The Rancor Pit :: View topic - Rules help with Omya Kaboom

Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

FAQ :: Search :: Memberlist :: Usergroups :: Register :: Profile :: Log in to check your private messages :: Log in

Rules help with Omya Kaboom

The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> Rules help with Omya Kaboom

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

garhkal
Sovereign Protector

Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 12:25 am Post subject:

But it also shows that the smaller you get the less omphf.. _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

Fallon Kell
Commodore

Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 3:04 am Post subject:

Well yeah, but you don't need as much oomph to kill a man as you do to bring down an imperial customs frigate... _________________ Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier Complete Starship Construction System

Orion
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146

Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 3:25 am Post subject:

Fallon Kell wrote:

Orion wrote:

From your answer, I take it that you disagree with Wookiepedia on the matter of Concussion Missile warheads being of nuclear or thermonuclear nature, otherwise your saying that your not only miniaturizing the warhead but also tech that would contain the explosion to the area you described, or did you miss that reference?

It's inconsequential. If you have access to Star Wars level laser technology, there's no bottom end on the yield of a fusion device.

That's one that I'm not familiar with, so please enlighten me as to how it works. Btw, when you say fusion are you talking pure fusion or Thermonuclear, as the later is fission and fusion, but is sometimes referred to as fusion.

Fallon Kell wrote:

The idea was to point out how much bigger technologies at their "normal" size are than their theoretical minimum, to demonstrate how the minimum size of a concussion warhead could be reduced to the size of a 12 gauge shot shell.

I don't think theoretical minimum counts towards plausible, how about practical minimum, it has to reliably achieve it's function and you can't bankrupt the company to make it happen. A pen laser pointer, is a laser, but if the laser your trying to create actually damages things, it's not really representative of the laser your trying to create. The IC motor, is not worth anything, except as an experiment, in it's current state, batteries will do the job far more cheaply than that motor will, and they will do it in complete silence. Also let's point out that it's a rotary engine, the most simple IC engine that there is, it's not like they shrunk a V8, it doesn't even have a piston.

Fallon Kell
Commodore

Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 11:30 pm Post subject:

Orion wrote:

]That's one that I'm not familiar with, so please enlighten me as to how it works. Btw, when you say fusion are you talking pure fusion or Thermonuclear, as the later is fission and fusion, but is sometimes referred to as fusion.

Pure fusion devices qualify as thermonuclear as well, and if you heat a cubic millimeter of hydrogen to (IIRC) five million degrees K, it will fuse into helium and explode. I suppose the minimum yield of a fusion device is two hydrogen atoms...

Practical minimums are usually smaller than we think, too. Jet engines as small as a fist are affordable, practical, and maintain at least the 7:1 thrust to weight ratio looked for in modern fighter powerplants.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier

Complete Starship Construction System

garhkal
Sovereign Protector

Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 11:34 pm Post subject:

And what sized plane do those fist size jet engines propell? _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

Orion
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146

Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 1:15 pm Post subject:

Zarm R'keeg wrote:

To play devil's advocate, that is a flaw of Star Trek, Star Wars, and most sci-fi franchises- things like the destruction of a planet ought not to require a superweapon station, but a few unusual applications of everyday technology- most sci-fi writers simply don't think through the implications of the technology they put in their stories. So I don't know if that's quite a valid argument in terms of the plausibility of a concept- since it is predicated on the creativity and scientific/technical aptitude of authors. Wink

Apologies, I had meant to respond to this earlier. As Fallon wants to speak only of the in universe plausibility of the matter, the author's themselves are outside of things, however their decisions do have in universe consequences. So you get in universe tech levels are 'uneven' in their nature, they don't follow a real world example well. Let's not forgot that these universes are largely constructed of Plot-devicium, an unusual material with largely undefined characteristics. Which is part of the reason that I say the that if the tech to make a device existed in universe, then someone would have made it already. Let's look at it from another angle, why would blasters be the most common weapon if rounds such as these were available for firearms? I'm all for giving firearms individual character, but they shouldn't overshadow blasters, or it stops being the SWU.

Orion
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146

Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 1:43 pm Post subject:

Fallon Kell wrote:

My understanding of nuclear and thermonuclear as it relates to bombs is that nuclear is a fission device(aka the atom boom) and Thermonuclear is a fission device that's yield generates enough heat to ignite a fusion reaction which then adds it's heat to the blast(the hydrogen bomb), however nuclear physics is not my specialty.

With regards to your explaination of how you can achieve fusion using star wars level lasers, it would appear that you are now suggesting that it's possible to shrink a laser capable of generating the needed heat in less than a second, and fit it into a 12 guage round size device that is propelled by an explosion in such a way that it's alignment won't be affected by the resulting shock-wave, not to mention fitting the needed power source in there as well.

From my point of view it's getting awfully crowed in there, that's assuming that those things can actually be made to the proper specs. Given that a blaster can't ingite a fusion reaction in the proper material your talking about a laser that's more powerful than what's in a blaster. If they could make one that was more powerful and smaller, than why don't they use it in blasters.

Fallon Kell wrote:

Practical minimums are usually smaller than we think, too. Jet engines as small as a fist are affordable, practical, and maintain at least the 7:1 thrust to weight ratio looked for in modern fighter powerplants.

Which is a great accomplishment in and of itself, but without corresponding success in shrinking the rest of the technologies, you can't build a modern fighter jet that will fit on your coffee table. In other words, until the aircraft you put those engines on can preform the same functions of a modern fighter, you haven't succeeded in shrinking the technology that is a modern fighter to that level, just a piece of it.

Fallon Kell
Commodore

Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 6:42 pm Post subject:

Orion wrote:

A fission device is the only way we have to detonate a fusion bomb is with a fission one, short of an aircraft-deliverable research laboratory. All fission-fusion devices are thermonuclear, but not all thermonuclear devices are fission-fusion.

Orion wrote:

With regards to your explaination of how you can achieve fusion using star wars level lasers, it would appear that you are now suggesting that it's possible to shrink a laser capable of generating the needed heat in less than a second, and fit it into a 12 guage round size device that is propelled by an explosion in such a way that it's alignment won't be affected by the resulting shock-wave, not to mention fitting the needed power source in there as well.

From my point of view it's getting awfully crowed in there, that's assuming that those things can actually be made to the proper specs. Given that a blaster can't ingite a fusion reaction in the proper material your talking about a laser that's more powerful than what's in a blaster. If they could make one that was more powerful and smaller, than why don't they use it in blasters.

Fallon Kell wrote:

I think a blaster does utilize a fusion reaction. That seems to me to be the only way to get that kind of power from so small a quantity of gas. My theory of blaster operation appears elsewhere on this forum. Regardless, you can fit a blaster into a very small space, as is evidenced by seekers and holdout blasters, and however they work, they can suddenly heat a suitable amount of gas to extreme temperatures. For a warhead, you wouldn't even need a whole blaster, just the ionizing chamber and the Xciter.

To the best of my knowledge, you can build a whole scale F-14 at 6 feet in length. The only thing that won't fit is the pilot.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier

Complete Starship Construction System

Orion
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146

Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 8:11 pm Post subject:

Fallon Kell wrote:

...Regardless, you can fit a blaster into a very small space, as is evidenced by seekers and holdout blasters, and however they work, they can suddenly heat a suitable amount of gas to extreme temperatures. For a warhead, you wouldn't even need a whole blaster, just the ionizing chamber and the Xciter.

Extreme temperatures doesn't mean 5 million degrees Kelvin, more like many decimal places below that. I'll repeat my point, hopefully more plainly this time. A blaster bolt from a hand held weapon will not cause a fusion reaction when it strikes something, if it had the required heat it would vaporize most everything it came into contact with, so why would one that is smaller be able to cause a fusion reaction? You seem to think that it will get more powerful as it's shrunk and you said nothing to address the fact that the moment that shell is fired is like that blaster just fell onto concrete from a great height, assuming the case can withstand the shock the internal components if they are not somehow broken would likely no longer be in proper alinement, so if it still functioned it would be at a reduced efficiency.

Fallon Kell wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, you can build a whole scale F-14 at 6 feet in length. The only thing that won't fit is the pilot.

Does that include all the electronic warfare/radars/targeting systems as well as all of it's weapons? Minor note an f-14 6 feet in length uses engines that are larger than fist size.

Fallon Kell
Commodore

Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 11:16 pm Post subject:

Orion wrote:

Extreme temperatures doesn't mean 5 million degrees Kelvin, more like many decimal places below that.

since the yield of a blast from a laser cannon has been labeled at 1 kiloton, I would say it's more.

Orion wrote:

I'll repeat my point, hopefully more plainly this time. A blaster bolt from a hand held weapon will not cause a fusion reaction when it strikes something, if it had the required heat it would vaporize most everything it came into contact with, so why would one that is smaller be able to cause a fusion reaction?

Fusion of elements heavier than hydrogen requires exponentially more heat. Elements heavier than iron will never contribute to a fusion reaction. This, combined with the cooling of the bolt after the (theorized) initial fusion reaction inside the Xciter, would prevent anything but a pool of liquid hydrogen hit at point blank range from reacting.

Orion wrote:

You seem to think that it will get more powerful as it's shrunk and you said nothing to address the fact that the moment that shell is fired is like that blaster just fell onto concrete from a great height, assuming the case can withstand the shock the internal components if they are not somehow broken would likely no longer be in proper alinement, so if it still functioned it would be at a reduced efficiency.

Some things do get proportionally more effective as they get smaller, but the blaster doesn't need to, as you can see from above. Also, misaligned components tend to make blasters explode. This is not a problem if you're trying to build an explosive shell. Shockproofing sensitive electronics for use in shot shells is something we can do these days, and I wouldn't describe star wars electronics as sensitive. Remember that if you have an explosive shell, 300 feet per second is a reasonable muzzle velocity.

Orion wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, you can build a whole scale F-14 at 6 feet in length. The only thing that won't fit is the pilot.

Does that include all the electronic warfare/radars/targeting systems as well as all of it's weapons? Minor note an f-14 6 feet in length uses engines that are larger than fist size.[/quote]Scale weapons, but yes. The engines on a 6 foot F-14 are bigger than a fist, but as far as jet engines go, the F100 used on F-14s is huge.

Incidentally, a scale tomcat performs better than a real one.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier

Complete Starship Construction System

Orion
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146

Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 2:36 pm Post subject:

Fallon Kell wrote:

since the yield of a blast from a laser cannon has been labeled at 1 kiloton, I would say it's more.

Except you were talking about holdout blasters not laser cannons, to get to the number you wanted you increased the size of the weapon, which only reinforces my argument not yours.

Fallon Kell wrote:

Firstly I do not subscribe to fusion happening inside a blaster for 2 reasons.

1. Wookiepedia defines a small amount Tibanna gas as increasing coherent light passing through it by four times. This makes the amount of energy you get from the process dependent on the energy you put into it. A fusion reactions energy output is defined by E=mc^2 which defines it's energy output as being related to the mass lost during the fusion process not the energy input into it.

2. Everything in the SWU is made from Plot-devicium, it does not follow our Laws of Physics so trying to force them into applying doesn't work. They work because it's the SWU, they often won't work at all in ours. In fact in the SWU our Laws of Physics would be at best guidelines.

Fallon Kell wrote:

Some things do get proportionally more effective as they get smaller, but the blaster doesn't need to, as you can see from above.

No I can't see from the above, I see that the damage output of the lasers and blaster goes down as the size shrink's. Since damage output is related to energy output it also goes down. If the opposite were true hand held blasters would do more damage than their larger brethren, so the SWU examples show that your accretion is not correct.

Fallon Kell wrote:

Also, misaligned components tend to make blasters explode. This is not a problem if you're trying to build an explosive shell. Shockproofing sensitive electronics for use in shot shells is something we can do these days, and I wouldn't describe star wars electronics as sensitive. Remember that if you have an explosive shell, 300 feet per second is a reasonable muzzle velocity.

Explosions work great for detonating things like C4, but not for creating fusion, unless the explosion reaches the temperature for achieving fusion, which I don't believe it would in this case.

What's more I don't believe a Concussion Missile warhead can be a pure Fusion device, as I been doing a bit of reading and haven't noted anywhere that a fusion reaction would create a shockwave of any kind and since a shockwave is needed for it to be a Concussion Missile warhead or it wouldn't be called a Concussion Missile, fusion only cannot be what the warhead is.

Fallon Kell wrote:

Scale weapons, but yes. The engines on a 6 foot F-14 are bigger than a fist, but as far as jet engines go, the F100 used on F-14s is huge.

Scale weapons that work, not mock ups, as with the targeting/electronic warefare/radar packages, they work they're not just mock ups for weight? Btw, the F-14 uses the F110 engine, the same engine as the F-15, they first used the Tf-30, but replaced those early in their service life, due to reliability problems. If the model were using the fist sized engines it would likely be under a foot in length, which they couldn't do as they would not be able to shrink all of the corresponding technology to fit inside it. They could build it to fly but I doubt it would be able to do all the things the original could do, and I don't mean flight characteristics.

Fallon Kell wrote:

Incidentally, a scale tomcat performs better than a real one.

Interesting, but I have to wonder if the limiting factor on the full size model is the pilot, as I know it is in the F-16, which can preform maneuvers that the pilot just can't handle, but the plane has no trouble with.

Fallon Kell
Commodore

Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 8:22 pm Post subject:

Orion wrote:

Except you were talking about holdout blasters not laser cannons, to get to the number you wanted you increased the size of the weapon, which only reinforces my argument not yours.

I assume the temperature is roughly the same, and laser cannons fire a larger bolt. I referred to the laser cannon because we don't have stats on a holdout blaster's yield.

Orion wrote:

Fallon Kell wrote:

it takes more energy to heat a greater volume of gas enough to fuse

Orion wrote:

2. Everything in the SWU is made from Plot-devicium, it does not follow our Laws of Physics so trying to force them into applying doesn't work. They work because it's the SWU, they often won't work at all in ours. In fact in the SWU our Laws of Physics would be at best guidelines.

I don't see how that prevents you from making tiny concussion missiles.

Orion wrote:

Smaller blasters and concussion missiles do proportionally less damage. I'm not saying you can bring down a picket ship with one shotgun grenade.

Fallon Kell wrote:

Explosions work great for detonating things like C4, but not for creating fusion, unless the explosion reaches the temperature for achieving fusion, which I don't believe it would in this case.
[/quote]I think it will, for the reasons above, but explosions also create pressure, which decreases the temperature required for fusion a little.

Orion wrote:

What's more I don't believe a Concussion Missile warhead can be a pure Fusion device, as I been doing a bit of reading and haven't noted anywhere that a fusion reaction would create a shockwave of any kind and since a shockwave is needed for it to be a Concussion Missile warhead or it wouldn't be called a Concussion Missile, fusion only cannot be what the warhead is.

Google "Castle Bravo". Fusion devices make shockwaves

Orion wrote:

Real missiles that really shoot and blow up. F100 was an iPhone typo. I don't know about active radars in the missiles in the foot-long tomcat, but most everything else ought to work... The fist-sized engine is high bypass, though, and a the tomcat's is low. That's an apples to oranges comparrison.

Orion wrote:

Not in this case. It's actually a matter of volume changing by a cube, while area changes by a square as an object is scaled. Weight is a function of volume, while lift is a function of area. This means that your lift to weight ratio improves as your aircraft shrinks.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier

Complete Starship Construction System

Orion
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146

Posted: Sat May 05, 2012 4:15 am Post subject:

Fallon Kell wrote:

I assume the temperature is roughly the same, and laser cannons fire a larger bolt. I referred to the laser cannon because we don't have stats on a holdout blaster's yield.

Heat is a form of energy, it's through the heat they generate that they damage physical objects, so if what you are saying were true the hold out blaster would do more damage than the laser cannon as the laser in it is being amplified by the blaster gas that the laser cannon doesn't use. So no they do not have equivalent nor similar heat levels.

Fallon Kell wrote:

it takes more energy to heat a greater volume of gas enough to fuse.

The amount of gas is immaterial, energy output for an unspecified amount, is defined as a multiple of the input energy, more energy in, more energy out, this is not the case with fusion which needs more fuel but does not require more heat to create more energy out, increasing the energy used to create the fusion will not in and of itself increase the output energy. Tibanna gas's energy production is defined differently than fusion, they cannot be the same. Now whether Tibanna gas's definition makes sense is another matter.

Fallon Kell wrote:

I don't see how that prevents you from making tiny concussion missiles.

It doesn't but it does preclude the need for adding fusion to a process that according to the data we have on blasters didn't include it. Your argument for having fusion take place is that it's the only way to get that much energy from the process, but since our Laws of Physics do not define the SWU, other as yet undefined principles can exists to accomplish the job without fusion.

Fallon Kell wrote:

Smaller blasters and concussion missiles do proportionally less damage. I'm not saying you can bring down a picket ship with one shotgun grenade.

But you are saying that a lasers generate similar heat no matter the size and that would mean they would do similar damage, which the in universe examples show is incorrect.

Fallon Kell wrote:

I think it will, for the reasons above, but explosions also create pressure, which decreases the temperature required for fusion a little.

Except, I find your reasons above to be flawed, as I pointed out above.

Fallon Kell wrote:

Google "Castle Bravo". Fusion devices make shockwaves

I thought you understood the difference between Fission-Fusion and pure Fusion, telling me to google a Fission-Fusion device as an example of a pure Fusion device, leads me to believe otherwise. To date, I don't know of any pure Fusion bombs. The shockwave of Castle Bravo comes from the Fission reaction, not the Fusion, which releases neutrons that create more fission events and therefore a larger explosion and reduces wasted fissile fuel. Copied from the Castle Bravo Wiki, "Inside the cylindrical case was a smaller cylinder of lithium deuteride fusion fuel (the secondary) with a fission atomic bomb (the primary) at one end".

From a previous post:

Fallon Kell wrote:

Incidentally, what is your problem with miniaturizing the warheads, exactly? Nothing I've ever seen says that concussion missiles need to attain a critical mass, so why can't you just build the warhead smaller?

Since you, yourself implied earlier that requiring a Concussion warhead to acheive critical mass would limit the ability to miniaturize it and you used a Fission-Fusion device, which needs to attain a critical mass, as the example for it's shockwave detonation, unless you have a way to prove fusion creates a shockwave, I'd say that pretty much closes the book.

Fallon Kell wrote:

...F100 was an iPhone typo...

Responding to these posts on an iphone....Impressive...

Orion wrote:

Of course, I should have realized, is there a link to this model F-14? I would enjoy looking it over.

Fallon Kell
Commodore

Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posted: Sat May 05, 2012 5:33 pm Post subject:

Orion wrote:

A metric ton of water vapor at 1000 degrees has more energy than a gram of water at the same temperature. Mass is relevant.

Orion wrote:

The amount of gas required increases with power, too, which is why the rebellion often cannot find the blaster they need for fleet action, but usually can find the gas they need for hand blasters.

Orion wrote:

So your argument here is a null point, neither for not against either of us.

Orion wrote:

But you are saying that a lasers generate similar heat no matter the size and that would mean they would do similar damage, which the in universe examples show is incorrect.

As I showed above, your premise here is wrong. An ounce of matter at any given temperature will do less damage than a pound.

Orion wrote:

I know Castle Bravo was a mixed device, but that shockwave came from the fusion, or at least 99.9% of it did. Fusion bombs are roughly 1,000 times more powerful than fission bombs, for thier size, despite having a comparatively small fission charge. The reason they're more powerful is the fusion. If we built a working fusion bomb without a fission component it would still have a shockwave just as big as any other H-bomb.

Orion wrote:

I have too much real life to prove to you that fusion bombs create shockwaves, if the evidence I've already provided isn't sufficient. The fact remains, it's true. Do your own research, and you'll find I'm right.

Orion wrote:

Responding to these posts on an iphone....Impressive...

Thank you

if only my confidentiality agreement would let me show you what's usually going on as I respond!

Orion wrote:

Of course, I should have realized, is there a link to this model F-14? I would enjoy looking it over.

No, they haven't actually built one yet. It's too expensive. I just figured out how big all the pieces would need to be. Radars are the hard part, since the antenna's size has to do with the wavelength you're working on. I think you can still look up YouTube videos of a six-foot scale tomcat model to see how it flies, but it's illegal to take it supersonic, and unsafe to take it to altitude. I think the guy who built it used cheaper, downrated jets to keep costs down, since he couldn't take it to Mach 2 and 40,000 feet, anyways.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier

Complete Starship Construction System

Fallon Kell
Commodore

Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posted: Sat May 05, 2012 7:37 pm Post subject:

garhkal wrote:

And what sized plane do those fist size jet engines propel?

Whatever you want. They generate 32 lbs of thrust, IIRC.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier

Complete Starship Construction System

Display posts from previous:

	The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules	All times are GMT - 4 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum