RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,107
Posts: 5,400,205
Members: 24,744
Currently online: 476
Newest member: Ohwowmelody

TrekToday headlines

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

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Retro Watches
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

New DS9 eBook To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Trek Ice Cube Maker and Shot Glasses
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25


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 October 19 2013, 05:00 AM   #91
zDarby
Lieutenant
 
Location: NorCal
Re: Starfleet Procurement Policy Draft

A note on coleoptric nacelles.
Coleoptric nacelle designs, those shaped like an annular ring circumscribing the vessel perpendicular to the direction of travel (z-axis), can be thought of in two ways, both seem similarly useful. The first to imagine a single nacelle that has been expanded radially and contracted linearly compared the z-axis. The second is to imagine a single nacelle that has been bent into a torus around the ships hull.

Either way, there are some interesting repercussions. The first are geometrical in nature. The coils are spread over a larger volume. This would indicate that the same amount of energy impinged upon a coleoptric coil would be spread over a larger area, which might mean the segments could be thinner for the same warp material being driven at the same warp factor. This would explain why they would have a longer lifespan and faster acceleration compared to more normal coils. It would also imply a tighter turning radius and overall better warp maneuverability as well as a more touchy nacelle that is more susceptible to external influences. However, the simpler geometry would tend to simplify warp geometry calculations.

Even with thinner segments, the total coil volume seems so much larger that it would likely be more resource intensive to build. And with large outer circumference, it would seem the plasma conduits would have to be of a higher caliber, further intensifying material use. All that mass expanded that broadly would extract a heavy toll on impulse maneuverability as well. Of course, the Vulcan tendency for long slender hulls would allow for high torque maneuvering thrusters far fore and aft, negating this disadvantage.

The Vulcan needle-like hull indicates the warp field created by coleoptric nacelles tends to make fields of very low z-axis compression with a small x-y profile. Under the rules previously expressed, this would indicate high peak-transition efficiency and low integer efficiency. (This is the opposite of that expressed in the nacelle side-note above.)

other notes whenever I have the time. For the moment let me say simply: nicely logical.
zDarby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19 2013, 06:35 AM   #92
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Starfleet Procurement Policy Draft

Well the only real official explanation we've gotten about Vulcan hull forms comes from A Choice of Futures (Rise of the Federation Vol.1) where Tobin Dax describes that the hull silhouette is in fact a result of the stated design goal of Vulcan ships rather than a result of warp dynamics. Specifically as combat oriented designs they're designed to have small forward aspect ratios to present a smaller target to the enemy.

The lack of maneuverability is also noted as a feature of coleoptric drives. The combination leads me to believe that they're able to project a very smooth, very even warp field. Also the sheer diameter of the "coil" would essentially make a single unified field, something like putting a very wide aspect warp nacelle together.

The end result would basically be a hull form that would try to make up for the width of the nacelle if it wanted better peak transition efficiency.
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19 2013, 02:23 PM   #93
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Starfleet Procurement Policy Draft

Egger wrote: View Post
Response to "Geometric Complexity: Warp Nacelle Combinations"

Good explainations, Nob.

Here's my view on those subjects:


Regarding the hull configuration:

She may be built for combat so a neck would be a weak point (the USS Odyssey was rammed into the neck I think).
Interesting theory, however the Odyssey was rammed in the engineering hull and the debris bounced into the starboard nacelle.

Egger wrote: View Post
The Defiant, as we know, has severe problems with warp speeds higher than warp 9. This could be explained by the absence of a neck, meaning that the boundary of the field lobes runs straight through the ship resulting in a highly unstable warp field that stresses the hull tremendously. Only an extremely powerful propulsion system (as we know from dialogue she has) could make her fast enough.
O'BRIEN: What sort of design flaws?
SISKO: You'll have complete access to the ship evaluation reports but to put it simply, it's overgunned and overpowered for a ship its size. During battle drills, it nearly tore itself apart when the engines were tested at full capacity.
It might be the opposite, where a lower-powered propulsion system could make her fast and not tear herself apart (we've seen small, low-powered ships hit high warp speeds like the Delta Flyer.) The Defiant's extra powerful power systems OTOH comes with a penalty of overstressing the ship.


On the subject of X number of nacelles -has there been any dialogue in the different series to indicate an advantage of one over the other?
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19 2013, 03:58 PM   #94
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Starfleet Procurement Policy Draft

Loving the new stuff, Nob. I agree that your treatise on nacelles and hull geometry are my new standards, as well as the weapons.

I am surprised you thought your weapons section would be controversial - the only thing I found myself disagreeing with was the notion that there are internal hull segments on ships with old-style "ball turrets." Does that mean you think there's an array under the hull? If so, why not just have ball turrets built with newer tech? I do agree with your assertion about why arrays are better and the role hull structure has to play in it.

I also really like what you have to say about the Miranda. To my thinking, each time a new generation of starship/tech is released, there's always a prototype that attempts to evaluate the validity of newer tech on the older design, making itself a pattern for future class refits. I think you've more or less done the same.

Again, fantastic work as always.
__________________
"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 October 19 2013, 05:31 PM   #95
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Starfleet Procurement Policy Draft

I am surprised you thought your weapons section would be controversial - the only thing I found myself disagreeing with was the notion that there are internal hull segments on ships with old-style "ball turrets." Does that mean you think there's an array under the hull? If so, why not just have ball turrets built with newer tech? I do agree with your assertion about why arrays are better and the role hull structure has to play in it.
My assumption with the refitted arrays is that the arrays are there under the hull, but only consist of the EPS conduit and prefire chamber. Basically they serve as very long "chambers" or "drums" for the emitter segment installed in the old spots where the ball turrets used to have their full equipment.

One reason was component commonality. Making a whole new set of parts and R&D design for non-arrayed emitters seems pretty wasteful.

Second, I figured the whole system was substantially more capable than the old one. So that even if you fed advances into the old configuration, you simply wouldn't get much out of it. So instead they use a common system and use the existing hull shape to do what the new arrays can do. That still comes with trade-offs, like the whole heat and fire arc issue, but it lets you use the same type of firepower between fleet common ships.

Also, when we start seeing the old 23rd century designs firing in DS9, they seem to only fire from one or two banks at any one time. That would make sense if they were tied together in some way and therefore could direct their energy in one or two banks rather than having to fire them all at once.

The other possibility is that making an old style emitter with comparable capacity as the arrays would require such a huge power cell or support machinery within the hull that it would make for a terrible technological upgrade. Pulse phasers being a minor exception, but even then those things are big suckers and have limited fire arcs.

In general having more "prefire chambers" scattered underneath the hull connected array segments is also partly an explanation why newer ships also seem to have array segments that are sub-divided along their hulls. So some of these arrays are actually parts of a larger array that's connected under the hull, but protected at the most vulnerable sections or emitter facets are removed to add some redundancy.
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19 2013, 07:48 PM   #96
Egger
Lieutenant
 
Egger's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Starfleet Procurement Policy Draft

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Interesting theory, however the Odyssey was rammed in the engineering hull and the debris bounced into the starboard nacelle.
Ah, I see. Couldn't quite remember if it was the neck or the engineering hull.

It might be the opposite, where a lower-powered propulsion system could make her fast and not tear herself apart (we've seen small, low-powered ships hit high warp speeds like the Delta Flyer.) The Defiant's extra powerful power systems OTOH comes with a penalty of overstressing the ship.
So the ship could pump more energy into its engines than the hull (or possibly the Structural Integrity Field) could handle?



Regarding phaser arrays:

I think of the trench in the middle of the array segments as the actual emitter. So the emitter is always as long as the whole array.
The phaser energy would be prepared in the prefire chambers below and then released into the trench, where a force field of some kind holds and transports the energy to the emission point where it is then released as a beam (maybe confined in an "annular confinement beam").
That way, the problem of the feasability (because of heat) of one array segment emitting the energy of the whole array would be avoided. Nob Akimoto's phaser arrays under the hull, because they only have single small emitters, would still have this problem, yet have some advantages of phaser arrays too.
Egger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19 2013, 07:56 PM   #97
Egger
Lieutenant
 
Egger's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Starfleet Procurement Policy Draft

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
In general having more "prefire chambers" scattered underneath the hull connected array segments is also partly an explanation why newer ships also seem to have array segments that are sub-divided along their hulls. So some of these arrays are actually parts of a larger array that's connected under the hull, but protected at the most vulnerable sections or emitter facets are removed to add some redundancy.
Yeah. I also think that already the ball turret phaser banks of 23rd century ships were linked together, so they can always have the energy where it's needed.
Same goes for arrays, but I think even then, a short array could not fire with the power of a longer array, it could only fire with its maximum output forever (well, at least until it burns out ^^) with the power supply from the long array.
Egger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19 2013, 09:41 PM   #98
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Starfleet Procurement Policy Draft

Egger wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Interesting theory, however the Odyssey was rammed in the engineering hull and the debris bounced into the starboard nacelle.
Ah, I see. Couldn't quite remember if it was the neck or the engineering hull.
Yeah. I was also a bit quick in my reply as I forgot to add that IMHO once the shields go down (or in Odyssey's case, "divert shield power to weapons") pretty much the whole ship is vulnerable. A neck hit, engineering hull or nacelle hit could be just as fatal or crippling against a powerful weapon or ship ramming into it.

Egger wrote: View Post
It might be the opposite, where a lower-powered propulsion system could make her fast and not tear herself apart (we've seen small, low-powered ships hit high warp speeds like the Delta Flyer.) The Defiant's extra powerful power systems OTOH comes with a penalty of overstressing the ship.
So the ship could pump more energy into its engines than the hull (or possibly the Structural Integrity Field) could handle?
I think so / maybe.

There appears to be more detail in "The Sound of Her Voice" where the Defiant can push it to Warp 9.5 but only after diverting her phaser reserve power into the SIF.

Since Worf says the phaser reserves can be emptied, then it appears that the Defiant is unable to produce the extra power the SIF would need to protect herself above Warp 9 even though her engines are capable of going well past it.
BASHIR: We need more speed.
O'BRIEN: Speed's not the problem. I could increase the warp plasma ninety seven gigahertz. That would increase our velocity to warp nine point five and save us almost a full day.
WORF: The problem on the Defiant is how to maintain structural integrity when we go above warp nine.
O'BRIEN: Exactly. At those kinds of speed the ship literally starts tearing herself apart.
SISKO: Is there any way to strengthen the structural integrity field?
O'BRIEN: Not without bleeding power from some other source.
SISKO: Such as?
O'BRIEN: The phaser reserves.
WORF: That would be unwise. If we empty the defense reserve, we could find ourselves at an extreme disadvantage should we encounter a Dominion ship.
BASHIR: We're a long way from the front lines out here, Worf. The chances of meeting a Dominion ship are negligible.
WORF: We should not take that risk.
BASHIR: She'll die if we do not get to her faster.
SISKO: Use the phaser reserve, Chief. Give us all the speed you can.
O'BRIEN: Aye, sir. Thank you, sir.
On a rethink, her engines are overpowered but not enough to adequately power her SIF so a lower-powered system wouldn't help. So there probably are other factors at play that determine top speed and stress...
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19 2013, 10:14 PM   #99
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Starfleet Procurement Policy Draft

In "Valiant" the Defiant class warp core is described as being a "Class 7" drive. Theoderich Patterson describes Voyager's warp drive system as being a "Class 9" in "Relativity" and being the first to be tested in deep space. I wonder what that actually means.

Does the output of a warp drive system increase geometrically? (That was my assumption in the Class 5/Class 6 core distinctions in the Miranda configs). Or does the "class" refer to something other than output?

The dialogue in "The Sound of Her Voice" at least confirms that Defiant's phasers require power cells of some sort (which are then shown in other episodes).

Several episodes also claim Defiant had the energy signature of much larger ships, so I suppose the question is what the heck takes up so much of her energy output that she can't spare enough to the SIF to run flat out without shaking to pieces?

Is it simply a split between warp drive/everything else? Or maybe how the power systems are configured?

We also know that her engines have so much output that her cloak doesn't actually adequately hide her. Does that come from the fact that the cloak is too small? Or that the available power that can be shunted from the warp engines to other systems is somehow restricted?
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19 2013, 10:44 PM   #100
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Starfleet Procurement Policy Draft

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
Also, when we start seeing the old 23rd century designs firing in DS9, they seem to only fire from one or two banks at any one time. That would make sense if they were tied together in some way and therefore could direct their energy in one or two banks rather than having to fire them all at once.
It wasn't just in DS9 that you can see this. In TOS, the Enterprise had 4 phaser banks ("The Paradise Syndrome") that could be fired individually or all at once through 2 phaser emitters. We've seen:

1. All 4 phaser banks fire simultaneously through 2 emitters in "The Paradise Syndrome",
2. Phaser banks 1+2 through 2 emitters in "For The World Is Hollow..."
3. And phaser banks individually discharged through 3 individual phaser emitters in sequence in "Balance of Terror"
4. And phaser banks individually discharged through 2 individual phaser emitters simultaneously in "The Paradise Syndrome."

So even back in TOS, the phasers were all tied together in a way that the "phaser banks" were independent of the external phaser emitters.

Since the TOS Enterprise couldn't fire all four phaser banks at once without channeling all her power into phasers then during combat she would be limited to being only able to discharge a phaser bank or two at a time while keeping her shields up and engines powered for maneuvering. This accounts for later era ships as well. They could fire more emitters at once or put far more power into each phaser strike but always at the expense of shields and/or maneuverability.

I think that the Galaxy-class and other ships that use "arrays" also are powered by such phaser "banks". In the "Conundrum" the E-D has 10 phaser banks which is fewer than the number of external arrays and individual beam emitters that the ship has. I would guess that her short strips are capable of channeling all her phaser output and that the any extra length is more for redundancy.

We do see the E-D in the "Nth Degree" supposedly firing her phasers at the "hottest" they can be fired while still maintaining shields and traveling at impulse power. So for the E-D her max phaser output might be limited to the phasers itself and not how much power the ship can channel to them. (This would curiously make her phasers less powerful than an upgraded Excelsior-class in DS9 and the Defiant-class.)
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19 2013, 11:10 PM   #101
Egger
Lieutenant
 
Egger's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Starfleet Procurement Policy Draft

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Yeah. I was also a bit quick in my reply as I forgot to add that IMHO once the shields go down (or in Odyssey's case, "divert shield power to weapons") pretty much the whole ship is vulnerable. A neck hit, engineering hull or nacelle hit could be just as fatal or crippling against a powerful weapon or ship ramming into it.
Yeah. And I just thought, if they hadn't diverted shield power to the weapons, the bug ship would have impacted on the shields and the Odyssey may have survived.


On a rethink, her engines are overpowered but not enough to adequately power her SIF so a lower-powered system wouldn't help. So there probably are other factors at play that determine top speed and stress...
Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
Several episodes also claim Defiant had the energy signature of much larger ships, so I suppose the question is what the heck takes up so much of her energy output that she can't spare enough to the SIF to run flat out without shaking to pieces?

Is it simply a split between warp drive/everything else? Or maybe how the power systems are configured?

We also know that her engines have so much output that her cloak doesn't actually adequately hide her. Does that come from the fact that the cloak is too small? Or that the available power that can be shunted from the warp engines to other systems is somehow restricted?
At first, I wanted to reply with what I said earlier, that the ship's hull has such a bad warp field geometry that she has to pump all energy there is into the SIF to hold her together. And that still may be a possibility.
But, if I remember correctly, everytime the energy signature was a problem, they were not flying with warp speed but even standing still. Hmm ...

Maybe the warp core itself is the problem, in that with its four matter/antimatter feed lines it puts out an extraordinary amount of energy only to stay activated.
Egger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19 2013, 11:34 PM   #102
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Starfleet Procurement Policy Draft

Another possibility is that Defiant's warp core comfortably exceeds the output of the Romulan ships designed to operate under the particular model of cloak they were given. Which either means the Romulans gave them a really crappy cloak, or the Federation lied through their teeth when describing Defiant's capabilities.
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2013, 11:05 PM   #103
Egger
Lieutenant
 
Egger's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Starfleet Procurement Policy Draft

Yeah. It could then be, as I said, the "idle" power output that is already to high. Or the ships systems need too much energy even when the ship does nothing, so that the warp core always must output that much power.
Egger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21 2013, 05:26 AM   #104
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Starfleet Procurement Policy Draft

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
In "Valiant" the Defiant class warp core is described as being a "Class 7" drive. Theoderich Patterson describes Voyager's warp drive system as being a "Class 9" in "Relativity" and being the first to be tested in deep space. I wonder what that actually means.
In "Breads and Circuses" the SS Beagle had a Class 4 stardrive. Not much to go on other than an increasing class number?

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
Does the output of a warp drive system increase geometrically? (That was my assumption in the Class 5/Class 6 core distinctions in the Miranda configs). Or does the "class" refer to something other than output?
Is there anything that can connect the dots? If it's a power measurement then Voyager's Class 9 drive would likely be greater than a Galaxy-class but I suspect it is not. Defiant's Class 7 is lower than Voyager's Class 9 but have we seen how an Intrepid-class would do against DS9 Klingons or Jem'hedar ships?
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21 2013, 05:37 PM   #105
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Starfleet Procurement Policy Draft

We never really see a comparative basis from which to judge the various "class" designations for warp drives. We do know that the Intrepid class Bellerophon was used by Admiral Ross as his flagship, but that doesn't really tell us whether it was more capable than Defiant or if it was a combination of factors that made him use it like speed or computer systems.

So the class designations seem to give us a bit of a loss when thinking about them.
Nob Akimoto 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 01:23 AM.

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