RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,558
Posts: 5,513,875
Members: 25,146
Currently online: 590
Newest member: TM2-Megatron

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


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 June 7 2013, 03:36 AM   #46
zDarby
Lieutenant
 
Location: NorCal
Re: D'deridex-class Warbird Maneuverability

publiusr wrote: View Post
I actually kinda wish we had a small black hole a few thousand AUs out, to dump waste Warp a station that spins opposite to it or a magnetar and you have quite the dynamo.

A sphere surrounding a black hole would have "alchemy" poles where X-ray jets could hit lighter elements and transmute them intio heavier ones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthes...recious_metals

If a sphere is too hard to build then a statite which rides the jet low enough not to be pushed away (yet high enough to not fall in would be more do-able)
That article is awesome! My step daughter's 8th grade graduation has taken up a great deal of my time so I've not finished reading it yet. Still, excellent reference, thank you!

The equations I used to calculate a black hole's hawkings power and evaporation time I lifted from Wikipedia. Serves me right for not fact checking them.

I still stand by my speculations about Romulan AQSs; I still think they'd more accurately be called "artificial event horizons". Even so, I need to finish that article before I make any more of an ass of myself.

Timo wrote:
Of course, Star Trek technology can do miracles with gravity. Having a strong "natural" source of gravitational attraction combined with a suitable artificial gravity machine might yield a compact perpetual motion machine easily enough, without any real-world concerns interfering.

Similarly, the technology can rather effortlessly manipulate faster-than-light objects, allowing various laws of nature to be broken at the event horizon for the user's considerable benefit.

Whether one really needs an AQS in addition to these miracle technologies is somewhat debatable, though.
Ok. Here's how I read this comment: Our knowledge of physics & engineering now compared to three hundred years from now is like comparing such knowledge in Franklin's time to our own. Which is to say: Silly and naive, at best, and more likely to be ignorantly arrogant. (If I understood wrongly, I apologize and would appreciate the correction.)

For me, to wave a hand and say, "it's technological magic," is to not play the game. The game is to extrapolate what we know into not only what might be, but what might explain what we see in Trek.....Or, at least, that's the game I like to play. And, really, the point of this game --again, for me-- is to learn about what we know. Like being corrected by publiusr just now. AWESOME!!

So, if I may be so bold as to ask --and I am, genuinely being humble, here:
Which laws of nature do you see being broken with FTL near an event horizon?
What benefits do you see a user gaining from these broken laws?
How could you set this up for perpetual motion?
Could any of these things be implemented within a D'deridex?
zDarby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 03:31 AM   #47
zDarby
Lieutenant
 
Location: NorCal
Re: D'deridex-class Warbird Maneuverability

http://forums.spacebattles.com/threa....113576/page-4

In this page is the Sternbach article about D'deridex's Artificial Singularity core.

As I said earlier, I don't like it at all. But that doesn't mean anything. Thought I'd add it to the discussion.
zDarby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 05:33 PM   #48
The Librarian
Commodore
 
Re: D'deridex-class Warbird Maneuverability

Creating an artificial singularity just so you can use it for compressing matter seems a bit... excessive. Especially since you're going to be getting the Hawking radiation regardless.
The Librarian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 04:18 AM   #49
zDarby
Lieutenant
 
Location: NorCal
Re: D'deridex-class Warbird Maneuverability

^The point, IMHO, is to CONTROL the hawking output. You get EXACTLY the amount of energy you need. No more, no less. The rest remains stored.
And, of course, that the hawkings radiation converts mass to energy at 100%.

....

I have come to the opinion, over the last couple of days, that the space between the wings is for transporting large objects --like cloaked listening outposts-- into hostile territory, where they get left to collect data. I suspect the wings separate and open to allow these objects to be larger than the front or back openings. Of course, these openings are pretty darned large, so it's not necessarily necessary.... Being able to use the volume within for towing would also make it easier for a D'deridex to tow home a war prize.

