Talk:Warp core breach

Insurrection
I'm not sure about this reference:


 * Warp core breaches have been deliberately performed; Geordi La Forge intentionally caused a warp core breach of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E)'s warp core (after ejecting it) to seal a subspace tear caused by an isolytic burst. 

It was never stated that the action was the initiation of a core breach - since the core was not connected to the matter and antimatter supply, that tends to preclude a core breach. I assumed it was the result of standard anti-Threat charges (has the idea of said charges been mentioned outside the TNG Tech Manual?) -- Michael Warren | Talk 21:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that there is still matter and antimatter in the core at the time of ejection. I thought that ejecting the core would prevent the ship from being destroyed (the ship would get to a safe distance from the core before it exploded), not prevent the core breach altogether. To add to that why could only the warp core be used to seal the subspace tear? Remember that detonating a warp core is essentially the same as detonating a photon torpedo (an uncontrolled matter/antimatter reaction) - just that the detonation of a warp core has a much higher energy yield than a photon torpedo. The anti-threat charges would simply allow the remaining matter and antimatter to mix, causing the breach and there are anti-threat charges strategically placed all over the ship. In addition, don't you think that with or without a warp core antimatter containment failure would still occur if say the forcefields around the antimatter storage pods failed? I think that the reference should be returned.--Scimitar 00:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Geordi only ejected the warp core. He did not initiate a warpcore breach. So, ok to delete the statement on the main page of this article? CedricVonck 18:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to warp core
This information is available at Warp Core page, recommend deletion and redirect to warp core.--Mike Nobody 18:27, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Small Change,
I recently watched the episode where Picard is cited as cancelling the power transfer, while in reality, he patched through to teh runabout's navigational controls and piloted it into the beam, destroying the runabout, but preventing a fatal feedback and ending the transfer. --141.156.184.133 23:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

batteries in saucer section
Can someone explain to me where is mentioned, that the saucer section would run on batteries, if separated from the stardrive section? --herges 09:14, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know where that has been said exactly, but there have been instances where emergency power or batteries were used when the warp core and impulse generators were offline- this is probably what the "batteries" reference refers to.--31dot 09:20, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * ...but we don't actually know this has anything to do with powering the saucer following a separation. For all we know it runs on the power from the fusion generators in the impulse drive. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:00, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the line should be made more general, or just removed.--31dot 00:38, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * O.K. after reading the sentence many times in order to rewrite it, I understood it. I find it now correct. But I think it could be rewritten to enhance readability. Maybe it would be sufficient to simply move the warp core breach to the front and remove the "". --herges 07:48, November 2, 2010 (UTC)