What Does the Blue Bit Do!?

[Jeddy]

Just a random question, i didnt know where else to put it, and i guess its kinda a stupid thing to ask, but i want to be sure,

What exactly is the blue bit of a warp nacelle? I thoguht it was something like Antimatter containment or something, however im not so sure.

anyone help me?

Regards,
Jeddy

 

[EAS_Intrepid]

I guess that the blue glow is the Warp Plasma.

 

[Jeddy]

thats good enough for me,

Afterall the context im using it in, it can be changed.

Cheers intrepid!

 

[EAS_Intrepid]

No problem. Glad I could help.

 

[Atlantis]

Hmm, in that TNG episode where the engineer Daniel Kwan committed suicide, we saw inside the nacelle. The plasma flow itself was white, so as far as I can see the blueness is just colouring in that part of the nacelle.

 

[Jeddy]

k thanks, ill look more into it.

Episode is called eye of the beholder isnt it?

 

[Creed]

I'm fairly sure that the blue bit shows up in a lot of fed ships.. on the shuttles and what have you, always implying that it is where the motive force is challened...
but i'd not hold out too much hope for a specific technological answer, am fairly sure it's called 'pretty' and there for aesthetics...

on another note i have seen it changed on a great deal of very nice pictures and if you wanted a reason for it to be differnt one would hardly be hard to find....

after all the federation seem to be the only ones who use blue there...

 

[Amateur]

If I remember correctly, the blue bit was the actual warp field coils - the parts that produce teh actual warp field. I think the blue glow was caused by the way they interfered with normal space - shifting light rays and what not.

That's the Trek answer at least, the real answer is probably along the lines of a lump of grey looks boring

 

[Paulhanselluk]

Its the heat bleed off from the engines, one of the Okuda's explained it in an interview (cant remember where), just think the coils are going to be running hot, and they went onto say that the different colours in engines denote different fuels and engine efficency, its the closest to a cannon answer you'll ever get.

 

[Jeddy]

ill go with you paul, not because i doubt anyone else, but it seems to be the most famiiar idea.

And im under no illusion, i know its there for "pretty" lol. just firgured with the length of time the franchise ran they would have come up with some plausible reason for it.

Thanks all for your efforts and replies!

 

[Kosh Naranek]

Then why, in the few episodes its shown, is that area of the nacelles still blue when the glow is gone? I recall several TNG eps where the Enterprise is adrift with no power running through her engines, though no specific episode titles jump to the front of my mind.

 

[Jeddy]

yeah i know one,

Season 5 - Disaster and season 7 - Genesis should have shots of that.

the reason i asked was because i was writting a part of my fan fic, and couldnt remember what they said it to be, however as no one has complained i doubt it was as important as i thoguht it was lol.

 

[Jetfreak]

but i'd not hold out too much hope for a specific technological answer, am fairly sure it's called 'pretty' and there for aesthetics...

Same here, apart from the fact that it does contain the warp plasma. It also plays a role in the design aesthetics of the ship. Blue complements the red glow of the bussards and the white hull of the ship. Blue, red and white is a good color combination. If you remove one color, the ship looks kinda plain.

 

[Jasoneagle]

From a Trekkie point of view the reason that it remains the same color is that the color is absorbed into the materiel covering it, all glows remain that color with no power in all races ships.

as for this bit

Blue, red and white is a good color combination.

I would have to say that is the Americans fault there.

 

[Jeddy]

would also like to point out the colours in a Union Jack

Spoiler: Union Jack

 

[Borg_Queen]

Ok, as Jeddy pointed out the colors in the Union Jack and JE pointed out the colors in the American flag I think I can point out the colors in the Norwegian flag :

Spoiler: Norwegian flag

But there is also other countries that has those colors in their flag, and I think this may start to stray off topic if we shows to more of those.

Anyway, as pointed above, the blue is most likely there for the looks.

 

[Jeddy]

thats kinda what i was indirectly trying to get at, while (from what i see on tv atleast) Americans are very patriotic towards their flag, There are many countries that use the same colouring (Like france, possibly Croatia etc) which id like to think was almost symbolic of a united earth?

 

[Creed]

"Ok, as Jeddy pointed out the colors in the Union Jack and JE pointed out the colors in the American flag I think I can point out the colors in the Norwegian flag

it's also the primary colours of the french, united netherlands, belgian, norwegian, russian, icelandic?, herzegovenian?, australian, New Zealand, Phillipines, czech, confederate american, Costa rica, Cuba, Liberia, Paraguay, Siam, Panama, Yugoslavia, croatia..... (and have a look at the flag of the British east india company... especially as the top corner used to have stars in a blue field before the group got their royal charter and then the act of union, and someone else started using one VERY similar......)

and a good many more...

I have heard some explanations of why but they don't spring to mind, something about the symbolism of each colour...White for purity (or royalty), red for courage, blue for freedom,

The french use was definitely supposed to be the big three, Liberte, egalite, fraternite.

Equally plausible however are reasons like them being the most dramatic, contrasting colours that could easily be 'fixed' in older dyes.


Bottom line... as the man says.... 'pretty'

 

[Syf]

Ok, that's a fair bit, but this thread is way off topic now and in line to be considered Hijacked. No one is in trouble... yet.

Let me remind everyone of the site rules are to make a new thread if you want to go on to a different topic. Let's remember this and get back to the topic at hand.

As to the Blue glow (red for Klingons and green for Romulans, etc), it is both "Eye candy" to make a ship look cooler, as well as having a function.

The Glow is from hot Plasma that runs through the Nacelle. The plasma is contained inside tubes in the form of a grill (several tubes). The Plasma is "charged" with energy by the matter/antimatter annialation in the warp core, which then is fed into the warp coil(s) inside the nacelle. The plasma releases the energy into the coils as it travels along one side of the warp coil allowing the coldness of space to cool it down and vent off radiation so it can be fed back into the warp core at safe temperatures and safer levels of radiation. Plasma is returned back into the system on the opposite side of the warp coil. This cooler plasma does not have a glow effect, as the glow is actually the tubes glowing from being super hot do to the hot plasma inside them. Also note, that the Nacelles, when shut down may still glow, this is both because of the plasma on the outer tubes is still hot, and/or, with TNG and more recent versions of Nacelles, the radiated plasma tubing area has marker lighting to ward off possible accidents involving shuttlecraft and such. The blue is a visual warning of deadly radiation and plasma within the area. The Plasma itself causes the tubes to glow blue, but the lighting was added as a warning system even when not in use. At times when there is no glow, is because of total power loss to that nacelle, which also is absent of hot plasma. And one final note, the Galaxy class (and vessels sharing that type of nacelle design) have 2 warp coils inside a single nacelle. The cooler plasma is fed back into the ship in the middle of the nacelle, and this is why both sides of the nacelle glow, as opposed to the older TMP era nacelles, and even the Sovereign Class Explorer.

 

[Creed]

A deliberate 'visual warning'? or are we to believe that the builders of these various ships actually see some benefit from running their plasma around the outside... the vulnerable outside, of these engine parts?

The apparent answer is that somehow the being on the outside is advantageous in dumping energy... which doesn't really fit with the idea of vacuum not being the very best conductor of energy (to say the least).. you wouldn't put a CPU in a vacuum seal anymore than you would surround a nuclear reactor with one.

While i have huge respect for the people that do sit and work out the 'how' of these things, and even the pseudo tech, genuinely enjoying the theories.. I do think that even as fans it is rather pertinent to ask which came first, the design or the explanation of it....and to admit that at some point there must be a suspension of disbelief and an acceptance that there is no truly rational answer beyond the aesthetics of the show.

If you were designing a ship engine.. would you run your plasma around the outside?

 

[Jasoneagle]

A deliberate 'visual warning'? or are we to believe that the builders of these various ships actually see some benefit from running their plasma around the outside... the vulnerable outside, of these engine parts?

The apparent answer is that somehow the being on the outside is advantageous in dumping energy... which doesn't really fit with the idea of vacuum not being the very best conductor of energy (to say the least).. you wouldn't put a CPU in a vacuum seal anymore than you would surround a nuclear reactor with one.

While i have huge respect for the people that do sit and work out the 'how' of these things, and even the pseudo tech, genuinely enjoying the theories.. I do think that even as fans it is rather pertinent to ask which came first, the design or the explanation of it....and to admit that at some point there must be a suspension of disbelief and an acceptance that there is no truly rational answer beyond the aesthetics of the show.

If you were designing a ship engine.. would you run your plasma around the outside?

Theory and Explanation Taken: Running on the Outer Portion allows for the Cooling of the Cold Space as well as For the Propulsion Maybe?

 

[Syf]

A deliberate 'visual warning'? or are we to believe that the builders of these various ships actually see some benefit from running their plasma around the outside... the vulnerable outside, of these engine parts?

The apparent answer is that somehow the being on the outside is advantageous in dumping energy... which doesn't really fit with the idea of vacuum not being the very best conductor of energy (to say the least).. you wouldn't put a CPU in a vacuum seal anymore than you would surround a nuclear reactor with one.

While i have huge respect for the people that do sit and work out the 'how' of these things, and even the pseudo tech, genuinely enjoying the theories.. I do think that even as fans it is rather pertinent to ask which came first, the design or the explanation of it....and to admit that at some point there must be a suspension of disbelief and an acceptance that there is no truly rational answer beyond the aesthetics of the show.

If you were designing a ship engine.. would you run your plasma around the outside?

Overall Yes, it was the ship first (including nacelles) on the show, then the fans asking "How" and "Why"

My explaination is purely based on "All" the reading I have done over the years, watching the shows, the "Specials", etc. Trekkies truly have no life!

A deliberate 'visual warning'?

Yes, and No would be the proper answer. Years of seeing the "glow" became part of the design feature to make sure it "glows". ENT ships had the glow, unless they lose power (all the time). TNG glow still there, even without(sometimes).

The apparent answer is that somehow the being on the outside is advantageous in dumping energy... which doesn't really fit with the idea of vacuum not being the very best conductor of energy (to say the least).. you wouldn't put a CPU in a vacuum seal anymore than you would surround a nuclear reactor with one.

Would I run a high power CPU in the open void of space... If I wanted to keep it cold, very very very very cold, yes. Here is a Quote from Wikipedia

All of the observable universe is filled with large numbers of photons, the so-called cosmic background radiation, and quite likely a correspondingly large number of neutrinos. The current temperature of this radiation is about 3 K (−270.15 °C/−454.27 °F).

Absolute "Zero" is −273.15° on the Celsius (centigrade) scale, and −459.67 degrees on the Fahrenheit scale.
Now, you want to call the vacuum of space not ideal to cool down a CPU? That is cold enough to run superconductor type CPUs!

 

[Creed]

Okay i am still guessing here but....

the temperature of space.. as measured.. refers to energy (or lack of it) in the vaccuum?

but to actually cool something rapidly you need particles to take on the energy (radiators aren't actually radiators they are convectors) or something rather fancy to specifically radiate the heat...

So your Cpu wouldn't be any more naked in space than it is in your computer, (because if nothing else you would want something with a decent surface area to volume ratio to increase the space you were radiating from?)

You might also choose to shield your nacelles from direct solar-radiation because as i understand it that can still warm things up quite considerably, and that is not necessarily a good thing for your plasma...

The space shuttle apparently has rather extensive radiators, which double as absorbers when rarely necessary

And all of this is still rather ignoring the tactical imperative of not putting your fuel lines on the outside of your armour plate? Okay so the same ships also un-necessarily have their key command area with honest to goodness windows to the outside (rather than buried deep into the interior) but still...they do have a battle bridge too (occasionally they even think to use it)


http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ht.html

 

[Syf]

As far as space... It is not a true Vacuum. It is not devoid of anything... So in effect, a large "radiator" would work effectively. Let's not forget the size of a nacelle. Nacelles are rather large compared to the ship they are attached (not always, but mostly).

As far as making any sense of every detail on Trek will never happen. In the long run, it's a show that barely has anything "sensible" when you look at it from a real science perspective. I myself could go all day as to what could and could not work. Everything is nothing more than a prop in trek. The explainations, technobabble, etc is simply to make the shows look and sound as believable as possible. Simply put, the explaination I gave is based on the actual shows and movies and contents there of. If anyone has a better explaination, post it, I'd love to read it.

Now any further debate of any explainations on "if such makes sense" and further "it should-could-would/ shouldn't-couldn't-wouldn't work" needs to have it's own thread.