User talk:Plasmic Physics

--Dragonc laws (talk ) 06:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Plasmic Physics/YourTemplate and generate it with

343's qoute
It is a qoute. It is not to be changed. -- A J  06:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition
Is my addition to Portal accurate? And what about Tsavo Highway (Location)?
 * Yes. -- A J [[Image:ArmyJROTC.jpg|20px]] 06:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Good, for future reference how do I identify a quote in an aticle, that shouldn't be edited?--Plasmic Physics 21:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sierra 117
Through carefull analysis of the scenery of the level, like the shape of the river, the relative orientation of Kilimanjaro and the vegetation, I found the coordinates. The coordinates of the first river area. I cross check google earth and this map: to find them as accurate as possible. Plasmic Physics 08:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

UN/UEG
Hi Plastic Physics, could you please add a source for the "Post-War" section of the UN article? From what we know, the UN was never mentioned of being transformed into the UEG, although it still exists. --User:UNSC Trooper (Talk)

UNSC Organization
It's mentioned in Contact Harvest that the UN still exists, so we don't know for sure if the UN was transformed into the UEG. -- UNSC Trooper  TalkMy Work 20:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bloody Arrow
It never exactly says in Ghosts of Onyx that Kurt was using the Bloody Arrow to discourage allies and/or potential rescuers from coming to his aid. Indeed, when he sent the code, he meant for Dr Halsey to find the technologies and the SPARTAN-IIIs and then get rescued by the UNSC Fleet and go home. I suppose you and I are both right. — Lt.   Commander   Kouger  10:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Plasma Weapons Post
Good. I'm also glad that other people are aware of the problems with this topic. By all means, tell me your ideas, I'd like to see them.

As I pointed out on that talk page, the way in which plasma weapons are depicted is not only physically absurd, but also nonsensical and inefficient. It'd be like firing a bullet at something and it takes the projectile half an hour to hit its target.

Doesn't sound functional, does it? From one of the links I posted, even if the plasma bolt/blob held together, it apparently would have the aerodynamic efficiency of a balloon, and due to its low pressure etc., it would be buoyant, and could potentially float up instead of going forward.

It would need sufficient momentum, density, and speed in order to push through the atmosphere (hypersonic to relativistic) and even then, it would suffer from friciton, particle interactions with the air molecules, and black-body radiation (heat) losses, robbing it of its energy. To top that off, the way sci-fi depicts such weapons, even if it does hit, the plasma bolt is a largely randomized entity, with the particles barely contained, and when it hits, they will mostly splash against the surface of a target. There would be little to no penetration, which makes the weapon largely useless; in a projectile weapon, the density, momentum, etc. of a bullet, which makes such a weapon so useful.

In order for a plasma weapon to work, you'd need to compensate for friction, momentum, heat and energy losses, etc., and you'd need to have the plasma be relatively dense and most importantly, the particles all need to be moving in the same direction at the same high speed. If they are, then that means that they will all slam into the target, which will be subject to incredible heat, friction, and mechanical stresses.

In that case, it becomes more like a particle beam, except it is much thicker, denser, and far larger; in other words, it is a weaponized, coherent, rocket exhaust stream. The reason it would need to be dense is that plasmas are generally low density and sparse, so for the weapon to work, you'd need to convert a solid mass into plasma and prevent it from dispersing as it goes through the weapon. Another issue to be concerned about is the atmosphere.

One way to deal with this is to create an ionized channel of air via lasers or strong EM pulses, as well as making sure that the plasma stream is at a similar pressure to the surrounding atmosphere. This can be accomplished, it seems, by utilizing rocket nozzle techniques, which are designed to deal with similar problems. So basically this plasma weapon is a combination of rocket engine, laser, magnetic acceleration, and a bit of particle beam tech put into one nasty package.

The recoil from such a device depends on the speed of the stream/beam, density, etc., but for a gun or pistol, it would definitely not be negligible. It'd probably kick like a high caliber pistol or a shotgun, so recoil compensation would be a must. Unlike the whimpy plasma weapons in Halo and other sources, this would be a loud, bright, and downright terrifying weapon, easily able to burn and punch holes into targets just as well if not better than bullet weapons do.

Of course, I could be wrong.

--Exalted Obliteration 20:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are different varieties of plasmas: coulomb plasma, nuclear plasma, quantum plasma. Coulomb plasma is a substance where some electrons are energetically ejected from their parent atoms, this requires a signiture quantum of energy from their surroundings. Sometimes the ejected electrons recombine with the ionised atoms and releases the absorbed energy back to their surroundings, most often in the form of light. A coulomb plasma can appear as a candle flame, a inferno, a spark or a lightning bolt, even metals qualify to an extent as a plasma due to the nature of the bonding.
 * I'd like to point out that the purpose of a plasma shot is not to transfer momentum or penetrate the target, its purpose is to incinerate its target, this in effect makes it a long-range welding torch.
 * The behaviour of a plasma shot indicates that it is akin to a controled example of ball lightning, which is in it self poorly understood by today's standards.


 * I appologise if this seems a bit short, but I will have to reply in parts.

Not a problem. I should do that myself. Good points, especially about the way plasma weapons are presented. An incineration weapon, eh? It would be much simpler, cheaper, and less energy intensive to employ advanced versions of incendiaries like white phosphorous etc., sort of like the Jiralhanae do (Spikers, Flame Grenades, etc.).

In order for a plasma weapon to be an efficient incineration tool, it will have to be dense, hot, and incredibly fast. While your description likens it to a welding torch, don't forget that such things do their work over time, not nigh-instantaneously.

If you look closely at plasma shot impacts, the plasma has penetrated the target via burning into a target, so while the welding analogy is applicable, burning phosphorus or thermite is a better one.

Remember, with directed energy weapons, the transfer of energy into the target will create heat, and in the case of powerful lasers and particle beams, their high energy content will be transferred into the atoms of their target. If done via powerful near-instaneous pulses, this will not only superheat, but if done properly, will also expand viciously, carving out a crater into the target. In short, you have an explosion of superheated material, usually plasma, breaking into the target via strong mechanical and thermal stress. This can be likened to rocket exhaust applying "thrust" against something, which in this case, is solid matter.

As for ball lightning, good point. It would seem that the Forerunner (and by extension the Covenant) solved the problems I mentioned by applying some sort of quantum-based stabilization of plasma particles that mimics ball lightning.

--Exalted Obliteration 05:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Greetings, all! I must admit, reading these descriptions of possible mechanics of plasma shaping boggled my mind for a spell.  It also made me wonder as to why the simplest theory has been overlooked; so far as handheld weapons, I mean.  Would it not be possible for the Covenant's weapons to fire a miniscule control bead with the plasma?  This bead could contain a magnetic envelope generator (MEG)to compress and contain the errant plasma.  Once the plasma bolt made contact with its target, the bead would disintegrate and thus leave no clues as to the control mechanism.  This could also explain how the weapon runs  out of ammunition, a simple lack of guiding modules.  It is doubtful that these implements of war would run out of plasma: plasma can be realatively easily created from ambient atmosphere; and I highly doubt that weapons of the Forerunners would fall prey to such a thing as a dead battery.  For your consideration- --Bruce2401 03:21, 16 April 2011 (EDT)


 * How does the bead work? What is a MEG How would the bead disintegrate. Why does the exaustion of ammunition need explanation interms of such a complex mechanism. The weapon does not run out of plasma, it runs out of electrical power. Plasmic Physics 02:35, 17 April 2011 (EDT)


 * The bead would work by producing two magnetic fields: one to protect itself(A) and one to contain the plasma(B); (B) would also be required to "push away" ambient atmosphere to reduce drag annd heat loss. MEG is merely shorthand for Magnetic Envelope Generator, the mechanism that would generate the magnetic containment fields I mentioned above.  The bead would disintegrate on collision with an object or after a set period of time by collapsing the magnetic fields and, essentially, vaporizing itself.  I would say that the weapon is in need of some form of depletable resource (the guiding bead) because it is doubtful that a Forerunner weapon, or a weapon based on one, would ever run out of energy unless it was specifically designed to do so.  This last is more inferred than backed by concrete data as no handheld Forerunner weapons have been detailed yet.  I hope this clears up your questions; and remember dear friend: it's only a theory.--Bruce2401 04:47, 18 April 2011 (EDT)


 * You've explained what it does, but not how it does it. You do realise that energy is a depletable resource? Plasmic Physics 04:54, 18 April 2011 (EDT)


 * Ah, energy being a depletable resource is true for us but maybe not for the Forerunners. The Dreadnaught seems to work just fine after 100,000+ years of existence.  I imagine that the Forerunners might have learned to tap "The Glow" (See Halo: Cryptum) as an energy source.  Of course that is conjecture.  I am confused by your statement though; by it, do you man to ask how it compensates for such things as the individual motion of the particles and the drag created by atmospheric interaction?  In this case I would explain that Cortana managed to program a Covenant weapon system to align all of the particular (<-- That's funny, BTW) trajectories using a magnetic pulse.  As for atmospheric interactions I imagine that the plasma the weapon uses has a uniform charge, either positive or negative, which would simplify things immensely.  I  mentioned magnetic fields (A) and (B) above, yes?  Imagine them as a balloon within another balloon, with the smaller balloon being (A).  The space between the balloons being the plasma.


 * If the plasma used were to be negatively charged, for argument's sake, then field (A) would be a negative magnetic field in order to repel the plasma from the bead and thus prevent a premature dissolvation (Hah. Can I make up words or can't I?). Field (B) would also be negative in order to contain the plasma and prevennt it from escaping.  Now that I think on it there would have to be a third field, (C), with a positive charge to repel positive ions in the atmosphere.  (C) would need to surround (B) as (B) surrounds (A).  When layered in this order the fields would provide a fairly comprehensive containment and isolation system in order to reduce drag and energy dissapation.  To summarize: (A) would protect the bead, (B) would have the dual job of containing the plasma and repelling ambient negative ions, and (C) would have the duty of repelling ambient positive ions. I hope this rather wordy explanation is to your satisfaction, Bruce2401 08:10, 20 April 2011 (EDT)


 * I have not read that novel yet; I have not know what the Glow is. I have no reason to believe that the dreadnaught will not exhaust its energy source, even if it is after a hundred millenia.


 * The plasma rifle uses coulombic plasma, which means that even though there is a charge separation within the plasma, it is overall electrically neutral. There is no negative or possitively charged plasma here. :What are these so called ambient ions?


 * I don't even know what to make of negative magnetic fields, such a description does not make sense. Magnetic fields are not like sheets of paper, where either side there is nothing. A magnetic field extends in all directions, all be it on different isovectors. There is no empty space beteen magnetic fields, besides, electrical charges don't avoid magnetic fields, they follow them. Magnteic fields simply don't function in the way your useing it. Plasmic Physics 20:37, 20 April 2011 (EDT)


 * The Glow is essentialy a realm comprised of pure photons, I think that could be suitable for a very efficient energy tap. And my point exactly: the Dreadnaught, while it could run out of energy hasn't yet.  If the Forerunners could impart even a fraction of that capability into their weapons there would be a statistical improbability of their weapons running low on charge during a firefight.


 * As to your "Ambient Ions" question: any atmosphere contains a high percentage of naturally occurring ions, most of the matter we breathe is not neutral. Even those molecules that are technically neutral are actually polarized, and so would be affected by magnetic fields.


 * How do you know that the weapons use coulombic plasma? Never mind, my point was that if the plasma used was uniformly charged, either all of the particles having a positive charge or all possessing a negative charge, it would be a much easier material to work with.  I was under the impression that a magnetic field could be either positive or negative, like the descriptions of magnetic poles, yes?  Then would not a positively charged ion have difficulty in passing a positive magnetic field?  That is where the mechanics of the barriers would come into play.  I realize that a positively charged particle (P+) would not "bounce off" of such a field but would instead slide around it and thus grant oblong shapes to the bolt.


 * You mentioned that a magnetic field is not akin to a sheet of paper; but it is, I assume, a line or boundary where the potential for matter affectation increases as a candidate particle approaches the centerline/origin? In this case I do not see any conflict  with my theory, though I admit my expertise on the subject is passable at best.  If you see such a conflict, would you be so kind as to enlighten me?


 * I think I have made myself clearer, if not I apologize. I implore you though, if you have not already, please illustrate my concepts using  paper and pen.  It may disperse any mental fog I have unwittingly imparted.  Humbly Yours, --Bruce2401 05:18, 25 April 2011 (EDT)


 * From how you are describing the Glow, there is nothing scientific about it, it sounds like a widget, with any prospect properties and abilities. What are pure photons, opposed to impure photons? I just remembered that at least in Halo: Combat Evolved, there is a clearly recognisable icon of a battery located next to the ammunition count when a plasma weapon is wielded; this reinforces the concept of electrical charge as ammunition.


 * I need a reference that states that "any atmosphere contains a high percentage of naturally occurring ions", and "most of the matter we breathe is not neutral" Molecular polarity is unrelated to magnetic response, magnetic response is by majority determined by the spin multiplicity which can be determined through the use of molecular orbital diagrams.


 * A coulombic plasma requires the least resources to generate, so only alternative would be a nuclear plasma. (which I highly doubt) A plasma that is homogenously charged can only be created by spliting a neutral plasma into two parts. If the weapon uses only one half of the plasma, what happens to the other half, it is just as dangerous.


 * A magnetic field is like a coin, in that you can't get a one sided coin. A magnetic field has a heads and a tails side, called north and south repectively. A manetic field does not have a surface/boundary - it extends ad infinitum, decreasing exponetialy in stength as a function of distance. Plasmic Physics 06:33, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

Apologies, instead of "Composed of pure photons" I should have used "Comprised solely of photons." And after reading your last post I do concede defeat, with one last statement. I had assumed that the Forerunners had made discoveries in monopolarity as suggested by string theory, and that the weapon may have alternately cycled its magnetic fields in order to make the most efficient use of its plasma. Well played, and what fun! Giddy in defeat- --Bruce2401 22:40, 25 April 2011 (EDT)


 * It was entertaining, I have a few ideas of my own. A hypercapacitor composed of composite nanomaterials, recharged through induction. Generating the plasma with powerfull MASERS through constructive EM interference. Using a complex arrangement of coaxial electromagnets to shape the plasma into a torus. A cobalt germania ceramic based matrix casing. Plasmic Physics 02:04, 26 April 2011 (EDT)


 * Interesting, that would explain the rather bulky weapons racks the Covenant deploy; tell me: does your weapon heat the plasma before or after it has left the main storage medium? --Bruce2401 03:17, 26 April 2011 (EDT)


 * The weapon would generate the plasma in situ from the ambient air - two electrodes will create a strong electric field across a spark gap, while the air between the electrodes will be excited using an arrangement of microwave-LASERS (MASERS) to induce the formation of a plasma.


 * The advantage of this setup, is that it does not need to expend energy on actively storing a highly unstable ablative plasma. The thing about a weapon that stores hot plasma, is that for one, it has to be protected from being destroyed by the plasma from inside out, and secondly, it has to waste energy trying to maintain the plasma. What this means is that such a weapon will have a shelf-life.


 * The disadvantage of this weapon, is that it tends to over heat easily, as the scale of energy coursing through this thing is enourmous. This weapon cannot function in the vacuum of space, there is no air to turn into plasma.


 * The problems with this weapons, is that the plasma is only metastable as long as it is moving. If the weapons wastes too much time in shaping the searing hot, magnetic torus of plasma, it runs the risk of the plasma engulfing the weapon itself. This means that the capacitor needs to dump a huge amount of energy at once into the plasma. This makes the weapon very dangerous if it malfunctions. If the circuit is disrupted in any minor way, even a hairline fracture in the circuit will drastically increase the electrical resistance, causing the internal components of the weapon to flash boil inside the ceramic casing. The pressure shockwave will cause the weapon to explode like a big hand grenade. Plasmic Physics 04:00, 26 April 2011 (EDT)


 * Ah, and so I cry "Inspired!" Truly this is an elegant solution, yet I belive we may have overlooked the crucial fact that the Covenant weapons are able to fire in space; indeed they can operate to their full effect.  Thus I submit to you that the weapons may contain a solidified form of plasma which is converted into a gas, heated, and then fired.  Either that or the weapon has a massive amount of compressed gasses within its innards.  Moreover, after re-reading Dr. Halsey's Journal, I have rediscovered that most of the Covenant weapons' component parts are connected through slipspace, i.e.: the trigger is in no way connected to the firing mechanism in our four dimensions.  I belive we may have underestimated the amount of hardware that may be present in these armaments.  Delightfully intrigued--Bruce2401 06:26, 26 April 2011 (EDT)


 * I forgot about the journal, I haven't taken the time to reconcile my design with the journal.


 * I must clarify, the plasma weapons that can't fire in space are the hand held. I have no objection concerning shipborne munitions. Do the books mention hand held plasma weapons being used in a vacuum? If it is restricted to the games, then we could consider it an oversight by Bungie. It wouldn't be the first major oversight - in the level: Long Night of Solace, the player has to maintain thrust inorder to maintain constant velocity, where according to real astrophysics, the Sabre should accelerate in response to maintained thrust, never maximising. Obviously this is not what is seen in the game, the Sabre instantly slows down to a crawl whenever thrust ceased. In reality, a spacecraft's maximum velocity is only limited by the speed of light, and the amount of fuel it can carry. Plasmic Physics 07:43, 26 April 2011 (EDT)


 * Alas, yes. There are several instances in which Covenant infantry weapons are used in vacuum.  First Strike, The Fall of Reach, and I believe The Cole Protocol all fit this bill.  I think, if we are to truly define the mechanics of these plasma weapons, we must start at the most basic of them all and work our way up.  I suggest we start at the melee weapon: the Energy sword.  Simplicity in design and execution.  Once we pin down exactly how that works it may shed light on the  mechanics of the ranged munitions.  I also think that what applies to the small must apply to the large; our new theories must be applicable to both handheld and starship-grade weapons, and everything in between.  We may just crack this thing yet, friend. --Bruce2401 08:01, 26 April 2011 (EDT)


 * I don't think that they all work the same way.


 * The plasma sword is a mistery - the way it is described as turning off in the books, indicate that each time the plasma is dispersed. Meaning, it can only be turned on so many times before it runs out of fuel, and loses the ability to generate plasma in a vacuum. (if it does not use ambient air directly, but stores its own) Not only this, but the fact that it does not seem to expend energy in order to maintain the blade. A plasma pistol rapidly loses charge when an overcharge is maintained between its electrodes, yet a plasma sword is unchanged. Plasmic Physics 08:25, 26 April 2011 (EDT)


 * If we accept that magnetic fields ae used, which sources including this site indicate, then I must reluctantly revert to my (A), (B), (C) magnetic envelope theory above. I agree that logic dictates that the sword would lose energy maintaining the blade; that it does not, or at least does so very slowly, indicates a very sophisticated isolation and containment system such as the one I postulated.  Further: I do not believe that the sword's plasma disperses when deactivated but is instead pulled back into the hilt; a much more efficient modus operandi.  If one slows down a video of the sword activating one could see that the plasma emanates from the hilt towards the tips.  I imagine it would do the same in reverse when shut down.  If the plasma did simply disperse it would do so rapidly and take most of the wielder out with it, after all it is a very high-energy plasma.  As for the Plasma Pistol, the weapon may compress more plasma and energy into a single bolt than can be easily maintained and thus requires large amounts of energy to sustain and contain.  Reluctantly reviving,--Bruce2401 17:35, 26 April 2011 (EDT)


 * This books describes the sword disolving into the surrounding air. (not in the same words) Even though the plasma initiates from the sword, it doesn't necessarily mean that it must return to it. It coult just mean that the electric field is stronhest there. Take lightning, in a convensional lightning strike, the bolt is initiated in the clouds, it then propagates towards the ground. At the end of a strike, the bolt does not retreat back into the clouds. A dispersing plasma shouldn't do any damage to the wielder, it is like turning off a blow torch. The blow torch can only cut and burn when it is turned on, not counting physical contact. Plasmic Physics 19:52, 26 April 2011 (EDT)


 * No, it doesn't necessarily mean the plasma must return to the hilt but that process would be the most efficient, especially if the weapon is to work in a vacuum. With the amount of energy carried by the sword's plasma, suddenly removing the magnetic envelope would be akin to setting off a small explosion; think about the properties of heated gas!  It would expand rapidly and confer its energy onto any material in its path, at the very least draining shields.  In the descriptions of the weapon, when the sword is dropped it deactivates it's containment protocols as a failsafe and the plasma consumes the weapon leaving naught but a scorch.  Your lightning strike allegory holds no water either: lightning is a flow of electrons from one point to another, the sword holds plasma in place like a water balloon.  The lightning doesn't fill a preexisting magnetic bubble, it essentially behaves like a single raindrop: enough gathers to condense, then falls.  As for your last statements: when a blowtorch is shut off most of the gasses have already dissappated into the air, and what is at the end at any point in time is a very small mass of particles.  Think less "Shutting off the valve" and more "No more steel canister around the compressed hydrogen."  Beseeching logistics, --Bruce2401 04:24, 27 April 2011 (EDT)


 * The plasma will recombine before it comes into contact with anything in close proximity, the only reason that the plasma can cut and do other sorts of damage, is because it is highly focused. Dropping the sword may simply draw the plasma in closer to the weapon as opposed to releasing it. Lightning isn't as simple as a flow of electrical currect, the flow of electrons creates a plasma and an assortment of excited neutral molecular species like singlet oxygen. The sword's plasma is not like a water balloon, there is nothing keeping the plasma where it is, it has the freedom to move where it wants. The plasma is just statistically more likely to be found nearer to where it is. Much like bees around a hive, they go where ever they want, but because of the presence of the hive, you are more likely to find them buzzing around the hive. In this analogy, the bees represent the plasma, and the magnetic field represents the hive. There is no tank that prevents the bees from leaving the vicinity of the hive, similiarly the magnetic field does not prevent the plasma from leaving it. It's just pure statisics. What do you mean by "what is at the end at any point in time is a very small mass of particles"?


 * I experimented with homemade plasma globes before I started university, while the plasma was at several thousand degrees Celcius, it never exploded or melted the glass container when the magnetron was switched off. All that happened was that the plasma vortex dispersed within a couple microseconds. Plasmic Physics 06:02, 27 April 2011 (EDT)


 * I mant that the amount of material located at the end of a blowtorch possesses a very small mass. That there exists, at the end of a blowtorch, a very small amount of particles at any given time during it's use.  And as far as the plasma globes, not much of the gas inside was energized; not enough at one time to melt the glass anyway.  In the plasma sword all of  the gas is exited to a very high degree: high enough to melt titanium!  And I believe you are correct: the plasma sword can only do the damage it does because it is focused, condensed.  But I believe that you are inncorrect in stating that the plasma is essentially free to move about as it wishes; laws of physics dictate that without an outside force the plasma would all dissapate rapidly into the air.  The only way to prevent dispersion is to tightly control the volume that the plasma is able to inhabit.  That the sword only loses energy when it comes into contact with fairly dense matter is, I believe, proof that the plasma is highly contained and isolated.  The behavior of matter is to spread out as far as it is able, not to condense; not without another force acting on it at any rate. --Bruce2401 22:55, 28 April 2011 (EDT)


 * That's not really correct, the plasma I created was at 4000 C, hot enough to vapourise the graphite electrodes during opperation.


 * The plasma dissapating is not my idea, take 1s hydrogen orbital as an example. Normally th size of the isosurface represents the where the electrons can be found 75% of the time. The 100% isosurfave for the 1s orbital has an infinite radius so it cannot be represented. This is also true for the plasma sword - most of the plasma can be found following the strongest area of the magnetic field. Some of the plasma strays to far from the strongest part of the magnetic field and recombines and leaks away. It is like steam comming of a boiling pot of water. Plasmic Physics 07:20, 29 April 2011 (EDT)


 * Ah, I see! Yes, I thought you were saying something else entirely.  My apologies.  But I must ask: the plasma you created was low in density, yes?  If so, I am operating under the assumption that the plasma sword is much more dense than a standard atmosphere.  A denser medium could carry more energy and thus be more effective, no?  It, therefore, might require a more substantial containment system to prevent a pressure release.  Abashed realization- --Bruce2401 04:43, 30 April 2011 (EDT)


 * Yes, sadly it was low density. (about 1.3 atm) Yes, a denser plasma of the same temperature has more energy, but it also requires more energy to be maintained. Plasmic Physics 06:12, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

Portal size
I was under the impression that you intended to revert edits by Jugus in the Battle of Earth section and accidentally undid my size part too, but I'll explain that anyway.

Mutoid Chief 00:43, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * "hardly a credible" -> "pan-cam" : the size can be verified using pan-cam (comparing diameter to the length of the battlecruiser, which is undersized in WUs)
 * 118.62->100 : I have no idea where the old diameter came from, and the highway distance between Voi and New Mombasa is 97km, so 100 is a good approximation.
 * "actually is" -> "some have estimated it to be" : the 14km is an approximation by Stephen Loftus of HBO, a source as credible as the overhead image approximation. Source referenced.

Reply: Scientific Inaccuracies
I respectfully decline your offer for a private discussion. I would prefer we keep this debate public, so that everyone can see all sides of the argument.Spartan999 19:48, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
I do not wish to take an active participation in your discussion. However, I would like to refer to you one thing neither party has taken into account.

The Flood spore form is capable of infecting organisms and turning them into Flood organisms. As they are neither sentient nor biomass; the array does not affect them. Technically, the Flood will survive a galactic holocaust, though will eventually die without adequate biomass to sustain them.

Based on this, no matter how the array destroys forms of life, the flood technically can only be defeated through starvation.--  Fore  run  ner  08:52, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * These are all good points and I agree with them, except for the fact that flood spores are not biomass, based on the defenition of biomass. Even so, they are off the original topic of the disscussion, which was the legitimacy of the inconsistency listed under the trivia section of that article.--Plasmic Physics 09:16, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Array
Look "research and containment facility [alpha, beta, gamma, epsilon, zeta, and kappa sites]" does it look like named Installations (Well Alpha but still not the point) the Gas Giant facility was a Containment and research facility, The Halo Array was used basiclly as a weapons platforms but what ever dont wont to get in a big fight. Alertfiend 04:40, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

P.S Did you get Halo Reach yet if so fun yeah.

I can't really make out what you're trying to say (or is it ask?), but yes, I did get Reach.--Plasmic Physics 06:06, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

What i said (Or meant) was that you reverted it before i could re-post it with different wordings. Alertfiend 22:59, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, alright. It just seemed as if you randomly removed a paragraph. Go ahead.--Plasmic Physics 23:28, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

RE:Moving of the transcript of Long Night of Solace
Please cease and desist the moving of this page. It is unneeded and fine the way it is. Thanks.

About the templates you've created
What in the world are you planning to do with them? The Meta-templates such as the Ambox are not needed in Halopedia as they complex and have useless field parameters in them. In addition, don't create Documentation; it is cumbersome and not helpful at all in separating docs and the codes. >.< -  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 10:18, 23 December 2010 (EST)

I have uses in mind for the ambox template, though I'm not sure why you're concerned with private templates; as for the documentation template, I think it is useful for describing a template and keeping the code apart. --Plasmic Physics 15:45, 23 December 2010 (EST)