Upper limit photon torpedoes...

[Master of Ossus]

Here is the exact wording.

Voyager's weapons inventory.
Photon Torpedo compliment 32 class six warhead explosive yield 200 isotons.

There you go. She was taking the entire compliment of torpedoes into account when she gave the 200 isoton number.

Incidentally, that dialogue is highly suspect, anyway, because Voyager fired many more torpedoes than that on its way home.

[Lord Poe]

Here is the exact wording.

Voyager's weapons inventory.
Photon Torpedo compliment 32 class six warhead explosive yield 200 isotons.

There you go. She was taking the entire compliment of torpedoes into account when she gave the 200 isoton number.

Incidentally, that dialogue is highly suspect, anyway, because Voyager fired many more torpedoes than that on its way home.

Man, you don't want to get started on that! Then you'd have to bring up the magical shuttlecrafts that keep respawning in the shuttlebay!

[Master of Ossus]

You can't complain that photon torps don't look 64 megatons when turbolasers don't look that strong either.


*notices a group of lit torches approaching*

What are you talking about? Here's selective memory, if I've ever seen it. You obviously have never bothered to watch RotJ, or you would have seen a fifty meter long HTL shot from a Mon Cal cruiser (speculated, based on its length and observed firepower) that destroyed an ISD in a single shot. Moreover, your entire argument relies exclusively on subjective reasoning, when the other posters were all talking about the FACTS regarding detonations of torpedoes against observed and inert objects, such as the TDiC attack, and then explaining why they showed low firepowers. Finally, you appear to be accepting this theory of Walpers without examining it to determine its validity.

[Ender]

I don't suppose there is any cahnce of this getting back on topic?

[Ted C]

I don't suppose there is any cahnce of this getting back on topic?

I was personally hoping for some comments on my rather lengthy response to the initial question...

[Master of Ossus]

I don't suppose there is any cahnce of this getting back on topic?

I was personally hoping for some comments on my rather lengthy response to the initial question...

What do you want us to comment on? Since the original theory was incorrect, we now face the task of re-analyzing the data that we have to better fit the facts. It is difficult to do that, however, without moving to a completely new theory.

[Darth Wong]

Did Walper post a theory? The only thing I saw was him posting a totally unfounded assumption that isoton = a ton of M/AM and then generating lots of calcs based on that assumption. At no point does he even bother trying to generate predictions for specific Trek events on this basis, nor does he try to rationalize his calcs with any observations whatsoever.

This is not a theory; it is an opinion, and not a particularly intelligent one at that.

[Ted C]

What do you want us to comment on? Since the original theory was incorrect, we now face the task of re-analyzing the data that we have to better fit the facts. It is difficult to do that, however, without moving to a completely new theory.

Well, I actually thought that my claim that equating Federation Isotons to actual tons of TNT was reasonable ought to have been inflammatory enough to get a response out of some of the die-hard Trekkies around here.

[Master of Ossus]

What do you want us to comment on? Since the original theory was incorrect, we now face the task of re-analyzing the data that we have to better fit the facts. It is difficult to do that, however, without moving to a completely new theory.

Well, I actually thought that my claim that equating Federation Isotons to actual tons of TNT was reasonable ought to have been inflammatory enough to get a response out of some of the die-hard Trekkies around here.

Okay, it's clearly wrong. Torpedoes have been observed to be more powerful than that in nearly every incident in which they have been used, including the oft-touted Pegasus example. My guess is that isoton is just bullshit and has no consistent meaning, but it may be a scale that is so ridiculously complicated as to justify all of the examples that we have seen.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Here is the exact wording.

Voyager's weapons inventory.
Photon Torpedo compliment 32 class six warhead explosive yield 200 isotons.

There you go. She was taking the entire compliment of torpedoes into account when she gave the 200 isoton number.

Which was mean 200 isotons = 2.048GT; One isoton = 10.24MT.

[Master of Ossus]

Which was mean 200 isotons = 2.048GT; One isoton = 10.24MT.

Where did you get that number? How did you derive that? What is your post intended to demonstrate?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Which was mean 200 isotons = 2.048GT; One isoton = 10.24MT.

Where did you get that number? How did you derive that? What is your post intended to demonstrate?

Calm down MoO......

Use your head and read the post I was quoting.

[Master of Ossus]

Which was mean 200 isotons = 2.048GT; One isoton = 10.24MT.

Where did you get that number? How did you derive that? What is your post intended to demonstrate?

Calm down MoO......

Use your head and read the post I was quoting.

The one where you say "which was mean 200 isotons?" Are you trying to say that that would indicate that 200 isotons are equivalent to a little more than a gigaton, or that the average is 200 isotons? Honestly, I can't make heads or tales of your shoddy grammatical work.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Where did you get that number? How did you derive that? What is your post intended to demonstrate?

Calm down MoO......

Use your head and read the post I was quoting.

The one where you say "which was mean 200 isotons?" Are you trying to say that that would indicate that 200 isotons are equivalent to a little more than a gigaton, or that the average is 200 isotons? Honestly, I can't make heads or tales of your shoddy grammatical work.

::sigh::

I apologize..I honestly thought it would be obvious. I'll try to explain;

1 Photon Torpedo = 64 MT
32 Photon Torpedoes = 200 Isotons
32 PT * 64MT = 2048MT; The total yield for 32 PT is 2.048GT.
200 = 2.048GT
2.048/200 = 10.24MT
1 Isoton = 10.24MT

[Kamakazie Sith]

Where did you get that number? How did you derive that? What is your post intended to demonstrate?

Calm down MoO......

Use your head and read the post I was quoting.

The one where you say "which was mean 200 isotons?" Are you trying to say that that would indicate that 200 isotons are equivalent to a little more than a gigaton, or that the average is 200 isotons? Honestly, I can't make heads or tales of your shoddy grammatical work.

Oh one more thing....I apologize for the typo. I meant "which would mean 200 isotons"

I can't help but feel you knew this and decided to be an asshole, however if I'm wrong I hope we are clear now.

[Master of Ossus]

I can't help but feel you knew this and decided to be an asshole, however if I'm wrong I hope we are clear now.

Actually, that explains a lot. Since the word "mean" was in reference to a (presumably) mathematical calculation, I kept thinking of it in the sense of a mathematical mean, or an average, rather than in the actual sense you meant it.

I'm still not in the least bit convinced that an isoton is some sort of unit for measuring on a linear scale, but at least your post makes more sense, now.

[AdmiralKanos]

1 Photon Torpedo = 64 MT
32 Photon Torpedoes = 200 Isotons
32 PT * 64MT = 2048MT; The total yield for 32 PT is 2.048GT.
200 = 2.048GT
2.048/200 = 10.24MT
1 Isoton = 10.24MT

You should be careful to state implicit assumptions. You use the 64-MT photorp TM figure as a given and plug it into your equation, even though the figure is directly contradicted by numerous incidents such as "Pegasus".

[Kamakazie Sith]

I can't help but feel you knew this and decided to be an asshole, however if I'm wrong I hope we are clear now.

Actually, that explains a lot. Since the word "mean" was in reference to a (presumably) mathematical calculation, I kept thinking of it in the sense of a mathematical mean, or an average, rather than in the actual sense you meant it.

I'm still not in the least bit convinced that an isoton is some sort of unit for measuring on a linear scale, but at least your post makes more sense, now.

Whatever, just as long as we are clear now.

What else do you think it could be besides a unit for measurement on a linear scale?

[Kamakazie Sith]

1 Photon Torpedo = 64 MT
32 Photon Torpedoes = 200 Isotons
32 PT * 64MT = 2048MT; The total yield for 32 PT is 2.048GT.
200 = 2.048GT
2.048/200 = 10.24MT
1 Isoton = 10.24MT

You should be careful to state implicit assumptions. You use the 64-MT photorp TM figure as a given and plug it into your equation, even though the figure is directly contradicted by numerous incidents such as "Pegasus".

I only used it because I was under the impression that the 64MT figure is still accepted.

