Destructionator XIII wrote:
This thing is something to remind folks who talk about cranking up power too. In real life, if you turn up the power more than the wiring in the middle is rated for, you'll burn it out and start a fire. (Of course, ideally, a fuse or circuit breaker steps in before it comes to that. Building code requires that the wiring have a safety margin above the breaker's rating, to guarantee it blows before they burn, and the breakers are rated to survive current spikes a lot more than anything normal too.
But, even with the safety requirements in building codes, sometimes shit still happens. And, sometimes people purposely bypass them or ignorantly introduce another weak link. Commercial buildings here are prohibited by the fire code in using extension cords. Why? The internal wiring of the building is tough enough to take abuse, but your typical household extension cord isn't rated to that kind of current spikes.
So, if you (or God, eg lightning) overloaded the extension cord, it might not be able to handle it and start a fire, despite everything else working properly and being well within their safety margins.
It's certainly possible for extension cords to be perfectly safe, but the fire department doesn't want to take chances with a public building, so they banned the whole thing.)
The thing to really remember (IIRC) is that it was still largely an experimental device, but we dont know how far along it was. It sounds like there was alot of disagreement about the safety levels of the device, and that's a very subjective impression. If Pressman was a particularily callous or pragmatic type, he might (purely a hypothetical numbeR) might be happy with a 1 in 20 failure rate, yet Riker (or starfleet) consider that far too high a loss. Hell maybe even for them one in 100 would be excessive.
It's also possible that risks only accrued over prolonged usage and that played a role. I don't remember exactly how long the phasing cloak was ever used on the Phoenix, but it could be that as it is used for prolonged periods, the danger increases significantly with time. In that way it might be perfectly acceptable for short term usage (say minutes or hours) but risky over longer (days, for example.)
Anyway, I'm really digressing. The point is, the entire system, from generator to output and every little thing in between needs to be able to handle the worst situation you throw at it. The weak point might be something you never even considered!
Yep. Again, it's experimental, and there's just no saying how complicated the design is. Hell, for all we know the problems originate with making the technology work with the other stuff in a federation starship. Perhaps the power generation systems do not take kindly to being phased? Or maybe the subspace related systems go wonky in a phased state. Who knows.
(weird though: wouldn't the explosion cut power? Maybe it has an added draw to start up, like a lot of electric systems. (Motors, for example, take a lot more current getting up to speed than maintaining it.) This initial burst blew out one system, but the cloaking device still had enough power to work through other connections.)
Maybe it does cut power.. but would that mean the energy just magically dries up and vanishes? There could be some delay or lag time between cutting power and things shutting down. Energy stored in capacitors/batteries, or still in the power transfer systems/conduits and whatnot. There could even be finite rates at which power can be safely shut down, and if you exceed that bad things happen.
Yup. Out of universe, obviously the actors have to walk. There'd be no story if the ship just left them behind...
In universe, I speculate that the ship's artificial gravity plating might be responsible.
To get there, I asked: what's the difference between a walls, tables, rocks, people, etc. that they pass through and the starship's floor that they don't? The only answer I found satisfactory is the floor has some kind of gravity system in it.
I've heard SIFs also argued as a reason, but we know SIFs are used in the walls too. AG maybe.. but wouldn't the gravity just be likely to pull people through the ground? Unless you're saying whatever generates the AG might keep them propped - some material they can't phase through.
The other main option thrown up was materials, but I rejected it because the walls are probably made of the same stuff, and they passed through them without trouble.
Dunno. Hard to say because I dont remember us knowing a great deal about how the ships are constructed.
Mind you, we don't have to assume it's just an either or thing. Dense materials could still be passed through, but maybe they just require more time or effort to bypass. It's also possible its not just density but thickness. It's not unreasonable to assume that the floors are thicker than internal walls. (although once the Romulan flies out of the ship... that is harder to explain admittedly.) I recall they didn't stand around a great deal, maybe moving around helped them keep afloat.
The inertial dampers might work on a similar principle, so we can apply this same reasoning there to explain why they move with the ship, in the absence of a regular force acting upon them.
Well I think the fact we know gravity is acting on them and they aren't floating away is sufficient proof that some sort of force field acts on them, yeah. I'm just not sure that gravity alone would work. Maybe whatever is in the floor has some sort of repulsive anti-gravitational properties that cancels out whatever downward pull they might otherwise feel? I imagine they might have conduits and such running through the floors and even some walls. Just because some walls can be passed through doesn't mean all would be.