Starship Reactors and Dead Man Switches

[Who is like God arbour]

I have no problem, if someone changes its viewpoint or opinion in a debate. That shows honesty. Nobody is perfect and sometimes, one couldn't consider all possible objections. But I think, it would be "nice" to announce, if an objection has changed your viewpoint or opinion. I know, especially in longer debates, oneself doesn't always notice, how the own viewpoint or opinion is changing. Sometimes, one notice such changes first, when reading the first and last post. Therfore, I would never accuse someone for deliberate dishonesty (I think, it is no lie, if someone unintentionally says something, what is wrong. It's only a lie, if he knows it or suspect it but pretend to be sure.), if his or her viewpoint or opinion are slightly altered in the course of a debate.

But what you have done, is a nearly 180° turn in two posts. Here you still argue, that it is good, to employ a CR fail-safe system (or how ever you want to call it) wherever possible. The starting point of the debate was the following quotation from "Engineering and Star Trek":

Furthermore, "dead man's switch" principles are employed wherever possible, so that a system is ideally activated by a failure condition. For example, a CANDU reactor's primary emergency shutdown system uses shut-off rods that are electromagnetically suspended above the reactor. If the system fails, its electromagnet will lose power and the rods will fall due to gravity, thus shutting the reactor down.

• • and you have answered inter alia

This is the sort of safety system we're talking about for anti-matter containment: if the power required to contain the anti-matter fails, the anti-matter automatically gets ejected before it's too late.

• • and

He's talking about a mechanism that detects a failure condition (anti-matter containment system has no power) and automatically takes action to create a safe condition (anti-matter containers are ejected from the ship) without any need for human intervention.

I think, that there was no doubt, that you have spoken from a core ejection system too, because the warp core has its own containment system too.



Suddenly, you argue, that there would be no need for a core ejection system at all, because you would change the whole warp core so that it is inherently safe.

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.

• • (From "a good system, which should be employed wherever possible" to "there would be no need for such a system" in only two posts.)

Topic of this thread was not, if the safety of the warp core itself could be improved. We have palpably debated, why it would be stupid, to employ a CR fail-safe ejection system (or how ever you want to call it) to a warp core.

By the way, I think, it is wrong to assume, that, if antimatter is feeded into the reactor at only the rate, it is needed to maintain the desired power output, there would be no need for a warp core ejection system at all. It isn't enough to shut off the flow of antimatter in the event of a containment problem. The reaction of matter-antimatter release energy and exert pressure. These energy and pressure have to be contained by a containment field The energy and pressure in the reaction chamber doesn't vanish at once, only because there are no further matter-antimatter reactions. If the containment of the reaction chamber begins to weaken, one could stop the antimatter flow but nevertheless could be obliged to eject the warp-core because the energy and pressure in it doesn't decrease as fast as the containment is collapsing.

The same goes for fusion reactors. A huge problem today is not only to induce a constant fusion reaction, but to create a stabil containment field, therewith the reactor doesn't melt down due to its own released energy. But if the pressure and energy in such a reactor (from the 24th century) is high enough and suddenly released due to a failing containment, the consequence would be something, what I would describe as an explosion.

Furthermore, we don't know enough, to claim to be able to redesign the warp core. Normally, I would say, that it is a good idea, to design the warp core so, that the reactor never contains a substantial quantity of antimatter and it would be only feeded a the rate, wich is necessary to maintain the desired power output. But there are to many unknown variables about the warp core. For example, we doesn't realy know, if it isn't already designed this way. A collapse of the containment could, as I have tried to explain, result in an explosion due to the rest of energy and pressure, regardless if the antimatter flow is already stopped.

• • For example, in Star Trek Generations, Geordi has said first, that the last torpedo must have ruptured the magnetic interlocks. But he was relatively calm - not an unsolvable problem. But then, there happened the coolant leak and suddenly they were only five minuts away from a warp core breach. I interpret this as following: The ruptured magnetic interlocks was no problem. Indeed, the containment field was affected, but the cooling system would have cooled the warp core down fast enough, that a weakening containment wouldn't have been a problem at once. They would have had enough time, to replace the ruptured magnetic interlocks and reinforce the containment. But because there was the coolant leak, the warp core couldn't have been cooled down as fast as it would be necessary, therewith the weakening containment system could contain the rest of energy and pressure any longer than 5 minutes. I don't say, that my interpretation has to be correct. Maybe it is one of many possible interpretations. And maybe, you can prove, that it is even impossible, because it is contradicted by other sources or logic.

[Ted C]

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.

And thus the core has its own separate ejection system; where have you been? Better yet, it should just a shutdown system that starves it of antimatter, but they way it's described as always containing enough antimatter to destroy the ship, an ejector would be needed.

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.

No, only the part where the failure is occurring. If antimatter pod 3 fails, it gets ejected. Pods 1, 2, 4, etc. and the core remain in place.

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.

GStone -- the antimatter-dump/core-ejection system failed every single time it was called up on in TNG. Unless you can provide some examples of it working correctly, it has a 0% success rate.

[Ted C]

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

So does StarFleet.

The problem with Starfleets antimatter "failsafe" is that it has demonstrated a 0% success rate.

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.

TMI has been roundly criticized as a dumb-ass design itself. For that matter, so has Chernobyl.

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.

Well, it's unquestionably insufficient to sustain warp propulsion, and Voyager has the special disadvantage of there being no friendlies around to respond to a distress call.

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.

If you've got any evidence that such a system exists, do share.

[Ted C]

Suddenly, you argue, that there would be no need for a core ejection system at all, because you would change the whole warp core so that it is inherently safe.

I bring it up because it was overlooked, and because it's a better solution than a core ejector. If the core has to have a deadly charge of antimatter at all times in order to operate for some reason, then a failsafe core ejector remains necessary.

Note that the core would still need a failsafe system, but the failsafe would only need to shutdown the reactor instead of ejecting it.

From "a good system, which should be employed wherever possible" to "there would be no need for such a system" in only two posts.

Because I'm describing different safeties for a different core design.

Topic of this thread was not, if the safety of the warp core itself could be improved. We have palpably debated, why it would be stupid, to employ a CR fail-safe ejection system (or how ever you want to call it) to a warp core.

And based on the existing core design, a failsafe design would still be critical.

By the way, I think, it is wrong to assume, that, if antimatter is feeded into the reactor at only the rate, it is needed to maintain the desired power output, there would be no need for a warp core ejection system at all. It isn't enough to shut off the flow of antimatter in the event of a containment problem. The reaction of matter-antimatter release energy and exert pressure. These energy and pressure have to be contained by a containment field The energy and pressure in the reaction chamber doesn't vanish at once, only because there are no further matter-antimatter reactions.

The energy and pressure will immediately drop when the reaction stops. Since the core hasn't breached yet at that point, it should be able to contain the remaining energy and pressure as they fall off. Further, the lack of any more antimatter entering the chamber eliminates the possibility of an uncontrolled M/AM explosion.

If the containment of the reaction chamber begins to weaken, one could stop the antimatter flow but nevertheless could be obliged to eject the warp-core because the energy and pressure in it doesn't decrease as fast as the containment is collapsing.

Since the core has been able to hold the pressure up to that point, it should be able to withstand the rapidly dropping pressure once the reaction stops. If necessary, you could include a mechanism to vent the internal pressure out to space.

The same goes for fusion reactors. A huge problem today is not only to induce a constant fusion reaction, but to create a stabil containment field, therewith the reactor doesn't melt down due to its own released energy.

Modern fusion reactors don't have any such problem. They don't use "fields" to contain the pressure for the reaction, they use walls. In any case, the real problems with fusion today are 1) that it takes more energy to maintain the necessary heat and pressure to sustain fusion than we can get out of the reaction, and 2) we don't have a good way to actually obtain the energy from the reaction.

But if the pressure and energy in such a reactor (from the 24th century) is high enough and suddenly released due to a failing containment, the consequence would be something, what I would describe as an explosion.

And, as I said, if you have a seal on your fusion reactor in a "safe" location (like a hatch to the outside of the ship) that will fail before the reactor actually explodes, the seal will break before the whole reactor goes, dropping the pressure and venting the hot gases inside safely out to space. It's a relatively simple failsafe.

