As I recall, Joseph's plans had four twin impulse engines (based on the detailing of the 11 foot model in WNMHGB). But there are three open areas between them... if that was what you were talking about.
Pros and cons of Franz Joseph's plans
- Thread starter TIN_MAN
- Start date
I stand corrected - thanks for keeping me on my toes.
Maybe your thinking of 'The Best of Trek #7' and the article 'Bi-axial warp pods-The "New" Warp Drive' by Philip Davies? He speculated that the Primary hull had a small "double helix" warp coil running around the perimeter of the primary hull and tied into the impulse engines via the dilithium crystal chamber, synchronized (hence FJ's "synchrotron unit") with the main warp drives' "circumfrential" coils in the nacelles?
How's that for jargon!
Jargon-gasm alert!
But seriously - that's gotta be what I vaguely remember... man you've got some memory!
As I recall, the whole idea of the nacelles only used to generate a warp field of a certain Cochrane strength, was in my head somewhere.
I don't get why the whole thread seems to be focussed on the separation of warp/impulse and energy/field. I thought this was all nailed down. Or more precisely, just where on the ship all this stuff is dealt with and how is it dealt with...
I know that the on-screen ship and scripts were never really directly linked and nailed to the more sensible ideas and continuity about how things worked about the ship's generation and use of energy and means of propulsion and I was only a kid then, so I'm wondering now just what there is to argue about 43 years later...
Maybe that's what I'll put in my diary about joining the TrekBBS...
BrookeStephen; said:
LOL
Out of time for today, will hopefully be able to pop in tomorrow.
Another long-winded post from the icy north...
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2694976&postcount=5
Another long-winded post from the icy north...
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2694976&postcount=5
FalTorPan,
I did say a particular version of Engineering. To me this was a simple, canon, counter-argument to several somewhat overly definitive statements from different sources. As to the article, its a highly valuable reference that I've read several times before [did you want me to review the whole thing and posts my conclusions here or where you just jogging my memory?]. I do notice that neither Engineering article seems to have a photo of the curved ceiling off to the side near the entrance to the set.
My position is that there are inconsistencies with all the suggested locations for the "Engineering Set". Secondly, there are inconsistencies between the canon references that would give us clues, spoken or visual to its location. The supplemental materials that we each study also point us in very different directions. Further, whether or not the M/AM reactor is present in the Engineering Set at all times during the series, is to me at least, still an open matter of debate yet to be definitively resolved. As of course you already know, Engineering is the most chameleon-like and therefore problematical of all the standing TOS sets, changing every few episodes, sometimes radically ( http://trekplace.com/article14.html -- please, I beg you, continue the article!!!). Whether it is ever meant to be a single room or not is an open question, and one that if answered in the negative would solve a number of high-level discrepancies.
Or, to put it another way: On Monday and Tuesday I believe Main Engineering is on the impulse engine deck, on Wednesday and Thursday I believe its behind the hanger bay, on Friday and Saturday I believe its roughly in the TMP location, and on Sunday I believe that they keep using the transporter to move it to an undisclosed location.
Dave,
For the most part (seeing the thread on the mass of 1701) we agree on Canonicity. We reject the George Lucas "Golden Rule" model (whoever owns the franchise currently makes the rules) that allows retconning the past on a whim. I think we both believe that Star Trek Canonicity should be based on precedence (what came first) not novelty (who showed up today, and how much damage can they do before they move on to another show). And we both agree that for the initial episodes of Trek, when they hadn't yet gotten their sea-legs, need to be handled with special care... and the occasional grain of salt.
This isn't one of these shows. They have their sea legs. The Engineering set has been built. The writer's guide seems to indicate its probably in the primary hull (the alternative being that we never, ever, see Scotty where the main engineering controls and engineering headquarters really are). My golden rule of Trek Canonicity is overall consistency. I'm not going to say, "the diagram contradicts the script, so the script is wrong" or vice-versa. If in a given show there are contradictory answers given to a technical question I'm going to try to compare across shows, and any other supplemental materials, and try to determine what is the consistent answer. And yes, my response in this case was blunt, a definitive contradiction to a definitive statement. I was just demonstrating its not always as simple as it would seem.
As to the diagram. Its very interesting. My first question would be, "Is it made specifically for this episode, or is it a stock Jefferiesogram (to coin a phrase)?" Secondly, the diagram doesn't seem to make much sense to me (being topologically challenged), in terms of how pressure compartments would be organized, is what it is depicting a logical way that most of the ship would/could be sealed off by emergency bulkheads? The next issue does the diagram realistically depict a condition where 90% of the crew would be locked out of the core pressure areas? My final question would be if Jefferies knew the script was going to say Deck X is the last accessible one, why would he come up with this diagram showing Deck Y instead?
Overall, my own research has been heading in the direction that Jefferies has different answers to a given question at different points in time. This continuum begins before the series was filmed, occurs during its production run, and seems to last at least until Phase II. Readers of my thread will find this topic being explored in the near future. This is not an expected or welcome discovery on my part, I prefer my Trek to be highly consistent, preferably agreeing with the work of other Treknologists. I have no interest in defending any particular answer except in terms of overal consistency with The Original Series. I'll be glad to supplement any answers derived from the televised episodes with compatible alternative sources (TAS, Phase II, TMP, etc.) but I personally am interested in minimizing retconning, and not doing it backwards in time, or based solely on external sources. But that's just me.
Praetor,
I'm all for creative projects, but not in the middle of trying to figure the Canon out from raw data -- i.e., I'm not there yet. But that's just me.
Perhaps the issue is Photobucket resizing my images (which I've yet had time to correct), but I've dealt with that AFAIK, and made a reference for people to check it out. If I'm in error, please let me know, but this seems to be indicating that my work is wrong but not giving a basis for that conclusion. By "my work" I of course mean my mangling of Alan Sinclair's work and FJ. To my eyeball, it appears that FJ's version of "Impulse" Engineering fits, and that the undercut gets somewhat "happy" with the corridor outside (the scan of FJ isn't exactly easy to read, especially after correcting the orientation). Since the corridor was curved outside the Engineering set, that's equally a problem for a secondary hull arrangement, so neither has the "right" corridor. [Don't even get me started on TMP Engineering.] In any case, I have a strong hunch that there is some sort of engineering facility located in close proximity to the impulse engines. If the issue is that the Engineering Set is larger than FJ's depiction, I'm willing to accept that, but it would be nice to have a plan of the set with actual measurements or estimates from plans. If (hypothetically speaking) our sources lead us to believe that the Engineering Set is located there -- but we don't have quite enough room for it -- it would make more sense to me to slightly decrease the undercut (freeing the needed space) than it would be to move an entire two story room to another part of the set because of the undercut's interference. Others may disagree.
'I've never trusted Engineers, and I never will. I could never forgive them for the death of my Spock.'
Cary,
Which, I believe, was the basis of the depiction given in the text of the writer's guide, as handed down to us by TMoST, whatever its origin. Whether it was from MJ or not, and whether it was right or wrong.
[Imagine a Federal Express commercial clone:]
"Communications are down, you're running the ship by courier through those ladder tubes and gangways, how far away do you want the main engineering controls from the bridge? What are you going to do? WHAT are you going to do?"
And, yes, there would be backup command and engineering controls in the secondary hull, as TMoST depicts the "stardrive" section as being capable of independent operation.
FJ meant this to be part of the impulse engine, not a warp feature. Kind of like grabbing on to "Space/Matter Sink" and ending up with a Bussard Collector.
Thank you for your kind words. You are now hired as my PR man, you earn one credit a day for pitches, and 100 credits gets you a Tribble (40 some years of inflation man, sorry). Quatloos can be arranged, but the exchange rate will kill you.
33" long winded post:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2698949&postcount=7
I did say a particular version of Engineering. To me this was a simple, canon, counter-argument to several somewhat overly definitive statements from different sources. As to the article, its a highly valuable reference that I've read several times before [did you want me to review the whole thing and posts my conclusions here or where you just jogging my memory?]. I do notice that neither Engineering article seems to have a photo of the curved ceiling off to the side near the entrance to the set.
My position is that there are inconsistencies with all the suggested locations for the "Engineering Set". Secondly, there are inconsistencies between the canon references that would give us clues, spoken or visual to its location. The supplemental materials that we each study also point us in very different directions. Further, whether or not the M/AM reactor is present in the Engineering Set at all times during the series, is to me at least, still an open matter of debate yet to be definitively resolved. As of course you already know, Engineering is the most chameleon-like and therefore problematical of all the standing TOS sets, changing every few episodes, sometimes radically ( http://trekplace.com/article14.html -- please, I beg you, continue the article!!!). Whether it is ever meant to be a single room or not is an open question, and one that if answered in the negative would solve a number of high-level discrepancies.
Or, to put it another way: On Monday and Tuesday I believe Main Engineering is on the impulse engine deck, on Wednesday and Thursday I believe its behind the hanger bay, on Friday and Saturday I believe its roughly in the TMP location, and on Sunday I believe that they keep using the transporter to move it to an undisclosed location.
+++++++++
Dave,
For the most part (seeing the thread on the mass of 1701) we agree on Canonicity. We reject the George Lucas "Golden Rule" model (whoever owns the franchise currently makes the rules) that allows retconning the past on a whim. I think we both believe that Star Trek Canonicity should be based on precedence (what came first) not novelty (who showed up today, and how much damage can they do before they move on to another show). And we both agree that for the initial episodes of Trek, when they hadn't yet gotten their sea-legs, need to be handled with special care... and the occasional grain of salt.
This isn't one of these shows. They have their sea legs. The Engineering set has been built. The writer's guide seems to indicate its probably in the primary hull (the alternative being that we never, ever, see Scotty where the main engineering controls and engineering headquarters really are). My golden rule of Trek Canonicity is overall consistency. I'm not going to say, "the diagram contradicts the script, so the script is wrong" or vice-versa. If in a given show there are contradictory answers given to a technical question I'm going to try to compare across shows, and any other supplemental materials, and try to determine what is the consistent answer. And yes, my response in this case was blunt, a definitive contradiction to a definitive statement. I was just demonstrating its not always as simple as it would seem.
As to the diagram. Its very interesting. My first question would be, "Is it made specifically for this episode, or is it a stock Jefferiesogram (to coin a phrase)?" Secondly, the diagram doesn't seem to make much sense to me (being topologically challenged), in terms of how pressure compartments would be organized, is what it is depicting a logical way that most of the ship would/could be sealed off by emergency bulkheads? The next issue does the diagram realistically depict a condition where 90% of the crew would be locked out of the core pressure areas? My final question would be if Jefferies knew the script was going to say Deck X is the last accessible one, why would he come up with this diagram showing Deck Y instead?
Overall, my own research has been heading in the direction that Jefferies has different answers to a given question at different points in time. This continuum begins before the series was filmed, occurs during its production run, and seems to last at least until Phase II. Readers of my thread will find this topic being explored in the near future. This is not an expected or welcome discovery on my part, I prefer my Trek to be highly consistent, preferably agreeing with the work of other Treknologists. I have no interest in defending any particular answer except in terms of overal consistency with The Original Series. I'll be glad to supplement any answers derived from the televised episodes with compatible alternative sources (TAS, Phase II, TMP, etc.) but I personally am interested in minimizing retconning, and not doing it backwards in time, or based solely on external sources. But that's just me.
+++++++++
Praetor,
I'm all for creative projects, but not in the middle of trying to figure the Canon out from raw data -- i.e., I'm not there yet. But that's just me.
Perhaps the issue is Photobucket resizing my images (which I've yet had time to correct), but I've dealt with that AFAIK, and made a reference for people to check it out. If I'm in error, please let me know, but this seems to be indicating that my work is wrong but not giving a basis for that conclusion. By "my work" I of course mean my mangling of Alan Sinclair's work and FJ. To my eyeball, it appears that FJ's version of "Impulse" Engineering fits, and that the undercut gets somewhat "happy" with the corridor outside (the scan of FJ isn't exactly easy to read, especially after correcting the orientation). Since the corridor was curved outside the Engineering set, that's equally a problem for a secondary hull arrangement, so neither has the "right" corridor. [Don't even get me started on TMP Engineering.] In any case, I have a strong hunch that there is some sort of engineering facility located in close proximity to the impulse engines. If the issue is that the Engineering Set is larger than FJ's depiction, I'm willing to accept that, but it would be nice to have a plan of the set with actual measurements or estimates from plans. If (hypothetically speaking) our sources lead us to believe that the Engineering Set is located there -- but we don't have quite enough room for it -- it would make more sense to me to slightly decrease the undercut (freeing the needed space) than it would be to move an entire two story room to another part of the set because of the undercut's interference. Others may disagree.
'I've never trusted Engineers, and I never will. I could never forgive them for the death of my Spock.'
+++++++++
Cary,
Which, I believe, was the basis of the depiction given in the text of the writer's guide, as handed down to us by TMoST, whatever its origin. Whether it was from MJ or not, and whether it was right or wrong.
[Imagine a Federal Express commercial clone:]
"Communications are down, you're running the ship by courier through those ladder tubes and gangways, how far away do you want the main engineering controls from the bridge? What are you going to do? WHAT are you going to do?"
And, yes, there would be backup command and engineering controls in the secondary hull, as TMoST depicts the "stardrive" section as being capable of independent operation.
+++++++++
FJ meant this to be part of the impulse engine, not a warp feature. Kind of like grabbing on to "Space/Matter Sink" and ending up with a Bussard Collector.
Thank you for your kind words. You are now hired as my PR man, you earn one credit a day for pitches, and 100 credits gets you a Tribble (40 some years of inflation man, sorry). Quatloos can be arranged, but the exchange rate will kill you.
+++++++++
33" long winded post:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2698949&postcount=7
For me, I'm not as worried about canon... which can change over time or at anyone's whim for that matter. My goals have revolved around how Jefferies might have seen the ship he created. That is why I stay away from things like Joseph's plans (I have many of the original set plans to work with anyways).
The diagram's lines are from early in the show, the coloring was done specifically for the episode.
I'm hurt.
I thought you said you followed my work. 
I partitioned the whole ship into compartments more than a year ago based on Jefferies diagram (with examples here and here of the structural layout of the primary hull). Further, my designs have each compartment as a lifeboat of sorts... which is why I have made sure that no part of a compartment can be isolated from another if the emergency bulkheads are closed. Those bulkhead doors exist between every compartment, and will isolate a compartment if breached (or isolate a compartment from a neighboring compartment if that compartment is breached).
The structural integrity of the ship's compartments provides the structural strength of the ship itself. Compartment boundaries are all double walls (as each compartment needs to be able to survive on it's own).
Pressure compartments are something I've spent more time researching than any other aspect of the ship itself. And when I start drawing up my final deck plans... they will be plans of individual compartments rather than of the ship as a whole.
The outer ring is crew quarters (for about 200 people, so that blue area alone (if everyone was made to think they were off duty) would count for more than half the 390 persons isolated in that episode. So yeah, that really isn't a problem.
Saying Deck X and Deck Y has very little consequence on the Enterprise. If a character says they are on deck 5, that is like saying you are on the third level of a stadium (you could still be just about anywhere). So if you think of decks as single rooms (or small clusters of rooms) stacked on top of each other, then those deck references are that much more important.
But of course, that isn't how the Enterprise is laid out (multiple hulls and non-continuous decks).
Still, almost a year ago I took some time to check the scripts for deck references, and posted my initial results.
This is a permanent display on the environmental bridge station:
it's not just for that episode...
Here's my version of the display in a YouTube video (I know, I know, the resolution is crummy):
I'm going to watch that episode to see if this display is actually referenced... but if you look at McMaster's bridge plans at the Environmental workstation, you'll see this display.
^^ And as most everyone here knows, this was also the tubo-lift display beside the bridge exit. But I think it had more turbo shafts added to it for that version?
And one can, of course, take whatever one one wants from its use in "Day of the Dove", but as for me, I think it was just bright colorful eye candy, and as we only saw it for a split second, not meant to be scrutinized as a definitive layout of the ship, (this was before the advent of VCR's, DVD's etc.) but that's just my two Quatloos worth.
And one can, of course, take whatever one one wants from its use in "Day of the Dove", but as for me, I think it was just bright colorful eye candy, and as we only saw it for a split second, not meant to be scrutinized as a definitive layout of the ship, (this was before the advent of VCR's, DVD's etc.) but that's just my two Quatloos worth.
Last edited:
Well, if we went by that logic, none of this show was meant to be scrutinized and Star Trek is really nothing better than Lost in Space or Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (and brings up the question of why you would spend any amount of time following this tech stuff if you really believed that). And if Jefferies had reused the turbolift display in every case (as you seem to be implying), then you might have a good point... but he didn't reuse that display (which actually has quite different internal lines, and happens to display the bridge's orientation relative to the ship).^^ And as most everyone here knows, this was also the tubo-lift display beside the bridge exit. But I think it had more turbo shafts added to it for that version?
And one can, of course, take whatever one one wants from its use in "Day of the Dove", but as for me, I think it was just bright colorful eye candy, and as we only saw it for a split second, not meant to be scrutinized as a definitive layout of the ship, but that's just my two Quatloos worth.
So as this isn't the same display, and other versions of this outline were used in the show with different internal arrangements and colored areas, it seems that they wanted to differentiate them.
As for the Day of the Dove, that display was full screen and plainly readable (even in 1960's era broadcast quality and televisions), so the idea that it was a throw away graphic (which required hours to create and light properly for shooting) seem more far fetch.
But don't take my word for any of this... watch Day of the Dove and decide for yourselves if it was accidentally caught on screen.
Dave,
Thank you for answering my questions.
I do, I just don't understand it in the context of the diagram. Either there are so many emergency bulkheads that there is no need to see the layout as separate pressure containment vessels or I'm not understanding the topology of this diagram. That's why I'm asking for your insight... on what exactly this diagram is telling us and why this scheme of available compartments makes sense. To put it another way, its hard for me to picture a series of pressure compartments leading like a trail of bread crumbs down to the "secondary hull engine room" (for lack of a better term). Either there are very, very many such compartments, which I think would throw your plans out of whack, or there are very few and then to me this diagram seems less plausible.
And its very much appreciated... if not always fully understood by people such as myself.
I remember it a little different: Klingon prisoners on board, just destroyed a Klingon ship (in the Neutral Zone/Organian Treaty Zone???), UFP "Colony" destroyed... Yellow alert at least, until they got out of the area, IMHO. Not in quarters, not in rec areas, but at action stations including core areas of the ship. But maybe there's a line that proves me wrong.
Perhaps the better question is, "Is it feasible for emergency bulkheads between pressure vessels to isolate Deck 7 and above of the saucer?" Of course we might have emergency bulkheads inside pressure vessels as well. Let me rephrase that, since there are different schemes of the number of decks... Consider Deck 7 to be the lowest deck in the periphery of the saucer.
If the date on it is correct it hasn't been updated, so I've looked at it many times. As I've said before your work is very important, and much appreciated, but not really being able to "visualize" in a meaningful way makes it hard for me to grasp the implications at times. I function mainly on a verbal/auditory level when it comes to abstractions.
Thank you for answering my questions.
I'm hurt.
I do, I just don't understand it in the context of the diagram. Either there are so many emergency bulkheads that there is no need to see the layout as separate pressure containment vessels or I'm not understanding the topology of this diagram. That's why I'm asking for your insight... on what exactly this diagram is telling us and why this scheme of available compartments makes sense. To put it another way, its hard for me to picture a series of pressure compartments leading like a trail of bread crumbs down to the "secondary hull engine room" (for lack of a better term). Either there are very, very many such compartments, which I think would throw your plans out of whack, or there are very few and then to me this diagram seems less plausible.
And its very much appreciated... if not always fully understood by people such as myself.
I remember it a little different: Klingon prisoners on board, just destroyed a Klingon ship (in the Neutral Zone/Organian Treaty Zone???), UFP "Colony" destroyed... Yellow alert at least, until they got out of the area, IMHO. Not in quarters, not in rec areas, but at action stations including core areas of the ship. But maybe there's a line that proves me wrong.
Perhaps the better question is, "Is it feasible for emergency bulkheads between pressure vessels to isolate Deck 7 and above of the saucer?" Of course we might have emergency bulkheads inside pressure vessels as well. Let me rephrase that, since there are different schemes of the number of decks... Consider Deck 7 to be the lowest deck in the periphery of the saucer.
If the date on it is correct it hasn't been updated, so I've looked at it many times. As I've said before your work is very important, and much appreciated, but not really being able to "visualize" in a meaningful way makes it hard for me to grasp the implications at times. I function mainly on a verbal/auditory level when it comes to abstractions.
-Well, if we went by that logic, none of this show was meant to be scrutinized and Star Trek is really nothing better than Lost in Space or Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (and brings up the question of why you would spend any amount of time following this tech stuff if you really believed that).
-And if Jefferies had reused the turbolift display in every case (as you seem to be implying), then you might have a good point... but he didn't reuse that display (which actually has quite different internal lines, and happens to display the bridge's orientation relative to the ship).
-So as this isn't the same display, and other versions of this outline were used in the show with different internal arrangements and colored areas, it seems that they wanted to differentiate them.
-As for the Day of the Dove, that display was full screen and plainly readable (even in 1960's era broadcast quality and televisions), so the idea that it was a throw away graphic (which required hours to create and light properly for shooting) seem more far fetch.
But don't take my word for any of this... watch Day of the Dove and decide for yourselves if it was accidentally caught on screen.
-Well, it depends on the level of scrutinization we're talking about? If you really think about it, not much of what we saw was meant to be obsessed about, at least not to the extent that we do today! But I do think G.R. and M.J. gave it alot more thought than what went into the other shows you mentioned.
-I didn't mean to imply that Jefferies used the turbo lift (Jefferi-ogram?) in every case, just a variant of it. Evidently there was one, basic, all purpose Jefferiogram that he modified as needed? And thanks for posting the pic, I was hoping you (or somebody) would. BTW, does anyone have a really good pic of that T/L display, where we can see all, or most of the lines?
-Oh, they definatly wanted to differentiate the different diagrams, no doubt about that, but I don't think it logically follows, necessarily, that any of them were meant to be scrutinized 'in minutia' or intended as a definitive guide to how the ship might be put together? On the other hand, I wonder what would happen if we overlaid all these diagrams, would we arrive at a more complete idea of where Jefferies thoughts on these matters were?
-Yeah, the diagram was full screen, that's part of what bugs me, You'd think that if they really wanted to show off how much work and thought they put into this, they would have shown Kang's hand pointing to the various areas as he was discussing them (to match the reverse angle, from behind the viewer, which conveniantly keeps us from seeing what exactly he's pointing to? this could have saved us all these years of debate about where the engine room is, but alas, twas not to be. As for it taking hours to create and properly light, do you have any documentation to prove this? For all we know it might have taken all of fifteen or or twenty minutes, since this was a variation on an existing graphic and not an original from scratch, Jefferies probably had a folder of multible copies he kept to modify in short order as needed, for just such occassions? And inserting it full frame instead of into the viewer prop, was obviously the quicker and cheaper way to do it. but even if it did take hours, thats no proof that it should be taken more seriously, by that logic, Okuda wanted us to to believe that the Enterprise-D really did have a giant pet mouse just becouse he included it in his cutaway graphic that took him hours (or days ?) to make!
In the the end this is one of those things we'll just have to agree to disagree on, as none of were there when the show was produced and there is no absolute right or wrong answer.
Oh, and I never said the the diagram was accidentally cought on screen.
Last edited:
The part I've highlighted of your post, Worfin, is very much the direction I'm taking the issue of engine room location on my own version of Enterprise deck plans. (I havn't posted much or any of it, cause 1) it's on hold due to other projects and 2) it's on hold pending the development of Shaw's material, which is actually using some of the same assumptions I was, most notably, using the Hull Pressure Diagram to divide the inner hull.)
I like CRA's back to back Engine Room layout and I'm using that, as well as having curved corridors in the 2nd hull (an idea also arrived at by Ancient on his very cool 1701 plans).
But I'm taking it a step further. My goal is to approach it like perhaps the Thermians might have (from Galaxy Quest). I want to use all on-screen evidence as much as possible, and limit my use of extracurricular reading. Although, ultimately, I feel free to supplement what is on screen with other material later, but it's not the prime factor.
I'm about 1/3 of the way through watching all the episodes with a sketchbook in hand and drawing out each set as it appears on the show. Including corridors, which many feel can be overlooked. I'm even making notes as to which way the actors walk if they are stated to be going to or coming from a particular area, in hopes of this information being useful in laying out the areas relative to each other. (Of course, this would be the easiest part to ignore if there are conflicts.)
So far, the various configurations of engineering, by my incomplete analysis, would infer that there are indeed numerous similar looking engineering areas aboard. For this to be true, the "V-8" behind the grill couldn't be a literal component of the Warp engines or the Impulse engines. I've decided to identify it, for these purposes, as power converter that supplies energy to a section of the ship, and that each section would have it's own converter and engineering area. This would make it more of step-down transformer. So far, I've placed two on deck 6 or 7 (i'd have to check my notes) one port and the other Starboard (seeing as how Kirk is always ordering to cut power by portside or starboardside) and a third in the 2nd hull where everyone else seems to agree it is. For what it's worth, I place the "Alternate Factor" alternative engine room in the saucer, one deck below the two other Engine Rooms with hardware tying the three facilities together. So far, this is the arrangement that seems to me to best tie all the on-screen evidence together. But of course, it's a WIP and YMMV.
--Alex
Jefferies.
Ooops! Sorry, I'll try to better in the future! Thanks for pointing that out. I went back and edited my post accordingly, guess I'll go back to just typing M.J. or MJ from now on.
Alex,
While at a genetic level I actually dislike the idea, it does solve problems. How many rooms? I don't want to think of the whole ship filled with them. But it does explain certain production errors, such as simultaneously inhabited and uninhabited Engineering set on the Exeter [was there a similar incident with the Defiant???], the Dilithium Pedestal and Console-in-the-Middle of the room version on the Constellation. Both are the fault of using stock footage. Frankly the "Console" room (for short) is a production error. And of course the ever changing Engineering Set. So, it sticks in my craw but it solves problems.
And CRA's two ended tube room is a wonderful example of creative thinking. Curved corridors in the secondary hull... that may take some more arm twisting, though the Defiant on IAMD had something like that (I think that's been mentioned).
Not that I'm admitting its in the same class with its rear firing Photons!
Yes, I'm a use everything -- even the kitchen sink -- kind of guy and I only throw things out when I absolutely have to... and then I try to keep as much as possible. So, perhaps here I do differ somewhat from Dave, in his last discussion of Canon.
That's excellent information, and perhaps you'll share it, maybe as a contributing article to go along with the other Engineering Room articles on FalTorPan's site.
Unfortunately, I have the sneaking suspicion that its almost impossible to get all of us (or even most of us) to agree when it gets down to details. In part its the source material, in part its how we all interpret it differently, and in part its other interpretations we have heard before.
Dave & FalTorPan,
I'm actually not trying to be difficult, I do have a few valid points here. I didn't have time to whip up examples of what I think is lacking in explanation, and I won't have time to go over the show (DotD) in the next few days.
I know Dave has kindly given me permission to modify his work and post it, in this case he and TrekPlace.com have screenshots that would be very illustrative to my own arguments -- but I am a bit concerned about following BBS policy (upload to my Photobucket, link to them there) as these are your materials, equally I don't want to be stealing bandwidth by just linking to where they are being hosted now. I would like to use some images -- with permission -- and I am wondering (assuming you are interested) how you want me to work out hosting and additional credit (as Dave's aren't watermarked/logo'ed). If you're not interested, I'll work up what screenshots I can, but I'm likely to be extra busy this week and I'm not sure how much time I can put in to posting, let alone working something up. Let me know what you think.
While at a genetic level I actually dislike the idea, it does solve problems. How many rooms? I don't want to think of the whole ship filled with them. But it does explain certain production errors, such as simultaneously inhabited and uninhabited Engineering set on the Exeter [was there a similar incident with the Defiant???], the Dilithium Pedestal and Console-in-the-Middle of the room version on the Constellation. Both are the fault of using stock footage. Frankly the "Console" room (for short) is a production error. And of course the ever changing Engineering Set. So, it sticks in my craw but it solves problems.
And CRA's two ended tube room is a wonderful example of creative thinking. Curved corridors in the secondary hull... that may take some more arm twisting, though the Defiant on IAMD had something like that (I think that's been mentioned).
Not that I'm admitting its in the same class with its rear firing Photons!
Yes, I'm a use everything -- even the kitchen sink -- kind of guy and I only throw things out when I absolutely have to... and then I try to keep as much as possible. So, perhaps here I do differ somewhat from Dave, in his last discussion of Canon.
That's excellent information, and perhaps you'll share it, maybe as a contributing article to go along with the other Engineering Room articles on FalTorPan's site.
Unfortunately, I have the sneaking suspicion that its almost impossible to get all of us (or even most of us) to agree when it gets down to details. In part its the source material, in part its how we all interpret it differently, and in part its other interpretations we have heard before.
+++++++++
Dave & FalTorPan,
I'm actually not trying to be difficult, I do have a few valid points here. I didn't have time to whip up examples of what I think is lacking in explanation, and I won't have time to go over the show (DotD) in the next few days.
I know Dave has kindly given me permission to modify his work and post it, in this case he and TrekPlace.com have screenshots that would be very illustrative to my own arguments -- but I am a bit concerned about following BBS policy (upload to my Photobucket, link to them there) as these are your materials, equally I don't want to be stealing bandwidth by just linking to where they are being hosted now. I would like to use some images -- with permission -- and I am wondering (assuming you are interested) how you want me to work out hosting and additional credit (as Dave's aren't watermarked/logo'ed). If you're not interested, I'll work up what screenshots I can, but I'm likely to be extra busy this week and I'm not sure how much time I can put in to posting, let alone working something up. Let me know what you think.
Last edited:
I'm up for hosting other people's work. I just don't have time to make a lot of updates on the fly. I guess the eternity since I last updated the site speaks to that fact!
First of all, thanks for asking. Some folks have not done so, and it cheeses me off. Those folks know who they are.
Anyway, feel free to host a few images from my site if you wish, provided the annotations remain intact. In other words, please keep the "trekplace.com" captions on them.
Have fun! I haven't had time to contribute much to this or any Trek-related discussion in quite some time, with my work schedule, ongoing MBA studies, and an upcoming wedding. I have a full plate -- I mean saucer section.
Kind of a side thought but I am wondering at the implications of the big red lines going up to the nacelles: power conduits, jefferies's tubes. turbolift shafts?
Similar threads
