RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,262
Posts: 5,349,432
Members: 24,614
Currently online: 618
Newest member: robyn

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23


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 24 2011, 11:21 AM   #16
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: TOS Nacelles

The animated episode One of Our Planets Is Missing pretty clearly has a scene inside one of the nacelles. Antimatter regeneration evidently occurs there. I know acceptance of animated episodes as canon is controversial, but anyway, it's the only episode anywhere that even comes close to showing this on the TOS Enterprise. The author of that episode is none other than Marc Daniels, so that carries at least some weight to me.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2011, 12:58 PM   #17
Patrickivan
Fleet Captain
 
Patrickivan's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: TOS Nacelles

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
I worked up a system with a small M/A reactor in each nacelle (emergency backups for when the main reactor is offline, giving the ship capability of around warp two to get out of whatever mess they've gotten into), simply to take the occasional oddball reference into account with a minimum of hassle.
Funny you say that, because if I were to place a m/arc of some sort in the main hull, that would have been my back up one, and the ones in the nacelles would be the main reactors.

That said, I don't think I would put a m/arc in the main hull on this ship. The episode (can't recall the name right now- just got up) where Scotty pulls out a dilithium crystal from what could be interpreted as a reactor (as per TNG), is in my opionion more of a critical relay station of some sort, making the DC a very serious issue...

I would think to keep the ship powered under emergency conditions where the nacelle m/arcs are down, they would rely on other power generation units that are far less powerful, consume a different fuel, and have a far less useful life span (during said emergency). Failing those units, they'd be stuck on batteries- something that has certainly been mentioned. Please forgive my lack of citations.

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
Patrickivan wrote: View Post
So what I'm wondering, is who here is in the camp where the nacelles are not only part of the warp drive, but contain the volitile matter/antimatter reactors to power this huge and powerful ship? And what other lines from TOS substantiate this possibility?
Well, I think that everyone who's read anything I've written on here knows that I'm firmly in the "airplane design philosophy" for the TOS 1701.

Matt Jefferies was an aerospace guy, and he was thinking in terms of aircraft when he came up with the concepts for the Enterprise. In aircraft, engines are generally mounted remotely from the main fuselage, in external nacelles, typically suspended from the wings.

The engine burns fuel, and and this turns the turbines in the engines... which gives both propulsive energy and also allows mechanical energy to be tapped from the gearbox. The gearbox drives an AC generator which provides unprocessed electrical power as well as drives the hydraulic system's primary elements.

The electrical power as provided is unusable, however. It is sent to a complex array of rectifiers and inverters which provide a range of different forms of electrical power to various subsystems on the aircraft.

The Enterprise, as designed by Matt Jefferies, was intended to follow this model. Main Engineering, as designed by Matt Jefferies, was not intended to represent the main power generation system, but rather the location where the raw energy from the engines is transformed into a useable form.

It is true that in Elaan of Troius, comments were made which could be interpreted to mean that power generation occurred at Main Engineering. I'm not aware of any other place in the series where anything of this nature was said, however, and most of the series (and in particular, the items you mentioned) tend to agree with Jefferies' original intent.

So, I'm 100% in the "power generated in the engine nacelles, but converted into useable form in the secondary hull" camp.

No surprise there to anyone who's followed my work on the Enterprise, of course, huh?
Agreed. And I've too designed my Enterprise concept following that same design logic. If not in a completely basic and lamen sense.

ngc7293 wrote: View Post
I just had the impression that the nacelles had the warp coils and that the m/am was carried in the engineering hull. There are several ships where the pylons are different lengths or none at all. Miranda has a short pylon. Oberth has the Nacelle directly connected to the hull. That is just two examples.
Was there anything that specifically made you think the coils were in the main hull? I'm just curious- not judging...

I'd be reluctant to compare ships of a different design like the Miranda and Oberth Classes to a Constitution Class. Where post TOS ships seem to have a primary M/arc in the main hull. So it's a completely different beast.

As for the nacelle strut lengths, I've always attributes that to a combination of factors- Safety (from the TOS standpoint), and to warp field geometry in relation to the overall shape/ style, and requirements of that specific ship.

For example. TOS- safety. But speed is made up for with raw power.

Post TNG we see better regulation and safety controls around M/arcs, hence their transfer to inside the ship. Then nacelles get drawn in tighter to the ship, making the warp field more efficient, but too close may have different have still.

In ships like the Defient, (DS9), we have a ship that bucks the trend and focuses purely on speed and power. Nothing superfluous like exploration of any sort. The nacelles are drawn in for maximizing the warp field geometry for such a flat compact ship and to help reduce it's warp signiture as seen by potential enemies. So practical for a specialized borg busting ship like this, but not in the general mandate of Starfleet, and therefore not practical on all ships.

Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
From TOS? Where nary a coil been mentioned?
I saw your following post where you said you were just playing devils advocate. And fair enough. If it wasn't for ST Enterprise, we could call them something else. But we obviously have to allow for some intrepretive licence considering the lack of and inconsistant information from TOS.

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
The animated episode One of Our Planets Is Missing pretty clearly has a scene inside one of the nacelles. Antimatter regeneration evidently occurs there. I know acceptance of animated episodes as canon is controversial, but anyway, it's the only episode anywhere that even comes close to showing this on the TOS Enterprise. The author of that episode is none other than Marc Daniels, so that carries at least some weight to me.
Can you provide a screen cap of that? Or maybe I'll look it up and post it. I'm curious. While not a huge fan of TAS, I'm willing to take and disregard what we need to make it work. If we didn't, we'd be stuck admitting a group of bimbo's stole spock's brain- <sigh>... Clearly it would have been a far cooler episode if they kidnapped him for his man-junk in an effort to repopulate an entire female race! And they don't know what articial insemination is! Oh Ya!

---

I have a thought about ST:Enterprise too. First off, having them place the M/arc where they did was a mistake as far as I was concerned. (I wasn't a big fan of a lot of stuff they did on the series, but I actually was excited and had high hopes for Bakula as Captain!)... Anyway. So in that era, perhaps we can say that the main reason for having it in the main hull was due to a lack of understanding of how to integrate the m/arcs into the nacelles. They took the chance with the extreme volitility because they had no choice... Plus the Vulcan's were like, we can't share EVERYthing we know with you. You gotta, like, go learn on your own. <snicker- suckers>

Subsequent ships that we didn't see, therefore eventually went the route of TOS.

That was too much typing after getting up.
__________________
http://patrickivan.wordpress.com/page/2/

40 Years and ticking. Damn, that's too old fashioned.
40 years and still processing!

Last edited by Patrickivan; September 24 2011 at 01:13 PM.
Patrickivan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2011, 01:08 PM   #18
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: TOS Nacelles

Patrickivan wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
The animated episode One of Our Planets Is Missing pretty clearly has a scene inside one of the nacelles. Antimatter regeneration evidently occurs there. I know acceptance of animated episodes as canon is controversial, but anyway, it's the only episode anywhere that even comes close to showing this on the TOS Enterprise. The author of that episode is none other than Marc Daniels, so that carries at least some weight to me.
Can you provide a screen cap of that?
http://tas.trekcore.com/gallery/thum...album=3&page=7

They're on this page; it's pretty obvious which ones.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2011, 02:35 PM   #19
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

We might take into account that this is a rare emergency procedure for kickstarting the engine after it has been magically shut down by the alien threat of the week. By analogy to the emergency (re)start systems of some real-world engines, we might argue that this system might introduce antimatter where no antimatter is ordinarily supposed to be placed.

The dialogue refers to the "antimatter nacelle", singular. This one-off reference might be taken as indicating that one of the nacelles processes antimatter while the other does not; whether this refers to everyday operations or the rare kickstart is another question. It would be natural enough to postulate that a system that normally pumps plasma energized by antimatter in a distant intermix chamber can be kickstarted by energizing the plasma locally in an "emergency intermix chamber", and that doing so in just one of the nacelles is enough to eventually restart the entire system - and that the nacelle configured for this is colloquially called the "antimatter nacelle".

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2011, 07:22 PM   #20
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: TOS Nacelles

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Patrickivan wrote: View Post
Can you provide a screen cap of that?
http://tas.trekcore.com/gallery/thum...album=3&page=7

They're on this page; it's pretty obvious which ones.
Yep, and I borrowed from the concept there, with significant "tweaks" and so forth, when I did the engine system for my version of the Enterprise. I know a few of you remember this, but for those who don't, I'll share my (more than a year old, now) work...

Here's the completed engine nacelle, with transparent skin.


The thing on the outer face, looking like a small version of the Fermi accelerator system up in Illinois, is the antimatter generation system. The antimatter storage facility is at the aft, and you can see a big vertical cylinder in that area where the antimatter (in semi-solid, amorphous form, as seen in that TAS episode) is stored. There is less total VOLUME for that than for the hydrogen storage (the "orange segment tanks" at the fore, just aft of the bussard collection system) because of that "solid state versus compressed fluid state" issue... and the fact that the matter is being converted into antimatter by that "accelerator system" I mentioned, so you need more overall.

Here's a perspective view of the walkway (the same one seen in the TAS episode) within my nacelle. First, from the fore, looking aft down the length of the nacelle:


And then from the aft, offset from center, looking forward:


I did take liberties when transforming the TAS version into what you see here. For instance, the nacelle is much more densely packed. And the walkway isn't at the centerline, but the horizontal reaction chamber IS.

