Resistence is futile!(and other invasions stories)

[l33telboi]

Checking some document paper I have about explosives, regardless of gravity, cratering a complete hemisphere of radius R, by placing a charge at the center of the hemisphere's base, would require 1.8 times more energy than cratering an entire spherical volume of a radius R, with the charge place in the middle.

Does this document you're referring to specifically talk about centrally buried explosives and surface mounted ones? I'm guessing no. But in either case I'd like to see it.

I still don't see why we should ignore the formula for asteroid cratering as a yardstick.

I still don't why we should pretend the cratering formula for asteroids can be used to figure out how big of a crater a surface detonation would cause.

We have the entire show that shows the torps glowing like the entirety of Trek. I'm sorry, but that's the undisputable fact. Can you explain why these torps, with a solid casing, are sheathed in an aura of glowing energy like torps from TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY, plus the movies?

Far as I know there's nothing that says the glow is shielding, as far the shows themselves go. The TM probably says as much, but that's non-canon.

Now can you explain this: Reed specifically says that even forcefields in the ENT era haven't been perfected and are still highly experimental. So how on Earth is it that suddenly Starfleet is capable of shielding torpedoes, when they can't shield ships, let alone create stable forcefields? Like I said - pretending the torpedoes are shielded is poppycock.

I know, but you didn't provide a link to that thread, and I don't see how it matters.

You said one thread was the first thread a formula was presented, I corrected that erroneous assertion by saying it was presented earlier. There's nothing more to it then that.

We both know that former cases are used and applied to new ones, a bit like in law. We don't want people jump here and think that all parameters are OK if they want to check the power of a given super heavy device that left a given crater.

I already said that if you want this to be factored in, then you need to know specifics. How much would an impact affect the outcome? And I want to see this work done by someone who knows what he's doing.

The difference with the other equations is that in the extended G&D, mgh adds energy via gravity, while the first part does not.

Yes, I've pointed out as much on numeral occasions.

In the equations I brought forth, gravity is a factor of all the parameters.

Which is clearly incorrect since we're not dealing with a lot of gravity here. Besides, I'm not quite sure I want to trust calculations that you've made up, especially not when they contradict formulas that are used today and empirical evidence.

But do you know how X (in E = mX) is obtained?

From what I understand, the paper in question gives a wide number of different constants that relate to certain rock/soil types. The figure used there is one the author's of the paper used when dealing with typical rock... or was it simply typical dirt? I'm not sure.

I didn't perform the calculation myself since I don't have the paper where the formula is from.

You say it's all good and fitting, but where did you post anything about the method used to obtain X?

Iysnic did, not me. In the aforementioned NX-class vs. Whitestar thread. I recall him and DoomFruit pondering the specifics on the figure later on on IRC, with the conclusion being that Iysnic was right and DoomFruit wrong in terms of what constant they'd used.

Impacts and the equivalent of static interactions, or else.
They exist, that's what matters.

I still find it somewhat ludicrous to think we're talking about an asteroid made of wet dirt.

And so we should ignore the source from 1994 used by Wong is clearly referenced, or the other source, from the Tsunami survey publications, giving similar numbers in fact, when published within the context of near Earth object deflections.

Honestly, I don't trust anything Wong has on his page. Even if he’s quoting another source there’s not telling just what details have been altered. On the other hand - I do trust both Squish and DF, who have absolutely no incentive to skew the formulas.

Where did I say this?

When you said 50 megatons would more likely be 50 kilotons. If I misinterpreted that bit, then ok, that's that.

Torpedoes glow like in all Trek. I'm all ears out for your explanation. I gave you mine.

You want an explanation for the glow? I'm not going to give you one - and you know why? Because we don't know. Speculating on things we can't know is pointless. I can however show that it's not a shield, and did so earlier.

Oh but you know the reply you should have given me. By your own logic, if torpedoes don't have shields when ships don't, then if ships have shields (since a good while by the time of TOS), torpedoes do.

Not necessarily. A shielded torpedo would be more complex to create, since it's much smaller then a ship. Whether they've managed to miniaturize shield-tech to that point in the TOS era is not something I'm able to comment on.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Checking some document paper I have about explosives, regardless of gravity, cratering a complete hemisphere of radius R, by placing a charge at the center of the hemisphere's base, would require 1.8 times more energy than cratering an entire spherical volume of a radius R, with the charge place in the middle.

