Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ketara wrote:I was actually considering the mobility from a defensive point of view, as opposed to an offensive one.

Sorry. I should have clarified that.

mobility certaintly is an advantage, but it is only a relative mobility.

the IoM takes longer(on average) to jump from system to system with a small chance of it being just as fast or faster. there is the small possability of an IoM fleet arriving before it leaves as a result of warp fluctuations.

Hyperdrives are faster and more reliable.


the disadvantage with hyperdrives is that they can't simply jump from any system to any other system. they need to "Connect the dots" with their jumps. the IoM has no such problems. the IoM could attack the GE from any angle depending on Warp Fluctuations.

since the Warp doesn't get used in the SW galaxy it would be relativly calm for Warp Jumps.

nosferatu1001 wrote:BoS - not backed away from plasma = fusion. They really are. More than one description has them using fusion as a reason, then there is what happens when you rupture containment (you get a hot plasma leakage, behaving exactly like one would expect it to behave)

The only description you've ever provided from a GW was a nontechnical character offhandedly using the word 'fusion', not a technical character or any sort of behind the scenes explanation. You repeating 'they're fusion' is only relevant to you, GW clearly doesn't support your claim. The fact that plasma comes out if you rupture containment indicates that the reactor has plasma in it, not that it uses fusion.

You have also yet to postulate an alternative source: it isnt AM, nor Vacuum (aka zero point) energy, but an energy source derived directly from matter. the MOST efficient eneergy source is....fusion. So either it is fusion or a less efficient energy conversion system. Either way the figures fail.

It is some kind of power source outside of current science, much like adamantium, void shields, and warp drives don't fit anywhere into current science. There is no rule that science fiction reactors and drives must be within current physics, and typically they perform feats that don't fit anything you could do with real physics. The fact that the figures are not consistent with a fusion reactor (or indeed any realistic reactor) is good evidence that the reactors do not use fusion, I'm not sure why you keep repeating it because it supports my position.

the IoM certaintly does use Fusion in some areas.

The reactors in Dreadnoughts are said multiple times to be Fusion. IIRC PA is powered by Fusion as well.

if the IoM can build a Fusion reactor small enough to fit in a suit of PA then imagine how much power could come out of one the size of a small town.


We arn't 100% sure how much power actually comes out of a fusion reactor because, well, we haven't built a fully functioning one yet. Fission bombs arn't as efficient as a controlled reaction in a modern fission reacter(% of mass to energy)

Grey Templar wrote:the IoM certaintly does use Fusion in some areas.

Their ship's main reactors are what we're talking about.

We arn't 100% sure how much power actually comes out of a fusion reactor because, well, we haven't built a fully functioning one yet. Fission bombs arn't as efficient as a controlled reaction in a modern fission reacter(% of mass to energy)

We are 100% sure what the theoretical maximum power you can get from a fusion reactor is because we understand the physics behind fusion reactions, and it's far less than what you can get from a matter-antimatter reactor since you don't get complete conversion of matter to energy in fusion and do in matter-antimatter collisions. Either one is way below what is needed to power Imperial weapons and drives by a huge margin. The fact that you don't know much about the science doesn't change how the numbers work out, and most SF ships don't fit modern science.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:The only description you've ever provided from a GW was a nontechnical character offhandedly using the word 'fusion', not a technical character or any sort of behind the scenes explanation. You repeating 'they're fusion' is only relevant to you, GW clearly doesn't support your claim. The fact that plasma comes out if you rupture containment indicates that the reactor has plasma in it, not that it uses fusion.

The problem that we have here is that there are two parties trying to argue on a point of similarity. As you say there is a non-technical character using the word fusion. However is there a technical character saying anything to the opposite? Or even any such declaration of how they do it?

The situation that Nos, Keezus and myself are trying to settle surrounds one of the cornerstones of the "40K rules all" threads is this.

40K proponent.
Our weapons do X.
SciFi proponent
But your powerplants cant create that amount of power. Physics tells us otherwise
40K proponent
Doesn't matter about physics, as our weapons do X our engines supply enough power.

Compare against
SciFi Proponent.
Our weapons do X.
40K proponent
But your powerplants cant create that amount of power. Physics tells otherwise
SciFi Proponent
WTF

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:The problem that we have here is that there are two parties trying to argue on a point of similarity. As you say there is a non-technical character using the word fusion. However is there a technical character saying anything to the opposite? Or even any such declaration of how they do it?

