I actually kinda wish we had a small black hole a few thousand AUs out, to dump waste Warp a station that spins opposite to it or a magnetar and you have quite the dynamo.
A sphere surrounding a black hole would have "alchemy" poles where X-ray jets could hit lighter elements and transmute them intio heavier ones
If a sphere is too hard to build then a statite which rides the jet low enough not to be pushed away (yet high enough to not fall in would be more do-able)
That article is awesome! My step daughter's 8th grade graduation has taken up a great deal of my time so I've not finished reading it yet. Still, excellent reference, thank you!
The equations I used to calculate a black hole's hawkings power and evaporation time I lifted from Wikipedia. Serves me right for not fact checking them.
I still stand by my speculations about Romulan AQSs; I still think they'd more accurately be called "artificial event horizons". Even so, I need to finish that article before I make any more of an ass of myself.
Of course, Star Trek technology can do miracles with gravity. Having a strong "natural" source of gravitational attraction combined with a suitable artificial gravity machine might yield a compact perpetual motion machine easily enough, without any real-world concerns interfering.
Similarly, the technology can rather effortlessly manipulate faster-than-light objects, allowing various laws of nature to be broken at the event horizon for the user's considerable benefit.
Whether one really needs an AQS in addition to these miracle technologies is somewhat debatable, though.
Ok. Here's how I read this comment: Our knowledge of physics & engineering now compared to three hundred years from now is like comparing such knowledge in Franklin's time to our own. Which is to say: Silly and naive, at best, and more likely to be ignorantly arrogant. (If I understood wrongly, I apologize and would appreciate the correction.)
For me, to wave a hand and say, "it's technological magic," is to not play the game. The game is to extrapolate what we know into not only what might be, but what might explain what we see in Trek.....Or, at least, that's the game I
like to play.
And, really, the point of this game --again, for me-- is to learn about what we know. Like being corrected by publiusr just now.
So, if I may be so bold as to ask --and I am, genuinely being humble, here:
Which laws of nature do you see being broken with FTL near an event horizon?
What benefits do you see a user gaining from these broken laws?
How could you set this up for perpetual motion?
Could any of these things be implemented within a D'deridex?