Does this document you're referring to specifically talk about centrally buried explosives and surface mounted ones? I'm guessing no. But in either case I'd like to see it.

You guessed wrong. :)
The prints I found in a box seem to be from this book. Plenty of neat stuff.
Logically, the destruction of an entire spherical volume goes to find how much energy is needed for the shockwave to break up matter lying on the edge of the asteroid. Beyond that point, there is vacuum, but if rock was present, it would not break. Therefore it's interesting in light of a ratio that compares buried charges and surface positions for identical radii.

I still don't see why we should ignore the formula for asteroid cratering as a yardstick.

I still don't why we should pretend the cratering formula for asteroids can be used to figure out how big of a crater a surface detonation would cause.

I can't do more than cite Wong here: "Cratering energy is the energy required to blast out a crater...". When you check out the equations, they have the exact same pattern than the one you used.

Depth = 88.4 m/kT^(1/3) (read m/kT^1/3 as a large unit, with kilotons, not an equation)
Depth = 29.8 m/kT^(1/3)
Depth = 138.4 m/kT^(1/3)

The one you provided:

Diameter = 5 e-3 m/J^(1/3) (big unit, again, with Joules)

Which should be used under the following form:

Diameter = 5 e-3 * J^(1/3)

Let me choose the one that provides the largest number from the group of three above, let's try to make it look like yours.

kT = J / (4.184 e12)

Depth = 29.8 * kT^(1/3)
Diameter / 2 = 29.8 * [J / (4.184 e12)]^(1/3)
Diameter = 59.6 * J^(1/3) / (4.184 e12)^(1/3)
Diameter = 0.003698 * J^(1/3)
Diameter = 3.698 e-3 * J^(1/3) <- this corresponding to the nickel-iron density.

Although not exactly "Diameter = 5 e-3 * J^(1/3)", we see that the major difference in the energy necessary to break that volume could be the density, since in the equations Wong provides, the only variable, aside from the depth of crater, changes when density changes, since each material has its own equation.

We have the entire show that shows the torps glowing like the entirety of Trek. I'm sorry, but that's the undisputable fact. Can you explain why these torps, with a solid casing, are sheathed in an aura of glowing energy like torps from TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY, plus the movies?

Far as I know there's nothing that says the glow is shielding, as far the shows themselves go. The TM probably says as much, but that's non-canon.

Now can you explain this: Reed specifically says that even forcefields in the ENT era haven't been perfected and are still highly experimental. So how on Earth is it that suddenly Starfleet is capable of shielding torpedoes, when they can't shield ships, let alone create stable forcefields? Like I said - pretending the torpedoes are shielded is poppycock.

Perhaps you can tell me how a torpedo can obviously be surrounded by a force field of some type?
Unless there's a miracle explanation for the glow that has nothing to do with any force field whatsoever?
Torps in TNG had shields (Half a Life) and just display the same type of effect.

Didn't the Vissians hand the tech? Or could it be that the weapons the Terrans use are manufactured by their allies and not themselves?

I know, but you didn't provide a link to that thread, and I don't see how it matters.

You said one thread was the first thread a formula was presented, I corrected that erroneous assertion by saying it was presented earlier. There's nothing more to it then that.

Perhaps I should have said this is where it was presented to me first? Like it matters much anyway.
Giving a link to said thread would help by the way.

We both know that former cases are used and applied to new ones, a bit like in law. We don't want people jump here and think that all parameters are OK if they want to check the power of a given super heavy device that left a given crater.

I already said that if you want this to be factored in, then you need to know specifics.

I already said, several posts ago, that I had already assumed that it didn't matter regarding the torps, only for other cases. It was important to notice, that's all.

How much would an impact affect the outcome? And I want to see this work done by someone who knows what he's doing.

The equations for the impacts can already provide figures for the impact part, and Nige himself pointed out that a heavy casing changed the way the bomb damaged the environment, crater wise. Obviously, that whole mass, sent at several kilometers per second like some asteroids do, would not be negligible.

But, again, it's not a set of factors that really matters here if we go with the traditional travel speed of torps. It only matters for those who read this and would like to translate the equations to another case, or for exceptional speeds as seen in TDiC or SoE.

In the equations I brought forth, gravity is a factor of all the parameters.

