HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smt1179@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Tom Thatcher)
Subject: Cloaks and Shields
Reply-To: smt1179@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:39:27 GMT

There has been a lot of discussion about the capabilites of cloaks and shields
in connection with the debate about why the Feds don't have cloaks.
I'd like to add my own perspectives.

Shields:  Shields create a localized space warp that reflects incoming energy/
matter into space.  An imaginery observer on a phaser beam would not appear
to have changed direction, rather the ship would appear to have moved out of
the way.  This is not a passive process, like a mirror, but is active (that's
why shields can be overcome with sufficient energy.)  Phasers do not operate
in the visible range of EM, otherwise they would be simple lasers.  The beam
appearance must be a secondary effect, like Chenenkov radiation.  Therefore,
shields do not have to cover the visible spectrum, which allows the ship to
be seen and sensors to operate, and also results in an energy savings

Cloaking device:  While shields radiate incoming energy/matter in a random 
fashion, a cloaking device must radiate incoming radiation at a precise
180 degree angle.  This requires much higher energy to the system.  Therefore,
cloaking devices are limited to the visible/sensor EM ranges to conserve
power, and can not deflect high energy (weapon) incoming radiation. (The 
energy required to deflect incoming radiation increases geometrically with
increasing radiation)  

The energy requirements of deflecting high energy EM weapons is incompatible
with the energy requirements of delfecting lower energy EM (visible light and
sensor beams) precisely.  Therefore, a system that combines a cloak and
a shield is impossible.


By the way, the E-D runs with shields always at 2% power to shorten warmup
time and assist the navigational delfector in sweeping away interstellar dust
and gas that would rapidly erode the hull at high velocity.  A cloaked ship,
being unable to run with shields, should suffer from rapid deterioration
of hull surfaces and exposed sensor elements.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
^  "What must I do to convince you?"            ^  Tom Thatcher            ^
^  "Die."                                       ^  University of Rochester ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: mgibson@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Gothick)
Subject: Re: Borg Scout Ship
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 11:53:11 GMT

In <92252.214723KELSEY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> KELSEY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (KELSEY, Michael H.) writes:

>In article <1992Sep8.232554.14129@unislc.uucp>, zzekka@unislc.uucp (Zeke Zecca)
>says:
>>
>>million metric tons. Two questions:
>>
>>                 - is "metric tons" a unit of mass? I don't believe so.
>Yes it is.  A "metric ton" is defined as 1,000 kiograms, or 1 megagram
>(1 Mg).  The term is not SI, but is used because the value is approximately

To stop confusion, an Imperial ton is a "ton", and a metric ton is a "tonne".

(Honest!)

Matt

xxx
-- 
------- Matthew B. M. Gibson --- "Gothick" --- mgibson@dcs.warwick.ac.uk -------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-"I'll take what fate brings, eternal and desire/I'll change their faces, then -
-"I'll take their smile" - Fields of the Nephilim, "Last Exit For The Lost"-----
From: apfelbrianje@bvc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: STAR TREK SHIPS
Date: 12 Sep 92 14:02:53 CDT
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA

An admirable list, but I have some corrections to make.  First, you categorize
three ships in the Enterprise-C category.  According to the TNG Tech Manual,
NCC-1701-C was an Ambassador class vessel, like the Horatio.  By the way, I am
curious as to how you guessed that NCC-1701-B was Excelsior class.  You must
not have found it in the Tech Manual or you would've known about C's class,
too.  We know what the ship looks like but haven't seen it or heard who
commanded it.  Hopefully this issue will be addressed in TNG or the rumored
Star Trek VII.
	Anyway, I must also point out that the three Klingon vessels in The
Motion Picture were of the then brand-new K'Tinga class.  This class ship is
mentioned many times throughout the Trek novels, and, I believe, at least once
on either the movies or on TNG.

Hope this helps.  And, you might want to pick up the ST:TNG Tech Manual if you
don't have a copy.

--BJA


Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: swindley@elec.uq.oz.au (Robert Swindley)
Subject: time travel and warp 10
Summary: episode 'time cubed'
Keywords: time warp 
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 05:23:10 GMT

  Just another thought I had.
In an episode screened recently in Australia, called 'Time Squared' (TNG)
(or it might have been 'time cubed'), the enterprise picked up a shuttle
craft which was from an enterprise of the future (about 6 hours into the
future). Picard deduced that an energy field of some enourmous magnitude
would be required in order for the ship to travel back in time, and 
Ricar (?) agreed.
   It turned out that anti-matter was involved, as well as time travel,
an enourmous source of energy and speeds of above warp 9.4.
   If anyone knows the significance of all this and going above warp 10
please let me know...

The Chengter

   mail me   chengm@sun.mech.uq.oz.au

Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Date: Mon,  7 Sep 1992 22:44:40 -0400 
From: Chad Adam <ca25+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Warp 10+

	Actually, the warp engines do create an envelope that for the most
part, engulfs the vessel within it.  The ship then dissappears from the
normal "space" (newtonian-space) as we know it and manifests itself in a
parallel non-newtonian space.  This realm is devoid of matter and will
allow faster travel without bouncing into a planet or a star.  The
Enterprise from the movies STI-STIV could cruise at warp 8 but was
capable of attaining warp 10.  By the time of the third movie, the
Excelsior Battleship, appropriately called "The Great Expierement" was
testing "transwarp" drive.  
	The "transwarp" drive system, in theory, could cruise at warp 12 and
attain warp 14 in an emergency, morever, the NCC-1701-A mounted
transwarp engines.  The "sub-space radio" that is used in the movies
travels on a beam at warp 15.  It is only because of the non-newtonian
space, where physical constants don't exist, that these vessels can
cruise at these unbelieveable speeds.  The warp equation itself
(courtesy of Tech manuals) suggests that the vessels can travel many
times that of the speed of light.  Each warp factor, when cubed, shows
the number of times beyond the speed of light.  Warp 1 would be 1 times
c, Warp 2 would be 8 times c....etc.
	Now I am really interested in the "ultra-warp" (I love these names!)
system of NCC-1701-D.  Supposedly, each warp factor when raised to the
fifth power, states the multiples of the speed of light.  Warp 1 is
still the speed of light but when you hit warp 2, watch out....you are
moving 32 times the speed of light.  Where c is the speed of light and w
is the warp factor, it follows: 
	For standard warp: cw^3,
	For ultra-warp: cw^5

.....a little unbelieveable but NCC-1701-D can reach an emergency speed
of (Ultra)warp 9, or 59049 times the speed of light.  
	In the movies though, esp. STIV, they could get from Vulcan to Earth in
hours...so maybe there is "truth" to all of this, at least from the Star
Trek universe.

	-Chad Adam

"Gene, thanks for streching the limits of our imagination!  The human
race will be ever grateful."
	
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: zzekka@unislc.uucp (Zeke Zecca)
Subject: Re: Borg Scout Ship 
Summary: Borg ship seems tooo heavy. 
Reply-To: zzekka@unislc.UUCP (Zeke Zecca,B2C10,4827)
Organization: Unisys, Salt Lake City
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 23:25:54 GMT
Keywords: borg scout ship heavy

In the episode "I Borg", Data or some one at the helm said that the borg
rescue ship that picked up Ehue/hugh/ U god dammit! was the same type of
ship that had crashed on the planet. They also said it had a mass of 2.8
million metric tons. Two questions:

				- is "metric tons" a unit of mass? I don't believe so.
				- how could that little borg ship be that massive?


								Zekers!



Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Subject: Re: The Next Phase: Question
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:25:28 GMT
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3


mhampsch@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Mark Hampsch) writes:
>If Geordie(sp!) an Ro can walk through walls and equipment,  What keeps them
>from falling through the floor?  

There are differences in the floor vs walls and equipment.  For one thing,
people stick to the floor.  Perhaps the gravity distribution system 
was not transparent to their cloaked form, so they were able to walk, 
get traction, etc.  This explains why they were able to board the
shuttle craft, too (instead of falling through it like equipment).

Mark Runyan  {r.a.s. random rationalizer}
From: hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Subspace Theory 101
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:41:45 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) writes:
>hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson) writes:
>>
>>First, let me remind everyone of how (normally) FTL travel emplies a
>>violation of causality:
>
>>Start with two observers traveling SLOWER than light relative to one another.
>>THEN, give them the possibility of getting a signal to and from one another
>>faster than light could get to and from them.  Normally, NO MATTER HOW YOU
>>DO IT, you can create a causality problem.
>
>>Now I will repeate myself from another message which tells how to get around
>>this:
>[Explanation trimmed]
>
>Question: Why is causality violation a bad thing? Its screws
>bigtime with our observations of the universe (relativity tends
>to do that for most people anyway ;-) but does it cause any
>spacetime shattering problems?
>
>In SF I prefer just to ignore it and hope it goes away. But that
>doesn't mean we can't try to explain it.
>
>Joshua

Well, relativity doesn't cause any real paradoxes. Once you consider every
part of relativity, what you thought to be a paradox will be explained.

Causality violation does seem to cause parodoxes.  For example, with our
two travelers (one going at a relativistic speed w/r/t the other), if 
one can send a message to the other faster than light, then the following
scenario is possible:
Person A sends a question to person B.  Person B recieves the question and
sends an answer to person A.  Person A recieves the answer before he even
knows he will send the question to B.  So person A decides not to send
the question to person B because he (A) has the ansewer.  However, if person
B never recieves the question, then he never sends the answer, so how can
A have the answer?

So basically, there are too many true paradoxes that come up with causality
violation for us to just accept it as an every day occurance.

Another view shows that causality violation could basically take away any
freedom of choice.  Look at it this way:

If event A causes event B (ie, the ONLY reason B happens is because of A)
then causality says that A must happen first.  If you can violate causlaity,
then you can have event B happen first and then A.  But if you have free
will, then as soon as you see B happen, you could choose to prevent A.  SO
A never happens, but B does.  But B CANNOT happen without A.  One way
around this is to say that you have no choice but to let A happen, even
if event A is you shooting your parents and event B is them dying from the
gunshot wound you inflicted.

In any case, violation of causality implies unexplainable events, where as
relativity never implies the unexplainable. 

(I hope most of my ideas came through here. ???)

-Jay

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: tomcat@cwis.unomaha.edu (Jeffrey S. Jo)
Subject: Re: The Next Phase: Question
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 06:16:36 GMT

<HCM100@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> In the '92 season episode "The Next Phase", Geordi and Ro were caught
> in a cloaking/transporter thingy type accident.  They were transporting
> over from the Romulan ship and they had some type of power module or something.
> When they materialized on the Enterprise in cloaked mode, what happened
> to the power thingamajigger?  Just a question...   8-}
> 
	Same thing that happened to Geordi and Laren happened to the
warp core, except they will never find it, unless they flood the whole
ship with a numerous amount of anions or whatever it was that neutralized
the effect. 

-- 
|Jeffrey S. Jo                  |	          F-14D Tomcat                | 
|Computer Operations		|              VF-142 Ghostriders             | 
|University of Nebraska at Omaha|        United States Navy F-14 Tomcat       | 
|tomcat@cwis.unomaha.edu        |               Fighter Squadron              | 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: schmasey@leland.Stanford.EDU (Casey Carlton O'Hara)
Subject: Re: relative speed
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 20:45:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.234356.7906@marlin.jcu.edu.au> eektl@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Kenneth T Leong) writes:
>If two starships were back to back and then both raced off at warp 10,
>would the speed of one starship relative to the other be double? If so,
>could this relative speed be acheived as an actual speed by a single
>starship?
>
Since warp speeds are defined as above the speed of light, I think the
whole relativity thing is bypassed (relativity deals with speeds
approaching the speed of light).
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   __________/  bonz R godz!  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Casey O'Hara                      (_|____|___\__________
schmasey@leland.stanford.edu             _|_|___________)
Disclaimer:  All opinions expressed here are yours.   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp eleven mystery
Keywords: Fnord Impossible
Date: 7 Sep 92 22:21:03 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

In article <1992Sep7.193440.3201@tamsun.tamu.edu> t0e0078@tamsun.tamu.edu (Terje Eggestad) writes:
>Parallell this discussion to the discussion on lightspeed, Einstein only
>proved that it is impossible to achive c 1, or it is impossible to an object
>with rest mass to move at (NOTE AT) light speed, he later pointed out 
>him self that no one have said anything about traveling faster that light.
>
>The warp 10 barrier is created from the fact that each nested warpfield
>is created faster and faster and you are bumping into the plack time constant,
>the smallest time quantum. All you need to do is to figure another way to
>propell a ship non-relativistic. 
>
>Remember, as long you can't find a law that says it can't be done, there is 
>a way to do it, it becomes a question of, imagination, time, and money.
>
>Terje
>

OK, let't try to get some things straight.
YES, there are theories on how particals with imaginary masses can travel 
faster than the speed of light. HOWEVER if you can send and recieve signals
faster than the speed of light, then you can create a violation of causality.
(ie. you send your traveling friend a question, he gets the question and
sends you an answer, and you get the answer BEFORE you sent the question).

I have posted the only way I know around this three times now, and I think
it would make a good FAQ list.

SECOND, and this IS in a FAQ, warp 10 is INFINATE SPEED.  THe only way
you can surpass warp 10 is to get to point B BEFORE you leave point A.

-Jay
From: quark@pabst.bu.edu (Paul Fu)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: star-streak
Date: 11 Sep 92 04:46:59 GMT
Reply-To: jnorton@wilkes1.wilkes.edu (Jarrod Norton)
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: Wilkes University

In article <swindley.716183551@s1.elec.uq.oz.au> swindley@elec.uq.oz.au (Robert Swindley) writes:
>
>I wish to know whether those streaks you see when the ship is travelling
>are actually stars blurred by the speed, and if so why don't one of you smart
>trekkies work out how fast they would have to be going in order for stars to
>go past them at such a rate...

I've spent a few bored afternoons pondering this... unless they pass it off
as some side-effect of being in the warp field, the "passage" of the 
starfield seems a glaring science error to me.  But then again, Trek tends
to march all over current physics theory (flameshields up) or at least
stretches plausability sometimes.  But then again, that's why we call them
plot devices.

Anyway, that doesn't explain the external views where the ship seems to be
cruising through the stars... I still think that's rather loopy, as anyone
that's seen the brief 20-minute piece called "Powers of Ten" can attest.
(No, that's NOT a star trek episode.)

Jarrod Norton
WCLH-FM
From: jacobs@cerritos.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: post
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:45:36 PST
Organization: Cerritos College, Norwalk CA

Don't mind me - just testing my sig.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Karl Jacobs jacobs@cerritos.edu
"I long for the days when men were men, women were women, and little fuzzy 
creatures from Alpha Centauri were little fuzzy creatures from Alpha Centauri"!!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: The Federation and cloaking tech...
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:22:43 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

smt1179@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:

>Cloaked ships can not be shielded, so a direct hit would cause serious
>damage and probably render the cloaking system inactive (as in TUC).

Whoa, who said that cloaked ships cannot simultaneously be shielded?
Just about the only plausible explanation for the destruction of
Chang's vessel in ST6 was that it was shielded.  A Klingon Bird of
Prey is only a few hundred feet long, and we know that photon torpedo
detonations are on the order of several megatons.

Even a near miss by a photon torpedo would completely vaporize a small
ship like a Bird of Prey if the target were unshielded.  Yet in ST6 it
took five or so blasts to finish it off -- the first few just seemed
to knock it around a bit.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: bbohac@nyx.cs.du.edu (bbohac)
Subject: Re: Warp 10+
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 22:04:58 GMT

