transporters/replicators

[Jaepheth]

I had a few questions about these technologies

Are they essentially the same design or same functionality? where a transporter takes matter turns it to energy and then reassembles it whereas a replicator just turns energy into matter

If something exists that can't be replicated (ie 7of9's brain implant in one of the Voyager episodes) would that mean that that same device couldn't be transported? that can't be the case since 7of9 has been transported before(or maybe a Fed transporter messed it up to begin with). does the replicator just have a lower "resolution" than a transporter?

why can't you just shunt a lot of extra energy into a transporter buffer and use it as a replicator? (it was used to create a duplicate Riker)


if something is large enough that the transporter buffer couldn't contain all the data at once, could it be transported section at a time? (ie transporting a ship)

I don't remember the episodes very well, but do there exist materials that cannot be transported?

[Stark]

You can answer your own question. 7o9 can be transported, but replicators cannot recreate some of her technology. Therefore...

[dragon]

Actualy I belive they addresssed that somewhere before. The replicators takes stored matter and changes it. And their are numerous examples of things that can be transported but not replicated things such as Latinum

[Jawawithagun]

I had a few questions about these technologies

Are they essentially the same design or same functionality? where a transporter takes matter turns it to energy and then reassembles it whereas a replicator just turns energy into matter

The difference is that for the replicator the pattern for reassembly is a stored template while the transporter creates this pattern while "reading" a person or object to be transported. Thus the replicator reassembles transported matter into a different configuration than the one it is provided in. This feature is rather unwanted when using a transporter.

why can't you just shunt a lot of extra energy into a transporter buffer and use it as a replicator? (it was used to create a duplicate Riker)

because you need a SHITLOAD of extra energy.

if something is large enough that the transporter buffer couldn't contain all the data at once, could it be transported section at a time? (ie transporting a ship)

If it is disassembled before loading into the transporter, duh! With living creatures this tends to have rather fatal results and thus tends to be avoided.

[Enola Straight]

I had a few questions about these technologies

Are they essentially the same design or same functionality? where a transporter takes matter turns it to energy and then reassembles it whereas a replicator just turns energy into matter

The difference is that for the replicator the pattern for reassembly is a stored template while the transporter creates this pattern while "reading" a person or object to be transported. Thus the replicator reassembles transported matter into a different configuration than the one it is provided in. This feature is rather unwanted when using a transporter.

why can't you just shunt a lot of extra energy into a transporter buffer and use it as a replicator? (it was used to create a duplicate Riker)

because you need a SHITLOAD of extra energy.

if something is large enough that the transporter buffer couldn't contain all the data at once, could it be transported section at a time? (ie transporting a ship)

If it is disassembled before loading into the transporter, duh! With living creatures this tends to have rather fatal results and thus tends to be avoided.

The main difference between transporters and replicators is resolution: transporters are adjusted to the quantum resolution: the position and direction of each subatomic particle, the particles' spins, etc are required to maintain conciousnes and life.

The Molecular resolution only determines the proper location of molecules/atoms in the finished replicated object...this requires much less energy and memory/processing power.

Cargo transporters are pre-set to the molecular resolution, but can be set to quantum in case of emergency personel transporting.

[Jaepheth]

well, my reason for asking about the segment transportation was for my fanfic, and I didn't want to give away a plot point; so if you're reading my fanfic (children of the ancients) then don't read the following















Let's say, there's a stardestroyer and a stargate, the SD doesn't fit through the stargate, so the empire steals fed tech, and instead of spending lots of credits on building a computer that can hold a SD in memory, they rig up something like a dry dock on both sides of the gate, the dock then starts to "scan" the SD to the other side of the Stargate.

good idea or bad idea?

that's why I asked about transportable materials, didn't know if you could transport a neutronium alloy armor

though I may still go with my idea of just having the Imps break down tie defenders and send them through in pieces. It might be nice to leave SW capital ships out of the fanfic for once

[Sean Howard]

why can't you just shunt a lot of extra energy into a transporter buffer and use it as a replicator? (it was used to create a duplicate Riker)

because you need a SHITLOAD of extra energy.

If energy is the problem, why not pull up next to a star or black hole and grab all the free energy you want?

Also, you gotta love how transporter accidents neatly bypass these limitations. Why not design a transporter that screws up on purpose so you can replicate things at the quantum level?

Along these same lines, I've wondered why they don't just build replicators the size of spacedocks, pull up right next to a star for energy/matter, and just pump out fleets of ships?

The response that "well, we don't see them doing that, so they must not be able to" is about the best you can say. But then, why not keep projectile weapons handy when fighting the Borg? You don't see them doing that either, but clearly they could.

The only answer is that every decision maker in the federation is insane.

[Enola Straight]

why can't you just shunt a lot of extra energy into a transporter buffer and use it as a replicator? (it was used to create a duplicate Riker)

because you need a SHITLOAD of extra energy.

If energy is the problem, why not pull up next to a star or black hole and grab all the free energy you want?

Also, you gotta love how transporter accidents neatly bypass these limitations. Why not design a transporter that screws up on purpose so you can replicate things at the quantum level?

Along these same lines, I've wondered why they don't just build replicators the size of spacedocks, pull up right next to a star for energy/matter, and just pump out fleets of ships?

The response that "well, we don't see them doing that, so they must not be able to" is about the best you can say. But then, why not keep projectile weapons handy when fighting the Borg? You don't see them doing that either, but clearly they could.

The only answer is that every decision maker in the federation is insane.

The in-house explanation is...if you had that kind of power at your disposal, you wouldn't need to.

Realistically, the larger the object, the more energy and memory/processing power to replicate it: the energy and memory/processing may not be linear but logarithmic or even geometric in relation to the object's volume or mass.

Lets suppose a one kilo object requires one mega-erg of energy to be replicated (hey, we got a warp core, a couple of impulse engines, and who knows how many dedicated use fusion reactors )
A three kilo object might require 27 mega-ergs.

The modular nature of various ship classes probably reflects the practical upper limit of industrial replication; can't replicate the whole ship, so mass-produce, then mix-n-match the parts.

[Enola Straight]

BTW, I don't know the difference between ergs, dynes, newton/meters, etc.