The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Trek Tech (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Transporters compatibility (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=201724)

Hando January 27 2013 07:50 PM

Transporters compatibility
 
1: Every species and every era has a different transporter effect. Do we know why they are different?

2: When 2 transporter "pads"/stations are in play.

So 2 people go up and down with their fingers on the station - one on the from side and the second on to.
Is it safe? Is only one of them in control?

What if it is 2 different types of transporters? From a Federation ship to DS9, or like in ENT when V'Las beamed up to the Enterprise...

C.E. Evans January 27 2013 08:15 PM

Re: Transporters compatibility
 
It seems that it's generally only one transporter system in operation during transport. In various episodes involving transport between two different parties, there seems to be a great deal of one side transmitting coordinates to the other so they know where to materialize.

During the infamous transporter malfunction in TMP, it seemed as if it was a two system process with a sender and a receiver, but it required both to be perfectly in synch with one another.

Metryq January 27 2013 08:25 PM

Re: Transporters compatibility
 
Transporter technology is widely debated. Through most of TOS the transporter appears to lock the subjects in stasis—taking a "snapshot" of their state at an instant in time. That subject is then "destroyed" or converted to energy while the snapshot pattern is stored in a computer buffer. When the pattern is projected elsewhere, perhaps like a phaser beam, the subject is reassembled.

On the other hand, one TOS episode, "That Which Survives," shows Kirk witnessing an attack on the transporter operator after de-rez has already begun. A similar thing can be seen in the movie THE WRATH OF KHAN where Kirk and Saavik are holding a conversation during transport, suggesting that the transporter is not some kind of ultra-fax, but a wormhole-like gateway.

I remember one TNG episode where engineer Montgomery Scott is found in the buffer of a transporter. His ship was in dire trouble, and he came up with a way to save himself through a kind of high-tech "suspended animation." He rigged the buffer to prevent pattern degradation over an extended period.

So, whether or not the different "matter transmitter" systems are compatible is entirely up to the writer of a given story. Oh, and there was, of course, the transporter accident in ST:TMP that seemed like a poorly tuned radio problem. (Olde fashioned whistling and static. "Boost your gain!" and all that.)

Albertese January 27 2013 11:40 PM

Re: Transporters compatibility
 
I think it's fair to say that ship-to-ship usually is one pad on ship A dematerializing the subject and beaming that to the other ship's receiver which ship B in turn takes over and reassembles using it's own machinery. This is why everyone seems to rematerialise with a visual effect appropriate to the transporter pad, but, if ship A is beaming into the ship someplace other than in the target ship's transport room, you'll note that they always use their own alien visual effect. This would be just using Ship B's machinery and bypassing any signal hand off.

--Alex

King Daniel Into Darkness January 28 2013 12:19 PM

Re: Transporters compatibility
 
Quote:

Hando wrote: (Post 7599703)
1: Every species and every era has a different transporter effect. Do we know why they are different?

The different effects for different species is simply so we the audience know who's doing the beaming. The ever-changing special effect for Starfleet's transporters is due to different FX teams, different producers and advances in real-life special FX technology. They all represent the exact same thing in-universe in the same way Kirstie Alley and Robin Curtis represent Saavik, or William Shatner and Chris Pine represent James T. Kirk.

Mytran January 28 2013 02:09 PM

Re: Transporters compatibility
 
But from Relics we know that not to be the case - different transporter effects were used to differentiate Starfleet transporters from different time periods, suggesting differences in tech.

Timo January 28 2013 03:21 PM

Re: Transporters compatibility
 
It would seem that not only is all matter the same for all transporters, so that a Federation machine, a Klingon machine and a Cardassian machine can all equally well dematerialize a Bolian - but also all phased matter is the same, so that a Federation machine, a Klingon machine and a Cardassian machine can all equally well rematerialize a Bolian who was dematerialized by one of the other machines.

We see such "handover" of signal in several episodes, and in DS9 "Dramatis Personae" it is especially clearly shown, with a Klingon machine creating a Klingon pattern (red glow) and then blowing up; the phased matter stream remaining in limbo, and our heroes grabbing it with their Cardassian machine; and the transportee finally rematerializing out of a Cardassian pattern (amber glow). There was no careful synching of the two systems beforehand, but lots of effort after the crisis developed (after the Klingon machine blew up).

So, basically compatibility is 100% guaranteed, because a transportee is a transportee is a transportee, regardless of whether he has been dematerialized or not. One can even "intercept" or "steal" a matter stream, such as in TOS "Assignment: Earth". It's not a case of everything being lost if machine B doesn't instantaneously receive the signal handed over from machine A, but something way more robust.

Quote:

This is why everyone seems to rematerialise with a visual effect appropriate to the transporter pad
There are cases where remat is appropriate for the receiving pad, and others where it is appropriate for the sending one. We can probably simply assume that the former happens when the receiving pad has been cued in advance, and actively contributes, gently easing the phased matter stream back into our realm, while the latter is just a case of the sender not bothering to inform the receiving end and merely treating the receiving pad as an inert target where the phased matter degrades back to normal matter on its own.

As for the "xerox and destroy vs. transform and move" argument, the former model is not supported by actual onscreen events or dialogue. It's just plausible speculation, rendered somewhat moot by the piles of explicit evidence for the latter model. Somehow, the transporter just changes matter into another form (phased matter), so that it becomes invisible, can go through walls, and can be shot across space, until it degrades back into normal matter at the destination, apparently without extra prompting. It seems that variations of this are seen in "The Next Phase"/"The Pegasus" (where phasing creates the invisibility and the wall-penetrating ability but does not culminate in spontaneous rephasing) and perhaps also in "Time's Arrow" (where the two abilities again are witnessed, even if the mechanism involved is a tad different). Who knows, perhaps phasers (what a suggestive name!) are another application of this phasing technology, rendering the victim permanently invisible and incapable of interacting with the normal universe?

Timo Saloniemi

throwback January 28 2013 06:25 PM

Re: Transporters compatibility
 
A transporter is a subspace device. There are different marks (models) of transporters. With each mark, the wider the choice of what could be transported. For instance, a Mark VII transporter could transport unstable biomatter, while earlier marks couldn't.

T'Girl January 28 2013 07:14 PM

Re: Transporters compatibility
 
The Klingon transporter in Day of the Dove made sense for the Klingons, you materalize silently, good for tactical beam downs.

The enemy doesn't hear you arrive.

>

Timo January 28 2013 07:26 PM

Re: Transporters compatibility
 
Quote:

A transporter is a subspace device.
I'd argue that it is not, because a "subspace transporter" is a special type of machine differing from the regular one somehow.

Perhaps a transporter is a phasing device, along with the phase cloak and the phase gun?

Quote:

With each mark, the wider the choice of what could be transported.
Plus possible other improvements. Although higher marks and more recent inception don't necessarily have to denote steady improvement in every case: tactical requirements might favor making higher-mark torpedoes carry smaller explosive yields than earlier marks, for example, or giving higher-mark phasers (did we ever hear of phaser marks?) reduced range. Yet with transporters, it would probably be unthinkable to scale back on anything, as a reduction in accuracy, versatility or range would translate to increased risk to user...

Quote:

The Klingon transporter in Day of the Dove made sense for the Klingons, you materalize silently, good for tactical beam downs.
...Did they finally insert the sound effect in the TOS-R version?

Timo Saloniemi

C.E. Evans January 28 2013 08:11 PM

Re: Transporters compatibility
 
Quote:

Quote:

A transporter is a subspace device.
I'd argue that it is not, because a "subspace transporter" is a special type of machine differing from the regular one somehow.
It's a subspace device in the sense that it engages the subspace domain. Data said as much in "Best of Both Worlds, part 2:"

DATA: The signals are interactive across a subspace domain similar to that of a transporter beam...

King Daniel Into Darkness January 29 2013 12:11 AM

Re: Transporters compatibility
 
Quote:

Mytran wrote: (Post 7603165)
But from Relics we know that not to be the case - different transporter effects were used to differentiate Starfleet transporters from different time periods, suggesting differences in tech.

Or just a cute easter egg for longtime Trek fans.

Although I guess Scotty did immediately notice changes to the transporter room technology when he materialized on the Enterprise.

Metryq January 29 2013 03:57 AM

Re: Transporters compatibility
 
Quote:

Timo wrote: (Post 7603312)
So, basically compatibility is 100% guaranteed

The Kalandans ("That Which Survives") obviously use cut-rate transporters. They reassembled the Enterprise out of phase.

Timo January 30 2013 11:58 AM

Re: Transporters compatibility
 
Even good-quality hardware can re-assemble people in the wrong universe altogether, though... It's probably just an environmental factor issue, as the technology is incredibly susceptible to those.

Timo Saloniemi

Metryq January 30 2013 01:00 PM

Re: Transporters compatibility
 
The "transporter" (actually, time machine) in Crichton's TIMELINE has some really nasty artifacts. If McCoy hated the Starfleet transporters, there's no way he'd ride Crichton's time machine and wind up looking like the Wayouts.

Then there's the inside-out error of the matter pods in the remake of THE FLY. (Spoofed in GALAXY QUEST.)


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.