SW blasters vs. ST phasers?

[Master of Ossus]

I think that Fett was being warned not to vaporize Han with his blaster carbine, but in all honesty it could also have been a warning not to vaporize Han with his ship's weapons, also. Those are clearly more than capable of vaporizing a person, or even an entire ship, given time.

[Kamakazie Sith]

A stun setting that set Crusher's arm aflame. I see....

BTW this security lockout thing is a myth, or it may have happened in one episode, so its clear it needs to be manually set.

I think your right. The only episode I can recall that did anything like this is the episode with the time traveller from the past who tried to steal Data....but that phaser we deactivated, and only because it was reported missing.

The last Klingon in "Heart of Glory" used a phaser in kill setting in his escape.

Though I agree with you, this example is terrible. The Klingons built their own disruptor, which they used for their escape and threatened to use it on the warp core. Thus it was not one of the E-D own phasers.

[TOWNMNBS]

>Disintegration is possible with Star Wars weapons:

>"But I want them alive. No disintegrations" Vader to Boba Fett on the >Executor.

But has never been demostrated in cannon. Thus Vader was proably using a metaphor.


>With all due respect, if we treat statements about photon torpedoes'
>effectiveness against planetary-based targets, as Michael put it,
>"speculative character dialogue," why should we take Vader's statement
>literally?

My point exactly! Vader was obviously beeing a little "touge in cheek" with Fett.

<snip - pointless>

>Still, as I said, I'm playing devil's advocate. From what I can tell, >blasters
>are overall superior weapons. I think it would be foolish to deny what
>phasers can do that blasters cannot, but the design of a weapon short
>of its effects is going to be more important in the field than the effects
>of said weapons--at least, so long as the FX are roughly comparable.
>They appear to be: rarely does a phaser "vaporize" a humanoid, for
>example.

Not only that but Blasters cannot generate the cocerans nessesary to vaporize a target. Older Federation phasers were desigened to provide maximum punch on target that is whay they where so often over powered. The newer TNG versions are much more elegant and precise weapons.

>A blaster would be rather unlikely to vaporize a human target, but if >Boba Fett's signature weapon really was a cut-down military blaster rifle, >and if that blaster rifle's maximum setting puts out a plasma bolt >equivalent to a clonetrooper rifle ... a plasma bolt strong enough to blast >a .5 meter crater in a ferrocrete wall (say, a cone with a base radius of >25 cm and a height (depth, rather) of 50 cm might not leave much of a >human body to examine. The effect on ferrocrete (reinforced concrete, >most likely) is taken from the AOTC ICS, specified as the maximum >yield setting of the clonetrooper rifle.

Yes but Phasers rely on the NDF effect. Which means that they would ...Provided with a continuous power source...vaporize an endless amount of concrete.


<sinp>

Han Solo at Star's End , by Brian Daley, 1979 (Daley also wrote the old Star Wars radioplay)

<Snip - Not relevant>

The Han Solo books are not even part of the offical EU...please. Next.


I have not seen anything that remotly proves that Blasters are a superior weapon to Phasers.

Thanks

TJ

[Kamakazie Sith]

I have not seen anything that remotly proves that Blasters are a superior weapon to Phasers.

Thanks

TJ

Their design is far superior, and so is the ROF.

[Silver Jedi]

But has never been demostrated in cannon. Thus Vader was proably using a metaphor.

Actually...

The machine aimed it's laser at the creature, enveloping it in a great flaming and smoking cloud. Secons later the few remaining particles of the wampa were swept away by the icy winds.

(from the novelization of TESB).
Thats what happens when a probe droid meets a wampa- a smoking crater. True, that isn't technicaly a hand blaster, but the bolts looks about the same size as the ones from han's blaster

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I don't think Vader was refering to a specific weapon that Boba Fett had (especially his blaster rifle), but to his reputation and previous bounty history.

It's possible that Vader could have brushed up on the known histories and records of each of the bounty hunters present before briefing them. He might have seen that Fett has been known to disintegrate some of his targets. Obviously, he doesn't want that to happen, so he informs all the hunters that he wants them alive. And he makes sure to emphasize that to Fett.

