www.ditl.org

I agree that visial explosion size is not the only indicator of power. Small bangs could pack a higher punch.

Thorin wrote: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.

Generators do generate energy. The fact that they do so by either converting it from a different form of energy (usually chemical or KE), or from mass (nuclear, M/AM) does not change this. The point stands that shuttle heat tiles do not require a constant input equal to their ability to withstand instense heat.

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.

No who does know basic science - for starters "power per mass" is ust as stupid as "power per second". "Energy per mass" is describing efficiency, and 1,000,000 TJ per kg is 10^18 J/kg - the maximum possible efficiency of a M/AM reaction (or any power source for that matter) is 9E16 J/kg. Well done - you've just ignored general relativity.

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 the Skin of Evil planet had an atmosphere, therefore there would have been reflection/refraction, so a large blast would have produced a flash over a good fraction of the planet. Thanks for proving my point.

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.

See above for my refutation of this. And BTW, Data's response was to the question of how much power was "in there". So that refutes the "per PTC" argument.

Why on earth would it need to be mentioned? How else do they make anti-dueterium?
Hell, they don't tell us how transporters work. Does that mean that can't happen? They don't tell us how to warp space to give FTL speeds. It's a show, they can't explain things that are simply impossible to describe at our knowledge.

No, but they do tell us that they're doing these things - they never even mention the AM supply, despite mentioning the deuterium supply repeatedly. This strongly implies that running out of deuterium isn't a problem - the likely solution being that they carry enough.

Voyager - Revulsion (the episode), a relay or conduit was conducting 1000 terawatts of power. And this wasn't total output of the warpcore.

Captain Seafort wrote: Generators do generate energy. The fact that they do so by either converting it from a different form of energy (usually chemical or KE), or from mass (nuclear, M/AM) does not change this. The point stands that shuttle heat tiles do not require a constant input equal to their ability to withstand instense heat.

Generate means create. They do not create energy. They convert it. If you are trying to argue against this, good job getting a new Phd arguing against the laws of physics from the past hundreds of years.

Voyager - Revulsion (the episode), a relay or conduit was conducting 1000 terawatts of power. And this wasn't total output of the warpcore.

No who does know basic science - for starters "power per mass" is ust as stupid as "power per second". "Energy per mass" is describing efficiency, and 1,000,000 TJ per kg is 10^18 J/kg - the maximum possible efficiency of a M/AM reaction (or any power source for that matter) is 9E16 J/kg. Well done - you've just ignored general relativity.

Power per mass is not as stupid as power per second. As power per second is a constant increase. As time always progresses. As mass can stay the same, it isn't an increase.

I ignored general relativity? Where did space-time gravity and curvature come into this? Oh wait, you don't even know the difference between general and special relativity. Well done Einstein. I never said energy per kilogram, I said energy per reactor (which would be stubstaintially more than a kilogram) or plasma conduit. Or whatever. But Watts per mass does not invalidate it.

Voyager - Revulsion (the episode), a relay or conduit was conducting 1000 terawatts of power. And this wasn't total output of the warpcore.

And the Skin of Evil planet had an atmosphere, therefore there would have been reflection/refraction, so a large blast would have produced a flash over a good fraction of the planet. Thanks for proving my point.

You don't understand electromagnetic radiation or physics, I'll let you off this.

Voyager - Revulsion (the episode), a relay or conduit was conducting 1000 terawatts of power. And this wasn't total output of the warpcore.

See above for my refutation of this. And BTW, Data's response was to the question of how much power was "in there". So that refutes the "per PTC" argument.

No it doesn't. He can still say tht if he wants.

No, but they do tell us that they're doing these things - they never even mention the AM supply, despite mentioning the deuterium supply repeatedly. This strongly implies that running out of deuterium isn't a problem - the likely solution being that they carry enough.

Why would they mention the AM supply when they create it from dueterium.
"We need matter and anti-matter - for this we only need deuterium".
Thus they only talk about dueterium. Pretty simple stuff!

And everyone sees that you're just taking the p!ss now... 4th time!

Voyager - Revulsion (the episode), a relay or conduit was conducting 1000 terawatts of power. And this wasn't total output of the warpcore.

Come on guys... lets play nice.

I may not be a moderator, but the instinct from being one on other boards leaks over I guess..

No need to turn to name calling, or insulting.

They are being civil. No need to stop a good debate unless things get out of hand. As it is everyone is just expressing opinions. There is bound to be tension when people disagree thats what makes it fun.

Thorin wrote:Generate means create. They do not create energy. They convert it.

Generate means convert into a useful form. Since the initial point of this was to demonstrate that shields do not require a constant power supply to absorb and then radiate energy I'll take this nitpicking as a concession.

Power per mass is not as stupid as power per second. As power per second is a constant increase. As time always progresses. As mass can stay the same, it isn't an increase.

How the hell can you get power out of a fixed quantity of mass? You can get energy out of that quantity, but not power. You are, however, correct that E = mc^2 is special relativity, my apologies. It doesn't change the fact that you suggest a figure of:

1,000,000 TW per 1 KG

Which a) is nonsense because energy, not power, is not a property of mass, and b) violates E = mc^2.

You're continuing to ignore the evidence that the 2Mt Tungusta blast lit up the sky over half a planet. The flash from SoE was nowhere near that.

No it doesn't. He can still say tht if he wants.

Why? He's asked how much is "in there" (the MARC), and he responds by talking about the PTCs? It's a much simpler conclusion (and therefore favoured by Occam's Razor) that he was talking BS.

Why would they mention the AM supply when they create it from dueterium?

Because they need antimatter as well? They never mention antimatter, they never say "we need deuterium to turn into anti-deuterium". This suggests that they don't need antimatter. Since the auxillary generators and impulse engines use nuclear fusion rather than a M/AM reactions

Captain Seafort wrote: Generate means convert into a useful form. Since the initial point of this was to demonstrate that shields do not require a constant power supply to absorb and then radiate energy I'll take this nitpicking as a concession.

Tough. I'm still right.

How the hell can you get power out of a fixed quantity of mass? You can get energy out of that quantity, but not power. You are, however, correct that E = mc^2 is special relativity, my apologies. It doesn't change the fact that you suggest a figure of:

1,000,000 TW per 1 KG

Which a) is nonsense because energy, not power, is not a property of mass, and b) violates E = mc^2.

Wow. I said plasma. Plasma isn't created from energy. It gives it to energy. Please, grow up.
a) I gave this as an example, so even if it were a part of special relativity - converting mass to energy - then I was just showing how the "per" can fit in.
b) The plasma does not turn into energy. The warp core creates, let's say, 2,000,000 TW of power. It then gives this energy (maybe in the form of heat), to 2 KG of plasma. The plasma's mass-energy doesn't change. So it can have a quadrillion ^10000 Yottawatts in 1 KG. Its mass-energy may well be (and is) less than this, but the energy of the particles is much greater.
So you've just been talking about the mass-energy of plasma when I never did. Good going arguing against a point I never made

You're continuing to ignore the evidence that the 2Mt Tungusta blast lit up the sky over half a planet. The flash from SoE was nowhere near that.

Because you wouldn't see that from space. Dude, you really have never done physics. If you refract/reflect light round the inside of a fibre optic tube, then you can't see it in the tube. It comes out the end. You've got to be within the fibre optic tube (thus within the planet's atmosphere) to see the light. I did this in primary school.

Why? He's asked how much is "in there" (the MARC), and he responds by talking about the PTCs? It's a much simpler conclusion (and therefore favoured by Occam's Razor) that he was talking BS.

Oh - hold on, I sense quite an immense amount of hypocrisy! Why must Riker say that he means the communication system - when it was obvious they were already talking about it? Just as maybe to you it was obvious Data was already talking about the warpcore. So he was talking cannon, I'm afraid.

