Vertical Intermix Chamber and TMP Enterprise

[Crazy Eddie]

If that's true, then wouldn't you need a Deflection crystal at the conduit junction to the nacelles

Probably. But we've never seen that junction up close, so for all we know there is some kind of gizmo that does the same trick. OTOH, the deflection crystal is only necessary for the impulse engines for some reason, probably something to do with the engines needing to use that drive plasma propulsively instead of as an energy source.

If the Plasma needs to be conditioned why is there another conduit under the impulse engines heading to the impulse "thrustered" exhaust?

That conduit wasn't there in Probert's original design. That's what I meant by "via recton."

I can't emphasize how many times we've seen Voyager, Defiant, NCC-1701, NCC-1701-A, NCC-1701-B, NCC-1701-D "Reverse" Engines without the traditional logical rules of physics.

Airplanes can reverse engines too. Application of forcefields over the engine nozzle would suffice for the same effect.

For the Galaxy to preform that manuver without thrustered exhaust or "planes" as though it were a sub It would need an impulse engine on the bow of the ship and powerful RCS.

The RCS is plenty powerful enough, considering what it has to do. Remember, impulse engines are capable of accelerating the ship to close to the speed of light; an RCS thruster with the output of a Saturn-V engine would more than suffice for this maneuver.

The IDF would have to be deactivated for the manuver.

The IDF only negates the force of acceleration on objects in or attached to the hull; basically, it imposes uniform acceleration on all objects affected by the thrusters. Turning the IDF off would make no difference to the maneuver, but it would really irritate the crew.

So, MY conclusion is that impulse engines are a kind of plasma-dynamic thruster/rocket system--as they have been implied to be since The Cage--boosted with a mass-reducing system either generated by the warp nacelles or the impulse engines themselves. Nothing we have seen is inconsistent with this, but the notion of impulse engines being a FIELD DRIVE contradicts the events of "Booby Trap," not to mention it EXPLICITLY flies in the face of dialog fro STXI, where Sulu says "Give me a five second burst at one quarter impulse, I'll do the rest with thrusters."

 

[Saquist]

Airplanes can reverse engines too. Application of forcefields over the engine nozzle would suffice for the same effect.

Then there would be no need for the driver coils.

The RCS is plenty powerful enough, considering what it has to do. Remember, impulse engines are capable of accelerating the ship to close to the speed of light; an RCS thruster with the output of a Saturn-V engine would more than suffice for this maneuver.

No doubt.

The IDF only negates the force of acceleration on objects in or attached to the hull; basically, it imposes uniform acceleration on all objects affected by the thrusters. Turning the IDF off would make no difference to the maneuver, but it would really irritate the crew.

While IDF is mainly a function for the crew it would still have an effect on the ship motion or tendency to remain in motion.

So, MY conclusion is that impulse engines are a kind of plasma-dynamic thruster/rocket system--as they have been implied to be since The Cage--boosted with a mass-reducing system either generated by the warp nacelles or the impulse engines themselves. Nothing we have seen is inconsistent with this, but the notion of impulse engines being a FIELD DRIVE contradicts the events of "Booby Trap," not to mention it EXPLICITLY flies in the face of dialog fro STXI, where Sulu says "Give me a five second burst at one quarter impulse, I'll do the rest with thrusters."

I'll have to review the Cage...but I don't consider it canon.
The problem with this...is that the impulse engines would work without the warp drive components that reduce mass.

According to the entire concept of warp (which is pretty simple) the mere act of creating a field would cancel out the ships mass verse the rest of the universe so there is no device that reduces mass.

In fact according Geordi La Forge in the case of the falling moon, a warp field or subspace field itself reduces mass and that field is creatd by the warp coils. That eliminates any special device.

I'm also not following you on dialogue from Booby Trap or Star Trek XI *which I can't even include in the discussion. * At least we know that in Booby Trap the enterprise was powered down so they can coast with out the IDF would dampen. Perhaps I'm just not understanding your direction.

 

[RyanKCR]

If a system called "impulse" doesn't have anything to do with what an impulse is... that's just wrong.

Just to be contrary, I'd argue that the expression "impulse engine" could easily originate from a trade name, just like "diesel engine" does. There'd only need to be a very vaguely similar engineering principle behind the modern impulse (diesel) engine and the original creation of the Impulse Corporation (Rudolf Diesel).

Whether the same holds true for "warp engine" is an interesting question, too. These are very complex machines with undoubtedly complex operating principles: it might be impossible to express the principle properly in the name, so deliberately improper choices are made instead. Engineers usually do make every effort to be funny... Or cool. Or both. (Usually, they think the two mean the same thing.)

Timo Saloniemi

I like the novel Enterprise's (sorry forgot the author) explaination of impulse: I. M. Pulse or internally metered pulse drive. A pellet of fuel is hit with high energy laser beams in pulses and the energy is then crushed back upon itself and it creates waves of spacial distortion that the ship rides like a surfboard.

 

[Saquist]

If a system called "impulse" doesn't have anything to do with what an impulse is... that's just wrong.

Just to be contrary, I'd argue that the expression "impulse engine" could easily originate from a trade name, just like "diesel engine" does. There'd only need to be a very vaguely similar engineering principle behind the modern impulse (diesel) engine and the original creation of the Impulse Corporation (Rudolf Diesel).

Whether the same holds true for "warp engine" is an interesting question, too. These are very complex machines with undoubtedly complex operating principles: it might be impossible to express the principle properly in the name, so deliberately improper choices are made instead. Engineers usually do make every effort to be funny... Or cool. Or both. (Usually, they think the two mean the same thing.)

Timo Saloniemi

I like the novel Enterprise's (sorry forgot the author) explaination of impulse: I. M. Pulse or internally metered pulse drive. A pellet of fuel is hit with high energy laser beams in pulses and the energy is then crushed back upon itself and it creates waves of spacial distortion that the ship rides like a surfboard.

That's what I said. THUS the use of the driver coils.

The only thing that contradicts what newtype_alpha is saying is that we know Bajoran impulse ships don't have warp speed and that warp fields are synonmous with subspace mass reducing fields.

Ultimately if there is another form of mass reducing field that still makes impulse at least partially driven but field propulsion.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

The only thing that contradicts what newtype_alpha is saying is that we know Bajoran impulse ships don't have warp speed and that warp fields are synonmous with subspace mass reducing fields.

NOT true.

There's plenty of on-screen evidence to the contrary, but the best example is in the pilot to "Deep Space 9."

DS9 isn't capable of generating a "warp field." Yet it certainly is capable of generating a "subspace field."

See, "warp field" is a SUBSET of "subspace field." Every "warp field" as you call it is actually a distorted form of subspace field.. a "warped" subspace field.

But many systems which are not even intended to be self-motive (such as computer cores) have subspace field generation incorporated. And DS9 used the cardassian shield generator system (which is evidently subspace-field-based) to reduce the station's mass sufficiently to allow it to move to the wormhole in time to "save the day."

Ultimately if there is another form of mass reducing field that still makes impulse at least partially driven but field propulsion.

Just keep repeating this to yourself... "a subspace field isn't necessarily a 'warp field'."

We know that subspace fields do two things... increase the local value of C, and decrease the "projected mass shadow" of any object inside the field. This has been repeated established on-screen.

I don't think ANYONE is seriously suggesting that "impulse drive" as we see it used on Trek is a "simple rocket" propulsion system. Am I mistaken here?

No... for "impulse" to work, and yet to remain meaningful, it needs to be a COMPOSITE SYSTEM. Use a field to reduce the mass (and thus the inertial effects, allowing greater acceleration/decelleration for far less actual thrust) and, consequently, to also increase the local speed of light, so that your "rocket thrust" (that is, an IMPULSE based propulsion system) is able to do thing that a "regular rocket" would never be practical for.

This, also, is established in-canon as something that's really done, at least during the TNG-era.

But it's not necessary to say "it's one or the other." It's not. It doesn't HAVE to be. There's no compelling argument for it to be. And there are a LOT of compelling arguments for it to be the "hybrid FTL impulse, supplemented by a static subspace field" that I've been pushing for the past... what, three years now?

The thing is, if it's going to be called "impulse," it needs to be an "impulse" based propulsion system... that is... apply a certain impulse to the ship (which has a certain mass) and you get a certain resultant velocity.

Impulse, in "physics" terms, and translated to "Trek-understandable" terms, simply means "apply this much thrust for this much time."

 

[Timo]

we know Bajoran impulse ships don't have warp speed

Huh?

We don't even know that there exists such a thing as a "Bajoran impulse ship". In "The Siege", a couple of winged interceptors challenge Dax and Kira's subimpulse raider, and Kira dives into the atmosphere, believing that this will deprive the interceptors of their advantage of having impulse engines. But the episode makes absolutely no suggestion that the winged interceptors would be warp-incapable. And indeed said design is seen in interstellar space, on errands that absolutely require warp drive, in "Preemptive Strike" and "Through a Looking Glass", proving that it indeed has warp drive.

In "Ensign Ro", we see the Bajora terrorist group operate a freighter that lacks warp capability. But later on, we learn that ships of that design are capable of interstellar flight, so the loss of capability must have been due to a malfunction rather than design.

In "Shadows and Symbols", Bajor assembles a fleet of impulse ships, which features a few of the winged interceptors, too. But we never learn which ships in the fleet are "impulse ships"; apparently, the winged interceptors are not.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Saquist]

we know Bajoran impulse ships don't have warp speed

Huh?

We don't even know that there exists such a thing as a "Bajoran impulse ship". In "The Siege", a couple of winged interceptors challenge Dax and Kira's subimpulse raider, and Kira dives into the atmosphere, believing that this will deprive the interceptors of their advantage of having impulse engines. But the episode makes absolutely no suggestion that the winged interceptors would be warp-incapable. And indeed said design is seen in interstellar space, on errands that absolutely require warp drive, in "Preemptive Strike" and "Through a Looking Glass", proving that it indeed has warp drive.

In "Ensign Ro", we see the Bajora terrorist group operate a freighter that lacks warp capability. But later on, we learn that ships of that design are capable of interstellar flight, so the loss of capability must have been due to a malfunction rather than design.

In "Shadows and Symbols", Bajor assembles a fleet of impulse ships, which features a few of the winged interceptors, too. But we never learn which ships in the fleet are "impulse ships"; apparently, the winged interceptors are not.

Timo Saloniemi

An impulse ship is a spacecraft limited to impulse propulsion.
The Bajoran Militia employed impulse ships of various designs. In 2375, the Bajoran Provisional Government deployed twelve of those vessels in a blockade around Derna, commanded by Colonel Kira Nerys, to prevent the Romulans from supplying weapons to their hospital complex. The move was largely symbolic, as the ships themselves posed little military threat to the Romulans.~Memory Alpha

If memory serves, this term comes from Kira's description of these vessels capabilities. We know they had interstellar travel from the points you bring up but impulse, we know, isn't restricted to sub light.

The only thing that contradicts what newtype_alpha is saying is that we know Bajoran impulse ships don't have warp speed and that warp fields are synonmous with subspace mass reducing fields.

NOT true.

There's plenty of on-screen evidence to the contrary, but the best example is in the pilot to "Deep Space 9."

That's very true.
Apparently other things can generate subspace fields...apparently shield emitters of DS9 can do it because thats the only system large enough to envelop the entire station.

I wouldn't say "plenty of Evidence" though. I found only two and the other from Alpha doesn' have a reference.

DS9 isn't capable of generating a "warp field." Yet it certainly is capable of generating a "subspace field."

See, "warp field" is a SUBSET of "subspace field." Every "warp field" as you call it is actually a distorted form of subspace field.. a "warped" subspace field.

But many systems which are not even intended to be self-motive (such as computer cores) have subspace field generation incorporated. And DS9 used the cardassian shield generator system (which is evidently subspace-field-based) to reduce the station's mass sufficiently to allow it to move to the wormhole in time to "save the day."

Ultimately if there is another form of mass reducing field that still makes impulse at least partially driven but field propulsion.

Just keep repeating this to yourself... "a subspace field isn't necessarily a 'warp field'."

It would seem to be true...
but it doesn't make sense. ANYTHING that reduces the mass of an object is either altering the universal motion relative to the object or altering the objects relative motion to the universe.

Yet this also explains why ships that continuely use mass reducing fields like warp fields don't move. In order to move your mass would have to be reduced to the point of nearly the same energy state of energy...So there IS a Velocity Threshold for a Warp field.

We know that subspace fields do two things... increase the local value of C, and decrease the "projected mass shadow" of any object inside the field. This has been repeated established on-screen.

Okay..I don't know what you mean by the "local value of Light." Explain:
A "Mass Shadow" is a Star Wars term which is completely unscientific. Mass doesn't project anything.

Einstien discovered that many things in the universe are results of differing relative motions or velocities. Mass and the Universe share a similar relationship. One has a tendency not to change motion, Mass, and the other is in a constant rate of change, The universe.

Notice:
Gravity and acceleration/deceleration have the exact same effects.

There is no force other than movement in effect in Gravity. No Mass Shadow or Graviton enacting between two objects. Planets and Stars are merely doing what all matter does...inertia...resisting a change in motion. The effect of you on a planet is just like two falling objects running into each other in mide flight. The flight or fall or motion is the expansion of the universe and inorder for Gravity to continue to exist in the universe the universe MUST continue to expand.

I don't think ANYONE is seriously suggesting that "impulse drive" as we see it used on Trek is a "simple rocket" propulsion system. Am I mistaken here?

I get the impression some do.

No... for "impulse" to work, and yet to remain meaningful, it needs to be a COMPOSITE SYSTEM. Use a field to reduce the mass (and thus the inertial effects, allowing greater acceleration/decelleration for far less actual thrust) and, consequently, to also increase the local speed of light, so that your "rocket thrust" (that is, an IMPULSE based propulsion system) is able to do thing that a "regular rocket" would never be practical for.

Then why not just call it a "subspace field coil" instead of a driver coil?
If the coil is doing what you're saying it does then it's not driving anything.

But it's not necessary to say "it's one or the other." It's not. It doesn't HAVE to be. There's no compelling argument for it to be. And there are a LOT of compelling arguments for it to be the "hybrid FTL impulse, supplemented by a static subspace field" that I've been pushing for the past... what, three years now?

I would like you to go into detail on that.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Airplanes can reverse engines too. Application of forcefields over the engine nozzle would suffice for the same effect.

Then there would be no need for the driver coils.

The driver coils only produce a subspace field to reduce the ship's inertial mass. This would be similar to the driver coils in, say, a magnetoplasmadynamic thruster, only producing subspace instead of electromagnetic fields.

While IDF is mainly a function for the crew it would still have an effect on the ship motion or tendency to remain in motion.

Except it's an inertial dampener, not an inertial canceler. In TMP it's referred to as an inertial stabilizer, which IMO more accurately describes what the device does: it makes sure that when the ship moves, EVERY PART of the ship moves to an equal degree.

The problem with this...is that the impulse engines would work without the warp drive components that reduce mass.

I don't see why that's a problem. You can do the same trick with a relatively small device, hell even deflector shields can generate a subspace field that can lower an object's mass. If impulse engines are designed to do this as a matter of their normal operation, then they can probably do this even without the warp engines involved. More likely, though, the warp nacelles ARE used to generate a static subspace field--just enough to reduce the ship's overall inertia--allowing the impulse thrust to have greater effect. This might work as an explanation for Starfleet design logic, why impulse engines more often than not are located somewhere BETWEEN the warp nacelles. After all, if you reduce the inertia of the ship (lowering its potential energy) then by conservation of energy you have to raise the inertia of the exhaust (increasing its potential energy).

In fact according Geordi La Forge in the case of the falling moon, a warp field or subspace field itself reduces mass and that field is creatd by the warp coils. That eliminates any special device.

"Special device" wouldn't be needed if the driver coils in the impulse engines can do this. Remember, O'Brien rigged DS9's deflector shields to do the exact same job.

I'm also not following you on dialogue from Booby Trap or Star Trek XI *which I can't even include in the discussion. * At least we know that in Booby Trap the enterprise was powered down so they can coast with out the IDF would dampen. Perhaps I'm just not understanding your direction.

Simply this: a field drive has the effect of producing motion only when it is on. A THRUSTER can produce inertial motion that will continue even after it is shut down (an object in motion remains in motion). Impulse engines being a field drive is inconsistent with boobytrap, where we see the Enterprise gaining a velocity of several hundred meters per second after the impulse burn.

As for STXI, the dialog here harkens back to harder sci-fi shows like 2001 and Babylon 5, where engines perform "burns" of a certain direction to impart velocity on the ship. The maneuver out of Titan's atmosphere may therefore be interpreted as a kind of high-angle orbit change.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

ANYTHING that reduces the mass of an object is either altering the universal motion relative to the object or altering the objects relative motion to the universe.

Mass has nothing to do with motion. You reduce the mass of an object you only reduce its overall potential energy; the EFFECT of this is that the speed of light inside that subspace field is higher than it is outside the field. This means that while your ship is accelerating at, say, 5m/s^2 inside the field, it could be accelerating at 500m/s^2 to an observer outside the field.

Yet this also explains why ships that continuely use mass reducing fields like warp fields don't move. In order to move your mass would have to be reduced to the point of nearly the same energy state of energy...So there IS a Velocity Threshold for a Warp field.

Yeah... um, warp fields move ships because they're distorted or "slanted" in a particular direction. A ship with a non-critical sub-warp field will still move pretty damn fast, as we saw in "First Contact" where the Phoenix accelerates to 20,000km/s (about 8% of the speed of light) on the way to warp. So a "warp field" will move a ship whether it's at the threshhold or not, where subspace fields will not and require some other impulse in order to become propulsive.

Okay..I don't know what you mean by the "local value of Light."

It means the speed of light inside the subspace field is higher than the speed of light outside the field.

Then why not just call it a "subspace field coil" instead of a driver coil?

Neither name was ever mentioned on screen. The term "subspace driver coil" comes from the TNG manual, where it is indeed described as a subspace field coil.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Okay..I don't know what you mean by the "local value of Light." Explain:

What I'm saying is that the laws of physics, inside this bubble of subspace... what is, in essense, a "pocket universe" with its own, slightly different, physical rules... isn't the same (or rather, doesn't compare to it on a 1:1 basis) as the rule set seen in "real" space/time.

This is quite consistent with contemporary thinking on how this sort of thing works... though, of course, "subspace" is entirely made-believe at this point. It's a "Deus Ex Machina." Yet, there's nothing about it which is fundamentally implausible. It COULD exist (or, perhaps, something very like it might exist).

A "Mass Shadow" is a Star Wars term which is completely unscientific. Mass doesn't project anything.

Sorry, you're totally off-base.

It "doesn't project anything?" I'm guessing you're not particularly familiar with contemporary thinking regarding how gravity works.

Granted... we don't KNOW how gravity works. We have theories, with so little REAL supporting evidence that they don't really rise above the level of hypotheses and really ought not be called "theories" at all.

But most thinking on the topic, today, refers to "mass" in this sort of fashion.

Essentially, you have a certain amount of mass... which has "shadow" in real-space which is directly related to gravitation. Sometimes you'll see this drawn on a 2D grid, with gravity represented as "depressions" in the grid... that's just another way of envisioning the same concept. Except that the "grid" approach is purely 2D in nature, while the "shadow" concept lends itself more to 3D envisioning.

In terms of what I'm saying... I'm saying that, when you're in this little "pocket universe" of subspace, you're not REALLY in the "real" universe at all. But it's not a completely separate universe... it's not "separate space," it's "sub-space." And some portion of you still is visible in the "real" universe (and you can see the "real" universe as well, at least partially).

So, your entire mass isn't seen in "real space/time," but some portion is. You "project a thinner shadow" than if you were really "all there."

This is all pure speculation, and lots of analogy, but I hope this has made the concept clearer.

And by the way, this isn't my invention... and you need to be smacked for suggesting that it's a "Star Wars" invention, either! It's a real scientific concept. Not a "fact" but a reasonable way, based upon what we know, to view gravitation.

Einstien discovered that many things in the universe are results of differing relative motions or velocities. Mass and the Universe share a similar relationship. One has a tendency not to change motion, Mass, and the other is in a constant rate of change, The universe.

Be careful not to attribute things to Einstein that he, himself, didn't envision.

He was a very smart guy, but people frequently attribute things to him which weren't his work at all, but are instead things people have tried to prove using his equations. His equations are about energy, primarily. And within the range of energy we've worked with, they fit the reality of the universe very well.

But he never said half the things that people try to attribute to him... and DID say things that lots of people try to pretend he never said.

Notice:
Gravity and acceleration/deceleration have the exact same effects.

I'm sorry, I have to just say it this way, since you're evidently in "lecture mode."

WRONG!!!! (BZZZZTTT!!! )

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

Gravitation CREATES an acceleration. The acceleration is the "output" of the equation, in other words. Gravitation is the input of the equation.

You're confusing "cause" and "effect." Acceleration is the effect. Gravitation is the cause.

That's a MASSIVE logical flaw. I could't let it go.

You'll often hear the term "the acceleration due to gravity" used in physics. There's a reason for that.

(sorry... "SMUG MODE: OFF")

There is no force other than movement in effect in Gravity. No Mass Shadow or Graviton enacting between two objects. Planets and Stars are merely doing what all matter does...inertia...resisting a change in motion. The effect of you on a planet is just like two falling objects running into each other in mide flight. The flight or fall or motion is the expansion of the universe and inorder for Gravity to continue to exist in the universe the universe MUST continue to expand.

That, my friend, is utter nonsense.

Basic physics... even lacking any concept of why gravity does what it does, only knowing what it does... proves that series of statement false.

Massive amounts of experimental evidence proves what you just said completely untrue.

Here's a true statement, proven by significant amounts of experimental evidence: Two objects, both stationary, with no outside forces acting on them, tend to draw together. The only effect observable, or to which this attraction is attributable, is gravitation.

You need to be more careful about making "authoritative" statements which are so clearly untrue. It makes you look bad. You're trying... but you're overreaching. And in this case, your statement is utterly, provably absurd.

Then why not just call it a "subspace field coil" instead of a driver coil?
If the coil is doing what you're saying it does then it's not driving anything.

Who's calling it a "subspace driver coil?" I'm certainly not.

The TNG Tech manual, the ONLY "official" place this is described, calls it a "sustainer coil," I believe. I don't even use the term "coil" (since I know what "coils" can and can't do... nothing "magical" about them... and this sort of thing seems outside of what any "coil" might do). I simply call them "subspace field generators."

That said... it's OK to call it anything you like, since it's all "magic" anyway. But don't ask me why "I" call it something that I don't call it.

I would like you to go into detail on that.

I have, multiple times on this BBS. If you want to know more, you might want to read my thread in the Trek Art forum... one of a number of places I've described this theory in excruciating detail. I'm starting to get tired of repeating it... my fingers aren't as young as they used to be!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The TNG Tech manual, the ONLY "official" place this is described, calls it a "sustainer coil," I believe.

You're thinking of the entry on photon torpedoes. In the chapter on impulse engines, the subspace driver coil is a clearly labelled doughnut-shaped doohickey directly between the fusion reactors and a bell-shaped exhaust nozzle.

 

[Gepard]

Sorry, you're totally off-base.

It "doesn't project anything?" I'm guessing you're not particularly familiar with contemporary thinking regarding how gravity works.

Granted... we don't KNOW how gravity works. We have theories, with so little REAL supporting evidence that they don't really rise above the level of hypotheses and really ought not be called "theories" at all.

But most thinking on the topic, today, refers to "mass" in this sort of fashion.

As far as mass shadows go, there's a line of thinking in modern physics (if I'm remembering correctly) that postulates that gravity is such a comparatively weak force because it effects higher dimensions, essentially "leaking" across the different branes that make up space. I have no idea if this is true or not, but it does show that it's just as possible with Star Wars as it is with Star Trek to wring out of real physics equaly thin justifications for their respecive pseudosciences.

 

[Timo]

If memory serves, this term comes from Kira's description of these vessels capabilities.

Hmm. What's said is this:

Odo: "A blockade? How many ships are we talking about?"
Kira: "Twelve impulse ships. That's all the Council of Ministers could spare right now."
Odo: "And how effective do you think those twelve ships are going to be against even one Romulan warbird?"

And later on:

Cretak: "Colonel, do you seriously believe that your antiquated collection of impulse ships stands a chance against our warbirds?"

We saw the blockade fleet; it featured interstellar transport vessels (which cannot be FTL-incapable unless they are damaged) of known Bajoran/Cardassian types, and some of Karemman design, plus a sprinkling of the winged interceptors.

It would be rather odd to collectively call all of these "impulse ships", if some are warp-capable transports, or even damaged transports temporarily limited to impulse. Also, how does the Council of Ministers control this strange assortment of ships? We might thus indeed decide that only the most significant combat vessels in the mix were the "twelve impulse ships" under government control, and the remaining fifty or whatever were assorted other ships of no military worth. In which case the winged interceptors would indeed be the "impulse ships".

Alternately, if we accept temporarily warp-incapacitated warp transports as "impulse ships" in the fleet of twelve, then we could just as well argue that the winged interceptors there were also damaged specimens temporarily deprived of warp, and thus freed from their main military obligations. That'd make more sense in the grand scheme of DS9 and TNG...

We know they had interstellar travel from the points you bring up but impulse, we know, isn't restricted to sub light.

It could be restricted to that (as per writer and tech consultant intention); it's fairly easy to invent explanations to seeming "impulse goes FTL" incidents, of which there's a grand total of one in all of Star Trek anyway...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Saquist]

Airplanes can reverse engines too. Application of forcefields over the engine nozzle would suffice for the same effect.

Then there would be no need for the driver coils.

The driver coils only produce a subspace field to reduce the ship's inertial mass. This would be similar to the driver coils in, say, a magnetoplasmadynamic thruster, only producing subspace instead of electromagnetic fields.

If that were true we see an obvious retro-positioned exhaust port.

The high energy IONs from a Fusion Reaction would be brilliant.

Except it's an inertial dampener, not an inertial canceler. In TMP it's referred to as an inertial stabilizer, which IMO more accurately describes what the device does: it makes sure that when the ship moves, EVERY PART of the ship moves to an equal degree.

I didn't say it canceled out motion completely. I am saying according to the First Law of Motion: A body at rest remains at rest and a body in linear motion remains in motion with constant velocity until and unless an external force is applied on it. So a energy field would have the same effect. If the IDF actually is dampening anything then it's equated to a force acting on a body. Even the most minute force against a body's motion would cause an eventual zero velocity.

Now as for stablizer:
I imagine that means we're dealing with unified field theory. What happens to that which emits the field happens to all that's in the field. So the crew wouldn't feel such a sudden change in motion. Frankly I've not a clue how this could be accomplished. I know of no effect that would have those kinds of consequences. If we're talking about a local effect it could be equated to a pendulum effect that is added to modern day buildings to counter act seismic shock but this would be something that acts much quicker

I don't see why that's a problem. You can do the same trick with a relatively small device, hell even deflector shields can generate a subspace field that can lower an object's mass. If impulse engines are designed to do this as a matter of their normal operation, then they can probably do this even without the warp engines involved.

Acknolwedged.

More likely, though, the warp nacelles ARE used to generate a static subspace field--

And just how would a "static" field be defined?

Simply this: a field drive has the effect of producing motion only when it is on. A THRUSTER can produce inertial motion that will continue even after it is shut down (an object in motion remains in motion). Impulse engines being a field drive is inconsistent with boobytrap, where we see the Enterprise gaining a velocity of several hundred meters per second after the impulse burn.

Really? Even warp drive has a velocity threshold.
In TNG: Forces of Nature the Enterprise coast into the rift to rendevouz with the Fleming stranded in the rift and was planning to coast all the way out the otherside.

Mass has nothing to do with motion. You reduce the mass of an object you only reduce its overall potential energy; the EFFECT of this is that the speed of light inside that subspace field is higher than it is outside the field. This means that while your ship is accelerating at, say, 5m/s^2 inside the field, it could be accelerating at 500m/s^2 to an observer outside the field.

According to Einstien: E=mc^2 Mass is directly associated with velocity exponentially. As you approach the speed of light the greater your mass and therefore the more energy is need to achieve further acceleration. Mass has every thing to do with motion. It is what my teachers and collegues have always understood. A Car in motion litteraly has a greater mass than the same car at rest because of relationship between mass and energy is inverse. This is because of the relationship of mass and energy being equal. The concept is recognized in string theory which postulate the very foundation of matter are packets of energy vibrating at different quantum speeds, defined by there differences in motion. Even matter and antimatter are defined by there movement and energy. So we're back to motion....everything goes by some sort of....motion.

Once Einstien put forth the premise that C is constant (relatively speaking) the only thing that changes in this equation is mass and energy. Since the equation relates multplying light into mass....obviously the mass has changed (increased) and the relationship between energy and motion is objectified.

Yeah... um, warp fields move ships because they're distorted or "slanted" in a particular direction. A ship with a non-critical sub-warp field will still move pretty damn fast, as we saw in "First Contact" where the Phoenix accelerates to 20,000km/s (about 8% of the speed of light) on the way to warp. So a "warp field" will move a ship whether it's at the threshhold or not, where subspace fields will not and require some other impulse in order to become propulsive.

I don't know what is meant by "sub critical" or "sub-warp"
I assume sub warp means sub light. I'll just note that a ship moving at .95 is still at warp as per the motion picture.

The Phoenix was a smaller ship, lesser mass, a velocity threshold at the equivalent power output for warp one of a bigger ship would quickly move a smaller ship pass c.

It means the speed of light inside the subspace field is higher than the speed of light outside the field.

Intresting.
Where I realte the mass reducing effect as changing the rate of universal expansion or...spatial expansion you use the reference of light speed. I'm not sure if there is a definable difference since light speed is not constant and neither is universal expansion.

Neither name was ever mentioned on screen. The term "subspace driver coil" comes from the TNG manual, where it is indeed described as a subspace field coil.

Driver coils is mentioned on screen on multiple occasions as a component of the impulse engines. Defiant, Delta Flyer and Voyager are references.

What I'm saying is that the laws of physics, inside this bubble of subspace... what is, in essense, a "pocket universe" with its own, slightly different, physical rules... isn't the same (or rather, doesn't compare to it on a 1:1 basis) as the rule set seen in "real" space/time.

I find that accurate

Sorry, you're totally off-base.

1. But most thinking on the topic, today, refers to "mass" in this sort of fashion.

2. Essentially, you have a certain amount of mass... which has "shadow" in real-space which is directly related to gravitation. Sometimes you'll see this drawn on a 2D grid, with gravity represented as "depressions" in the grid... that's just another way of envisioning the same concept. Except that the "grid" approach is purely 2D in nature, while the "shadow" concept lends itself more to 3D envisioning.

I've been apart of many discussions concerning Star Wars ships that "project mass shadows" to imitate the presence of a Planet or Solar Mass.
Currently my attempt s google the term immediately bring results from the Wookpedia follwed by 25 similar results and a smattering of results related to cancer. There was one result related to shadow mass.

My experiences with talking with physicst tells me the term you are looking for is "Gravity Well."

Granted... we don't KNOW how gravity works. We have theories, with so little REAL supporting evidence that they don't really rise above the level of hypotheses and really ought not be called "theories" at all.

Indeed.

In terms of what I'm saying... I'm saying that, when you're in this little "pocket universe" of subspace, you're not REALLY in the "real" universe at all. But it's not a completely separate universe... it's not "separate space," it's "sub-space." And some portion of you still is visible in the "real" universe (and you can see the "real" universe as well, at least partially).

So, your entire mass isn't seen in "real space/time," but some portion is. You "project a thinner shadow" than if you were really "all there."

It's not...entirely accurate.
You're making some assumptions based off the canon that I can't say are wrong but I'm inclined to disagree with.

We can't be for sure if another universe within another would be invisible or would truely consitute seperate. The universe already has areas that expand faster or slower than other parts of the universe or as you say the speed of light to an external observer would appear to slow down. This happens at the event horizons of blackholes and massive stars where light litterally bends and even appears to slow down (relatively speaking) but it's still visible and still apart of the same universe.

We really can't call it a different universe in warp field but it might be different enough to call an altered realty.

This is all pure speculation, and lots of analogy, but I hope this has made the concept clearer.

I do think I understand your position much better than before, Yes.

And by the way, this isn't my invention... and you need to be smacked for suggesting that it's a "Star Wars" invention, either! It's a real scientific concept. Not a "fact" but a reasonable way, based upon what we know, to view gravitation.[/B

I can't flaunt my experience here enough.
I have never heard that term in scientific circles of astro physics or quantum mechanics out of the "mass" of books I've read on the subject.

]Be careful not to attribute things to Einstein that he, himself, didn't envision.

He was a very smart guy, but people frequently attribute things to him which weren't his work at all, but are instead things people have tried to prove using his equations. His equations are about energy, primarily. And within the range of energy we've worked with, they fit the reality of the universe very well.

I'm sure I have not made any claim to attribute my theory of universal gravity to as Einstien's discoveries. It was the use of an understood foundation to further establish a trend of associated forces that we already know of.

Matter/Energy
Time /Space

Gravity/Acceleration & Deceleration is yet another.

I'm sorry, I have to just say it this way, since you're evidently in "lecture mode."

Not at all.
I remain quite open to correction when ever and where ever appropriately applied. How else would I know that I am in error.

WRONG!!!! (BZZZZTTT!!! )
(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

Gravitation CREATES an acceleration.

Gratation is attraction the results of which could be accerlation or deceleration. The ultimate result of which is a relative veolocity of zero.

You're confusing "cause" and "effect." Acceleration is the effect. Gravitation is the cause.

Our perspectives are different you relate gravity in terms of a supposedly neutral veolocty observing viewing two object which have an "apparent attraction to one another.

I however view Gravitation from the perspective of universal expansion. I thus see there is no real attraction between any two objects only a difference in resistance to universal expansion.

All Mass resist universal expansion. aka. (Inertia)
The effect is a change in universal expansion in the localized area of a planet or solar mass. The space in the gravity well is expanding slower than the space out side the gravity well.
The closer you get to such mass the slower space expands.
That is also where the "attraction" would seem to come in aswell.
The difference speeds of space would produce postive "preasure" on an object covering a significant area in a gravity field.

The difference in that gravity well could one day explain Gravity on the Quantum level as it has never has been before allowing it to take it's mathematical place amoung the other Four Forces...Or...(as I believe) being completely discarded as a force at all.

You'll often hear the term "the acceleration due to gravity" used in physics. There's a reason for that.

You also hear the term "deceleration due to gravity" a lot too.
This is the point of relativity.

Basic physics... even lacking any concept of why gravity does what it does, only knowing what it does... proves that series of statement false.

Massive amounts of experimental evidence proves what you just said completely untrue.

I would have to exposed to this information that you are refering to in order for a true correction to be made. At current I've alreayd been confirmed as...correct by two individuals in the scientific community and that I'm making some jumps in assumption by others.

Here's a true statement, proven by significant amounts of experimental evidence: Two objects, both stationary, with no outside forces acting on them, tend to draw together. The only effect observable, or to which this attraction is attributable, is gravitation.

The entire effect is relative.
It's not what it seems to be.
That's why our math models work fine on the Newtonian scale but not on the quantum scale. Obviously we're not seeing the big picture.
The true attraction is happening on the quantum level not between the two objects themselves.

You need to be more careful about making "authoritative" statements which are so clearly untrue. It makes you look bad. You're trying... but you're overreaching. And in this case, your statement is utterly, provably absurd.

I'm always eagar to test my guesses, So far there have only been disagreement in my approach not the understanding. This is encouraging so far. I'm never concerned with the absurdity or how it "looks", we clearly have to think outside the box because progress hasn't afforded us with the answers we are looking for.

Einstien at the risk of looking absurd set rule that at the time he couldn't prove, namely the speed of light as the ultimate speed limit. He changed concepts that were otherwise deamed sacrosant. Remeber that the only thing that has been proven with Gravity is that something...is happening, what that is we don't know. In other words Gravity is a Law by the sake of phenomenon, any state or process known through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning.

That is why I relate the concept of gravity will have an overhaul just as powerful as when science transfered to a heliocentric models from geocentric

Who's calling it a "subspace driver coil?" I'm certainly not.

I didn't accuse you using the term.
I asked you, "why not use this propper designator? "sub-space field coil."

The TNG Tech manual, the ONLY "official" place this is described, calls it a "sustainer coil," I believe. I don't even use the term "coil" (since I know what "coils" can and can't do... nothing "magical" about them... and this sort of thing seems outside of what any "coil" might do). I simply call them "subspace field generators."

Acknowledged.

As far as mass shadows go, there's a line of thinking in modern physics (if I'm remembering correctly) that postulates that gravity is such a comparatively weak force because it effects higher dimensions, essentially "leaking" across the different branes that make up space. I have no idea if this is true or not, but it does show that it's just as possible with Star Wars as it is with Star Trek to wring out of real physics equaly thin justifications for their respecive pseudosciences.

Indeed I have read and listened to similar relations of Gravity.
The postrulated that it would be possible to comunicate with other dimensions (not universes) through gravitons. It's the assumption that particle such as nuetrino's have a mass undectable in this universe and might manifest there gravitational existance else where...say in some other dimension like "sub-space".

I no longer have cause to believe this is true.

Hmm. What's said is this:

Odo: "A blockade? How many ships are we talking about?"
Kira: "Twelve impulse ships. That's all the Council of Ministers could spare right now."
Odo: "And how effective do you think those twelve ships are going to be against even one Romulan warbird?"

And later on:

Cretak: "Colonel, do you seriously believe that your antiquated collection of impulse ships stands a chance against our warbirds?"

Acknowledged.

We saw the blockade fleet; it featured interstellar transport vessels (which cannot be FTL-incapable unless they are damaged) of known Bajoran/Cardassian types, and some of Karemman design, plus a sprinkling of the winged interceptors.

Just because a ship is driven by impulse doesn't mean that it limited to interplanetary travel. One such case is the TOS Bird of Prey. Another such exampel is the Refit Enterprise in Star Trek the Motion Picture.

It would be rather odd to collectively call all of these "impulse ships", if some are warp-capable transports, or even damaged transports temporarily limited to impulse.

Do we have cause to believe this is the case?

Also, how does the Council of Ministers control this strange assortment of ships? We might thus indeed decide that only the most significant combat vessels in the mix were the "twelve impulse ships" under government control, and the remaining fifty or whatever were assorted other ships of no military worth. In which case the winged interceptors would indeed be the "impulse ships".

Yet here to I have to have cause to accept that ships displayed are something other than what the council says they're capabilities are.

~SaQ

 

[Timo]

Just because a ship is driven by impulse doesn't mean that it limited to interplanetary travel. One such case is the TOS Bird of Prey. Another such exampel is the Refit Enterprise in Star Trek the Motion Picture.

The former could be a case of temporary impulse operations, mistaken by our heroes for permanent warp incapability. The latter issue I'm not familiar with - the refit ship didn't seem to do any warping or other FTL travel without warp engines in the movie.

That still leaves just two examples of "impulse goes interstellar" in all of Star Trek - and "impulse doesn't allow interstellar" is a central plot point in several episodes, such as "Ensign Ro". Going against these plot points on ambiguous evidence doesn't strike me as a good idea.

Do we have cause to believe this is the case?

That some of the ships in the fleet are of warp-capable type? Yes - several of the Bajoran/Cardassian triangle designs have been evidenced at warp in other episodes. That some may be temporarily warp-incapable? Yes, if we accept that they are normally warp-capable, and are now being referred to as "impulse ships".

The same way, a ship that once possessed steam engines or sails could later be systematically referred to as a "barge" or a "barracks ship" once those engines or sails were removed... And in the former case, there might be little or no external evidence of the reclassification, other than the observed new role of the vessel.

Yet here to I have to have cause to accept that ships displayed are something other than what the council says they're capabilities are.

I'm not sure I understand you here. If the ships are capable of impulse and no better during the episode, no matter what the reason, then they should count as "impulse ships" all right - even if the designs as such have warp drives.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Saquist]

The former could be a case of temporary impulse operations, mistaken by our heroes for permanent warp incapability. The latter issue I'm not familiar with - the refit ship didn't seem to do any warping or other FTL travel without warp engines in the movie.

It could be, but there is no reason to believe so.
We could speculate endlessly but I will stop short of doing so if there isn't sufficient cause to believe the case maybe true or there is an unresolvable conflict.

That still leaves just two examples of "impulse goes interstellar" in all of Star Trek - and "impulse doesn't allow interstellar" is a central plot point in several episodes, such as "Ensign Ro". Going against these plot points on ambiguous evidence doesn't strike me as a good idea

Look at it precisely..
TOS regarded the Bird of Prey's journey as a one way mission. (fuel concerns)
The Motion Picture noted that the warp engines would still be necessary.
Likely this means that the impulse engines would not be efficient in speed or Time warp would be too great to proceed under impulse. In otherwords draw backs.

That some of the ships in the fleet are of warp-capable type? Yes - several of the Bajoran/Cardassian triangle designs have been evidenced at warp in other episodes. That some may be temporarily warp-incapable? Yes, if we accept that they are normally warp-capable, and are now being referred to as "impulse ships".

Well we saw the same hulls. The vessels could have easily been sold stripped of vauable technology or salvaged and modified to Bajoran specs.
So there is no contradiction.

[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure I understand you here. If the ships are capable of impulse and no better during the episode, no matter what the reason, then they should count as "impulse ships" all right - even if the designs as such have warp drives.

Timo Saloniemi[/QUOTE]

Its the same point as before. Without outstanding contradiction how can I really consider that the information the Council gives us is wrong? Less the vessel as identified as the same ship by name or registry we would have to assume the design was retrograde or it's warp capable counterpart is a refit, but it doesn't tell us these ships absolutely must be warp driven.

Now it could be that those ships you saw are as you say warp capable and the Impulse ships were the gliders and the others were merely other species or governments supporting the bajorans. Allies if you will.

 

[Timo]

Look at it precisely..
TOS regarded the Bird of Prey's journey as a one way mission. (fuel concerns)

Huh? It was explicit that the Romulan ship intended to return - and it was only stopped from doing so because Kirk harassed it into a mode of operation that caused a fuel concern (the same way WWII submarines would face hardships if destroyers forced them to stay underwater). There was no suggestion of a suicide nature to the mission at any point.

The Motion Picture noted that the warp engines would still be necessary. Likely this means that the impulse engines would not be efficient in speed or Time warp would be too great to proceed under impulse. In otherwords draw backs.

You lost me here... What time warp in TMP? Or, if we're talking about The Voyage Home and its time warp, how would "impulse" or "warp" feature in that movie?

Well we saw the same hulls. The vessels could have easily been sold stripped of valuable technology or salvaged and modified to Bajoran specs.

Quite possibly. Yet Bajor has always also operated explicitly interstellar versions of those vessels (seen early on already, in episodes like "Past Prologue" or "A Man Alone"), so if they were "impulse ships" now, they were atypical examples of Bajoran ships of that external design.

Less the vessel as identified as the same ship by name or registry we would have to assume the design was retrograde or it's warp capable counterpart is a refit, but it doesn't tell us these ships absolutely must be warp driven.

Yet we know for sure that they are atypical examples of their design, since (apart from "Ensign Ro" as regards one of the designs) all other appearances of ships that looked like that either made mention of interstellar flight, or then didn't make any mention of lack of FTL capacities.

And even in "Ensign Ro", the Cardassians firmly believed that the Bajora vessel was warp-capable - their plan of framing the terrorist Orta hinged on that assumption. That they could be mistaken begs for some explanation. And the easiest one is that those triangle ships tend to be interstellar, except when they are damaged or stripped down.

Now it could be that those ships you saw are as you say warp capable and the Impulse ships were the gliders and the others were merely other species or governments supporting the bajorans. Allies if you will.

Yeah, that's always a possibility. The ronly eason I oppose this interpretation is that the winged ships have demonstrated interstellar flight on a couple of occasions, even though it's a major plot point elsewhere that impulse doesn't allow for interstellar travel.

Although it might also be that the winged ships come in two variants, warp and impulse. A poor world like Bajor might not be able to afford warp engines on all of its winged interceptors, even if the design was originally intended to have such engines. A slight modification of the idea that "being an impulse ship" would equate "having malfunctioning warp engines"...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If that were true we see an obvious retro-positioned exhaust port.

That's weird, because the image you posted doesn't show a retro-port, it shows THRUST REVERSERS. The impulse engines can accomplish the exact same job with a simple force field.

The high energy IONs from a Fusion Reaction would be brilliant.

Not in the absence of an atmosphere, they wouldn't. Actually, they'd only be visible directly in front of the exhaust aperture where collisions between ions are still frequent (which is exactly what we do so when the impulse engines are active).

I didn't say it canceled out motion completely.

Not motion, INERTIA. Meaning the TENDENCY of a body at rest to remain at rest or in motion.

If the IDF actually is dampening anything then it's equated to a force acting on a body.

Correct. It's a force field acting on every part of the ship's innards (just like artificial gravity). The effect is that every part of the ship moves uniformly with every other part of the ship, so the feeling of acceleration is dampened.

I imagine that means we're dealing with unified field theory.

No. It means inertial dampeners and/or stabilizers distribute the ship's inertia evenly so the force of the thrusters is applied to the spaceframe, the crew, the consoles, the carpets, the dinner plates and your coffee cup and not just to the spaceframe itself. The ship IS alot harder to move when the inertial dampeners are on, which is why all Starfleet vessels have ridiculously powerful thrusters.

And just how would a "static" field be defined?

A subspace field that doesn't move you anywhere.

Really? Even warp drive has a velocity threshold.

Warp drive has a WARP FIELD threshhold neccesary for penetration of the speed of light, equal to exactly One Cochrane. A warp field below that threshhold is still a warp field.

According to Einstien: E=mc^2 Mass is directly associated with velocity exponentially.

Incorrect; E= energy where M=mass and C is the speed of light. The velocity of an object has nothing to do with it.

As you approach the speed of light the greater your mass

That's called "relativistic mass." You'll find it in a handful of very old physics books, but not new ones, because the concept is misleading (IOW, mass doesn't increase with velocity, only potential energy).

The Phoenix was a smaller ship, lesser mass, a velocity threshold at the equivalent power output for warp one of a bigger ship would quickly move a smaller ship pass c.

But phoenix continued to accelerate throughout the runup to warp drive. Just as Enterpirse did in TMP, as Sulu calls out "warp point seven... point eight... point nine..." and suddenly the ship breaks the light barrier. Presumably the impulse drive in the TMP era was a hybrid system with the warp nacelles providing a static subspace field, but accelerating to WARP required ramping up the intensity of that field and then distorting it to a degree sufficient to pass the light barrier. Sort of like an SR-71 transitioning to ramjet mode.

Driver coils is mentioned on screen on multiple occasions as a component of the impulse engines. Defiant, Delta Flyer and Voyager are references.

Reference to warp coils, yes. But not "subspace driver coils."

 

[Saquist]

Huh? It was explicit that the Romulan ship intended to return - and it was only stopped from doing so because Kirk harassed it into a mode of operation that caused a fuel concern (the same way WWII submarines would face hardships if destroyers forced them to stay underwater). There was no suggestion of a suicide nature to the mission at any point.

Ah, I thought so but my memory of the episode is incomplete. I had the recollection of Spock relating the limitations of the Romulan bird of prey with it had come. It's likely it was the damage I heard in reference. I"ll review.

You lost me here... What time warp in TMP? Or, if we're talking about The Voyage Home and its time warp, how would "impulse" or "warp" feature in that movie?

Warp speed is a Time Warp.
If Impulse does not over come the problem of relativistic speeds it would be yet another reason why impulse is not a common use for interstellar power, including speed and possibly fuel consumption.

Quite possibly. Yet Bajor has always also operated explicitly interstellar versions of those vessels (seen early on already, in episodes like "Past Prologue" or "A Man Alone"), so if they were "impulse ships" now, they were atypical examples of Bajoran ships of that external design.

Acknowledged and confirmed.

Now it could be that those ships you saw are as you say warp capable and the Impulse ships were the gliders and the others were merely other species or governments supporting the bajorans. Allies if you will.

Yeah, that's always a possibility. The ronly eason I oppose this interpretation is that the winged ships have demonstrated interstellar flight on a couple of occasions, even though it's a major plot point elsewhere that impulse doesn't allow for interstellar travel.

Although it might also be that the winged ships come in two variants, warp and impulse. A poor world like Bajor might not be able to afford warp engines on all of its winged interceptors, even if the design was originally intended to have such engines. A slight modification of the idea that "being an impulse ship" would equate "having malfunctioning warp engines"...

Timo Saloniemi

I must bow to your superior knowledge in this capacity.
I don't know how much of a plot point impulse being strictly interplanetary has occured in Trek. Many that I reall only emphasis how slow it is compared to warp. I remember one DS9 incident after bombing the ketracel white facility and incuring damage Bashir merely tells us how long it would take to get to the nearest Federation outpost. It was on the order of years.

Yet I get the impression that impulse is extremely limited in the 24th century. I think it's done for plot points. I must not in the future they develop hyper-impulse power.

That's weird, because the image you posted doesn't show a retro-port, it shows THRUST REVERSERS. The impulse engines can accomplish the exact same job with a simple force field.

I didn't say it was retro-port. The image shows retro positioned blast shields to direct the thrust forward. A Starhip is an internally composed vessel. There would have to be a retro port, in other words a port facing forwards to allow the highly charged plasma to escape.

Not in the absence of an atmosphere, they wouldn't. Actually, they'd only be visible directly in front of the exhaust aperture where collisions between ions are still frequent (which is exactly what we do so when the impulse engines are active).

It doesn't matter. The impulse engine is fussion reactor. Ions aren't the sole emitter of that reaction. We're talking of channeling concentrated beams of this energy for thrust. It would still be visible even if it attenuated quickly after departing the manifold. Even the Shuttle's main engine exhaust is still highly visible outside the atmosphere and it's relatively unfocused and using far less energy.

Not motion, INERTIA. Meaning the TENDENCY of a body at rest to remain at rest or in motion.

In this case of ship remaining in motion in the presence of an IDF field there is no difference. The IDF would cancel out the motion of the ship. It would be an outside force acting upon the ships inertia.

Correct. It's a force field acting on every part of the ship's innards (just like artificial gravity). The effect is that every part of the ship moves uniformly with every other part of the ship, so the feeling of acceleration is dampened.

I have not found that artifical gravity works this way on ships.
They are capable of shutting down each decks lifesupport and gravity.

I still don't know how this would be done realisticly. Ultimately you have to push on the space and not the ship to remove the sensation of acceleration. That's what warp does, but IDF plays more with disturbances of the ship itself so it's curious how one would attempt to do so unless on used conventional design incorporated in buildings today. How a field would do this really beyond me.

No. It means inertial dampeners and/or stabilizers distribute the ship's inertia evenly so the force of the thrusters is applied to the spaceframe, the crew, the consoles, the carpets, the dinner plates and your coffee cup and not just to the spaceframe itself. The ship IS alot harder to move when the inertial dampeners are on, which is why all Starfleet vessels have ridiculously powerful thrusters.

I do not believe that is even the purpose of IDF.
the ship utilizes mass reducers and spatial fields to move.
I'd have to review the TNG manual to get a better understanding of what they intended the devices for. In this capacity they seem redundant.

A subspace field that doesn't move you anywhere.

What's the difference between that and a noraml subspace field like the one used on DS9? That seems to be a redundancy in terms.

Warp drive has a WARP FIELD threshhold neccesary for penetration of the speed of light, equal to exactly One Cochrane.

Necessary...
as in the threshold is limited to c specificly and up?

Incorrect; E= energy where M=mass and C is the speed of light. The velocity of an object has nothing to do with it.

E=MC^2 describes equality of mass to energy. In terms of velocity it would tell us how much additional energy an object in motion has. If you push and object it gains momentum and energy. But if the object is already travelling near the speed of light, it can't move much faster, no matter how much energy it absorbs. Its momentum and energy continue to increase, but its speed approaches a constant value—the speed of light. This means that in relativity the momentum of an object cannot be a constant times the velocity.

That's called "relativistic mass." You'll find it in a handful of very old physics books, but not new ones, because the concept is misleading (IOW, mass doesn't increase with velocity, only potential energy).

I cannot relate.
It is how I've always known it. But I acknowledge the information.

The Phoenix was a smaller ship, lesser mass, a velocity threshold at the equivalent power output for warp one of a bigger ship would quickly move a smaller ship pass c.

But phoenix continued to accelerate throughout the runup to warp drive. Just as Enterpirse did in TMP, as Sulu calls out "warp point seven... point eight... point nine..." and suddenly the ship breaks the light barrier. Presumably the impulse drive in the TMP era was a hybrid system with the warp nacelles providing a static subspace field, but accelerating to WARP required ramping up the intensity of that field and then distorting it to a degree sufficient to pass the light barrier. Sort of like an SR-71 transitioning to ramjet mode.

Enterprise never crossed that barrier on the impulse engines and if Full impulse really is .25 of light then the raming up is understandable. The Pheonix doesn't make any sense anyway. It's the warp ship using a warp core and antimatter, all of which would be impossible to install for the level of technology even superior to present day tech and then advanced 60 years, to install on a TITAN Missle. The proportions would end up being far too similar to an over grown photon torpedo. It was 2063 not 2163.

The first test of a warp drive should have occured with a Fusion reactor with an impulse engine being the first engine developed because obviously they didn't have the shield technology to convert the lost energy of the reaction from neutrinos to useable energy.

First contact proposed that late in the 21st century mankind had all the basic parts of the 24th century space travel, shields, matter antimatter reactors developed enough to augment a TITAN missle with.

It was truely a contemptable film for more than just that reason but this stands out for me.

Driver coils is mentioned on screen on multiple occasions as a component of the impulse engines. Defiant, Delta Flyer and Voyager are references.

Reference to warp coils, yes. But not "subspace driver coils."[/QUOTE]

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I didn't say it was retro-port. The image shows retro positioned blast shields to direct the thrust forward. A Starhip is an internally composed vessel. There would have to be a retro port...

OR A FORCEFIELD over the impulse engines acting as a blast shield in exactly the manner shown in your picture, as I have said at least three times. No additional hardware is required.

It doesn't matter. The impulse engine is fussion reactor. Ions aren't the sole emitter of that reaction.

The sole exhaust product of a fusion reaction is highly energetic plasma. Plasma is composed of ions. Therefore, the only thing you would see in the impulse exhaust is ions bumping into each other, and the only time you'll see that is JUST as they are leaving the exhaust vents.

Even the Shuttle's main engine exhaust is still highly visible outside the atmosphere

The shuttle's main engine seldom operates outside the atmosphere; the only time it does, it looks like an impulse engine, with the "glow" confined to the exhaust nozzle and nowhere else.

Also, the shuttle's engines doesn't emit "Beams of energy." It emits superheated water vapor.

In this case of ship remaining in motion in the presence of an IDF field there is no difference. The IDF would cancel out the motion of the ship.

No, because IDFs don't cancel motion, they cancel INERTIA. And not of the whole ship, just of separate components not attached to the ship.

I still don't know how this would be done realisticly. Ultimately you have to push on the space and not the ship to remove the sensation of acceleration.

IDF fields push on objects inside the ship to provide uniform acceleration throughout. Sort of like the way a maglev system can provide uniform acceleration for all ten cars in a train without slamming them into each other.

I do not believe that is even the purpose of IDF.

Then you believe incorrectly.

the ship utilizes mass reducers and spatial fields to move.

Neither of which are classified under "IDF", as per the TNG manual.

What's the difference between that and a noraml subspace field like the one used on DS9?

None whatsoever. A "static" subspace field is what most of us would consider "normal" where a "warp field" is... well, a warped subspace field.

Sort of like the difference between "static electricity" and "alternating current electricity." Different terms used to describe exactly what concept you're referring to.

Necessary...
as in the threshold is limited to c specificly and up?

As in "the threshhold" means "the amount of field distortion required to move a ship faster than the speed of light," which is defined (in the TNG manual) as exactly one cochrane. It's kind of arbitrary except that it uses the speed of light as a marker for "warp one" or, alternately, "warp speed." A ship with a low-power warp field will still move at warp below this threshhold, but it won't move at the speed of light.

E=MC^2 describes equality of mass to energy.

No, it describes the EQUIVALENCE of mass and energy. It does not tell you anything about the equivalence of VELOCITY and energy, which is defined by a very different formula.

Here's a rule of thumb: in most physics equations the velocity of a body is defined as a variable "V." E=mc^2 doesn't have V as a variable; c, the speed of light, is the velocity here, and is used as a constant and not a variable.

But phoenix continued to accelerate throughout the runup to warp drive. Just as Enterpirse did in TMP, as Sulu calls out "warp point seven... point eight... point nine..." and suddenly the ship breaks the light barrier. Presumably the impulse drive in the TMP era was a hybrid system with the warp nacelles providing a static subspace field, but accelerating to WARP required ramping up the intensity of that field and then distorting it to a degree sufficient to pass the light barrier. Sort of like an SR-71 transitioning to ramjet mode.

Enterprise never crossed that barrier on the impulse engines and if Full impulse really is .25 of light then the raming up is understandable.

But it's not. Strictly speaking, impulse power would be a level of engine output, not a measure of velocity; earlier, Kirk ordered "warp point five" on impulse engines, which is about half the speed of light. We don't even know what impulse power level Sulu used.

The Pheonix doesn't make any sense anyway. It's the warp ship using a warp core and antimatter

We don't know it was using antimatter. For all we know it was equipped with a converted NERVA reactor; I don't see a problem with a century-old thermonuclear rocket engine being used to power a brand new drive system.