Imperial energy production in Federation tech

[Darth Wong]

Wow, okay, you take me a little too literally, but thanks for making my point for me: obviously my house doesn't actually plug into a nuclear reactor, but like you said, my outlet takes what it needs (and can handle) from the power plant, via a lot of power regulation systems in between. I just sort of figured you'd fill that bit in yourself. But yes, by the similar principle, why can't you have a starship tapping all that it needs from a much more powerful source.

Congratulations on completely missing the point, by acting as if the system for making that power compatible with your use is just a gimme.

[Cri_Havoc]

Not a gimme, like I said, it'd take some work. I'm just not seeing it as being beyond the realm of impossibility. Like trying to run a car off a power plant: sure, you gotta put something in between (like a power grid), but doable, no? It's not like every single system on an Imperial ship uses Gigawatts of power, they need to run their coffeemakers too, right? Also not that hard to imagine that, if they've somehow gotten their hands on an imperial power source, they might have figured out a little bit about stepping down the power for an imperial coffeemaker.

Not easy, it's work, certainly not assuming it's a gimmee (despite how this debate is sort of centered around the gimmee of a much more difficult piece of tech. )

[Teleros]

Sure you can turn down the power output, but if there's a minimum level that the reactor has to run at in order to function, then it may still be too high for whatever it is you're plugging it into. Unless by some miracle you can pump the excess power out the deflector dish without it melting, that is .

Again though, you're forgetting that the coffee machine on a Star Destroyer or similar will be siphoning power off the ship's power grid, and not drawing it directly from the reactor.

[LaCroix]

Wow, okay, you take me a little too literally, but thanks for making my point for me: obviously my house doesn't actually plug into a nuclear reactor, but like you said, my outlet takes what it needs (and can handle) from the power plant, via a lot of power regulation systems in between. I just sort of figured you'd fill that bit in yourself. But yes, by the similar principle, why can't you have a starship tapping all that it needs from a much more powerful source. And I'm not talking about finding one on the side of the road and plugging it in in an emergency with only 10 minutes to jury-rig something, like we usually find in ST, I'm talking about designing a system (or federation ship) around such a power source. I mean, if you handed a nuclear plant over to the guys at Ford, gave them one outlet with all the power from that station, and told them they could run a car off it, they would do the same thing, just build a system to take the power they need (might not exactly fit in the car, but you get my point. You don't just plug it into your fancy Hybrid and expect it to go vroom.)

Maybe it's easyer with numbers. Let's assume some.

Your reactor puts out a 10.000 watt minimum, absolute minimum.
Your car uses 5.000 watt.

Where do the other 5.000 Watt go?
2 Possibilities:
into your car -> car goes boom.
stay in your reactor -> reactor goes boom.

What you don't realize is that your "plain" urban electrical grid is only one small part of a national grid where powerplants are permanently adjusted to the power needed and surplus is stored by e.g. pumping water up into a storage lake to be run down over the generators later, when a fast peak of demand has to be met. All the time, the grid consumes exactly as much power as is put out.

So, to use that reactor, they have to be able to consume them minimum output, which probably is many times more than the enterprises 'grid' can use, even with every light on and all systems at maximum. So either the reactor has to be shut down or will melt, or the grid will heat up and melt. Knowing the consoles, that will happen with a lot of schrapnel.

[Cri_Havoc]

*sigh* I really must be more careful with my analogies. But okay, yes, you're right, power which we generate must be consumed immediately in some way, but reducing everything to one of those two options seems a bit simplistic (admittedly, my analogy was simplistic too, just trying to give the idea.) Like I said, between the power source and whatever you're primarily thinking of doing with some (possibly small) portion of that power, and the rest needs to be 'used up' somehow (regulating being my, apparently oversimplistic, way of putting it.) So you've got a lot of spare energy, and need to do something totally useless with it. Does that REALLY sound like such a difficult task? You'll still get to use all the energy you want, and in the meanwhile you a trillion space heaters and central air conditioning (it's a JOKE! But you get where I'm going.) Inefficiency aside, does it really seem that improbable? Again, not talking about just giving a Star Destroyer reactor to the Enterprise crew and telling them they have 15 minutes to save the world (I'm sure the writers would think of something silly anyways, but whatever.)

