GCS Vs 12" Cannons

[SteveK]

I've got to eat some humble pie on this one, guys. Last night I realized where I made a mistake in my figures. What I was solving for was the force squared which then led to the square of the acceleration. The actual acceleration is then the square root of the figure I provided. Or 31.622 KM/s^2

Sorry guys.

No problem, unless you are doing it every day most people get rusty at math very quickly.

Thing is, I do do math everyday! This was more a case of simple negligence than being rusty though, I had written F^2 when I did my calculations, I just forgot.

[m52nickerson]

So? Coalition's calculations were for the power required to achieve that feat. Imparting the 6.3E26 J you calulated would naturally take longer than the 9.6E20 J imparted to the moon, regardless of the mass of the object you were accelerating.

That would be true if the torpedo accelerated from 0 to 0.25c in the same amount of time as it took for the duration of impact.

[m52nickerson]

Mass. Lightening.

This could even be part of the "Full Stop" command, where the helm turns off the mass lightneing, causing the full mass of the ship to revert to realspace. If the ship only has 1% of its mass in real space, then turning off the field will cause the ship to have 1% of its original velocity.

No doubt.

Actually, you can put more energy into a KE weapon than what you get out of it. I.e. a 120 mm Sabot penetrator, vs a human. The Sabot penetrator (rough numbers from here) has kinetic energy in Joules ranging from 11.4 MJ to 21.9 MJ. Given that .50 caliber sniper rounds can tear apart a human being, there are very few humans have the ability to stop a fired anti-tank sabot with their body.

The only time you get as much energy on target as you do into the shot is if the target succeeds in stopping the projectile. If the target is too weak (thin or otherwise) the KE shot will just go through. So a KE shot designed to punch into a Cardassian Galor will turn a shuttle or Runabout (and anyone on board) into Swiss cheese, one shot at a time. Given the ranges used in Star Trek, you're better off firing smaller projectiles faster, until you eventually have a particle stream (using the KE of individual hydrogen atoms at near 99% c).

Against fixed fortifications though (i.e. DS9) a KE weapon would make for a useful choice. Against fixed fortifications that are near a planet, it gives the defender a fun choice ('dodge' the shot and let it hit the planet below, or take the hit and be badly damaged).

Mine and Seaforts calculations were both as if the KE round was stopped. Mine specifically because we see torpedoes stopped by shields.

Your particle stream idea is basically what we see in "Survivors" Worf describes the first two shots as "jacketed stream of protons and anti-protons". It was the second two shots, the first almost dropped the shields the second total dropped the shields and did thermal damage to the hull. The visuals show the shots moving slower then light speed and then enveloping the Enterprise. All in all I don't think it was a KE weapon.

[Captain Seafort]

That would be true if the torpedo accelerated from 0 to 0.25c in the same amount of time as it took for the duration of impact.

Wrong - Coalition's calcs were for the effective power output of a GCS. I.e. for an object tho gain the KE you calculated it would take hundreds of years. The power of the impact was never mentioned.

[m52nickerson]

That would be true if the torpedo accelerated from 0 to 0.25c in the same amount of time as it took for the duration of impact.

Wrong - Coalition's calcs were for the effective power output of a GCS. I.e. for an object tho gain the KE you calculated it would take hundreds of years. The power of the impact was never mentioned.

Actually he calculated the Watts I calculated, I mislabeled the 673,628,391 as exajoules. It should have been 673,628,391 exawatts.
The KE for a torpedo of 100kg would be 4,493,775 terajoules. We also know that a torpedo weighting much less could still do more then the 400 GW.

Plus Coalition's calculations does not taking to account of the mass lighting, which would throw the energy needed even lower. While this doe not help my argument, it does point out that the power out put of the E-D engines seems low.

[stitch626]

I'm sorry, but I'm lost. What the heck are you talking about?
At first I was thinking you were talking about photon torpedoes and their kinetic energy, but after seeing "100m torpedo", I'm lost.

[m52nickerson]

I'm sorry, but I'm lost. What the heck are you talking about?
At first I was thinking you were talking about photon torpedoes and their kinetic energy, but after seeing "100m torpedo", I'm lost.

Sorry 100kg, 2m. My mistake. I fixed it.

[Captain Seafort]

Plus Coalition's calculations does not taking to account of the mass lighting, which would throw the energy needed even lower. While this doe not help my argument, it does point out that the power out put of the E-D engines seems low.

Mass lightening only reduces the force the impulse engines are required to exert - conservation of energy means that the rest of it has to come from somewhere.

[Coalition]

Actually he calculated the Watts I calculated, I mislabeled the 673,628,391 as exajoules. It should have been 673,628,391 exawatts.
The KE for a torpedo of 100kg would be 4,493,775 terajoules. We also know that a torpedo weighting much less could still do more then the 400 GW.

Wait, ExaWatts is a continuous power level. Unless it lasts for all eternity, the weapon impact will eventually stop, meaning it lasts for a specific time in seconds. Time in seconds times Wattage equals Joules. Also, I am curious about where you got the 4.493,775 TeraJoules. The only way I can get that is by multiplying 100 kg times the square of .71c (ignoring relativistic effects). My math was:
Joules = 100 kg * 213,000,000 m/s * 213,000,000 m/s (KE = mv²)

Also, it is possible for 1 Joule to generate 400 GW. It just has to take less than 1/400,000,000,000 seconds.

Plus Coalition's calculations does not taking to account of the mass lighting, which would throw the energy needed even lower. While this doe not help my argument, it does point out that the power out put of the E-D engines seems low.

Mass lightening will reduce the energy needed to be put into the torp, but it will also reduce the damage delivered. I.e. if you make the torp 1% of its original mass, it only takes 1% of the original the energy input, but it also only does 1% of the original weapons damage. It works both ways. KE does not let you get more energy out than what you put in.

[stitch626]

Which is why they are explosive, so they can be fast enough to hit their target and still be damaging.

[Tsukiyumi]

Also, it is possible for 1 Joule to generate 400 GW. It just has to take less than 1/400,000,000,000 seconds.

Wait, so if we reverse that equation, how many joules could be generated using 400 GW of power, if said power was over a very short time period?

Or does that not make any sense?

[Coalition]

Wait, so if we reverse that equation, how many joules could be generated using 400 GW of power, if said power was over a very short time period?

Or does that not make any sense?

Watts multiplied by time in seconds = Joules

400 GigaWatts in a thousandth of a second is 400 MJ

Similarly:
20 Watts times thirty seconds = 600 Joules
50 kW times .4 seconds = 20 kJ

Of course, this is basically running numbers, ignoring those little details of the physical structures needed for the process, starting power, peak power, etc.

Stitch - I'd say you are right. The explosive effect means that even if the warhead only gets a glancing blow, most of the warhead will still damage the target. A KE shot that gets a glancing blow will likely punch through the outside or possibly skip off. Trying to steer the projectile means that the farther off course you get, the less energy you will effectively deliver.

KE shots often have to have all their energy generate on-site. I say often because one story had the 'good guys' firing depleted uranium shots, where small pieces of antimatter are kept at the back end of each projectile. The antimatter reacts with some matter (in a controlled fashion), providing power to the power armor suit, and acceleration to the projectile.

[m52nickerson]

Plus Coalition's calculations does not taking to account of the mass lighting, which would throw the energy needed even lower. While this doe not help my argument, it does point out that the power out put of the E-D engines seems low.

Mass lightening only reduces the force the impulse engines are required to exert - conservation of energy means that the rest of it has to come from somewhere.

......that is why when the mass-lightening system is turned off ships slow down.

[m52nickerson]

Wait, ExaWatts is a continuous power level. Unless it lasts for all eternity, the weapon impact will eventually stop, meaning it lasts for a specific time in seconds. Time in seconds times Wattage equals Joules. Also, I am curious about where you got the 4.493,775 TeraJoules. The only way I can get that is by multiplying 100 kg times the square of .71c (ignoring relativistic effects). My math was:
Joules = 100 kg * 213,000,000 m/s * 213,000,000 m/s (KE = mv²)

Also, it is possible for 1 Joule to generate 400 GW. It just has to take less than 1/400,000,000,000 seconds.

I used KE=0.5mv² that gave the joules, the Watts joules divided by the time of impact, which is the time it took the torpedo to travel its length.

Mass lightening will reduce the energy needed to be put into the torp, but it will also reduce the damage delivered. I.e. if you make the torp 1% of its original mass, it only takes 1% of the original the energy input, but it also only does 1% of the original weapons damage. It works both ways. KE does not let you get more energy out than what you put in.

I understand that, but even a 1kg object traveling at 0.25c would generated exawatts of power on impact.

[m52nickerson]

Wait, so if we reverse that equation, how many joules could be generated using 400 GW of power, if said power was over a very short time period?

Or does that not make any sense?

Since Watts = Joules/time the opposite would be Joules = Watts X Time.

As time decreases Joules will also decrease.