Lucky wrote: Mr. Oragahn wrote: It's more like they're stuck with that design and they decided to weaponize it since they couldn't find a manufacturer for real military-grade nuclear ordnance.
In other words, lava bombs would exist because for some reason there would be an excedent of fusion generator production somewhere in the Imperium, and a severe lack of production of efficient nuclear ordnance.
Which is so totally possible in 40K, btw, notably because of the loss of tech and the ever so important recovery of anything sporting the STC stamp.
So they sort of McGyver fusion generators pushed to some supercritical level.
Still, even if in universe, I could accept that, the problem of those levels of energy remains whole: they are simply too problematic, for reasons put up earlier.
You keep assuming the Lava Bomb is a particle and efficient weapon, but there is no reason to think that.
LOL, you're not debating but merely typing sentences as fast as possible, putting down anything your brain comes with.
So should I be surprised that what you say right above is nothing but a bold lie?
Quote me making such repetitive claims.
For the reminder and for those who can't read properly, I don't have any problem with the design being inefficient. I think it's pretty clear from what I quote, I even delved deeper into the technical and logistical reasons behind this situation.
Funnily, the real problem you didn't spot in the part you quoted is about how the
energy levels are complete bollocks in light of the universe's need of coherence and logic.
That's a radically different topic.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Or it is just describing, in a metaphorical way, what an explosion looks like (especially in Hollywood): a ball of fire that grows. And please, note that absolutely nothing is said about the speed of that blossoming event either.
We are talking about rounded blobs of plasma sticking to the hull of a space hulk. You keep acting as if something exploded for no reason.
No,
you are talking about rounded blobs of plasma sticking to the hull of a space hulk, because that is solely
your interpretation.
As for the absurd strawman in the second sentence: WTF? Where did I pretend explosions came out of nowhere?
Oh come on, is this going to be the "quality" standard of your entire post?
This is so bad.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: For all we know the author could be describing with ample detail what goes on within fractions of seconds. There's just no information about time given there.
There wouldn't be "blisters" on the hull if the event plays out that quickly. The described event has to happen relatively slowly or you end up with the plasma flying off in all directions at high speed.
Y U SO LITRALL ?
It can be taken as a metaphor. Hellooo!!
METAPHOR. It's a figure of speech.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: It is fuel. Assuming they had the oxydant with them, it's still going to be limited in terms of power. It's combustion and you have time to see the fuel burn.
What the bomb is, is another thing entirely: much more powerful and coming with a totally different reaction.
I mean, for crying out loud, it's a FUSION reaction. OK??
No, the idea that Lava bomb takes a notable amount of time to release the "gigatons" comes from the fact the plasma is described as a blister on the hull. You won't get that with a sudden release.
... because a nuclear fireball seen from a high vantage point in the sky wouldn't look like a blister?
As I suggested, once translated to space, if you're expecting some high yield kerosene fireball effect, then it's easier to say that he author might suffer from Hollywoodite.
But that's the silly way to go at it.
The other and more sensible reason could be that an explosion is going to propel a cloud of particles at varying speeds. You will find lingering material while other bits will be cast out at phenomenal speeds.
Above all, the hot spot on the surface will be left glowing, and light will also be scattered through the lingering faint fog of particles.
In other words, from a distance, it is possible you might see a sort of luminous spot. Even more with molten metal and other burning and molten elements still being ejected into space through the newly created holes.
40K ships usually fire from long range. At that distance, any kind of mark left by a mighty nuclear explosion on the surface of a complicated and dense object would look like a luminous spot.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: The section of interest makes ZERO mention of any release of energy, just its production.
If there was no release of energy then there would be no plasma generated to create something that can be described as a blister. The plasma has to come from the generator because the narrator states the Lava Bomb hasn't even made a hole in the hull.
The section of interest
in the quotation, aka the part of the sentence.
This very section does not feature any mention of any
release of energy, only its production.
I didn't say energy does not get released. I'm trying to tell you that the sentence that contains the information about time (the brief moments bit) only refers to production of energy.
FFS, this shouldn't be hard to understand! Read the damn text.
I'm just telling you what we read in the relevant part of the entire quotation fluff.
As for the bomb not even making a hole in the hull yet at a time when it's already creating
flaring explosions, then when is the hole supposed to be made? When Jesus returns?
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Irrelevant because I don't claim that the release of energy happens in a brief moment.
The production of energy happens in a brief moment, and I didn't say it wouldn't take some significant amount of time.
No you claim an it is released in an instant. You're so hung up on the word bomb. You are assuming that because they are called bombs they explode like Little Boy.
If the Lava Bombs explode then there would not be any "blisters" on the hull. There would be a bright flash, and the plasma would spread out becoming invisible.
Actually, no. The damaged point would remain luminous for a very long period.
See for example the Deep Impact case against the comet Tempel-1. Awesome stuff there. The impact spot remained luminous for hours and hours and hours after the crash, and we could see the light from behind the comet's core!
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Now that's really inane. Gravity, on what? A space hulk? A dead piece of amalgamated chunks of drifting ships or stations?
With at the very best, perhaps some systems still working, with all miracles including the much needed artificial gravity, and which conveniently works outside of that munch of mashed metal??
Oh wait, I'm not finished! An artificial gravity of 1g, which thanks to nuclear tests on Earth, tells us that in no way it's going to stop the fireballs at expanding at super fast speeds.
Fireballs, which amusingly enough, exist only because of the atmosphere, which is also the main brake to the expansion of said fireball.
Atmospere that doesn't exist... in space.
Seriously, Lucky, that's absurd.
You're the one claiming those things by default because you are claiming an explosion. You need to think your theories to their logical conclusions.
I don't need to "claim" any explosion because that's exactly what is written. Reread the quotation. Explosions flare up, they're stated to happen, in the opening section of the quoted material.
And hell, if there are no explosions, what's supposed to happen?
Oh I remember, "energy can't be explosive"... it's all a torch...
Sorry, you still fail.
You know, the chances of having a fusion reactor blowing up because its internal force field cannot constrain the energies are far higher than a reactor managing to extend a force field past its own volume, against the logic of the reactor's design itself! Even instincts would tell us that a reactor has more chances to blow up before some magical phenomenon would have the
internal force field manage to form outside of the reactor and conveniently contain BOTH the super hot plasma that would damage the hull AND the reactor itself, while NOT destroying the reactor.
For some kind of convoluted and non-efficient design, that's amazingly hardcore on the scale of super advanced systems. Safe that it does not even make sense as a reactor design.
Have you ever heard of Occam's razor by chance?
Now who's got a bad theory again?
I'm putting forth the theory the plasma generator is generating plasma that slowly floats away.
Oh, now you've ditched the mysterious force field.
As I said, you don't seem to realize the magnitude of energies involved here. We're dealing with a star-like plasma torch.
The vast majority of the plasma is
not going to slowly float away! Why? Because there has been some
multi-gigaton explosions.
In fact any explosion in space, no matter the yield, is going to naturally produce that very tidy little round hemisphere your mind has conjured.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Because you think the force field is just going to manifest magically and require minimal amounts of energy perhaps?
First you claim a shield needs to have the same amount of energy put into it as it is going to contain or repel.
Your theory requires something stopping the plasma from expanding beyond being blisters.
Well, unless you think you can contain, outside of the device, gigatons of energy with much less power.
Wow. These Imperium techs have access to a technology that's impressive indeed.
In general, one would wisely think that you need to spend
more energy, because of waste, in order to get enough left to counter the "enemy" energy.
My theory only requires the generators to slowly release plasma into space. You act like you've never seen a still fail before.
A still fail?
And need I quote you claiming that the blisters result from the energy being contained?
Your post:
"And what does the rest of the sentence say, It talks about the blisters of flame. There aren't going to be blisters of flame unless something contains the energy. In the scene something is causing the Lava Bomb's energy to be slowly released. It it just exploded there would only be a bright flash."
In another post, you say:
"The blister of fire is on the outside of the hull working its way in."
