[calcs] Further to BDZ
Michael January
Edam has been insisting that a significant portion of the energy
required in a BDZ comes from an ISD's fighter and bomber complement,
and missiles launched from the ISD, rather than the ISD's 'beam
weapons' or turbolasers.
In an earlier post, I pointed out that if current power assumptions
are used:-
10 MT for a proton torpedo
60 gigajoules for a fighters laser-cannons
500 megatons for a capital ships concussion missiles
and these weapons were fired continuously for a 24 hour period, they
would contribute less than 0.001% of the energy required to do what a
BDZ operation demands.
If however, we accept Edam's position that these weapons contribute a
significant portion of the energy, then we can do the following. A BDZ
demands a minimum of about 5.3e27 Joules to be injected. This will
raise the temperature of 30% of a 20km crust to the melting point of
Iron, but not enough to melt it, let alone to melt rock, not iron.
If proton torpedoes (or other bombs fired by TIE bombers) contributed
10% of this energy (5.3e26 Joules), then the 12 TIE bombers would have
to fire TWO MILLION missiles of about 122 gigatons each during the BDZ
operation.
If the laser cannons on the 72 fighters (including the bombers)
contributed a further 10%, then this would require 12.5 MILLION
weapons firings of 5100 megatons per shot.
If an ISD carried 1000 missiles, and these contributed 10% to the BDZ,
then each missile would have to have a warhead yield of 126 TERATONS.
That still leaves the turbolasers to do 70% of the job, which means
that individually, each turbolaser is still 146 GIGATONS, and an ISD
would have to have 200 of them fire continuously for 24 hours to
finish the job.
Personally, I am quite happy to accept that a TIE delivers 5.1
gigatons per shot of it's laser cannons, and that a proton torpedo is
122 gigatons, and 12 TIE Bombers between them carry two million such
missiles.
This also seems to balance out nicely
Turbolaser 146 Gigatons
One fighter, per shot 5.1 Gigatons
Proton Torp 122 Gigatons
Concussion Torp 126 Teratons
Puts all the weapons in pretty much the same power class, except for
concussion missiles, which are MUCH more powerful than turbolasers,
Michael January
For some entertainment, check out:-
galactec.com/timothy
Wedge Antilles
Should it not be in joules or even watts (or variations thereof)?
later,
Wedge
Michael January wrote in message <378897dc...@ct-news.iafrica.com>...
Michael January
<we...@tauniverse.com> wrote:
>Main problem with this. Since when do energy weapons deliver gigatons?
>Should it not be in joules or even watts (or variations thereof)?
>
>later,
>Wedge
It's about 6e20 Joules per TL, which converts to 146 gigatons (These
figures of course assuming ridiculously high figures for fighters and
missiles, and a ridiculously low crust density, low crust thickness,
and only 30% of the crust, etc.
Jake Kreutzer
as joules do in the metric system. I think he used tons there to
emphasize the amount of energy being produced in a way that scientific
notation with joules just can't get across.
Watts are energy/time, so it might be a good idea to figure out
how long the BDZ takes and calculate the wattage of the ISD, so that we
could make a reasonable guess of how much damage it could do in a battle.
Quoting joules alone can be a little misleading- after all, a pistol,
given unlimited ammunition and no mechanical failure, could eventually
deliver 1,000,000,000 joules of energy; it would just take a while =).
Keep in mind when you read the above that I haven't taken a
physics course in a couple of years, so I am in no way an expert[1]. HTH,
Jake
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
[1] And unlike a certain other poster in this group from the University of
Washington, I don't consult with my former physics prof regularly.
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Wedge Antilles wrote:
> Main problem with this. Since when do energy weapons deliver gigatons?
> Should it not be in joules or even watts (or variations thereof)?
>
> later,
> Wedge
>
Michael January
<ja...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> I believe tons act as a measure of energy in the English system,
>as joules do in the metric system. I think he used tons there to
>emphasize the amount of energy being produced in a way that scientific
>notation with joules just can't get across.
> Watts are energy/time, so it might be a good idea to figure out
>how long the BDZ takes and calculate the wattage of the ISD, so that we
>could make a reasonable guess of how much damage it could do in a battle.
A BDZ requires a minimum of 5.3e27 Joules to destroy 30% of the crust
to half it's depth. If this takes 24 hours that works out to 6.1e22W.
If it took an hour, then it works out to 1.4e24 Watts.