www.ditl.org

Or the emitter was somehow damaged from battle, and couldn't support an entire energy buildup. Two less powerful beams would be the logical answer.

Mark wrote:Or the emitter was somehow damaged from battle, and couldn't support an entire energy buildup. Two less powerful beams would be the logical answer.

Also possible, but still that shows that the emitters can't fire more then their own maximums.

Deepcrush wrote:

Mark wrote:Or the emitter was somehow damaged from battle, and couldn't support an entire energy buildup. Two less powerful beams would be the logical answer.

Also possible, but still that shows that the emitters can't fire more then their own maximums.

Why not? Not 100% sure but I believe it was mentioned in the tech manual that the whole mainphaser-array of the GCS can onload in a 7 sec blast. The logical conclusion is that one emittersegment is capable of handling the energy supply of multiple segements. (What we see as buildup)

If one emittersegment could only fire its own energy reserve than we would either see, a) hundreds of phaserblasts since one stripe consists of numerous segments (I think GK even counted them somewhere), or b) Phaserstripes which virtually never go out of power because if they only fire one beam (which mostly happens) they could go through hundreds of other segments before running dry.

Conclusion, the emitters are able to handle far more energy than the ships can usually divert to phasers. It would explain why they ever run out of phaser power, it would explain why mostly we see one beam, it would explain why sometimes we have two or more beams and it would explain the buildup.

It may sound unlikely, that they would design such a redundant system yet they built it with the view of an estimated lifetime of 100 years, so yeah, altough at the moment most emitters are redundant, potentially you could crank up phaser power by a considerabe degree before you have to replace the whole weaponsystem. Idk, makes sense imho.

It would also make sense for the Excelsiors ball turrets, if their emitters were likewise capable of handling far more power than available at the time than the added bonus of stripes (flexibility and damage resistence) could be deemed unecessary compared to replacing the whole system, if you could just crank the phaser power up and also have acceptable results.

Why not? Not 100% sure but I believe it was mentioned in the tech manual that the whole mainphaser-array of the GCS can onload in a 7 sec blast. The logical conclusion is that one emittersegment is capable of handling the energy supply of multiple segements. (What we see as buildup)

Wrong, logic is that if they could hold multiple stacks of energy then they wouldn't need the strip and would just have one direct power feed. Also, if you have something able to operate several times its own maximum then it tends to explode. Being that its maximum is the maximum it can handle.

If one emittersegment could only fire its own energy reserve than we would either see, a) hundreds of phaserblasts since one stripe consists of numerous segments (I think GK even counted them somewhere), or b) Phaserstripes which virtually never go out of power because if they only fire one beam (which mostly happens) they could go through hundreds of other segments before running dry.

Conclusion, the emitters are able to handle far more energy than the ships can usually divert to phasers. It would explain why they ever run out of phaser power, it would explain why mostly we see one beam, it would explain why sometimes we have two or more beams and it would explain the buildup.

It may sound unlikely, that they would design such a redundant system yet they built it with the view of an estimated lifetime of 100 years, so yeah, altough at the moment most emitters are redundant, potentially you could crank up phaser power by a considerabe degree before you have to replace the whole weaponsystem. Idk, makes sense imho.

Again not possible, we've seen time and again how easily the power supply of the phasers can be disrupted by hits to the ship anywhere along where the phaser is placed. This means that the phaser strip is a single contained system with a pair of power supplies (one at both ends) that ramps up and meets at a final point. Since only a single segment is lit up at a time and not the whole thing, the power availably is limited. We have seen once what happens when the whole thing is charged and it was in BoBW where it did little more then cause sensor interference.

It would also make sense for the Excelsiors ball turrets, if their emitters were likewise capable of handling far more power than available at the time than the added bonus of stripes (flexibility and damage resistence) could be deemed unecessary compared to replacing the whole system, if you could just crank the phaser power up and also have acceptable results.

If they could handle more power then they currently do, then someone would have boosted their output already and added a large power supply. I see where your idea comes from and would make sense if we were basing it out of Enterprise. But when compared to the GCS it fails due to canon evidence we already have.

Deepcrush wrote: Wrong, logic is that if they could hold multiple stacks of energy then they wouldn't need the strip and would just have one direct power feed. Also, if you have something able to operate several times its own maximum then it tends to explode. Being that its maximum is the maximum it can handle.

No, you see thats the beauty of the theory. They build ships to last for decades so they take the maximum energy output of today. They know it will increase with a factor X, (when was the first warp core upgrade for the E-D? Season 2?3?) and wherever possible they design systems to handle the future output, since you can rather easily swap warp cores but replacing a phaser array is a chore. If true, thats quite an intelligent design. Or to paraphrase, currently they can only handle munitions for a x-cm calibre gun, yet since they know that will change they already build now a x+y calibre gun for the time they can handle x+y munitions. Thats really not wasted resources imho compared to replacing the whole system after 5-10 years. It would also be a rather neat explanation for the old "more power solves everything" problem, since if we accept the premise than more power could be indeed apllied to systems designed with enough headroom that you really can squeeze "more power" into them when necessary, or available.

A good example would be all good things, the season 1 E-D blew up first, the season 7 second. They exaclty look alike yet obviously the season 7 E-D had better, more powerful systems.

Deepcrush wrote:Again not possible, we've seen time and again how easily the power supply of the phasers can be disrupted by hits to the ship anywhere along where the phaser is placed. This means that the phaser strip is a single contained system with a pair of power supplies (one at both ends) that ramps up and meets at a final point. Since only a single segment is lit up at a time and not the whole thing, the power availably is limited. We have seen once what happens when the whole thing is charged and it was in BoBW where it did little more then cause sensor interference.

To be honest I am not going to watch the whole of TNG and count incedents but I did have the feeling that the E-D far more often run dry of phaser power than beeing outright disabled by a hit. The later beeing more common with Voyager were they fire once at the alien ship of the week and disable their whole weapons array (or vice versa).

Think of it this way, if there were only two power supplies at each end traveling and meeting in the middle and then beeing emitted.........what would be the point at all of a phaser array except making a huge target to hit. The same could be done by two ball turrets and don't tell me coverage, the angles a ball turret can cover are not that much inferior to a strip, starships are not THAT huge.

Deepcrush wrote:If they could handle more power then they currently do, then someone would have boosted their output already and added a large power supply. I see where your idea comes from and would make sense if we were basing it out of Enterprise. But when compared to the GCS it fails due to canon evidence we already have.

Well maybe they have. The whole point was more or less to explain why a ship like the Lakota, which received a mayor systems update, really top notch and all, did not receive a phaser array but retained her turrets. Now I am not saying this is because of the reasons I stated, it is just speculation I think would fit in with the facts, nothing more.

There's two major problems with your theory. A, if they were that able to support increased power then they would have put in a more powerful source of power to which they didn't. B, your whole stance is an opinion that contradicts canon.

There for your stance, while a valid idea is still not applicable to the GCS or to Phasers.

Wait, from what RL expert on starship design did you get the idea that a different - not just replacement - warp core is easier to mate to a starship than upgraded phaser arrays?

Mikey wrote:Wait, from what RL expert on starship design did you get the idea that a different - not just replacement - warp core is easier to mate to a starship than upgraded phaser arrays?

I would call that a bit of common sense and a bit of expanding on what we know from cannon. Warp cores can be ejected, even ejected very quickly in case of an emergency, so removing one doesn't seem to be much of a problem. And if a new warp core has been designed for a given ship, one would certainly hope it was built to fit and work with said ship.

On the other hand we have no cannon to suggest that the phaser arrays can easily or quickly be removed, and the very way they are built into the hull itself would suggest a lot of having to dig into and around inside and/or outside the ship to exchange pieces of it.

Now is any of this in any way proof of anything at all, no. But if we can't speculate a little, what's there to discuss?

Its not just the Warp Core but ALL of the systems that are attached to it and the secondary systems designed to support it. So that has nothing to do with canon... at all.

Deepcrush wrote:Its not just the Warp Core but ALL of the systems that are attached to it and the secondary systems designed to support it. So that has nothing to do with canon... at all.

Right, because a brand new warp core absolutely has to have brand new everything else to work...base on what now?

I'm not trying to say that Atek is clearly right and of course that's how it has to be, merely that it's not a stupid idea or completely unreasonable. We don't have the cannon to support it, but nor do we have cannon that explicitly calls it impossible. If you want to make a hard core debate out of it, of course it's not going to hold up, but for a general discussion and speculation, I see no issue with the idea. A lot dumber things have been suggested.

A lot dumber things have been suggested.

We had Blackstar. This goes without saying.

Personally, I see phasers as being difficult to remove/replace simply because they are part of the hull (at least some of it is). Its not like they are just glued on.

Lighthawk wrote:Right, because a brand new warp core absolutely has to have brand new everything else to work...base on what now?

Its doesn't have to have everything/anything new and/or upgraded... then again you don't really have to use the extra power you can produce. Sure it might be nice to get to use your brand new warp core to its full potential but hey.

Canonically, we do know that the E-D's warp core was replaced with an upgraded one in "Phantasms". The replacement doesn't even require a spacedock; it's apparently done entirely by the ship's own crew and resources, with the ship sitting in deep space.

So yes, replacing a warp core with an upgraded one is apparently not all that big a deal.

Edited to add : Ah, hang on, apparently I misremembered this. Although the majority of the ep does take place in deep space, they are leaving a starbase at the beginning and apparently the core was fitted there. Still, given the "episode per two weeks" nature of TNG, this doesn't seem to have been a particularly big job.

That's all well said; my comment was just made to indicate the fact that people tend to state "facts" that aren't facts at all, but are rather huge stretches that they call facts in order to support their own conclusions. OK, so the biggest (read: roomiest) and most modern ship in the fleet can have its warp core upgraded relatively easily; that in no way, shape, or form means that there are "plug-and-play" upgraded warp cores available for smaller ships. In those cases, it seems likely that more powerful cores are probably larger ones, and wouldn't even fit where they're supposed to go; and in any event, wouldn't fit the ancillary systems, as Deep mentioned.

This is all entirely tangential, and like I said I was just trying to make the point that it's easy to say that "Warp cores are easier to upgrade than phasers - because I can show a tenuous path of deduction, and doing so supports me."

Well, all they are changing is the "combustion engine" as it is. None of the associated hardware. The energy output IIRC was similar, but more efficient, so no need to mess with everything else.