| Subject: Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser |
Author:
capn hayes
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 21:27:06 09/06/02 Fri
Author Host/IP: NoHost/207.14.48.2
In reply to:
TrekGOD
's message, "Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser" on 16:46:52 09/06/02 Fri
>>>This Is for Baby Bel.
>>
>>I'm honored.
>>
>>> You failed to understand my
>>>point about phasers.
>>
>>your point being "I don't care how powerful they are
>>canonally stated to be, they aren't that powerflu". I
>>understood perfectly.
>>
>>
>>> They aren't as powerful as you
>>>make them out to be The "Futures End" [VGR] episode
>>>was an example of that.
>>
>>No, it wasn't. I gave specific canon evidence as to
>>the power of phasers, and you gave examples where
>>phasers didn't act as you expect them to with zero
>>conclusions as to their actual power from that
>>example, and declare the canon statement of power to
>>be wrong.
>>
>>> In "Insurection" at the cave
>>>scene you state power levels? Aren't phasers able to
>>>dial down their power and distribute that power at a
>>>wide angle setting eliminatine the need for multiple
>>>weapons hits? Yeah they are so it would be reasonable
>>>to assume the need for extra firepower was because
>>>phasers aren't as powerful as some people (like you)
>>>think they are!
>>
>>Or that there was some other reason to use multiple
>>phasers. You will recall that every conclusion as to
>>phaser power I gave was a direct canon statement. It
>>wasn't what i thought about them - it was what we were
>>told they were.
>>
>>> Believe me I could go on but I trust
>>>my point has been made.
>>
>>Your point being a canon statement of firepower should
>>be ignored in favour of how you think phasers should
>>act. You made that point well enough in the previous
>>thread.
>>
>>
>> I honestly would put a type 2
>>>phaser at full power to be equal to a E-Web heavy
>>>reapeating cannon. But a phaser would be out of power
>>>after around 45 second, but would over heat after 6
>>>seconds.
>>
>>And without all the massive power packs and advanced
>>cooling systems that cannot realistically be fitted on
>>a single-manned weapon, the E-web would be out of
>>power after a couple of shots, and overheat even
>>sooner.
>
>I have something to say here. Even a phaser at
>maximum power has limited amounts of shots.
>
>>
>>Of course, you'll object to this, as is your right,
>>seeing as I have provided no evidence for my opinion.
>>But then, you haven't provided a single reason to
>>believe your claims regarding the type 2 are correct,
>>either.
>>
>>This post should have been made in response to the
>>other thread - it has little to do with the discussion
>>here.
Okay stop whinning about where the post goes and read. You (Baby Bel) have still not provided any evidence at all to support your argument that phasers (on average)are more powerful than blasters. All of your "canon" examples no matter what explainiation is givin do not support your claims. Further I submit to you that by comparing a tiny type 2 hand phaser to a gigantic E-Web I was in fact trying to agree with you, that on its highest setting a phaser does in fact produce a more powerful discharge than a blaster of comparable size. This ties in with what I have been trying to say in this thread about the differences between phasers and turbolasers. One fires "nadion" partilces, one fires "antproton" particles. The diference? PHASed Energy Rectification, to produce a nadion pulse. Light Amplified through Stimulation of Emmited Radiation, to excite antiproton particles into a plasmatic state. Both really cool ways of says "We can fire a Directed Energy Weapon at you that can vaporize your sorry ass!" The diference is, none.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