In article <8ef1CM600VouAmIlF2@andrew.cmu.edu> Chad Adam <ca25+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>	The "transwarp" drive system, in theory, could cruise at warp 12 and
>attain warp 14 in an emergency, morever, the NCC-1701-A mounted
>transwarp engines.  The "sub-space radio" that is used in the movies
>travels on a beam at warp 15.  It is only because of the non-newtonian
>space, where physical constants don't exist, that these vessels can
>cruise at these unbelieveable speeds.  The warp equation itself
>(courtesy of Tech manuals) suggests that the vessels can travel many
>times that of the speed of light.  Each warp factor, when cubed, shows
>the number of times beyond the speed of light.  Warp 1 would be 1 times
>c, Warp 2 would be 8 times c....etc.
	True as this may be, there are inherint inconsistencies in this
"formula".  I agree, from my experience with the star trek universe (Old
Generation), that a warp factor is the equivalent multiple of c, cubed
(c being the speed of light in a vacuum).  Therefore warp 15 would be 3375
times faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.  Consider this:
Alpha Centauri (spelling?) is a triple star 4.3 light years from our sun,
Sol.  It is the closest stellar body known to us presently (and we
would know of any others - except perhaps of Nemisis... but I digress).
A ship, or communications beam, or whatever, travelling at 3375 times
light speed (warp 15, Old Generation) would take .001274 years, or 
11.16 hours (using 365 days/years, and 24 hrs/day) to reach from Sol
to Alpha Centauri.  The next closest star is Sirius at 7.8 light years,
and after that the stars get much farther.  The Enterprise was, I THINK
(correct me on this) on average, much farther than 100 light years from
Sol (Earth) - ergo, StarFleet Command - and yet it communicated
virtually instantaneously with SFC.
	What thinkest thou?

btb (call me cipher)
From: chan@nucleus.cuc.ab.ca (Mike Chan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Beyond Infinity
Date: 6 Sep 92 11:57:31 MST
Organization: The Nucleus 16 Lines 403-531-9353 -CNet Amiga-

\c9By the Star Trek The Next Generation techincal manual written by Rick
Sternbach and Mike Okunda(Techinal Advisors of Star Trek: The Next Generation)
says that \c7"Warp 10 is unachievable. At Warp 10 the exponent and the speed
would be infinete, so you cannot reach this value. If you did from some miracle
reach warp 10, you would be everywhere at the same place and time like the
novel "Vendetta". So that can explain Q goddness of being everywhere at once
excepted when he's in one body such as the human body. To explain the worm
hole, it is a dimeninal shift in space. If you play AD&D, i can descibe 
it as a dimentional door or a huge mass transporter which you cannot plot its
course. Now for Barley, er Barkley, what he did is change the science of space.
So the enterprise is going normal speed but the barkley changed the physics of
space so he can make it go faster!"


\r1    \r0
\r1 \r0   \r1 
\r1 \r0   \r1 \r0  A  T  A    C  H  A  N  !
\r1    \r0
From: SysOp@zog.UUCP (Zog the Monster)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Re: Beyond Infinity
Keywords: TOS, Warp 14
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:23:01
Distribution: world
Summary: TOS Episode
Organization: Zog's Cavern BBS and the OS9 Underground - StG Net International


In a previous message, "worth@matt.ksu.ksu.edu" writes:
> 
> The name of this one is The Changling.  I was referring to another episode whe
> re
> the Enterprise exceeds Warp 10(TOS scale).
> 
> Jason Worthington
> worth@matt.ksu.ksu.edu

It think you refer to "By any other Name".  The episode where the Kelvin
(from the Andromeda Galaxy) take over the E.

-Zog
From: steve@picard.cs.wisc.edu (Steven Glinberg)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Another 'The Next Phase' Question
Date: 7 Sep 92 02:24:17 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.


Does anyone know the stardate of this episode (The Next Phase)?
I think it is 45903.? for some reason that is what I wrote down 4 months
ago when it orig. aired, but I looked at the tape and couldn't find
even that much.  I just want a complete sd for it.  I did find the date Ro
died on Crushers monitor -> 45902.4  I think!  It actually looked
more like 45092.4 but that doesn't jive with inner light and I borg.

Don't hurt your vcr looking at Crusher's monitor it's not that important!

I'd love to find out the st.date to fill in my database on the episodes.
Thanks.  Mail me or post it if you want, I appreciate it.
sg
steve@picard.cs.wisc.edu