A question about fighters

[Junghalli]

Err-every weapon that doesn't continously fire for all eternity has. I presume you mean 'faster' refire rates.

I mean that phaser strips are continuous beam weapons, while pulse phasers shoot and then stop and then shoot again, presumably because they're recharging or need time to cool down. Either one suggest they're more powerful than beam phasers

Err, what? They need that time to recharge.

Which suggest they're more powerful, because they consume all their energy in a single burst. Phaser strips don't need to recharge because they don't consume as much energy at a time so they can be recharged before their charge runs out. The best analogy I can think of is that a phaser strip is like a flashlight and a pulse phaser is like the flash bulb in a camera.

Quite the opposite, actually. Given they're based on the same power generation/storage technology, if anything that indicates they're less powerful.

Let me put it this way. Suppose you have a phaser strip and a pulse phaser, each with a charge of 60 watts. The phaser strip fires for ten seconds, and therefore would have a power level of 6 watts. The pulse phaser emits a 60 joule burst. The pulse phaser delivers more energy in less time, therefore it is more powerful.

[The Silence and I]

And that's assuming phaser firepower is actually limited only by available power. Wether it's fed by a nuclear power plant or a diesel generator is sort of irrelevant to the brightness of a 60W light bulb

A good point in and of itself, but I think phasers can handle a larger feed than they typically get. I will attempt to back this up of course as no one is running with it

This may surprise you, but I am, because Trek is lousy with examples of power being rerouted to increase phaser firepower, hence the 'only' qualifier.

Well ok then

What I wanted to point out is that just because you've got let's say thrice the reactor output available does not automatically mean the phasers can handle it. Personally, I think Trek power plants are quite simply not up to suppying all their systems at peak efficiency simultaneously.

I understand the point, and I agree; their power supply systems could use tweaking.

Anyway, the bit of dialog I was thinking of is from "Defiant"

RIKER
Running the plasma conduit through
the primary phaser coupling has almost
doubled your phaser power. But
doesn't that reduce warp drive
efficiency?

KIRA
Not at all. In fact, it's thirty
percent more efficient.

RIKER
That's ingenious.
(works console)
I want to see how this is all routed
through the tactical display.

"The plasma conduit" and "reduce warp drive efficiency" implied to me the plasma conduit he refered to was the main one coming off the warp core which is shunted to the nacelles in most other vessels. Also as any phaser will be shunted through some EPS conduit specifying one in particular doesn't make sense unless it is a big one unused for weapon power usually.

Alyeska said it better though, the per shot power may not be better but the direct power feed allows sustained rapid firing.

[Batman]

Err-every weapon that doesn't continously fire for all eternity has. I presume you mean 'faster' refire rates.

I mean that phaser strips are continuous beam weapons, while pulse phasers shoot and then stop and then shoot again, presumably because they're recharging or need time to cool down.

So do beam phasers.

Either one suggest they're more powerful than beam phasers.

Quite the opposite, as their recharging/cooldown time is much lower.

Err, what? They need that time to recharge.

Which suggest they're more powerful, because they consume all their energy in a single burst.

I was talking about beam phasers, you know

Phaser strips don't need to recharge because they don't consume as much energy at a time so they can be recharged before their charge runs out.

Too bad pulse phasers use just as much energy at a time thanks to their refire rate.

The best analogy I can think of is that a phaser strip is like a flashlight and a pulse phaser is like the flash bulb in a camera.

Too bad we never see a phaser array fire for more than a few seconds. Not only do they need to recharge too, but the refire rate of pulse phasers says that since they're based on the same technology, they're likely to be weaker.

Quite the opposite, actually. Given they're based on the same power generation/storage technology, if anything that indicates they're less powerful.

Let me put it this way. Suppose you have a phaser strip and a pulse phaser, each with a charge of 60 watts. The phaser strip fires for ten seconds, and therefore would have a power level of 6 watts. The pulse phaser emits a 60 joule burst. The pulse phaser delivers more energy in less time, therefore it is more powerful.

Too bad that in those 10 seconds, if the pulse phaser fires 10 bursts, it's down to 6 watts, too...

[Junghalli]

So do beam phasers.

Beam phasers require time to recharge (other than after the whole fuel supply or battery has been drained)? I did not know that. Thanks.

Too bad pulse phasers use just as much energy at a time thanks to their refire rate.

It makes more sense to me that pulse phasers would emit high intensity bursts and beam phasers would emit lower intensity continuous beams. Hence the need to recharge between pulses.

Too bad that in those 10 seconds, if the pulse phaser fires 10 bursts, it's down to 6 watts, too...

OK, what does it mean that the pulse phaser is recharging. There are two possibilities.
(1) It has some kind of battery that needs to be recharged off the warp core.
(2) There isn't enough reactant in the warp core to power another pulse, and new reactant must be piped in.
Supposedly the Defiant's pulse phaser is directly powered by the warp core, making #1 unlikely. That leaves option #2.
A beam phaser cannot deplete the warp core in such a manner, or at least it must take much longer to deplete the the warp core. Otherwise beam phasers would be impractical. Thus is you run a beam phaser and a pulse phaser from the same power source the pulse phaser will deliver more energy in less time. Like I said, the pulse phaser will put out a 60 joule burst and the pulse phaser will deliver a 6 watt beam for ten seconds.

[Batman]

So do beam phasers.

Beam phasers require time to recharge (other than after the whole fuel supply or battery has been drained)? I did not know that. Thanks.

Pray tell me why we don't see beam phasers fire for minutes at a time if they don't.

Too bad pulse phasers use just as much energy at a time thanks to their refire rate.

It makes more sense to me that pulse phasers would emit high intensity bursts and beam phasers would emit lower intensity continuous beams. Hence the need to recharge between pulses.

Too bad that in those 10 seconds, if the pulse phaser fires 10 bursts, it's down to 6 watts, too...

Thus is you run a beam phaser and a pulse phaser from the same power source the pulse phaser will deliver more energy in less time. Like I said, the pulse phaser will put out a 60 joule burst and the pulse phaser will deliver a 6 watt beam for ten seconds.

Assuming the pulse phaser fires once every 10 seconds you moron.
As their refire rate is canonically considerably higher than that, either power generation/storage technology has made an orders of magnitude leap forward (for which their is no indication) OR their firepower is actually not much greater if at all than a beam phaser's.

[Alyeska]

PPCs have an observed refire rate of 4 pulses PER SECOND and the ability to fire for up to 3 seconds. With 4 PPCs, thats a grand total of 48 PPC pulses in 3 seconds.

[Junghalli]

Pray tell me why we don't see beam phasers fire for minutes at a time if they don't.

Just for the record, I wasn't being sarcastic there.
I would think either because it would overheat if you did that or because it would eventually need to be recharged just like a pulse phaser.

Assuming the pulse phaser fires once every 10 seconds you moron.
As their refire rate is canonically considerably higher than that, either power generation/storage technology has made an orders of magnitude leap forward (for which their is no indication) OR their firepower is actually not much greater if at all than a beam phaser's.

The refire rate of the pulse phaser has absolutely NOTHING to do with my argument.
There is NO EVIDENCE for the Defiant's pulse phasers being powered from anything but a direct tap off the warp core. So, if they need to recharge it must be because the warp core has been depleted. The warp core is replenished between one pulse and the next. So, a pulse phaser depletes the warp core in less than 1/4 of a second (thanks Alyeska), while a beam phaser takes something like ten or twenty second to deplete the warp core. That only makes it fucking OBVIOUS that a pulse phaser uses as much energy in less than 1/4 of a second than a beam phaser uses in ten seconds.
Now if you have any EVIDENCE that there's some kind of intermediate battery that powers the pulse phasers instead of it being a direct feed from the warp core I'm all ears.

[Junghalli]

Just getting rid of a double post, ignore this. How do you delete a post anyway?

[brianeyci]

There might be another argument why phasers don't fire for minutes at a time.

Phasers may be able to fire for minutes at a time, but choose not to. Since punching through a section of an enemy's shield requires concentrated firepower so that the shield does not "recalibrate" to the damaged shield section, phasers may be programmed or deliberately set to fire an intense burst for a few seconds, wait, and fire another intense burst rather than a low-intensity continuous fire beam.

Twelve seconds is the longest we've seen, and that's with a modified phaser array.

Brian

[Batman]

OK, Junghalli.
1. Either phasers have a battery or not. The existence of phaser 'banks' and phasers running out of power seems to indicate they do. Since beam phasers do, the default assumption is that pulse phasers do, too, until evidence to the contrary is presented. And no, your bit of dialogue is NOT conclusive evidence. That can be interpreted any which way.
OR they're fed directly from the core. In which case beam phasers, being less energy intensive, should be able to fire freaking forever. Somehow, we never ever see that. If thhe Warp core can be 'recharged' in 1/4th of a second, that means over a 10-second discharge, a beam phaser can be recharged 40 times.
2. I see you blithely assume the gap between pulses is due to the need to recharge. Evidence, please. Furthermore, if that is so why pray tell do we never see PPCs fire for more than a few seconds at a time?
3. As by your reasoning PPCs are orders of magnitude more powerful than beam ones, one wonders why they keep using them.

[Batman]

There might be another argument why phasers don't fire for minutes at a time.
Phasers may be able to fire for minutes at a time, but choose not to. Since punching through a section of an enemy's shield requires concentrated firepower so that the shield does not "recalibrate" to the damaged shield section, phasers may be programmed or deliberately set to fire an intense burst for a few seconds, wait, and fire another intense burst rather than a low-intensity continuous fire beam.
Twelve seconds is the longest we've seen, and that's with a modified phaser array.
Brian

Why pray tell must a long beam be lower intensity than a short one?
I agree that firing a long low-intensity one is stupid as opposed to a short high-intensity one , but why must the long one be of lower intensity by defiinition? IF, as Junghalli suggests, a direct tap of ther Warp core can recharge PPCs in 1/4th of a second, that means 4 recharges every second for the beam phaser. That tap doesn't magically go away after 12 seconds, you know.

[Alyeska]

Fact of the matter is, phasers have a set power for the majority of the time. Using extra power on phasers with arrays allows you to juice them up a little bit, but you still have to build up that power. Nemesis is a perfect example of how capacitors work with phasers. You have an initial charge that allows the ship a significant alpha strike against its enemies. Sovereign class ships come out to 20+ shots in under five seconds. Galaxy class ships get about a dozen over a span of 10 seconds. Once your capacitors are depleted you must get a diredt feed from the power source. This significantly slows down the rate of phaser fire. This explains why a Trek ship will open up with everything, then settle down to a few shots. It also explains why the Defiant fires in groups of pulses and never constant. Durring the assault at Chin'Toka the Defiant fired two grouped pulses at the same OWP.

Direct warp power feed allows for a faster charge on phasers. Fussion reactors can power up a capacitor, but might be limited to 3 shots per ten seconds. Warp core lets you fire a shot a second and charges the phase capacitors faster allowing another alpha strike quicker.

The Defiant itself appears to pull its power very quickly. Ocassionaly it can fire sustained bursts for 3-4 seconds, but usualy it fires a nice second burst, waits 2 seconds, fires another second burst. I think the Defiants refire rate is more heavily tied to its power systems (ie warp core) then bigger ships. Its designed purely for combat and doesn't have all that much extra power going to non combat systems like a Galaxy. This means they might have more power going to phaser recharge at times while more to shields or engines at different times.

[Junghalli]

1. Either phasers have a battery or not. The existence of phaser 'banks' and phasers running out of power seems to indicate they do.

I thought phaser banks referred to the exact mechanism of the gun, although I could very well be wrong about that. However, I would submit that in TMP Decker told Kirk that the Enterprise's phaser were powered from the warp core (therefore they cannot fire while the warp core isn't working-unlikely if there was an intermediate battery involved. Also IIRC the Defiant's pulse phasers were explicitly said to be powered by the warp core. Also, for what it's worth, unless there's some engineering constraint I don't know about NOT powering your weapons off your main reactor is stupid.

OR they're fed directly from the core. In which case beam phasers, being less energy intensive, should be able to fire freaking forever. Somehow, we never ever see that.

The warp core contains a finite amount of reactant at a time. It's quite possible that when the phasers are fired they drain so much power that new reactant can't be piped in fast enough to replace what's been used up. This is the best explanation IMO for the phasers needing to be recharged (more reactant must be piped into the chamber). If this is true then beam phasers use up less reactant (i.e. less energy) at a time than pulse phasers, since pulse phasers deplete the warp core in a fraction of a second and beam phasers don't.

If thhe Warp core can be 'recharged' in 1/4th of a second, that means over a 10-second discharge, a beam phaser can be recharged 40 times.

No, my argument rests on the assumption that beam phasers can work because they use up much less energy at a time than pulse phasers. Let me put it this way. Suppose you have two flashlights, both powered by a pair of AA batteries. Flashlight A drains its battery in ten minutes but flashlight B shines for over an hour. Unless flashlight A is hideously inefficient the most reasonable explanation is that A emits a brighter light, make sense?

I see you blithely assume the gap between pulses is due to the need to recharge. Evidence, please.

Actually as I remember it was somebody else who said that the Defiants pulse phasers couldn't emit beams because they were recharging between pulses. My original idea was that they needed to cool down between pulses or otherwise they'd overheat. Either way it suggests pulse phasers are more powerful than beam phasers (beam phasers in that scenario wouldn't need to cool down because there isn't as much juice going through them).

Furthermore, if that is so why pray tell do we never see PPCs fire for more than a few seconds at a time?

The best thing I can think of is that they're prone to overheating. Remember that if they really tap the ship's power there are at least GW of energy moving through those things with each pulse. They must have uber-cooling systems as it is not to burn out after just one pulse. Either that, or it puts a lot of stress on the reactor. Remember, it's being drained and recharged every 1/4 of a second, that can't exactly be healthy for it.

As by your reasoning PPCs are orders of magnitude more powerful than beam ones, one wonders why they keep using them.

Please don't strawman me. First I never said orders of magnitude more powerful, just more powerful. Second, phaser strips offer a vastly superior range of fire. A ship with pulse phasers can only shoot in the direction the phaser is pointing. For instance, the Defiant's phasers face front and back, so if an enemy hits them from the side they have to change position to shoot back. Try the same trick with a Sovereign and you'll get nailed because the Sovereign's pulse phasers have an almost 360 degree arc of fire. With that in mind if makes perfect sense that big ships like Sovereigns would still mount phaser strips because they're less maneuverable.

[Batman]

1. Either phasers have a battery or not. The existence of phaser 'banks' and phasers running out of power seems to indicate they do.

I thought phaser banks referred to the exact mechanism of the gun, although I could very well be wrong about that. However, I would submit that in TMP Decker told Kirk that the Enterprise's phaser were powered from the warp core (therefore they cannot fire while the warp core isn't working-unlikely if there was an intermediate battery involved.

Really. What pray tell is charging your battery if the Warp core is offline?

Also IIRC the Defiant's pulse phasers were explicitly said to be powered by the warp core.

Where, exactly?

Also, for what it's worth, unless there's some engineering constraint I don't know about NOT powering your weapons off your main reactor is stupid.

Let's see-power fluctuations, power being delivered wether or not the phaser is operating, ability to use the phaser even if the Warp drive is offline...

OR they're fed directly from the core. In which case beam phasers, being less energy intensive, should be able to fire freaking forever. Somehow, we never ever see that.

The warp core contains a finite amount of reactant at a time. It's quite possible that when the phasers are fired they drain so much power that new reactant can't be piped in fast enough to replace what's been used up.

No, as thanks to your theory, the time needed to pipe in new reactant is one quarter of a second.

This is the best explanation IMO for the phasers needing to be recharged (more reactant must be piped into the chamber).

No. See above.

If this is true then beam phasers use up less reactant (i.e. less energy) at a time than pulse phasers, since pulse phasers deplete the warp core in a fraction of a second and beam phasers don't.

Correct. Too bad that since beam phasers deplete reactant at a lesser rate than pulse ones do AND we know that the Warp core can be 'refueled' 4 times a second, beam phasers STILL should be able to fire forever.

If thhe Warp core can be 'recharged' in 1/4th of a second, that means over a 10-second discharge, a beam phaser can be recharged 40 times.

No, my argument rests on the assumption that beam phasers can work because they use up much less energy at a time than pulse phasers. Let me put it this way. Suppose you have two flashlights, both powered by a pair of AA batteries. Flashlight A drains its battery in ten minutes but flashlight B shines for over an hour. Unless flashlight A is hideously inefficient the most reasonable explanation is that A emits a brighter light, make sense?

Only if you assume phasers work off some kind of battery. Which sort of is my point.

I see you blithely assume the gap between pulses is due to the need to recharge. Evidence, please.

Actually as I remember it was somebody else who said that the Defiants pulse phasers couldn't emit beams because they were recharging between pulses.

Then either your memory is wrong or whoever came up with that is a moron. There are to my knowledge no incidents of PPCs firing beams.

My original idea was that they needed to cool down between pulses or otherwise they'd overheat.

IOW, it's not tied to their recharge rate.

Either way it suggests pulse phasers are more powerful than beam phasers (beam phasers in that scenario wouldn't need to cool down because there isn't as much juice going through them).

No? There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of PPCs being vastly more poweful than beam phasers.

Furthermore, if that is so why pray tell do we never see PPCs fire for more than a few seconds at a time?

The best thing I can think of is that they're prone to overheating. Remember that if they really tap the ship's power there are at least GW of energy moving through those things with each pulse.

As evidenced by what? And that should be GJ while we're at it. It's a bolt weapon, after all.

They must have uber-cooling systems as it is not to burn out after just one pulse. Either that, or it puts a lot of stress on the reactor.

Evidence please.

Remember, it's being drained and recharged every 1/4 of a second, that can't exactly be healthy for it.

No, you claim it is. There's exactly no evidence whatsoever for that actually happening.

As by your reasoning PPCs are orders of magnitude more powerful than beam ones, one wonders why they keep using them.

Please don't strawman me. First I never said orders of magnitude more powerful, just more powerful.

Yes you did. Same energy delivered as a 10sec phaser strike per bolt times 40 bolts for the beam duration DOES equal orders of magnitude more powerful.

Second, phaser strips offer a vastly superior range of fire. A ship with pulse phasers can only shoot in the direction the phaser is pointing.

So mount PPCs facing in all directions.

For instance, the Defiant's phasers face front and back, so if an enemy hits them from the side they have to change position to shoot back. Try the same trick with a Sovereign and you'll get nailed because the Sovereign's pulse phasers have an almost 360 degree arc of fire.

Didn't you just argue a ship with PPCs has a limited field of fire?

With that in mind if makes perfect sense that big ships like Sovereigns would still mount phaser strips because they're less maneuverable.

Pure garbage. IF PPCs were as absurdly poweful as you think the Sovereign would mount shitloads of them, and a few strip phasers for flexibility's sake.

[Junghalli]

Really. What pray tell is charging your battery if the Warp core is offline?

Err, wouldn't it make sense that the phaser battery automatically charges itself from the engine, like a car battery? Or that it would be charged in space dock. Why the hell would they leave spacedock with a depleted weapons array?

Let's see-power fluctuations, power being delivered wether or not the phaser is operating, ability to use the phaser even if the Warp drive is offline...

OK, a battery would make sense as a back-up power supply. But why not also have a direct power feed to the warp core (as is supported to TMP dialog)? You're saying that they limit their firepower to what the battery can hold. That's stupid when they draw energy straight from the reactor. As for power fluctations, that's what surge protectors are for.

Correct. Too bad that since beam phasers deplete reactant at a lesser rate than pulse ones do AND we know that the Warp core can be 'refueled' 4 times a second, beam phasers STILL should be able to fire forever.

OK, you get a partial concession. That model was flawed.
Most likely reason that beam phasers can't fire forever is the same reason it would be a bad idea to leave your microwave on for three weeks straight. You get problems with overheating and if you don't give the machinery a rest it burns out.

this means that the power requirement for achieving warp 1 is approximately 20 GW

Based on this it's safe to say that phasers are in the GW range. That means that there's GJ of energy running through a phaser array as it fires. Obviously if you keep that up for very long the machinery is going to start to overheat.

Only if you assume phasers work off some kind of battery. Which sort of is my point.

We have two alternatives here. Pulse phasers deplete the warp core and beam phasers don't, or pulse phasers need to be allowed to cool off frequently or else they'll overheat. Either one suggests that a pulse phaser is more powerful than a beam phaser. Unless you're suggesting that a pulse phaser is a beam phaser with a substandard power source. Why the fuck would anybody install such an inferior weapon in the supposedly state-of-the-art Defiant class?

Then either your memory is wrong or whoever came up with that is a moron. There are to my knowledge no incidents of PPCs firing beams.

I believe that was suggested as the reason why PPCs couldn't fire beams.

No? There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of PPCs being vastly more poweful than beam phasers.

Let's see. Pulse phasers have several significant disadvantages to phaser strips. They offer a drastically reduced arc of fire and are less accurate. Those are some pretty heavy sacrifices, and methinks there must be some benefit to using them that makes those sacrifices worthwhile. Aside from an increase in power the only thing I can think of was that it was designed to punch through Borg shields by constantly remodulating itself, but I don't see why it would have to be a pulse weapon to do that (you don't have to interrupt a beam to change its frequency).

As evidenced by what? And that should be GJ while we're at it. It's a bolt weapon, after all.

As evidenced by the fact that a warp capable ship has to have a peak power output of at the very least 20 GW. So unless the phasers are ridiculously underpowered they will put out GJ of energy.

They must have uber-cooling systems as it is not to burn out after just one pulse. Either that, or it puts a lot of stress on the reactor.

Evidence please.

See above, and take a moment to think about what a GJ or three of waste heat with every single pulse, four pulses a second, would do to the machinery of the phaser if you didn't have one heck of a cooling system at work.

So mount PPCs facing in all directions.

Phaser strips have an almost 360 degree arc of fire. Their only blind spot is directly behind the connecting struts of the warp nacceles. The enemy just can't maneuver around them and still get close to the ship. That's a big advantage over pulse phasers.

Didn't you just argue a ship with PPCs has a limited field of fire?

Uh, yeah , and the Sovereign's phaser strip doesn't. Your point?

Pure garbage. IF PPCs were as absurdly poweful as you think the Sovereign would mount shitloads of them, and a few strip phasers for flexibility's sake.

Don't forget, however, that while a pulse phaser releases more energy with each pulse, a beam phaser releases more energy total. If pulse phasers are four times as powerful as beam phasers, and each pulse is 1/8 of a second (the pulse itself, not the resting period) then the beam phaser would deliver twice as much energy to the target if it managed to drill it for all of one second. Combined with the 360 degree arc of fire a phaser strip offers that means that pulse phasers won't render them obsolete.

[Bounty]

I would submit that in TMP Decker told Kirk that the Enterprise's phaser were powered from the warp core (therefore they cannot fire while the warp core isn't working-unlikely if there was an intermediate battery involved.

The dialogue in TMP stated that the phasers were routed through the core to boost their power, and since the core - at the time of the funky wormhole incident - was unstable and clearly not working properly, it would not have been a good idea to run the extra phaser power through it.

KIRK
Explanation, Mr. Decker: Why was
my phaser order countermanded?

DECKER
(cool, polite)
Sir, the Enterprise redesign
increases phaser power by
channeling it through the main
engines. When they went into
anti-matter imbalance, the
phasers were automatically cut
off.

And it's also irrelevant - in TWOK, the Enterprise fires it's phasers even though it's been explicitly stated that all power except the batteries is knocked out (after Khan's first attack), and again inside the nebula, with main power off-line.

[brianeyci]

And it's also irrelevant - in TWOK, the Enterprise fires it's phasers even though it's been explicitly stated that all power except the batteries is knocked out (after Khan's first attack), and again inside the nebula, with main power off-line.

Scotty : A few shots sir!

Spock : Not enough to get through their shields

Obviously whatever they took out greatly affected their phaser firepower. (I believe it was the "main energizer" whatever that is)

Brian

[brianeyci]

Guys, use your units correctly. Watt is a unit of power. Joule is a unit of energy. A watt is defined as joule/second. So power * time = energy.
If you need more information on this, ask me and I'll type up a quick physics lesson. But saying 10 GW of energy is absurd.

I know basic units man. It is what they mean when they say 10 GJ for a continuous beam weapon that I don't understand. It is a continuous beam weapon, so when you say 10 GJ, what the hell does that mean? Ten GJ/s? Ten GJ/shot? But there is no shot, it is continuous beam. We're not talking about blaster bolts here.

Sure, you can divide how long the phaser fires. But unless the phase pistol fires far longer than conventional phasers (I didn't see the episode), if the phase pistol fires for one second that's 10 GW. Keep in mind this was a specially modified phase pistol.

DATA
Energy cell usage remains
constant at one-point-oh-five
megajoules per second.

See here, Data does not use MW (although he does mention per second). An interesting thing to note is that the phaser uses 1.05 MJ per second of energy, yet phasers are supposed to have only 4.7 MJ of battery life. This is mentioned as standard and not unusual later in the script, so they didn't modify the phaser rifle... only the "efficiency" is increased. Probably has to do with Trek writers' ignorance of conservation of energy with "regenerative phasers".

<edit>Actually, its not 10 GW its 10 MW, sorry. The phase pistol was overloaded to 10 MJ, probably meaning 10 MW unless the phase pistol shoots for more than a second.</edit>

Brian

[Batman]

Scotty : A few shots sir!
Spock : Not enough to get through their shields

Obviously whatever they took out greatly affected their phaser firepower. (I believe it was the "main energizer" whatever that is)

Says who? Scotty doesn't say 'weak' shots, he says 'few'. Indeed, as the Enterprise's phasers DON'T do significantly less damage on emergency power than the Defiant's did when she was unscratched.
If, however. phasers are run of some sort a capacitor (someone came up with the idea of those being the actual phaser 'banks' mentioned on screen) this makes perfect sense-the capacitors have enough juice for a few shots, but recharging them on emergency power is going to take quite some time.

EDITed to fix spelling

[Batman]

WRT then 10GJ phase pistols-what's wrong with rating a weapon that is typically used as a pulse weapon that way? Indeed, rating it in MW is pointless unless it is and regularly fired for several seconds.

[brianeyci]

WRT then 10GJ phase pistols-what's wrong with rating a weapon that is typically used as a pulse weapon that way? Indeed, rating it in MW is pointless unless it is and regularly fired for several seconds.

Its not 10 GJ, its 10 MJ, that was my mistake.

I am not sure how phase pistols actually work, I've seen too little Ent.

Brian

[Batman]

Really. What pray tell is charging your battery if the Warp core is offline?

Err, wouldn't it make sense that the phaser battery automatically charges itself from the engine, like a car battery?

The one that is currently not working?

Or that it would be charged in space dock. Why the hell would they leave spacedock with a depleted weapons array?

Because there's no need to? Because charged phasers carry the inherent risk of big-ass explosions? Because the phasers NOT being charged prevents accidental firing of them?
Anyway, thanks to Bounty's quotes TMP is irrelevant either way.

Let's see-power fluctuations, power being delivered wether or not the phaser is operating, ability to use the phaser even if the Warp drive is offline...

OK, a battery would make sense as a back-up power supply. But why not also have a direct power feed to the warp core (as is supported to TMP dialog)?

It's not (see above).EPS equivalent of Surge protection. Basic inability for a phaser to work any other way.

You're saying that they limit their firepower to what the battery can hold. That's stupid when they draw energy straight from the reactor

Evidence that a phaser can handle more energy than the battery can hold, please. Especially as TWOK shows they hold enough juice for at lest a few full-power shots.

As for power fluctations, that's what surge protectors are for.

Which going by all the exploding consoles either don't work with an EPS system or are not used for whatever reason...

Correct. Too bad that since beam phasers deplete reactant at a lesser rate than pulse ones do AND we know that the Warp core can be 'refueled' 4 times a second, beam phasers STILL should be able to fire forever.

OK, you get a partial concession. That model was flawed.
Most likely reason that beam phasers can't fire forever is the same reason it would be a bad idea to leave your microwave on for three weeks straight. You get problems with overheating and if you don't give the machinery a rest it burns out.

Which is why they can fire for more than a few seconds at a time. Yeah, sure.

this means that the power requirement for achieving warp 1 is approximately 20 GW

Based on this it's safe to say that phasers are in the GW range. That means that there's GJ of energy running through a phaser array as it fires. Obviously if you keep that up for very long the machinery is going to start to overheat.

Define 'very long', please. Phasers never fire for more than 12 seconds. Typical is less than 3. Repeatedly, with the interval between shots being less than a second. Not much of a cool-down period.

Only if you assume phasers work off some kind of battery. Which sort of is my point.

We have two alternatives here. Pulse phasers deplete the warp core and beam phasers don't, or pulse phasers need to be allowed to cool off frequently or else they'll overheat. Either one suggests that a pulse phaser is more powerful than a beam phaser.

Technically on a GJ/s per shot basis, yes. Not in time-averaged firepower, otherwise nobody would bother with beam phasers anymore.

Unless you're suggesting that a pulse phaser is a beam phaser with a substandard power source. Why the fuck would anybody install such an inferior weapon in the supposedly state-of-the-art Defiant class?

You're talking about a military that doesn't know beans about fighting, has never heard of the seat belt, body armor, or tactics...
But no, I'm not saying that.

No? There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of PPCs being vastly more poweful than beam phasers.

Let's see. Pulse phasers have several significant disadvantages to phaser strips. They offer a drastically reduced arc of fire and are less accurate. Those are some pretty heavy sacrifices, and methinks there must be some benefit to using them that makes those sacrifices worthwhile. Aside from an increase in power the only thing I can think of was that it was designed to punch through Borg shields by constantly remodulating itself, but I don't see why it would have to be a pulse weapon to do that (you don't have to interrupt a beam to change its frequency).

Says who? Try changing the frequency of, say, a flashlight. Who says you can change the frequency of a working phaser?
IF there was a significant increase in power nobody would use beam phasers anymore. As I said above, technically on a GJ/s per shot basis yes. NOT time-averaged firepower.

As evidenced by what? And that should be GJ while we're at it. It's a bolt weapon, after all.

As evidenced by the fact that a warp capable ship has to have a peak power output of at the very least 20 GW. So unless the phasers are ridiculously underpowered they will put out GJ of energy.

Why? That energy is going to a shitload of other systems, too. Who says phasers get 10% or more of that, especially as they seem to have problems running all their system on max power at the same time in the first place?

They must have uber-cooling systems as it is not to burn out after just one pulse. Either that, or it puts a lot of stress on the reactor.

Evidence please.

See above, and take a moment to think about what a GJ or three of waste heat with every single pulse, four pulses a second, would do to the machinery of the phaser if you didn't have one heck of a cooling system at work.

If you have a GJ or three of waste heat out of a GJ weapon, that doesn't leave much for the actual bolt. Pretty useless if you ask me
Unless you have information on how much waste heat phasers actually produce, that's pure speculation. Especially as I can't recall them producing any waste heat whatsoever, and hand phasers canonically don't produce enough to notice, at least when used correctly (I dimly recall overload phasers getting hot or some such but that's not exactly their standard MOO).

So mount PPCs facing in all directions.

Phaser strips have an almost 360 degree arc of fire. Their only blind spot is directly behind the connecting struts of the warp nacceles. The enemy just can't maneuver around them and still get close to the ship. That's a big advantage over pulse phasers.

Which can be compensated for via multiple and turreted mounts. Easily worth it IF PPCs were markedly more poweful than beam phasers.

Didn't you just argue a ship with PPCs has a limited field of fire?

Uh, yeah , and the Sovereign's phaser strip doesn't. Your point?

I'm nitpicking. You actually said 'because the Sovereigns pulse phasers have an almost 360 degree of fire'. Go back and re-read it

Pure garbage. IF PPCs were as absurdly poweful as you think the Sovereign would mount shitloads of them, and a few strip phasers for flexibility's sake.

Don't forget, however, that while a pulse phaser releases more energy with each pulse, a beam phaser releases more energy total. If pulse phasers are four times as powerful as beam phasers, and each pulse is 1/8 of a second (the pulse itself, not the resting period) then the beam phaser would deliver twice as much energy to the target if it managed to drill it for all of one second. Combined with the 360 degree arc of fire a phaser strip offers that means that pulse phasers won't render them obsolete.

IOW, they're NOT more powerful except in a totally irrelevant technical nitpick fashion. You know damn well I was not talking about their actual wattage while firing.

[Batman]

WRT then 10GJ phase pistols-what's wrong with rating a weapon that is typically used as a pulse weapon that way? Indeed, rating it in MW is pointless unless it is and regularly fired for several seconds.

Its not 10 GJ, its 10 MJ, that was my mistake.

Which you corrected in the very post to which I reacted. Not your fault if I have the reading comprehension of a dead armadillo.

I am not sure how phase pistols actually work, I've seen too little Ent.

As I said, they are usually used as a quasi-pulse weapon. The beam DOES last a reasonable fraction of a second so one could argue that it's not a true pulse weapon, but I still maintain that rating them on an energy-per-shot basis makes sense.

[brianeyci]

As I said, they are usually used as a quasi-pulse weapon. The beam DOES last a reasonable fraction of a second so one could argue that it's not a true pulse weapon, but I still maintain that rating them on an energy-per-shot basis makes sense.

Yes, but the problem is that it seems to me the traditional way to debate sci-fi beam weapons is to treat them in terms of power rather than energy. For example, DW rates ship phasers at 30k TW. Ship beam phasers fire longer than a second, but rarely longer than a few seconds.

Its not really a pulse weapon. Even if it was, the argument can be made that phasers in general are continuous beam weapons rated at 1.05 MW energy consumption per second, and since phase pistols are predessors maybe it makes sense to have some continuity.

Its not really a big deal I think.

Brian

[Batman]

As I said, they are usually used as a quasi-pulse weapon. The beam DOES last a reasonable fraction of a second so one could argue that it's not a true pulse weapon, but I still maintain that rating them on an energy-per-shot basis makes sense.

Yes, but the problem is that it seems to me the traditional way to debate sci-fi beam weapons is to treat them in terms of power rather than energy. For example, DW rates ship phasers at 30k TW. Ship beam phasers fire longer than a second, but rarely longer than a few seconds.

The problem being their duration is all over the place, from near-pulse short beams to sustained fire over several seconds. Same for hand phasers. As the energy delivered varies quite a bit depending on beam length, it makes sense to rate their wattage. Phase pistols are (IIRC) almost exclusively used as pseudopulse weapons.

Its not really a pulse weapon. Even if it was, the argument can be made that phasers in general are continuous beam weapons rated at 1.05 MW energy consumption per second, and since phase pistols are predessors maybe it makes sense to have some continuity.

You are aware that we are talking about ENT here.