| Subject: Re: Phasers vs. Blasters |
Author:
TrekGOD
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04:27:31 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.
Funny how you guys don't consider any of the star trek tech books canon, but you always fall back on "novelizations" which are books.. if you want to be fair and balanced stick with the movies and TV series
so I consider everything you just said irrelevant to this conversation even. Don't come back and say that George Lucas endorses them blah blah blah because George Lucas might but 20th Century Fox doesn't there for it isn't canon, Gene Roddenbury endorsed the ST:TNG Tech Manual and Paramount doesn't. see a common trait here. I do. let's not lecture over what is considered canon fact unless your going to be fair. With that said let's keep it civilized and keep canon on the movie screen and on TV.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 