Because they need antimatter as well? They never mention antimatter, they never say "we need deuterium to turn into anti-deuterium". This suggests that they don't need antimatter. Since the auxillary generators and impulse engines use nuclear fusion rather than a M/AM reactions

Why must they mention this? Tough look. They don't need to mention it. Just because they don't mention the workings of the Heisenberg Compensators, does that mean that in-universe transporters can't work? Because they don't tell us the workings of a holodeck does that mean they don't work? Because they don't tell us that they convert deuterium to anti-deuterium, they don't? They do. That's how they make it. You've changed your arguement from not ever needing anti-matter, not knowing it's made from deuterium, and now to them not saying that they need to convert some. Do they tell us everytime they give the dilithium crystals a wash? Every time they replace an EPS relay? Nope

Oh, 5th time. You're turning this into a bit of a joke - everyone knows you're not serious because I'm still waiting for this point.

Voyager - Revulsion (the episode), a relay or conduit was conducting 1000 terawatts of power. And this wasn't total output of the warpcore.

Voyager - Revulsion (the episode), a relay or conduit was conducting 1000 terawatts of power. And this wasn't total output of the warpcore.

Thorin - you're right about the inability to observe light (et. al.) from outside a reflective/refractive system if that system reflected/refracted nearly 100% of that light - but then why did YOU post the picture showing a planetside detonation from space, and claim you could use the visible evidence to determine yield? If you're the one to claim that you can't see it, how can you also be the one to claim that you can use visual evidence?

BTW - atmospheres as we know them are not nearly 100% refractive/reflective.

And please, I agree with Azrael - you can debate all you want, but name-calling and cheap shots are pointless and puerile, and it makes other people here uncomfortable.

Mikey wrote:Thorin - you're right about the inability to observe light (et. al.) from outside a reflective/refractive system if that system reflected/refracted nearly 100% of that light - but then why did YOU post the picture showing a planetside detonation from space, and claim you could use the visible evidence to determine yield? If you're the one to claim that you can't see it, how can you also be the one to claim that you can use visual evidence?

Because what we see thus clearly isn't the flash. It's coming perpindicular from the planet's surface, upwards, to the ship. It isn't curving round with the planet - it's the thermal effects setting things on fire. That's why you can tell the yield. You can't see the 'flash' from space, but you can see things setting on fire due to thermal effects.

So, from space, you can't see a) the light, or b) the thermal radiation.
What you can see is the effects of the thermal radiation igniting things. Thats why I posted the picture - because you can see the thermal effects of the detonation.

BTW - atmospheres as we know them are not nearly 100% refractive/reflective.

Means nothing really, though.

And regarding your last point, I agree, and I don't care how childish this sounds, but he started it.

At this point I neither know, nor care, who started it - to be honest it's probably a case of six of one, half a dozen of the other.

From a debate that originally (if that word has any meaning on DITL ) was regarding torpedo yields, only the SoE argument, which is dubious evidence, has anything to do with them, the rest being nitpick between myself pointing out the repeated examples of high-GW/low-TW output, and Thorin countering with the almost unique exawatt-range example from "True Q".

This is getting us nowhere, since both parties are convinced that their interpretation is correct, so I suggest we end this here, since neither of us is going to be able to convince the other of our respective positions.

To be honest I'll take that as conceding, because I've not heard anything that substantiates your claims. Whereas I've had no response to the thermal effects igniting things on the picture, or Voyager's 1000 terawatt figure in just one singular conduit of many - which I repeated on four separate occasions, and more than once in each of these occasions.

While I have addressed every issue you have brought up, there is still no response to either of these.

I've responded to your claims regarding the SoE torpedo repeatedly. The fact that you keep babbling about thermal effects when it's clearly simply the detonation flash, which can be seen far further away than the thermal effects would be setting things on fire, does not change this. Yes, there will be ligh-scattering in the atmosphere. Did it ever cross your mind that some of that scattering would be upwards into space?

While a simple comparison of one or two high-end power figures versus one or two low-end figures would be grounds for trying to work them all in, the sheer number of lower-end figures forces the rare high-end figures to be discarded as character mistakes.

"The Dauphin" - Riker's statement that the entire ship cannot generate 1TW of power. Canon, without a mention of comms.
"The Survivors" - 400GW shots bring down the E-D's shields
"Who Watches The Watchers" - a 4.2 GW reactor can power a small phaser bank.
"The Masterpiece Society" - the warp core kicks plasma "up into the terawatt range".
"The Nth Degree" - power output of ~4TW overloads the E-D's shields.
"Relics" - low-TW energy dissipation for the E-D's shields, the Jenolan has power generation in the GW range.
"The Pegasus" - mention of destroying an asteroid approximately 8-12 km accross requires almost all a GCS's PTs. This works out to around 2Mt per torpedo.
"Battle Lines" - a runabout can be shot down by energy weapons of ~1GW

In response you've got how many numbers? 2?

Captain Seafort wrote:I've responded to your claims regarding the SoE torpedo repeatedly. The fact that you keep babbling about thermal effects when it's clearly simply the detonation flash, which can be seen far further away than the thermal effects would be setting things on fire, does not change this.

Your ignorance is not an excuse. You have repeatedly claimed ignorance on the matter and responded regarding a detonation flash, when what we see is clearly the thermal effects. A flash that moves along the surface, and then towards space in increadibly defined edges? It should slowly fade out across the planet if we're seeing a flash. We're not.

Yes, there will be ligh-scattering in the atmosphere. Did it ever cross your mind that some of that scattering would be upwards into space?

Yes. But not with defined edges like that.

While a simple comparison of one or two high-end power figures versus one or two low-end figures would be grounds for trying to work them all in, the sheer number of lower-end figures forces the rare high-end figures to be discarded as character mistakes.

All the lower end figured are explained. None of the high end ones are - oh excuse me - apart from "Data talking bollox".

"The Dauphin" - Riker's statement that the entire ship cannot generate 1TW of power. Canon, without a mention of comms.

Data was talking about communications and this is what Riker replies to - ergo he was talking about comms.

"The Survivors" - 400GW shots bring down the E-D's shields

An equivilent firepower particle beam of 400GW brings it down. Also note that it fires beams of anti matter, which hits an energy field (the shields). Going by your logic, as it can't annhiliate other matter, this is invalid, as a stream of anti-matter would do nothing with matter present.

"Who Watches The Watchers" - a 4.2 GW reactor can power a small phaser bank.

Small is utterly subjective. Probably a low end shuttlecraft.

[quote["The Masterpiece Society" - the warp core kicks plasma "up into the terawatt range".[/quote]

...Proving my point that the warpcore doesn't give out less than 1 TW. Terawatt range is above 1 TW. So completely goes in my favour.

"The Nth Degree" - power output of ~4TW overloads the E-D's shields.

Complete made up lie, there. Nice one.
It overloads a shuttle's computer systems. Not the E-Ds shields.

"Relics" - low-TW energy dissipation for the E-D's shields, the Jenolan has power generation in the GW range.

Can you go into further detail, please. I remember Scotty saying he'd get a few more gigawatts from the shields, but nothing about the total power generation or the E-Ds shields.

"The Pegasus" - mention of destroying an asteroid approximately 8-12 km accross requires almost all a GCS's PTs. This works out to around 2Mt per torpedo.

Destruction is subjective. To vapourise it would probably require in the several gigaton range. To break it into about 10 pieces, maybe 2 MT. But it must be into very small fragments so that nothing can be retrieved.

"Battle Lines" - a runabout can be shot down by energy weapons of ~1GW

Runabout =/= flagship of the Federation.

In response you've got how many numbers? 2?

Both of which have no measure of doubt and no subjectiveness in them. And talk directly about the minimum energy coming from the warpcore. Not how much the shields can handle or weapon output.

So again - just answer me the Voyager one. 1000 terawatts. Answer that with anything you can come up with. Until you answer that, you've got no grounds what so ever and my arguement is successful.

Cannon: 1000 TW is an absolute minimum output of Voyager's warpcore. Any doubt in it? Nope. The E-D's warpcore is capable of 12.75 million TW. Any real arguement against it? Nope.

Count number 5: 1000 TW in a conduit on Voyager.
Until you address this point I accept your full concession.

Thorin wrote:

Yes, there will be ligh-scattering in the atmosphere. Did it ever cross your mind that some of that scattering would be upwards into space?

Yes. But not with defined edges like that.

Thermal effects wouldn't have a defined boundary either - big lumps of wood would have a higher ignition point that leaves, for example.

"The Dauphin" - Riker's statement that the entire ship cannot generate 1TW of power. Canon, without a mention of comms.

Data was talking about communications and this is what Riker replies to - ergo he was talking about comms.

We've been over this before - he specified the entire ship.

"The Survivors" - 400GW shots bring down the E-D's shields

An equivilent firepower particle beam of 400GW brings it down. Also note that it fires beams of anti matter, which hits an energy field (the shields). Going by your logic, as it can't annhiliate other matter, this is invalid, as a stream of anti-matter would do nothing with matter present.

Antimatter still has KE, and Worf mentioned "particle energy". The point stands that the shields were brought down.

"Who Watches The Watchers" - a 4.2 GW reactor can power a small phaser bank.

Small is utterly subjective. Probably a low end shuttlecraft.

Or a Danube, or one of the Enterprise's secondary arrays. We don't know, but even if a full-size bank was a thousand times more powerful that's still only low-TW range. About the same as a lot of the shield figures demonstrated

"The Masterpiece Society" - the warp core kicks plasma "up into the terawatt range".

...Proving my point that the warpcore doesn't give out less than 1 TW. Terawatt range is above 1 TW. So completely goes in my favour.

Do you not understand the concept of efficiency? The warp core puts out multiple TW. Not all of that power will get to the point of use.

"The Nth Degree" - power output of ~4TW overloads the E-D's shields.

Complete made up lie, there. Nice one.
It overloads a shuttle's computer systems. Not the E-Ds shields.

Go and watch the episode again. The same probe later came after the Enterprise.

DATA
Captain, an energy field is
forming around the device.
Intensity is three point two
terawatts, and increasing.

WORF
Sir, the shuttlecraft shields did
not provide sufficent protection
for its computer. Our computer
may also be vulnerable. I
recommend withdrawal to a safe
distance.

About 100 seconds later:

DATA
(off instruments)
The probe's field intensity is
continuing to build... we are in
danger, Captain...

Again, low TW output threatens a GCS.

"Relics" - low-TW energy dissipation for the E-D's shields, the Jenolan has power generation in the GW range.

Can you go into further detail, please. I remember Scotty saying he'd get a few more gigawatts from the shields, but nothing about the total power generation or the E-Ds shields.

It's from the analysis done earlier in this thread - 6.2TW for three hours with shields at 23%. We don't know how full shields would have altered that figure.

"The Pegasus" - mention of destroying an asteroid approximately 8-12 km accross requires almost all a GCS's PTs. This works out to around 2Mt per torpedo.

Destruction is subjective. To vapourise it would probably require in the several gigaton range. To break it into about 10 pieces, maybe 2 MT. But it must be into very small fragments so that nothing can be retrieved.

Since Riker said "destroy", not "vapourise", it's reasonable to assume he meant fragmenting it.

"Battle Lines" - a runabout can be shot down by energy weapons of ~1GW

Runabout =/= flagship of the Federation.

True, but scale up appropriately and, again, you get low-TW range.[/quote]