RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,589
Posts: 5,424,184
Members: 24,809
Currently online: 554
Newest member: Super Scout

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12

New Wizkids Attack Wing Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Coto Drama Sold To Fox
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Braga Inks Deal
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Remastered Original Series Re-release
By: T'Bonz on Sep 11

UK Trek Ships Calendar Debuts
By: T'Bonz on Sep 10


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 August 5 2009, 07:38 PM   #31
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: 1701 warp core?

Well, the term warp-core is very misleading. It sounds like a reactor and the location where the warp-field is generated, but they are generally two different things.

In TOS, in multiple episodes the ship was stated to have three reactors.

Now there was one episode in which some kind of energy alien being was located near Reactor 3, which was obviously in the engineering hull (as the energy being was seen exiting the engineering hull)

There was another episode in which three reactors was mentioned but they were talking about the matter/anti-matter nacelles (the warp-engines).

With that said I tend to believe the more plausible location for the reactors would be the engineering hull. For a number of reasons, the term engineering-hull tends to include engineering components which would include power generation, but most importantly in the episode in which the energy alien-being was located near Reactor 3, when it did exit the ship, it was shown exiting the engineering-hull.


In TMP the ship only had one reactor. The reactor/intermix was on the bottom of the engineering hull. The swirling water-light tubes were simply power transfer conduits, one went vertical into the impulse-deflection crystal, the other went aft then split both ways, then up into the warp-engines (Oddly none went into the navigational-deflector which would need some hefty energy output).

In TNG they started calling it the warp-core, but it still was basically an engine-reactor. The ship had only one like in TMP, but in this case the reactor was not on the bottom, it had an upper section and a lower section, one side pumped anti-matter into the reactor, the other pumped matter into the reactor. There were two red PTC's split off on either side which transferred the power to the warp-engines.

Still the warp-generation stuff happened up in the nacelles. There was one episode at least where they were inside the warp-nacelles (surprisingly hollow in there eh?).


CuttingEdge100
CuttingEdge100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2009, 07:59 PM   #32
Mysterion
Rear Admiral
 
Mysterion's Avatar
 
Location: SB-31, Daran V
Re: 1701 warp core?

Mytran wrote: View Post

This sounds convoluted, but bizarrely it’s almost exactly the solution I arrived when I first drew up my own TOS deck plans back in college. My aim was to construct them relying SOLELY on the on-screen evidence, and they went together surprisingly well! I still have them somewhere if anyone’s interested in seeing scans.
Yes, please share. Always interested in seeing another take on things.
__________________
USS Galileo Galilei, NCC-8888
Prima Inter Pares
Mysterion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7 2009, 05:59 PM   #33
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: 1701 warp core?

Something to consider: the Nu-Trek Enterprise has (I spotted, but could be wrong) at least six separate reaction chambers as part of its singular "warp core." If the dilithium chamber is not part of the actual warp core on the classic design--and it very well may not be--then those twelve individual columns behind the grillwork in the engine room might each be a seperate warp reaction chamber. In that case, the thing behind the chainlink fence might actually be the "warp core" complex: a massive array of matter-antimatter reactors hooked up in parallel.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2009, 08:58 AM   #34
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: 1701 warp core?

That scene in Abrams' misbegotten movie was clearly written by hacks who haven't got even half a clue as to how these ships are supposed to work, and were spouting technobabble they aren't even close to understanding.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2009, 09:14 AM   #35
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: 1701 warp core?

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
Well, the term warp-core is very misleading. It sounds like a reactor and the location where the warp-field is generated, but they are generally two different things.

In TOS, in multiple episodes the ship was stated to have three reactors.
In these instances, it's never specified what type of reactor is being discussed. It's likely we're dealing with fusion reactors, acting as secondary power sources (with the M/AMR mainly used for the warp drive)

Now there was one episode in which some kind of energy alien being was located near Reactor 3, which was obviously in the engineering hull (as the energy being was seen exiting the engineering hull)
See above.

There was another episode in which three reactors was mentioned but they were talking about the matter/anti-matter nacelles (the warp-engines).
Okay, that one is gonna need a more specific reference, because as it is, it makes no sense at all.

With that said I tend to believe the more plausible location for the reactors would be the engineering hull. For a number of reasons, the term engineering-hull tends to include engineering components which would include power generation, but most importantly in the episode in which the energy alien-being was located near Reactor 3, when it did exit the ship, it was shown exiting the engineering-hull.
Inconclusive by itself, but compelling nonetheless.

