Exploiting transporter accidents

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-01-11 12:51am

The federation has neglected to study transporter accidents that duplicate people to duplicate unreplicatable items. Since transporters can transport anything that fits, maybe it might duplicate anything. It probably won't have "single bit errors" since that is inacceptable for transporting humans. We do know that it can duplicate living matter, so it might be useful when cloning body parts etc. There are other examples of accidents that might be useful, like the phased cloaked Ensign Roe thingy (never watched the episode, just read it in the episode guide). The transwarp thing for example to send messages.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-01-11 12:57am

Um, do you even have a point, or are you just rambling?

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-01-11 01:02am

Two new threads today, both about Trek and both not in the trek section as the sticky indicates.

The transporter is a bit odd but anything you can transport you should be able to replicate if it is a straight up cloning procedure which I don't think it is.

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » 2003-01-11 01:04am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Um, do you even have a point, or are you just rambling?

He is asking if it is possible to use transporter accidents (specifically the cloning incidents) to duplicate supposedly unreplicateable items. He then goes on to ask if other malfunctions might also come in handy.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-01-11 01:06am

Pcm979 wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Um, do you even have a point, or are you just rambling?
He is asking if it is possible to use transporter accidents (specifically the cloning incidents) to duplicate supposedly unreplicateable items. He then goes on to ask if other malfunctions might also come in handy.

Well maybe if he actually made them questions in the first place and not rambles, I would have understood what his point was.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-01-11 02:18pm

Sorry kind of hard to type on a a text-only browser in a form only 10 characters wide.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-01-11 04:25pm

How do you think they replace the redshirts?

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-01-11 05:20pm

Pu-239 wrote:The federation has neglected to study transporter accidents that duplicate people to duplicate unreplicatable items. Since transporters can transport anything that fits, maybe it might duplicate anything. It probably won't have "single bit errors" since that is inacceptable for transporting humans. We do know that it can duplicate living matter, so it might be useful when cloning body parts etc. There are other examples of accidents that might be useful, like the phased cloaked Ensign Roe thingy (never watched the episode, just read it in the episode guide). The transwarp thing for example to send messages.

The Phased Roe (& Geordi if I remember correctly) wasn't a real transporter accident, it was very deliberately done by Romulan phase tech.

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » 2003-01-12 05:53am

NecronLord wrote:How do you think they replace the redshirts?

They don't. They all started out white.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-01-12 05:58am

Pcm979 wrote:
NecronLord wrote:How do you think they replace the redshirts?
They don't. They all started out white.

Ever seen a washing machine on a starship?

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » 2003-01-12 06:06am

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Pcm979 wrote:
NecronLord wrote:How do you think they replace the redshirts?
They don't. They all started out white.
Ever seen a washing machine on a starship?

So not only do you have to hold it in for five years, but you never get to wash your clothes? No wonder the Maquis rebelled!

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-01-12 07:05am

Pcm979 wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:
Pcm979 wrote:They don't. They all started out white.
Ever seen a washing machine on a starship?
So not only do you have to hold it in for five years, but you never get to wash your clothes? No wonder the Maquis rebelled!

I think they might use the transporters to 'clone' crew members that explode from bowel disorders....

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » 2003-01-12 07:57am

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Pcm979 wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote: Ever seen a washing machine on a starship?
So not only do you have to hold it in for five years, but you never get to wash your clothes? No wonder the Maquis rebelled!
I think they might use the transporters to 'clone' crew members that explode from bowel disorders....

.....Or maybe they transport the "products" into space.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2003-01-17 01:12am

So if I understand you Pu-239, you are saying that a random transporter accident is what the Feds need to count on in order to duplicate unreplicatable items? So you are hoping for the accidents to happen (as a benefit) rather than spend money on R&D to improve the technology?

That's like me attaching a crooked bumper to my car and hoping someone will run into me to straighten it out.

XPViking

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » 2003-01-17 03:27am

XPViking wrote:So if I understand you Pu-239, you are saying that a random transporter accident is what the Feds need to count on in order to duplicate unreplicatable items? So you are hoping for the accidents to happen (as a benefit) rather than spend money on R&D to improve the technology?

That's like me attaching a crooked bumper to my car and hoping someone will run into me to straighten it out.

XPViking

He's saying that they should work out how to replicate the accident and put it to good use.

Like getting your crooked bumper accidentally knocked into shape, and then reproducing the imact under controlled circumstances to nock more crooked bumpers back into shape.

russellb6666 · Post by **russellb6666** » 2003-01-17 06:00am

Pcm979 wrote:
XPViking wrote:So if I understand you Pu-239, you are saying that a random transporter accident is what the Feds need to count on in order to duplicate unreplicatable items? So you are hoping for the accidents to happen (as a benefit) rather than spend money on R&D to improve the technology?

That's like me attaching a crooked bumper to my car and hoping someone will run into me to straighten it out.

XPViking

He's saying that they should work out how to replicate the accident and put it to good use.

Like getting your crooked bumper accidentally knocked into shape, and then reproducing the imact under controlled circumstances to nock more crooked bumpers back into shape.

that makes sense to "normal" people but what makes you think that the feds would come up with a logical sane idea like that maybe in a fanfiction or possiblely for the original show

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-01-18 02:10am

I've never understood why transporters couldn't be used as the ultimate medical tool...

Have your spine severed? Hope in the transporter and use an old pattern. Hell, one would think that with the type of scanning required to do a transport they would be able to go in and fix almost any problem medically wrong with a person.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-01-18 02:15am

Admiral_K wrote:I've never understood why transporters couldn't be used as the ultimate medical tool...

Have your spine severed? Hope in the transporter and use an old pattern. Hell, one would think that with the type of scanning required to do a transport they would be able to go in and fix almost any problem medically wrong with a person.

Is there any evidence that partial patterns can be used to fix medical problems?

It may work on certain things aside from that though. Like removing toxins and poisons.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2003-01-18 05:42pm

He's saying that they should work out how to replicate the accident and put it to good use.

Like getting your crooked bumper accidentally knocked into shape, and then reproducing the imact under controlled circumstances to nock more crooked bumpers back into shape. - Pcm979

I see some problems with that. First, you have to have it accidentally happen. That could take quite some time. And then, you are relying upon a device (the transporter) which is unstable to begin with. I think spending money on improving it (not necessarily by trying to duplicate accidents) would be better.

XPViking

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-01-19 03:52am

Is there any evidence that partial patterns can be used to fix medical problems?

Well I'm not sure of the particulars on this, but I seem one episode (rascals I believe it was) where picard and some other crew were turned into children by some means. They latter used the transporter, and I assume an old pattern to transform back to their grown up selves.

IT would seem to make sense that they could at the very least, use an older pattern during the reformation phase. I mean, if you suffer from a spine injury or something, the matterial is still all there.

Red Knight · Post by **Red Knight** » 2003-01-19 05:36am

There was also an episode in which Doctor Pulaski rapidly aged, and the crew was able to use a hair found in her quarters to restore her old body, using the transporter.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-01-19 03:19pm

XPViking wrote:I see some problems with that. First, you have to have it accidentally happen. That could take quite some time. And then, you are relying upon a device (the transporter) which is unstable to begin with. I think spending money on improving it (not necessarily by trying to duplicate accidents) would be better.

I think you're not exactly understanding the question, I don't think he means, for instance, that we WANT to learn how to bring people back to life with transporters, so we wait and wait and wait until it accidentally happens. He's talking about all the accidents that HAVE happened, and why can't they analyze then, see why they happened and try to recreate them.

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » 2003-01-19 08:24pm

Slartibartfast wrote:
XPViking wrote:I see some problems with that. First, you have to have it accidentally happen. That could take quite some time. And then, you are relying upon a device (the transporter) which is unstable to begin with. I think spending money on improving it (not necessarily by trying to duplicate accidents) would be better.
I think you're not exactly understanding the question, I don't think he means, for instance, that we WANT to learn how to bring people back to life with transporters, so we wait and wait and wait until it accidentally happens. He's talking about all the accidents that HAVE happened, and why can't they analyze then, see why they happened and try to recreate them.

That's how I read it too.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-01-20 02:39am

Yes, but some people seem to be reading "wait for a specific malfunction and exploit it".

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » 2003-01-20 03:14am

Slartibartfast wrote:Yes, but some people seem to be reading "wait for a specific malfunction and exploit it".

loons.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Exploiting transporter accidents

Exploiting transporter accidents

Re: Exploiting transporter accidents