Talk:Phaser/archive

Ship phasers? Disambig?

We don't have a page on ship phasers yet, but when we do, this page should be used as either a disambiguation page, or an article on both (which would be logical, considering they are both build on the same principal, one just being a bit larger). -- Redge 10:36, 22 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Do you think it's really necessary to distinguish them? They have the same operating principles. I think it's fine as just one page. -- McC 01:00, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Sources??

This page is in serious need of sources if it wishes to remain intact. --Gvsualan 02:24, 25 Feb 2005 (GMT)

very exostensial thought, the page itself wishing to remain intact??? lol – The preceding unsigned comment was added by KetracelWhiteJunkie (talk • contribs).

Removing text

I'm deleting the part at the end that says stuff vaporized in TOS because they didn't have enough budget. This is pure speculation and I'm sick of people trying to decanonize TOS as a whole because it doesn't look that pretty. -- Mark 2000

Heating metal

"That Which Survives" establishes that the 23rd century Federation phaser could heat metal to maximum temperature of 8000 degrees Centigrade. This definitely belongs in this article. 64.229.181.69 03:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

However, that statement does not tell much since different metals have different heat capacities, meaning that the same amount of energy used causes different rises in temperature. Furthermore, that's a rather odd statement considering that the vast majority of metals, if not all of them, (at least those we know today) would be in gaseous form at 8000 degrees Centigrade.--Timo Takalo 23:07, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

8000 celsius is equal to 14,432.00 fahrenheit
8000 celsius is equal to 08,273.15 kelvin
8000 celsius is equal to 14,891.67 rankine
--64.12.116.73 23:21, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Phaser Turret Schematic in TOS "Space Seed"

Just wanted to pop in and comment on the first note at the bottom of the article to say that there's at least one episode of TOS besides "The Trouble With Tribbles" where an image of a phaser emitter is seen, and that's in "Space Seed." It's at the point where Khan is in Sickbay and reading schematics and texts for the Enterprise. One of the images is a schematic of the ship's phaser turrets (if I remember correctly, specifically the ones on the saucer section; it's basically a ball turret). It's shown on screen in such a manner that makes it perfect for screen capturing, if I recall.--63.230.159.110 21:01, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)

You're mistaken, that diagram in "Space Seed" was something else entirely, something with long lateral lines going across the page, probably some kind of perspective view of somthing. --Atrahasis 00:41, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

ok, i may be misunderstanding the topic, but you see a live action shot of a phaser emiter on ds9 when the cardies try to take it back, the up close shot consists of torpedo turrets taking aim and the phaser turrets right beside them. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by KetracelWhiteJunkie (talk • contribs).

Two Points

There definitely needs to be a picture in this article. If I knew where to get the images, I would add one myself -- but phasers were a standard prop in the two series I watched, TOS and TNG. I'm amazed no one has yet added an image.

Second:

Since early times, Human beings have endeavored to create less lethal weapons.

That's a nice sentiment, but it seems to me the opposite is true. Is there some reason for this inaccurate (and not particularly encyclopedic) sentence? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.67.134.

Alien weapons

I may be at the wrong article (ie: disrupotr, phase weapon, energy weapon, etc.) But should this article have "Alien" sub-headings like Tricorder has? I can think of a number of alien weapons, including the "you-have-to-look-closely-to-see" Vulcan phasers. Because this article seems to be strictly about Starfleet phasers (read first line) - AJHalliwell 13:09, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

References

I think most of the text referring to the use of each setting of the phaser should be backed up with a reference to an episode, if possible. Zsingaya ^Talk 18:33, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I believe so as well. At the moment, they all come directly from Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, which isn't realyl considered a canon source. --From Andoria with Love 19:02, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Re-write

Phaser-type weapons, as has been mentioned above, have been seen in other races, such as the Vulcans. At the moment, the page only has information about Federation weapons, and only a small section on the ship-mounted weapons. I reckon this page could get really good with a community-effort. Special attention should be paid to the Sidearm settings section, which probably doesn't come from on-screen references. Zsingaya ^Talk 22:34, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

removed info

When discharged, phasers typically emitt a "bew bew" like sound wave. This wave pattern is due to the transition of tricobolt particles within the particle accelerator between trans-sonic velocities.

