StarDestroyer.Net BBS

brianeyci wrote:I don't see how that discussion has bearing on this one.

Part of that discussion (which was indeed not nearly as elaborate as I remembered, so my apologies) was your assumption that pulse phasers work on different priciples then beam ones do. As you conceeded here that hand phasers don't work via KE transfer, but requested that pulse phaser rifles be examined on a case by case basis, I assumed you still held that assumption. Which made that discussion relevant.

Brian, you're reaching again. By your reasoning the difference between the enrgy requirements of setting one and setting 16 of a Type II is 15 joules.

Which is why I say "might". It might be a far greater difference.

Making it a 'significant' one, wouldn't it?

Because people continually say so? Because it makes sense? Because we never see anybody accidentally vaporising anybody because their phaser was out of synch?

People always talk about settings, never the energy requirements. Why must you assume Federation stupidity?

Where, exactly, am I assuming Fed stupidity in this particular case?

Their phasers could be well-engineered enough so they don't go out of sync.

I was mocking your 1-joule-difference assumption you dolt.

Very well, let us assume that the difference between setting 15 and setting 16 is great.To be "significant", or in other words to be meaningful to the user, you would have to be able to drain your phaser after enough vaporizations.

Okay.

So a "significant" energy drain would mean that a phaser could be rendered ammunitionless faster if the user continually used the vaporize setting rather than the "punch a hole" setting. But why do we need to assume this?

Because it makes sense?

To assume that vaporization requires "significant" energy is not necessary.
You can explain the lack of vaporizations by Starfleet smartening up realizing that vaporization is the same as inflicting a lethal wound, or even with Starfleet's regulations about lethal force. Just because they don't vaporize a lot doesn't mean they can't.

Small problem: It's canon fact that some races are more resistant to phaser fire than humans are. If vaporize doesn't use significantly more energy than kill does why not default to vaporize just to be on the safe side?

And even a small increase in energy requirements would be enough for a real soldier to start using non-vaporizing settings -- every shot counts, and why vaporize if you can burn a hole? For example, if you could do 20 shots with non-vaporization, but 21 with vaporization, a soldier would pick 20, because he would realize that the hit to the torso needed to vaporize would be the same as burning a hole through someone.

No, a soldier would choose 20 guaranteed kills over 21 highly propable ones. Oh, and you fucked up the numbers. In your scenario the soldier would INEVITABLY go with vaporization because that gives him an extra shot

brianeyci wrote:No you misunderstand me. I agree that vape settings use more ammunition. There was an assertion above that vaporization would require a "significantly" higher energy than vaporization. My argument against this was exactly your point -- that it is not necessary to assume a "significant" energy requirement for vaporization, that there are other reasons.

Well, it's obviously significant enough to make it worthwhile to not do it when you want to stretch out your ammo, but that's all we know.

PS. How old are you? Seriously, your posts tend to betray an inability to form correlations and logical deductions on your own, hence people need to keep spelling everything out for you before you get it.

What is logical and correlative to one person may not be to another.

Actually, logic is not subjective, which is the whole point of it.

I am new to this scene -- I know you have heard all of this before, but I haven't. Age has little to do with being illogical -- I know people who are way older and far more irrational.

No rules in sociology are ironclad; there are exceptions to everything. Nevertheless, there is a strong correlation between age and critical thinking skills until you hit the late 20s, at which point it seems to flatten out.

I have learned a few things about logic since being here. Such as how silly it is to introduce a fuckload of unknowns to explain something

Well, that's one step forward

I just turned twenty in October.

Ah, I see. Well, you are no doubt quite mature compared to a 17 year old, who in turn is quite mature compared to a 14 year old. But you are not a Jedi yet.

Batman wrote:

Which is why I say "might". It might be a far greater difference.

Making it a 'significant' one, wouldn't it?

No. Only if it was a big difference, for example 20 shots to 40 shots. 21 shots to 20 shots would not be significant.

So a "significant" energy drain would mean that a phaser could be rendered ammunitionless faster if the user continually used the vaporize setting rather than the "punch a hole" setting. But why do we need to assume this?

Because it makes sense?

I don't disagree that faster ammunition usage for vape settings. It is actually part of my argument. I disagree with the "significant" part.

Small problem: It's canon fact that some races are more resistant to phaser fire than humans are. If vaporize doesn't use significantly more energy than kill does why not default to vaporize just to be on the safe side?

Because if you have to shoot at the torso to vaporize someone, it is just as good burning a hole in someone.

No, a soldier would choose 20 guaranteed kills over 21 highly propable ones. Oh, and you fucked up the numbers. In your scenario the soldier would INEVITABLY go with vaporization because that gives him an extra shot

Yeah my numbers were reversed heh heh. Vaporization and burning a hole in someone would be the the same, if vaporization required someone to be shot in the torso.

Brian

brianeyci wrote:

Batman wrote:

Making it a 'significant' one, wouldn't it?

No. Only if it was a big difference, for example 20 shots to 40 shots. 21 shots to 20 shots would not be significant.[/quote]
It would ALSO not be far greater.

Small problem: It's canon fact that some races are more resistant to phaser fire than humans are. If vaporize doesn't use significantly more energy than kill does why not default to vaporize just to be on the safe side?

Because if you have to shoot at the torso to vaporize someone, it is just as good burning a hole in someone.

Problem being that vaporizing someone is INEVITABLY going to kill him, and will do so IMMEDIATELY. 'Burning a hole in him' is NOT. If the difference in ammo usage is a measly 5 percent, why not go for the safer option?

Yeah my numbers were reversed heh heh. Vaporization and burning a hole in someone would be the the same, if vaporization required someone to be shot in the torso.

1. See above.
2. You shoot for the torso ANYWAY. Not only does it hold most of the vital organs, it's the largest target. Are you telling me aiming for the head is EASIER?

Batman wrote:It would ALSO not be far greater.

Agreed.

Problem being that vaporizing someone is INEVITABLY going to kill him, and will do so IMMEDIATELY. 'Burning a hole in him' is NOT. If the difference in ammo usage is a measly 5 percent, why not go for the safer option?

Because burning a hole is the same as vaporizing someone. Burning a hole in their torso would generally kill a human. Yes, 5% difference is too low. How about a 10% difference then? A soldier would go with the kill settings then, and the vaporization would only use 10% more ammunition, not 200% or 300% more. 10% could translate into five or ten more shots.

<edit> How much of a difference would you be satisfied with? 20%? 30%? 50%? I would consider anything 50%+ to be "significant", meaning you get two kill shots for one vape shot. But it is not necessary to assume this -- a few more kill shots over vape shots, for example 5-10, and I don't see why a soldier wouldn't choose the kill shots. </edit>

2. You shoot for the torso ANYWAY. Not only does it hold most of the vital organs, it's the largest target. Are you telling me aiming for the head is EASIER?

Exactly, you aim for the torso. Now why shoot for the torso and vaporize, when you can shoot for the torso and burn a hole and accomplish the same thing? If you get a couple more shots out of it, then all the more reason to not vaporize someone.

The point is, it is not necessary to assume "significant" or obscene energy levels required to vaporize as opposed to kill.

Brian

brianeyci wrote:

Problem being that vaporizing someone is INEVITABLY going to kill him, and will do so IMMEDIATELY. 'Burning a hole in him' is NOT. If the difference in ammo usage is a measly 5 percent, why not go for the safer option?

Because burning a hole is the same as vaporizing someone. Burning a hole in their torso would generally kill a human.

1. generally, and 2. human. Not only are a lot of the Federation's enemies NONhuman (most of them, in fact), but how many examples of real-world people surviving lethal torso wounds long enough to shoot back would you like?

Yes, 5% difference is too low. How about a 10% difference then? A soldier would go with the kill settings then

No he wouldn't. 20 positively guaranteed kills beat 22 propable ones any day.

Exactly, you aim for the torso. Now why shoot for the torso and vaporize, when you can shoot for the torso and burn a hole and accomplish the same thing?

Because it's the smart thing to do given your extremely small energy usage differences.

If you get a couple more shots out of it, then all the more reason to not vaporize someone.

For the low number of additional shots vs the risk of the guy living long enough to shoot back, no it's not.

Batman wrote:1. generally, and 2. human. Not only are a lot of the Federation's enemies NONhuman (most of them, in fact), but how many examples of real-world people surviving lethal torso wounds long enough to shoot back would you like?

Ah I see the problem.

How many examples do we have of vaporizations?

How many of them have been targeted against the torso?

I am assuming that vaporizations would only happen when someone was hit on the torso. Not a bad assumption, considering what we see in ST.

If you have to shoot someone in the torso to kill them, and you have to shoot someone in the torso to vaporize them, and you get extra ammunition out of kill, why not choose kill?

No he wouldn't. 20 positively guaranteed kills beat 22 propable ones any day.

You are assuming the clip size of a phaser rifle is extremely small. If the clip size was large, and the extra 10% translated into a whole extra clip or a whole extra few clips, then it would be more than two shots he would get out of using kill.

That would mean 10% more ammunition for the entire squad, etc. Maybe not 10%, let's up it to 25%. It still doesn't meet my criteria for "significant", or two kill shots for every vape shot.

Because it's the smart thing to do given your extremely small
energy usage differences.

Not if you want to train your soldiers for marksmanship -- for example, we haven't seen the pulse phaser rifle vaporize (I think), so shooting pulses that don't give away your position and that force you to use an aiming reticle would be the reason for no vaporization, not that vaporization will deplete your clip far quicker.

For the low number of additional shots vs the risk of the guy living long enough to shoot back, no it's not.

He will only shoot back if you ignore the technobabble effects. It is not just the hole being burned -- it is the effect of the phaser shot itself. How many times have we seen a person fall flat on the ground after being hit without any burn marks? Stun? How do you explain it without technobabble? Phasers don't "wound". They kill, they stun, they vaporize (unless you remember a phaser set on kill wounding someone, which I do not).

Brian

brianeyci wrote: He will only shoot back if you ignore the technobabble effects. It is not just the hole being burned -- it is the effect of the phaser shot itself. How many times have we seen a person fall flat on the ground after being hit without any burn marks? Stun? How do you explain it without technobabble? Phasers don't "wound". They kill, they stun, they vaporize (unless you remember a phaser set on kill wounding someone, which I do not).

Li Nalas, DS9 "The Homecoming," 23:08

Jason L. Miles wrote:Li Nalas, DS9 "The Homecoming," 23:08

Script wrote:As a phaser blast kills one of the Bajoran prisoners. Li is also hit, a searing burn across his side. Borum catches him as he falls.

Was he hit directly on the torso? So maybe he wasn't hit directly in the torso, so the technobabble effects didn't take full effect on him. I remember all direct hits that vaporize being direct hits on the torso.

Brian

brianeyci wrote:

Script wrote:As a phaser blast kills one of the Bajoran prisoners. Li is also hit, a searing burn across his side. Borum catches him as he falls.

Was he hit directly on the torso? So maybe he wasn't hit directly in the torso, so the technobabble effects didn't take full effect on him. I remember all direct hits that vaporize being direct hits on the torso.
Brian

Are you on drugs? How does burn marks across his side NOT indicate a torso hit?

Batman wrote:Are you on drugs? How does burn marks across his side NOT indicate a torso hit?

A torso hit, but not a "direct torso hit". If the technobabble effects disrupt the vital organs, then the burn mark could have been through some non-vital part of his torso like across the side of his torso eg. a glancing hit. Glancing kill shots wouldn't kill, nor would glancing vape shots.

Brian

brianeyci wrote:

Batman wrote:Are you on drugs? How does burn marks across his side NOT indicate a torso hit?

A torso hit, but not a "direct torso hit". If the technobabble effects disrupt the vital organs, then the burn mark could have been through some non-vital part of his torso

Brian, are you trying for a VI title? A phaser hit to the torso will INEVITABLY hit a nonvital part of the torso. Namely, the skin, what with that being the outermost part of it.
Whatever effect it has beyond the superficial scorching is apparently not DET. Proof of why it would be more efficient from the front than from the side, please?

like across the side of his torso eg. a glancing hit. Glancing kill shots wouldn't kill, nor would glancing vape shots.

Evidence of not-killing glancing shots and not-vaping glancing shots, please?
The not-killing one I'm actually inclined to grant you because it happens to support my point.

Batman wrote:Brian, are you trying for a VI title? A phaser hit to the torso will INEVITABLY hit a nonvital part of the torso. Namely, the skin, what with that being the outermost part of it. Whatever effect it has beyond the superficial scorching is apparently not DET. Proof of why it would be more efficient from the front than from the side, please?

Good, which supports my point that there is no reason to go vape rather than kill.

People have been killed by a direct phaser blast hit on their torso without visible burn marks, indicating technobabble. That guy was not killed with a phaser blast to his side. That is evidence enough to me that a direct hit has more technobabble effect than a glancing hit.

Evidence of not-killing glancing shots and not-vaping glancing shots, please? The not-killing one I'm actually inclined to grant you because it happens to support my point.

Vaporizing shots hit against the center of the torso. I don't think I remember a shot where someone was hit on the extremeties and ended up being vaporized.

This supports my point that there is no advantage to being hit in the torso with vape or with kill. Because being hit in the torso with vape is the same as being hit in the torso with a hole, since being hit in the torso will start the technobabble kill effects.

I have found new evidence,

Script wrote: 69 NEW ANGLE (OPTICAL)

as Yuta whirls, reaches to touch Chorgan -- and Riker
FIRES.

The stun charge shakes Yuta up -- but she remains
conscious, recovers her footing. Riker changes the
phaser setting, FIRES again. It knocks Yuta back. But
she keeps coming.

Riker has no choice. He adjusts the phaser --

RIKER
Don't --

Yuta reaches for Chorgan again --

And Riker FIRES. Setting eight. Vaporize.

And Yuta's gone.

However, I think on screen, Riker powered up his phaser to full settings, not "setting eight". The point isn't about Setting eight, the point is that Yuta had to be hit in the center of the chest to be vaporized. Searching through the TNG scripts for "vaporized", I could only find four instances of vaporization in TNG, and they were all direct hits. Maybe you will have more luck.

The point is that there are no vaporizing glancing hits. So we can't assume that you can vaporize someone with a glancing hit. It has to be a direct hit, which would mean that hitting someone with a hole in their chest would be the same as vaporizing someone, if vaporizing someone meant you needed to score a direct hit to their torso, not their extremeties.

Brian

There seems to be some disagreement over the significance of energy differences between simple kill and full out vaporize (at least, there was, I am not certain anymore, the thread is a little muddled). I can't help myself, I have to offer my speculation (hehe).

We know phasers are particle weapons; this was mentioned repeatedly in First Contact by more than one indivudual, all of whom ought to know something about it. We can also guess (or if you like, speculate) that these particles do not occur naturally; or at least that they do not exist long enough enough to be noticed without technological means. This means the phaser most likely does not have a container filled with such exotic short-lived particles--and we are only ever led to believe that phasers run on power packs, which do not include such a set up.

Therefore it may be speculated (and I hope reasonably) that any particles comprising the beam/pulse are generated on the spot. This, of course, requires energy. Different particles require different amounts of energy, photons being towards the bottom, massive particles being more in the top. However much energy these particles require to come about, it makes some small sense to assume you will need quite a bit more of them to phasorize someone completely than to kill without so much as a single mark.

It follows then that more particles=more energy expended. As phaser reactions may be partially material dependent it can be reasoned that a kill setting does in fact require quite a bit fewer particles than full out phasorize.
Here's my reasoning for why:

If this phaser reaction is (for the sake of argument) exponentially related to the number of particles present, then a situation may occur where a simple kill setting directed against a material "weak" to the phaser reaction may unexpectedly phasorize. If the reaction was so touch and go that how much an individual had to drink that day became relevant then you would have a very unpredictable weapon. Such a weapon makes little sense, and I am willing to give the Federation credit where credit is due--and to the the very best of my knowledge, no one has ever phasorized something unless they expected to. If the intent was kill, or burn or whatever, it always either works as planned, or it simply does not work, thanks to some kind of odd occurance rarely explained.

EDIT:
Nearly forgot, very nice work Jason L. Miles. I like the work you've done, very comprehensive and interesting. I appreciate you posting it here.

brianeyci wrote:

Batman wrote:Brian, are you trying for a VI title? A phaser hit to the torso will INEVITABLY hit a nonvital part of the torso. Namely, the skin, what with that being the outermost part of it. Whatever effect it has beyond the superficial scorching is apparently not DET. Proof of why it would be more efficient from the front than from the side, please?

Good, which supports my point that there is no reason to go vape rather than kill.

Funny. For those of us that are reasonable that IS evidence to go with vape over kill.
Furthermore, since phaser lethality CAN'T be a DET effect thanks to your reasoning why are kill level glancing shots less dangerous than full-on hits?

People have been killed by a direct phaser blast hit on their torso without visible burn marks, indicating technobabble. That guy was not killed with a phaser blast to his side. That is evidence enough to me that a direct hit has more technobabble effect than a glancing hit.

Agreed. How, exactly, is it evidence that a direct (as you call it) hit will invariably and immediately kill the target, especially given that we know there are nonhumans who are phaser-resistant to some degree?

I've been working on DS9, which is much less of a chore, and have gotten throught the second episode of the second season. I've also decided to keep track of every small arms blast that we see on screen, along with accuracy.

One thing I've noticed is that bajoran phaser pistol hits push a person back and about half a meter in the air, while starfleet phasers still only lift a person a few centimeters.

Also, the gunfights in DS9 are a hell of a lot better that the ones in TNG.

Jason L. Miles wrote:I've been working on DS9, which is much less of a chore, and have gotten throught the second episode of the second season. I've also decided to keep track of every small arms blast that we see on screen, along with accuracy.

One thing I've noticed is that bajoran phaser pistol hits push a person back and about half a meter in the air, while starfleet phasers still only lift a person a few centimeters.

Also, the gunfights in DS9 are a hell of a lot better that the ones in TNG.

One scene that you should be coming across soon is Quark being hit at extreme close range by an energy weapon in a assasination attempt. The shot sends him across his entire bar, knocking over a chair or two in the process IIRC.

Robert Walper wrote: One scene that you should be coming across soon is Quark being hit at extreme close range by an energy weapon in a assasination attempt. The shot sends him across his entire bar, knocking over a chair or two in the process IIRC.

If the shot had the energy to do this, shouldn't the impact with the wall or whatever he hits break his neck?

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Robert Walper wrote: One scene that you should be coming across soon is Quark being hit at extreme close range by an energy weapon in a assasination attempt. The shot sends him across his entire bar, knocking over a chair or two in the process IIRC.

If the shot had the energy to do this, shouldn't the impact with the wall or whatever he hits break his neck?

As I recall, he didn't make it all the way to a wall. He simply collapsed onto the floor after the blast knocked him across the bar.

Robert Walper wrote:
As I recall, he didn't make it all the way to a wall. He simply collapsed onto the floor after the blast knocked him across the bar.

I see. Well in the case of the ST:III Klingon that was thrown over 10 meters and I think he hit a rock. He should be dead, neck broken etc. Of course Kirk may have set the phaser to kill. I doubt he was feeling generous, seeing as they just executed his son.

Batman wrote:Funny. For those of us that are reasonable that IS evidence to go with vape over kill.

A phaser set on kill kills a person with a direct hit on the torso, by technobabble effects, not by punching a hole through someone.

A phaser set to vaporize kills a person with a direct hit to the torso, by more technobabble.

If a phaser set on vaporize uses even slightly more ammunition, then it is reasonable to set a phaser on kill than vaporize if kill will incapicitate someone.

I do not dispute that vaporize hits take more energy than kill shots. I dispute the assumption that vaporizing takes "significantly" more energy than kill shots.

Furthermore, since phaser lethality CAN'T be a DET effect thanks to your reasoning why are kill level glancing shots less dangerous than full-on hits?

Because of technobabble. The technobabble is more dangerous when there are direct hits to the chest. The fact that phaser lethality isn't a DET effect supports my argument. People have been killed with direct hits to the chest, and have not been killed with indirect hits to the chest. Therefore the technobabble effect is more dangerous the closer to the vital organs you hit. And you need a direct hit to the chest to vaporize (since we have only seen direct hits vaporize). So why not use kill?

Agreed. How, exactly, is it evidence that a direct (as you call it) hit will invariably and immediately kill the target, especially given that we know there are nonhumans who are phaser-resistant to some degree?

There are non-humans who are phaser resistant. But that does not mean that vaporize will be much better. Phaser resistance does not mean that they can survive a kill shot. For example Klingons can survive low setting stun shot, but that does not mean that a kill shot will be less effective than a vaporize shot against a Klingon. I doubt phaser resistance goes to the point that kill level shots become useless and vaporize level shots become useful on humanoid lifeforms, considering that the base of humanoid lifeforms is the same.

It is not like the Federation goes around fighting silicon-based lifeforms all the time.

Kill
1. More ammunition
2. Kills someone with a hit to the torso
3. Wounds someone with a hit to the extremeties
4. Forces the user to aim if you use pulse-type shots
5. If you use pulse-type shots, they are less likely to give away your position.

Vaporize
1. Less ammunition
2. Vaporizes (kills) someone with a hit to the torso
3. ? Wounds ? someone with a hit to the extremeties (unsure because obviously we haven't heard someone set their phasers to vaporize and fail to vaporize someone with a hit to the extremeties, but since all vaporization hits have been direct torso hits we cannot assume that glancing hits will result in vaporization).

I believe you are saying number 1 is the reason why people use kill over vaporize. I just listed other reasons, including the fact that vaporize shots are targeted at the same part of the body as kill shots, and since kill shots targeted to that same part of the body kill anyway, it is reasonable to use kill. Number 1 does not have to be the only reason to use kill over vaporize, and it does not have to be a large ammunition advantage such as 2 to 1 to be useful.

Kill has everything that vaporize has, and a little extra. So why not use kill? It does not mean that "vaporize" has to use 200% or 300% more energy than vaporize, just that vaporize uses maybe even 25% more energy would be enough of an ammunition advantage.

Brian

I do not dispute that vaporize hits take more energy than kill shots. I dispute the assumption that vaporizing takes "significantly" more energy than kill shots.

I have offered an idea to explain why a vaporize shot may take "significantly" more energy in a previous post. If you haven't looked at it please do, as I am curious to see what you think about it.

3. ? Wounds ? someone with a hit to the extremeties (unsure because obviously we haven't heard someone set their phasers to vaporize and fail to vaporize someone with a hit to the extremeties, but since all vaporization hits have been direct torso hits we cannot assume that glancing hits will result in vaporization).

You bet we can assume a glancing hit will "vaporize" lethally. A phaser blast set to phasorize contains enough exotic particles to chain react a human to nothingness, plus some extra. These particles cannot effect any matter thay fail to interact with. A hit on the torso must result in the particles (or offspring particles from the reaction) spreading all the way to the feet of the target, a distance of at least 1.5 meters to safely account for variations in individual height and impact point. Lets say you hit the leg, right above the knee. The particles have to go somewhere, and the head is well within the established travel range...

Same story with an arm impact, or a hip impact. You sound almost like it cannot be assumed any "vaporization" will take place unless the hit is perfectly placed. That is a stupid thing to assume; rocks are not torsos with vital organs inside them, yet they "vaporize" just fine. A hit to the hand may not completely phasorize a target, it may certainly be assumed something really bad will happen.

The Silence and I wrote:I have offered an idea to explain why a vaporize shot may take "significantly" more energy in a previous post. If you haven't looked at it please do, as I am curious to see what you think about it.

It is a good idea. Is your proposal that vaporizing someone is a touch-touch affair, based on how much someone ate the last time out to lunch? I don't remember an instance where somoene has set a phaser to "vaporize", but only to the highest setting. If kill and vaporize were the same thing, and the reason why vaporize happened was because of some sort of fluke arrangement of particles/amount of particles in the target, then vaporization is an unintended side effect of kill. Nobody ever sets a phaser to "vaporize", only to the highest setting.

You bet we can assume a glancing hit will "vaporize" lethally. A phaser blast set to phasorize contains enough exotic particles to chain react a human to nothingness, plus some extra. These particles cannot effect any matter thay fail to interact with. A hit on the torso must result in the particles (or offspring particles from the reaction) spreading all the way to the feet of the target, a distance of at least 1.5 meters to safely account for variations in individual height and impact point. Lets say you hit the leg, right above the knee. The particles have to go somewhere, and the head is well within the established travel range...

Same story with an arm impact, or a hip impact. You sound almost like it cannot be assumed any "vaporization" will take place unless the hit is perfectly placed. That is a stupid thing to assume; rocks are not torsos with vital organs inside them, yet they "vaporize" just fine. A hit to the hand may not completely phasorize a target, it may certainly be assumed something really bad will happen.

Very well. However, if we want to be consistent with your theory, then the "phasorize" or vaporization happens due to some sort of fluke, and not because of phaser settings. Therefore the reason why we don't see phasers vaporize so much is because the arrangement of the target has to be just right to vaporize someone.

However, how does this coincide with the numerous instances we have seen people blow holes in caves? If vaporization was based on the amount/arrangement of the particles in a target, then phasers should not consistently blow open convenient escape routes for Picard and Co. Maybe kill and vaporize are not the same setting, but there is a different setting only used in unique situations such as blowing open rock faces that guarantees a vaporization.

There is also something else to consider. Vaporizations have only happened at extremely close range. This is not saying much given that most of the firefights are at close range anyway, but I think it is safe to say that vaporizations have only happened at ranged of 2 meters or less. I would even go so far as saying vaporizations happen at ranges of 1 meter or less. If the phaser's "nadion containment field" (fuck starting to sound like Geordi) grows exponentially weaker at longer distances, then perhaps vaporization is impossible at ranges over 2 meters.

Brian

brianeyci wrote:There is also something else to consider. Vaporizations have only happened at extremely close range. This is not saying much given that most of the firefights are at close range anyway, but I think it is safe to say that vaporizations have only happened at ranged of 2 meters or less. I would even go so far as saying vaporizations happen at ranges of 1 meter or less. If the phaser's "nadion containment field" (fuck starting to sound like Geordi) grows exponentially weaker at longer distances, then perhaps vaporization is impossible at ranges over 2 meters.

Watch TNG "Hide and Q," the "vicious animal things" are a lot farther away than two meters.

Jason L. Miles wrote:Watch TNG "Hide and Q," the "vicious animal things" are a lot farther away than two meters.

Ah, but that was a Q situation =D. Were the "vicious animal things" vaporized or just killed and disappeared? I remember that episode, the Napoleanic troops with phaser muskets?

Wish I could watch, can't =D.

Brian