Galaxy Class "Warp Core" problems?

[Mikey]

Can match the output of an entire fleet MINUS what was used for propulsion. Amended like that, I agree. However, that doesn't invalidate the idea that said fusion reactors are viable for a station, not a ship, because of the size a/o mass involved.

PS - congrats on the promotion, Seafort!

[Captain Peabody]

DS9's fusion reactors can match the output of an entire fleet of starships, otherwise it wouldn't have been able to hold off the Klingons or the Cardassian/Jem'Hadar attacks.

Yeah...that never made much sense to me, though Mikey's probably right that it was probably a combination of it being one huge fusion reactor (actually, I think DS9 is stated to have multiple reactors in Civil Defense; maybe some of these are devoted solely to weaponry?), plus ships having to use most of their energy for propulsion. After all, just to go Impulse speeds would literally take a huge amount of power.

[Graham Kennedy]

Can match the output of an entire fleet MINUS what was used for propulsion. Amended like that, I agree. However, that doesn't invalidate the idea that said fusion reactors are viable for a station, not a ship, because of the size a/o mass involved.

PS - congrats on the promotion, Seafort!

It's actually a somewhat debated point whether the power used for weapons and such is anywhere close to the power used in the warp drive.

On the one hand, Picard has a couple of times said he doesn't detach the saucer in combat situations because he wants the extra power from the impulse engines. So it is presumably significant. But then everybody was amazed in The N'th Degree when Barclay managed to get warp power into the shields.

But then in The Sound of Her Voice, Worf said that the Defiant could boost the ship's high warp capability significantly by cutting into the defence reserves, which would leave the ship badly weakened.

Take your pick.

[Captain Seafort]

Not necessarily - with Federation mass lightening technology they could accelerate a ship to almost arbitrarily high fractions of c with very little power. Also proper warships (which Klingon and Jem'Hadar ships presumably are) should be able to route all available power to their weapons. They'd just come to a stop relative to the station, put everything into their weapons and fire away. The fact that DS9 shugs this off indicates that the station's power generation must be vastly greater than any ship.

[Captain Seafort]

But then in The Sound of Her Voice, Worf said that the Defiant could boost the ship's high warp capability significantly by cutting into the defence reserves, which would leave the ship badly weakened.

From what I recall of the episode, the problem there wasn't with the warp engines, but structural integrety - harking back to "The Search" when Sisko mentioned that testing the Defiant's engines at full power nearly tore the ship apart. In TSOHV, O'Brien tapped the phaser reserves to boost the SIF field, allowing the ship to travel faster without serious damage.

[Thorin]

I'd assume that most of the power of the warp core went into going FTL - I mean things like phasers - which we must assume some sort of electromagnetic energy, can be created today to some extent in lasers. Torpedos - just big nuclear bombs. But warp drive - theoretically impossible. The energies cannot even be currently theorised - the amount of energy to warp space-time. Always seemed to me like when actually travelling FTL, 99% of the energy would be going to keeping it FTL.

[Captain Seafort]

Phasers are impossible by the laws of physics as well, given their "make stuff disappear" properties.

As for the warp power output, it makes sense, but almost all combat takes place at sublight. In addition BoBW implies that the problem isn't one of power, but of channelling it.

[Thorin]

Phasers are impossible by the laws of physics as well, given their "make stuff disappear" properties.

As for the warp power output, it makes sense, but almost all combat takes place at sublight. In addition BoBW implies that the problem isn't one of power, but of channelling it.

Well I'm not sure if they're impossible by the laws of physics - if they are vapourising in the sense of turning to gas (which they clearly aren't, but let's say they are), then it's pefectly possible for a laser to do that. But they are doing something other than vapourise - but they do have the ability to vapourise (as seen various times when they heat things up).

BoBW does imply that. I remember in one of the Voyager episodes, it was stated 30% of the ship's power was used to keep human's alive. I can only assume it uses 30% of the ship's power while at sub-light - but still only using 0.03% [or something around there] of the power if it were all required. If 30% of the energy from the warpcore [while at full output (ie max. warp)] was used to keep humans alive, then that probably means 30% was also used for warp travel - the rest weapons, shields, containment fields, etc etc - which means we should be travelling FTL today if that's all the energy it requires.

[Mikey]

Yet, there are still a number of power-using functions which a station - as opposed to a vessel - doesn't need to worry about. And again, volume/mass of the reactors are much less a consideration for a station than for a vessel.

[Captain Seafort]

Well I'm not sure if they're impossible by the laws of physics - if they are vapourising in the sense of turning to gas (which they clearly aren't, but let's say they are), then it's pefectly possible for a laser to do that.

Phasers don't vapourise - they make stuff disapear in a chain reaction that bears no resemblance whatsover to vapourisation. Look at the the number of times we've seen someone disapear without leaving an enormous pillar of superheated gas behind.

But they are doing something other than vapourise - but they do have the ability to vapourise (as seen various times when they heat things up).

So they have the ability to vapourise things, despite the fact that we've never seen it happen, and we have proof that the disapearing act phaser targets do is a chain reaction? How did you come to that conclusion? Yes they can heat rocks. How does that equate to being able to vapourise large objects.

[Thorin]

Yet, there are still a number of power-using functions which a station - as opposed to a vessel - doesn't need to worry about. And again, volume/mass of the reactors are much less a consideration for a station than for a vessel.

I agree - fusion reactors are clearly a lot less effective/effecient than m/am reactors. By their very nature - one releases part of the mass as energy after undergoing complex atomic interactions, the other releases all its mass as energy after annhiliation.
Warp cores are clearly valuable things - maybe if it isn't required, as on a station, it just won't be used. They're probably a whole lot more expensive/resource-intensive. You'd probably need a fusion reactor of a similar size - if, at least, my pure speculative guess that most of the energy goes to FTL travel - to that of a warp core.

[Thorin]

Phasers don't vapourise - they make stuff disapear in a chain reaction that bears no resemblance whatsover to vapourisation. Look at the the number of times we've seen someone disapear without leaving an enormous pillar of superheated gas behind.

As I said - I never doubted that and said that if they were vapourising it would be possible today.

So they have the ability to vapourise things, despite the fact that we've never seen it happen, and we have proof that the disapearing act phaser targets do is a chain reaction? How did you come to that conclusion? Yes they can heat rocks. How does that equate to being able to vapourise large objects.

It's just thermal mechanics. If you want to read up then it's latent heat capacity, latent heat of vapourisation, etc etc. But basically - if you can heat something up - you can vapourise it. Phasers can clearly go to extensive temperatures - I'm not sure exactly where, but I remember an 8000 degree celcius figure, enough to vapourise most 'normal' things.

[Captain Seafort]

Sure they can vapourise small volumes, but we've never seen them vapourise anything of a significant size - the chain reaction effect takes over. Bottom line is that they can't be simple EM weapons.

[Teaos]

I doubt we could ever know but I presume the FTL drive would take most the power. Then a large percent would go to the ship computers/life support/gravity.

[Thorin]

Sure they can vapourise small volumes, but we've never seen them vapourise anything of a significant size - the chain reaction effect takes over. Bottom line is that they can't be simple EM weapons.

Well - surprisingly enough - I actually got the EM thing from BoBW - Shelby says high frequencies, etc etc.
I can't account for vapourisation - I don't intend to. All I can say is that they can heat things, thus can vapourise. If they heat masses for longer or with higher heats, then they can vapourise it quicker/vapourise bigger masses.

We can never know what phasers actually are - but we can't say they're against the laws of physics. There is no law of physics against it - just like FTL travel. It's currently theoretically impossible, but is subject to change. We just don't know enough.