Star Trek chemical bonds

Hethrir · Post by **Hethrir** » 2004-01-10 10:01am

I was having a chat to this dude at work about Treknobabble, and he seemed think that the reason "Dilithium" was a possible molecule is because the "di" part is refering to a subspace bond, hence why it can power the warp drives.

Has anyone else ever heard that before??

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » 2004-01-10 01:45pm

First I've heard of it. Please tell your friend that throwing the word "subspace" into a solution is the hallmark of Treknobabble. Oh, and tell him that explanation is stupid. How can two identical atoms have a "subspace" bond? What the hell is that?

Good use of Treknobabble, though.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-01-10 02:10pm

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

oh wow...now there's a poor use of Chemistry.

Di- refers to containing two atoms, radials or groups....thus DiOxide nothing about subspace bonding or what not.

That is poor use of Treknobabble.

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2004-01-10 04:10pm

Ghost Rider wrote:BWAHAHAHAHAHA
Di- refers to containing two atoms, radials or groups....thus DiOxide nothing about subspace bonding or what not.

The most accepted theory in Trek circles is that "di" and "tri" that refer to transperiodic versions of the named material, thus "dilithium" would be the third element in the second periodic table and "trilithium" would be the third element in the third periodic table.

This would explain the unusual properties of dilithium (white crystal, transparent to AM when exposed to certain EM field frequencies), trilithium (fusion inhibitor), and tricolbalt (primary component of certain conventonal and subspace based warheads) when compared to standard lithium and colbalt.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2004-01-10 07:14pm

I was under the impression that they were just isotopes.

Hethrir · Post by **Hethrir** » 2004-01-11 12:03am

Matt Huang wrote:The most accepted theory in Trek circles is that "di" and "tri" that refer to transperiodic versions of the named material, thus "dilithium" would be the third element in the second periodic table and "trilithium" would be the third element in the third periodic table.

This would explain the unusual properties of dilithium (white crystal, transparent to AM when exposed to certain EM field frequencies), trilithium (fusion inhibitor), and tricolbalt (primary component of certain conventonal and subspace based warheads) when compared to standard lithium and colbalt.

That's basically what he said, but subspace was also thrown in. I'll ask him for an offical source.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-11 12:36am

There is no known molecule of lithium called dilithium. It is a technobabble term made up by Star Trek writters.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-01-11 12:44am

Dilithium occurs naturally, and forms crystals... it isn't dangerous to handle and doesn't require treknobabble to sustain. This really prohibits any left-field ideas on its nature, unless the ST-verse is fundamentaly different from ours.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-01-11 05:35am

Stark wrote:Dilithium occurs naturally, and forms crystals... it isn't dangerous to handle and doesn't require treknobabble to sustain. This really prohibits any left-field ideas on its nature, unless the ST-verse is fundamentaly different from ours.

Personally I'ld say ST-verse is definitely fundamentaly different from ours.

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2004-01-12 11:08pm

ggs wrote:
Stark wrote:Dilithium occurs naturally, and forms crystals... it isn't dangerous to handle and doesn't require treknobabble to sustain. This really prohibits any left-field ideas on its nature, unless the ST-verse is fundamentaly different from ours.
Personally I'ld say ST-verse is definitely fundamentaly different from ours.

If a few ounces of antimatter can blow away a planetary atmosphere on a small planetoid with earth-like environmental conditions (similar g and atmospheric conditions), there's definitely some fundamental differences.

Enola Straight · Post by **Enola Straight** » 2004-01-21 12:38am

"Dilithium "crystals are not pure dilithium, but a compound :

2<5>6dilithium2<:>1diallosilicate1:9:1heptoferranide

Subjected to a high frequency EM field in the megawatt range, the crystal becomes transparent/porous to anti-deuterium.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-21 02:34am

ggs wrote:
Stark wrote:Dilithium occurs naturally, and forms crystals... it isn't dangerous to handle and doesn't require treknobabble to sustain. This really prohibits any left-field ideas on its nature, unless the ST-verse is fundamentaly different from ours.
Personally I'ld say ST-verse is definitely fundamentaly different from ours.

Or its not different. Maybe computerization saw a drastic decline in the quality of education and the social promotion of incomprehensible technobabble.

Rev Prez

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-21 03:43am

revprez wrote:
ggs wrote:
Stark wrote:Dilithium occurs naturally, and forms crystals... it isn't dangerous to handle and doesn't require treknobabble to sustain. This really prohibits any left-field ideas on its nature, unless the ST-verse is fundamentaly different from ours.
Personally I'ld say ST-verse is definitely fundamentaly different from ours.
Or its not different. Maybe computerization saw a drastic decline in the quality of education and the social promotion of incomprehensible technobabble.

Rev Prez

If someone of 1850s viewed a todays TV show based on a modern day warship it would appear as technobabble to them. Star Trek writters therefore introduced a lot of technobabble into the story to make the audience feel the same way and create the illusion that they were actualy watching a real 24th century starship.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-01-21 07:35am

evilcat4000 wrote:If someone of 1850s viewed a todays TV show based on a modern day warship it would appear as technobabble to them. Star Trek writters therefore introduced a lot of technobabble into the story to make the audience feel the same way and create the illusion that they were actualy watching a real 24th century starship.

If someone in the 1850s with a knowledge of chemical bonding watched Star Trek, they'd laugh. If the ST-verse has fundamental differences then you're essentially saying no scientifically useful conclusions can be drawn from it, because we don't know how it works. Which is fine, but means everything ST is totally useless for a debate.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-21 08:56am

If someone in the 1850s with a knowledge of chemical bonding watched Star Trek, they'd laugh. If the ST-verse has fundamental differences then you're essentially saying no scientifically useful conclusions can be drawn from it, because we don't know how it works. Which is fine, but means everything ST is totally useless for a debate.

That is the point. Technobabble has no basis in science so we cant draw any conclusion from it.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2004-01-23 11:40am

"Second periodic table"...?

"Third periodic table"....?

Is there a handy treknobabble dictionary somewhere? I've been watching the show for 30 years, but I don't hang out much with fanboys, and frankly, they might as well be speaking L33T as far as this old fogey is concerned.

(Some days, I feel so old....)

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2004-01-23 11:41am

Well, the traknobabble solution for that should be interesting.....

Post by **Broomstick** » 2004-01-24 07:10am

It will certainly involve touch screens.