BDZ and Death Star.
pjmc...@gate.net
The Death Star imparts, in one single second shot, about 1,000,000 times the
minimum energy to blow a planet apart.
A Star Destroyer's volume is somewhat less than 1 Billionth (or Milliardth,
if you are really out-dated) that of
a Death Star.
IF power production scales with volume, then a Star Destroyer could be
expected to produce one thousanth the necessary power to blow apart a planet
(escape velocity, not escape velocity*1000) in on second.
So it could dismantle a planet in about 15 minutes.
A planetary crust might be explected to have a volume of around 20 billion
Km^3 as a maximum.
A plates volume could be expected to be around 4 Trillion cubic kilometers.
So blowing off the crust would take about 1/200th the energy required for
blowing off the crust , mantle, and core.
So it could pull this in about 5 seconds.
Of course, the Death Star may be mostly power generating equipment, while
the ISD is not.
So perhaps we should assume an ISD power around a trillionth of a DS.
This puts BDZing at something over and hour.
Crayz9000
Which, coincidentally, is the conclusion that most of us have come to.
However, it would be fun to throw the 5-second BDZ number at the Trekkies...
--
Crayz9000 AKA
Cybernetic Crow
mhm28x12
Web Site: http://crayz9000.htmlplanet.com
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.
NOTE: Kill the cow before replying by E-mail.
The Ambivalent DMZ
"Crayz9000" <cray...@cow.mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:992uh4$42cgu$1...@ID-48511.news.dfncis.de...
Since there is *no* evidence whatsoever for a one hour BDZ, and that there
is direct unrefutable evidence that it takes at least two hours to reach a
level of destruction less than a BDZ, you can throw whatever numbers around
that you like, they'll just be laughed at. :-)
DMZ
---
cmdrwilkens
(snip calcs that prove 1hr BDZ)
> > > This puts BDZing at something over and hour.
> >
> > Which, coincidentally, is the conclusion that most of us have come to.
> > However, it would be fun to throw the 5-second BDZ number at the
> Trekkies...
>
> Since there is *no* evidence whatsoever for a one hour BDZ, and that there
> is direct unrefutable evidence that it takes at least two hours to reach a
> level of destruction less than a BDZ, you can throw whatever numbers
around
> that you like, they'll just be laughed at. :-)
>
Did you possibly not read the original post?
The TESB asteroid scene and scaling firepower of the DS to ISD BOTH give
conclusize evidence in support of a 1hr BDZ. You claim it can't be done in
the very same post where it is proven HOW it can be done without posting any
refuting evidence. What crack are you smoking and who is your dealer so i
can get some?
--
cmdrwilkens
AIM: cmdrwilkens
"Flamethrowers, when you need to set someone on fire...but
they're all the way over there."
-Brian Blackman
The Ambivalent DMZ
"cmdrwilkens" <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:cyct6.189138$B6.41...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
>
> (snip calcs that prove 1hr BDZ)
>
> > > > This puts BDZing at something over and hour.
> > >
> > > Which, coincidentally, is the conclusion that most of us have come to.
> > > However, it would be fun to throw the 5-second BDZ number at the
> > Trekkies...
> >
> > Since there is *no* evidence whatsoever for a one hour BDZ, and that
there
> > is direct unrefutable evidence that it takes at least two hours to reach
a
> > level of destruction less than a BDZ, you can throw whatever numbers
> around
> > that you like, they'll just be laughed at. :-)
> >
> Did you possibly not read the original post?
>
> The TESB asteroid scene and scaling firepower of the DS to ISD BOTH give
> conclusize evidence in support of a 1hr BDZ. You claim it can't be done in
> the very same post where it is proven HOW it can be done without posting
any
> refuting evidence. What crack are you smoking and who is your dealer so i
> can get some?
There exists:
A) No proof, evidence or reason to believe that the power of the weaponry
scales directly with vessel size, other than your own say-so. No argument to
answer, belief is not valid evidence.
B) TESB asteroid scene calculations performed on an asteroid at least twice
the diameter of those observed in the scene assuming complete vaporisation.
These calculations are currently the topic of discussion in at least 3 other
threads, if you wish to weigh the evidence.
C) No proof, evidence or reason to believe that a BDZ takes one hour, other
than your own belief and attempted rationalizations thereof. No argument to
answer, belief is not valid evidence.
D) A circular argument where the scaling calculations prove a one hour BDZ,
and vice versa. No argument to answer.
E) A poorly constructed personal attack. Personal attacks do not add weight
to your argument in any way whatsoever. No argument to answer, the insult
was far too poor.
Thank you. :-)
DMZ
---
Crayz9000
news:984964548.5037.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
You're thinking of what pjmcgurk posted. I was talking about other
calculations - the asteroid calculations come to mind. Concession accepted.
> B) TESB asteroid scene calculations performed on an asteroid at least
twice
> the diameter of those observed in the scene assuming complete
vaporisation.
> These calculations are currently the topic of discussion in at least 3
other
> threads, if you wish to weigh the evidence.
If you like, go take a look at the four or five screen captures that Wong
posted on his site. They show the asteroid being hit, and vanishing. Care to
explain why it would vanish?
> C) No proof, evidence or reason to believe that a BDZ takes one hour,
other
> than your own belief and attempted rationalizations thereof. No argument
to
> answer, belief is not valid evidence.
I've been ignoring this argument for the most part, so I can't exactly give
an answer.
> D) A circular argument where the scaling calculations prove a one hour
BDZ,
> and vice versa. No argument to answer.
Well... I didn't make those calcs. :)
> E) A poorly constructed personal attack. Personal attacks do not add
weight
> to your argument in any way whatsoever. No argument to answer, the insult
> was far too poor.
I didn't make that post either. Concession accepted.
The Ambivalent DMZ
> > B) TESB asteroid scene calculations performed on an asteroid at least
> twice
> > the diameter of those observed in the scene assuming complete
> vaporisation.
> > These calculations are currently the topic of discussion in at least 3
> other
> > threads, if you wish to weigh the evidence.
>
> If you like, go take a look at the four or five screen captures that Wong
> posted on his site. They show the asteroid being hit, and vanishing. Care
to
> explain why it would vanish?
Read the '[TECH] "Lower limit" Light Turbolaser calcs' thread and get back
to me when you have an argument against it.
A) & E):
The post was not made in reply to you. Your ignorance is not accepted. :-)
C) & D):
Concession accepted. :-)
DMZ
---
cmdrwilkens
"The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
news:984964548.5037.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
However Turbolasers and Superlasers are expresly stated to operate on the
same principles while size is a distinct factor in the amount of energy a
ship can generate with any given technology. This means that the weapons
systems are scalable with size and reactor output is variable with size.
While a direct reactor size to reactor size comparison is better (and to my
memory Mike already did one) the rough scalings give you a range to work
with that is acceptable.
> B) TESB asteroid scene calculations performed on an asteroid at least
twice
> the diameter of those observed in the scene assuming complete
vaporisation.
> These calculations are currently the topic of discussion in at least 3
other
> threads, if you wish to weigh the evidence.
Those asteroids, even at the 20metre diameter (and as seen on ASVS-HN they
are more likely 26-30m) still gives you the neccessaryfirepower on a single
ISD-I to melt, to a depth of 1 meter, the surface of an Earth sized planet
(assuming similair landmass) in approximately 40 minutes. I did the calcs
about five or six months ago and I don't know if I still have them but if
you have an old set of posts it would be in the BDZ with DS thread.
> C) No proof, evidence or reason to believe that a BDZ takes one hour,
other
> than your own belief and attempted rationalizations thereof. No argument
to
> answer, belief is not valid evidence.
One hour is a reasonable time frame and I do not subscribe to the belief
that it MUST be EXACTLY one hour, merely that 1 hour is a good average
timeframe given the variables that will be present from planet to planet. 1
hour is consistent with these calcs, the official literature, and the TESB
asteroid vapes.
> D) A circular argument where the scaling calculations prove a one hour
BDZ,
> and vice versa. No argument to answer.
I am posting there and as of yet I haven't aseen any calculations on your
part which show how the asteroids were fractured and hurled in reverse at
several km/s in a timeframe of less than 1/30th of one second. Also since I
posted there as well the asteroid vape scenes clearly show the entire
asteroid still intact after the bolt impacts and it is glowing with white
red and orange luminescence.
> E) A poorly constructed personal attack. Personal attacks do not add
weight
> to your argument in any way whatsoever. No argument to answer, the insult
> was far too poor.
That was not for argument but rather a statement of disbelief at your total
blindness to the facts being presented (everything from the phot proof of
vaporization to the official literature on BDZ). I am very happy to call
people crack smoking donkey fuckers when they display such blindness. You
haven't quite reached the donkey fucking level of blindness but you sure as
hell are at the crack smoking level.
The Ambivalent DMZ
> > A) No proof, evidence or reason to believe that the power of the
weaponry
> > scales directly with vessel size, other than your own say-so. No
argument
> to
> > answer, belief is not valid evidence.
> However Turbolasers and Superlasers are expresly stated to operate on the
> same principles while size is a distinct factor in the amount of energy a
> ship can generate with any given technology. This means that the weapons
> systems are scalable with size and reactor output is variable with size.
> While a direct reactor size to reactor size comparison is better (and to
my
> memory Mike already did one) the rough scalings give you a range to work
> with that is acceptable.
This is a very good point. Unfortunately there is no causal link here. A
statistical correlation may exist, but it does *not* offer proof, or
guarantee a certainty.
> > B) TESB asteroid scene calculations performed on an asteroid at least
> twice
> > the diameter of those observed in the scene assuming complete
> vaporisation.
> > These calculations are currently the topic of discussion in at least 3
> other
> > threads, if you wish to weigh the evidence.
>
> Those asteroids, even at the 20metre diameter (and as seen on ASVS-HN they
> are more likely 26-30m) still gives you the neccessaryfirepower on a
single
> ISD-I to melt, to a depth of 1 meter, the surface of an Earth sized planet
> (assuming similair landmass) in approximately 40 minutes. I did the calcs
> about five or six months ago and I don't know if I still have them but if
> you have an old set of posts it would be in the BDZ with DS thread.
Asteroid size is calculated as between 4-25m. I believe more detailed
analysis is currently underway.
It takes an ISD at least 2 hours to reduce the surface to burning rubble,
from the official literature. Hence, it must take more time to reduce the
entire surface to slag. Existing calculations are based on personal
interpretations of the meaning of the word "slag" in conjuction with "making
a timescale up off the top of the head."
> > C) No proof, evidence or reason to believe that a BDZ takes one hour,
> other
> > than your own belief and attempted rationalizations thereof. No argument
> to
> > answer, belief is not valid evidence.
>
> One hour is a reasonable time frame and I do not subscribe to the belief
> that it MUST be EXACTLY one hour, merely that 1 hour is a good average
> timeframe given the variables that will be present from planet to planet.
1
> hour is consistent with these calcs, the official literature, and the TESB
> asteroid vapes.
1 hour is inconsistent with the official literature.
The rest of you argument reiterates the rationalization of your personal
belief.
Concession accepted.
> > D) A circular argument where the scaling calculations prove a one hour
> BDZ,
> > and vice versa. No argument to answer.
>
> I am posting there and as of yet I haven't aseen any calculations on your
> part which show how the asteroids were fractured and hurled in reverse at
> several km/s in a timeframe of less than 1/30th of one second. Also since
I
> posted there as well the asteroid vape scenes clearly show the entire
> asteroid still intact after the bolt impacts and it is glowing with white
> red and orange luminescence.
You haven't addressed D) in any way whatsoever in this answer, just
continued your argument for B)
Concession accepted.
"Hurled in reverse?"
> > E) A poorly constructed personal attack. Personal attacks do not add
> weight
> > to your argument in any way whatsoever. No argument to answer, the
insult
> > was far too poor.
>
> That was not for argument but rather a statement of disbelief at your
total
> blindness to the facts being presented (everything from the phot proof of
> vaporization to the official literature on BDZ). I am very happy to call
> people crack smoking donkey fuckers when they display such blindness. You
> haven't quite reached the donkey fucking level of blindness but you sure
as
> hell are at the crack smoking level.
Concession accepted.
DMZ
---
Crayz9000
>
> "Crayz9000" <cray...@cow.mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> news:993o61$4ca9g$1...@ID-48511.news.dfncis.de...
