Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Tricobalt device

36,856pages on
this wiki

Back to page

LegalityEdit

Referring to the comment on the page about the legality of Voyager possessing subspace weaponry in defiance of the second Khitomer Accords. The second Accord were probably not signed until 2373, two years after Voyager launched. Thus the weapons would still be legal, if not ethically sound. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.42.68.127 (talk).

SpellingEdit

For future reference the spelling is derived from the only confirmed script source, "Trials and Tribble-ations": "I'm picking up a faint tricobalt signature." --Alan del Beccio 07:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A second referenced script source is "Blaze of Glory": "The Maquis had access to tricobalt explosives, biogenic weapons, anti-matter warheads..." -- Renegade54 07:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

YieldEdit

Since when is "teracochrane" a unit for measuring explosive yield? Shouldn't that be measured instead in isotons? 71.203.209.0 13:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This was taken from the episode "The Voyager Conspiracy" where the following dialogue can be heard:
Seven of Nine: "Specify the yield of the tricobalt device."
Computer: Twenty thousand teracochranes.
--Jörg 14:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Eminiar 7Edit

If memory serves, the Enterprise was classified as destroyed by a tri-cobalt satellite explosion in "A Taste of Armageddon" The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.194.192.38 (talk).

Yup, a tricobalt satellite. --Alan del Beccio 03:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speculation?Edit

The article reads: "Tricobalt devices are relatively ineffective when used against shielded targets due to the slow expansion of energy from the explosion. It is primarily used as a demolition weapon, most notably against space stations and ground targets." I dont believe there has ever been anything to validata any claim in those sentences. As far as I know tricobalt weaponry has been used against all kinds of targets and has no inefficiencies. --Pseudohuman 02:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It has a citation, why not follow that up? --OuroborosCobra talk 02:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Appeared to be. Speculation removed. --Pseudohuman 03:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki