www.ditl.org

Thorin wrote:Strange, considering I'd worked out the energies needed to be around 10^21 J for a 5km asteroid, not even the newer 10km one.

You used figures for vapourising the asteroid - Riker's suggestion was to "destroy" it. You can destroy an asteroid by fragmenting it, so that would be the best approach - avoiding uncessary inflation of the event unsupported by the canon. Indeed, in Voyager's "Rise", when they expected to vapourise an asteroid, they used the term "vapourise", not "destroy". The value obtained by using fragmentation figures also fits quite well with the numbers given in "The Dauphin", "The Survivors" and "Battle Lines".

Captain Seafort wrote:

Thorin wrote:Strange, considering I'd worked out the energies needed to be around 10^21 J for a 5km asteroid, not even the newer 10km one.

You used figures for vapourising the asteroid - Riker's suggestion was to "destroy" it. You can destroy an asteroid by fragmenting it, so that would be the best approach - avoiding uncessary inflation of the event unsupported by the canon. Indeed, in Voyager's "Rise", when they expected to vapourise an asteroid, they used the term "vapourise", not "destroy". The value obtained by using fragmentation figures also fits quite well with the numbers given in "The Dauphin", "The Survivors" and "Battle Lines".

All of which have no relation with a photon torpedo, but rather particle beams and shields. Hmmm...

And again, my picture has been ignored. I'm going to start a count now.

Tera is the SI prefix for 10^12, or one trillion. A terawatt is therefore one trillion watts. It was stated that this is "more power than out entire ship [the E-D] can generate". Therefore the total usable power of a GCS is less than one tera watt

Wow, I just looked up the context of this phrase and you left out a very vital part! It was talking about communications - clearly the ship can't carry communications with 1 TW of power behind them, or can't even create 1 TW of "communicative-power".

Wrong. We know that Data claimed that the E-D can generate 12.75 billion gigawatts per [something, maybe second]. The demonstrates that either a) only one millionth of that power can be usd by the ship's systems. The rest would probably have been lost in process of converting from mass to energy, transfering that energy to the EPS system, and transferring the energy through the ship to the point of use. It's also possible that most of the energy went to the warp nacelles (the most luminous objects on the ship), and Riker was discounting the energy sent there. Option b) is that Data is an idiot and was spouting nonsense.

Wrong. Riker was talking about communications systems unable to produce 1 TW.

Occam's Razor - don't introduce uncessesary complexity to a theory. Option a) is that 400 GW hit the shields and overwhelmed them. Option b) is that 400 GW of energy hit the shields, and some technobabble effect caused the shields to fall. The Razor favours option a.

I really couldn't care less about the power that a particle beam did against the Enterprise's shields. And I'm not making it more complicated - just trying to fit it in against contradicted material such as that in the Dyson Sphere, where the Enterprise absorbs 900,000 terajoules (see this article).

Thorin wrote:All of which have no relation with a photon torpedo, but rather particle beams and shields. Hmmm...

Energy is energy. It's irrelevent where it came from. A GCS's shields were knocked down by a 400GW shot, a runabout was shot down by a 1GW shot. Ships ghave shown the ability to withstand multiple PT impacts. Therfore PT must by far less than the 60 MT figures you're using.

And again, my picture has been ignored. I'm going to start a count now.

Which part of "you can't mesure yield from the detonation flash" was unclear"?

Wow, I just looked up the context of this phrase and you left out a very vital part! It was talking about communications - clearly the ship can't carry communications with 1 TW of power behind them, or can't even create 1 TW of "communicative-power".

Where did Riker even mention comms? "The signal is comming from a terawatt source on the planet." "That's more power than our entire ship can generate." Not "our entire communication system" - "our entire ship". Moreover, it was never said that the power of the signal was 1 TW, merely that it originated from a terawatt source - indicating that it was being sent from a location with a power source of that strength, a military base, for example.

I really couldn't care less about the power that a particle beam did against the Enterprise's shields. And I'm not making it more complicated - just trying to fit it in against contradicted material such as that in the Dyson Sphere, where the Enterprise absorbs 900,000 terajoules (see this article).

Your source indicates a limit of 67,000 TJ over three hours - or 6.2 TW. An order of magnitude greater than the "Survivors" figure, but still nowhere near your multi-MT claims. Thanks for tht.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Energy is energy. It's irrelevent where it came from. A GCS's shields were knocked down by a 400GW shot, a runabout was shot down by a 1GW shot. Ships ghave shown the ability to withstand multiple PT impacts. Therfore PT must by far less than the 60 MT figures you're using.

Why? I have no idea about a runabout, but that 400 GW is perfectly capable of having the ability to do special damage to shields.

Which part of "you can't mesure yield from the detonation flash" was unclear"?

I'm nearly laughing. You CAN measure yield from the detonation flash. What part of that don't you understand? I'll presume I won't get any answer regarding this until you concede, and I doubt you will even when presented with hard facts such as this and this. The second link provides nearly exact answers as to how blast, thermal effects, and radiation is proportional to yield. So again, what part of "you can't measure yield from detonation flash" is wrong, isn't clear?

Where did Riker even mention comms? "The signal is comming from a terawatt source on the planet." "That's more power than our entire ship can generate." Not "our entire communication system" - "our entire ship". Moreover, it was never said that the power of the signal was 1 TW, merely that it originated from a terawatt source - indicating that it was being sent from a location with a power source of that strength, a military base, for example.

Data: "Sir, sensors indicate the communication originated from a terawatt source on the planet."
Riker: "That's more power than our entire ship can generate."
Data: "It is what is needed to penetrate the atmosphere."

...Don't try too hard to distorte the facts. A terawatt communication system is needed to penetrate the atmosphere. That is beyond the Enterprise's capabilities. The Enterprise is unable to send a communication with the power of 1 TW. We know that the galaxy class ship has a total power output of 12.75 million terawatts. Cannon without doubt.

Your source indicates a limit of 67,000 TJ over three hours - or 6.2 TW. An order of magnitude greater than the "Survivors" figure, but still nowhere near your multi-MT claims. Thanks for tht.

I don't know if you're actually joking or not. Shields are measured in joules, not joules per second. Otherwise the shields would be getting stronger by x joules every single second. The shields absorbed 900,000 TJ (it doesn't matter over how long), without any recharge. So the minimum strength of the shields is 900,000 TJ. 67,000 TJ is if the altitude is measured from the centre of the sun, but altitude is always measured from the surface (or do we have standard cruising height at 5007 miles instead of 7 miles?). And as you seem to accept that article as reasonably accurate - judging by your thanks of it, I'd assume you've read the conclusion which gives a nice 5.4 million terajoules for the shield capacity. Seems I'm not the only one who disagrees with you.

Thorin wrote:Why? I have no idea about a runabout, but that 400 GW is perfectly capable of having the ability to do special damage to shields.

Why do you assume that it must have some sort of technobabble effect? As I've already pointed out, that violates Occam's Razor.

I'm nearly laughing. You CAN measure yield from the detonation flash. What part of that don't you understand? I'll presume I won't get any answer regarding this until you concede, and I doubt you will even when presented with hard facts such as this and this. The second link provides nearly exact answers as to how blast, thermal effects, and radiation is proportional to yield. So again, what part of "you can't measure yield from detonation flash" is wrong, isn't clear?

You're talking about the fact that the extent of the fireball and the thermal effects can be used to calaculate a given yield. I'm talking about the actual flash of the detonation - which is what we must have seen.

...Don't try too hard to distorte the facts. A terawatt communication system is needed to penetrate the atmosphere. That is beyond the Enterprise's capabilities. The Enterprise is unable to send a communication with the power of 1 TW. We know that the galaxy class ship has a total power output of 12.75 million terawatts. Cannon without doubt.

It does appear that the communication from the planet was itself in the terawatt range. Nonetheless, Riker did not say "our entire communications system" he said "our entire ship" - a GCS cannot therefore generate 1 TW of power. This is further supported my "The Masterpiece Society", where Geordi states that the warp core "kicks plasma up into the Terawatt range" - not the exawatt range which would be required for your 12.75 billion gigawatt number to be correct. Once more, that number is not canon - what is canon is that Data, who has been wrong on such simple issues as the surface area of a sphere and whether a small asteroid has dangerous gravitational or EM fields, claimed that it could put out that much power.

I don't know if you're actually joking or not. Shields are measured in joules, not joules per second. Otherwise the shields would be getting stronger by x joules every single second. The shields absorbed 900,000 TJ (it doesn't matter over how long), without any recharge. So the minimum strength of the shields is 900,000 TJ. 67,000 TJ is if the altitude is measured from the centre of the sun, but altitude is always measured from the surface (or do we have standard cruising height at 5007 miles instead of 7 miles?). And as you seem to accept that article as reasonably accurate - judging by your thanks of it, I'd assume you've read the conclusion which gives a nice 5.4 million terajoules for the shield capacity. Seems I'm not the only one who disagrees with you.

*sighs* Given the altitude the Enterprise was at, its shields would absorb 67000 TJ over the three hours in question - your claim that they would absorb less energy at a lower altitude is laughable. This works out as 6.2 TW.

Captain Seafort wrote: Why do you assume that it must have some sort of technobabble effect? As I've already pointed out, that violates Occam's Razor.

Because more evidence points to the fact that the shields are far stronger than 400 GJ. That is feebly weak, and have seen far more times that shields can stand bigger hits than that.

You're talking about the fact that the extent of the fireball and the thermal effects can be used to calaculate a given yield. I'm talking about the actual flash of the detonation - which is what we must have seen.

I really must assume that you just don't know what infra-red radiation and visible light is then, because they are both photonic/electromagnetic radiation that travel together, and thus both the thermal effects and "flash"/initial visible light go hand in hand. You CAN tell the yield from the light that is immediately given off. They travel at the speed of light, by the way.

It does appear that the communication from the planet was itself in the terawatt range. Nonetheless, Riker did not say "our entire communications system" he said "our entire ship" - a GCS cannot therefore generate 1 TW of power. This is further supported my "The Masterpiece Society", where Geordi states that the warp core "kicks plasma up into the Terawatt range" - not the exawatt range which would be required for your 12.75 billion gigawatt number to be correct. Once more, that number is not canon - what is canon is that Data, who has been wrong on such simple issues as the surface area of a sphere and whether a small asteroid has dangerous gravitational or EM fields, claimed that it could put out that much power.

He did not say our entire communication system, but why would he? They were talking about commicative systems all the time in that brief conversation - he wouldn't need to repeat it that he was talking about the conversations. The communication of 1 TW is more power than the entire ship can generate for the communication systems. Very simple. Your response that Data was talking crap is ridiculous - talk about trying to change things to fit your belief. If the ship produces less than 1 TW of power 360 years from now, then why the hell are they use matter/anti-matter systems? Why not use a nuclear reactor? I'll just also assume you don't know what plasma is considering you have no idea how it works - putting it up in the TW range (which is more than your original claim that the GCS can produce less than 1 TW - contradicting yourself in the same sentence now?). So you think that the ship can generate less than 1 TW of power to warp space-time and power every system on a starship, but with that 1 TW of power can make plasme with energies over 1 TW?
The 12.75 million terawatt number is not mine, and it is cannon. Oh - hang on, if we're resorting to saying Data is spouting rubish, then I'll just say whatever you disagree with me on, is actually a holodeck simulation and you are wrong. In fact, let's just say everything everyone says is wrong and leave it at that? Really resorting to things like that is absurd. It isn't cannon...

*sighs* Given the altitude the Enterprise was at, its shields would absorb 67000 TJ over the three hours in question - your claim that they would absorb less energy at a lower altitude is laughable. This works out as 6.2 TW.

I'm not sure what's happened in that article, it's been worked out from the centre twice, I think wording must be wrong somewhere.
But even 67,000 TJ - yes the ship absorbs 6.2 TW of power, but that doesn't make the ship's shields have 6.2 TW. If they can absorb 67,000 TJ of energy, it doesn't matter if it's over 3 hours, or one second. The rate of absorbtion doesn't matter, just how much it can. But even this 6.2 TW figure - pray, do tell - how does a ship that can only create less than 1 TW of power make shields of strength 6.2 TW and make plasma have temperatures and ionisation energies of over 1 TW? You contradict yourself in the same posts just to try and make each point work, when realistically none of them do! And that article also states a shield capacity of 5 million Terajoules - you seem to only want to accept some facts from it but not others?

And preferably, if you're going to respond, I'd like a proper response to the picture of the blast/flash, as we can tell yield from this "flash", as you call it, as it equates to the "thermal effects", which can be worked out from the links I have previously given you.

If Riker was talking purely about communications, why did he specify that it was more power than "the ENTIRE SHIP" could generate? Whay not simply say that "that's a far more powerful signal than we can generate" or something similar. He was clearly refering to the ships entire usable power output.

Data talking crap is an established part of canon. Deal with it. The fact that he tried to describe power output in units of watts per something proves that he was talking crap in this scene - the only possible dispute is whether his numbers were wrong as well.

Thermal radiation and visible light are different things, because of their different frequencies. If a nuclear device were to go off within dozens of miles of a person, the flash would fill the entire sky. That doesn't mean that everything is sight would ignite due to thermal radiation.

Finally, how does "the shields have a capacity of 6.2 TW" = "the shields have 6.2 TW of power running through them"? A lump of metal can withstand thermal energy - does it have a power source? The fact that a GCS can withstand TW-level thermal and radiation bombardment from a star, but only 400 GW of "particle energy" (presumably KE) must indicate some difference in the way they handle the kinetic impacts.

As for the difference between "The Masterpiece Society" and "The Dauphin", they're obviously measuring the power output at different points along the power distribution tree, and the difference can be easilly explained as inefficiencies in the system.

Captain Seafort wrote:If Riker was talking purely about communications, why did he specify that it was more power than "the ENTIRE SHIP" could generate? Whay not simply say that "that's a far more powerful signal than we can generate" or something similar. He was clearly refering to the ships entire usable power output.

Because it's easier to say "that's more power than our ship can generate", than saying "that's more powerful than we can put into any communication", when Data both before and after talked about communications anyway! He was not referring to the entire ship's usable energy, as you have said yourself - it has used more than that in plasma and shields.

Data talking crap is an established part of canon. Deal with it. The fact that he tried to describe power output in units of watts per something proves that he was talking crap in this scene - the only possible dispute is whether his numbers were wrong as well.

His numbers weren't wrong. If he said it then it's cannon. Because he said watts per something means it's rubish? How about 12.75 billion gigawatts per 50 cubic metres of warp core? Or 12.75 billion gigawatts per warp core? Or 12.75 billion gigawatts per plasma relay extruding from the warpcore? How very outrageous!

Thermal radiation and visible light are different things, because of their different frequencies. If a nuclear device were to go off within dozens of miles of a person, the flash would fill the entire sky. That doesn't mean that everything is sight would ignite due to thermal radiation.

Okay now I really know you don't know how electro-magnetic radiation works. Infra-red radiation is HEAT, visible light radiation is LIGHT. They travel at the same speed - different frequencies changes the wavelength and energies involved, not the speed. And it DOES mean everything in sight would ignit due to thermal radiation. You don't know what it means! If you were within the "flash" of a nuclear blast, then you would be in the thermal radiation of the nuclear blast, and be incinerated. That is thermal effects. Flash = visible light = thermal radiation = heat blast. They all travel at the same speed.

Finally, how does "the shields have a capacity of 6.2 TW" = "the shields have 6.2 TW of power running through them"? A lump of metal can withstand thermal energy - does it have a power source? The fact that a GCS can withstand TW-level thermal and radiation bombardment from a star, but only 400 GW of "particle energy" (presumably KE) must indicate some difference in the way they handle the kinetic impacts.

Yes, it must indicate they handle them different ways! Obviously the 400 GW energy does some unknown damage to the shields! Just like Dominion weapons do. And a Borg Tractor beam. "A lump of metal can withstand thermal energy - does it have a power source?" No. But it has absorbed that thermal energy and so is able to withstand that energy without "breaking down". Just as the shields must have absorbed 67,000 TJ without "breaking down". Meaning they must have an initial energy of over 67,000 TJ - and probably far exceeds this due to the fact that the shields were only at some fraction of their total capacity. That article, again, states 5 million terajoules - an article which you were all too willing to accept the numbers from.

As for the difference between "The Masterpiece Society" and "The Dauphin", they're obviously measuring the power output at different points along the power distribution tree, and the difference can be easilly explained as inefficiencies in the system.

Tell me, then, how a warpcore with a power output of less than 1 TW, can give plasma energies and temperatures of over 1 TW? Even 1 joule. Energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed. The must fundamental law of physics.

Wow this is so cool. Two people going at it who aren't Rochey and I.

I know, weird.

Thorin wrote:His numbers weren't wrong. If he said it then it's cannon. Because he said watts per something means it's rubish? How about 12.75 billion gigawatts per 50 cubic metres of warp core? Or 12.75 billion gigawatts per warp core? Or 12.75 billion gigawatts per plasma relay extruding from the warpcore? How very outrageous!

Wrong. It is canon that DATA CLAIMED THAT THOSE NUMBERS WERE CORRECT. Data also claimed that the surface area of the Dyson Sphere (diametre 200 million km) was "ten to the sixteenth power square km" - he got it wrong by an order of magnitude. Must this figure must also be correct, despite being demonstrably wrong? He also claimed that the Pegasus asteroid could produce dangerous EM or gravitation fields - impossible for such a small inert lump of rock. Must this be correct desipte being refuted by the laws of physics?

Yes, it must indicate they handle them different ways! Obviously the 400 GW energy does some unknown damage to the shields!

Such as KE, or momentum? It may be similar to modern materials with have great thermal resistance but poor resilience to physical impacts. Take the heat tiles on the space shuttle for example - they can withstand great temperatures, but can have a hole punched in them by a lump of foam.

"A lump of metal can withstand thermal energy - does it have a power source?" No. But it has absorbed that thermal energy and so is able to withstand that energy without "breaking down". Just as the shields must have absorbed 67,000 TJ without "breaking down". Meaning they must have an initial energy of over 67,000 TJ - and probably far exceeds this due to the fact that the shields were only at some fraction of their total capacity. That article, again, states 5 million terajoules - an article which you were all too willing to accept the numbers from.

Wrong. The figure demonstrates that the Enterprise's weakened shields must be able to dump energy into space at 6.2TW, and can sustain this for three hours. Whether full-power shields could dump energy at a higher rate, or whether they could sustain the same rate for longer is debatable. Accepting the Maths in the article is different from accepting the assumptions therein - the 5 million TJ figure assumes, not only that altitude is measured from the centre of the star, but increases even that observed energy by amost 40% for some reason that makes no sense to me.

Tell me, then, how a warpcore with a power output of less than 1 TW, can give plasma energies and temperatures of over 1 TW?

*bangs head on desk*

As anyone without a resonant cavity between their ears would understand, I was refering to the fact that the warp core can "kick plasma up into the Terawatt range", but the total power available at the point of use is less than 1 TW. Not the other way round. The rest would be lost, mostly through waste heat, in the process of carrying it from the warp core to the point of use.

Captain Seafort wrote: Wrong. It is canon that DATA CLAIMED THAT THOSE NUMBERS WERE CORRECT. Data also claimed that the surface area of the Dyson Sphere (diametre 200 million km) was "ten to the sixteenth power square km" - he got it wrong by an order of magnitude. Must this figure must also be correct, despite being demonstrably wrong? He also claimed that the Pegasus asteroid could produce dangerous EM or gravitation fields - impossible for such a small inert lump of rock. Must this be correct desipte being refuted by the laws of physics?

Wrong. If it is said on screen and nothing contradicts it, it's cannon. Nothing does.

Such as KE, or momentum? It may be similar to modern materials with have great thermal resistance but poor resilience to physical impacts. Take the heat tiles on the space shuttle for example - they can withstand great temperatures, but can have a hole punched in them by a lump of foam.

Precisely - but I thought you disagreed?

Wrong. The figure demonstrates that the Enterprise's weakened shields must be able to dump energy into space at 6.2TW, and can sustain this for three hours. Whether full-power shields could dump energy at a higher rate, or whether they could sustain the same rate for longer is debatable. Accepting the Maths in the article is different from accepting the assumptions therein - the 5 million TJ figure assumes, not only that altitude is measured from the centre of the star, but increases even that observed energy by amost 40% for some reason that makes no sense to me.

Strange how you no longer like the numbers when they disagree with you. The Enterprise must be able to dump 67,000 TJ into space at any point. Cannon. So the warpcore must provide more energy than that. And it does. 12.75 billion gigawatts, to be exact.

*bangs head on desk*

As anyone without a resonant cavity between their ears would understand, I was refering to the fact that the warp core can "kick plasma up into the Terawatt range", but the total power available at the point of use is less than 1 TW. Not the other way round. The rest would be lost, mostly through waste heat, in the process of carrying it from the warp core to the point of use.

I have no idea what you're even saying.
Plasma takes over 1 TW of power from the warpcore
Warp core creates less than 1 TW of power.

Please explaim to me how this works?

You also didn't respond to how the "watts per..." could have worked out, and, once again, how you can tell the yield of a bomb by it's blast/flash/radiation/thermal output! Surprise surprise.

Also another point, in Voyager - Revulsion (the episode), a relay or conduit was conducting 1000 terawatts of power. And this wasn't total output of the warpcore. Meaning an absolute minimum of 1000 terawatts from a Intrepid Class warpcore. And probably well in excess, considering it was a great deal faster than the Galaxy Class.
A Galaxy Class ship has a minimum warpcore output of 12.75 million terawatts. Cannon. Fits in with the energy produced by matter/anti-matter. Fits in with weapons estimates, and with the power in various systems around the ship.

Thorin wrote:Wrong. If it is said on screen and nothing contradicts it, it's cannon. Nothing does.

Other than Riker's and La Forge's statements of usable power and warp core output. Quite apart from the fact that "canon that a character said something" =/= "character is right". Data has been wrong about simple surface area calcs and the existance of EM fields in an inert lump of lock.

Strange how you no longer like the numbers when they disagree with you. The Enterprise must be able to dump 67,000 TJ into space at any point. Cannon. So the warpcore must provide more energy than that. And it does. 12.75 billion gigawatts, to be exact.

Wrong. The space shuttle's heat tiles can re-radiate heat. They can't generate power.

I have no idea what you're even saying.
Plasma takes over 1 TW of power from the warpcore
Warp core creates less than 1 TW of power.

Warp core produces power.
Warp core transfers power to plasma.
Plasma transfers power to systems.

At each point at which power is transfered some will be lost to inefficiencies.

You also didn't respond to how the "watts per..." could have worked out, and, once again, how you can tell the yield of a bomb by it's blast/flash/radiation/thermal output! Surprise surprise.

You can calculate the yield from the blast. You can calculate the yield from the effects of thermal radiation. You cannot calculate yield from the flash - it will appear to be far larger than it actually is, as I've already explaned with the sun-on-windscreen analogy.

A Galaxy Class ship has a minimum warpcore output of 12.75 million terawatts.

Liar. Quite apart from the dubious provenence of the statement, the level the MARC was operating at at the time was never stated, therefore the number is an upper limit.

Fits in with the energy produced by matter/anti-matter.

True. So does the 1 TW figure. Or a 1 mW figure for that matter. It depends on the quantity of the reactants.

Fits in with weapons estimates, and with the power in various systems around the ship.

Evidence? We've seen GCS shields knocked down by mid-GW weapons and runabouts shot down by high-MW weapons.

I don't claim to be nearly intelligent to choose a side in this, but I have a quick question. Thorin - you seem to assume, as one of your tenets, that the CAPACITY of the shields is equivalent to the power the shield generators produce, or are supplied with. My body, for example, produces zero "shield power" yet I have lain in the sun a lot and resisted EM radiation. In any decent bit of fantasy technology, the shields should have a capacity many times the power they draw, no? Where does the idea come from that shield capacity must equal shield power supplied or generated?

Mikey wrote:I don't claim to be nearly intelligent to choose a side in this, but I have a quick question. Thorin - you seem to assume, as one of your tenets, that the CAPACITY of the shields is equivalent to the power the shield generators produce, or are supplied with. My body, for example, produces zero "shield power" yet I have lain in the sun a lot and resisted EM radiation. In any decent bit of fantasy technology, the shields should have a capacity many times the power they draw, no? Where does the idea come from that shield capacity must equal shield power supplied or generated?

You do not have internal shield production abilities?

I would think that if the energy of the weapon hitting the shield was the same, but negative, as the energy the shield is made from, it would be a 1:1 ratio. However, if they are not the EXACT same kind of energy, there could be almost any ratio you can think of.

Sort of like how in the sw/st crossover story on here... the sw lasers had very little effect on navigational deflectors, but did effect regular shields.