The asteroids probably do not have enough material to cause massive climatic changes on a planetary scale by themselves. Also, the fact that everyone had been trying to destroy the asteroids for some time also indicates to me that they had already examined the environmental impact and decided that it was not as dangerous as just letting the asteroids hit the planet.une wrote:I think it would still be a danger though becuase it's vapourized material would stilll fall to the planet, get stuck in the atmosphere, and cause a nuclear winter.I still have a hard time accepting that the entire rock could be
easily shattered with a pick-axe. As I mentioned earlier, since that asteroids' fragments were considered a danger to the people below,
If I'm wrong on that please correct me.
See DarkStar get his asteroid calculations kicked.
Moderator: Vympel
- Master of Ossus
- Darkest Knight
- Posts: 18213
- Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
- Location: California
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
- TheDarkling
- Sith Marauder
- Posts: 4768
- Joined: 2002-07-04 10:34am
Beside any scaling problems I dont see the problem.
They though they couild destroy a Nickle-Iron asteriod of size X.
They dont destroy said asteriod for some reason (it has better materials in it).
These other materials contain brittle materials at some point.
The reason it doesnt destroy the brittle asteriod just needs an explanation -Torp failure, mthe hardware in the atseriod had an effect (SIF field or somesuch), the asteriod isnt that brittle all the way through by a miracle it was just that area (thats why it broke away).
You take one of the above or you decide that SF personel have no clue what their weapons are capable of.
The scaling may be a problem but unless you send him a picture showing alternate scaling I doubt he will take any notice.
They though they couild destroy a Nickle-Iron asteriod of size X.
They dont destroy said asteriod for some reason (it has better materials in it).
These other materials contain brittle materials at some point.
The reason it doesnt destroy the brittle asteriod just needs an explanation -Torp failure, mthe hardware in the atseriod had an effect (SIF field or somesuch), the asteriod isnt that brittle all the way through by a miracle it was just that area (thats why it broke away).
You take one of the above or you decide that SF personel have no clue what their weapons are capable of.
The scaling may be a problem but unless you send him a picture showing alternate scaling I doubt he will take any notice.
- seanrobertson
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 2145
- Joined: 2002-07-12 05:57pm
The latter is a very reasonable assumption.Master of Ossus wrote:Rocks don't really have to be tough in order to survive re-entry. There really is not enough atmosphere to vaporize any asteroids larger than a few meters across on Earth (assuming a favorable entry-vector, which is reasonable due to the asteroid's guidance system),
However, if my source material is correct, the asteroids would have
to be fairly "tough." Not adamantium tough , LOL--but relatively
tough.
Looking at the size of the fragments flung toward the planet which,
*IIRC*, *did* nail the surface, and going by Das Bastard's scaling
for the moment (he mentions 5x overestimation, so I'll guess
the same pertains to the asteroid's fragments; i.e., a 10 and
20 meter piece flew into the planet's atmosphere vs. Dark Star's
50 and 100m fragments), we'd have to assume the asteroids were actually pretty tough. From the source material I have at hand, most asteroids under a full fifty meters never make it to the surface of Earth, let alone do any physical damage. I have to assume the planet in question is similar to Earth; and, though my sources aren't truly to my liking (guardian.co.uk, and an old Geology textbook from college), it's all I've gotta run on until I can find something more comprehensive.
To prove 150 megatons plus, I agree. To bust one up such thatbut since asteroids larger than that in Earth-crossing orbits are so rare, and since so many asteroids instead hit the moon or Jupiter, or skip off the atmosphere, it would also be reasonable to assume that the asteroids were not be nearly as large or strong as DarkStar needs to prove his case based on this particular incident.
the only remains are around a centimeter in diameter, assuming
proper scaling and a largely solid construct of nickel-iron, probably
should go into the high kiloton to very low megaton range,
which itself is rather impressive to me (hence my original objection
to your "laughably weak" description , heh).
More later.
Pain, or damage, don't end the world, or despair, or fuckin' beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, ya got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man ... and give some back.
-Al Swearengen
Cry woe, destruction, ruin and decay: The worst is death, and death will have his day.
-Ole' Shakey's "Richard II," Act III, scene ii.
-Al Swearengen
Cry woe, destruction, ruin and decay: The worst is death, and death will have his day.
-Ole' Shakey's "Richard II," Act III, scene ii.
- Master of Ossus
- Darkest Knight
- Posts: 18213
- Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
- Location: California
The point is that I was trying to attack DarkStar's site. He must then either demonstrate that his interpretation of the incident is more valid than mine, or he must change his analysis (though, not necessarily his conclusions). His defense of his website appeared to consist of the fact that the asteroid was made of olivine, and so it should have fractured. However, I demonstrated that the asteroid's properties were completely unlike olivine. He also defended his terrible scaling (leading me to believe that he was genuinely attempting to alter figures, instead of just making mistakes), and he said that his figures were still supported by the evidence. I demonstrated that they were not. He should change his page because of this. He has demonstrated that he has time to do this (by putting up the "Objections" section in response to my argument), but he has not acknowledged that his original 150 MT torpedoes were necessary to properly interpret the incident. Voyager should have been able to detect if its torpedo had failed to detonate properly, and there was clearly an explosion caused by the weapon. RSA should change his site in response to the new evidence that I showed.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
- Master of Ossus
- Darkest Knight
- Posts: 18213
- Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
- Location: California
DarkStar even responded to my statements! Here's what he wrote:
Well, good grief, Ossus, you just can't give up, can you?
"There is a difference, however your statements are still incorrect.
The energyrequirements to fracture something are almost always VASTLY lower than
theenergy required to vaporize it, and they can never be higher. The
reason is really common sense. When you fracture something, you are evidently
only breaking the molecular/atomic bonds (depending on the material) along
one plane or rough plane of the object. When you vaporize something, you are
breaking ALLthe atomic or molecular bonds within that object. Of course it takes
more energy to vaporize something than it does to fracture it, and the
energy requirements to fracture even pure olivine are much lower than the
requirements to vaporize pure iron."
Wow! Thanks Captain Obvious! All that's left is me wondering exactly
how in the name of hell your schpiel constitutes any sort of counterargument
to the part of my site you'd quoted. It sounds to me like you just (finally)
agreed to something.
"Quote:
Detonate a thermonuclear weapon next to that wall, and the olivine wall
will
probably shatter. The more resilient iron wall may either tear wide
open, or
just sit there and melt, et cetera, depending on various factors.
The point is that if your claims were true, and they were attempting to
vaporize that asteroid, then the energy requirements to fracture it
would have been so much lower than the energy requirements to vaporize the
asteroid as to make any comparison silly. Your analogy is totally irrelevent."
It is not irrelevant at all . . . you have simply failed to comprehend
the relevance. The point that has gone flying at warp speed over your head
is that shattered wall fragments will be far less likely to end up vaporizing,
whereas a more shatter-resistant surface will not be able to take the same
opportunity to escape.
In other words, vaporization of a solid lump of iron is one thing.
Vaporization of an irregular, void-filled mass of brittle material is quite another. In the end, the masses of the two might be the same, but you're gonna have a helluva lot of trouble getting a quick vaporization of the brittle material.
"But in the asteroid that we see fractured, we do not see results typical for
olivine. We see NO evidence of a conchoidal fracture. Instead, we see all the
patterns of an uneven fracture."
I assume you refer to http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Rise13247.jpg.
If so, you should pay closer attention to the edges of the material, where you
might note that instead of horrendous jagged edges, you have reasonably
smooth (if a bit grainy-looking) separation planes.
"The asteroid fragment Chakotay cracks open is clearly not made of
substantial amounts of olivine. Its properties were clearly not those of olivine.
Your rebuttal is irrelevent."
I love how you make some idiotic comment and then promptly claim that everything is "clearly" in your own personal favor, or against mine.
"So here's the question, are you claiming that the asteroid fragment was made primarily of olivine or artificial materials?"
Had you read my page, you might've noticed the following comment: "This would assume, of course, that the entire asteroid was olivine, and not nickel-iron with a couple of oddball chunks of olivine. Given the fact that it fragmented in the way it did without vaporizing as expected, that isn't a bad hypothesis. But, then, the Nisu astrophysicist dude mentioned in his transmission that the asteroids were composed of artificial materials .
. .
whether he had simply found evidence that triatium alloy was part of theasteroid, or had found that sensor signals were being distorted, or found that the majority of the asteroids were literally artificial is not clear. "
Had you read and understood this comment, you might've noticed that I had just said that we don't know for certain what the majority of the asteroid was really composed of.
We do, however, know from Torres's tricorder scan that the piece she and Chakotay played with was made of olivine, at least in part. It is the second thing she lists, but since none of us know what trioxine is, olivine is the only substance we know the properties of and can work with.
"Your assumption about how brittle the material was is flawed, because we can easily see that the asteroid did not demonstrate the properties of olivine."
It exhibits the same ease of fracture and fracture characteristics. It doesn't matter if it exhibits every other property of olivine . . . my argument is not affected if the whole damn thing is quartz or anything else. If you had the slightest idea what was going on, you might understand why.
In any case, my points still stand.
"Quote:
In any event, the brittleness of a material is no indication that it will be easier to vaporize . . . indeed, it is far more likely to fracture uncontrollably, and in this case unexpectedly.
You are correct insofar as that the brittleness of the material is no indication of how difficult it will be to vaporize, however this does not explain that lack of fracturing we see in the asteroid that Voyager fired upon.
Had the weapon had anywhere near the yield that you are claiming, the asteroid would have fractured far more completely."
Where the hell do you get this nonsense? "Lack of fracturing"?? It fractured
rather well, from what I saw . . . not counting the vaporized amount, of course.
"I stated this, earlier. Try to pay attention."
Ossus, seriously, you have never demonstrated yourself worthy of my attention.
From the first moment you replied to a post of mine, you have misread everything I say, then bitched when I said it again, and bitched even more when I pointed out that you misread it the first time. And, of course, you feel that by simply typing out the results of your mental masturbation and hitting "Submit", you have thoroughly blasted my arguments and myself. Then, incredibly, you're actually astonished when I reply to your BS.
Well, sorry to have to clue you in on this little fact, kiddo, but I have no intention of changing my mind just because you don't like what I say, or can provide stupid, invalid reasons that, to you, suggest that what I say is not in keeping with reality. The evidence is the final arbiter.
One thing I still haven't figured out is why you're considered a decent debater on SD.Net. I can only assume that it either has something to do with groupthink, or else you really kick ass in threads I have never seen.
Whatever the case, you've certainly never impressed me.
"In the video clip, we see very little uncontrolled fracturing of the asteroid. We also see almost no unexpected fracturing of the asteroid."
See, this is another one of those times when you have failed to impress me.
"We also see almost no unexpected fracturing of the asteroid" . . . what the hell are you talking about? Did you not notice the suprise when the asteroid wasn't vaporized? What the hell is wrong with you?
"We see no conchoidal fracturing of the asteroid."
Except, of course, for what appears on screen.
"DarkStar, DasBastard demonstrated clearly that your scaling was incorrect."
No, Ossus. There's a difference between DasBastard demonstrating clearly that
he *feels* my scaling is incorrect, and actually demonstrating that his feelings are accurate.
As I recall, DasBastard tried to use some idiotic methodology that led him astray, which is to be expected. If memory serves, he looked at this:
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Rise602.jpg
. . . and declared that the entire torpedo . . . streamers, glow, and all .
. . was no more than two meters wide.
1. That is stupid:
A: His scaling is just plain wrong. Look at the windows!
B: Unfortunately, we have seen a torpedo casing . . . the casing alone
is a meter wide, and the torpedo glow is always far larger, not even
including the streamers.
2. That ignores all those times (which, to my knowledge is every single one) where a torpedo gains luminosity after tube exit, then stabilizes at a certain brightness level. Presumably, this is when the torpedo's shield is being raised/established.
3. Further, you'll note that should you deign to draw a line between
the torpedo in the above frame and the launch tube behind it, you'll end up
with a line that very closely parallel's Voyager's direction of travel. Further, the torpedo does not appear to alter course. *Nevertheless*, I have chosen to scale the torpedo as if it were headed almost directly toward the observer, in order to achieve a *cnservative* figure.
"You grossly inflate the size of the asteroid being fired upon."
No, you grossly inflate the validity of your inflated ego. "Please revise. "
I wondered when this was coming. "Please revise your claims, which are based on the evidence and sound reasoning, because I'm a whiney-baby and didn't like what you said." So sad, too bad. You are cordially invited to go fuck yourself.
You are also cordially invited to inform the following individual that he is in error, since Federation force fields have never been observed to create a greenish wobbly CGI distortion on contact, whereas the Borg drone shields did in First Contact.
"name: Anonymous
e-mail: not really@rabidwarsie.com
source: From SD.Net
comment: The feild used to restrain data was an Ent-E forcefeild, not a
borg feild. a better example would be the feilds on the borg ships in
unimatrix zero or Dark frontier"
Well, good grief, Ossus, you just can't give up, can you?
"There is a difference, however your statements are still incorrect.
The energyrequirements to fracture something are almost always VASTLY lower than
theenergy required to vaporize it, and they can never be higher. The
reason is really common sense. When you fracture something, you are evidently
only breaking the molecular/atomic bonds (depending on the material) along
one plane or rough plane of the object. When you vaporize something, you are
breaking ALLthe atomic or molecular bonds within that object. Of course it takes
more energy to vaporize something than it does to fracture it, and the
energy requirements to fracture even pure olivine are much lower than the
requirements to vaporize pure iron."
Wow! Thanks Captain Obvious! All that's left is me wondering exactly
how in the name of hell your schpiel constitutes any sort of counterargument
to the part of my site you'd quoted. It sounds to me like you just (finally)
agreed to something.
"Quote:
Detonate a thermonuclear weapon next to that wall, and the olivine wall
will
probably shatter. The more resilient iron wall may either tear wide
open, or
just sit there and melt, et cetera, depending on various factors.
The point is that if your claims were true, and they were attempting to
vaporize that asteroid, then the energy requirements to fracture it
would have been so much lower than the energy requirements to vaporize the
asteroid as to make any comparison silly. Your analogy is totally irrelevent."
It is not irrelevant at all . . . you have simply failed to comprehend
the relevance. The point that has gone flying at warp speed over your head
is that shattered wall fragments will be far less likely to end up vaporizing,
whereas a more shatter-resistant surface will not be able to take the same
opportunity to escape.
In other words, vaporization of a solid lump of iron is one thing.
Vaporization of an irregular, void-filled mass of brittle material is quite another. In the end, the masses of the two might be the same, but you're gonna have a helluva lot of trouble getting a quick vaporization of the brittle material.
"But in the asteroid that we see fractured, we do not see results typical for
olivine. We see NO evidence of a conchoidal fracture. Instead, we see all the
patterns of an uneven fracture."
I assume you refer to http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Rise13247.jpg.
If so, you should pay closer attention to the edges of the material, where you
might note that instead of horrendous jagged edges, you have reasonably
smooth (if a bit grainy-looking) separation planes.
"The asteroid fragment Chakotay cracks open is clearly not made of
substantial amounts of olivine. Its properties were clearly not those of olivine.
Your rebuttal is irrelevent."
I love how you make some idiotic comment and then promptly claim that everything is "clearly" in your own personal favor, or against mine.
"So here's the question, are you claiming that the asteroid fragment was made primarily of olivine or artificial materials?"
Had you read my page, you might've noticed the following comment: "This would assume, of course, that the entire asteroid was olivine, and not nickel-iron with a couple of oddball chunks of olivine. Given the fact that it fragmented in the way it did without vaporizing as expected, that isn't a bad hypothesis. But, then, the Nisu astrophysicist dude mentioned in his transmission that the asteroids were composed of artificial materials .
. .
whether he had simply found evidence that triatium alloy was part of theasteroid, or had found that sensor signals were being distorted, or found that the majority of the asteroids were literally artificial is not clear. "
Had you read and understood this comment, you might've noticed that I had just said that we don't know for certain what the majority of the asteroid was really composed of.
We do, however, know from Torres's tricorder scan that the piece she and Chakotay played with was made of olivine, at least in part. It is the second thing she lists, but since none of us know what trioxine is, olivine is the only substance we know the properties of and can work with.
"Your assumption about how brittle the material was is flawed, because we can easily see that the asteroid did not demonstrate the properties of olivine."
It exhibits the same ease of fracture and fracture characteristics. It doesn't matter if it exhibits every other property of olivine . . . my argument is not affected if the whole damn thing is quartz or anything else. If you had the slightest idea what was going on, you might understand why.
In any case, my points still stand.
"Quote:
In any event, the brittleness of a material is no indication that it will be easier to vaporize . . . indeed, it is far more likely to fracture uncontrollably, and in this case unexpectedly.
You are correct insofar as that the brittleness of the material is no indication of how difficult it will be to vaporize, however this does not explain that lack of fracturing we see in the asteroid that Voyager fired upon.
Had the weapon had anywhere near the yield that you are claiming, the asteroid would have fractured far more completely."
Where the hell do you get this nonsense? "Lack of fracturing"?? It fractured
rather well, from what I saw . . . not counting the vaporized amount, of course.
"I stated this, earlier. Try to pay attention."
Ossus, seriously, you have never demonstrated yourself worthy of my attention.
From the first moment you replied to a post of mine, you have misread everything I say, then bitched when I said it again, and bitched even more when I pointed out that you misread it the first time. And, of course, you feel that by simply typing out the results of your mental masturbation and hitting "Submit", you have thoroughly blasted my arguments and myself. Then, incredibly, you're actually astonished when I reply to your BS.
Well, sorry to have to clue you in on this little fact, kiddo, but I have no intention of changing my mind just because you don't like what I say, or can provide stupid, invalid reasons that, to you, suggest that what I say is not in keeping with reality. The evidence is the final arbiter.
One thing I still haven't figured out is why you're considered a decent debater on SD.Net. I can only assume that it either has something to do with groupthink, or else you really kick ass in threads I have never seen.
Whatever the case, you've certainly never impressed me.
"In the video clip, we see very little uncontrolled fracturing of the asteroid. We also see almost no unexpected fracturing of the asteroid."
See, this is another one of those times when you have failed to impress me.
"We also see almost no unexpected fracturing of the asteroid" . . . what the hell are you talking about? Did you not notice the suprise when the asteroid wasn't vaporized? What the hell is wrong with you?
"We see no conchoidal fracturing of the asteroid."
Except, of course, for what appears on screen.
"DarkStar, DasBastard demonstrated clearly that your scaling was incorrect."
No, Ossus. There's a difference between DasBastard demonstrating clearly that
he *feels* my scaling is incorrect, and actually demonstrating that his feelings are accurate.
As I recall, DasBastard tried to use some idiotic methodology that led him astray, which is to be expected. If memory serves, he looked at this:
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Rise602.jpg
. . . and declared that the entire torpedo . . . streamers, glow, and all .
. . was no more than two meters wide.
1. That is stupid:
A: His scaling is just plain wrong. Look at the windows!
B: Unfortunately, we have seen a torpedo casing . . . the casing alone
is a meter wide, and the torpedo glow is always far larger, not even
including the streamers.
2. That ignores all those times (which, to my knowledge is every single one) where a torpedo gains luminosity after tube exit, then stabilizes at a certain brightness level. Presumably, this is when the torpedo's shield is being raised/established.
3. Further, you'll note that should you deign to draw a line between
the torpedo in the above frame and the launch tube behind it, you'll end up
with a line that very closely parallel's Voyager's direction of travel. Further, the torpedo does not appear to alter course. *Nevertheless*, I have chosen to scale the torpedo as if it were headed almost directly toward the observer, in order to achieve a *cnservative* figure.
"You grossly inflate the size of the asteroid being fired upon."
No, you grossly inflate the validity of your inflated ego. "Please revise. "
I wondered when this was coming. "Please revise your claims, which are based on the evidence and sound reasoning, because I'm a whiney-baby and didn't like what you said." So sad, too bad. You are cordially invited to go fuck yourself.
You are also cordially invited to inform the following individual that he is in error, since Federation force fields have never been observed to create a greenish wobbly CGI distortion on contact, whereas the Borg drone shields did in First Contact.
"name: Anonymous
e-mail: not really@rabidwarsie.com
source: From SD.Net
comment: The feild used to restrain data was an Ent-E forcefeild, not a
borg feild. a better example would be the feilds on the borg ships in
unimatrix zero or Dark frontier"
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
- Master of Ossus
- Darkest Knight
- Posts: 18213
- Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
- Location: California
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, DarkStar, aka. RSA, aka. Guardian2000, is now accusing me of not being able to give up? This has to go under the list of the most hypocritical statements ever written.DarkStar wrote: Well, good grief, Ossus, you just can't give up, can you?
[idiotic missing of the entire point snipped]
[slaps forehead with hand] Well, this is yet another example of how intelligent DarkStar is. First he claims that the asteroid could not have splintered because it was olivine, and now he claims that the broken bits of rock had an opportunity to escape because they were able to break up and allow only what was left over the be destroyed. DarkStar, obviously the energy requirements to fracture something are so small compared with the requirements of vaporizing it that the process of fracturing it is almost irrelevent in the total operation. The energy requirements for fracturing this asteroid are not so great as to explain the incredible lack of vaporization of the rest of the asteroid.DarkStar wrote: "Quote:
Detonate a thermonuclear weapon next to that wall, and the olivine wall
will
probably shatter. The more resilient iron wall may either tear wide
open, or
just sit there and melt, et cetera, depending on various factors.
The point is that if your claims were true, and they were attempting to
vaporize that asteroid, then the energy requirements to fracture it
would have been so much lower than the energy requirements to vaporize the
asteroid as to make any comparison silly. Your analogy is totally irrelevent."
It is not irrelevant at all . . . you have simply failed to comprehend
the relevance. The point that has gone flying at warp speed over your head
is that shattered wall fragments will be far less likely to end up vaporizing,
whereas a more shatter-resistant surface will not be able to take the same
opportunity to escape.
[repetition of original argument snipped]
If you will examine the picture, you will see that these are the results of uneven fractures, and that UNEVEN FRACTURES DO NOT HAVE "HORRENDOUS JAGGED EDGES!" If you had even bothered to glance at the site I provided a link to, this would be clear. That's okay. Since you repeatedly accuse me of missing the point of arguments, it's okay if you miss a few.DarkStar wrote: "But in the asteroid that we see fractured, we do not see results typical for olivine. We see NO evidence of a conchoidal fracture. Instead, we see all the patterns of an uneven fracture."
I assume you refer to http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Rise13247.jpg.
If so, you should pay closer attention to the edges of the material, where you
might note that instead of horrendous jagged edges, you have reasonably
smooth (if a bit grainy-looking) separation planes.
Jagged edges are the result of a different kind of fracture--the aptly-named, "jagged fracture."
Let's review. Basically, DorkStar said that there are "reasonably smooth (if a bit grainy-looking) separation planes." In other words, he describes an uneven fracture almost perfectly, and then proceeds to call it a conchoidal fracture! WTF? I think it's pretty clear that there is only one side left in this argument. The asteroid does not demonstrate the properties of olivine.
Uhhhh.... Yeah. Since your rebuttal was based almost entirely on the assumption that the asteroid had the properties of olivine, it should be self evident that if, in fact, the asteroid does not demonstrate the properties of olivine then the rebuttal is irrelevent.DarkStar wrote: "The asteroid fragment Chakotay cracks open is clearly not made of
substantial amounts of olivine. Its properties were clearly not those of olivine.
Your rebuttal is irrelevent."
I love how you make some idiotic comment and then promptly claim that everything is "clearly" in your own personal favor, or against mine.
I, of course, found that part of the site. That is why I can't figure out whether you are saying that the asteroid is made up of olivine or of an artificial material. I was further confused by your statements that appeared to indicate your belief in an artificial asteroid, when combined with your statements that the asteroid's properties were dominated by olivine.DarkStar wrote: "So here's the question, are you claiming that the asteroid fragment was made primarily of olivine or artificial materials?"
Had you read my page, you might've noticed the following comment: "This would assume, of course, that the entire asteroid was olivine, and not nickel-iron with a couple of oddball chunks of olivine. Given the fact that it fragmented in the way it did without vaporizing as expected, that isn't a bad hypothesis. But, then, the Nisu astrophysicist dude mentioned in his transmission that the asteroids were composed of artificial materials .
. .
whether he had simply found evidence that triatium alloy was part of theasteroid, or had found that sensor signals were being distorted, or found that the majority of the asteroids were literally artificial is not clear. "
Exactly, so why are you saying that the asteroid demonstrates the properties of olivine? Why are you comparing it to olivine? Why are you saying that its properties are explained because it is composed, in part, of olivine?DarkStar wrote: Had you read and understood this comment, you might've noticed that I had just said that we don't know for certain what the majority of the asteroid was really composed of.
We do, however, know from Torres's tricorder scan that the piece she and Chakotay played with was made of olivine, at least in part. It is the second thing she lists, but since none of us know what trioxine is, olivine is the only substance we know the properties of and can work with.
No it doesn't. If you had done anything more than a google search for "olivine+fracture type", then it would be obvious to you that the asteroid we see does not have the properties of olivine. This is PROVEN by the fact that the asteroid did not fracture conchoidally. That's a big word, DarkStar. Can you say "conchoidally?" If you had the slightest idea of what was going on, you might understand why.DarkStar wrote: "Your assumption about how brittle the material was is flawed, because we can easily see that the asteroid did not demonstrate the properties of olivine."
It exhibits the same ease of fracture and fracture characteristics. It doesn't matter if it exhibits every other property of olivine . . . my argument is not affected if the whole damn thing is quartz or anything else. If you had the slightest idea what was going on, you might understand why.
LMAO! We hold these truths to be self-evident: That DarkStar is one of the stupidest people on earth.DarkStar wrote: In any case, my points still stand.
It did not fracture rather well. You are misinterpreting what you are seeing. The fact that it fractured in a few places does not indicate it fractured well. Rather, fracturing well would require for the asteroid to be shattered, or even broken into TINY fragments, much like what Harry Kim described as the effects he expected from the torpedo.DarkStar wrote: "Quote:
In any event, the brittleness of a material is no indication that it will be easier to vaporize . . . indeed, it is far more likely to fracture uncontrollably, and in this case unexpectedly.
You are correct insofar as that the brittleness of the material is no indication of how difficult it will be to vaporize, however this does not explain that lack of fracturing we see in the asteroid that Voyager fired upon.
Had the weapon had anywhere near the yield that you are claiming, the asteroid would have fractured far more completely."
Where the hell do you get this nonsense? "Lack of fracturing"?? It fractured
rather well, from what I saw . . . not counting the vaporized amount, of course.
DarkStar the only reason you have proven worthy of my attention is your extraordinary ability to resist the truth. You're like one of those weeds that grows in people's back yards and, even when cut down to a stub, grows back because part of the root sytem remains. In your case, DumbShit, the root system is your ungodly ignorance. And that is something that no craft here-possessed can undo.DarkStar wrote: "I stated this, earlier. Try to pay attention."
Ossus, seriously, you have never demonstrated yourself worthy of my attention.
From the first moment you replied to a post of mine, you have misread everything I say, then bitched when I said it again, and bitched even more when I pointed out that you misread it the first time. And, of course, you feel that by simply typing out the results of your mental masturbation and hitting "Submit", you have thoroughly blasted my arguments and myself. Then, incredibly, you're actually astonished when I reply to your BS.
Translated from idiot: "I have no intention of changing my mind based on the evidence, or what anyone else thinks. I'm right because I said so." Seriously, that appears to be the only evidence that points to his winning in this debate.DarkStar wrote: Well, sorry to have to clue you in on this little fact, kiddo, but I have no intention of changing my mind just because you don't like what I say, or can provide stupid, invalid reasons that, to you, suggest that what I say is not in keeping with reality. The evidence is the final arbiter.
I'm considered a reasonable debater for the same reasons that you are not. I am not considered a good debater because of "groupthink" or anything like that. Also, you are not considered an idiot because you do not believe that the Empire would crush the Federation. Rather, you are considered an idiot because you have no debating skills, frequently lie or misrepresent evidence, and repeatedly make claims without evidence (ie. "You have never demonstrated an ability to defeat my arguments"). Further, you are despised by myself and others for refusing to acknowledge defeat on ANY level. This is infuriating for obvious reasons. When combined with your hypocrisy and lack of situational awareness of any kind, you become a picador and a semantics whore. I am also considered reasonable because I try to avoid the use of irrational arguments, which you liberally use to separate yourself from sanity.DarkStar wrote: One thing I still haven't figured out is why you're considered a decent debater on SD.Net. I can only assume that it either has something to do with groupthink, or else you really kick ass in threads I have never seen.
Gee. That's too bad. I've been impressed by you. After all, it takes a particular brand of idiot to do what you have been doing for so long.DarkStar wrote: Whatever the case, you've certainly never impressed me.
That's too bad. I can't say I give a damn.DarkStar wrote: "In the video clip, we see very little uncontrolled fracturing of the asteroid. We also see almost no unexpected fracturing of the asteroid."
See, this is another one of those times when you have failed to impress me.
I also saw that the fractures should have been expected in any asteroid, hit with a weapon with a high enough yield to crack them but a yield too low to vaporize them. I mistook what you were saying when you said that the fractures would be unexpected and uncontrolled. My mistake, sorry.DarkStar wrote: "We also see almost no unexpected fracturing of the asteroid" . . . what the hell are you talking about? Did you not notice the suprise when the asteroid wasn't vaporized? What the hell is wrong with you?
No we don't see any conchoidal fracturing. Please revise this statement when you read about what "conchoidal" means and look at the picture your own site provided.DarkStar wrote: "We see no conchoidal fracturing of the asteroid."
Except, of course, for what appears on screen.
I really don't feel I need to defend DasBastard, becauseDarkStar wrote: "DarkStar, DasBastard demonstrated clearly that your scaling was incorrect."
No, Ossus. There's a difference between DasBastard demonstrating clearly that
he *feels* my scaling is incorrect, and actually demonstrating that his feelings are accurate.
As I recall, DasBastard tried to use some idiotic methodology that led him astray, which is to be expected. If memory serves, he looked at this:
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Rise602.jpg
. . . and declared that the entire torpedo . . . streamers, glow, and all .
. . was no more than two meters wide.
1. That is stupid:
A: His scaling is just plain wrong. Look at the windows!
B: Unfortunately, we have seen a torpedo casing . . . the casing alone
is a meter wide, and the torpedo glow is always far larger, not even
including the streamers.
2. That ignores all those times (which, to my knowledge is every single one) where a torpedo gains luminosity after tube exit, then stabilizes at a certain brightness level. Presumably, this is when the torpedo's shield is being raised/established.
3. Further, you'll note that should you deign to draw a line between
the torpedo in the above frame and the launch tube behind it, you'll end up
with a line that very closely parallel's Voyager's direction of travel. Further, the torpedo does not appear to alter course. *Nevertheless*, I have chosen to scale the torpedo as if it were headed almost directly toward the observer, in order to achieve a *cnservative* figure.
1. His scaling is more correct than yours, as it is based on a better premise than yours.
2. He is not me, and he is more than capable of defending himself.
3. I'm getting bored out of my skull pointing out all the problems in your logic. There's really no challenge in it. You are not too impressive, as a debater.
[cough] Hypocrite. [end cough]DarkStar wrote: "You grossly inflate the size of the asteroid being fired upon."
No, you grossly inflate the validity of your inflated ego. "Please revise. "
Note how, despite the fact that I never once flamed him or even really insulted him, in my original message, he rapidly degenerates into flaming. Yet then he runs off and claims that the reason he did not want to debate Mike Wong was because the debate would degenerate into insults. I wonder why all of his debates degenerate into flame wars so quickly. After all, when he says things like, "You are cordially invited to go fuck yourself," anyone can see that he does not deserve, nor want, flaming to pollute his speeches.DarkStar wrote: I wondered when this was coming. "Please revise your claims, which are based on the evidence and sound reasoning, because I'm a whiney-baby and didn't like what you said." So sad, too bad. You are cordially invited to go fuck yourself.
I usually do not think of nice people when I think of the statement "Go fuck yourself," and while I would never profess to being an especially nice person myself, I also find it stupid that DarkStar can attempt to use the "style over substance" fallacy and then come back and say this to someone who is remaining "civil." Clearly the people who think he is a nice guy who is flamed unnecessarily are mistaken. This message he sent me is proof beyond any doubt that he is really not a friendly chap, and that he is no better than the people he argues against--even on such a minor point.
Wait a minute, first you wanted me to fuck myself, and now you want me to go and tell someone that they are wrong? There's a better way to get what you want, DarkStar, but I digress.DarkStar wrote: You are also cordially invited to inform the following individual that he is in error, since Federation force fields have never been observed to create a greenish wobbly CGI distortion on contact, whereas the Borg drone shields did in First Contact.
"name: Anonymous
e-mail: not really@rabidwarsie.com
source: From SD.Net
comment: The feild used to restrain data was an Ent-E forcefeild, not a
borg feild. a better example would be the feilds on the borg ships in
unimatrix zero or Dark frontier"
I think it's time that this particular thread be closed. I know that it is not the 20th, yet, but at this point I think it is clear that I have convinced everyone I want to convince, and that continued debate with DarkStar will inevitably degenerate into more flames (for obvious reasons) (not that I particularly care about flames, except that I don't particularly think there's any reason to continue to debate like this if it goes nowhere). And DarkStar, when you get to hell, tell 'em Master of Ossus sent you.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
- DasBastard
- Redshirt
- Posts: 34
- Joined: 2002-07-12 10:50am
- Location: Montreal
So much fallacy, so little time:
He also employs a strawman - I never claimed that my figures include the streamers; including the streamers in the torpedo-to-asteroid scaling is (to say the least) highly dubious, and demolishes any claims to generating 'an absolute I-bent-over-backward lower limit'. The streamers occupy less than 5% of the profile area defined by their length - this means that as the distance increases, they will appear to diffuse into a pale halo around the luminous center - which, not coincidentally, is exactly what we see in the progression of images that Scooter used in his scaling. End result: the bright object we see strike the asteroid will have a visible radius almost identical to that of the torpedo's 'center'. Scaling using the streamer radius will generate a very generous upper limit.
The simple fact of the matter is that the most reliable scaling is done when the distance between Voyager and the torpedo is minimized. Once the torpedo begins its travel, the error in any positional measurements increases dramatically, since it becomes impossible to determine the displacement in and out of the plane of the picture. Scooter has dishonestly exploited this uncertainty in order to laughably cast a vast overexaggeration as a "lower limit".
Apparently, Scooter considers scaling when the subject is a known distance from an object of known size "idiotic". This is an excellent explanation for his uniformly lousy scaling work.DarkStar wrote:As I recall, DasBastard tried to use some idiotic methodology that led him astray, which is to be expected. If memory serves, he looked at this:
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Rise602.jpg
. . . and declared that the entire torpedo . . . streamers, glow, and all .
. . was no more than two meters wide.
He also employs a strawman - I never claimed that my figures include the streamers; including the streamers in the torpedo-to-asteroid scaling is (to say the least) highly dubious, and demolishes any claims to generating 'an absolute I-bent-over-backward lower limit'. The streamers occupy less than 5% of the profile area defined by their length - this means that as the distance increases, they will appear to diffuse into a pale halo around the luminous center - which, not coincidentally, is exactly what we see in the progression of images that Scooter used in his scaling. End result: the bright object we see strike the asteroid will have a visible radius almost identical to that of the torpedo's 'center'. Scaling using the streamer radius will generate a very generous upper limit.
Note the fantastic leap of logic and total lack of evidence - he fails to show a) why the windows prove his point and b) that the scaling figures would support a).1. That is stupid:
A: His scaling is just plain wrong. Look at the windows!
Unsupported claim.... the torpedo glow is always far larger, not even
including the streamers.
Unsupported claim. No evidence whatsoever. He also conspicuously fails to quantify this supposedly universal increase in apparent size - is it 1%? 10%? or, as he implicitly claims, 500%?!?2. That ignores all those times (which, to my knowledge is every single one) where a torpedo gains luminosity after tube exit, then stabilizes at a certain brightness level. Presumably, this is when the torpedo's shield is being raised/established.
This is blatant incompetence. He claims without quantification or proof of any kind that torpedoes appear larger after being fired, and here he implicitly claims that he can segregate the increase in apparent size due to this swelling from that caused by increased proximity to the camera, despite the absence of any reference points. It is not surprising that he fails to give any actual numbers here, because he knows they are easily-refuted bullshit.3. Further, you'll note that should you deign to draw a line between
the torpedo in the above frame and the launch tube behind it, you'll end up with a line that very closely parallel's Voyager's direction of travel. Further, the torpedo does not appear to alter course. *Nevertheless*, I have chosen to scale the torpedo as if it were headed almost directly toward the observer, in order to achieve a *cnservative* figure.
The simple fact of the matter is that the most reliable scaling is done when the distance between Voyager and the torpedo is minimized. Once the torpedo begins its travel, the error in any positional measurements increases dramatically, since it becomes impossible to determine the displacement in and out of the plane of the picture. Scooter has dishonestly exploited this uncertainty in order to laughably cast a vast overexaggeration as a "lower limit".
- Master of Ossus
- Darkest Knight
- Posts: 18213
- Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
- Location: California
Okay, non-biased third party reps, if you think Scooter is winning at any level, then PM me and Darth Wong, and e-mail DumbShit at his site. DasBastard and I have both shown (in my opinion), that this particular page of his site is not reasonable, and that it has several errors which should all probably be corrected.
Also, I think that Scooter has once again shown his true colors in beginning a flame war unnecessarily and without provocation.
In any case, mods, I think this debate is over. Unless DasBastard has anything more to say about this, I think we've convinced everyone who's going to be convinced. DumbShit's site is wrong. You may close the thread at your convenience.
Also, I think that Scooter has once again shown his true colors in beginning a flame war unnecessarily and without provocation.
In any case, mods, I think this debate is over. Unless DasBastard has anything more to say about this, I think we've convinced everyone who's going to be convinced. DumbShit's site is wrong. You may close the thread at your convenience.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
-
- Dishonest Resident Borg Fan-Whore
- Posts: 4206
- Joined: 2002-08-08 03:56am
- Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
I'm very curious, what are most accounts? The E-D had 250 torpedo payload as stated by Worf in ST:TNG "Conundrum". I've seen or heard no evidence to the contrary, though I would gladly accept it.Master of Ossus wrote:Hmmm.... I can definitely see what Darkling is saying. 40 torpedoes is too low for an extended combat mission.
It would more adequately serve in an exploration role. On the other hand, Voyager should have gotten more torpedoes anyway. The Enterprise D was an explorer, and it had a thousand torpedoes according to most accounts.
[/b]
Perhaps any situation Voyager couldn't handle, it would simply retreat.
I can also, of course, see that Voyager is smaller and less powerful than the Enterprise D, and so it could just be a difference in classes. I don't really know. I would have thought, though, that any ships on the border of Federation territory would have been outfitted at least partially for combat, at least on a small scale.
Torpedoes are variable yield.
We're in agreement then.
Curious MOO, what do you think is the most realistic, canon example of the a torpedo's maximum yield? In other words, what do you think a maximum yield Fed photon torpedo can do?
- Master of Ossus
- Darkest Knight
- Posts: 18213
- Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
- Location: California
My guess is that their maximum yield is somewhere between 40 and 100 MT, with 50-65 MT as a good average of what we see. I just cannot conceive of how DarkStar believes that the incident in "Rise" was a demonstration of that kind of firepower. It would seem to me to be an example of an extraordinarily low firepower.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
- CmdrWilkens
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 9093
- Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
- Location: Land of the Crabcake
- Contact:
Judging against "Night Terrors" P-torps might be much lower in firepower. You mgiht want to remind him how it was expected that the Anti-Borg weapon would outperform all the torps onboard the E-D. To be specific they needed to overcome the minimum energy of the rift to set themselves free and they chose to use the anti-Borg weapon over blowing up all their torpedoes.
Even if we generously assume that they could only detonate 1 torp at a time this means the the anti-Borg beam outperforms any given torpedo. Taking Geordi's TW range power quote (999TW assumed) and assuming all of this is routed to the dish and applied for 10 sec (approx discharge time) would lead to a total energy of 2.3 MT max energy for a P-torp.
The value can go even lower when one considers that the explosive yield of hydrogen combined with another element yielded more explosive force than a P-torp. I worked out that even with the best known binding energy out there the E-D would have to carry a box whose sides are its dimension carrying nothing but hydrogen chilled at 100 K and at a pressure of over 12,000 ATM just to get a 1 MT explosion. (note these are rough numbers derived from memory not calculated fresh).
Even if we generously assume that they could only detonate 1 torp at a time this means the the anti-Borg beam outperforms any given torpedo. Taking Geordi's TW range power quote (999TW assumed) and assuming all of this is routed to the dish and applied for 10 sec (approx discharge time) would lead to a total energy of 2.3 MT max energy for a P-torp.
The value can go even lower when one considers that the explosive yield of hydrogen combined with another element yielded more explosive force than a P-torp. I worked out that even with the best known binding energy out there the E-D would have to carry a box whose sides are its dimension carrying nothing but hydrogen chilled at 100 K and at a pressure of over 12,000 ATM just to get a 1 MT explosion. (note these are rough numbers derived from memory not calculated fresh).
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE
"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven
- seanrobertson
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 2145
- Joined: 2002-07-12 05:57pm
Interesting.CmdrWilkens wrote:Judging against "Night Terrors" P-torps might be much lower in firepower. You mgiht want to remind him how it was expected that the Anti-Borg weapon would outperform all the torps onboard the E-D. To be specific they needed to overcome the minimum energy of the rift to set themselves free and they chose to use the anti-Borg weapon over blowing up all their torpedoes.
Even if we generously assume that they could only detonate 1 torp at a time this means the the anti-Borg beam outperforms any given torpedo. Taking Geordi's TW range power quote (999TW assumed) and assuming all of this is routed to the dish and applied for 10 sec (approx discharge time) would lead to a total energy of 2.3 MT max energy for a P-torp.
The value can go even lower when one considers that the explosive yield of hydrogen combined with another element yielded more explosive force than a P-torp. I worked out that even with the best known binding energy out there the E-D would have to carry a box whose sides are its dimension carrying nothing but hydrogen chilled at 100 K and at a pressure of over 12,000 ATM just to get a 1 MT explosion. (note these are rough numbers derived from memory not calculated fresh).
I do have one nit to make WRT what Geordi said. From the script:
HANNAH: Your ship... what kind of energy output is it capable of generating?
GEORDI: We have a matter/antimatter warp reaction system, the most powerful in Starfleet... normally kicks plasma up into the terawatt range... what are you thinking about?
"Normally" doesn't sound like maximum output. It's probably indicative
of the output required to reach cruising speeds (warp six? warp seven?).
Warp nine power is around 30,000 TW, IIRC. So that's 300,000 TJ
divided by 250 torpedos, corresponding to about 348 kilotons/torpedo.
This might be the *effective* yield of the torpedo, though in reality
the warp core is 22% efficient, so the deflector would undoubtedly
suffer even greater energy losses. The upper-limit would therefore
be 77 kilotons/torpedo.
There's a slight problem in that reasoning, though. For one thing,
we don't know the warp core's maximum output. Warp 9 is a good
start, but the aforementioned upper-limit would actually be misleading...the actual yield should be higher.
"True Q" has a blurb about how much more power the warp core
can generate, relative to Data's weird 12.75 bil. GW statement.
I can't remember the specifics of it, though, and it might as well
be meaningless.
Still, assuming just for a moment that the E-D could direct
around two million TW in its deflector beam (that efficiency loss again),
that'd be a max of 20 million TJ > 250 torpedos. A torpedo, therefore,
couldn't rate higher than 19 megatons in that episode.
Just spitballing, of course...more on this later, hopefully.
Pain, or damage, don't end the world, or despair, or fuckin' beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, ya got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man ... and give some back.
-Al Swearengen
Cry woe, destruction, ruin and decay: The worst is death, and death will have his day.
-Ole' Shakey's "Richard II," Act III, scene ii.
-Al Swearengen
Cry woe, destruction, ruin and decay: The worst is death, and death will have his day.
-Ole' Shakey's "Richard II," Act III, scene ii.
- CmdrWilkens
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 9093
- Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
- Location: Land of the Crabcake
- Contact:
Well part of the reason I kept it down in the TW range is that we also have Riker's statement that the terrawatt comm unti outpowers the entire ship which highly suggests seriously lower power generation. I know one of the oft thrown out ideas is that 12.75 billion GW is what the actual reactions might generate but by time the Warp System and the rest of the ship get to gobbel up power its under a Petawatt.seanrobertson wrote:<snip>
I do have one nit to make WRT what Geordi said. From the script:
HANNAH: Your ship... what kind of energy output is it capable of generating?
GEORDI: We have a matter/antimatter warp reaction system, the most powerful in Starfleet... normally kicks plasma up into the terawatt range... what are you thinking about?
"Normally" doesn't sound like maximum output. It's probably indicative
of the output required to reach cruising speeds (warp six? warp seven?).
Warp nine power is around 30,000 TW, IIRC. So that's 300,000 TJ
divided by 250 torpedos, corresponding to about 348 kilotons/torpedo.
This might be the *effective* yield of the torpedo, though in reality
the warp core is 22% efficient, so the deflector would undoubtedly
suffer even greater energy losses. The upper-limit would therefore
be 77 kilotons/torpedo.
Still, as you point out, even the ridiculously high power figures, with efficiency numbers I'm guessing form the TM, don't result in mroe than a dozen or two MT for Pho-Torps while Pro-Torps clock in at ten times that number.
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE
"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven
- Master of Ossus
- Darkest Knight
- Posts: 18213
- Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
- Location: California
You make two assumptions which are flawed.
1. You assume that the torpedoes require all of the reactor's power in order to operate. This is not true, as we have seen the E-D fire several torpedoes simultaneously. None of them can have the complete charge of the reactor for one second.
2. You assume that the torpedoes are incapable of using more power than the reactor, even though they both draw power from antimatter. The torpedo could use more antimatter than the main reactor does at any warp.
These will throw off your figures in both directions, but these concerns must be addressed before we can accept your figures. a yield between 20 and 100 MT's is almost certainly the best estimate for photon torpedoes.
1. You assume that the torpedoes require all of the reactor's power in order to operate. This is not true, as we have seen the E-D fire several torpedoes simultaneously. None of them can have the complete charge of the reactor for one second.
2. You assume that the torpedoes are incapable of using more power than the reactor, even though they both draw power from antimatter. The torpedo could use more antimatter than the main reactor does at any warp.
These will throw off your figures in both directions, but these concerns must be addressed before we can accept your figures. a yield between 20 and 100 MT's is almost certainly the best estimate for photon torpedoes.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
- CmdrWilkens
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 9093
- Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
- Location: Land of the Crabcake
- Contact:
You are misunderstanding the premise. Let me explain mroe clearlyMaster of Ossus wrote:You make two assumptions which are flawed.
1. You assume that the torpedoes require all of the reactor's power in order to operate. This is not true, as we have seen the E-D fire several torpedoes simultaneously. None of them can have the complete charge of the reactor for one second.
1) They need to exceed a certain amount of energy to break free of the rift
2) Geordi and others think they need to use the deflector dish trick to generate enough energy
3) this means that the amount of energy that can be pumped out of the deflector dish SHOULD exceed the total firepower of the E-Ds torpedoes (or at the least 1 torp but you'd think they could rig a frickin timer)
<snip>
I've snipped the rest of your reply because I think you missed the point. The torpedoes must contain in them less energy than the Anti-borg deflector dish trick uses based on the decision to use the dish over the torps to exceed the energy limit of the rift (and the side fact that a mere chemical explosion combinign hydrogen and another element was enough to top the limit).
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE
"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven
-
- Dishonest Resident Borg Fan-Whore
- Posts: 4206
- Joined: 2002-08-08 03:56am
- Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
CmdrWilkens wrote:I've snipped the rest of your reply because I think you missed the point. The torpedoes must contain in them less energy than the Anti-borg deflector dish trick uses based on the decision to use the dish over the torps to exceed the energy limit of the rift (and the side fact that a mere chemical explosion combinign hydrogen and...
another element...
Let me strongly suggest that unless the "other element" is a known element, calculation for energy output is absolutely useless. If it is a treknobabble madeup element, it's energy/mass ratio could be completely unrealistic, but undeniable. For all we know, it could be a counterpart to Voyager's discovered "Omega" particle, which a few molecules of are claimed to be able to supply enough energy to power an entire civilization....was enough to top the limit).
Too many people are dismissing "suspension of disbelief" on this board.
- Kamakazie Sith
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 7555
- Joined: 2002-07-03 05:00pm
- Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
That's was my point when I argued this on ASVS, but those calcs of theirs do agree with observed evidence, sadly.Robert Walper wrote: Let me strongly suggest that unless the "other element" is a known element, calculation for energy output is absolutely useless. If it is a treknobabble madeup element, it's energy/mass ratio could be completely unrealistic, but undeniable. For all we know, it could be a counterpart to Voyager's discovered "Omega" particle, which a few molecules of are claimed to be able to supply enough energy to power an entire civilization.
Too many people are dismissing "suspension of disbelief" on this board.
There are only a couple of things that don't argee with KT level photons but they are only statements.
Milites Astrum Exterminans
- Master of Ossus
- Darkest Knight
- Posts: 18213
- Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
- Location: California
We know about all naturally occuring elements, and we can predict the properties of a vast number of as-of-yet uncreated artificial elements.Robert Walper wrote: Let me strongly suggest that unless the "other element" is a known element, calculation for energy output is absolutely useless.
Prove this. You made the claim, demonstrate that it is indeed an impossible element.Robert Walper wrote: If it is a treknobabble madeup element, it's energy/mass ratio could be completely unrealistic, but undeniable. For all we know, it could be a counterpart to Voyager's discovered "Omega" particle,
Dialogue is always, always, always, susceptible to analysis. Just because a character says this does not make something true.Robert Walper wrote: which a few molecules of are claimed to be able to supply enough energy to power an entire civilization.
This isn't a suspension of disbelief issue. Even using suspension of disbelief, dialogue always has to be interpreted. Also, your Omega particle is completely unsubstantiated by any of the quantifiable, visual evidence that we have. The vast majority of incidents show a photon torpedo range in the kiloton range. Anomalous incidents show yields that are even lower. There are some incidents which show MT range torpedoes, off of which I based my estimate for torpedo yield. DarkStar showed none of these incidents, instead focusing on an incident that demonstrated kiloton level yields (It can't be more than 2 MT, and it is likely far less).Robert Walper wrote: Too many people are dismissing "suspension of disbelief" on this board.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
-
- Dishonest Resident Borg Fan-Whore
- Posts: 4206
- Joined: 2002-08-08 03:56am
- Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
You can do the same for Trek? That doesn't seem feasible.Master of Ossus wrote: We know about all naturally occuring elements, and we can predict the properties of a vast number of as-of-yet uncreated artificial elements.
Demostrate that a Omega particle is an impossible element? I couldn't do so even if I knew how.Prove this. You made the claim, demonstrate that it is indeed an impossible element.
Dismissing dialogue is not acceptable either. A person could argue Riker in "Pegasus" was not correct, and a single torpedo would have completely vaporized the asteroid.Dialogue is always, always, always, susceptible to analysis. Just because a character says this does not make something true.
[/quote]
This isn't a suspension of disbelief issue. Even using suspension of disbelief, dialogue always has to be interpreted. Also, your Omega particle is completely unsubstantiated by any of the quantifiable, visual evidence that we have. The vast majority of incidents show a photon torpedo range in the kiloton range.
[/quote]
The vast majority of torpedo examples(that I'm aware of) are against asteroids and other non-enemy or technology reinforced objects. So unless you're arguing Federation ships will jack their variable torpedoe yields up to multi-megaton yields to destroy objects that only require kilotons or less, I fail to see your point.
I hope you're not implying I'm a new DarkStar or something...that's just...well....mean.Anomalous incidents show yields that are even lower. There are some incidents which show MT range torpedoes, off of which I based my estimate for torpedo yield. DarkStar showed none of these incidents, instead focusing on an incident that demonstrated kiloton level yields (It can't be more than 2 MT, and it is likely far less).
- Master of Ossus
- Darkest Knight
- Posts: 18213
- Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
- Location: California
Trek claims lineage from real life, don't they?Robert Walper wrote:You can do the same for Trek? That doesn't seem feasible.Master of Ossus wrote: We know about all naturally occuring elements, and we can predict the properties of a vast number of as-of-yet uncreated artificial elements.
[/quote]Demostrate that a Omega particle is an impossible element? I couldn't do so even if I knew how.Prove this. You made the claim, demonstrate that it is indeed an impossible element.
You cannot ask me to disprove something. You must prove it. You must also prove it because you were the one who originally made the claim about Omega particles. That is how BoP works.
Are you saying that we should use dialogue to dismiss visual evidence, which we have seen multiple times? Are you saying that we should use it to ignore many quantifiable incidents? Further, I am not dismissing dialogue. I am saying that it is open to interpretation. What part of that is objectionable?Dismissing dialogue is not acceptable either. A person could argue Riker in "Pegasus" was not correct, and a single torpedo would have completely vaporized the asteroid.Dialogue is always, always, always, susceptible to analysis. Just because a character says this does not make something true.
The point is that the largest firepowers we've ever seen from ST torpedoes are around 50-100 MT, with slightly lower yields being the most common. Note that in STVI the torpedo that went straight through the Enterprise did JACK when it actually exploded. It apparently did vastly more damage just as a KE projectile than it did as an explosive. That was an example of a torpedo being used in combat that did not produce an effect of more than a few dozen kilotons. There is no reason in combat not to use maximum power, especially since they were trying to destroy the E-A quickly. You dismiss all of the incidents we've seen torpedoes used in favor of your assessment of the dialogue. That is not a proper way of debating points.The vast majority of torpedo examples(that I'm aware of) are against asteroids and other non-enemy or technology reinforced objects. So unless you're arguing Federation ships will jack their variable torpedoe yields up to multi-megaton yields to destroy objects that only require kilotons or less, I fail to see your point.This isn't a suspension of disbelief issue. Even using suspension of disbelief, dialogue always has to be interpreted. Also, your Omega particle is completely unsubstantiated by any of the quantifiable, visual evidence that we have. The vast majority of incidents show a photon torpedo range in the kiloton range.
What the hell? Of course I'm not comparing you to DarkStar. The point is that this thread is about DarkStar. You cannot come into a thread specifically about someone else and then create your own position arbitrarily. Another thread would be a better place for this. So the question is this: do you accept the estimates that I established for torpedo yield on this particular thread as being accurate (not the part where I show DarkStar to be wrong, but when I told you what my estimated torpedo yield was)?I hope you're not implying I'm a new DarkStar or something...that's just...well....mean.Anomalous incidents show yields that are even lower. There are some incidents which show MT range torpedoes, off of which I based my estimate for torpedo yield. DarkStar showed none of these incidents, instead focusing on an incident that demonstrated kiloton level yields (It can't be more than 2 MT, and it is likely far less).
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
-
- Dishonest Resident Borg Fan-Whore
- Posts: 4206
- Joined: 2002-08-08 03:56am
- Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
What Trek claims and what Trek does are two entirely different things. The one thing we must remember MoO is that reality is only a reference point on which to analysis sci-fi. It's laws, physics or otherwise, are always paramount.Master of Ossus wrote: Trek claims lineage from real life, don't they?
Agreed.You cannot ask me to disprove something.
I merely claimed there existed molecules in Trek that have enormous energy potential, and given this example, other similar sources are not unrealistic, and one of these "other" sources may have been the unnamed element in the episode in question.You must prove it. You must also prove it because you were the one who originally made the claim about Omega particles. That is how BoP works.
No.Are you saying that we should use dialogue to dismiss visual evidence, which we have seen multiple times?
No.Are you saying that we should use it to ignore many quantifiable incidents?
Nothing. I have merely stated that a chain of Omega particles has been stated as a sufficent power source for an entire civilization. I then used this reference as a line of reasoning to state that any unnamed element in the questioned episode could also be dealing with a high energy/mass ratio.Further, I am not dismissing dialogue. I am saying that it is open to interpretation. What part of that is objectionable?
Not disputed. All that I dispute is taking these examples as maximum possible yield of photon torpedoes.The point is that the largest firepowers we've ever seen from ST torpedoes are around 50-100 MT, with slightly lower yields being the most common.
To me, this seems to indicate to me that you are assuming:Note that in STVI the torpedo that went straight through the Enterprise did JACK when it actually exploded.
A) the torpeodoes in question were maximum yield, despite being fired from a modified cloaked ship, which normally drains too much power to make firing while cloaked possible.
B) ignoring SIF technology, which could easily have "muffled" the blast so to speak.
The unique situation in which that torpedo was fired is evidence it easily may not have been a maximum yield torpedo. Heck, the E-D apparently can be heavily damaged or even destroyed from mere proximity blasts of it's own torpedoes, indicating much higher yields are available. They simply werent available to the BoP because if it's heavy modifications.It apparently did vastly more damage just as a KE projectile than it did as an explosive. That was an example of a torpedo being used in combat that did not produce an effect of more than a few dozen kilotons.
You're assuming they could fire maximum yield torpedoes, despite the fact cloaking devices normally prevent firing due to power drains, and ignoring SIF holding the hull together that is under stress.There is no reason in combat not to use maximum power, especially since they were trying to destroy the E-A quickly.
I'm not dismissing any incidents. I merely dispute them being proof of maximum torpedo yield.You dismiss all of the incidents we've seen torpedoes used in favor of your assessment of the dialogue. That is not a proper way of debating points.
It was a joke MoO. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.What the hell? Of course I'm not comparing you to DarkStar.
I've no dispute with the estimates you've claimed here for torpedo yields.The point is that this thread is about DarkStar. You cannot come into a thread specifically about someone else and then create your own position arbitrarily. Another thread would be a better place for this. So the question is this: do you accept the estimates that I established for torpedo yield on this particular thread as being accurate (not the part where I show DarkStar to be wrong, but when I told you what my estimated torpedo yield was)?
- CmdrWilkens
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 9093
- Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
- Location: Land of the Crabcake
- Contact:
Nonetheless we can look at the binding energy of Hydrogen with other elements and notice trends throughout the periodic table. At the end of the day we KNOW its an element which means it will obey the trends of the periodic table which, again, would mean that the E-D would have to carry around a square box whose sides are the lengths of the E-D's dimensions)filled with hydrogen at 100 K and over 12000 ATM just to have a 1 MT explosion. For DarkStar's ridiculous 150 MT number that would require the binding energy curve to tilt so drastically as to break any bounds of the credible. In the lack of evidence trends of the periodic chart are a FAR superior indicator of performance than trekkie "but it could..." speculation.Robert Walper wrote:CmdrWilkens wrote:I've snipped the rest of your reply because I think you missed the point. The torpedoes must contain in them less energy than the Anti-borg deflector dish trick uses based on the decision to use the dish over the torps to exceed the energy limit of the rift (and the side fact that a mere chemical explosion combinign hydrogen and...another element...Let me strongly suggest that unless the "other element" is a known element, calculation for energy output is absolutely useless. If it is a treknobabble madeup element, it's energy/mass ratio could be completely unrealistic, but undeniable. For all we know, it could be a counterpart to Voyager's discovered "Omega" particle, which a few molecules of are claimed to be able to supply enough energy to power an entire civilization....was enough to top the limit).
Too many people are dismissing "suspension of disbelief" on this board.
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE
"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven