ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Warp speed conversion formula?

GrandLunar2007

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1092

Report this Jul. 31 2009, 10:06 pm

Unfortunately, mathmatics isn't a strong point of mine, so working about the tables wouldn't be something in my field.

It was no insult toward you by anyone, I imagine. Just a topic that's meant for the real hard core fans, I suppose.

I would've cheated by looking at what the TOS table was for warp speeds (that is, what each warp factor is equal to in multiples of light speed) and then at TNG's table and compare the two.

But then, I suppose you wanted the challenge. Nothing's wrong with that either!

GrandLunar2007

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1092

Report this Aug. 01 2009, 8:14 am

I suppose.

But it's not as fun as going through the motions, I imagine.

Sort of like Kirk and the Kobyashi Maru test*.
You can go through the motions of it, or just cheat!

Okay, probably a bad example.


* (I know I likely misspelled that, but I'm too lazy right now to check)

ssmukhi

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 65791

Report this Aug. 03 2009, 6:25 am

Given the formulas here: Warp Factor

TOS:  V = wf^3 * C

TNG:  V = wf^(10/3) * C

Where:

V = Velocity
wf = Warp Factor
C = Speed of light

If I understand you correctly, you want a factor that can convert TOS velocity to TNG velocity.

So that would be TNG / TOS = .3333C

Oops, that doesn't seem right. I'll check and get back to you.

Pmb

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 79

Report this Aug. 03 2009, 8:21 am

Quote (ZeroArmour @ July 28 2009, 4:54 am)
Can anyone help me with this?
I'm trying to work out what the old (TOS) warp speeds are in the new (TNG) Cochrane scale. I was able to work backwards from the new to the old (the old is just the cube root of your actual speed x C), but the formula to work out old to new is kicking my poor brain around.

What does TOS mean?

I don't believe that there is a realistic conversion factor. For example; do you recall that TNG episode First Contact? Deana Troy told the alien researcher they contacted that Picard was from Earth, which was 2,000 light years away. Let us guess that it would take two month to get there from Earth. Now recall Voyager which was supposed to have to take 75 years to get to Earth from their starting position where the Caretaker took them in the delta quadrant. This means that Voyager travels an average of 1,000 light years per year. It would take 2 years to go to the planet in the First Contact episode. But Enterprise returned to Earth in more than one episode. I find it hard to believe that Enterprise was more than a few months away from that planet in that episode. I never could get a reasonable conversion factor myself for reasons like this.

ssmukhi

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 65791

Report this Sep. 01 2009, 3:29 am

Did you get an answer?

dryson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 749

Report this Sep. 03 2009, 11:19 pm

You have to remember that in TOS warp factors were different because of the refinement and various use of TNG manufacturing techniques used while producing dilithium crystals. I can remember from ST:IV that the Bird of Prey's dilithium crystal was shaped properly and seemed to be more of chunk used to attenuate the
the plasma wavelength's harmonics inside of the crystal. Other factors of material used in the warp nacelles and overall ship's hull would have had a direct affect on the warp factor calculation as well.

4_of_20

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1052

Report this Sep. 05 2009, 7:58 pm

I don't think there's a formula for TNG's system. It's all over the place and ends with Warp 10 at infinite velocity. It's in the encyclopedia, i'll list it at the end.

In the movies thread there was an argument recently about the short time that the Enterprise managed to get from Earth to Vulcan traveling at warp 3. In the old scale (presumable what ST11 should use) this would be 27c, I thought. Until an old book named Star Trek Maps revealed some information about a variable to the old formula known as chi, which could accelerate a ship to incredible speeds if in the presents of gravity wells and dust clouds. This was new information to me, but apparently explained the journey to the center of the galaxy in ST5 (too bad the crew of Voyager didn't know about this!;)

Alright, here it is:

Warp Factor     VxC (TNG)     VxC (TOS Scale x chi)
1                      1                           1,292.7238
2                      10                        10,341.7904
3                      39                        34,903.5426
4                      102                      82,734.3232
5                      214                     161,590.4750
6                      392                     279,228.3407
7                      656                     443,404.2634
8                      1,024                  661,874.5856
9                      1,516                  942,395.6502
9.2                    1,649
9.6                    1,909
9.975                 3,053
9.99                   7,912
9.9999               199,516
10                     Infinite              1,292,723.8

The average value of chi = 1292.7238

4_of_20

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1052

Report this Sep. 08 2009, 8:34 pm

Warp 3 is 39c though, not 29c...

4_of_20

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1052

Report this Sep. 09 2009, 5:38 am

Sorry... I admit I didn't do the math. I thought there may be a flaw in the formula.

Good work. I thought it was random numbers...

4_of_20

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1052

Report this Sep. 10 2009, 11:52 pm

Quote (ZeroArmour @ Sep. 10 2009, 3:43 am)
No, just bad tyoping.

Tyoping? c'mon now, you did that one on purpose...

dryson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 749

Report this Sep. 14 2009, 6:29 pm

Quote
You have to remember that in TOS warp factors were different because of the refinement and various use of TNG manufacturing techniques used while producing dilithium crystals. I can remember from ST:IV that the Bird of Prey's dilithium crystal was shaped properly and seemed to be more of chunk used to attenuate the
the plasma wavelength's harmonics inside of the crystal. Other factors of material used in the warp nacelles and overall ship's hull would have had a direct affect on the warp factor calculation as well.


The materials used in the original series would have created different warp velocities based on their interaction with the warp field generated. It can be easily summed up by taking an old Cadillac, the boxy and heavy early models, and comparing their overall speed and fuel comsumption to the newer models of 2009. With the continued improvement's of material and internal engine compartments of each type of model the newer model would actually have a faster speed then the old model. The same can be said to be true about a TOS Starship and a TNG Starship. Each generation of starship would have improvements made to it, material composition, engine compartment, dilithium crystal matix design, the transfer of the plasma to the warp nacelles, ect, which would cause the warp factor chart to have to be recalculated to adjust for the new speeds of acceleration.

4_of_20

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1052

Report this Sep. 15 2009, 2:55 am

That's a good point, but I think the conversion was due to things happening in our universe and not the Star Trek verse.

Gene Roddenberry, when bringing back Trek, for whatever reason decided that Warp 10 was infinite, and the speeds between were comparatively low, allowing for the perfect space opera format of planet hopping adventurers, but still leaving the galaxy as a large object that could not be explored in one's lifetime. Speed up to and exceeding Warp 9.9 could make the galaxy seem somewhat smaller, hence the fail-safe also installed into the new format that this would cause heavy strain on the vessel if maintained for too long.

And unfortunately all that explains the journey to the center of the galaxy in ST5 and the afternoon trip to Vulcan in ST11 is that stupid chi factor thing I found in that dodgy old book and posted earlier. And as a Voyager fan, the stranded ship with no way home, I think that chi factor shit just stinks!

dryson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 749

Report this Sep. 15 2009, 2:28 pm

Quote
dryson, none of that has anything to do with a straight conversion between one warp factor scale and another. It's like changing from Miles to Kms.


Then what caused the need to change from the old warp factor scale to the new warp factor scale? If there wasn't any reason to change the warp scale to better facilitate a true measurement of warp speed based upon the improvement of material's as the design of the engine compartment and engine nacelles progressed with equipment upgrades as well as the redesign of the dilithium crystal's to better attenuate the plasma that is used to power the warp nacelles, then why was the warp factor chart recalculated?

GrandLunar2007

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1092

Report this Sep. 15 2009, 8:53 pm

Quote
Then what caused the need to change from the old warp factor scale to the new warp factor scale?


Because Roddenberry wanted Warp 10 to be the max speed in ST:TNG, so as to avoid the high numbers that kept popping up in TOS.

4_of_20

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1052

Report this Sep. 18 2009, 6:06 pm

That is true, Farenheit makes no sense whatsoever...

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: miklamar

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum