Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=145280
Did the contradicts the screen part already.Now I'm going to gain a hold of the TM.Lord Revan wrote:easiest way would to ask him to provide the line where said figure is provided preferbly in context and as a scan (so that he can't simply fake it).
also getting hold of said Technical Manual (which I assume TM refers to) and seeing for yourself if there's such a figure helps too.
also you approach it from the angle of the official canon policy which essentially says "what's onscreen is the highest canon end of story" (granted IIRC it also states that the TMs are speculation at best)
This is my bugbear about discussions such as these. If someone argues that IoM has greater manpower and equipment numbers than (insert opposing factions name here) then fine. But when they argue that IoM beats X because their weapons output huge numbers of 0's in damage, I have difficulty in accepting that, because there is no way that those figures can be relied upon as being correct, not because the individual making those calculations are wrong, but because the base foundation, ie a bit of fiction, is shaky to say the least.
Lets take the lasgun. 13MJ of energy hits the target so the initial enrgy to create that shot will be higher. How many shots does a lasgun pack hold? One of the facts proffered is that such a powerpack can be recharged in a wood fire. How much energy does a fire give off? I bet you that it doesn't even reach enough to make one shot let alone recharge an entire powerpack.
IoM ship power supplies. Fusion reactor. Someone somewhere said that a ships reactor gave 1e26 joules. The equivalent to the sun. I'm going to ignore the disparity of sizes here. The sun uses 4,000,000 tons of fuel a second. What fuel does the reactor use. Because to the best knowledge/searching by me (get out clause) there is no fuel that can meet that requirement.
Breaking the laws of science/physics. Another bugbear. I'm going to use a ST photon torpedo here. The good old 64MT vs 690GT.
The photon torpedo has a stated payload of 1.5kg antimatter. It has also been stated that that payload can be amended in some way to either act as a harmless firework display or a destructive yeild of 690GT. If someone wants to argue that their universe can break, to us, unmutable laws, then they also have to allow the same laxity to their opponents.
Using the last two points, our knowledge says that fusion reactors require fuel. 4MT roughly. 40K would argue that they provide it through some unstated/unidentified process unkown to us. So ST should be able to argue that through some unstated/unidentifed process 1.5kg of antimatter can be augmented to 690GT. What is so difficult about accepting that equality?
So what about Mike Wong use of the TM?Serafina wrote:First, the TM is NOT canon. Even it's own writer said that it's just "speculation", and Paramounts canon policy does not recognize it as canon.
Second, the TM gave an upper limit of 64 (or 128?) megatons - based upon the amount of antimatter in those torpedoes. However, that assumes a reaction with perfect efficiency. Furthermore, not all the products of such a reaction would be dangerous (e.g. neutrinos, alpha-radiation) and since they are not shape-charged only half of the energy would even hit the ship.
Third, on-screen evidence clearly overrules this - photon torpedoes are at best in the low-megaton range.
So what about Connor's analysis of Exterminatus and Caves of Ice?Serafina wrote:At the time he used it, the canonicity of the TM was still ambiguous. Only later it became clear that it has no status whatseover.
40K is roughly on par with SW-ships of the same size as far as weapons, shields etc. go - just keep in minds that 40K-ships tend to be a lot bigger.
By using standard physics calculations, a payload of 1.5 kilograms equals to about 64 megatons.
The second type, at maximum yield, achieves the level of destructive force of an antimatter pod rupture. Antimatter is stored as liquid or slush on starships. (pg. 69) Density of mere liquid antideuterium is around 160 kilograms per cubic meter. According to this comparison the high annihilation rate energy release would be comparable to about 690 gigatons. For the sake of plausibility the affected blast area at these intensities might be extremely small. Visual effects on-screen would seem to confirm this.
Calculator: http://edwardmuller.com/calculator.htm
To point to consider is that ST actually states what they use in their warhead, thereby opening them themselves up to having the yield of that much AM calculated. Comparing ST to 40k then becomes a simple matter of matching numbers. Again, though, the 64Mt figure produced by calculating 1.5kg of AM does not match the results seen on screen; which is one of the many reasons we insist that figure is a maximum upper limit. Both in and out of universe, a far lower figure would be inevitable.IvanTih wrote:To quote him....Using the last two points, our knowledge says that fusion reactors require fuel. 4MT roughly. 40K would argue that they provide it through some unstated/unidentified process unkown to us. So ST should be able to argue that through some unstated/unidentifed process 1.5kg of antimatter can be augmented to 690GT. What is so difficult about accepting that equality?
Let him do a calculation. Take a large fire and several hours (at least 8.). Place the object (about as large as a modern rifle magazine, but a cube) into the hottest place of the fire. Calculate the energy put into the power pack.Lets take the lasgun. 13MJ of energy hits the target so the initial enrgy to create that shot will be higher. How many shots does a lasgun pack hold? One of the facts proffered is that such a powerpack can be recharged in a wood fire. How much energy does a fire give off? I bet you that it doesn't even reach enough to make one shot let alone recharge an entire powerpack.
Already addressed by me in another threat. The reactors aboard ships, titans etc. are called plasma reactors, NOT fusion reactors. Just because something involves plasma, it does not have to be fusion. We also know that they effectively draw energy from the warp - therefore, no fuel consumption hast to be necessary.IoM ship power supplies. Fusion reactor. Someone somewhere said that a ships reactor gave 1e26 joules. The equivalent to the sun. I'm going to ignore the disparity of sizes here. The sun uses 4,000,000 tons of fuel a second. What fuel does the reactor use. Because to the best knowledge/searching by me (get out clause) there is no fuel that can meet that requirement.
40K-plasma reactors explicitly tap into the warp, which is known to be a power source. No such external source exists for Star Trek, nor is it ever mentioned. Nor does it have to be assumed, since the observed effects can be readily explained by matter-antimatter reactions.Using the last two points, our knowledge says that fusion reactors require fuel. 4MT roughly. 40K would argue that they provide it through some unstated/unidentified process unkown to us. So ST should be able to argue that through some unstated/unidentifed process 1.5kg of antimatter can be augmented to 690GT. What is so difficult about accepting that equality?
I don't have any quotes handy right now. There are some references to "warp plasma" and the like that point to it tough.IvanTih wrote:How do we know that they use warp?
They're not canon. That was pretty expressly debunked by Paula Block in December 2005 on the very same forums - none of the books are canon, only what is on-screen is. The Jeri Taylor books were at best according to her - quasi canon- and only for as long as she was working on Voyager. Such was backed up by every Trek writer / author on the forum, and has been backed up in the past by Ronald D Moore.Stofsk wrote:I'm sick and tired of hearing that the tech manuals are non-canon.
"Only the reference books (tech manual, encyclopedia, etc...) and two books by Jeri Taylor are considered canon outside the TV show and movies." - Harry Lang, Senior Director of Viacom Consumer Products Interactive division, posts on StarTrek.com forum, January 2005.
It's on the Darkstar Hatemail page on the main site, with .pdf links to the relevant forum pages.Stofsk wrote:Fuck Ronald Moore! I don't trust a word that hack says.
Can you provide a quote of Paula Block saying so, because I can't seem to find it?
I think the TMs are best treated as background material to fill gaps in our knowledge, but we should be leery of relying on them or elevating them as a go-to source.Okay, none of the books are canon. That's 100% true. While Jeri Taylor was actively involved with Star Trek, we allowed the licensees to treat her two books as quasi-canon for their projects (because the folks at Voyager weren't likely to contradict them in their episodes). And that worked pretty well for a while. After she left Voyager, however, the other writers on the show pretty much did what they wanted (I doubt they ever read her books), so the books eventually stopped being even quasi-canon.
This doesn't mean that the fiction writers working for Pocket can't use Jeri's books as background for their stories. It's a free country. But they're not "canon". Nothing that wasn't onscreen (tv or movie screen) is canon. You guys are so into this "canon" thing. It's just a word, guys. It's not the ten commandments. All it means is that we try not to let people contradict the stuff that was on-screen, but we don't care if all the fiction authors contradict each other's books. Sigh.
IvanTih wrote:If anyone is interested here's the link.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/po ... 99586.page
Yeah pretty much,but I'm annoyed by him,he ignores evidence and tells me that I must be wrong.Thanas wrote:IvanTih wrote:If anyone is interested here's the link.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/po ... 99586.page
A non-public forum that we cannot read without signing up.
I bring numerous examples,calcs,evidence,I even disproved the Borg wank on that forum,ST wank in general and demonstrated 40k firepower.Lord Revan wrote:Ofc they don't "mesh well" as they don't agree with him 100%, the thruth of the matter is that you're unlikely to convince to consede even in a minor point, so it's better to try to win the audience to your side then to make him admit defeat (because he won't).