Replicators?

zombie84 · Post by **zombie84** » 2003-10-08 05:02pm

Okay im not really into ST so this may get laughed at from the Trekkies here but just how the hell do the food replicators work? I dont really follow the television series' anymore but on TNG they could just order anything in those replicators that everyone had in their quarters and it would just materialize right before their eyes. How the hell is this possible? Couldnt they just use the same technology to make ships and weapons--you could have a whole fleet in seconds! I was thinking that maybe it only works with organic substances but the stupid thing creates cups and dishes when Picard orders his Tea. How exactly do these things work? It seems to stretch the whole technology thing.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2003-10-08 05:11pm

They take foodstuff from containers in a cargobay and rearrange it's structure into whatever food a person wants.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-10-08 05:51pm

Aya wrote:They take foodstuff from containers in a cargobay and rearrange it's structure into whatever food a person wants.

No. Replicators take a specific element that it can use to convert into any other source (or so it seems). They also can break down waste material and use it to reconvert back into usable form.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2003-10-08 05:54pm

Alyeska wrote:
Aya wrote:They take foodstuff from containers in a cargobay and rearrange it's structure into whatever food a person wants.
No. Replicators take a specific element that it can use to convert into any other source (or so it seems). They also can break down waste material and use it to reconvert back into usable form.

Considering I was recalling that from a post or part of Mikes website months ago, I'd say I was pretty close.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-10-08 05:56pm

Can replicators turn one element in to another? Like make gold out of lead or something like that?

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2003-10-08 06:00pm

Sir Sirius wrote:Can replicators turn one element in to another? Like make gold out of lead or something like that?

I remember this much. It can't. If it could, then latinum could be completely useless, as anyone could simply turn any kind of metal into it.

Jawawithagun · Post by **Jawawithagun** » 2003-10-08 06:12pm

and of course it can't generate living matter, so stuff like yoghurt and types of cheese or other stuff which requires living microorganisms is out of order. fucking things can't even generate gagh.

El Moose Monstero · Post by **El Moose Monstero** » 2003-10-08 06:21pm

Jawawithagun wrote:and of course it can't generate living matter, so stuff like yoghurt and types of cheese or other stuff which requires living microorganisms is out of order. fucking things can't even generate gagh.

It's ok, everyone on Star Trek is an athiest. They don't believe in Cheeses...

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2003-10-08 06:32pm

from the star trek database:

They couldn't replicate a vaccine in TNG "Code of Honor." The nanites in TNG "Evolution" are built in a plant in Dakar Senegal, implying they can't be replicated. Enterprise has to stop by a starbase for new dilithium crystals in TNG "Booby Trap," so they must not be able to replicate them. Worf's blood couldn't be replicated in TNG "The Enemy." The list also includes dicosillium, caviar (accurately,) hytritium, chlorinide, and biomimetic gel. TNG "Data's Day" tells us that replicators produce "single-bit errors," also seen in TNG "The Mind's Eye" where they can identify the different molecular "fingerprint" of a Romulan replicator.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-10-08 07:51pm

Jawawithagun wrote:and of course it can't generate living matter, so stuff like yoghurt and types of cheese or other stuff which requires living microorganisms is out of order. fucking things can't even generate gagh.

"Encounter at Farpoint" gives the impression that the holodecks replicate plant life.

"Much of it is real, sir. If the transporters can convert our bodies to an energy beam, and back to the original pattern..."
"Yes, of course, and these rocks and vegetation have much simpler patterns."
"Correct, sir."

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-10-08 09:33pm

Keep in mind that for most of season one, they really didn't know what they hell they were doing.

Macross · Post by **Macross** » 2003-10-08 10:55pm

I think it depends on the complexity of the object or material. The more complex the object, the harder it is to replicate. You can replicate some of the tools and some materials needed to build a starship, but not an entire starship all at once.

Crazedwraith · Post by **Crazedwraith** » 2003-10-09 08:26am

Aya wrote:
Sir Sirius wrote:Can replicators turn one element in to another? Like make gold out of lead or something like that?
I remember this much. It can't. If it could, then latinum could be completely useless, as anyone could simply turn any kind of metal into it.

They can replicate gold though. hich why in "Who moruns for Mourn?" Quark finds his gold pressed latuinum deained of latnuim and goes "gold all worthless gold"

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-10-13 11:56pm

And yet the word "gold" perked up Quarks ears in that episode where he travelled back to 1947 New Mexico and was negotiating with the U.S. Army for things. If it were "useless" I doubt he would have been so enthusiastic.

Yet another Trek Contradiction

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-10-14 01:20am

Originally, in TOS, they had food synthesisers and fabricators; two seperate systems that functioned more or less in similar manner. The food synthesisers would take stored foodstuff materials and combine them —perhaps through a molecular assembly process based on their transporter technology— into various meat, vegetable, dairy, or cereal products which came out in the form of coloured wedgies on the plates. Similar to meal bars, I'd guess. Beverages would come from seperate liquid storage tanks. Since the episode "Charlie X" mentions a ship's galley, presumably there was some sort of intermediate stage whereby meals and hot beverages like coffee would be heated for serving before being delivered via the ubiquitous wall-slots, which I'd surmise were actually dual-station utility transporters on a closed circuit. The episode "And The Children Shall Lead" demonstrated that ice cream products could be produced in the system as well, and the flavour blends were coded onto data wafers fed into the synthesiser's input reader. "The Trouble With Tribbles" and "The Corbomite Maneuver" showed that sliced bread for sandwiches and leafy vegetables were also available through the system, so some actual foodstuffs were also carried aboard the Enterprise.

The food synthesiser was not a replicator in the same sense as the device on TNG. It appeared to be able only to combine materials in already preexisting forms and only according to a select menu of combinations which were encoded as hard data, and had to work through at least two intermediate mechanical processes between data entry of the order and delivery of the finished meal to a wall slot. There was variety of selection, but nowhere near the sort of gourmet menu which the TNG-era system seems capable of delivering.

The fabricators presumably were responsible for the production of all the nonorganic materiél utilised by the crew; from uniforms to native clothing for landing party expeditions to various tools and parts. Similar in principle to the food synthesiser, this system would of course draw from various nonorganic stores aboard ship; metals, sillicates, carbons, plastics, composites, synthetic fibres. Logically, there would be a seperate fabrication system for items composed of the aforementioned types of materials which would "build" tools, clothing, replacement parts molecularly —also according to a preselected menu of forms encoded as hard data.

Both the food synthesisers and the fabricators would run off their own basic control computers which would have no link to the master computer system of the ship, for which there is no real purpose. Essentially, it was little more than a more exotic mechanical production system which was fed by preselected stored materials.

The TNG replicator, by contrast, really is a goofy-talk device. It stretches the concept of the transporter to the breaking point by suggesting that you can just transmute random matter into any form you wish, then contradicts this premise whenever the writers need for there to be something for the crew to be unable to produce on their own to set up the hoops the characters need to jump through for an hour.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-10-14 02:06am

Crazedwraith wrote:
Aya wrote:
Sir Sirius wrote:Can replicators turn one element in to another? Like make gold out of lead or something like that?
I remember this much. It can't. If it could, then latinum could be completely useless, as anyone could simply turn any kind of metal into it.
They can replicate gold though. hich why in "Who moruns for Mourn?" Quark finds his gold pressed latuinum deained of latnuim and goes "gold all worthless gold"

He goes on to say to Morn at the end that there are some places that still value gold.

Did that time travel episode occur before or after "Who mourns for Morn?"

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2003-10-14 09:08am

The_Lumberjack wrote:
Jawawithagun wrote:and of course it can't generate living matter, so stuff like yoghurt and types of cheese or other stuff which requires living microorganisms is out of order. fucking things can't even generate gagh.
It's ok, everyone on Star Trek is an athiest. They don't believe in Cheeses...

Worst. Pun. Ever.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-10-14 09:30am

neoolong wrote:Did that time travel episode occur before or after "Who mourns for Morn?"

About 3 seasons before.

I think it is stated somewhere that GPL cannot be replicated.

MrAnderson · Post by **MrAnderson** » 2003-10-14 01:15pm

It really is quite simple.

TOFU

In the future ST discovers a manner to sort of kinda almost works use tofu as a base for all foodstuff one must eat. So the ships hold is full of thousands of tons of tofu that is trekified into horrible imitations of real food.

It even fits in with the pussified PC world that ST is now.

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2003-10-14 10:27pm

beyond hope wrote:from the star trek database:

They couldn't replicate a vaccine in TNG "Code of Honor." The nanites in TNG "Evolution" are built in a plant in Dakar Senegal, implying they can't be replicated. Enterprise has to stop by a starbase for new dilithium crystals in TNG "Booby Trap," so they must not be able to replicate them. Worf's blood couldn't be replicated in TNG "The Enemy." The list also includes dicosillium, caviar (accurately,) hytritium, chlorinide, and biomimetic gel. TNG "Data's Day" tells us that replicators produce "single-bit errors," also seen in TNG "The Mind's Eye" where they can identify the different molecular "fingerprint" of a Romulan replicator.

Wouldn't a vaccine be comprised of weakened, but still living, microbes? There are also supposedly elements in warp coils that can't be replicated.

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2003-10-15 01:33am

Metrion Cascade wrote:
beyond hope wrote:from the star trek database:

They couldn't replicate a vaccine in TNG "Code of Honor." The nanites in TNG "Evolution" are built in a plant in Dakar Senegal, implying they can't be replicated. Enterprise has to stop by a starbase for new dilithium crystals in TNG "Booby Trap," so they must not be able to replicate them. Worf's blood couldn't be replicated in TNG "The Enemy." The list also includes dicosillium, caviar (accurately,) hytritium, chlorinide, and biomimetic gel. TNG "Data's Day" tells us that replicators produce "single-bit errors," also seen in TNG "The Mind's Eye" where they can identify the different molecular "fingerprint" of a Romulan replicator.
Wouldn't a vaccine be comprised of weakened, but still living, microbes? There are also supposedly elements in warp coils that can't be replicated.

Depends on the vaccine in question. Some use live (but greatly weakened) microbes and others simply the relevant portion of the bug needed to incite the immune system to react and make antibodies. Vaccines also exist which are entirely synthetic (used as a treatment for melanoma, for example.)

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2003-10-15 02:38am

beyond hope wrote:
Metrion Cascade wrote:
beyond hope wrote:from the star trek database:

They couldn't replicate a vaccine in TNG "Code of Honor." The nanites in TNG "Evolution" are built in a plant in Dakar Senegal, implying they can't be replicated. Enterprise has to stop by a starbase for new dilithium crystals in TNG "Booby Trap," so they must not be able to replicate them. Worf's blood couldn't be replicated in TNG "The Enemy." The list also includes dicosillium, caviar (accurately,) hytritium, chlorinide, and biomimetic gel. TNG "Data's Day" tells us that replicators produce "single-bit errors," also seen in TNG "The Mind's Eye" where they can identify the different molecular "fingerprint" of a Romulan replicator.
Wouldn't a vaccine be comprised of weakened, but still living, microbes? There are also supposedly elements in warp coils that can't be replicated.
Depends on the vaccine in question. Some use live (but greatly weakened) microbes and others simply the relevant portion of the bug needed to incite the immune system to react and make antibodies. Vaccines also exist which are entirely synthetic (used as a treatment for melanoma, for example.)

Okay. It also bears mentioning that Trek routinely has scenes where people are "inoculated" against various forms of radiation.

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2003-10-15 04:25am

Without getting into the issue of all the wierd forms of radiation prevalent in Trek, tumor cells resistant to ionizing radiation exist. Why you'd call giving someone an injection to increase their radiation resistance "inoculating" them is anyone's guess (since we can't use the real-world "the writers have no clue" reason.) Perhaps the definition has shifted over time.

Tragic · Post by **Tragic** » 2003-10-15 09:06am

Do any of you know the sentence "I don't know"? Thats all you have to say rather than sit thier trying to sound all technical. sheeh

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-10-15 10:22am

Tragic wrote:Do any of you know the sentence "I don't know"? Thats all you have to say rather than sit thier trying to sound all technical. sheeh

Why the show clearly defines the object and how the in-universe mechanism work...whether you want to actually figure out why certain items comes to be does not mean you do not know how said object works.