Looking at Pegasus what is the new accepted figure?

[AdmiralKanos]

I only used it because I was under the impression that the 64MT figure is still accepted.

It is "accepted" in the sense that SW fans don't want to bother arguing with ST fans over it.

Looking at Pegasus what is the new accepted figure?

Riker said they would need all of the torps to destroy the asteroid, which was roughly 5-10km wide. If we assume solid nickel-iron, it would take 2 gigatons to do this (using 7500m width). Divide by 275 torps, and you have roughly 7 megatons per torp (let's just say 10).

Mind you, this is a gross overestimate: the asteroid was not solid nickel-iron. For pulverizing igneous rock, you'd only need around 400 megatons, which means that a single photorp is more like 1 to 2 megatons. Worse yet, the asteroid was hollow, which would lower the estimate even further.

The point here is not necessarily that a precise figure can be estimated (Riker was undoubtedly speaking from experience involving torpedoes and rocky asteroids, rather than performing precise calculations), but just to show that the TM figure is likely about one order of magnitude too high, so we should be looking at the 1-10 MT range rather than the 10-100 MT range. A 64 MT buried nuclear explosion would pulverize a 2.4 km wide asteroid and while precise calculations do not come readily, the fact that a photorp can take out a multi-kilometre asteroid in a single hit would not be something that is too difficult to remember. It would have been inconceivable for Riker to look at an asteroid which is 2-3 times the width of one that can be destroyed with a single hit and conclude that they'd need to hit it more than 200 times.

[SPOOFE]

It is "accepted" in the sense that SW fans don't want to bother arguing with ST fans over it.

At the very least, we now know that 10.24 megatons per isoton is the high-end figure.

Mid end - using the Pegasus calcs you just posted - that would make it 1.6 megatons in an isoton (assuming 10 megatons per Photorp).

I thought the low-end Pegasus calcs were in the kiloton-range?

[Galaxy]

You use the 64-MT photorp TM figure as a given and plug it into your equation, even though the figure is directly contradicted by numerous incidents such as "Pegasus".

Could someone name all those numerous incidents that contradict 64MT torps?

Pegasus isn't a good example to derive a energy estimate. There's no mention of how many torps the enterprise was carrying at the time, and i don't recall them shooting any torps at the asteroid to prove Riker's comment.
I think everyone just filled in the missing pieces of the equation with assumptions.

[Vympel]

Pegasus isn't a good example to derive a energy estimate. There's no mention of how many torps the enterprise was carrying at the time, and i don't recall them shooting any torps at the asteroid to prove Riker's comment.
I think everyone just filled in the missing pieces of the equation with assumptions.

Have you seen the episode? They said it would take all their torpedo load. There's no reason to assume their magazines had run dry.

I recommend we destroy the asteroid. It would take almost all our photon torpedoes, but it would preclude any possibility of the Pegasus falling into Romulan hands.

That's what Riker said. If they didn't have their full load, he would have said something, i.e. "if only we had all 275".

And I don't know how you turn hard calcs into assumptions.

[Andras]

IMO, isoton refers to the amount of energy actually delivered to a target, not the exact amount of energy produced by the explosion. It makes no sense to talk about a 64mt explosion, when less then half is actually affecting the target. The best correlation I have is that the delivered energy of a 64mt torpedo explosion is roughly 24mt(@75% efficent). Tweak the effiency of the reaction a hair, and it's close to 25 megatons. Do we have a hard number for the reaction loss? I use 74-75%, but can't recall where it came from.

Something else that just occured to me, is that an isoton is 4.0e15 Joules. 100,000 million terajoules= 25 isotons= 23.89mt, very close to the delivered energy of the 64mt torpedo.

Of course, all this depends on a 64mt torpedo

[Darth Servo]

Well according to the show theres sound in space again account for the medium and also those lights on the hull can't account for the lighting.

No I don't want to be grouped with fundies but threats will not change my opinion.

Hey look folks, its Gothmog's stupid arguments again. Except without the legalese. I guess we should be thankful for small favors.