TM Question

[Shadow]

Why do some people accept 64 MT for TNG photon torpedos, but they don't accept 512 MT for the type 6 photon torpedos which were the standard at the time Voyager was launched? In case anyone does not know where this comes from, I will show you.

TNG TM: This shows that photon torpedos have a yield of 64 MTs if they have 100% efficiency.

DS9 TM: This says that the theoretical max yield of a photon torpedo(at the time) is equal to 25 isotons.

"Scorpion": This states that a type 6 photon torpedo has yield of 200 isotons.

Therefore, photon torpedos have a yield of 512 MTs.

Note: I am aware that many people consider the TMs invalid, but I am curious about this discrepancy.

[Darth Wong]

Why do some people accept 64 MT for TNG photon torpedos, but they don't accept 512 MT for the type 6 photon torpedos which were the standard at the time Voyager was launched? In case anyone does not know where this comes from, I will show you.

TNG TM: This shows that photon torpedos have a yield of 64 MTs if they have 100% efficiency.

DS9 TM: This says that the theoretical max yield of a photon torpedo(at the time) is equal to 25 isotons.

"Scorpion": This states that a type 6 photon torpedo has yield of 200 isotons.

Therefore, photon torpedos have a yield of 512 MTs.

Note: I am aware that many people consider the TMs invalid, but I am curious about this discrepancy.

The DS9 TM says that 25 isotons is the absolute maximum theoretical yield for photon torpedoes, and that you need Q-torps to go any higher. It is obviously contradicted by the Voyager quote.

How can you take two quotes which contradict each other and mash them together to get a number? Is this typical of your method of investigation?!?!?

[Shadow]

The DS9 TM says that 25 isotons is the absolute maximum theoretical yield for photon torpedoes, and that you need Q-torps to go any higher. It is obviously contradicted by the Voyager quote.

How can you take two quotes which contradict each other and mash them together to get a number? Is this typical of your method of investigation?!?!?
It is also obvious that the yield can be increased by increasing the amount of M/AM used.

[Vympel]

The DS9 TM says that 25 isotons is the absolute maximum theoretical yield for photon torpedoes, and that you need Q-torps to go any higher. It is obviously contradicted by the Voyager quote.

How can you take two quotes which contradict each other and mash them together to get a number? Is this typical of your method of investigation?!?!?
It is also obvious that the yield can be increased by increasing the amount of M/AM used.

What part of absolute maximum theoretical yield do you not understand?

[SWPIGWANG]

does it mean all possible photon torp or just existing ones?

[Shinova]

Did Voyager time period occur after Dominion War? Was Voyager built after the war?

[Ender]

Why do some people accept 64 MT for TNG photon torpedos, but they don't accept 512 MT for the type 6 photon torpedos which were the standard at the time Voyager was launched? In case anyone does not know where this comes from, I will show you.

TNG TM: This shows that photon torpedos have a yield of 64 MTs if they have 100% efficiency.

DS9 TM: This says that the theoretical max yield of a photon torpedo(at the time) is equal to 25 isotons.

"Scorpion": This states that a type 6 photon torpedo has yield of 200 isotons.

Therefore, photon torpedos have a yield of 512 MTs.

Note: I am aware that many people consider the TMs invalid, but I am curious about this discrepancy.

Because TNG Genesis says that the type six is only 11% more powerful. 111% of 64 MT is 71.04 MT.

[Ender]

Stupid no edit function

So either the TMs are wrong, or use of the term isoton is wrong. Take your pick. In either case it makes determining their value that way impractical.

[Darth Wong]

It is also obvious that the yield can be increased by increasing the amount of M/AM used.

Why? Does it occur to you that beyond a certain amount, the initial blast will hurl most of the matter/antimatter away at speeds too great to permit inter-particle collisions, hence most of it will not react? That's probably why they mention a theoretical upper limit for a single warhead of M/AM.

One possible explanation is that the figures in the TM were a typo, and the theoretical max is 250 isotons, not 25 isotons (hence Voyager's torps are within the limit at 200 isotons).