Which is clearly incorrect since we're not dealing with a lot of gravity here.

There is nothing incorrect, technically, to have gravity as a factor, even if gravity could be low.
It just means that the equation will provide a different result based on the gravity input.

Besides, I'm not quite sure I want to trust calculations that you've made up, especially not when they contradict formulas that are used today and empirical evidence.

Calculations made up? They're equations produced in a NASA paper.
You can play with them as well if you wish.

But do you know how X (in E = mX) is obtained?

From what I understand, the paper in question gives a wide number of different constants that relate to certain rock/soil types.

I'd like to see that "paper", and also see where the inverse square law factors in.

The figure used there is one the author's of the paper used when dealing with typical rock... or was it simply typical dirt? I'm not sure.
I didn't perform the calculation myself since I don't have the paper where the formula is from.

So you don't even know what kind of density they used, yet you come with one equation wherein we can't even solve for different densities, and somehow this is supposed to check when applied to asteroids, with varying densities only that?

You say it's all good and fitting, but where did you post anything about the method used to obtain X?

Iysnic did, not me. In the aforementioned NX-class vs. Whitestar thread. I recall him and DoomFruit pondering the specifics on the figure later on on IRC, with the conclusion being that Iysnic was right and DoomFruit wrong in terms of what constant they'd used.

Well show me this equation then, please. We need to get right to the point now.

Impacts and the equivalent of static interactions, or else.
They exist, that's what matters.

I still find it somewhat ludicrous to think we're talking about an asteroid made of wet dirt.

It's not "made of" wet dirt. It was a density closely corresponding to what you'd get with wet dirt. Density was all that mattered in the equation, not the type of terrain.

And so we should ignore the source from 1994 used by Wong is clearly referenced, or the other source, from the Tsunami survey publications, giving similar numbers in fact, when published within the context of near Earth object deflections.

Honestly, I don't trust anything Wong has on his page. Even if he’s quoting another source there’s not telling just what details have been altered. On the other hand - I do trust both Squish and DF, who have absolutely no incentive to skew the formulas.

Somehow, I'm not sure he'd misquote a source like that. Perhaps a misinterpretation, but I don't see what interest he'd have in falsifying the results.

Besides, I suppose that means the Tsunami publications guy's calcs are not to be trusted either?

Torpedoes glow like in all Trek. I'm all ears out for your explanation. I gave you mine.

You want an explanation for the glow? I'm not going to give you one - and you know why? Because we don't know. Speculating on things we can't know is pointless. I can however show that it's not a shield, and did so earlier.

No, you have only shown that ships don't have shields. And frankly, casings don't glow on their own. It's not serious to pretend there's no form of force field at play there.

Oh but you know the reply you should have given me. By your own logic, if torpedoes don't have shields when ships don't, then if ships have shields (since a good while by the time of TOS), torpedoes do.

Not necessarily. A shielded torpedo would be more complex to create, since it's much smaller then a ship. Whether they've managed to miniaturize shield-tech to that point in the TOS era is not something I'm able to comment on.

We'd go with Occam Razor here. It's a force field, we know they all have this glow, and since TNG's Half a Life, we have confirmation that torpedoes have shields.
Claiming that the glow would be some kind of bizarro effect relative to the weapon's casing doesn't make much sense.

It would be much more useful to have Reed's quote about shields, and see if he's including torps as well.

[l33telboi]

You guessed wrong. :)
The prints I found in a box seem to be from this book. Plenty of neat stuff.

I'm not seeing any quotes anywhere, just the cover of a book. Like I said last post, expect to be able to review the sources you're talking about, because I have this uneasy feeling that it doesn't say what you're saying it says.

I can't do more than cite Wong here: "Cratering energy is the energy required to blast out a crater...". When you check out the equations, they have the exact same pattern than the one you used.

They have the same pattern, with the exception that one talks about depth and the other width, and both of them being inconsistant with each other.

Perhaps you can tell me how a torpedo can obviously be surrounded by a force field of some type? Unless there's a miracle explanation for the glow that has nothing to do with any force field whatsoever? Torps in TNG had shields (Half a Life) and just display the same type of effect.

In other words there is no link between shields and the glow in the actual canonical material, you're just pretending there is because it suits your argument. If you want to claim the glow is from the shields, then go right head and prove as much. I dare point out that I thought it was always a weird thing, since shields or forcefields in Trek do not glow like torpedoes. They're mostly invisible.

Giving a link to said thread would help by the way.

The search function works on SB again. All you need to do is type NX and Whitestar in the search field and you'll get the relevant thread.

I already said, several posts ago, that I had already assumed that it didn't matter regarding the torps, only for other cases. It was important to notice, that's all.

Yeah, you said it doesn't matter for torps, but you said it should be noticed. Alright, well, give the specifics and we'll see whether it's worth noticing.

The equations for the impacts can already provide figures for the impact part, and Nige himself pointed out that a heavy casing changed the way the bomb damaged the environment, crater wise. Obviously, that whole mass, sent at several kilometers per second like some asteroids do, would not be negligible.

I'm sorry, but you're not bringing up any specifics right now. And without them, we're not accomplishing much.

But, again, it's not a set of factors that really matters here if we go with the traditional travel speed of torps. It only matters for those who read this and would like to translate the equations to another case, or for exceptional speeds as seen in TDiC or SoE.

No, it doesn't matter to them either since you're refusing to provide specifics. Without specifics, what you're saying now amounts to nothing more then a mild curioisity. We can't factor it into the calculations without specifics. See?

There is nothing incorrect, technically, to have gravity as a factor, even if gravity could be low.
It just means that the equation will provide a different result based on the gravity input.

One that seems more then a bit questionable, given that factoring in gravity doesn't have to be done for low-yield nukes. And the wide disparity doing so generates.

Calculations made up? They're equations produced in a NASA paper. You can play with them as well if you wish.

They're not used the way you're suggesting they should be used.

I'd like to see that "paper", and also see where the inverse square law factors in.

I can't show you paper in paper form. I don't even have said paper.

So you don't even know what kind of density they used, yet you come with one equation wherein we can't even solve for different densities, and somehow this is supposed to check when applied to asteroids, with varying densities only that?

Yes, because DF is currently studying for a Ph D, if memory serves, and Squishy has no reason to skew the results. I'm sorry, but their word is good enough to me. Especially when pitted against your word, given that you seem to have a need to get to a preferred outcome in these debates.

From memory however, they weren't even using density, they were using the energy required to break up a material for a certain strength material. I.e. generating enough MPa to break up rock, etc.

Well show me this equation then, please. We need to get right to the point now.

The equation is no more complex then that which you've already seen.

Somehow, I'm not sure he'd misquote a source like that. Perhaps a misinterpretation, but I don't see what interest he'd have in falsifying the results.

Not misquote, no. But he has a habit of doing really weird stuff so that the numbers look good from his perspective (i.e. comparing the power of a AT-ST bolt with energy of a rifle-bullet).

Besides, I suppose that means the Tsunami publications guy's calcs are not to be trusted either?

I'm saying they don't apply to this specific case.

No, you have only shown that ships don't have shields. And frankly, casings don't glow on their own. It's not serious to pretend there's no form of force field at play there.

Oh give it a rest. I've proved that ENT era ships don't have shields, and I've proved that they can't even make basic force-fields yet. That's all the evidence any rational thinking person needs to realize that these torps aren't shielded. Now look at your argument - you have no evidence for there being shields on these things, your speculation openly conflicts with canon, and all you really have is the insistance that a glowing torpedo equals shields, even though no such thing is said in canonical material.

We'd go with Occam Razor here. It's a force field, we know they all have this glow, and since TNG's Half a Life, we have confirmation that torpedoes have shields.

Occam's razor would dictate no such thing. You haven't even established that the glow comes from shields specifically. In fact, Occam would say that the glow doesn't come from the shields since... shields don't glow.

It would be much more useful to have Reed's quote about shields, and see if he's including torps as well.

REED: If that thing continues to grow, we're going to have to find a way to contain it.
T'POL: Do you have a suggestion?
REED: Starfleet's been working on creating a stable EM barrier for the last five years.
T'POL: A force field.
REED: Right. They just haven't found a way to control the particle density. All the specs are in the database. I've been trying to jerry-rig a prototype of my own.
T'POL: And?
REED: I've got it stable enough to absorb a phase pistol blast sixty percent of the time. I think I can improve on that.
T'POL: I suggest you work quickly.

[Mike DiCenso]

Oh give it a rest. I've proved that ENT era ships don't have shields, and I've proved that they can't even make basic force-fields yet. That's all the evidence any rational thinking person needs to realize that these torps aren't shielded. Now look at your argument - you have no evidence for there being shields on these things, your speculation openly conflicts with canon, and all you really have is the insistance that a glowing torpedo equals shields, even though no such thing is said in canonical material.

I assume here that you mean that United Earth starships don't have shields or forcefields as we've seen other ships equipped with them, such as the Mazarite starships from "Fallen Hero" or the mystery ship from "Silent Enemy". We definitely know from "Twilight" that the Andorians have shield technology as in the alternate timeline, Andoria via Shran provided Earth with the technology for their fight against the Xindi. Also the Klingons have shield technology as mentioned many times throughout ST:ENT.

The question is whether or not anyone has force fields like the one Reed set up in "Vox Sola", and if the glow seen around torpedoes is some kind of force field or an artifact of some other technolgocial aspect of the torpedoes, such as propultion.
-Mike

[l33telboi]

I assume here that you mean that United Earth starships

We're talking about the NX-class and its torpedos, so yes. I know other races have forcefield tech.

[Mike DiCenso]

The issue of force fields mounted on Earth ships is a bit of an odd duck. On one hand, we have no total coverage shields, like in the TOS and TNG eras, but then they all have the navigational deflectors. If the photonic torpedoes have force fields or shields they're not conventional combat shields like the starships use. Interestingly enough, in ST2, Spock's burial torpedo is launched with a glow, and yet that torpedo casing had no room in it for any substantial gear. So I would have to weigh in that the glow itself is not necessarily a shield, but some kind of energy handed off by the launcher system, or is propulsion related. Perhaps that's what those flares are; some kind of rapid firing thruster system.
-Mike

[Jedi Master Spock]

The issue of force fields mounted on Earth ships is a bit of an odd duck. On one hand, we have no total coverage shields, like in the TOS and TNG eras, but then they all have the navigational deflectors. If the photonic torpedoes have force fields or shields they're not conventional combat shields like the starships use. Interestingly enough, in ST2, Spock's burial torpedo is launched with a glow, and yet that torpedo casing had no room in it for any substantial gear. So I would have to weigh in that the glow itself is not necessarily a shield, but some kind of energy handed off by the launcher system, or is propulsion related. Perhaps that's what those flares are; some kind of rapid firing thruster system.
-Mike

Spock's torpedo also went through atmospheric re-entry and was still in one piece upon landing.

[Mike DiCenso]

Although we should bear in mind that the torpedo's survival on Genesis was a suprised to both Saavik and David Marcus. They speculated that the gravity must have still been in fluctuation at the time.
-Mike

[Jedi Master Spock]

Although we should bear in mind that the torpedo's survival on Genesis was a suprised to both Saavik and David Marcus. They speculated that the gravity must have still been in fluctuation at the time.
-Mike

Even if it just hit with its baseline velocity on loose rock "in fluctuation," so to speak, that's a lot of atmospheric friction and impact to survive.

Now, the new Star Trek movie does seem to feature some unshielded torpedoes, but I really don't think there's a real strong qualitative distinction between the behavior of a TNG-era torpedo and a TOS-era torpedo, and I think the torpedo shields referenced in "Half a Life" were modified, but not a wholly new system.

I think the real reason torpedoes glow is so we can actually see them; shield glow is a nice idea. I know; the NX didn't have shields, and Starfleet was still working on shielding technology.

On the other hand, photonic torpedoes were a brand new technology that Starfleet seems to have acquired in one piece from the Vissians in "Congenitor," a couple dozen episodes after "Vox Sola." It may be that Starfleet acquired the plans (and perhaps even the parts) from the Vissians, and simply could not work out immediately how to reverse engineer shields from photonic torpedoes to their ships.

There's a bit of a term for this - "black box" technology. You don't know how it works, but you can install it and know what it does just fine.

[Mike DiCenso]

Although we should bear in mind that the torpedo's survival on Genesis was a suprised to both Saavik and David Marcus. They speculated that the gravity must have still been in fluctuation at the time.
-Mike

Even if it just hit with its baseline velocity on loose rock "in fluctuation," so to speak, that's a lot of atmospheric friction and impact to survive.

