HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Beyond Infinity
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:55:50 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

GLETTY@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu ("Bruce E. Gletty") writes:
<In article <8191@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>
<hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson) writes:
< 
<>melvin@alien.enet.dec.com writes:
<>>
<><hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson) writes...
<><>
<><>BEYOND warp 10 would imply time travel.  You would have to get there
<><>even FASTER -- meaing you get to point B BEFORE you leave point A.
<><>
<><
<><What about the travel through the worm hole, by Geordi and Data?  What was the
<><speed there (distance/time)?
<><
<><What about Q when he took the Enterprise to its first meeting with the Borg
<><ship?
<><
<><What about Barclay taking the Enterprise 30,000 light years in a small amount
<><of time?
<><
<><What about The Traveler taking the Enterprise where "NO one has gone before"?
<><
<><
<><The numbers you gave would fit WARP technology, but given other techniques,
<><those numbers might not be applicable.
<><
<><-Joe
<>
<>In each of those cases you can discribe thier speed as some warp factor
<>between warp 9 and warp 10 (if we knew what the actual warp equation was).
<>So what's your point?
<>
<Actually, warp 10 is not infinite speed. The federation warp engines become
<less and less efficient at higher warp, and warp 10 would take infinite
<power. Maybe Q and the traveller had a more efficient warp mechanism.

From the tech manual, page 56- "Even if it were possible to expend the
theoretically infinite amount of energy required, an object at Warp 10
would be traveling infinitely fast, occupying all points in the universe 
simultaneously."

I say it should be occupying all points IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL at the
same time. But anyway, according to the tech manual, warp 10 is infinite.

-Jay
From: melvin@alien.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Beyond Infinity
Date: 31 Aug 92 05:38:15 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <8172@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>, hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson) writes...
> 
>BEYOND warp 10 would imply time travel.  You would have to get there 
>even FASTER -- meaing you get to point B BEFORE you leave point A.
> 

What about the travel through the worm hole, by Geordi and Data?  What was the
speed there (distance/time)?

What about Q when he took the Enterprise to its first meeting with the Borg 
ship?

What about Barclay taking the Enterprise 30,000 light years in a small amount
of time?

What about The Traveler taking the Enterprise where "NO one has gone before"?


The numbers you gave would fit WARP technology, but given other techniques,
those numbers might not be applicable.

-Joe
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: ram@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Stormbringer)
Subject: Re: Seatbelts
Organization: Never Never Land
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:59:55 GMT

>>>I have just a tiny question, one which a friend of mine keeps
>>>complaining about...why is it that nobody in the bridge, even when they
>>>know they are going to get blasted, ever wears a seatbelt?????????


I have asked many times as well!

>However, the original question is valid -- if it is known that the IDF
>can't compensate immediately and completely for potentially injurious
>jolts, why isn't there a secondary restraint?  This has been addressed
>in the Star Trek motion pictures, but not very well in TNG.  I do,
>however, remember one episode where seat belts were featured on a TNG
>shuttlecraft (Riker was flying, Troi and Data were passengers).  This
>is especially a problem since most bridge injuries seem to result from
>people being thrown out of their seats or off their feet as a result
>of some impact.

I wholeheartley agree!  Somebody ask this Question at a convention
or something.  (request to all people who attend conventions :)



-- 
|~~~\ |    | /~~~\ |    | "We go out in the world and take our chances,   
|___/ |    | \     |____|  Fate is the just the weight of circumstances,
|  \  |    |   \   |    |  That's the way lady luck dances,                   
|   \  \__/ \___/  |    |  Roll the Bones....."           
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: edreas@nyx.cs.du.edu (Eric Dreas)
Subject: Warp Detection
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 18:19:54 GMT

If you are stationary.  v = 0 in all directions.
And a ship is approaching you at Warp speed.
Can you:

    1.  Detect the approaching vessel with sensors.
    2.  Determine the velocity of the vessel.
    3.  View the approaching vessel.  (Say on the Viewscreen)

Eric

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: petitc@nuge114.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit)
Subject: Re: A theory on whizzing stars...
Reply-To: petitc@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:01:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.112851.933@galaxy.gov.bc.ca>, gbrach@galaxy.gov.bc.ca writes:

|> BTW, Meyerson's thesis, although probably non-canon, is a fascinating and very
|> coherent history of the development of warp technology (with only an occasional
|> _tongue-in-cheek_ B_{)!) and it's many uses.
|> 
|> I pulled my copy off the net a while ago, but I'm not sure where you can get
|> it now.

   In that case, could you mail me a copy, or, better yet, post it?

-- 
"The mightiest weapon in the history of science fiction is the writer's pen"
"Although the pen is mightier than the sword, I know which one I'd choose to
fend off a murderer."
"Stop, or ELSE."  "Or else WHAT?"  "Oh.  Never mind."
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Beyond Infinity
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:19:41 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

GLETTY@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu ("Bruce E. Gletty") writes:
>Actually, warp 10 is not infinite speed. The federation warp engines become
>less and less efficient at higher warp, and warp 10 would take infinite
>power. Maybe Q and the traveller had a more efficient warp mechanism.

As the other Jay (!me) mentioned, it is quite certain that Warp 10
represents an infinite velocity (a vector quantity -- direction of
travel implied).

There are other considerations for why starships can't go this fast
besides the theoretically infinite amount of energy required.  Part of
it is efficiency -- warp engines waste energy at phenomenal rates at
high velocities.  One might argue that efficiency drops to zero at
warp 10.

Another reason is the timing hardware for the warp coils.  The coils
are energized with plasma in a precise sequence with precise timing.
Higher warp speeds require greater precision and a shorter time
interval for the process.  You would eventually reach a point where
your timing hardware couldn't move fast enough.  That's effectively
your top velocity.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | I was a rutabaga in a former life.
From: ira2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Iain Robert Asplin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Enterprises's Shields (TNG) are Worthless
Date: 29 Aug 92 01:53:33 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

>> Energy not a problem?  Get real!  This is science fiction!
>> They leave the shields off a) to conserve energy, b) to not look hostile
>> to any life forms in the area, c) to simplify sensor operations,
>> d) to conserve the physical shield generators themselves which may not
>> hold up so well if on all the time
>
>I would think, however, that the ship would need some kind of deflector
>system to stop tiny objects from hitting the ship, penetrating clear
>through to the engine core, and blowing up the ship. That would have to be
>on, even under impulse. It would probably be kept on (at least in a closer
>configuration) even in orbit.
>

They have such a deflector, and it is on at all times.  The main radar
dish in the Battle Section is constantly on and sweeping out in front
of the ship to clear away such objects.  This if from the Tech Manual,
and for a canon reference, see Best of Both Worlds Part II when the
ship is unable to go anywhere until they get the deflector working
again.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: ST: TNG holodeck blooper?
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:39:23 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) writes:
>Right at the start in Dixon's office a woman requests Dixon's help in an
>investigation and she kisses him right before leaving the office.  
>After C. Picard leaves the holodeck he still has the lipstick on his face
>and in fact it stays on until Beverly wipes it off in the conference room.
>Isn't something like lipstick just an optical effect that would disappear 
>after he left the holodeck?

It couldn't be just an optical effect -- it's got to feel and behave
like real lipstick.  The easiest way for the computer to achieve this
effect is to simply replicate a bit of lipstick and have the "femme
fatale" deposit it physically on Picard's face.

If it were an optical effect the computer would have to make it move
as Picard moved around the holodeck.  This would be horribly CPU
intensive, because any deviation from real-time behavior would give
the lipstick away as a phony effect.

It's much easier just to materialize a bit of wax and pigment in the
right time and place and let that substance's inherent properties
govern its behavior -- quickly, realistically, and without requiring
computer supervision.

So the lipstick was real lipstick, and it exists as real matter, in or
out of the holodeck.

So why did the bad guys dematerialize at the end of the episode as
they walked outside the holodeck?  They are a different case.  It
would be far too difficult to replicate a self-governing,
self-automated human figure.  It seems easier to materialize a bunch
of goo with the same elastic properties as human tissue and manipulate
that goo with force fields and mini tractor beams.  All you have to do
is simulate the behavior, not simulate the process that produces that
behavior.  In fact, the Tech Manual indicates that this is what
happens.

So the characters move outside the holodeck and leave the manipulative
influence of the holodeck's force fields.  They can no longer
effectively manipulate the figures, and so the figures collapse or
disintegrate or whatever.

Now I'll be the first to admit that the script at this point is
cheezy.  Why would the figures express fear when they began to
dematerialize?  They are, after all, controlled by the computer which
knows exactly what's going on.  And why would they dematerialize from
the feet up?  And what's holding the rest of them up after their feet
disintegrate?  All right, we'll pass on that one and chalk it up to
"Uncreative Optical Effects."

But this scenario seems to answer most of the questions on the
persistence of holodeck matter.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | <insert snappy quote here>
From: dug@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Dug Smith)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:51:13 GMT
Subject: Re: Enterprises's Shields (TNG) are Worthless
Organization: Hewlett-Packard ISG-SBU-PWD, UK.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech

OK, never mind how the shields work (or even if the shields work).  Why don't
they always go everywhere with the shields on... I thought energy wasn't a big
problem.  Why don't they always go everywhere at Warp 9... Shitty gas mileage?
From: h7l@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Question about communicators
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:35:25 EDT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Cornell University

Hello, I am a newish ST:TNG fan, and I have what is pronabably a very basic
question:
    When an officer or whoever thwacks his/her communicator to speak to another
person, why is it that only the person being hailed hears the acytual hailing
messge, ie the "Crusher to Picard" message.  How could the computer possibly
anticipate what is going to be said into the communicator and send the message
only to that person? Shoudn't the whole Enterprise hear every transmission?
    Please e-mail me if you have a response at H7L@vax5.cit.cornell.edu. I
appreciate any responses very much!!!!

Sarah  
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: arxt@quads.uchicago.edu (Dave Palmer)
Subject: Re: Cloaking device and the Fed.
Reply-To: arxt@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:23:34 GMT



	It seems to me that while the Federation is able to reproduce the
cloaking device the Enterprise "acquired" in OS:"The Enterprise Incident",
they've never been able to understand it.  For a short while Federation ships 
were able to cloak without being detected by the Klingons or Romulans (probably
between the end of the five-year mission and Star Trek: The Motion Picture),
but as Klingon and Romulan cloaking generation and detection technology
progressed, Federation cloaking devices stayed at the same level as the
device they had stolen in "The Enterprise Incident".  Soon, the cloaking device
was useless against the Klingons and Romulans, the Federation's only major
enemies at the time, and they stopped equipping ships with them.  However, the
earlier ships still carried them, which is how the Enterprise-A was able to
cloak in the novelization of Star Trek VI.  So the NG Enterprise has little use
for a Federation-produced cloaking device.  
	Why haven't the Klingons given the Federation the cloaking device? 
Well, almost all of the Klingon NG episodes show a level of distrust between 
the Klingons and the Federation, especially  "Heart of Glory", "Sins of the 
Fathers", and "Redemption".  The alliance seems rather shakey, espescially 
after "Redemption II".  The Klingons must realize this, even this, and the 
cloaking device is the one edge they have above the Federation.  If they were 
ever at war, the Klingons would have no chance if the Federation had the
cloaking device.

	--The Midwesterner
-- 
	"I don't know whether I'm basically lazy or what, but I enjoy my home
and my general surroundings and living the kind of life I live."
                                                               DeForest Kelley
From: jrs@zippy.unet.com (John Switzer Frame 3.0)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp eleven mystery
Keywords: Impossible
Date: 4 Sep 92 02:21:43 GMT
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <1992Sep3.210217.23940@mits.mdata.fi> count@mits.mdata.fi (Bror Heinola) writes:
>Hello net.world.
>
>This is propably an old one but it doesn't hurt to ask, right?
>
>Yesterday I read TNG book #6, "Power Hungry" by Howard Weinstein.
>I quote from page 11 of that book;
>
>	Data scanned his console. "Retreating at ... warp eleven." 
>	His eyebrows rose in surprise at the speed - faster than
>	the Enterprise could manage.
>
>I've always thought that Warp 10 was *the* limit for speed for all ships
>in the StarTrek universe, not just Federation ships. Those warp eleven
>ships were Nuaran, so I guess they have very impressive warp technology, eh?

No, you've got it all wrong - it's like with Spinal Tap and how they had
special amps made that went all the way to eleven. These guys simply 
had special warp engines made so that the top speed was 11. Simple, eh?
From: rhudson@novell.com (Ron Hudson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Holodeck Tech
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:02:29 GMT
Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, Califonia

Perhaps the "meat puppet" Moriarty could be carried out of the Holo-
deck and could sit on the bridge if desired, but there was no Life
there, only a material object propelled by tractor beams. IMHO


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Hudson,        | Views expressed are my own, not anyone else's
Novell Sunnyvale   | I hear, I forget; I see, I remember; I do, I understand
Rhudson@Novell.com |
From: WAYNE@zog.UUCP (Wayne Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Re: Holodeck Tech
Keywords: past
Date: 31 Aug 92 01:04:21
Distribution: usa
Organization: Zog's Cavern BBS and the OS9 Underground - StG Net International


In a previous message, "kinnema@wkuvx1.bitnet" writes:
 
> You might be thinking about the episode where some of the crew gets
> shanghaied by an alien evacuating the planets population into the past
> before the star goes nova (I forget the episode name, but it had
> similar scenes... remember the alien pushing everyone through the
> doorway after putting the metal disc on the viewing device...)
 
 The episode you refer to here is the one where Kirk and Spock end up in one
past of the planet, and McCoy ends up in another past.  The star that planet
is orbiting is about to go nova, and the inhabitants are evacuating to their
past.  The Enterprise is there to warn the planet of the coming distruction,
when the crew gets caught up in the act, and are told to get ready to go to a
new time.

 In this instance, I think the use of alien should apply to the Enterprise's
crew, not the operator of the time-displacement equipment, as that operator
was a native of the planet, and the crew of E was NOT.

--
 Wayne@ZOG SysOp@HALL Wayne@DUNE
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Seatbelts
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:54:54 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202) writes:
><mmcg+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>I have just a tiny question, one which a friend of mine keeps
>>complaining about...why is it that nobody in the bridge, even when they
>>know they are going to get blasted, ever wears a seatbelt?????????

Driver's side air bags? :-)

>I think the short answer is the inertial dampening system is supposed
>to absorb all the jolts and keep the ride smoother than a buick's.

The intertial damping field does do this, but it can't respond to
outside jolts immediately.  There is a nominal 250 millisecond delay
between the time the jolt is applied to the ship, sensed by the
inertial pickup hardware, sent to the IDF computer, corrected, and the
time the correction vector is distributed via the IDF hardware, which,
incidentally, works in concert with the artifical gravity but via
separate emitters.

That quarter of a second is enough for a significant force to be
applied to the occupants of the ship.

Normal flight stresses can be anticipated by the system as a whole.
If the flight computer plans a course correction, it can transmit its
intent to the IDF computer with enough lead time to compensate for the
natural delay in the system.  Thus the flight computer and the IDF
computer can coordinate their actions such that the crew never feels
the effect of such "planned" intertial effects.

The dramatic effect is necessary, according to the producers.  When
something hits the ship it (apparently) looks odd if there is no
impact felt within the ship, thus the delay in the intertial damping
system.

However, the original question is valid -- if it is known that the IDF
can't compensate immediately and completely for potentially injurious
jolts, why isn't there a secondary restraint?  This has been addressed
in the Star Trek motion pictures, but not very well in TNG.  I do,
however, remember one episode where seat belts were featured on a TNG
shuttlecraft (Riker was flying, Troi and Data were passengers).  This
is especially a problem since most bridge injuries seem to result from
people being thrown out of their seats or off their feet as a result
of some impact.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
From: rhudson@novell.com (Ron Hudson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: guts in star trek
Keywords: Unified field theories
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:42:05 GMT
Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, Califonia



oops deleted too much
>.........  Which is also why I found it inappropriate for Barclay to want
>to talk to him about it........

Was Einstine actually identified in that scene, I think Barkclay called
him "proffessor"... :)




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Hudson,        | Views expressed are my own, not anyone else's
Novell Sunnyvale   | I hear, I forget; I see, I remember; I do, I understand
Rhudson@Novell.com |
From: mcclaine@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Casey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp Detection
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:53:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Aug26.181954.737@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> edreas@nyx.cs.du.edu (Eric Dreas) writes:
>If you are stationary.  v = 0 in all directions.
>And a ship is approaching you at Warp speed.
>Can you:
>
>    1.  Detect the approaching vessel with sensors.
>    2.  Determine the velocity of the vessel.
>    3.  View the approaching vessel.  (Say on the Viewscreen)
>
>Eric
>

	All good questions.  I am not sure if I have a definate answer to 
	all of them, but here's what I believe.

	1.  Yes, you can detect a vessel approaching at warp speed with
	subspace sensors, since these sensors travel at the TNG speed of
	almost Warp 10 and can give sufficiently speedy bounce-back.
	In effect, the sensors will probably register a space-time
	displacement where the ship is.

	2.  If you can detect the vessel, there is no reason why you cannot
	determine the velocity of the vessel with continuous sensor scans.

	3.  You would have a difficult time viewing the vessel on the 
	viewscreen until it got reasonably close, however, I believe that
	the computers can make a silhouette comparison and identify what
	type of ship it is.

	In any case, I believe that the chances of detection and the 
	resolution of detection by sensors varies in terms of distance
	from the detecting vessel.  It is possible that a ship can pop 
	out of warp and surprise a ship if they do not have their long
	range sensors engaged or if no one is scanning the distant reaches.
	There is in essence a limited range for long range sensors, which
	is still probably a decent fraction of a light year in distance. 


	_/_/_/_/   _/_/_/_/   _/_/_/   	Troi:  "Worf, what exactly is that band
	_/     _/  _/       _/     _/   that you wear on your uniform?"
	_/     _/  _/       _/              
	_/_/_/_/   _/_/_/   _/            
	_/   _/    _/       _/          Worf:  "It's a Klingon flea collar." 
	_/    _/   _/       _/     _/      
	_/     _/  _/_/_/_/   _/_/_/      
	Robert E. Casey  (mcclaine@milton.u.washington.edu)