StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Mike Wong has claimed that a hand phaser beam is one centimeter in diameter in the E-mail exchange with Daniel Rodgers. This would make a phaser shot a cylinder in three-dimensional space. Let's use ten metres (10m = 1000cm) distance from the target for the sake of figures. The volume of the cylinder would be pi*(.5^2)*1000 giving us a volume of 785.4 cc.

The TNG TM states an energy output of 4900 for a phaser set on setting 7, seemingly the lowest for instant human death. No disruption, just flat out drop-dead. (TNG TM page 136) Now, the big question is 4900 whats? I thought joules at first, but 4900 joules is just barely more energy than 1 kilocalorie provides. Comparing hand phaser energy capacity to output leads me to believe that the output is rated in megajoules, which would give a Type I phaser a little over 1469 shots at setting 7 according to the TM. I'm only using the TM for the numbers and numbers only.

Now, the next thing I wondered was how "dense" a phaser blast is at that setting. With the "density" at that setting, I can compare a narrow cylindrical beam to a wide beam. With the energy output from the TM and the volume of a 10-meter long shot, I can put the density at 6.239 MJ/cc (density = mass/volume, with the mass being the energy in the shot).

Now for a wide-beam cone shot. First, I need to define the cone. To do that, I need the dimensions of a right triangle inside the cone using the center of the cone as one side. A 45 degree angle at the phaser end gives me 67.5 degrees at the wide end of the cone, assuming a right cone is the shape of the discharge. To figure out the cone radius, I took the tangent of 67.5 degrees and multiplied it by 10 (tan = opposite/adjacent, tan 67.5*10 = r) giving me 24.14 meters (2414 cm).

Plugging this into the cone volume formula, 1/3[pi*r^2*h] gives me 6.102E9 cc. Using my density from the narrow beam shot, it would take 3.807E10 MJ in order to give a wide-angle shot enough energy to kill people in its path. No hand phaser or phaser rifle carries that much energy in its power cell. I thought, being generous, it would be a one-shot deal. Looks like I was too generous. ^_^

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you seem to be going about this very badly.

DarthBlight wrote: Mike Wong has claimed that a hand phaser beam is one centimeter in diameter in the E-mail exchange with Daniel Rodgers. This would make a phaser shot a cylinder in three-dimensional space. Let's use ten metres (10m = 1000cm) distance from the target for the sake of figures. The volume of the cylinder would be pi*(.5^2)*1000 giving us a volume of 785.4 cc.

The volume is really irrelevant. What should really interest you is the power the beam delivers and its duration, giving you an energy figure.

DarthBlight wrote: The TNG TM states an energy output of 4900 for a phaser set on setting 7, seemingly the lowest for instant human death. No disruption, just flat out drop-dead. (TNG TM page 136) Now, the big question is 4900 whats? I thought joules at first, but 4900 joules is just barely more energy than 1 kilocalorie provides. Comparing hand phaser energy capacity to output leads me to believe that the output is rated in megajoules, which would give a Type I phaser a little over 1469 shots at setting 7 according to the TM. I'm only using the TM for the numbers and numbers only.

Use it if you want, but the TM is a highly discredited source, to say nothing of the fact that the section you are using doesn't give any valid units.

DarthBlight wrote: Now, the next thing I wondered was how "dense" a phaser blast is at that setting. With the "density" at that setting, I can compare a narrow cylindrical beam to a wide beam. With the energy output from the TM and the volume of a 10-meter long shot, I can put the density at 6.239 MJ/cc (density = mass/volume, with the mass being the energy in the shot).

This density thing is not going anywhere. If you can come up with a valid power output from the weapon (for instance, you might use the 1.02 MW figure from "The Mind's Eye"), then you can come up with a watts per square meter value for the intensity of the beam where it strikes the target. When the beam spreads, the intensity will drop according to the inverse square law.

DarthBlight wrote: Now for a wide-beam cone shot. First, I need to define the cone. To do that, I need the dimensions of a right triangle inside the cone using the center of the cone as one side. A 45 degree angle at the phaser end gives me 67.5 degrees at the wide end of the cone, assuming a right cone is the shape of the discharge. To figure out the cone radius, I took the tangent of 67.5 degrees and multiplied it by 10 (tan = opposite/adjacent, tan 67.5*10 = r) giving me 24.14 meters (2414 cm).

Plugging this into the cone volume formula, 1/3[pi*r^2*h] gives me 6.102E9 cc. Using my density from the narrow beam shot, it would take 3.807E10 MJ in order to give a wide-angle shot enough energy to kill people in its path. No hand phaser or phaser rifle carries that much energy in its power cell. I thought, being generous, it would be a one-shot deal. Looks like I was too generous. ^_^

The volume of the cone is irrelevant. All that you really need is the area of the circle that the beam covers at a specific range to determine the beam intensity at that distance.

For instance, if the beam (carrying 1.02 MW) had spread to be one meter across by the time it reached the target, the intensity would be 0.325 MW per square meter. If the beam had spread to be 2 meters across by the time it reached the target, the intensity would drop to 0.081 MW/m^2.

Incidentally, this thread probably needs to migrate to the "Pure Star Trek" forum.

Set course for the Trek Forum!

[img]http://supreme_sheridan.tripod.com/images/thread_moved.txt[/img]

One possible example of "wide-beam kill": In "Rapture", Sisko uses a hand phaser to vaporize a large amount of rock when looking for B'hala. If the phaser does that much damage to rock that quickly, imagine what it would do to human flesh.

There really isn't a good in-story explanation for why wide-beams are never used in combat. The "knock out the entire bridge in one shot" that Tuvok used would have come in handy roughly a billion billion billion times in normal combat situations. The only humanoids usually immune to stun settings are Borg and (possibly) Jem'Hadar; every fight with Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, Kazon, or random aliens on away missions, could have been made infinitely easier by using the wide-beam stun. Who cares if it wastes energy? It's better than missing and being dead with a full phaser.

Ted C wrote:Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you seem to be going about this very badly.

DarthBlight wrote: Mike Wong has claimed that a hand phaser beam is one centimeter in diameter in the E-mail exchange with Daniel Rodgers. This would make a phaser shot a cylinder in three-dimensional space. Let's use ten metres (10m = 1000cm) distance from the target for the sake of figures. The volume of the cylinder would be pi*(.5^2)*1000 giving us a volume of 785.4 cc.

The volume is really irrelevant. What should really interest you is the power the beam delivers and its duration, giving you an energy figure.

TM didn't give power, only energy with a blast duration. I know they're lax with terminology so you need not remind me of that.

DarthBlight wrote: The TNG TM states an energy output of 4900 for a phaser set on setting 7, seemingly the lowest for instant human death. No disruption, just flat out drop-dead. (TNG TM page 136) Now, the big question is 4900 whats? I thought joules at first, but 4900 joules is just barely more energy than 1 kilocalorie provides. Comparing hand phaser energy capacity to output leads me to believe that the output is rated in megajoules, which would give a Type I phaser a little over 1469 shots at setting 7 according to the TM. I'm only using the TM for the numbers and numbers only.

Use it if you want, but the TM is a highly discredited source, to say nothing of the fact that the section you are using doesn't give any valid units.
One word: Duh. Like I said, I only used it for the numbers since I really have no other source.

DarthBlight wrote: Now, the next thing I wondered was how "dense" a phaser blast is at that setting. With the "density" at that setting, I can compare a narrow cylindrical beam to a wide beam. With the energy output from the TM and the volume of a 10-meter long shot, I can put the density at 6.239 MJ/cc (density = mass/volume, with the mass being the energy in the shot).

This density thing is not going anywhere. If you can come up with a valid power output from the weapon (for instance, you might use the 1.02 MW figure from "The Mind's Eye"), then you can come up with a watts per square meter value for the intensity of the beam where it strikes the target. When the beam spreads, the intensity will drop according to the inverse square law.

Unfortunately, we don't have a valid output, now do we? Or is there something out there that I have missed?

DarthBlight wrote: Now for a wide-beam cone shot. First, I need to define the cone. To do that, I need the dimensions of a right triangle inside the cone using the center of the cone as one side. A 45 degree angle at the phaser end gives me 67.5 degrees at the wide end of the cone, assuming a right cone is the shape of the discharge. To figure out the cone radius, I took the tangent of 67.5 degrees and multiplied it by 10 (tan = opposite/adjacent, tan 67.5*10 = r) giving me 24.14 meters (2414 cm).

Plugging this into the cone volume formula, 1/3[pi*r^2*h] gives me 6.102E9 cc. Using my density from the narrow beam shot, it would take 3.807E10 MJ in order to give a wide-angle shot enough energy to kill people in its path. No hand phaser or phaser rifle carries that much energy in its power cell. I thought, being generous, it would be a one-shot deal. Looks like I was too generous. ^_^

The volume of the cone is irrelevant. All that you really need is the area of the circle that the beam covers at a specific range to determine the beam intensity at that distance.

For instance, if the beam (carrying 1.02 MW) had spread to be one meter across by the time it reached the target, the intensity would be 0.325 MW per square meter. If the beam had spread to be 2 meters across by the time it reached the target, the intensity would drop to 0.081 MW/m^2.

Fine, but as I said, we don't have the necessary figures. I was working with what I had. Admittedly, it's not much but it's all I have.

Ted C wrote:Incidentally, this thread probably needs to migrate to the "Pure Star Trek" forum.

And let's not even consider the possibility that this just might be a valid topic for a versus board since there have been Trekkies that think the very notion possible. Lord knows we should just leap to conclusions and not even think that the author knew what he was doing and possibly thinks a little different than the current poster.

DarthBlight wrote: And let's not even consider the possibility that this just might be a valid topic for a versus board since there have been Trekkies that think the very notion possible. Lord knows we should just leap to conclusions and not even think that the author knew what he was doing and possibly thinks a little different than the current poster.

You did not pose a "versus" issue, just a discussion of a particular Star Trek technology. It therefore belongs in Pure Star Trek. If you had made an assertion that a phaser is superior to a blaster or vice versa, you'd have a "versus" case.

DarthBlight wrote: Fine, but as I said, we don't have the necessary figures. I was working with what I had. Admittedly, it's not much but it's all I have.

A figure from the series, like the 1.02 MW figure from "The Mind's Eye" is both more useful (because it includes valid units) and more reliable (because it comes from a creditable source, a canon episode). I believe that there are also some discussions of phaser "ammunition" capacity in DS9 that you could use in your analysis.

My main point was that your method was flawed. You need to be examining power per unit of area that the beam strikes, not power per unit of volume the beam passes through on the way to the target.

DarthBlight wrote:

Ted C wrote:Incidentally, this thread probably needs to migrate to the "Pure Star Trek" forum.

And let's not even consider the possibility that this just might be a valid topic for a versus board since there have been Trekkies that think the very notion possible. Lord knows we should just leap to conclusions and not even think that the author knew what he was doing and possibly thinks a little different than the current poster.

This thread most certainly belongs in the PST forum. The thread itself is detailing information purely about Star Trek itself, hence it belongs here. Information from this thread might be used in a future VS debate, but the thread itself belongs here.

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Set course for the Trek Forum!

[img]http://supreme_sheridan.tripod.com/images/thread_moved.txt[/img]

That is cool