Goftars Daily Tech

[STSF_BluRox 0]

Hate to be the one to tell you Goftar, but you'll lose every time to either

Fred or LoAmi. They are by far, some of our most knowledgeable resources here. Remember as well, that some of these folks have been here for well over 10 years, and well, have spent alot of time researching both the show, as well as many of them work in real life sciences.

 

Just bow down and take your place cadet...LOL.

 

You might also want to take a look at the book "The Science of Star Trek". I'll edit this with the correct references later. Many of the writers used real scientist, and scientific resources when naming equipment and procedures that were mentioned in the show. So, one does need to take care when inventing the name of something.

 

Oh, and another way to detect a cloaked ship is to run into it!!

 

Blu

Edited August 11, 2005 by STSF_BluRox

[LoAmi 0]

okay twine would not work because to be effective it would have to encircle the entire area using up too many ships and since you are all giving me soooo much grief about this I will tell you the answer now

Then, next time, phrase your question better. You asked:

what is a piece of technology that can detect a cloaked vessel but needs many vessels equiped with it to use it

Strings of twine do indeed answer the question correctly. Even if you need lots of ships (you never gave an upper limit of ships or ship density) and lots of twine (you never gave a mass or energy limitation on the question).

 

This whole thing reminds me of this physics joke/urban legend (there are a number of versions floating around, this one is from here):

Sir Ernest Rutherford, President of the Royal Academy, and recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, related the following story.

 

Some time ago I received a call from a colleague. He was about to give a student a zero for his answer to a physics question, while the student claimed a perfect score. The instructor and the student agreed to an impartial arbiter, and I was selected.

 

I read the examination question: "Show how it is possible to determine the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer." The student had answered: "Take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to the street, and then bring it up, measuring the length of the rope. The length of the rope is the height of the building."

 

The student really had a strong case for full credit since he had really answered the question completely and correctly! On the other hand, if full credit were given, it could well contribute to a high grade in his physics course and certify competence in physics, but the answer did not confirm this.

 

I suggested that the student have another try. I gave the student six minutes to answer the question with the warning that the answer should show some knowledge of physics. At the end of five minutes, he hadn't written anything. I asked if he wished to give up, but he said he had many answers to this problem; he was just thinking of the best one. I excused myself for interrupting him and asked him to please go on.

 

In the next minute, he dashed off his answer, which read: "Take the barometer to the top of the building and lean over the edge of the roof. Drop the barometer, timing its fall with a stopwatch. Then, using the formula x=0.5*a*t^2, calculate the height of the building." At this point, I asked my colleague if he would give up. He conceded, and gave the student almost full credit.

 

While leaving my colleague's office, I recalled that the student had said that he had other answers to the problem, so I asked him what they were.

 

"Well," said the student, "there are many ways of getting the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer.

 

For example, you could take the barometer out on a sunny day and measure the height of the barometer, the length of its shadow, and the length of the shadow of the building, and by the use of simple proportion, determine the height of the building."

 

"Fine," I said, "and others?"

 

"Yes," said the student, "there is a very basic measurement method you will like. In this method, you take the barometer and begin to walk up the stairs. As you climb the stairs, you mark off the length of the barometer along the wall. You then count the number of marks, and this will give you the height of the building in barometer units." "A very direct method."

 

"Of course. If you want a more sophisticated method, you can tie the barometer to the end of a string, swing it as a pendulum, and determine the value of g [gravity] at the street level and at the top of the building. From the difference between the two values of g, the height of the building, in principle, can be calculated."

 

"On this same tack, you could take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to just above the street, and then swing it as a pendulum. You could then calculate the height of the building by the period of the precession".

 

"Finally," he concluded, "there are many other ways of solving the problem. Probably the best," he said, "is to take the barometer to the basement and knock on the superintendent's door. When the superintendent answers, you speak to him as follows: 'Mr. Superintendent, here is a fine barometer. If you will tell me the height of the building, I will give you this barometer."

 

At this point, I asked the student if he really did not know the conventional answer to this question. He admitted that he did, but said that he was fed up with high school and college instructors trying to teach him how to think.

 

The name of the student was Niels Bohr." (1885-1962) Danish Physicist; Nobel Prize 1922; best known for proposing the first 'model' of the atom with protons & neutrons, and various energy state of the surrounding electrons -- the familiar icon of the small nucleus circled by three elliptical orbits ... but more significantly, an innovator in Quantum Theory.

[Ramdar Goftar 0]

Then, next time, phrase your question better. You asked:

 

Strings of twine do indeed answer the question correctly. Even if you need lots of ships (you never gave an upper limit of ships or ship density) and lots of twine (you never gave a mass or energy limitation on the question).

 

This whole thing reminds me of this physics joke/urban legend (there are a number of versions floating around, this one is from here):

Sir Ernest Rutherford, President of the Royal Academy, and recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, related the following story.

 

Some time ago I received a call from a colleague. He was about to give a student a zero for his answer to a physics question, while the student claimed a perfect score. The instructor and the student agreed to an impartial arbiter, and I was selected.

 

I read the examination question: "Show how it is possible to determine the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer." The student had answered: "Take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to the street, and then bring it up, measuring the length of the rope. The length of the rope is the height of the building."

 

The student really had a strong case for full credit since he had really answered the question completely and correctly! On the other hand, if full credit were given, it could well contribute to a high grade in his physics course and certify competence in physics, but the answer did not confirm this.

 

I suggested that the student have another try. I gave the student six minutes to answer the question with the warning that the answer should show some knowledge of physics. At the end of five minutes, he hadn't written anything. I asked if he wished to give up, but he said he had many answers to this problem; he was just thinking of the best one. I excused myself for interrupting him and asked him to please go on.

 

In the next minute, he dashed off his answer, which read: "Take the barometer to the top of the building and lean over the edge of the roof. Drop the barometer, timing its fall with a stopwatch. Then, using the formula x=0.5*a*t^2, calculate the height of the building." At this point, I asked my colleague if he would give up. He conceded, and gave the student almost full credit.

 

While leaving my colleague's office, I recalled that the student had said that he had other answers to the problem, so I asked him what they were.

 

"Well," said the student, "there are many ways of getting the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer.

 

For example, you could take the barometer out on a sunny day and measure the height of the barometer, the length of its shadow, and the length of the shadow of the building, and by the use of simple proportion, determine the height of the building."

 

"Fine," I said, "and others?"

 

"Yes," said the student, "there is a very basic measurement method you will like. In this method, you take the barometer and begin to walk up the stairs. As you climb the stairs, you mark off the length of the barometer along the wall. You then count the number of marks, and this will give you the height of the building in barometer units." "A very direct method."

 

"Of course. If you want a more sophisticated method, you can tie the barometer to the end of a string, swing it as a pendulum, and determine the value of g [gravity] at the street level and at the top of the building. From the difference between the two values of g, the height of the building, in principle, can be calculated."

 

"On this same tack, you could take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to just above the street, and then swing it as a pendulum. You could then calculate the height of the building by the period of the precession".

 

"Finally," he concluded, "there are many other ways of solving the problem. Probably the best," he said, "is to take the barometer to the basement and knock on the superintendent's door. When the superintendent answers, you speak to him as follows: 'Mr. Superintendent, here is a fine barometer. If you will tell me the height of the building, I will give you this barometer."

 

At this point, I asked the student if he really did not know the conventional answer to this question. He admitted that he did, but said that he was fed up with high school and college instructors trying to teach him how to think.

 

The name of the student was Niels Bohr." (1885-1962) Danish Physicist; Nobel Prize 1922; best known for proposing the first 'model' of the atom with protons & neutrons, and various energy state of the surrounding electrons -- the familiar icon of the small nucleus circled by three elliptical orbits ... but more significantly, an innovator in Quantum Theory.

wow

 

Alright I guess I am going to accept your answers as correct no matter if I think they are or not. (listens to blu)

 

well I guess thats how its going to be

 

okay about the armor correct answer to the question but how does it work?

[STSF NDak 0]

If you mean ablative armorer from DS9, it works just like any other armor works :lol: If you mean from Voyager...it works the same way only that was some weird generated crap. :D

[WesleyMustDie 0]

::stares blankly at Goftar:: You're the technobabble speaker. You tell us! :lol: lol

[FredM 0]

::simply returns to his throne in the Great Hall of Technobable::

[LoAmi 0]

Alright I guess I am going to accept your answers as correct no matter if I think they are or not. (listens to blu)

(emphasis added)

 

And yet you are still missing the point :-)

[STSF Precip 0]

If you mean ablative armorer from DS9, it works just like any other armor works ;) If you mean from Voyager...it works the same way only that was some weird generated crap. :)

 

Woah....Ablative Armor is not standard on Federation vessels. The armor disappates energy over it's surface first , then at a certain energy exposure level the stuff actually boils of at a controlled rate. That is the stuff actually carries a large portion of the energy striking its surface by boiling off into a molecular cloud. The moloculer cloud produced by the "boil-off" may actually disperse incoming beam energy as well.

 

Ablative Armor was unavailable for General Starfleet use before 2372 and it presumably was first installed on Defiant Class Vessels. Prometheus Class Vessels are also known to be equipped with it.

 

-Precip

 

PS...I got the term "Boil-off" From a DS9 book. But from what it they describe happening to the armor when its hit by a beam...it sounds more like Sublimation...a direct shift from the solid phase of matter to gas.

[Ramdar Goftar 0]

What I understand that you are all smarter than me when it comes to technobabble and I guess I should step aside I was just trying to have a info page not start any arguments cant we all be friends

 

Anyway albative armor vaporizes when fired upon thereby dissipitating the energy

[WesleyMustDie 0]

If you really want to impress me, you could tell me what xenotronium armor is. ;)

[eagle 0]

What I understand that you are all smarter than me when it comes to technobabble and I guess I should step aside I was just trying to have a info page not start any arguments cant we all be friends

 

Anyway albative armor vaporizes when fired upon thereby dissipitating the energy

in the strictest definition of the term of ablative armor you are correct, it is not a new form of technology the u.s. army has been using this type of armor on vehicles more

specifically TANKS for quite some time, that being said,.....as was stated previously i do

beleive you have missed the point....but by all means do keep this thread alive it is an

interesting forum with a lot of really good ideas and info exchanged by all,....after all is

that not what this is all about...have fun, enjoy each other and respect other members

opinions ....who knows the first real warp drive engine may come out of discussions such as are seen here........don,t laugh.......radar,television, SPACE TRAVEL, inter continental travel by jet air craft are just a few of the things thought to be pure science

fiction........not too long ago.........suggest to some of you read the works of Mr. issac

asimnov as well as others.........you may be pleasntly suprised...good work goftar and

keep it going....... :) ;) :P

[Ramdar Goftar 0]

here here

 

thats exactly why I have decided to change the format of this page from a guessing game to a real discussion page where I will name a piece of Technology as a topic and we all say everything we know about it and discuss the correctness of everything said then at the end put it all into one definition

 

what do you think

[WesleyMustDie 0]

Good idea. Now explain xenotronium armor. (and I have a basic knowledge of what it is)

[eagle 0]

here here

 

thats exactly why I have decided to change the format of this page from a guessing game to a real discussion page where I will name a piece of Technology as a topic and we all say everything we know about it and discuss the correctness of everything said then at the end put it all into one definition

 

what do you think

good idea...just make sure it is clear that it should contain content relavent to our

mission here, and you might want to thoroughly research as much as possible the

topic first...then get feed back...i have been very suprised at some of the core info

being posted here and have thoroughly enjoyed it........or as an alternative throw out

a topic and lets all have a go on research and find info quest...could be fun.. :) :P

 

oh yeah folks lets keep it civil..... ;) B)

Edited August 12, 2005 by eagle

[LoAmi 0]

What I understand that you are all smarter than me when it comes to technobabble and I guess I should step aside I was just trying to have a info page not start any arguments cant we all be friends

Nope. My point was that there's quite a lot of room for creativity beyond what *you* know from the series. Everyone comes in with his own different knowledge set. Just because an answer isn't the one you intended for someone to give, that doesn't make it wrong. It also doesn't make yours wrong. Nor does my giving the answer automatically make it right (hey... I have a right to come up with stupid ideas too). Sometimes, there is more than one correct solution to a problem.

 

And, sometimes, what's true in life, also works in Star Trek sims. Picking up on other people's ideas and working with them is an important simming skill :-)

[Ramdar Goftar 0]

OH yes I understood all that from the start when I said its not this its not that I just meant that that wasnt the answer I was looking for anyway like I said no more on the subject please I just want everyone to come together now so all the information can be put into one. I was even thinking of saveing the definitions we would make an making an STSF Teck Guide it would be fun dont you think

[STSF NDak 0]

::smirks::

 

I stand corrected, I figured it absorbed energy in some way, that would make sense for calling it ablative..just wasn't sure of the proccess ;)

[Ramdar Goftar 0]

okay heres the first topic of the new format

we'll start at the basics

Warp Core

Go

[WesleyMustDie 0]

Matter/Antimatter reaction produces energy for the ship's engines. That's all I know.

[Murdok Helios 0]

it produces the enegery by a controled explosion of some sort...::passes it on::

[WesleyMustDie 0]

By controlling how much matter and antimatter are in the chamber, you control how fast the ship can travel...or something like that...

[Garnoopy 0]

I was even thinking of saveing the definitions we would make an making an STSF Teck Guide it would be fun dont you think

We have something like that onboard the Manticore, known as the "Engineering Technical Manual" which was put together about a year or two back. It was basically a summary of how ship systems worked, so people could understand the basics without having to have memorized a technical manual. I checked the link though and it appears to be broken.

 

Well, I do have a copy of the manual on my hard drive, here is what it says about the warp core:

 

Warp Propulsion Systems, WPS

Engineering File 2.1

 

The warp drive system consists of three main items: the matter/antimatter reaction assembly, power transfer conduits, and warp engine nacelles. It should be noted, the item commonly referred to as the “warp core” is not what sends the ship into warp.

 

Onboard the ship there is a Primary Deuterium Tank (PDT). The PDT holds deuterium in what is referred to as a slush form. The deuterium is not liquid, but not solid, it’s slush. In order for the WPS to use the deuterium it needs to be in this form.

 

The PDT feeds the slush deuterium into the matter reactant injector (MRI) at the very top of the warp core. The MRI injects the super cold deuterium into the magnetic constriction segments (MCS). The MCS constricts and compresses the deuterium into a highly tuned almost beamlike stream of deuterium.

 

The highly compressed and focused beam of deuterium is then sent into the Matter/Antimatter Reaction Chamber (M/ARC).

 

Meanwhile, at the bottom of the warp core antimatter is sent into antimatter reactant injector (ARI). The ARI injects the antimatter into the lower MCS, which constricts and compresses the antimatter into a highly tuned stream.

 

The highly compressed and focus beam of antimatter is then sent upwards into the M/ARC.

 

The M/ARC takes the stream of deuterium from the top and the stream of antimatter from the bottom and very precisely sends them into the dilithium crystal, which has been precisely shaped for this purpose.

 

Dilithium is the only known substance, due to its atomical structure to not react violently to antimatter.

 

The amount of deuterium and antimatter that is sent through the system depends on how much power is required. Standard power generation requires that 10 units of deuterium and 1 unit of antimatter is sent into the system, a ratio of 10:1. This is also the ratio required to enter warp speed. While at warp 8 the ration is 1:1. Higher warp speeds require greater amounts of deuterium and antimatter, but the ratio stays the same.

 

The combination of the deuterium and antimatter creates a plasma stream, which is tuned precisely for what is needed. The plasma stream flows aft from the warp core into the power transfer conduits (PTC).

 

The PTC runs through what is called the Electro Plasma System (EPS). The EPS can either direct the plasma into the warp nacelles, thereby sending the ship into warp or it can direct the plasma to power items onboard the ship.

 

To go to warp the plasma is directed into the warp nacelles where it energizes the warp field coils. It is the nacelles that send the ship into warp, not the warp core. The warp field coils use the plasma to create an intense, multilayered field that surrounds the starship, which by manipulating the shape of the field produces the effect that allows a starship to travel faster than light.

[Ramdar Goftar 0]

Thank you for the entire answer to that I myself would like to see the manual that you have. In a nutshell what that just said is that the Deuterium (matter) and antimatter are compacted and sent to a dilithium crystal which combines it into plasma which is sent through the back of the core and into the EPS conduits that flow throughout the ship giving it power. They also flow to the warp nacelles and by the ammount of plasma that surges into the coils located in the nacelles determines how fast you go so the more plasma the faster you go which is why at high warp the warp core appears to be working harder because it has to make more plasma

I think I got it all would anyone like to add anything to that

[eagle 0]

warp speed ...factor 10.....engage........ ;) :) :P

[Ramdar Goftar 0]

okay then if there are no objections thats the definition i am taking now onto transporters