Talk:Hypermatter

From Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki.

Any chances of some sources for this? --62.253.128.12 21:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Usage

What ships use hypermatter reactors?Kadas'sa'Nikto 21:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Kadas'sa'Nikto