RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,444
Posts: 5,507,651
Members: 25,133
Currently online: 439
Newest member: jokerone

TrekToday headlines

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

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


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 1 2013, 05:56 PM   #91
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Pavonis wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
But that is exactly where I am coming from. Those 'well-confirmed starship achievements' involved massive power usage and TMP had it right - you should not really be warping space inside a solar system if you can avoid it (despite them doing it multiple times in the shows - it makes sense that it isn't smart because - well, you are warping space).
Planets warp space, too. What difference does it make if an itty-bitty starship warps the space a little bit more?
What indeed? Does warping space suddenly cause potential damage to the fabric of space time? In fact it can. The casual disregard for the potential risks does speak to a throwaway society. And Scotty should be jailed for animal cruelty!
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2013, 06:01 PM   #92
Pavonis
Commodore
 
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Are you being serious or facetious?
Pavonis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2013, 06:22 PM   #93
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Pavonis wrote: View Post
Are you being serious or facetious?
Lol - I'm never being that serious on these sites but the degree of space time distortion created even by massive objects such as a star doesn't really correlate to warp drive. TNG also showed us that subspace fractures can occur. It makes perfect sense that standard practice would be not to do that near a planetary system even if they thought there was minimal risk.

As for Scotty - if you kill somebody's dog is that not considered a crime where you come from?

The weird thing is that I can watch Star Wars and have no problem believing that the Millennium Falcon can take off easily. I think it's just because Enterprise just looks like it was never designed to land and had never (previously) landed and we were led to believe that these ships were constructed in space that led to the changes being so jarring. I thought it was cool that these hulking great ships were designed to operate in space. They feel somehow less credible to me now.

P.S. Scotty also abused tribbles.
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631

Last edited by Pauln6; June 1 2013 at 06:33 PM.
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2013, 09:39 PM   #94
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

On NPR there was talk about concrete semiconductors...
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2013, 11:50 PM   #95
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Actually, let's reflect on that for a moment. Every space ship ever made in history has had some capability to operate in an atmosphere; at a bare minimum, they've been equipped with parachutes and float devices. More advanced concepts have had wings and landing gear for glide landings, and SpaceX is developing capsules capable of propulsive landings at a prearranged landing site. Is it really all that strange to think that that same basic capability wouldn't be preserved and enhanced over two hundred years?
Every spaceship in history has been tiny compared to the Enterprise
And with both a power output and a maximum acceleration almost infinitely smaller. If the space shuttle orbiter had been equipped with anything even half as powerful as an impulse engine it would be able to maneuver in and out of planetary atmospheres on a whim; that for a slight upgrade of 1970s technology.

and if you look at how much energy it takes to get them up and out of the atmosphere and scale that up to the size of the JJprise and other starships it must be obvious where I'm coming from.
It's also obvious that YOU haven't.

It depends on the actual mass of the Enterprise and what is actually propelling the ship against gravity. At the high end of this assumption, the ship is using antigravs and subspace fields to cheat the normal laws of inertia in which case its thrust/energy requirements could be very, VERY low, comparable to that of a Saturn-V rocket at liftoff.

At the low end, assuming a ship of 210,000 tons with no subspace trickery available and only thrusters/impulse engines, a ship the size of the Enterprise would require something like 10,500 meganewtons of thrust, or the equivalent of 300 Saturn-V rockets. That works out to 42.46 terawatts, which is about the amount of energy you would get by reacting 500 milligrams of matter and antimatter.

The Enterprise is capable of consuming matter and antimatter without irradiating/crushing/demolishing everything within a hundred kilometers of it. We've seen starships going to warp in asteroid fields, in nebulas, even in planetary atmospheres without destroying everything around them. Whether you know anything about how these ships work or not, it's plainly obvious that starship engines -- even impulse engines -- are not entirely newtonian in nature and are massively cheating the "action/reaction" balance. HOW they do this is an open question; THAT they do this is long since closed for debate.

I realise that you can invent magical technology that overcomes the energy needed to lift something that heavy...
I don't have to invent anything. Star Trek has done that for me. It's called a "warp core." Whether you realize it or not, the amount of energy needed to power a ship out of a planet's gravity well is miniscule compared to the power needed to propel that same ship to the speed of light.

I'd pity the Iowa farms caught in that backwash.
I would too if the Enterprise was constructed using early 21st century technology.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2013, 11:58 PM   #96
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
I don't like magical technology much because we pretend there's no cost, no side effects, etc.
Then you should probably stop watching Star Trek.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 2 2013, 12:18 AM   #97
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
Pavonis wrote: View Post
Are you being serious or facetious?
Lol - I'm never being that serious on these sites but the degree of space time distortion created even by massive objects such as a star doesn't really correlate to warp drive.
That's because the effects of warp drive are limited to the immediate vicinity around a starship and generally vanish when the ship drops out of warp. You may or may not have noticed that the Enterprise's use of warp in the solar system wasn't really that big of a risk to anything except the Enterprise, with its untested engine and lack of proper simulation (that and a random asteroid that happened to cross into its path).

TNG also showed us that subspace fractures can occur.
In a specific region of space that nobody cares about, in an episode that was thoroughly forgettable and whose plot repercussions were eventually ignored.

The weird thing is that I can watch Star Wars and have no problem believing that the Millennium Falcon can take off easily. I think it's just because Enterprise just looks like it was never designed to land and had never (previously) landed and we were led to believe that these ships were constructed in space that led to the changes being so jarring.
So I guess the only real difference between you and me is that you never played Halo.

There's a school of thought in Scifi these days that truly advanced starships should not only be capable of operating in an atmosphere, but also fighting in them. Partly that's because being on the ground and seeing two distant dots shooting at other distant dots isn't all that dramatically interesting, but mostly it's because of the issue of scale: in the REAL WORLD, naval vessels exchange fire at distances of a few dozen to a few hundred kilometers and usually they do so over a contested piece of realestate. If a starship wants to support an operation to hold, say, a city or a shipyard, it needs to be able to hover over that shipyard and blast the crap out of anyone who comes near it (or, in the reverse case, blast the crap out of the shipyard without having to wait two hours for its orbit to bring it back into firing position).
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!

Last edited by Crazy Eddie; June 2 2013 at 12:38 AM.
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 2 2013, 12:29 AM   #98
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Actually, let's reflect on that for a moment. Every space ship ever made in history has had some capability to operate in an atmosphere; at a bare minimum, they've been equipped with parachutes and float devices. More advanced concepts have had wings and landing gear for glide landings, and SpaceX is developing capsules capable of propulsive landings at a prearranged landing site. Is it really all that strange to think that that same basic capability wouldn't be preserved and enhanced over two hundred years?
Every spaceship in history has been tiny compared to the Enterprise
And with both a power output and a maximum acceleration almost infinitely smaller. If the space shuttle orbiter had been equipped with anything even half as powerful as an impulse engine it would be able to maneuver in and out of planetary atmospheres on a whim; that for a slight upgrade of 1970s technology.


It's also obvious that YOU haven't.

It depends on the actual mass of the Enterprise and what is actually propelling the ship against gravity. At the high end of this assumption, the ship is using antigravs and subspace fields to cheat the normal laws of inertia in which case its thrust/energy requirements could be very, VERY low, comparable to that of a Saturn-V rocket at liftoff.

At the low end, assuming a ship of 210,000 tons with no subspace trickery available and only thrusters/impulse engines, a ship the size of the Enterprise would require something like 10,500 meganewtons of thrust, or the equivalent of 300 Saturn-V rockets. That works out to 42.46 terawatts, which is about the amount of energy you would get by reacting 500 milligrams of matter and antimatter.

I realise that you can invent magical technology that overcomes the energy needed to lift something that heavy...
I don't have to invent anything. Star Trek has done that for me. It's called a "warp core." Whether you realize it or not, the amount of energy needed to power a ship out of a planet's gravity well is miniscule compared to the power needed to propel that same ship to the speed of light.

I'd pity the Iowa farms caught in that backwash.
I would too if the Enterprise was constructed using early 21st century technology.
Thanks for the engineering info! I've never suggested that the ships would have insufficient power to escape an atmosphere using impulse power or thrusters, my issue is that the energy backwash should be pretty destructive based on the information I'd seen about the type of power impulse engines use. I mean, if the pylons can survive the event horizon of a black hole without snapping they must be made of an unobtanium/adamantium alloy or something (actually, now that I think of it again, that scene was really dumb too) and so they would be tough enough to stand up to a measly 1G. But just wait until they get a flock of seagulls bunging up their Boussard Collectors then we'll see who has he last laugh.

I do like the 'official' explanation for I.M.Pulse Drive but even that has a dangerous plasma vent, which I believe is part of canon. As should be obvious, I'm a lawyer not a physicist, so I admire the artistry of anything that sounds vaguely plausible, especially if it has an official downside for writers to exploit.

I realise that the writers can invent wibbly wobbly 'anti-grav' tech to paper over anything about propulsion, although if the ship has that level of versatile anti-grav tech there are probably dozens of ways they should have been using it in various episodes. Blimey when you think of all the episodes that could have gone differently if the writers had only remembered a piece of tech under the old regime. How much worse is that going to get in NuTrek?

I guess it's because the current writers seem to want to keep ramping up the tech that I feel the need to rail against it. Magical explanations are among the worst plot conclusions IMO. I'm clearly just a fuddy duddy

As an aside, apparently, scientists have invented a tractor beam using two lasers as tweesers, although it's not a very good one at the moment. So now we have communicators, PADDS, magnetic levitation, the beginnings of impulse drive, transporters, and tractor beams. Rock on 21st century technology!
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 2 2013, 01:04 AM   #99
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
That's because the effects of warp drive are limited to the immediate vicinity around a starship and generally vanish when the ship drops out of warp. You may or may not have noticed that the Enterprise's use of warp in the solar system wasn't really that big of a risk to anything except the Enterprise, with its untested engine and lack of proper simulation (that and a random asteroid that happened to cross into its path).
Solar systems are full of a lot of random asteroids. Probably fewer if they just fly up first... damn Galactic Plane.

But warp bubbles can't be small - they have to be massive because you have to warp space all the way to your destination across light years. Not all the way in one go obviously, or travel would be instantaneous, but they have to squeeze quite a long corridor even at low warp. The higher the warp factor the longer the warped 'corridor'. If JJPrise can travel 90 light years in 12 hours isn't that a corridor of 20,000,000,000 km per second? That's huge!

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
The weird thing is that I can watch Star Wars and have no problem believing that the Millennium Falcon can take off easily. I think it's just because Enterprise just looks like it was never designed to land and had never (previously) landed and we were led to believe that these ships were constructed in space that led to the changes being so jarring.
So I guess the only real difference between you and me is that you never played Halo.
It's true! I prefer games with hobbits and/or Homer Simpson.
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 2 2013, 02:13 AM   #100
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
But warp bubbles can't be small - they have to be massive because you have to warp space all the way to your destination across light years. Not all the way in one go obviously, or travel would be instantaneous, but they have to squeeze quite a long corridor even at low warp. The higher the warp factor the longer the warped 'corridor'. If JJPrise can travel 90 light years in 12 hours isn't that a corridor of 20,000,000,000 km per second? That's huge!
But also very very skinny: the corridor may be 20 billion kilometers long, but it's only about five hundred meters wide. Anything that wanders into that corridor is going to get pushed out of the way by the navigational deflector.

More to the point, we don't really understand the interaction between the warp field and other objects in space. Again, we've seen ships go to warp in an atmosphere and in fogbank nebulas without really disturbing the local environment, and in the last movie we saw Enterprise drop out of warp in Titan's atmosphere. The warp field clearly causes some effect, but it seems to be that it merely allows things within that field -- starships, for example -- to obey modified laws of physics and move through space much easier than they would if they were outside of the field (and this probably applies to the deflector as well; most of those asteroids and subatomic particles wouldn't be so easy to push out of the way if they weren't inside the ship's warp field).

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
The weird thing is that I can watch Star Wars and have no problem believing that the Millennium Falcon can take off easily. I think it's just because Enterprise just looks like it was never designed to land and had never (previously) landed and we were led to believe that these ships were constructed in space that led to the changes being so jarring.
So I guess the only real difference between you and me is that you never played Halo.
It's true! I prefer games with hobbits and/or Homer Simpson.
Then you're missing out. Alot of very innovative science fiction is being manifest in video games these days. Actually, I've been saying for a while no that Star Trek is showing more and more influence from Mass Effect. Hell, the site of the Klingon gunfight in STID bears an uncanny resemblance to Wrex's throne room on Tuchanka (and I'm not just saying that because Gatatog Uvenk was voiced by Michael Dorn). Not to mention, the skyline of Ketha Province looks EXACTLY like the aerial view of Feros.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 2 2013, 09:29 AM   #101
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
If JJPrise can travel 90 light years in 12 hours isn't that a corridor of 20,000,000,000 km per second? That's huge!
But also very very skinny: the corridor may be 20 billion kilometers long, but it's only about five hundred meters wide. Anything that wanders into that corridor is going to get pushed out of the way by the navigational deflector.

More to the point, we don't really understand the interaction between the warp field and other objects in space. Again, we've seen ships go to warp in an atmosphere and in fogbank nebulas without really disturbing the local environment, and in the last movie we saw Enterprise drop out of warp in Titan's atmosphere. The warp field clearly causes some effect, but it seems to be that it merely allows things within that field -- starships, for example -- to obey modified laws of physics and move through space much easier than they would if they were outside of the field (and this probably applies to the deflector as well; most of those asteroids and subatomic particles wouldn't be so easy to push out of the way if they weren't inside the ship's warp field).

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
So I guess the only real difference between you and me is that you never played Halo.
It's true! I prefer games with hobbits and/or Homer Simpson.
Then you're missing out. Alot of very innovative science fiction is being manifest in video games these days. Actually, I've been saying for a while no that Star Trek is showing more and more influence from Mass Effect. Hell, the site of the Klingon gunfight in STID bears an uncanny resemblance to Wrex's throne room on Tuchanka (and I'm not just saying that because Gatatog Uvenk was voiced by Michael Dorn). Not to mention, the skyline of Ketha Province looks EXACTLY like the aerial view of Feros.
Yes, I suppose I've always viewed bending space-time as having a similar effect to gravity bending space time, with the ultimate being the creation a singularity that creates an Einstein-Rosenberg bridge - i.e. a wormhole or subspace corridor. A singularity is tiny but its gravitational effect is significant as we saw in the last movie. As a consequence, I've never really bought things like warping into orbit around a planet as being safe because compressed space time will have a nasty effect. The writers and special effects people just tke the 'a wizard did it' perspective - lol.

I just can't find the time to play games these days - too much time spent on Dungeons & Dragons with real people, plus custojm action figures and painting a Polar Lights Enterprise. I also went a bit mad and created a Youtube comic crossing Star Trek with Babylon 5 and Alien (among others) - on the last part of the second story now! Why not do Halo too? If you've got any screenshots let me have them! The main problem I've encountered is that there were just no action shots in TMP so it has been a challenge to put in any action at all. So if anybody also has any screen shots from Star Trek Online of officers in TMP uniforms, let me have them please! I tried playing that game too to get my own pics but I never got past the intro - lol.
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 2 2013, 04:02 PM   #102
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
Why not do Halo too? If you've got any screenshots let me have them!
I can do you one better:

"The Package"
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 11:08 AM   #103
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Whatever the method of space bending used by the warp drive, it allows for two ships to chase each other within visual range. And lest it be suggested that optical distortions are at play there (either in-universe, or just for the sake of dramatic license), we also have situations where two ships at warp come close to touching each other (the two NX ships in ENT mating) or the opposite (the Prometheus splitting up).

