StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Couldn't find anything consistent upon this subject, so I ask you

What are the differences between this two power sources? Which one is more efficient? If they are so different, how it comes that the most efficient one isn't addopted by the other side?

Well, I think I knew some things:

-A romulan QS can't be shut down, so is on or destroyed.
-A A/AM reactor is more safe in theory, but the stupidy of federation engeneers nullify this advantage with thier bizzare security-concepts.

QS reactors should be able to process ALL kind of matter.

HRogge wrote:QS reactors should be able to process ALL kind of matter.

Does that mean they don't have to carry around highly explosive anti-matter for fuel?

PackMule wrote:

HRogge wrote:QS reactors should be able to process ALL kind of matter.

Does that mean they don't have to carry around highly explosive anti-matter for fuel?

just by absorbing matter you can get a matter energy conversion of ~ 30% for a spinning black hole ( that's what nature use for energy production in active galactic nuclei ).

If you can even use the Hawkinsradiation, you would get a 100% matter energy conversion I think.

Why the fuck hasn't the Federation adopted this tech?

Then why didn't the other powers in Alpha quadrant adopt the same power source? Was it a secret so well kept? In safety concerns, to contain a QS looks to me the same chalenge as preventing a warp core breach.

Could the maintaing of M/AM reaction have a connection with the entire weapon technology of the Federation? As far as I know, the torpedo technology is based on M/AM, right?

Aya wrote:Why the fuck hasn't the Federation adopted this tech?

Because they've never captured a Romulan starship with a functional QS drive intact or been able to reverse engineer it, would be my guess.

Comosicus wrote:Then why didn't the other powers in Alpha quadrant adopt the same power source? Was it a secret so well kept? In safety concerns, to contain a QS looks to me the same chalenge as preventing a warp core breach.

Could the maintaing of M/AM reaction have a connection with the entire weapon technology of the Federation? As far as I know, the torpedo technology is based on M/AM, right?

Photorps for sure. Quantorps, no idea. Theories range from the TM explanation to black-holes to Mike Wong's "photon torpedoes set to blue".

How explosive are these QS? I can't seem to recall any explosions of Romulan Warbirds - I know that I have seen them but my memory fails me.

We all know how easily warp cores explode because of the lack of safteys

So do Warbirds stand up better in battle because they won't explode the momment someone looks at them funny?

(Its been about 3 years since I watched any TNG/DS9)

So do Warbirds stand up better in battle because they won't explode the momment someone looks at them funny?

Romulan Warbirds are stronger than Federation Galaxies.

PackMule wrote:How explosive are these QS? I can't seem to recall any explosions of Romulan Warbirds - I know that I have seen them but my memory fails me.

I think I saw a Warbird explode in Contagion.

When you forget to feed more matter to a black hole the loss of mass to Hawking radiation outpaces its growth, so it shrinks. Hawking radiation is faster with smaller black holes. This leads to positive feedback - the hole gets smaller and that makes it shrink faster until there's nothing left. When this happens all the black hole's mass rapidly turns into energy. Ouch.
This is a possible reason why you can't turn off a QS core. Kaboom when you try. A Warp core, on the other hand, does not explode when you run out of gas.

Raxmei wrote:

PackMule wrote:How explosive are these QS? I can't seem to recall any explosions of Romulan Warbirds - I know that I have seen them but my memory fails me.

I think I saw a Warbird explode in Contagion.

When you forget to feed more matter to a black hole the loss of mass to Hawking radiation outpaces its growth, so it shrinks. Hawking radiation is faster with smaller black holes. This leads to positive feedback - the hole gets smaller and that makes it shrink faster until there's nothing left. When this happens all the black hole's mass rapidly turns into energy. Ouch.
This is a possible reason why you can't turn off a QS core. Kaboom when you try. A Warp core, on the other hand, does not explode when you run out of gas.

The Warbird did not explode in "Contagion". Picard feared thay the virus infected computer system on the Warbird may fail casuing the quantum singularity to destabilize. Whether it happened is unclear since the Enterprise warped away from the Warbird.

Raxmei wrote:

PackMule wrote:How explosive are these QS? I can't seem to recall any explosions of Romulan Warbirds - I know that I have seen them but my memory fails me.

I think I saw a Warbird explode in Contagion.

That was the Yamato. One of the best explosions in Trek.

Aya wrote:

Raxmei wrote:

PackMule wrote:How explosive are these QS? I can't seem to recall any explosions of Romulan Warbirds - I know that I have seen them but my memory fails me.

I think I saw a Warbird explode in Contagion.

That was the Yamato. One of the best explosions in Trek.

I think the Oddysy explosion looked better.

Raxmei wrote:When you forget to feed more matter to a black hole the loss of mass to Hawking radiation outpaces its growth, so it shrinks. Hawking radiation is faster with smaller black holes. This leads to positive feedback - the hole gets smaller and that makes it shrink faster until there's nothing left. When this happens all the black hole's mass rapidly turns into energy. Ouch.
This is a possible reason why you can't turn off a QS core. Kaboom when you try. A Warp core, on the other hand, does not explode when you run out of gas.

A black hole with a mass of 1E6 kg would release the equivalent of ~ 20000 Gigatons of TNT within 0.013 seconds.

Raxmei wrote:

PackMule wrote:How explosive are these QS? I can't seem to recall any explosions of Romulan Warbirds - I know that I have seen them but my memory fails me.

I think I saw a Warbird explode in Contagion.

The self destruct was activated by the virus.

Contation wrote:DATA'S COM VOICE
Yes, sir.
(a beat)
Captain, sensors picking up a
large explosion on the surface
of Iconia. It is equivalent to
a force twelve hydrogen explosion.
Blast radius is nine hundred
kilometers.

This is the only thing we have about it,

evilcat4000 wrote:I think the Oddysy explosion looked better.

I dunno. Yeah, graphically it was superior, but the Odyssey's wrecked saucer flies by just too damn fast. By comparison, we get a nice long look at the burning saucer of Yamato.

So maybe each side thought it's better to continue with the current solutions ? or the two power sources are pretty equivalent in terms of performance and risks so that to switch to a different way it's too damn difficult?

Comosicus wrote:So maybe each side thought it's better to continue with the current solutions ? or the two power sources are pretty equivalent in terms of performance and risks so that to switch to a different way it's too damn difficult?

If a switch was to take place surly it wouldn't be a massive upgrade to the entire fleet. I would imagine the design would be implemented on new ships and phased in over 50 years or so.

evilcat4000 wrote:

So do Warbirds stand up better in battle because they won't explode the momment someone looks at them funny?

Romulan Warbirds are stronger than Federation Galaxies.

Maybe in terms of frontal firepower (frontal, not overall). But nobody has demonstrated any other advantages they have over Galaxies tactically. We know they're not as fast (TNG "Tin Man"), and they have lousy weapons coverage - most or all of it is forward. And the Warbird's hull is a structural nightmare. You might wanna clarify what you mean by "stronger."

Metrion Cascade wrote:

evilcat4000 wrote:

So do Warbirds stand up better in battle because they won't explode the momment someone looks at them funny?

Romulan Warbirds are stronger than Federation Galaxies.

Maybe in terms of frontal firepower (frontal, not overall). But nobody has demonstrated any other advantages they have over Galaxies tactically. We know they're not as fast (TNG "Tin Man"), and they have lousy weapons coverage - most or all of it is forward. And the Warbird's hull is a structural nightmare. You might wanna clarify what you mean by "stronger."

The Warbird has greater forward firepower the Galaxy, three times greater according to some estimates. Their shields are probobly equal or slightly stronger than a Galaxy. However the Warbirds terrible maneverability and lack of weapons cioverage in any other arc except forward means it is vulunerable to fast moving ships that can attack from behind.

EDIT : Major typo fixed.

evilcat4000 wrote:Their shields are probobly equal or slightly stronger than a Galaxy.

I'd be more inclined to say that their shields are on parity such that whichever starship gets the first volley in will probably be the victor, because otherwise the Warbirds throughout TNG would have always been at such an advantage that they would have never needed to be concerned about retaliation from the Enterprise at all.

I think this should have been the battle in Generations: Picard and Tomalak finally engaging in battle on their respective starships.

Uraniun235 wrote:

evilcat4000 wrote:Their shields are probobly equal or slightly stronger than a Galaxy.

I'd be more inclined to say that their shields are on parity such that whichever starship gets the first volley in will probably be the victor, because otherwise the Warbirds throughout TNG would have always been at such an advantage that they would have never needed to be concerned about retaliation from the Enterprise at all.

not the Romulan mindset. They don't like to just all of a sudden attack, because that would all of a sudden throw away many possible options that would take less resources. Why spontaneously declare war on the Federation and raise their alerts when your spies can infiltrate their organizations and get valuable tech instead?