Seafort Vs Thorin

[Coalition]

I'd say the TM is well off the mark saying the E-D phasers has 1GW of power and Graham is far, far closer with his thousands of terawatts, especially considering we've seen how much EM energy the E-D's shields can absorb (from the Dyson Sphere episode, I think), and the fact it would probably take several centuries of constant phaser fire of 1GWto bring down that strength of shield.

"A Matter of Time" put them in TeraWatt range. It also required al the EPS taps on the ship, indicating it was a full-strength shot.

"Survivors" had 3 shots, 400 GW each, take down Enterprise's shields, thermal damage to the hull (outer surface melting?), and internal damage which caused loss of weapons control. (and at that point, the bridge crew should have lost bladder and bowel control)

So Ent-D's shields have to take about 400 GW before being dropped. Unless the Enterprise has weapons 10 times stronger than its shields, that puts its weapons in the same 400 GW ballpark.

We've never seen a phaser be swept across an area at all. It's possible that the beam somehow "sticks" to whatever it hits, preventing it from being moved, or something.

ST: Nemesis had Ent-D sweeping space to spot the Scimitar, IIRC. Of course Shinzon was stupid enough to stay that close.

[Deepcrush]

Nitpick, that was the Ent-E not Ent-D.

[Thorin]

ting it was a full-strength shot.

"Survivors" had 3 shots, 400 GW each, take down Enterprise's shields, thermal damage to the hull (outer surface melting?), and internal damage which caused loss of weapons control. (and at that point, the bridge crew should have lost bladder and bowel control)

No idea how many times we've had this discussion, but Archer's Enterprise had phasers of 500 GW. I'd expect the flagship of 200 years in the future to be at least 100 times more powerful. The Survivors shots were clearly unconventional weapons, probably akin to the Dominion's polaron beams which were, energy-wise, similar to Fed's phasers, but had something which made them pretty good at getting through shields.

[Sionnach Glic]

Yeah, conceded on the phaser sweep. Though now I have to wonder why the hell no one seems to use it in combat. Presumably keping it continuously firing for several seconds takes up a lot of the weapon's power.

[Thorin]

Yeah, conceded on the phaser sweep. Though now I have to wonder why the hell no one seems to use it in combat. Presumably keping it continuously firing for several seconds takes up a lot of the weapon's power.

Possibly, but only on a kill setting. Turn it down to a heavy stun and then machine gun. Kill later if required
I think it boils down to SF personnel having an IQ of 4.

[Captain Seafort]

No idea how many times we've had this discussion, but Archer's Enterprise had phasers of 500 GW.

And 5 TW in overload.

I'd expect the flagship of 200 years in the future to be at least 100 times more powerful.

Why? We've got plenty of evidence that technological progress in Trek is very slow - the E-D's impulse engines, for example, are probably the same basic design as the NX-01's.

The Survivors shots were clearly unconventional weapons, probably akin to the Dominion's polaron beams which were, energy-wise, similar to Fed's phasers, but had something which made them pretty good at getting through shields.

They were unconventional, but in the sense that they seemed to be KE - that may have been why they they were so effective.

By and large I agree that 1 GW is probably too low. Nonetheless, they can't be hugely stronger than PTs (high kt - low Mt yield) or Fed ship's shields limits (low Mt).

[Thorin]

Why? We've got plenty of evidence that technological progress in Trek is very slow - the E-D's impulse engines, for example, are probably the same basic design as the NX-01's.

Impulse engines don't particularly require entire overhauls, though, because there is a limit based on the laws of physics to them. Warp engines - which effectively have no limit - would be a far more reliable comparison, and the difference there is pretty big. If you just look at the size of the phaser arrays, to say that the little cannon on the NX is even comparable to the hundreds of metre long phaser arrays on the E-D seems pretty absurd.

They were unconventional, but in the sense that they seemed to be KE - that may have been why they they were so effective.

Maybe, but it's just conjecture. We don't know what 'particle energy' is - considering we'd have first assumed it was mass-energy (ie EM radiation) and that is clearly wrong, any guess is as good as any other, and the fact we know phasers can have some other property than energy (via the polaron beams), I'd say that was the safest bet.

By and large I agree that 1 GW is probably too low. Nonetheless, they can't be hugely stronger than PTs (high kt - low Mt yield) or Fed ship's shields limits (low Mt).

Personally I've always felt torpedos are stronger than phasers - especially in the battle sequences. Just look at how much (superficial, admittedly) more damage the torps do to the Scimitar than the phasers. However, with regard to the Fed's shields, I'd say a whole lot stronger than Mt - specifically, these very good articles:
http://ditl.org/index.php?daymain=/pagarticle.php?29 - Galaxy weapons
http://ditl.org/index.php?daymain=/pagarticle.php?34 - Galaxy shields

Particularly noteworthy is the EM energy the shields absorb from the star in the dyson sphere.

[Captain Seafort]

Warp engines - which effectively have no limit - would be a far more reliable comparison, and the difference there is pretty big.

Evidence?

If you just look at the size of the phaser arrays, to say that the little cannon on the NX is even comparable to the hundreds of metre long phaser arrays on the E-D seems pretty absurd.

You could make the same claim looking at the weapons of the GCS and Defiant. Huge phaser arrays compared to tiny little cannons, and yet the Defiant 's weapons are equal to or stronger than those of a GCS.

Maybe, but it's just conjecture. We don't know what 'particle energy' is - considering we'd have first assumed it was mass-energy (ie EM radiation) and that is clearly wrong, any guess is as good as any other

Then what other suggestion would you make that would fit the term "particle energy", given that it isn't EM?

Particularly noteworthy is the EM energy the shields absorb from the star in the dyson sphere.

Indeed - about 1 Mt

[Thorin]

Evidence?

Warp 5 in NX, warp 9.975 in Voy?

You could make the same claim looking at the weapons of the GCS and Defiant. Huge phaser arrays compared to tiny little cannons, and yet the Defiant 's weapons are equal to or stronger than those of a GCS.

But the Defiant is a warship, the NX isn't. The defiant's sole purpose is to channel as much energy as practically possible to the weapons in as small a space as possible

Then what other suggestion would you make that would fit the term "particle energy", given that it isn't EM?

This is set in a fictional universe nearly 400 years in the future. It's like asking what would I fit the term 'quantum flux string ionisation' to? Unless it has a meaning now, we can't appoint one arbitrarily to it. The fact is kinetic energy is a just as easy to say, and further is the fact he said "equivilent to". It's pretty meaningless. Ships would just fire slugs going at 100 km/s or something if it was so easy to take down shields.

Indeed - about 1 Mt

What is the 45% about? Besides that, I don't think he really understands the point of a Dyson Sphere - he's assumed the sphere is dissapating all the energy instantly. Whereas it would be reused - allowing only 1% of the energy (per unit time) to dissipate [generally as waste] while storing the rest would allow the Dyson Sphere to last a whole lot longer and get energy as it needed it, rather than as the star gave it. Also, why is he assuming the temperature is 300 Kelvin?
And then there's the E-D's cross sectional shield area which is about half what it should be.

That entire argument rests on the strength of the star being a whole lot less than our sun for no reason what so ever.

[Captain Seafort]

Warp 5 in NX, warp 9.975 in Voy?

Eh, point, although I'd maintain that doesn't necessarily mean an equivalent increase in power output, rather than improved efficiency.

But the Defiant is a warship, the NX isn't. The defiant's sole purpose is to channel as much energy as practically possible to the weapons in as small a space as possible

The NX is a lot closer to a warship than the GCS, my point was to emphasise that the relative sizes of the weapons don't mean much.

This is set in a fictional universe nearly 400 years in the future. It's like asking what would I fit the term 'quantum flux string ionisation' to? Unless it has a meaning now, we can't appoint one arbitrarily to it. The fact is kinetic energy is a just as easy to say, and further is the fact he said "equivilent to". It's pretty meaningless.

"Equivalent to", used in the earlier attack is perfect - given that they use chain-reaction weapons, they don't necessarily know what the actual power of the weapon is, so they can only state the effect on the shields. In the latter case they clearly knew something more about the attack, and the only specific type of energy I'm aware of that has an addition discernible component is KE - it has momentum.

