any gas) disperse quickly in a vacuum. The only way to have
ranges as large as quoted for TL bolts is to have some method of
containing the plasma during it's flight.
>>Yes, as you keep saying. But what will make the plasma of the TL bolt
>>different to any other plasma when the laser component has been removed?
>
>It may only need to be the same as any other plasma, i.e., solar
>flares, which have been observed to damage ST ships.
>
>Why should it be different?
We have seen A solar flare damage a ship containing Borg. This does not
mean every solar flare will damage every ST ship.
>(Slow, not even 0.1c ) Stellar flares damaged/destroyed Borg ships
>which stood up easily to Federation firepower.
destroyed A borg cube, under unusual circumstances.
>In other words, the temperature alone of the plasma (besides the
>velocity) approaches the temp of that of stellar flares. Also SW
>plasma is fired at velocities greater than the plasma of solar flares,
>implying a greater KE component.
But they cannot have as much mass a solar flares. The max TL bolt is only
50 metres in diameter when fired. A stellar flare can throw tons
(literally) of material out.
>However, we don't know the mass of the plasma, so can't calculate the
>KE component. The closest we come to possible KE are in official
>novelisations mentioning gigaton recoils on firing.
And still, it may not be as energetic as the solar flare that destroyed a
Borg cube. The overall KE component of the TL bolt cannot be that high,
because it does not send ships or asteroids or whatever flying off at a
tangent.
Mennis
magik...@hotmail.com (Pikachu of the Borg) wrote:
>
> Star trek is based on our universe,
> uses our planets and it doesn't need any crappy cover-up like
> the long time long shit and an star wars uses lasers HA ! star trek's
> phasers are more powerful because they use phased energy.
> The Death Star is no match more the borg cube and the borg collective
> has at least 100 of 'em and there were only 2 death stars.
>
You've stirred up a fucking hornets nest here with your retarded opinions.
So what if ST is based on our universe, it's still fantasy, justl like SW.
------------------M-E-N-N-I-S---------------------
| "The Force is Strong With This One" |
| -(Darth Vader TO Mennis) |
--------------------------------------------------
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mennis
> Assumption based on personal opinion and not facts. I can do calcs: TDIC,
> BOBW, Pegasus, etc that will show that ST weaponry is far superior than
> SW weaponry. About 1270 times more. I call that game: Play the Micheal Wong.
>
Paul, your stupid fucking calcs have been proven time and time again to be
just that.... fucking stupid. Remember that asteroid calc you tried to do.
That was biggest load of bollocks i've ever seen.
> You mean shielding than can be breached by a fighter (ROTJ the SSD).
> The so called might of an ISD is myth.
>
>
Are the crews of these ISD's human? Are humans prone to errors, more so in
times of crisis? There was a bit of luck involved with the destruction of the
SSD AND how often has this occured in the SW universe? Probably the first
time, not bad considering the number of ISD's in the galaxy. 1/100000000
probability of such an event happening again means that it was essentially a
fluke and not a tactic which could be used by the rebels again. SO yes, the
ISD still retains it's so called might.
Heres an example to backup my point. Think of the Stealth Bomber which was
recently shot down over serbia/kosivo. They are mighty planes are they not
and considering how long they've been in service this is the first recorded
(i think) downing of one of these crafts. Perhaps the pilot made a mistake
or perhaps the serbs just got lucky, just like in SW with the destruction of
the SSD.
Wayne Poe
From the bridge of Mike Wong...
On Sun, 28 Mar 1999, Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
> All private e-mails are sent using my real name from my real account. The
> subject was "Your wrong about the Descent Plasma", posted back near the
> begining of february.
I seem to recall some high school kid e-mailing me with some weird
claims about how the Descent solar prominence would have carried "extra"
energy due to its magnetic fields. I told him that he was full of shit,
because the magnetic fields cannot do any actual WORK without slowing
down the plasma, and robbing the plasma itself of kinetic energy. The
magnetic fields merely couple the plasma to whatever it affects in a
different manner. They don't magically add "extra" energy- any work done
by a magnetic field will be taken away from the kinetic energy of the
moving charge that created the magnetic field.
That's why the electrical resistance of an electric motor changes
depending on the load you attach to it. I'll bet Mr. Cheese didn't know
that, but what do you expect for someone who thinks that magnetic fields
add "extra" energy? Too many Trekkies are like this- they hear the words
"magnetic field" or "gravity field" and they say "aha! Another mode of
destruction!" without understanding the basic nature of fields.
> The original post was implying a plasma is capable of generating it's own
> magnetic field to keep it in the bolt format shown in TLs, probably
> because it is a charged gas (moving charges -- magnetic field and all
> that). This is not true.
I didn't realize this was the point of contention. From the title, I
suspect that the thread is about proving that SW technology is
unrealistic- for what motive, I cannot imagine. Perhaps some Trek fan
thinks he can nitpick SW tech until it has as many wild loopholes,
inconsistencies, and scientific inaccuracies as Trek science (good
luck!).
In any case, the reason that magnetic fields can be induced by current
flow in a toroidal plasma volume is that the plasma is heterogeneous. In
other words, although the gross material properties of the plasma may be
electrically neutral, the ions and electrons aren't bound together as
they are in solid matter. They move in different directions and follow
different paths.
Plasma is always heterogeneous- its bulk electrical neutrality is a
mathematical abstraction. It does NOT behave like an electrically
neutral
solid, liquid, or gas. The only question is how the magnetic field
induced by the movement of charge would affect the charge itself. In a
dense z-pinch confinement scheme, the electrons move much more quickly
than the ions, but in a blaster bolt, the electrons and ions would
presumably be moving at roughly the same speed. Although I haven't heard
of any research in this field, I would be willing to guess that it
probably wouldn't work, although for entirely different reasons than Mr.
Cheese, who seems to think that plasma's electrical properties are
identical to those of an ordinary gas.
BTW, the principle of plasma self-containment through current flow was
first researched in the 1950's. They called it "dense Z-pinch"
confinement, and it was confirmed to work (although it was deemed
impractical for power generation) more than 40 years ago. However, the
dense z-pinch confinement scheme is not precisely analogous to the
movement of a blaster bolt through space for various reasons, so I would
be hesitant to apply it here.
> I accept you may have greater
> knowledge on the subject than myself, but I do not see how magnetic pinch
> effects (a result of a magnetic field induced by a current flowing in the
> plasma) will be useable in confining a Tl bolt without any method of
> applying the central current.
I would tend to agree. Turbolasers probably aren't magnetically
self-confined plasma bolts. They must be something else. Various
possibilities spring to mind: the turbolaser might be a high-energy
neutral-beam weapon, which fires high-velocity neutral atoms rather than
plasma. A neutral-beam doesn't need confinement because there would be
no internal coulomb repulsion, and it would pass effortlessly through
magnetic mirror-type shielding. Another possibility might be that the
turbolaser fires plasma at relativistic speeds, so that it travels a
very long distance before it inevitably spreads apart (remember that
time dilation would tend to increase the travel distance before it
unravels). Both ideas would be consistent with a visibly glowing blob of
material, such as we see in the films.
--
Be Seeing You ...
Michael January
>On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 05:40:54 GMT, "Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> wrote:
>
>>Time0ut <tim...@adhype.com> wrote in message news:36fc6848....@news.surfsouth.com...
>>> On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 23:06:47 GMT, "Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> wrote:
>>> >The incident in First Contact is all we need to show, conclusively, that
>>> >the Borg do not have KE shields.
>>>
>>> No it isn't. They were Borg not connected to the collective. We have
>>> see KE shielding in Voyager.
>>
>>Why would this affect the Borg's ability to use their latent KE shielding?
>>It wouldn't.
>
>Individually, or in small groups, they don't have the means to provide
>the KE shielding just as they don't have the ability to heal the
>drones instantly. (7 of 9 stated that drones can be regenerated
>instantly with the minds of million)
>There were simply not enough Borg in FC to accomplish that task.
>Note, we also didn't see any tactical drones in FC, but they exist and
>would be impervious to bullets due to their armoured substructure.
We can't use tactical drones in discussion unless we know their
capabilities. Until we see them on-screen they are just hearsay.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>
>> All private e-mails are sent using my real name from my real account.
The
>> subject was "Your wrong about the Descent Plasma", posted back near the
>> begining of february.
>
>I seem to recall some high school kid e-mailing me with some weird
>claims about how the Descent solar prominence would have carried "extra"
>energy due to its magnetic fields. I told him that he was full of shit,
>because the magnetic fields cannot do any actual WORK without slowing
>down the plasma, and robbing the plasma itself of kinetic energy.
Nope, mine was about how the flare couldn't be a normal flare, because of
the time involved etc., and I think a problem with how the 4000TJ or
whatever was gained from the original energy value. But I got no response.
I'm trying to recompile the info and I'll repost it both here and to Mr.
Wong.
Rest taken to private e-mail.
Michael January
<Lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Michael January wrote in message
><370219d0...@ct-news.iafrica.com>...
>
>>
>>Assuming the laser component is fired and 'contains' the plamsa as you
>>contend, which I don't pretend to understand, if the laser is stopped
>>by your shields, then the plasma will impact on the same shield. Do
>>you propose removing the laser component some distance from your ship?
>>so that the plasma has time to disperse before impact? How much time
>>will it take to disperse? By how much does this reduce the range?
>
>
>Nope, the laser will be removed by the same method as phasers and any
>other adaptable weaponry. The plasma will then be left to impact on the
>shields, or the hull or whatever. But, my contention is that once the
>laser has been removed the plasma will no longer have anything to keep it
>in it's bolt form, so will not be as effective as originally intended.
Even so, the plasma will take time to disperse, removing the laser
microseconds or nanoseconds before impact will make no discernible
difference to the impact of the superheated plasma
>Plasma can be defelected by electric or magnetic fields, which we know the
>Borg can generate,
Firstly, the Borg were unable to deflect an ordinary stellar flare
despite it having already dissipated much of it's initial power over
several million kilometers.
Secondly, SW ships have electrical/magnetic/deflector shields or
whatever, which take several minutes to be knocked down by plasma
bolts. Eventually, the cumulative effects of several plasma bolts
deliver enough energy to the target to overcome this energy of the
shields. One may not be enough, two may not be, but after several
hundred shots at the rate of dozens per second, the cumulative amount
of energy begins to tell.
>
>
>A single Borg cube? That could be descent part 2. It seems to be the
>standard "Borg can't handle plasma". I am working on an indepth analysis
>of this episode, and will provide it to the group once it is completed.
take your time, we'll be here.
>
>
>>the only thing we see in the movies is the plasma charge, unless you
>>wisht to call the green bolt a laser?
>
>
>You should not be able to see the laser. This has been dealt with often
>enough in this group, so you should know by now. Lasers are invisible
>unless there is something to reflect the light. You will however be able
>to see the effects of the laser.
Perhaps if there are some examples where we see the effect of the
laser. I don't recall any offhand.
>
>
>What are the quoted ranges of TL bolts? Several light seconds. What is the
>velocity of TL bolts? Massively sub light.
>
>conclusion : at large ranges, TL bolts take several seconds to reach their
>targets. We have never seen a TL fired at greater than close range where
>the camera has remained on the bolt for the duration of the flight.
Mmmm .. yes ... a dubious thing to be calculating from on-screen
evidence then, and certainly no written accounts contain detailed
descriptions of the deterioration of TL's which are fired at long
range, or miss their targets and continue on for long distances. TL
power at long ranges (several light-seconds) is unknown, and a matter
of conjecture only.
>
>>>(Known)Methods of containing plasmas are Magnetic fields, Electric
>fields
>>>or combinations of the two. Without these, the plasma will disperse.
>
>
>>Over time, yes. But given the velocity of firing, the dispersion rate
>>is not fast enough to cause significant dispersion for quite a
>>distance.
>
>Plasmas(as any gas) disperse quickly in a vacuum. The only way to have
>ranges as large as quoted for TL bolts is to have some method of
>containing the plasma during it's flight.
Brownian motion can be confined to restricted vectors by field
effects, electrical charge is inherent to the particles i know, but
the plasma as a whole is neutral, and we also don't know what other
factors are at play. It may be that the substance chosen for plasma
(Tibanna gas?) has some inherent property which serves this purpose,
or is the composition of the plasma irrelevant?
>
>>>Yes, as you keep saying. But what will make the plasma of the TL bolt
>>>different to any other plasma when the laser component has been removed?
>>
>>It may only need to be the same as any other plasma, i.e., solar
>>flares, which have been observed to damage ST ships.
>>
>>Why should it be different?
>
>
>We have seen A solar flare damage a ship containing Borg. This does not
>mean every solar flare will damage every ST ship.
Have we seen Borg (or other ST ships) survive stellar flares in other
episodes? We can only work with what has been observed, not with what
is merely conjecture.
>
>>(Slow, not even 0.1c ) Stellar flares damaged/destroyed Borg ships
>>which stood up easily to Federation firepower.
>
>
>destroyed A borg cube, under unusual circumstances.
I wasn't aware the circumstances were unusual, but I will wait for
your analysis.
>
>>In other words, the temperature alone of the plasma (besides the
>>velocity) approaches the temp of that of stellar flares. Also SW
>>plasma is fired at velocities greater than the plasma of solar flares,
>>implying a greater KE component.
>
>
>But they cannot have as much mass a solar flares. The max TL bolt is only
>50 metres in diameter when fired. A stellar flare can throw tons
>(literally) of material out.
Yes, but that material disperses over distance and time, so that by
the time it hit the Borg cube several million km away, only a fraction
of the initial energy/mass came to bear. Unless you wish to contend
that the flare retained full cohesion and energy right up to the time
of impact on the Borg cube.
>
>>However, we don't know the mass of the plasma, so can't calculate the
>>KE component. The closest we come to possible KE are in official
>>novelisations mentioning gigaton recoils on firing.
>
>And still, it may not be as energetic as the solar flare that destroyed a
>Borg cube. The overall KE component of the TL bolt cannot be that high,
>because it does not send ships or asteroids or whatever flying off at a
>tangent.
True, the KE may not be sufficient to significantly effect a ship
which weight millions of tonnes, but KE might still be high enough to
assist in hull-penetration. For example, modern ship-to-ship missiles
rely on KE to get the warhead to penetrate into the superstructure of
the target ship, but the KE alone isn't enough to seriously knock the
ship of course.
Also, many anti-tank rounds besides SABOT rely on KE for
armour-penetration before detonation, but the KE alone isn't enough to
destroy the tank.
On the other hand, take the KE away, and you've got a relatively
harmless detonation outside the superstructure or hull.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>Even so, the plasma will take time to disperse, removing the laser
>microseconds or nanoseconds before impact will make no discernible
>difference to the impact of the superheated plasma
Very little, but it will be more likely to 'splash', rebounding from the
surface, spreading the energy over a greater area, doing less damage.
>>Plasma can be defelected by electric or magnetic fields, which we know
the
>>Borg can generate,
>
>Firstly, the Borg were unable to deflect an ordinary stellar flare
>despite it having already dissipated much of it's initial power over
>several million kilometers.
As I said, I believe there are problems with the oft-used Descent
argument.
>Secondly, SW ships have electrical/magnetic/deflector shields or
>whatever, which take several minutes to be knocked down by plasma
>bolts. Eventually, the cumulative effects of several plasma bolts
>deliver enough energy to the target to overcome this energy of the
>shields. One may not be enough, two may not be, but after several
>hundred shots at the rate of dozens per second, the cumulative amount
>of energy begins to tell.
Yes, but it takes many tens of multi-megatonnage weaponry to have real
effect on a Borg cube (FC: many many Q and pho torps shot at the same spot
of the cube), and they have a habit of repairing themselves when they are
damaged. I seem to remember sying this before. What was your reply then?
And the shields in SW appear to absorb the plasma, not deflect it. We
don't see the bolts bouncing off the shields. It would not be too hard to
deflect the plasma so that itr flows down one side of the ship. It would
be even easier if the defending ship was anything other than side-on to
the attacking ship
>>A single Borg cube? That could be descent part 2. It seems to be the
>>standard "Borg can't handle plasma". I am working on an indepth analysis
>>of this episode, and will provide it to the group once it is completed.
>take your time, we'll be here.
Why thank you.
>>You should not be able to see the laser. This has been dealt with often
>>enough in this group, so you should know by now. Lasers are invisible
>>unless there is something to reflect the light. You will however be able
>>to see the effects of the laser.
>Perhaps if there are some examples where we see the effect of the
>laser. I don't recall any offhand.
Heating of asteroids in ESB before the visible bolt arrives. Go check out
Brian Young's Turbolaser commentaries page ( www.snowhill.com/~by ). He
has frame grabs there. Something else I think I've said recently.
>>What are the quoted ranges of TL bolts? Several light seconds. What is
the
>>velocity of TL bolts? Massively sub light.
>>
>>conclusion : at large ranges, TL bolts take several seconds to reach
their
>>targets. We have never seen a TL fired at greater than close range where
>>the camera has remained on the bolt for the duration of the flight.
>Mmmm .. yes ... a dubious thing to be calculating from on-screen
>evidence then, and certainly no written accounts contain detailed
>descriptions of the deterioration of TL's which are fired at long
>range, or miss their targets and continue on for long distances. TL
>power at long ranges (several light-seconds) is unknown, and a matter
>of conjecture only.
How is the deterioration or long-range power of a TL bolt relevant to
whether or not it takes several seconds to reach it's maximum effective
range? Concentrate on the discussion in hand, not the tnagent you would
rather go down.
>>Plasmas(as any gas) disperse quickly in a vacuum. The only way to have
>>ranges as large as quoted for TL bolts is to have some method of
>>containing the plasma during it's flight.
>Brownian motion can be confined to restricted vectors by field
>effects, electrical charge is inherent to the particles i know, but
>the plasma as a whole is neutral, and we also don't know what other
>factors are at play. It may be that the substance chosen for plasma
>(Tibanna gas?) has some inherent property which serves this purpose,
>or is the composition of the plasma irrelevant?
Eh? Basically, you were saying plasmas don't have any external
confinement(such as a laser beam). Now you are saying their lack of
dispertion is partly explained by containment by external factors (for
brownian motion)? Maybe the actual tibanna gas does play some part in
holding the form of the bolt though. I am not aware of any natural gasses
that can keep an exact shape whilst travelling at high v in a vacuum
without external assistance, but who knows.
And we see no apparent dispersion of the bolt whatsoever, so any brownian
motion would have to be constrained to zero vectors, or directly in the
direction of travel.
Unlikely.
>>But they cannot have as much mass a solar flares. The max TL bolt is
only
>>50 metres in diameter when fired. A stellar flare can throw tons
>>(literally) of material out.
>Yes, but that material disperses over distance and time, so that by
>the time it hit the Borg cube several million km away, only a fraction
>of the initial energy/mass came to bear. Unless you wish to contend
>that the flare retained full cohesion and energy right up to the time
>of impact on the Borg cube.
But it can overwhelm the whole borg cube. A TL bolt can only affect a
small part of one side. Which is more dangerous, a screw thrown at a
multile-redundant circuit board, or the same same screw ground into powder
and thrown at the same circuit board?
Which is more damaging, an attack on a telephone exchange or city,
knocking out a few communication lines, or a magnetic storm knocking out
hundreds of communication lines?
>>And still, it may not be as energetic as the solar flare that destroyed
a
>>Borg cube. The overall KE component of the TL bolt cannot be that high,
>>because it does not send ships or asteroids or whatever flying off at a
>>tangent.
>
>True, the KE may not be sufficient to significantly effect a ship
>which weight millions of tonnes, but KE might still be high enough to
>assist in hull-penetration.
And that is even better for the Borg. Their ships are multiple-redundant.
Take out one system, others take over. Hull penetration is not a major
problem for the Borg, unless you happen to hit a major system. That takes
great luck, or prior knowledge of Borg ships. something SW does not have
(and definitly not the empire, as evidenced by the films).
Aaron Parsons
Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
> Michael January wrote in message
> <37050388...@ct-news.iafrica.com>...
>
> >Even so, the plasma will take time to disperse, removing the laser
> >microseconds or nanoseconds before impact will make no discernible
> >difference to the impact of the superheated plasma
>
> Very little, but it will be more likely to 'splash', rebounding from the
> surface, spreading the energy over a greater area, doing less damage.
Proof?
>
>
> >>Plasma can be defelected by electric or magnetic fields, which we know
> the
> >>Borg can generate,
> >
> >Firstly, the Borg were unable to deflect an ordinary stellar flare
> >despite it having already dissipated much of it's initial power over
> >several million kilometers.
>
> As I said, I believe there are problems with the oft-used Descent
> argument.
And these are?
>
>
> >Secondly, SW ships have electrical/magnetic/deflector shields or
> >whatever, which take several minutes to be knocked down by plasma
> >bolts. Eventually, the cumulative effects of several plasma bolts
> >deliver enough energy to the target to overcome this energy of the
> >shields. One may not be enough, two may not be, but after several
> >hundred shots at the rate of dozens per second, the cumulative amount
> >of energy begins to tell.
>
> Yes, but it takes many tens of multi-megatonnage weaponry to have real
> effect on a Borg cube (FC: many many Q and pho torps shot at the same spot
> of the cube), and they have a habit of repairing themselves when they are
> damaged. I seem to remember sying this before. What was your reply then?
And the energy was applied in a different way with the photorps and qtorps.
Photorns and qtorps are not plasma bolts.
Red herring. Your analogy doesn't follow. This is an application of inherent
material properties to damage something susceptible to those properties.
(metal fragments + circuit board = bad circuit board), but since we've never
seen a tight-beam plasma bolt strike a Borg ship with as much power as the
Descent solar flare, how do you know what's going to happen?
>
>
> Which is more damaging, an attack on a telephone exchange or city,
> knocking out a few communication lines, or a magnetic storm knocking out
> hundreds of communication lines?
>
Above.
> >>And still, it may not be as energetic as the solar flare that destroyed
> a
> >>Borg cube. The overall KE component of the TL bolt cannot be that high,
> >>because it does not send ships or asteroids or whatever flying off at a
> >>tangent.
> >
> >True, the KE may not be sufficient to significantly effect a ship
> >which weight millions of tonnes, but KE might still be high enough to
> >assist in hull-penetration.
>
> And that is even better for the Borg. Their ships are multiple-redundant.
> Take out one system, others take over. Hull penetration is not a major
> problem for the Borg, unless you happen to hit a major system. That takes
> great luck, or prior knowledge of Borg ships. something SW does not have
> (and definitly not the empire, as evidenced by the films).
Hull penetration WILL be a major issue to the Borg when facing multi-terawatt
plasma weapons. They cannot have infinite redundancies and those available
redundancies probably are not all concentrated in a single area of the ship.
Thusly, when the Borg cube is bombarded by literally hundreds of turbolasers,
as will happen (not a single turbolaser), the entire surface exposed towards
the guns of the ISD will start slagging off or vaporizing, taking redundancy
systems with it. The ISD does not require previous knowledge of a Borg ship
to throw a gargantuan amount of firepower into it - chance alone says that
eventually they'll inflict more damage than the Borg can keep up with, unless
the Borg can repair large amounts of their ship in very short amounts of time
(like, a few cubic decameters a second or so, given turbolaser refire rates
and a generic damage area).
Aaron
Wayne Poe
On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Aaron Parsons wrote:
> Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
>>>> A single Borg cube? That could be descent part 2. It seems to be the
>>>> standard "Borg can't handle plasma". I am working on an indepth
>>>> analysis of this episode, and will provide it to the group once it is
>>>> completed.
>>>take your time, we'll be here.
>> Why thank you.
Don't hold your breath, gents. Lord Edam (or his alter ego Ed Woodward)
was supposed to have a gang of science buddies work on calcs to prove me
wrong about gravity being a necessary component to maintain an atmospheree
on a planet. He was going to "present this to the group too." MONTHS ago.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Visit the Ultimate Starwars vs.Startrek Database
http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html *Comparative analyses
lo...@h4h.com *Pictures and .wavs
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Lord Edam de Fromage
>> >Even so, the plasma will take time to disperse, removing the laser
>> >microseconds or nanoseconds before impact will make no discernible
>> >difference to the impact of the superheated plasma
>>
>> Very little, but it will be more likely to 'splash', rebounding from
the
>> surface, spreading the energy over a greater area, doing less damage.
>
>Proof?
Proof a fluidic material will act like a fluid when it encounters a harder
surface? Yep, just about any science book you care to choose. The
marvellous thing about this is, you can even try it yourself. Spray a
hosepipe on a brick wall, see what happens. Probably a better example is
sand blasting. High velocity sand is used to strip the surface layer of
grime away rom buildings, bridges etc. It tends to spray back, so the
operator has to hide, wear masks and stuff.
>> >Firstly, the Borg were unable to deflect an ordinary stellar flare
>> >despite it having already dissipated much of it's initial power over
>> >several million kilometers.
>>
>> As I said, I believe there are problems with the oft-used Descent
>> argument.
>
>And these are?
On their way.
>> >Secondly, SW ships have electrical/magnetic/deflector shields or
>> >whatever, which take several minutes to be knocked down by plasma
>> >bolts. Eventually, the cumulative effects of several plasma bolts
>> >deliver enough energy to the target to overcome this energy of the
>> >shields. One may not be enough, two may not be, but after several
>> >hundred shots at the rate of dozens per second, the cumulative amount
>> >of energy begins to tell.
>>
>> Yes, but it takes many tens of multi-megatonnage weaponry to have real
>> effect on a Borg cube (FC: many many Q and pho torps shot at the same
spot
>> of the cube), and they have a habit of repairing themselves when they
are
>> damaged. I seem to remember sying this before. What was your reply
then?
>
>And the energy was applied in a different way with the photorps and
qtorps.
>Photorns and qtorps are not plasma bolts.
True. But it is still energy, and the final effects of the attack will not
be much different.
[massive kershnip of stuff Aaron didn't bother commenting on]
>> >Yes, but that material disperses over distance and time, so that by
>> >the time it hit the Borg cube several million km away, only a fraction
>> >of the initial energy/mass came to bear. Unless you wish to contend
>> >that the flare retained full cohesion and energy right up to the time
>> >of impact on the Borg cube.
>>
>> But it can overwhelm the whole borg cube. A TL bolt can only affect a
>> small part of one side. Which is more dangerous, a screw thrown at a
>> multile-redundant circuit board, or the same same screw ground into
powder
>> and thrown at the same circuit board?
>
>Red herring. Your analogy doesn't follow. This is an application of
inherent
>material properties to damage something susceptible to those properties.
>(metal fragments + circuit board = bad circuit board), but since we've
never
>seen a tight-beam plasma bolt strike a Borg ship with as much power as
the
>Descent solar flare, how do you know what's going to happen?
Okay, maybe it was a poor choice of example, but it was the best I could
find at the time. If Borg are susceptable to plasma, which is worse,
diffuse energy affecting the whole ship, or the same energy concentrated
into a small area. A better example would be a shotgun against wood. A
shotgun can have two extremes of shot profile, ones that maintain their
shape right up to the target (full choke), or ones that spread out after
leaving the barrel (no choke). Which is most damaging to a plank of wood?
The first, full choke, example will only make (eg) a 2" hole in the wood.
The second (no choke) example will make a much bigger hole, closer to 12"
that two.(note for the pedantic: these ar only examples, not the actual
sizes). So you see, there are occasions when diffuse 'bullets' can be more
dangerous than tighter 'bullets'
Let's take a closer look at the two.
A solar flare engulfs a ship in hot plasma. This completely overwhelms the
ships systems, causing problems everywhere. Result : ship goes boom.
Now, if that same plasma is concentrated into one point what will happen?
The shields will probably be lost, so most of the plasma will affect the
hull directly. Any systems directly under the area of influence will be
lost, but then other systems located elsewhere will take over. Loosing a
small part of the ship is not a problem for the Borg.
>> Which is more damaging, an attack on a telephone exchange or city,
>> knocking out a few communication lines, or a magnetic storm knocking
out
>> hundreds of communication lines?
>
>Above.
I thought that analogy was a lot better than the other one. But you see
the point? Your TL bolt will probably directly affect a small part of the
Borg ship. Other parts will keep functioning.
>> >True, the KE may not be sufficient to significantly effect a ship
>> >which weight millions of tonnes, but KE might still be high enough to
>> >assist in hull-penetration.
>>
>> And that is even better for the Borg. Their ships are
multiple-redundant.
>> Take out one system, others take over. Hull penetration is not a major
>> problem for the Borg, unless you happen to hit a major system. That
takes
>> great luck, or prior knowledge of Borg ships. something SW does not
have
>> (and definitly not the empire, as evidenced by the films).
>
>Hull penetration WILL be a major issue to the Borg when facing
multi-terawatt
>plasma weapons.
It will happen, but why would it be a problem? Will your multi-terrawatt
weapons cause hull penetration very shot? And will this prevent the repair
of the cube?
They cannot have infinite redundancies and those available
>redundancies probably are not all concentrated in a single area of the
ship.
They do not need to have multiple redundancies. A single ship can only
attack from one side. You cannot attack every back up at once, so the Brog
will ahve a chance to repair some.
>Thusly, when the Borg cube is bombarded by literally hundreds of
turbolasers,
>as will happen (not a single turbolaser), the entire surface exposed
towards
>the guns of the ISD will start slagging off or vaporizing, taking
redundancy
>systems with it.
When have we ever seen hundreds of Turbolasers used against another ship?
Never. You are greatly exagerating your abilities.
The ISD does not require previous knowledge of a Borg ship
>to throw a gargantuan amount of firepower into it - chance alone says
that
>eventually they'll inflict more damage than the Borg can keep up with,
unless
>the Borg can repair large amounts of their ship in very short amounts of
time
>(like, a few cubic decameters a second or so, given turbolaser refire
rates
>and a generic damage area).
Generic damage you are not aware what will happen. Remember the original
premise? The laser component is removed, leaving only the plasma, so your
bolts will not be as powerfull.
Michael January
<Lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Michael January wrote in message
><37050388...@ct-news.iafrica.com>...
>
>>Even so, the plasma will take time to disperse, removing the laser
>>microseconds or nanoseconds before impact will make no discernible
>>difference to the impact of the superheated plasma
>
>
>Very little, but it will be more likely to 'splash', rebounding from the
>surface, spreading the energy over a greater area, doing less damage.
perhaps, but one TL bolt does not have to do a great amount of damage,
it's the cumulative effect of dozens which will do the real damage,
although even one TL bolts is pretty poerful.
>
>>>Plasma can be defelected by electric or magnetic fields, which we know
>the
>>>Borg can generate,
>>
>>Firstly, the Borg were unable to deflect an ordinary stellar flare
>>despite it having already dissipated much of it's initial power over
>>several million kilometers.
>
>
>As I said, I believe there are problems with the oft-used Descent
>argument.
you still haven't mentioned what problems these are.
>
>>Secondly, SW ships have electrical/magnetic/deflector shields or
>>whatever, which take several minutes to be knocked down by plasma
>>bolts. Eventually, the cumulative effects of several plasma bolts
>>deliver enough energy to the target to overcome this energy of the
>>shields. One may not be enough, two may not be, but after several
>>hundred shots at the rate of dozens per second, the cumulative amount
>>of energy begins to tell.
>
>
>Yes, but it takes many tens of multi-megatonnage weaponry to have real
>effect on a Borg cube (FC: many many Q and pho torps shot at the same spot
>of the cube), and they have a habit of repairing themselves when they are
>damaged. I seem to remember sying this before. What was your reply then?
1) rate of fire of TL bolts is much higher than Q torps or P torps.
Your latest and greatest ship the Soveriegn class E-E, can only manage
about a dozen every three seconds, and other ships only about 4 or 8
every three seconds. So ship for ship, the rate of fire of SW ships
vastly outtweighs that of ST.
2) Our weaponry is not multi-megaton, but multi-gigaton (canon quote).
3) Your ST ships were engaged in a self-defeating strategy by
targeting ONE spot, since as you said, the ship had redundant systems
located elsewhere.
4) Their rate of damage-repair was pretty slow, and could barely keep
up with the slow rate of fire of the Fed ship.
I think I said all of the above last time too.
>
>And the shields in SW appear to absorb the plasma, not deflect it. We
>don't see the bolts bouncing off the shields. It would not be too hard to
>deflect the plasma so that itr flows down one side of the ship. It would
>be even easier if the defending ship was anything other than side-on to
>the attacking ship
For Borg cubes which take no evasive action and present a flat
surface, this is more of a problem than a help. SW ships are not
flat-surfaced, and rarely present a single flat surface to an enemy
for continuous bombardment.
>
>>>A single Borg cube? That could be descent part 2. It seems to be the
>>>standard "Borg can't handle plasma". I am working on an indepth analysis
>>>of this episode, and will provide it to the group once it is completed.
>
>>take your time, we'll be here.
>
>Why thank you.
>
>>>You should not be able to see the laser. This has been dealt with often
>>>enough in this group, so you should know by now. Lasers are invisible
>>>unless there is something to reflect the light. You will however be able
>>>to see the effects of the laser.
>
>
>>Perhaps if there are some examples where we see the effect of the
>>laser. I don't recall any offhand.
>
>
>Heating of asteroids in ESB before the visible bolt arrives. Go check out
>Brian Young's Turbolaser commentaries page ( www.snowhill.com/~by ). He
>has frame grabs there. Something else I think I've said recently.
That was not heating, it was just a reflection of the TL's radiated
energy. The TL radiates a lot of energy in all directions anyway,
since you can easily see it from any direction.
Even if it is heat/melting, I reckon anything in close proximity to
something which is as hot as the surface temperature of a star will
melt, don't you.
>
>>>What are the quoted ranges of TL bolts? Several light seconds. What is
>the
>>>velocity of TL bolts? Massively sub light.
>>>
>>>conclusion : at large ranges, TL bolts take several seconds to reach
>their
>>>targets. We have never seen a TL fired at greater than close range where
>>>the camera has remained on the bolt for the duration of the flight.
>
>
>>Mmmm .. yes ... a dubious thing to be calculating from on-screen
>>evidence then, and certainly no written accounts contain detailed
>>descriptions of the deterioration of TL's which are fired at long
>>range, or miss their targets and continue on for long distances. TL
>>power at long ranges (several light-seconds) is unknown, and a matter
>>of conjecture only.
>
>How is the deterioration or long-range power of a TL bolt relevant to
>whether or not it takes several seconds to reach it's maximum effective
>range? Concentrate on the discussion in hand, not the tnagent you would
>rather go down.
You went this way, let me quote you:
: at large ranges, TL bolts take several seconds to reach their
:targets. We have never seen a TL fired at greater than close range where
:the camera has remained on the bolt for the duration of the flight.
so by your own admission, there is no on-screen evidence to support
your dispersion theory, or by which conclusions can be drawn regarding
dispersion.
>
>>>Plasmas(as any gas) disperse quickly in a vacuum. The only way to have
>>>ranges as large as quoted for TL bolts is to have some method of
>>>containing the plasma during it's flight.
>
>
>>Brownian motion can be confined to restricted vectors by field
>>effects, electrical charge is inherent to the particles i know, but
>>the plasma as a whole is neutral, and we also don't know what other
>>factors are at play. It may be that the substance chosen for plasma
>>(Tibanna gas?) has some inherent property which serves this purpose,
>>or is the composition of the plasma irrelevant?
>
>
>Eh? Basically, you were saying plasmas don't have any external
>confinement(such as a laser beam). Now you are saying their lack of
>dispertion is partly explained by containment by external factors (for
>brownian motion)? Maybe the actual tibanna gas does play some part in
>holding the form of the bolt though. I am not aware of any natural gasses
>that can keep an exact shape whilst travelling at high v in a vacuum
>without external assistance, but who knows.
I don't have to say anything: The observed fact is that TL bolts don't
disperse. Officially it is unlcear whether the laser is fired or just
use in the primer chamber.
It is therefore up to us to conjecture as to what may be preventing
the dispersion, using the technologies we know to exist in the SW
Universe. The conjectures we can make are as follows:
A) The laser contains the plasma, but official sources don't claim
this.
B) The same field effects used to enhance engine power is used to
enhance weapon power. Again official sources don't mention this.
C) The dispersion is prevented by some inherent property of the gas
used, otherwise why use Tibanna gas, why not use any gas which happens
to be available.
D) The bolt does disperse despite never being shown to do so, which
means the dispersion is slow enough (relativistically) to the firing
velocity that it does not matter.
>
>
>And we see no apparent dispersion of the bolt whatsoever, so any brownian
>motion would have to be constrained to zero vectors, or directly in the
>direction of travel.
>Unlikely.
No. Not unlikely. Official description of engine operation claim that
exhaust particle-motion are constrained to specific vectors by field
effects to enhance engine operation. So the technology does exist.
>
>
>>>But they cannot have as much mass a solar flares. The max TL bolt is
>only
>>>50 metres in diameter when fired. A stellar flare can throw tons
>>>(literally) of material out.
>
>>Yes, but that material disperses over distance and time, so that by
>>the time it hit the Borg cube several million km away, only a fraction
>>of the initial energy/mass came to bear. Unless you wish to contend
>>that the flare retained full cohesion and energy right up to the time
>>of impact on the Borg cube.
>
>But it can overwhelm the whole borg cube. A TL bolt can only affect a
>small part of one side. Which is more dangerous, a screw thrown at a
>multile-redundant circuit board, or the same same screw ground into powder
>and thrown at the same circuit board?
Hundreds of TL bolts? In the space of a few seconds?
>
>Which is more damaging, an attack on a telephone exchange or city,
>knocking out a few communication lines, or a magnetic storm knocking out
>hundreds of communication lines?
A storm of TL bolts?
>
>>>And still, it may not be as energetic as the solar flare that destroyed
>a
>>>Borg cube. The overall KE component of the TL bolt cannot be that high,
>>>because it does not send ships or asteroids or whatever flying off at a
>>>tangent.
>>
>>True, the KE may not be sufficient to significantly effect a ship
>>which weight millions of tonnes, but KE might still be high enough to
>>assist in hull-penetration.
>
>And that is even better for the Borg. Their ships are multiple-redundant.
>Take out one system, others take over. Hull penetration is not a major
>problem for the Borg, unless you happen to hit a major system. That takes
>great luck, or prior knowledge of Borg ships. something SW does not have
>(and definitly not the empire, as evidenced by the films).
One hull penetration may not be a huge factor, but several hundred
hull-breaches of superheated gas (temp close to surface temp of a
star) in the space of a few seconds. So many systems will be knocked
off-line in seconds, and so many thousands of drones killed, that over
a short period of time, there just won't be enough drones or redundant
systems to keep the ship operating.
You also keep referring to FC, where something like forty Fed ships
were attacking the single cube, from various angles. Yet you wish to
measure that rate of damage to the damage from ONE turbolaser bolt,
which I find flattering, but you must remember, that it will be dozens
of TL bolts per second, not ONE.
Also, if the Empire were to bring forty ships along (which is not
nearly as big a resource drain for us as it was for you), it will be
HUNDREDS of turbolaser bolts PER SECOND, maybe even THOUSANDS PER
SECOND.
A turbolaser is a very powerful weapon, which I'm glad you agree is
comparable to forty Fed ships (you keep referring to FC), but in SW
ships aren't just fitted with just one TL cannon you know.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>>Very little, but it will be more likely to 'splash', rebounding from the
>>surface, spreading the energy over a greater area, doing less damage.
>perhaps, but one TL bolt does not have to do a great amount of damage,
>it's the cumulative effect of dozens which will do the real damage,
>although even one TL bolts is pretty poerful.
Yes, but the cumulative affect will be less against the Borg than other
ships, because they repair quickly. And many (most?) of your TLs are the
less powerfull variety, so the knock out blows can only come every few
seconds.
>>As I said, I believe there are problems with the oft-used Descent
>>argument.
>you still haven't mentioned what problems these are.
Then explain exactly why you think Descent is not a problem and I will
tell
you if I agree or not. What I do not currently agree with is the assertion
that TLs will be extremely dangerous because what appeared to be a stellar
flare killed what appeared to be a borg cube.
>>Yes, but it takes many tens of multi-megatonnage weaponry to have real
>>effect on a Borg cube (FC: many many Q and pho torps shot at the same
spot
>>of the cube), and they have a habit of repairing themselves when they
are
>>damaged. I seem to remember sying this before. What was your reply then?
>1) rate of fire of TL bolts is much higher than Q torps or P torps.
But is the rate of energy delivery to target similar?
>Your latest and greatest ship the Soveriegn class E-E, can only manage
>about a dozen every three seconds, and other ships only about 4 or 8
>every three seconds. So ship for ship, the rate of fire of SW ships
>vastly outtweighs that of ST.
Yep, but what about energy delivery?
>2) Our weaponry is not multi-megaton, but multi-gigaton (canon quote).
Source? Are you now deciding you do not wish to use the Saxton calcs for
TL bolts firepower?
>3) Your ST ships were engaged in a self-defeating strategy by
>targeting ONE spot, since as you said, the ship had redundant systems
>located elsewhere.
When? In FC? Because they were targetting the one spot Locutus knew was
dangerous. That means prior knowledge (SW does not have), or enough
firepower and maneuverability to put similar firepower on every single
spot of the borg cube. But how do you know where the spot even is? Borg
ships all appear symmetrical. You can't tell which side is which. So you
have to blanket a whole cube in firepower, from one ship at one side. And
have a cumulative effect similar to many many torpedoes on that spot.
>4) Their rate of damage-repair was pretty slow, and could barely keep
>up with the slow rate of fire of the Fed ship.
>
>I think I said all of the above last time too.
Probably. But have you remembered to consider the loss of the powerfull
laser component of the TL bolt?
>>And the shields in SW appear to absorb the plasma, not deflect it. We
>>don't see the bolts bouncing off the shields. It would not be too hard
to
>>deflect the plasma so that itr flows down one side of the ship. It would
>>be even easier if the defending ship was anything other than side-on to
>>the attacking ship
>For Borg cubes which take no evasive action and present a flat
>surface, this is more of a problem than a help. SW ships are not
>flat-surfaced, and rarely present a single flat surface to an enemy
>for continuous bombardment.
Borg cubes do not present a flat surface to every attacker. Though they do
not appear to be in any rush to evade either.
>>Heating of asteroids in ESB before the visible bolt arrives. Go check
out
>>Brian Young's Turbolaser commentaries page ( www.snowhill.com/~by ). He
>>has frame grabs there. Something else I think I've said recently.
>That was not heating, it was just a reflection of the TL's radiated
>energy. The TL radiates a lot of energy in all directions anyway,
>since you can easily see it from any direction.
Really? And how can energy be reflected THROUGH an asteroid? The whole
asteroid was glowing in one of the screen grabs, with the TL bolt visible
behind the asteroid.
>Even if it is heat/melting, I reckon anything in close proximity to
>something which is as hot as the surface temperature of a star will
>melt, don't you.
Depends. Is the total radiated energy of the TL bolt enough to start
melting asteroids? If (as official sources state) a laser is part of the
TL bolt, that could be strong enough to start melting asteroids.
Of course, if the radiate denergy of TL botls was that high Hoth would be
a frozen lake, with all those small stars in use. But it wasn't, was it?
Infact, even areas affected by heavy fire were still pretty much snow
rather than ice.
>>How is the deterioration or long-range power of a TL bolt relevant to
>>whether or not it takes several seconds to reach it's maximum effective
>>range? Concentrate on the discussion in hand, not the tnagent you would
>>rather go down.
>
>You went this way, let me quote you:
>: at large ranges, TL bolts take several seconds to reach their
>:targets. We have never seen a TL fired at greater than close range where
>:the camera has remained on the bolt for the duration of the flight.
>so by your own admission, there is no on-screen evidence to support
>your dispersion theory, or by which conclusions can be drawn regarding
>dispersion.
The word EFFECTIVE means they can still be used against their intended
targets at that range. Since it takes several TL bolts against the
intended target to usually have any effect in the movies then to be
effective the bolts must be close to their original form. Dispersion
changes this form. Conclusion : at large ranges, to keep the original
form, TL botls must have some form of reducing dispersion. Of course, If
you want to stick with the movies, then TLs are only used at very short
range. Borg simply stay out of reach of your weapons whilst they fire from
large range
to weaken your shields until they can board and start assimilating
>>Eh? Basically, you were saying plasmas don't have any external
>>confinement(such as a laser beam). Now you are saying their lack of
>>dispertion is partly explained by containment by external factors (for
>>brownian motion)? Maybe the actual tibanna gas does play some part in
>>holding the form of the bolt though. I am not aware of any natural
gasses
>>that can keep an exact shape whilst travelling at high v in a vacuum
>>without external assistance, but who knows.
>I don't have to say anything: The observed fact is that TL bolts don't
>disperse. Officially it is unlcear whether the laser is fired or just
>use in the primer chamber.
Combined with light etc. implies (to me) that the light is transmitted
with the bolt. SECONDARY lasers heat the gas. What is left for the primary
laser to do, other than accompany the beam? This is supported by some
canon examples. SW defensive shielding is mad up of two component : Ray
shielding for energy beams and Particle shielding for particle weaponry. A
good general purpose weapon will have some effect on both. How can a
plasma affect Ray shielding? I explained all this many posts ago and you
continued debating without asking me to change my assumptions.
>It is therefore up to us to conjecture as to what may be preventing
>the dispersion, using the technologies we know to exist in the SW
>Universe. The conjectures we can make are as follows:
>
>A) The laser contains the plasma, but official sources don't claim
>this.
Official sources mention light combined with plasma. This is also
supported by reference to laser weaponry in script directions and weapon
naming. It used to be a laser, but adding plasma makes it better. Official
and canon sources do not contradict this possibility.
>B) The same field effects used to enhance engine power is used to
>enhance weapon power. Again official sources don't mention this.
anywhere whatsoever. Not even an implication.
>C) The dispersion is prevented by some inherent property of the gas
>used, otherwise why use Tibanna gas, why not use any gas which happens
>to be available.
Properties of the Tibanna gas mean it is the best to use for transferral
of energy to the target. But then, where does Tibanna gas come from? Gas
giants? What is the normal constitution of gas giants? Ammonia, sulphur,
carbon compounds. None of which have a tendency to remain cohesive at high
temperatures and velocity in a vacuum in gaseous form. Hell, they don't
even do it at room temperature in the lab.
