Talk: Transporter/archive

Template:Oldpeerreview

Content

i've removed these questionable passages for removal of non-canon info. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 16:39, 19 Aug 2004 (CEST)

These seem to me fine. They may not be directly mentioned, but they can be inferred fom on-screen dialogue.

"The annular confinement beam maintains a "lock" on the subject to identify what to beam out and what to leave behind. The beam also transports the intact subject.

"The Heisenberg Principle states that you cannot know both the location of a subatomic particle and its direction of motion. This has changed by the 24th century. The Heisenberg compensators help keep track of the particles in the beam by compensating for what is not known.

This was mentioned, but I'm not sure where (That Voyager episode with the macro-virus among others). -- Redge | Talk 20:37, 20 Aug 2004 (CEST)

The biofilters identifies elements of the pattern and erases unwanted particles. It can be used to filter out unwanted viruses or bacteria and to manipulate DNA strings.

Question on Injuries section

It says in the article that "This was done by placing a neural pad at the base of the skull of both individuals" citing TNG: "Transfigurations" as a source but in that episode the neural pad is quite clearly placed on Geordi La Forges forehead, could someone correct this, I would do it myself, however I'd rather someone more familiar with the wiki style do it.– 86.155.83.2 23:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Transporter copy problem

Transporter copy problem, it there any canon info on this ? Everything I've heard about transporters (in the series) is always about deassemble, transport it and reassemble the person/object not copying it -- Q 17:32, 8 Jan 2005 (CET)

Well, taking the person apart completely would kill them, because the brain totally ceases operation, so the matter put back together would be a copy, no matter what you did, so this is how it would work in real life. I don't know how they've dealt with it in star trek. There was an episode Realm of Fear, where Barclay remained conscious the entire time, but I've heard this doesn't mean anything because since consciousness is required for perception, it is impossible to perceive a discontinuity in your own consciousness. It basically throws your consciousness, your soul if you would into oblivion and creates a whole new person. Vortaborg 03:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Riker--Gvsualan 19:57, 8 Jan 2005 (CET)

I don't have the episode at hand but I recall that Data explained something like that when William was beamed up a layer in the planets atmosphere caused part of the transporterbeam to bounce back to the planet and created Thomas while William safely beamed to the Enterprise. So this transporter mishap made a copy of.. instead of that transporters works with copies IMHO -- Q 00:48, 9 Jan 2005 (CET)

I have a number of issues with the transporter related to this. Inherently it does take a materialistic stance which runs against my personal philosophy, but that's part & parcel with the Trek I know and love, and I'm not here to comment on that. I would agree with the view that a person after transporting is "new," but since humans here are entirely material, everything that defines an individual is preverved and reassembled upon arrival and the entire incident is of no functional importance. But the ability to copy a person (see Transporter accidents) quickly made me wonder why it could not be combined with the transporter's limited ability to hold a person in suspension (see Time) to create backup copies. The success with Scotty showed promise for at least the preservation of, say, important politicians - multiple copies could be kept in suspension, and hopefully at least one would be usable if the "real" one were killed. Said dignitary would hopefully back themselves up on a regular basis. The article notes regarding the Riker incident that Technically, this incident should not have occurred, since the transporter neither creates nor destroys matter, and Riker's matter stream should have only had enough within it to produce one whole person - but outside that accidental context, additional energy could be provided easily. It is my understanding that any pattern can be constructed given the energy, so a lump of debris could be beamed into suspension (converted to pure energy) and rematerialized as a person. This is exactly how a replicator works - A replicator (or food slot) is a device that uses transporter technology to dematerialize quantities of matter and then rematerialize that matter in another form. Since copying people can be done easily if there are no moral objections, the main issue remains preserving these people over time. The Federation clearly has Cryogenic stasis technology (though it is no longer regularly used) which could safely preserve a person over long periods, and it might even be possible to slow time down within a small area to to point of virtually stopping it (as in "Timescape", though that was an extreme technology and I would not expect that method to be used by the Federation to slow time). Actually, a very mundane solution could serve perfectly well; this article states that the patterns of Sisko, Kira, Worf, Dax, and Miles O'Brien were temporarily stored in the computer core of Deep Space 9 to prevent their patterns from degrading, so I imagine that given enough "disk space" (just use the whale-beaming parameters from Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home to dematerialize a few asteroids and rematerialize them as computers - or even entire starships, for that matter!) the Federation could create a computer backup database of all its citizens' transporter signatures! I wish these issues would be addressed, because stories of the loss and sacrifice of life (particularly the one in Nemesis - not even a biological life form) are frustrating when it seems the real tragedy is that there was no backup copy. (That film does show that Data's memories are not all that make him who he is, but whatever does obviously survives transportation just fine.) And speaking of Nemesis, Shinzon could have made a copy of Picard to kill for that complete blood transfusion, or (far more morally) a small amount of his blood could be replicated many times over. Even in Insurrection, the Son'a could have avoided all that that tedious mucking about with cosmetic face-stretching by simulating the effect of a molecular reversion field, as seen in TNG: "Rascals", to appear as young as they liked. The episode doesn't say whether the distortion alters more than appearances, but it might make their anti-aging gene therapy (and therefore the destruction of the planet Ba'ku, and the implied death of those Son'a too old to last the ten years needed for reverse aging to set in) unnecessary as well! I'd like to hear responses to any of these propositions, but I fully acknowledge that the transporter was created as a budget-saving and storytelling device, and all of the weird things that can be done were only brought up to make interesting stories. I only wish I didn't have to ignore what this wondrous machine could have done while watching other stories. -AndromedaRoach 03:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the things I've wondered about ever since "The Enemy Within" is: where does the extra matter come from? If the transporter breaks a person down into his/her components then reassembles the components, it seems there wouldn't be any leftovers - certainly not enough to make a whole person. The only other matter source available is the bulk material used by the replicators. In this case and assuming there was a way to re-sue/save/back up someone's pattern, a person could be replicated over and over until you run out of stores. As a replicator creates matter at the molecular level rather than quantum level, it's conceivable that a replicated person could degrade. This also means that in "Second Chances", the subatomic particles that made up Riker stayed on the planet and the Riker who made it back came from replicator stores. Thomas is the original Riker. Will is the replicate (Riker-A?) and should be concerned about molecular degradation. --StarFire209 01:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It came to me later that there's a story in that.

William Riker exhibits signs of transporter psychosis an illness thought to be eliminated. As he deteriorates, it's discovered that he is in fact a replicate. His only hope is a glialcell transplant from the original, the disgraced Thomas Riker. Where is he? Do the Cardassians still have him? Will he save the man who stole his life? Why is Section 31 interested? --StarFire209 13:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In the TNG Technical Manual, it states that there is a "matter stream buffer" which is the pool that all matter gets stored. I think it's also mentioned in the Scotty episode of TNG. vorik111 19:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

But that still doesn't answer my question. If I put 100 kilos of Riker into the pool and I get 200 kilos of Riker out of the pool, how did the extra 100 kilos get into the pool? Did the ship's computer compensate for the extra matter requirement of the transporter by accidentally pulling from the matter pool used by the replicator system? Then, because this matter was more accessible to the transporter than the stuff trying to come up from the surface, did a Riker materialize on the ship before the stuff from the planet could return? I think so. Otherwise, the system responsible for transporting things is capable of creating something out of nothing while the system responsible for replicating things isn't. My answer addresses all the issues except one: There are fans who BELIEVE zealously that Will is the original and Thomas is the duplicate and nothing can change that faith. --StarFire209 21:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I should have just made that "Matter Stream" - if I remember correctly, it stated that there's this huge pocket of energy called the matter stream that is spinning in a chamber below the transporter, and that is from where it draws all matter and re-adds the newly acquired person. So your extra 100 kilos of Riker was already in the Matter Stream. I just re-read the article and it uses the term Matter Stream in a different way than I mentioned. Now since I'm going by memory, I'm probably wrong, and since so many hands have touched the subject here, they will probably be right. I'll check my tech manual again. vorik111 22:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a difference without a distinction. Whether it came from a pool for the replicator or a pool for the transporter, the matter used to create shipside Riker came from a pool located on the ship. The matter to create the planetside Riker had to be the matter that was sent to the planet. (I don't see why this is a problem for people. From a science fiction perspective, it's actually cooler for William to be the duplicate.) --StarFire209 23:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Mechanics Detailed

Transporters are matter-energy conversion devices that take an object or being and transform it into a pattern of phased energy that can be transmitted as a complex trans-barrier signal through the first-level subspace domain to a set of desired coordinates and then retransformed into its original form. They employ Heisenberg compensators, pattern buffers, phase transition coils, biofilters, matter streams, confinement beams, matterenergy converters, and phased matter. An entity remains conscious during transport and can be held in stasis. While in transport, you seem whole to yourself.

The "annular confinement beam" locks onto, then disassembles, a subject into phased matter via the phase transition coils, causing it to take on an energylike state somewhat akin to plasma, called phased matter. The matter stream is then fed into the pattern buffer, piped through waveguide conduits to one of the beam emitters on the hull of the starship, and then relayed to a point on the ground where the annular confinement beam reconstructs the subject.

The "pattern buffer," a cyclotron-like tank, holds the whirling matrix of phased matter in the annular confinement beam while the subject is beamed out and beamed in. It keeps track of the subject's particles in the beam.

"Virtual focus molecular imaging scanners" perform a trace at the quantum level. The transporter ID trace keeps a verification record of the trace after transport. This compressed sample also includes the subject's name and logs of the transport cycle.

Ionizers and phase transition coils perform the quantum matrix manipulation to transform an object into phased matter in what is known as the "dematerialization process."

This is what produces the familiar gold "sparkles" of the older-style Federation transporters and the red-and-blue effects of later Federation systems, as different dematerialization and phase transition processes were developed.

Pattern degradation occurs because annular confinement beams aren't perfect, even when amplified by Heisenberg compensators. The matter stream shifts out of alignment. A subject can be suspended in transport for up to 420 seconds before degradation becomes too severe to reform the subject. Locking the transport controller in a diagnostic loop keeps pattern degradation to a minimum, but phased-matter "bugs" reside in the plasma environment.

Emitter array pads reside at various sites on the surface of a starship's hull. "Long range virtual focus molecular imaging scanners" handle remote disassembly of the subject and facilitate reassembly.

Needs attention

• Transporter -- section about "Transporter accidents" needs to be expanded, section about "Transporter practices" needs to be rewritten (at least reformatted), complete text should be restructured (more section headers). -- Cid Highwind 16:45, 2005 Jan 20 (CET)

• Changed to {{pna-incompete}} General format is there but still need a lot of information. -- Q 05:05, 20 Mar 2005 (EST)

• There is always said, that transporter sends matter. However, it can also beam 'enrgy only' as captain Picard has beamed himself into an enrgy cloud in TNG: "Lonely Among Us"

Transport through shields

• Was it actually noted in Star Trek Nemesis that one could transport through their own ship's shields? We see this a number of times over the Trek series and it's known as a mistake. Enzo Aquarius 20:58, 28 Mar 2005 (EST)

• It was never stated directly, but during the opening Borg battle in First Contact, Captain Picard orders the surviving crew members of the Defiant to be beamed directly to sickbay during a time when the ships shield were still clearly in operation. Whether this was intentional or simply an oversight on the part of the production is not known. 22:56, 28 Mar 2005 (EST) Lt. Commander Schinke

Voyager hardly ever lowers their shields before transporting someone. It's possible this limitation has been overcome.

i know its cofusing that, but in the episode resolutions the doctor said "our sheilds are up we cant transport anything through them"

• Well, I know that one of Star Trek's favorite excuses is that if you align something to the same frequency as the shields, then you can pass right through them. So it seems reasonable to assume that if a starship knew its own shield frequency, then they could pull that little trick and pass right through them. Of course, the ability to do this seems to be directly dependent on the plot at the time. 66.140.59.133 19:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Noncanonical Phrase

Beam me up, Scotty! (note: I wonder what the actual phrase used when one wanted the Enterprise to beam up himself or herself on TOS was. I know some later shows routinely used "One to beam up" or "Two to beam up" or whatever.) 209.92.89.26 21:18, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Well, my copy of Star Trek 30 Years Official Collectors' Edition (© 1996) says that Kirk once said, "Beam us up, Scotty", in a TAS episode. Unfortunately it doesn't give the exact episode, but there you go. -- Miranda Jackson ^(Talk) 22:20, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)

The actual line was "Beam us up, Mr. Scott" from "The Paradise Syndrome". That's as close as it gets. Aholland 03:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Beam us up, Scotty." -line is actually heard in two TAS-episodes, "The Lorelei Signal" and "The Infinite Vulcan". --Pseudohuman 13:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tranporter-enhancing Technologies

References to technologies or devices that enhance a transporter's capabilities should probably be added. Perhaps a new section is warranted for this based on the current layout structure.

For example: Emergency transport unit, Emergency transporter armband, Pattern enhancer, multidimensional transporter device.

Intricated 18:58, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I added information about the crystal device used in DS9: "Covenant", to transport Colonel Kira to Empok Nor. I wasn't really sure where to put it, but I guess it would come under a section similar to the one mentioned above. For the time being, its under the Personnel section. Zsingaya ^Talk 13:13, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Test container

I recall that in an episode a container was used to test the correct workings of a transporter, it simulated organic tissue of some kind (?), but I don't know the episode it was used anymore. Someone else ? -- Q 21:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It was the voyager episode where they find the wormhole to the past. 24.30.46.12 15:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Article tense

Ordinarily I'm a big 'past tense' kinda guy, but in this case I think present tense is more appropriate. From the standpoint of the 24th century the transporter is an ACTIVE piece of technology. In most cases past tense is used in MA for people or events because they are considered to be historical from even the 24th century perspective. But transporters are still being used so it's more accurate to say the Transporter IS a device for....or the present tense when describing how it operates. Obviously the history section and accidents can be past tense but for current usage it should be present tense. At least, IMHO. See Cloaking Device and force field for examples. Logan 5 22:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There are some discusions about tense going on Memory Alpha:Ten Forward, you might check those also. I don't believe different tense shoud be used on whether an article tells about lifeforms or technology. Even technology gets absolete and will be replaced with newer forms of it, and fade into the pages of history, so past tense seems the best way to go.(to me at least) -- Q 22:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Reference in TNG Descent

My memory is a little fuzzy: didn't Beverly Crusher, in command of the USS Enterprise-D with most of the crew on the surface of a planet looking for Data, use all the transporters of the starship, including the ones in the cargo bays (presumably properly reconfigured cargo transporters) in TNG: "Descent, Part II"? If so, this probably would make a good reference in the appropriate section of this page. -Intricated 23:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Nominations for featured articles

Transporter

I nominated, then pulled this nomination before on the suggestion that it go through peer-review. The participation there was low but I've done significant work on the article since then. For something that is mentioned or shown in practically every episode of every series I think this is about as complete as it can be. I've tried to organize it better, added quite bit of inormation to all the sections and some pics. I think it's pretty well written and reads well now, is thorough, and aside from my most recent changes for better organizaiton I think it's stable. For a vital piece of Trek I think we should give consideration to this nomination. Logan 5 15:47, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I haven't gotten a chance to go through the nitty gritty stuff on the article yet (looks good), but I have noticed MA has a low participation rate on a lot of stuff, at least relative to its user population. --Broik 05:27, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Well, personally I think this is sad. It's a good article that at least deserves votes/attention. But frankly I think that it's too long for most users to read through. Which brings me back to my objection to some other FA nominations like Noah and Grathon Tolar. People read and vote on those because they are so short but won't read and vote on this because it is more involved. I just don't see who FAs can represent the best work of Memory Alpha when some articles that require the most work don't get read, and ones that require relatively little work get so much support. Sad. Logan 5 17:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Incredibly detailed and informative. Me like. --From Andoria with Love 00:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. The first picture on the page doesn't cite what episode it came from. If it can be cited or replaced, I support. If not, it may be a copyvio, in which case I can definatly not support this nomination. Jaz 00:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Replaced with image of a Galaxy class transporter room properly credited to Art of Star Trek. Logan 5 19:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Amazingly informative, amazingly detailed, and definetly worthy of FA status. --Starchild ^|<Talk> 04:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The new pic if from inside the Art of Star Trek, so I don't think it is fiar use. I am going to have to oppose until the image issues are resolved. Jaz 01:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Say what? First, if this is the case then the Template:ShipClass page is in copy vio and needs to have it's FA status stripped. Second, if it's not usable then why hasn't it been deleted? Third, if you want to be such a stickler about such a minor detail and an easily corrected one, why not just correct it instead of opposing the nomination and standing in the way? I'm just going to remove the picture entirely, but going from conditional to oppose on that basis seems like an exercise in contrary-ism. Logan 5 14:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Solved, replaced with cited screenshots. -- Q 21:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Detailed, informative and worked on by lots of archivist. It think atleast 95 percent of what we know about the transporter is there. -- Q 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Yeah, plenty of information, and the transporter accident section is very informative. Its length is only to encompass the huge amount of information on this device. Good going, to anyone who helped out updating it! Zsingaya ^Talk 16:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very informative is an understatement.  :) --Galaxy001 03:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Featured. It's been over 2 weeks now with no objections. --From Andoria with Love 15:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

Okay, when some one is transported, they step on top of the transporter pad to be scanned and then transported, correct? Well one thing that I never understood is how the transporter works once some one is on a planet. Are their patterns scanned remotely? If patterns can be scanned remotely, than what is the purpose of stepping on a pad in the first place?141.157.220.64 20:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Transporter memory

Ok, i'm watching "Our Man Bashir" right now and the whole thing with having to wipe the stations memory to store everybodys pattern... But several times in TNG, transporter patterns were "on file" or something and were used to save the day a few times. The ones that come immediately to mind are when Picard is taken over by some energy being and the one with Pulaski and the genetically engineered kids. Are cardassian transporters just crappy, or what?--Cyno01 04:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

From the TNG, DS9, etc perspective... Federation technology is usually superiour to most other races (The romulans and borg being the only exception that springs to mind). That and each transporter was most likely developed independantly (notice how the "father of the transporter" was human in ENT?) so they could be programmed differently.--58.6.1.178 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

When you mention the episode with Pulaski, you are talking about her *physical* pattern. As you will notice on that episode, after she transported, her DNA was replaced with the one on the stored pattern (in actuallity, they used a hair brush to obtain the sample, but let's assume they are using a pattern that was on file). After the transport, Pulaski remembers everything that just happened to her, because her brain patterns were moved from the original location to the Enteprise. On DS9, they are talking about actually storing a whole "copy" of the "mindstate" of each person. That would require a quantum level resolution, and not just molecular level resolution (as when you are retrieving a DNA pattern from a file). As to how much more information it would be needed for quantum level resolution, as opposed to molecular level, I have no idea. Quase 02:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Continuity issue

Transporters have been used by many civilizations throughout history, but the first Human-made transporter was invented by Emory Erickson sometime prior to 2121, with the first operable transporter being developed before 2139. (ENT: "Daedalus")

This is a significant continuity problem, since the human colonists on Moab IV in TNG: "The Masterpiece Society", whose ancestors had left the Earth several decades after that, were stunned by the transporter technology. However, this may be due to the fact that the transporter seen on Enterprise is a semi-prototype or a military technology and thus not known or understood by the general populace.

I have a couple theories about this continuity error, if it's worth anything to anyone. Is it possible that the colonists on Moab IV simply were not being exact when they claimed their colony had been there for 200 years? Or even better, let's consider this...we can be fairly certain that this colony is quite some distance from Earth, judging from where the Enterprise was in the episodes that surround this one. In the 22nd Century, before the development of the Warp 5 engine, ships could travel no faster than Warp 2. Is it possible that these colonists left Earth BEFORE the Transporter was invented, then took several decades to get to Moab IV using generational ships (as described in other TNG episodes such as "Up the Long Ladder") and established their colony perhaps in the earliest days of the Federation, or around the time that Enterprise is set? Thus technology would have advanced on Earth and in Starfleet, and they, being out of communication with the rest of humanity for so long and then isolating themselves for the next two centuries, would have been completely unfamiliar with advances such as transporters. It could also be the case that transporters, which even by the time of Enterprise were still not widely used, could have been vaguely familiar to the original founders of the colony but forgotten over the course of 200 years because they were not considered important (after all, this society is all about evolving beyond humanity. If any of these theories sounds plausible, I propose adding the conjecture to the article as a way of attempting to reconcile the timeline. --Antodav 02:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. In fact, I believe that explanation more than the explanation currently in the article. Is there a way you could shorten it a bit and add it to the current info? Perhaps just saying it's possible that they left Earth aboard pre-warp or low-warp vessels prior to the invention of the transporter and did not arrive on the planet until the late 22nd century due to their limited speed? That would be great. :) --From Andoria with Love 02:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. :-) --Antodav 03:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In the (in my view unnecessary) expansion of speculations to the Moab-issue, User:36ophiuchi is now claiming transporter technology was established as not being public knowledge in 2138 - 2148. Does this have any canonical basis? As far as I know transporter development was always public knowledge and this was in fact the period of the public debates regarding the future of transporters... also the Moabians were stunned by the very concept of a transporter. Not just "human transport". --Pseudohuman 08:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing speculation

I am removing the following note:

The transporter is usaly controled by a human operater due to the energy beam going out of phase which a computer cannot handle.

I don't remember this ever being stated anywhere in Star Trek. In addition, we see the use of transporters without human operators countless times throughout DS9. Often, they will leave the runabout in orbit, beam everyone down to a planet, and then when they want to beam up, they say something like, "Computer, two to beam up." That would seem to imply computer control of the beam out, and during none of these cases was there any fear expressed over the computers ability to handle the beam going out of phase. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 01:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Behind the scenes

is it possible to have an article on how does the transporter works (ie how is it done in the set?)

what other devices are used other than the Fresnel lenses? i recall that it was shwon at the universal studios, but can't seem to find it. anyone know and can add to the main article? 70.70.209.25 08:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Current format

I've noticed that some changes were made with respect to the format of this article. Is it just me or does the article no longer read as well as before the changes ? (or is it just my lack of good understanding off the English language) If I compare the current version with the one from 01:38, 10 September 2006 for example, I find that the later looks and reads much better than the current one. I am not sure if this version is still {{fac}} worthy. Any comments ? -- Q 21:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Range

This article seems to focus alot on the Earth/Starfleet transporter, which is all fine and dandy, as I believe Earth's is the one we know most about, but it should be increased to include information from other societies with transporters, such as a list of societies with transporters (Klingon, Vulcan, etc.), and more on the history (early uses noted by Enterprise, such as the Malurians and I think Klingons too). It has a brief mention of early civilizations using transporters then blah blah Emory Erickson, 2121, blah blah. I think a paragraph or so noting transporters were used by Malurians by 2151, Klingons by 2151, and so on.

Oh, also it says a couple of times things like "Enterprise was the first ship to allow transporting biological objects" and similar, which should be specified to the Erickson form of transporter, and not any transporter as it seems (again, Malurians, Klingons, Vulcans, Xyrillians? all had it already).--Tim Thomason 00:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Transporter Accidents

"Unlike the two Kirks created in 2266, both Rikers were functionally identical to the original man, as though they were clones." ~ Clones would not possess identical memories.

Fixed. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 06:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

question about movement

when your transported do you stop moving? in a tng episode it was said by this person that "wi'll being transported he raised his phaser and fired at the generator" this imply's you can move but in the voy episode emanations they look frozen wi'll transporting. -- <unsigned>

Since the transporter is a completely fictional magic device, there there is no "real" data to consider at all. In TNG it was established that one can move in the transporter beam. Reginald Barclay "grabbed" things while being transported. About Riker, since he didn't actually fire the phaser (spoiler), there is no direct evidence, but obviously they (Picard and the others) accepted that story as possible, so they must believe that one can move while being transported. --Bp 11:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for that i was really pussled

For a real world physics explanation, your molecules on the planet are stuck in motion at time of transport because of newton's 2nd law due to elasticity, translation of forces, and torgue (well maybe not torque). The transporter breaks these bonds when disassembling you, probably violating classical conservation of energy in the process. It will then speed up or slow down those molecules when it merges them into the matter stream (which I'm assuming its moving, don't remember from the TNG Technical Manual). As it rebuilds you on the pad, it will pick a molecule, slow it to stop, then start putting you back together. You are now stopped, however any neurons and chemicals rushing around that were frozen by the process will now continue their actions -- maybe some nerve receptors have something that says "pass this signal down (or up)". armchair physics! vorik111 20:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

scan pad

on the scan pad thing of the voyager transporter at the top there loads of circles like lights, do you have to stand rite under them to be transported

Intraship transport

Isn't it stated in some episode that the reason that intraship transport is difficult is because of the fact the emitters are on the exterior of the ship, and thus have to be reversed in direction to transport inside the ship? Or am I remembering something out of a non-canon source?

Don't know, the transporter works great, so...:) I think that intraship is the same as site-to-site transport. Both result in the same thing, transporting within a vessel to another location. Intraship might be the term used in the 2260s to refer to it while the site-to-site term was used several centuries later. -- Q 09:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Intraship" means transportation from one point within a ship to another point within the same ship (does this include space stations?). site-to-site transportation "is a special type of transport where the object or person being transported is transported from one site directly to another, neither site being a transporter platform." Don't know about the emitters, sorry. -AndromedaRoach 04:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Faster-than-warp transport -- Borg Transwarp conduits

I wanted to add the following, but I don't remember offhand if it actually happened in this episode. Were there other episodes where this could have happened?

Borg vessels are also able to perform site-to-site transporter operations while travelling in a transwarp conduit. (VOY: "Endgame")

vorik111 20:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Emergency transport vs. "regular" transport

While I am aware of emergency transporters, there are occasions in the series (specifically I just noticed it in DS9 and TNG) when a crew member tells a computer that it must do an "emergency transport." Now, I can see the use of this when talking to a human being, it means, "Hurry up!" But when conversing with a computer, and without an actual emergency transport unit, I wouldn't imagine the computer would transport anyone faster. So, what's the point of someone saying, "Computer: emergency transport"? --Alexis 01:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I see several possibilities. First, an "emergency transport" may actually be somehow faster, but requires more energy . Alternatively, saying "emergency transport" may force the computer to override any other non-critical transports occurring at the same time (eg. cargo could get shunted into a buffer). – Cleanse 01:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Cleanse. There could be many reasons, including auto-override of safety protocols.Hossrex 01:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Is there any canon for this or is it just speculation? The override idea would make sense if the ship was experiencing some sort of emergency itself, where power is at a premium, but what of the times where there's an off-ship emergency and the Enterprise itself is totally fine, yet "Computer: Emergency Transport?" Also, isn't cargo usually brought aboard by a "dedicated transporter," anyway (so sayeth the article on transporters)? --Alexis 02:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that emergency transport is simply a code for "Beam me up now", instead of the request for transport, the conformation, and then the order to initiate transport. Possibly, then, it's not really an 'override' but more along the lines as mentioned "do it now, do it fast, and forgo any precautions" --Terran Officer 03:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the overriding of safety protocols suggestion. As a further example, in Scorpion (Series 3 finale, ST:VOY) when Chakotay, Tuvok & Kim are attacked by Species 8472 in the Borg debris field, Torres initiates a skeletal lock in order to provide a successful transport. With the crew back aboard, Janeway congratulates Torres by suggesting they add it to the transporter manual!

--Teestee 19:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it could also be an over ride for specific protocals that the computer would follow, such as waiting for the "energize" command. but again it could also override saftey protocols such as pushing the safe transport range slightly further, more risky but in an emergancy situation...again the possblity is that it could give the transport prosses complete prossesor priority. -- Nitemare 1:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)}

Emergency Transporter in Voyager

Is the small transporter that the alternate Paris uses in (VOY: "Non Sequitur") an emergency transporter? If so then this would be the earliest recorded date of seeing one as it is set 8 months after Voyager went to the Delta Quadrant, so 2371-2. Or does this not count because it is an alternate history? (21 Jan 2008)

No. Emergency Transporters are usually built-in systems similar to regular transporters, however often having limited range. And the first use of an emergency transporter (although not seen) I believe is TNG: "The First Duty". This is a Site-to-Site transporter device, explicitly named in the episode. This leads me to the following topic:

Site-to-Site Transporters

(Device, not act of)

Why are Site-to-Site transporters completely ignored in the Transporters topic? There does not seem to be an article dedicated to them either. There were two references to actual objects termed Site-to-Site Transporters. The first was VOY: "Non Sequitur" which Tom Paris uses to transport himself and Harry Kim to Harry's office to retrieve the launch codes for the runabout. This use may have originally just been a plot device, as it seems implausible that a device being used for a transport could in turn be transporting itself simultaneously. (Tom holds the device after programming the destination, and it dematerializes with Tom and Harry.) The second use was in VOY: "Concerning Flight", in which Kathryn Janeway interfaces her tricorder with the device, transporting herself and Leonardo Da Vinci outside of the building. The tricorder and site-to-site transporter device both remained in their original location during transport. I think there is sufficient information to warrant inclusion in some form. -- Kooky 19:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

TMP effect

Has anyone noticed that the strange shimmering effect used in the First movie is unique to the franchise? We never see a beam like this in any other production. Particularly odd is the cylinder of light that surrounds the person when they are on the transporter pad. Its too bad that we never see a person beam to a remote location (without a pad available) because I'd like to know what it looks like -- in specific would there be a cylinder or not. Any thoughts? Federation 08:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Emergency transport

Couldn't this redirect to transporter, where this information belongs? --From Andoria with Love 21:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably should--UESPA 21:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.– Cleanse 23:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, merge. Wasn't the term also used in situation where the party simply wanted to be removed from a dangerous area quickly?--31dot 21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Support a merge. – Tom 13:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. --From Andoria with Love 13:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

metaphysics

Should we perhaps expand the article to include a section on some of the philosophy of transporters? I remember they spoke of it a few times during the series. Like, does a person die before they are rematerialized? Does the matter rearrangement really bring someone from one place or another or does it just "copy" them and therefore could not be considered the same person from a certain perspective even though they would be identical?

Unless it was covered on the show, it really isn't our place to expound on it. People who want to do things like that can purchase "The Metaphysics of Star Trek". --OuroborosCobra ^talk 06:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Earliest example of site-to-site transport

The page says that the earliest known example of site-to-site transport is in 2286:

The earliest example of site-to-site transport carried out by Federation personnel occurred in 2286. A Klingon vessel stolen by the crew of the late starship Enterprise had site-to-site transporter capabilities. (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home)

Yet, this would seem to ignore the time when, in (TOS: "A Piece of the Action") (2268), when Scotty beams Tepo directly from his headquarters to those of Bela Oxmyx. Clearly Tepo did not rematerialize on the Enterprise's transporter pad in between; when he showed up at Oxmyx's place, he at first acted as if nothing had happened, and then noticed that his telephone was gone and that he was in a different place. Surely if he had materialized on the Enterprise, even for just a moment, he would have noticed that something had gone wrong at that time, and then he wouldn't have still been nonchalantly talking on the telephone when he materialized at Oxmyx's place.

Theoretically, site-to-site transport would be quite possible even in the 2260's: considering that once Scotty retained a number of Klingons in the transporter buffer while rematerializing an away team first, wouldn't he, theoretically, be able to simply dematerialize somebody, hold them in the transporter buffer while he sets the new destination, and then rematerialize them at their new destination as if it was a "normal" transport? Granted, it's less automated than the process of site-to-site transport in the 24th century (and possibly in the 2280s?--no evidence either way on this)--but, hey, it still is site-to-site transport, nonetheless.

With this in mind, I suggest that the part of the Transporter article that states that the earliest known example of site-to-site transport was in 2286, be changed to reflect the aforementioned incident in 2268. :-) – 74.37.226.253 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed the following speculation from the "Split one entity into two identical entities" section:

Technically, this incident should not have occurred, since the transporter neither creates nor destroys matter, and Riker's matter stream should have only had enough within it to produce one whole person. It may be that the distortion field had the effect of duplicating both the signal's energy and information content, with the duplicated signal passing through the second confinement beam back down to the planet.

-- Renegade54 14:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Why this would be the case is not known. It has been proposed that the timing involved in sending a matter stream over such a short distance to an exact location may be problematic. One could also speculate that the emitters are focused away from the ship, as shown in the technical manuals, resulting in rematerialization location problems.

Removed that as it's just speculation. — Morder 01:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Moved from Talk:Transporter lock

This looks like it should go into a description of Transporter function. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 06:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I can go either way on this. I'm not opposed to it since a merge does make sense in terms of the subject matter covered, but the Transporter article is pretty long as it is. Also, there is clearly a lot of material that wouldn't fit into a single article on the Transporter since there are 47(!) articles in Category:Transporter technology, so forking stuff out even if it's short stubs makes sense too. Starfleetjedi 07:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Support merge. This term is merely part of operating a transporter, and if it isn't in the Transporter article already, it should be, which means this separate article isn't needed.--31dot 22:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't support merge. This term is used exclusively in many Trek situations (i.e. maintain transporter lock). It isn't a function of the transporter so much as a neccisity before the transporter can be used. If it was incorporated into the article you could argue that the only mention need be "a transporter lock is required before transport", yet that doesn't describe what that lock entails. 76.236.78.11 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Then describe in that article what the lock entails as part of the section describing how transporters function. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The transporter lock is a function of the transporter. Thus, transporter lock has been merged with the transporter article. --From Andoria with Love 05:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed

Removed the following:

Technically, this incident should not have occurred, since the transporter neither creates nor destroys matter, and Riker's matter stream should have only had enough within it to produce one whole person.

First, this is a nitpick, but I'm not sure what the "technically" is getting at- it did occur, somehow, so this statment is false.--31dot 23:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the established "rules" of transporter use, the statement is in fact entirely correct. Transporters break down, transmit and reassemble exisitng matter. They do not create new matter. The same notation should be made about the "good/evil" splitting...there is only enough matter for ONE reassembled transportee.

As this statement was formatted "background" (the appropriate place to mention continuity gaffs like this), it should be reinserted.Capt Christopher Donovan 04:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Except it did happen and thus sets canon - besides we don't know what the planet had to do with it since it apparently duplicated the signal — Morder 05:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The transporter obviously got the energy to create these malfunctions from somewhere. Otherwise, they wouldn't have happened. In the case of the Riker incident, the planet's energy field must have had something to do with it. The beauty of writing for a TV show is you can change the rules whenever you want.--31dot 22:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed Planetary-Use Speculation

I removed the text "On a planetary scale, small vehicles and spacecraft were no longer required to travel between locations". There is no evidence that non-Starfleet (civilian) personnel make routine use of transporters, in fact, there are multiple Trek examples of small vehicles and spacecraft (shuttles) in existence on Earth and Vulcan, two planets that would be likely candidates for a global transporter network. Since there is no onscreen evidence of public transporter booths or the disappearance of vehicles or shuttles by the TNG era, the statement seems conjectural at best and certainly open to dispute. --Sorehl 19:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)