How much energy to destroy a planet

[tjoflojt]

Nope. We've run multiple megaton nuclear tests all over the planet, we're still there.

well, since it's a supervolcano overdue to blow, i don't think you need a very big explotion to set it off. but i'm not gonna try and find out.

[Mister Oragahn]

What do you mean? i dont care what happans to the chunks, they can form a second earth in a billion years for all i care, the fact remains that the planet is effectively destroyed. I'm reesonably sure that thats easier to do than actualy vaporizing the planet or even bloing it up so that its chunks fly off into space. I'd also bet it would take far less than 10^32 of energy.

It all boils down to the number, size and behavior of your debris. Sure, you can settle on a massive collision event that would send a large mass of a continent into space, that would be nearing or plainly be in the petaton region and overkill anyway.
But the link you brought does not use a silly definition of destroy. It's based on a movie, Star Wars, wherein a planet does explode violently.
Of course, the guy behind the page cherry picked his evidence. His energy figure is theoretical, correct, but the source of the mechanism that provides that energy is not what he pretends. Never mind, again, the numbers are correct as long as you look for a pulverization.

Technicly the correct word was "a dozen" if i recall. I wouldnt take that 12 zmps as a hard fact, the qoute was very much of "more than enough" metepgor type, and previously mckay said the device would make zpms look like alkaline bateries, so not exactly a mere 12x difference.

I don't have to ignore his statement. He could have said ten ZPMs, fifty, a hundred of them. But he said the generator, at 50%, would provide the power of a dozen ZPMs, and based on what we see and former references about ZPMs, it fits.
So it's OK to take it as it is.

I think he meant the supervolcano under yelowstone park, would destroy the planet, but would be one hell of a extinction event.

St Helens released several megatons of energy in various forms, but it was no where an extinction event.
Check the VEI, notably Tambora.

[Guest750]

Is St Helens a Supervolcano? No.

[Character]

It all boils down to the number, size and behavior of your debris. Sure, you can settle on a massive collision event that would send a large mass of a continent into space, that would be nearing or plainly be in the petaton region and overkill anyway.
But the link you brought does not use a silly definition of destroy. It's based on a movie, Star Wars, wherein a planet does explode violently.
Of course, the guy behind the page cherry picked his evidence. His energy figure is theoretical, correct, but the source of the mechanism that provides that energy is not what he pretends. Never mind, again, the numbers are correct as long as you look for a pulverization.

Depends on opinion i guess. IMO, the destruction, like in BAMSR that left huge chunks of the planet floating realatively close to each other (so they will probably reform into a planet sooner or later) is just as good a "destroyed" as any, while the definition in that link assumes all planets mass is accelerated to escape velocity, as in every last atom, so i think it is silly. If one argues that "destroy" means "ahnialate all planets matter", the energy figure would probably skyrocket to something even the sun couldnt provide.

I don't have to ignore his statement. He could have said ten ZPMs, fifty, a hundred of them. But he said the generator, at 50%, would provide the power of a dozen ZPMs, and based on what we see and former references about ZPMs, it fits.
So it's OK to take it as it is.

I'm not saying it should be ignored, what i mean is that it shouldnt be taken as hard fact that 12 zpms = destroyed solar system.

St Helens released several megatons of energy in various forms, but it was no where an extinction event.
Check the VEI, notably Tambora.

Think more along the lines of SGAs "Inferno".

[Buba uognarf]

I'm not saying it should be ignored, what i mean is that it shouldnt be taken as hard fact that 12 zpms = destroyed solar system.

We can take it as a rough estimate of how much a ZPM contains though, Mkay's statement is unlikely to be far off what it is. I doubt its going to be 100 ZPMs for example (even with a number like that the ZPMs would still have enough energy to destroy a planet rather easily I might add).

Perhaps the Alkeline battery statement is to do with duration, the Trinity device can provide the power indefinately where as ZPMs will eventually run out.

[Character]

Why is Mkays statement unlikely to be far off about a device more advanced than anything he's ever seen and considering he was wrong about other stuff concerning the device? Also if his statement of dozen zpms is a metaphor, he could be far more off than just 12vs100. Note though, that i believe a zpm could blow up a planet, just not a solar system.
About the alkaline batery statement, duration, sure, because we have countless examples of devices that produce only tiny batery amounts of energy but far longer, to make such comparison, right?
In the end it comes down to opinion, you take the dozen figure, i take the alkaline batery statement. IMO, since they contradict each other very much, neither can be taken as even a rough estimate.

[Buba uognarf]

Why is Mkays statement unlikely to be far off about a device more advanced than anything he's ever seen and considering he was wrong about other stuff concerning the device? Also if his statement of dozen zpms is a metaphor, he could be far more off than just 12vs100. Note though, that i believe a zpm could blow up a planet, just not a solar system.
About the alkaline batery statement, duration, sure, because we have countless examples of devices that produce only tiny batery amounts of energy but far longer, to make such comparison, right?
In the end it comes down to opinion, you take the dozen figure, i take the alkaline batery statement. IMO, since they contradict each other very much, neither can be taken as even a rough estimate.

He overestimated himself and thought he could make it work, however he knew how powerful the device was, potentially as powerful as the universe itself and he still compared it to a couple dozen ZPMs.

[tjoflojt]

St Helens released several megatons of energy in various forms, but it was no where an extinction event.

just to make clear: "The last full-scale eruption of the Yellowstone Supervolcano, the Lava Creek eruption which happened approximately 640,000 years ago, ejected approximately 240 cubic miles (1000 cubic kilometres) of rock and dust into the sky."

[ggf31416]

First, there is no direct comparision between a ZPM, which have a fixed amount of energy and the arcutus device, which have almost unlimited energy.
Second, 100% probably was the maximum safe power output. When the device exploded obviously it was running at much higher (maybe millons of times) outputs than that amount.

[Mister Oragahn]

Is St Helens a Supervolcano? No.

Is the sky green? No.

[Mister Oragahn]

Depends on opinion i guess. IMO, the destruction, like in BAMSR that left huge chunks of the planet floating realatively close to each other (so they will probably reform into a planet sooner or later) is just as good a "destroyed" as any, while the definition in that link assumes all planets mass is accelerated to escape velocity, as in every last atom, so i think it is silly. If one argues that "destroy" means "ahnialate all planets matter", the energy figure would probably skyrocket to something even the sun couldnt provide.

Well, I'm going to be blunt, by why should we care if you think it's silly? Based on the material he observed, he estimated how much energy would be needed to push planetary mass the way it seemed to happen.
Th contention was not on how much energy would be necessary to do what he thinks happened, but on what truly happened. But for that you'd need to read more material from Star Wars and I don't think you need that.

I'm not saying it should be ignored, what i mean is that it shouldnt be taken as hard fact that 12 zpms = destroyed solar system.

Too bad it happened.

Think more along the lines of SGAs "Inferno".

In that episode it was said the supervolcano explosion would be 10K greater than St Helens, putting the event at 240 GT of overall energy.
Then, what is your point?
We're certainly not in the kiloton or megaton range here.

[Mister Oragahn]

ZELENKA: Project Arcturus was attempting to extract vacuum energy from our *own* space-time, making it potentially as powerful as the scope of the universe itself.

Enhanced Kardashev Scale (1):

"Zoltan Galantai has defined a further extrapolation of the scale, a Type IV level which controls the energy output of the visible universe; this is within a few orders of magnitude of 10^45 W."

[Buba uognarf]

First, there is no direct comparision between a ZPM, which have a fixed amount of energy and the arcutus device, which have almost unlimited energy.
Second, 100% probably was the maximum safe power output. When the device exploded obviously it was running at much higher (maybe millons of times) outputs than that amount.

There was no mention of the device running at millions of times the output it was designed to when it exploded.

[Character]

Well, I'm going to be blunt, by why should we care if you think it's silly? Based on the material he observed, he estimated how much energy would be needed to push planetary mass the way it seemed to happen.
Th contention was not on how much energy would be necessary to do what he thinks happened, but on what truly happened. But for that you'd need to read more material from Star Wars and I don't think you need that.

Why should you care? i dont know, why are you replying if you dont? i just stated my opinion, you dont have to live by it. I didnt say anything about the material in that site or about sw in general, i dont know what happened there and frankly its irrelevant, i just meant that the figure that the guy in that site calculated (because its based on actual physics) should be a high end one, as there are easier ways to "destroy" a planet.

Too bad it happened.

What also happened was that 3 zpms overloading inside barely destroyed a cityship. Go figure. But i guess a vague comparison with something much more powerfull is much more credible than the actual event.

In that episode it was said the supervolcano explosion would be 10K greater than St Helens, putting the event at 240 GT of overall energy.
Then, what is your point?
We're certainly not in the kiloton or megaton range here.

He also said the explosion would destroy half a continent, is that still not powerfull enough for massive extinction?

"Zoltan Galantai has defined a further extrapolation of the scale, a Type IV level which controls the energy output of the visible universe; this is within a few orders of magnitude of 10^45 W."

Maybe its just me, but scope doesnt equal ouput, does it? Not to mention that its just another descriptive metaphor, that doesnt make any sense in the context of zero point energy.

[Replicator Fifth]

The only mention of 2% i can think of is the amount of its total energy the ZPM can output per second. Never seen anything about destroying the planet in SG, apart from a few one liners that a zpm could do it in some unspecified way. As for how much energy would be needed, it depends on the definition of "destroy". The 2.4*10^32 figure (found it here http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/...DeathStar.html), while seems science based, assumes that the planet is not only vaporized, but its mass was accelerated to overcome gravitational binding energy. A silly definition of destroy, if you ask me, as a few floating huge chunks of what used to be a planet is just as good a destruction and obviously requires far less energy.

If this guy is a physicist : "Even if you created a hypothetical weapon that sliced a planet cleanly in half, the planet's gravity would immediately slam the two halves back together again" thats his reasoning. that sounds REALLY off. but hey...whom am I to say?


fun calculator though!!
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/...alculator.html