Ships would just fire slugs going at 100 km/s or something if it was so easy to take down shields.

Unless the designers were idiots. Which we have plenty of evidence of.

What is the 45% about?

That was the figure originally calculated on the main SDN site.

Besides that, I don't think he really understands the point of a Dyson Sphere - he's assumed the sphere is dissapating all the energy instantly. Whereas it would be reused - allowing only 1% of the energy (per unit time) to dissipate [generally as waste] while storing the rest would allow the Dyson Sphere to last a whole lot longer and get energy as it needed it, rather than as the star gave it.

The sphere was abandoned - there was no one left on the surface to mess around with how the energy was collected. Since there was still greenery on the surface, the average surface temperature would have to be about the same as Earth's.

Also, why is he assuming the temperature is 300 Kelvin?

He's not - he's assuming it's 15 deg C, the average temperature of Earth's surface.

And then there's the E-D's cross sectional shield area which is about half what it should be.

Less than. Though even if we quintuple that figure we still only get 20 Mt.

That entire argument rests on the strength of the star being a whole lot less than our sun for no reason what so ever.

The Dyson Sphere has liquid water and vegetation on the interior surface, therefore the interior surface temperature can't be much higher than Earth's. Following on from this, through various formulae, gives the output of the star - a damn sight less than ours.

[Thorin]

Eh, point, although I'd maintain that doesn't necessarily mean an equivalent increase in power output, rather than improved efficiency.

Maybe, but if the end result is considerably more powerful in a non 'wattage' sense, it doesn't really matter.

The NX is a lot closer to a warship than the GCS, my point was to emphasise that the relative sizes of the weapons don't mean much.

It's irrelevant, we both know the NX is no match for the Galaxy.

"Equivalent to", used in the earlier attack is perfect - given that they use chain-reaction weapons, they don't necessarily know what the actual power of the weapon is, so they can only state the effect on the shields. In the latter case they clearly knew something more about the attack, and the only specific type of energy I'm aware of that has an addition discernible component is KE - it has momentum.

Then why not say KE? Particle energy is meaningless if they're meaning KE.

Unless the designers were idiots. Which we have plenty of evidence of.

That is true, they are idiots, no questions, but every species that I'm aware of doesn't use high speed slugs. That's got to be telling you something - coupled with the fact KE wasn't mentioned.

That was the figure originally calculated on the main SDN site.

How?

He's not - he's assuming it's 15 deg C, the average temperature of Earth's surface.

Why? Greenery =/= genetic twins to plant life on earth. Besides that, there was solar flare activity in the star which was increasing.

The Dyson Sphere has liquid water and vegetation on the interior surface, therefore the interior surface temperature can't be much higher than Earth's. Following on from this, through various formulae, gives the output of the star - a damn sight less than ours.

If you look at Graham's calculations, which bases it on the exact same argument, he gets far higher figures - that the Dyson Sphere has normal earth conditions. Without going into the maths greatly, I wouldn't like to comment on which side is more reliable, however that SDN guy does seem to have a vendetta against the E-D's shields.

[Sionnach Glic]

And the thread goes split.

. Without going into the maths greatly, I wouldn't like to comment on which side is more reliable, however that SDN guy does seem to have a vendetta against the E-D's shields

I'm not getting too involved in this debate, because frankly I really don't care about the subject right now. But I will point out that the existance of bias does not invalidate a conclusion. Even if he's ridiculously biased, you must prove that his conclusions are flawed.

[Thorin]

In which case, Seafort must also proves Graham's are.

[Captain Seafort]

I have - or rather Omeganian has.

[Thorin]

I have - or rather Omeganian has.

He's used a completely different method - Stefan's law - to calculate it. Graham has extrapolated using the inverse square law. I could equally say Graham has disproved Omeganian.

I don't particularly want to go through the maths - I've got another load of exams coming up soon which I've done no work for and I'd rather not add to my stockpile - so I think I'm going to agree to disagree.