What is a terradyne ?

[Moontanman]

It is a real measure of energy? If so what can I compare it with to understand how much power it represents? I ask because I was watching Star Trek Voyager and in passing they mentioned the warp reactor produced 4 trillion terradynes of energy per second, is it just technobabble or a real measure of energy? I tried to google it but my spelling must be off because all I got was bunch of companies with the word in their names...

[Endy0816]

It is a real measure of energy? If so what can I compare it with to understand how much power it represents? I ask because I was watching Star Trek Voyager and in passing they mentioned the warp reactor produced 4 trillion terradynes of energy per second, is it just technobabble or a real measure of energy? I tried to google it but my spelling must be off because all I got was bunch of companies with the word in their names...

 

 

One dyne is the force that accelerates a mass of one gram at the rate of one centimeter per second(squared). One dyne is equal to 2.2481×10^-6 pounds of force, or 10^-5 newtons.

--

1 teradyne = 1 trillion dynes

 

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Dyne

 

Memory Alpha to the rescue!

 

Edit:

 

Real thing too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyne

Edited January 29, 2014 by Endy0816

[Moontanman]

Ok, 4000 teradynes, no wonder Voyager can maintain a stable cruise velocity of warp 9.95

[imatfaal]

Ok, 4000 teradynes, no wonder Voyager can maintain a stable cruise velocity of warp 9.95

 

Am I doing something wrong here - a 700,000 tonne ship with an engine that can provide 4,000 terradyne. Thats 4*10^10 newtons on the top and 7*10^8 kilograms on the bottom. Well it would throw you back in your seat and send you a little bit unconscious soon (at around 55m/s^2) - but it aint what I would call nippy. It's not even an order of magnitude better than a cracking sports car. And to get to the significant fraction of light speed it would take a long long time.

 

Am I doing something wrong here ...

I mean apart from taking a tv show too seriously - I had always heard Star Trek had hot and cold running science advisors

[swansont]

is it just technobabble or a real measure of energy?

 

It's sorta both, actually. As others have noted, a teradyne is real (10¹² dynes) but it's force rather than energy (the cgs unit of energy is the erg = dyne-cm). Moreover, as a force it's not a unit a physicist would use . First of all, we'd use the right prefix. If it's actually 4000 there wouldn't be a number exceeding 1000 quoted: you would change the SI prefix. 4000 teradynes is 4 petadynes. 4 trillion teradynes might fly as reasonable jargon, because the 10²⁴ prefix is not used very often, but it does exist. It's yotta.

 

We also would use Newtons, but at aforementioned 10⁵ Dynes per Newton, somebody probably decided it's not quite as impressive-sounding with a smaller number.

 

The unit of dynes per second is nonsense.

 

I've seen a similar effort like this, in Iron Man. Tony Stark mentions his original cave-built mini arc reactor can output 3 GigaJoules per second, which is 3 GigaWatts, but (again) someone probably decided that "GigaJoules per second" sounds cooler.

[Endy0816]

If they truly meant Teradynes per second, they might yet be saved. The "yank" is SI derived unit for the equivalent N/s.

 

I can't imagine anyone ever wanting to refer to their engine as having an output of 4*10^10 yanks.

[Moontanman]

 

Am I doing something wrong here - a 700,000 tonne ship with an engine that can provide 4,000 terradyne. Thats 4*10^10 newtons on the top and 7*10^8 kilograms on the bottom. Well it would throw you back in your seat and send you a little bit unconscious soon (at around 55m/s^2) - but it aint what I would call nippy. It's not even an order of magnitude better than a cracking sports car. And to get to the significant fraction of light speed it would take a long long time.

I mean apart from taking a tv show too seriously - I had always heard Star Trek had hot and cold running science advisors

 

 

You forgot about the warp field, it effectively reduces the mass of the space craft to zero...

[Greg H.]

 

 

You forgot about the warp field, it effectively reduces the mass of the space craft to zero...

It also causes engineers to fart rainbows, or so I've been told.

[michel123456]

 

 

You forgot about the warp field, it effectively reduces the mass of the space craft to zero...

but if you reduce the mass to zero you don't need any propulsion system.

You will travel at C.

the question is : in which direction?

[michel123456]

but if you reduce the mass to zero you don't need any propulsion system.

You will travel at C.

the question is : in which direction?

Wasn't that an interesting question?

[imatfaal]

Wasn't that an interesting question?

 

It was - but I think if Newton's laws don't apply then all bets are off! And of course not only does it go at c - it goes many times faster; lightspeed is just too slow a speed at which to explore the galaxy

[arc]

 

I can't imagine anyone ever wanting to refer to their engine as having an output of 4*10^10 yanks.

 

Hey, wait a minute . . . I think I saw that on the hood scoop of a Trans Am back in the 70's.

[Moontanman]

Wasn't that an interesting question?

 

 

yes but it was in response to a flawed question of my own, it's all techno babble of course, but the Voyager travels at 1000 c to 2000 c (more or less) maximum speed, the idea I guess is that a star ship that masses very little if anything is easier to push past light speed and then on to the incremental warp factors. Of course Star Trek apologists have commandeered the idea of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive as part of Star Trek cannon kind of a retrofit to a possible real world FTL drive. Of course everything from PC's to mobile phones is credited to Star Trek by us Trekkers...

Edited February 2, 2014 by Moontanman

[Delta1212]

 

It's sorta both, actually. As others have noted, a teradyne is real (10¹² dynes) but it's force rather than energy (the cgs unit of energy is the erg = dyne-cm). Moreover, as a force it's not a unit a physicist would use . First of all, we'd use the right prefix. If it's actually 4000 there wouldn't be a number exceeding 1000 quoted: you would change the SI prefix. 4000 teradynes is 4 petadynes. 4 trillion teradynes might fly as reasonable jargon, because the 10²⁴ prefix is not used very often, but it does exist. It's yotta.

 

We also would use Newtons, but at aforementioned 10⁵ Dynes per Newton, somebody probably decided it's not quite as impressive-sounding with a smaller number.

 

The unit of dynes per second is nonsense.

 

I've seen a similar effort like this, in Iron Man. Tony Stark mentions his original cave-built mini arc reactor can output 3 GigaJoules per second, which is 3 GigaWatts, but (again) someone probably decided that "GigaJoules per second" sounds cooler.

"Do we say 3000 Watts or 3 GigaWatts?"

"Well, Giga sounds awesome, but it doesn't sound as impressive if he says his suit only generates 3 GigaWatts. Three's not a very big number."

"What if we change it to GigaJoules, and then he can say it generates 3 GigaJoules every second?"

"Great idea!"

 

How I assume those conversations go.

[imatfaal]

"Do we say 3000 Watts or 3 GigaWatts?"

"Well, Giga sounds awesome, but it doesn't sound as impressive if he says his suit only generates 3 GigaWatts. Three's not a very big number."

"What if we change it to GigaJoules, and then he can say it generates 3 GigaJoules every second?"

"Great idea!"

 

How I assume those conversations go.

 

[pedantry]

"Do we say 3000 Watts or 3 GigaWatts?" 3 gigawatts is 3*10^9 watts. And I think the G, W and J should all be lower case [/pedantry]

 

I am sorry - I try to fight the urge but I just cannot help it

[swansont]

 

[pedantry]

"Do we say 3000 Watts or 3 GigaWatts?" 3 gigawatts is 3*10^9 watts. And I think the G, W and J should all be lower case [/pedantry]

 

I am sorry - I try to fight the urge but I just cannot help it

 

I call and raise your pedantry. The letter for all prefixes mega and larger are upper case. All of the smaller ones are lower case.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html

 

Watt and joules both have caps for the letter as well

http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP330/sp330.pdf (table 3, p.25)

[imatfaal]

I think I am playing with money that isn't mine and that I have a losing hand - but what the hell you only live once. I re-raise (can you do that in whatever fictional game?)

I call and raise your pedantry. The letter for all prefixes mega and larger are upper case. All of the smaller ones are lower case.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html
...

from http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si_brochure_8_en.pdf section 3.1 page 121 Note no one is using the abbreviated form of the prefix - which would be per your message.

 

All prefix names are printed in lower case letters, except at the beginning of a sentence.

 

...
Watt and joules both have caps for the letter as well
http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP330/sp330.pdf (table 3, p.25)

 

But, again as in the above situation, the abbreviations were not in question; they, as you correctly say, are capitalised as they are named after a person; the unit itself is not.

http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si_brochure_8_en.pdf table 3 page 118

energy, work, joule J N m m^2kg s^-2
amount of heat

power, radiant flux watt W J/s m^2kg s^-33

Frankly if you tell me NIST trumps BIPM in these matters I will believe you - but wikipage does end with this

BIPM Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (SI maintenance agency) (home page)

And because I was so afraid of Skitt's Law - I had already checked with the people who I believed were the final arbiters.

[swansont]

I think I am playing with money that isn't mine and that I have a losing hand - but what the hell you only live once. I re-raise (can you do that in whatever fictional game?)

 

 

from http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si_brochure_8_en.pdf section 3.1 page 121 Note no one is using the abbreviated form of the prefix - which would be per your message.

 

 

 

But, again as in the above situation, the abbreviations were not in question; they, as you correctly say, are capitalised as they are named after a person; the unit itself is not.

 

http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si_brochure_8_en.pdf table 3 page 118

 

 

Frankly if you tell me NIST trumps BIPM in these matters I will believe you - but wikipage does end with this

 

BIPM Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (SI maintenance agency) (home page)

 

And because I was so afraid of Skitt's Law - I had already checked with the people who I believed were the final arbiters.

 

I didn't carefully read the source — watt and joule should indeed be lower case, even though the symbols W and J are caps, as one can see in the table and is explained on p 130-131.

 

mea culpa

 

So it would be GW or GJ, and gigawatts or gigajoules.

[Delta1212]

 

[pedantry]

"Do we say 3000 Watts or 3 GigaWatts?" 3 gigawatts is 3*10^9 watts. And I think the G, W and J should all be lower case [/pedantry]

 

I am sorry - I try to fight the urge but I just cannot help it

Whoops. Got a little careless with my zeroes.