Why does the Phoenix have Bussard collectors?

[Tiberius]

Regarding where the warp reactor (whatever it was) could have been, let's not forget that there would have been plenty of space above and below the nacelles when they were stowed.

No that chamfer areas would hold no significant volume or shape for what we an expect a reactor to fit. Those areas would be slim and restrictive...good for running conduit and electrical systems but not for any reactor it's less than the space of the nacelles themselves.

How do you know how big reactors will be in 50 years time?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No, I mean the demonstrated and DoD funded magnetic confinement fusion reactors that Doctor Robert Bussard--from whom we get the term "bussard collector" in the first place--was developing in the 1990s at the time of his death, whose contemporaries are still developing at this time. Bussard's original prototype was about the size of a beach ball IIRC.

Has it been proven.
Has it been confirmed

The Pentagon seems to think so, since they keep funding their continuing research.

Not that it matters much, since "bussard collectors" found its way into Trek canon so evidently they DO work in the Trekiverse.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Also, I should point out that the SNAP-10 nuclear reactor casing was about the size of a trash can altogether, the largest portion of the powerplant was actually the radiator assembly. If Phoenix has a conformal radiator--or if it radiates heat through the glowy bits in the nacelles--then it could fit SEVERAL those in the main body.

 

[Saquist]

No, I mean the demonstrated and DoD funded magnetic confinement fusion reactors that Doctor Robert Bussard--from whom we get the term "bussard collector" in the first place--was developing in the 1990s at the time of his death, whose contemporaries are still developing at this time. Bussard's original prototype was about the size of a beach ball IIRC.

Has it been proven.
Has it been confirmed

The Pentagon seems to think so, since they keep funding their continuing research.

Not that it matters much, since "bussard collectors" found its way into Trek canon so evidently they DO work in the Trekiverse.

Hmm. Rather large leaps in logic.
I read the Defense is no longer funding it.
I read the they are having trouble getting funding.
I read the collectors were named for his ramjet research.

 

[Patrickivan]

There's no reason why if you're Fanatic of Star Trek.
But if you're actually rationally working out the possibilities of minaturizing the Fusion tech to the size of Large "Cruise missles" as Timo describes them then you're just out of your mind because that would esstential be a micro fussion reactor just like they have in the 24th century, it doesn't matter how you speculate on it's power output the mere ability to micronize a world changing piece of tech like Fussion power is lightyears beyond the current day tech, which is only 50 years distant.

HA! Yes... If I AM the fanatic... Let me just re-read the 9 pages you've consistently post on...

Seriously though... There's quite a bit of volume to accomodate an m/arc. If you're assuming that the reactor runs the length of the nacelle with the coils surrounding only the middle half. What else is in there? It's not all coils and cooling (for what?)...

 

[Saquist]

There's no reason why if you're Fanatic of Star Trek.
But if you're actually rationally working out the possibilities of minaturizing the Fusion tech to the size of Large "Cruise missles" as Timo describes them then you're just out of your mind because that would esstential be a micro fussion reactor just like they have in the 24th century, it doesn't matter how you speculate on it's power output the mere ability to micronize a world changing piece of tech like Fussion power is lightyears beyond the current day tech, which is only 50 years distant.

HA! Yes... If I AM the fanatic... Let me just re-read the 9 pages you've consistently post on...

That's the thing with fanatics they tend to be excessive and beyond reason with what their fanatical about. That's why you never ask fans what they like about what their fanatical about because you'll usually find (generally) they like everything, but if you ask them what they don't like they'll be a bit more honest. I haven't been a Trek Fan in a long time. I like it but for the last 6 or 7 years it's become increasing more stupid (like most of TV), I'm a fan of good Sci Fi which usually means reading...

Seriously though... There's quite a bit of volume to accomodate an m/arc. If you're assuming that the reactor runs the length of the nacelle with the coils surrounding only the middle half. What else is in there? It's not all coils and cooling (for what?)...

My criticisms were directed against a main body fusion reactor. AND...they already pointed out that the pylons are taking a portion of nacelle space so no room for mini reactors there.

Regarding where the warp reactor (whatever it was) could have been, let's not forget that there would have been plenty of space above and below the nacelles when they were stowed.

No that chamfer areas would hold no significant volume or shape for what we an expect a reactor to fit. Those areas would be slim and restrictive...good for running conduit and electrical systems but not for any reactor it's less than the space of the nacelles themselves.

How do you know how big reactors will be in 50 years time?

Trend.

EBR-1 1951 and they've yet to be reduced to the size of beach balls 62 years later. I seriously doubt this pollywell thing will pan out. I question why it's gotten so little press or academic interest and yet the AP contractually updates the public on the Larger reactors with the most powerful lasers in existence. It would be profound if it came true but cold fusion was even more hyped and that fell by the way side I've not seen much on the pollywell that suggest it's not much of the same. Maybe it will lead to something else, some kind of related break-through.

 

[Patrickivan]

There's no reason why if you're Fanatic of Star Trek.
But if you're actually rationally working out the possibilities of minaturizing the Fusion tech to the size of Large "Cruise missles" as Timo describes them then you're just out of your mind because that would esstential be a micro fussion reactor just like they have in the 24th century, it doesn't matter how you speculate on it's power output the mere ability to micronize a world changing piece of tech like Fussion power is lightyears beyond the current day tech, which is only 50 years distant.

HA! Yes... If I AM the fanatic... Let me just re-read the 9 pages you've consistently post on...

That's the thing with fanatics they tend to be excessive and beyond reason with what their fanatical about. That's why you never ask fans what they like about what their fanatical about because you'll usually find (generally) they like everything, but if you ask them what they don't like they'll be a bit more honest. I haven't been a Trek Fan in a long time. I like it but for the last 6 or 7 years it's become increasing more stupid (like most of TV), I'm a fan of good Sci Fi which usually means reading...

My point was that there was nothing fanatical about my response. I did find yours to be humourous. But certainly nothing worth arguing about, right?

Seriously though... There's quite a bit of volume to accomodate an m/arc. If you're assuming that the reactor runs the length of the nacelle with the coils surrounding only the middle half. What else is in there? It's not all coils and cooling (for what?)...

My criticisms were directed against a main body fusion reactor. AND...they already pointed out that the pylons are taking a portion of nacelle space so no room for mini reactors there.

Fair enough. My only contention is that you have to allow for some fiction when trying to apply the science aspect to sci-fi. There has to be an element of suspension of belief or our Trek stories would be called Science non-fiction... The reactor/s where ever you stick them, have to be small enough to work or our hero ship wouldn't be able to have made it's little jaunt.

There's no room for arguement in that sense. And I'm certainly not one who is arguing against applying real world science. I'm just saying that for the sake of arguement, you have to bend a little because otherwise, well, it just stops being fun.

 

[sojourner]

I seriously doubt this pollywell thing will pan out. I question why it's gotten so little press or academic interest and yet the AP contractually updates the public on the Larger reactors with the most powerful lasers in existence. It would be profound if it came true but cold fusion was even more hyped and that fell by the way side I've not seen much on the pollywell that suggest it's not much of the same. Maybe it will lead to something else, some kind of related break-through.

So in one paragraph you imply that the research with a lot of hype is most likely to pan out and then go on to denigrate research that was over hyped for not panning out!?!?! Dude, quite trying to lump Polywell fusion in with cold fusion and try reading about it before you make assumptions.

 

[Saquist]

That's the thing with fanatics they tend to be excessive and beyond reason with what their fanatical about. That's why you never ask fans what they like about what their fanatical about because you'll usually find (generally) they like everything, but if you ask them what they don't like they'll be a bit more honest. I haven't been a Trek Fan in a long time. I like it but for the last 6 or 7 years it's become increasing more stupid (like most of TV), I'm a fan of good Sci Fi which usually means reading...

My point was that there was nothing fanatical about my response. I did find yours to be humourous. But certainly nothing worth arguing about, right?

My criticisms were directed against a main body fusion reactor. AND...they already pointed out that the pylons are taking a portion of nacelle space so no room for mini reactors there.

Fair enough. My only contention is that you have to allow for some fiction when trying to apply the science aspect to sci-fi. There has to be an element of suspension of belief or our Trek stories would be called Science non-fiction... The reactor/s where ever you stick them, have to be small enough to work or our hero ship wouldn't be able to have made it's little jaunt.

There's no room for arguement in that sense. And I'm certainly not one who is arguing against applying real world science. I'm just saying that for the sake of arguement, you have to bend a little because otherwise, well, it just stops being fun.

Sorry I assumed you were a Star Trek Fan, which is derivative of Fanatic.

So in one paragraph you imply that the research with a lot of hype is most likely to pan out and then go on to denigrate research that was over hyped for not panning out!?!?! Dude, quite trying to lump Polywell fusion in with cold fusion and try reading about it before you make assumptions.

I'm not really concerned with implications. Everyone perceives implicity differently. For instance, I didn't mean to imply to you that pollywell is "a lot of hype". In fact I was pointing out just the opposite. It's not hyped, in fact the AP doesn't have one article on the reactor. Yet they've reported on a myriad of other fusion prototypes over the past 10 years. It's very questionable to me.

As soon as NewTypeAlpha used the word I read the wiki and 6 other sites on the reactor. But I have all the same questions you'd expect....

Why haven't they done it if it works so well?
Why hasn't there been any media press?
What are the problems with the reactor that prevents it's construction?

It's pretty standard and realistic questions.

 

[Patrickivan]

My point was that there was nothing fanatical about my response. I did find yours to be humourous. But certainly nothing worth arguing about, right?

Fair enough. My only contention is that you have to allow for some fiction when trying to apply the science aspect to sci-fi. There has to be an element of suspension of belief or our Trek stories would be called Science non-fiction... The reactor/s where ever you stick them, have to be small enough to work or our hero ship wouldn't be able to have made it's little jaunt.

There's no room for arguement in that sense. And I'm certainly not one who is arguing against applying real world science. I'm just saying that for the sake of arguement, you have to bend a little because otherwise, well, it just stops being fun.

Sorry I assumed you were a Star Trek Fan, which is derivative of Fanatic.

I wasn't trying to start an arguement. I am well aware of what "Fan" is derived from. That's the key though- derived. Oh well...

On a different note, I've started reading about this Pollywell device and I have many questions now. But they will be answered through what I'm reading. I hope.

 

[Vance]

Okay, this has gone on far enough.

The actual reason for the OP's question is this: The producers of First Contact considered such a detail a triviality and not worth worrying about for their big movie. And, you know what, they were right in that regard.

It's tempting to forget that most of us in Trek Tech simply do not operate at the Hollywood level. Most of us here (except that one guy - you know who I'm talking about!) are simply more versed and educated about technology and science than the typical Hollywood writer or producer. Yet, even knowing this, we (as a group) for some reason can't accept the simple following phrase:

"Hollywood fucked this up."

Instead we engage in hateful, spiteful arguments on just how we explain the bullshit in some way where it no longer appears to be bullshit to us. It's well beyond an amusing intellectual exercise, but gone into fervor and dogma. Were someone has to be right on an interpretation of science which was pointedly wrong in the first place.

The bussards on the Phoenix? No, they really shouldn't be there. That little probe ain't collecting anti-matter, and that's a minor problem with a seriously flawed story. And, really, most of Paramount or CBS's audience (including a lot of die-hard Trek fans) really wouldn't care about it.

But for us, here, we need an enema of basic fact. "Hollywood fucked this up." This has been a truism since "Dilithium Circuits" were brought up and the bridge was rotated away from the external model's design. At some point, everyone needs to do themselves a favor, move on, and try to enjoy the ride again.

 

[sojourner]

.

So in one paragraph you imply that the research with a lot of hype is most likely to pan out and then go on to denigrate research that was over hyped for not panning out!?!?! Dude, quite trying to lump Polywell fusion in with cold fusion and try reading about it before you make assumptions.

I'm not really concerned with implications. Everyone perceives implicity differently. For instance, I didn't mean to imply to you that pollywell is "a lot of hype". In fact I was pointing out just the opposite. It's not hyped, in fact the AP doesn't have one article on the reactor. Yet they've reported on a myriad of other fusion prototypes over the past 10 years. It's very questionable to me.

As soon as NewTypeAlpha used the word I read the wiki and 6 other sites on the reactor. But I have all the same questions you'd expect....

I was referring to cold fusion as the over hyped research. You complain about it being hyped, then complain about Pollywell not being hyped. Make up your mind.

Why haven't they done it if it works so well?

They are doing it. things take time and money. The navy gave them $8 million in 2009 to build the current prototype. The estimate for a full size production plant is $200million. Find them that and they will build you one.

Why hasn't there been any media press?

Ask the press? Or are you intimating that there is some "conspiracy"?

What are the problems with the reactor that prevents it's construction?

None so far as they can tell from the latest results. They just need the money to do it.

It's pretty standard and realistic questions.

And pretty easy to answer with a little more googling yourself.

 

[Saquist]

I was referring to cold fusion as the over hyped research. You complain about it being hyped, then complain about Pollywell not being hyped. Make up your mind.

I have and it's not as you believed it to be.

They are doing it. things take time and money. The navy gave them $8 million in 2009 to build the current prototype. The estimate for a full size production plant is $200million. Find them that and they will build you one.

Why would I want one?

Ask the press? Or are you intimating that there is some "conspiracy"?

Perhaps among other things.
Sounds similar to the cold fusion myth.

None so far as they can tell from the latest results. They just need the money to do it.

So... clean virtually unlimited power and no one is interested in funding it....
Interesting...

And pretty easy to answer with a little more googling yourself.

No I don't think so. I've read about enough. Besides a few forums like this one there was very little explanation....certainly odd.

 

[sojourner]

Sigh, well if you're determined to remain ignorant on the subject, we can't stop you. Just do us the favor of not using that ignorance to make judgements.

 

[Saquist]

Sigh, well if you're determined to remain ignorant on the subject, we can't stop you. Just do us the favor of not using that ignorance to make judgements.

We all chose to be ignorant about something and I choose to waste no further time on the irrelevant.

 

[Unicron]

Okay, this has gone on far enough.

The actual reason for the OP's question is this: The producers of First Contact considered such a detail a triviality and not worth worrying about for their big movie. And, you know what, they were right in that regard.

It's tempting to forget that most of us in Trek Tech simply do not operate at the Hollywood level. Most of us here (except that one guy - you know who I'm talking about!) are simply more versed and educated about technology and science than the typical Hollywood writer or producer. Yet, even knowing this, we (as a group) for some reason can't accept the simple following phrase:

"Hollywood fucked this up."

Instead we engage in hateful, spiteful arguments on just how we explain the bullshit in some way where it no longer appears to be bullshit to us. It's well beyond an amusing intellectual exercise, but gone into fervor and dogma. Were someone has to be right on an interpretation of science which was pointedly wrong in the first place.

The bussards on the Phoenix? No, they really shouldn't be there. That little probe ain't collecting anti-matter, and that's a minor problem with a seriously flawed story. And, really, most of Paramount or CBS's audience (including a lot of die-hard Trek fans) really wouldn't care about it.

But for us, here, we need an enema of basic fact. "Hollywood fucked this up." This has been a truism since "Dilithium Circuits" were brought up and the bridge was rotated away from the external model's design. At some point, everyone needs to do themselves a favor, move on, and try to enjoy the ride again.

I think this sums it up very nicely. Since this thread has seemed to be in a decaying orbit for a while now, I'm clanging it.