Replicators construct matter out of energy, or so I'm led to believe. Without getting too technical I understand that starships have stocks of matter that are rendered down into energy and then reformed by the ships replicators into more useful things (food, clothes, spare parts). This would lead me to the conclusion that 1kg of new stuff requires 1kg of old stuff (or more, if the rendering process is not 100% efficient).
I imagine there must be a net imbalance somewhere as ships are required to re-supply at intervals and that Voyager went on replicator credits after a while (Credits? Some form of currency or unit of value in Star Fleet?! Slap me quick!!)
My questions are these: Would (or should) the process be 100% efficient?
If matter is rendered into energy for the purpose of replicating items, why isn't this power source used for powering the ship instead of using the hideously dangerous anti-matter? Even at a substantial "wastage rate" in must be safer.
Is the energy release from anit-matter/matter anihilation greater then the energy required to produce anti-matter in the first place?
To what extant are industrial replicators used (given that it takes 9 x10^18 Joules of energy to produce 1kg of anything? Is it simpler and less energy consuming to use traditional methods of metal production or fabrication? ("Hmm, your Akira Starship weighs 3,055,000 metric tonnes. That's ... that's ... that's a s***load of energy. Tell everyone not to turn their air conditioners on tonight.")
My aplogies if this has already been discussed (or if I've stuffed up the Physics).
------------------
"You couldn't even SPELL Prime Directive!"
"Not true. It's spelt P-H-A-S-E-R."
Basically, early TNG made a big deal out of converting energy into matter. But if that could be done, why carry anything?
I came up with the following:
- A replicator can create a hot fudge sundae out of energy, though at an incredible waste of energy.
- A replicator can convert raw matter into a hot fudge sundae at a much reduced cost of energy.
- Carrying raw food-stuffs requires minimal energy - the energy required to move it is less than that required to convert or create it. (Which is why Voyager does not use replicators much).
Though I use food in the above example, the same would be true for replicating a hydrospanner...
Ok, it has been a while since I have read the TNG Tech manual but let me muddy the situation some more. Replicators are similar to transporters. There is one key difference though, transporters work at the quantum level while replicators work at the molecular level. In a sense the replicator rearranges molecules to get the desired food/clothing/book/. . . .
Now the reason why Voyager went to replication credits was that it didn't have enough energy to create the food. Energy that would be more useful to power the ship. I am not too sure on this point but. . . I do believe that the warp core has some of the plasma diverted to other ship systems for main power. So this makes even more sense.
Please forgive me but it has been about five years since I read the Tech Manual. Anyone out there with a more up to date knowledge is welcome to punch holes in my explanation.
------------------
The pain, the pain. I think a neuron
just short circuited. *thud*
In a Voy ep with the Malon, they show how the waste radiation from the warp reaction (theta rad?) is asborbed through 'scrubbers' and converted into 'clean' that is used as main power.
ie. Warp power makes the engines work, the byproduct powers the ships functions.
As for replicators: They have the 'matter slush' so it should just be rearranging molecules and thus 1:1 [more for colour? ]
Industrial reps are just big and dedicated, these are the ones that (probably rep little things and then assemble it to a more complex item).
I wouldn't allow any 100% efficient process in my campaign. If you can do that, then you have the capability of making a perpetual motion machine, and that is impossible.
For replicating anti-matter, I'd make that take more energy than you can get out of the anti-matter. Otherwise, you could just keep replicating more and you'd never need to replenish your supplies.
Did anybody see last week's Voyager? Half the deuterium fuel supply was stolen, and nobody even suggested replicating more. If you can't replicate deuterium efficiently enough to be worthwhile, I'm sure you can't replicate anti-matter with any efficiency.
------------------
<<<<
LUGTrek isn't really dead. Not as long as we remember it.
But yeh alot of the 'good' stuff would be very inefficent to replicate. Anti-matter would just be plain to unstable. Could a replicator alter a matter slush's molecules into anti matter slush? It just wouldn't work!
Even with a 100% conversion process, that doesn't mean that after food passes thru the crews system you'll have 100% of the waste in reclaimation to deal with.
I'd tend to think that stock matter is used for replicators given that they don't ration the amount of time you spend with your lights on. Still, replicating takes alot more power than lighting a hallway.
I'd like them to clarify their statement early in the series that holodeck energy was a "different kind" of energy. Now while one is illusion, light and force fields, the other is matter which has to have alot more energy involved but still, without stock matter, what type of energy are they talking about? Is there an energy that only comes from decaying radioactive elements and cannot be used to power ships systems?
As to the idea that a starship might haul a 'matter sludge' with them, which they would use as a building material for the replicators... Does each specific element have to be carried? Is there a seperate storage section for Carbon, a seperate section for Oxygen, a seperate section for Iron, etc?
The alternative, I would think, would for there to be a general storage bin of Protons, a storage bin for Neutrons, and a storage bin for Electrons. That way, each element needed in each compound to be replicated would be assembled by the replicator. That would make it so that all you needed to make a Ice Cream Sunday, or a Hydrospanner would be a pile of rocks, or something.
I personally would prefer the first option... but I guess that Star Trek technology may be advanced enough to build elements from protons, electrons, and neutrons. What do you think?
I think you are over-complicating it, Pete; or, perhaps, over-simplifying it, I'm not sure
I think you've got the right idea with the "bins" of protons, neutrons, and electrons; but I see no need to store them seperately. The requisite number of subatomic particles could be extracted from any source matter that they see fit.
So, like you said, you could theoretically build that banana split of yours out of a pile of rocks.
The matter that is carried aboard a starship (which I think the writers have been intentionally vague about) would simply be the most convenient form for it to be stored in: stable, requiring little or no energy to contain or cool it, and taking up the least amount of space.
The TM (TNG, Sig.) does state that human waste is reclaimed for purposes of replication.
Why would you prefer that they store individual elements?
We have to remember a replicator works on a molecular level - not atomic, or subatomic.
So *wagging finger* no building stuff out of protons, neutrons & electrons!
If replicators use molecular-level resolution, then you would have storage bins for (for food): proteins, fats, carbohydrates (simply & complex), vitamins, minerals, etc. For industrial stuff, you'd need alloys, pure metals, plastics, etc.
So, IOW, you still need to have someone manufacturing stuff in the Federation - they just don't need to make 100 tonnes of spanners; just enough alloys, plastics and lubricants to create 100 tonnes of spanners. And, of course, once the spanner is used, you can just send it back to the "metal pool".
With food, it's easier to transport and resupply 100 tonnes of starch, cellulose, proteins and fats in blocks than to carry 100 tonnes of potatoes. And of course, we won't go into what happens to "waste" material - because much of that could be sent back to the "cellulose" pool.
------------------
"May I find you with peace, and leave you with hope."
I thought I was going to have to become indignant, or huffy, or something!
Aldaron,
Anything that works to rearrange molecules would, by necessity, _have_ to work on *at least* an atomic level. Otherwise you would have to have samples of _every_ kind of compound known to man. (Just think of the headaches that the aminos in food would create)
It's just not practical; nor is it really practical to have every known Element on board, (would you like to be the one who tries to predict exactly how much, say, Argon you were going to need for a 5 year mission?)
And *since* the transporters work on the quantum level (read: sub-sub-atomic, which is required to transport animate matter) why _wouldn't_ you have a replicator that works on a sub-atomic level, to build things out of protons, neutrons, and electrons extracted from a stable source?
Can you answer that?
I think you miss the point that Replicators operate on a molecular _resolution_, which means that they simply build molecules, they don't bother with re-creating quantums states, as it takes too much power and too much memory on the computer.
It is a means of conservation. So why would you destroy that conservation by then keeping every molecule, and _enough_ of every molecule, aboard a ship??
Replicator Theory
Reply With Quote
Replicators are similar to transporters. There is one key difference though, transporters work at the quantum level while replicators work at the molecular level. In a sense the replicator rearranges molecules to get the desired food/clothing/book/. . . . 
<<<<