Actually, that does sort of make me think, why does everyone think that ANY reactor that the Federation were handed would blow up anything you attached to it? Slave I produces almost twice as much as the Enterprise can at full power, that's not an unimaginable scale difference, and Boba's got a pretty tricked out ride (or Amidala, whoever, I'm just taking the values off the site at face value). Plus it's more likely they'd capture/barter/have the rebels give them a much smaller (Star Wars-wise) power source than what you'd get on the Death Star or somesuch. They could just get a reactor with all the power that Scotty could ever want. "Scotty, more power!" "Uh-huh." And before people start jumping around saying 'oh, yeah, they can just get whatever power source they want now', we're just looking at the hypothetical question as to whether it can be done. I've just been surprised at how quickly the idea seems to be dismissed.

And is there seriously a lower limit on those power generators? Not that I don't believe, I just don't know enough about these things? You can't tell the Death Star computer you'd like to plug your coffeemaker into the hypermatter power core, and it'll be accomodating? Not that I think of the Death Star as being very accomodating. Plus, I mean, there are plenty of ways of producing plenty of power in the Star Wars universe, right?

[Batman]

Nevermind the power differential, what makes you think Wars reactors produce energy in a form the Feds can work with? Modern power plants produce mostly heat, which has to be converted into electricity before being fed into the grid. M/AM IIRC generates mostly gamma radiation so Fed systems are likely geared to convert that into whatever they use for power distribution (electroplasma, electricity, whatever). Hypermatter reactors produce-Valen alone knows what as far as I know. You're blithely assuming the Feds will somehow be able to work with that.

As for the power distribution system being able to handle only a limited load, there does seem to be quite a bit of leeway in that. They are continually shunting power from one system to another to reinforce whatever they deem to be most important system at that given time, which indicates that the system actually can handle more power than they can generate with their own power systems, if not all that much.
So IF they could run a trek power grid off a Wars reactor of, say, 50% again the power of a Warp Core, they might actually benefit from that.

[Ender]

It should be notes that the amount of modification required would vary with the reactor being dropped in. For example, you could place the reactor from a TIE in there with little to no difficulty, as its power is about that which the ship usually produces and it is compact enough that its collection and conversion components along with the reactor itself could fit in the volume occupied by the warp core. At that point you might have to change the distribution grid (depending on how it works), but that is still a reduced workload.

[Alyeska]

This thread just made me realize something about some Trek ships. There are a couple of refit designs out there that we know of. Galaxy refit and Sovereign refit. Every time we see them add new phasers to a ship, its always on the warp nacelle or on the pylon. And now I know the reason why. These locations already have heavy power distribution grids in place and its the easiest place to add phasers with the fewest internal modifications to the ship.

[Surlethe]

Oh folks, come on; the Enterprise consumes 10,000 GW when the ship is not running any critical systems. What's this bullshit about not being able to drop an ISD reactor in there about, eh?

Nevermind the power differential, what makes you think Wars reactors produce energy in a form the Feds can work with? Modern power plants produce mostly heat, which has to be converted into electricity before being fed into the grid. M/AM IIRC generates mostly gamma radiation so Fed systems are likely geared to convert that into whatever they use for power distribution (electroplasma, electricity, whatever). Hypermatter reactors produce-Valen alone knows what as far as I know.

To be fair, this would only require an extra conversion layer engineered between the reactor and the power conduction system. It's a daunting challenge, but not as formidable a problem as the system handling the energy load.

[Batman]

An extra conversion layer that Federation technology may or may not be able to provide. Whereas as has been pointed out, the energy load can be brought down to something Fed power systems can handle by simply using a sufficiently small reactor.

And I think it was 12.75 billion GW, actually

[Crayz9000]

An extra conversion layer that Federation technology may or may not be able to provide. Whereas as has been pointed out, the energy load can be brought down to something Fed power systems can handle by simply using a sufficiently small reactor.