>D) The bolt does disperse despite never being shown to do so, which
>means the dispersion is slow enough (relativistically) to the firing
>velocity that it does not matter.
Or we have never seen bolts at high enough ranges to see the dispersion.
We always see bolts at short range, taking a second or less to reach a
target. Still a possibility I suppose.
Of course, the upshot of all this is that the TL bolt probably has nothing
keeping it in it's bolt form, so there is ample opportunity for field
effects near the Borg vessel to deflect or weaken the bolt, which is the
ssame as saying the Borg can remove the laser containment.
>>And we see no apparent dispersion of the bolt whatsoever, so any
brownian
>>motion would have to be constrained to zero vectors, or directly in the
>>direction of travel.
>>Unlikely.
>No. Not unlikely. Official description of engine operation claim that
>exhaust particle-motion are constrained to specific vectors by field
>effects to enhance engine operation. So the technology does exist.
Yes, and those are ION engines. Even a high school student can work out
the field effects to direct ions. Similar field effects will help a plasma
disperse, not encourage it to keep some form. you know, opposite charge is
affected differently and all that?And how do you propose emitting these
field effects with the plasma? Yet more support for the laser accompanying
the plasma, which you ahve gone to some lengths to disprove.
>>But it can overwhelm the whole borg cube. A TL bolt can only affect a
>>small part of one side. Which is more dangerous, a screw thrown at a
>>multile-redundant circuit board, or the same same screw ground into
powder
>>and thrown at the same circuit board?
>Hundreds of TL bolts? In the space of a few seconds?
Hundreds? Care to show how. Give details of number of guns, firing times
etc. And how do you propose bringing every gun to bear on a target that is
not going to help you?
If ISDs trully use such intense batteries how come fighers were used
against them in ROTJ? Surely, if you can keep up such a barrage you could
effectively put up a wall of fire stopping anything getting through.
>>And that is even better for the Borg. Their ships are
multiple-redundant.
>>Take out one system, others take over. Hull penetration is not a major
>>problem for the Borg, unless you happen to hit a major system. That
takes
>>great luck, or prior knowledge of Borg ships. something SW does not have
>>(and definitly not the empire, as evidenced by the films).
>
>One hull penetration may not be a huge factor, but several hundred
>hull-breaches of superheated gas (temp close to surface temp of a
>star) in the space of a few seconds. So many systems will be knocked
>off-line in seconds, and so many thousands of drones killed, that over
>a short period of time, there just won't be enough drones or redundant
>systems to keep the ship operating.
If you could surround the ship, and if every TL bolt caused a hull breach.
Show us how they will.
>You also keep referring to FC, where something like forty Fed ships
>were attacking the single cube, from various angles. Yet you wish to
>measure that rate of damage to the damage from ONE turbolaser bolt,
>which I find flattering, but you must remember, that it will be dozens
>of TL bolts per second, not ONE.
No, I wish to compare it to the level of firepower shown in the movies. a
level that is nowhere near the hundreds of bolts per minute you keep
claiming. When have we EVER seen or heard of one ship firing anywhere near
as many shots at another ship as you keep claiming is possible?
>Also, if the Empire were to bring forty ships along (which is not
>nearly as big a resource drain for us as it was for you), it will be
>HUNDREDS of turbolaser bolts PER SECOND, maybe even THOUSANDS PER
>SECOND.
Of course, the Borg can bring a few more of their thousands of cubes. And
contrary to popular belief, they do fire back. But hark, is this not
external influence in what has until now been a ship-v-ship discussion?
Wasn't that voted an admission of defeat in the recent FAQ votes?
Why don't I resort to "Well, Borg simply run away from your ships and find
a nice little planet to start assimilating, which is after all the primary
purpose of the Borg". That sounds quite a nice one. And it even gives the
Borg acces to your weaponry, stardrives, shileding, communications tech.
Anything they want really.
Michael January
<Lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Aaron Parsons wrote in message <370664FC...@nospam.intercom.net>...
>
>>> >Even so, the plasma will take time to disperse, removing the laser
>>> >microseconds or nanoseconds before impact will make no discernible
>>> >difference to the impact of the superheated plasma
>>>
>>> Very little, but it will be more likely to 'splash', rebounding from
>the
>>> surface, spreading the energy over a greater area, doing less damage.
>>
>>Proof?
>
>
>Proof a fluidic material will act like a fluid when it encounters a harder
>surface? Yep, just about any science book you care to choose. The
>marvellous thing about this is, you can even try it yourself. Spray a
>hosepipe on a brick wall, see what happens. Probably a better example is
>sand blasting. High velocity sand is used to strip the surface layer of
>grime away rom buildings, bridges etc. It tends to spray back, so the
>operator has to hide, wear masks and stuff.
>
It's all a matter of how much KE you add. The same sand or water at
higher velocities will cut through the wall like butter.
A firemans hose has anough KE to knock down a grown man, and with a
bit more KE will easily break bones. The kind of pressure you have at
any reasonable depth in the ocean cuts through steel it isn't there.
Jonathan Boyd
----------
In article <7e7u47$o9d$5...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Lord Edam de Fromage"
<Lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >Firstly, the Borg were unable to deflect an ordinary stellar flare
>>> >despite it having already dissipated much of it's initial power over
>>> >several million kilometers.
>>>
>>> As I said, I believe there are problems with the oft-used Descent
>>> argument.
>>
>>And these are?
>
>
> On their way.
I can help - the ship was not a true Borg ship and therefore probably lacked
many of their abilities
>
>>> >Secondly, SW ships have electrical/magnetic/deflector shields or
>>> >whatever, which take several minutes to be knocked down by plasma
>>> >bolts. Eventually, the cumulative effects of several plasma bolts
>>> >deliver enough energy to the target to overcome this energy of the
>>> >shields. One may not be enough, two may not be, but after several
>>> >hundred shots at the rate of dozens per second, the cumulative amount
>>> >of energy begins to tell.
>>>
>>> Yes, but it takes many tens of multi-megatonnage weaponry to have real
>>> effect on a Borg cube (FC: many many Q and pho torps shot at the same
> spot
>>> of the cube), and they have a habit of repairing themselves when they
> are
>>> damaged. I seem to remember sying this before. What was your reply
> then?
>>
>>And the energy was applied in a different way with the photorps and
> qtorps.
>>Photorns and qtorps are not plasma bolts.
When torps strike shields, the description often used is of plasma flaring
up and around.
>>Thusly, when the Borg cube is bombarded by literally hundreds of
>> turbolasers,
>>as will happen (not a single turbolaser), the entire surface exposed
>> towards
>>the guns of the ISD will start slagging off or vaporizing, taking
>> redundancy
>>systems with it.
>
> When have we ever seen hundreds of Turbolasers used against another ship?
> Never. You are greatly exagerating your abilities.
And they will have shields up, which will adapt.
>
> The ISD does not require previous knowledge of a Borg ship
>>to throw a gargantuan amount of firepower into it - chance alone says
>> that
>>eventually they'll inflict more damage than the Borg can keep up with,
>> unless
>>the Borg can repair large amounts of their ship in very short amounts of
>> time
>>(like, a few cubic decameters a second or so, given turbolaser refire
>> rates
>>and a generic damage area).
This is assuming that :
1. The Borg do not adapt
2. They sit there and allow an ISD to shoot them
3. They do not fire back, destroying the ISD
Does this seem likely?
cgla...@hotmail.com
xr...@iafrica.com (Michael January) wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 15:46:26 +0100, "Lord Edam de Fromage"
> <Lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >Proof a fluidic material will act like a fluid when it encounters a harder
> >surface? Yep, just about any science book you care to choose. The
> >marvellous thing about this is, you can even try it yourself. Spray a
> >hosepipe on a brick wall, see what happens. Probably a better example is
> >sand blasting. High velocity sand is used to strip the surface layer of
> >grime away rom buildings, bridges etc. It tends to spray back, so the
> >operator has to hide, wear masks and stuff.
> It's all a matter of how much KE you add. The same sand or water at
> higher velocities will cut through the wall like butter.
>
> A firemans hose has anough KE to knock down a grown man, and with a
> bit more KE will easily break bones. The kind of pressure you have at
> any reasonable depth in the ocean cuts through steel it isn't there.
No foolin'. Has Edam never heard of an industrial water knife?
--
Chuckg
Michael January
<Lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Michael January wrote in message
><37077361...@ct-news.iafrica.com>...
>
>>>Very little, but it will be more likely to 'splash', rebounding from the
>>>surface, spreading the energy over a greater area, doing less damage.
>>perhaps, but one TL bolt does not have to do a great amount of damage,
>
>
>>it's the cumulative effect of dozens which will do the real damage,
>>although even one TL bolts is pretty poerful.
>
>
>Yes, but the cumulative affect will be less against the Borg than other
>ships, because they repair quickly. And many (most?) of your TLs are the
>less powerfull variety, so the knock out blows can only come every few
>seconds.
So it takes a bit longer, but given the rate of fire SW ships are
capable of, the cube cannot repair fast enough. A single ISD can bring
between 20 and 35 turbolasers to bear on most angles, and upto 60
turbolasers on a target that is dead ahead. Turbolasers have a firing
rate of 1 shot every two seconds. For a target that is dead ahead,
that is 30 turbolaser shot per second for ONE ISD.
>
>>>As I said, I believe there are problems with the oft-used Descent
>>>argument.
>
>>you still haven't mentioned what problems these are.
>
>
>Then explain exactly why you think Descent is not a problem and I will
>tell
>you if I agree or not. What I do not currently agree with is the assertion
>that TLs will be extremely dangerous because what appeared to be a stellar
>flare killed what appeared to be a borg cube.
What do I have to explain: Borg cube, stellar flare, BOOM. If you
don't like it, tell me why.
>
>>>Yes, but it takes many tens of multi-megatonnage weaponry to have real
>>>effect on a Borg cube (FC: many many Q and pho torps shot at the same
>spot
>>>of the cube), and they have a habit of repairing themselves when they
>are
>>>damaged. I seem to remember sying this before. What was your reply then?
>
>
>>1) rate of fire of TL bolts is much higher than Q torps or P torps.
>
>
>But is the rate of energy delivery to target similar?
Calcs on Wong and Saxtons pages put TL energy per shot way over that
of ST weapons. Even if we divide their figures by ten, it is still
roughly equivalent to what ST is capable of, per shot, and not even
from the heavy TL's.
>
>>2) Our weaponry is not multi-megaton, but multi-gigaton (canon quote).
>
>
>Source? Are you now deciding you do not wish to use the Saxton calcs for
>TL bolts firepower?
Slave-ship, mentions multi-gigaton recoil on each firing of a single
Turbolaser cannon. If only half this energy is delivered to the
target, it is still in the gigaton range.
>
>>3) Your ST ships were engaged in a self-defeating strategy by
>>targeting ONE spot, since as you said, the ship had redundant systems
>>located elsewhere.
>
>When? In FC? Because they were targetting the one spot Locutus knew was
>dangerous. That means prior knowledge (SW does not have), or enough
>firepower and maneuverability to put similar firepower on every single
>spot of the borg cube. But how do you know where the spot even is? Borg
>ships all appear symmetrical. You can't tell which side is which. So you
>have to blanket a whole cube in firepower, from one ship at one side. And
>have a cumulative effect similar to many many torpedoes on that spot.
Since the TL fire will virtually blanket half the cube (if only one
ISD is used) then the cumulative damage will be significant. If two or
three ISD's are used, then it won't even be a consideration.
A stellar flare contains only a fraction of the energy that it's
parent star produces, and there was nothing special about the star in
Descent 2. We also know that a single ISD's power-plant produces the
same energy as a small to average sized star. Now if only a small
fraction of that energy is fired at the cube, then it will be
sufficient, unless you wish to conjecture that a single stellar flare
from an average star contains more energy than the star itself.
>
>
>Probably. But have you remembered to consider the loss of the powerfull
>laser component of the TL bolt?
We still don't whether the laser is actually fired, or that it is the
prime component of the weapon. That is YOUR conjecture, one that is
not supported by official sources. If the laser was the prime
component of the weapon, why bother with the Tibanna gas at all.
>
>Really? And how can energy be reflected THROUGH an asteroid? The whole
>asteroid was glowing in one of the screen grabs, with the TL bolt visible
>behind the asteroid.
>
>>Even if it is heat/melting, I reckon anything in close proximity to
>>something which is as hot as the surface temperature of a star will
>>melt, don't you.
>
>
>Depends. Is the total radiated energy of the TL bolt enough to start
>melting asteroids? If (as official sources state) a laser is part of the
>TL bolt, that could be strong enough to start melting asteroids.
Quite possibly there is an 'invisible' component to the weapon, but
there is no reason to believe that it is the laser, it may be the
faster particles, or leading edge of the plasma, not just the portion
of the plasma that is visible to the viewer.
>
>Of course, if the radiate denergy of TL botls was that high Hoth would be
>a frozen lake, with all those small stars in use. But it wasn't, was it?
>Infact, even areas affected by heavy fire were still pretty much snow
>rather than ice.
No turbolaser fire was used on Hoth, the snowspeeders were fittd with
low-powered laser cannons, and the AT-AT's were fitted with
laser-cannons of a slightly higher firewpower than the snowspeeders.
>
>>>How is the deterioration or long-range power of a TL bolt relevant to
>>>whether or not it takes several seconds to reach it's maximum effective
>>>range? Concentrate on the discussion in hand, not the tnagent you would
>>>rather go down.
>>
>>You went this way, let me quote you:
>>: at large ranges, TL bolts take several seconds to reach their
>>:targets. We have never seen a TL fired at greater than close range where
>>:the camera has remained on the bolt for the duration of the flight.
>>so by your own admission, there is no on-screen evidence to support
>>your dispersion theory, or by which conclusions can be drawn regarding
>>dispersion.
>
>
>The word EFFECTIVE means they can still be used against their intended
>targets at that range. Since it takes several TL bolts against the
>intended target to usually have any effect in the movies then to be
>effective the bolts must be close to their original form. Dispersion
>changes this form. Conclusion : at large ranges, to keep the original
>form, TL botls must have some form of reducing dispersion. Of course, If
>you want to stick with the movies, then TLs are only used at very short
>range. Borg simply stay out of reach of your weapons whilst they fire from
>large range
>to weaken your shields until they can board and start assimilating
What eveidence is there for long range Borg weapons?
We have no way of knowing whether TL's disperse or not, or why they
disperse or not. This is all conjecture, we do know that TL's are
capable of being used at least at orbital ranges (for BDZ for
example).
>
>>>Eh? Basically, you were saying plasmas don't have any external
>>>confinement(such as a laser beam). Now you are saying their lack of
>>>dispertion is partly explained by containment by external factors (for
>>>brownian motion)? Maybe the actual tibanna gas does play some part in
>>>holding the form of the bolt though. I am not aware of any natural
>gasses
>>>that can keep an exact shape whilst travelling at high v in a vacuum
>>>without external assistance, but who knows.
>
>
>>I don't have to say anything: The observed fact is that TL bolts don't
>>disperse. Officially it is unlcear whether the laser is fired or just
>>use in the primer chamber.
>
>Combined with light etc. implies (to me) that the light is transmitted
>with the bolt. SECONDARY lasers heat the gas. What is left for the primary
>laser to do, other than accompany the beam? This is supported by some
>canon examples. SW defensive shielding is mad up of two component : Ray
>shielding for energy beams and Particle shielding for particle weaponry. A
>good general purpose weapon will have some effect on both. How can a
>plasma affect Ray shielding? I explained all this many posts ago and you
>continued debating without asking me to change my assumptions.
SW: The Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology, 1997:
Taim & Bak XX-9 Turbolasers are large-scale energy weapons carrying
enough punch to cut through the shields and thick armor plating of
modern warships. Banks of turbolasers, coordinated through
computerized fire-control systems, deliver sustained volleys of
energy...
*and*
Turbolasers are two-stage supercharged laser cannons. The **small
primary laser** produces an energy beam that enters the turbolaser's
main actuator, where it interacts with a stream of energized blaster
gas to produce an intense blast. The energy bolt's destructive power
is incredible, and the barrel's galven coils focus the beam, providing
a range that is double or triple that of conventional laser cannons...
Note the use of the words 'small primary laser' which enters an
actuation chamber. After that plasma still has to be focused through
'galven coils'. How is the 'small primary laser' going to pass through
a coil. The coils are what focus the bolt, preventing dispersion for
long ranges.
>
>Properties of the Tibanna gas mean it is the best to use for transferral
>of energy to the target. But then, where does Tibanna gas come from? Gas
>giants? What is the normal constitution of gas giants? Ammonia, sulphur,
>carbon compounds. None of which have a tendency to remain cohesive at high
>temperatures and velocity in a vacuum in gaseous form. Hell, they don't
>even do it at room temperature in the lab.
Ammonia, sulphur and carbon compounds are never mentioned as
components. If that was all that was required, why have mining
installations specially to mine and process Tibanna gas?
>
>
>Of course, the upshot of all this is that the TL bolt probably has nothing
>keeping it in it's bolt form, so there is ample opportunity for field
>effects near the Borg vessel to deflect or weaken the bolt, which is the
>ssame as saying the Borg can remove the laser containment.
Possibly, but those field effects are only as good as the energy used
to maintain the field (Conservation of Energy), and if they weren't
sufficeent to protect the cube against a stellar flare ...
>>Hundreds of TL bolts? In the space of a few seconds?
>
>
>Hundreds? Care to show how. Give details of number of guns, firing times
>etc. And how do you propose bringing every gun to bear on a target that is
>not going to help you?
You already admitted that Borg are not given to evasive action. I will
quote brian Young's page to you (since you are so fond of referring to
this page)
[quoting:]
The common belief is that ISDs carry 60 turbolasers. This is very
conservative, since 64 cannons are mounted immediately
lateral to the command superstructure alone, with scores covering the
rest of the hull. However, if we assume there are only 60
cannons, then they must average around 8 million terawatts of
firepower each. This is comperable to the detonation of a 1900
Megaton nuclear bomb every second.
[end quote]
For firing rate, I will quote SW Ess guide to Weapons and Tech:
[quoting:]
capacitor banks supplement the turbine's power feed.... Turbolasers
use a delay of at least two seconds between shots to allow the
capacitors to build up an adequate charge.
[end quote]
So each TL can fire once every two seconds, and given the fact that it
can bring 30 to bear (assuming half of the minimum no of TLs quoted)
then it is equivalent to 15 shots per second, compared to the E-E's
firing rate of 12 photon torps every three seconds. Also, according to
the more conservative figures on Brian Young's page, the MEDIUM
batteries deliver a punch of 30 megatons per shot.
So that works out to 15 x 30 = 450 megatons per second, compared to 12
x 64 megatons every three seconds. (assuming 100% efficiency for
quantum torps), or about 256 megatons per second.
That puts the E-E at about half the firepower of an ISD, assuming
conservative figures for the ISD and only medium turbolaser batteries,
no laser cannons, no missiles, no ion cannons, and no fighters. For
E-E I assumed 100% weapons efficiency.
>
>If ISDs trully use such intense batteries how come fighers were used
>against them in ROTJ? Surely, if you can keep up such a barrage you could
>effectively put up a wall of fire stopping anything getting through.
Fighters are highly maneuvrable, to put up a wall of fire at a range
of 10,000km you would need millions of TL's, but that is not the
point, the fire is focused on a target, not into an expanding wall.
>>
>>One hull penetration may not be a huge factor, but several hundred
>>hull-breaches of superheated gas (temp close to surface temp of a
>>star) in the space of a few seconds. So many systems will be knocked
>>off-line in seconds, and so many thousands of drones killed, that over
>>a short period of time, there just won't be enough drones or redundant
>>systems to keep the ship operating.
>
>
>If you could surround the ship, and if every TL bolt caused a hull breach.
>Show us how they will.
The Borg shields have been shown to be overcome by plasma already. 30
Megatons is enough to ensure more than just a hull breach once the
shields are overcome.
>
>>You also keep referring to FC, where something like forty Fed ships
>>were attacking the single cube, from various angles. Yet you wish to
>>measure that rate of damage to the damage from ONE turbolaser bolt,
>>which I find flattering, but you must remember, that it will be dozens
>>of TL bolts per second, not ONE.
>
>
>No, I wish to compare it to the level of firepower shown in the movies. a
>level that is nowhere near the hundreds of bolts per minute you keep
>claiming. When have we EVER seen or heard of one ship firing anywhere near
>as many shots at another ship as you keep claiming is possible?
see above for no of TL's per ISD and firing rate.
>
>>Also, if the Empire were to bring forty ships along (which is not
>>nearly as big a resource drain for us as it was for you), it will be
>>HUNDREDS of turbolaser bolts PER SECOND, maybe even THOUSANDS PER
>>SECOND.
>
>
>Of course, the Borg can bring a few more of their thousands of cubes. And
>contrary to popular belief, they do fire back. But hark, is this not
>external influence in what has until now been a ship-v-ship discussion?
>Wasn't that voted an admission of defeat in the recent FAQ votes?
It was you that brought FC into this, I am quite happy with one ISD vs
one Borg cube, since one ISD has been shown CONSERVATIVELY to outpower
the E-E significantly.
By the way: thank you for referring me to Brian Young's pages.
>
>Why don't I resort to "Well, Borg simply run away from your ships and find
>a nice little planet to start assimilating, which is after all the primary
>purpose of the Borg". That sounds quite a nice one. And it even gives the
>Borg acces to your weaponry, stardrives, shileding, communications tech.
>Anything they want really.
If they can get past the planetary shields, which I doubt. Several
ISD's (which are individually more powerful than the E-E) cannot
accomplish this. But that is a whole 'nother discussion
Lord Edam de Fromage
>So it takes a bit longer, but given the rate of fire SW ships are
>capable of, the cube cannot repair fast enough. A single ISD can bring
>between 20 and 35 turbolasers to bear on most angles, and upto 60
>turbolasers on a target that is dead ahead. Turbolasers have a firing
>rate of 1 shot every two seconds. For a target that is dead ahead,
>that is 30 turbolaser shot per second for ONE ISD.
All very nice on paper, but when have we EVER seen ISDs fire more than 10
turbolasers at once? And if you implying you may have more than one ISD,
remember the Borg have been shown to use Hundreds of cubes against enemies
they consider a real threat.
>>you if I agree or not. What I do not currently agree with is the
assertion
>>that TLs will be extremely dangerous because what appeared to be a
stellar
>>flare killed what appeared to be a borg cube.
>What do I have to explain: Borg cube, stellar flare, BOOM. If you
>don't like it, tell me why.
Well, how do we know your TL bolts will be as damaging as a stellar flare
for one? How do we know there was not something else going on at the time
that caused the ship to explode? How do we know the stellar flare was a
normal stellar flare?
>>>1) rate of fire of TL bolts is much higher than Q torps or P torps.
>>
>>But is the rate of energy delivery to target similar?
>Calcs on Wong and Saxtons pages put TL energy per shot way over that
>of ST weapons. Even if we divide their figures by ten, it is still
>roughly equivalent to what ST is capable of, per shot, and not even
>from the heavy TL's.