And
another one:
"2) We don't know why the plasma is forming blisters on the hull. If there is a field holding the plasma in a dome shape then it may be part of the normal operations of the generator."
Perhaps you've changed your theory AFTER my reply, but then it's stupid to accuse me of criticizing your old theory without being able to predict your next creative contribution. :/
By definition the plasma is
not going to slowly form, bulge or drift. It's not going to slowly burn like a bubble of fuel in a 0g environment either, as I told you. It's simply not going to happen.
Now, on the other hand, if we're talking about the
boiling type of plasma that's found in 40K (and assuming "boiling" isn't just used because of mere bubbles going up due to buoyancy), I already gave some suggestions about how it may be some kind of biofuel called plasma that turns critical (not super critical) when leaking from a core, and may be used in a wide range of exotic weapons.
But this has nothing to do with your pet theory.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: That's a bad cop out that solves precisely nothing until you actually try to offer an exhaustive explanation.
Wasteful and convoluted is what the IOM does. We aren't talking about the Knights Inductor here.
Still a bad cop out since I shoot down each of your arguments you try to bring up in defense of your theory. You talk about inefficiency but your theoretical design's problem is one of efficiency or lack thereof, but of complete nonsense. It doesn't even begin to make sense as a crappy in efficient power plant. It is simply totally inane.
Besides, you misunderstand fusion, plasma, how fuel burns, misread words (mine and from the quote), etc. This is not good.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Geez, it's got nothing to do with the meaning of moment, but the fact that moment doesn't refer to the release of energy but its generation within the fusion core.
And that Fusion Generator doesn't seem to explode, but rather leak plasma into the environment like a still with a hole in it.
Even if this is your new theory, then you'll still have to admit that there's no way around the fact that star-hot plasma is going to escape insanely fast (even more since it's compressed).
So you'll have to bury your literal interpretation of blister deep down. Then we'll be able to focus on the energy levels instead...
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Why?
How do you relate them to our fusion device here?
Plasma hotter then the sun is plasma hotter then the sun.
WUT? Is that even a mediocre attempt at some red herring?
Please answer the question. I replied to this:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
True. You may be thinking of plasma torches? But we're still dealing with compressed, high velocity jets. Which if they were multiplied and packed together, then send their ejecta radially, would form a sphere and would obviously be considered explosive.
I was thinking of electrical arcs in general.
And please make some effort about properly following the discussion.
If you're not arsed enough to keep track of your own claims, do us a favour and just give up, thanks.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Dude, it's a FUSION device. It burns nuclear fuel by fusing atoms together. It's clearly going to be closer to an omnidirectional plasma torch than a thick hot bubbling syrup for goodness' sake!
A fusion reactor/generator makes plasma that is normally contained inside. It would appear that a Lava Bomb has fusion reactors that at some point start to leak plasma instead of explosive warheads.
Yes, imprisonned by internal forces, most likely that of a magnetic field generated by the reactor inside itself.
It doesn't change the fact that once there's a hole in that, it's going to burst nastily. As GIAGATONS NUCLEAR EXPLOSION nasty.
That's a very basic fact I've been covering over several posts again and again. It gets very tiring.
If you just can't understand that, then stop thinking too hard and boot out of this thread at once, thanks.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: It's fine excepted that we know generators on ships are enormous and will obviously surpass those pidly cores mounted in those rockets.
It's quite simple: if the core is capable of producing gigatonnes of explosive energy before blowing up because it can't handle it anymore, then it can clearly work a notch below, remain stable at near max levels and still produce at last something around 1 gigaton of energy within moments.
Silly for all elements provided earlier.
The fusion generators/reactors fail in minutes at most. The IOM may need to build their reactors that big to keep them from destroying themselves like a Lava Bomb.
Thank you for admitting they fail, after all.
Anyway, they'd fail precisely because they would obviously reach a point where they can't maintain safe working parameters.
My point precisely was that the Imperium just needs to dial those generators down so they never get there. It still gives those ships stupid levels of power, because we're talking about small generators that fit in a section of a rocket.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: That's fine and well for a very low end power output figure.
Let's just muse on that for a moment.
The trouble is that it can be stored up and up. Technically, the best way to avoid the explosion would be to release the energy through a conduit (cannon) of some sort.
So there, you've already got a multi-gigaton beam weapon mounted on the tip of a torpedo. (we only need one monkey smoking a cigar on top of it and it's perfect)
But even with your calcs, we still end with a still small device which can handle a field in the gigatonnes range within that short amount of time.
Even if it were to remain stable for a much longer duration, it would just have to work at 10% of the what you've got; that is, over 50 minutes to go super critical (and have no way to purge the energy into weapons or else), you're simply back into a realm where an upscaled version of that device, still used under the stable parameters of 10% of that previously calculated output, would make the ships capable of delivering much more destruction as per mundane barrages than through a coordonated Exterminatus. 50 minutes, that's after all quite a lot of time before you actually shoot the juice at the target. Assuming you don't fall asleep, there should never be any internal explosion.
Besides, we can go with gigatons meaning 900+ and moments being several dozen seconds tops.
Numbers get more ridiculous. Hell, even with an inbetween figure, it's still totally mad. Mind boggingly retarded regarding the setting.
See, Exterminatus operations wouldn't be so rare, important, dreaded and a big deal if their respective and much required weapon arrays had the same amount of firepower, or even less, than standard weapons.
I'll let that sink for a moment.
Let's also note that aside hastily cobbled video games cutscenes, Exterminatus operations actually -and most of the time- involve a constant bombardment of a target with special weapons.
And they're not exactly totally effective either. A heavy kind of tyranid turtling down managed to survive one on the surface of a planet.
That doesn't solve all the problems. They can't contain the energy hence the Lava Bomb leaks plasma as the method of which it causes damage.
Did you
read what I typed?
No.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: You underestimate the meaning of high end then. Go for 30 seconds AND 900 GT.
30 GT/s.
Oops.
Except that gigatons meaning 900 doesn't fit with the style the quote is written in.
Ah?
You know that
how?
Or are you just making shit up now?
The author is trying to make the Lava Bombs seem as impressive as possible without lying. We can tell this by the unneeded detail about the gigatons. What you are suggesting is that the speaker/is actually lowballing the power of the weapons.
LOL, I say gigatons could mean something close to teratons and this is supposed to be lowballing?
o_O
IF the person giving the description intended for the Lava Bomb to have an output of tens of or hundreds of gigatons the speaker would have.
Oh, obviously. That's quite a heavy assumption you've got there. Like when one speaks of the kilotons or megatons of a nuke when said nuke can release multiple digits of it at once?
Mr. Oragahn wrote: 300 meters long torpedoes?
1. Data please.
2. How the heck is that even a plausible weapon since not only are torpedoes dumb projectiles by default (guided torps are very rare in 40K) and even the big IoM warships have accelerations in the few gees tops.
Who couldn't evade a pounderous ship used as ordnance and launched at you?? Heck, who couldn't even shoot it down????
1) I suppose you could try scaling the size of the torpedo tubes as ship sizes are basically stated.
This is what i may have been thinking of.
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Torpedo#Torpedoes
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Impe ... #Torpedoes
http://www.factpile.com/9629-warhammer- ... star-wars/
2) It's 40k, where everything is super fast and super powerful except when it needs those capabilities.
Not only 40K isn't super fast (that's typical Connorish BS and totally contrary to the concept of age of sail in space), but even super speeds solve nothing.
Super speeds mean ships are still very fast, torpedoes still largely dumb projectiles for the most part (documented fact) so unable to correct course, and such speeds mean super sensors and lots of power, thus lots of firepower, and therefore no problem to shoot down small but already ship sized torpedoes.
As for the links, the first one disagrees with the super size torps, and the second provides no clear, direct source at all (like the first one).
Vague mentions of books don't cut it.
Finally, I'm not sure I'd have enough time to crawl through the texts that awaits me beyond the third link.
Just one more note: if your next reply is going to be more of the same subpar drivel you've thrown at me, don't expect any reply.