Warp bubbles thus seem to be extremely compact things, actually. Moreover, with a bit of effort, you can hide them inside a cloaking field... Them being an environmental hazard looks extremely unlikely, then. (Hey, even space within the fields themselves only degrades after centuries of exceptionally intense traffic!)

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 07:38 PM   #104
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Timo wrote: View Post
Whatever the method of space bending used by the warp drive, it allows for two ships to chase each other within visual range. And lest it be suggested that optical distortions are at play there (either in-universe, or just for the sake of dramatic license), we also have situations where two ships at warp come close to touching each other (the two NX ships in ENT mating) or the opposite (the Prometheus splitting up).

Warp bubbles thus seem to be extremely compact things, actually. Moreover, with a bit of effort, you can hide them inside a cloaking field... Them being an environmental hazard looks extremely unlikely, then. (Hey, even space within the fields themselves only degrades after centuries of exceptionally intense traffic!)

Timo Saloniemi
To quote Douglas Adams, "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."

I've always thought that chasing down a ship to attack them while at warp is a bit silly in most cases. You have to warp space in front of you quite some distance so I don't see how you would have visual on another ship until you were able to merge your warp bubbles at exactly the same speed. You can't be in the same bubble with one ship going faster than the other - the ship in front would just be able to cruise along in the other warp bubble and save it's energy? If you are in separate warp bubbles at different speeds the odds of you synchronising your warp bubbles seem pretty slim when you consider that a slight differential would lead to the other ship overshooting by light years but its plausible that Federation ships tracking other Federation ships should be able to do this since they use the same tech and have coded transponders. Since they would have to be in separate warp bubbles the Enterprise might have been better off dropping out of warp for an instant, let the Vengeance fly by and plot a different course. Not so easy to pull off when being pursued by a Federation ship since they will find it easy to track you with your transponder I guess.

Still it should be harder to follow non Federation ships than they make it out to be in episodes since you have to travel slower than the ship in front to detect the trail and they are bit vague on what happens to a trail when you warp space to follow it - I would have thought the original trail would get over-written. I wish I understood sensor ranges better. Range of plot, I know...
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 08:05 PM   #105
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Well, it's an inescapable feature of every chase scene (other than car chases or the like where there is an environment that affects speed) that the party doing the chasing decides the speed. If the fleeing party is faster, she flees, and there's no chase; if the fleeing party is slower, she is caught, but there can be a chase if the chasing party so decides. If both parties are equally fast, it's a dream sequence, because that's physically impossible; even slight differences in speed would rapidly put an end to an interstellar chase.

Indeed, if the chasing party feels he isn't in control of the chase, he will smell a rat, such as in "The Survivors"!

Thus, in Trek chases, the chasing party would be motivated to ride bumper-to-bumper since the very reason he's chasing in the first place is to psychologically harass the fleeing party. If he were actually trying to shoot that party to pieces, he'd have done so already. Overshooting is an obvious risk, but one worth taking, because since you chase, you known you are faster and can afford an escape attempt or three.

"A tunnel of bent space stretching in front of the ship" sounds cool but isn't consistent with how it's done in Trek. Warp fields don't extend - they just surround. And indeed if one wouldn't need to stretch space all the way from A to B into a wormhole, and an extension of X ly would do the trick, why shouldn't an extension of two millimeters be fine as well?

Timo Saloniemi
Timo 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 08:29 AM.

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