Starship Reactors and Dead Man Switches

[Who is like God arbour]

Please don't rip my post apart but answer in an essay form.

I see no sense, to comment every single sentence as you have made it here, and I think, it is difficult to read and has the danger, that sentences are taken out of context.

Sometimes, a reason or example is given in the next sentences or I explain something in several sentences, where the quotation of only one sentence allone would make no sense.

[Jedi Master Spock]

I'm going to step back from Ted C and Who is like God arbour's argument for a minute (and WILGA, please keep your temper; it's quite usual to take a statement in particular by itself when they have no problem with the rest of it) and ask three questions:

How many times have we seen containment in danger of being lost? I.e., the circumstances in which it is being suggested it should be automatically ejected?

How many times have we seen containment actually fail after being pronounced in danger of failing?

[Who is like God arbour]

...and WILGA, please keep your temper; it's quite usual to take a statement in particular by itself when they have no problem with the rest of it...

That was no attack.
I simply don't like it. I think, an essay like answer is easier to read than a such a post. And I think, it is easier, to think about what is said and what was said. That's why I ask for an essay like answer. If I don't get it, I have to and can live with it. But that doesn't mean, that I have to like it. In a debate or essay, you wouldn't use incoherent sentences but a coherent speech or text wrap.

[Dragoon]

...and WILGA, please keep your temper; it's quite usual to take a statement in particular by itself when they have no problem with the rest of it...

That was no attack.
I simply don't like it. I think, an essay like answer is easier to read than a such a post. And I think, it is easier, to think about what is said and what was said. That's why I ask for an essay like answer. If I don't get it, I have to and can live with it. But that doesn't mean, that I have to like it. In a debate or essay, you wouldn't use incoherent sentences but a coherent speech or text wrap.

Most people do it the way Ted C did because it's easier for them to address specific arguements. It's how I usually do it, although sometimes I do simply write a response in essay format.

[Praeothmin]

GEORDI
Sensor recordings reveal that what we witnessed was an uncontrolled and catastrophic matter/antimatter mix. The magnetic seals between the chambers collapsed --

PICARD
That's not possible.

GEORDI
Yes, sir, it is, but a highly improbable series of events has to take place before such an occurrence can result.

PICARD
Explain.

GEORDI
In the event of a breach of seal integrity there is an emergency release system which dumps the antimatter.

DATA
Apparently such a dump began, was then halted, and the containment
seals were dropped. There was still sufficient antimatter present to lead to the result we observed.

According to this, ST ships do have fail-safes that dump the anti-matter when there is containment malfunctions.
Wasn't that what Mike Wong stated he would install if he were designing ST ships?

[Who is like God arbour]

GEORDI
Sensor recordings reveal that what we witnessed was an uncontrolled and catastrophic matter/antimatter mix. The magnetic seals between the chambers collapsed --

PICARD
That's not possible.

GEORDI
Yes, sir, it is, but a highly improbable series of events has to take place before such an occurrence can result.

PICARD
Explain.

GEORDI
In the event of a breach of seal integrity there is an emergency release system which dumps the antimatter.

DATA
Apparently such a dump began, was then halted, and the containment
seals were dropped. There was still sufficient antimatter present to lead to the result we observed.

According to this, ST ships do have fail-safes that dump the anti-matter when there is containment malfunctions.
Wasn't that what Mike Wong stated he would install if he were designing ST ships?

Please read my post again. I hope, you will notice, that there are different kinds of fail systems. We speak about a specific kind of fail system.

[Ted C]

GEORDI
In the event of a breach of seal integrity there is an emergency release system which dumps the antimatter.

DATA
Apparently such a dump began, was then halted, and the containment
seals were dropped.

According to this, ST ships do have fail-safes that dump the anti-matter when there is containment malfunctions.
Wasn't that what Mike Wong stated he would install if he were designing ST ships?

What Data and Geordi describe is an active system. A sensor detects the seal failure, causing a mechanism of some sort to pump the antimatter out of the ship. If the sensor fails or the pump fails, the antimatter won't be dumped, and the ship will be destroyed.

What Mike describes is a failsafe. Keeping the antimatter in the ship is something that has to be actively maintained by a system that also maintains the seal. Any condition that breaks the seal also breaks the system that keeps the antimatter on board. Therefore, if the seal fails, the antimatter has to be jettisoned.

[Ted C]

I think some people are also ignoring one significant aspect of how Mike proposed designing the warp core.

As described in Star Trek, the warp core contains substantial quantities of matter and antimatter at all times, separated by a force field and allowed to mix at a controlled rate by some mechanism that involves dilithium crystals.

This creates the inherent risk of the design: if the force field separating the matter and antimatter in the core fails, you get an uncontrolled mix of matter and antimatter that destroys the ship.

One of his major proposals was to redesign the whole system so the reactor never contains a substantial quantity of antimatter. Instead, his design would feed antimatter into the reactor at whatever rate was needed to maintain the desired power output. Instead of needing to eject the core in the event of a containment problem, you'd just need to shut off the flow of antimatter.

His plan for a failsafe core ejector assumes you still have the core charged up with enough antimatter to destroy the ship at any given moment. Remove that condition, and you don't really need a core ejection system at all.

[GStone]

Except, even when the ship is subjected to energy draining fields, such as those used by the Tkon empire that was gonna slowly kill everyone onboard during The Last Outpost by cold and hunger, antimatter containment was never an issue.

The E-D couldn't do anything substantial. Not move, not fire weapons, not keep life support functioning to specs and they still didn't worry about antimatter containment.

Instead, his design would feed antimatter into the reactor at whatever rate was needed to maintain the desired power output.

That's basically the way things are now.

Instead of needing to eject the core in the event of a containment problem, you'd just need to shut off the flow of antimatter.

The core is ejected if containment of the antimatter already in the core itself is lost.

-----
Look, loss of containment isn't necessarily both the core and the pods. As I have shown, even when they can't use the warp core or life support, the containment fields for the pods remains intact. The core is ejected when they can't keep containment inside the core.

If there was a problem with the antimatter pod, that would get ejected, but there's no point in tossing out the core when the containment fields for the core are fine. There's most likely more than one antimatter pod and only one hooked up at any given time. If it's the pod, you don't have to get rid of the core.

You have yet to show any reasonable reason to have this mechanism when there's already one in place.

[Ted C]

Except, even when the ship is subjected to energy draining fields, such as those used by the Tkon empire that was gonna slowly kill everyone onboard during The Last Outpost by cold and hunger, antimatter containment was never an issue.

The E-D couldn't do anything substantial. Not move, not fire weapons, not keep life support functioning to specs and they still didn't worry about antimatter containment.

Since you keep harping on this point, has it occurred to you that since the failure of antimatter containment would lead to the instant destruction of the ship, it is very likely the number one priority for power allocation? They would probably literally let every other power-using system go down before slacking on the power to the antimatter containment fields. You would literally cut life-support back to nothing before letting the containment fields fail.

The fact that they still had enough power for lights, computers, doors and such in "The Last Outpost" and "Booby Trap" tells you they still had power for critical systems.

[Ted C]

If there was a problem with the antimatter pod, that would get ejected, but there's no point in tossing out the core when the containment fields for the core are fine.

Good grief! When have I ever suggested that you should? Each of these potential points of catastrophic failure should have its own separate failsafe.

There's most likely more than one antimatter pod and only one hooked up at any given time. If it's the pod, you don't have to get rid of the core.

Obviously. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the every atom of antimatter on the ship had to be jettisoned simultaneously because of a failure in one pod.

You have yet to show any reasonable reason to have this mechanism when there's already one in place.

Because the one that's in place requires active systems that are prone to failure, that's why.

Examples:
"Contagion" - antimatter dump attempted and failed
"Cause and Effect" - core ejection attempted and failed
Generations - core ejection attempted and failed

[GStone]

Except, even when the ship is subjected to energy draining fields, such as those used by the Tkon empire that was gonna slowly kill everyone onboard during The Last Outpost by cold and hunger, antimatter containment was never an issue.

The E-D couldn't do anything substantial. Not move, not fire weapons, not keep life support functioning to specs and they still didn't worry about antimatter containment.

Since you keep harping on this point, has it occurred to you that since the failure of antimatter containment would lead to the instant destruction of the ship, it is very likely the number one priority for power allocation? They would probably literally let every other power-using system go down before slacking on the power to the antimatter containment fields. You would literally cut life-support back to nothing before letting the containment fields fail.

The fact that they still had enough power for lights, computers, doors and such in "The Last Outpost" and "Booby Trap" tells you they still had power for critical systems.

The insistance of the ep after arriving at the planet was to get the energy field shut off so they could survive. If it was antimatter containment that they were worried about, it would take less energy to eject the pod and even the core and let them send a shuttle back to the nearest flriendly place to get a replacement without sarificing or screwing with life support.

If they did that, they wouldn't have to worry about freezing and starving everyone onboard.

But, the fact remains is that it was the energy field from the planet that kept them from keeping life support up to spec, not because they were worried about keeping antimatter containment. It was the same problem the ferengi were having.

As far as Booby Trap is concerned, the power from the energy reserves was being zapped, as well as even the energy used for propulsion that was being emitted by the engines. The same would go for attempts to talk to others outside the asteroid field.

No way to contact others, your energy reserves are being depleted, what isn't in reserve gets absorbed by the trap itself when you use it. You'll run out of power eventually and your resources, too.

[GStone]

Good grief! When have I ever suggested that you should? Each of these potential points of catastrophic failure should have its own separate failsafe.

Loss of containment for the antimatter. It might not happen just in the pods. The idea of containment failure for the antimatter, in yours and Mike's dead power switch idea, could eject the core, too. It has to have containment, too.

Obviously. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the every atom of antimatter on the ship had to be jettisoned simultaneously because of a failure in one pod.

Because antimatter containment failure would be anywhere the containment needs to be, so any part with antimatter in it would be ejected automatically with your design, if the containment there failed.

Because the one that's in place requires active systems that are prone to failure, that's why.

Examples:
"Contagion" - antimatter dump from the core attempted and failed
"Cause and Effect" - core ejection attempted and failed
Generations - core ejection attempted and failed

Less than a handful of examples doesn't make it prone to failure. All of these were special circumstances and aren't the norm.

[Praeothmin]

What Data and Geordi describe is an active system. A sensor detects the seal failure, causing a mechanism of some sort to pump the antimatter out of the ship. If the sensor fails or the pump fails, the antimatter won't be dumped, and the ship will be destroyed.

What Mike describes is a failsafe. Keeping the antimatter in the ship is something that has to be actively maintained by a system that also maintains the seal. Any condition that breaks the seal also breaks the system that keeps the antimatter on board. Therefore, if the seal fails, the antimatter has to be jettisoned.

Sorry, kinda read through the previous posts somewhat rapidly.
To be honest, I don't see any problem with the failsafe design that you or Mike came up with. It woul even be a sensible thing.
But, as was previously mentioned, with the low number of Warp core breachs, or Anti-matter containment rupture that has happened throughout all the series and movies, it might not really be necessary.

[SailorSaturn13]

No, but they I daresay they do have shutdown failsafes.

So does StarFleet. Note: while water-cooled nuclear reactors DO have a passive stop mechanism, others don't. And like in 3-mile-island, just stopping the reaction isn't enough.

since the impulse engines still produce a substantial portion of the ship's power. I'd say the risk of the anti-matter blowing is far greater.since the impulse engines still produce a substantial portion of the ship's power. I'd say the risk of the anti-matter blowing is far greater.

No. It is clearly stated in Vpyager that without warp core, energy is EXTREMELY sparce.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Antimatter does not leak power any more than normal matter does; you have to have a reaction system, and the only known M/AM reactor on a starship is the warp core.

The only BIG system. Idea is they have a containment mechanism that feeds on the annihilation energy itself: if containment field weakens, antimatter slowly starts to annihilate with matter and THIS energy is used to strengthen the field again. BTW, if you store antimatter fron, you don't even need a field at all times: the annihilation energy itself will haul the AM piece off borders.