Really? Multi terawatt, yes, but actual energy is a few thousand
terajoules. ONE photon torp is 20 Megatonnes (nearly 100 thousand
terajoules), Q-torps are stronger still, and it took many of them at one
exact spot to cause a borg cube to explode. Until then, even after hours
of fighting (minimum, possibly days), the borg cube was not even
scratched. And the Borg will be fighting back all the time.
>>>2) Our weaponry is not multi-megaton, but multi-gigaton (canon quote).
>>Source? Are you now deciding you do not wish to use the Saxton calcs for
>>TL bolts firepower?
>
>Slave-ship, mentions multi-gigaton recoil on each firing of a single
>Turbolaser cannon. If only half this energy is delivered to the
>target, it is still in the gigaton range.
Since when has slave ship been cannon?
contradicted by canon calculations, as I was told by Poe and chucky. If
that is the way it is to be, then it is always that way. It cannot be
reversed when the official numbers help your argument.
>Since the TL fire will virtually blanket half the cube (if only one
>ISD is used) then the cumulative damage will be significant. If two or
>three ISD's are used, then it won't even be a consideration.
Let's see. A heavy turbolaser Barrel is 50m in diameter (source: SWICS).
Assume the TL bolt increases in diameter once it leaves the barrel(though
we
have never seen this), each turboalser bolt will affect approx 10,000 m^2
of surface.
Assuming a 0.5km size borg cube, this means it takes 25 heavy TL bolts AT
THE SAME TIME, CONTINUOUSLY to blanket the Borg cube. This is highly
generous, and assumes the Borg cube is straight on to your guns and
completely stationary. Your weaker TL bolts are no where near this large,
so it will most likely take over 1000 bolts to blanket one side of the
cube.
>A stellar flare contains only a fraction of the energy that it's
>parent star produces, and there was nothing special about the star in
>Descent 2. We also know that a single ISD's power-plant produces the
>same energy as a small to average sized star. Now if only a small
>fraction of that energy is fired at the cube, then it will be
>sufficient, unless you wish to conjecture that a single stellar flare
>from an average star contains more energy than the star itself.
All the logical counters to Descent 2 have been brought up before. Do a
search on dejanews to see them. You are not using anything new.
And remember, the powerplant of any SW ship has to provide the energy to
accelerate to hyperspace, as well as energy for the shields, weapons, life
support, and anything else that is needed. The accepted energy
calculations for SW weponry are available on Wong's page and Young's page.
These are nowhere near that of a small star ( a very vague energy
reference. What is considered a small star in sw?)
>>Depends. Is the total radiated energy of the TL bolt enough to start
>>melting asteroids? If (as official sources state) a laser is part of the
>>TL bolt, that could be strong enough to start melting asteroids.
>Quite possibly there is an 'invisible' component to the weapon, but
>there is no reason to believe that it is the laser, it may be the
>faster particles, or leading edge of the plasma, not just the portion
>of the plasma that is visible to the viewer.
Hokay.
>>Of course, if the radiate denergy of TL botls was that high Hoth would
be
>>a frozen lake, with all those small stars in use. But it wasn't, was it?
>>Infact, even areas affected by heavy fire were still pretty much snow
>>rather than ice.
>No turbolaser fire was used on Hoth, the snowspeeders were fittd with
>low-powered laser cannons, and the AT-AT's were fitted with
>laser-cannons of a slightly higher firewpower than the snowspeeders.
Really? I seem to remeber reading somewhere the class II heavy laser canon
of the AT-AT was identical to a light turbolaser. This would seem to be
the case. They look like turbolasers, they sound like turbolasers, canon
sources refer to them using the same terminology as they do turbolasers,
and they act like turbolasers.
>>The word EFFECTIVE means they can still be used against their intended
>>targets at that range. Since it takes several TL bolts against the
>>intended target to usually have any effect in the movies then to be
>>effective the bolts must be close to their original form. Dispersion
>>changes this form. Conclusion : at large ranges, to keep the original
>>form, TL botls must have some form of reducing dispersion. Of course, If
>>you want to stick with the movies, then TLs are only used at very short
>>range. Borg simply stay out of reach of your weapons whilst they fire
from
>>large range
>>to weaken your shields until they can board and start assimilating
>What eveidence is there for long range Borg weapons?
Depends on how you interpret the visuals. They have cutting beams, tractor
beams etc. that work at decent ranges. They also take technology they do
not have and use it when they see the need. If they see the need for long
range weapons on their ships, they will use their knowledge of Federation
and Delta-quad tech.
>Turbolasers are two-stage supercharged laser cannons. The **small
>primary laser** produces an energy beam that enters the turbolaser's
>main actuator, where it interacts with a stream of energized blaster
>gas to produce an intense blast. The energy bolt's destructive power
>is incredible, and the barrel's galven coils focus the beam, providing
>a range that is double or triple that of conventional laser cannons...
supercharged LASER canon. If the laser was not a component of destruction,
they would logically be plasma cannons. How does this contradict the
theory of the laser accompaning the beam? It would indicate opposite.
>Note the use of the words 'small primary laser' which enters an
>actuation chamber. After that plasma still has to be focused through
>'galven coils'. How is the 'small primary laser' going to pass through
>a coil. The coils are what focus the bolt, preventing dispersion for
>long ranges.
I can't seem to find the source giving it as secondary beams igniting a
plasma, so I will stop that line of reasoning. But, ALL the sources say
'combined with', implying a combination of laser and plasma going to the
target.
How and why would galven coils prevent a laser beam exiting the weapon?
And how do you explain the references to laser tips and laser focusing
crystals in the weaponry?
>>Properties of the Tibanna gas mean it is the best to use for transferral
>>of energy to the target. But then, where does Tibanna gas come from? Gas
>>giants? What is the normal constitution of gas giants? Ammonia, sulphur,
>>carbon compounds. None of which have a tendency to remain cohesive at
high
>>temperatures and velocity in a vacuum in gaseous form. Hell, they don't
>>even do it at room temperature in the lab.
>Ammonia, sulphur and carbon compounds are never mentioned as
>components. If that was all that was required, why have mining
>installations specially to mine and process Tibanna gas?
Because they require the more exotic forms of the gasses that are most
abundant in Gas giants. Why should SW refer to every 20th century compound
the same way? They are from a long time ago and a galaxy far away.
Analogy: The Eskimoes have 30 words for snow. But it is still snow.
Changing the name does not change the properties.
>>Hundreds? Care to show how. Give details of number of guns, firing times
>>etc. And how do you propose bringing every gun to bear on a target that
is
>>not going to help you?
>You already admitted that Borg are not given to evasive action. I will
>quote brian Young's page to you (since you are so fond of referring to
>this page)
>
>[quoting:]
>The common belief is that ISDs carry 60 turbolasers. This is very
>conservative, since 64 cannons are mounted immediately
>lateral to the command superstructure alone, with scores covering the
>rest of the hull. However, if we assume there are only 60
>cannons, then they must average around 8 million terawatts of
>firepower each. This is comperable to the detonation of a 1900
>Megaton nuclear bomb every second.
>[end quote]
Yes, and theoretically the Borg can just warp about until you run out of
shots. When ahve we SEEN such usage?
>For firing rate, I will quote SW Ess guide to Weapons and Tech:
>[quoting:]
>capacitor banks supplement the turbine's power feed.... Turbolasers
>use a delay of at least two seconds between shots to allow the
>capacitors to build up an adequate charge.
>[end quote]
>
>So each TL can fire once every two seconds, and given the fact that it
>can bring 30 to bear (assuming half of the minimum no of TLs quoted)
>then it is equivalent to 15 shots per second, compared to the E-E's
>firing rate of 12 photon torps every three seconds. Also, according to
>the more conservative figures on Brian Young's page, the MEDIUM
>batteries deliver a punch of 30 megatons per shot.
There were more ships than the E-E in FC, and 30 megatonnes is little more
than a Photon torpedo. It took many many photon torpedoes and the much
stronger Q-torps all in the same spot at almost the same time to do any
damage. Can your ISD do the same?
>So that works out to 15 x 30 = 450 megatons per second, compared to 12
>x 64 megatons every three seconds. (assuming 100% efficiency for
>quantum torps), or about 256 megatons per second.
FC, the whole fleet is ordered to fire on ONE SINGLE SPOT. your
theoretical claculations are nice, but you ahve ignored all the evidence
from one of the primary sources.
>That puts the E-E at about half the firepower of an ISD, assuming
>conservative figures for the ISD and only medium turbolaser batteries,
>no laser cannons, no missiles, no ion cannons, and no fighters. For
>E-E I assumed 100% weapons efficiency.
And the E-E needed the help of the fleet to defeat a Borg cube. You have
just shown you might possibly be able to hit a scout sphere. Wonderfull.
Shame the cubes are the main ships used for attack and defence.
And are the targetting systems of TLs accurate enough to place every
single shot from your 30 cannons in the same spot? Give sources.
>>If ISDs trully use such intense batteries how come fighers were used
>>against them in ROTJ? Surely, if you can keep up such a barrage you
could
>>effectively put up a wall of fire stopping anything getting through.
>Fighters are highly maneuvrable, to put up a wall of fire at a range
>of 10,000km you would need millions of TL's, but that is not the
>point, the fire is focused on a target, not into an expanding wall.
Who mentioned 10,000km? I am talking about ROTJ, where we see fighters
flying close to, along and between ISDs. How about a wall of fire ample to
protect your own bridge? Evidence would indicate they cannot even do this,
even when ordered to do so by the fleet commander.
>>If you could surround the ship, and if every TL bolt caused a hull
breach.
>>Show us how they will.
>The Borg shields have been shown to be overcome by plasma already. 30
>Megatons is enough to ensure more than just a hull breach once the
>shields are overcome.
30 megatonnes is slightly more than one photon torp. It took many in one
spot to do any damage. It is reasonable to assume some ship in the fleet
in FC would use torpedoes in the hours before teh E-E arrived, but there
were no scratches on the Borg cube.
>>No, I wish to compare it to the level of firepower shown in the movies.
a
>>level that is nowhere near the hundreds of bolts per minute you keep
>>claiming. When have we EVER seen or heard of one ship firing anywhere
near
>>as many shots at another ship as you keep claiming is possible?
>see above for no of TL's per ISD and firing rate.
Yes, and see above for why that is wrong. Where is it SHOWN that they fire
every single TL in a very short period? That is what I originally asked
for, not the theoretical fire rates. Remeber one of the reasons 90% of
Trek tech is disallowed? Because it is never shown to be used. Where is
this massive fire rate SHOWN to be used, when they need it (such as when
being attacked by a large Rebel force)
>>Of course, the Borg can bring a few more of their thousands of cubes.
And
>>contrary to popular belief, they do fire back. But hark, is this not
>>external influence in what has until now been a ship-v-ship discussion?
>>Wasn't that voted an admission of defeat in the recent FAQ votes?
>It was you that brought FC into this, I am quite happy with one ISD vs
>one Borg cube, since one ISD has been shown CONSERVATIVELY to outpower
>the E-E significantly.
Yes, and one Borg cube has been shown to be more than a match for a whole
fleet of vessels similar to the E-E for many hours without even a scratch.
Why are you waffling about me bringing in FC? I am talking about you
suddenly deciding to bring in another 40 ISDs from nowhere. Of course, if
we are to disallow canon evidence I hereby choose to diallow any canon
reference to the ships commonly referred to as ISDs for the purpose of
this debate. So. How are you going to win again?:)
Fingo...@webtv.net
fuction...ie mass battery v/s Heavies and fighter suppression both of
these targets are sub light when engaging so TL's need not be aas fast
as phaser fire or photon torpedoes...Its comparing apples to oranges
fellas
The Federation design of ships is now both exloratory and Small heavily
armed single ships I've not seen one episode where snub fighters were
launched from a carrier ship and used as shield suppresion or on
straffing runs against any vessels what so ever Tacticle fighters don't
exist within Fed Space as far as I seen..
The turbo laser v/s phaser is a moot point erhaps the shielding of
starwars fleet craft iis stronger or weaker depending and yes mabe the
phaser can puch holes all through the fleets of Coruscunt or which ever
source world from star wars but I doubt even the Fed's fleets could with
stand massed attack from Awings, Ywings, Xwings and Bwings while
sustaining fire from heavie cruisers and dreadnaughts all at the same
time ....large scale engagements are what Starwars ships are designed
for two navies facing off..not the single or dual ship engagements seen
on startrek...
Custer believesd in the supperiority of his rifles at the little big
horn but the weight of numbers negated the effectiveness of his
assault...he lost that engagement even though his rifles were far
superior to anything the Souix had he still lost....
There is something to be said about a swarm of angry hornets all trying
to sting you at once..You may have the biggest gun in the universe but
still you can only get so many before they innevitably get you....
Aaron Parsons
Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
> Michael January wrote in message <3708a707...@ct-news.iafrica.com>...
> >So it takes a bit longer, but given the rate of fire SW ships are
> >capable of, the cube cannot repair fast enough. A single ISD can bring
> >between 20 and 35 turbolasers to bear on most angles, and upto 60
> >turbolasers on a target that is dead ahead. Turbolasers have a firing
> >rate of 1 shot every two seconds. For a target that is dead ahead,
> >that is 30 turbolaser shot per second for ONE ISD.
>
> All very nice on paper, but when have we EVER seen ISDs fire more than 10
> turbolasers at once? And if you implying you may have more than one ISD,
> remember the Borg have been shown to use Hundreds of cubes against enemies
> they consider a real threat.
Are you implying that because we've never seen an ISD fire more than 10
turbolasers at once then they can't? That doesn't make sense at all. If a
turbolaser battery has a refire rate of 1 round every 2 seconds, and if we
ONLY count an ISD's light turbolasers, and we count the
bow/starboard/port/rear as firing areas of equal density in guns, then we've
got 30 guns covering each spot. If an ISD only fired ten guns at once per
"firing time" of 2 seconds, that means that for every firing quarter, ten guns
are firing and twenty are at rest. Does that make sense at ALL? Why in the
world would you, in a life-or-death combat situation, fire only at third of
your guns into a specific quarter and just let the rest sit there? And this
isn't even counting the monster turrets on the starboard and port topdecks!
>
>
> >>you if I agree or not. What I do not currently agree with is the
> assertion
> >>that TLs will be extremely dangerous because what appeared to be a
> stellar
> >>flare killed what appeared to be a borg cube.
>
> >What do I have to explain: Borg cube, stellar flare, BOOM. If you
> >don't like it, tell me why.
>
> Well, how do we know your TL bolts will be as damaging as a stellar flare
> for one? How do we know there was not something else going on at the time
> that caused the ship to explode? How do we know the stellar flare was a
> normal stellar flare?
What's not a "normal" stellar flare? Does the Descent stellar flare look like
an anomalous stellar flare? In comparison with the Borg Cube, the stellar
flare isn't even a BIG one compared to the biggest stellar flares, called
Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs). We know the energy of our TL bolts - they can
vaporize 40m iron asteroids in a tenth of a second. We all know the asteroid
calcs. So, if the Descent solar flare was real (and as far as I know we have
NO reason to think it was anomalous), how much energy would IT have, compared
to a turbolaser bolt?
>
>
> >>>1) rate of fire of TL bolts is much higher than Q torps or P torps.
> >>
> >>But is the rate of energy delivery to target similar?
>
> >Calcs on Wong and Saxtons pages put TL energy per shot way over that
> >of ST weapons. Even if we divide their figures by ten, it is still
> >roughly equivalent to what ST is capable of, per shot, and not even
> >from the heavy TL's.
>
> Really? Multi terawatt, yes, but actual energy is a few thousand
> terajoules. ONE photon torp is 20 Megatonnes (nearly 100 thousand
> terajoules), Q-torps are stronger still, and it took many of them at one
> exact spot to cause a borg cube to explode. Until then, even after hours
> of fighting (minimum, possibly days), the borg cube was not even
> scratched. And the Borg will be fighting back all the time.
20 megatonnes per what? The asteroid calcs put a light turbolaser's energy at
20 megatons per second, with a 1 shot per 2 seconds firing rate. The heavy
turbolasers output 2000 megatons per second with an unknown refire rate (if
similar to the DS's turbolasers, 1 per second). A single broadside of an
ISD's weapons would deliver 14,000 megatons per second, or the equivalent of
seven HUNDRED photon torpedoes, assuming 100% efficiency (of course this will
not happen). Did the Federation ships ever apply that much firepower in that
short an amount of time? We never saw it. However, conveniently, the only
time they DID amass their firepower on a single spot, the tactic actually
WORKED... so what will happen when a Borg cube sucks down 14,000 megatons, and
two seconds later, another 14,000? (thanks to Wong's page for the stats)
>
>
> >>>2) Our weaponry is not multi-megaton, but multi-gigaton (canon quote).
>
> >>Source? Are you now deciding you do not wish to use the Saxton calcs for
> >>TL bolts firepower?
> >
> >Slave-ship, mentions multi-gigaton recoil on each firing of a single
> >Turbolaser cannon. If only half this energy is delivered to the
> >target, it is still in the gigaton range.
>
> Since when has slave ship been cannon?
> contradicted by canon calculations, as I was told by Poe and chucky. If
> that is the way it is to be, then it is always that way. It cannot be
> reversed when the official numbers help your argument.
Slave ship is official. I don't know if or if not canon calculations overrule
Slave ship. I would assume they do NOT. Why? Because while Slave Ship
states, quite plainly, the recoil of a turbolaser, we don't know whether or
not the turbolasers firing on the asteroids were, indeed, at full power. They
were probably only at enough power to clear away the asteroids - any more
would be wasteful. The canon-based calculations, then, in this event, would
be ultra-ultra conservative... which is, of course, good.
>
>
> >Since the TL fire will virtually blanket half the cube (if only one
> >ISD is used) then the cumulative damage will be significant. If two or
> >three ISD's are used, then it won't even be a consideration.
>
> Let's see. A heavy turbolaser Barrel is 50m in diameter (source: SWICS).
> Assume the TL bolt increases in diameter once it leaves the barrel(though
> we
> have never seen this), each turboalser bolt will affect approx 10,000 m^2
> of surface.
> Assuming a 0.5km size borg cube, this means it takes 25 heavy TL bolts AT
> THE SAME TIME, CONTINUOUSLY to blanket the Borg cube. This is highly
> generous, and assumes the Borg cube is straight on to your guns and
> completely stationary. Your weaker TL bolts are no where near this large,
> so it will most likely take over 1000 bolts to blanket one side of the
> cube.
Why do we need to blanket one side of the cube instantly? Where did you get
the affection surface area from? What's the range of the cube? Why did you
assume (although you noted) that the bolt would disperse? We don't need to
blanket the cube with fire to incapacitate it. All we need to do is throw
more energy at it than it can handle, which means just firing over and over
again. Sure it'll fire back, but what's it going to do to a ship that can
handle burst energy capacities in the range of 24,000 megatons? Rake the cube
with turbolaser fire, and after awhile, it'll slag away or vaporize.
>
>
> >A stellar flare contains only a fraction of the energy that it's
> >parent star produces, and there was nothing special about the star in
> >Descent 2. We also know that a single ISD's power-plant produces the
> >same energy as a small to average sized star. Now if only a small
> >fraction of that energy is fired at the cube, then it will be
> >sufficient, unless you wish to conjecture that a single stellar flare
> >from an average star contains more energy than the star itself.
>
> All the logical counters to Descent 2 have been brought up before. Do a
> search on dejanews to see them. You are not using anything new.
>
> And remember, the powerplant of any SW ship has to provide the energy to
> accelerate to hyperspace, as well as energy for the shields, weapons, life
> support, and anything else that is needed. The accepted energy
> calculations for SW weponry are available on Wong's page and Young's page.
> These are nowhere near that of a small star ( a very vague energy
> reference. What is considered a small star in sw?)
Well, of course the weaponry power levels may not be in the range of a small
star. An ISD also has to kinda do something like push itself around without
any mass lightening fields, not an easy feat.
>
>
> >>Depends. Is the total radiated energy of the TL bolt enough to start
> >>melting asteroids? If (as official sources state) a laser is part of the
> >>TL bolt, that could be strong enough to start melting asteroids.
>
> >Quite possibly there is an 'invisible' component to the weapon, but
> >there is no reason to believe that it is the laser, it may be the
> >faster particles, or leading edge of the plasma, not just the portion
> >of the plasma that is visible to the viewer.
>
> Hokay.
>
> >>Of course, if the radiate denergy of TL botls was that high Hoth would
> be
> >>a frozen lake, with all those small stars in use. But it wasn't, was it?
> >>Infact, even areas affected by heavy fire were still pretty much snow
> >>rather than ice.
>
> >No turbolaser fire was used on Hoth, the snowspeeders were fittd with
> >low-powered laser cannons, and the AT-AT's were fitted with
> >laser-cannons of a slightly higher firewpower than the snowspeeders.
>
> Really? I seem to remeber reading somewhere the class II heavy laser canon
> of the AT-AT was identical to a light turbolaser. This would seem to be
> the case. They look like turbolasers, they sound like turbolasers, canon
> sources refer to them using the same terminology as they do turbolasers,
> and they act like turbolasers.
I'd like a source, of course. Later in the days of the Empire (Dark Empire, I
think) an AT-AT's weapons were actually replaced with turbolaser cannons - if
this statement were true, then it wouldn't make any sense to replace weapons
that you were already equivalent to.
>
>
> >>The word EFFECTIVE means they can still be used against their intended
> >>targets at that range. Since it takes several TL bolts against the
> >>intended target to usually have any effect in the movies then to be
> >>effective the bolts must be close to their original form. Dispersion
> >>changes this form. Conclusion : at large ranges, to keep the original
> >>form, TL botls must have some form of reducing dispersion. Of course, If
> >>you want to stick with the movies, then TLs are only used at very short
> >>range. Borg simply stay out of reach of your weapons whilst they fire
> from
> >>large range
>
> >>to weaken your shields until they can board and start assimilating
>
> >What eveidence is there for long range Borg weapons?
>
> Depends on how you interpret the visuals. They have cutting beams, tractor
> beams etc. that work at decent ranges. They also take technology they do
> not have and use it when they see the need. If they see the need for long
> range weapons on their ships, they will use their knowledge of Federation
> and Delta-quad tech.
But why DON'T they use it when if they DID use it it would give them a huge
military advantage?
>
>
> >Turbolasers are two-stage supercharged laser cannons. The **small
> >primary laser** produces an energy beam that enters the turbolaser's
> >main actuator, where it interacts with a stream of energized blaster
> >gas to produce an intense blast. The energy bolt's destructive power
> >is incredible, and the barrel's galven coils focus the beam, providing
> >a range that is double or triple that of conventional laser cannons...
>
> supercharged LASER canon. If the laser was not a component of destruction,
> they would logically be plasma cannons. How does this contradict the
> theory of the laser accompaning the beam? It would indicate opposite.
It doesn't. SOTE makes a reference that the visible bolt that we see is an
"ionized marker" for the actual damaging blast. I have been halfway
considering the validity of the marker being something of a "target
confirmer"; when targeting computers detect that a throw ionization marker
will, indeed, achieve its target at the angle and velocity that the marker was
thrown at, the turbolaser THEN releases its damaging blast (like conserving
energy). Of course, this is only a theory in progress, and is not valid just
as of yet.
