You guys are all morons.
Rob Dalton
I was wondering about that, but never said anything about
it.
Now, let me give my opinion on turboLASER nature (Sorry,
been reading jones droppings).
1. They are most definitely not exclusively lasers, for
several obvious reasons. They may use them in the firing
process, but the aren't the main part of the weapon.
2. They are bright green or bright red, probably because of
differing power levels or fuel composition, but most likely
to differentiate a rebel TL (red) from an Imperial TL
(green).
3. They are sometimes referred to as TL -cannons-,
suggesting some sort of projectile is fired.
4. They blow things up real good.
Hope some of this helps.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Strowbridge
nature of Turbolasers was discussed later in the FAQ. Well, it wasn't.
Am I the only one who noticed that?
Anywho, I need all the theories on what Turbolasers are. E-Mail me or
post it under this thread. TIA.
C.S.Strowbridge
Jimothy Tones
They are obviously *extremely8 high powered weapons that could arguably
penetrate ST ships shields with one hit. Arguably they arguably could
argue.
JT
Calicia
> Arguably they arguably could
> argue.
>
> JT
That's *almost* as good as a .sig I had last year: If you notice this
notice you'll notice this notice is not worth noticing. However, my .sig
made more sense than your sentence.
--
Calicia
-- ASCII silly question, get a silly ANSI --
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Seifert
Tells you all you want to know.
Boiled down, though, it basically says they're plasma bolts.
-Seifert
"Sir, duck tape integrity is at 67%" Data reported.
-from Nasty Trek, part deux by Dalton's anonymous friend
http://www.redrival.com/mcgravin/starwars.html
Graeme Dice
>
> > Arguably they arguably could
> > argue.
> >
> > JT
>
> That's *almost* as good as a .sig I had last year: If you notice this
> notice you'll notice this notice is not worth noticing. However, my .sig
> made more sense than your sentence.
That's a relief.
--
"People must understand that science is inherently neither a
potential for good nor for evil. It is a potential to be
harnessed by man to do his bidding." - Glenn T. Seaborg (1912-), US
physicist.
Jomothy Tines
wrote:
>In Previous Topic #9 E-D vs. Lasers was discussed, I mentioned that the
>nature of Turbolasers was discussed later in the FAQ. Well, it wasn't.
>
>Am I the only one who noticed that?
>
>Anywho, I need all the theories on what Turbolasers are. E-Mail me or
>post it under this thread. TIA.
Well, I believe that it is canon fact that lasers are, in fact lasers.
They are obviously light amplifications stimulating radiation, so ergo
therefore they are real lasers. It is also canon fact that it would
take 500 billion quadrillion squillion laser blasts to take a EVA
suits shields down by 0.00001%, as stated in the Tech Manual.
Tomothy Jines
wrote:
I agree with this entirely, although I think you were rather generous
by allowing even 0.00001% to be taken down, more likely that the
shields would increaseby 1000000000000000%, as stated in the Star Trek
episode, 'Into the Wormhole.' (this episode was never shown on
terrestrial television, but I have seen it, ergo therefore it is
canon)
--
Visit my Domination Web Shite at:
http://members.tripod.com/Baronlowe/dominat.htm
(It's a ST vs SW Fanfic BTW)
And find me on ICQ:
45289197
Jimothy Tones
>>They are obviously light amplifications stimulating radiation, so ergo
>>therefore they are real lasers. It is also canon fact that it would
>>take 500 billion quadrillion squillion laser blasts to take a EVA
>>suits shields down by 0.00001%, as stated in the Tech Manual.
>
>I agree with this entirely, although I think you were rather generous
>by allowing even 0.00001% to be taken down, more likely that the
>shields would increaseby 1000000000000000%, as stated in the Star >Trek
episode, 'Into the Wormhole.' (this episode was never shown on
>terrestrial television, but I have seen it, ergo therefore it is
>canon)
But what about the Star Wars Holiday Special? In one scene (that was cut,
but if you look at the script, it shows it), they stated that the
turbolasers are 1000000000000000000^20 super-joules, or super-watts.
Therefore, the EVA suit would decrease by 1% per year.
-Jimothy
Pritch_777
Strowbridge <strow...@home.com> wrote:
> In Previous Topic #9 E-D vs. Lasers was discussed, I mentioned that
the
> nature of Turbolasers was discussed later in the FAQ. Well, it wasn't.
>
> Am I the only one who noticed that?
>
> Anywho, I need all the theories on what Turbolasers are. E-Mail me or
> post it under this thread. TIA.
>
If we can agree that all SW beam weapons are similar, blasters, fighter
size lasers, and TL... In the X-wing series it states that fighter
lasers ARE lasers, but a WEAK ion bolt is sent along with it as a
fireing aid, or tracer. A blaster could increase the ion to light
ratio to produce the stun effect seen in ANH. This would also explain
why some people say the asteroids in ESB melt before the bolt seems to
hit them. Sorry to the plasma fans... I'll repost with the exact
passage later. 1800 pages is a little much for me to look through
today, but since others will undoubtedly disagree...