Topic: Cloaking device vs invisibility device in TOS.  (Read 5374 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13066
Cloaking device vs invisibility device in TOS.
« on: January 11, 2010, 08:55:49 am »
It is often cited as a conflict that in the Enterprise Incident they seem unaware that the Romulans had the cloak earlier.  But did they?

TOS: Balance of Terror

It is referred to by the Romulans as a cloaking system but not by the Enterprise or its crew.  The Enterprise sensors can detect the ship with "motion detectors" but not visual sensors.  To the Enterprise it is an invisibility device.

TOS: The Enterprise Incident

The Cloaking device is specifically stated as blocking ships sensors.  They never refer to it as making the ship invisible.  The Enterprise sensors do not detect any of the 3 ships before they uncloak.  None of the 3 Romulan ships detect the Enterprise once it cloaks. 

They do refer to it as "newly developed" but even a device a year or 2 old could be called that.  So even if it IS the same device it is not necessarily a conflict and the Enterprise could be the obvious choice to acquire it as they had faced it already and won.

Uncloaking is done so that the Enterprise will know it is outgunned and with the intent of persuading the Captain to surrender instead of die.  Both Spock and the Romulan commander acknoweldge that it won't be long before the cloak is defeated.

So the question is:  Were these 2 devices the same thing or different?
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline marstone

  • Because I can
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3014
  • Gender: Male
  • G.E.C.K. - The best kit to have
    • Ramblings on the Q3, blog
Re: Cloaking device vs invisibility device in TOS.
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2010, 12:39:16 pm »
considering the number of inconsistency in TOS or heck all of it.  And that in TOS most of the shows where made up on the fly and they didn't really care if they were consistent as long as the story was alright.  Reason stardates in TOS were all screwed up, they just made them up for each scene needing one.  Same for the rest of the show.
The smell of printer ink in the morning,
Tis the smell of programming.

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2106
Re: Cloaking device vs invisibility device in TOS.
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2010, 12:44:15 pm »
I was always under the impression that the Enterprise Incident cloak was an improved device that the Enterprise's sensors couldn't track, and that the shock of the Romulans decloaking came from the fact that it was far beyond the capabilities of their previous cloak.  Also, we don't know how long the Romulans had the balance of terror cloak since the feds hadn't had any contact with them since the war.

Offline Villa64

  • NCC-64E
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 5672
  • Knuckle Dragger
Re: Cloaking device vs invisibility device in TOS.
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2010, 08:08:04 pm »
I thought that the point of the episode was that they knew that the Romulans had fielded better capability, so they sent kirk on the mission to steal it.
Engaging the precious snowflakes of the world.

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2106
Re: Cloaking device vs invisibility device in TOS.
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2010, 09:38:20 pm »
Starfleet intelligence knew about the new cloak, as did Kirk and the select crewman tasked with aiding him, but the rest of the crew was not informed.

Offline Tulwar

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1333
Re: Cloaking device vs invisibility device in TOS.
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2010, 10:33:54 pm »
Like the rest of ST, take whatever you want from it.  Personally, I assumed that "The Enterprise Incicent" was a follow up to "Balance of Terror."  The language describing the cloaking device as "new" was simply theatrical.  The evelution of the cloaking device was a indicated in a TNG episode where the Enterprise is sent to intercept an old Klingon BC whose crew had been in stasis for 70 years.  There, it just made sense that an older device would be obsolete.

As far as a perfect invisiblity device, as portrayed in ST4, that's almost more of a comedic device than sci-fi.  The weapon ranges and speeds of starships would make visual combat a rediculous notion.  As we experience ST as visual media, the visual effect of invisiblity and the combat effect of disappearing from targetting sensors are one in the same, but any military wargamer knows that these are entirely different concepts.  To critique the movie on this line is pointless, but to form rules for games and such, the films have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Personally, my take on the cloaking devices in TOS is that they were essentially the same thing.  If the device in "The Enterprise Incident" were an improved model, that's well and good, as well.  I would expect; however, the cloaking devices encountered by Picard and Kirk to have as much in common as an F-22 and a P-51.  There would have been intermediate devices between the first one encounter and the last.

Anybody trying to make sense of what is produced for theatre is running a fool's errand.  Film and television writers and directors are free to do whatever they want to produce a whatever theatrical device they feel like.  They create errors and inconsistancies while they correct errors and inconsistancies from TOS.  It's all make believe, so put the technology together inside your head however makes the best sense.
Cannon (can' nun) n.  An istrument used to rectify national boundries.  Ambrois Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Offline Roychipoqua_Mace

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 786
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cloaking device vs invisibility device in TOS.
« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2010, 01:28:25 am »
considering the number of inconsistency in TOS or heck all of it.  And that in TOS most of the shows where made up on the fly and they didn't really care if they were consistent as long as the story was alright.  Reason stardates in TOS were all screwed up, they just made them up for each scene needing one.  Same for the rest of the show.

