posted
As far as I can tell, the basic question in this thread is "why are the nacelles in the back of the ship, and not in the front?".
The answer is "because that's the way Matt Jefferies designed the Enterprise".
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
The Defiant
Ex-Member
posted
Come on TSN, your ruining the discussion.
But it's a suprise, if the Federation new this, they wouldn't design more ships with long, middle positioned warp nacelles for efficency. That is why designs like the Sabre, Steamrunner, and Olympic classes make the most sense nacelle wise. But those are the odd shaped ships, which makes no sense.
IP: Logged
posted
whoa settle down my neghbors dog can hear you...must've figured out that 0's and 1's thing
-------------------- "Explore New Worlds"
Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
The Defiant
Ex-Member
posted
Well, we've got to put into account that nobody knew how stuff worked when Jefferies designed it. Which now we, the fanboys, have to explain. Which is why Koy' created this thread. Now I'm more confused.
IP: Logged
But the whole pull/push thing is nonsense. Just call it rear- or fore-mounted nacelles.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
The Defiant
Ex-Member
posted
Anytime Koy, Anytime.
For more backup check the Gettin’ comfy with Enterprise thread, my last post.
Snay, your going to need backup when someone higher up than you get's on your case because the wole MIB thing you have agaist me. Am I the only one tired of the MIB nonsense?
Maybe the delfector has something to do with it too. It's beam, while pushing away space junk could alter the field for more efficency.
IP: Logged
posted
My surprise is that you have neglected the ship your named after... mid-mount nacelles....
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
No, lots of other people have tired of the MIB nonsense. They agree with me that you are MIB, but ask only that I rub it in your face when you deny it.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
The Defiant
Ex-Member
posted
Is it just my sucrose induced sense or are we in for a major thread hijacking?
IP: Logged
posted
I am really sick of this guy. Someone figure out if he's actually MIB, and if so ban him. If he isn't, ban him anyway. When's the last decent thread we've had with him here? Either because of him, or Snay and the lot. It's gotten real old, real quick.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Let me first say that I have no idea why I am posting this... the entire topic is stupid.
Placement of warp nacelles does not change how they work. The warp field encompasses the ship and "squeezes" it forward... thus a pushing action. -- There is no pull. A warp field flipped around doesn't pull a ship, it pushes it in reverse.
But this entire thread goes to a a root problem. WARP NACELLES DOESN'T CAUSE PROPULSION! It's the Warp Field they create. Wake up, it's not the Engine, it's the explosive force of a gasoline-air mixture pushing a piston which rotates a crank shaft which turns an axle and wheel. Nacelles are necessary, an Engine is necessary, but it's not the propulsive force.
The statements of front and rear drive don't apply to nacelles. If you are in a front drive car the wheels spin towards the front of the car, it's the same way in a rear drive car. THE FORCE IS THE SAME. A ship with nacelles up front create a warp field with the same shape [and thus same dynamics] as a ship with nacelles in the rear.
Warp fields can only push, they can push you forward or even push you in reverse [given the right conditions].
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
posted
Um, I never reall thought about that, J. But one nitpick: If you take Sovvie nacelles and put them up front that might change the field a little. Whatever.
IP: Logged
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
