Because we must assume the most simple thing of "if you can absorb x amount of energy, you must have an energy of at least x". Why this differs is because a shield is energy. I think everyone really agrees that absorbing a certain amount of energy means that's (at least) how much energy it has. Your body may be able to absorb EM radiation, but that's just like the hull. That doesn't have 30 billion gigajoules or whatever, but it can still withstand a certain amount of energy. You can define how strong a hull is by it's thickness, latent heat capacity/latent heat of vapourisation/melting, density etc etc. For shields, you must do it by energy. It is a ball of energy, and we must assume that the energy the sheilds have, as how much it can withstand/absorb.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?
The fact that there's nothing contradicting it makes it cannon. Riker was taking about communications.Captain Seafort wrote: 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.
If they can re-radiate heat then they are generating power. Heat = energy.Wrong. The space shuttle's heat tiles can re-radiate heat. They can't generate power.
But you said that the warp core produces power less than 1 TW.Warp core produces power.
Warp core transfers power to plasma.
Plasma transfers power to systems.
Again, how has the plasma got more power in it than the warpcore can produce? If, according to you, a GCS warpcore can only produce less than 1 TW?At each point at which power is transfered some will be lost to inefficiencies.
The flash we see on the screen is that of the thermal effects. I really am beginning to doubt whether you know what electromagnetic radiation is. As we see the edges of this flash, it is the thermal radiation setting things on fire. It can't be anything else. Let me describe it as simply as possible - for a nuclear bomb.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.
Nothing dubious what so ever. It's cannon. You're making things up now. I don't even know what the hell a MARC is. The number is also a lower limit. As it can produce at least that while stood still in orbit. At warp 9.6 it could probably make even more.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.
1 TW figure means 0.00556 grams of anti-matter is reacting with 0.00556 of matter every second. That's 175 KG of anti matter to power the ship for a year. Why do they need they so much anti-matter storage for this? It fits in far better for several tens of kilograms going into the warpcore. And the fact that we know for certain the warpcore was creating 12.75 million terawatts of power makes it cannon.True. So does the 1 TW figure. Or a 1 mW figure for that matter. It depends on the quantity of the reactants.
Because of the yield of a photon torpedo - it can be seen on the pictures I have previously given.Evidence? We've seen GCS shields knocked down by mid-GW weapons and runabouts shot down by high-MW weapons.
Are we sure that the shields must absorb all the energy directed at them, and not merely deflect/redirect some or all of it?Thorin wrote:It is a ball of energy, and we must assume that the energy the sheilds have, as how much it can withstand/absorb.
No. But we're not 100% sure of anything in ST, are we? Just got to go with what fits best.Mikey wrote:To be fair, modern RL thermobaric weapons produce a rather small visible blast in relation to the area and sterngth of effect, so you wouldn't be able to judge the efficacy of such a detonation from simple visual observance.
Are we sure that the shields must absorb all the energy directed at them, and not merely deflect/redirect some or all of it?Thorin wrote:It is a ball of energy, and we must assume that the energy the sheilds have, as how much it can withstand/absorb.
Simple - they fuel their ships for their entire operational lives, just as modern nuclear submarines are. This is supported by the fact that we never heard a single mention of replenishing Voyager's antimatter supply over the seven years of that series, despite repeatedly hearing of the need to replenish the deuterium supply.Thorin wrote:The fact that there's nothing contradicting it makes it cannon. Riker was taking about communications.[/quote
Wrong. He specified the ENTIRE ship. Not just the communications system.
If they can re-radiate heat then they are generating power. Heat = energy.[/quote
Then where, pray tell, is the power generator?
Lets try again shall we? I'll make it even easier this time since that resonant cavity of yours obviously had trouble keeping up.But you said that the warp core produces power less than 1 TW.
How can this transfer the power to the plasma of over 1 TW?!?!
Again, how has the plasma got more power in it than the warpcore can produce? If, according to you, a GCS warpcore can only produce less than 1 TW?
Power is produced in the MARC (TW-range, per La Forge in "Masterpiece Society")
Power is transfered through the ship in the for of plasma. While this is happening power is being lost in the form of waste heat.
Power gets to the point at which it can be used. By this stage there is less than one TW left (per Riker, "The Dauphin")
Is that simple enough for you?
The flash of light is visible for much further than the thermal effects are felt. For example the Tungusta explosion light up the sky in Britain, despite occuring in Siberia. That was a 2 Mt blast. The twinkling little light in "Skin of Evil" did not light up half a planet.*snip EM stuff*
Lower limit? If the E-D had been producing that much power it would have been radiating that much to its environment in some way. You simply don't need that much to orbit a planet (or any for that matter). The E-D wasn't glowing like a light bulb, so it must have either been engaged in some high-energy operation (which we were never told about), or Data was talking rot again. Since the number is several orders of magnitude higher than the numbers La Forge and Riker mentioned, the latter seems most likly.Nothing dubious what so ever. It's cannon. You're making things up now. I don't even know what the hell a MARC is. The number is also a lower limit. As it can produce at least that while stood still in orbit. At warp 9.6 it could probably make even more.
1 TW figure means 0.00556 grams of anti-matter is reacting with 0.00556 of matter every second. That's 175 KG of anti matter to power the ship for a year. Why do they need they so much anti-matter storage for this?
Because it was so obvious they were already talking about communications - both before and after what Data said.Captain Seafort wrote: Wrong. He specified the ENTIRE ship. Not just the communications system.
They aren't generating it in a convential sense. Anything that gives off heat is giving off energy/power.
What the hell is the MARC? You said that the entire ship can generate only 1 TW (Lets try again shall we? I'll make it even easier this time since that resonant cavity of yours obviously had trouble keeping up.
Power is produced in the MARC (TW-range, per La Forge in "Masterpiece Society")
Power is transfered through the ship in the for of plasma. While this is happening power is being lost in the form of waste heat.
Power gets to the point at which it can be used. By this stage there is less than one TW left (per Riker, "The Dauphin")
Is that simple enough for you?
). Not after ineffeciencies. Taking Riker literally, as you like to be doing quite too much, he says more power than the ship can generate. If it can kick plasma up in the TW range, it can generate more power than 1 TW. Riker doesn't say "That's more power than the entire of the ship could generate after taking out various ineffeciencies!" Oh-uh, what to do? Backfired!Thermal effects still go that far, whether they're felt or not. "Twinkling"The flash of light is visible for much further than the thermal effects are felt. For example the Tungusta explosion light up the sky in Britain, despite occuring in Siberia. That was a 2 Mt blast. The twinkling little light in "Skin of Evil" did not light up half a planet.
My analysis; calculations, cannon data, comparisons with nuclear blasts, matter/anti-matter energiesLower limit? If the E-D had been producing that much power it would have been radiating that much to its environment in some way. You simply don't need that much to orbit a planet (or any for that matter). The E-D wasn't glowing like a light bulb, so it must have either been engaged in some high-energy operation (which we were never told about), or Data was talking rot again. Since the number is several orders of magnitude higher than the numbers La Forge and Riker mentioned, the latter seems most likly.
Because they make anti-deuterium from... Wait for it!!! DUETERIUM!Simple - they fuel their ships for their entire operational lives, just as modern nuclear submarines are. This is supported by the fact that we never heard a single mention of replenishing Voyager's antimatter supply over the seven years of that series, despite repeatedly hearing of the need to replenish the deuterium supply.
Thorin wrote:Because it was so obvious they were already talking about communications - both before and after what Data said.Captain Seafort wrote: Wrong. He specified the ENTIRE ship. Not just the communications system.
In other words it isn't generating power. Concession accepted.They aren't generating it in a convential sense. Anything that gives off heat is giving off energy/power.
MARC - Matter/Antimatter Reaction Chamber.What the hell is the MARC? You said that the entire ship can generate only 1 TW (
Thermal effects still go that far, whether they're felt or not. "Twinkling"The flash of light is visible for much further than the thermal effects are felt. For example the Tungusta explosion light up the sky in Britain, despite occuring in Siberia. That was a 2 Mt blast. The twinkling little light in "Skin of Evil" did not light up half a planet.
Which was why the process was mentioned it so often in Voyager. Oh. Wait.
And a thermal boundary would have an exact perimetre why exactly? Are you claiming that all materials have the same ingition point? If that was a high megaton explosion it would have been a lot brighter than that - as I've pointed out, the Tungusta event (~2Mt) was visible from almost the other side of the planet.
My analysis: Data's rather poor track record, the impossibility of "watts per" anything as a unit of power.My analysis; calculations, cannon data, comparisons with nuclear blasts, matter/anti-matter energies
Your analysis: Data talks crap
Your analysis: Data must be right, strships must consume huge amounts of power while sittng doing nothing.
Because they make anti-deuterium from... Wait for it!!! DUETERIUM!
Riker was talking about the communications systems. As we know already that the warpcore can produce far, far, far more than 1 TW of power.Captain Seafort wrote:[
Again, ENTIRE ship. Yes, Data was talking about communications. Riker was talking about the entire ship. Which was why he used that exact phrase.
You obviously don't know that energy isn't created, it is converted. All power generators convert it from one form (generally heat [burning stuff], kinetic energy [steam], then electricity). Generators don't actually generate energy. The most fundemental law of physics.In other words it isn't generating power. Concession accepted.
Riker was describing the communications. As Data makes clear. And Terawatt range could mean thousands of terawatts, anyway. And the fact that we don't actually know exactly what he means by that. As plasma is just an ionised gas. We don't know if its 2 TW for the entire plasma on the ship, or a 1,000,000 TW per 1 KG or plasma. So it's hardly even relevant. Apart from the warpcore must give of an absolute minimum of 1+ TW, based off just what Laforge said. But Data says 12.75 billion gigawatts, so we know that's the minimum.
MARC - Matter/Antimatter Reaction Chamber.
And the point of being able to produce all this power if you can't use it is what exactly? La Forge was describing the main reactor, Riker was describing the capabilities of the ship.
That's just refraction/reflection through the air of the earth. The thermal boundary must be where it becomes hot enough to set anything on fire/kill humans (according to that link on high yield weapons that I gave earlier). Seeing a 2MT explosion from the other side of the planet is perfectly reasonable - due to the light refracting/reflecting all the way round. In space, you'd see what every came directly at you. That blast is the thermal effects.
And a thermal boundary would have an exact perimetre why exactly? Are you claiming that all materials have the same ingition point? If that was a high megaton explosion it would have been a lot brighter than that - as I've pointed out, the Tungusta event (~2Mt) was visible from almost the other side of the planet.
The impossibility of watts per anything? Wow, again, ignorance is bliss, eh? It could be "Watts per plasma relay" or "Watts per 50kg of anti-matter", or anything of the like. Definitely doesn't invalidate it. At all. My analysis has contained various mathematical things. Yours revolves around Data talking rubish.My analysis: Data's rather poor track record, the impossibility of "watts per" anything as a unit of power.
Your analysis: Data must be right, strships must consume huge amounts of power while sittng doing nothing.
Why on earth would it need to be mentioned? How else do they make anti-dueterium?Which was why the process was mentioned it so often in Voyager. Oh. Wait.
What fits best is a system which is designed to deflect energy, not absorb it. The idea of having a system which most continuously equal or exceed the power of an incoming attack, rather than just deflect it, is the height of lunacy.Thorin wrote:No. But we're not 100% sure of anything in ST, are we? Just got to go with what fits best.
What?! What exactly is the thermal effect of the detonation igniting? Are you saying that it is safe to assume that the planet in question has an inflammable atmosphere? Then why didn't we see the whole planet engulfed in a flaming corona?Thorin wrote:The thermal effects is the 'blast' that we see on that picture. It's clearly travelling at the speed of light. So the thermal effects set things on fire as it moves outwards. And that's what we actually see.
Maybe, but there is nothing that even comes close to shields (apart from maybe the earth's magnetic field keeping away solar winds), nowadays. We simply don't know how they work. The most simple way of explaining something is that if 'x' amount of energy hits the shield, the shields must be at least 'x' energy strong.Mikey wrote:What fits best is a system which is designed to deflect energy, not absorb it. The idea of having a system which most continuously equal or exceed the power of an incoming attack, rather than just deflect it, is the height of lunacy.Thorin wrote:No. But we're not 100% sure of anything in ST, are we? Just got to go with what fits best.
The thermal effects would be igniting anything. Graham Kennedy explains this better.What?! What exactly is the thermal effect of the detonation igniting? Are you saying that it is safe to assume that the planet in question has an inflammable atmosphere? Then why didn't we see the whole planet engulfed in a flaming corona?Thorin wrote:The thermal effects is the 'blast' that we see on that picture. It's clearly travelling at the speed of light. So the thermal effects set things on fire as it moves outwards. And that's what we actually see.
Graham Kennedy wrote:The fireball would not represent the blast radius of the explosion - it would take the blast some time to propagate outwards over a 150 km radius, but the fireball appeared instantly. Rather, this seems to be the area across which the much more rapid thermal effects would be starting fires.
I know you will observe a smaller visible blast... But what's your point? I don't see how this relates to the thermal effects of the blast.Put another way: if I am in a plane over (and out of range of) a thermobaric detonation, I will observe a relatively small VISIBLE blast - the actual effective blast radius of the weapon will be much greater. This is not conjecture; thermobaric weapons do exist, and have been used in the field. I am not of course talking about being able to observe the disturbance of airborne dust, detritus from destroyed objects, etc., because that is not actual 'blast' and is not germane to this discussion.
Perhaps the most simple way, but certainly not the most sensible way.Thorin wrote:The most simple way of explaining something is that if 'x' amount of energy hits the shield, the shields must be at least 'x' energy strong.
This admission, and Mr. Kennedy's input, both support my point, which is that the visible effect which you had referenced do NOT indicate the strength of the detonation with any certainty or accuracy.I know you will observe a smaller visible blast... But what's your point? I don't see how this relates to the thermal effects of the blast.
I never claimed it to be completely accurate. But it's puts a rather decisive ball park figure. And going by your point - that you don't see all of the thermal effects from space, the bomb would be even more powerful than what you would have already worked out. Really, though, a lot of evidence backs up the quasi-cannon tech manual that 1.5kg of anti-matter reacts with 1.5kg of matter.Mikey wrote:Perhaps the most simple way, but certainly not the most sensible way.Thorin wrote:The most simple way of explaining something is that if 'x' amount of energy hits the shield, the shields must be at least 'x' energy strong.
This admission, and Mr. Kennedy's input, both support my point, which is that the visible effect which you had referenced do NOT indicate the strength of the detonation with any certainty or accuracy.I know you will observe a smaller visible blast... But what's your point? I don't see how this relates to the thermal effects of the blast.
), Graham's articles are most helpful. They work out the maths for me and then I can just put my take on them. There's ones on quite a few things - anti-matter, torpedo yields, Galaxy Class total output, Galaxy Class weapon output and Galaxy Class shield strength....Deja Vu! Someone said that earlier on today. I've probably had that said to me about three times in my entire life, and two of them within 8 hours of each other!Mikey wrote:Hey, I'm a lover, not a fighter.
Very true, but then flash bangs, for example, would have different formulae to work out the "blast". We have one for high powered explosions (2.5 KT and above), so can work it out. At least to a reasonable degree of accuracy.I jsut wanted to point out that there ARE cases in which the actual effective balst of a weapon far exceeds what will be visible. By the same token, there are cases in which a visible balst will be deceptively LARGE compared to the yield of the weapon - WP, or flash-bangs, to cite a couple of examples.