Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 101
10-19-2011, 08:34 PM
You're all over-thinking it. The Federation has had skin field personal force field tech since the 23rd century.

Now if they'd hurry up and put my aquashuttle in the c-store.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 102
10-19-2011, 10:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulif_Davis
This is actually the biggest logic flaw I've seen repeated over and over in this thread. The power to create an energy field is directly proportional to the surface area of the field. In the case of standard electro-magnetic fields, you have to use the volume, since there is only an outer boundary, with no inner boundary.

In Star Trek, however, the shields are essentially a hollow shell. There's an outer boundary and an inner boundary. The most effective way to cover any possible shape with the least surface area is to use a sphere. It increases the VOLUME, but since the space in between isn't powered (has no energy field), and therefore doesn't require additional energy, it doesn't matter.

To put matters in a way that people will have a much easier time wrapping their heads around, a properly focused video projector works just as well at 20 feet as it does at 5 feet, but it can be used on a much wider variety of screens at 20 feet.

Its not though. And using a projector as a example is a bit flawed. A projecter at 20 feet away from the surface its projected on is going to be harder to see thant one 5 feet away from the same surface.

Shields are actually more analogous to WiFi than they would be to a projector. WiFi signal is stronger the closure you are to the base station and weaker the further away you are. The same concept applies to shields in Star Trek as we've heard countless times that extending the shields around other vessels makes the shields weaker it would stand to reason that pulling the shields in closer makes them stronger as there is less surface area to the shield bubble. And I would argue the the space inbetween the inner face of the shield and the ship is powered, or there would be no way to generate the bubble in the first place. There has to be some form of energy in that space.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 103
10-19-2011, 11:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulif_Davis
This is actually the biggest logic flaw I've seen repeated over and over in this thread. The power to create an energy field is directly proportional to the surface area of the field. In the case of standard electro-magnetic fields, you have to use the volume, since there is only an outer boundary, with no inner boundary.

In Star Trek, however, the shields are essentially a hollow shell. There's an outer boundary and an inner boundary. The most effective way to cover any possible shape with the least surface area is to use a sphere. It increases the VOLUME, but since the space in between isn't powered (has no energy field), and therefore doesn't require additional energy, it doesn't matter.

To put matters in a way that people will have a much easier time wrapping their heads around, a properly focused video projector works just as well at 20 feet as it does at 5 feet, but it can be used on a much wider variety of screens at 20 feet.
How would you know?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 104
10-20-2011, 04:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAJ_2011
How would you know?
Actually he's right about the inner boundary since you have to drop shields to transport and because you can only fire out through your own shields because you know your own shield frequency and time the fire through it. (A ship that didn't know its own shield frequency would have to drop shields to use weapons, as I understand it.)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 105
10-20-2011, 04:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avalon304 View Post
Its not though. And using a projector as a example is a bit flawed. A projecter at 20 feet away from the surface its projected on is going to be harder to see thant one 5 feet away from the same surface.

Shields are actually more analogous to WiFi than they would be to a projector. WiFi signal is stronger the closure you are to the base station and weaker the further away you are. The same concept applies to shields in Star Trek as we've heard countless times that extending the shields around other vessels makes the shields weaker it would stand to reason that pulling the shields in closer makes them stronger as there is less surface area to the shield bubble. And I would argue the the space inbetween the inner face of the shield and the ship is powered, or there would be no way to generate the bubble in the first place. There has to be some form of energy in that space.
But the shields are only projected from a single source on the ship. So giving them a shape would either require more energy to account for the shape (akin to projecting a giant ship-shaped hologram) or have shield generators in different places around the ship.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 106
10-20-2011, 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avalon304 View Post
Shields are actually more analogous to WiFi than they would be to a projector. WiFi signal is stronger the closure you are to the base station and weaker the further away you are. The same concept applies to shields in Star Trek as we've heard countless times that extending the shields around other vessels makes the shields weaker it would stand to reason that pulling the shields in closer makes them stronger as there is less surface area to the shield bubble. And I would argue the the space inbetween the inner face of the shield and the ship is powered, or there would be no way to generate the bubble in the first place. There has to be some form of energy in that space.
I realize the projector example was flawed, but your WiFi example is even MORE flawed. The space inbetween ISN'T powered. There's at least one TNG episode and one Voyager episode in which they demonstrate that you can fly a shuttle within the inner boundary of a ship's shield. If that middle space was powered, then they wouldn't be able to do that. (If you absolutely insist, I can go find episode names, but I'd rather not put out that kind of effort. )

WiFi is area saturation. Deflector shields are a projected wall. That's why I went with a projector as an example (flawed as it is) because it is the closest analog that everyone would be familiar with. Also, properly focused, a person will see no difference between the two differences, except the picture will be larger at 20 feet. The difference in brightness/intensity will be so negligable as to be moot.

Finally, since I know someone's going to try and make this argument, I can think of one other real-life example that adds some data to this argument (though once again, it's flawed because we can't make a direct 1:1 comparison). Wireless signals can be either uni-directional (only goes a single direction) or omni-directional (goes in every direction simultaneously). A uni-directional signal is MUCH stronger and projects MUCH further at the same power levels than the equivelant omni-directional wireless signal. A deflector shield, being a projected wall, has more properties of a uni-directional wireless signal than an omni-directional wireless signal, since the space inbetween is not saturated, unlike if it were an omni-directional model. The only flaw to this argument is that the deflector shield's physical presence is omni-directional. (Aren't physics fun?)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 107
10-20-2011, 05:16 AM
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 108
10-20-2011, 05:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeochins
http://mgitecetech.wordpress.com/201...ld-technology/

look at the shape.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 109
10-20-2011, 06:23 AM
Wow one step closer to star trek becoming realistic.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 110
10-20-2011, 08:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
Spherical Round Hemispherical Curved
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:28 PM.