In TMP the ship only had one reactor.


BZZZZZZZZZT!!!
Only one matter/antimatter reactor, for the purpose of providing sufficient energy to operate the warp drive. Nothing to indicate that it didn't also have multiple fusion reactors to act as backups. Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The reactor/intermix was on the bottom of the engineering hull. The swirling water-light tubes were simply power transfer conduits, one went vertical into the impulse-deflection crystal, the other went aft then split both ways, then up into the warp-engines (Oddly none went into the navigational-deflector which would need some hefty energy output).
We really have no idea how the power was routed, aside from the very obvious conduits leading up to the nacelles.

In TNG they started calling it the warp-core, but it still was basically an engine-reactor. The ship had only one like in TMP, but in this case the reactor was not on the bottom, it had an upper section and a lower section, one side pumped anti-matter into the reactor, the other pumped matter into the reactor. There were two red PTC's split off on either side which transferred the power to the warp-engines.
Basically, "warp core" is less of a mouthful than "matter/antimatter reaction chamber", although that old chestnut is also in the TNG TM.

Still the warp-generation stuff happened up in the nacelles. There was one episode at least where they were inside the warp-nacelles (surprisingly hollow in there eh?).
The only live action episodes that show the interior of a nacelle are the aforementioned TNG one, the name of which escapes me, and that one Enterprise episode, "Catwalk" I think was the name. The scene in TAS' "One of Our Planets Is Missing" is still under debate, not only for technical reasons (kinda silly for Kirk and Scotty to power one nacelle and not the other, plus the nightmarish prospect of lugging a chunk of antimatter all the way up that nacelle strut without blowing up the ship in the process ), but many of us, when first viewing that episode, didn't take it to be the interior of a nacelle at all, but the other side of that big tube assembly in Engineering.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2009, 09:48 AM   #36
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: 1701 warp core?

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
That scene in Abrams' misbegotten movie was clearly written by hacks who haven't got even half a clue as to how these ships are supposed to work, and were spouting technobabble they aren't even close to understanding.
To b fair, it's a rather simple line referring to "Ejecting the warp core."

The fault here would lie with the VFX artists, who I believe have covered their asses by going "oh, well its the antimatter pods, lol."
__________________
STAR TREK: 1965-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 9 2009, 03:09 PM   #37
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Out There...That Away
View SeerSGB's Twitter Profile
Re: 1701 warp core?

Plecostomus wrote: View Post
Tallguy wrote: View Post
I object to "warp core" in connection with TOS for two reasons. I think it's lazy - it's this way in TNG so it's always been this way! And it discounts any changes or advances in Trek tech. It's like calling the things on the wings of a B-17 "jets". Sure, it's propulsion and even a similar layout and position. But calling them jets is silly.

But really it's "keep your damn TNG out of my TOS".
I've been saying this for awhile. I assume TOS warp works on a different principle than ENT or TNG warp drive. The basics are the same but the way they achieve the "warp" is different.

Physical "warp generators" as opposed to cast coils for a start.
Perhaps the Connies were a "in between" step in warp drive evolution. Might explain why that had such a low number (12) of ships.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
"I've made many mistakes, and it's about time that I did something about that." The Doctor (Deep Breath)
| Zombie Bots From Mars! |
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 9 2009, 06:23 PM   #38
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: 1701 warp core?

Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
To b fair, it's a rather simple line referring to "Ejecting the warp core."

The fault here would lie with the VFX artists, who I believe have covered their asses by going "oh, well its the antimatter pods, lol."
Not the first time in trek that the FX didn't match the dialogue, as in the aforementioned 'Day of the Dove', for example.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 9 2009, 11:34 PM   #39
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: 1701 warp core?

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
That scene in Abrams' misbegotten movie was clearly written by hacks who haven't got even half a clue as to how these ships are supposed to work...
They seemed to have a very specific idea about how those ships worked since they made a conscious decision to use more than one reactor core. I mean, anyone who knows anything about Treknology would generally assume only a single device as a warp core; a modular design implies something a bit different is going on.

and were spouting technobabble they aren't even close to understanding.
Someone out there understands Treknobabble?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10 2009, 09:58 AM   #40
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: 1701 warp core?

Mysterion wrote: View Post
Mytran wrote: View Post

This sounds convoluted, but bizarrely it’s almost exactly the solution I arrived at...
Yes, please share. Always interested in seeing another take on things.
OK, I've retrieved and scanned the deckplans - brings back a lot of memories! Needless to say, these were made in the days before widespread internet, when using a computer to make images this size would have crashed it, pronto! Rulers, compasses and photcopiers were my tools - but enough of the nostalgia:

http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/x...f?t=1249893537

The first image shows the flow of matter, antimatter and warp plasma. The engineering layout and principles were constructed very late in the process, the primary goal (as I mentioned in my earlier post) was to see if the sets could fit into the ship, exactly as depicted on the TV series. The process was complicated by the fact that I wanted to use the corridors shown as well - this restricted most of the rooms to the inner ring of the saucer.

However, the design more or less worked, even if some layouts were less than conventional! Here is an example of what I mean:

http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/x...g?t=1249893819

The highlighted section shows where Sulu (in "The Naked Time" chased crewmen down a corridor with a sword. The deck was mentioned by Uhura a few moments later.

But back to the Uniderth's original post - about having a TMP style conduit under the saucer section's enginering room - this image I found seems to embody that idea perfectly:

http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/x...g?t=1249894585

It was created by Jonathan Burke. I hope I've followed protocol hosting another's image - please correct me if I'm wrong. Do I quote the original website or something?
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10 2009, 03:25 PM   #41
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: 1701 warp core?

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
That scene in Abrams' misbegotten movie was clearly written by hacks who haven't got even half a clue as to how these ships are supposed to work...
They seemed to have a very specific idea about how those ships worked since they made a conscious decision to use more than one reactor core. I mean, anyone who knows anything about Treknology would generally assume only a single device as a warp core; a modular design implies something a bit different is going on.
That's not the impression I got.

I got the impression that they looked at the layout of the brewery, and thought "what parts of the brewery could we CGI-eject?"

So we see a series of beer vats flying upwards. Pretty simple, and doesn't infer (to me) any further thought than that.
and were spouting technobabble they aren't even close to understanding.
Someone out there understands Treknobabble?
Why yes, there are such people... but I think most of them have nice white coats with very long sleeves...
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10 2009, 07:20 PM   #42
Alpha_Geek
Commodore
 
Alpha_Geek's Avatar
 
Location: Central VA, US
Re: 1701 warp core?

Spock: THE BEER!
Alpha_Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10 2009, 09:24 PM   #43
Plecostomus
Commodore
 
Location: Official forum sex god
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Plecostomus
Re: 1701 warp core?

Alpha_Geek wrote: View Post
Spock: THE BEER!
OMG Have you no respect for the Canon? The great and mighty Master Work laid out by Gene back in the mid 1960s? Clearly you do not. Any deviation from His Work is blasphemy most severe.

There will be no reinterpretation of his works or use of your imagination to enhance the Star Trek experience. What is seen on screen is Most Holy and not open to debate, unless Gene declares it Non Canon.

***

Yes I am kidding. SOME people (not Alpha_Geek) need to lighten up and stop taken this so seriously. I mean geeze it's a TV show about made up shit happening in pretend-land.... the ship is powered by a bunch of made up words and sillyness. We can guess, we can debate, we can come up with ideas but no one is right *or* wrong here.
Plecostomus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10 2009, 10:51 PM   #44
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: 1701 warp core?

Plecostomus wrote: View Post
Alpha_Geek wrote: View Post
Spock: THE BEER!
OMG Have you no respect for the Canon? The great and mighty Master Work laid out by Gene back in the mid 1960s? Clearly you do not. Any deviation from His Work is blasphemy most severe.

There will be no reinterpretation of his works or use of your imagination to enhance the Star Trek experience. What is seen on screen is Most Holy and not open to debate, unless Gene declares it Non Canon.

***

Yes I am kidding. SOME people (not Alpha_Geek) need to lighten up and stop taken this so seriously. I mean geeze it's a TV show about made up shit happening in pretend-land.... the ship is powered by a bunch of made up words and sillyness. We can guess, we can debate, we can come up with ideas but no one is right *or* wrong here.
YOU'RE WRONG!!!!

:klin gon:


.... ahem... sorry, melted down for just a moment there....
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 11 2009, 06:14 AM   #45
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: 1701 warp core?

YOU ARE NOT OF THE BODY!! LAWGIVERS!!!

Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
1701, constitution, core, technobabble, warp, 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 09:10 PM.

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