[calc] Alternate Turbolaser calcs
Michael January
In the SW novel "slave-ship", turbolasers are described as having a
gigaton of recoil. Conservation of Energy implies that this is the KE
imparted to the plasma (if such it is - Tibanna gas) ejected from the
TL barrel. From this we can play around with E=MVV to derive possible
figures for mass and velocity of the turbolaser bolt.
Gigaton recoil implies 4.19E+18 Joules KE
0.8c 145.7 kg
0.5c 373 kg
0.2c 2,331 kg
0.1c 9,324 kg
0.01c 932,401 kg
** Relativity was not taken into account ** Effect at 0.8c would be to
reduce mass by about 30% (estimate), so 100kg of Tibanna at 0.8c are
not unreasonable. If the velocity was only a few hundred km/sec
(0.01c) then it would take 932401kg to generate a "gigaton of recoil".
As the velocity component approaches light-speed, the mass drops to
zero very quickly.
A primary component of TL's is Tibanna gas, a plasma mined
predominantly from Stellar Photospheres, which means temperatures upto
6000 Kelvin are not unreasonable. It would take a multi-megawatt laser
several seconds to raise anything to that temperature, hence a "small
primary laser" firing for two seconds to "energise" the plasma.
So a TL could very reasonably be 100kg (or more) of plasma at a
temperature of 6000 Kelvin fired at speeds of upto 0.8c. This would
account for a "Gigaton of recoil", and would result in a weapon power
of about 4.2e18 Joules KE, with about 2e8 Joules thermal energy.
The temperature (similar to that at the surface of the sun) would
account for targets 'melting' or 'glowing' before being hit by the
bolt. In other novelisations, even a near miss by a TL is sufficient
to damage ships (Rebel Dawn, Dark Force Rising), so the temp of the
bolts must be at least of the order of 6000K.
Michael January
For some entertainment, check out:-
galactec.com/timothy
Lord Edam de Fromage
Does the Slave Ship quote mention the fact that the TLs themselves produce
gigatonne level recoil, or that the recoil bracings are designed to
withstand gigatonnes of recoil? You see, if I were to design a bracing for
a heavy weapon I would make sure the bracing itself is rated far far
higher than the weapon will ever be likley to produce. So the bracing
could be rated for low gigatonne levels of recoil, whilst the actual bolt
itself will only do damage in the megatonne range. Also, does it refer to
heavy TLs or light TLs?
Other problems:
>A primary component of TL's is Tibanna gas, a plasma mined
>predominantly from Stellar Photospheres, which means temperatures upto
>6000 Kelvin are not unreasonable.
Is it from stellar photospheres or stellar coronae/chromospheres? If the
latter, then the temperatures are going to be in the million Kelvin range.
>So a TL could very reasonably be 100kg (or more) of plasma at a
>temperature of 6000 Kelvin fired at speeds of upto 0.8c. This would
>account for a "Gigaton of recoil", and would result in a weapon power
>of about 4.2e18 Joules KE, with about 2e8 Joules thermal energy.
The only problem with this is the fact that RAY sihelds protect agaisnt
Turbolaser bolts, rather than the Particle shields used to protect against
KE. As such, unless youwish to ignore this problem, the radiative energy
of the TL bolt has to be in the gigaton range as well. This would be
accomplished if the plasma is heated to the 10^6K levels of the stellar
chronosphere, with a thermal energy of 10^16 joules. This could also mean
the plasma is undergoing fusion, with probable radiative emission of a
further 10^14 joules per kilogram (for a total of 10^16 joules if your
100kg is correct, which I think is probably an order or two too high)
>The temperature (similar to that at the surface of the sun) would
>account for targets 'melting' or 'glowing' before being hit by the
>bolt. In other novelisations, even a near miss by a TL is sufficient
>to damage ships (Rebel Dawn, Dark Force Rising), so the temp of the
>bolts must be at least of the order of 6000K.
I will assume the Slaev Ship reference is to heavy TLs for my final point,
due mainly to the numbers of Wong. In ESB we see that even the smallest
TLs are enough to start meliting asteroids - which means the radiated
energy has to be somewhere very close to the TJ levels needed to melt the
asteroid. If we assume the numbers above are for Heavy TLs, then light TLs
are going to be significantly lower, which means the light TLs we saw
heating asteroids in ESB are going to be even less likely
A better indication of mass might be taken from Wong's Kinematic Analysis
of when the Falcon was hit by a light TL bolt.
From http://www.stardestroyer.net/Beam/Calc1.html and taking his equations
and numbers directly:-
I = 7.44e7kg/m^2
w=2.29rad/s
x=7m
a=30degrees
Then we get p=48.68e6 kgm/s
using the relatavistic momentum equations, we can transform this into the
likely mass of a light TL.
Relatavistic Momentum p=mv[1-(v^2/c^2)]^-0.5
giving m = p * {[1-(v^2/c^2)]^-0.5 }/ v^-1 (sorry they look a mess -
that's ASCII for you)
Velocity Mass
0.8c(2.4e8m/s) 0.122kg
0.5c(1.5e8m/s) 0.281kg
0.1c(3e7m/s) 1.615kg
(For Light TLs - heavy TLs are going to be about 125 times this)
Note the mass at 0.8c - if we multiply 0.122kg by 125, we get 15.25kg, or
near enough 1/10 what you calculated from gigatonne-level recoil - which
would indicate that the quote from Slave Ship is indeed refering to the
amount the recoil bracings can handle, and not the actual recoil generated
by the firing of a heavy TL.
There would appear to be a discrepancy between my numbers at lower
velocities and your own. I am not sure if this is a problem with my method
or yours.
Michael January
wrote:
>From this we can play around with E=MVV to derive possible
>figures for mass and velocity of the turbolaser bolt.
Ack, I meant E=0.5*M*V^2, check my figures please, I am sure I did use
the right formula.
Michael January
I don't know, your formulae are slightly over my head. However, I
would agree that recold bracings for gigatonnes of recoil would imply
a weapon power of slightly less KE. Unfortunately we don't know the
thermal or radiative component of the TL bolt, and while it is clear
the TL's impart KE, the impression from SW is that it is the radiative
component that does the damage.
Possibly the stabilisers / recoil bracings / inertial dampings etc
designed into SW hulls renders the KE component irrelevant, but a
weapon with temp in the tens of thousands of Kelvin will make a huge
difference (melting hulls, etc). So shields are optimised to counter
the radiative component, and the KE component is ignored.
We saw that the MF rocked significantly on being hit, but the damage
was minimal, and inertial stabilisers maintained crew comfort despite
the gyrations of the ship.
Jedi Anger
news:7lnu67$83h$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Michael January wrote in message
<377cfa5b...@ct-news.iafrica.com>...
>
> Does the Slave Ship quote mention the fact that the TLs themselves
produce
> gigatonne level recoil, or that the recoil bracings are designed to
> withstand gigatonnes of recoil? You see, if I were to design a bracing
for
> a heavy weapon I would make sure the bracing itself is rated far far
> higher than the weapon will ever be likley to produce. So the bracing
> could be rated for low gigatonne levels of recoil, whilst the actual
bolt
> itself will only do damage in the megatonne range. Also, does it refer
to
> heavy TLs or light TLs?
>
Laser canons :)
Kynes
> Michael January wrote in message <377cfa5b...@ct-news.iafrica.com>...
>
> Does the Slave Ship quote mention the fact that the TLs themselves produce
> gigatonne level recoil, or that the recoil bracings are designed to
> withstand gigatonnes of recoil?
The quote is:
"[T]he laser cannons being mounted into the open skeletal frames required bracing and
recoil-dissipation casings that would have withstood explosions measured in the giga-tonnage
range. Anything less, and a single shot fired in battle would rip a destroyer or battle
cruiser in two, a victim of its own lethal strength." [Slave Ship, p.248]
This is actually *laser cannons.* Note that it says "anything less" would rip the destroyer
in half. So. We can naturally assume that light and heavy TLs produce much more recoil,
possibly even into the teraton range (which would be completely consistent with the ANH
calcs.)
> >So a TL could very reasonably be 100kg (or more) of plasma at a
> >temperature of 6000 Kelvin fired at speeds of upto 0.8c. This would
> >account for a "Gigaton of recoil", and would result in a weapon power
> >of about 4.2e18 Joules KE, with about 2e8 Joules thermal energy.
>
> The only problem with this is the fact that RAY sihelds protect agaisnt
> Turbolaser bolts, rather than the Particle shields used to protect against
> KE. As such, unless youwish to ignore this problem, the radiative energy
> of the TL bolt has to be in the gigaton range as well.
No arguments here. After all:
1e38 J for DS blast
x 2 for Imperial starfleet: 2e38 J
/ 1e7 for each ship: 1e31 J
/ 200 for each weapon: 5e28 J
/ 4e9 for TNT tons: 1.25e13 MT
/ 1e12 for exatons: 12.5 ET
Thus, even if the recoil from a TL bolt was 999 gigatons (the max it could be
before being in the "teraton range") it would still deliver less than
0.000008% of its energy as KE. Obviously, other warships would worry far more
about the thermal/ray properties of the bolt than the inconsequential gigatons
of KE, thus naming the shield that protects against them a "ray shield."
--
-Kynes
"These Federation types are cowards."
-Qui-Gon Jinn (Read the Timothy Jones FAQ! http://galactec.com/timothy)
[NG FAQ: http://nccu1.acc.nccu.edu/~kynes/faq.html]
Lord Edam de Fromage
>The quote is:
>
>"[T]he laser cannons being mounted into the open skeletal frames required
bracing and
>recoil-dissipation casings that would have withstood explosions measured
in the giga-tonnage
>range. Anything less, and a single shot fired in battle would rip a
destroyer or battle
>cruiser in two, a victim of its own lethal strength." [Slave Ship,
p.248]
>
>This is actually *laser cannons.* Note that it says "anything less" would
rip the destroyer
>in half. So. We can naturally assume that light and heavy TLs produce
much more recoil,
>possibly even into the teraton range (which would be completely
consistent with the ANH
>calcs.)
umm, no basically(not the other calcs - these and this quote). Take a
closer look at it - the recoil bracings have to be able to withstand
gigatonnes of recoil, or the ship will fall appart. Now, only a fool will
design the recoil bracings to be able to withstand *less* than the full
recoil force of the weapon. If the recoil bracings withstand gigatonne
recoil, teh recoil itself is going to be less than that. And throughout SW
the description of Turbolasers and Laser Cannons appear to be fully
interchangeable, so the quote could easily be refering to the heavy TLs,
and would be fully consistent with the numbers from demonstrable
quantifiable sources.
Phong Nguyen
of the heavy turbolaser type - I don't think the light laser
cannons are in the gigatonne range of firepower.
>
--
phong nguyen ack...@baka.iname.com / remove baka
Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Kynes
> Kynes wrote in message ...
> >The quote is:
> >
> >"[T]he laser cannons being mounted into the open skeletal frames required
> bracing and
> >recoil-dissipation casings that would have withstood explosions measured
> in the giga-tonnage
> >range. Anything less, and a single shot fired in battle would rip a
> destroyer or battle
> >cruiser in two, a victim of its own lethal strength." [Slave Ship,
> p.248]
> >
> >This is actually *laser cannons.* Note that it says "anything less" would
> rip the destroyer
> >in half. So. We can naturally assume that light and heavy TLs produce
> much more recoil,
> >possibly even into the teraton range (which would be completely
> consistent with the ANH
> >calcs.)
>
> umm, no basically(not the other calcs - these and this quote). Take a
> closer look at it - the recoil bracings have to be able to withstand
> gigatonnes of recoil, or the ship will fall appart.
Why would it have to withstand gigatons if the weapons only had a few megatons
of recoil? Ridiculous. The statement is quite clear.
> Now, only a fool will
> design the recoil bracings to be able to withstand *less* than the full
> recoil force of the weapon.
Exactly. That's why they had to be able to withstand gigaton recoil; because
TLs have recoil in the gigaton range.
> If the recoil bracings withstand gigatonne
> recoil, teh recoil itself is going to be less than that.
No, because then it would not be a necessity to withstand recoil in the
gigaton range. It would be wise, but it would not be necessary to prevent
the ship from falling apart.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>> closer look at it - the recoil bracings have to be able to withstand
>> gigatonnes of recoil, or the ship will fall appart.
>
>Why would it have to withstand gigatons if the weapons only had a few
megatons
>of recoil? Ridiculous. The statement is quite clear.
Because they want to make sure the guns can keep firing without ripping
themselves off? sort of what you would expect from ANY load-bearing
structure. you don't design it to just about stop what you expect - you
desing it to safely take more than that for long periods of time so that
you know it won't fail.
>> Now, only a fool will
>> design the recoil bracings to be able to withstand *less* than the full
>> recoil force of the weapon.
>
>Exactly. That's why they had to be able to withstand gigaton recoil;
because
>TLs have recoil in the gigaton range.
Or, alternatively, the TLs have recoil less than what the bracings are
rated for, which is the sensible way to design these things.
>> If the recoil bracings withstand gigatonne
>> recoil, teh recoil itself is going to be less than that.
>
>No, because then it would not be a necessity to withstand recoil in the
>gigaton range. It would be wise, but it would not be necessary to prevent
>the ship from falling apart.
It is neceassary to design for greater loads than you would expect the
structure to bear, otherwise you risk failure due to fatigue and stress in
a very short time. Hence, teh bracings ahve to withstand more than the
recoil of the guns or they will rip the ship appart.
Kynes
> Kynes wrote in message ...
> >> umm, no basically(not the other calcs - these and this quote). Take a
> >> closer look at it - the recoil bracings have to be able to withstand
> >> gigatonnes of recoil, or the ship will fall appart.
> >
> >Why would it have to withstand gigatons if the weapons only had a few
> megatons
> >of recoil? Ridiculous. The statement is quite clear.
>
> Because they want to make sure the guns can keep firing without ripping
> themselves off? sort of what you would expect from ANY load-bearing
> structure. you don't design it to just about stop what you expect - you
> desing it to safely take more than that for long periods of time so that
> you know it won't fail.
The design was never talked about; only the fact that it was outright necessary
for them to withstand gigatons of recoil.
> >> Now, only a fool will
> >> design the recoil bracings to be able to withstand *less* than the full
> >> recoil force of the weapon.
> >
> >Exactly. That's why they had to be able to withstand gigaton recoil;
> because
> >TLs have recoil in the gigaton range.
>
> Or, alternatively, the TLs have recoil less than what the bracings are
> rated for, which is the sensible way to design these things.
The design was never mentioned.
> >> If the recoil bracings withstand gigatonne
> >> recoil, teh recoil itself is going to be less than that.
> >
> >No, because then it would not be a necessity to withstand recoil in the
> >gigaton range. It would be wise, but it would not be necessary to prevent
> >the ship from falling apart.
>
> It is neceassary to design for greater loads than you would expect the
> structure to bear, otherwise you risk failure due to fatigue and stress in
> a very short time.
Again, the design was not mentioned; only the fact that if the bracings did
not withstand the gigaton recoils of TLs, the ship would rip itself apart,
a victim of its own lethal strength. It did not say "The bracings are designed
to withstand recoil many times that of a turbolaser, for safety purposes, and
thus can withstand recoil in the gigaton range."
Strowbridge
>
> Michael January wrote in message
Just to start things out I want to say I read both messages completely
and have two points to make.
1.) They were both very well written without rhetoric and hyperbole.
B.) We don't want that kind of shit around here. Start the mindless
posting or get the hell out.
{SIDE NOTE: the seconds part was just a joke, I know it should be
obvious to everyone, but I wanted to make sure.}
Anywho, Lord Edam according to your calculations the bracing od the TLs
would be 10 times stronger than they would need to be. This is a little
extreme, unless the the power levels calculated my Wong were indeed
lower limits as he suggested, and the real power levels were closer to
the figures M.January came up with.
Although I agree the recoil should be rated at a higher level than what
the weapons produce, 10 times is a bit much. In fact, 2 times would
still be excessive, but agreeable.
C.S.Strowbridge
Michael January
<phong_ng...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <7loj61$eg0$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Lord Edam de Fromage" <Lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Kynes wrote in message ...
>> >The quote is:
>> >
>> >"[T]he laser cannons being mounted into the open skeletal frames
>required
>> bracing and
>> >recoil-dissipation casings that would have withstood explosions
>measured
>> in the giga-tonnage
>> >range. Anything less, and a single shot fired in battle would rip a
>> destroyer or battle
>> >cruiser in two, a victim of its own lethal strength." [Slave Ship,
>> p.248]
>> >
>> >This is actually *laser cannons.* Note that it says "anything less"
>would
>> rip the destroyer
>> >in half. So. We can naturally assume that light and heavy TLs produce
>> much more recoil,
>> >possibly even into the teraton range (which would be completely
>> consistent with the ANH
>> >calcs.)
>>
>> umm, no basically(not the other calcs - these and this quote). Take a
>> closer look at it - the recoil bracings have to be able to withstand
>> gigatonnes of recoil, or the ship will fall appart. Now, only a fool
>will
>> design the recoil bracings to be able to withstand *less* than the
>full
>> recoil force of the weapon. If the recoil bracings withstand gigatonne
>> recoil, teh recoil itself is going to be less than that. And
>throughout SW
>> the description of Turbolasers and Laser Cannons appear to be fully
>> interchangeable, so the quote could easily be refering to the heavy
>TLs,
>> and would be fully consistent with the numbers from demonstrable
>> quantifiable sources.
>>
>To be conservative, it'd be best to assume those cannons were
>of the heavy turbolaser type - I don't think the light laser
>cannons are in the gigatonne range of firepower.
>
Why is it that that ST people want their quotes taken literally, while
SW quotes always have to be qualified using the most roundabout logic
possible. Are they afraid to take on the quotes as is, or what?
A laser cannon is a laser cannon. Not a turbolaser.
"Barely sublight" is ~0.9c
"point six sublight" is 0.6c
veg...@jps.net
> We saw that the MF rocked significantly on being hit, but the damage
> was minimal, and inertial stabilisers maintained crew comfort despite
> the gyrations of the ship.
>
peace,
ali
Phong Nguyen
can afford to be conservative, while the Trek side tends to
want every advantage as they can get. No harm in that.
> A laser cannon is a laser cannon. Not a turbolaser.
>
Indeed. Though I'm just trying to be conservative. (Though the
ISD1 had some enormous trench-mounted laser cannons)
> "Barely sublight" is ~0.9c
>
> "point six sublight" is 0.6c
>
> Michael January
>
> For some entertainment, check out:-
> galactec.com/timothy
>
--
phong nguyen ack...@baka.iname.com / remove baka
Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it.
Michael January
wrote:
Furthermore, the quote did not say the bracings were designed to
withstand one giga-tonne of recoil. It said it was designed to
withstand explosions in the giga-tonne range. That is, the explosions
were giga-tonne, and the bracings were tougher.
Michael January
>
>> We saw that the MF rocked significantly on being hit, but the damage
>> was minimal, and inertial stabilisers maintained crew comfort despite
>> the gyrations of the ship.
>>
>then how come they felt the impacts of the astroids?
They felt the impact of the TL's too. The point is that they were able
to remain standing or sitting, and weren't knocked unconscious (high
g-forces) by the ship rotating or twisting.
Jonathan Boyd
> Why is it that that ST people want their quotes taken literally, while
> SW quotes always have to be qualified using the most roundabout logic
> possible. Are they afraid to take on the quotes as is, or what?
>
> A laser cannon is a laser cannon. Not a turbolaser.
>
> "Barely sublight" is ~0.9c
>
> "point six sublight" is 0.6c
But then all the weapons mentioned in the movies are lasers as well, not
turbolasers. I think that in SW the terms TL and laser cannon have
become interchangeable.
--
Jonathan
"Keyboard not connected. Press F1 to continue" Windows 95
veg...@jps.net
xr...@iafrica.com (Michael January) wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jul 1999 17:13:38 GMT, veg...@jps.net wrote:
>
> >
> >> We saw that the MF rocked significantly on being hit, but the
damage
> >> was minimal, and inertial stabilisers maintained crew comfort
despite
> >> the gyrations of the ship.
> >>
> >then how come they felt the impacts of the astroids?
>
> They felt the impact of the TL's too. The point is that they were able
> to remain standing or sitting, and weren't knocked unconscious (high
> g-forces) by the ship rotating or twisting.
>
> Michael January
case to hit han on th ehead.
peace,
ali
Graeme Dice
>
> Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
> >
> > Michael January wrote in message
>
> Just to start things out I want to say I read both messages completely
> and have two points to make.
>
> 1.) They were both very well written without rhetoric and hyperbole.
>
> B.) We don't want that kind of shit around here. Start the mindless
> posting or get the hell out.
>
> {SIDE NOTE: the seconds part was just a joke, I know it should be
> obvious to everyone, but I wanted to make sure.}
>
> Anywho, Lord Edam according to your calculations the bracing od the TLs
> would be 10 times stronger than they would need to be. This is a little
> extreme, unless the the power levels calculated my Wong were indeed
> lower limits as he suggested, and the real power levels were closer to
> the figures M.January came up with.
>
> Although I agree the recoil should be rated at a higher level than what
> the weapons produce, 10 times is a bit much. In fact, 2 times would
> still be excessive, but agreeable.
Isn't it considered standard engineering practice to make things about 5
times as strong as they need to be?
Graeme Dice
Strowbridge
>
> Strowbridge wrote:
> >
> > Although I agree the recoil should be rated at a higher level than
> > what the weapons produce, 10 times is a bit much. In fact, 2 times
> > would still be excessive, but agreeable.
>
> Isn't it considered standard engineering practice to make things about
> 5 times as strong as they need to be?
I never heard that in Engineering class. Granted I did Electrical not
Civil.
C.S.Strowbridge
Robert Williams
>> Because they want to make sure the guns can keep firing without ripping
>> themselves off? sort of what you would expect from ANY load-bearing
>> structure. you don't design it to just about stop what you expect - you
>> desing it to safely take more than that for long periods of time so that
>> you know it won't fail.
>
>The design was never talked about; only the fact that it was outright necessary
>for them to withstand gigatons of recoil.
Notice that edam hasn't replied.
Rob
Michael January
>In article <3783979f...@ct-news.iafrica.com>,
> xr...@iafrica.com (Michael January) wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Jul 1999 17:13:38 GMT, veg...@jps.net wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> We saw that the MF rocked significantly on being hit, but the
>damage
>> >> was minimal, and inertial stabilisers maintained crew comfort
>despite
>> >> the gyrations of the ship.
>> >>
>> >then how come they felt the impacts of the astroids?
>>
>> They felt the impact of the TL's too. The point is that they were able
>> to remain standing or sitting, and weren't knocked unconscious (high
>> g-forces) by the ship rotating or twisting.
>>
>> Michael January
>Remeber the scne wher ethe ship skewed to the right. making the tool
>case to hit han on th ehead.
>peace,
>ali
And that was the worst that happened, he didn't lose his balance even,
as he should have given the way the ship was maneuvring.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>>To be conservative, it'd be best to assume those cannons were
>>of the heavy turbolaser type - I don't think the light laser
>>cannons are in the gigatonne range of firepower.
>>
>
>SW quotes always have to be qualified using the most roundabout logic
>possible. Are they afraid to take on the quotes as is, or what?
>
>A laser cannon is a laser cannon. Not a turbolaser.
In the case of Laser Cannons, you cannot tell if the term refers to laser
cannons, or Turbolasers, because both are simply laser cannons, and the
terms are almost fully interchangeable throughout the official sources,
and barely mentioned in the canon sources -- perfect example, Essential
Guide to Vehicles & Vessels, page XV.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>Anywho, Lord Edam according to your calculations the bracing od the TLs
>would be 10 times stronger than they would need to be. This is a little
>extreme, unless the the power levels calculated my Wong were indeed
>lower limits as he suggested, and the real power levels were closer to
>the figures M.January came up with.
There is bound to be some inertial dampners or somesuch in the falcon
which lessened the effects of the TL, so the numbers I got would probably
be lower than what they should be, but it *is* standard engineering
practice to design for several times what you would expect the device to
withstand.
>Although I agree the recoil should be rated at a higher level than what
>the weapons produce, 10 times is a bit much. In fact, 2 times would
>still be excessive, but agreeable.
The thing is, not only do the bracings have to withstand the energy of the
recoil of the gun, they have to withstand it repeatedly for several years,
so they are going to have to withstand far far more than even double the
recoil of the guns to allow for the inevitable weakening of the design.
Lord Edam de Fromage
notice that Edam has not made any posts at all since monday night because
he is in the middle of a two week Graduate Assesment which means he has to
concentrate on real life thigns rather than this waste of time during the
week.
Fuckwit.
Lord Edam de Fromage
just to keep Robbie happy...
Kynes wrote in message ...
>The design was never talked about; only the fact that it was outright
necessary
>for them to withstand gigatons of recoil.
The design was never talked about. You are right about that. The only
thing that was talked about was the major point that would have been
considered when they were designed. Which, to those of us who actually
think about these things, is the same as saying what they had to be
designed for.
>Again, the design was not mentioned; only the fact that if the bracings
did
>not withstand the gigaton recoils of TLs, the ship would rip itself
apart,
>a victim of its own lethal strength. It did not say "The bracings are
designed
>to withstand recoil many times that of a turbolaser, for safety purposes,
and
>thus can withstand recoil in the gigaton range."
no, it said "these things had to withstand explosions measured in the
gigatonne range, or the ship woulf fall appart when they fired". Which,
when you think about it carefully, is the same as saying "These things had
to be DESIGNED to withstand gigatonnes of recoil, or they would rip
themselves appart from thE ship when they fired".
Don't you keep saying this is SW, where the writers do not lead you
through by the hand? Whilst the writer was not talking about the design of
a starship (and why should he? That stuff is not exactly rivetting
reading, and the book is not a TM), we can derive some basic design limits
from what he said. We can then incorporate those derived limits with other
sources and see what we get. And in this case they all agree quire
nicely - with one or two minor assumptions we can include all the evidence
in one complete theory.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>>Remeber the scne wher ethe ship skewed to the right. making the tool
>>case to hit han on th ehead.
>
>as he should have given the way the ship was maneuvring.
Why? The gravitic is generated by the ship, so the direction of gravity
will be moving around as well. Which means you should not loose your
balance at all. The only thing that could be a problem is friction - but
99% of the time shoe soles have more friction than metal-on-metal, so you
are less likely to go sliding.
Graeme Dice
>
> Graeme Dice wrote:
> >
> > Strowbridge wrote:
> > >
> > > what the weapons produce, 10 times is a bit much. In fact, 2 times
> > > would still be excessive, but agreeable.
> >
> > 5 times as strong as they need to be?
>
> I never heard that in Engineering class. Granted I did Electrical not
> Civil.
I wasn't sure, I heard it from someone here in my first year. I do
think that it applies to civil however if it applies at all.
Graeme Dice
Michael January
Exactly, now please explain to Ali.
Michael January
<Lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Strowbridge wrote in message <3781C2D6...@home.com>...
>>Anywho, Lord Edam according to your calculations the bracing od the TLs
>>would be 10 times stronger than they would need to be. This is a little
>>extreme, unless the the power levels calculated my Wong were indeed
>>lower limits as he suggested, and the real power levels were closer to
>>the figures M.January came up with.
>
>There is bound to be some inertial dampners or somesuch in the falcon
>which lessened the effects of the TL, so the numbers I got would probably
>be lower than what they should be, but it *is* standard engineering
>practice to design for several times what you would expect the device to
>withstand.
>
>>Although I agree the recoil should be rated at a higher level than what
>>the weapons produce, 10 times is a bit much. In fact, 2 times would
>>still be excessive, but agreeable.
>
>The thing is, not only do the bracings have to withstand the energy of the
>recoil of the gun, they have to withstand it repeatedly for several years,
>so they are going to have to withstand far far more than even double the
>recoil of the guns to allow for the inevitable weakening of the design.
>
The strength of the bracings are irrelevant. It is the amount of
explosive recoil that we are interested in, and the author said the
bracing is deisgned to withstand explosions measured in gagitons.
Emphasis on "explosions measured in gigatons"
Michael January
Yes exactly, the recoil is gigaton level at least (the author used the
plural), and he was referring to the recoil itself, the explosion, not
the bracing.
A few people have argued that the bracing was maximum one gigaton,
therefore the recoil must be less than one gigaton, which is untrue.
The recoil itself is gigaton level, and the bracings are stronger.
Jasper (Asmaul) McChesney
Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
>
> Kynes wrote in message ...
> >> umm, no basically(not the other calcs - these and this quote). Take a
> >> closer look at it - the recoil bracings have to be able to withstand
> >> gigatonnes of recoil, or the ship will fall appart.
> >
> >Why would it have to withstand gigatons if the weapons only had a few
> >megatons of recoil? Ridiculous. The statement is quite clear.
Regardless of how excatly how much load the bearings can take, doesn't it
seem odd that a couple megatons (or gigatons) or force will rip apart an
entire Star Destroyer? Wouldn't a couple of TL blast do that (once it was
though the shields of course)?
--
Jasper (Asmaul) McChesney - ja...@javanet.com
http://www.javanet.com/~jasp/asmaul1.html
Windows 95; the most user friendly pile of crap ever designed.
Michael January
<ja...@javanet.com> wrote:
>Piggybacking here...
>
>Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
>>
>> Kynes wrote in message ...
>> >> umm, no basically(not the other calcs - these and this quote). Take a
>> >> closer look at it - the recoil bracings have to be able to withstand
>> >> gigatonnes of recoil, or the ship will fall appart.
>> >
>> >Why would it have to withstand gigatons if the weapons only had a few
>> >megatons of recoil? Ridiculous. The statement is quite clear.
>
>Regardless of how excatly how much load the bearings can take, doesn't it
>seem odd that a couple megatons (or gigatons) or force will rip apart an
>entire Star Destroyer?
An incomplete ship, without the necessary bracings and force fields
installed. In Slave Ship, they were talking about a partially
constructed ship, which didn't even have all the necessary hull
plating. Also, I don't think they were talking about an ISD, but a
corellian corvette, if memory serves.
>Wouldn't a couple of TL blast do that (once it was
>though the shields of course)?
More than just a couple. A completed ISD has a several meter thick
hull, and dozens of decks (possibly 80 or 90) each separated by
several meters of deck plating. A TL could punch through the outer
hull, and possibly a few decks, but not rip the ship apart.
Jasper (Asmaul) McChesney
>
> An incomplete ship, without the necessary bracings and force fields
> installed. In Slave Ship, they were talking about a partially
> constructed ship, which didn't even have all the necessary hull
> plating. Also, I don't think they were talking about an ISD, but a
> corellian corvette, if memory serves.
Ah, I missed that. Thanks.
--
Jasper (Asmaul) McChesney - ja...@javanet.com
http://www.javanet.com/~jasp/asmaul1.html
Raise the temples to Zeus, my friends, for we can not prove his nonexistance!