Some rather funny power prod. calcs for a Galaxy-class

[Rightous Fist Of Heaven]

This is one funny fellow named Tulkas over at MSN ST vs. SW boards seems to be a new Disciple of Darkstar. He also decided to end the reign of us Warsies with his calculations, now i warn you, you may need medical help while/after reading the following so i dont think this suits for the weak hearted.

Running the numbers, I came up with a CANON-BASED figure on the power of Star Trek vessels.
1. In TMP, Captain Will Decker "it would take thousands of starships" to generate the power displayed by the "12-power force-field" of the type created by V'ger (ST:TMP (M)).
2. The term "thousands" can be approximated as being 3000><9000
~ 6000.
3. The context of the term "starship" as used by Captain Decker (As with Captain Merrick), was in reference to a standard TOS Constitution-class vessel ("Bread and Circuses (TOS), (ST:TMP (M)).
4. According to the novelization of "The Motion Picture," V'ger's "12-power" force-field was narratively said to be "powerful enough to stop the Earth's sun from rotating!" (ST:TMP(N),
Exclamation point in original).
5. The Enterprise 1701-refit was narratively stated to have engines "six time as powerful as anything ever taken into space." (ST:TMP (N))
6. The Enterprise-D is over 8X the mass of Enterprise refit, with presumably =<8x power.
7. Combining 5 and 6, a Galaxy Class Starship can generate over 48x that of the Enterprise NCC-1701, which calculates to 6000/48
~1/125th of the power required to halt the sun's rotation.

8. Calculating for this energy figure:
Solar mass = 1.98892 E+ 30 kilograms
Solar radius = 6.95E+8m
Rotational period: ~27 days = 2332800 seconds
solving for spherical torque:
I = mr 2 = 9.60698083E+47kg·m^2
L=Iw~ (9.60698083E+47kg·m^2)(1rev/27days)(2pi * rad/1 rev)(1day/86400s)
L= 4.11821881E+41 kg·m2/s (joules)
Dividing by 125, we arrive at a grand total power-generating capacity figure for a Galaxy-class starship of:





(drum-roll please):




~3.29457505E+39J
for a Galaxy-class starship!
This is consistent with Kirk's canon statement that the Enterprise 1701, equipped with phasers and torpedoes, was capable of "destroying a planet-- which is likewise consistent with the statement in "The Cage" that the Enterprise's power, when used in a simple DET weapon of mere lasers, could destroy "half a continent."
This also justifies the Scotty's confidence that the self-destruction of the Enterprise would destroy even something the size of V'ger by simply "putting that much matter and anti-matter together" (i.e. DET without any sort of special means to increase the yield).

Even taking for granted Mike Wong's claim for a Star Destroyer's maximum reactor power of 200 trillion gigawatts ( =2.0E+23 watts), it would have to produce this much power for 1.64728753E+16 seconds = (522,351,449 YEARS!!!)
to match the power capabilitites of a Galaxy-class cruiser.
However, this is quite impossible for a SD to operate at this stated maximum output for this length of time (or ANY length of time over one second), due to the Mass-energy ratio of only .0038 for hydgrogen-fusion reactions.

What's your take on this?

Now i smacked this bitch down rather hard for posting this shit but knowing he is of the Cult of Darkstar, he will be back with some mindless babble. Here is the link for anyone interested http://groups.msn.com/StarTrekVsStarWar ... l_topics=0

[Darth Servo]

Once again a desperate Trekkie tries to use verbal hyperbolie as proof of something. And this idiot wonders why people don't take him seriously.

[Ender]

As much as I am agaisnt crusading, as I am already previously registered there I'll set him right.

Funny note for those who give a damn: Bobby registered there after I had been posting for a while, then accused me of following him.

[Isolder74]

Best example of bad Physics that I have ever seen!

The use of the term thoudands of starships is about as usefull as the term any bombardment from ESB. Surely they could have eventually blasted through the Hoth shield but it would result in the entire annilation of the base and the personell that Vader wants captured not obliterated!

On another note the sun rotation stopping calulation is not really done well and since there is no way to tell how many thousands of starships it would take to equal that . There is nothing this information can tell us. Low end figures would be using 999,999 as the number of starships and high end would be mearly 2,000 ships.

On that note since a star destroyer can slag a planet(BDZ) it has to have similer power generation capability. Remember V'Ger as big as it was, its weapons could only carterize the surface of planet Earth. V'Ger could not do the death Star Thing. If we want to play semantics games then we can say that V'ger is only as powerfull as Star Destroyer and as such a Star Destroyer can produce power level equal to V'Ger!

[Ender]

Light-brained soldier, kindly go wash out your potty-mouth before you even THINK of expecting me to converse with your sorry self.
I don't know what kind of pimply-faced pot-bellied sex-deprived GEEK you have to be in order to harbor such anger, but if you think you're so all-flipping intelligent that you're above common decency and respect for your fellow conversant, then get over yourself and realize that you're not the master debater that you think you are, or even a master baiter, but just a MASTURBATOR, and I don't play that game even with GOOD-looking people.
I suggest you go find someone else to let you in their reindeer games because I'm not going to take it; from now on, all your foul-mouthed rants will be cheerfully ignored.

Well, he certainly showed you. Clealy you are in error and should concede the point.

[Rightous Fist Of Heaven]

Ender: So true. This fuckwit is utterly hilarious. I obviously hit him to a sore part and his only way out was to ignore me and the rebuttal based on my "rants"

[Ender]

He can't even pull taht on me, I was polite.

[Rightous Fist Of Heaven]

OMFG! He is now claiming that starships get their energy from their engines!

[Stravo]

OMFG! He is now claiming that starships get their energy from their engines!

How is that wrong? The intermix chamber and engines can be referred to interhchangably. In TPM Decker says the phasers are more powerful because they now draw their power directly from the warp drive.

[Rightous Fist Of Heaven]

OMFG! He is now claiming that starships get their energy from their engines!

How is that wrong? The intermix chamber and engines can be referred to interhchangably. In TPM Decker says the phasers are more powerful because they now draw their power directly from the warp drive.

I assume its wrong because the engines cant generate power from thin air. Also i assume that the idea that the engines alone generate power is wrong simply because Starfleet ships have that warp core which is pretty few times mentioned to be the source of power and it operates upon matter/anti-matter principle. The fact that they are more powerfull when they draw their power from the warp drive does not yet say that the engines are what generate the power.

[Ender]

OMFG! He is now claiming that starships get their energy from their engines!

How is that wrong?

Becasue by definition an engine uses energy rather then producing it stravo.

The intermix chamber and engines can be referred to interhchangably. In TPM Decker says the phasers are more powerful because they now draw their power directly from the warp drive.

We have seen that warp core and warp drive reactor are often given short handed names to refer to them as such, but by the basic laws of reality its wrong.

[Darth Servo]

I posted a couple times over there. Do you guys want additional people beating the crap out of his arguments or do I just get in the way?

[Darth Servo]

ROTFLMAO

Power doesn't include a time-frame, it's a whole; if you paid your own electric-bills you'd KNOW that.

Yes, let the mocking begin.[/quote]

[CmdrWilkens]

Well lets see, beyond the fact that hypothesis number 5 is about the dumbest I've ever seen I don't know where he gets the rest. I mean seriously the idea has absolutely no real world correlation. The USS Enteprise (real world USN) has a mass significantly less than that or a Nimitz-class vessel. However that same ship (due to being crammed with reactors) actually is capable of producing a LOT more power than the Nimitz-class (or its sub class variants). In fact several word of mouth soruces have stated that the ship has been seen doing nearly 50 knts off the Virginia coast. Speed trials never utilized more than 2/3rds of her available power as they feared it would actually overstress the hull and rip the ship apart to draw on everything she had. In other words the idea that mass correlates directly (and lineraly no less) with mass is absolutely absurd. Reactor size, number, and efficiency determines power output, so far as I know no such comparison has EVER been made between the E-D and the E-nil refit (or the E-nil or the E-A for that matter).

Lets see what else he got wrong...ahh yes forgetting that if he wants to paly the "take dialouge at face value" game then i can do the same right back. His calculation is for the rotaitonal energy of the Sun...ntoe that the quote deals with power...any amount of power generation capacity can equal any set energy value given enough time. Hell my car engine could produce 3.3e39J if you gave it a couple million years. Total energy reserves is what he MIGHT have calculated at best. In other words in the best possible case scenario (i.e. his logic isn't entirely flawed which it is) then all he's done is prove that a GCS carries enough M/AM mix to produce 3.3e39J (which at perfect efficiency should require 3.66e22 kg of M/AM. Oddly enough this would mean fuel alone would take up 3660 billion tons out of the E-D's supposed 4.5 billion ton mass (metric), that is if I did my math right.

[Rightous Fist Of Heaven]

Servo: You are most welcome, we can get the best out of this fool with the force of many pounding the truth and reason to him.

Wilkens: Amazing isnt it? [/b]

[Ender]

Well lets see, beyond the fact that hypothesis number 5 is about the dumbest I've ever seen I don't know where he gets the rest. I mean seriously the idea has absolutely no real world correlation. The USS Enteprise (real world USN) has a mass significantly less than that or a Nimitz-class vessel. However that same ship (due to being crammed with reactors) actually is capable of producing a LOT more power than the Nimitz-class (or its sub class variants).

Negative. In terms of power production it can't even run all its modern systems at the same time. Its woefully underpowered and was due to be replaced next, but the bush got slipped in before the X (which will be the next Enterprise)

In fact several word of mouth soruces have stated that the ship has been seen doing nearly XXX knts off the Virginia coast. Speed trials never utilized more than 2/3rds of her available power as they feared it would actually overstress the hull and rip the ship apart to draw on everything she had.

No comment.

In other words the idea that mass correlates directly (and lineraly no less) with mass is absolutely absurd. Reactor size, number, and efficiency determines power output, so far as I know no such comparison has EVER been made between the E-D and the E-nil refit (or the E-nil or the E-A for that matter).

Its a volume relationship really.

[Ender]

I posted a couple times over there. Do you guys want additional people beating the crap out of his arguments or do I just get in the way?

I don't really care, its amusing to me.

[Rightous Fist Of Heaven]

I posted a couple times over there. Do you guys want additional people beating the crap out of his arguments or do I just get in the way?

I don't really care, its amusing to me.

Could someone with brains read his stuff without being amused?

[CmdrWilkens]

Well I was gonna post this in resposne to that whole "Power doesn't have a unti of time" but I can't get quoting to work so neh.

Power is Work/Time.

One Watt equals one joule per second:
from: http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/p ... u5l1e.html

"The standard metric unit of power is the Watt. As is implied by the equation for power, a unit of power is equivalent to a unit of work divided by a unit of time. Thus, a Watt is equivalent to a Joule/second."

Your electric bill, since you must not pay attention to yours like I do mine, comes to you in kWh which is shorhand for kiloWatt hours. Now note that as kW is a unit of work per unit time and hours is a unit of time the result is an number which expresses WORK (or energy if you prefer, commonly expressed in joules).

Lets see how it all works out taking my electric bill for last month. My appartment was billed for 647 kWh.

647 kWh * 1000 W/ kW ( 1J / 1s)/ 1 W * 60 min/ 1 h * 60 s / 1 min.

You will note that seconds cancel out, W cancels out, kW cancels out, hours cancels out. The only unit we are left with is joules with the grand total being 2.33e9 J. That's the reality of how you deal with kWh, J, and W.