But he doesn't say something like "I have heard that you are notorious for disintegrating some of your bounties in the past, Mr. Fett. I don't want anything like that to happen for this bounty." No, he tells him the Vader Way(TM): "No disintegrations." Short, simple, intimidating, and to the point.

But that's just my opinion/guess.

It's also my opinion that blasters can't disintegrate people (other than disruptors). If anything, a powerful enough blaster would make someone explode, but not vapourise.

[Mr Bean]

But that's just my opinion/guess.

According to Tales of BH, Fett did that with the first quarry he ever hunted for Vadar and afterwords Vadar says that every single time he asks Fett NO distingrations

[seanrobertson]

Okay, I hope I'm not wasting time on a subject that has already been hacked to death. If so, I apologize, but here's what I'm wondering:

The E-11 blaster carbine used by the Empire (indeed, most blasters) seems to have a bolt that leaves little outside damage, and can at times be rather anemic. Princess Liea got pegged with an E-11 at medium range in RotJ, and suffered minor inconvenience, and Artoo got hit as well but suffered mostly electrical damage. When a blaster does get a good, solid hit on someone, it seems to penetrate easily, leaving only minor scorch marks outside. As blasters get progressively larger in size (ie, vehicle and ship-mounted weaponry) they become amazingly more destructive.

On the other hand, take Trek phasers. In TOS a pistol can utterly disintegrate a person, in ST:TWoK, Kirk vapes the brain leech that comes out of Chekov's ear. The 'dustbusters' of TNG seem capable of doing the same when necessary. But as phasers increase in size, up to ship level, they seem to get weaker in relation to their size.

So is there a size factor that makes the phasers more efficient in small frame weapons and anemic in larger applications, while the reverse seems to apply to the blaster? Not that the blaster is a slouch, I'd approximate it with a 7.62x39 round on the average, although that wimpy hit on Liea & Artoo make me wonder. But they've never disintegrated anyone, or am I not doing enough research?

They probably have disintegrated people in the EU. Vader's comment
to Fett indicates they're capable of as much, though without seeing
it we don't know whether or not this actually entails a *blaster* doing
the work. He could've meant, "Boba, don't disintegrate the starship
your target is in with Slave One's weapons."

I also respectfully disagree WRT phasers becoming less powerful
in relation to their size. If anything, the opposite is the case.
Consider the following:

A phaser rifle's cell can be drained at a rate of 1.05 MW ("The Mind's
Eye"). A setting "beyond maximum" is nonsensical, but it's possible
that, given the mount the phaser was on in that episode, and the
fact that its power drainage was measured the way it was, 1.05 MW
IS indeed greater than the maximum field setting. Doesn't really
matter that much.

Anyway, a phaser set to maximum can make a humanoid target
disappear, "effectively vaporizing" them ("The Vengeance Factor,"
countless others). My rough figures have it that such would require
about 200 megajoules.

In "TME," the phaser's normal efficiency is 86.5% (see Mike's comments
on this in the Canon Database), so the phaser's actual output is 908 kW.
Therefore, a hand phaser can disassociate 220 times what its initial
output would actually suggest--at least when we're looking at something
like a humanoid (mostly water).

Against metal, we have this instance of a phaser "vaporizing" "noranium"
at setting seven (slightly less than half of maximum) in "The
Vengeance Factor," again

Script:

DATA: Noranium alloys. Their salvage value is low.
...
(the away team is attacked by Gatherers armed with Rigellian phaser rifles and they're pinned down, hiding behind some rocks)
RIKER: Data... noranium vaporizes at... ?
DATA: Two thousand three hundred fourteen degrees. Of course, noranium carbide alloys vaporize at a slightly higher temperature.
GEORDI: Phaser setting seven ought to do it...
SCREENPLAY: Riker, Data, Geordi, and Worf fire at the pile of noranium. The noranium quickly bellows huge clouds of smoke -- filling the area almost immediately.
RIKER: Now!
(the four officers make a break for it, using the smoke as cover)
...


How big was this "pile"? I have the episode on LD, but my LDP
is broken (and hey, I only got the disk to see "The Reunion,"
since I like Klingon ships and Gowron ).

Let's say the pile is a cubic meter is a solid block of metal (which
it wasn't IIRC), and treat it as if it was a chunk o' iron (which
has thermal properties fairly similar to this BS alloy). It'd take
about 50 gigajoules to vaporize this stuff which, as you'll note
at the Canon Database entry for this episode, did NOT happen.

3 men were firing phasers at ~43% full power, or greater than
one hand phaser's maximum discharge (129%) to do this.
Therefore, one hand phaser would have an upper-limit effective
vaporization of 35 GW against this "alloy."

So we do the same song and dance: 900 kW creates no more
than 35 GW of FX, correlating to 39,000x greater effectiveness.

The Enterprise-D's largest phaser array can achieve a rate
of damage proportionately much higher relative to its output.
In "Masks," the E-D has to vaporize a comet that contains the
D'Arsay Archive. The Archive itself is about 2.5 times taller than
the E-D is long, and it's about as wide as the E-D's length at the
"base." To get a fair estimate of its volume, we might treat it
like a cylinder 1.2 km long and 600m wide, with a volume of
about 340 million cubic meters.

The comet the thing was in was significantly larger and roughly spherical,
so we might say it's 2 km wide, for a volume of about 4.2 billion cubic
meters. Subtract the Archive's volume from that, and you get
a partially empty sphere with a volume probably no greater than
3.9 billion cubic meters.

From Mike's light turbolaser power page:
Ice
Density is 900 kg/m³, melting point is 273.16K, specific heat is 2.1 kJ/(kg·K). Latent heat of fusion is roughly 335 kJ/kg. Latent heat of evaporation is roughly 2.25 MJ/kg. All figures taken from Machinery's Handbook 19th Edition.

Therefore, you'd need somewhere around 7.9 million terajoules to
"vaporize" this volume of ice, or about 1.1 million TJ to melt it.
The E-D fired on the thing for some time at about 10% full phaser
power, say for 10 seconds, correlating to an equivalent firepower--against
ice!!!!!!!--of about 500,000 TW (or 5 million at full phaser power).

Given phaser's material dependence, this isn't too surprising...turn
that comet magically into rock, and the equivalent firepower probably
drops down by 2-3 orders of magnitude (rough guess).

In any event, since we don't know the E-D's maximum phaser power ("The
Dauphin" perhaps being a bit out of date for a sixth season example),
I have a hard time making a comparison, here...but I'd bet that,
if the phasers DID exceed a TW by "Masks," it wouldn't be by much.
Single-digits, perhaps?

So we've got, say, a 5 terawatt phaser array doing damage on
the order of 500,000 times greater than what it should. IMO, that
demonstrates that phasers do progressively more damage as
they get bigger.

Another example:

Say the tunnel in "Legacy" was completely vaporized, was 20m
wide, and as LaForge stated, 1.6 km deep. That'd be 502,654 m^3
of rock, probably light silicates like SiO2.

Also from Mike's LTL page:

Si
Density is 2330 kg/m³, melting point is 1683K, and high-temp specific heat is roughly 650 J/(kg·K). Latent heat of fusion is roughly 1.65 MJ/kg. Latent heat of evaporation is roughly 10.58 MJ/kg. Figures taken from CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 50th Edition and Fundamentals of Heat Transfer 3rd Edition by Incropera and Dewitt. Note that specific heat is not constant, and in fact rises with increasing temperature. The specific heat figures here are an average of the various values at differing temperatures.


Thus, it would take 12,391 TJ to vaporize that rock. The phaser beam
lasted about 16 sec. IIRC (LaForge could count out a 100m penetration per second). That's about 775 terawatts.

This was done in season four, at which time I don't think the E-D had
used warp power to feed any systems other than the nacelles and
deflector dish (only much later in season four, during "The Nth Degree," does it occur to Barclay to route warp power to the shields). Therefore,
Riker's statement in "The Dauphin" should apply; i.e., phasers are
probably limited to an output no greater than 500 GW--IF that.

That means the effects are 1,550 times the phaser's initial output.

So, we have:

Initial output Effect Against
Hand phaser,
"The Vengeance Factor": no more than 900 kW 200 MW water

Hand phaser,
"The Vengeance Factor: same (extrap.) 35 GW iron

Starship phaser,
"Masks": no more than ~5 TW ~500,000 TW ice

Starship phaser,
"Legacy": no more than 500 GW 775 TW rock


It's evident, therefore, that the target matter in "Legacy" was in
fact sterner stuff than Silicon Dioxide. (Indeed, that's the case:
the script says, "And that's about two kilometers of solid granite above them.") So feel free to discard that no., though we are talking
gen. order of magnitude here...

It's also evident that hand phasers can create effects somewhere
between 220 and 39,000x their initial output, and starship phasers
create effects some 1,150 and 100,000x their initial output.
A phaser rifle is about 5,000 cubic cm, and a large phaser array
like on E-D, assuming each emitter is a box 2m wide and tall and
times 200 emitters, 1,600 cubic meters IIRC. Thus, a starship array is
320,000 times larger than a phaser rifle.

That means that starship phasers at 500 GW-5 TW (or whatever)
are as much as over one million times more power intensive
than the 1 MW hand-held phaser device, which more than offsets
the size differential. The effects should be similar, in spite of that
one aberrant figure, largely because I didn't consider the granite
of "Legacy" and grossly overestimated the abilities of the hand
phaser against the alloy (size and density thereof, ultimate
effects which weren't consistent with vaporization, etc.).

That's far from proof of what I'm driving at, but it's the concern
I had in mind when I read your statement If in fact you meant
that blasters are markedly more effective as they get bigger,
especially more so than is evident in phaser scales, I really shouldn't
be nitpicking...

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Ok Let's try this: Put a phaser and a blaster on a table and ask someone who knows the capabilities of each weapon decide which one he'll choose. Let's say just for shits and giggles it's a First Contact-style phaser rifle (Dammit Why the FRELL don't they give the things model numbers?!?!) and a DL44 (Han Solo's handgun, SW equivalent to a .44 Magnum +P.) Note the supposed size bias toward the phaser. Personally, I'd choose that blaster, unless I wanna derate the phaser rifle for "Phaser Paintball" stun-only pulse mode... I'm basically saying phaser technology would only be useful to SW races or anyone else with similarly powerful weapons at such a small size as stun or practice weaponry. Maybe even recreational use in "phaser tag" type games, equivalent to today's paintball games... I may just be talking outta my ass, but If I wanna just sting someone I'd take the phaser popgun, but for serious defensive work or in battle I'd grab that DL"44Magnum" and BLOW SH1T UP! Lata and Happy Fragging!

P.S. Holographic Quake tourneys would be PERFECT for stun-phaser tech!

Sorry, I can't buy that. There's also a psychological factor involved in choosing a weapon that way, and most people would actually instinctively go for the smaller weapon, no matter what it was.

First of all, the smaller weapon is more concealable. It's also less of a burden to carry for extended periods of time. Most people would choose the blaster for pure convenience, on that basis.

Personally, I'd choose the FC-era Type II. It has the qualities listed above, plus it's a multi-purpose device. You can stun, or kill, or just heat up a nice can of soup. Very handy for starting beach-side bonfires, as well. Second, it's not immediately recognizable as a weapon due to the unusual ergonomics. And after a good deal of practice (which would be a lot of fun) I'm sure a talented individual could develop a fair proficiency with it despite its ergonomic flaws.

[Anarchist Bunny]

Blaster can stun/kill/warm(as stated before in this thread, read posts) also it's a lot easer to hit a target without training.

Also what the hell is this about picking the smallest. A person is most likely to go for the largest weapon they can carry. Which would you rather have a Deringer or a M-16?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

My bad, I missed the "multiple settings" ability mentioned. And me, personally, I'd rather have the derringer, if it comes to that, because I'd rather have a weapon I can carry without being harrassed, and an M-16 is a pretty provocative thing to be walking around in public with.