I agree with you. I don't think they were worried with continuity too much . . . in fact, I think the reason they introduced the cloaking/invisibility device in "The Enterprise Incident" as a new thing was probably because the episode was made two years after "Balance of Terror" -- I don't know how common re-runs were back then, but maybe they were assuming people hadn't seen "Balance of Terror." It's also nice that back then, and in most of TNG too, you didn't have to remember back to the continuing story of an old episode, but they were all stand alone.

Offline Tus-XC

  • Capt
  • XenoCorp® Member
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2789
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cloaking device vs invisibility device in TOS.
« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2010, 01:51:48 am »
As far as a perfect invisiblity device, as portrayed in ST4, that's almost more of a comedic device than sci-fi.  The weapon ranges and speeds of starships would make visual combat a rediculous notion.  As we experience ST as visual media, the visual effect of invisiblity and the combat effect of disappearing from targetting sensors are one in the same, but any military wargamer knows that these are entirely different concepts.  To critique the movie on this line is pointless, but to form rules for games and such, the films have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Actually, there would be an importance to actually wanting a perfect cloak (invisible and all).  Assuming that it was just a cloak designed to spoof sensors (like today's stealth) then it would still be very possible to infer the position of the cloaked vessel if it were to pass in front of a point of light.  Now granted, the computing power needed to track that many points is well... astronomical as it must track your exact position, velocity, and acceleration in relation to those points, then in real time check the field of view for any 'dips' resulting from a sensor cloaked vessel within the viscinity (Our star sensors today only do it with a select few points) but assuming this could be overcome it would actually be a good way to track it, just look for dips in light (much like we do today in planet hunting).
Rob

"Elige Sortem Tuam"

Offline Tulwar

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1333
Re: Cloaking device vs invisibility device in TOS.
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2010, 01:25:48 am »
As far as a perfect invisiblity device, as portrayed in ST4, that's almost more of a comedic device than sci-fi.  The weapon ranges and speeds of starships would make visual combat a rediculous notion.  As we experience ST as visual media, the visual effect of invisiblity and the combat effect of disappearing from targetting sensors are one in the same, but any military wargamer knows that these are entirely different concepts.  To critique the movie on this line is pointless, but to form rules for games and such, the films have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Actually, there would be an importance to actually wanting a perfect cloak (invisible and all).  Assuming that it was just a cloak designed to spoof sensors (like today's stealth) then it would still be very possible to infer the position of the cloaked vessel if it were to pass in front of a point of light.  Now granted, the computing power needed to track that many points is well... astronomical as it must track your exact position, velocity, and acceleration in relation to those points, then in real time check the field of view for any 'dips' resulting from a sensor cloaked vessel within the viscinity (Our star sensors today only do it with a select few points) but assuming this could be overcome it would actually be a good way to track it, just look for dips in light (much like we do today in planet hunting).

The usefulness information produced from ambient radiation, or even radiation emitted by the target itself depends very much on the speed of the target.  Since the vessels in question are starships capable of fantastic speeds, I would assume that they use an equally fantastic means for targetting.
Cannon (can' nun) n.  An istrument used to rectify national boundries.  Ambrois Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Offline Tus-XC

  • Capt
  • XenoCorp® Member
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2789
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cloaking device vs invisibility device in TOS.
« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2010, 08:43:04 am »
not ambient background radiation or even the radiation of the target, that something all together different (don't know where this came from since I didn't even mention it).  I'm talking about tracking stars.  Knowing their intensity as it corrisponds to your position would allow you to determine the location and velocity vectors of a sensor cloaked ship via dips in star intensity as it passed in front of them.
Rob

"Elige Sortem Tuam"

Offline Villa64

  • NCC-64E
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 5672
  • Knuckle Dragger
Re: Cloaking device vs invisibility device in TOS.
« Reply #10 on: January 17, 2010, 11:07:52 am »
Some of this discussion is briefly mentioned in the episode.

The Enterprise cant see a cloaked ship so cant fire very well, but can aim at a "blip on the motion sensors", in the hope of "blanketing them before they zero in on us".  Thats not a completely invalid theory; indirect fire has used the same "shoot a bunch at a small Ph and hope for a hit" for centuries.
Engaging the precious snowflakes of the world.

