Phasers, packing crates, and toranium inlays.

[Rihannsu Science Officer]

I have decided to take on the challenge of answering why phasers cannot penetrate packing crates and this toranium stuff, without resorting to the claims that phasers are pieces of CRAP.

Phasers are weapons, not demolition tools. They are powerful enough to kill an average humanoid on higher power settings, not destroy materials. The toranium inlay or whatever that door in DS9's "The Forsaken" was made of required a "bipolar torch" (presumably a specialized cutting device) to penetrate, and it was little more effective than the phaser. The torch is clearly more powerful than the phaser, as it is designed for this kind of demolition, and demonstrated slight effect against the toranium. It is therefore more logical to assume that toranium is VERY resistant to heat than that phasers are pitifully weak, as it resisted a specially designed cutting instrument.

As for why starships aren't made of toranium, ablative armor is a far superior material, and probably cheaper. (You don't see a whole lot of stuff made of toranium in Trek episodes, do you? Maybe it's too expensive or rare?)

As for packing crates... As far as I remember, there was only ONE battle involving packing crates being used as cover, TNG's "The Vengeance Factor." It's been several months since I last saw that episode, so correct me if I make a few mistakes here.

An away team of Riker, LaForge, Worf, and Data engage a group of Gatherers armed with Rigellian phaser rifles, which Riker dismisses as being "not particularly powerful," presumably meaning inferior to Federation phasers. The Gatherers attack the away team and of course their "not particularly powerful" phaser blasts cannot penetrate the packing crates that the away team is hiding behind. The away team returns fire, probably with stun shots, fired over the crates at the attackers. Data sets fire to a pile of something called Noranium with his phaser and the away team escapes under cover of the smoke. We do not know what these crates are made of, or if the superior Federation phasers would be capable of penetrating them. Even if they could, aiming at an enemy through a hole in a crate would be difficult at best. A TR-116 modified with a microtransporter a la DS9's "Field of Fire" would have been useful, but in 2366 it probably hadn't been invented yet.

As an aside, this site shows somewhere that if phasers on "vaporize" (a misnomer, as the bodies simply seem to disappear) reduced the bodies to subatomic particles, a huge explosion would take place. I'm a math major, I have little knowledge of physics, (I learned the difference between a watt and a joule on this site, in fact.) but would it be possible to reduce a body to atomic or even molecular rather than subatomic particles without such an explosion?

[Darth Wong]

I have decided to take on the challenge of answering why phasers cannot penetrate packing crates and this toranium stuff, without resorting to the claims that phasers are pieces of CRAP.

Phasers are weapons, not demolition tools. They are powerful enough to kill an average humanoid on higher power settings, not destroy materials. The toranium inlay or whatever that door in DS9's "The Forsaken" was made of required a "bipolar torch" (presumably a specialized cutting device) to penetrate, and it was little more effective than the phaser. The torch is clearly more powerful than the phaser, as it is designed for this kind of demolition, and demonstrated slight effect against the toranium. It is therefore more logical to assume that toranium is VERY resistant to heat than that phasers are pitifully weak, as it resisted a specially designed cutting instrument.

It means they are pitifully weak compared to a bipolar torch, which was not much bigger than a phaser. The fact that it was not much bigger than a phaser limits its raw power output, so it would appear that the real difference is due to operating mechanism.

As for why starships aren't made of toranium, ablative armor is a far superior material, and probably cheaper. (You don't see a whole lot of stuff made of toranium in Trek episodes, do you? Maybe it's too expensive or rare?)

I offered several other possible explanations in the previous thread, such as the possibility that it's radioactive, or structurally weak, or too heavy.

As for packing crates... As far as I remember, there was only ONE battle involving packing crates being used as cover, TNG's "The Vengeance Factor." It's been several months since I last saw that episode, so correct me if I make a few mistakes here.

Incorrect. Packing crate duck 'n shoot battles occurred in DS9 as well, and IIRC, they also took place in the episode with Admiral Jameson (I forgot the episode name).

An away team of Riker, LaForge, Worf, and Data engage a group of Gatherers armed with Rigellian phaser rifles, which Riker dismisses as being "not particularly powerful," presumably meaning inferior to Federation phasers. The Gatherers attack the away team and of course their "not particularly powerful" phaser blasts cannot penetrate the packing crates that the away team is hiding behind. The away team returns fire, probably with stun shots, fired over the crates at the attackers. Data sets fire to a pile of something called Noranium with his phaser and the away team escapes under cover of the smoke. We do not know what these crates are made of, or if the superior Federation phasers would be capable of penetrating them. Even if they could, aiming at an enemy through a hole in a crate would be difficult at best. A TR-116 modified with a microtransporter a la DS9's "Field of Fire" would have been useful, but in 2366 it probably hadn't been invented yet.

As an aside, this site shows somewhere that if phasers on "vaporize" (a misnomer, as the bodies simply seem to disappear) reduced the bodies to subatomic particles, a huge explosion would take place. I'm a math major, I have little knowledge of physics, (I learned the difference between a watt and a joule on this site, in fact.) but would it be possible to reduce a body to atomic or even molecular rather than subatomic particles without such an explosion?

Mathematically possible in abstract theory with no conceivable mechanism, yes. With heat or any other known physical process, absolutely not.

[Praxis]

I have decided to take on the challenge of answering why phasers cannot penetrate packing crates and this toranium stuff, without resorting to the claims that phasers are pieces of CRAP.

Phasers are weapons, not demolition tools. They are powerful enough to kill an average humanoid on higher power settings, not destroy materials.

Let me explain the utter ridiculousness of this statement.

If I make a stick of dynamite that is powerful enough to blow a hole in your chest, would I say that this is unable to peirce a packing crate because "it's powerful enough to kill a human, but not materials"? NO! Anything that can kill a human, ESPECIALLY VAPORIZE a human, should EASILY break packing materials

A more realistic answer:
The NDF theory is correct- phasers cause a chain reaction in organic tissue to make a human "disappear", rather than raw power. Against non-organics, it sucks. Proof:

In TOS, they had to retune the phasers to cut through a silicon based creature.

In TNG, they barely broke a hole in a cracked bit of rock on level 16 (max).

In DS9, they can't cut through packing crates or Toranium.

[Old Plympto]

They are powerful enough to kill an average humanoid on higher power settings, not destroy materials.

In TNG, they barely broke a hole in a cracked bit of rock on level 16 (max).

That would be Chain of Command, they used Level 16 on a phaser pistol to vaporize a section off a piece of rock to reach a tunnel beyond it. By this evidence alone, I think it would definitely put your "not destroy materials" remark out of the discussion.

[Rihannsu Science Officer]

I have decided to take on the challenge of answering why phasers cannot penetrate packing crates and this toranium stuff, without resorting to the claims that phasers are pieces of CRAP.

Phasers are weapons, not demolition tools. They are powerful enough to kill an average humanoid on higher power settings, not destroy materials.

Let me explain the utter ridiculousness of this statement.

If I make a stick of dynamite that is powerful enough to blow a hole in your chest, would I say that this is unable to peirce a packing crate because "it's powerful enough to kill a human, but not materials"? NO! Anything that can kill a human, ESPECIALLY VAPORIZE a human, should EASILY break packing materials.

Actually, maybe. Human flesh is much weaker than heavy-duty metals. I believe I stated the term "vaporize" was a misnomer. No vapor. I hate to sound like a traitor to Trekkies everywhere, but what you see...

Anyway, I'm not too familiar with TOS, so I can't give a judgment there. As for TNG, I seem to remember phasers busting right through rock (a non-organic substance.) Rock is a poor conductor of energy, whereas metal is a very good conductor. Perhaps the energy from a phaser discharge is dissipated throughout a metallic object? It's definitely some kind of exotic energy going on here.

An away team of Riker, LaForge, Worf, and Data engage a group of Gatherers armed with Rigellian phaser rifles, which Riker dismisses as being "not particularly powerful," presumably meaning inferior to Federation phasers. The Gatherers attack the away team and of course their "not particularly powerful" phaser blasts cannot penetrate the packing crates that the away team is hiding behind. The away team returns fire, probably with stun shots, fired over the crates at the attackers. Data sets fire to a pile of something called Noranium with his phaser and the away team escapes under cover of the smoke. We do not know what these crates are made of, or if the superior Federation phasers would be capable of penetrating them. Even if they could, aiming at an enemy through a hole in a crate would be difficult at best. A TR-116 modified with a microtransporter a la DS9's "Field of Fire" would have been useful, but in 2366 it probably hadn't been invented yet.

As an aside, this site shows somewhere that if phasers on "vaporize" (a misnomer, as the bodies simply seem to disappear) reduced the bodies to subatomic particles, a huge explosion would take place. I'm a math major, I have little knowledge of physics, (I learned the difference between a watt and a joule on this site, in fact.) but would it be possible to reduce a body to atomic or even molecular rather than subatomic particles without such an explosion?

Mathematically possible in abstract theory with no conceivable mechanism, yes. With heat or any other known physical process, absolutely not.

The same point could be made of the theory that phasers work by reducing matter to neutrinos. Therefore, at very high settings some exotic energy reaction is at work at very high settings whether I am correct on that point or you are, so let's drop that point. Heat may be present as well (the toranium appeared to heat but take no damage) but it is definitely insufficient to vaporize much of anything. I'm trying to make the point that phasers aren't meant to pierce heavy-duty metals. (What would a Starfleet ground force do if confronted with tanks? Probably use a photon grenade launcher like Worf's weapon in Insurrection. That ought to make life difficult for an enemy tank, I assume they're superior to modern grenade launchers with 300 years to work on them.)

[Darth Wong]

Mathematically possible in abstract theory with no conceivable mechanism, yes. With heat or any other known physical process, absolutely not.

The same point could be made of the theory that phasers work by reducing matter to neutrinos.

Wrong. At least the neutrino theory doesn't require that the resulting particles magically disappear and reappear far away in order to avoid creating a massive explosion. Transition to free atoms would.

Therefore, at very high settings some exotic energy reaction is at work at very high settings whether I am correct on that point or you are, so let's drop that point. Heat may be present as well (the toranium appeared to heat but take no damage) but it is definitely insufficient to vaporize much of anything.

You don't understand; if the weapon puts out that much energy, it will go into heat if it fails to do anything else. That's the nature of thermodynamics; wasted energy does not disappear; it becomes heat. So if your imaginary exotic reaction required a huge amount of energy and it failed, then this huge amount of energy would become ordinary heat. This clearly does not happen, hence this reaction, whatever it is, obviously does not require much energy.

I'm trying to make the point that phasers aren't meant to pierce heavy-duty metals.

You are ignoring the fact that the point was originally raised in order to refute quasi-masturbatory Trekkie claims about phaser power levels.

(What would a Starfleet ground force do if confronted with tanks? Probably use a photon grenade launcher like Worf's weapon in Insurrection. That ought to make life difficult for an enemy tank, I assume they're superior to modern grenade launchers with 300 years to work on them.)

Too bad observation contradicts your assumptions.

[Rihannsu Science Officer]

You are ignoring the fact that the point was originally raised in order to refute quasi-masturbatory Trekkie claims about phaser power levels.

My mistake. I was under the impression that VS Warsies were trying to make phasers look BAD. I may be a Trekkie, but I don't believe in any of this wankery about hand phasers being as powerful as the shipboard version. Just because hand phasers can't penetrate metal well doesn't make them poor anti-personnel weapons, and that's what they're designed for, anti-personnel use. So are modern projectile weapons, which don't pierce heavy metal well either, or Imperial blasters for that matter, not that the ability to pierce thick metal would be useful, I stated earlier that aiming through a hole in a crate (door, bulkhead, etc.) is difficult in any case. No, I'm not turning this into a VS debate, merely trying to defend Federation weaponry against claims that it's junk.

[Barton]

You don't understand; if the weapon puts out that much energy, it will go into heat if it fails to do anything else. That's the nature of thermodynamics; wasted energy does not disappear; it becomes heat. So if your imaginary exotic reaction required a huge amount of energy and it failed, then this huge amount of energy would become ordinary heat. This clearly does not happen, hence this reaction, whatever it is, obviously does not require much energy.

Heat generation can be contained if you have some of dampening field with the phaser beam i.e. hand phasers can be modified to emit a make shift force field in some VOY episode.

[Stark]

Heat generation can be contained if you have some of dampening field with the phaser beam i.e. hand phasers can be modified to emit a make shift force field in some VOY episode.

'Dampening fields' can't make heat just go away. Complex mechanisms cannot be used to increase cooling. Thats like saying we could fire waste heat as a laser at our enemies; it doesn't work that way, because the laser (or the dampening field, or whatever) will generate waste heat ANYWAY, and since it had to be powered itself, probably MORE.

[Darth Wong]

There's no point even bothering with Barton's idiocy; he's a bullfucking troll.

[Rihannsu Science Officer]

There's no point even bothering with Barton's idiocy; he's a bullfucking troll.

1. Shouldn't that be "cowfucking" if he's male?

2. I wouldn't recognize a troll if one jumped out from under the bridge and stopped me, what'd he do wrong?

[andrewgpaul]

There's no point even bothering with Barton's idiocy; he's a bullfucking troll.

1. Shouldn't that be "cowfucking" if he's male?

Why, can't you be homosexual and into bestiality at the same time?


(is there a term for someone who shags animals? Zoosexual, maybe?)

[Darth Wong]

There's no point even bothering with Barton's idiocy; he's a bullfucking troll.

1. Shouldn't that be "cowfucking" if he's male?

2. I wouldn't recognize a troll if one jumped out from under the bridge and stopped me, what'd he do wrong?

Look at his post history. He always gives these useless one-line answers and when confronted with points he doesn't want to deal with, he simply ignores them. I once tried to get him to acknowledge a single point six times in a row, and six times in a row he responded by acting as if I'd never said anything about it.

[SirNitram]

You are ignoring the fact that the point was originally raised in order to refute quasi-masturbatory Trekkie claims about phaser power levels.

My mistake. I was under the impression that VS Warsies were trying to make phasers look BAD. I may be a Trekkie, but I don't believe in any of this wankery about hand phasers being as powerful as the shipboard version. Just because hand phasers can't penetrate metal well doesn't make them poor anti-personnel weapons, and that's what they're designed for, anti-personnel use. So are modern projectile weapons, which don't pierce heavy metal well either, or Imperial blasters for that matter, not that the ability to pierce thick metal would be useful, I stated earlier that aiming through a hole in a crate (door, bulkhead, etc.) is difficult in any case. No, I'm not turning this into a VS debate, merely trying to defend Federation weaponry against claims that it's junk.

It's just these three points which make them junk.

1) Poor design. Pistols and rifles have their shape because it's been found to be the most natural when aiming at a target. Even iron sights, the little nubs of metal on top of guns, are extremely important, yet these are absent in the women's razor shape of a hand phaser, or the plastic toy that is the Type-II. Ergonaminally, they are a nightmare. There has, however, been a small change here after First Contact, when we saw a far more competently made rifle.

2) Metal weakness. What happens if, in the tradition of Star Trek, they meet a knight in shining armour and have to phaser him? He's covered in metal; are they going to walk up to him and try and drill through while he's firing crossbow bolts and hacking their limbs off? Even worse, imagine a modern opponent who knew this little dirty secret of toranium, and built body armour that incorporated it?

3) Wastefulness. What the fuck is the point in disintigrating someone instead of burning a hole through them that'll be fatal?

[Rihannsu Science Officer]

It's just these three points which make them junk.

1) Poor design. Pistols and rifles have their shape because it's been found to be the most natural when aiming at a target. Even iron sights, the little nubs of metal on top of guns, are extremely important, yet these are absent in the women's razor shape of a hand phaser, or the plastic toy that is the Type-II. Ergonomically, they are a nightmare. There has, however, been a small change here after First Contact, when we saw a far more competently made rifle.

2) Metal weakness. What happens if, in the tradition of Star Trek, they meet a knight in shining armour and have to phaser him? He's covered in metal; are they going to walk up to him and try and drill through while he's firing crossbow bolts and hacking their limbs off? Even worse, imagine a modern opponent who knew this little dirty secret of toranium, and built body armour that incorporated it?

3) Wastefulness. What the fuck is the point in disintegrating someone instead of burning a hole through them that'll be fatal?

1. Sighting isn't so important with short-range weapons like pistols or small hand phasers/disruptors. Federation hand phasers only need to be accurate enough to hit someone within a few dozen meters (the usual effective range of a modern handgun, even though the bullet itself may travel much farther.) The larger Type-3 is more analogous to a modern SMG (submachine gun) or assault rifle, designed for combat at longer ranges and more intense fighting. I don't remember if it has sights on it, it's been months since I saw STFC, anyway SMG's don't usually have scopes on them, assault rifles may. I'm not in the military (yet?) but hopefully someone can straighten me out on that point.

2. They've probably dealt with metallic robots before. If they do meet a knight in armor, their phasers should be able to punch through like they did with the cooking pot in ST6. This toranium stuff is probably a much heavier metal, if that's the case body armor made of it would weigh someone down horribly. Even facing a toranium robot or android might not be difficult if they could take it out with a photon grenade launcher or other heavy weapon. In close quarters they'd probably be fucked, but they wouldn't let the enemy get that close to them, would they?

3. Phasers work on a chain reaction, that's been accepted by pretty much everyone here. This chain reaction is very efficient against most materials, and is efficient enough to disintegrate someone with only a moderate amount of energy. Of course there's raw power in there too, enough to set things afire or melt small amounts of some types of metals, but not a lot. This actually means GREATER efficiency than direct-energy transfer devices (lasers, plasma weapons, explosives, etc.). It might take, as an example, some godawful amount of energy to blast through a rock wall, but with a phaser's chain reaction, spreading through the rock wall, may only use a fraction of that energy. Besides, phasers used in combat RARELY disintegrate the target, they usually leave a burn mark and a body. (Watch the TNG episode "Night Terrors" in which the entire crew of a Federation warship kills each other except for one Betazoid survivor. Bodies of people killed by phasers on levels 6 or 7, if I remember Worf's quote correctly, remain, with burn marks. In fact, MOST phaser or disruptor deaths leave a body. Probably the higher setting is only used when one wants to be certain of the death of the intended target.) Who knows what internal damage took place inside them on that kill setting? It couldn't be blood loss like when someone's shot with a modern handgun, there's no blood IIRC. Only on higher settings does it disintegrate, like in "The Vengeance Factor."

[Darth Wong]

1. Sighting isn't so important with short-range weapons like pistols or small hand phasers/disruptors. Federation hand phasers only need to be accurate enough to hit someone within a few dozen meters (the usual effective range of a modern handgun, even though the bullet itself may travel much farther.) The larger Type-3 is more analogous to a modern SMG (submachine gun) or assault rifle, designed for combat at longer ranges and more intense fighting. I don't remember if it has sights on it, it's been months since I saw STFC, anyway SMG's don't usually have scopes on them, assault rifles may. I'm not in the military (yet?) but hopefully someone can straighten me out on that point.

All military assault rifles and pistols have sights on them. Most do not have scopes. However, a Federation hand phaser has neither, and if the rifles have a scope, it must not be that useful because they rarely use them.

2. They've probably dealt with metallic robots before.

What do you base this assumption on?

If they do meet a knight in armor, their phasers should be able to punch through like they did with the cooking pot in ST6.

That pot was probably thin-walled aluminum.

This toranium stuff is probably a much heavier metal, if that's the case body armor made of it would weigh someone down horribly. Even facing a toranium robot or android might not be difficult if they could take it out with a photon grenade launcher or other heavy weapon.

A photon grenade appears to be an EMP device, so it might indeed be effective against a robot, assuming it's not sufficiently hardened to survive the EMP. But these devices do not appear to be standard-issue. When Sisko resupplied the defenders at the Siege of AR-588, he didn't bring any.

In close quarters they'd probably be fucked, but they wouldn't let the enemy get that close to them, would they?

These are the same people who routinely get overrun by knife-wielding Klingons, remember?

3. Phasers work on a chain reaction, that's been accepted by pretty much everyone here. This chain reaction is very efficient against most materials, and is efficient enough to disintegrate someone with only a moderate amount of energy. Of course there's raw power in there too, enough to set things afire or melt small amounts of some types of metals, but not a lot. This actually means GREATER efficiency than direct-energy transfer devices (lasers, plasma weapons, explosives, etc.). It might take, as an example, some godawful amount of energy to blast through a rock wall, but with a phaser's chain reaction, spreading through the rock wall, may only use a fraction of that energy.

The problem is that combat is not about beating the enemy on efficiency; it is about not getting killed. If you have a weapon which only works well in certain situations and is near-useless in others, that is a serious window of vulnerability you're opening up for yourself. And assuming that you will always have a secondary weapon for those situations is not a solution.

Besides, phasers used in combat RARELY disintegrate the target, they usually leave a burn mark and a body. (Watch the TNG episode "Night Terrors" in which the entire crew of a Federation warship kills each other except for one Betazoid survivor. Bodies of people killed by phasers on levels 6 or 7, if I remember Worf's quote correctly, remain, with burn marks. In fact, MOST phaser or disruptor deaths leave a body. Probably the higher setting is only used when one wants to be certain of the death of the intended target.) Who knows what internal damage took place inside them on that kill setting? It couldn't be blood loss like when someone's shot with a modern handgun, there's no blood IIRC. Only on higher settings does it disintegrate, like in "The Vengeance Factor."

Agreed; they probably don't use the highest setting in military situations because it drains too much energy from the phaser with each shot, and a soldier wants lots of shots. But this does not mitigate the weaknesses of the phaser as a military weapon, unless the enemy isn't smart enough to take advantage of its weaknesses.

[SirNitram]

1. Sighting isn't so important with short-range weapons like pistols or small hand phasers/disruptors. Federation hand phasers only need to be accurate enough to hit someone within a few dozen meters (the usual effective range of a modern handgun, even though the bullet itself may travel much farther.) The larger Type-3 is more analogous to a modern SMG (submachine gun) or assault rifle, designed for combat at longer ranges and more intense fighting. I don't remember if it has sights on it, it's been months since I saw STFC, anyway SMG's don't usually have scopes on them, assault rifles may. I'm not in the military (yet?) but hopefully someone can straighten me out on that point.

Excuse me? Every pistol since flintlocks have iron sights, RSO. Phasers lack even this. They also have a ridiculous design which emphasizes firing from the hip, a tremendously bad position to fire from(There's a reason only the master gunman with no name does that in Westerns).

Worse still, they apparently badly need this assistance. Check the missrate named characters have sometime; TNG's Rascals is a glaring example of this, where Worf, mighty security officer and Klingon, gets owned by a Ferrengi in a phaser battle. A Ferrengi.

Some Pro Trek debators wax poetic about 'auto-aim' and 'off centre' firing, but auto-aim was mentioned once and has not granted them any noticable improvements, and off-centre firing was done once, and it's method of use as shown is useless for a fast paced gun duel.

2. They've probably dealt with metallic robots before. If they do meet a knight in armor, their phasers should be able to punch through like they did with the cooking pot in ST6. This toranium stuff is probably a much heavier metal, if that's the case body armor made of it would weigh someone down horribly. Even facing a toranium robot or android might not be difficult if they could take it out with a photon grenade launcher or other heavy weapon. In close quarters they'd probably be fucked, but they wouldn't let the enemy get that close to them, would they?

.....Did you just say a tin cooking pot will offer as much resistance as medieval plate armour? Are you on crack? Late medieval armour was bulletproof; it's encumberance was the reason it left the battlefield. There is zero indication of Toranium being exceptionally heavy compared to iron. The fact that a crossbow outranges most phaser combat doesn't help in this hypothetical.

Finally, Photon Grenades? We saw those once, and never did we see them with dedicated ground troops.

3. Phasers work on a chain reaction, that's been accepted by pretty much everyone here. This chain reaction is very efficient against most materials, and is efficient enough to disintegrate someone with only a moderate amount of energy. Of course there's raw power in there too, enough to set things afire or melt small amounts of some types of metals, but not a lot. This actually means GREATER efficiency than direct-energy transfer devices (lasers, plasma weapons, explosives, etc.). It might take, as an example, some godawful amount of energy to blast through a rock wall, but with a phaser's chain reaction, spreading through the rock wall, may only use a fraction of that energy. Besides, phasers used in combat RARELY disintegrate the target, they usually leave a burn mark and a body. (Watch the TNG episode "Night Terrors" in which the entire crew of a Federation warship kills each other except for one Betazoid survivor. Bodies of people killed by phasers on levels 6 or 7, if I remember Worf's quote correctly, remain, with burn marks. In fact, MOST phaser or disruptor deaths leave a body. Probably the higher setting is only used when one wants to be certain of the death of the intended target.) Who knows what internal damage took place inside them on that kill setting? It couldn't be blood loss like when someone's shot with a modern handgun, there's no blood IIRC. Only on higher settings does it disintegrate, like in "The Vengeance Factor."

Still, why the hell is there a disintigrate function? It's a waste of energy.(On later examination, the newer Phaser Rifles from First Contact lack this bizarre addition by all appearances; another thing in their favor.)

[Darth Servo]

If they do meet a knight in armor, their phasers should be able to punch through like they did with the cooking pot in ST6.

Even if we grant you the assumption that steel armor will be affected the same as a light weight cooking pot, we saw that what ever was in the pot was untouched, so the phaser would just make the armor disappear and the knight would coutinue on.

[ntstlkr]

Cheers All,

Just some musing...

The principle shortcomings of phasors extend directly from what they were envisioned to be in the beginning (simple classic "raygun") and the inconsistancies which have arisen over time as the shows writers tacked on more and more attributes.

You go from raygun that kills to raygun that kills and disintegrates it's target. Power settings you say? Ok I can accept that, however theres no consistancy (other than theatrical effect) to dictate why a particular power setting was used in one instance and not another. Throw in the whole "it can heat rocks..., stuns...wide beam...off bore shooting...etc.". Ok now it does everything but cut julien fries.

What mechanism can, by varying the power output alone, cause a transfer of energy (ray, beam, particles, whatever) that stuns on low (no matter the physiology of the individual involved, relative health, age, body mass, pre-existing medical conditions etc), heats on low-medium, kills on medium to medium high. Then totally vaporizes on high?

If the argument is made for some sort "chain reaction" being propagated by the beam, how does varying the power output keep the reaction from starting regardless of low-medium-high?

Maybe the analogy is wrong, so please forgive me, but its like saying vinegar and baking soda won't react together if I only put a little amount of one or the other together. Ok maybe that wasn't right.

How about this. We all know that uranium reacts when you get a mess of it together in one place (dispense with the enriched isotopes etc). This "chain reaction" and power settings thing is like saying uraniium won't chain react if I keep the amounts small. Sure, you might not get a critical mass followed by big boom going, but the uranium is still going to react even in small amounts. So how do you control a "chain reaction" just by varying the power setting to low? And the reaction in this instance, seems exclusively geared for organic tissue (although why do the uniforms go too?).

To me its the "majic box" syndrome. What was once a simple answer to a simple need has ballooned beyond all reason to become an end all be all wonder weapon. Kinda like that transporter thing...


And I like Star Trek!

[Lancer]

If they do meet a knight in armor, their phasers should be able to punch through like they did with the cooking pot in ST6.

Even if we grant you the assumption that steel armor will be affected the same as a light weight cooking pot, we saw that what ever was in the pot was untouched, so the phaser would just make the armor disappear and the knight would coutinue on.

ah, but that was just a phaser set to stun.

We see that at disrupt settings, it'll penetrate the metallic body armor of Klingons.

[Slartibartfast]

If they do meet a knight in armor, their phasers should be able to punch through like they did with the cooking pot in ST6.

Even if we grant you the assumption that steel armor will be affected the same as a light weight cooking pot, we saw that what ever was in the pot was untouched, so the phaser would just make the armor disappear and the knight would coutinue on.

ah, but that was just a phaser set to stun.

A phaser set to stun disintegrated a metal cooking pot? What are you smoking?

[General Zod]

If they do meet a knight in armor, their phasers should be able to punch through like they did with the cooking pot in ST6.

Even if we grant you the assumption that steel armor will be affected the same as a light weight cooking pot, we saw that what ever was in the pot was untouched, so the phaser would just make the armor disappear and the knight would coutinue on.

ah, but that was just a phaser set to stun.

We see that at disrupt settings, it'll penetrate the metallic body armor of Klingons.

are you smoking crack? in ST6 when saavik used the phaser to disintegrate the cooking pot she mentioned specifically that phasers not being on stun would set off the internal alarms. Thus she turned it to a higher setting and disintegrated the pot, promptly causing the alarms to go off to demonstrate this fact.

[Lancer]

Even if we grant you the assumption that steel armor will be affected the same as a light weight cooking pot, we saw that what ever was in the pot was untouched, so the phaser would just make the armor disappear and the knight would coutinue on.

ah, but that was just a phaser set to stun.

We see that at disrupt settings, it'll penetrate the metallic body armor of Klingons.

are you smoking crack? in ST6 when saavik used the phaser to disintegrate the cooking pot she mentioned specifically that phasers not being on stun would set off the internal alarms. Thus she turned it to a higher setting and disintegrated the pot, promptly causing the alarms to go off to demonstrate this fact.

my apologies. It's been a while since I saw ST6

[Darth Wong]

Cheers All,

Just some musing...

The principle shortcomings of phasors extend directly from what they were envisioned to be in the beginning (simple classic "raygun") and the inconsistancies which have arisen over time as the shows writers tacked on more and more attributes.

You go from raygun that kills to raygun that kills and disintegrates it's target. Power settings you say? Ok I can accept that, however theres no consistancy (other than theatrical effect) to dictate why a particular power setting was used in one instance and not another. Throw in the whole "it can heat rocks..., stuns...wide beam...off bore shooting...etc.". Ok now it does everything but cut julien fries.

Obviously, it's sloppy writing from people who are too lazy to make their characters solve problems with the tools they have, so when they get into a jam they just invent new uses for their existing tools and use "it's fictional anyway" as an excuse. But that doesn't mean we can't try and invent some kind of explanation.

What mechanism can, by varying the power output alone, cause a transfer of energy (ray, beam, particles, whatever) that stuns on low (no matter the physiology of the individual involved, relative health, age, body mass, pre-existing medical conditions etc), heats on low-medium, kills on medium to medium high. Then totally vaporizes on high?

Certain materials can burn in real-life, but only when ignited by something which can achieve a particular temperature. The assumption is that this exotic reaction is similar, in that it requires a particular exotic initiation energy at a particular level before it will start to 'burn".

To me its the "majic box" syndrome. What was once a simple answer to a simple need has ballooned beyond all reason to become an end all be all wonder weapon. Kinda like that transporter thing...

Agreed, but you can't win 'em all.

[brianeyci]

It's time to add my insignificant weight to the packing crate debate.

I searched on google for Toranium and found nothing. So from now on I'm assuming it doesn't exist in the real world.

Firstly, does anybody have any screenshots of the battles in the DS9 where the people hid behind packing crates? Especially ones which emphasize the types of weapons used on the packing crates?

We know that Toranium resists phaser fire extremely well. Or do we? Hand phasers are shit -- the Federation uses them all the time for purposes from lighting up rocks to welding a door. We know their power output would be shit. If hand phasers were powerful, why would there be any reason to use the Type-III phaser rifle? Sure there are ergonomic reasons, and a faster refire rate, but Federation has shown little concern for ergonomics in their weapons designs.. The logical reason to think of why someone would use a Type-III would be for a higher refire rate, and more powerful punch.

The "Kira used a bipolar torch" argument doesn't hold weight either. I haven't seen the episode, so I can't comment on whether there were a lot of security with Type-III's around. You could make the argument that Kira didn't want to use overkill on the door, and so on. Unless we saw a Type-III being used on that door, the door says nothing about Type-III's.

The same argument that is used against Toranium not being used on starship hulls -- namely that the power levels of starship level weapons are much greater and render Toranium-armored hulls useless -- could be used with the Type-III phaser rifle.

We also have to think of the "in-character" and "out-of-character" nature of certain arguments. For example, one of the ideas passed would be that someone could make a Toranium-armored suit. Star Trek protagonists rarely if ever wear armor (except for the Borg, and the flimsy armor of the Klingons). Armor in Star Trek is "out-of-character" for almost every character I can imagine, probably because combaty characters in Star Trek are trained to be mobile and lightweight. So although a Toranium-armored suit would be a good idea, very few would actually think of the idea, let alone consider wearing armor.

As well, if Toranium was something easily manufactured and implemented, you would think you would see Toranium on Borg drones. But what we saw in ST:FC was some leathery armor. Obviously, the Borg knew they would be facing phaser rifles, not hand phasers. Either Toranium was not available, or the Borg decided logically that phaser rifles would be used, not hand phasers. Which means the Borg thought that phaser rifles would punch through Toranium. The Hansens observed a "tactical drone" which sported Tritanium armor, so the Borg use body armor. And don't give me that shit about "The Borg are stupid". That should only be a last resort explaination, and if it is your first then your argument is weak.

So what we have are the following possibilities,

1. Toranium is effective against hand phasers.
2. Toranium is effective against all phasers, but is not in widespread use.
3. Toranium is effective against hand phasers, but is not in widespread use.

The body of evidence would suggest 3.

Brian