RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,866
Posts: 5,328,877
Members: 24,556
Currently online: 563
Newest member: ndjamena

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 23 2009, 04:00 AM   #91
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Vertical Intermix Chamber and TMP Enterprise

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
The idea of the impulse engines as glorified rockets was barely plausible during TOS; by the time of TNG, it was clear that we're not dealing with simple Newtonian thrust, there's some serious tapdancing around the laws of motion going on.

The only real issue here is how to call these things "impulse engines" when there's clearly a lot more going on.

I think what we've got here is an archaic term, probably dating back to Archer's time, maybe a wee bit earlier, sticking around as a matter of convenience.

For an admittedly weak example, how many here have made reference to "tin foil", even though it's a safe bet that none of us here have ever encountered anything but aluminum foil in our lifetimes?
Some of the early distance/speed references in ENT had ships traveling at impulse power at something like 40mph, while a few slightly later ones gave velocities close to conventional orbital speed.

Just another inconsistency on the altar of slipshod writing.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2009, 04:19 PM   #92
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Vertical Intermix Chamber and TMP Enterprise

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
It's against nothing at all. No one has ever given any description how impulse engines provide reverse power. The closest thing we have is Scotty in "Relics" who mentions that reverse thrust produces a specific distribution pattern in the ion trail, which at least implies that something "different" happens to the exhaust during reverse thrust. A force field acting as a thrust reverser is the most logical explanation.
If it is the most logical answer then the canon would reflect a visual disturbance when the Ion's impact that Force Field. We do not see it in the Search for Spock, Relics or at Starbase 74, DS9 with the Defiant, or Voyager. Star Trek is very consistent (not completely consistent) with what disturbs and makes a forcefield visible. This goes against everything we've seen and it's pure speculation.


Only if the VFX people needed it to be visible, and 99% of the time, they don't. Hell, the RCS thruster plumes aren't even visible, even on shuttlecraft.
That logic is external to the story. Visual effects for the engine concept you propose is completely theoretical even conjectural. You're making up systems to fit your concept. The field propulsion concept fits all the known canon with no technological conjecture.




Impulse power is a measurement of thrust, not a measurement of glow. The engine can provide more thrust by either 1) increasing the output of its subspace field or 2) increasing the mass flow through the nozzle. Or both. Neither of which would result in a change in the "glow intensity" from the impulse engines.
I didn't say "impulse power" was a measurement of glow. I said is the Impulse Engine is a mere Rocket as you claim then increased out put would mean increased light intensity. Impulse Power is a measurement of the Power of the impulse engines, the rate of doing work, engine output.

On the other hand, the Constellation's impulse engines in TOS-R do glow slightly brighter just before the ship starts moving in "The Doomsday Machine." Same for the Enterprise-D's engines in "Booby Trap," and the Enterprise in TMP just before accelerating to warp .5. In STXI, the impulse engines glow to varrying degrees depending on how the ship is maneuvering, and actually CEASE to glow when the ship goes into warp (CGI is useful like that).
I haven't seen TOS-R. Either the original or the R is canon but I believe the original has historical prescedent. In Booby Trap the engines were completely off-line, burst, and then went off-line again. STXI is an alternate universe and what ever resemblence to the previous Trek is highly inconsistent. In TMP we don't see the Engines go from idle to full power the cut scene starts with the Enterprise almost litterally in motion and accelerating away. THere was no moment of idle velocity and no indication of idle luminous from the engines. The scene merely starts out with a sound of explosive thrust. We don't know what it looked like before.

Again, it comes down to VFX. The model starships used over the last thirty years had the impulse engines lit with incandescent bulbs whose brightness could not be varied. I get the feeling they probably WOULD have if they could have.
I don't see the relevance in even addressing the VFX reasoning to reason out impulse design and function. Their intent isn't stated or even canon, is rampant speculation.




You can see here the plasma in this fusion reactor is mostly invisible EXCEPT near the edges of the magnetic field where the plasma torus is more turbulent. Now extrapolate this into an impulse engine: the "glow" would not be in the plume, it would be concentrated against the walls of the engine bell (or magnetic nozzle as per TNG manual) and barely visible elsewhere.
Beautiful picture.
I acknolwedge the plasma would be mostly invisible in modern day reactors but correct me if I'm wrong, (I'm sure you will) but todays reactors can't even sustain continous reactions. The Plasma wouldn't have the same preasure or temperature.



This is a picture of an ion engine at full thrust. It resembles an impulse engine to me, how about you?


I see this one constantly on the internet but I considered it inadmissable the same with yours because the enviroment can't be confirmed.
I have not been able to confirm any of the test firings being in a vaccuum.

It does in STXI.
I still don't consider it applicable.
Simplly doesn't fit in alot of ways with the Prime Universe.
You may continue to consider it but it's suspect for me.

Do not confuse lens flare with an actual technical detail.
I didn't.


Actually, it's a 3D image from Orbitsim, a COMPUTER GAME, in particular one that renders most if not all engine exhaust plumes with the exact same graphic.
I'll take your word for it. The plume seemed unrealisticly long but then it's not the only picture of this sort as you know. I can't infer that any amount of concensus from these images will resovle the truth.

It's also another example that, in fiction, an engine can look like anything you want it to look like, science be damned. What counts is what the engine is envisioned as doing by its designers, and the TNG tech manual--not to mention the people who designed it--explicitly described it as a rocket-like device boosted by subspace fields.
I'm all about Design intent but I'd have to see the text myself.
Even then the manuals have to be taken with a grain of salt. I'll be the first to admit, knowing when and where the manuals become applicable is almost completely subjectional.


Exhaust plumes do not have a focus.
But the electrically accelerated and constricted ION or Plasma from engines on Trek's size and power should.


Mostly, yes. But we know from ENT that warp fields can sometimes create some turbulent tidal forces and ships without IDF fields often experience some vibration and instability during acceleration and some warp maneuvers.
Hmm. Good point.


Then I have no idea what you think a warp field does, and I can only repeat that velocity and mass are two completely different things.
Obviously.
But that's not what I was determining.


Because you can't make substances out of energy,
From Ask a Astrophysicist:
It happens all the time. Particle accelerators convert energy into subatomic particles, for example by colliding electrons and positrons. Some of the kinetic energy in the collision goes into creating new particles.


It's not possible, however, to collect these newly created particles and assemble them into atoms, molecules and bigger (less microscopic) structures that we associate with 'matter' in our daily life. This is partly because in a technical sense, you cannot just create matter out of energy: there are various 'conservation laws' of electric charges, the number of leptons (electron-like particles) etc., which means that you can only create matter / anti-matter pairs out of energy. Anti-matter, however, has the unfortunate tendency to combine with matter and turn itself back into energy. Even though physicists have managed to safely trap a small amount of anti-matter using magnetic fields, this is not easy to do.

Also, Einstein's equation, Energy = Mass x the square of the velocity of light, tells you that it takes a huge amount of energy to create matter in this way. The big accelerator at Fermilab can be a significant drain on the electricity grid in and around the city of Chicago, and it has produced very little matter.

So you can make matter out of energy it's just highly impractical.


Neither do warp cores. Although in the Tekiverse both fusion and matter/antimatter power plants have been known to operate with intermix chambers.
We've never seen an intermix on an impulse engine that didn't include a matter/antimatter power system.

Because the ship was designed to go to warp. I don't think Zephram Cochrane designed the Phoenix's engine to roast marshmallows.
And if the experiment didn't work it wouldn't be a "warp core." It's an impropper description, alot of assumption. Operable Devices like this are named for what they do not for what they will do. If the power plant worked then it's it's a reactor or power plant not a warp core.

Why not? When they first flew the Columbia, NASA got their first real test of the "thermal protection system," or "heat shield." Why would they name it a "thermal protection system" if it had never protected Columbia from the heat of reentry before?
Because it worked under testing conditions.
This was a first flight. It betrays a confidence in the final result that is unrealistic. How could he test this device iin the atmostphere of a planet to know if it was even going to work, not to mention he's not just naming a unit but an entire system a psuedonym for something that's never been done. But to be called a system it has to work first.

Well, duh: that's what it was DESIGNED for, what the hell else would they have named it?

Same with warp core. It's the engine core designed to power the warp drive; if that's what it was designed to do, why would he name it anything different?
Reactor.
For what it is.
For what it's done.
Not for what it hasn't done.
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2009, 04:19 AM   #93
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Vertical Intermix Chamber and TMP Enterprise

Saquist wrote: View Post
newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
It's against nothing at all. No one has ever given any description how impulse engines provide reverse power. The closest thing we have is Scotty in "Relics" who mentions that reverse thrust produces a specific distribution pattern in the ion trail, which at least implies that something "different" happens to the exhaust during reverse thrust. A force field acting as a thrust reverser is the most logical explanation.
If it is the most logical answer then the canon would reflect a visual disturbance when the Ion's impact that Force Field.
"the canon" would reflect this? Saquist, "the canon" is not about logic. The canon is about what was shown on screen. Much of what is contained in canon is completely illogical. Reconciling logic with canon is a hobby of trek fans, which is one of the reasons this forum was created in the first place.

Furthermore: there's no reason to assume anything has to be visible to be active. I'll remind you that TOS featured no less than five separate uses of tractor beams without any of those beams ever being visible.

Star Trek is very consistent (not completely consistent) with what disturbs and makes a forcefield visible.
HAH! How about DS9 "Way of the Warrior" or "Sacrifice of Angels" where we see ships being hit by barrages of heavy weapons with no visible indication of any shields being active?

Only if the VFX people needed it to be visible, and 99% of the time, they don't. Hell, the RCS thruster plumes aren't even visible, even on shuttlecraft.
That logic is external to the story.
Quite. Which is exactly why the VFX teams don't bother to include them. It doesn't add anything to the story that simply showing the ship change directions or slow down doesn't accomplish more cheaply.

I didn't say "impulse power" was a measurement of glow. I said is the Impulse Engine is a mere Rocket as you claim then increased out put would mean increased light intensity.
No it would not, because "light intensity" is not what thrusters produce. Thrusters produce THRUST, which correlates with "light intensity" only through a linear relationship between thrust and temperature. If that relationship doesn't exist (as in, for example, a jet engine that isn't using an afterburner) then light intensity doesn't change, only mass flow and/or acceleration of propellant changes.

I haven't seen TOS-R. Either the original or the R is canon but I believe the original has historical prescedent.
It doesn't, because the original is FICTION and therefore non-historical. As for canonicity... well, since TOS-R has been shown on screen, then TOS-R is canon.

STXI is an alternate universe and what ever resemblence to the previous Trek is highly inconsistent.
So?

The scene merely starts out with a sound of explosive thrust. We don't know what it looked like before.
Irrelevant, since "the sound of explosive thrust" and the sudden appearance of a glow in the impulse engine were INTENDED to represent the impulse engine firing for the first time. This is what I tried to tell you earlier: when something happens to the impulse engines that MATTERS, the VFX guys represent it visually. 99% of the time, it doesn't matter, so they don't waste any time going into that kind of detail. Which is pretty much the same reason we never saw what the inside of a warp nacelle looked like until it became necessary to show it for some plot device reason in Season Seven.

I don't see the relevance in even addressing the VFX reasoning to reason out impulse design and function. Their intent isn't stated or even canon, is rampant speculation.
Hate to break this to you, but the overwhelming of what we know about Star Trek isn't canon. Strictly speaking, even the tech manual isn't canon. Star Trek is about characters and situations, not technology and science, and the technology/science it DOES include is inconsistent enough to require nerds like us to explain it away. Fortunately the nerds behind the science already did alot of the work with the Tech Manual, which is as close to canon as you're going to get for an explanation of how these things work.

Like it or not, the tech manual describes the impulse engines as working in a certain way. The details it doesn't include to answer our questions will have to be supplied by our speculation, because they are not and will never be supplied by Teh Canon.

I acknolwedge the plasma would be mostly invisible in modern day reactors but correct me if I'm wrong, (I'm sure you will) but todays reactors can't even sustain continous reactions. The Plasma wouldn't have the same preasure or temperature.
It would have the same pressure and temperature; the difference would be a matter of efficiency, the amount of energy required to sustain the reaction vs the amount of energy it produces. Colder and less luminous plasma would probably be more ideal since it requires less energy to contain it in a magnetic field.

I'm all about Design intent but I'd have to see the text myself.
Amazon for you.

Even then the manuals have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Why? They were written by the guys who DESIGNED the thing. The only grain of salt worth taking is any instance where the tech manual directly contradicts the show.

But the electrically accelerated and constricted ION or Plasma from engines on Trek's size and power should.
What does size and power have to do with it? Exhaust plumes AS A RULE do not have a focus because they are plumes of gas, not beams of light. They diffuse from a point of origin in a particular pattern based on the nature of the engine; they do not have a "focal point" as such.

Perhaps you are referring to the "nozzle aperture" or something similar?

From Ask a Astrophysicist:
[B]It happens all the time. Particle accelerators convert energy into subatomic particles,
Key word here is "convert." When energy is converted into a massive particle, it is no longer energy, it is matter. Again: you can use energy to GET matter, and you can use matter to GET energy, but matter and energy are not the same thing.

We've never seen an intermix on an impulse engine that didn't include a matter/antimatter power system.
Irrelevant, since we have seen intermix chambers being used without that power system being active. If the intermix chamber can function without antimatter (and we know it can) then antimatter is not a requirement.

And if the experiment didn't work it wouldn't be a "warp core."
Of course it would. It just wouldn't be a WORKING warp core. Sort of like a rocket that fails to achieve orbit; it is designed to do a certain thing, whether it accomplishes it or not.

Operable Devices like this are named for what they do not for what they will do.
Correction: they are named for what they are DESIGNED to do. It's like how the space shuttle was called "the space shuttle" long before it ever flew in space.

I repeat: systems are named for what they are DESIGNED to do. Not all of them do what they're designed to do, and not all of them do ONLY what they are designed to do. Hell, even a warp core can also be used as an emergency black hole escape device.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27 2009, 08:10 PM   #94
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Vertical Intermix Chamber and TMP Enterprise

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
"the canon" would reflect this? Saquist, "the canon" is not about logic. The canon is about what was shown on screen. Much of what is contained in canon is completely illogical. Reconciling logic with canon is a hobby of trek fans, which is one of the reasons this forum was created in the first place.
But the canon does tend to reflect design intent. Such an elaborate system if was the understanding of the impulse engine still would have been included in the VFX. This idea of yours doesn't even follow canon no matter how logical you find it.

Furthermore: there's no reason to assume anything has to be visible to be active. I'll remind you that TOS featured no less than five separate uses of tractor beams without any of those beams ever being visible.
There is every reason to assume the barrier would be visible. Out of all the example of forcefields in use the clearly majority almost (100%) is that any interaction with it produces a visual disturbances. (except on marked occasions)
Your suggestion flies in the face of everything we've seen.


HAH! How about DS9 "Way of the Warrior" or "Sacrifice of Angels" where we see ships being hit by barrages of heavy weapons with no visible indication of any shields being active?
DS9 has greater fire power overriding any shield interaction.
Dominion ships have never shown shield interaction and neither (to my recollection) have cardassian ship.

In some of the CGI battle sequences they've admited they didn't want to take the time to create the shield effect. Sad but that started a precedent for no shield interaction for perhaps some of the first time. But impulse has been around far longer from previous.


Quite. Which is exactly why the VFX teams don't bother to include them. It doesn't add anything to the story that simply showing the ship change directions or slow down doesn't accomplish more cheaply.
That wasn't my point but okay.


No it would not, because "light intensity" is not what thrusters produce. Thrusters produce THRUST, which correlates with "light intensity" only through a linear relationship between thrust and temperature. If that relationship doesn't exist (as in, for example, a jet engine that isn't using an afterburner) then light intensity doesn't change, only mass flow and/or acceleration of propellant changes.
That's an intresting example.
The real reason why jet fighters exhaust appears non-luminus is because in the day the ambient light is far greater. It can be seen in darkness. (moderate to high power)


It doesn't, because the original is FICTION and therefore non-historical. As for canonicity... well, since TOS-R has been shown on screen, then TOS-R is canon.
Fiction is irrelevant.
History is described as the continuum of events occurring in succession leading from the past to the present and even into the future. Reality is not part of the description.

The original series has historical prescedent over the TOS-R.


So?
If there is not consistent common frame of reference then there is no reason to assume they are supposed to be the same time line, just as ENT breaks the consistancy of TREK history.


Irrelevant, since "the sound of explosive thrust" and the sudden appearance of a glow in the impulse engine were INTENDED to represent the impulse engine firing for the first time. This is what I tried to tell you earlier: when something happens to the impulse engines that MATTERS, the VFX guys represent it visually. 99% of the time, it doesn't matter, so they don't waste any time going into that kind of detail. .

So at least there was a glow but your conjecture on the forcefield still isn't in anyway substantiated by the intent of any plot in Trek. It's completely unsupported.

Hate to break this to you, but the overwhelming of what we know about Star Trek isn't canon. Strictly speaking, even the tech manual isn't canon. Star Trek is about characters and situations, not technology and science, and the technology/science it DOES include is inconsistent enough to require nerds like us to explain it away. Fortunately the nerds behind the science already did alot of the work with the Tech Manual, which is as close to canon as you're going to get for an explanation of how these things work.
This is no News Flash.
Trek is what ever you want to make it.

Like it or not, the tech manual describes the impulse engines as working in a certain way. The details it doesn't include to answer our questions will have to be supplied by our speculation, because they are not and will never be supplied by Teh Canon.
I can't speak to the future but I can say that the Tech manual is a grain of salt issue. Where it matches feel free to use. Where there is an absence, substitute, but where there is contradiction, avoid.


It would have the same pressure and temperature; the difference would be a matter of efficiency, the amount of energy required to sustain the reaction vs the amount of energy it produces. Colder and less luminous plasma would probably be more ideal since it requires less energy to contain it in a magnetic field.
Power is always an issue right now.
If fusion is going to work it must not be an issue.


Amazon for you.
Indeed.


Why? They were written by the guys who DESIGNED the thing. The only grain of salt worth taking is any instance where the tech manual directly contradicts the show.
Exactly.


What does size and power have to do with it? Exhaust plumes AS A RULE do not have a focus because they are plumes of gas, not beams of light. They diffuse from a point of origin in a particular pattern based on the nature of the engine; they do not have a "focal point" as such.

Perhaps you are referring to the "nozzle aperture" or something similar?
Perhaps so. I'll reread the ION thruster pages.


Key word here is "convert." When energy is converted into a massive particle, it is no longer energy, it is matter. Again: you can use energy to GET matter, and you can use matter to GET energy, but matter and energy are not the same thing.
The problem is if what you say is true then the difference is never explained infact it's ignore. Mass and Energy are frequently treated equally. It's even taught that they are interchangable and linked.


Irrelevant, since we have seen intermix chambers being used without that power system being active. If the intermix chamber can function without antimatter (and we know it can) then antimatter is not a requirement.
Negative:
Nothing suggest the power system was shutdown.

Of course it would. It just wouldn't be a WORKING warp core. Sort of like a rocket that fails to achieve orbit; it is designed to do a certain thing, whether it accomplishes it or not.
That's not same.
A rocket doesn't have to reach orbit to be called a rocket.

Operable Devices like this are named for what they do not for what they will do
Correction: they are named for what they are DESIGNED to do. It's like how the space shuttle was called "the space shuttle" long before it ever flew in space..
I repeat: systems are named for what they are DESIGNED to do. Not all of them do what they're designed to do, and not all of them do ONLY what they are designed to do. .
You got me on that example.
You're right.

Last edited by Saquist; July 27 2009 at 08:21 PM.
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27 2009, 09:21 PM   #95
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Vertical Intermix Chamber and TMP Enterprise

Saquist wrote: View Post
The real reason why jet fighters exhaust appears non-luminus is because in the day the ambient light is far greater. It can be seen in darkness. (moderate to high power)
That's not really true at all.

What you're looking at there is a thing called "incandescence." When a material is at a certain temperature, it emits photons, basically. That includes the exhaust of a jet.

The thrust is based upon the mass being ejected, and the kinetic energy behind that ejection. In the case of the jet turbine, you tend to have high-temperature ejecta, which is incandescent as a result.

HOWEVER...

Consider any more modern, "stealthy" jet-turbine-driven aircraft. You will almost never see the incandescence of the exhaust on those aircraft, because that incandescence is a tactical liability. So they actually duct the exhaust to allow it to cool to just below incandescence prior to release. This has a very slightly impact on total thrust (due to aerodynamic losses in that ducted region) but dramatically improves survivability.

In the case, for instance, of the F-22, the "ducting" also has a "vectoring" aspect to it, making the aircraft both less detectable and more maneuverable.

The only time you can see ANY exhaust incandescence on a Raptor is when it's on full afterburners.
Fiction is irrelevant.
History is described as the continuum of events occurring in succession leading from the past to the present and even into the future. Reality is not part of the description.

The original series has historical prescedent over the TOS-R.
This is an interesting point, and i tend to agree. If there is a CONFLICT of any real substance between TOS and TOS-R, I choose to accept TOS as the "touchstone." Fortunately, most of the "added" materials in TOS-R don't overtly contradict anything from TOS.

In the case of "glowing impulse engines"... since they only glow when active, I actually prefer this. I don't care for the fact that, like so much of other "trek" tech, it tends to "glow in primary colors," however... I'd be much happier if it were more of a "real hydrogen incandescence" effect.

Look about 1/2-way down this page to see the colors which should ALL be present for "hydrogen incandescence." The level of color should shift according to the level of heat, from one end of the range to the other... between red, to blue, to violet (in varying proportions).

http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html
The problem is if what you say is true then the difference is never explained infact it's ignore. Mass and Energy are frequently treated equally. It's even taught that they are interchangable and linked.
Well, if someone's teaching it that way, they're doing their students a tremendous disservice.

That's like saying that "wood" is interchangeable with "heat." Or that "kinetic energy" is the same as "potential energy."

There is a massive difference between saying "there is a mathematical relationship between two things" and saying "these two things are the same."

Matter and energy are NOT "the same." However, there is a clear, well-defined and almost universally accepted mathematical relationship between the two. Doesn't change the fact that they're not the same - just that they've got a relationship.
I repeat: systems are named for what they are DESIGNED to do. Not all of them do what they're designed to do, and not all of them do ONLY what they are designed to do. .
You got me on that example. You're right.
Well, it's proper design practice to do that - to name systems based upon their intended functionality. If we lived on Vulcan, that's probably how things would work. Here on illogical little Earth, though, we have Dilbert-style bosses who confuse the issue wayyyy too frequently.

Still... it's PROPER PRACTICE to name systems and devices based upon function. Just not "universally done."
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 28 2009, 01:12 PM   #96
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Vertical Intermix Chamber and TMP Enterprise

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
Saquist wrote: View Post
The real reason why jet fighters exhaust appears non-luminus is because in the day the ambient light is far greater. It can be seen in darkness. (moderate to high power)
That's not really true at all.


http://navysite.de/planes/f14back.jpg



I'm not talking about designing the luminous out of the engine, Cary, Brown. You tell me though are both afterburner and one is merely at full?
I've seen engines tested there is a glow even if it isn't substantial. What is it in this case.



This is an interesting point, and i tend to agree. If there is a CONFLICT of any real substance between TOS and TOS-R, I choose to accept TOS as the "touchstone." Fortunately, most of the "added" materials in TOS-R don't overtly contradict anything from TOS.

In the case of "glowing impulse engines"... since they only glow when active, I actually prefer this. I don't care for the fact that, like so much of other "trek" tech, it tends to "glow in primary colors," however... I'd be much happier if it were more of a "real hydrogen incandescence" effect.
I have noticed the same tendency in TNG designs. It's actualy an assignment I suspect. The Federation is given a red white and blue aura, the Romulans are given a Green arua as well as the Borg, Dominion purple, Klingons Green and Red to identify them as hostile. Star Wars tendsd to do the same thing with it's blasters. Curiously the New Trillogy swapped the colors.

Look about 1/2-way down this page to see the colors which should ALL be present for "hydrogen incandescence." The level of color should shift according to the level of heat, from one end of the range to the other... between red, to blue, to violet (in varying proportions).

http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html

Not only would that be correct on screen if that were what impulse was but, that would be visually appealing and dynamic.


Well, if someone's teaching it that way, they're doing their students a tremendous disservice.

There is a massive difference between saying "there is a mathematical relationship between two things" and saying "these two things are the same."
Thank you for confirming that.
I'll have to reevalute all my positions now.

Still... it's PROPER PRACTICE to name systems and devices based upon function. Just not "universally done."
It just seemed very presumptious label the system warp core which is a future discriptor and I don't mean just that they haven't gone to warp yet. I mean that I just don't believe they were calling it "warp core" back then because this is an experimental development. Warp Core is term that is very common in the future 200 years later I sense we're being patronized by the writers.

There should be differences in technology from 300 years to the future and tech only from 50 years forward. Trek shows almost no reall difference. The first hurdle should have been fussion then impulse and then warp. Progressive. Those technologies have different requirements of advancements and almost certainly one requires another.

ENT showed Trek with all the basic functions that make Trek. A Warp Core, phasers, photon torps, transporters....you know the drill by now. First Contact really does something similar. No matter how it's defended. Intermix refers to a warp drive system and it always has. The only thing that eludes to is a matter anti-matter mixture.

I just don't go for loose-ended interpretations to this. The information we know is pretty good though not thorough. To say it could mean anything doesn't resolve anything and certainly doesn't follow the highest probability.
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2009, 10:02 PM   #97
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Vertical Intermix Chamber and TMP Enterprise

Saquist wrote: View Post
newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
"the canon" would reflect this? Saquist, "the canon" is not about logic. The canon is about what was shown on screen. Much of what is contained in canon is completely illogical. Reconciling logic with canon is a hobby of trek fans, which is one of the reasons this forum was created in the first place.
But the canon does tend to reflect design intent. Such an elaborate system if was the understanding of the impulse engine still would have been included in the VFX.
Nothing HAS to be included in VFX. Structural integrity fields are invisible, so are IDF fields, so are navigational deflector fields and force beams, the exhaust plumes from RCS thrusters, hell even transporter beams are completely invisible except directly at the beaming site. Why would impulse exhaust be any different?

Anyhow, the design intent is not up for debate. It is described in detail on page 75 of the tech manual which clearly states--both in text and in diagrams--that exhaust is ejected to produce thrust. If you believe the exhaust or the reverser system for it should be visible, your quarrel is with the VFX guys, not the designers.

Furthermore: there's no reason to assume anything has to be visible to be active. I'll remind you that TOS featured no less than five separate uses of tractor beams without any of those beams ever being visible.
There is every reason to assume the barrier would be visible. Out of all the example of forcefields in use the clearly majority almost (100%) is that any interaction with it produces a visual disturbances.
Except the examples I've just named, such as navigational deflectors, IDF fields, STI fields, and every deflector shield ever used in the 23rd century. And again, there's the fact that this otherwise mundane device wouldn't need to be visible unless the VFX crews had a very specific point to make in doing so, and they don't.

DS9 has greater fire power overriding any shield interaction.
Irrelevant, since DS9 was armed with photon torpedoes and phasers, not some type of huge superweapon that blew through shields with a single shot. Conversely, DS9 was shown to SUSTAIN phaser hits from various attackers without visible shield interaction.

Again, not everything in Trek need necessarily be visible when it is active. Actually, strictly speaking, most of these things wouldn't be visible in the real world and the VFX can be interpreted as "artistic license."

Dominion ships have never shown shield interaction and neither (to my recollection) have cardassian ship.
Cardassian ships always do. Except when they don't.

That's an intresting example.
The real reason why jet fighters exhaust appears non-luminus is because in the day the ambient light is far greater. It can be seen in darkness. (moderate to high power)
And the luminosity does not change noticeably between power settings except when the aircraft goes into afterburner. This is because increasing throttle usually increases airflow velocity through the engine alot more than it increases the temperature of the engine.

History is described as the continuum of events occurring in succession leading from the past to the present and even into the future. Reality is not part of the description.
Except that fictional events are not part of "history." Reality is implicit in that description, hence the reason fictional events (the invasion of Earth by Martians in the 1930s, for example) are not considered historical.

The thing is, fictional histories can and do contradict themselves since--being fictional--there is the capacity for writers to arbitrarily change those histories whenever they feel like it. Star Trek is not immune to this.

The original series has historical prescedent over the TOS-R.
Yes. And for the exact same reason, TOS-R has historical precedent over the original series. Since both are FICTIONAL, then both are equally true.

If there is not consistent common frame of reference then there is no reason to assume they are supposed to be the same time line, just as ENT breaks the consistancy of TREK history.
They are exactly as consistent as the producers want them to be. No more, no less.

So at least there was a glow but your conjecture on the forcefield still isn't in anyway substantiated by the intent of any plot in Trek. It's completely unsupported.
The lack of a retro exhaust port makes such a thing necessary by the very nature of impulse engines. We know this, because the producers have stated openly that the E-D's impulse engines drive the ship by producing thrust. This means a method of REVERSING thrust must exist using the visible exhaust port. Since nothing directly contradicts this conjecture--other than YOUR unsupported conjecture that a thrust-reversing force field "ought to be visible"-- it remains valid.

I can't speak to the future but I can say that the Tech manual is a grain of salt issue. Where it matches feel free to use. Where there is an absence, substitute, but where there is contradiction, avoid.
There's no contradiction here. Neither the tech manual nor any dialog in TNG has ever stated "all force fields are visible when they interact with things."

The problem is if what you say is true then the difference is never explained infact it's ignore.
Yes. Often times it IS ignored. Or at least, conveniently fudged by physicists who aren't being precise enough with their language when they talk to reporters. But that's par for the course in that business; how do you think all that "miniature black hole" business got started because of the Large Hadron Collider?

It's even taught that they are interchangable and linked.
This is understood by students, but not taught. It's actually a common mistake.

Negative:
Nothing suggest the power system was shutdown.
The intermix chamber is active even while the ship is in dry dock, when its matter/antimatter reactor is most certainly NOT operational. There's also the script cues which suggest the balance of matter/antimatter hadn't been completely worked out yet, implying that the antimatter reactor was dormant at impulse power (as well it should be).

Assuming the technology is not totally different from TOS, we know that impulse engines do not require antimatter to function (as per "The Doomsday Machine") and since the intermix in TMP is designed to supply the impulse engines, this another point for the intermix chamber not requiring an antimatter reactor to operate.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 31 2009, 02:18 PM   #98
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Vertical Intermix Chamber and TMP Enterprise

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post

Nothing HAS to be included in VFX. Structural integrity fields are invisible, so are IDF fields, so are navigational deflector fields and force beams, the exhaust plumes from RCS thrusters, hell even transporter beams are completely invisible except directly at the beaming site. Why would impulse exhaust be any different?
What I expect is that if I'am going to give your claim any reasonable consideration that it follow the format that has been laid out by canon. That pattern has been that forcefields are visible when disrupted. The the greatest majority of information vastly outweighs everything else. Since your theory isn't canon nor does it follow canon it is a lesser speculation by validity of supporting or corroborating information.

Anyhow, the design intent is not up for debate. It is described in detail on page 75 of the tech manual which clearly states--both in text and in diagrams--that exhaust is ejected to produce thrust. If you believe the exhaust or the reverser system for it should be visible, your quarrel is with the VFX guys, not the designers.
The manual is not canon.
The reality is that the Design Intent in this case is likely flawed. The publication is set in 1991. Star Trek The Next Generation was concluding by this time and there was an immense amount of visual data from two series and 4 movies from which to work out reasonable hypothesis as to the working of the impulse engine.


Except the examples I've just named, such as navigational deflectors, IDF fields, STI fields, and every deflector shield ever used in the 23rd century. And again, there's the fact that this otherwise mundane device wouldn't need to be visible unless the VFX crews had a very specific point to make in doing so, and they don't.
My consideration doesn't include those mundane devices. Nor, must consideration be balanced on the fulcrum of Visual FX intent. My argument is by default your argument is by exception and external story knowledge to which I do not find enough justifiable proof to grant any sort of validity. The canon is superior.


Irrelevant, since DS9 was armed with photon torpedoes and phasers, not some type of huge superweapon that blew through shields with a single shot. Conversely, DS9 was shown to SUSTAIN phaser hits from various attackers without visible shield interaction.
DS9's weapons are the strongest weapons shown on screen to date destroying Bird of Prey targets in 1.3 secs of phaser blast and destroying Vorchas Class Attack Cruisers with a minimum of 2 torpedo strikes. The Strength of these weapons are beyond any reasonable doubt.
DS9, as I have said is not Federation technology and Cardassian shield tech from since the first vessel in TNG did not show a shield interaction.

Again, not everything in Trek need necessarily be visible when it is active. Actually, strictly speaking, most of these things wouldn't be visible in the real world and the VFX can be interpreted as "artistic license."
Irrelevant.
I have learned a great deal from you but I have not in any way implied that everything in Trek is required to be visible when active. This is hyperbole at the least and at the most a strawman error in logic.


Cardassian ships always do. Except when they don't.
Proof?


And the luminosity does not change noticeably between power settings except when the aircraft goes into afterburner. This is because increasing throttle usually increases airflow velocity through the engine alot more than it increases the temperature of the engine.
Source?


Except that fictional events are not part of "history." Reality is implicit in that description,
I need explicity not implicity.

The thing is, fictional histories can and do contradict themselves since--being fictional--there is the capacity for writers to arbitrarily change those histories whenever they feel like it. Star Trek is not immune to this.
Irrelevancy. No definable difference.
Non-Fictional history is prone to the same contradictions unfortunantly.


Yes. And for the exact same reason, TOS-R has historical precedent over the original series. Since both are FICTIONAL, then both are equally true.
The reason is precedent. Precedent is defined as, The state of preceding in importance or priority. TOS-R is the last canon series created. It has no precedent.


They are exactly as consistent as the producers want them to be. No more, no less.
Negative:
The implication here is that there is control by using the word want.
There was no control, no guidelines or any specific desire.


The lack of a retro exhaust port makes such a thing necessary by the very nature of impulse engines. We know this, because the producers have stated openly that the E-D's impulse engines drive the ship by producing thrust. This means a method of REVERSING thrust must exist using the visible exhaust port. Since nothing directly contradicts this conjecture--other than YOUR unsupported conjecture that a thrust-reversing force field "ought to be visible"-- it remains valid.
Unfortunantly the varying multitude of producers have no station in canon and thus inadmissable in validity. So it means nothing. The vast amount of canon supports that forcefields are visible when disturbed. There is no way to overturn the preponderance of data or to even to conjure one example of a "thrust reversing force field any where in canon". Your speculations are merely musings, possibilities that unfortuantly contradict the canon.


There's no contradiction here. Neither the tech manual nor any dialog in TNG has ever stated "all force fields are visible when they interact with things."

Very well.
Your Speculation says it must be a forcfield because of producers and a tech manual that was created not for design intent but actually after the fact. The Producers obviously have not given considerable consideration to physics or design. Yet you trust them anyway. Both sources fail to explicitly detail your speculative forcefield and in episodes where reverese thrust was specificly used there is a complete lack of proof.

Your sources are discredited.
The fact of canon does not support the theory in anyway cannot be glossed over. Artistic license would have been to your benefit in this case but your argument is precariously perched on the lack on information not on the preponderance of it.

But that's par for the course in that business; how do you think all that "miniature black hole" business got started because of the Large Hadron Collider?
Are you implying that this two is fallacy?


The intermix chamber is active even while the ship is in dry dock, when its matter/antimatter reactor is most certainly NOT operational. There's also the script cues which suggest the balance of matter/antimatter hadn't been completely worked out yet, implying that the antimatter reactor was dormant at impulse power (as well it should be).
"Most certainly NOT operational", has not be established by canon. It's an assumption. The script clues aren't canon either but even if they were (entertaining the notion) your tech manual and canon states there are different intermix ratios for different velocities.

Consequently nothing in this one singular example of impulse/warp combination tells us the core was off line. Implication is too imprecise normally but especially in this scenario to take as valid. We never see or here anything that confirms it.

Assuming the technology is not totally different from TOS, we know that impulse engines do not require antimatter to function (as per "The Doomsday Machine") and since the intermix in TMP is designed to supply the impulse engines, this another point for the intermix chamber not requiring an antimatter reactor to operate.
You assume that I mean the intermixes sole purpose is for matter/ antimatter flow regulation. No. It is only one two function the device serve and propperly so. After mediating the reaction obviously the reaction must be then directed or channeled and perhaps even compressed.

So the impulse engines aren't using the antimatter they're using the reaction plasma from the warp core just as the phasers were also so routed to increase power.
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 31 2009, 07:14 PM   #99
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Vertical Intermix Chamber and TMP Enterprise

Guys...

There is a clear STATEMENT OF INTENT behind this issue, by the people making the TNG-era films and TV shows. Sternbach, Okuda, etc, were directly involved with the day-to-day operations of these series and films. They created a definition of "impulse engines." Every TNG-era show was bound to follow that guideline. Some did so better than others, some played pretty fast-and-loose, but all were supposed to follow that guideline.

So, if you decide that "impulse" is inherently something totally different than THE PEOPLE MAKING THE SHOW INTENDED IT TO BE... you'd better have a completely
waterproof argument.

Otherwise, you're simply sayin "I know better than the artist does about his own art."

Now, where Treknology violates REAL science... this may be a sound thing to do. And yes, at various times and in various circumstances, Treknology was directly contradicted by real (and thus incontrovertable) physics issues.

In those cases, the challenge is to find a solution which most closely fits what's seen on-screen while still managing to fit in with known scientific principles.

That's not what you're arguing, though, it seems, Saquist. You're arguing that you, PERSONALLY, prefer it to be a "field drive."

Fine. You're welcome to thing that. But if you want anyone else to agree with you, you have to deal with the following:
1) Convince them that what they saw on-screen, and what the people who were making what was seen on-screen INTENDED, is less important than what you want them to believe.

2) Convince them that what you want them to believe makes more sense than what the "official" answer is.
Those are both real challenges. You've really failed to do either, so far, in my judgement.

The first is a BIG DEAL. You're basically saying that "the artist doesn't know his (or her) own work as well as you do." That is hard to say without coming off as simultaneously ignorant and arrogant. Yet, sometimes it's neither... since (as has been stated repeatedly) Trek (for example) is hardly 100% self-consistent, and hardly 100% accurate to "real" science (though it has a clear pretense of being so).

If it was "fantasy" and what was being presented as simply "magick" or "the Force" or whatever... there's no ground to critique it whatsoever. But since they're claiming to be "science-based," there's more room for valid criticism.

SO....

The real issue becomes #2 in this case. Is there a "more sound" scientific explanation?

Well, let me ask this... cut out every hint of "science fiction" from this argument, and simply look at REAL SCIENCE.

Is there such thing as a "field-drive?" Has anyone, EVER, built one? Is there any real science behind any concepts or theories associated with this idea?

Sure, there's plenty of "speculation," but the answer to the above is NO. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FIELD DRIVE. We have not invented one, or even made a remotely reasonable "real science" description of how such a thing MIGHT work.

It all relies on "magick" concepts... even if that magic is defined by pseudo-science terminology rather than "eye of newt and tongue of frog" and so forth.

If you want to argue REAL SCIENCE, let's do so. I explained, VERY CLEARLY AND SUCCINCTLY, why certain jet-turbine-powered aircraft have visible exhaust plumes and others do not. It seems that you failed to grasp it entirely, but that's not my problem, its yours. If you question this, I recommend you take a few courses on aircraft propulsion systems, and even work on such systems in the course of your career. I have, as have several other frequent-posters to this BBS.

"Thrust" is based entirely on kinetic energy... the mass ejected, and the velocity of said mass. Temperature isn't really a concern. If you could accelerate propellant without introducing heat, that would be a perfectly valid means of propulsion. Today's systems almost universally involve the use of heat AS A METHOD OF ACCELERATION OF THE MASS. The heat, in other words, is a means to the end, not the end itself. Heat produces expansion, which provides the thrust, in the case of a jet turbine. The heat isn't really even desirable... for many, many reasons.

The reason that exhaust is visible IN SOME CASES is because the mass being ejected is at a sufficiently high temperature that it is "incandescent." This is, particularly for military aircraft, HIGHLY UNDESIRABLE. More recent aircraft have complex schemes for minimizing the heat signature of the aircraft (making it less detectable and more survivable in combat).

You showed a picture of an F-14 "Tomcat," during a carrier takeoff. The F-14 requires FULL AFTERBURNER for such an operation. Frankly, despite the "Tom Cruise" factor from "Top Gun," the reality is that the F-14 is a PIG for maneuvering and is really not capable of close-in dogfighting at all.

The F-14 had two major advantages...
First, the variable-configuration wings allow it to have a reasonably effective "takeoff" mode, plus a low-fuel-consumption "loiter" mode. The sole function of the F-14 is to fly CAP around a carrier fleet, typically in three sets of two orbiting the carrier group centroid.

Second, the F-14 carried a pair of systems which were the core of the "fleet defense" system... a very powerful long-range target-acquisition radar, and a very effective, very long range air-to-air missile. These two systems were designed to work together, and are useless without the other.
The point is that these six F-14s, orbiting the fleet, could detect, target, and destroy any incoming craft BEFORE they came into range. Shoot-first, kill-first... always the best way to survive.

But the F-14 was never intended to be "stealthy" and was never intended to be a dogfighter. It was nothing but a launch-platform for the Pheonix missile.

So, showing it burning off damned near half of its fuel load to get off the deck of a carrier isn't really a sound argument against what I said before, and am repeating now, is it?
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 31 2009, 08:35 PM   #100
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Vertical Intermix Chamber and TMP Enterprise

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post

That's not what you're arguing, though, it seems, Saquist. You're arguing that you, PERSONALLY, prefer it to be a "field drive."
I do PERSONALLY, prefer the Field propulsion over" "Combustion Rocket."
The reasons which few actually address:

1. It removes the effects of relativistic speeds which are obviously not a factor in Star Trek at sublight.

2. It matches all the useable components of the impulse drive system mentioned in canon without adding any other system part or device.

3. Canon supports that the producers concept of the drive violates physics because the ships move about without reverseing orientation to reverse engines.

4.There is no canon to suggest that the producer's or artists view of how the impulse engine works has ever made it into canon, intent or no intent. They're perspective becomes mute if there is no indication the VFX departments were ever directed to illistrate Rocket Thrust of any kind or a retro positioned reverse thrust barrier. It becomes not just conjecture but completely unsupported conjecture regardless of the source.

5. Ultimately if one wishes to consider the ultimate source of Design Intent: Gene Roddenberry specficly directed Matt Jefferies to Remove any concept of Rockets from the design of the Enterprise among other things. (This is documented) It would be a Starship. As a result the VFX of the ship didn't included the typical (as newtype alpha has pointed out) incadencent bulbs or Battlestar Galactica style vapor trails.

Gene Roddenberry should be the last word on the issue.
That is more than substantial proof against Rocket development in Star Trek.

6. TOS is the Ultimate Precedent of how the Enterprise works externally.
There has never been any indication that the TNG producers were aiming to undermine that standard already set.

Those are both real challenges. You've really failed to do either, so far, in my judgement.
I have no control over your judgement. Nor do I wish to.
We are all capable of being flawed to no exclusion.
Your incredulity does not hamper the explicit facts detailed nor my argument. Only a thin...membrane of technicalities prevent you from accepting this information. Those technicalities have no relation to the facts presented but rather are related to the absence of proof, an absence/vaccuum that is being filled by a Rocket theory that has absolutely no credible support except by producers that have made no explicit direction in script or VFX to support their claim and thus utterly fails any effective demonstration.

My purpose here was to find valid arguments against Field Propulsion or a Valid alternative. Now, forgive me for being blunt, but a valid argument is never going to start with the statement, "It hasn't been ruled out". That's an excuse for a lack of corraborative evidence. Ultimately it has been ruled out.

The first is a BIG DEAL. You're basically saying that "the artist doesn't know his (or her) own work as well as you do." That is hard to say without coming off as simultaneously ignorant and arrogant. Yet, sometimes it's neither... since (as has been stated repeatedly) Trek (for example) is hardly 100% self-consistent, and hardly 100% accurate to "real" science (though it has a clear pretense of being so).
Seeing as I have made no such statements Cary Brown...I will consider this a Strawman strategy and move on.



The real issue becomes #2 in this case. Is there a "more sound" scientific explanation?

Well, let me ask this... cut out every hint of "science fiction" from this argument, and simply look at REAL SCIENCE.

Is there such thing as a "field-drive?" Has anyone, EVER, built one? Is there any real science behind any concepts or theories associated with this idea?

Sure, there's plenty of "speculation," but the answer to the above is NO. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FIELD DRIVE. We have not invented one, or even made a remotely reasonable "real science" description of how such a thing MIGHT work.

It all relies on "magick" concepts... even if that magic is defined by pseudo-science terminology rather than "eye of newt and tongue of frog" and so forth.
Firstly,
magic is define as any art that invokes non human, supernatural powers.
Speculation is defined as a guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence .

I accept this as your opinion only but inadmisable as an acceptable argument relying on predetermined standards of anyone elses vocabulary but a few or your own.

If you want to argue REAL SCIENCE, let's do so. I explained, VERY CLEARLY AND SUCCINCTLY, why certain jet-turbine-powered aircraft have visible exhaust plumes and others do not. It seems that you failed to grasp it entirely, but that's not my problem, its yours.
I do not accept posession of the "problem" as I have well grasped the concepts that have been explained by the proffesionals on this forum. Rest assured you need not seek a bearer of the "problem" you perceive.


"Thrust" is based entirely on kinetic energy... the mass ejected, and the velocity of said mass. Temperature isn't really a concern. If you could accelerate propellant without introducing heat, that would be a perfectly valid means of propulsion. Today's systems almost universally involve the use of heat AS A METHOD OF ACCELERATION OF THE MASS. The heat, in other words, is a means to the end, not the end itself. Heat produces expansion, which provides the thrust, in the case of a jet turbine. The heat isn't really even desirable... for many, many reasons.
Yes...
A bottle rocket for instance.

You showed a picture of an F-14 "Tomcat," during a carrier takeoff. The F-14 requires FULL AFTERBURNER for such an operation. Frankly, despite the "Tom Cruise" factor from "Top Gun," the reality is that the F-14 is a PIG for maneuvering and is really not capable of close-in dogfighting at all.

The F-14 had two major advantages...
First, the variable-configuration wings allow it to have a reasonably effective "takeoff" mode, plus a low-fuel-consumption "loiter" mode. The sole function of the F-14 is to fly CAP around a carrier fleet, typically in three sets of two orbiting the carrier group centroid.
Fascinating.
Second, the F-14 carried a pair of systems which were the core of the "fleet defense" system... a very powerful long-range target-acquisition radar, and a very effective, very long range air-to-air missile. These two systems were designed to work together, and are useless without the other.
The point is that these six F-14s, orbiting the fleet, could detect, target, and destroy any incoming craft BEFORE they came into range. Shoot-first, kill-first... always the best way to survive.
This I knew.
So, showing it burning off damned near half of its fuel load to get off the deck of a carrier isn't really a sound argument against what I said before, and am repeating now, is it?
Mr. Cary Brown...I will assume you didn't see the link or the other picture that was used in the post of mine that you refer to, did you? You're basing this comment off the one picture you identified? If so I understand your condescension even if it is misplaced. Rest assured newtype alpha answered the question quite competently.

Last edited by Saquist; July 31 2009 at 11:43 PM.
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 1 2009, 02:45 AM   #101
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Vertical Intermix Chamber and TMP Enterprise

Saquist wrote: View Post
newtype_alpha wrote: View Post

Nothing HAS to be included in VFX. Structural integrity fields are invisible, so are IDF fields, so are navigational deflector fields and force beams, the exhaust plumes from RCS thrusters, hell even transporter beams are completely invisible except directly at the beaming site. Why would impulse exhaust be any different?
What I expect is that if I'am going to give your claim any reasonable consideration that it follow the format that has been laid out by canon. That pattern has been that forcefields are visible when disrupted.
I've just given you several examples of when this is not the case, including the extremely major examples from TOS and TUC. Your explanation for this is... what?

I'll again remind you that "canon" does not have a format, nor does it lay one out. Canon is exactly as consistent as the whims of VFX artists, no more, no less.

The the greatest majority of information vastly outweighs everything else. Since your theory isn't canon nor does it follow canon it is a lesser speculation by validity of supporting or corroborating information.
There is no information corroborating your theory that forcefield interactions are "always visible." I've just shown you that most common forcefields are NOT visible at all. If you're going to claim that "canon" supports your theory (whatever that means) you need to address this point.

The manual is not canon.
It's not contradicted by anything on this point, therefore it stands.

My argument is by default
False assumption. No argument is "by default" unless it is corroborated by the evidence. Simply churning out a list of reasons why you assume an alternate explanation may be flawed doesn't provide any support for your own theory, and at this point it occurs to me that I'm not entirely sure what your theory IS. If you're claiming that impulse drive is a type of low-gear warp field, that theory DOES contradict canon and the tech manual.

You'll need to elaborate your position before we can continue.

DS9's weapons are the strongest weapons shown on screen to date
Another assumption on your part. DS9's weapons appear to be nothing more special than ordinary phasers and photon torpedoes. The VFX in the entirety of "Sacrifice of Angels" do not show any shield reactions from any ships, either Klingon or Starfleet. Just another example of the rule you are hanging on not really existing.

DS9, as I have said is not Federation technology and Cardassian shield tech from since the first vessel in TNG did not show a shield interaction.
Ah, but it DID show interactions in "Emissary" and several earlier episodes where DS9 is shown to be enclosed in a large shield bubble. As did the Cardassian cruiser in "The Wounded" when fired on by the Enterprise-D.

I have learned a great deal from you but I have not in any way implied that everything in Trek is required to be visible when active.
You have implied that for forcefields. I have demonstrated to you very clearly that you are incorrect. Your only possible fallback position is to argue that, in fact, everything SHOULD be visible and then to resort to an endless list of rationalizations whenever this turns out not to be the case.

The simpler explanation is that forcefields aren't usually visible when they interact with things. That is much easier to explain in light of the visual evidence, where the converse case would require us to make up ever more exotic theories about why certain forcefields are used in once case but not in others.

Source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterburner

Jet engine thrust is governed by the general principle of mass flow rate. Simply put, thrust depends on two things: first, the velocity of the exhaust gases; second, the mass of those gases. A jet engine can produce more thrust by either accelerating the gas to a higher velocity or by having a greater mass (quantity) of gas. In the case of a basic turbojet, focusing on the second principle produces the turbofan, which creates slower gas but more of it.
I need explicity not implicity.
You don't "need" anything, it's the definition of "history" which does not include fiction. You could say "fictional history," but the same problem applies: it is subject to the whims of its creators.

Irrelevancy. No definable difference.
Um... yes. The difference is in real history there is an objectively verifiable truth that can be discerned from the evidence. Fictional history has no such truth, since it is entirely made up and one made-up event is just as true as another made-up event, even if they both directly contradict each other.

The reason is precedent. Precedent is defined as, The state of preceding in importance or priority. TOS-R is the last canon series created. It has no precedent.
And yet, since it is still canon, precedent is irrelevant.

Negative:
The implication here is that there is control by using the word want.
There was no control, no guidelines or any specific desire.
Correct. Because the creators either didn't subject themselves to such controls, or didn't remain under them. Which is just another way of saying "the producers didn't feel like being controlled." Canon is therefore inconsistent simply because the VFX artists didn't make an effort to be consistent.

Unfortunantly the varying multitude of producers have no station in canon
Except that they're the ones who defined what canon is by putting things on screen. So, yeah, they are pretty admissible.

Your speculations are merely musings, possibilities that unfortuantly contradict the canon.
No, see, to be a contradiction YOU have to come up with a line of dialog that says "there are no force fields here." Do you have an example of this or not? Otherwise it's just my deductive analysis against your "I don't see it, so it must not be there" assumptions.

Your Speculation says it must be a forcfield because of producers and a tech manual that was created not for design intent but actually after the fact.
Half right. The tech manual was created after the fact--by the producers--as a reflection of design intent. It is essentially a work that fleshes out the details of what THEY had in mind when they came up with the idea, in some cases in more detail than they had originally included in their own notes.

The Producers obviously have not given considerable consideration to physics or design.
As you have admitted that you have not actually read the tech manual, your opinion on this matter is thoroughly irrelevant.

Are you implying that this two is fallacy?
It's a massive oversimplification based on sloppy use of a set of terms that were meant to be an analogy only.

"Most certainly NOT operational", has not be established by canon. It's an assumption.
It's an inference from the situation. The antimatter reactor is a power system for the ship's main engines and (arguably) for its sublight engines. Both of these engines were completely inactive along with the rest of the ship. Unless you're prepared to give a logical reason why the reactor would be active, we can safely assume it was not.

The script clues aren't canon either but even if they were (entertaining the notion) your tech manual and canon states there are different intermix ratios for different velocities.
Which contradicts "Coming of Age" where Wesley Crusher and Mordoc both agree--with confirmation from the test computer--that "where antimatter is concerned" the only intermix ratio is "1:1". Interesting that Wesley describes this as a "trick question," since this implies that OTHER intermix ratios are possible in different circumstances; it is extremely likely those "different circumstances" involve a use of an intermix chamber for something OTHER than a receptacle of drive plasma from the antimatter reactor.

After mediating the reaction obviously the reaction must be then directed or channeled and perhaps even compressed.
The intermix chamber does not mediate a matter/antimatter reaction. The "reactor" or "warp core" does that.

So the impulse engines aren't using the antimatter they're using the reaction plasma from the warp core
TMP Enterprise didn't have a warp core. And again, some of the diagrams you yourself posted clearly showed not one but two different fusion reactors hooked up to the intermix shaft to operate as a backup incase the antimatter plant failed. The intermix chamber doesn't seem very particular about where it gets that plasma from.

6. TOS is the Ultimate Precedent of how the Enterprise works externally.
There has never been any indication that the TNG producers were aiming to undermine that standard already set.
You proceed from an extremely false assumption. The PRODUCERS didn't consider TOS to be the ultimate precedent of anything, in fact they had already undermined most of it by the time TMP was in pre-production.

On the other hand it's curious that you consider TOS to be the ultimate precedent for canon and then at the same time assume that a blast-deflector forcefield would be visible. The MAJORITY of force fields in TOS were not visible, whether they interacted with anything at all. Even Enterprise's deflector shields were never visible even when the ship was under attack (see "The Deadly Years" and "Erand of Mercy" for examples).
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 1 2009, 03:52 AM   #102
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Vertical Intermix Chamber and TMP Enterprise

Didn't the "impulse engine is a low-yield warp drive" originate with Sternbach and Okuda?
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 1 2009, 04:11 AM   #103
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Vertical Intermix Chamber and TMP Enterprise

^ No, it was a somewhat odd interpretation pedaled by... well, SOMEONE, I have no idea who, who read the TNG manual and assumed the "Subspace driver coils" in the impulse engines were what did all the work.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 1 2009, 04:18 AM   #104
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Vertical Intermix Chamber and TMP Enterprise

Saquist wrote: View Post
I do PERSONALLY, prefer the Field propulsion over" "Combustion Rocket."
The reasons which few actually address:

1. It removes the effects of relativistic speeds which are obviously not a factor in Star Trek at sublight.
Demonstrate, then, with any form of REAL science, that a "field effect drive" would not subject you to relativistic concerns.
2. It matches all the useable components of the impulse drive system mentioned in canon without adding any other system part or device.
Really? What parts are you referring to? Give us a complete list of all parts required for your "field drive," please. And show us that no other components would be required for such a drive.
3. Canon supports that the producers concept of the drive violates physics because the ships move about without reverseing orientation to reverse engines.
Canon does no such thing. Why do you keep throwing out the word "canon" in ways that demonstrate, so clearly, that you don't fully understand its meaning?

"Canon" also does not show any toilets (of ANY kind) on the Enterprise. Therefore, by your argument, there is no need for those in the future. True, or false?
4.There is no canon to suggest that the producer's or artists view of how the impulse engine works has ever made it into canon, intent or no intent.
PLEASE stop misusing the word "canon" in this fashion. You're reminding me of a sketch "The Kids in the Hall" used to do...
They're perspective becomes mute if there is no indication the VFX departments were ever directed to illistrate Rocket Thrust of any kind or a retro positioned reverse thrust barrier. It becomes not just conjecture but completely unsupported conjecture regardless of the source.
I hate to break this to you, but THIS SHOW IS FICTION.

Therefore, EVERYTHING about it is either (1) taken from reality, or (2) made up.

(Also... spell check is your friend. Use it... trust me.)

Because the show is fiction, and because the Enterprise doesn't REALLY exist, the intention of the people who thought her up, and directed how she was portrayed on screen is INFINITELY more significant than that of a single fan who happens to disagree with them.

You can come up with your own, personal "alternative" version of the Enterprise, sure... but the original art remains the product of those who made it.
5. Ultimately if one wishes to consider the ultimate source of Design Intent: Gene Roddenberry specficly directed Matt Jefferies to Remove any concept of Rockets from the design of the Enterprise among other things. (This is documented) It would be a Starship. As a result the VFX of the ship didn't included the typical (as newtype alpha has pointed out) incadencent bulbs or Battlestar Galactica style vapor trails.
(sigh)...

It's stunning to me that you think that you're the only person here who's read "The Making of Star Trek."

You might want to go back and watch TOS, and notice that, most notably in "The Cage" that they actually USE THE WORD ROCKETS!

Is that "canon" in your opinion?

And I won't bother to explain, once again, that attempts to redefine the word "impulse" to mean something else is sort of like redefining the words "up" or "down." Just because YOUR education never taught you this particular word doesn't infer that the word can be made to mean anything you want it to.
Gene Roddenberry should be the last word on the issue.
That is more than substantial proof against Rocket development in Star Trek.
Gene Roddenberry had nearly total control over the production of "The Cage." That show, which was filmed and broadcast and thus meets every requirement to be considered "canon," uses the word "rocket."

So, if you really want to say that Roddenberry is "the last word" on the topic... I guess you have to accept that he used the word "rocket" in that show, and his word is the last word.

