-
[QUOTE=Fafnir665]How does this imply that they used 12.75 exawatts to move somewhere?[/quote]
12.75 exawatts is actually from a line in yet another episode - "True Q," IIRC. Someone happens to be idly musing about the warp core, and Data comes out saying that 12.75 billion gigawatts are pouring through there. Starfleetjedi.net is nothing if not good about looking at [i]all[/i] of the episodes and their foibles, which is why it's a difficult read.
[quote]Wouldnt it rather imply they used some type of technology that worked outside of known physics? Or is this still working on the assumption that a warp field just lowers the mass of an object? Working within physics, even lowering the mass of an object would still leave c as the barrier for travel. See 'Redemption Ark' by by Alastair Reynolds for a look at some hard sci-fi that fits this.[/quote]
Right in that modern physics firmly bars FTL travel. When we go to the energy estimates of leaving the galaxy - it's no longer about lowering the mass of the object, although it [i]is[/i] all about the gravitational binding energy lost [well, gained, GBE is negative], just like the mass-lightening is.
But if you want to make your soft sci-fi even vaguely reasonable, you try to make abide by a few basic principles - like conservation of energy - because otherwise you can just manufacture perpetual motion machines using warp fields. And for [i]travel[/i], the principle of conservation of energy applies in terms of your initial and final positions, if nothing else. The Enterprise starts inert and well inside our galaxy, and ends up inert in the middle of intergalactic void - an area with a much higher energy, due to its substantially greater distance from supermassive black holes.
[quote]This is an engineer saying what he [i]thinks[/i] is possible. The 'could' is a good indication of this.[/quote]
And the rest of the episode indicates that it not only could, but does.
[quote]Just wondering, where are you getting the screen play, and what is the stated mass of the moon in the episode? I saw that it calls it a 'small astroidal moon' on one of the pages.[/QUOTE]
I don't believe it's stated. I'm not quite sure myself where the 109 million ton figure comes from by a cursory reading of the website, but the moon is actually stated to be causing severe tidal effects on the planet in the episode. That, along with actual images of the moon in question, suggest that it's much more than 109 million tons. Even stardestroyer.net describes it as having a "conservative lower limit" of a 2.5 km diameter, and suggests it to be on the order of 65 [i]billion[/i] tons.
So we probably should consider the starfleetjedi.net figures an underestimate if anything. If stardestroyer.net is even remotely correct, the energy figures are off by at least two orders of magnitude.
[quote]Say they have 10 cities with a trillion clones... They could still only have 100 cubes with 20 million total in the cubes. Where are your cube numbers coming from?[/quote]
If I may interpose... Chakotay states in "Scorpion" that the Borg have millions of vessels and hold thousands of systems. Cubes seem to be the main line of the Borg fleet.
Still not seeing where he's getting 500:1 in cubes alone, but it's possible from what we heard in Voyager.
-
Just for fun, here is the the standard tactics for ??? vs. ???:
1. Don't argue rationally . . . yell down opposition.
2. Don't argue rationally . . . insult opposition.
3. Don't argue rationally . . . ignore the opposition.
4. Don't argue rationally . . . misrepresent the opposition.
-
[quote=http://www.ditl.org/datarticle.php?26]Maximum Warp Core Output : 4.77 x 10^6 TeraWatts - 12.75 x 10^6 TeraWatts
Average Warp Core Output : 1.56 x 10^15 TeraWatts[quote]
Er, is that 15 a mistake?
-
[QUOTE=Fafnir665][quote=http://www.ditl.org/datarticle.php?26]Maximum Warp Core Output : 4.77 x 10^6 TeraWatts - 12.75 x 10^6 TeraWatts
Average Warp Core Output : 1.56 x 10^15 TeraWatts[/quote]
Er, is that 15 a mistake?[/QUOTE]
Looks something like it. The table there seems to go by watts, and the warp 6 figure given (warp 6 being cruising speed) is 1.56 x10^15 [b]watts[/b], or 1.56x10^[b]3[/b] terawatts.
