Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser -- 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: Turbolaser vs. Phaser

Author:
TrekGOD

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

Date Posted: 08:44:37 09/05/02 Thu
Author Host/IP: NoHost/65.163.170.60
In reply to: capn hayes 's message, "Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser" on 13:56:52 09/04/02 Wed

>>>>In all reason LASER stands for Light Amplification
>by
>>>>the Stimulated Emission of Radiation.(Duh nobody
>said
>>>it didn't) Please note the
>>>>words "Light Amplification" add a turbo infront of
>>>>that "TurboLASER" that basicly means "Greater Light
>>>>Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of
>>>>Radiation". (Please not that lasrs are only used to
>>>excite gasses in a prefire chamber and to transmit
>the
>>>particle stream.) Remember lasers CANNOT penitrate
>>>the main
>>>>navigaion shields of any Trek ships(We don't care).
>>>(we don't need to) Something you
>>>>warsies might contridict with in a star trek episode
>>>>is:
>>>>
>>>>"Q Who"
>>>>
>>>>Worf: "A type of laser beam is cutting into the
>>>>saucer section"
>>>>
>>>>later that same scene
>>>>
>>>>Data: "Tractor Beam released sir, force field is
>>>>maintaining our hull integrity"
>>>>
>>>>the force field he is refering to is th SIF all the
>>>>other shielding had failed because of the borg
>>tractor
>>>>beam including the Nav Deflector.
>>>>
>>>>Where as a PHASER is "Phased Hydrogen Amplification
>>by
>>>>the Stimulated Emission of Radiation"
>>>(Wrong phaser means "PHASed Energy Rectification")
>>>>
>>>>where Nadions are the product of the Phased
>Hydrogen,
>>>(NOT).
>>>>
>>>>And don't come back and say that "TurboLasers arn't
>>>>lasers at all" or else they won't be called lasers
>>>>they wouldl be called something else (We don't have
>>>to cause, they are part laser and part particle
>>>stream).
>>
>>I noticed you didn't defend turbolasers! speachless
>>about that topic I see.
>If you read above you will see that I not only
>correceted your errors but "defended" Turbolasers as
>well, But since you missed it I will explain again.
>Turbolasers use lasers to excite blaster gas which are
>heavy antiproton particles and fire them as a "bolt"
>at the target. When the bolt comes into contact with
>matter it transmits its energy to the matter and
>causes it become heated to a plasmatic state. The
>energy in a single Turbolaser bolt is equal to over
>800,000 Petajoules (Remember it only took two 400 GW
>particle weapon blast to leave the Enterprise D in bad
>shape!). An Imperial Star Destroyer has sixty weapons
>of this type. She also mounts 40 point defense lasers
>similiar to type X phasers at point blank range, and
>70 other weapon systems that she could bring to bear
>on any threat vessel. Oops, forgot to mention 72
>mobile weapons platforms; TIE fighters of various
>makes. In other words ISD's are very capable warships.
>Through all the debating no one has yet to mention
>their ECM capabilities!

again it uses a laser..
note: uses a laser

to "excite" blaster gas (what ever that is) to emmit an antiproton stream (in which a Trek ship is defended from)

"it's a little vueage Spock" JT Kirk

I'm still not convinced. I would at least give you this, an anti-proton would be the equiv to a nadion in these discussions; neither exist and both make the weapon work.

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