Encounter At Farpoint to quantify phaser and reactor output?

[2046]

The Saxtonian idea that you should just calculate reactor energy based on Newtonian physical requirements to break free of the gravity well is nothing more than a conceit. After all, we're dealing with the sci-fi 'reality' where graviton and subspace-whatzit manipulation is commonplace. The Saxtonian calculation is good for pondering the relevant effect, but not the causal force.

I wouldn't call it a "Saxtonian" idea. I relied quite heavily on it; and it is not the source for most Saxtonite computations of Star Wars or Star Trek reactor problem. I view conservation of energy as the most fundamental method of getting at the question. Whether you use subspace manipulation, gravity manipulation, et cetera, you have to come up with the net energy difference somewhere.

That was a rather short version of the discussion here and here, plus the general issue of how Saxton et al. make declarations exclusively based on some (often carefully-limited) view of then-current physics/technology, ignoring the known canon quantities explicitly described within the universes.

The *effect* is correctly stated, in that Ship A has overcome such-and-such gravity well. However, saying that it requires such-and-such energy *and* that this energy must have come from the vessel's main reactor is where the conceit occurs.

To put it in example terms, imagine a disciple of Newton watching Air Trek and concluding that these mysterious blimps he sees must be directly expending the energy to remain aloft from their equally mysterious "internal combustion" reactors (which actually power the wee propellers on the side, but whatever). He would then calculate that the reactors must have an enormous output, but he would of course be completely mistaken.

And yet, that is precisely the sort of maneuver Saxton, Wong, et al. continually employ, and arrogantly so. I'm not suggesting it is always the wrong approach . . . it is, as you note, a good start in the absence of anything else. But in these universes we do have many things else, and it is unwise to ignore them. Otherwise, we should just go all the way and declare that all the reactors have infinite energy because they can propel vessels to lightspeed and beyond.

That's all I was saying.

[Mike DiCenso]

The reactor fallacy has always been a big issue that I think gets a pass on both sides simply because to come up with any other explanation, you have to more often than not, give up bigatons of energy that come with it. And yet, we see precisely in both universes that the alternate non-newtonian methods are in full force, with only a tiny handful of exceptions.

Take Star Trek, we have seen the E-nil flying through the Earth's atmosphere at supersonic speeds in "Tomorrow is Yesterday", and yet Earth in the late 1960's America is not devastated by the huge energies a nearly million ton starship would require to achieve rapid escape velocity in a matter of mere minutes, nor was Captain Christopher's F-103 interceptor vaporized by approaching the ship from behind.

The same thing is seen in VOY where the eponymous ship is shown landing and lifting off from planets. To lift off a nearly million ton starship as quickly as we see them do would cause huge blastwaves around the landing/liftoff site that would kill nearby observers or at least cause them a great deal of discomfort, and yet in "The 37s" we see people at the end of the episode watching from a close distance as the ship lifts off and none of them are even getting their close ruffled by wind, or are turning away to shield their eyes from super white hot glowing exhaust.

Even more telling is the lift off of the 762 meter Alt-E in Into Darkness and out of an ocean no less, and only maybe a half mile away from natives who are not being crisped into super hot plasma in milliseconds by this. Same thing when the ship fires thrusters and stops her thousands of meters a second death fall at the end. Earth is not devastated by the massive energies this should rightfully be outputting according to Newtonian physics.

In Star Wars, most especially the prequels, we see the exact same phenomena. The touchdown on Geonosis by the GAR Acclamaters in AoTC, for example. Ships about the same length as the Alt-E, show not even the slightest wiff of superhot plasma, melted ground, and blastwaves from the impact of reaction-based rockets. Same thing at the very end, even with the engines pointed right at Chancellor Palpatine and his entourage on a balcony, no one is instantly turned to plasma by the expected high-velocity, superheated reaction exhaust products. In RoTS, the liftoff of the even larger Venator that is carrying Obi-Wan off to Upatu. This ship is leaving from a slip with Anakin watching it depart right there and we see no massive flames, or blastwaves that rightfully should cook Anakin and really should vaporize him and everything else nearby.

And this isn't new, we see in ANH, the liftoff of the Falcon escaping Tatoonie does not cook the storm troopers trying to stop her, it is clear her rear engines are on when we cut away to the POV shot from the street, and yet no one on the street is being cooked by it. The same thing in the landing and escape scenes in TESB, especially Bespin and Hoth.

So what is going on here? Obviously some sort of anti-gravity drive is in work for both universes. We just don't know the full mechanisms, or how much energy they actually require to do the work that is seen. But whatever the mechanisms may be, they do not work at all on a Newtonian principle.
-Mike

[Jedi Master Spock]

The reactor fallacy has always been a big issue that I think gets a pass on both sides simply because to come up with any other explanation, you have to more often than not, give up bigatons of energy that come with it. And yet, we see precisely in both universes that the alternate non-newtonian methods are in full force, with only a tiny handful of exceptions.

Take Star Trek, we have seen the E-nil flying through the Earth's atmosphere at supersonic speeds in "Tomorrow is Yesterday", and yet Earth in the late 1960's America is not devastated by the huge energies a nearly million ton starship would require to achieve rapid escape velocity in a matter of mere minutes, nor was Captain Christopher's F-103 interceptor vaporized by approaching the ship from behind.

The same thing is seen in VOY where the eponymous ship is shown landing and lifting off from planets. To lift off a nearly million ton starship as quickly as we see them do would cause huge blastwaves around the landing/liftoff site that would kill nearby observers or at least cause them a great deal of discomfort, and yet in "The 37s" we see people at the end of the episode watching from a close distance as the ship lifts off and none of them are even getting their close ruffled by wind, or are turning away to shield their eyes from super white hot glowing exhaust.

Even more telling is the lift off of the 762 meter Alt-E in Into Darkness and out of an ocean no less, and only maybe a half mile away from natives who are not being crisped into super hot plasma in milliseconds by this. Same thing when the ship fires thrusters and stops her thousands of meters a second death fall at the end. Earth is not devastated by the massive energies this should rightfully be outputting according to Newtonian physics.

In Star Wars, most especially the prequels, we see the exact same phenomena. The touchdown on Geonosis by the GAR Acclamaters in AoTC, for example. Ships about the same length as the Alt-E, show not even the slightest wiff of superhot plasma, melted ground, and blastwaves from the impact of reaction-based rockets. Same thing at the very end, even with the engines pointed right at Chancellor Palpatine and his entourage on a balcony, no one is instantly turned to plasma by the expected high-velocity, superheated reaction exhaust products. In RoTS, the liftoff of the even larger Venator that is carrying Obi-Wan off to Upatu. This ship is leaving from a slip with Anakin watching it depart right there and we see no massive flames, or blastwaves that rightfully should cook Anakin and really should vaporize him and everything else nearby.

And this isn't new, we see in ANH, the liftoff of the Falcon escaping Tatoonie does not cook the storm troopers trying to stop her, it is clear her rear engines are on when we cut away to the POV shot from the street, and yet no one on the street is being cooked by it. The same thing in the landing and escape scenes in TESB, especially Bespin and Hoth.

So what is going on here? Obviously some sort of anti-gravity drive is in work for both universes. We just don't know the full mechanisms, or how much energy they actually require to do the work that is seen. But whatever the mechanisms may be, they do not work at all on a Newtonian principle.
-Mike

But Newtonian or not, conservation of energy is a much more fundamental principle. Just because anti-gravity drive doesn't produce thrust or hot plasma doesn't mean it doesn't obey conservation of energy or even, for that matter, conservation of momentum. Star Wars' anti-gravity drive needs a gravity well to "push against," after all.

For impulse drive, things are much more complicated with respect to conservation of momentum. We have three choices, with any phenomenon:

1. The change in energy comes from the reactor.
2. The change in energy comes from something else in particular.
3. Free energy!

Let's look at two example cases: Alderaan exploding and a ship escaping a gravity well.

A DET Death Star is case #1. For #2, we have a couple choices; energy could come from the planet, or it could come from hyperspace. This leaves us with the option of a chain reaction - collapsing the planet, unstable conversion of matter into antimatter, nuclear fusion/fission, et cetera - or a hyperspace rift. We don't need to go to #3 to say it doesn't need to come from the reactor.

Now, where does the energy come to boost a ship out of a gravity well? Remember, if we turn off the engine after doing so, the ship is still out of the gravity well - it doesn't suddenly teleport back.

#1 ... It can come from the ship. #2... It can come from the object at the center of the gravity well - this happens IRL. #2... It can come from the fabric of space - "nowhere," in other words. No need for #3, again.

Now, what happens if it doesn't come from the ship, and the energy change exceeds output by a significant amount, say, an order of magnitude? Well, in that case, I can design you a group of simple mechanical generators, taking up only a tenth part of your ship, that produce more energy than your original reactor did - while drawing only a tenth part more energy out of the fabric of space, the object at the center of the gravity well, etc.

It's much simpler to assume that the energy comes from the ship. Now, how the Newtonian requirement differs from the thermodynamic requirement is pretty substantial; as I've mentioned in dealing with "Galileo Seven," there's a lot of waste kinetic energy and drag involved with launching things into space from a planet using thrusters.

Assuming that conservation of energy is the dictating factor and that anti-gravity gets around the problem of wasted energy on ejecta, et cetera, reduces your figures substantially. What you get out of conservation of energy is about as good, individually, as you'll get from anything in terms of performance - you're sidestepping all the issues about how you're doing it, and looking at just the change in the initial and final states.

And when it comes to reactor output, what we get in terms of figures derived from exiting gravity wells, by conservation of energy, fits with the other figures we get. It dovetails nicely with the engines being the most powerful part of a Star Trek starship. It produces reasonable estimates of peak output, given the reliance on antimatter fuel for Star Trek; and on nuclear fusion, or on alternate technologies competitive with nuclear fusion, for Star Wars.