Did the E-D really do that badly in GEN?

[Death from the Sea]

But in the Reliant -vs- Enterprise Nil the Enterprises entire engineering section was scared and hit much worse. Is it a fact of life that newer isn't better?

Actualy the E-D took far more serious damage. Multiple torpedo strikes (E-Nil only had one) and up to two dozen disrupter strikes.

But the hits on the E-D were random and not very well aimed. But still the ship blew up.

The E-nil was sliced open by the Relaint like a turkey at the engenieering section, and was already battle ready a few hours later already. Or, to quote Spock: "They exactly knew were to hit us."

To compare it, while the E-nil survived this extreme damage, the E-D would have blown up surely with the same damage.

IIRC the Ent-D took a similar hit to the engineering section in BoBW from the Borg cutting beam.

[dworkin]

My alternate scenario:

The Sister's kidnap Geordie because he's the supreme technobabbler in the universe. They need one to jury rig the wierd alien weapon they've found. Pumped full of happy drugs, Geordie readies the weapon. They send him back unconcious and just as he's waking up and shouting a warning they BOP opens fire...

While the stupidity isn't as criminal, it does allow for acceptable levels of technobabble to be used.

[JodoForce]

Anything that has an oscillation —by definition— has frequency. A deflector is an energy field, it is transmitted outward from the ship, and it cycles as power is fed into it. That results in oscillations in the shield envelope surrounding the ship and that oscillation rate therefore is the shield's frequency.

My argument against this simple definition for ST shield frequency is that when you 'match frequencies', the weapon hits the hull like there's no shield at all. This means that the positive and negative peaks in the weapon's energy wave are able to go through unimpeded and the only times when the shield is somewhat strong are right between two adjacent positive and negative peaks. If this were what is really happening, then you'd be able to do 50% hull damage or more even with a weapon that doesn't match the shield's frequency. Obviously this doesn't happen (not when the shield is at full strength anyway).

If the shield simply oscillates in stopping power while always maintaining some degree of power, phase-matched beams still won't do nearly as much damage as if the shields were actually down.

What happens in ST matches neither case, so unless you can think of some other case that is consistent with both conventional wave mechanics and what happens in ST, I say that ST shield frequencies are not what we think of as frequencies.

This would also be consistent with the fact that they aren't carrying lasers around to beam out their enemies' frequencies like we think any fool should be able to do...

[Patrick Degan]

Anything that has an oscillation —by definition— has frequency. A deflector is an energy field, it is transmitted outward from the ship, and it cycles as power is fed into it. That results in oscillations in the shield envelope surrounding the ship and that oscillation rate therefore is the shield's frequency.

My argument against this simple definition for ST shield frequency is that when you 'match frequencies', the weapon hits the hull like there's no shield at all. This means that the positive and negative peaks in the weapon's energy wave are able to go through unimpeded and the only times when the shield is somewhat strong are right between two adjacent positive and negative peaks. If this were what is really happening, then you'd be able to do 50% hull damage or more even with a weapon that doesn't match the shield's frequency. Obviously this doesn't happen (not when the shield is at full strength anyway).

If the shield simply oscillates in stopping power while always maintaining some degree of power, phase-matched beams still won't do nearly as much damage as if the shields were actually down.

What happens in ST matches neither case, so unless you can think of some other case that is consistent with both conventional wave mechanics and what happens in ST, I say that ST shield frequencies are not what we think of as frequencies.

This would also be consistent with the fact that they aren't carrying lasers around to beam out their enemies' frequencies like we think any fool should be able to do...

If weapons fire was being blocked in toto, then certainly there should be no effects being felt in the ship —no rocking or attitude interference of any sort. The shield protection should also not need any mechanism for heat dissipation, since no exothermic effect would get through the energy field. And if the shields blocked incoming energy totally, the ship would be rendered sensor-blind, as no outgoing signal would get past the shield perimetre either. All of this demonstrates that deflector shields do not totally reflect incoming energies and that part of the strike does leak through to the ship. In several cases during battle, crew have reported hull damage whenever the shield envelope progressively degrades from sustained attack. Given these facts, there is more than enough evidence to support the case that ST deflectors do experience oscillation in their functioning and therefore have a harmonic frequency, like any energy field.

The point you raise about phase-matched beams illustrates the flipside to TNG's frequency-idiocy. If the writers knew even half of what they presumed to be talking about, they too would know that totally penetrating a deflector is not simply a matter of matching the frequency.

Just another example that the writers are morons.

[JodoForce]

I did not argue that ST shields protect the ship 100% from non phase-matched beams, I'm just arguing that the damage incurred by non phase-matched beams are is much less than a conventional interpretation of frequencies would predict. For conventional interpretation, I argue for at least 50% damage through shields for non phase-matched beams; would a little shaking and heat dissipation account for 50% damage? (They only report hull damage when the shields are weakening.)

Also, the heat dissipation mechanism is part of the shield's operation, and does not help to reduce damage when the weapon 'matches the shield's phase'. Thus it doesn't seem to be a mechanism to fill in the gaps in the shield's strength, but a necessary part of the shield's operation even at peak strength.

The point you raise about phase-matched beams illustrates the flipside to TNG's frequency-idiocy. If the writers knew even half of what they presumed to be talking about, they too would know that totally penetrating a deflector is not simply a matter of matching the frequency.

Yes, and by the policy of suspension of disbelief, we're supposed to take this brain fart from the authors of ST and turn it into some super-clever scientific theoty :headbang: Time to rethink our policy, perhaps?

[Patrick Degan]

I did not argue that ST shields protect the ship 100% from non phase-matched beams, I'm just arguing that the damage incurred by non phase-matched beams are is much less than a conventional interpretation of frequencies would predict. For conventional interpretation, I argue for at least 50% damage through shields for non phase-matched beams; would a little shaking and heat dissipation account for 50% damage? (They only report hull damage when the shields are weakening.)

Think by analogy of radio. Ever notice how sometimes, you get signal leakage from one station into another? Particularly if the two stations are close together on the frequency band. The only way the interference becomes noticeable is if the signal of the "leaking" station is being pumped out at considerable power, or if the strength of the other station is fading.

Also, the heat dissipation mechanism is part of the shield's operation, and does not help to reduce damage when the weapon 'matches the shield's phase'. Thus it doesn't seem to be a mechanism to fill in the gaps in the shield's strength, but a necessary part of the shield's operation even at peak strength.

Non-sequitor. If shields reflected away incoming energies, the phasing of either the incoming beam or the shield would be immaterial to the equation. Instead, incoming weapons fire seems to increase resistance in the shield's outbound energy signal, which translates into heat which must be disposed of. Since no type of energy output can be 100% continuous, there must be oscillation in the current-flow. Hence, frequency. Since this means, by definition, a shield which does not provide 100% resistance, some incoming energies will leak through whether phase-matching is in effect or not. Indeed, if the object is to penetrate the shields, the last thing the attacker should do is phase-match his weapon fire to the shield frequency of his target. Unless of course the attacker has enough sheer raw power available that shield frequencies are essentially meaningless (e.g. a starship's shields v. a Death Star blast).

The point you raise about phase-matched beams illustrates the flipside to TNG's frequency-idiocy. If the writers knew even half of what they presumed to be talking about, they too would know that totally penetrating a deflector is not simply a matter of matching the frequency.

Yes, and by the policy of suspension of disbelief, we're supposed to take this brain fart from the authors of ST and turn it into some super-clever scientific theory. Time to rethink our policy, perhaps?

No, this goes under the same category of criticism for other idiocies such as the use of sonic weapons in space and cracks in a black hole's event horizon.

[ClaysGhost]

Given these facts, there is more than enough evidence to support the case that ST deflectors do experience oscillation in their functioning and therefore have a harmonic frequency, like any energy field.

I think there are many energy fields which have no characteristic frequencies or even multiple characteristic frequencies. For an example of the first: the magnetic field generated by a constant current passing through a wire, or the electric field of a stationary charge.

I think the sharp-edged nature of the field indicates that the situation is more complicated than a single frequency. How can a radiating field at a single frequency produce a sharp boundary?

[Patrick Degan]

Given these facts, there is more than enough evidence to support the case that ST deflectors do experience oscillation in their functioning and therefore have a harmonic frequency, like any energy field.

I think there are many energy fields which have no characteristic frequencies or even multiple characteristic frequencies. For an example of the first: the magnetic field generated by a constant current passing through a wire, or the electric field of a stationary charge.

I'm afraid not. It has become quite feasible to measure even very low-energy EMF and discern a measurable frequency with present-day spectography, or use signal-averaging to discern a characteristic frequency from background "noise".

I think the sharp-edged nature of the field indicates that the situation is more complicated than a single frequency. How can a radiating field at a single frequency produce a sharp boundary?

The apparent "sharp edge" would be the perimetre of maximum effect for the deflector shield envelope, where the field frequencies are at effective strength to interfere with incoming beams.

[ClaysGhost]

I'm afraid not. It has become quite feasible to measure even very low-energy EMF and discern a measurable frequency with present-day spectography, or use signal-averaging to discern a characteristic frequency from background "noise".

What is the characteristic frequency of a stationary electric charge's field, or of the magnetic field generated by a constant current?

The apparent "sharp edge" would be the perimetre of maximum effect for the deflector shield envelope, where the field frequencies are at effective strength to interfere with incoming beams.

Then the shield perimeter should shrink under fire, and different weapons should be stopped at different distances, shouldn't they?

[Patrick Degan]

I'm afraid not. It has become quite feasible to measure even very low-energy EMF and discern a measurable frequency with present-day spectography, or use signal-averaging to discern a characteristic frequency from background "noise".

What is the characteristic frequency of a stationary electric charge's field, or of the magnetic field generated by a constant current?

I'm not sure what the thrust of your question is, exactly. Even a stationary electrical charge must cycle between positive and negative poles and would therefore have frequency.

The apparent "sharp edge" would be the perimetre of maximum effect for the deflector shield envelope, where the field frequencies are at effective strength to interfere with incoming beams.

Then the shield perimeter should shrink under fire, and different weapons should be stopped at different distances, shouldn't they?

The first would appear to be what is usually associated with shield weakening and collapse. The second may explain why low-powered particle beams have little to no effect on the ship or its defences.

[ClaysGhost]

I'm not sure what the thrust of your question is, exactly. Even a stationary electrical charge must cycle between positive and negative poles and would
therefore have frequency.

I don't think that's so. Charge conservation at the very least. For example, the electrostatic charge built up by a Van de Graf generator doesn't cycle.

The first would appear to be what is usually associated with shield weakening and collapse. The second may explain why low-powered particle beams have
little to no effect on the ship or its defences.

I don't remember the first happening in TNG, at least. Either the shield seems to disappear, or it acquires a funky texture and then disappears. Can you
point me at some examples?

I thought that low powered weapons wouldn't pose a threat to the Enterprise because they're low powered.

[Patrick Degan]

I'm not sure what the thrust of your question is, exactly. Even a stationary electrical charge must cycle between positive and negative poles and would therefore have frequency.

I don't think that's so. Charge conservation at the very least. For example, the electrostatic charge built up by a Van de Graf generator doesn't cycle.

I have never heard of an electrical charge that doesn't pass between positive/negative poles, and these days, the term "static electricity" and "electrostatic" seems to be falling from favour as inaccurate descriptions. I found this at a rather interesting VDGf website:


http://www.amasci.com/emotor/vdgdesc.html#static

Q: DON'T THEY GENERATE STATIC ELECTRICITY?

A: Yes and no. A VDG machine is a "constant current source." It generates a small, nearly-unstoppable electric current, and if this current is blocked, extremely high levels of "electrical pressure" or potential will build up.

"Static electricity" is not electricity which is static and unmoving. Instead, "static" appears when opposite electric charges are widely separated from each other. But even this is not quite right, since batteries and coil-type generators create separated charges as well. Here's a better definition: "static electricity" is high voltage. For example, when you rub your head on a balloon, you create up to 50,000 volts between the balloon and your hair. More specifically, "static" is high voltage at low (or zero) current. So, since a VDG machine generates high voltage at low current, we COULD say that it generates "static." Myself, I prefer to avoid the term "static electricity" as much as possible because it is misleading. If we really mean "high voltage" then we should just say "high voltage," and eliminate the misleading talk
of "unmoving charges."

The first would appear to be what is usually associated with shield weakening and collapse. The second may explain why low-powered particle beams have little to no effect on the ship or its defences.

I don't remember the first happening in TNG, at least. Either the shield seems to disappear, or it acquires a funky texture and then disappears. Can you point me at some examples?

If you recall from Star Trek V: The Final Frontier and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, the shields deployed from the Enterprise in what appeared to be multiple layers. In the critical battle over Khitomer with Chang's BOP, Scotty reports shields weakening and one "layer" vanishes from the display. From that point, the ship suffers increasing hull thermal damage with each strike. I would suggest that these "layers" represent zones of effect which attenuate the energies of incoming weapons strikes prior to contact with the main boundary zone. However, if you remember "Yesterday's Enterprise", the parallel-time Enterprise was taking Klingon disruptor fire very close to the hull when her shields were much weakened and on the verge of total failure.

I thought that low powered weapons wouldn't pose a threat to the Enterprise because they're low powered.

If that were the case, it wouldn't be necessary to raise shields to protect the hull from the relatively weak bombardment from solar-flux radiation whenever the ship is close to a star's photosphere.

[Patrick Degan]

At this point, it would seem that an examination of Darth Wong's discussion on the nature of shields (under the Technology section of the main site) might be helpful in clarifying certain ideas.

[ClaysGhost]

I have never heard of an electrical charge that doesn't pass between positive/negative poles, and these days, the term "static electricity" and "electrostatic" seems to be falling from favour as inaccurate descriptions.

"Electrostatic" should frequently appear in decent references on electromagnetic fields. It is often the first chapter heading. Although the concept can be abused, I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea of an electrostatic situation.

Now, whatever happened to charge conservation? I have never heard of a charge in free space changing sign without cause. Do you say that this happens for every charge, have I understood your argument?

If so, how did Millikan's oil drop experiment work if charges constantly oscillate from positive to negative? The drops would oscillate about a point rather than travelling in one direction or the other. Is the electron positively or negatively charged, or does it oscillate from one to the other (presumably passing through zero charge twice every cycle, and having zero time-averaged charge, bizarrely)? Why can't I detect electrons by virtue of the light they'd give off if their charge oscillated?

I found this at a rather interesting VDGf website:

...

If you charge the dome and then shut off the belt drive you ideally have an electrostatic situation, with no current passing onto the dome. Usually, though, the charge will leak away from the dome through the air, in atmosphere. But running the belt at a sufficient speed to exactly balance this leakage current, or evacuating the air, would result in an electrostatic situation again. In no case is there oscillation of charges. When the belt is in operation, the charge density on the dome will increase although the field's angular shape will not, since the charges will redistribute themselves evenly over the dome. For the belt in operation, the constant current will generate a constant magnetic field. So the VDG either generates a magnetostatic field and a slowly increasing, angularly symmetric electrodynamic field, or it generates an electrostatic field and no magnetic field (all in the VDG's rest frame, obviously).

If you recall from Star Trek V: The Final Frontier and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, the shields deployed from the Enterprise in what appeared to be multiple layers. In the critical battle over Khitomer with Chang's BOP, Scotty reports shields weakening and one "layer" vanishes from the display. From that point, the ship suffers increasing hull thermal damage with each strike. I would suggest that these "layers" represent zones of effect which attenuate the energies of incoming weapons strikes prior to contact with the main boundary zone.

I suppose the devil's advocate position would be that this is just a schematic method of indicating shield strength. What if each layer on the screen represented 20% of shield function, or similar? As layers vanished and the shield weakened we'd still expect increased from successive strikes. Can we distinguish between a zone interpretation and schematic interpretation?

However, if you remember "Yesterday's Enterprise", the parallel-time Enterprise was taking Klingon disruptor fire very close to the hull when her shields were much weakened and on the verge of total failure.

Not well enough to recall that scene, I'm afraid. Although I'm somewhat convinced that the film evidence implies multiple shield zones, the zones failed in order, from the outermost inwards, if I remember correctly. I don't see any reason to expect that if the effectiveness of the zones against weapons varies.

If that were the case, it wouldn't be necessary to raise shields to protect the hull from the relatively weak bombardment from solar-flux radiation whenever the ship is close to a star's photosphere.

I assume you're not talking about the heavier particle radiation here (your statement about low-powered particle weapons not posing a threat), but the EM radiation (assuming the whole thing isn't a heat management issue, or a problem with immersing the ship in the Sun's high temperature plasma). In which case, why aren't lasers abundant amongst the enemies of the Federation? Phasers/disruptors can't be more effective, because the shields typically block them.

More generally: the behaviour of shields in many TV/film universes, ST, SW and others, confuses me. They block directed energy weapons but let through ambient light - they don't act as cloaking devices. And yet I can't see a reason why they shouldn't.

[Superman]

Blame Star Trek Voyager. I do.

[JodoForce]

Think by analogy of radio. Ever notice how sometimes, you get signal leakage from one station into another? Particularly if the two stations are close together on the frequency band. The only way the interference becomes noticeable is if the signal of the "leaking" station is being pumped out at considerable power, or if the strength of the other station is fading.

False analogy. The shield is supposed to STOP an energy wave from passing through, whereas a radio can tune into a single station frequency even when hundreds of other waves at different frequencies are around--unless the other station is too close in frequency and makes exact tuning difficult or even intrudes into the narrow modulation frequency range of the station. Or do you think that when you tune into a station, there's a shield that stops all other waves from hitting the radio?

You can't even hope to construct a shield with radio waves, since light waves cross over each other freely. No, the 'frequency' I am talking about is this: the shield oscillates in strength, and the frequency is the inverse of the time it takes for the shield to go through one cycle of its strength oscillation pattern. That's how Mike thinks of it too, and I'm saying that this way of thinking of it actually doesn't work. So we're looking for some other way of looking at it that *does* work, but your way of looking at it definitely doesn't work, either.

Also, the heat dissipation mechanism is part of the shield's operation, and does not help to reduce damage when the weapon 'matches the shield's phase'. Thus it doesn't seem to be a mechanism to fill in the gaps in the shield's strength, but a necessary part of the shield's operation even at peak strength.

Non-sequitor. If shields reflected away incoming energies, the phasing of either the incoming beam or the shield would be immaterial to the equation. Instead, incoming weapons fire seems to increase resistance in the shield's outbound energy signal, which translates into heat which must be disposed of. Since no type of energy output can be 100% continuous, there must be oscillation in the current-flow. Hence, frequency. Since this means, by definition, a shield which does not provide 100% resistance, some incoming energies will leak through whether phase-matching is in effect or not. Indeed, if the object is to penetrate the shields, the last thing the attacker should do is phase-match his weapon fire to the shield frequency of his target. Unless of course the attacker has enough sheer raw power available that shield frequencies are essentially meaningless (e.g. a starship's shields v. a Death Star blast).

I don't even know what's your point here Ok, not phase-match, phase-reverse, ok? You know how they are supposed to be 'matching' ST shield frequencies.. MY point with the part you quoted is that the heat dissipation of the shield cannot be counted into the amount of energy that has leaked through the shield, making the estimate for that amount even lower, and further away from the prediction from a conventional interpretation of frequencies.

[Patrick Degan]

I have never heard of an electrical charge that doesn't pass between positive/negative poles, and these days, the term "static electricity" and "electrostatic" seems to be falling from favour as inaccurate descriptions.

"Electrostatic" should frequently appear in decent references on electromagnetic fields. It is often the first chapter heading. Although the concept can be abused, I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea of an electrostatic situation.

Now, whatever happened to charge conservation? I have never heard of a charge in free space changing sign without cause. Do you say that this happens for every charge, have I understood your argument?

If so, how did Millikan's oil drop experiment work if charges constantly oscillate from positive to negative? The drops would oscillate about a point rather than travelling in one direction or the other. Is the electron positively or negatively charged, or does it oscillate from one to the other (presumably passing through zero charge twice every cycle, and having zero time-averaged charge, bizarrely)? Why can't I detect electrons by virtue of the light they'd give off if their charge oscillated?

All of this is not what either I or the article I quoted was talking about. I don't even know where the notion of charges spontaneously changing sign is coming from, since that has nothing to do with the electrostatic situation whatsoever.

However, if you remember "Yesterday's Enterprise", the parallel-time Enterprise was taking Klingon disruptor fire very close to the hull when her shields were much weakened and on the verge of total failure.

Not well enough to recall that scene, I'm afraid. Although I'm somewhat convinced that the film evidence implies multiple shield zones, the zones failed in order, from the outermost inwards, if I remember correctly. I don't see any reason to expect that if the effectiveness of the zones against weapons varies.

Think of it as the progressive loss of signal strength as the shield approaches failure.

If that were the case, it wouldn't be necessary to raise shields to protect the hull from the relatively weak bombardment from solar-flux radiation whenever the ship is close to a star's photosphere.

I assume you're not talking about the heavier particle radiation here (your statement about low-powered particle weapons not posing a threat), but the EM radiation (assuming the whole thing isn't a heat management issue, or a problem with immersing the ship in the Sun's high temperature plasma). In which case, why aren't lasers abundant amongst the enemies of the Federation? Phasers/disruptors can't be more effective, because the shields typically block them.

No, it's a question of particle bombardment as well as EM. However, the incidents involving the Enterprise as well as KL Hek'ta (Kurn's BOP in part 2 of "Redemption") did not place either ship within the plasma flows of a star.

As for why lasers are not a common weapon in the Trek universe, consider: A laser must burn through the hull of a target vessel with prolonged application, but a hull with a reflective outer layer and inner layers of heat-resistant composites would provide more than adequate protection for as long as two moving starships are likely to remain in line-of-sight contact with one another. This would not protect a ship against beam weapons based upon the exotic principle of inducing nucleonic chain-reactions in matter —such as phasers and disruptors.

More generally: the behaviour of shields in many TV/film universes, ST, SW and others, confuses me. They block directed energy weapons but let through ambient light - they don't act as cloaking devices. And yet I can't see a reason why they shouldn't.

That would be feasible only if shields were gravitic in nature. The Star Trek TNG Technical Manual tries to make this argument but the lack of effects associated with such enormous gravitational forces belies this.

[Patrick Degan]

Think by analogy of radio. Ever notice how sometimes, you get signal leakage from one station into another? Particularly if the two stations are close together on the frequency band. The only way the interference becomes noticeable is if the signal of the "leaking" station is being pumped out at considerable power, or if the strength of the other station is fading.

False analogy. The shield is supposed to STOP an energy wave from passing through, whereas a radio can tune into a single station frequency even when hundreds of other waves at different frequencies are around--unless the other station is too close in frequency and makes exact tuning difficult or even intrudes into the narrow modulation frequency range of the station. Or do you think that when you tune into a station, there's a shield that stops all other waves from hitting the radio?

Since the ship experiences physical effects and must dispose of excessive heat, it is clear that the shields are not simply blocking the incoming energy wave. The evidence of too many starship combats is indisputable in this regard. And no, I did not argue any such thing of a "shield" that stops all other radio waves.

You can't even hope to construct a shield with radio waves, since light waves cross over each other freely.

I wasn't arguing that either. Don't be obtuse.

No, the 'frequency' I am talking about is this: the shield oscillates in strength, and the frequency is the inverse of the time it takes for the shield to go through one cycle of its strength oscillation pattern. That's how Mike thinks of it too, and I'm saying that this way of thinking of it actually doesn't work. So we're looking for some other way of looking at it that *does* work, but your way of looking at it definitely doesn't work, either.

Unfortunately, this is exactly the way ST shields are depicted in operation, and that is what has to be dealt with.

If shields reflected away incoming energies, the phasing of either the incoming beam or the shield would be immaterial to the equation. Instead, incoming weapons fire seems to increase resistance in the shield's outbound energy signal, which translates into heat which must be disposed of. Since no type of energy output can be 100% continuous, there must be oscillation in the current-flow. Hence, frequency. Since this means, by definition, a shield which does not provide 100% resistance, some incoming energies will leak through whether phase-matching is in effect or not. Indeed, if the object is to penetrate the shields, the last thing the attacker should do is phase-match his weapon fire to the shield frequency of his target.

I don't even know what's your point here Ok, not phase-match, phase-reverse, ok? You know how they are supposed to be 'matching' ST shield frequencies.

Yes I do, which is why what's depicted in TNG is stupid.

MY point with the part you quoted is that the heat dissipation of the shield cannot be counted into the amount of energy that has leaked through the shield, making the estimate for that amount even lower, and further away from the prediction from a conventional interpretation of frequencies.

How do you have any sort of energy assault without an accompanying exothermic effect? And how does your explanation dispose of the evident physical effects upon a starship under attack?

[ClaysGhost]

All of this is not what either I or the article I quoted was talking about. I don't even know where the notion of charges spontaneously changing sign is coming from, since that has nothing to do with the electrostatic situation whatsoever.

Ah. can you clarify this:

I'm not sure what the thrust of your question is, exactly. Even a stationary electrical charge must cycle between positive and negative poles and would therefore have frequency.

I don't understand what you mean by that statement there. If I have an stationary charge distribution or a constant current distribution then they certainly give rise to static fields - frequency doesn't come into it. As for the rest, I think it is certainly relevant to electrostatics. I pointed out the circumstances under which a VdG has static electric and/or magnetic fields. A VdG does not produce an oscillating electric field that could be characterised by a frequency in any case.

Think of it as the progressive loss of signal strength as the shield approaches failure.

I suppose.

No, it's a question of particle bombardment as well as EM. However, the incidents involving the Enterprise as well as KL Hek'ta (Kurn's BOP in part 2 of "Redemption") did not place either ship within the plasma flows of a star.

I'm pretty sure that at least some of those ships were in the corona, and wasn't the Enterprise in a photosphere at one point?

As for why lasers are not a common weapon in the Trek universe, consider: A laser must burn through the hull of a target vessel with prolonged application, but a hull with a reflective outer layer and inner layers of heat-resistant composites would provide more than adequate protection for as long as two moving starships are likely to remain in line-of-sight contact with one another. This would not protect a ship against beam weapons based upon the exotic principle of inducing nucleonic chain-reactions in matter such as phasers and disruptors.

Well, this *is* frequency dependent. The reflective layers would be of minimal use against X-rays. The heat resistant composite might be more useful, but I'd really have to wonder if a material capable of absorbing the output of a laser driven by a AM/M reactor exists (I don't want to hear "neutronium" ). As for LOS issues, combat in Trek seems to consist of the protagonists sitting directly in front of each other and firing.

That would be feasible only if shields were gravitic in nature. The Star Trek TNG Technical Manual tries to make this argument but the lack of effects associated with such enormous gravitational forces belies this.

If a shield doesn't block ambient light, why can't I produce a laser that operates at, say, 500nm, cackle evilly and waste the lot of them? Who cares about matching shield frequencies if there's a whole bunch of frequencies left completely open in the optical band? They certainly don't have mirror hulls.

[Patrick Degan]

If I have an stationary charge distribution or a constant current distribution then they certainly give rise to static fields - frequency doesn't come into it. As for the rest, I think it is certainly relevant to electrostatics. I pointed out the circumstances under which a VdG has static electric and/or magnetic fields. A VdG does not produce an oscillating electric field that could be characterised by a frequency in any case.

I think somehow we are talking at cross-purposes here. The main characteristic of a "static" field is that positive and negative charges are held seperate from one another, and the present definitions of an electrostatic field reject the notion of unmoving charges. If charges are still in motion, then they must cycle.

No, it's a question of particle bombardment as well as EM. However, the incidents involving the Enterprise as well as KL Hek'ta (Kurn's BOP in part 2 of "Redemption") did not place either ship within the plasma flows of a star.

I'm pretty sure that at least some of those ships were in the corona, and wasn't the Enterprise in a photosphere at one point?

No, but a shuttlecraft with an experimental metaphasic shielding system was.

As for why lasers are not a common weapon in the Trek universe, consider: A laser must burn through the hull of a target vessel with prolonged application, but a hull with a reflective outer layer and inner layers of heat-resistant composites would provide more than adequate protection for as long as two moving starships are likely to remain in line-of-sight contact with one another. This would not protect a ship against beam weapons based upon the exotic principle of inducing nucleonic chain-reactions in matter such as phasers and disruptors.

Well, this *is* frequency dependent. The reflective layers would be of minimal use against X-rays. The heat resistant composite might be more useful, but I'd really have to wonder if a material capable of absorbing the output of a laser driven by a AM/M reactor exists (I don't want to hear "neutronium"). As for LOS issues, combat in Trek seems to consist of the protagonists sitting directly in front of each other and firing.

Even if you have a M/AM reactor on your spaceship, the laser emitter will have only a limited capacity as to how much power it could handle. The one advantage a M/AM reactor gives you is a lesser fuel-mass requirement than a thermofusion system, but that does not guarantee orders-of-magnitude increases in power capacity. And no, the ships don't simply sit nose to nose and blast away at one another —as far too many combats have depicted.

If a shield doesn't block ambient light, why can't I produce a laser that operates at, say, 500nm, cackle evilly and waste the lot of them? Who cares about matching shield frequencies if there's a whole bunch of frequencies left completely open in the optical band? They certainly don't have mirror hulls.

And how much power could you really pour through said beam and how long would it take to burn through the hull?

[ClaysGhost]

I think somehow we are talking at cross-purposes here.

Definitely.

The main characteristic of a "static" field is that positive and negative charges are held seperate from one another, and the present definitions of an electrostatic field reject the notion of unmoving charges.

Isn't the primary characteristic of a static field time invariance? How can you have an electrostatic field if the charges producing it are moving with respect to you? That may be a magnetostatic situation, if the currents are constant, but it's certainly not electrostatic. What is the present definition of an electrostatic field?

If charges are still in motion, then they must cycle.

What about a constant current? No charge is cycling there, the current direction is (obviously) constant. If I set an electron moving in a straight line at constant velocity with respect to me, how is it cycling?

I'm pretty sure that at least some of those ships were in the corona, and wasn't the Enterprise in a photosphere at one point?

No, but a shuttlecraft with an experimental metaphasic shielding system was.

What about I, Borg (I think) or Relics? Where were they then? (I thought the photosphere was explicitly mentioned in I, Borg, but I could be wrong).

Even if you have a M/AM reactor on your spaceship, the laser emitter will have only a limited capacity as to how much power it could handle.

That argument can apply to any weapon system - there are always limits. I don't think power output is plausibly going to render lasers ineffective, *unless* the hull is amazing - in which case other weapons will have troubles too. I don't think that Federation hulls have been demonstrated to be very amazing, as this website itself has pointed out.

The one advantage a M/AM reactor gives you is a lesser fuel-mass requirement than a thermofusion system, but that does not guarantee orders-of-magnitude increases in power capacity.

I think fusion would likely be sufficient, but certainly M/AM allows you far greater power production for the same fuel mass. Whether that gain goes into generating energy faster or providing increased endurance would depend on application, I'd guess.

And no, the ships don't simply sit nose to nose and blast away at one another, as far too many combats have depicted.

We're discussing a film in which they did just that! If we see that happen in many combat scenes, how can we say "It just doesn't happen". Apart from that, I can't think of an ST film where the protagonists shot past each other and out of view in fractions of a second. I don't remember seeing gone in sixty milliseconds type stuff. ST engagements seem typically to occur at very short range and low speed.

And how much power could you really pour through said beam and how long
would it take to burn through the hull?

This is getting into lasers vs. other weapons vs. mirrors, a topic that has been addressed in multiple threads on this board in the past. If you wish to continue this in depth, we could split the thread or pursue it through PM if people aren't keen on another lasers thread.

In regard to the point, it obviously depends on the hull materials. I will say that in my opinion, in general scifi overrates other particle weapons and underrates lasers (how many synchrotrons or linacs are used in industry to cut metal, vs. lasers used for that purpose?).

I also think that the advantages of a weapon that reliably ignores the enemy shields without any fanciness or frequency faffing must surely be desirable. The laser has to cut through the hull, but the phaser and everything else must deal with the shield as well as the hull. The Klingon disruptors seemed to have mediocre impact at best on the Ent-D. At the very least, scoring the shield grid with the laser might produce a gap for a torpedo to pass through.

[Patrick Degan]

The main characteristic of a "static" field is that positive and negative charges are held seperate from one another, and the present definitions of an electrostatic field reject the notion of unmoving charges.

Isn't the primary characteristic of a static field time invariance? How can you have an electrostatic field if the charges producing it are moving with respect to you? That may be a magnetostatic situation, if the currents are constant, but it's certainly not electrostatic. What is the present definition of an electrostatic field?

I guess it would depend upon which aspect you are looking at. If you're measuring voltage potential which is stored up, then time invariance is indeed the primary characteristic of the static field. If you're examining the behaviour of the charges within a capacitor or even the surface of a VDG machine, those charges will still be in motion within the field.

What about a constant current? No charge is cycling there, the current direction is (obviously) constant. If I set an electron moving in a straight line at constant velocity with respect to me, how is it cycling?

That is altogether different from an electrostatic field, is it not?

What about I, Borg (I think) or Relics? Where were they then? (I thought the photosphere was explicitly mentioned in I, Borg, but I could be wrong).

The Enterprise was hiding within the star's corona in "I Borg". In "Relics" the danger was of the ship falling into the Dyson sphere's primary until they managed to ease into close orbit. They also had to avoid a solar prominence.

Even if you have a M/AM reactor on your spaceship, the laser emitter will have only a limited capacity as to how much power it could handle.

That argument can apply to any weapon system - there are always limits. I don't think power output is plausibly going to render lasers ineffective, *unless* the hull is amazing - in which case other weapons will have troubles too. I don't think that Federation hulls have been demonstrated to be very amazing, as this website itself has pointed out.

True enough.

The one advantage a M/AM reactor gives you is a lesser fuel-mass requirement than a thermofusion system, but that does not guarantee orders-of-magnitude increases in power capacity.

I think fusion would likely be sufficient, but certainly M/AM allows you far greater power production for the same fuel mass. Whether that gain goes into generating energy faster or providing increased endurance would depend on application, I'd guess.

The problem however is mass efficency. Even if we grant the mass-lightening technologies which seem to be ubiquitous to ST, the problems associated with fuel mass and performance would have to be dealt with. Ships will still have to be engineered to have as little mass as possible in order to function over long periods of time with the greatest achievable efficency without having to dedicate 95% of the ship's mass as fuel. A M/AM-based propulsion system solves this problem to an extent.

We're discussing a film in which they did just that! If we see that happen in many combat scenes, how can we say "It just doesn't happen". Apart from that, I can't think of an ST film where the protagonists shot past each other and out of view in fractions of a second. I don't remember seeing gone in sixty milliseconds type stuff. ST engagements seem typically to occur at very short range and low speed.

Actually, both ships manoeuvered. That Riker incompetently allowed the Enterprise to wallow like a garbage scow, never varied either velocity or attitude, and did nothing whatsoever to make his ship a lesser target does not negate what has been typical in ST ship combats depicted on screen in most movies and television episodes.

And how much power could you really pour through said beam and how long would it take to burn through the hull?

I also think that the advantages of a weapon that reliably ignores the enemy shields without any fanciness or frequency faffing must surely be desirable. The laser has to cut through the hull, but the phaser and everything else must deal with the shield as well as the hull. The Klingon disruptors seemed to have mediocre impact at best on the Ent-D. At the very least, scoring the shield grid with the laser might produce a gap for a torpedo to pass through.

Unless the shields generate some sort of scattering effect which would disrupt a coherent beam, perhaps.

[ClaysGhost]

I guess it would depend upon which aspect you are looking at. If you're measuring voltage potential which is stored up, then time invariance is indeed the primary characteristic of the static field. If you're examining the behaviour of the charges within a capacitor or even the surface of a VDG machine, those charges will still be in motion within the field.

Thermal motion, yes. Bulk oscillation, no. If those charges oscillate in bulk you will end up with an oscillating field - the motions will not average out to produce a static electric field. Then the situation will no longer be electrostatic, nor magnetostatic, and the VDG will turn into a radio transmitter.

That is altogether different from an electrostatic field, is it not?

Constant current, magnetostatic. No oscillation is involved.

The Enterprise was hiding within the star's corona in "I Borg". In "Relics" the danger was of the ship falling into the Dyson sphere's primary until they managed to ease into close orbit. They also had to avoid a solar prominence.

I see.

The problem however is mass efficency. Even if we grant the mass-lightening technologies which seem to be ubiquitous to ST, the problems associated with fuel mass and performance would have to be dealt with. Ships will still have to be engineered to have as little mass as possible in order to function over long periods of time with the greatest achievable efficency without having to dedicate 95% of the ship's mass as fuel. A M/AM-based propulsion system solves this problem to an extent.

I never understood how mass-lightening would affect fuel requirements, as the mass ratio shouldn't be affected. But I agree that the endurance advantages of M/AM are significant.

Actually, both ships manoeuvered. That Riker incompetently allowed the Enterprise to wallow like a garbage scow, never varied either velocity or attitude, and did nothing whatsoever to make his ship a lesser target does not negate what has been typical in ST ship combats depicted on screen in most movies and television episodes.

I can't think of an ST film in which the manoeuvers were particularly violent, nor one in which the combatants flashed past each other to invisibility in seconds. Even in DS 9, combat seems to consist of relative velocities no greater than a few hundred kph. Ships have manoeuvered in all the films, true enough, but to the extent that a laser would have targetting difficulties? Surely any beam weapon with such loose targetting input would suffer efficiency penalties.

Unless the shields generate some sort of scattering effect which would disrupt a coherent beam, perhaps.

I think that would be some impressive scattering to cause significant problems, but I can offer no evidence against it.

[Patrick Degan]

I guess it would depend upon which aspect you are looking at. If you're measuring voltage potential which is stored up, then time invariance is indeed the primary characteristic of the static field. If you're examining the behaviour of the charges within a capacitor or even the surface of a VDG machine, those charges will still be in motion within the field.

Thermal motion, yes. Bulk oscillation, no. If those charges oscillate in bulk you will end up with an oscillating field - the motions will not average out to produce a static electric field. Then the situation will no longer be electrostatic, nor magnetostatic, and the VDG will turn into a radio transmitter.

I'm afraid I still disagree on this. My understanding is that all that "electrostatic" really means is that there is a "wide" seperation between charges, not that they are motionless. Motion must necessarily involve a time interval, even if it is a comparatively large one. Also, since no energy process can be 100% continuous, there must be intervals where the field strength varies, even in an electrostatic field or a continuous current.

The problem however is mass efficency. Even if we grant the mass-lightening technologies which seem to be ubiquitous to ST, the problems associated with fuel mass and performance would have to be dealt with. Ships will still have to be engineered to have as little mass as possible in order to function over long periods of time with the greatest achievable efficency without having to dedicate 95% of the ship's mass as fuel. A M/AM-based propulsion system solves this problem to an extent.

I never understood how mass-lightening would affect fuel requirements, as the mass ratio shouldn't be affected. But I agree that the endurance advantages of M/AM are significant.

If you're not pushing all that mass through space, you still would have to apply a proportional amount of energy to the ship to "lighten" its load. My guess is that, as the "mass-lightening" effect is only applying sufficent force to reduce or negate its gravitational effect upon the surrounding space/time, this operation would be less power-intensive than if the engines simply burned fuel directly to accelerate the ship through space. Granted, the whole concept is pretty dodgy.

Actually, both ships manoeuvered. That Riker incompetently allowed the Enterprise to wallow like a garbage scow, never varied either velocity or attitude, and did nothing whatsoever to make his ship a lesser target does not negate what has been typical in ST ship combats depicted on screen in most movies and television episodes.

I can't think of an ST film in which the manoeuvers were particularly violent, nor one in which the combatants flashed past each other to invisibility in seconds. Even in DS 9, combat seems to consist of relative velocities no greater than a few hundred kph. Ships have manoeuvered in all the films, true enough, but to the extent that a laser would have targetting difficulties? Surely any beam weapon with such loose targetting input would suffer efficiency penalties.

We've already seen how efficent weapons' targeting is in Star Trek; poor enough, for example, where Riker was able to evade a Borg tractor beam simply by turning the battle module hard to port in "Best Of Both Worlds (2)", where Locutus was fooled by the saucer module's antimatter fireworks show and couldn't find a small shuttlecraft in the same episode, and where the Defiant missed several times against the Lakota at close range in "Homefront". The warships in Trek seem to require fixed firing solutions rather than dynamic target-tracking to actually be able to score hits with any degree of reliability.

To address a point you raised earlier in regards to lasers being "underrated" as weapons in comparison to particle beams, the main reason would have to be the sheer amount of time it would take for a laser to burn through a hull plate, while a particle-beam breaks molecular bonds through high-velocity particle collision and thus renders the hull plate's material progressively brittle. In that sense, a particle-beam would be a "blasting" rather than a burning weapon and would get the job done quicker. Particularly against material which posseses a high thermal resistance.

[ClaysGhost]

I'm afraid I still disagree on this. My understanding is that all that "electrostatic" really means is that there is a "wide" seperation between charges, not that they are motionless. Motion must necessarily involve a time interval, even if it is a comparatively large one. Also, since no energy process can be 100% continuous, there must be intervals where the field strength varies, even in an electrostatic field or a continuous current.

For me, electrostatic -> time-invariant distribution of charge and magnetostatic -> time-invariant distribution of currents. A charge-separated system in which there was motion of the charges would lead me to classify it as electrodynamic, not electrostatic. Electrostatic and magnetostatic situations have direct consequences in Maxwell's equations, whereas I don't think a criterion based purely on charge separation does.

Now, the continuity argument; when some current or charge distribution is altered there will be time-dependent behaviour, but these transients will die out over time after the intial event (probably, but not necessarily quite rapidly). In general the transients will not be characterised by a single frequency but a continuous range of them.

If you're not pushing all that mass through space, you still would have to apply a proportional amount of energy to the ship to "lighten" its load. My guess is that, as the "mass-lightening" effect is only applying sufficent force to reduce or negate its gravitational effect upon the surrounding space/time, this operation would be less power-intensive than if the engines simply burned fuel directly to accelerate the ship through space. Granted, the whole concept is pretty dodgy.

I don't think I understand. Its gravitational influence should be minimal in any case. Most of the work done must be accounted for by simply pushing propellant. Anyway, lightening the ship's mass should lighten the available fuel, which would reduce the energy available from annihilation!

We've already seen how efficent weapons' targeting is in Star Trek; poor enough, for example, where Riker was able to evade a Borg tractor beam simply by turning the battle module hard to port in "Best Of Both Worlds (2)", where Locutus was fooled by the saucer module's antimatter fireworks show and couldn't find a small shuttlecraft in the same episode, and where the Defiant missed several times against the Lakota at close range in "Homefront". The warships in Trek seem to require fixed firing solutions rather than dynamic target-tracking to actually be able to score hits with any degree of reliability.

Yes, targetting often appears poor (and sometimes, very good). But why would that mitigate against lasers as weapons? Phasers are beam weapons too, and yet are extensively used, even relied upon over torpedos in some situations.

To address a point you raised earlier in regards to lasers being "underrated" as weapons in comparison to particle beams, the main reason would have to be the sheer amount of time it would take for a laser to burn through a hull plate, while a particle-beam breaks molecular bonds through high-velocity particle collision and thus renders the hull plate's material progressively brittle. In that sense, a particle-beam would be a "blasting" rather than a burning weapon and would get the job done quicker. Particularly against material which posseses a high thermal resistance.

For lasers: the effects of the laser depend strongly on wavelength. At shorter wavelengths the damage will become very non-thermal, ionisation, some transmission through the plating, etc. At very high intensities the damage will also become non-thermal. However, as far as thermal effects go, I think the point about industrial cutting remains. It's not particle beams, but lasers that are being used in industry and starting to appear as military devices.

For particle beams: the problems with them are that accelerators have very poor efficiency, take ages to build up energy (when synchrotrons are used) are enormous, and don't produce very high luminosities at the end of it all. Witness the free-electron laser; fed by a particle accelerator, the FEL has the worst efficiency of any laser I'm aware of, although it does have certain interesting abilities. I'm also unconvinced that the beam divergence of even a neutral particle weapon could ever be particularly impressive.