Consider how much antideuterium/deuterium slush the [i]Enterprise[/i] has to burn through over the seven years of TNG if it's [i]always[/i] turning over 12.75 exawatts. That would be 4.4 million tons of fuel per year. Even with a [url=http://www.starfleetjedi.net/m5.html#Efficiency]Bussard ramjet on the Enterprise[/url] - (and presumably converting some energy back into antimatter in the warp core somehow) - that means something like five times the cubage of the E-D [i]in deuterium/antideuterium slush.[/i] If the fuel tanks were 10% of the total cubage, it'd need a refill every week at that rate, minus whatever a warp-speed Bussard ramscoop can pick up.
It seems kinda high for an idling power consumption, which probably a reason why ditl.org and starfleetjedi.net treat that as a significant level of power generation rather than the "engine idling" level the episode makes it seem like. And then there's something weird going on with the dilithium crystals, and don't ask me what it is...
-
Other than it all being fake..
-
Okay i see the quote in about the miniature sun reactor. What is not clear is that do they have a reactor that put out the same power as a sun, or is it fusion? Considering the power needs of the Death Star, I would naturally assume the first. More so i would imagine give the energy needs of just the superlaser it is a reacotr that can put out more power in a day than our sun does in 7000 years. Clearly this is not what we think of as fusion. Try not to get hung up on the name but on the performance. If I had a horse that ran forty five miles per hour he is not any slower than a moped that can do the same.
Oh and smooth move disputing actual evidence of the Turbolaser bolts firepower. The math on it is biased...to producing the absolute lowest figure you need to do what is seen. He assumed the asteroid was 100% iron which has a low melting point compared to other minerals that are described as being in the field. He figured for 100% heat conductivity. He even took the average temperature of objects ina solar system rather than factor the comparatively colder Hoth sytem. We know the bolt is a Point Defense gun from the location of it's origin and it's color. So what we got is a lower uper limit. Meaning That we know that Turbolasers can do at least that much and maybe more.
We know they can do a minimum of 24,358,102,633,269 joules. This of course assumes that the iron was 100% eefficent at absorbing energy and the it melted in a second. In reality it vaporized in about .2 seconds and iron is not 100% efficent in absorbing the energy. So it is most likely many times more. For your reference The same blast would melt 29,147,643.4 kg of titanium just as easily.
By some note we do have an upper power limit to the shields of the Galaxy class cruiser. In the "The Survivors" TNG Seadson 3, the ship created by the Douwd superbeing fired a single 400 Gigawatt (gigajoule) pulse that collapsed the shields and did superfical damage. So we'll be nice and say 400 gigajoules for the shields. That is 400,000,000,000 joules or the equivalent to 1.6% of the output of a single Light Turbolaser. Don't worry the 4.5 million tons of titanium like hull will give you another two shots after the first before you are almost completely vaporized.
Sucks doesn't it.
-
[QUOTE=TW Scott]Okay i see the quote in about the miniature sun reactor. What is not clear is that do they have a reactor that put out the same power as a sun, or is it fusion? Considering the power needs of the Death Star, I would naturally assume the first. More so i would imagine give the energy needs of just the superlaser it is a reacotr that can put out more power in a day than our sun does in 7000 years. Clearly this is not what we think of as fusion. Try not to get hung up on the name but on the performance. If I had a horse that ran forty five miles per hour he is not any slower than a moped that can do the same. [/quote][url=http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWsuperlasereffect.html]Unless what the superlaser does is convert mass to energy in the target[/url]... which all the evidence suggests. I mean - c'mon, all the cool planet-busting weapons do it that way. There are a bunch in Star Trek. Even the Xindi have one, and they apparently weren't even worth noting in the 23rd-24th centuries, to judge by their mysterious appearance in the 22nd century.
It's not [i]just[/i] the "miniature sun" bit. More particularly, it's the line in the ROTS novel, which I mentioned for you.
[quote]Oh and smooth move disputing actual evidence of the Turbolaser bolts firepower. The math on it is biased...to producing the absolute lowest figure you need to do what is seen. He assumed the asteroid was 100% iron which has a low melting point compared to other minerals that are described as being in the field.[/quote]Pure elemental iron has a melting point 900 degrees Centigrade higher than granite.
It also has a density many times higher than a typical asteroid. And he's assuming that it's instantly vaped.
[quote] He figured for 100% heat conductivity. He even took the average temperature of objects ina solar system rather than factor the comparatively colder Hoth sytem. We know the bolt is a Point Defense gun from the location of it's origin and it's color. So what we got is a lower uper limit. Meaning That we know that Turbolasers can do at least that much and maybe more.[/quote]
As I told you... read the TLC. They clearly point out that the bolts used on asteroids were [i]medium and large[/i] sized bolts, the larger comparable to those we saw in the ROTJ battle.
[quote]We know they can do a minimum of 24,358,102,633,269 joules. This of course assumes that the iron was 100% eefficent at absorbing energy and the it melted in a second. In reality it vaporized in about .2 seconds and iron is not 100% efficent in absorbing the energy. So it is most likely many times more. For your reference The same blast would melt 29,147,643.4 kg of titanium just as easily.[/quote]
That [i]also[/i] assumes an asteroid larger than any that Young could definitively scale... not that he got the scaling perfect, but as I said, I find the figure perfectly acceptable, particularly considering how the overall output of an ISD as seen in a fleet battle (ROTJ) compares with this.
[quote]By some note we do have an upper power limit to the shields of the Galaxy class cruiser. In the "The Survivors" TNG Seadson 3, the ship created by the Douwd superbeing fired a single 400 Gigawatt (gigajoule) pulse that collapsed the shields and did superfical damage. So we'll be nice and say 400 gigajoules for the shields. That is 400,000,000,000 joules or the equivalent to 1.6% of the output of a single Light Turbolaser. Don't worry the 4.5 million tons of titanium like hull will give you another two shots after the first before you are almost completely vaporized.[/quote]
A godlike being zipped out his wand and dropped the shields using a 400 GW beam.
And? That's far less powerful than the photon torpedos that normally fail to drop the shields.
Not to mention... [url=http://www.starfleetjedi.net/p4.html]Star Trek hulls are made of tritanium, a fictitious and absurdly tough weapon that hand phasers are incapable of melting even a little bit of.[/url]
The alleged ~6 megaton turbolaser bolts here is going to have substantially less impact than a photon torpedo. It's going to take a hundred of them to equal a single torpedo volley [i]by your own estimate of torpedo yield.[/i]
-
[QUOTE=Fafnir665]Other than it all being fake..[/QUOTE]Ya, fictional franchises are very fake.
They're not even all that internally consistent if you look too closely. :cool: I mean, please, a crystal that you channel a matter/antimatter reaction [i]through[/i]? That's as crazy as a lightsaber.
-
Actually, on the artificial sun matter.... There are suns in the SWG that are 'hypersuns' or some such bs. As seen in the book where Lando has that crawling mining factory... How do we know what kind of 'small sun' its refering to?
-
[QUOTE=Hukka4Life][url=http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWsuperlasereffect.html]Unless what the superlaser does is convert mass to energy in the target[/url]... which all the evidence suggests. I mean - c'mon, all the cool planet-busting weapons do it that way. There are a bunch in Star Trek. Even the Xindi have one, and they apparently weren't even worth noting in the 23rd-24th centuries, to judge by their mysterious appearance in the 22nd century.[/quote]
Actually no evidence supports that, unless you are clinically braindead. One thing exists in Star Wars that does not appear in Star Trek. Full planetary shields. Shields which even the Executor and it's entire escort compliment could not bring down. A Matter Energy converter would be useless in this case as the shields would simple stop the reaction before it happened.
[QUOTE]It's not [i]just[/i] the "miniature sun" bit. More particularly, it's the line in the ROTS novel, which I mentioned for you.[/QUOTE]
First: They do not say which type of fusion. For all we know it could be collapsed hypermatter and hyperantimatter.
Second: Here is true statement about today. Electrochemical cells are very common and reliable technology used to power any thing from flashlight, portable heater to automobiles. Now does this mean electrochemical cells are the only thing we use?
