How many watts in a megaton nuke blast?
Xtreme
--
Xtreme
xtre...@yahoo.com
Ryan McReynolds
news:G_qS2.103957$Mb.38...@newscontent-02.sprint.ca...
> How many watts in a megaton nuke blast?
That depends entirely on the length of time that blast occurs in. I can
tell you that there are 4,190,000,000,000,000 joules in a megaton, but the
wattage depends on the time.
-=Ryan McReynolds=-
Xtreme
Ryan McReynolds <rmc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:7fdg79$jhk$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
Lets say in one second?
Ryan McReynolds
>
> > That depends entirely on the length of time that blast occurs in. I can
> > tell you that there are 4,190,000,000,000,000 joules in a megaton, but
> > the wattage depends on the time.
>
> Lets say in one second?
Okay, one watt is one joule per second, so 4.19e15 J/s is 4.19e15 W, or 4.19
petawatts.
-=Ryan McReynolds=-
joel frangquist
>
> Ryan McReynolds <rmc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:7fdg79$jhk$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> > > How many watts in a megaton nuke blast?
> >
> > tell you that there are 4,190,000,000,000,000 joules in a megaton, but the
> > wattage depends on the time.
>
> Lets say in one second?
4,190,000,000,000,000 Watts. Watts = Joules per second
Xtreme
> >
> > > That depends entirely on the length of time that blast occurs in. I
can
> > > tell you that there are 4,190,000,000,000,000 joules in a megaton, but
> > > the wattage depends on the time.
> >
> > Lets say in one second?
>
4.19
> petawatts.
4.19 petawatts? In one second? Does it degrade quickly? By how much % per
second? How come then when a Ptorp or Qtorp hits an enemy's shields or hull
that it doesn't vaporise it?
Sorry for the ton of questions, it is that I'm trying to start on my own
novel and I need some info.
Nathaniel Wilde
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Xtreme wrote:
>
> Ryan McReynolds <rmc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:7fecdn$c70$2...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> > Xtreme <xtre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:UPxS2.104747$Mb.38...@newscontent-02.sprint.ca...
> > >
> > > > That depends entirely on the length of time that blast occurs in. I
> can
> > > > tell you that there are 4,190,000,000,000,000 joules in a megaton, but
> > > > the wattage depends on the time.
> > >
> > > Lets say in one second?
> >
> > Okay, one watt is one joule per second, so 4.19e15 J/s is 4.19e15 W, or
> 4.19
> > petawatts.
>
> 4.19 petawatts? In one second? Does it degrade quickly? By how much % per
> second?
One ton of TNT is defined as 4.184x10^9 J. How long this is
applied is dependent on the weapon. Single event wepaons emit all of the
energy virtually instantaneously, giving them extremely high power
outputs, but the rate of energy transfer to the suroundings is limited by
the medium in which it is detonated. For nukes detonated in earth's
atmosphere, the energy is transfered by radiation and a pressure wave.
There effectively is no limit on radiation density (not in this problem
anyway), but there is a limit on the shock wave amplitude. A good portion
of the energy of the blast is in the from of radiation that drops off
quickly to non-lethal levels well before the shock wave does.
Consequently, the bulk of the damage done by a nuke is done by the lowest
energy component of the blast, the shock wave, because earth's environment
is good at absorbing radiation and is good at propigating a shock wave.
Back to power. Defining power is very difficult at close range.
If you were holding the device in your arms when it went off, you would
get hit by nearly half of the explosive force. The time frame of the
energy transfer through you would be on the order of the time of the
reaction, or very small fractions of a second, in which case the power of
the wepaon is well beyond calcuable. If you were some distance from it
though, the power would drop off disproportionately as factors like
viscosity started to control the rate of energy transfer through the
atmosphere and the time of the blast would effectively be spread out.
Even so, the time of energy transfer is very short, much less then a
second, ignoring the differences in the speed of the radiation and the
shock wave (the radiation will hit you first and will last for only a few
thousanths of a second, then the shock wave will hit you (moving at the
local speed of sound) and can last as short as a tenth of a second to tens
of seconds depending on the distance from the blast and the magnitude of
the weapon).
> How come then when a Ptorp or Qtorp hits an enemy's shields or hull
> that it doesn't vaporise it?
Who knows what happens for shields, but as far as the hull is
concerned, even a small nuke (say, 50kton) should rip a huge hole in a
ship. Even though the power drops off very quickly with distance, at the
impact point the power would be so high that virtually nothing could stop
it.
Let's use the USS Iowa as an example. A 50kton nuke would sink it
easily if it was detonated against the hull. The initial plasma ball
would easily vaporize a big hole right through the 12in of steel armor.
The shock wave, imparted to the air inside the ship and the ship's steel
hull would kill everybody on board and completely ruin the vessel. If
you detonated the same weapon 1000ft away the ship would live through
it, the crew might die from massive inner ear damage, but the ship would
be fine. At that range, the only energy transfered into the ship would be
in the form of a powerful shock wave, easily handled by 12in of steel.
This leads to the question of whether proximaty nukes would even
be effective in space. Without an atmosphere to transfer a shock wave,
the only energy recieved at a distance would be the radiation. For a nuke
to be effective in space it would have to be detonated right up against
the target. That way you can utilize the incredibly powerful plasma blast
and you can use the structure of the vessel to transfer the shock wave
that would be generated by the plasma ball in contact with the hull.
>
> Sorry for the ton of questions, it is that I'm trying to start on my own
> novel and I need some info.
When writing space based sci-fi you are always dealing with
elements of conjecture. By all rights a 9Mton warhead from a Titan 2
should vaporize the starship Enterprise without difficulty. Photon
torpedoes, being "superior" to nukes, should be able to do the same thing.
The argument then is that their shields are so powerful that they can deal
with multi GW wepaons, thereby justifying the power claims of the weapons.
But then ST:2 comes along and we see torps hitting bare hulls. What's the
deal? Are torps mulit GW or not? I don't care what their hulls are made
of, a 9Mton weapon's virtually unstopable plasma ball could separate the
saucer-section, the hard way. And so you end up with inconsistencies born
out of a desire for imaginative realism and drama.
In short, there are no easy answers. I wish you the best on your
writing venture. To quote Bob Ross in refence to creative art, "It's your
world."
>
>
>
>
Xtreme
answers.
Still how come if a megaton nuke hits a shield or hull on SW and ST ship
they live though within a second of the impact 4.19 petawatts is released,
yet the ship still is in working order? Does this mean that their shields
can withstand petawatts of destructive power?
Plus in space how fast would the power released from the one meg nuke drop
after one second?
Kynes
>
> 4.19 petawatts? In one second?
*laugh*
I'm putting that one in the quotes file. :D
--
-Kynes
"It is by will alone that I set my mind in motion."
- Piter de Vries
Timothy Jones
> > How many watts in a megaton nuke blast?
>
> tell you that there are 4,190,000,000,000,000 joules in a megaton, but the
> wattage depends on the time.
A Watt is just a j/s. {I.e., a joule-second, or joule per second.}
According to me physics professor here at the UW, the two are basically
equivelant and interchangable. The detonations herein discussed are more
or less instantaneous.
TJ
Timothy Jones
>
> How many watts in a megaton nuke blast?
According to information provided via my physics proffessor (from web
site located through a search using keywords "megaton" and "joule"), the
energy release from 1 MT would be 4,200,000 Gigajoules. {Watts and
Joules are interchangable.}
Incidentally, is has also been ascertained that the M/AM anihilation of
46.58 miligrams of mass would produce an energy release equivelant to
1 kt, meaning you would get a 1 MT release from the anihilation of a
mass of 46.58 * 10^-3 kg. Since the reaction mass of a Trek style photon
torpedo is 3 kg, a full yield detonation would release energy equivelant
to 60 MT. If only half of this is in contacy with the target (which
would go against the measures described in the DS9 TM to increase target
surface area contact through the use of a special gas), the destructive
potential of a standard Starfleet photon torpedo would still be rated at
at least 30 MT. If for some reason only 1/4 of the energy release is in
contact with the target (say, due to oblique trajectories of the target
or warhead on impact, etc), the destructive potential is still at not
less than 15 MT. Even this would render a standard Fed photon torpedo
fully 15,000 times more effective and powerfull than the *total*
potential of 1 kT of a SW X-Wing proton torpedo.
TJ
Ryan McReynolds
news:Pine.A41.4.10.990419...@dante22.u.washington.edu...
> A Watt is just a j/s. {I.e., a joule-second, or joule per second.}
Gee whiz, really?
> According to me physics professor here at the UW, the two are basically
> equivelant and interchangable.
They are equivalent and interchangable only if the joule is delivered in
exactly one second. Unless your professor has discovered new laws of
physics, he/she is quite simply wrong, or oversimplifying for you. What
physics course are you taking? A joule and a watt certainly weren't
equivalent in my aerospace engineering physics course... for that matter,
they weren't even equivalent back in high school physics...
> The detonations herein discussed are more or less instantaneous.
Which immediately tells us that they occur in a time-frame of much less than
one second. Therefore, the wattage is much greater than the joule value.
One joule of energy applied in a miniscule fraction of a second could have
and incredibly high power.
-=Ryan McReynolds=-
Ryan McReynolds
news:Pine.A41.4.10.990419...@dante22.u.washington.edu...
You're joking, right? Even without years of schooling, just lurking in this
group would tell someone that watts and joules aren't interchangable. One
joule for one second is one watt. Great. One joule for ten seconds is only
one-tenth of a watt. Likewise, one joule for one-tenth of a second is ten
watts. Saying watts and joules are interchangable is exactly like saying
speed and distance are interchangable... in other words, it is absolutely
false.
> Since the reaction mass of a Trek style photon
> torpedo is 3 kg, a full yield detonation would release energy equivelant
> to 60 MT.
More specificlly, the reaction mass is 3.15 kg (circa 2374). That yields
283.1 petajoules, or 67.6 megatons. Given the established and accepted
efficiency of 74%, this is almost exactly 50 megatons effective yield,
divided by half to account for simple geometry.
-=Ryan McReynolds=-
Timothy Jones
>
> When writing space based sci-fi you are always dealing with
> elements of conjecture. By all rights a 9Mton warhead from a Titan 2
> should vaporize the starship Enterprise without difficulty. Photon
> torpedoes, being "superior" to nukes, should be able to do the same thing.
> The argument then is that their shields are so powerful that they can deal
> with multi GW wepaons, thereby justifying the power claims of the weapons.
> But then ST:2 comes along and we see torps hitting bare hulls. What's the
> deal?
As established in multiple series episodes and indicated in the E-D TM,
Trek photon torpedoes have a variable warhead yield setting. At maximum
yiels, the 3 kg reaction mass of matter and anti-matter would release
energy equivelant to a 60 MT blast. This energy release is not produced
in the typical fashion of a "nuke," and so, is not subject to the
problems of propogation that some have mentioned. Furthermore, as
detailed in the DS9 TM, a special gas is used to increase surfact area
contact with the target. And obviously, the detonation will be virtually
instantaneous, esp at maximum yield setting, where *all* the matter and
anti-matter is forceably brought together at once. Even if only 1/4 of
this manages to be in destructive contact with the target vessel, the
potential is still rated at not less than 15 MT for a standard photon
torpedo.
It is also important to remember that, in ST II, the combatant ships
were flying blind and without shields in the middle of the Mutatra
Nebula. Under those conditions, torpedo use at maximum yield intensity
would've all but seuicidal. The E-D TM states a minimum firing range of
15 km, which presumes shields operating normally. Two episodes of TNG,
"Q-Who," and "The Nth Degree" further highlighted the dangers of close
range torpedo use. The former established that, at close range, without
shields, a photn detonation has a high degree of probability of
destroying the firing ship. The later showed that a spread of three
torpedoes at maximum yield would've been too dangerous at the distance
they were from the target (an alien probe) even with full normal
shields, and still rocked the ship violently (though no damage was
caused) when the shields were augmented by 300%. Clearly, the ST II: WoK
battle must be taken in its proper context.
We've seen even the original Enterprize withstand a close range nuclear
blast "Within a hundred meters," in the TOS ep "Balance of Terror," and
at the time, their shields were either down or substantially weakened.
The only damage was some circuit overloads and a few bumps and bruises
were the only "casualties."
Examples of a Fed starship *without* shields being destroyed by a single
photon torpedo are ST III (the U.S.S. Grissom) and the TNG ep
"Contageon" (the U.S.S. Lantry). Both were well aimed, undefended hits,
considered to be "lucky shots," possibly targeting the reactor core.
An excellant counterexample would be the U.S.S. Defiant, in the DS9 ep
where it battles the U.S.S. Lacota. While the Defiant was pulling its
punches, the Lacota was pounding the Defiant for an extended period,
during which the Defiant's shields were down. Presumably, the Defiant's
new ablative armor, which Sisko had specially installed, is to be
credited. Also, the Defiant was equipped with the new quantum torpedoes,
whereas the Lacota was presumably using standard photon torpedoes; but
then again, Defiant wasn't trying to destroy the Lacota, they were
holding back. At the time the battle was interrupted, both ships were
one hit away from being destroyed, even though the Lacota had been using
its shields and *not* holding back on its attacks.
So you see, in Trek, you *do* have to "care what their hulls are made
of," because it *does* make a difference. As does the warhead yield
setting. And as do shields.
TJ
Nathaniel Wilde
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Xtreme wrote:
> Thanks for the info Nate but there are some questions that still needs some
> answers.
>
> Still how come if a megaton nuke hits a shield or hull on SW and ST ship
> they live though within a second of the impact 4.19 petawatts is released,
> yet the ship still is in working order? Does this mean that their shields
> can withstand petawatts of destructive power?
That would indeed appear to be the case. I realize that it
doesn't make much sense, especially in light of how little damage the same
weapons do to bare hulls, but that's what the numbers say.
>
> Plus in space how fast would the power released from the one meg nuke drop
> after one second?
The energy release is a very sudden burst. After one second it
would be impossible to detect any energy release as the radiation would be
screaming away at near the speed of light and the shock wave at the speed
of sound. Against a shield in space, I would imagine that it would be a
quick *thwwwaP!* and then that would be it. The blast takes much less
then a second to emit all of the weapon's energy. I don't know the exact
figures, but for a single event weapon, less then a tenth of a second
anyway.
BTW, don't listen to Tim Jones' assertion that joules and watts
are interchangable in this case. The energy in a nuclear blast is
released over a very short time frame. Assuming a tenth of a second,
4.184E9 J translates to 4.184E10 W. I think his instructor was trying to
get at the fact that power doesn't really matter for contemporary nukes.
the only thing that matters is the total amount of energy that the weapon
will deliver. In that case it doesn't really matter what time you choose
and one second is a more then safe assumption. As far as shields are
concerned, it would seem to me that shields are power sensitive rather
then energy sensitive. The shields can withstand machine gun fire
indefinitely as the power level is low, even if the total energy over a
thousand year period is very high; but handling a weapon delivering all
that energy in a very short period of time is a different matter. In
which case the time frame of energy delivery is important.
What is that time frame? I honestly don't know, but it is very
short, on the order of a few hundredths of a second. I hope that helps.
Timothy Jones
>
> > Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> > A Watt is just a j/s. {I.e., a joule-second, or joule per second.}
>
> Gee whiz, really?
>
> > According to me physics professor here at the UW, the two are basically
> > equivelant and interchangable.
>
> They are equivalent and interchangable only if the joule is
> delivered in exactly one second.
Gee whiz, really?
> Unless your professor has discovered new laws of physics, he/she is
> quite simply wrong, or oversimplifying for you. What physics course
> are you taking? A joule and a watt certainly weren't equivalent in
> my aerospace engineering physics course... for that matter, they
> weren't even equivalent back in high school physics...
He was informed of the context of the question. He knows as I do, though
apparantly you do not, that the energy release is obviously occuring in
less than a second. Within that framawork, watts and joules are
equivelant for the purposes of these debates. {And FYI, my proff is
highly respected among the members of his department, thanks ever so.}
> > The detonations herein discussed are more or less instantaneous.
>
> Which immediately tells us that they occur in a time-frame of much
> less than one second. Therefore, the wattage is much greater than
> the joule value. One joule of energy applied in a miniscule fraction
> of a second could have and incredibly high power.
If you say so. I haven't asked my physics proff about that, and am not
prepaired to say anything one way or the other at this time. I would
only point out that, if you're right, it'll only add to the power of Fed
torpedo detonations...possibly the reason for Starfleet adoptiing their
specific terminology for rating their force; the isoton.
TJ
Timothy Jones
>
> > Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
>
> You're joking, right? Even without years of schooling, just lurking
> in this group would tell someone that watts and joules aren't
> interchangable. One joule for one second is one watt. Great.
Which means they're the same. The latter is simply a measurement of the
rate of flow of the former per unit time.
> > Since the reaction mass of a Trek style photon
> > torpedo is 3 kg, a full yield detonation would release energy equivelant
> > to 60 MT.
>
> More specificlly, the reaction mass is 3.15 kg (circa 2374). That yields
> 283.1 petajoules, or 67.6 megatons. Given the established and accepted
> efficiency of 74%, this is almost exactly 50 megatons effective yield,
> divided by half to account for simple geometry.
M/AM anihilations convert 100% of the involved matter into energy. Thus,
the "effeciency" is always perfect and total. Nothing in the E-D TM
states anything else. The payload mass is clearly stated to be 1.5 kg of
antimatter, presumably to be combined with an equal amount of normal
matter, for a total reaction mass of 3 kg. Where did you read 3.15?
TJ
Ryan McReynolds
> > They are equivalent and interchangable only if the joule is
> > delivered in exactly one second.
>
> Gee whiz, really?
Yes, really. And since we're not talking about delivering that joule in
exactly one second, they are not interchangable, therefore saying "they are
interchangable" is undefiably wrong.
> He was informed of the context of the question. He knows as I do, though
> apparantly you do not, that the energy release is obviously occuring in
> less than a second.
I said that all along; the release is occuring in a matter of several
milliseconds, which means that the number of watts and the number of joules
are not at all equal. I never said that the release occurred in a second...
> Within that framawork, watts and joules are equivelant for the purposes of
> these debates.
Only if the reaction took one second, which we both agree that it does not.
> {And FYI, my proff is highly respected among the members of his
> department, thanks ever so.}
I don't doubt it. At no time did I intend to slander your professor,
department, or school. I was just pointing out that watts and joules are
never interchangable, even though the numbers may coincide if the unit of
time is one second.
> If you say so. I haven't asked my physics proff about that, and am not
> prepaired to say anything one way or the other at this time.
It is common sense, not a matter of esoteric theory. 1 W equals 1/1 J/s...
therefore 1/.00000000001 J/s equals much much more than 1 W. It's simple
pre-algebraic math, you don't even have to ask.
> I would only point out that, if you're right, it'll only add to the power
of Fed
> torpedo detonations...possibly the reason for Starfleet adoptiing their
> specific terminology for rating their force; the isoton.
Indeed. I agree that the wattage of torpedo detonations is absolutely
incredibly, far beyond even the output of the warp core. The limiting
factor is only the fact that the event takes such a small amount of time,
and the energy release is not that great. I can apply a billion exawatts
for such a minute fraction of a second that it only delivers a millijoule to
the target and basically amounts to nothing. I'm not arguing pro-SW here,
I'm just laying out the fundamental laws of physics. If that gives ST an
advantage, great. If it gives SW and advantage, fine by me; I'm neutral in
the matter.
-=Ryan McReynolds=-
C. Francis
thermonuclear detonation in the same way a shaped charge focuses a
chemical explosion. You know, sorta like a HEAT round to be used against
starships?
Nathaniel Wilde
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Timothy Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Nathaniel Wilde wrote:
> >
> > When writing space based sci-fi you are always dealing with
> > elements of conjecture. By all rights a 9Mton warhead from a Titan 2
> > should vaporize the starship Enterprise without difficulty. Photon
> > torpedoes, being "superior" to nukes, should be able to do the same thing.
> > The argument then is that their shields are so powerful that they can deal
> > with multi GW wepaons, thereby justifying the power claims of the weapons.
> > But then ST:2 comes along and we see torps hitting bare hulls. What's the
> > deal?
>
I'll buy that. I guess that makes sense considering the distances
involved.
>
> We've seen even the original Enterprize withstand a close range nuclear
> blast "Within a hundred meters," in the TOS ep "Balance of Terror," and
> at the time, their shields were either down or substantially weakened.
> The only damage was some circuit overloads and a few bumps and bruises
> were the only "casualties."
Nukes don't work very well in space unless they are right next to
you.
>
> Examples of a Fed starship *without* shields being destroyed by a single
> photon torpedo are ST III (the U.S.S. Grissom) and the TNG ep
> "Contageon" (the U.S.S. Lantry). Both were well aimed, undefended hits,
> considered to be "lucky shots," possibly targeting the reactor core.
>
> An excellant counterexample would be the U.S.S. Defiant, in the DS9 ep
> where it battles the U.S.S. Lacota. While the Defiant was pulling its
> punches, the Lacota was pounding the Defiant for an extended period,
> during which the Defiant's shields were down. Presumably, the Defiant's
> new ablative armor, which Sisko had specially installed, is to be
> credited. Also, the Defiant was equipped with the new quantum torpedoes,
> whereas the Lacota was presumably using standard photon torpedoes; but
> then again, Defiant wasn't trying to destroy the Lacota, they were
> holding back. At the time the battle was interrupted, both ships were
> one hit away from being destroyed, even though the Lacota had been using
> its shields and *not* holding back on its attacks.
Ablative armor or not, 15Mton slapping your hull is going to make
a hole. The only way I can see that this would work is if the armor was
very, very dense. Possible, but it thoughs the nice inertial properties
of a small ship right out the window. I'm not doubting that their armor
is significant factor, I just don't think it is technically realistic. In
short, my suspended disbelief is insulted.
>
> So you see, in Trek, you *do* have to "care what their hulls are made
> of," because it *does* make a difference. As does the warhead yield
> setting. And as do shields.
>
> TJ
True, especially warhead levels, but unless the hull is really,
really dense, 15Mton blast at point blank will make a really big hole. A
10Mton nuke will melt steel 2 miles away. At zero range you are dealing
with the energy of a thousand suns released in a thousandth of a second.
Not even pure neutronium could handle that.
Nathaniel Wilde
Not with conventional means. A nuclear reaction releases its
energy spherically. The power of the reaction at close range is so high
that there is no way of reflecting or stearing the blast in a certain
direction like a shaped charge wepaon. Which means that when used against
a ship or similar object, the target will always receive less then half
the energy of the weapon, unless it is detonated inside.
Timothy Jones
>
> This might be a silly question, but is it possible to focus a
> thermonuclear detonation in the same way a shaped charge focuses a
> chemical explosion. You know, sorta like a HEAT round to be used against
> starships?
Well the DS9 TM states that their torpedo design employes a special gas
to increase surface area contact. Read that section, to see if it helps
answer your question.
TJ
Xtreme
Kynes <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
news:fQOS2.5673$um2....@news.rdc1.md.home.com...
> >
> > 4.19 petawatts? In one second?
>
> *laugh*
>
> I'm putting that one in the quotes file. :D
> --
> -Kynes
Then Kynes, how many watts are in a megaton nuke blast?
Ryan McReynolds
> > > 4.19 petawatts? In one second?
> >
> > *laugh*
>
Kynes was laughing at the fact that 4.19 petawatts already includes the time
increment, so saying "in one second" in nonsensical. You clearly have no
idea as to the difference between energy and power, so let me attempt to
explain it. Consider:
I get in a car and start driving. The distance I drive is 500 kilometers.
The time it takes me to drive is 5 hours. My speed is therefore 100
kilometers per hour, right? Now, make a few substitutions... "driving" is
"exploding," "distance" is "energy," and "speed" is "power." Can you see
how it would be irrational to say "the explosion had 4.19 petawatts in one
second" just the same as it would be irrational to say "I drove at 100
kilometers per hour in one hour?"
There is a tremendously high number of watts in a one megaton nuclear blast,
because it occurs in a tremendously short amount of time. Continuing the
analogy, it is like driving 500 kilometers in one second, instead of five
hours. Sure, my speed is therefore 1,800,000 kilometers per hour, but I
still only went 500 miles.
-=Ryan McReynolds=-
Marc
>There is a tremendously high number of watts in a one megaton nuclear
>blast, because it occurs in a tremendously short amount of time.
>Continuing the analogy, it is like driving 500 kilometers in one second,
>instead of five hours. Sure, my speed is therefore 1,800,000 kilometers
>per hour, but I still only went 500 miles.
Nicely explained. And,using your driving example, if we assumed 100%
efficiency, we could say that the same amount of energy was used in both
cases, except that it cannot be 100% efficient, for we need to factor in
the energy needed to accelerate, etc.
Marc
Nathaniel Wilde
On 20 Apr 1999, Marc wrote:
> Ryan McReynolds <rmc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in
> <7fj47c$c20$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>:
>
> >There is a tremendously high number of watts in a one megaton nuclear
> >blast, because it occurs in a tremendously short amount of time.
> >Continuing the analogy, it is like driving 500 kilometers in one second,
> >instead of five hours. Sure, my speed is therefore 1,800,000 kilometers
> >per hour, but I still only went 500 miles.
Oh, sure, mix miles and kilometers. That helps. Sheesh!
>
> Nicely explained. And,using your driving example, if we assumed 100%
> efficiency, we could say that the same amount of energy was used in both
> cases, except that it cannot be 100% efficient, for we need to factor in
> the energy needed to accelerate, etc.
>
> Marc
Well actually, efficiency is not a big concern when dealing with
largely different rates of energy production/consumption. Most of time
resistence factors are a function of how quickly something is done. For
instance: the car example above. Ryan knows, as well as I do, that
aerodynamic drag is a function of velocity squared (for M~0). Therefore,
traveling at twice the speed would require four time the amount of power
just to overcome aerodynamic drag. The rolling resistance of the car is
also a function of velocity as is the resistance of the drive train's
bearings. Even if the engine maintain the same level of efficiency, the
forces that must be overcome have increased dramatically.
I mentioned this because the same is true of any system. Entropy
is always increasing so there is no free lunch. Doing something more
quickly is going to cost you, and that includes FTL propulsion systems,
sublight engines, shields, weapons, sex, you name it, there is never a
one-to-one correspondence. Which is yet another reason why most of the
discussions in this NG are just plain nuts. Even if the subject matter
was real, most of the time it is analysed all wrong. Oh, well. It's
still entertaining.
Aaron Parsons
Timothy Jones wrote:
Of course, by how much it is not specified. And BTW, why do we admit this,
but we don't admit the stated 1.02 GW phaser numbers and GW-level shields in
same TM's?
Aaron
James Fox
<snip>
> Ablative armor or not, 15Mton slapping your hull is going to make
>a hole. The only way I can see that this would work is if the armor
was
>very, very dense. Possible, but it thoughs the nice inertial
properties
>of a small ship right out the window. I'm not doubting that their
armor
>is significant factor, I just don't think it is technically realistic.
In
>short, my suspended disbelief is insulted.
Well, there may be some ways the effect can be counteracted. From what I
have heard, Trititanium is supposed to be over 450 times harder than
aluminium to vaporize, so it might be able to resist such a blast.
Furthurmore, ablative surfaces have the known capability to resist
nuclear blasts. As an example, the Orion ship that was planned in the
60's, using fission propulsion bombs, was to have an ablative graphite
pusher plate, and the Orion design envisioned it functioning after
hundreds of 10kt 'pulse-unit' detonations only a few meters away *within
the atmosphere*. Given that the simple Graphite pusher plate of the
Orion was supposed to be capable of this, then how resistant would 24th
century ablative armour made of super-advanced materials be?
Finally, there could be a 'structural-integrity-field' that toughens the
ship, which I have heard about somewhere.
jf
Nathaniel Wilde
Important word: "supposed". You may have noticed that the Orion
vessel was never constructed. One of the many problems with it was that
the pusher plate never lasted long enough to be an effective propulsion
system. Also note that the wepaons considered were very small, half the
yeild of Little Man. The intense blast created at Los Alomos had a high
energy plamsa ball measuring about 30m across. A few meters from the
center, it is conceivable that ablative armor would work, but we were
talking about 15Mton weapons. That's 750 times the power of Little Man.
A 10Mton blast can melt steel 7km away, and can vaporize *anything* within
half a klick.
Obviously, ST is fiction, so anything is possible, but I don't buy
it, even with my disbelief suspended. I'll abide by any canon statements
that ST wants to make (that's the nature of fiction and the discussions of
this NG), but in my educated opinion there is no science behind it.
>
> Finally, there could be a 'structural-integrity-field' that toughens the
> ship, which I have heard about somewhere.
>
> jf
I think those are more for holding the ship together under high
manuevering stress, more along the lines of duct tape, then Kevlar.
Ryan McReynolds
news:Pine.OSF.4.10.990420...@skunkworks.aa.washington.edu..
.
> Oh, sure, mix miles and kilometers. That helps. Sheesh!
Oops... typo!
-=Ryan McReynolds=-
Michael January
Don't know how resistant they would be. Remember that duranium
Tritanium and so on are all fictional materials and don't exist in
real life (of course). having said that, neutronium is a theorised
material (never been found yet) and if it does exist as theorised, it
would be the hardest possible substance (Pure neutrons packed together
without inter-atom space if I remember correctly).
Any futuristic materials would therefore have toughness somewhere
between that of modern materials and the theorised toughness of
neutronium. Even so, neutronium should not be able to stand up to a
direct hit by a high megaton nuclear weapon. The power released in the
instant of detonation would be enough to destroy even neutronium.
>
>Finally, there could be a 'structural-integrity-field' that toughens the
>ship, which I have heard about somewhere.
>
In SW, hulls have a force field which serves to 'strengthen the
molecular bonds' between hull materials. Other types of fields are
used for atmospheric containment, weapon defenses, access control
mechanisms and so forth. Note that even enhanced strength molecular
bonds would not be able to stand up to a direct nuclear detonation,
unless the force field enhancing the bonds is itself in the high
petawatt range.
I have no idea how Star Trek's Structural Integrity Fields are
supposed to work, but it appears to be independent of the hull
structure itself, since if the hull is 'blown away' the SIF remain to
provide atmospheric containment and so forth, unless this is the job
of other shields?
In any case, energy is energy, despite what TJ and some people
believe. No matter what the material or the nature of the field
protecting it, the material is an inherent binding strength, and the
field is powered by a generator of limited power. If the materials
inherent strength is overcome, or the field generator is 'overloaded'
with energy, that's that.
For e.g. 12" steel can withstand machine gun bullets easily, but it's
not going to withstand a 1 gram piece of rock travelling at several
kilometers per second, let alone relativistic velocities.
------------------------
Michael January
xr...@iafrica.com
------------------------
Kynes
> > >
> > > 4.19 petawatts? In one second?
> >
> > *laugh*
> >
> > --
> > -Kynes
>
It depends on how long the blast takes to occur. You're confusing power with
energy again. That's why I laughed.
Kynes
> > On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Xtreme wrote:
> >
> > How many watts in a megaton nuke blast?
>
> According to information provided via my physics proffessor (from web
> site located through a search using keywords "megaton" and "joule"), the
> Joules are interchangable.}
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*laughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaugh*
Timothy, you are TOO much. Watts and Joules are interchangable? Do you even *attend*
Washington University, or do you just ride your bike up there after school and use
their computers? That is the funniest damn thing I have *ever* heard on this
newsgroup.
Your phantom professor, if he even exists, would beat you senseless if he heard you
say that.
Kynes
> > On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Ryan McReynolds wrote:
> >
> > > Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > in this group would tell someone that watts and joules aren't
> > interchangable. One joule for one second is one watt. Great.
>
> Which means they're the same. The latter is simply a measurement of the
> rate of flow of the former per unit time.
"Per unit time?" No. Per second. Now I know you're just tossing around phrases
you've heard other people say. Joules and watts are NOT the same thing. That's
like saying speed and distance are the same. That's like saying length and volume
are the same. Just because you can derive one thing using another does *NOT*
make them the same.
> > > Since the reaction mass of a Trek style photon
> > > torpedo is 3 kg, a full yield detonation would release energy equivelant
> > > to 60 MT.
> >
> > More specificlly, the reaction mass is 3.15 kg (circa 2374). That yields
> > 283.1 petajoules, or 67.6 megatons. Given the established and accepted
> > efficiency of 74%, this is almost exactly 50 megatons effective yield,
> > divided by half to account for simple geometry.
>
> M/AM anihilations convert 100% of the involved matter into energy. Thus,
> the "effeciency" is always perfect and total.
Another ignorant Trekkie statement: claiming "total efficiency," an impossible
concept.
Kynes
> > > How many watts in a megaton nuke blast?
> >
> > tell you that there are 4,190,000,000,000,000 joules in a megaton, but the
> > wattage depends on the time.
>
> or less instantaneous.
No physics professor would *EVER SAY THAT A JOULE AND A WATT ARE THE SAME
THING.* This man is either non-existent, being gravely misquoted, or should
be stripped of his doctorate.
An instantaneous reaction is also impossible, by the way. That would require
division by zero to determine power.
Kynes
> > On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Ryan McReynolds wrote:
> >
> > > Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > A Watt is just a j/s. {I.e., a joule-second, or joule per second.}
> >
> >
> > > According to me physics professor here at the UW, the two are basically
> > > equivelant and interchangable.
> >
> > delivered in exactly one second.
>
> Gee whiz, really?
>
> > quite simply wrong, or oversimplifying for you. What physics course
> > are you taking? A joule and a watt certainly weren't equivalent in
> > my aerospace engineering physics course... for that matter, they
> > weren't even equivalent back in high school physics...
>
> apparantly you do not, that the energy release is obviously occuring in
> equivelant for the purposes of these debates.
Power = Energy / Time => Watts = Joules / Seconds
Using Timothy-Logic, here's a proof that 5 = 10:
5 = 10 / 2
5 = 10
(apparently, it's permissible to eliminate large sections of equations...)
>{And FYI, my proff is
> highly respected among the members of his department, thanks ever so.}
What's his name? In all seriousness, I am going to call this man, because *one*
of us has a grievous misunderstanding of basic physical concepts and needs to
be straightened out.
> > > The detonations herein discussed are more or less instantaneous.
> >
> > Which immediately tells us that they occur in a time-frame of much
> > less than one second. Therefore, the wattage is much greater than
> > the joule value. One joule of energy applied in a miniscule fraction
> > of a second could have and incredibly high power.
>
> If you say so. I haven't asked my physics proff about that, and am not
> prepaired to say anything one way or the other at this time. I would
> only point out that, if you're right, it'll only add to the power of Fed
> torpedo detonations...
If you have taken even once physics class in your entire life, you would know this.
cgla...@hotmail.com
> Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
<snip>
> According to me physics professor here at the UW, the two are basically
> equivelant and interchangable.
<snip>
Kynes, this is *definitely* one for the "Federation Cultists Greatest Hits"
collection.
--
Chuckg
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Michael January
<time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Xtreme wrote:
>>
>> How many watts in a megaton nuke blast?
>
>According to information provided via my physics proffessor (from web
>site located through a search using keywords "megaton" and "joule"), the
>energy release from 1 MT would be 4,200,000 Gigajoules. {Watts and
>Joules are interchangable.}
BWA HA HA HA
>
>Incidentally, is has also been ascertained that the M/AM anihilation of
>46.58 miligrams of mass would produce an energy release equivelant to
>1 kt, meaning you would get a 1 MT release from the anihilation of a
>mass of 46.58 * 10^-3 kg. Since the reaction mass of a Trek style photon
>torpedo is 3 kg, a full yield detonation would release energy equivelant
>to 60 MT. If only half of this is in contacy with the target (which
>would go against the measures described in the DS9 TM to increase target
>surface area contact through the use of a special gas), the destructive
>potential of a standard Starfleet photon torpedo would still be rated at
>at least 30 MT. If for some reason only 1/4 of the energy release is in
>contact with the target (say, due to oblique trajectories of the target
>or warhead on impact, etc), the destructive potential is still at not
>less than 15 MT. Even this would render a standard Fed photon torpedo
>fully 15,000 times more effective and powerfull than the *total*
>potential of 1 kT of a SW X-Wing proton torpedo.
>
>TJ
Michael January
<time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Ryan McReynolds wrote:
>>
>> > Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > {Watts and Joules are interchangable.}
>>
>> You're joking, right? Even without years of schooling, just lurking
>> in this group would tell someone that watts and joules aren't
>> interchangable. One joule for one second is one watt. Great.
>
>Which means they're the same. The latter is simply a measurement of the
>rate of flow of the former per unit time.
>
>> > Since the reaction mass of a Trek style photon
>> > torpedo is 3 kg, a full yield detonation would release energy equivelant
>> > to 60 MT.
>>
>> More specificlly, the reaction mass is 3.15 kg (circa 2374). That yields
>> 283.1 petajoules, or 67.6 megatons. Given the established and accepted
>> efficiency of 74%, this is almost exactly 50 megatons effective yield,
>> divided by half to account for simple geometry.
>
>M/AM anihilations convert 100% of the involved matter into energy. Thus,
>the "effeciency" is always perfect and total. Nothing in the E-D TM
>states anything else. The payload mass is clearly stated to be 1.5 kg of
>antimatter, presumably to be combined with an equal amount of normal
>matter, for a total reaction mass of 3 kg. Where did you read 3.15?
>
A 100% efficient reaction of any type is IMPOSSIBLE, even for M/AM.
The crux is the phrase *100% of the involved matter*. Geometrically,
unless you match up the M/AM particle for particle on the sub-atomic
level. There will always be (more than) a few atoms/particles that
won't collide, and thus won't react. Many will also be ejected from
the warhead by the detonation BEFORE they collide with their
counterpart particles.
The only way you can hope to have close to 100% efficiency is to have
a sheet of antimatter about one atoms thickness react with a sheet of
matter one atoms thickness, with the matter sub-atomic particles
matched up perfectly with their anti-matter counterparts, and even
then, many particles may still miss each other by a few angstroms.
100% efficiency in the reaction is LAUGHABLE.
Marc
><snip>
>> According to me physics professor here at the UW, the two are
>> basically equivelant and interchangable.
><snip>
>
>Kynes, this is *definitely* one for the "Federation Cultists Greatest
>Hits" collection.
Am I the only one here who likes Star Trek [though prefers Star Wars] and
is capable of making intelligent statements? Timothy is definately an
embarrasment to Trekkies and ST cultists [of which I am not.], no wonder
the Star Wars afficianadoes(sp) have such a low impression of those who
like Star Trek. With him and Elim....
Marc
cgla...@hotmail.com
Marc <ka...@dsuper.net> wrote:
> cgla...@hotmail.com wrote in <7fogp4$jv2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>:
>
> ><snip>
> >> According to me physics professor here at the UW, the two are
> >> basically equivelant and interchangable.
> ><snip>
> >
> >Kynes, this is *definitely* one for the "Federation Cultists Greatest
> >Hits" collection.
>
> Am I the only one here who likes Star Trek [though prefers Star Wars] and
> is capable of making intelligent statements?
You, Chris Mullane, and Ryan McReynolds are about the only three ST
supporters I can remember who talk like *sane* people. Timothy, Paul, the
other Paul, Alex, Edam, Elim... they are the Trekkie *idiots*, and their
number is legion.
> Timothy is definately an embarrasment to Trekkies and ST cultists [of which I
> am not.], no wonder the Star Wars afficianadoes(sp) have such a low impression
> of those who like Star Trek. With him and Elim....
No foolin'.
Xtreme
>
> It depends on how long the blast takes to occur. You're confusing power
with
> energy again. That's why I laughed.
Well excuuuuuse me. I'm not a science whizz. Ok does this sound better, "How
many watts produced in a meg nuke blast that lasts a second.
Timothy Jones
>
> > Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > delivered in exactly one second.
> >
> > Gee whiz, really?
>
> exactly one second, they are not interchangable, therefore saying "they are
> interchangable" is undefiably wrong.
Again, I'll want to check this with my physics proff before I accept it.
On the face, it would seem to be a violation of conservation, since
1,000 joules is 1,000 joules, no matter how quickly it is released in a
burst or comes in contact with another object. So how it could translate
to *more* than 1,000 watts is a good question to ask. And again, in any
case, this is certainly not going to hurt my side of the debate, since
doing that sort of thing will only push up the effective power of Trek
weaponery. What the heck, feel free.
> > He was informed of the context of the question. He knows as I do, though
> > apparantly you do not, that the energy release is obviously occuring in
> > less than a second.
> > Within that framawork, watts and joules are equivelant for the purposes of
> > these debates.
>
> Only if the reaction took one second, which we both agree that it does not.
I agree about the propogation time. My jury is still out on the
equivelancy issue at shorter-than-one-second times. Get back to me on
Monday (4-26) or thereafter, when I've had a chance to consult my proff.
> > {And FYI, my proff is highly respected among the members of his
> > department, thanks ever so.}
>
> I don't doubt it. At no time did I intend to slander your professor,
> department, or school. I was just pointing out that watts and joules are
> never interchangable, even though the numbers may coincide if the unit of
> time is one second.
Then you must not be the person who implied his stupidity for not
agreeing with you. I am much releived.
> > If you say so. I haven't asked my physics proff about that, and am not
> > prepaired to say anything one way or the other at this time.
>
> It is common sense, not a matter of esoteric theory. 1 W equals 1/1 J/s...
> therefore 1/.00000000001 J/s equals much much more than 1 W. It's simple
> pre-algebraic math, you don't even have to ask.
Thanks all the same, but I'll just go ahead and get corroboration of
your "common sense" anyway.
> > I would only point out that, if you're right, it'll only add to the
> > power of Fed torpedo detonations...possibly the reason for Starfleet
> > adopting their specific terminology for rating their force; the
> > isoton.
>
> Indeed. I agree that the wattage of torpedo detonations is absolutely
> incredibly, far beyond even the output of the warp core. The limiting
> factor is only the fact that the event takes such a small amount of time,
> and the energy release is not that great. I can apply a billion exawatts
> for such a minute fraction of a second that it only delivers a millijoule to
> the target and basically amounts to nothing.
What a second. You just got through arguing that craming an X-joule
release into a less-than-a-second propogation will *increase* the
wattage. *Now* it's going to decrease it? Why assume that it takes all
that long for the "event" to confer the full potential of the
propogation? It seems to me the event would always be instantaneous
anyway. As soon as contact occures, the energy release has its effect.
The propogation of the release can occur over X amount of time. But when
it *does* contact a given point, the rate of conference would only be
affected by the type of materials involved in the energy transfer. And
*that* deals with the time over which the transfer will occur, rather
than the magnitude of the exchange. {Of course, the materials' type
would also determine if a collision will be elastic or non-elastic,
which *would* affect the magnitude, but that consideration doesn't apply
here, since the context is a warhead detonation.}
> I'm not arguing pro-SW here, I'm just laying out the fundamental
> laws of physics. If that gives ST an advantage, great. If it gives
> SW and advantage, fine by me; I'm neutral in the matter.
Okay. I just want to check on one or two of your "fundamentals" is all.
TJ
Timothy Jones
>
> > On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Timothy Jones wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Nathaniel Wilde wrote:
> > >
> > > When writing space based sci-fi you are always dealing with
> > > elements of conjecture. By all rights a 9Mton warhead from a Titan 2
> > > should vaporize the starship Enterprise without difficulty. Photon
> > > torpedoes, being "superior" to nukes, should be able to do the same thing.
> > > The argument then is that their shields are so powerful that they can deal
> > > with multi GW wepaons, thereby justifying the power claims of the weapons.
> > > But then ST:2 comes along and we see torps hitting bare hulls. What's the
> > > deal?
