ship comparison

[Darth Lucifer]

If you want I can show you the calcs, the cubes hull is made up of (insert)[TRITANIUM] we know the vapourize energy requirement off, and the amount of damage the cube took. Depending of the thickness of the hull you use we get something between 1,5 TT and 12 TT.

Thanks for finding that...you beat me to it. Calc away!

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

borg scouting cube (5 drones inside) weight 2,5 million tons. I have not made calcs, but it's about 15 feet in dimensions. Scale this up, standard cube is mostly hollow, and you have material density. About properitis.. well, it's another matter

According to what?

[Kruk]

2,5 million tons for scout cube? I, Borg episode.

Here is the quote:

PICARD
Analysis.

DATA
The vessel is traveling at warp
seven-point-six. Mass:
two-point-five million metric
tons, configuration: ...cubical.

RIKER
The Borg...

DATA
Its dimensions indicate that it
is a scout ship similar to the
one that crashed.

[/quote]

[Batman]

1. Borg cubes don't HAVE 'hull's in that sense. They're all girders and ductwork, and their interior is apparently open to space.
2. Evidence for the 15ft figure, please.
3. Evidence for Borg ships being mafe of Tritanium, please.
4. Canon evidence for Tritanium vaporization energy, please.
5. Evidence that any vaporization occured as opposed to phaserization if at all, and
6. Evidence that no secondary explosions due to volatice target components occured.

[Gandalf]

1. Borg cubes don't HAVE 'hull's in that sense. They're all girders and ductwork, and their interior is apparently open to space.

Then how do they have atmosphere?

[Batman]

1. Borg cubes don't HAVE 'hull's in that sense. They're all girders and ductwork, and their interior is apparently open to space.

Then how do they have atmosphere?

Same way Fed ship's don't depressurise when the shuttle bay is opened. Atmosphere containment field.

[Batman]

And who says the entirety of the cube holds atmosphere? It's entirely possible the Borg only pressurise the segments that regularly hold drones for any duration.

[Gustav32Vasa]

1. Borg cubes don't HAVE 'hull's in that sense. They're all girders and ductwork, and their interior is apparently open to space.

The destruction was deeper then the hull, if you wath it you'll see a crater.

2. Evidence for the 15ft figure, please.

Not me.

3. Evidence for Borg ships being mafe of Tritanium, please.

7of9 quote. Coming up.

4. Canon evidence for Tritanium vaporization energy, please.

TM is not canon but since Mr Wong used it on his page so will I, if is alright with you?

5. Evidence that any vaporization occured as opposed to phaserization if at all, and

It didnt look like a "phaserization" event

6. Evidence that no secondary explosions due to volatice target components occured.

[Batman]

1. Borg cubes don't HAVE 'hull's in that sense. They're all girders and ductwork, and their interior is apparently open to space.

The destruction was deeper then the hull, if you wath it you'll see a crater.

Exactly. The explosion that left the crater was triggered from the inside. It started deeper than the hull, it did not have to work it's way there.

2. Evidence for the 15ft figure, please.

Not me.

IOW, none whatsoever. Yet you are basing your calcs on it. Have you bothered to calculate the density of a 15ft 2.5MT cube?

3. Evidence for Borg ships being made of Tritanium, please.

7of9 quote. Coming up.

Evidence that anything but the 'outer hull' (for want of a better word) and structural members are made of this while you're at it. You can't use hull strength for damage to the internals.

4. Canon evidence for Tritanium vaporization energy, please.

TM is not canon but since Mr Wong used it on his page so will I, if is alright with you?

For now, as it's the only number we have. For a conservative estimate you had better use iron.

5. Evidence that any vaporization occured as opposed to phaserization if at all, and

It didnt look like a "phaserization" event.

Really. I'm afraid that you have no way to tell that as it happened inside the cube.

6. Evidence that no secondary explosions due to volatice target components occured.

The second there's an explosion in reaction to phaser fire the damage is not exclusively done by the phaser, which don't cause explosion (nor have we ever seen them vaporize anything btw).
A large hole in the target does not require vaporisation.
Still leaves the question of why in situation where we can reasonably estimate the E-ds firepower, she displays nothing even close to that.

[Gustav32Vasa]

[quote="Gustav32Vasa"
IOW, none whatsoever. Yet you are basing your calcs on it. Have you bothered to calculate the density of a 15ft 2.5MT cube?

I'm not basing my calcs on that, didnt even know it existed.

No

Evidence that anything but the 'outer hull' (for want of a better word) and structural members are made of this while you're at it. You can't use hull strength for damage to the internals.

I wont be basing on the inner structure. I will be using a very thin hull in my calcs.

5. Evidence that any vaporization occured as opposed to phaserization if at all, and

It didnt look like a "phaserization" event.

Really. I'm afraid that you have no way to tell that as it happened inside the cube.

Enterprise fired on the cube not inside the cube.

6. Evidence that no secondary explosions due to volatice target components occured.

The second there's an explosion in reaction to phaser fire the damage is not exclusively done by the phaser, which don't cause explosion (nor have we ever seen them vaporize anything btw).
A large hole in the target does not require vaporisation.
Still leaves the question of why in situation where we can reasonably estimate the E-ds firepower, she displays nothing even close to that.

Why cant phasers be used directly? Why must something unknown be used to explain something that can be explained without that unknown.

[Batman]

[quote="Gustav32Vasa"
IOW, none whatsoever. Yet you are basing your calcs on it. Have you bothered to calculate the density of a 15ft 2.5MT cube?

I'm not basing my calcs on that, didnt even know it existed.
No

My mistake then.

It didnt look like a "phaserization" event.

Really. I'm afraid that you have no way to tell that as it happened inside the cube.

Enterprise fired on the cube not inside the cube.

The explosion was not centered on the hull. It originated inside the Cube.

The second there's an explosion in reaction to phaser fire the damage is not exclusively done by the phaser, which don't cause explosion (nor have we ever seen them vaporize anything btw).
A large hole in the target does not require vaporisation.
Still leaves the question of why in situation where we can reasonably estimate the E-ds firepower, she displays nothing even close to that.

Why cant phasers be used directly? Why must something unknown be used to explain something that can be explained without that unknown.

Because the explosion's energy does not come from the phaser. Phasers are not explosive weapons. The explosion's yield has nothing to to with the yield of the weapon itself.

[Stark]

Gustav, you keep talking about the 'hull'. That borg ship didn't seem to HAVE a hull - it was made of pipes and girders. PIPES AND GIRDERS, Gustav. Not a 'thin hull', not 'tritanium armour', fucking pipes. Christ.

Batmans point (as I understand it) is that that damage to the cube was a) not vaporisation, b) probably contributed to by internal explosions and c) probably phaserisation of thin metal pipes and girders in any case. Thus, using *vaporisation* of a *metal hull* to work out *phaser energy* when none of these terms is certain (or supportable) is never going to work.

There is an explosion (something phasers don't do). The phaser is being used on a light, metallic structure containing high-energy systems (which blow up in ST). The borg were at that point defenceless, unlike almost all other metallic targets in ST. Using this as a benchmark for E-D phaser power seems flawed, yes?

[Gustav32Vasa]

Gustav, you keep talking about the 'hull'. That borg ship didn't seem to HAVE a hull - it was made of pipes and girders. PIPES AND GIRDERS, Gustav. Not a 'thin hull', not 'tritanium armour', fucking pipes. Christ.

Batmans point (as I understand it) is that that damage to the cube was a) not vaporisation, b) probably contributed to by internal explosions and c) probably phaserisation of thin metal pipes and girders in any case. Thus, using *vaporisation* of a *metal hull* to work out *phaser energy* when none of these terms is certain (or supportable) is never going to work.

There is an explosion (something phasers don't do). The phaser is being used on a light, metallic structure containing high-energy systems (which blow up in ST). The borg were at that point defenceless, unlike almost all other metallic targets in ST. Using this as a benchmark for E-D phaser power seems flawed, yes?

Conceded.

Have we never seen phasers cause explosions?

[Batman]

Have we never seen phasers cause explosions?

Trigger, yes. Cause, no.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Since DITL has an open attitude towards pic-poaching(see the FAQ), I managed to wrangle an image from his site about this. He also has some calcs that put the Ent at at least 68,000 terawatts output, assuming only 0.1% of the ship is metal and the metal is the Tritanium referred to in the TNG TM.



Looks to me like they might have hit something important to cause that expplosion.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

EDIT: These pictures are courtesy of Graham Kenndey.

[Darth Lucifer]

2,5 million tons for scout cube? I, Borg episode.
<snip>
DATA
Its dimensions indicate that it
is a scout ship similar to the
one that crashed.

He's refering to the second ship that Hugh ends up leaving on, I think.

[Kruk]

yes

[Batman]

Notice how the phaser discharge goes right through the ship. It apparently didn't encounter all that much resistance...

[Darth Servo]

Notice how the phaser discharge goes right through the ship. It apparently didn't encounter all that much resistance...

Of course not. The Cube is a mesh of conduits and ductwork.

Of course certain Trektards have a different interpretation--that the phaser instantly vaporized the area of the cube to account for the lack of resistance.

[Darth Wong]

I think its called tritanium or something like it. I'm currently searching for quotes and such for my calcs. Its from the TNG TM. Its not canon but since Wong used the TMs calcs on torpedoes I guess it doesnt matter.

The fact that I haven't updated my website in years does not mean you can appeal to outdated aspects of it as a basis for argumentation, asshole.

[brianeyci]

Since DITL has an open attitude towards pic-poaching(see the FAQ), I managed to wrangle an image from his site about this. He also has some calcs that put the Ent at at least 68,000 terawatts output, assuming only 0.1% of the ship is metal and the metal is the Tritanium referred to in the TNG TM.

How did he figure it out from Tritanium? Why not use something we know the properties of as a low-end? I think Babtech uses iron for a Narn cruiser to calculate low-end for Shadow cutter beam.

68k TW output is not that far from the 30k - 40k TW output on DW's page. Maybe its just an overloaded phaser shot. Tritanium could be exceptionally suceptable to the NDF effect for all we know, so that doesn't necessarily invalidate it.

Brian

[Gustav32Vasa]

I think its called tritanium or something like it. I'm currently searching for quotes and such for my calcs. Its from the TNG TM. Its not canon but since Wong used the TMs calcs on torpedoes I guess it doesnt matter.

The fact that I haven't updated my website in years does not mean you can appeal to outdated aspects of it as a basis for argumentation, asshole.

Well, I'm sorry if I have upset you. Didnt mean to. I hope you'll forgive me.

[Batman]

How did he figure it out from Tritanium? Why not use something we know the properties of as a low-end? I think Babtech uses iron for a Narn cruiser to calculate low-end for Shadow cutter beam.

Because Graham Kennedy was not particularly interested in getting conservative figures maybe? And in all fairness those calcs may have been done when the TM was still sorta canon.

68k TW output is not that far from the 30k - 40k TW output on DW's page. Maybe its just an overloaded phaser shot. Tritanium could be exceptionally suceptable to the NDF effect for all we know, so that doesn't necessarily invalidate it.
Brian

Which makes it an exceptionally stupid material to use for what passes for 'armor' in Trek. And I have the distinct suspicion that those calculations where based on just as many false assumptions as Gustav32Vasa's were. Mind you, I haven't checked them yet so I may be doing the man a disservice.

[Gustav32Vasa]

Which makes it an exceptionally stupid material to use for what passes for 'armor' in Trek. And I have the distinct suspicion that those calculations where based on just as many false assumptions as Gustav32Vasa's were. Mind you, I haven't checked them yet so I may be doing the man a disservice.

Well I was going to use very conservative numbers, like 99% of 99% until you guys told me that cubes has no hull.