Printable View
[QUOTE=TW Scott]Okay the sixteen heavy turbolaser volley was listed at 2*10^14 joules. So one HTL should be 1.25*10^13 joules. Normal Turbolaser would be 8.75*10^12 and so on.
There that is better?[/QUOTE]That is actually much better, since 3 kilotons per HTL shot can fit with the movies.
Remember that - per what [i]you're[/i] claiming should be the case (TNGTM being accurate) that's about 1/20,000th of a photorp's yield.
yeah,how is a TL in the GT range by those numbers,that is less then a MT.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28energy%29[/url]
if those are the correct power figures,sw is toast.
[QUOTE=TW Scott]was refferring to the shtick of ST does with analyzing it six ways to sunday and then treknobabbling.
For the rest of your moronic comments you do understand that were were coverting Joule figures into TNT quivalents so a persons mind could understand how powerful the weapon is? Like any beam weapon almost all of the power goes in a straight line not spread out. Well, now I will translate it all to joules to avoid your red herring arguments.
Okay the sixteen heavy turbolaser volley was listed at 8.32*10^20 joules. So one HTL should be 5.20*10^19 joules. Normal Turbolaser would be 36.4*10^18 and so on.
There that is better?[/QUOTE]
Waits for stunned audience to recheck the numbers humbly admits my antihistamines clogged my brain functions enough that I forgot 4.16 joules per calorie and 1,000,000 grams per metric ton. I simply converted official cannon over for you to better understand.
so? are those numbers right or not?
Heavy Turbo Laser: 5.2x10^19 joules
Turbo Laser: 3.64x10^18 joules
you can works the rest yourself.
[QUOTE=mars13]so? are those numbers right or not?[/QUOTE]Not the latest ones he posted, no.
well,based on the six movies,TL are in no way shape or form in the GT range.
a GT of plasma doesnt just disapear on impact.
im hard pressed to find anything in the MT range as far as weapons go in sw.
theres no examples in the movies from what ive seen.
why arent there any GT explosions in the movies?
There are no gigaton explosions in the movies because your grammer sucks.
[QUOTE=Fafnir665]There are no gigaton explosions in the movies because your grammer sucks.[/QUOTE]
well,too bad for you i guess,scotts posts are full of bad grammer and spelling mistakes,but since hes argueing for your side you completly ignore that.typical biased idiot.
AD HOMINEM!
You're the most biased person in this thread ;)
First of all why would an energy transferral of 3.64*10^18 neccesarily cuase a gigaton explosion. In all reality it would cuase vaporizations, liquifications, violent physical reactions to zero mass beam weapons and other phenomena. Unless the beam hit some explosive you would see no explosion. Even then there would only be an explosion as large a the objest would create itself. Much like Tasering a block of C4 only produces an explsion equal to the block of C4.
Speaking of which, that brings another point if explosions we cuased who says they would be big. C4 is four times as powerful as TNT, but it's blast radius is smaller per equivalent weight. It's destructive power is more concentrated in a smaller blast radius. This makes it more precise a weapon. You can cut beams without blowing out an entire floor. Use it in areas you dare not use TNT and such. So who is to say how big a gigaton level explosion is, especially in space?
no, a GT of PLASMA produces a GT of energy release,thats basic logic.
[QUOTE=mars13]no, a GT of PLASMA produces a GT of energy release,thats basic logic.[/QUOTE]
I never said they are Plasma, They are more likely a Laser-Particle beam composite. Plama may have nothing to do with it. Even if it did the above descriptions accurtately describe gigajoule energy tranferrals. Energy release is more like atomics, fusion, and explosions. What we see is energy transferrals.
[QUOTE=TW Scott]First of all why would an energy transferral of 3.64*10^18 neccesarily cuase a gigaton explosion.[/quote]Well, if it's in a thermal etc form, it will.[quote]In all reality it would cuase vaporizations, liquifications, violent physical reactions to zero mass beam weapons and other phenomena.[/quote]I.e., huge shiny explosion.[quote]Unless the beam hit some explosive you would see no explosion.[/quote]Incorrect. Thermal energy doesn't [i]care[/i] whether or not your object is chemically explosive.
The fireball from a nuke, for example, is mainly [i]air.[/i] It's not exploding chemically, it's superheated; superheated objects glow very brightly.
you know,if TL are nothing but heat tranference,sw is screwed. your average ship can sit almost on the surface of a sun,remember when that klingon warbord warped off the surface of that star and caused a solar flare that toasted the pursing ship.
trek shields can handle all the heat you can throw at them.
*shakes head and wonders what is taught in high school chemistry and physics today*
Okay, yes an explosion is the is the rapid expansion of gaseous material. Yes heat can cause these by superheating gases, liquids or solids to the point where expand uncontrollably and literally blow apart a larger mass. However for the types of explosions you are used to, there needs to some sort of oxidant present. Be it explosives with it built in or Nuclear weapons in air. The big fireballs are result of simple combustion. Now in space you don't normally have an awful lot of oxygen around or air of anykind actully. So so very few fireballs.
Second I did not say they were heat tranfer weapons, simply energy transfer. They do have an heating element yes as do phasers and photon torpedoes. There is also a strong kinetic energy punch to it, as well as partical energy and electrical charge as well.
ST shields, on even borg and voth vessels will be useless after the first salvoes. The one advantage Star Trek has is fast STL ships. Even that fades as it like the bee against a bear. Annoying but ineffectual.
[QUOTE=TW Scott]Okay, yes an explosion is the is the rapid expansion of gaseous material. Yes heat can cause these by superheating gases, liquids or solids to the point where expand uncontrollably and literally blow apart a larger mass. However for the types of explosions you are used to, there needs to some sort of oxidant present. Be it explosives with it built in or Nuclear weapons in air. The big fireballs are result of simple combustion. Now in space you don't normally have an awful lot of oxygen around or air of anykind actully. So so very few fireballs.[/quote]You're still getting it all wrong.
While the explosions we would expect do not look like TNT going off, they [i]are[/i] very bright "fireballs." Heat matter to millions of degrees and it glows brighter than the Sun.[quote]Second I did not say they were heat tranfer weapons, simply energy transfer. They do have an heating element yes as do phasers and photon torpedoes. There is also a strong kinetic energy punch to it, as well as partical energy and electrical charge as well.[/quote]"Strong" meaning "very little," as we can see from how vessels move while being hit.
All forms of energy transferred show up when you blow the ship up... which means any "gigaton" energy is both transmitted and re-radiated completely invisibly in harmless forms. I.e., does nothing and may as well not exist.
How about this - you say that the fireballs seen with nukes exploded in the atmosphere are huge because of superheated air. What if the material being blown up is blown up in such a manner that it creates a fireball with the material on hand, so it appears smaller, and the rest of the energy is radiated in heat or gamma, or some other radiation you cant see with a naked eye.
Oh, and when the shields on the falcon are hit by something, the whole ship bucks. Same with the shots that hit in the movie, um the third one, III not ROTJ.
Hukka, you do now that the sun is matter heated toi millions of degrees, right? That the weapons in SW don't show that kind of thing becuase they are shoouting at bobject much too large to heat to millions of degrees. Imagine you had a kiloton hunk of rock. That is 1 billion grams, if that had a Specific heat of one you would just barely get 3.64 x 10^9 or 3,640,000,000 and if that rock had a specific gravity of one it would be a chunk of rock ten meter by ten meters by ten meters. Not very big at all. Of course this assumes the mass stays togeter in lgaseous form when there is no bressure around. It also assumes every Joule of energy is heat and none are movement and 100% efficency of convection. All impossible to say the least.