| Subject: Re: Phasers vs. Blasters |
Author:
TrekGOD
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 15:43:18 08/31/02 Sat
Author Host/IP: NoHost/65.163.170.241
In reply to:
WarsGOD
's message, "Re: Phasers vs. Blasters" on 13:54:59 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
> On second thought "Cry havok, and unleash the dogs of
>war!" TrekGOD has commited blasphmy! 20th Century Fox
>is ONLY the distributor of the films. Lucasfilm
>Licencing which includes Lucas Books & Del Ray hold
>the copyright to novelizations. Not to mention that
>George Lucas did write Star Wars the novel(how much
>more offical can you get)! But I still think that the
>TNG Tech Manual should be considered a cannon source
>of info. It's what the writers are supposed to use as
>a reference, like a bible for the show. For WarsGOD
>sake we should be fair and balanced, and not exclude a
>potentialy valuable source of info just because we
>find it inconveinent on occasion.
Just like Paramount is just the distributor of Star Trek movies and production. And Star Trek Corprate does the licensing just like lucas films.. so I havn't commited blasphamy. my point is still revevent.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 