| Subject: Re: Phasers vs. Blasters |
Author:
warsGOD
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04:40:37 08/31/02 Sat
Author Host/IP: NoHost/207.14.48.2
In reply to:
TrekGOD
's message, "Re: Phasers vs. Blasters" on 04:27:31 08/31/02 Sat
>>>>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.
warsGOD AGREES with trekGOD, there is peace in the galaxy
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 