Re: Shields, Trek vs Wars? -- Star Trek vs Star Wars

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4 ]

Subject: Re: Shields, Trek vs Wars?

Author:
Wild Karrde

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01:15:54 09/02/02 Mon
Author Host/IP: ool-43537f64.dyn.optonline.net/67.83.127.100
In reply to: capn hayes 's message, "Re: Shields, Trek vs Wars?" on 18:53:35 09/01/02 Sun

>>I don't claim to anything about Trek Sheilds, but I do
>>lnow abit about Wars Shields.
>>
>>Ray shields stop all energy other than comm
>>transmisions and visible light. They are unmodular so
>>the only way to get throught them is with brute force.
>>
>>
>>Concusion shields stop all physical attacks, in a
>>manner similar to explosive reactive armor. In one of
>>the Han Solo Trilogy books they are above Nar Shadda
>>and Han watches as a large portion of a trashed battle
>>cruiser smashes into Nar Shadda's planatery shield and
>>then is seen flying the other way, only it's much
>>smaller.
>>
>>Anti-concussion shields are the reason that officers
>>and crew don't go flying around the bridge when ever
>>something explodes near, on, or inside the ship. It
>>not only stops the crew from being thrown from their
>>duty stations but it also helps to limit the damage of
>>explosions by stopping concusive energy from
>>dissrupting the stability of molocules.
>>
>>Magnetic fields are used to slow down ships of all
>>kinds. A capital ship would not be able to ram the
>>first Death Star because it had opperational magnetic
>>field generators. The second did not, and thus the
>>Executor hit it.
>
>I see, thanks Divine Shadow. This is also what I
>generaly have come to except about Star Wars shields.
>I have read also two explainations concerning Particle
>Shields, which are low powered and always up, and
>which work in concert with Ray shields. 1 they stop
>matter from passing through and are used like
>Navigational Deflectors (even being called that
>sometimes. 2 They are used to stop particles i.e.
>"nadions" from Trek. Also it was stated that Ray
>shields don't stop matter of any kind. If that's true
>then Star Trek and Star Wars are alot more different
>than was first thought. Would phasers & photon
>torpedoes be stopped by mere Particle shields? They
>might not even need to raise their Ray Shields! What
>do you think? By the way I'm not really posing the
>question about power but more technilogical
>differences. The scale, and size of the ship should
>determine how powerful its shields are, in most cases.

Just one thing about the navigational deflectors, they are completey different from the particle shields of Star Wars. Navigational deflectors are used to push particles out of the ships path while at warp. Where as the particle shields of Star Wars are hull hugging combat sheilds.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Re: Shields, Trek vs Wars?	The Divine Shadow	06:07:44 09/02/02 Mon

Re: Shields, Trek vs Wars?	capn hayes	07:30:54 09/02/02 Mon
Re: Shields, Trek vs Wars? -- capn hayes, 07:42:03 09/02/02 Mon Re: Shields, Trek vs Wars? -- Wild Karrde, 08:09:48 09/02/02 Mon Re: Shields, Trek vs Wars? -- capn hayes, 09:41:52 09/02/02 Mon