>
>
> >Note the use of the words 'small primary laser' which enters an
> >actuation chamber. After that plasma still has to be focused through
> >'galven coils'. How is the 'small primary laser' going to pass through
> >a coil. The coils are what focus the bolt, preventing dispersion for
> >long ranges.
>
> I can't seem to find the source giving it as secondary beams igniting a
> plasma, so I will stop that line of reasoning. But, ALL the sources say
> 'combined with', implying a combination of laser and plasma going to the
> target.
>
> How and why would galven coils prevent a laser beam exiting the weapon?
> And how do you explain the references to laser tips and laser focusing
> crystals in the weaponry?
I did think that the galven coils were used to cool the weapon, but I am
unsure. SOTE does, of course, as above, make a reference to an "ionized
marker" being the visible part of the bolt, so it most likely does have a
plasma component (since we've seen plasma splash from a turbolaser bolt
before).
We've never seen a heavy turbolaser turret fire at all. Here, Brian has
assumed the "official" stats for the ISD and averaged the number of "official"
cannons against the "total" firepower to achieve this number from each
cannon. This isn't about usage at all.
>
>
> >For firing rate, I will quote SW Ess guide to Weapons and Tech:
> >[quoting:]
> >capacitor banks supplement the turbine's power feed.... Turbolasers
> >use a delay of at least two seconds between shots to allow the
> >capacitors to build up an adequate charge.
> >[end quote]
> >
> >So each TL can fire once every two seconds, and given the fact that it
> >can bring 30 to bear (assuming half of the minimum no of TLs quoted)
> >then it is equivalent to 15 shots per second, compared to the E-E's
> >firing rate of 12 photon torps every three seconds. Also, according to
> >the more conservative figures on Brian Young's page, the MEDIUM
> >batteries deliver a punch of 30 megatons per shot.
>
> There were more ships than the E-E in FC, and 30 megatonnes is little more
> than a Photon torpedo. It took many many photon torpedoes and the much
> stronger Q-torps all in the same spot at almost the same time to do any
> damage. Can your ISD do the same?
Sure. Our ISD can hurl fourteen thousand megatons per two seconds, on
average, from just ONE SIDE of the ship. That's 60 light turbolaser cannons
and 32 heavy turrets firing in unison.
>
>
> >So that works out to 15 x 30 = 450 megatons per second, compared to 12
> >x 64 megatons every three seconds. (assuming 100% efficiency for
> >quantum torps), or about 256 megatons per second.
>
> FC, the whole fleet is ordered to fire on ONE SINGLE SPOT. your
> theoretical claculations are nice, but you ahve ignored all the evidence
> from one of the primary sources.
And turbolasers have "pinpoint accuracy". So?
>
>
> >That puts the E-E at about half the firepower of an ISD, assuming
> >conservative figures for the ISD and only medium turbolaser batteries,
> >no laser cannons, no missiles, no ion cannons, and no fighters. For
> >E-E I assumed 100% weapons efficiency.
>
> And the E-E needed the help of the fleet to defeat a Borg cube. You have
> just shown you might possibly be able to hit a scout sphere. Wonderfull.
> Shame the cubes are the main ships used for attack and defence.
>
> And are the targetting systems of TLs accurate enough to place every
> single shot from your 30 cannons in the same spot? Give sources.
The BTM CD states that on ships such as a Star Destroyer, turbolaser banks are
linked through computerized fire control systems to deliver organized and
sustained volleys of fire.. Single turbolaser accuracy can place fire to
within 15-40 meters of the intended target (TESB asteroids - we never saw a
bolt miss an asteroid and the ISD have to re-fire to kill an intended target).
>
>
> >>If ISDs trully use such intense batteries how come fighers were used
> >>against them in ROTJ? Surely, if you can keep up such a barrage you
> could
> >>effectively put up a wall of fire stopping anything getting through.
>
> >Fighters are highly maneuvrable, to put up a wall of fire at a range
> >of 10,000km you would need millions of TL's, but that is not the
> >point, the fire is focused on a target, not into an expanding wall.
>
> Who mentioned 10,000km? I am talking about ROTJ, where we see fighters
> flying close to, along and between ISDs. How about a wall of fire ample to
> protect your own bridge? Evidence would indicate they cannot even do this,
> even when ordered to do so by the fleet commander.
The order obviously took at least a few seconds to go through the command
chain to the gunners - by that time it was too late. The Executor was also
not designed to have to repel starfighter attacks - this is why it is not
equipped (officially) with any *laser* cannons at all (laser cannons are the
most useful for repelling starfighters, turbolasers can devastate groups of
starfighters in one shot but cannot turn fast enough to keep up with a
close-range fighter (ref BTM CD)).
>
>
> >>If you could surround the ship, and if every TL bolt caused a hull
> breach.
> >>Show us how they will.
>
> >The Borg shields have been shown to be overcome by plasma already. 30
> >Megatons is enough to ensure more than just a hull breach once the
> >shields are overcome.
>
> 30 megatonnes is slightly more than one photon torp. It took many in one
> spot to do any damage. It is reasonable to assume some ship in the fleet
> in FC would use torpedoes in the hours before teh E-E arrived, but there
> were no scratches on the Borg cube.
How can you tell? We did not see close-in views of the Borg cube enough to
tell that there was zero damage. It looked to me like there were fires and
explosions all over the cube by the time it got there. This only says that
the Feds delivered a lot of energy to the cube, perhaps, but not in sufficient
time for the cube's autorepair systems to work properly. Now, what would
happen if a Star Destroyer took all that collective energy thrown at the cube
over days/hours and threw it at ONE TIME at the cube?
>
>
> >>No, I wish to compare it to the level of firepower shown in the movies.
> a
> >>level that is nowhere near the hundreds of bolts per minute you keep
> >>claiming. When have we EVER seen or heard of one ship firing anywhere
> near
> >>as many shots at another ship as you keep claiming is possible?
>
> >see above for no of TL's per ISD and firing rate.
>
> Yes, and see above for why that is wrong. Where is it SHOWN that they fire
> every single TL in a very short period? That is what I originally asked
> for, not the theoretical fire rates. Remeber one of the reasons 90% of
> Trek tech is disallowed? Because it is never shown to be used. Where is
> this massive fire rate SHOWN to be used, when they need it (such as when
> being attacked by a large Rebel force)
We've never seen them get attacked by large rebel forces in such terms. In
ROTJ, they were only met with sporadic turbolaser fire from the Destroyers
because they weren't supposed to attack. However, of course, there is zero
reason to think that they can't do such a thing, and it's even illogical to
suppose that they ARE limited in such a way (if they did, they would have
about 2/3'rds less weapons on their vessels... they would only need 40 or so
to keep up a sustained 10-round fire rate in any quarter at any time)
>
>
> >>Of course, the Borg can bring a few more of their thousands of cubes.
> And
> >>contrary to popular belief, they do fire back. But hark, is this not
> >>external influence in what has until now been a ship-v-ship discussion?
> >>Wasn't that voted an admission of defeat in the recent FAQ votes?
>
> >It was you that brought FC into this, I am quite happy with one ISD vs
> >one Borg cube, since one ISD has been shown CONSERVATIVELY to outpower
> >the E-E significantly.
>
> Yes, and one Borg cube has been shown to be more than a match for a whole
> fleet of vessels similar to the E-E for many hours without even a scratch.
> Why are you waffling about me bringing in FC? I am talking about you
> suddenly deciding to bring in another 40 ISDs from nowhere. Of course, if
> we are to disallow canon evidence I hereby choose to diallow any canon
> reference to the ships commonly referred to as ISDs for the purpose of
> this debate. So. How are you going to win again?:)
Yes, that's the point. For many HOURS. What happens when a Star Destroyer
applies HOURS worth of federation weapon energy in a SECONDS? (14,000 megaton
broadside)
Aaron
Jonathan Boyd
----------
In article <370E8F36...@nospam.intercom.net>, Aaron Parsons
<gr...@nospam.intercom.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
>
>> Michael January wrote in message <3708a707...@ct-news.iafrica.com>...
>> >So it takes a bit longer, but given the rate of fire SW ships are
>> >capable of, the cube cannot repair fast enough. A single ISD can bring
>> >between 20 and 35 turbolasers to bear on most angles, and upto 60
>> >turbolasers on a target that is dead ahead. Turbolasers have a firing
>> >rate of 1 shot every two seconds. For a target that is dead ahead,
>> >that is 30 turbolaser shot per second for ONE ISD.
>>
>> All very nice on paper, but when have we EVER seen ISDs fire more than 10
>> turbolasers at once? And if you implying you may have more than one ISD,
>> remember the Borg have been shown to use Hundreds of cubes against enemies
>> they consider a real threat.
>
>Are you implying that because we've never seen an ISD fire more than 10
>turbolasers at once then they can't? That doesn't make sense at all. If a
>turbolaser battery has a refire rate of 1 round every 2 seconds, and if we
>ONLY count an ISD's light turbolasers, and we count the
>bow/starboard/port/rear as firing areas of equal density in guns, then we've
>got 30 guns covering each spot. If an ISD only fired ten guns at once per
>"firing time" of 2 seconds, that means that for every firing quarter, ten guns
>are firing and twenty are at rest. Does that make sense at ALL? Why in the
>world would you, in a life-or-death combat situation, fire only at third of
>your guns into a specific quarter and just let the rest sit there? And this
>isn't even counting the monster turrets on the starboard and port topdecks!
If we don't see it, it doesn't count for anything. That argument has been
used against St, so we're using it against SW. There are explanations as to
why they can't fire, BTW. Perhaps they can't supply enough fire, the
targetting compuer may be unable to handle all of them. As for life-or-death
combat, durely Endor qualifies for this? Here we see a crippled A-Wing make
it to the Executor's bridge, despite prior warning, we never see huge
broadsides, like you describe, even in sustained sreenshots e.g. STD vs.
Neb-B (used in my TL speed calcs. - 1 11/14km/s. Not very impressive, and
this is a maximum speed. In reality, I believe it to be lower.
>
>>
>>
>> >>you if I agree or not. What I do not currently agree with is the
>> assertion
>> >>that TLs will be extremely dangerous because what appeared to be a
>> stellar
>> >>flare killed what appeared to be a borg cube.
>>
>> >What do I have to explain: Borg cube, stellar flare, BOOM. If you
>> >don't like it, tell me why.
>>
>> Well, how do we know your TL bolts will be as damaging as a stellar flare
>> for one? How do we know there was not something else going on at the time
>> that caused the ship to explode? How do we know the stellar flare was a
>> normal stellar flare?
>
>What's not a "normal" stellar flare? Does the Descent stellar flare look like
>an anomalous stellar flare? In comparison with the Borg Cube, the stellar
>flare isn't even a BIG one compared to the biggest stellar flares, called
>Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs). We know the energy of our TL bolts - they can
>vaporize 40m iron asteroids in a tenth of a second. We all know the asteroid
>calcs. So, if the Descent solar flare was real (and as far as I know we have
>NO reason to think it was anomalous), how much energy would IT have, compared
>to a turbolaser bolt?
For what seems like the thousandth time NO BORG CUBE HAS BEEN DESTROYED MY A
STELLAR FLARE! IT WAS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPE OF SHIP, PROBABLY NOT EVEN
BORG IN ORIGIN, FLOWN BY BORG WHO WERE NO LONGER PART OF THE COLLECTIVE. YOU
ARE WORSE THAN ELIM FOR NOT LISTENING TO THIS, BECAUSE I HAVE POSTED IT MORE
TIMES THAN I CAN REMEMBER
LISTEN TO ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please.
<snip>
>> >Turbolasers are two-stage supercharged laser cannons. The **small
>> >primary laser** produces an energy beam that enters the turbolaser's
>> >main actuator, where it interacts with a stream of energized blaster
>> >gas to produce an intense blast. The energy bolt's destructive power
>> >is incredible, and the barrel's galven coils focus the beam, providing
>> >a range that is double or triple that of conventional laser cannons...
>>
>> supercharged LASER canon. If the laser was not a component of destruction,
>> they would logically be plasma cannons. How does this contradict the
>> theory of the laser accompaning the beam? It would indicate opposite.
>
>It doesn't. SOTE makes a reference that the visible bolt that we see is an
>"ionized marker" for the actual damaging blast. I have been halfway
>considering the validity of the marker being something of a "target
>confirmer"; when targeting computers detect that a throw ionization marker
>will, indeed, achieve its target at the angle and velocity that the marker was
>thrown at, the turbolaser THEN releases its damaging blast (like conserving
>energy). Of course, this is only a theory in progress, and is not valid just
>as of yet.
What is SOTE?
<snip>
>> >
>> >[quoting:]
>> >The common belief is that ISDs carry 60 turbolasers. This is very
>> >conservative, since 64 cannons are mounted immediately
>> >lateral to the command superstructure alone, with scores covering the
>> >rest of the hull. However, if we assume there are only 60
>> >cannons, then they must average around 8 million terawatts of
>> >firepower each. This is comperable to the detonation of a 1900
>> >Megaton nuclear bomb every second.
>> >[end quote]
>>
>> Yes, and theoretically the Borg can just warp about until you run out of
>> shots. When ahve we SEEN such usage?
>
>We've never seen a heavy turbolaser turret fire at all. Here, Brian has
>assumed the "official" stats for the ISD and averaged the number of "official"
>cannons against the "total" firepower to achieve this number from each
>cannon. This isn't about usage at all.
If they haven't been used, then we don't know what they can do, so you can't
use them.
>
>>
>>
>> >For firing rate, I will quote SW Ess guide to Weapons and Tech:
>> >[quoting:]
>> >capacitor banks supplement the turbine's power feed.... Turbolasers
>> >use a delay of at least two seconds between shots to allow the
>> >capacitors to build up an adequate charge.
>> >[end quote]
>> >
>> >So each TL can fire once every two seconds, and given the fact that it
>> >can bring 30 to bear (assuming half of the minimum no of TLs quoted)
>> >then it is equivalent to 15 shots per second, compared to the E-E's
>> >firing rate of 12 photon torps every three seconds. Also, according to
>> >the more conservative figures on Brian Young's page, the MEDIUM
>> >batteries deliver a punch of 30 megatons per shot.
>>
>> There were more ships than the E-E in FC, and 30 megatonnes is little more
>> than a Photon torpedo. It took many many photon torpedoes and the much
>> stronger Q-torps all in the same spot at almost the same time to do any
>> damage. Can your ISD do the same?
>
>Sure. Our ISD can hurl fourteen thousand megatons per two seconds, on
>average, from just ONE SIDE of the ship. That's 60 light turbolaser cannons
>and 32 heavy turrets firing in unison.
Never been seen (see above)
>
>>
>>
>> >So that works out to 15 x 30 = 450 megatons per second, compared to 12
>> >x 64 megatons every three seconds. (assuming 100% efficiency for
>> >quantum torps), or about 256 megatons per second.
>>
>> FC, the whole fleet is ordered to fire on ONE SINGLE SPOT. your
>> theoretical claculations are nice, but you ahve ignored all the evidence
>> from one of the primary sources.
>
>And turbolasers have "pinpoint accuracy". So?
No they don't. They couldn't take out an A-Wing headed for the Executor's
bridge.
>
>>
>>
>> >That puts the E-E at about half the firepower of an ISD, assuming
>> >conservative figures for the ISD and only medium turbolaser batteries,
>> >no laser cannons, no missiles, no ion cannons, and no fighters. For
>> >E-E I assumed 100% weapons efficiency.
>>
>> And the E-E needed the help of the fleet to defeat a Borg cube. You have
>> just shown you might possibly be able to hit a scout sphere. Wonderfull.
>> Shame the cubes are the main ships used for attack and defence.
>>
>> And are the targetting systems of TLs accurate enough to place every
>> single shot from your 30 cannons in the same spot? Give sources.
>
>The BTM CD states that on ships such as a Star Destroyer, turbolaser banks are
>linked through computerized fire control systems to deliver organized and
>sustained volleys of fire.. Single turbolaser accuracy can place fire to
>within 15-40 meters of the intended target (TESB asteroids - we never saw a
>bolt miss an asteroid and the ISD have to re-fire to kill an intended target).
Just as we've never seen large broadsides.
>
>>
>>
>> >>If ISDs trully use such intense batteries how come fighers were used
>> >>against them in ROTJ? Surely, if you can keep up such a barrage you
>> could
>> >>effectively put up a wall of fire stopping anything getting through.
>>
>> >Fighters are highly maneuvrable, to put up a wall of fire at a range
>> >of 10,000km you would need millions of TL's, but that is not the
>> >point, the fire is focused on a target, not into an expanding wall.
>>
>> Who mentioned 10,000km? I am talking about ROTJ, where we see fighters
>> flying close to, along and between ISDs. How about a wall of fire ample to
>> protect your own bridge? Evidence would indicate they cannot even do this,
>> even when ordered to do so by the fleet commander.
>
>The order obviously took at least a few seconds to go through the command
>chain to the gunners - by that time it was too late. The Executor was also
>not designed to have to repel starfighter attacks - this is why it is not
>equipped (officially) with any *laser* cannons at all (laser cannons are the
>most useful for repelling starfighters, turbolasers can devastate groups of
>starfighters in one shot but cannot turn fast enough to keep up with a
>close-range fighter (ref BTM CD)).
Stupid design policy. Surely the gunners would have had the sense to target
it anyway?
>
>>
>>
>> >>If you could surround the ship, and if every TL bolt caused a hull
>> breach.
>> >>Show us how they will.
>>
>> >The Borg shields have been shown to be overcome by plasma already. 30
>> >Megatons is enough to ensure more than just a hull breach once the
>> >shields are overcome.
>>
>> 30 megatonnes is slightly more than one photon torp. It took many in one
>> spot to do any damage. It is reasonable to assume some ship in the fleet
>> in FC would use torpedoes in the hours before teh E-E arrived, but there
>> were no scratches on the Borg cube.
>
>How can you tell? We did not see close-in views of the Borg cube enough to
>tell that there was zero damage. It looked to me like there were fires and
>explosions all over the cube by the time it got there. This only says that
>the Feds delivered a lot of energy to the cube, perhaps, but not in sufficient
>time for the cube's autorepair systems to work properly. Now, what would
>happen if a Star Destroyer took all that collective energy thrown at the cube
>over days/hours and threw it at ONE TIME at the cube?
Never seen it (See above)
>
>>
>>
>> >>No, I wish to compare it to the level of firepower shown in the movies.
>> a
>> >>level that is nowhere near the hundreds of bolts per minute you keep
>> >>claiming. When have we EVER seen or heard of one ship firing anywhere
>> near
>> >>as many shots at another ship as you keep claiming is possible?
>>
>> >see above for no of TL's per ISD and firing rate.
>>
>> Yes, and see above for why that is wrong. Where is it SHOWN that they fire
>> every single TL in a very short period? That is what I originally asked
>> for, not the theoretical fire rates. Remeber one of the reasons 90% of
>> Trek tech is disallowed? Because it is never shown to be used. Where is
>> this massive fire rate SHOWN to be used, when they need it (such as when
>> being attacked by a large Rebel force)
>
>We've never seen them get attacked by large rebel forces in such terms. In
>ROTJ, they were only met with sporadic turbolaser fire from the Destroyers
>because they weren't supposed to attack. However, of course, there is zero
>reason to think that they can't do such a thing, and it's even illogical to
>suppose that they ARE limited in such a way (if they did, they would have
>about 2/3'rds less weapons on their vessels... they would only need 40 or so
>to keep up a sustained 10-round fire rate in any quarter at any time)
>
When the STDs were attacked, they would have defended themselves with all
available weaponry. Why wouldn't they if they had this capability and it
offered them an advantage, to paraphase you?
>>
>>
>> >>Of course, the Borg can bring a few more of their thousands of cubes.
>> And
>> >>contrary to popular belief, they do fire back. But hark, is this not
>> >>external influence in what has until now been a ship-v-ship discussion?
>> >>Wasn't that voted an admission of defeat in the recent FAQ votes?
>>
>> >It was you that brought FC into this, I am quite happy with one ISD vs
>> >one Borg cube, since one ISD has been shown CONSERVATIVELY to outpower
>> >the E-E significantly.
>>
>> Yes, and one Borg cube has been shown to be more than a match for a whole
>> fleet of vessels similar to the E-E for many hours without even a scratch.
>> Why are you waffling about me bringing in FC? I am talking about you
>> suddenly deciding to bring in another 40 ISDs from nowhere. Of course, if
>> we are to disallow canon evidence I hereby choose to diallow any canon
>> reference to the ships commonly referred to as ISDs for the purpose of
>> this debate. So. How are you going to win again?:)
>
>Yes, that's the point. For many HOURS. What happens when a Star Destroyer
>applies HOURS worth of federation weapon energy in a SECONDS? (14,000 megaton
>broadside)
>
>Aaron
>
>
Never seen these broadsides, even when they would have been used. And are
you forgetting that THE BORG ADAPT!!!!!!! Something else I'm sick of
repeating.
Jonathan
Lord Edam de Fromage
>> All very nice on paper, but when have we EVER seen ISDs fire more than
10
>> turbolasers at once? And if you implying you may have more than one
ISD,
>> remember the Borg have been shown to use Hundreds of cubes against
enemies
>> they consider a real threat.
>
>Are you implying that because we've never seen an ISD fire more than 10
>turbolasers at once then they can't? That doesn't make sense at all.
That is exactly what I am implying. it is an argument that has been
applied to 90% of the theoretical uses of ST tech - if they don't use it
in life or death situations, why would they use it against the Borg? It
doesn't have to make sense. Remember, we do not know all the details.
Perhaps the fire control computers cannot handle that many weapons at
once. Perhaps the power supply conduits cannot handle it. Perhaps the
stresses on the ship will be too much, or the recoil cause problems with
targetting. Answer the question or shut up. When have we ever seen or been
told of ISDs firing every single gun they have at maximum fire rate,
succesfully, for long periods of time?
If a
>turbolaser battery has a refire rate of 1 round every 2 seconds, and if
we
>ONLY count an ISD's light turbolasers, and we count the
>bow/starboard/port/rear as firing areas of equal density in guns, then
we've
>got 30 guns covering each spot. If an ISD only fired ten guns at once
per
>"firing time" of 2 seconds, that means that for every firing quarter, ten
guns
>are firing and twenty are at rest. Does that make sense at ALL?
yes, it does. Take a modern war ship. Do they fire everysingle one of
their weapons at once in a battle?
Why in the
>world would you, in a life-or-death combat situation, fire only at third
of
>your guns into a specific quarter and just let the rest sit there? And
this
>isn't even counting the monster turrets on the starboard and port
topdecks!
Don't ask me, ask the FX blokes. They are the ones who have chosen not to
show all those guns being used at once against a target in a life or death
situation. Theoretically very nice. But if it isn't used in SW it won't be
used against ST.
>> Really? Multi terawatt, yes, but actual energy is a few thousand
>> terajoules. ONE photon torp is 20 Megatonnes (nearly 100 thousand
>> terajoules), Q-torps are stronger still, and it took many of them at
one
>> exact spot to cause a borg cube to explode. Until then, even after
hours
>> of fighting (minimum, possibly days), the borg cube was not even
>> scratched. And the Borg will be fighting back all the time.
>
>20 megatonnes per what?
Learn to read. 20 megatonnes per photorp. And I have jsut realised - in
FC, many of the torpedoes exploded INSIDE the cube, so this figure would
be much closer to the 45 megatonnes max yield. And this is for photon
torpedoes. Q-torps are stronger.
The heavy
>turbolasers output 2000 megatons per second with an unknown refire rate
(if
>similar to the DS's turbolasers, 1 per second).
Heavy turbolasers are likely to be slower than the medium or light
turbolasers. The DS had both, so you appear to be arbitrarily assuming the
turboalsers use to defend against fighters were heavy turbolasers.
Unlikely.
A single broadside of an
>ISD's weapons would deliver 14,000 megatons per second, or the equivalent
of
>seven HUNDRED photon torpedoes, assuming 100% efficiency (of course this
will
>not happen).
And assuming your numbers are right. What is the refire rate of
turbolasers? BTM says 'sluggish'. And we never see everysingle cannon on
one side of the ship fire at once.
Did the Federation ships ever apply that much firepower in that
>short an amount of time? We never saw it. However, conveniently, the
only
>time they DID amass their firepower on a single spot, the tactic actually
>WORKED... so what will happen when a Borg cube sucks down 14,000
megatons, and
>two seconds later, another 14,000? (thanks to Wong's page for the stats)
Will they ever encounter such energies? You keep avoiding the one thing I
have been saying for the last week : When have we EVER seen more than a
handfull of guns fire at once? When have we ever seen the refire rates you
are suggesting actually used against a target?
>> Since when has slave ship been cannon?
>> contradicted by canon calculations, as I was told by Poe and chucky. If
>> that is the way it is to be, then it is always that way. It cannot be
>> reversed when the official numbers help your argument.
>
>Slave ship is official. I don't know if or if not canon calculations
overrule
>Slave ship. I would assume they do NOT.
Not what I was told in the Speed of Hyperspace thread by two SW
supporters - Wayne Poe and Chuckg. And to be fair, I can see their point
and have adopted it since that thread. The fire power calcs are
canon-based. Slave ship isn't.
Why? Because while Slave Ship
>states, quite plainly, the recoil of a turbolaser, we don't know whether
or
>not the turbolasers firing on the asteroids were, indeed, at full power.
They
>were probably only at enough power to clear away the asteroids - any more
>would be wasteful.
And do you have any evidence whatsoever they were at anything less than
full power? What is the source for variable power turbolaser as well
please? I keep hearing about them, but can never find them
>> >Since the TL fire will virtually blanket half the cube (if only one
>> >ISD is used) then the cumulative damage will be significant. If two or
>> >three ISD's are used, then it won't even be a consideration.
>>
>> Let's see. A heavy turbolaser Barrel is 50m in diameter (source:
SWICS).
>> Assume the TL bolt increases in diameter once it leaves the
barrel(though
>> we
>> have never seen this), each turboalser bolt will affect approx 10,000
m^2
>> of surface.
>> Assuming a 0.5km size borg cube, this means it takes 25 heavy TL bolts
AT
>> THE SAME TIME, CONTINUOUSLY to blanket the Borg cube. This is highly
>> generous, and assumes the Borg cube is straight on to your guns and
>> completely stationary. Your weaker TL bolts are no where near this
large,
>> so it will most likely take over 1000 bolts to blanket one side of the
>> cube.
>
>Why do we need to blanket one side of the cube instantly?
The previous poster claimed an ISD could blanket a single side of an
entire cube. I showed it was unlikely.
Where did you get
>the affection surface area from?
using heavy TL bolts, size of bolt = 50m, be generous by assuming a
dispersion we have never seen, you get a surface area of 7800 m^2.
Watching the TL bolts impact on targets they do not appear to spread out
much. Result : it takes 25 heavy tL bolts to cover one side of a cube. You
only have 6 heavy TL cannons (SW:ICS). Other size TLs are much smaller, so
it just gets worse, not better.
>What's the range of the cube?
Close enough to be targettable, far enough away to be affected equally by
the maximum number of guns(in otherwords, irrelevant to the proof)
Why did you
>assume (although you noted) that the bolt would disperse?
Being generous. I could just have easily said We never see the bolts
dispers, so it is still only 50m in diameter. This would require 500 heavy
TL bolts, equally spaced. From 3 to 6 guns. Other estimates have placed
light turbolasers at about 2m diametr. This would require about 20,000
bolts to blanket one side.
We don't need to
>blanket the cube with fire to incapacitate it. All we need to do is
throw
>more energy at it than it can handle, which means just firing over and
over
>again. Sure it'll fire back, but what's it going to do to a ship that
can
>handle burst energy capacities in the range of 24,000 megatons? Rake the
cube
>with turbolaser fire, and after awhile, it'll slag away or vaporize.
And again you have failed to point out where this is actually used. When
do we see such high levels of fire against a cube?
>> >No turbolaser fire was used on Hoth, the snowspeeders were fittd with
>> >low-powered laser cannons, and the AT-AT's were fitted with
>> >laser-cannons of a slightly higher firewpower than the snowspeeders.
>>
>> Really? I seem to remeber reading somewhere the class II heavy laser
canon
>> of the AT-AT was identical to a light turbolaser. This would seem to be
>> the case. They look like turbolasers, they sound like turbolasers,
canon
>> sources refer to them using the same terminology as they do
turbolasers,
>> and they act like turbolasers.
>
>I'd like a source, of course. Later in the days of the Empire (Dark
Empire, I
>think) an AT-AT's weapons were actually replaced with turbolaser
cannons - if
>this statement were true, then it wouldn't make any sense to replace
weapons
>that you were already equivalent to.
Probably what I was thinking of. But I was not far off - they do look,
sound, act, and are designed similarly to Turbolasers. They are powerfull
blasters - which appear to operate on principles simpler though similar to
TLs. Perhaps TLs are more energy efficient, or have a better refire rate.
>> Depends on how you interpret the visuals. They have cutting beams,
tractor
>> beams etc. that work at decent ranges. They also take technology they
do
>> not have and use it when they see the need. If they see the need for
long
>> range weapons on their ships, they will use their knowledge of
Federation
>> and Delta-quad tech.
>
>But why DON'T they use it when if they DID use it it would give them a
huge
>military advantage?
Because they are not at a *dis*advantage in the situations we have seen
them, the only time they were at a disadvantage it was against a fleet the
weapons would not work agaisnt anyway.
>> supercharged LASER canon. If the laser was not a component of
destruction,
>> they would logically be plasma cannons. How does this contradict the
>> theory of the laser accompaning the beam? It would indicate opposite.
>
>It doesn't.
contradict or indicate otherwise?
SOTE makes a reference that the visible bolt that we see is an
>"ionized marker" for the actual damaging blast. I have been halfway
>considering the validity of the marker being something of a "target
>confirmer"; when targeting computers detect that a throw ionization
marker
>will, indeed, achieve its target at the angle and velocity that the
marker was
>thrown at, the turbolaser THEN releases its damaging blast (like
conserving
>energy). Of course, this is only a theory in progress, and is not valid
just
>as of yet.
One problem - fire and forget. The turbolasers in the DS trench went on to
another target far too soon for this to be likely. At max range, this
could mean a refire rate of less than once every ten seconds.
>> >Note the use of the words 'small primary laser' which enters an
>> >actuation chamber. After that plasma still has to be focused through
>> >'galven coils'. How is the 'small primary laser' going to pass through
>> >a coil. The coils are what focus the bolt, preventing dispersion for
>> >long ranges.
>>
>> I can't seem to find the source giving it as secondary beams igniting a
>> plasma, so I will stop that line of reasoning. But, ALL the sources say
>> 'combined with', implying a combination of laser and plasma going to
the
>> target.
>>
>> How and why would galven coils prevent a laser beam exiting the weapon?
>> And how do you explain the references to laser tips and laser focusing
>> crystals in the weaponry?
>
>I did think that the galven coils were used to cool the weapon, but I am
>unsure.
Whatever they do , anything that can allow a plasma through has to be
unobstructed. If it is empty, it will let a laser through.
Since they work on charge effects, they probably do 'aim' the bolt, rather
than cool the assembly.
>We've never seen a heavy turbolaser turret fire at all. Here, Brian has
>assumed the "official" stats for the ISD and averaged the number of
"official"
>cannons against the "total" firepower to achieve this number from each
>cannon. This isn't about usage at all.
It was used as a theoretical amount of energy delivered to a target.
Something that has never been shown.
>> There were more ships than the E-E in FC, and 30 megatonnes is little
more
>> than a Photon torpedo. It took many many photon torpedoes and the much
>> stronger Q-torps all in the same spot at almost the same time to do any
>> damage. Can your ISD do the same?
>
>Sure. Our ISD can hurl fourteen thousand megatons per two seconds, on
>average, from just ONE SIDE of the ship. That's 60 light turbolaser
cannons
>and 32 heavy turrets firing in unison.
WHERE IS THIS SHOWN????
(and where have you got your numbers from? SW:ICS says only six heavy TL
stations - three each side of the command tower, and most sources say only
60 cannons total)
>> FC, the whole fleet is ordered to fire on ONE SINGLE SPOT. your
>> theoretical claculations are nice, but you ahve ignored all the
evidence
>> from one of the primary sources.
>
>And turbolasers have "pinpoint accuracy". So?
So, we do not see single turbolasers capable of impacting repeatedly on
the same spot, never mind multiple turbolasers controlled from multiple
firing stations. If you are going off claimed as opposed to demonstrated
ability, I wish to use Seven's quote from VOY:Revulsion. Borg can
withstand multi-exawatt plasmas with little or no damage.(and before you
scream Descent 2, I claim Tech advances)
>> And the E-E needed the help of the fleet to defeat a Borg cube. You
have
>> just shown you might possibly be able to hit a scout sphere.
Wonderfull.
>> Shame the cubes are the main ships used for attack and defence.
>>
>> And are the targetting systems of TLs accurate enough to place every
>> single shot from your 30 cannons in the same spot? Give sources.
>
>The BTM CD states that on ships such as a Star Destroyer, turbolaser
banks are
>linked through computerized fire control systems to deliver organized and
>sustained volleys of fire.. Single turbolaser accuracy can place fire to
>within 15-40 meters of the intended target (TESB asteroids - we never saw
a
>bolt miss an asteroid and the ISD have to re-fire to kill an intended
target).
We never see multiple TL bolts impacting on the same spot either.
Organized and sustained volleys of fire are nice, but if it takes repeated
fire agaisnt a single point, this is going to be harder than the control
required to drop a ship's shields. Hit the shield section anywhere often
enough, they will go down. But the Borg require a little more than that.
>> Who mentioned 10,000km? I am talking about ROTJ, where we see fighters
>> flying close to, along and between ISDs. How about a wall of fire ample
to
>> protect your own bridge? Evidence would indicate they cannot even do
this,
>> even when ordered to do so by the fleet commander.
>
>The order obviously took at least a few seconds to go through the command
>chain to the gunners - by that time it was too late. The Executor was
also
>not designed to have to repel starfighter attacks - this is why it is not
>equipped (officially) with any *laser* cannons at all (laser cannons are
the
>most useful for repelling starfighters, turbolasers can devastate groups
of
>starfighters in one shot but cannot turn fast enough to keep up with a
>close-range fighter (ref BTM CD)).
ESB, asteroid field? If you could do what yu are suggesting no single ship
should have been scratched. What did we see? Asteroids repeatedly
impacting on the shields or hulls of the ships. One ship most likely
destroyed, others badly damaged. The one time your theoretical fire rates
would help you, but they were not shown to be used.
>> 30 megatonnes is slightly more than one photon torp. It took many in
one
>> spot to do any damage. It is reasonable to assume some ship in the
fleet
>> in FC would use torpedoes in the hours before teh E-E arrived, but
there
>> were no scratches on the Borg cube.
>
>How can you tell? We did not see close-in views of the Borg cube enough
to
>tell that there was zero damage. It looked to me like there were fires
and
>explosions all over the cube by the time it got there. This only says
that
>the Feds delivered a lot of energy to the cube, perhaps, but not in
sufficient
>time for the cube's autorepair systems to work properly. Now, what would
>happen if a Star Destroyer took all that collective energy thrown at the
cube
>over days/hours and threw it at ONE TIME at the cube?
And yet again, you have failed to mention when this massive amount of
energy is shown. I asked at least four times in the message you replied
to. It's not something you could easily miss if you were actually reading
it. And the feds were LOOSING until Picard gave the coordinate to attack.
This is not the first time it has happened either - wasn't it over 40
ships destroyed at Wolf 359? Both times, they were fighting for the
survival of their SPECIES. It is safe to assume they did everything they
could to stop the cube, but couldn't. With massive fleets. And you think
you have a chance with a single ship?
>> Yes, and see above for why that is wrong. Where is it SHOWN that they
fire
>> every single TL in a very short period? That is what I originally asked
>> for, not the theoretical fire rates. Remeber one of the reasons 90% of
>> Trek tech is disallowed? Because it is never shown to be used. Where is
>> this massive fire rate SHOWN to be used, when they need it (such as
when
>> being attacked by a large Rebel force)
>
>We've never seen them get attacked by large rebel forces in such terms.
In
>ROTJ, they were only met with sporadic turbolaser fire from the
Destroyers
>because they weren't supposed to attack. However, of course, there is
zero
>reason to think that they can't do such a thing, and it's even illogical
to
>suppose that they ARE limited in such a way (if they did, they would have
>about 2/3'rds less weapons on their vessels... they would only need 40 or
so
>to keep up a sustained 10-round fire rate in any quarter at any time)
it is reasonable to assume they do not use a fan-calculated firepower
never before mentioned (despite being in dire need several times). Infact,
it has been the staple argument vs ST for many years. In this instance, it
has been reversed. Until you can actually show where the massive firepower
you are suggesting is actually used then we do not ahve to accept it.
There must be some compelling reason of which we are not aware peventing
it's use.
Kynes
> Aaron Parsons wrote in message <370E8F36...@nospam.intercom.net>...
> >> All very nice on paper, but when have we EVER seen ISDs fire more than
> 10
> >> turbolasers at once? And if you implying you may have more than one
> ISD,
> >> remember the Borg have been shown to use Hundreds of cubes against
> enemies
> >> they consider a real threat.
> >
> >Are you implying that because we've never seen an ISD fire more than 10
> >turbolasers at once then they can't? That doesn't make sense at all.
>
> That is exactly what I am implying. it is an argument that has been
> applied to 90% of the theoretical uses of ST tech - if they don't use it
> in life or death situations, why would they use it against the Borg? It
> doesn't have to make sense. Remember, we do not know all the details.
> Perhaps the fire control computers cannot handle that many weapons at
> once. Perhaps the power supply conduits cannot handle it. Perhaps the
> stresses on the ship will be too much, or the recoil cause problems with
> targetting. Answer the question or shut up. When have we ever seen or been
> told of ISDs firing every single gun they have at maximum fire rate,
> succesfully, for long periods of time?
A Base Delta Zero operation requires exactly this: all weapons, maximum
fire rate, for a long time. Since this technique is documented and works,
we can assume it's possible.
> Why in the
> >world would you, in a life-or-death combat situation, fire only at third
> of
> >your guns into a specific quarter and just let the rest sit there? And
> this
> >isn't even counting the monster turrets on the starboard and port
> topdecks!
>
>
> Don't ask me, ask the FX blokes. They are the ones who have chosen not to
> show all those guns being used at once against a target in a life or death
> situation. Theoretically very nice. But if it isn't used in SW it won't be
> used against ST.
It is used. And will be used -- against you and your planets.
> The heavy
> >turbolasers output 2000 megatons per second with an unknown refire rate
> (if
> >similar to the DS's turbolasers, 1 per second).
>
> Heavy turbolasers are likely to be slower than the medium or light
> turbolasers. The DS had both, so you appear to be arbitrarily assuming the
> turboalsers use to defend against fighters were heavy turbolasers.
> Unlikely.
Wait, wait. Why would they be slower? Just because they're larger? Hardly.
It doesn't take much to move a little gas very fast - certainly less than
the millions of TW required to raise that gas' energy level to where it is
when you fire it.
> Did the Federation ships ever apply that much firepower in that
> >short an amount of time? We never saw it. However, conveniently, the
> only
> >time they DID amass their firepower on a single spot, the tactic actually
> >WORKED... so what will happen when a Borg cube sucks down 14,000
> megatons, and
> >two seconds later, another 14,000? (thanks to Wong's page for the stats)
>
>
> Will they ever encounter such energies? You keep avoiding the one thing I
> have been saying for the last week : When have we EVER seen more than a
> handfull of guns fire at once?
BDZ, BDZ, BDZ.
>When have we ever seen the refire rates you
> are suggesting actually used against a target?
Battle of Endor.
> Why? Because while Slave Ship
> >states, quite plainly, the recoil of a turbolaser, we don't know whether
> or
> >not the turbolasers firing on the asteroids were, indeed, at full power.
> They
> >were probably only at enough power to clear away the asteroids - any more
> >would be wasteful.
>
> And do you have any evidence whatsoever they were at anything less than
> full power? What is the source for variable power turbolaser as well
> please? I keep hearing about them, but can never find them
The anti-starfighter cannons are intended to shoot down starfighters. X-Wings
and such are made of something much tougher than iron, and so would naturally
be harder to destroy than an iron-based asteroid; etc. You can see where
I'm going.
> Where did you get
> >the affection surface area from?
>
> using heavy TL bolts, size of bolt = 50m, be generous by assuming a
> dispersion we have never seen, you get a surface area of 7800 m^2.
> Watching the TL bolts impact on targets they do not appear to spread out
> much. Result : it takes 25 heavy tL bolts to cover one side of a cube. You
> only have 6 heavy TL cannons (SW:ICS). Other size TLs are much smaller, so
> it just gets worse, not better.
Why do we have to blanket a cube, anyway? One shot will bring down their
shields, after all.
> We don't need to
> >blanket the cube with fire to incapacitate it. All we need to do is
> throw
> >more energy at it than it can handle, which means just firing over and
> over
> >again. Sure it'll fire back, but what's it going to do to a ship that
> can
> >handle burst energy capacities in the range of 24,000 megatons? Rake the
> cube
> >with turbolaser fire, and after awhile, it'll slag away or vaporize.
>
>
> And again you have failed to point out where this is actually used. When
> do we see such high levels of fire against a cube?
Against a cube? Never, since you don't have that kind of powerful weaponry
in the ST universe.
> >> Depends on how you interpret the visuals. They have cutting beams,
> tractor
> >> beams etc. that work at decent ranges. They also take technology they
> do
> >> not have and use it when they see the need. If they see the need for
> long
> >> range weapons on their ships, they will use their knowledge of
> Federation
> >> and Delta-quad tech.
> >
> >But why DON'T they use it when if they DID use it it would give them a
> huge
> >military advantage?
>
>
> Because they are not at a *dis*advantage in the situations we have seen
> them, the only time they were at a disadvantage it was against a fleet the
> weapons would not work agaisnt anyway.
It would be a disadvantage to shoot from long-range? Why?
[snip]
--
-Kynes
"It is by will alone that I set my mind in motion."
- Piter de Vries
Aaron Parsons
Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
> Aaron Parsons wrote in message <370E8F36...@nospam.intercom.net>...
> >> All very nice on paper, but when have we EVER seen ISDs fire more than
> 10
> >> turbolasers at once? And if you implying you may have more than one
> ISD,
> >> remember the Borg have been shown to use Hundreds of cubes against
> enemies
> >> they consider a real threat.
> >
> >Are you implying that because we've never seen an ISD fire more than 10
> >turbolasers at once then they can't? That doesn't make sense at all.
>
> That is exactly what I am implying. it is an argument that has been
> applied to 90% of the theoretical uses of ST tech - if they don't use it
> in life or death situations, why would they use it against the Borg? It
> doesn't have to make sense. Remember, we do not know all the details.
> Perhaps the fire control computers cannot handle that many weapons at
> once. Perhaps the power supply conduits cannot handle it. Perhaps the
> stresses on the ship will be too much, or the recoil cause problems with
> targetting. Answer the question or shut up. When have we ever seen or been
> told of ISDs firing every single gun they have at maximum fire rate,
> succesfully, for long periods of time?
We've not, because we've never seen an ISD been given the advantage of such
liberties. However, in a conflict with Admiral Daala, Supreme Warlord Hask's
Star Destroyer "Shockwave" was capable of obliterating an entire Victory Class
Star Destroyer in a single broadside. We know this because it was only
remarked that the Shockwave was basically an ISD with more weaponry (a light
cruiser), and the novel reference clearly states:
"Kratas took Warlord Harrsk's flagship to the point of a
phalanx formation. The Shockwave was larger than the
other Star Destroyers, more heavily outfitted with
high-energy weapons. The Shockwave targeted and
fired, obliterating a sixth Victory ship."
Now, there isn't a SINGLE standard high energy weapon aside from the
superlaser that can obliterate a VSD in as single blast. Since we clearly see
"targeted and fired", meaning, single shot (not "fires" or "fired over and
over again"), this must mean that the Shockwave is capable of producing a
broadside. Besides, that's conservative - we could also go and claim that the
Shockwave obliterated a VSD with a single turbolaser blast if you wanted to
>:)
--
>
>
> If a
> >turbolaser battery has a refire rate of 1 round every 2 seconds, and if
> we
> >ONLY count an ISD's light turbolasers, and we count the
> >bow/starboard/port/rear as firing areas of equal density in guns, then
> we've
> >got 30 guns covering each spot. If an ISD only fired ten guns at once
> per
> >"firing time" of 2 seconds, that means that for every firing quarter, ten
> guns
> >are firing and twenty are at rest. Does that make sense at ALL?
>
> yes, it does. Take a modern war ship. Do they fire everysingle one of
> their weapons at once in a battle?
Do they have the capacity to? If they needed to, could they? Yes, to both.
>
>
> Why in the
> >world would you, in a life-or-death combat situation, fire only at third
> of
> >your guns into a specific quarter and just let the rest sit there? And
> this
> >isn't even counting the monster turrets on the starboard and port
> topdecks!
>
> Don't ask me, ask the FX blokes. They are the ones who have chosen not to
> show all those guns being used at once against a target in a life or death
> situation. Theoretically very nice. But if it isn't used in SW it won't be
> used against ST.
Meh... then the FX blokes just demonstrated sporadic, half-hearted turbolaser
fire... there wasn't ever a single pressing need for a Star Destroyer to loose
all of its weapons in the movies at all. Reference to broadside above.
>
>
> >> Really? Multi terawatt, yes, but actual energy is a few thousand
> >> terajoules. ONE photon torp is 20 Megatonnes (nearly 100 thousand
> >> terajoules), Q-torps are stronger still, and it took many of them at
> one
> >> exact spot to cause a borg cube to explode. Until then, even after
> hours
> >> of fighting (minimum, possibly days), the borg cube was not even
> >> scratched. And the Borg will be fighting back all the time.
> >
> >20 megatonnes per what?
>
> Learn to read. 20 megatonnes per photorp. And I have jsut realised - in
> FC, many of the torpedoes exploded INSIDE the cube, so this figure would
> be much closer to the 45 megatonnes max yield. And this is for photon
> torpedoes. Q-torps are stronger.
Inside the cube. Convenient for those KE shield arguments, eh?
>
>
> The heavy
> >turbolasers output 2000 megatons per second with an unknown refire rate
> (if
> >similar to the DS's turbolasers, 1 per second).
>
> Heavy turbolasers are likely to be slower than the medium or light
> turbolasers. The DS had both, so you appear to be arbitrarily assuming the
> turboalsers use to defend against fighters were heavy turbolasers.
> Unlikely.
Likely? Your evidence please? And I never implied that the XX-9 Tower-Type
turbolaser that the Death Star had was indeed a heavy turbolaser turret. I
only stated that IF it was, it had a refire rate of about 1 salvo (two shots)
per second. Light turbolaser turrets can output two or three per second -
these are the single-barrel type cannons we saw Imperial gunners operating.
>
>
> A single broadside of an
> >ISD's weapons would deliver 14,000 megatons per second, or the equivalent
> of
> >seven HUNDRED photon torpedoes, assuming 100% efficiency (of course this
> will
> >not happen).
>
> And assuming your numbers are right. What is the refire rate of
> turbolasers? BTM says 'sluggish'. And we never see everysingle cannon on
> one side of the ship fire at once.
Sluggish could mean many things. Sluggish compared to what? Compared to a
laser cannon? We saw an XX-9 type tower turbolaser refire at a rate of 2
blasts (1 salvo) per second, on the DS's surface. Simple.
>
>
> Did the Federation ships ever apply that much firepower in that
> >short an amount of time? We never saw it. However, conveniently, the
> only
> >time they DID amass their firepower on a single spot, the tactic actually
> >WORKED... so what will happen when a Borg cube sucks down 14,000
> megatons, and
> >two seconds later, another 14,000? (thanks to Wong's page for the stats)
>
> Will they ever encounter such energies? You keep avoiding the one thing I
> have been saying for the last week : When have we EVER seen more than a
> handfull of guns fire at once? When have we ever seen the refire rates you
> are suggesting actually used against a target?
Shockwave reference, above. A single ship that could obliterate Victory Star
Destroyers with a single broadside.
>
>
> >> Since when has slave ship been cannon?
> >> contradicted by canon calculations, as I was told by Poe and chucky. If
> >> that is the way it is to be, then it is always that way. It cannot be
> >> reversed when the official numbers help your argument.
> >
> >Slave ship is official. I don't know if or if not canon calculations
> overrule
> >Slave ship. I would assume they do NOT.
>
> Not what I was told in the Speed of Hyperspace thread by two SW
> supporters - Wayne Poe and Chuckg. And to be fair, I can see their point
> and have adopted it since that thread. The fire power calcs are
> canon-based. Slave ship isn't.
>
> Why? Because while Slave Ship
> >states, quite plainly, the recoil of a turbolaser, we don't know whether
> or
> >not the turbolasers firing on the asteroids were, indeed, at full power.
> They
> >were probably only at enough power to clear away the asteroids - any more
> >would be wasteful.
>
> And do you have any evidence whatsoever they were at anything less than
> full power? What is the source for variable power turbolaser as well
> please? I keep hearing about them, but can never find them
I've never heard (yet) of a variable power turbolaser - but I could be wrong.
And assuming they weren't at full power just makes sense. If you had had to
split open a rock and had three different explosives, each of which were
guaranteed to do the job, but each of which had variable costs, which would
you let do the job? The cheaper one, of course. It would only make sense for
the Imperials to use just as much power as was necessary to do the job - any
more would be wasteful.
>
>
SW:ICS is overruled by the movies which show much, much more weapons than
that. The heavy turrets alone account for 64 visible gun barrels on an
ISD-II. That's not counting the numerous heavy trench cannons (quads), axial
defense turrets, light turbolaser batteries, medium turbolaser batteries, and
ion cannons.
>
>
> >What's the range of the cube?
>
> Close enough to be targettable, far enough away to be affected equally by
> the maximum number of guns(in otherwords, irrelevant to the proof)
>
> Why did you
> >assume (although you noted) that the bolt would disperse?
>
> Being generous. I could just have easily said We never see the bolts
> dispers, so it is still only 50m in diameter. This would require 500 heavy
> TL bolts, equally spaced. From 3 to 6 guns. Other estimates have placed
> light turbolasers at about 2m diametr. This would require about 20,000
> bolts to blanket one side.
>
> We don't need to
> >blanket the cube with fire to incapacitate it. All we need to do is
> throw
> >more energy at it than it can handle, which means just firing over and
> over
> >again. Sure it'll fire back, but what's it going to do to a ship that
> can
> >handle burst energy capacities in the range of 24,000 megatons? Rake the
> cube
> >with turbolaser fire, and after awhile, it'll slag away or vaporize.
>
> And again you have failed to point out where this is actually used. When
> do we see such high levels of fire against a cube?
"Descent 2"?
>
>
> >> >No turbolaser fire was used on Hoth, the snowspeeders were fittd with
> >> >low-powered laser cannons, and the AT-AT's were fitted with
> >> >laser-cannons of a slightly higher firewpower than the snowspeeders.
> >>
> >> Really? I seem to remeber reading somewhere the class II heavy laser
> canon
> >> of the AT-AT was identical to a light turbolaser. This would seem to be
> >> the case. They look like turbolasers, they sound like turbolasers,
> canon
> >> sources refer to them using the same terminology as they do
> turbolasers,
> >> and they act like turbolasers.
> >
> >I'd like a source, of course. Later in the days of the Empire (Dark
> Empire, I
> >think) an AT-AT's weapons were actually replaced with turbolaser
> cannons - if
> >this statement were true, then it wouldn't make any sense to replace
> weapons
> >that you were already equivalent to.
>
> Probably what I was thinking of. But I was not far off - they do look,
> sound, act, and are designed similarly to Turbolasers. They are powerfull
> blasters - which appear to operate on principles simpler though similar to
> TLs. Perhaps TLs are more energy efficient, or have a better refire rate.
*shrug*... without any evidence, it's hard to tell.
>
>
> >> Depends on how you interpret the visuals. They have cutting beams,
> tractor
> >> beams etc. that work at decent ranges. They also take technology they
> do
> >> not have and use it when they see the need. If they see the need for
> long
> >> range weapons on their ships, they will use their knowledge of
> Federation
> >> and Delta-quad tech.
> >
> >But why DON'T they use it when if they DID use it it would give them a
> huge
> >military advantage?
>
> Because they are not at a *dis*advantage in the situations we have seen
> them, the only time they were at a disadvantage it was against a fleet the
> weapons would not work agaisnt anyway.
I don't get it. If they weren't at a disadvantage, then they had the
advantage. Why didn't they want to increase the advantage?
>
>
> >> supercharged LASER canon. If the laser was not a component of
> destruction,
> >> they would logically be plasma cannons. How does this contradict the
> >> theory of the laser accompaning the beam? It would indicate opposite.
> >
> >It doesn't.
>
> contradict or indicate otherwise?
>
> SOTE makes a reference that the visible bolt that we see is an
> >"ionized marker" for the actual damaging blast. I have been halfway
> >considering the validity of the marker being something of a "target
> >confirmer"; when targeting computers detect that a throw ionization
> marker
> >will, indeed, achieve its target at the angle and velocity that the
> marker was
> >thrown at, the turbolaser THEN releases its damaging blast (like
> conserving
> >energy). Of course, this is only a theory in progress, and is not valid
> just
> >as of yet.
>
> One problem - fire and forget. The turbolasers in the DS trench went on to
> another target far too soon for this to be likely. At max range, this
> could mean a refire rate of less than once every ten seconds.
Like I said, only a theory in progress.
>
>
> >> >Note the use of the words 'small primary laser' which enters an
> >> >actuation chamber. After that plasma still has to be focused through
> >> >'galven coils'. How is the 'small primary laser' going to pass through
> >> >a coil. The coils are what focus the bolt, preventing dispersion for
> >> >long ranges.
> >>
> >> I can't seem to find the source giving it as secondary beams igniting a
> >> plasma, so I will stop that line of reasoning. But, ALL the sources say
> >> 'combined with', implying a combination of laser and plasma going to
> the
> >> target.
> >>
> >> How and why would galven coils prevent a laser beam exiting the weapon?
> >> And how do you explain the references to laser tips and laser focusing
> >> crystals in the weaponry?
> >
> >I did think that the galven coils were used to cool the weapon, but I am
> >unsure.
>
> Whatever they do , anything that can allow a plasma through has to be
> unobstructed. If it is empty, it will let a laser through.
>
> Since they work on charge effects, they probably do 'aim' the bolt, rather
> than cool the assembly.
This is what the BTM CD says, I think. They help to concentrate it,
specifically.
>
>
> >We've never seen a heavy turbolaser turret fire at all. Here, Brian has
> >assumed the "official" stats for the ISD and averaged the number of
> "official"
> >cannons against the "total" firepower to achieve this number from each
> >cannon. This isn't about usage at all.
>
> It was used as a theoretical amount of energy delivered to a target.
> Something that has never been shown.
Shockwave.
>
>
> >> There were more ships than the E-E in FC, and 30 megatonnes is little
> more
> >> than a Photon torpedo. It took many many photon torpedoes and the much
> >> stronger Q-torps all in the same spot at almost the same time to do any
> >> damage. Can your ISD do the same?
> >
> >Sure. Our ISD can hurl fourteen thousand megatons per two seconds, on
> >average, from just ONE SIDE of the ship. That's 60 light turbolaser
> cannons
> >and 32 heavy turrets firing in unison.
>
> WHERE IS THIS SHOWN????
Shockwave.
>
>
> (and where have you got your numbers from? SW:ICS says only six heavy TL
> stations - three each side of the command tower, and most sources say only
> 60 cannons total)
Movies.
>
>
> >> FC, the whole fleet is ordered to fire on ONE SINGLE SPOT. your
> >> theoretical claculations are nice, but you ahve ignored all the
> evidence
> >> from one of the primary sources.
> >
> >And turbolasers have "pinpoint accuracy". So?
>
> So, we do not see single turbolasers capable of impacting repeatedly on
> the same spot, never mind multiple turbolasers controlled from multiple
> firing stations. If you are going off claimed as opposed to demonstrated
> ability, I wish to use Seven's quote from VOY:Revulsion. Borg can
> withstand multi-exawatt plasmas with little or no damage.(and before you
> scream Descent 2, I claim Tech advances)
Visible event in Descent 2 does not correlate to a claimed ability in
Voyager. That's evidence vs. speculation. Single turbolasers have never been
seen having the CHANCE to impact repeatedly on the same spot. Again, we see
every instance of turbolasers striking their targets and not missing in ESB.
Are we to assume that every shot was just "lucky" that it hit?
>
>
> >> And the E-E needed the help of the fleet to defeat a Borg cube. You
> have
> >> just shown you might possibly be able to hit a scout sphere.
> Wonderfull.
> >> Shame the cubes are the main ships used for attack and defence.
> >>
> >> And are the targetting systems of TLs accurate enough to place every
> >> single shot from your 30 cannons in the same spot? Give sources.
> >
> >The BTM CD states that on ships such as a Star Destroyer, turbolaser
> banks are
> >linked through computerized fire control systems to deliver organized and
> >sustained volleys of fire.. Single turbolaser accuracy can place fire to
> >within 15-40 meters of the intended target (TESB asteroids - we never saw
> a
> >bolt miss an asteroid and the ISD have to re-fire to kill an intended
> target).
>
> We never see multiple TL bolts impacting on the same spot either.
> Organized and sustained volleys of fire are nice, but if it takes repeated
> fire agaisnt a single point, this is going to be harder than the control
> required to drop a ship's shields. Hit the shield section anywhere often
> enough, they will go down. But the Borg require a little more than that.
Again, are we to assume that every bolt was "lucky" in finding its target?
>
>
> >> Who mentioned 10,000km? I am talking about ROTJ, where we see fighters
> >> flying close to, along and between ISDs. How about a wall of fire ample
> to
> >> protect your own bridge? Evidence would indicate they cannot even do
> this,
> >> even when ordered to do so by the fleet commander.
> >
> >The order obviously took at least a few seconds to go through the command
> >chain to the gunners - by that time it was too late. The Executor was
> also
> >not designed to have to repel starfighter attacks - this is why it is not
> >equipped (officially) with any *laser* cannons at all (laser cannons are
> the
> >most useful for repelling starfighters, turbolasers can devastate groups
> of
> >starfighters in one shot but cannot turn fast enough to keep up with a
> >close-range fighter (ref BTM CD)).
>
> ESB, asteroid field? If you could do what yu are suggesting no single ship
> should have been scratched. What did we see? Asteroids repeatedly
> impacting on the shields or hulls of the ships. One ship most likely
> destroyed, others badly damaged. The one time your theoretical fire rates
> would help you, but they were not shown to be used.
And no ship was scratched except a single ISD whose bridge was cleaved off due
perhaps even to the shields being down (a lax captain, perhaps). Who said all
the other Destroyers were badly damaged? Every Star Destroyer emerged from
that belt, and the damaged one may have emerged too, since Star Destroyers
have auxiliary controls.
Shockwave obliterates a VSD in a single broadside. And just because they were
fighting for the survival of their species means zilch - we saw no other
instance of concentrated firepower from the Feds UNTIL Picard ordered that
attack. They just randomly scattered their firepower over the cube until that
time.
Shockwave.
Aaron
Kynes
>
> ----------
> In article <7eojeu$dq7$1...@news1.rmi.net>, "Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> wrote:
>
>
> >> Where did you get
> >> >the affection surface area from?
> >>
> >> using heavy TL bolts, size of bolt = 50m, be generous by assuming a
> >> dispersion we have never seen, you get a surface area of 7800 m^2.
> >> Watching the TL bolts impact on targets they do not appear to spread out
> >> much. Result : it takes 25 heavy tL bolts to cover one side of a cube. You
> >> only have 6 heavy TL cannons (SW:ICS). Other size TLs are much smaller, so
> >> it just gets worse, not better.
> >
> >Why do we have to blanket a cube, anyway? One shot will bring down their
> >shields, after all.
>
Approximately 100 concentrated Federation beam weapons brought down the Borg
cube in First Contact. At a rough effectiveness of 10TW against starship armor,
that's about 1PW, and because it took roughly 5 seconds for the Cube to begin
exploding after it was hit, we'll say 5000TJ is the limit of a Borg cube's
shields. Fair?
Point-defense cannons which shoot down starfighters are capable of at least 2700TJ
shots - and that's not what we'll shoot the Cube with. We'll use our big guns,
the kind that unleash exawatts per shot. One hit and that Cube goes down.
> >
> >> We don't need to
> >> >blanket the cube with fire to incapacitate it. All we need to do is
> >> throw
> >> >more energy at it than it can handle, which means just firing over and
> >> over
> >> >again. Sure it'll fire back, but what's it going to do to a ship that
> >> can
> >> >handle burst energy capacities in the range of 24,000 megatons? Rake the
> >> cube
> >> >with turbolaser fire, and after awhile, it'll slag away or vaporize.
> >>
> >>
> >> And again you have failed to point out where this is actually used. When
> >> do we see such high levels of fire against a cube?
> >
> >Against a cube? Never, since you don't have that kind of powerful weaponry
> >in the ST universe.
>
> FC, when the fleet fired on the Cube at one point.
It took almost 100 ships! Geez!
> >
> >> >> Depends on how you interpret the visuals. They have cutting beams,
> >> tractor
> >> >> beams etc. that work at decent ranges. They also take technology they
> >> do
> >> >> not have and use it when they see the need. If they see the need for
> >> long
> >> >> range weapons on their ships, they will use their knowledge of
> >> Federation
> >> >> and Delta-quad tech.
> >> >
> >> >But why DON'T they use it when if they DID use it it would give them a
> >> huge
> >> >military advantage?
> >>
> >>
> >> Because they are not at a *dis*advantage in the situations we have seen
> >> them, the only time they were at a disadvantage it was against a fleet the
> >> weapons would not work agaisnt anyway.
> >
> >It would be a disadvantage to shoot from long-range? Why?
>
> Greater chance of missing a target.
So your computers can't handle distance? Okay. Whatever. Then distance combat
is effectively useless, anyway.
Jonathan Boyd
>> Where did you get
>> >the affection surface area from?
>>
>> using heavy TL bolts, size of bolt = 50m, be generous by assuming a
>> dispersion we have never seen, you get a surface area of 7800 m^2.
>> Watching the TL bolts impact on targets they do not appear to spread out
>> much. Result : it takes 25 heavy tL bolts to cover one side of a cube. You
>> only have 6 heavy TL cannons (SW:ICS). Other size TLs are much smaller, so
>> it just gets worse, not better.
>
>Why do we have to blanket a cube, anyway? One shot will bring down their
>shields, after all.
LOL - Where's your evidence for this.
>
>> We don't need to
>> >blanket the cube with fire to incapacitate it. All we need to do is
>> throw
>> >more energy at it than it can handle, which means just firing over and
>> over
>> >again. Sure it'll fire back, but what's it going to do to a ship that
>> can
>> >handle burst energy capacities in the range of 24,000 megatons? Rake the
>> cube
>> >with turbolaser fire, and after awhile, it'll slag away or vaporize.
>>
>>
>> And again you have failed to point out where this is actually used. When
>> do we see such high levels of fire against a cube?
>
>Against a cube? Never, since you don't have that kind of powerful weaponry
>in the ST universe.
FC, when the fleet fired on the Cube at one point.
>
>> >> Depends on how you interpret the visuals. They have cutting beams,
>> tractor
>> >> beams etc. that work at decent ranges. They also take technology they
>> do
>> >> not have and use it when they see the need. If they see the need for
>> long
>> >> range weapons on their ships, they will use their knowledge of
>> Federation
>> >> and Delta-quad tech.
>> >
>> >But why DON'T they use it when if they DID use it it would give them a
>> huge
>> >military advantage?
>>
>>
>> Because they are not at a *dis*advantage in the situations we have seen
>> them, the only time they were at a disadvantage it was against a fleet the
>> weapons would not work agaisnt anyway.
>
>It would be a disadvantage to shoot from long-range? Why?
Greater chance of missing a target.
Jonathan
Lord Edam de Fromage
>A Base Delta Zero operation requires exactly this: all weapons, maximum
>fire rate, for a long time. Since this technique is documented and works,
>we can assume it's possible.
Over an unknown period of time. noone has pinned down how many guns are
firing at once.
>> Don't ask me, ask the FX blokes. They are the ones who have chosen not
to
>> show all those guns being used at once against a target in a life or
death
>> situation. Theoretically very nice. But if it isn't used in SW it won't
be
>> used against ST.
>
>It is used. And will be used -- against you and your planets.
It wasn't used at the Battle of Endor, it wasn't used against the asteroid
of ESB, despite the fact it could have prevented a lot of damage.
>> Heavy turbolasers are likely to be slower than the medium or light
>> turbolasers. The DS had both, so you appear to be arbitrarily assuming
the
>> turboalsers use to defend against fighters were heavy turbolasers.
>> Unlikely.
>
>Wait, wait. Why would they be slower? Just because they're larger?
Hardly.
>It doesn't take much to move a little gas very fast - certainly less than
>the millions of TW required to raise that gas' energy level to where it
is
>when you fire it.
Why would they have the same fire rate? TLs have problems with energy
overload and cooling. Larger means more problems. Slower refire means less
chance of the gun backfiring.
>> Will they ever encounter such energies? You keep avoiding the one thing
I
>> have been saying for the last week : When have we EVER seen more than a
>> handfull of guns fire at once?
>
>BDZ, BDZ, BDZ.
Unknown time frame, unknown number of guns firing per volley, contradicted
by the lack of useage against space-born targets in the films. Maybe they
only use such high rates in BDZ(if they do) because a planet is not going
to go very far, and targetting is not a major requirement.
>>When have we ever seen the refire rates you
>> are suggesting actually used against a target?
>
>Battle of Endor.
Hundreds of shots per second? nope.
>> And do you have any evidence whatsoever they were at anything less than
>> full power? What is the source for variable power turbolaser as well
>> please? I keep hearing about them, but can never find them
>
>The anti-starfighter cannons are intended to shoot down starfighters.
X-Wings
>and such are made of something much tougher than iron, and so would
naturally
>be harder to destroy than an iron-based asteroid; etc. You can see where
>I'm going.
Still no evidence they were anything less than full power. Still no
evidence for variable power TLs anyway.
>> using heavy TL bolts, size of bolt = 50m, be generous by assuming a
>> dispersion we have never seen, you get a surface area of 7800 m^2.
>> Watching the TL bolts impact on targets they do not appear to spread
out
>> much. Result : it takes 25 heavy tL bolts to cover one side of a cube.
You
>> only have 6 heavy TL cannons (SW:ICS). Other size TLs are much smaller,
so
>> it just gets worse, not better.
>
>Why do we have to blanket a cube, anyway? One shot will bring down their
>shields, after all.
As I said in the bit you snipped, I was merely proving a previous poster
wrong with his assumption you *could* blanket a cube. And you are yet to
prove one shot will bring down a Borg Cube's shields.
>> And again you have failed to point out where this is actually used.
When
>> do we see such high levels of fire against a cube?
>
>Against a cube? Never, since you don't have that kind of powerful
weaponry
>in the ST universe.
Typo. Meant any space born target. And we do see weaponry on a par with
some of your TL weaponry (admittedly, probably not the heavy TLs), in the
form of Photon and proton torpedoes.
>> Because they are not at a *dis*advantage in the situations we have seen
>> them, the only time they were at a disadvantage it was against a fleet
the
>> weapons would not work agaisnt anyway.
>
>It would be a disadvantage to shoot from long-range? Why?
How do you draw that conclusion from above?
I was saying the Borg would only use long range weaponry if they percieved
themselves to be at such a disadvantage as to require it. Something that
only occured with S8472, and other methods worked there.
And it would be a disadvantage to shoot from long range because it
requires more precise targetting, and better luck that the target won't do
something unexpected.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>> That is exactly what I am implying. it is an argument that has been
>> applied to 90% of the theoretical uses of ST tech - if they don't use
it
>> in life or death situations, why would they use it against the Borg? It
>> doesn't have to make sense. Remember, we do not know all the details.
>> Perhaps the fire control computers cannot handle that many weapons at
>> once. Perhaps the power supply conduits cannot handle it. Perhaps the
>> stresses on the ship will be too much, or the recoil cause problems
with
>> targetting. Answer the question or shut up. When have we ever seen or
been
>> told of ISDs firing every single gun they have at maximum fire rate,
>> succesfully, for long periods of time?
>
>We've not, because we've never seen an ISD been given the advantage of
such
>liberties.
Except Endor, or the asteroid scene in ESB. It was required in the
asteroids, but wasn't used.
>> Don't ask me, ask the FX blokes. They are the ones who have chosen not
to
>> show all those guns being used at once against a target in a life or
death
>> situation. Theoretically very nice. But if it isn't used in SW it won't
be
>> used against ST.
>
>Meh... then the FX blokes just demonstrated sporadic, half-hearted
turbolaser
>fire... there wasn't ever a single pressing need for a Star Destroyer to
loose
>all of its weapons in the movies at all. Reference to broadside above.
Except getting twatted at Endor, or teh Asteroid scene at hoth. Not
requiring every gun to be fired at once, but requiring a very high refire
rate to destroy the asteroids, and not used. Canon source, contradicting
your official source that seems very vague on the point anyway.
>> Learn to read. 20 megatonnes per photorp. And I have jsut realised - in
>> FC, many of the torpedoes exploded INSIDE the cube, so this figure
would
>> be much closer to the 45 megatonnes max yield. And this is for photon
>> torpedoes. Q-torps are stronger.
>
>Inside the cube. Convenient for those KE shield arguments, eh?
What makes you think a *drone's* KE shield will stop a torpedo hitting a
ship?
>> Heavy turbolasers are likely to be slower than the medium or light
>> turbolasers. The DS had both, so you appear to be arbitrarily assuming
the
>> turboalsers use to defend against fighters were heavy turbolasers.
>> Unlikely.
>
>Likely? Your evidence please?
The problems with energy overload, cooling etc. All increased with larger
weapons.
>> And do you have any evidence whatsoever they were at anything less than
>> full power? What is the source for variable power turbolaser as well
>> please? I keep hearing about them, but can never find them
>
>I've never heard (yet) of a variable power turbolaser - but I could be
wrong.
Then stop using arguments such as "Well, maybe they weren't full power".
Maybe they *were* full power, and that was the most the ISDs could fire at
anything. There's more evidence for that than your "Well, maybe they
weren't full power"
>And assuming they weren't at full power just makes sense. If you had had
to
>split open a rock and had three different explosives, each of which were
>guaranteed to do the job, but each of which had variable costs, which
would
>you let do the job? The cheaper one, of course. It would only make
sense for
>the Imperials to use just as much power as was necessary to do the job -
any
>more would be wasteful.
And yet this does not change the fact you are trying to give your weapons
properties none of the multitudinous reference sources see fit to mention.
Kind of important, point wouldn't you say? Yet they fail to mention it
every time.
And you people accuse *us* of Lying?!!!
>> And again you have failed to point out where this is actually used.
When
>> do we see such high levels of fire against a cube?
>
>"Descent 2"?
Really? Better watch closer. And that was a typo, sorry. I meant used by
SW ships agaisnt other SW ships.
>> Because they are not at a *dis*advantage in the situations we have seen
>> them, the only time they were at a disadvantage it was against a fleet
the
>> weapons would not work agaisnt anyway.
>
>I don't get it. If they weren't at a disadvantage, then they had the
>advantage. Why didn't they want to increase the advantage?
Because they are ultra-efficient? They use what they think will get the
job done. If they think they can do the job without long range weapons,
then they will be efficient by not using them.
>> (and where have you got your numbers from? SW:ICS says only six heavy
TL
>> stations - three each side of the command tower, and most sources say
only
>> 60 cannons total)
>
>Movies.
Does not show more than a handfull of the heaviest cannons, which
logically would be the heavy TL turrets (the heaviest weapon mentioned)
>Visible event in Descent 2 does not correlate to a claimed ability in
>Voyager. That's evidence vs. speculation. Single turbolasers have never
been
>seen having the CHANCE to impact repeatedly on the same spot.
Similar to the tech advances of the Borg never being given a chance to be
shown. Harry pulled her away before seven could prove her statment.
>> We never see multiple TL bolts impacting on the same spot either.
>> Organized and sustained volleys of fire are nice, but if it takes
repeated
>> fire agaisnt a single point, this is going to be harder than the
control
>> required to drop a ship's shields. Hit the shield section anywhere
often
>> enough, they will go down. But the Borg require a little more than
that.
>
>Again, are we to assume that every bolt was "lucky" in finding its
target?
You are talking about repeatedly hitting a 1600m ship. i am talking about
repeatedly hitting a 10m section of that ship.
>> ESB, asteroid field? If you could do what yu are suggesting no single
ship
>> should have been scratched. What did we see? Asteroids repeatedly
>> impacting on the shields or hulls of the ships. One ship most likely
>> destroyed, others badly damaged. The one time your theoretical fire
rates
>> would help you, but they were not shown to be used.
>
>And no ship was scratched except a single ISD whose bridge was cleaved
off due
>perhaps even to the shields being down (a lax captain, perhaps). Who
said all
>the other Destroyers were badly damaged? Every Star Destroyer emerged
from
>that belt, and the damaged one may have emerged too, since Star
Destroyers
>have auxiliary controls.
Still a time when your theoretical fire rates would have been helpfull,
but were never used. With your theoretical fire rates no asteroid would
get anywhere near your ships, yet we clearly see several asteroids
impacting on the shields, or even completely destroying the bridge of one.
Aaron Parsons
Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
> Kynes wrote in message <7eojeu$dq7$1...@news1.rmi.net>...
> >A Base Delta Zero operation requires exactly this: all weapons, maximum
> >fire rate, for a long time. Since this technique is documented and works,
> >we can assume it's possible.
>
> Over an unknown period of time. noone has pinned down how many guns are
> firing at once.
Can't be long or else the maneuver is tactically worthless, as a significant
majority of the people would escape offplanet. If only a few guns are firing
at once then they must have insane refire rates in order to accomplish the
task.
>
>
> >> Don't ask me, ask the FX blokes. They are the ones who have chosen not
> to
> >> show all those guns being used at once against a target in a life or
> death
> >> situation. Theoretically very nice. But if it isn't used in SW it won't
> be
> >> used against ST.
> >
> >It is used. And will be used -- against you and your planets.
>
> It wasn't used at the Battle of Endor, it wasn't used against the asteroid
> of ESB, despite the fact it could have prevented a lot of damage.
There are extenuating circumstances. Asteroids in the Hoth field were
continually colliding and being redirected on alternate courses - the large
asteroid that smashed the ISD could have been the byproduct of two asteroids
colliding that were NOT on immediately threatening courses, but only when they
did collide did the need to eliminate the threat become present - and if the
collision happened at close range or at high speeds, then the turbolaser crews
couldn't react in time to apply sufficient firepower to neutralize the
asteroid. This theory has as much weight as any other, since we never saw
where the asteroid came from. The lack of destruction of every single
threatening asteroid in the Hoth belt does not constitute a reason to think
that an ISD only fires meager numbers of its weapons at once. If 10 guns were
sufficient to eliminate every threat present at one given time, but more
threats were suddenly acquired with insufficient time to react from other
guns, then one could understand why they didn't fire.
>
>
> >> Heavy turbolasers are likely to be slower than the medium or light
> >> turbolasers. The DS had both, so you appear to be arbitrarily assuming
> the
> >> turboalsers use to defend against fighters were heavy turbolasers.
> >> Unlikely.
> >
> >Wait, wait. Why would they be slower? Just because they're larger?
> Hardly.
> >It doesn't take much to move a little gas very fast - certainly less than
> >the millions of TW required to raise that gas' energy level to where it
> is
> >when you fire it.
>
> Why would they have the same fire rate? TLs have problems with energy
> overload and cooling. Larger means more problems. Slower refire means less
> chance of the gun backfiring.
They can't have a fire rate that is significantly larger (more time elapsed)
than any other gun or else there would be no REASON to have a heavy gun. For
example. If a heavy turbolaser applied 2000 megatons every ten seconds, but a
light turbolaser could apply 200 every single second, then what's the
difference? After time elapsed both guns would apply the same amount of
firepower - 2000 megatons in 10 seconds. There must be advantages in fire
rates in heavy turbolasers compared to lighter turbolasers.
>
>
> >> Will they ever encounter such energies? You keep avoiding the one thing
> I
> >> have been saying for the last week : When have we EVER seen more than a
> >> handfull of guns fire at once?
> >
> >BDZ, BDZ, BDZ.
>
> Unknown time frame, unknown number of guns firing per volley, contradicted
> by the lack of useage against space-born targets in the films. Maybe they
> only use such high rates in BDZ(if they do) because a planet is not going
> to go very far, and targetting is not a major requirement.
Again, response above. Extenuating circumstances in the Hoth asteroid field.
Asteroid collision and high-speed redirection on threatening vectors prevented
ISD crews from targeting and destroying every asteroid because the rate of
threats and non-threats actualizing into threats overcame the ability for the
gunners to compensate. Gunner fatigue can also be taken into account - after
all, they were in the field for several days, and that would take a toll on
the personnel.
>
>
> >>When have we ever seen the refire rates you
> >> are suggesting actually used against a target?
> >
> >Battle of Endor.
>
> Hundreds of shots per second? nope.
ROTJ novel elicits "massive long range turbolaser bombardment"... do you
consider 10 rounds massive compared to the standard amount of weaponry an ISD
carries?
>
>
> >> And do you have any evidence whatsoever they were at anything less than
> >> full power? What is the source for variable power turbolaser as well
> >> please? I keep hearing about them, but can never find them
> >
> >The anti-starfighter cannons are intended to shoot down starfighters.
> X-Wings
> >and such are made of something much tougher than iron, and so would
> naturally
> >be harder to destroy than an iron-based asteroid; etc. You can see where
> >I'm going.
>
> Still no evidence they were anything less than full power. Still no
> evidence for variable power TLs anyway.
Still no evidence FOR full power.
>
>
> >> using heavy TL bolts, size of bolt = 50m, be generous by assuming a
> >> dispersion we have never seen, you get a surface area of 7800 m^2.
> >> Watching the TL bolts impact on targets they do not appear to spread
> out
> >> much. Result : it takes 25 heavy tL bolts to cover one side of a cube.
> You
> >> only have 6 heavy TL cannons (SW:ICS). Other size TLs are much smaller,
> so
> >> it just gets worse, not better.
> >
> >Why do we have to blanket a cube, anyway? One shot will bring down their
> >shields, after all.
>
> As I said in the bit you snipped, I was merely proving a previous poster
> wrong with his assumption you *could* blanket a cube. And you are yet to
> prove one shot will bring down a Borg Cube's shields.
Easy, again. Overwhelming short-time application of Federation weaponry on
the Borg Cube's weak spot overcame its ability to adapt AND shield itself.
Corresponding application of high power weaponry in short amount of time from
ISD will likely elicit identical result.
>
>
> >> And again you have failed to point out where this is actually used.
> When
> >> do we see such high levels of fire against a cube?
> >
> >Against a cube? Never, since you don't have that kind of powerful
> weaponry
> >in the ST universe.
>
> Typo. Meant any space born target. And we do see weaponry on a par with
> some of your TL weaponry (admittedly, probably not the heavy TLs), in the
> form of Photon and proton torpedoes.
Unfortunately, you only carry limited numbers of photon and quantum torpedoes,
while turbolasers can fire ad nauseaum. Unfortunately again, only LIGHT
turbolasers present comparable firepower to a photon torpedo. Medium and
heavies are much higher.
>
>
> >> Because they are not at a *dis*advantage in the situations we have seen
> >> them, the only time they were at a disadvantage it was against a fleet
> the
> >> weapons would not work agaisnt anyway.
> >
> >It would be a disadvantage to shoot from long-range? Why?
>
> How do you draw that conclusion from above?
>
> I was saying the Borg would only use long range weaponry if they percieved
> themselves to be at such a disadvantage as to require it. Something that
> only occured with S8472, and other methods worked there.
The Borg never displayed an application of long range weaponry against the
8472, as far as I know of. We've NEVER seen the Borg use long range weaponry,
as far as I know of. Thusly, we should conclude it doesn't exist, even when
it would give them sizeable advantages.
>
>
> And it would be a disadvantage to shoot from long range because it
> requires more precise targetting, and better luck that the target won't do
> something unexpected.
Do the disadvantages of shooting from long range with virtual impunity
compensate for the increased risk of approaching to short range?
Aaron
Michael January
<Lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Michael January wrote in message <3708a707...@ct-news.iafrica.com>...
[snip]
>>What do I have to explain: Borg cube, stellar flare, BOOM. If you
>>don't like it, tell me why.
>
>
>Well, how do we know your TL bolts will be as damaging as a stellar flare
>for one? How do we know there was not something else going on at the time
>that caused the ship to explode? How do we know the stellar flare was a
>normal stellar flare?
Nobody ever said it was anything unusual. If it was unusual, dialog
would have indicated, but it was described merely as a 'stellar flar',
no abnormal adjectives.
>>
>>Slave-ship, mentions multi-gigaton recoil on each firing of a single
>>Turbolaser cannon. If only half this energy is delivered to the
>>target, it is still in the gigaton range.
>
>
>Since when has slave ship been cannon?
>contradicted by canon calculations, as I was told by Poe and chucky. If
>that is the way it is to be, then it is always that way. It cannot be
>reversed when the official numbers help your argument.
No, in fact, they mention that their calculations are conservative,
and the the gigaton claim is consistent with calculations, although
their results are deliberately conservative.
>
>>A stellar flare contains only a fraction of the energy that it's
>>parent star produces, and there was nothing special about the star in
>>Descent 2. We also know that a single ISD's power-plant produces the
>>same energy as a small to average sized star. Now if only a small
>>fraction of that energy is fired at the cube, then it will be
>>sufficient, unless you wish to conjecture that a single stellar flare
>>from an average star contains more energy than the star itself.
>
>All the logical counters to Descent 2 have been brought up before. Do a
>search on dejanews to see them. You are not using anything new.
The most logical counter is that the Borg possibly were not connected
to the collective (as usual) and the ship was ex-Borg (stolen?).
So we will say the ISD is an ex-Empire ship (stolen?). How does that
affect it's capability?
>>A stellar flare contains only a fraction of the energy that it's
>>parent star produces, and there was nothing special about the star in
>>Descent 2. We also know that a single ISD's power-plant produces the
>>same energy as a small to average sized star. Now if only a small
>>fraction of that energy is fired at the cube, then it will be
>>sufficient, unless you wish to conjecture that a single stellar flare
>>from an average star contains more energy than the star itself.
>
>And remember, the powerplant of any SW ship has to provide the energy to
>accelerate to hyperspace, as well as energy for the shields, weapons, life
>support, and anything else that is needed. The accepted energy
>calculations for SW weponry are available on Wong's page and Young's page.
>These are nowhere near that of a small star ( a very vague energy
>reference. What is considered a small star in sw?)
It says a small to average star, and SW is in this universe. The claim
for power was total ship power, not just for weaponry. Read my post
again, I said if only a small fraction of ship power was directed to
weaponry, it would still be significant.
>FC, the whole fleet is ordered to fire on ONE SINGLE SPOT. your
>theoretical claculations are nice, but you ahve ignored all the evidence
>from one of the primary sources.
There you go again with your FC, comparing many Fed ships to one ISD,
thanks for the compliment. I quoted the sources, they support me.
>
>>>Of course, the Borg can bring a few more of their thousands of cubes.
>And
>>>contrary to popular belief, they do fire back. But hark, is this not
>>>external influence in what has until now been a ship-v-ship discussion?
>>>Wasn't that voted an admission of defeat in the recent FAQ votes?
>>
>>It was you that brought FC into this, I am quite happy with one ISD vs
>>one Borg cube, since one ISD has been shown CONSERVATIVELY to outpower
>>the E-E significantly.
>
>
>Yes, and one Borg cube has been shown to be more than a match for a whole
>fleet of vessels similar to the E-E for many hours without even a scratch.
>Why are you waffling about me bringing in FC? I am talking about you
>suddenly deciding to bring in another 40 ISDs from nowhere.
You mentioned FC, if you want to compare one ISD to FC, then at least
make the numbers equal. All I have contended is that the ISD has a
better chance than E-E of taking down a cube, especially given that
their ships have been shown to be vulnerable to the type of energies
SW uses, ions and plasma.
ST is specifically based on the premise that their weapons are easy to
counter, since it operates not on brute power, but a technical nicety
which can be neutralised (frequency sensitive, etc.) with the proper
technology. SW may not have the proper technology (arguable) but in
brute power alone our standard ships outmatches the most powerful ship
in the Federation fleet by a *conservative* factor of two.
And since our weapons do not operate on a technical nicety, it is very
difficult to counter.
An ISD is hardly the most powerful ship in our arsenal, it is closer
to the standard ship-of-the-line. If you want to compare the top of
the Federation line to the top of the Empire, compare the E-E to an
SSD. This is about right, since you only have a handful of Sovereign
class ships, and the Empire only has a handful of SSD's. The ISD is
not even in production any more, it has been replaced by the ISD2.
Time0ut
<gr...@nospam.intercom.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
>
>> Kynes wrote in message <7eojeu$dq7$1...@news1.rmi.net>...
>> >A Base Delta Zero operation requires exactly this: all weapons, maximum
>> >fire rate, for a long time. Since this technique is documented and works,
>> >we can assume it's possible.
>>
>> Over an unknown period of time. noone has pinned down how many guns are
>> firing at once.
>
>Can't be long or else the maneuver is tactically worthless, as a significant
>majority of the people would escape offplanet. If only a few guns are firing
>at once then they must have insane refire rates in order to accomplish the
>task.
Then quote your reference.
Either you have evidence or you don't.
Not necessarily. A single 2000 megaton shot would cause more energy
release in the initial second than ten 200 megaton shots over 10
seconds.
Something like you benchpressing 100 pounds 10 times opposed to you
benching 1000 pounds once. Big difference.
>
>>
>>
>> >> Will they ever encounter such energies? You keep avoiding the one thing
>> I
>> >> have been saying for the last week : When have we EVER seen more than a
>> >> handfull of guns fire at once?
>> >
>> >BDZ, BDZ, BDZ.
>>
>> Unknown time frame, unknown number of guns firing per volley, contradicted
>> by the lack of useage against space-born targets in the films. Maybe they
>> only use such high rates in BDZ(if they do) because a planet is not going
>> to go very far, and targetting is not a major requirement.
>
>Again, response above. Extenuating circumstances in the Hoth asteroid field.
>Asteroid collision and high-speed redirection on threatening vectors prevented
>ISD crews from targeting and destroying every asteroid because the rate of
>threats and non-threats actualizing into threats overcame the ability for the
>gunners to compensate. Gunner fatigue can also be taken into account - after
>all, they were in the field for several days, and that would take a toll on
>the personnel.
What about the computer targeting that is suppose to be so good. It
apparently doesn't work. And with as many troops as there are on an
ISD, it should be easy to rotate them so they can hit the asteroids.
But I never saw more than 5 or 10 blasts at once. So it was
apparently due to lack of power, lack of range, or lack of frequency
of fire.
>
>>
>>
>> >>When have we ever seen the refire rates you
>> >> are suggesting actually used against a target?
>> >
>> >Battle of Endor.
>>
>> Hundreds of shots per second? nope.
>
>ROTJ novel elicits "massive long range turbolaser bombardment"... do you
>consider 10 rounds massive compared to the standard amount of weaponry an ISD
>carries?
>
ESB novel elicits "began to pump laser bolts Vader's way" and Vader
deflected the bolt with " a gauntlet-protected hand".....so despite
what is in the book, the actual canon movie discredits it.
So since it was in the book, it should be easy to see it on
screen....where is it?
>>
>>
>> >> And do you have any evidence whatsoever they were at anything less than
>> >> full power? What is the source for variable power turbolaser as well
>> >> please? I keep hearing about them, but can never find them
>> >
>> >The anti-starfighter cannons are intended to shoot down starfighters.
>> X-Wings
>> >and such are made of something much tougher than iron, and so would
>> naturally
>> >be harder to destroy than an iron-based asteroid; etc. You can see where
>> >I'm going.
>>
>> Still no evidence they were anything less than full power. Still no
>> evidence for variable power TLs anyway.
>
>Still no evidence FOR full power.
There is no specific statements saying it wasn't full power.
There were no specific statements to use reduced power.
Heck, an asteroid even vaporized on its own. It shouldn't take much
power to vaporize them anyway.
>>
>> As I said in the bit you snipped, I was merely proving a previous poster
>> wrong with his assumption you *could* blanket a cube. And you are yet to
>> prove one shot will bring down a Borg Cube's shields.
>
>Easy, again. Overwhelming short-time application of Federation weaponry on
>the Borg Cube's weak spot overcame its ability to adapt AND shield itself.
>Corresponding application of high power weaponry in short amount of time from
>ISD will likely elicit identical result.
Except the Borg use magnetic shielding which would make the plasma
bounce off, just as Luke's weapon did in the trash compactor.
So they wouldn't even need to adapt.
>> How do you draw that conclusion from above?
>>
>> I was saying the Borg would only use long range weaponry if they percieved
>> themselves to be at such a disadvantage as to require it. Something that
>> only occured with S8472, and other methods worked there.
>
>The Borg never displayed an application of long range weaponry against the
>8472, as far as I know of. We've NEVER seen the Borg use long range weaponry,
>as far as I know of. Thusly, we should conclude it doesn't exist, even when
>it would give them sizeable advantages.
The Borg were designing a long range weapon that would destroy several
planets in Scorpion. So it seems they can make them easily.
Time0ut
wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Apr 1999 21:32:36 +0100, "Lord Edam de Fromage"
><Lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>A stellar flare contains only a fraction of the energy that it's
>>>parent star produces, and there was nothing special about the star in
>>>Descent 2. We also know that a single ISD's power-plant produces the
>>>same energy as a small to average sized star. Now if only a small
>>>fraction of that energy is fired at the cube, then it will be
>>>sufficient, unless you wish to conjecture that a single stellar flare
>>>from an average star contains more energy than the star itself.
>>
>>All the logical counters to Descent 2 have been brought up before. Do a
>>search on dejanews to see them. You are not using anything new.
>
>The most logical counter is that the Borg possibly were not connected
>to the collective (as usual) and the ship was ex-Borg (stolen?).
>
>So we will say the ISD is an ex-Empire ship (stolen?). How does that
>affect it's capability?
Where is your canon evidence on that.
There is canon evidence to support that the Borg cube in Descent 2 was
ex-Borg and not connected to the Collective.
So the ST side has evidence to support their side, now present your
evidence.
But yes, the ISD would have less capability, the crew wouldn't be on
it. It would be mostly unmanned and easily defeated.
>
>>>A stellar flare contains only a fraction of the energy that it's
>>>parent star produces, and there was nothing special about the star in
>>>Descent 2. We also know that a single ISD's power-plant produces the
>>>same energy as a small to average sized star. Now if only a small
>>>fraction of that energy is fired at the cube, then it will be
>>>sufficient, unless you wish to conjecture that a single stellar flare
>>>from an average star contains more energy than the star itself.
>>
>>And remember, the powerplant of any SW ship has to provide the energy to
>>accelerate to hyperspace, as well as energy for the shields, weapons, life
>>support, and anything else that is needed. The accepted energy
>>calculations for SW weponry are available on Wong's page and Young's page.
>>These are nowhere near that of a small star ( a very vague energy
>>reference. What is considered a small star in sw?)
>It says a small to average star, and SW is in this universe. The claim
>for power was total ship power, not just for weaponry. Read my post
>again, I said if only a small fraction of ship power was directed to
>weaponry, it would still be significant.
SW is not in this universe. There are too many inconsistencies.