Darth Vader inside a Cube

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-10-09 12:30am

This just came to me:

"I find your lack of individuality disturbing."

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2003-10-09 12:32am

Howedar wrote:Hardly believable? Its fucking canon.

You don't get to arbitrarily decide what is and what is not canon based on your own personal preferences.

It's canon that the statement was made. But Riker could have been wrong, just as Spock could have been wrong about the Doomsday Machine's neutronium hull. And we still don't have a delivery time for those 2.1 MJ (per second? nanosecond? week?) even if Riker was correct.

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2003-10-09 12:36am

Darth Servo wrote:
Metrion Cascade wrote:A shield can absorb any amount of energy given enough time.
Back up this statement. Heres a hint: think, "wear and tear"

It's not relevant to any part of the discussion, but this is assuming it's within the shield's operational lifetime and with scheduled maintenance. Another way to put it: any amount of energy can probably damage the shield if it's delivered faster than the shield can transfer it to ship's service EPS.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-10-09 01:04am

Metrion Cascade wrote:It's canon that the statement was made. But Riker could have been wrong, just as Spock could have been wrong about the Doomsday Machine's neutronium hull. And we still don't have a delivery time for those 2.1 MJ (per second? nanosecond? week?) even if Riker was correct.

Maybe I wasn't entirely clear.

IT'S FUCKING CANON

You're going to need to do a lot better than say "he could have been wrong."

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2003-10-09 01:52am

Howedar wrote:
Metrion Cascade wrote:It's canon that the statement was made. But Riker could have been wrong, just as Spock could have been wrong about the Doomsday Machine's neutronium hull. And we still don't have a delivery time for those 2.1 MJ (per second? nanosecond? week?) even if Riker was correct.
Maybe I wasn't entirely clear.

IT'S FUCKING CANON

You're going to need to do a lot better than say "he could have been wrong."

It's also canon that Picard said the E-D was immune to lasers. The statement is canon. Its validity is not. Riker could have been wrong. And even if he was right, the 2.1 MJ figure says nothing about weapon power without a timeframe. I will not address this again.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-10-09 01:59am

Metrion Cascade wrote:It's also canon that Picard said the E-D was immune to lasers. The statement is canon.

Actually its not. The actual quote is "Lasers won't even penetrate our Navagational deflectors"

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2003-10-09 02:12am

Metrion Cascade wrote:It's also canon that Picard said the E-D was immune to lasers. The statement is canon.

The statement is also qualified by this one:

http://www.holonet.iwarp.com/okona2.mov

TNG's "The Outrageous Okona":

PICARD: "No. They could fire 'till their lasers ran dry; they wouldn't hurt the Enterprise.

Its validity is not.

Bullshit. You're being dishonest.

Riker could have been wrong.

Riker didn't make either statement.

And even if he was right, the 2.1 MJ figure says nothing about weapon power without a timeframe. I will not address this again.

Because you are intentionally ducking the issue. The quotes from "The Outrageous Okona" and "Conundrums" are married. In "TOO", the lasers were ridiculously underpowered. LESS than 2.1 MJ. However, the "fusion powered pulse lasers" rated at 2.1 MJ in "Conundrums" is enough to not only rock the ship, but convince Picard to raise shields. And not only raise them, but set them to MAXIMUM.

http://www.holonet.iwarp.com/conun1.mov

TNG's "Conundrums":

DATA: "The destroyer has minimal shields. Their disruptor capacity appears to be only 2.1 megajoules."
RIKER: "They're no match for the Enterprise.."

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-09 02:17am

Metrion Cascade wrote:It's also canon that Picard said the E-D was immune to lasers. The statement is canon. Its validity is not.

One possible interpretation of that statement is invalid. An intelligent interpretation works fine; ships of that size using Alpha Quadrant technology and armed only with lasers were no threat. A ship of that size would only be a threat if it was packing photon torpedoes.

Riker could have been wrong. And even if he was right, the 2.1 MJ figure says nothing about weapon power without a timeframe. I will not address this again.

The timeframe is observable onscreen.

Cyborg Stan · Post by **Cyborg Stan** » 2003-10-09 02:53am

I'm wondering why timeframe is being brought up at all - at best, the megajoules would be dealt with within an extremely short amount of time. (There's only so much that 2.1, 4.3 MJ can do, no matter how fast it's put in.) Throwing in longer timeframes makes it even more pathetic. (Would have it being delivered over a period of weeks really help?)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-09 02:54am

She's probably assuming that an extremely short timeframe would jack up the power, without recognizing that the limits of the work it can do are always set by its energy level. Even a staggering amount of power won't accomplish jack shit if there's not enough energy.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-10-09 07:31am

He said one photon torpedo would destroy the entire station, not just their shields.

Sorry for my mistake. I am a non native english speaker so I misintrepeted the comment.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-10-09 07:35am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Just ignore him. Evilcat can practically ask questions to death...

Is the desire to know a crime ?

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2003-10-09 08:01am

Darth Wong wrote:She's probably assuming that an extremely short timeframe would jack up the power, without recognizing that the limits of the work it can do are always set by its energy level. Even a staggering amount of power won't accomplish jack shit if there's not enough energy.

Dammit, I didn't want to respond. I brought up timeframe because I figure that if it's 2.1MJ per nanosecond instead of per shot or per second (not specified), then a two-second discharge delivers 4.2 billion gigajoules.

Of course, Data, the sensors, or the console he was reading could have been wrong about the number to start with.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-10-09 08:40am

Metrion Cascade wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:She's probably assuming that an extremely short timeframe would jack up the power, without recognizing that the limits of the work it can do are always set by its energy level. Even a staggering amount of power won't accomplish jack shit if there's not enough energy.
Dammit, I didn't want to respond. I brought up timeframe because I figure that if it's 2.1MJ per nanosecond instead of per shot or per second (not specified), then a two-second discharge delivers 4.2 billion gigajoules.

No, it doesn't. It still only delivers 2.1 MJ. It might be equivlent to 4.2 billion gigawatts, but since Trek shields are steady state devices and not dissapation threshold devices, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference

Of course, Data, the sensors, or the console he was reading could have been wrong about the number to start with.

That would require quite a bit of ECM, something we do not typically observe among trek races. Further the ECM would be of a level far beyond the Federation's, and the whole point is that this race is well behind them technologically.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-09 10:05am

Metrion Cascade wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:She's probably assuming that an extremely short timeframe would jack up the power, without recognizing that the limits of the work it can do are always set by its energy level. Even a staggering amount of power won't accomplish jack shit if there's not enough energy.
Dammit, I didn't want to respond. I brought up timeframe because I figure that if it's 2.1MJ per nanosecond instead of per shot or per second (not specified), then a two-second discharge delivers 4.2 billion gigajoules.

Don't be ridiculous. Any time you specify that someone is firing 2.1MJ weapons at you, it is implicit that the yield is per shot. Why the fuck would they state the yield in such a manner that it has no relation at all to the shot? This is like saying that the stated yield of a bomb might be per microgram of reactant, so it's actually millions of times bigger.

Of course, Data, the sensors, or the console he was reading could have been wrong about the number to start with.

I would have no problem with that, as long as people are consistent about it. Instead, Trek fans have a habit of regarding onscreen numbers as gospel when they're convenient (see "A Matter of Time") and disregarding them when they're inconvenient (see "Conundrum").

Post by **Kuja** » 2003-10-09 10:19am

Metrion Cascade wrote:As I explained in the first part you quoted, the unphased portion is radiated as light and probably some heat. But it's not enough energy (and not sufficiently focused without the phased portion) to cause damage.

I'm not buying it. If part of the part getting through is light, then we'd see that light going through the sizzle of the borg shields and getting to the drone itself. AFAIK, we've never seen such a thing.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-09 10:30am

Metrion Cascade wrote:Temperature (noun): the measure of the average molecular kinetic energy of a substance. A microscopic phenomenon with macroscopic effects.

That's absurd. We're talking about mechanics, not thermodynamics. My computer is stationary right now. Are you seriously going to tell me that it has a mechanical kinetic energy equal to its total internal energy?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-09 10:34am

Durandal wrote:
Metrion Cascade wrote:Temperature (noun): the measure of the average molecular kinetic energy of a substance. A microscopic phenomenon with macroscopic effects.
That's absurd. We're talking about mechanics, not thermodynamics. My computer is stationary right now. Are you seriously going to tell me that it has a mechanical kinetic energy equal to its total internal energy?

I didn't even bother answering that because anyone who quotes dictionary definitions on a matter of physics is obviously just sloshing around in ignorance. The proper thermodynamics definition of temperature is actually not the average molecular kinetic energy anyway.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-09 10:39am

Darth Wong wrote:I didn't even bother answering that because anyone who quotes dictionary definitions on a matter of physics is obviously just sloshing around in ignorance. The proper thermodynamics definition of temperature is actually not the average molecular kinetic energy anyway.

It's almost funny to think about the consequences of such a relationship. According to her, an object must start zipping along if you apply enough heat to it. Better watch out next time you put those leftovers in the microwave; they might achieve escape velocity.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-10-09 11:03am

Darth Wong wrote:
Durandal wrote:
Metrion Cascade wrote:Temperature (noun): the measure of the average molecular kinetic energy of a substance. A microscopic phenomenon with macroscopic effects.
That's absurd. We're talking about mechanics, not thermodynamics. My computer is stationary right now. Are you seriously going to tell me that it has a mechanical kinetic energy equal to its total internal energy?
I didn't even bother answering that because anyone who quotes dictionary definitions on a matter of physics is obviously just sloshing around in ignorance. The proper thermodynamics definition of temperature is actually not the average molecular kinetic energy anyway.

Really? I was taught in my thermodynamics class that it was the average random molecular kinetic energy of a substance. That exact definition too.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-09 11:33am

Ender wrote:Really? I was taught in my thermodynamics class that it was the average random molecular kinetic energy of a substance. That exact definition too.

Try figuring out the temperature of a black hole with that definition.

The proper thermodynamics definition of temperature is the point at which thermal equilibrium is achieved, as determined by maximizing entropy with respect to energy. T=1/(dS/dU) where S is entropy and U is total internal energy.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-09 11:46am

Ender wrote:Really? I was taught in my thermodynamics class that it was the average random molecular kinetic energy of a substance. That exact definition too.

That's the definition they teach in lower-level courses, because I got the same thing. Temperature is more of an indicator which tells heat where to flow.

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2003-10-09 12:02pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Metrion Cascade wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:She's probably assuming that an extremely short timeframe would jack up the power, without recognizing that the limits of the work it can do are always set by its energy level. Even a staggering amount of power won't accomplish jack shit if there's not enough energy.
Dammit, I didn't want to respond. I brought up timeframe because I figure that if it's 2.1MJ per nanosecond instead of per shot or per second (not specified), then a two-second discharge delivers 4.2 billion gigajoules.
Don't be ridiculous. Any time you specify that someone is firing 2.1MJ weapons at you, it is implicit that the yield is per shot. Why the fuck would they state the yield in such a manner that it has no relation at all to the shot? This is like saying that the stated yield of a bomb might be per microgram of reactant, so it's actually millions of times bigger.

But we've seen that many weapons fire beams that don't have a set duration - Sovereign class phasers, Lt. Reed's 10 MJ phase pistol, etc. If I were TPTB, I might use joules for pulse weapons, but not for beam weapons. If there's no set timeframe within which certain weapons deliver their stated energy output, how do we determine their power and demonstrate that the energy isn't being delivered at a nice leisurely pace? I'm not sure the 2.1 MJ weapon is an example of this (maybe it was a pulse weapon, I don't recall), but what about the phase pistol or Sovereign class phasers?

Of course, Data, the sensors, or the console he was reading could have been wrong about the number to start with.
I would have no problem with that, as long as people are consistent about it. Instead, Trek fans have a habit of regarding onscreen numbers as gospel when they're convenient (see "A Matter of Time") and disregarding them when they're inconvenient (see "Conundrum").

What number would that be (from "A Matter of Time")? Just curious...

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2003-10-09 12:06pm

Kuja wrote:
Metrion Cascade wrote:As I explained in the first part you quoted, the unphased portion is radiated as light and probably some heat. But it's not enough energy (and not sufficiently focused without the phased portion) to cause damage.
I'm not buying it. If part of the part getting through is light, then we'd see that light going through the sizzle of the borg shields and getting to the drone itself. AFAIK, we've never seen such a thing.

I didn't say it gets through as a beam or that it's only light. I said it radiates (most likely in every direction) as light (which we see) and probably heat (which we can't even if it's there), because the phased portion is what keeps it in beam form. I also think that at higher settings, the unphased portion is a small part of the beam's total energy.

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2003-10-09 12:10pm

Durandal wrote:
Metrion Cascade wrote:Temperature (noun): the measure of the average molecular kinetic energy of a substance. A microscopic phenomenon with macroscopic effects.
That's absurd. We're talking about mechanics, not thermodynamics. My computer is stationary right now. Are you seriously going to tell me that it has a mechanical kinetic energy equal to its total internal energy?

I brought up the light - molecular KE conversion as a real-world example of radiant energy becoming kinetic energy on contact with matter. I'm not saying anything in real life does this on any seriously macroscopic level, but that some fictional massless particle in phasers does.