[Master of Ossus]

The way that they allow posters to delete their own posts on that board seems VERY unconducive to debates, there, since many of his statements seem to have been deleted by the author.

[Sea Skimmer]

Negative. In terms of power production it can't even run all its modern systems at the same time. Its woefully underpowered and was due to be replaced next, but the bush got slipped in before the X (which will be the next Enterprise)

Underpowered? With its current cores only six of the eight reactors are even kept running at any one time because the turbines can't handle any more steam. Issues with the hotel loads are related to a now insufficient number of steam generators, which means the ship cannot utilize all its available power. If there was space to install more of them then there would be no issue.

In fact several word of mouth soruces have stated that the ship has been seen doing nearly XXX knts off the Virginia coast. Speed trials never utilized more than 2/3rds of her available power as they feared it would actually overstress the hull and rip the ship apart to draw on everything she had.

That's only the case with the new reactor cores, which provide far more power then the originals did. And the ships hull wouldn't be ripped apart, the turbines and associated piping would simply explode. They can't handle more then 280,000hp, and even if the turbines could the propellers couldn't absorb it, which would cause heavy cavitation, resulting the ship slowing down. Though after a bit the reduction gears would be destoyed as well. It would however be very cool to watch, via remote camara though.

The reports of extremely high speed are however false, and the result of the carriers having a much higher acceleration then its escorts, which then had only a few knots speed advantage to close up the resulting gap. By the time they did normally the carrier had slowed back down with flight operations concluded. And so they rumors got started.

[Ender]

Negative. In terms of power production it can't even run all its modern systems at the same time. Its woefully underpowered and was due to be replaced next, but the bush got slipped in before the X (which will be the next Enterprise)

Underpowered? With its current cores only six of the eight reactors are even kept running at any one time because the turbines can't handle any more steam. Issues with the hotel loads are related to a now insufficient number of steam generators, which means the ship cannot utilize all its available power. If there was space to install more of them then there would be no issue.

So you question me... only to say I am correct.

That really comes off like you trying to minimize anyone else as a source of information.

In fact several word of mouth soruces have stated that the ship has been seen doing nearly XXX knts off the Virginia coast. Speed trials never utilized more than 2/3rds of her available power as they feared it would actually overstress the hull and rip the ship apart to draw on everything she had.

That's only the case with the new reactor cores, which provide far more power then the originals did. And the ships hull wouldn't be ripped apart, the turbines and associated piping would simply explode. They can't handle more then 280,000hp, and even if the turbines could the propellers couldn't absorb it, which would cause heavy cavitation, resulting the ship slowing down. Though after a bit the reduction gears would be destoyed as well. It would however be very cool to watch, via remote camara though.[/quote]That would not happen.

The reports of extremely high speed are however false, and the result of the carriers having a much higher acceleration then its escorts, which then had only a few knots speed advantage to close up the resulting gap. By the time they did normally the carrier had slowed back down with flight operations concluded. And so they rumors got started.

I know the engine limits for those kind of plants, so lets just say I disagree.

[Rightous Fist Of Heaven]

Please fellows, lets try to keep this on topic shall we?

[Darth Wong]

I like the way idiots of his ilk think that all mathematically correct "calcs" have pretty much the same validity, regardless of how one came up with the numbers to plug into those calcs.

[Sea Skimmer]

So you question me... only to say I am correct.

Nope.

That would not happen.

The piping and engines being destroyed by being over worked or propellers cavitating from spinning too fast? The former has happened before, and the latter is inevitable with any propeller design, and at 280,000hp every shaft is already at the limit of current propeller designs.

I know the engine limits for those kind of plants, so lets just say I disagree.

The Navy says Enterprise can make 33.6 knots. I'm not seeing much reason for them to lie about a forty year old ship when there was nothing compelling them to reveal the information in the first place.