Upper limit photon torpedoes...

[Robert Walper]

Since in Star Trek Voyager "Omega" the Voyager crew was setting a photon torpedo to 83 isotons, such a theory seems somewhat disproven.

Was that torpedo typical of weaponry in Star Trek? Harry was quite surprised at the yield of the weapon.

Yes, he was. If Voyager's torpedo inventory is 32 torpedoes with a maximum yield of 200 isotons, and the Voyager crew can set a photon torpedo to a 83 isoton yield, then clearly the 200 isoton torpedo is meant for individual torpedoes. If not, why would the Borg list Voyager's entire torpedo inventory, but ignore another "class" of torpedoes that can be set to almost half their entire payload of "regular" torpedoes?

[Robert Walper]

Ted C, since I'm reliably online for the time being, I've decided to respond to your first post to this thread.

The following is Mike Wong's calculation for the maximum theoritcal yield for photon torpedoes:

1.5 kilograms(anti-matter) x 1.5 kilograms(matter) = 64.3 megaton yield

His conclusion states that we can reasonably expect a photon torpedo to deliver between 10 to 32 megatons of energy at any given target. However, while the calculation itself is sound, the basis of this calculation not. His reference source, the "Deep Space Nine Technical Manual", is a non-canon source in which his figures could have been plucked randomly out of thin air by the authors.

Very well. For the moment, let's call it open season on photon torpedo yield.

From all indicationa, the season may die down, but it never seems to end...

The following is a canon statement made by Seven of Nine from Star Trek Voyager "Scorpion Part 2":

"Voyager's torpedo inventory; 32 photon torpedo complement, maximum yield 200 isotons."

Since this episode, many Trekkies have pounced on this information in attempts to extrapolate it's exact meaning in order to get a clear view of the maximum yields of Federation torpedoes.

So, we seem to be once again trying to define the elusive "isoton".

I only propose a theory that gives the Federation weapons of mass destruction, but along with reasonable explanations as to why deployment of such weaponry has not been seen directly.

A couple of examples:

"Take the statement literately." - Unfortunately, this isn't the best way to go. Isoton basically means "singular tons", and using our *current* system for measuring explosives, this would mean 200 tons of TNT...a rather pitiful warhead explosion for a technologically advanced human race. In comparison to the real world's largest detonated nuclear explosive (57 megatons, detonated by the Russians during the Cold War), Voyager's most powerful warhead would be 285,000 times less powerful.

Alas, that's not terribly inconsistent with some things we've actually seen torpedoes accomplish (the incident from ST6 you mentioned, for instance). A blast equivalent to a few dozen tons of TNT is also compatible with statements from Riker and Laforge about the Enterprise-D's power output only coming to about one terawatt ("The Dauphin" and "The Masterpiece Society", respectively),

The episode in which Riker suggests a terawatt is greater than the Enterprise's total output was in response to a communications burst through a disruptive planetary atmosphere. When I watched the episode, I realized one could interpret his claim as meaning greater than the Enterprise's communication power output. This would seem to be more consistent with other claims that state the Enterprise's power output greater than a terawatt. I recall no references, but I'm sure there are examples of the Enterprise's power output being greater than a terawatt.

since the combined output of the ships phasers and photon torpedoes comes to less than the ship could direct through the main deflector dish in a controlled manner ("Best of Both Worlds" and "Night Terrors"), and they couldn't possibly put more through the deflector than the ship's power systems can generate.

Agreed, although I hesistate to suggest the Enterprise's total power output has been firmly established.

Although we generally dismiss any weapon with less than thermonuclear yields in debates, a blast equivalent to 200 tons of TNT is nothing to sneeze at.

Most certainly not. One may casually throw around numbers like megaton, gigaton and teraton like they are trivial measurements, but such releases of energy, when truely put into perspective regarding our world, are mind boggling.

There's no reason to assume it wouldn't do substantial damage to any starship, especially if the projectile penetrated the hull and the payload detonated inside. One such projectile would be equivalent to dozens of modern cruise missiles with conventional warheads or many salvoes from a WW2 battleship. I really don't see any reason to dismiss that possibility that 200 isotons is equal to 200 tons of TNT (metric tons if you want a little extra potency).

One problem I see here is Tuvok's statement that a 5 million isoton explosion would affect an entire star system, to which Seven of Nine agreed. While the true effect of such an explosion is still a complete mystery, one would reasonably concede (having already conceded that the Borg and Tuvok had at least some idea of what they are talking about) that the effect must be at least noticeable in some significant manner. If taken literately, 5 million isotons would be equivalent to a 5 megaton nuclear device. On a planetary scale, that is noticeable, but on a star system scale, that would suggest to me an analogy of a sneeze "affecting" Earth's wind patterns.

