---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:11:30 GMT Subject: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWromplasw.html http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWrise.html http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWotherpoints.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hansen Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:04:31 -0700 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised as ) on Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:11:30 GMT... >http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWotherpoints.html And you're posting that here because... Oh well. Argument dissection mode ON. First the source: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.starwars.com/databank/vehicle/sphat/eu.html The turbolaser assembly was designed first, and it being the most power-intensive, dictated the design specifications of the walker carriage assembly. The prolonged blast stream of this turbolaser design necessitated a gargantuan reactor core. The cannon's power and support equipment requirements are so robust that it prevented its use aboard large starships. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ But see the conclusion that Mr. Anderson immediately jumped to: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWotherpoints.html 1. (Thanks to "Ralson" and T. Lee) The SPHA-T ground artillery weapons from AoTC were so power- and support-intensive that they could not be mounted on capital ships. The text from the source makes it clear that capital ships of the era were incapable of powering and supporting such a device. Given the specific reference to power requirements, it would follow that this weapon is more powerful than ship-mounted weapons. Based on the observed effects, this isn't that impressive. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'd like to clarify that a sustained-fire weapon with the same joule rating as a burst-fire weapon will be more powerful--over a given period of time. The wattage requirements for the sustained-fire weapon are far higher than the requirements of the burst-fire weapon for obvious reasons. In contrast, the burst-fire weapon will only be drawing short bursts of power, lowering the overall wattage used. Still with me? Good. Since the sustained-fire weapon will be drawing more wattage than the burst-fire weapon, it will place a greater strain on the ship's power source. If you're looking for efficiency, then you don't want to install one. The Sovereign, Eclipse, and Death Star designs were different; they each had a sole purpose in mind of destroying a planet, not targeting nimble spacecraft. Now for the comment on it "not being all that impressive." I happen to have the ripped version of Episode II on my hard drive. While it's no good for pixel scaling, what it is good for is timing. At 49:52, the scene cuts to the Federation starships in liftoff. 49:59, Yoda orders the commander to concentrate their firepower on the nearest starship. 50:06, the commander gives the order to his crews. Guns begin firing at 50:09. By 50:11, four guns have their fire trained on a Federation core ship, and one gun starts at this moment. A second later it ceases fire, but two other guns are still on it; the last gun stops at 50:13. Therefore, the average dwell time seen in this battle was between 1-5 seconds, since I don't know how long the last gun to cease fire was on. The guns resume firing at 50:14, which points to a rest period of about 1 second. The gun seen firing the longest in this part fires from 50:15 to 50:18, for a total of 3 seconds. By 50:18, the core ship has sustained serious damage and its repulsor system begins to fail. In all, it took only 11 *SECONDS* for 4 of these cannons to bring down one of the most powerful starships in the Trade Federation fleet (albeit without having to worry about shields, but it still had armor) and you call them "not impressive"? Just like every other debate that was raised concerning your fallacious website, this one had the same, tired old lies. I'm actually kind of disappointed; I would have expected better of you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:45:54 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: <6blb9.15093$On.748545@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "John Hansen" wrote in message news:vr2rmukajcqvoj8mmt78a1mnh04l795n2n@4ax.com... > "DarkStar" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised > as ) on Thu, 29 Aug > 2002 00:11:30 GMT... > > >http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWotherpoints.html > > And you're posting that here because... > > Oh well. Argument dissection mode ON. > > First the source: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > http://www.starwars.com/databank/vehicle/sphat/eu.html > The turbolaser assembly was designed first, and it being the most > power-intensive, dictated the design specifications of the walker carriage > assembly. The prolonged blast stream of this turbolaser design necessitated a > gargantuan reactor core. The cannon's power and support equipment requirements > are so robust that it prevented its use aboard large starships. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > But see the conclusion that Mr. Anderson immediately jumped to: > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWotherpoints.html > 1. (Thanks to "Ralson" and T. Lee) The SPHA-T ground artillery weapons from > AoTC were so power- and support-intensive that they could not be mounted on > capital ships. The text from the source makes it clear that capital ships of > the era were incapable of powering and supporting such a device. Given the > specific reference to power requirements, it would follow that this weapon is > more powerful than ship-mounted weapons. Based on the observed effects, this > isn't that impressive. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > I'd like to clarify that a sustained-fire weapon with the same joule rating as > a burst-fire weapon will be more powerful--over a given period of time. "Same joule rating"? Are you suggesting that if there are two weapons . . . one firing a sustained 1 joule per second, another firing 1 joule bursts in 1/10 of a second, with a .9s recharge . . . that the sustained-fire one is more powerful? Both examples involve one watt of power. > The > wattage requirements for the sustained-fire weapon are far higher than the > requirements of the burst-fire weapon for obvious reasons. In contrast, the > burst-fire weapon will only be drawing short bursts of power, lowering the > overall wattage used. If the burst-fire weapon draws power only for the time it is firing (the short burst you mentioned), that would be 10 watts in the example above. It's still just a joule of energy, but by drawing it faster, you end up with a higher power requirement. Meanwhile, the 1 J/s sustained-fire weapon draws only one watt. > In all, it took only 11 *SECONDS* for 4 of these cannons to bring down one of > the most powerful starships in the Trade Federation fleet (albeit without > having to worry about shields, but it still had armor) and you call them "not > impressive"? That's right. If these weapons are really so energetic that they are can't be housed on ships supposedly capable of multi-gigaton shots, then where's the extraordinary heat? Where's the thunderclap? Hell, a little shockwave would be nice. > Just like every other debate that was raised concerning your fallacious > website, this one had the same, tired old lies. I'm actually kind of > disappointed; I would have expected better of you. Mean ole me, using evidence and reason in my arguments . . . well, I'm happy to disappoint you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hansen Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:37:19 -0700 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: <031tmucel1lvh25hk0ofrnhdeh3h1tsq1m@4ax.com> -------- "DarkStar" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised as <6blb9.15093$On.748545@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>) on Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:45:54 GMT... > >"John Hansen" wrote in message >news:vr2rmukajcqvoj8mmt78a1mnh04l795n2n@4ax.com... >> "DarkStar" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly >disguised >> as ) on Thu, 29 Aug >> 2002 00:11:30 GMT... >> >> >http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWotherpoints.html >> >> I'd like to clarify that a sustained-fire weapon with the same joule >rating as >> a burst-fire weapon will be more powerful--over a given period of time. > >"Same joule rating"? Are you suggesting that if there are two weapons . . >. one firing a sustained 1 joule per second, another firing 1 joule bursts >in 1/10 of a second, with a .9s recharge . . . that the sustained-fire one >is more powerful? Both examples involve one watt of power. I see that I wasn't clear enough; I should have given more general terms. I'll give you an analogy. Anti-lock brakes vs. standard brakes. Because the anti-lock brakes are pulsed by the computer, they will apply less force to the rotor than the standard brakes over the braking period. In normal use, the sustained-fire weapon (which uses x amount of power over a long period) will draw more power than the burst-fire weapon (which uses x amount of power in its pulse time), just like how the standard brakes will apply more force in a panic stop when compared to anti-lock brakes. Get the idea yet? I wasn't talking about laboratory conditions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 17:02:58 +1200 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- > > Mean ole me, using evidence and reason in my arguments . . . well, I'm happy > to disappoint you. Are you sure you are not related to Timothy Jones? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:14:39 -0700 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWrise.html You seem to forget in your tossing off that your analogy is flawed, sice ISDs used a 1/10th of a second blast to VAPE asteroids, while a PHOTON TORPEDO can't even accomplish this. (Note the huge chunks flying off to the right...) Anyway, nice page. You're sure to get rabid Trekkies who don't know any better to "fire protein phasers" at their computer screen. http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:53:26 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:umreuhkqvpp715@corp.supernews.com... > > "DarkStar" wrote > > > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWrise.html > > You seem to forget in your tossing off that your analogy is flawed, sice > ISDs used a 1/10th of a second blast to VAPE asteroids, while a PHOTON > TORPEDO can't even accomplish this. (Note the huge chunks flying off to the > right...) The huge chunks were unexpected, and due to the artificial nature of the asteroids. This does not negate the fact that they expected to vape the asteroid. Further, your response is horribly flawed. You are suggesting that a photon torpedo that just destroyed (and was expected to vaporize) an asteroid larger than Voyager can't do the same against 20 meter asteroids. That's about 4,200 m^3 vs. 13,500,000 m^3. Idiot. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:13:08 -0600 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: <3D6E1DE4.AE619D36@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > > You seem to forget in your tossing off that your analogy is flawed, sice > > ISDs used a 1/10th of a second blast to VAPE asteroids, while a PHOTON > > TORPEDO can't even accomplish this. (Note the huge chunks flying off to > the > > right...) > > The huge chunks were unexpected, and due to the artificial nature of the > asteroids. This does not negate the fact that they expected to vape the > asteroid. > > Further, your response is horribly flawed. You are suggesting that a > photon torpedo that just destroyed (and was expected to vaporize) an > asteroid larger than Voyager can't do the same against 20 meter asteroids. > > That's about 4,200 m^3 vs. 13,500,000 m^3. Idiot. What the crew expects is quite irrelevant, because Federation crews are incompetents who can't even read distance displays correctly, don't undestand what dynes are, and generally betray their complete inability every other episode. Graeme Dice -- "We haven't the money, so we've got to think." — Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937), British physicist. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:55:37 -0700 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > "Wayne Poe" wrote > > You seem to forget in your tossing off that your analogy is flawed, sice > > ISDs used a 1/10th of a second blast to VAPE asteroids, while a PHOTON > > TORPEDO can't even accomplish this. (Note the huge chunks flying off to > > the right...) > The huge chunks were unexpected, and due to the artificial nature of the > asteroids. This does not negate the fact that they expected to vape the > asteroid. Really? Then WHY didn't it get vaped? Was the artificial asteroid made of neutronium? Obviously, it was made of a substance with a higher melting point than iron. Something with a higher melting point than iron would be something like.....rock. Which wasn't vaped. Oh, and the artificial part wasn't vaped either..which was ENCASED in the rock... > Further, your response is horribly flawed. You are suggesting that a > photon torpedo that just destroyed (and was expected to vaporize) an > asteroid larger than Voyager can't do the same against 20 meter asteroids. As usual, your reading comprehension is on par with the corn in my shit. A 1/10th of a second-turbolaser blast vaping 20 and 40 meter asteroids is still more impressive than one photon torpedo with a matter/antimatter warhead expected to leave behind debris a few centemeters across. But this is nothing new really. After all, LaForge had to tune the phasers for two hours to drill into a planet's crust in "Inheritance". The phasers on the E-D didn't even trouble the asteroids covering the damping field generators in "Booby Trap"-- not even a tiny spray of "asteroidlets" (to use your term) was seen. In DS9's "Return to Grace", even a "System 5 Planetary Disruptor" can't vape an asteroid like a turbolaser can. Maybe they should have used a Voyager torpedo? Then again, seeing a photon torpedo's poor performance against ground targets in STV, the inability of the E-D's entire compliment of torpedoes to destroy an asteroid in Pegasus, etc. Maybe not... Fuckface. http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 01:27:49 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:umt9jciuesqcb4@corp.supernews.com... > > "DarkStar" wrote > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote > > > > You seem to forget in your tossing off that your analogy is flawed, sice > > > ISDs used a 1/10th of a second blast to VAPE asteroids, while a PHOTON > > > TORPEDO can't even accomplish this. (Note the huge chunks flying off to > > > the right...) > > > The huge chunks were unexpected, and due to the artificial nature of the > > asteroids. This does not negate the fact that they expected to vape the > > asteroid. > > Really? Then WHY didn't it get vaped? Was the artificial asteroid made of > neutronium? Obviously, it was made of a substance with a higher melting > point than iron. . . . or a higher density, or a higher boiling point, et cetera. > > Further, your response is horribly flawed. You are suggesting that a > > photon torpedo that just destroyed (and was expected to vaporize) an > > asteroid larger than Voyager can't do the same against 20 meter asteroids. > > As usual, your reading comprehension is on par with the corn in my shit. "You seem to forget in your tossing off that your analogy is flawed, sice ISDs used a 1/10th of a second blast to VAPE asteroids, while a PHOTON TORPEDO can't even accomplish this. (Note the huge chunks flying off to the right...)" Perhaps you should ask the corn to write for you, since my reading comprehension is spot-on with what you wrote. You don't seem to acknowledge a size differential in asteroids, mocking weapons that are fired against 390x210 meter asteroids for not producing the exact same results as a weapon fired against a 20m asteroid. > A > 1/10th of a second-turbolaser blast vaping 20 and 40 meter asteroids is > still more impressive than one photon torpedo with a matter/antimatter > warhead expected to leave behind debris a few centemeters across. 1. Assumes total vaporization of ESB asteroid, to the point that there aren't even 1cm fragments. 2. Perpetrates falsehood . . . no fragments were expected to be a few centimeters across. None, in fact, were expected to be over 1cm. > But this > is nothing new really. After all, LaForge had to tune the phasers for two > hours to drill into a planet's crust in "Inheritance". This relates to a torpedo vaporization of an asteroid how? > The phasers on the > E-D didn't even trouble the asteroids covering the damping field generators > in "Booby Trap"-- not even a tiny spray of "asteroidlets" (to use your term) > was seen. Haven't seen "Booby Trap" in awhile, but I don't recall them trying to fire phasers against the aceton assimilators. > In DS9's "Return to Grace", even a "System 5 Planetary Disruptor" > can't vape an asteroid like a turbolaser can. And here again, we see your foolish idea that every asteroid is like every other. Do we know the size of that asteroid? No. > Maybe they should have used a Voyager torpedo? The freighter didn't have any torpedoes, Wayne. > Then again, seeing a photon torpedo's poor performance against ground targets in STV, I was waiting for you to pull some shit like this. > the inability of the E-D's entire compliment of torpedoes to destroy an asteroid in Pegasus, etc They weren't unable. It would take the entire complement to do it, but that doesn't imply an inability. Also, before you start whipping out goofy figures based on Pegasus, remember that they're goofy. After all, the common Warsie estimates (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/index.html) are based on a number of peculiar assumptions: 1. Wong inputs 5000 meters diameter into his calculator, despite the fact that the asteroid has more volume than a 5000-meter sphere. 2. By "destroy", it is inferred by Warsies that Riker simply meant "fragment into chunks no larger than 10 meters", as per Wong's explanation of his fragmentation calculator. It is also inferred that these torpedoes will be buried. An Oberth Class starship is significantly larger than 10 meters, true . . . but it is also going to take more energy to ensure that the ship, and the technology it contains, is destroyed. On the other hand, it is entirely plausible (and more likely) that Riker meant "destroy" as in "vaporize". Even with the 5000 meter figure left into the calculator, and even if you assume the asteroid was merely ice, you're left with a 39.8 gigaton requirement, or 398 100-megaton photon torpedoes. 398 is, of course, more than 275 . . . but the asteroid's hollow nature, and the fact that there would be no need to vaporize the entirety of the asteroid, but merely the space around the Pegasus, could explain the discrepancy. Alternately, my 100 megaton figure is too small, and 144 megatons is a closer figure. Interestingly, this isn't too far from the 154 megaton estimate for "Rise", assuming a much denser asteroid. If we were to treat the "Pegasus" asteroid with Wong's "hard granite" figures, it would require 480.4 gigatons. Assuming a full 2/3 of the asteroid is hollow, it still suggests a 160 gigaton requirement, or 580 megatons per torpedo. This, interestingly, is rather close to the 500 megaton figure derived from "Skin of Evil"[TNG], and would fit within certain requirements of "Rise" that relate to what are not lowest-possible-end figures. Not to mention the fact that Warsies commonly claim that photon torpedoes are wasteful, omnidirectional-blast weapons. That will also drive up the figures substantially, if true. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 21:04:34 -0700 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > > > You seem to forget in your tossing off that your analogy is flawed, > > > >sice ISDs used a 1/10th of a second blast to VAPE asteroids, while a PHOTON > > > > TORPEDO can't even accomplish this. (Note the huge chunks flying off > > > > to the right...) > > > The huge chunks were unexpected, and due to the artificial nature of the > > > asteroids. This does not negate the fact that they expected to vape > > > the asteroid. > > Really? Then WHY didn't it get vaped? Was the artificial asteroid made of > > neutronium? Obviously, it was made of a substance with a higher melting > > point than iron. > . . . or a higher density, or a higher boiling point, et cetera. Or what I posted originally: Really? Then WHY didn't it get vaped? Was the artificial asteroid made of neutronium? Obviously, it was made of a substance with a higher melting point than iron. Something with a higher melting point than iron would be something like.....rock. Which wasn't vaped. Oh, and the artificial part wasn't vaped either..which was ENCASED in the rock... > > > Further, your response is horribly flawed. You are suggesting that a > > > photon torpedo that just destroyed (and was expected to vaporize) an > > > asteroid larger than Voyager can't do the same against 20 meter > > > asteroids. > > As usual, your reading comprehension is on par with the corn in my shit. > "You seem to forget in your tossing off that your analogy is flawed, sice > ISDs used a 1/10th of a second blast to VAPE asteroids, while a PHOTON > TORPEDO can't even accomplish this. (Note the huge chunks flying off to > the right...)" > Perhaps you should ask the corn to write for you, since my reading > comprehension is spot-on with what you wrote. Try responing to what I wrote in CONTEXT, fuckface: As usual, your reading comprehension is on par with the corn in my shit. A 1/10th of a second-turbolaser blast vaping 20 and 40 meter asteroids is still more impressive than one photon torpedo with a matter/antimatter warhead expected to leave behind debris a few centemeters across. But this is nothing new really. > You don't seem to acknowledge a size differential in asteroids, Yes I did. I acknowledge that a 1/10th of a second-turbolaser blast vaping 20 and 40 meter asteroids is still more impressive than one photon torpedo with a matter/antimatter warhead expected to leave behind debris a few centemeters across. > mocking weapons that are fired against 390x210 meter asteroids for not producing the exact same results as a weapon > fired against a 20m asteroid. Because it doesn't compare to a 1/10th of a second-turbolaser blast vaping 20 and 40 meter asteroids is still more impressive than one photon torpedo with a matter/antimatter warhead expected to leave behind debris a few centemeters across. > 1. Assumes total vaporization of ESB asteroid, t Which we saw. Concession Accepted. > 2. Perpetrates falsehood . . . no fragments were expected to be a few > centimeters across. None, in fact, were expected to be over 1cm. Quote. > > But this is nothing new really. After all, LaForge had to tune the phasers for two > > hours to drill into a planet's crust in "Inheritance". > This relates to a torpedo vaporization of an asteroid how? Part of a connected analogy, fuckface. > > The phasers on the E-D didn't even trouble the asteroids covering the damping field > generators in "Booby Trap"-- not even a tiny spray of "asteroidlets" (to use your > term) was seen. > Haven't seen "Booby Trap" in awhile, but I don't recall them trying to fire > phasers against the aceton assimilators. They fired on the asteroids which held the energy dampening machines. > > In DS9's "Return to Grace", even a "System 5 Planetary Disruptor" > > can't vape an asteroid like a turbolaser can. > And here again, we see your foolish idea that every asteroid is like every > other. Do we know the size of that asteroid? No. Not much bigger than a BoP. Any proof to the contrary? > > Maybe they should have used a Voyager torpedo? > The freighter didn't have any torpedoes, Wayne. Drooling moron... > > Then again, seeing a photon torpedo's poor performance against ground targets in STV, > I was waiting for you to pull some shit like this. There I go again bringing up a canon event... > > the inability of the E-D's entire compliment of torpedoes to destroy an > asteroid in Pegasus, etc > They weren't unable. It would take the entire complement to do it, but that > doesn't imply an inability. Also, before you start whipping out goofy > figures based on Pegasus, [snip DarkStar's usual filibustering in place of arguing the point] I'm not interested in the usual Trekkie spin doctoring of actual canon quotes. Riker said it would take most of their torps to destroy the asteroid. Live with it. http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 13:09:41 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:un34ekiknfime8@corp.supernews.com... > > "DarkStar" wrote > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > > > > > You seem to forget in your tossing off that your analogy is flawed, > > > > >sice ISDs used a 1/10th of a second blast to VAPE asteroids, while a > PHOTON > > > > > TORPEDO can't even accomplish this. (Note the huge chunks flying off > > > > > to the right...) > > > > > The huge chunks were unexpected, and due to the artificial nature of > the > > > > asteroids. This does not negate the fact that they expected to vape > > > > the asteroid. > > > > Really? Then WHY didn't it get vaped? Was the artificial asteroid made > of > > > neutronium? Obviously, it was made of a substance with a higher melting > > > point than iron. > > > . . . or a higher density, or a higher boiling point, et cetera. > > Or what I posted originally: Way to dodge acknowledgement of the point, Wayne. > > > > Further, your response is horribly flawed. You are suggesting that a > > > > photon torpedo that just destroyed (and was expected to vaporize) an > > > > asteroid larger than Voyager can't do the same against 20 meter > > > > asteroids. > > > > As usual, your reading comprehension is on par with the corn in my shit. > > > "You seem to forget in your tossing off that your analogy is flawed, sice > > ISDs used a 1/10th of a second blast to VAPE asteroids, while a PHOTON > > TORPEDO can't even accomplish this. (Note the huge chunks flying off to > > the right...)" > > > Perhaps you should ask the corn to write for you, since my reading > > comprehension is spot-on with what you wrote. > > Try responing to what I wrote in CONTEXT, fuckface: > > As usual, your reading comprehension is on par with the corn in my shit. A > 1/10th of a second-turbolaser blast vaping 20 and 40 meter asteroids is > still more impressive than one photon torpedo with a matter/antimatter > warhead expected to leave behind debris a few centemeters across. But this > is nothing new really. I did, shitwit, and I stand by what I said. > > You don't seem to acknowledge a size differential in asteroids, > > Yes I did. I acknowledge that a 1/10th of a second-turbolaser blast vaping > 20 and 40 meter asteroids is > still more impressive than one photon torpedo with a matter/antimatter > warhead expected to leave behind debris a few centemeters across. Continuing the "few centemeters" lie and misspelling, huh? Figures. > > mocking weapons that are fired against 390x210 meter asteroids for not > producing the exact same results as a weapon > > fired against a 20m asteroid. > > Because it doesn't compare to a 1/10th of a second-turbolaser blast vaping > 20 and 40 meter asteroids is still more impressive than one photon torpedo > with a matter/antimatter warhead expected to leave behind debris a few > centemeters across. Firepower figures for vaporization of the TESB asteroids: 1. 250 TJ, assuming a 40 meter asteroid: http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/index.html That's 2,500 TW, using your 1/10th of a second figure. 2. 1,500 TJ, assuming a 40 meter asteroid: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Beam/Asteroid.html That's 15,000 TW, using your 1/10th of a second figure. 3. 701 to 2,863 TJ, assuming a ~32 meter asteroid: http://www.geocities.com/cmdrwilkens/Calcs/math.html That's 7,010 to 28,630 TW, using your 1/10th of a second figure. Firepower figure for vaporization of the "Rise" asteroid: 1. 420,000 TJ, using a 390x210x210 asteroid: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWrise.html Given that the framerate of 15fps in the digitized version I used, and the fact that the asteroid was no longer solid 1 frame after the impact frame (http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Rise637.jpg) (though, to be fair, I'll go ahead and use the next frame, where most of the asteroid is no longer present (http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Rise638.jpg), we have a time of about .133 seconds for the vaporization. But, what the hell, let's play nice and use a full second. That's still 420,000TW. Hmm . . . 420,000 TW . . . 28,630 TW . . . 420,000 TW . . . 28,630 TW . . . Hey, Wayne, which one of those is bigger? (rolls eyes) > > > 1. Assumes total vaporization of ESB asteroid, t > > Which we saw. Do you see 1cm fragments? Do you think you could? You realize, I trust (though I'm probably giving you way too much credit), that a 1cm fragment would be 1/2000th the size of that 20 meter asteroid. > > 2. Perpetrates falsehood . . . no fragments were expected to be a few > > centimeters across. None, in fact, were expected to be over 1cm. > > Quote. It's on the page you're bitching about, moron. http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWrise.html > > > > But this is nothing new really. After all, LaForge had to tune the > phasers for two > > > hours to drill into a planet's crust in "Inheritance". > > > This relates to a torpedo vaporization of an asteroid how? > > Part of a connected analogy, fuckface. Riiiiight. > > > The phasers on the E-D didn't even trouble the asteroids covering the > damping field > > generators in "Booby Trap"-- not even a tiny spray of "asteroidlets" (to > use your > > term) was seen. > > > Haven't seen "Booby Trap" in awhile, but I don't recall them trying to > fire > > phasers against the aceton assimilators. > > They fired on the asteroids which held the energy dampening machines. I've seen no mention of this in any references online, nor do I remember it from the episode. Do you have a screenshot or script excerpt? All I recall is the volley of torpedoes after the ship has escaped the trap. > > > In DS9's "Return to Grace", even a "System 5 Planetary Disruptor" > > > can't vape an asteroid like a turbolaser can. > > > And here again, we see your foolish idea that every asteroid is like every > > other. Do we know the size of that asteroid? No. > > Not much bigger than a BoP. Any proof to the contrary? So, wait, you think it isn't much bigger than a BoP . . . and you wonder why I laugh at you? Your average smaller-end Bird-of-Prey is about 110 meters. The asteroid fired upon by the Groumall with the System-5 disruptor add-on would therefore be "not much bigger" . . . we'll say it's also 110 meters. So, let's take the 20 meter asteroid and plug it into Wong's calculator, and use the iron figures. That's 4,189 m^3 of volume, with a vaporization energy of 59.9 kilotons (250 TJ). Plugging in the 110 meter asteroid, we find 697,000 m^3 of volume, and a vaporization energy of 10 megatons (41,840 TJ). Now, we do get some residual luminescence with the System-5 disruptor shot (http://h4h.com/louis/jpgs/disrast.jpg), but the luminescent particles disappear quickly during the few moments we see of the asteroid after the impact. The melt energy, as per Wong's calculator, is 1.7 megatons for a 110 meter asteroid. So, let's be extra-uber-conservative here and say that the shot was only about 3 megatons (12,552 TJ). Let's also, just for kicks, ignore the 20m scaling, and use the highest firepower estimates available for the asteroids out of that ESB scene, which is 2,683 TJ. Hmm . . . 2,683 TJ . . . 12,552 TJ . . . 2,683 TJ . . . 12,552 TJ . . . Hey, Wayne, which one of those is bigger? (rolls eyes) > > > Maybe they should have used a Voyager torpedo? > > > The freighter didn't have any torpedoes, Wayne. > > Drooling moron... > Given your utter ignorance of . . . well, everything, I figured it was best to remind you of the simple facts. > > > Then again, seeing a photon torpedo's poor performance against ground > targets in STV, > > > I was waiting for you to pull some shit like this. > > There I go again bringing up a canon event... . . . hoping to ignore every other canon event because this one, despite the fact that they are firing on their own position, and despite the unknown orders Kirk gave in the several seconds he was talking into the communicator, gives the lowest available canon firepower estimates you can possibly get. > > > the inability of the E-D's entire compliment of torpedoes to destroy an > > asteroid in Pegasus, etc > > > They weren't unable. It would take the entire complement to do it, but > that > > doesn't imply an inability. Also, before you start whipping out goofy > > figures based on Pegasus, > > [snip DarkStar's usual filibustering in place of arguing the point] The point was argued . . . of course, I'm not surprised you ignored it. > Riker said it would take most of their torps to destroy the > asteroid. Live with it. And, as per "Rise" and "Return to Grace", to destroy an asteroid implies vaporization, or damn near it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 22:26:13 -0700 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- Hey fuckface, I realize you can't understand why a weapon that can vaporize a 40m nickel-iron asteroid in 1/10th of a second is more impressive than a torpedo with a matter/antimatter warhead vaporizing a bigger asteroid. Most people with shit for brains have this problem. http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 05:38:23 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:un5tjngnbrql99@corp.supernews.com... > Hey You hopeless, hopeless little man. (sigh) (shakes head) Did the mullet make you stupid, or have you always been like this? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 02:08:04 -0400 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:jPCc9.355349$m91.14160921@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > news:un5tjngnbrql99@corp.supernews.com... > > Hey > > You hopeless, hopeless little man. > > (sigh) > (shakes head) > > Did the mullet make you stupid, or have you always been like this? > Not to jump in here but we are relatively certian of the composition of the TESB asteroid but what makes us certian of the composition or structure of the asteroid the Ent went after? As several people have pointed out a great deal of asteroids out there are little more than rubble piles which would be easy to disrupt. Hell even if it is normal igneous rock inputting a diameter of 390m into the ever so useful Asteroid Destruction Calculator indicates a fragmentation energy of only 59.3 kt. Now this doesn't fit the situation exactly but given than a 390m diameter would actually be a much greater volume than was actually fragmented I think the differences can even out. By comparison the lowest order energy estimate I've yet hit was 701 TJ or 167 kt. In other words the lowest order calcs on the TESB incident show energy levels twice that of your incident. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 00:28:59 -0700 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote > "DarkStar" wrote > > You hopeless, hopeless little man. Oh, fuck off, Robbie. Go find another imaginary "killer story" to entertain us with. > > (sigh) (shakes head) =rattle rattle= > > Did the mullet make you stupid, or have you always been like this? Still jealous of my hair, BaldStar? Grab some Turtle Wax and shine that pate of yours, it might make you feel better. Oh, I forgot, I'm talking to the guy that can't afford to rent a video... > Not to jump in here but we are relatively certian of the composition of the > TESB asteroid but what makes us certian of the composition or structure of > the asteroid the Ent went after? As several people have pointed out a great > deal of asteroids out there are little more than rubble piles which would be > easy to disrupt. Hell even if it is normal igneous rock inputting a diameter > of 390m into the ever so useful Asteroid Destruction Calculator indicates a > fragmentation energy of only 59.3 kt. Now this doesn't fit the situation > exactly but given than a 390m diameter would actually be a much greater > volume than was actually fragmented I think the differences can even out. By > comparison the lowest order energy estimate I've yet hit was 701 TJ or 167 > kt. In other words the lowest order calcs on the TESB incident show energy > levels twice that of your incident. Yeah, buddy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 09:52:09 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:un64ptka9tnb79@corp.supernews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote > > > "DarkStar" wrote > > > > You hopeless, hopeless little man. > > Oh, fuck off, Can't beat the arguments, so you hope to beat up on the man. Figures. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 22:39:56 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: <3C421B6D.2050009@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "Wayne Poe" wrote: >>Oh, fuck off, > > Can't beat the arguments, so you hope to beat up on the man. Figures. Didn't you start the hair attacks? I'm pretty sure you did. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 11:16:49 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3C421B6D.2050009@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "Wayne Poe" wrote: > > >>Oh, fuck off, > > > > Can't beat the arguments, so you hope to beat up on the man. Figures. > > Didn't you start the hair attacks? I'm pretty sure you did. What, I'm a badguy for returning fire? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 16:48:41 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: <3D778AF5.8030209@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>>Oh, fuck off, >>> >>>Can't beat the arguments, so you hope to beat up on the man. Figures. >> >>Didn't you start the hair attacks? I'm pretty sure you did. > > What, I'm a badguy for returning fire? My god, and you're illiterate too. Try reading it again, "Didn't you start the hair attacks? I'm pretty sure you did." C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 07:12:13 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D778AF5.8030209@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>>Oh, fuck off, > >>> > >>>Can't beat the arguments, so you hope to beat up on the man. Figures. > >> > >>Didn't you start the hair attacks? I'm pretty sure you did. > > > > What, I'm a badguy for returning fire? > > My god, and you're illiterate too. > > Try reading it again, "Didn't you start the hair attacks? I'm pretty > sure you did." "What, I'm a badguy for returning fire?", O Ye of Little Mind, is not a reply specific to the hair thing, but the personal attacks in general, which, I trust you'll note, I quoted. Your illiteracy was the problem. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 15:48:38 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: <3D78CE6E.6020104@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>>>>Oh, fuck off, >>>>> >>>>>Can't beat the arguments, so you hope to beat up on the man. Figures. >>>> >> >>Didn't you start the hair attacks? I'm pretty sure you did. >> >>>What, I'm a badguy for returning fire? >> >>My god, and you're illiterate too. >> >>Try reading it again, "Didn't you start the hair attacks? I'm pretty >>sure you did." > > "What, I'm a badguy for returning fire?", O Ye of Little Mind, is not a > reply specific to the hair thing, but the personal attacks in general, > which, I trust you'll note, I quoted. Your illiteracy was the problem. See, I was specifically talking about the hair attacks, cause you seem to be taking them personally. Silly me for not anticipating your Red Herrings. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 08:44:43 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: <%bZe9.271598$On.11091634@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D78CE6E.6020104@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>>>>Oh, fuck off, > >>>>> > >>>>>Can't beat the arguments, so you hope to beat up on the man. Figures. > >>>> > >> >>Didn't you start the hair attacks? I'm pretty sure you did. > >> > >>>What, I'm a badguy for returning fire? > >> > >>My god, and you're illiterate too. > >> > >>Try reading it again, "Didn't you start the hair attacks? I'm pretty > >>sure you did." > > > > "What, I'm a badguy for returning fire?", O Ye of Little Mind, is not a > > reply specific to the hair thing, but the personal attacks in general, > > which, I trust you'll note, I quoted. Your illiteracy was the problem. > > See, I was specifically talking about the hair attacks, cause you seem > to be taking them personally. Uh, suuure. Okay. No, I simply returned fire by using the Darth Mullet thing because Poe, Mr. Personal Attack that he is, left himself wiiiiide open for it by revealing the mullet pic. Or, in other words, the stone-thrower moved in to a glass house. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:17:07 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: <3D7E1B4C.5080204@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>See, I was specifically talking about the hair attacks, cause you seem >>to be taking them personally. > > Uh, suuure. Okay. No, I simply returned fire by using the Darth Mullet > thing because Poe, Mr. Personal Attack that he is, left himself wiiiiide > open for it by revealing the mullet pic. Or, in other words, the > stone-thrower moved in to a glass house. That's a great plan, except for two important details. 1.) That wasn't a mullet. It had long sides that were pulled back, mullets have short sides. 2.) Poe admitted to wearing a mullet, and liking it. So your attack was completely ineffectual and brought on the bald remarks, which seem to have hit home. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 22:23:08 -0700 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote > > Uh, suuure. Okay. No, I simply returned fire by using the Darth Mullet > > thing because Poe, Mr. Personal Attack that he is, left himself wiiiiide > > open for it by revealing the mullet pic. Or, in other words, the > > stone-thrower moved in to a glass house. > > That's a great plan, except for two important details. > > 1.) That wasn't a mullet. It had long sides that were pulled back, > mullets have short sides. > > 2.) Poe admitted to wearing a mullet, and liking it. > > So your attack was completely ineffectual and brought on the bald > remarks, which seem to have hit home. That and Robbie has the friar tuck look going, and is too embarassed to post a picture of himself on his website or as an avatar. The first Lord Poe pic was obviously not a mullet. The hair is even cropped to resemble Vader's helmet if you black out the entiire thing! (I already had the picture, but got the idea from Art Of AOTC, where early concepts for Anakin would have given him a "Vader helmet" haircut) People misidentify mullets all the time. This takes away from the truly horrific haircut that actually IS a mullet: http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/j/images/joe-dirt.jpg I'll scan a picture of what my hair looks like now, (because it brings a tear to RSA's eye over his loss) but it still isn't a classical mullet. But very damed close! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 22:34:44 -0700 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:untkpun3aikj0a@corp.supernews.com... > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote > > > > Uh, suuure. Okay. No, I simply returned fire by using the Darth > Mullet > > > thing because Poe, Mr. Personal Attack that he is, left himself wiiiiide > > > open for it by revealing the mullet pic. Or, in other words, the > > > stone-thrower moved in to a glass house. > > > > That's a great plan, except for two important details. > > > > 1.) That wasn't a mullet. It had long sides that were pulled back, > > mullets have short sides. > > > > 2.) Poe admitted to wearing a mullet, and liking it. > > > > So your attack was completely ineffectual and brought on the bald > > remarks, which seem to have hit home. > > That and Robbie has the friar tuck look going, and is too embarassed to post > a picture of himself on his website or as an avatar. > > The first Lord Poe pic was obviously not a mullet. The hair is even cropped > to resemble Vader's helmet if you black out the entiire thing! (I already > had the picture, but got the idea from Art Of AOTC, where early concepts for > Anakin would have given him a "Vader helmet" haircut) > > People misidentify mullets all the time. This takes away from the truly > horrific haircut that actually IS a mullet: > > http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/j/images/joe-dirt.jpg > > I'll scan a picture of what my hair looks like now, (because it brings a > tear to RSA's eye over his loss) but it still isn't a classical mullet. But > very damed close! > > I have the bald on top, Einstein/Rasputin look myself. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 11 Sep 2002 05:43:55 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: <20020911014355.02287.00003746@mb-mu.aol.com> -------- >"Wayne Poe" wrote in message >news:untkpun3aikj0a@corp.supernews.com... >> >> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote >> >> > > Uh, suuure. Okay. No, I simply returned fire by using the Darth >> Mullet >> > > thing because Poe, Mr. Personal Attack that he is, left himself >wiiiiide >> > > open for it by revealing the mullet pic. Or, in other words, the >> > > stone-thrower moved in to a glass house. >> > >> > That's a great plan, except for two important details. >> > >> > 1.) That wasn't a mullet. It had long sides that were pulled back, >> > mullets have short sides. >> > >> > 2.) Poe admitted to wearing a mullet, and liking it. >> > >> > So your attack was completely ineffectual and brought on the bald >> > remarks, which seem to have hit home. >> >> That and Robbie has the friar tuck look going, and is too embarassed to >post >> a picture of himself on his website or as an avatar. >> >> The first Lord Poe pic was obviously not a mullet. The hair is even cropped >> to resemble Vader's helmet if you black out the entiire thing! (I already >> had the picture, but got the idea from Art Of AOTC, where early concepts >for >> Anakin would have given him a "Vader helmet" haircut) >> >> People misidentify mullets all the time. This takes away from the truly >> horrific haircut that actually IS a mullet: >> >> http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/j/images/joe-dirt.jpg >> >> I'll scan a picture of what my hair looks like now, (because it brings a >> tear to RSA's eye over his loss) but it still isn't a classical mullet. But >> very damed close! >> >> >I have the bald on top, Einstein/Rasputin look myself. > Thank Bob the men in my family never lose their hair. Though I'd shoot myself and go Monk again before I wore a mullet. -- 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: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 06:48:11 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: <3D7EE77B.2040406@shaw.ca> -------- Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz wrote: > I have the bald on top, Einstein/Rasputin look myself. How? Huh? What the fuck? C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 01:00:07 -0700 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: <3KCf9.870$Wy.246446197@news.inreach.com> -------- Bald in front, the whole back, and sides just grows out crazy. bleeping thick curly hair. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@trek-wars.info> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:34:46 +0100 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- In article <3KCf9.870$Wy.246446197@news.inreach.com>, ybear@inreach.com says... > Bald in front, the whole back, and sides just grows out crazy. bleeping thick > curly hair. I bet you had real problems playing hide & seek as a kid. -- Lord Edam de Fromage AIM: Sorborus www.trek-wars.info Genius is always allowed some leeway, once the hammer has been pried from its hands and the blood has been cleaned up ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 11:33:00 -0700 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "Lord Edam de Fromage" <$mike$@trek-wars.info> wrote in message news:MPG.17e98f16738db33d9896df@news.cis.dfn.de... > In article <3KCf9.870$Wy.246446197@news.inreach.com>, ybear@inreach.com > says... > > Bald in front, the whole back, and sides just grows out crazy. bleeping thick > > curly hair. > > I bet you had real problems playing hide & seek as a kid. > the ricochet shot that caused the Hibachi to land on my head is still a point of amusement among my siblings. Order of events Jason, Alex, Andrew and Me are involved in a watergun war. I am hiding around the corner, below the elevated deck, they know I am there. Rachel and Ambrosia (Little sisters of Jason and the rest of us) step onto the elevated deck with the cat. Jason shoots a long high stream to get to me. The cat gets soaked leaps up the railing knocking off the Hibachi which lands on my head. Rachel screams bloody murder. And I need to get 19 stitches. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 07:16:57 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: <3D7EEE39.70708@shaw.ca> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > People misidentify mullets all the time. This takes away from the truly > horrific haircut that actually IS a mullet: > > http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/j/images/joe-dirt.jpg That movie was better than I was expecting. "I'm your sister! I'm your sister!" C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 22:05:46 -0700 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > "Wayne Poe" wrote > Can't beat the arguments, so you hope to beat up on the man. Figures. Your arguments were beaten two years ago. Now I just enjoy reeling you in just enough so you waste time writing multi-paragraph posts that I'll never read- just snip and call you fuckface. =snicker= ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 11:17:56 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:un8gpdkor37e9d@corp.supernews.com... > > "DarkStar" wrote > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote > > > Can't beat the arguments, so you hope to beat up on the man. Figures. > > Your arguments were beaten two years ago. Now I just enjoy reeling you in > just enough so you waste time writing multi-paragraph posts that I'll never > read- just snip and call you fuckface. Actually, up until that point, your stupid arguments *occasionally* shed light on clarifications I need to make to make my posts more idiot-proof. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 15:56:00 -0700 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:un64ptka9tnb79@corp.supernews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote > > > "DarkStar" wrote I didn't know the brainless one was balding, so am I, come to think of it, last time I was feeling this depressed I went for the Full Yul Brenner look. Mind you him and Sam Jackson are the two most ass kicking bald men ever. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 22:11:56 -0700 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" wrote > I didn't know the brainless one was balding, Yup. He says his hair is about as long as mine though, which leads me to the conclusion that he looks like a teenage Terry Bradshaw. > so am I, come to think of it, last time I was feeling this depressed I went for the Full Yul Brenner look. That's what I'd do if I ever went bald. Maybe keep the ponytail and look like some demented genie or something... > Mind you him and Sam Jackson are the two most ass kicking bald men ever. Hey now...don't forget the dune-buggy drivin' Picard! I heard he's BAAAAAAAAAd in the new Trek movie! http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 23:49:42 -0700 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: <_XYc9.536$JW5.141151345@news.inreach.com> -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:un8h4uk03kth6b@corp.supernews.com... > > "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" wrote > > > I didn't know the brainless one was balding, > > Yup. He says his hair is about as long as mine though, which leads me to the > conclusion that he looks like a teenage Terry Bradshaw. > > > so am I, come to think of it, last time I was feeling this depressed I > went for the Full Yul Brenner look. > > That's what I'd do if I ever went bald. Maybe keep the ponytail and look > like some demented genie or something... > > > Mind you him and Sam Jackson are the two most ass kicking bald men ever. > > Hey now...don't forget the dune-buggy drivin' Picard! I heard he's > BAAAAAAAAAd in the new Trek movie! Stewart is only a bad ass in the David Lynch abomination. "Feel the Force Motherfucker"-what Mace Windu really said when he fought Jango Fett. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 18:37:57 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: <3D750230.3020009@shaw.ca> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" wrote: >>so am I, come to think of it, last time I was feeling this depressed I >>went for the Full Yul Brenner look. > > That's what I'd do if I ever went bald. Maybe keep the ponytail and look > like some demented genie or something... I wouldn't. I promised myself that if I went bald I'd cut my ponytail. Too much of a 'mid-life crisis' look for my taste. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 09:50:39 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:akuv8c$1lju0k$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:jPCc9.355349$m91.14160921@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > news:un5tjngnbrql99@corp.supernews.com... > > > Hey > > > > You hopeless, hopeless little man. > > > > (sigh) > > (shakes head) > > > > Did the mullet make you stupid, or have you always been like this? > > > > Not to jump in here but we are relatively certian of the composition of the > TESB asteroid Really, now? Last time such a debate popped up over at StarDestroyer.Net, Warsies couldn't even decide what an asteroid that was solid nickel-iron was supposed to look like. > but what makes us certian of the composition or structure of > the asteroid the Ent went after? You mean why do we know what the asteroid Voyager went after was made of? Probably because we were told what it was made of in the episode. > As several people have pointed out a great > deal of asteroids out there are little more than rubble piles which would be > easy to disrupt. And I used the 3,000 kg/m^3 average density figure in my work, as opposed to the ridiculous Warsie estimates. > Hell even if it is normal igneous rock inputting a diameter > of 390m into the ever so useful Asteroid Destruction Calculator indicates a > fragmentation energy of only 59.3 kt. Which, as you would know if you read the "Notes", is the energy required to shatter the asteroid so that no individual fragment exceeds 10 meters in diameter. This also assumes a buried explosive, as opposed to the surface impact we observed in the episode. If you use the Vaporizaton energy of just the hard granite from Wong's calculator (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Asteroids.html), and a more proper figure of about 295 meters (which is roughly what the asteroid's diameter would have been, had it been a sphere), you get 98.7 megatons, or just a bit shy of my conservative estimate. If you use iron (which the asteroid is stated to be composed of), you get 192 megatons, almost twice as much. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 02:19:49 -0400 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:PvGc9.97963$On.4270864@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:akuv8c$1lju0k$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:jPCc9.355349$m91.14160921@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > > news:un5tjngnbrql99@corp.supernews.com... > > > > Hey > > > > > > You hopeless, hopeless little man. > > > > > > (sigh) > > > (shakes head) > > > > > > Did the mullet make you stupid, or have you always been like this? > > > > > > > Not to jump in here but we are relatively certian of the composition of > the > > TESB asteroid > > Really, now? Last time such a debate popped up over at StarDestroyer.Net, > Warsies couldn't even decide what an asteroid that was solid nickel-iron was > supposed to look like. That's because they haven't amde it half their study area in terms of SWvST liek I have. > > but what makes us certian of the composition or structure of > > the asteroid the Ent went after? > > You mean why do we know what the asteroid Voyager went after was made of? > Probably because we were told what it was made of in the episode. You'll excuse me if I haven't watched the episode. > > As several people have pointed out a great > > deal of asteroids out there are little more than rubble piles which would > be > > easy to disrupt. > > And I used the 3,000 kg/m^3 average density figure in my work, as opposed to > the ridiculous Warsie estimates. > > > Hell even if it is normal igneous rock inputting a diameter > > of 390m into the ever so useful Asteroid Destruction Calculator indicates > a > > fragmentation energy of only 59.3 kt. > > Which, as you would know if you read the "Notes", is the energy required to > shatter the asteroid so that no individual fragment exceeds 10 meters in > diameter. This also assumes a buried explosive, as opposed to the surface > impact we observed in the episode. It also assumes relatively solid composition while, as many people have tried to beat me down with, most asteroids are NOT solid but are rather loose dirt piles. Hell it might've even been you who pointed this out to me. > If you use the Vaporizaton energy of just the hard granite from Wong's > calculator (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Asteroids.html), and > a more proper figure of about 295 meters (which is roughly what the > asteroid's diameter would have been, had it been a sphere), you get 98.7 > megatons, or just a bit shy of my conservative estimate. If you use iron > (which the asteroid is stated to be composed of), you get 192 megatons, > almost twice as much. > Vaporization is hugely different from disruption to fragmentary size. the mechanics are completely different and you can't claim and realistic idea that they are similair. Fragmentation does not involve paying the latent heat of evaporation which (of your 192 MT) accounts for 160 MT. Now obviously fragmentation to fine dust would require more than the 25.7 KT neccessary to get fragments smaller than 10m but there is a HUGE gap between 192MT and 25.7 Kt which you have no realistic hope of bridging. In other words you are using mechanisms which are not compatible to describe the event. Frankly I'd be suprised if fragmentation met the requirement for Melt Energy at 32 MT for Iron. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 11:22:52 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:al1kau$1mpts7$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > but what makes us certian of the composition or structure of > > > the asteroid the Ent went after? > > > > You mean why do we know what the asteroid Voyager went after was made of? > > Probably because we were told what it was made of in the episode. > > You'll excuse me if I haven't watched the episode. No, because the quotes are on my site. :-) > > > > As several people have pointed out a great > > > deal of asteroids out there are little more than rubble piles which > would > > be > > > easy to disrupt. > > > > And I used the 3,000 kg/m^3 average density figure in my work, as opposed > to > > the ridiculous Warsie estimates. > > > > > Hell even if it is normal igneous rock inputting a diameter > > > of 390m into the ever so useful Asteroid Destruction Calculator > indicates > > a > > > fragmentation energy of only 59.3 kt. > > > > Which, as you would know if you read the "Notes", is the energy required > to > > shatter the asteroid so that no individual fragment exceeds 10 meters in > > diameter. This also assumes a buried explosive, as opposed to the > surface > > impact we observed in the episode. > > It also assumes relatively solid composition while, as many people have > tried to beat me down with, most asteroids are NOT solid but are rather > loose dirt piles. Hell it might've even been you who pointed this out to me. Yes, it was me. > Vaporization is hugely different from disruption to fragmentary size. the > mechanics are completely different and you can't claim and realistic idea > that they are similair. Fragmentation does not involve paying the latent > heat of evaporation which (of your 192 MT) accounts for 160 MT. Now > obviously fragmentation to fine dust would require more than the 25.7 KT > neccessary to get fragments smaller than 10m but there is a HUGE gap between > 192MT and 25.7 Kt which you have no realistic hope of bridging. The asteroid was expected to be vaporized. Fragments were expected to exist, but none over a centimeter in diameter. The very fact that they expected such tiny fragments suggests that the anticipated vaporization fraction was quite high. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 08:28:36 -0600 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: <3D776A14.756C4EA6@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > > Vaporization is hugely different from disruption to fragmentary size. the > > mechanics are completely different and you can't claim and realistic idea > > that they are similair. Fragmentation does not involve paying the latent > > heat of evaporation which (of your 192 MT) accounts for 160 MT. Now > > obviously fragmentation to fine dust would require more than the 25.7 KT > > neccessary to get fragments smaller than 10m but there is a HUGE gap > between > > 192MT and 25.7 Kt which you have no realistic hope of bridging. > > The asteroid was expected to be vaporized. Fragments were expected to > exist, but none over a centimeter in diameter. The very fact that they > expected such tiny fragments suggests that the anticipated vaporization > fraction was quite high. The crew of Voyager is too incompetent to accept that sort of of statement. After all, they think that you can release dynes of plasma. -- NOTE: The Most Fundamental Particles in This Product Are Held Together by a "Gluing" Force About Which Little is Currently Known and Whose Adhesive Power Can Therefore Not Be Permanently Guaranteed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 20:44:55 -0400 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:g8Hd9.449528$2p2.17799992@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > It also assumes relatively solid composition while, as many people have > > tried to beat me down with, most asteroids are NOT solid but are rather > > loose dirt piles. Hell it might've even been you who pointed this out to > me. > > Yes, it was me. I thought so. > > Vaporization is hugely different from disruption to fragmentary size. the > > mechanics are completely different and you can't claim and realistic idea > > that they are similair. Fragmentation does not involve paying the latent > > heat of evaporation which (of your 192 MT) accounts for 160 MT. Now > > obviously fragmentation to fine dust would require more than the 25.7 KT > > neccessary to get fragments smaller than 10m but there is a HUGE gap > between > > 192MT and 25.7 Kt which you have no realistic hope of bridging. > > The asteroid was expected to be vaporized. Fragments were expected to > exist, but none over a centimeter in diameter. The very fact that they > expected such tiny fragments suggests that the anticipated vaporization > fraction was quite high. > Alternatively it could indicate an extreme degree of framentation due to weak internal structure of the asteroid. There are way too many variables here and way to large of a pool of answers the only thing you can conclude is that between 192 MT and 25.7 Kt of energy was required to accomplish the task. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 07:14:27 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:al8tq1$1nhua9$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > Vaporization is hugely different from disruption to fragmentary size. > the > > > mechanics are completely different and you can't claim and realistic > idea > > > that they are similair. Fragmentation does not involve paying the latent > > > heat of evaporation which (of your 192 MT) accounts for 160 MT. Now > > > obviously fragmentation to fine dust would require more than the 25.7 KT > > > neccessary to get fragments smaller than 10m but there is a HUGE gap > > between > > > 192MT and 25.7 Kt which you have no realistic hope of bridging. > > > > The asteroid was expected to be vaporized. Fragments were expected to > > exist, but none over a centimeter in diameter. The very fact that they > > expected such tiny fragments suggests that the anticipated vaporization > > fraction was quite high. > > > > Alternatively it could indicate an extreme degree of framentation due to > weak internal structure of the asteroid. There are way too many variables > here and way to large of a pool of answers the only thing you can conclude > is that between 192 MT and 25.7 Kt of energy was required to accomplish the > task. One of the neat tricks of rubble pile asteroids is the fact that they can take a collision which would catastrophically smash a solid hunk of rock, and only end up with a big fat crater. Your range is invalid. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 19:21:41 -0400 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:nBYd9.454462$m91.17668940@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:al8tq1$1nhua9$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > Vaporization is hugely different from disruption to fragmentary size. > > the > > > > mechanics are completely different and you can't claim and realistic > > idea > > > > that they are similair. Fragmentation does not involve paying the > latent > > > > heat of evaporation which (of your 192 MT) accounts for 160 MT. Now > > > > obviously fragmentation to fine dust would require more than the 25.7 > KT > > > > neccessary to get fragments smaller than 10m but there is a HUGE gap > > > between > > > > 192MT and 25.7 Kt which you have no realistic hope of bridging. > > > > > > The asteroid was expected to be vaporized. Fragments were expected to > > > exist, but none over a centimeter in diameter. The very fact that they > > > expected such tiny fragments suggests that the anticipated vaporization > > > fraction was quite high. > > > > > > > Alternatively it could indicate an extreme degree of framentation due to > > weak internal structure of the asteroid. There are way too many variables > > here and way to large of a pool of answers the only thing you can conclude > > is that between 192 MT and 25.7 Kt of energy was required to accomplish > the > > task. > > One of the neat tricks of rubble pile asteroids is the fact that they can > take a collision which would catastrophically smash a solid hunk of rock, > and only end up with a big fat crater. Your range is invalid. > You retard go back and understand where my numbers come from. 192 MT is vaporizaiton of a pure Iron asteroid of the size given (roughly). 25.7 Kt is the energy neccessary to fragment an asteroid of the size given into pieces smaller than 10m in diameter. My range is perfectly valid and while you can tell us that the end point lies somewhere between thsoe values you have NO mechanistic proof for which end of the range it should be at. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jason L. Miles Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 03:09:04 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 07:14:27 GMT, "DarkStar" wrote: > >"Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message >news:al8tq1$1nhua9$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > >> > > Vaporization is hugely different from disruption to fragmentary size. >> the >> > > mechanics are completely different and you can't claim and realistic >> idea >> > > that they are similair. Fragmentation does not involve paying the >latent >> > > heat of evaporation which (of your 192 MT) accounts for 160 MT. Now >> > > obviously fragmentation to fine dust would require more than the 25.7 >KT >> > > neccessary to get fragments smaller than 10m but there is a HUGE gap >> > between >> > > 192MT and 25.7 Kt which you have no realistic hope of bridging. >> > >> > The asteroid was expected to be vaporized. Fragments were expected to >> > exist, but none over a centimeter in diameter. The very fact that they >> > expected such tiny fragments suggests that the anticipated vaporization >> > fraction was quite high. >> > >> >> Alternatively it could indicate an extreme degree of framentation due to >> weak internal structure of the asteroid. There are way too many variables >> here and way to large of a pool of answers the only thing you can conclude >> is that between 192 MT and 25.7 Kt of energy was required to accomplish >the >> task. > >One of the neat tricks of rubble pile asteroids is the fact that they can >take a collision which would catastrophically smash a solid hunk of rock, >and only end up with a big fat crater. Your range is invalid. > Then what is a valid range, dumbass? -- "This is Grand Moff Miles, Lord Vader, I am heading to the Milky Way with my 95,089 ship Oversector Group, I don't expect much resistance. Don't worry about sending Death Stars as support." Jason L. Miles ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tedmanonions@hotmail.com (Ted Archbold) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:50:01 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: <3d6e2675.56623178@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:14:39 -0700, "Wayne Poe" wrote: > >"DarkStar" wrote > >> http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWrise.html > >You seem to forget in your tossing off that your analogy is flawed, sice >ISDs used a 1/10th of a second blast to VAPE asteroids, while a PHOTON >TORPEDO can't even accomplish this. (Note the huge chunks flying off to the >right...) > >Anyway, nice page. You're sure to get rabid Trekkies who don't know any >better to "fire protein phasers" at their computer screen. > FUQ the protein phasers. AIM: FldMrslTed ICQ: 125211976 MSN: tedmanonions@hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Charlie" Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 03:23:40 -0400 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:SEdb9.276085$2p2.11104638@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWromplasw.html > > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWrise.html > > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWotherpoints.html > > Meh -- Charlie Dillon "They are plausible theories. Star Trek is real life." -Frank ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:55:39 GMT Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "Charlie" wrote in message news:akki1h$1ilvbd$1@ID-126446.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:SEdb9.276085$2p2.11104638@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWromplasw.html > > > > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWrise.html > > > > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWotherpoints.html > > > > > Meh I hereby concede my arguments to the awe-inspiring evidence, logic, mathematic savvy, and scathing wit you have just demonstrated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Charlie" Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:20:04 -0400 Subject: Re: Site Updates Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:fklb9.286122$2p2.11502393@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Charlie" wrote in message > news:akki1h$1ilvbd$1@ID-126446.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:SEdb9.276085$2p2.11104638@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWromplasw.html > > > > > > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWrise.html > > > > > > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWotherpoints.html > > > > > > > > Meh > > I hereby concede my arguments to the awe-inspiring evidence, logic, > mathematic savvy, and scathing wit you have just demonstrated. > > > > Koff -- Charlie Dillon "They are plausible theories. Star Trek is real life." -Frank