View Single Post
Old December 13 2012, 12:36 AM   #65
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: 3 engine rooms in the TOS Enterprise's engineering hull?

Timo wrote: View Post
Sorry 'bout this all, Bob, I just need to get this out of my system...
@Bob, ditto!

Timo wrote: View Post
And that system has navigation elements in it. It is relevant since we'd expect to see navigation elements on that display.
Why would we expect such a thing? Our heroes aren't interested in navigation in the slightest.
But they are looking at a "helm and navigation control" which happens to be what they are trying to disrupt.

Timo wrote: View Post
They are wrestling helm control back from M-5. If this requires opening a box labeled "Helm plus stuff", and the stuff happens to include navigation, so be it. But what we really expect to see here is systems allowing our heroes to point the ship's bow in the desired direction.
And that happens to include navigation. How do our heroes know they successfully pointed the ship in the desired direction? Navigation information and feedback from sensors. What we expect to see from a helm and navigation control system are the points to enter in directional information, navigation feedback, and steering commands to thrusters and throttle commands to the engines.

Timo wrote: View Post
Be they manual or automatic (and preferably, of course, both), they have every right to feature all the elements of steering, including the machinery responsible for the act itself.
For a control system they have every right to show all the control linkages yes. Thruster inputs, sure. Throttle inputs, sure. Dilithium crystal and reactor counts? Hardly.

Timo wrote: View Post
There are no examples of steering the ship with adjusting the power of one warp engine to cause a turn, as you allude to.
There's a pretty clear reason why I so allude. It's a way in which ships are steered in real life.
In real life, we have many ways a ship can be steered.

1. A simple and separate system: Rudders steer the ship while the engines spin propellers to move. Helm and navigation control would show linkages to the rudders and throttle settings to the separate engine system and GPS or some navigation sensors.

2. Or on multiple propeller ships, Rudders steer the ship while the engines spin propellers to move. Helm and navigation control would show linkages to the rudders and throttle settings to the separate engine system and GPS or some navigation sensors. Captain can call the engine room or control throttle settings on individual propellers to augment normal steering.

3. Or on multiple propeller ships, Rudders and side thrusters steer the ship while the engines spin propellers to move. Helm and navigation control would show linkages to the rudders and thrusters and throttle settings to the separate engine system and GPS or some navigation sensors. Captain can call the engine room or control throttle settings on individual propellers to augment normal steering.

And more that I'm just not remembering...

And in real life, control and navigation diagrams don't detail it down to the reactor.

Timo wrote: View Post
We have no data on how ships are steered in Star Trek. Here, pieces fall effortlessly in place if we assume ships in Star Trek are steered the same way ships in real life are. I cannot fathom why you would so desperately resist the pieces falling in place...
With no data, how can you claim that warp engines are used to steer the ship? It could just as very well be thrusters that do the steering and the engines just allow it to float at FTL speeds.

The only pieces we have are "helm and navigation control circuit" and their related elements. There are no warp engine pieces to fall into place.

Timo wrote: View Post
It's not as if

a) you would have a competing model you could point at as being evident on screen and therefore invalidating this model,
Using the warp engines themselves to steer is already invalidated within this same episode. You never did offer up why they couldn't just tweak the warp engines directly to steer the ship.

I do not need to offer up a competing model, only one that severs steering from the warp engines.

Timo wrote: View Post
Based on what? None of the dialogue bits you quoted suggest anything one way or another. If the ship moves at warp, it is being steered by warp steering
If a ship is moving on water with propellers and uses the rudders to steer, it is using the rudders to steer, not the engines. Since we've seen Kirk call to helm to steer and engineering to brake (control speed) they're two separate systems. That is not to say that someone in engineering can't manually override helm control, which is what they did in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and various other episodes. But again, they're overriding helm control. Which goes to the diagram. Helm and navigation control is about steering in all the flight modes, not just the intricacies of the warp engines and reactors.

Timo wrote: View Post
Naah. It would show the system, with "dead" and "live" differentiated by minor things we can ignore, just like we ignore most of the (lack of) graphical detail in Star Trek.
Oh? We sure are not ignoring this minor diagram. We've spent some wordy replies on it

Timo wrote: View Post
Having this diagram visible 24/7 poses no problem whatsoever, regardless of what it is supposed to describe, as long as it describes part of the hero starship (rather than something they only visit that one week).
It should be fun to substitute the dialogue on every scene we see that diagram then. "Captain, the helm and navigation controls are dead and under M5 control."


Timo wrote: View Post
It is rather fortunate that Chekov looked down at the buttons and never looked back at that display before confirming with Spock which removes the diagram from play as containing control circuit information.
Makes no sense. You would now need to prove that

a) part of what Chekov works on is irrelevant to what he is doing, and
He turns on the station which happens to turn on the display. He looks down to check the elements and gets no response. He never looks back up the diagram to confirm that the elements are dead. Therefore, logically, the display had nothing to do with it.

Or a real world situation. "Hey, can you check to see if keyboard is getting any power?" "Sure, let me look down and tap the Num Lock key. Nope, no Num lock light. It's dead Jim, no power."

Timo wrote: View Post
pretty hefty explaining. Why do you so desperately wish for Star Trek to not make sense?
Should I ask the same of you? The one who speaks of "hard(ware) porn" and helm and navigation control systems that shouldn't have any navigation in them?

Timo wrote: View Post
In this case, it require more inventing for us to put control circuits into that diagram and then more inventing to why Chekov doesn't look back up at it again after checking some buttons to confirm that the circuits are dead.
Much more easily done than trying to explain why Chekov would be watching hard(ware) porn during working hours.
I think you've made your argument worse. Now you have 3 things to explain for:

1. How helm and navigation control circuits would fit into that diagram.
2. How Chekov didn't need that diagram to confirm whether a circuit was dead or not.
3. And Chekov's fascination with hard(ware) porn. This is NEW and uhm enlightening :P

Watching the scene, I just need to argue that:

1. Chekov confirmed the control circuits by checking some buttons

Timo wrote: View Post
Oh, well. Display shows Chekov that items A, F and J need to be checked. Chekov checks those specific items, namely their associated switches, and observes their status, then reports this to Spock. No need for him to look back at the display. There. Feel any better?
Yes. Actually, when I watched that scene again (rather than relying on just the transcript and screenshots) and saw he wasn't even paying attention to the diagram it was rather gold.

I hope you feel better too.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote