Canon?
Is "proton beam" from Empire at War, or The Technical Book of Science Fiction Films? If the latter, is that a Lucasfilm-approved book, and thus canon, or third-party extrapolation? jSarek 10:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- This sounds like fanon to me. By every other source the superlaser is just an extremely scaled up turbolaser. I've also NEVER heard of such a weapon being mounted on ISDs before. Whoever made this article should post some quotes or other evidence. JimRaynor55 21:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Proton beam is from Empire at War and was apparently first mentioned in The Technical Book of Science Fiction Films VT-16 17:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Saxton mentioned it. Check his DS page. -SWF
A sentence
"A smaller type of proton beam was used as ammunition for a gun mounted on a modified Imperial-class Star Destroyer, the Accuser."
Does this sentence make sense? - TopAce 10:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I made the mistake of only talking about the energy beam itself and not the whole weapon. Just change it so it makes sense. :P VT-16 17:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Superlaser/Proton Beam Inconsistency?
It is implied here that the superlaser on the Death Stars were scaled up versions of proton beams, and basically share the same natture. But, they are 2 different things. A superlaser, obviously a laser, is just high intensity focused radiation (i.e. photon, which are massless) used to heat up/melt/explode. A proton beam is a particle beam, and although they do the same thing, they do not ionise it like lasers, but rather have a stream of fast particles slamming into the target to heat /etc. Since they have mass, they are also slower. We should clearly distinguish between those two.
The "lasers" in starwars are not actual lasers but rather some sort of laser ignited plasma and the super laser seems something slightly different from eitherSargeLIVES 02:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)