Polarized Hull Plating

[gr8scott]

How do you think this works?

How does it stop (or reduce) a particle weapon?

Polorizing implies magnetics. I assume that polorizing something lines up the poles in a defined patern??? I don't get how this would stop a particle weapon. Any thoughts?

 

[ray gower]

I think I would speculate that with polarizing, they create an intense magnetic field.

It would have the effect of resisting an energy weapon, taking a large amount of the wallop out.

 

[gr8scott]

OK. That makes some sense... especially given that scientists have been experimenting (for a few decades) on creating "magnetic bottles" to hold plasma. I believe they even use magnatism to control the thrust on the experimental NASA plasma engines for the hypersonic projects.

However, this assumes much. It assumes that the weapon being fired (projected) is based on magnetism (having positive and negative elements) This would have no effect on kinetic weapons. This type of weapon would simply pass through a magnetic field and when detonated, would seriously mess up a "polorized" metal surface.

Don't you think?

 

[ray gower]

A magnetic field would have an effect on most things if it is intense enough, but by and large I would agree, conventiional impact weapons would not be affected. Just as well nobody uses whizz-bangs isn't it?

But are their modern shields anymore effective against large lumps of iron?
I remember in ST Generations, where the Klingons bugged L'Forge, the defence shields were not set at some incredibly complicated prime number based frequency, but at a very low one. You could drive the fabled corporation omnibus through while waiting for the shield to regenerate (It would have to be doing Mach 3, but that is not very fast in space and one is not expecting to pick up passengers)

 

[gr8scott]

I got an idea. Forget all that high tech future weaponry stuff. Just mount this puppy on the front of the Enterprise. Nothing will get in it's way:

More detailed info here

 

[ray gower]

LOL!

Where is your sense of science is wonderful?

Think I'd rather take Phalanx anti-missile cannon or the even heavier Goalkeeper system though, 4,500 round/min of depleted uranium stops a lot!

 

[gr8scott]

So, why hasn't anybody ever invented a kinetic device that is cabable of passing through a polorized shield (assuming that's what "shields" are), and then de-polorize the shields/hull. In effect - an antishield weapon.

Or, is a shield more like a force field - a field that can stop any type of solid material?

 

[ray gower]

I can think of a lot of good physical reasons for not having kinetic weapons!

First I don't think round shot, or even high explosive, would have a major effect upon the ship as a whole. I am mindful of the Falklands war, where Royal Navy ships were hit by bombs and shells. although they went straight through the hull (and out the other side) the ships were not seriously damaged because they did not explode.

Next to get the whizz-bang to travel at a decent speed. Effectively you would need all the gubbins that makes the USS Enterprise whizz about.

That would make the thing a big beast to carry around. So there is a problem of carrying enough of them to do serious damage. Which means a much bigger ship to carry them and yada-yada

Overall they become very expensive beasts not to get back and of limited effect.

Not that physical physics has a lot to do with Star Trek

 

[ray gower]

Found this nice little site by Colorado University that explains how and what a Force Field is.

My understanding from that is that USS Enterprise (TOS, TNG and on), project a fluctuating energy field around the ships hull.

 

[gr8scott]

Originally posted by ray gower
I am mindful of the Falklands war, where Royal Navy ships were hit by bombs and shells. although they went straight through the hull (and out the other side) the ships were not seriously damaged because they did not explode.

That's amazing. The ships were pierced through... wow. Tough ships! I am still amazed that the US Cole was still floating after holed by that bomb. That was a big hole.

 

[Dave]

Very interesting discussion, but some things don't hold water if you investigate them too much.

Re: Kinetic Weapons

Originally posted by ray gower
Next to get the whizz-bang to travel at a decent speed. Effectively you would need all the gubbins that makes the USS Enterprise whizz about.

I also assumed that something travelling at the speed of a bullet could be circled several times by a Star Trek Starship. It would be like a First World War bi-plane in a dogfight with a modern jet fighter.

But, wouldn't particle weapons and phasers be restricted to the speed of light?

I would also assume so. Yet, I believe I have seen weapons fire during Warp speed chases in Star Trek.

Re: Polarized Hull Plating

I posted a link in the books forum to a webpage with some sci-fi clichés. One of them was about 'reversing the polarity'. Dr Who and the classic Star Trek series frequently reversed the polarity of things to get an opposite effect, or just to make them work at all. I don't think the writers have any idea what 'polarizing the hull plating' means. I think they just had a limited imagination on the day they thought that up.

 

[gr8scott]

Originally posted by Dave
But, wouldn't particle weapons and phasers be restricted to the speed of light?

I would also assume so. Yet, I believe I have seen weapons fire during Warp speed chases in Star Trek.

Well... maybe they encapsulate the particle weapon in a warp field... No, that wouldn't work. You're right. It's a blunder.

One of the most creative weapons I've ever read was in a David Webber novel called Mutineers Moon (and I think in the Honor Harrington series). It was a combination of an antimatter weapon and a Inter-Diction drive (InterD) which was kinda like moving from point A - B without moving.... get it. So, you'd fire the weapon, It would go InterD, then reappear right next to the enemy ship and explode. So, as a result, war strategies where all based on this type of weapon. Then, they took it a step further and made recon satellites that would be deployed prior to a battle as forward looking devices (of course this assumes you know where the battle will take place). However, they were able to get the transmission to relay though the InterD so it was much faster than light. It was able to pick up weapon launches before they went InterD. And, it greatly enhanced scanner range.

Good concepts.... if you happen to have an InterD.

Most realistic space battle concepts:
Space: Above and Beyond (except for those Red ships)
B5 (no shields - very realistic)
David Weber's books (very much the submarine stategy concept - based on trying to predict enemy movements)

 

[ray gower]

Originally posted by Dave
I also assumed that something travelling at the speed of a bullet could be circled several times by a Star Trek Starship. It would be like a First World War bi-plane in a dogfight with a modern jet fighter.

But, wouldn't particle weapons and phasers be restricted to the speed of light?

I would also assume so. Yet, I believe I have seen weapons fire during Warp speed chases in Star Trek.

Don't they generally fire photon torpedoes at warp speed?
They do have some motive power to maintain velocity, but not enough to accelerate.
When a supersonic fighter fires it's cannon the shell emerges at its nominal speed plus whatever speed the aeroplane is doing. In air the drag very quickly slows it down. In space the amount of drag is minimal, so it would nominally carry on at almost the same velocity until it was stopped, or had to change direction.

Not seen the results of a biplane against a fast jet. But did see a dogfight between a Spitfire and a Hawker Hunter. The only way the Hunter had a chance of surviving was to open the taps and fly away

Originally posted by Dave
Re: Polarized Hull Plating

I posted a link in the books forum to a webpage with some sci-fi clichés. One of them was about 'reversing the polarity'. Dr Who and the classic Star Trek series frequently reversed the polarity of things to get an opposite effect, or just to make them work at all. I don't think the writers have any idea what 'polarizing the hull plating' means. I think they just had a limited imagination on the day they thought that up.

Had a chat with my employer's electronics expert about this, (he designs ADSL equipment, therefore cleverer than I about electronics stuff )
Simply. His opinion would have the force field carried on a second signal, which would effectively bias the charge. It would have the knock on effect of reducing the power required to achieve maximum protection, if you know which way the enemies weapons were charged! The polarity of the force field could therefore be 'inverted'.

 

[gr8scott]

Originally posted by ray gower

Don't they generally fire photon torpedoes at warp speed?
They do have some motive power to maintain velocity, but not enough to accelerate.
When a supersonic fighter fires it's cannon the shell emerges at its nominal speed plus whatever speed the aeroplane is doing. In air the drag very quickly slows it down. In space the amount of drag is minimal, so it would nominally carry on at almost the same velocity until it was stopped, or had to change direction.

I thought that the way a ST Starship went into "warp" was by creating a "warp bubble" around itself. This was how they escaped the obvious problem of moving mass at the speed of light when mass would need to become energy under normal conditions. So they put a warp bubble/field around the mass and moved the warp field faster than light... the mass inside becomes irrelevant. You could move a bannana faster than light if it could generate a warp field.

So, if this is correct, then once a starship launched a photon torpedo, once outside the ships field, it would disintegrate, or turn into energy... right? Unless it had it's own warp field!

 

[ray gower]

Sounds good to me. But one still needs an amount of motivation

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by gr8scott
I thought that the way a ST Starship went into "warp" was by creating a "warp bubble" around itself. .
....So, if this is correct, then once a starship launched a photon torpedo, once outside the ships field, it would disintegrate, or turn into energy... right? Unless it had it's own warp field!

That's what I thought too. I'm sure some explanation could be thought up for it, but the real problem with Star Trek in general is that they thought up cool things in the 1960's and then have tried to adapt them as physics has overtaken science fiction. At some point the whole 'house of cards' has to colapse.

 

[gr8scott]

But, we all have to admit... It's really cool when a sci-fi author dreams up something in a novel, then it turns out to be plausible, or even reality - like geosynchronus orbits of satellites (Clark).

Wonder if they'll ever get warp bubbles to happen.

 

[gr8scott]

Originally posted by gr8scott
So they put a warp bubble/field around the mass and moved the warp field faster than light... the mass inside becomes irrelevant. You could move a bannana faster than light if it could generate a warp field.

I never quoted myself before... So, maybe they shouldn't call it a "Warp Drive"... maybe it's more appropriate to call it an "Irrelevant Drive" What does "warp" have to do with it. Nothing's getting "warped". Not even time apparently. ST crews don't age slower or anything because I assume the "warp" bubble is protecting them from relativity - so it becomes irrelevant!

 

[ray gower]

Originally posted by gr8scott


I never quoted myself before... So, maybe they shouldn't call it a "Warp Drive"... maybe it's more appropriate to call it an "Irrelevant Drive" What does "warp" have to do with it. Nothing's getting "warped". Not even time apparently. ST crews don't age slower or anything because I assume the "warp" bubble is protecting them from relativity - so it becomes irrelevant!

Don't think the laws of relativity are contradicted (or involved), both ends are in 'normal' space.

A ship travelling faster than light is still subject to normal time in the real world.

Where it would look different would be if you are watching it from some fixed point and then only because what you are seeing has taken 'x' years to get to that fixed point so they look younger than you are at that point in time.

Which makes sense, but you have probably shaken hands with them after the trip, before you see they got there.

 

[APenny]

I'm new to the forums, but as a theoretical physics major I thought I would try to shed some light on the principles involved in "Warp Drive."

First, you have to let go of any attempt to equate warp with speed in the traditional sense. Sure, you can measure an amount of time it takes to go from one place to another, but you can't use that speed to determine relativistic effects on the ship, as it's not actually moving that fast.

Confused yet?

Ok, if the ship isn't actually moving that fast, how does it travel the distance in such a short period of time? This is where "warp" comes into play. The warp bubble of a ship would, theoretically, compress space in front of the ship, and expand space behind it, literally reducing the distance... not increasing the speed.

I suppose I could explain in more detail, but that would likely bore the crap out of everyone.. I hope the information given makes sense. I can expand on it later if anyone is interested. (there have been some actual experiments done with this theory, but nothing conclusive so far).