A nitpick, but still...

[Kamakazie Sith]

Hes trying to boost phaser power by saying the SIF affects it.

Okay, so are phaser shots against metal without SIF's as powerful as they are against rock? No. Why should we assume that the SIF affects phaser power when it fires on a ST hull, which is primarily made of metal?

That's not what he is trying to prove either. All he is saying is that Wong didn't take SIF into consideration in these calcs, so they can be wrong. Wong used the TM for those calcs, so it's irrelevant anyway even if SIF does in fact reinforce the hull to an unknown degree...which would make any calcs invalid because if the phaser doesn't perform how it is suppose to than SIF obviosly had an impact. However, like I said it's irrelevant because those phaser stats come from the TM so you don't have to worry Master of Ossus.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Well yes exactly blowing up people cargo isnt exactly a good idea.

That's my point. We don't know what is in those crates, but Master of Ossus wants to assume that it is safe to destroy what if it's say a very toxic chemical, or something very explosive?

What if it's made of something that can't be vaporized by a hand phaser?

[Master of Ossus]

Well yes exactly blowing up people cargo isnt exactly a good idea.

That's my point. We don't know what is in those crates, but Master of Ossus wants to assume that it is safe to destroy what if it's say a very toxic chemical, or something very explosive?

What if it's made of something that can't be vaporized by a hand phaser?

1. Okay, it's a reasonable idea not to blow up crates that are laced with explosives and toxic chemicals. But would you take cover behind such a crate? Of course not.

As far as the materials go... you mean like metal?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Well yes exactly blowing up people cargo isnt exactly a good idea.

That's my point. We don't know what is in those crates, but Master of Ossus wants to assume that it is safe to destroy what if it's say a very toxic chemical, or something very explosive?

What if it's made of something that can't be vaporized by a hand phaser?

1. Okay, it's a reasonable idea not to blow up crates that are laced with explosives and toxic chemicals. But would you take cover behind such a crate? Of course not.

As far as the materials go... you mean like metal?

Who is to say they know all I am saying is maybe that's why they don't go around firing full powered phaser blasts at things. An explosion in a station in space is a bad thing.

Sure metal, whatever.....what if it's resistance to HAND phaser blasts?

[Robert Walper]

There seems to be some confusion about what I'm simply trying to point out. Mike Wong in using the TM quote to gather firepower of phasers, and simply neglected to mention SIF technology.

Unless someone is going to argue SIF technology does absolutely nothing, has no affect upon material it reinforces, etc, my point stands.

Mike Wong reached the conclusion phasers are far less effective against hulls due to the the visual damage they do in comparison to the damage they supposedly do as stated by the TM. My only point is he ignored SIF technology, which by all accounts could easily be argued as the reason phasers aren't as effective as stated. Graham Kennedy makes this point on his site, and his other arguements aside, it's a good one.

For example, a person could calculate how big a rock a bullet could penetrate and cause to "explode". Taking that same rock and encasing it in a thin, but strong layer of metal can drastically affect the bullet's effectiveness.

Doesn't this seem reasonable?

[Robert Walper]

Okay, so are phaser shots against metal without SIF's as powerful as they are against rock? No. Why should we assume that the SIF affects phaser power

MoO, I'm not saying SIF affects phaser power, it effects how much damage a phaser can inflict upon a hull reinforced by said SIF.

when it fires on a ST hull, which is primarily made of metal?

I think it is commonly agreed that it is undeniable that virtually all Federation ships have SIF present as a means of reinforcing their hull strength. In fact, I think one could argue convincingly most Trek ships have it in one form or another, though from scenes in DS9, Klingon ships might not, or if so, really low power ones.

[Master of Ossus]

Who is to say they know all I am saying is maybe that's why they don't go around firing full powered phaser blasts at things. An explosion in a station in space is a bad thing.

So, what about their planetary combat? Explosions are not terrible things in ground combat, so long as the enemy is close enough to be affected by them and you are not. Why would they take cover behind something that was potentially deadly?

Sure metal, whatever.....what if it's resistance to HAND phaser blasts?

What are you talking about? I think it has been fairly well demonstrated that phasers are less effective against metals than they are against less dense materials. They can make rocks glow with heat, even with simple hand phasers, but they cannot melt metals or other dense materials, from what we can see. I gave you an example of when phaser fire has been shown to be ineffective, even against metals that do not have SIF's, and you come back by telling me that those crates would, if scaled up, be much more vulnerable to starship phaser fire? Are you saying that the phasers on starships operate on a different mechanism from the weapons used by personel?

[TheDarkling]

Im sure I can remember a hand phaser being used to melt some metal which was then cast into a shape (the shape was a grove in the ground) - anyone help me out here?

[Kamakazie Sith]

So, what about their planetary combat? Explosions are not terrible things in ground combat, so long as the enemy is close enough to be affected by them and you are not. Why would they take cover behind something that was potentially deadly?

Now I agree with you here, in planetary combat it would be very useful. However, taking some form of cover is better than no cover, wouldn't you agree?

What are you talking about? I think it has been fairly well demonstrated that phasers are less effective against metals than they are against less dense materials. They can make rocks glow with heat, even with simple hand phasers, but they cannot melt metals or other dense materials, from what we can see. I gave you an example of when phaser fire has been shown to be ineffective, even against metals that do not have SIF's, and you come back by telling me that those crates would, if scaled up, be much more vulnerable to starship phaser fire? Are you saying that the phasers on starships operate on a different mechanism from the weapons used by personel?

In a VGR episode(anyone know?) a phaser vaporizes a IIRC Toyota Tacoma, I believe it also takes away it's use as cover for whoever was hiding behind it. It's made of metal, but probably not as strong as the metal mentioned in the TM.

It's been a while since I saw that episode.

Who is to say those crates aren't made of the same material in a starships hull? Are you saying that one could simply point a hand phaser at a starship and blow it out of the sky, if it's shields were down?

[Robert Walper]

So, what about their planetary combat? Explosions are not terrible things in ground combat, so long as the enemy is close enough to be affected by them and you are not.

You're assuming Federation troops would jack their phasers up to high level yields that destroy cover and such, while severely limiting their shots and available power?

Why would they take cover behind something that was potentially deadly?

I'd like to point out members engaged in a firefight might not be thoroughly versed in what one container contains amoung many others.

What are you talking about? I think it has been fairly well demonstrated that phasers are less effective against metals than they are against less dense materials.

I personally disagree.

They can make rocks glow with heat, even with simple hand phasers, but they cannot melt metals or other dense materials, from what we can see.

This might be a valid arguement if we are to assume the energy required to destroy and melt metal is equivalent to energy required to heat rocks. A fire can heat rocks, can fire melt futuristic metals and/or destroy them?

I gave you an example of when phaser fire has been shown to be ineffective, even against metals that do not have SIF's,

This is of course, assuming the person handling the phaser is firing high energy shots, instead of conserving them since such shots leaves them defenseless. What would you choose, a couple of high energy shots that vaproize containers used as cover(not to mention misses potentially blowing holes in a space station), or hundreds of low power shots that don't destroy containers and you don't worry about the vacuum of space?

and you come back by telling me that those crates would, if scaled up, be much more vulnerable to starship phaser fire? Are you saying that the phasers on starships operate on a different mechanism from the weapons used by personel?

I would argue no such thing. The point is, it seems to me you are arguing since hand phaser didn't do significant damage metal crates, they cannot damage them, therefore phaser have less affect upon metal materials. And this is despite the fact the phasers might just be on stun, and even if on kill, they must destroy material instead of only being set at just a high enough level to kill the enemy?

[Master of Ossus]

So, what about their planetary combat? Explosions are not terrible things in ground combat, so long as the enemy is close enough to be affected by them and you are not.

You're assuming Federation troops would jack their phasers up to high level yields that destroy cover and such, while severely limiting their shots and available power?

It's kind of the best solution available to them. If you can vaporize someone else's cover and give your friends a free shot, that should be worth it. Spending large amounts of ammunition is always considered acceptable if you can kill your enemy and stay alive, when otherwise you would be dead. All infantry are taught that their ammunition is of secondary importance to their lives as soldiers. They are trained to maximize the number of people killed with that ammunition, but they are also trained to use it if they have to in order to stay alive. Also, the isomagnetic disintegrator that Worf had did essentially no damage, despite being very large and apparently heavy, and being a single shot weapon (he threw it away, after one use). This demonstrates that phasers are incapable of vaporizing large quantities of metal at long ranges.

Why would they take cover behind something that was potentially deadly?

I'd like to point out members engaged in a firefight might not be thoroughly versed in what one container contains amoung many others.

You started this by saying that it is a bad idea to vaporize someone else's cover (or, really, just punch a hole in the container). Well, should I, as a soldier, take cover behind something that is potentially deadly but not attempt to use that advantage against my opponent if he does the same thing? Your argument is saying that they should not vaporize crates because to do so would be dangerous. Are you saying that they should take cover behind unknown substances, but not attempt to destroy the said containers when their opponents do the same thing? This is inconsistent. Whatever is in the containers is much more likely to only affect a small area. If they had the ability to destroy cover, they should have used it.

What are you talking about? I think it has been fairly well demonstrated that phasers are less effective against metals than they are against less dense materials.

I personally disagree.

But you bring up no evidence to support your personal opinion. It is therefore of no consequence. On the other side, I brought up examples of when phaser fire has not been used against metal, which you responded to in an incredibly weak fashion employing a double-standard. You have brought up no evidence to support your point of view, other than your assertion that it has to work. That is not a way to win a debate.

They can make rocks glow with heat, even with simple hand phasers, but they cannot melt metals or other dense materials, from what we can see.

This might be a valid arguement if we are to assume the energy required to destroy and melt metal is equivalent to energy required to heat rocks. A fire can heat rocks, can fire melt futuristic metals and/or destroy them?

False dilema. The amount of energy required to heat a rock to red heat is enough to melt a small amount of metal. We have observed both of these effects. The only possible explanation is that phasers affect different kinds of materials differently.

I gave you an example of when phaser fire has been shown to be ineffective, even against metals that do not have SIF's,

This is of course, assuming the person handling the phaser is firing high energy shots, instead of conserving them since such shots leaves them defenseless. What would you choose, a couple of high energy shots that vaproize containers used as cover(not to mention misses potentially blowing holes in a space station), or hundreds of low power shots that don't destroy containers and you don't worry about the vacuum of space?

Ammunition was already being wasted by firing into the crates. You are creating another false dilema, and you are ignoring their planetary combat incidents in which similar scenarios have unfolded.

and you come back by telling me that those crates would, if scaled up, be much more vulnerable to starship phaser fire? Are you saying that the phasers on starships operate on a different mechanism from the weapons used by personel?

I would argue no such thing. The point is, it seems to me you are arguing since hand phaser didn't do significant damage metal crates, they cannot damage them, therefore phaser have less affect upon metal materials. And this is despite the fact the phasers might just be on stun, and even if on kill, they must destroy material instead of only being set at just a high enough level to kill the enemy?

I am not saying that they cannot damage them, I am saying that they are substantially less effective against metal crates than they are against rock. This effect has been seen clearly when phasers were set to kill. You assume that SF personel use the minimum amount of force necessary to kill the enemy. A .22 caliber bullet is more than enough to kill a human, but most armies insist on using more powerful cartridges. Why is that, if weapons should only use enough power to kill the enemy? They need to be able to kill the enemy reliably, with a single accurate shot. It is actually very bad to use minimum force, as you define it. Think about it. NATO rounds and .50 caliber weapons have killed people by shooting them in the arm (through hydraulic shock). That is part of why their cartridges are considered better than lower-caliber ammunition for military applications. You want to ensure that the enemy is dead, during combat, not use just enough force to kill him with a hit to a vital area.