References neededEdit

Last three paragraphs need at least some form of reference. -- Redge | Talk 22:55, 20 Aug 2004 (CEST)

If they are found to be non-canon, I suggest a list of materials that are known to be non-replicatable. Signed, Tyrant
The concepts of quantum resolution, etc. are in the TNG Tech Manual, but I don't recall it ever mentioned on screen. (The TNG manual also lists a kind of Altarian spice that is lethal when replicated.) quanta 18:10, Jan 12, 2005 (CET)
Quanta is correct, the information comes from the TNG Technical Manual.
RE: Altarian spice- The TM uses "certain Altarian spices have shown to be toxic (not "lethal") when replicated" as an example of the limitations of the replicator. Roundeyesamurai 04:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

More images needed Edit

The article is a good start, but it needs more images. Specifically, there should be at least one image of the mess hall array of replicators seen in the original Star Trek series. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Since there weren't any replicators on the original series, that would be hard to do. See food synthesizer for those. --From Andoria with Love 05:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
If you check TOS 1x18 "The Squire of Gothos", the titular Squire explains that the replicator-like technology he used to create his home on Gothos is based on the same principles as the Enterprise's transporters. 05:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, you're correct. It appears our good squire had replication abilities even before the Federation did. Then again, he is a Q-like being, so he was bound to have advanced abilities. :P --From Andoria with Love 12:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

spock's marshmallow thingie Edit

removed the following.. it seems highly unlikely that the small device spock used to produce a marshmallow was a replicator. it's more likely that this was a dispenser of some sort, but there is no evidence to assume it's a replicator. Deevolution 06:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, can always go with marshmallow dispenser or, if you will, "marsh melon" dispenser. --Alan 17:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Energy to matter, or matter to energy back to matterEdit

Do we have confirmation that a replicator does in fact, dematerialize matter and reassembles it, or does it make things from pure energy to matter (from a power source such as a matter/anti-matter reactor) And, if it makes things from pure energy can it make any element (Quark said gold was worthless once- not in little green men though, or when the ferengi wanted to break into Fort Knox)

Creation of new elements? Edit

  • "Quantum transformational manipulation allows the creation of new elements."

Does anyone have a source on this? I, personally, find this a tad difficult to believe. If new elements could be produced, there would practically be no limits to replication, yet we obviously see a great deal of things that aren't able to be replicated (the Doctor's holo-emitter, for example, but that could be unable to be replicated due to its highly advanced construction). It's even more difficult to believe when in the same article just paragraphs above it, it says replicators manipulate at the molecular level - NOT the quantum level like that of transporters. Well, to me, the statement of "quantum transformational manipulation" means manipulation at the quantum level, in which case this article contradicts itself.

That said I would really appreciate a source on this statement. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I would have to agree on this, If the replicator could do such things, how is it that the device has such limitations on power? Then again, I could never understand why there would be a "limit" on power for a replicator to begin with.--Terran Officer 05:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Terran, the current version of this article no longer makes this claim. It was removed just over a month ago along with other information that was either not canon or poorly worded. If you look further down the talk page you will find the original text and if you read the article carefully you will spot where I worked the few parts that were canon back into the article. Hope that clears some things up. :) --Topher 11:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

removed from article Edit

The following information was removed by another user:

  • Replicators sample an object at a molecular rather than quantum level. The computer then applies a loss compression algorithm to save computer memory. This gives the computer a pattern from which to produce copies.
  • Starships keep a small supply of recycled bulk material from which to create new objects. A waveguide conduit system sends bulk material to the replicator, which reforms it into the requested objects, then it transmits the new object to the terminal.
  • Quantum transformational manipulation allows the creation of new elements. Energy costs are high for all forms of replication, thus making practical alchemy, such as creating limitless latinum, impossible, but food (normally simple arrangements of water, proteins, and liquids) is more practical to replicate from bulk matter than to store.
  • The replicator is also capable of inverting its function, thus disposing leftovers and dishes - and presumably materials not created by a replicator, esp. the crews excrements - and storing the bulk material again.

...since it was uncited. --From Andoria with Love 09:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I just reworked the article and reorganized it to make it more functional and appealing. I also added the part about "inverting its function" back in (minus the fecal matter reference) due to Janeway's insistance to Chakotay to recycle the pocket watch he replicated for her in VOY: "Year of Hell". Also, I found a ref to TNG: "Timescape" on another website (not sure of the exact line or anything as it's been awhile since I've seen that episode). I believe the rest may have come from the TNG Tech Manual, but I'm too tired to look through that now. --Topher 11:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I re-watched Timescape and did not find any references to a replicator, so I have removed the reference. I am also hoping to find the episode of DS9 that has the O'Briens in their quarters having just finished a meal. They go back and forth to decide who should put the dishes back into the replicator. I'm sure there's also a line somewhere with someone walking into a cabin and looking around and being disgusted that the occupant didn't even take the time to put their dirty dishes away in the replicator. --Topher 04:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Holodeck powerEdit

I was reading the artical and it says The energy crisis and replicator rations are used with some dramatic license by the writers of Star Trek: Voyager. Therefore, it is difficult to tell exactly how much power replicators used for every whim would actually cost in terms of ship's energy. Energy that could otherwise be used on replicator functions is being consumed by the holodeck during several episodes including "The Cloud" where the crisis is first noted. But the holodeck is also stated in voyager to have its own power grid. (one of the episodes in the first season of VOY) - 09:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A power grid does not create power, only distribute it. — Vince47 11:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was that it was made painfully clear on said episode that the crew is unable to tap in to the holodecks for energy. -- 14:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if that is true, what exactly is your point? It sounds like a Nit/Pick— Vince47 14:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
No, it's an important detail...the writers went out of their way to point out that any energy saved by reducing holodeck usage was unusable anyways, and was therefore irrelevant to their conservation efforts, so the last sentence should definitely go. The rest of the excerpt is factually unobjectionable, but not really informative, as this deliberate vagueness about energy consumption is hardly unique to the replicators --Mechasaprophyte 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

living stuff Edit

I'm wondering whether it's possible to replicate minor life forms such as Gagh or Racht. In one TNG episode Riker has replicated Gagh, but that's dead. --T1gerch3n 19:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the closest to a life form a replicator can produce is a virus, which was done in "Babel". --31dot 19:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What can't it replicate?Edit

I was looking the regular english plain wikipedia on the Replicator (Star Trek of course) and it said that it can't replicate antimatter, dilithium, latinum and as we know (At least federation replicators) living things. Are there any refs on this? I don't see why it wouldn't be able to make antimatter. Anti matter is simply matter with opposite particles. Though, maybe it would be pointless since the energy to create the antimatter would be the same as it would be annihilating it for energy, no net emergy gain. Dilithium is just another element, Latinum certainly makes sense, since Quark would have done so if he could. It's mentioned in the Technical Manual (TNG) that it does not create material out of pure energy, it needs to convert stored elements intp the material you want to replicate. 18:54, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Re: dilithium. In the Shattnerverse novel "Preserver" (not canon, I know), it says that dilithium has a "four dimensional crystal structure" of some kind, which might explain why it can't be replicated (I feel like Sheldon on Big Bang Theory here..). I don't know if there is anything in canon about this, maybe a graphic of dilithium crystal that looks like a tesseract diagram or something. Jimw338 (talk) 06:45, August 23, 2016 (UTC)


It should be noted that in the first paragraph, the inverse of the normal replicator pattern (dematerialize, energy, rematerialize) is in fact the same, because it is still taking apart matter and putting it into another form, regardless where that matter came from (as in it came from a replicator or not). The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

First pic - Innappropriate? Edit

Is it really appropriate for the first image in an article about this magic technology be a malfunctioning replicator? I don't know about anybody else, but that bothers me. The first picture on the Large Hadron Collider isn't a Black Hole. I dunno. Opinion. 23:05, September 27, 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. I've swapped the first two images- if we want a Federation replicator as the first picture, I'm sure we can get a picture of one.--31dot 23:44, September 27, 2011 (UTC)

Possible draft replicator creation date? Edit

Hi, I remember reading a draft of First Contact (found here: that mentions the creation of the replicator happened not that long after First Contact and helped usher in that new era of prosperity Riker talks about in the movie. I was wondering if this would be interesting as a non-canon background detail, I guess depending on whether this source is legit, though I've been assuming it is. LLAP Sumbuddy (talk) 01:47, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

If the source is OK, I think it could be. 31dot (talk) 01:55, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Converting matter Edit

Was it ever said that Replicators can convert ANY matter back into energy to be used, or only matter which was originally created by the Replicators? 10:33, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

Picard once said (to the Moriarty hologram, I think) that "matter and energy are interchangeable" so it would stand to reason that a replicator can dematerialize anything. Transporters can transport anything, and can also deactivate weapons(presumably by altering them somehow). The transporter was also used to destroy the Tox Uthat by exploding it, which presumably involved the transporter changing it somehow, and the Uthat wasn't created by the transporter. 31dot (talk) 10:56, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

So why didn't Voyager just constantly gather any old matter and convert it into energy? 11:56, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

Who says they didn't? It's only speculation but I would guess that there is a point of diminishing returns; i.e. you don't get 100% back of what you recycle as it must use energy to operate the replicator itself, or energy is otherwise lost in the process. 31dot (talk) 12:09, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

Evolution - Food Slots Edit

Doesn't Bev refer to food slots in the test she does in "Evolution"? Is that archaic speech again, or a goof? 03:31, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

The script says food slot so it is not a "goof"; just an alternate term. 31dot (talk) 11:12, June 13, 2014 (UTC)