Difference between disruptors and phasers

[Mr_Closet]

Exactly what is supposed to be the difference between disruptors and phasers?

Obviously, it's a form of short-hand to let the audience know who's who. Good guys use phasers (which are red) and bad guys use disruptors (which have a more menacing name and are an uncool green colour, which no self-respecting hero would go near). This comes right out of the Roy Rogers text book, where good guys wear white hats and bad guys wear black.

But anyway, within the context of "treknology", what's the reasoning? I've just read the thread on sonic showers, which posed the idea that the trek writers misunderstood the concept or were too lazy to research it, which resulted in their erroneous portrayal of a waterless sonic shower.

So could this in part explain the fact that the only difference there seems to be between disruptors and phasers is colour?

Yes, that seems to be the only difference, because we've seen disruptors fire continuous beams as well as bursts, and we've seen phasers fire bursts as well as continuous beams - in both cases there are ship-mounted and hand-held weapons which do both.

So, what's the "official canon" rationale?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

The first time disruptors were used in Trek... "A Taste of Armageddon"... they were SONIC disruptors. The Klingons had "Klingon phasers" (using the same sound effect and remodeled versions of the "Taste" disruptor weapon props) in "Errand of Mercy."

I don't recall Klingon weapons being referred to as "disruptors" in TOS... anybody recall otherwise?

SO... the "disruptors" bit came from fandom, post TOS, if I'm correct.

What are "disruptors" in Post-TOS terms? Basically, they're green-tinted rayguns that do pretty much the same as phasers, but less elegantly.

It's established that Klingon disruptors have no stun setting. But that may be a matter of TASTE, not of technical inability.

As far as I can tell, in "real terms" there's no real difference, and in storytelling terms it's only to call the bad-guy guns something different.

If there's ANY difference... it's that "disruptors" are green while "phasers" are red (or in TOS, blue). Very Christmassy, actually...

Oh, and it's implied that getting shot by a disruptor hurts worse while you're being disintigrated.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think the difference is that a phaser is recognized as a Federation weapon and a disruptor is a term used for similar weapons by everybody else. Phasers could be possibly used for non-tactical purposes such as generating a simple laser for construction or even communication purposes (configured for impromptu burst data transmission in an emergency ala a tricorder, perhaps).

It could be argued that a phaser becomes a disruptor at higher settings, though.

 

[Unicron]

My understanding, and I'll try and recall where I read this - I'm tempted to say the DS9 TM, but I'm not sure - is that disruptors like those favored by the Klingons and the Romulans have a beam that's less stable, and the bolt unwinds once it's fired. The result is that when it hits the target, it disrupts them at the cellular level causing more damage in some cases than a Fed phaser would. Hence why you generally don't find a stun setting on such weapons.

 

[Timo]

Hence why you generally don't find a stun setting on such weapons.

...Although that's bit of a myth, not borne out by onscreen references. And just remember Odo in DS9 "Sons of Mogh", needling at Worf about Kurn's volatility:

"I just have one question: does he know how to use the stun setting on a disruptor?"

I'm sure there is a whole range of slightly different weapons that are based on the "phasing" process. It is probably more out of tradition than strict technological need that some get called disruptor and some phaser. But I could easily buy the idea that Federation phasers phase the target to subspace (or wherever) relatively neatly, while a more coarse version of the same technology would do the phasing in a messy, disruptive manner.

I don't recall Klingon weapons being referred to as "disruptors" in TOS... anybody recall otherwise?

That's right, no Klingon disruptors in TOS. In the first aired referencelet to that terminology, TAS "More Tribbles" describes the new stasis beam as having an effect of "most remarkable disruption", but that's it.

No Romulan disruptors there, either. The first use of the term on screen would be the "forward disruption array" of the Romulan warbird in TNG "The Enemy"... After this, Romulan starship guns are always disruptors, and their handguns also become this from "The Mind's Eye" onwards.

As far as I can tell, the first canonical use of Klingon disruptors in televised Trek is "Redemption I", for the starship guns; the handguns might get their canonical name as late as the early seasons of DS9. I don't recall if the word is used in ST3:TSfS before that, though.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[USS Excelsior]

In the 3rd season episode where Data gets stolen to be part of a collection, there was the use of a very unique disruptor which slowly eats away at the target.

Banned in the Federation of course, which could open up the door to some disruptors being allowed in the Federation.