> >
> > As established in multiple series episodes and indicated in the E-D TM,
> > Trek photon torpedoes have a variable warhead yield setting. At maximum
> > release energy equivelant to a 60 MT blast. This energy release is
> > not produced in the typical fashion of a "nuke," and so, is not
> > subject to the problems of propogation that some have mentioned.
> > Furthermore, as detailed in the DS9 TM, a special gas is used to
> > detonation will be virtually instantaneous, esp at maximum yield
> > setting, where *all* the matter and anti-matter is forceably brought
> > together at once. Even if only 1/4 of this manages to be in
> > destructive contact with the target vessel, the potential is still
> > rated at not less than 15 MT for a standard photon torpedo.
> >
> > It is also important to remember that, in ST II, the combatant ships
> > were flying blind and without shields in the middle of the Mutatra
> > Nebula. Under those conditions, torpedo use at maximum yield intensity
> > range of 15 km, which presumes shields operating normally. Two
> > episodes of TNG, "Q-Who," and "The Nth Degree" further highlighted
> > the dangers of close range torpedo use. The former established that,
> > degree of probability of destroying the firing ship. The later
> > showed that a spread of three torpedoes at maximum yield would've
> > been too dangerous at the distance they were from the target (an
> > alien probe) even with full normal shields, and still rocked the
> > ship violently (though no damage was caused) when the shields were
> > augmented by 300%. Clearly, the ST II: WoK battle must be taken in
> > its proper context.
>
> I'll buy that. I guess that makes sense considering the distances
> involved.
Exactly.
> > We've seen even the original Enterprize withstand a close range nuclear
> > blast "Within a hundred meters," in the TOS ep "Balance of Terror," and
> > at the time, their shields were either down or substantially weakened.
> > The only damage was some circuit overloads and a few bumps and bruises
> > were the only "casualties."
>
> Nukes don't work very well in space unless they are right next to
> you.
This one was at point-blank range. {Within 100 m.}
> > Examples of a Fed starship *without* shields being destroyed by a single
> > photon torpedo are ST III (the U.S.S. Grissom) and the TNG ep
> > "Contageon" (the U.S.S. Lantry). Both were well aimed, undefended hits,
> > considered to be "lucky shots," possibly targeting the reactor core.
> >
> > An excellant counterexample would be the U.S.S. Defiant, in the DS9 ep
> > where it battles the U.S.S. Lacota. While the Defiant was pulling its
> > punches, the Lacota was pounding the Defiant for an extended period,
> > during which the Defiant's shields were down. Presumably, the Defiant's
> > new ablative armor, which Sisko had specially installed, is to be
> > credited. Also, the Defiant was equipped with the new quantum torpedoes,
> > whereas the Lacota was presumably using standard photon torpedoes; but
> > then again, Defiant wasn't trying to destroy the Lacota, they were
> > holding back. At the time the battle was interrupted, both ships were
> > one hit away from being destroyed, even though the Lacota had been using
> > its shields and *not* holding back on its attacks.
>
> Ablative armor or not, 15Mton slapping your hull is going to make
> a hole.
Yet, it apparantly did not...and I would contend that the Defiant took
fully half the elergy release from the Lacota's torpedo hits, which
would make them closer to 30 MT each, plus the repeated phaser
discharges. All without shields for at least a good minute's worth.
> The only way I can see that this would work is if the armor was
> very, very dense. Possible, but it throughs the nice inertial
> properties of a small ship right out the window.
Since we know the Fed ship's inertial dampers *do* work, despite the
above, apparantly your reasoning must instead be thrown out.
> I'm not doubting that their armor is significant factor, I just
> don't think it is technically realistic.
It's science-*fiction*, after all. I am not arguing that it's realistic.
Only that it's there in the films and series, and cannot be ignored when
it comes to these debates.
> In short, my suspended disbelief is insulted.
I'm sorry to hear that. But that does not dismiss the above as canon
series data.
> > So you see, in Trek, you *do* have to "care what their hulls are made
> > of," because it *does* make a difference. As does the warhead yield
> > setting. And as do shields.
>
> True, especially warhead levels, but unless the hull is really,
> really dense, 15Mton blast at point blank will make a really big hole. A
> 10Mton nuke will melt steel 2 miles away. At zero range you are dealing
> with the energy of a thousand suns released in a thousandth of a second.
> Not even pure neutronium could handle that.
You know, I'm really, *really*, *REALLY* glad you pointed that out... :>
Are you listening, SW propoenets? His argument, not mine.
Now then, what's all this I hear about ISD hulls...? :> :> :>
TJ
Timothy Jones
>
> > Timothy Jones wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, C. Francis wrote:
> > >
> > > This might be a silly question, but is it possible to focus a
> > > thermonuclear detonation in the same way a shaped charge focuses a
> > > chemical explosion. You know, sorta like a HEAT round to be used against
> > > starships?
> >
> > Well the DS9 TM states that their torpedo design employes a special gas
> > to increase surface area contact. Read that section, to see if it helps
> > answer your question.
>
If the degree wasn't significant, the measure wouldn't be bothered with.
I think one can therefore reasonably argue that it is such that the
contact will *always* be for at least half the detonation energy
release, possibly more, even if the angle is oblique.
> And BTW, why do we admit this, but we don't admit the stated 1.02 GW
> phaser numbers and GW-level shields in same TM's?
Give me a specific reference, complete with page number and *direct*
quotation, and I'll give you an answer.
for example, if you quote the statement from the E-D TM re its shields'
*Primary* (as opposed to maximum) dissipation rate, this is nothing I
would disagree with, since it doesn't fix the *limit* of what Fed
shields can cope with, but rather the minimum threshold below which they
won't be affected at all.
And I'd be the first to state the phaser discharge figures...right
before I refer the reader to the discussion of the RNE that generates
it, and resultant SEM:NDF ratio that emerges at mid-range hand unit
power levels and beyond. Since this not only increases in-and-of-itself
as discharge energy is increased, but also the rate at *which* it
increases also *itself* increases (as the hand unit power level SEM:NDF
ratios show), I again see no problem in this for Trek. The clear
implication is that, by the time you get to the discharge levels of a
large Type X array, the SEM:NDF ratio is so large that the final effect
from the RNE will create atomic shearing strong force energies on the
order of millions to hundreds of millions of TW, or more, depending on
how we argue for the rate of increase of the SEM:NDF ratio after the
power level of a Type II max setting discharge.
By all means, cite away.
TJ
Timothy Jones
>
> > On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 00:41:19 -0700, Timothy Jones
> >
> >> On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Ryan McReynolds wrote:
> >>
> >> > Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >> >
According to the E-D TM, the matter and anti-matter are held within
magnetic containment fields, and then forcably brought together. I would
be interested in your reflections on what the section discussing them
has to say, after you've had the chance to read it. {Tower Books would
be a sure bet for finding a copy.}
TJ
Timothy Jones
First, you really should ignore people like Kynes. All they seem capable
of doing is acting juvanile when someone proves them wrong. Insults are
not arguments; but try getting them to live by that. Do what I do.
Quickly scan their posts, without really reading them. When you come to
obvious insults, like lines of laughter or a good paragraph where you,
rather than your arguments, are attacked, just delete it unread. Only
their posts that pass this initial screening should actually be "read"
with any significant attention. This way, you'll cut down the time spent
on time-wasters to about 2 or 3 seconds per junk post of theirs,
effectively making it more work for them then for you, and keeping you
from seeing about 90% of their insults to begin with.
{And persistant ad hominizers that almost *never* say anything civil
and relevant, like "plain and simple cronan" should just be killfiled
alltogether as I have done.}
If someone in the first group gets to become *consistently*
junk-posting, such that I end up skipping most of their posts after the
quick-scan for any length of time, they will end up in the second group.
This is how I recommend you proceed. You'll find it raises the quality
of the debate a great deal.
Second, a 1 MT blast would release 4.2 * 10^15 Joules, or 4,200,000 GJ.
{I.e., 4,200 Terrajoules.} So, if the blast lasts one second, that
would be 4,200 TW of power.
TJ
Nathaniel Wilde
Inertial dampers is another thing that foesn't follow the laws of
physics, but that's a side note. :(
>
> > I'm not doubting that their armor is significant factor, I just
> > don't think it is technically realistic.
>
> It's science-*fiction*, after all. I am not arguing that it's realistic.
> Only that it's there in the films and series, and cannot be ignored when
> it comes to these debates.
I know, but this whole discussion originated from someone wanting
some cold, hard facts about weapon strengths and what kind of damage they
can do.
>
> > In short, my suspended disbelief is insulted.
>
> I'm sorry to hear that. But that does not dismiss the above as canon
> series data.
Certainly, as admitted above.
>
> > > So you see, in Trek, you *do* have to "care what their hulls are made
> > > of," because it *does* make a difference. As does the warhead yield
> > > setting. And as do shields.
> >
> > True, especially warhead levels, but unless the hull is really,
> > really dense, 15Mton blast at point blank will make a really big hole. A
> > 10Mton nuke will melt steel 2 miles away. At zero range you are dealing
> > with the energy of a thousand suns released in a thousandth of a second.
> > Not even pure neutronium could handle that.
>
> You know, I'm really, *really*, *REALLY* glad you pointed that out... :>
>
> Are you listening, SW propoenets? His argument, not mine.
My argument is that large yield wepaons (like 10Mton+) are so
powerful at close range, that it is not possible for anything to
conceivably survive a point blank blast. The warhead of a Titan 2 could
vaporize the starship Enterprise and most of an ISD. If they want to
invent some kind of wacky armor that is more invulnerable then *real*
neutronium, fine with me, it's their world. I'll accept it as official,
but I refuse to directly debate using it, as it defies logic. In
reference to the original question about weapon's strength, for a peice of
fiction he was writing, that's what was important.
Now, back to you. Who is your physic prof? Is your class in one
of the buildings by the upright peanut (I'm curious because someone told
me they were nice, but I've never been in them)? Anyway, try to be as
clear with your instructor as possible. Having been through the physics
120 series, I can tell you that your perceptions of energy and power are
a little off. Power is the rate at which energy is used or released.
That rate is completely independent of the actual quantity of energy. A
stick of dynamite doesn't have any more energy then a presto log, but its
energy can be released much more quickly, and therefore, has greater
power. Another example would be two cars with the same sized fuel
(energy) tanks, one is Volkswagen Bug and the other is Porsche 911.
Both have the same amount of energy (fuel), but the Porsche has more
power. That's because the Porsche burns its fuel more quickly. The Bug
may go further because its fuel lasts longer, but the Porsche wins the
race. Hope that helps.
Xtreme
> {I.e., 4,200 Terrajoules.} So, if the blast lasts one second, that
> would be 4,200 TW of power.
>
if in one sec its 4,200TW, would it drop to lets say 1,000TW then next and
drop drastically again after that, but by how much?
Michael January
I agree with you 100%, but as per canon statements of Kirk, Picard,
Riker and others your phasers and torpedoes are useless against
neutronium.
Personally, in the REAL WORLD, this would not be so, and of course an
ISD's hull is not PURE neutronium, so ...
These arguments are for when you're pissed off with the other side,
the actual outcome of any fictional battle would be decided by other
factors, tactics, durability, ruthlessness, misunderstandings, luck,
and a million other things.
Michael January
>Second, a 1 MT blast would release 4.2 * 10^15 Joules, or 4,200,000 GJ.
>{I.e., 4,200 Terrajoules.} So, if the blast lasts one second, that
>would be 4,200 TW of power.
>
>TJ
>
You answered quite correctly, Timothy, however, Xtreme should note
that a nuclear blast doesn't last one second, but only a fraction of a
second, after which the energy is 'radiated' in various forms over
very large distances.
So while it releases 4.2E15 Joules, the release occurs in much less
than a second.
Michael January
<time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Ryan McReynolds wrote:
>>
>> > Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > > They are equivalent and interchangable only if the joule is
>> > > delivered in exactly one second.
>> >
>> > Gee whiz, really?
>>
>> Yes, really. And since we're not talking about delivering that joule in
>> exactly one second, they are not interchangable, therefore saying "they are
>> interchangable" is undefiably wrong.
>
>Again, I'll want to check this with my physics proff before I accept it.
>On the face, it would seem to be a violation of conservation, since
>1,000 joules is 1,000 joules, no matter how quickly it is released in a
>burst or comes in contact with another object. So how it could translate
>to *more* than 1,000 watts is a good question to ask.
Reinforcing ignorance here?
Sorry Timothy, didn't mean to be disparaging, but we are NOT lying to
you.
1000 joules over 1 second equals 1000 watts
1000 joules over 0.5 seconds equals 2000 watts and so on.
1000 joules in a millionth of a second would be a billion watts.
Power(watts) is defined as Work(Joules) over Time(seconds).
P=W/T
Nathaniel Wilde
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, Xtreme wrote:
> > Second, a 1 MT blast would release 4.2 * 10^15 Joules, or 4,200,000 GJ.
> > {I.e., 4,200 Terrajoules.} So, if the blast lasts one second, that
> > would be 4,200 TW of power.
> >
> for every second after the first, what is the percentage of power loss? I.E.
> if in one sec its 4,200TW, would it drop to lets say 1,000TW then next and
> drop drastically again after that, but by how much?
For a single event nuke, all of the energy is released at one
instant. The actual detonation is something like a hundredth of a second.
After that blast there is no further energy release. It does not
gradually fade off, it is like any normal high explosive. If a 1Mton
weapon releases 4.184E15 J in a hundredth of a second, that would
correspond to a total power output of 4.184E17 W, all delivered in a
hundredth of a second.
joel frangquist
>
> > Second, a 1 MT blast would release 4.2 * 10^15 Joules, or 4,200,000 GJ.
> > {I.e., 4,200 Terrajoules.} So, if the blast lasts one second, that
> > would be 4,200 TW of power.
> >
> for every second after the first, what is the percentage of power loss? I.E.
> if in one sec its 4,200TW, would it drop to lets say 1,000TW then next and
> drop drastically again after that, but by how much?
You're still not getting it. It isn't really the time that matters, its the distance.
Let me see if I can explain it for you.
A nuclear blast releases all of its energy (joules) virtually instantly, that is, in zero
time. Take a thousandth of a second as a bench mark.
This means that if you are right at the point of the explosion, the power level, which is
the number of Watts, has a value of "way too damn high". Watts is joules divided by
seconds, and (if you are right at the point of the explosion) number (joules) divided by a
very very very small number (tiny fraction of a second) results in a very, very, very high
number (of watts). In this case, 4.2*10^18 W.
Now, the energy released by the blast doesn't all go to the same place, and depending on
where the blast occurs, doesn't all travel at the same speed.
1) Some of the energy released goes to the matter that makes up the bomb, i.e. the metal
casing and such, as well as any other matter (air, ship hull) that happens to be very
close by to the bomb (like, touching it). It heats up this matter so hot that it
separates into ions thus creating the "plasma ball" than Nathaniel talks about.
Now if the blast occurs in an atmosphere, the exanding matter of the plasma ball pushes on
the air around it, thus creating a shock wave. A shock wave is basically the same thing
as a sound wave, just really powerful, and it travels at the speed of sound. It also
dissipates just like a sound wave, in a spherical fashion. The energy in the shock wave
spreads out thinner and thinner as it gets farther from the point of the explosion, and it
also loses energy to the matter it affects. If I am standing in the shockwave's path,
then the amount of energy (# of joules) I receive from it depends upon how far away from
it I am. The power (# of watts) I receive depends upon me If I am say 70 meters from the
blast center, I might recieve gigajoules of energy. That's just a guess, much of the
actual info may very well be classified. The reason governments do nuclear tests is to
get that kind of data.
Let's just suppose I recieve 50 gigajoules, and it takes one tenth of a second for the
shockwave to pass over me, then the power of the shockwave at that distance would be 500
gigawatts (50 GJ/.1seconds =500 GW ). Enough to throw my body many meters. If I am
standing 10 km away from the blast, the amount of energy I recieve would be at least
20,000 times smaller, just from from the energy of the shockwave spreading out over
space. If it still took only a tenth of a second to pass over me (it won't, it will take
longer), the power of the shockwave 10km away would be only a few mega watts. Probably
much less because the shockwaves energy is also being converted into heat and kinetic
energy, and it will take longer to pass over.
If the explosion occurs in space right on the hull of a starship, then the shockwave will
travel through the starship, instead of an atmosphere. It will travel differently than in
an atmosphere, but rest assured it will destroy just about anything.
2) Now...I mentioned that only SOME of the energy goes into such a shockwave. A lot of it
leaves the explosion as RADIATION instead. In space, at a distance from any other object,
almost all of the blasts energy will end up as radiation, because there is far less matter
for it to effect. The radiation will leave the blast in a "radiation wave" whose energy
spreads out just like the shockwave. Of course, this wave travels at the speed of light,
and doesn't lose any (significant) energy as if travels through space. Nevertheless, the
power of this wave, just like the shockwave, becomes less as you get farther from the
blast center, because you recieve less energy.
So, to finally give you some answers you might find useful.
Let's suppose that the radiation wave lasts ten thousandths of a second. That may be a
little high, but if it's woefully wrong, then hopefully someone will tell me. Let's also
suppose that ALL of a 1 MT bombs energy goes into this radiation wave.
If the bombs energy spreads out in evenly in a sphere, then we can take the formula for
the surface area of a sphere (4piR^2), and the W=J/s formula, and the amount of energy
released by the bomb, and come up with the following formula.
bomb energy in joules/ seconds/ surface of a sphere in square meters = power (in watts)
per square meter of target surface affected. We have to insert the distance that the
target is from the bomb. Since this distance is the radius of the sphere of the
"radiation wave", distance is R. So the formula is...
4.2*10^15/ .01 seconds / 4pi*d^2 = W/m^2
where d is the distance from bomb to target when the bomb explodes.
if the bomb is 1 meter away from target, the power is 3.4*10^16 W/m^2
if the bomb is 10 meters away from target, the power is 3.4*10^14 W/m^2
if the bomb is 100 meters away from target, the power is 3.4*10^12 W/m^2
if the bomb is 1km meters away from target, the power is 3.4*10^10 W/m^2
if the bomb is 10 meter away from target, the power is 3.4*10^8 W/m^2
if the bomb is 100 meter away from target, the power is 3.4*10^6 W/m^2
if the bomb is 1000km meters away from target, the power is 3.4*10^4 W/m^2
if the bomb is 100000km (almost twice as far as the moon) meters away from target, the
power is 3.4 W/m^2. That is, as a brief flash it would be brighter than the moon itself.
of course, if you want to know how the shields of ship such as the Enterprise would stand
up to this, you have to know the area of its shields.
These numbers seem to me to be a bit too high, but they should give you an accurate idea
of how power depends on distance. They should also prove to you that yes, ST portrays
weapon yields as much, much lower than the numbers Timothy would give you for Q-torps.
joel
Time0ut
wrote:
>I agree with you 100%, but as per canon statements of Kirk, Picard,
>Riker and others your phasers and torpedoes are useless against
>neutronium.
More proof that SW doesn't comform to RL world physics.
Time0ut
wrote:
>> Second, a 1 MT blast would release 4.2 * 10^15 Joules, or 4,200,000 GJ.
>> {I.e., 4,200 Terrajoules.} So, if the blast lasts one second, that
>> would be 4,200 TW of power.
>>
>for every second after the first, what is the percentage of power loss? I.E.
>if in one sec its 4,200TW, would it drop to lets say 1,000TW then next and
>drop drastically again after that, but by how much?
No.
4200TJ is the total output.
The wattage depends on the length of time that the total output was
delivered. More time means less wattage and vice versa.
So you might want to think of the term joules as volume(capacity) of
energy.
The term watt is the volume of energy in one second.
So 4200TJ released in 10 seconds would equate to 420TJ/sec or 420TW.
And 4200TJ released in 1 second would equate to 4200TJ/sec or 4,200TW.
And 4200TJ released in 1/10th second would equate to 42,000TJ/sec or
42,000TW.
Hope that helps clarify things.
Time0ut
wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 20:18:37 -0700, Timothy Jones
><time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Ryan McReynolds wrote:
>>>
>>> > Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > They are equivalent and interchangable only if the joule is
>>> > > delivered in exactly one second.
>>> >
>>> > Gee whiz, really?
>>>
>>> Yes, really. And since we're not talking about delivering that joule in
>>> exactly one second, they are not interchangable, therefore saying "they are
>>> interchangable" is undefiably wrong.
>>
>>Again, I'll want to check this with my physics proff before I accept it.
>>On the face, it would seem to be a violation of conservation, since
>>1,000 joules is 1,000 joules, no matter how quickly it is released in a
>>burst or comes in contact with another object. So how it could translate
>>to *more* than 1,000 watts is a good question to ask.
>
>Reinforcing ignorance here?
>
>Sorry Timothy, didn't mean to be disparaging, but we are NOT lying to
>you.
I can agree with them, here........although we disagree on almost
everything else.
Glad to see some trying to help someone on this group instead of just
throwing insults.
Xtreme
>
> Let's suppose that the radiation wave lasts ten thousandths of a second.
That may be a
> little high, but if it's woefully wrong, then hopefully someone will tell
me. Let's also
> suppose that ALL of a 1 MT bombs energy goes into this radiation wave.
>
> If the bombs energy spreads out in evenly in a sphere, then we can take
the formula for
> the surface area of a sphere (4piR^2), and the W=J/s formula, and the
amount of energy
> released by the bomb, and come up with the following formula.
I thought the surface area was circumference squared * 0.7854?
<snipped>
> of course, if you want to know how the shields of ship such as the
Enterprise would stand
> up to this, you have to know the area of its shields.
Still, even though the Enterprise's shields are several meters away from the
ship, I still don't understand why it would exist after a torp hit.
I'm not a science whiz and I'm a sloooowwww learner so any accurate info
about the power released by a meg nuke blast is appreciated. I'm trying to
write a sci-fi novel so I need as much accurate info I need.
Also the reason why I want to know the power released by a meg nuke blast is
to calculate the shield strength for the ships in my novel. Thanks very much
for your help.
Kynes
> > Second, a 1 MT blast would release 4.2 * 10^15 Joules, or 4,200,000 GJ.
> > {I.e., 4,200 Terrajoules.} So, if the blast lasts one second, that
> > would be 4,200 TW of power.
> >
> for every second after the first, what is the percentage of power loss? I.E.
> if in one sec its 4,200TW, would it drop to lets say 1,000TW then next and
> drop drastically again after that, but by how much?
If the blast occurred over two seconds, the power would be half that of what it would
be if the blast happened in one second and twice that of what it would be if it
happened in four seconds.
Multiply J by 1/t, t being time in seconds, to get watts.
--
-Kynes
One Ring to rule them all, one Ring to find them
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
Crystal Psyborg
It doesn't lose any significant energy? Are you sure? What about the
inverse square law?
> if the bomb is 100000km (almost twice as far as the moon) meters away from
target, the
> power is 3.4 W/m^2. That is, as a brief flash it would be brighter than
the moon itself.
The moon is over 300,000 km away, just to correct you there. ;)
Redo your calculations to incorporate inverse square, and you will see that
ships CAN survive MT-yield nukes at even closer ranges than you figured.
Later...
Seeya,--Crystal Psyborg
ICQ #30125382
"Better living through psionic enhancement, quantum manipulation, and a
daily dosage of Jeri Ryan pics..."
Ryan McReynolds
> Again, I'll want to check this with my physics proff before I accept it.
> On the face, it would seem to be a violation of conservation, since
> 1,000 joules is 1,000 joules, no matter how quickly it is released in a
> burst or comes in contact with another object.
That's right.
> So how it could translate to *more* than 1,000 watts is a good question to
> ask.
Because, as everyone but you can understand, watts and joules are not at all
the same, other than one being dependent upon the other.
> And again, in any case, this is certainly not going to hurt my side of the
> debate, since doing that sort of thing will only push up the effective
power
> of Trek weaponery. What the heck, feel free.
Indeed. It doesn't hurt my feelings to see the Trek tech level raise any,
so if that is indeed the implication, then great.
> Then you must not be the person who implied his stupidity for not
> agreeing with you. I am much releived.
I never implied stupidity for disagreeing with me, no. I simply stated a
fact: if your professor believes that watts and joules are interchangable in
the most literal sense, then he is wrong.
> Thanks all the same, but I'll just go ahead and get corroboration of
> your "common sense" anyway.
By all means. You can even check your text, if you don't feel like waiting
for a chance to talk to your prof.
> > Indeed. I agree that the wattage of torpedo detonations is absolutely
> > incredibly, far beyond even the output of the warp core. The limiting
> > factor is only the fact that the event takes such a small amount of
time,
> > and the energy release is not that great. I can apply a billion
exawatts
> > for such a minute fraction of a second that it only delivers a
millijoule to
> > the target and basically amounts to nothing.
>
> What a second. You just got through arguing that craming an X-joule
> release into a less-than-a-second propogation will *increase* the
> wattage.
That's right.
*Now* it's going to decrease it?
No. Wattage is dependent upon time, not energy. The joules in such an
event are constant, but the less time the event occurs in, the higher the
wattage.
High Energy + Long Time = Low Wattage
High Energy + Short Time = High Wattage
-=Ryan McReynolds=-
Xtreme
Crystal Psyborg <Crystal...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:payU2.1154$386....@newshog.newsread.com...
> > and doesn't lose any (significant) energy as if travels through space.
>
> inverse square law?
>
from
> target, the
> > power is 3.4 W/m^2. That is, as a brief flash it would be brighter than
> the moon itself.
>
>
> Redo your calculations to incorporate inverse square, and you will see
that
> ships CAN survive MT-yield nukes at even closer ranges than you figured.
> Later...
Right now all I can say is HUH??? Please explain. :)
Kynes
> >
> > > Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > They are equivalent and interchangable only if the joule is
> > > > delivered in exactly one second.
> > >
> > > Gee whiz, really?
> >
> > Yes, really. And since we're not talking about delivering that joule in
> > exactly one second, they are not interchangable, therefore saying "they are
> > interchangable" is undefiably wrong.
>
> On the face, it would seem to be a violation of conservation, since
> 1,000 joules is 1,000 joules, no matter how quickly it is released in a
> burst or comes in contact with another object.
To quote the illustrious Mike Wong: "Did I mention that I hate fakers?" Tim,
it's late in the semester on most college calenders. If, in fact, you have ever
taken a physics class, you would understand the relationship between joules and
watts.
Just give it up and accept that no one's trying to swindle you. Everyone, including
me, is going to respect you a lot more if you just admit that you've never taken
a physics class in your life, or whatever.
[snip]
> > Indeed. I agree that the wattage of torpedo detonations is absolutely
> > incredibly, far beyond even the output of the warp core. The limiting
> > factor is only the fact that the event takes such a small amount of time,
> > and the energy release is not that great. I can apply a billion exawatts
> > for such a minute fraction of a second that it only delivers a millijoule to
> > the target and basically amounts to nothing.
>
> What a second. You just got through arguing that craming an X-joule
> release into a less-than-a-second propogation will *increase* the
> wattage. *Now* it's going to decrease it? Why assume that it takes all
> that long for the "event" to confer the full potential of the
> propogation? It seems to me the event would always be instantaneous
> anyway.
Tsk, tsk. You're showing your true colors again. No event is instantaneous.
Everything happens over a finite amount of time.
>As soon as contact occures, the energy release has its effect.
Really? Then why can't I boil stone by setting it outside for a week? Over that
period of time, I'm sure it absorbs more than enough solar energy to accomplish
this task...
> The propogation of the release can occur over X amount of time. But when
> it *does* contact a given point, the rate of conference would only be
> affected by the type of materials involved in the energy transfer. And
> *that* deals with the time over which the transfer will occur, rather
> than the magnitude of the exchange. {Of course, the materials' type
> would also determine if a collision will be elastic or non-elastic,
> which *would* affect the magnitude, but that consideration doesn't apply
> here, since the context is a warhead detonation.}
The above paragraph is total, absolute gibberish. It contains no meaning. I
recognize grammar but no thought.
--
-Kynes
"Ho! Tom Bombadil, Tom Bombadillo!
By water, wood and hill, by the reed and willow,
By fire, sun and moon, harken now and hear us!
Come, Tom Bombadil, for our need is near us!"
- a rhyme taught to a few hobbits
Kynes
> cgla...@hotmail.com wrote in <7fogp4$jv2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>:
>
> ><snip>
> >> According to me physics professor here at the UW, the two are
> >> basically equivelant and interchangable.
> ><snip>
> >
> >Kynes, this is *definitely* one for the "Federation Cultists Greatest
> >Hits" collection.
>
> Am I the only one here who likes Star Trek [though prefers Star Wars] and
> is capable of making intelligent statements?
There's you, and Ryan McReynolds. And that's pretty much it! :D Chris Mullane
was a very fair and very intelligent individual; I dunno where he went, but he
really contributed a lot to the newsgroup.
> Timothy is definately an
> embarrasment to Trekkies and ST cultists [of which I am not.], no wonder
> the Star Wars afficianadoes(sp) have such a low impression of those who
> like Star Trek. With him and Elim....
Yep.
Alex Sutton
> supporters I can remember who talk like *sane* people. Timothy, Paul, the
> other Paul, Alex, Edam, Elim... they are the Trekkie *idiots*, and their
> number is legion.
OooooOooooooh, someone's got a compex, someone's got a compex, nyah, nyah,
nyah, nyah, nyah.
Just because someone doesn't like me............
joel frangquist
>
> > and doesn't lose any (significant) energy as if travels through space.
>
> inverse square law?
I am not aware of this. I am aware that my formula already contains an inverse square
caculation. Does it need another one? Why would EM radiation lose any energy in a
vacuum? Please explain, I'm curious.
> > if the bomb is 100000km (almost twice as far as the moon) meters away from
> target, the
> > power is 3.4 W/m^2. That is, as a brief flash it would be brighter than
> the moon itself.
>
> The moon is over 300,000 km away, just to correct you there. ;)
Sorry for the mistake. However, it doesn't really change the fact that a megaton
explosion on the Moon would be visible to the naked eye on Earth. That's true, right?
joel
Nathaniel Wilde
On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, Xtreme wrote:
>
> Crystal Psyborg <Crystal...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
> news:payU2.1154$386....@newshog.newsread.com...
> > > and doesn't lose any (significant) energy as if travels through space.
> >
> > It doesn't lose any significant energy? Are you sure? What about the
> > inverse square law?
> >
> > > if the bomb is 100000km (almost twice as far as the moon) meters away
> from
> > target, the
> > > power is 3.4 W/m^2. That is, as a brief flash it would be brighter than
> > the moon itself.
> >
> > The moon is over 300,000 km away, just to correct you there. ;)
> >
> > Redo your calculations to incorporate inverse square, and you will see
> that
> > ships CAN survive MT-yield nukes at even closer ranges than you figured.
> > Later...
>
>
> Right now all I can say is HUH??? Please explain. :)
Actual his final formula included the inverse square law, so
forget it. Chystal misinterpretted a statement about the fact that the
total energy of the energy wave remains fairly constant.
The inverse square law refers to the fact that the energy flow
through any point is a function of one over the distance from the
detonation squared. Your question was about shield strength from point
blank weapon detonation so this really isn't important.
To answer your question specifically, one ton of TNT is defined as
being capable of releasing 4.184x10^9 Joules of energy (or 4.184E15 J per
Mton). The power of the weapon is then this number divided by the
detonation time, which no one seems to know. It is very fast, probably
less then a hundredth of a second. If you take that as a reasonable
number, then the power of one ton of TNT is 4.184E11 Watts. That's total
power. The amount of power delivered into a target is a function of
target geometry. If the target is an infinite flat plate then the power
delivered would be exactly half. If the target is spherical then you are
looking at anywhere form 25% to as little as 5% depending on size. Twenty
five percent would be a safe number if the ships are large.
Sorry for all the generalities, but there are alot of variables in
the problem that can make it very complicated. IMO, a safe number would
be 4.184E11 Watts per ton with only 25% actually being delivered into the
target. Good luck on your writing venture.
Marc
>> and doesn't lose any (significant) energy as if travels through space.
>
>It doesn't lose any significant energy? Are you sure? What about the
>inverse square law?
That's the energy density. The total energy is the same, well minus what
gets absorbed, but it is spread out more.
Marc
Marc
<rkJU2.6454$h72....@news.rdc1.md.home.com>:
>> Am I the only one here who likes Star Trek [though prefers Star Wars]
>> and is capable of making intelligent statements?
>
>There's you, and Ryan McReynolds. And that's pretty much it! :D Chris
>Mullane was a very fair and very intelligent individual; I dunno where
>he went, but he really contributed a lot to the newsgroup.
*grin* Too bad about Chris. Question, why is the Wattage of a megaton
nuke so important to calculate? Is this really necessary to determine the
amount of damage it will generate?
Marc
Xtreme
> target geometry. If the target is an infinite flat plate then the power
> delivered would be exactly half. If the target is spherical then you are
> looking at anywhere form 25% to as little as 5% depending on size. Twenty
> five percent would be a safe number if the ships are large.
> Sorry for all the generalities, but there are alot of variables in
> the problem that can make it very complicated. IMO, a safe number would
> be 4.184E11 Watts per ton with only 25% actually being delivered into the
> target. Good luck on your writing venture.
>
So basically about 25% of the power released is delivered to the target?
Thanks.
My novel will be a whopper techwise. Don't get me wrong, it won't be a ST
type book, it will mainly be character based.
Crystal Psyborg
> forget it. Chystal misinterpretted a statement about the fact that the
> total energy of the energy wave remains fairly constant.
It did? My bad, and apologies to whose post I replied to. ;)
Timothy Jones
>
> if the bomb is 1 meter away from target, the power is 3.4*10^16 W/m^2
> if the bomb is 10 meters away from target, the power is 3.4*10^14 W/m^2
> if the bomb is 100 meters away from target, the power is 3.4*10^12 W/m^2
> if the bomb is 1km meters away from target, the power is 3.4*10^10 W/m^2
> if the bomb is 10 meter away from target, the power is 3.4*10^8 W/m^2
> if the bomb is 100 meter away from target, the power is 3.4*10^6 W/m^2
> if the bomb is 1000km meters away from target, the power is 3.4*10^4 W/m^2
> if the bomb is 100000km (almost twice as far as the moon) meters away from target, the
> power is 3.4 W/m^2. That is, as a brief flash it would be brighter than the moon itself.
>
> of course, if you want to know how the shields of ship such as the
> Enterprise would stand up to this, you have to know the area of its
> shields.
>
> These numbers seem to me to be a bit too high, but they should give
> you an accurate idea of how power depends on distance. They should
> also prove to you that yes, ST portrays weapon yields as much, much
> lower than the numbers Timothy would give you for Q-torps.
*If* you go out of your way to ignore the nature of their hulls and
shields. Not otherwise.
TJ
Timothy Jones
>
> > Second, a 1 MT blast would release 4.2 * 10^15 Joules, or 4,200,000 GJ.
> > {I.e., 4,200 Terrajoules.} So, if the blast lasts one second, that
> > would be 4,200 TW of power.
>
> for every second after the first, what is the percentage of power loss? I.E.
> if in one sec its 4,200TW, would it drop to lets say 1,000TW then next and
> drop drastically again after that, but by how much?
I don't know. It's never been of interest in these debates. You might
want to ask a physics professor at your local university, or try a web
search with the key words "megaton," "joule," and "power."
TJ
Timothy Jones
>
> > Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Ryan McReynolds wrote:
> > >
> > > > Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > They are equivalent and interchangable only if the joule is
> > > > > delivered in exactly one second.
> > > >
> > > > Gee whiz, really?
> > >
> > > Yes, really. And since we're not talking about delivering that joule in
> > > exactly one second, they are not interchangable, therefore saying "they are
> > > interchangable" is undefiably wrong.
> >
> > Again, I'll want to check this with my physics proff before I accept it.
> > On the face, it would seem to be a violation of conservation, since
> > 1,000 joules is 1,000 joules, no matter how quickly it is released in a
> > burst or comes in contact with another object.
>
> To quote the illustrious Mike Wong: "Did I mention that I hate
> fakers?" Tim, it's late in the semester on most college calenders.
> If, in fact, you have ever taken a physics class, you would
> understand the relationship between joules and watts.
Which I do. If you knew how to answer the prior argument, instead of
deflecting the point with this kind of banter, you'd show you know how
to debate civilly.
> Everyone, including me, is going to respect you a lot more if you
> just admit that you've never taken a physics class in your life, or
> whatever.
That would be lying, since I'm now on my fourth class from Dr. Muirhead
here at the UW. Feel free to contact him and confirm my past and current
enrollment. [muir...@phys.washington.edu] Do *NOT* feel free to pester
him about this debate!
I think *you* need to admit you would rather waste time attacking an
arguer than dare to actually deal with the argument. Personally, I think
people are capable of more.
> [snip]
>
> > > Indeed. I agree that the wattage of torpedo detonations is absolutely
> > > incredibly, far beyond even the output of the warp core. The limiting
> > > factor is only the fact that the event takes such a small amount of time,
> > > and the energy release is not that great. I can apply a billion exawatts
> > > for such a minute fraction of a second that it only delivers a millijoule to
> > > the target and basically amounts to nothing.
> >
> > What a second. You just got through arguing that craming an X-joule
> > release into a less-than-a-second propogation will *increase* the
> > wattage. *Now* it's going to decrease it? Why assume that it takes all
> > that long for the "event" to confer the full potential of the
> > propogation? It seems to me the event would always be instantaneous
> > anyway.
>
> Tsk, tsk. You're showing your true colors again. No event is
> instantaneous. Everything happens over a finite amount of time.
Try "vanishingly small," which is all but the same in this context, whic
if you recall, is the effect on/at a given point of an energy
propogation when it contacts that point.
> >As soon as contact occures, the energy release has its effect.
>
> Really? Then why can't I boil stone by setting it outside for a
> week? Over that period of time, I'm sure it absorbs more than enough
> solar energy to accomplish this task...
This does not engage my statement.
> > The propogation of the release can occur over X amount of time. But when
> > it *does* contact a given point, the rate of conference would only be
> > affected by the type of materials involved in the energy transfer. And
> > *that* deals with the time over which the transfer will occur, rather
> > than the magnitude of the exchange. {Of course, the materials' type
> > would also determine if a collision will be elastic or non-elastic,
> > which *would* affect the magnitude, but that consideration doesn't apply
> > here, since the context is a warhead detonation.}
>
> The above paragraph is total, absolute gibberish. It contains no
> meaning. I recognize grammar but no thought. -- -Kynes
Then you didn't take physics, or didn't pay any attention. Try going to
*any* physics proff and asking if there's such a distinction as between
an "elastic" collision and a "non-elastic" collision. *When* they say
yes, get them to explain it to you. You will be told that the nature of
the objects involved matters. You will then be told how and why. *Then*
you will be ready to come back, reread what I just wrote, and understand
it, assuming you can table your hostility while doing all this.
TJ
"It's *all* there, black-and-white, clear as crystal!"
-- Gene Wilder,
"Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory"
Timothy Jones
> of physics, but that's a side note. :(
My point exactly. It's oblique to the nature and point of these debates.
Whenever I can accept an argument and yet deny its force, that to me
means it doesn't figure into the context of things.
> > > I'm not doubting that their armor is significant factor, I just
> > > don't think it is technically realistic.
> >
> > It's science-*fiction*, after all. I am not arguing that it's realistic.
> > Only that it's there in the films and series, and cannot be ignored when
> > it comes to these debates.
>
> I know, but this whole discussion originated from someone wanting
> some cold, hard facts about weapon strengths and what kind of damage they
> can do.
Which is not stunted by the fact that sometimes, real-world physics are
circumvented by a science-fictional establishment. Otherwise, we could
not have these debates at all. We apply real-world physics strictly and
consistently to anything any everyhting, and at anytime and everytime,
when they are *not* being explicitly circumvented by a storyworld
establishment. But what's said to be, and to work, must be accepted as
such.
> > > In short, my suspended disbelief is insulted.
> >
> > I'm sorry to hear that. But that does not dismiss the above as canon
> > series data.
>
> Certainly, as admitted above.
Okay. :)
> > > > So you see, in Trek, you *do* have to "care what their hulls are made
> > > > of," because it *does* make a difference. As does the warhead yield
> > > > setting. And as do shields.
> > >
> > > True, especially warhead levels, but unless the hull is really,
> > > really dense, 15Mton blast at point blank will make a really big hole. A
> > > 10Mton nuke will melt steel 2 miles away. At zero range you are dealing
> > > with the energy of a thousand suns released in a thousandth of a second.
> > > Not even pure neutronium could handle that.
> >
> > You know, I'm really, *really*, *REALLY* glad you pointed that out... :>
> >
> > Are you listening, SW propoenets? His argument, not mine.
>
> My argument is that large yield wepaons (like 10Mton+) are so
> powerful at close range, that it is not possible for anything to
> conceivably survive a point blank blast.
This only proves that Trek hull materials (e.g. tritanium, duranium et
al) are beyond your conception. But since the SW-claimed neutronium
materials are not, we can say what real-world science would normally say
about *them*.
> The warhead of a Titan 2 could vaporize the starship Enterprise and
> most of an ISD.
This is proven to be manifestly false by the obvious KE implications of
warp drive in relation to the performance of a Fed ship's main
navagational deflector.
> If they want to invent some kind of wacky armor
*And* shields.
> that is more invulnerable then *real* neutronium, fine with me, it's
> their world. I'll accept it as official,
Well guess what, they *have*.
> but I refuse to directly debate using it, as it defies logic.
Then by your standards, comparative sci-fi tech debates cannot be
conducted at all. Because like it or not, what's said to be in Trek,
*is* in Trek, for the purposes of these debates. We cannot simply
disregard that Fed ships travel FTL and can take the full force of a
photon torpedo and *not* be destroyed, *just* because it goes beyond our
own science. That's what science-fiction does! That's *why* it's called
science-*fiction*.
> In reference to the original question about weapon's strength, for a
> peice of fiction he was writing, that's what was important.
It would all depend on just what kind of nature and capabilities he's
going to give the ships in his world. Nothing's changed there.
> Now, back to you. Who is your physic prof?
Muirhead. Why?
> Is your class in one of the buildings by the upright peanut
Of course. That's where the PAB is.
> (I'm curious because someone told me they were nice, but I've never
> been in them)?
Well his certainly are. I highly recommend anyone take them who is not a
major but has an interest. That's who he gears them towards.
> Anyway, try to be as clear with your instructor as possible.
I always am. I just don't like pestering him with this kind of thing too
often. He's always very nice and accomodating, and educational. But to
me, this all feels so unworthy of him.
> Having been through the physics 120 series, I can tell you that your
> perceptions of energy and power are a little off.
Not that much.
[snip]
Yes, yes, I know all that.
TJ
Timothy Jones
> >> don't think it is technically realistic.
> >
> >It's science-*fiction*, after all. I am not arguing that it's realistic.
> >Only that it's there in the films and series, and cannot be ignored when
> >it comes to these debates.
> >
> >
> >I'm sorry to hear that. But that does not dismiss the above as canon
> >series data.
> >
> >> > of," because it *does* make a difference. As does the warhead yield
> >> > setting. And as do shields.
> >>
> >> True, especially warhead levels, but unless the hull is really,
> >> really dense, 15Mton blast at point blank will make a really big hole. A
> >> 10Mton nuke will melt steel 2 miles away. At zero range you are dealing
> >> with the energy of a thousand suns released in a thousandth of a second.
> >> Not even pure neutronium could handle that.
> >
> >You know, I'm really, *really*, *REALLY* glad you pointed that out... :>
> >
> >Are you listening, SW propoenets? His argument, not mine.
> >
>
> I agree with you 100%, but as per canon statements of Kirk, Picard,
> Riker and others your phasers and torpedoes are useless against
> neutronium.
What statements? Which episodes? Can you give any direct quotations? And
then, of course, I'd still want to know where it says that ISD hulls are
anything other than a type of steele, which is all I've ever read in any
*canon* reference source.
> Personally, in the REAL WORLD, this would not be so, and of course
> an ISD's hull is not PURE neutronium, so ...
So it's moot anyway, since *only* pure neutronium is even being
*claimed* as having been mentioned in Trek. Correct?
> These arguments are for when you're pissed off with the other side,
> the actual outcome of any fictional battle would be decided by other
> factors, tactics, durability, ruthlessness, misunderstandings, luck,
> and a million other things.
It just seems to me that certain things are just too obvious to ignore,
like ship normal space speeds, which we know gives Fed vessels the edge
(since you can't fight from hyperspace, but you *can* fight at warp...)
And visuals illustratin weapon performance, which show that, while
phasers and photon torpedoes can take out a capitol ship in one hit, SW
blasters and proton torps just leave a small scoring mark or explode
an area no bigger than a small office building. The fact that this all
holds true, not just with "weird sci-fi alloys" but with other more
"storyworld-common" things like rocks, snow patches, people, trees, etc,
only reinforces these perceptions of things we've *all* seen. That's
why, even without all the canon-printed data and clearly spoken
on-screen character dailogue, I would still be convinced rightly of Trek
technological supremacy over SW.
TJ
Timothy Jones
>
> > Timothy Jones wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > > Then Kynes, how many watts are in a megaton nuke blast?
> >> >
> >> > It depends on how long the blast takes to occur. You're confusing power
> >> with
> >> > energy again. That's why I laughed.
> >>
> >> Well excuuuuuse me. I'm not a science whizz. Ok does this sound
> >> better, "How many watts produced in a meg nuke blast that lasts a
> >> second.
> >
> >First, you really should ignore people like Kynes. All they seem capable
> >of doing is acting juvanile when someone proves them wrong. Insults are
> >not arguments; but try getting them to live by that. Do what I do.
> >Quickly scan their posts, without really reading them. When you come to
> >obvious insults, like lines of laughter or a good paragraph where you,
> >rather than your arguments, are attacked, just delete it unread. Only
> >their posts that pass this initial screening should actually be "read"
> >with any significant attention. This way, you'll cut down the time spent
> >on time-wasters to about 2 or 3 seconds per junk post of theirs,
> >effectively making it more work for them then for you, and keeping you
> >from seeing about 90% of their insults to begin with.
> >
> > {And persistant ad hominizers that almost *never* say anything civil
> >and relevant, like "plain and simple cronan" should just be killfiled
> >alltogether as I have done.}
> >
> >If someone in the first group gets to become *consistently*
> >junk-posting, such that I end up skipping most of their posts after the
> >quick-scan for any length of time, they will end up in the second group.
> >This is how I recommend you proceed. You'll find it raises the quality
> >of the debate a great deal.
> >
> >Second, a 1 MT blast would release 4.2 * 10^15 Joules, or 4,200,000 GJ.
> >{I.e., 4,200 Terrajoules.} So, if the blast lasts one second, that
> >would be 4,200 TW of power.
>
> that a nuclear blast doesn't last one second, but only a fraction of a
> second, after which the energy is 'radiated' in various forms over
> very large distances.
Sure, but that wasn't the question.
> So while it releases 4.2E15 Joules, the release occurs in much less
> than a second.
True.
TJ
Ryan McReynolds
> > If, in fact, you have ever taken a physics class, you would
> > understand the relationship between joules and watts.
>
> Which I do.
Hmm, are you sure?
On 23 April 1999, you said...
> 1,000 joules is 1,000 joules, no matter how quickly it is released in a
burst
> or comes in contact with another object. So how it could translate to
> *more* than 1,000 watts is a good question to ask.
If you actually understood the relationship between joules and watts, it
would be blatantly obvious that 1000 J can "translate" to more than 1000 W,
for that matter it can "translate" to *any* number of watts, depending on
the time involved.
-=Ryan McReynolds=-
Time0ut
>Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.A41.4.10.990423...@dante16.u.washington.edu...
>> > On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Ryan McReynolds wrote:
>> >
>> > > Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > They are equivalent and interchangable only if the joule is
>> > > > delivered in exactly one second.
>> > >
>> > > Gee whiz, really?
>> >
>> > Yes, really. And since we're not talking about delivering that joule in
>> > exactly one second, they are not interchangable, therefore saying "they are
>> > interchangable" is undefiably wrong.
>>
>> Again, I'll want to check this with my physics proff before I accept it.
>> On the face, it would seem to be a violation of conservation, since
>> 1,000 joules is 1,000 joules, no matter how quickly it is released in a
>> burst or comes in contact with another object.
>
>To quote the illustrious Mike Wong: "Did I mention that I hate fakers?" Tim,
>it's late in the semester on most college calenders. If, in fact, you have ever
>taken a physics class, you would understand the relationship between joules and
>watts.
He has it partly right.
1000 joules = 1000 joules despite the duration of the release.
Although he needs some work on the watt thing.
>
>Just give it up and accept that no one's trying to swindle you. Everyone, including
>me, is going to respect you a lot more if you just admit that you've never taken
>a physics class in your life, or whatever.
Now that isn't exacly fair.
The physics I took years ago were broken into 3 classes.
1- motion
2- heat, light, sound
3- electricity
So he may not have taken the appropriate physics course yet.
>
>[snip]
>
>> > Indeed. I agree that the wattage of torpedo detonations is absolutely
>> > incredibly, far beyond even the output of the warp core. The limiting
>> > factor is only the fact that the event takes such a small amount of time,
>> > and the energy release is not that great. I can apply a billion exawatts
>> > for such a minute fraction of a second that it only delivers a millijoule to
>> > the target and basically amounts to nothing.
>>
>> What a second. You just got through arguing that craming an X-joule
>> release into a less-than-a-second propogation will *increase* the
>> wattage. *Now* it's going to decrease it? Why assume that it takes all
>> that long for the "event" to confer the full potential of the
>> propogation? It seems to me the event would always be instantaneous
>> anyway.
>
>Tsk, tsk. You're showing your true colors again. No event is instantaneous.
>Everything happens over a finite amount of time.
While I followed your sentence above, it is a little elusive.
But to be fair, where have we seen a reaction of only
1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of a second?
(think that's right)
Michael January
wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 20:36:19 GMT, xr...@iafrica.com (Michael January)
>wrote:
>
>
>>I agree with you 100%, but as per canon statements of Kirk, Picard,
>>Riker and others your phasers and torpedoes are useless against
>>neutronium.
>
>More proof that SW doesn't comform to RL world physics.
>
Neither show does, obviously. However, canon-wise ST can't damage
neutronium, even though in RL a high-yield nuke would.
------------------------
Michael January
xr...@iafrica.com
------------------------
Michael January
He was talking about REAL-WORLD materials and alloys, not FICTIONAL
stuff as in ST. In terms of both fictional worlds, there are materials
that are more resistant than they would be in the real world.
According to ST, neutronium is impervious to anything within their
technology, whereas we know that an average 20thC nuke would
damage/destroy it.
>
>> The warhead of a Titan 2 could vaporize the starship Enterprise and
>> most of an ISD.
>
>This is proven to be manifestly false by the obvious KE implications of
>warp drive in relation to the performance of a Fed ship's main
>navagational deflector.
Again, he was talking about Real-Life, even if the Enterprise was made
of pure neutronium, it should not be able to withstand a 10MT+ modern
nuke in the real world.
>
>> If they want to invent some kind of wacky armor
>
>*And* shields.
>
>> that is more invulnerable then *real* neutronium, fine with me, it's
>> their world. I'll accept it as official,
>
>Well guess what, they *have*.
Since when? if their armour is better than neutronium, how come they
can't destroy it?
joel frangquist
My point is simply that if the visuals were accurate, and the explosions were megaton,
the screen ought to go white from the brightness of the flash. The explosions themselves
do not look like megaton explosions, completely regardless of what they do to ships.
As for the ludicrous notion that anyone could actually build technology which could
withstand such an explosion, well, I never said ST wasn't fantasy.
joel
Aaron Parsons
Timothy Jones wrote:
Again, this is like the "turbolasers are lasers" mistake. Just cuz it has the word
"steel" in it, doesn't mean its still. And besides... there are no canon reference
sources to ISD hull armor. Never in the movies nor the novelizations is the word
"durasteel", "plasteel", or "alusteel" stated. Only official sources state these
things. Dura-armor, which is starship armor in the SW universe, is composed of
"neutronium, lomite, and zersium combined through the process of matrix acceleration."
>
>
> > Personally, in the REAL WORLD, this would not be so, and of course
> > an ISD's hull is not PURE neutronium, so ...
>
> So it's moot anyway, since *only* pure neutronium is even being
> *claimed* as having been mentioned in Trek. Correct?
>
> > These arguments are for when you're pissed off with the other side,
> > the actual outcome of any fictional battle would be decided by other
> > factors, tactics, durability, ruthlessness, misunderstandings, luck,
> > and a million other things.
>
> It just seems to me that certain things are just too obvious to ignore,
> like ship normal space speeds, which we know gives Fed vessels the edge
> (since you can't fight from hyperspace, but you *can* fight at warp...)
> And visuals illustratin weapon performance, which show that, while
> phasers and photon torpedoes can take out a capitol ship in one hit, SW
> blasters and proton torps just leave a small scoring mark or explode
> an area no bigger than a small office building. The fact that this all
> holds true, not just with "weird sci-fi alloys" but with other more
> "storyworld-common" things like rocks, snow patches, people, trees, etc,
> only reinforces these perceptions of things we've *all* seen. That's
> why, even without all the canon-printed data and clearly spoken
> on-screen character dailogue, I would still be convinced rightly of Trek
> technological supremacy over SW.
Fighting from warp is now irrelevant. Star Trek has never attacked a sublight ship at
warp. Peak Performance establishes that they have a great deal of difficulty targeting
sublight ships while at warp. You are only convinced of Trek's technological
supremacy, obviously, because you are a Trekkie. You come up with weird and idiotic
rationalizations for technological capabilities in SW as to excuse any possibility of
Trek-threatening numbers being produced (asteroids are VOLATILE? ROFL!), and I've not
seen you once become a proponent of anything pro-SW. You're more concerned with
descriptions than effects (if TL's can vape asteroids, and TL's can't slag massive
parts of a SW ship upon impact, then a SW ship must have a hull that is much more
dense/heat resistant/etc than rock). You're going to remain pro-Trek despite the
evidence against you because you simply refuse to acknowledge anything SW produces as
having relevance or even being what its claimed to be (what's that? Gigaton recoil of
a turbolaser from slave ship?)... etc. End semi-ad-hominem.
Aaron
>
>
> TJ
Kynes
> > I agree with you 100%, but as per canon statements of Kirk, Picard,
> > Riker and others your phasers and torpedoes are useless against
> > neutronium.
>
> What statements? Which episodes?
Voyager's "Think Tank," which established not only Federation ineffectiveness
against neutronium but also neutronium alloys, and "The Doomsday Machine" (TOS)
come to mind.
>Can you give any direct quotations? And
> then, of course, I'd still want to know where it says that ISD hulls are
> anything other than a type of steele, which is all I've ever read in any
> *canon* reference source.
Already been answered by references to official materials. If you won't do any
research, that's your problem.
> > Personally, in the REAL WORLD, this would not be so, and of course
> > an ISD's hull is not PURE neutronium, so ...
>
> So it's moot anyway, since *only* pure neutronium is even being
> *claimed* as having been mentioned in Trek. Correct?
Nope. "Think Tank." Neutronium alloy.
Timothy Jones
>
> > Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with you 100%, but as per canon statements of Kirk, Picard,
> > > Riker and others your phasers and torpedoes are useless against
> > > neutronium.
> >
> > What statements? Which episodes?
>
> ineffectiveness against neutronium but also neutronium alloys, and
The jury is *very* much still out on that. I still need to see the ep,
and I know many here who have do not agree with the SWersie analysis.
[For one thing, that same ep *also* apparantly showed the hull in
question was bypassed by a transporter beam...]
> "The Doomsday Machine" (TOS) come to mind.
Can't imagine why, sine it bears no realtion to anything in SW.
> > Can you give any direct quotations? And
> > then, of course, I'd still want to know where it says that ISD hulls are
> > anything other than a type of steele, which is all I've ever read in any
> > *canon* reference source.
>
> Already been answered by references to official materials. If you
> won't do any research, that's your problem.
Translation: No, but I'm not forthright enough to admit it.
Pending some real evidence then, as opposed to excuses for not producing
it, I consider it acquiesced that SW ship hulls are basically steele.
[Which would match their appearance and vulnerability to numerous things
like ~2 kps rocks, whereas neutronium would never fear asteroid
collisions, and a mile-long ship of it would be too massive to
accelerate beyond a baby-crawl...to say nothing of the gravity hazard to
its occupants and any nearby objects, which is never demonstrated.]
> > > Personally, in the REAL WORLD, this would not be so, and of course
> > > an ISD's hull is not PURE neutronium, so ...
> >
> > So it's moot anyway, since *only* pure neutronium is even being
> > *claimed* as having been mentioned in Trek. Correct?
>
> Nope. "Think Tank." Neutronium alloy.
Produce a specific quote. [And with you, I would still *definitely* want
to see the ep for myself.] And *then*, how *much* was the concentration?
After all, one neutronium part in a hundred may be usefull, but I would
maintain that one particle in a trillion would be worthless vs Fed
weaponery. Guess which level I'd tend to think SW ships would have...
TJ
Ryan McReynolds
> > "The Doomsday Machine" (TOS) come to mind.
>
> Can't imagine why, sine it bears no realtion to anything in SW.
Imperial ships have an unspecified amount of neutronium in their hulls. The
planet killer's outer surface was composed of neutronium, and it was
explicitly stated to be immune to phasers and apparently to photon torpedoes
as well. Very important relation, though of course without knowing the
details of Imperial hull material analyses, we can't know just how relevant
the fact it.
-=Ryan McReynolds=-
Lord Edam de Fromage
>Imperial ships have an unspecified amount of neutronium in their hulls.
The
>planet killer's outer surface was composed of neutronium, and it was
>explicitly stated to be immune to phasers and apparently to photon
torpedoes
>as well. Very important relation, though of course without knowing the
>details of Imperial hull material analyses, we can't know just how
relevant
>the fact it.
Hey Ryan, with you mentioning Imp hull analyses and me thinking about
putting some numers together, do you know of any sources giving density of
hull materials in ST? And maybe the thickness of the neutronium layer on
the planet killer from "The Doomsday Machine"? Many Thanks.
Kynes
> > > > Riker and others your phasers and torpedoes are useless against
> > > > neutronium.
> > >
> > > What statements? Which episodes?
> >
> > ineffectiveness against neutronium but also neutronium alloys, and
>
> The jury is *very* much still out on that. I still need to see the ep,
> and I know many here who have do not agree with the SWersie analysis.
"Analysis?" How do you "analyze" a direct statement that their weapons will have
no effect? It might be dismissed as exaggeration, I suppose, if we hadn't actually
seen the Tank absorbing fire from 20+ ships with no visible damage.
> [For one thing, that same ep *also* apparantly showed the hull in
> question was bypassed by a transporter beam...]
I don't see what this has to do with anything. Perhaps it was very thin.
> > "The Doomsday Machine" (TOS) come to mind.
>
> Can't imagine why, sine it bears no realtion to anything in SW.
Pardon me if I'm getting my episode names mixed up, but wasn't the Planet Killer
made of neutronium? Just like our hulls...
> > > Can you give any direct quotations? And
> > > then, of course, I'd still want to know where it says that ISD hulls are
> > > anything other than a type of steele, which is all I've ever read in any
> > > *canon* reference source.
> >
> > Already been answered by references to official materials. If you
> > won't do any research, that's your problem.
>
> Translation: No, but I'm not forthright enough to admit it.
Fine, then: the Guide to the Star Wars Universe. I won't tell you again; so write
it down, or whatever it is you Trekkies do.
[snip]
> > > > Personally, in the REAL WORLD, this would not be so, and of course
> > > > an ISD's hull is not PURE neutronium, so ...
> > >
> > > So it's moot anyway, since *only* pure neutronium is even being
> > > *claimed* as having been mentioned in Trek. Correct?
> >
> > Nope. "Think Tank." Neutronium alloy.
>
> Produce a specific quote.
Janeway: "And even if we can, their ship's hull is neutronium-based alloy,
impervious to our weapons."
> [And with you, I would still *definitely* want
> to see the ep for myself.]
There's no need to be rude, Jones. :)
> And *then*, how *much* was the concentration?
> After all, one neutronium part in a hundred may be usefull, but I would
> maintain that one particle in a trillion would be worthless vs Fed
> weaponery. Guess which level I'd tend to think SW ships would have...
No one cares what level you "think" they have. :) It's been settled that neutronium
is a primary component of our hulls; definitely enough to qualify for "neutronium-based
alloy" status. Thus, Federation weapons will be ineffective.
Ryan McReynolds
news:7gnl4v$eik$2...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Hey Ryan, with you mentioning Imp hull analyses and me thinking about
> putting some numers together, do you know of any sources giving density of
> hull materials in ST? And maybe the thickness of the neutronium layer on
> the planet killer from "The Doomsday Machine"? Many Thanks.
Density? Hmmm.... I can't think of anything specific. The only source that
has any details on hulls are the Tech Manuals, aside from a reference or two
to duranium and tritanium in a couple of episodes. The closest thing to
relevant canon would be mention in <<insert forgotten early DS9 episode name
here>> that runabout hulls are made of duranium composites, and it would
take an hour to cut through one with a hand phaser. As to the planet
killer... again, there's nothing concrete. Even the scale of the thing is
in constant flux throughout "The Doomsday Machine," so I can't imagine
visual analyses would help much. We certainly don't know just how much
interior machinery or habitable volume it may have.
-=Ryan McReynolds=-
Time0ut
<rmc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
>news:Pine.A41.4.10.990503...@dante15.u.washington.edu...
>> > "The Doomsday Machine" (TOS) come to mind.
>>
>> Can't imagine why, sine it bears no realtion to anything in SW.
>
>Imperial ships have an unspecified amount of neutronium in their hulls. The
>planet killer's outer surface was composed of neutronium, and it was
>explicitly stated to be immune to phasers and apparently to photon torpedoes
>as well. Very important relation, though of course without knowing the
>details of Imperial hull material analyses, we can't know just how relevant
>the fact it.
>
I believe it was made of pure neutronium.
SW ships aren't made of pure neutronium.
Without more specific information, I don't see how anything concrete
can be determined.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>Density? Hmmm.... I can't think of anything specific. The only source
that
>has any details on hulls are the Tech Manuals, aside from a reference or
two
>to duranium and tritanium in a couple of episodes. The closest thing to
>relevant canon would be mention in <<insert forgotten early DS9 episode
name
>here>> that runabout hulls are made of duranium composites, and it would
>take an hour to cut through one with a hand phaser. As to the planet
>killer... again, there's nothing concrete. Even the scale of the thing
is
>in constant flux throughout "The Doomsday Machine," so I can't imagine
>visual analyses would help much. We certainly don't know just how much
>interior machinery or habitable volume it may have.
Ho hum. thank's a lot. Gues I'll jsut have to trawl through the TMs to see
if it's in there.(Oh, and that forgotten DS9 episode - Q-Less, the one
where Q and Vash or Bash or whatever she's called nearly destroy the
station)
Timothy Jones
>
> > Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > "The Doomsday Machine" (TOS) come to mind.
> >
> > Can't imagine why, sine it bears no realtion to anything in SW.
>
> Imperial ships have an unspecified amount of neutronium in their
> hulls.
Every canon source I've ever been exposed to says it's a type of steele.
No neutronium content has ever been mentioned once. So once again, the
doomsday machine from TOS bears no relation to an ISD.
> The planet killer's outer surface was composed of neutronium, and it
> was explicitly stated to be immune to phasers and apparently to
> photon torpedoes as well.
Torpedoes were not used. Invalid claim.
> Very important relation, though of course without knowing the
> details of Imperial hull material analyses, we can't know just how
> relevant the fact it.
Again, not only is there no mention that I've *ever* seen of neutronium
in ISD hulls at *all*, even if there were, the concentration is still a
vital question. One particle out of 100 is a good argument, but one out
of 10^24 is not. Given the visual evidence from the films re ISD hull
performance, the latter (minute) end of concentration speculations seems
far more likely.
TJ
Ryan McReynolds
> > The planet killer's outer surface was composed of neutronium, and it
> > was explicitly stated to be immune to phasers and apparently to
> > photon torpedoes as well.
>
> Torpedoes were not used. Invalid claim.
They had to resort to detonating an entire starship down the planet killer's
throat; it is obvious that photon torpedoes were not an option, for one
reason or another.
> Again, not only is there no mention that I've *ever* seen of neutronium
> in ISD hulls at *all*,
And being infallible, it is of course impossible for you to have missed
something, since dozens of Star Warriors have no problem finding that
mention.
> even if there were, the concentration is still a vital question. One
particle out of
> 100 is a good argument, but one out of 10^24 is not. Given the visual
evidence
> from the films re ISD hull performance, the latter (minute) end of
concentration
> speculations seems far more likely.
It may be. As I've said many times before, I'm really just a Trek fact
checker in this debate, I'm neither for nor against either side.
-=Ryan McReynolds=-
Timothy Jones
>
> > Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Kynes wrote:
> > >
> > > > Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Riker and others your phasers and torpedoes are useless against
> > > > > neutronium.
> > > >
> > > > What statements? Which episodes?
> > >
> > > ineffectiveness against neutronium but also neutronium alloys, and
> >
> > The jury is *very* much still out on that. I still need to see the ep,
> > and I know many here who have do not agree with the SWersie analysis.
>
> "Analysis?" How do you "analyze" a direct statement that their
> weapons will have no effect?
Apparantly, the are doing just that. Not having seen that ep yet, as I
said, I can only take them to be claiming that your side is misquoting
the dialogue...which honestly would not shock me at this point.
> It might be dismissed as exaggeration, I suppose, if we hadn't
> actually seen the Tank absorbing fire from 20+ ships with no visible
> damage.
The other ships were not copies of Voyager I take it; therefore, their
performance does not reflect what 20 ships like Voyager could do.
> > [For one thing, that same ep *also* apparantly showed the hull in
> > question was bypassed by a transporter beam...]
>
> I don't see what this has to do with anything.
Think about it.
> Perhaps it was very thin.
Speculation? That's your defense in its entirety?
> > > "The Doomsday Machine" (TOS) come to mind.
> >
> > Can't imagine why, sine it bears no realtion to anything in SW.
>
> Pardon me if I'm getting my episode names mixed up, but wasn't the
> Planet Killer made of neutronium? Just like our hulls...
*Not* just like ISD hulls.
> > > > Can you give any direct quotations? And
> > > > then, of course, I'd still want to know where it says that ISD hulls are
> > > > anything other than a type of steele, which is all I've ever read in any
> > > > *canon* reference source.
> > >
> > > Already been answered by references to official materials. If you
> > > won't do any research, that's your problem.
> >
> > Translation: No, but I'm not forthright enough to admit it.
>
> Fine, then: the Guide to the Star Wars Universe. I won't tell you
[ad hominism snipped]
Who wrote that book, and what is his/her/their relation to Lucasfilm?
What makes it a canon reference source? And what page number(s) contain
the reference?
> [snip]
>
> > > > > Personally, in the REAL WORLD, this would not be so, and of course
> > > > > an ISD's hull is not PURE neutronium, so ...
> > > >
> > > > So it's moot anyway, since *only* pure neutronium is even being
> > > > *claimed* as having been mentioned in Trek. Correct?
> > >
> > > Nope. "Think Tank." Neutronium alloy.
> >
> > Produce a specific quote.
>
> Janeway: "And even if we can, their ship's hull is neutronium-based alloy,
> impervious to our weapons."
Neutronium-*BASED* [my emphasis] implied it is principally neutronium.
This still makes its neutronium % content more than anyone can
legitimately claim for an ISD hull. So I still have the same answer. One
part in 100 is probably usefull, but one part in 10^24 is probably not.
Given the clear visual evidence from the SW films re ISD hull
performance, the latter (minute) end of the speculation spectrum is
upheld.
> > [And with you, I would still *definitely* want
> > to see the ep for myself.]
> >
> > And *then*, how *much* was the concentration?
> > After all, one neutronium part in a hundred may be usefull, but I would
> > maintain that one particle in a trillion would be worthless vs Fed
> > weaponery. Guess which level I'd tend to think SW ships would have...
>
> No one cares what level you "think" they have.
I think the visual evidence shows they have no choice but to care...
[unsupported assertion snipped]
TJ
Timothy Jones
> > > was explicitly stated to be immune to phasers and apparently to
> > > photon torpedoes as well.
> >
> > Torpedoes were not used. Invalid claim.
>
> They had to resort to detonating an entire starship down the planet
> killer's throat; it is obvious that photon torpedoes were not an
> option, for one reason or another.
Bad assumption. I'm not saying torpedoes *would've* worked. But what we
did not get shown or said to us, we cannot presume.
> > Again, not only is there no mention that I've *ever* seen of neutronium
> > in ISD hulls at *all*,
>
> And being infallible, it is of course impossible for you to have missed
> something, since dozens of Star Warriors have no problem finding that
> mention.
Not in any canon source they haven't!
> > even if there were, the concentration is still a vital question. One
> particle out of
> > 100 is a good argument, but one out of 10^24 is not. Given the visual
> evidence
> > from the films re ISD hull performance, the latter (minute) end of
> concentration
> > speculations seems far more likely.
>
> It may be. As I've said many times before, I'm really just a Trek fact
> checker in this debate, I'm neither for nor against either side.
Now why don't I beleive that...?
TJ
Ryan McReynolds
news:Pine.A41.4.10.990505...@dante26.u.washington.edu...
> > checker in this debate, I'm neither for nor against either side.
>
> Now why don't I beleive that...?
Go to rec.arts.startrek.tech or startrek.expertforum.rick, and notice that I
am easily one of the top five posters in both of those groups. Now, go to
any Star Wars newsgroup, and notice that I have never posted a single
message to any of them. I am a absolute, card-carrying Trekkie, and you'll
note that I have never once given any data regarding Star Wars tech on this
group... as a matter of fact, you'll notice that all I ever do is offer my
input regarding what I perceive to be erroneous Trekkie claims. Why would I
support Star Wars if I'm such a Trekkie? Believe what you like, I only
support what the numbers show me. If the numbers show me that Star Trek
will win, great. Unfortunately, they almost all point in the opposite
direction.
-=Ryan McReynolds=-
Michael January
I think I remember the episode. There is a scene where Cisko and
O'Brien? examine a breach in the hull of the station (which is
currently shielded). The hull appears to consist of layered materials,
and is about 0.5m to 1m thick. Is that what you are referring to?
remember though it may not mean much, since the station was a
Cardassian minerals refining centre, and not a Federation
battle-station.
-------------------------
Michael January
-------------------------
I 'aint prejudiced. I hate everybody!
Dirty Harry
Ryan McReynolds
news:37318f4...@ct-news.iafrica.com...
> I think I remember the episode. There is a scene where Cisko and
> O'Brien? examine a breach in the hull of the station (which is
> currently shielded). The hull appears to consist of layered materials,
> and is about 0.5m to 1m thick. Is that what you are referring to?
>
> remember though it may not mean much, since the station was a
> Cardassian minerals refining centre, and not a Federation
> battle-station.
Wrong scene. We're talking about one in which some people are trapped in a
docked runabout who's door won't open. Somebody pulls out a phaser (Kira?),
and someone else (O'Brien?) says "That hull is duranium composite, it would
take an hour to cut through it with a hand phaser," or something to that
effect. Edam is correct, it is "Q-Less."
-=Ryan McReynolds=-
Lord Edam de Fromage
>>Ho hum. thank's a lot. Gues I'll jsut have to trawl through the TMs to
see
>>if it's in there.(Oh, and that forgotten DS9 episode - Q-Less, the one
>>where Q and Vash or Bash or whatever she's called nearly destroy the
>>station)
>>
>
>O'Brien? examine a breach in the hull of the station (which is
>currently shielded). The hull appears to consist of layered materials,
>and is about 0.5m to 1m thick. Is that what you are referring to?
Nope, I'm refering to the first(ish) scene of the episode. Bashir is
chatting up some bint in Quarks, and get's called along with OBrian to the
shuttle pad. Ther eis a lifeform trapped in the shuttle, so Kira takes out
her hand phaser to start burning through. Sisko tells her the shuttle hull
is Duranium composite, it would take her an hour to burn right through.
>remember though it may not mean much, since the station was a
>Cardassian minerals refining centre, and not a Federation
>battle-station.
It was a federation shuttle, not part of the Cardassian station.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>> Again, not only is there no mention that I've *ever* seen of neutronium
>> in ISD hulls at *all*,
>
>And being infallible, it is of course impossible for you to have missed
>something, since dozens of Star Warriors have no problem finding that
>mention.
But kindly ignoring requests for them to actually poduce the source. The
closest you get is "oh, most of the tech stuff".