www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:Visual observation isn't reliable for determining particle density. the more opaque appearance could just be due to brighter luminosity stemming from the greater power usage/output. Who knows, really? The Klingon disruptors to which I referred were beam weapons, as (IIRC) were all Klingon disruptors we've ever seen. Apples to apples.

Fair point on visual observations.

So, for the Klingon hyandheld disruptors, the reason we have never seen kickback is because of their beam nature, which would have less force on the hand of the person than a pulse weapon. However, the pulses of the BoP clearly knocked back the barrel of their disruptors.

Mark wrote:Actually, what your most likely seeing is an inexperienced shooter anticipating the recoil. I learned to shoot when I was 11, and taught my sisters when I was around 15 (they are 13,16,20,and 22 years older than me ). I taught them with both a .38 snub and a .22 taurus revolver. After firing the .38, the seemed to throw their hands up with the .22 as if expecting a kick.

Thats possible. I don't know enough about guns to say otherwise.

The M-16 (5.56) is BASICALLY the same as a .22 shell, and as a demonstration for guys in basic we used to brace them off our forehead, chins, and balls. Trust me when I say the recoil is insignificant.

Couldn't that be due to the design of the gun?
One of the few areas I've never bothered to look at (extensively) was the physics of firearms, so I'm just making guesses for a lot of it.

If you can't hold onto a fucking .22 then you need to turn in your balls and apply for a skirt.

Actually that's degrading to women, a woman can hold a .22 on target no problem.

Tyyr wrote:If you can't hold onto a f***ing .22 then you need to turn in your balls and apply for a skirt.

Actually that's degrading to women, a woman can hold a .22 on target no problem.

Well, I've never handled a gun, only seen others.

stitch626 wrote:Couldn't that be due to the design of the gun?One of the few areas I've never bothered to look at (extensively) was the physics of firearms, so I'm just making guesses for a lot of it.

Well, this is somewhat true. The design of the gun can affect the kickback, the design of a .22, won't.

There's not enough there. About the only way to do it would be to make the gun as small and lightweight as possible and move the chamber as far above or below the wrist as possible. Even then... there's just not enough force to really mess you up unless you just make the thing as horrifically unergonomic as possible.

Tyyr wrote:There's not enough there. About the only way to do it would be to make the gun as small and lightweight as possible and move the chamber as far above or below the wrist as possible. Even then... there's just not enough force to really mess you up unless you just make the thing as horrifically unergonomic as possible.

Got it, so a if theres kickback with a 22, it would most likely be that the person is used to something bigger and overanticipated...

Or is a complete pussy, yes.

One can argue for some sort of recoil cancelling technology on the phaser. As evidence, in ST III Kirk shoots a Klingon and the shot flings the guy like ten feet backwards. Conservation of momentum would indicate that firing such a shot should also throw Kirk back equally (or close to equally anyway, depending on how his mass compared to the Klingons).

Yet it doesn't.

As for vapourising, phasers that can heat rock to 8000 degrees (ref "That Which Survives") are certainly capable of vapourising a person, and are referred to as doing so many times. Foolish to argue otherwise, IMO. The real question is, where does the vapour go? If we want to invoke NDF/phaserising, apply it to that instead.

stitch626 wrote:However, the pulses of the BoP clearly knocked back the barrel of their disruptors.

That seemed more a function of the mechanism rather than a reaction to the discharge.

GrahamKennedy wrote:One can argue for some sort of recoil cancelling technology on the phaser. As evidence, in ST III Kirk shoots a Klingon and the shot flings the guy like ten feet backwards. Conservation of momentum would indicate that firing such a shot should also throw Kirk back equally (or close to equally anyway, depending on how his mass compared to the Klingons).

Yet it doesn't.

I think earlier on in the thread I suggested that there may be some sort of miniaturised inertial dampners in the phasers. It'd pretty ridiculously complex for just a gun, but it's certainly something I wouldn't have any problems imagining Starfleet doing. They're not exactly into low-tech sollutions.

WRT the "vapourisation", I tend to just assume the term is being used coloquially, much like the term "blueprint" is still used today. As to how it works, no idea. I just assume disintegration of some form. It being actual vapourisation, even if we assume the lack of vapour is just an FX error, still brings up far too many problems for my liking.

The TNG TM posits some sort of as yet unknown cascade effect which involves matter transitioning into subspace. There's not a lot of detail given though.

It kind of makes sense if the target moves into subspace as it vapourises; would explain why we don't see the vapour.

WRT the "vapourisation", I tend to just assume the term is being used coloquially, much like the term "blueprint" is still used today.

