StarTrek shields ... poll

[mimesot]

posted on May 11th, 2009, 2:22 pm

Last edited by mimesot on May 11th, 2009, 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rippin apart things would be much easier than vapourizing - you're quite right about that. And if energy is pumped into an object hat quick it certainly is much more likly to blow up. Just for looking advanced, StarTrek again invented some eye candy, but it causes real troubles if one takes a closer look. The reason i go my calculations for Vapourizing is that the TM uses the phrase vapourize in the list I cited, though desintegrate may mean anything else. Ripping is definitly and unfortunatly no equivalent to desintegration, but vapourization is not canon too. Just imagine 80kg human become 80m³ gas ... nice smell, shockwave, little heat... . In open space this doesn't matter so much, so we may calculate with vapourization. The best explanation for desintegration was a complete conversion into neutrinos. But there's no mechanism known, and it especially doesn't occur at normal conditions, but perhaps in the vicinity of black holes or some day in CERN.

You will know these pictures.





The most impressive thing is, that the desintegration always knows, where to stop. On the second pic you clearly see that the desintegration does not affect the floor, but the dieconnected stone table in front, which is not hit at all. 

Talking about the Warbird vs Galaxy class:

Could be either the bad coordination mentioned above or the Warbird is only capable of firing short bursts of 20GW, will the Galaxy would be able of prolonged constant firing. Also, I think Romulan Warbirds are indeed pretty powerful and those high power bursts could mean they're more easily able to drain shields than a Galaxy clas is.

Quite right, this will get underlined in FO, by gibing the Romulans even more burstfire offense, and perhaps this info refers to a romulan pulse disruptor, which lasts for some µs, whereas a galaxy phaser lasts for some seconds. Then the galaxy has the higher power per shot again.

The masses of inconsistencies allow us to write any canon numbers into the FO-TechnicalManual we belive to be the most plausible.

I recently found another number (I prefer recalculations from observations to just believing canon statemens):
http://www.scifi-forum.de/science-fiction/star-trek-allgemein/st-technik/37543-schlagkraft-schiffe-st-universums-2.html#post1996912
Unfortunatly it is german. It recalculates the galaxies phaser-power from the size of the holes the desintegration leaces in a borg cube.
Final result for the energy of one phaser beam, which lasted 3 seconds:
Energy ~ 1,35*10^17 J ~ 135 PetaJoule (32,3 MT TNT)
Thus the beam would have a power of ~1million GigaWatts.
That is quite a lot more than the TM says.

posted on May 11th, 2009, 2:51 pm

I agree with Mimesot.  That table didn't deserve to be disintegrated it wasn't even targeted.( off topic there are 282 guests online!!!)

[Lt.Cdr.White]

posted on May 11th, 2009, 3:08 pm

Last edited by Lt.Cdr.White on May 11th, 2009, 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This book (TM) is so funny.

I just reread the section about shipboard phaser.

They state:

"Each single emitter element can produce 5.1 megawatts. Comparison: the smaller personal phasers that are issued to starfleet personnel belong to types I and II, of which the latter possesses a maximum power output of 0.01 MW."

So they obviously state that the type II phaser is limited to 0.01 MW (= 10 000 W). Does this seem a bit low now? There's professional kitchen equipment with equal output...

[mimesot]

posted on May 11th, 2009, 3:09 pm

Last edited by mimesot on May 11th, 2009, 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It does!

Btw. A photon torpedo has 1,5kg Antimatter, which makes 270000000GJ or 64MT TNT, which is around 60 common H-bombs.

Now, is one phaser shot stronger or weaker than a phonon torpedo?

[Lt.Cdr.White]

posted on May 11th, 2009, 3:12 pm

Last edited by Lt.Cdr.White on May 11th, 2009, 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So it seems this should be scaled up accordingly.

Perhaps a reasonable amount for the destruction caused by hand phasers in the series could be a basis.

Then this could be replacing the 0.1 MW and the type x phasers could be scaled up accordingly.


By the way, the anti-matter load of a standard photon torpedo is given with 1.5 kg in the TM. Do you have any calculations of how much energy this would produce when completely annihilated with the corresponding amount or regular matter?

Edit: Rofl, you just added the same fact and the calculation.

I also just read something about the engine of the torpedo, which is just able to hold the warp field + a relative amount of speed. The formula given is:

v(max) = v(l) + 0.75 v(l) / c

v(l) is the ships velocity at the time of launching the torpedo.



Edit:

Interesting thoughts about phaser output on a Galaxy class:

Daystrom Institute Technical Library a Star Trek website

[mimesot]

posted on May 11th, 2009, 3:28 pm

Last edited by mimesot on May 11th, 2009, 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, warp is something I avoid discussing at all, because every now and then you stumble about paradox consequences, not to mention the necessity of breaking with special relativity (:pinch: unfortunatly even local). Where does the second term in that formula come from? The relative impulse speed would just be some fraction of c.

Your link says that a phaser has a power of 100000 TW and the power generator can produce energy at 1million TW. 

posted on May 11th, 2009, 3:31 pm

and there is no warp in Fo so it doesn't really need to be discussed that heavenly.

"It never occurred to me that it was space that was moving"   

[Lt.Cdr.White]

posted on May 11th, 2009, 3:39 pm

Last edited by Lt.Cdr.White on May 11th, 2009, 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Your link says that a phaser has a power of 100000TW. 

Yes, that article takes about everything into account that we discussed and comes to the same conclusion as we did, that the 5.1 MW is an error and cannot be correct.

They compared episodes and data about the main reactor in the TM and came to different numbers that seem more consistent with what we saw on the show.

They also calculate the photon torpedo thing, taking into account that not all of the anti-matter actually reacts and that not everything of the energy produced really hits the target.

[mimesot]

posted on May 11th, 2009, 3:43 pm

Last edited by mimesot on May 11th, 2009, 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lt.Cdr.White's likt als mentions the cube-phasering. Seen in the image attatched, the holes have a diameter of 1/5 of the ende length. Thus 5³ = 125 beams, would be enough to desintegrate the whole cube.

One shot had 3 seconds, means we have 300 000 TW per shot, which is quite the same as a photon torpedo of 270 000 TW, which can oc course not be fully utilized. This makes torpedos pretty useless, as they can b countered more easily than a phaser.

One more thought. The fact, hat the phasers are operated whit plasma from the eps from the warp core is one of the most stupid concepts ever. Why not transport antimatter to the emitter and annihilate it there? Plasma is not at all a medium, which is easy to transport and the radiation heats the EPS, cools the plasma, and thus loads of energy get lost untill the plasma enters the unknown emitter device which gain transforms the energy (into nadion, and then photons), whcih will also be no lossless process. Moving one dm³ of antimatter seems much easier to me.

Now back to topic, shields will have to withstand something about 1 million TJ before breaking down, it seems.

posted on May 11th, 2009, 4:41 pm

They work through magic. My theories cannot be excluded as plausible, since there is no evidence to exclude.

I.AM.RIGHT!

posted on May 11th, 2009, 4:58 pm

LOL ... then ... thank you kindly!

[mimesot]

posted on May 17th, 2009, 1:54 pm

Last edited by mimesot on May 17th, 2009, 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hey, some news:

I recently discussed the idea of the magnetic shields fortified with ionized particles in another forum, and found that the plasma's fraction number, which is smaller than 1, could provide a significvant reduction of the chance to be hint by phasers. Still this behaviour is far away from what we await form ST-Shields, but it is at least one improvement.

The basic point is total reflection of beams. If we decrease the fraction number of the plasma to near zero the critical angle will get smaller, so there will only be a really small cone around the perpendicular to the shield left, in which an incoming beam is not reflected. In nearly most cases this perpendicular is not the same direction as the direction towards the shields. Thus the hull is difficult to be hit by a direct beam.

Unfortunatly there is still a small chance (still greater than to deal a direct hit), that the beam might be reflcted by the inner side of the shields and then hit our vessel. (Please take a look at the first picture.)

Comparing the angles for a direct (light green) and indirect (light yellow) hit to the original paths (light pink) for a hit, one can see that the areas are smaller and shifted. This forces an enemy to do additional calculations for a successfull attack and knowledge about the geometry of the opponent's shields.

If you now alter the force-fields shape randomly it will become a crucial task for the enemy to find the right spot. This will probably as difficult as to find out the randomzied shield-frequenzy of a common ST-cruiser.

By being hit by a beam, the shield is heated up, and thus it's density reduces, the critical angle rises, and the chance of getting hit directly and indirecktly rises. This shield mostly deflects beams at high chance and does not dissipate them too quicky.

The greatest disadvantage is about this system is that a ship looks smaller, deformed and a little blurred from the outside. Something which a modern video system could recalculate to get a proper view on a screen again *gg*. Same goes for the sensor-information. A further incompatibility is, that the shields are much larger, than the ones in ST.

A realistic shield geometry is most likly more complex than the one I showed in the first pic, more probably something like in the second pic.

Summarizing it all, we have a shield that can deal with charged particles, small particles, gamma-photons, beams (and the light of exploding torpedos as well), but not high speed high mass targets and neutral elementary particles as strange-mesons, relativistic neutrons, nadion-particles.

How do you like these ideas?

Attachments

[Sheva]

posted on May 17th, 2009, 2:18 pm

Last edited by Sheva on May 17th, 2009, 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But we have more than just one shield generator. So when you put them together in an intelligent way, you might create a round bubble.

The NEW shield technology of the starfleet is the following:
Instead of using a large bubble the shield will directly flow over the hull of the ships. This gives you two advantages:
First --> The hit-area ist reduced from the 'bubble' to only the hull. When you use this tech together with ECM, you may avoid some of the shots that gets fired on you.
Second --> The lower shield-bubble (You only have the hull) achieves a lesser volume so the same energy output is concentrated on of reduced area which deals to an increased shield strength.

I've head about it... but cant remember when or where.

To the way shields are working:
If we stretch the space, the energy will be widet up and will be compressed after leving the 'stretching' area. It is like a frequency-modulator then. A shot wavelength will be made to a long wavelength and after the system is passed, the original frequency (for example of a beam when I look at it like light) will be set back to its original measuremants. Nothing more. There would be no energy absorbtion or at least it would be a so little factor, that the shields will never ever do their work as 'shield'.

So we need a system that can 'absorb' the energy instead of transforming it. So the point (2) ist more suitable for shields. The ions are put into a field where many positive and negative ions are hidden inside. When an Energy wave hits this particle-thing, the ions begin to absorb the energy in order to recreate the balance they want to have (neutral).
Now we also have an explaination for 'point fire' that can weaken the shields on a specific point. The ions must travel to de-load / re-load and when a constant beam is neutralising the ions on a specific point, they may only stay neutral inon that wont take any energy so the beam can cut through the shields.

This is ALSO an explanation for the better effectiveness of disruptors against shields instead of torpedos:
The disruptors fire a very fast frequency modulated beam which will very effectivly neurtalise the loaded ions, because these have to travel very rapidly and must absorb many diffrent frequencies. So to 'peak output' of the shields are reduced to a more smooth output and the disruptors/phaser can take away a good part of the ionisation.

Torpedos do a more 'hammered' damage. They bring so much energy to the ions, that they cant completly absorb the energy and break through the shields (a part of the energy), but after the torpedo hit the shields, they will recharge faster that of the hit of a disruptor. So the torpedo deals hull damage but less shield damage (in comparison with relative damage of disruptors)

The Polaron-Torpedo is then a special weapon. It holds up a mass of anti-particles that will interact a shot time with the enemy shields and make a 'hole' in them. Through that hole, the torpedo can travel through and so this torpedo is shield breaking. For this ionisation you need a heavy generator which can hold these ions in the direct field of the torpedo. So this means, without a generator, the anti-particles will fade away very soon so that this torpedo has got only a shot range for breaking enemy shields.

Sounds good?

posted on May 17th, 2009, 2:44 pm

You probably want to say, that ST-canon utilizes more than one shield generator. Yes indeed they do, and all your points are quite valid for ST-canon-shields. And I heard of them too.

But the NEW shield technology, as well as the old have one crucial problem:
They rely on subspace, and subspace is not a conclusive proposition, but only a phantastical proposition. Subspace does neither obay it's own rules nor any physical rules. Subspace is something that has always the functions of the authors will, but not one pinciple that results in it's functions. I could just propose anything to happen, when I use subspace ... btw it was never described how to get access to subspace, how to manipulate it, get things into it, out of it, just nothing ... and thus I cannot make any logical conclusion on how shiels with subspace may work.

What we (and sometimes only me) are doing here is trying to derive shiel's functions from propositions by logic. Thus the canon Shields are not possible to be included in this thread. We just wanna get out models as close to these shields behaviour as possible. The best solution - the one which I will include into the FO-TechnicalManual - is the one, which comes most close to ST-Shields.

PS: It is allowed to make unprovable assumptions to derive the shields functions, as long as the derivation is conclusive.

Indeed the StarTrek-approach is different from the one i diskussed latly. The StarTek approach uses Subspace to explain just anything in the way they like. Thus the ST-Shields work perfectly in the way they are supposed to do. I personally hate the idea of avoiding discussions by the

posted on May 17th, 2009, 7:20 pm

Well I like that you wrote ideas down in the first place. 
There are so many questions to be answered before i can say wether your theory is good. So let's start:

To the way shields are working:
If we stretch the space, the energy will be widet up and will be compressed after leving the 'stretching' area. It is like a frequency-modulator then. A shot wavelength will be made to a long wavelength and after the system is passed, the original frequency (for example of a beam when I look at it like light) will be set back to its original measuremants. Nothing more. There would be no energy absorbtion or at least it would be a so little factor, that the shields will never ever do their work as 'shield'.

I never undestood hoe that stretching should possibly work, especially when the system should react on an incoming beam or especially light-pulse. As these travel at light speed, the damage is dealt when the shields start to stretch the area. Anyway you are right that such shields provide no absorption. So, this was not a question, I'll move on.*gg*

The ions are put into a field where many positive and negative ions are hidden inside.

You but both charged in that field, so first questions, how are they distributed in space? How do they stay where they are allocated, or do they move? Normally charges tend to recombine and create a field of neutral particles, which seems not to be your task, so how is this prohibited?

When an Energy wave hits this particle-thing, the ions begin to absorb the energy in order to recreate the balance they want to have (neutral).
Now we also have an explaination for 'point fire' that can weaken the shields on a specific point. The ions must travel to de-load / re-load and when a constant beam is neutralising the ions on a specific point, they may only stay neutral inon that wont take any energy so the beam can cut through the shields.

What do you mean by recreate the blance? Do you mean that at the place of impact the positive and negative charges recombine? How does this process absorb energy? What forces engage the charged particles to travel to the point of fire?

The disruptors fire a very fast frequency modulated beam which will very effectivly neurtalise the loaded ions, because these have to travel very rapidly and must absorb many diffrent frequencies. So to 'peak output' of the shields are reduced to a more smooth output and the disruptors/phaser can take away a good part of the ionisation.

In german we say "geladenes Teilchen", but in english the term is charged particle, so i assume you are from a german speaking countrie? This would gibe us the ability to discuss critical points in german.

I don't really get what "fast frequency modulated" means? Are you attempting to say that a phaser changes it's frequency often, or does it mean, that the beam has randomized frequencies so the Spectum changes quickly? Then I would probably get the rest.