RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,237
Posts: 5,406,506
Members: 24,762
Currently online: 558
Newest member: PaulHicks

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek Online Adds More Voyager Actors
By: T'Bonz on Sep 2

The Wil Wheaton Project Axed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 2

Kurtzman’s Production Company Signs Deal
By: T'Bonz on Sep 2

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 4 2013, 06:08 PM   #31
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: Does More Nacelles = More Speed?

Masao wrote: View Post
Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
Masao wrote: View Post
Endurance depends on how much fuel you have. It's all arithmetic!
I thought Endurance depended on Shackleton?
Har! Good one! Do you have any Roald Amundsen jokes?
He explored the Antarctic. I hear he was a really cool guy.

Eh, I got nothin.

SoM wrote: View Post
ISTR something about the Enterprise-D having, in effect, double nacelles - each being constructed out of parts that on a smaller ship would have been two complete nacelles. Is that so? If it is, then that makes four-nacelled ships even odder.
IIRC, that was an after-the fact justification for the Space Battleship Enterprise from All Good Things. Both the Tech Manual and the onscreen graphics show one set of warp coils per nacelle.
__________________
"What?" - { Emilia }
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2013, 01:09 AM   #32
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Does More Nacelles = More Speed?

I remember that too.

To address the OP, I suppose it depends whether the nacelles generate power or simply use power from elsewhere.

I've also seem, as others have hinted, that the use of four nacelles may be where they are intended to be used in alternating pairs. The DS9 TM, for example, suggested a four nacelle version of the Defiant pathfinder was used as a courier, using paired cores and nacelles.

For all we know, the Constellation class and her ilk may have two warp cores and do the same. Why not use pairs instead of two larger engines, unless there's some advantage to it?
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2013, 04:47 AM   #33
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: Does More Nacelles = More Speed?

Well, if dilithium is scarce enough, having more than one set of engines may not be as economical for a large production run?

We don't see nearly as meany Constellations as we do single-paired contemporaries like the Miranda, Oberth, Excelsior, etc.
__________________
"What?" - { Emilia }
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2013, 05:23 AM   #34
SoM
Commander
 
SoM's Avatar
 
Re: Does More Nacelles = More Speed?

Saturn0660 wrote: View Post
I'd think it would something along the lines of a car. You have a V8 and you pulled half the plugs it would still run.. Kinda..
Well, a four-stroke V8 is the direct equivalent of two four-cylinder engines bolted together with a timing offset*. Some modern large-engine cars even deliberately disable one bank of cylinders in city driving for fuel efficiency, turning a V8 into a four-pot.

*This can go further - W16 engines exist, as do W12s (2xV6).
I suppose if a 4-cyl is the Kelvin, that makes the Veyron a four-naceller.
SoM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2013, 04:12 PM   #35
Saturn0660
Rear Admiral
 
Saturn0660's Avatar
 
Location: NE Ohio
View Saturn0660's Twitter Profile
Re: Does More Nacelles = More Speed?

SoM wrote: View Post
Saturn0660 wrote: View Post
I'd think it would something along the lines of a car. You have a V8 and you pulled half the plugs it would still run.. Kinda..
Well, a four-stroke V8 is the direct equivalent of two four-cylinder engines bolted together with a timing offset*. Some modern large-engine cars even deliberately disable one bank of cylinders in city driving for fuel efficiency, turning a V8 into a four-pot.

*This can go further - W16 engines exist, as do W12s (2xV6).
I suppose if a 4-cyl is the Kelvin, that makes the Veyron a four-naceller.
Ya, not so much. If you pulled the plugs in a v8 not made to run a 4-cyl you'd likely ruin it. Now yes i know there are new cars with v6 and v8 made to run in "half" mode. But remember those engines were made to run that way. If I tried that shit in my wife sienna I don't think it would be very drivable if at all.

I guess it laymen's terms a W-12 is just two v6 sitting on top of each other.. But it's much much more then that.
__________________
How many lights do YOU see?
Saturn0660 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7 2013, 04:25 AM   #36
zDarby
Lieutenant
 
Location: NorCal
Re: Does More Nacelles = More Speed?

I find the nacelle question is interesting.
But instead of walking into the conversation with my assumptions and expectations, I'd like to summarize what's already been argued.


Possible pros of more nacelles:

-- Higher maximum speed. Any warp material should have a power limit, a point at which more power will not induce a deeper warp bubble but will simply melt or otherwise damage the material. So, by having more, disconnected nacelles, you can put more power into the warp bubble without melting the coils. And though this same result could probably be achieved from larger coils and fewer nacelles, you can get faster results by using modular nacelles that are already designed, tested and known to be reliable.

-- Better manoeuvrability at warp. More total coil area may mean more complete control over the shape of the warp field and, thus, more and faster control of your direction of travel.

-- More "torque". Perhaps pouring more power into different sets of coils can give a warp field better "traction" within subspace, allowing a vessel to tow more mass at a given warp factor more efficiently.

-- More endurance. Less power per nacelle might mean the warp coils could sustain higher warp factors for longer periods of time.

-- Less wear and tear. There's quite a bit of energy impinging on the warp coils and that has to create stress. By alternately using different coils, you'll put less stress per cochrane-hour on each nacelle and they'll last longer.

-- Redundancy. The more nacelles there are, the more of them can be destroyed in a fight or a accident and still allow the ship to travel at warp.

-- More stable warp field. Perhaps having more warp coils keeping a warp bubble "inflated" makes the field less prone to interference to outside subspace instabilities.



Possible cons of more nacelles:

-- Hardware complexity. More nacelles mean more conduits, more junctions, more internal sensors, more hardware in general. It's gonna be hard to keep all that stuff working well together. And the more the hardware there is, the more there is to fail. Furthermore, the more complex the connections, the more likely something's gonna fail.

-- Maintenance complexity. As above, the more hardware there is, the more likely it is to fail, which means the more maintenance is needed to keep it in working order.

-- Software complexity. Starships are controlled by their computers. Computers need to be programmed. The more complex the program, the more bugs there are and the harder it is to find, and crush those bugs.

-- Warp plasma phasing complexity. The activation timing of warp coil segments by warp plasma both within a nacelle and between nacelles must be rather important. More nacelles means keeping track of more injectors and may well require both more accurate and more precise timing of coil activations than fewer coils. Furthermore, it's possible the state of the plasma is also important, making things even more complex.

-- More mass. Nacelles seem to be rather dense, and thus, rather massive. More nacelles means more mass... A lot more mass. In STL, more mass means slower response and less total achievable speed. This may also be true at FTL.

-- Poor economics of atoms. Four nacelles requires more warp coil material than two, and may require more dilithium to run. How many ships do you want to build with the materials at hand?

-- Poor economics of energy. It seems likely (via the "no free lunch" truism) that even if it takes less power per nacelle to maintain a warp field of any given factor, it will take more *total* power with all nacelles active. Further, any nacelle that is not powered is dead weight. This means more power per light-year and a less energy efficient performance.

....

What did I miss?

You will note that all the pros are mostly theoretical and all the cons are engineering challenges. This makes me suspect that possibly all of the statements are accurate to some extent.
zDarby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15 2013, 06:20 PM   #37
Mountie1988
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Does More Nacelles = More Speed?

The nacelles offer space for the Warp Coils, which warp the time-space. You do not actually need these nacelles as you can integrate the coils in the main hull (see Defiant, Andorian Kumari class etc.)

Once there was that philosophy that an even number of nacelles is required, but that could actually mean an even number of Warp Coil lines. Thus the Kelvin would have 2 lines of Warp Coils, but simply integrated in one humongous nacelle.

The actual top speed and endurance would rely on the number of coils and their size relative to the mass of the starship plus of course the advancement of the Coils, as newer could mean smaller but just as efficient.
Mountie1988 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 10:54 AM   #38
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Does More Nacelles = More Speed?

@ zDarby

Isn't there one approach that answers more questions than raising new ones?

In your latest speculations in the Romulan BoP thread, you made an interesting proposal suggesting that each nacelle (in the dual-concept only) had a different charge (+ versus -) to enable the creation of a warp field.

The one thing that left me wondering was how to create different charges as the plasma source seems to be essentially the same.

Assuming you had two M/AM reactors (one for the port, one for the starboard nacelles) wouldn't it be easier to have each M/AM reactor output to be "charged" at the source for either port or starboard nacelle applications?

Thus, with a four-nacelled vessel, both of the port nacelles could have a negative and both of the starboard nacelles a positive charge.

Couldn't that be an approach with some practical advantage to help solving the riddle?

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 12:19 PM   #39
FreddyE
Commander
 
Re: Does More Nacelles = More Speed?

Maybe more nacceles = faster "0 to warp"?
FreddyE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 04:29 PM   #40
Darkwing
Commodore
 
Location: This dry land thing is too wierd!
Re: Does More Nacelles = More Speed?

FreddyE wrote: View Post
Maybe more nacceles = faster "0 to warp"?
Just like more cylinders can mean faster 0 - 60 OR more towing horsepower, more nacelles can mean better acceleration, better top-end speed, better endurance at speed, or less maintenance per nacelle. It all depends on how it's designed.
__________________
If you don’t drink the kool-aid, you’re a baaad person - Rev Jim Jones
Almond kool-aid, anyone? Or do you prefer pudding?- Darkwing
Darkwing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 02:37 AM   #41
James
Guest
 
Re: Does More Nacelles = More Speed?

No more nacelles don't = more speed. Higher warp technology = more speed.
  Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 03:47 AM   #42
SWHouston
Commander
 
SWHouston's Avatar
 
Location: Houston, Tx. U.S.A.
Re: Does More Nacelles = More Speed?

Darkwing wrote: View Post
FreddyE wrote: View Post
Maybe more nacceles = faster "0 to warp"?
Just like more cylinders can mean faster 0 - 60 OR more towing horsepower, more nacelles can mean better acceleration, better top-end speed, better endurance at speed, or less maintenance per nacelle. It all depends on how it's designed.
And possibly the ability (given required downtime) of a multiple nacelle (Constellation) arrangement, to continue at warp speed on one set, while the other is down for repair or what ever they do to them. (just a cool down maybe ?)
__________________
Author & CEO of Chiron Intergalaxy Corp.
Good Golf, good Trekking and anything else that makes you Happy !
If you’re not watching FREE TV, you should !
SWHouston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 26 2013, 05:32 PM   #43
zDarby
Lieutenant
 
Location: NorCal
Re: Does More Nacelles = More Speed?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
@ zDarby

Isn't there one approach that answers more questions than raising new ones?
Undoubtedly. My experience, though, suggests that collecting together all the speculations in one place clears up one's thinking on the subject. That's all I was trying to do in my previous post.

Your latest speculations in the Romulan BoP thread, you made an interesting proposal suggesting that each nacelle (in the dual-concept only) had a different charge (+ versus -) to enable the creation of a warp field.
That's not what I meant. I meant that a coil *segment* would be alternated from extreme positive electric charge to extreme negative charge. The speculation was that, with the right material, if properly energized, an extreme shock from one electric charge to the other might create the needed "warp particles", whatever they are. (I speculate they're a kind of tachyon.)

One would then shock the segments of a warp coil at different times, with different relative frequencies and at different states to shape the emitted a pattern of warp particles, thus changing the shape of the pressure on surrounding subspace, dictating the shape of the warp field. The precise pattern of excitation between different segments --both within a single nacelle and between separate nacelles-- thus would dictate the shape of the field and, therefore, your direction of travel and speed.

One thing that left me wondering was how to create different charges as the plasma source seems to be essentially the same.

Assuming you had two M/AM reactors (one for the port, one for the starboard nacelles) wouldn't it be easier to have each M/AM reactor output to be "charged" at the source for either port or starboard nacelle applications?
You're right that the total particle charge of the plasma created by a 1:1 M/AM reaction would be neutral, with the same number of positive charges as negative. Thus, it would be necessary to sort through and separate the different charges before sending them to your warp coils.

In this model, the M/AM reactor spits out a pulse of particles containing a soup of charges. These are fed through a sorter that separates the particles in their separate relevant piles. Then they're mixed together to make several pulses of particles, each of exactly the right state --as calculated by the computer-- for a very specific warp coil segment. And finally the different pulses are directed to their respective segment. This is done several times a second and when everything goes right, you have a warp field shaped to order.

Note that I constructed the above sentences so that it doesn't matter what kind of charges are important, be they electric, nuclear weak, nuclear strong or something we don't know about yet. They are created en-mass, separated out, remixed to perfection and injected into the coil.

This makes a good argument for having the TOS reactors in the nacelles: after all that massaging, the particles do not have far to travel and the reaction time is reduced. And TMP and TNG could have decided that a centralized source of particles was easier to control.

It also explains why starships need such immensely, rediculously powerful computers. The calculations needed for this would be far beyond what we are capable of now, in the immediate future or in the next 30 years --even if we knew how to formulate the question... And I'm quite optimistic about the calculating capacity of the future.

...Anyway, this is the model I had in mind when I made the above comments. I hope that makes sense.
zDarby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1 2013, 01:17 AM   #44
Irishman
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: Does More Nacelles = More Speed?

austen_pierce wrote: View Post
After ST2009, I started thinking about the Kelvin and her top speed since she is a single-nacelle vessel. I believe she is a Warp-5 vessel. In TOS, Enterprise and others have two nacelles and are capable of speeds up to Warp-8 (and 9 in a pinch). Later we see ships with three nacelles, most notably the Enterprise-D from "All Good Things". Does having more nacelles equate to a speed boost? Have we ever seen a ship with four or more nacelles?
Well, certainly the designer of the USS Hackwrench would have us think so.

Seriously, I've always been under the impression that the extra nacelles gets you longer warp flight time, because it takes the operational strain of generating warp fields and divides it among the extra nacelles.
Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:20 AM.

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