Personally, I cannot fathom even a 5 megaton nuclear device affecting an entire star system in any noticeable or significant manner.

"The 1.5 kilogram reference source was referred to as 25 isotons, therefore the 200 isotons is 8 times more powerful than that, approximately 514 megatons." - This is certainly more creative than the first example, and has some merit if one uses the Techical Manual as a reference source. Strangely enough, some Star Wars fans have claimed that one cannot do this because the TM declares 25 isotons as the maximum photon torpedo yield. Essentially, they attempt to imply one must except every word in the TM as factual, or ignore it (jeez, maybe some Warsies should do this with their "official" literature). Anyhow, if one were willing to selectively use information from the TM(similar to how some Warsies will selectively use information from novels, and declare the rest inaccurate), then this calculation works.

Quite frankly, I don't see any reason to dismiss this argument either. If you're going to accept its implications for the yield of 25 isoton torpedoes, you might as well extrapolate those same terms to include 200 isoton torpedoes.

I don't dismiss the arguement, I merely put it forth as another theory on the measurement of 200 isotons. In this case, 1 isoton would be equivalent to 2.56 megatons.

The problem is that the ST:TMs are extremely suspect sources these days.

My sentiments exactly.

"200 isotons is a unknown measurement for explosive power, and therefore it's anyone's guess." - No disputes here. I personally agree with it.

That really just means that you don't have any clear definition of the unit, so you have to try to evaluate yield based on depicted usage. If you can determine the yield of the weapon, you can then attempt to calculate the value of the unit.

The problem I see with this method is assuming such observed yields are the maximum 200 isoton yield mentioned. The analogy that repeadedly comes to my mind is this: If a person were to overhear that a aircraft can potentially deploy a multimegaton amount of explosive force with a single missile, they would then turn to examples of aircraft missiles used to determine what a megaton of explosive force is. However, if the vast majority(or entirety) of observed evidence is merely conventional bombs and missiles against other aircraft and ground targets, their resulting calculation of megaton measurements would be enormously inaccurate. And given Harry Kim's impression on a 83 isoton warhead, 200 isoton yields would seem very rare.

The following is my theory(and I'm the first to admit it is very sketchy at this point) as to what 200 isotons means. Clearly, we cannot use it literately as TNT explosive power (canon examples of photon torpedoes have given them lower limits ranging in kilotons),...

Let's start by examining those events, then. Show us the incidents in which a photon torpedo has a minimum yield in the kiloton range. It shouldn't be too hard, of course; 24th century technology should be able to produce such a blast easily.

I assume that you are familar with such examples, and therefore won't actually list them. If we both can agree that photon torpedoes have demostrated kiloton yields, the literal interpretation of isoton meaning one ton of TNT can be ruled out.

It's always possible that a payload equivalent to 25 to 200 metric tons of TNT is the "conventional" warhead, while a "special" warhead with nuclear yield can be attached if circumstances require it.

There's still the major(and I suspect virtually impossible) question as to how a 5 megaton device would affect an entire star system. From my perspective, Tuvok and Seven's statements along with their technical readout being right in front of them suggests this particular line of dialogue is quite accurate.

Using the theoritical calculations I've provided, a 5 million isoton blast would be equivalent to 214 thousand teratons of TNT. This would be 42.8 millions times more powerful than a 5 megaton nuclear device, and combined with some subspace shockwave/Treknobabble, puts a little more credibility to the claim about affecting an entire star system.

... and it doesn't seem likely the Federation would use 200 tons of uranium or plutonium as explosive power measurements. One theory is that 200 isotons of explosive force is the equivalent of 200 metric tons of anti-matter and matter anihilating eachother(and yes, I'm aware this is a theory based upon a single statement). Example:

1 kilogram anti-matter x 1 kilogram matter = 42.86 megatons (calc based from information assimilated at www.stardestroyer.net )

1000 kilograms(1 metric ton) anti-maater x 1000 kilograms(1 metric ton) matter = 42,860 megatons(1 x isoton)

From this calculation, it is determined that 1 isoton of explosive force is the equivalent of 42,860 megatons. Taking a 200 isoton yield we get:

200,000 kilograms(200 metric tons) anti-matter x 200,000 kilograms(200 metric tons) matter = 8,572,000 megatons = 8,572 gigatons = 8.572 teratons

The problem here is that anti-matter seems to be the richest energy source available to the Federation,

Although it doesn't appear to be a vastly abundant material(especially on starships), another good reason why such weaponry would be very rare.

and I don't see how they could possibly get 200 tons of matter/anti-matter payload into a 2-meter torpedo casing, especially with containment system, a propulsion unit and a guidance system, too.

If I can go out on a limb here Ted. Do you recall a Deep Space 9 episode where Kira and several others when engaged in a covert operation that involved blowing up a Dominion door that ended up being made of "solid neutronium"?(hence their inability to destroy it with the explosives they had on hand) This suggests to me that powers comparable to the Federation possess the ability to hold extremely high dense materials together, and even prevent such materials from sinking/expanding/destroying surrounding structures made of supposededly much less materials.

Equivalence to 200 tons of TNT is far more plausible, even when supposing extremely advanced technology.

Unless you insist otherwise, I would generally dismiss the literal interpretation of isoton as a measurement of TNT explosive force.

The possibility of forcing 200 tons of material into a few cubic meters of space stretches plausibility beyond all possible credibility, IMO.

If I'm not mistaken, physicists have put forth generally excepted theories on high density stars having enormous mass per square inch(several billion tons per square inch if I'm not mistaken). While I don't give the Federation credibility to accomplish this feat to that degree, I don't think it's beyond comprehension that they could cram 200 tons into small spaces(and if I could find more info and clarify my DS9 example, I might have some supporting evidence). We are after all dealing with a civilization that can reduce the "effective" mass of their own ships, and in one case, even a tiny moon.

Beyond that, we have no indication that the Federation possesses a denser form of energy containment; even in TOS, whenever they needed an extraordinarily large ka-boom, they turned to anti-matter.

Then if I wish to employ this theory, anti-matter and matter would seem the most likely explosive material used.

Consequently, I will consider this particular objection to be extremely legitimate until you can show some actual evidence that the Federation has the technology to solve the problem. Simply saying "we don't know what kind of containment technology or high explosive materials they might have" isn't going to cut it. I believe this particular argument falls under the category of Appeal to Ignorance.

If I'm able to clarify(or perhaps you already are familar with the incident I refer to) the DS9 example, would it not be considered supporting evidence that powers comparable to the Federation can accomplish feats that might make such compression of matter/anti-matter as described feasible?

"Trek ships hit with torpedoes have never been damaged too such a degree to suggest such yields." - One of the easier claims to deal with, it has several problems. First off, it ignores other Federation technology at work, such as "structual integrity fields". These "SIF"'s are apparently some type of energy barriers(commonly called forcefields) that reinforce the hull of starships(not to mention the durability of Federation hulls is still in dispute). Additionally, the power fed to these SIF's cannot be determined, since power generation of such starships is also in dispute. Secondly, this objection also assumes that such starships would *always* be armed with such weaponry, and *always* use them.

Structural integrity fields obviously don't have the same capabilities as defensive shields, or defensive shields wouldn't be necessary.

I see no reason why Federation ships wouldn't be designed with the concept of a "double" hull(similar to oil tankers of today). If shield generators fail, there is no reason(based upon this assumption) that they cannot channel power that was going to now heavily damaged or inoperative shield generators into structual integrity field generators. I believe it has been stated many times by Federation personnel to increase power to structual fields, and if I'm not mistaken, this is usually said after shields are heavily damaged and/or inoperative.

The apparent purpose of SIFs is to help the ship's structure handle static loads; I don't see much reason to think they'd be much good at anything else, particularly since Federation starship have separate systems to deal with other hazards.

If my recollection isn't flawed, Trek personnel have ordered increasing SIF strength to combat incoming weaponry when shields have been significantly weakened or disabled.

You are, of course, welcome to produce quantitative evidence of the capabilities of SIFs to resist collisions from projectiles like photon torpedoes.

I shall attempt to find some. I recall an incident where Voyager was hit by a small storm of rocks without shields and a deflector dish to deflect them. I'll need to find some evidence that Federation hulls that are reinenforced by SIF can withstand significant bombardment relativeley speaking.

"Trek ships should always use such powerful weaponry all the time to swiftly defeat enemies." - If any military power were to apply this line of thinking in the deployment of military units, soldiers would *always* be equipped with nuclear firing canons, and tanks along with fighter aircraft would routinely engage eachother with nuclear warheads instead of conventional weaponry such as bullets, shells and missiles.

*snip*

I certainly don't dismiss the possibility that Federation weapons can have a wide range of yields, but what you're suggesting is that the captain of a Federation starship can, at any time, elect to employ a weapon with a yield of more than 8 teratons.

Not at all. I don't suggest a tank commander could, at any time, elect to fire a nuclear tipped shell. But the capability to fire such a shell is not beyond a tank if it is prepared(preperation time) beforehand to deploy such firepower, has sufficent reason to do so(an enemy requiring a nuclear tipped shell instead of a typical anti-tank shell), and is in a position where it's own firepower will not cripple or destroy itself(sufficent range from target).

So I've listed at least three criteria a Federation ship must meet before deployment of such a detructive yield, preperation time, practical reasons for deploying such a yield, and sufficent combat space between itself and the target.

Please explain to me why they wouldn't use such a weapon against certain implacable enemies (the Borg, for instance).

Regarding the Enterprise, I'd have to get a little more info on how far it is from said Borg cube. After all, proximity to it's own firepower can cripple the Enterprise, and this is in a instance where such high yield weaponry wasn't likely available. Perhaps the Mars defence perimeter was deploying such yields(maybe those three pods weren't so laughable after all) since it had no risk from such blasts because there wasn't a launcher within a few short kilometers of the destruction radius.

If they would, then please explain why we haven't seen any evidence of 8+ teraton explosions in battle against such foes.

The Enteprise's proximity to the Borg cube, along with the Wolf 359 fleet's proximity to the Borg cube suggests such yields would have crippled or destroyed many of the ships firing them. Such yields would only be practical if engaging a target at extreme range, such as the Mar defence perimeter apparently was. And as the Federation apparently decided, remodulating their phaser and torpedo frequencies bypasses Borg shielding. They may have used some very impressive yields at Wolf 359 and First Contact, but not necessarily the highest yield possible. They do have resource constraints, and even in First Contact they didn't have that much time to prepare.

"In Star Trek 6, the Enterprise A got a direct hit on it's hull by a photon torpedo and suffered damage resembling that of a mere explosion of TNT." - This arguement also ignores the SIF componenet of Federation hulls.

No amount of SIF would have held that ship together if a teraton-range weapon had exploded inside it.

Agreed. But I didn't suggest in that example the torpedo was set to teraton-range yield, and provided reasons why such yields are typically unnecessary and impractical considering typical combat ranges and typical targets(like a Federation ship).

"Commander Riker said the entire torpedo payload of the Enterprise wasn't sufficient to destroy a mostly hollow 5 mile long asteroid in "Pegasus"." - There are multiple problems with this claim, some based on the fact it's been some time since I've seen this episode myself. I'll list some questions I'd like answered before drawing a reasonable conclusion from this *single* incident:
How big really was this asteroid? How was the 5 mile size reached, and is it accurate?

I believe that researchers have been able to compare the size of the asteroid to the size of the Enterprise-D as the E-D was entering the internal cave system.

Do we see the enterance to the cave or cave chamber relative to the entire size of the asteroid, or only a piece of it?

Why does one cavern inside this asteroid immediately translate as the entire asteroid being hollow?

I believe that people consider it largely hollow because the Enterprise was able to maneuver inside without great difficulty and spent a fair amount of time searching for the wreck of the Pegasus.

This does nothing more than indicate a large cave, not a hollow asteroid. The cave the Falcon flew into was also very large relativeley speaking, but that doesn't translate to the asteroid itself being mostly hollow.

What was the Enterprise's torpedo payload at the time? Were they prepared for battle and equipped with high yield weaponry?

There is no reason to think they were substantially below their nominal capacity of 275 torpedoes; nor is there any reason to think those torpedoes weren't capable of maximum yield.

My perspective is that any typical photon torpedo casing can accomodate a 200 isoton yield, yet the anti-matter and matter required to fuel such a torpedo alone indicates difficulty in deploying such a yield.

How long does it take to increase the yield on variable yield photon torpedoes? (these Federation torpedoes can be scaled back to a "display" blast in planetary atmospheres)

How long does it take to "scale them back"? As I recall, Tasha Yar managed to do that from her console in just a few seconds. Do you have some reason to think it would be more complicated to increase the yield to maximum?

Not complicated, but resource consuming, and with resources that a Federation ship by virtually any observed encounter would not need.

Does the Enterprise have sufficient materials on hand to increase it's torpedo yields by high factors?

Are you now arguing that not all Federation torpedoes are capable of multi-teraton yields?

No, only that the resources required to max a torpedo's yield is very expensive, and typically not available. After all, Harry Kim was very impressed by a mere 83 isoton torpedo, less than half of what maximum yield can potentially be. This indicates a 200 isoton torpedo would be even more rare.

That Voyager happens to carry 32 of these excessive weapons while the "Federation flagship" doesn't carry any? Or are you suggesting that the yield of Federation torpedoes jumped by orders of magnitude between the last season of TNG and "Scorpion".

None of the above. My arguement isn't meant to limit a torpedo's maximum yield, but reasonably speculate that a Federation starship's ability to max any such torpedo by that much is typically not possible(limited anti-matter on hand) unless given sufficent preperation time, resources, and practical ways to deploy(range, which in virtually every encounter is limited to severl kilometers).

What was the Enterprise's proximity to the asteroid?

Not terribly far away, as I recall.

They could have moved to make such a high yield deployment practical, but perhaps it would be much faster to simple fire most of their torpedoes rather then up the yield on a couple or one, which required time and resources(and such resources might require taking anti-matter from other torpedoes, making them useless until a anti-matter fuel depot can be reached. In that case, just launch the torpedo and save a bunch of time).

Just how long did they have to destroy the asteroid before the Romulan warbird showed up?

A few minutes, perhaps.

Suggests a very limited time in which to increase torpedo yields beyond typically high yields, when such a proceedure could easily take alot longer than just firing the torpedoes which would accomplish the same job.

Was Commander Riker sufficently aware of the size and material composition of the asteroid in question?

I believe that already had a general idea of its composition, although he might not have known how much of it was hollow.

I'll accept that.

Could it be he was simply wrong, guilty of a minor lapse in reasoning, perhaps due to pressing time and nervousness of an enemy warship closing? (apparently Federation officers are infallible when their comments weaken their military capabilities, but not vice versa)

I am never slow to admit the fallibility of Federation personnel. Character-error is one of the few ways to resolve a multitude of inconsistencies.

Alas, that is certainly true. Although, I try to keep such views as limited as possible.

Once again, I stress that this in only a theory of mine, and I'm currently considering it. This does not mean that I think the Federation's fleets could be equipped with entire payloads of such weaponry on short notice. (And yes, the reason it is posted here is for all to poke holes into it. That's what makes debating fun! )

Consider it poked.

That I do, Hopefully I brought up some good counter points.

[TheDarkling]

The 83 (I thought it was in the 50's) isoton weapon wasn't a standard torp it was a torp bearing a gravimetric warhead, is been put forth that this sort of warhead is more effective at shaking apart matter but is weak against shields or SIF's etc - therefore 83 isotons was alot for this sort of special warhead to have.

Its only a theory but it does dodge the problems with the yield.

[Robert Walper]

The 83 (I thought it was in the 50's)

Originally, it was at 50 isotons, but Janeway then ordered Tuvok and Harry to increase the yield to 83 isotons. It was at this point Harry made his "is she planning to blow up a moon?" comment.

isoton weapon wasn't a standard torp it was a torp bearing a gravimetric warhead,

I saw nor heard any indications that the torpedo wasn't merely a standard one with a gravitic warhead added to it. And again, if Voyager can deploy "gravitic" warheads with 83 isoton yields, clearly the Borg's assesment of Voyager's torpedo inventory with a maximum yield of 200 isotons would be incorrect.

is been put forth that this sort of warhead is more effective at shaking apart matter but is weak against shields or SIF's etc - therefore 83 isotons was alot for this sort of special warhead to have.

The nature of what a gravitic warhead does isn't all that important. All that is important is that the torpedo's "total" yield was set to 83 isotons, which conflicts with Borg's assesment of Voyager's total torpedo payload and firepower. Unless the 200 isoton specification meant per torpedo. If a Voyager torpedo can be set to a 83 isoton yield, why couldn't the rest, thus making the entirety of Voyager's torpedo payload equivalent to 2.656 thousand isotons?

If 200 isotons is a maximum yield, then it must mean per torpedo, because a single torpedo can be set to 83 isotons. Otherwise 3 torpedoes similarily set would have a total yield greater then Voyager's entire torpedo payload, which just doesn't make sense.

Its only a theory but it does dodge the problems with the yield.

Like I said before, I strongly suspect a torpedo being set to 83 isotons supports the 200 isoton maximum yield per torpedo.

[TheDarkling]

I agree the 200 isoton is per torp but then you need a reason for 83 isotons to be seen as such a large amount and the answer is in the specal nature of the gravitic warhead.

It solves the problem with Harrys comments and sevens seemingly being mutually exclusive.

[Robert Walper]

I agree the 200 isoton is per torp but then you need a reason for 83 isotons to be seen as such a large amount

My reason for assuming an 83 isoton explosion is a large amount is judging Harry Kim's reaction about it.

83 isotons equaling a 3.55 teraton explosion isn't enough to impress Harry? For this arguement, we can completely ignore the mention of a gravitic warhead, as you yourself suggested, it is possibly altering what the explosion does, not how high the yield is.

and the answer is in the specal nature of the gravitic warhead.

The thread isn't about determining what a gravitic warhead does or if it's considered only useable with a large scale weapon. Using my calculations, an 83 isoton torpedo alone is a large amount. An 83 isoton yield would be equivalent to 3.55 million megatons. Mentioning the gravitic warhead is bringing up something that seems completely unrelated to the yield of the weapon.

It solves the problem with Harrys comments and sevens seemingly being mutually exclusive.

Darkling, if I may be blunt, you simply have lost me as to what you are trying to explain.

-Torpedo inventory has been determined (32)
-Maximum yield has been determined (200 isotons)
-A single torpedo can yield up to 83 isotons
-Harry Kim's reaction indicates that even a 83 isoton explosion is very impressive, hence, further proof that maximum payload torpedoes are simply not commonly used

Going by this evidence, I'm convinced a torpedo's maximum yield is 200 isotons, and Harry's comment seems to prove that even an 83 isoton yield is unusually large.

Could you create a more detailed explanation of what you are trying to say?

[SirNitram]

Robert, have you realized this entire theory is based off a completely hypothetical definition of 'isoton', which requires ultra-low settings to be used every time we see a torpedo fired. These figures have no backing from Canon.

[AdmiralKanos]

Robert's entire argument is predicated upon the "I have no evidence to back me up, but you cannot absolutely prove me wrong" fallacy. Nothing new for him, I'm afraid.

[Robert Walper]

Robert, have you realized this entire theory is based off a completely hypothetical definition of 'isoton',

Yes, I believe I mentioned this in the very first post.

which requires ultra-low settings to be used every time we see a torpedo fired.

My wording would be that ultra high settings can be deployed if they were needed for some large scale effect, so long as sufficent time, reason and resources present themselves. This might also be how the Federation flagship can fire torpedoes that affect stars, as seen in a couple of TNG episodes.

These figures have no backing from Canon.

I'm certain that I've already firmly established my theory is based upon a single statement, and assumes such yields, while possible, are extremely rare, and as of yet, not directly seen(though possibly indirectly, as my "affecting stars" possibly sugguests).

[AdmiralKanos]

which requires ultra-low settings to be used every time we see a torpedo fired.

My wording would be that ultra high settings can be deployed if they were needed for some large scale effect

Robert, don't be a jack-ass. You have whined many times that I'm not nice to you, but the fact is that I don't like fucking morons or semantic bullshitters, and you're both.

He makes a good point; the torps would have to be set on less than 0.001% power most of the time in order for your teraton figures to make any sense. You counter that 0.001% is not a low setting, but rather, 100% is a ridiculously high setting. What the fuck kind of rebuttal is that?

[Robert Walper]

Robert's entire argument is predicated upon the "I have no evidence to back me up, but you cannot absolutely prove me wrong" fallacy. Nothing new for him, I'm afraid.

I'm sorry if the theory strikes a wrong cord with you somehow, I'm not demanding others to accept it. I merely posted it as something I'm still considering, and others could read over and speculate on, ignore, or attack. I didn't post it as SD.net for pats on the back and a bunch of "well done Robert!"'s...I posted it here because I knew I could count on very critical analysis of my "theory", which unfortunately I predicted could result flames and irritation by those who would consider such a concept "impossible", despite dealing with a fictional reality that does many other "impossible" feats.

[Robert Walper]

which requires ultra-low settings to be used every time we see a torpedo fired.

My wording would be that ultra high settings can be deployed if they were needed for some large scale effect

Robert, don't be a jack-ass. You have whined many times that I'm not nice to you, but the fact is that I don't like fucking morons or semantic bullshitters, and you're both.

Ummm..pardon me, but who are you? I don't recall any direct corrspondence with you, and this is the first I've heard of your dislike for me.

He makes a good point; the torps would have to be set on less than 0.001% power most of the time in order for your teraton figures to make any sense.

A real world analogy would be a tank that typically fires anti-tank shells against other tanks. Compared to nuclear explosions, such firepower would be extremely low percentages of that firepower. This does not mean a tank cannot possibly fire a nuclear tipped shell at a enemy.

You counter that 0.001% is not a low setting, but rather, 100% is a ridiculously high setting. What the fuck kind of rebuttal is that?

Look, if my theories, attitude and presence annoy you...I honestly don't care. I'm not forcing you to either read or respond to my posts, so don't come and start bitching at me when I'm debating someone else, and I don't even know who the heck you are.

[Master of Ossus]

[whispers] Pssst. Robert. Admiral Kanos is Darth Wong in disguise. DarkStar discovered this shortly after he was banned, here, and promptly revealed DW's secret to the rest of the world. [/whisper]

[Robert Walper]

[whispers] Pssst. Robert. Admiral Kanos is Darth Wong in disguise. DarkStar discovered this shortly after he was banned, here, and promptly revealed DW's secret to the rest of the world. [/whisper]

Well, that certainly explains alot. I thought the first few lines there sounded awfully familar.

