www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:Bigger than the first ever warp 5 engine? I doubt it.

The Galaxy-class' warp core is 12 decks tall, and horizontal. The secondary hulls may have been added to compensate for those design changes, like larger horizontal warp cores, and the extra space was filled up with useful equipment.

I don't. The warp engine would have to get bigger, right? Warp coils had to expand for greater speeds. The warp engine would have to get bigger for more power. *Grunt*

EDIT:

Thanks, Chakat.

Advances in tech are generally accompanied by miniaturization.

Mikey wrote:Advances in tech are generally accompanied by miniaturization.

That's 21st century thinking. There's a limit as to how small you make anything. Eventually with our currently known limits, computer's will reach their limit's in the next 30-50 years. Their's always the possibility of revelutionary new methods or new way of doing it that may increase our abilities, but until then the only option will be to get bigger. Federation engines may have reached their known limits for now and being bigger may be the only conventional way of getting more power, or at least the easy and quick way, since smaller ships have been getting more powerful. As evidenced by the Defiant.

It's not exactly 21st century thinking, but. There is a limit to miniaturization. Eventually, you reach the physics limit where the effect you're exploiting breaks down. You can't change, for instance, thermal or electrical resistance. You still need a big thick thing to minimize either. And when your printed circuit gets too small, you get electrons jumping pathways.

The only thing to miniaturize in a warp core is the control and containment systems. To which, as I've noted, there are limits. The amount of energy you get from a gram of antimatter does not change.

That all is sort of a moot point, though. The difference in energy between that needed to travel 125c vs 2700c is a matter of a couple orders of magnitude, it appears on the power/speed chart in the Warp Scales article. But modern Federation starships get it from a warp core only a couple times bigger than what the NX-01 had.

I think the 12 deck sized warp core is kind of a plothole. How many alien ships have Trek ran into that had smaller warp cores? Hell in that Enterprise episode they met an alien race with technology like you'd see in the newer shows and their core was about the same size as the NX's.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:but until then the only option will be to get bigger.

That's 19th century thinking.

since smaller ships have been getting more powerful. As evidenced by the Defiant.

I thought you disagreed? Well, thanks for the support, anyway.

Jordanis wrote:The difference in energy between that needed to travel 125c vs 2700c is a matter of a couple orders of magnitude, it appears on the power/speed chart in the Warp Scales article. But modern Federation starships get it from a warp core only a couple times bigger than what the NX-01 had.

Believe me, I know enough about modern materials to know that there are limits to miniaturization. You make good points, and I should have amended what I said to read, "Advances in tech are such that a more advanced warp core will be much smaller per unit output than an earlier one.

Mikey wrote:"Advances in tech are such that a more advanced warp core will be much smaller per unit output than an earlier one.

That I will certainly agree with.

As for the Defiant, that ship is really a big question mark. You can make a few rationalizations; it is reasonable to suppose that projecting a shield of that strength over such a small volume is less energy intensive than projecting one with the same energy dissipation over a larger area. That helps some on the question of Defiant power reserves. Then you can suppose that they run at an efficiency level that would be unacceptable otherwise. Generally, brute force will let you get more power, but you will get diminished returns from all the fuel you burn in the brute force zone.

Thinking more about it, those pulse phasers might be a major part of why the Defiant works. Each pulse is very energy-expensive, but averaged over time the power draw would be much lower. Sort of how scientists today can talk about making a gigawatt laser. Sure, but since it only lasts a microsecond, that's not many joules.

Anyway, assuming the use of some fast-draw capacitors, the reactor could run at what I expect would be a surprisingly low level and provide phaser power. Tricks.

I like to compare warp core with steam engines.
you start with a small unefficent piston engine develop it into a biiger more efficien vesion.
That would be horizontal warp cores.
Than comes the steam turbine, greater fuel efficency and speed. But over time the turbines get bigger. The vertical warp cores.

The Defiant for me was a slow ship with low range and high fuel consumption. Not up with SF standarts. Only the weapons were good.

Good annalogy

mlsnoopy wrote:I like to compare warp core with steam engines.
you start with a small unefficent piston engine develop it into a biiger more efficien vesion.
That would be horizontal warp cores.
Than comes the steam turbine, greater fuel efficency and speed. But over time the turbines get bigger. The vertical warp cores.

The Defiant for me was a slow ship with low range and high fuel consumption. Not up with SF standarts. Only the weapons were good.

Good analogy, but the Defiant is pretty fast with it not being limited by her engines, but by the strength of her hull. Not that it really matters in this discussion.

Good points. I had thought that part of the Defiant's supposed relatively slow top speed was the configuration of the nacelles, which would also explain the vulnerable pose adopted by other designs. It makes sense that the Defiant would sacrifice some linear speed in favor of survivability.