The meaning of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ISOTON

For polite and reasoned discussion of Star Wars and/or Star Trek.
Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: The meaning of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ISOTON

Post by Lucky » Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:08 am

Mith wrote:
Lucky wrote:
Mith wrote:I just go with the TMs; 1 isoton equals 2.48 megatons.
But, the TM bluntly says it contains false information.
I highly doubt that the TM is bullshitting us about the meaning of isoton. It would be like misusing watts for the sake of fooling your enemies. It's entirely stupid.
It's not like we know what Isoton means. I don't recall it being used in a consistent manner in any of the shows.
StarTrek The Next Generation Technical Manual

Authors' Introduction Page: VII
An important word of caution: All Starfleet personnel are hereby advised that any previous technical documentation in your possession may be suspect because of an ongoing Starfleet program of disinformation intended to confound and confuse the intelligence assets of potential forces. Such documents should therefore be verified with Federation archives, and this manual for authenticity.
Just keep in mind that humans may not have come up with the idea, and a non-Federation race may have no idea what an Isoton is.

User avatar
Mith
Starship Captain
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:17 am

Re: The meaning of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ISOTON

Post by Mith » Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:25 am

Lucky wrote:It's not like we know what Isoton means. I don't recall it being used in a consistent manner in any of the shows.
StarTrek The Next Generation Technical Manual

Authors' Introduction Page: VII
An important word of caution: All Starfleet personnel are hereby advised that any previous technical documentation in your possession may be suspect because of an ongoing Starfleet program of disinformation intended to confound and confuse the intelligence assets of potential forces. Such documents should therefore be verified with Federation archives, and this manual for authenticity.
Just keep in mind that humans may not have come up with the idea, and a non-Federation race may have no idea what an Isoton is.
Isoton was used more or less consistently throughout Voyager actually. The yield got pretty fucking high at some points, but it was never inconsistent.

Also, the episode with Voyager being seen as villians have them using isoton. 25 isotons in fact, which is where the rating for Voyager's Class VI torpedoes come from.

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: The meaning of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ISOTON

Post by Lucky » Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:03 am

Mith wrote:
Isoton was used more or less consistently throughout Voyager actually. The yield got pretty fucking high at some points, but it was never inconsistent.

Also, the episode with Voyager being seen as villians have them using isoton. 25 isotons in fact, which is where the rating for Voyager's Class VI torpedoes come from.
The problem is the term is also used in DS9, and I don't recall it being used in a consistent manner in Voyager.

A gravimetric torpedo that was rated as fifty-four isotons was enough to destroy a planet, or make a wormhole. That is one powerful weapon, but it would not be an explosive. It would be making a black hole to destroy things.

User avatar
Mith
Starship Captain
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:17 am

Re: The meaning of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ISOTON

Post by Mith » Sat Nov 13, 2010 9:03 am

Lucky wrote:The problem is the term is also used in DS9, and I don't recall it being used in a consistent manner in Voyager.
It was in one-off-the-cuff remark by Sisko and another for something they planted on a asteroid supply base. And it was trilithium, which is a funky thing to begin with.
A gravimetric torpedo that was rated as fifty-four isotons was enough to destroy a planet, or make a wormhole.
Kim wasn't likely serious about the whole planet destroying thing. And even if he was, it was probably technobabble. What we're looking at is probably the yield of the weapon that causes some sort of subspace reaction. Ie, we know that the damage to subspace can cause stars to go nova, so using similar means to make one collapse is also possible.
That is one powerful weapon, but it would not be an explosive. It would be making a black hole to destroy things.
...Says who? Why can't a weapon yield apply to an implosion as well? The same amount of energy would still be released. It's just that we're talking about technobabble.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5839
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: The meaning of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ISOTON

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:44 pm

Mith wrote:It was in one-off-the-cuff remark by Sisko and another for something they planted on a asteroid supply base. And it was trilithium, which is a funky thing to begin with.
Sisko was indeed under a great deal of stress at the time he belts out the "ten isotons" line in "The Ship". The "A Time to Stand" dialog is made under less duress, and what the explosives were said to do was confirmed by the actual events (visuals) of the episode. It is still possible that Sisko was right about the ten isotons, but he may have been refering to the total over time yeild, not the explosives going off right that second. Since the Dominion did not directly target the captured attack ship, we have no way of knowing how much damage exactly would be done beyond the destruction of a ship that had been tough enough to survive slamming into solid rock at high speed, and still remained operational to some degree.
Mith wrote:Kim wasn't likely serious about the whole planet destroying thing. And even if he was, it was probably technobabble. What we're looking at is probably the yield of the weapon that causes some sort of subspace reaction. Ie, we know that the damage to subspace can cause stars to go nova, so using similar means to make one collapse is also possible.
The problem with that scene was that Tuvok had corrected Kim on the exact yeild of the charge, yet made no attempt to correct Kim quip about the yeild being enough to destroy a small planet, which is what we would expect, if Kim were wrong. Given that 90 isotons was enough to wipe everything out in a roughly spherical area 1,600 km in diameter (actually they needed to be 900 km away, which makes the diameter 1,800 km) , it is possible that 54 isotons would be enough to destroy a very small planetary body, or cause severe damage to it. For comparison, the Moon is approximately 3,476 km in diameter and Pluto is an estimated 2,360 km.
-Mike

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: The meaning of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ISOTON

Post by Lucky » Sun Nov 14, 2010 2:10 am

Mith wrote: It was in one-off-the-cuff remark by Sisko and another for something they planted on a asteroid supply base. And it was trilithium, which is a funky thing to begin with.
90 isotons in "A Time To Stand" destroyed everything in a about an 1800 kilometer sphere.

Visual and dialog confirmed it as I recall.
Mith wrote: Kim wasn't likely serious about the whole planet destroying thing. And even if he was, it was probably technobabble. What we're looking at is probably the yield of the weapon that causes some sort of subspace reaction. Ie, we know that the damage to subspace can cause stars to go nova, so using similar means to make one collapse is also possible.
Please do not bring in Q weapons we know next to nothing about.

The warhead was all but stated to be a gravity weapon that could be used to make a powerful black hole. That means doing major damage to a planet would be easy provided they did not have defenses against gravity weapons like Federation technology provides.
Mith wrote: ...Says who? Why can't a weapon yield apply to an implosion as well? The same amount of energy would still be released. It's just that we're talking about technobabble.
Mith to make a wormhole you need black holes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gravimetric

From the dictionary on my computer:
gravimetric |ˌgravəˈmetrik|
adjective
of or relating to the measurement of weight.

When was the last time you used a TNT equivalent to give a measurement of gravity.

Post Reply