Talk: Watt

Enterprise D Energy Consumption as 12.75 billion gigawatts?

Data was interupted by a warp core breach when he said that line, and there may have been some kind of qualifier, because if there isn't, then the Enterprise goes through approximately four and a half million metric tons of antimatter a year (which is more than the weight of Voyager if I recall correctly), so I'm not sure if that reference should be included here, or at the very least that it should be qualified that Data didn't have a chance to finish explaining himself. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.98.160.165.

What? Where are you getting your conversion factors to conjure up this information? I recall of no reference that states how much antimatter the Enterprise uses, on any scale. --Alan del Beccio 21:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

He is actually on to something, although his math is flawed (or mine is):

• 12.75 billion gigawatts = 12750000000000000000 watts
  • Watts = Joules/second
  • There are approximately 31557600 seconds in a year
• 12750000000000000000 Watts * 31557600 seconds = 402359400000000000000000000 Joules per year
  • E=m*c² tells us that energy (Joules) = mass (kilograms) * the velocity of light (299,792,458 m/s) squared
• 402359400000000000000000000 Joules / (299,792,458 m/s)² = 4476852089.64 kg
  • Since an warp core annihilates an equal ratio of matter and anti-matter, we can divide this number by 2 to give us the amount of anti-matter used in the reaction
• 4476852089.64 kg / 2 = 2238426045 kg (anti-matter)
  • There are 1000 kg in 1 metric tonne
• 2238426045 kg / 1000 = 2,238,426.04 metric tonnes

So, in one year, the Enterprise-D should go through about 2.24 million metric tonnes of anti-matter, assuming for a constant output of the warp core. The problem, of course, is that the output of the warp core is not likely to be constant. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 23:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In TNG: "The Dauphin",

• Data: "Sir, sensors indicate the communication originated from a gigawatt source on the planet."
• Riker: "That's more power than our entire ship can generate."

--Bp 23:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the Enterprise received an unrealistically huge upgrade after that. TNG: "True Q"

   She looks back toward the warp core... humming
	strongly, blue lights rippling.

					AMANDA
			It's hard to imagine how much
			energy is being harnessed in
			there...

	Data overhears this.

					DATA
			Imagination is not necessary; the
			scale is readily quantifiable.
				(glancing at console)
			We are presently generating twelve
			point seven-five billion gigawatts
			per second.</center>

--OuroborosCobra ^talk 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Only that the last word "second" doesn't appear in the actual episode. Gigawatts per minute, per hour, per serving - who knows? ;-) --Jörg 07:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bp's "gigawatt" reference from the Dauphin is wrong, as it would seem he took it from the script. It was later changed to "terawatt". I made a link on the Dauphin page to reflect that change when I watched it recently but didnt add it to the watt page. --Alan del Beccio 10:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the "Dauphin" reference could refer to communications specifically. While the Enterprise could still happily generate as much energy as it likes, if it doesn't have a communications array with an output in the terawatt range (which is pretty much), this statement would still be true without contradicting the one Cobra cited. -- Cid Highwind 12:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is FAR better that the per second did not make it into the episode, as it would have made the statement incorrect. Power is already a measure of energy over time, you are not supposed to include a "per" anything. It would be like saying "100 knots per second". Knots is already per hour. Watts, by definition, are per second. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 14:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Riker said a TERRAWATT source, not gigawatt.

100 knots per second is equal to an acceleration of about 5.24g; though I find it hard to believe the Enterprise's energy output is exponential... 90.199.193.79 18:11, October 14, 2016 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that if the Enterprise wasn't doing anything power-intensive at the time, it would make no sense for it to be generating that much energy. Energy has to go somewhere after all, without some way to radiate the energy off of the ship, the ship would quickly heat up and kill the crew, then be destroyed.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.211.5.

Page 55 of the technical manual has a graph labeled "Warp speed/power", and one axis is labeled "Power usage in megajoules/cochrane", where a "cochrane" is a unit named for Zefram Cochrane that's said on p. 54 to be "the unit that measures subspace field stress". Leaving aside the fact that this seems confused since a megajoule is a measure of energy rather than power, we could image that Data was similarly giving a figure for power per unit of subspace field stress, possibly some unit different from a cochrane. For example if we imagine Data was going to say "12.75 billion gigawatts per gigacochrane" before he was interrupted, that would be equivalent to 12.75 billion watts per cochrane (a convoluted way of saying it, but Data does sometimes explain things in convoluted ways). So if the Enterprise was at that time generating a warp field of, say, 100 cochranes, that would mean a power requirement of 1275 billion watts, i.e. "only" 1275 gigawatts as opposed to 12.75 billion gigawatts. Hypnosifl (talk) 19:57, June 7, 2019 (UTC)

12.75 billion gigawatts per kilogram

Is "True Q" the only canon reference to Star Trek technology exceeding total conversion? 12.75 billion gigawatts per kilogram is about 140 times E=mc^2 If so, what page should it be included on? 90.199.193.79 18:05, October 14, 2016 (UTC)

The in (TNG: "True Q") Data does not actually say 12.75 billion gigawatts per kilogram. He says simply 12.75 billion gigawatts per (something) as he is interrupted after the word "per." Whatever units he was to say after are speculative.

Nonetheless, speculation can be interesting. If he said gigawatts per kilogram the figure would also be erroneous, as that would be producing power from mass, while E=mc^2 describes producing energy from mass. He could have gone on to say "12.75 billion gigawatts per kilogram per second squared," and be correct however, as an energy conversion rate, though why he would not say the easier to follow "(insert your energy value here) joules per kilogram" is beyond me. This would be the amount of energy generated per kilogram, presumably 1/2 of which would be matter and the other half would be antimatter.

I worked out the equation as you did and also got about 140, however since gigawatts are units of power, the units for the result turned out to be kilograms per second squared, an exponentially changing amount of mass.

The only way I see to say Data's line here is correct is to imagine he is talking about the instantaneous change in the power output of the warp core, which for some reason is increasing dramatically (probably for a brief time though). The other interpretation is to just pretend he said something else. We could also say he just made a mistake.

To answer the question, I know of no Star Trek references that indicate the Federation (or anyone else in Star Trek) has the technology to get more energy from a reaction that is put in. I believe that this would violate the Law of Conservation of energy, and so it is fortunate (in my opinion) that there are not many in any references to support this. Really, 100% of the fuel should be converted to energy (in M/AM reactors), and even the extremely advanced Galaxy Class warp reactor should only be able to harness a fraction of that. Such information dealing with output of antimatter reactors should probably go on the Warp core page, or Matter-antimatter reaction page, or possibly on the Energy page. Since in this case in deals specifically with the Enterprise D, it could also be on the Galaxy class page. 85.251.81.82 18:18, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

Erroneous Use of Power Units for Energy and Vice Versa

Should there not be a note indicating the occasional (but repeated) use of Watts (units of Power) as units of energy and Joules (units of Energy) as units of power? There is an explanation already on the pages that one watt is equal to 1 joule per second, however there is no note pointing out in several instances where the units are used improperly and thus confusing. This confusion is clear on the comments on this talk page, in the line from Data in the episode (TNG: "True Q") in which he says the warp reactor is producing 12.75 gigawatts per (an unspecified unit as he is interrupted). Really he should have simply said it was producing 12.75 gigawatts, as a unit of power, or 12.75 gigajoules per second, or another equivalent such as 12.75 times 10 to the 18th watts. It is an error in the dialogue, but should this error not be noted? The mistake is also repeated on the Galaxy class page under propulsion systems.

There are several more clearly erroneous uses visible on this page. As I do not recall the exact dialogue, I am not sure whether the errors are due to the dialogue of the show, or due to the Memory Alpha editors.

Example (taken from the page as it currently stands):

"deciwatts: B'Elanna Torres wanted to siphon every last deciwatt of energy from the plasma network to the deflector. (VOY: "Fair Haven")"

This should say every last deciwatt of power to make technical sense. This may be an error in the script though, but in any case, it is an error.

I am in favour of adding a note about the errors as the confusion it causes is clear, and it should not detract from the interest in the information, but simply leave the readers better informed.

Is there any advice or official policy on pointing out such errors? 85.251.81.82 17:26, April 23, 2017 (UTC)