RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,163
Posts: 5,402,756
Members: 24,751
Currently online: 520
Newest member: kaklina

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 25 2008, 03:51 PM   #31
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: TOS Enterprise: Multiple Reactors?

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
wakachukie,

The Defiant had 12 small mini-reactors in it's tail-section?
He might be looking at the cutaway in the DS9 tech manual and mistaking the impulse engines for reactors?
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28 2008, 09:12 PM   #32
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: TOS Enterprise: Multiple Reactors?

Forbin,

Oh, never mind then.


CuttingEdge100
CuttingEdge100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29 2008, 07:24 AM   #33
WendellM
Commodore
 
WendellM's Avatar
 
Re: TOS Enterprise: Multiple Reactors?

In case it helps, TOS references to on-board reactor(s) besides "Day of the Dove":

"Catspaw":
DESALLE: Engineering, stand by to divert all power systems to the outer hull. Prepare impulse engines for generation of maximum heat directed as ordered. Maybe we can't break it, but I'll bet you credits to navy beans we can put a dent in it.

...later...

CHEKOV: It was that electrical field we set up, Mister DeSalle, that dent you wanted. It's not much, but it is a start.
DESALLE: Keep it up, Mister Chekov. Channel the entire output of reactors one, two, and three into the relay stations. Whatever it is, it's starting to weaken.

"By Any Other Name":
SPOCK: The final decision, of course, must be the captain's, but I believe we must have it ready for him. The Enterprise is propelled by matter-antimatter reactors. The barrier we must traverse is negative energy.

...later...

SPOCK: Mister Scott and I have prepared the means for the only logical alternative available to us.
KIRK: What alternative?
SPOCK: The barrier we must penetrate is composed of negative energy.
SCOTT: I have opened the control valves to the matter-antimatter nacelles. On your signal, I will flood them with positive energy.

"Elaan of Troyius":
SCOTT: Our shields will hold for a few passes, but without the matter-antimatter reactor, we've no chance.

"That Which Survives":
SCOTT: Watkins must've been murdered. I sent him in to check the matter-antimatter reactor. There are no exposed circuits there.

Last edited by WendellM; October 29 2008 at 07:40 AM. Reason: expanded "By Any Other Name" section
WendellM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29 2008, 06:49 PM   #34
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: TOS Enterprise: Multiple Reactors?

Hmmm,

I would say it would be best to have the Enterprise have 3-reactors. Avoids a single point of failure, and it's a number mentioned in the show.


CuttingEdge
CuttingEdge100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29 2008, 06:53 PM   #35
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: TOS Enterprise: Multiple Reactors?

...Although "reactors 1 to 3" would probably have been impulse reactors by "Catspaw" dialogue.

It also sounds likely that there were more than three - else why specify "1 to 3" when one could say "all"? The same logic goes for "torpedo tubes 1 to 6" in "Errand of Mercy" - the wording suggests more than six tubes.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29 2008, 09:06 PM   #36
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: TOS Enterprise: Multiple Reactors?

Dealing with questions like this is why it takes so damned long to work up deck plans for the bloody ship that contradict the least number of references.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29 2008, 11:05 PM   #37
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: TOS Enterprise: Multiple Reactors?

Captain Robert April,

Good point!


BTW: Did it ever specify how many fusion reactors were used (like to power the impulse engines and such)?
CuttingEdge100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30 2008, 05:39 PM   #38
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: TOS Enterprise: Multiple Reactors?

All of them!
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30 2008, 06:42 PM   #39
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: TOS Enterprise: Multiple Reactors?

I'm thinking having four fusion reactors to power the impulse engines sound like a good idea...

The first and second Pilots had the Enterprise with four impulse-engine nozzles, the rest of the show had two.

So, why not keep four reactors, but put two reactors to each impulse port. That way if one dies, each nozzle is still being fed by one reactor.


CuttingEdge100
CuttingEdge100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 31 2008, 12:34 AM   #40
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: TOS Enterprise: Multiple Reactors?

Timo wrote: View Post

One wonders if Starfleet didn't do something of a reverse move: in TOS (or TAS), the warp engines might have had built-in annihilation chambers, while in TNG the preferred way is to perform the annihilations in a central spot and then route the "steam" to the applications.

Timo Saloniemi
I think you're onto something there, my friend.

I like to think that in TOS there was a large 'multi-boiler' reactor in the secondary hull which was probably a lot like three Enterprise-size reactors linked together(which would be the thing behind the grill) the power of which was routed through the dilithium crystal room and pedestel seen in the 3rd season, which in turn connected to two smaller sub-reactors, one in each warp nacelle. The interconnected multiple reactors gave way to perhaps beginning with TMP or perhaps instead with the Excelsior and the Enterprise-A with the new intermix chamber setup, a shift began towards the central reaction with EPS taps, completed by the era of TNG.

__________________
"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 October 31 2008, 03:48 AM   #41
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: TOS Enterprise: Multiple Reactors?

From what I remember, the Enterprise was said to have three reactors in the engineering hull at least (The original post and at least one other post in this thread mentioned three reactors -- and in the first post, the alien entity left the ship through the engineering room suggesting all three reactors were in that room) -- probably all matter/anti-matter reactors it would appear as the energy from those reactors go to the warp-engines and probably power the whole ship (Warp engines are powered by matter/anti-matter reactions and matter/anti-matter is more efficient than fusion or fission).

It was stated at least once about matter and anti-matter being used up in the nacelles. However I'm not sure how this should be interpreted. First of all they were called matter/anti-matter nacelles, not warp-nacelles, second of all it would seem that most of the data points to reactors in the engineering-hull providing their power.

It would be interesting however if the ship had three matter/anti-matter reactors in the main hull for powering the warp-nacelles, nav-deflector, and possibly the whole ship, *and* had a back-up matter/anti-matter reaction chamber in each nacelle to provide some warp capability (say Warp 3.5 or Warp 4.5* instead of the typical Warp 6) in the event of battle-damage or 2 or more reactors failing (the warp-engines and nav-deflectors both require enormous energy... and the reactors have to power the ship too! If you lost two reactors you might be able to do everything, at least you could run the nav-deflectors, some ship systems and use the fusion reactors in the impulse deck to do anything left over). Granted you'd need to still pump matter and anti-matter up into the nacelles, but that can be managed on limited power conditions (and I suppose there's no rule that says you can't have a liquid hydrogen tank, and a bunch of anti-matter tanks up in each nacelles as a on demand reserve)


CuttingEdge100

* - Warp 4.5 is around 91 times the speed of light. That would cover you a light year every four days. However considering in Star Trek, warp factors mean whatever the writers wanted it to be Warp 3.5 sounds like a number that is reasonably low enough, yet "fast" enough by writer standards to "limp around".
CuttingEdge100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7 2008, 06:32 PM   #42
WendellM
Commodore
 
WendellM's Avatar
 
Energizer(s)

This thread may be dead(?), but I was just re-watching "The Doomsday Machine" and a line stood out (in regard to TWOK's "The main energizer's out!" from Scotty and to the whole reactor issue):

Communications officer Palmer to Spock right after the Planet Killer has knocked down the Enterprise's shields: "Sir, deck seven reports power failure in main energizers. Implementing emergency procedures."

And looking through the transcripts turns up this from Masters in "The Alternative Factor": "The energizer has shorted. Get out of here. Sound the alarm."

However, the relationship between reactor(s) and energizer(s) seems to remain unclear.
WendellM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7 2008, 06:53 PM   #43
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Energizer(s)

Probably some sort of power converter or transformer.

That, or the little pink bunny with the bass drum suddenly stopped.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 14 2008, 07:05 AM   #44
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: TOS Enterprise: Multiple Reactors?

Why would you only have one energizer if you had three reactors?
CuttingEdge100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 14 2008, 07:45 AM   #45
Mister_Atoz
Commander
 
Mister_Atoz's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: TOS Enterprise: Multiple Reactors?

i dunno, what exactly is an energizer?

edit: ignore this, the chap above me hit the Post button a little faster than I did
Mister_Atoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
technobabble, warp drive

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 03:41 AM.

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