ST scanners vs SW shields

[skies]

Could the Enterprise (any era) scanners even penetrate a star destroyer's shields, and if the shields were down, could they even scan past the hull?

[Gullible Jones]

Past the shields on visible frequencies, no sure about higher or lower on the EM spectrum. No idea if they could see into the hull, the thick armor and use of very heavy elements says they might have some problems.

[Peptuck]

I don't think shields have ever shown the capacity to block scanners in SW - that's part of the reason why they have jammers, I think.

[lord Martiya]

But the enormous energy level of SW shields could jam Trek sensors, I suppose.

[Havok]

Star Destroyers keep an assortment of exotic rocks on board. ST scanners are fucked.

[harbringer]

I'm pretty sure I remember a nutronium hull on a ship in one of the movies ( V'ger??? ) and that prevented sensors on the enterprise scanning it.... even if a star destroyer hull is only 50% neutronium it will still affect sensors

[Connor MacLeod]

I'm pretty sure I remember a nutronium hull on a ship in one of the movies ( V'ger??? ) and that prevented sensors on the enterprise scanning it.... even if a star destroyer hull is only 50% neutronium it will still affect sensors

Er, at 50% neutronium the mass of the ship would be insane. the percentage of neutronium in a SW hull (if it is real neutronium) will be very very VERY tiny.

[Connor MacLeod]

But the enormous energy level of SW shields could jam Trek sensors, I suppose.

What "energy level" a shield does not neccesarily require a large input of energy to function.

[lord Martiya]

And to resist to high gigaton-level attacks?

[Ted C]

And to resist to high gigaton-level attacks?

If a wall withstands the impact of a cannonball, did the wall do any work?

Same principle applies.

[Connor MacLeod]

And to resist to high gigaton-level attacks?

What Ted said. To expand on it. Physical matter (like his wall example) does not need "energy" to maintain itself or to resist attacks. SWTC and Curtis (and Mike I bleieve) have used a refridgerator heat pump analogy (it removes heat without consuming huge amounts of energy.) Simply by virtue of resisting a shield can provide protection.

This may seem an odd analogy, but remember tht matter itself is motly empty space. As Mike notes on his Brain Bugs page under gravitics:

Mount Everest is defying gravity, to the tune of suspending billions of tons of rock miles above sea level. And what allows it to do this? Why, its solidity, of course. And what gives it solidity? Electromagnetics.

...

Think about it: the only reason your body holds together instead of dispersing into a cloud of gas is electromagnetism. Solid matter is characterized by particular kinds of chemical bonds (ionic, covalent, metallic), and these bonds are electromagnetic phenomena, based on the attraction of protons to electrons. In fact, the only reason solid objects can't pass through one another is the mutual electrostatic repulsion between their electrons at close range! As Feynman pointed out, when you throw yourself off a tall building, gravity accelerates you downwards at 1 G, but when you hit the ground, electromagnetism will abruptly decelerate you at many thousands of G (a rate which would be even higher if not for the flexibility of your body and the ground). As the old saying goes, the fall doesn't kill you, but the landing will.

A forcecfield, therefore, does not need matter to have solidity or to stop attacks.

Indeed, having a shield consume alot of energy is actually more problematic from a standpoint of thermodynamics. IF you inject energy into a system, it has to go somewhere. - either as work or waste heat. It will only do work (assuming it does need to at all) if its under bombardment. Waste heat shouldn't even need to be mentioned, since that would simply make the shield extermely inefficient (why suck up largge amounts of power to no purpose aside from creating a very large detectable energy emission in spacec?)

Indeed, teh only way which a shield might plausibly consume huge amounts of power is some active "pushing" or "repulsor" system against physical projectiles (where a forcefield is required to actively exerrt power and push against or repel objects to slow them down or turn them aside.). While this is a possible mechanism, its not really neccessary either given Ted's wall analogy Moreover, the "pushing" type shield is going to be less efficient at doing the task than the "wall" type, simply by virtue of it needing enegy.

In shorrt, if a shield consumes much energy, it probably doesn't consume very much under most circumstances. And problaby not consistently. And if its more akin to a "wall" or "heat pump", then why need consume any energy at all.

[CaptainChewbacca]

From Voyager, the 'Think Tank' had a 'neutronium alloy' hull. No clue about the energy content, but they were able to find Seven inside it and beam her off, so I think the sensors would penetrate the hull.

[Gullible Jones]

Weird. It sounds like in both the ST and SW universes, "neutronium" is a stable transuranic element or something like that. Except that in the TOS episode with the planet-killer, the thing's outer walls were IIRC bona fide neutronium, somehow kept stable and solid. Maybe the meaning has changed as of the TNG era.

(You know, trying to compensate for Trek's day-to-day inconsistency sucks.)

[lord Martiya]

And to resist to high gigaton-level attacks?

What Ted said. To expand on it. Physical matter (like his wall example) does not need "energy" to maintain itself or to resist attacks. SWTC and Curtis (and Mike I bleieve) have used a refridgerator heat pump analogy (it removes heat without consuming huge amounts of energy.) Simply by virtue of resisting a shield can provide protection.

This may seem an odd analogy, but remember tht matter itself is motly empty space. As Mike notes on his Brain Bugs page under gravitics:

Mount Everest is defying gravity, to the tune of suspending billions of tons of rock miles above sea level. And what allows it to do this? Why, its solidity, of course. And what gives it solidity? Electromagnetics.

...

Think about it: the only reason your body holds together instead of dispersing into a cloud of gas is electromagnetism. Solid matter is characterized by particular kinds of chemical bonds (ionic, covalent, metallic), and these bonds are electromagnetic phenomena, based on the attraction of protons to electrons. In fact, the only reason solid objects can't pass through one another is the mutual electrostatic repulsion between their electrons at close range! As Feynman pointed out, when you throw yourself off a tall building, gravity accelerates you downwards at 1 G, but when you hit the ground, electromagnetism will abruptly decelerate you at many thousands of G (a rate which would be even higher if not for the flexibility of your body and the ground). As the old saying goes, the fall doesn't kill you, but the landing will.

A forcecfield, therefore, does not need matter to have solidity or to stop attacks.

Indeed, having a shield consume alot of energy is actually more problematic from a standpoint of thermodynamics. IF you inject energy into a system, it has to go somewhere. - either as work or waste heat. It will only do work (assuming it does need to at all) if its under bombardment. Waste heat shouldn't even need to be mentioned, since that would simply make the shield extermely inefficient (why suck up largge amounts of power to no purpose aside from creating a very large detectable energy emission in spacec?)

Indeed, teh only way which a shield might plausibly consume huge amounts of power is some active "pushing" or "repulsor" system against physical projectiles (where a forcefield is required to actively exerrt power and push against or repel objects to slow them down or turn them aside.). While this is a possible mechanism, its not really neccessary either given Ted's wall analogy Moreover, the "pushing" type shield is going to be less efficient at doing the task than the "wall" type, simply by virtue of it needing enegy.

In shorrt, if a shield consumes much energy, it probably doesn't consume very much under most circumstances. And problaby not consistently. And if its more akin to a "wall" or "heat pump", then why need consume any energy at all.

Well, it appears or that I failed to explain what I tried to tell or that I was wrong. I'll return on this when I'll be able to determine the good option. Perhaps never.

[harbringer]

Ahh I forgot about think tank ...it isnt my fualt - no really ... it was the fact I found voyager so horrible I didnt want to remember.

As for the percentage of neutronium in the armour <shrugs> unless someone can come up with a hard figure you have no idea how much is present I used 50% just as an example.