Tossing in my bit of the mud to the waters. Perhaps batteries refers not to chemical batteries (or a futuristic equivalent) but to a battery (i.e. a colelction) of small fusion reactors. Or pergium or whatever.
DrBashir, You're correct about the proper definition of a "battery" (and it's nice to see someone use the term in that sense), but contextually, I think it was fairly clear that the batteries referred to were intended to represent some form of storage system, not a generation system. FYI, for those who don't follow what he meant... if you've ever thought you held a "AA battery" in your hand, you were mistaken. You held a "AA cell" in your hand. cluster six of those cells, and you have a battery. The only device most of us ever deal with which is an actual pre-packaged battery for consumer (non-vehicular) use is the 9-volt battery, which actually is a cluster of six 1.5V cells inside of a rectangular cannister. So, DrBashir is technically correct, but I just think that those who wrote the bits talking about the batteries on the Enterprise intended for this to be understood in the most familiar sense.
Well, maybe we can bend their intentions just a bit. Perhaps it goes something like this: Primary power - Matter/Anti-matter Auxilary power - Fusion reactor (powers primary hull when seperated) Batteries - Produces small amounts of power when activated and cannot be refuelled while in operation. Primary & Secondary power feed the main power distribution system as well as their respective drives (M/AM - warp, Fusion - Impulse) Power from the batteries is primarily for maintaining life support and minimal operational system (sick bay, bridge). You can tie the batteries into the main system but they're not designed to handle large load or demands. They're a stop gap until you get you main system back online. So, fusion may not be the way to go with that but some sort of reactor, perhaps pergeium or something similar. When activated, they offer relativly low power but for a relativly long period of time. Replacing the power elements isn't something that's anticipated in an emergency. They may even be sealed units that don't require a charge but do have a limited lifespan. In an emergency you activte the battery and it runs until the fuel is exausted. You can't switch it off or back on. However, since it's not a storage system there's no danger of overload or energy leakage.
We could argue that "Doomsday Machine" gives us the most complete picture of what a starship has available and how it might cross-connect. In that episode, power on the Constellation was lost, and it was said specifically that 1) "all power plants dead" (supposedly these are facilities that generate useable power from fuel that would not release its power without the intervention of a power plant) and 2) "reserve energy banks operative at a very low power level" (supposedly these are facilities that store energy in a readily accessible form, and are currently releasing just a trickle of power but potentially still storing lots of energy) This is surprisingly consistent and physically sound terminology. Later on we learn that the drive systems are damaged: "warp drive is a pile of junk" but "impulse engines are not too badly off". This time, the terminology applies to drives, rather than power sources. Then we hear that "As far as we can tell, something crashed through the deflectors and knocked out the generators. Somehow the antimatter in the warp drive pods has been deactivated." Beyond this point, the Constellation supposedly doesn't have antimatter (especially not in the warp drive pods, which could be located under Kirk's seat for all we know since no connection is made with any of the ship's structures - merely with one of the ship's functions!) and never regains main power or warp drive. When Kirk later calls for maneuvering power, Scotty tells him about the status of the two drives, without specifying where the power to run them comes from. But both starships are soon forced to operate on "impulse power" or "emergency impulse power", at a time when the "warp drives" of both are out of commission. Spock worries that this will exhaust their "fuel" in seven hours - an unprecedented occurrence in Star Trek, and possibly indicating the emergency nature of the power source in use. But it's "fuel" specifically, so probably something going through the "power plants" rather than being taken from the "power banks". We thus have a three-tier structure within one episode: main power lost, auxiliary power available for various applications (perhaps including warp drive, but since that drive is lost the question becomes academic), and batteries that store energy and release power but do not convert fuel into further power. We also have the intriguing reference to antimatter deactivation, coupled with the failure of our heroes to use their photon torpedoes (supposed antimatter weapons) or their warp drives (supposed antimatter-propelled systems). Other episodes tend to feature one or two out of the three tiers. But "DDM" could be the benchmark that establishes those other eps as describing only parts of the total setup. Furthermore, the explicit use of the term "fusion explosion" to describe a user-commanded malfunction of the impulse engine gives us our best hint at the nature of impulse power, auxiliary power, and the connection between the two. Where everything goes, physically, is a separate question. But the "DDM" framework would seem to neatly accommodate everything described elsewhere. "Antimatter in the warp drive pods" and "the energy generated by our power nacelles" are two pieces of "DDM" dialogue that might tell us where everything lies. But "warp drive [antimatter] pods" could be located anywhere - either next to the photon torpedo launcher antimatter pods or then far away from those. Perhaps close to the "main energizers" which are on Deck 7 in this episode (although of course the ship may have dozens or hundreds of main energizers, even if Palmer here only worries specifically about the Deck 7 ones, or the ones controlled through Deck 7)? Or close to the (photon torpedo launcher?) antimatter tanks on Deck 11 in "Errand of Mercy"? Or then in the nacelles... That part remains muddled. It's just the basic power structure that gets clarified in the episode, in a fairly straightforward manner. Timo Saloniemi
Nicely summarized, Timo. I've always tried to make my own stuff conform to in-universe dialog and imagery. That's part of why I have my "saucer engineering section" laid out as it is. My version has three energizers (which is what I call the cathedrals of tubes)... only one in the secondary hull, and two in the primary hull. I did that for two main reasons... one, the primary hull actually has more significant energy requirements than the secondary hull, overall (phasers, photorps, main sensors, impulse propulsion, etc, etc), while the secondary hull only has one major system (the main sensor/deflector dish). And secondly, because of the dialogue which, at different places in the series, tells us different locations for the set we know as "engineering" which can only be resolved if we assume that there are multiple compartments with the same general configuration. This would not make much sense if these were the places where main power is generated, of course, but it makes perfect sense if these are the places where some high-energy reaction products (regardless of whether those come from a fusion reaction or a matter/antimatter reaction) are converted into useable energy to operate ship's systems. And we also know that the Roddenberry-driven idea about where engineering is (at the aft centerline of the saucer) which is where FJ was forced to place it as well, really makes no sense (and pretty much precludes having a lift tube going between the hulls!) Your summary pretty much covers power generation. I will accept occam's razor insofar as what "pods" meant in this episode... the audience would be assumed to see this as the engine nacelles, so that's how I see it. The nacelles have antimatter stores (and it's not hard to see how this might be "deactivated" if you hit them with a beam of "pure antiprotons.") The nacelles are also (possibly directly related, possibly not) the propulsion system. We know that the impulse system works, and we know that while the impulse system is working, the "cathedral of tubes" is lit up... which pretty much conclusively proves that this is not the matter/antimatter reactor, doesn't it? But at other times in the series, when the ship's matter/antimatter system is malfunctioning, this same "cathedral of tubes" is what we see acting oddly... so it's clearly not the "impulse power" system either, right? And we know, unambiguously, the the impulse subsystem derives its power and its propulsive energy from a fusion system of some sort. Whether this is a direct "fusion rocket" system, or something like I like (VASIMR and separate but related fusion power generation), or whether it's some other non-Newtonian system (ignoring the fact that "impulse" is a classical Newtonian term) driven by power generated from fusion power. It's very clear that there is a power storage subsystem, and that this is called "the batteries" or, in this case, "reserve energy banks." Both terms are, as far as I'm concerned, interchangeable (one being more informal than the other, of course). The three tiers makes sense. The "cathedrals of tubes" are not where power is generated, but where useable power is "harvested" from whatever reactor you're tapping at the time. Once we accept that the "cathedral of tubes" isn't the reactor, or part of the reactor... the rationale behind requiring power generation to be in the main hull falls off dramatically, doesn't it? We COULD have it there (though this seems excessively dangerous and risky, from my perspective). But there's no real advantage to having the matter/antimatter reactor in the main hull. (For that matter, if I were designing the ship from scratch, I'd have the fusion reactors external and easily ejected.. but by putting them behind those grey-outlined-with-grey panels, at least I'm making it easier to toss 'em out in an emergency, so that's better than having the most dangerous element of the ship deep in the core of the ship. At least in TNG-and-later times, they'd come up with the idea of ejecting the warp core (something Voyager did waaaaay too often!) to deal with this. But they never mentioned anything of that sort in TOS. All they ever mentioned was the line repeated a few times here, about "escaping in the main section" (paraphrasing, I can't recall the exact words used). For those who want the main matter/antimatter reactor, or the fusion reactors (which we KNOW were there, by DDM) to be deep within the hull... how do you deal with the idea of a problem of that nature?
Granted there's a little wiggle room there, but not much. References to "warp drive nacelles" and "warp drive pods" as well as "anti-matter nacelles" and "anti-matter pods" yet still other references to "matter/anti-matter nacelles" and "matter/anti-matter pods" pretty much show that the terms "nacelle" and "pod" refer to the same thing and are interchangeable. In "The Apple" Scotty refers to the antimatter pods being inert and in reply to this, Kirk tells him to jettison the nacelles if possible; so at the very least, the pods are in the nacelles, but more likely they are the nacelles. Also, the fact that the pods are called warp drive pods in “The Doomsday Machine” and then “Metamorphosis” indicates that that the Pods (on the shuttlecraft) are related to maneuvering, strongly implies that they are synonymous with the nacelles/propulsion units. What dialogue establishes antimatter tanks on Deck 11?
Good point! Here's the most relevant dialogue from "The Savage Curtain"... SCOTT: I can't explain it, sir, but the matter and antimatter are in red zone proximity. KIRK: What caused that? SCOTT: There's no knowing and there's no stopping it either. The shielding is breaking down. I estimate four hours before it goes completely. Four hours before the ship blows up. KIRK: Scotty, inform Starfleet Command. Disengage nacelles, Jettison if possible. Mister Spock, assist them. Advise and analyze. Scotty? Scotty? This pretty much cinches that M/A-M fuel is in the nacelles, otherwise there would be no point in disengaging/jettisoning the nacelles [specifically!] to prevent the destruction of the ship? If the TOS 'E' had a setup like TNG then Kirk should have said something like "disengage reactor, jettison warp core if possible"?
In answer to the question of "What were the writers thinking when they wrote the word 'pod'?" I submit this late design/pre-model building drawing by the late great Walter Matthew Jefferies, which clearly indicates that the nacelles are labeled as "power pods (2)". This demonstrates pretty conclusively that at least behind the scenes, the powers that were were using the words "pod" and "nacelle" pretty much interchangeably. --Alex
Well, when actually asked about the location of Engineering, either by Doug Drexler or Mike Okuda, I forget which, Matt Jefferies gave the questioner a weird look and responded "In the Engineering Hull." Besides, those are preproduction sketches. Lotsa things changed at this stage.
Irrelevant, no one's disputing that. But in this case nothing changed, pods meant nacelles throughout the series, it's just that the term "nacelle" was also used on occasion to mean the same thing. P.S. Notice Jefferies sketch says "power pods", if we compare this with the screen used "power nacelles" then we have one more example of identical word usage prefixed to both "pods" and "nacelles".
And it should be noted that some of MJ's Phase II drawings continued to use the "power pod" nomenclature for the nacelles. I do wonder sometimes though whether any of the reactors-in-hull references would have made it on screen if GR had been around to do rewrites for Season 3.
FWIW, in my 3D version I'm reconciling this dialogue as the M/AM fuel in the nacelles are the only tanks that can hit "red zone proximity" which allows Kirk to understand what is in danger. The M/AM fuel in the engineering hull probably cannot perhaps due to location or some other factor
I'm trying to figure out what your point is. Do you think that someone... ANYONE... is claiming that the only engineering facility on the ship is in the saucer? The only person who ever claimed that was Gene Roddenberry. FJ didn't even entirely follow Roddenberry's dictate, though he did have to conform to what Roddenberry had set forth when he did his blueprints. Maybe a better question to ask of you would be "do you think that there is only one room on the ship which is 'engineering'?"
Umm, why jettison inert antimatter pods? Not really. A warship today might have turbine fuel tanks and diesel fuel tanks, as she resembles a starship in possessing two sets of engines. This in no way suggests that the turbine fuel tanks would actually be located at or even anywhere near the turbines, though. They are just functionally associated. The starship indeed is full of "pods". But this very fact might prove that the pods are unrelated to each other unless otherwise proven - that a "pod" is an ubiquitous machinery element in a starship and is found in dozens of applications, including warp drive, antimatter storage and ion storm measurements. This describes the damage from the "Errand of Mercy" torpedo attack where all the hits were on the saucer underside where Decks 10 and 11 indeed most likely are to be found. Makes sense if torpedoes are antimatter weapons: they'd need a source of antimatter at that very location, then - and the Klingons would do wisely in targeting that spot! That'd defeat both the value of the term "Main" Engineering, and the descriptions of Engineering as a maze where fugitives can easily elude and ambush our heroes... On a warship of today, "engineering" is everywhere. On a starship clearly sectioned into four parts, though, it might indeed be possible that "engineering" is limited to one or three sections, and one section remains free of the paraphernalia. Timo Saloniemi [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/FONT]
From "The Apple":KIRK: Then use your imagination. Tie every ounce of power the ship has into the impulse engines. Discard the warp drive nacelles if you have to, and crack out of there with the main section, but get that ship out of there! I think in that context, Kirk saw that the ship needed to escape and they were short on power to do it. If they discarded the nacelles which contained the inert antimatter pods, then that would lighten the ship. From "Errand of Mercy":KIRK: All hands, maintain general alert. Hold battle stations. Damage report, Mister Spock. SPOCK: Minor, Captain. We were most fortunate. Blast damage in decks ten and eleven, minor buckling in the antimatter pods, casualties very light. Or Spock could be just listing separate items since he doesn't directly connect them by saying: "Blast damage in decks ten and eleven resulting in minor buckling in the antimatter pods and light casualties."
So far all pretty decent examples of the nacelles more then likely then not, to containing the m/am reactors. And there is more then enough on screen evidence to support other sources of supplementry and backup power. And this is what I was hoping to see- more on screen quotes and evidence to assist this. I will point out that cannon does not exclude off screen evidence like the Jefferies drawing above. Cannon by definition includes all material created by authorities on a subject. In this case, the people commissioned by paramount who owns the rights, gives us additional material to work with. And disregard I've been looking for an online site that contains the scripts for TOS so i can search through all 79 episodes with key words... Anyone have any links to one?
True enough. But the general gist of the litany is that damage was minor, not extensive. We saw hits slamming to the immediate vicinity of the torpedo launcher; if there were further hits (into the warp nacelles, say), the "light casualties" thing would be a bit less likely. The evidence can be used in many ways, but one way is to tie together "antimatter pods on Deck 11", antimatter-warhead torpedoes, and the idea that not all antimatter pods (decidedly plural!) aboard the ship need be located in the same place - and certainly not limited to the two pod-like things dangling at the ends of the external pylons! TOS dialogue seems to verify that main power and the flow of antimatter fuel is dependent on key instrumentation in the engineering hull, but there is also evidence that the warp engine nacelles may contain antimatter either at times, or then all the time. What would the antimatter be doing up there if not annihilating and generating power? It's possible that the TOS ship features an "afterburner" of sorts - that annihilation happens in the "That Which Survives" location, but that one gets extra oomph by channeling some antimatter directly into the warp coil system. There seems to be a distinct lack of situations where the warp nacelles would threaten to explode and would have to be jettisoned for that reason; this rather speaks against the continuous presence of antimatter in the nacelles. Timo Saloniemi
Timo, Yeah, the idea that there's only one room on the ship which is "engineering" is silly, which was pretty much my point. _________________ Re: the line which is being used to put antimatter storage on deck 11: "We were most fortunate. Blast damage in decks ten and eleven, minor buckling in the antimatter pods, casualties very light." I see three, likely independent, bit fo damage listed here. 1) Blast damage on decks 10 & 11 2) Minor buckling of the antimatter pods 3) Light casualties. There is no indication in that line that the casualties took place on decks 10 and 11 (though SOME may have, not all need have) And there is no indication in that line that the antimatter pods are on decks 10 and 11. Now, don't get me wrong. I actually do have a small "buffer storage" facility for antimatter in my own "deck 10" facility. Deck 10, and the saucer's "deck 11" (which is really a crawlspace-like service area, not a full deck) make up the main weapons systems for the ship, as well as the lower sensor package. So, phasers are down here, along with a bank of phaser capacitors. The torpedo launcher subsystem is here, along with the torpedo magazine and, yes, a small hydrogen and antihydrogen storage facility (just enough to charge maybe four torpedoes under normal circumstances... though if he ship goes to an alert status, the amount stored here would be increased, using some form of "safe antimatter plumbing" line to transfer minute quantities back and forth from the main systems) So, it just so happens that I have antimatter storage on deck 10. But only a MINUTE amount. But I have no problem with the line of dialog meaning that... or with the line of dialog merely being a list of three unrelated bits of information about damage (which I strongly suspect was the intention). In no case does this mean anything beyond what little is actually said, does it?
Why indeed? As others have pointed out, the idea was to lighten the ship, so your reply actually demonstrates why the term "pod" should be understood as synonymous with "nacelle", because it would be illogical to jettison inert pods if they are only small tanks in the nacelles, since they wouldn't sufficiently lighten the ship. Not sure what you’re getting at there, but my point was that in "Metamorphosis" they were trying to break away from the Companion by various maneuvers, but the "pods" were "not responding", which makes no sense if the pods are merely fuel tanks, but makes complete sense if they are the propulsion units/nacelles. That "The starship indeed is full of "pods". But this very fact..." isn't a fact; it's an assumption on your part. The only other usage of "pod" in TOS, related to the ship, besides those synonymous with nacelle, is -as you mentioned- the ion pod. But we don't even know where that was or how big it was, for all we know it could have been a ginormous nacelle-like thing picked up (or attached) at a nearby starbase before the ship headed into the nearest ion storm to take readings? Here again your assuming. I never considered these as connected references, just a general, all encompassing damage report list. Keep in mind that we don't know if decks 10 and 11 are "most likely are to be found" near the area where the photon torpedoes are emitted/launched from.