RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,118
Posts: 5,400,918
Members: 24,742
Currently online: 528
Newest member: Gakimer

TrekToday headlines

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

Trek Retro Watches
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

New DS9 eBook To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Trek Ice Cube Maker and Shot Glasses
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25


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?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old February 6 2009, 03:36 PM   #61
Jadzia
on holiday
 
Location: England
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

what about the core being internal is akin to protection of vital organs in a biological organism. The core is a general power source. Without that the ship is not only stranded but is reliant on backup power. So it is more precious than the nacelles, so needs to be in a place where it isn't going to be easily shot at.
__________________
.
Jadzia is offline  
Old February 6 2009, 03:55 PM   #62
Santaman
Rear Admiral
 
Santaman's Avatar
 
Location: A little while in the past.
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

^^ without shields no place inside the ship is safe, as for why the M/AM reactor is inside the secundary hull, kinda logical since the fuel is there as well.
__________________
"Sword is personal, brings slicing to a man, you getta that personal feedback, nuclear weapons?.. Meh, goes off big bang and you don't get any feeling.."
Santaman is offline  
Old February 7 2009, 01:07 AM   #63
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

JuanBolio wrote: View Post
Yes, you would get superheated deuterium if you had more matter than antimatter in your mix. Does that kind of plasma really convery more energy more efficiently than simple electricity?
It does if you're trying to extract power from an enormous magnetoplasmadynamic generator.

Think about this: in an MPD turbine, you simply have an electrically conductive working fluid (plasma is ideal for this) passing through the magnetic field lines of a natural magnet. As the conductive fluid crosses those lines it creates electric potential which then becomes your electrical voltage into and out of the generator. I have theorized on a number of occasions that the warp drive is probably some kind of gravito-plasmadynamic system; sort of the gravitational equivalent of an electromagnetic field.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline  
Old February 7 2009, 06:56 AM   #64
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

Jadzia wrote: View Post
what about the core being internal is akin to protection of vital organs in a biological organism. The core is a general power source. Without that the ship is not only stranded but is reliant on backup power. So it is more precious than the nacelles, so needs to be in a place where it isn't going to be easily shot at.
This leads me to wonder about the reliance on a warp core at all. Certainly placing the warp reactors in the nacelles would give you a bit of redundancy if you can transfer power between them, but more to the point, why a single massive reactor when the ship could probably function just as well with a dozen smaller reactors? After all, a modern-day aircraft carrier is powered by four nuclear reactor cores, not one incredibly huge reactor; many conventional warships have five or six gas turbine engines, sometimes in multiple engine rooms, which ironically are often the exact same engines that power fighter aircraft elsewhere in the fleet. Even the 19040s Gato-class submarine has up to four diesel engines in two engine rooms all supplying power to the motors. Why must a starship have to make due with only a single power plant as its "beating heart" when it might work even more efficiently with several smaller units? Not just for redundancy (you can jettison a problem reactor, or shut it down and run on the five good reactors until the sixth is repaired) but also for ease of maintenance, since a smaller warp reactor would be much easier to replace if it is damaged or disabled.

Maybe the fan-tech gurus should look into this? A starship with more modular engine components; perhaps an engine laid out something like a V-8 with a dilithium spark plug and multiple independent reaction chambers that can be isolated or swapped out if anything goes wrong? Otherwise, I could definitely see a Constitution or Miranda-sized vessel being powered by a bank of runabout-class warp engines; maybe bring back the old chainlink fence thing from the TOS engine room and have a dozen independent reaction chambers there?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline  
Old February 7 2009, 09:45 AM   #65
JuanBolio
Admiral
 
JuanBolio's Avatar
 
Location: Florida Keys, USA
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

^ I believe Masao did some speculation/extrapolation on his Starfleet Museum page regarding the Klingons using multiple reactors in their ships, thus reflecting Klingon biological redundancy.

Why only one reactor in the shows and movies? More dramatic. Greater chance of catastrophic failure.
__________________
Never fear! JuanBolio wuz here!

This has been an official JuanBolio post. You are now stronger, smarter, and a better human being for having read it. Congratulations.
JuanBolio is offline  
Old February 7 2009, 10:00 AM   #66
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

Awww... catastrophic failure's been done to death IMnsHO. How about Totally Inconvenient Handicapping Failure? How about "Reactors one two and four are damaged, and number five is about to overheat from the strain!" failure, followed by "Please, Enterprise, please don't quit on me now!" type anxiety?

