A rather... startling... discovery

[Khas]

http://forums.asvs.org/showthread.php/2262-NDF-A-Myth

[Mike DiCenso]

That's an interesting theory, but with one super-huge flaw in it: The peak in the crater was not the size of Mount McKinley as seen in this image here:



You would have to claim that the phase cannon beams expanded out twenty times their normal 2 meter width to even get the crater peak to scale to a decent fraction of McKinley's.

As seen here:




The beams do not get very wide, even after being fired from an orbit of hundreds of km.
-Mike

[Khas]

It's just that in "Silent Enemy", the mountain was said to be the size of Mount McKinley.

[Mike DiCenso]

That line was spoken in exaggeration by an exasperated Archer. It's unreliable and the visual effects do not support a McKinley-sized peak.
-Mike

[Khas]

So, what would your scaling of the mountain be?

[Mike DiCenso]

Assuming 2 meter phase cannon beams to start with, and say they doubled in width to 4 meters.... Well, I roughly measure out that peak at 19 times the width of the beams or 76 meters, and the base is double that or 152 meters.
-Mike

[Khas]

Okay, using Mike's new scaling, I've calculated that the energy needed for such a feat is just over a megaton.

Still, going by the energy-enhancement theory, that means that if the E-D were to pour all it's energy into a phaser beam, we'd get a 3-teraton beam.

[Mike DiCenso]

Um, how did you calculate the volume of the peak, Khas? Also the the phase weapon pulse theory would postulate that the phase cannons are pumping out a lot of pulses in a single stream. In this case, if you look at the images I provided, the phase beam has a jagged or rippling appearance. If really what it's doing is firing a stream of 500 to 5,000 GJ pulses, then that changes everything.
-Mike

[Khas]

I just used the basic cone volume formula for volume. I used basalt's density (basalt being a common rock throughout the universe, having been found on all four terrestrial planets, the moon, Io, and asteroids) to determine the mass, as well as finding the energy needed to vaporize basalt. The energy requirements to vaporize a mound of basalt the size you provided comes to a bit over a megaton, which is a thousand times the energy being fed into the phase cannons.

If we extrapolate this to TNG phasers, which draw energy directly from the warp core, which Data said in "Hide and Q" to put out 12.75 billion gigawatts, or about 3 gigatons, and factor in what we saw in "Silent Enemy", we'd get a 3 gigaton power surge, getting a thousand-fold boost upon conversion to a nadion beam, resulting in a 3 teraton beam/pulse stream.

Also, your images don't show up on any computer I use.

[Mr. Oragahn]

For some reason, an explosion that powerful would be far more violent, even to look at.
However, it fits with what I'd expect of a neat terawatt beam fired for several seconds.
Besides, there can't be a nuclear-like blast effect with a beam of that power.

[Mr. Oragahn]

If we extrapolate this to TNG phasers, which draw energy directly from the warp core, which Data said in "Hide and Q" to put out 12.75 billion gigawatts, or about 3 gigatons, and factor in what we saw in "Silent Enemy", we'd get a 3 gigaton power surge, getting a thousand-fold boost upon conversion to a nadion beam, resulting in a 3 teraton beam/pulse stream..

Lots of extrapolation for a power figure which wasn't complete as Data was cut off.
You may want to remember that there are several terawatt figures given throughout Star Trek which counter balance that as well.

[Lucky]

That line was spoken in exaggeration by an exasperated Archer. It's unreliable and the visual effects do not support a McKinley-sized peak.
-Mike

Shouldn't Archer know roughly how large the target they fired at was? I'm not saying the mountain had to be an exact match, but Archer's comparison is rather specific.

What are the results if only one dimension of the target mountain roughly matches Mount McKinley? I'd assume you would get very different results.

[Khas]

If we extrapolate this to TNG phasers, which draw energy directly from the warp core, which Data said in "Hide and Q" to put out 12.75 billion gigawatts, or about 3 gigatons, and factor in what we saw in "Silent Enemy", we'd get a 3 gigaton power surge, getting a thousand-fold boost upon conversion to a nadion beam, resulting in a 3 teraton beam/pulse stream..

Lots of extrapolation for a power figure which wasn't complete as Data was cut off.
You may want to remember that there are several terawatt figures given throughout Star Trek which counter balance that as well.

Is this referencing "The Dauphin"'s statement where the Enterprise didn't even put out a terawatt? Because I mentioned Data said 12.75 BILLION gigawatts, or 12.75 exawatts. An exawatt is a million terawatts.

Also, a watt is a measurement of energy over time, one joule per second.

[Mike DiCenso]

I just used the basic cone volume formula for volume. I used basalt's density (basalt being a common rock throughout the universe, having been found on all four terrestrial planets, the moon, Io, and asteroids) to determine the mass, as well as finding the energy needed to vaporize basalt. The energy requirements to vaporize a mound of basalt the size you provided comes to a bit over a megaton, which is a thousand times the energy being fed into the phase cannons.

If we extrapolate this to TNG phasers, which draw energy directly from the warp core, which Data said in "Hide and Q" to put out 12.75 billion gigawatts, or about 3 gigatons, and factor in what we saw in "Silent Enemy", we'd get a 3 gigaton power surge, getting a thousand-fold boost upon conversion to a nadion beam, resulting in a 3 teraton beam/pulse stream.

Also, your images don't show up on any computer I use.

That's a loaded assumption since the majority of planetary bodies in our solar system now are not terrestrial or gas giants, but bodies composed of ice and rock, like Pluto, Triton, or Callisto. Also, if you look at the images, the peak isn't fully vaporized, but exploded from within by the beams. Also the coloration of the planetoid's surface is airless and clearly frozen. So I think you are vastly over-estimating the power involved.

As for the image issue, TrekCore hotlinking is iffy at best. Better to try cutting and pasting the URLs. IF that doesn't work, then here's the thumbnail page:

(third row, far right image of the peak being blasted)

http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbna ... 16&page=15

(Fifth and seventh rows showing the ship's orbital altitude and the width of the beams hitting the Suliban ship)

http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbna ... =2&page=10

So you can clearly see that the beams don't widen out that much, have definite pulses in each stream, and the peak is clearly blowing apart sending large amounts of debris outwards.
-Mike

[Mr. Oragahn]

If we extrapolate this to TNG phasers, which draw energy directly from the warp core, which Data said in "Hide and Q" to put out 12.75 billion gigawatts, or about 3 gigatons, and factor in what we saw in "Silent Enemy", we'd get a 3 gigaton power surge, getting a thousand-fold boost upon conversion to a nadion beam, resulting in a 3 teraton beam/pulse stream..

Lots of extrapolation for a power figure which wasn't complete as Data was cut off.
You may want to remember that there are several terawatt figures given throughout Star Trek which counter balance that as well.

Is this referencing "The Dauphin"'s statement where the Enterprise didn't even put out a terawatt? Because I mentioned Data said 12.75 BILLION gigawatts, or 12.75 exawatts. An exawatt is a million terawatts.

Also, a watt is a measurement of energy over time, one joule per second.

Data said "12.75 billion gigawatts per..." and never finished his sentence. At least that's a thing trekkies and warsies alike recognize.