So, here's the deal:
Trek impulse engines have been debatably "rockets" or "mini-warp drives" for some time. This topic evidently came near to derailing Cary L. Brown's super cool TOS Enterprise interiors project. Which can be found here:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=89810
Here is where this technical debate began:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=89810&page=8 (scroll down to post #145)
If you havn't been following this, I highly recommend it. It's an art project to be sure, but it's the techy sorta art we love.
Anyway, CLB argues that the very term "impulse engine" is so rooted in actual science that having it be anything but a physical drive system is patently ridiculous. He argues that to call a non-Newtonian field drive device (related to a warp engine) an impulse engine is akin to calling a sink's faucet a light-switch. While this is an interesting hyperbole, I don't think it's fair.
To my mind, there is a wider usage to the word "impulse" than the strictest science text definition. I point out that one common usage in our times is that of nerve impulses to the brain, which consist of very brief, relatively low voltage pulses. I posit that impulse engines are a field device, not unlike a warp engine in theory, but instead of being fed a very high voltage continuous stream of power, they are powered by an intermittent power feed of dramatically lower voltage.
Is that totally unreasonable? Now, this discussion started with Matt Jefferies' ship in mind, but citing examples from the later shows would be admissible.
Discuss!
--Alex
Trek impulse engines have been debatably "rockets" or "mini-warp drives" for some time. This topic evidently came near to derailing Cary L. Brown's super cool TOS Enterprise interiors project. Which can be found here:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=89810
Here is where this technical debate began:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=89810&page=8 (scroll down to post #145)
If you havn't been following this, I highly recommend it. It's an art project to be sure, but it's the techy sorta art we love.
Anyway, CLB argues that the very term "impulse engine" is so rooted in actual science that having it be anything but a physical drive system is patently ridiculous. He argues that to call a non-Newtonian field drive device (related to a warp engine) an impulse engine is akin to calling a sink's faucet a light-switch. While this is an interesting hyperbole, I don't think it's fair.
To my mind, there is a wider usage to the word "impulse" than the strictest science text definition. I point out that one common usage in our times is that of nerve impulses to the brain, which consist of very brief, relatively low voltage pulses. I posit that impulse engines are a field device, not unlike a warp engine in theory, but instead of being fed a very high voltage continuous stream of power, they are powered by an intermittent power feed of dramatically lower voltage.
Is that totally unreasonable? Now, this discussion started with Matt Jefferies' ship in mind, but citing examples from the later shows would be admissible.
Discuss!
--Alex