RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,694
Posts: 5,431,120
Members: 24,829
Currently online: 467
Newest member: 713brianp27


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 11 2011, 11:42 PM   #151
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: TOS Nacelles

Fifty vague and sometimes contradictory references to the nacelles vs. a few very specific references to the workings being inside the hull.

Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 12 2011, 12:27 AM   #152
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: TOS Nacelles

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
Fifty vague and sometimes contradictory references to the nacelles vs. a few very specific references to the workings being inside the hull.

Except that THIS IS NOT TRUE.

You personally, see the stuff that supports your preferred position as being "very specific" and that which does NOT support your preferred position as being "vague and contradictory."

But this is not the case, at all. You're simply seeing the entire argument through your own preconceptions.

Many of us see things exactly opposite. For me, I see a great many indicators of the engines being the source of power, and only one which contradicts that at any real level.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 12 2011, 03:37 AM   #153
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: TOS Nacelles

And how is that not "seeing the entire argument through your own preconceptions"?
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 12 2011, 03:50 AM   #154
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: TOS Nacelles

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
And how is that not "seeing the entire argument through your own preconceptions"?
Because I'm stating what I prefer to believe, while you are stating that everyone else is "wrong" because they don't agree with you. Maybe that's not your intention, but it IS your tone.

We all know that you prefer the "automotive" model. That's just fine. Many others prefer the "aviation" model, and that's just fine too.

It's all fiction, after all, and this ship doesn't exist.

But you seem to have no "flexibility." You state, in very firm terms, that what you believe is the only "correct" conclusion, and say some fairly derogatory things about the belief of those who disagree with you. I can't recall anyone here saying that what you believe is wrong in some belittling form but you do seem to be taking that tact.

We're all used to being "the expert" on this, in our real-life circles... because most people couldn't care less about where the fictional power source is on a fictional space ship.

But when we come here, we're among people who care about this trivial nonsense every bit as much as we do. That's GOOD... insofar as it gives us people to talk with about this stuff. But it's also bad, because we don't get to be "the subject matter expert" either.

You need to back off, a bit, in your tendency to claim that anyone who disagrees with you about purely fictional aspects of this is wrong. You can pick apart the logic of an argument as much as you want, and that's perfectly OK. But it's NOT ok to make unsupported and unsupportable claims (like saying that "the other side is vague and contradictory") when the facts provide no such evidence.

You have your own biases. You do. And you're pretty inflexible about your biases. That's fine. But you really need to just admit that it's a personal bias, rather than saying things which infer that those who disagree with your preferences are... well, "stupid."

We know that there is dialogue that supports what you believe in TOS, and that there is dialogue which supports the other model in TOS. This is because different writers had different ideas.

We know what the designer of the Enterprise had in mind. We know that many of the writers on Trek followed along with that philosophy.

We also know that some other Trek writers didn't follow this approach at all.

So, what this REALLY means is that "Star Trek is vague and often contradictory" insofar as the overall ship design is concerned, and about this in particular.

I don't think you're "stupid" for preferring what you prefer. But you sure do seem to be saying that about those who disagree with you.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 12 2011, 03:13 PM   #155
Patrickivan
Fleet Captain
 
Patrickivan's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: TOS Nacelles

Looking back on ST: Enterprise, a show I had hopes for, as I liked Bakula as Captain, there were many things that really irked me (as far as TV can irk me)...

First of course was the Akira being too heavily infused into the design. I don't mind the idea of the design being used, as much as it looked way too much like the future ship.

Secondly was engineering having the prominant M/arc. It really could have added so much to have had (much) larger more primitive warp nacelles with the m/arcs of some sort in them.

The ship would have been a little slower. Especially getting to warp speed! There would have been distance limitations due to fuel and energy provisions.

All the things that a newly exploring and expanding society would go through. The growing pains of becoming the UFP.

But they really wanted to write in all the tech too fast. Make it fit. And really mess up TOS in a way. There could have been things that would explain and work into TOS a whole lot more conducively but instead just made us have headaches over trying to figure stuff out.

I mean for me, it really seems more reasonable then not, that the nacelles had the m/arcs in them. Engineering would have had quite the task ensuring they're both running in balance and harmony with each other. As well as using energy for the rest of the ship. Then there would be other sources of power and energy storage... ST: Enterprise just made that tech work way too well and way too much like TNG.

And everything was too small considering the energy being altered and manipulated.

Not that I wanted ST E to focus on boring everyone with techy stuff every episode, I just don't see why they had to completely ignore it really.
__________________
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
Old October 13 2011, 03:15 AM   #156
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: TOS Nacelles

As far as Enterprise goes, It seems to me that it was a prequel to post Star Trek: First Contact TNG, and not a prequel to TOS at all. The forth season tried to prequel TOS, but the damage had already been done.

However, it can tie into both TOS and TNG without too much fuss. Suppose the NX-01 is powered by one central reactor that feeds electrical power to both warp 5 engines. Let us further suppose that the warp engine technology advanced more quickly than the reactor technology to power it. Therefore, by the time NCC-1701 was built, the warp 8 engines were much more powerful, but the reactors hadn't really caught up, so each engine requires a dedicated power source (it's own M/Am reactor) and the ship has a third one that is critical in synchronizing the other two. Reactor development proceeds apace and by the time NCC-1701 is being refit for TMP, a whole new power/warp drive set up is installed wherein the engines are onto a third model (different even from the NX-01 setup) which has everything powered from one more powerful central reactor again. The TNG set-up on NCC-1701-D, while it bears some superficial resplendence to NX-01's, is not doubt quite different in execution.

It does make sense that the various technologies of the overall system would be developed at different paces and wind up being shuffled into a number of configurations given the state of any given component at any given time.

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2011, 03:42 AM   #157
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

Question about TNG and onwards - when their engineers look admiringly at the warp core reactor / reaction chamber in action, do they look at the reactor or do they look at the top of the energy shaft?

I only ask this because in TMP and TUC, Scotty is looking to the top of the shaft. (Spock also looks up in TMP.)
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2011, 05:37 AM   #158
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: TOS Nacelles

Looks to me as though Geordie and company look at the knob in the middle which contains the reactor. That's where the dilithium lies (we've seen so on numerous occasions.) Also it's understood that the "matter" comes down the top shaft and the "anti-matter" rises up from the bottom and meet at the dilithium, react, and shoots down the tubes to the engines. More or less.

But then, the TOS movies are almost certainly using a different engine set-up than the E-D.

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2011, 02:31 PM   #159
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

...Although they might use the very same system easily enough, only with the reaction chamber located on a level above or below the one where Scotty most typically is seen. The glowing shafts of the TMP ship are the same as the shafts accompanying the reactor upper and lower fuel injection tubes, after all - and TNG identifies those as plasma conduits for the outgoing power. The TMP setup could hide the reactor and fuel injection systems in a better radiation-protected space, while the plasma conduits would still be visible; and the TOS system could hide even more of the machinery from sight, without the machinery actually being much different. We'd be seeing exotic shapes and relative positions of the various tubes involved, that's all.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2011, 03:00 PM   #160
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: TOS Nacelles

FWIW, I have zero interest it retconning TOS to fit in between ENT and TNG. ENT was was conceived as a prequel for TOS only to a limited degree. One of the reasons was that so much time had elapsed between 1969 and 2001; the estimation of what the future would look like and the expectation of how the tech would work changed in that time.

My enjoyment of Star Trek does not depend on getting everything to fit together. Attempts to do that by retconning TOS actually make me enjoy it less.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2011, 03:35 PM   #161
Patrickivan
Fleet Captain
 
Patrickivan's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: TOS Nacelles

CarbonCopy wrote: View Post
FWIW, I have zero interest it retconning TOS to fit in between ENT and TNG. ENT was was conceived as a prequel for TOS only to a limited degree. One of the reasons was that so much time had elapsed between 1969 and 2001; the estimation of what the future would look like and the expectation of how the tech would work changed in that time.

My enjoyment of Star Trek does not depend on getting everything to fit together. Attempts to do that by retconning TOS actually make me enjoy it less.
And that's fair... I think that for a lot of us who think about stuff like this, it's just about making the Star Trek universe come more alive. I don't think inconsistencies and timeline issues ruined Star Trek in general for most people (who do care about this stuff).

But no- it's not a deal killer for me if something doesn't make sense.
__________________
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
Old October 13 2011, 03:38 PM   #162
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: TOS Nacelles

To elaborate further, for me, the problem is that it saps the life out of it, by amputating the parts that don't fit some singular view which was never conceived of when those parts that don't fit were created. It can't possibly fit together like a real object unless some parts are erased. This is the opposite of coming more alive.

Or, if you prefer, it's a trimmed shrubbery versus a wild growth in the forest.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2011, 04:18 PM   #163
Patrickivan
Fleet Captain
 
Patrickivan's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: TOS Nacelles

CarbonCopy wrote: View Post
To elaborate further, for me, the problem is that it saps the life out of it, by amputating the parts that don't fit some singular view which was never conceived of when those parts that don't fit were created. It can't possibly fit together like a real object unless some parts are erased. This is the opposite of coming more alive.

Or, if you prefer, it's a trimmed shrubbery versus a wild growth in the forest.
And that too is fair... And I don't try to fit new trek into the real universe, and just accept it as what it is.

But if you feel that way, why participate in this particular discussion? Not that I don't want people to throw there opinion in on any subject...
__________________
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
Old October 13 2011, 04:24 PM   #164
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: TOS Nacelles

Excuse me, but I think I've made significant contributions to this discussion. The topic was TOS Nacelles. It's not like I'm particularly ignorant on that subject.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2011, 04:36 PM   #165
Patrickivan
Fleet Captain
 
Patrickivan's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: TOS Nacelles

CarbonCopy wrote: View Post
Excuse me, but I think I've made significant contributions to this discussion. The topic was TOS Nacelles. It's not like I'm particularly ignorant on that subject.
Dude- I have nothing to excuse myself from.

I didn't say you shouldn't contribute. In fact said I welcome them. Pretty straightforward. Nothing mean about that.

I simply posed the question about contributing to a topic that you just admitted not to caring about... That's all. It's not a big deal.
__________________
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 11:43 PM.

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