Starship Reactors and Dead Man Switches

For polite and reasoned discussion of Star Wars and/or Star Trek.
Post Reply
GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:22 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote:He clearly ignors the part about the "dead man's switch" principles like in a terrestrial reactor". Nobody has said, that it would be better, if the reactor of a star ship explodes. But it would be very bad too, if such a reactor shut down in an emergency like a battle or the anti matter tanks are ejected.
If you did put a dead man switch on something in space that was sustaining the life of people and it was a Fed craft, then fusion might be good. Just make sure the switch never happens when you're in combat or in deep space. Other ships are using warp cores and microsingularities to power their stuff. Fusion just won't cut it.
My problem is, that I don't understand the motivation behind such behaviour. That's not productive. Either they are stupid and haven't understood, what was said, or they are lying deliberately.
There are people all throughout the spectrum.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:29 pm

GStone wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:He clearly ignors the part about the "dead man's switch" principles like in a terrestrial reactor". Nobody has said, that it would be better, if the reactor of a star ship explodes. But it would be very bad too, if such a reactor shut down in an emergency like a battle or the anti matter tanks are ejected.
If you did put a dead man switch on something in space that was sustaining the life of people and it was a Fed craft, then fusion might be good. Just make sure the switch never happens when you're in combat or in deep space. Other ships are using warp cores and microsingularities to power their stuff. Fusion just won't cut it.
Maybe it's to late for me, but I don't understand this part of your post.

The engineer in question [I don't give names ;-) ] is ranting about Star Trek engineering and that, if he would build a Star Trek ship, he would employ the dead man's switch" principles to the warp core, like in a terrestrial reactor. And he would design the antimatter tanks so that they must be retained against a constant ejection pressure.

He would employ the "dead man's switch" principles wherever possible, so that a system is ideally activated by a failure condition and gives the following 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."

or

"Competent engineers would have designed the antimatter tanks so that they must be retained against a constant ejection pressure (perhaps driven by springs, gas pressure, or magnetic repulsion), thus utilizing the "dead man's switch" principle. If the containment magnets are connected in series with the tank retainer magnets, the tanks will be blown free as soon as the fields begin to weaken."


My problem is, that I don't understand the motivation behind such behaviour. That's not productive. Either they are stupid and haven't understood, what was said, or they are lying deliberately.
There are people all throughout the spectrum.
Then the problem of SDN is, that the "bad" people are to loud.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:47 pm

GStone wrote:I concur with the idea of these posts in this thread shifted to a new thread on starship building. It could be very fun.
Maybe it's to late for me, but I don't understand this part of your post.
I just meant that the other power generation type the Feds use after m/am is fusion, as far as I know. It'd suck if someone sneezed during a battle, the dead man switch flips, warp power is lost and the back ups come online...based on fusion power generation. Romulans and others use m/am and microsingularities to power their engine cores. Fusion won't cut it, if you're fighting them.
That I have understood.
And I agree. (But if it is a "dead man principle", the fusion reactor would shut down too. You wouldn't want, that they explode.)

As I have said, a Starfleet ship is a warship too, regardless how Starfleet define itself. It is a ship, which has to fight. And a ship, which has to fight, need a certain safety which assured that the ship doesn’t lose in a battle its main power and fuel. If the enineer in question would have built it, its warp core would shut down after it was hit the first time and it would eject all of its antimatter tanks. Anti matter is, as you certainly know, a really dangerous substance. It must be very well secured. A ship, which said engineer would have built, would, when its main power is shut down while it is maintained or due to a short circuit, eject all its antimatter tanks, maybe even on the surface of planet or in its orbit or in the inside of a star base. A star ship travels through deep space. The survival of its crew depends on the functioning of its systems. A ship, which the engineer in question would have built, would eject its warp core and its antimatter tanks only because a short circuit in the retaining system. And without its main power, the crew of the star ship would be lost, if they wouldn’t get help in due time.

But that would be better, than to give the crew the chance, to repair the damage and prevent a core breach. No, it is better to eject their only hope to live and let them all die.

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:21 am

Who is like God arbour wrote:A ship, which the engineer in question would have built, would eject its warp core and its antimatter tanks only because a short circuit in the retaining system. And without its main power, the crew of the star ship would be lost, if they wouldn’t get help in due time.
This is probably why we never hear of circuit breakers on starships either. You know, what if they thought of circuit breakers, but didn't want something similar to a dead man switch happening to a starship?

We see there are these spots consoles explode from, but what if beneath the surface of the console there's a thing that stores energy spikes and I'm not talking about a capacitor device. It'd be an overflow sink that stores the surges, keeping them from effecting the controls. Only, they themselves get overfilled, too, and they burst, causing the shower of energy expelled from the console.

O'Brien once told a cardassian scientist that Starfleet says there should be at least 2 back ups. Additional explosions from the same console could be the other 2 back ups overfilling and exploding, which would help keep the console in good use, but then, the console isn't as good when both back ups are gone, too, and the spikes keep coming.

The console itself can still be worked when the power spike sink explodes, such as when we saw the E-C try to get back into the rift and the console explodes, but Tasha slips right into the seat and works the panel. Immediate console explosions from hits would then becaused by an automatic overflow of the sink, which probably already has some energy in it.

User avatar
SailorSaturn13
Bridge Officer
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:45 am

Post by SailorSaturn13 » Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:19 pm

The idea with consoles is to have a separate enrgy feed, which is low-powered, so t=the surges of main energy cannot reach them.

Knife1138
Redshirt
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:06 am
Location: Hunckered in my bunker

Post by Knife1138 » Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:53 am

Two questions, since this thread seems to be a split from somewhere and I seem to be missing something;

Are you saying that a deadman switch to a high energy system (really a system more than capable of out right destroying the ship) is a bad thing?

And two; that warp power is what runs the shields and weapons, let alone the 'main ship power' (for lack of a better term to lump lights, enviro, computers, etc).

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:37 am

Knife1138 wrote:Two questions, since this thread seems to be a split from somewhere and I seem to be missing something;

Are you saying that a deadman switch to a high energy system (really a system more than capable of out right destroying the ship) is a bad thing?

And two; that warp power is what runs the shields and weapons, let alone the 'main ship power' (for lack of a better term to lump lights, enviro, computers, etc).
As I have understanded Star Trek, they have the warp core. But this is only a matter/anti-matter reactor. This reactor provide the energy for the warp drive, but for all other main systems too. It is the main power system.

I think, that in a star ship, the crew has activly to decide to eject the warp core or the anti matter tanks or shut the main power down.
    • Imagine, the main power would shut down in a battle, becaus the dead man switch is released.
    • Imagine in the TNG episode ""11001001" the warp core would have been automatic ejected in the star base.
    • Imagine in the Voyager episode "Nightingale" the anti matter tanks would have been ejected during maintenance on the planet because the retaining system against the constant ejection pressure would have been deactivated.
    • Imagine, you fly at warp in deep space, lightyears from the next star system afar, and suddenly your warp core is ejected and you have lost all your energy and therefore you are not able to fly back and recover your warp core, which is, by the way, exploded because nobody have repaired it.
Yes, I think, that the crew should have the last word, if such a system should be ejected or shut down. Usually, they have enough time, to prevent a warp core breach. And only if they come to the conclusion, that it is not preventible, they would eject the warp core.



I think, the agitation is not justified.

There was how many warp core breachs in whole Star Trek with (ENT: 97, TOS:80, TNG:176, DS9:173, VOY:168) 694 episodes and 10 movies?
How many was due to a battle or some other exceptional circumstances?

And now look at Star Wars. In three of six movies (50 %), a ship was destroyed by its exploding reactor. I don't see the competence of the engineer, who has build a ship with a straight open corridor from the hangar to the engine room (TPM) or from an engineer, who has built the death star with a straight and open shaft from the surface till to the reactor core.

Knife1138
Redshirt
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:06 am
Location: Hunckered in my bunker

Post by Knife1138 » Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:38 pm

As I have understanded Star Trek, they have the warp core. But this is only a matter/anti-matter reactor. This reactor provide the energy for the warp drive, but for all other main systems too. It is the main power system.
Hmmm, I'll have to research this a bit, but I distintly remember a TNG where Picard ordered 'warp power to the shields' indicating that normal shield power came from another source. We know that from Kirk's era, phaser power was from impulse too, but the impulse was wired into the warp system somehow, durring the asteroid/worm hole bit.

Not to mention scens like the Constallation class ship Riker and Wonder boy Weasly were on when the warp core was cold and the kid actually ran his hands inside it and the lights were still on and gravity was making them stick to the floor. Just seems like main power is something else rather than the warp core.

Ted C
Bridge Officer
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by Ted C » Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:03 pm

GStone wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:A ship, which the engineer in question would have built, would eject its warp core and its antimatter tanks only because a short circuit in the retaining system. And without its main power, the crew of the star ship would be lost, if they wouldn’t get help in due time.
This is probably why we never hear of circuit breakers on starships either. You know, what if they thought of circuit breakers, but didn't want something similar to a dead man switch happening to a starship?
I fail to see the problem with a dead-man's-switch principal being used on a starship in the correct circumstances, and anti-matter containment looks like an obvious circumstance for one.

If the anti-matter escapes containment, your ship is destroyed. It therefore makes sense to include a mechanism that will reliably get the anti-matter away from the ship if containment is about to fail.

It doesn't matter if it happens in the middle of a battle or some other dangerous situation. Loss of warp power may mean the destruction of your ship, but loss of anti-matter containment is certain destruction for your ship if you don't get the stuff away in time.

The Enterprise required someone to push a button (or flat panel icon) to eject anti-matter containers or the warp core or whatever was about to explode. What if something unfortunate happens to the person who's supposed to hit that button during the crisis? You ship explodes. What if the lines connecting the ejection mechanism to the control console is damaged? Your ship explodes. There are a lot more potential break downs in a system that requires active human intervention than in an automatic system.

I suppose it's possible for a dead man's switch to eject the core or the containment pods sooner than you might want in a crisis, but you've still got a fighting chance even if it does, 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.

Ted C
Bridge Officer
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by Ted C » Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:08 pm

Knife1138 wrote:Hmmm, I'll have to research this a bit, but I distintly remember a TNG where Picard ordered 'warp power to the shields' indicating that normal shield power came from another source.
TNG "Hero Worship"
Knife1138 wrote: We know that from Kirk's era, phaser power was from impulse too, but the impulse was wired into the warp system somehow, durring the asteroid/worm hole bit.
It was described as an upgrade implemented just before the events of ST:TMP. When the warp engines went into anti-matter imbalance, the phasers were automatically shut off.
Knife1138 wrote:Not to mention scens like the Constallation class ship Riker and Wonder boy Weasly were on when the warp core was cold and the kid actually ran his hands inside it and the lights were still on and gravity was making them stick to the floor. Just seems like main power is something else rather than the warp core.
The ship has a collection of fusion reactors collectively called the impulse engines. These should be more than sufficient to provide power for most systems, like life support. They're apparently not sufficient to provide power for warp propulsion, hence the matter-antimatter reactor being called the "warp core".

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:13 pm

Ted C wrote:[...] I suppose it's possible for a dead man's switch to eject the core or the containment pods sooner than you might want in a crisis, but you've still got a fighting chance even if it does, 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.
In all instances, I can remember, there was never a suddenly loss of anti-matter containment. It was always a matter of minutes and in the most cases, it was enough time to stabilise the containment.

Even if not, there would be enough time, to eject the warp core or the anti matter pods. There is no need for someone to push a button. The order can be given by voice to the computer. It is even probably, that the computer would eject the warp core or anti matter pod by itself, if the remaining time is nearing the end and nobody has repaired it until then.

The problem with a dead man's switch is, that it is not only possible, that the warp core or the containment pods are ejected sooner than you might want. In a battle, in which the ship is shaken and it has to deal with huge amounts of energy and damage, it is very probably that the death man's switchs are released.

And there was my objection from the TNG episode ""11001001". Would it really be better, if the warp core would have been ejected in the star base?
Or a ship in a dock, which is repaired: If there is a dead man's switch, there is a huge danger, that it is released by mistake during such repair work.
Ted C wrote:The ship has a collection of fusion reactors collectively called the impulse engines. These should be more than sufficient to provide power for most systems, like life support. They're apparently not sufficient to provide power for warp propulsion, hence the matter-antimatter reactor being called the "warp core".
It is correct, that the fusion reactors from the impuls drive provide some energy too. But that is not the main power system as far as I know. The lights in the corridors, the life support and terminals would probaply need only a tiny fraction of energy. The most would be used from the main systems, like weapons, shields, navigation deflector, and warp drive.

In ST:TMP, the pasers was powered by warp energy. Through this they would have been more powerfull. But because the warp drive has had a malfunction, which has caused the worm hole, they couldn't use the phasers. It would have destroyed the Enterprise. Admiral Kirk has ordered, that a bypass from the impuls drive is installed to the phasers. He has refered to the many instances, the Enterprise has lost its warp drive and has needed its phasers. Later, he has seen, that Decker has already begun to install such a bypass.

In TNG, there is a electro-plasma distribution network (EPS). That get its energy mainly from the warp core, but from the fusion reactors of the impulse drive too. The phasers in TNG would draw their energy from this energy grid. If the main power is shut down, the phasers would have only the energy provided by the fusion reactors and would be significant weaker. Against an enemy, who has its weapons and shields energized by its main power, that wouldn't be enough and could be deadly



If you "would employ the "dead man's switch" principles wherever possible, so that a system is ideally activated by a failure condition", you would install such switches in the fusion reactor too. They can explode too and would destroy the whole ship then. The problem with a dead-man's-switch is, that then, the fusion reactors would shut down too, if their switchs are released by the same event, that has released all other switches on a ship. Such events are especially probably in a battle.

The next problem would be, that a ship without main power could not retreat. But it could still have its main power, if it wasn't ejected in the battle because the dead man's switch was released. And even if the containment was weakening, the crew could heve been able, to stabilise it. But we will never hear what happened with the ship and its crew, becaus a "competent" engineer has employed the dead man's switch principle wherever possible and now, the ship is destroyed and the crew is dead.


Knife1138 wrote:[...]I distintly remember a TNG where Picard ordered 'warp power to the shields' indicating that normal shield power came from another source.
Or that the shield systems aren't built to operate with so much power like the warp drive is using. Nevertheless, they would draw their energy from the energy grid, which is energised by the warp core and the fusion reactors from the impuls drive.

Ted C
Bridge Officer
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by Ted C » Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:07 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote:In all instances, I can remember, there was never a suddenly loss of anti-matter containment. It was always a matter of minutes and in the most cases, it was enough time to stabilise the containment.
In TNG "Disaster", while the containment failure was not immediate, the only people aware of the problem (leaving the perplexing question of why Engineering was completely unmanned at the time) were unable to correct it. Their control connections were limited: they had no ability to eject the anti-matter containers from the bridge -- the best they could manage would be to separate the saucer from the engineering section. Obviously there was no automatic system to eject the anti-matter containers of the field strength dropped too low. They were left with just hoping someone would show up in Engineering to reroute power to the containment units.
Who is like God arbour wrote:Even if not, there would be enough time, to eject the warp core or the anti matter pods.
How can you make that unqualified assertion?
Who is like God arbour wrote:There is no need for someone to push a button. The order can be given by voice to the computer.
Assuming there is someone authorized to perform the ejection and that person is not incapacitated or unaware of the problem. In any case, in three or four warp-core breach incidents, we've never seen anyone attempt this by voice command.
Who is like God arbour wrote:It is even probably, that the computer would eject the warp core or anti matter pod by itself, if the remaining time is nearing the end and nobody has repaired it until then.
There is absolutely no evidence this is the case. Not in "Disaster", not in "Yesterday's Enterprise", not in "Cause and Effect", not in Generations.
Who is like God arbour wrote:The problem with a dead man's switch is, that it is not only possible, that the warp core or the containment pods are ejected sooner than you might want. In a battle, in which the ship is shaken and it has to deal with huge amounts of energy and damage, it is very probably that the death man's switchs are released.
That would depend on the design of your dead-man's switch, wouldn't it.
Who is like God arbour wrote:And there was my objection from the TNG episode ""11001001". Would it really be better, if the warp core would have been ejected in the star base?
That's a good question. The docking bay of the starbase was quite large. It's impossible to say whether the explosion of a warp core would have critically damaged it. I'm inclined to say that if a starship's warp core exploded inside the starbase, it wouldn't make much difference whether it was inside the ship or outside when it blew.
Who is like God arbour wrote:Or a ship in a dock, which is repaired: If there is a dead man's switch, there is a huge danger, that it is released by mistake during such repair work.
A ship in dock for repairs should probably have it's containers removed or emptied in advance if there's a significant risk that the work will affect containment or automated ejection systems.
Who is like God arbour wrote:It is correct, that the fusion reactors from the impuls drive provide some energy too. But that is not the main power system as far as I know. The lights in the corridors, the life support and terminals would probaply need only a tiny fraction of energy. The most would be used from the main systems, like weapons, shields, navigation deflector, and warp drive.
As I said, warp propulsion unquestionably requires warp power, but most of the ship's other functions can be powered by the impulse engines. Of course, you don't have as much power available to pump through systems like phasers and shields without warp power, but that doesn't mean they won't function.
Who is like God arbour wrote:In ST:TMP, the pasers was powered by warp energy. Through this they would have been more powerfull. But because the warp drive has had a malfunction, which has caused the worm hole, they couldn't use the phasers. It would have destroyed the Enterprise.
I don't know what would have happened if the phasers were fired during an anti-matter imbalance, but the point is moot, because they couldn't fire phasers under those conditions. An automated system shut them off. That's why Decker belayed Kirk's order to use phasers on the asteroid that was in the wormhole with them; they simply wouldn't have worked. They only working weapon system was the torpedoes.
Who is like God arbour wrote:Admiral Kirk has ordered, that a bypass from the impuls drive is installed to the phasers. He has refered to the many instances, the Enterprise has lost its warp drive and has needed its phasers. Later, he has seen, that Decker has already begun to install such a bypass.
I don't recall anything of the sort happening in the movie. Was it in the novelization or something?
Who is like God arbour wrote:In TNG, there is a electro-plasma distribution network (EPS). That get its energy mainly from the warp core, but from the fusion reactors of the impulse drive too. The phasers in TNG would draw their energy from this energy grid. If the main power is shut down, the phasers would have only the energy provided by the fusion reactors and would be significant weaker. Against an enemy, who has its weapons and shields energized by its main power, that wouldn't be enough and could be deadly
Could be, but having your ship blow up because of a warp core breach or anti-matter containment failure would unquestionably be deadly. At least against an enemy, you have the option of surrendering.
Who is like God arbour wrote:If you "would employ the "dead man's switch" principles wherever possible, so that a system is ideally activated by a failure condition", you would install such switches in the fusion reactor too. They can explode too and would destroy the whole ship then.
You would employ them appropriately in the fusion reactors as well, but they're actually far less of a risk. It would be hard to make a fusion reactor explode on purpose, let alone by accident. In stall one seal that will blow if the internal pressure gets too high, and the loss of containment will kill a fusion reaction almost instantly.
Who is like God arbour wrote:The problem with a dead-man's-switch is, that then, the fusion reactors would shut down too, if their switchs are released by the same event, that has released all other switches on a ship.
Why would every system have the same failsafe mechanism. The hazardous conditions for a fusion reactor are nothing like those for a matter-antimatter reactor, and it's failsafes should be entirely independent.
Who is like God arbour wrote:The next problem would be, that a ship without main power could not retreat. But it could still have its main power, if it wasn't ejected in the battle because the dead man's switch was released.
Federation starships have no less than three separate power systems: the warp engines, the impulse engines, and a battery system. If you've been so badly mauled by the enemy that you've lost all of these, you can't expect to escape or reverse the situation.
Who is like God arbour wrote:And even if the containment was weakening, the crew could heve been able, to stabilise it.
Maybe, maybe not. It would depend on why containment was failing and how quickly, wouldn't it?
Who is like God arbour wrote:But we will never hear what happened with the ship and its crew, becaus a "competent" engineer has employed the dead man's switch principle wherever possible and now, the ship is destroyed and the crew is dead.
A competent engineer will employ the dead-man's-switch principle appropriately to every system that requires it. That especially means systems that store, move, or utilize anti-matter, because a containment failure leads to the immediate destruction of the ship.

Other systems will have separate failsafe measures. Why are you acting like the tripping of one failsafe will leave the ship completely powerless?
Who is like God arbour wrote:
Knife1138 wrote:[...]I distintly remember a TNG where Picard ordered 'warp power to the shields' indicating that normal shield power came from another source.
Or that the shield systems aren't built to operate with so much power like the warp drive is using. Nevertheless, they would draw their energy from the energy grid, which is energised by the warp core and the fusion reactors from the impuls drive.
The episode that Knife1138 recalls -- "Hero Worship" -- plainly showed that Federation starships don't routinely use warp power to sustain their shields; they can, but they normally don't.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:30 pm

The power systems are actually quite complex in Star Trek. You have the warp core, which is your primary source of power. You have an array of secondary fusion plants, which are generally used for shields, life support, and impulse engines (hence the references to "impulse power"). As I have discussed on the main website, we can suggest that the Galaxy class has probably around a dozen secondary fusion plants, and powering the shields takes up the dedicated output of half of those. I'm going to suggest - given the imbalance between regularly routing warp power straight to phasers and very rarely doing so to shields - that sending more power to the shields gives back diminishing returns. The system itself - its capacity, perhaps - matters more than the raw power you shunt into it.

Note that while the shields are usually only powered off impulse power, the deflector makes regular use of close to the full output of the warp core ("Best of Both Worlds.") This is either an inconsistency or an unclear look at two different systems.

You have emergency batteries, mostly "krellide," which - like merculite - remains conveniently undefined, but apparently blows modern lithium-ion batteries out of the water.

You also have - for TNG and later era systems - the phaser banks themselves, which store an enormous amount of energy in some nicely accessible "pure energy matrix" form and are originally charged from either warp or impulse power. I believe "The Sound of Her Voice" (DS9) is the source to look at on that point.

Ted C
Bridge Officer
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by Ted C » Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:17 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote: Note that while the shields are usually only powered off impulse power, the deflector makes regular use of close to the full output of the warp core ("Best of Both Worlds.") This is either an inconsistency or an unclear look at two different systems.
We've had several episodes suggest that "shields" and "deflectors" are separate systems ("The Arsenal of Freedom" is another). At a guess, I'd say the shields are better at handling directed energy while the deflectors are better at handling physical impacts.

And yes, the main deflector does appear to be able to handle the full output of the warp core, which is apparently more power than a full barrage of phasers and photon torpedoes.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:You have emergency batteries, mostly "krellide," which - like merculite - remains conveniently undefined, but apparently blows modern lithium-ion batteries out of the water.

You also have - for TNG and later era systems - the phaser banks themselves, which store an enormous amount of energy in some nicely accessible "pure energy matrix" form and are originally charged from either warp or impulse power. I believe "The Sound of Her Voice" (DS9) is the source to look at on that point.
As early as TOS, in "The Doomsday Machine", Scotty talked about charging up a phaser bank. Presumably it includes some sort of capacitor. That would explain why you tend to see phasers fired in bursts instead of being continuously trained on a target.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:11 am

OK, now I have a problem: The following two posts have cast doubts that we speak from the same thing:
Ted C wrote:That would depend on the design of your dead-man's switch, wouldn't it.
Ted C wrote:A competent engineer will employ the dead-man's-switch principle appropriately to every system that requires it.
Till now, I have thought, a dead-man's switch is a safety measure, which doesn’t need a decision and an active doing, because it is constructed in a way that it needs an active retaining system and if this fails, the safety measure is automatically released without the need of a decision or an active doing.

My example would be a hand grenade with a lever. If the grenade is unlocked, you have to actively press the lever. If you unhand it, the grenade will explode after the preset time. I have thought, that a dead man’s switch is meaning such a safety measure, because, if the soldier, who is holding such a grenade is shot dead, he would release it without a decision or an active doing and the grenade will explode as it is wanted.

[Please note, that I don’t want to claim, that every grenade has such a functional principle or that it would be good in every situation. But it would undoubtedly be good in some situations, in which it is wanted, that the grenade explodes, if its holder is shot dead.]

I have seen my thoughts confirmed with the examples, I have found on the site "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
Competent engineers would have designed the antimatter tanks so that they must be retained against a constant ejection pressure (perhaps driven by springs, gas pressure, or magnetic repulsion), thus utilizing the "dead man's switch" principle. If the containment magnets are connected in series with the tank retainer magnets, the tanks will be blown free as soon as the fields begin to weaken.
Anyway, I have looked to confirm, that the described safety measure is called really dead-man's switch in English and that I haven’t confused it with the name of another safety measure.

Per Wikipedia a dead man's switch, as its name suggests, is a device intended to stop a machine in case the human operator becomes incapacitated, and is a form of fail-safe. They are commonly used in train locomotives, freight elevators, lawn mowers, tractors, jet skis, outboard motors, snowblowers and snowmobiles.

In short, that was not, what I have imagined under a death-man's switch. This safety measure will be released even if there is no malfunction only because the human operator becomes incapacitated. For our debate, this would mean, that the warp core is ejected only because someone hasn’t pushed on a button in the given interval or something similar, even if the warp core has no malfunction.

That neither apply to our debate nor to the given examples on the site “Engineering and Star Trek”.

Either there is another definition of death-man's switch, I’m unaware of or the writer of the article “Engineering and Star Trek” has mistaken the meaning of a death-man's switch with another safety measure.

The latter would be pity, because that would prove, that the writer is for all his swaggering an incompetent engineer, who is using wrong technical terms. I’m not an engineer and English is for me – contrary to the writer of this article - a foreign language. I think I would be excused. But I don’t see a reason to excuse an engineer, who always boasts with his alleged competence.

But as I have said, there could be another definition of death-man's switch, I’m unaware of. Maybe you can provide me with one and can even give me a link to its source.

Before we continue this debate, I would want to know, what exactly you mean, when you speak of a death-man's switch. I want prevent that we argue over one another.

I have meant a safety measure which doesn’t need a decision and an active doing, because it is constructed in a way that it needs an active retaining system and if this fails, the safety measure is automatically released without the need of a decision or an active doing. If such a safety measure is not defined as a death-man's switch, please give me the exact name of it. I wouldn’t want to continue this debate with a wrong technical term.

Post Reply