Talk:Tricobalt device

Legality
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.

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


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

Yield
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 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 7
If memory serves, the Enterprise was classified as destroyed by a tri-cobalt satellite explosion in "A Taste of Armageddon"


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

Speculation?
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)