Antimatter/matter vs. Alternatives: Is there a better way?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-12 04:00pm

The Federation uses antimatter/matter annhiliation for both drives and weapons.

Is there better alternatives?

Should advanced fusion weapons be used in place of photon torpedoes?

Is the Romulan quantum singularity drive better the M/AM warp cores?

Could Starfleet field better and safer craft?

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2003-01-12 04:04pm

The best alternative would probably be anything Borg, whom I don't think use M/AM. After all their "transwarp" is pretty badass compared to what the Feds, Roms, Klings, ect, can put out.

I thought that photorps were already nuclear bombs, and used fusion. If they aren't than what do they use?

And anything Trek could be modifyed by modern engineers and scientists to be a better and safer craft.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-12 04:26pm

Photon Torpedoes use Matter/anti-matter annhiliation.

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » 2003-01-12 05:16pm

I've felt a subspace tap of some kind would be best, offering power without fuel, for example (This is what I think the Borg use). After that, I don't know. Antimatter is very high-yield, but dangerous. Maybie advanced, multi-stage fusion with an end product of carbon, or something, would be safest for the power output. Unfortunately the properties of Romulan singularities are unknown, so I can't comment on them.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-01-12 05:57pm

The Silence and I wrote:I've felt a subspace tap of some kind would be best, offering power without fuel, for example (This is what I think the Borg use). After that, I don't know. Antimatter is very high-yield, but dangerous. Maybie advanced, multi-stage fusion with an end product of carbon, or something, would be safest for the power output. Unfortunately the properties of Romulan singularities are unknown, so I can't comment on them.

Since when is subspace full of useabul energy!?

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-01-12 05:59pm

Tribble-powered reactors.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-12 06:06pm

If we assume that cosmic strings exist, then it would be theoretically possible to split them and release orders of magnitude more energy than would be possible with M/AM. I have theorized that this may be the "hypermatter" used in SW reactors, but it does not fit with all of the evidence, and there's simply no way to tell.

M/AM reactions are greater than nuclear fusion or fission by a considerable margin, because ALL of the mass involved is being converted completely into energy. I do not fully understand how a singularity can be generated on a moving starship, but if it can happen, it would be relatively similar to M/AM, except that it is somewhat easier to do AFTER you have created the singularity, and stabilized it, because only matter is needed, and any form of matter will be sufficient. Thus, singularities can be seen as approximately equivalent to M/AM reactions.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-01-12 06:07pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
The Silence and I wrote:I've felt a subspace tap of some kind would be best, offering power without fuel, for example (This is what I think the Borg use). After that, I don't know. Antimatter is very high-yield, but dangerous. Maybie advanced, multi-stage fusion with an end product of carbon, or something, would be safest for the power output. Unfortunately the properties of Romulan singularities are unknown, so I can't comment on them.
Since when is subspace full of useabul energy!?

Aren't we under the assumption that this is the ST universe we're talking about?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-12 06:34pm

What about torps? I know some, including Mike have suggested w/ the yields the get they might as well use easier to store and safer nukes, but wouldn't it be too heavy and less manuverable of a torp?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-12 06:45pm

The Silence and I wrote:I've felt a subspace tap of some kind would be best, offering power without fuel, for example (This is what I think the Borg use). After that, I don't know. Antimatter is very high-yield, but dangerous. Maybie advanced, multi-stage fusion with an end product of carbon, or something, would be safest for the power output. Unfortunately the properties of Romulan singularities are unknown, so I can't comment on them.

*sniff sniff* I smell the rank stench of unsupported claims and pseudoscience. When, exactly, is it revealed that subspace is teeming with energy that just sits there? When, exactly, are we told that the Borg use this for power generation?

Furthermore, the idea of "power without fuel" is patently absurd. How do the Borg access subspace and channel this energy? It doesn't just happen magically. It takes energy. If this is how the Borg do things, they'd have to have some sort of reactor in place to generate the required energy to access subspace. The advantage is that they can get more bang for their buck. Instead of just getting the 9E16 J of energy from 1 kg of matter and antimatter, they put that energy to work to get however much energy they get from subspace. This is all assuming that this is how Borg power generation works.

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » 2003-01-12 06:55pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
The Silence and I wrote:
I've felt a subspace tap of some kind would be best, offering power without fuel, for example (This is what I think the Borg use). After that, I don't know. Antimatter is very high-yield, but dangerous. Maybie advanced, multi-stage fusion with an end product of carbon, or something, would be safest for the power output. Unfortunately the properties of Romulan singularities are unknown, so I can't comment on them.

Since when is subspace full of useabul energy!?

Ever see a subspace tear? It seems full of energy to me. Now of course I may well be wrong, but subspace is used for everything else, it really isn't that far a stretch of the imagination. Oh, and Durandal, of course it smells of pseudoscience! This is Trek, after all

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-01-12 07:10pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Is the Romulan quantum singularity drive better the M/AM warp cores?

Could Starfleet field better and safer craft?

Depends on the power output and the safety record. For all we know, the Romulan fleet has an even more atrocious safety record than Starfleet.

And yes, Starfleet *could* if the writers weren't so shit-poor that they had to rely on "omg warp core breach" crap.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-12 08:13pm

The Silence and I wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:Since when is subspace full of useabul energy!?
Ever see a subspace tear? It seems full of energy to me.

Yes, and it also renders Federation ships useless, because they can no longer use their warp drive. Good idea.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-12 08:56pm

The Silence and I wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
The Silence and I wrote:
I've felt a subspace tap of some kind would be best, offering power without fuel, for example (This is what I think the Borg use). After that, I don't know. Antimatter is very high-yield, but dangerous. Maybie advanced, multi-stage fusion with an end product of carbon, or something, would be safest for the power output. Unfortunately the properties of Romulan singularities are unknown, so I can't comment on them.

Since when is subspace full of useabul energy!?
Ever see a subspace tear? It seems full of energy to me. Now of course I may well be wrong, but subspace is used for everything else, it really isn't that far a stretch of the imagination. Oh, and Durandal, of course it smells of pseudoscience! This is Trek, after all

It's full of lots of glowy stuff. So is a fluorescent light.

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » 2003-01-12 10:33pm

RE: Subspace Tears-

Well, if they can be used for energy, their a start. If you can contain one, your getting further.

If you can use it to travel Faster than Light, and ~not~ blow up the universe behind you as you go, you get the handy side benefit of taking anyone near you out of FTL travel. Mmmmm. Lunch.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-01-13 12:00am

Whenever people talk about Trek power systems I always wonder why none of the Trek 'engineers' have ever realized that transporters have been described as matter to energy convertors. Why screw around with antimatter or 50K tonne+ singularities when the transporter systems are quite capable of converting arbitrary masses into energy in the blink on an eye?

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-01-13 12:17am

Unfortunately, the transporters require power to perform their function. You'd gain nothing.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-01-13 12:30am

Patrick Degan wrote:Unfortunately, the transporters require power to perform their function. You'd gain nothing.

I don't believe it's been established that transporters require more external power than the mass-energy of the transport subject.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-01-13 12:34am

They have "quantum" torpedoes that supposedly tap ZPE.. yet for some reason their ships do not appear to be capable of using this effect. I would have thought that had they any other methods of tapping energy like that, Q-torps wouldn't be so phenomenal.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-01-13 12:43am

Enlightenment wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:Unfortunately, the transporters require power to perform their function. You'd gain nothing.
I don't believe it's been established that transporters require more external power than the mass-energy of the transport subject.

"The Apple", "Mirror, Mirror", "The Savage Curtain" all demonstrate that the transporters cannot operate without ship's power and we've had too many depictions of what happens to transport during any sort of "brownout".

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-13 01:07am

I believe they should go for hydroelectricity

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-01-13 01:11am

Patrick Degan wrote:"The Apple", "Mirror, Mirror", "The Savage Curtain" all demonstrate that the transporters cannot operate without ship's power and we've had too many depictions of what happens to transport during any sort of "brownout".

The fact that transporters require power to operate is not in contention. The question is if the dematerialization process requires more power than could be gained by pointing the 'out' end of the transporter conduit into some form of power converter. Unless the demateralization process requires more energy than the mass-energy of the object being transported then transporter technology could be adapted for power generation.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-01-13 02:37am

Enlightenment wrote:The fact that transporters require power to operate is not in contention. The question is if the dematerialization process requires more power than could be gained by pointing the 'out' end of the transporter conduit into some form of power converter. Unless the demateralization process requires more energy than the mass-energy of the object being transported then transporter technology could be adapted for power generation.

If the transporter is dematerialising anything, it's doing work. It's already using energy for that particular process, which rather defeats the entire purpose of utilising it as any sort of power generator. At best, all you could accomplish is for the system to fuel its own process, and again, you gain nothing.

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2003-01-13 11:58am

Wasn't there a comment on how once a Warbird's singularity power plant was activated, it couldn't be shut off again without "catastrophic consequences"? I'm not sure, could be me remembering something from a TM or book and thinking I heard it on the show. If it was a canon quote though, it would seem to indicate that Romulan artificial singularities aren't much superior to Federation M/AM power plants for safety. On a planetary surface it would definitely be worse to have an accident involving one: imagine dropping a small black hole into the core of your homeworld.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-13 12:28pm

Connor MacLeod wrote:They have "quantum" torpedoes that supposedly tap ZPE.. yet for some reason their ships do not appear to be capable of using this effect. I would have thought that had they any other methods of tapping energy like that, Q-torps wouldn't be so phenomenal.

Experiments have shown that there isn't anywhere near as much energy in the zero-point domain as some people had speculated. If quantum torpedoes utilize zero-point energy, then it's very possible that they're weaker than photon torpedoes.

Patrick Degan wrote:If the transporter is dematerialising anything, it's doing work. It's already using energy for that particular process, which rather defeats the entire purpose of utilising it as any sort of power generator. At best, all you could accomplish is for the system to fuel its own process, and again, you gain nothing.

That's a lot like saying it's pointless to build a fusion bomb because you have to initiate the reaction with a fission trigger. If, somehow, the transporter can be used to gain orders of magnitude more energy than its expenditure, it would be prudent to investigate.

However, the transporters would almost certainly use up more energy converting an object into energy than the object's rest energy because of inefficiencies in the process.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Antimatter/matter vs. Alternatives: Is there a better way?

Antimatter/matter vs. Alternatives: Is there a better way?

Re: Antimatter/matter vs. Alternatives: Is there a better wa