Don't you?
6. TOS is the Ultimate Precedent of how the Enterprise works externally. There has never been any indication that the TNG producers were aiming to undermine that standard already set.
While I agree, entirely, that TOS is the "source material" upon which everything else was built, I disagree with your interpretation of TOS. It seems that you're not as familiar with it as you think you are (see my last point). Rather, it seems that you have your personal preference, and are trying to "retcon" TOS to mean what you WANT it to mean, without any real evidence supporting your position.

There is, as you say, no evidence that the Enterprise has "thrust reversers," or "retro thrusters," or that it performs an inversion maneuver.

There is also no evidence whatsoever that the Enterprise has a "field drive" for sublight propulsion. None. Zip. Nada.

As far as TOS is concerned... we didn't need detailed technical explanations, we were just given a believable "set dressing" to support the storytelling. I prefer that, honestly, and like the idea that we can all come to our own conclusions about how it works.

You can believe that it's a "field drive," and that's fine. But if you want other people to AGREE with you, you're failing to provide a compelling argument to support that goal.

Your incredulity does not hamper the explicit facts detailed nor my argument. Only a thin...membrane of technicalities prevent you from accepting this information.
No. You have, in fact, presented no actual information, nor any facts. Most of what you've presented as "fact" is either flawed, or based upon unsupported assumptions.

Granted, my own preferred explanation... (the use of a static subspace field to reduce apparent mass and increase apparent speed-of-light, allowing the ship to accelerate much, much faster with less inertial effects for a much lower energy cost, while still using a classical Newtonian impulse-based system - and "impulse" is a central term in Newtonian physics, remember) also involves some speculation. But it's far more easily supported.

Doesn't mean I'm "right" and you're "wrong." Because it's all... 100% of it... fictional.

My perspective is, however, more easily supported, because it does not contradict any on-screen evidence whatsoever, provides explanations for a number of other issues which otherwise cause problems in "canon," and while it does require ONE additional element not mentioned explicitly in TOS, that element IS explicitly mentioned in TNG times by those who made the show.

By contrast, there is nothing, either in script, in creator intent, in on-screen evidence, or in REAL SCIENCE that explicitly supports your preferred approach, and a number of fairly significant arguments which can be made against it.
Those technicalities have no relation to the facts presented but rather are related to the absence of proof, an absence/vaccuum that is being filled by a Rocket theory that has absolutely no credible support except by producers that have made no explicit direction in script or VFX to support their claim and thus utterly fails any effective demonstration.
Let me tell you what you just said, as I see it, in translation: "What the creators intended isn't important. I want it to be this way and dammit, that's how it's going to be. Prove me wrong by showing me a single line in a single script that, by itself, disproves every element of my argument, or I win!"

If that's not the argument you're trying to make, you might want to think about why you're coming across that way.
My purpose here was to find valid arguments against Field Propulsion or a Valid alternative. Now, forgive me for being blunt, but a valid argument is never going to start with the statement, "It hasn't been ruled out". That's an excuse for a lack of corraborative evidence. Ultimately it has been ruled out.
Huh?

"Ruled out" by who? YOU?

I've given you that valid alternative. One which is far more in accordance with REAL SCIENCE (requiring only one small bit of "magic" to work... and "magic" which is in accordance with a number of real, scientific views on "curved space-time" which, while as yet unsupported by evidence, are well-considered in the scientific community and supported by a fair amount of "pure math") as opposed to your solution which is made, whole-cloth, from "magic")

I have yet to see ONE bit of math, one bit of theory, one bit of ANYTHING that supports the idea of a "field drive" in this sense. And, so far, I have not seen you present any such evidence.

About Star Trek - It's all fiction. And "field drives" are entirely fictional. So there's no compelling reason not to use "field drives" in the Trek universe. However, there is a large body of real, compelling evidence (both "by production intent" and "by real science") to conclude that the sublight propulsion system used by Federation starships are Newtonian devices.

That you choose to reject that... is your right. But that does not constitute anything but your personal rejection.
Seeing as I have made no such statements Cary Brown...I will consider this a Strawman strategy and move on.
Excuse me? You have stated, EXPLICITLY, that you reject "Production intent" on this matter. It's hardly a "straw man"
to point that out.
Firstly, magic is define as any art that invokes non human, supernatural powers. Speculation is defined as a guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence.
You should make a better effort to get correct definitions of words. Especially if you're going to use the word "defined" in your explanation.

Both definitions are incorrect, by the way, and since we are talking about FICTION, neither is truly applicable here anyway, in the sense you seem to want to use them.

"Magic"
  • the use of means believed to have supernatural power over natural forces
  • an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source
  • something that seems to cast a spell
  • the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand
In this case, the "sleight of hand" is "made up technobabble with no relationship to anything which is part of real science." And the "illusion" is that a make-believe ship is flying around in space.

If we were the "Galaxy Quest" aliens, convinced that Star Trek was real, then your argument would mean something else entirely. But I'd like to think that we all know that this is a TV show we're discussing.
I accept this as your opinion only but inadmisable as an acceptable argument relying on predetermined standards of anyone elses vocabulary but a few or your own.
Huh?

"Inadmissible?" Okayyyy.... I wasn't aware that we were involved in a court of law for this discussion.

Other than that part, the grammar of the last sentence is flawed enough that I'm not able to derive any further meaning from what you seem to be trying to convey.

What you seem to be saying is that I'm welcome to have an opinion, but that you think my opinion is "inadmissible"... then you become incomprehensible, I'm afraid.
I do not accept posession of the "problem" as I have well grasped the concepts that have been explained by the proffesionals on this forum. Rest assured you need not seek a bearer of the "problem" you perceive.
Again... a friendly reminder... spell check is a good thing.

Who do you think are the "professionals" in this forum, by the way? It would seem that you consider me not to be one of those, so I'm intrigued.

Yes, of course we're discussing fiction. None of this is a PROBLEM, except that you're making claims which, so far, you have failed to support, and have ignored contrary claims which are far better supported, with no apparent justification for your position except that you like it better.

Let's be clear... THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FIELD DRIVE. Not as far as anyone, in any scientific endeavor, has ever demonstrated. It is a fictional construct, nothing more and nothing less. It is "magic"... a sleight of hand (in verbal form) used to justify something which cannot otherwise be justified, in a storytelling venue.
Mr. Cary Brown...I will assume you didn't see the link or the other picture that was used in the post of mine that you refer to, did you? You're basing this comment off the one picture you identified? If so I understand your condescension even if it is misplaced. Rest assured newtype alpha answered the question quite competently.
No, I'm basing this upon having worked in that field, designing and studying such systems, as well as related systems, for a number of years. From, a quarter of a century ago, having spent a great deal of classroom time studying these systems and learning the equations and processes involved in these systems. From having designed, developed, and/or tested flight hardware on both military and civilian aircraft, in the years after that. From currently being the most senior mechanical engineer at my company (NOT an aerospace company, this time, though), with responsibility over activities on three continents.

And, I'll grant, from being a big Trek geek from the day I was born, the same year that Star Trek was born, and growing up with it as part of my life from my earliest memories. Fast-approaching a half-century worth of time pouring over the fictional side of this, while working on the "real" side of it for a living.

Referring to the operation of a jet engine, and explaining why your comments are incorrect, based upon this level of experience and knowledge isn't "condescension." Nor, bluntly, am I the only person on this BBS, or even in this conversation, with a grasp of the concepts. Unfortunately, you seem to not be grasping them, and I've been trying to help alleviate your apparent confusion. If you prefer not to learn, however, that is your prerogative.

Last edited by Cary L. Brown; August 1 2009 at 04:31 AM.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 1 2009, 04:24 AM   #105
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Vertical Intermix Chamber and TMP Enterprise

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
Didn't the "impulse engine is a low-yield warp drive" originate with Sternbach and Okuda?
In the TNG technical manual, they refer to the incorporation of "driver coils" to do pretty much what I've been describing (reduce the energy cost for newtonian thrust to be used to accelerate the ship to a given velocity).

They actually state, in the TNG Tech Man, that this was first incorporated into the Ambassador class, and later the Galaxy as well, since these ships were too massive for the "pure newtonian" drives to be able to move them effectively.

However, the Tech Manual (written by Sternbach and Okuda, of course) does not redefine "impulse" as you say. In fact, it's very explicit about impulse being a thrust-based system.

(The Tech Manual also limits impulse to .75c in order to avoid relativistic effects.)

Last edited by Cary L. Brown; August 1 2009 at 03:04 PM.
Cary L. Brown 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 12:54 PM.

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