Het "Warp" Topic

[Fr0zenFlame]

Na aanleiding van het "replica" topic wat een beetje uitspreide in verschillende directies, heb ik dit topic over en mogelijke "warp" technologie geopend, want "warpen" is opzich een interresant onderwerp, waar ik op het moment nog niet veel van snap, bahalve dat je op een sneller manier van punt A --> naar --> Punt B kan verplaatzen. Dit alles dan volgens het beruchte "Ballon" model!

Iemand....?

P.S

Ik kan hier op me werk heleaas geen tekeningen upoaden!

[Fr0zenFlame]

Het balon model moet je zo vorstellen:"

Pak een balon schrijf er een "A" op aan de ene kant en precies aan de anderkant een "B" zet vervolgens op zowel de "A" als de "B""je vingenger en druk ze dan naar elkaar toe, zo zie je dat je nu veel sneller van punt a, naar b komt, natuurlijk komt er in het echt veel meer bij kijken, zoals de hoeveelheid energie die nodig is om dat "Warp" field te creeren & tja hoe creeer je zoiets in een ruimte waar geen materie is, vacuum???

[Wussie]

^^ Probeer jij maar eens een hard opgeblazen ballon zo naar elkaar toe te drukken zonder dat ie uit elkaar splat...

Mja zoals je al zegt, dr komt een hele hoop bij kijken, een hele hoop dingen waar ik vrij weinig verstand van heb, dus alleen maar een beetje over kan fantaseren. Het zou natuurlijk wel 31337 zijn alls't kon mja

[Fludizz]

Je bedoelt de methode van bocht afsnijden... gebruik maken het effect wat zwaartekracht op de ruimte heeft...

Ik heb hier in dit forum een heel mooi topic daarover gelezen waarin een hele mooie tekening stond die het lichtelijk illustreerde...

Het principe wat jij bedoelt houd voor zover ik heb begrepen (wat vrij lastig is omdat het zware stof is) het volgende in:

Het licht legt een bepaalde route af, dat is ook de route die normaliter genomen moet worden om naar de lichtbron te komen... Maar, als het universum inderdaad als een ballon eruit zou zien, zou je natuurlijk ook via (gigantische) gravimetrische velden beide zeides van de ballon naar elkaar toe kunnen krijgen, met als gevolg dat je in plaats van 10.000 lichtjaar 1 meter ofzo hoeft af te leggen om bij het doel te komen...
dit heet iig Space Folding en als voorbeeld werd er inderdaad een ballon gebruikt...

nog een methode is om de afstand die je wil reizen niet te verkorten, maar de afstand die je hebt afgelegt uit te rekken... WhizzCat kan je daar meer over vertellen, hij heeft het mij een keer vertelt maar ik snap die methode niet geheel...

Warptechniek is niet een kwestie van sneller dan het licht reizen maar een kwestie van een kortere weg nemen simpel uitgelegt

[ Voor 6% gewijzigd door Fludizz op 19-09-2003 14:48 ]

[Fr0zenFlame]

Aha, het is me al wat duidelijker, bedankt daarvoor, wat ik echter niet snap is dat je met gravimetrische velden 2 punten naar elkaar kan krijgen in een vacuum ruimte waar nix is, ho krijg je daar grip op of zoals ze in strar trek zeggen, "how do you get al lock on it"

[voodooless]

Beetje offtopic maar wel leuk: Men heeft uitgevonden dat de lichtsnelheid helemaal niet constant is. Met behulp van bepaalde kristalelen kan de lichtsnelheid tot vrijwel 0 m/s worden afgeremt. Klinkt ongeloofelijk, maar het is waar! hierdoor valt eigenlijk ook weg dat je niet sneller dan het licht zou kunnen gaan. Het hoeft dus niet, je zou gewoon het ligt sneller kunnen maken...

Ff terug naar warp... Het princiepe is dus dat je de twee punten naar elkaar toe buigt en dat zo de weg daartussen kleiner wordt. Heb er nog een klein tekstje over gevonden:

Trans-Warp technology was evinced in the series as a method of theoretically traveling to any point in space instantaneously, not just faster than light. Another name, "Slip-Stream Drive," is also used in the Star Trek: Voyager series. Both technologies likely work by "Folding" space, where any two points in the universe are connected by some type of field, and a ship is able to travel through a ship-length conduit linking the two points. Thus, only for an instant, the ship would be at two points at the same time. An analogy would be placing two dots on a piece of paper, and folding the paper over so that the two dots are exactly on top of each other; an object on one dot could then travel to the other dot. Alfred Einstein evinces a similar theory, where two "Gates" are at two differentiated points anywhere in the universe. Powering them would enable an instantaneous link between the gates, thus similar to "Folding" space. These technologies would likely require enormous amounts of power (for the gate reference alone, more power would be required than is emitted by our own sun).

en hier: http://www.dotguy.net/warptek.htm

[ Voor 4% gewijzigd door voodooless op 19-09-2003 15:34 ]

[Verwijderd]

Beetje offtopic maar wel leuk: Men heeft uitgevonden dat de lichtsnelheid helemaal niet constant is. Met behulp van bepaalde kristalelen kan de lichtsnelheid tot vrijwel 0 m/s worden afgeremt. Klinkt ongeloofelijk, maar het is waar! hierdoor valt eigenlijk ook weg dat je niet sneller dan het licht zou kunnen gaan. Het hoeft dus niet, je zou gewoon het ligt sneller kunnen maken...

Er wordt dan ook niet voor niets gesproken van de lichtsnelheid in vacuum. In lucht is de lichtsnelheid lager dan in vacuum. In glas ook. In bepaalde kristallen is de lichtsnelheid sterk verlaagd. Wat is daar zo bijzonder aan, en hoe wil je dit fenomeen gebruiken om de lichtsnelheid te verhogen?

[Confusion]

edit:
Heej CP, laat dat eens

deepspace schreef op 19 september 2003 @ 15:32:
Beetje offtopic maar wel leuk: Men heeft uitgevonden dat de lichtsnelheid helemaal niet constant is. Met behulp van bepaalde kristalelen kan de lichtsnelheid tot vrijwel 0 m/s worden afgeremt.

Men heeft dat niet 'uitgevonden'; men weet al sinds Einstein met zijn relativiteitstheorie kwam dat de snelheid van licht in allerlei stoffen lager is dan de lichtsnelheid. Met de uitspraak dat de lichtsnelheid constant is, wordt bedoeld dat hij overal in het heelal, op ieder moment en in ieder referentiekader, gelijk is, namelijk bijna 3x10⁸ meter per seconde.

Klinkt ongeloofelijk, maar het is waar! hierdoor valt eigenlijk ook weg dat je niet sneller dan het licht zou kunnen gaan. Het hoeft dus niet, je zou gewoon het ligt sneller kunnen maken...

Hierdoor kan je nog steeds niet sneller dan de lichtsnelheid in het vacuum en dat is het enige dat Einstein gepostuleerd heeft. Wat je in de laatste zin probeert te zeggen begrijp ik niet.

[ Voor 4% gewijzigd door Confusion op 19-09-2003 16:19 ]

[Wildfire]

Onderstaande is overgenomen uit The Star Trek Explorer.

Warp Engines & Theory


"Warp works by _____"

Some favorites include:

Making space into waves, and skipping between the crests.
Bringing points in space closer together.
Changing the speed of light around the ship. *
The ship's mass is reduced to 0, and it can go any speed.**
Leaving our universe, and going through a hyper space.
Entering subspace, and taking a bubble of real space with you.
Compressing space around the ship to make the distance shorter.
All of these attempt to get around the first problem, but ignore the second. And none of these match the evidence seen on screen and in the Tech Manual, which is that the FTL effect is created by powerful, nested subspace (aka warp) fields that push off each other to generate FTL speeds.

Further, without any additional effects, each of these can lead to a violation of causality, meaning every time you go into warp you time travel, from a certain frame of reference. This is addressed in great detail in Jason Hinson's "Relativity and FTL" FAQ.

Ships in warp interact with things in normal space, one of the reasons for the navigational deflector. Things in warp require a subspace field to enter and stay in warp, and it takes an enormous amount of power to generate this. When the subspace field decays, a ship drops out of warp returning to some STL velocity.

* The point has been made that by constructing a space with a hyperbolic geometry the source and destination of two points, you can get away with FTL travel without the nasty causality violation effects pointed out by Jason's FAQ. However, this involves making changes to space-time along your entire flight path before you travel, and it does not appear possible to construct this path faster than c, so you'd have to set up a travel network beforehand. This obviously isn't what is used in Star Trek.

** A subspace field does reduce the inertial mass of an object within it, i.e. it appears lighter. But it does not lower the mass to zero, nor on its own would this effect allow FTL travel, as mass-less particles in our universe are still restricted to light speed. It turns out that this effect isn't even considered for warp travel, although it is used for impulse engines - less mass to push around.


"Well, so how *does* warp work?"

A powerful, asymmetric subspace field is established around the ship by the warp nacelles. The field is composed of nested layers, each pushing against the one beyond it. This drives the ship forward, at a super-luminal velocity. The nacelles are powered by a tuned plasma stream from the warp core Matter / Antimatter Reactor (M/AMR). Injectors feed the plasma into warp field coil segments at specific times, causing pulses to run the length of the nacelle, front to back. This peristaltic flow causes the push of the nested warp fields, and moves the ship forward. The warp field wraps around the ship in a two-lobed bubble, with the locus at Main Engineering (by design). The shape of the ship determines the efficiency of the field, and this explains why the Enterprise has such a sleek design. Meanwhile, the subspace field reduces the inertial mass of the ship, aiding in maneuvering. In fact, a small subspace field is kept around the ship at Impulse speeds, so the Impulse drives have less mass to push around. However, this is only a side effect and is NOT the mechanism used to allow FTL travel.


"But, but... that's just what it does! How does it work ?!!"

Alas, there is no canonical answer. The "Relativity and FTL" FAQ offers a possibility, that the subspace field forces the ship to take on the reference frame of subspace itself, which is a special reference frame, circumventing the limits of General Relativity.

Unfortunately, this still isn't an explanation of how it works. The Tech Manual offers that each of the nested fields couple and decouple from each other at velocities near (but less than) c. It could be that the interaction of these fields, combined with the special frame subspace provides, causes the ship as a whole to travel at FTL speeds. If two nested fields have their outer edges "locked" into the special frame, while the inner edges travel at near-c relative to one another, this might cause the FTL effect, as an artifact of the special frame trick. This has the added support of being almost exactly what the Tech Manual describes, but it doesn't mention the special frame. Since this makes for boring drama, it's unlikely we'll ever "really know" how warp works in Star Trek.


"Whats a cochrane?"

The Tech Manual has this definition: "The cochrane is the unit used to measure subspace field stress. Cochranes are also used to measure field distortion by other spatial manipulation devices... Fields below Warp 1 are measured in millicochranes."

Basically, it's a new unit of measurement. The Tech Manual says that one cochrane of asymmetric subspace distortion roughly corresponds to one factor of the speed of light, so a field of Warp 3, 39 times the speed of light, is actually a 39 cochrane field.


"What does cochrane stand for?"

The units are named after the scientist credited with the development of the warp drive, Zefram Cochrane, known as Zefram Cochrane of Alpha Centauri. With a drive capable of Warp 1, his team from earth relocated to colonies on Alpha Centauri (established with sub-light ships). In TOS "Metamorphosis", we learn that Cochrane, at age 87, left Alpha Centauri and was presumed dead. It turns out he was kept alive by an energy entity, and met by Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, although no official record of this encounter is made. Rumors of Cochrane being native to Alpha Centauri were once spread by Klingon sympathizers who wanted to knock Earth down a peg, but fortunately this disinformation campaign seems to have ended. (This is a joke, BTW, referring to Star Trek :WoF)


"What's this about a Warp 10 barrier?"

In the TNG scale, Warp 10 is infinite speed. As you approach a position on the graph corresponding to Warp 10, your power requirements increase astronomically compared to your increase in speed. But you can keep speeding up forever, unlike the light barrier, which keeps you from getting to the speed of light. In other words, keep piling on the 9s. Warp 9.99 is a lot faster than Warp 9.9, while Warp 3.99 is only marginally faster than Warp 3.9. The barrier is only one of energy, not velocity.

"But in TOS "Is There In Truth No Beauty?" and TOS "That Which Survives", the old Enterprise went over Warp 14!"

Yes, but that's on the old scale. By the new scale, that translates to about Warp 9.7, which the Enterprise-D can do for brief periods (its emergency speed is Warp 9.6). The original Enterprise was being shaken apart.


"But in TNG "Where No One Has Gone Before" they went past Warp 10!"

Chalk this one up to instrument failure. While Geordi did say they'd passed Warp 10, later in the episode they were booting along at some outrageously huge speed, while the instruments only read Warp 1.5. So there's canonical evidence that the Traveler's tweaking of the warp drive and the Enterprise's speedometer don't get along well.


