STXI Nit

[Captain Seafort]

I'd call the distinct lack of a room-filling cloud of high-pressure steam every time someone is "vaporised" rather more than a "nitpick". A bit like saying a city's been nuked and the only evidence is a couple of broken windows.

[Sonic Glitch]

I'd call the distinct lack of a room-filling cloud of high-pressure steam every time someone is "vaporised" rather more than a "nitpick". A bit like saying a city's been nuked and the only evidence is a couple of broken windows.

Oh ffs... Well then what would you call it. Also note, we have Picard's quote, "Maximum setting! If you had fired, you' have vaporized me." Therefore it is quite obvious that the intent of the writers/tech inventors mean for the phasers to vaporize people at their higher power level.

[Captain Seafort]

Oh ffs... Well then what would you call it.

I've heard the terms "phaserise" or "NDFing" used - both are pretty chunky unfortunately. I generally use the term "make disappear", or similar.

Also note, we have Picard's quote, "Maximum setting! If you had fired, you' have vaporized me."

Evidence that the term "vaporise" is colloquially applied to the phaser effect as well as true vaporisation.

Therefore it is quite obvious that the intent of the writers/tech inventors mean for the phasers to vaporize people at their higher power level.

They can intend that the E-D looks like a pink fluffy bunny for all I care. It doesn't, any more than phasers vaporise people.

[Sonic Glitch]

Oh ffs... Well then what would you call it.

I've heard the terms "phaserise" or "NDFing" used - both are pretty chunky unfortunately. I generally use the term "make disappear", or similar.

"NDF"?

Also note, we have Picard's quote, "Maximum setting! If you had fired, you' have vaporized me."

Evidence that the term "vaporise" is colloquially applied to the phaser effect as well as true vaporisation.

See below.

Therefore it is quite obvious that the intent of the writers/tech inventors mean for the phasers to vaporize people at their higher power level.

They can intend that the E-D looks like a pink fluffy bunny for all I care. It doesn't, any more than phasers vaporise people.

Couldn't up possibly suspend your disbelief for a few moments and realize "the VFX people are morons, but doesn't detract from the shot?"

[Tyyr]

He might have said vaporized but then again words and phrases like "vaporized," "blown to bits," "shot to pieces," are used all the time in common language and rarely are they literal descriptions of the effects of a weapon.

[Sonic Glitch]

He might have said vaporized but then again words and phrases like "vaporized," "blown to bits," "shot to pieces," are used all the time in common language and rarely are they literal descriptions of the effects of a weapon.

Fair point, but then what do phasers do? And wouldn't it take more power to make something completely disappear so well that not even vapor is left then it would to "vaporize" them? (it's been a long time since I had a chem class so I may be wrong?)

[Captain Seafort]

"NDF"?

Nuclear Disruption Force - it's a holdover from the TNG Tech Manual, that's still often used as a shorthand for the phaser effect.

Couldn't up possibly suspend your disbelief for a few moments and realize "the VFX people are morons, but doesn't detract from the shot?"

I am suspending disbelief - the whole point of the technique is to treat what we see as if they were actual events, rather than as a TV programme - it specifically ignores author's intent.

[Captain Seafort]

And wouldn't it take more power to make something completely disappear so well that not even vapor is left then it would to "vaporize" them? (it's been a long time since I had a chem class so I may be wrong?)

That would make the problem even worse - instead of a cloud of high-pressure steam you'd have a cloud of plasma, or worse gamma rays.

[Sonic Glitch]

"NDF"?

Nuclear Disruption Force - it's a holdover from the TNG Tech Manual, that's still often used as a shorthand for the phaser effect.

Hm, that's new. Thanks. It's been a long time since I've read the TNG Tech Manual.

Couldn't up possibly suspend your disbelief for a few moments and realize "the VFX people are morons, but doesn't detract from the shot?"

I am suspending disbelief - the whole point of the technique is to treat what we see as if they were actual events, rather than as a TV programme - it specifically ignores author's intent.

Fair enough. My misunderstanding. I personally believe that it is not documentary footage, much as it's supposed to seem that way, and there are limits to what production crews can do with their budget, that authors intent should be considered as an element of the experience. To each their own I suppose.

And wouldn't it take more power to make something completely disappear so well that not even vapor is left then it would to "vaporize" them? (it's been a long time since I had a chem class so I may be wrong?)

That would make the problem even worse - instead of a cloud of high-pressure steam you'd have a cloud of plasma, or worse gamma rays.

Tho you yourself have said that we've seen people disappear into thin air. Does this mean they do not infact disappear into thin air because we don't necessarily see a cloud of plasma and everyone doesn't drop dead due to gamma rays?

[Captain Seafort]

Fair enough. My misunderstanding. I personally believe that it is not documentary footage, much as it's supposed to seem that way, and there are limits to what production crews can do with their budget, that authors intent should be considered as an element of the experience. To each their own I suppose.

I don't have a problem with people analysing Trek as a TV programme - what I have a problem with is mixing and matching between that sort of analysis and trying to quantify phasers, etc, as if they actually existed. If you do that the analysis becomes highly subjective and therefore useless.

Tho you yourself have said that we've seen people disappear into thin air. Does this mean they do not infact disappear into thin air because we don't necessarily see a cloud of plasma and everyone doesn't drop dead due to gamma rays?

It means that they're probably converted into neutrinos through some sort of chain reaction - it's the only way that much mass could disappear without obvious physical effects. Any mechanism that relies on direct energy transfer is refuted by the fact that we do not see any evidence of the effects the required input of energy would produce.

[Mark]

We have heard "vaporize" used several times through out the show as a description of somebody getting shot, glowing...and then vanishing. If I use the word "disintegrate" would that suit better?

[Mikey]

But, what we DO know is that until that point we'd never seen a nadion cause a kick....in TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT. And unless for physics of the universe changed regarding the "nadion", we STILL shouldn't have seen a kick. Even the rapid fire compression rifles didn't have a recoil.

But we don't know the particle density of these pulses. They certainly looked denser.

They "looked" denser? Come on, you've got to be joking. There are modern, RL solid slug weapons that produce less muzzle limb than what we saw from the STXI sidearms. Are you really saying that there was a density of subatomic particles in the phaser beams to out-mass a full auto burst of .45 bullets?

And nadions do cause a "kick" for Klingon BoP disrupters (TFF), which shows they do produce a recoil at some point.

#1 - different mechanism. Disruptors use a different process than phasers: the mythical "slow nadion effect" compared the mythical "fast nadion effect" for phasers.

#2 - we've also seen, even more frequently, Klingons fire disruptors with no discernable recoil effects.

[stitch626]

But, what we DO know is that until that point we'd never seen a nadion cause a kick....in TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT. And unless for physics of the universe changed regarding the "nadion", we STILL shouldn't have seen a kick. Even the rapid fire compression rifles didn't have a recoil.

But we don't know the particle density of these pulses. They certainly looked denser.

They "looked" denser? Come on, you've got to be joking. There are modern, RL solid slug weapons that produce less muzzle limb than what we saw from the STXI sidearms. Are you really saying that there was a density of subatomic particles in the phaser beams to out-mass a full auto burst of .45 bullets?

The "looked denser" bit was in reference to the difference between a beam and a pulse. The pulse was a brighter and less treansparent than any phaser beam I can remember.
Also, to an inexperienced person, a small 22 can produce insane muzzle climb. I've seen it.
Perhaps, these were new weapons, and everyone was still used to the old beam style rather than the new pulses (just a theory, nothing more).
As for densities, it is possible for the phaser pulse to be denser (and more massive) than a bullet. For all we know, nadions have a greater mass than the heavy atoms.

And nadions do cause a "kick" for Klingon BoP disrupters (TFF), which shows they do produce a recoil at some point.

#1 - different mechanism. Disruptors use a different process than phasers: the mythical "slow nadion effect" compared the mythical "fast nadion effect" for phasers.

#2 - we've also seen, even more frequently, Klingons fire disruptors with no discernable recoil effects.

#1: True. And since we have no idea what these "effects" actually do, there is no way to determine the difference. However, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference when fired.
#2: While I do remember them, I cannot remember if the disruptors fired a beam or a pulse... or both.
I remember Romulan disruptors fired a beam (accept in the new movie, where there was recoil as well). But can't remember Klingon ones.

[Mikey]

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.

[Mark]

Stich wrote:
Also, to an inexperienced person, a small 22 can produce insane muzzle climb. I've seen it.

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.


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.