Furthermore, we don't know enough, to claim to be able to redesign the warp core. Normally, I would say, that it is a good idea, to design the warp core so, that the reactor never contains a substantial quantity of antimatter and it would be only feeded a the rate, wich is necessary to maintain the desired power output. But there are to many unknown variables about the warp core. For example, we doesn't realy know, if it isn't already designed this way.

We know that it's designed that way. They've described the mechanism in "Booby Trap". The question is whether it has to be designed that way to work. If not, it should be redesigned to be safer. If it has to be that way, it needs a failsafe ejection system.

[Jedi Master Spock]

I bring it up because it was overlooked, and because it's a better solution than a core ejector. If the core has to have a deadly charge of antimatter at all times in order to operate for some reason, then a failsafe core ejector remains necessary.

Note that the core would still need a failsafe system, but the failsafe would only need to shutdown the reactor instead of ejecting it.

It's also utterly impractical given the peak power levels a warp core handles. The notion that you could have a small enough amount of antimatter inside the core is predicated either on an unrealistic idea of reaction rates and transport of antimatter, or an unrealistic notion of the peak power generation of a warp core.

Given that the warp drive system is required to develop multiple exawatts, the warp core is going to be dangerous. For that matter, there's no indication that the warp core does have excess antimatter in it in the first place. So far as we know, the warp core is injected with the minimum amount of antimatter to develop the power desired.

[Who is like God arbour]

The energy and pressure will immediately drop when the reaction stops. Since the core hasn't breached yet at that point, it should be able to contain the remaining energy and pressure as they fall off. Further, the lack of any more antimatter entering the chamber eliminates the possibility of an uncontrolled M/AM explosion.

Since the core has been able to hold the pressure up to that point, it should be able to withstand the rapidly dropping pressure once the reaction stops. If necessary, you could include a mechanism to vent the internal pressure out to space.

I have said, that the energy and pressure will drop when the reaction stops. The problem is, as I have described, that this will need time. From severel million degree Kelvin to a temperature at which no containment field is necessary anymore because the walls of the warp core are enough to contain the rest of energy and pressure without a containment field. (The only way for the energy to "vanish" would be through the cooling system and through the normal "energy collector" which conduct the enrgy from the reaction chamber to the electro-plasma distribution network.) If the containment field collapse before this point is reached, the warp core will explode. The explosion power will depend on the rest of energy and pressure in the warp core.

And it is not possible to vent on the spur of the moment the internal pressure out to space. It would have to be channelled through pipes, which goes from the reaction chamber to and through the hull of the ship. But if I would be an engineer of a ship, I wouldn't build a shaft from the hull of the ship to the warp core. (Unlike another engineer, whose huge battle station could have been destroyed through such an emergency exhaust shaft) Another problem is, that these pipes would have to be included in the containment system too or would have to have their own containment system. Both, the containment system and the pipes itself could get damaged in a battle, especially because these systems are near the hull and therefore less protected than the warp core in the center of the ship.

Modern fusion reactors don't have any such problem. They don't use "fields" to contain the pressure for the reaction, they use walls. In any case, the real problems with fusion today are 1) that it takes more energy to maintain the necessary heat and pressure to sustain fusion than we can get out of the reaction, and 2) we don't have a good way to actually obtain the energy from the reaction.

That is, as far as I know, not correct. "Modern" fusion reactors [1] and [2] do use containment fields to contain near-thermonuclear plasmas.

Furthermore, we don't know enough, to claim to be able to redesign the warp core. Normally, I would say, that it is a good idea, to design the warp core so, that the reactor never contains a substantial quantity of antimatter and it would be only feeded a the rate, wich is necessary to maintain the desired power output. But there are to many unknown variables about the warp core. For example, we doesn't realy know, if it isn't already designed this way.

We know that it's designed that way. They've described the mechanism in "Booby Trap". The question is whether it has to be designed that way to work. If not, it should be redesigned to be safer. If it has to be that way, it needs a failsafe ejection system.

I can't remember to have heard such thing in this episode. But that was only the German dubbed version. Very often, the translations are inadequate. I have galloped through the script of this episode on this website, but couldn't find a quote, which would confirm your opinion. Maybe you can provide a quotation.

Unless you can provide some examples of it working correctly, it has a 0% success rate.

The problem with Starfleets antimatter "failsafe" is that it has demonstrated a 0% success rate.

"Cathexis", "Day of Honor", "Renaissance Man"

As I have said, the necessary to eject the warp core at all, was only there in extraordinary cirumstances like after a battle, in which the warp core is damaged. But then, it is not extraordinary, that such an ejection system is damaged too. That's the risk, one have to bear. Even in such cases, they have often enough possibilities tp prevent a warp core breach.

[GStone]

And thus the core has its own separate ejection system; where have you been?

I said what you quoted because any place where the antimatter is, there's gotta be a containment field, which brings me to my point...which is that any spot that would loose antimatter containment would automatically get shot out with a dead power switch system installed.

Better yet, it should just a shutdown system that starves it of antimatter, but they way it's described as always containing enough antimatter to destroy the ship, an ejector would be needed.

The amount there is because of the power levels it generates.

No, only the part where the failure is occurring. If antimatter pod 3 fails, it gets ejected. Pods 1, 2, 4, etc. and the core remain in place.

And if containment is lost inside the core, the core would need to be ejected automatically with a dead power switch system installed.

GStone -- the antimatter-dump/core-ejection system failed every single time it was called up on in TNG. Unless you can provide some examples of it working correctly, it has a 0% success rate.

Contagion was because of an alien virus was screwing with the computers. Cause and Effect was due to damage from the nacelle, which had already caused other problems, as Ro said. Plus, the distortion field was changing before the hit, which had caused all the main systems to go down and the power levels of what was left was rapidly decreasing. In Generations, the magnetic interlocks ruptured. Then, the coolant leaked. The magnetic interlocks were preventing them from immediately ejecting the core, which they needed to do because of the coolant leaking.

All three of these had other factors involved that prevented ejection. They are not the norm. This is 3 examples out of 300 years of usage of the technology. If the design is really so flawed, they wouldn't still use it. If it's such a bad thing, they could utilize a microsingularity for a power core. Just get a bunch of warp fields together and compact space. They've got the technology.

[Who is like God arbour]

a complement:

And, as I said, if you have a seal on your fusion reactor in a "safe" location (like a hatch to the outside of the ship) that will fail before the reactor actually explodes, the seal will break before the whole reactor goes, dropping the pressure and venting the hot gases inside safely out to space. It's a relatively simple failsafe.

I think, it is not so simple. The reaction champer is completely encased in the containment field. There would be no pressure on a hyphenation point unless the containment field is collapsed. But then, it would be to late, to vent the gases safely out to space.

If the field around the reaction chamber is weakening, it would be necessary to open a small hole in the containment field, through which the hot gases can be channelled in the pipes, which would have to need their own containment field and are going through the ship to and through the hull.

That doesn't seems to me as a relatively simple failsafe, notwithstanding that it is an active fail-system and not a CR fail-safe system (or how ever you want to call it). I would even allege, that it is outright dangerous - if not impossible - to open a hole in a destabilised containment field. It could collapse at once.

[GStone]

Plus, opening a hole in a collapsing containment field would mean that you actually have some kind of control of that field. But, it's collapsing. If it's collapsing, the best you could do is slow it down some, but that's not any decent control really.

That's the 'let's use duct tape to keep the nuclear waste from pushing its way through this paper towel roll' kind of control.

[Ted C]

I think, it is not so simple. The reaction champer is completely encased in the containment field.

Please explain to me why a fusion reactor would require a containment field. It's not like deuterium will spontaneously explode on contact with other matter.

Since fusion reactors don't require force fields to keep the fuel from contacting matter, it's a much simpler design. In a fusion reactor, if the pressure gets to high, you can just let it blow off an emergency hatch to release the pressure. With the loss of pressure, the fusion reaction would die, end of problem.

[Ted C]

Contagion was because of an alien virus was screwing with the computers. Cause and Effect was due to damage from the nacelle, which had already caused other problems, as Ro said. Plus, the distortion field was changing before the hit, which had caused all the main systems to go down and the power levels of what was left was rapidly decreasing. In Generations, the magnetic interlocks ruptured. Then, the coolant leaked. The magnetic interlocks were preventing them from immediately ejecting the core, which they needed to do because of the coolant leaking.

All three of these had other factors involved that prevented ejection. They are not the norm. This is 3 examples out of 300 years of usage of the technology. If the design is really so flawed, they wouldn't still use it. If it's such a bad thing, they could utilize a microsingularity for a power core. Just get a bunch of warp fields together and compact space. They've got the technology.

Oh, come on. Failsafes have to work under abnormal conditions; you build them to prevent disasters under unusual circumstances. The type of failsafe Mike and I described would have prevented the explosion of the ship in all three of the situations in which a Galaxy-class blew up due to a warp core breach.

I will concede that the Intrepid-class apparently has a much more reliable ejector system, albeit one that has to be manually activated.

[Who is like God arbour]

I think, it is not so simple. The reaction champer is completely encased in the containment field.

Please explain to me why a fusion reactor would require a containment field. It's not like deuterium will spontaneously explode on contact with other matter.

Since fusion reactors don't require force fields to keep the fuel from contacting matter, it's a much simpler design. In a fusion reactor, if the pressure gets to high, you can just let it blow off an emergency hatch to release the pressure. With the loss of pressure, the fusion reaction would die, end of problem.

I have already explained this:

That is, as far as I know, not correct. "Modern" fusion reactors [1] and [2] do use containment fields to contain near-thermonuclear plasmas.

Maybe you should have read this. If I'm wrong, you could have shown me, where my mistake is. Then I could accept, that my further conclusions, basing on this assumption, are wrong too. But until now, I act on the assumption that I am correct.

And we don't speak only from the fusion reactors, with which there was never problems by the way, but from the matter-antimatter chamber of the warp core.

[Who is like God arbour]

Oh, come on. Failsafes have to work under abnormal conditions; you build them to prevent disasters under unusual circumstances. The type of failsafe Mike and I described would have prevented the explosion of the ship in all three of the situations in which a Galaxy-class blew up due to a warp core breach.

I will concede that the Intrepid-class apparently has a much more reliable ejector system, albeit one that has to be manually activated.

And now, we are again at the start. These CR fail-safe system (or how ever you want to call it) would do more damaga than use.

There is no doubt, that it would be better, if the warp core or the anti matter pods are ejected, before they explode in the ship. The question would be, what fail safe system would be advisable for this task.

I think, that a CR fail-safe system would be disadvantageous because they tend to be released in unfavourable situations, in which a star ship - contrary to a terrestrical reactor - can get but have to continue to functioning nevertheless. They don't have damage-tolerance or fault-tolerance (other construction principles), which is especially needed by a star ship in a battle.
For example, if the Enterpise in Star Trek II would have had CR fail-safe systems, they would have lost at least their warp core and maybe even all anti matter pods, after the warp core was damaged and the ship hast lost its main- and secondary-power.
If the Enterprise in TNG "The Last Outpost" or "The Booby Trap" would have had CR fail-safe systems, they would have lost their warp core and all anti matter pods, after their energy was drained.

We have seen in many episodes, that a containment field usually doesn't lost its integrity suddenly. There is usually enough time to prevent its collapse. We can conlude, that there is a capacitor or some other systems, which maintain the containment field. Therfore, as we have seen, the crew has in most cases enough time, to repair the damage. An ejection would be necessary only if the crew fails to repair the damage and the total collapse of a containment field is not preventible anymore. But that must be decided, either through the computer or through the operator.
For example, if the Enterprise in the TNG episode "11001001" would have had a CR fail-safe system, the warp core would have been ejected in the star base. But because it has had no such disadvantageous system, they had enough time to evacuate the Enterprise and program the auto-pilot to fly the Enterprise away. (We don't know, wether the computer should have ejected the warp core, after the Enterprise has left the star base and has arrived at a safe dictance.)


Furthermore, I doubt, that the ejection system of the warp core could be constructed as a CR fail-safe system. You can't on the spur of the moment eject the warp core. There a pipes and power supply line from and to the warp core, which have to be sealed. Through some of these pipes is anti-matter flowing. These pipes have to have their own containment and aren't closeable as easily as a water tap. But a CR fail-safe system is so "dependable" because it is so simple designed. The more complex it is the more accident-sensitive it is.

That's why I think, you need an active, but dependable ejection system.

Sure, there it the danger, that the ejections system itself fails and in an emergency, the warp core is not ejectable anymore. But an engineer has to ponder the different probabilities and measures of damages. And I think it is better, that the crew of a ship has the last word, wether essential systems are shut off or even ejected with the minimal risk, that the ejection system could fail than that for example in a battle the CR fail-safe systems are released due to damage, which is in a battle very probable although the crew could have maybe repaired the damage and continued the battle.

Another question would be, if the active ejection system itself could be improved, that there are not so many malfunctions. (I think, that this is realy stupid written from the authors of the diverse episodes.) But to design a CR fail-safe system instead would be a bad solution.

Please not again. Give a new objection.

[Ted C]

Maybe you should have read this. If I'm wrong, you could have shown me, where my mistake is. Then I could accept, that my further conclusions, basing on this assumption, are wrong too. But until now, I act on the assumption that I am correct.

Very well. Having looked, I will concede that modern fusion designs do use magnetic fields to contain the plasma. The point, though, is that if the field fails, the reactants won't explode if they contact the walls of the reactor. The failsafe I described is still perfectly valid.

And we don't speak only from the fusion reactors, with which there was never problems by the way, but from the matter-antimatter chamber of the warp core.

The M/AM chamber has an entirely different problem. One of the reactants, the antimatter, most definitely will explode if it comes into contact with the chamber wall. Consequently, you have a more serious safety problem that requires you to quickly get rid of either the antimatter or the entire chamber of your field starts to fail.

[GStone]

Oh, come on. Failsafes have to work under abnormal conditions; you build them to prevent disasters under unusual circumstances.

But, you can't expect them to work under any and all abnormal circumstances. Because the magnetic interlocks were ruptured, they couldn't eject the core when the coolant leaked. It seems like the interlocks are multifunction things and one of those functions is probably to get the core out of the ship. Unlike letting rods fall because of gravity, a core can't fall when the ship is in open space, so it needs to be pushed out.

The thing is also not sitting on the edge of the ship where they can just disconnect the latches and shove the thing out. It's many decks tall and that's without worrying about having the antimatter hooked up. With coolant leaking, as well as having had power generation up because of fighting, that's a lot of pressure and heat and gamma rays and that's gonna burst through the core and damage what's around it.

The core is inside the ship where it's the most protected and...even if they had the dead power switch you're describing, it wouldn't have worked because the core got so damaged that the coolant started to leak.

With the shitload of energy generation these things put out, the internal components are already designed to handle enormous stresses. Besides, even if the antimatter pods and the core itself were held by a lock that would automatically let go after a certain level of containment fails or some other requirement...the core still needs to be pushed out because they're in space. There's no way it can be totally passive.

So, you'll need something to push it out. That is where the magnetic interlocks probably come in because they went and then, the coolant did. When the coolant went, it was abandon the engineering hull for the saucer section.

So, let's say that this dead power system was installed in place of whatever is already inside the E-D. All they would have been able to do is evacuate to the saucer section after the coolant leaked.

The type of failsafe Mike and I described would have prevented the explosion of the ship in all three of the situations in which a Galaxy-class blew up due to a warp core breach.

No, it wouldn't. Not when you need to have the core pushed out. That requires computers working (in Contagion, they were getting fucked up by the virus), you need power (in Cause and Effect, main power was gone and what was left was being lost very fast) and you need to have the stuff that pushes the core out to not be damaged (which is what happened in Generations).

Show me a force that's gonna pull out the core from inside the ship when you're in open space and you aren't above a large gravity well, like a black hole and it will work without you doing a thing to make it happen.

I will concede that the Intrepid-class apparently has a much more reliable ejector system, albeit one that has to be manually activated.

Why would they change it? The only thing that looks different is what looks like the path for the matter and antimatter and the outside appearance of the core.