FAQ
It is currently Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:41 am


Author Message
gbalkam
Post  Post subject: Star Trek and my OCD...  |  Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:01 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2016 8:19 pm
Posts: 32

Offline
So just like the title says...

During an episode, a crew member was infected by an alien organism/s and the only way to remove/kill them was pressure. Under enough PSI the organism could not survive. (we won't go into the "but how did it"s (like get through space to infect the crewman in the first place)
So the question

How many PSI could an unprotected human withstand (we will assume Dr McCoy was regulating the atmosphere inside the pressure chamber because the crewman was able to breathe)

I believe they reached 30x atmospheric pressures (assuming earth value was used at 15psi)


Basically... how much PSI applied slowly could a human withstand before going SQUISH.

See.. star trek.. ocd..


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Star Trek and my OCD...  |  Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 2:03 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
I would think it varies with bone density and muscle mass, maybe even leatheriness of the skin.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
janus
Post  Post subject: Re: Star Trek and my OCD...  |  Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:00 am

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:11 pm
Posts: 36

Offline
30 atm is about the present record for pressure survived by a human. The real danger is not the pressure itself, but the effects it has on the air you are breathing, At high pressures nitrogen becomes toxic, and you would have to decrease the oxygen percentage to keep the partial pressure below that which causes oxygen toxicity. A helium-oxygen mix would be the best option.


Top
gbalkam
Post  Post subject: Re: Star Trek and my OCD...  |  Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:40 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2016 8:19 pm
Posts: 32

Offline
janus wrote:
30 atm is about the present record for pressure survived by a human. The real danger is not the pressure itself, but the effects it has on the air you are breathing, At high pressures nitrogen becomes toxic, and you would have to decrease the oxygen percentage to keep the partial pressure below that which causes oxygen toxicity. A helium-oxygen mix would be the best option.


Yeah, I was reading similar information before posting here, so assuming Doc McCoy was regulating the atmosphere... I was curious how close they came on the actual PSI the girl in the chamber could withstand.

When you look at the Star Trek series, they stay pretty close to actual science, where then can. LOL However in this case, the organism they were trying to rid the crewman of, appeared to be light / energy based. I still haven't come up with a reasonable hypothesis as to why atmospheric pressure would affect an energy based life form.. unless the sparklies were actually the organisms crystalline innards crushed and expelled into the chamber. LOL.. Still kudos to Star Trek. Who knew back then that we would actually have video calling today like they did on the comm screen. Or that we would really have computers able to handle the processes of running a star ship, when back then they were barely a step above a pocket calculator.

Thanks for the answers guys.


Top
Dywyddyr
Post  Post subject: Re: Star Trek and my OCD...  |  Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:26 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:53 pm
Posts: 96

Offline
gbalkam wrote:
When you look at the Star Trek series, they stay pretty close to actual science, where then can.

This is more accurately written as "they stay pretty close to science when A) it suits the script AND B) the writers can be bothered to check".
ST is notorious for being unscientific.


Top
gbalkam
Post  Post subject: Re: Star Trek and my OCD...  |  Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:26 am
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2016 8:19 pm
Posts: 32

Offline
Dywyddyr wrote:
gbalkam wrote:
When you look at the Star Trek series, they stay pretty close to actual science, where then can.

This is more accurately written as "they stay pretty close to science when A) it suits the script AND B) the writers can be bothered to check".
ST is notorious for being unscientific.


We're talking about a sci-fi show here. Not everything shown in the show has been invented yet. Teleporters? Not right now.. someday? Who knows?
communicators> cell phones
2 way video calling > skype, msn, yahoo, icq etc
shuttle craft > space shuttles
Star base > Intl Space Station

So yeah, maybe everything isn't 100% accurate between now and the time the script was written,
here are a few more..

http://mentalfloss.com/article/31876/12 ... -now-exist just for fun.


Top
Dywyddyr
Post  Post subject: Re: Star Trek and my OCD...  |  Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:16 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:53 pm
Posts: 96

Offline
gbalkam wrote:
We're talking about a sci-fi show here. Not everything shown in the show has been invented yet.

Beside the point.
What actual science they do incorporate is usually either (very) shoddy or quite badly mangled.

Quote:
communicators> cell phones

Not even close.
ST communicators were merely small radios that could talk to only one recipient - the ship. The fact that cellphones later (deliberately and derivatively) used the overall form/ appearance of communicators in no way means that they were a "precursor" of cell phones.

Quote:
2 way video calling > skype, msn, yahoo, icq etc

That idea predates ST.

Quote:
shuttle craft > space shuttles

What similarities there were also predated Trek.

Quote:
Star base > Intl Space Station

Germans in WWII among others.

Quote:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/31876/12-star-trek-gadgets-now-exist just for fun.

Likewise with this list: they're either not actual science yet or they were already "standard" SF tropes (or scientific "predictions") by the time Trek was aired.

Any (supposed) hard SF that thinks orbiting is limited by on-board fuel to orbit only once (once that orbit is achieved) is on dodgy scientific ground. Similarly, any that can have a character state with a straight face "The power curve is rising symptomatically, we'd better abandon ship" is laughable.

That last one gave me pause: did they actually mean "asymptotically"? In which case that implies it wouldn't ever have actually reached the critical point - so why "abandon ship"? O gave up watching the series altogether after that. Either the scriptwriters didn't care or the actors didn't (or both), so why should I?
(I also stopped watching Inspector Morse after the supposed Oxford graduate asked "Are you inferring that...?" (Should have been "implying").


Top
janus
Post  Post subject: Re: Star Trek and my OCD...  |  Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:59 pm

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:11 pm
Posts: 36

Offline
Dywyddyr wrote:
gbalkam wrote:
We're talking about a sci-fi show here. Not everything shown in the show has been invented yet.


Not even close.
ST communicators were merely small radios that could talk to only one recipient - the ship. The fact that cellphones later (deliberately and derivatively) used the overall form/ appearance of communicators in no way means that they were a "precursor" of cell phones.

To be fair, a communicator could also be used to talk directly to each other, and to call them "merely" small radios does them a mis-service. They were compact devices that could send and receive communications to a ship in orbit, without relays andeven if that ship was not in direct line of sight and the body of the planet was between them. As much as some people like to joke about the fact the the ST communicator could only transmit audio, and modern cell phones can do more, cell phones are entirely reliant on numerous cell towers being scattered across the face of the Earth.


Top
Dywyddyr
Post  Post subject: Re: Star Trek and my OCD...  |  Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:59 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:53 pm
Posts: 96

Offline
janus wrote:
To be fair, a communicator could also be used to talk directly to each other

So far as I remember (could be wrong) they could only do that by being "patched through" from the ship.

Quote:
They were compact devices that could send and receive communications to a ship in orbit, without relays andeven if that ship was not in direct line of sight and the body of the planet was between them. As much as some people like to joke about the fact the the ST communicator could only transmit audio, and modern cell phones can do more, cell phones are entirely reliant on numerous cell towers being scattered across the face of the Earth.

Well as soon as someone invents "subspace transmissions" we can get rid of all those towers! ;)


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Star Trek and my OCD...  |  Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:04 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
Now, what about Stargate?

I've always felt the stories there were under appreciated, they're about to launch a new prequel-style series, and I wonder about their scientific accuracy (forever a bugaboo and frustration for the informed individual looking to be entertained by sci-fi).

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy