Vertical Intermix Chamber and TMP Enterprise

[Cary L. Brown]

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.

By the way, guys... this thread has effectively become unreadable at this point. I skipped past the last few hundred lines and will only comment on the lowermost line here...

(and yes, I'm well aware that I can be fairly verbose as well, but at this point, it's exceeded even MY limits!)

The Pheonix makes PERFECT sense if you omit the phrase "warp drive" and simply substitute "faster than light" everywhere you see it.

The Pheonix would be a "subspace-assisted impulse" ship, exactly as I've described it so many times.

It has a pair of nacelles which house subspace field generators. It has a FUSION reactor, which is used to produce thrust and to produce usable energy for the subspace field generators.

The ship is powered, under normal duty, by the basic fusion-reactor drive system, which provides thrust ("impulse") to the ship.

To go faster-than-light, you divert power to the field generation hardware in the nacelles. These nacelles create a subspace field around the Pheonix. This field is a symmetrical, "non-warped" field. It provide absolutely no motive force on its own.

However... by creating this "subspace field" around the Pheonix (essentially a "pocket universe" of space/time which is slightly dimensionally-offset from "real space/time") you change the rules.

Your ship still has the same amount of mass... but the amount of your mass-shadow in "real space/time" is reduced significantly... in other words, from your own perspective, you have full mass, but from the perspective of anyone in the "normal" universe, you weigh almost nothing.

Meanwhile... and this is another of those "perspective matters" issues... inside your bubble, the outside universe looks a lot smaller, and while the speed of light as you observe it within your bubble (say, from one end of the ship to the other end) seems the same, speed of light within the bubble and outside of the bubble are a lot different. Any motion "inside the bubble" seems, outside the bubble, to be tremendously faster.

The "local speed of light" within the bubble, when seen from outside of the bubble, is much, much faster.

So, when the Pheonix generated its subspace bubble, there was that moment of transition... the "shock" that they experienced... as they transitioned between "real space" and "sub-space."

It was still only moving because of the impulse system, but the presence of the subspace bubble allowed it to accelerate a lot faster, and move a lot faster, than it would have been able to in "real" space.

Not "warp drive." But "faster than light propulsion" nevertheless.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Maybe a better way to put it would be "not warp drive in the modern, conventional sense (i.e., a 22nd to 24th Century perspective), but an essential building block in the development of full-fledge warp drive a short time later."

 

[Saquist]

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.

IF the Impulse Engines are presumed to be a Form of electro-nuclear propulsion then there is a powerful exhaust stream. Now that Stream must be released from the vessel via an exhaust port. It can not be bottled. For the ship to move in the opposite direction by use of a mere forcefield there would have to be a forward facing exhaust port that releases that stream in space. The stream cannot be deflected back to the same exhaust port.

Since there is no forward location for the escape of reverse thrust we can easily conclude that a forcefield is not the method of reversal. It also leads us to conclude that Impulse engine is also not a form of electro-nuclear propulsion which the popular Trek Wiki, Memory ALPHA has not figured out.

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.

Yes and we don't see that at all.
A burst of light is not at all similar to a release of Ions.
One is light the other is high-energy matter.

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.

That's not true. Review the video from begniing to end please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DNljVcs6Dc&feature=player_embedded
Note:
The altitude for the technical definition for vaccuum is a 100 km or 62 miles
Note: the Altitude of MECO is 67 statute miles. By the time of MECO the shuttle has been well above what most people would consider the atmosphere on a curved trajectory into orbit for 2 to minutes maybe more.

Note:
At MECO-
-The external tank is leaking. (its not sealed like the SRB's)
-There is a visible flame around the shuttle's nose and a clear and distinct plume is at the rear of the shuttle.
-The shuttles engines are progressively throttled down by intvervals of 10% for MECO.
-The gas seen emitted from the rear of the shuttle is Hydrogen (a large majority) because the SSME do not react well to full shut off, nor does the hot metal nozzels react well to pure oxygen.

We are talking about Impulse engines, Fusion ejecta focused by an electro-magnetic field. It would produce a beam and it would be highly visible at the out put of several fusion reactors. This is from the information I've seen. I could show you snap shots of this if you like.
My point is the shuttle engines aren't even that focused, operating at far less power and defnitely in a vaccuum. It seems to me the IMF engine if not field propulsion and a form of Rocket Engine would create far more.

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

I didn't mean to imply it did.

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 think I understand.
Inertia is resistance to change in motion so a dampening field would lower it's resistance making it easier for objects to have a change in motion.

I don't know about the the sperate componets.

Then you believe incorrectly.

Maybe.
That's the purpose of this process of determination.

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

Which specificly says?

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

static subspace field = normal space?
Why do you say this?

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.

So mass isn't a factor for achieving light speed with a warp field?

No, it describes the EQUIVALENCE of mass and energy.

I'm saying the same thing. If that was horrible imprecise then the fault is obviously my own.

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.

Yes, I know.
I'm refering to a concept that energy of all matter in the universe comes down to differences in relative motion, velocity, vibration, etc.

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 engines were imbalanced. The Forumla was unknown.
That prevented them from being used at all. Or is this assuming to much.
Do you mean that the interchange between Kirk and Sulu is to vague to determine if the warp drive was being used or the impulse engines were being used?

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.

Isn't the Nerva just a rocket engine? In other words for the purpose of producing thrust? Not a power unit.

The Phoenix had a warp core and an intermix chamber. It had a set of heavy coils and command cabin on the nose. Now propperly...they didn't activate that "Core" untill main engine cut-off. However the Movie showed a TITAN II designating it a TITAN V (I believe). A TITAN IV has a set of boosters for lift assistance of a payload of 47,000 pounds.

These Rockets were designed to lift War Heads of some size. 47,000 lbs should be around 23 tons. I don't believe Phoenix was 23 tons I think it was about half the weight or more of the space shuttle around 50 to 55 tons.

That missle they showed in the movie couldn't have lifted the Phoenix.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

IF the Impulse Engines are presumed to be a Form of electro-nuclear propulsion then there is a powerful exhaust stream. Now that Stream must be released from the vessel via an exhaust port...

Which is right there on the impulse engine. Now generate a V-shaped forcefield OVER that exhaust port--in the same way you posted in your airplane picture--to deflect the path of that stream forward, and what do you have?

<Drumroll>

REVERSE THRUST! YAY!

Yes and we don't see that at all.
A burst of light is not at all similar to a release of Ions.

First of all, yes we do; impulse engines GLOW. Second of all, that's exactly what a release of ions looks like, especially at high temperature.

That's not true. Review the video from begniing to end please.

It's the "end" that you need to watch, Saquist. During any launch sequence it takes a space shuttle several minutes to actually leave the atmosphere; even in the UPPER atmosphere, the glow from its main engines is only visible just inside the engine bell in a manner not at all unlike an impulse engine.

We are talking about Impulse engines, Fusion ejecta focused by an electro-magnetic field. It would produce a beam and it would be highly visible at the out put of several fusion reactors.

As I already told you, fusion ejecta is only visible when the ions are close enough to bounce off each other and re-radiate visible light as a result of the collision. Strictly speaking, that plasma isn't usually visible even inside a fusion reactor, let alone as a plume of energized particles fired into space. The plasma stream will be far too diffuse and moving much too fast for the effect you describe.

See, for an exhaust plume to be visible, it needs to do one of two things: it either absorbs and re-radiates light, or it scatters light from other sources. The exhaust from the SSME does not, because superheated steam doesn't radiate much light, nor is it dense enough to scatter much light, and is therefore largely invisible. Plasma exhaust from a fusion engine would be even less visible since the mass flow would be EXTREMELY low, and the only other light source--the impulse engine itself--isn't giving off enough light to irradiate the plasma OR enough for the diffuse exhaust to be scattered by it.

And this all ignores the fact that every space craft since the original Galactica has used either LEDs or incandescent bulbs to represent active engines, even craft that explicitly used rocket-based propulsion systems. It's a VFX convention that can only be rationalized by the exhaust not being thick enough or energetic enough to leave a visible plume.

My point is the shuttle engines aren't even that focused, operating at far less power and defnitely in a vaccuum.

Which is why they are SLIGHTLY more visible than impulse engines. The more powerful the engine, the less visible its exhaust products will be.

Inertia is resistance to change in motion so a dampening field would lower it's resistance making it easier for objects to have a change in motion.

I don't know about the the sperate componets.

"Seperate components" means "people, furniture, coffee cups," things that are not directly attached to the IDF field. Strictly speaking, a solid object only behaves like a solid object because its molecules are held together by electromagnetic fields; the IDF allows things that would otherwise not behave like a "part of the ship" to do so using a different type of force field.

Which specificly says?

That the purpose of IDF fields is to cancel out the sensation of acceleration for objects and people inside the ship.

static subspace field = normal space?

No, it equals "normal subspace field."

So mass isn't a factor for achieving light speed with a warp field?

No. Only field output.

Yes, I know.
I'm refering to a concept that energy of all matter in the universe comes down to differences in relative motion, velocity, vibration, etc.

It doesn't, though. Matter and energy are equivalent because a certain amount of matter can be CONVERTED into a certain amount of energy and (theoretically) vice versa. That doesn't mean matter and energy are the SAME THING in slightly different states, it means they can be exchanged one for another in a reversible process.

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 engines were imbalanced. The Forumla was unknown.[/quote]
I'm talking about impulse power, not warp drive. The warp engines had not even been used yet.

Do you mean that the interchange between Kirk and Sulu is to vague to determine if the warp drive was being used or the impulse engines were being used?

No.

Kirk's exact words were:

"Impulse power, Mister Sulu. Ahead warp point five." It's perfectly clear: Sulu used the impulse engines to achieve that velocity, but we do not know what impulse setting (half/full/one quarter) he used. There are also cues from the Captain's Log 1.8 hours later that the Enterprise was indeed moving at about half the speed of light.

Isn't the Nerva just a rocket engine? In other words for the purpose of producing thrust? Not a power unit.

Well, NERVA is a nuclear reactor that powers a rocket engine. You can do anything you want with the plasma that comes out of the nozzle, up to and including diverting it into a pair of warp nacelles.

The Phoenix had a warp core and an intermix chamber.

We don't know that either. We know it had a warp core, but we don't know what it was powered by. Could be fusion, fission, could be a pair of hamsters on a wheel, could be charcoal...

 

[Saquist]

Which is right there on the impulse engine. Now generate a V-shaped forcefield OVER that exhaust port--in the same way you posted in your airplane picture--to deflect the path of that stream forward, and what do you have?

That's completely speculative and against the infromation we've seen.
Such a disturbance would be very visible. But at least now I know what you're talking about.

First of all, yes we do; impulse engines GLOW. Second of all, that's exactly what a release of ions looks like, especially at high temperature.

You say that as thought as though I implied impulse engines don't glow.
Not only do impulse engines glow the glow of that out put almost never changes due to thrust. Full impulse is the same lumious as 1/4 impulse.

-As far as High Temperature Ions: Please use an illistration to make you point.

It's the "end" that you need to watch, Saquist. During any launch sequence it takes a space shuttle several minutes to actually leave the atmosphere; even in the UPPER atmosphere, the glow from its main engines is only visible just inside the engine bell in a manner not at all unlike an impulse engine.

Actually it's nothing like the impulse engine.
The orbiter's main engine shines brightly. The impulse engine doesn't shine at all. It glows. The original Enterprise's impulse engines didn't shine and none after. Infact Gene Roddenberry specificly directed Mat Jefferies NOT to design anything like a rocket engine in the design of the enterprise. Memory Alpha calls impulse an advanced fusion rocket.

Star Trek is divided on the ION engine issue.
According to TOS ION engines are advanced and beyond Federation technology. In Voyager it was a prewarp technology.

Impulse doesn't have anything in common with it and has never be liken to ION tech.

As I already told you, fusion ejecta is only visible when the ions are close enough to bounce off each other and re-radiate visible light as a result of the collision. Strictly speaking, that plasma isn't usually visible even inside a fusion reactor, let alone as a plume of energized particles fired into space. The plasma stream will be far too diffuse and moving much too fast for the effect you describe.

This may merely be a case of artist rendition but this is a 3D image for simulation. It may be there to indicate direction of travel for all I know but it seems to indicate this probes tightly focused stream would be visible. What your thinking on this?

See, for an exhaust plume to be visible, it needs to do one of two things: it either absorbs and re-radiates light, or it scatters light from other sources. The exhaust from the SSME does not, because superheated steam doesn't radiate much light, nor is it dense enough to scatter much light, and is therefore largely invisible. Plasma exhaust from a fusion engine would be even less visible since the mass flow would be EXTREMELY low, and the only other light source--the impulse engine itself--isn't giving off enough light to irradiate the plasma OR enough for the diffuse exhaust to be scattered by it.

I think the focus would make it dense enough to be visible.
I don't have the specs on the vehicle but untill I see otherwise I can no longer make the call. you make a good argument that I simply do not have sufficient knowledge to rebutt.

That the purpose of IDF fields is to cancel out the sensation of acceleration for objects and people inside the ship.

While in normal space perhaps but at warp IDF is unnecessary.
Not if a warpfield is what it seems to be.

No. Only field output.

I would have to disagree.
That maybe because of what I think a warp field does.

It doesn't, though. Matter and energy are equivalent because a certain amount of matter can be CONVERTED into a certain amount of energy and (theoretically) vice versa. That doesn't mean matter and energy are the SAME THING in slightly different states, it means they can be exchanged one for another in a reversible process.

I see. So why aren't they the same if you may convert one for another.
(no analogies please)

I'm talking about impulse power, not warp drive. The warp engines had not even been used yet.

Then we're not talking about the same point in the movie.

No.

Kirk's exact words were:

"Impulse power, Mister Sulu. Ahead warp point five." It's perfectly clear: Sulu used the impulse engines to achieve that velocity, but we do not know what impulse setting (half/full/one quarter) he used. There are also cues from the Captain's Log 1.8 hours later that the Enterprise was indeed moving at about half the speed of light.

Yeah, I wasn't speaking of this at all. My attention was on the scenes after the imbalance.



We don't know that either. We know it had a warp core, but we don't know what it was powered by. Could be fusion, fission, could be a pair of hamsters on a wheel, could be charcoal...[/QUOTE]

Fusion doesn't require an intermix chamber. That's a reaction chamber/vessel. Niether does fission. No mixing is required in these reactors. The only thing that needs an intermix chamber is an anti-matter matter reaction system. Anything else is random speculation against the canon...

Lets assume so though.
Why call it a "Warp Core" if no one has ever gone to warp before?
Was he attempting to be prophetic? Describing what the power unit will help him accomplish instead of what it actually was?

 

[Plecostomus]

"Against the canon?"

Holy fucking eh man, what is this Church Of Technobabble?! Can't you just make something up using your imagination?!

 

[Captain Robert April]

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

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

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

For an admittedly weak example, how many here have made reference to "tin foil", even though it's a safe bet that none of us here have ever encountered anything but aluminum foil in our lifetimes?

 

[Saquist]

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

The biggest reason why is because the Enterprise nor any other ship never experienced any relativistic effects of traveling at fractions of light speed.

For example Memory Alpha attributes 1 year for every season of Star Trek with no significant jumps because of relativistic travel. Obviously impuse engines are bypassing light speed theory.

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

Perhaps another way of saying sub light.
Unlikely though.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

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

The biggest reason why is because the Enterprise nor any other ship never experienced any relativistic effects of traveling at fractions of light speed.

For example Memory Alpha attributes 1 year for every season of Star Trek with no significant jumps because of relativistic travel. Obviously impuse engines are bypassing light speed theory.

Not so much...

If you really are conversant on the basic math behind the concept of "time dilation" you know that it's not a LINEAR function at all. Up until .75c, you see effectively no measurable effect whatsoever (certainly not enough to make a difference, I mean, though you might have to "sync" your clocks every time you slow down and establish an orbit).

While this is an oversimplified explanation of the math, it is effectively an exponential function... the closer you get to C, the faster the rate of "time dilation increase." The amount of "dilation" you get from going from, say, .911c to .912c is much greater than the amount you get by going from 0.000c to 0.750c.

For this reason, it's established, semi-canonically (in the TNG tech manual) that "impulse speeds are limited to .75c to avoid time dilation effects."

Of course, I don't entirely accept that, but it's clear that the folks who wrote that work were thinking along those terms. But it's still something I treat as PART of the answer. So, my "FTL impulse" is still limited to .75c... just the higher "effective c" which is seen when you operate within a "subspace bubble"... something like 100x what you see in real space-time.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Which is right there on the impulse engine. Now generate a V-shaped forcefield OVER that exhaust port--in the same way you posted in your airplane picture--to deflect the path of that stream forward, and what do you have?

That's completely speculative and against the infromation we've seen.

It's against nothing at all. No one has ever given any description how impulse engines provide reverse power. The closest thing we have is Scotty in "Relics" who mentions that reverse thrust produces a specific distribution pattern in the ion trail, which at least implies that something "different" happens to the exhaust during reverse thrust. A force field acting as a thrust reverser is the most logical explanation.

Such a disturbance would be very visible.

Only if the VFX people needed it to be visible, and 99% of the time, they don't. Hell, the RCS thruster plumes aren't even visible, even on shuttlecraft.

First of all, yes we do; impulse engines GLOW. Second of all, that's exactly what a release of ions looks like, especially at high temperature.

You say that as thought as though I implied impulse engines don't glow.
Not only do impulse engines glow the glow of that out put almost never changes due to thrust. Full impulse is the same lumious as 1/4 impulse.[/quote]
Impulse power is a measurement of thrust, not a measurement of glow. The engine can provide more thrust by either 1) increasing the output of its subspace field or 2) increasing the mass flow through the nozzle. Or both. Neither of which would result in a change in the "glow intensity" from the impulse engines.

On the other hand, the Constellation's impulse engines in TOS-R do glow slightly brighter just before the ship starts moving in "The Doomsday Machine." Same for the Enterprise-D's engines in "Booby Trap," and the Enterprise in TMP just before accelerating to warp .5. In STXI, the impulse engines glow to varrying degrees depending on how the ship is maneuvering, and actually CEASE to glow when the ship goes into warp (CGI is useful like that).

Again, it comes down to VFX. The model starships used over the last thirty years had the impulse engines lit with incandescent bulbs whose brightness could not be varied. I get the feeling they probably WOULD have if they could have.

-As far as High Temperature Ions: Please use an illistration to make you point.

You can see here the plasma in this fusion reactor is mostly invisible EXCEPT near the edges of the magnetic field where the plasma torus is more turbulent. Now extrapolate this into an impulse engine: the "glow" would not be in the plume, it would be concentrated against the walls of the engine bell (or magnetic nozzle as per TNG manual) and barely visible elsewhere.

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

The orbiter's main engine shines brightly. The impulse engine doesn't shine at all.

It does in STXI.

Do not confuse lens flare with an actual technical detail.

This may merely be a case of artist rendition but this is a 3D image for simulation.

Actually, it's a 3D image from Orbitsim, a COMPUTER GAME, in particular one that renders most if not all engine exhaust plumes with the exact same graphic.

It's also another example that, in fiction, an engine can look like anything you want it to look like, science be damned. What counts is what the engine is envisioned as doing by its designers, and the TNG tech manual--not to mention the people who designed it--explicitly described it as a rocket-like device boosted by subspace fields.

I think the focus would make it dense enough to be visible.

Exhaust plumes do not have a focus.

While in normal space perhaps but at warp IDF is unnecessary.

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

I would have to disagree.
That maybe because of what I think a warp field does.

Then I have no idea what you think a warp field does, and I can only repeat that velocity and mass are two completely different things.

I see. So why aren't they the same if you may convert one for another.

Because you can't make substances out of energy, and matter is not a quintessential quantity that describes the ability to do work.

Or to put that another way: matter is a substance, energy is what that substance can do. The equivalence of matter and energy means that if you sacrifice half of a given substance (by converting it into energy) the other half will be able to do twice as much work.

Fusion doesn't require an intermix chamber.

Neither do warp cores. Although in the Tekiverse both fusion and matter/antimatter power plants have been known to operate with intermix chambers.

Why call it a "Warp Core" if no one has ever gone to warp before?

Because the ship was designed to go to warp. I don't think Zephram Cochrane designed the Phoenix's engine to roast marshmallows.

Describing what the power unit will help him accomplish instead of what it actually was?

Why not? When they first flew the Columbia, NASA got their first real test of the "thermal protection system," or "heat shield." Why would they name it a "thermal protection system" if it had never protected Columbia from the heat of reentry before?

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

Same with warp core. It's the engine core designed to power the warp drive; if that's what it was designed to do, why would he name it anything different?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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

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

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

For an admittedly weak example, how many here have made reference to "tin foil", even though it's a safe bet that none of us here have ever encountered anything but aluminum foil in our lifetimes?

Some of the early distance/speed references in ENT had ships traveling at impulse power at something like 40mph, while a few slightly later ones gave velocities close to conventional orbital speed.

Just another inconsistency on the altar of slipshod writing.

 

[Saquist]

It's against nothing at all. No one has ever given any description how impulse engines provide reverse power. The closest thing we have is Scotty in "Relics" who mentions that reverse thrust produces a specific distribution pattern in the ion trail, which at least implies that something "different" happens to the exhaust during reverse thrust. A force field acting as a thrust reverser is the most logical explanation.

If it is the most logical answer then the canon would reflect a visual disturbance when the Ion's impact that Force Field. We do not see it in the Search for Spock, Relics or at Starbase 74, DS9 with the Defiant, or Voyager. Star Trek is very consistent (not completely consistent) with what disturbs and makes a forcefield visible. This goes against everything we've seen and it's pure speculation.

Only if the VFX people needed it to be visible, and 99% of the time, they don't. Hell, the RCS thruster plumes aren't even visible, even on shuttlecraft.

That logic is external to the story. Visual effects for the engine concept you propose is completely theoretical even conjectural. You're making up systems to fit your concept. The field propulsion concept fits all the known canon with no technological conjecture.

Impulse power is a measurement of thrust, not a measurement of glow. The engine can provide more thrust by either 1) increasing the output of its subspace field or 2) increasing the mass flow through the nozzle. Or both. Neither of which would result in a change in the "glow intensity" from the impulse engines.

I didn't say "impulse power" was a measurement of glow. I said is the Impulse Engine is a mere Rocket as you claim then increased out put would mean increased light intensity. Impulse Power is a measurement of the Power of the impulse engines, the rate of doing work, engine output.

On the other hand, the Constellation's impulse engines in TOS-R do glow slightly brighter just before the ship starts moving in "The Doomsday Machine." Same for the Enterprise-D's engines in "Booby Trap," and the Enterprise in TMP just before accelerating to warp .5. In STXI, the impulse engines glow to varrying degrees depending on how the ship is maneuvering, and actually CEASE to glow when the ship goes into warp (CGI is useful like that).

I haven't seen TOS-R. Either the original or the R is canon but I believe the original has historical prescedent. In Booby Trap the engines were completely off-line, burst, and then went off-line again. STXI is an alternate universe and what ever resemblence to the previous Trek is highly inconsistent. In TMP we don't see the Engines go from idle to full power the cut scene starts with the Enterprise almost litterally in motion and accelerating away. THere was no moment of idle velocity and no indication of idle luminous from the engines. The scene merely starts out with a sound of explosive thrust. We don't know what it looked like before.

Again, it comes down to VFX. The model starships used over the last thirty years had the impulse engines lit with incandescent bulbs whose brightness could not be varied. I get the feeling they probably WOULD have if they could have.

I don't see the relevance in even addressing the VFX reasoning to reason out impulse design and function. Their intent isn't stated or even canon, is rampant speculation.

You can see here the plasma in this fusion reactor is mostly invisible EXCEPT near the edges of the magnetic field where the plasma torus is more turbulent. Now extrapolate this into an impulse engine: the "glow" would not be in the plume, it would be concentrated against the walls of the engine bell (or magnetic nozzle as per TNG manual) and barely visible elsewhere.

Beautiful picture.
I acknolwedge the plasma would be mostly invisible in modern day reactors but correct me if I'm wrong, (I'm sure you will) but todays reactors can't even sustain continous reactions. The Plasma wouldn't have the same preasure or temperature.

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

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

It does in STXI.

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

Do not confuse lens flare with an actual technical detail.

I didn't.

Actually, it's a 3D image from Orbitsim, a COMPUTER GAME, in particular one that renders most if not all engine exhaust plumes with the exact same graphic.

I'll take your word for it. The plume seemed unrealisticly long but then it's not the only picture of this sort as you know. I can't infer that any amount of concensus from these images will resovle the truth.

It's also another example that, in fiction, an engine can look like anything you want it to look like, science be damned. What counts is what the engine is envisioned as doing by its designers, and the TNG tech manual--not to mention the people who designed it--explicitly described it as a rocket-like device boosted by subspace fields.

I'm all about Design intent but I'd have to see the text myself.
Even then the manuals have to be taken with a grain of salt. I'll be the first to admit, knowing when and where the manuals become applicable is almost completely subjectional.

Exhaust plumes do not have a focus.

But the electrically accelerated and constricted ION or Plasma from engines on Trek's size and power should.

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

Hmm. Good point.

Then I have no idea what you think a warp field does, and I can only repeat that velocity and mass are two completely different things.

Obviously.
But that's not what I was determining.

Because you can't make substances out of energy,

From Ask a Astrophysicist:
It happens all the time. Particle accelerators convert energy into subatomic particles, for example by colliding electrons and positrons. Some of the kinetic energy in the collision goes into creating new particles.


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

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

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

Neither do warp cores. Although in the Tekiverse both fusion and matter/antimatter power plants have been known to operate with intermix chambers.

We've never seen an intermix on an impulse engine that didn't include a matter/antimatter power system.

Because the ship was designed to go to warp. I don't think Zephram Cochrane designed the Phoenix's engine to roast marshmallows.

And if the experiment didn't work it wouldn't be a "warp core." It's an impropper description, alot of assumption. Operable Devices like this are named for what they do not for what they will do. If the power plant worked then it's it's a reactor or power plant not a warp core.

Why not? When they first flew the Columbia, NASA got their first real test of the "thermal protection system," or "heat shield." Why would they name it a "thermal protection system" if it had never protected Columbia from the heat of reentry before?

Because it worked under testing conditions.
This was a first flight. It betrays a confidence in the final result that is unrealistic. How could he test this device iin the atmostphere of a planet to know if it was even going to work, not to mention he's not just naming a unit but an entire system a psuedonym for something that's never been done. But to be called a system it has to work first.

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

Same with warp core. It's the engine core designed to power the warp drive; if that's what it was designed to do, why would he name it anything different?

Reactor.
For what it is.
For what it's done.
Not for what it hasn't done.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It's against nothing at all. No one has ever given any description how impulse engines provide reverse power. The closest thing we have is Scotty in "Relics" who mentions that reverse thrust produces a specific distribution pattern in the ion trail, which at least implies that something "different" happens to the exhaust during reverse thrust. A force field acting as a thrust reverser is the most logical explanation.

If it is the most logical answer then the canon would reflect a visual disturbance when the Ion's impact that Force Field.

"the canon" would reflect this? Saquist, "the canon" is not about logic. The canon is about what was shown on screen. Much of what is contained in canon is completely illogical. Reconciling logic with canon is a hobby of trek fans, which is one of the reasons this forum was created in the first place.

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

Star Trek is very consistent (not completely consistent) with what disturbs and makes a forcefield visible.

HAH! How about DS9 "Way of the Warrior" or "Sacrifice of Angels" where we see ships being hit by barrages of heavy weapons with no visible indication of any shields being active?

Only if the VFX people needed it to be visible, and 99% of the time, they don't. Hell, the RCS thruster plumes aren't even visible, even on shuttlecraft.

That logic is external to the story.

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

I didn't say "impulse power" was a measurement of glow. I said is the Impulse Engine is a mere Rocket as you claim then increased out put would mean increased light intensity.

No it would not, because "light intensity" is not what thrusters produce. Thrusters produce THRUST, which correlates with "light intensity" only through a linear relationship between thrust and temperature. If that relationship doesn't exist (as in, for example, a jet engine that isn't using an afterburner) then light intensity doesn't change, only mass flow and/or acceleration of propellant changes.

I haven't seen TOS-R. Either the original or the R is canon but I believe the original has historical prescedent.

It doesn't, because the original is FICTION and therefore non-historical. As for canonicity... well, since TOS-R has been shown on screen, then TOS-R is canon.

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

So?

The scene merely starts out with a sound of explosive thrust. We don't know what it looked like before.

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

I don't see the relevance in even addressing the VFX reasoning to reason out impulse design and function. Their intent isn't stated or even canon, is rampant speculation.

Hate to break this to you, but the overwhelming of what we know about Star Trek isn't canon. Strictly speaking, even the tech manual isn't canon. Star Trek is about characters and situations, not technology and science, and the technology/science it DOES include is inconsistent enough to require nerds like us to explain it away. Fortunately the nerds behind the science already did alot of the work with the Tech Manual, which is as close to canon as you're going to get for an explanation of how these things work.

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

I acknolwedge the plasma would be mostly invisible in modern day reactors but correct me if I'm wrong, (I'm sure you will) but todays reactors can't even sustain continous reactions. The Plasma wouldn't have the same preasure or temperature.

It would have the same pressure and temperature; the difference would be a matter of efficiency, the amount of energy required to sustain the reaction vs the amount of energy it produces. Colder and less luminous plasma would probably be more ideal since it requires less energy to contain it in a magnetic field.

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

Amazon for you.

Even then the manuals have to be taken with a grain of salt.

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

But the electrically accelerated and constricted ION or Plasma from engines on Trek's size and power should.

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

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

From Ask a Astrophysicist:
It happens all the time. Particle accelerators convert energy into subatomic particles,

Key word here is "convert." When energy is converted into a massive particle, it is no longer energy, it is matter. Again: you can use energy to GET matter, and you can use matter to GET energy, but matter and energy are not the same thing.

We've never seen an intermix on an impulse engine that didn't include a matter/antimatter power system.

Irrelevant, since we have seen intermix chambers being used without that power system being active. If the intermix chamber can function without antimatter (and we know it can) then antimatter is not a requirement.

And if the experiment didn't work it wouldn't be a "warp core."

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

Operable Devices like this are named for what they do not for what they will do.

Correction: they are named for what they are DESIGNED to do. It's like how the space shuttle was called "the space shuttle" long before it ever flew in space.

I repeat: systems are named for what they are DESIGNED to do. Not all of them do what they're designed to do, and not all of them do ONLY what they are designed to do. Hell, even a warp core can also be used as an emergency black hole escape device.

 

[Saquist]

"the canon" would reflect this? Saquist, "the canon" is not about logic. The canon is about what was shown on screen. Much of what is contained in canon is completely illogical. Reconciling logic with canon is a hobby of trek fans, which is one of the reasons this forum was created in the first place.

But the canon does tend to reflect design intent. Such an elaborate system if was the understanding of the impulse engine still would have been included in the VFX. This idea of yours doesn't even follow canon no matter how logical you find it.

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

There is every reason to assume the barrier would be visible. Out of all the example of forcefields in use the clearly majority almost (100%) is that any interaction with it produces a visual disturbances. (except on marked occasions)
Your suggestion flies in the face of everything we've seen.

HAH! How about DS9 "Way of the Warrior" or "Sacrifice of Angels" where we see ships being hit by barrages of heavy weapons with no visible indication of any shields being active?

DS9 has greater fire power overriding any shield interaction.
Dominion ships have never shown shield interaction and neither (to my recollection) have cardassian ship.

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

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

That wasn't my point but okay.

No it would not, because "light intensity" is not what thrusters produce. Thrusters produce THRUST, which correlates with "light intensity" only through a linear relationship between thrust and temperature. If that relationship doesn't exist (as in, for example, a jet engine that isn't using an afterburner) then light intensity doesn't change, only mass flow and/or acceleration of propellant changes.

That's an intresting example.
The real reason why jet fighters exhaust appears non-luminus is because in the day the ambient light is far greater. It can be seen in darkness. (moderate to high power)

It doesn't, because the original is FICTION and therefore non-historical. As for canonicity... well, since TOS-R has been shown on screen, then TOS-R is canon.

Fiction is irrelevant.
History is described as the continuum of events occurring in succession leading from the past to the present and even into the future. Reality is not part of the description.

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

So?

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

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

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

Hate to break this to you, but the overwhelming of what we know about Star Trek isn't canon. Strictly speaking, even the tech manual isn't canon. Star Trek is about characters and situations, not technology and science, and the technology/science it DOES include is inconsistent enough to require nerds like us to explain it away. Fortunately the nerds behind the science already did alot of the work with the Tech Manual, which is as close to canon as you're going to get for an explanation of how these things work.

This is no News Flash.
Trek is what ever you want to make it.

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

I can't speak to the future but I can say that the Tech manual is a grain of salt issue. Where it matches feel free to use. Where there is an absence, substitute, but where there is contradiction, avoid.

It would have the same pressure and temperature; the difference would be a matter of efficiency, the amount of energy required to sustain the reaction vs the amount of energy it produces. Colder and less luminous plasma would probably be more ideal since it requires less energy to contain it in a magnetic field.

Power is always an issue right now.
If fusion is going to work it must not be an issue.

Amazon for you.

Indeed.

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

Exactly.

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

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

Perhaps so. I'll reread the ION thruster pages.

Key word here is "convert." When energy is converted into a massive particle, it is no longer energy, it is matter. Again: you can use energy to GET matter, and you can use matter to GET energy, but matter and energy are not the same thing.

The problem is if what you say is true then the difference is never explained infact it's ignore. Mass and Energy are frequently treated equally. It's even taught that they are interchangable and linked.

Irrelevant, since we have seen intermix chambers being used without that power system being active. If the intermix chamber can function without antimatter (and we know it can) then antimatter is not a requirement.

Negative:
Nothing suggest the power system was shutdown.

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

That's not same.
A rocket doesn't have to reach orbit to be called a rocket.

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

I repeat: systems are named for what they are DESIGNED to do. Not all of them do what they're designed to do, and not all of them do ONLY what they are designed to do. .

You got me on that example.
You're right.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

The real reason why jet fighters exhaust appears non-luminus is because in the day the ambient light is far greater. It can be seen in darkness. (moderate to high power)

That's not really true at all.

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

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

HOWEVER...

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

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

The only time you can see ANY exhaust incandescence on a Raptor is when it's on full afterburners.

Fiction is irrelevant.
History is described as the continuum of events occurring in succession leading from the past to the present and even into the future. Reality is not part of the description.

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

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

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

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

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

The problem is if what you say is true then the difference is never explained infact it's ignore. Mass and Energy are frequently treated equally. It's even taught that they are interchangable and linked.

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

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

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

Matter and energy are NOT "the same." However, there is a clear, well-defined and almost universally accepted mathematical relationship between the two. Doesn't change the fact that they're not the same - just that they've got a relationship.

I repeat: systems are named for what they are DESIGNED to do. Not all of them do what they're designed to do, and not all of them do ONLY what they are designed to do. .

You got me on that example. You're right.

Well, it's proper design practice to do that - to name systems based upon their intended functionality. If we lived on Vulcan, that's probably how things would work. Here on illogical little Earth, though, we have Dilbert-style bosses who confuse the issue wayyyy too frequently.

Still... it's PROPER PRACTICE to name systems and devices based upon function. Just not "universally done."

 

[Saquist]

The real reason why jet fighters exhaust appears non-luminus is because in the day the ambient light is far greater. It can be seen in darkness. (moderate to high power)

That's not really true at all.

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

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

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

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

I have noticed the same tendency in TNG designs. It's actualy an assignment I suspect. The Federation is given a red white and blue aura, the Romulans are given a Green arua as well as the Borg, Dominion purple, Klingons Green and Red to identify them as hostile. Star Wars tendsd to do the same thing with it's blasters. Curiously the New Trillogy swapped the colors.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for confirming that.
I'll have to reevalute all my positions now.

Still... it's PROPER PRACTICE to name systems and devices based upon function. Just not "universally done."

It just seemed very presumptious label the system warp core which is a future discriptor and I don't mean just that they haven't gone to warp yet. I mean that I just don't believe they were calling it "warp core" back then because this is an experimental development. Warp Core is term that is very common in the future 200 years later I sense we're being patronized by the writers.

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

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

I just don't go for loose-ended interpretations to this. The information we know is pretty good though not thorough. To say it could mean anything doesn't resolve anything and certainly doesn't follow the highest probability.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

"the canon" would reflect this? Saquist, "the canon" is not about logic. The canon is about what was shown on screen. Much of what is contained in canon is completely illogical. Reconciling logic with canon is a hobby of trek fans, which is one of the reasons this forum was created in the first place.

But the canon does tend to reflect design intent. Such an elaborate system if was the understanding of the impulse engine still would have been included in the VFX.

Nothing HAS to be included in VFX. Structural integrity fields are invisible, so are IDF fields, so are navigational deflector fields and force beams, the exhaust plumes from RCS thrusters, hell even transporter beams are completely invisible except directly at the beaming site. Why would impulse exhaust be any different?

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

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

There is every reason to assume the barrier would be visible. Out of all the example of forcefields in use the clearly majority almost (100%) is that any interaction with it produces a visual disturbances.

Except the examples I've just named, such as navigational deflectors, IDF fields, STI fields, and every deflector shield ever used in the 23rd century. And again, there's the fact that this otherwise mundane device wouldn't need to be visible unless the VFX crews had a very specific point to make in doing so, and they don't.

DS9 has greater fire power overriding any shield interaction.

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

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

Dominion ships have never shown shield interaction and neither (to my recollection) have cardassian ship.

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

That's an intresting example.
The real reason why jet fighters exhaust appears non-luminus is because in the day the ambient light is far greater. It can be seen in darkness. (moderate to high power)

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

History is described as the continuum of events occurring in succession leading from the past to the present and even into the future. Reality is not part of the description.

Except that fictional events are not part of "history." Reality is implicit in that description, hence the reason fictional events (the invasion of Earth by Martians in the 1930s, for example) are not considered historical.

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

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

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

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

They are exactly as consistent as the producers want them to be. No more, no less.

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

The lack of a retro exhaust port makes such a thing necessary by the very nature of impulse engines. We know this, because the producers have stated openly that the E-D's impulse engines drive the ship by producing thrust. This means a method of REVERSING thrust must exist using the visible exhaust port. Since nothing directly contradicts this conjecture--other than YOUR unsupported conjecture that a thrust-reversing force field "ought to be visible"-- it remains valid.

I can't speak to the future but I can say that the Tech manual is a grain of salt issue. Where it matches feel free to use. Where there is an absence, substitute, but where there is contradiction, avoid.

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

The problem is if what you say is true then the difference is never explained infact it's ignore.

Yes. Often times it IS ignored. Or at least, conveniently fudged by physicists who aren't being precise enough with their language when they talk to reporters. But that's par for the course in that business; how do you think all that "miniature black hole" business got started because of the Large Hadron Collider?

It's even taught that they are interchangable and linked.

This is understood by students, but not taught. It's actually a common mistake.

Negative:
Nothing suggest the power system was shutdown.

The intermix chamber is active even while the ship is in dry dock, when its matter/antimatter reactor is most certainly NOT operational. There's also the script cues which suggest the balance of matter/antimatter hadn't been completely worked out yet, implying that the antimatter reactor was dormant at impulse power (as well it should be).

Assuming the technology is not totally different from TOS, we know that impulse engines do not require antimatter to function (as per "The Doomsday Machine") and since the intermix in TMP is designed to supply the impulse engines, this another point for the intermix chamber not requiring an antimatter reactor to operate.

 

[Saquist]

Nothing HAS to be included in VFX. Structural integrity fields are invisible, so are IDF fields, so are navigational deflector fields and force beams, the exhaust plumes from RCS thrusters, hell even transporter beams are completely invisible except directly at the beaming site. Why would impulse exhaust be any different?

What I expect is that if I'am going to give your claim any reasonable consideration that it follow the format that has been laid out by canon. That pattern has been that forcefields are visible when disrupted. The the greatest majority of information vastly outweighs everything else. Since your theory isn't canon nor does it follow canon it is a lesser speculation by validity of supporting or corroborating information.

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

The manual is not canon.
The reality is that the Design Intent in this case is likely flawed. The publication is set in 1991. Star Trek The Next Generation was concluding by this time and there was an immense amount of visual data from two series and 4 movies from which to work out reasonable hypothesis as to the working of the impulse engine.

Except the examples I've just named, such as navigational deflectors, IDF fields, STI fields, and every deflector shield ever used in the 23rd century. And again, there's the fact that this otherwise mundane device wouldn't need to be visible unless the VFX crews had a very specific point to make in doing so, and they don't.

My consideration doesn't include those mundane devices. Nor, must consideration be balanced on the fulcrum of Visual FX intent. My argument is by default your argument is by exception and external story knowledge to which I do not find enough justifiable proof to grant any sort of validity. The canon is superior.

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

DS9's weapons are the strongest weapons shown on screen to date destroying Bird of Prey targets in 1.3 secs of phaser blast and destroying Vorchas Class Attack Cruisers with a minimum of 2 torpedo strikes. The Strength of these weapons are beyond any reasonable doubt.
DS9, as I have said is not Federation technology and Cardassian shield tech from since the first vessel in TNG did not show a shield interaction.

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

Irrelevant.
I have learned a great deal from you but I have not in any way implied that everything in Trek is required to be visible when active. This is hyperbole at the least and at the most a strawman error in logic.

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

Proof?

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

Source?

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

I need explicity not implicity.

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

Irrelevancy. No definable difference.
Non-Fictional history is prone to the same contradictions unfortunantly.

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

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

They are exactly as consistent as the producers want them to be. No more, no less.

Negative:
The implication here is that there is control by using the word want.
There was no control, no guidelines or any specific desire.

The lack of a retro exhaust port makes such a thing necessary by the very nature of impulse engines. We know this, because the producers have stated openly that the E-D's impulse engines drive the ship by producing thrust. This means a method of REVERSING thrust must exist using the visible exhaust port. Since nothing directly contradicts this conjecture--other than YOUR unsupported conjecture that a thrust-reversing force field "ought to be visible"-- it remains valid.

Unfortunantly the varying multitude of producers have no station in canon and thus inadmissable in validity. So it means nothing. The vast amount of canon supports that forcefields are visible when disturbed. There is no way to overturn the preponderance of data or to even to conjure one example of a "thrust reversing force field any where in canon". Your speculations are merely musings, possibilities that unfortuantly contradict the canon.

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

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

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

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

Are you implying that this two is fallacy?

The intermix chamber is active even while the ship is in dry dock, when its matter/antimatter reactor is most certainly NOT operational. There's also the script cues which suggest the balance of matter/antimatter hadn't been completely worked out yet, implying that the antimatter reactor was dormant at impulse power (as well it should be).

"Most certainly NOT operational", has not be established by canon. It's an assumption. The script clues aren't canon either but even if they were (entertaining the notion) your tech manual and canon states there are different intermix ratios for different velocities.

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

Assuming the technology is not totally different from TOS, we know that impulse engines do not require antimatter to function (as per "The Doomsday Machine") and since the intermix in TMP is designed to supply the impulse engines, this another point for the intermix chamber not requiring an antimatter reactor to operate.

You assume that I mean the intermixes sole purpose is for matter/ antimatter flow regulation. No. It is only one two function the device serve and propperly so. After mediating the reaction obviously the reaction must be then directed or channeled and perhaps even compressed.

So the impulse engines aren't using the antimatter they're using the reaction plasma from the warp core just as the phasers were also so routed to increase power.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Guys...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fine. You're welcome to thing that. But if you want anyone else to agree with you, you have to deal with the following:

1) Convince them that what they saw on-screen, and what the people who were making what was seen on-screen INTENDED, is less important than what you want them to believe.

2) Convince them that what you want them to believe makes more sense than what the "official" answer is.
​

Those are both real challenges. You've really failed to do either, so far, in my judgement.

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

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

SO....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The F-14 had two major advantages...

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

Second, the F-14 carried a pair of systems which were the core of the "fleet defense" system... a very powerful long-range target-acquisition radar, and a very effective, very long range air-to-air missile. These two systems were designed to work together, and are useless without the other.
​

The point is that these six F-14s, orbiting the fleet, could detect, target, and destroy any incoming craft BEFORE they came into range. Shoot-first, kill-first... always the best way to survive.

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

So, showing it burning off damned near half of its fuel load to get off the deck of a carrier isn't really a sound argument against what I said before, and am repeating now, is it?

 

[Saquist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those are both real challenges. You've really failed to do either, so far, in my judgement.

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

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

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

Seeing as I have made no such statements Cary Brown...I will consider this a Strawman strategy and move on.

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

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

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

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

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

Firstly,
magic is define as any art that invokes non human, supernatural powers.
Speculation is defined as a guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence .

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

If you want to argue REAL SCIENCE, let's do so. I explained, VERY CLEARLY AND SUCCINCTLY, why certain jet-turbine-powered aircraft have visible exhaust plumes and others do not. It seems that you failed to grasp it entirely, but that's not my problem, its yours.

I do not accept posession of the "problem" as I have well grasped the concepts that have been explained by the proffesionals on this forum. Rest assured you need not seek a bearer of the "problem" you perceive.

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

Yes...
A bottle rocket for instance.

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

The F-14 had two major advantages...

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

Fascinating.

Second, the F-14 carried a pair of systems which were the core of the "fleet defense" system... a very powerful long-range target-acquisition radar, and a very effective, very long range air-to-air missile. These two systems were designed to work together, and are useless without the other.
​

The point is that these six F-14s, orbiting the fleet, could detect, target, and destroy any incoming craft BEFORE they came into range. Shoot-first, kill-first... always the best way to survive.

This I knew.
​

So, showing it burning off damned near half of its fuel load to get off the deck of a carrier isn't really a sound argument against what I said before, and am repeating now, is it?

Mr. Cary Brown...I will assume you didn't see the link or the other picture that was used in the post of mine that you refer to, did you? You're basing this comment off the one picture you identified? If so I understand your condescension even if it is misplaced. Rest assured newtype alpha answered the question quite competently.