Twelve Point Seven Five Billion Gigawatts!

[MrNickWright]

What the hell is a gigawatt?!!

[donnomar]

Twelve Point sevet five ExaWatts....

[Sassymui8]

but can it run Crysis? that is the question

[outsideredge]

That's a lot of power, but please don't use the toaster, and electric kettle and microwave at the same time. You might blow a breaker.

[VictorLepanto]

Wow, you could run a flux capacitor off this thing!

[gleehmee]

@redwoodtheElf without even having to watch any of the rest of the episode (although I have, though not for reasons such as this clip) you can tell the clip says very little about the power of the enterprise. Two words "presently" and "per" and he didn't get to say what it was "per" OF. per second? per system? per matrix? per X amount of anti matter?

[TheDarkIllumination]

Amanda: What the hell is a jiggawatt?

[terminat1]

Since Amanda is a Q, shouldn't she automatically know how much energy is harnessed in the warp core?

[Draknfyre]

@terminat1

She's a Q without knowing she's a Q. She didn't know how to use her powers, and the scene immediately after this one, where she stops the warp core breach, she does "by instinct", and was a test by Q to see if she really was a Q.

[terminat1]

@Draknfyre Yeah, but wouldn't she still have virtually unlimited knowledge about the cosmos, regardless of whether or not she knows she's a Q? She's still a Q, and Q's are supposed to be omniscient.

Other questions can be asked. For example, while living on Earth, did Amanda get hungry? Tired? Thirsty? Feel pain? As a Q, whether or not she knew she was a Q, none of these experiences should have applied to her.

[Draknfyre]

@terminat1

It's explained later, on Voyager, by a Q who wishes to commit suicide (later named Quinn) that while they appear omniscient to outsiders, they really aren't. Their technology and age give that impression. So while this is a slightly different style to the Q than is originally presented on TNG, it would explain why she didn't know everything from birth.

The whole eating, feeling hungry, tired thing seems to be intentionally ignored for the story.

[terminat1]

@Draknfyre Quinn was talking about omnipotence, not omniscience.

And there's never been any hint whatsoever that the Q employ technology.

[RedwoodTheElf]

@terminat1

There are fanfics out there that imply that Trelane (TOS: The Squire of Gothos) was Q's son with that other Q, and he employed, to use his word, "Instrumentality" to focus his power.

We all know the old cliche': Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The Q have advanced to the point where they have converted themselves into beings of pure energy, and take on physical form at will, as well as being able to convert matter and energy at will.

[terminat1]

@RedwoodTheElf Yeah, but I think the facts show that Trelane probably wasn't a Q. The cliche may be true, but it doesn't prove that sufficiently advanced beings must be using technology, and not their own abilities.

[Draknfyre]

@terminat1

Go back and watch that episode again.

"If a stoneage man were to see you with your technology, he would think you were magical. It's not different with the Q", is the quote as best as I can remember it. Implying the Q's powers are actually from their advanced knowledge and technology.

[terminat1]

@Draknfyre I can't find the episode on youtube, but I do remember the quote. Your conclusion might be possible, but Q also may have meant that, because the Q's natural abilities are so much above a Vulcan's natural abilites, or a Borg's natural abilties, or a Klingon's natural abilites, etc., that the Federation sees them as being 'magical,' when in fact they are not.

Just think: someone from the 18th century might think that the Vulcan mind meld is 'magical,' but of course it is not.

[markcl230]

Great Scott!

[baldeagleism]

"What the hell is a jiggawatt?!" (Marty)

[Destructor111]

Data gets cut off before he finishes the sentence. It seems like nobody is taking into account what time frame he's talking about.

It sounds ludicrous, but for all we know, he was about to say "year" or "decade".

[RedwoodTheElf]

@Destructor111

As has been stated before, "Gigawatts" is already a measure of energy produced per unit of time.

[place910]

What isn't mentioned is that Data was playing chess against the computer on that console. I'd say that would use most of the energy being generated.

[smariot]

Somebody want to double check my math here; is 12.75 billion gigawatts equivalent to burning 510706.38 kilograms of matter/antimatter per hour?

[CptPicard832]

@smariot depends on efficiency, what matter/antimatter, and cycleing of the matter/antimatter

[CmdrTobs]

@smariot Dah why on earth did you cover to hrs!?. Anyway I worked it backwards and got 12.76 so yes you're right. So according to Data the enterprise must be able to output the energy of a small star, pretty absurd.

[AnteyPL]

You boys are forgetting that navigational deflector (for keeping ship from cooling, as in another episode and micrometeorites / radiation ) IS online, as well as structural integrity field.

[RedwoodTheElf]

@AnteyPL

Those systems are trivial compared to the Warp Drive and weapons. The energy required to bend space to create FTL travel is literally astronomical in comparison to merely deflecting space dust and radiation particles.

[CmdrTobs]

@RedwoodTheE Warp drive is meant to "push of nested subspace membranes' it doesn't 'warp space' which I is why I guess the 'Phoenix' works with a small fusion reactor.

If we take those numbers on face value the enterprise 'BETTER' be spending that energy on deflectors or Gravity wells because if it's being dissipated as waste heat the enterprise should be melting. Resembling a small dwarf star.

All it is, is reckless scripting/consulting. Not cannon for minuet if you ask me.

[RedwoodTheElf]

@CmdrTobs

Use of the PIDOOMA method is not allowed. Warp drive moves the ship by warping space. That's why it's called a Warp Drive and not a Hyperdrive (Which uses hyperspace/Subspace) or a Jump Drive (which teleports the ship in "jumps") - the actual METHOD of warping space warp drives use is never revealed onscreen, nor is your "Nested subspace membranes" mentioned anywhere in any of the series...and only what appears on screen is considered cannonical.

[CmdrTobs]

@RedwoodTheElf nah, if you watch voyger it's stated many of times the engines manipulate a subspace field (measured in cochranes) that in turn manipulates the ships travel. There is no evidence to suggest they mean it directly warps space other than the inference of the colloquial.

My prior comment stands.

[RedwoodTheElf]

@CmdrTobs

No, the words "Nested Subspace Membranes" appear nowhere in any Star Trek Series. You are making up your own theories.

[CmdrTobs]

@RedwoodTheElf "You are making up your own theories." - No, that's you assuming that warp drive means to warp space - never said.

"Nested Subspace Membranes" was said in a interview for a book that just predates voyager . Voyager correlates this meaning of 'warp drive' strongly along with late episodes of TNG such as "Force of Nature". Thus the view the warp engines 'do something' to subspace to make the ship go, rather than the warp engines simply warp space.

[RedwoodTheElf]

@CmdrTobs

Only things that appear on screen are cannonical for Star Trek. Interviews and books don't count. Them's the rules laid down by Paramount, not me.

However, Warp Drives are discussed extensively in "The Physics of Star Trek" by Lawrence Krauss, and in his discussion warp drives do, in fact, warp space, thus the name. If they didn't warp space, they would be called something other than warp drives. The only onscreen discussion of warp drive's invention can be found in the episode with

[RedwoodTheElf]

Zephram Cochrane, where Kirk refers to him as the "Discoverer of the space warp" (Yes, this is a canonical referance to warp drives...warping space!) unless you can come up with an onscreen reference in an acutal episode that contradicts this and supports your silly theory, you're completely wrong.

[CmdrTobs]

@RedwoodTheElf "Discoverer of the space warp" - That does not mean 'warp drives' therefore 'space warp' if you're willing to take such a dubious interpretation of syntax like that as cannon you could make a good case for photon torpedoes being made of photons.

"silly theory" - ^after stating that tripe! You need to go away think come back and read your own drivel. If that's your best then I've proven my case and will take my leave.

Toodles.

[RedwoodTheElf]

@CmdrTobs

You haven't proven your case...Zephram Cochrane is, in fact, the inventor of "warp drive"...this has been documented clearly...on screen. Mention of "discovery of the space warp" in relation to him makes "Space warp" and "warp Drive" so obviously connected even a blind Ferengi could connect the two. Your theory has no in-series documentation whatsoever, therefore I have the far stronger case.

[ZuKahta]

so is this more than an Empire ship from SW?

[RedwoodTheElf]

@ZuKahta

The short answer is yes. SW ships use Fusion to generate power. Fusion by it's very nature generates less power than matter/antimatter annihilation. And, as you can see from the clip, this is the LOW end of their power generation scale (No weapons or shields being powered, no warp drive in use)

[michaelhviper]

Did you get part of your user name from Redwood the street?

[RedwoodTheElf]

@michaelhviper

The Tree, actually. You know, tall, green....?

[gunblade64]

12,75000000000000000000 W

=

12,75 W

:P

[ChibiabosWolf]

And rbennett, I think you may be confusing gigawatts (a measure of power) with gigahertz (a rotation frequency, in the case of computers, the computer's processing unit speed).

[ChibiabosWolf]

rbennet: 12.75 BILLION GW. Seems like a rather silly measure, really ... 1.75 /billion/ gigawatts = 1.75 exawatts. Using a large number like billion with a metric prefix, to me, is silly and inefficient; Data should either have said 1.75 quintillion watts, or 1.75 exawatts.

[Picard578]

@ChibiabosWolf but most of audience are not familiar with exact values of either quintillion or exawatt, so 12.75 billion GW is still better.

[rbennett0210]

12.75 GW? I heard the motorola droid can do twice that, on standby.

god the past was dumb about the future, bitch.

[JacobStewardWhitaker]

@rbennett0210 Wtf?

[rkmugen]

"Doc! Wait!! What the hell's a jigga-what!?"

[slashingraven]

One Point Twenty One Jiggawatts!

[Nowhereman10]

test

[YamiZanzibar]

And the phasers require 5.1 Megawatt a emitter to fire. Where does all the rest of the energy go?

[Nowhereman10]

@YamiZanzibar In "A Matter of Time", it's clearly stated by Data and Picard that a slight variance varience in the total output of the phaser cannot exceed 0.06 terawatts (60 gigawatts), or they'll burn off the entire atmosphere of an Earth-like planet. In "Who Watches the Watchers", Riker and Geordi mention that a 4.2 gigawatt reactor is enough to power a small phaser bank.

[UnknownXV]

@YamiZanzibar

The warp drive, of course. I imagine the power required to achieve high warp is insane.

[YamiZanzibar]

@UnknownXV

Not according to the TNG technical manual.

[DeusExInfernus]

something you all missed apparently....:

12.75 gigawatts PER .....[alarm]

energy by [what?]

[starwillf6]

@DeusExInfernus it could be a time like per second or min or hour

[DeusExInfernus]

watt is already joule by second.

it can't be 12.75 bil GW per [time]!!!

[AtlantiansAnAlteran]

@DeusExInfernus maybe he was going to say "per reaction".

If you watch the warp core in the video, the blue and red columns are pulsating about once per second. If each pulse is one reaction, he may be saying that is the average production of billions of GW when reactions are occurring at that rate. Is that a possibility?

[DeusExInfernus]

@AtlantiansAnAlteran That is still a meter of time. It would not make much sense.

[UnknownXV]

@DeusExInfernus True, but I'd assume it to be per second.

[kkoloftt]

So with the warp core i can keep my toaster on for 2 mins?

[RedwoodTheElf]

Depends...does your toaster cook entire continents?

[kght222]

@RedwoodTheElf "warp" core is a misnomer. its supposed to be an antimatter core with some sort of dilithium catalyst. the core itself simply powers the warp drive. in an event though you are right to point out that it was specified that the number given was current power generated. and as the "lights" on the core itself show basically the "throttle" for the fuel injection (matter/antimatter) and we see often that the throttle can be higher.. although we have also seen it at warp at idle throttle

[RedwoodTheElf]

@kght222

The reason they call it a "Warp" core is that it is primarily used to power the warp drive. The impulse engines are powered by fusion reactors. It is the Warp Drive that bends ("warps") space to move the ship at translight velocities while the primary powerplant is, in fact, a matter/antimatter reactor.

[kght222]

@RedwoodTheElf yah the primary core isnt a fusion reactor, its a matter/antimatter reactor. and i've never heard of any star fleet vehicle using a fusion reaction outside of enterprise. the core is just a power source. the warp drives are powered by it. its a misnomer as i said. its not a "warp core" that's just an easy way to name it. it has nothing to do with warp. space stations use a "warp core" to power themselves but they cant move at warp. warp is in the warp drives.......

[Draknfyre]

@kght222

The Impulse Engines are indeed fusion reactors. Impulse engines today are feasible, if not quite the size, power, and exact operation that is used on Star Trek.

[kght222]

@kght222 warp is where you create a warp bubble around your ship where space expands in front and contracts behind, that is warp. the warp drive does this when powered by the antimatter (or in the case of kochren's (spelled wrong) ship a fusion reactor), the power source does not derive its name from what it can power. it was a misnomer. they thought about how to name it about as much as i think when i stand up. but to simplify the "warp core" has nothing to do with warp speed.

[YamiZanzibar]

Your toaster needs 12.75 billion gigawatts? AKA a million times the total power used on earth?

[kkoloftt]

Well hey I eat alot of toast man ; )

[JonnyInfinite]

"WHAT THE HELL IS A GIGA-WATT!!"

[jamrocx]

A billion watts or 1000 megawatts.

[JonnyInfinite]

so a lot then

[digitalhoser]

It is readily quantifiable. We are generating 12.75 giga-

*Alarms go off*

This is why the Enterprise cant have nice things. They always break at the worst possible moments.

[blajsad]

Great Scott!

[Celinancc1701]

Go ask another die hard star trek fan what they think. I have nothing further to say. I rest my case.

[RedwoodTheElf]

Translation: I lost, so I'm running away with my tail between my legs.

[Celinancc1701]

No, theres no point in trying to convince you. Just go to a Trek convention and see what the general consensus thinks.

[RedwoodTheElf]

I don't do conventions. However I DO have a degree, whereas you don't, and know quite a bit more about how the relatively mild gravity fields around normal stars and planets would, or would not, affect artificial space warps (The intensity of an artificial space warp capable of moving a ship at faster than light speeds would necessarilly be many orders of magnitude stronger than a mere 1G gravity field. You're going from zero to 1000 times the speed of light in seconds. Thats a LOT more than 1G

[GeraldRobotnik]

I dun think Warp-Core energy output is altered when weapon systems are engaged - now, if they go to Warp or try to pass the limitations (as seen ever so often : P ), that's a different story altogether... : D

[RedwoodTheElf]

Never played "Starfleet Battles" have you? The ship's warp core is the source for 99% of all ship functions. If the warp core is ejected or deactivated, they have small FUSION reactors, but those are only enough to maintain life support and gravity.

[GeraldRobotnik]

Non-canon game is non-canon.

[UrbanPoet]

Well that's enough to go Back to the Future a couple times, now isn't it? :)

[kingsman565]

This could be the new 9000!

[Blueheartedangel]

1.21 gigawatts!!!!

[snarfeater]

no  its 1.21 jiggawatts!!!

[f38stingray]

It's over 9000!

[47PhH47]

The genre is called Science-Fiction, that is why part of what you see is/can be real (the science part) and some of it can't be (the fiction part)

What I tried to prove is that Data's 12,750,000,000 Gigawatts is probably fiction because it wouldn't be practical.

As Stephen Hawking said, during his tour of the set, when he passed the warpcore: "I'm working on that"

[RedwoodTheElf]

Consider that I'm basically making fun of the "Star Trek Versus Star wars" geeks, who spend al ltheir time trying to quantify the technologies of the two (both fictional) universes to determine which one would win if they fought, which they can't, cause they don't exist.

If they're gonna have silly arguments, I'm gonna make fun of them by nitpicking their arguments.

[Celinancc1701]

Its obvious Star Trek would win, the argument was settled years ago.

[RedwoodTheElf]

Depends on the scenario. In a strictly tactical sense, Trek ships whip the pants of SW ships, but strategically, SW ships are faster...as long as they're not in a gravity well, SW ships can always escape.

SW FTL drive simply isn't useful in combat, while Trek FTL CAN be effective, and isn't stopped by being near a planet (Trek ships have even gone to warp from inside a planet's atmosphere)

[Celinancc1701]

I believe you are refering to Voyage home, when the Bird of Prey warps within Earth's atmoshphere. That was a brain fart on the part of the writers, everyone knows you can not produce a warp field within the gravitational field of a celestial body. However, Trek uses phasers, which emit a concentrated stream of energy that is capable of tearing apart molecular structure. Star Wars uses lasers, which are a burst of light energy.

[RedwoodTheElf]

Actually, warp drive has been used in strong gravity fields on quite a few occasions, so 'everyone' does NOT know that it's 'impossible' - it's Star Wars hyperdrives that can't be used inside a gravity well, not Star Trek Warp Drives.

The whole Breakaway method of Trek Time Travel RELIES on using a warp drive in a particularly strong gravity well, in fact, so it's clearly possible to use it in a more mundane fashon within the area of effect of a celestial body's gravity.

[Celinancc1701]

Warp bends space time, if you attempt to bend space time in the prescence of gravity, which itself is curvature in space time, you produce an unstable warp field. Think about it, if Cardassians really wanted to destroy a planet all they would have to do is crash into one at warp speed, but you cant so thats why they build Dreadnaughts.

[RedwoodTheElf]

You are using arguments that are not in evidence. In no canonical source is it ever even implied that warp drive will not work in a gravity field, and there are numerous counter-examples.

Please cite your source for your statement that you can't crash into a planet at Warp Speed.

The reason this isn't done is, nobody WANTS to crash into a planet at warp speed. Even the Borg value their ships more than that.

[Celinancc1701]

Look man, I'm a freaking Physics major at the University of British Columbia, 3rd year, and I just told you why you can't warp space time in the presence of gravity. Trek adheres to basic principles of physics. Any non-adherence is a gaffe on the part of the non-science educated writers.

[RedwoodTheElf]

You cannot apply 20th century understanding to fictional 24th century technology. Proof that space CAN be warped in the presence of gravity: Space IS warped in the presence of gravity, since that's what gravity IS.

Your analagy is like claiming that a motorboat cannot use it's engine, which functions by moving water towards the rear of the boat, in a river, because the water is already moving.

And Gravity is universal. There is NOWHERE in the universe without SOME gravity, however weak.

[Celinancc1701]

warp drive has not been ruled out by physicists, some have even begun the necessary first steps into conducting research on the idea.

[RedwoodTheElf]

And yet, without a single functional example, YOU claim to be an expert on warp drive physics, to the point of claiming to know where it will and will not function.

Ironic, isn't it?

[RedwoodTheElf]

So you're a Junior in college. Big Whoop. I have a 20 year old DEGREE, and I know the mathematics of gravity, so I KNOW that, no matter how far you get from the source mass, gravity NEVER goes to zero.

It may APPROACH zero, but it never gets there.

Go teach your grandmother how to suck eggs, mister college student. Believe it or not, there are people in the world who know more than you do. Come back when you have your Doctorate and a nobel prize for physics.

[Celinancc1701]

All this I know sir, but I should have been more clear so as to avoid your self-pleasing ridicule. Voyage Home was a gaffe on the part of the writers. You can't warp space where space is already VIOLENTLY distorted. You must be a TOS fan or something. I see debating you is pointless, as you have resorted to immature teasing.

[RedwoodTheElf]

Gravity is not VIOLENT...it is, at any particular point in the universe, with the sole exception being within the event horizon of a black hole (Which is an inadvisable place to go with ANY spaceship), smoothe and relatively uniform.

There are DOZENS of examples, not just "Voyage home"...to name the simplest, how about Zepham Cochrane's Pheonix? It was a modified Balistic missile, which means it was only capable of attaining Low Earth Oribit, and yet it was capable of using warp drive.

[Celinancc1701]

Watch the movie again, the Pheonix has to travel a great deal into outer space before it jumps to warp, otherwise it should have just warped to Europe, right? I think u fail to accept that Trek is full of gaffes. At the begging of Voyager Chakotay knows the groundskeeper at starfleet academy. in the 5th season he dosnt know him- see. Ask any other Trekkie, they'll tell u the same. Asa lama lakum.

[RedwoodTheElf]

You are in error. The Pheonix was aimed UPWARD, not "Towards Europe" and a balistic missile with it's upper stage removed and replaced with warp coils doesn't have enough fuel to get much beyond the atmosphere, let alone "A Great deal into outer space"

No trekkie I've ever heard of EVER said ANYTHING like "Warp drive doesn't work near planets", because that is clearly and repeatedly demonstrated to be untrue.

Voyager is notorious for continuity errors, and is the single worst of all series

[Celinancc1701]

I know the Pheonix wasnt aimed toward Europe. What I said was what was the need to send it to space if Warp was capable in atmosphere? You know what, i was wrong, you could warp in the intense gravity of planets. You could pretty much warp through and in anything. you were right.

[RedwoodTheElf]

Because if it tried to warp from the ground, it would have been trying to take a chunk of the ground, the varous spectators, with it.

The Trek Warp Drives work by forming a "warp bubble" around the ship. Anything inside this bubble is brought with the ship.

You are trying to claim that it's the gravity field that was preventing it from warping...it isn't...it was the presence of too much solid matter. As a prototype vessel, a vacuum would be the safest place. Removes lots of variables.

[RedwoodTheElf]

The gravity of a planet is ANYTHING but "intense" - As someone claiming to be studying physics, you should know that gravity is the WEAKEST of the physical forces in the universe, and that the gravity on sub-jovian bodies is miniscule, in fact negligible, in comparison to that on jovian planets, suns, black holes, etc.

You are complaing about the mass of a feather, and ignoring the elephant.

[UnknownXV]

@RedwoodTheElf

I've always wondered, how many atoms of say, water, would be required to attract one other atom of water, assuming no other outside forces, in a void.

[gamesmaster35]

@RedwoodTheElf heh from what I understand of it you CAN basically warp anywhere you want to.You can warp in a solar system or near a planet etc.But the general RULE is that they don't warp inside solar systems.Since you are warping space time it does make sense that wouldn't necessarily want to do such a thing next to a planet for example.But again as I understand it the detrimental effects of warp technology wasn't discovered until STNG.

[RedwoodTheElf]

@gamesmaster35

However, Star WARS hyperdrive doesn't work near any large mass object, period...and can't be used for tactical advantage in combat.

[UnknownXV]

@RedwoodTheElf But gravity is still bound by the speed of light, is it not? As well, gravity is extremely, embarrassingly weak, it takes the entire mass of earth to create 1 G, which any human even a baby is able to counteract with basic muscles. It may never be zero, but it'd be so close to it that it's hardly even worth thinking of.

[RedwoodTheElf]

@UnknownXV

Incorrect. Gravity ignores the speed of light, since it is a bending of space, a property of space itself around a mass, not something that has to travel. In a sense, gravity is already where it needs to go. And in fact you can create 1G of gravity with the mass of a small mountain, if you were to compress it to the size of a small disk. Remember, gravity falls off as the inverse square of the distance, so it takes much LESS than the full mass of Earth togenerate 1G.

[UnknownXV]

@RedwoodTheElf

If the sun were to disappear at this very moment, gravity would not change for us until the light from the sun was no longer present. Gravity is the curvature of space-time but in such is still bound by certain laws.

Take for example a trampoline. Jump on it, and you bend the fabric, if you were to remain like this, and suddenly disappeared, the fabric would return to its original state but it would not be instantaneous.

[RedwoodTheElf]

@UnknownXV

Stop making things up. The spacetime continuum isn't a trampoline, so your example is fatally flawed. You are being influenced by the 2-dimensional representations that (incorrectly) compare gravity to dents in some kind of surface.

If Gravity had to propogate at the speed of light, that propogation time would significantly affect the orbits of planets. It doesn't, therefore gravity is a global, effectively instantaneous effect that has no "delay" to travel between masses.

