Topic: Question about utility of nacelles

[Stormbringer]

Given the treknology behind warp engines why does extra nacelles indicate more power or utility? According to the theory, the warp core is where all the energy is produced. So even if I put a dozen nacelles on a ship but had the same warp core I shouldn't have more energy for phasers or shields or whatever. What would give me more power is a bigger warp core or APRs or impulse engines not extra nacelles. About all I'd expect the nacelles to do is make the warp field more efficient or geometry configurable. But the game is played at impulse speed. Even in SFCIII warp just gets you to or out of combat.
Your thoughts?

[Smiley]

More nacelles = more warp coils = bigger/stronger warp field, at least that's how I understand it. Of course the more power you put into the coils also increases the field strength too I think.

[Stormbringer]

Yeah, but the amount of plasma coming from the matter antimatte reaction reaches maximum with a 50/50 mix and the containment field can only handle so much at a time, so the fuel flow rate has a maximum too. Therefore the core size dictates the amount of plasma energy that can flow into the coils. More coils would just seem to dilute the local strength of the warp field around each coil.

[Smiley]

Hmm, well the way that I have always thought about it is like an electromagnet....the more coils or wire that you have on the electromagnet - the stronger the field produced, but if you also increase the current then the field also increases.

M/AM Reactions are supposedly annihilation reactions - when the matter and anti-matter come into contact with eachother they produce a controlled reaction that reulsts in huge amounts of energy being released, presumably in the form of electr-plasmaI don't think that they use the idea of it being diluted in the Trek, although I might be wrong - for they do talk about it being more or less charged at some points.... hmm My idea is ruined lol, oh well!

[Stormbringer]

Answering posts in two forums simultaneously is hard work... To your sugesstions. Well it might be true. I don't know about trek techno-babble but it might be possible to boost the *usable* energy in a 50/50 reaction. Afterall the energy coming from the anhillation reaction is spread across the spectrum of energy. Some forms of energy are more useful than others. IOW there is a broad swath of wasted useless energy. If a catalyzing agent were injected down stream from the reactor it could capture some of that energy by trapping it an rereleasing it as usable forms. Ideally the catalyzing agent could be recycled.  

As to the electromagnet analogy, I'd assumed something similar and was using laws pertaining to ordinary coils as my guide. There are many factors that dictate strength in such coils. The number of times the conductor cuts the field lines is one. But so are current and "voltage". And that would be dictated by the ammount of plasma running to and through the coils which is limited by the warp core.

[Bernard Guignard]

The problem guys is that you have to go back to TOS  and the first set of Enterprise Blueprints and the Trek Technical Manual. In these its inferred that power is Generated from the Warp engines the matter antimatter reactors are built into each
engine. This is what SFB based Their premise on.  

[Stormbringer]

I know they drifted away from that as the series went on or at least through the series of series but that idea is sort of what I'm getting at. More cores equals more power. I don't necessarily care where the core is placed. In the nacelle or in the secondary or engineering hull. I just wants more power.

[InterMech]

Nacelles are a form of power output. Much like wheels on a car. An extra nacelle does not produce more power itself, but may indicate that a ship has a more powerful warp core. Look at a dually pickup truck. Do the extra wheels give it more power?  No, the truck uses its  power from the bigger engine to turn the extra wheels for more traction. I think nacelles are like treds on tanks, they grip the fabric of space to pull the ship along, an extra one would give more strength to the pull.  I am not sure, however how the efficiencies work. Probably for each added nacelle there is proportionally less added speed. That would be why most ships only have 2 nacelles, the efficiency of having the third is just not worth it, unless you are the Galaxy X or Stargazer.  I think the formula would look something like this:

y = (log x) / x

 

Where "y" is some measure of "subspace traction or velocity,"  and "x" would be your number of nacelles. I am missing a horizontal stretching constant somewhere, but I think you get the picture.

The use of extra nacelles would be a way to even the playing field for heavier ships that can support a bigger warp core to reach nessesary warp velocities, otherwise, two nacelles is your best bet.

That is my take on it, from an engineer's standpoint anyway.  

[Stormbringer]

That is what I figure. They increase the efficiency at warp or alternately they allow a variation in the geometry of the warp field Again an efficiency issue. But I notice a trend to tack on nacelles to the bigger badder ships as if there were a direct correlation to overall ships power for other things as well like number of phasers that can simultaneously fire. Number of torpedoes armed and so on. I just noted by the extant technobabble that this would not appear to be true. to an extent you could say it was indirectly related as to power the coils to the same level as fewer nacelles would have you would need more core output. thus larger or more powerful cores. But if the coils could handle the power then additional cores or more compact and powerful cores could achieve the same thing.

[Stormbringer]

Anybody know if there was a technical reason for Gene's aversion to more than two nacelles? At least he said he'd never allow a three let alone a four of five nacelled design on his shows.

[olbuzzard]

Actually I dont think it was as much as a lack of appreciation for more than two naucells as it was he felt as though they should be in pairs.  Hense the idea of generating a "warp field" .  The idea of pairs to complete the cycle.  Which I personaly kinda agree with.  That is why we designed the naucell on that ship of mine the way we did.  BTW ... we will up grade the front of them with a more contemporary front or "cap" to them.  It seems as though the nastalgic round cap may be a bit too far out of step.   ( And I could see where some have a problem with that) .  Each of the naucells on the design we presented were actually "dual naucells" ...  Just a different way of presenting them so they were less combersome.  

[InterMech]

Ok, that equation I mentioned should look more like this:

y = ((log(0.4x + 1)) / (0.4x + 1)) * n

Where n is some constant that would have to be determined based on the magnitude to the "units of traction." The reason for the "x" term in the denominator is be cause if you get too many nacelles next to each other, the warp field starts pushing on itself. You will still get the same kind of plot with that equation but it will be stretched out so that the fourth nacelle lands right at the peak of the curve. Of course, values will vary based on overall ship configuration and placement of nacelles.

Also, I was thinking that when you see four or more nacelles, they may be used as spares. Think of some of the Klingon and Romulan warships in SFC. They are built for survivability.

Another idea is that more nacelles could perform the same task as the variable geometry aspect of Voyager's nacelles.  

[Atrahasis]

Quote:
Anybody know if there was a technical reason for Gene's aversion to more than two nacelles? At least he said he'd never allow a three let alone a four of five nacelled design on his shows.  

Yes......basically, Gene's idea of what a space warp was was a powerful enough electric field that could open up space. This may have been from rumors about the Philadelphia Experiment (allegedly during WW II) which was suppoosed to have used powerful electric fields and magnets to achieve alleged effects of teleportation and whatnot.

And so Gene came up with some rules: a ship must have TWO warp engines to generate this electric field, and at least 50% of the length of the nacelles must be within line-of-sight of each other, ie not blocked by other parts of the ship.

This is why for ST:TMP only the INBOARD sides of the nacelles glowed a bright blue, and not the outside. The original special effects concept was to create a "bridge" of bluish-energy going in between the nacelles to represent this powerful electric field. This is why the TMP Enterprise also had those VIP lounge windows at the back of the B-C deck, there was supposed to have been a scene where people are at those windows (which look aft of the ship) and through the windows you can see the blue arc of energy between the warp engines. This idea was nixed though, but the glowing inboards were retained of course.....sans the arc of energy.  

[Stormbringer]

I have a fringe science video about tesla and pertaining to the philadelphia experiment. In it physicists and engineers try to replicate the claims for the philadelphia experiment with a simpler and smaller set up. They were able to replicate some of the effects. It's an interesting video from the tesla society.  

[Desty_Nova]

Quote:
Anybody know if there was a technical reason for Gene's aversion to more than two nacelles? At least he said he'd never allow a three let alone a four of five nacelled design on his shows.  

The actual reason for this is that due to angry misunderstandings, Gene Roddenbery was actively trying to discredit Franz Joseph's work on the Starfleet Tech Manual. If you read his 'rules' of starship design you will see that they basically invalidate every aspect of FJ's ships.

Let's examine these 'rules' one-by-one:

Rule #1 Warp nacelles *must* be in pairs. -There goes the Saladin Class, Hermes Class, and Federation Class right there.

Rule #2 Warp nacelles must have at least 50% line-of-sight on each other across the hull. -That rules out the Ptolemy Class tug.

Rule #3 Both warp nacelles must be fully visible from the front. -Federation Class breaks this 'rule' as well.

Rule #4 The bridge must be located at the top center of the primary hull. -Federation Class is an offender once again. Bleah.

This is a link to an interview with Franz Joseph's daughter where she talks about this subject, among other things: http://www.trekplace.com./interviews/fj-kdint01.shtml

[olbuzzard]

At this point another question comes to my mind as designers who wish to treat the ships we design with "proper design integridy"  do we use the "pair theory" only ... or " three's ok" ...  how do we aproach this.  I'm not trying to start a flame throwing thread here...  so please dont misunderstand and PLEASE dont jump on this old man back as a result.

Personally I really feel this way:

1.  The two at the time theory makes sense and I have no proble with it.  As for the size ...  hmmmm  well  ...   it could be argued this is VERY valid ....  except for one thing ....  thechnology changes.  In the same sense of the word as the size of computors has changed dramatically since they were first designed.  Heck the one I've got under my desk top used to take up half a small bed room.

2.  In the same sense of the word ...  changes in technology ..  it could also be argued that is why three is a valid posibility.  So the bottom line is ...  I kinda prefer them in pairs ...  but not an absolute.  There is a lot of excellent work out there and some very valid arguments to back them up as well.

BTW...  I can redo one of my pitcs and demonstrate why the set we developed shold still be valid...  ( if ya think it's ok)

[sandman69247]

As for the correlation between more nacelles= more power for phasers...I see it as the more nacelles, more capable of converting the energy from the warp core to weapons energy. Kinda like a power supply on you puter...it converts the 110v power out of the wall to a configuration that can be used by the components in the puter.

As to warp efficiency, it seems like 4 would be more efficient. I mean, you're attempting to create a warp "bubble" around the ship; seems more efficient to have 4 creating a 1/4 of the "bubble that 2 doing 1/2.

 

[olbuzzard]

As I understand it ..  it's not so much as generating a warp "bubble"  as it is a "warp field"...  or threshhold .  It also thrusts the ship into motion.  Knowing what we do about "resistance"  or drag in space travel  ..  or in this case a lack there of, it continues at that rate of speed until the conditions are changed ..  either slowing down or speeding up.   Hense the problem of going into " trans warp"  or a faster rate of speed became something of a problem.  The Excelcior of course was the first attempt at this technology and was considered basically a failure.  It was like our first few attempts to break the sound barrier.  And for the longest time they honestly believed it was impossible to get any faster than that ...  our air craft kept blowing up as they got to that speed.  (Turned out it was the fuel that was exploding )  The rest of course is history.

At any rate ..  this is interesting stuff..  we need to continue this.

[Stormbringer]

I'm not knocking modelers and thier designs. I was trying to discuss the "technology". Because, though fiction now it is plausible that one day propulsion might look similar whether it lead to warp speeds or not. As a modler you should stick to your own asthetics. I wouldn't listen to people telling you your models are wrong based on such a criterion as I brought up here. Atra tossed up a gem for me with his philadelphia project speculation. That was the sort of thing I was hoping for. I did not know that, though I am familiar with the philadelphia experiment lore as a fringe science thing. Your models are yours and you need no justification to make them however you want.