NDF: A Myth

[Khas 12,158]

There is no such thing as a "nuclear disruptive force" in ST. It's "nuclear disruptive effect", and it's not produced by phasers, but rather by the main deflector:

 

 

Originally Posted by Cost of Living

PICARD:Activate a deflector dish. If we project a particle beam, we may be able to produce a disruptive nuclear effect within the core.

 

 

 

If phasers did that, Picard would have ordered the phasers used. But he didn't.

 

Now, some interesting facts.

 

In ENT's "Silent Enemy", we see that phase cannons (the predecessor to phasers), that have been powered with 5 terajoules, or 1.25 kilotons worth of energy were enough to pretty much vaporize a mountain the size of Mt. McKinley, a feat that would have required 50 gigatons to do so. Originally thought to be the work of "NDF", the evidence of Picard's quote from "Cost of Living" suggests that this was not the case. Where then, does all the energy come from? From the nadions.

 

Nadions are the particles that make up phaser beams, as was mentioned in the show, and we can assume, phase cannon beams as well. My guess is that nadions are energy amplifier particles - you put energy in, they put out millions of times the energy out. But where does this energy come from? After all, matter and energy can't just pop out of nowhere. Well, I have two theories.

 

The first is that the nadions draw this energy from vacuum energy, the energy of space-time itself. The other is dark energy, the stuff accelerating the universe's expansion. Since we now know that it's not NDE (NDF being a myth), where else could the energy come from? Especially a 40-million-fold increase? This means, if we take Data's statement about the Enterprise-D core putting out 12.75 billion gigawatts, which translates to 3.1875 gigatons of energy, coupled with the fact that phasers now draw their energy directly from the warp core, and with the 40-million-fold increase of energy nadions put out, translates to a beam with a yield of 127.5 petatons.

 

Well, this certainly explains TDiC.

[Khas 12,158]

Also, you know how something will occasionally be discovered that shocks even the guy who discovered it? Well, this is one of those cases.

[Tyralak 12,068]

Its staggering but it makes . There has to be an explanation as to how just over a kiloton of energy could obliterate a mountain the size of mt McKinley. It explains an awful lot about phasers.

[Vince 520]

Isn't the deflector dish more powerful? That might have been why he used it, because of its larger capacity. Then phasers could be the same.

 

Phasers consistently cause an order of magnitude grater effect than their energy would imply. Look at the 4.7 megajoule capacity phaser rifles, whether that is energy capacity or megawatts the fact remains that they *can* indeed disintegrate a whole person, which in terms of ordinary energy weapons would require hundreds of megajoules or even over a gigajoule. Then we have the disintegration of rocks, where the phasers outperform their power output by at least one order of magnitude, if not two. They are also consistently less effective against shields, hulls, and hard targets like iron asteroids, showing performance perhaps closer to what their actual energy output would imply. The planetary bombardment in TDiC outperform the yield of photons/phasers/ship power output by a couple of magnitudes as well.

 

They might (in TDiC) for example be capable of inflicting effect comparable to what would be expected from said hundreds of petatons. But when dealing with dense metals, armours, shields, hard asteroids, etc. they should perform closer to what the actual energy input suggests, a few orders of magnitude below their max. potential against un-armoured targets IMO.

 

On a side note, I have seen it suggested that the 'McKinley' sized mountain was an exaggeration of the mountains sized, based on scalings. Haven't done the work myself though, and its not that relevant.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Vince

[Vince 520]

Interesting narrowing down on the efficiency of phasers though! That makes them 4,000,000,000% efficient when dealing with soft targets.... and one hundred percent efficiency is impossible by modern physics (:

[Khas 12,158]

To be honest, I was a little skeptical of these myself, and I've posted it on a few websites to see what kind of responses are given. In all honesty, 100s of petatons is not something I would have normally even dreamed of.

[scvn2812 504]

The asteroid the Enterprise-D was stuck in once called, it would like to know why its still around if it could have just been made to "go away" with the direct application of gigatons, let alone the equivalent effect of petatons.

[Vince 520]

To be honest, I was a little skeptical of these myself, and I've posted it on a few websites to see what kind of responses are given. In all honesty, 100s of petatons is not something I would have normally even dreamed of.

I don't know of any serious sci-fi on screen which puts out petatons with ordinary ships. Besides Lexx which is in excess. It used to be claimed 40k had petatons, as silly as that was back in the day. Any way, im pretty certain petatons matches the TDiC bombardment, or at least high teratons.. so your efficiency estimates probably aren't that far from the truth when where talking about.

he asteroid the Enterprise-D was stuck in once called, it would like to know why its still around if it could have just been made to "go away" with the direct application of gigatons

I have to ask, was it stated firepower was the issue? I imagine it was but i cant recall for certain. Imo the actual firepower of most Trek ships is somewhere in the megatons.

[Vince 520]

To be honest, I was a little skeptical of these myself, and I've posted it on a few websites to see what kind of responses are given. In all honesty, 100s of petatons is not something I would have normally even dreamed of.

I don't know of any serious sci-fi on screen which puts out petatons with ordinary ships. Besides Lexx which is in excess. It used to be claimed 40k had petatons, as silly as that was back in the day. Any way, im pretty certain petatons matches the TDiC bombardment.. so your efficiency theory probably isn't that far from the truth when we are talking about planetary bombardment.

he asteroid the Enterprise-D was stuck in once called, it would like to know why its still around if it could have just been made to "go away" with the direct application of gigatons

I have to ask, was it stated firepower was the issue? I imagine it was but i cant recall for certain. Imo the actual firepower of most Trek ships is somewhere in the megatons.

[Tyralak 12,068]

The asteroid the Enterprise-D was stuck in once called, it would like to know why its still around if it could have just been made to "go away" with the direct application of gigatons, let alone the equivalent effect of petatons.

 

In the episode, it was explained that destabilizing the asteroid by firing on it would cause it to collapse on the ship.

[scvn2812 504]

Looking back at the transcript, that is indeed a misquote. The "most" of her torpedoes comment refers to bombing their way to Pegasus in order to destroy her. Which still should be no problem for megaton phasers. Kiloton phasers would do the job as well, just not as quickly. Though this is seemingly in contradiction with the episode where they drilled into a planet's crust.

 

The main point is that its not enough that a theory of what kinds of power outputs phasers and ships have satisfy a few criteria, they have to explain them all. In this case, there is no plausible circumstance in which the Enterprise-D can be threatened by destabilizing an asteroid with the firepower suggested by that theory given that she regularly squared off against foes with similar or superior firepower and lived. For that matter, passing very close to the surface of stars shouldn't be a problem and we know it is. Let alone 400 GW overwhelming the shields. I'd go so far as to say that energy outputs aren't necessarily that relevant to Trek combat, the Husnock example doesn't need to be 400 GW of direct energy or it could be something more exotic, but when a theory invalidates an entire plot point as in Pegasus, its got serious problems. If a theory cannot be made to explain why characters chose not to pursue a particular course of action that would be blindingly obvious, its not a valid theory. Human beings can use hyperbole or misspeak, for that matter they can be incompetent but that is a very hard and very controversial approach to demonstrate and just leads to accusations of bias.

 

So if the Enterprise-D can destroy Pegasus with her phasers without seriously compromising her safety (such as draining away fuel and ammo stocks with the potential for engagement with an enemy looming) why not do it? If the destruction of Pegasus to prevent her from falling into enemy hands is her goal and her crew fail to do this, then either the ship can't do it or the crew are incompetent.

[Tyralak 12,068]

Isn't the deflector dish more powerful? That might have been why he used it, because of its larger capacity. Then phasers could be the same.

 

No, the deflector isn't more powerful, its just different. There's a very long and annoying thread on the subject here. http://forums.asvs.org/showthread.php/259-Galaxy-class-starship-main-defector-dish-as-a-weapon

 

On a side note, I have seen it suggested that the 'McKinley' sized mountain was an exaggeration of the mountains sized, based on scalings. Haven't done the work myself though, and its not that relevant.

 

Unless you're just assuming hyperbole, there's no reason to think he wasn't correct. In fact, it was stated in that same scene, that they had done extensive scans on the moon. Mostly to determine if there were life signs. Archer was well aware of the size and composition of that mountain. If it were an exaggeration, he wouldn't have been off by much.

[Khas 12,158]

Okay, I've done some recalculations, based on scaling issues, and have come to the conclusion that it wasn't the size of McKinley. However, using these new dimensions, and factoring in mass, I've realized that the feat needed only a bit more than a megaton to pull off. However, this is still a thousand-fold increase in energy, which would mean that if the E-D put out 3 gigatons into it's phaser banks, we'd get a 3 teraton beam.

[scvn2812 504]

So how does your theory explain the decision not to tear apart the asteroid in Pegasus to destroy her rather than venturing into the cave? Can it coexist with the Husnock weapons damaging shields at 400 mw?

[Vince 520]

No, the deflector isn't more powerful, its just different. There's a very long and annoying thread on the subject here. http://forums.asvs.org/showthread.php/259-Galaxy-class-starship-main-defector-dish-as-a-weapon

Unless you're just assuming hyperbole, there's no reason to think he wasn't correct. In fact, it was stated in that same scene, that they had done extensive scans on the moon. Mostly to determine if there were life signs. Archer was well aware of the size and composition of that mountain. If it were an exaggeration, he wouldn't have been off by much.

Looked at the thread, but didn't get to relevant the deflector bit.. I'll take your word for it. Its just so much bigger i thought it would be logical to assume its more powerful, or at least has greater capacity then fair enough.

Well according to Khas and others the mountain is smaller when scaled. So we could assume hyperbole, or we could take script over visual. Either way the weapons outperform their energy output by quite an amount.

[scvn2812 504]

How they outperform their energy output is rather important though. Specifically in that time and time again, we see targets effectively removed from existence with little more than scorch marks left. No clouds of vapor, no secondary effects of any kind. Just a target there one minute, gone the next with maybe, occasionally some mild pyrotechnics that are in no way proportionate to what you'd see from direct energy transfer. This does not at all in any way shape or form imply energy amplification. What seems to be suggested here is that you get literal terratons from gigatons when none of the corresponding effects come along with it when what is taking place is a completely different effect. Matter is basically getting removed without the effects of vaporization. It would be a serious leap of logic to assume that shields would be hit with a thousand fold of the energy that was actually used in generating the beam. In fact, it would be flat out absurd unless the shields too are a thousand fold more resilient than the power source backing them and I'd like to see someone try and explain how that is supposed to work.

 

The original author clearly did not think through the consequences of their conclusions for the rest of Treknology or even canon. That much firepower invalidates entire plots and there's no known technobabble that implies that shields can be any stronger than the energy used to produce them with the possible exception of metaphasic shielding which enabled the E-D to go deeper into a star for longer than ever before with off the shelf equipment. So you're left with shields being a thousand fold (a million fold by the original theory) less powerful than weaponry, unless that effect is restricted only to matter. Tellingly, there is no attempt to reconcile this with conflicting evidence that implies lower power outputs and weapon yields. A lack of interest in addressing potentially conflicting evidence implies to me working backwards from a goal, that goal being to bloat the numbers as much as possible to satisfy some need for Star Trek to be "on top" of the franchise pile.

[Brian Young 11,994]

I've only skimmed this thread, so forgive me if this has already been stated. I'm using my phone's 3G connection out of town.

In Best of Both Worlds, Geordie suggested using the main deflector as a weapon. It was the most powerful component of the ship that uses "controlled frequencies." I don't have the quote, and I'm 200 miles from home. But that is the reason they used the main deflector, and it would deliver more energy "than our phasers or photon torpedoes could ever provide."

And the main deflector having this effect does not mean phasers don't. Just in lower magnitude.

There are quotes that indicate phasers affect the "molecular structure" of a target, which is what the whole NDF thing is about. It doesn't matter what you call it, but they simply affect matter *in a different way* than other weapons. This is their greatest advantage, IMO.

Some people get caught up in the whole thisvsthat scenarios and focus on which weapon has more firepower. Don't forget that, if a phaser rifle can sustain a megawatt of firepower as stated in a test by Data, that is more than enough for small arms. There are significant differences in beam weapons and explosives, but in terms of energy, that outclasses an RPG.

But it isn't enough to vaporize a person in one second. Phasers don't cause collateral damage outside the target, but they completely disintegrate the target. But they have far less effect on dense metals or rocks. These things are ubiquitous in Star Trek, and prove these weapons are not standard thermal effects weapons.

They can stun on wide beam, even from orbit, fire in beams or pulses, or even erupt in flak bursts. Certainly not a standard laser. So why the opposition to technobabble?

[Brian Young 11,994]

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/20522425/costofliving1.mov

Here is the clip in question.

Interesting to note, this asteroid, a natural formation, causes so much trouble with the technobabble. Data said another photon torpedo wouldn't have any effect. The tractor beam wouldn't lock on. But a plain old particle beam from the deflector blew it up.

But that is the thing about technobabble. Even The Doctor's sonic screwdriver can't do the job of a hammer.

Fortunately these ships can do some of it all.

[scvn2812 504]

I don't think the main deflector thing really ever popped up in this thread. Although its a good illustration of how things are more complex than just how many tons of TNG equivalent you're slinging.

 

To restate the deflector argument a bit. Its entirely reasonable that the deflector might be able to accept a higher total power input than the phaser arrays. Its job is to nudge debris out of the Enterprise's flight path before gravel can hit it like an A bomb. The deflector might for example be able to generate an energy field that shovels debris out of the way but can't be precise enough to hit a maneuvering ship at range with enough joules to burn through the shields and harm the hull.

 

People get too hung up on the total amount of energy being thrown around. A star releases an ISD broadside every second of every day for billions of years but it does it in all directions and attenuates with distance so if you happen to be 8 light minutes out, your planet becomes the most desirable real estate for life in the known universe to date. A few minutes closer and its a volcanic hell. Weaponize that power and put it to use firing beams with cross sections of just a few meters and you've just created an apocalypse for anyone in an astronomical unit who gets in the way of said beams.

[Vince 520]

Rather than thinking of this as some arbitrary multiplication of firepower in space, we should think of the results as the ‘equivalent energy yields of phasers when bombarding soft targets’, or the yield they would have to be if they were energy weapons to create the effects they do when bombarding planets. It could also tell us something of the jump in efficiency between The Enterprise era and TNG. Maybe the asteroid was iron, and iron is to dense to be considered a ‘soft target’.

Khas stated that based on his own scaling of the mountain, the weapons on the original Enterprise outperformed their energy output forty thousand times over. So when bombarding planets, and soft silicon materials, their efficiency is around 4,000,000%.

 

To recreate the shock-waves seen in the events of TDiC with a nuclear weapon would require the input of several petatons of energy, according to Wong’s calculator. Even with the most optimistic power output of the Enterprise that would be two orders of magnitude more than the entire ships energy output. Hence, the effectiveness of phasers in terms of efficiency when bombarding planetary crusts has increased by at least one order of magnitude.

When phasers (even the small arms) fire upon dense materials such as what might be used in armour an iron asteroids or energy shielding, they we shouldn’t use this efficiency or multiplication of firepower, because it is only applicable against soft targets composed of less dense materials, like rock. Given actual performance it would be safer to use something much closer to their actual weapons fire would suggest when where talking about ship-to-ship combat or certain events where they struggle to destroy a certain mass of metal.

 

It is surely quite well understood that phasers of all sizes outperform their energy output by an order of magnitude or more when dealing with soft targets? And that they clearly struggle with the denser targets? We only have to look at the megawatt small-arms making cubic meters of rock literally vanish to come to this conclusion (with no vapour so wasn't vaporized, just vanished). FOr a DET energy weapon to remove cubic meters of rock it would have to inject many gigajoules of energy. Supportive quotes and instances in space only further solidify this hypothesis.

The mountain destruction incident isn't a contradiction, but instead a supportive piece of evidence like the Die is Cast case study, as the weapons clearly out perform their stated 500 gigajoule yield. Though i haven't seen the episode myself, this all pends on it being a single 500GJ shot that done all the work.

[Brian Young 11,994]

Phasers don't use thermal energy to melt or vaporize targets. They attack the molecular structure, causing it to break apart at the molecular level - disintegration. Now, this is work, and therefore requires energy input. They are just using that energy *in a different way*. But it makes sense that they have less effect on dense materials, because they don't have the energy input to affect that many molecules. They do have the energy input to affect the fewer molecules of less dense materials.

They do cause dense rocks to turn red hot, like when they warm by them, because they are too dense to disintegrate, and energy input that does no work turns into heat (First Law of Thermodynamics). Therefore, dense rock turns red hot, less dense rock is disintegrated. Heavy metals would also heat up, but not enough to turn red hot, melt, or vaporize, because the energy input is insufficient.

However, this is an ingenious way to use beam weapons, because without increasing the firepower, you increase the damage against the most common targets many times over.

[Tyralak 12,068]

Phasers don't use thermal energy to melt or vaporize targets. They attack the molecular structure, causing it to break apart at the molecular level - disintegration. Now, this is work, and therefore requires energy input. They are just using that energy *in a different way*. But it makes sense that they have less effect on dense materials, because they don't have the energy input to affect that many molecules. They do have the energy input to affect the fewer molecules of less dense materials.

They do cause dense rocks to turn red hot, like when they warm by them, because they are too dense to disintegrate, and energy input that does no work turns into heat (First Law of Thermodynamics). Therefore, dense rock turns red hot, less dense rock is disintegrated. Heavy metals would also heat up, but not enough to turn red hot, melt, or vaporize, because the energy input is insufficient.

However, this is an ingenious way to use beam weapons, because without increasing the firepower, you increase the damage against the most common targets many times over.

 

It's sort a form of "molecular Judo" using the target's own stored energy against itself. I would clarify tough, it's not the the dense rocks can't be disintegrated, simply at that level of power output, they are heated and not disintegrated. Which is why when people shoot at a rock with the intention of heating it up, they turn the power way down. The interesting thing is, dense metals being less affected isn't limited to Trek weapons. Really any beam weapon would have a more difficult time destroying a denser material, whether the damage is done with heat or molecular disintegration.

[Tyralak 12,068]

A lack of interest in addressing potentially conflicting evidence implies to me working backwards from a goal, that goal being to bloat the numbers as much as possible to satisfy some need for Star Trek to be "on top" of the franchise pile.

 

You realize the irony in that statement, don't you? This is something that's been rattling around in my head for a while, and at the risk of dragging Star Wars into a thread that really is strictly a Star Trek matter. I also want to make clear that the following isn't a dig at Brian or Curtis. I have the utmost respect for their work. I'm simply shedding light on what appears to be a double standard by some in the VS community.

 

What you described is exactly what we're expected to do with the ICS. Now, I haven't changed my position. At least until Lucasfilm outright contradicts those firepower figures in a TCW episode or a subsequent movie, I still accept them. But this is the issue. We are expected to accept the ships generate X amount of power and have X amount of firepower based on extrapolation of acceleration. The lack of secondary effects from that kind of acceleration? Not important. The lack of any visual support for multi gigaton beam weapons? Not important. Mystery reactors that beat E=MC2 like a redheaded stepchild and somehow generate stellar level power with very limited fuel sources and without obliterating the ship from the inside out? Not important. Ships that can supposedly take stellar level energy bolts but can get creamed by a slow moving asteroid? Not important. It's just something we have to keep in mind. In any of these series, contradictions abound. It's not simply a matter of finding ways for such and such franchise to come out on top, but all explanations have to be explored, preconceptions challenged and angles examined. Khas is thinking outside the box, and that's extremely important. He brought up an interesting point of view and a direction that may not have been considered before.

[Vince 520]

What you described is exactly what we're expected to do with the ICS. Now, I haven't changed my position. At least until Lucasfilm outright contradicts those firepower figures in a TCW episode or a subsequent movie, I still accept them.

Hmm. Would you not consider capital ships combating in atmosphere, trying to killing each other a contradiction? If we saw full scale bombardment in TCW I would imagine it be similar to their combat in atmosphere, or the bombardment of that city world in Old Republic, but would in turn contradict the lower limits in the films. Which should be low megatons for the invisible guns. There are a few secondary sources you could extrapolate ICS like magnitude firepower too, granted they are very much a minority, greatly outnumbered by the comics that give TL's the firepower of an artillery shell.

[Brian Young 11,994]

Yeah, Khas brings up a valid point to discuss.

But most of these things regarding Star Wars have been addressed recently.

*There is visual support for the firepower, every time they blast a 60 meter hole in stuff other folks can't even penetrate, including the Borg.

*General Dodonna's statement about half the fleet would require 10 quadrillion Acclamators, suggesting the firepower figures are conservative, or otherwise other ships are many times more powerful than this troop transport.

*The ship is not destroyed by its own power generation because it is doing that much work. Nothing is 100% efficient, and even 1% waste heat has to be dispersed. This heat dispersion capability supports the firepower figures as well, and in fact, is in excess.

*Asteroid impacts involve momentum, which is a different quantity. Shields and armor are hardened against beam weapon attack, not physical impact.

Have you seen the videos???

Yes, there are contradictions on the surface in all these shows, but logical solutions can be derived without going overboard with making things up. Just look at the data and try to come up with a simple solution that fits all the facts. In this case, that is what is going on with the NDF thing.

*We are given specific capacities, constant firepower, and even ship vs ship examples with SI units stated onscreen.

*We see visual effects where people are completely disintegrated.

*When they do, sometimes the carpet has a minor burn underneath, but absolutely no other collateral damage.

*We see other times when the same weapon cannot shoot through a mundane metal door.

*These statements and events don't jive.

However, we also hear them discuss "disintegration," and even describe these effects as being different from other weapons. Both Spock and Tuvok discuss their phasers being unable to affect "the molecular structure" of a target, and therefore unable to damage them. Yes, dense materials would, in a general sense, be more difficult for most beam weapons to damage, but the disparity with phasers is extremely wide. Making an entire Human disappear and not blasting through a metal door that a plasma torch can cut through are impossible to reconcile, given normal thermal effects (DS9, The Forsaken).

But this "disintegration" thing is how they affect their targets, not with thermal effects, making calculation impossible when taking an event by itself. We don't have a good understanding of disintegration with modern science.

However, given the energy capacities (which, in another thread are demonstrated to be consistent with the energy release when a phaser overloads and explodes), the power level given in a test, and given limitations imposed by events involving runabouts or starships (by default greater than small arms), we can conclude that these levels of energy are needed to disintegrate the targets they can. Since they have more difficulty with metals and other more dense materials consistently, it is logical to conclude they simply involve more molecules than this "disintegration of the molecular structure" can affect sufficiently with those energy levels.

This is consistent with all the facts.

Now, the TM gives a buzzword of "Nuclear Disruption Force" or NDF. This is as good a word as any, so that is the title slapped on it, rather than invent something out of thin air.

As I recall, this hypothesis was proposed by Mike Wong. Some dispute anything he says, because he is a bit fanatical (Ad Hominem). Some dispute this, because they prefer higher levels of firepower, as if these were thermal effects (disputed by almost every example in the history of Star Trek). Some dispute it because they think it is a way to make Star Wars tech superior (made up BS).

It is the most consistent hypothesis I've seen to date that explains all the effects and statements from televised episodes and theatrical films.

It was derived in a scientific way by a scientific mind. But the problem with acceptance is not with evidence, but rather most people involved in any way with these debates (even indirectly) don't think scientifically. Curtis Saxton is a scientist, but he is only interested in Star Wars. Mike Wong is an Engineer, but he debates in favor of Star Wars. Most other folk prefer to fling buzzwords and insults, without really knowing what they are talking about, or bothering to compile evidence and look at it objectively.

So ask yourself: what is your specific problem with the NDF hypothesis? What part of the reasoning do you feel is flawed, and can you back it up with onscreen evidence? Otherwise, can you present a superior hypothesis, complete with all the examples, explaining them more effectively?