Curious, would Mr Wong ban me because he disagrees with my theory and thinks my arguements are invalid? I normally wouldn't think so, but I ask, because originally I thought he didn't seem the type to assume aliases(or at least more than one). Obviously I was wrong.

[Master of Ossus]

Well, that certainly explains alot. I thought the first few lines there sounded awfully familar.

Curious, would Mr Wong ban me because he disagrees with my theory and thinks my arguements are invalid? I normally wouldn't think so, but I ask, because originally I thought he didn't seem the type to assume aliases(or at least more than one). Obviously I was wrong.

Okay, first of all, Mike's not going to ban you even if your theory is totally and demonstrably wrong. Look at how long he put up with DarkStar for, before he told him to take a hike! Secondly, Mike's Admiral Kanos account isn't really an alias. He's been telling us since the beginning that he had two accounts. His DW account was designed for debates. His Admiral Kanos account is designed for administrative purposes, but occasionally steps in during debates. He's been completely honest about it from the start.

I apologize for not being more clear. DarkStar didn't reveal Admiral Kanos' "secret" identity. Everyone else kind of already recognized that they were the same guy, and Anderson made a monstrous deal about the whole thing, thinking that Admiral Kanos was Mike's attempt at smurfing, afterwards. I was just kind of keeping the joke going for the purposes of making a joke of this situation, but I didn't mean to throw you for another loop. Sorry about that, everyone.

[Robert Walper]

Okay, first of all, Mike's not going to ban you even if your theory is totally and demonstrably wrong.

Well, that's a relief. Although honestly, I didn't think he really would, but I thought I'd check anyhow.

Look at how long he put up with DarkStar for, before he told him to take a hike!

Good point.

Secondly, Mike's Admiral Kanos account isn't really an alias. He's been telling us since the beginning that he had two accounts.

Guess that's the price I pay for not hanging around that much. It's only the last day I've spent some time here.

His DW account was designed for debates. His Admiral Kanos account is designed for administrative purposes, but occasionally steps in during debates. He's been completely honest about it from the start.

Perfectly clear then.

I apologize for not being more clear.

No apology necessary. After all, I'd be a liar claiming I always come across clearly.

DarkStar didn't reveal Admiral Kanos' "secret" identity. Everyone else kind of already recognized that they were the same guy, and Anderson made a monstrous deal about the whole thing, thinking that Admiral Kanos was Mike's attempt at smurfing, afterwards.I was just kind of keeping the joke going for the purposes of making a joke of this situation, but I didn't mean to throw you for another loop. Sorry about that, everyone.

Again, no need to apologize to me.

If you haven't already noticed, I'm quite "thick skinned". I mean, I can only take a internet web board discussing science fiction so seriously. One of the reasons I don't mind my name on Mike Wong's hate mail page...I find it amusing, while at the same time learning from it.

[SirNitram]

Robert's entire argument is predicated upon the "I have no evidence to back me up, but you cannot absolutely prove me wrong" fallacy. Nothing new for him, I'm afraid.

I'm sorry if the theory strikes a wrong cord with you somehow, I'm not demanding others to accept it. I merely posted it as something I'm still considering, and others could read over and speculate on, ignore, or attack. I didn't post it as SD.net for pats on the back and a bunch of "well done Robert!"'s...I posted it here because I knew I could count on very critical analysis of my "theory", which unfortunately I predicted could result flames and irritation by those who would consider such a concept "impossible", despite dealing with a fictional reality that does many other "impossible" feats.

Allow me to offer forth some examples of why this sort of 'logic' is ridiculous.

The Death Star's main gun is stated by WEG to be capable of vaporizing any world. The minimum to vaporize an Earth-type world is 1e42J. Simple division allows us to distribute this amongst the 25,000 ISD fleet. 4e35J, anyone? One shot kills on Federation WORLDS. There's massive evidence against it, but no one has published exact figures to the ISD's main guns, so nothing against it.

[Robert Walper]

Allow me to offer forth some examples of why this sort of 'logic' is ridiculous.

The Death Star's main gun is stated by WEG to be capable of vaporizing any world.

But we do have direct visual evidence that the Death Star does not actually "vaporize" planets, it simply directs enough energy into a planet to demolish it into a sufficently dispersed asteroid field.

The minimum to vaporize an Earth-type world is 1e42J.

Vaporize...as in the entire planet's matter is converted into gas? Or are you using vaporize to describe the actual destruction the DS was observed to be capable of?

Simple division allows us to distribute this amongst the 25,000 ISD fleet.

Do 25,000 ISDs add up to the volume of the DS? If I'm not mistaken, they do not. If 25,000 ISDs can accomplish what the DS does, why is it so much bigger?

4e35J, anyone? One shot kills on Federation WORLDS.

