Talk:Covenant Bomb

Untitled

 * What's disputed about the article?


 * If RR has refused to say what is disputed, I beleive that there is no reason for this article be left as being dipsuted, until RR says what he is disputing --Dockman 17:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Technically, he is disputing the name, saying that he has never heard it called an "Anti-Matter Bomb".--RotBrandon 06:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Its too scientisfic, I only heard it once in Dan Brown's Angels and demons
 * Well what else are we gonna call it. Covenant Bomb is cr*p. We can hardly call in the Matter Bomb, That sounds like the target expands, crazy. 19:55 17/2/07

Raptor117 17:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that it is an anti-matter device, in fact an anti-matter bomb of that size would be more than sufficient to destroy a planet and would be a waste to use on a space station. Also if the Athens and Malta were destroyed by an anti-matter device of that size it would have vaporized the entire battle group.  A very small amount of anti-matter can release an extremely large amount of energy, and those bombs were quite large.


 * Raptor is right, You do not need that much Anti-Matter just take out a space station. However We cannot say it's disputed, Bungie is the one that made it that big. --File:Wraith.png|40px]] WR A IT H  COMM   CONTRIBS  18:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, we can say it's disputed--no one ever says that this bomb uses anti-matter. -- GPT ( talk )(eating) 04:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, this debate has been going on since January first and not a single source giving it's name as anti-matter bomb has been provided. Perhaps it is time to move it to Covenant Bomb? --Forgottenlord 22:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Forgottenlord. The name anti-matter bomb seems completely made up. --Geoffron 15:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Beware of the "Giant Covenant Space Pickle" as said by jason jones i believe, in the H3 commentary of 1&2's cinematics

Hey, if it were an antimatter bomb, the majority of it wouldn't be antimatter, it would be machines to keep the antimatter from touching the bomb.

7 reference
The seven percent energy release from an H-bomb is not a valid 7 reference, unless of course, Bungie had something to do with how atoms work and the sort.XRoadToDawnX 17:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Antimatter Section
Hey guys, just backing this up here. Its well written -- Tom Jenkins (Reply) 02:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Technical Details
The Covenant Bomb is about 2 meters long, 1 meter high and is covered in very large spikes that keep the bomb in place. These bombs are equipped with timers on their detonators and contain antimatter. Antimatter is extremely unstable, any contact between destabilized antimatter and normal matter causes an instant, massive explosion of gamma rays. However, it is unknown how the antimatter is contained, because if the container was normal matter, it would simply detonate instantly, while if it was antimatter, it would explode on contact with outside normal matter. An antimatter particle colliding with a matter particle releases 100% of the energy contained within the particles, while an H-bomb (Hydrogen Bomb) releases only about 7% of this energy. This gives a clue to how effective and powerful this force really is. These bombs are a larger version of the Antimatter Charge. The Covenant carry these on their ships, likely for use by the ships' Elite Rangers. They are capable of destroying entire ships and even space stations, an example being the MAC stations above Earth. It is used particularly for boarding, mainly to disable defenses or ships that are slowing down Covenant assaults.

Antimatter Charge Merger
The Halo Encyclopedia shows a picture of the Covenant Bomb with a description and heading as an Antimatter Charge. This does not appear to be an unintentional error but rather an intentional clarification. So what does everybody think? Should the articles be merged? I think so. --Rusty - 112 02:07, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

it does? cool! Merge away! Galactic 17:13, October 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * To Galactic, don't just vote without thinking the outcome of the merger. To Rusty, are you sure that this is an intentional clarification? Because we know for a fact that the Encyclopaedia messed up several images... well, based on what I heard in the Talk Page of the Encyclopaedia...-- Lol @Phailure  17:55, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

An exact transcript of the Halo Encyclopedia article: Antimatter Charge ''While Humans use nuclear power (fission and fusion), antimatter is the energy of choice for the Covenant. In lay terms, antimatter is the "opposite" of normal matter, and when the two collide, they produce an amount of energy that shames even the largest UNSC reactors-for example, an H-Bomb only utilizes seven percent of its total potential energy, while all antimatter explosions utilize one hundred percent. Through this the Covenant has developed engines that "never" need recharging and weapons that can glass entire planets. Humanity, meanwhile, can only produce less than a gram of antimatter a year, even in its most advance laboratories.''Directly next to this is an image of the Covenant Bomb. The only instances of image mistakes found in the Encyclopedia are where one type of something is mistaken for another type (ie, Scout Armor in the place of Rogue), and these are clearly unintentional oversights. There is nothing as blatant as this, therefore I have no doubt that it is an intentional clarification.--Rusty - 112 18:14, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of any kind to support that this is a mistake. If you took everything we don't like about Halo and named it as a mistake, there would be no franchise. - Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  20:55, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the info.-- Lol @<font color="#666666">Phailure  18:19, October 29, 2009 (UTC)