[QUOTE]Pure elemental iron has a melting point 900 degrees Centigrade higher than granite.[/QUOTE]
But not than Tungsten, Titanium, Carbon, and many others.
[QUOTE]It also has a density many times higher than a typical asteroid. And he's assuming that it's instantly vaped.[/QUOTE]
Yes, than the typical asteroid we see, but by SW canon these asteroids are full of heavy metals and minerals.
[QUOTE]As I told you... read the TLC. They clearly point out that the bolts used on asteroids were [i]medium and large[/i] sized bolts, the larger comparable to those we saw in the ROTJ battle.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but canon blue prints places the bolts origin as from the batteries of point defense light turbolasers. Again Canon rules. In ROTJ the light cannons were the same size and used against everything. The big guns you only saw from a distance of several thousand kilometers.
[QUOTE]That [i]also[/i] assumes an asteroid larger than any that Young could definitively scale... not that he got the scaling perfect, but as I said, I find the figure perfectly acceptable, particularly considering how the overall output of an ISD as seen in a fleet battle (ROTJ) compares with this.[/QUOTE]
Actually his scaling is a bit low considering the scope of things. It gets worse if you go by radio documentaries. Asteroids upto 120 meters.
[QUOTE]A godlike being zipped out his wand and dropped the shields using a 400 GW beam.[/QUOTE]
Actually it was made quite clear that the alien created a craft that did that. He didn't say hocus pocus and then the shields lowered. He created a warship that out powered the Enterprise using a weapon less than 2% as powerful as ISD point defense weapon.
[QUOTE]And? That's far less powerful than the photon torpedos that normally fail to drop the shields. [/QUOTE]
Which just means the Photn torpedoes are horribly in efficent.
[QUOTE]Not to mention... [url=http://www.starfleetjedi.net/p4.html]Star Trek hulls are made of tritanium, a fictitious and absurdly tough weapon that hand phasers are incapable of melting even a little bit of.[/url][/QUOTE]
Actually the hull is duranium which is slight beefed titanium with a coating of Tritanium which in all honest is probably a match for Durarmor that the ISD's have.
[QUOTE]The alleged ~6 megaton turbolaser bolts here is going to have substantially less impact than a photon torpedo. It's going to take a hundred of them to equal a single torpedo volley [i]by your own estimate of torpedo yield.[/i][/QUOTE]
Well my estimation still stands it is a 60 megaton warhead that is 8% efficent. So your looking at 600 kilotons for a torpedo. And that 6 megaton turbolaser is low estimate remember.
-
im still trying to figure out how SW plans on engaging anything in trek in combat.
the whole lack of FTL attacks puts sw at a severe disadvantage.
and the fact your severly outnumbered.
power levels are worthless without an effective delivery system.
-
I'm still wondering why you never answer TWScott's questions, and keep asking the same questions that have already been addressed. You should find the answers and try to nitpick/tear them apart, rather than asking the same questions over and over again. It is very irritating.
-
Hukka, just wondering. How is [URL=http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWsuperlasereffect.html]this site[/URL] which claims to have been made in 2002, and more recent than Young's? Young's site has dates mostly in 2002 as well. If you're going to say "Young is all out-dated" Why dont you keep all your references in the 04/05 era than?
-
The only advantage Star Trek has is Tactical speed. Their ships can pull .75 warp in most fights. Something with going faster seems to weaken their deflectors and weapons. So they keep to those speeds. It does make them harder to hit. However their standard moving wall tactic negates this advantage. They all to happily(and stupidly) engage the ISD at knifing ranges.
-
Yes, its funny how people seem to ignore tactics when dicussing these fights. It mainly focuses on who has the most powerful weapons, instead of tactics seen on the screen. How often have we seen two ships in ST just sit in front of each other, obviously really close, and just duke it out. Wouldnt it make more sense for the actualy method of engaging to be quick warp hops?
Such as Battlefield Earth's method of engaging using the ships that ran on 'interfereing teleportation generators' They wove about engaging trying to guess where the ship would next be so they could shoot it down, instead of head to head engagement where they could throw punches around to see whose weaker.
Now in SW they are used to this head to head engagement duking it out until someone succombs to the fight. Thats why we see such hugh power levels in shielding and weaponary.
No one said it had to make sense :P
-
you do realize that in ST,whats is said about a battle is out of scale to the on screen action?
when they are at ''knife distance''thats actualy well over 30,000-50,000kms,usualy farther.40,000kms is considered extremly close range combat[its also well out of TL range as well].
battles can take place over milloins of kms even thou the onscreen scale doesnt show it.
and battles can take place at any speed,there are high warp battles,near stationary battles,dog fights,the picard manuaver[something sw has no counter for]
also,the fact that they trek ships can duke it out with massive photon torps for some time proves how strong trek ships are, it can take 20-30 ptorps and endless phaser/disrupter hits to cripple a ship,or it can take one or two well placed hits at low or unshielded targets to destroy a ship.
on ds9,36 klingon battle cruisers[birds of prey and gr,oth class] got there asses kicked by ds9 in a sustained battle AND hand to hand combat.
the fact that sw ships are so slow and unmanuverable is a DISadvantage in a space battle,especialy against things like borg[who can engage at any speed for any length of time as they have ultra fast regen and superior propulsion]
i guess you never heard of evasive manuavers[used in EVERY battle ive seen].youll learn about them as your ships are assmilated or destroyed.
sitting still hoping to wear down your enemy doesnt work against the borg,especialy when your outnumbered by superior ships.
-
[QUOTE=Fafnir665]I'm still wondering why you never answer TWScott's questions, and keep asking the same questions that have already been addressed. You should find the answers and try to nitpick/tear them apart, rather than asking the same questions over and over again. It is very irritating.[/QUOTE]
what question have i not answered?
so far i have gotten ZERO response to how you plan on beating JUST the borg[or 8472,which make the borg look weak,1 8472 bioship has 10X the fire power of vaders executer],or on the fact you cant even engage anyone in trek in combat unless they stand still directly in front of you.
-
Well Star Wars vessels could use microjumps if they wanted. Imagine the Picard maneuver done with a Star Destroyer.
Their weapons are significantly ranged, they just like closing becuase it allows for better accuracy. Same with Star Trek ships I suppose.
Although after doing my calculation the Borg are a joke. Star Destroyers can completely slag 20 Galaxy class starships in one volley form the Point Defense guns. I think the millions of SW ships are going to annhilate the Collective with very little effort. Hell, R2-D2 could do it in a minute.
-
[QUOTE=TW Scott]Actually no evidence supports that, unless you are clinically braindead. One thing exists in Star Wars that does not appear in Star Trek. Full planetary shields. Shields which even the Executor and it's entire escort compliment could not bring down. A Matter Energy converter would be useless in this case as the shields would simple stop the reaction before it happened.[/quote]
This is another stardestroyer.net myth, based on a failure to look at the evidence. [url=http://www.starfleetjedi.net/k4.html]Full planetary shields exist in Star Trek[/url], and are seen in TOS for even relatively insignificant planets housing a single Federation complex.
Contrastingly, planetary shields aren't actually seen in the SW movies, although it seems reasonable that they would exist.
In order to penetrate a shield that could prevent the Executor and a half dozen Star Destroyers from bombarding Hoth, one need only have more concentrated firepower than a Super Star Destroyer. The Death Star surely has this regardless - as its reactor alone outmasses the entire Hoth fleet.
[quote]First: They do not say which type of fusion. For all we know it could be collapsed hypermatter and hyperantimatter.[/quote]
Which wouldn't be fusion, that would be annihilation. Saxton goes into length about [i]why[/i] he thinks a matter [i]annihilation[/i] reaction would be best.
