• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Conversion Beamer problem

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jaakubb

Jaakubb

648
97
Yeah there was another thread on this a while ago but Crabwhale said I should make a thread so here's the summary of my points:

The only thing supporting the interpretation of subatomic destruction is a particular interpretation of the term "subatomic implosion." However, there is actually more proof for transmutation (which does not scale to AP and is called "conversion" in the text. and no, I'm not talking about the name). Here's the textual evidence:

5edScreenshot
5th editio

Source: https://thetrove.net/Books/Warhammer/40000/Tabletop/Codices/Older Editions/Space Marines (5ed).pdf on page 72 of the pdf for me (page 70 of the actual book)
6edScreenshot
6th editio


Source:https://thetrove.net/Books/Warhammer/40000/Tabletop/Codices/Older Editions/Space Marines (6ed).pdf on page 321 of the pdf (page 120 of the actual book)
 
Begrudgingly I have to accept this. I can't argue against these scans.
 
Yeah I have to admit I wasted quite a bit of time arguing over a really specific interpretation of something (antimatter).

Also what about that 8-C space marines feat? It didn't account for terminal velocity.
 
Power armor generally protects Marines against shit far worse than that, like futuristic tank and artillery shells, but that's a discussion for another thread.

This thread is only discussing High 6-C, it's validity and what it should be replaced with (which I do have a draft for but it's late as **** here so tomorrow).
 
Back.

Anyway, if no one has any issues with the downgrade, I propose we rescale all High 6-C characters, in absence of better showings, to this 7-B one.

The reason? Well weaker Gauss weaponry is comparable to Imperial Plasma weaponry. And as we already know, Terminator armor, which we scale everything High 6-C from, can withstand it (more specifically, the armor's top layers go yeet, but the Marine inside survives unharmed).

That, and there is also an encounter between several Necrons and a Terminator. The Terminator armor did go poof from the firing, but considering it was more than one Gauss weapon firing at it, I don't think that invalidates the scaling.
 
There was a comment though on the calc and it said this:

Why are you assuming it's breaking the nuclear bonds? Breaking bonds at a subatomic level could also refer to stripping atoms of their valence electron clouds, which would require vastly less energy (241.8 kJ per mol of water, or around four gigajoules for 315kg of water in a marine, 8-C). It also makes far more scientific sense, since atomic nuclei are held together by the residual strong force, not the electromagnetic force, and explains why gauss flayers aren't creating nuclear explosions every time they shoot someone
"stripping atoms of their valence electron clouds" is ionization, which would be much less than subatomic destruction. Honestly I'm not sure what to think of this. The second half of their argument makes a pretty convincing point though imo.

Also I found some excerpts from the necro codices on thetrove that support ionization over subatomic destruction:

5edNecron
From 5th editio

NewNecron
On Wargear section


Probably from one of the newer editions (not sure though), on Armoury of the Ancients section.
 
I had a calc group member look over the thing and they had absolutely no qualms with it. Without meaning to offend, I trust them far more than I would some random with 37 edits.
 
Actually

Subatomic destruction is destroying something down to the protons and whatnot, this doesn't seem to be that

ripping off valence electrons is more like atomization anyhow
 
14086.708074533997 times atomization value of iron being 58401 is 822677838.261 Joules, 0.19662472233 Tons, Small Building level+
 
Then again it's probably steel so 59526.65 times 14086.708074533997 would be 838534541.205 Joules, 0.20041456529 Tons, Small Building level+
 
I'm sure the conversion beamer has some better feat
 
Should I make a thread about normal marines though (the falling feat is a bit iffy)? Also we discussed the conversion beamer in another thread, is there another feat that I'm not aware of?
 
I mean, atom frying weapons and whatnot are one thing but what kind of issue would one have with a heavy object going in a single direction
 
DMUA said:
Then again it's probably steel so 59526.65 times 14086.708074533997 would be 838534541.205 Joules, 0.20041456529 Tons, Small Building level+
Click to expand...
Wait

Remind me again how vaporizatio of an average human being gets similar values to this.
 
I'd imagine the discrepancy between those would be a '''wee''' bit higher.
 
Because humans fill a bit more of their volume and I think the calc is just talking about armor or something of that likeness
 
Actually, I think DMUA got the volume of the tank off. It was compared to an M4 Sherma in the original blog. Looking at the original blog, it has a lowballed mass of 30.3 Metric tons gives it a volume of 3935064.93506 cc.

3935064.93506 * 59526.65 = 234241233117 Joules or 55.9849983548 Tons of TNT if we're going by atomization. And just a heads up, sub-atomic destruction would be 3935064.93506 * 6.7034 * 10^12 = 2.6378314 * 10^19 Joules or 6.30456842392 Gigatons. 8-B and 6-C respectively.

However, the scans in the OP suggest it's Mass Energy conversion. 30300 kg * (299792458 m/s)^2 = 2.72322819 * 10^21 Joules or 650.867158222 Gigatons. Which is Large Island level+.
 
wait we were talking about a tank what

I thought it was just space marine armor

I

wait what
 
The Conversion Beamer is currently rated based on causing a sub-atomic implosion of a tank; though the new scan does describe it as mass-energy conversion.
 
DMUA said:
Because humans fill a bit more of their volume and I think the calc is just talking about armor or something of that likeness
Click to expand...
No it's talking about the entire Marine (an extremely large human btw) being atomized.
 
ah

They should have probably accounted for the meat then
 
This is the currently used calculation as a minor note.

And I recall Matt saying that the scans aren't a big deal. You could ask him for clarification however.
 
Dude, the CB calc was already disproven because scans show the Beamer to be a transmutation-based device, not one utilizing it's own energy source to cause that reaction.
 
Is anyone working on a recalc? Just find the value for ionizing the armor by recalcing this with the ionization of steel or whatever other placeholder we have for space marine armor, then the vaporization (as there aren't any values for ionization of a human) of a 450 pound human, right?
 
Who wrote the novel in which the SPHESS MEHREEN was atomised? It may be important since they vary from barely two metres to over three metres in height depending on the author. (Iirc they were universally seven feet before Dan Abnett popularised the eight feet Demigods). Square-cube law says 2-3 metres gives us a potential range of around 3.4 times, so I can see this having quite a big impact on the final number.
 
Height doesn't matter, we only need the mass of a space marine so we can know how much energy it takes to atomize a space marine and his armor.

Also I gotta be 100% sure, what are the differences between ionization and atomization?
 
Ionization is simply you heat up an object until it becomes a body of plasma. Atomization is where each and every single atom in the body gets scattered into singular particles. When someone is, vaporized or ionized, the particles may be loose but semi connected and that's why there's still a body of gas/plasma respectively.
 
Doesn't plasma have singular atoms? What exactly is meant by singular atoms? Do ions disqualify plasma from atomization?
 
Plasma is still a body of particles; fire is plasma; and a flame isn't a bunch of scattered particles. Scattered particles are invisible to the human eye; as a single mole of an element is around 6.022140758 * 10^23 atoms/molecules. And that combining the fact that a mole of titanium is roughly only 10cc of titanium; that's how tiny atoms are.
 
Not all fire has plasma.

So atomization is just destruction to the point where the material is not visible or?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Under_Chonker
Two gilded boys fight with sharp sticks - Excalibur Prime (Warframe) VS Adeptus Custodes (Warhammer 40,000)
Replies
0
Views
1K
Under_Chonker
Under_Chonker
Liquid_Bigb0ss
  • Locked
Minor Space Marine revision
Replies
15
Views
1K
Crabwhale
Crabwhale
AbaddonTheDisappointment
  • Locked
The Great Warhammer 40,000 Downgrade
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
Crabwhale
Crabwhale
Sergeant_Hypocrite
The Player VS Adeptus Custodes
Replies
12
Views
1K
Peppersalt43
Peppersalt43
Skaffolding
Warhammer: Conversion Beamers
Replies
15
Views
637
Skaffolding
Skaffolding
Back
Top