Many here have already suggested a single ISD could cripple the entire Federation, using only divided amounts of the energy it directs in a BDZ operation. Perhaps not in one shot, but then, 25,000 ISDs doesn't add up to the DS volume either.

There's massive evidence against it, but no one has published exact figures to the ISD's main guns, so nothing against it.

Your sentence is self-contradictory. You say there is massive evidence against it, yet then in the same breath say there is nothing against it. Which is it?

[SirNitram]

Why, I'm taking one line of dialogue and expounding on it, Robert. Just like you. I am ignoring all counter-evidence, just as you, by explaining it away as low power settings. There is exactly as much supporting my theory as yours.. You just don't enjoy that fact.

[Robert Walper]

Why, I'm taking one line of dialogue and expounding on it, Robert. Just like you.

I have never denied that my theory is based upon a single statement.

I am ignoring all counter-evidence, just as you, by explaining it away as low power settings.

If you're saying it is possible a Star Destroyer may be capable of deploying more firepower than it typically does, given sufficent preperation time, reason, and resources, I see little reason why this isn't possible. After all, if one were to go by all visual evidence present in the Star Wars saga, Star Destroyer's don't deploy 200 gigaton weaponry because we've never seen a Star Destroyer destroy something that required 200 gigatons.

There is exactly as much supporting my theory as yours. You just don't enjoy that fact.

Your speculation in no way discomforts me. I may not agree with it, but that's my problem, not yours.

[Durandal]

If you're saying it is possible a Star Destroyer may be capable of deploying more firepower than it typically does, given sufficent preperation time, reason, and resources, I see little reason why this isn't possible. After all, if one were to go by all visual evidence present in the Star Wars saga, Star Destroyer's don't deploy 200 gigaton weaponry because we've never seen a Star Destroyer destroy something that required 200 gigatons.

And yet, we've seen situations in Star Trek that would have benefited massively from a teraton-level photon torpedo deployment. Why did Voyager waste one of their three tricobalt devices to destroy the Caretaker array, when one of your vaunted uber-photon torpedoes would have done the job nicely?

[Robert Walper]

If you're saying it is possible a Star Destroyer may be capable of deploying more firepower than it typically does, given sufficent preperation time, reason, and resources, I see little reason why this isn't possible. After all, if one were to go by all visual evidence present in the Star Wars saga, Star Destroyer's don't deploy 200 gigaton weaponry because we've never seen a Star Destroyer destroy something that required 200 gigatons.

And yet, we've seen situations in Star Trek that would have benefited massively from a teraton-level photon torpedo deployment.

A tank in a battlefield or scenario may at some point benefit from a nuclear tipped shell, but that doesn't mean it has one on hand(or can quickly get one), or that it even requires such firepower to deal with it's typically enemies(ie: troops, other tanks, even aircraft). My perspective is such high yield weapon must be planned for ahead of time, like the torpedo seem in STVOY "Omega", and that was significantly less than half the maximum yield of a photon torpedo, yet Harry Kim still thinks it's a large scale weapon.

Why did Voyager waste one of their three tricobalt devices to destroy the Caretaker array, when one of your vaunted uber-photon torpedoes would have done the job nicely?

As I've repeatedly pointed out, such weaponry would require large quanitites of anti-matter on hand, preperation time since even a 83isoton torpedo takes time to arm(not to mention it's already considered at an unusually high yield). If I recall, Voyager was pressed for time with hostile Kazon approaching.

Additionally, given limits to Federation shielding, and the ranges at which such weapons would be deployed in typical combat scenarios(combat always takes place within a few kilometers), this would make them highly dangerous to use, and pointless, since much smaller yields will suffice against typical enemies.

For example, if a tank is greatly outclassed by another tank where it's firepower is insufficent to disable that tank, it doesn't mean the next tank is going to be equipped with a nuclear armament that would destroy it as well. It would most likely get bigger shells or more of them to win. And this would seem to be the reason the Enterprise can be crippled by it's own torpedo firepower when facing a more durable enemy(like the Borg), they can jack up their torpedo yields, but there's a limit to just how high they can go with resources on hand and limitations on how much they can take from such explosions as well(since they aren't directed).

[SirNitram]

How, precisely, can you back a theory with so very many massive holes in it, Robert? I mean, how? You are suggesting the Federation can do dozens of times more damage than we ever see them do.

[TheDarkling]

You are suggesting the Federation can do dozens of times more damage than we ever see them do.

I hope the irony of this isnt lost upon you.

[SirNitram]

You are suggesting the Federation can do dozens of times more damage than we ever see them do.

I hope the irony of this isnt lost upon you.

Thankfully, 6 MT point defense is still lower than what we observe in TESB.