posted
Okay a simple question why not Fore warp nacelles, almost every schematic I’ve looked at lately has Aft nacelles explanation? You ask, well here is an example of Aft:
And this is as close as I could find to nacelles in the fore. For some reason it seems that a nacelle to the fore may be more efficient then an aft nacelle. Please voice you concerns, ideas and theories.
-------------------- "Explore New Worlds"
Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
There is no "push" or "pull" when it comes to continuum distortion propulsion. With nothing to act a force upon, there's no such analogy. Nacelle placement affects field flow energy, yes...but that's it. Using your theory, Cardassian Galor-class ships--& most other vessels in the galaxy--would go nowhere since they have midmounted "embedded" engines.
It's not a propeller or a jet.
quote:...and don’t worry Defiant this isn't a bash thread. (Although I really don't have any control over it.)
Then why mention it, hmm?
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Please clarify. No matter what kind of propulsion you are talking about it requires speed which implies force and a set equation V/c = WF(10/3)
Or
V/c = WF[{(10/3)+a*(-Ln(10-WF))^n}+f1*((WF-9)^5)+f2*((WF-9)^11)], which in essence means travelling at or more than light speed. So then which also implies a push pull factor, now I have already indicated this thread to be about warp fields so x being the field of fore and y being field of aft your would have this:
y | x
| = Warp core, also remember the hull is an important part of warp theory. now include nacelle placement. rear placement
-------------------- "Explore New Worlds"
Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
The Defiant
Ex-Member
posted
^^^That makes no sense to me^^^
Koy, until the ~word omitted~ posts, I like the thread.
Anyway, it's always easier to shove a guy down a flight of stairs than to pull him down one. That may or may not apply to Warp speeds, but I would figure that push is the optimum arrangement for a Galaxy or Intrepid Class. Since the bulk of the mass of the ship is in the saucer section, they only have to produce enough power to get to Warp 5, and then maintain a little less, like 4.5 because the mass of the saucer keeps it going at Wapr 5, dragging the ship behind. Like a fat guy falling down a flight of stairs will stop later than a thin guy falling down a flight of stairs. But the wieghing factor would be how big the nacelles were, because the more massive, it would give a bigger push. You can't really count the Intrepid Class on this, one because the nacelles are so dern small, and they looked like they would explode if the went to FTL travel. BTW, It always appeared to me that the Bellerophon had bigger nacelles that the rest, don't ya think?
[ June 03, 2002, 20:39: Message edited by: The Defiant ]
IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
If I take a piece of paper, place a toy on it, & then ripple the paper in wavelike form, the toy moves forward. There's no "motive force" to speak of. It's mere active friction of the space itself against the hull.
When driving a car, the engine turns the driveshaft which turns the wheels which push (or pull depending on gear) against the surface of the road to impel the vehicle. But radiated field energy has nothing to impel against except...itself.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
The TNG tech manual probably gives a pretty detailed explanation of this. And like others have said, the nacelles emit the warp field, but they're not pushing the ship. Nor would forward-placed nacelles be pulling the ship.
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
by warping the fabric of space around the ship, the nacelles arent making the ship go fast, they are warping space so that it would be impossible for the ship to stay at rest. velocity doesnt apply except in reference to the distance they have traveled when they shut down the warp.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
This is purely a Technology Question. This belongs to Starships and Technologies section. Off it goes.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
MIB, well now I have to post since you mentioned me.
Koy, you could learn a lot if you listened to Shik. I'm sure some people at the TrekBBS would be silly enough to go for this whole bit. Now, me, I'm not big on tech. But even I am well aware it doesn't matter where on a ship the warp nacelles are located -- starships are not automobiles.
quote:Originally posted by koy'peled Oy'tio: For some reason it seems that a nacelle that pulls may be more efficient then a pushing nacelle...there has got to be a better word than push and pull.
Well, I think there's a difference between saying whether the nacelles are front- or rear-mounted and saying whether they pull or push.
The way I've always vizualized the warp field working is, as the TNGTM states, a peristaltic action. So, in a sense, there's 'pull' at the front and 'push' at the back.
Where does the net force act? If at the centre of each nacelle, then we could reasonably say that the Sovereign class is indeed a 'pusher' -- mostly, as this force would have to be transmitted forward along the nacelle pylons.
Perhaps this is where the sharp backwards sweep of the pylons comes from? In that case, what about the Intrepid's near lack of fore/aft sweep?
Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Oh, yeah, and one of the conjectural (and, of course, non-canon) designs for the Nova class at the end of TMGTM shows a very much 'pull' design. The nacelles are alomost right at the front:
posted
now you see what i mean, there really wasn't an easy and understandable way to explain it. Anyway another warp field flaw (non-canon) is the existance of curved nacelles, which in my opinion is starting to push the barrier of warp field dynamics but picture this: curved forward nacelles that a perpandicular to the ship like some concepts of the D'deridex warbirds, things could get really complicated.
Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
The Defiant
Ex-Member
posted
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: by warping the fabric of space around the ship, the nacelles arent making the ship go fast, they are warping space so that it would be impossible for the ship to stay at rest. velocity doesnt apply except in reference to the distance they have traveled when they shut down the warp.
So if I understand this correctly, the longer the nacelle, the more it warps space so it goes faster? Which is why the Sovies are fast, and yet again, the Intrepid Class throws a wrench in it.
If any of this is contradicted by the TNG Tech Manual, forgive me. I only have to wait 4 more biusness days till Barnes and Noble shuffle in the warehouse and gets it for me.
IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