Another possibility is that "isoton" is like "calorie", with two different types in use (that's the thing about meaningless units; we have no idea what they might represent).

However, the first one makes more sense.

[Isolder74]

It is also obvious that the yield can be increased by increasing the amount of M/AM used.

Why? Does it occur to you that beyond a certain amount, the initial blast will hurl most of the matter/antimatter away at speeds too great to permit inter-particle collisions, hence most of it will not react? That's probably why they mention a theoretical upper limit for a single warhead of M/AM.

One possible explanation is that the figures in the TM were a typo, and the theoretical max is 250 isotons, not 25 isotons (hence Voyager's torps are within the limit at 200 isotons).

Another possibility is that "isoton" is like "calorie", with two different types in use (that's the thing about meaningless units; we have no idea what they might represent).

However, the first one makes more sense.

Yes, using a made up arbitray unit makes it imposible to determine what the thing stands for. That's why if you are going to use units you create it is imperative that you define what the unit stands for. For example in one of my files for a story I'm writing i use the term "point" to quantify how much damage a weapon does. On page 1 I had a footnote telling anyone that I represents 1 GWatt of power.

[SPOOFE]

Let's not forget that the use of the 64 megaton yield number is VERY GENEROUS on the part of the Warsies, as canon incidents in the show give calcs in the kiloton range.

Once again an offer of generosity is abused...

[Rightous Fist Of Heaven]

What about those very conservative 110 meg ton calcs by DorkStar

[Robert Walper]

Perhaps the 200 isoton yield figure is meant to imply how much energy would theoritcally be released when 200 isotons of matter and anti-matter react. Doesn't mean that much anti-matter and matter is present, but the yield is equivelant. Similar to labelling a nuclear warhead at 20 megatons, even though the 20 megatons of TNT isn't actaully present, but the yield is what 20 megatons of TNT would do.

[Robert Walper]

Let's not forget that the use of the 64 megaton yield number is VERY GENEROUS on the part of the Warsies, as canon incidents in the show give calcs in the kiloton range.

Against objects like asteroids and such, such calculations are not disputed. Additionally, one cannot assume the passive Federation is going to arm their ships with maximum yield warheads at all times(especially when they are at peace and don't forsee any need). We don't use nuclear explosives to destroy rocks. Fighter aircraft launch conventional AA missiles all the time, but that doesn't mean they cannot deploy nuclear weapons if necessary, which make their typical loadouts look pitiful in comparison.

[Shadow]

Perhaps the 200 isoton yield figure is meant to imply how much energy would theoritcally be released when 200 isotons of matter and anti-matter react. Doesn't mean that much anti-matter and matter is present, but the yield is equivelant. Similar to labelling a nuclear warhead at 20 megatons, even though the 20 megatons of TNT isn't actaully present, but the yield is what 20 megatons of TNT would do.

That would be equal to several terratons.

[Robert Walper]

Perhaps the 200 isoton yield figure is meant to imply how much energy would theoritcally be released when 200 isotons of matter and anti-matter react. Doesn't mean that much anti-matter and matter is present, but the yield is equivelant. Similar to labelling a nuclear warhead at 20 megatons, even though the 20 megatons of TNT isn't actaully present, but the yield is what 20 megatons of TNT would do.

That would be equal to several terratons.

Oh, I know that. I've already done some calcs on it. I just don't dare mention them here for fear of persecution...

[beyond hope]

Let's not forget that the use of the 64 megaton yield number is VERY GENEROUS on the part of the Warsies, as canon incidents in the show give calcs in the kiloton range.

Against objects like asteroids and such, such calculations are not disputed. Additionally, one cannot assume the passive Federation is going to arm their ships with maximum yield warheads at all times(especially when they are at peace and don't forsee any need). We don't use nuclear explosives to destroy rocks. Fighter aircraft launch conventional AA missiles all the time, but that doesn't mean they cannot deploy nuclear weapons if necessary, which make their typical loadouts look pitiful in comparison.

Explorer ships aren't expected to run into situations (like say, an encouter with the Borg) where they might need the most firepower they can bring to bear in order to survive? Note as well that even in peacetime, SSBNs put to see with nuclear warheads on board to fulfill their deterrant role. Apparently Fed ships must go back to starbase to rearm with the "real" torps if someone attacks the Federation without warning.

[SPOOFE]

Against objects like asteroids and such, such calculations are not disputed. Additionally, one cannot assume the passive Federation is going to arm their ships with maximum yield warheads at all times(especially when they are at peace and don't forsee any need). We don't use nuclear explosives to destroy rocks. Fighter aircraft launch conventional AA missiles all the time, but that doesn't mean they cannot deploy nuclear weapons if necessary, which make their typical loadouts look pitiful in comparison.

That's a nice little diatribe and all, but what does it have to do with anything I said? We have access to upper limit calcs from episodes like The Pegasus, and those upper limit calcs are not in the megaton range. Ergo, to use the 64-megaton number from the TM is very, very generous.

[TheDarkling]

The Pegasus calcs aren't exactly solid, I have seen them used to rate torps in the GT due to the weird gravity the asteroid was giving off.

[Vympel]

The Pegasus calcs aren't exactly solid, I have seen them used to rate torps in the GT due to the weird gravity the asteroid was giving off.

And what variety of crack were they smoking when they came up with that.

[TheDarkling]

Well the contention over it was enough that in one argument on the subject (taking place at ASVS) both sides agreed that the asteroid was too "funky" to be used for calcs.

However why do you assume they are incorrect when you havent even seen the evidence?

[Vympel]

Well the contention over it was enough that in one argument on the subject (taking place at ASVS) both sides agreed that the asteroid was too "funky" to be used for calcs.

However why do you assume they are incorrect when you havent even seen the evidence?

Because you've brought up the issue on two previous threads IIRC, and both Darth Wong and Patrick Degan showed it to be wrong.

[Vympel]

The gravitational and magnetic fields of such an asteroid are inconsequential; it had a craggy, highly irregular shape which eliminates the possibility that it is a super-dense object of strong gravity (which would have reshaped it into a roughly spherical shape), although it has come to my attention that some scientifically ignorant Trekkies have proposed precisely that. Furthermore, since it is solid, there will be no "dynamo effect" and no magnetic field unless the asteroid has been somehow polarized into a giant permanent magnet (by the way, if you're a dumb-ass Creationist who's about to E-mail me that the dynamo theory is wrong because one of your precious creationist books says so, don't waste your breath; the underlying mechanism has been experimentally verified countless times).

From the Pegasus canon database entry. Why do you still propose it?

[TheDarkling]

Vympel: They should be inconsequential yet they aren't because we have Data's sensor readings that say otherwise, you will now claim that Data's an idiot and thats where we part ways because I subscribe to the standard warsie clause of "if all else fails discredit the charcater and move on".
The point however isn't whether it was super dense but if that was the sensor readings they were getting because Riker would base his recomendation off the sensor readings therefore Riker bases his head calcs off the readings which indicate super density, unless you are about to tell me Data was lying then it doesnt matter if the asteroid was super dense only that they believed it to be so.

There are also incidents where we have ships doing far more damage (TDiC, Skin of Evil (before you say the explosion was all due to fthe shuttle - fine use the antimatter stores from two or three shuttles and your sorted), other asteroid incidents and so on), why not simply use the ships phasers? which are often rated in the MT (even if phasers alone couldnt destroy the asteroid since they are more powerful than torps they should have still seen use).

Also the fact that the Enterprise acant make more torps seems very odd - Voyager did it and all it really entails is Antimatter (which they have) and a torp case + systems (we know they have these on hand from other episodes such as Pen pals and they can be replicated as we know from Voyager (how else did they get them?).

I do not still propose it I simlpy say that the asteroid was odd and that the calcs it gives us are also odd (why aren't they still using Nukes which would give them better yields? although the device would need to be somewhat larger), I'm not arguing for the GT yields here I'm just questioning the KT yields.

[TheDarkling]

*I dont subscribe to the standard warsie clause.