I don't hold any person agenda either except for making quality assumptions and deductions about what information is available.
It is infuriating when he spouts "well its universally accepted" or "I have done all the fact checking and research so it just is or "I see something so it must be true" So people just follow and begin regurgitate the same incorrect assumptions.
As someone who has taken high level engineering and physics courses in college I have an idea of what they're saying in the Tech Manual and interpret what we see and hear on the shows.
It's a relief to see someone else on the forums sees it as well.
I just want to say I appreciate you and MrShthd (sp?) for stepping up on this, I've been trying to make these points for some time, but wasnt as able to express it so well.
As someone who has taken high level engineering and physics courses in college I have an idea of what they're saying in the Tech Manual and interpret what we see and hear on the shows.(...)
That might be the biggest problem, though. Fiction hardly follows real life science which you cannot deny considering the downright outlandish understanding of the sciences Star Trek depicts. They do lend terms or extremely simplified real concepts and do what fiction writers do best: extrapolate and create fantastic uses for it. Some fall easier apart than others, still they are true for the universe shown within this fiction.
We have the TM, we have what we see on screen and we interpret it. Obviously there isn't a universal interpretation, wether or not someone is a real engineer or scientist is irrelevant. It's supposed to be entertainment and anyone who takes this to cause bad blood is stepping over a line that's not healthy for anyone.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
The starship construction manual and the ship manuals
When its all said and done they are the prime source until some company makes new ones that still respects the Canon created by these...We can only hope
The officers manual...............Well Gene Robbenbury didn't like it too much so he snatched the product away from FASA for changing things he didn't want changed...Sad story I wish it had not happened
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
If people are debating how the Universal Translator works well there's no way of proving 1 theory vs another since it's completely Vulcan tech/software.
But Capacitors and power transfers are tech we use today, TM description is firm in what it says and what it doesnt. The show correlates to either support 1 theory or debunk another. Much of Star Trek is based off of real Scientific Theory. Roddenberry wanted it that way. So it DOES help to know about physics and engineering.
Rodenberry wanted laser guns. A technical advisor told him "lasers don't do that". This is why we have phasers. They make stuff up and change it when it's necessary. Genes exist as well. But Star Trek's idea of genetics is hilariously nonsensical. The fiction doesn't necessarily work like it would in real life. That's something one should always keep in mind, it helps to not be "infuriated" at some point when we're supposed to discuss something we enjoy for entertainment purposes
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
there is so much of trek tech that does not follow real world application though. trying to rely solely that is just asking to fail
i am also still waiting to be proved wrong so far i have not. you just brought up something about deflects which was unrelated just because they use the same amount of power means nothing. both my radio in my car and the rear window defrost use 12v there there is no way in hell the radio wiring can handle the rear defrost with out blowing out or burning up
Rodenberry wanted laser guns. A technical advisor told him "lasers don't do that". This is why we have phasers. They make stuff up and change it when it's necessary. Genes exist as well. But Star Trek's idea of genetics is hilariously nonsensical. The fiction doesn't necessarily work like it would in real life. That's something one should always keep in mind, it helps to not be "infuriated" at some point when we're supposed to discuss something we enjoy for entertainment purposes
The problem that I have had is that there are people who read something from the TM and the show, made an interperatation, labelled it as "universally accepted" and has used it as gospel and has suggested those that disagree with it as incorrect and has judged the other interpretations( also based on TM and the show and using actual physics) as lesser.
This would not have escelated to "infuriation" if that persons interpretation (not even the real text) of the TM wasn't being used as a sort of canonic club on the heads of heretics.
Isn't it possible to find a compromise all parties can agree on?
The way I see it: TM says one Type X phaser emitter is capable of a maximum output of 5.1 MW energy. The Ent-Ds shields operate at a maximum capacity of something around 2.6 or so GW. Even if we assume the Ent-Ds shields are exceptionally strong, a 5.1 MW hit would tickle most other ship's shields, especially those in comparable weight classes. However, phaser hits did disable many ships' shields on the first volley or downright destroyed the target. They also had prolonged fights and could not bring down the other shields. That means that single emitter shots cannot be the end to all and the arrays are simply to cover a bigger field of fire (which they also do, though). If one emitter cannot operate beyond 5.1 GW, a bigger number of emitters have to be capable of combining their output. And since the powerful shots are not large phaser waves emitted by 200 emitters AND the used FX is a typical Sci-Fi "charge up" animation we can assume that emitters can combine their firepower by somehow transfering their "shot" over the emitter surface to the neighbouring emitter, incresing the overall energy and are ultimately unleashed at the emitter that's best suited to take the shot. The enrgy, though, traverses the emitters on the surface, which is what we see. Now, real life physics might suggest that the glow alone is a safe sign of massive power loss, but this technology is so efficient that it's not an issue. This set up would make sense in so far as the numbers in the TM given for shield strength and weapon strength add up to reasonable dimensions. That means that array length does matter. However, a upgraded emitter that is capable of more than 5.1 GW or a emitter that is fiddled with to be able to deal with more can be stronger, which means a shorter array can deal equivalent damage to the Type X long array.
So, both theories can work together. Now, can we be friends again?
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Isn't it possible to find a compromise all parties can agree on?
The way I see it: TM says one Type X phaser emitter is capable of a maximum output of 5.1 MW energy. The Ent-Ds shields operate at a maximum capacity of something around 2.6 or so GW. Even if we assume the Ent-Ds shields are exceptionally strong, a 5.1 MW hit would tickle most other ship's shields, especially those in comparable weight classes. However, phaser hits did disable many ships' shields on the first volley or downright destroyed the target. They also had prolonged fights and could not bring down the other shields. That means that single emitter shots cannot be the end to all and the arrays are simply to cover a bigger field of fire (which they also do, though). If one emitter cannot operate beyond 5.1 GW, a bigger number of emitters have to be capable of combining their output. And since the powerful shots are not large phaser waves emitted by 200 emitters AND the used FX is a typical Sci-Fi "charge up" animation we can assume that emitters can combine their firepower by somehow transfering their "shot" over the emitter surface to the neighbouring emitter, incresing the overall energy and are ultimately unleashed at the emitter that's best suited to take the shot. The enrgy, though, traverses the emitters on the surface, which is what we see. Now, real life physics might suggest that the glow alone is a safe sign of massive power loss, but this technology is so efficient that it's not an issue. This set up would make sense in so far as the numbers in the TM given for shield strength and weapon strength add up to reasonable dimensions. That means that array length does matter. However, a upgraded emitter that is capable of more than 5.1 GW or a emitter that is fiddled with to be able to deal with more can be stronger, which means a shorter array can deal equivalent damage to the Type X long array.
So, both theories can work together. Now, can we be friends again?
That is way too reasonable, thank you.
Formerly Known as Protector from June 2008 to June 20, 2012
Please enable us to buy a token with Zen to faction change a 25th Century FED to a TOS FED.
Isn't it possible to find a compromise all parties can agree on?
The way I see it: TM says one Type X phaser emitter is capable of a maximum output of 5.1 MW energy. The Ent-Ds shields operate at a maximum capacity of something around 2.6 or so GW. Even if we assume the Ent-Ds shields are exceptionally strong, a 5.1 MW hit would tickle most other ship's shields, especially those in comparable weight classes. However, phaser hits did disable many ships' shields on the first volley or downright destroyed the target. They also had prolonged fights and could not bring down the other shields. That means that single emitter shots cannot be the end to all and the arrays are simply to cover a bigger field of fire (which they also do, though). If one emitter cannot operate beyond 5.1 GW, a bigger number of emitters have to be capable of combining their output. And since the powerful shots are not large phaser waves emitted by 200 emitters AND the used FX is a typical Sci-Fi "charge up" animation we can assume that emitters can combine their firepower by somehow transfering their "shot" over the emitter surface to the neighbouring emitter, incresing the overall energy and are ultimately unleashed at the emitter that's best suited to take the shot. The enrgy, though, traverses the emitters on the surface, which is what we see. Now, real life physics might suggest that the glow alone is a safe sign of massive power loss, but this technology is so efficient that it's not an issue. This set up would make sense in so far as the numbers in the TM given for shield strength and weapon strength add up to reasonable dimensions. That means that array length does matter. However, a upgraded emitter that is capable of more than 5.1 GW or a emitter that is fiddled with to be able to deal with more can be stronger, which means a shorter array can deal equivalent damage to the Type X long array.
So, both theories can work together. Now, can we be friends again?
Also to be considered is the maximum, non-emergency tolerances of the individual emitter elements and their transfer mechanisms. It does zero good to have 1000 emitters chained together if the focal point can only handle the energies of 10 elements worth of phaser power.
The Galaxy and related ship's huge primary arrays are likely more about multipurposeness (after all, the phaser's trademark feature is its use as a tool, not just as a weapon) and adaptability than trying to play Death Star by combining a 100 little beams into one big one.
To me, the big arrays and little arrays are capable of similar levels of damage, but where the advantages of the big arrays come into play is when firing mulitple shots at the same target (DS9: Sacrifice of Angels features a scene where a Galaxy passes near a Galor and unleashes multiple blasts) or it's utility (TNG: A Matter of Time saw the Ent-D's saucer arrays used as titanic phaser drills and used to ionize a planet's atmosphere; the Antimatter Spread seen in Best of Both Worlds was deployed via the larger saucer arrays).
"Education"? We're talking about a sci-fi show from the 60's here. Most of the times the authors themselves didn't know how things work, that's why I mentioned the cringeworthy depictions of biological and genetic principles the show sports every single time that comes up.
I don't take sides in this discussion beyond what is shown on-screen is universal sci-fi language for a charged up beam. Captaind3 quoted some more TM explanations which state one emitter is capable of 5.1 MW, 200 would be 1.02 GW (via "charged up shot" as the effect suggests), both main arrays converged ont he same target would be 2.04 GW which is the order of magnitude the ship's shield are capable of withstanding at a signle point on the "shield grid", such a hit would let the shields collapse. I do share the sentiment that a Galaxy class would tactically be a steamroller or siege engine for that matter while other ships could use scatter fire across the board to weaken the "shield grid" at many points simultaneously to overload the shield, the TM states that this is the more efficient way to go I think.
To me that makes enough sense to accept it and move on. I basically have to accept that people can be injected with "genes" which makes their bone structure change in real time in this universe as well. In this theory array length would matter, but considering a phaser emitter can be anything from a flashlight to a energy transfer unit for a living space organism to a huge siege weapon carving out a Borg cube I have no problems accepting that you can use trek magic (or "tragic" ) to overload a single emitter to the point of burning out if the situation requires it.
Maybe I am misinterpreting stuff as written text lacks some hints but I am getting the feeling that you and others are actually enraged about this whole issue, accusing DDIS of taking it to far while figururatively foaming from the mouth. DDIS comes across as reasonable and calm at least to me, even repeating his interpretation multiple times. Since the TM and the shows visuals don't clearly state one or the other (or maybe even a combination of both) theories are true, can't we just all calm down and just have fun discussing fictional concepts, agreeing or disagreeing with one another for this or that reason and shake hands?
I mean we're talking trektalk because it's supposed to be fun and relaxing. When we're seeing rage and namecalling (from either side) we're definitely taking it too far.
All very true sir.
I think with the injecting genes thing they always deployed those changes via viruses and retroviruses.
