Any proof how well SBD's would take a phaser hit? (fanfic)

[Lukedanieljames]

So the question is,
what sort of proof is there out there, to the subject of,

How well would a super battle droid handle a hand phaser from startrek?

[NecronLord]

You could make a fair case for them shrugging off phaser rifle shots, being reflective metal and all.

[Lukedanieljames]

You could make a fair case for them shrugging off phaser rifle shots, being reflective metal and all.

what about ndf?

[Doctor Doom]

Phasers do little more then leave a vague mark on packing crates. That's probably the most they will do to a Super Battle Droid.

[SirNitram]

You could make a fair case for them shrugging off phaser rifle shots, being reflective metal and all.

what about ndf?

NDF theory as currently understood suggests dense metal is all but impervious to phasers, considering that you can use crates for cover, and to use one to cut through a door requires it's use as a cutting torch.

[The Silence and I]

Certainly for TNG phasers. TOS phasers eat metals for breakfast--although how much density affects them is unknown (it affects the phasers, but apparently less than TNG era) and post TNG phasers begin to affect metals again. But not as well as TOS did.

Super battle droids probably don't have super heavy density armor--they would be too heavy to be infantry if their armor massed in at hundreds of kilos (try throwing on several hundred pounds/kilos of armor and taking a walk through muddy ground. *Shiver*)--so I personally expect TOS or late post Dominion war phasers to be effective, although perhaps less so than blasters. TNG phasers might get lucky, especially around the flexible areas and the eye case.

[Meest]

Certainly for TNG phasers. TOS phasers eat metals for breakfast--although how much density affects them is unknown (it affects the phasers, but apparently less than TNG era) and post TNG phasers begin to affect metals again. But not as well as TOS did.

Super battle droids probably don't have super heavy density armor--they would be too heavy to be infantry if their armor massed in at hundreds of kilos (try throwing on several hundred pounds/kilos of armor and taking a walk through muddy ground. *Shiver*)--so I personally expect TOS or late post Dominion war phasers to be effective, although perhaps less so than blasters. TNG phasers might get lucky, especially around the flexible areas and the eye case.

Their armour is heavy enough that MJ+ blasts don't completely destroy them.

[chitoryu12]

Exactly what era of phaser are we talking about here? As said before, there's a difference between TOS and TNG phasers. In my opinion, a TOS phaser could probably destroy a SUper Battle Droid, but remember, those things can shrug off a blaster hit that would disable a normal droid or easily kill a human. A TNG phaser probably won't do much to the droid. Packing crates are probably heavier than a war machine, but I could be wrong.

[The Silence and I]

Certainly for TNG phasers. TOS phasers eat metals for breakfast--although how much density affects them is unknown (it affects the phasers, but apparently less than TNG era) and post TNG phasers begin to affect metals again. But not as well as TOS did.

Super battle droids probably don't have super heavy density armor--they would be too heavy to be infantry if their armor massed in at hundreds of kilos (try throwing on several hundred pounds/kilos of armor and taking a walk through muddy ground. *Shiver*)--so I personally expect TOS or late post Dominion war phasers to be effective, although perhaps less so than blasters. TNG phasers might get lucky, especially around the flexible areas and the eye case.

Their armour is heavy enough that MJ+ blasts don't completely destroy them.

That implies heat resistence, not density. What do you think will fair better against a DET weapon: Lead, or Steel? The denser lead will actually melt long before the steel.

Phasers do not necessarily damage through heat transfer; the NDF affect might eat your heat resistence material for breakfast or it might not, we don't know for sure. But it isn't the heat resistence that will tell the difference.

Try again.

[brianeyci]

Phasers are pretty funny. Data shot Beverley's shirt and a small piece of it set on fire on her arm, so phasers do have a thermal setting.

Besides ENT regeneration has 10 MJ phasers... whether that translates to a 10 MJ hole in the target probably not, but if TNG phasers use 1.05 MW, there's a big difference between ammunition right there.

Brian

[The Silence and I]

Phasers are pretty funny.

You win the award for understatement of the week, sir

Data shot Beverley's shirt and a small piece of it set on fire on her arm, so phasers do have a thermal setting.

That was Lore, but yes, phasers have a thermal setting. They also have a kill-without-visible-mark setting, a cut-materials-cleanly setting, a stun setting, a phasorize-into-nothingness setting, a setting that makes rocks explode violently (TOS mostly), and some of these settings have substantial kickback some of the time, and don't other times. They probably have a setting that does the dishes too, but I ramble. The point is, phasers have a thermal setting, but don't use it most of the time. It is regulated to heating rocks, door handles, shirts, and may occasionally be used on people (when phaser 'burns' are referenced). However, most of the time some kind of funky NDF deal is going on, or some funky stun setting is used, and will affect thermal resistent armor differently than the thermal setting would.

Besides ENT regeneration has 10 MJ phasers... whether that translates to a 10 MJ hole in the target probably not, but if TNG phasers use 1.05 MW, there's a big difference between ammunition right there.

Brian

I can give so many examples of dialog concerning energy and power figures that makes zero sense, or is flat out wrong, that I see no reason to believe either statement of phaser energy useage. I consider the energy output of phasers to be unknown, but likely less than double digit MW.

[brianeyci]

I consider the energy output of phasers to be unknown, but likely less than double digit MW.

I don't think it's really unknown--it's just waiting there for someone with a lot of time and skills on their hand to do it. Well what someone could do would be make an equivalency chart. The NDF is linked to mass and density? Fine. For human beings, mostly made out of water, phasers are equivalent to X MJ DET weapons (take an incident of a human being phazorized). For brittle metals like the Nemesis door Picard shot, phasers are equivalent to X MJ. For rocks, phasers are equivalent to X MJ. I don't see what's wrong with this methodology because on the main site (outdated I know but it's the methodology I'm taking about) phasers are equivalent to X TW particle cannons even though nobody really knows the energy usage of a shipboard phaser bank. The energy output might be unknown, but what a phaser does is right there. Most contradictions can be explained away through settings. I don't have the skills or time to do it, and I don't think its impossible to figure out if someone had a lot of time.

Brian

[The Silence and I]

I want to agree with you, and I am willing to do some of that research, but my phaser models tell me that there will not be a solid correlation.

My current model (light version):

Phasers are particle weapons; the particles come in at least 3 flavors and are both contained and given extra life span within a subspace field projected along the axis of fire.

In a Type II there are 16 settings, which represent particle mixtures, and there is an independent power setting. So you can independently modify both the manner and magnitude of effect at will.

This very high level of variability will account for nearly every different effect we have seen. In TOS the settings used different particle mixtures, favoring those that deal with metals and other denser materials, while in TNG those particles were scaled back, presumably to make use aboard ship safer.

So setting 14 and 16 might both phasorize a human, especially at full power each, but 16 might deal with metal much better than 14 can because its particle mix favors metals, while 14's mix favors silicons (rock). Or whatever, the point is that it is too variable.

So to assign an effectiveness against metal, we need to know if they intended to harm the metal, because a full power stun shot will do less to metals than a 1/4 power shot at setting 15. Even worse, it might not be possible to put the maximum power output through a stun--or certain other--setting thanks to electronic governors. I.e. with enough power a stun setting can probably kill, but to prevent accidental deaths a full power bar on a stun setting might actually represent some value less than the output the emitter is capable of (here we can insert the effects of custom modifications).



Still, boundaries might be possible, I'm tempted to look into it.

[Batman]

Brian, while I find your idea laudable, I fear it simply can't be done. A lot of the stuff phasers do is physically impossible to do with DET. You CAN'T phasorize a target with a DET weapon. No matter how much energy you put into it, the best you can do is instantaneous vapourisation, which isn't what phasers do. Same for stun and kill-without-leaving-a-trace.
At best, the 'equivalent to DET' approach works for the pseudothermal settings.

[Eleas]

Exactly what era of phaser are we talking about here? As said before, there's a difference between TOS and TNG phasers. In my opinion, a TOS phaser could probably destroy a SUper Battle Droid, but remember, those things can shrug off a blaster hit that would disable a normal droid or easily kill a human. A TNG phaser probably won't do much to the droid. Packing crates are probably heavier than a war machine, but I could be wrong.

The weight of the packing crates in question is irrelevant -- their surfaces are still not likely to prove effective as armor to any meaningful degree. As far as I recall the episode in question, it was the surface that successfully repelled phaser beams, not the bulk of the crates. In other words, you could just as easily fashion a protective suit from that material as stuff yourself into a crate for protection. Still, I'll be the first to admit that the Federation might actually be wise to look into that. It may look silly, but it beats dying.

[Master of Ossus]

Phasers are pretty funny. Data shot Beverley's shirt and a small piece of it set on fire on her arm, so phasers do have a thermal setting.

That was Lore. But as I learned from DarkStar's site, that beam was unusually thin and dim, indicating that the power was turned way down.

[The Silence and I]

The weight of the packing crates in question is irrelevant -- their surfaces are still not likely to prove effective as armor to any meaningful degree. As far as I recall the episode in question, it was the surface that successfully repelled phaser beams, not the bulk of the crates. In other words, you could just as easily fashion a protective suit from that material as stuff yourself into a crate for protection. Still, I'll be the first to admit that the Federation might actually be wise to look into that. It may look silly, but it beats dying.

Sure, hiding inside a packing crate should work fine. Unless you are Quark. Poor bastard.

(For those who don't know, Quark at one point hid inside a packing crate during a gun fight and the shots punched right through. To be fair, the weapon used was not a phaser, but I'd be willing to bet that same weapon would be effortlessly stopped by packing crates if Quark was NOT inside one. It's how the effects team and the writers think.)

That was Lore. But as I learned from DarkStar's site, that beam was unusually thin and dim, indicating that the power was turned way down.

I'd say Lore's intent to scare her is more important here... but Darkstar is special.

[dragon]

The weight of the packing crates in question is irrelevant -- their surfaces are still not likely to prove effective as armor to any meaningful degree. As far as I recall the episode in question, it was the surface that successfully repelled phaser beams, not the bulk of the crates. In other words, you could just as easily fashion a protective suit from that material as stuff yourself into a crate for protection. Still, I'll be the first to admit that the Federation might actually be wise to look into that. It may look silly, but it beats dying.

Sure, hiding inside a packing crate should work fine. Unless you are Quark. Poor bastard.

(For those who don't know, Quark at one point hid inside a packing crate during a gun fight and the shots punched right through. To be fair, the weapon used was not a phaser, but I'd be willing to bet that same weapon would be effortlessly stopped by packing crates if Quark was NOT inside one. It's how the effects team and the writers think.)

That was Lore. But as I learned from DarkStar's site, that beam was unusually thin and dim, indicating that the power was turned way down.

I'd say Lore's intent to scare her is more important here... but Darkstar is special.

Problem with packing crates is that the phasers aren't used at a high setting usally only on low to mid settings. When you consider that when they finally do hit a target he is not vaporized or thrown through the air.

[Sephirius]

What about the effects of phasers as shown in STVI: Undiscovered Country?
severed limbs, vaporizing metal, etc?

[Batman]

What about the effects of phasers as shown in STVI: Undiscovered Country?
severed limbs, vaporizing metal, etc?

Severing limbs doesn't take all that much. As for the phasorised cooking pot, you'll excuse me I I remain unimpressed.

[dragon]

What about the effects of phasers as shown in STVI: Undiscovered Country?
severed limbs, vaporizing metal, etc?

Severing limbs doesn't take all that much. As for the phasorised cooking pot, you'll excuse me I I remain unimpressed.

Out of curisoity how much energy would hace been required to vap to the pot or at least melt it. I know its melting point is 933.51 k and a=has a heat of fusion of 10.79 kj/mole not sure what to do with the numbers next though.

[Batman]

Irrelevant. It was phasorised, not vaporised via sufficient heat input. Have fun trying to calculate that.
Unless you want to run the numbers just on general principles, of course.

[dragon]

Irrelevant. It was phasorised, not vaporised via sufficient heat input. Have fun trying to calculate that.
Unless you want to run the numbers just on general principles, of course.

General principles I am really rusty and need to pratice.

[Batman]

That reminds me of something-how do you know what that pot was made of?

[Sea Skimmer]

Exactly what era of phaser are we talking about here? As said before, there's a difference between TOS and TNG phasers. In my opinion, a TOS phaser could probably destroy a SUper Battle Droid, but remember, those things can shrug off a blaster hit that would disable a normal droid or easily kill a human. A TNG phaser probably won't do much to the droid. Packing crates are probably heavier than a war machine, but I could be wrong.

Even if a packing crate used a heavier gauge of metal (which I think is unlikely given that the crates in Trek usually aren't very big) there is a big difference between a piece of armor plate and a normal piece of metal you'd use for a container. The armor plate is unsurprisingly going to be generally much tougher and will have different properties. The armor is also going to be much more expensive to produce and will be harder to work with, which is why you only use armor plate when you need armor plate.