Here' the dialog:

DAVID: Close-range scan. ...A photon tube! ...Gravitational fields were in flux. ...It must have soft-landed!

Given David's statements, we have to assume that soft landing must be a velocity below the Earth-standard terminal one. There is not even an impact crater, like the one that Kirk's escape pod dug out on Delta Vega.

Now, the new Star Trek movie does seem to feature some unshielded torpedoes, but I really don't think there's a real strong qualitative distinction between the behavior of a TNG-era torpedo and a TOS-era torpedo, and I think the torpedo shields referenced in "Half a Life" were modified, but not a wholly new system.

I think the real reason torpedoes glow is so we can actually see them; shield glow is a nice idea. I know; the NX didn't have shields, and Starfleet was still working on shielding technology.

On the other hand, photonic torpedoes were a brand new technology that Starfleet seems to have acquired in one piece from the Vissians in "Congenitor," a couple dozen episodes after "Vox Sola." It may be that Starfleet acquired the plans (and perhaps even the parts) from the Vissians, and simply could not work out immediately how to reverse engineer shields from photonic torpedoes to their ships.

There's a bit of a term for this - "black box" technology. You don't know how it works, but you can install it and know what it does just fine.

The Earth Starfleet personel before "Cogenitor" did get a good look at the Klingon photon torpedoes in good detail in "Sleeping Dogs", and would certainly have reported back everything they could about the Klingon Raptor's weapons systems.

The Narada's missiles are a whole different class of beasties in and of their own. They don't fire a volley of 2-5 missiles, but those missiles when they get within a certain range deploy a swarm of dozens of little MIRV-style devices that overwhelm an enemy's point-defense weapons. The yield of these warheads is unknown, but they can strip even the E-Alts' shields by 70% in seconds and still bleed through enough energy to breach the hull.
-Mike

[Mr. Oragahn]

Just a bit on torpedoes, to leave the crater question aside (although there's a small tiny little bit down there, as you'll see).

Perhaps you can tell me how a torpedo can obviously be surrounded by a force field of some type? Unless there's a miracle explanation for the glow that has nothing to do with any force field whatsoever? Torps in TNG had shields (Half a Life) and just display the same type of effect.

In other words there is no link between shields and the glow in the actual canonical material, you're just pretending there is because it suits your argument. If you want to claim the glow is from the shields, then go right head and prove as much. I dare point out that I thought it was always a weird thing, since shields or forcefields in Trek do not glow like torpedoes. They're mostly invisible.

It has never been said that force fields on torps should be the same and work the same way as those on ships.
Besides, what makes the glow is there is no force field involved?

We'd go with Occam Razor here. It's a force field, we know they all have this glow, and since TNG's Half a Life, we have confirmation that torpedoes have shields.

Occam's razor would dictate no such thing. You haven't even established that the glow comes from shields specifically. In fact, Occam would say that the glow doesn't come from the shields since... shields don't glow.

Considering that there's a need to explain something an I'm using fairly simple and supported elements from the canon, my proposition works quite well. The idea itself is simple.
It's likely that you have not proposed anything yet because you know it would require something much more complicated, relying on critically unsubstantiated elements.

No, you have only shown that ships don't have shields. And frankly, casings don't glow on their own. It's not serious to pretend there's no form of force field at play there.

Oh give it a rest. I've proved that ENT era ships don't have shields, and I've proved that they can't even make basic force-fields yet. That's all the evidence any rational thinking person needs to realize that these torps aren't shielded. Now look at your argument - you have no evidence for there being shields on these things, your speculation openly conflicts with canon, and all you really have is the insistance that a glowing torpedo equals shields, even though no such thing is said in canonical material.

It would be much more useful to have Reed's quote about shields, and see if he's including torps as well.

REED: If that thing continues to grow, we're going to have to find a way to contain it.
T'POL: Do you have a suggestion?
REED: Starfleet's been working on creating a stable EM barrier for the last five years.
T'POL: A force field.
REED: Right. They just haven't found a way to control the particle density. All the specs are in the database. I've been trying to jerry-rig a prototype of my own.
T'POL: And?
REED: I've got it stable enough to absorb a phase pistol blast sixty percent of the time. I think I can improve on that.
T'POL: I suggest you work quickly.

Key word: stable.

Like I said, we don't even have proof that torpedo shields, or call them force fields if you want, are the same as starships' shields.

Now, what torps do? They glow. Perhaps one would say like a sun. And sun burns, and its projections can deflect particles with enough force.
Could it be that the force field, in this case, is not stable, and actually not required to be, so the EM radiations and other particle emissions could also deflect and destroy matter on the torpedo's path, as well as provide a moderate defense against small caliber phaser-like weapons?
It's perfecly logical that a "bleeding" force field would be a good barrier, although a short termed one. But torpedoes ARE short lived.
Like I said, it may not be used on a ship for radiation issues harming the crew, until the force field is stable (contained, shaped).
Same for the possibility that the generator and emitters could be short lived, meant for a singular peak use.
Analogy: you don't put the same engine in a F-1 Ferrari car, that lasts only one race, than the one you put in a Testarossa.



Now, the crater part.

In the equation E = mX + ½ MgD for bigger yields (starts at 2 kT), have you tried to determine what mgh would equal to with, say, a 92 m wide crater in dry soil?
We happen to have a case of a 10 MT surface detonation leaving such a crater in dry soil (1700 kg/m³).

Quoting Nige here, the crater/depth ratio R/D = 1.88, (for dry soil craters) with D for depth.

Mass is obtained from the volume of a paraboloid times the density of the material; nothing too fancy here, the part that changes in volume calculation is radius² by depth instead of radius³.

M = r π R² D/2 (r for density)
E_2ndTerm = ½ MgD

Supposedly, according to the author, the transition in importance from the first term to the second term occurs above 1 kT and somehow finishes around 10 MT.
Obviously, at 10 MT, the entire equation's result would be chiefly affected by the second term at far more than 50%.

The equation is not complicated, so what do you think of this?

[l33telboi]

Besides, what makes the glow is there is no force field involved?

Propulsion, sensory systems, or some form of sensory jamming system, to name a few possibilities that are much more plausible then shields, because those would actually explain why the torpedoes glow the way they do.

Ultimately you're trying to dodge the issue though. You're the one claiming they are shielded, which means that you're going to have to fork over the evidence for it. Simply sitting there and saying “what else could it be?” is not evidence, especially when it could plausibly be a billion and one different things. But so far you've presented none. Your sole argument seems to be that because shields exist in the TNG era, they must also exist in the ENT era, and then you cite the glow on the torpedoes as evidence, even though you can't even prove that there's a connection between the glow and the shields.

The sad fact is that the evidence is clearly against this. Starfleet during this period don't have shields, let alone stable force-field technology.

Now, what torps do? They glow. Perhaps one would say like a sun. And sun burns, and its projections can deflect particles with enough force.
Could it be that the force field, in this case, is not stable, and actually not required to be, so the EM radiations and other particle emissions could also deflect and destroy matter on the torpedo's path, as well as provide a moderate defense against small caliber phaser-like weapons?

You're bonkers if you really think wild speculation like that has any merit in a debate. I might as well start pondering the possibility of the torpedoes being inhabited by glowing pixies and pretend I've come up with a plausible idea supported by canon.

Also, we’re shown how unstable force-fields work in the previously quoted episode, and oddly enough an unstable force-field doesn’t glow. It just fizzles out and disappears.

The equation is not complicated, so what do you think of this?

At this point you've demonstrated that you're not thinking rationally in regards to this topic. The photonic torpedo shielding bit demonstrates this as subtly as a hammer to the head. And I'm not inclined to humor your speculations anymore. So you have two options:

1. Dig up an actual calculation that you haven't cobbled together yourself that gets the appropriate figures. This calculation has to be used by modern scientists and it has to be applicable to this situations.

2. Continue the way you have so far, in which case I see no reason to keep reading what you post on this topic matter.

And you still don't seem to understand that massaging in mgh into that equation is not valid since there won't be enough gravity to affect the calculation. This is exactly why gravity isn't factored in unless talking about larger yields (even in a 1g environment).

[Mr. Oragahn]

Please l33telboi, show me what you find for E =mX, with a 3 km wide crater, a depth of 797.87 m, and a density of 1500 kg/m³.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Still no reply? Yet you should be able to show that mX would point towards something like 50 megatons.

[l33telboi]

Why should I even follow those parameters, when the density of an asteroid averages at 2800kg/m^3, and not 1500kg/m^3?