"So why'd the Warp scale change between TOS and TNG?"

Gene Roddenberry himself put Warp 10 at infinite speed, according to the TNG Tech Manual. To keep the scale fluid, Okuda and Sternbach made it asymptotic, while starting off similar to the TOS scale. The best explanation for why it changed internally (from the characters' point of view), is that the original scale was established before warp was fully understood.

Looking at the graph (see "Warp Speed is..." below), you can see that the energy costs for cruising at integral Warp values are much lower than for non-integral Warp factors. The first explorers to travel past Warp 1 must have realized this. Since for Warp values in the 1-3 range follow the v = (W ^ 3) * c formula, it makes sense that a scale based on the formula would come into use.

When ships started cruising at Warp values larger than 5, the difference between what v = (W ^ 3) * c predicted to be the most energy efficient speeds and what actually were must have become noticeable. It may have taken a long time for a new, accurate scale based on new observations came into use. (Look at the USA and SI, for an example of a large sociopolitical body taking a long time to adopt a more useful, universally used scale.)

Sulu's readings of Warp velocity in Star Trek IV seem to hint that the Klingons had moved to an accurate scale by the 2280s, but the Federation didn't catch up until much later, even though it must have been painfully obvious that the old scale was next to useless. Fortunately, some time before TNG, the new, accurate scale was adopted by Starfleet.

Based on evidence in TNG "All Good Things...", it is possible that this was later found to be inaccurate, and in fact more integral warp values were found beyond 9 (perhaps as a result of a slightly different warp technology, perhaps they were there all along), allowing for somewhat more efficient warp travel in the Warp 9.9+ range, and conveniently known as Warp 10, 11, 12, 13, etc. This was doubtless a surprise to the theoreticians who thought Warp 9 was the last integral value.


"What causes fractional warp speeds?"

As you can see from the above chart, traveling at integral Warp factors is much more energy efficient. But there are times when a fractional value must be used - for example, staying a certain distance from another ship, or keeping pace with some phenomenon. Also, beyond Warp 9, only fractional speeds are possible. (Modulo TNG "All Good Things...", of course.) ....


"Why not use impulse drive within the warp field to create a higher velocity?"

There's no reason to think that a Newtonian drive (Impulse) would augment a non-Newtonian drive (warp). Also, consider that the maximum velocity attainable with a Newtonian drive is c. At Warp 2, which is ~= 10c, this gives you a whole 11c at maximum (overloading, fuel wasting) impulse. Warp 2.1 is about 12c anyway, so overloading the impulse drive doesn't get you much.


"What about TOS "The Corbomite Maneuver"?"

Kirk and Sulu use a combination of warp drive and Impulse to break free of the First Federation pilot craft. The combination of a tractor beam, impulse drive, and warp drive would be very strange, and many explanations come to mind, such as the warp field causing the tractor effect to "slip" away, while the impulse provides propulsion, or the impulse fighting the tractor beam intertially while the warp drive provides propulsion, etc.

Note: There are *two* distinct problems to be solved when describing any FTL drive. The first is that relativity will not permit an object to accelerate to speeds greater than or equal to c. The second problem is that in a relativistic universe, if you could get from point A to point B faster than light could by ANY means (including leaving the universe altogether), you have traveled backwards in time from certain reference frames. Thus, you could, for example, relay a message to yourself before you underwent the FTL travel, and create a paradox. Both must be addressed to form a believable FTL system.


"So what stops the ship from accelerating and getting faster and faster?"

Warp travel is non-Newtonian. Without a constant influx of energy, the subspace field will decay, and the ship will drop out of warp. In other words, you *must* continue to provide energy to maintain your warp velocity. Anything which travels at FTL speeds must use a warp field (or some other technology) to keep moving at those speeds.


"What about "continuum drag" ?"

This was an idea proposed in the forgotten past to explain the above problem. To me, however, it seem that there is no need for such a force, since we are not dealing with Newtonian action/reaction drives, or force / acceleration systems.


"So how'd the Saucer travel at warp speeds (in "Encounter at Farpoint") ?"

The Tech Manual states that the subspace field generators coupled to the Impulse drive can be used to maintain a decaying subspace field for brief periods of time. The decay is inevitable, but it can be drawn out, to allow the saucer section to get out of danger. By field-saturating the nacelles (according to TNG "Force of Nature"), after a 6 second burst of maximum warp the Enterprise can "coast" at warp for 2 minutes 8 seconds before dropping out of warp. This is a form of warp without warp drive", although the effect does not last very long. This is similar to how photon torpedoes can be used at warp speeds. They have small "warp sustainer" engines that allow them to cruise at their launch velocity (if launched while in warp) for brief periods.


"This new Warp 5 speed limit - what's up with that?"

In TNG "Force of Nature" it is discovered that the Hekaras Corridor, a region of space where warp travel is hindered except for a narrow path, that the intense use of warp drives in an already sensitive area can, over time, cause subspace rifts to form, where subspace manifests itself in real space on a macroscopic scale. This is not a good thing.


"Does this take effect everywhere?"

Yes. In TNG "The Pegasus" an Admiral Picard to travel faster than Warp 5 for the duration of the mission. The Encyclopedia concurs as well, naming Warp 5 as the new cruising speed for starships. Overkill? Probably. Typical bureaucratic overcompensation? Yep.


"So what about in TNG "All Good Things..." ?"

It's safe to say that the USS Pasteur and USS Enterprise, cruising at Warp 13, were able to ignore the Warp 5 limitation enforced by Starfleet. There are a couple of explanations. The first is that Starfleet simply repealed the ruling, and is allowing ships to muck up subspace. That isn't what we'd expect in the happy Star Trek Universe, however.

The second is that changes to warp mechanics allow warp travel without the nasty side effects. The Pasteur had very different nacelle designs, the Enterprise had "fins" on the nacelle pylons which would affect the shape of the warp fields, and it even had a third nacelle which might be used to eliminate the nasty effects of warp drive.

The third possibility is that these new integral speeds above Warp 9 just don't hurt subspace the same way that other speeds do. Personally, I go for the second option.


"Some Starfleet ships use 3 nacelles!"

In 2269, Starfleet attempted ships with 1 and 3 or more warp nacelles (TNG TM p65). As previously thought, 2 is the most efficient, but 4 is apparently useful in some cases (Constellation Class, Cheyenne Class).

You need one nacelle to get anywhere, minimum. However, to yaw you need the nacelle to be split vertically (left and right halves) and to pitch you need the nacelle to be split horizontally (top and bottom halves). By using a split nacelle, you can induce slight timing differences, and cause the desired rotational effect (TM p65). This is a bit of a problem with one nacelle, since you end up with each warp coil divided into four segments. The TM indicates that matching *pairs* is difficult and very sensitive. Matching four, and providing four plasma injectors for each coil segment is probably difficult.

Having more than two nacelles (either 3 or 4) allows you to use only a single segment per coil. But the warp field itself requires a gap to be released! (TM p65) (For anyone who doubts this, in TNG "Eye of the Beholder", we see TNG TM fig 5.3.3 reproduced on a large screen display with labels.)

So you've gonna have the warp coils split in two anyway; if you use the top/bottom split to provide pitch control, and two nacelles to provide yaw control, you're set.

On some designs, four nacelles may be the way to go; even with the required split, being able to tune the warp field discreetly may be enough of an advantage to warrant using four nacelles.


"Ha! Three nacelle ships are canon!" (TNG "All Good Things...")

Note that a number of things have changed by the time we see the USS Enterprise zipping around with three nacelles in that episode:

Warp 13 is a common cruising speed

Warp is no longer damaging space-time

New nacelle designs are being used on other ships

My own explanation: new nacelle designs allow ships like the USS Pasteur to cruise at Warp 13 without frying space-time. Older ships, like the Enterprise, can be refitted with a third nacelle (and other wingdings and widgets) to clean their subspace emissions, so to speak. The third nacelle also allows a more powerful field to be generated, to drive the ship around at Warp 13, but this goes beyond TNG-era knowledge of subspace mechanics. So as far as strictly TNG-era ships are concerned, three nacelles are still worse than useless.


"But the Ferengi / Borg / Klingon Bird of Prey don't have nacelles!"

The Borg probably have subspace field generators (redundantly) scattered throughout their cube; they can then pulse them to generate *massive* overlapping, pulsating subspace fields in any direction. Same technique, more power, more flexibility.

As for Ferengi, perhaps they use shielding. One thing is certain; the design of Ferengi ships allows for the ship to be contained in a single lobed warp field. The Enterprise requires a double lobe. Having "inboard" warp drives (like the Bird of Prey) gets you a fast ship for less power; likely, shielding can prevent the fields from frying the crew.

A display screen in DS9 "Blood Oath" may show the warp field of the Bird of Prey - again, a single lobe.

Something to consider; most of the small ships (picture the raiding ship from TNG "The Gambit") don't have outboard drives. They probably make the single-lobe / shielding tradeoff to keep their ships small, fast and cheap. Ditto for shuttles with warp.


"Warp speed is (insert formula here)!"

Many things have shown up in that spot. Here's the lowdown on figuring out how fast warp travel is. Velocity is always quoted as a multiple of the speed of light.


TOS Warp Speeds:

Warp Factor Velocity Comment
1 1 Speed of Light
2 8
3 27
4 64
5 125
6 216
7 343
8 512
9 729
10 1000
11 1331
12 1728
13 2197
14.1 2803.221 "That Which Survives"


TNG Warp Speeds, from the Encyclopedia and Tech Manual:

Warp Factor Velocity Comment
1 1 Speed of Light
2 10
3 39
4 102
5 214 Federation speed limit (TNG "Force of Nature")
6 392
7 656
8 1024
9 1516
9.2 1649 (From here down c/ Encyc except 9.9997)
9.6 1909
9.9 3053 Enterprise-D maximum speed.
9.99 7912
9.9997 ~198696 Subspace radio speed (TM)
9.9999 199516 Maximum boosted subspace radio speed (Encyc)
The Tech Manual (on page 111) says that a subspace radio signal travels at Warp 9.9997, and takes 45 minutes to reach 17 light years. The value above is only approximate, and the value in the Encyclopedia may be a mistake, given the similarity.

Formulas:
^ = "to the power of"
v = velocity
c = speed of light in vacuum
W = Warp factor
M = Mike's constant


"TOS scale" (TOS/TAS/TFS except ST4): v = (W ^ 3) * c
This is old, boring, and accepted by almost everyone, even though it has never been stated in any episode or movie. It's even in the Encyclopedia.

"TNG scale" (TNG/DS9 & ST4): We haven't a clue.
Before the Encyclopedia came out we had some pretty good guesses, since fewer data points existed. The best formula proposed thus far is:



Two values have been proposed for the M constant. The first, and most often quoted, is (-11/3). This generates a graph which matches the TNG Tech Manual almost exactly, and swoops off to infinity quickly after that. The second, derived by Sharon Collicutt, has M ~= -1.502. This includes the "lost data point" given on page 111 of the Tech Manual, the speed of Warp 9.9997.

The M=-11/3 value works for W <= 9. The M=-1.502 value works for W <= 9 and W = 9.9997, but misses the other new data points by a fair margin.

The TNG Tech Manual indicates that Mike Okuda has an actual formula, within an Excel spreadsheet on his Macintosh, but no-one has reported seeing it to r.a.st.tech. "Our solution was to re-draw the warp curve so that the exponent of the warp factor increases gradually, then sharply as you approach Warp 10. At Warp 10, the exponent (and the speed) would be infinite..."

Note that none of the proposed formulas have an increasing exponent. Given the description, I attempted some simple formulas, on the hunch that Rick and Mike wouldn't bother with anything really fancy. v = c * (W ^ (3 + 1/(10-W))) is the right shape, but is very off for anything above 7 or so. I suspect that the actual formula is something similar to this, however.

Here's an ASCII version of a graph from the TNG Tech Manual:


Warp speed/power graph




The part of the graph above the ??? is speculation, and is just to show that as W -> 10, velocity and power -> infinity.

"Future TNG scale" (TNG "All Good Things..."): ?!?!?
Quoted in this episode is the speed Warp 13, and Riker later indicates "maximum warp". While we haven't a clue how fast this are, they're presumably faster than Warp 9 on the TNG scale, and necessarily slower than Warp 10 on the TNG scale (since TNG Warp 10 is infinite speed). A few possibilities present themselves:

Warp 10-13+ are shorthand for Warp 9.x. One possibility is that 9.90 is called Warp 10, 9.91 is called Warp 11, etc.

New warp technologies provide at least 13 power usage minima between c and infinite speed, instead of the 9 possible with old warp technologies.

Further research revealed that there were more than 9 minima accessible with traditional drives, and that they simply required more power to attain than had been previously attempted, but less power to maintain than 9.x values.

