RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,914
Posts: 5,331,200
Members: 24,560
Currently online: 537
Newest member: jakesmit44543

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


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 8 2011, 03:47 AM   #136
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: TOS Nacelles

Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2011, 04:46 PM   #137
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

Timo wrote: View Post
Instead, I think it's possible a hit went to the starboard nacelle.
Now, let's assume the ship gets a few hits on the warp nacelles. Does "buckling of antimatter pods" mean the nacelles got dented? Wouldn't there be all sorts of other machinery in the nacelles that would receive damage, too?
Technically, only "minor buckling". Since Spock mentioned no further specific damage to the pods (aka nacelles in TOS) then I take it that there was no further damage.

(But if we were to try it your way and think of the antimatter fuel tanks buckling, then wouldn't that be even worse? We're talking Ford Pinto )

Timo wrote: View Post
I mean, we aren't supposed to think of the warp nacelles as literally being "antimatter pods" here, now are we, regardless of whether antimatter pods are located in the nacelles?
Depends. They could be short hand for "Matter-Antimatter Space Warp Engine Pods".

Take it one more step, if in TOS, it takes a specially balanced "matter-antimatter reaction" to create the "space warp" (not like in later revisions, a warp coil to create one) then you could interchangeably call "Space Warp Engine Pods" also "Matter-Antimatter Engine Pods" or shorten it to "Matter-Antimatter Pods" or even "Antimatter Pods".

Timo wrote: View Post
It does appear IMHO as if Spock speaks of antimatter pods within the ship (be it nacelles, saucer, neck or secondary hull), not establishing the formal name of the nacelles as being "antimatter pods". If your copilot told you your S-3A got hit on the turbine blade pods, instead of engine pods, that'd be mighty odd even if damage to turbine blades were the only technologically important thing about the hit.
Yet in TOS, when speaking of specifically the antimatter fuel and/or storage system it is referenced as the "antimatter in the warp drive pods". In the case of "Errand of Mercy" it sounds like Spock is referencing the nacelles.

Timo wrote: View Post
Deck 10/11 could be in the secondary hull to accommodate Kirk's cabin on Deck 12 (which would not fit in the neck or the bottom of the primary hull).
Actually, the deck containing Kirk's cabin in "Mudd's Women" is never seen. All we see is the cabin itself (or actually a set corner that supposedly lies close to the cabin, and then the very rear of the cabin set), and this could in fact fit inside the neck.
True that Kirk's cabin is not explicitly said to be on deck 12. But, if you were to recreate that cabin with only what was shown in that scene (including part of the hallway) there would be no way to fit in the neck. (And yes, I've tried.)

Timo wrote: View Post
Or we could argue that Kirk always lived on Deck 3, and that Spock in "Mudd's Women" had to make a two-stage trip to that deck because the ship in this second regular ep was still recovering from "Where No Man" troubles and whatever additional problems "Corbomite" had brought, without the benefit of a starbase visit. Or because, despite the ASAP orders, Mudd and his cargo did have to go through some sort of security check first.
You know that could work. Was the "3F" plate shown or visible in "Mudd's Women"?


Timo wrote: View Post
Sulu appears to be talking about a catastrophic explosion in the engines (multiple) which would exclude a single reactor.
Umm, I don't agree. "Engines" is plural basically by default, but nothing in the wording indicates two explosions. Rather, the matter/antimatter engines feature a component that could explode and give the radiation readings - namely, the powerplant, whose location is unknown but may quite well be distant from the engines themselves (just like propellers and boilers are very, very separate on reciprocating or turbine steamships).
Actually, nothing in the dialogue indicates the number of explosions. I was interpreting Sulu's dialogue as if any one engine exploded it would be catastrophic.

SULU: The Enterprise must have blown up. That would explain the high radiation readings, wouldn't it, Captain? If the matter - antimatter engines

As to the plural by default, how so? When a single-engined jet plane is described like an F-16, most people who know what they're talking about say it has a jet engine. A twin-engined F-15 has jet engines (plural). If someone didn't know how many engines a ship or plane had, then I can see them covering their bases with the plural. But this is Sulu (and we can see the Enterprise has two space warp engines (plural) so I interpret it as he is correct.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2011, 05:16 PM   #138
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: TOS Nacelles

I know my car has only one engine. If I asked a mechanic to take a look at my car's "engines" I'm sure I'd get a funny look.

In other news, people often refer to someone's "brains" even though most of us really just have room for the one.

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2011, 05:25 PM   #139
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: TOS Nacelles

The first stage of the Saturn V had 5 engines. The second stage also 5.

The Space Shuttle orbiter had 3 main engines.

Next.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2011, 11:40 PM   #140
Unicron
Continuity Spackle
 
Unicron's Avatar
 
Location: Cybertron
Send a message via ICQ to Unicron
Re: TOS Nacelles

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
Is that Nessie I just saw swim by?
Let's keep things on topic, please.
__________________

"My dream is to eat candy and poop emeralds. I'm halfway successful."


Catbert, Evil Director of Human Resources
Unicron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10 2011, 08:30 AM   #141
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

As to the plural by default, how so?
I meant that the Enterprise obviously has two engines (the big pods on the outside) - but that this provides no information on how many sources of dangerous explosion there are in the ship. Engine damage or malfunction could cause one explosion in one central location, or sixteen ones in a cascade, depending on the technological details, but not necessarily depending on the number of engines. If the m/am engines of the TOS ship got hurt, there could be a single explosion at the site of Scotty's "That Which Survives" heroics. If the same happened to the STXI ship, eight separate warp cores might blow up. With the TMP ship, perhaps the reputed vertical and horizontal intermix shafts would be the ones to go. And so forth.

The multiple engines could be fueled by antimatter, just like multiple engines on an aircraft could be fueled by gasoline. Worrying about the antimatter or the gasoline by saying "if the engines..." would be a valid approach if one treats the engine&power system as an integrated whole and blames the engines for the presence of the antimatter or the gasoline.

However, "fueling" need not mean the actual pumping of fuel to the engine. The TOS engines might instead receive the power benefits from the use of antimatter fuel the same way the TNG and ENT ones do, via plasma-based power leads. They'd still very much be matter-antimatter engines...

...As possibly opposed to the impulse ones, whose malfunction is described as a fusion explosion in "DDM", and might leave a wholly different radiation signature. Sulu would do right to speculate on the exact nature of the explosion, then, as a radiation signature would be their only means of deducing what had happened to the ship. Kirk then proceeds to use that means to exclude the possibility of either sort of engine explosion.

Also, Sulu could have another very good reason to worry about whether one or the other blew: an impulse explosion might be survivable for the landing party, while a warp explosion might already have killed them, too, via delta ray poisoning or somesuch. Kirk's swift waving of a tricorder preempts those concerns, too.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10 2011, 09:38 AM   #142
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

Oops, missed one:

In context, Kirk is clearly talking about separating dead weight and "blasting out of there with the main section."
In the context of "Savage Curtain"? Not really. For a rare once, the ship isn't falling from the sky, nor does Kirk show interest in having the ship escape while leaving him behind.

All the talk is about preventing the ship from blowing up - and from the sounds of it, the Excalbians have created a situation where the ship will blow up even if Excalbia is left far behind, or phasered to rubble. The ship is badly broken and has to be fixed, and the influence of the evil aliens is a secondary concern at best.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10 2011, 02:14 PM   #143
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

Timo wrote: View Post
As to the plural by default, how so?
I meant that the Enterprise obviously has two engines (the big pods on the outside) - but that this provides no information on how many sources of dangerous explosion there are in the ship. Engine damage or malfunction could cause one explosion in one central location, or sixteen ones in a cascade, depending on the technological details, but not necessarily depending on the number of engines. If the m/am engines of the TOS ship got hurt, there could be a single explosion at the site of Scotty's "That Which Survives" heroics.
You stopped short on completing that thought: "If the m/am engines (plural) of the TOS ship got hurt, there could be a single explosion at the site of Scotty's "That Which Survives" heroics or one from the m/am engines in the pods as in "The Savage Curtain", "By Any Other Name" etc.

It seems far more reasonable to conclude that Sulu was referring to specifically the "matter-antimatter engines" as the pods (nacelles) which have been described in other episodes as having antimatter and also as engines.

In later incarnations of Trek, the phrase "warp engines" are used (without mention of antimatter in the nacelles) so your argument that the fuel could be separated would work there. But in TOS terms, I don't think it would work, IMHO.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10 2011, 05:52 PM   #144
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: TOS Nacelles

At this late date, you really can't separate TOS from the rest of the franchise.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10 2011, 05:55 PM   #145
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

So how does Kirk die again? At this late date the franchise is already fractured and has their own continuities.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10 2011, 06:01 PM   #146
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: TOS Nacelles

So, how soon does the Anti-Monitor show up?
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10 2011, 06:03 PM   #147
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

Tuesday
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10 2011, 08:46 PM   #148
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: TOS Nacelles

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
Yeah, Newtype, you're clearly misunderstanding what I was saying, because you're using logic which is central to my own argument as though it's an argument against my position.
Yes and no. Like I said, it's the same premises to start with but a different possible conclusion.

Okay, then.... this one point is a small bone of contention... insofar as I consider the dilithium to be at the core of what makes the conversion of large amounts of energy from EITHER energy source into USEABLE energy possible.
But if that were true, then NO power would have been available without the dilithium crystals (as in "Mudd's Women") and auxiliary power would be barely adequate. As it stands, Enterprise had enough power to maintain partial shields and maneuver a bit even without dilithium.

This implies, to me, that the ship's power is being extracted--directly or indirectly--from the warp engines themselves, NOT from the dilithium chamber.

Is it possible to have "warp drive" without dilithium? I think so, but dilithium makes it more practical.
I agree. And I think in TOS terms, the REASON for this is dilithium removes the need to store huge amounts of antimatter on board when you could convert ordinary matter directly into antimatter as a precursor to its annihilation.

Antimatter storage pods as "heat exchangers?"
In a pressurized water reactor, heat is transferred from superheated (still liquid) water into lower pressure water that, during heat transfer, flashes into high pressure steam. In this case, raw antimatter from the dilithium chamber is transferred to the antimatter pods where it can then be injected into a reaction chamber under controlled conditions. Much like how modern reactors don't pump irradiated water directly into the turbines, modern warp engines don't channel fresh antimatter directly into the nacelles.

That is very likely, and is in agreement with my own perspective. Prior to installing that little cut-gemstone crystal, they're limited to only a small fraction of the total available energy output, even of the fusion reactors, and would have pretty much no ability to use energy created by m/am annihilation.

The ONLY disagreement we seem to have, other than a few linguistic (but not conceptual) issues, is the role that dilithium plays in this arrangement.
Pretty much, yeah. The real issue here is that the reaction products of a fusion reactor are similar to the reaction products of an annihilation reaction. In both cases the output is a mess of charged particles and ionizing radiation, and there are varieties of products depending on exactly what you put into it. If dilithium is necessary to convert energy from the annihilation reaction, it would be necessary for fusion too.

And your statement about a crystal being a "really big molecule" is also entirely incorrect.
Semantics. You clearly get the point that the crystaline structure of a diamond is relevant enough that "diamond" is considered to be a distinct type of substance with distinct physical properties despite the fact that it is little more than carbon. The same is probably true of dilithium.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10 2011, 09:02 PM   #149
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: TOS Nacelles

Timo wrote: View Post
Oops, missed one:

In context, Kirk is clearly talking about separating dead weight and "blasting out of there with the main section."
In the context of "Savage Curtain"?
No, "the apple." But either way, in "Savage Curtain" the line "disengage nacelles, jettison if possible" explicitly refers to the nacelles.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10 2011, 11:42 PM   #150
Patrickivan
Fleet Captain
 
Patrickivan's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: TOS Nacelles

These quotes from many episodes is exactly what I was hoping to see. It really seems to support m/arc's being located in the nacelles.
__________________
http://patrickivan.wordpress.com/page/2/

40 Years and ticking. Damn, that's too old fashioned.
40 years and still processing!
Patrickivan 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 09:10 AM.

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