Phaser Momentum

[Chris OFarrell]

Ummmm, you do know that gyro stabilisation is a real concept, right? And has nothing to do with magically dissipating recoil?

Hey I'm trying to come up with SOMETHING here!


An integral inertial dampener would not be that surprising given the massive over-enginering that appears to go into Federation rifle design, making it overcomplex and anything BUT a good field weapon.

The full quote I got it from is:

KIRA
This is a standard issue,
Cardassian phase-disruptor rifle.
It has a four-point-seven
megajoule power capacity... three
millisecond recharge and two beam
settings.

ZIYAL
How do you know so much about
Cardassian weapons?

KIRA
We captured a lot of them during
the occupation. This is a good
weapon... solid and simple. You
can drag it through the mud and
it'll still fire.

Kira takes out a Federation phaser rifle.

KIRA
Now this is an entirely different
animal. It's Federation standard
issue. A little less powerful,
but with more options... sixteen
beam settings... fully autonomous
recharge... multiple target
acquisition... gyrostablized...
the works.


KIRA (Cont'd)
It's more complicated, so it's not
as good a field weapon. Too many
things can go wrong.

Though it may be that new rifle in Nemesis has been built to be a more simple system with a holographic 'iron' sight if you will, no kind of targeting systems and and improved fire rate. Even if it breaks if you wack stuff with it.

[Metrion Cascade]

The blaster recoil thread in the SW forum got me thinking about this.

Phaser stopping power seems to be inconsistent. I'm talking primarily about the dustbusters from TNG here. Phasers really don't ever show any recoil, but the can knock a Klingon (ST3) or human (Geordi in "Samaritan Snare") through the air or across a room. We see those effects from phasers on "stun", but we generally don't see any stopping power from phasers on "kill". Victims of a "kill" shoot typically just fall down (with a little glowy spot on them where the phaser hit); "Heart of Glory" has some nice examples. Shots that "vaporize" a target generally don't transfer any momentum, either.

How does this behavior fit in with chain reaction phaser theories?

The neutrinos released impart momentum as they speed away I believe.

A more interesting question would be how ships firing phasers or distruptors, the when it hist the shields of the opposing ship, that one shakes like crazy from the momentum.

Except neutrinos barely interact with matter (percentage-wise). Of a given neutrino flux (the correct definition of flux being the rate at which particles pass through any given cubic centimetre/inch/what have you), it's likely that virtually none will hit matter. The probability that a given neutrino will hit matter increases with the time it spends passing through it, but it's still very low.

[Metrion Cascade]

It has been suggested that phasers are actually a combination of multiple weapons, which can be fired simultaneously or individually (each with different outputs) depending on the setting. And the settings are obviously not simple power increases. We rarely see a phaser on stun or even kill remove a person's skin or a chunk of their bodies. They're usually either completely disintegrated or not, the only exception I can think of being Cmdr. Remmick.

[Metrion Cascade]

And from the EVA scene in First Contact:

"There's a risk that we'd hit the dish. It's charged with antiprotons. We could destroy half the ship."

So apparently some part of the bolt is protons. This also jibes with Picard's reference to firing "particle weapons" in Engineering.

[Chris OFarrell]

And from the EVA scene in First Contact:

"There's a risk that we'd hit the dish. It's charged with antiprotons. We could destroy half the ship."

So apparently some part of the bolt is protons. This also jibes with Picard's reference to firing "particle weapons" in Engineering.

Err no Picard was talking about the Deflector Dish. IT was charged with Anti Protons. Unless your claiming that EVA phaser rifels have enough firepower to blow half of a Sovereign class Starship away.....

The statements that best support a partical weapon are:

Inheritance:
GEORDI
(to Data)
I've configured the phasers to
create the most highly focused
particle beam possible.

First Contact:
PICARD
If we fire particle weapons in
Engineering there's a risk we may hit
the warp core.

In The Flesh:
KIM
Type One phaser reconfigured to fire Borg Nanoprobes.

The first two explictly talk about a partical weapon. The thrid shows even nanoprobes can be sent down a phaser beam. I think there is a quote in Best Of Both Worlds I about a new Plasma phaser design, so it looks like a phaser might even be able to fire a plasma stream.

[Metrion Cascade]

And from the EVA scene in First Contact:

"There's a risk that we'd hit the dish. It's charged with antiprotons. We could destroy half the ship."

So apparently some part of the bolt is protons. This also jibes with Picard's reference to firing "particle weapons" in Engineering.

Err no Picard was talking about the Deflector Dish. IT was charged with Anti Protons. Unless your claiming that EVA phaser rifels have enough firepower to blow half of a Sovereign class Starship away.....
<snip stuff I already agree with>

Yes, Picard was talking about the deflector dish. Apparently it's charged with anti-protons, and firing the phasers at it would cause an explosion, which I take to mean there are protons in phaser bolts. Not that the phasers by themselves are powerful enough, but that they're firing matter that would react with the antimatter protons in the dish.

[Ted C]

Except neutrinos barely interact with matter (percentage-wise). Of a given neutrino flux (the correct definition of flux being the rate at which particles pass through any given cubic centimetre/inch/what have you), it's likely that virtually none will hit matter. The probability that a given neutrino will hit matter increases with the time it spends passing through it, but it's still very low.

You misunderstand the neutrino theory, then. The theory states that the phaser causes particles in the target to decay into neutrinos, and that these neutrinos (for unknown reasons) tend to move away in a single direction. Since neutrinos have mass and velocity, they carry momentum. Since they were generated by the target (through decay of the target's particles), conservation of momentum dictates that they will cause a velocity change in the target.

It doesn't matter whether the neutrinos can pass through other matter once they've started on their way; they're carrying momentum away from the target simply by virtue of originating there. The fact that they're non-interactive with other matter is one of the reasons they make some sense; turning a person into vapor would have visible effects on their surroundings, but turning a person into a spray of neutrinos would have little or no effect on their surroundings.

[Metrion Cascade]

Except neutrinos barely interact with matter (percentage-wise). Of a given neutrino flux (the correct definition of flux being the rate at which particles pass through any given cubic centimetre/inch/what have you), it's likely that virtually none will hit matter. The probability that a given neutrino will hit matter increases with the time it spends passing through it, but it's still very low.

You misunderstand the neutrino theory, then. The theory states that the phaser causes particles in the target to decay into neutrinos, and that these neutrinos (for unknown reasons) tend to move away in a single direction. Since neutrinos have mass and velocity, they carry momentum. Since they were generated by the target (through decay of the target's particles), conservation of momentum dictates that they will cause a velocity change in the target.

It doesn't matter whether the neutrinos can pass through other matter once they've started on their way; they're carrying momentum away from the target simply by virtue of originating there. The fact that they're non-interactive with other matter is one of the reasons they make some sense; turning a person into vapor would have visible effects on their surroundings, but turning a person into a spray of neutrinos would have little or no effect on their surroundings.

Oh, okay. I thought the idea was that neutrinos were hitting the person and pushing them.

[Metrion Cascade]

The neutrinos released impart momentum as they speed away I believe.

That's Mike's initial hypothesis, yes, but does it really make sense that when you increase the phaser power (tuning it up from "stun" to "kill" or "disintegrate") the momentum created actually drops? The "stun" setting seems to have a lot more stopping power than the deadly settings.

I don't think the components of the phaser are set percentages of the beam. With stun, imparting momentum is advantageous-it may repel a person who's advancing even if they aren't knocked out. On kill, of course, we don't really care. And certainly not on "disintegrate." So on higher settings, the momentum-imparting component is turned down and the molecular disruption is turned up (as a percentage of the output, that is).

[Ted C]

I don't think the components of the phaser are set percentages of the beam. With stun, imparting momentum is advantageous-it may repel a person who's advancing even if they aren't knocked out. On kill, of course, we don't really care. And certainly not on "disintegrate." So on higher settings, the momentum-imparting component is turned down and the molecular disruption is turned up (as a percentage of the output, that is).

What might this "momentum-imparting component" be, then? We know it exists in the stun setting, which can knock a person across a room or knock over an inanimate object with equal ease.

Is this "momentum-imparting component" mutually exclusive of the "component" that causes disintegration?

[Darth Wong]

Metrion Cascade believes it is possible for a special particle to exist which imparts more momentum than it possesses upon collision. There's almost no point trying to refute such a bizarre anti-scientific position. It's like arguing with someone who thinks that 2+2=8.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, Picard was talking about the deflector dish. Apparently it's charged with anti-protons, and firing the phasers at it would cause an explosion, which I take to mean there are protons in phaser bolts.

And this strange theory makes more sense to you than the straightforward hypothesis that the phaser would damage the dish, and there happen to be a lot of protons in the physical structure of the dish which would interact with the antiprotons being confined in its systems?

[Isolder74]

Ummmm, you do know that gyro stabilisation is a real concept, right? And has nothing to do with magically dissipating recoil?

Hey I'm trying to come up with SOMETHING here!


An integral inertial dampener would not be that surprising given the massive over-enginering that appears to go into Federation rifle design, making it overcomplex and anything BUT a good field weapon.

The full quote I got it from is:

KIRA
This is a standard issue,
Cardassian phase-disruptor rifle.
It has a four-point-seven
megajoule power capacity... three
millisecond recharge and two beam
settings.

ZIYAL
How do you know so much about
Cardassian weapons?

KIRA
We captured a lot of them during
the occupation. This is a good
weapon... solid and simple. You
can drag it through the mud and
it'll still fire.

Kira takes out a Federation phaser rifle.

KIRA
Now this is an entirely different
animal. It's Federation standard
issue. A little less powerful,
but with more options... sixteen
beam settings... fully autonomous
recharge... multiple target
acquisition... gyrostablized...
the works.


KIRA (Cont'd)
It's more complicated, so it's not
as good a field weapon. Too many
things can go wrong.

Sounds like they are comparing a M-16 to an AK-47 just take out the phaser and it would fit almost perfectally.

It seems that before the war the Federation tried to stuff every conceivable option into the Type III Phaser Rifle so that Starship Crews would have as many options as possible. The main draw back is never get it dirty it will stop working. using the Type III as a club might end up messing up some alingment or other making it impossible to fire safely. So when the Federation was forced to actually fight a ground war they had to design more reliable guns that were not only good for use by ship defense squads. They still did not design a great weapon as it is still inacurate at long ranges.

[Durandal]

You misunderstand the neutrino theory, then. The theory states that the phaser causes particles in the target to decay into neutrinos, and that these neutrinos (for unknown reasons) tend to move away in a single direction. Since neutrinos have mass and velocity, they carry momentum. Since they were generated by the target (through decay of the target's particles), conservation of momentum dictates that they will cause a velocity change in the target.

I'd be interested in seeing just how many neutrinos moving at relativistic velocities it would take to send someone flying backward at 1 m/s. Someone less lazy than me can feel free to do it. A good value for the neutrino's mass would be 20 eV.

Other than that, I suppose we can ignore quantum number conservation.

[Metrion Cascade]

I don't think the components of the phaser are set percentages of the beam. With stun, imparting momentum is advantageous-it may repel a person who's advancing even if they aren't knocked out. On kill, of course, we don't really care. And certainly not on "disintegrate." So on higher settings, the momentum-imparting component is turned down and the molecular disruption is turned up (as a percentage of the output, that is).

What might this "momentum-imparting component" be, then? We know it exists in the stun setting, which can knock a person across a room or knock over an inanimate object with equal ease.

Is this "momentum-imparting component" mutually exclusive of the "component" that causes disintegration?

Probably not. Perhaps protons, or something like Wesley Crusher's "repulsor beam." In either case I'd expect a recoil, perhaps dampened by some internal mechanism.

[Metrion Cascade]

Yes, Picard was talking about the deflector dish. Apparently it's charged with anti-protons, and firing the phasers at it would cause an explosion, which I take to mean there are protons in phaser bolts.

And this strange theory makes more sense to you than the straightforward hypothesis that the phaser would damage the dish, and there happen to be a lot of protons in the physical structure of the dish which would interact with the antiprotons being confined in its systems?

Simple enough. Noticing your sudden and conspicuous absence over on the Vader vs. Cube thread. Nanoprobes and trick shots got to you, hmm?

[Ted C]

Probably not. Perhaps protons, or something like Wesley Crusher's "repulsor beam." In either case I'd expect a recoil, perhaps dampened by some internal mechanism.

Even if there were some kind of inertial dampening mechanism, momentum has to be conserved. Such a mechanism would have to transfer momentum to something else in order to work.

In the case of Wesley's repulsor, the beam emitter must have been anchoring itself to the ship's structure in some fashion; otherwise, the emitter would move when it repelled something (note that they used exactly that principle in the same episode to push away from the Tsiolkovsky to buy enough time to get the computer repaired).

If you propose some kind of recoil suppression system in the phaser, you'll need to identify where the momentum is going; it can't just disappear.

[Robert Walper]

Probably not. Perhaps protons, or something like Wesley Crusher's "repulsor beam." In either case I'd expect a recoil, perhaps dampened by some internal mechanism.

Even if there were some kind of inertial dampening mechanism, momentum has to be conserved. Such a mechanism would have to transfer momentum to something else in order to work.

Makes sense.

In the case of Wesley's repulsor, the beam emitter must have been anchoring itself to the ship's structure in some fashion; otherwise, the emitter would move when it repelled something

A very interesting fact. Isn't it also notable that Wesley's repulsor was portable, he was carrying it around and such? Thus whatever mechanism does this is built into the device itself...perhaps it's anchoring abilities are not limited to artificial material like a starship hull. Perhaps it would easily work on ground or any normal matter of sufficient mass to deal with the momentum.

If you propose some kind of recoil suppression system in the phaser, you'll need to identify where the momentum is going; it can't just disappear.

You just made an example of Wesley's repulsor anchoring itself to the ship to deal with the momentum. His device was portable, and so are phasers. It might not be a leap of logic to assume Starfleet engineers can design a device(phaser) that is smaller then a kid's repulsor toy, but employs the same technology that transfers momentum to more massive, relatively stationary objects. In that case, a starship hull. If the technology can do that, what would limit the tranfer to merely a starship hull. Perhaps the natural surfaces work just as well.

Just my two cents.

[Metrion Cascade]

Probably not. Perhaps protons, or something like Wesley Crusher's "repulsor beam." In either case I'd expect a recoil, perhaps dampened by some internal mechanism.

Even if there were some kind of inertial dampening mechanism, momentum has to be conserved. Such a mechanism would have to transfer momentum to something else in order to work.

In the case of Wesley's repulsor, the beam emitter must have been anchoring itself to the ship's structure in some fashion; otherwise, the emitter would move when it repelled something (note that they used exactly that principle in the same episode to push away from the Tsiolkovsky to buy enough time to get the computer repaired).

If you propose some kind of recoil suppression system in the phaser, you'll need to identify where the momentum is going; it can't just disappear.

There are recoilless rifles and antitank guns that eject the same mass in two directions to dampen recoil. Phasers must have some internal thruster that matches the momentum of the shot.

[Sir Sirius]

Internal thruster?!

[Robert Walper]

There are recoilless rifles and antitank guns that eject the same mass in two directions to dampen recoil. Phasers must have some internal thruster that matches the momentum of the shot.

If that were the case, the one firing the phaser would also be flung backwards by such thrust. The counter thrust cannot be inside the phaser, or it would blow the phaser in half, or not counter the visible phaser effect seen.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, Picard was talking about the deflector dish. Apparently it's charged with anti-protons, and firing the phasers at it would cause an explosion, which I take to mean there are protons in phaser bolts.

And this strange theory makes more sense to you than the straightforward hypothesis that the phaser would damage the dish, and there happen to be a lot of protons in the physical structure of the dish which would interact with the antiprotons being confined in its systems?

Simple enough. Noticing your sudden and conspicuous absence over on the Vader vs. Cube thread. Nanoprobes and trick shots got to you, hmm?

Don't play this fucking bullshit with me. I made several points that demolished your entire argument, not least of which is the fact that your theory completely violates one of the most fundamental principles in all of physics and necessitates the invention of yet another magic particle behaviour on top of what is already a necessarily convoluted phaser mechanism, while mine does neither. You did not answer that point, and instead decided to meander onto irrelevant bullshit and "rebuttals" that so completely missed the mark that I figured there was no need to answer them. If you're going to pretend that I lose any argument in which I don't stick around long enough to have the last word and instead choose to move onto newer and better things, then I am not going to pretend to be civil to you, bitch.

[Darth Wong]

There are recoilless rifles and antitank guns that eject the same mass in two directions to dampen recoil. Phasers must have some internal thruster that matches the momentum of the shot.

"Internal thruster?" Total elimination of recoil with no compensating ejecta? It appears we can add recoilless rifles to conservation of momentum, electronic systems, and forcefields on our list of concepts which Metrion Cascade is too fucking stupid and ignorant to understand.

[Ted C]

Isn't it also notable that Wesley's repulsor was portable, he was carrying it around and such? Thus whatever mechanism does this is built into the device itself...perhaps it's anchoring abilities are not limited to artificial material like a starship hull. Perhaps it would easily work on ground or any normal matter of sufficient mass to deal with the momentum.

It's interesting, but it doesn't really tell us much. IIRC, Wesley used it to lift a chair that he could probably have lifted by himself anyway (meaning that momentum traveled from the emitter through his body to the floor of the ship) and to block a doorway (creating a flat-planar force field that was anchored to the doorframe). No special method of momentum transfer is necessary for either use.

You just made an example of Wesley's repulsor anchoring itself to the ship to deal with the momentum. His device was portable, and so are phasers. It might not be a leap of logic to assume Starfleet engineers can design a device(phaser) that is smaller then a kid's repulsor toy, but employs the same technology that transfers momentum to more massive, relatively stationary objects. In that case, a starship hull. If the technology can do that, what would limit the tranfer to merely a starship hull. Perhaps the natural surfaces work just as well.

The leap of logic is that Wesley's device contained some kind of internal compensator, since such a device wouldn't be necessary for anything it did. His toy is interesting for its ability to apply force along an arbitrary vector to its target and its ability to create a "force wall" across a doorway, but it doesn't need an exotic mechanism to handle momentum.

[Robert Walper]

"Internal thruster?" Total elimination of recoil with no compensating ejecta?

Maybe the ejecta is composed of neutrinos....