In the VOY episode where they discover the Vidiian outpost, they have to beam through a very small crack, and they mention the smallest they can make an ACB: a few molecules I believe. -- Redge 00:01, 3 Aug 2004 (CEST)
It's definately ANNULAR (i.e. ring-shaped.) But I would not be suprized if they variously call it containment or confinement, as the meaning is similar and it would not be any greater error then the real-life variations of many acronyms, like DVD.
ACB acronym? Edit
- Good question - I've added an "incite" tag, also because the use of the abbreviation throughout the article looks unprofessional in any case. -- Cid Highwind 09:46, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
- A quick search of the online transcripts and scripts comes up with zero hits for ACB. This appears to be something derived from the Star Trek Encyclopedia, which has "Abbreviated as ACB" as the first sentence of the annular confinement beam entry, and then continues to refer to the technology by that abbreviation throughout (at least in the 1st ed., p. 10).–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 10:35, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. It looks really unprofessional in the article. I'd like to propose this be referred to as annular confinement beam or simply confinement beam througout the artice, with the removal of the references to ACB. Maybe a background note mentioning the acronym in the encyclopaedia would be OK though? Any thoughts? -- TrekFan Open a channel 14:18, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
Removed from article - fandom speculation:
- Annular confinement beams are also believed to be used to allow phaser discharge at warp speeds, but this has not been canonically confirmed.
-- Cid Highwind 09:46, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
Force field? Edit
Does the annular confinement beam qualify as a force field? If so, perhaps it should be mentioned in the force field article. "Containment field" is mentioned, but that seems to be an entirely different phenomenon. Pat Berry 12:43, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
- I could see a link to this article going in the See Also section of the force field page.--31dot 12:49, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
Done! Thanks for the suggestion; I should have thought of that.--Pat Berry 06:12, January 16, 2012 (UTC)