And, I added small "warp field stabilization coils" (not the same as the TMP-and-later "warp coils" but these are what the Kelvins used to implement their engine tweaks, and they ended up becoming "warp coils" for the Kelvins, leading to later revisions.

The idea is, the reaction occurs here AND the subspace field manipulation occurs here as well.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2011, 09:10 PM   #21
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

I think the multiple (3) reactor model best reconciles the contradictions that different writers of TOS presented us with due to their desire to use whatever best suits the needs of the story, and also meshes better with later Trek movies/series retconing as well.

In any case, it’s best to keep in mind that we’re probably not going get a perfect "ad hoc" explanation that fits all the “facts” and satisfies everybody anyway, so a little flexibility is called for.

Now, as to which reactor(s) is/are “the main” one, has anyone considered the possibility of a multi-stage system?

I’ve been toying around with the Idea that since the resulting product from proton/anti-proton annihilation is anything but simple energy, the M/AM reactor must be equally complex.

Essentially, what you ultimately end up with is electrons, positrons, neutrinos, and gamma rays. The neutrinos are lost, taking away about 55% of the energy produced by the reaction, so maybe that’s where dilithium comes in, but anyway, it’s possible to extract energy from the electrons, positrons, and gamma rays using more conventional methods.

My thinking is the gamma rays are absorbed somehow in the “first/primary stage” reactor located in the secondary hull and converted into usable energy for most of the ships normal operations. But the electrons/positrons are electromagnetically separated out before they can undergo mutual annihilation and constitute the “warp plasma” that is then sent up to the nacelles to the “second/final stage” M/AM reactors where the resulting (gamma ray) energy from the electrons/positron annihilations power the warp coils.

The plasma injectors we see in ST:TNG would then be of two different kinds, half would be for matter and half for anti-matter? Perhaps the warp (gravity) field generated by the coils contains the explosive energy, which explains why we see the warp plasma “sprayed” into the mostly empty space within the nacelles? In any case what we see in TNG isn’t that different than we see in TAS with what Mendel later designated as “cycling stations”, so an evolution in technology is implied?

Of course, a lot depends on ones definition of what constitutes a “reactor” or “engine”. In this scheme the entire nacelle constitutes both a M/AM reactor and an engine of sorts.

This way, all TOS references to “anti-matter nacelles/pods”, “power nacelles” etc. not to mention strategies to jettison the nacelles when the matter/anti-matter “fuel” is somehow endangering the ship, all make sense. Yet “That Which Survives” indicating a central and accessible location for the M/AM integrator is also satisfied.

And perhaps best of all, this setup segues nicely into post TOS Trek tech. So what does everybody think?

Last edited by TIN_MAN; September 24 2011 at 09:38 PM.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2011, 11:02 PM   #22
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: TOS Nacelles

Cary L. Brown your work there is really cool.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25 2011, 12:48 AM   #23
Judy Waxhorn
Lieutenant
 
Location: Buffao
Re: TOS Nacelles

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
And perhaps best of all, this setup segues nicely into post TOS Trek tech. So what does everybody think?
I always felt the TOS engines operated on a totally different principle than the TNG engines.

CLB, amazing rendering work there. You do 3D for a living?
Judy Waxhorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25 2011, 01:05 AM   #24
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: TOS Nacelles

Judy Waxhorn wrote: View Post
I always felt the TOS engines operated on a totally different principle than the TNG engines.
This would explain the engineers' difficulties in getting the things to work. It also explains why the layout of the engine room is so radically different.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25 2011, 01:30 AM   #25
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: TOS Nacelles

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
The animated episode One of Our Planets Is Missing pretty clearly has a scene inside one of the nacelles. Antimatter regeneration evidently occurs there. I know acceptance of animated episodes as canon is controversial, but anyway, it's the only episode anywhere that even comes close to showing this on the TOS Enterprise. The author of that episode is none other than Marc Daniels, so that carries at least some weight to me.
Well, when I saw that episode back in '73, I figured what we saw was the works behind that big tube assembly in Engineering. And I know I'm not the only one to think that.

Besides, I have a serious issue with putting the main power source in a location that is not only inaccessible in an emergency, but only missing a big cartoon sign, saying, "MAIN POWER - SHOOT HERE!"
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25 2011, 02:02 AM   #26
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
The animated episode One of Our Planets Is Missing pretty clearly has a scene inside one of the nacelles. Antimatter regeneration evidently occurs there. I know acceptance of animated episodes as canon is controversial, but anyway, it's the only episode anywhere that even comes close to showing this on the TOS Enterprise. The author of that episode is none other than Marc Daniels, so that carries at least some weight to me.
Well, when I saw that episode back in '73, I figured what we saw was the works behind that big tube assembly in Engineering. And I know I'm not the only one to think that.
But didn't Scotty in "One of Our Planets Is Missing" specifically state that that they were going to put the anti-matter they obtained in the nacelle, therefore establishing what we were seeing and where?

