Blink And Glow Effects

posted on November 20th, 2005, 1:27 pm

I see what he's talking about, I only scanned it and I agree with LoK, and also dont forget that the photons (basically little packages of energy that make up light for those who dont know what photons are) could be created inside the warp nacelles and then released passing through the warp nacelle through the part which usually glows blue which I assume is at least translucent (partially see through)

posted on November 20th, 2005, 1:32 pm

[ewm90]

posted on November 20th, 2005, 1:37 pm

Last edited by ewm90 on November 20th, 2005, 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As you said, there is a need for atoms that can be excited (or simply reflect or refract light, which is the usual kind of halo or glow we know).

And I doubt that gases, that could be superheated to transport energy (which then, after their energy has been used to create a warp field, are cold again), can be ignited easily (and without any reactant like oxygen).

And the impulse engines most certainly use mass recoil as propulsion, so there has to be some exhaust.

By the way, plasma exhaust has been mentioned explicitely in Star Trek VI, where a gas sensor was used to let a torpedo find the cloaked Bird of Prey.

you whood need a lot atoms to reflect lite as you see in fo. thare is nuthing on the perodic tabule or know elamints to day that can make the efect and make sens. you mite ague that it is the fucher and thare are alot of uther elaments on the perotic tabule that do not egsite to day but why do we not see it in ST cominly?

Trasport energy? like a transporter, i am lost....

thare is wast relested from the ship yes but i dont think it reflects lite unless the ship is cripaled and has a mager breech.

those gass vints on clocked ships have ben chaged to reduse deteinon. in a episode on TNG cap BEcard detected a reomulan war bered by finding a redeation spike neer his ship and fiering a torpedo over it. i am sher the clocking tecnoligy has chaged agin so how knows haw the run now.

posted on November 20th, 2005, 2:08 pm

Anyway does it really matter,
do warp nacelles glow in the series - yes
should they glow in FO - deffinatly

do the borg look a bit dull (i cant say i remember them glowing as such in the series) - yes
should they be livened up a bit in FO - I think so how about you?


Its all about how the game plays, feels and looks, not about wether its actually physically possible its a game.

[Lt.Cdr.White]

posted on November 20th, 2005, 2:25 pm

Last edited by Lt.Cdr.White on November 20th, 2005, 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Trasport energy? like a transporter, i am lost....

transport = move from one place to another

The energy for the Warp field is produced in the Warp core, which is in fact nothing else than a matter-antimatter reactor.

Now, to move the energy produced in the m/am reactor to the Warp nacelles, you need a medium (like copper cable and it's electrons). The medium used in Star Trek is called "drive plasma". Plasma is, as we know it, superheated gas.

There was that episode where we actually see the flow of plasma as it is injected into the Warp nacelle.

So there is in fact plasma which carries (transports) the energy from the Warp core through the drive plasma conduits to the Warp nacelles.

Has nothing to do with beaming.

By the way: The rest of the systems on the ship is mostly powered by the same plasma. It's tapped from the main stream and distributed by the EPS, the electroplasma system.

They got rid of cooper cables and normal electricity in the ST universe. They now use plasma instead.


Just wanted to add that. However, I haven't found any better explanation for that halo effect (yes, the nacelle's grill itself emits light, but we're mainly talking about that glow outside of the nacelles, which has to be some kind of reflection from other molecules. Vacuum doesn't glow).

posted on November 20th, 2005, 2:27 pm

About what you learn at school man!

posted on November 24th, 2005, 9:33 pm

Can I please add something, for one thing, I'm sure there is a logical...however absurd explination as to why energy from the warp core transmutes people into energy and then back again...but since when has star trek been true to physics? I'd rather not get into if it's physically possible because really, the fun of Star Wars and Star Trek is it's the future! Anything is possible! Lightsabers and Phased Energy Refraction...which is what phaser means right? something like that Either way, It's a GAME people, and while physics minded people like me and Commander White might say something like "oh please, that's not possible..." I used to do that all the time when watching Star Trek, but now I'm like "cool!" because really, you have to extend your imagination to appreciate these things, transporters SWEET! NO NEED TO PAY FOR GAS!, Lightsabers COOL! I can toast my bagel and cut it at the same time! Come on people...

I agree with Moose, I'm a physics minded person, but I put that aside when I play stuff like this, otherwise it's not going to be any fun...

[Lt.Cdr.White]

posted on November 25th, 2005, 5:39 pm

Last edited by Lt.Cdr.White on November 25th, 2005, 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well I'm just as big a fan of Star Wars as I'm a fan of Star Trek.

But there is a main difference... Star Wars is a space opera, a fairy tale put into a special kind of environment. It's more fantasy than science-fiction.

Star Trek on the other hand is real science-fiction.

Although you have to include many things that can't be explained with our knowledge of physics, you need some believability and continuity in it. Technobabble is an important part of Star Trek.

You will notice that during TNG, the logic of Trek technology was more consistant than later in Voyager. I think the technical consultants Sternbach and Okuda did a very good job on TNG.

So if you're talking about Trek technology, you need to accept the basics that have been predetermined by people who worked for the show.

All I posted above is partly based on "The Technical Manual to the USS Enterprise NCC-1701D" by Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda.

That book was originally intended to give authors of Trek episodes an overview over the background of Star Trek technology and what is possible and what not.

(For example, when stating that there is a mistake in an episode which shows phasers used at Warp speeds, that's because the Tech Manual stated it's not possible.)

However, you can get most information directly from the episodes just as well.
The problem is contradictions. Contradictions happened because the authors didn't care enough about continuity. And that's what a sci-fi series definitely needs.

Just my 2 cents (Eurocents! )...

posted on November 25th, 2005, 6:14 pm

That's true, star wars tells a story of a fallen hero, not the adventures of a bunch of people flying through space. Star Trek technobabble is important I agree, I mean it just wouldn't be a TNG episode if someone didn't scream something about an EPS Conduit. I also look at it this way, Star Trek is the future, huge leaps in technology made in a short amount of time. They obviously have a better and probebly diffrent understanding of physics and the laws of the universe then we do, I'm sure more advanced beings out there know more about physics then us to render our current "laws" as logical fallacy...I can honestly say I don't watch trek enough to understand how a warp necelle functions to move the ship at faster than light speed...I still enjoy Data's explinations on tachyon particles and sub-space fields. It's fun, but I just sit back and say "He obviously knows more then me, he's like a walking starfleet database."

posted on November 26th, 2005, 5:50 pm

moving past the speed of light is currently impossible taking that the light is moving threw a vacuum and not slowed by any medium.

the faster you move the more energy is required to increase your speed because the law of physics increase your weight the faster you move thus you require more energy. just before you reach the speed of light your weight (or mass) gets so heavy that the amount of energy needed to get you even to the speed of light becomes infinate.

once a professor was able to increase the speed of light above its maximum speed using a special radiation and the light itself to reignforce the speed. very weird things happened apparently they seen the light exiting the chamber before it even entered. there was a long winded explination as to why it happened but it was to complicated for me to actually grasp fully.

energy = mass times the speed of light squared (within normal space)

dunno how useful this is to you LordsofKobol but it gives ya a quick blast of info for ya ;P

posted on November 26th, 2005, 6:02 pm

moving past the speed of light is not impossible. teachers just say impossible because the answer takes too long {highschool grades 11+} or they're teaching too young people {gradeschool 7+}

posted on November 26th, 2005, 6:51 pm

The calculations take several million operations, to exact it that is, that's the theory, moving at the speed of light is possible, moving faster than light is also possible, the special theory of relativity, as you stated above E=MC2, provides a very simple negative answer to this. Long ago it was inconcievable to send a person in an aircraft going faster than the speed of sound, once we attained a level of technology that would allow us to move around certain problems, we did it.

There are several ways the speed of light are possible, not now, but possible in the future. the Cherenkov Effect is one way, rather than trying to be faster, we slow light down. Light travels in a vacuum at C, a universal constant. In a dense medium however, it is slowed down to c/n, where n would be the refractive index of the medium. It is possible to move faster than the speed of light, in air or water, where light is slowed. The Cherenkov Effect is not considered "Faster Than Light" because it is not possible in a vacuum, however it's still possible to move faster than light.

Many people also believe the speed of gravity in a gravity bound system is much much faster than the speed of light c.

In quantum field theory forces are mediated by virtual particles. Due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle these virtual particles are allowed to go faster than light. This however is simple mathematics, and isn't a means of faster than light travel.

By our current mathematical and technological means you are right, we cannot move faster than the speed of light.

Many theories however show serious possibilities for Faster Than Light movement. Tachyons are hypothetical particles which travel faster than light locally. They must have imaginary valued mass to be able to do so, but they have real valued energy and momentum. No tachyons have been definitely found and most physicists would doubt their existence.The truth is that most physicists consider tachyons to be a sign of pathological behaviour in field theories.

Wormholes...hmm, Stargate time, possibly the most discussed theory for faster than light travel. I'm sure you are familiar with what a wormhole is, being on a star trek forum and all, so I don't need to explain that. It's a possibility...

Warp Drive...heh, well, I'm sure you know all too well how "warp drive" would work, The warp in space-time makes it possible for an object to go Faster Than Light while remaining on a time-like curve. The main catch is the same one that may stop us making large wormholes, to make it you would need matter with negative energy density.

So in theory it is possible, in the future, when we have more accurate and sophisticated equipment, but right now, for warp speeds, we're **** outta luck.

posted on November 28th, 2005, 9:02 am

Hehe, nice idea about the "Glühwürmchen"

posted on November 28th, 2005, 10:03 am

glumwurmchen = glowworm if you all didn´t know that

posted on November 28th, 2005, 2:03 pm

Yeah! Ladies... this is the place where you can learn very much! Respect... that overwhelms my knowledge in physics...I´m a simple biologician