NX Class Weapons

[Deks]

'Phase guns' and 'phasers' are apparently both particle based, the difference is that 'phase guns' are the 'phaser' tech in it's infancy.

Same goes for photonic vs photon torpedoes.

EM-33's were different to my recollection.

Maybe the writers should have resumed use of 'older tech' until Season 3 and then completely make the transition to phase cannons and photonic torpedoes after the re-fit (which in the show provided the NX-01 with all 13 ports being equipped with phase cannons and replacement of spatial torpedoes with photons since spatials had little to no effect on shield technology).

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

The Pike laser reference could be justified by retconning in the original meaning for Phaser as postulated in some TOS behind-the-scenes stuff. Essentially, Phase Cannons would be phased lasers, with phased weaponry technology being a weapons technology that is applicable to lasers (phase cannons) or Phasers (particle beams). After some time, people would take to calling them "lasers" as a general terminology to avoid confusion with a myriad of names (phase gun, phase cannon, phased laser etc.)

If that explanation works for anyone, feel free to jam it into your personal canon.

 

[ConRefit79]

It makes sense for them to replace the spatial torpedoes. Those appeared to only work at sublight. Before Photonic Torpedoes, Enterprise did not have any defensive weapons while at warp. Do we know if 22nd Century could manufacture antimatter efficiently enough to use in weapons? I suppose photonic torpedoes could have nuclear warheads, but have just enought antimatter to propel them at high warp. The kinetic energy alone should provide enough power make them more powerful than the spatial torpedoes.

 

[Praetor]

The Pike laser reference could be justified by retconning in the original meaning for Phaser as postulated in some TOS behind-the-scenes stuff. Essentially, Phase Cannons would be phased lasers, with phased weaponry technology being a weapons technology that is applicable to lasers (phase cannons) or Phasers (particle beams). After some time, people would take to calling them "lasers" as a general terminology to avoid confusion with a myriad of names (phase gun, phase cannon, phased laser etc.)

If that explanation works for anyone, feel free to jam it into your personal canon.

Done and done.

 

[JNG]

It makes sense for them to replace the spatial torpedoes. Those appeared to only work at sublight. Before Photonic Torpedoes, Enterprise did not have any defensive weapons while at warp. Do we know if 22nd Century could manufacture antimatter efficiently enough to use in weapons? I suppose photonic torpedoes could have nuclear warheads, but have just enought antimatter to propel them at high warp. The kinetic energy alone should provide enough power make them more powerful than the spatial torpedoes.

I believe it was stated on screen that photonic torpedoes were using matter/antimatter warheads. The prop was actually labeled with a warning about antimatter.

I'm not certain about photonic torpedoes being warp-capable, but it was stated on screen that their range was greatly superior to the ("Triton-class") spatial torpedo also in use on NX-01.

As far as defensive weapons at warp, we did see them using the phase cannons at warp sometimes. The only rationalization I have been able to come up with for this has to do with the fact that it often appeared to be at close range, and maybe they were touching the warp bubbles together.

 

[Timo]

I'm not certain about photonic torpedoes being warp-capable, but it was stated on screen that their range was greatly superior to the ("Triton-class") spatial torpedo also in use on NX-01.

Might be that "Triton class" referred to some other weapon altogether: Reed said it was something he was personally familiar with, and he might not have needed to specify "Triton class" if it was what Archer and Tucker were also familiar with. For all we know, it was an outdated type of UESF torpedo, and Reed's knowledge on it was rare. (Or it might have been a weapon used only on Triton class starships, whatever those were.)

I don't remember any specific cases of ENT torpedoes being used at FTL speeds, either... But there might have been some.

As far as defensive weapons at warp, we did see them using the phase cannons at warp sometimes. The only rationalization I have been able to come up with for this has to do with the fact that it often appeared to be at close range, and maybe they were touching the warp bubbles together.

But everybody else in every other show, with the rare exception of Picard in TNG, was using phasers at warp. There was never any problem with it, never any sort of special trickery needed for it. Apparently, phasers were the natural choice of weapon in all warp battles.

Might be that phaser beams are inherently of "sublight nature" or "warp nature" or whatever. Might be that most or all phaser embankments on starships have special systems that boost the beams to warp the same way tractor beams are boosted to warp to act as navigational deflectors. But certainly this tech is there in ENT already, and isn't even all that revolutionary: our heroes expect it to work without a hitch the first time around ("Fallen Hero"), and are surprised when there are complications. Perhaps some preceding types of UESF beam weapon also were capable of warp speeds?

 

[John O.]

My apologies if this has already been mentioned, but off the top of my head the first thing I remember is that in Encounter at Farpoint, when the Enterprise is in high warp withdraw from the Continuum *thing*, it fires torpedoes aft while at warp.

I wouldn't think in the ENT era they could fire torpedoes at warp. I don't remember them doing it, but I would think it would represent a significant engineering challenge to design a torpedo casing that can easily survive transitioning through the warp barrier.

I would imagine phasers and phase cannons have no trouble being used at warp because they're energy weapons and there isn't a material object having to survive torsional or compressional stresses of passing through a warp field and out of it.

 

[Timo]

I would think it would represent a significant engineering challenge to design a torpedo casing that can easily survive transitioning through the warp barrier.

Indeed. But is there any reason to think that this challenge wasn't met in 2150, as opposed to 2250 or 2350?

The folks of the ENT era devised or acquired all sorts of nifty things that would later be standard Starfleet hardware: fast warp drives, man-rated transporters, phasers, later also shields and tractor beams. Warp torpedoes might have been part of that "invention/acquisition boom", too. After all, if ENT represented Earth's first true interstellar exploration sortie, one would expect a number of technologies to have reached a "threshold" simultaneously: ships lacking in some respects could not survive such a mission even if they were modern in others. And if ENT represented Earth's earliest contacts with the outside galaxy, one would expect many foreign innovations or products to reach Earth at roughly that time, too, resulting in technological leaps that might not be matched in the following two centuries.

Warp-speed torpedoes were a reality in TOS already, it seems. Or at least they were used against a warp-speed target in "Journey to Babel" (to little effect), and the Romulans used one against our heroes in "Balance of Terror" (to somewhat greater effect), and apparently a slightly different warp torpedo type in "The Deadly Years".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Praetor]

I still say ENT would have been more fun if more technological limitations had been imposed and adhered to.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

As far as defensive weapons at warp, we did see them using the phase cannons at warp sometimes. The only rationalization I have been able to come up with for this has to do with the fact that it often appeared to be at close range, and maybe they were touching the warp bubbles together.

If you remember your Einstein, you know that a photon always travels at the speed of light relative to every observer. It doesn't matter if the Enterprise is traveling faster than light relative to Earth or some fixed galactic point, it isn't traveling faster than light relative to the target of its phasers or the energy particles emitted from them.

Ergo, phasers work at warp, they always have, and they always will.

 

[Timo]

...Except that they have never demonstrated photon-like behavior.

Emanating from a hand phaser, the phaser blasts travel slower than a bullet. The VFX looks like this, and the plotlines confirm this: the heroes can duck the beams, and even neatly sidestep them when chemically accelerated.

Yet emanating from a starship turret or strip, the blasts catch distant targets faster than lightspeed should allow. And going from one FTL ship to another, they aren't exactly obeying Einstein because those two ships are already kicking the old man in the groin big time.

Since we have all sorts of "beams" and "streams" traveling at varying FTL speeds in Star Trek already, it doesn't seem reasonable to impose restrictions on phaser beams in this respect when there's no onscreen reason for it. Their physical nature could be completely unlike that of light, and more akin to the strange radiation (or whatnot) that carries FTL communications.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

...Except that they have never demonstrated photon-like behavior.

"Frequency" and "modulation" are properties of wave forms; they are things that photons do and ionic particles (which is what we're referring to when we talk of "particle weapons") do not. More to the point, Phasers do not have the properties of particle weapons either, since they are not produce various types of nasty radiation when striking a metal target.

Emanating from a hand phaser, the phaser blasts travel slower than a bullet.

Actually, the FLASH travels slower than a bullet. Which doesn't tell you much of anything since, strictly speaking, you wouldn't be able to "see" the propagation of anything, particle or not, only the propagation of the ionization effect in the air. Similar to a bolt of lightning: you don't actually see the electronic charge traveling through the air, you see the ionization of air caused by that discharge, which is several milliseconds behind the discharge itself.

Yet emanating from a starship turret or strip, the blasts catch distant targets faster than lightspeed should allow.

Basically incorrect. In most circumstances (actually, nearly all of them) when firing on a distant target the delay is very similar to what might be expected at ranges of one or two light seconds. It is rare to non-existent to see phasers firing at a target BEYOND one light second, so there are no examples consistent with this.

Since we have all sorts of "beams" and "streams" traveling at varying FTL speeds in Star Trek already

We only have two, and those are tachyon beams and subspace beams. A tachyon, by the way, is--by definition--any particle that travels faster than light. Phasers, therefore, would be tachyon weapons if their emissions were FTL in nature, and they have never been referred to as such. They could conveicably be subspace beams, but then phasers would be indistinguishable from "force beams" or tractor beams and they do not appear to have this property either.

So this leaves a kind of laser-like weapon that shares a basic operating principle but a very different design, like the difference between a cannon and a railgun. It's actually very likely that phasers represent a time of FM laser weapon where the frequency is modulated to deliver a specific signal, tuned to create pre-determined effects in the target (we already know how to do this with acoustics to some extent).

 

[Timo]

"Frequency" and "modulation" are properties of wave forms; they are things that photons do and ionic particles (which is what we're referring to when we talk of "particle weapons") do not.

Bullshit - ion beams can always have (de Broglie) frequency and, whenever being modulated for a purpose, a related frequency and modulation just as well. Moreover, a device for generating a particle beam is likely to have a frequency and a modulation, and the operator would quite naturally apply the words to the resultant beam as well.

More to the point, Phasers do not have the properties of particle weapons either, since they are not produce various types of nasty radiation when striking a metal target.

How could we tell? From the looks of it, that's exactly what they do...

Actually, the FLASH travels slower than a bullet. Which doesn't tell you much of anything since, strictly speaking, you wouldn't be able to "see" the propagation of anything, particle or not, only the propagation of the ionization effect in the air.

However,

a) the "actual" effect moves at the speed of the flash, or slower, as evidenced by the ability of our heroes to step out of the way of the flash unharmed, and

b) the glow isn't the result of dispersion in air, since it's present in vacuum as well - and this is definitely something that a particle beam could do (it's essentially a glowing rod residing in space) but a beam of light could not!

It is rare to non-existent to see phasers firing at a target BEYOND one light second, so there are no examples consistent with this.

The disruptors in "The Emissary" certainly took our heroes by surprise from "maximum sensor range". Did they spend half a minute traveling towards the E-D, unnoticed, or what?

We only have two, and those are tachyon beams and subspace beams.

That's a bit facetious. "Subspace" is a complex thing, and some episodes would even have us believe that dimensions within constitute entire universes in which humanoid life can exist. We have no way of knowing that, say, FTL comm beams and FTL sensor beams and FTL tractor beams are the exact same technology or physical phenomenon, or that phasers are or aren't entitled to make use of that tech/phenomenon.

It's perfectly possible to say that phaser beams are yet another Tech phenomenon that can travel at arbitrary speed, including high superlight and low sublight.

At the bottom line we have a weapon emission that looks like a fancy tracer bullet in flight, travels much like a bullet would, and is capable of delivering substances such as nanogoo or toxins. It has very few properties associable with EM radiation. It need not be a particle beam as we understand those - it could be something fancy like an evil transporter-type phased matter stream. But IMNSHO it's highly unlikely to be anything like a laser.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

"Frequency" and "modulation" are properties of wave forms; they are things that photons do and ionic particles (which is what we're referring to when we talk of "particle weapons") do not.

Bullshit - ion beams can always have (de Broglie) frequency

de Brogile frequency does not account for the effects that phaser beams appear to have, so that pretty well rules that out.

How could we tell?

Because every time the ship is hit by a phaser beam a radiation alarm would sound, or there'd be throwaway lines about radiation poisoning on a damaged ship, or there'd be tech references to times when it is and isn't safe to use phasers. We don't see any of these, however we do have radiation warnings from things like nuclear weapons and damaged matter/antimatter engine assemblies that give off alot of radiation when you're close to them without shielding. Actually, the only time when "phasers" and "radiation" are used together is in TVH when Chekov's phaser doesn't work because of all the gamma radiation, or in Inter Arma where a Romulan official is set to be assassinated by "nadion radiation" from the phaser banks.

a) the "actual" effect moves at the speed of the flash, or slower, as evidenced by the ability of our heroes to step out of the way of the flash unharmed

Which in the first place doesn't tell you anything about the nature of the beam, since in all liklelihood it takes a few milliseconds of beam dwell for it to have any damage at all. In the second place, we've only seen people dodge phaser beams twice, once in "wink of an eye" where Kirk was apparently accelerated to the speed of subplot, and the other is in "Broken Bow" in that funky room where you can see everything before it happens. Both references are plot devices, and the environments where they happen are internally inconsistent anyway. If anything it tells you more about the nature of time dilation than it does about phasers.

b) the glow isn't the result of dispersion in air, since it's present in vacuum as well

Without a line reference to the beam actually being "seen" in space, it's equally likely the phaser beam is "drawn" onto the view-screen by the computer.

Futhermore, even the lasers in "The Cage" are visible in the air, as are the laser weapons used by various low-tech alien races throughout TNG.

The disruptors in "The Emissary" certainly took our heroes by surprise from "maximum sensor range". Did they spend half a minute traveling towards the E-D, unnoticed, or what?

That's disruptors for you. There's no solid evidence that they work anything like phasers or are even the same general type of weapon. They could very well be plasma-based weapons like early 22nd century Earth munitions or the big plasma torpedo thing the Romulans were using in TOS.

That's a bit facetious. "Subspace" is a complex thing, and some episodes would even have us believe that dimensions within constitute entire universes in which humanoid life can exist. We have no way of knowing that, say, FTL comm beams and FTL sensor beams and FTL tractor beams are the exact same technology or physical phenomenon, or that phasers are or aren't entitled to make use of that tech/phenomenon.

Sure, but apart from an explanation assembled COMPLETELY out of thin air, there's no indication phasers do.

At the bottom line we have a weapon emission that looks like a fancy tracer bullet in flight, travels much like a bullet would, and is capable of delivering substances such as nanogoo or toxins.

Only if you assume anything in Voyager makes enough technical sense that it can tell us something meaningful about the trekiverse (and it doesn't).

As for traveling like a "tracer bullet," there are no examples of this other than pulse phasers, which likewise do not appear to travel slower than light and--in any case--have no examples of Matrix-style phaser dodging scenes.

IMNSHO it's highly unlikely to be anything like a laser.

Noted and logged... it still bears repeating that, as far as the original intent of TOS, the "phaser" was invented when the producers realized that lasers probably wouldn't have a stun setting.

 

[Praetor]

Okay, I'll say it: science argument hurt brain.

 

[Timo]

de Brogile frequency does not account for the effects that phaser beams appear to have, so that pretty well rules that out.

Please explain. All we know about the effects of "phaser frequency" is that frequency may affect a beam's ability to penetrate a certain kind of shield or other exotic obstacle. There's no real-world sounding board to judge these frequencies by.

Because every time the ship is hit by a phaser beam a radiation alarm would sound

Why? The ship is probably largely radiation-proof: what happens outside doesn't hurt the people inside, unless there's massive prolonged emission from inside the shield bubble (say, "Final Mission").

And the type of particle beam would dictate the radiation it knocks out of the metal. If the main effect is one of phasing that metal out of our universe, then a bit of exotic nuclei along with the tiny visual flash ain't gonna register much in comparison.

Phasers sure aren't electron beams. Or pure antiproton beams, as "DDM" declares those an alien type of weapon. But they could well be nadion beams, as per backstage technobabble and onscreen behavior. They could never be beams of photons, though.

Without a line reference to the beam actually being "seen" in space, it's equally likely the phaser beam is "drawn" onto the view-screen by the computer.

Now that's really reaching.

Futhermore, even the lasers in "The Cage" are visible in the air, as are the laser weapons used by various low-tech alien races throughout TNG.

Huh? What does that have to do with anything?

The beams of the laser sidearms in "The Cage" do seem to move more or less at lightspeed: they're drawn in during a single frame of film, effectively instantaneously reaching their target. There are no SW "turbolaser" style effects in ST of laser beams or bolts flying to their targets at paintball speeds.

In the second place, we've only seen people dodge phaser beams twice

There's lots of dodging in TNG, really - but that's generally dodging before the phaser is fired, not while the beam is flying towards the target. But I'll tentatively grant the "dwell time" argument as a possibility for why Deela wasn't harmed by Kirk's phaser blast. It's a bit of a reach, though, as there's no independent proof for the idea that some sort of a preceding effect would be the cause of the harm. In basically all the cases, the victim disintegrates/flies backward exactly when the visual effect hits him or her, even if we witnessed the visual effect crossing a large space during three or four frames of film instead of instantaneously/at lightspeed.

[quore]That's disruptors for you. There's no solid evidence that they work anything like phasers or are even the same general type of weapon. [/quote]

Nor for a difference, of course. And the terminology is used more or less interchangeably anyway. We even have "phase disruptor" as a canonical name for what looks like a phaser or a disruptor.

Sure, but apart from an explanation assembled COMPLETELY out of thin air, there's no indication phasers do.

But the "they are beams of light" explanation is the one without any basis. They never display any sort of lightlike behavior: they are seen in vacuum, they are seen flying at the speed of a paintball, they do splash at target and they do wreak havoc inconsistent with mere imposition of EM energy on the target spot. And they do move at FTL speeds without further ado. Not to mention the ability to carry substances from emitter to victim...

There's nothing laserlike about them at all, and everything about them is "scifi deathray" like. Some parts of "scifi deathray" can be explained by introducing particle beam concepts; significantly fewer parts can generally be explained by laser principles, and in the phaser case basically no parts will benefit from the laser explanation. Quite to the contrary, trying to impose laser qualities to the phasers will mean inconsistency with observed behavior in basically EVERY POSSIBLE SENSE. A good grounds for completely abandoning the laser hypothesis, wouldn't you think?


Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

de Brogile frequency does not account for the effects that phaser beams appear to have, so that pretty well rules that out.

Please explain. All we know about the effects of "phaser frequency" is that frequency may affect a beam's ability to penetrate a certain kind of shield or other exotic obstacle. There's no real-world sounding board to judge these frequencies by.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/04/navy_patents_ca/

This is the closest thing we have to using "frequency" for weapons use: sonic resonance to create air bubbles underwater. This is probably similar to the "sonic disruptor" concept from TOS, and undoubtedly similar to the photon-based principle used in phasers. Another similar concept is acoustic heating and fire extinguishing.

Why? The ship is probably largely radiation-proof

The ship is demonstrably NOT radiation proof from dozens of episodes throughout the series where radiation poisoning is a major threat to the crew. This actually appears to be the reason starships have deflectors in the first place.

And the type of particle beam would dictate the radiation it knocks out of the metal. If the main effect is one of phasing that metal out of our universe...

Particle beams would not have this property either, so that's a non-starter.

But they could well be nadion beams, as per backstage technobabble and onscreen behavior. They could never be beams of photons, though.

Unless, of course, nadions are a type of high-energy photon. And they appear to be, incidentally, since those same backstage materials occasionally mention phasers as having a non-offensive mode used for active scans, not unlike a lidar array.

It's a bit of a reach, though, as there's no independent proof for the idea that some sort of a preceding effect would be the cause of the harm.

The preceeding effect is not. In real-world laser weapons, only the cumulative effect causes harm. If, for example, you zap an ICBM with a laser beam, you have to KEEP the beam on target for a number of seconds; if the missile moves out of the beam, it gets a little warm, but suffers no real damage.

If the required dwell time is, say, fifty milliseconds, then you wouldn't have any effect until after that time; if it also takes fifty milliseconds to ionize a column of air as wide as the beam, then you wouldn't see any effect until the beam becomes visible.

This may be consistent with some of the more exotic theories about shields, if you think about it: it's been posed that shields are a "reactive" system that only snap into existence when an energy beam approaches the ship (hence the ability of aliens to penetrate them by matching shield frequencies). A very fast computer detects a beam striking the ship and then raises a shield to block it before it can reach full effect. The "frequency" of the shields is probably the frequency of the detection field around the ship, so you can trick that field by matching the scan rate of the field with your own weapons, like the interruptor switch on a Zero's machinegun.

Sure, but apart from an explanation assembled COMPLETELY out of thin air, there's no indication phasers do.

But the "they are beams of light" explanation is the one without any basis. They never display any sort of lightlike behavior[/quote]
Neither do lasers, sensors, tricorders, radios, or anything else in the Trekiverse that is supposed to display lightlike behavior. Even Kirk and Spock's home-made laser beam constructed out of a pair of transponders attached to a piece of metal had a visible beam through the air that 1) didn't look different from a phaser beam and 2) didn't seem to move at light speed. And there's also the lasers from The Cage, which behaved exactly like phasers and were physically very similar to phasers seen in early TOS episodes.

So there's circumstantial evidence that phasers have a similar operating principle as lasers, but are drastically more advanced. The evidence for them being particle beams is quite small, not least of which is their inability to irradiate metal, which is basically an expectation for ANY weaponized particle-based weapon.

 

[Timo]

This is the closest thing we have to using "frequency" for weapons use

How does that relate to anything? Phasers use "frequency" for better penetrating defenses that also have a "frequency". We don't have either phasers or those defenses. And we have no business saying where the word or concept "frequency" may or may not be applied.

Or should we say that warp drive must be based on the sailing principle because the only legitimate current use of the word "warping" in vehicular transportation is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warping_(sailing) ?

The ship is demonstrably NOT radiation proof from dozens of episodes throughout the series where radiation poisoning is a major threat to the crew. This actually appears to be the reason starships have deflectors in the first place.

But with the deflectors, the ship is radiation proof. So there would be no radiation problems until the shields went down, and at that point, radiation would be the least of the problems.

Particle beams would not have this property either, so that's a non-starter.

But the fact that phasers are, first and foremost, a magical type of phenomenon that phases matter out of our universe means that the already rather irrelevant radiation issue becomes a non-issue. There's simply no matter there at the phaser impact point to create a radiation cascade, because it gets phased away.

Unless, of course, nadions are a type of high-energy photon. And they appear to be, incidentally, since those same backstage materials occasionally mention phasers as having a non-offensive mode used for active scans, not unlike a lidar array.

Why would a scanner be based on photons? That's a silly leap - many scanners today aren't (ultrasound is far more common than lidar). And starship scanners in Trek certainly can't be photon-based, considering their observed properties.

Indeed, the whole pursuit of "Treknology X must be based on electromagnetism/other known phenomenon, and therefore must obey the rules of electromagnetism/other known phenomenon, and thus the 96 observed contradictions must be ignored and the 4 supporting points must be used as proof" sounds dubious. Treknology isn't based on real-world phenomena for the most part. It merely has observable properties of its own, from which its (fictional) nature may be deduced in a descriptive-empirical manner.

Neither do lasers, sensors, tricorders, radios, or anything else in the Trekiverse that is supposed to display lightlike behavior.

There is no requirement for sensors, tricorders or communicators to exhibit lightlike behavior. Radio signals in Trek do seem to have the property of only moving at lightspeed, since the plot purpose of a radio in Trek is to relay a badly belated message.

So there's circumstantial evidence that phasers have a similar operating principle as lasers, but are drastically more advanced. The evidence for them being particle beams is quite small, not least of which is their inability to irradiate metal, which is basically an expectation for ANY weaponized particle-based weapon.

But you still can't get around the most explicit attribute of phasers - their decidedly non-lightspeed propagation. This is something lasers can't do, but particle beams (say, bullets) obviously can.

And the radiation of metal is a non-issue: who cares about a couple of pions sprouting from the impact point, when the impact kills you, or sends your remains to another universe altogether, and in any case does tend to create a mighty flash of (visible) radiation?

Even if somebody built a real proton gun, the main worry of the victims or bystanders would not be radiation poisoning - the insignificant amount of ionizing radiation created would only be something for the forensics guys to ponder about when they reached a scene where a proton gun had been used. Which, incidentally, is exactly what happens in Trek: lingering remains of phaser use can be picked up after a battle.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

This is the closest thing we have to using "frequency" for weapons use

How does that relate to anything? Phasers use "frequency" for better penetrating defenses that also have a "frequency".

Well, they use higher power settings and so on, but as for "using frequency" to better penetrate those defenses, I can't think of anyone ever doing this other than the Duras Sisters.

But with the deflectors, the ship is radiation proof.

Deflectors are not made of metal.

But the fact that phasers are, first and foremost, a magical type of phenomenon that phases matter out of our universe

There's no indication that it does anything of the kind. Actually, phasers are described as "vaporizing" things. I can't say that I actually "phase matter out of our universe" every time I make tea.

Why would a scanner be based on photons?

See Geordi and Barclay's attempt to scan the probe from "The Nth Degree." They list a number of devices in order of detail and sophistication that are probably part of the normal sensor package on a starship. These include passive EM scans, active EM scans, positron emission scans, etc.

FYI, the oft-spoken "multi-spectral analysis" of Voyager and TNG technobabble is just that: an analysis of a phenomenon using multiple electromagnetic spectra. And I'm sure you aware that the force carrier for electromagnetic radiation is, in fact, the photon.

And starship scanners in Trek certainly can't be photon-based, considering their observed properties.

They have photon-based crew members, Timo. How is it that much of a leap to have a photon-based sensor?

But you still can't get around the most explicit attribute of phasers - their decidedly non-lightspeed propagation.

Already explained this one and I don't feel like repeating myself. To summarize: LASERS propagate at light speed even if their effects do not.

On the other hand, particle beams propagate arbitrarily close to the speed of light to be ruled out by the same observations you're touting here. The only way this could be consistent is if phaser beams propagate at something less than the speed of sound. The more likely explanation is that "Wink of an Eye" just wasn't that consistent with its time-shifting (surprise surprise) nor was the only other example of this in "Broken Bow."

And the radiation of metal is a non-issue

Only if phasers are something other than particle beams, yes. Otherwise, any energetic reaction between a conductive substance and a fast-moving charged particle will create ALOT of radiation. Neutral particles will create different types of non-ionizing radiation, but the problem remains in any case.

These are not problems that phasers have, so that largely rules out particle weapons.

Even if somebody built a real proton gun, the main worry of the victims or bystanders would not be radiation poisoning

As a matter of fact it would, because a "Real" proton gun wouldn't cause that much mechanical damage and its primary effect WOULD be the radiation, either flash-frying the electronics of the ship or roasting the crew alive.

That's the thing about particle weapons: they rarely even have theoretical death-ray properties, because the amount of energy required to produce that property would be STAGGERING, and would even in that case be overshadowed by the effects of electromagnetic irradiation. Particle beams are typically depicted as "soft kill" type weapons: they won't slice your opponent to ribbons, but if you hit him in the right spot you can roast him alive and blow out all of his computer circuits before he has a chance to shoot back.

High energy photons would yield the necessary effects (and they apparently did during Enterprise' first tour of duty), having the ability to cut, heat and vaporize metallic as well as non-metallic substances, not to mention the lack of that pesky radiation problem characteristic of particle beams.

 

[Timo]

Well, they use higher power settings and so on, but as for "using frequency" to better penetrate those defenses, I can't think of anyone ever doing this other than the Duras Sisters.

Or LaForge, to defeat the Borg. Or a couple of other examples. But all the better - it just establishes that "frequency" in Trek doesn't have to have anything to do with the frequency of EM radiation, since examples of that sort of use of the word in connection with phasers are even fewer. Can you come up with one?

Deflectors are not made of metal.

Why should they be?

Phasers hitting starships can create radiation for all I care. Hell, we see them create radiation - there are big flashes of light. But this need not create a special "radiation emergency": the pions and myons in the mix are probably the least harmful components of it all, quite regardless of whether the beam hits shields or metal or flesh.

And the type of radiation created by a particle beam depends on the beam. There's no reason to think that a "laser-type phaser" would create less harmful radiation when hitting metal than a "particle-beam-type phaser", not unless we go into deep details of the beams in question. And we can't, since the phaser is not a laser nor a stream of protons. But it may well be a stream of something. It just cannot be a laser - that's the only thing we know it cannot be.

There's no indication that it does anything of the kind. Actually, phasers are described as "vaporizing" things. I can't say that I actually "phase matter out of our universe" every time I make tea.

Your own approach would defeat you here, though. If the target is indeed transformed from solid to vapor, then there'd be a heat wave and other such real-world effects. There isn't: you can phase down the third guy in the row without giving a tan to the second and fourth. So, whatever it is, it's not vaporization - any more than "magnetic boots" need to be based on electromagnetics.

See Geordi and Barclay's attempt to scan the probe from "The Nth Degree." They list a number of devices in order of detail and sophistication that are probably part of the normal sensor package on a starship. These include passive EM scans, active EM scans, positron emission scans, etc.

Good point, conceded.

They have photon-based crew members, Timo. How is it that much of a leap to have a photon-based sensor?

Irrelevant, as once again the observed properties are decisive. Photons don't do FTL, nor can they account for observations through cloaks, or sensing things like heat signatures through buildings or rock. They are no doubt part of what a tricorder does, but they are not what the tricorder does when telling our heroes that there's a rift in subspace 50.2 meters ahead.

LASERS propagate at light speed even if their effects do not.

Sounds utterly silly. We see the phaser effect propagate at speeds vastly below c, and vastly above c - we never see anything proceed at c. Why should we add this additional assumption of a "c-speed carrier wave" when none is ever observed or implied?

We could just as well decide that phaser radiation "naturally" proceeds at 47 c, but the effect moves at the observed 200 m/s - except when it moves at 200 c, or 5,000 m/s, or whatever else we see it do.

It's one hell of a job trying to fit into the data the idea that there's something invisible there moving at c when nothing visible is moving at c. Why go to that trouble?

On the other hand, particle beams propagate arbitrarily close to the speed of light to be ruled out by the same observations you're touting here.

Bullshit. A particle beam can propagate at 1 m/s if necessary. It just depends on the nature of the beam.

Laser radiation is a very special case of coherent beam phenomena. Particle beams are a broad and flexible category of things, and a good catchall name for all sorts of death rays, factual and fictional. To speak of lasers means almost invariably to err, while to speak of particle beams means almost invariably to be right (if only because of the vagueness of the concept).

Otherwise, any energetic reaction between a conductive substance and a fast-moving charged particle will create ALOT of radiation.

Why charged particle? Neutral ones would have far better weapons applications. And "a lot" is a relative thing anyway - contrasted with what else a phaser does, the heavy nuclei spray is probably still perfectly irrelevant.

Timo Saloniemi