Besides, I have a serious issue with putting the main power source in a location that is not only inaccessible in an emergency, but only missing a big cartoon sign, saying, "MAIN POWER - SHOOT HERE!"
But one could say the same about the propulsion nacelles themselves, the same accessibility problems exist whether the main power source is in there or not, and blast those suckers off and you've crippled the ship regardless. So one might as well put the M/A-M power source there where at least it's a relatively safe distance away from the habitable portions of the ship, and can be safely jettisoned if need be?
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25 2011, 02:06 AM   #27
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: TOS Nacelles

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
But didn't Scotty in "One of Our Planets Is Missing" specificly state that that they were going to put the anti-matter they obtaied in the nacelle, therefore establishing what we were seeing and where?
Yes, and basically yes. A transcript of the episode is here.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25 2011, 02:08 AM   #28
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Judy Waxhorn wrote: View Post
I always felt the TOS engines operated on a totally different principle than the TNG engines.
This would explain the engineers' difficulties in getting the things to work. It also explains why the layout of the engine room is so radically different.
Agreed on both counts, but most fans seem to want some continuity, especially with ST:Enterprise muddying the waters.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25 2011, 05:36 AM   #29
ngc7293
Commander
 
ngc7293's Avatar
 
Location: Michigan
Re: TOS Nacelles

Patrickivan wrote: View Post



Was there anything that specifically made you think the coils were in the main hull? I'm just curious- not judging...
I'm assuming you mean the M/AM. Obviously nothing in TOS, everything I got was from the TNG tech manual. Besides, the construction sounds much more simple with just the coils in the Nacelles and the M/AM stored below. Everything I understand takes place at the Warp Core and the reaction shunted to the nacelles to create the field effect. Having M/AM pods in the Nacelles sounds like trouble with the creation of a warp field going on.

I'd be reluctant to compare ships of a different design like the Miranda and Oberth Classes to a Constitution Class. Where post TOS ships seem to have a primary M/arc in the main hull. So it's a completely different beast.

As for the nacelle strut lengths, I've always attributes that to a combination of factors- Safety (from the TOS standpoint), and to warp field geometry in relation to the overall shape/ style, and requirements of that specific ship.

For example. TOS- safety. But speed is made up for with raw power.

Post TNG we see better regulation and safety controls around M/arcs, hence their transfer to inside the ship. Then nacelles get drawn in tighter to the ship, making the warp field more efficient, but too close may have different have still.

In ships like the Defient, (DS9), we have a ship that bucks the trend and focuses purely on speed and power. Nothing superfluous like exploration of any sort. The nacelles are drawn in for maximizing the warp field geometry for such a flat compact ship and to help reduce it's warp signiture as seen by potential enemies. So practical for a specialized borg busting ship like this, but not in the general mandate of Starfleet, and therefore not practical on all ships.
Just because canon only shows one class of ship during TOS doesn't mean there was only one. It is likely that the Miranda Class was upgraded as the Constitution Class and had the round nacelles too.

There has always been the debate about the Oberth about when it was created because of its low NCC #. It is possible that it existed in TOS times too.

That is two ships with nacelles "dangerously close to habitable sections of the ship" and might discount the idea of M/AM in the nacelles.

The Defiant is a whole other animal because of its heavy armor. Even if there was lots of radiation in the nacelles, the rest of the ship might be protected because of that armor.

But ships like the Saber and Steamrunner might not have the heavy shielding that the Defiant class did.
__________________
Judy Waxhorn: "Lighbulb is shot can't see a damn thing. Prepare to trash the ship. LaForge, disable the warp-core protection system. Troi, take the helm. All hands, prepare for DRAMA."
ngc7293 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25 2011, 07:08 AM   #30
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
Besides, I have a serious issue with putting the main power source in a location that is not only inaccessible in an emergency, but only missing a big cartoon sign, saying, "MAIN POWER - SHOOT HERE!"
But one could say the same about the propulsion nacelles themselves, the same accessibility problems exist whether the main power source is in there or not, and blast those suckers off and you've crippled the ship regardless. So one might as well put the M/A-M power source there where at least it's a relatively safe distance away from the habitable portions of the ship, and can be safely jettisoned if need be?
I wonder sometimes whether the "new" design for the movie Enterprise and Reliant is fully a single reactor or was it still a 3 reactor design. When Reliant's nacelle was blown off, it took very little effort (a tiny phaser burst and photon torpedo set to minimum power) to cause it to explode violently. If it were just a set of propulsion coils wouldn't it have been a more "milder" explosion instead of the back half of it just vaporizing?
blssdwlf 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.