<snip>
Now I'm reminded why I chose to stay out of this. The only book I've read
concerning BDZ is Spectre of the Past, and it only superficially glazed over
Caamas. However, it did mention that the only Caamas who survived were
off-world at the time, and that the planetary shield generator was
sabotaged.
The Ambivalent DMZ
> The Ambivalent DMZ <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
> news:984968317.5863.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > "Crayz9000" <cray...@cow.mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> > news:993o61$4ca9g$1...@ID-48511.news.dfncis.de...
>
> <snip>
>
> Now I'm reminded why I chose to stay out of this. The only book I've read
> concerning BDZ is Spectre of the Past, and it only superficially glazed
over
> Caamas. However, it did mention that the only Caamas who survived were
> off-world at the time, and that the planetary shield generator was
> sabotaged.
> --
> Crayz9000 AKA
> Cybernetic Crow
> mhm28x12
I just realised you have the designation mhm28x12, and that I know what it
means. :-)
DMZ
---
The Insidous Spyda
>
> > That was not for argument but rather a statement of disbelief at your
> total
> > blindness to the facts being presented (everything from the phot proof of
> > vaporization to the official literature on BDZ). I am very happy to call
> > people crack smoking donkey fuckers when they display such blindness. You
> > haven't quite reached the donkey fucking level of blindness but you sure
> as
> > hell are at the crack smoking level.
>
> Concession accepted.
See, now you're getting the hang of it :)
--
Remove QWERTY from Email to reply
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/spyda
ICQ#: 39921647
_ _ _ _
\\ \\ // //
\\ || || //
_ \\ \\ // //
|________________________\\ \\_// //_____________________________
| ____________________ \\/ \// ____________________________/
| /_\ /_\ /
|_______________________// | | \\_________________________/
_| // /| |\ \\
// //| |\\ \\
// // \___/ \\ \\
// \\
cmdrwilkens
"The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
>
> "cmdrwilkens" <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
> news:Ysft6.189249$B6.41...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
>
> > > A) No proof, evidence or reason to believe that the power of the
> weaponry
> > > scales directly with vessel size, other than your own say-so. No
> argument
> > to
> > > answer, belief is not valid evidence.
>
> > However Turbolasers and Superlasers are expresly stated to operate on
the
> > same principles while size is a distinct factor in the amount of energy
a
> > ship can generate with any given technology. This means that the weapons
> > systems are scalable with size and reactor output is variable with size.
> > While a direct reactor size to reactor size comparison is better (and to
> my
> > memory Mike already did one) the rough scalings give you a range to work
> > with that is acceptable.
>
> This is a very good point. Unfortunately there is no causal link here. A
> statistical correlation may exist, but it does *not* offer proof, or
> guarantee a certainty.
No but it does show how a statistical correlation gives us a good working
value to start from and if we then try to match other events into this
firepower estimate we might get some hard data. In other words it gives us a
starting pouint and shows that a 1 hour BDZ is realistic if not neccesarily
the absolute truth.
>
> > > B) TESB asteroid scene calculations performed on an asteroid at least
> > twice
> > > the diameter of those observed in the scene assuming complete
> > vaporisation.
> > > These calculations are currently the topic of discussion in at least 3
> > other
> > > threads, if you wish to weigh the evidence.
> >
> > Those asteroids, even at the 20metre diameter (and as seen on ASVS-HN
they
> > are more likely 26-30m) still gives you the neccessaryfirepower on a
> single
> > ISD-I to melt, to a depth of 1 meter, the surface of an Earth sized
planet
> > (assuming similair landmass) in approximately 40 minutes. I did the
calcs
> > about five or six months ago and I don't know if I still have them but
if
> > you have an old set of posts it would be in the BDZ with DS thread.
>
> Asteroid size is calculated as between 4-25m. I believe more detailed
> analysis is currently underway.
As I recall from ASVS-HN the estimate theywere offering was about 27m which
would have the effect of altering my calculations to 244 minutes for a BDZ
(I had used the 40m estimate so if you take the differential of 13 and cube
it we get the difference and then we also need to recalculate (because I
meant to say 1/3rd of a metre) Obviously not an hour but certainly short and
within the firepower estimate given by the DS comparison.
> It takes an ISD at least 2 hours to reduce the surface to burning rubble,
> from the official literature. Hence, it must take more time to reduce the
> entire surface to slag. Existing calculations are based on personal
> interpretations of the meaning of the word "slag" in conjuction with
"making
> a timescale up off the top of the head."
"Slag" is not an interpretable word. As I once pointed out:
From Webster's 4th Edition College Dictionary (1999)
Slag: 1)the fused refuse or dross seperated from a metal in the process of
smelting
2) lava resembling this
This means that "slag" as a technical definition requires the entire target
to be melted, this is an unambiguouis word that some such as IXJac have
attempted to distort, please don't follow in his ignomious footsteps. Slag
is a technical term that refers to material in a lava-like state and applied
to an entire world this requires complete melting of the surface.
> > > C) No proof, evidence or reason to believe that a BDZ takes one hour,
> > other
> > > than your own belief and attempted rationalizations thereof. No
argument
> > to
> > > answer, belief is not valid evidence.
> >
> > One hour is a reasonable time frame and I do not subscribe to the belief
> > that it MUST be EXACTLY one hour, merely that 1 hour is a good average
> > timeframe given the variables that will be present from planet to
planet.
> 1
> > hour is consistent with these calcs, the official literature, and the
TESB
> > asteroid vapes.
>
> 1 hour is inconsistent with the official literature.
> The rest of you argument reiterates the rationalization of your personal
> belief.
> Concession accepted.
Since the asteroid vaporization is canon, and is definatively a vaporization
(I'll remind you about the scene again) which gives the ISD-I (and
definately thae ISD-II which has more heavy guns) enough Firepower to engage
in a high-speed BDZ. As far as contradicting official literature I can't
think of one incident which disproves it. The Caamasai bombardment, the Gra
Ploven incident, the Slave Ship quote, and again TESB (as well as the DS
comparison) all support this power level.
> > > D) A circular argument where the scaling calculations prove a one hour
> > BDZ,
> > > and vice versa. No argument to answer.
> >
> > I am posting there and as of yet I haven't aseen any calculations on
your
> > part which show how the asteroids were fractured and hurled in reverse
at
> > several km/s in a timeframe of less than 1/30th of one second. Also
since
> I
> > posted there as well the asteroid vape scenes clearly show the entire
> > asteroid still intact after the bolt impacts and it is glowing with
white
> > red and orange luminescence.
>
> You haven't addressed D) in any way whatsoever in this answer, just
> continued your argument for B)
> Concession accepted.
I'm refering to my own calculations scaling the light to heavy TLs and if
you want to argue against the DS scaling in point A. Since argument D is
simply a m,indless repitiotion of argument A I will accept that you wish to
discuss it there. There is no concession when you don't offer any new
argument.
> "Hurled in reverse?"
Do you think the particles majically dissapeared from the screen by moving
forward in less than 1/30th of a second?
> > > E) A poorly constructed personal attack. Personal attacks do not add
> > weight
> > > to your argument in any way whatsoever. No argument to answer, the
> insult
> > > was far too poor.
> >
> > That was not for argument but rather a statement of disbelief at your
> total
> > blindness to the facts being presented (everything from the phot proof
of
> > vaporization to the official literature on BDZ). I am very happy to call
> > people crack smoking donkey fuckers when they display such blindness.
You
> > haven't quite reached the donkey fucking level of blindness but you sure
> as
> > hell are at the crack smoking level.
>
> Concession accepted.
As to what? There never was a personal attack merely a statement of
disbelief at your blindness.
If it was a personal attack I wouldn't use the same terms of address taht I
do when my friends say something stupid. A personal attack from me is far
different from what you seem to think it is.
The Ambivalent DMZ
<snip>
Again, you offer nothing new to back up your claims, other than to repeat
arguments I have already shown to be false.
Hard evidence:
It takes an ISD at the very least 2 hours to reduce a planet's surface to
burning rubble.
However you try and rationalize your own theories, this is the only
reference to timescale in any BDZ related quote, and has a clear indication
of damage caused. Completely reducing the surface to slag, if it occurs,
must happen beyond this stage.
Concession accepted.
DMZ
---
Graeme Dice
>
> "cmdrwilkens" <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
> news:Kawt6.190330$B6.42...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> Again, you offer nothing new to back up your claims, other than to repeat
> arguments I have already shown to be false.
>
> Hard evidence:
>
> It takes an ISD at the very least 2 hours to reduce a planet's surface to
> burning rubble.
A matter of hours also includes a single hour.
>
> However you try and rationalize your own theories, this is the only
> reference to timescale in any BDZ related quote, and has a clear indication
> of damage caused. Completely reducing the surface to slag, if it occurs,
> must happen beyond this stage.
>
> Concession accepted.
>
> DMZ
> ---
--
"It is rare to find learned men who are clean, do not stink and
have a sense of humour." — Montesquieu (1689-1755) about
Leibniz (1646-1716).
The Ambivalent DMZ
"Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3AB696BA...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> The Ambivalent DMZ wrote:
> >
> > "cmdrwilkens" <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Kawt6.190330$B6.42...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Again, you offer nothing new to back up your claims, other than to
repeat
> > arguments I have already shown to be false.
> >
> > Hard evidence:
> >
> > It takes an ISD at the very least 2 hours to reduce a planet's surface
to
> > burning rubble.
>
> A matter of hours also includes a single hour.
I think you'll find it doesn't.
Your attempt to stretch semantics aside, I accept your concession that any
"slagging" must take longer.
DMZ
---
Graeme Dice
>
> "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3AB696BA...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> > The Ambivalent DMZ wrote:
<snip>
> > > It takes an ISD at the very least 2 hours to reduce a planet's surface
> to
> > > burning rubble.
> >
> > A matter of hours also includes a single hour.
>
> I think you'll find it doesn't.
Okay, prove it.
> Your attempt to stretch semantics aside,
You're the one playing at semantics, not me.
>I accept your concession that any
> "slagging" must take longer.
No, it does not necessarily have to take longer, no matter how much you
want to pound your fist on a single piece of information.
Graeme Dice
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the
balls to live in the real world." — Mary Shafer, NASA Ames
Dryden.
The Ambivalent DMZ
> The Ambivalent DMZ wrote:
> >
> > "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3AB696BA...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> > > The Ambivalent DMZ wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > It takes an ISD at the very least 2 hours to reduce a planet's
surface
> > to
> > > > burning rubble.
> > >
> > > A matter of hours also includes a single hour.
> >
> > I think you'll find it doesn't.
>
> Okay, prove it.
>
> > Your attempt to stretch semantics aside,
>
> You're the one playing at semantics, not me.
Really?
> >I accept your concession that any
> > "slagging" must take longer.
>
> No, it does not necessarily have to take longer,
Again, personal belief. No argument to answer. Concession accepted.
> no matter how much you
> want to pound your fist on a single piece of information.
Which is exactly one more piece than you have.
As I have shown *repeatedly*, this is the only quote which clearly indicates
the amount of destruction caused *and* gives a timeframe in which it occurs.
Clearly. It is a bald statement of fact.
Frankly, you can whine all you like, but the timeframe of one hour for
complete slagging has no evidence to support it, and is, to put it bluntly,
made up.
I have direct a direct quote of level of destruction and a mimimum
timeframe. It is up to you to disprove it. Until then, it stands.
DMZ
---
cmdrwilkens
"The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
>
> "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3AB6990A...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> > The Ambivalent DMZ wrote:
> > >
> > > "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:3AB696BA...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> > > > The Ambivalent DMZ wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > It takes an ISD at the very least 2 hours to reduce a planet's
> surface
> > > to
> > > > > burning rubble.
> > > >
> > > > A matter of hours also includes a single hour.
> > >
> > > I think you'll find it doesn't.
> >
> > Okay, prove it.
> >
> > > Your attempt to stretch semantics aside,
> >
> > You're the one playing at semantics, not me.
>
> Really?
You were the one who complained about the interpretation of the word "slag"
>
> > >I accept your concession that any
> > > "slagging" must take longer.
> >
> > No, it does not necessarily have to take longer,
>
> Again, personal belief. No argument to answer. Concession accepted.
Not personal belief, belief based on demonstarble evidence in canon and
no-canon events which support a BDZ being accomplisehed in the timeframe of
an hour.
> > no matter how much you
> > want to pound your fist on a single piece of information.
>
> Which is exactly one more piece than you have.