Yeah, no, see, the thing were you said that power throughput wasn't a limiting factor? That's what that was all about. You already conceded that if the firing emitter could handle the full power of the array from along the array, then it doesn't matter where that power comes from. Now not only are you contradicting yourself, you still aren't helping your position. It literally is all about the power. Either the emitter can handle the full power of the array at once (in which case it doesn't matter where the power comes from, it's just a matter of getting the power to the emitter), or else the emitter CAN'T handle the full power from the array, and thus it doesn't matter how many emitters you put in a series. In either case, the max power is a function of only two things - how much power the emitter can handle, and how much power it is being supplied. It is impossible for any other factors to matter, and thus it is impossible for your pet theory to be right.
That's....hmm, that's a good point.
Let me chew on this, cause I am having fun and working through these problems is great for my personal interpretation and writing (SCE til I die).
The only answer that I can come up with is the last two paragraphs of the phaser firing section of the manual Beam Emission.
The Collimated energy beam exits one or more of the factes, depending on which prefire chambers are being pumped with plasma. The segment firing order, as controlled by the phaser function command processor, together with facet discharge direction, determines the final beam vector.
Energy from all discharged segments passes directionally over neighboring segments due to force coupling, converging on the release point, where the beam will emerge and travel at C to the target.
So according to the good book, the passing of the energy along the array literally takes place at the outermost and final emitter layer.
So if we're asking where the limiter is, what is the part that can only take 5.1 MW at a time, then I would say that it's the prefire chamber, which is the last segment engaged before the energy starts to travel along the array. So the actual trifaceted crystal that constitutes the final stage can process as much energy as you want, but each individual prefire chamber that actually makes the phaser beam itself in the Type X Phaser Array as deployed on the Enterprise-D can only do 5.1 MW at once. So, both are true.
Isn't it possible to find a compromise all parties can agree on?
The way I see it: TM says one Type X phaser emitter is capable of a maximum output of 5.1 MW energy. The Ent-Ds shields operate at a maximum capacity of something around 2.6 or so GW. Even if we assume the Ent-Ds shields are exceptionally strong, a 5.1 MW hit would tickle most other ship's shields, especially those in comparable weight classes. However, phaser hits did disable many ships' shields on the first volley or downright destroyed the target. They also had prolonged fights and could not bring down the other shields. That means that single emitter shots cannot be the end to all and the arrays are simply to cover a bigger field of fire (which they also do, though). If one emitter cannot operate beyond 5.1 GW, a bigger number of emitters have to be capable of combining their output. And since the powerful shots are not large phaser waves emitted by 200 emitters AND the used FX is a typical Sci-Fi "charge up" animation we can assume that emitters can combine their firepower by somehow transfering their "shot" over the emitter surface to the neighbouring emitter, incresing the overall energy and are ultimately unleashed at the emitter that's best suited to take the shot. The enrgy, though, traverses the emitters on the surface, which is what we see. Now, real life physics might suggest that the glow alone is a safe sign of massive power loss, but this technology is so efficient that it's not an issue. This set up would make sense in so far as the numbers in the TM given for shield strength and weapon strength add up to reasonable dimensions. That means that array length does matter. However, a upgraded emitter that is capable of more than 5.1 GW or a emitter that is fiddled with to be able to deal with more can be stronger, which means a shorter array can deal equivalent damage to the Type X long array.
So, both theories can work together. Now, can we be friends again?
I like it Targ I like it a lot.
"Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many they are few"
You are defending something stupid, but that's not really my beef with you. My issue is that the line of reasoning you use is literally intellectual poison. You already have people saying that you sound reasonable, when, speaking as someone who professionally teaches critical reasoning and basic science, it's really just not reasonable at all. What you are doing is simply shifting your explanation and snookering others (and maybe yourself) into thinking it a coherent position because your conclusion hasn't changed. It would be laughable, if it wasn't so infuriating to watch you make people dumber.
you teach critical reasoning and you cant make out the difference between elaborating and pivoting? those poor students. do you also teach them to use, on purpose, appeals to authority? one of the most blatant and easy to spot logical fallacies? that sounds intellectual poisonous:eek:
your understanding of emitters is grossly incomplete, and HYPER simplified in the way you just assume they work. thats generally the problem with you two, there's a wealth of information that fits together in a very complex way, but you chose to remain ignorant of it, so it appears my conclusions don't make sense, or are illogical. now people are actually examining the information for themselves, are coming to the same early conclusions i did years ago, that are in line with what ive been saying all along.
just because i didn't start with the most complex, intricate description of how arrays work from post 1, does not mean that i'm pivoting, or adjusting positions. i'm ELABORATING. i start as simple and easy to understand as possible, and when aspects of it get challenged, i have to go deeper, get more technical, site more sources. nothing actually contradicts itself. what you brought up is a PERFECT example of this process. also a perfect example of the hyper simple way you assumed arrays function.
Yeah, no, see, the thing were you said that power throughput wasn't a limiting factor? That's what that was all about. You already conceded that if the firing emitter could handle the full power of the array from along the array, then it doesn't matter where that power comes from. Now not only are you contradicting yourself, you still aren't helping your position. It literally is all about the power. Either the emitter can handle the full power of the array at once (in which case it doesn't matter where the power comes from, it's just a matter of getting the power to the emitter), or else the emitter CAN'T handle the full power from the array, and thus it doesn't matter how many emitters you put in a series. In either case, the max power is a function of only two things - how much power the emitter can handle, and how much power it is being supplied. It is impossible for any other factors to matter, and thus it is impossible for your pet theory to be right.
you might be on to something, if an emitter segment LITERALLY had only a single identifiable component. each emitter segment can channel 5.1 MW from it's EPS tap, that does not mean the top most discharge emitter plate cant handle more then that running over it or through it. the emitter has to actually converts the raw energized plasma into whatever phaser energy is, at a rate of only 5.1 mega joules per second, in addition to fireing it or feeding it down the array. emitters don't just shoot raw plasma like its a nozzle on the end of a garden hose, your hyper simplified assumed way they function, its 5.1 rating is what it's capable of converting into phaser energy. this is elaborated in this bit of techno babel.
Energetic plasma is pumped to a prefire chamber made out of a superconducting lithium-copper. There, it undergoes a rapid nadion effect in which strong nuclear forces are liberated. A protonic charge forms and is released in pulses to the emitter made out of the same superconductive crystal. A beam of elecromagnetic energy is released from it, at the speed of light. On starships, energy for phasers originates from the EPS, while on hand units, the charge of energetic plasma is stored into sarium-krellide. This material is used because it can't accidentally release the charge of plasma. "
is it any wonder why the visible part of the array on a GCS is about twice as wide as it is on any other ship? its potentially got a lot more power that could run through it, having twice the emitter segments as the ship with the second longest array.
regardless of that elaboration,the surface discharge plate can handle all the power the whole array can generate, repeatedly, every second, for minutes on end. possibly more, thats all we have been able to observe. also, emitter segments can only channel 5.1 MW each, plainly stated in the manual. both of these are facts, gathered from ether the show or tech manual, they do not contradict each other, not even when i speak them.
here's a handy link to my 101 level description of how arrays work. do be sure to keep me honest if i ever contradict whats said there.
But Capacitors and power transfers are tech we use today, TM description is firm in what it says and what it doesnt. The show correlates to either support 1 theory or debunk another. Much of Star Trek is based off of real Scientific Theory. Roddenberry wanted it that way. So it DOES help to know about physics and engineering.
we do not power electrical devices with electro-plasma, today. the conduits that transport it in the trek universe have more in common with water pipes then copper wires.
The problem that I have had is that there are people who read something from the TM and the show, made an interperatation, labelled it as "universally accepted" and has used it as gospel and has suggested those that disagree with it as incorrect and has judged the other interpretations( also based on TM and the show and using actual physics) as lesser.
This would not have escelated to "infuriation" if that persons interpretation (not even the real text) of the TM wasn't being used as a sort of canonic club on the heads of heretics.
as far as i can tell, im the only one still on this forum that has the 'hoby' of trying to reason and rationalize trek tech, at least to this degree. there are quite a few others like me, but they operate elsewhere nowadays and abandoned this forum back in the beta days of sto. most of the recent debate is a retread of debates with those others that led to what i have been saying all along. everyone with the 'hoby' agrees more or less with the findings i have presented, its universally excepted by those that have thought about this the most. i wasn't trying to browbeat with this 'appeals to authority', i was trying to convey that what i present is the collaborative effort of years of reasoning by around a dozen folks, im not just asspulling on the spot.
i cant even take full credit for the finding i have presented, i didn't even originally form them, and i've only presented about half of the theory, that we all sort of agree on. in a way, the rest of the theory nerfs large arrays quite a bit, compared to even single emitter shots. though larger arrays are still going to be the most powerful, ships with smaller arrays don't just lose as hard. if anyone is interested in it, i could post the whole thing.
you teach critical reasoning and you cant make out the difference between elaborating and pivoting? those poor students. do you also teach them to use, on purpose, appeals to authority? one of the most blatant and easy to spot logical fallacies? that sounds intellectual poisonous:eek:
I admit, my credentials as a professional educator and expert on both the science and the logical reasoning in play here aren't nearly as impressive as... what did you credential yourself as in the last paragraph here again? A Star Trek Hobbyist? What is that, exactly, and how does it relate to something like "Ancient Astronaut Theorist"? If you are going to take issue with me for an appeal to authority, how do you reconcile that with your laughable attempts to establish your own expertise? If you are going to claim that you have special insight because you wasted endless hours rationalizing the conclusion you wished to draw, I'm totally inbounds challenging that claim to expertise with one of my own.
For the record, an appeal to authority is only fallacious logic when it constitutes the sole (or primary) reason to dismiss an interpretation. That's not what I'm doing here. I'm using it as one element of a multi-pronged analysis that finds, on balance, that your analysis is wanting. That's no more fallacious than asserting that if we want to understand how the pyramids are built, we should talk to an archeologist (or even historian), and not someone who is a self-styled expert on a pet theory about how aliens did everything.
Oh, and as far as pivoting goes, several posts ago you wrote:
"Most of this is more responding to NOT my position, but the part about there being a limitation on the power throughput that last emitter can handle, obviously isn't an issue. There have been full array moving glow discharges, power drawn from every segment on the largest array, and it fired it no problem. In BoBW, it did dozens of these, one every second or less, for like minutes. This is not a possibly a limiting factor."
This is pretty black and white- the throughput that the last emitter can handle isn't the issue. In fact, in your words, it cannot possibly be a limiting factor. This logically means that (as I pointed out) it's not the length of the array that matters, it's simply the amount of power you can deliver to that "final" emitter that matters. Now suddenly you're walking that claim back with how OF COURSE the emitter limit matters, because of "complexities" that you assert I can't understand, despite the fact that I clearly understand power flow and the associated thermodynamics far better than you. And the most damning thing of all is that you honestly don't even seem to be able to see yourself doing this.
your understanding of emitters is grossly incomplete, and HYPER simplified in the way you just assume they work. thats generally the problem with you two, there's a wealth of information that fits together in a very complex way, but you chose to remain ignorant of it, so it appears my conclusions don't make sense, or are illogical. now people are actually examining the information for themselves, are coming to the same early conclusions i did years ago, that are in line with what ive been saying all along.
just because i didn't start with the most complex, intricate description of how arrays work from post 1, does not mean that i'm pivoting, or adjusting positions. i'm ELABORATING. i start as simple and easy to understand as possible, and when aspects of it get challenged, i have to go deeper, get more technical, site more sources. nothing actually contradicts itself. what you brought up is a PERFECT example of this process. also a perfect example of the hyper simple way you assumed arrays function.
you might be on to something, if an emitter segment LITERALLY had only a single identifiable component. each emitter segment can channel 5.1 MW from it's EPS tap, that does not mean the top most discharge emitter plate cant handle more then that running over it or through it. the emitter has to actually converts the raw energized plasma into whatever phaser energy is, at a rate of only 5.1 mega joules per second, in addition to fireing it or feeding it down the array. emitters don't just shoot raw plasma like its a nozzle on the end of a garden hose, your hyper simplified assumed way they function, its 5.1 rating is what it's capable of converting into phaser energy. this is elaborated in this bit of techno babel.
No, drunk, sorry, I understood that argument literally instantly. What you don't seem to get is the obvious fact that if the emitter is only capable of converting 5.1 MW energy into "phaser energy", then it doesn't matter how much power you provide that emitter - it will still only convert 5.1 MW into "phaser energy", and thus will not gain power by having it routed through other emitters. Multiple components doesn't help you either - if the power junctions or whatever are able to handle the throughput in the final emitter, then that's all that matters. Now, you are going to counter (if you are smart) with "Right, but obviously what's going on is each emitter transforms 5.1Mw of energy into phaser energy (which is a magical distinct form of energy), and then passes it down the line". There are several problems with that-
First, it's an entirely new concept that you haven't introduced ever before, and means that now your interpretation has to deal with an entirely new nonsensical concept of what energy is (similar to how you laughably attempted to appeal to "special" magnetic fields needed to contain plasma and antimatter earlier). On face we should reject this as a needless complication that serves no function other than to provide yet another post-hoc rationalization for the conclusion you seek to arrive at.
Second, it's still not helping you - all that does is shift the type of energy that you supply the final emitter. There's no reason to suspect that "phaser energy" can't be converted from an internal power system without the emitter plates attached, or that it can't be transferred around the ship by means other than a silly FX glow along the surface of the ship. You will, I'm sure, invent wholesale some reasons why the ONLY place the conversion can take place is in a phaser emitter, and the ONLY way that energy can be transferred is along the surface of the array, but it will be clear to everyone that those aren't things that you "figured out" - they aren't design principles that are deducible in any way from what we see in the show, nor what you claim to have (mis)read in a technical manual. There is not a shred of "evidence" to support those distinction, but I'm sure that won't stop you.
Third, even then, all that does is mean that someone else - another Trek writer, a "hobbyist", or whatever, can do the same thing you've done, and simply technobabble away your limitation. You say emitters are the only way to generate/transfer "phaser energy", and I assert the existence of a widget that removes that limitation, and thus decouples array length from power delivered. That just brings us back to my central condemnation of your "argument" - you don't have one, and you keep mistaking the things that you make up because they make sense to you (because you don't know any better) with things that are actually discoverable or inferable from actual evidence. You say I'm just making things up - I say right back at you. You say your theory is better supported by the show - I say that's a factual inaccurate claim. Round and round we go. This is what I was saying in my post before about how these technical details are irrelevant - they are all make-believe, and there's nothing in the show to support either one. At that point, if you want to admit that your theory is not actually a theory at all, but simply an aesthetic choice that you've chosen to make a stand on, that's fine - that's consistent with my purpose here. I don't care if you choose to believe untrue or silly things, I only care that you attempt to convince others that there is a level of intellectual value to them that simply isn't there.
I will say, though, that from a personal perspective, I would certainly advocate that if people are trying to decide whose worldview to follow, there are likely advantages to following the one that more closely mirrors actual knowable science and is still fully consistent with the canon and narrative themes of the show. YMMV of course.
as far as i can tell, im the only one still on this forum that has the 'hoby' of trying to reason and rationalize trek tech, at least to this degree. there are quite a few others like me, but they operate elsewhere nowadays and abandoned this forum back in the beta days of sto. most of the recent debate is a retread of debates with those others that led to what i have been saying all along. everyone with the 'hoby' agrees more or less with the findings i have presented, its universally excepted by those that have thought about this the most. i wasn't trying to browbeat with this 'appeals to authority', i was trying to convey that what i present is the collaborative effort of years of reasoning by around a dozen folks, im not just asspulling on the spot.
And again, things that a group of non-qualified non-experts made up to find ways to rationalize the inconsistencies of the show in a way that lined up with their pet theory is not a sound basis for any kind of rational intellectual process. "Star Trek Hobbyist" isn't a credible title, and the fact that there's a groupthink consensus among your self-selected peer group proves only (once again) that you've confused rationalization with intellectual pursuits.
Don't bother posting the whole thing, drunk, because the world could really do with less
"Education"? We're talking about a sci-fi show from the 60's here...
...I mean we're talking trektalk because it's supposed to be fun and relaxing. When we're seeing rage and namecalling (from either side) we're definitely taking it too far.
The pointless dribble that's been going on in the last few pages is exaclty why Star Trek fans are generally considered to be nerds (in the bad conotation).
The pointless dribble that's been going on in the last few pages is exaclty why Star Trek fans are generally considered to be nerds (in the bad conotation).
Well... Duh 😊 At least the big argument of the day isnt who shot first, Han or Greedo? Also, you havent seen some of geeking us gear-heads do, and thats one of the least nerdy groups out there.
As far as an outsiders view of Star Trek fans go, they think its negatively nerdy, they can take a hike.
I believe Lucas said they only changed that to Greedo shooting first because otherwise the MPAA was threatening to upgrade A New Hope's rating from PG to PG-13 for showing one of the heroes committing second-degree murder. Even Lucas himself was photographed wearing a "Han shot first!" T-shirt.
/derail
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
as far as i can tell, im the only one still on this forum that has the 'hoby' of trying to reason and rationalize trek tech, at least to this degree. there are quite a few others like me, but they operate elsewhere nowadays and abandoned this forum back in the beta days of sto. most of the recent debate is a retread of debates with those others that led to what i have been saying all along. everyone with the 'hoby' agrees more or less with the findings i have presented, its universally excepted by those that have thought about this the most. i wasn't trying to browbeat with this 'appeals to authority', i was trying to convey that what i present is the collaborative effort of years of reasoning by around a dozen folks, im not just asspulling on the spot.
i cant even take full credit for the finding i have presented, i didn't even originally form them, and i've only presented about half of the theory, that we all sort of agree on. in a way, the rest of the theory nerfs large arrays quite a bit, compared to even single emitter shots. though larger arrays are still going to be the most powerful, ships with smaller arrays don't just lose as hard. if anyone is interested in it, i could post the whole thing.
Did you pay a membership fee for this "hobby", and get a "special snowflake" membership card? Time chatting abd reasoning with people similar to you for "X" number of years doesn't make you an expert. A dozen people does not make for a valid consensus, nor does it make the "theory" "universally accepted" either. Coming to a consensus with the same people doesn't make you an expert (BTW that's called group-think).
You might not be rear-end-pulling on the spot, but rear-end-pulling over time is just as bad, if not worse because of the time involved, but I will give you a gold star for effort.
Saying that using current science to refute what you are saying is a straw-mans argument, because then you (and your 12 genius special snowflake associates) become the only ones who can truly understand it, because you and your associates say its so. A person doesn't have to be able to build something to understand it. We can apply what we see with what science we have and draw conclusions, and science can be used to discuss or refute sci-fi.
I don't mean to be harsh, but really, don't you see how arrogant and incredulous you sound with some of your arguments? You aren't the only one, nor part of the only group that has thought and discussed all things sci-fi/Star Trek/etc. Your'e just the one trying to make it sound like it makes you an expert, above everyone else.
Oh, and as far as pivoting goes, several posts ago you wrote:
"Most of this is more responding to NOT my position, but the part about there being a limitation on the power throughput that last emitter can handle, obviously isn't an issue. There have been full array moving glow discharges, power drawn from every segment on the largest array, and it fired it no problem. In BoBW, it did dozens of these, one every second or less, for like minutes. This is not a possibly a limiting factor."
This is pretty black and white- the throughput that the last emitter can handle isn't the issue. In fact, in your words, it cannot possibly be a limiting factor. This logically means that (as I pointed out) it's not the length of the array that matters, it's simply the amount of power you can deliver to that "final" emitter that matters. Now suddenly you're walking that claim back with how OF COURSE the emitter limit matters, because of "complexities" that you assert I can't understand, despite the fact that I clearly understand power flow and the associated thermodynamics far better than you. And the most damning thing of all is that you honestly don't even seem to be able to see yourself doing this.
you once again assume the actual emitter discharge plate, visible on the surface of the hull, and the output rating of each emitter segment are the same thing. the 5.1 is how much raw plasma each segment can receive, convert, pass on or fire on its own. there is no observed limit to how much throughput can pass through the surface discharge plate at once, that was the specific component i was referring to in that quote.
there is a shortage of terms to clearly illustrate what im trying to convey perhaps, but i don't want to go inventing any, cause i'd get even more undo grief for that. when i specifically say segments, that refers to everything between the EPS conduit and the prefire chamber, and every segment can handle it's 5.1MW. the literal emitter part of the emitter, the discharge plate that sticks out of the hull, has no observed limit to how much power can pass through it or fire from any point on it. i may have failed to explain this clearly yet, but i have not changed positions on anything, merely elaborated glossed over portions of the theory, that inevitably get called into question.
the tech manual description of all the components in each emitter segment can be found in the post i linked, you're welcome to read up on them, an understanding would be needed or surly what i'm writing would appear to be gibberish. not only would it allow you to be aconstructive participant, it would be polite to actually be on the same page, its on the detractor to understand the subject mater before he barges in and calls everything BS or illogical.
No, drunk, sorry, I understood that argument literally instantly. What you don't seem to get is the obvious fact that if the emitter is only capable of converting 5.1 MW energy into "phaser energy", then it doesn't matter how much power you provide that emitter - it will still only convert 5.1 MW into "phaser energy", and thus will not gain power by having it routed through other emitters.
its not being routed through the lower internal workings of each emitter, the part that receives and processes the raw plasma. the energy is discharged through the surface emitter plate, i may not have plainly stated that because i though that was OBVIOUS, seeing as you see that literally happening in the show, thats the moving low effect.
Multiple components doesn't help you either - if the power junctions or whatever are able to handle the throughput in the final emitter, then that's all that matters. Now, you are going to counter (if you are smart) with "Right, but obviously what's going on is each emitter transforms 5.1Mw of energy into phaser energy (which is a magical distinct form of energy), and then passes it down the line". There are several problems with that-
First, it's an entirely new concept that you haven't introduced ever before,
its more elaboration. i intentionally never mentioned per segment output in megawatts, among other things, because it makes what is being talked about more complex, less cut and dry. the insipid nitpicking is what drew it out, i would have preferred keeping it much more simple, because the more complex i have to get, the more hellish the debate becomes. i mean clearly, just look at this thread.
and means that now your interpretation has to deal with an entirely new nonsensical concept of what energy is (similar to how you laughably attempted to appeal to "special" magnetic fields needed to contain plasma and antimatter earlier). On face we should reject this as a needless complication that serves no function other than to provide yet another post-hoc rationalization for the conclusion you seek to arrive at.
right, this is once again something i just made up on the spot. did you ever even watch star trek? go ahead, try containing antimater in a box made of mater, tell me how that goes. a GCS, the yamato, was lost because 'special' magnetic fields stooped working all the sudden.
Second, it's still not helping you - all that does is shift the type of energy that you supply the final emitter. There's no reason to suspect that "phaser energy" can't be converted from an internal power system without the emitter plates attached, or that it can't be transferred around the ship by means other than a silly FX glow along the surface of the ship.
no reason not, sure. but it doesn't. the manual tells us exactly what does the converting, its all self contained in emitter segments. plasma is routed through the ship, its the universal power source. the phaser energy, or rapid nadions or whatever, are created on site in emitter segments. they could do anything, anywhere, but instead they do it the exact way they describe. they can do that, because its not real, and the science is not real, and it all works the way they say it does, because its a tv show.
You will, I'm sure, invent wholesale some reasons why the ONLY place the conversion can take place is in a phaser emitter, and the ONLY way that energy can be transferred is along the surface of the array, but it will be clear to everyone that those aren't things that you "figured out" - they aren't design principles that are deducible in any way from what we see in the show, nor what you claim to have (mis)read in a technical manual. There is not a shred of "evidence" to support those distinction, but I'm sure that won't stop you.
they do it were it says they do it, they do it were you see it happen, and it works the way it does because thats the way they say it works. i didn't decide any of that, take it up with the show producers if you dont like it.
Third, even then, all that does is mean that someone else - another Trek writer, a "hobbyist", or whatever, can do the same thing you've done, and simply technobabble away your limitation. You say emitters are the only way to generate/transfer "phaser energy", and I assert the existence of a widget that removes that limitation, and thus decouples array length from power delivered.
cool, i believe its totally possible such a thing exists, that could turn my theory on their head, and i would accept it. i look forward to the screenshot or passage in the manual that talks about it, until then i'll stick to actual evidence.
That just brings us back to my central condemnation of your "argument" - you don't have one, and you keep mistaking the things that you make up because they make sense to you (because you don't know any better) with things that are actually discoverable or inferable from actual evidence.
You say I'm just making things up - I say right back at you. You say your theory is better supported by the show - I say that's a factual inaccurate claim. Round and round we go.
i know we are dealing with make believe, but your post is an existential rollercoaster. none of what you say is right, because they could have done things in all these other ways! sorry, they didn't do things those ways, they didn't describe the components or functions in that way, they did them the way they did them.
This is what I was saying in my post before about how these technical details are irrelevant - they are all make-believe, and there's nothing in the show to support either one.
except all the shots having a moving glow effect charge up before the shot is fired
except the glow coming from both sides of the shot, implying 2 different bits of power being combined into 1 shot, implying its helpful to have at least 2 emitters in an array
except that there are only 2 arrays on the saucer, and like 10 on the secondary hull. does the aft fire arc of a GCS have 4 or 5 times more firepower potential then the forward arc, with just the 1 or 2 array?
i think these questions alone make a solid case for array length/number of emitter segments having a cumulative effect on how powerful each shot can be. especially seeing as you literally see this accumulation in the show, and you have the tech manual that spells out over a bunch of techno babble that each emitter segment is its own phaser bank, and can output all by itself a certain amount of phaser power, or sequentially discharge it down the rest of the array. they wouldn't have mentioned each segment's output, if it wasn't a factor, a limiting factor, that would necessitate a group effort of many emitters for high powered shots.
At that point, if you want to admit that your theory is not actually a theory at all, but simply an aesthetic choice that you've chosen to make a stand on, that's fine - that's consistent with my purpose here. I don't care if you choose to believe untrue or silly things, I only care that you attempt to convince others that there is a level of intellectual value to them that simply isn't there.
I will say, though, that from a personal perspective, I would certainly advocate that if people are trying to decide whose worldview to follow, there are likely advantages to following the one that more closely mirrors actual knowable science and is still fully consistent with the canon and narrative themes of the show. YMMV of course.
And again, things that a group of non-qualified non-experts made up to find ways to rationalize the inconsistencies of the show in a way that lined up with their pet theory is not a sound basis for any kind of rational intellectual process. "Star Trek Hobbyist" isn't a credible title, and the fact that there's a groupthink consensus among your self-selected peer group proves only (once again) that you've confused rationalization with intellectual pursuits.
Don't bother posting the whole thing, drunk, because the world could really do with less
you know, i get the feeling a debate about magic future science, that has nothing you can relate with currency science, isn't really your cup of tee, it doesn't float your boat. thankfully, there are an infinite number of other things you could spend your time doing.
Did you pay a membership fee for this "hobby", and get a "special snowflake" membership card? Time chatting abd reasoning with people similar to you for "X" number of years doesn't make you an expert. A dozen people does not make for a valid consensus, nor does it make the "theory" "universally accepted" either. Coming to a consensus with the same people doesn't make you an expert (BTW that's called group-think).
You might not be rear-end-pulling on the spot, but rear-end-pulling over time is just as bad, if not worse because of the time involved, but I will give you a gold star for effort.
Saying that using current science to refute what you are saying is a straw-mans argument, because then you (and your 12 genius special snowflake associates) become the only ones who can truly understand it, because you and your associates say its so. A person doesn't have to be able to build something to understand it. We can apply what we see with what science we have and draw conclusions, and science can be used to discuss or refute sci-fi.
I don't mean to be harsh, but really, don't you see how arrogant and incredulous you sound with some of your arguments? You aren't the only one, nor part of the only group that has thought and discussed all things sci-fi/Star Trek/etc.
cool hostility bro! well i tried to defuse that, but F it.
Who cares about how things work in a make believe science fiction show. All i care about is we finally got a Tier 6 Galaxy that can we can be proud of. A Galaxy that can throw punches as well as take them. A Galaxy that is no longer considered a joke to take into PvE and can dish it out with the best of them.
We lobbied for this for many years and finally got a competitive Galaxy to use in this game, so lets get in game and fly the flag and show people what a Galaxy Class can do.
I believe Lucas said they only changed that to Greedo shooting first because otherwise the MPAA was threatening to upgrade A New Hope's rating from PG to PG-13 for showing one of the heroes committing second-degree murder. Even Lucas himself was photographed wearing a "Han shot first!" T-shirt.
/derail
I wouldn't had expect this from Mr. Lucas.
But yeah, Han shot first! 100%.
It was a character defining moment that was twisted to suit for a (very) younger audience, just to make more $$$. (simply disgusting imo)
Who cares about how things work in a make believe science fiction show. All i care about is we finally got a Tier 6 Galaxy that can we can be proud of. A Galaxy that can throw punches as well as take them. A Galaxy that is no longer considered a joke to take into PvE and can dish it out with the best of them.
We lobbied for this for many years and finally got a competitive Galaxy to use in this game, so lets get in game and fly the flag and show people what a Galaxy Class can do.
:thumbs up:
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Which is why most of the time on the show Geordi has to make modifications in order to handle the energy flow.
Beef up the components on your car radio and it will be able to handle the load of your rear defroster.
You would need to completely rebuild the raido to even get close. The microchipbboard can only handle a 10amp surge load. Most operate at 5amps. Wile the ear defroster is a 25amp system with a 30amp surge.
cool hostility bro! well i tried to defuse that, but F it.
you mean demonstrating i'm an expert. oops sorry, that was arrogant, i keep forgetting facts end were feelings begin.
This is the problem, they arent facts, you arent an expert, they are just your ( and a few of your friends) interpretation. No matter how much you want it to be a fact, its still your opinion/interpretation. This is where you missing the mark, and why people are highly disagreeing. You havent been made Star Trek Pope. If you had carried on as if it was just an opinion and not pushed your opinion as fact, you wouldnt be hearing the majority of this.
you once again assume the actual emitter discharge plate, visible on the surface of the hull, and the output rating of each emitter segment are the same thing. the 5.1 is how much raw plasma each segment can receive, convert, pass on or fire on its own. there is no observed limit to how much throughput can pass through the surface discharge plate at once, that was the specific component i was referring to in that quote.
No, you keep not getting that if the plate on the surface can handle any amount of energy you care to put through it, then the thing that limits the firing power is ONLY the amount of power you can provide to that emitter. That's my point. As soon as that's true, you lose because you can't prove that the array is the ONLY way to provide that power.
there is a shortage of terms to clearly illustrate what im trying to convey perhaps, but i don't want to go inventing any, cause i'd get even more undo grief for that. when i specifically say segments, that refers to everything between the EPS conduit and the prefire chamber, and every segment can handle it's 5.1MW. the literal emitter part of the emitter, the discharge plate that sticks out of the hull, has no observed limit to how much power can pass through it or fire from any point on it. i may have failed to explain this clearly yet, but i have not changed positions on anything, merely elaborated glossed over portions of the theory, that inevitably get called into question.
Drunk, I've already pointed out you explicitly contradicting yourself - and the fact that you think the terms for this discussion don't exist just (again) demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. Of course the terms exist - this is just a question of energy flow and energy conversion, which is simply a question of thermodynamics. You are doing here exactly what I said you would - you're pretending that there was a key distinction that you made long ago, based on special vocabulary that only you and your special circle of special friends understand, and that even though I explained what appears to be the only possible way your interpretation works in extremely plain language and then explained why that still fails you continue to "reason" that since you're certain about your conclusion it must be true that your reasoning is sound and you've thought of all of this before. It's simply an incredible claim, given you demonstrated inconsistency in your explanations, as well as you mysterious inability to articulate your theory in concrete, falsifiable ways.
the tech manual description of all the components in each emitter segment can be found in the post i linked, you're welcome to read up on them, an understanding would be needed or surly what i'm writing would appear to be gibberish. not only would it allow you to be aconstructive participant, it would be polite to actually be on the same page, its on the detractor to understand the subject mater before he barges in and calls everything BS or illogical.
No, Drunk. Just... no. I'm sorry, but what you wrote doesn't "appear" to be gibberish. It factually is gibberish. You simply don't understand the terms and concepts in play here well enough (see your notion that the vocabulary for these concepts doesn't exist) to understand why it is gibberish. Also, it's actually NOT on the critic to prove the criticism, that's simply a misunderstanding of how reasoning works. You have asserted an affirmative position - that it MUST be true that the Galaxy has the most powerful phaser array the Federation ever built. It is your responsibility to answer every single charge against that claim, or else concede that it is false.
its not being routed through the lower internal workings of each emitter, the part that receives and processes the raw plasma. the energy is discharged through the surface emitter plate, i may not have plainly stated that because i though that was OBVIOUS, seeing as you see that literally happening in the show, thats the moving low effect.
Drunk, do you understand that I'm saying that even if that were one way to transfer energy, it's not the only way? Do you understand that in order to support your position you are having to make up a new magical form of "phaser energy" that can only be generated and then transferred in one incredibly specific way (a limitation which is never even implied on the show)? Do you understand why that's an illogical and unreasonable way to develop your argument? You keep acting like it has to be this way, and only this way, because you started with the conclusion that it must be true that the Galaxy is the most powerful warship built (despite all evidence to the contrary), and keep working backwards from that conclusion.
Try this instead - work forward from what we see on the show:
Is there a reason to build phaser arrays? Sure. They provide superior fire arc and redundancy, at a minor cost in efficiency as power is transferred along the array. This explains the design, explains the glow, and explains the fact that the Galaxy class simply wasn't portrayed as that powerful in the shows, ever. Thus, it is a sufficient explanation.
The embroidery you've added in the guise of "figuring it out" is nothing more than rationalizations of a conclusion that you can't accept as simply something you've chosen to believe come hell or high water. I'm not saying you have to change your belief (though I certainly feel that you should), but you can't keep pretending that it has any value as an argument, because it's not one. It's like young earth creationists dismissing geological evidence as "tricks of the devil" or a "test of faith".
its more elaboration. i intentionally never mentioned per segment output in megawatts, among other things, because it makes what is being talked about more complex, less cut and dry. the insipid nitpicking is what drew it out, i would have preferred keeping it much more simple, because the more complex i have to get, the more hellish the debate becomes. i mean clearly, just look at this thread.
So, you lied because it made your argument sound simpler, and therefore (you presumed) more likely to be true, and then when you were called on the fact that your lie makes your argument worse you abandoned it, all while claiming that it wasn't a change, simply an elaboration. By way of analogy, let me say this:
I totally respect your position and think it's reasonable. By way of elaboration, let me be clear - I don't actually respect your position at all, and find it to be ridiculous in the extreme, but I didn't want to point that out because I find that unreasonable people don't like having their unreasonableness thrown in their faces.
You were caught out because you don't understand what you're talking about well enough to make a coherent argument, and I do. The best part is that you literally admitted here to changing your position in response to the counterarguments, but again you think that as long as your conclusion has stayed the same the fact that your support for it is fluid at best is not a problem.
right, this is once again something i just made up on the spot. did you ever even watch star trek? go ahead, try containing antimater in a box made of mater, tell me how that goes. a GCS, the yamato, was lost because 'special' magnetic fields stooped working all the sudden.
Herp derp. Drunk, I'm not saying that you don't need magnetic fields to contain antimatter - I know that you do, because that's how we, today, contain antimatter that we generate here in the status quo. Actually, that's not strictly true - there are also laser traps that we use when we have uncharged species, but electro-magnetic traps are easier to work with by and large. What I was responding to (and it's clear this has sailed over your head) is that your assertion that we need some kind of "special" magnetic field to do it, and the implication that this was somehow unknowable magic Trek technology. It isn't. We do it now - it's not like it's commonplace, but it's also not like its revolutionary or cutting edge. Nobody is winning the Nobel Prize for isolating antimatter at this point. It's settled science.
no reason not, sure. but it doesn't. the manual tells us exactly what does the converting, its all self contained in emitter segments. plasma is routed through the ship, its the universal power source. the phaser energy, or rapid nadions or whatever, are created on site in emitter segments. they could do anything, anywhere, but instead they do it the exact way they describe. they can do that, because its not real, and the science is not real, and it all works the way they say it does, because its a tv show.
they do it were it says they do it, they do it were you see it happen, and it works the way it does because thats the way they say it works. i didn't decide any of that, take it up with the show producers if you dont like it.
cool, i believe its totally possible such a thing exists, that could turn my theory on their head, and i would accept it. i look forward to the screenshot or passage in the manual that talks about it, until then i'll stick to actual evidence.
Two problems. First, they never said what you think they said. You assume they said those things because you are confusing your backwards inferences from the conclusion you wanted to draw to be properly inferred from the evidence at hand. The fact is, based on the show and the technical manuals, there is not enough evidence to support your interpretation as the only possible one. In fact, I would contend that there's not even enough evidence to make your interpretation likely or reasonable, but really, it doesn't matter. You conceded my point about how unfounded your argument was when you said that there's no reason it couldn't be done another way. Further, you demonstrated my point about how you don't understand how reasoning works when you (again) confused your interpretation of what the technical manuals say for "evidence", and compounded the error when you asserted that "evidence" is superior to reasoning from a standpoint of actual facts based on things we actually know.
i know we are dealing with make believe, but your post is an existential rollercoaster. none of what you say is right, because they could have done things in all these other ways! sorry, they didn't do things those ways, they didn't describe the components or functions in that way, they did them the way they did them.
Dude, they didn't describe the functions of the components in ANY meaningful way. They tossed out questionable techno-babble, you took that and filled in the gaps, and now you are confusing that for some sort of body of knowledge when it isn't.
Further, you seriously expose your failure to understand logic with your incredulity about my "existential rollercoaster". Here's the deal - you are asserting that one possible scenario is the only possible scenario. That is your conclusion. You are right - that entire conclusion is false as long as I can demonstrate at least one alternate possibility. If you had simply made your conclusion "I think it's possible that the Galaxy has the most powerful phasers ever", there would be no way for me to dispute that - certainly it's possible. It's not likely, and I think it flies in the face of the intentions of the show-runners, as well as creating problems with the overall narrative structures of the shows and TNG-era movies, but whatever. It's possible.
The problem is that you don't want it to be "possible", you want to keep pretending that it's a "fact", and you want to use that "fact" and your elucidation thereof as a reason why you are an "expert" on Star Trek, and know better how people should be thinking about the show. I'm sorry that you are going to have to navigate the cognitive dissonance between "I like big mean fighting ships" and "I like the Galaxy class" without the crutch of your certainty in your conclusion to guide you, but there it is. Your interpretation isn't fact. It's merely possible (not even likely), and you are unreasonable to suggest anything otherwise.
Now, if you want to get into a discussion of which subjective interpretation is better:
Mine sufficiently explains everything that we see on the show, is exactly as supported by the text of the technical manuals and show dialogue, and is more in line with what we know about actual science AND the narrative intentions of the show/movie creators.
Yours, at best, explains what we see on the show, but is not consistent with the intentions of the show/movie creators, nor with what we know about actual science. The only claim you have for it being superior is that it adheres more closely to the "evidence", but that doesn't seem to be a true claim (everything you have cited is ambiguous at best), and in the end raises the question of how we choose to evaluate the value of a position. I think that since mine doesn't require made-up anti-science to support it, we should prefer it, based on my belief that real knowledge trumps fake knowledge.
you know, i get the feeling a debate about magic future science, that has nothing you can relate with currency science, isn't really your cup of tee, it doesn't float your boat. thankfully, there are an infinite number of other things you could spend your time doing.
Here again you resort to an appeal to magical nonsense as a reason to prefer your interpretation - I welcome your admission that your position is functionally "a wizard did it", as it makes plain what I'm saying - your explanation is merely a techno-babble extrapolation to get you to your desired conclusion. It's not reasonable, and it's certainly not fact. I'm sorry that the interjection of actual knowledge and reasoning has gotten in the way of your dontdrunk magical science bed-time story. Maybe next time don't act like your subjective opinion and rationalizations thereof are anything but your subjective opinions, and you won't have this problem of getting that position beat down again.
Also to be considered is the maximum, non-emergency tolerances of the individual emitter elements and their transfer mechanisms. It does zero good to have 1000 emitters chained together if the focal point can only handle the energies of 10 elements worth of phaser power.(...)
This is true. But given that the ship repeatedly does fire those shots without damaging itself, I'd assume the emitter surface can handle the energy accumulation. It's the individual transfer system to/beneath a emitter that can handle the limited amount of 5.1 MW. But I do agree with the versatility thing
Thank you. I try to make it work for me and put enough into the explanation that people can agree on it without jumping at each other throats
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
And despite your best efforts still have not provided any evidence as to why a larger array is more powerful and therefore why other ships can't have powerful phasers either.
Really? Seems to be pretty simple the way drunk describes it. We basically have 3 (or more) potential bottlenecks here
1. emitter discharge plate (part of the phaser emitter)
2. EPS conduits
2. Power generator (the fusion reactor or antimatter reactor)
Drunk assumes the discharge plate has an infinite energy storage capability. Each plate ist bound to a phaser emitter which are connected in series. If this is the case then the only limiting factors would be bottleneck 2 and 3 and the spatial variables that make up the emitter. If each each emitter is attached to an individual EPS conduit only the the spatial variables remain. That indeed means that a bigger array will have a higher collective energy output then a smaller one.
It all hinges on the fact(?) that the emitter discharge plate would have to hold a large amount of energy. Not an infinite amount per se, but at least greater then the sum of what all emitters can produce in that array.
I believe Lucas said they only changed that to Greedo shooting first because otherwise the MPAA was threatening to upgrade A New Hope's rating from PG to PG-13 for showing one of the heroes committing second-degree murder. Even Lucas himself was photographed wearing a "Han shot first!" T-shirt.
/derail
The thing is this, who the hell cares about a justifiable homicide defense in freaking MOS EISLEY??? (that TRIBBLE-hole)
If Han shot first, it just proves that Jabba should've sent someone with a faster trigger finger if he wanted the job to actually get done. Jabba learned that, he sent Boba Fett later.
This is true. But given that the ship repeatedly does fire those shots without damaging itself, I'd assume the emitter surface can handle the energy accumulation. It's the individual transfer system to/beneath a emitter that can handle the limited amount of 5.1 MW. But I do agree with the versatility thing
Thank you. I try to make it work for me and put enough into the explanation that people can agree on it without jumping at each other throats
Really? Seems to be pretty simple the way drunk describes it. We basically have 3 (or more) potential bottlenecks here
1. emitter discharge plate (part of the phaser emitter)
2. EPS conduits
2. Power generator (the fusion reactor or antimatter reactor)
Drunk assumes the discharge plate has an infinite energy storage capability. Each plate ist bound to a phaser emitter which are connected in series. If this is the case then the only limiting factors would be bottleneck 2 and 3 and the spatial variables that make up the emitter. If each each emitter is attached to an individual EPS conduit only the the spatial variables remain. That indeed means that a bigger array will have a higher collective energy output then a smaller one.
It all hinges on the fact(?) that the emitter discharge plate would have to hold a large amount of energy. Not an infinite amount per se, but at least greater then the sum of what all emitters can produce in that array.
I postulate that the limited for the power is the prefire chamber where it actually becomes phaser energy.
"Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many they are few"
Kinda taking a stab in the dark, as I've only managed to read about 1/3rd of this thread, but I do have a question here.
With the Delta recruit stuff going on, I figured, why the heck not ,and grabbed the galaxy 3 pack. Now mind you, the delta dude didn't have any traits, but I am hard pressed to even remember, what was wrong with the galaxy of old ? It seems to get the job done on any tier.
Mind you I do see the AHC is a superior (imho) ship, but I've played that one to death on an alt. The only cruiser I don't have is the new galaxy and the engineering and science command ships...
But anyways, the question, Sure the skin was kind of off, but what was the build problem with the old ship? Was it strictly due to limitations versus other classes ? (odyssey ? )
thanks dudes, and sorry for the hijack. I know return you to nerd wars.
My mother always told me to walk away from a fight, The Marines taught me how.
Isn't it possible to find a compromise all parties can agree on?
The way I see it: TM says one Type X phaser emitter is capable of a maximum output of 5.1 MW energy. The Ent-Ds shields operate at a maximum capacity of something around 2.6 or so GW. Even if we assume the Ent-Ds shields are exceptionally strong, a 5.1 MW hit would tickle most other ship's shields, especially those in comparable weight classes. However, phaser hits did disable many ships' shields on the first volley or downright destroyed the target. They also had prolonged fights and could not bring down the other shields. That means that single emitter shots cannot be the end to all and the arrays are simply to cover a bigger field of fire (which they also do, though). If one emitter cannot operate beyond 5.1 GW, a bigger number of emitters have to be capable of combining their output. And since the powerful shots are not large phaser waves emitted by 200 emitters AND the used FX is a typical Sci-Fi "charge up" animation we can assume that emitters can combine their firepower by somehow transfering their "shot" over the emitter surface to the neighbouring emitter, incresing the overall energy and are ultimately unleashed at the emitter that's best suited to take the shot. The enrgy, though, traverses the emitters on the surface, which is what we see. Now, real life physics might suggest that the glow alone is a safe sign of massive power loss, but this technology is so efficient that it's not an issue. This set up would make sense in so far as the numbers in the TM given for shield strength and weapon strength add up to reasonable dimensions. That means that array length does matter. However, a upgraded emitter that is capable of more than 5.1 GW or a emitter that is fiddled with to be able to deal with more can be stronger, which means a shorter array can deal equivalent damage to the Type X long array.
So, both theories can work together. Now, can we be friends again?
this is pretty much what i have been saying and why both the sov and gal have the same fire power (galaxy still having more as it can get both main arrays on the same target.
main issue is we have no official say on what type phasers the sov has and how many emitters. i think the best guess i have seen do to the size of the array section compared to the galaxy is about 160 to 170 emitters. i think the accepted theroy is the sov has MKXI like the akira this would mean it has 6.2Mw per emitter this would give the main array of the sov with mkxi .9-1.05Gw of phaser energy. pretty much the same as the galaxy can do with it's mkx
Kinda taking a stab in the dark, as I've only managed to read about 1/3rd of this thread, but I do have a question here.
With the Delta recruit stuff going on, I figured, why the heck not ,and grabbed the galaxy 3 pack. Now mind you, the delta dude didn't have any traits, but I am hard pressed to even remember, what was wrong with the galaxy of old ? It seems to get the job done on any tier.
Mind you I do see the AHC is a superior (imho) ship, but I've played that one to death on an alt. The only cruiser I don't have is the new galaxy and the engineering and science command ships...
But anyways, the question, Sure the skin was kind of off, but what was the build problem with the old ship? Was it strictly due to limitations versus other classes ? (odyssey ? )
thanks dudes, and sorry for the hijack. I know return you to nerd wars.
compared to every other T5 cruiser it was dead last. the stargazer was a better ship in both support and tactical ability
compared to every other T5 cruiser it was dead last. the stargazer was a better ship in both support and tactical ability
ahh thanks man. Yeah, looking over it at the wiki, it does seem to be sub par. That makes sense to me now, why there was so much about it in the past (having done a search myself to see what was up.)
Thanks again.
My mother always told me to walk away from a fight, The Marines taught me how.
Comments
I just want to say I appreciate you and MrShthd (sp?) for stepping up on this, I've been trying to make these points for some time, but wasnt as able to express it so well.
That might be the biggest problem, though. Fiction hardly follows real life science which you cannot deny considering the downright outlandish understanding of the sciences Star Trek depicts. They do lend terms or extremely simplified real concepts and do what fiction writers do best: extrapolate and create fantastic uses for it. Some fall easier apart than others, still they are true for the universe shown within this fiction.
We have the TM, we have what we see on screen and we interpret it. Obviously there isn't a universal interpretation, wether or not someone is a real engineer or scientist is irrelevant. It's supposed to be entertainment and anyone who takes this to cause bad blood is stepping over a line that's not healthy for anyone.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
The starship construction manual and the ship manuals
When its all said and done they are the prime source until some company makes new ones that still respects the Canon created by these...We can only hope
The officers manual...............Well Gene Robbenbury didn't like it too much so he snatched the product away from FASA for changing things he didn't want changed...Sad story I wish it had not happened
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Rodenberry wanted laser guns. A technical advisor told him "lasers don't do that". This is why we have phasers. They make stuff up and change it when it's necessary. Genes exist as well. But Star Trek's idea of genetics is hilariously nonsensical. The fiction doesn't necessarily work like it would in real life. That's something one should always keep in mind, it helps to not be "infuriated" at some point when we're supposed to discuss something we enjoy for entertainment purposes
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
i am also still waiting to be proved wrong so far i have not. you just brought up something about deflects which was unrelated just because they use the same amount of power means nothing. both my radio in my car and the rear window defrost use 12v there there is no way in hell the radio wiring can handle the rear defrost with out blowing out or burning up
The problem that I have had is that there are people who read something from the TM and the show, made an interperatation, labelled it as "universally accepted" and has used it as gospel and has suggested those that disagree with it as incorrect and has judged the other interpretations( also based on TM and the show and using actual physics) as lesser.
This would not have escelated to "infuriation" if that persons interpretation (not even the real text) of the TM wasn't being used as a sort of canonic club on the heads of heretics.
The way I see it: TM says one Type X phaser emitter is capable of a maximum output of 5.1 MW energy. The Ent-Ds shields operate at a maximum capacity of something around 2.6 or so GW. Even if we assume the Ent-Ds shields are exceptionally strong, a 5.1 MW hit would tickle most other ship's shields, especially those in comparable weight classes. However, phaser hits did disable many ships' shields on the first volley or downright destroyed the target. They also had prolonged fights and could not bring down the other shields. That means that single emitter shots cannot be the end to all and the arrays are simply to cover a bigger field of fire (which they also do, though). If one emitter cannot operate beyond 5.1 GW, a bigger number of emitters have to be capable of combining their output. And since the powerful shots are not large phaser waves emitted by 200 emitters AND the used FX is a typical Sci-Fi "charge up" animation we can assume that emitters can combine their firepower by somehow transfering their "shot" over the emitter surface to the neighbouring emitter, incresing the overall energy and are ultimately unleashed at the emitter that's best suited to take the shot. The enrgy, though, traverses the emitters on the surface, which is what we see. Now, real life physics might suggest that the glow alone is a safe sign of massive power loss, but this technology is so efficient that it's not an issue. This set up would make sense in so far as the numbers in the TM given for shield strength and weapon strength add up to reasonable dimensions. That means that array length does matter. However, a upgraded emitter that is capable of more than 5.1 GW or a emitter that is fiddled with to be able to deal with more can be stronger, which means a shorter array can deal equivalent damage to the Type X long array.
So, both theories can work together. Now, can we be friends again?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
That is way too reasonable, thank you.
Please enable us to buy a token with Zen to faction change a 25th Century FED to a TOS FED.
Also to be considered is the maximum, non-emergency tolerances of the individual emitter elements and their transfer mechanisms. It does zero good to have 1000 emitters chained together if the focal point can only handle the energies of 10 elements worth of phaser power.
The Galaxy and related ship's huge primary arrays are likely more about multipurposeness (after all, the phaser's trademark feature is its use as a tool, not just as a weapon) and adaptability than trying to play Death Star by combining a 100 little beams into one big one.
To me, the big arrays and little arrays are capable of similar levels of damage, but where the advantages of the big arrays come into play is when firing mulitple shots at the same target (DS9: Sacrifice of Angels features a scene where a Galaxy passes near a Galor and unleashes multiple blasts) or it's utility (TNG: A Matter of Time saw the Ent-D's saucer arrays used as titanic phaser drills and used to ionize a planet's atmosphere; the Antimatter Spread seen in Best of Both Worlds was deployed via the larger saucer arrays).
All very true sir.
I think with the injecting genes thing they always deployed those changes via viruses and retroviruses.
That's....hmm, that's a good point.
Let me chew on this, cause I am having fun and working through these problems is great for my personal interpretation and writing (SCE til I die).
The only answer that I can come up with is the last two paragraphs of the phaser firing section of the manual Beam Emission.
Energy from all discharged segments passes directionally over neighboring segments due to force coupling, converging on the release point, where the beam will emerge and travel at C to the target.
So according to the good book, the passing of the energy along the array literally takes place at the outermost and final emitter layer.
So if we're asking where the limiter is, what is the part that can only take 5.1 MW at a time, then I would say that it's the prefire chamber, which is the last segment engaged before the energy starts to travel along the array. So the actual trifaceted crystal that constitutes the final stage can process as much energy as you want, but each individual prefire chamber that actually makes the phaser beam itself in the Type X Phaser Array as deployed on the Enterprise-D can only do 5.1 MW at once. So, both are true.
I like it Targ I like it a lot.
you teach critical reasoning and you cant make out the difference between elaborating and pivoting? those poor students. do you also teach them to use, on purpose, appeals to authority? one of the most blatant and easy to spot logical fallacies? that sounds intellectual poisonous:eek:
your understanding of emitters is grossly incomplete, and HYPER simplified in the way you just assume they work. thats generally the problem with you two, there's a wealth of information that fits together in a very complex way, but you chose to remain ignorant of it, so it appears my conclusions don't make sense, or are illogical. now people are actually examining the information for themselves, are coming to the same early conclusions i did years ago, that are in line with what ive been saying all along.
just because i didn't start with the most complex, intricate description of how arrays work from post 1, does not mean that i'm pivoting, or adjusting positions. i'm ELABORATING. i start as simple and easy to understand as possible, and when aspects of it get challenged, i have to go deeper, get more technical, site more sources. nothing actually contradicts itself. what you brought up is a PERFECT example of this process. also a perfect example of the hyper simple way you assumed arrays function.
you might be on to something, if an emitter segment LITERALLY had only a single identifiable component. each emitter segment can channel 5.1 MW from it's EPS tap, that does not mean the top most discharge emitter plate cant handle more then that running over it or through it. the emitter has to actually converts the raw energized plasma into whatever phaser energy is, at a rate of only 5.1 mega joules per second, in addition to fireing it or feeding it down the array. emitters don't just shoot raw plasma like its a nozzle on the end of a garden hose, your hyper simplified assumed way they function, its 5.1 rating is what it's capable of converting into phaser energy. this is elaborated in this bit of techno babel.
is it any wonder why the visible part of the array on a GCS is about twice as wide as it is on any other ship? its potentially got a lot more power that could run through it, having twice the emitter segments as the ship with the second longest array.
regardless of that elaboration,the surface discharge plate can handle all the power the whole array can generate, repeatedly, every second, for minutes on end. possibly more, thats all we have been able to observe. also, emitter segments can only channel 5.1 MW each, plainly stated in the manual. both of these are facts, gathered from ether the show or tech manual, they do not contradict each other, not even when i speak them.
here's a handy link to my 101 level description of how arrays work. do be sure to keep me honest if i ever contradict whats said there.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=23029901&postcount=1147
we do not power electrical devices with electro-plasma, today. the conduits that transport it in the trek universe have more in common with water pipes then copper wires.
90% of the fail in this thread seems to be about an assumption that any of the tech behind phasers is in any way relatable to any tech we use today.
as far as i can tell, im the only one still on this forum that has the 'hoby' of trying to reason and rationalize trek tech, at least to this degree. there are quite a few others like me, but they operate elsewhere nowadays and abandoned this forum back in the beta days of sto. most of the recent debate is a retread of debates with those others that led to what i have been saying all along. everyone with the 'hoby' agrees more or less with the findings i have presented, its universally excepted by those that have thought about this the most. i wasn't trying to browbeat with this 'appeals to authority', i was trying to convey that what i present is the collaborative effort of years of reasoning by around a dozen folks, im not just asspulling on the spot.
i cant even take full credit for the finding i have presented, i didn't even originally form them, and i've only presented about half of the theory, that we all sort of agree on. in a way, the rest of the theory nerfs large arrays quite a bit, compared to even single emitter shots. though larger arrays are still going to be the most powerful, ships with smaller arrays don't just lose as hard. if anyone is interested in it, i could post the whole thing.
I admit, my credentials as a professional educator and expert on both the science and the logical reasoning in play here aren't nearly as impressive as... what did you credential yourself as in the last paragraph here again? A Star Trek Hobbyist? What is that, exactly, and how does it relate to something like "Ancient Astronaut Theorist"? If you are going to take issue with me for an appeal to authority, how do you reconcile that with your laughable attempts to establish your own expertise? If you are going to claim that you have special insight because you wasted endless hours rationalizing the conclusion you wished to draw, I'm totally inbounds challenging that claim to expertise with one of my own.
For the record, an appeal to authority is only fallacious logic when it constitutes the sole (or primary) reason to dismiss an interpretation. That's not what I'm doing here. I'm using it as one element of a multi-pronged analysis that finds, on balance, that your analysis is wanting. That's no more fallacious than asserting that if we want to understand how the pyramids are built, we should talk to an archeologist (or even historian), and not someone who is a self-styled expert on a pet theory about how aliens did everything.
Oh, and as far as pivoting goes, several posts ago you wrote:
"Most of this is more responding to NOT my position, but the part about there being a limitation on the power throughput that last emitter can handle, obviously isn't an issue. There have been full array moving glow discharges, power drawn from every segment on the largest array, and it fired it no problem. In BoBW, it did dozens of these, one every second or less, for like minutes. This is not a possibly a limiting factor."
This is pretty black and white- the throughput that the last emitter can handle isn't the issue. In fact, in your words, it cannot possibly be a limiting factor. This logically means that (as I pointed out) it's not the length of the array that matters, it's simply the amount of power you can deliver to that "final" emitter that matters. Now suddenly you're walking that claim back with how OF COURSE the emitter limit matters, because of "complexities" that you assert I can't understand, despite the fact that I clearly understand power flow and the associated thermodynamics far better than you. And the most damning thing of all is that you honestly don't even seem to be able to see yourself doing this.
No, drunk, sorry, I understood that argument literally instantly. What you don't seem to get is the obvious fact that if the emitter is only capable of converting 5.1 MW energy into "phaser energy", then it doesn't matter how much power you provide that emitter - it will still only convert 5.1 MW into "phaser energy", and thus will not gain power by having it routed through other emitters. Multiple components doesn't help you either - if the power junctions or whatever are able to handle the throughput in the final emitter, then that's all that matters. Now, you are going to counter (if you are smart) with "Right, but obviously what's going on is each emitter transforms 5.1Mw of energy into phaser energy (which is a magical distinct form of energy), and then passes it down the line". There are several problems with that-
First, it's an entirely new concept that you haven't introduced ever before, and means that now your interpretation has to deal with an entirely new nonsensical concept of what energy is (similar to how you laughably attempted to appeal to "special" magnetic fields needed to contain plasma and antimatter earlier). On face we should reject this as a needless complication that serves no function other than to provide yet another post-hoc rationalization for the conclusion you seek to arrive at.
Second, it's still not helping you - all that does is shift the type of energy that you supply the final emitter. There's no reason to suspect that "phaser energy" can't be converted from an internal power system without the emitter plates attached, or that it can't be transferred around the ship by means other than a silly FX glow along the surface of the ship. You will, I'm sure, invent wholesale some reasons why the ONLY place the conversion can take place is in a phaser emitter, and the ONLY way that energy can be transferred is along the surface of the array, but it will be clear to everyone that those aren't things that you "figured out" - they aren't design principles that are deducible in any way from what we see in the show, nor what you claim to have (mis)read in a technical manual. There is not a shred of "evidence" to support those distinction, but I'm sure that won't stop you.
Third, even then, all that does is mean that someone else - another Trek writer, a "hobbyist", or whatever, can do the same thing you've done, and simply technobabble away your limitation. You say emitters are the only way to generate/transfer "phaser energy", and I assert the existence of a widget that removes that limitation, and thus decouples array length from power delivered. That just brings us back to my central condemnation of your "argument" - you don't have one, and you keep mistaking the things that you make up because they make sense to you (because you don't know any better) with things that are actually discoverable or inferable from actual evidence. You say I'm just making things up - I say right back at you. You say your theory is better supported by the show - I say that's a factual inaccurate claim. Round and round we go. This is what I was saying in my post before about how these technical details are irrelevant - they are all make-believe, and there's nothing in the show to support either one. At that point, if you want to admit that your theory is not actually a theory at all, but simply an aesthetic choice that you've chosen to make a stand on, that's fine - that's consistent with my purpose here. I don't care if you choose to believe untrue or silly things, I only care that you attempt to convince others that there is a level of intellectual value to them that simply isn't there.
I will say, though, that from a personal perspective, I would certainly advocate that if people are trying to decide whose worldview to follow, there are likely advantages to following the one that more closely mirrors actual knowable science and is still fully consistent with the canon and narrative themes of the show. YMMV of course.
And again, things that a group of non-qualified non-experts made up to find ways to rationalize the inconsistencies of the show in a way that lined up with their pet theory is not a sound basis for any kind of rational intellectual process. "Star Trek Hobbyist" isn't a credible title, and the fact that there's a groupthink consensus among your self-selected peer group proves only (once again) that you've confused rationalization with intellectual pursuits.
Don't bother posting the whole thing, drunk, because the world could really do with less
The pointless dribble that's been going on in the last few pages is exaclty why Star Trek fans are generally considered to be nerds (in the bad conotation).
Well... Duh 😊 At least the big argument of the day isnt who shot first, Han or Greedo? Also, you havent seen some of geeking us gear-heads do, and thats one of the least nerdy groups out there.
As far as an outsiders view of Star Trek fans go, they think its negatively nerdy, they can take a hike.
I believe Lucas said they only changed that to Greedo shooting first because otherwise the MPAA was threatening to upgrade A New Hope's rating from PG to PG-13 for showing one of the heroes committing second-degree murder. Even Lucas himself was photographed wearing a "Han shot first!" T-shirt.
/derail
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Did you pay a membership fee for this "hobby", and get a "special snowflake" membership card? Time chatting abd reasoning with people similar to you for "X" number of years doesn't make you an expert. A dozen people does not make for a valid consensus, nor does it make the "theory" "universally accepted" either. Coming to a consensus with the same people doesn't make you an expert (BTW that's called group-think).
You might not be rear-end-pulling on the spot, but rear-end-pulling over time is just as bad, if not worse because of the time involved, but I will give you a gold star for effort.
Saying that using current science to refute what you are saying is a straw-mans argument, because then you (and your 12 genius special snowflake associates) become the only ones who can truly understand it, because you and your associates say its so. A person doesn't have to be able to build something to understand it. We can apply what we see with what science we have and draw conclusions, and science can be used to discuss or refute sci-fi.
I don't mean to be harsh, but really, don't you see how arrogant and incredulous you sound with some of your arguments? You aren't the only one, nor part of the only group that has thought and discussed all things sci-fi/Star Trek/etc. Your'e just the one trying to make it sound like it makes you an expert, above everyone else.
you once again assume the actual emitter discharge plate, visible on the surface of the hull, and the output rating of each emitter segment are the same thing. the 5.1 is how much raw plasma each segment can receive, convert, pass on or fire on its own. there is no observed limit to how much throughput can pass through the surface discharge plate at once, that was the specific component i was referring to in that quote.
there is a shortage of terms to clearly illustrate what im trying to convey perhaps, but i don't want to go inventing any, cause i'd get even more undo grief for that. when i specifically say segments, that refers to everything between the EPS conduit and the prefire chamber, and every segment can handle it's 5.1MW. the literal emitter part of the emitter, the discharge plate that sticks out of the hull, has no observed limit to how much power can pass through it or fire from any point on it. i may have failed to explain this clearly yet, but i have not changed positions on anything, merely elaborated glossed over portions of the theory, that inevitably get called into question.
the tech manual description of all the components in each emitter segment can be found in the post i linked, you're welcome to read up on them, an understanding would be needed or surly what i'm writing would appear to be gibberish. not only would it allow you to be aconstructive participant, it would be polite to actually be on the same page, its on the detractor to understand the subject mater before he barges in and calls everything BS or illogical.
its not being routed through the lower internal workings of each emitter, the part that receives and processes the raw plasma. the energy is discharged through the surface emitter plate, i may not have plainly stated that because i though that was OBVIOUS, seeing as you see that literally happening in the show, thats the moving low effect.
its more elaboration. i intentionally never mentioned per segment output in megawatts, among other things, because it makes what is being talked about more complex, less cut and dry. the insipid nitpicking is what drew it out, i would have preferred keeping it much more simple, because the more complex i have to get, the more hellish the debate becomes. i mean clearly, just look at this thread.
right, this is once again something i just made up on the spot. did you ever even watch star trek? go ahead, try containing antimater in a box made of mater, tell me how that goes. a GCS, the yamato, was lost because 'special' magnetic fields stooped working all the sudden.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Antideuterium
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Antimatter_pod
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Magnetic_containment_field
no reason not, sure. but it doesn't. the manual tells us exactly what does the converting, its all self contained in emitter segments. plasma is routed through the ship, its the universal power source. the phaser energy, or rapid nadions or whatever, are created on site in emitter segments. they could do anything, anywhere, but instead they do it the exact way they describe. they can do that, because its not real, and the science is not real, and it all works the way they say it does, because its a tv show.
they do it were it says they do it, they do it were you see it happen, and it works the way it does because thats the way they say it works. i didn't decide any of that, take it up with the show producers if you dont like it.
cool, i believe its totally possible such a thing exists, that could turn my theory on their head, and i would accept it. i look forward to the screenshot or passage in the manual that talks about it, until then i'll stick to actual evidence.
i know we are dealing with make believe, but your post is an existential rollercoaster. none of what you say is right, because they could have done things in all these other ways! sorry, they didn't do things those ways, they didn't describe the components or functions in that way, they did them the way they did them.
except all the shots having a moving glow effect charge up before the shot is fired
except the glow coming from both sides of the shot, implying 2 different bits of power being combined into 1 shot, implying its helpful to have at least 2 emitters in an array
except that there are only 2 arrays on the saucer, and like 10 on the secondary hull. does the aft fire arc of a GCS have 4 or 5 times more firepower potential then the forward arc, with just the 1 or 2 array?
why does this never happen instead of 1 shot at a time, if multiple emitter cant contribute power to each shot?
i think these questions alone make a solid case for array length/number of emitter segments having a cumulative effect on how powerful each shot can be. especially seeing as you literally see this accumulation in the show, and you have the tech manual that spells out over a bunch of techno babble that each emitter segment is its own phaser bank, and can output all by itself a certain amount of phaser power, or sequentially discharge it down the rest of the array. they wouldn't have mentioned each segment's output, if it wasn't a factor, a limiting factor, that would necessitate a group effort of many emitters for high powered shots.
you know, i get the feeling a debate about magic future science, that has nothing you can relate with currency science, isn't really your cup of tee, it doesn't float your boat. thankfully, there are an infinite number of other things you could spend your time doing.
cool hostility bro! well i tried to defuse that, but F it.
you mean demonstrating i'm an expert. oops sorry, that was arrogant, i keep forgetting facts end were feelings begin.
We lobbied for this for many years and finally got a competitive Galaxy to use in this game, so lets get in game and fly the flag and show people what a Galaxy Class can do.
But yeah, Han shot first! 100%.
It was a character defining moment that was twisted to suit for a (very) younger audience, just to make more $$$. (simply disgusting imo)
:thumbs up:
You would need to completely rebuild the raido to even get close. The microchipbboard can only handle a 10amp surge load. Most operate at 5amps. Wile the ear defroster is a 25amp system with a 30amp surge.
This is the problem, they arent facts, you arent an expert, they are just your ( and a few of your friends) interpretation. No matter how much you want it to be a fact, its still your opinion/interpretation. This is where you missing the mark, and why people are highly disagreeing. You havent been made Star Trek Pope. If you had carried on as if it was just an opinion and not pushed your opinion as fact, you wouldnt be hearing the majority of this.
No, you keep not getting that if the plate on the surface can handle any amount of energy you care to put through it, then the thing that limits the firing power is ONLY the amount of power you can provide to that emitter. That's my point. As soon as that's true, you lose because you can't prove that the array is the ONLY way to provide that power.
Drunk, I've already pointed out you explicitly contradicting yourself - and the fact that you think the terms for this discussion don't exist just (again) demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. Of course the terms exist - this is just a question of energy flow and energy conversion, which is simply a question of thermodynamics. You are doing here exactly what I said you would - you're pretending that there was a key distinction that you made long ago, based on special vocabulary that only you and your special circle of special friends understand, and that even though I explained what appears to be the only possible way your interpretation works in extremely plain language and then explained why that still fails you continue to "reason" that since you're certain about your conclusion it must be true that your reasoning is sound and you've thought of all of this before. It's simply an incredible claim, given you demonstrated inconsistency in your explanations, as well as you mysterious inability to articulate your theory in concrete, falsifiable ways.
No, Drunk. Just... no. I'm sorry, but what you wrote doesn't "appear" to be gibberish. It factually is gibberish. You simply don't understand the terms and concepts in play here well enough (see your notion that the vocabulary for these concepts doesn't exist) to understand why it is gibberish. Also, it's actually NOT on the critic to prove the criticism, that's simply a misunderstanding of how reasoning works. You have asserted an affirmative position - that it MUST be true that the Galaxy has the most powerful phaser array the Federation ever built. It is your responsibility to answer every single charge against that claim, or else concede that it is false.
Drunk, do you understand that I'm saying that even if that were one way to transfer energy, it's not the only way? Do you understand that in order to support your position you are having to make up a new magical form of "phaser energy" that can only be generated and then transferred in one incredibly specific way (a limitation which is never even implied on the show)? Do you understand why that's an illogical and unreasonable way to develop your argument? You keep acting like it has to be this way, and only this way, because you started with the conclusion that it must be true that the Galaxy is the most powerful warship built (despite all evidence to the contrary), and keep working backwards from that conclusion.
Try this instead - work forward from what we see on the show:
Is there a reason to build phaser arrays? Sure. They provide superior fire arc and redundancy, at a minor cost in efficiency as power is transferred along the array. This explains the design, explains the glow, and explains the fact that the Galaxy class simply wasn't portrayed as that powerful in the shows, ever. Thus, it is a sufficient explanation.
The embroidery you've added in the guise of "figuring it out" is nothing more than rationalizations of a conclusion that you can't accept as simply something you've chosen to believe come hell or high water. I'm not saying you have to change your belief (though I certainly feel that you should), but you can't keep pretending that it has any value as an argument, because it's not one. It's like young earth creationists dismissing geological evidence as "tricks of the devil" or a "test of faith".
So, you lied because it made your argument sound simpler, and therefore (you presumed) more likely to be true, and then when you were called on the fact that your lie makes your argument worse you abandoned it, all while claiming that it wasn't a change, simply an elaboration. By way of analogy, let me say this:
I totally respect your position and think it's reasonable. By way of elaboration, let me be clear - I don't actually respect your position at all, and find it to be ridiculous in the extreme, but I didn't want to point that out because I find that unreasonable people don't like having their unreasonableness thrown in their faces.
You were caught out because you don't understand what you're talking about well enough to make a coherent argument, and I do. The best part is that you literally admitted here to changing your position in response to the counterarguments, but again you think that as long as your conclusion has stayed the same the fact that your support for it is fluid at best is not a problem.
Herp derp. Drunk, I'm not saying that you don't need magnetic fields to contain antimatter - I know that you do, because that's how we, today, contain antimatter that we generate here in the status quo. Actually, that's not strictly true - there are also laser traps that we use when we have uncharged species, but electro-magnetic traps are easier to work with by and large. What I was responding to (and it's clear this has sailed over your head) is that your assertion that we need some kind of "special" magnetic field to do it, and the implication that this was somehow unknowable magic Trek technology. It isn't. We do it now - it's not like it's commonplace, but it's also not like its revolutionary or cutting edge. Nobody is winning the Nobel Prize for isolating antimatter at this point. It's settled science.
Two problems. First, they never said what you think they said. You assume they said those things because you are confusing your backwards inferences from the conclusion you wanted to draw to be properly inferred from the evidence at hand. The fact is, based on the show and the technical manuals, there is not enough evidence to support your interpretation as the only possible one. In fact, I would contend that there's not even enough evidence to make your interpretation likely or reasonable, but really, it doesn't matter. You conceded my point about how unfounded your argument was when you said that there's no reason it couldn't be done another way. Further, you demonstrated my point about how you don't understand how reasoning works when you (again) confused your interpretation of what the technical manuals say for "evidence", and compounded the error when you asserted that "evidence" is superior to reasoning from a standpoint of actual facts based on things we actually know.
Dude, they didn't describe the functions of the components in ANY meaningful way. They tossed out questionable techno-babble, you took that and filled in the gaps, and now you are confusing that for some sort of body of knowledge when it isn't.
Further, you seriously expose your failure to understand logic with your incredulity about my "existential rollercoaster". Here's the deal - you are asserting that one possible scenario is the only possible scenario. That is your conclusion. You are right - that entire conclusion is false as long as I can demonstrate at least one alternate possibility. If you had simply made your conclusion "I think it's possible that the Galaxy has the most powerful phasers ever", there would be no way for me to dispute that - certainly it's possible. It's not likely, and I think it flies in the face of the intentions of the show-runners, as well as creating problems with the overall narrative structures of the shows and TNG-era movies, but whatever. It's possible.
The problem is that you don't want it to be "possible", you want to keep pretending that it's a "fact", and you want to use that "fact" and your elucidation thereof as a reason why you are an "expert" on Star Trek, and know better how people should be thinking about the show. I'm sorry that you are going to have to navigate the cognitive dissonance between "I like big mean fighting ships" and "I like the Galaxy class" without the crutch of your certainty in your conclusion to guide you, but there it is. Your interpretation isn't fact. It's merely possible (not even likely), and you are unreasonable to suggest anything otherwise.
Now, if you want to get into a discussion of which subjective interpretation is better:
Mine sufficiently explains everything that we see on the show, is exactly as supported by the text of the technical manuals and show dialogue, and is more in line with what we know about actual science AND the narrative intentions of the show/movie creators.
Yours, at best, explains what we see on the show, but is not consistent with the intentions of the show/movie creators, nor with what we know about actual science. The only claim you have for it being superior is that it adheres more closely to the "evidence", but that doesn't seem to be a true claim (everything you have cited is ambiguous at best), and in the end raises the question of how we choose to evaluate the value of a position. I think that since mine doesn't require made-up anti-science to support it, we should prefer it, based on my belief that real knowledge trumps fake knowledge.
Here again you resort to an appeal to magical nonsense as a reason to prefer your interpretation - I welcome your admission that your position is functionally "a wizard did it", as it makes plain what I'm saying - your explanation is merely a techno-babble extrapolation to get you to your desired conclusion. It's not reasonable, and it's certainly not fact. I'm sorry that the interjection of actual knowledge and reasoning has gotten in the way of your dontdrunk magical science bed-time story. Maybe next time don't act like your subjective opinion and rationalizations thereof are anything but your subjective opinions, and you won't have this problem of getting that position beat down again.
Sometimes I try
This is true. But given that the ship repeatedly does fire those shots without damaging itself, I'd assume the emitter surface can handle the energy accumulation. It's the individual transfer system to/beneath a emitter that can handle the limited amount of 5.1 MW. But I do agree with the versatility thing
Thank you. I try to make it work for me and put enough into the explanation that people can agree on it without jumping at each other throats
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Really? Seems to be pretty simple the way drunk describes it. We basically have 3 (or more) potential bottlenecks here
1. emitter discharge plate (part of the phaser emitter)
2. EPS conduits
2. Power generator (the fusion reactor or antimatter reactor)
Drunk assumes the discharge plate has an infinite energy storage capability. Each plate ist bound to a phaser emitter which are connected in series. If this is the case then the only limiting factors would be bottleneck 2 and 3 and the spatial variables that make up the emitter. If each each emitter is attached to an individual EPS conduit only the the spatial variables remain. That indeed means that a bigger array will have a higher collective energy output then a smaller one.
It all hinges on the fact(?) that the emitter discharge plate would have to hold a large amount of energy. Not an infinite amount per se, but at least greater then the sum of what all emitters can produce in that array.
The thing is this, who the hell cares about a justifiable homicide defense in freaking MOS EISLEY??? (that TRIBBLE-hole)
If Han shot first, it just proves that Jabba should've sent someone with a faster trigger finger if he wanted the job to actually get done. Jabba learned that, he sent Boba Fett later.
It looks good all around to tell the truth.
That's what I said. And that's what's supported in the manual.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?p=23700521#post23700521
I postulate that the limited for the power is the prefire chamber where it actually becomes phaser energy.
With the Delta recruit stuff going on, I figured, why the heck not ,and grabbed the galaxy 3 pack. Now mind you, the delta dude didn't have any traits, but I am hard pressed to even remember, what was wrong with the galaxy of old ? It seems to get the job done on any tier.
Mind you I do see the AHC is a superior (imho) ship, but I've played that one to death on an alt. The only cruiser I don't have is the new galaxy and the engineering and science command ships...
But anyways, the question, Sure the skin was kind of off, but what was the build problem with the old ship? Was it strictly due to limitations versus other classes ? (odyssey ? )
thanks dudes, and sorry for the hijack. I know return you to nerd wars.
this is pretty much what i have been saying and why both the sov and gal have the same fire power (galaxy still having more as it can get both main arrays on the same target.
main issue is we have no official say on what type phasers the sov has and how many emitters. i think the best guess i have seen do to the size of the array section compared to the galaxy is about 160 to 170 emitters. i think the accepted theroy is the sov has MKXI like the akira this would mean it has 6.2Mw per emitter this would give the main array of the sov with mkxi .9-1.05Gw of phaser energy. pretty much the same as the galaxy can do with it's mkx
compared to every other T5 cruiser it was dead last. the stargazer was a better ship in both support and tactical ability
ahh thanks man. Yeah, looking over it at the wiki, it does seem to be sub par. That makes sense to me now, why there was so much about it in the past (having done a search myself to see what was up.)
Thanks again.