[UnknownXV]

@UnknownXV So you're saying that if some supermassive object 13 billion light years away were to suddenly appear out of nowhere, its gravity would instantly have an effect on me? On this planet? (diminished of course)

[RedwoodTheElf]

@UnknownXV

Unless the current laws of physics change, yes. The presence of a large mass changes the very structure of the local universe. Of course for a supermassive object to "suddenly appear" would involve a change in the laws of physics. Are you positing some theory that supermassive objects can "suddenly appear" in the manner of heisenberg-scattered subatomic particles?

[UnknownXV]

@RedwoodTheElf The way I learned, and of course this is only the basic premise of the theory, not the math, is that given enough time, anything can happen, at the quantum state the universe is "foam" constantly moving and changing, and that given enough time anything can happen, even spontaneous creation of matter.

It was just a hypothetical question. I guess a better one would be, if a galaxy was destroyed 13 bil ly away, the gravity would immediately cease to exist, everywhere?

[SlavetradeDIE]

what ep is this from and what serason?

[RedwoodTheElf]

As it says in the info section, the episode is "True Q" - It is from season 6 of TNG.

[47PhH47]

One small problem with all of this:

If they are really producing 12,750,000,000,000,000,000 Joules per Second, the amount of matter/antimatter they would need would be over 141 kilograms per Second. (using E=mc^2)

taking into account that the stated mass of the Enterprise D = 397,805 metric tons = 397,805,000 kilograms, the Enterprise D would have used about 3% of its own mass in one day, while at 'MINIMUM' power usage.

[animeownage86]

Yeah you said second but Data never said that he was cut off by the alarm after "per" so for all we know he could have meant minute or hour.

[47PhH47]

Data's "per" doesn't matter much, 1 Watt = 1 Joule per 1 Second, Where Watt is a unit of power, Joule a unit of Energy and Second a unit of time.

[AwesomeTom666]

this argument is futile

[47PhH47]

And why exactly would this argument be futile?

[AwesomeTom666]

because its not real

[Nowhereman10]

@47PhH47

Where did you get that mass statement from, dude? The much smaller Voyger masses out at 700,000 metric tons as stated twice in the series., while the older Constitution class Enterprise was nearly a million long tons. Given these ships are over 8 times smaller in volume than a Galaxy class starship, the E-D would then weight between 5.8 and 10 million metric tons!

[Thestigmademedoit]

One thing they never showed in any of the technical manuals was the location of the Flux Capacitor!

[RedwoodTheElf]

It's in the backseat of the DeLorean Shuttlecraft "outatime", of course.

[Thestigmademedoit]

Great Scott! you're right! that explains the gull wing doors on the Type 15 shuttlepods!

[snarfeater]

get it together doc!! we need to achieve 88 miles per hour!

[LMUli]

Great Scott! What the hell is a gigawatt??? :D

[AlexProff]

12,750,000,000 Gigawatt

12,750,000 Terawatt

12,750 Petawatt

But AFAIK Watt, no matter watt... what prefix, is not used as a measure of power per unit of time.

Watthour would be one.

So Data could've very well been on the verge of saying "per second"...

[RedwoodTheElf]

Voila:

The watt (symbol: W) is the SI derived unit of power, equal to one joule of energy per second.

[AlexProff]

Yes, I know that it IS a measure if power per unit of time... I wrote it isn't USED as one.

People use the kWh mostly... so even if Data was the correct and by-the-book android we know him to be (a fact the authors simply forget sometimes) he probably was about to say something along the lines of "per second/minute/hour/lightyear" (yes, I am kidding with that last one)

[Treknologist]

Twelve Point Seven Five Billion Gigawatts is actually on the low side for a startship.  I wonder what Data was going to say next...

[RedwoodTheElf]

Well we know it couldn't have been a time frame, since Gigawatts is already a measure of power per unit of time.

Per microgram of antimatter? We can only speculate.

[RedwoodTheElf]

(note that I also remarked on 12.75 BGW being almost a MINIMUM in the Commentary area)