FA status

Nomination (06 June - 13 June 2005, Success)

  • Force field. This article has been expanded extensively over the past few weeks, and by me over the past few days. I believe its got what it takes to become featured. zsingaya 21:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Review (23 April - 01 June, Deadlocked)

This article, while thorough from an in-universe perspective, is lacking any background/production information (of which I am sure there is plenty). Unfortunately, I don't have the time to go through all my sources to add it at the moment so I propose that the article's FA status be removed pending future any improvements that can be made to it. In addition to BG info, I am sure there is a host of apocryphal information on force fields and I just feel that this article is in no way 100% complete and so shouldn't be an FA. --| TrekFan Open a channel 17:16, April 23, 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that this meets the criteria, since without knowing for sure how much, or the quality of, any information that might be missing, I really can't say that this isn't "as complete as possible". That said, I'm not opposing this as yet, but I would rather not remove a FA because of "what might be". - Archduk3 05:06, April 24, 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair comment, Archduk3. If I get some spare time over the weekend, I'll traul through my references and make a few scribbled notes for the talk page of the article. I'm certain I've seen BG info relating to force fields though. --| TrekFan Open a channel 15:47, April 24, 2015 (UTC)

Undecided; Truth to be told, I'm inclined to support TrekFan's position for removal. While Duke is absolutely right in his assessment that lack of info in itself is no reason for refusing a FA status as per the criteria, it should also be noted that these criteria were constituted at the beginning of MA when it was primarily intended to be an in-universe POV site. But as everything else, MA has evolved over time, most notably to have production POV info included as BG-info. As a consequence, perusing over the new FA articles added over the last five years, a BG and an aprocrypha section, no matter how trivial, was almost obligatory to have been included; The bar, while not formally but certainly implicitly, has been raised considerably since those early days so to speak...Sennim (talk) 21:59, May 4, 2015 (UTC)
While that's generally true, I don't think this subject lends itself to those sections being included though, as the concept of force fields predates Star Trek, and the on screen effects do as well for the most part. There might be some episode specific bg info on the use of, or the visual effect used for, a force field, but I'm not aware of them off the top of my head, nor can I think of a noteworth use of a force field in apocrypha sources that isn't simply "a force field was used." Force fields tend to be treated as light switches in plots, they're either on or off, should be on or off, or need to be switch on or off, but not really noteworthy beyond that. - Archduk3 04:51, May 6, 2015 (UTC)

I have listed some potential sources of what I consider to be very relevant force field background information on the article's talk page. This is just an example. I am sure if I had the time, I could sit down and find many more to expand the article with. Though I appreciate what you are saying Archduk3, I am still of the opinion, the article is not complete and therefore shouldn't be an FA yet. --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:32, May 8, 2015 (UTC)

Added more info. Pictures?

I have added some more information to this page, I hope it helps make it less of a stub and more complete. Apart from that, this page has, in my opinion, enough references to episodes and situations to describe most force field applications. I'm sure there are more somewhere... lol. zsingaya 13:42, 27 Jan 2005 (CET)

Should this page have some pictures on it? zsingaya 02:25, 1 Apr 2005 (EST)

Personnel force fields

In DS9's "Homefront", Leyton mentioned the use of personnel force fields, presumably similar to the one Worf made in TNG, but apparently it was in production by 2372. I didn't see it mentioned in the article.

Dax reference

In the episode of DS9: "Dax" when Lieutenant Dax is been kidnapped by the Klaestrons, Kira trys to stop using, and I hope this spelled right, Kateran Force fields. Is this a variation of a regular forcefield or a different technology altogether.

Isolating with cadderon force fields.
(from the script, i think it might mean a subatomic particle of some type, but who knows?--Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

I removed this passage:

" the crew of the Enteprise-D encountered the Echo Papa 607 weapon, on Minos. One of the weapon's special features is the ability to encase a target in a bubble force field. (TNG: "The Arsenal of Freedom")"

Actually, after re-reading the script, the weapon actually produces a shell of lucinium around Commander Riker, rather than a force-field. Zsingaya Talk 20:14, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • I re-added this information, because after watching the episode again, the weapon does produce a force field, and there's no mention of lucinium. Zsingaya Talk 21:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Get real

"The Inertial dampning systems consist of a network of force fields that continually adapt and compensate for the inertial effects of interstellar travel. They are almost entirely controlled by the ship's computer, which allows for instant fine adjustment of these fields' geometries, and to even anticipate resultant forces from the engines."

This doesn't make even a slight hypothetical fictional sense...I suggest removing it. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

  • Is/was this even cited from something? --Alan del Beccio 19:10, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Yep, I found it in the TNG Tech Manual. The text differs, if not it would be a copyvio, but the content tells about the same. -- Q 19:33, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • Inertia damper cannot be using a force field simply because The Enterprise NX-01 has already travelling at warp speed while EM force field is still in experimental phase (Vox Sola) The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
        • This is a very good point, and would seem to directly contradict what was stated in the Tech Manual. According to MA:Canon, information from the Tech Manuals should be specifically formatted as background information--especially so in instances such as this where it contradicts canon. Thus, I'd suggest that this section be removed. -Mdettweiler 15:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
        • After having forgotten about this for a while, I noticed it again just now, and removed the section on inertial dampers since no objections have been raised to this. -Mdettweiler 04:10, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought

The reference on force field doesn't explain why sound can go through the force field but not other energy such as laser emitted by a phaser gun. Can someone give some theory on this?

Forcefields can be configured to selectively deny the passage of only desired forms of matter or energy. Numerous examples of this selective quality exist; the atmospheric containment fields of shuttlebays allow shuttles to leave without decompressing the compartment, Borg drones' shields absorb blasts from most energy weapons, yet allow the drones to interact with solid objects. Configuring shields to permit the passage of sound waves while stopping other things shouldn't be terribly difficult. 04:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Forcefields instead of windows on Ent-E?!

I don't remember this at all and it seems damned hard to believe. Is the writer referring to the scene with Lily looking out at Earth? If so, that seemed to have been a cargo/shuttle bay of some sort IIRC, which always have space doors. - Montrealais 07:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was in Picard's ready room (or was it his quarters?), and the scene goes: : "There's no window."
(Picard places hand on portal, there is a zap which scares Lily)
Picard: "Force field."
Lily: "I've never seen this kind of technology."
Picard: "That's because it hasn't been invented yet."

Naturally, this kinda goes against wht was seen earlier in the film, with Picard's and Riker's reflections seen clearly in Picard's ready room window, so we can just assume that there are some windows that have forcefields to allow for better observation. --From Andoria with Love 11:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

actually, it was a hatchway farther down the ship. and picard had to open the hatch to show lily the earth. presumably the windows on the Ent-E are Transparent aluminum like the ones on the Ent-D. makes good sense, if power goes out forcefeild windows would cause the whole ship to decompress as they turned off. - Mithril 07:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Mithril here. This was neither his ready room or his quarters, it was something more akin to a junction in the jefferies tubes. We have seen his ready room in Nemesis, and his quarters in First Contact, and this room did not match. This was not a normal window. Therefore, I am removing the line about Sovereign windows being forcefields and not another material. --OuroborosCobra 07:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • not to mention, the "window" was on the floor, so again, clearly a jefferies tube-- 16:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Getting cut in half

Does Dax or someone get their hand stuck in a forcefield in an episode, and half to pull it out suffering from burns, but not limb severance? I think the whole "cut in half" speculation should be removed. 10:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, burned, no limb severance. From DS9: "Civil Defense", right before the counter-insurgency program goes to level 2. From Chakoteya's transcript DAX: I was reaching toward the ODN conduit and a small forcefield went off and it caught my hands. BASHIR: They're second degree burns but I don't think there's any neural damage. This should relieve the pain. Setacourse 00:18, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
I've added a note about this in the article, replacing the bit of speculation based on Worf's telling his security guys to stand back in "Brothers". -Mdettweiler 03:48, December 21, 2009 (UTC)


The following was added under an "inconsistencies" section, but is really just a nitpick. --From Andoria with Love 05:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of inconsistencies regarding force fields in the Star Trek universe, such as their varying ability to allow atmosphere but not a person or object to travel through. The ability of sound to travel through a force field for instance, including those which are separating one atmospheric condition from another, is conveniently never questioned. If a force field was to exist, and be separating atmospheric conditions, surely sound could not pass through since sound travels through said atmosphere.

- NOTE: Sounds can be heard through walls because the sound vibrations travelling through the air hit the wall and make smaller vibrations in the wall, that then sends the vibrations through air in the other room. I'd guess force fields work in the same way.

Selective Positioning

I added a reference to the ability of the force field to be selectively positioned, as shown in VOY: "Repentance". First of all, would that be the correct term? I wasn't sure how to properly phrase its use. Secondly, I considered adding some background info stating that since Starfleet has done away with crime for the most part, this application is not widely used and could have been jury-rigged either by Tuvok or Nygeans. However, as I consider this speculation and not canon, I refrained from adding it. If somebody could possibly confirm or elaborate on this, that would be swell. --Kahwless 09:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Annular Confinement Beam != Force Field

I see that this has just been added to the article:

In 2369 Jadzia Dax told Chief O'Brien to boost the annular containment field to stabilize the transporter signal and beam the Klingon first officer Hon-Tihl aboard. (DS9: "Dramatis Personae")

However, rather than referring to a force field, this is rather referring to the annular confinement beam, a component of the transporter which, despite Sisko's referring to it as "annular containment field" in the episode, is obviously what was being referenced. An ACB is very, very different from the force field type of containment field. For one, the fact that it was a component of the transporter in Enterprise indicates that the existence of the ACB predates the invention of the force field, and is thus most definitely *not* a force field itself. I was originally going to revert the edit myself, but since I saw it was put there by an admin, I figured I'd post here to avoid risking an edit war. ;-) -Mdettweiler 16:46, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Potential background information

Potential background information that could be added to the article:

I'm sure there are more sources of background information if I spent enough time looking. If I get a few hours to sit down with this, I'll add it but for now it's here for anybody to reference. --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:28, May 8, 2015 (UTC)

1. I found nothing of note in the scripts I checked.
2 and 3. I don't own those books.
4. Haven't watched it yet. Very busy.
5. The Trekcore article is hard to cite since we don't know where they are pulling their information from, and Trekcore isn't a site we can cite to unless they cite their stuff or it's an interview. Some of this would be good though.
6. Not really as relevant as one would think, beyond the fact that it exists.
7. There's less info at MB than there is here.
Just what I was able to get from these. - Archduk3 03:28, May 13, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.