[Master of Ossus]

My bad, I missed the "multiple settings" ability mentioned. And me, personally, I'd rather have the derringer, if it comes to that, because I'd rather have a weapon I can carry without being harrassed, and an M-16 is a pretty provocative thing to be walking around in public with.

Derringers and M16's are not weapons that can be compared. Both of them, clearly have merits that the other lacks. The Derringer, while offering little power and accuracy, does offer concealability and ease of maintenance/use. the M16 offers much greater firepower and accuracy, but is also less concealable and more difficult to maintain. This is a worthless comparison. Rifles and hand guns cannot be compared, because they cannot replace each other completely. There is always a place on the battlefield for handguns, albeit a smaller one than the one for full-sized rifles. It would be much more meaningful to compare the M16 to similar systems, like the new Soviet model assault rifles or one of the G36 subtypes, and similarly compare a Derringer to a weapon like a Smith and Wessen or a Beretta (I know, those aren't really comparable, but they are handguns). This is a meaningless excercise. BOTH weapons would be necessary, if they were the only two choices and both were available.

In the case of phasers against blasters, WHICH phaser and which blaster?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

My bad, I missed the "multiple settings" ability mentioned. And me, personally, I'd rather have the derringer, if it comes to that, because I'd rather have a weapon I can carry without being harrassed, and an M-16 is a pretty provocative thing to be walking around in public with.

Derringers and M16's are not weapons that can be compared. Both of them, clearly have merits that the other lacks. The Derringer, while offering little power and accuracy, does offer concealability and ease of maintenance/use. the M16 offers much greater firepower and accuracy, but is also less concealable and more difficult to maintain. This is a worthless comparison. Rifles and hand guns cannot be compared, because they cannot replace each other completely. There is always a place on the battlefield for handguns, albeit a smaller one than the one for full-sized rifles. It would be much more meaningful to compare the M16 to similar systems, like the new Soviet model assault rifles or one of the G36 subtypes, and similarly compare a Derringer to a weapon like a Smith and Wessen or a Beretta (I know, those aren't really comparable, but they are handguns). This is a meaningless excercise. BOTH weapons would be necessary, if they were the only two choices and both were available.

In the case of phasers against blasters, WHICH phaser and which blaster?

Han Solo's blaster pistol or a FC Phaser Rifle. Thus the "derringer vs. M16" comparison, and my statement that I would instinctively pick the smaller weapon for concealability and ease of use concerns. However, the purpose of the weapon is never stated (civilian defense use? Or battlefield use?) thus rendering the question meaningless.

But rather than comparing apples and oranges, let's change the menu: Blaster pistol or FC Type II? I believe a poll on this site has already answered that question for the most part, yet of the hand weapons my choice remains the phaser, for the most outstanding reason -- it doesn't give the appearance of being a weapon at first glance. At first glance it could be taken for any number of items (I'm being slightly humorous here) an automotive tool, a grooming implement, or an intimate recreational device. There's just no way to be sure until someone points it at you and presses the trigger.

[Master of Ossus]

Han Solo's blaster pistol or a FC Phaser Rifle. Thus the "derringer vs. M16" comparison, and my statement that I would instinctively pick the smaller weapon for concealability and ease of use concerns.

I know, I meant to disagree with the premise of the thread and not your particular, on-topic response to it. I think that the thread's premise is flawed because the two weapons play different roles.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

True. I think that both are decent weapons for their purposes. Phasers are simply better suited for use in civil defense roles. Aside from the TOS "photon grenade launcher" and the shoulder-mounted, unidentified weapon that Worf used in Insurrection, Starfleet just doesn't have any weaponry intended for use in an all-out battle.

This may be slightly off-topic, but here's my idea of a Starfleet battle-rifle:

It fires in pulses which are not visible to the naked eye. It has a scope which is good up to the neighborhood of 100-200yds. (Longer ranges would probably be better supplemented with a bipod attachment) It has an underbarrel launcher for photon grenades/explosive charge-of-your-choice which can be loaded in magazines. It also has battery/magazines for its main power supply to allow extended field use without the need for "recharging."

[Master of Ossus]

This may be slightly off-topic, but here's my idea of a Starfleet battle-rifle:

It fires in pulses which are not visible to the naked eye. It has a scope which is good up to the neighborhood of 100-200yds. (Longer ranges would probably be better supplemented with a bipod attachment) It has an underbarrel launcher for photon grenades/explosive charge-of-your-choice which can be loaded in magazines. It also has battery/magazines for its main power supply to allow extended field use without the need for "recharging."

Do you have evidence that they can actually set up such a system, or is just speculation? When have they fired invisible bolts? How heavy would the thing be?

Ordinary rifles, without a bipod, are usually accurate to at least five hundred yards. Is this meant to be a carbine or a full rifle?

[Lord Poe]

[quote="Kamakazie Sith

The last Klingon in "Heart of Glory" used a phaser in kill setting in his escape.

Though I agree with you, this example is terrible. The Klingons built their own disruptor, which they used for their escape and threatened to use it on the warp core. Thus it was not one of the E-D own phasers.

Watch the episode again. They used their disruptor to escape, but the last remaining Klingon grabbed a phaser instead from the dead security officer outside their cell.

[Darth Wong]

The E-11 blaster carbine used by the Empire (indeed, most blasters) seems to have a bolt that leaves little outside damage, and can at times be rather anemic. Princess Liea got pegged with an E-11 at medium range in RotJ, and suffered minor inconvenience, and Artoo got hit as well but suffered mostly electrical damage.

Watch the Tantive IV boarding scene, the battle inside the Death Star detention centre, Solo's escape from Docking Bay 94, or numerous blaster firings in Bespin. When they crank up the power levels, they can kill you with a hit to the wall next to you. They probably turn them down in some situations to conserve ammo.

On the other hand, take Trek phasers. In TOS a pistol can utterly disintegrate a person, in ST:TWoK, Kirk vapes the brain leech that comes out of Chekov's ear. The 'dustbusters' of TNG seem capable of doing the same when necessary. But as phasers increase in size, up to ship level, they seem to get weaker in relation to their size.

True, but if you hide behind a thin-walled packing crate (so light that they can be knocked around like cardboard boxes), you are protected from phaser fire. That's a material-dependence chain-reaction thing (it was even described as such in the DS9 TM, although that has since been discredited as mere official speculation).

[Coyote]

While going through the movies again in search of information, I stumbled across another scene that took place in the Battle of Hoth, well before Vader's comment to Fett about "No disintegrations"... As General Veers approached the power station on Hoth, he announced, "Target-- maximum firepower!" and the scene cuts to the outside of the walker. A couple of bolts lash out at the fleeing Rebels when the AT-AT suddenly braces itself, levels its head for a long range shot, and two much larger, more brilliantly-colored bolts let fly.

So it is obvious that a blaster can vary its power setting, and what you said, Darth Wong, about the penetration of the E-11's used in boarding the Tantiv IV, fits this. And of course we all saw the Stormtrooper taking Liea captive with a close-range stun blast. So now I wonder if the Stormtroopers on Endor were more interested in capturing the Rebels than killing them; possibly as prizes for the Emporer? After Liea got pegged in the shoulder she used that same arm normally when shooting the troopers that came up behind Han.

Phasers seem to unleash all their energy on the first thing they hit, whereas blasters will overpenetrate unless set otherwise...

[Slartibartfast]

It's also interesting to note that the rebels are, more often than not, unarmored targets. At least in the movies, we have only seen one instance of the stun mode, so there's no indication of its range or effectiveness, or more importantly, DURATION, so if they simply go around trying to stun everybody, eventually they will start waking up. The idea is to disable, not just put to sleep temporarily, and full blasts aren't really good use of blaster energy against people not wearing stormtrooper armor.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

This may be slightly off-topic, but here's my idea of a Starfleet battle-rifle:

It fires in pulses which are not visible to the naked eye. It has a scope which is good up to the neighborhood of 100-200yds. (Longer ranges would probably be better supplemented with a bipod attachment) It has an underbarrel launcher for photon grenades/explosive charge-of-your-choice which can be loaded in magazines. It also has battery/magazines for its main power supply to allow extended field use without the need for "recharging."

Do you have evidence that they can actually set up such a system, or is just speculation? When have they fired invisible bolts? How heavy would the thing be?

Ordinary rifles, without a bipod, are usually accurate to at least five hundred yards. Is this meant to be a carbine or a full rifle?

The invisible bolts are indeed speculation, but since I'm presenting an actual battle-worthy Trek weapon, invisible bolts make more sense. They would be much more difficult to use in tracking the weapon's user than a phaser beam, for example. And I was a bit myopic in the range necessary for a scope; thanks for pointing that out. The scope would be used for taking out targets at long distances (perhaps 750-1500yds would be more appropriate.) The weapon I described would be approximately the size of an M16. Its intended functionality, even without the grenade launcher module, would be best described as the upgrade of a Knight Armament Corp SR-25K as compared to a Colt M16A2. Increased reliability and accuracy, with better signature suppression.

[Coyote]

... At least in the movies, we have only seen one instance of the stun mode, so there's no indication of its range or effectiveness, or more importantly, DURATION...

When the boarding party on the Tantiv IV stunned Liea, they had to get in close and the stun beam seemed to be very area-effect-- a blue radius effect more than a single beam. One of the technical manuals (I forget which one, it's probably been written in more than one of them, or more likely in the WEG material) stated that the stun beam was rarely used dues to its limited range-- and, of course, the typical Stormtrooper mission involves killing rather than capturing.

As for duration, it is likely to be short-- once the team had informed Lord Vader that they had a prisoner Liea was taken fairly quickly to be questioned by him, and while I am only presuming that it was a few minutes later she was on her feet and not groggy or disoriented at all. So apparantly it has few long-lasting effects. IMO, this makes it superior to the Trek phaser stun, which leaves its victims in a half-assed state for a while-- and typically with "a hell of aheadache" as Kirk once said. A prisoner could be prone to minor injuries due to disorientation, not good in someone you're trying to keep around. Could it be that Star Wars stun weapons are more humane than Trek's? Heheheh...

[Mr Bean]

Could it be that Star Wars stun weapons are more humane than Trek's? Heheheh...

Yes in a way, See SW Stun weapons act by basicly hitting your nervious system with a low level charage that fudges everything for abit


Or in other words for a few seconds your entire body says *Have somone else do it, Instant but temporary paralises plus whatever damage you took when you fall

According to Corran sometimes you black-out sometimes you Don't but they do have a very short range(Under 20 Meters) and that ring effect is purpotional as Kytos traps describes "scores" of fighting Prisoners be droped with each shot

[Slartibartfast]

Yeah that's what I was trying to say: what's the point of stunning a rebel at 20m (while he can just blast you away) then hurrying up to cuff him or something before he wakes up, while the entire rebel squadron is firing at you? That's why they were using low-powered blasters, probably.

Also you can assume that at least at the start (like when blasting the AT-ST pilot) the blasters were still at the low setting, since they had just captured them from the Stormies.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Could it be that Star Wars stun weapons are more humane than Trek's? Heheheh...

Yes in a way, See SW Stun weapons act by basicly hitting your nervious system with a low level charage that fudges everything for abit


Or in other words for a few seconds your entire body says *Have somone else do it, Instant but temporary paralises plus whatever damage you took when you fall

According to Corran sometimes you black-out sometimes you Don't but they do have a very short range(Under 20 Meters) and that ring effect is purpotional as Kytos traps describes "scores" of fighting Prisoners be droped with each shot

True, SW stun is more humane (I'm not totally sure, but IIRC it's been stated that repeatedly stunning someone with a phaser can eventually cause permanent brain damage. Somebody should hit B&B's offices and look for the smoking gun.) but Trek stuns are more effective, even for large groups of people (see TOS, "A Piece of the Action" A whole mob was stunned in half a second from orbit.) Also, the effects being longer-lasting, you have more time to secure a captive before that captive can regain the ability to fight back.