| Subject: Re: Phasers vs. Blasters |
Author:
Wild Karrde
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 14:22:05 08/31/02 Sat
Author Host/IP: ool-43537f64.dyn.optonline.net/67.83.127.100
In reply to:
capn hayes
's message, "Re: Phasers vs. Blasters" on 13:40:23 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.
>>>
>>>and yes Paramount does endorse them as offical
>>>material for series references.
>>
>>
>>There is no "offical" for Star Trek Paramount's policy
>>is only "live-action" trek is canon, invalidating the
>>TMs.
>Does Paramount include ST:V where the Enterprise goes
>to the center of the galaxy in 7 hours? If so then how
>does Paramount officialy explain the basic premise of
>Voyager!
>Boy don't ya love "cannon" live action trek, not
>contradicting at all, is it!
Yes Paramount does include ST:5 as canon and since Voyager is also canon they couldn't have possibly traveled to the center of the galaxy in several hours since the entire Voyager series contradicts warp speed that high. So ST:5 is an anomaly and is wrong but it still needs to be rationalized.
-----
1.Sybok knew of a wormhole that led to the galactic core from near their starting location. This wormhole must have been unstable, but it might have remained stationary long enough for Sybok to pass through and for the crew to return to Federation territory afterwards.
2.Sybok might have been speaking figuratively when he said that they were headed toward the centre of the galaxy. Coruscant is invariably described as the centre of the Star Wars galaxy and sometimes even the centre of the universe, yet it is thousands of light years away from the physical centre of the galaxy and extremely far from the centre of the universe. The "Great Barrier" that he spoke of was similar to the "Great Barrier" seen in TOS, which was actually at the outer edge of the galaxy. In fact, the physical appearance of the planet, and the barrier itself, indicated that it could not have been the centre of the galaxy. The small planet in ST5 bore no resemblance whatsoever to the massive collection of stellar matter, nebular gases, and antimatter fountains which have been observed at the centre of the Milky Way galaxy.
---
Above are two explanations that show they didn't use high warp speed to get there or they simply didn't go.It really doesn't matter which explanation you pick because ST:5 is one anomaly contradicted by hundreds of episodes from each series and can't be used to prove high warp speeds.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 