Talk:Warp factor

Warp 3
In it is stated that the Fajo's ship can travel at warp 3, and in 23 hours can make at most 0.102 light years. The correspondent velocity is 38.9&times;c, assuming that the ship was free to move along a straight path. This number is in contradiction with the speed derived from, as reported in the article's Table (I can't see the episode now). Possibly, the Jovis was moving in a region of space affected by tetryon fields (similar to the Hekaras system) or some other subspace intricacies which forced her to follow a non-linear trajectory. Should we mention this here? (the number, not my speculation) Triggerator 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Enterprise is believed to use the TOS "Cochrane" scale, IIRC, while TNG and beyond used a "new" warp scale. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying this! Triggerator 08:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Warp Scale
This graph should be changed because it's obvious that ENT and TOS had a different warp scale. --From TrekkyStarOpen Hailing Frequencies 13:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a table, not a graph - and it, like the whole article, has been combined because there's really nothing "in canon" suggesting different warp scales in the series. Warp factors vs. speeds are all over the place in all shows, because no one really paid attention to it. -- Cid Highwind 13:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The portion of the table concerning "That Which Survives" should be edited. The Ent did not travel at warp 8.2 the entire time. For part of that time, they went up to 14.1 because of the overload.--NME 09:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And that's why it didn't take that long for them to get back. The travel time we use was given by the navigator when they assumed they would stay at 8.4 for the entire way back. As such it is correct. --Pseudohuman 06:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also according to Warp 8.4 part, a ship would travel at ~2,095.8 light years per day. I got this number by converting the '11.337' into hours, minuits, and seconds; which would be 11 hours, 20 minuits, and 13 seconds. I converted this into seconds and got 40,813. I then devided 990 by 40,813 and got 0.024256976943620905103765956925489. I then multiplied that number by 60, then 60 again, and then 24.


 * It's potentially a logarithmic scale, which would explain warp factor. Warp 1 is the warp factor times 10 to the power 1, warp 2 is the warp factor times 10 to the power 2 (so 10Xwf1), warp 3 is the warp factor times 10 to the power 3 (so 100Xwf1), etc.  This may refer to power requirements, not speed, or may be measured in Cochranes.--Indefatigable 13:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a related suggestion, we should add the speed in km/h, it would make more sense I think. warp factor one - 1 billion km/h warp factor two - 11 billion 3 - 42 billion 4 - 109 billion 5 - 229 billion 6 - 421 billion 7 - 703 billion 8 - 1.1 trillion 9 - 1.62 trillion 9.2 - 1.77 trillion 9.6 - 2.05 trillion 9.9 - 3.27 trillion 9.99 - 8.48 trillion 9.9999 - 214 trillion 10 - infinite

(pulled from the table in the star trek encyclopedia) – Alexbeard 20:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing variable references
In, and without getting into too many details, it was noted that a vessel traveling at warp 8.7 could travel X distance in 14 hours, while a second vessel traveling at warp 9 could travel that same X distance in only 5 hours. X was obviously the unknown factor in the reference, and at the moment, I am not seeing if we can make any correlation between the two factors other than to state the scenario.

In, it was stated that a Corvallen freighter had limited speed (X variable), and could travel approximately 15 light years in "not more than a day".

These might not be worth anything, but I thought it would be worth noting them somewhere. --Alan 04:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * gives a journey of about 700 years for a shuttle going warp 4 to get "home". The exact distance is missing of course in that episode. It's almost the end of year two for the Voyager and stardates around 4969X.X are given in the ep. A star chart in the background monitors of season seven fills the missing distances for the year two period to be from approx. 72 to 68 thousand ly's. It's a bit of a reach so I don't know if it qualifies. You be the judge. --Pseudohuman 15:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Gambit reference is a good one - it means that, all other things being equal, warp 9 is 2.8 (=14/5) times as fast as warp 8.7. As a comparison between two speeds, we can't put it in the table, but it would make a good note somewhere else in the article.
 * The FotE reference, not so sure - perhaps a note on the Corvallen freighter article rather than here?
 * The Resolutions reference is missing a good comparison value - otherwise we could use it like the first reference. -- Cid Highwind 20:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

More: In the following was stated: 'To travel the distance we did in two days at warp 1 would have taken the Odin escape pod five months, six days, 11 hours, two minutes and 57 seconds.'

Also: In the following was stated but the factor was not: "...but at a relative speed of 2 billion kilometers per second, it's pretty tough to get a [transporter] lock on somebody."

Again, these might not be worth anything, but I thought it would be worth noting them somewhere. --Alan 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In the new film the Enterprise travels at about 2,8 million times the speed of light to Vulcan. Has anyone spotted a canonical warp factor for this speed in any of the readouts etc. bg sources say "maximum warp" is synonymous to "wf 8"... --Pseudohuman 09:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Warp .5 may have been originally intended to be slightly faster"
Why bother? The ULTIMATE intent made it into. Speculation about some hypothetical "original" intent is totally useless. Full-canon warp is complicated enough already. This isn't some NOTABLE "original intent" or "early concept" like Troi's third boob. I move to delete this Warp .5 note. SennySix 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it can be worded differently, but as this page is about any and all measurable statements regarding how fast warp factors actually are, I think it worth noting in some small way here as there are not a lot of measurable distance-time notes available anyways. I agree it doesn't really qualify as some "huge original intent" but as it is written in the script, it is a piece relevant background information. --Pseudohuman 05:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not when that very script was re-written to a new onscreen statement. This isn't some script where the scene was never produced, the scene WAS SEEN, with different information. And even if it were some cut-out scene or "lost script", it wouldn't help. Canon all by itself is too inconsistent to throw offscreen crud in there. SennySix 06:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, however this is one of the few complete references available, and its not "thrown into canon" its just a bgnote that comes from the "shooting script" of the film. There is no policy or precedence I know of that states, when a scene is filmed differently than it was scripted, the scripted material should not be noted in the background section. In fact, our policy is that any scipt can be referenced in articles when formatted as background information. Which is the case here. --Pseudohuman 07:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Warp factors are not absolute (can you cite this?)
This has been in the article for years. It wasn't cited for a long time. More and more weaselly words got stuck to it over the years. It got moved from the intro (!!!) to Background. A citation got added, but it's not actually relevant. I think it's got to go. Today's version says:
 * fans speculate that warp factors are, in terms of their light speed equivalents, not absolute, but only relative figures, depending on the local properties of space and subspace, the multiples given are only minimum/average values. The actual speed is dependent upon interstellar conditions like gas density, electric and magnetic fields and fluctuations in the subspace domain as well as energy penalties resulting from quantum drag forces and power oscillation inefficiencies. This theory would seem to be substantiated by references in several episodes, including VOY: "Bride of Chaotica!".

What a lot of apologism and speculation. Anybody who can cite any of that, please contribute something that will allow us to get rid of the "fans speculate" embarrassment. Otherwise I don't see how any of it can stay in any form. SennySix 06:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, and removed it.– Cleanse 07:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Earth-Neptune distance
This was recently changed from the approximate "~60 AU" to an exact value of "58.2 AU". The distance between these two planets is not fixed but varies, because a) both planets move and b) both orbits aren't exactly circular. This means we shouldn't postulate any exact value for the distance, but instead work with an average/approximate value. This average value is, surprisingly exact, 30 AU (or 60 for twice the way).

The same, by the way, is true for the Earth-Jupiter distance, which might be anywhere between 3.95 and 6.45 AU. Not exactly a minor difference, the second value is more than 150% of the first, leading to huge speed differences as well. I'm going to modify that as well. -- Cid Highwind 20:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I based the values on the average AU distance from the Sun, given in wikipedia pages of Jupiter and Neptune, minus 1 (Earth) of course. It is stated on the list that these are approximate values, so I thought to use the approximate AU values. I dont know where the 30 AU comes from. I would rather we use the accurate approximate values than wrong approximate values or "at most to at least" values. --Pseudohuman 21:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, if Earth is on the opposite side of the sun, at that moment, you mustn't subtract 1 AU, but add 1 AU.

From exactly that Wikipedia page, Neptune is between 29.77 and 30.44 AU away from the sun. At the same time, Earth's distance to the sun is between 0.98 and 1.02 AU - leading to a distance between the two planets somewhere in the range from 29.77-1.02=28.75 to 30.44+1.02=31.46 AU. 30.0 is pretty much the average between those two values, with the margin of error of the whole remaining calculation being much greater than the 0.105 that were rounded off here.

In the Earth-Jupiter case, if we don't use a range there, we shouldn't attempt any calculation at all. The margin of error is just too big otherwise. -- Cid Highwind 21:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should note a 6,45 AU (in essense Enterprise passing the sun to get to Jupiter on the other side of the solar system) value for Jupiter, as the premis of the scene where Enterprise is passing Jupiter is that the Enterprise was simply hurrying out of the solar system to engage warp drive safely. It would make no sense for the Enterprise to take a long scenic route just to see Jupiter in that context. That would make no sense. --Pseudohuman 21:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pseudohuman. Unless they went to Jupiter to do a flyby or use it as a slingshot then they just took the most direct route to wherever they were going. Of course...if we're nitpicking here, maybe their destination was on the other side of the solar system and Jupiter just happen to be on route... I think a range is perfectly valid if we really need to include that information here. Morder 21:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't think starships with impulse power use slingshots to gain velocity anymore. At high warp they would have passed the solar system in the blink of an eye. Only rational reason for them to pass Jupiter is that by chance the planets were aligned at that time, so a 3.93AU - 4.48AU differential should be used if we don't go with an average. Added to that, the sun is behind the ship as it leaves Earth orbit at warp .5 to exit the solar system. Nothing points to the Enterprise adding over half an hour to it's trip in that scene.


 * Also we need to use a range with the Neptune statement too, I think, as with the differetial of the possible distances of 57.5AU to 62.92AU Warp 4.5 could be anything from 79.7c to 87.2c. Thats a big difference IMO. --Pseudohuman 07:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why most of those numbers were rounded estimates, before you started to calculate exact values where such really isn't possible. What if the time span in "Neptune and back in 6 minutes" is just a rounded figure as well? It would be a rather lucky coincidence if the trip took exactly 6 minutes in exactly that current configuration of the solar system. It's more likely that the actual time needed would be somewhere in the 5:40-6:20 range. Or, given the fact that these guys were working on their shiny new warp ship for years, "Neptune and back" could just be their typical test route for new warp drive configurations, and "6 minutes at Warp 4.5" turned out to be their average speed throughout all that time.

In any case, there seem to be only three ways out here: a) give the full range possible, b) give an average value, rounded so that the margin of error isn't too big, or c) remove that line completely, if (b) isn't possible. -- Cid Highwind 08:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for my calculations before. I was wrong. I say now, (a) give the full range on Neptune, and give the full range assuming a Jupiter-Earth-Sun alignment. As that is the only rational interpretation of the scene. As for the six minutes, the guys in that scene knew the exact time they were going to test the new engine and logically the position of Neptune, so I would think the 6 minutes is an accurate figure for that test as it was propably planned and simulated and so forth. One other possibility is to give the average values and a plusminus figure on how much diversion is possible with the values as given onscreen in these two cases. I'm against (c) removing any of the few accurate estimations trek allows. --Pseudohuman 10:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I just checked TMP, and now I'm even less sure about all of that. First, when departing Earth, the viewer doesn't show Sol in front of the ship. However, when Kirk demands "departure angle", we see Earth, half lit, suggesting an approximate right angle between their course and the Earth-Sol line.

However, what directly follows is this:
 * Cut: Viewer to Kirk
 * Cut: ...to Ilia, smiling at Decker
 * Cut: ...to Decker, smiling back
 * Cut: ...to Viewer, now showing the Jupiter flyby
 * Cut: ...back to Kirk, making a log entry.

In this log entry, Kirk tells us that they are now "1.8 hours from launch". Yet, there hasn't been any visible "time jump" (in terms of film editing) since their departure from Earth. If there is an "invisible" one (which we have to assume exists between showing Earth and showing Jupiter), then why can't there be a second one, between the flyby and the log entry. We can't really be sure that it is 1.8 hours to Jupiter instead of 1.8 hours to some random point beyond. I now think the Earth-Jupiter reference needs to go completely. -- Cid Highwind 11:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose they didn't want to put an eclipse image of Earth in the scene :) I've assumed the time jump is after Decker smiles. But I can see your point, with that logic let's remove the "that which survives" and "by any other name" references too. We don't know how long they had traveled before maintaining the 8.4 speed, and the latter doesn't have a definite warp factor statement. Also the Neptune statement should be removed as there might have easily been some ellaborate indirect route there too. --Pseudohuman 12:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the TWS reference - although, it couldn't be much more than the 11 hours suggested right now. If I remember correctly, the away team was stranded on the planet the whole time, without any mention of missing supplies. Even assuming a whole day or two would still make the resulting speed way out of line. However, true, it's not an exact figure. Maybe we can create a second, similar, table in the background section, where we collect these "unsure" datapoints?

I don't see the problem with the BAON reference, though... -- Cid Highwind 12:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * BAON is missing the variable of what the exact warp factor is for extended intergalactic travel, as such its not even worth mentioning in the table.


 * IMO a division into two tables would be an excellent idea. one for the absolutely fully exact values, and one in the appendices for values that are a bit unsure, or that have a minimum and maximum possibility, it could also include some of the missing variable things where we can use a speed assesment from other episodes etc. to fill the gap. the ditl-page shows an impressive list and we have uncovered a lot more of these missing (or sort of missing) variable statements where you can still determine a maximum minimum value for a warp factor by throwing in some sort of a logical assumption. I would like to see two tables. It might turn out a bit messy, but if we base everything in onscreen statements it would be a worth while reference table to list up everything canonically stated and implied about the speed capabilities of warpships.


 * One could say it's nitpicking, but I think that is just because most people have fallen in love with the whole "tos/tng scales give the real speed" (and everything that doesnt fit should be ignored), even though no such scales have ever been stated onscreen and most of the reference material on the scales state that the scales dont take into account any spatial or subspatial variables. So it would not really be a list of inconsistancies but rather a reference table on just how big speed variations can canonically exist within a given warp factor. --Pseudohuman 20:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Extremely rare form of dilithium"?

 * Tom Paris of the USS Voyager reached the warp 10 threshold in 2372, using shuttlecraft Cochrane which was equipped with an extraordinarily rare form of dilithium discovered earlier that year.

What is the source of this information? I don't recall any sort of "special" dilithium being mentioned in that episode.

Ambassador/Ensign_Q 19:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the exact quote is Paris: "We discovered a new form of dilithium in the asteroid field we surveyed last month. It remains stable at a much higher warp frequency." I think its safe to assume it is "rare" as this was the first time it was discovered anywhere after hundreds of years of space exploration... --Pseudohuman 19:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Warp 9+ demo formula

 * For warp>9, there are many possible variations of a mathematical continuous domain formula that could be approximated. Below is such example of a formula that has the "10/3" exponent growing exponentially with a "w/(10-w)" function, which evidently reach infinity at warp 10. The growth of the exponent is slowed considerably by a Nth root until the warp factor 'wf' approaches 10.


 * speed/c = wf^( (10/3)^( (wf/(10-wf))^(1/N) ) )


 * $$speed = wf^{({(\frac{10}{3})}^{({(\frac{wf})}^{(\frac{1}{N})})})} c$$


 * For Voyager to do approximately 4 billion miles/s (in ) at warp 9.9, we would set N=23. If we were to set N=30.35, the 4 billion miles/s would be at warp 9.975.

This initially was content removed from the article for being speculation. The content has been revised here during a later edit (see this diff).

Even the revised formula is nothing but speculation, I think. Sure, it might be a formula that approximates the TNGTM Warp 9+ graph - but then, so do millions of other formulas, as even the revised text states. It's nothing but guesswork, and even then, guesswork based on behind-the-scenes material that has been explicitly contradicted by most of the cases where both speed and warpfactor were given. I don't think this needs to be in the article. -- Cid Highwind 15:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I acknowledge the plurality of mathematical models, there isn't millions of variations that are both simple to express and whose regression is relatively easily understandable. For the sake of maintaining a good spirit of entertainment and technical advancement, I invite the readers to express their views and submit alternative mathematical models of the warp transfer function. This could provide substantial material to an article on Warp scale modeling.
 * I don't. If there is no canon formula, then simply put, readers shouldn't be wasting talk page space speculating about something that is not known, and will likely never be known, given the contradicting facts that do exist. --Alan 22:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * RE: 76.71.229.10: "Clearly this community has members who have no intentions of letting any space to creativity nor freedom of speech."
 * I am sorry you feel the need to cause a scene, but this has nothing to do with "freedom of speech" or "creativity", it's about what MA is and is not: Memory Alpha is an encyclopedia and as such, there are certain things that Memory Alpha is not, [...such as...] a discussion forum. We're not here to chat or to discuss ideas – we're simply here to write the encyclopedia. Which I also explained above. --Alan 23:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Warp 10 redux
I was just "testing the waters" with this. Similar to the Wikipedia pages on orders of magnitude (like ), I think nicely written pages on individual warp factors (within the arbitrary whole number system) could make for get articles (only 14 pages in canon I believe). Unlike other orders of magnitude, Warp factors are tied heavily into Trek, and we know very much about their development (the breaking of the Warp 1/2/3/5/"10" barriers by Humans and the like). Only "notable" uses should be counted, not a minor cruising speed used to get somewhere in a specific episode or assumed speeds (like the never mentioned Warp 12 or Warps 15-29 that had to have been surpassed at times).--Tim Thomason 01:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we'd really need all these articles. Before this article was recreated, I merged the old content to Warp factor (section Warp 10...), which this article pretty much duplicates at the moment. We know that Warp 5 was considered a big achievement at the time, but even there, we don't really know why and what the achievement really was. We know even less about other warp factors, I think. Because of the (production-wise) very arbitrary nature of Warp factors, I think it is much more useful to have a central table listing the few known Warp factor/speed relations than to have 14 separate articles. -- Cid Highwind 10:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Warp 10: Suggest Merge
Either this page should be merged with Warp factor, or we should create separate pages for all different warp factors ever mentioned. --Pseudohuman 23:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support merge – Morder 23:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand it would be intresting to have specific warp factor pages where relative facts that don't translate to multiples of c are stated about them, such as how much faster warp 3 is relative to 1.8, and collecting a listing of what ships have that specific warp factor as their maximum warp etc. as Tim Thomason suggested above, when the speed was first achieved by which species. Things that we don't cover in the Warp factor-article because it would too much clutter up the page. Not to get insane about it a single article would cover references from warp 1 to 1.999... and so on. If you want to compare facts like this regarding ships now, you needs to read through a lot of articles. It would give you a good place to quickly check out the "which ship is faster" type of questions =) --Pseudohuman 03:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I support a merge with the page mentioned and donÄt think we should have a page for every warp factor. When searching fo a term like this I would search on the warp factor page.

Moved from article
I removed the following table entry from the article. Where in has it been stated that travel time from Earth to Vulcan was "3 minutes"? -- Cid Highwind 16:57, September 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * After they engage maximum warp, Pike orders Chekov to give the announcement to the crew, in the announcement Chekov states that the ship will arrive within 3 minutes. ---Pseudohuman 21:28, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

But there was one of those typical we-don't-know-how-much-time-has-passed cuts between engaging and giving the announcement order, wasn't there? -- Cid Highwind 09:08, September 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * You should check. I recall it was real-time, with even the real-time backstory with Kirk's bloated hands going on in the background at the same time. but I could be mistaken. Also, assuming there are "time-cuts" everywhere when there is no reason to assume there is seems like nitpicking to me. --Pseudohuman 16:17, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, as long as this list is one supposed to contain definite wf/time/speed relations, we should make sure that entries are, in fact, somewhat definite. In this case, even a very small time-cut would lead to a huge variation in the resulting speed, because the time being used in the calculation is so incredibly small. Let's just say, for example, that only 15 minutes passed (to allow for the crew to even find their positions) before making the announcement. That means the resulting speed would be only 1/6 of what the current entry states. Even without time-cut, something minor like one additional minute would bring the resulting speed down to about 2.1 Mc. The deviation is so huge, it doesn't make sense to pretend we can calculate the speed to a precision of 6 digits. -- Cid Highwind 13:04, September 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the scene. First Sulu reports that engines have reached maximum warp, then Pike asks Chekov to give the announcement, so that confirms they have just gotten under way. And a time cut is not even possible, as all this happens in one take. So there aren't even any film editing cuts. The section states that the speed values are calculated from given numbers, so it should be obvious to the reader to take the digits with a grain of salt. --Pseudohuman 18:04, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in furthering an edit war, but I strongly believe that simply reinserting this piece of information is not correct. Does anyone else think that a 6-digit precision calculated from a vague "3 minutes (+unknown time before)" is a little too vague? -- Cid Highwind 14:34, September 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * I do, especially since there is a fairly blatant indication that at least some time has passed since the Enterprise went to warp - McCoy and Kirk both change their uniforms. Both come aboard in cadet uniforms. McCoy then says, as Spock is heading for the bridge, that they need to get Kirk changed. After Enterprise has gone to warp, they appear in sickbay, Kirk now in the black uniform. So, some time has passed there, more than the launch scene lasts for. McCoy then sedates Kirk. There then is a cut to the bridge, where the three minute announcement is made (and the ship has already been underway for an unknown length of time). Returning to sickbay as the announcement is played, McCoy is now in his blue uniform - changing his uniform cannot have taken the minute that Chekov's announcement lasts, and his remark to Kirk "Ah, Jim, good - you're awake" isn't something you would say to someone you sedated less than a minute ago, so more time has passed. There is ambiguity as to how much time has elapsed, and so the calculation cannot be considered reliable. -- Michael Warren | Talk 06:50, September 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Indeed. It doesn't belog to the list. Chekov trying to get access to intercomm and giving the announcement, and at the end giving the travel time lasts a minute in real time in the film. I'm changing this to a bg note without mentioning the time ambiguities, as they require slight speculation, which doesn't belong to ma. I would estimate, that the ship would have already been at least around 4 light years away from Earth at the point of the 3 minute value was given. But thats something fans can speculate further for themselves. --Pseudohuman 22:09, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, at Warp 8, it would take them approx 5 days 17 hours TNG Scale or 11 days 10 hours TOS Scale. Take your pick. Jnzooger (talk) 13:21, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

A few thoughts...
DISCLAIMER: Feel free to rip this apart as thoroughly as you see fit. I understand that it is unsupportable by canon.

I was playing around with the published warp factor equations and think I have come up with an alternative. Consider:

1 + 3log(v/c) = wf

This equation sets warp 1 equal to the speed of light and makes warp 10 1000x the speed of light.

I know warp 10 is supposed to represent "infinite speed", but as a physics student, I have to reject this concept. Rather, I would like to consider warp 10 as a power threshold where the power output of the engines can no longer theoretically provide enough thrust to maintain this speed. Regarding makes the appearances of 10+ warp factors more acceptable.

Another interesting note of this theory is that it makes the Intrepid's top speed a significant 2 times faster than the Galaxy class (at sustainable cruising speed) instead of a less impressive 1.3 times as fast. This implies that the special new technologies it has are truly revolutionary.

That's all I have to contribute for now. I know its somewhat ridiculous, but perhaps worth further thought.

Science and Engineering

Warp 10+ speeds
Reading about speeds above warp 10, I'd like to present a theory.

Considering warp speeds get faster and faster, the warp speed indicated would go from 9 to 9.9 to 9.99 to 9.999... My theory is that these numbers were unpractical in their use, therefor warp 10+ speeds should be between these values.

One theory could be the following:


 * Warp 11 actually corresponds to warp 9.9
 * Warp 12 actually corresponds to warp 9.99
 * Warp 13 actually corresponds to warp 9.999
 * etc.

Would there be any way to determine the canon speeds of warp speeds above warp 10? --84.26.69.175 22:00, December 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, there is no way to determine the speed of any warp factor in canon, since they seem to change. That being said, they seem to be determined by the uncontrollable force known as plot, which in turn is controlled by the multi-headed god knows as the writer. :) - Archduk3:talk 22:13, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * Any theory would be speculation, because the writers themselves probably did not have much of an idea.--31dot 22:46, December 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * Science Advisor Andre Bormanis did, actually, though it's not canon (this is from the Warp Velocities FAQ):


 * I raised that question in a TECH note. Basically, the idea there was that they recalibrated the warp scale. I don't think that ended up in the final draft teleplay, but the idea there was that if you've got ships that can routinely travel at speeds in excess of Warp 9, then maybe it makes sense to recalibrate your speed scale so that Warp 10 is no longer infinite velocity. Maybe Warp 15 will be the ultimate speed limit, and Warp 13 in that scale will be the equivalent of warp 9.95 or something like that.


 * OMNI, October 1995.


 * – NotOfTheBody 23:19, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

It would be ok, if in the timeline before tng, they changed the scale...but: Since then I can't agree with anything but the possibility, writers are actually nothing like mathematics and even don't have the courage to ask one for help :-P That's really sad because it's the one thing that would give the technobabble some hard continuity throughout the franchise. And I really don't think we expect too much...3 series in the same time-period and not even consistency throughout one of them? I'd be emberrassed...

And one other thing!

Given the statements:
 * Warp 10 is infinite velocity
 * infinite velocity means to occupy any place in the universe at the same time

That sounds very plausible to me

Exceeding infinite velocity??? But lets stop here, before i start complaining about time-travel-episodes (which actually were often very entertaining between the logical errors brutally retrieving me into real-life) [argh, too late...sorry] --Taragond 06:08, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Speed exceeding Warp 10 would mean to travel back in time...


 * just noting the "Speed exceeding Warp 10 would mean to travel back in time" comment, that doesnt happen. What actually happens is that the person(s) moving at warp 10 or above would suffer from hyper-evolution Threshold (episode) whilst also occupying every point in space at the same time. For god sake, don't try and understand it, i gave myself a headache just trying it :P XNERZHULx 18:48, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Speed Missconception
In the last movie they reach Vulcan in only 3 minutes. The host star of Vulcan is at 17 light years from Sol, so.. if in kirk's time the maximum warp factor was 9 (which means it would take them 28 minutes to reach Alpha Centauri at 4.7 light years away).. how in hell did they reach Vulcan in only 3 minutes at warp 9???

Pedro


 * the reason it doesnt make sense is quite simple:it cant, the problem is the new writers and directors etc etc dont care much for canon or making sense but you could say something like only three minutes of the actual flight was shown in the movie (Thetrekinator 17:41, March 24, 2010 (UTC))


 * Actually, if you pay attention, you'll see that McCoy has changed clothes, so yes, it is very possible that we did not see all of the journey onscreen. Blair2009
 * This discussion is already covered above. Also writers wouldn't do anything contradicting canon even if the flight was only 3 minutes long. The warp formulas aren't canon. --Pseudohuman 19:10, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Removed statement
Removed from article:
 * Of course, it is possible to surmise that with our better understanding of relativistic theories and how travel at such speeds would affect the passage of time, the writers applied this and felt it to be inherently obvious.

I dont understand what it is trying to speculate and why. Presumably its the same thing as above, that the contributor believes we need to speculate why speed charts of bg sources are in contradiction with canon onscreen statements. which is not needed as the speed charts arent canon. 4 days to Qo'noS from Earth at warp 4.5, 3 minutes to Vulcan from Earth at Warp 8, 6.7 hours to the Center of the galaxy from Nimbus III at warp 7, and so on, sometimes warp is faster in canon. there are bg reasons for this already noted in the beginning of the bg section such as gas and em field densities of different regions that multiply warp power and periodic fluctuations in the subspace domain. It's not as if we need to add to this a speculation of relativistic time differentials. --Pseudohuman 22:54, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Another Formula Possibility
After looking at the formulas, I took particular interest in the formula for warp factors in the TNG era and onwards. I then took it upon myself, as I noticed others have as well, to see if I could determine a formula that would give the same results up to Warp 9, but would be exponential past that point. To that end, with a little trial and error using an exponential function in the 10/3 exponent I arrived at the following formula:


 * speed = wf^(10/(3 - 3*e^(9 * (wf - 10)))*c


 * $$ speed = wf^{({\frac{10}{(3-3e^{(9(wf - 10))})}})}c $$

The formula itself if rather simple and easy to understand. In the exponential function the argument is multiplied by 9, which makes the function grow to infinity in a shorter time, while the 10 in the argument of the exponential function shifts the function to the right on the xy-plane such that when wf = 10, the exponential function equals 1. To try and put it more simply, the 9 in the argument of the exponential basically makes the exponential function zero at all points before wf = 9, and then growing after that point rather quickly. Using this equation and the whole number warp factors 1, 2, 3, ..., 8 we obtain the same results as the table given in the article with the only difference being the result for Warp 9. Using my equation I get that the speed at Warp 9 is 1517.75c, while the table (using the in-article equation) gets a value of 1516.38. This is, however, only a 0.09% difference and I think can be safely ignored. MasterSearcy 19:50, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting anything matching the table at all. In fact, until warp 9, I'm getting a linear result. Regardless, it would be non-canon speculation even if it did work. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:25, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

The table I was referring to was the one regarding the TNG era warp factor calculations, which if the formula is computed correctly does yield the values for the speed of each corresponding warp factor. I know it doesn't match either of the other tables in the article. Also, I understand that it would be non-canon speculation. I just thought it would be a good exercise to try and come up with a formula that would match, or closely approximate the given criteria for TNG era warp factors. MasterSearcy 01:31, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but how can you say the formula matches the value in the table, and then say it doesn't match the values in any table in the article? That makes no sense. In addition, I cannot make it match anything, and it behaves as a linear progression until warp 9, which the TNG warp scale simply doesn't. Basically, it seems to be simply wrong, and bad math. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:42, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

I may have stated it unclearly in the my reply, but I meant that it does match the values of the third table in the article, here. Also, maybe there is some confusion as to how to compute the speed using my formula. In the formula stated in the article the exponent is $${\frac{10}{3}}$$, but my formula replaces that exponent with: $${\frac{10}{3-3*e^{9*(wf - 10)}}}$$, where "e" is the exponential function and "wf" is the warp factor. I only restate the exponents because I am able to use the formula to calculate the correct speeds given in the TNG era table up to warp 9, where there is a 0.09% difference. Maybe if I knew how you were doing the calculations with my formula I would understand where one of us is going wrong. MasterSearcy 16:30, June 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is really not the forum for this sort of extensive discussion- posts on article talk pages are supposed to be about changing the article. --31dot 00:01, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Canonical speed estimates edit war
There is an edit war going on on this page between me and 1312.4 concerning the Canonical speed estimates. Apparently 1312.4 feels that the canonical facts are background material and that we need a disclaimer:
 * The table below relates warp factors to average speeds observed in specific incidents. Since the writers have never strictly followed a particular warp formula, the average speed can vary for the same warp factor, meaning one incident cannot reliably predict another. However, long-range travel over several decades or so is more predictable and was usually estimated at approximately 1,000 light-years per year in the 2360s and 2370s. 

Needless to say I disagree. They are canonical facts so they belong in the in-universe section. The matter of why speeds are different is discussed in the background section and the table already states:
 * "Speed" values are typically calculated from given values for travel time and distance from the specific instances.

Which together with what is stated in the bg section already is enough to explain the facts. First of all i believe it is part of canon that it is possible to predict traveltimes from distance and warp speed because the charecters do it all the time in the series for short or long travel. There is no canonical formula to follow. BG material is full of facts that the writers dont follow. So that alone makes the formulas basically complete and utter bullshit as far as canon is concerned. I have no desire to go into this edit war, so please anybody comment and do something if you feel 1312.4 is wrong here. --Pseudohuman 18:59, August 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * The speed/WF table was specifically created to not be background material but just consist of canonical facts from the series. The idea was to let the reader beware by making visible that there is no "simple" connection between WF and speed, but do so without hitting him on the head with some lengthy explanation. I'm going to move that table back to the in-universe section of the article, and ask everyone to discuss changes here first, before implementing them - otherwise, page protection might follow. -- Cid Highwind 19:13, August 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] - I've reverted all changes made by both parties, as this can be undone, and appropriate changes made if necessary, after a consensus has been reached. - 19:15, August 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * If it is referenced/can be referenced by citation through canon (which is obviously the case), then the table belongs to the in-universe section and not background. If he wants to add the disclaimer in italics to the in-universe section as opposed to background he can do that I guess or he can add the disclaimer to the background only, but the table should be in the main article section. – Distantlycharmed 19:24, August 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as an edit war, because I didn't merely revert back to my change - as you can see, I actually tried to accommodate the comment by moving everything to the background section. However, I guess some people are just too panicky and terrified of back-and-forth article restructuring, reverting even my changes to the introductory section which are unrelated to the issue at hand.


 * I'm slightly uncomfortable with this table being in the canon section without further comment because we don't even know whether such calculations are permissible in-universe. It's not like we've canonically seen kids in Keiko's class or whoever trying to create warp factor tables based on average speeds observed in specific incidents. Given what we've seen of warp factor behavior, such people might very well be laughed at for making such simplistic calculations, instead of refining them in ways we haven't really seen onscreen. However, if we do it offscreen, in the background section, there are no such restrictions.


 * The above idea of italicizing my comments as background information would be a definite improvement over the current state. – 1312.4 20:32, August 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * As one of those "some people" here, I feel it necessary to point out I am neither "panicky" or "terrified". Pseudohuman posted a comment about edit warring, which isn't restricted to just reverting back and forth, on the talk page. I then checked the page history, and saw a large section of text being moved back and forth, among other various edits, without comment on the talk page until the previously mentioned post. Checking the protection policy page to confirm that "Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an "edit war", upon request" was an option, and since I consider a user saying that an edit war is going on to be a request, whether or not it's posted on my talk page, I then protected the page after I reverted all changes made by said users to a version before said changes were made, an action easily undone as I stated above, since I've never thought it a good idea to just "freeze" a page in an ongoing edit war without reverting to a point before said edits began. So while your other edits were undone for now 1312.4, it was not because I was emotionally unstable or unaware of them, but because I deal with these things this way since I have neither the time nor patience to separate undisputed edits from disputed ones when that can be easily handled after the fact. - 21:10, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah why dont you use (sorry I dont know how else to illustrate it) and just insert it under table in question in the main section as opposed to moving it to background. Archduke is right, edit wars or perceived edit bickering is annoying and frustrating and goes nowhere without some kind of resolution. – Distantlycharmed 21:29, August 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * If I understand this conversation (and I'm not sure I completely do, and no way am I going to re-read through the whole damn thing), I think I agree with DistantlyCharmed's suggestion. That would seem to be simplest solution. -Angry Future Romulan 21:34, August 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * The content of the note borders on original research though - as in, it hints at one specific interpretation of what might be going on, and does so in a relatively verbose form. I wouldn't mind a small note, but I don't think it has to be the one cited at the beginning of this discussion. -- Cid Highwind 08:52, August 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * To tell you the truth, the whole table seems to me like original research, since, by having a table, it implies that the warp speeds have a relationship to one another, as if the writers used a table when calculating warp factors, which clearly wasn't true (otherwise the table would make more sense). However, I'm sure I'm in the minority in voting to take the whole damn thing out. -Angry Future Romulan 14:12, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

The current "Speed" values are typically calculated from given values for travel time and distance. -note could be expanded with ''Reference materials have given several explanations on why the speed values seem inconsistant. More information on this in the background section of the article.'' or something like that. --Pseudohuman 23:07, August 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * That would at least be shorter - although, IMO, still unnecessary, as the whole reason of having dedicated "background sections" is to free the in-universe part of the article from lengthy background notes. Readers are expecting more information in the background section, so telling them that, in fact, there is more information might not be necessary. -- Cid Highwind 10:07, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * A link to that note in the background section could be added, like what was done on the USS Defiant (2375) page for the registry numbers. - 10:11, September 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's the best idea so far... -- Cid Highwind 10:25, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is to use whatever means we can to prevent the casual reader from concluding, "Warp 9.9 is always 21,473c - it says so in the table on Memory Alpha." We must make the table user-friendly in that regard, and I'm not sure how to do it without the ability to put disclaimers in the same section where the table itself is located.


 * The reader must leave with the following conclusion: "Although it hasn't been established in the canon, the official warp formula is X, but the writers haven't adhered to it all the time, therefore, you cannot rely on these calculated figures being correct for every future incident - don't use them in your starmaps, because you might easily be proven wrong in the next episode." I'm open to various suggestions on how to accomplish this. – 1312.4 17:55, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

I still dont see what the problem is with inserting a little blurb under the table (in italics or whatever formatting) to say just that. Why link it? Why make it complicated? It is rather annoying having to navigate through several pages to understand that one thing. Since this is not going to be a novel-length disclaimer, I suggest just mentioning it under the table. – Distantlycharmed 18:19, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Link is good. Btw. how could something be official if it's not established in canon? That's an oxymoron. --Pseudohuman 19:14, September 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * The basic problem I have with such disclaimer is that we might just as well add one on every page:
 * "Don't rely on what we write about phasers, because the next episode could prove that wrong by adding new technobabble to the mix."
 * "Don't believe our article about Starfleets chain of command. The next author could just invent a new function, division or department."
 * "Please note that, while we state that the Thingamajig nebula is a nebula, it may in fact be a sentient being."
 * In short, the idea that whatever information we present may be invalidated in the future is not restricted to exactly this article, but is a general problem with writing an encyclopedia about a fictional universe that (hopefully) still evolves, and where information is necessarily incomplete.
 * If there absolutely has to be some additional note, it should be a neutral one, such as: "Speed" values are typically calculated from given values for travel time and distance. Please note that the same warp factor can apparently result in different speeds. That one makes the reader aware of the problem, but does so without hinting at a specific, inofficial explanation. -- Cid Highwind 19:34, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the kind of note I was talking. Parsimony.– Distantlycharmed 19:43, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Cid Highwind: the examples you mention are usually well considered by writers and often added to series bibles for future reference (some of them, such as detailed phaser properties, might be added by tech advisors). However, the only values which are well developed in this case are the standard warp speed values according to the official formulas - the remainder are just random deviations for purposes of episodic plots. (BTW, by "official" I meant "non-canon, but nevertheless used in high-profile licensed publications.")


 * If we had seen Mike Okuda adjust his warp speed values over time according to canon deviations from the formula, I wouldn't be as uncomfortable with the table, but we know that he and Rick Sternbach stuck with the basic TOS warp formula (unlike Star Trek Maps from 1980, for example) and the TNG warp table, attributing any deviations to local space conditions. Now imagine a reader using one of these deviations to calculate distances in his starmaps, without knowing that episode-specific values are usually forgotten by writers.


 * This is why I would prefer moving this table to the background section, where we could also add another column: standard warp speed values. In addition to a note explaining the background, such a comparison would drive home the idea that speed values observed in practice can be significantly different from the standard ones. Therefore, the reader is more likely to be right if he uses the official values, but then again, he could be proven wrong as well (which is why I don't see any problems with the travel time to Vulcan in the recent movie - such deviations are quite within the norm). Hopefully, this will stop any wideranging calculations which are merely based on warp speed assumptions. – 1312.4 05:32, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * But, see, that's where we differ.
 * You say that the whole of ships speeds is unsound, can only be explained using non-canon material, and as such needs to be relegated to background.
 * I say that every single one of those ship speeds is canon and as such deserves to be in the "canon section" of the article. The fact that some of them don't match each other can't be reason to ignore all of them. We'd be picking and choosing our own canon in that case, something we're trying to avoid.
 * -- Cid Highwind 10:59, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't be ignored, but it is important to put them in the context of behind-the-scenes formulas, and it's obviously hard to do that in the canon section (unless you don't mind duplicating the table in the background section in an expanded form). The data won't become non-canon if we move it to the background section, so I don't see a problem. The canon section is simply too limiting for a full presentation of such a sensitive subject, since we don't want the reader using either the official figures or the canon figures without understanding how they are determined and how easily they can be proven wrong in the future. – 1312.4 17:58, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

There are only a couple of instances where the tos or okuda warp tables were ever used in the whole of star trek. That alone makes them an extemely obscure way of speculating what warp speeds might equal to in canon. If you ask me they are the tables that are given way too much space in this article currently. I dont understand why 1312.4 calls them official, they are extremely unofficial. --Pseudohuman 20:25, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Please search Memory Alpha for publications with the word official in their titles. It doesn't mean "used in episodes" or "canon", otherwise we would hardly need to use specialized literary terminology for the latter. For example, Star Trek: The Official Fan Club Magazine isn't Star Trek: The Canon Fan Club Magazine, and the Official Star Trek Cooking Manual certainly isn't canon either.


 * All it means is that these behind-the-scenes numbers ended up being used in such official publications and thus became official themselves. Also, obscure is not the right word either, because these numbers are hardly an obscure way of speculating about the speeds. Most fans use them without knowing any better and are then surprised or annoyed when the show contradicts them, because the writers basically wanted the Babylon 5 or Galactica setup, where the exact speeds have been left deliberately vague in order to allow for some flexibility.


 * However, it would still be extremely unwise to dismiss the licensed behind-the-scenes numbers (if you prefer a longer version of the term) or even relegate them to a different section of the same article, because the TOS- and TNG-era numbers were used in the respective writers' guides. Just because the writers might have been looking for some flexibility in certain episodes doesn't mean that they disagreed with their tech advisors about the basic warp scale design, as shown in all the instances where the warp formulas do match onscreen evidence (e.g. when calculating how far Kivas Fajo could've traveled).


 * This is why Star Trek Maps adopted the best approach: keeping the TOS scale with a variable Cochrane's factor. Okuda didn't use Cochrane's factor, but there are disclaimers saying that the numbers can vary. This is why I would prefer a presentation where the official numbers are juxtaposed with the canon numbers, along with an explanation of how the writers approached those speeds (I might be able to find online quotes by Ron Moore or Robert Hewitt Wolfe). – 1312.4 07:34, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * First, reproducing the speed charts verbatim from the reference manuals may constitute a copyright violation. Second, those number are background information only, while the current speed chart is canon, because the writers intent doesn't change what was on screen. There is no reason that the current chart should be anywhere other than the in universe section of the article. There should be a bg note on these numbers being "flexible", or however someone whats to put it, but that note should not in the middle of the article if it's longer than a sentence or two. Using a small note to link to a longer note in the background section is more than enough in that case. - 15:01, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Citing the needed minimum in order to illustrate a point isn't a copyright violation, and as you can see above, the idea wasn't to reproduce the Encyclopedia or the TNGTM charts verbatim –- I only want a column with the official numbers next to the figures calculated from the canon, in order to juxtapose the two for the reader. No, the writers' intent doesn't change what is onscreen, but what is onscreen in this case is extremely unlikely to predict what will be onscreen in the future (or what would've been, had the shows continued), because this kind of data wasn't being taken into account in revised versions of behind-the-scenes warp tables.


 * Therefore, it must be as obvious as possible to the reader that he shouldn't use those numbers to determine starmaps or anything like that. We can show all the randomness of warp speeds in one place –- canon figures versus other canon figures, and canon figures versus figures from such high-profile sources as the writers' guides. – 1312.4 15:42, September 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * We aren't here to "predict" what will be onscreen in the future. We're here to document canon.  The information from the writers is good to have as Background, but cannot be part of the canon portion.  We also are not responsible for what people do with the information that is presented here.  People can use the figures in whatever way they wish to.--31dot 16:39, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is why I asked for the whole table to be moved to Background, since its canon information won't stop being canon by such a move. And we are responsible if it is within our means to do it. – 1312.4 17:32, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as background info should not be in the in-universe section, in-universe info should not be in the background section. --31dot 17:39, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not? It is often necessary to refer to canon information in order to provide context for background information, for example when comparing it with real usage on the show. The only essential difference is the POV – in the canon section, the writer lives in-universe in the distant future, while in the background section it's me talking about the episode. It is certainly useful to avoid unnecessary duplication between the two types of sections, which is why I'm arguing that in this case, the table would be better off in the background section, so I can provide more context. – 1312.4 18:36, September 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong. The respective points of view are not the essential difference between those sections. The essential difference is that one section is there to provide the reader with all the canon information that exists, while the other is there to support the topic, but should never be considered "mandatory reading". Different points of view, or writing styles, just follow from that distinction. -- Cid Highwind 18:52, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * No. In the stardate article, for example, it's clearly the other way around: there is so little interesting canon information that we could almost omit the canon section, but there is quite a lot of behind-the-scenes information from the writers' guides and similar sources. It is that part I would consider mandatory reading, because beginners need to be prevented from trying to figure out stardate formulas, while more advanced readers should be informed about the pitfalls of using stardate calculators to predict calendar dates. – 1312.4 21:49, September 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * So, that stardate article, with tabulated canon information plus separated non-canon information proves your original point of better not having tabulated canon information plus separated non-canon information... how? -- Cid Highwind 22:49, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the stardate table myself in order to expand the canon section a bit, but there is an important difference. Most of those relationships to Gregorian dates are already accepted in official sources, so they are likely to be reused in future episodes (or would've been, had the shows continued). We've seen older stardates quoted in later episodes, so the necessary amount of predictability is there. However, that is obviously not the case with warp speeds, which must be juxtaposed with the official figures and disclaimers in order to warn the reader about using them in calculations. – 1312.4 06:56, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not concerned with "what is likely to be reused", nor is it our mission to prevent people from using information however they wish. We're not enforcers, and those determined to do what they wanted to with the information would do so anyway.--31dot 08:42, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are concerned and it is our mission to the extent that it can be done within the boundaries of an encyclopedia. I propose that such a lofty goal be realized with the following means of mighty enforcement: moving one table to the background section and expanding it with additional information. – 1312.4 13:04, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * We've explained this before 1312.4, so I don't see why you keep pushing this. We are not here to realize your lofty goal, we are here simply to present the facts in a readable and understandable manner. Implying we need to control the thinking of the fan base as a whole with our articles is simply wrong, and covered in shades of megalomania. If you want to add a second table in the background section without taking it directly from one of the reference works, go ahead, but the canon table stays in the canon section of the article. - 14:09, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * But this isn't readable and understandable, because there is no context, and it's not about controlling anyone's thinking, merely about avoiding misunderstandings on how random those figures can be. What is wrong with showing that a lot of the figures don't agree with those in the writers' guides? It will only ring the necessary warning bells for anyone who wanted to use them without thinking. – 1312.4 14:35, September 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me just quote from the current version of the extensive background section:
 * Although formulas to calculate speeds from warp factors existed in the writer's guides, these were not always used consistently.
 * As evidenced in the chart above, actual speeds represented by a warp factor have not always been kept consistent throughout every Star Trek incarnation.
 * To explain the apparent discontinuity of the canonical warp factor speeds, background sources have given several explanations.
 * These quotes are interspersed with many examples where a lower warp factor results in a higher speed, with behind-the-scenes formulas from guides and tech manuals, again with examples where on-screen information doesn't match those formulas - and last but not least, with whole tables stating resulting speeds when calculating with those formulas. I think we've already bent over backwards to not create the impression that everything's fine as far as warp factors are concerned. Doing even more would, in my opinion, take away from the article and not add to it. -- Cid Highwind 17:15, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Possible Inconsistency
I'm no expert on space travel and such like, so please bear with me and notify me if I make a mistake. But I noticed something which I thought was a bit odd. In the Voyager episode the 37's, Tom states that the ship's maximum speed is 4 billion miles per second. A single light year, according to a unit converter is roughly 5,105,012,996,550, or just over 5 trillion miles. Broken down, that means at 4 billion miles per second, the ship could cover one light year in roughly 21 minutes. This is massively inconsistent with what we've been told in the series, as in Hope and Fear, it took Voyager 2 days at high warp to cover 15 light years. If this speed were accurate, it would take Voyager about 3 years to reach home, providing they could maintain 9.975 for that long. Have I made an error somewhere, perhaps someone could explain this to me in more detail? :) (82.28.237.200 19:38, September 10, 2010 (UTC))


 * The relative speed you can reach with any given warp factor seems to change depending on the region of space you travel through. and other factors. read the whole article for more info. --Pseudohuman 22:38, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, they generally can't seem to maintain the maximum speed very long. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:15, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

All valid points, but I believe the 75 year estimate for Voyager's return to home was based on if they could maintain maximum warp constantly. (82.28.237.200 19:53, September 11, 2010 (UTC))


 * I doubt anyone would give that estimate, since the ship couldn't actually maintain that speed for more than a few minutes. If someone said "maximum warp" I'm sure it was the maximum warp speed the ship could maintain over an extended period of time, since anything else is unrealistic. - 21:02, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * It was stated to be like that in the ST VOY TM. but that is a bg resource only. --Pseudohuman 21:47, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Computations
I'm only curious- are the recently added computation tables using the warp speed formulas considered original research, or an acceptable extrapolation of it?--31dot 12:08, November 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd consider it an extrapolation of the formula stated next to it. However, I doubt it is really useful to have a long list of travel times based on a very random distance (4.33 lightyears). If anything, it might be more sensible to state how long it would take to travel a distance of 1ly at different speeds or, the other way around, how far one would get by traveling at different speeds for a fixed amount of time (for example 1 day). -- Cid Highwind 13:39, November 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree they are extrapolation, not research, but again seem to further fuel the extremely popular misconception that according to bg sources the warp formulas alone are supposed to give an accurate travel time for anything, which hasn't been stated even in the TNG tech manual, the no.1 source of the warp scale bg info. --Pseudohuman 19:35, November 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problems with calculating average speeds based on distances and travel times, but the table must never imply that switching to a given warp factor always results in the calculated speed. In order to detach these speeds and travel times from specific warp factors, I would move the table to the article on warp drive as a way of describing observed warp drive performance, with the warp factors functioning only as supplemental information. Such a move should make it clear that we don't actually have a canon way of calculating speeds from warp factors or vice versa, and that warp factors aren't even close to being a reliable indicator of average speed. – NotOfTheBody 18:37, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * Reviving this discussion after the recent addition of two more tables. While one table, based on a somewhat relevant distance, might be useful, I doubt that three different tables are. The necessary calculations aren't exactly arcane magic, after all, so we don't need to list a whole bunch of basically random factor/speed/travel-time pairings.
 * Please discuss what might be a sensible basis for a single table in that section... -- Cid Highwind 21:43, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I took the new ones out as they are just... too much. and unnecessary. Making the article harder to read and make out what this is all about. Add lightspeed stuff to the light speed article if you want it somewhere. Not here. IMO. --Pseudohuman 05:08, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also come to think of it, i'm not sure it makes sense to give estimates on how long it takes to reach Alpha Centauri with the formulas, as i think it's pretty well established by now that canonically warp drive works kinda superfast aroud Earth in the new film when they zap to Vulcan and Enterprise when they go off to Qo'nos, Nemesis when they zoom in from the neutral zone to the battle with the borg etc. I think it should propably be replaced with for example 20 light years which is according to bg sources the average sector size... or just 1 light year. to make it more neutral... just a thought... --Pseudohuman 14:06, September 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Using a "neutral" distance like 1ly would be an improvement - but perhaps it would even be better to reverse the whole thing and not have a fixed distance with varying travel times, but a fixed travel time combined with meaningful distances. For example, we could estimate the necessary warp factor for travelling from Earth to Vulcan in one year (or one week), or from Earth to Rigel, or across any other distance that has definitively been stated. -- Cid Highwind 19:43, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Traveling 24 hours at warp factor X gets you across distance X. That would make it an iteresting table, something that isnt just copypasted from a tech manual. --Pseudohuman 20:37, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Warp five engine warp factors image
I don't think that ENT-era warp scale belongs anywhere but in the background section. It looks a lot like the TNGTM warp scale, but there's no direct evidence that that is what it's supposed to represent. For all we know the artist just opened up some books looking for interesting trek-looking technical schematics. The fact that it seems to depict a chart for a warp-4 engine rather then warp-5 might support that. And anyway, the ship was explicitly traveling at impulse speeds when Phlox looked it up. Not to mention that we know the TOS--scale, presumably used in ENT, is supposed to look different from the TNG scale.

The writing on the diagram might settle this question, but I can't find a screenshot where I can make out what it says. So, short of a validation by Mike Okuda or something like that, I think unambiguously labeling the image as Enterprise's warp chart as if it is hard fact is out of line. -- Capricorn 15:58, February 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree the image is not clearly specifically labelled or specifically identified as the warp factor/cochrane/power usage-diagram, but it is clearly a warp factor/cochrane/power usage-diagram similar to that from TNGTM, also in the scene Phlox is looking at screens from the warp five engine manual database about procedures for restarting and powering up the reactor, and the first information he makes out of the texts is about millicochrane output needed to maintain the dilithium matrix. Besides there is nothing anywhere to suggest pre-TNG engines did not have peak transitional thresholds in power usage. --Pseudohuman 19:08, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I was merely playing devil's advocate and I do agree that the image most likely represents a warp chart. (hence why I added it in the first place). Only, that's not confirmed, and the image is placed very prominent with a description suggesting it's hard fact. Imagine a reader, who hasn't seen the ep and couldn't care less about TNGTM; the way the image is represented right now she would assume that it was explicitly identified as a warp chart in the ep, probably in dialog, while in fact it's identified as such not by the ep, but by ma-editors, behind the scene, working from non-canon material. So I think that at the very least there should be a note, explaining exactly why we think this is a warp chart, and saying that's not confirmed by production sources.

O and a final note, though frankly I don't think this is relevant. There are reasons to assume that the TOS chart doesn't have transitional thresholds. Just check the formula - I know it's not canon, but it's as good as the TNG chart. And the millicochrane quote might not be about this image, as the sequence of events is as follows: 1. we see all kinds of images popping up, the last before the camera moves away is the chart - 2.Phlox makes the statement - 3.the camera is again on the screen, and another image is seen at the top of the stack of images. -- Capricorn 16:24, February 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been looking at the HD-version of the episode and to me it looks like the screen reads ENVIRONMENTAL DISTORTION. I think we need a third opinion here... --Pseudohuman 16:36, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

When was maximum velocity attained
To prevent an edit war the scene was: SULU: Engines at maximum warp, Captain. PIKE: Russian whiz kid, what's your name? Chenko, Chirpoff? CHEKOV: Ensign Chekov, Pavel Andreievich, sir. PIKE: Fine, Chekov, Pavel Andreievich, begin shipwide mission broadcast. CHEKOV: Yes, sir, happy to. and so on... so maximum warp was attained then and there. everything before was acceleration to achieve maximum warp. no matter how many times kirk changed his shirt or whatever. --Pseudohuman 04:03, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

Recent bg section changes
I'm not convinced that this recent change is a good one. It changes, in my opinion, a better reference (the series' themselves) for a worse one (invented terminology like "Modified Cochrane Unit"), which apparently has solely been used in the "Starship Spotter" publication. Apart of being a "lesser" resource, it also leads to inconsistencies in the subsection headings. We now have OCU, MCU, then Voyager and Enterprise, then "Alternate reality". I think at least the headings need to be changed back. -- Cid Highwind 14:04, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. We can simply note what the Starship Spotter terminology is in the sections. - 16:56, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have always simply hated the fact that there were never any official "in-universe" type terms at all available and we had to use the popular fandom invented "TNG scale" and "TOS scale" terms. which i have always considered too over-simplified as one is supposed to extend to the whole pre-2312 era and the other to post-2312 era according to production staff. --Pseudohuman 00:42, June 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I always considered "TOS scale" to be a simple abbreviation of "the warp scale that was used in TOS" - whereas OCU/MCU really are "invented terms". -- Cid Highwind 08:32, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Maximum cruising speed = ~1000c
In Voyager, Voyager is, if I recall correctly, whisked about 70,000 light-years away from Earth. It's stated, and largely maintained throughout the series, that at maximum cruising speed (the fastest velocity they're able to maintain indefinitely), it would take approximately 70 years for them to get back. This means that at whatever warp factor they're traveling at during the majority of their trip (around Warp 9?), they're traveling at about one thousand times the speed of light. This equals about three light-years (three to six light-years being a reasonable estimate for the average distance between star systems) per day.

This seems to fit nicely with a fair deal of the situations occurring during The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. Granted, an equally fair deal of travel occurring during the three main series doesn't fit very well at all with the notion that the maximum cruising velocity of starships in the 2365-2375 era is about 1000c; some of it, a lot of it, in fact, is way out of proportion (e.g.: "We need to get to So-And-So System... we should arrive in about two hours." Yeah, right.)

All we can do is chalk this up to the fact that the writers continually did a piss-poor job of ensuring units of time and distance were consistent, not merely from series-to-series, but from episode-to-episode. They screwed up royally, in spite of the fact that it would've been the easiest thing in the world to establish and maintain some reliable, canon values for warp factors. Still, it atleast seems reasonable to operate under the supposition that Warp 9 is about a thousand times the speed of light, and that speeds perhaps an order of magnitude higher (Warp 9.8-9.9?) can be achieved for a matter of a dozen or so minutes at a time. At the very least, The Next Generation did us the favour of establishing that the warp speed scale is a parabolic function, with Warp 10 representing infinite speed, and thus being literally impossible to achieve ("Threshold"? Never heard of it.). -=(Alexis Brooke 03:23, May 13, 2012 (UTC))=-


 * If you read the background section you will find out that warp factors have pretty much never been intended to correspond with consistent speed values, so this is not a continuity error or a writer error, as many fans believe. The Voyager 75 years to reach Earth is also explained further in the Voyager technical manual for the series writers, also explained in the background section. So there is no need to speculate on what it meant. --Pseudohuman 08:37, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

Warp 4.5
The article defines warp 4.5 according to Archer's "Neptune and back in six minutes" statement. However, later on he says that it's equivalent to "thirty-million kilometers per second". I think the latter statement is more specific. - Mitchz95 17:34, June 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * It is, but that was of the speed of warp 4.4 which is also listed in the table. --Pseudohuman 22:44, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Warp factors over 9
The current explanation of TNG warp factors over 9 is incorrect:

but above warp 9 the exponent was increased exponentially, approaching infinity as the warp factor approaches 10.

And exponential increase of the exponent would be just something like wf^x^y, which does not go to infinity. The real formula must be much more complicated than that, like the formulas that where suggested on this ta page before. --62.178.241.245 05:11, October 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Dont really know that much about mathematics, but a direct quote from TNGTM says: "Eugene's Limit allows for warp stress to increase asymptotically, approaching but never reaching a value corresponding to Warp Factor 10. As field values approach ten, power requirements rise geometrically". But in any case MA is not the place to speculate on anything. if it is stated in canon or a reference book we can state it, but if not then it becomes original research and speculation which isn't allowed here. --Pseudohuman (talk) 12:12, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

"First Flight" chart
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.

So how, pray tell, can anyone make out "exact velocities" from that? -- Cid Highwind (talk) 13:19, May 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)