You said "conveniently forgot".Mike DiCenso wrote:You're not being treated like a Warsie, a series of mistakes are being pointed out.
If he is misquoting information, would you happen to know what? I don't think he's wrong on his stance in regards to energy in the corona of a star, though I seriously do doubt his claims in regards to solar flares, but it's difficult to find any sort of reliable information in regards to the subject.However now that you bring that up, I would politely point out, that in order to argue against high Trek energy generation and firepower, you are at times using some of their more grievous methods. But Rama, is as usual, the most serious offender, with his/her/its regurgitation of Wong's propaganda.
While the fact that something as small as the BoP could fire it, the weapon itself was considered exceptionally powerful. In regards to the 'reduced to dust' comment, I think that's hardly fair, considering that it was probably just hyperbole for debris.The BoT mistakes do seriously affect your proposition since it is a clear cut demonstration of extremely powerful weapons and one being used by a slow and underpowered vessel by even TOS' standards. That weapon, again as demonstrated when all the proper dialog and context is accounted for, clearly shows firepower for Trek in the hundreds of gigaton range.
However, you are correct that my power figures are off. The yield for such a weapon would actually be 42.9 megatons, assuming igneous rock, which I think is a bit low considering that it was made of mostly iron. Of course, this does assume that the entire asteroid was destroyed by that one hit.
As was indicated, that despite the shield and being below a mile of almost solid iron, the base had suffered heavy damage. That would seem to indicate that the plasma torpedo damaged its way down to a certain degree.
*cough*A multi-mile wide iron asteroid was crushed in seconds to dust. Your assertion that the asteroid was only a kilometer or so wide was clearly wrong, and your descriptions of the effects were very wrong, hence your conclusion that the asteroid only needed a few tens of megatons to destroy was also equally wrong as a result.
Worst of all, Mith. No fact checking. You never bothered to go to Chrissie's Transcripts, or look on Trekcore for confirmation. I know you can do better than that.
Actually, I did check. My mistakes were actually two-fold.
1) Since tends to use metric, I sort of read it as a kilometer without even thinking. Sounds weird, but I had just doubled checked the information and then went to plug it into the calculator.
2) When it said a mile deep, I didn't treat that as covering all dimensions. That was probably the more embarrassing part. Otherwise, my assertion would have been 2 kilometers plus whatever size the actual outpost could be. At most would probably be three kilometers.
Duly noted. You are correct in that the maximum yield can in fact be in the gigaton range, at least if we take the quote more literally. Of course, I think we shouldn't, as we see that in the event of Archer and the phase cannons, such comments can lead to rather glaring errors.If anything, BoT confirms the possibility of high megation to low gigaton Trek firepower and power generation. Even if we assumed that the plasma torpedo dissipated to less than 1 percent of it's original energy level by the time it caught up to the Enterprise, that still would mean the she absorbed around 2 gigatons. Given the weapon's nature, it means the Enterprise was in relatively bad shape by the time the Romulans mined her with the nuke charge.
However, the weapon is clearly very powerful, even assuming the lowest possible qualifications (just the asteroid alone, not the actual station) would give us 33.3 megatons.
That sounds vaguely familiar, but he doesn't seem to recognize me at all. Perhaps he might be simply laying low, but either way, he isn't all too bright.Oh, by the way, Tlonak is likely none other than our very own KirkSkywalker.
-Mike
