Any chances of some sources for this? --62.253.128.12 21:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Any mention of this fuel besides the ICS?
Has there been any mention of this fuel besides the ICS?
- Yes, in Rogue Planet, Sienar and Tarkin discuss how new advances on hypermatter technology will make his first sketches of the Death Star possible. Bodo-Baas 21:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Now that is a direct contradiction if Sienar and Tarkin had sketches of the Death Star at that time. The Geonosians were the first to even develope something like that. —Unsigned comment by 66.189.67.134 (talk • contribs)
- Check the Retcon point about this issue, and the future novel that should clarify all this Death Star (novel).Bodo-Baas 01:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Amounts
40.000 tons a second for a Venator? Where the fuck does that thing actually store the fuel, in this case?! --Challenger STA 13:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- It does seem a bit strange. The matter would have to be very dense. A Venator-class Star Destroyer is suppose to be able to function for 2 years without supplies. At 40,000 tons/second It would have to store over 2.5 trillion tons, or the mass of 48 cubic miles of solid lead. (Assuming that one cuft of lead weighs about 710 lbs. Somebody check my math.) Anyway, a figure of 40 tons/second would be more realistic, and is still impressive
- It's still not vary efficient.--Herbsewell 23:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- The fuel tanks (which are marked on various ships) are ultra-dense by orders of magnitude more than the mass of the ship (Episode 2 ICS). Further, 40,000 tons a second is at maximum power, and they're not always at maximum power.Vymer 13:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's still not vary efficient.--Herbsewell 23:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
40,000 tons/second isn't only ridiculous, it's impossible. The article says that hypermatter is a form of tachyon. Tachyons have imaginary mass. Could this possibly mean 40,000i t/sec or that hypermatter is actually composed of superbardyons, which do have real mass? 69.12.155.64 03:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't hold my tongue. I think the reason they call it "hypermatter" is because the particles probably burn up quickly, and may have been efficient for smaller objects, microscopic objects, actually...
If you ask me, it's NOT efficient at all, seeing how dependent it is on regular fuels. I'd love to see how efficient "HYPOMATTER" is. Hypomatter is probably extremely efficient and could power even the largest battlestations...
first hypermatter is called that because it is matter from hyperspace. second, Hypermatter is burned at EQUIVALENT tons so 40,000 equivalent tones may be a cubic micrometer for all we know.--Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin 19:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen this equivalence concept mentioned in the Venator-class talk page on this same issue. Where is there a source mention on the differing nature of hypermatter mass versus conventional matter mass? And could a sourced line or two mentioning this phenomenon be included in the hypermatter or especially the hypermatter annihilation reactor articles? Xavic Kae 20:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- The article on the Venator-Class states 40K tons, not equivalent tons, and according to the argument on the talk page there, that is canon from the ICS. Large Admiral Collider (talk) 21:56, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
Seeing as how tachyon density in the universe is infinite, it isn't a stretch to imagine the Empire using some kind of tachyon ramscoop to restock... 90.199.198.248 20:42, February 18, 2016 (UTC)
This particular objection has never made much sense to me. As is stated in the article, hypermatter is tachyonic matter, and it states on the Hypermatter and Tachyon pages, and in the article, hypermatter destroys itself when brought into realspace. And it's clearly stated that hypermatter annihilation is enclosed within fusion systems. Therefore, a hypermatter annihilation reactor is a type of breeder reactor (a fusion reactor which produces some of the fuel used for the reaction by the reaction itself) in which the breeder fuel is hypermatter entering the system from hyperspace. So, the hypermatter does not need to be stored in fuel tanks. You'd just need to store fuel for the standard fusion reaction, which then channels/breeds hypermatter within the reaction chamber. So, 40,000 tons a second is only a question of reactor breeding throughput, not insane fuel storage requirements. 97.85.16.23 02:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Usage
What ships use hypermatter reactors?Kadas'sa'Nikto 21:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Kadas'sa'Nikto
Canonocity
Considering that none of the films mention hypermatter, and at least one novelization provides a statement that raises questions as to the canon status of hypermatter, it seems important that at least some mention should be made of the Expanded Universe vs. Canon status of hypermatter. The Expanded Universe is not permitted to contradict the films themselves, and as the novelizations of the films had greater involvement of "Word of God" then the Expanded Universe, it seems that the contradiction of hypermatter with the novelization of A New Hope at least deserves mention, as the novelizations are more likely to remain true to the "ultimate inspiration." —Unsigned comment by 216.96.141.23 (talk • contribs)
- However, the statement you placed is full of Original Research, which is not allowed on Wookieepedia. Implications based on your reading of the text do not constitute a canon issue. Nothing in the ANH novel actually disputes that hypermatter was used, and the statement that "the liberated energy of a small artificial sun" is a nuclear reactor is only based off your interpretation and is an assumption. Do not assume that physics in the SW universe work as our physics do. - Cavalier One
(Squadron channel) 11:51, December 11, 2009 (UTC) - I don't see how this is original research. The novelization says "artificial sun." Suns react via fusion in this universe, and in several Expanded Universe books, fusion reactions are mentioned there as well, with no mention of hypermatter reactions at stellar cores. In fact, it's even noted that the Suncrusher caused stellar detonation via supernova, which is specifically called a fusion reaction right here on Wookiepedia. If the Death Star explosion liberates the energy of a "small artificial sun" (and I'm direct quoting here), the reaction's a fusion reaction.—Unsigned comment by 216.96.141.23 (talk • contribs)
- You don't get to determine what is canon and what is not. And as a matter of fact, hypermatter is canon. If you continue to add your original research to the article, you will be blocked for disruption. Grand Moff Tranner
(Comlink) 12:12, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
- I know I don't get to determine what is canon and what is not. I'm going directly by the canon page. Quote 1: "'Gospel,' or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films, the radio dramas and the novelizations. Quote 2: "novelizations are interpretations of the film, and while they are largely true to George Lucas' vision (he works quite closely with the novel authors... they should be regarded as very accurate depictions of the fictional Star Wars movies." Other quotes provide further backup in this area. The Expanded Universe appears to contradict the A New Hope Novelization. If hypermatter is accepted canon, then why is it permitted to contradict what is, according to the Canon article, the more definitive source? Should this not at least be mentioned?—Unsigned comment by 216.96.141.23 (talk • contribs)
- Just because the ANH novelization refers to it as "the liberated energy of a small artificial sun" does not mean that the Death Star is literally powered by a small artificial star. It's merely comparing the power of the Death Star's hypermatter reactor core to something that people like you and me can understand. Therefore, there are no contradictions. Additionally, citing the canon article as evidence is certainly not enough to back up your claim. As it stands, hypermatter is canon, and you are extremely lucky that you were not blocked for adding original research or violating the Three-Revert Rule. In the future, if there is something that you don't understand, please bring it up on the relevant talk page before editing the article or engaging in an edit war. Grand Moff Tranner
(Comlink) 21:07, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
- There's nothing that categorically states that stars in Star Wars rely on nuclear fusion; physics seems different over there. Luke was hanging out of Bespin at an atmospheric pressure that should have killed him in moments, Fett's space mines in AOTC collected and released sonic shock waves in space and a planet can be vaporised by a giant energy weapon in a fraction of a second. Science isn't needed for science fiction
90.199.198.248 21:05, February 18, 2016 (UTC)
Conflicting Descriptions
- Hypermatter is described as tachyonic matter native to hyperspace which always travels faster than light and cannot exist in a universe bound by relativity as it works in-universe, undergoing annihilation when it exits hyperspace and enters Star Wars' material universe. With this description in mind, one would think that hypermatter reactors would function similar to an antimatter reactor, only without the need to store antimatter and reaction mass onboard the ship that uses it. Yet the descriptions of hypermatter reactors say they use reaction mass (carrying utterly ludicrous amounts of it), and there are several instances of hypermatter being stored like any other volatile substance (Crates in ToR) despite this being utterly impossible due to the properties it has been given. Since this information has been relegated to Legends and we are unlikely to get a proper explanation for this discrepancy, I think we should add a section to the article pointing this out for the sake of completeness.--Valiran (talk) 22:51, December 1, 2018 (UTC)