|Past and special-purpose discussions related to this article can be found on the following subpages:|
For general discussion on this subject, visit the forums at The Trek BBS.
"First Flight" chart Edit
The warp speed table currently states that, for several warp factors, the "exact velocity [was] depicted in warp factor chart". In the chart, I see a red, a thick yellow, several thin yellow and a dotted line, also a blue area and two marks at different Y-positions for the same warp factor. The X-axis is labelled with all Warp factors from 1 to 4, but the Y-axis is a logarithmic scale with only 1c, 10c and 100c as labels. Between 10 and 100 are "blocks" which could depict 20c, 30c and so on, but not 27c or 64c as would be necessary. Also, there's an additional marking not aligned with any integer warp factor, crossed by two lines not aligned with any axis. To top that off, the image of this chart is itself taken from an angle, making it even more difficult to get precise readings off of it.
- To me it is quite obvious, even though we dont have a supersuperdetailed version of this chart, that the scale is calibrated to correspond with the classic cubic scale. And with some common sense I would argue that that was clearly the intent of the graphic designer here. On the right side and at the bottom there are markers that we can see for example for WF 3.0 at where the peak of warp 3 is on the chart. That line goes to the speed of light scale. That to me specifies which line is the line we are supposed to look at to determine the speed. I know that we can be supersceptical too, but I think that would not be called for in this instance. As for the term exact, that is because the c-value is given directly and not something we need to calculate. wording can be changed if it is misleading the way it is stated now. --Pseudohuman (talk) 13:41, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
Each of these lines crosses two markings, though - one from the thick yellow line, another from the red line. There's no marking for warp factor 4, and not even a proper vertical line for warp factor 5. Also, basically stating that some speed must be 27c (instead of, for example 25c or 28c) because it matches wf^3 in that case is getting things backwards. This table is meant to list speeds that have been given (so that an interested reader can try to derive his own "formula" fromm that), not help enforce a specific formula that has never been seen onscreen. If it is the information that one specific interpretation of this chart is "compatible" with the behind-the-scenes wf^3 formula which is of interest here, that information might better be placed in the text, not in the chart. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 13:51, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
- My common sense and interpretation just is here that this chart was meant to canonizes the wf^3 formula speed equivalents (not the formula but the results of it) for WF1-5 in the ENT-era... I would like to hear opinions from other contributors if/before the article is changed. I can see your point, but I'm just not sceptical enough or something about this. :D --Pseudohuman (talk) 15:39, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
But as you said, it is just your interpretation - a likely speculation, perhaps, but still not the same as a fact. As I see it, even after removal of the phrase "exact velocity", it still sounds to the reader as if this is an exact fact, not some approximate value read off an angled chart by squinting really hard and assuming that one of several lines must be the correct one. On the other hand, if the content was reduced to what can be derived from the chart (which, even assuming that the one line is the correct one, would be something like "wf3 equals 20-30c") there wouldn't be much left. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 17:34, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
I have now removed at least the entries for warp factors 4 (64c) and 5 (125c). Even assuming that the interpretation of the chart is as rock solid as made out to be, there still is only a theoretical value given for WF4 (line is dotted instead of solid) and no value at all for WF5 (line stops somewhere between factors 4 and 5). I still think that the other entries should be removed to, perhaps replaced with a background note about the match between one of those lines and the wf^3 formula). -- Cid Highwind (talk) 15:53, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, why this isn't in the canon chart. In the pilot episode of the series, VOY: "Caretaker", it is stated that "at maximum speeds" it would take 75 years for Voyager to reach Earth. "Maximum speeds" is a plural, not "at maximum speed" which would indicate they were talking about a specific speed. The chart is for specific speeds only. For clarification on the writers intent, Star Trek: Voyager Technical Manual (p. 14), states that this calculation was based on a non-stop direct journey at the speed of warp 9.6, not the 9.975 speed mentioned in the episode. This is why it is not in the chart, as an estimation of how fast warp 9.975 or warp 9.6 is, since it was left ambiguous in the episode.
"Variations in relative speed" segment explains why ships are sometimes faster and sometimes slower at warp speeds. Unlike other sites in the internet, we don't nitpick about it, since the nitpick is based on the false assumption that a specific warp speed is supposed to have a consistent relative speed equivalent. It doesn't. It never has. This is well established in canon and in the reference books. The variations are not goofs or mistakes. They never were. --Pseudohuman (talk) 13:33, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- You try to argue for a simple pronunciation-mistake on contrary to direct facts. You try us to believe "maximum" does not mean maximum. You try us believe contrary to the told maximum speed, the maximum speed is lower, and on a factor of 10 on the third just for 0.365 alleged difference. You try us to believe your by-canon unsupported 9.6, a number based on no evidence at all inside the core material.
- You also removed a text explaining what the speeds actually mean (between 75 years and 1 day there is an important difference), what has no relation inserting data from episode Caretaker to the chart - what data is either way told in text in the article. You simply try to direct away the attention from the fact that you not only removed one, but TWO SEPARATE addition to the article. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk).
The 1 day thing was a nitpick.
"Maximum speeds" in Trek is a complex matter. In TNG, warp 9 was often called the maximum warp of Ent-D in TNG: "Time Squared", "Bloodlines", but warp speeds below 9.3 were not even considered to be beyond the red line. 9.6 or 9.65 or 9.8 were also achievable and referred to as other maximums in TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint", "The Best of Both Worlds", "Q Who". Because of that there are several different maximum speeds for a single ship. For the Enterprise-D "maximum speeds" would be all the speeds in the ball park between 9 and 9.8. for example. We don't know what they are for the Voyager. So we can't speculate. --Pseudohuman (talk) 16:12, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Voyagers Max. sustainable cruise velocity was stated to be Warp 9.975. That is not its max Warp speed. For example I believe it was stated that 9.6 is a Galaxy classes Max Cruise speed. As Pseudohuman has said '"Maximum speeds" in Trek is a complex matter. ' Unless it has been stated before, which I don't recall, you can't define Voyagers Maximum warp speed using canon information. If you can give a quote that defines the maximum warp speed then great. --BorgKnight (talk) 16:45, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
Usually when we don't know, from canon, what the intent was when something is a bit obscure, we look at the statements by the production staff. 9.975 is the "sustainable cruise velocity" according to "Caretaker" and "top cruising speed" according to "Relativity". That is not very clear, but according to the writer's technical guide the intent was that 9.975 actually is the "maximum rated speed" for the ship and 9.99 requires too much energy to maintain (page 13). Having re-read the guide, there is actually a further note on page 36 that the 75 years is based on warp 9.99. So the book is self contradictory about is it for 9.6 or 9.99. --Pseudohuman (talk) 18:18, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
Warp factors comparisonEdit
A lin-log comparison graph between TOS and TNG scales may be useful. I have one here based on up to Warp 9.9, as an approximation.
- What is the point of posting this here? 31dot (talk) 10:25, February 11, 2015 (UTC)
- I originally put it directly on the article under the TNG Warp Factors table, but it was reverted since there was no licensing info yet. I figured I'll put it back up tomorrow or something, seems there's still a few edits going on. Fuddycharles (talk) 21:47, February 11, 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the new note that was added Edit
A long new note says that in Star Trek Online "the warp speed scale appears to have been recalibrate yet again". I don't play that game, but does it appear to be the anon that wrote that, or is it pretty established that that's indeed what happened? The writeup after that doesn't really seem like anything changed, at most it's much of the same technobable inconsistency that we've seen in the series. If this is just a writeup about the regular warp factor system, as featured in that game, I'm not sure that section is needed. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:49, April 26, 2015 (UTC)
the Enterprise's journey to Andromeda Edit
If the original series scale really was cubing the warp factor and multiplying it by the speed of light to get the ship's speed, then that means the enterprise (by the original series scale) would have to be traveling at warp factor 20.2469385201 nonstop for the whole journey. (22.214.171.124 23:59, November 2, 2016 (UTC))
"Hope and Fear"Edit
Please add the calculation and a section for the speed stated in "Hope and Fear". "Tuvok determines that Voyager is out of scanning range and that the Dauntless has traveled over fifteen light years in just a few minutes. After two days at high warp, we've rendezvoused with the Dauntless." Janeway states that it takes 2 days at high warp to travel 15 light years. Syalantillesfel (talk) 08:08, February 28, 2017 (UTC)