Nope, they're simply referred to as 'plasma reactors', as far as I've seen there is no explanation for how they fit into real physics. Just like void shields, adamantium, the ship's regular drives, warp drives, anti-grav, or any of a host of other things. And just like the magical reactors and/or engines in most SF. And there's clear evidence that they aren't simple fusion reactors, as looking at what they do in stories shows that they produce far more power than any theoretical reactor we can come up with.

You're trying to say that we have to throw out all of the descriptions of what kind of energies 40k ships can throw around, including any inferences from BFG rules, all the black library books on ships, and anything else, but that we can't possibly discount a single offhand use of a technical term by a nontechnical character. It doesn't make any sense, doesn't lead to any good discussion, and you run into the same problem examining most high-energy SF universes. Pretty much every SF universe either sticks to very hard science, so has nothing like star trek, star wars, B5, firefly, etc., or it does stuff that's completely outside the realm of known physics.

This is confusing...

why are we talking about reactors?

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Nope, they're simply referred to as 'plasma reactors', as far as I've seen there is no explanation for how they fit into real physics. Just like void shields, adamantium, the ship's regular drives, warp drives, anti-grav, or any of a host of other things. And just like the magical reactors and/or engines in most SF. And there's clear evidence that they aren't simple fusion reactors, as looking at what they do in stories shows that they produce far more power than any theoretical reactor we can come up with.

You're trying to say that we have to throw out all of the descriptions of what kind of energies 40k ships can throw around, including any inferences from BFG rules, all the black library books on ships, and anything else, but that we can't possibly discount a single offhand use of a technical term by a nontechnical character. It doesn't make any sense, doesn't lead to any good discussion, and you run into the same problem examining most high-energy SF universes. Pretty much every SF universe either sticks to very hard science, so has nothing like star trek, star wars, B5, firefly, etc., or it does stuff that's completely outside the realm of known physics.

No, what I'm trying to say that each and every universe should have the same level playing field. You can't disallow an explanation from one franchise because of terminology, but rule it valid for another.

In this case "fusion" vs AM/M, 0point or any other.

Limit one, or in this case 'unlimit' then you have to unlimit them all.

Cheers

Andrew

blazinpsycho&typhooni wrote:This is confusing...

why are we talking about reactors?

Because one poster claimed that 40k ships can not possibly have the yield they're described as having because at one point Imperial power was described as being 'fusion', and fusion (as we know it now) can't create that power output, therefore the yield of weapons is wrong, and Star Wars wins.

Meh,Star Wars only wins if the ICS is in play.
Even then we have Chaos and Necrons.
Nemesis shows us a planet who's surface has been glassed and oceans boiled of off and all that was a restrain other wise they would rip the planet apart.
I have begin to use BFG numbers combined with 610 gigaton or 560 gigaton torpedo.

Chris, just read your location, been to the Secret Bunker yet?

Andrew

Wait so we are discussing engines?

Asherian Command wrote:Wait so we are discussing engines?

Power generation as for speeds they are highly inconsistent,we have Andy Hoare single Gs from Rouge Trader novels and RPG(RPG which contradicts itsellf on several times in the book),Dan Abnett and James Swallow high c fractional speeds.
Then we have massive low end from Angel of Darkness(I think that it was that book) where they need several days to get to another planet.
It really depends on personal preference.

Asherian Command wrote:Wait so we are discussing engines?

Not really, I am trying to discuss the basis from which a comparison can be made.

As Ivan said, the source material is highly inconsistent from rule books to short stories to Forgeworld IA books. Pick your source and go for it. What I'm trying to say is that an exemption only applied to one side is arbitrary and makes any such comparision impossible.

Cheers

Andrew

I use this for firepower,BFG and Torpedo yield from Space Hulk.The same torpedo is worth 1 point of damage.
Assuming that one combat round in Battlefleet Gothic is a single minute, a single weapons battery has between 600-1200 gigatons of firepower in that same amount of time. A Nova Cannon has 4800 gigatons, spread in a wide radius, with an additional 600 inflicted to the ship it hits.
Then we have the horrible quote that Battleships can withstand gigawats which could be interpreted as gigatons.

Just to tell you guys this is not my strong area. I'll let it up to you Ivan and Andrew. See I am a 40k expert when it comes tech but not when it comes to the engineering aspect and fluff wise i know alot and if we are talking about Marines I could chip in.

Asherian Command wrote:Just to tell you guys this is not my strong area. I'll let it up to you Ivan and Andrew. See I am a 40k expert when it comes tech but not when it comes to the engineering aspect and fluff wise i know alot and if we are talking about Marines I could chip in.

If you really want to get in this kind of debates go to SpaceBattles.com,but beware that is one of the most ruthless forums.
Off-topic:What do you think about my new avatar?

IvanTih wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:Just to tell you guys this is not my strong area. I'll let it up to you Ivan and Andrew. See I am a 40k expert when it comes tech but not when it comes to the engineering aspect and fluff wise i know alot and if we are talking about Marines I could chip in.

If you really want to get in this kind of debates go to SpaceBattles.com,but beware that is one of the most ruthless forums.
Off-topic:What do you think about my new avatar?

I've been to spacebattles.com It scared the living crap out of me. I saw a thread about the Stargate vs 40k And omg wtf is that?
Off-topic: looks good!

Asherian Command wrote:

IvanTih wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:Just to tell you guys this is not my strong area. I'll let it up to you Ivan and Andrew. See I am a 40k expert when it comes tech but not when it comes to the engineering aspect and fluff wise i know alot and if we are talking about Marines I could chip in.

If you really want to get in this kind of debates go to SpaceBattles.com,but beware that is one of the most ruthless forums.
Off-topic:What do you think about my new avatar?

I've been to spacebattles.com It scared the living crap out of me. I saw a thread about the Stargate vs 40k And omg wtf is that?
Off-topic: looks good!

Then you saw White_rabbit,he's one of 40k experts,same matter for Captain Orsai and Drachychen(can't spell it properly,but the name comes from Abbadon's sword).
And what did scare you?

IvanTih wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:

IvanTih wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:Just to tell you guys this is not my strong area. I'll let it up to you Ivan and Andrew. See I am a 40k expert when it comes tech but not when it comes to the engineering aspect and fluff wise i know alot and if we are talking about Marines I could chip in.

If you really want to get in this kind of debates go to SpaceBattles.com,but beware that is one of the most ruthless forums.
Off-topic:What do you think about my new avatar?

I've been to spacebattles.com It scared the living crap out of me. I saw a thread about the Stargate vs 40k And omg wtf is that?
Off-topic: looks good!

Then you saw White_rabbit,he's one of 40k experts,same matter for Captain Orsai and Drachychen(can't spell it properly,but the name comes from Abbadon's sword).
And what did scare you?

It was a stargate vs 40k vs starwars.
And stargate won somehow. I have no idea how! Its not even possible!
Anyway if we involved starwar's very starkiller agianst..... wait for it.... Alaric who would win?

Asherian Command wrote:
It was a stargate vs 40k vs starwars.
And stargate won somehow. I have no idea how! Its not even possible!
Anyway if we involved starwar's very starkiller agianst..... wait for it.... Alaric who would win?

Stargate has I win buttons like time dilation fields.

IvanTih wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:

IvanTih wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:

IvanTih wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:Just to tell you guys this is not my strong area. I'll let it up to you Ivan and Andrew. See I am a 40k expert when it comes tech but not when it comes to the engineering aspect and fluff wise i know alot and if we are talking about Marines I could chip in.

If you really want to get in this kind of debates go to SpaceBattles.com,but beware that is one of the most ruthless forums.
Off-topic:What do you think about my new avatar?

I've been to spacebattles.com It scared the living crap out of me. I saw a thread about the Stargate vs 40k And omg wtf is that?
Off-topic: looks good!

Then you saw White_rabbit,he's one of 40k experts,same matter for Captain Orsai and Drachychen(can't spell it properly,but the name comes from Abbadon's sword).
And what did scare you?

It was a stargate vs 40k vs starwars.
And stargate won somehow. I have no idea how! Its not even possible!
Anyway if we involved starwar's very starkiller agianst..... wait for it.... Alaric who would win?

Stargate has I win buttons like time dilation.

Yeah but they were agrueing about o'neil vs a Space marine What will a regular gun do against a cermite? I mean seriously!

Asherian Command wrote:
Yeah but they were agrueing about o'neil vs a Space marine What will a regular gun do against a cermite? I mean seriously!

I don't have enough info on O'Neil,but he's just a regular human so he loses IIRC,BTW can you provide the link for the thread?

IvanTih wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:
Yeah but they were agrueing about o'neil vs a Space marine What will a regular gun do against a cermite? I mean seriously!

I don't have enough info on O'Neil,but he's just a regular human so he loses IIRC,BTW can you provide the link for the thread?

Sure...
http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=177133&page=4

Asherian Command wrote:

IvanTih wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:
Yeah but they were agrueing about o'neil vs a Space marine What will a regular gun do against a cermite? I mean seriously!

I don't have enough info on O'Neil,but he's just a regular human so he loses IIRC,BTW can you provide the link for the thread?

Sure...
http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=177133&page=4

I created that thread and have forgot about it.

ok bringing back the whole warp travel in the Star Wars Universe. given that we are going with the warp is present in the SW galaxy then we must assume that the Astronomican's light can not reach the SW galaxy. Remember the Astronomican can only reach about 50k away from earth. Now remember that the distance between galaxies are measured in the MILLIONS of light years. Even our closest Galactic neighbor the andromeda galaxy is about 2 millionish lightyears away. Way outside of the range of the astronomican. Just saying

AndrewC wrote:Chris, just read your location, been to the Secret Bunker yet?

Andrew

No I have not unfortunately....I'm planning on doing so at some point. Maybe during Christmas break after exams.....

But Blarg, remember. The Astronomicon doesn't make Warp travel possible, it makes long range Warp travel possible. So Imperial ships could easily fly around blind, they'd just be unable to travel very far without having to get out to figure where the hell they actually are. Although, I would think that without daemons, Chaos Gods and all other kinds of nastiness the Warp might be calm enough to not need the Astronomicon.

You have to remember. The Astronomicon is basically an interstellar light house. You can travel without it, but it's more dangerous. However, if the water is calm and the coast is safe....who needs a lighthouse anyway?

yes but remember navigators wont go beyond the light of the astronomican, or of they do its for very short distances. Meh we shall find out eventually. I would just want to know how long ( assuming now fast forward to getting there millions of years after they left or reversal of time getting there before they left ) of a warp flight it would be to traves such a HUGE space of millions if not billions of light years depending on how far into the universe the Star wars galaxy is. For all we know the 40k galaxy could be seeing the Star Wars as they were millions of years ago due to the finite speed of light.

Blarg21 wrote:yes but remember navigators wont go beyond the light of the astronomican, or of they do its for very short distances. Meh we shall find out eventually. I would just want to know how long ( assuming now fast forward to getting there millions of years after they left or reversal of time getting there before they left ) of a warp flight it would be to traves such a HUGE space of millions if not billions of light years depending on how far into the universe the Star wars galaxy is. For all we know the 40k galaxy could be seeing the Star Wars as they were millions of years ago due to the finite speed of light.

Remember that Warp Distance doesn't equal Physical distance.

it could just as easily be a short trip and if the warp is calm in the Star Wars galaxy...


Remember that, before the Heresy, Warp Travel was realitivly simple with little danger. Towards the end of the Crusade the warp was becoming more turbulant(why the Emperor was working on the Webway entrance) as Chaos took notice of Mankind again.

AndrewC wrote:No, what I'm trying to say that each and every universe should have the same level playing field. You can't disallow an explanation from one franchise because of terminology, but rule it valid for another. In this case "fusion" vs AM/M, 0point or any other. Limit one, or in this case 'unlimit' then you have to unlimit them all.

What do you mean by 'you' there? Since you're quoting one of my posts, I presume it's directed at me personally, but I have no idea how what you're saying here makes any sense as a response to anything I've written. Can you quote the post where you believe I've tried to limit one universe, or failed to unlimit them all? If not, then can you make some connection between what you said and something I wrote, because I don't see why you're writing as though you disagree with me when all I've done is disagree with some people who consistently and insistently get 40k background wrong about that background.

I've pointed out that 40k plasma reactors are clearly not fusion reactors as GW doesn't actually say they're fusion reactors and they clearly do things fusion reactors don't do. I've pointed out that the argument 'they use plasma, they must be fusion, therefore 40k ships are limited to fusion power outputs' doesn't make any sense as an argument. And I've pointed out some real physics bits on laser ranges and power outputs. As far as I remember, I haven't even commented on SW directly, so I'm not sure how you think I'm trying to limit them or failing to unlimit them.