I just figure that having the engines counting down to blow like a ticking time bomb is a bit less compelling (now) than having the engines--and the crew--pushed to the breaking point trying to survive.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline  
Old February 7 2009, 05:50 PM   #67
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Maybe the fan-tech gurus should look into this? A starship with more modular engine components; perhaps an engine laid out something like a V-8 with a dilithium spark plug and multiple independent reaction chambers that can be isolated or swapped out if anything goes wrong? Otherwise, I could definitely see a Constitution or Miranda-sized vessel being powered by a bank of runabout-class warp engines; maybe bring back the old chainlink fence thing from the TOS engine room and have a dozen independent reaction chambers there?
Well, conveniently we do have the nice 'v' shape behind the TOS ship's grill. And based on dialog from 'Mudd's Women' at that time at least they needed four (di)lithium crystals to replaced burned out ones to run the ship. So I could easily see the behind-the-grill structure being some kind of V8 (or, V4) style assembly.

Of course, lithium becoming dililthium aside, 'Mudd's Women' almost directly contradicts 'Elaan of Troyius' where they seem to have one and only one central crystal, but then again in 'The Alternative Factor' they had drawers full. I'd suggest that there were indeed multiple crystals the whole time, and simply in 'Elaan of Troyius' the one burned out was a central one that simply didn't have a replacement, hence the need for Elaan's necklace. I'd also suggest that the banks from 'The Alternative Factor' were not a part of the ship's operation, but rather were a place where still 'hot' or plasma-charged crystals go to feed energy into the ship's power converters when they are rotated out of the reactors, or some crude form of an attempt at recrystalization, or perhaps a location for rotated-out crystals to go to 'cool off' so they don't crack.

So overall, given both the shape of the structure behind the grill, combined with the multiple crystal references, we could potentially have a V12 warp core, with a minimal need of four crystals (or 'cylinders') to operate the ship. Normally, the ship would carry say 24 crystal spark plugs - one operating crystal and one 'backup' which would be switched out and go in the 'charge banks' from 'AF.' Sometimes ('Mudd's Women' for example) crystals would burn out and the ship simply ran out of backup crystals and had to operate on the four. The 'power converter' unit in the engine room floor could be a later addition to do with directly tapping engine reactor power, rather than having the 'Alternative Factor' style banks, and would add one crystal to the overall number required.

Thoughts?
__________________
"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  
Old February 7 2009, 06:31 PM   #68
Plecostomus
Commodore
 
Location: Official forum sex god
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Plecostomus
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

Prehaps the room in the Alternative Factor is indeed a recrystallization/regeneration room, but the technology of the time didn't allow much in the way of regeneration. Very minimal, more of a stress-relief/annealing process than true regeneration. Grinding-mills/cutters/polishers were employed to cut away the damaged portions of the crystal, there would come a point where the crystal would be too small to be used in the engine and replacements would have to be located.

The technique in Voyage Home was remarkable because it more or less revived completely fubar'd crystals, and it was done using crude hand-tools out in the field.

This was later refined between Voyage Home and TNG, to the point where crystals seldom needed to be replaced anymore because it was possible to rejuvinate the crystal right in the core, and unless the crystal developed a severe fracture there was no need to even open the core for long periods of time.
Plecostomus is offline  
Old February 7 2009, 07:04 PM   #69
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

Plecostomus wrote: View Post
Prehaps the room in the Alternative Factor is indeed a recrystallization/regeneration room, but the technology of the time didn't allow much in the way of regeneration. Very minimal, more of a stress-relief/annealing process than true regeneration. Grinding-mills/cutters/polishers were employed to cut away the damaged portions of the crystal, there would come a point where the crystal would be too small to be used in the engine and replacements would have to be located.

The technique in Voyage Home was remarkable because it more or less revived completely fubar'd crystals, and it was done using crude hand-tools out in the field.

This was later refined between Voyage Home and TNG, to the point where crystals seldom needed to be replaced anymore because it was possible to rejuvinate the crystal right in the core, and unless the crystal developed a severe fracture there was no need to even open the core for long periods of time.
Yeah, I was thinking of 'The Voyage Home' right as I was finishing writing that and realizing that such technology might seem too much. I much prefer your idea, I think even to my own of having it be the energy siphon/converter (analogous to the later EPS taps.) I like your idea especially since 'The Alternative Factor' doesn't seem to indicate that those crystals are important to the ship's operating ability.
__________________
"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  
Old February 7 2009, 07:25 PM   #70
Plecostomus
Commodore
 
Location: Official forum sex god
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Plecostomus
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

So.

We have a V-Block arrangement behind the grill, we'll say a big-ass V-12 engine. 12 small matter-antimatter reaction assemblies each with a crystal in it. They generate the plasma and that is pumped out to the nacelles.

Later, another reaction assembly is added in the engine-room as a prototype. This is needed because changing technology (shield upgrades, new weapons, bigger computers) require more power.

Also, we have crude one-shot matter-antimatter reactors up in the nacelles as a "return home" mode if the main reactors are fubar'd.


I could see the Connie as being patchwork like this twords the end of the Five-Year Mission, as operational requirements change new and different modules are added, the engineers add and subtract equipment as field conditions warrant and as things get refined/invented out in the field.

When the ship got home, it was reset to a "zero configuration" through a massive overhaul.

..and the process repeated itself out in the field again even as a "training ship." When she came home for the last time in TSFS, the cost of resetting the design again in addition to the repairs needed outweigh any possible value, so the ship was slated to be replaced with a totally new build.
Plecostomus is offline  
Old February 7 2009, 11:06 PM   #71
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

Well they obviously did upgrade it a little since the engine room now has that dilithium crystal pedestal thing that later killed Spock. I presume that's just an upgraded version of the dilithium chamber thing in the TOS Enterprise.

Actually, I would tend to think the TOS ship DID have its main reactors in the warp nacelles; the stuff behind the grillework is for power conversion. The extra reaction chamber was probably added as an APU to boost ship's power if the warp engines were strained from propulsive purposes or if the deflectors needed more power; to a point, I would even go so far as to theorize that those modifications may have been made specifically in preparation for the theft of the cloaking device in Enterprise Incident, since in that episode we see Enterprise escaping from the Romulans at Warp 9.

TMP might have switched to a centralized power distribution system--the intermix chamber--with an APU at the bottom of the shaft providing power to the impulse engines and whatever else was needed.

The Excelsior probably was the first ship to use a "warp core" power plant, judging by the design of its nacelles IMO. I'd bet the actual warp reactor was housed in that bulge thing at the base of the nacelle pylons with a power distribution system (some kind of intermix chamber) elsewhere in the engineering hull. As for why they switched to a central power plant, no one can be totally sure, except that perhaps the machinery for transwarp drive (what eventually become the conventional warp drive of the Ambassador and Galaxy class ships) was too bulky and required the entire length of the nacelle in order to function properly.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline  
Old February 7 2009, 11:34 PM   #72
Vanyel
The Imperious Leader
 
Vanyel's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

Most likely, there is no real reason why there couldn't be a warp core in each nacelle. However, I would think that a warp core in each nacelle would give the ship two (or more, depending on the ship's number of nacelles) ship destroying bombs that are very exposed. On a few occasions (Voyager's Equinox comes to mind) a good hit to the nacelle can cause the loss of drive plasma. If a warp engine is there, such a hit could cause a breech with no time to even think of ejecting the core.

Nacelles are a prime target for enemy fire. Knock one out and you know the ship can't outrun you to safety. If a warp core is there, you knock out the nacelle and the ship goes BOOM!

And, if the core in each nacelle is not powerful enough or doesn't have the antimatter storage in it to destroy the ship, what ever antimatter is there, could cause severe damage, perhaps even irreparable damage.
__________________
Imogene, get serious! Who do you think you're talking to?! I've known you for 27 years, and all I can say is, if God was giving out sexually transmitted diseases to people as a punishment for sinning, then you would be at the free clinic all the time! And so would the rest of us!
--Julia Sugarbaker
Vanyel is offline  
Old February 7 2009, 11:41 PM   #73
kent
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

Timo wrote: View Post
And yes there are plasma injectors in each warp nacelle, suggesting the warp plasma conduits "move", probably via magnetic constrictors, to the nacelles where they are injected into the nacelles.
How does that suggest movement? It just suggests that plasma has to be initially injected.

And you'll notice that in every scene involving engineering on TNG or the TNG movies, involving the Sovereign and Galaxy class', the conduits always appear to be "pumping" the warp plasma into the nacelles or into the EPS grid.
Naah. There's peristaltic movement of lights on the vertical warp cores, something that's supposed to reflect the pumping of reactants into the annihilation reactor according to the assorted Tech Manuals. But there's no good indication that stuff would be pumped outward from the reactor on the E-D design (the conduits don't have peristaltic lights), nor that the stuff being pumped would be plasma. It could just as well be energy within immobile plasma.



Seems so.

The plasma isn't a conductive force, it's the fuel for the nacelles themselves.
How could the nacelles "consume" plasma? It's supposedly matter: does it accumulate somewhere or what? There's no known return loop for it, and no known tailpipe. As said, plasma is only vented in emergencies, not in routine operations.

The episode in which Troi sensed someone committed suicide in the nacelle control room is pretty good evidence as it shows a plasma injector literally injecting the warp nacelle with the plasma.
There is no movement of plasma evident in that scene, though. Rather, the guy jumped into a stable pillar of glowing gas.

Timo Saloniemi

The "movement" is done by pushing or helping the plasma along via magnetic fields, much in the same way antimatter containment is done. That's why magnetic contrictors are in the plasma conduits. And i wasn't saying the warp core itself "pumps" (for lack of a better word) the plasma, but if you look at the plasma conduits themselvs you can see the lights moving towards the nacelles in the show. That pillar wasn't gas, it was drive plasma. If it wasn't then calling those devices plasma injectors is a really poor choice of name. Plasma isn't a gas or a liquid, it's a category. And if I recall correctly, plasma itself has it's own gravitational flux's (The Science of Star Trek, book, read it it's really interesting.)

And there isn't "movement" per se of the plasma in the seen with Troi standing where the plasma is being injected, it's merely following the path through the nacelles, probably guided someho by a component of the nacelle or warp coils. But my point is that the super heated plasma has to get there SOMEhow...via the magnetic fields that line the plasma conduits. without those the plasma would melt through the conduits anyhow. Also, the nacelles dont CONSUME the plasma, but merely convert it into another form of energy which thus creates the subspace fields. I know plasma is only vented in emergencies or if the nacelle was hit, but that's because there is always plasma in the nacelles for the use of conversion and creation of subspace fields.
kent is offline  
Old February 7 2009, 11:43 PM   #74
kent
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

Vanyel wrote: View Post
Most likely, there is no real reason why there couldn't be a warp core in each nacelle. However, I would think that a warp core in each nacelle would give the ship two (or more, depending on the ship's number of nacelles) ship destroying bombs that are very exposed. On a few occasions (Voyager's Equinox comes to mind) a good hit to the nacelle can cause the loss of drive plasma. If a warp engine is there, such a hit could cause a breech with no time to even think of ejecting the core.

Nacelles are a prime target for enemy fire. Knock one out and you know the ship can't outrun you to safety. If a warp core is there, you knock out the nacelle and the ship goes BOOM!

And, if the core in each nacelle is not powerful enough or doesn't have the antimatter storage in it to destroy the ship, what ever antimatter is there, could cause severe damage, perhaps even irreparable damage.




That is absolutely the best argument against having the warp reactors in the nacelles. They are out there as a target. If a warp nacelle is hit, then yes it causes damage. But because the warp cores are inside the secondary hull and protected, they are harder to target. So you don't have the whole ship go boom in one single shot, and you don't put all your eggs in one basket so to speak.


And on a side note, i LOOOOOOOVE that addams family values reference. that was and is one of my favorite lines from a movie EVER. LMAO.
kent is offline  
Old February 7 2009, 11:50 PM   #75
kent
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

I always wondered about the Constitution not having a warp core. Truthfully, at that stage much of trek tech wasn't established and was pretty shaky, so I tend to fit TOS tech with 24th century tech to make sense of it.

Personally, I think that TOS was before a centralized reaction chamber, and I see it as more of a engine room in general. Probably the crystals were pumped with the ma/ama, then that energy/plasma was pumped into the tubing behind the screen where it was further modified before entering the warp nacelles. That would make sense in terms of a transition to a warp core because the warp core takes up less space and does the same job assumably.

Either that or the warp core was below Engineering. But I doubt that and prefer the above explanation.
kent is offline  
Closed Thread

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 03:46 PM.

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