HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Date: Tue,  7 Apr 1992 12:48:17 -0400 
From: Harith Jameel Alkhafiz <ha09+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: FED. SECURITY PERSONNEL vs STORM TROOPERS.

On 04-Apr-92 in Re:  FED. SECURITY PERSONNE..
user Yury German@bknight.jpr. writes:
>In article <56300@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>>On the other hand, the Empire has (assuming the meeting is placed before
>>RotJ) Darth Vader and the Emperor.  It is not clear just how powerful
>>the Emperor is, but if he got on the Enterprise, he could probably do
>>very nasty things.
>	Well lets see if he got onto the Enterprise it would be something
>like this!!! I still do not have an idea how he would get onboard but lets
>say he did!!!
> 
>-------
>DATA: Sir we have an intruder onboard. 
>RIKER: (com) Security to deck 3 (assuming that where he is).
>(time passes)
>SECURITY: (COM) Sir he is just to powerful ... CHOKE ... GAK... 
>Picard: Data lock on to the intruder and beam him into space!!!
>Data: Locked on!!!
>Picard & Ricer: Energise!!!
>------
>	Considering that if its a state of war and thenormal weapons are
>not doing anything... and as long as DATA is not damaged (since Neither of
>the 2 mentioned) can do a think to droids or DATA. They will get beamed
>into space... and I do not remember anyone surviving space!! (vacume.)

I think that the Emperor would scan for the mind in charge of the ship,
take vital information on it, and proceed to give Picard a debilitating
brain anurism.  After that, he'd just pull Data's head off with the
Force.  The rest of the crew is just meat, because I'm sure that the
Emperor could cloak himself from their perceptions.  In other words,
even though sensors told the crew that there was an intruder aboard,
their minds would be decieved into thinking that everything was in
order.  Soon, the Emperor flys home in his brand new Galaxy Class
cruiser.

Now, there's the problem of his getting onto the Enterprise...

HJK
From: Greg_Goss@mindlink.bc.ca (Greg Goss)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Transporter nightmares
Date: 13 Apr 92 08:58:17 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

These questions have been addressed in some detail in Bester's "The Demolished
Man" (psionic beam-in access to any known site), and in several of Niven's
short stories (Niven's stories required a transciever at both ends of the
transport).

.../greg

--
"say NO to four-line sigs"     greg_goss@mindlink.bc.ca
From: bvan@ncs.dnd.ca (Bryan Van Blaricom)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Basis for transporters
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:11:06 GMT
Organization: DND, Ottawa, CANADA

In article <ASWEENEY.92Apr9140715@camelot.sw.stratus.com> asweeney@camelot.sw.stratus.com (Andrew Sweeney) writes:
>
>OK I was just at lunch and after a few beer the talk got into star trek and
>this statement came out.
>
>"There is no scientific basis for the transporters (as opposed to most of the
>other technical stuff). The only reason that the transpoters exist is
>because when TOS was first started there was not enough $$$ in the budget
>to have landing ship (shuttle craft) scenes."
>
>Can anyone verify this?
>
>Thanks 
>
>Andy

True, actually.  The actual effect just involves a scene cut with some
optical effects, which was much cheaper than building several new models
and sets for the shuttlecraft, which came much later.

   Actually, there is no scientific (or at least technical) basis for most
of the "technical stuff" in Star Trek.  FTL travel, "subspace
communications", replicators: all made up out of whole cloth (or borrowed
from other SF stories).  Okuda and Sternback have come up with some
impressive (and impressively consistent) technobabble to serve as a
foundation for suspension of disbelief in the pseudo-science, but you won't
find any workable theories to support ST technology yet.  At least the
transporters are based on some idea of feasibility, although I have doubts
that even the vaunted computer core on the Enterprise would have enough
processing power to carry something like that off.  FTL travel is not
within the realm of relativity theory, and there are currently NO theories
that point to a feasible method of achieving it.  Maybe someday (perhaps
someday we'll be able to use that layer of space underneath the vacuum that
connects quantum mechanical phenomena?), but not yet.

Bryan
From: mbrockma@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Matt Brockman)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Time travel
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:19:35 GMT
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: Twin Peaks Sheriff Department

In article <10APR199210532462@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> r13504141@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Bob E. Schmoo) writes:
>
>	Two weeks ago I watched (TNG) episode in which the Enterprise 
>had become trapped in a time loop.  It seemed that this was caused
>by a massive explosion which resulted from an impact with another
>ship.  It was later explained that this was infact the case.  As it
>turned out, the Enterprise had been caught in this loop for 7 days.
>It was then learned that the ship the Enterprise had hit was another
>confederation ship which had been caught in a similar loop for over
>one-hundred years.  My question is that if the explosion was the
>cause of the time loop, then what caused the other ship to be in
>the loop for one-hundred years.  Obviously, the Enterprise could
>not have been the cause.  Was this a mistake on th writers part, or
>am I missing something.  
>
The explosion was only part of the cause, the other being
the presense of the Time Storm.


===============================================================================
Matt Brockman                                           mbrockma@ecn.purdue.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Employee of the Month isn't all hams and plaques."    -Mr. Burns, THE SIMPSONS
"Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet."
                      -Bugsy, er, Benny Siegal, BUGSY
"Nothing is a good insulator."    -Me
===============================================================================
From: comp138w142@camins.camosun.bc.ca (Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: time travel
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:25:21 GMT
Organization: Camosun College

In article <1992Apr9.222439.10059@nevada.edu>, snit@nevada.edu (S. Nev Inst of Tech) writes:
> In several startrek episodes (at least TOS) and in STIV the enterprise
> crew travels back in time, and then returns to their time. I basicly
> understand the theory of traveling *back* in time.  You add linier and
> rotational volocities pushing yourself faster than light in real
> space, and that send you back in time.  Or something like that.
> 
> How about going forward in time?  How do they get back?  Faster than
> light travel in real space sends you *back* not *forward* in time.
> 
> Any explainations?

How about visualizing time as a rather large loop. If you go back far 
enough you reach the future.

Scott.
"You're a JERK... Dent... A complete asshole."
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: FED. SECURITY PERSONNEL vs STORM TROOPERS.
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:57:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: balrog.3418
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

>Worf plus two no-names for example) vs. a squad of troopers. It should be no
>contest; Starfleet Security would kick butt. Why? Stormtroopers are *stupid*.

True.  But at least one red shirt would buy it during the fire fight to show
us how the troopers blasters work!

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a "disgrace",
that two are called a "law firm", and that three or more become a "Congress".
From: daily@a.cs.okstate.edu (DAILY STEPHEN RICH)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Star Fleet Battles and Enterprise 1701D
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:12:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: a.1992Apr14.071250.4619
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater

In article <167C3CFDA.HSUSA00@ricevm1.rice.edu> HSUSA00@ricevm1.rice.edu (Susarla, H. Krishna) writes:
>
>
>Does anyone have any ideas how a Galaxy class starship SSD would look like?
>It would interesting to construct such an SSD for Star Fleet Battles.
>
>
>
>
Well I think to effectively capture the 1701-D you would start with the
second generation X-rules and make everything twice as effective while
costing half as much power.  :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)
From: kesslerbrian@bvc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: ENTERPRISE CUT AWAY
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:11:21 CDT
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA

Has anybody seen or ordered the new cut away poster of the Enterprise, 
advertised in the STTNG Magazine #19? I am wondering how close it is to the 
Technical Manual?

Thanks in advance.

KESSLERBRIAN@BVC.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Ent D vs Star Destroyer
From: jmumper@cstp.umkc.edu
Date: 4 Apr 92 18:03:14 -0600
Organization: UM - Kansas City, Computer Science



  I would like to make a point about lasers vs. NCC1701D shields.

  Granted, the book says lasers don't doi diddly to the Enterprise's shields.
Let's look at this reasonably.  Lasers are composed of coherent trains of
photons.  The Book, which I don't have, so I'm only quoting on hearsay, says
that the shields deflect photons, making lasers useless.

