StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Whereas:
1. Trek ships are known to be made of "duranium" or "tritanium", which if they exist must be very massive and therefore unstable.
2. Phasers have not shown NDF effects on 100% operable ships, but have against such dieing targets as USS Galaxy.
3. Photon torpedo (and indeed all DET weapon) impacts appear not to be impeded by SIF.
4. NDF effects have never been impeded by any material except a starship hull (IIRC).
5. Magical neutronium doors are possible.
6. Starfleet ships depend on SIF fields for their very existance, even while standing still.




We've always operated under the assumption that a SIF field was this magical field that somehow added rigidity and sheer strength to an entire hull. But we've never had an idea how it worked, nor have we ever figured out why superheavy elements can be used in starship hulls. We've never figured out to my knowledge why phasers are impeded by SIF fields, or why torpedo impacts aren't.


What if a SIF is not in fact this magical field? What if it is a field of some sort designed not to enhance the hull's physical properties on a large scale, but instead for the very small scale?

So, the theory: the purpose of a structural integrity field is to keep the heavy atoms (duranium and tritanium) intact and not allow them to undergo fission. In other words to safeguard the integrity of the strucuture at the smallest possible level: at each possible atom.

So, consider the ramifications. Phasers are impeded by SIF not through magic, but because the field is keeping atoms together, fighting NDF. DET weapons are not affected, because they do not seek to cause damage through atomic disruption. Duranium and tritanium can in fact be used in hulls and kept stable, fitting canon statements to this effect. When a ship is dieing and the SIF is going offline, it becomes more susceptable to NDF effects, as seen in the destruction of the USS Galaxy. Contrary to our previous assumption, NDF is not impeded by atomic weight (an implication that I never really liked). The primary target we've seen NDF fail against is starship hull, and we've always assumed that this was because of mass. It doesn't have to work that way: NDF can be the culprit. Evil inpenetrable neutronium doors of doom can also use this technology to stay together and also survive phaser fire. The failure of SIF will kill a ship even if its not under stress, as the atoms in the hull will start to degrade.




There's my crackpot theory. I kinda like it. If there are any problems, please commence the ripping apart of the theory. *EDIT* If there are any problems with my Trek facts, its Alyeska's fault. I asked him about most of them.

maybe thats why trek ships blow up like mininukes: theyre made of superheavy elements ready to blow!

Actually, thats an interesting point. The hull itself might spontanious undergo fission when SIF goes offline, with a corresponding energy release.

Howedar wrote:Actually, thats an interesting point. The hull itself might spontanious undergo fission when SIF goes offline, with a corresponding energy release.

Well that would explain they they explode like fire crackers.

Super-heavy elements do not have to always be unstable. They can be in the proposed 'island of stability', were super heavy elements are still atomically stable. But this doesnt say how stable it is.

Thus when they explode, the hull (super heavy elements in it) have enough energy provide to start undergoing runaway fission effect. But for normal use they dont.

If these substancesare super heavy elemenets, and are in the 'island of stability' then they should have a long half-life. Thus they could actually be mined.

As I understand it, Superheavy Transuranic elements have a "magic number" of both protons and neutrons which somehow balance the nucleus from decay.

What I hear, synthesized SH elements have half-lives of seconds, rather than nanoseconds.

I would wager that the elements which make up Duranium and Tritanium are NOT transuranic, but instead derived from some exotic matter analogue accessed through the subspace continuum.

Or, perhaps some of the regular, ordinary matter we have around has these special elements locked up in them, and we just don't have the sensors to detect them.

It was stated somewhere that a lot of the raw dilithium lying around in the TOS era was originally thought to be simply Quartz crystals.

Not really, SIF just holds the ship together. If what you say is true Voyager would have went up in Year of Hell, but it didn't, only thing that happened was hull plates flew off when they went to warp

Haven't seen the episode.

Drach wrote:Not really, SIF just holds the ship together. If what you say is true Voyager would have went up in Year of Hell, but it didn't, only thing that happened was hull plates flew off when they went to warp

Drach is correct, the SIF is to absorb the stresses put on the ship, and to reinforce the hull. Similar to how the Inertia Dampeners absorb stress to prevent the crew from being splattered all over the inside of the ship.

Howedar wrote:Whereas:
1. Trek ships are known to be made of "duranium" or "tritanium", which if they exist must be very massive and therefore unstable.

That is by no means certain. They may be renamed elements or perhaps even compounds, given the Federation's butchery of terminology.

2. Phasers have not shown NDF effects on 100% operable ships, but have against such dieing targets as USS Galaxy.

We saw "eating away" effects on the E-D from the BOP's weapons in Generations, quite early in the attack.

3. Photon torpedo (and indeed all DET weapon) impacts appear not to be impeded by SIF.
4. NDF effects have never been impeded by any material except a starship hull (IIRC).

Certain types of asteroid seem to cause problems for them (in one episode they had to use technobabble to destroy an asteroid before impact with a planet below). Also, metallic packing crates and other simple objects can be used as cover in battle while copious quantities of rock can be blown away by phaser hits. The effect is hardly limited to starship hulls.

5. Magical neutronium doors are possible.

Or at least something which they laughably refer to as neutronium.

6. Starfleet ships depend on SIF fields for their very existance, even while standing still.

True.

We've always operated under the assumption that a SIF field was this magical field that somehow added rigidity and sheer strength to an entire hull. But we've never had an idea how it worked, nor have we ever figured out why superheavy elements can be used in starship hulls. We've never figured out to my knowledge why phasers are impeded by SIF fields, or why torpedo impacts aren't.

What if a SIF is not in fact this magical field? What if it is a field of some sort designed not to enhance the hull's physical properties on a large scale, but instead for the very small scale?

So, the theory: the purpose of a structural integrity field is to keep the heavy atoms (duranium and tritanium) intact and not allow them to undergo fission. In other words to safeguard the integrity of the strucuture at the smallest possible level: at each possible atom.

The problem is that such a field would have no effect on the strength of structural members, and that is the primary purpose of the SIF.

So, consider the ramifications. Phasers are impeded by SIF not through magic, but because the field is keeping atoms together, fighting NDF. DET weapons are not affected, because they do not seek to cause damage through atomic disruption. Duranium and tritanium can in fact be used in hulls and kept stable, fitting canon statements to this effect. When a ship is dieing and the SIF is going offline, it becomes more susceptable to NDF effects, as seen in the destruction of the USS Galaxy.

Contrary to our previous assumption, NDF is not impeded by atomic weight (an implication that I never really liked). The primary target we've seen NDF fail against is starship hull, and we've always assumed that this was because of mass. It doesn't have to work that way: NDF can be the culprit. Evil inpenetrable neutronium doors of doom can also use this technology to stay together and also survive phaser fire. The failure of SIF will kill a ship even if its not under stress, as the atoms in the hull will start to degrade.

Is there any reason to change the basic function of SIF so that it no longer performs its stated job?

There's my crackpot theory. I kinda like it. If there are any problems, please commence the ripping apart of the theory. *EDIT* If there are any problems with my Trek facts, its Alyeska's fault. I asked him about most of them.

I'm a little surprised that Alyeska believes starships are the only objects which have ever demonstrated any phaser resistance.

Howedar wrote:*snip*as seen in the destruction of the USS Galaxy.*snip*

When was the USS Galaxy destroyed? For that matter the only Galaxy class ships I can recall being destroyed would be the USS Enterprise-D, USS Yamato, and USS Odyssey. IIRC the USS Galaxy was part of the Nemesis battle group waiting for the Enterprise-E.

Darth Wong wrote: That is by no means certain. They may be renamed elements or perhaps even compounds, given the Federation's butchery of terminology.

Correct. However we should at least assume as a starting point that they are speaking the truth.

We saw "eating away" effects on the E-D from the BOP's weapons in Generations, quite early in the attack.

Did we? I didn't remember ever seeing actual damage on the E-D, but then I haven't seen the movie in about 5 years.

Certain types of asteroid seem to cause problems for them (in one episode they had to use technobabble to destroy an asteroid before impact with a planet below). Also, metallic packing crates and other simple objects can be used as cover in battle while copious quantities of rock can be blown away by phaser hits. The effect is hardly limited to starship hulls.

Hmm. Well, shows you how much I watch ST.

The problem is that such a field would have no effect on the strength of structural members, and that is the primary purpose of the SIF.

Not to be a what-if man, but do we actually know this? I mean, keeping the atoms from NDFing would be keeping the structure together. I've always found "structural integrity field" a pretty nebulous name in the first place, and from my perspective this theory still fits the name.

quote]
Is there any reason to change the basic function of SIF so that it no longer performs its stated job?

Well, I propose to you that we have never known what the job of a SIF is, and that we still don't. Keeping rigidity seems the most straightforward interpretation, but as far as I see it this one fits as well.

I'm a little surprised that Alyeska believes starships are the only objects which have ever demonstrated any phaser resistance.

Well, most Trek facts. I asked him about photorps vs. SIF and a few other things, but I didn't really remember any non-hull objects demonstrating unusual resistance to phasers. Chalk it up to my religious ST watching habits

Howedar wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:That is by no means certain. They may be renamed elements or perhaps even compounds, given the Federation's butchery of terminology.

Correct. However we should at least assume as a starting point that they are speaking the truth.

When they use the words "element", "alloy", and "molecule" in a basically interchangeable fashion, their honesty is not the issue so much as their competence.

We saw "eating away" effects on the E-D from the BOP's weapons in Generations, quite early in the attack.

Did we? I didn't remember ever seeing actual damage on the E-D, but then I haven't seen the movie in about 5 years.

It was a shitty movie. That is understandable.

The problem is that such a field would have no effect on the strength of structural members, and that is the primary purpose of the SIF.

Not to be a what-if man, but do we actually know this? I mean, keeping the atoms from NDFing would be keeping the structure together. I've always found "structural integrity field" a pretty nebulous name in the first place, and from my perspective this theory still fits the name.