Unfortunately, there's no way to tell which of the above is correct, and all have their pros and cons, and supporters on the news groups.


"Where has there been support on screen for this?"

TNG "The Most Toys" gives one set of numbers that verify the Warp 3 values listed above.


Ges Seger offers: The numbers I remember were about how far a ship doing warp 3 for 23 hours would travel, and the answer they came up with was 0.102 light-years. I worked the math just now and got 0.1022 light-years.

TNG "Bloodlines" gives another set of numbers for Warp 9, stated by Riker after hearing some figures from Data: 300 billion kilometers in 20 minutes @ Warp 9

Warp 9 = (300e12 m) / (20 min * 60s/min) = 2.5e11 m/s
From the chart: Warp 9 = 1516c ~= 4.548e11 m/s
Discrepancy? Riker did the calculations in his head in about 5 seconds given arbitrary numbers. He's within a factor of two, so I won't complain. Still, something more accurate would have been nice. Bok's ship was "holding position", so it was a simple flight path.

TNG "Emergence": the Enterprise jumped to Warp 7.3, and traveled 30 billion kilometers in a couple of minutes. All of the formulas we have for warp speeds predict Warp 7.3 to be approximately 746c. Using c = 3e8 m/s, we get v = 2.24e11 m/s. 30 billion km = 3e13m. So t = 134s, or just over two minutes.

And for the "All Good Things..." warp scale, c/o Tom Bagwell, and slightly edited: I timed the interval in AGT between when Data reported the second Klingon ship to be disengaging and when Riker's helmsman reported it to be a "half a light year away" at about 22 seconds, so I calculated the speed assuming 20 seconds to reach 1/2 a light year and assuming 30 seconds to reach 1/2 a light year.

At 30 seconds, the velocity would be approximately 525,960c which equates to roughly Warp 9.97244 on the TNG scale and approx. Warp 81 on the TOS scale.

At 20 seconds, the velocity would be approximately 788,940c which equates to roughly Warp 9.97535 on the TNG scale and approx. Warp 92.4 on the TOS scale.

[ Voor 4% gewijzigd door Wildfire op 21-09-2003 00:02 ]

[blobber]

Wildfire schreef op 20 September 2003 @ 23:57:
Onderstaande is overgenomen uit The Star Trek Explorer.
[...]

Click your heels three times and think...

...There's no place like home...

(ook fantasie, maar zonder tech ref. )

[ Voor 7% gewijzigd door blobber op 21-09-2003 02:03 ]

[Peedy]

nou stel je voor dat je het heelal net zoals een ballon naar elkaar toe kan buigen, dan heb je er nog geen flikker aan! ik bedoel een ballon met een diameter van een aantal cm of het heelal van een diameter van miljarden miljarden miljoenen kilometers is toch wel moeilijk naar elkaar toe te buigen dan een simpel ballontje (en dit als het heelal niet oneindig is;))

[Rey Nemaattori]

pEeDy16 schreef op 21 September 2003 @ 13:29:
nou stel je voor dat je het heelal net zoals een ballon naar elkaar toe kan buigen, dan heb je er nog geen flikker aan! ik bedoel een ballon met een diameter van een aantal cm of het heelal van een diameter van miljarden miljarden miljoenen kilometers is toch wel moeilijk naar elkaar toe te buigen dan een simpel ballontje (en dit als het heelal niet oneindig is;))

Vroeger dacht men dat 250 km/h de absolute maximum snelheid was, al;s je sneller ging viel je voertuig uitelkaar of verloor je de controle.

Bovendien het zou nutteloos zijn, mocht zo'n techniek ooit in de praktijk haalbaar wroden meteen het verste eind van het universum intypen en jezelf erheen warpen. Lokaal onderzoek, zoals het Centeuri stelsel, of zelfs alleen in ons zonnestelsel, zullen genoeg informatie opleveren voor tientallen jaren onderzoek, en je weet ongeveer hoe te navigeren, als je je zelf naar de middle-of-nowhere warped, kun je wel eens in de problemen komen om de aarde trug tevinden...

[Emmeau]

Confusion schreef op 19 September 2003 @ 16:18:

edit:
Heej CP, laat dat eens

Men heeft dat niet 'uitgevonden'; men weet al sinds Einstein met zijn relativiteitstheorie kwam dat de snelheid van licht in allerlei stoffen lager is dan de lichtsnelheid. Met de uitspraak dat de lichtsnelheid constant is, wordt bedoeld dat hij overal in het heelal, op ieder moment en in ieder referentiekader, gelijk is, namelijk bijna 3x10⁸ meter per seconde.

variable light speed
Er zijn tegenwoordig theorien dat de lichtsnelheid niet altijd constant (is geweest).
Dit artikel beschrijft het een en ander

[Major 7]

Voor zover ik begrepen heb wordt bij warp de ruimte dusdanig vervormd dat de afstand tussen twee punten kleiner wordt. (Zie het als een uitgerekt elastiekje dat je los laat). Het ruimteschip moet nu met 'normale' (lager dan c) snelheid de verkorte afstand overbruggen.
Op de andere plaats aangekomen wordt de space-warp be-eindigd. Het ruimteschip is nu heel ver van het beginpunt vandaan. De afstand / tijd kan vele malen groter zijn dan c. (Daarom deden we al deze moeite )

[silentsnow]

Volgens mij is space-warpen bijzonder irritant als meerdere objecten dat bepaalde doel willen bereiken. En dan nog, als je warpt, breng je je doel dan niet gewoon naar je toe? Als dat zo is vraag ik mij af wat voor effect zo'n warp heeft op materie etc.

[Fr0zenFlame]

silentsnow schreef op 23 September 2003 @ 03:17:
Volgens mij is space-warpen bijzonder irritant als meerdere objecten dat bepaalde doel willen bereiken. En dan nog, als je warpt, breng je je doel dan niet gewoon naar je toe? Als dat zo is vraag ik mij af wat voor effect zo'n warp heeft op materie etc.

Het principe is me wel redelijk duidelijk, alleen hoe zou je dit ooit voor elkaar moeten krijgen. Je zal toch op een of andere manier iets met die "ruimte" moeten doen???? Veder wat is het verschil tussen Slip stream & Warp precies?

[Confusion]

Emmeau schreef op 21 September 2003 @ 16:55:
variable light speed
Er zijn tegenwoordig theorien dat de lichtsnelheid niet altijd constant (is geweest).
Dit artikel beschrijft het een en ander

Yup, maar dat is niet waar degene waar ik op reageerde het over had. Bovendien zijn ook dit soort theorieen er al vele jaren en is er tot nog toe geen experimentele verificatie.

[Rey Nemaattori]

Fr0zenFlame schreef op 23 September 2003 @ 11:04:
[...]


Het principe is me wel redelijk duidelijk, alleen hoe zou je dit ooit voor elkaar moeten krijgen. Je zal toch op een of andere manier iets met die "ruimte" moeten doen???? Veder wat is het verschil tussen Slip stream & Warp precies?

Bij warp, trek je de ruimte tussen je schip en het doel uiteen en "dump"je deze achter het schip, waardoor het schip vooruit beweegt. (zoals bij reguliere zee schepen, maar bij warp rek je de ruimte uit over het HELE stuk tussen je doel en je schip ipv aleen water te verplaatsen van vlak voor tot vlak achter het schip.)

Bij slipstream krom je de ruimte in de 4e of hogere dimensie waardoor het vertrek en aankomst punt letterlijk naast elkaar komen te liggen. Als je bijv door het "gat" kijkt dat je cre-eert, kun je het zelfde opject zien als dat was je rechtnaast je ziet....

[Fr0zenFlame]

Rey Nemaattori schreef op 23 september 2003 @ 15:10:
[...]


Bij warp, trek je de ruimte tussen je schip en het doel uiteen en "dump"je deze achter het schip, waardoor het schip vooruit beweegt. (zoals bij reguliere zee schepen, maar bij warp rek je de ruimte uit over het HELE stuk tussen je doel en je schip ipv aleen water te verplaatsen van vlak voor tot vlak achter het schip.)

Bij slipstream krom je de ruimte in de 4e of hogere dimensie waardoor het vertrek en aankomst punt letterlijk naast elkaar komen te liggen. Als je bijv door het "gat" kijkt dat je cre-eert, kun je het zelfde opject zien als dat was je rechtnaast je ziet....

Aha het word me allemaal steeds duidelijker, bedankt daarvoor Maargoed bij een schip heb je een materie (water) wat je verplaats en waar je je dus vervolgens op af zet, maar in de ruimte heb je nix? Vacuum, hoe kan vacuum nou jouw schip voort duwen in theorie?