This is topic Any new theories on phasers? in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/1485.html

Posted by Cubic Centimeter (Member # 747) on :

Hello, all. I'm new here, but am a long time poster to r.a.s.t and Rick Sternbach's experforum. I'm suprised that I am haven't heard of this site sooner...

Anyhow, I've been away a long time, but am now back into the Trek Tech thing. At one time, I developed a theory on phaser operation, involving things like "cascade nadion reactions" and a particle I invented to do the job called a "chromion" (named in honor of the color charge of the strong nuclear force). A few folks liked it. I was just wondering if anything new had popped up in the Techy circle on this?

P.S. Anyone remember the "Gigawatt Brigade" and the "Terawatt Terrorists"? That was good fun...

cm^3

Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :

Augh! He's alive! HE'S STILL ALIVE!!!

Mark

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

Our latest discussion on phasers should be a couple threads down. Nothing on how it works, we couldn't even agree on phaser types.

Intrepid and Nova and Excelsior sharing the same type of phaser my @ss.

Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :

Any time David that you want your ass kicked is fine by me. Just tell me where and when and I'll gladly fork out the money to pay you a visit. I only put the info there to add to the discussion - NOT for you to slag me off at every opportunity! Oh and expect to be criticised in Sector Beta just as you did to me!

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!

Now pack it in!

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :

Nothing really has popped up...but never have I seen anyone mention that in "Message in the Bottle," the two Starfleet guys who beamed on the Prometheus had compression rifles, which means either Akiras of Defiants carry them.

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

Um, my critism about phasers types weren't meant as an attack against you personally, akb1979. We can restart the debate over phaser type here, if you like. Though the guy who wanted to discuss phaser mechanics might be disappointed.

Anyhoo, if you really want an @ss-whooping, there's a guy auctioning his services on E-bay. I don't have the time or inclination to fly all the way over to where ever you are just so I can tie some complete stranger's legs around his neck and stuff them down his throat, even if he was paying for my trip. Well, maybe if there was an anime con there at the time.

Posted by Cubic Centimeter (Member # 747) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David Templar:
Um, my critism about phasers types weren't meant as an attack against you personally, akb1979. We can restart the debate over phaser type here, if you like. Though the guy who wanted to discuss phaser mechanics might be disappointed.

Yeah, don't make me bust a rapid nadion up in here...

cm^3

Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :

This is the kind of discussion I point to whenever someone asks me why I don't have ship-mounted phasers on my site. . .

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vogon Poet:
This is the kind of discussion I point to whenever someone asks me why I don't have ship-mounted phasers on my site. . .

LOL, you still haven't made that addition about the type 2 phaser being used as some sort of forcefield generator in that episode of TNG when Picard falls in love with that science officer, just like how B'Elanna used a phaser in that Voyager episode.

Anyhoo, here's my two cents on one of the major disagreements of the previous phaser thread: array vs bank.

Defination of "bank": http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=bank

Let's start with phaser banks, because they predated the array, being featured on every Starfleet ship before the Ambassador, and since then, the Defiant. I define phaser banks as a set of phaser emitters whose operational capacity does not directly depend on the capacity of its neighbouring emitters. The emitters of a phaser bank contains its own independent prefire chambers, rather than using the coupling effect of phaser arrays. Since this means that the individual emitters of a phaser bank has a lot fewer prefire chambers to work with, I believe that they rely on much larger sets of prefire chambers. This would probably mean that they cut a lot more into the internal volume of a starship, compared to phaser arrays. Also, their localized natural would make them more vulnerable to enemy fire, not to mention they'd have less redundancy and firing arc coverage due to their small numbers. I also believe that older "bank" form emitters uses only a single emitter crystal, which has to be mechanically aimed, decreasing the phaser's accuracy and reliability. However, I think that phaser banks packs a heavier punch in some ways. A single emitter from a phaser bank can generate the same output as several dozen emitters of a phaser array, but you can fit hundreds of array emitters on a starship. The biggest type of starship phaser banks is probably found on the Excelsior, the smallest on shuttlepods.

Defination of "array": http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=array

I define phaser arrays as a set of phaser emitters which operates in concert with each other. Each emitter contains only a relatively small prefire chamber, but is able to pass on its phaser energy to the next emitter, which adds that energy and passes it on to the next emitter over, through "force coupling". As a penalty, the individual emitters are almost ineffective on their own, since their small prefire chamber limits their individual output dramatically. However, when working with its sister emitters, the biggest limitation to their output becomes the length of the phaser "strip". Benefits to using phaser strips includes their relatively low use of a vessel's internal volume, excellent firing arcs, flexibility (the ability for the same array to fire multiple beams) and redundancy to battle damage due to the number of emitters in a strip. Their major limitation is that you have to fit a large number of them onto a starship inorder for them to be effective. They're also much more visible than bank-type emitters, which might cause some concern with the more civil Starfleet types. The biggest type of starship arrays in found on the Sovereign (and Prometheus?), the smallest on Runabouts.

Note: I really don't care about the words "bank" and "array", they're just words to convey meanings. No point in arguing over words rather than meaning.

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: David Templar ]

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David Templar:
The biggest type of starship arrays in found on the Sovereign (and Prometheus?), the smallest on Runabouts.

I take issue with this statement. I sincerely do not believe that length of an array makes any difference. Indeed, this concept would then make Sovereigns & Prometheus far LESS powerful than a Galaxy saucer array by sheer dint of being shorter. This has been shown & stated to not be the case. Also, how do you account for "special types" such as the Miranda-class rollbar unit (the so-called "megaphaser"), the Norway-class single centerline-mounted emitter, & the Defiant-class pulse cannons in this theory?

Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David Templar:
Um, my critism about phasers types weren't meant as an attack against you personally, akb1979.

Certainly felt like it

quote:
We can restart the debate over phaser type here, if you like.

To be honest, I can't be arsed - too much effort.

quote:
Though the guy who wanted to discuss phaser mechanics might be disappointed.

Probably.

quote:
Anyhoo, if you really want an @ss-whooping, there's a guy auctioning his services on E-bay. I don't have the time or inclination to fly all the way over to where ever you are just so I can tie some complete stranger's legs around his neck and stuff them down his throat, even if he was paying for my trip. Well, maybe if there was an anime con there at the time.

AND is all that I have to say.

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: akb1979 ]

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Shik:
I take issue with this statement. I sincerely do not believe that length of an array makes any difference. Indeed, this concept would then make Sovereigns & Prometheus far LESS powerful than a Galaxy saucer array by sheer dint of being shorter. This has been shown & stated to not be the case.

Um, the Sovereign mounts Type-XII phaser emitters, the Galaxy mounts Type-X. Apparently the Type-XII is powerful enough to surpass Type-Xs, even with less emitters involved. Strip size matters, but so does emitter types.

quote:

Also, how do you account for "special types" such as the Miranda-class rollbar unit (the so-called "megaphaser"), the Norway-class single centerline-mounted emitter, & the Defiant-class pulse cannons in this theory?

I'm pretty sure I mentioned the Defiant. I classify all none phaser strip type emitters as banks, because of [explaination in previous post]. How is the Miranda special from the Constitution or the Excelsior? And I'm not sure about the Norway, doesn't it have the same type of phasers as the Defiant?

Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :

If array emitters are so dependent on length, what's the point of having the small aft phaser arrays on the Galaxy, Intrepid, and other newer vessels? Why wouldn't they just put a phaser bank there instead? Why divide the Intrepid's main phaser arrays in half? We've never seen a tactical officer use both arrays at once (or have we?).

I know it's official now, but I still don't see why the Enterprise-E has to have Type-XII phasers...oooh, so much better than the whimpy Type-X!

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ace:
If array emitters are so dependent on length, what's the point of having the small aft phaser arrays on the Galaxy, Intrepid, and other newer vessels? Why wouldn't they just put a phaser bank there instead?

Um, you generally try to stick to the same type of weapons on a ship to ease logistics and maintainance. And like I said, phaser banks takes up more internal volume than arrays. The aft area is never seen as very tactically important anyways, even though that's a mistake. Besides, it's usually covered by one or more torpedo launchers.

quote:
Why divide the Intrepid's main phaser arrays in half? We've never seen a tactical officer use both arrays at once (or have we?).

I blame silliness. The upper strip is seperated by stuff, but there's probably no reason why the lower strip should have been divided in two. Maybe they wanted symmetry in the design.

We've seen all four arrays firing at once in VOY, IIRC.

quote:
I know it's official now, but I still don't see why the Enterprise-E has to have Type-XII phasers...oooh, so much better than the whimpy Type-X!

The most advanced ship in Starfleet, specifically designed to fight the Borg, what do you expect? Besides, the Type-X is whimpy, compared to ships from other races. ~2GW total forward phaser power vs 20GW forward (pulse) disruptor of a Warbird?

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

There's no proof that the Enterprise E has type "XII."

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sol System:
There's no proof that the Enterprise E has type "XII."

Beats me, it's just what I heard. Background info, apparently, as with most of the info on Sovies. Of course, I remember reading somewhere that the Ent-E had self-sealing hulls. Guess we know what those self-sealing stembolts are for now...

In any case, visually, I think the phasers on the Ent-E is of a different width as the Type-X. I'm not sure, though. Anyone like to compare?

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

The type XII stuff has shown up on the Scitech cutaway poster and in that new starship profile book. But it's not canon in the onscreen sense.

Also, it bugs me.

Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :

And very little bugs Sol, so there. 8)

Thanks for reminding me David, I'll try to make that addition as soon as I can.

Posted by Cubic Centimeter (Member # 747) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sol System:
The type XII stuff has shown up on the Scitech cutaway poster and in that new starship profile book. But it's not canon in the onscreen sense.
Also, it bugs me.

It bugs me too, I'd prefer to have the Sovereign have type X, but alas, that designation isn't even canon for Galaxy class ships either, I don't think...

Posted by Cubic Centimeter (Member # 747) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David Templar:
The most advanced ship in Starfleet, specifically designed to fight the Borg, what do you expect? Besides, the Type-X is whimpy, compared to ships from other races. ~2GW total forward phaser power vs 20GW forward (pulse) disruptor of a Warbird?

Power output of one kind of weapon doesn't necessarily mean it is less effective than a totally different type of weapon with more power. Besides, the ~2 GW figure is based on the number of emitter segments in the Galaxy's upper array, while more recent advances may have made it possible to pack more segments together in a given space.

And I would imagine that a pulse weapon would be capable, by definition, of delivering more power in a single burst than a continuous beam weapon. Sure the Romulan disruptor can deliver 20 GW per pulse, but can it sustain a 20 GW beam?

cm^3

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

I, too, have never enjoyed the "Type XII" ("Type-12") designation for those emitters. I like the idea of XI/11's being planetary defense arrays, & we saw what a bitch it was to mount planetary arrays in a ship during DS9.

For my own usage, I've assumed the Sovereign & all other recent build & refits arrays to be an advanced Type X/10 form, that I call the X-A/10-A. Until shown/told otherwise, I'll continue to use that term of my own making.

[ December 10, 2001: Message edited by: Shik ]

Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Shik:
& we saw what a bitch it was to mount planetary arrays in a ship during DS9.

We did? When?

quote:
Originally posted by Shik:For my own usage, I've assumed the Sovereign & all other recent build & refits arrays to be an advanced Type X/10 form, that I call the X-A/10-A. Until shown/told otherwise, I'll continue to use that term of my own making.

Each to his own I guess
Ah! More smilies!

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :

In DS9 they loaded a planet-mounted disruptor into the cargo bay of Gul Dukat's freighter Groumall to fire at an unsuspecting Klingon bird-of-prey. They had a lot of trouble with its power systems and when they fired it it knocked the ship sideways.

But all the Klingons died

Oh, so did the smileys.. how sad!!!

[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]

Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :

That was a planetary gun?

Oh . . . OK.

HEY! Don't kill the smilies! What did they do to you?

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cubic Centimeter:
Besides, the ~2 GW figure is based on the number of emitter segments in the Galaxy's upper array, while more recent advances may have made it possible to pack more segments together in a given space.

No, the 2GW figure is based on the upper and lower array. The upper array consists of 200 segments for a total of 1.05GW. The lower array is quite a bit shorter than the upper array, so it's less. ~2GW is a generous estimate.

I doubt they'd shrink the current size of emitters, that'd be rather silly, but it might be what the Type-XII is. If anything, they can simply uprate the capacity or improve the design of the existing prefire chambers in the Type-X. That way, you'd just slot out the emitter segments for the newer ones on your next major layover, rather than having to worry about structural issues which might arise from switching between different emitter sizes.

Posted by Cubic Centimeter (Member # 747) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David Templar:

No, the 2GW figure is based on the upper and lower array. The upper array consists of 200 segments for a total of 1.05GW. The lower array is quite a bit shorter than the upper array, so it's less. ~2GW is a generous estimate.

I doubt they'd shrink the current size of emitters, that'd be rather silly, but it might be what the Type-XII is. If anything, they can simply uprate the capacity or improve the design of the existing prefire chambers in the Type-X. That way, you'd just slot out the emitter segments for the newer ones on your next major layover, rather than having to worry about structural issues which might arise from switching between different emitter sizes.

Actually, it's 1.02 GW, but who's countin'

But yes you're right, it is both arrays combined, I had a major brain dookie there

But why would shrinking the size be silly? If you say that a single type X segment takes up, say, 2 m^3 in 2363, then 10 years later some advances has allowed the same power handling and discharge capability in only 0.75 m^3, it is still a type X. I don't think it is that silly

Posted by Cubic Centimeter (Member # 747) on :

Hey! I just posted a good outline of my phaser theory here just before the site went down for upgrade, and it isn't here now. Does this mean that it is lost? Dammit...

cm^3

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

Um, such a dramatic change in size would really be classified as a new type of phaser. Like I said, Type-XII looks smaller.

Posted by Cubic Centimeter (Member # 747) on :

OK, I posted this before, but it was lost during a site upgrade... I guess. I haven't had time to write it again until today.

First, this theory makes no attempt at explaining why phasers emit light radially, anymore than I will attempt to expalin the whoooosh a ship makes when it flies by! I think this is a dramatic point rather than technical, because I believe we saw lasers radially shine in "Peak Performance". Besides, silent space ships firing invisible weapons would suck

Nadions are short-lived (microseconds) particles of a family known as hadronic bosons, or more commonly, mesons. Like all mesons, they are subject of the strong nuclear force, unlike other mesons, however, they can temporarily trap and store the binding energy between quarks in atomic nuclei. Quarks are bound into protons and neutrons by the strong force, transmitted by eight particles called gluons. Gluons serve to change the "color" of the quarks and keep them attracted to one another. Nadions disrupt the exchange of gluons between quarks, temporarily decoupling the binding energy.

In low-energy conditions, a nadion that absorbs a gluon will decay, with one of the decay products being a gluon, which takes the place of the absorbed gluon, thus restoring the binding energy. If the intial nadion energy is great enough, the trapped binding energy can escape upon nadion decay, causing a permanent loss in quark binding energy. The free energy manifests itself as neutral particles called chromions (named after the "color" of the strong force). These are the constituents of the modern phaser beam, with a few nadions thrown in to validate Janeway's comment on Voyager.

The fushigi-no-umi class of artificial crystals is excellent for producing chromions. The near perfect lattice structure of these crystals aid in causing the cascade nadion reaction (CNR), essential to the phaser effect. When nadions strike many atoms in the crystal in a row, the free binding energy does not escape, but is instead coupled with the energy released by neighboring atoms. This "force coupling" is known as the cascade nadion reaction, which travels along the lattice structure, building in magnitude until it reaches a point at which it must be released, call it the critical energy threshold (CET).

At discharge, a tight beam of chromions is released from the crystal surface and travels at c to the target, where they cause a release of energy from atomic nuclei similar to the nadion effect in the emitter crystal. The quarks in the target's nuclei tend to move apart due to the decoupling of the strong force by the chromion beam. These quickly recombine into random unstable mesons and baryons, which themselves decay into stable particles. A chain reaction is setup in the target as more chromions are released by the struck atoms, similar to excitation in a laser.

The degree of phaser effectiveness depends on atomic mass and density, evidenced by the fact that the "eating away effect " never spreads to the surrounding air (low density) or the ground (high atomic mass). The higher the atomic mass, the lower the chromion:gluon ratio.

The Phaser Effect

In ship mounted phaser strips, the force coupling CNR travels along the strip in two opposing directions. This helps to control beam emission direction. The energy carried by one CNR is equal to the CET minus the energy carried by the other CNR. When the two meet on the phaser strip, the combined energy is equal to the CET, and beam emission occurs. Emission angle is determined by the value and polarity of the electric field across the crystal; no field means beam emission at 90 degrees to the crystal surface.

Because chromions are generated from binding energy of atomic nuclei in the emitter crystal, the crystal actually loses mass, which eventually facilitates crystal replacement.

There was more detail in the original post, but I can't remember where I put some of the details. If there is anything I have failed to account for, let me know.

cm^3

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

Damn fine theory, almost as fine as my "bunnies are soft" theory. The major difference is that mine can be backed up.

Still, that's some damn impressive technobabble.

Posted by Nevod (Member # 738) on :

Hey,Cubic, can you post that theory in another thread? And call that thread, say "Explaining various technobabble". You know, I have some ideas on subspace and warp, and I'd like to have some thechnobabble explaination...

A point on disruptors:
Disruptors use a combination of low-energy nadions and chromions to cause damage.Nadions disable some of bonds, weakening them, while chromions eats them away, so binding energy is lost again.Such pattern of shot's cmposition makes it very effective agains armor, but , in turn, it doesn't allow to use multiple emitters, or they will burn each other out.

[ December 11, 2001: Message edited by: Nevod ]

Posted by Cubic Centimeter (Member # 747) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David Templar:
Damn fine theory, almost as fine as my "bunnies are soft" theory. The major difference is that mine can be backed up. Still, that's some damn impressive technobabble.

Why, thank you. I had to have it fit with what was known, as much as I could remember. But I don't really consider it true technobabble, per se. Technobabble, to me, is like "demodulate the flarndip amplifiers and rotate hyperalgorithmic transduction nutation"; you know, Voyager-esque

I think my "theory" sounds ok, at least. I mean, gluons are real particles and they do hold quarks together, and disrupting their exchange would have some weird effects. But yes, it is a form of TB.

cm^3