Fusion, on the other hand, is very well defined as a power source. When I say "fusion reactor," and don't qualify the statement with anything else, there's only [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactor]one thing that I could reasonably mean if I'm speaking English.[/url]
[quote]Second: Here is true statement about today. Electrochemical cells are very common and reliable technology used to power any thing from flashlight, portable heater to automobiles. Now does this mean electrochemical cells are the only thing we use?[/quote]
No, it doesn't. But we're not talking about the fusion furnaces that could power a variety of things; we're talking about the fusion furnaces that [i]do[/i] power "everything from starships to Podracers."
The Death Star, of course, isn't included in this phrase if you want to get picky, so you could suggest the Death Star has some non-fusion reactor that just happens to have the "power of a small artificial sun."
Although note that anything much past 1e26 W would be the "power of a large artificial sun."
[quote]But not than Tungsten, Titanium, Carbon, and many others.[/quote]
Part of the problem is that you're trying to apply the properties of pure elemental substances with decidedly mixed chemical compounds. Many carbon compounds have very low vaporization points indeed.
[quote]Yes, than the typical asteroid we see, but by SW canon these asteroids are full of heavy metals and minerals.[/quote]
Even dense asteroids containing significant portions of nickel and iron that still look like rocks are going to diverge significantly from homogenous spheres of elemental iron.
[quote]Yes, but canon blue prints places the bolts origin as from the batteries of point defense light turbolasers. Again Canon rules. In ROTJ the light cannons were the same size and used against everything. The big guns you only saw from a distance of several thousand kilometers.[/quote]
Which "canon" blueprints? There are a crapload of available "C canon" (normal EU material) blueprints, and no "G canon" blueprints.
Note further that not all the asteroid-blasting beams came from the same locations, either, just as they aren't all the same sizes.
[quote]Actually his scaling is a bit low considering the scope of things. It gets worse if you go by radio documentaries. Asteroids upto 120 meters.[/quote]
Quote?
[quote]Actually it was made quite clear that the alien created a craft that did that. He didn't say hocus pocus and then the shields lowered. He created a warship that out powered the Enterprise using a weapon less than 2% as powerful as ISD point defense weapon.[/quote]
Outpowered?
Which is why, during the episode, they suggest - based on the power levels its putting out - that they could sit there all day and take fire from it?
Let's face it. You're trying to use an isolated incident to demonstrate something that the rest of the evidence clearly contradicts. And it's not as if this argument hasn't been [url=http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWsurvfal.html]demonstrated false already.[/url]
[quote]Which just means the Photn torpedoes are horribly in efficent.[/quote]
If by "inefficient," you mean "not as capable as a godlike being of dropping the shields with the minimum amount of energy possible," then yes, I agree with you.
However, when we're talking about the actual energy splashed on the shields... photon torpedos clearly exceed the turbolasers that are used for fleet combat.
[quote]Actually the hull is duranium which is slight beefed titanium with a coating of Tritanium which in all honest is probably a match for Durarmor that the ISD's have.[/quote]
Actually, the NX-01's hull is duranium. Voyager's is partly duranium. Everything we've heard of for the E-D places its hull as mostly tritanium.
Duranium alloys in use in the 24th century are still ridiculously tough.
[quote]Well my estimation still stands it is a 60 megaton warhead that is 8% efficent. So your looking at 600 kilotons for a torpedo. And that 6 megaton turbolaser is low estimate remember.[/QUOTE]
8% of 60 megatons would be 4.8 megatons, not 600 kilotons... and your efficiency claim is completely arbitrary, not to mention absurd.
And we know very well that torpedos have quite a bit more than 4.8 megatons of yield.
-
[QUOTE=Fafnir665]Hukka, just wondering. How is [URL=http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWsuperlasereffect.html]this site[/URL] which claims to have been made in 2002, and more recent than Young's? Young's site has dates mostly in 2002 as well. If you're going to say "Young is all out-dated" Why dont you keep all your references in the 04/05 era than?[/QUOTE]
The research for that particular article on that site [i]began[/i] in 2002. The most recent update mentioned in the site history to that page comes from the summer of 2004, and the website as a whole is updated frequently.
The TLC and SDN are not updated. The TLC used to be on their own website, and after the author chose to no longer maintain them, they were re-hosted.
