| Subject: Re: Phasers vs. Blasters |
Author:
trekie
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04:17:58 08/31/02 Sat
Author Host/IP: NoHost/65.163.170.99
In reply to:
Wild Karrde
's message, "Re: Phasers vs. Blasters" on 22:31:32 08/30/02 Fri
>>>3.Due to problems 1 and 2 it's range is drastically
>>>reduced because it lacks any kind of sighting device
>>>and it's crappy handgrip make it very difficult to
>aim
>>>at far away targets.
>>
>>Of course, we've seen there are absolutely no problems
>>aiming at targets some distance away in such exampels
>>as DS9 the circle/the siege, FC, and DS9 Rocks and
>>shoals
>
>To bad this is proven wrong in ST:I when Worf drops
>his phaser riffle in favor of a shoulder fired energy
>weapon (which I might add had less firepower than a
>modern hand grenade) to hit enemy troops no more than
>several hundred meters away. This proves that phaser
>riffles are usless at even several hundred meters
>distance.
>
>>
>>
>>>4. The only reason phasers make people disappear is
>>>due to their NDF effect allowing them to be very
>>>effective against organic materials not because they
>>>have enough power to actually vaporise someone. It
>>>should also be noted that against dense materials
>such
>>>as armour their effectiveness drops drastically.
>>
>>However, Phasers do have a basic "raw power" of just
>>over 1MW (as per TM and TNG The Mind's Eye). Anything
>>else is just an added bonus
>
>Too bad the TM aren't canon by Paramount's official
>policy and are thus worth nothing.
>
>Also about the TNG episode example:
>------------------------------------------
>TNG Season 4, Ep# 98: "The Mind's Eye"
>
> DATA: Energy flow is within normal parameters...
>from the prefire chamber... to
> the emission aperture.
> GEORDI: Rapid nadion pulse is right on target...
>beam control assembly,
> safety interlock, both check out ... beam width and
>intensity controls also
> responding correctly.
> DATA: Energy cell usage remains constant at 1.05 MJ
>per second ... curious,
> the efficiency reading on the discharge crystal is
>well above Starfleet
> specifications.
> GEORDI: Yeah... by quite a bit... 94.1% efficiency.
> DATA: Our most efficient discharge crystal typically
>fires with 86.5% efficiency.
>
>
>Ground Combat: in addition to naming numerous
>components of a phaser rifle, this scene establishes
>that Geordi and Data measured the energy drain of its
>battery to be 1.05 MW. It seems logical that this test
>was probably performed at maximum power, where small
>differences would be magnified and therefore more
>easily detected.
>
>We can confirm that the weapon is at or near its
>maximum power output by examining its stated
>efficiency rating. If the discharge crystal normally
>fires with 86.5% efficiency as per Data's explanation,
>then the remaining 13.5% has nowhere to go, does it?
>It's not going into the beam, so it must be dissipated
>to its environment in the form of heat (which can be a
>combination of radiation, convection, and waste
>matter).
>
>Therefore, if Geordi and Data are to be believed, a
>phaser rifle at full power will normally heat its
>environment to the tune of more than 140 kW! That's
>easily enough to kill its user, and that would explain
>why Geordi had to set up a special fixture for the
>rifle (presumably with active cooling), instead of
>simply holding it in his hands. It seems reasonable to
>imagine that this power setting is rarely used in
>the field, or perhaps it's even locked out so it can't
>be used except under very specialized conditions such
>as this test. Even if we imagine that the weapon dumps
>the heat in the same direction as its beam, it would
>still heat its environment and cause destructive
>thermal effects to its target which are wildly out of
>proportion to what we've seen in the show.
>
>The low efficiency of phaser discharge crystals and
>the accompanying heat discharge might help explain why
>the Federation made a change to lower-powered pulse
>rifles several years later.
>
>PS. before someone proposes a cooling system as an
>explanation for ultra high power outputs in
>conjunction with 86.5% efficiency, I would like to
>point out that cooling systems only move energy around
>rather than eliminating it (remember the First Law of
>Thermodynamics), so they would only increase the
>overall heat output.
>------------------------------------
>The above is from star destroyer.net
>------------------------------------
>So sorry but your wrong. Your welcome to try again
>though.
>
>>
>>
>>>Now let's take a look at blasters.
>>>
>>>3.A blaster has a longer range because it has sights
>>>and acutal hand grips that don't force it's user to
>>>hold it in an awkward position.
>>
>>Actually, no. Blasters do not have longer range. We've
>>seen them used, and they miss people who are only a
>>short distance away. Their stated max range is
>>120m(pistols) and 300m(rifles) - clearly, comparable
>>with phaser pistols and rifles in actual useage (I've
>>ignored tripod-mounted weapons until we have a
>>comparable weapon from Trek, though the range of the
>>E-web is only 500m)
>
>Which is contradicted in AOTC when the clonetrooper's
>blasters fired on the droid army which was a hell of
>alot futher then just 500m. Name one instance where
>people were at close range with blasters and missed
>who were not already given orders to shoot and miss
>(the stormtroopers on the DS in ANH) or were under
>heavy fire and shooting from the hip. It doesn't
>matter how fucking accurate you or your gun is there
>is no such thing as 100% accuracy, sorry try again.
>
>>
>>
>>>4.All one has to do to see the blasters are more
>>>powerful than phasers is to is look at the scene in
>>>ANH where Han uses his blaster agaisnt the
>>>stormtroopers in the Mos Eisley spaceport where it
>>>blast torso-sized chunks out of the docking bay walls
>>>showing it's knock down power is more like a grenade
>>>laucher than a handgun.
>>
>>Han Solo's blaster is rated at about 50kJ. Compare
>>with phasers rated at 1MW or more.
>>Even E-11 blaster rifles are less powerful than phaser
>>rifles.
>>(ref www.trek-wars.info/swwpower.html)
>
>Which again is contradicted by canon evidence. As I
>mentioned above Han's blaster has shown to have the
>knockdown power of a grenade launcher. E-11's have
>also been canonly proven to be much more powerful then
>phasers:
>------------------------
>ANH novelization p.86
>
> Leaving Luke to gape at the parallel sets of tracks,
>Kenobi turned his attention to
> the sandcrawler. He pointed out where single
>weapons' bursts had blasted
> away portals, treads, and support beams.
>------------------------
> All the stormtrooper's had to inflict this damge were
>their E-11's. Compared to phasers which we've seen are
>stopped by metallic packing crates. Also your
>reference is worth shit seeing as how it's a site that
>was created by a rabid trekkie who lowers Star Wars
>firepower and rasies Star Trek's at every opportunity
>
>
>>
>>Phasers are more powerful than blasters.
>>Phasers, in actual useage of like-for-like weapons,
>>have comparable range to blasters.
>>
>>The upside is, Phasers have the added bonus of NDF, on
>>top of their raw power.
>
>Phasers rely on soley on the NDF effect seeing as
>there are many canon examples that show they prouduce
>no thermal effects. It's not a bonus but a glaring
>weakness.
and yes Paramount does endorse them as offical material for series references.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 