RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,893
Posts: 5,330,323
Members: 24,555
Currently online: 616
Newest member: berlyn

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 July 16 2013, 11:54 AM   #196
Mario de Monti
Captain
 
Mario de Monti's Avatar
 
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Re: Let's Discuss the Romulan Bird of Prey!

I was just wondering: could the original design for the Reliant be this "Federation BoP" - and thus be somewhat canonical?
__________________
"Do you give me attitude, Spock?" - "I´m expressing multiple attitudes simultaneously, Sir. To which are you referring?"
Mario de Monti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16 2013, 03:03 PM   #197
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Let's Discuss the Romulan Bird of Prey!

Forbin's Peregrine and arguably the Reliant body does bear a good resemblance to the BOP. Since Hansen's line was cut then it could go either way on who copied who.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17 2013, 07:44 PM   #198
zDarby
Lieutenant
 
Location: NorCal
Re: Let's Discuss the Romulan Bird of Prey!

Here is the gif I promised. It's about 2mb and it fades from a dorsal view of the TOS Rom BOP to one of Miranda, and back again.

The similarities are not as great as it seemed in 3d. It now seems to me that if you want to have a trunk behind a saucer, you do it this way. Further, every other profile of the two are very dissimilar.

He also made one of a Federation "Bird of Prey" based on the Miranda hull.
This is precisely the pic I found which made me compare the two in the first place!!
zDarby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17 2013, 09:30 PM   #199
DEWLine
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Send a message via AIM to DEWLine Send a message via Yahoo to DEWLine
Re: Let's Discuss the Romulan Bird of Prey!

...interesting. Probably an accident on the latter designer's part, but interesting.
__________________
Yours,

Dwight Williams
Illustrator/Writer
DEWLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17 2013, 10:51 PM   #200
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Let's Discuss the Romulan Bird of Prey!

zDarby wrote: View Post
Here is the gif I promised. It's about 2mb and it fades from a dorsal view of the TOS Rom BOP to one of Miranda, and back again.
Nice graphic visualization! I think it proves the striking similarities.

If the NCC-1831 on the starship status chart in "CourtMartial" is a Miranda Class ship (TOS or TMP style?), I'd say it's the Romulans that stole the design.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 18 2013, 03:42 AM   #201
zDarby
Lieutenant
 
Location: NorCal
Re: Let's Discuss the Romulan Bird of Prey!

Why couldn't the Feds be copying the Roms?

We tend to assume the espionage, or even just the flow of information, goes only one way --radially outward from the Federation. I doubt this to be the case. Even if the notion of a compact saucer comes from the Romulan encounter by NX-01, it's still Romulan influence.

Of course, one could argue that the NX-01 was already a Miranda-like design.
zDarby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 01:21 AM   #202
zDarby
Lieutenant
 
Location: NorCal
Re: Let's Discuss the Romulan Bird of Prey!

I've been doing a series of calculations concerning the possible fuel tank volumes of a TOS Rom BOP, the kinds of fusion fuels she might use and their implications, both as a warp vessel and as a straight-up, unmodified fusion rocket. The most interesting implications of these calculations is that a rocket's range increases as the percentage of fuel mass is increased, but that of warp ship increases as the mass of the fuel.

This is to say that a large and small rocket using the same fuel with the same efficiencies can have exactly the same ranges if they have the same percentage of mass dedicated as fuel.

A warpship, however, seems to be limited by the total amount of fuel it carries. Thus smaller ships using the same fuel at the same efficiencies can not hope to have the same range as a large ship, though she may have the same max speed.

Of course, our knowledge concerning the equations of warp power usage is basically nil.
zDarby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 26 2013, 07:44 PM   #203
zDarby
Lieutenant
 
Location: NorCal
Forcing monospaced font?

Is there a way, to anyone's knowledge, to force at least part of my post into a monospace font?

I would like to post some rocket-power-usage tables here but the regular font makes it difficult to understand.

Example:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|..BOP.Small...||.....BOP.Small......|
|.LOA:....68.m.||.Hull:....14,000.kL.|
|.BOA:....91.m.||.Bridge:.....450.kL.|
|.DOA:....22.m.||.Fin:........160.kL.|
|..Main.Hull...||.Wing:.....3,500.kL.|
|.Lenth:..66.m.||.Nacc:.....2,000.kL.|
|.Beam:...50.m.||.Bott:.....1,400.kL.|
|.Draft:..11.m.||.Total:...21,000.kL.|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you copy and paste the above into your favourite text editor and change the font into something monospaced, you should find it lined up and easy to read.

I have seven such tables I'd like to post and most of them are too large to make sense of without monospace.

Suggestions?
zDarby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 26 2013, 07:48 PM   #204
YJAGG
Lieutenant Commander
 
YJAGG's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Let's Discuss the Romulan Bird of Prey!

I always thought htis ship was smaller than the primary hull- with maybe a 45 man crew - again the submarine hand was played really hard. I always wondered about other romulan ships
YJAGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 29 2013, 02:45 AM   #205
zDarby
Lieutenant
 
Location: NorCal
TOS Rom BOP as a pure fusion rocket

Before I begin, I had to transfer the previous gif animation of the BOP and the Miranda here.

......

This conversation made me reconsider the difference in energy intake between Warp Drive and Newtonian Drive, aka Rocket Propulsion, aka Impulse. (This latter is an assumption I adhere to. See my previous post on this thread concerning my assumptions.)

Calculating the energy requirements of a Star Trek warp drive needs quite a few assumptions. And I will get into this in a later post, when I feel more comfortable with my calculations. But we *have* the equations to predict how a fusion rocket will act, even under the influence of special relativity, and it requires fewer assumptions.

To understand what I'm talking about below, you need to look at "BOP-Rocket_Tables.txt". It has a short introduction to why rockets have the specific limitation they do. But more importantly, it itemizes the results of a series of calculations I did to get a grasp the limitations of a BOP fusion rocket. To view the tables in the file you'll need a text editor that allows you to turn off word-wrap and that has a monospaced font. Your browser might display it well in a new tab. My firefox does, but who knows... Please don't attack my opinions without looking through and understanding the tables in this text file. Below are my speculations from those calculations.

With some google searchers and some approximations, I have learned that military sea vessels have densities on the order of 100 kg/KL --some are much more, some are a little less, but this is a good average. A compared to jumbo jets which are around 50 kg/kL --again, some more, some less. I therefore speculate the density of a Rom Bop is between 50 kg/kL and 100 kg/kL. Let's say 75 kg/kL. [Scenario D in the "empty masses of a BOP" table.] (Remember that a kilo-liter is the same as a cubic meter. I use "kL" because it's an easier abbreviation than m^3.)

Given the (R) ratio table, a BOP rocket will likely use the nacelles, wings and the hull's bottom curvature for fuel storage, giving a fuel-to-total volume-ratio of about 1/3. [Scenario 4 in the fuel volume table.] (It is perfectly possible a "real" BOP-rocket would dedicate more of its volume to fuel. I did not calculate for this, however.)

So, cross-referencing scenario [D4] with the d(V) table and the best fuel-density/fusion-cycle combinations, from better to worse, appear to be:
1) Deuterated Propane / (D->Ni56) > 13%c
2) Hydrated Propane / (p->Ni56) > 12%c
3) Liquid Deuterium / (pCatD) > 4.6%c
4) Liquid Deuterium / (CatDD) > 3.5%c
5) Liquid Deuterium+Tritium / (DT) > 3.5%c
5) Liquid Hydrogen / ppI > 2.7%c
6) Liquid Helium / (He3) < 2.7%c
7) Liquid Deuterium / (DD) > 1.8%c

However, in order of difficulty, hardest to easiest, the fusion cycles can be listed as follows:
1) (p->Ni56)
2) (D->Ni56)
3) (ppI)
4) (pCatD)
5) (CatDD)
6) (He3)
7) (DD)
8) (DT)

Thus the reaction (ppI) doesn't have what it takes: if you can do (ppI), you'd probably be able to do (pCatD) and you wouldn't bother. (At least not for a rocket. I've yet to find out what Warp has to say.) I should also mention that (DT) fusion, by far the easiest of the fusion cycles, puts most of its released energy into the momentum of a chargeless neutron, which is difficult to get energy from if all you have the electric fields which a burgeoning technology is likely to be limited to.

Thus, (IMHO) the likely evolution of fusion rockets in fuel and cycles is:
1st) L(D)/(DD)
2nd) L(He3)/(He3)
3rd) L(D)/(CatDD)
4th) L(D)/(pCatD)
5th) L(D)/(D->Ni56)
6th) (C3D8)/(D->Ni56)

For my money, the (pCatD) reaction is my bet for a TOS Rom BOP rocket. If you factor in efficiencies less than 100% as well as some energy being syphoned off for other things, you get a total d(V) between 2 and 3%c, which is pretty damned good. But it's not the best of the best, giving the Romulans further fusion fuel combinations to research.

If she were powered by deuterized propane, however, she could have a total d(V) of around 10%c, even factoring in inefficiencies and other power drains. But I see this as a final step before the introduction of artificial quantum singularities.

It should be noted that the (D->Ni56) cycle is the same cycle as the (p->Ni56) cycle save the first step, which turns protons into deuterium. (The multi-staged fusion cycles are not expounded upon in the tables. It seemed an unnecessary step, more likely to bore than edify.) In the process of turning deuterium into nickel, Carbon must be created and burned. Thus the carbon in the hydrocarbon fuels are also fused into Ni56 in these fuel cycles. This means not only that all the fuel is burned but that, by creating carbon from hydrogen, it is possible to create the storage hydrocarbon through nuclear and chemical processes. This hydrogen could be from the interstellar medium.

Also note that though the total energy output of carbon burning is much less than hydrogen burning, carbon helps to make the fuel more dense, giving it higher energy densities than hydrogen alone --be it protium or deuterium. There are, of course, heavier hydrocarbons than propane and a cursory glance at the d(V) table should demonstrate that there is an eigenvalue that balances higher energy-densities of large hydrocarbons with their lower d(M). Indeed, I know room temperature RP-1, with an average chemical component of about (C12H24), has already crossed this balance compared to 100K propane. None the less, I really can't be bolloxed to find the exact balance point, as finding it would entail calculating densities by first principals instead of looking them up in text books. And I'm just too lazy for this.

Another thing I have not gone to the trouble of calculating is the outcome of storing one's hydrogen fuel in "ultra dense" form. The announcement in 2009 and 2010 of discovering hydrogen --both light and heavy, aka protium and deuterium-- in its "Rydburg matter" forms indentured quite a bit of speculation about the ability to store hydrogen at densities on the order 100e6 kg/kL. This would drastically increase the calculated abilities and therefore drastically change any conclusions made.

However, I did not calculate for ultra dense hydrogen for several reasons. First, while I was doing the calcs I didn't think of it. Second, after I thought of it, I realized I'd have to do half again as much work as I'd already done to include it in the tables. Thirdly, we know neither Ent-D nor Voyager used ultra-dense Rydburg states to store their deuterium. They used liquid deuterium. And though there are no information about how the Romulans store their fuel during TOS, that the Federation doesn't use this method during TNG despite it's obvious advantages indicates it's not easy to make it work. So, I'm using this third reason as an excuse not to have do the work to include it in the tables.

In any case, I'd guess a TOS Rom BOP Rocket would use liquid deuterium as fuel, burn the fuel in the (pCatD) fusion cycle and have a d(V) of on the order of 2%c. Certainly other possibilities exist, this is just what I would choose from a story-telling perspective. However, her d(V) is not likely to be more than 20%c. (Calculating for 100% efficiency, using deuterated propane as fuel, 1100 tonnes as an empty weight and everything but the "Fin" and "Bridge" filled with fuel, the outcome was 22.8%c. However, this calculation left no room for an engines in the main hull, just tankage and is therefore unlikely in the extreme.)

My final statement on this subject is that I find it unlikely the TOS Rom BOP was a pure Fusion rocket. She's just too slow compared to a warp vessel; just too limited. She might stil be STL, meaning that "impulse" is not fusion rocketry but a kind of reactionless STL drive. But she's probably not a pure fusion rocket.

......

I hope to post similar calculations I've done concerning a fusion powered warp BOP soon.
zDarby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 29 2013, 03:41 PM   #206
B.J.
Rear Admiral
 
B.J.'s Avatar
 
Location: Huntsville, AL, USA
Re: Forcing monospaced font?

zDarby wrote: View Post
Is there a way, to anyone's knowledge, to force at least part of my post into a monospace font?
Yes, use the [ CODE ] [ /CODE ] tags:
Code:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|..BOP.Small...||.....BOP.Small......|
|.LOA:....68.m.||.Hull:....14,000.kL.|
|.BOA:....91.m.||.Bridge:.....450.kL.|
|.DOA:....22.m.||.Fin:........160.kL.|
|..Main.Hull...||.Wing:.....3,500.kL.|
|.Lenth:..66.m.||.Nacc:.....2,000.kL.|
|.Beam:...50.m.||.Bott:.....1,400.kL.|
|.Draft:..11.m.||.Total:...21,000.kL.|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
__________________
B.J. --- bj-o23.deviantart.com
B.J. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 29 2013, 05:06 PM   #207
zDarby
Lieutenant
 
Location: NorCal
Re: Forcing monospaced font?

B.J. wrote: View Post
Yes, use the [ CODE ] [ /CODE] tags:
Awesome! Thank you! I will use this in future.
zDarby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 29 2013, 10:18 PM   #208
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Let's Discuss the Romulan Bird of Prey!

My God, zDarby, I hope you're actually an engineer or something. This is far more math than I'm used to.

That said, I'm enjoying your finding thus far. Also, being a graphically-minded fellow, that bird-of-prey/Miranda gif is rather compelling, though I do feel they need not be the exact same scale.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2013, 07:50 AM   #209
zDarby
Lieutenant
 
Location: NorCal
Re: Let's Discuss the Romulan Bird of Prey!

No. I'm not an engineer. I was studying to be one: a rocket engineer. But I dropped out very early in my studies. (It's a long story no one, not even I, care about.) But what that really means is I'm not afraid of numbers. (In fact, I have a long boring speech I give to all those I tutor in math about it being a language. No one ever listens.) ....

The calculations were time-consuming, don't get me wrong... and they were tedious and repetitive. But they weren't hard... Just time-consuming, tedious and repetitive... And they were worth it. I learned quite a bit about what a Rom BOP could and could not be. If she's a rocket, she has to be a pretty darn advanced one. Not impossible....Far from impossible. But I'm not sure I buy it.

Thanks for the complement about the BOP/Miranda gif. I was excited when I looked at them superimposed in 3d. But the gif made me go, "Ah...Damn....It was such a good theory!"

And I've done most of the calcs for a fusion powered warp BOP. Now I have to write up something to describe all those damnedable numbers. That will take about as much time as it took to do the calcs....And I had to do them twice.

By the way, your avatar makes me want to go into a transe and then into an epileptic fit.
zDarby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 31 2013, 07:25 PM   #210
zDarby
Lieutenant
 
Location: NorCal
Re: Let's Discuss the Romulan Bird of Prey!

I figured I'd post the base of my warp power calculations. The table below is measured from the warp chart found in the ex-astris-scientia encyclopedia's entry for warp factor under "W"; which, in turn, was a recreation of the warp-power curve found in the TNG Tech Manual. Thus the information is directly applicable to the Galaxy class only. How the warp-power scales for other ships is up for interpretation.

However my investigations thus far indicate that if one speculates the curve does not scale to ship size, the numbers work rather well. I can make logical arguments for and against this speculation. Even so, I always use this speculation as an assumption in my warp power calcs so that they can easily be converted later when a better scaling factor is discovered.

Here's wikipedias' rendition of the graphic...It has much less resolution:



It's the yellow/orange curve I measured. I can describe my methodology to anyone who is interested. You can trust the numbers up to about two significant digits, but the table has three.... So I'm not perfectly scientific. So sue me!

Warp Power Table:

Code:
___________________________________________________
|         | watt     | speed| Power    |  M/AM    |
|         | \coch    | *c   | watts    |   g/s    |
|=========|==========|======|==========|==========|
|1wf hump |    14 e9 | 1c   |  14   e9 | 166   e-6|
|1.0wf    |   220 e6 | 1c   | 220   e6 |   2.45e-6|
|1.1wf    |   240 e6 | 1.37 | 330   e6 |   3.67e-6|
|1.2wf    |   290 e6 | 1.84 | 532   e6 |   5.93e-6|
|1.3wf    |   350 e6 | 2.4  | 839   e6 |   9.33e-6|
|1.4wf    |   460 e6 | 3.07 |   1.41e9 |  15.7 e-6|
|1.5wf    |   700 e6 | 3.86 |   2.7 e9 |  30   e-6|
|1.6wf    |    1.7e9 | 4.79 |   8.14e9 |  90.6 e-6|
|1.7wf    |    6.2e9 | 5.86 |  36.3 e9 | 404   e-6|
|1.8wf    |   24  e9 | 7.09 | 170   e9 |   1.89e-3|
|1.9wf    |   96  e9 | 8.5  | 816   e9 |   9.08e-3|
|=========|==========|======|==========|==========|
|2wf hump |  200  e9 | 10   |   2   e12|  22.25e-3|
|2.0wf    |    2.2e9 | 10   |  22   e9 | 145   e-6|
|2.1wf    |    2.5e9 | 11.9 |  29.75e9 | 331   e-6|
|2.2wf    |    3.1e9 | 13.8 |  42.8 e9 | 476   e-6|
|2.3wf    |    3.8e9 | 16   |  60.8 e9 | 676   e-6|
|2.4wf    |    5.1e9 | 18.5 |  94.3 e9 |   1.05e-3|
|2.5wf    |    8.0e9 | 21.2 | 170   e9 |   1.89e-3|
|2.6wf    |   16  e9 | 24.2 | 387   e9 |   4.31e-3|
|2.7wf    |   47  e9 | 27.4 |   1.29e12|  14.3 e-3|
|2.8wf    |  180  e9 | 30.9 |   5.56e12|  61.9 e-3|
|2.9wf    |  520  e9 | 34.8 |  18.1 e12| 201   e-3|
|=========|==========|======|==========|==========|
|3wf hump |    1.2e12| 38.9 |  62.25e12| 693   e-3|
|3.0wf    |   19e9   | 38.9 | 739   e9 |   8.22e-3|
|3.1wf    |   21e9   | 43.4 | 911   e9 |  10.1 e-3|
|3.2wf    |   26e9   | 48.3 |   1.29e12|  14   e-3|
|3.3wf    |   32e9   | 53.5 |   1.71e12|  19   e-3|
|3.4wf    |   42e9   | 59.1 |   2.49e12|  27.7 e-3|
|3.5wf    |   63e9   | 65.1 |   4.1 e12|  45.6 e-3|
|3.6wf    |  110e9   | 71.5 |   7.87e12|  87.6 e-3|
|3.7wf    |  270e9   | 78.3 |  21.1 e12| 235   e-3|
|3.8wf    |  850e9   | 85.6 |  72.8 e12| 810   e-3|
|3.9wf    |    2.3e12| 93.4 | 215   e12|   2.39e0 |
|=========|==========|======|==========|==========|
|         | watt     | speed| Power    |  M/AM    |
|         | \coch    | *c   | watts    |   g/s    |
|=========|==========|======|==========|==========|
|4wf hump |   4.8 e12| 102  | 484   e12|   5.38e0 |
|4.0wf    | 160   e9 | 102  |  16.2 e12| 180   e-3|
|4.1wf    | 170   e9 | 110  |  18.7 e12| 208   e-3|
|4.2wf    | 220   e9 | 120  |  26.4 e12| 294   e-3|
|4.3wf    | 260   e9 | 130  |  33.8 e12| 376   e-3|
|4.4wf    | 320   e9 | 140  |  44.8 e12| 498   e-3|
|4.5wf    | 430   e9 | 150  |  64.5 e12| 718   e-3|
|4.6wf    | 670   e9 | 162  | 108   e12|   1.2 e0 |
|4.7wf    |   1.75e12| 174  | 244   e12|   2.71e0 |
|4.8wf    |   3.4 e12| 187  | 636   e12|   7.08e0 |
|4.9wf    |   9.2 e12| 200  |   1.84e15| 20.5  e0 |
|=========|==========|======|==========|==========|
|5wf hump |  18   e12| 214  | 3.85  e15|  42.8 e0 |
|5.0wf    | 740   e9 | 214  | 158   e12|   1.76e0 |
|5.1wf    | 820   e9 | 228  | 187   e12|   2.08e0 |
|5.2wf    |   1.0 e12| 244  | 244   e12|   2.71e0 |
|5.3wf    |   1.2 e12| 260  | 312   e12|   3.47e0 |
|5.4wf    |   1.5 e12| 276  | 414   e12|   4.6 e0 |
|5.5wf    |   1.9 e12| 294  | 559   e12|   6.22e0 |
|5.6wf    |   3.0 e12| 312  | 936   e12|  10.4 e0 |
|5.7wf    |   5.2 e12| 331  | 1.72  e15|  19.1 e0 |
|5.8wf    |  12   e12| 350  | 4.2   e15|  46.7 e0 |
|5.9wf    |  27   e12| 371  | 10    e15| 111   e0 |
|=========|==========|======|==========|==========|
|6wf hump |  54   e12| 392  | 21.2  e15| 236   e0 |
|6.0wf    |   3.4 e12| 392  |  1.33 e15|  14.8 e0 |
|6.1wf    |   3.7 e12| 415  |  1.53 e15|  17   e0 |
|6.2wf    |   4.5 e12| 438  |  1.97 e15|  21.9 e0 |
|6.3wf    |   5.5 e12| 462  |  2.54 e15|  28.3 e0 |
|6.4wf    |   6.4 e12| 488  |  3.12 e15|  34.7 e0 |
|6.5wf    |   8.2 e12| 512  |  4.2  e15|  46.7 e0 |
|6.6wf    |  12   e12| 539  |  6.47 e15|  72   e0 |
|6.7wf    |  20   e12| 567  | 11.3  e15| 126   e0 |
|6.8wf    |  41   e12| 596  | 24.4  e15| 271   e0 |
|6.9wf    | 100   e12| 625  | 62.5  e15| 695   e0 |
|=========|==========|======|==========|==========|
|         | watt     | speed| Power    |  M/AM    |
|         | \coch    | *c   | watts    |   g/s    |
|=========|==========|======|==========|==========|
|7wf hump | 170   e12| 656  | 111   e15|   1.23e3 |
|7.0wf    |  18   e12| 656  |  11.8 e15| 131   e0 |
|7.1wf    |  19   e12| 688  |  13.1 e15| 146   e0 |
|7.2wf    |  21   e12| 720  |  15.1 e15| 168   e0 |
|7.3wf    |  25   e12| 755  |  18.9 e15| 210   e0 |
|7.4wf    |  30   e12| 790  |  23.7 e15| 264   e0 |
|7.5wf    |  37   e12| 826  |  30.6 e15| 340   e0 |
|7.6wf    |  52   e12| 863  |  44.9 e15| 500   e0 |
|7.7wf    |  78   e12| 901  |  70.3 e15| 782   e0 |
|7.8wf    | 140   e12| 940  | 132   e15|   1.47e3 |
|7.9wf    | 270   e12| 980  | 265   e15|   2.95e3 |
|=========|==========|======|==========|==========|
|8wf hump | 520   e12| 1024 | 532   e15|   5.92e3 |
|8.0wf    | 110   e12| 1024 | 113   e15|   1.26e3 |
|8.1wf    | 120   e12| 1067 | 128   e15|   1.42e3 |
|8.2wf    | 130   e12| 1112 | 145   e15|   1.61e3 |
|8.3wf    | 150   e12| 1158 | 174   e15|   1.94e3 |
|8.4wf    | 170   e12| 1205 | 205   e15|   2.28e3 |
|8.5wf    | 210   e12| 1253 | 263   e15|   2.93e3 |
|8.6wf    | 270   e12| 1303 | 352   e15|   3.92e3 |
|8.7wf    | 360   e12| 1354 | 487   e15|   5.42e3 |
|8.8wf    | 520   e12| 1407 | 732   e15|   8.14e3 |
|8.9wf    | 830   e12| 1461 |   1.21e18|  13.5 e3 |
|=========|==========|======|==========|==========|
|9wf hump |   2.0 e15| 1516 |  3.03 e18|  33.7 e3 |
|9.0wf    | 800   e12| 1516 |  1.21 e18|  13.5 e3 |
|9.1wf    | 820   e12| 1579 |  1.3  e18|  14.5 e3 |
|9.2wf    | 870   e12| 1649 |  1.43 e18|  15.9 e3 |
|9.3wf    |   1   e15| 1701 |  1.7  e18|  18.9 e3 |
|9.4wf    |   1.3 e15| 1759 |  2.29 e18|  25.4 e3 |
|9.5wf    |   1.7 e15| 1882 |  3.2  e18|  35.6 e3 |
|9.6wf    |   2.4 e15| 1909 |  4.58 e18|  51   e3 |
|9.7wf    |   3.5 e15| 2115 |  7.4  e18|  82.3 e3 |
|9.8wf    |   6   e15| 2365 | 14.2  e18| 158   e3 |
|9.9wf    |  11   e15| 3053 | 33.6  e18| 374   e3 |
|=========|==========|======|==========|==========|
|         | watt     | speed| Power    |  M/AM    |
|         | \coch    | *c   | watts    |   g/s    |
===================================================
KEY:

**"hump" --The power peak that separates warp factors.
**"coch" --Short for "cochrane", the standard measurement for subspace stress. The scale is calibrated such that the number of cochranes felt is equal to the speed traveled in multiples of the speed of light.
**"M/AM" --The amount of mass to be converted to energy per second in order to supply the stated power requirements. 100% efficiency is assumed.
***"e" --Times ten to the power of. EG, 14e9 = 14 * 10^9 = 14,000,000,000 = 14 billion.
zDarby is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
balance of terror, romulan bird of prey

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 05:59 PM.

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