Does main site need rewriting?

[Picard]

Except that they expected vaporization, as I already proved with quote, you so happily ignore.

I'm not ignoring anything - you're ignoring the fact that you inadvertently proved that out of two people, one expected vaporization and one expected fragmentation.

Kim never stated fragments were to be results of fragmentation; also incomplete vaporization, when result of explosion, will create fragments.

The only way to get fragments is by fragmentation - that's the definition of fragmentation. Kim stated an expectation about resultant fragments - that means fragmentation would have occurred. Or, perhaps you expect fragments to spring into being amid a spray of rainbows and fairy unicorns?

1) I NEVER said they expected 100% vaporization, but one that will leave only miniature fragments behind (less than 1 centimeter). Both of them expected vaporization, but not complete one. Except if vaporization is not vaporization if it is not complete.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fragmentation

2) Read above. There is no contradiction, except one that you are trying to create due to your lack of understanding. If torpedo vaporizes 60% of asteroid, it is still vaporization.

[Mikey]

Then that same torpedo that produces 60% vaporization also produces 40% fragmentation. It doesn't matter if the resultant fragments are <1cm or >2km - they are still fragments. Since you cannot accurately judge the percentage of mass that was vaporized, you cannot use partial vaporization to determine the torpedo's yield.

[Captain Seafort]

1) I NEVER said they expected 100% vaporization, but one that will leave only miniature fragments behind (less than 1 centimeter). Both of them expected vaporization, but not complete one. Except if vaporization is not vaporization if it is not complete.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fragmentation

2) Read above. There is no contradiction, except one that you are trying to create due to your lack of understanding. If torpedo vaporizes 60% of asteroid, it is still vaporization.

Right, enough of the no-numbers bullshit. Provide specific evidence, with sourcing, of the yield required to fragment an asteroid such that it leaves no fragment more than 1 cm diameter or concede the point.

[Mikey]

Also, please include your source material as to exactly how much was fragmented and how much vaporized, so we can see how you arrived at the energy needed for each process.

[Picard]

Right, enough of the no-numbers bullshit. Provide specific evidence, with sourcing, of the yield required to fragment an asteroid such that it leaves no fragment more than 1 cm diameter or concede the point.

60 to 80%.

Oh joy. A "torpedo glow growth" idiot. I thought so. The PT is moving towards the camera, and is far closer to the camera than it is to Voyager. It will therefore appear to be far larger than it actually is. If you use the actual size of the torp (2 metres) you will find that the rock is actually about 76 metres by 50 metres which, modelling it as a cylinder, gives a volume of 150000 m^3, equivalent to a sphere of diameter 66 metres. Such an asteroid would have a vaporisation energy of 2.2 Mt, a melting energy of 360 kt, and a cratering energy (that required to blast a crater equal to the rock's radius) of 1.4 kt.

The vaporisation energy is obviously too high, both because the asteroid is obviously considerably smaller than a cylinder of its maximum dimensions and because they expected fragmentation, but it can be used as an extreme upper limit, with a more likely yield probably below 1 Mt.

Obviously you did not watch episode, otherwise you would not be saying that. Don't debate something you hardly know anything about. Watch episode and then we can have reasonable debate.
http://picard578.blogspot.com/2010/11/images.html

[Captain Seafort]

60 to 80%.

Provide your source or concede the point.

Obviously you did not watch episode, otherwise you would not be saying that.

And you've got a fucking resonant cavity between your ears, otherwise you wouldn't be such a fucking idiot. Now, either provide some fucking evidence, that doesn't involve pulling numbers out of your arse or pretending that PTs grow to huge sizes based on them approaching the camera, or fuck off.

[Tyyr]

60 to 80%.

Do you have any source for this or is it just purely a guess?

[Picard]

Guess.

[Tyyr]

So in essence you've got nothing.

[Mikey]

In addition to that, it's a guess with no antecedent - it doesn't make any sense, at least to my feeble brain. Seafort asked for the necessary yield, Picard said, "60 - 80%." 60 - 80% of what?

[Mark]

Picard, I'm curious. Why do you present "guesses" as if they are facts?