Talk:Power generation

From ImperialWiki
Revision as of 13:45, 8 March 2009 by Ted C (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

The "12.75 billion gigawatts per (second)"[6]. quote in the article is taken from the shooting script. The actual aired episode has the line of dialog cut off just after the word "per" by an alarm klaxon going off. The word "second" is never spoken.

It would seem to me that people contributing need to check their sources more carefully; the as-filmed canon dialog should trump that of the screenplays. --Mike

  • I'm well aware of that, and have noted in the text that the script differs from the episode. --Ted C 20:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, and where does the 6E13 kg mass estimate for the Bre'el IV moon come from? --Mike

  • The volume of the moon estimated from screen shots multiplied by the density of heavy iron ore (rather than pure iron). --Ted C 20:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I see. Is this estimate from an SDN article that it should be properly cited and linked to? I seem to recall that there was an article Mike Wong did around those lines.
      • The volume estimate is from the Canon Database article on "Deja Q"; I plugged in the density of hematite (one of the heavier iron ores) to get the mass. If you wanted to treat the moon as solid iron, you'd push up the power requirement to 30,000 TW, but I really wouldn't expect to see a 2.5km solid iron natural satellite, so I go with an ore. --Ted C 22:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Bre'el Moon's size

Only two-and-half kilometers wide? Ted, look at the Trekcore images from the episode (Remember Trekcore does not allow hotlinking anymore, so cut and past the URLs):

http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s3/3x13/dejaq000.jpg

  • This image is useless for scaling; there is no way to tell whether the ship or the moon is closer to the camera. --Ted C 15:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s3/3x13/dejaq010.jpg

  • This image is better; if you want to do your own calculation of the moon's volume based on it, be my guest. --Ted C 15:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The second on in particular shows the E-D almost side-on, and fairly close to the asteroid based on the tractor beam being projected from it. From this it is apparent that just the visible portion of the asteroidal moon vertically is about 5.25 times the E-D's overall length, or 3.2 km, and it is clear from the curvature of the limb that there is still a considerable amount more of the moon off-screen. This view here gives us some idea of the overall shape of the moon:

http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s3/3x13/dejaq145.jpg

  • This image was used to generate a lower limit on the moon's size. It was corroborated by a side-on schematic of the effort to shift the moon.
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s3/3x13/dejaq189.jpg
--Ted C 15:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

When combined with the previous two pics, you can see that the Bre'el moon would have to substantially large in relative size to appear almost flat that close up to it.

-Mike

  • Mike, feel free to write your own article at SFJWiki if you don't like this one, or add your own assessment to the current article. I have no problem with multiple estimates being on the page. In fact, you can create a Bre'el moon article for detailed analysis of the whole incident, if that suits you. --Ted C 14:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


Ted, I have taken your advice and have included an alternative scaling and power in the article.

  • I have reworded your content into an article rather than a discussion, but left the content essentially unchanged. --Ted C 13:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools