Subject:
|
Re: Looking for a terminology clarification
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Nov 2005 21:15:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2332 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Rob Antonishen <rob.antonishen@gmail.com> wrote:
> And this is my question :) Is it a warp _drive_ or a warp _engine_?
> Peter's division would indicate that a drive needs an engine...
My limited understanding is that, in Star Trek at least, the warp *drive*
creates the "warp bubble," that moves surrounds and moves along with the ship
and within which the normal light-speed limitation does not hold. The warp
*engines* propel the ship while within the bubble.
They are linked technologies but separate pieces of machinery. The warp
engines, for example, can be fired to generate huge amounts of power in
emergencies (See ST:ENT's "Twilight"), while a warp bubble, in theory, could
"change the gravitational constant" of a small planetary mass, allowing its
orbit to be altered (ST:TNG's "Deja Q").
I'm not the geek I used to be. Any squid who owns a Starfleet Tech Manual can
probably answer this question in much greater detail off the top of his head!
> I've always called them "warp drives" ( and ion drives etc.) but
> was trying to think of why they are not correctly called "warp
> engines"...
Hey, call them what you want. Yoyodyne created the Oscillation Overthuster, and
I myself have dabbled with EDB4 engine technology--when dealing with fictional
hyperphysics, it's not as though there's a lot of proven canonical material to
cite!
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Looking for a terminology clarification
|
| (...) And this is my question :) Is it a warp _drive_ or a warp _engine_? Peter's division would indicate that a drive needs an engine... I've always called them "warp drives" ( and ion drives etc.) but was trying to think of why they are not (...) (19 years ago, 2-Nov-05, to lugnet.space)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
