---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: HenryMundstock Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:07:55 -0700 Subject: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: -------- Taken from http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWcompare.html " Data, in "True Q"[TNG], says the Enterprise (while orbiting a planet, and not at alert status) is "presently generating twelve-point-seven-five billion gigawatts per . . . ", but is cut off. (If he were about to say "day", that would work out to 147 terajoules per second.) " See if you can guess what's wrong. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Supreme Commander Tyralak Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:16:04 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <3D6F0E4D.8030202@earthlink.net> -------- HenryMundstock wrote: > Taken from http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWcompare.html > > " > Data, in "True Q"[TNG], says the Enterprise (while orbiting a planet, and > not at alert status) is "presently generating twelve-point-seven-five > billion gigawatts per . . . ", but is cut off. (If he were about to say > "day", that would work out to 147 terajoules per second.) > " > > > See if you can guess what's wrong. I have the official scripts of every Star Trek episode. This is copied directly from the script CD that came with the TNG season 1 DVD set. Imagination is not necessary; the scale is readily quantifiable. (glancing at console) We are presently generating twelve point seven-five billion gigawatts per second. That is a direct quote. -- Tyralak, Supreme Commander Of The Imperial Romulan Warbird, Psionax Troll Hunter For Hire Please Visit Troll University (Under Construction) www.trolluniversity.alturl.com [END SUBSPACE TRANSMISSION] - To e-mail, remove NOSPAM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tedmanonions@hotmail.com (Ted Archbold) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:42:20 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <3d6f75ec.1396344@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:16:04 GMT, Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: > > >HenryMundstock wrote: >> Taken from http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWcompare.html >> >> " >> Data, in "True Q"[TNG], says the Enterprise (while orbiting a planet, and >> not at alert status) is "presently generating twelve-point-seven-five >> billion gigawatts per . . . ", but is cut off. (If he were about to say >> "day", that would work out to 147 terajoules per second.) >> " >> >> >> See if you can guess what's wrong. > > I have the official scripts of every Star Trek episode. This is copied >directly from the script CD that came with the TNG season 1 DVD set. > >Imagination is not necessary; the scale is readily quantifiable. > (glancing at console) >We are presently generating twelve point seven-five billion gigawatts > per second. > > >That is a direct quote. > > > The problem is watts are joules per second, and he then goes and says if it was per day, and says what it is, in joules per second, when he coulda said watts. AIM: FldMrslTed ICQ: 125211976 MSN: tedmanonions@hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Supreme Commander Tyralak Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:40:01 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <3D6FA0B1.9010803@earthlink.net> -------- Ted Archbold wrote: > On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:16:04 GMT, Supreme Commander Tyralak > wrote: > > >> >>HenryMundstock wrote: >> >>>Taken from http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWcompare.html >>> >>>" >>>Data, in "True Q"[TNG], says the Enterprise (while orbiting a planet, and >>>not at alert status) is "presently generating twelve-point-seven-five >>>billion gigawatts per . . . ", but is cut off. (If he were about to say >>>"day", that would work out to 147 terajoules per second.) >>>" >>> >>> >>>See if you can guess what's wrong. >> >> I have the official scripts of every Star Trek episode. This is copied >>directly from the script CD that came with the TNG season 1 DVD set. >> >>Imagination is not necessary; the scale is readily quantifiable. >> (glancing at console) >>We are presently generating twelve point seven-five billion gigawatts >> per second. >> >> >>That is a direct quote. >> >> >> > > The problem is watts are joules per second, and he then goes and says > if it was per day, and says what it is, in joules per second, when he > coulda said watts. > > AIM: FldMrslTed > ICQ: 125211976 > MSN: tedmanonions@hotmail.com I see. That makes sense. I just figured I'd post what the exact quote was from the scripts. BTW, Darkstar was wrong. He said per day, it's actually per SECOND. -- Tyralak, Supreme Commander Of The Imperial Romulan Warbird, Psionax Troll Hunter For Hire Please Visit Troll University (Under Construction) www.trolluniversity.alturl.com [END SUBSPACE TRANSMISSION] - To e-mail, remove NOSPAM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:42:40 -0400 Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <3D6FE6D0.5E911B97@daltonator.net> -------- Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: [snip] > I see. That makes sense. I just figured I'd post what the exact quote was > from the scripts. BTW, Darkstar was wrong. He said per day, it's > actually per SECOND. Um...if it's watts per second, that would mean joules per second per second, which to me seems to imply growth... -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "All tribal myths are true, for a given value of 'true'." --"The Last Continent", Terry Pratchett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Supreme Commander Tyralak Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 21:59:55 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <3D6FEBA7.4090902@earthlink.net> -------- Dalton wrote: > Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: > > [snip] > > >> I see. That makes sense. I just figured I'd post what the exact quote was >>from the scripts. BTW, Darkstar was wrong. He said per day, it's >>actually per SECOND. > > > Um...if it's watts per second, that would mean joules per second per > second, which to me seems to imply growth... > Facinating. What do you make of the quote, then? -- Tyralak, Supreme Commander Of The Imperial Romulan Warbird, Psionax Troll Hunter For Hire Please Visit Troll University (Under Construction) www.trolluniversity.alturl.com [END SUBSPACE TRANSMISSION] - To e-mail, remove NOSPAM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chuck, Modulating Moderator" Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 00:47:00 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <8mUb9.9013$aU3.1364479@typhoon.kc.rr.com> -------- "Supreme Commander Tyralak" wrote in message news:3D6FEBA7.4090902@earthlink.net... > > > Dalton wrote: > > Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > >> I see. That makes sense. I just figured I'd post what the exact quote was > >>from the scripts. BTW, Darkstar was wrong. He said per day, it's > >>actually per SECOND. > > > > > > Um...if it's watts per second, that would mean joules per second per > > second, which to me seems to imply growth... > > > > Facinating. What do you make of the quote, then? > This has been discussed several times before. The problems with the quote are 1) the already stated, that Data is giving watts per unit time (according to the script) which is a unit of increase or decrease in power of unknown amounts. 2) the interpretation of it doesn't answer the question that was posed to Data, "how much energy is in [the warp core]" Even if you dropped the "per second" part of it and just went with watts, Data should know that energy and power aren't the same thing. If he can't get the unit right, how can anyone assume the number in front of it is right? 3) since he never completes his thoughts, we don't know where he was going. Data tends to make little lectures, so it's possible he was going to calculate it out loud for her, but stopped once he saw it was about to explode. 4) The script is non-canon, so one could speculate that the per is actually a different unit entirely, like "per cochrane" or "per gram" For all those reasons, the quote IMHO doesn't provide anything substantive enough on its own. Other quotes and figures that measure power output would be more reliable. -- Chuck "Try to explain to people that writing is something you do because it's impossible not to, and you get blank stares." - Peter David ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Supreme Commander Tyralak Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 05:37:13 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <3D7056DE.3020107@earthlink.net> -------- Chuck, Modulating Moderator wrote: > "Supreme Commander Tyralak" wrote in > message news:3D6FEBA7.4090902@earthlink.net... > >> >>Dalton wrote: >> >>>Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: >>> >>>[snip] >>> >>> >>> >>>> I see. That makes sense. I just figured I'd post what the exact >>> > quote was > >>>>from the scripts. BTW, Darkstar was wrong. He said per day, it's >>> >>>>actually per SECOND. >>> >>> >>>Um...if it's watts per second, that would mean joules per second per >>>second, which to me seems to imply growth... >>> >> >>Facinating. What do you make of the quote, then? >> > > This has been discussed several times before. The problems with the quote > are > 1) the already stated, that Data is giving watts per unit time (according to > the script) which is a unit of increase or decrease in power of unknown > amounts. > 2) the interpretation of it doesn't answer the question that was posed to > Data, "how much energy is in [the warp core]" Even if you dropped the "per > second" part of it and just went with watts, Data should know that energy > and power aren't the same thing. If he can't get the unit right, how can > anyone assume the number in front of it is right? > 3) since he never completes his thoughts, we don't know where he was going. > Data tends to make little lectures, so it's possible he was going to > calculate it out loud for her, but stopped once he saw it was about to > explode. > 4) The script is non-canon, so one could speculate that the per is actually > a different unit entirely, like "per cochrane" or "per gram" > > For all those reasons, the quote IMHO doesn't provide anything substantive > enough on its own. Other quotes and figures that measure power output would > be more reliable. > Ok, makes sense. However, question: Why are scripts non-conon? -- Tyralak, Supreme Commander Of The Imperial Romulan Warbird, Psionax Troll Hunter For Hire Please Visit Troll University (Under Construction) www.trolluniversity.alturl.com [END SUBSPACE TRANSMISSION] - To e-mail, remove NOSPAM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:39:22 -0400 Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <3D70568A.8EB04062@daltonator.net> -------- Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: [snip] > Ok, makes sense. However, question: Why are scripts non-conon? I think it's the whole "only live-action Trek is canon" thing. Generally, though, if the script matches the show it's valid evidence. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "All tribal myths are true, for a given value of 'true'." --"The Last Continent", Terry Pratchett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Supreme Commander Tyralak Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 06:01:54 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <3D705C86.3090508@earthlink.net> -------- Dalton wrote: > Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: > > [snip] > > >>Ok, makes sense. However, question: Why are scripts non-conon? > > > I think it's the whole "only live-action Trek is canon" thing. > Generally, though, if the script matches the show it's valid evidence. > Ok. Cool. -- Tyralak, Supreme Commander Of The Imperial Romulan Warbird, Psionax Troll Hunter For Hire Please Visit Troll University (Under Construction) www.trolluniversity.alturl.com [END SUBSPACE TRANSMISSION] - To e-mail, remove NOSPAM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 00:09:35 -0400 Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <3D70417F.86F2BD75@daltonator.net> -------- Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: > > Dalton wrote: > > Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > >> I see. That makes sense. I just figured I'd post what the exact quote was > >>from the scripts. BTW, Darkstar was wrong. He said per day, it's > >>actually per SECOND. > > > > > > Um...if it's watts per second, that would mean joules per second per > > second, which to me seems to imply growth... > > > > Facinating. What do you make of the quote, then? The writers are fucking stupid? -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "All tribal myths are true, for a given value of 'true'." --"The Last Continent", Terry Pratchett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:27:39 -0700 Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: -------- "Dalton" wrote > Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: > > > Um...if it's watts per second, that would mean joules per second per > > > second, which to me seems to imply growth... > > Facinating. What do you make of the quote, then? > The writers are fucking stupid? You GOTTA FUQ this! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 02:52:36 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <3C3FB38F.5070100@shaw.ca> -------- Dalton wrote: > Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: >>I see. That makes sense. I just figured I'd post what the exact quote was >>from the scripts. BTW, Darkstar was wrong. He said per day, it's >>actually per SECOND. > > Um...if it's watts per second, that would mean joules per second per > second, which to me seems to imply growth... It implies Data doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 23:29:01 -0400 Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <3D71897D.C5C4C513@daltonator.net> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > Dalton wrote: > > Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: > > >>I see. That makes sense. I just figured I'd post what the exact quote was > >>from the scripts. BTW, Darkstar was wrong. He said per day, it's > >>actually per SECOND. > > > > Um...if it's watts per second, that would mean joules per second per > > second, which to me seems to imply growth... > > It implies Data doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. That works too. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "All tribal myths are true, for a given value of 'true'." --"The Last Continent", Terry Pratchett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:56:03 -0600 Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <3D6FE9F3.5FF17786@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: > > I see. That makes sense. I just figured I'd post what the exact quote was > from the scripts. BTW, Darkstar was wrong. He said per day, it's > actually per SECOND. It's actually neither, as Data never finishes that sentence on the show. Graeme Dice -- Abraham Lincoln became America's greatest Precedent. Lincoln's mother died in infancy, and he was born in a log cabin which he built with his own hands. Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves by signing the Emasculation Proclamation. On the night of April 14, 1865, Lincoln went to the theater and got shot in his seat by one of the actors in a moving picture show. The believed assinator was John Wilkes Booth, a supposedly insane actor. This ruined Booth's career. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Supreme Commander Tyralak Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:21:19 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <3D6FF0AA.9030900@earthlink.net> -------- Graeme Dice wrote: > Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: > > > > >> I see. That makes sense. I just figured I'd post what the exact quote was >>from the scripts. BTW, Darkstar was wrong. He said per day, it's >>actually per SECOND. > > > It's actually neither, as Data never finishes that sentence on the show. > > Graeme Dice The official script says second. -- Tyralak, Supreme Commander Of The Imperial Romulan Warbird, Psionax Troll Hunter For Hire Please Visit Troll University (Under Construction) www.trolluniversity.alturl.com [END SUBSPACE TRANSMISSION] - To e-mail, remove NOSPAM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:44:58 -0600 Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <3D6FF56A.EA10C1FA@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: > > Graeme Dice wrote: > > Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I see. That makes sense. I just figured I'd post what the exact quote was > >>from the scripts. BTW, Darkstar was wrong. He said per day, it's > >>actually per SECOND. > > > > > > It's actually neither, as Data never finishes that sentence on the show. > > > > Graeme Dice > > The official script says second. But the episode itself does not, and since the script doesn't match the episode in that case, he doesn't say second. -- "In Paris they simply stared when I spoke to them in French; I never did succeed in making those idiots understand their own language." -- Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad, 1869 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Supreme Commander Tyralak Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:58:20 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <3D6FF955.6040303@earthlink.net> -------- Graeme Dice wrote: > Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: > >>Graeme Dice wrote: >> >>>Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> I see. That makes sense. I just figured I'd post what the exact quote was >>> >>>>from the scripts. BTW, Darkstar was wrong. He said per day, it's >>> >>>>actually per SECOND. >>> >>> >>>It's actually neither, as Data never finishes that sentence on the show. >>> >>>Graeme Dice >> >>The official script says second. > > > But the episode itself does not, and since the script doesn't match the > episode in that case, he doesn't say second. I think we need a vote. Script vs. what is heard. -- Tyralak, Supreme Commander Of The Imperial Romulan Warbird, Psionax Troll Hunter For Hire Please Visit Troll University (Under Construction) www.trolluniversity.alturl.com [END SUBSPACE TRANSMISSION] - To e-mail, remove NOSPAM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 07:13:21 +0800 Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: -------- "Supreme Commander Tyralak" wrote in message news:3D6FF955.6040303@earthlink.net... > I think we need a vote. Script vs. what is heard. Used to be, we like to use this to suggest Data's an idiot for quanifying the output that way (since the Trekkies want to keep the high power output.) Now we think it is more useful to add terms like "year," "decade," "megaton," "lifetime"...etc :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pablo_sanchez2000@hotmail.com (Pablo Sanchez) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:53:19 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <3d70214d.566428500@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:58:20 GMT, Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: > > >Graeme Dice wrote: >> Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: >> >>>Graeme Dice wrote: >>> >>>>Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I see. That makes sense. I just figured I'd post what the exact quote was >>>> >>>>>from the scripts. BTW, Darkstar was wrong. He said per day, it's >>>> >>>>>actually per SECOND. >>>> >>>> >>>>It's actually neither, as Data never finishes that sentence on the show. >>>> >>>>Graeme Dice >>> >>>The official script says second. >> >> >> But the episode itself does not, and since the script doesn't match the >> episode in that case, he doesn't say second. > >I think we need a vote. Script vs. what is heard. No, we don't need any such vote. It's obvious that we go with what is heard, unless it is contradicted by visual evidence. Scripts go through revisions before they hit the small screen, for a variety of reasons. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Supreme Commander Tyralak Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 05:38:11 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <3D705719.8080503@earthlink.net> -------- Pablo Sanchez wrote: > On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:58:20 GMT, Supreme Commander Tyralak > wrote: > > >> >>Graeme Dice wrote: >> >>>Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Graeme Dice wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I see. That makes sense. I just figured I'd post what the exact quote was >>>>> >>>>>>from the scripts. BTW, Darkstar was wrong. He said per day, it's >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>actually per SECOND. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>It's actually neither, as Data never finishes that sentence on the show. >>>>> >>>>>Graeme Dice >>>> >>>>The official script says second. >>> >>> >>>But the episode itself does not, and since the script doesn't match the >>>episode in that case, he doesn't say second. >> >>I think we need a vote. Script vs. what is heard. > > > No, we don't need any such vote. It's obvious that we go with what is > heard, unless it is contradicted by visual evidence. Scripts go > through revisions before they hit the small screen, for a variety of > reasons. Well, the ones I have are final revisions just released with the TNG box sets. -- Tyralak, Supreme Commander Of The Imperial Romulan Warbird, Psionax Troll Hunter For Hire Please Visit Troll University (Under Construction) www.trolluniversity.alturl.com [END SUBSPACE TRANSMISSION] - To e-mail, remove NOSPAM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 16:24:37 +0800 Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: -------- "Supreme Commander Tyralak" wrote in message news:3D705719.8080503@earthlink.net... > Well, the ones I have are final revisions just released with the TNG box > sets. Even the final of the final revisions sometimes still fail. We use scripts because generally they match up, not because they're canon themselves. For instance, we often watch the real episodes and report. Our reports and quotations are not canon and sometimes we may misquote, but IN GENERAL, we still accept them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 02:14:04 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <3C3FAA87.4070403@shaw.ca> -------- Supreme Commander Tyralak wrote: > Graeme Dice wrote: >>> I see. That makes sense. I just figured I'd post what the >>> exact quote was >>> from the scripts. BTW, Darkstar was wrong. He said per day, it's >>> actually per SECOND. >> >> It's actually neither, as Data never finishes that sentence on the show. > > The official script says second. Which is different than what happened on the show so it's wrong. (Before you complain, that's Paramount's policy. Talk to them about it, not us.) Besides, joules per second per second doesn't make any sense. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 00:58:31 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: -------- "HenryMundstock" wrote in message news:MPG.17d86548821dd4d989680@news.cis.dfn.de... > Taken from http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWcompare.html > > " > Data, in "True Q"[TNG], says the Enterprise (while orbiting a planet, and > not at alert status) is "presently generating twelve-point-seven-five > billion gigawatts per . . . ", but is cut off. (If he were about to say > "day", that would work out to 147 terajoules per second.) > " > > > See if you can guess what's wrong. My rationale has already been explained to you via e-mail. You have posted your original e-mailed gripe without acknowledgement of the explanation. While "gigawatts per" anything is a peculiar phrasing (unless you're talking about energy intensity per unit area, or energy production per amount of fuel), the concept of "watts per hour", for example, is used in various applications: http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=%22watts+per+hour%22&hc=0&hs=0 It's still an unusual phrasing, but not unheard of. I figured, at the time, that using "day" was more conservative than "hour", and certainly more conservative than using "second". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 01 Sep 2002 01:15:34 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <20020831211534.03307.00000018@mb-fo.aol.com> -------- >"HenryMundstock" wrote in message >news:MPG.17d86548821dd4d989680@news.cis.dfn.de... >> Taken from http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWcompare.html >> >> " >> Data, in "True Q"[TNG], says the Enterprise (while orbiting a planet, and >> not at alert status) is "presently generating twelve-point-seven-five >> billion gigawatts per . . . ", but is cut off. (If he were about to say >> "day", that would work out to 147 terajoules per second.) >> " >> >> >> See if you can guess what's wrong. > >My rationale has already been explained to you via e-mail. You have posted >your original e-mailed gripe without acknowledgement of the explanation. > >While "gigawatts per" anything is a peculiar phrasing (unless you're talking >about energy intensity per unit area, or energy production per amount of >fuel), the concept of "watts per hour", for example, is used in various >applications: > >http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=%22watts+per+hour%22&hc=0&hs=0 > >It's still an unusual phrasing, but not unheard of. I figured, at the time, >that using "day" was more conservative than "hour", and certainly more >conservative than using "second". > And you STILL miss the point. Astounding. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 01:47:00 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020831211534.03307.00000018@mb-fo.aol.com... > >"HenryMundstock" wrote in message > >news:MPG.17d86548821dd4d989680@news.cis.dfn.de... > >> Taken from http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWcompare.html > >> > >> " > >> Data, in "True Q"[TNG], says the Enterprise (while orbiting a planet, and > >> not at alert status) is "presently generating twelve-point-seven-five > >> billion gigawatts per . . . ", but is cut off. (If he were about to say > >> "day", that would work out to 147 terajoules per second.) > >> " > >> > >> > >> See if you can guess what's wrong. > > > >My rationale has already been explained to you via e-mail. You have posted > >your original e-mailed gripe without acknowledgement of the explanation. > > > >While "gigawatts per" anything is a peculiar phrasing (unless you're talking > >about energy intensity per unit area, or energy production per amount of > >fuel), the concept of "watts per hour", for example, is used in various > >applications: > > > >http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=%22watts+per+hour%22&hc=0&hs=0 > > > >It's still an unusual phrasing, but not unheard of. I figured, at the time, > >that using "day" was more conservative than "hour", and certainly more > >conservative than using "second". > > > > And you STILL miss the point. Astounding. I do? Then, please, do take the time out of your busy schedule to explain. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 01 Sep 2002 02:50:50 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <20020831225050.01991.00000592@mb-mu.aol.com> -------- >> >While "gigawatts per" anything is a peculiar phrasing (unless you're >talking >> >about energy intensity per unit area, or energy production per amount of >> >fuel), the concept of "watts per hour", for example, is used in various >> >applications: >> > >> >http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=%22watts+per+hour%22&hc=0&hs=0 >> > >> >It's still an unusual phrasing, but not unheard of. I figured, at the >time, >> >that using "day" was more conservative than "hour", and certainly more >> >conservative than using "second". >> > >> >> And you STILL miss the point. Astounding. > >I do? Then, please, do take the time out of your busy schedule to explain. > You are correct in that Gigawatts Per is unusual but not unheard of. You are, however, incorrect in A) Assuming it's a unit of time. As has been driven home many times to many Trekkies, Watts, the unit used to measure power(What was being discussed), already has a time component. You could, in theory alone, have a Joules Per Second Per Second, much like acceleration is Meters Per Second Per Second, however, you wouldn't be talking about power, but an increase in power. B) You are thoroughly incorrect to assume that your assumption should be held to be valid, as, Canonically, the sentence was not finished. The only thing that would be logical would be to integrate it with other Canon quotes about power generation, which place it within the low TeraWatt range. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 11:30:53 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020831225050.01991.00000592@mb-mu.aol.com... > >> >While "gigawatts per" anything is a peculiar phrasing (unless you're > >talking > >> >about energy intensity per unit area, or energy production per amount of > >> >fuel), the concept of "watts per hour", for example, is used in various > >> >applications: > >> > > >> >http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=%22watts+per+hour%22&hc=0&hs=0 > >> > > >> >It's still an unusual phrasing, but not unheard of. I figured, at the > >time, > >> >that using "day" was more conservative than "hour", and certainly more > >> >conservative than using "second". > >> > > >> > >> And you STILL miss the point. Astounding. > > > >I do? Then, please, do take the time out of your busy schedule to explain. > > > > You are correct in that Gigawatts Per is unusual but not unheard of. > You are, however, incorrect in A) Assuming it's a unit of time. I am not "assuming" it is a unit of time. It is the only "" that makes sense (or, more correctly, "comes close to making sense") in the context. It is also (note well) the that offers the use of the smallest possible interpretation. (It also happens to correspond with the script.) AMANDA: It's hard to imagine how much energy is being harnessed in there... DATA: Imagination is not necessary; the scale is readily quantifiable. We are presently generating 12.75 billion gigawatts per . . . Now, by "in there" she referred to the warp core, so perhaps Data (being Data) was going to give her a power-by-unit-volume analysis. However, the largest volume he could logically use would be the warp core, so any smaller chunks of it would increase the total power. It is possible, though less likely, that he was giving her a power-generation-by-fuel-consumption report, though this does not fit the context. Besides, proton/antiproton reactions liberate 90,000 gigajoules per gram of antimatter. To achieve 12.75 billion gigawatts, they would need something like 140 kilograms of antimatter per second, with an equal amount of matter, flowing through the reactor. (This assumes, of course, that there's no such thing as Trek uber-antimatter (which I don't think there is, but I thought it worthy of note here): http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWantimat.html).) If this 140kg of antimatter were somehow rigged at the same average density as a human being, this would be the equivalent of two rather chunky guys . . . say, Homer Simpson . . . slamming into each other each second. There are problems with this idea. 1. There isn't room for two Homer Simpsons in the warp core. I'm not even sure he could fit down the pipes leading to the core, even if you buttered him. Seriously, though, two Homers per second is a helluva lot of stuff to be in that core, even though it wouldn't be there all at once. I'm not even sure you could get each proton to react with each antiproton in such a situation. 1a. The dilithium crystals through which everything is channelled are awfully small to be dealing with two Homers per second. 2. 140 kilograms per second would be 504,000 kilograms per hour, 84,672,000 kilograms per week, and 4,415,040,000kg per year. Unless the Federation is full of antimatter gas stations, that isn't going to work. 2a. Using this reprint of a screen from "Contagion"[TNG] (http://home.arcor.de/spike730/graphics/pics/display_yamato.jpg) (which I use because it is similar to the MSD, but labelled), you can see that there isn't a lot of room devoted to antimatter containment. But, even if they were to somehow store antimatter with a density like iron's, they'd need 630,720 m^3 for a year's supply. That would pretty much fill the entire volume of the engineering hull behind the warp core. 2b. Voyager went a long time without needing antimatter. In fact, I'm not sure they ever got any. 3. To power the Hathaway in "Peak Performance"[TNG], Wesley beamed over a _tiny_ container of antimatter that he'd been using as a part of a science experiment. This not only gave the Hathaway sufficient power to engage in the wargames, but also gave her the energy necessary to engage warp drive. On the other hand, if the ship was only generating 12.75 billion gigawatts per day (as I suggested), that's only 147,000 gigajoules per second, or about 1.5 grams of antimatter (and an equal amount of matter) per second. Given the size of Wesley's container, I'd call this a pretty fair guess, assuming the Hathaway didn't need as much power, and was on low-power mode anyway. > B) You are thoroughly incorrect to assume that your > assumption should be held to be valid, as, Canonically, the sentence was not > finished. The only thing that would be logical would be to integrate it with > other Canon quotes about power generation, which place it within the low > TeraWatt range. I did. 147 terawatts is on the lower end of the terawatt range, wouldn't you say? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 01 Sep 2002 15:27:46 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <20020901112746.09000.00000738@mb-cg.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20020831225050.01991.00000592@mb-mu.aol.com... >> >> >While "gigawatts per" anything is a peculiar phrasing (unless you're >> >talking >> >> >about energy intensity per unit area, or energy production per amount >of >> >> >fuel), the concept of "watts per hour", for example, is used in >various >> >> >applications: >> >> > >> >> >http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=%22watts+per+hour%22&hc=0&hs=0 >> >> > >> >> >It's still an unusual phrasing, but not unheard of. I figured, at the >> >time, >> >> >that using "day" was more conservative than "hour", and certainly more >> >> >conservative than using "second". >> >> > >> >> >> >> And you STILL miss the point. Astounding. >> > >> >I do? Then, please, do take the time out of your busy schedule to >explain. >> > >> >> You are correct in that Gigawatts Per is unusual but not unheard >of. >> You are, however, incorrect in A) Assuming it's a unit of time. > >I am not "assuming" it is a unit of time. It is the only "" that >makes sense (or, more correctly, "comes close to making sense") in the >context. See, this is pure unadultered bullshit. And you know it's bullshit, and I'm sure that's why you snipped the lengthy explanation I provided here. I'll say it again, in the offchance you act like an honest debator and pay attention. Gigawatts Per any time unit is nonsensical if you are talking about power. If you are talking about a rise of power(Which these two are not), you could get away with it, but Data did not indicate this. There is no reason for anyone familiar with what a watt is(One joule per second) to add a per . Have you understood this yet, Robby? -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 23:44:01 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <5Dxc9.349606$m91.13945937@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020901112746.09000.00000738@mb-cg.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20020831225050.01991.00000592@mb-mu.aol.com... > >> >> >While "gigawatts per" anything is a peculiar phrasing (unless you're > >> >talking > >> >> >about energy intensity per unit area, or energy production per amount > >of > >> >> >fuel), the concept of "watts per hour", for example, is used in > >various > >> >> >applications: > >> >> > > >> >> >http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=%22watts+per+hour%22&hc=0&hs=0 > >> >> > > >> >> >It's still an unusual phrasing, but not unheard of. I figured, at the > >> >time, > >> >> >that using "day" was more conservative than "hour", and certainly more > >> >> >conservative than using "second". > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> And you STILL miss the point. Astounding. > >> > > >> >I do? Then, please, do take the time out of your busy schedule to > >explain. > >> > > >> > >> You are correct in that Gigawatts Per is unusual but not unheard > >of. > >> You are, however, incorrect in A) Assuming it's a unit of time. > > > >I am not "assuming" it is a unit of time. It is the only "" that > >makes sense (or, more correctly, "comes close to making sense") in the > >context. > > See, this is pure unadultered bullshit. And you know it's bullshit, and I'm > sure that's why you snipped the lengthy explanation I provided here. I'll say > it again, in the offchance you act like an honest debator and pay attention. > Gigawatts Per any time unit is nonsensical if you are talking about power. If > you are talking about a rise of power(Which these two are not), you could get > away with it, but Data did not indicate this. There is no reason for anyone > familiar with what a watt is(One joule per second) to add a per . > Have you understood this yet, Robby? I understood that the moment the quote was spoken, little man. However, as I just explained to you, I was attempting to find a use of the term that might fit the quote, and which was conservative, to boot. I explained (in exquisite and politely-illuminated detail) the rationale behind this, and what do I get in return? Bitching, accusations of dishonesty, and other Warsie bullshit. I'm really not sure why I bother. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 02 Sep 2002 00:03:40 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <20020901200340.09000.00000861@mb-cg.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20020901112746.09000.00000738@mb-cg.aol.com... >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >news:20020831225050.01991.00000592@mb-mu.aol.com... >> >> >> >While "gigawatts per" anything is a peculiar phrasing (unless >you're >> >> >talking >> >> >> >about energy intensity per unit area, or energy production per >amount >> >of >> >> >> >fuel), the concept of "watts per hour", for example, is used in >> >various >> >> >> >applications: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=%22watts+per+hour%22&hc=0&hs=0 >> >> >> > >> >> >> >It's still an unusual phrasing, but not unheard of. I figured, at >the >> >> >time, >> >> >> >that using "day" was more conservative than "hour", and certainly >more >> >> >> >conservative than using "second". >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> And you STILL miss the point. Astounding. >> >> > >> >> >I do? Then, please, do take the time out of your busy schedule to >> >explain. >> >> > >> >> >> >> You are correct in that Gigawatts Per is unusual but not >unheard >> >of. >> >> You are, however, incorrect in A) Assuming it's a unit of time. >> > >> >I am not "assuming" it is a unit of time. It is the only "" that >> >makes sense (or, more correctly, "comes close to making sense") in the >> >context. >> >> See, this is pure unadultered bullshit. And you know it's bullshit, and >I'm >> sure that's why you snipped the lengthy explanation I provided here. I'll >say >> it again, in the offchance you act like an honest debator and pay >attention. >> Gigawatts Per any time unit is nonsensical if you are talking about power. >If >> you are talking about a rise of power(Which these two are not), you could >get >> away with it, but Data did not indicate this. There is no reason for >anyone >> familiar with what a watt is(One joule per second) to add a per >. >> Have you understood this yet, Robby? > >I understood that the moment the quote was spoken, little man. However, as >I just explained to you, I was attempting to find a use of the term that >might fit the quote, and which was conservative, to boot. I explained (in >exquisite and politely-illuminated detail) the rationale behind this, and >what do I get in return? Bitching, accusations of dishonesty, and other >Warsie bullshit. > I'm sorry, explanation of High School physics does not count as 'Bullshit'. If you cannot understand that Watts already includes a Per (Timeunit) in it, you are the problem, not us. >I'm really not sure why I bother. > That's easy. You bother because you think you might actually win a debate, despite the fact you obviously know shit about science, canon, and logic. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 03:09:38 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020901200340.09000.00000861@mb-cg.aol.com... > > I'm sorry, explanation of High School physics does not count as 'Bullshit'. It does when it is an unnecessary effort to deflect attention away from the weakness of your argument. > If you cannot understand that Watts already includes a Per (Timeunit) in it, you > are the problem, not us. This was understood from the first moment. Your problem is that you wish to disregard the entire quote and challenge the argument based on it because you refuse to acknowledge that "watts per (timeunit)" is used, despite the fact that my determination that he referred to a unit of time constitutes the most conservative possible estimate. Your stupidity is your own problem. Don't blame it on me. > That's easy. You bother because you think you might actually win a debate, Depends on how you define "win". Do I think I shall make you see the light? Never . . . that would require an active mind on your part. Do I think I might win a debate insofar as presenting a more logically valid case, more closely based on the evidence? Hell yes. > despite the fact you obviously know shit about science, canon, and logic. This, from the guy who refuses to acknowledge the use of "watts per time". (rolls eyes) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 02 Sep 2002 15:26:31 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <20020902112631.07118.00001321@mb-mv.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20020901200340.09000.00000861@mb-cg.aol.com... >> >> I'm sorry, explanation of High School physics does not count as >'Bullshit'. > >It does when it is an unnecessary effort to deflect attention away from the >weakness of your argument. > I know, your arguments are so weak I don't need to make one of my own, but it's more fun to see you lash out at the cruel, cruel laws of physics. >> If you cannot understand that Watts already includes a Per (Timeunit) in >it, you >> are the problem, not us. > >This was understood from the first moment. Your problem is that you wish >to disregard the entire quote and challenge the argument based on it because >you refuse to acknowledge that "watts per (timeunit)" is used, despite the >fact that my determination that he referred to a unit of time constitutes >the most conservative possible estimate. > >Your stupidity is your own problem. Don't blame it on me. > Riiiight. And what misguided cretin told you watts per second related to steady-state power, exactly? Another Trektard? Graham Kennedy? I've explained this, you genetic mistake, that you can't understand it isn't my problem. >> That's easy. You bother because you think you might actually win a debate, > >Depends on how you define "win". Do I think I shall make you see the >light? Never . . . that would require an active mind on your part. Do I >think I might win a debate insofar as presenting a more logically valid >case, more closely based on the evidence? Hell yes. > That's why you're a deluded little Trekkie, Robert. >> despite the fact you obviously know shit about science, canon, and logic. > >This, from the guy who refuses to acknowledge the use of "watts per time". >(rolls eyes) > In any context relating to power? Yes, yes I do. It's because I understand the terms, Dark Star. Something you should try and do. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 11:16:08 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020902112631.07118.00001321@mb-mv.aol.com... > Riiiight. And what misguided cretin told you watts per second related to > steady-state power, exactly? Let's peek at the list, shall we? http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=%22watts+per+hour%22&hc=0&hs=0 Gives us: http://www.eren.doe.gov/ *The United States Department of Energy* Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy http://www.ibm.com/us/ International Business Machines. http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/default.asp The city of Berkeley, California. And others: http://www.phoenix.com/en/home/default.htm http://www.climatechangesolutions.com/english/default.htm http://www.lightheat.com/ http://www.fcw.com/ And that's just off of the first page of 20 hits for "watts per hour". Yes, I understand completely that the term sounds funny, and why it sounds funny. Nevertheless, the usage is not inherently incorrect. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: 5 Sep 2002 12:19:51 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <20020905131956372+0100@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- DarkStar wrote: > > "Sir Nitram" wrote in message > news:20020902112631.07118.00001321@mb-mv.aol.com... > >> Riiiight. And what misguided cretin told you watts per second related >> to steady-state power, exactly? > > Let's peek at the list, shall we? > > http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=%22watts+per+hour%22&hc=0&hs=0 > > Gives us: > > http://www.eren.doe.gov/ > *The United States Department of Energy* > Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy > > http://www.ibm.com/us/ > International Business Machines. > > http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/default.asp > The city of Berkeley, California. > > And others: > > http://www.phoenix.com/en/home/default.htm > http://www.climatechangesolutions.com/english/default.htm > http://www.lightheat.com/ > http://www.fcw.com/ > And that's just off of the first page of 20 hits for "watts per hour". > Yes, I understand completely that the term sounds funny, and why it > sounds funny. Nevertheless, the usage is not inherently incorrect. The usage on those pages is so incredibly incorrect scientifically that it makes TJ's comments on Watts and Joules look intelligent. My head hurts just reading the summaries. -- Jonathan Boyd AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chuck, Modulating Moderator" Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 02:02:26 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: -------- "Jonathan Boyd" wrote in message news:20020905131956372+0100@news.cis.dfn.de... > The usage on those pages is so incredibly incorrect scientifically that > it makes TJ's comments on Watts and Joules look intelligent. My head > hurts just reading the summaries. Here's my favorite: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/energy/Powerplay%20articles/8PowerplaySolarNumb ers.html "Measured over time, 1000 watts per hour is a kilowatt hour." Then look further down the page. "100 watts x 5.5 hours = 550 watts per hour" So would that mean that 5.5 hours x 100 watts = 550 hours per watt? -- Chuck "Try to explain to people that writing is something you do because it's impossible not to, and you get blank stares." - Peter David ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: 6 Sep 2002 13:26:45 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <20020906142650555+0100@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- Chuck, Modulating Moderator wrote: > > "Jonathan Boyd" wrote in message > news:20020905131956372+0100@news.cis.dfn.de... >> The usage on those pages is so incredibly incorrect scientifically >> that it makes TJ's comments on Watts and Joules look intelligent. My >> head hurts just reading the summaries. > > Here's my favorite: > http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/energy/Powerplay%20articles/ > 8PowerplaySolarNumb ers.html "Measured over time, 1000 watts per hour > is a kilowatt hour." Then look further down the page. "100 watts x 5.5 > hours = 550 watts per hour" So would that mean that 5.5 hours x 100 > watts = 550 hours per watt? This pains me. -- Jonathan Boyd AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:01:48 -0700 Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <0J8e9.680$iv1.188100729@news.inreach.com> -------- "Jonathan Boyd" wrote in message news:20020906142650555+0100@news.cis.dfn.de... > Chuck, Modulating Moderator wrote: > > > > "Jonathan Boyd" wrote in message > > news:20020905131956372+0100@news.cis.dfn.de... > >> The usage on those pages is so incredibly incorrect scientifically > >> that it makes TJ's comments on Watts and Joules look intelligent. My > >> head hurts just reading the summaries. > > > > Here's my favorite: > > http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/energy/Powerplay%20articles/ > > 8PowerplaySolarNumb ers.html "Measured over time, 1000 watts per hour > > is a kilowatt hour." Then look further down the page. "100 watts x 5.5 > > hours = 550 watts per hour" So would that mean that 5.5 hours x 100 > > watts = 550 hours per watt? > > This pains me. > -- > Jonathan Boyd > AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ So whose up for Changing RSA's lightbulb? I think the firefly trapped in Amber has been dead for quite some time. How about we get him a Compact Florescent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 07:08:13 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: -------- "Jonathan Boyd" wrote in message news:20020905131956372+0100@news.cis.dfn.de... > The usage on those pages is so incredibly incorrect scientifically that > it makes TJ's comments on Watts and Joules look intelligent. My head > hurts just reading the summaries. Though it is not a proper SI unit, it is a scientific unit, used frequently. Yes, I find it strange, too, but my opinion does not render the use incorrect. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: 6 Sep 2002 13:26:31 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <20020906142636771+0100@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- DarkStar wrote: >> The usage on those pages is so incredibly incorrect scientifically >> that it makes TJ's comments on Watts and Joules look intelligent. My >> head hurts just reading the summaries. > > Though it is not a proper SI unit, it is a scientific unit, used > frequently. Yes, I find it strange, too, but my opinion does not > render the use incorrect. No, it's the fact that whoever wrote those web sites does not understand what a watt is and used the term when they meant something completely different, is what renders the use incorrect. Good grief, you don't honestly believe that if something appears on a web site, that it must be correct do you? -- Jonathan Boyd AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 14:29:02 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: -------- "Jonathan Boyd" wrote in message news:20020906142636771+0100@news.cis.dfn.de... > No, it's the fact that whoever wrote those web sites does not understand > what a watt is and used the term when they meant something completely > different, is what renders the use incorrect. No. With a couple of exceptions, the use clearly means something quite different than watt. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: 6 Sep 2002 17:22:32 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <20020906182238950+0100@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- DarkStar wrote: >> No, it's the fact that whoever wrote those web sites does not >> understand what a watt is and used the term when they meant something >> completely different, is what renders the use incorrect. > > No. With a couple of exceptions, the use clearly means something > quite different than watt. Which would make their use of the word watt wrong, wouldn't it? If they use one word, but mean another, then it's obviously been used incorrectly. -- Jonathan Boyd AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hansen Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 20:25:29 -0700 Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised as ) on Fri, 06 Sep 2002 14:29:02 GMT... > >"Jonathan Boyd" wrote in message >news:20020906142636771+0100@news.cis.dfn.de... >> No, it's the fact that whoever wrote those web sites does not understand >> what a watt is and used the term when they meant something completely >> different, is what renders the use incorrect. > >No. With a couple of exceptions, the use clearly means something quite >different than watt. Oh, God... *smacks head against door 50 times* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 23:27:16 -0400 Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <3D797214.E60C33D1@daltonator.net> -------- John Hansen wrote: > > "DarkStar" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised > as ) on Fri, 06 Sep > 2002 14:29:02 GMT... > > > >"Jonathan Boyd" wrote in message > >news:20020906142636771+0100@news.cis.dfn.de... > >> No, it's the fact that whoever wrote those web sites does not understand > >> what a watt is and used the term when they meant something completely > >> different, is what renders the use incorrect. > > > >No. With a couple of exceptions, the use clearly means something quite > >different than watt. > > Oh, God... > > *smacks head against door 50 times* What the hell do you expect? -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "All tribal myths are true, for a given value of 'true'." --"The Last Continent", Terry Pratchett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 06 Sep 2002 14:47:38 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <20020906104738.25475.00002042@mb-md.aol.com> -------- >DarkStar wrote: > >>> The usage on those pages is so incredibly incorrect scientifically >>> that it makes TJ's comments on Watts and Joules look intelligent. My >>> head hurts just reading the summaries. >> >> Though it is not a proper SI unit, it is a scientific unit, used >> frequently. Yes, I find it strange, too, but my opinion does not >> render the use incorrect. > >No, it's the fact that whoever wrote those web sites does not understand >what a watt is and used the term when they meant something completely >different, is what renders the use incorrect. Good grief, you don't >honestly believe that if something appears on a web site, that it must >be correct do you? It would explain alot of his conclusions, wouldn't it? -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "JJ" Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 03:30:39 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: -------- "HenryMundstock" wrote in message news:MPG.17d86548821dd4d989680@news.cis.dfn.de... > Taken from http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWcompare.html > > " > Data, in "True Q"[TNG], says the Enterprise (while orbiting a planet, and > not at alert status) is "presently generating twelve-point-seven-five > billion gigawatts per . . . ", but is cut off. (If he were about to say > "day", that would work out to 147 terajoules per second.) > " > > > See if you can guess what's wrong. > 'New Math'? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: strikeforce16m@yahoo.com (strikeforce) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:17:41 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <3d821d38.7677196@basic.bs.webusenet.com> -------- On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:07:55 -0700, HenryMundstock wrote: >Taken from http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWcompare.html "Warsies thus like to claim that their torpedoes are better, claiming that Trek can't direct the explosions. However, if one whips out Trek non-canon, quantum torpedoes are energized by a contained and directed photon torpedo warhead explosion, so nyah." That killed the whole thing for me, and the fact that the Trek side of the page would say "...can do this against Imperials, is good against this, which Imperials aren't..." etc while the Star Wars side just told what it was and had no Trek comparison... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Iceberg the Dancing Black Mage Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:49:14 -0500 Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: <9894ouk5ae6g4pkl2ojjdf8bboa1vvae6m@4ax.com> -------- On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:17:41 GMT, strikeforce16m@yahoo.com (strikeforce) wrote: >On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:07:55 -0700, HenryMundstock > wrote: > >>Taken from http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWcompare.html > > > >"Warsies thus like to claim that their torpedoes are better, claiming >that Trek can't direct the explosions. However, if one whips out Trek >non-canon, quantum torpedoes are energized by a contained and directed >photon torpedo warhead explosion, so nyah." > >That killed the whole thing for me, and the fact that the Trek side of >the page would say "...can do this against Imperials, is good against >this, which Imperials aren't..." etc while the Star Wars side just >told what it was and had no Trek comparison... No, he needs a proctologist. To find his head. -- Ice "How should I know? I'M A FUCKING CATFISH!" - Standard Mon Cal response to any crisis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 21:09:48 GMT Subject: Re: [OldNews] Darkstar needs a numerologist! Message-ID: -------- "strikeforce" wrote in message news:3d821d38.7677196@basic.bs.webusenet.com... > On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:07:55 -0700, HenryMundstock > wrote: > > >Taken from http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWcompare.html > > > > "Warsies thus like to claim that their torpedoes are better, claiming > that Trek can't direct the explosions. However, if one whips out Trek > non-canon, quantum torpedoes are energized by a contained and directed > photon torpedo warhead explosion, so nyah." > > That killed the whole thing for me, and the fact that the Trek side of > the page would say "...can do this against Imperials, is good against > this, which Imperials aren't..." etc while the Star Wars side just > told what it was and had no Trek comparison... My pages constitute a response to common Warsie errors, myths, and lies. I do not consider it improper to make comments in that way, especially given that Warsies which have fallen for Warsie errors, myths, and lies are unlikely to make the required mental connections without a great deal of hand-holding.