What the heck is an isoton?

nasor · Post by **nasor** » 2004-07-19 10:37pm

I noticed that the fanfic story here measures the output of energy weapons in 'isotons,' and I've seen that term used a few other times in relation to startrek. Is this just a made-up unit? Is there supposed to be some sort of converson factor to real energy units?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-07-19 10:39pm

Moved to PST.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-07-19 10:43pm

Isoton was created as a fictional measurement of firepower in Trek as a way to give information while still being vague.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-19 11:21pm

nasor wrote:I noticed that the fanfic story here measures the output of energy weapons in 'isotons,' and I've seen that term used a few other times in relation to startrek. Is this just a made-up unit? Is there supposed to be some sort of converson factor to real energy units?

Yes, it's made up. There's undoubtedly a conversion, but since isoton is not defined we don't know precisely what that conversion would be.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-07-20 01:25am

Well, suspension of disbelief would have us believe there's a conversion, although "isoton" was clearly designed to let writers toss out whatever bullshit numbers they liked that day, so I bet any figures derived from "isotons" would contradict other figures.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2004-07-20 10:53am

Isn´t "Iso-" the greek word for "a single"?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-07-20 11:00am

FTeik wrote:Isn´t "Iso-" the greek word for "a single"?

Its the greek word for equal. Applying it to tonnage is not proper and Mike only ever did it to irritate rabid trekkies. The STE clearly states Isoton was used as a fictional term to give the writers free room.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2004-07-20 11:27am

It's probably a regular ton, that very precisely follows ISO standard specifications.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-07-20 12:06pm

If isoton = 1 ton as the name implies, then a couple modern day fighter planes could do heavy damage to the Enterprise (where a photon = 25 isotons), and a nuclear bomb could destroy a Borg Cube (their most powerful weapon being 5 million isotons).

I'd actually estimate an isoton equalling a megaton, since a photon torpedo is 64 megatons max, but has an efficiency of 74% by the TM and only 50% of the energy will strike the target, making 25 megatons an accurate measurement of the damage inflicted. Just my opinion.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-07-20 11:01pm

Oh for Christ's sake, a Trek isoton only means "a single ton" if you're a semantics whore.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2004-07-21 12:35am

One could assume that it means "one ton" of some explosive other than TNT, but that doesn't really solve the problem of translating it into a linear equivalent of our terminology. However, that would adequately explain just WHERE the word came from, if not WHAT it means to us.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-21 02:33am

The laughable concept of an isoton being equal to one ton of TNT is refuted by a great many Trek firepower estimates. Give it a fucking break, please.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-07-21 03:08am

How many joules is an 'isoton' of perfectly annihilated matter/antimatter?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-07-21 03:23am

Isoton isn't defined, Ein, that's why it's so damn vague in the first place.

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » 2004-07-21 07:25am

"ISO" is just trecknobabble gibberish. ISOton, ISOlinear chips, etc...

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-07-21 10:12am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Isoton isn't defined, Ein, that's why it's so damn vague in the first place.

What's wrong with just using regular SI units and thinking of likely contractions/slang terms/etc for them, say 'MGLT ==> MeGaLighT ==> 1 Million C'?

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-07-21 11:04am

Isn't it funny with these made up terms?

I've heard Trekkie's blab about "speed of light" computers...(don't know if its from an episode or TM).

It makes you wonder if they're insane. Technically, I could built a 'speed of light' computer using a laser pointer and a receiver. Program the light to flash rapidly to send commands, and there, you have a speed of light computer, running at the amazing speed of 1 hz.

It's akin to saying "My new Pentium 5 runs at 250 miles per hour!"

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2004-07-21 11:14am

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:What's wrong with just using regular SI units and thinking of likely contractions/slang terms/etc for them, say 'MGLT ==> MeGaLighT ==> 1 Million C'?

Well, for one, they don't hold up with observed evidence. MGLT is a measure of sublight engine performance, for instance.

We don't have enough information to make an easy isoton -> SI unit conversion. (It's probably some standard, Intergalactic Standards Organization or something, but we don't know what it is based off of.)

Though I suppose one could chart calculated minimum and maximum yields for various events with whatever isotonnage (either explicit or assumed, given variances)... that might give us a conversion of some kind.[/list]

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2004-07-21 11:16am

Praxis wrote:Isn't it funny with these made up terms?

I've heard Trekkie's blab about "speed of light" computers...(don't know if its from an episode or TM).

It makes you wonder if they're insane. Technically, I could built a 'speed of light' computer using a laser pointer and a receiver. Program the light to flash rapidly to send commands, and there, you have a speed of light computer, running at the amazing speed of 1 hz.

It's akin to saying "My new Pentium 5 runs at 250 miles per hour!"

Actually, it's more like saying "My new Pentium 5 runs at half the speed of light! Just like that old 386 over there..." Electricity moves really fast through computers.

Sovereign · Post by **Sovereign** » 2004-07-21 01:07pm

The Daystrom Institute came up with this theory...

DITL.org wrote:One thing we can do from the quotes in the TNG and DS9 tech manuals is come up with a conversion factor between isotons and Megatons. If we take the 'theoretical maximum' of 25 isotons referred to in the second DS9 TM quote and assume that this is the same as the 62 Megaton theoretical maximum yield calculated form the TNG TM earlier, the this would mean that each isoton is the equivalent of 2.48 Megatons. Using this conversion ratio we can generate Megaton yield figures for any warhead which is given a figure in isotons and vice versa.

It does sound reasonable. So an Iso=2.48 Megatons.

Dark Primus · Post by **Dark Primus** » 2004-07-21 01:27pm

Wasn't 80 "Isotons" enough to blow up a small moon?

80 x 2.48 = 198.4 megatons, almost 200 Mt.

Technically you could say it would be enough to blow up a small moon, he didn't say anything in size wise. Could it be enough to blow up the Mars moon Phobos (sp?) perhaps? It is a moon, a very small one.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-21 02:40pm

Sovereign wrote:The Daystrom Institute came up with this theory...

DITL.org wrote:One thing we can do from the quotes in the TNG and DS9 tech manuals is come up with a conversion factor between isotons and Megatons. If we take the 'theoretical maximum' of 25 isotons referred to in the second DS9 TM quote and assume that this is the same as the 62 Megaton theoretical maximum yield calculated form the TNG TM earlier, the this would mean that each isoton is the equivalent of 2.48 Megatons. Using this conversion ratio we can generate Megaton yield figures for any warhead which is given a figure in isotons and vice versa.
It does sound reasonable. So an Iso=2.48 Megatons.

Sure, except that the TM is completely without any canon status whatsoever.

nasor · Post by **nasor** » 2004-07-22 03:18am

One thing we can do from the quotes in the TNG and DS9 tech manuals is come up with a conversion factor between isotons and Megatons. If we take the 'theoretical maximum' of 25 isotons referred to in the second DS9 TM quote and assume that this is the same as the 62 Megaton theoretical maximum yield calculated form the TNG TM earlier, the this would mean that each isoton is the equivalent of 2.48 Megatons. Using this conversion ratio we can generate Megaton yield figures for any warhead which is given a figure in isotons and vice versa.

Then again, a few pages later when talking about the Enterprise's self-destruct system the same book goes on to say that the explosion created by deliberate detonation of the ship's engines "produces an energy release on the order of 10^15 megajoules, roughly equivalent to 1,000 photon torpedoes". This would put the explosive yield of a photon torpedo at around 240 megatons.

And the very next paragraph (in a spectacular display of poor mathematics) says that the backup self-destruct "produces a yield of 10^9 megajoules, roughly equivalent to 500 photon torpedoes". This would give each torpedo a yield of about half a kiloton. This is not only self-contradictory, but also far out of line with the earlier blurb about 1.5 kilos of antimatter being in each torpedo.

The ST tech manual is quite useless for any sort of conversion to real units.

Edit: If you look at the 'about the authors' section on the last page, you'll see that the book was actually written by 2 of the show's art directors.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-07-22 03:56am

Might be interesting to email Rick Sternbach and see which figure he would choose over the other.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-22 04:07am

I very much doubt he'd answer, but feel free.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What the heck is an isoton?

What the heck is an isoton?

Re: What the heck is an isoton?