Halo 2 Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Novel Inconsistencies Concerning Weapons Yield Calcs
  • Subject: Novel Inconsistencies Concerning Weapons Yield Calcs
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4
Subject: Novel Inconsistencies Concerning Weapons Yield Calcs
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Actually, comparing it to average plasma is a mistake as it doesn't seem like any kind of known plasma.

In fact, even Dr. Halsey comments on this in TFoR on pg 110:

"Plasma," Dr. Halsey replied. "But not any plasma we know..."

Apparently, even Nylund might've recognized the fallacy of comparing it to real plasma.

  • 07.12.2004 12:12 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: noteliteornewb
I agree with you Jon. That's what I meant about not hating. I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm not eduactaed enough in physics to even argue the points.

I'm not really educated in physics either, I'm about 15 credits away from my Associates in English degree and I have yet to receive my science credits.

I learned most of my physics from those Star Wars sites I mentioned and taking part in discussions just like this one ; )

...which is both scary a maybe a little pathetic...heh.

  • 07.12.2004 12:17 PM PDT

i'm lost...

  • 07.12.2004 12:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

[color=gold]Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but I felt like doing this for the hell of it. It's right up my alley.
The speed of light is roughly 300,000 km/s (1,080,000,000 kph). So the projectiles that the SMAC Orbital Platforms fire travel at approx. 120,000 km/s (432,000,000 kph). That's pretty damn fast. Of course, that would take a tremendous amount of energy to make such a large object attain that velocity. I guess that's why they're powered by fusion generators, eh?[/color]

  • 07.12.2004 12:38 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Speaking of the SMACs, did anyone catch the comment made by Ackerson on pg 104 of FS concerning 'new orbital platforms'.

I'm thinking by the next book, the SMACs might either get upgraded or there'll be new defensive orbital weapons altogether...or maybe that's the 'spoke' Cortana was talking about in the E3 trailer...I'm rambling.

[Edited on 7/12/2004 12:44:57 PM]

  • 07.12.2004 12:44 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

[color=gold]"On the spoke" is a saying that basically means, "next on the priority list."[/color]

  • 07.12.2004 12:47 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Did the books ever say how the power was transfered from the surface to the cannons? It'd be a pretty substantial amount, it's not something you can just send up there via a microwave beam (A quick, back of the napkin number for the power demands of firing a 3,000 ton projectile at .4c every five seconds is something like 3.6x10^10 terawatts... pretty sizable)

  • 07.12.2004 12:58 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

24 hours since the last reply and this thread is already on pg 8!?...that's alot of traffic...

You must've used American tons?

That's a really good question, by the way. The only example I've found concerning power transfer was from an example of Cortana though I cannot for the life of me remember what sort of waves she was using. I know there's no explanation concerning the transfer from the SMACs to the surface complex so your guess is as good as mine...extension cord, maybe? :)

Speaking of power output, that brings me to another inconsistency (or two of them, at least):

On pg 305 of 'First Strike' the Covenants pinch fusion reactors were mentioned as 12 terawatt reactors whereas on pg 316, they are insinuated as being 1 terawatt reactors.

Now, as far as the inconsistency concerning my plasma yield calcs:

These pinch fusion reactors (I believe they are deuterium-tritium reactors if I remember correctly) are described as being the size of a Pelican dropship and they are also described as being the the same reactors used in Covenant ships.

Hypothetically speaking - let's say a Covenant destroyer has 40 pulse laser turrets along with it's plasma turrets (though they are mearly firing one plasma torp at a time). The pulse laser turrets are capable of destroying 'large nickel/iron asteroids' according to pg 265 of FS (smaller asteroids bounced off their shields).
40 pulse laser turrets is a fairly realistic number if you consider their ability to destroy 90/180 Archer missiles.
Also, if I remember correctly, 'large asteroids' are described as being 5-10km in diameter according to NASA.
This gives the pulse laser turrets a yield of 157 gigatons (melting energy) or 936 gigatons (vaporization energy) if the asteroids were 5km in diameter.
Remember, this isn't solid - it's all hypothetical.

This would give them a Covenant destroyer a total yield of 7.5TT including my earlier plasma torp yield.
The destroyer would need a power output of 3.5e10 terawatts per second and that's not including life support or keeping the ship in flight.
That would mean that this destroyer would need an equal amount of mass as 2.9 billion Pelican dropships for its reactors alone!!

This is a rather glaring inconsistency. I don't know why he made their reactors so weak. Of course, I know next to nothing about tritium plasma but I know a Covenant destroyer doesn't have the mass equal to 2.9e9 Pelicans. A flagship is 3km and not even a flagship could hold this much mass.

Even if I bring the calcs down drastically - say...200GT plasma torps and 1GT pulse laser turrets. That would mean that 36 Covy cruisers and destroyers could vaporize Jerichos water in 24 hours. That's a power output of roughly 1e9 terawatts - that's still 83 million Pelican dropships...

He should've gone the way of Star Wars and created something like the hypermatter fusion in Star Wars and had the reactors pumping out 2e23 watts...either that or made the ships 20-30 km long.

[Edited on 7/13/2004 12:16:48 PM]

  • 07.13.2004 12:15 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I used metric tons, but the number is a little odd because you've got to use the equation for relativistic kinetic energy when you're dealing with objects moving with speeds over .1c. (Though, I realize a misread part of the equation... the power demand for a 3,000 ton projectile at .4c with a rate of fire of one every five seconds is actually 4.536x10^10TW) As for the surface to cannon power transfer... I think a set of giant 30,000+ kilometer long jumper cables has a certain degree of style. ^_^

I always found the powerplant inconsistancies in the Halo books a little annoying (Still loved the books of course, but it was one of those nitpicky things that got on my nerves). You'd think a sci-fi author writing a space opera would have gone with either total conversion powerplants, or some fictional super power source, to avoid having to take away from the story by being limited by what a realistic powerplant can and can't do.

While on the topic of power, there's another odd thing about those groundside powerplants... From the novels, I got the impression that the planetside fusion reactors were about the same size as a modern nuclear powerplant (something that the SPARTANs could reasonably defend on their own), but if they produce the power the calculations say they need to, they'd be massive. For example, a fusion reactor providing power for a single orbital cannon requires -even with perfect efficiency- 1.5x10^9 kg of reactants per second (I forget the exact difference in mass between products and reactants in fusion, but I know it is less than 1%, so I just stuck with 1%) to provide 4.536x10^10TW. That would translate into one huge fuel tank, kilometers across... even with only a couple minutes of fuel.

[Edited on 7/13/2004 5:27:49 PM]

  • 07.13.2004 5:12 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

As for the surface to cannon power transfer... I think a set of giant 30,000+ kilometer long jumper cables has a certain degree of style. ^_^
LOL! Nice!

That's another thing about their ships - they most definately have NO room for fuel. I didn't even count fuel in my estimate above, just the mass of the reactors.

Yeah, the whole thing does annoy me too. Nylund has an MA in chemical physics - why he wouldn't know better is beyond me. When 'First Strike' was coming out I was hoping he would somehow answer some of these questions and inconsistencies but he just added new ones. I mean, he shows the effects of the power but there's no consistent explanation as to where it's coming from...

Oh well, maybe the next novel will correct some of this...

  • 07.14.2004 12:26 AM PDT

YOU has a big vocyoulairy....

  • 07.14.2004 12:33 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

yeah - i wuz lernd but good

j/k ;-))

  • 07.14.2004 1:44 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Draerden
As for nuclear explosions in space... no one is quite sure what exactly will happen since there's never been one. There are many theories. In a nuclear explosion much of the energy is translated into slamming wall of atmosphere. With no atmosphere, where does this energy go? Does this kinetic energy merely become transferred to the bomb fragments? Does it instead become translated into another form of energy?


Nuclear explosions happen every second in space, just look up, the sun, supernovas, every star in the universe produces millions and millions and millions of nuclear explosions every second. ok, the temperature generated by those explotions disapears kinda quick, but the radiation could travel forever, why?, microwaves, light, etc... wont stop untill they crash into something, why?, because light, microwaves, etc.... are energy not matter, they travel at a constant speed, they dont accelerate, as i said they wont stop until they crash into something or they're neutralized by an oposite charge, i recomend you to read einstein's ralativity theory, it may answers some of your questions.

Another thing, as for the plasma proyectiles not melting/burning the marines to the bones, there's an explanation, plasma looses temperature very quick (again look at the sun), it would be like a bomb exploding, in the instant the bomb explodes the air and all that is around it heats up to huge temperatures, but the heat disappears very quick, don't ask me why. i hate thermodynamics.

Peace!.

ELEMENTT_

P.S: im sorry if there are some spell errors, english isn't my native languaje, spanish is.

  • 07.14.2004 3:12 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Element -

firstly, if you had indeed read the theory of general relativity or the special theory then you would indeed know that Energy and matter are the exact same thing.

secondly - The vacuum of space is a fantastic insulator - so youre tamperings with the laws of thermodynamics are not right as well.

Thirdly, light and all EM energy CAN and DO speed up beyond c. Quantumn physics has quantum entaglement, and hubbles constant would indeed permit the redshifting of Light or any EM energy past the point of c.

also - a bunch of physcists at cambridge in the UK have been slowing light down to walking speed and slower in the last year.

not everything is as it seems.

  • 07.14.2004 5:41 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: johnconstantine
Posted by: Sc0pe
OMG y would you care how many joules it takes to make water boil in a planet you MUST be really bored

No dude. Physics just fascinates me. Most especially the physics of planet destruction, weapons, sci-fi weapons, etc. [insert evil grin here]


I am fascinated by such things myself, but I know too little to even begin such calculations, so I thank you for providing them...

  • 07.14.2004 6:10 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: The MasterChief8
Element -

firstly, if you had indeed read the theory of general relativity or the special theory then you would indeed know that Energy and matter are the exact same thing.

secondly - The vacuum of space is a fantastic insulator - so youre tamperings with the laws of thermodynamics are not right as well.

Thirdly, light and all EM energy CAN and DO speed up beyond c. Quantumn physics has quantum entaglement, and hubbles constant would indeed permit the redshifting of Light or any EM energy past the point of c.

also - a bunch of physcists at cambridge in the UK have been slowing light down to walking speed and slower in the last year.

not everything is as it seems.



My god... How did they slow down light...

  • 07.14.2004 6:13 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

it was in the latest edition of new scientist.

I would not do any justice to those guys if I attempted to explain it.

but they use a corkscrew shaped stream of laser pulses, shot through liquid helium gas at about 2kelvin, then they use the corkscrew shape to phase in and out........and somehow they get it.

take a look around for it though, its a good read.

  • 07.14.2004 7:10 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: The MasterChief8
Element -

firstly, if you had indeed read the theory of general relativity or the special theory then you would indeed know that Energy and matter are the exact same thing.

secondly - The vacuum of space is a fantastic insulator - so youre tamperings with the laws of thermodynamics are not right as well.

Thirdly, light and all EM energy CAN and DO speed up beyond c. Quantumn physics has quantum entaglement, and hubbles constant would indeed permit the redshifting of Light or any EM energy past the point of c.

also - a bunch of physcists at cambridge in the UK have been slowing light down to walking speed and slower in the last year.

not everything is as it seems.


Dude, light and matter DO NOT react in the same way, only under very special conditions, i know you can bend light and space itself, but if you read carefuly einstein says that light is the only thing that in "theory" can travel at that speed, he also said that if an object athempts to travel at that speed it's own energy become matter (mass) so it becomes heavier and slower because of its mass.

And if you dont belive me about things loosing temperature in space just LOOK at the comets, Mars, the Moon, and any other planet or asteroid beyond our planet, THEY ARE COLD, frosted, helados, frios.

And yes i heard about partcles going "faster" than c, but, you have to have in mind that they're exactly that "particles", little things big as atoms or even smallers "quarks".

one final thing.
could ya gimme a link to those campbridge stuff?.

  • 07.14.2004 8:51 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

[quote]Posted by: ELEMENTT_
Another thing, as for the plasma proyectiles not melting/burning the marines to the bones, there's an explanation, plasma looses temperature very quick (again look at the sun), it would be like a bomb exploding, in the instant the bomb explodes the air and all that is around it heats up to huge temperatures, but the heat disappears very quick, don't ask me why. i hate thermodynamics.
[quote]
I was referring to nuclear devices and their explosive yields in a vacuum. Heat does not dissipate in a vaccum, vaccum is the pefect insulator.

  • 07.14.2004 9:40 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Does anyone here know how to equate an explosion in atmosphere to an explosion in vacuum?
Or any good sites that explain it?

  • 07.14.2004 9:56 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I spent quite a bit of time looking for such sites John, since I was writing a science fiction short story.

That's where I learned that noone really knows. Scientists haven't seen a need to explore the results of space based weapony yet.

  • 07.14.2004 10:07 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

bravo. very nice.

  • 07.14.2004 10:22 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Ok, Again, LOOK at the SUN, the temperature in the "crown" of the Sun is aproximated to 2.5 millions °C. Ok, lets compare the temperature in the surface of moon with the temperature in the surface of mercury. The temperature in the moon goes from -120 to -170+ °C, now in mercury it goes from -184 to 420+ °C, you have to have in mind that mercury is at least 43.4 millions of miles from the sun and at a maxium of 28.6 millions of miles, Now IF the heat reacts the way you say, Mercury, venus, earth, mars, and all the other planets would have a temperature equal as the sun's crown. so, why aren't we living in a giant ball of liquid rock?, simply, HEAT LOSS!!!!!!! The temperature of space is (if im not wrong) -272 °C (0° Kelvin).

  • 07.14.2004 10:32 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

On the topic of nuclear blasts in space, I spent a few minutes poking around in Google and located the following site (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/conghand/nuclear.h tm#REF17-4). Apparently the law of conservation of energy holds sway and all the energy that would have gone into blast and thermal radiation instead goes into the vaporized bomb fragments and the ionizing radiation. Apparently, the biggest danger stemming from a nuclear blast in vacuum is the lethal radiation. With no atmosphere to absorb the energy even a relatively small weapon (20Kt) delivers a lethal dose of radiation to an unshielded target at ~16 miles.

Now, regarding heat loss in space... Recall, the sun doesn't transmit heat to us, it radiates electromagnetic radiation that is captured by and transformed into heat by the atmosphere and surface of our planet. Electromagnetic radiation weakens with the inverse square of the distance, so the further away a body is, the less EM radiation it recieves, the cooler the body is. (This assumes all bodies have identical oxy-nitrogen atmospheres, without an atmosphere a body has trouble retaining heat. For example, Venus has a higher surface temperature than the atmosphereless Mercury, despite the fact it's further away from the sun)

  • 07.14.2004 10:59 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member
  • gamertag: Sornos
  • user homepage:

Man I just love these kinds of discusions! Have any of you heard of the "Brane" theory? It's a theory that our universe is just a brane of another universe ( a brane is a 3-d membrane). Ok, now the theory specualtes that only gravitons can cross the brane. Now that explanes the mystery of dark matter and other gravitational phenomenoms. This could also explain slipspace drives. The drive could some how make the ship cross the brane into the alternate universe, and if you draw a tangent in a circle it is shorter than the area traveled by the outer edge of the circle. It wouldn't be instant travel but, it would take much less time than traveling in Einstienian space. What do you think?

  • 07.14.2004 11:25 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4