Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories

Vanilla 1.1.8 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
  1.  

    rafts are designed for smooth, stable waters like lakes and ponds, not for rapid rivers and floods (Taku)

    What about “white-water rafting”?
    In the case of your lid, I can’t really say if it is in fact buoyancy that holds it up or the surface tension. It would take technical physics calculations to determine that. However, rafts have nothing to do with surface tension. It’s all about buoyancy, which has to do with density. For something to float
    (in water), it must be less dense than water. The Titanic may come to mind. What happened to it? It sank. Why? Because it filled with water. Something that is technically denser than water can float if it has air space in it that displaces water. If you take into account the area of displaced water, then the “density” of the object is less than the water. This is what makes boats float. You can add weight to the boat because the difference in density creates a buoyant force that lifts the boat up in the water and is greater than the weight of the boat. If you add enough weight to counter act the buoyant force, then it sinks. At the same time, something that is simply less dense, like ice, will float to the top even if it was submerged.

    Going on to size and buoyancy of the raft. For starters, “The barges were more like crude rafts” (167) A crude raft would be something like logs lashed together. As you can see here such rafts can be enormous and still float. Also, if you think about how heavy a whole tree is and take into account that there are probably hundreds of trees there, then you will understand that rafts made in this manner have quite a bit of buoyant force. Also note that the raft pictured could be (we can’t be certain) somewhere near an american football field(about 100 meters) or so in length. It could be more, it could be less.

    “the city lay below the mills and there was not a single hill or hummock between to slow their progress” (172) The canal is probably quite straight especially if dwarves (who built the walls) built it.

    Steering: At the bottom of page 170, it says that soldiers were, in fact, poling the vessel. It does not say how many. On page 171, it says that they tried to keep it away from the “sloping banks”. Water near the sides of a stream or anything like that always moves slower than the center of it (when it’s straight). This would pull the vessel to the center naturally anyway.

    the ship is simply not going to reach the speed required to actually do damage to anything that the soldiers couldn’t have broken down with their fists (Taku)

    That is what all the weight is for. The force of impact depends on three things: The speed of the object in motion, the mass of the object, and the distance required to decelerate upon impact.

    Inertia requires tens of thousands of Newtons and a concentrated point for that force (Kyllorac)

    That depends upon how strong the gate is. All we know is that it is strong, but in terms of measurements that hardly matters at all. Saying that something is strong doesn’t tell us anything unless we get some figures or some examples. In response to both of these statements I found an impact force calculator.
    This is designed to calculate the number of Newtons imparted during impact. I previously determined that the soldiers would weigh around 117,000 pounds (I know many of you are probably not used to these units but I am, and it will end up in Newtons) we again can’t be certain of the speed of the raft. However, it is mentioned at some point that they are “a mile from Aroughs” (172) a minute or so later the main swell of water is “about five minutes away” (173) and although the main swell is ahead of them, they are picking up speed. Now, that’s at least six minutes for 1 mile (10 miles per hour). Since it’s slower, we could say it’s moving at about 6 miles per hour (which we can’t really judge or not. It could be more, it could be less). Since the stopping distance is important, we must think of how far the gate gives when hit. It’s a sturdy gate, let’s say it gives a whole foot. Again, we can’t be certain . Plug those figures in and that is just under 140,000 Newtons (6 miles per hour) or just over 390,000 Newtons. Just for kicks, if the gate only gives like a tenth of a foot (which I think is doubtful anyway) then it would be just over 3.9 million Newtons at a speed of 10 miles per hour.

    That is a good point, except for the fact that the straw in that example is moving at close to the speed of sound. (Taku)

    The speed of sound is 340 meters per second. According to this site the strongest tornadoes only reach up to 172 meters per second. That is half of the speed of sound, not to mention that weaker tornadoes have done the same thing with pieces of straw.

    As far as people smashing around, it depends on the speed, weight, and stopping distance again. However, this time, it depends on the weight of each individual person when we talk about the force involved. Also, even if the vessel stops in .1 feet, they might still move a whole foot or two or some number of feet. All these things would reduce the force of impact felt by the soldiers.

