Isotons

[Patrick Degan]

Nice theory but it simply doesn't work: not only have we never observed any torpedo delivering even Hiroshima-level destructive power, the one clear canon reference to energy scale values of a 97.835 MT blast (in "The Doomsday Machine") was solidly tied to the present-day Systéme Internationale standard; specifically comparing the event to a 20th century H-bomb.

The argument that "the megatons are different" doesn't fly. For a start, the entire reason why nuke-blasts are scaled according to the energy release of TNT is because the scale calibration is reasonably precise and consistent (as was demonstrated at Alamorgodo, NM in a scaling blast of 100 tons of TNT two months before the Trinity test) and also that the scale relates to measures in Joule-units.

Given that we don't observe nuclear-level firepower from photon torpedoes, its far more reasonable to conclude that the term "isotons" means the same thing that it means today.

[His Divine Shadow]

The thing is, wouldn't that make a TNG Technical Manual maximum load of 1.5 kg of antimatter for a photon torpedo the eqivalent of a yield of .003 isotons? That does not strike me as quite right.

I see no problem with this, I don't recall standard photon torpedoes ever being measured in isotons.

Oh yes, 25 isotons for class V torps

[Mad]

Given that we don't observe nuclear-level firepower from photon torpedoes, its far more reasonable to conclude that the term "isotons" means the same thing that it means today.

Except that it doesn't mean anything today. It'd mean something more like "uniform mass" or something. ("Iso-" does not mean "equal to" in any definition that I've seen.) Unless you care to show a standardized source using "iso-" as an SI prefix. (None that I have seen have even hinted at a prefix for 1E0, instead opting to say that 1E0 is denoted by no prefix.)

[trackball]

When you first mentioned this, I went searching on the web for an official source, and I couldn't find one. I found a few UNofficial sources, but that's not what you're looking for.

In fact, the most official source I could find made no mention at all of 1E0.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html
I'm not sure how much more official you can get than the National Insitute of Standards and Technology.

However, I must say that it's rather clear that if it means anything at all, it must mean 1E0. Iso- means equal, and multiplying something by 1 leaves it equal to itself. The question remaining is, 1E0 of WHAT?

[Solauren]

Actually, it took a sustained Disrupter/Phaser (which one was it anyway, they work ont he same effect, so who cares) to blow Odo up. It was only a few seconds (like 2) so who knows.

That can be explained if the Changeling impersonating Martok was a better shapeshifter then crossover-Odo.

However, unless we got a hold of a changeling and started experimenting, no way to know

[trackball]

That can be explained if the Changeling impersonating Martok was a better shapeshifter then crossover-Odo.

I can't quote the episode, but I believe that this was given as the reason Odo doesn't have any facial features. He's nowhere near as powerful or flexible as the other shapeshifters. For lack of evidence to the contrary, I am forced to assume mirror-universe Odo is subject to the same limitations.

[Soulman]

It wouldn't be a ton of AM but maybe of something else, perhaps with a name that starts with Iso.

[seanrobertson]

Nice theory but it simply doesn't work: not only have we never observed any torpedo delivering even Hiroshima-level destructive power, the one clear canon reference to energy scale values of a 97.835 MT blast (in "The Doomsday Machine") was solidly tied to the present-day Systéme Internationale standard; specifically comparing the event to a 20th century H-bomb.

I think some photorp explosions we've seen are comparable to Fat Man or Little Boy--the more spectacular asteroid destructions, for instance--but I'm 99.9999% with you here, Patrick. Torpedoes much beyond the kiloton range, let alone into the GIGATON range, are simply without precedent.

The argument that "the megatons are different" doesn't fly. For a start, the entire reason why nuke-blasts are scaled according to the energy release of TNT is because the scale calibration is reasonably precise and consistent (as was demonstrated at Alamorgodo, NM in a scaling blast of 100 tons of TNT two months before the Trinity test) and also that the scale relates to measures in Joule-units.

Exactly. The definition of a megaton is precisely defined as 4.18E15J. Rabid Fivers liked to pull this excuse a lot.

Given that we don't observe nuclear-level firepower from photon torpedoes, its far more reasonable to conclude that the term "isotons" means the same thing that it means today.

I would disagree there. A Type Six, 200 "isoton" photon torpedo would therefore rate 836 gigajoules, which is insufficient to explain a number of things.

Off the top of my head, it would make the whole plan of shattering the "Pegasus" asteroid truly absurd. Even if we figure that that asteroid was more than half empty space, and that the E-D carried these supposedly new Type VI torpedoes, her entire complement of 250 (established in "Conundrum," with the aired version different than the script) would only yield 50 kilotons...less than 1/100th of what's probably required to blow that rock apart.

Another potential problem is that we hear the iso-prefix thrown around a lot; e.g., "isograms." Yet, we also hear of "grams" in the same context. So the two don't seem to be interchangable in Trek's use of the word.

There's really no way to rationalize what it means, exactly. Isotons as "same as tons" does work with a number of things..."Survivors," maybe "Nemesis," etc. But it doesn't fit a lot of other information we have, either, not to mention the fact that an antimatter/matter warhead yielding a few dozen to a few hundred gigajoules seems ridiculous when one could just as easily use cheaper nuclear weapons to greater effect.