StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ok, I was thinking the other day, and this occured to me - If disruptors and phasers are both particle beams, and they are made up of the same material (nadions have been mentioned several times as being a component of phasers in DS9), then wouldn't the difference in color be a result of the different amounts of energy input into the beams? Afterall, something glows red at a higher temperature then it glows green. Therefore, yould it not be reasonable to conclude that the actual energy in disruptors is lower, and that therefore they should be weaker?

I don't remember where I read/heard this, but I recall something to the effect of phasers being a "rapid-nadion" weapon whereas disruptors were a "slow-nadion" weapon...I can't remember if it was some kind of Paramount-licensed publication, a TV show, or just a fansite, though.

I think that's from Graham Kennedy, who made it up.

Ah, alright then.

Ender wrote:Ok, I was thinking the other day, and this occured to me - If disruptors and phasers are both particle beams, and they are made up of the same material (nadions have been mentioned several times as being a component of phasers in DS9), then wouldn't the difference in color be a result of the different amounts of energy input into the beams? Afterall, something glows red at a higher temperature then it glows green. Therefore, yould it not be reasonable to conclude that the actual energy in disruptors is lower, and that therefore they should be weaker?

Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure that something glowing green from heat is much hotter than something glowing red, given that e=h/w and green has a shorter wavelength than red.

*note: I know that the real symbol for wavelength is lamba, but I'm too lazy to insert the symbol, so I subbed it with "w". If a mod wants to correct this, feel free to.*

Uh, at no temperature can any material I'm aware of glow green...
At any rate it has been suggested disruptors have greater energy content, although this is really speculation.

Am I the only one in here that took a High School chemistry class where one could make green flame?

The green flames must come from the material burning, not from black body / thermal radiation.

By the time (temperature) the dominant color in a black body radiation becomes green, the whole visible spectrum is sufficiently lit up that the color appears white.

So to explain this color difference by temperature we must assume that the disruptor is green because that is the color of the beam material (whatever that may be), but that the federation red beams (assuming same beam material) have a black body radiation in the red range that overshadows the green color (something like an apperant temperature between 3000K & 3500K I guess, no refercences to hand).

That is in direct contradiction with the notion that the Disruptor should have more energy content. But then this is Trek, self-contradiction is their stock in trade.

Matt Huang wrote:

Ender wrote:Ok, I was thinking the other day, and this occured to me - If disruptors and phasers are both particle beams, and they are made up of the same material (nadions have been mentioned several times as being a component of phasers in DS9), then wouldn't the difference in color be a result of the different amounts of energy input into the beams? Afterall, something glows red at a higher temperature then it glows green. Therefore, yould it not be reasonable to conclude that the actual energy in disruptors is lower, and that therefore they should be weaker?

Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure that something glowing green from heat is much hotter than something glowing red, given that e=h/w and green has a shorter wavelength than red.

i concur
red has a higher wavelenght (which is less energetic) in the visible spectrum than green

Atoms emit photons at various wavelengths when excited electrons return to their normal orbits, releasing energy in the process. The wavelength/frequency of the photon depends on the energy difference between the excited state of the electron and it's normal state.

Since the energy differences between different orbits are specific, each element releases photons in characteristic colors when heated. Spectrometers use this principle to identify the composition of materials.

Green is a higher frequency than orange, corresponding to a more energetic photon, but how this corresponds to the energy content of a weapon beam is difficult to say. Total energy release is a combination of the frequency of the photons and the number of photons, and we don't have enough information to assess these for ST beam weapons. Furthermore, energy emitted in this way is not striking the target, so it represents inefficiencies anyway.

Well, disruptors seem to be more of brute force than the phasers are. The still use a chai reaction, but the bolt alone ist deadly, even without the reaction.
I remember how the klingon crewman was smashed into the cosole by Kruge's disruptor, before he vanished.

woops

But in the same movie, Kirk's phaser sent a Klingon flying several feet.

Pulse disruptors appear to be more powerful than beam phasers. In "Rascals" an old abandoned BOP was able to driop the Enterprise-D's shields within seconds using only disruptor cannons.

Acording to the TNG TM a ship cruises with shields at something like 5%
(I'm not positive but it does make sense)

The TM is also the source for the Rapid-Slow Nadion thing (I think)

Nadions are mentionned in VOYS1 "Time and Again" : when Janeway fired on a temporal wormhole with her phaser, Torres mentioned a 'nadion flux' or something like that.

Avatar of Narendra III wrote:Acording to the TNG TM a ship cruises with shields at something like 5%
(I'm not positive but it does make sense)

Setting aside the fact that the TM counts for squat and that the setting for shield shas no bearing here, no it doesn't make sense.

KE = .5 (m/((1-(v^2/c^2))^.5)) v^2

Plug in a 5 kg micrometeorite and say 45% of C into that. You come out with almost 50% of total shield capacity, not 5%

Ender wrote:

Avatar of Narendra III wrote:Acording to the TNG TM a ship cruises with shields at something like 5%
(I'm not positive but it does make sense)

Setting aside the fact that the TM counts for squat and that the setting for shield shas no bearing here, no it doesn't make sense.

KE = .5 (m/((1-(v^2/c^2))^.5)) v^2

Plug in a 5 kg micrometeorite and say 45% of C into that. You come out with almost 50% of total shield capacity, not 5%

and yet Starfleet vessels often have to raise shields and order red alert when something happens, even at warp. Could it be because at warp speeds, the nav-deflector and not shields are the thing keeping space-dust & micrometeroites from tearing the ship to shreds?

Matt Huang wrote:

Ender wrote:

Avatar of Narendra III wrote:Acording to the TNG TM a ship cruises with shields at something like 5%
(I'm not positive but it does make sense)

Setting aside the fact that the TM counts for squat and that the setting for shield shas no bearing here, no it doesn't make sense.

KE = .5 (m/((1-(v^2/c^2))^.5)) v^2

Plug in a 5 kg micrometeorite and say 45% of C into that. You come out with almost 50% of total shield capacity, not 5%

and yet Starfleet vessels often have to raise shields and order red alert when something happens, even at warp. Could it be because at warp speeds, the nav-deflector and not shields are the thing keeping space-dust & micrometeroites from tearing the ship to shreds?

Matt are you aware of what happens when a FTL object collides with a STL object? There is a reason I brought up a STL example. Thank you for the pointless red herring about what they do while at warp speed

Ender wrote:

Matt Huang wrote:

Ender wrote:Setting aside the fact that the TM counts for squat and that the setting for shield shas no bearing here, no it doesn't make sense.

KE = .5 (m/((1-(v^2/c^2))^.5)) v^2

Plug in a 5 kg micrometeorite and say 45% of C into that. You come out with almost 50% of total shield capacity, not 5%

and yet Starfleet vessels often have to raise shields and order red alert when something happens, even at warp. Could it be because at warp speeds, the nav-deflector and not shields are the thing keeping space-dust & micrometeroites from tearing the ship to shreds?

Matt are you aware of what happens when a FTL object collides with a STL object? There is a reason I brought up a STL example. Thank you for the pointless red herring about what they do while at warp speed

even when crusing at STL speeds, whenever something happens the orders usually include raise shields and red alert. So if shields are lowered during cruise, the only things keeping micrometeroite impacts from ripping the hull apart are the nav deflectors and the hull itself.

Ender wrote:

Avatar of Narendra III wrote:Acording to the TNG TM a ship cruises with shields at something like 5%
(I'm not positive but it does make sense)

Setting aside the fact that the TM counts for squat and that the setting for shield shas no bearing here, no it doesn't make sense.

KE = .5 (m/((1-(v^2/c^2))^.5)) v^2

Plug in a 5 kg micrometeorite and say 45% of C into that. You come out with almost 50% of total shield capacity, not 5%

I was responding to evilcat about the rascals pulse disruptor shots.

330
00:26:49,647 --> 00:26:54,243
The Federation has come
in search of its spies. Status?

331
00:26:54,607 --> 00:26:57,041
They are scanning
the debris of the freighter.

332
00:26:57,127 --> 00:27:00,722
Shield levels normal.
Weapons systems not active.

333
00:27:00,807 --> 00:27:02,638
They are not prepared for battle.

334
00:27:02,727 --> 00:27:07,881
They weren't expecting to find us.
And I shan't alter that perception.

From The Face of the Enemy TNG, weapons are "not active", but shields are normal--rather than "not active"
This implies that Federation vessels do maintain shields at levels that would be considered insignificant in a battle.