I also suspect the interior of the wings to have the capabilities of an industrial replicator. Thus, objects large and small, needed for whatever mission they're on could be created in situ using local materials.

Furthermore, I believe the vessel probably has two artificial quantum singularities: one in the bottom wing, one in the top. This way, one AQS can be fueled up with gas from a ram-scoop while the other is drained of mass -energy to run the ship.

If one AQS was about to lose containment it would be possible to jettisoned the section of the wing which has the AQS containment facilities so the rest of the vessel could get away.Then, at the next save haven, this section could then be replicated within the wings, replaced in the socket and a new AQS initialized.

I see a D'deridex as a completely autonomous vessel, capable of decades-long missions.

None of this has anything to do with what we've seen on Trek or any of the Trek materials. I am speculating like mad. ...But... If I designed a vessel that looked like this, that's what I would have done.

Last edited by zDarby; June 10 2013 at 06:40 AM.
zDarby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 08:46 PM   #50
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: D'deridex-class Warbird Maneuverability

zDarby wrote: View Post
Ok. Here's how I read this comment: Our knowledge of physics & engineering now compared to three hundred years from now is like comparing such knowledge in Franklin's time to our own. Which is to say: Silly and naive, at best, and more likely to be ignorantly arrogant. (If I understood wrongly, I apologize and would appreciate the correction.)
This is one possible way to interpret what we see in Star Trek in general. The other is that the very universe of the show is fundamentally different from ours, not merely in terms of pseudohistory but also in terms of laws of nature, and that warp drive can coexist with Newtonian physics and absolute frames of reference for that reason. "Future science" has not really broken any known laws of science - it has evolved in an environment where those laws never had any validity.

Amusingly, TNG "Nth Degree" suggests that Einstein in the Star Trek universe was an expert of quantum mechanics rather than relativity... Perhaps there was no relativity to discover in that universe?

For me, to wave a hand and say, "it's technological magic," is to not play the game.
I'm game for that - but if the move in the game ignores the implications of established Star Trek phenomena and achievements, it shouldn't be considered a legal one.

This is not to say that one couldn't build a machine obeying the laws of nature pertaining to our universe even when the Trek universe clearly allows one to take a shortcut. Say, one could still build a conventional space elevator to haul cargo to orbit even though transporter technology exists; even though it apparently costs very little in terms of energy to reduce the gravitational mass of the cargo before lifting it; and even though pulling with a tractor beam rather than with a tether allows one to ignore certain anchorpoint issues (that is, Newton's third law doesn't seem to hold for tractor beams).

It just sounds silly to do that...

Which laws of nature do you see being broken with FTL near an event horizon?
It is hard to see how anything about Einstein's work (and, evidently following from this, Maxwell's) could hold true if mass can exceed lightspeed.

But if Maxwell was wrong, this basically means that a lot of symmetry disappears from the universe, and one can get something from nothing by a dozen dirty tricks.

What benefits do you see a user gaining from these broken laws?
How could you set this up for perpetual motion?
Could any of these things be implemented within a D'deridex?
Say, by purely classical terms, allowing mass to enter a black hole beyond the event horizon gives it exceptional kinetic energy - but extracting it from there again with a warp engine and/or with a mass-reducing field should take less energy than extracting it from there by conventional means (finite << infinite)... You don't need a black hole for this, cheating with any freefall will do, but the black hole case establishes with lamentable finality that warp engines do achieve infinite things with finite resources, and should be able to exploit the difference.

Perhaps the AQS is merely a source of extreme gravitic pull, and a subspace field creates an asymmetry in this pull, so that objects fall in from one side and gain energy that they do not lose when climbing up from the side that has the mass-negating field in place. When they finally emerge from the subspace field at "wrong" velocity and regain their mass, they have gained considerable "illegal" kinetic energy.

Of course, this sort of obvious cheating should lead to a wealth of applications that we nevertheless fail to witness in Star Trek. So perhaps there are checks and balances there from heretofore unknown / Trek-specific laws of nature that make it unprofitable to exploit such things to the fullest. But the very existence of starships that can escape from within a black hole is embarrassing evidence that one can get macroscopic benefit from breaking the symmetry of a gravitational potential well.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 06:39 PM   #51
zDarby
Lieutenant
 
Location: NorCal
Re: D'deridex-class Warbird Maneuverability

Timo wrote: View Post
Amusingly, TNG "Nth Degree" suggests that Einstein in the Star Trek universe was an expert of quantum mechanics rather than relativity.
I have heard it said on several documentaries --and had it born out in my own researches-- that Einstein understood quantum mechanics better then the leading quantum physicists of the era, and it's that understanding that made him hate it as much as he did. Einstein can and has be said to have made the quantum revolution possible with his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect. Further, via his discourse with Bohr, he introduced many of the strange predictions of quantum mechanics in a effort to refute it, implying such a strange universe certainly couldn't be ours.... I would have to say Einstein was a First Rate quantum physicist, if not the best of his era, than certainly among the top 5 or 10, even though he hated quantum mechanics with a passion.

...the very universe of the show is fundamentally different from ours, not merely in terms of pseudohistory but also in terms of laws of nature...
Yes. Somewhere in Voyager, I remember someone quoting an age for the universe quite different from our current measurements: ~13.8 GY.... Looking it up in Memory Alpha, Voyager's crew thinks it's 16 GY. Without some major fudge-factor to our cosmological understanding, this is a HUGE difference between universes. And there are probably many, many more differences.

I'm game for that - but if the move in the game ignores the implications of established Star Trek phenomena and achievements, it shouldn't be considered a legal one.
This is not to say that one couldn't build a machine obeying the laws of nature pertaining to our universe even when the Trek universe clearly allows one to take a shortcut.
It just sounds silly to do that...
Agreed.
Agreed.
Agreed.... But sometimes such things are FUN!! As proof, I submit your example.

Perhaps the AQS is merely a source of extreme gravitic pull, and a subspace field creates an asymmetry in this pull, so that objects fall in from one side and gain energy that they do not lose when climbing up from the side that has the mass-negating field in place. When they finally emerge from the subspace field at "wrong" velocity and regain their mass, they have gained considerable "illegal" kinetic energy.
In this case, I would stipulate such a field would take more energy than you get from the particles.

...and that warp drive can coexist with Newtonian physics and absolute frames of reference for that reason. "Future science" has not really broken any known laws of science - it has evolved in an environment where those laws never had any validity.
Perhaps there was no relativity to discover in that universe?
It is hard to see how anything about Einstein's work (and, evidently following from this, Maxwell's) could hold true if mass can exceed lightspeed.

But if Maxwell was wrong, this basically means that a lot of symmetry disappears from the universe, and one can get something from nothing by a dozen dirty tricks.
Say, by purely classical terms, allowing mass to enter a black hole beyond the event horizon gives it exceptional kinetic energy - but extracting it from there again with a warp engine and/or with a mass-reducing field should take less energy than extracting it from there by conventional means (finite << infinite)... You don't need a black hole for this, cheating with any freefall will do, but the black hole case establishes with lamentable finality that warp engines do achieve infinite things with finite resources, and should be able to exploit the difference.
I'm going to have to chew on these statements for a time before I can address them. They're outside my POV.... The "box" I tend to think about trek in, if you will.

Perhaps you could expand on your notion that Trek cannon allows for an absolute reference frame? This is a possible side-effect of warp I've never considered or encountered.

......

I think I'm going to like you, Timo.
I hope I don't piss you off somewhere down the line.
...Just as a general rule, if it sounds like I'm being a troll --or an ass-- it's very likely I'm just failing to be funny. Probably failing very badly. In which case a simple, "not funny and kinda insulting" will get a sincere apology from me right quick.
zDarby is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
d'deridex, romulan warbird

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 01:43 AM.

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