    When you are trying to break through something, you want to use something that has a small contact surface like a wedge. (Fell_Blade)

    Almost. That’s when you are cutting through something.

    axes are better at cutting down trees than sledge hammers (Fell_Blade)

    Yes they are. But which is better at smashing through a section of a wall? This is why they use battering rams the point isn’t to cut through the gate or door or whatever. What you want to do is to hit it with enough force to either knock pieces of it apart, break it off it’s hinges, or break the locking mechanism so that it opens. Similar to kicking open a door, cutting through it with an ax would take much longer.

    Factor in terminal velocity (all the stuff on the raft has quite a lot of surface area, and the more surface area you have, the more air drag, and the deeper an object is in the water, the more drag you get from the water, which is substantial; the more drag you have, the less your velocity (Kyllorac)

    Terminal velocity is simply the maximum velocity possible under the conditions, so it isn’t exactly relevant. Air drag isn’t very substantial, and the drag caused by the water is what is propelling the vessel. As long as you are moving with the current and not faster than the current, then drag is working in your favor.

    Plus people are squishy, so they’d contribute very little inertia-wise (Kyllorac)

    That is actually irrelevant, weight is what they contribute.

    The reason why a piece of straw can pierce a tree is because a) it’s lightweight, which allows the wind to impart almost all of its acceleration to it, and b) the straw piece has a very small surface area, which means that when it impacts the tree, all the force imparted to the straw piece is focused on one tiny section of the trunk. (Kyllorac)

    This is true.

    It’s why pointed objects, like knives, do more penetrating damage compared to blunt objects, like clubs. The force of the blow is concentrated into one tiny point, which pushes apart the matter in its way, allowing the object to penetrate very deeply. (Kyllorac)

    This is also true. In addition though, blunt objects aren’t even for penetration. They are for smashing.

    The diamond thing was only about strength, I know it’s weak when hit in the right spot. For the example just assume the weak point wasn’t reachable.

    Considering how slippery slate is, that anyone/-thing was able to stay on the raft at such insane speeds as required to succeed (which are physically impossible to achieve based on the given details), not to mention during/after the collision, is just not believable. (Kyllorac)

    The slate is not under them, it’s on the perimeter of the vessel.. I already talked about speeds..I touched on the impact thing..yeah.

    I still don’t see how it was possible for them to have been gaining speed as they got close to the target and I still don’t see how they gained enough speed to break the gate. (Puppet)

    You might now, but still. The water was moving faster than they were, therefore the drag caused by water friction on the vessel would accelerate it.

    Taku: The answer to your most recent post is in the two Lacuna chapters.

    Did anybody catch how much uncertainty there was when referring to quantitative facts? THAT’S MY POINT.
    Whether Christopher Paolini built the world correctly or not, the only things you can really judge on are what are given. I don’t care if the book leaks purple ink, or if an imaginary creature eats rocks or whatever. There is only so much you can say before you start adding things to the data that aren’t actually there. I completely and absolutely respect all opinions, just make sure they are formed from the text. That’s my point, I don’t mean to offend at all, and I deeply apologize for just how much writing this is. As a result, I will respond to your question, Soupnazi, at a later time.

    • CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2011
     

    ...

    I am not a math, or science, or physics person. But Wawir, I’m sorry, I think you are missing their point. White water rafting is with rafts full of AIR, not dense wood. A battering ram is usually NOT the full width of the door, but much smaller. Why? TO FOCUS THE BATTERING.

  2.  

    Battering rams are usually used to knock open wooden gates secured with a wooden bar. If there is a portcullis, you aren’t getting that gate open.

    That is actually irrelevant, weight is what they contribute.

    Since they are not connected to the boat, when the boat hits, none of their inertia transfers, it just sends them flying.

    Also if there are three walls, that would logically(not that that matters) be three gates. Rams are built to be repeatedly hammered into solid objects, barges are not.

    •  
      CommentAuthorBlueMask
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2011
     

    Why are all the science and physics geeks coming out all of a sudden?
    And, aware as I am that I have just offended half the forum, I want to know where al the literary nerds have gone. Hello, I need kinfolk. People that also don’t understand all this.
    Otherwise I’ll feel stupid.

    • CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2011
     

    Hugs BlueMask

    I understand very little of this.

    •  
      CommentAuthorBlueMask
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2011
     

    Thank you. Can we go back to talking about characterization and purple prose and plot arcs?

    • CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2011 edited
     

    Can’t help you there, I haven’t read anything by Paolini.

    Ha!

  3.  

    Willow: Please look at the first two substantial paragraphs again (I’m sorry, but I explained that concept) As long as the ram isn’t bigger than the gate, then it works because you’re going for the shock of the impact. The reason not to use an ax is because it cuts into the wood and disperses the energy out, a ram does more pushing than cutting.

    Armourer: They will move for sure, but because it was the shock of impact that knocked them around, at least some of the inertia transfers. Keep in mind that the weight of the raft, the flour, and the stone were all unknowns so they weren’t even factored into the force calculations.

    I’m sorry for all the physics, but that’s what was being argued against. All the other stuff is either more opinion based, or beyond my knowledge to discuss too deeply. (Hence me joining II)

  4.  

    I’m with Willow and Blue. When I see the giant walls of science text that everyone has been writing, my brain shuts off for a minute.

    • CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2011 edited
     

    @ Wawir

    If the ram is half the size of the gate, it will take many more men to lift it, and will not concentrate impact effectively. It will be absorbed better by the gate. If a wider ram made sense, they would have used them. You know, back when they needed them. But no, everyone had the brains to realize CONCENTRATE YOUR FORCE ON AS SMALL A POINT AS POSSIBLE WHEN YOU ARE BASHING. I know enough physics to know that. And I’m sorry, basic logic says smashing a raft into a massive gate, with hundreds of men on the raft, IS STUPID.

    Logic Problem 1) If men cling to raft, wouldn’t they get bashed into the gate too?

    Logic Problem 2) If men are flung from raft, shouldn’t the debris crush them into little mushy puddles?

    Logic Problem 3) If you smash a raft into a gate, shouldn’t it just flip over? Ramming it with a pointy metal ship? Effective. Ramming it with a raft, which has a very great width, permitting greater absorption of shock? STUPID.

  5.  

    Platypus: My deepest apologies.

    Willow: Stupid? No. Crazy? That’s why Roran did it. It was the only plausible option he could find.
    Is a huge ram easy to use? No, which is why they stuck to one they could hold. However, this one isn’t being held, it’s in the water.
    They are on the raft, not in front of it. It does throw them around.
    Debris only crushes them if it hits them.
    wait..why should it flip?
    As long as the force is only going into the gate, it does not matter.

  6.  

    When I see the giant walls of science text that everyone has been writing, my brain shuts off for a minute.

    My brain shuts off forever. XP

    I honestly do not think this is so important to merit responses so long that it takes up half the page. On the other hand, when it’s time to build my boat for physics, I shall reference this thread!

  7.  

    Platypus: My deepest apologies.

    Oh, there’s no need of that. I was reading the giant responses for a while but have since stopped because:

    I honestly do not think this is so important to merit responses so long that it takes up half the page.

    Perhaps we could move on to arguing about a different aspect of the book? But if you guys are enjoying the raft argument, by all means continue.

  8.  

    . . .
    Attacking when you’re outnumbered 2:1 is not crazy, it’s beyond stupid. There is a reason that you ran for a castle if you were loosing a battle, the same applies to towns. At some point I’ll read the book, so I can get more of what’s going on, but so far, it sounds like Paolini fails medieval warfare again. Also, I repeat my point that a raft is just going to break, rather than smash a gate.

    Mostly I’m trying to say that improvised siege equipment doesn’t work well. Not even counting active defences.

    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeDec 1st 2011
     

    If your point is that there’s no specific numbers than your argument is just as good as ours. Let’s take a look at the what data we are given by the author. We are told that the “wall” around the barge is about waist high. And we are told that by the time all the men had boarded the barge was just inches from the bottom of the canal. We are also told that the barges were more like crude rafts. I think we can make a reasonable assumption and say that the barge isn’t very tall. And we are told that the bags of flour were simply piled on 5 high and 2 wide, no mention of anything to secure the bags. From this we can assume that at least some of the water should have leaked onto the barge, especially at the back end where there wasn’t any slate and the wall was made purely from bags of flour. Now, we are told that when the wave of oncoming water hits the barge it somehow lifts the bottom end. What about the wall made of sacks of flour? And I quote:

    “Some sacks of flour dropped into the canal or rolled inward, against the men.”

    Remember, the current is so strong that

    “The water punched a hole in the earthen dam as easily as if it were made of sodden bread and slammed into the final waterwheel.”

    And it was strong enough to keep pushing the barge through the partly broken gate after impact. I’m pretty sure a current that strong would break straight through the flour bag wall and sink the barge. Remember, the barge is just inches off the bottom of the canal. And remember, the incoming water is at a higher elevation than the water the barge is on. Yes, some of it is going to go underneath the barge, but the majority of the water should have spilled over the wall or smashed right through it and sunk the back half of the barge. This isn’t an argument based off random made up numbers, this is based off exactly what we’re given. I’m not even going to argue whether the barge had enough speed to break through the gate since I think it should have sunk either because of water leaking through the bags of flour or the wave of water spilling onto it. This is an argument using the text, and from the text I am making a few reasonable assumptions.

    Personally, it seems rather hypocritical to say that our arguments are based off of made up numbers when your own argument is, too. We have no idea how thick the gate is, or how fast the barge was travelling, or what the weight distribution was, etc.

  9.  

    I’m just commenting on how one builds a gate. It’s not exactly made of paper.

  10.  

    Personally, it seems rather hypocritical to say that our arguments are based off of made up numbers when your own argument is, too. We have no idea how thick the gate is, or how fast the barge was travelling, or what the weight distribution was, etc.

    Then I think you misunderstand, it’s not just about numbers. The newtons thing was only because that was thrown out there as an argument against the event. My point is almost exactly what you just said about knowing. Many of the arguments I made were only conceptual. The only one involving calculations was based off of partial (given, not made up) information, which I took as far as possible. If you look at the Newton thing, I illustrated that we don’t know which value for force is correct, but the info we had could have been used to give us a very vague idea. The only thing that could have been made up was the weight of the soldiers, however, I think you would agree that an armed soldier would way around that much.

    The water sinking the raft wouldn’t have happened. I tried to explain that with a raft, it doesn’t matter if water flows over the top of it; it will still float. Because it floats it kinda surfs the raised water. Sure some might have gotten on it, but that just goes back to the floating thing.

    There is only so much you can say before you start adding things to the data that aren’t actually there.

    Oftentimes the “insane” speed required for it was used as a counter argument. The thing is, if you think about it, there were no insane speeds involved. Why insane speeds? Because the gate is strong and it needs lots of force to break, and the raft doesn’t have enough force. However, as I explained, all of the weight of the raft creates the force. That is a point where what was being illustrated by the author was not taken into account. Knowing that a raft by itself wouldn’t have worked, he added so much weight that it didn’t need “insane” speed. How strong the gate really was wasn’t explained either.

    Puppet, if I start explaining again then I’m just going to cover things I’ve already said and waste space. I kinda already started doing that.. I’m telling you though, it’s all in the stuff I already said.

    Armourer: I agree, one does not. The gate is strong, but with enough force you can break anything. Without knowing the gates true strength, one can’t really say the raft-ram was enough or not. If the story says it was, however, then that’s all you can go on.

    •  
      CommentAuthorFalling
    • CommentTimeDec 1st 2011 edited
     
    "Armourer: I agree, one does not. The gate is strong, but with enough force you can break anything. Without knowing the gates true strength, one can’t really say the raft-ram was enough or not. If the story says it was, however, then that’s all you can go on."

    How do people do those cool indents for quotes?

    Enough force, sure. I'll admit I don't know much physics and some of those large paragraphs make my head spin too. However, I can't for the life me figure how enough momentum could be gained just the same. Unless the canal is like a giant water slide sloping into the gate. This is a canal right? Aren't those kind of meandering for the very reason that it's supposed to make passage easier? There might be some force, but enough for a one shot deal? There's a reason castles lasted as long as they did until the cannon.

    I don't buy the if the story says so, it must be true. If that were the case, we'd have to check our brains out everytime an author treats horses like a modern car or has a professional army of 100,000 in a population of 200,000. It just makes no rational sense. Anything that contradicts real world logic or physics ought to have some sort of explanation otherwise it just looks like the author doesn't know what they're talking about. Under your argument, any potential plothole or illogical point can be dismissed.
  11.  

    I believe I speak for almost everyone when I say:

    Can we please, please drop the raft debate, and agree Pao is not always an expert at medieval warfare?

    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeDec 1st 2011
     

    There’s really no point of debating anymore since Paolini was so ambiguous and unclear. Both of our arguments are valid but neither of us can win without asking Paolini himself, and even then I don’t think we could settle this because I highly doubt Paolini was trying to be realistic and rational when he wrote that scene.

  12.  

    @ Falling: Use bq. YOUR QUOTE HERE

    Can we please, please drop the raft debate, and agree Pao is not always an expert at medieval warfare?

    Please let’s.

  13.  

    he wrote that scene. book

    •  
      CommentAuthorBlueMask
    • CommentTimeDec 1st 2011
     

    he wrote that scene. book

    So true. But, I’ll be nice and say that he’s a bit like a puppy- he didn’t know that what he’d written was bad. Nobody would tell him.
    I don’t actually know why that’s like a puppy.

    •  
      CommentAuthorInkblot
    • CommentTimeDec 1st 2011
     

    But it does seem like it is, doesn’t it. Nice one.

    I actually really enjoyed the raft argument because I love arguing in general. But if tempers are getting cooked off than of course it might be time to lay this to rest.

    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeDec 1st 2011
     

    ...Which we already did.

    Anyway, that’s the only part of the book I’ve read, so at this point in time I really don’t have anything more to contribute.

  14.  

    Falling: The question of force was something I explained in my monster (sorry) response. If you have enough weight, then it makes up for the lack of speed. Also, canals are generally made as straight as possible, unless (as Taku said some time ago) there are hills and stuff in the way.

    Soupnazi asked me a question earlier:

    What do you think are objectively good points of Inheritance? (The books in general, not just the fourth one.)

    Unfortunately, I’m not too clear on when something is no longer objective or subjective. All I know is that objective is facts and stuff, whereas subjective is more opinion and feelings. If I don’t have the full picture of which is which, could you (or someone else) please clarify? In a fantasy, there aren’t many facts involved. Unless you mean the actual writing itself, all I could really give is subjective.

    •  
      CommentAuthorSoupnazi
    • CommentTimeDec 1st 2011
     

    Sorry for the vagueness. Objectivity is different for different aspects, and the general consensus I’ve learned is this:

    Objectively good characters are characters who behave in a believable fashion, have multiple facets to their personality, and are overall human. (Unless, of course, they aren’t human.)

    Objectively good plots are plots that make sense logistically, and overall are sensical. Since the actual enjoyment of a story’s plot and story is subjective, it really does come down to logic. So if a character gets shot in the heart and, with no special means, heals perfectly, as part of the plot, that would be an example of an objectively bad plot, or at least plot point; since it can’t happen, and there is no reason given for why it did, it is illogical and bad.

    There are multiple ways to look at good writing; in some cases, it’s as simple as having good rhythm, clarity, and grammar. But someone else gave a better example; good writing is writing that is closest to the author’s ideal vision of his/her writing. (Just to be clear, that was a direct quote.) So, using the person’s example again, the novel Ulysses has good writing as the writing was more “stream-of-consciousness” and that can be assumed as what the author intended, and The Lord of the Rings has good writing as it was intended as an incredibly artistic work, and so its more cumbersome prose fitted.

    But, using “objective” wasn’t really necessary there. Beyond “objective” goods, what do you think is just plain good about the series?

  15.  

    Well, I like the ideas and events in it (Whether they were technically Paolini’s originals, or not isn’t relevant)...I’ll just make a list.

    The Riders; their mental bond to the dragons; how being a rider changes someone (lifespan and ability); their swords.
    I thought the Urgals were a cool idea. They contrasted a lot with “civilized” people, while adding an interesting moral dilemma at times.
    The Ra’zac and Lethrblaka. They were another weird but still interesting thing
    Shades
    Spirits
    Angela the herbalist, because really weird stuff always happens when she’s involved and you never really know what she’s going to do.
    The mental openness Idea; shielding the mind; whatnot.
    The magic system, especially the way spellweavers have to get creative at times to cast spells.
    The societies of the non-human races.

    ...I dunno, I just liked pretty much all the ideas in it. Sometimes I wondered about things, and I definitely sometimes though that Paolini could have taken certain ideas further than he did..mostly when there were moral issues that existed but weren’t explored as much. When I read the series, I read it as food for my imagination. Something I could just go with and where I could explore a reality that was, well..a fantasy.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTakuGifian
    • CommentTimeDec 2nd 2011
     

    That’s true, most of those are good ideas. The problem most anti-fans have with them is that they aren’t Paolini’s ideas. Would you praise an inventor who claimed credit for someone else’s idea? Would you praise a musician who stole someone else’s composition? Would you praise a mathematician who claimed credit for someone else’s proof? Same deal. Paolini is claiming credit for all of these ideas, saying that they are his original ideas, the product of his unique worldview and imagination, when they are not. Not even general w3ays, but highly specific ways. Urgals are just orcs with a different name and a pseudo-Native American tribal culture, the ra’zac are just Ringwraiths with beaks, Shades are just ringwraiths with bad hair, Angela is a Mary-Sue Tom Bombadil insert, the mentally-bonded Riders and Dragons comes straight from Pern, the Riders’ swords are medieval light-sabres, the magic system is directly from Earthsea, and the non-human societies are stock fantasy archetypes played straight and with no significant modification aside from the elvish atheism and vegetarianism, which are more a vessel for the author’s mouthpiece than genuine parts of their culture.

    Back to the raft thing:

    If you have enough weight, then it makes up for the lack of speed.

    The problem there is that enough weight to (relatively) slowly crush through a gate would require solid land and a constant slow pressure to keep it moving forwards at a steady rate without sinking.

    As far as people smashing around, it depends on the speed, weight, and stopping distance again. However, this time, it depends on the weight of each individual person when we talk about the force involved. Also, even if the vessel stops in .1 feet, they might still move a whole foot or two or some number of feet. All these things would reduce the force of impact felt by the soldiers.

    Have you ever personally been in a car crash? Even at a slow speed, even when strapped securely in with airbags and seatbelts and whatnot, even (and especially) when you are braced for impact, they bloody well hurt. You don’t get up and start running around and swinging swords immediately afterwards, you stagger away dazed and unsteady. Unless they were moving at the speed of a slow tank (in which case, they wouldn’t have the speed required to smash through the gate without chemical or animal propulsion), the force of impact would at least stun most of them momentarily.

    Second, have you ever had to stand on a crowded bus with no handholds? Even at slow speeds, stopping suddenly will make people fall over, and because of the number of people, it will be difficult to get back up quickly. Now imagine a bus with 600 people on it, crashing into a house. The people on that bus are going to fall over, be thrown off, and suffer various injuries including concussion, scratches, bruises, possible some broken bones, and so on. And in the tangle of arms and legs, trying to get a sword out without injuring either yourself or others near you is going to be next to impossible. Now imagine all of that while everybody is chest-deep in turbulent water. It’s simply not going to happen. Especially since the guards are on stable dry ground, better armoured and better armed. The guards should have been spearing the rebels like fish while they were still trying to organise themselves.

  16.  

    Story Stuff

    most of those are good ideas. The problem most anti-fans have with them is that they aren’t Paolini’s ideas.

    Note: I said I liked the story, I said nothing about the author.

    Would you praise an inventor who claimed credit for someone else’s idea? Would you praise a musician who stole someone else’s composition? Would you praise a mathematician who claimed credit for someone else’s proof?

    If all the work was another’s, then no. However, I don’t care who invented the computer or if the idea was stolen; that wont stop me from buying one. If the composition was stolen, I still might like it and thus buy it. It doesn’t matter whose proof it is; if I need to use it, then I will. (I don’t know if that’s correct punctuation or not, sorry)

    highly specific ways

    With all due respect. Those aren’t “highly specific” ways.

    medieval light-sabres

    Because they can cut through most things? The only one that seems to be able to cut through anything is Brisingr, which is only while Eragon makes the blade intensely hot. Functionally, the only real lightsabre-like sword is Tinkledeath which is technically named Albitr. Besides, one trait hardly seems to count as plagiarism. Not to mention that, with books, a major part is how everything is strung together.

    Thar be physics in these comments

    If you have enough weight, then it makes up for the lack of speed. (Me)

    The problem there is that enough weight to (relatively) slowly crush through a gate would require solid land and a constant slow pressure to keep it moving forwards at a steady rate without sinking. (Taku)

    Taku: Here is the problem with what you’re saying: How would you know how much weight it would require? Furthermore why would it require solid land and why would it sink? (I’m not actually sure what you meant by “constant slow pressure”)

    (For the sake of not quoting whole paragraphs, this is about the second to last one)
    I have been in a car crash, two actually. In the first, we were stopped and got hit from behind by someone who didn’t see us while going down the road. That one kinda hurt because it threw me forward and I was jerked to a stop by my seat belt. However, in the second car crash I didn’t even make contact with the airbag because we were moving slowly (crossing a street after stopping) and broadsided another car. That accident didn’t hurt a bit, I just got out of the car. Seeing that the other car had rolled over, I ran over to it to see if anything was wrong (other than the vehicle being upside down). Here, it depends on what you define as “slow”. My examples may seem to contradict what you said, but they don’t.

    I wont even get into the fact that bracing for an impact can cause more damage than not.

    Back to speed. “Slow tank”, how slow? You mention a lack of speed again, but how can you know that they wont have enough speed?

    (Last paragraph)
    Again, how slow is slow? 1-10 miles per hour (5/8 -16 kph)? 25mph (40kph)?
    Moving on, we are back to impact forces. YES, if the bus stops suddenly, then the people will shift. However, now you need more information.YES, If a bus moving at highway speeds crashes into a sturdy house, then people are going to end up all over the place with serious (probably mostly fatal) injuries. Even if it isn’t highway speeds, into a house at a sufficient rate of speed will toss people all over each other. BUT, if the bus is barely moving (I’m talking like walking speed here), then it will not toss the people around, merely jerk them a little.

    While we’re using vehicles, think of it this way: If you are traveling at highway speeds (like 50 mph or 80 kph) and you slam on the brakes what happens? You get thrown around (through the windshield, into the airbag, into the seat belt; still thrown). If you are at the same speed and you gradually apply the brakes what happens? You slow down without any jerking around. What was the difference between those two scenarios? The stopping distance . What if you’re barely moving again and slam on the brakes? You jerk a little. What if you’re barely moving and gradually apply the brakes? You don’t jerk. Again, Stopping Distance. How about an 18 wheeler verses a volkswagon beetle at the same highway speed? Which can stop sooner? The beetle. Why? Because it weighs less . Same thing if they were both barely moving.

    Last thing: The book never said the soldiers didn’t get tossed around. In fact, it mentions that Roran got thrown forward on impact, it just doesn’t mention the others (175). Also, at that point the barge was under the wall. All the other people could do was shoot through holes in the ceiling (175).