Star Trek vs Anything?

[brianeyci]

In your personal opinion. NOT in a debate.

Says who, says you? Paramount certainly does not have a rule for Star Trek debates compared to Star Trek discussions. Did you know Batman that there is an obscure policy on this board which states that the thread creator can dictate the terms of canon to be followed? Most people do not give a fucking shit, movies, books, books and movies, the results are the same if the universe is consistent enough to be debated. There is outright contempt for the canon nitpicking by any sane debator. If it says Star Trek and it isn't a knockoff or fanfiction, it is Star Trek. Who says I can't bring the Trek continuity into debating? You? I fail to see what special place "versus" debating should have in the wider scheme of things. You know all the real Star Trek fans, the U235's and the Bounty, all use material besides the live action shows, and it enriches and heightens our understanding of the show. This idea that you can't bring in figures from the only document to ever state in real world units what yields are is hogwash.

The rest I could answer, but I won't because this isn't really B5 versus Star Trek and as usual you spilt paragraphs into single sentences to expand the points three times over, which is rather annoying whenever I debate you in anything. For example, I never claimed that the Federation would use nuclear weapons, only that the photon torpedoes should have similar yields or enough advantage in other areas to offset the complexity, but you broke the paragraph up into smaller bits to make it seem as if I was claiming the Federation actually used nuclear weapons. Maybe next time try and keep related sentences together so you don't destroy context.

[Batman]

In your personal opinion. NOT in a debate.

Says who, says you?

Why not? Given that it MATTERING is YOUR personal opinion.
I was nevertheless referring to the default rules of this forum WRT vs debates which don't universally apply I admit.

Did you know Batman that there is an obscure policy on this board which states that the thread creator can dictate the terms of canon to be followed?

No I wasn't, though I know that as long as the thread creator ACKNOWLEDGES he or she threw established canon rules out the window staying within said dictated terms is generally encouraged.

Most people do not give a fucking shit, movies, books, books and movies, the results are the same if the universe is consistent enough to be debated.

Which Trek ISN'T within even the stuff that IS officially canon. That's a large paert of the problem, you know.

There is outright contempt for the canon nitpicking by any sane debator.

The only people debating this stuff in the first place ARE the canon nitpickers.

If it says Star Trek and it isn't a knockoff or fanfiction, it is Star Trek. Who says I can't bring the Trek continuity into debating? You?

At this particular instance, yes.

I fail to see what special place "versus" debating should have in the wider scheme of things. You know all the real Star Trek fans, the U235's and the Bounty, all use material besides the live action shows, and it enriches and heightens our understanding of the show. This idea that you can't bring in figures from the only document to ever state in real world units what yields are is hogwash.

Oh, you can absolutely bring it in, as long as everybody in the debate AGREES to abide by it. And have you actually READ the TM? Because while it DOESN'T state photorps are 64MT, it merely gives a number for the antimatter payload that, if one assumes an equal matter payload and perfect reaction efficiency, would result in 64 MT, but it DOES explicitly give the main phaser arrays of a Galaxy-class a firepower of 1.04 GW (and reduces the Type II to 10KW). I'll just not mention the Warp power consumption table.

For example, I never claimed that the Federation would use nuclear weapons, only that the photon torpedoes should have similar yields or enough advantage in other areas to offset the complexity,

And they should have that-because you feel like it. There's no reason to assume they have weapons we never ever see just because they have the ability to build them. The Feds for SOME reason use PTs instead of nukes. That does NOT necessitate PTs actually being BETTER than nukes in any way shape or form.

but you broke the paragraph up into smaller bits to make it seem as if I was claiming the Federation actually used nuclear weapons.

I don't see how I ever implied that but if I did I apologize. Doesn't change the fact that just because the Feds can build nukes but apparently don't does NOT mean PTs have to be better than nukes.

[AirshipFanboy]

As the Federation uses anti-matter power and the younger fiver races seem to use fusion power, my quick guess would be that the Federation would win.

[fgalkin]

B5 has these cut scenes where they go beyond visual range, but personally I think that's hogwash. The BVR fights IIRC were mostly "Into the Fire" where Shadow and Vorlon ships shot missiles at Drazi.

The Narn fought an entirely BVR engagement against the Shadows in the "Long Twilight Struggle." And if the Narn could do it, so can the EA.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Coalition]

As the Federation uses anti-matter power and the younger fiver races seem to use fusion power, my quick guess would be that the Federation would win.

Not necessarily. Simply because something is more advanced does not make it better.

Fusion power means that they can stop at any star, comet, gas giant, or similar for fuel, so their strategic operations are easier. Antimatter containment could mean the fuel supply is limited.

If you compare their effects, then you see more. Babylon 5 has no inertial dampening capability, making Star Trek's 1000 G acceleration seem like magic. The Minbari Dark Star Sharlin-class warship was destroyed by a total of 4 megatons, compared to the ST Tech manual's capacity of 25 megatons per photon torpedo. Based on acceleration and firepower, Star Trek wins.

[SAMAS]

while they can rape the majority of the sci-fi races like firefly, BSG, Signs, and over 65% of sci-fi novel races

Signs doesn't count. It defines the lower end of sci-fi competence and capability. The care bears could rape the Signs aliens, though actually that's a mental image I didn't need.

Oh thanks a lot.

[AirshipFanboy]

As the Federation uses anti-matter power and the younger fiver races seem to use fusion power, my quick guess would be that the Federation would win.

Not necessarily. Simply because something is more advanced does not make it better.

Fusion power means that they can stop at any star, comet, gas giant, or similar for fuel, so their strategic operations are easier. Antimatter containment could mean the fuel supply is limited.

It was a quick guess, I wasn't pretending it was an airtight and unassailable conclusion.

I don't think it's farfetched to say that the Federation (which can theoretically suck out a hundred times as much energy from a gram of fuel) should have ships with much higher energy outputs than the fusion powered fivers.

While, you could refuel easier with fusion power, you'd have to lug around much larger fuel tanks to get equivalent power outputs, meaning your ships would be bulkier and get necessarily worse gas mileage.

And, yes, I know that's not always the case. Nuclear powered naval vessels aren't awesomely superior to conventional ships, because they burn their fuel more slowly. They just get more endurance, and a little more internal volume.

But, in absence of other knowledge, and assuming that other things (like endurance) are fairly equal, I think the type of fuel used makes a decent rule of thumb.

[Starglider]

don't think it's farfetched to say that the Federation (which can theoretically suck out a hundred times as much energy from a gram of fuel) should have ships with much higher energy outputs than the fusion powered fivers.

Raw power output with fusion is 3.38E14 J/kg for D/T or 6.3E14 J/kg for proton-proton (as ion velocity and neutron flux), theoretical power output for matter-antimatter is 9E16 J/kg, however somewhere around 50% of that is lost as neutrinos, so the effective power output (as gamma rays) is around 4.5E16 J/kg, so between 70 and 150ish times the power density depending on fuel.

However hydrogen can be stored in a simple tank, and boron (for p + 11B fusion) can be stored as powder or granules. 50% of the M/AM reactants have to be kept thoroughly isolated from matter, even under battle conditions, or the ship will blow up. Current technology would have something like a 1000:1 containment mechanism mass to fuel mass. AFAIK we don't have canon data on how efficient Trek antimatter storage is, but the TNG tech manual gives the Ent-D 30 truck-sized pods holding ~14 tonnes of antimatter each, for a total of 426 tonnes. It also gives the ship 9000 tonnes of normal deuterium. This is for a ship with a total mass of 4.96 million tonnes.

In other words the Enterprise D carries fusion fuel sufficient to generate ~2E21 J (with D-D fusion) and antimatter sufficient to generate 3.8E22 J (when reacted with 426 tonnes of matter), only a factor of 20 difference. To generate 3.8E22 with fusion alone would require increasing the (deuterium) fuel fraction from ~0.2% of the ship's mass to ~3.4% of the ship's mass, hardly a major burden (and you could then do away with the 30 large and highly dangerous antimatter pods). Switching to boron fusion would roughly double the volumetric efficiency but halve the mass efficiency (not that the GCS is hurting for spare volume anyway - as a bonus though, it's aneutronic), switching to DT fusion would bump the mass and volume efficiency by ~50%.

While, you could refuel easier with fusion power, you'd have to lug around much larger fuel tanks to get equivalent power outputs, meaning your ships would be bulkier and get necessarily worse gas mileage.

So no, this does not appear to be true for Trek ships; the larger tanks would not be a significant handicap. Whatever they use antimatter for, it must be another reason. It could be reduced reactor mass, it could be something to do with the 'tuned plasma' the dilithium crystal is supposed to generate, it could be rampant Starfleet techno-fetish.

[dragon]

I know going by the manual they are able to convert some of the normal deuterium into antideuterium but its a bit slow. But nice analysis on the data.

[NecronLord]

compared to the ST

canon's weapons capacity of, when used on calculable targets, something between a hand grenade and a megaton, often closer to the hand grenade, discounting inconsistant swirls of light that appear to do nothing, and violate physical laws (see TDiC).

Regardless of what Brian would like, there's no reliable, justifiable example of higher than single megaton firepower in Star Trek. I don't think he knows that the Star Trek Technical Manual says. Do you even own a copy, Brian? The Star Trek TNG technical manual says photon torpedos can carry 1.5 Kg of Antimatter. It doesn't say they go off with a sixty megaton bang. That's a theoretical maximum, assuming perfect efficiency.

There is no problem with reconciling the TM with below single-megaton max-power yeilds. All that means is that photon-torpedos aren't very efficient.

[Starglider]

I know going by the manual they are able to convert some of the normal deuterium into antideuterium but its a bit slow.

Via the antimatter generator which was never mentioned in the canon or AFAIK anywhere else, and had horrible efficiency (single digit percent as I recall). Interesting it's implied that the matter-antimatter conversion process involves some sort of magical forcefield-based flipping process as opposed to the particle collisions which are the only known way to produce antimatter in the real world. If you accept this completely invented physics in the first place, it could in principle form the basis of a total conversion reactor, though clearly this level of efficiency is totally beyond Federation science if it is indeed possible at all.

But anyway this is described as only good for getting short bursts of warp power after exhausting their main antimatter supply, as they don't have the fusion generation capability to drive the warp nacelles with fusion plasma alone.

But nice analysis on the data.

Thanks.

[NecronLord]

To be fair. Given the way the transporter supposedly works, a total conversion generator shouldn't be hard at all... Just dematerialise a brick every few minutes and trickle it into the energy conduits...

[chitoryu12]

To be fair. Given the way the transporter supposedly works, a total conversion generator shouldn't be hard at all... Just dematerialise a brick every few minutes and trickle it into the energy conduits...

How many bricks would be required for an effective source of energy?

[NecronLord]

How many bricks would be required for an effective source of energy?

A fraction of one. Antimatter-annihalation is a form of mass-energy conversion (one of very few that's half-realistic, mind). The transporter-reactor would work just as well, and use a much more stable, less volitile fuel.

Also, you could have them shovelling coal into the engines, which would be classy.

[chitoryu12]

Hm. Interesting source of energy.

[Starglider]

To be fair. Given the way the transporter supposedly works, a total conversion generator shouldn't be hard at all... Just dematerialise a brick every few minutes and trickle it into the energy conduits...

A pretty good argument for why the transporter does not work that way, IMHO. Though Trek has so many bogus particles and forms of energy it may be that the transporter converts ordinary matter into some unique form of energy that can't be used to power other technology.

[NecronLord]

It'd be a neat theory, if it didn't contradict almost everything said on screen about the devices.

[Alien-Carrot]

How bout the aliens from Earth: Final conflict?

That would be an interesting fight, though i think Trek would win in the end due to superior numbers.

Imagine that, Trek actually having numbers over a spacefaring race.

[Alien-Carrot]

Also, IIRC, anti-matter is passed through the di-lithium crystal structure, causing a warp field to form.

So while the fusion reactors may be safer, they can't generate a warp field, and would limit the E-D to sublight speeds.

And since you need anti-matter to create the warp field, you might as well use it to generate power at the same time. After it passes through the crystals, use magnetic fields to channel it towards the dueterium. Now you have a warp field AND a powerful energy source.

[Starglider]

Also, IIRC, anti-matter is passed through the di-lithium crystal structure, causing a warp field to form.

What the fuck do you think the warp nacelles are for, if the dilithium crystal does it (that's the football-sized chunk of quartzy stuff that sits in the main reaction chamber, in case you weren't paying attention)?

So while the fusion reactors may be safer, they can't generate a warp field, and would limit the E-D to sublight speeds.

Canon evidence to the contrary; the original Romulan Bird of Prey was fusion powered, but could travel at warp speeds.

And since you need anti-matter to create the warp field, you might as well use it to generate power at the same time. After it passes through the crystals, use magnetic fields to channel it towards the dueterium. Now you have a warp field AND a powerful energy source.

What's this? You're saying that the antimatter creates a warp field without needing to react with matter? And that the M/AM reaction is a secondary power-generation facility? So they can in fact travel as fast as they like without using any power, just by flushing antimatter through dilithium?

You do realise this is total nonsense right?

[Stark]

Wow, I've never seen 'antimatter + dilithium (with magic antimatter holes) = warp field' before. The intermix and reaction is just a side effect for making usable energy, apparently - I wonder if the antimatter that creates the warp field is consumed in this theory?

[Starglider]

The intermix and reaction is just a side effect for making usable energy, apparently - I wonder if the antimatter that creates the warp field is consumed in this theory?

the ante-mater is sucked into sub space by the space warp the die-litheum creates which also folds around the ship and makes it go fast and those streaky stars but like by the time they build voyager they discover how to repolarise the tackyon flow so that the ante-matter comes out of sub space again and can flow back into the tank and that is how voyager could travel across the whole galaxy without ever having to refuel

DON'T YOU SEE, THE FEDERATION NOW HAS UNLIMITED ULTIMATE POWER!

[Alien-Carrot]

What the fuck do you think the warp nacelles are for, if the dilithium crystal does it (that's the football-sized chunk of quartzy stuff that sits in the main reaction chamber, in case you weren't paying attention)?

Did you just say the nacells create the warp field? Then what exactly is the di-lithium used for, decoration?

What's this? You're saying that the antimatter creates a warp field without needing to react with matter? And that the M/AM reaction is a secondary power-generation facility? So they can in fact travel as fast as they like without using any power, just by flushing antimatter through dilithium?

You do realise this is total nonsense right?

I do now. Point conceded.


And voyager spent the entire first season looking for fuel, although i don't remember if they evey specified what it was. Probably dueterium.[/quote]

[Starglider]

Did you just say the nacells create the warp field? Then what exactly is the di-lithium used for, decoration?

Even if this weren't well explained in the canon and fluff, do you realise how stupid this sounds? You're suggesting a choice between having a major design feature of (almost) all Trek ships, which takes up a significant fraction of the ship's volume and mass (the nacelles), being pointless and unnecessary, or having the exact function of one small (but critical) component of the reactor system being unknown. What kind of idiocy would cause you to select 'fuck knows why they have those huge glowy warp nacelles, but dilithium is definitely the secret of warp drive' over 'the warp nacelles drive the ship at FTL velocity, dilithium is critical in some way to the functioning of the matter-antimatter reactor that powers them'.

As it happens this is quite well explained in the TNG tech manual; the warp coils in the nacelles generate the warp field when sprayed with very energetic plasma. The 'warp core' is simply an efficient M/AM generator. The dilithium crystal somehow becomes non-reactant with antimatter when placed in a high-energy high-frequency EM field. Placing this energised crystal at the M/AM reaction point somehow causes the reactor to emit a controlled stream of deuterium plasma (the core uses considerably more matter than antimatter to provide the mass for this) instead of the omnidirectional gamma emission you'd get from simple M/AM annihilation.

The properties of dilithium are completely arbitrary made-up physics, but frankly by Trek standards they're quite sensible, and this fluff matches pretty much all of the TNG-and-later canon and isn't too hard to reconcile with the TOS/movie era.

[AirshipFanboy]

AFAIK we don't have canon data on how efficient Trek antimatter storage is, but the TNG tech manual gives the Ent-D 30 truck-sized pods holding ~14 tonnes of antimatter each, for a total of 426 tonnes. It also gives the ship 9000 tonnes of normal deuterium. This is for a ship with a total mass of 4.96 million tonnes.

In other words the Enterprise D carries fusion fuel sufficient to generate ~2E21 J (with D-D fusion) and antimatter sufficient to generate 3.8E22 J (when reacted with 426 tonnes of matter), only a factor of 20 difference. To generate 3.8E22 with fusion alone would require increasing the (deuterium) fuel fraction from ~0.2% of the ship's mass to ~3.4% of the ship's mass, hardly a major burden (and you could then do away with the 30 large and highly dangerous antimatter pods). Switching to boron fusion would roughly double the volumetric efficiency but halve the mass efficiency (not that the GCS is hurting for spare volume anyway - as a bonus though, it's aneutronic), switching to DT fusion would bump the mass and volume efficiency by ~50%.

While, you could refuel easier with fusion power, you'd have to lug around much larger fuel tanks to get equivalent power outputs, meaning your ships would be bulkier and get necessarily worse gas mileage.

So no, this does not appear to be true for Trek ships; the larger tanks would not be a significant handicap. Whatever they use antimatter for, it must be another reason. It could be reduced reactor mass, it could be something to do with the 'tuned plasma' the dilithium crystal is supposed to generate, it could be rampant Starfleet techno-fetish.

Hmmm... I learn new stuff every day.

In light of this argument, I must concede my position. Thou hath bested me, o starglider! (shakes fist at sky)