Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Chain-fire phasers.

This is topic Chain-fire phasers. in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/1460.html

Posted by Nevod (Member # 738) on :

Well,CFP fire beam with duration of only about 0.02 seconds then cool down for 0.05 secs,and have burst fire time of 0.5-2 seconds and pause to recharge for 5-15 seconds.They can be fired from arrays.

I think it's good,since single beam have great pover in watts so it's easier for them to penetrate shields,and have very good track,making them effective against fighters.

Send your weapons ideas and opinions on this.

[ November 23, 2001: Message edited by: Nevod ]

Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :

Uummm... huh?

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :

You are saying chain-fire phasers would be better than the ordinary phasers, right?

First of all, what *is* a chain-fire phaser? Do you mean the pulse phasers from the Miranda and later the Defiant? Or do you mean that Akira special weapon from "Star Trek: Armada"?

Posted by Nevod (Member # 738) on :

Hey, you're hadn't read my post!
Chain Phaser is beam phaser,but it fire very short-durated beams in burst pattern!(It's like to phasers as seen in TWOK)

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Oh, they read your post. It's just difficult to understand. Please tell me that english isn't your first language.

BTW, don't take this as an insult, by any means. We've had some trouble with that before, and I don't want to drive a new member off just by explaining why no one understood him.

Except me. I know exactly what he means.

Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :

OK...I think I get it. You're saying that the short burst phasers that the Enterprise and the Reliant fired in TWOK are better than the steady beam phasers that the Ent D fires in TNG...right?

If they could be modulated to confuse shields I suppose there would be a certain advantage. On the other hand, steady beam phasers force the shields to expend continued energy to repulse the attack.

It works like this: which ever kind of phasers the story line calls for to work better are the ones that are better.

Posted by Nevod (Member # 738) on :

Yes, english isn't my first.Anyways,I'm going to be reviewing my posts in future.

Phasers in TWOK is firing pulses from fixed spots.Chain phasers fire from arrays and generally produce same effect as Defiant's.

That's the question o you really think that they do more damage?

[ November 23, 2001: Message edited by: Nevod ]

Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :

I don't know.

Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :

The TNG Tech Manual mentions various tactics used with phasers and specifically says sometimes tactical officers find that firing short bursts instead of a continuous stream is more effective against certain shield types. Therefore, effectiveness of phaser fire is probably dependent on the specific shield technology. Also, this entry suggests that the TNG phasers can fire in short bursts as well as in the typical stream.

[ November 23, 2001: Message edited by: Ace ]

Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :

Say Nevod, what *is* your first language, if you don't mind telling us?

I just get this image of an old-style gatling gun with a hand crank, manned by a space-suited person on the hull of a starship screaming "remember the Alamooooooo!"

Mark

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

Well, I don't think it really matters anyways. The Type-X, and probably all the phaser strips, can fire both sustained and short burst beams. The rate of fire isn't quite and high as the TWOK phasers, but you have more power and spectrums to work with. Plus the fact that a single array can emit several beams at once, you can time-on-target 2 or 3 beams to a single spot.

Speaking of which, besides the Type-X and Type-XII, what other types of the stripped phaser array are there? The Ambassadors but that predated GCS, and runabouts and Novas had them but they're too small to be Type-X.

[ November 23, 2001: Message edited by: David Templar ]

Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :

I still don't understand why the Ent-E has to have Type-XII. What was wrong with Type-X, and just how much better is XII over X? On the other hand, the Ent-D in Generations (with its refit) might have had Type-XII. Who knows...

[ November 23, 2001: Message edited by: Ace ]

Posted by Nevod (Member # 738) on :

My first is russian.It's quite different from english.

Actually,I meant very high refire rate.Like in TWOK.Using enchanced TNG arrays.

Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :

Type-XII - Prometheus, Sovereign
Type-X - Akira, Galaxy, Nebula, Norway, Sabre, Steamrunner
Type-IX - Ambassador, Excelsior (Lakota),
Type-VIII - Cheyenne, Constellation, Excelsior, Freedom, Griffin, Intrepid, New Orleans, Niagara, Nova
Type-VII - Centaur, Constitution Refit, Federation, Miranda, Soyuz
Type-VI - Constitution
Type-V - None that I can find.
Type-IV - Danube, Oberth, shuttles

Those are the type of phasers and which ships have them, as for power - Type-X was capable of 5.1MW discharge, with the Type-IX capable of 4.8MW. I guess each type goes up 0.3MW so a Type-XII would be around 5.7MW and a Type-IV about 3.3MW. I could be way out here, by hey - do I care?

However . . . as Cheyenne-, Intrepid-, New Orleans-, Niagara-, and Nova-class ships are all new designs I'd think that they too hold Type-X phasers and not Type-VIII . . .

[ November 24, 2001: Message edited by: akb1979 ]

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

akb1979, where did you find that info? It's flawed right off the bat. The Lakota didn't have any phaser strips, nor did the Constellation, the standard Excelsior, and a whole bunch of other ships you listed.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Griffin? WTF is the Griffin? And the Federation isn't canon.

Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :

Doesn't the Ent-B MSD show Type-VIII phasers? From that, I'd assume array or emitter types don't have anything to do with the "Type-n" designation. After all, the shuttles don't have strips, but they are listed with Type-IV phasers in the Tech. Manual.

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

It's single emitters versus thousands of emitters formed into collimator rings (or strips). The Galaxy-class arrays are formed from thousands of slaved Type X emitter segments.

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

Actually, the uuper dorsal array is by far the largest on the GCS, and it 'only' sports two hundred segments for a measely combined output of 1.02GW. Plus the slightly shorter lower array, the normal nominal total forward phaser power is something like 2GW. Compared to the 20GW of a Romulan Warbird, that's really not much.

And the whole idea of having the saucer section run away while the stardrive goes off to fight really wouldn't work because of the amount of phaser firepower the escaping saucer section would strip away. The single forward strip in front of the battle bridge is ~70MW, tops.

Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :

Duh! I NEVER said "phaser strips" I simply said phasers. The types listed are classed as "Type-IV Phasers", "Type VII Phasers", etc. I never said strips, or banks or pulse cannons or fart repellors!

Griffin and Federation? Got them from DITI - wasn't sure about their status, but put them in anyways.

"Phaser strips", can't you read???? Never said it, so don't accuse me of such! GRRRRRRRRRR!!!!

Can you tell that he's hit a sore spot?

I simply listed phaser "TYPES", there is a difference!!!!

(Storms off as he stomps his feet, slams door and finds a place to sulk and blow off some steam).

[ November 26, 2001: Message edited by: akb1979 ]

Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :

I bet that when they were first thought up for the Ent-D, phaser strip length had nothing to do with power. Why else would you put all those dinky, little ones on the secondary hull?

Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :

Because a short phaser strip is better than no phaser at all?

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

Just a few examples.

quote:
Originally posted by akb1979:
Type-IX - Ambassador, Excelsior (Lakota),

Ambassador has phaser stripes, Lakota does not.

quote:
Originally posted by akb1979:

Type-VIII - Cheyenne, Constellation, Excelsior, Freedom, Griffin, Intrepid, New Orleans, Niagara, Nova

Intrepid and Nova has phaser strips, but they're not the same size. Excelsior and Constellation doesn't have phaser strips. You can't have the same type of phaser coming both in array and bank form.

Freedom and Griffin are part of the reason why people don't put much faith into DITI, that and possibly the TERAwatt range phaser outputs.

Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David Templar:
Freedom and Griffin are part of the reason why people don't put much faith into DITI, that and possibly the TERAwatt range phaser outputs.

But, you can't blame a guy for trying . . . the megawatt range phaser outputs are a joke. My microwave uses more than that when I'm nuking a pizza. :-)

Guardian 2000

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David Templar:
You can't have the same type of phaser coming both in array and bank form.

Um..yes you can.

Remember: a strip is simply a shitload of slaved emitter segments with software & a little hardware) to work in concert with each other in order to achieve maximum efficiency. It's analogous to the "Aegis" SPY-1D phased-array radar system. Put simply, SPY-1D has a giant block of lots of little radar transceivers that turn on & off very quickly at random rates & order. Alone, none of the segments are getign enough signal bounceback to really be effective; together, they form a powerful system.

Phaser strips variate from this in that each individual emitter segment COULD in theory handle the full feed. It just DOESN'T, or rather, doesn't until the energy's been collimated from all segments & shunted to the one that is best positioned for release at the target. That's why when the ship moves, the beam "walks" along the ship, & why we have shots like in "SoA" where we see a Galaxy firing twin beams from the same emitter array.

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Shik:
Phaser strips variate from this in that each individual emitter segment COULD in theory handle the full feed. It just DOESN'T, or rather, doesn't until the energy's been collimated from all segments & shunted to the one that is best positioned for release at the target. That's why when the ship moves, the beam "walks" along the ship, & why we have shots like in "SoA" where we see a Galaxy firing twin beams from the same emitter array.

Individual emitters can only pass along the energy, they are still limited to just how much they can dish out themselves. It's be pretty pointless to stick one emitter segment and expect it to do the work of the full array. It defeats much of the purpose of the array, if you can just have a series of small banks.

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

That's what "in theory" means. If we stick 2 Type X emitters in a bank, it won't have the same punch as a collimated strip, yes. But the actual energy power is still the same. Dig?

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Shik:
That's what "in theory" means. If we stick 2 Type X emitters in a bank, it won't have the same punch as a collimated strip, yes. But the actual energy power is still the same. Dig?

Not really. The same potential to channel that much energy is there, but there's no way to generate that much phaser power with only two emitter segments. It'd be kinda like having a belt-fed bolt-action weapon. Who cares how many rounds it can hold? It can't use them effectively.

Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :

Thanks Shik for coming to my defence. Much appreciated!

David: In ST:II TWOK, the Reliant fired "Chain-phasers" but in DS9: SOA they fired like a Galaxy's phasers. My thinking is that once the phaser arrays were invented/researched/whatever, then the technology could be easily addded to exisiting ships (with some modifications of course). And I agree with Shik that you can have both phasers and banks in Type-VII, VIII, IX and X. Oh and XII. There's nothing stopping you.

If you really want to get picky then we could say that the Mirandas and Excelsiors (and all other similar references) all have their banks replaced with a single segment of a phaser array. There, that makes sense - doesn't it?

Besides, the DS9: TM refers to phasers as emitters - they could be anything from 1 segment to 50 (OK, slightly over the top, but doe ya see my point?)

[ November 27, 2001: Message edited by: akb1979 ]

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

You're both right. Read what I'm saying. Think about it.

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

I still doubt the phasers mentioned are the same type. For one thing, Voyager is the most up-to-date vessel of her time, so why would you stick something from the TMP era onto a ship with bioneuro-gel packs and infinite space shuttlebay? Plus, since we agree that though these emitters can handle a lot of energy but only generate a little, it makes no sense to place them in such small numbers as to qualify as a phaser bank. They can't pack enough punch to make them worth the effort. Evolutionary-wise, there is a clear movement away from phaser banks to arrays.

Also, you have not said anything about the same type of strip having wildly different sizes.

Phasers need something to emit them, both arrays and banks are technically emitters, I see no point in bring up the DS9TM thing.

Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :

I brought up the DS9:TM thingy to show that they use emitters on all ships, of any type and of any size, and that you only need one emitter to be considered a phaser array/bank.