I shouldn't tempt fate here...

[Sothis]

But...

Star Trek.com's take on nukes vs torpedoes

Enjoy

If the link doesn't work, go to the Science and Technology section of the startrek.com messageboards and look for the 'Nuclear warheads vs Star Trek torpedoes' thread.

[DaveJB]

By insisting on using "Isotons" instead of "Megatons", most of them are saying that the torpedoes are thousands of times less powerful than the average nuke! Nice to see they're familiar with SI units!

[Sarevok]

http://boards.startrek.com/community/me ... t=33157705

While browsing the science and technology forum I came upon this.

[Chris OFarrell]

By insisting on using "Isotons" instead of "Megatons", most of them are saying that the torpedoes are thousands of times less powerful than the average nuke! Nice to see they're familiar with SI units!

Funny how you aren't either as isoton is not a SI prefix. It is like this.

10E^24 yotta (Y)
10E^21 zetta (Z)
10E^18 exa (E)
10E^15 peta (P)
10E^12 tera (T)
10E^9 giga (G)
10E^6 mega (M)
10E^3 kilo (k)
10E^2 hecto (h)
10E^1 deka (da)
10E^-1 deci (d)
10E^-2 centi (c)
10E^-3 milli (m)
10E^-6 micro (µ)
10E^-9 nano (n)
10E^-12 pico (p)
10E^-15 femto (f)
10E^-18 atto (a)
10E^-21 zepto (z)
10E^-24 yocto (y)

Funnny how Isoton is nowhere there.

The ST writers picked Iso SPECIFICALY because it meant nothing. People have put forward several theories as to what it means, but there is no proof at all out of this pure speculation.

[NecronLord]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=iso

Indeed it isn't an SI prefix, but it does mean something in today's context.

[DaveJB]

Funny how you aren't either as isoton is not a SI prefix. It is like this.

<snip>

Funnny how Isoton is nowhere there.

The ST writers picked Iso SPECIFICALY because it meant nothing. People have put forward several theories as to what it means, but there is no proof at all out of this pure speculation.

Well, on the Hate Mail page for John Riehle, "Iso" is referred to as the SI prefix for 10E^0.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Hat ... iehle.html

[Macross]

Funny how you aren't either as isoton is not a SI prefix. It is like this.

<snip>

Funnny how Isoton is nowhere there.

The ST writers picked Iso SPECIFICALY because it meant nothing. People have put forward several theories as to what it means, but there is no proof at all out of this pure speculation.

Well, on the Hate Mail page for John Riehle, "Iso" is referred to as the SI prefix for 10E^0.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Hat ... iehle.html

Not surprising, because in the real world, Iso means equal.

[Chris OFarrell]

Funny how you aren't either as isoton is not a SI prefix. It is like this.

<snip>

Funnny how Isoton is nowhere there.

The ST writers picked Iso SPECIFICALY because it meant nothing. People have put forward several theories as to what it means, but there is no proof at all out of this pure speculation.

Well, on the Hate Mail page for John Riehle, "Iso" is referred to as the SI prefix for 10E^0.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Hat ... iehle.html

Which is Mikes opinion, nothing more or less. Which he admitted freely he did more or less to annoy the Trekkies. We've had this debate on the board before and it came up the same way it always does, inconclusive. If you explicitly spell it out, Isonton means in todays terms (and there is no evidence that it DOES mean in todays terms-

"Equal Ton"

Not meaning anything more or less. I strongly doubt it IS the same as 1E^0 as its a superfluous usage of the word Iso. If they meant 1E^0, they would simply SAY 'This torpedo has a yield of twenty tons'. We know the Federation uses the SI prefixes, Spock and Kirk used Megatons in one of the TOS episodes, they use Joules and Watts. If they MEANT Tons, they would have said it.

Since its NOT a SI prefix it could mean more or less anything. Hell it could mean 'Equal to a ton of antimatter exploding' for all we know. There is nothing that makes me think it means 'Equal to the explosive force of one ton of Trinitrotoluene'.

MY best guess is that Isotons is a Federation wide prefix, the Federation standard of units. Instead of Human units, this is the Federation unit which is used for PC reasons.

And at any rate, quite a few examples from ST would cast rather strong doubt on a 1E^0

[Master of Ossus]

Which is Mikes opinion, nothing more or less. Which he admitted freely he did more or less to annoy the Trekkies.

"Iso" is used to denote "one." I'm sure that Mike was trying to annoy Trekkies by pointing out the fact that the term actually indicated very low firepowers.

And at any rate, quite a few examples from ST would cast rather strong doubt on a 1E^0

Obviously. I think that it's only a method of defeating the "iso p0wnzzors all" argument, which is surprisingly common among internet debates.

[Alyeska]

The ST:E states that Isoton was chossen because its a measurement that doesn't exist.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

The ST:E states that Isoton was chossen because its a measurement that doesn't exist.

1) The ST:E is a mere Reference level document. Read: It has no more authority than Mike's website.

2) I actually believe they were trying to pick a meaningless word, unfortunately for them, both halves of the word they chose had MEANING.

3) Ton in itself is an SI unit when it comes to yields (therefore, if Trek uses SI units, it'd stick to this one too). Iso is apparently a Greek prefix.

4) If a bunch of stupid idiots keep wanting to say "equal to ton" "equal to ton", the value of ton does not change because of this stupidity.

5) Of course, Visuals override Dialogue.

[Gil Hamilton]

I love this guys elite math skillz:

The TNG photon torpedoes is more powerful than the most powerful powerful nuclear weapon ever built. The photon torpedo uses 1.5 kilograms of antimatter, which will annihilate equal amounts of matter, creating an explosion with a yield of about 90 megatons.

Lets do a quick and dirty calc, shall we?

e = mc²

m = 3kg, c = 3e8 m/s (yes, I know, it's a shady less, this is a thought excerise)

e = 3 * 300,000,000 ²
e = 2.7e17 J

A megaton is defined as 10e15 calories

2.7e17 J = ~64.5e16 cal
~64.5e16 cal = ~64.5 megatons.

[Alyeska]

1) The ST:E is a mere Reference level document. Read: It has no more authority than Mike's website.

The ST:E is written by people who directly contributed to the series and clarifies the intent of what the people did.

2) I actually believe they were trying to pick a meaningless word, unfortunately for them, both halves of the word they chose had MEANING.

Meaning that is not associated to eachother.

4) If a bunch of stupid idiots keep wanting to say "equal to ton" "equal to ton", the value of ton does not change because of this stupidity.

Your making the absurd assumption that your definition of Iso is the same one they are using. Given some of the firepower figures we have noted it is painfully obvious that they are not using the same term you are thinking about.

5) Of course, Visuals override Dialogue.

Which torpedoes your entire argument.

[Darth Wong]

It's pretty obvious that they wanted to deliberately choose a meaningless unit; they were just too stupid to pick a prefix that didn't already have a meaning. Ergo, if they did that, then it is reasonable to infer that many of their other quantitative statements are similarly bullshit, because they're simply not competent.

[Sarevok]

I love this guys elite math skillz:

The TNG photon torpedoes is more powerful than the most powerful powerful nuclear weapon ever built. The photon torpedo uses 1.5 kilograms of antimatter, which will annihilate equal amounts of matter, creating an explosion with a yield of about 90 megatons.

Lets do a quick and dirty calc, shall we?

e = mc²

m = 3kg, c = 3e8 m/s (yes, I know, it's a shady less, this is a thought excerise)

e = 3 * 300,000,000 ²
e = 2.7e17 J

A megaton is defined as 10e15 calories

2.7e17 J = ~64.5e16 cal
~64.5e16 cal = ~64.5 megatons.

The largest nuclear weapon had a yield of 50 megatons so the photon torpedo is only slightly more powerful

However the Russians had plans for a 100 - 150 megaton weapon. If it was built it would have dwarfed not only the photon torpedo but the quantum torpedo as well.

[Chris OFarrell]

Which is Mikes opinion, nothing more or less. Which he admitted freely he did more or less to annoy the Trekkies.

"Iso" is used to denote "one." I'm sure that Mike was trying to annoy Trekkies by pointing out the fact that the term actually indicated very low firepowers.

