The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Science and Technology (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   Warp Core Prototype (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=213583)

Crazy Eddie May 19 2013 07:27 PM

Warp Core Prototype
 
Although it doesn't actually combine matter and antimatter, the basic design principle is straight out of Star Trek.

Warp Core Prototype.

That is all.

sojourner May 19 2013 07:39 PM

Re: Warp Core Prototype
 
No, not really.

YellowSubmarine May 19 2013 07:48 PM

Re: Warp Core Prototype
 
It has about as much in common with a warp drive as it does with a jump drive from BSG, a jump gate from B5 or upwind sailing with a ship.

Metryq May 19 2013 08:55 PM

Re: Warp Core Prototype
 
Needs a few more lights on it.

Assuming this thing actually "worked" (turned out more power than it consumed), it would still be nothing like a "warp core." A fully functioning CT reactor would also not be a "warp core" any more than a flashlight is practically a phaser.

Next.

Lee Enfield May 20 2013 12:43 AM

Re: Warp Core Prototype
 
And it reads "Fusion Engine". Obviously no Matter/Antimatter-Annihilation.

BTW. In this case Plasma seems to be lead TO the core. Whereas in Star Trek the Plasma is used to transport the energy FROM the core to the warp nacelles.

T J May 20 2013 01:05 AM

Re: Warp Core Prototype
 
Sooo... not a warp core. :rolleyes:

Keep working scientists.

bryce May 20 2013 02:20 AM

Re: Warp Core Prototype
 
Eh, I can kinda see a similarity to a TNG style warp core, where the two pulses meet in the middle and ignite.

But really, this "pulse fusion" device is probably closer to a prototype impulse engine.

Crazy Eddie May 20 2013 08:43 PM

Re: Warp Core Prototype
 
Quote:

Metryq wrote: (Post 8117989)
Needs a few more lights on it.

It IS just a prototype.:p

Quote:

Assuming this thing actually "worked" (turned out more power than it consumed), it would still be nothing like a "warp core."
A comparison:
Fusion reactor.

Warp core.

Basic principle is the same: reactants introduced at opposite ends, constricted magnetically and forced together in the reaction chamber which then extracts power from the reaction. The only two differences are
1) antimatter is not used (because there isn't enough antimatter on Earth to use it as a fuel source) and
2) Dilithium crystals are not used, because they are not a real thing.

Basically it's as much a warp core as a cell phone is a communicator.;)

Quote:

A fully functioning CT reactor would also not be a "warp core" any more than a flashlight is practically a phaser.
To be fair, it's closer to comparing this thing to a starship phaser. At least to the extent that anything on Star Trek will EVER come to exist in the real world, we could mark this down as another confirmed Trek prediction.

Pavonis May 20 2013 11:01 PM

Re: Warp Core Prototype
 
It's nice when Star Trek inspires people to follow careers into science, or even just to support scientific research. Yet I don't think the writers or producers meant for their stories to be considered "predictions". Certainly the goal of real life scientists and engineers isn't to reproduce treknology. I've never in my career set out, nor heard anyone else say that they set out, to create a "real" phaser/transporter/warp core/etc.... Half of treknology works on applied phlebotinum, while the other half uses fictional particles and/or elements to work its magic, with a very thin veneer of actual scientific principles applied to make it feel or sound plausible.

Basically, people who follow scientific research developments only because they're awaiting the development of their favorite piece of treknology aren't following it for the right reasons, and are bound to be disappointed. Frankly, the most interesting things in science and technology research are those things that Trek didn't "predict".

Lee Enfield May 20 2013 11:46 PM

Re: Warp Core Prototype
 
Nah, ..I'd still say it's not a warp core.
It's like saying it's a warp core, if you put 2 chemicals in a test tube and you gain enough electricity to feed a LED.

Still, fusion is pretty impressive. And it is much more like the method used for impulse engines ... like someone already mentioned.

Crazy Eddie May 21 2013 02:41 AM

Re: Warp Core Prototype
 
Quote:

Lee Enfield wrote: (Post 8125426)
Nah, ..I'd still say it's not a warp core.
It's like saying it's a warp core, if you put 2 chemicals in a test tube and you gain enough electricity to feed a LED.

Still, fusion is pretty impressive. And it is much more like the method used for impulse engines ... like someone already mentioned.

Except this is being used for electricity generation, not for thrust. In fact that's one of the things that Star Trek has almost entirely ass-backwards in terms of technology usage: fusion is a very efficient way of producing electricity while antimatter is a very efficient way of producing thrust.

I'd venture a guess that if a "real" starship was ever built, it's more likely they'd use antimatter for the sublight drive and power the FTL engine with a fusion reactor.

Lee Enfield May 22 2013 07:30 PM

Re: Warp Core Prototype
 
Quote:

Crazy Eddie wrote: (Post 8126356)
Quote:

Lee Enfield wrote: (Post 8125426)
Nah, ..I'd still say it's not a warp core.
It's like saying it's a warp core, if you put 2 chemicals in a test tube and you gain enough electricity to feed a LED.

Still, fusion is pretty impressive. And it is much more like the method used for impulse engines ... like someone already mentioned.

Except this is being used for electricity generation, not for thrust. In fact that's one of the things that Star Trek has almost entirely ass-backwards in terms of technology usage: fusion is a very efficient way of producing electricity while antimatter is a very efficient way of producing thrust.

I'd venture a guess that if a "real" starship was ever built, it's more likely they'd use antimatter for the sublight drive and power the FTL engine with a fusion reactor.

But that's not how it works at all. A/M-A is used to produce electricity, as well! But a lot more power is created, than a fusion device could. The electricity then goes from the warp core to the plasma conduit. The plasma here works like a wire that transports current. But because of the vast amounts of energy you want to transport, no metal wire could hold or transport that power. The plasma on the other hand is already in electrical flux (because of its nature). But with plasma you can (theoretically) transport electricity very fast in large amounts. This is needed because the warp nacelles need large amounts of electricity very fast to create the warp field around the ship. This warp field ---warps--- the space in front of the ship and behind it. This way the ship transport itself and the nearby space without accelerating at all!

Now,... Fusion.
Classical approaches for hot fusion use plasma that gets accelerated by advanced magnet forces (-fields). Hereby the plasma gets crushed against it self (or another accelerated plasma) to violently create fusion.
And all this seems to be the case here.:vulcan:

But neither fusion nor A/M-A are used for thrust. .... ^^ except you want to treat this stuff like a combustion engine.



Still : Hot topic! :techman:


P.S.
As far as I understand, the fusion devices for the impulse engine are also just used to generate electricity. The electricity would then power the ... plasma thrust ... casimir engine... infinite improbability drive ... seriously, nobody really knows how the thrust of the impulse engine in Star Trek works.

publiusr May 26 2013 10:08 PM

Re: Warp Core Prototype
 
Now NIF was used as a warp core set in STiD

Psion May 27 2013 01:16 AM

Re: Warp Core Prototype
 
Not enough pipes.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:09 PM.

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