| Subject: Re: Phasers vs. Blasters |
Author:
BabyBel
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 21:12:50 08/31/02 Sat
Author Host/IP: webcacheB03a.cache.pol.co.uk/195.92.168.165
In reply to:
Wild Karrde
's message, "Re: Phasers vs. Blasters" on 22:31:32 08/30/02 Fri
>>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
Worf dropped his phaser and went to a weapon dealing more widespread damage, to take out a group of people hiding behind rocks with a single shot rather than several. This tells us nothing of the range of the phaser rifle, which can be found from the examples already given.
>>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.
TMs are stated to be officially reference works, "as good as canon" as one Paramount representative put it when specifically asked (Star Trek communicator, as you already know). But I'll not let you turn this debate into one of canon, as many people seem to use this merely to avoid admitting defeat. In this case, the TM is simply re-iterating canon fact.
>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.
It seems logical to test a weapon inside your own ship at maximum firepower?
Pull the other one. What if the test goes wrong? You end up damaging your own ship. It seems logical that this test was performaed at MINIMUM power, to prevent accidents destroying the engineering.
>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
Or it is used up in generating the nadions. for example, by changing the energy state of the discharge crystal without generating heat.
When you drive a car, you must take some energy from the explosion to move the components in the engine. This energy never makes it to the car itself, but it isn't turned into heat either.
>------------------------------------
>The above is from star destroyer.net
>------------------------------------
>So sorry but your wrong. Your welcome to try again
>though.
At best, I'm 15% too high - the thing only fires 850kW, rather than 1.05. You can try to ignore this with your mechanistic suppositions as much as you want, but it won't change the truth. We have a canon statement as tothe power of phasers, in a situation where it would most certainly not be advisable for them to be running at full power.
>>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.
Oh, right. If you want to take firing wildly at a massive target, rather than actually useful range, then yes, you might have a point, though then we'd have to deal with the maximum travel of a phaser beam, rather than distances they've been shown to miss at. To actually hit the target you are aiming at, however, you'd be lucky if you got past a few tens of metres with any blaster.
Name one instance where
>people were at close range with blasters and missed
RotJ, on Endor, repeatedly.
TPM, droid army vs gungans, droid army vs jedi.
AotC, in the arena.
>It doesn't
>matter how fucking accurate you or your gun is there
>is no such thing as 100% accuracy, sorry try again.
That's a good example of exagerating my argument in order to attack the exageration rather than my original argument. I never claimed there was such a thing as 100% acuracy - only that phasers and blasters are shown to have comparable useful range.
>>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.
Bullshit. It blew a few small holes in the wall of the landing bay, yet when he shot stormtroopers they fell over. If they've been hit by something with "the knockdown power of a grenade launcher" they'd've been slung back several feet, as tends to happen when a grenade goes of without blowing the target to itty bitty pieces.
The effects of han Solo's blaster on the walls of the landing dock was no better than a large-calibre rifle bullet, which typically have muzzle energies significantly less than 20kJ (coincidentally of a similar range to that attributed to Han's pistol by trek-wars.info)
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.
E-11s?
How do you know this? We never see the stormtroopers that shoot up the Jawa sandcrawler. It is entirely possible they are using heavy repeating blasters such as teh E-web, or heavier weaponry (as per EU descriptions of the event)
Compared to phasers which we've seen are
>stopped by metallic packing crates.
What was it you said earlier?
"power levels"
There are examples of blasters being blocked by wooden tables in the X-wing series of EU books, several shots that went wide and hit trees in RotJ had zero effect on the trees. They barely scratch a simple metal door in ANH, and fired on full power barely managed to blast through a very thing metal grating when rescuing Princes Leia.
in ESB the shots from AT-ATs (ie, far mroe powerful than blaster rifles) had less effect on snow than a good firework or a stick of dynamite (a few kJ), and the blaster rifles of the rebels and stormtroopers had even less of an effect.
We've got a canon power level for phasers, we've got EU power levels that fit with canon for blasters. Phasers are more powerful.
going solely with canon, that is the films & TV episodes for Trek and the films/direct novellisation of the films for Star Wars, phasers far far outclass even the big blasters of Star Wars assault vehicles.
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
I could equally say your use of stardestroyer.net is worth shit, seeing as how it was created by a rabid warsie who lowers Trek firepower and raises Star Wars' at every opportunity, but that wouldn't be debating, would it.
Deal with the information. The motivation or originator is irrelevant, particularly when they are not here to defend themselves.
(on a side note, this does seem to be your MO - someone quotes a site you don't like so you attack the author rather than the information. why stop with websites? Why not attack Paramount and have all trek declared worth shit?)
>>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.
We've seen phasers heat rocks (thermal effects), melt ice & metal(thermal effects) and generate burns (thermal effects). In one TNG example they are used specifically to vaporise some metal packing cases to generate a cloud to cover the red shirt's attack. There is certainly no lack of evidence that phasers produce thermal effects when their users want them to.
It's not a bonus but a glaring
>weakness.
It is a bonus when you put in 1.05MW and get effects that would take far more than 1.05MW out.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 