And at any rate, quite a few examples from ST would cast rather strong doubt on a 1E^0

Obviously. I think that it's only a method of defeating the "iso p0wnzzors all" argument, which is surprisingly common among internet debates.

Eh? I don't get that. How can an undefined unit prove anything either way about anything?

[SirNitram]

Eh? I don't get that. How can an undefined unit prove anything either way about anything?

Stop thinking with logic, reason, and actual braincells, and it will come. Like most idiotic Trektard arguments.

[Master of Ossus]

Eh? I don't get that. How can an undefined unit prove anything either way about anything?

Right. It's a nonsensical argument for many reasons, but I've seen it used very frequently. It usually takes the only slightly dressed up form of "Star Trek torpedoes are good for several isotons. How many of those can SW put up? That's what I thought," or some similar statement. It doesn't hold up to any scrutiny for a lot of reasons, but it has been used.

[Chris OFarrell]

"Iso" is used to denote "one." I'm sure that Mike was trying to annoy Trekkies by pointing out the fact that the term actually indicated very low firepowers.

Actually no, Iso means 'Equal'. Not one.

Main Entry: is-
Variant(s): or iso-
Function: combining form
Etymology: Late Latin, from Greek, from isos equal
1 : equal : homogeneous : uniform <isentropic>
2 : isomeric <isocyanate>
3 : for or from different individuals of the same species <isoagglutinin>
-MW.

iso- or is-
pref.

1. Equal; uniform: isobar.
2. Isomeric: isopropyl.
-Dictionary.com


So Isoton, if you want to interpret it as a literal compound word using modern definitions, would mean 'Equalton'. Somewhat different from the explicate X tons the SI prefixes have.

Which is why I dismiss it as meaning 1E^0, its simply completely superfluous, and neither the iso or ton is defined as having a value.

[Darth Wong]

Chris, don't be silly. If something is equal to a ton, then it's a ton. The Trek writers just picked the wrong prefix, that's all. I'm willing to agree that it shouldn't be used as evidence of actual Trek weapon yields, but it does indicate the staggering level of incompetence behind character dialogue on the show.

[Howedar]

Moreover even the weakest ST torpedo detonations were rather larger than a few dozen tons of TNT.

[Chris OFarrell]

Chris, don't be silly. If something is equal to a ton, then it's a ton. The Trek writers just picked the wrong prefix, that's all. I'm willing to agree that it shouldn't be used as evidence of actual Trek weapon yields, but it does indicate the staggering level of incompetence behind character dialogue on the show.

Your' re probably quite right, but I still think it could be rationalized simply by saying the 'ton' is not the equivalent of a ton of TNT, but it may well be another type of energy or explosive that exists in the UFP.

I don't necessarily see why we *can't* assume this and thus reconcile everything, instead of saying that it MUST be the same quantifier as SI units. Especially given that they already HAVE it and could simply say 'ton' if thats what he meant.

And of course the ultimate fact that isoton is quite clearly not 1E^0 from observed effects lends credence to this. That isoton is not part of the family of SI values (I.E 1 isoton is not 4.18 x 10^9 Joules) but some other value quite unrelated on a different scale. I do agree its stupid on the part of the writers, but Isoton isn't a real unit so its an easy enough mistake to make.

But their stupidity oes not dissuade it from clearly being a real unit in TREK.

[Sarevok]

Moreover even the weakest ST torpedo detonations were rather larger than a few dozen tons of TNT.

The First Contact Borg sphere torpedoes were even weaker. They were a few kilogram yield at best.

[SPOOFE]

I don't necessarily see why we *can't* assume this and thus reconcile everything, instead of saying that it MUST be the same quantifier as SI units.

We CAN assume, but not so far as to assume that an "Isoton" is a huge, mythic figure. That's the point. Poor arguments that rely on an artificially inflated "Isoton" number are destroyed by an equally poor counter that gives it an artificially deflated number.

If Trekkie's didn't try to play the Isoton card, Warsies wouldn't play theirs.

[Darth Wong]

If Trekkie's didn't try to play the Isoton card, Warsies wouldn't play theirs.

Heh heh ... that's the thing so many Trekkies forget; the "isoton card" is the ultimate case of someone being hoist by his own petard.