  Why then does the Enterprise run into trouble from X-Rays from an overexcited
star?  I don't remember the name of the show (sorry...), but it's the one with
the two planets, one of which sells "felicium" to the other planet.  As you
recall, felicium is actually a narcotic, and so forth.  Remember the episode?
Anyway, at the very beginning, the Enterprise has some minor computer trouble
because the shields can't keep out all of the X-Rays.

  Remember X-Rays are actually photons of electromagnetic energy.

  Also remember that you can build an X-Ray laser.

  Now, to the matter of photon torpedoes.  As many people have pointed out, the
most damaging yield of a photon torpedo is the burst of gamma rays it puts out. 
The gamma rays are responsible for most of the damage.

  But, Gamma rays are composed of photons of electromagnetic energy, just like
XRays.

  Beginning to see a pattern here?

  Furthermore... if the shields just deflect the photons, how is it possible to
see the Enterprise when she has her shields up?  Any light coming in to strike
the hull would be deflected by the shields.  If no photons of light hit the
hull, no photons of light bounce off the hull to make it visible.

  And who says the Federation doesn't have a cloaking device!  (Yeah, yeah, I
know, the cloaking device also shields against sensors, but I think you see the
point.)


  The point here is that "Lasers are ineffective against the Enterprise's 
shields" is something of a sweeping statement, with implications that the show
has not lived up to.  Therefore, I think it's a blindly dogmatic to say that
ALL lasers are ineffective against the shields.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: hillel@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (hillel.e.markowitz)
Subject: Re: Subspace vs. Antispace
Organization: AT&T Migration Systems
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:35:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.213121.25076@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> mbrockma@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Matt Brockman) writes:
>In article <#l4tqpn@rpi.edu> petitc@rpi.edu writes:
>>  I was plugging some funny (imaginary) numbers into some quantum physical
>>equations and came up with a NEGATIVE probability curve.  When I consider this,
>>and the fact that, if you put in a velocity v, greater than c, you get an
>>imaginary number (NEVER complex, but imaginary).  To me, this signifies a space
>>that you enter to go faster than c. 
>>
>>  In this anti-space, ONLY a v>c is permitted, with velocities approaching c (e.g.
>>slowing down) take more energy.  What relation is this antispace to subspace?  And
>>if there is none, then what IS subspace?  I mean, I've read the TNG Tech Manual,
>>but it never specifies what subspace is.
>
>If this were the case then it would take zero energy to go infinitly fast!
>
>BTW, I thought that Complex numbers were imaginary numbers?

A complex number is of the form a + bi with a real and imaginary
part.  In this case a pure  imaginary number is one wher "a = 0".

Based on the way it seems to work the tachyon (which is what is
described would see itself as speeding up to light speed in its own
universe.

Hillel Markowitz        H_Markowitz@att.com
From: ian@ug.cs.dal.ca (Ian Littlewood)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: STII screens vs shields
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:23:37 GMT
Distribution: dal
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr8.222038.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> ttullio@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:

>Having just acquired the laserdisc of STII and re-watched the movie 
>several times, I noticed something I never noticed before:

>The Enterprise has both "defensive screens" and "shields"?!
>What's the story on this?  In the first attack by Kahn, the big E has
>energized defensive screens (accompanied by a graphic of the ship being
>"colored in" section by section), but hasn't raised shields (graphic of
>dots encircling the ship)...

>Energizing the screens sure didn't do them a damn bit of good!  Have
>we seen these before/since?
>                                        __
>                                       / /\  
>Tom Tullio                            / / / 2                   The face of a
>Wesleyan University                  / /  \           child can speak volumes.
>----------------------------*       / / /\ \      *---------------------------
>TTULLIO@WILLET.WESLEYAN.EDU         \_\/\ \ \       Especially the mouth part.
>                                         \_\/ 

Defense screens only surround the first few decks below the bridge and the
bridge itself. The shields encompass the entire ship.
From: max@west.darkside.com (Max Pandaemonium)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp Speed and Relativity?
Date: 8 Apr 92 07:51:06 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

v128nkej@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Boggles the MIND) writes:

> In article <92097.192416U53644@uicvm.uic.edu>, U53644@uicvm.uic.edu writes...
> 
> >Gents, I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but...............
> >
> >Sorry, but the smart money says that you can't even make it to "warp 1".
>
> 	I believe that what you say may be true- but I hope you're wrong.
> Once we begin to say what we cannot do- it is unlikely we will ever do it.

My contention on the subject is -- so what if we can't travel faster than 
light?  Relativistic effects such as time dialation make interstellar 
travel feasible.  Not easy, no, but feasible.

> 	Remember: You can't prove a negative.

More appropriately stated, you can't prove a theory.  That's true.  But 
we'd better find a damn good exception to get faster than light travel.

> People once thought that crossing the ocean was impossible- can't do it.
> People once thought that machines would never be better than man at any job-
> can't be done.
> People once thought breaking the sound barrier was impossible and that 
> we'd never land a man on the moon- can't be done.

These kinds of statements kind of irk me a little . . . there's a 
difference between a common public myth and a well-defined scientific 
theory.  Sure, people thought you couldn't break the sound barrier.  But 
they didn't have any reason to think this other than, "Oh, my, our planes 
start to rattle a lot as they get toward Mach 1."  That's different than 
having reams of paper showing that as a particle approaches the speed of 
light, its mass increases without bound.

That doesn't mean that FTL travel will never happen, but it means that 
we've got a much better reason to believe it than getting men to the 
moon, breaking the sound barrier, reaching the New World, or 
breakthroughs in robotics.

Note:  I'm not making judgements about Star Trek here; just talking about 
the lightspeed barrier.  As far as I'm concerned, the subject is a moot 
point when dealing with Star Trek.  In coming to the series, you're given 
that in the Star Trek universe FTL travel exists, and go on from there . 
. .

----------
Max Pandaemonium   Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  Coming soon:  UNIVERSE _ | _
USmail:  1070 Oakmont Dr. #1 San Jose CA 95117  ICBM:  37 20 N  121 53 W _>|<_
UUCP:  ..!apple!uuwest!max   Usenet:  max@west.darkside.com   464E4F5244   |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: mcs@unlinfo.unl.edu (michael straatmann)
Subject: Re: Ent-D vs. Death Star - It Couldn't Happen
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Distribution: world, na, usa, local
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 02:43:31 GMT

Who is to say that the "long, long, time ago" and "far,far, away" are not
relative.  Rather pompous for anyone to think that _they_ are the center
of the universe.  Just my opinion.

mstraatmann
mcs@unlinfo.unl.edu

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: rfs@uunet.uu.net (Robert F Spence)
Subject: Re: Phasers, Disruptors, and Romulan ships.
Organization: Not very.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 02:51:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr06.225909.20096@ecst.csuchico.edu> davros@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tyler J. Yip) writes:

   I look at phasers this way...
   Phasers use colonated (whatever that means) energy to send short term but
   predictably stable high energy particles out a directed orofice towards the
   intended target.  Upon interaction with this target, the particles (nadions)
   in the phaser beam decay and release their stored energy within the matter
   of the target, thus creating sub-atomic nuclear explosions incinerating the
   target.

The meson guns from Traveller work in this manner.  Particles are accelerated
to relativistic velocities, pass through most material, then decay within
their targets producing a radioactive explosion.  Such a device is already in
use for the destruction of brain tumors. (Well, it's a wee bit less potent...)

Actually, weren't phasers supposed to be analagous to lasers only they were
`phased' in such a way that most if not all of the energy excited the target
molecules, similar to the wey microwaves excite H2O?  Perhaps phasers are
supposed to use some FTL analogue to photons?

   Romulan disruptors used some sort of arranged energy to vibrate the target
   matter apart, much like a microwave excites water, until that target is
   sufficiently disturbed.

See phaser description above.  The SFB Andromedians use a tractor-repulsor
weapon.  Was that in the show or did ADB make it up?  What, if any, is the
`Tech Manual' explanation for Disruptors?

     :: Rob Spence ::         Co-inventor of
                       ``Fleet Admiral Kang's Klingon-Style Stir Fry''

Send recipe requests and email to rfs@kepler.unh.edu

--
From: davidc@brahms.udel.edu (David Casper)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Beaming Technology
Keywords: Beaming
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:02:34 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

I've read some postings about the what-if's of our developing *beaming*
technology.  So I've decided to post my own:
	A poor SNR is unpleasant when *beaming* purely informational
data...but what an unthinkable thing when *beaming* biological data!?!?
If I've overlooked something, don't flame me, inform me!

Dave
davidc@brahms.udel.edu
From: kellyfj@vax1.tcd.ie
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Q: Quad / KiloQuad, what is it ?
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:43:21 GMT
Organization: Trinity College Dublin

Question:

Whilst reading the ST:TNG tech manual by Sternbach and okuda, I came across the
mention of a measure of computer storage called a "Quad". Can anyone tell me
what it means and how it translates into modern kilobytes or megabytes (if
possible).

Thanks in advance.

--Frank Kelly

********************************************************************************
* KELLYFJ @vax1.tcd.ie  |   "qaStaHvIS wa'ram loS SaD Hugh SljlaH qetbogh LoD" *
* ----------------------|               -a Klingon Proverb                     *
* GO BROWNS! GO DAWGS!  |    						       *
********************************************************************************
From: mbrockma@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Matt Brockman)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: time travel
Date: 10 Apr 92 09:04:52 GMT
Organization: Twin Peaks Sheriff Department

In article <1992Apr9.222439.10059@nevada.edu> snit@nevada.edu (S. Nev Inst of Tech) writes:
>In several startrek episodes (at least TOS) and in STIV the enterprise
>crew travels back in time, and then returns to their time. I basicly
>understand the theory of traveling *back* in time.  You add linier and
>rotational volocities pushing yourself faster than light in real
>space, and that send you back in time.  Or something like that.
>
>How about going forward in time?  How do they get back?  Faster than
>light travel in real space sends you *back* not *forward* in time.
>
>Any explainations?

Obviously, to go backwards, you loop around the sun counter-clockwise
and to go forward you loop around clockwise! :-)


===============================================================================
Matt Brockman                                           mbrockma@ecn.purdue.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Achievement is its own reward; pride obscures it." 
					-Maj. G. Briggs, TWIN PEAKS
"Never drink coffee that has been anywhere near a fish." 
					-Special Agent D. Cooper, TWIN PEAKS
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N Barrett)
Subject: Personnel Forcefields
Organization: Iowa State University of Censorship and Repression, Ames, IA
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 08:04:09 GMT


   I have a question about something in the ST-TNG Tech Manual.  On page 136
of the manual, in the section on personal phasers, there is a description of
setting 5.  Part of it reads: "Setting 5: ... Simple personnel forcefields
are penetrated after 5 seconds.  Large Away Team fields will not be affected."

   If these 'personnel forcefields' and 'Large Away Team fields' are 
available, why are they never used?  Granted, they would not stand up to
very heavy attacks, as even Setting 5 of a personal phaser will penetrate
the personnel fields, but I can think of a number of times during the
series when one of the members of an Away Team would have been spared
injury or death had they had a forcefield.  I remember that such forcefields
were shown in TAS, but TAS is not canon.

---
| Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
--------------------------------------------------
      <Insert you favorite one-liner here>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Warp Field Collisions
Date: 6 Apr 92 00:01:44 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <+0zt+4c@rpi.edu> petitc@rpi.edu writes:
>
>I was wondering what would happen if, say, the big E. and another warp-capable
>ship came VERY close to each other.  I mean so close that their warp fields 
>started to overlap.  What would happen?  Would the ships both be ripped apart
>because they would be experiencing vastly different forces on the hull (due to
>warp field interference) sections?  Or nothing would happen?

I agree with your intuition in that we should expect there to be some
interaction (probably fratricidal) with two proximal warp fields.  We
know, for instance, that deflector shields and warp propulsion fields
don't always get along well together.

But I don't think the results would be catastrophic, simply because if
it were dangerous to coincide warp fields then there would be a safety
precaution built into the control system.  When interference is
detected, the warp field would shut down to prevent destruction.

--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2