Offline Tulwar

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1333
Re: Cloaking device vs invisibility device in TOS.
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2010, 02:20:53 am »
not ambient background radiation or even the radiation of the target, that something all together different (don't know where this came from since I didn't even mention it).  I'm talking about tracking stars.  Knowing their intensity as it corrisponds to your position would allow you to determine the location and velocity vectors of a sensor cloaked ship via dips in star intensity as it passed in front of them.

There is no difference between radiated, reflected, and interrupted light as far as the effect of speed and distance.  Light is a useless medium for the detection of spacecraft that travel faster than light.  Even traveling a tiny fraction of the speed of light negates the usefulness that medium given enough distance.
Cannon (can' nun) n.  An istrument used to rectify national boundries.  Ambrois Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Offline Norsehound

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 578
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cloaking device vs invisibility device in TOS.
« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2010, 04:36:28 pm »
One could assume that the "Enterprise Incident" cloaks are better and newer to take advantage of the klingon power plants that they would be using. If the Bird of Prey used "Simple Impulse", then there's only so much you could do with the cloak, no matter how practically invisible you become. The new device, which masks the ship better, would be something starfleet is more interested in because it would be something they could use on their ships.

Offline Starfox1701

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1052
Re: Cloaking device vs invisibility device in TOS.
« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2010, 07:23:07 pm »
We do know tha the device draws an enourmous amount of power as if I recall correctly Scotty was concerned that it would blow out all the power relays on the ship and somthing simaler acctually did happen on the USS Pegasus in TNG. It could be a gravitic lensing effect were the all the radiation is around the focused around the ship to present the veiwer with a "perfect" view of the background. As the energy field is acting as a lense the more power and computing power you have the better you cloak

Offline Tulwar

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1333
Re: Cloaking device vs invisibility device in TOS.
« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2010, 09:44:52 pm »
One could assume that the "Enterprise Incident" cloaks are better and newer to take advantage of the klingon power plants that they would be using. If the Bird of Prey used "Simple Impulse", then there's only so much you could do with the cloak, no matter how practically invisible you become. The new device, which masks the ship better, would be something starfleet is more interested in because it would be something they could use on their ships.

You are exactly right.  How we forget the obvious.  In "Balance of Terror," the Romulan ship was supposed to have only impulse power, while the Klingon battle cruiser, from "The Enterprise Incident," is a warp-capable starship.  There is no reason to think the cloaking device from a sublight vessel would do anything to conceal a ship that travels faster than light.  The old cloaking device was little more than a nuisance, because, the Romulans, lacking warp power, had no strategic reach.  No doubt, Starfleet Command would do anything to capture an example as soon as they learned that the Romulans discovered how to cloak a starship.  In over fourty years, I think you are the first to point out that the Romulans would have to develope an entirely new technology to cloak a warp powered vessel.
Cannon (can' nun) n.  An istrument used to rectify national boundries.  Ambrois Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13066
Re: Cloaking device vs invisibility device in TOS.
« Reply #15 on: January 29, 2010, 11:12:07 am »
In "Balance of Terror," the Romulan ship was supposed to have only impulse power

It has been mentioned in other threads that impulse power might well be used to power a warp drive at a lower efficiency than matter/antimatter warp engines.  If you watch the episode the Warbird  crosses a substantial portion of the distance that the Enterprise does while the Enterprise is at high warp so I assume that they have warp drive powered by impulse engines.
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline Tulwar

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1333
Re: Cloaking device vs invisibility device in TOS.
« Reply #16 on: March 30, 2010, 01:26:09 am »
In "Balance of Terror," the Romulan ship was supposed to have only impulse power

It has been mentioned in other threads that impulse power might well be used to power a warp drive at a lower efficiency than matter/antimatter warp engines.  If you watch the episode the Warbird  crosses a substantial portion of the distance that the Enterprise does while the Enterprise is at high warp so I assume that they have warp drive powered by impulse engines.

I assumed that time and distance were distorted by a theatrical convention.  Viewers could assume that the Romulan ship only had sublight engines, because "impulse" pretty much means "rocket," while "warp" means a space-distorting FTL system.  Your point is well taken.  By saying, "impulse power," TOS writers could remainin cagy about the ultimate source of power, while making it out as substantually inferior to the Enterprise.  After all, the Romulan ship did have warp engine nacelles.

This is one thing that I enjoy about basing fiction or a game world around TOS.  Nothing was concrete.  The movies and later series tried to define everything.
Cannon (can' nun) n.  An istrument used to rectify national boundries.  Ambrois Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary