Re: TOS Remastered: Disappointment in the Special Effects?
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 3:26 pm
Well that's the first time anybody has ever accused me of that!Mikey wrote:Very Euro-centric of you, Graham.
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
https://mail.ditl.org/forum/
Well that's the first time anybody has ever accused me of that!Mikey wrote:Very Euro-centric of you, Graham.
Yes we can. If a ship is producing X watts then it must either be radiating X watts or it's heating up. First law of thermodynamics.GrahamKennedy wrote:The energy produced by the ship isn't necessarily vented as heat or neutrinos. For instance the BoP was using its impulse drive, which involves mass lightening effects - we think, the whole mass reduction thing is largely speculative. But how much energy goes to that? How much goes to the Structural Integrity Fields? How much goes to the cloaking device effect? We have no real canonical idea how any of this works, no real idea of even the basic physics behind most of it. So we can't really claim that if the ship is producing X amount of energy then X must end up being dumped overboard as energetic plasma.
The question isn't "could someone today design a warp core?" - the answer to that's obviously no. The question is, could a modern engineer spot flaws in the concept of a design? In this case the answer's yes - the specifics of the design are irrelevent. What is relevent is that basic engineering principles are ignored.I'll wager that he's not an engineer with any experience or theoretical knowledge whatsoever in designing matter/antimatter power systems to power faster than light warp drives. When it comes to this stuff, it's made up science with some basis in reality. Nobody alive today can do more than guess at the intimate details of how it would work - except, rather ironically, the writers and technical advisors who are the very ones being called idiots.
There's nothing whatsoever in thermodynamics that says that the ship must radiate that energy as heat in the plasma exhaust. Or as heat at all, for that matter.Captain Seafort wrote:Yes we can. If a ship is producing X watts then it must either be radiating X watts or it's heating up. First law of thermodynamics.
Nonsense. We don't know what the basic engineering principles of a warp drive or a matter/antimatter power system ARE. There's no possible way to take them into account, and anybody who claims he can is fooling himself.The question isn't "could someone today design a warp core?" - the answer to that's obviously no. The question is, could a modern engineer spot flaws in the concept of a design? In this case the answer's yes - the specifics of the design are irrelevent. What is relevent is that basic engineering principles are ignored.
We do, however, know that it must radiate energy in some form. Since it's repeatedly stated that "all" emissions are blocked, that leaves the plasma.GrahamKennedy wrote:There's nothing whatsoever in thermodynamics that says that the ship must radiate that energy as heat in the plasma exhaust. Or as heat at all, for that matter.
We don't know what the operating principles are, but we do know the basic priciples of engineering - and one of them is the dead-man's-switch principal.Nonsense. We don't know what the basic engineering principles of a warp drive or a matter/antimatter power system ARE. There's no possible way to take them into account, and anybody who claims he can is fooling himself.
When is that stated?Captain Seafort wrote:We do, however, know that it must radiate energy in some form. Since it's repeatedly stated that "all" emissions are blocked, that leaves the plasma.GrahamKennedy wrote:There's nothing whatsoever in thermodynamics that says that the ship must radiate that energy as heat in the plasma exhaust. Or as heat at all, for that matter.
We don't know what the operating principles are, but we do know the basic priciples of engineering - and one of them is the dead-man's-switch principal.[/quote]Nonsense. We don't know what the basic engineering principles of a warp drive or a matter/antimatter power system ARE. There's no possible way to take them into account, and anybody who claims he can is fooling himself.
Don't they consider wood an element too?Mikey wrote:All in fun, of course. I'm not even sure I listed the traditional Chinese elements correctly.
Yes. Which is probably why Mikey listed it.Mark wrote:Don't they consider wood an element too?Mikey wrote:All in fun, of course. I'm not even sure I listed the traditional Chinese elements correctly.
Rochey wrote:Nice observation skills, Mark.
Fixed it for ya.Rochey wrote:No excuses except for meeting deadlines.