Elron
Fleet Admiral
[Retired]
?There are no facts, only interpretations? (Nietzsche)
Registered: May 31, 2003 12:23:57 GMT
Posts: 3,080
|
Post by Elron on Jan 21, 2007 12:59:45 GMT
Actually, they tend to use the phrase 'blasters' in Star Wars rather than lasers. Blasters fire a bolt of super-heated plasma, confined and directed using electromagnets. That's why they're much less precise in their targetting; you can only have so much control over fast-moving plasma when you're using magnets incorporated into the barrel of the gun to focus and fire it.
P.S. The science of Star Wars' guns is a lot more sound than that of Star Trek in this case
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 18, 2024 11:12:08 GMT
|
Post by jared on Jan 21, 2007 13:34:56 GMT
The ones mounted on the starships are called 'turbolasers' but what makes them turbo and why they have the 'laser' bit is probably just like calling the longarms rifles. Otherwise they wouldn't be 'blaster rifles' they would be 'blaster longarms'. And the logic is sound; a misuse of one term with a clear and precise definition means that it is possible for a further misuse of another. Consider that Trek does the same thing by calling the longarm phasers 'phaser rifles'. It also uses the phrase 'bussard collectors' for the collectors on the nacelles when a bussard ramjet is meant to be used as the primary source of fuel for an ever increasing velocity, as Red Dwarf is capable of (but only over millions of years to reach light speed); the Trek ones are merely particle collectors used to refuel certain materials, possibly by using a weak tractor field and flying through dense collections of a suitable material. So the usual phrasing and the actual phrasing do not always match up and often do not need to aside from on blueprints and similar.
|
|
cptjeff
Guest
Registered: Apr 18, 2024 11:12:08 GMT
|
Post by cptjeff on Jan 25, 2007 6:33:11 GMT
you're on very weak ground there- bussard collectors and ramscoops are often both present, depending on the class f starship. and I am not buying that rifle argument at all. it just doesn't' work. I also could care less about Star Wars tech- We're building a Star TREK ship here, in case you hadn't noticed. Star wars does nto follow the laws of physics at all, and while star trek has lapses, it does not make huge errors like Star wars. Star WARS and STAR TREK are too different things- I dont' expect anywhere near the same tech in either, and I dont' watch star wars for the technology. The ships are means to an ends. In Trek, you learn more about the environment- aka, the ship. It's more important, so they accually try to get things right.(I still want an explanaiton for jet engines on star wars space fighters...)
Basically, Star WARs doe snot follow the same physics laws star trek and the real universe does. Try to Leave Star WARS out of Star TREK.
|
|
Deleted
Registered: Apr 18, 2024 11:12:08 GMT
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2007 18:42:36 GMT
And while you are at it, could you also try and keep it civil please Jeff? This is not a place to be having an argument (again)
|
|
cptjeff
Guest
Registered: Apr 18, 2024 11:12:08 GMT
|
Post by cptjeff on Jan 26, 2007 3:38:39 GMT
sorry, I just get sick of hearing about Star wars in here. And I prefer to call it heated debate.
I know. Sorry, I got carried away.
|
|
Deleted
Registered: Apr 18, 2024 11:12:08 GMT
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2007 19:35:00 GMT
Not a problem...but things seem to get carried away so quickly, I would rather not have it turned into something far more serious!
|
|
cptjeff
Guest
Registered: Apr 18, 2024 11:12:08 GMT
|
Post by cptjeff on Jan 27, 2007 3:46:57 GMT
Ah.. the timestamp explains why I was so easily set off. 1:30 am.
|
|
narsil
Guest
Registered: Apr 18, 2024 11:12:08 GMT
|
Post by narsil on Jan 27, 2007 6:42:01 GMT
|
|
narsil
Guest
Registered: Apr 18, 2024 11:12:08 GMT
|
Post by narsil on Jan 27, 2007 6:46:28 GMT
Of course in order to build on the scale your talking bout you'd need to upgrade the phalanx's proportions a bit...lol
|
|
narsil
Guest
Registered: Apr 18, 2024 11:12:08 GMT
|
Post by narsil on Jan 27, 2007 6:55:21 GMT
|
|
Magellan Lin
Fleet Admiral
Registered: Apr 28, 2003 16:06:54 GMT
Posts: 2,338
|
Post by Magellan Lin on Jan 27, 2007 20:37:09 GMT
|
|
narsil
Guest
Registered: Apr 18, 2024 11:12:08 GMT
|
Post by narsil on Jan 27, 2007 20:44:17 GMT
Indeed it does
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 18, 2024 11:12:08 GMT
|
Post by jared on Jan 29, 2007 22:22:03 GMT
Ah.. the timestamp explains why I was so easily set off. 1:30 am. In all fairness, I didn't see it as having a go anyway so no problems here. I didn't originally mention only Star Wars but tried to make a general comparison to a range of other sci-fis in the hope of a more general reaction. Trek vs Wars debates aside, how would you answer it in comparison to Asimov, Red Dwarf, etc and the possibility of either using a standard ship with greater manoeuvrability or a larger ship which acts like a modern battleship?
|
|
cptjeff
Guest
Registered: Apr 18, 2024 11:12:08 GMT
|
Post by cptjeff on Feb 10, 2007 23:07:00 GMT
My point is (and I probably failed to communicate this) is that with the types of tech Star Trek uses, it's irrelevant. the things that matter are the Ratios and the shape of the ship. a big, slim ship moves better then a little fat one. how hard do you think it would be for a freighter to turn? But those are small compared to a Sov, which can move really fast. Also, battle tactics like conventional warfare are nearly as important- the Federation is mostly at peace and only uses force as a last resort. The flagship needs to reflect that. Not to say it can't use force, but it's not focused on that.
On the other hand, I do see your point now, and I honestly can say that I want big and movable, along the lines of a Sov. I do not want a battleship, but making it thin and streamlined would give it manouvorabilty without compromising size too much.
|
|
catii
Guest
Registered: Apr 18, 2024 11:12:08 GMT
|
Post by catii on Feb 11, 2007 10:15:49 GMT
why would making a ship that flies through space more streamlined help?
|
|
Deleted
Registered: Apr 18, 2024 11:12:08 GMT
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2007 10:21:13 GMT
It would be easier to move for a start. For example, the Enterprise-E would be able to turn and run (for whatever reason they needed to) far more easier than the Enterprise-D.
Also, by having a streamlined ship, it is also not damaging subspace as much.....unless of course you want a HUGE ship, but only be able to go to warp 5.
|
|
catii
Guest
Registered: Apr 18, 2024 11:12:08 GMT
|
Post by catii on Feb 11, 2007 11:45:58 GMT
oh i get it now. i keep forgeting subspace.
|
|
Elron
Fleet Admiral
[Retired]
?There are no facts, only interpretations? (Nietzsche)
Registered: May 31, 2003 12:23:57 GMT
Posts: 3,080
|
Post by Elron on Feb 11, 2007 17:08:21 GMT
Big ships damage subspace? How does that work?
Unless we're going to invent some pretty contrived physics, I really don't see why streamlining is of any benefit to a ship, though it does make it more attractive. When you're flying in the vacuum of space, your maneouvring really depends on just two things - your momentum distribution and the positioning of your engines/thrusters. The ship should be easier to steer if most of the mass is concentrated near the centre-of-mass (assuming that's your turning axis), but only if the thrusters are also positioned a sufficient distance away (to increase torque). I'm not quite sure why it's easier for the E to turn and run than the D, but maybe I'm missing something. Can you explain it for me?
|
|
catii
Guest
Registered: Apr 18, 2024 11:12:08 GMT
|
Post by catii on Feb 11, 2007 18:33:30 GMT
its what warp travel does to subspace. it was in a tng episode. i think the more streamlined it is, the less chance of cutting subspace.
|
|
Elron
Fleet Admiral
[Retired]
?There are no facts, only interpretations? (Nietzsche)
Registered: May 31, 2003 12:23:57 GMT
Posts: 3,080
|
Post by Elron on Feb 12, 2007 1:50:38 GMT
Lol, that's not at all how I understood it. I thought it was entirely to do with how the warp field operated and was dependent on speed (ie strength of the field) but not size. I don't think subspace contains any type of resistive or viscous energy or matter - it's not fluidic space. Therefore streamlining shouldn't play any part in it...
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 18, 2024 11:12:08 GMT
|
Post by jared on Feb 12, 2007 22:00:57 GMT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_control_systemorbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/images/gallery71.jpgThose two have the opposite possibilities. Either at the far end from the main engines for streamlining on the at times airborne space shuttle or at the centre of gravity but held away from the body for leverage on the other one. As for subspace, shape is an iffy issue since Voyager had the inefficient but apparently radically good design of nacelles which were quickly replaced by a more efficient system which countered the initial problem (assuming that IC the designers were not mislead by some other factor).
|
|
cptjeff
Guest
Registered: Apr 18, 2024 11:12:08 GMT
|
Post by cptjeff on Feb 14, 2007 1:36:10 GMT
The other biggie that streamlining helps is inertia. the thinner the ship, the the better you can roll and such. the distribution of mass matters quite a bit in terms of real physics.
|
|
Elron
Fleet Admiral
[Retired]
?There are no facts, only interpretations? (Nietzsche)
Registered: May 31, 2003 12:23:57 GMT
Posts: 3,080
|
Post by Elron on Feb 14, 2007 11:36:27 GMT
Yeah, but you shouldn't confuse streamlining with effective mass-distribution. Streamlining is literally all about the surface and shape of the craft, so that drag and lift have the right values in the right places, allowing high speeds and easy turning. A long thin craft is certainly better at rolling along its forward horizontal axis, but is significantly worse at pitching up or down, and also requires greater thrust to rotate it in a horizontal plane (relative to the craft).
In other words, extending the ship in one dimension to reduce its size in the other two dimensions only improves manoeuvrability around one axis.
Incidentally, linear momentum/inertia depends only on mass (and not the distribution), while rotational momentum/inertia increases directly with the radius of the mass distribution. So a small ship with its mass concentrated in the centre is vastly superior in that sense. It's why a sphere is easier and smoother to spin in any direction than other volumes. To be technical...
|
|
Elron
Fleet Admiral
[Retired]
?There are no facts, only interpretations? (Nietzsche)
Registered: May 31, 2003 12:23:57 GMT
Posts: 3,080
|
Post by Elron on Feb 17, 2007 13:18:01 GMT
Lol, am I being too pedantic again? I think we may have drifted from the thread topic of 'Basic Stuff' lol ;D
Sorry, but that's what happens to you when you're trying to write up a Masters thesis in experimental physics...
|
|
cptjeff
Guest
Registered: Apr 18, 2024 11:12:08 GMT
|
Post by cptjeff on Feb 26, 2007 0:10:43 GMT
Oh, it's fine.
I was referring to mass streamlining, or streamlining (aka to make efficient) the distribution of the mass- or the mass distribution. same thing. gotta love English. And the whole discussion there was relating to rotational motion with manoeuvrability.
And you're right about the axis thing. I forgot to take that into account, seeing as we only think of ships as going along one plane, or close to it. ( just look at most of the effects on trek, even the CG.)
while we're on these technical discussions, should we go ahead and work out the warp equations? If we knew the theory precisely enough, we could derive them.
for fun.
or we could talk about the paint scheme.
|
|