FLM films - My Webpage

2000-06-03 00:00:00 - Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Spoilers for Star Trek IV and Voyager Fury: In Star Trek IV: The Voyager Home, a clunky 23rd Century Klingon Bird Of Prey twice goes around the sun at high warp, meaning that it had to make a sharp turn at high warp. However, in Voyager: Fury, Voyager has to drop out of warp to make course corrections in a subspace vacuole field. How can a 23rd Century Klingon ship make sharp turns at warp whereas the 24th Century Voyager cannot?

2000-06-03 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - ("Norm G." <auto34997@hushmail.com>)


Without getting into an Occam's razor, but in the simplest terms I'm guessing the strong pull of a stars gravity can bend light. In theory, a ship going at light speed encountering such a gravametric field could be turned or would appear to turn. But I also remember something about thrusters being fired. Once again... back to the drawing board.. Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message news:3939C77F.F166381A@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... Spoilers for Star Trek IV and Voyager Fury: In Star Trek IV: The Voyager Home, a clunky 23rd Century Klingon Bird Of Prey twice goes around the sun at high warp, meaning that it had to make a sharp turn at high warp. However, in Voyager: Fury, Voyager has to drop out of warp to make course corrections in a subspace vacuole field. How can a 23rd Century Klingon ship make sharp turns at warp whereas the 24th Century Voyager cannot?

2000-06-04 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (rgorman@telusplanet.net)


On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 20:05:36 -0700, Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: >Spoilers for Star Trek IV and Voyager Fury: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >In Star Trek IV: The Voyager Home, a clunky 23rd Century Klingon Bird Of Prey twice >goes around the sun at high warp, meaning that it had to make a sharp turn at high >warp. However, in Voyager: Fury, Voyager has to drop out of warp to make course >corrections in a subspace vacuole field. How can a 23rd Century Klingon ship make >sharp turns at warp whereas the 24th Century Voyager cannot? What, you expect continuity?

2000-06-04 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - ("David B." <bothecat@hotmail.com>)


Galileo wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Jun 2000 15:51:47 +0100, "John Porcella" > <bronson69@btinternet.com> wrote: > > >A barrier is only such until it is broken! Remember the sound barrier, the > >barrier to flight, the speed of light barrier etc. I am not sure there is > >justification for even saying that Warp 10 is a barrier! I know in Voyager > >they consider it such, but I can remember in TOS a hand pulling the > >Enterprise up to Warp 13, I believe they reached! > > > >Therefore it has not been explained away because I believe there was nothing > >to explain away to begin with! > > > >Now I think of it, the Traveller in TNG made the Enterprise D go beyond the > >limits of the Enterprise's speedometer. > > This is explained by a different Warp scale. > > Warp 10 in TOS is not the same speed as Warp 10 in TNG/DS9/VOY. True. According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia warp 9.2 in the TNG ear is warp 11.8 in the TOS era.

2000-06-04 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (John Porcella <bronson69@btinternet.com>)


"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message news:3939C77F.F166381A@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > Spoilers for Star Trek IV and Voyager Fury: > > In Star Trek IV: The Voyager Home, a clunky 23rd Century Klingon Bird Of Prey twice > goes around the sun at high warp, meaning that it had to make a sharp turn at high > warp. However, in Voyager: Fury, Voyager has to drop out of warp to make course > corrections in a subspace vacuole field. How can a 23rd Century Klingon ship make > sharp turns at warp whereas the 24th Century Voyager cannot? > > Tim, You are right! It is not possible for starships to take tight lines at warp...or at least safely. To turn sharply, it makes sense to slow down to sub-light speeds. In "The Voyage Home: Star Trek IV" as it is known in the UK, Kirk and co. had little option but to try it to get themselves back to save humanity from its past follies (i.e. destroying the environment) and they knew it might be the last thing that they did. In Voyager, they, presumably, had the time to slow down and did not want to risk the integrity of the ship when repairs would be difficult away from space docks in the Alpha quadrant. Also, the slingshot effect would send them back in time and this was something they would normally want to avoid (to avoid breaching the Time Directive as mentioned in DS9). I hope this helps! -- MESSAGE ENDS. John Porcella

2000-06-04 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (John Porcella <bronson69@btinternet.com>)


> > They've just made a mistake. This won't be the first or last time the whole > Trek thing has been inconsistent. How about the Warp 10 barrier, or has that > been explained away as well? > Kurtz, A barrier is only such until it is broken! Remember the sound barrier, the barrier to flight, the speed of light barrier etc. I am not sure there is justification for even saying that Warp 10 is a barrier! I know in Voyager they consider it such, but I can remember in TOS a hand pulling the Enterprise up to Warp 13, I believe they reached! Therefore it has not been explained away because I believe there was nothing to explain away to begin with! Now I think of it, the Traveller in TNG made the Enterprise D go beyond the limits of the Enterprise's speedometer. Hope to see more of your postings here! -- MESSAGE ENDS. John Porcella

2000-06-04 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (galileo@autobahn.mb.ca)


On Sun, 4 Jun 2000 15:51:47 +0100, "John Porcella" <bronson69@btinternet.com> wrote: >A barrier is only such until it is broken! Remember the sound barrier, the >barrier to flight, the speed of light barrier etc. I am not sure there is >justification for even saying that Warp 10 is a barrier! I know in Voyager >they consider it such, but I can remember in TOS a hand pulling the >Enterprise up to Warp 13, I believe they reached! > >Therefore it has not been explained away because I believe there was nothing >to explain away to begin with! > >Now I think of it, the Traveller in TNG made the Enterprise D go beyond the >limits of the Enterprise's speedometer. This is explained by a different Warp scale. Warp 10 in TOS is not the same speed as Warp 10 in TNG/DS9/VOY. Galileo

2000-06-04 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (greg@apple2.com.invalid)


In article <393A0A0F.C5E8FE30@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>, Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > It looked like the Klingon ship was very close to the sun's surface, > which would seem to require a sharp turn if the ship is going at warp > 8. Do you know how big the sun is? -- __ _____________ __ \ \_\ \__ __/ /_/ / <http://www.war-of-the-worlds.org/> .\ __ \ | | / __ /---------------------------------------------------- ^ \_\ \_\|_|/_/ /_/ Don't mail me, I'll mail you.

2000-06-04 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Craig wrote: > Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > news:3939C77F.F166381A@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > Spoilers for Star Trek IV and Voyager Fury: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Star Trek IV: The Voyager Home, a clunky 23rd Century Klingon Bird Of > Prey twice > > goes around the sun at high warp, meaning that it had to make a sharp turn > at high > > warp. However, in Voyager: Fury, Voyager has to drop out of warp to make > course > > corrections in a subspace vacuole field. How can a 23rd Century Klingon > ship make > > sharp turns at warp whereas the 24th Century Voyager cannot? > > The course corrections were too sharp. A ninty degree correction would > destrioy the ship but a gradual turn, such as a circle around a star will > not. It looked like the Klingon ship was very close to the sun's surface, which would seem to require a sharp turn if the ship is going at warp 8.

2000-06-04 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Kurtz <malkin@erols.com>)


"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message news:3939C77F.F166381A@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > Spoilers for Star Trek IV and Voyager Fury: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Star Trek IV: The Voyager Home, a clunky 23rd Century Klingon Bird Of Prey twice > goes around the sun at high warp, meaning that it had to make a sharp turn at high > warp. However, in Voyager: Fury, Voyager has to drop out of warp to make course > corrections in a subspace vacuole field. How can a 23rd Century Klingon ship make > sharp turns at warp whereas the 24th Century Voyager cannot? > > This is from memory - but I believe in "Elaan of Troyius", Kirk commands the Enterprise to pivot at Warp 2. Also, I believe in "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" Scott mentions they are travelling in circles at some very high warp, provoking the comment, "and that's goin' nowhere mighty fast!". They've just made a mistake. This won't be the first or last time the whole Trek thing has been inconsistent. How about the Warp 10 barrier, or has that been explained away as well?

2000-06-05 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Maagic <magic@cybrtyme.com>)


Well maybe the part where the Excelsior goes after the Enterprise was supposed to have BEEN "the test"... ie, it failed, ie they scrapped it and put regular warp engines on the thing Timo S Saloniemi wrote: > > In article <040620002353455451%brianb1@home.com> Brian Barjenbruch <brianb1@home.com> writes: > >> One thing that always made no sense to me was that in TOS Movie III when the > >> crew stole the enterprise to save Spock the ship that was persuing them was > >> equipped with transwarp speed. I would assume if you were to build a > >> starship with transwarp that it had been tested before and achieved. Why > >> then does it appear to be beyond thier ability. > > > >I'm sure they did test the Excelsior's transwarp drive. Did you miss > >the part where Scotty sabotaged it? > > Still, it's extremely strange that Sulu says "She's SUPPOSED to have > transwarp drive" instead of "She HAS transwarp drive". And Scotty > then goes sceptical. This hints at the drive being at least controversial > if not unproven at the time. > > It might be that one cannot test transwarp before one builds a transwarp > starship - the theory of transwarp drive might require a testbed > so large that it makes no sense to build that testbed to be anything BUT > a full starship. This would help explain how the thing could be an > utter failure despite reaching "starship production stage". > > If it WAS an utter failure, that is. Of course, it could have been > a limited success, leading to incremental advances. > > Timo Saloniemi -- -Maagic aka Bryan Foster Webmaster of the Rick and Bubba Audio Page http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/bfoster/bubba.htm

2000-06-05 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Maagic <magic@cybrtyme.com>)


...which CAN be done, btw... xyz wrote: > > Going at close to warp 10 (to affect time travel) I'd call it sharp. It'd be > like trying to turn into a small side street never going below 65 MPH (105 > KPH) ! > > "Mark Landin" <m555@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:393babef.3074430@news.earthlink.net... > > On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 20:05:36 -0700, Tim Bruening > > <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > > > > > > >In Star Trek IV: The Voyager Home, a clunky 23rd Century Klingon Bird Of > Prey twice > > >goes around the sun at high warp, meaning that it had to make a sharp > turn at high > > >warp. However, in Voyager: Fury, Voyager has to drop out of warp to make > course > > >corrections in a subspace vacuole field. How can a 23rd Century Klingon > ship make > > >sharp turns at warp whereas the 24th Century Voyager cannot? > > > > I wouldn't call a turn around something as large as the sun as > > "sharp". :) > > -- -Maagic aka Bryan Foster Webmaster of the Rick and Bubba Audio Page http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/bfoster/bubba.htm

2000-06-05 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (xyz <whomever@nowhere.net>)


Going at close to warp 10 (to affect time travel) I'd call it sharp. It'd be like trying to turn into a small side street never going below 65 MPH (105 KPH) ! "Mark Landin" <m555@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:393babef.3074430@news.earthlink.net... > On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 20:05:36 -0700, Tim Bruening > <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > > > >In Star Trek IV: The Voyager Home, a clunky 23rd Century Klingon Bird Of Prey twice > >goes around the sun at high warp, meaning that it had to make a sharp turn at high > >warp. However, in Voyager: Fury, Voyager has to drop out of warp to make course > >corrections in a subspace vacuole field. How can a 23rd Century Klingon ship make > >sharp turns at warp whereas the 24th Century Voyager cannot? > > I wouldn't call a turn around something as large as the sun as > "sharp". :) >

2000-06-05 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (m555@earthlink.net)


On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 20:05:36 -0700, Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: >In Star Trek IV: The Voyager Home, a clunky 23rd Century Klingon Bird Of Prey twice >goes around the sun at high warp, meaning that it had to make a sharp turn at high >warp. However, in Voyager: Fury, Voyager has to drop out of warp to make course >corrections in a subspace vacuole field. How can a 23rd Century Klingon ship make >sharp turns at warp whereas the 24th Century Voyager cannot? I wouldn't call a turn around something as large as the sun as "sharp". :)

2000-06-05 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (tsalonie@alpha.hut.fi)


In article <040620002353455451%brianb1@home.com> Brian Barjenbruch <brianb1@home.com> writes: >> One thing that always made no sense to me was that in TOS Movie III when the >> crew stole the enterprise to save Spock the ship that was persuing them was >> equipped with transwarp speed. I would assume if you were to build a >> starship with transwarp that it had been tested before and achieved. Why >> then does it appear to be beyond thier ability. > >I'm sure they did test the Excelsior's transwarp drive. Did you miss >the part where Scotty sabotaged it? Still, it's extremely strange that Sulu says "She's SUPPOSED to have transwarp drive" instead of "She HAS transwarp drive". And Scotty then goes sceptical. This hints at the drive being at least controversial if not unproven at the time. It might be that one cannot test transwarp before one builds a transwarp starship - the theory of transwarp drive might require a testbed so large that it makes no sense to build that testbed to be anything BUT a full starship. This would help explain how the thing could be an utter failure despite reaching "starship production stage". If it WAS an utter failure, that is. Of course, it could have been a limited success, leading to incremental advances. Timo Saloniemi

2000-06-05 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Craig <craig0629@worldnet.att.net>)


Brian Barjenbruch <brianb1@home.com> wrote in message news:040620002353455451%brianb1@home.com... > > One thing that always made no sense to me was that in TOS Movie III when the > > crew stole the enterprise to save Spock the ship that was persuing them was > > equipped with transwarp speed. I would assume if you were to build a > > starship with transwarp that it had been tested before and achieved. Why > > then does it appear to be beyond thier ability. > > I'm sure they did test the Excelsior's transwarp drive. Did you miss > the part where Scotty sabotaged it? > > -- > "Its origin and purpose, still a total mystery." > - Dr. Heywood Floyd, "2001: A Space Odyssey" No I didn't miss it. He only removed a couple components "The more they bypass the plumbing the eaier it is to stop up" or somthing to that effect. My question is why they would consider that a reason to never use it. Surely they could overcome that little trick with the help of Scottie. Craig

2000-06-05 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU)


In article <040620002353455451%brianb1@home.com>, Brian Barjenbruch <brianb1@home.com> wrote: >> One thing that always made no sense to me was that in TOS Movie III when the >> crew stole the enterprise to save Spock the ship that was persuing them was >> equipped with transwarp speed. I would assume if you were to build a >> starship with transwarp that it had been tested before and achieved. Why >> then does it appear to be beyond thier ability. > >I'm sure they did test the Excelsior's transwarp drive. Did you miss >the part where Scotty sabotaged it? Well, what doesn't make sense was that in later movies that the Excelsior *didn't* have a transwarp drive, if they had tested it previously. The Okuda/Sternbach sources speculated (but made pretty clear that it was a speculation on their part) that the transwarp project was a failure -- but if Styles was pretty confident that it could be achieved in a pursuit situation, then they must have tested it extensively before. Of course, maybe the next time out, Styles turned into a lizard. :-)

2000-06-05 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Foss Vagel <foss@terminator.com>)


"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message news:3939C77F.F166381A@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > Spoilers for Star Trek IV and Voyager Fury: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Star Trek IV: The Voyager Home, a clunky 23rd Century Klingon Bird Of Prey twice > goes around the sun at high warp, meaning that it had to make a sharp turn at high > warp. However, in Voyager: Fury, Voyager has to drop out of warp to make course > corrections in a subspace vacuole field. How can a 23rd Century Klingon ship make > sharp turns at warp whereas the 24th Century Voyager cannot? You should ask those kids from "Galaxy Quest". They also seemed to believe that there was a need to use scientific fact in a sci fi series/movie ;-) Foss

2000-06-06 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (John Porcella <bronson69@btinternet.com>)


9.2 TNG (new warp scale?) according to the BB message, would be between 10 and 11 TOS warp, whereas the Encyclopaedia is 11.8! Personally, I prefer the simplicity of warp speed meaning that you cube the number to find the speed of light equivalent e.g. Warp 3 = 27 times the speed of light (3x3x3). -- MESSAGE ENDS. John Porcella "Tom Del Rosso" <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net> wrote in message news:dDZ_4.890$fy.44689@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > "David B." <bothecat@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:393B01CB.5A95A7F5@hotmail.com... > > > > True. According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia warp 9.2 in the TNG > ear is > > warp 11.8 in the TOS era. > > > This is a little piece from TREKTECH.TXT which I downloaded about 8 > years ago (yes, from a BBS). This guy, Leon Myerson, did a > magnificent job, both on the technical end and on the writing of the > history connected to it. It may not match the canon exactly, but it's > much more thought-out than the canon, and I think this guy has about a > 100 IQ point advantage over TPTB. > > Should I post the whole file? It's 65k. > > Begin quote: > ================================================== > The Dilithium breakthru made it possible to generate unprecedented > multiples of threshold power, and led to the Federation's investment > in the Constitution class vessels. Able to safely generate and > sustain Warp 8 power, these ships found the drag/drain worsening > rapidly at the higher levels. > > It was the USS Enterprise, under Christopher Pike, that first > challenged the "Warp Barrier". After three month's total overhaul at > the Terran Orbital Shipyards personally supervised at every stage by > Montgomery Scott, the ship went on speed runs pushing her anti-matter > reactors as high as Warp 13 for a few seconds at a time. The > resulting measurements at last permitted Scott to > define the continuum drag equation: > > > tan(A) > CDF = G - ---------------------------------------------- + 10 > (G-S)+(tan^2(A)+((G-S)^2)-1)^(1/2) > > and thus > > D = G - CDF > > where > D = Delivered Power; > G = Generated Power; > CDF = Continuum Drag Factor; > A = 5.1050881 radians; > and S = 9.8658770244 (Scott's constant). > > The corrected table of Warp speeds is therefore: > > Generated Delivered Warp Speed > Power Power x C > > 1 1T A 000 1.31 > 2 1.98354 13.91 > 3 2.96260 65.98 > 4 3.93509 230.94 > 5 4.89755 696.42 > 6 5.84370 1926.80 > 7 6.76140 4999.38 > 8 7.62571 12075.26 > 9 8.38615 26048.20 > 10 8.96633 46707.91 > 11 9.33067 67348.90 > 12 9.53548 82717.85 > 13 9.65322 93087.64 > 14 9.72615 100151.85 > 15 9.77477 105155.01 > > Old Warp New Warp > > A graph of Scott's equation plotting Generated Power as X against > Delivered Power as Y, shows that at threshold power (Scott's equation > and the 3rd-order Cochrane's function are not applicable below this > point) X = Y = 1, and the graph line proceeds at an almost 45 degree > angle assuming equal scales. > ========================================== > >

2000-06-06 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Giles Boutel <gboutel@paradise.net.nz>)


"John Porcella" <bronson69@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:8hdr32$l8v$7@plutonium.btinternet.com... > > "Norm G." <auto34997@hushmail.com> wrote in message > news:sjjjahmu5ri52@corp.supernews.com... > > Without getting into an Occam's razor, but in the simplest terms I'm > > guessing the strong pull of a stars gravity can bend light. In theory, a > > ship going at light speed encountering such a gravametric field could be > > turned or would appear to turn. > > What is an Occam's Razor? Which reminds me, I need a shave! Occam's razor was the weapon of choice for the one armed man who murdered several creationists back in the sixties IIRC -Giles

2000-06-06 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (rgorman@telusplanet.net)


On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 04:53:45 GMT, Brian Barjenbruch <brianb1@home.com> wrote: >> One thing that always made no sense to me was that in TOS Movie III when the >> crew stole the enterprise to save Spock the ship that was persuing them was >> equipped with transwarp speed. I would assume if you were to build a >> starship with transwarp that it had been tested before and achieved. Why >> then does it appear to be beyond thier ability. > >I'm sure they did test the Excelsior's transwarp drive. Did you miss >the part where Scotty sabotaged it? However then it turned out that transwarp never worked anyway.

2000-06-06 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Rocky Steinhaus <rocky8@8rcip.com>)


On Sun, 4 Jun 2000 15:42:14 +0100, "John Porcella" <bronson69@btinternet.com> wrote: > >"Norm G." <auto34997@hushmail.com> wrote in message >news:sjjjahmu5ri52@corp.supernews.com... >> Without getting into an Occam's razor, but in the simplest terms I'm >> guessing the strong pull of a stars gravity can bend light. In theory, a >> ship going at light speed encountering such a gravametric field could be >> turned or would appear to turn. > >What is an Occam's Razor? Which reminds me, I need a shave! Named for 14th century logician Friar William Occam's quote... "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Roughly, the simplest explanation is often more likely to be true. A bunch of other variations. The nice example of that is the Galileo/Newton/Kepler explanation verses the wildly complex lengths that the geocentric supporters went to - to try to explain the movement of stars and planets. ("Celestial spheres" was the last attempt, IIRC). Of course, there's the opposite case of "othing is ever that simple". :-) Ask Jeeves has a faq with an interesting history, and some other links. http://www.ask.com and search "What is Occam's Razor". (Reference materials are the crutch of don't-really-know-it-alls, but-try-to-sound-like-it's, like me). :-) Rocky -- Have a nice day. rocky@rcip.com Remove "8" (both of `em) to reply by e-mail.

2000-06-06 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Tom Del Rosso <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net>)


> "John Porcella" <bronson69@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:8hdr32$l8v$7@plutonium.btinternet.com... > > What is an Occam's Razor? Which reminds me, I need a shave! Your message is one of those that my server lost, but I can reply to the other reply. Occam's Razor is the axiom (or postulate?) that you should make no unnecessary assumptions when known facts suffice. This results in the simplest answer, because you are not complicating it with extra layers of reasoning.

2000-06-06 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Tom Del Rosso <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net>)


"David B." <bothecat@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:393B01CB.5A95A7F5@hotmail.com... > > True. According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia warp 9.2 in the TNG ear is > warp 11.8 in the TOS era. This is a little piece from TREKTECH.TXT which I downloaded about 8 years ago (yes, from a BBS). This guy, Leon Myerson, did a magnificent job, both on the technical end and on the writing of the history connected to it. It may not match the canon exactly, but it's much more thought-out than the canon, and I think this guy has about a 100 IQ point advantage over TPTB. Should I post the whole file? It's 65k. Begin quote: ================================================== The Dilithium breakthru made it possible to generate unprecedented multiples of threshold power, and led to the Federation's investment in the Constitution class vessels. Able to safely generate and sustain Warp 8 power, these ships found the drag/drain worsening rapidly at the higher levels. It was the USS Enterprise, under Christopher Pike, that first challenged the "Warp Barrier". After three month's total overhaul at the Terran Orbital Shipyards personally supervised at every stage by Montgomery Scott, the ship went on speed runs pushing her anti-matter reactors as high as Warp 13 for a few seconds at a time. The resulting measurements at last permitted Scott to define the continuum drag equation: tan(A) CDF = G - ---------------------------------------------- + 10 (G-S)+(tan^2(A)+((G-S)^2)-1)^(1/2) and thus D = G - CDF where D = Delivered Power; G = Generated Power; CDF = Continuum Drag Factor; A = 5.1050881 radians; and S = 9.8658770244 (Scott's constant). The corrected table of Warp speeds is therefore: Generated Delivered Warp Speed Power Power x C 1 1T A 000 1.31 2 1.98354 13.91 3 2.96260 65.98 4 3.93509 230.94 5 4.89755 696.42 6 5.84370 1926.80 7 6.76140 4999.38 8 7.62571 12075.26 9 8.38615 26048.20 10 8.96633 46707.91 11 9.33067 67348.90 12 9.53548 82717.85 13 9.65322 93087.64 14 9.72615 100151.85 15 9.77477 105155.01 Old Warp New Warp A graph of Scott's equation plotting Generated Power as X against Delivered Power as Y, shows that at threshold power (Scott's equation and the 3rd-order Cochrane's function are not applicable below this point) X = Y = 1, and the graph line proceeds at an almost 45 degree angle assuming equal scales. ==========================================

2000-06-06 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Tom Del Rosso <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net>)


"David B." <bothecat@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:393B01CB.5A95A7F5@hotmail.com... > > True. According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia warp 9.2 in the TNG ear is > warp 11.8 in the TOS era. This is a little piece from TREKTECH.TXT which I downloaded about 8 years ago (yes, from a BBS). This guy, Leon Myerson, did a magnificent job, both on the technical end and on the writing of the history connected to it. It may not match the canon exactly, but it's much more thought-out than the canon, and I think this guy has about a 100 IQ point advantage over TPTB. Should I post the whole file? It's 65k. Begin quote: ================================================== The Dilithium breakthru made it possible to generate unprecedented multiples of threshold power, and led to the Federation's investment in the Constitution class vessels. Able to safely generate and sustain Warp 8 power, these ships found the drag/drain worsening rapidly at the higher levels. It was the USS Enterprise, under Christopher Pike, that first challenged the "Warp Barrier". After three month's total overhaul at the Terran Orbital Shipyards personally supervised at every stage by Montgomery Scott, the ship went on speed runs pushing her anti-matter reactors as high as Warp 13 for a few seconds at a time. The resulting measurements at last permitted Scott to define the continuum drag equation: tan(A) CDF = G - ---------------------------------------------- + 10 (G-S)+(tan^2(A)+((G-S)^2)-1)^(1/2) and thus D = G - CDF where D = Delivered Power; G = Generated Power; CDF = Continuum Drag Factor; A = 5.1050881 radians; and S = 9.8658770244 (Scott's constant). The corrected table of Warp speeds is therefore: Generated Delivered Warp Speed Power Power x C 1 1T A 000 1.31 2 1.98354 13.91 3 2.96260 65.98 4 3.93509 230.94 5 4.89755 696.42 6 5.84370 1926.80 7 6.76140 4999.38 8 7.62571 12075.26 9 8.38615 26048.20 10 8.96633 46707.91 11 9.33067 67348.90 12 9.53548 82717.85 13 9.65322 93087.64 14 9.72615 100151.85 15 9.77477 105155.01 Old Warp New Warp A graph of Scott's equation plotting Generated Power as X against Delivered Power as Y, shows that at threshold power (Scott's equation and the 3rd-order Cochrane's function are not applicable below this point) X = Y = 1, and the graph line proceeds at an almost 45 degree angle assuming equal scales. ==========================================

2000-06-07 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Tom Del Rosso <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net>)


"John Porcella" <bronson69@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:8hmbm2$njb$1@neptunium.btinternet.com... > Possibly true, but at Warp 8 this would be 512 times the speed of light (8 x > 8 x8 ). The Enterprise NCC 1701 was built for prolonged travel at Warp 8 so > this would be less than three years to get there, which might answer why the > mission length was five years. Perhaps the mission was coming to an end in Well, that would be consistent. Consistency is often the best we can do, and is sometimes unachievable.

2000-06-07 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Tom Del Rosso <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net>)


"John Porcella" <bronson69@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:8hmcm9$dn6$1@uranium.btinternet.com... > > "Tom Del Rosso" <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net> wrote in message > > > > Sure, but even with the old WF^3 formula (c * 15^3) it would be 20 > > years, not 70. > > But wouldn't this depend on how far they are and what route they want to > take? Do we know from ST: Voyager how far they are in light years? They're on the other side of the galaxy, and they are taking a curved course around the center. It could be consistent with the old formula, but *Voyager* setting the standard? Of all things!

2000-06-07 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Tom Del Rosso <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net>)


"John Porcella" <bronson69@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:8hmcgl$p40$1@plutonium.btinternet.com... > > > > It was the USS Enterprise, under Christopher Pike, that first > > > challenged the "Warp Barrier". After three month's total overhaul at > > > the Terran Orbital Shipyards personally supervised at every stage by > > > Montgomery Scott, > > I do not think this can be right. If Scotty was so closely involved in the > Enterprise then how is it that he does not appear to be the Chief Engineer > of the Enterprise in "Where No Man Has Gone Before"? It's possible. He could be consulting on the construction of other ships. Also, there are a few other episodes where he doesn't appear, even though we know he was aboard.

2000-06-07 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (John Porcella <bronson69@btinternet.com>)


"Timo S Saloniemi" <tsalonie@alpha.hut.fi> wrote in message news:8hl0p0$gj0$1@nntp.hut.fi... > In article <NTk%4.742$_l.53234@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> "Tom Del Rosso" <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net> writes: > >"John Porcella" <bronson69@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > >> Personally, I prefer the simplicity of warp speed meaning that you > >> cube the number to find the speed of light equivalent e.g. Warp 3 = > >> 27 times the speed of light (3x3x3). > > > >But it doesn't work! The author of that essay (not a message, but a > >65k article from Compuserve's file library) also pointed that out. > >Here's the relevant quote: > > > >" The formula relating the Warp number W to velocity in terms of C > >is not the hopelessly inadequate V = W^3. In Trek Classic's very > >first episode the Enterprise was seen at the edge of our galaxy. Even > >assuming this to be the near edge reached by going perpendicular to > >the galactic plane, it is still at least 1500 light years from Earth. > >At a cruising speed of Warp 6 = 216 C, the ship would have spent at > >least 7 years getting out there, then 7 more back. " > > There are also other, more explicit references to the speed of the > TOS starship. In "Arena" and "That Which Survives", the ship traverses > hundreds of lightyears in a matter of hours. Then again, if that were > the true speed of the ship, trips between nearby stars should take mere > minutes. I do not remember the details of "That Which Survives", but in "Arena", which I watched again very recently, the reason why they covered such enormous distances was due to the Metrons who wanted the Enterprise out of their space (or out of their face, if you prefer). Mind you, Kirk's first order is to go back! He has learnt nothing!! Don't forget that when chasing the Gorn ship they touch Warp 9 (729 times the speed of light!) so would be really moving, to say the least. > > TOS in itself doesn't have enough references to provide proof against > the high speeds. What do you mean by "provide proof against the high speeds"? Cheers! -- MESSAGE ENDS. John Porcella It's only with TMP that we begin to see hints of > the v=c*wf^3 formula of "Making of Star Trek" fame - by that time, > Roddenberry has decided on 40 Eridani as Vulcan's location, and the > given shortest Earth-Vulcan travel time of four days now agrees with > the cubed formula. Using TOS speeds, the trip of roughly 11 ly should > take mere minutes. > > Then come along Mike Okuda and Rick Sternbach, who base their TNG-revised > formula on the cubed one, plus on extra criteria dictated by Roddenberry. > They are painfully aware of the discrepancy between the formula and > the fact that the ships tend to visit such distant places as the edge > of the galaxy, or Rigel, or even Deneb. Yet they know that classic Trek > drama cannot readily stand the existence of ships that zip between stars in > minutes. And that's what we have to live with today, since the "revised-cubed" > formulahas been used explicitly plenty of times in TNG and DS9. Of course, > Voyager has botched it up sufficiently many times to outweigh the evidence > from the other shows... > > Timo Saloniemi > > >

2000-06-07 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (John Porcella <bronson69@btinternet.com>)


"Tom Del Rosso" <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net> wrote in message news:NTk%4.742$_l.53234@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > "John Porcella" <bronson69@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:8hjtp1$kp0$1@uranium.btinternet.com... > > 9.2 TNG (new warp scale?) according to the BB message, would be > between 10 > > and 11 TOS warp, whereas the Encyclopaedia is 11.8! > > Yes I said it didn't match, but it is a calculated result, based on a > very intelligent hypothetical analysis. > > > > Personally, I prefer the simplicity of warp speed meaning that you > cube the > > number to find the speed of light equivalent e.g. Warp 3 = 27 times > the > > speed of light (3x3x3). > > But it doesn't work! The author of that essay (not a message, but a > 65k article from Compuserve's file library) also pointed that out. > Here's the relevant quote: > > > " The formula relating the Warp number W to velocity in terms of C > is not the hopelessly inadequate V = W^3. In Trek Classic's very > first episode the Enterprise was seen at the edge of our galaxy. Even > assuming this to be the near edge reached by going perpendicular to > the galactic plane, it is still at least 1500 light years from Earth. > At a cruising speed of Warp 6 = 216 C, the ship would have spent at > least 7 years getting out there, then 7 more back. " Possibly true, but at Warp 8 this would be 512 times the speed of light (8 x 8 x8 ). The Enterprise NCC 1701 was built for prolonged travel at Warp 8 so this would be less than three years to get there, which might answer why the mission length was five years. Perhaps the mission was coming to an end in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and by the start of the Series proper ("Mudd's Women" or "Mantrap") the crew is very different because many would not fancy signing up for another five years and would prefer other assignments on planets or space stations or on other vessels. I am assuming that no use has been made of accidental trips through wormholes or other alien interference. All good wishes. -- MESSAGE ENDS. John Porcella > >

2000-06-07 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (John Porcella <bronson69@btinternet.com>)


"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message news:393DF4CA.946D84FF@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > > Tom Del Rosso wrote: > > The Dilithium breakthru made it possible to generate unprecedented > > > multiples of threshold power, and led to the Federation's investment > > in the Constitution class vessels. Able to safely generate and > > sustain Warp 8 power, these ships found the drag/drain worsening > > rapidly at the higher levels. > > > > It was the USS Enterprise, under Christopher Pike, that first > > challenged the "Warp Barrier". After three month's total overhaul at > > the Terran Orbital Shipyards personally supervised at every stage by > > Montgomery Scott, I do not think this can be right. If Scotty was so closely involved in the Enterprise then how is it that he does not appear to be the Chief Engineer of the Enterprise in "Where No Man Has Gone Before"? Regards. -- MESSAGE ENDS. John Porcella the ship went on speed runs pushing her anti-matter > > reactors as high as Warp 13 for a few seconds at a time. The > > resulting measurements at last permitted Scott to > > define the continuum drag equation: > > > > tan(A) > > CDF = G - ---------------------------------------------- + 10 > > (G-S)+(tan^2(A)+((G-S)^2)-1)^(1/2) > > > > and thus > > > > D = G - CDF > > > > where > > D = Delivered Power; > > G = Generated Power; > > CDF = Continuum Drag Factor; > > A = 5.1050881 radians; > > and S = 9.8658770244 (Scott's constant). > > > > The corrected table of Warp speeds is therefore: > > > > Generated Delivered Warp Speed > > Power Power x C > > > > 1 1T A 000 1.31 > > 2 1.98354 13.91 > > 3 2.96260 65.98 > > 4 3.93509 230.94 > > 5 4.89755 696.42 > > 6 5.84370 1926.80 > > 7 6.76140 4999.38 > > 8 7.62571 12075.26 > > 9 8.38615 26048.20 > > 10 8.96633 46707.91 > > 11 9.33067 67348.90 > > 12 9.53548 82717.85 > > 13 9.65322 93087.64 > > 14 9.72615 100151.85 > > 15 9.77477 105155.01 > > > > Old Warp New Warp > > Wow! At Old Warp 15, or New Warp 9.77477 (IIRC, Voyager in Caretaker > could do Warp 9.975), Voyager would have been home in about 8 months! > > >

2000-06-07 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (John Porcella <bronson69@btinternet.com>)


"Tom Del Rosso" <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net> wrote in message news:5bv%4.1214$ee3.84234@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > news:393DF4CA.946D84FF@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > > 15 9.77477 105155.01 > > > > > > Old Warp New Warp > > > > Wow! At Old Warp 15, or New Warp 9.77477 (IIRC, Voyager in > Caretaker > > could do Warp 9.975), Voyager would have been home in about 8 > months! > > Sure, but even with the old WF^3 formula (c * 15^3) it would be 20 > years, not 70. But wouldn't this depend on how far they are and what route they want to take? Do we know from ST: Voyager how far they are in light years? Health and wealth! -- MESSAGE ENDS. John Porcella > > The problem is that the shows are not consistent, between zipping to > the edge of the galaxy and taking 70 years to go across it. No > formula is going to fit them all, so personally I say to hell with any > attempt at scientific analysis of The Dumbed-down Generation or > Oy-Veyager and just be as consistent as possible with True Trek. > >

2000-06-07 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Tom Del Rosso <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net>)


"Timo S Saloniemi" <tsalonie@alpha.hut.fi> wrote in message news:8hl0p0$gj0$1@nntp.hut.fi... > TOS in itself doesn't have enough references to provide proof against > the high speeds. It's only with TMP that we begin to see hints of > the v=c*wf^3 formula of "Making of Star Trek" fame - by that time, > Roddenberry has decided on 40 Eridani as Vulcan's location, and the > given shortest Earth-Vulcan travel time of four days now agrees with > the cubed formula. Using TOS speeds, the trip of roughly 11 ly should > take mere minutes. Minutes? At TOS speeds of around warp 6 and using the old formula to go 11LY, I get 18 days for warp 6 and 11 days for warp 7. Maybe the Leon Myerson essay went too far the other way, but the big problem is that the time intervals from various episodes are inconsistent, so no formula is ever going to fit. The Myerson essay is just a fun read, because he deftly mixes physics with his own fictional history of the developments.

2000-06-07 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Tom Del Rosso <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net>)


"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message news:393DF4CA.946D84FF@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > 15 9.77477 105155.01 > > > > Old Warp New Warp > > Wow! At Old Warp 15, or New Warp 9.77477 (IIRC, Voyager in Caretaker > could do Warp 9.975), Voyager would have been home in about 8 months! Sure, but even with the old WF^3 formula (c * 15^3) it would be 20 years, not 70. The problem is that the shows are not consistent, between zipping to the edge of the galaxy and taking 70 years to go across it. No formula is going to fit them all, so personally I say to hell with any attempt at scientific analysis of The Dumbed-down Generation or Oy-Veyager and just be as consistent as possible with True Trek.

2000-06-07 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (tsalonie@alpha.hut.fi)


In article <NTk%4.742$_l.53234@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> "Tom Del Rosso" <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net> writes: >"John Porcella" <bronson69@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> Personally, I prefer the simplicity of warp speed meaning that you >> cube the number to find the speed of light equivalent e.g. Warp 3 = >> 27 times the speed of light (3x3x3). > >But it doesn't work! The author of that essay (not a message, but a >65k article from Compuserve's file library) also pointed that out. >Here's the relevant quote: > >" The formula relating the Warp number W to velocity in terms of C >is not the hopelessly inadequate V = W^3. In Trek Classic's very >first episode the Enterprise was seen at the edge of our galaxy. Even >assuming this to be the near edge reached by going perpendicular to >the galactic plane, it is still at least 1500 light years from Earth. >At a cruising speed of Warp 6 = 216 C, the ship would have spent at >least 7 years getting out there, then 7 more back. " There are also other, more explicit references to the speed of the TOS starship. In "Arena" and "That Which Survives", the ship traverses hundreds of lightyears in a matter of hours. Then again, if that were the true speed of the ship, trips between nearby stars should take mere minutes. TOS in itself doesn't have enough references to provide proof against the high speeds. It's only with TMP that we begin to see hints of the v=c*wf^3 formula of "Making of Star Trek" fame - by that time, Roddenberry has decided on 40 Eridani as Vulcan's location, and the given shortest Earth-Vulcan travel time of four days now agrees with the cubed formula. Using TOS speeds, the trip of roughly 11 ly should take mere minutes. Then come along Mike Okuda and Rick Sternbach, who base their TNG-revised formula on the cubed one, plus on extra criteria dictated by Roddenberry. They are painfully aware of the discrepancy between the formula and the fact that the ships tend to visit such distant places as the edge of the galaxy, or Rigel, or even Deneb. Yet they know that classic Trek drama cannot readily stand the existence of ships that zip between stars in minutes. And that's what we have to live with today, since the "revised-cubed" formulahas been used explicitly plenty of times in TNG and DS9. Of course, Voyager has botched it up sufficiently many times to outweigh the evidence from the other shows... Timo Saloniemi

2000-06-07 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (rgorman@telusplanet.net)


On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 00:03:15 -0700, Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > > >Mark Landin wrote: > >> On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 20:05:36 -0700, Tim Bruening >> <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: >> >> >In Star Trek IV: The Voyager Home, a clunky 23rd Century Klingon Bird Of Prey twice >> >goes around the sun at high warp, meaning that it had to make a sharp turn at high >> >warp. However, in Voyager: Fury, Voyager has to drop out of warp to make course >> >corrections in a subspace vacuole field. How can a 23rd Century Klingon ship make >> >sharp turns at warp whereas the 24th Century Voyager cannot? >> >> I wouldn't call a turn around something as large as the sun as >> "sharp". :) > >Not even at several hundred times the speed of light? Well, you know, they did have help from gravity.

2000-06-07 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (tsalonie@alpha.hut.fi)


In article <393DF3B3.802D3D3B@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> writes: > > >Mark Landin wrote: > >> On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 20:05:36 -0700, Tim Bruening >> <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: >> >> >In Star Trek IV: The Voyager Home, a clunky 23rd Century Klingon Bird Of Prey twice >> >goes around the sun at high warp, meaning that it had to make a sharp turn at high >> >warp. However, in Voyager: Fury, Voyager has to drop out of warp to make course >> >corrections in a subspace vacuole field. How can a 23rd Century Klingon ship make >> >sharp turns at warp whereas the 24th Century Voyager cannot? >> >> I wouldn't call a turn around something as large as the sun as >> "sharp". :) > >Not even at several hundred times the speed of light? Let's see. In an ah so exciting car chase, an automobile might negotiate a turn of 10m radius at 50 km/h, and that would be "sharp". At, say, 1000c, a starship would be doing 1.08 * 10^12 km/h against a turn radius of a million kilometers or so. The ratio of speed vs. radius would be 5000 1/h in the first case, a whopping 1.08 million 1/h in the second. That's relatively sharp, I'd say. And the centripetal accelerations would be in a similar v/r relationship (although of course starships have ways to compensate against accelerations). Then again, avoiding the vacuoles may require far sharper turns than the slingshotting around the star. The turn radius was probably only one thousandth of sun's diameter or less, so the accelerations involved at 1000 c would be thousandfold, too. At lower warp, say, 40c (about TNG warp 3), the accelerations would only be 40-fold, of course. Timo Saloniemi

2000-06-07 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Mark Landin wrote: > On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 20:05:36 -0700, Tim Bruening > <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > > >In Star Trek IV: The Voyager Home, a clunky 23rd Century Klingon Bird Of Prey twice > >goes around the sun at high warp, meaning that it had to make a sharp turn at high > >warp. However, in Voyager: Fury, Voyager has to drop out of warp to make course > >corrections in a subspace vacuole field. How can a 23rd Century Klingon ship make > >sharp turns at warp whereas the 24th Century Voyager cannot? > > I wouldn't call a turn around something as large as the sun as > "sharp". :) Not even at several hundred times the speed of light?

2000-06-07 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Tom Del Rosso <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net>)


"John Porcella" <bronson69@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:8hjtp1$kp0$1@uranium.btinternet.com... > 9.2 TNG (new warp scale?) according to the BB message, would be between 10 > and 11 TOS warp, whereas the Encyclopaedia is 11.8! Yes I said it didn't match, but it is a calculated result, based on a very intelligent hypothetical analysis. > Personally, I prefer the simplicity of warp speed meaning that you cube the > number to find the speed of light equivalent e.g. Warp 3 = 27 times the > speed of light (3x3x3). But it doesn't work! The author of that essay (not a message, but a 65k article from Compuserve's file library) also pointed that out. Here's the relevant quote: " The formula relating the Warp number W to velocity in terms of C is not the hopelessly inadequate V = W^3. In Trek Classic's very first episode the Enterprise was seen at the edge of our galaxy. Even assuming this to be the near edge reached by going perpendicular to the galactic plane, it is still at least 1500 light years from Earth. At a cruising speed of Warp 6 = 216 C, the ship would have spent at least 7 years getting out there, then 7 more back. "

2000-06-08 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (John Porcella <bronson69@btinternet.com>)


"Tom Del Rosso" <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net> wrote in message news:ajO%4.778$yA5.59409@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > "Timo S Saloniemi" <tsalonie@alpha.hut.fi> wrote in message > news:8hnk38$u5a$1@nntp.hut.fi... > > Interesting - why wouldn't Scotty be the Chief Engineer in "WNMHGB"? > > Didn't Kirk specifically ask for department heads to report to the > > bridge, and didn't Scotty arrive, along with Piper and Sulu? > > Oh yeah! He *was* in that scene, as the head of engineering. I had > forgotten that. So I guess John Pocella thought he wasn't Chief > Engineer because Lee Kelso had such a prominent role? My deepest apologies to you (Tom and Tino). I got my episodes muddled up because I was so excited in seeing "WNMHGB" on BBC 2. What I meant to say was that I do not believe it credible that Scotty supervised the construction of the Enterprise and then was not given the role of Chief Engineer in "The Cage" (ahh, that's better!). The Chief Engineer was somebody else, I think. -- MESSAGE ENDS. John Porcella

2000-06-08 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Tom Del Rosso <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net>)


"Timo S Saloniemi" <tsalonie@alpha.hut.fi> wrote in message news:8hnk38$u5a$1@nntp.hut.fi... > Interesting - why wouldn't Scotty be the Chief Engineer in "WNMHGB"? > Didn't Kirk specifically ask for department heads to report to the > bridge, and didn't Scotty arrive, along with Piper and Sulu? Oh yeah! He *was* in that scene, as the head of engineering. I had forgotten that. So I guess John Pocella thought he wasn't Chief Engineer because Lee Kelso had such a prominent role? But Kelso died! That's a good reason not to have Scott in the landing party. When I watched the dialog between them ("It fits like a glove", Scott says when he installs a panel Kelso sent up from the planet) I never got the impression that Scott was *not* the superior of the two.

2000-06-08 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Tom Del Rosso <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net>)


"-=JC=-" <me@jc-news.com> wrote in message news:393EF880.9A5FDFA8@jc-news.com... > > Tom Del Rosso wrote: > > > Should I post the whole file? It's 65k. > > If nobody else has made the request, I'd be *delighted* to see this entire > text. It's on its way. :)

2000-06-08 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (tsalonie@alpha.hut.fi)


In article <4bv%4.1213$ee3.82979@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> "Tom Del Rosso" <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net> writes: >"Timo S Saloniemi" <tsalonie@alpha.hut.fi> wrote in message >news:8hl0p0$gj0$1@nntp.hut.fi... >> TOS in itself doesn't have enough references to provide proof >> against >> the high speeds. It's only with TMP that we begin to see hints of >> the v=c*wf^3 formula of "Making of Star Trek" fame - by that time, >> Roddenberry has decided on 40 Eridani as Vulcan's location, and the >> given shortest Earth-Vulcan travel time of four days now agrees with >> the cubed formula. Using TOS speeds, the trip of roughly 11 ly >> should take mere minutes. > >Minutes? At TOS speeds of around warp 6 and using the old formula to >go 11LY, I get 18 days for warp 6 and 11 days for warp 7. This is exactly what I meant. Four days for 11 ly means 1000 c, or about warp 10 using the cubed formula - and this seems eminently logical for the improved ship's maximum speed, given how it went to warp 9 in the best of conditions and without alien interference in TOS ("The Paradise Syndrome"). So this would tend to support the cubed formula. However, using the *REAL* TOS speeds and not the cubed formula, the trip would only last a couple of hours at the very most. Take for example the speeds from "Arena", where IIRC 500 ly were supposed to be traversed in a matter of (at most) weeks, suggesting a speed about ten times faster than 1000 c. Apparently the ship could move effortlessly at a speed that would read as warp 21 on the cubic scale, even though the very same episode established that warp 8 would tear the ship apart relatively soon. So TOS itself didn't support the cubic scale at all. >Maybe the Leon Myerson essay went too far the other way, but the big >problem is that the time intervals from various episodes are >inconsistent, so no formula is ever going to fit. The Myerson essay >is just a fun read, because he deftly mixes physics with his own >fictional history of the developments. This is pretty much what most of the residents of this newsgroup enjoy doing... It's always delightful to compare notes (and to stubbornly defend one's own position against those of others). Timo Saloniemi

2000-06-08 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (tsalonie@alpha.hut.fi)


In article <8hmcgl$p40$1@plutonium.btinternet.com> "John Porcella" <bronson69@btinternet.com> writes: >> > It was the USS Enterprise, under Christopher Pike, that first >> > challenged the "Warp Barrier". After three month's total overhaul at >> > the Terran Orbital Shipyards personally supervised at every stage by >> > Montgomery Scott, >I do not think this can be right. If Scotty was so closely involved in the >Enterprise then how is it that he does not appear to be the Chief Engineer >of the Enterprise in "Where No Man Has Gone Before"? Interesting - why wouldn't Scotty be the Chief Engineer in "WNMHGB"? Didn't Kirk specifically ask for department heads to report to the bridge, and didn't Scotty arrive, along with Piper and Sulu? (And also Dehner, even though the latter was there probably only to observe and was not supposed to be a dept head - she had boarded the ship only recently, after all.) There is plenty of fanfic and novel material that places Scotty as a junior engineer during Pike's tenure, but during Kirk's command Scotty is universally quoted as the Chief Engineer. So far, I've never heard his position questioned. Of course, IIRC he did wear the "atom model" Sciences insignum instead of the later "broken spiral" Engineering one, but then again, these insigna were not systematically used in "WNMHGB". Timo Saloniemi

2000-06-08 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (-=JC=- <me@jc-news.com>)


Tom Del Rosso wrote: > "David B." <bothecat@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:393B01CB.5A95A7F5@hotmail.com... > > > > True. According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia warp 9.2 in the TNG > ear is > > warp 11.8 in the TOS era. > > This is a little piece from TREKTECH.TXT which I downloaded about 8 > years ago (yes, from a BBS). This guy, Leon Myerson, did a > magnificent job, both on the technical end and on the writing of the > history connected to it. It may not match the canon exactly, but it's > much more thought-out than the canon, and I think this guy has about a > 100 IQ point advantage over TPTB. > > Should I post the whole file? It's 65k. If nobody else has made the request, I'd be *delighted* to see this entire text. I remember having a similar sounding text many years ago that *I* downloaded from a BBS. I loved it, but lost it -- if this is the same one, I'd be really happy to find it again. :) -JC PS: email it to me, as well as posting it here!

2000-06-08 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (-=JC=- <me@jc-news.com>)


Tom Del Rosso wrote: > "David B." <bothecat@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:393B01CB.5A95A7F5@hotmail.com... > > > > True. According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia warp 9.2 in the TNG > ear is > > warp 11.8 in the TOS era. > > This is a little piece from TREKTECH.TXT which I downloaded about 8 > years ago (yes, from a BBS). This guy, Leon Myerson, did a > magnificent job, both on the technical end and on the writing of the > history connected to it. It may not match the canon exactly, but it's > much more thought-out than the canon, and I think this guy has about a > 100 IQ point advantage over TPTB. > > Should I post the whole file? It's 65k. If nobody else has made the request, I'd be *delighted* to see this entire text. I remember having a similar sounding text many years ago that *I* downloaded from a BBS. I loved it, but lost it -- if this is the same one, I'd be really happy to find it again. :) -JC PS: email it to me, as well as posting it here!

2000-06-09 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - ("Danny Johnson")


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 (crossposted) My server missed it; could you repost? Through the modem, off the server, over the T1, past the frame-relay, < < NOTHIN' BUT NET > > Danny N.o.S.p.A.m.P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t. - -Remove N.o.S.p.A.m. and every other dot to reply- **My news server "misses" posts occasionally. If I don't reply to** **a question or something, please repost and/or e-mail me.** Public PGP Keys & other info: http://dannyj.come.to/pgp/ All <S><P><A><M> (or other unsolicited) messages will be forwarded to PostMaster@BrightOK.net, Abuse@BrightOK.net, PostMaster@(your domain), and WebMaster@(your domain). I may choose to give one (1) warning. Tom Del Rosso wrote in message ... >"-=JC=-" <me@jc-news.com> wrote in message >news:393EF880.9A5FDFA8@jc-news.com... >> >> Tom Del Rosso wrote: >> >> > Should I post the whole file? It's 65k. >> >> If nobody else has made the request, I'd be *delighted* to see this >entire >> text. > >It's on its way. :) > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> Comment: http://DannyJ.Come.To/PGP/ iQA/AwUBOUGnCerxnFAWPoHvEQKkRACg6V6pCfaTj+2ACfXYNYOy+uvTEGwAoIUo uTKM3qKd/TgPVb8ATKsY4lws =sqFL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2000-06-09 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (John Porcella <bronson69@btinternet.com>)


"Timo S Saloniemi" <tsalonie@pinja.hut.fi> wrote in message news:8hqa32$fnb$1@nntp.hut.fi... > In article <8hp7l1$4d5$1@uranium.btinternet.com> "John Porcella" <bronson69@btinternet.com> writes: > > >My deepest apologies to you (Tom and Tino). I got my episodes muddled up > >because I was so excited in seeing "WNMHGB" on BBC 2. What I meant to say > >was that I do not believe it credible that Scotty supervised the > >construction of the Enterprise and then was not given the role of Chief > >Engineer in "The Cage" (ahh, that's better!). The Chief Engineer was > >somebody else, I think. > > Oh, right. I don't think a Chief Engineer was specifically listed in > the end credits of that episode, but the burly transporter operator > might have been some sort of an influential person in the engineering > department. There simply wasn't a role for a Chief Engineer in the episode, > except as an (unheard) voice in the communicator in the scene where Number > One tries to blast through the elevator doors with that cannon. It could > theoretically have been Scotty up there, although that would have been > a rather young Scotty at the time. > > If you want an explanation that includes the noncanon idea of Scotty > supervising the refitting of the E for a timewarp-busting record flight... > Well, Starfleet probably wouldn't have let this valuable expert sail away > on any single starship until he had equipped ALL of them to fly past the > time barrier. So perhaps he wasn't allowed to be aboard the E during > "The Cage". > > Personally, I don't think it is a good idea to claim that Scotty was > in any way influential in the designing of the Enterprise. I agree with you, though someone way back in the thread did believe this...I think it was the chap who posted a lengthy mathematical treatise on Compuserve. The ship > was supposedly quite old in Kirk's time (Okuda says 20 years, Roddenberry > originally postulated 40), while Scotty was not. Can you confirm who the Captain was before Pike...was it Captain April and another John thought I was joking (see the Jeffrey Hunter Newsgroup). And Scotty's past career > included engineering duties on freighters and the like (TOS "Operation: > Annihilate" and TNG "Relics"), not something your average child progidy > would be doing. Finally, Scotty was always portrayed as a "honest worker" > type of a guy who would get his hands greased and not bother with the > pseudoscience nonsense. I simply cannot see him performing any sort of > theoretical barrier-breaking stuff or design work. Right! -- MESSAGE ENDS. John Porcella > > Timo Saloniemi > > > > > >

2000-06-09 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (tsalonie@pinja.hut.fi)


In article <8hp7l1$4d5$1@uranium.btinternet.com> "John Porcella" <bronson69@btinternet.com> writes: >My deepest apologies to you (Tom and Tino). I got my episodes muddled up >because I was so excited in seeing "WNMHGB" on BBC 2. What I meant to say >was that I do not believe it credible that Scotty supervised the >construction of the Enterprise and then was not given the role of Chief >Engineer in "The Cage" (ahh, that's better!). The Chief Engineer was >somebody else, I think. Oh, right. I don't think a Chief Engineer was specifically listed in the end credits of that episode, but the burly transporter operator might have been some sort of an influential person in the engineering department. There simply wasn't a role for a Chief Engineer in the episode, except as an (unheard) voice in the communicator in the scene where Number One tries to blast through the elevator doors with that cannon. It could theoretically have been Scotty up there, although that would have been a rather young Scotty at the time. If you want an explanation that includes the noncanon idea of Scotty supervising the refitting of the E for a timewarp-busting record flight... Well, Starfleet probably wouldn't have let this valuable expert sail away on any single starship until he had equipped ALL of them to fly past the time barrier. So perhaps he wasn't allowed to be aboard the E during "The Cage". Personally, I don't think it is a good idea to claim that Scotty was in any way influential in the designing of the Enterprise. The ship was supposedly quite old in Kirk's time (Okuda says 20 years, Roddenberry originally postulated 40), while Scotty was not. And Scotty's past career included engineering duties on freighters and the like (TOS "Operation: Annihilate" and TNG "Relics"), not something your average child progidy would be doing. Finally, Scotty was always portrayed as a "honest worker" type of a guy who would get his hands greased and not bother with the pseudoscience nonsense. I simply cannot see him performing any sort of theoretical barrier-breaking stuff or design work. Timo Saloniemi

2000-06-09 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Tom Del Rosso <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net>)


"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in message news:3940F560.A319E8B3@genek_hates_spammers.com... > There was also "Is There In Truth No Beauty." Though it's difficult > to draw any conclusions about the ship's age based an Larry Marvick's > apparent age (people in the Trek future do live longer than they do > today) one can presume from Scotty's pleasure at meeting "one of the > designers of the Enterprise" that he probably wasn't one of them... You're right, but in defense of Mr. Myerson he only said that Scotty defined the "continuum drag equation" by pushing the ship for a few seconds over the "warp barrier" of warp 10. He never said anything about Scotty having a role in the ship's design, but only that he supervised an overhaul. I have the whole article if anyone wants it. It's the best technical Trek writing of a fan or anyone else that I ever saw.

2000-06-10 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (John Porcella <bronson69@btinternet.com>)


Tom, Are you sure that I am misunderstanding the quote? >People seem to think it said that Scotty helped design > the Enterprise when it clearly says nothing of the kind!!! It only > says that he derived an equation. What it says about the warp barrier > is that it wasn't a barrier in the strict sense but a point of > diminishing returns. After Scotty made measurements of the ship's > performance at the upper limits and defined an equation to fit the > curve (something any good engineer should be able to do), then - much > later - the warp scale was changed so that the number 10 would refer > to the true barrier where the diminishing return went to zero Okay I am glad that this confirms that he did not design the Enterprise, which is what I had always believed. However, I find the part about the following: "After three month's total overhaul at > the Terran Orbital Shipyards personally supervised at every stage by > Montgomery Scot" very difficult to swallow! Although not completely impossible...how is it that Scotty does not appear as Chief Engineer in "The Cage"...I am sure that he would have made an appearance especially in the introductory episode as they were hoping it to be? I do not believe either that "any good engineer" would be able to sit down and derive equations...this being more suited to academic mathematicians of mechanics. Scotty is a practical engineer from the evidence of all the episodes, whereas somebody like Spock would be better capable or uncovering general equations. However, the debate rages on...very interesting too! Best wishes. -- MESSAGE ENDS. John Porcella "Tom Del Rosso" <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net> wrote in message news:VKl05.3161$iy.251203@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > "Danny Johnson" <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote in > message news:8hs919$hka$1@sooner.brightok.net... > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > (crossposted) > > My server missed it; could you repost? > > With all that reply info and PGP key stuff in your sig I literally had > to look hard, again and again, before I saw your message! It sure is > a Pretty Good way to hide a message. :) > > I never posted the whole file, just a piece with an equation derived > by Leon Myerson. Tell me if you want the whole thing emailed > (65k). > > The little excerpt I posted has created quite a bit of confusion in > the TOS group. People seem to think it said that Scotty helped design > the Enterprise when it clearly says nothing of the kind!!! It only > says that he derived an equation. What it says about the warp barrier > is that it wasn't a barrier in the strict sense but a point of > diminishing returns. After Scotty made measurements of the ship's > performance at the upper limits and defined an equation to fit the > curve (something any good engineer should be able to do), then - much > later - the warp scale was changed so that the number 10 would refer > to the true barrier where the diminishing return went to zero. > > Here's the piece I posted before in the TOS group. (I'm cross-posting > this now because I don't know where you will read it and I assume that > you have only picked up on this because somebody else cross-posted a > reply. In the future I would rather just stay in the TOS group.) > > Begin quote: > ================================================== > The Dilithium breakthru made it possible to generate unprecedented > multiples of threshold power, and led to the Federation's investment > in the Constitution class vessels. Able to safely generate and > sustain Warp 8 power, these ships found the drag/drain worsening > rapidly at the higher levels. > > It was the USS Enterprise, under Christopher Pike, that first > challenged the "Warp Barrier". After three month's total overhaul at > the Terran Orbital Shipyards personally supervised at every stage by > Montgomery Scott, the ship went on speed runs pushing her anti-matter > reactors as high as Warp 13 for a few seconds at a time. The > resulting measurements at last permitted Scott to > define the continuum drag equation: > > > tan(A) > CDF = G - ---------------------------------------------- + 10 > (G-S)+(tan^2(A)+((G-S)^2)-1)^(1/2) > > and thus > > D = G - CDF > > where > D = Delivered Power; > G = Generated Power; > CDF = Continuum Drag Factor; > A = 5.1050881 radians; > and S = 9.8658770244 (Scott's constant). > > The corrected table of Warp speeds is therefore: > > Generated Delivered Warp Speed > Power Power x C > > 1 1T A 000 1.31 > 2 1.98354 13.91 > 3 2.96260 65.98 > 4 3.93509 230.94 > 5 4.89755 696.42 > 6 5.84370 1926.80 > 7 6.76140 4999.38 > 8 7.62571 12075.26 > 9 8.38615 26048.20 > 10 8.96633 46707.91 > 11 9.33067 67348.90 > 12 9.53548 82717.85 > 13 9.65322 93087.64 > 14 9.72615 100151.85 > 15 9.77477 105155.01 > > Old Warp New Warp > > A graph of Scott's equation plotting Generated Power as X against > Delivered Power as Y, shows that at threshold power (Scott's equation > and the 3rd-order Cochrane's function are not applicable below this > point) X = Y = 1, and the graph line proceeds at an almost 45 degree > angle assuming equal scales. > ========================================== > >

2000-06-10 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (greg@apple2.com.invalid)


In article <8hte0m$60g$1@uranium.btinternet.com>, "John Porcella" <bronson69@btinternet.com> wrote: > Okay I am glad that this confirms that [Scotty] did not design the > Enterprise, which is what I had always believed. Of course. It was designed by Matt Jeffries. (Please note the lack of screens and screens of unnecessary quoted text.) -- __ _____________ __ \ \_\ \__ __/ /_/ / <http://www.war-of-the-worlds.org/> .\ __ \ | | / __ /---------------------------------------------------- ^ \_\ \_\|_|/_/ /_/ Don't mail me, I'll mail you.

2000-06-10 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Tom Del Rosso <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net>)


"John Porcella" <bronson69@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:8hrh2t$j9g$1@neptunium.btinternet.com... > >> Personally, I don't think it is a good idea to claim that Scotty was >> in any way influential in the designing of the Enterprise. > > I agree with you, though someone way back in the thread did believe this...I > think it was the chap who posted a lengthy mathematical treatise on > Compuserve. No, he didn't. His bit of fan fiction simply said that Scotty did some theoretical work while experimenting with the *already* *built* and *functional* ship. > And Scotty's past career > > included engineering duties on freighters and the like (TOS "Operation: > > Annihilate" and TNG "Relics"), not something your average child progidy > > would be doing. Finally, Scotty was always portrayed as a "honest worker" > > type of a guy who would get his hands greased and not bother with the > > pseudoscience nonsense. I simply cannot see him performing any sort of > > theoretical barrier-breaking stuff or design work. > > Right! The Myerson article claims neither. What it says about the barrier is that it wasn't a barrier in the strict sense but a point of diminishing returns. After Scotty made measurements of the ship's performance at the upper limits and defined an equation to fit the curve (something any good engineer should be able to do no matter how greasy his hands are), then - much later - the warp scale was changed so that the number 10 would refer to the true barrier where the diminishing return went to zero. This is the most scientifically sound and consistent stuff I've ever read about Star Trek science, which is rather important since we don't get consistency often (mostly we get pseudo-scientific bullshit in all the spin-offs), and most people here are misinterpreting what it says.

2000-06-10 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Tom Del Rosso <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net>)


"Danny Johnson" <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote in message news:8hs919$hka$1@sooner.brightok.net... > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > (crossposted) > My server missed it; could you repost? With all that reply info and PGP key stuff in your sig I literally had to look hard, again and again, before I saw your message! It sure is a Pretty Good way to hide a message. :) I never posted the whole file, just a piece with an equation derived by Leon Myerson. Tell me if you want the whole thing emailed (65k). The little excerpt I posted has created quite a bit of confusion in the TOS group. People seem to think it said that Scotty helped design the Enterprise when it clearly says nothing of the kind!!! It only says that he derived an equation. What it says about the warp barrier is that it wasn't a barrier in the strict sense but a point of diminishing returns. After Scotty made measurements of the ship's performance at the upper limits and defined an equation to fit the curve (something any good engineer should be able to do), then - much later - the warp scale was changed so that the number 10 would refer to the true barrier where the diminishing return went to zero. Here's the piece I posted before in the TOS group. (I'm cross-posting this now because I don't know where you will read it and I assume that you have only picked up on this because somebody else cross-posted a reply. In the future I would rather just stay in the TOS group.) Begin quote: ================================================== The Dilithium breakthru made it possible to generate unprecedented multiples of threshold power, and led to the Federation's investment in the Constitution class vessels. Able to safely generate and sustain Warp 8 power, these ships found the drag/drain worsening rapidly at the higher levels. It was the USS Enterprise, under Christopher Pike, that first challenged the "Warp Barrier". After three month's total overhaul at the Terran Orbital Shipyards personally supervised at every stage by Montgomery Scott, the ship went on speed runs pushing her anti-matter reactors as high as Warp 13 for a few seconds at a time. The resulting measurements at last permitted Scott to define the continuum drag equation: tan(A) CDF = G - ---------------------------------------------- + 10 (G-S)+(tan^2(A)+((G-S)^2)-1)^(1/2) and thus D = G - CDF where D = Delivered Power; G = Generated Power; CDF = Continuum Drag Factor; A = 5.1050881 radians; and S = 9.8658770244 (Scott's constant). The corrected table of Warp speeds is therefore: Generated Delivered Warp Speed Power Power x C 1 1T A 000 1.31 2 1.98354 13.91 3 2.96260 65.98 4 3.93509 230.94 5 4.89755 696.42 6 5.84370 1926.80 7 6.76140 4999.38 8 7.62571 12075.26 9 8.38615 26048.20 10 8.96633 46707.91 11 9.33067 67348.90 12 9.53548 82717.85 13 9.65322 93087.64 14 9.72615 100151.85 15 9.77477 105155.01 Old Warp New Warp A graph of Scott's equation plotting Generated Power as X against Delivered Power as Y, shows that at threshold power (Scott's equation and the 3rd-order Cochrane's function are not applicable below this point) X = Y = 1, and the graph line proceeds at an almost 45 degree angle assuming equal scales. ==========================================

2000-06-10 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


David Johnston wrote: > On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 00:03:15 -0700, Tim Bruening > <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > > > > > > >Mark Landin wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 20:05:36 -0700, Tim Bruening > >> <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > >> > >> >In Star Trek IV: The Voyager Home, a clunky 23rd Century Klingon Bird Of Prey twice > >> >goes around the sun at high warp, meaning that it had to make a sharp turn at high > >> >warp. However, in Voyager: Fury, Voyager has to drop out of warp to make course > >> >corrections in a subspace vacuole field. How can a 23rd Century Klingon ship make > >> >sharp turns at warp whereas the 24th Century Voyager cannot? > >> > >> I wouldn't call a turn around something as large as the sun as > >> "sharp". :) > > > >Not even at several hundred times the speed of light? > > Well, you know, they did have help from gravity. How can the sun's gravity significantly affect a ship going at Warp 8?

2000-06-12 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - ("John J. Marston" <MarstonJJ@hotmail.com>)


Thanks, Tom, everything you wrote makes a lot of sense. live long + prosper \\//_ Tom Del Rosso <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net> wrote in message news:t9515.6339$yA5.464406@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > "John J. Marston" <MarstonJJ@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:PlS05.894$5u2.11290@news1.news.adelphia.net... > > I like the formula idea and find that plausible but the back story > of Pike > > and Scotty I do not ... I thought the question had to do with the > changing > > values of warp speeds between TOS and TNG. How do calculations made > in the > > Pike era (i.e. "before" TOS) make the warp values different? > > They don't strictly require it to be different. According to that > "fan story" Scotty extrapolated data from his tests and defined the > point at which there was a "warp barrier" around warp 15. Much later, > the warp scale was changed so warp 10 landed on that point, just like > the Celsius scale puts the boiling point of water at 100. There was > no need to change the scale immediately when the discovery was made. > > > > Also, we know > > the Enterprise and its crew, regardless of era, is the best there is > in > > Starfleet, but let's not have virtually every great achievement in > the > > history of Federation space exploration accomplished by them. > > True, but it's a nice piece of writing. > > > > Anyway, it doesn't say anything about Scotty having designed the > Enterprise. > > Right, it just says that he defined an equation for the "continuum > drag factor" that makes warp drive less efficient at higher warp. > >

2000-06-12 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Tom Del Rosso <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net>)


"John J. Marston" <MarstonJJ@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:PlS05.894$5u2.11290@news1.news.adelphia.net... > I like the formula idea and find that plausible but the back story of Pike > and Scotty I do not ... I thought the question had to do with the changing > values of warp speeds between TOS and TNG. How do calculations made in the > Pike era (i.e. "before" TOS) make the warp values different? They don't strictly require it to be different. According to that "fan story" Scotty extrapolated data from his tests and defined the point at which there was a "warp barrier" around warp 15. Much later, the warp scale was changed so warp 10 landed on that point, just like the Celsius scale puts the boiling point of water at 100. There was no need to change the scale immediately when the discovery was made. > Also, we know > the Enterprise and its crew, regardless of era, is the best there is in > Starfleet, but let's not have virtually every great achievement in the > history of Federation space exploration accomplished by them. True, but it's a nice piece of writing. > Anyway, it doesn't say anything about Scotty having designed the Enterprise. Right, it just says that he defined an equation for the "continuum drag factor" that makes warp drive less efficient at higher warp.

2000-06-12 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Tom Del Rosso <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net>)


"Timo S Saloniemi" <tsalonie@alpha.hut.fi> wrote in message news:8i20vg$g3n$1@nntp.hut.fi... > > I doubt being the Chief Engineer of a ship really is a prerequisite for > overseeing the overhaul of the said vessel. All good points, and I agree that it's better for Scotty not to be too brilliant. I like the Leon Myerson article mainly for the technical stuff, which he did incredibly well, and I always thought it should be adopted as the technical canon. I just don't mind cutting him the slack of letting Scotty oversee speed runs and plot the data, which doesn't require too much brilliance. That was more important than the claim that he oversaw the overhaul, and the latter would seem, if it was an account of a true story, to be an exaggeration for the reason you state above. > TOS in general had a "bluecollar" feel to the crew. An Iowan farmboy, > a country doctor from the South, a former freighter engineer, several > nondescript sidekicks from all around the world, with the brilliant > runaway kid of a foreign dignitary to provide variety. Who?

2000-06-13 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - ("John J. Marston" <MarstonJJ@hotmail.com>)


Thank you for capturing a feeling I have long held. I always liked to feel that the Enterprise and its crew were talented, but not Starfleet's all-star team. Just a crew on a ship exploring uncharted space ... and not so great that I couldn't serve aboard. It's only been since the series that all the superlatives were attached. -- LL+P \\//_ Timo S Saloniemi <tsalonie@alpha.hut.fi> wrote in message news:8i20vg$g3n$1@nntp.hut.fi... > In article <8hte0m$60g$1@uranium.btinternet.com> "John Porcella" <bronson69@btinternet.com> writes: > > This is just a "feeling" thing, though. I am personally repulsed by the > idea that everybody on the Enterprise was some sort of a superhuman > and that this was an entry requirement for service onboard the vessel. > We did see our share of true screw-ups, from the confused Bailey in the > first episode to the brainless security goons of the last one. Making > Scotty a famous character in Starfleet, as opposed to a nice fellow > aboard the single ship we were watching, seems *unnecessary*. One > celebrity per ship should be enough - in this case, probably Spock. > > TOS in general had a "bluecollar" feel to the crew. An Iowan farmboy, > a country doctor from the South, a former freighter engineer, several > nondescript sidekicks from all around the world, with the brilliant > runaway kid of a foreign dignitary to provide variety. I'd hate to ruin > that by making Scotty a famous theorist or ship refitter, or Uhura > an accomplished Doctor of Linguistics, or McCoy the Pasteur of the 23rd > Century, or Chapel the future Head Nurse of Starfleet... > > In TNG, the crew was all-celebrity, from the Only Klingon in Starfleet > to the Amazing Tin Man and the Ambassadorial Daughter and the Jean'Luc > "Maneuver" Picard. But that's only understandable since the ship was > explicitly a UFP showpiece, the "Flagship of the Federation". Kirk's > ship seemed more of a "ship of the line", one of many. I'd hate to > ruin that distinction... > > Timo Saloniemi

2000-06-13 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (tsalonie@alpha.hut.fi)


In article <A5615.6366$yA5.468176@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> "Tom Del Rosso" <no.spam.please.t.delrosso@att.net> writes: >"Timo S Saloniemi" <tsalonie@alpha.hut.fi> wrote in message >news:8i20vg$g3n$1@nntp.hut.fi... >> TOS in general had a "bluecollar" feel to the crew. An Iowan >> farmboy, a country doctor from the South, a former freighter >> engineer, several nondescript sidekicks from all around the world, >> with the brilliant runaway kid of a foreign dignitary to provide >> variety. >Who? Umm, the boy who ran away from the Vulcan Ambassador to join Starfleet. Or did I goof again, and "dignitary" doesn't include ambassadors? I sometimes present a convincing act of knowing my English, but it really isn't all that good. Timo Saloniemi

2000-06-16 00:00:00 - Re: Ships Turning At Warp (Star Trek IV vs Voy: Fury) Spoilers - (Garth.Gilmore@hippies.to.org)


n> This is a little piece from TREKTECH.TXT which I downloaded about 8 n> years ago (yes, from a BBS). This guy, Leon Myerson, did a n> magnificent job, both on the technical end and on the writing of the n> history connected to it. It may not match the canon exactly, but it's You too, huh? I dl'ed it off a now-defunct BBS called Crystal Gryphon many moons ago, and it's buried under the weight of several hundred diskettes... :) I've often thought about putting text files like that together with public-domain images and souping up the fonts, then uploading it to a number of BBSes (with the author's permission) and seeing what the world thought. -GG -- | Fidonet: Garth Gilmore 1:250/525 | Internet: Garth.Gilmore@hippies.to.org | Net250: Fidonet in Toronto, Canada