>
> As I have shown *repeatedly*, this is the only quote which clearly
indicates
> the amount of destruction caused *and* gives a timeframe in which it
occurs.
> Clearly. It is a bald statement of fact.
Yes and matter of hourse includes 1 hour (it is a matter of 1 hour, maybe
1.5 hours, in fact hours would be anything from 1 -23.999 hours) Thus if we
find any data that shows the work can be completed wiithin that timeframe it
fits the known data while anything outside that range is contradictory. Also
most of those who have gone about analyzing the firepower of Star Destroyers
(noteably Dr. Saxton) have all taken 1 hour as a rough starting point given
the requirements of a BDZ order. Also matter of hourse could be included to
show that the Imperials realize that not all planets are constructed the
same, some are larger and some are smaller while still others have huge
landmass and still others are largely water.
The other funny thing is that when we talk about killing surface area we
have invarioably talked about Earth sized planetoids. We must remember that
NOTHING in SW is based in reference to Earth. Galactic standard for gravity,
calendar, etc all stem from Coruscant. Thus a typical planet in the SW
galaxy will have significantly more landmass and melting said landmass in 2
hourse would imply the ability to melt an Earth-like landmass in
significantly less time (oh lets say an hour).
> Frankly, you can whine all you like, but the timeframe of one hour for
> complete slagging has no evidence to support it, and is, to put it
bluntly,
> made up.
No it falls distincly within the timeframe given by direct quote in the
SWTJ.
> I have direct a direct quote of level of destruction and a mimimum
> timeframe. It is up to you to disprove it. Until then, it stands.
Yes, a minimum of 1 hour. It says matter of hours which includes 1. It
speaks of melting/slagging a planet yet the typical planet in SW is based
off of Coruscant, the DS comparison leads to shorter times, the TESB
incident shows shorter times, do you see where this is going?
The Ambivalent DMZ
> > Frankly, you can whine all you like, but the timeframe of one hour for
> > complete slagging has no evidence to support it, and is, to put it
> > bluntly, made up.
>
> No it falls distincly within the timeframe given by direct quote in the
> SWTJ.
"...can reduce a planet's surface to smoking debris in a matter of hours."
Hours plural. Smoking debris. Thank you for making my point for me.
Whine away, only don't continue the same tired "oh no it didn't", "oh yes it
did" charade when it's obviously just sour grapes.
DMZ
---
Graeme Dice
>
> "cmdrwilkens" <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
> news:Csxt6.190406$B6.42...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
>
> > > Frankly, you can whine all you like, but the timeframe of one hour for
> > > complete slagging has no evidence to support it, and is, to put it
> > > bluntly, made up.
> >
> > No it falls distincly within the timeframe given by direct quote in the
> > SWTJ.
>
> "...can reduce a planet's surface to smoking debris in a matter of hours."
>
> Hours plural.
The phrase includes anything greater than a single hour dimwit.
>Smoking debris.
Which could easily be referring to burning rock.
> Thank you for making my point for me.
>
> Whine away, only don't continue the same tired "oh no it didn't", "oh yes it
> did" charade when it's obviously just sour grapes.
Then shut up yourself about questioning what "slag" means.
Graeme Dice
--
ATTORNEY: I object to that as being a question impossible to answer;
outside this person's expertise; and I don't know what it means.
The Ambivalent DMZ
> The Ambivalent DMZ wrote:
> >
> > "cmdrwilkens" <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Csxt6.190406$B6.42...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> >
> > > > Frankly, you can whine all you like, but the timeframe of one hour
for
> > > > complete slagging has no evidence to support it, and is, to put it
> > > > bluntly, made up.
> > >
> > > No it falls distincly within the timeframe given by direct quote in
the
> > > SWTJ.
> >
> > "...can reduce a planet's surface to smoking debris in a matter of
hours."
> >
> > Hours plural.
>
> The phrase includes anything greater than a single hour dimwit.
Exactly.
> >Smoking debris.
>
> Which could easily be referring to burning rock.
I'm sorry, but you've now stretched the phrase beyond breaking point. No
doubt "lighting a match" is equivalent to a thermonuclear detonation in your
lexicon.
If I claimed it referred to some slightly smoking wooden planks, you'd bitch
like hell. Which is why we take the implied meaning, and not a "made up
one."
> > Thank you for making my point for me.
> >
> > Whine away, only don't continue the same tired "oh no it didn't", "oh
yes it
> > did" charade when it's obviously just sour grapes.
>
> Then shut up yourself about questioning what "slag" means.
If you took the time to bother to read this thread, nowhere in it have I
attempted to define the meaning of the work "slag", or use it in one of my
arguments.
Since the only argument against me appears to consist of personal insults
and attempts to twist the english language, all I can say is:
Concession accepted.
DMZ
---
cmdrwilkens
"The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
>
> "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3AB6ACB4...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> > The Ambivalent DMZ wrote:
> > >
> > > "cmdrwilkens" <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:Csxt6.190406$B6.42...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> > >
> > > > > Frankly, you can whine all you like, but the timeframe of one hour
> for
> > > > > complete slagging has no evidence to support it, and is, to put it
> > > > > bluntly, made up.
> > > >
> > > > No it falls distincly within the timeframe given by direct quote in
> the
> > > > SWTJ.
> > >
> > > "...can reduce a planet's surface to smoking debris in a matter of
> hours."
> > >
> > > Hours plural.
> >
> > The phrase includes anything greater than a single hour dimwit.
>
> Exactly.
Which could be 1.000000001 hours fool.
>
> > >Smoking debris.
> >
> > Which could easily be referring to burning rock.
>
> I'm sorry, but you've now stretched the phrase beyond breaking point. No
> doubt "lighting a match" is equivalent to a thermonuclear detonation in
your
> lexicon.
Smoking implies the release of gaseous atoms (infact it requires it) thus we
have explicit detail that the crust is vaporized to a degree the energy and
power requirements for this far exceed "slagging" yet you seem to think this
somehow proves your point?
> If I claimed it referred to some slightly smoking wooden planks, you'd
bitch
> like hell. Which is why we take the implied meaning, and not a "made up
> one."
No, it refers to turning the PLANET's SURFACE (emphasis mine) into smoking
DEBRIS. This is not burning items it is, very explicitly, the entire rock
surface of a planet being heated to the point that portions have vaporized.
Slaggin is nothing compared to the energy levels neccessary for
vaporization.
>
> > > Thank you for making my point for me.
> > >
> > > Whine away, only don't continue the same tired "oh no it didn't", "oh
> yes it
> > > did" charade when it's obviously just sour grapes.
> >
> > Then shut up yourself about questioning what "slag" means.
>
> If you took the time to bother to read this thread, nowhere in it have I
> attempted to define the meaning of the work "slag", or use it in one of my
> arguments.
You said
"Existing calculations are based on personal interpretations of the meaning
of the word "slag" ..."
On THIS thread on 3-18-2001 at 8:36 PM according to my newsreader
in message news:984976374.4654.0...@news.demon.co.uk
> Since the only argument against me appears to consist of personal insults
> and attempts to twist the english language, all I can say is:
>
> Concession accepted.
>
You sat here, attempted to twist language and canon events to your
particular interpretation suchthat it will give lower firepower levels than
those directly observed and quoted as existing in the official literature.
You still have yet to show how any of the official literature supports your
interpretation over anyone elses.
In light of that I could easily say concession accepted since you have
brought NOTHING new to this argument since I began to refute your ideas with
CANON evidence as well as official.
cmdrwilkens
"The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
Funny thing is that you have decided to attack the only segment of my
argument you could find fault with using .... SEMANTICS.
Fucking coward. If you want to debate answer the points I make and don't
turn this into a fucking semantics debate. I will fucking semantics this
into the ground but I would much rather discuss the few merits of the
original idea which I responded to but you have not answered at all.
For reference go back to:
news:Csxt6.190406$B6.42...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com
and actually answer some of my points.
Baring that, Concession Accepted.
The Ambivalent DMZ
> > > Then shut up yourself about questioning what "slag" means.
> >
> > If you took the time to bother to read this thread, nowhere in it have I
> > attempted to define the meaning of the work "slag", or use it in one of
my
> > arguments.
>
> You said
>
> "Existing calculations are based on personal interpretations of the
meaning
> of the word "slag" ..."
Not part of my argument, and contains no definition of the word "slag".
Thank you for proving my point again.
> You sat here, attempted to twist language and canon events to your
> particular interpretation suchthat it will give lower firepower levels
than
> those directly observed and quoted as existing in the official literature.
No such quote exists. No direct observations exists.
How many more times do you need to be told this?
> You still have yet to show how any of the official literature supports
your
> interpretation over anyone elses.
I give the quote of timescale and effect, you make personal attacks on me.
I won this argument some time ago, and now just have to put up with your
flames.
> In light of that I could easily say concession accepted since you have
> brought NOTHING new to this argument since I began to refute your ideas
with
> CANON evidence as well as official.
And how many times do I have to reply to say "show me this evidence"?
I have direct quotes, you have personal beliefs, which are not evidence.
Concession accepted.
DMZ
---
pjmc...@gate.net
cmdrwilkens <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:Izyt6.190595$B6.42...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
No it doesn't Smoking is the generation of SMOKE.
Usually heavy stuff you get from combusting flammables.
Smoke is not vapor.
>thus we
> have explicit detail that the crust is vaporized to a degree the energy
and
> power requirements for this far exceed "slagging" yet you seem to think
this
> somehow proves your point?
He has me convinced. Because he has proven his point. You are twisting the
statements of
official literature.Whether an ISD has firepower enough to actually slag a
planet, I don't know.
But the sources he's sighting don't say that they do, and neither do the
sources you are sighting.
"smoking debris".
That is, debris which is giving off smoke: Ie burning.
Planetary crusts are made of largely pre-oxidzed material. They can't burn,
and therefore can't smoke.
>
> > If I claimed it referred to some slightly smoking wooden planks, you'd
> bitch
> > like hell. Which is why we take the implied meaning, and not a "made up
> > one."
>
> No, it refers to turning the PLANET's SURFACE (emphasis mine) into smoking
> DEBRIS. This is not burning items it is, very explicitly, the entire rock
> surface of a planet being heated to the point that portions have
vaporized.
Smoke is not vapor.
And starting a global superfire on a planet that is 100% urbanized (like
Trantor, er Coruscant)
would reduce the surface to "smoking debris"
> Slaggin is nothing compared to the energy levels neccessary for
> vaporization.
No official support for slagging or vaporization.
Graeme Dice
>
> "cmdrwilkens" <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
> news:Izyt6.190595$B6.42...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
<snip>
> And how many times do I have to reply to say "show me this evidence"?
> I have direct quotes, you have personal beliefs, which are not evidence.
No, you do not have direct quotes. You have a twisted interpretation of
a single quote.
Let's see what the quote actually says:
“These colossal, wedge-shaped behemoths, bristling with turboweapons and
carrying entire TIE squadrons in them, each possess more firepower than
the entire planetary forces of most worlds, and can reduce a planet’s
surface to smoking debris in a matter of hours.”
Star Wars Technical Journal, p. 89
Now. Where does this say that the this is the upper limit on ISD
capabilities? Answer: It doesn't.
Graeme Dice
--
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them."
-- Isaac Asimov
Graeme Dice
<snip>
> > Slaggin is nothing compared to the energy levels neccessary for
> > vaporization.
> No official support for slagging or vaporization.
Don't lie about evidence.
“The Imperial Star Destroyer has enough firepower to reduce a civilized
world to slag or take on a fleet of lesser enemy vessels.”
Imperial Sourcebook, p. 61
“These colossal, wedge-shaped behemoths, bristling with turboweapons and
carrying entire TIE squadrons in them, each possess more firepower than
the entire planetary forces of most worlds, and can reduce a planet’s
surface to smoking debris in a matter of hours.”
Star Wars Technical Journal, p. 89
Now. Where does this say that the this is the upper limit on ISD
capabilities? Answer: It doesn't.
Graeme Dice
--
A random number table, once created, requires no errata.
Graeme Dice
<snip>
> > Slaggin is nothing compared to the energy levels neccessary for
> > vaporization.
> No official support for slagging or vaporization.
Don't lie about the evidence.
Don't lie about evidence.
“The Imperial Star Destroyer has enough firepower to reduce a civilized
world to slag or take on a fleet of lesser enemy vessels.”
Imperial Sourcebook, p. 61
"Tarkin had placed a hand on her shoulders, squeezing with a grip made
of steel cords. "Daala," he said "I am giving you enough power to turn
any planet to slag.""
-- pg 184,chapter 19 of Jedi Search.
"Have you ever seen what a Star Destroyer can do to the surface of an
unshielded planet? Stones run like water and sand turns to glass."
-- Crimson Empire
"The Imperial-class Star Destroyer has enough firepower to reduce a
civilization to slag or take on a fleet of enemy vessels."
www.starwars.com/vehicles/star_destroyer/
Following 3 months of exhausting fighting between AT-AT walkers and the
New Republic Army, the defeated Imperials slagged the planet's surface
with a withering orbital bombardment, then fled..
-- Page 71, The Essential Chronology
Graeme Dice
--
"There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not
wave in a vacuum."
-- Arthur C. Clarke
The Ambivalent DMZ
Answer: In stating capabilities, it gives the timeframe necessary to
complete this task, as you well know.
DMZ
---
The Ambivalent DMZ
Please have the good grace to give it up, and refrain from accussing me of
arguing semantics when it's blantantly obvious this is what you are
attempting to do.
The Ambivalent DMZ
> pjmc...@gate.net wrote:
> >
> > cmdrwilkens <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Izyt6.190595$B6.42...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Slaggin is nothing compared to the energy levels neccessary for
> > > vaporization.
> > No official support for slagging or vaporization.
>
> Don't lie about the evidence.
<snip>
Evidence for vapourisation of the rock can be found...?
DMZ
---
pjmc...@gate.net
cmdrwilkens <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:sCyt6.190616$B6.42...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
>
> "The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
> news:985048903.8677.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > "cmdrwilkens" <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Csxt6.190406$B6.42...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> >
> > > > Frankly, you can whine all you like, but the timeframe of one hour
for
> > > > complete slagging has no evidence to support it, and is, to put it
> > > > bluntly, made up.
> > >
> > > No it falls distincly within the timeframe given by direct quote in
the
> > > SWTJ.
> >
> > "...can reduce a planet's surface to smoking debris in a matter of
hours."
> >
> > Hours plural. Smoking debris. Thank you for making my point for me.
> >
> > Whine away, only don't continue the same tired "oh no it didn't", "oh
yes
> it
> > did" charade when it's obviously just sour grapes.
> >
>
> Funny thing is that you have decided to attack the only segment of my
> argument you could find fault with using .... SEMANTICS.
He provides an exact quote. Smoking debris is not an identity with either
slag
or vapor.
Smoke is not vapor.
Debris is not vapor
Debris *might* be slag, but might not be.
Silicate oxides don't smoke.
Graeme Dice
He said that there was no evidence for slagging. I showed him ample
evidence.
Graeme Dice
--
How to know if your an internet junkie #16 -
You check your E-Mail. it sais 'No new messages', so you
check it again.
The Ambivalent DMZ
<pjmc...@gate.net> wrote in message news:996ge5$mse$1...@news.gate.net...
> Debris *might* be slag, but might not be.
Actually, it can't be, because slag implies rock passing through a liquid
state, and a liquid cannot be piled into debris. If it could, then it never
melted in the first place.
DMZ
---
Graeme Dice
>
> cmdrwilkens <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
> news:sCyt6.190616$B6.42...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
<snip>
> > Funny thing is that you have decided to attack the only segment of my
> > argument you could find fault with using .... SEMANTICS.
>
> He provides an exact quote.
No, I provided exact quotes. DMZ has done nothing but the typical
trekkie tactic of grabbing onto a single quote and ignoring all others.
>Smoking debris is not an identity with either
> slag
> or vapor.
> Smoke is not vapor.
> Debris is not vapor
> Debris *might* be slag, but might not be.
> Silicate oxides don't smoke.
--
Famous Last Words 860-PC:"You don't need to see my
identification."
GM:"Which Force power were you using ?"
PC:"Er...optimism..."
Graeme Dice
>
> "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3AB6C0F5...@sk.sympatico.ca...
<snip>
> > "These colossal, wedge-shaped behemoths, bristling with turboweapons and
> > carrying entire TIE squadrons in them, each possess more firepower than
> > the entire planetary forces of most worlds, and can reduce a planet's
> > surface to smoking debris in a matter of hours."
> > Star Wars Technical Journal, p. 89
> >
> > Now. Where does this say that the this is the upper limit on ISD
> > capabilities? Answer: It doesn't.
>
> Please have the good grace to give it up, and refrain from accussing me of
> arguing semantics when it's blantantly obvious this is what you are
> attempting to do.
I will not "give it up", when it is so blatantly obvious that you are
wrong.
As to your statement that you are not arguing semantics in this thread,
that is not true.
"It takes an ISD at least 2 hours to reduce the surface to burning
rubble,
from the official literature. Hence, it must take more time to reduce
the
entire surface to slag. Existing calculations are based on personal
interpretations of the meaning of the word "slag" in conjuction with
"making
a timescale up off the top of the head.""
That's in this very thread, and in reference to your own argument.
Thus, you are arguing semantics. Thus, I will do the same if necessary.
> Answer: In stating capabilities, it gives the timeframe necessary to
> complete this task, as you well know.
No, it says that it _can_ complete this task. It does not state that
that is all the ISD is capable of.
Besides, official material doesn't override canon.
Graeme Dice
--
If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is a
protected abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor,
and when was the last time you needed one?
-- Tom Cargill, C++ Journal, Fall 1990.
Graeme Dice
>
> "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3AB6C08F...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> > pjmc...@gate.net wrote:
<snip>
> > "These colossal, wedge-shaped behemoths, bristling with turboweapons and
> > carrying entire TIE squadrons in them, each possess more firepower than
> > the entire planetary forces of most worlds, and can reduce a planet's
> > surface to smoking debris in a matter of hours."
> > Star Wars Technical Journal, p. 89
> >
> > Now. Where does this say that the this is the upper limit on ISD
> > capabilities? Answer: It doesn't.
>
> Answer: In stating capabilities, it gives the timeframe necessary to
> complete this task, as you well know.
And since it is official, canon overrides it, thus your argument is
pointless.
Graeme Dice
--
Famous Last Words 119-"What do you mean the whole room
we're in detects as a trap?"
Graeme Dice
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Parks/hawaii//hazards/aa.html
Graeme Dice
--
But where the senses fail us, reason must step in.
-- Galileo Galilei
The Ambivalent DMZ
> No, I provided exact quotes. DMZ has done nothing but the typical
> trekkie tactic of grabbing onto a single quote and ignoring all others.
Get it into your thick skull right now that *I am not a trekkie*.
I believe that given, say, Federation vs. Empire, stormtroopers will be
trampling over what's left of Earth by teatime.
What I do not like is the constant pumping up of stats where there is
absolutely no evidence for doing so, in fact direct evidence to the
contrary, driven by "my side is better than yours" name-calling.
Taking *all* the quotes into account, a timeframe can be established by
considering the only one which gives the capabilities of an ISD - how much
destruction it is capable of causing in a given time.
I do not dispute an ISD's capability for producing slag over a planet's
entire surface, or atomizing clouds of topsoil. The quotes directly and
clearly state this, and do not contradict one another in any way whatsoever.
However - a remarkable situation arose where somehow "reduce a planets
surface to smoking rubble in a matter of hours" has become "completely melt
the planet's crust to a depth of a metre in less than an hour", with no
evidence whatsoever to support it, and in direct contradiction to the quoted
capabilities of an ISD.
Accept that some of your precious ISD stats will have to be lowered -
they're not the only calculations for them you've got, and they'll still be
far higher than anything the trekkie side will ever be able to produce.
If name calling and contradiction is all this group can offer in the way of
debate, why does it even bother to exist? Just go ahead and claim what you
like, make it up, don't worry, it doesn't matter, but it makes you no
different to spacebattles.
DMZ
---
The Ambivalent DMZ
> http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Parks/hawaii//hazards/aa.html
Now I've got to concede *that* point. :-)
DMZ
---
The Ambivalent DMZ
> The Ambivalent DMZ wrote:
> >
> > "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3AB6C152...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> > > pjmc...@gate.net wrote:
> > > >
> > > > cmdrwilkens <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
> > > > news:Izyt6.190595$B6.42...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > Slaggin is nothing compared to the energy levels neccessary for
> > > > > vaporization.
> > > > No official support for slagging or vaporization.
> > >
> > > Don't lie about the evidence.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Evidence for vapourisation of the rock can be found...?
>
> He said that there was no evidence for slagging. I showed him ample
> evidence.
Slagging is unambiguously stated in several quotes, no question about it.
It only mentioned that some topsoil was vaporised, though. :-)
DMZ
---
Graeme Dice
>
> "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3AB6C70C...@sk.sympatico.ca...
>
> > No, I provided exact quotes. DMZ has done nothing but the typical
> > trekkie tactic of grabbing onto a single quote and ignoring all others.
>
> Get it into your thick skull right now that *I am not a trekkie*.
Good.
> Taking *all* the quotes into account, a timeframe can be established by
> considering the only one which gives the capabilities of an ISD - how much
> destruction it is capable of causing in a given time.
And what if greater levels of destruction could be caused in shorter
periods of time through other information?
> DMZ
> ---
Graeme Dice
--
"READ THIS BEFORE OPENING PACKAGE: According to certain suggested
versions of the grand unified theory, the primary particles
constituting this product may decay to nothingness within the
next 10^32 Years." — Engineering warning labels.
The Ambivalent DMZ
> As to your statement that you are not arguing semantics in this thread,
> that is not true.
>
> "It takes an ISD at least 2 hours to reduce the surface to burning
> rubble,
> from the official literature. Hence, it must take more time to reduce
> the
> entire surface to slag. Existing calculations are based on personal
> interpretations of the meaning of the word "slag" in conjuction with
> "making
> a timescale up off the top of the head.""
>
> That's in this very thread, and in reference to your own argument.
> Thus, you are arguing semantics. Thus, I will do the same if necessary.
>
> > Answer: In stating capabilities, it gives the timeframe necessary to
> > complete this task, as you well know.
>
> No, it says that it _can_ complete this task. It does not state that
> that is all the ISD is capable of.
More arguing semantics. You're well aware of what it means.
DMZ
---
Graeme Dice
It's amazing what Altavista can give you when you look up +lava
+pictures +debris. :)
Graeme Dice
--
"If you think there are no new frontiers, watch a boy ring the
front doorbell on his first date." — Olin Miller.
The Ambivalent DMZ
> > > Now. Where does this say that the this is the upper limit on ISD
> > > capabilities? Answer: It doesn't.
> >
> > Answer: In stating capabilities, it gives the timeframe necessary to
> > complete this task, as you well know.
>
> And since it is official, canon overrides it, thus your argument is
> pointless.
Show me one piece of canon evidence that contradicts it.
DMZ
---
The Ambivalent DMZ
> The Ambivalent DMZ wrote:
> >
> > "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3AB6C70C...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> >
> > > No, I provided exact quotes. DMZ has done nothing but the typical
> > > trekkie tactic of grabbing onto a single quote and ignoring all
others.
> >
> > Get it into your thick skull right now that *I am not a trekkie*.
>
> Good.
>
> > Taking *all* the quotes into account, a timeframe can be established by
> > considering the only one which gives the capabilities of an ISD - how
much
> > destruction it is capable of causing in a given time.
>
> And what if greater levels of destruction could be caused in shorter
> periods of time through other information?
Then you apply that information in its own calculation. You don't go back
and alter some of your evidence when some new evidence turns up, but get as
many samples as you can in order to find the probable value.
What you'll end up with is: Based on BDZ evidence, it can do A, but based on
this evidence, it can do B, and so is more than capable of doing B in BDZ.
But you don't alter the BDZ evidence in order to do it.
As for the asteroid calcs, the more I look at the movie clips, the more
solid they appear. I've decided to change stance on them - they're solid. In
fact, I'm placed to offer a couple of further arguments to further support
them.
DMZ
---
The Ambivalent DMZ
> The Ambivalent DMZ wrote:
> >
> > "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3AB6C836...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> >
> > > http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Parks/hawaii//hazards/aa.html
> >
> > Now I've got to concede *that* point. :-)
>
> It's amazing what Altavista can give you when you look up +lava
> +pictures +debris. :)
Do you *know* the number of searches with +asteroid or +nuclear +"blast
radius" I've been putting in recently? :-)
DMZ
---
The Ambivalent DMZ
> The Ambivalent DMZ wrote:
> >
> > "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3AB6C836...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> >
> > > http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Parks/hawaii//hazards/aa.html
> >
> > Now I've got to concede *that* point. :-)
>
> It's amazing what Altavista can give you when you look up +lava
> +pictures +debris. :)
You know you've ruined any possible chance of me writing a fanfic where a
BDZ'd planet is later used as an ice rink now, don't you? :-)
DMZ
---
rob.wn5
"The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> Again, you offer nothing new to back up your claims, other than to repeat
> arguments I have already shown to be false.
>
> Hard evidence:
>
> It takes an ISD at the very least 2 hours to reduce a planet's surface to
> burning rubble.
"Smoking Debris" not burning.
>
> However you try and rationalize your own theories, this is the only
> reference to timescale in any BDZ related quote, and has a clear
indication
> of damage caused. Completely reducing the surface to slag, if it occurs,
> must happen beyond this stage.
Start Paste
"These colossal, wedge-shaped behemoths, bristling with turboweapons and
carrying entire TIE squadrons in them, each possess more firepower than
the
entire planetary forces of most worlds, and can reduce a planet's
surface to
smoking debris in a matter of hours."
Star Wars Technical Journal, p. 89
End Paste
You will note it says "and can reduce a planet's surface to smoking debris
in a matter of hours."
If you have a Lava Field, then when it cools down you are left with smoking
debris, not the other way round. So if it has the smoking debris in 2
hours, then the Slagging can easily happen in 1 hour.
Rob Wilson
>
> Concession accepted.
>
> DMZ
> ---
>
>
cmdrwilkens
"The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
Yes, we answered your objection to this a long time ago when we pointed out
that the literature allowed for less than 1 hour for slagging since smoking
debris requires vaporization.
Think of it this way
Energy Neccessary For Vaporization > Energy Neccessary for Melting
Time Require To Vaporize (Smoking Debris) = 1 hour-23.9 ad infinitum hours
Time Required to Melt < 1-23.9 hrs
Thus BDZ can occur in LESS than an hour so long as it takes less time than
anything else.
Since you have consistently failed to refute this
Conession Accepted.
--
cmdrwilkens
AIM: cmdrwilkens
"Flamethrowers, when you need to set someone on fire...but
they're all the way over there."
-Brian Blackman
rob.wn5
"The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
Tatooine? No Lava just glass. :-)
Rob Wilson
>
> DMZ
> ---
>
>
Graeme Dice
>
> "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3AB6CDED...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> > The Ambivalent DMZ wrote:
> > >
> > > "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:3AB6C836...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> > >
> > > > http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Parks/hawaii//hazards/aa.html
> > >
> > > Now I've got to concede *that* point. :-)
> >
> > It's amazing what Altavista can give you when you look up +lava
> > +pictures +debris. :)
>
> You know you've ruined any possible chance of me writing a fanfic where a
> BDZ'd planet is later used as an ice rink now, don't you? :-)
Heh. :)
Graeme Dice
--
"There may be 50 ways to leave your lover, but there are only 4
ways out of this airplane..."
cmdrwilkens
"The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
The TESB vaporization.
Not being one to sit on my laurels I went back to the scene and decided to
calculate based solely on the bolts seen in action there. By measuring the
size of one bolt, as it left the barrel, and comparing it to the known width
of the the brim trench (through analysis of the TJ drawings) which is 30m.
With a ratio of 17:3 this means the bolt is 5.3m wide.
The Asteroid is between 29:5 and 5:1 times the width of the beam. This
yields a diameter of 30.74-26.5. This range fits well within my original
calculations that gave an ISD-I 24 minutes to melt the top 1/3rd of a meter
of a world. There is variance but not enough to change the calcs above more
than 65 minutes. In other words even if the time had to be tripled (result
of dropping from 40m to 27m diameter) then the whole operation is still
within the 1 hour time frame.
Properly distributed firepower gives the ISD-I the ability to melt the top
1/3rd of a meter of an Earth-like planet's surface in 20-65 minutes
cmdrwilkens
> > > > >Smoking debris.
> > > >
> > > > Which could easily be referring to burning rock.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, but you've now stretched the phrase beyond breaking point.
No
> > > doubt "lighting a match" is equivalent to a thermonuclear detonation
in
> > your
> > > lexicon.
> >
> > Smoking implies the release of gaseous atoms (infact it requires it)
>
> No it doesn't Smoking is the generation of SMOKE.
> Usually heavy stuff you get from combusting flammables.
> Smoke is not vapor.
No but smoke requires elements either to have enough residual heat to raise
air pressure significantly or continuously produce gaseous emissions. Smoke
is a combination of dust and highly energized air (overpressure) but lacking
the presence of a continued sorce of heating smoke dies out. Thus enough
energy has to be imparted to the system that its residual energy is enough
to produce smoke from rock after the bombardment has ceased. Also CS gas
creates SMOKE yet it is gaseous. SMOKE implies that something is thicker
than the air, i.e. has high opacity, not that something is burning..
Main Entry: 1smoke
Pronunciation: 'smOk
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English smoca; akin to Old English
smEocan to emit smoke, Middle High German smouch smoke, and probably to
Greek smychein to smolder
Date: before 12th century
1 a : the gaseous products of burning materials especially of organic origin
made visible by the presence of small particles of carbon b : a suspension
of particles in a gas
2 a : a mass or column of smoke b : SMUDGE
3 : fume or vapor often resulting from the action of heat on moisture
4 : something of little substance, permanence, or value
5 : something that obscures
6 a (1) : something (as a cigarette) to smoke (2) : MARIJUANA 2 b : an act
or spell of smoking tobacco
7 a : a pale blue b : any of the colors of smoke
8 : pitches that are fastballs <if a guy's going to hit you... he certainly
isn't going to throw a spitter--he gives you smoke -- Tony Conigliaro>
There is the definition of SMOKE, it includes gaseous vapors, moisture, heat
release, and burning especially, BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY from organics.
>
> >thus we
> > have explicit detail that the crust is vaporized to a degree the energy
> and
> > power requirements for this far exceed "slagging" yet you seem to think
> this
> > somehow proves your point?
>
> He has me convinced. Because he has proven his point. You are twisting the
> statements of
> official literature.Whether an ISD has firepower enough to actually slag a
> planet, I don't know.
> But the sources he's sighting don't say that they do, and neither do the
> sources you are sighting.
As has been pointed out:
The Imperial Star Destroyer has enough firepower to reduce a civilized
world to slag or take on a fleet of lesser enemy vessels."
Imperial Sourcebook, p. 61
> "smoking debris".
> That is, debris which is giving off smoke: Ie burning.
> Planetary crusts are made of largely pre-oxidzed material. They can't
burn,
> and therefore can't smoke.
Thus, as I pointed out, it MUST be due to the release of gaseous molecules,
thanks for proving my point.
>
>
> >
> > > If I claimed it referred to some slightly smoking wooden planks, you'd
> > bitch
> > > like hell. Which is why we take the implied meaning, and not a "made
up
> > > one."
> >
> > No, it refers to turning the PLANET's SURFACE (emphasis mine) into
smoking
> > DEBRIS. This is not burning items it is, very explicitly, the entire
rock
> > surface of a planet being heated to the point that portions have
> vaporized.
>
> Smoke is not vapor.
> And starting a global superfire on a planet that is 100% urbanized (like
> Trantor, er Coruscant)
> would reduce the surface to "smoking debris"
And would you like to do the calculations for the energy neccessary to get
materials like permacrete and durasteel to vaporize on the scale of a planet
like Coruscant. The fact that anyone could do that is amazing in and of
itself.
> > Slaggin is nothing compared to the energy levels neccessary for
> > vaporization.
> No official support for slagging or vaporization.
Bullshit and you should know it (beyond the whole direct quotes to the
contrary).
"... to rendezvous at Dankayo and reduce the tiny base to molten slag. Even
before the last of its atmosphere drifted away, before the dense clouds of
atomized topsoil could begin to settle, ..."
Scavenger Hunt, p.20
Which says the topsoil was atomized and the atmosphere blown into space.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > > Thank you for making my point for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Whine away, only don't continue the same tired "oh no it didn't",
> "oh
> > > yes it
> > > > > did" charade when it's obviously just sour grapes.
> > > >
> > > > Then shut up yourself about questioning what "slag" means.
> > >
> > > If you took the time to bother to read this thread, nowhere in it have
I
> > > attempted to define the meaning of the work "slag", or use it in one
of
> my
> > > arguments.
> >
> > You said
> >
> > "Existing calculations are based on personal interpretations of the
> meaning
> > of the word "slag" ..."
> >
> > On THIS thread on 3-18-2001 at 8:36 PM according to my newsreader
> > in message news:984976374.4654.0...@news.demon.co.uk
> >
Unsuprisingly no one answered this since it proves what you're trying to do.
> > > Since the only argument against me appears to consist of personal
> insults
> > > and attempts to twist the english language, all I can say is:
> > >
> > > Concession accepted.
> > >
> >
> > You sat here, attempted to twist language and canon events to your
> > particular interpretation suchthat it will give lower firepower levels
> than
> > those directly observed and quoted as existing in the official
literature.
> > You still have yet to show how any of the official literature supports
> your
> > interpretation over anyone elses.
> >
> > In light of that I could easily say concession accepted since you have
> > brought NOTHING new to this argument since I began to refute your ideas
> with
> > CANON evidence as well as official.
Again unsuprising as I responded to most of the objections a long time ago
and you haven't brought anything new to the table except "Concession
Accepted" since your first damn post (note this is directed at DMZ as he
didn't bother to respond to these last two points)
cmdrwilkens
Pronunciation: 'smOk
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English smoca; akin to Old English
smEocan to emit smoke, Middle High German smouch smoke, and probably to
Greek smychein to smolder
Date: before 12th century
1 a : the gaseous products of burning materials especially of organic origin
made visible by the presence of small particles of carbon b : a suspension
of particles in a gas
2 a : a mass or column of smoke b : SMUDGE
3 : fume or vapor often resulting from the action of heat on moisture
4 : something of little substance, permanence, or value
5 : something that obscures
6 a (1) : something (as a cigarette) to smoke (2) : MARIJUANA 2 b : an act
or spell of smoking tobacco
7 a : a pale blue b : any of the colors of smoke
8 : pitches that are fastballs <if a guy's going to hit you... he certainly
isn't going to throw a spitter--he gives you smoke -- Tony Conigliaro>
Since you can smoke if you release gaseous vapors I would like to thank you
again for proving my point about vaporization.
Crayz9000
<984982407.6477.0...@news.demon.co.uk> :
>
>"Crayz9000" <cray...@cow.mailandnews.com> wrote in message
>news:9946pd$46in0$2...@ID-48511.news.dfncis.de...
>> The Ambivalent DMZ <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > "Crayz9000" <cray...@cow.mailandnews.com> wrote in message
>> > news:993o61$4ca9g$1...@ID-48511.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Now I'm reminded why I chose to stay out of this. The only book I've read
>> concerning BDZ is Spectre of the Past, and it only superficially glazed
>over
>> Caamas. However, it did mention that the only Caamas who survived were
>> off-world at the time, and that the planetary shield generator was
>> sabotaged.
>> --
>> Crayz9000 AKA
>> Cybernetic Crow
>> mhm28x12
>
>I just realised you have the designation mhm28x12, and that I know what it
>means. :-)
Ah, the intelligent DMZ, Usenet Guru.
It simply means I visited flonk.org and filled out the form.
Actually, I only did that after Cock Rocket visited the group. I just wanted to tick him off :)
_______________________________________________
Submitted via WebNewsReader of http://www.interbulletin.com
Wayne Poe
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Graeme Dice wrote:
> The Ambivalent DMZ wrote:
> > Please have the good grace to give it up, and refrain from accussing me of
> > arguing semantics when it's blantantly obvious this is what you are
> > attempting to do.
> I will not "give it up", when it is so blatantly obvious that you are
> wrong.
"Nobody fucks with Dice. Dice does the fuckin'."
----------- Andrew Dice Clay
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Alves
lo...@h4h.com says...
>
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Graeme Dice wrote:
>
> > The Ambivalent DMZ wrote:
>
> > > Please have the good grace to give it up, and refrain from accussing me of
> > > arguing semantics when it's blantantly obvious this is what you are
> > > attempting to do.
>
> > I will not "give it up", when it is so blatantly obvious that you are
> > wrong.
>
> "Nobody fucks with Dice. Dice does the fuckin'."
>
>
> ----------- Andrew Dice Clay
The "Ram they until they give up" pictures comes to mind.
Anyway, you are with a fine humour today. :)
The Ambivalent DMZ
> Again unsuprising as I responded to most of the objections a long time ago
> and you haven't brought anything new to the table except "Concession
> Accepted" since your first damn post (note this is directed at DMZ as he
> didn't bother to respond to these last two points)
Strangely, I have this strange need for something known as "sleep".
Two words: no atmosphere.
DMZ
---
The Ambivalent DMZ
<snip>
Wriggle with yet more semantics all you like, but without an atmosphere, the
debris will not be smoking. Hence, the "smoking debris" stage occurs before
the "slagging".
DMZ
---
The Ambivalent DMZ
<snip>
It's quite sad the number of hoops and semantic loopholes you're willing to
jump through to change:
"...reduce a planet's surface to smoking debris in a matter of hours"
into:
"...reduce a planet's surface to liquified slag in less than an hour"
Your argument that the debris would smoke after it had been liquified does
not hold. We already know that the atmosphere is stripped from the planet
during the attack. No atmosphere, no smoke.
DMZ
---
The Ambivalent DMZ
> > > > > Now. Where does this say that the this is the upper limit on ISD
> > > > > capabilities? Answer: It doesn't.
> > > >
> > > > Answer: In stating capabilities, it gives the timeframe necessary to
> > > > complete this task, as you well know.
> > >
> > > And since it is official, canon overrides it, thus your argument is
> > > pointless.
> >
> > Show me one piece of canon evidence that contradicts it.
>
> The TESB vaporization.
The TESB vaporisation calcs show much lower energy levels than the BDZ
calcs. Mike Wong's figures certainly do, for starters:
TESB vaporization calcs: 22,500TW
BDZ or 'made up as we went along' calcs: 375,000TW
So apparently they contradict *you* and support me.
Concession accepted.
DMZ
---
cmdrwilkens
"The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
Absoplutely untrue. Did you even read the definition of smoke I posted? Here
let me show it again
Main Entry: 1smoke
Pronunciation: 'smOk
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English smoca; akin to Old English
smEocan to emit smoke, Middle High German smouch smoke, and probably to
Greek smychein to smolder
Date: before 12th century
1 a : the gaseous products of burning materials especially of organic origin
made visible by the presence of small particles of carbon b : a suspension
of particles in a gas
2 a : a mass or column of smoke b : SMUDGE
3 : fume or vapor often resulting from the action of heat on moisture
4 : something of little substance, permanence, or value
5 : something that obscures
6 a (1) : something (as a cigarette) to smoke (2) : MARIJUANA 2 b : an act
or spell of smoking tobacco
7 a : a pale blue b : any of the colors of smoke
8 : pitches that are fastballs <if a guy's going to hit you... he certainly
isn't going to throw a spitter--he gives you smoke -- Tony Conigliaro>
This is from Merriam-Webster. Look particularly at definitions 1, 3 and 5.
Smoke DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ATMOSPHERE. Smoke is composed of gaseous elements
that are opaque thus is something is heated to the point that it continues
to vaporize it will...*gasp*...SMOKE.
Read the data jackass. Vaporizing is MORE dificult than smoking debris so
our melting data is conservative. Beyond that I reiterate that the TESB
Asteroid vape conclusively proves that a single ISD-I has the ability to
complete this action in 65 minutes maximum.
cmdrwilkens
"The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
news:985101438.25186.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
Stupid DMZ. The 22,500 TW is the MINIMUM for the LIGHT Turbolasers. You seem
to forget that a Star Destroyer has HEAVY and MEDIUM Turbolasers. With
properly scaled firepower you can EASILY reach and exceed 375,000 TW. AS
aalways a pleasure doing buisness. Oh yeah and even then they have 100+ LTLs
so those alone account for 2250000 TW of pure fun. Ain't that something eh?
Next time think before you spew.
cmdrwilkens
"The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
We've been posting for 3 days and you've brought exactly 1 argument to the
forefront and haven't brought out anything except semantics to defend it.
> Two words: no atmosphere.
Since you couldn't have possibly seen the THREE PREVIOUS POSTS WITH THE
DEFINITION OF SMOKE I'll reiterate that smoke DOES NOT REQUIRE AN
ATMOSPHERE.
Jackass
cmdrwilkens
"The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
Didn't you read jackass. Smoke doesn't require an atmosphere it requires
obscuring gaseous atoms, With sufficient heat you can easily generate
gaseous atoms.
The Ambivalent DMZ
> This is from Merriam-Webster. Look particularly at definitions 1, 3 and 5.
> Smoke DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ATMOSPHERE. Smoke is composed of gaseous
elements
> that are opaque thus is something is heated to the point that it continues
> to vaporize it will...*gasp*...SMOKE.
Try physics 101 and get back to me. Simply put, for something to smoke on a
planet's surface it requires an atmosphere. I understand it has something to
do with gravity. You may have heard of it. Then again...
You have no argument, no evidence, no observations, and no corroboration.
Every single twist and turn you have attempted can be shown to be false.
I have a solid argument, backed up by evidence, and corroboration.
There is still no argument to answer - my position holds.
DMZ
---
The Ambivalent DMZ
>
> "The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
> news:985099094.24087.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > "cmdrwilkens" <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
> > news:TjCt6.191209$B6.42...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> >
> > > Again unsuprising as I responded to most of the objections a long time
> ago
> > > and you haven't brought anything new to the table except "Concession
> > > Accepted" since your first damn post (note this is directed at DMZ as
he
> > > didn't bother to respond to these last two points)
> >
> > Strangely, I have this strange need for something known as "sleep".
>
> We've been posting for 3 days and you've brought exactly 1 argument to the
> forefront and haven't brought out anything except semantics to defend it.
>
> > Two words: no atmosphere.
>
> Since you couldn't have possibly seen the THREE PREVIOUS POSTS WITH THE
> DEFINITION OF SMOKE I'll reiterate that smoke DOES NOT REQUIRE AN
> ATMOSPHERE.
>
> Jackass
At least you've taken to signing your posts properly now ;-)
Please read my comment above, and perhaps do some basic reading.
DMZ
---
The Ambivalent DMZ
>
>
> "The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
> news:985101438.25186.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > "cmdrwilkens" <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Z7Ct6.191184$B6.42...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> >
> > > > > > > Now. Where does this say that the this is the upper limit on
> ISD
> > > > > > > capabilities? Answer: It doesn't.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Answer: In stating capabilities, it gives the timeframe
necessary
> to
> > > > > > complete this task, as you well know.
> > > > >
> > > > > And since it is official, canon overrides it, thus your argument
is
> > > > > pointless.
> > > >
> > > > Show me one piece of canon evidence that contradicts it.
> > >
> > > The TESB vaporization.
> >
> > The TESB vaporisation calcs show much lower energy levels than the BDZ
> > calcs. Mike Wong's figures certainly do, for starters:
> >
> > TESB vaporization calcs: 22,500TW
> > BDZ or 'made up as we went along' calcs: 375,000TW
> >
> > So apparently they contradict *you* and support me.
> >
> > Concession accepted.
<flame and crap snipped>
> Next time think before you spew.
Look at what you've just said - I suggest you do likewise. No argument to
answer.
Concession accepted.
DMZ
---
The Ambivalent DMZ
>
> "The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
> news:985099258.24171.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > "cmdrwilkens" <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
> > news:nmCt6.191214$B6.42...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Wriggle with yet more semantics all you like, but without an atmosphere,
> the
> > debris will not be smoking. Hence, the "smoking debris" stage occurs
> before
> > the "slagging".
> >
>
> Didn't you read jackass. Smoke doesn't require an atmosphere it requires
> obscuring gaseous atoms, With sufficient heat you can easily generate
> gaseous atoms.
Repeating the same thing 3 times doesn't make it any more true than it was
the first time, I'm afraid. Please see my post elsewhere in the thread.
DMZ
---
Phil Skayhan
"The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
news:985104740.26606.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
<snip...peeks head around door>
Oh, sorry. I thought I head Elim.
The Ambivalent DMZ
"Phil Skayhan" <ska...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2mMt6.6$6Y3....@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
I'll recap.... :-)
Basically he said that "if you add the power of all the weapons on an ISD
up, you get the power of one of its LTL's"
DMZ
---
Crayz9000
> > > > pjmc...@gate.net wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > cmdrwilkens <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > > Slaggin is nothing compared to the energy levels neccessary for
> > > > > > vaporization.
> > > > > No official support for slagging or vaporization.
> > > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Evidence for vapourisation of the rock can be found...?
> >
> > He said that there was no evidence for slagging. I showed him ample
> > evidence.
>
> Slagging is unambiguously stated in several quotes, no question about it.
>
> It only mentioned that some topsoil was vaporised, though. :-)
What does an atomic bomb do? Vaporize any matter that's in close proximity
to it.
Now if you dump multiple thousands of gigawatts on a single point at a
planetary surface - in the form of a heavy turbolaser bolt - the transfer of
energy from the plasma to the rock will instantly vaporize whatever it first
contacts. As the energy propagates through the matter (in the form of
thermal energy), however, it will go from vaporization to melting to mere
heating.
Duh?
--
Crayz9000 AKA
Cybernetic Crow
mhm28x12
Web Site: http://crayz9000.htmlplanet.com
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.
NOTE: Kill the cow before replying by E-mail.
Crayz9000
news:3AB6C152...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> pjmc...@gate.net wrote:
> >
> > cmdrwilkens <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Izyt6.190595$B6.42...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Slaggin is nothing compared to the energy levels neccessary for
> > > vaporization.
> > No official support for slagging or vaporization.
>
> Don't lie about the evidence.
Ok, I'm stating the obvious, and I'm not aiming this at any one debater in
particular.
Since this has turned into a debate of semantics, I will attempt to give a
good definition of the terms in question, based on sentence context. In
English, words depend heavily on context.
My source for the language:
Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language.
This 1989 edition is published by Portland House, a division of dilithium
Press, Ltd, distributed by Crown Publishers, Inc, 225 Park Avenue South, New
York, New York 10003.
ISBN 0-517-68781-X
Acknowledgements and Permissions:
The "A Dictionary of the English Language" section of this book (Webster's
Unabridged Dictionary) is based on the first edition of The Random House
Dictionary of the English Language, the Unabridged Edition, copyright 1983.
> Don't lie about evidence.
>
> "The Imperial Star Destroyer has enough firepower to reduce a civilized
> world to slag or take on a fleet of lesser enemy vessels."
> Imperial Sourcebook, p. 61
"...has enough firepower to reduce a civilized world to slag or..."
Slag (slag), n., v., slagged, slag-ging. --n. 1. Also called cinder. the
more or less completely fused and vitrified matter separated during the
reduction of a metal from its ore. 2. the scoria from a volcano. 3. metal
left over after the re-sorting of coal. --v.t. 4. to convert into slag. 5.
/Metallurgy/ to remove slag from (a steel bath). --v.i. 6. to form slag; to
become a slaglike mass
[< MLG slagge; c. G Schlacke dross, slag; see SLACK2]
--slag'a-bil'i-ty, n. --slag'a-ble, adj. --slag'less, adj. --slag'less-ness,
n.
Note how all definitions of /slag/ refer to molten and vitrified matter -
the results of a metal foundry. I am PURPOSELY not using slang in this, as
we are looking for a precise definition.
Now from the context of the word in the sentence in question, /slag/ quite
obviously refers to molten rock. We can see by '...reduce a civilized world
to slag...' that this is not referring to a verb, but rather a noun. And it
is definately not referring to a slang word.
> "Tarkin had placed a hand on her shoulders, squeezing with a grip made
> of steel cords. "Daala," he said, "I am giving you enough power to turn
> any planet to slag.""
> -- pg 184,chapter 19 of Jedi Search.
Again, same context as above. Molten residue, the left-overs of a metal
foundry. The term may be misused, but it still conveys the same idea.
> "Have you ever seen what a Star Destroyer can do to the surface of an
> unshielded planet? Stones run like water and sand turns to glass."
> -- Crimson Empire
Sand turning to glass is quite what you would expect from a high-energy
bombardment. As a matter of fact, I could scan a picture of one of Corning's
glass (silicon and lime, for simplicity's sake) melting areas. However, the
sand (impure silicon) needs some lime to become glass. Likely an oversight
on the part of the author.
> "The Imperial-class Star Destroyer has enough firepower to reduce a
> civilization to slag or take on a fleet of enemy vessels."
> www.starwars.com/vehicles/star_destroyer/
Well, you can't really reduce civilization to slag; to say so is like saying
that you can shoot a ghost with a Colt .45. Still, if the writer of the
website is referring to the Imperial Sourcebook (note the similarity of the
two excerpts), the context is same as above.
> Following 3 months of exhausting fighting between AT-AT walkers and the
> New Republic Army, the defeated Imperials slagged the planet's surface
> with a withering orbital bombardment, then fled..
> -- Page 71, The Essential Chronology
By the context, the Imperial forces converted the surface of the planet in
question to slag, or molten residue.
And a comment on timeframe - I simply don't know. Caamas seems to be the
only indication of timeframe, and all it mentions is that no Caamas who were
on the planet escaped. However, there are several variables that we simply
can't say - for example, how many spacecraft were there on the planet's
surface? Obviously, if the goal was to prevent anyone from leaving the
planet, the Star Destroyer could simply destroy any spaceports first, then
take its time to melt everything else for good measure. By the speeds shown
in the original trilogy, it should take only a few minutes to wreck the
spaceports and communications stations once the shields were down. Then, it
could take anywhere from 1.001 to 23.999 hours to complete the bombardment,
depending on how urgent the task is.
So as a result, high-end estimates place the Star Destroyer slagging the
surface in 1.001 hours, and low-end estimates place it at 23.999 hours. We
can't say for sure where it really falls, but whatever it may be, it's still
faster than the fastest response time the United Federation of Planets can
offer.
Crayz9000
Well, unless you are stuffing words in his mouth, he said no such thing. As
a matter of fact, he said that if every light turbolaser on the Star
Destroyer fired in unison, it would be emitting 225,000 terawatts.
Crayz9000
Before you sit back and gloat, mind telling me why Star Destroyers have
nice, huge, 50-meter diameter turbolaser cannons, as opposed to the ~50 cm
light turbolaser cannon and ~5 meter medium turbolaser cannon? Well gosh,
maybe the energy output goes up the more plasma you fire at once. Perhaps
that's why...
Wong, Young and everyone else who made the asteroid calculations listed them
as LOW-END calculations.
The Ambivalent DMZ
> The Ambivalent DMZ <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
> news:985109468.28505.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > "Phil Skayhan" <ska...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2mMt6.6$6Y3....@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > "The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
> > > news:985104740.26606.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > > <snip...peeks head around door>
> > >
> > > Oh, sorry. I thought I head Elim.
> >
> > I'll recap.... :-)
> >
> > Basically he said that "if you add the power of all the weapons on an
ISD
> > up, you get the power of one of its LTL's"
> >
> > DMZ
>
> Well, unless you are stuffing words in his mouth, he said no such thing.
As
> a matter of fact, he said that if every light turbolaser on the Star
> Destroyer fired in unison, it would be emitting 225,000 terawatts.
I stand corrected. It should read "some", not "all" :-)
cmdrwilkens claims the TESB calcs verify the BDZ calcs. Let's have another
look:
TESB vaporization calcs: Power of a single LTL = 22,500TW
BDZ or 'made up as we went along' calcs: Power of a single LTL = 375,000TW
Nope, they clearly show that the TESB calcs are less than 1/10th of the BDZ
'made up' calcs.
So, in fact, they support my argument.
cmdrwilkens now says "You seem to forget that a Star Destroyer has HEAVY and
MEDIUM Turbolasers. With properly scaled firepower you can EASILY reach and
exceed 375,000 TW."
I say: of course you can exceed 375,000TW if you use several weapons. But
you're now claiming that we should add up the power of several weapons in
the TESB calc to find the power of one weapon in the BDZ calc. Which, of
course, is pure and utter bullshit.
DMZ
---
The Ambivalent DMZ
> Before you sit back and gloat, mind telling me why Star Destroyers have
> nice, huge, 50-meter diameter turbolaser cannons, as opposed to the ~50 cm
> light turbolaser cannon and ~5 meter medium turbolaser cannon? Well gosh,
> maybe the energy output goes up the more plasma you fire at once. Perhaps
> that's why...
Hmmmm.... so we should add up several weapons in one calc to find the power
of one weapon in the other? Great going. Now try a rational debate.
> Wong, Young and everyone else who made the asteroid calculations listed
them
> as LOW-END calculations.
Strangely, Wong's BDZ calc was low end as well. The TESB calc has to EXCEED
the BDZ calc in order to justify raising the BDZ calc without other evidence
to support it.
Still my point stands - and the arguments against it are getting more
ludicrous all the time.
Tough luck.
DMZ
---
The Ambivalent DMZ
> Now if you dump multiple thousands of gigawatts on a single point at a
> planetary surface - in the form of a heavy turbolaser bolt - the transfer
of
> energy from the plasma to the rock will instantly vaporize whatever it
first
> contacts. As the energy propagates through the matter (in the form of
> thermal energy), however, it will go from vaporization to melting to mere
> heating.
>
> Duh?
Yes, I agree entirely. Why even bother raising this?
DMZ
---
The Ambivalent DMZ
> So as a result, high-end estimates place the Star Destroyer slagging the
> surface in 1.001 hours, and low-end estimates place it at 23.999 hours. We
> can't say for sure where it really falls, but whatever it may be, it's
still
> faster than the fastest response time the United Federation of Planets can
> offer.
You have NO proof to back up slagging in 1.001 - 23.999 hours.
What we get is, from official source:
Reducing surface crust to slag: occurs, but no timescale given.
High end estimate: reducing surface to smoking debris in 1.001 hours.
Low end estimate: 23.999 hours.
1) No mention of timescale is given in any of the slagging quotes, only that
it can be done.
2) TESB asteroid calcs: give < 1/10th required power to justify upping the
levels.
3) Slagging the entire surface must occur after the buildings are reduced to
debris.
4) We can prove debris does not refer to the slagging stage (although this
is redundant) since the atmosphere must still be present in order for it to
smoke.
The beauty of this is that there is no need to argue over the semantics of
what "slagged" means in relation to how much crust need be melted.
NB I haven't done this calc yet to find what power level it returns. Note
that since the area where debris is formed due to the shockfront knocking
over buildings is limited to where a shot lands, and is not cumulative in
the same way as heating is, it might actually lead to a *higher* estimate,
although I doubt it.
DMZ
---
cmdrwilkens
"The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
And for the 10,000th time the TESB asteroid vaporization conclusively shows
that a SINGLE ISD-I can carry out a BDZ (assuming 1/3 metre melt depth) in
under 65 minutes.
I have given that argument time after time oh and by the way release of
gaseous atoms requires certain energy levels which will require them to
break away from liquid material. Are you saying if I boil a cup of water on
the moon that it won't leave a vapor trail? Opaque gaseous molecules CAN
burn off even in the lack of an atmosphere. Idiot. The smoke won't reach
escape velocity but it will SMOKE. Stupid whore why don't you come back with
something theat at least resembles intelligence.
cmdrwilkens
"The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
>
> "Crayz9000" <cray...@cow.mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> news:998dlk$6ire$5...@ID-48511.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > So as a result, high-end estimates place the Star Destroyer slagging the
> > surface in 1.001 hours, and low-end estimates place it at 23.999 hours.
We
> > can't say for sure where it really falls, but whatever it may be, it's
> still
> > faster than the fastest response time the United Federation of Planets
can
> > offer.
>
> You have NO proof to back up slagging in 1.001 - 23.999 hours.
>
> What we get is, from official source:
>
> Reducing surface crust to slag: occurs, but no timescale given.
> High end estimate: reducing surface to smoking debris in 1.001 hours.
> Low end estimate: 23.999 hours.
>
> 1) No mention of timescale is given in any of the slagging quotes, only
that
> it can be done.
Yes and the supporting quotes indicate it must be done in a short enough
timneframe that the native population will not be able to flee once it
begins.
> 2) TESB asteroid calcs: give < 1/10th required power to justify upping the
> levels.
Complete bullshit and you would know it if you read the other posts and
looked at the data.
> 3) Slagging the entire surface must occur after the buildings are reduced
to
> debris.
Then why does the quote say the surface and not the buildings? It says
reduce the surface to smoking debris which means the debris is what remains
of the planet's surface.
> 4) We can prove debris does not refer to the slagging stage (although this
> is redundant) since the atmosphere must still be present in order for it
to
> smoke.
No it doesn't have to be and you should know by now if you actually bothered
to look at the definiition provided.
> The beauty of this is that there is no need to argue over the semantics of
> what "slagged" means in relation to how much crust need be melted.
Of course not, slagged means they had to melt to a significant depth and
this must be done in a timeframe that will eliminate all population,
industrial, political, etc centers of gravity without fail. Smoking debris
would occur afterwards since you don't need an atmosphere to have smoke.
> NB I haven't done this calc yet to find what power level it returns. Note
> that since the area where debris is formed due to the shockfront knocking
> over buildings is limited to where a shot lands, and is not cumulative in
> the same way as heating is, it might actually lead to a *higher* estimate,
> although I doubt it.
Though it remains useless because you ultimately must have the entire
surface melted within an extremely short timeframe that will encompass
turning the SURFACE into smoking debris.
cmdrwilkens
"The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
news:985120257.24603.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
You idiot the TESB calculation shows the firepower of 1, singular, Light
Turbolaser. Thus:
1 LTL = 22,500 TW of firepower
100 LTL = 2250000 TW of firepower
simple multiplication
since 1 ISD-I carries over 100 LTLs that means that 1 ISD-1 carries at least
2250000 TW of firepower from LTLs alone. With BDZ you don't use one WEAPON
you use one SHIP. SHIPs have multiple weapons and when they are used
TOGETHER they have more firepower than one.
You truly are stupid if you believe that a single LTL is used to BDZ a
planet. My god you have reached a level of inane stupidity previously only
descended to by lawyers on thier way to Hell trying to escape eternal
torment such as you might deserve for this crap of an idea.
cmdrwilkens
"The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
>
> "Crayz9000" <cray...@cow.mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> news:998dl9$6ire$3...@ID-48511.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > Before you sit back and gloat, mind telling me why Star Destroyers have
> > nice, huge, 50-meter diameter turbolaser cannons, as opposed to the ~50
cm
> > light turbolaser cannon and ~5 meter medium turbolaser cannon? Well
gosh,
> > maybe the energy output goes up the more plasma you fire at once.
Perhaps
> > that's why...
>
> Hmmmm.... so we should add up several weapons in one calc to find the
power
> of one weapon in the other? Great going. Now try a rational debate.
NO you add them up because one SHIP will have MANY weapons. You truly are
stupid.
> > Wong, Young and everyone else who made the asteroid calculations listed
> them
> > as LOW-END calculations.
>
> Strangely, Wong's BDZ calc was low end as well. The TESB calc has to
EXCEED
> the BDZ calc in order to justify raising the BDZ calc without other
evidence
> to support it.
Wong's TL calcs showed the continuous firepower ability od ONE (1) LTL and
an ISD-I carries over a hundred LTLs.
--
cmdrwilkens
AIM: cmdrwilkens
"Flamethrowers, when you need to set someone on fire...but
they're all the way over there."
-Brian Blackman
> Still my point stands - and the arguments against it are getting more
cmdrwilkens
"The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
news:985104815.26646.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
Oh very cute semantics whore
> Please read my comment above, and perhaps do some basic reading.
>
I did and they show an utter lack of analysis if you actually believe that
GRAVITY will prevent the formation of SMOKE. Gravity will no more stop a
smoke in atmosphere of in the abscence of an atmosphere. I hate to be too
repititious but you truly are ignorant.
cmdrwilkens
"The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
> >
> > "The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
> > news:985099258.24171.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > > "cmdrwilkens" <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:nmCt6.191214$B6.42...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Wriggle with yet more semantics all you like, but without an
atmosphere,
> > the
> > > debris will not be smoking. Hence, the "smoking debris" stage occurs
> > before
> > > the "slagging".
> > >
> >
> > Didn't you read jackass. Smoke doesn't require an atmosphere it requires
> > obscuring gaseous atoms, With sufficient heat you can easily generate
> > gaseous atoms.
>
> the first time, I'm afraid. Please see my post elsewhere in the thread.
>
And I'll repeat that gravity will not hinder smoke. Smoke is gaseous
particles that are opaque (why don't you look up that word) thus they can be
formed ANYWHERE and in the case of a planet without an atmosphere they would
become a new atmosphere (for SW reference see: Kessel) and believe me they
got it right fool.
Saying concession accepted and not bringing anything new to refute the
evidence against you is hardly a winning argument. This is why I use that
term loosely. If you want to add something constructive do so but don't
continue to waste my time by mindlesly claiming "oh but your inteprtation is
wrong" even though I explained very thuroughly my entire logic chain all you
have done is attacked it with: "Your wrong, concession accepted."
Grow up, get a life, have some kids, learn some logic, and then come back
with a real argument besides "Your wrong, concession accepted."
The Ambivalent DMZ
> You idiot the TESB calculation shows the firepower of 1, singular, Light
> Turbolaser. Thus:
> 1 LTL = 22,500 TW of firepower
> 100 LTL = 2250000 TW of firepower
>
> simple multiplication
> since 1 ISD-I carries over 100 LTLs that means that 1 ISD-1 carries at
least
> 2250000 TW of firepower from LTLs alone. With BDZ you don't use one WEAPON
> you use one SHIP. SHIPs have multiple weapons and when they are used
> TOGETHER they have more firepower than one.
>
> You truly are stupid if you believe that a single LTL is used to BDZ a
> planet. My god you have reached a level of inane stupidity previously only
> descended to by lawyers on thier way to Hell trying to escape eternal
> torment such as you might deserve for this crap of an idea.
I gave the comparison of power for a single LTL, based on the TESB and BDZ
calcs respectively. I see that you are not intelligent enough to comprehend
what this means, please obtain a clue and get back to me only when you
understand where you have gone wrong. :-)
DMZ
---
pjmc...@gate.net
The Ambivalent DMZ <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
news:985057259.10627.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> <pjmc...@gate.net> wrote in message news:996ge5$mse$1...@news.gate.net...
>
> > Debris *might* be slag, but might not be.
>
> Actually, it can't be, because slag implies rock passing through a liquid
> state, and a liquid cannot be piled into debris. If it could, then it
never
> melted in the first place.
It could cool down and then be piled.
Or partially metled bits.
pjmc...@gate.net
cmdrwilkens <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:nmCt6.191214$B6.42...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> <pjmc...@gate.net> wrote in message news:996ge5$mse$1...@news.gate.net...
> >
> >
> > cmdrwilkens <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
> > news:sCyt6.190616$B6.42...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> > >
> > > "The Ambivalent DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
> > > news:985048903.8677.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > >
> > > > "cmdrwilkens" <burn...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
> > > > news:Csxt6.190406$B6.42...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> > > >
> > > > > > Frankly, you can whine all you like, but the timeframe of one
hour
> > for
> > > > > > complete slagging has no evidence to support it, and is, to put
it
> > > > > > bluntly, made up.
> > > > >
> > > > > No it falls distincly within the timeframe given by direct quote
in
> > the
> > > > > SWTJ.
> > > >
> > > > "...can reduce a planet's surface to smoking debris in a matter of
> > hours."
> > > >
> > > > Hours plural. Smoking debris. Thank you for making my point for me.
> > > >
> > > > Whine away, only don't continue the same tired "oh no it didn't",
"oh
> > yes
> > > it
> > > > did" charade when it's obviously just sour grapes.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Funny thing is that you have decided to attack the only segment of my
> > > argument you could find fault with using .... SEMANTICS.
> >
> > He provides an exact quote. Smoking debris is not an identity with
either
> > slag
> > or vapor.
> > Smoke is not vapor.
> > Debris is not vapor
> > Debris *might* be slag, but might not be.
> > Silicate oxides don't smoke.
> >
> Main Entry: 1smoke
> Pronunciation: 'smOk
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English, from Old English smoca; akin to Old English
> smEocan to emit smoke, Middle High German smouch smoke, and probably to
> Greek smychein to smolder
> Date: before 12th century
> 1 a : the gaseous products of burning materials especially of organic
origin
> made visible by the presence of small particles of carbon b : a suspension
> of particles in a gas
> 2 a : a mass or column of smoke b : SMUDGE
> 3 : fume or vapor often resulting from the action of heat on moisture
> 4 : something of little substance, permanence, or value
> 5 : something that obscures
> 6 a (1) : something (as a cigarette) to smoke (2) : MARIJUANA 2 b : an act
> or spell of smoking tobacco
> 7 a : a pale blue b : any of the colors of smoke
> 8 : pitches that are fastballs <if a guy's going to hit you... he
certainly
> isn't going to throw a spitter--he gives you smoke -- Tony Conigliaro>
>
> Since you can smoke if you release gaseous vapors I would like to thank
you
> again for proving my point about vaporization.
This certainly does not prove your point. It opens the possibility that
smoke refers to something other than vaporized rocks,
something that would appear at much lower temperatures.
pjmc...@gate.net
The Ambivalent DMZ <d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com> wrote in message
news:985058351.10802.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> If name calling and contradiction is all this group can offer in the way
of
> debate, why does it even bother to exist?
So that alt.fan.starwars and rec.arts.trek can find some peace.
The Ambivalent DMZ
Indeed it does. Well done for working that out all by yourself. :-)
<spelling it out>
Now, when we do the BDZ calcs, we work out the total power, and divide it up
among the weapons based on their type to find their individual powers. We
can then compare the value for a weapon from BDZ with the value of a weapon
from TESB.
</spelling it out>
I never realised it was so much hard work fighting an unarmed opponent. :-)
DMZ
---
The Ambivalent DMZ
> > 1) No mention of timescale is given in any of the slagging quotes, only
> that
> > it can be done.
>
> Yes and the supporting quotes indicate it must be done in a short enough
> timneframe that the native population will not be able to flee once it
> begins.
All it says is that there were no survivors. Personal belief - no argument
to answer.
> > 2) TESB asteroid calcs: give < 1/10th required power to justify upping
the
> > levels.
>
> Complete bullshit and you would know it if you read the other posts and
> looked at the data.
Inability to grasp basic mathematical concepts. No argument to answer.
> > 3) Slagging the entire surface must occur after the buildings are
reduced
> to
> > debris.
>
> Then why does the quote say the surface and not the buildings? It says
> reduce the surface to smoking debris which means the debris is what
remains
> of the planet's surface.
It's reasonable to assume the planet has buildings, otherwise it wouldn't
have been attacked.
> > 4) We can prove debris does not refer to the slagging stage (although
this
> > is redundant) since the atmosphere must still be present in order for it
> to
> > smoke.
>
> No it doesn't have to be and you should know by now if you actually
bothered
> to look at the definiition provided.
Interesting and frankly bizarre interpretation of "smoking debris". No
argument to answer.
> > The beauty of this is that there is no need to argue over the semantics
of
> > what "slagged" means in relation to how much crust need be melted.
>
> Of course not, slagged means they had to melt to a significant depth and
> this must be done in a timeframe that will eliminate all population,
> industrial, political, etc centers of gravity without fail. Smoking debris
> would occur afterwards since you don't need an atmosphere to have smoke.
>
> > NB I haven't done this calc yet to find what power level it returns.
Note
> > that since the area where debris is formed due to the shockfront
knocking
> > over buildings is limited to where a shot lands, and is not cumulative
in
> > the same way as heating is, it might actually lead to a *higher*
estimate,
> > although I doubt it.
>
> Though it remains useless because you ultimately must have the entire
> surface melted within an extremely short timeframe that will encompass
> turning the SURFACE into smoking debris.
Pure personal belief. Concession accepted.
DMZ
---
The Ambivalent DMZ
<snip>
This has been dealt with now in upwards of 5 different parts of the thread.
Argument by rapid fire is a lawyeristic approach, where you attempt to wear
down your opponent with as many ungrounded arguments as you can think of in
a short period of time. Please refer to *any* of the other threads for
continuation.
DMZ
---
The Ambivalent DMZ
> And I'll repeat that gravity will not hinder smoke. Smoke is gaseous
> particles that are opaque (why don't you look up that word) thus they can
be
> formed ANYWHERE and in the case of a planet without an atmosphere they
would
> become a new atmosphere (for SW reference see: Kessel) and believe me they
> got it right fool.
>
>
> Saying concession accepted and not bringing anything new to refute the
> evidence against you is hardly a winning argument. This is why I use that
> term loosely. If you want to add something constructive do so but don't
> continue to waste my time by mindlesly claiming "oh but your inteprtation
is
> wrong" even though I explained very thuroughly my entire logic chain all
you
> have done is attacked it with: "Your wrong, concession accepted."
> Grow up, get a life, have some kids, learn some logic, and then come back
> with a real argument besides "Your wrong, concession accepted."
Personal attack, again. I try and take the time to explain, but it does get
a bit wearing after you post exactly the same thing 10 times in a row.
Repeating something doesn't make it any more true than it was to begin with,
I'm afraid.
There is absolutely no point in answering the same inane point by you over
and over again. If you didn't understand the first time, tough, deal with it
or come up with something new.
DMZ
---
The Ambivalent DMZ
<snip> Another argument-by-fire of the same part of the thread as elsewhere.
DMZ
---
The Ambivalent DMZ
<pjmc...@gate.net> wrote in message news:998isa$102o$1...@news.gate.net...
Stormtrooper rock piling detail, attention! :-)
DMZ
---
The Ambivalent DMZ
<pjmc...@gate.net> wrote in message news:998j0h$102u$1...@news.gate.net...
> This certainly does not prove your point. It opens the possibility that
> smoke refers to something other than vaporized rocks,
> something that would appear at much lower temperatures.
Or, apparently, marijuana. :-)
DMZ
---
Alves
d...@NOSPAMadjective-army.com says...
<snip>
> I stand corrected. It should read "some", not "all" :-)
>
> cmdrwilkens claims the TESB calcs verify the BDZ calcs. Let's have another
> look:
>
> TESB vaporization calcs: Power of a single LTL = 22,500TW
> BDZ or 'made up as we went along' calcs: Power of a single LTL = 375,000TW
>
> Nope, they clearly show that the TESB calcs are less than 1/10th of the BDZ
> 'made up' calcs.
> So, in fact, they support my argument.
>
> cmdrwilkens now says "You seem to forget that a Star Destroyer has HEAVY and
> MEDIUM Turbolasers. With properly scaled firepower you can EASILY reach and
> exceed 375,000 TW."
>
> I say: of course you can exceed 375,000TW if you use several weapons. But
> you're now claiming that we should add up the power of several weapons in
> the TESB calc to find the power of one weapon in the BDZ calc. Which, of
> course, is pure and utter bullshit.
I don`t think that it is correct to use a measure of power when comparing
TESB asteroid calcs with BDZ. In the first the ammount of energy is much
less than the ammount of power would make us think. In the later, a
measure of power is reasonable because the time frame is, no matter what
KAZ think, more than one second. :)
The Ambivalent DMZ
> And for the 10,000th time the TESB asteroid vaporization conclusively
shows
> that a SINGLE ISD-I can carry out a BDZ (assuming 1/3 metre melt depth) in
> under 65 minutes.
The TESB asteroid calcs give a figure <1/10th the BDZ calc. To justify the
decreased times in your 'made up' BDZ calc, it must approximate or exceed
it. It's as simple as that.
> I have given that argument time after time
I had noticed, I believe I mentioned the fact that repeating it over and
over again won't make it true. :-)
> oh and by the way release of gaseous atoms requires certain energy
> levels which will require them to break away from liquid material.
Actually, it requires that the velocity of the molecules in the fluid is
sufficient to overcome the 'surface tension'. Obviously, not all molecules
have the same velocity. In this case, we are not dealing with a liquid, but
rather a solid. Even given the argument that parts could still be molten,
without an atmosphere there are no convection currents to bouy up the
molecules, and nothing to perturb their trajectory. The best you might
expect is a slight hazy aura close to the object, but by no stretch of the
imagination could you call this "smoke".
Now we get to the good part. I haven't had a string of feed lines this good
for ages. :-)
> Are you saying if I boil a cup of water on
> the moon that it won't leave a vapor trail?
It might if it were on a supersonic jet in the Earths' atmosphere. :-)
> Opaque gaseous molecules CAN burn off even in the lack of an atmosphere.
Burn implies oxidation, so I suspect you mean something else here. Again.
:-)
> Idiot.
Indeed you are, but it hasn't stopped you in the past.
> The smoke won't reach escape velocity but it will SMOKE.
It probably needs to calm down after being tied to that jet. :-)
> Stupid whore why don't you come back with
> something theat at least resembles intelligence.
Concession accepted.
DMZ
---