Since the lack of vapour can already be explained by a process we're assuming exists either way, then I don't really see the need for that assumption. Like I said, phasers are expected to be able to heat rock to thousands of degrees. We know that even in the Enterprise era, even the stun setting could be used to boil water. I'd be kind of surprised if they were not vapourising bodies whilst doing whatever else.

Oh, it's worth noting also that in "Obsession", Kirk orders his men to "Set your phasers on disrupter beam. If you see any gaseous cloud, fire immediately." Later on he orders "I want four men armed with phaser two set for disrupter effect."

Which makes it seem like phasers have disrupter beam settings as an additional, separate-from-normal capability.

Which if so, indicates that phasers can heat/vapourise, stun, possibly do some wacky subspace transfer effect, AND have a disrupter effect as well.

And that's before we even get into the idea that they can fire nanoprobes.

Seconded. That was one of the dumbest things that trek writers did. Instead of coming up with something original as a delievery system, they suddenly made phasers able to shoot nanoprobes.

GrahamKennedy wrote:The TNG TM posits some sort of as yet unknown cascade effect which involves matter transitioning into subspace. There's not a lot of detail given though.

It kind of makes sense if the target moves into subspace as it vapourises; would explain why we don't see the vapour.

Not a bad idea. Though then I'm left with the question of "why bother"? If the phaser has some sort of ability to transfer matter to subspace, why not just skip the vapourising (which alone would take shitloads of energy, presumably) and just transfer the whole body to subspace without changing the state?

Also, and do correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the energy required to vapourise a human also cause his clothes to burst into flames? I'd imagine that the ignition temperature of fabric would be less than the vapourising temperature of flesh and bone. The fact that there are no visible effects on fabrics either being worn or being stood on (all those carpets on the E-D) leads me to believe that the "vapourise" setting doesn't actually involve all that much heat, even during the "slow" vapourisations. Thus I tend to favour some sort of technobabble sollution. The idea of the victim being tossed into subspace is a pretty interesting one, I think.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Since the lack of vapour can already be explained by a process we're assuming exists either way, then I don't really see the need for that assumption. Like I said, phasers are expected to be able to heat rock to thousands of degrees. We know that even in the Enterprise era, even the stun setting could be used to boil water. I'd be kind of surprised if they were not vapourising bodies whilst doing whatever else.

While it may seem like a pretty clear-cut case, I'm still somewhat unsure about the heat effects of a phaser beam. As I pointed out above, clothing is rarely (if ever?) damaged by being hit. And if a stun setting can boil water, you'd surely expect some sort of scorch marks on the clothes worn, yet we rarely see such effects.

Personally, I tend to just shove the phaser beam's mechanics under the "inexplicable technobabble" heading. It solves a lot of these problems.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Oh, it's worth noting also that in "Obsession", Kirk orders his men to "Set your phasers on disrupter beam. If you see any gaseous cloud, fire immediately." Later on he orders "I want four men armed with phaser two set for disrupter effect."

Which makes it seem like phasers have disrupter beam settings as an additional, separate-from-normal capability.

Which if so, indicates that phasers can heat/vapourise, stun, possibly do some wacky subspace transfer effect, AND have a disrupter effect as well.

Hmm, interesting. Perhaps the disruptor effect was simply a sort of pulse-fire mode, as opposed to the continuous beam we usually see? It'd certainly save on ammo.

GrahamKennedy wrote:And that's before we even get into the idea that they can fire nanoprobes.

Who the hell did Starfleet contract to design these things? The Swiss?

If the phaser beam imparts that much heat, then vaporization at those settings wouldn't be an option - it would be simply part and parcel of the effect. In other words, if the phaser beam transfers that much heat, then the target will be vaporized... nobody has to add a particular vaporization setting.

As to clothing, etc.: I'd imagine that if enough heat was imparted quickly enough, there would be no discernable ignition, and kit would be vaporized along with meat.

Sionnach Glic wrote:While it may seem like a pretty clear-cut case, I'm still somewhat unsure about the heat effects of a phaser beam. As I pointed out above, clothing is rarely (if ever?) damaged by being hit. And if a stun setting can boil water, you'd surely expect some sort of scorch marks on the clothes worn, yet we rarely see such effects.

Absolutely. A DET weapon would not magically stop at the soles of the feet of the person being shot, unlike a phaser. The effects would also be different depending on the mass of the target, rather than having identical effects (i.e. person disappears) against small women (The Vengeance Factor) and large men (most examples).

It would also be very hard to explain the problems they apparently have with 20th century tires and mudflaps (Future's End).