And I think it was 12.75 billion GW, actually

It was GW/sec, actually. Per Data, who is always correct

[Littlefoot]

Why not mount a bunch of extra phasers, or since they just got sw reactors (whatever the size) a few tubo lasers, and put a capacitor or two into their pretty usless hangars. Then have the computer fire away when the bleedoff from the reactor gets high?

[Ender]

Why not mount a bunch of extra phasers, or since they just got sw reactors (whatever the size) a few tubo lasers, and put a capacitor or two into their pretty usless hangars.

Recoil, powerlines, etc. Mounting weapons is something you need to consider when first designing the ship, not tack them on afterwards.

Then have the computer fire away when the bleedoff from the reactor gets high?

2nd law of thermodynamics means that using such a "heat sink laser" as it is usually referred to in scifi doesn't actually work. You end up with more waste heat.

[Littlefoot]

But wouldn't the excess still be out of the power grid and the ship? Or would it remain in the capacitors or reactor? And wouldn't it be a fairly simple process to weld hardpoints onto the hull, or even to the deck of the shuttlebay and them mount said laser to that? I doubt very much that the recoil in that situation would be enough to overcome their itegreity feilds or inertia dampners. Course, I could be wrong on that one given the shaking seen after even light hits to thier shields.

[Cri_Havoc]

Nevermind the power differential, what makes you think Wars reactors produce energy in a form the Feds can work with? Modern power plants produce mostly heat, which has to be converted into electricity before being fed into the grid. M/AM IIRC generates mostly gamma radiation so Fed systems are likely geared to convert that into whatever they use for power distribution (electroplasma, electricity, whatever). Hypermatter reactors produce-Valen alone knows what as far as I know. You're blithely assuming the Feds will somehow be able to work with that.

Somebody sort of beat me to this, but thought I'd comment. Yes, the mechanism by which the power is generated will, most likely, be drastically different. Sort of like comparing a nuclear plant to a solar array: technically speaking, both operate differently and, in a way, produce different kinds of power which can make it difficult, but not impossible, to simply 'swap them out'. You have to add some form of conversion technology, most likely. But we've seen this done before in the Trek universe, Fed technology being powered by other tech, and though I don't assume that anything is easy, I can't simply dismiss the fairly decent possibility that it can be done, as some others have said.

As for the power distribution system being able to handle only a limited load, there does seem to be quite a bit of leeway in that. They are continually shunting power from one system to another to reinforce whatever they deem to be most important system at that given time, which indicates that the system actually can handle more power than they can generate with their own power systems, if not all that much.
So IF they could run a trek power grid off a Wars reactor of, say, 50% again the power of a Warp Core, they might actually benefit from that.

Agreed. Actually, I always figured that many starships could benefit from quite a fair bit more power. How often does the captain call for more power, and Scotty chimes in with 'I canna give you no more, captain, she's giving you all she's got!'? And at that point they're probably turning off every light and life support to channel all power into one system, and that particular system isn't exactly exploding (well, occasionally, but you see my point, I hope.) But yes, agreed: don't just stick an ISD reactor into a starship, think it through a little, and I think it'd be quite nifty.

2nd law of thermodynamics means that using such a "heat sink laser" as it is usually referred to in scifi doesn't actually work. You end up with more waste heat.

And why is that a problem? We are trying to 'waste' energy, supposedly, so why not as heat? It's not exactly my first choice, but it's one of the first things a lot of people seem to think of. Personally, I'd just build an extra replicator/transporter, and happily convert extra energy to lead bricks the size of shuttlecrafts (thank you Einstein ), so you could always tell where the ship has been by the trail of lead-brick-breadcrumbs it leaves in it's wake. I kid, only slightly, but, like I said, if you're trying to waste extra energy, neither efficiency or utility is really a concern.

[Littlefoot]

On the way home from work this morning I was driving behind a truck with a dirtbike in the back. It made me think "if a starfighter's reactor could overpower a st capship, why not dock a fighter in the shuttle bay then slave the ships systems to the fighter but leave the fighter idleing?" You may still need a conversion method if the fighter uses electricity, but that is doable. the fighter would bleed off the extra power by remaining on and it's reactor would only produce the extra energy abouve idle required to run the starship.

[Serafina]

Isnt the conversion from heat (or gammarad, or whatever) into electricity generally considered part of the reactor?
If i say "reactor" i speak of a device that takes some kind of input and puts out electricity.

Oh, and another problem with SW-reactors in a ST-ship: maintenance.
Given the gross savety measures in ST, the reactor would propably go BOOM very soon - after all, fed-techs would know next to nothing about the new reactor.
And then there is the problem that a hypermatter reactor could need heavy shielding and other safety.
We CAN put a nuclear reactor into a car or plane - its just not practical, because the shielding does not fit/is too heavy.
Of course, they propably could insert <technobabble>, like forcefields - but do they have forcefields that can withstand large amounts of (perhaps exotic) radiation?

I guess any engineer would just say "screw that, lets build a new ship". We did not refit old carriers with nuclear propulsion, did we?

[Ender]

I'm tossing all the replies here into one big one, so you may need to read carefully to understand what I am saying to whom.

But wouldn't the excess still be out of the power grid and the ship? Or would it remain in the capacitors or reactor?

But in the process of getting out usable energy (the energy in the capacitor or produced by the reactor) you are going to generate a tremendous amount of waste heat, which is the threat here. Reactor production can be minimized by lowering the reaction rate - reactors are not fixed output machines and can be varied to the levels you need (with a cap at maximum of course). The issue the waste heat, of which more will actually be produced in the process of trying to get rid of it. This is the 2nd law in practice, the scourge that is entropy.

And wouldn't it be a fairly simple process to weld hardpoints onto the hull, or even to the deck of the shuttlebay and them mount said laser to that? I doubt very much that the recoil in that situation would be enough to overcome their itegreity feilds or inertia dampners. Course, I could be wrong on that one given the shaking seen after even light hits to thier shields.

No, simply welding hardpoints won't do it. I don't think you understand the scale here, or possibly newtons 3rd law. Consider that the power of the reactor is sufficient to move the entire ship. Now you are channeling a significant part of that through a laser, which means it will act like a thruster from the POV of the ship. This imparts considerable stress on the frame of the ship, and if it is not properly mounted to the frame beneath could rip free of its mountings and punch through. This is why engine and weapon mounting must be considered in the design stages.

And yes, lasers (and photons) carry momentum. The proper equation is P=U/c where U is energy, C is the speed of light, and P is force. It isn't much on its own for obvious reasons (dividing by 3E8), but when you are talking kiloton and megatons of energy (10^12-10^15 joules) that kind of force matters.

Somebody sort of beat me to this, but thought I'd comment. Yes, the mechanism by which the power is generated will, most likely, be drastically different. Sort of like comparing a nuclear plant to a solar array: technically speaking, both operate differently and, in a way, produce different kinds of power which can make it difficult, but not impossible, to simply 'swap them out'. You have to add some form of conversion technology, most likely. But we've seen this done before in the Trek universe, Fed technology being powered by other tech, and though I don't assume that anything is easy, I can't simply dismiss the fairly decent possibility that it can be done, as some others have said.

It isn't just a "plug and play" though. SW reactors consume fuel at a high rate, so you need the massive fuel tanks as well. This changes the mass of the ship, so to accelerate at the same rate you need more powerful engines. These put more stress on the space frame, so you need to reinforce that. They also take more power, so you need a bigger reactor and more fuel. Which, with the new spaceframe adds up to more mass, so you need to start all over again.

Agreed. Actually, I always figured that many starships could benefit from quite a fair bit more power. How often does the captain call for more power, and Scotty chimes in with 'I canna give you no more, captain, she's giving you all she's got!'? And at that point they're probably turning off every light and life support to channel all power into one system, and that particular system isn't exactly exploding (well, occasionally, but you see my point, I hope.) But yes, agreed: don't just stick an ISD reactor into a starship, think it through a little, and I think it'd be quite nifty.

See problems above.

And why is that a problem? We are trying to 'waste' energy, supposedly, so why not as heat?

Because it will cook everyone on board. You don't understand what is meant by waste heat here. Consider your computer. While operating, it draws a few watts of power. Due to inefficiency(directed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics) it produces a considerable amount of waste heat, which is what makes it hot (necessitating the fan). In space you can't slap a little fan on it. Vacuum is a great insulator, which makes waste heat a severe concern. You must get rid of it, typically through radiators. Lasers are tremendously inefficient, something like 90% of the energy applied to them ends up being such waste heat. Since you are trying to get rid of the waste heat, obviously this is a bad thing. And the 10% won't help you, because the waste heat of the system you are using to collect and transfer the heat from other parts of the system will more than make up for it. This is a losing proposition.

It's not exactly my first choice, but it's one of the first things a lot of people seem to think of. Personally, I'd just build an extra replicator/transporter, and happily convert extra energy to lead bricks the size of shuttlecrafts (thank you Einstein ), so you could always tell where the ship has been by the trail of lead-brick-breadcrumbs it leaves in it's wake. I kid, only slightly, but, like I said, if you're trying to waste extra energy, neither efficiency or utility is really a concern.

No, efficiency is the prime concern, because it continually generates waste heat. This is an intrinsic law of the universe. Stop getting hung up on the term "waste heat" and start thinking entropy.

On the way home from work this morning I was driving behind a truck with a dirtbike in the back. It made me think "if a starfighter's reactor could overpower a st capship, why not dock a fighter in the shuttle bay then slave the ships systems to the fighter but leave the fighter idleing?" You may still need a conversion method if the fighter uses electricity, but that is doable. the fighter would bleed off the extra power by remaining on and it's reactor would only produce the extra energy abouve idle required to run the starship.

The fighter is bleeding off the extra power into its surroundings, which you have just made the inside of the ship. This does not solve the problem at all, you still have waste heat being dumped inside the main craft.

Isnt the conversion from heat (or gammarad, or whatever) into electricity generally considered part of the reactor? If i say "reactor" i speak of a device that takes some kind of input and puts out electricity.

No, it depends on the exact design you are using, but you absorb the energy into a medium that you then use in a generator which converts that energy into useful energy (electricity)

Oh, and another problem with SW-reactors in a ST-ship: maintenance.
Given the gross savety measures in ST, the reactor would propably go BOOM very soon - after all, fed-techs would know next to nothing about the new reactor.

SW ships don't appear to share those design flaws

And then there is the problem that a hypermatter reactor could need heavy shielding and other safety.
We CAN put a nuclear reactor into a car or plane - its just not practical, because the shielding does not fit/is too heavy.
Of course, they propably could insert <technobabble>, like forcefields - but do they have forcefields that can withstand large amounts of (perhaps exotic) radiation?

Well, given that such a reactor can be crammed into a small fighter like a TIE, there doesn't appear to be much of a problem.

I guess any engineer would just say "screw that, lets build a new ship". We did not refit old carriers with nuclear propulsion, did we?

Well put.

[Questor]

I misunderstood your intent then, as for whether such a modification would possible (without total rebuild) depends on something to my knowlage haven't been seen at all in the ST series/movies mean the operating mechanics of a photon torpedo tube, if it's just a tube opening to the exterior then it could be possible to modify it for proton torps or concussion missiles, how ever if there's more complex mechanics in there the thing gets alot more unlikely.

What about Spock's memorial service at the end of The Wrath of Kahn? Come to think of it, their are a number of TOS torpedo-loading scenes, but I'm not sure how much was ever shown.

In any case, it was more idle speculation than anything that can be put to the test or proven conclusively. Still, its interesting to think of some possible upgrades that would be feasible without building a new ship from the ground up. In this case, however, I'll concede it depends on the (perhaps faulty) assumption that proton torpedos don't require any highly specialized launcher that would require Star Wars tech.

Most of the process is shown three times that I can remember. The first, in the battlestations montage in STII, the Funeral scene in STII and the Surgery on a Torpedo scene in STVI. What we don't know is what happens after the torpedo enters the breech.

[Cri_Havoc]

But in the process of getting out usable energy (the energy in the capacitor or produced by the reactor) you are going to generate a tremendous amount of waste heat, which is the threat here. Reactor production can be minimized by lowering the reaction rate - reactors are not fixed output machines and can be varied to the levels you need (with a cap at maximum of course). The issue the waste heat, of which more will actually be produced in the process of trying to get rid of it. This is the 2nd law in practice, the scourge that is entropy.

Littlefoot wrote:
On the way home from work this morning I was driving behind a truck with a dirtbike in the back. It made me think "if a starfighter's reactor could overpower a st capship, why not dock a fighter in the shuttle bay then slave the ships systems to the fighter but leave the fighter idleing?" You may still need a conversion method if the fighter uses electricity, but that is doable. the fighter would bleed off the extra power by remaining on and it's reactor would only produce the extra energy abouve idle required to run the starship.
The fighter is bleeding off the extra power into its surroundings, which you have just made the inside of the ship. This does not solve the problem at all, you still have waste heat being dumped inside the main craft.

I must ask, DO SW reactors produce a lot of heat? I suddenly realized I don't technically have evidence of that. I would probably assume the ENGINE is hot, in that I don't want to be standing behind a TIE or something like that, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the power source itself is hot. Just an odd thought, I was wondering. I mean, these same sorts of reactors can be used on the ground, but we don't see the hangars melting, etc. And really, at least for the TIE fighter, if for some reason you did need to have the engine running to get power, you could open a window or hangar bay door. I kid! Sort of, but follow?

No, simply welding hardpoints won't do it.

Inclined to agree, lasers may not be the way to go, exactly, but I'd do a little more math to figure out whether structural issues are really the reason why. As to the heat issues, read on further below.

It isn't just a "plug and play" though. SW reactors consume fuel at a high rate, so you need the massive fuel tanks as well. This changes the mass of the ship, so to accelerate at the same rate you need more powerful engines. These put more stress on the space frame, so you need to reinforce that. They also take more power, so you need a bigger reactor and more fuel. Which, with the new spaceframe adds up to more mass, so you need to start all over again.

Everybody keeps coming back to the idea that we're going to stick an ISD reactor in a Fed ship. Like a few people have pointed out, that doesn't have to be the case at all in order to still get a large boost in available energy for a starship. A starfighter clearly doesn't have massive fuel tanks, nor many of the other ships on a starship. Really, I'd say given the scale that they might be similar to the size of tanks on a federation ship, for many of the wars ships.

Quote:
Agreed. Actually, I always figured that many starships could benefit from quite a fair bit more power. How often does the captain call for more power, and Scotty chimes in with 'I canna give you no more, captain, she's giving you all she's got!'? And at that point they're probably turning off every light and life support to channel all power into one system, and that particular system isn't exactly exploding (well, occasionally, but you see my point, I hope.) But yes, agreed: don't just stick an ISD reactor into a starship, think it through a little, and I think it'd be quite nifty.
See problems above.

See comments above.

Because it will cook everyone on board. You don't understand what is meant by waste heat here. Consider your computer. While operating, it draws a few watts of power. Due to inefficiency(directed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics) it produces a considerable amount of waste heat, which is what makes it hot (necessitating the fan). In space you can't slap a little fan on it. Vacuum is a great insulator, which makes waste heat a severe concern. You must get rid of it, typically through radiators. Lasers are tremendously inefficient, something like 90% of the energy applied to them ends up being such waste heat. Since you are trying to get rid of the waste heat, obviously this is a bad thing. And the 10% won't help you, because the waste heat of the system you are using to collect and transfer the heat from other parts of the system will more than make up for it. This is a losing proposition.

This is coming from a universe where something the size of a small moon uses a laser to blow apart a planet, but now you're saying that we can't use lasers at that level because we'll melt whatever we mount them to? If the lasers are 90% efficient, then the Death star just absorbed 90% of the energy required to destroy an object many times it's size, which I'm therefore inclined to believe would cause rather serious issues, if all you said holds true (you'd basically be saying the Death Star could survive being shot by 9 other death stars simultaneuously). But, we're working in a science fiction world, so we should apply the same rules, no? Apparently, it is possible to eject a ton of energy in a laser beam, at either a really high efficiency rate so that the heat isn't so bad, or to handle rather large amounts of heat in some way. I still don't really like the laser idea as a way of bleeding off excess energy, but just saying.

Stop getting hung up on the term "waste heat" and start thinking entropy.

Alright, I misunderstood the issue on hand, you were saying that there would be such an enormous amount of heat that it couldn't be handled (I thought before that you were just complaining about the principle of generating waste heat). Now that we're all on the same page, see above.

No, it depends on the exact design you are using, but you absorb the energy into a medium that you then use in a generator which converts that energy into useful energy (electricity)

This by no means is a description for every kind of power source. It is possible to generate electrical power (if that's what is being used?) without a 'generator' in the sense we think of. Sci Fi I'm sure provides many possibilities, but even today, solar cells would be one example. Just a thought, not really that relevant.

Oh, and another problem with SW-reactors in a ST-ship: maintenance.
Given the gross savety measures in ST, the reactor would propably go BOOM very soon - after all, fed-techs would know next to nothing about the new reactor.

Actually, intersting though; most technology in Star Wars seems surprisingly simple to work with, given how advanced it is. A young boy that grew up on the desert can fly starfighters, Han and Chewie are all it takes to fly and perform general maintenance of the Millenium Falcon, etc. These are not mad scientists or anything, so is understanding how to work with this technology really beyond anyone else? I oftentimes prefer to think of Wars as not being so much more 'scientifically advanced', but rather they've made a few discoveries (most notably hypermatter and hyperspace) which isn't necessarily complicated tech, just not something that the Feds have seen before. And if you're stealing/being gifted hypermatter reactors... meybe someone will throw an astromech droid or databank into the deal?

And then there is the problem that a hypermatter reactor could need heavy shielding and other safety.

As someone said... given the starfighters, it doesn't seem that difficult, if it is required.

[Batman]

Nevermind the power differential, what makes you think Wars reactors produce energy in a form the Feds can work with? Modern power plants produce mostly heat, which has to be converted into electricity before being fed into the grid. M/AM IIRC generates mostly gamma radiation so Fed systems are likely geared to convert that into whatever they use for power distribution (electroplasma, electricity, whatever). Hypermatter reactors produce-Valen alone knows what as far as I know. You're blithely assuming the Feds will somehow be able to work with that.

Somebody sort of beat me to this, but thought I'd comment. Yes, the mechanism by which the power is generated will, most likely, be drastically different. Sort of like comparing a nuclear plant to a solar array: technically speaking, both operate differently and, in a way, produce different kinds of power which can make it difficult, but not impossible, to simply 'swap them out'.

Because both of them are well understood, and work within the confines of our current known technology base. The Feds don't know SHIT about hypermatter reactors or peripheral Imperial technology.

You have to add some form of conversion technology, most likely. But we've seen this done before in the Trek universe, Fed technology being powered by other tech

which means that technology was reasonably similar to their technology for this to be possible (as evidenced by everybody using Warp drive, phaser derivative weapons, and frequency vulnerable shields). That does NOT mean they can adapt their technology to work with something as radically different as hypermatter reactors.

and though I don't assume that anything is easy, I can't simply dismiss the fairly decent possibility that it can be done

'Fairly decent' as determined by-what, exactly?
Virtually ALL of Trek technology works on more or less the same principles, within a reasonably narrow performance range, and is thus eventually compatible with some tinkering. Wars technology is NOT.
For all I know hypermatter reactors DO produce something Treknology can easily deal with. But until you KNOW they do no there is NOT a fairly decent possibility they can do it.

[Serafina]

Actually, intersting though; most technology in Star Wars seems surprisingly simple to work with, given how advanced it is. A young boy that grew up on the desert can fly starfighters, Han and Chewie are all it takes to fly and perform general maintenance of the Millenium Falcon, etc. These are not mad scientists or anything, so is understanding how to work with this technology really beyond anyone else? I oftentimes prefer to think of Wars as not being so much more 'scientifically advanced', but rather they've made a few discoveries (most notably hypermatter and hyperspace) which isn't necessarily complicated tech, just not something that the Feds have seen before. And if you're stealing/being gifted hypermatter reactors... meybe someone will throw an astromech droid or databank into the deal?

That's a good point - if a smuggler and a wookie can handle it, a fed-tech could propably handle it, too. Once he learns some important stuff, propably by doing things wrong.

I still think that a "reactor" includes the conversion to electricity. Even if it is not correct in technical terms, they are still located next to each other (the reactor and the device that converses heat/stuff into electricity).
Oh, and even if there are other means to produce electricity, this does not change the definition of "reactor" - if i say "a car is used for transportation", it is not invalidated by bikes being used for transportation, too.

[Batman]

Actually, intersting though; most technology in Star Wars seems surprisingly simple to work with, given how advanced it is. A young boy that grew up on the desert can fly starfighters, Han and Chewie are all it takes to fly and perform general maintenance of the Millenium Falcon, etc. These are not mad scientists or anything, so is understanding how to work with this technology really beyond anyone else? I oftentimes prefer to think of Wars as not being so much more 'scientifically advanced', but rather they've made a few discoveries (most notably hypermatter and hyperspace) which isn't necessarily complicated tech, just not something that the Feds have seen before. And if you're stealing/being gifted hypermatter reactors... meybe someone will throw an astromech droid or databank into the deal?

That's a good point - if a smuggler and a wookie can handle it, a fed-tech could propably handle it, too.

Because said fedtech naturally had an Imperial level education and has access to Star Wars tools. Oh wait.

Once he learns some important stuff, propably by doing things wrong.

Assuming he SURVIVES doing things wrong, all he knows is that he did something wrong. That doesn't tell him what would have been the RIGHT way to do it.

I still think that a "reactor" includes the conversion to electricity. Even if it is not correct in technical terms, they are still located next to each other (the reactor and the device that converses heat/stuff into electricity).

You still think incorrectly.

Oh, and even if there are other means to produce electricity, this does not change the definition of "reactor" - if i say "a car is used for transportation", it is not invalidated by bikes being used for transportation, too.

Whatever that is supposed to mean.

[Serafina]

Well, he does not have to understand the engineering and science of it - he just has to press the right switches and stuff. Of course, this still needs education - and I would not want to aquire this by trial&error (especially not with multi-gigaton reactors).

However, if we assume that SW-tech needs few maintenance in the first place, this would be less of an issue - still an issue, but one you could work with.

Oh, and even if there are other means to produce electricity, this does not change the definition of "reactor" - if i say "a car is used for transportation", it is not invalidated by bikes being used for transportation, too.

Whatever that is supposed to mean.

Ok, this was poorly worded, lets try this another way.
Wait, just screw my assumption that power conversion is part of the reactor.

However, if they can aquire an reactor, they also could aquire the power-conversion (like the turbine in most powerplants). As i can imagine no reason for the reactor and the power-conversion to be placed in different locations (they are propably next to each other), they just need enough room to reasemble both like in a SW-ship.
And once you have electricity, is doesnt matter where it comes from.

[Batman]

Well, he does not have to understand the engineering and science of it - he just has to press the right switches and stuff. Of course, this still needs education - and I would not want to aquire this by trial&error (especially not with multi-gigaton reactors).
However, if we assume that SW-tech needs few maintenance in the first place, this would be less of an issue - still an issue, but one you could work with.

IF you have access to the educational material and tools naturally available to the Wars population DOING the maintenance.

However, if they can aquire an reactor, they also could aquire the power-conversion (like the turbine in most powerplants).

Why? And what difference would that make?

As i can imagine no reason for the reactor and the power-conversion to be placed in different locations (they are propably next to each other), they just need enough room to reasemble both like in a SW-ship.

Just because they're colocated in Wars ships doesn't mean you'll have equal access to them. Not that it would necessarily help you if you did.

And once you have electricity, is doesnt matter where it comes from.

Blithely assuming that even with Wars conversion technology (which you have yet to show they'll have access to) what you'll get out of a wars reactor is electricity.