Fully Built Borg Assimilated Death Star II vs Star Wars

[darthy]

Alright then, still waiting for a reply to this:-

"And by the way darthy - I noted already that your attempt to pretend that the 'vaporization' observed in Trek is actual vaporization mitigated by technobabble in no way addresses the continuance of the reaction after the cessation of beam input."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnQjLzDRcnI at 2:03. Sloan wasn't actually vaporized rather they provided the illusion that he was and secretly transported him out. So I've suggested before that it's possible that the phasers do vaporize as stated in dialogue and the matter is then removed with technology similar to transporter technology so that the excess heat and gases don't kill everyone around him.

[Vympel]

Not only is that ridiculuous (phasers and disruptors just happen to beam out all the effects of their firepower now - oh and they do so without ever beaming out too much or too little) - how is that a response to what I asked?

[Darth Tedious]

Scaling this tangent back a bit. Darth Tedious suggested that all dialogue which suggests vaporization and incineration was a figure of speech. I then stated that maybe gigaton, teraton, etc.. was a figure of speech too. Then he posted links to the star wars calculations and we began arguing about that. A very worthy argument to be sure but not for this discussion. The yield of star wars weapons compared to star trek weapons is irrelevant in this thread because the borg are using star wars tech and the death star. I can start another thread later debunking the high yield turbolaser fantasies, not here though.

I did suggest in the very comment you're referring to that you should start a seperate thread if you want to dispute the numbers.

So I've suggested before that it's possible that the phasers do vaporize as stated in dialogue and the matter is then removed with technology similar to transporter technology so that the excess heat and gases don't kill everyone around him.

So phasers are transporters too, now? This gets more creative all the time...

[Batman]

As evidenced by...nothing whatsoever and the visuals being completely incompatible with vapourization notwithstanding. I'd cut your throat with Occam's Razor except I rather suspect there's a board rule against that and besides, as Batman, I'm not allowed to kill anyway.
EDIT: Bugger. This was in response to darthy's last post.

[darthy]

Not only is that ridiculuous (phasers and disruptors just happen to beam out all the effects of their firepower now - oh and they do so without ever beaming out too much or too little) - how is that a response to what I asked?

the continuance of the reaction is displayed in this scene too. It is the effect used to remove the matter after it's been vaporized. A method similar to what transporters use to remove matter from a transporter pad. Star trek has demonstrated the ability to create the illusion of vaporization with this episode and episode "gambit part 1"

RIKER: You didn't say anything about a weapon.
YRANAC: I hadn't finished yet. You'll like this. The man got what was coming to him. When they knocked him down, one of them took out a weapon and fired. He was vaporised.
TROI: He's telling the truth.

...

PICARD: We don't have much time. It's good to see you, Will. I didn't expect to meet you here.
RIKER: I was looking to find the people who killed you on the surface. A witness said they saw you vaporised.
PICARD: These mercenaries use weapons that can activate their transporter. It gives them the opportunity to beam things quickly, just by firing at them. That's what they did to me.

[Darth Tedious]

Not only is that ridiculuous (phasers and disruptors just happen to beam out all the effects of their firepower now - oh and they do so without ever beaming out too much or too little) - how is that a response to what I asked?

the continuance of the reaction is displayed in this scene too. It is the effect used to remove the matter after it's been vaporized. A method similar to what transporters use to remove matter from a transporter pad. Star trek has demonstrated the ability to create the illusion of vaporization with this episode and episode "gambit part 1"

RIKER: You didn't say anything about a weapon.
YRANAC: I hadn't finished yet. You'll like this. The man got what was coming to him. When they knocked him down, one of them took out a weapon and fired. He was vaporised.
TROI: He's telling the truth.

...

PICARD: We don't have much time. It's good to see you, Will. I didn't expect to meet you here.
RIKER: I was looking to find the people who killed you on the surface. A witness said they saw you vaporised.
PICARD: These mercenaries use weapons that can activate their transporter. It gives them the opportunity to beam things quickly, just by firing at them. That's what they did to me.

If all phasers had the functionality of transporters, they wouldn't have considered the mercenaries' weapons to be exotic or surprising.

[Batman]

You have, naturally, evidence for phasers working that way. Because so far, it looks like this:
1) sane people explanation: phasers work on technobabble
2) your explanation: phasers work on DET vapourization but use technobabble to make all the effects we would see if they worked on DET vapourization go away.

When we already know phasers work on technobabble.

[darthy]

If all phasers had the functionality of transporters, they wouldn't have considered the mercenaries' weapons to be exotic or surprising.

The mercenaries used phasers to transport. What I suggested is that phasers remove matter the same way a transporter removes matter from a transporter pad or how replicators remove matter from the food dispenser.

episode "Nor The Battle To The Strong"

KIRBY: Whether I'd rather get hacked to bits or blasted by a disruptor.
NURSE: Disruptor, no doubt about it. Every molecule in your body vaporised in a flash. No time to feel pain.
BOLIAN: Don't be so sure about that. Some people think it's like being boiled alive.

if vaporization is a figure of speech why is it being compared to being boiled?

You have, naturally, evidence for phasers working that way. Because so far, it looks like this:
1) sane people explanation: phasers work on technobabble
2) your explanation: phasers work on DET vapourization but use technobabble to make all the effects we would see if they worked on DET vapourization go away.

When we already know phasers work on technobabble.

It is a reasonable explanation to explain the conflict between dialogue and visuals. Since there is no conflict, phasers can vaporize. Does this mean I win now?

[Darth Tedious]

if vaporization is a figure of speech why is it being compared to being boiled?

If it were not a figure of speech, there wouldn't be a comparison- being boiled is being vapourised.

Also note: You're now trying to present evidence relating do disruptors to support your argument on the nature of phasers. Are we to understand that they are two names for the same weapon now?

[Batman]

Let's see-visuals are totally incompatible with vapourization. Dialogue is known to be routinely wrong even when they're talking shop. No?
You have exactly zero evidence for phasers working that way. 100% of available evidence says phasers don't vapourize. No available evidence says they do, but all the otherwise painfully obvious side effects of them doing so get technobabbled away. Occam's Razor.

[Vympel]

the continuance of the reaction is displayed in this scene too. It is the effect used to remove the matter after it's been vaporized. A method similar to what transporters use to remove matter from a transporter pad. Star trek has demonstrated the ability to create the illusion of vaporization with this episode and episode "gambit part 1"

I'm not sure how much more simple I can make this - if a phaser beam hits someone, stops, and that person continues to 'vaporize' in the absence of the beam (which happens many, many times), per your ... explanation - then the phaser is not vaporizing anything, it is merely beaming them away. Also known as technobabble.

[darthy]

Let's see-visuals are totally incompatible with vapourization. Dialogue is known to be routinely wrong even when they're talking shop. No?
You have exactly zero evidence for phasers working that way. 100% of available evidence says phasers don't vapourize. No available evidence says they do, but all the otherwise painfully obvious side effects of them doing so get technobabbled away. Occam's Razor.

100% of available evidence says it disappears, nothing more. It says nothing about whether it causes vaporization or not. The evidence that phasers work that way is that we see that transporters can duplicate the same effect. Since they can duplicate the same effect then we know that star trek tech has the capability of beaming away super heated matter before it has time to release intense heat and gas everywhere.

I'm not sure how much more simple I can make this - if a phaser beam hits someone, stops, and that person continues to 'vaporize' in the absence of the beam (which happens many, many times), per your ... explanation - then the phaser is not vaporizing anything, it is merely beaming them away. Also known as technobabble.

it's being dematerialized while being vaporized.

[Darth Tedious]

it's being dematerialized while being vaporized.

Has it occurred to anyone else that if phasers could do this, they wouldn't need to vapourise things?

EDIT: Also, where is the 80-odd kgs of steam getting beamed to?

[HMS Sophia]

Well done on ignoring Darth Tedious' point Darthy.
Are you in fact going to claim that a disruptor is a phaser? Because that is what those characters were talking about when they talked about vaporisation, a disruptor not a phaser.

[Vympel]

it's being dematerialized while being vaporized.

No it isn't. This isn't fucking rocket surgery - if the beam has stopped, then vaporization cannot be occuring. Or do you think the energy required to vaporize an average-sized humanoid is just 'hanging around' at the impact point until it decides to propagate through the rest of the target's body? You're spouting total pseudoscientific bullshit.

[Batman]

Let's see-visuals are totally incompatible with vapourization. Dialogue is known to be routinely wrong even when they're talking shop. No?
You have exactly zero evidence for phasers working that way. 100% of available evidence says phasers don't vapourize. No available evidence says they do, but all the otherwise painfully obvious side effects of them doing so get technobabbled away. Occam's Razor.

100% of available evidence says it disappears, nothing more. It says nothing about whether it causes vaporization or not.

With none of the inevitably visible effects of vapourization. Which are curiously absent.

The evidence that phasers work that way is that we see that transporters can duplicate the same effect.

Err-that's evidence of transporters doing it. This has any bearing on phasers because?

Since they can duplicate the same effect then we know that star trek tech has the capability of beaming away super heated matter before it has time to release intense heat and gas everywhere.

Burden of proof is on you to show they do. Happily ignoring that the visuals are completely incompatible with that.

I'm not sure how much more simple I can make this - if a phaser beam hits someone, stops, and that person continues to 'vaporize' in the absence of the beam (which happens many, many times), per your ... explanation - then the phaser is not vaporizing anything, it is merely beaming them away. Also known as technobabble.

it's being dematerialized while being vaporized.

Because...you say so. So far, the evidence for phasers working the way you want them to is impressive mainly in its complete and utter refusal to exist.

[Vympel]

EDIT: Also, where is the 80-odd kgs of steam getting beamed to?

Your bringing up the question of mass is another old problem with the idiotic "phasers really vaporize" argument. Phasers ignore target mass. No matter how wildly different in size the target is, there's never too much or too little energy to do the job. Its always just enough.

[Darth Tedious]

EDIT: Also, where is the 80-odd kgs of steam getting beamed to?

Your bringing up the question of mass is another old problem with the idiotic "phasers really vaporize" argument. Phasers ignore target mass. No matter how wildly different in size the target is, there's never too much or too little energy to do the job. Its always just enough.

To be honest, I wasn't even really thinking about mass. My question was more about where the steam goes. Is it just beamed randomly? That could be dangerous in itself...

[Batman]

Hogwash. The excess energy that would have been needed to vapourize a more massive target (or have resulted in all those painfully obvious side effects we should have seen IF phasers actually vapourized their targets) obviously gets shunted off into subspace.

[Connor MacLeod]

Boiling point is a step in vaporizing an object, but they aren't neccesarily the same thing. Boiling an entire person requires considerably less energy than vaporizing them (for the water content, we're talking maybe an order of magnitude difference.) I should note rather hilariously that the implication is that for someone to state that getting hit by a disruptor is like being boiled alive is that they actually survived the experience. Which I kind of doubt if your entire body was literally boiled (much less vaporized.)

Incineration can literally mean cremation or it may just mean burnt, both are valid interpretations (In my 40K analysis I've had cases where one interpretation fits, and others where the other does, or where it is not obvious which is the case - some of which I really ought to revise at some point, but oh well.)

The real issue is the manner in which they "vaporize" people. You generally need either a very exotic energy-transfer mechanism (beam decay into penetrating radiation laterally along the path of the beam, A shot which expands to engulf the target (although such a weapon would have sucky penetration) or some sort of wide-aperture/conebeam/flamethrower is one way to do it, although unless its shot is composed of penetrating radiation odds are the enemy will dodge out of the path of the beam. A narrower beam is much more problematic, because any "vaporization" will occur more locally, and either require playing the beam over the target (which again gives time to dodge) or explosively vaporizing the target (which means of course an explosion, and that naturally can have it's own problems, the least of which is that you can blow something apart without completely vaporizing it.)

the only possible way I can see the "phaser vaporization" effect to work is if the phaser beam was composed of some sort of self-replicating explosive/incendiary compound (or some process that converts a portion of the matter into energy) that vaporizes a person a little bit at a time until the entire body is consumed, but ALSO simultaneously "disappears" the portion vaporized. It's possible, but it would be incredibly inefficient and totally, nonsensically redundant. Why the hell would anyone bother vaporizing THEN disappearing the mass, much less in a process that is much less than instantaneous? You're expending vast amounts of energy to no purpose (I doubt the "disappearing" is going to be more energy intensive than the vaporization.) - it would be far more sensible just to stick with the disappearing process (a living being isn't going to survive if you disappear his lungs, his brain or his heart, much less disappearing the whole body.) hell, Occam's Razor would tell us it makes more sense to ditch a needless additional term to simplify the explanation. On top of that, you almost certainly can get more shots and extended use out of the phaser if you don't require totla vaporization before disappearing the target.

It gets even worse when you consider that phasers are canonically not 100% efficient in the TNG era (less than 95%) - do I really need to do the math to explain that you have megajoules of waste heat being generated by the weapon. To say that this is a "bad thing" is an understatement. Even if we assume they somehow do NOT radiate that energy into the enviroment, your weapon now requires an extremely convoluted and impractical cooling and heat sink system to store and eventually dissipate that energy. Again, practicality (and Occam's Razor) dictate that the disintegration effect is all you really need the vaporization is superfluous.

[darthy]

Has it occurred to anyone else that if phasers could do this, they wouldn't need to vapourise things?

EDIT: Also, where is the 80-odd kgs of steam getting beamed to?

Maybe in some cases they don't completely vaporize. That might help alleviate some of Vympel's objections. But we do see examples of how transporter technology is used to destroy (e.g. transporter code 14). We are not told where it gets beamed to then either, nevertheless it's out of harm's way.

[Darth Tedious]

Has it occurred to anyone else that if phasers could do this, they wouldn't need to vapourise things?

EDIT: Also, where is the 80-odd kgs of steam getting beamed to?

Maybe in some cases they don't completely vaporize. That might help alleviate some of Vympel's objections. But we do see examples of how transporter technology is used to destroy (e.g. transporter code 14). We are not told where it gets beamed to then either, nevertheless it's out of harm's way.

Do you have any examples to support the idea of incomplete vapourisation?

Are you going to make any attempt to answer the main point I was making in that post (a point which Connor MacLeod elaborated on quite succinctly) ?

And can you explain how phasers are able to achieve all of these amazing effects by firing a stream of nadion particles and EM radiation at the target?

[darthy]

Do you have any examples to support the idea of incomplete vapourisation?

sure

episode "Retrospect"

SEVEN [OC]: I'm at the weapons range. Kovin had taken us there to evaluate various hand held firearms he wished to offer in trade. He attempted to impress us with a demonstration of the weapons destructive capabilities. My role was to provide a more objective analysis.
KOVIN: Terrawatt powered particle beam rifle, four microsecond recharge cycle, ten kilometre range.
PARIS: Definitely not standard Starfleet issue. What do you think?
SEVEN: Seventy two percent fragmentation, twenty eight percent vaporization. Crude, but efficient.

Since it wasn't able to vaporize the other 72% then it's incomplete vaporization.

[Darth Tedious]

Do you have any examples to support the idea of incomplete vapourisation?

sure

episode "Retrospect"

SEVEN [OC]: I'm at the weapons range. Kovin had taken us there to evaluate various hand held firearms he wished to offer in trade. He attempted to impress us with a demonstration of the weapons destructive capabilities. My role was to provide a more objective analysis.
KOVIN: Terrawatt powered particle beam rifle, four microsecond recharge cycle, ten kilometre range.
PARIS: Definitely not standard Starfleet issue. What do you think?
SEVEN: Seventy two percent fragmentation, twenty eight percent vaporization. Crude, but efficient.

Since it wasn't able to vaporize the other 72% then it's incomplete vaporization.

Too bad that was a particle beam rifle, and not a phaser.

[Connor MacLeod]

I don't find partial vaporization to be all that impossible (at least not compared to total vaporization), but it would almost certainly have to be by thermal effects rather than mechanical (eg work heating through a very high power, high energy highly concentrated energy pulse or series of pulses.) We already know phasers can have fairly not-insignificant thermal effects after all. That would almost have to be a secondary mechanism to the disntegration though, and probably a very high setting at that, vaporizing things as a kill mechanism is generally far more energy intensive than you need (compared to inflicting severe burns or boiling the interanl organs. Mechanical damage via explosive effects would be more efficient but I can't remember a case of that happening.)

There's also still the (not so small) waste heat problem. The weapons woudl still need heat sinks and associated mechanisms to get rid of heat (unless they can magic it away in some non-interacting form like neutrino radiators.) and that is going to impose certain drawbacks in the weapon.

I don't think the disintegration effect is related to transporters. Nevermind that a trnasporter needs that mass to be re-materizlied somewhere (conservation of mass and energy and all that), but if a phaser simply de-materialized stuff transporter style... no known mateiral shoudl stop it. you should be able to (for example) drill a hole through any sort of obstacle or barrier to strike at targets behind it, just demateriliaze parts or all of the cover with sustained fire, etc.)

It would make more sense to assume phasers are firing gray goo nano-wank like the Beast Infection Beam from HomeWorld Cataclysm, and the nanowank magically disaassembles the target in a matter of seconds. Hell you could have the nannites self destruct to generate thermal effects as well.