No it doesn't, since structural integrity is maintained by inter-atomic bonds, not intra-atomic bonds. Even if the atoms are stabilized, that doesn't accomplish shit if the atoms are separated from one another.

Well, I propose to you that we have never known what the job of a SIF is, and that we still don't. Keeping rigidity seems the most straightforward interpretation, but as far as I see it this one fits as well.

Then perhaps you could explain how nuclear stabilization is supposed to strengthen a structural member when the strength of a structural member is related to inter-atomic bonding rather than nuclear interactions.

Darth Wong wrote: When they use the words "element", "alloy", and "molecule" in a basically interchangeable fashion, their honesty is not the issue so much as their competence.

Semantic goof on my part. But you're right. Either way, as you have pointed out, naming conventions of materials suggest that both Tritanium and Duranium are elements. Whether or not this is true is, of course, questionable.

It was a shitty movie. That is understandable.

Could you elaborate on the damage taken by the E-D?

No it doesn't, since structural integrity is maintained by inter-atomic bonds, not intra-atomic bonds. Even if the atoms are stabilized, that doesn't accomplish shit if the atoms are separated from one another.

I ask you as a mechanical engineer. Is there a common and accepted definition of "structural integrity?" I think that is the crux of the issue here. This pre-college teenager does not know of one. My point is that the integrity of the structure depends on several different things, and the very existance of its atoms would certainlyb e one of them.

Then perhaps you could explain how nuclear stabilization is supposed to strengthen a structural member when the strength of a structural member is related to inter-atomic bonding rather than nuclear interactions.

Thats the point. I don't think it has any measurable effect on the strength of the structure.






Yes, I'm grasping at straws. I like my theory!

Darth Wong wrote:I'm a little surprised that Alyeska believes starships are the only objects which have ever demonstrated any phaser resistance.

Eh, Howedar asked me two questions, just TWO. The first was about photon torpedoes, the second was a partial statement saying that Starships resist phasers better then ground and that NDF on ships doesn't happen often. I told him torpedoes are the heavy weapons and that we have seen NDF on starships. Thats IT.

Alyeska wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:I'm a little surprised that Alyeska believes starships are the only objects which have ever demonstrated any phaser resistance.

Eh, Howedar asked me two questions, just TWO. The first was about photon torpedoes, the second was a partial statement saying that Starships resist phasers better then ground and that NDF on ships doesn't happen often. I told him torpedoes are the heavy weapons and that we have seen NDF on starships. Thats IT.

Sorry, he clarified that statement later.

Howedar wrote:Could you elaborate on the damage taken by the E-D?

You can see some of the early disruptor hits on the aft hull "eating away" at the hull briefly after impact. There's a definite chain-reaction behaviour.

I ask you as a mechanical engineer. Is there a common and accepted definition of "structural integrity?" I think that is the crux of the issue here. This pre-college teenager does not know of one.

Yes. If something breaks, it does not have structural integrity. I'm not joking; that's what it means.

My point is that the integrity of the structure depends on several different things, and the very existance of its atoms would certainlyb e one of them.

True, but then it would imply that tritanium and duranium cannot exist without these stabilizers, and they can be mined out of the ground (see "duranium ore"), so that obviously isn't true. And since duranium does not require such special stabilization to exist, there is no need for the SIF with your theory until shields go down, yet they use them for many other situations where simple mechanical strength is required.

Thats the point. I don't think it has any measurable effect on the strength of the structure.

Yes, I'm grasping at straws. I like my theory!

Of course you do. It's your theory, after all

Darth Wong wrote: Yes. If something breaks, it does not have structural integrity. I'm not joking; that's what it means.

Okay. Makes perfect sense. I would hope that such a brainless concept need not be defined, but then I just questioned the definition three posts ago. LOL!

Howedar wrote:*snip*as seen in the destruction of the USS Galaxy.*snip*

Howedar I say again....

When was the USS Galaxy destroyed? For that matter the only Galaxy class ships I can recall being destroyed would be the USS Enterprise-D, USS Yamato, and USS Odyssey. IIRC the USS Galaxy was part of the Nemesis battle group waiting for the Enterprise-E.

Alyeska says that Galaxy was destroyed by OWPs in the Dominion War.

Never saw it, but I thought the Galaxy was severely damaged by the platforms, and yes a one USS Galaxy was waiting for the Enterprise-E in Nemesis.

Howedar wrote:Alyeska says that Galaxy was destroyed by OWPs in the Dominion War.

We never see a War mod Galaxy get destroyed in DS9 including the USS Galaxy. The USS Galaxy was just severely damaged.

Yeah, so Alyeska has since told me.

They may be renamed elements or perhaps even compounds, given the Federation's butchery of terminology.

Don't we have something called Ammonium?

Yes, a polyatomic ion.

Howedar wrote:Alyeska says that Galaxy was destroyed by OWPs in the Dominion War.

No, I did not. Very hard for me to say that since the USS Galaxy was alive and kicking AND had the same registry number in Nemesis.