Lightsabers in DOTR

[Darasuum]

My bad, you're totally right. Because metals are inherently good heat conductors, they rarely reach their ignition temperature. I thought metal burning was a rare occurrence on "normal" day-to-day and mostly reserved to factories, car crashes, train wrecks, etc.

If I may ask, you being a firefighter, how common is that?

for random pieces of metal to catch fire? rarely hopefully. where i do it isn't technically called "firefighting" its damage control since i'm in the navy and if something like metal on a ship catches fire we eject that from the ship aka throw it overboard.

 

[Thump]

Same procedure in the oil patch Darasuum. SOP for a helo fire was to use the crane boom to push it off the deck and into the water.lots of magnesium in them things.

Though. Not all metals are combustible. Most simply melt until the source of heat is removed. There is no actual combustion of the metal itself. Well. Kinda but it's not a self sustaining chain reaction. Rather rapid oxidation via an external heat source.

 

[Darasuum]

Same procedure in the oil patch Darasuum. SOP for a helo fire was to use the crane boom to push it off the deck and into the water.lots of magnesium in them things.

Though. Not all metals are combustible. Most simply melt until the source of heat is removed. There is no actual combustion of the metal itself. Well. Kinda but it's not a self sustaining chain reaction. Rather rapid oxidation via an external heat source.

 

[Halcyon]

Though. Not all metals are combustible. Most simply melt until the source of heat is removed. There is no actual combustion of the metal itself. Well. Kinda but it's not a self sustaining chain reaction. Rather rapid oxidation via an external heat source.

Yes, not every material is combustible.

Although I wanted to point out that every combustion is a highly exothermic redox chemical reaction; so yes, a metal on fire is a metal undergoing combustion - i.e. serving as "fuel". Also, all combustions are self-sustaining given the appropriate conditions (oxidizing agent and fuel ratio). Without those conditions, they are not - even the most flammable substance on fire gets put out if deprived of oxygen, for example. So, self-sustenance is really just a relative concept. Those conditions are simply depleted much faster with some materials when compared to others.

Don't get mad.

 

[Thump]

Yes. All parts of the fire tetrahedron must be present. Though materials like steel and aluminium aren't combustible because of the lack of a chain reaction and because there is no chemical change in its structure unless you add something to it. Heat steel up to its kindling temperature and it will not combust. Once you remove the external source of heat and it will simply return to its previous state. The steel was not on fire, no redox you simply oxidized it. There was no reduction. Heat magnesium to its kindling temperature and you will have a chain reaction that results in combustion, reduction-oxidation. And once you break this chain reaction it doesn't turn back into magnesium. Now you can take two non combustible metals and create a combustible composition like thermite. Did that on accident once. Wasn't pretty.

 

[Silverface]

I know this much, I'm going to totally make some laser swords as a tech profile. Jedi and Sith won't be the only ones with glowing sticks this timeline!

 

[Saul]

I'm going to make a giant purple vibro..."bat" and slap people with it and conquer their lands and break their pottery.

AMERICA!!

 

[Silverface]

Space America*

Christ @Saul, you had one job.

 

[Saul]

Space America*

Christ @Saul, you had one job.

Spoiler: note to self.. THINK OF THE CHILDREN

 

[Halcyon]

Yes. All parts of the fire tetrahedron must be present. Though materials like steel and aluminium aren't combustible because of the lack of a chain reaction and because there is no chemical change in its structure unless you add something to it. Heat steel up to its kindling temperature and it will not combust. Once you remove the external source of heat and it will simply return to its previous state. The steel was not on fire, no redox you simply oxidized it. There was no reduction. Heat magnesium to its kindling temperature and you will have a chain reaction that results in combustion, reduction-oxidation. And once you break this chain reaction it doesn't turn back into magnesium. Now you can take two non combustible metals and create a combustible composition like thermite. Did that on accident once. Wasn't pretty.

There are a few misconceptions with your post. First of all, an oxidation cannot take place without a reduction, and vice versa. That is why it is called a redox reaction. I think you meant the formation of an oxide which, although being connected with redox, is an entirely different concept. In other words, oxidation can occur without the formation of an oxide. An oxide is simply a common product of a redox reaction with oxygen as the oxidizing agent.

Oxidation and reduction refers to the loss or gain of electrons, respectively. Any elemental substance can (potentially) be oxidized or reduced (never both at the same time obviously) without any other changes to their chemical formulas. What happens is that two substances are always involved in the reaction. In your example, Mg doesn't go back to being Mg after burning. You're right, it turns to MgO, a stable compound in normal temperature and pressure conditions (on Earth) and as such doesn't go back to being Mg. Charcoal doesn't go back to being wood either, and there are many other such examples. Entropy always tends to increase in our universe.
Another example, metals rusts, which is both a redox reaction and the formation of an oxide. It doesn't need to catch fire to oxidize.

Lastly, heat is a byproduct of any combustion, and heat itself is a prerequisite also. That is why a combustion is self-sustaining, providing that the fuel and oxidizing doesn't run out. In layman terms, the heat from the fire causes another fire, and so on. You just need to provide the initial heat for the substance to reach its flash point - what you referred to as kindling temperature, I guess - and that is why most metals are hard to be put on fire. Most.
Like I already said in a previous post, they are good conductors of thermal energy, so they usually dissipate heat faster than it can "accumulate" preventing them from reaching their flash point, again in layman's terms.

But I fear we are getting way out of topic here. So, to reformulate my original question:

"Do you guys think that wood from the Brylark tree burns like your average wood, or like the average metal alloy?"

 

[Green Ranger]

My thoughts?

Fire hot.

 

[Silverface]

My thoughts?

Fire hot.

I find your thoughts compelling and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Surprised nobody's spoken out against generic laser swords for non-Jedi to use. Because I was quite serious about it.

 

[Halcyon]

Surprised nobody's spoken out against generic laser swords for non-Jedi to use. Because I was quite serious about it.

I'm still not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, and you've been here way longer than I've been. Still, to dissipate any doubts and in the event that newcomers might read your posts and actually consider it, I'll reply anyway.

I strongly advise against using it. This is just my opinion though, and here are the main reasons why:

1- On Star Wars Canon, Laser swords and Lightsabers are one and the same. Just different terms for the same weapon, nothing more, nothing less. All "laser sword" weapons - such as the darksword - are actually considered variations of a lightsaber (LS) by Canon. In other words, if your character can't use a lightsaber, he can't use a "laser sword" either. So adding the so-called "laser swords" really adds nothing in terms of lore or RP, it just messes things up.

2 - Having said that, there are already rules in place that state that anyone - not only Jedi or Sith, or even Force sensitives for that matter - can use a lightsaber and how they can/can't do it. Keep in mind that these rules may or may not change when DoTR comes out. Still, the point being that because there are rules about it, and even if you're not doing it with that intent in kind, IMO it will seem like you'll just be making the weapon to circumvent those rules. This will surely get you a lot of protests from other RPers on the site.

3- Even if you were not being sarcastic, you're probably already aware of all of this otherwise you wouldn't have posted twice. You certainly have - at least - a suspicion that "coming up with such weapons" serves no real purposes other than the ones stated above. Again, if you're being sarcastic, my bad.

But to anyone reading this and wondering: Any PC can potentially use a LS and call it what they want, but it still is a lightsaber and must abide by whatever rules LS usage abides. Don't try any shortcuts. Do stuff like this only if it makes sense on your PC's background.

 

[StormWolf]

Seeing as how lightsabers are always described as "a Jedi weapon", the only way a non-Jedi/Sith would have a lightsaber would be plucking it from a corpse or spending an exorbitant sum of credits in the darkest corners of the black market. Even then, it would be more of a symbol of status than something you would use at that point. "Yeah, I killed a Jedi (even though I just looted this from her corpse)"

 

[Halcyon]

Agree. I never said otherwise. It would be hard to use a LS without the Force, and you probably wouldn't be as good as the average Force user - not every Force user is a Jedi/Sith though.

Still: Grievous, Pre Vizla, Cad Bane, Boba Fett, Anja Gallandro, etc. Not all of them Canon, obviously.

EDIT: And I did linked to the current rules, that state that using a LS without being a Force user would cost you either a part of your body or your life. If that wasn't specific enough...

 

[Green Ranger]

Non-Force users will be able to use lightsabers in the upcoming timeline. The whole 'you can't use them because they behave weird and you need THE POWER OF THE FORCE to overcome that' thing is kinda silly, after all.

You're probably going to have a bad time if you just pick up a lightsaber with no formal training and try to attack a Jedi, though, so it's important to have a certain degree of sensibility about that freedom.

 

[StormWolf]

That was what I was trying to get at. The Jedi and Sith would understandably fiercely protect the art of saber-smithing, so I hope there won't be any Jaden Korr "durr I made a saber without any training" nonsense. I'm not saying that non-FS characters can't have a lightsaber, but neither should everyone have a lightsaber, either. Pre Vizla had the darksaber because of the deeds of his ancestors, Grevious had his a trophies, etc. They acted more as status symbols and/or signs or rank, but the aforementioned individuals were also highly skilled warriors, and would have dedicated hours of practice to using these weapons so they can at least not be a hazard to themselves. FS would just have an easier time with a lightsaber because of their innate spidey senses.

 

[Halcyon]

We're on the same page, man. I'm glad to hear that rules will allow for more freedom this time around; it makes more sense anyway, since this is free-form RP. I don't have nothing to compare it to on the site, because with one timeline ending and another starting I haven't really RPed here (except for a couple of posts on Diverse), but from what I've seen of the work writers are putting into their characters, I don't imagine there will be much abuse of this greater freedom.

 

[Saul]

I'd oppose a non-FS blocking blaster bolts with a lightsaber. Outside of that, they're free to use it. And FS are free to not use lightsabers.

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Thank you Saul, that's how I myself saw it a lot as well. A Non-FS isn't going to be able to use a lightsaber as well as a FS, but there's no reason they can't use it like a normal sword.

I'd personally have wished we could see more variety of Lightsaber/Normal Weapon combos. Like a shield and lightsaber combo for example, but that's the price for having lightsaber and blaster resistant metals being harder to get. I'd rather have no shield, then have everyone in a suit of Phrik plate armor.

I did have an idea for a lightsaber sheath however. Like a sabercane, where the lightsaber hilt slots into a longer object instead of hanging from ones belt. So they could use the sheathed saber to fight and pummel enemies, and then if the situation truly called for it, unsheathe their saber to use the lethal option. It would be an interesting thing to RP out, even if explaining it could be difficult.