I don't think we need a fan-based explanation as to why a phaser goes "bew bew"... --From Andoria with Love 20:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

History

I removed the following from "History", as it comes froma novel and is non-canon:

":It seems that the phaser pistol had not come into regular service even in Kirk's time; in the novel The Ashes of Eden, during a simulation, Kirk (as the phaser control operator of the USS Farragut on the surface of the planet) is holding a laser pistol and musing that only the only phasers around are shipboard phaser banks on the USS Farragut. This imples that at that time, shipboard Phaser Banks were installed on the larger starships, but that the hand held versions were not as common." --Roundeyesamurai 03:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I find myself dissatisfied with the recent edits, removing the power setting information to the "Background" section. As the information is from a permitted resource, and considered reliable unless contradicted, I think it should be returned. Otherwise, an extensive rewrite of the part of the article regarding phaser capabilities seems in order. The article just doesn't look right as it is. Capt Christopher Donovan 07:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is is said that the Tech Manual being a permitted resource? The current content policy states that the Tech Manual, among other books written by production staff, "may be referenced in Trek Universe articles, but should be formatted as background information as described in Memory Alpha's Manual of Style." Where does it say information from those books are allowed to be included in articles? --From Andoria with Love 04:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Galaxy Phasers

Here's some food for thought.

In Star Trek: Generations, Riker ordered a return fire on the renegade Bird of Prey. The Bird of Prey's shields deflected the blast and they were only dealt minor damage. Ok, so what's the deal here? Why couldn't they continue firing phasers, or cause more damage to an old D12 BOP?

Let me go into a bit more detail.

The Enteprise D was able to fire all weapons simultaneously on full against a Hunsnock vessel and a Borg Cube. The phasers even caused significant damage to the Borg Cube at J25, and knocked out the tractor beam in BoBW. It's odd how the Enterprise was only able to get off one phaser shot at a Bird of Prey, not much of a ship, but was able to put up a decent fight against more powerful enemies like the Borg. You don't mean to tell me that the Klingons just scared them to death do you?

Also, in the battle to retake DS9, Galaxy wings 9-1 and 9-3 simply blew by a Cardassian Galor Class taking her down with no more than five phaser bursts. The Galor didn't even appear to have shields, but I'm just guessing that's DS9 effects. The Galor is a much more poweful ship than a Bird of Prey, but it can't take the same damage that a BOP can?

Lets not forget that the USS Odyssey wasn't able to do much damage to the Jem'Hadar fighters, but in the battle to retake DS9 we can clearly see a Galaxy Class ship eliminating a Dominion ship with ease while the Defiant is being chased by the Jem'Hadar.

I realize the producers had to work with a script, time, and a budget, but with disregard to that can someone explain the large difference in Galaxy phasers between TNG, DS9, and the movies? --JeanLucPicard1 20:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)JeanLucPicard1

There are all sorts of explanations that could be used. Combat readiness of the ship would be a huge one. In Rascals and Generations the ship was dispatched to its mission on a dime and didn't really take the time to make internal reconfigurations and crew placements that would optimize the ships combat capabilities. Compare this to Chain of Command, BOBW, or Yesterday's Enterprise where they obviously went through quite a bit to prepare the ship for battle. Also, in Rascals, Generations, and with the Odyssey, they were caught with their shields down or ineffective. We've seen before that well place hits against unshielded ships can be devastating. IMO, by right the Enterprise should have been destroyed by that BOP's first volley in Generations. The fact that they weren't suggests that other defenses were in place (i.e. SIF, IDF, deflector dish, etc...). At any event, the internal design/configurations and crew/automated operations of the ships phasers are probably extremely complicated and a generic comparison of their use/effectiveness in very different(and mostly unstudied) combat situations probably won't yield any firm conclusions.--Hribar 16:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Enterprise fired, then you got a long line of talking (while rocked by weapons fire), after the crew started working on the plan, it switched back the the BoP where one of the Klingons said "Our Shields are holding". That implies the Enterprise was still firing, just off-screen.

The D-12 Class was retired because of defective Plasma Coils, not defective Shielding. No matter how old a ship is, the Shields don't get weaker with age. – Fadm tyler 15:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Darmok

I bring up another interesting point. In TNG Darmok, the Enterprise fired its phasers from the forward torpedo tube. I know Riker ordered Geordi to reconfigure the phasers to drop the Tamarian field, however, I don't think Geordi was a capable enough engineer or had the right equipment to reconfigure phasers to fire from the torpedo launcher. That would require a major overhaul of weapons systems at a starbase. --JeanLucPicard1 20:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)JeanLucPicard1

While you're above comments regarding phaser use against a BOP raise some good points (and I wish I had answers for you – basically, it's probably a writing error; in canon, it can't really be explained without speculation), the point about Geordi's recalibrating the phasers in "Darmok" is more of a critique or an opinion of an element of the episode, neither of which are really suitable for talk pages. Having said that, Geordi has worked many miracles during his time as chief engineer – just consider this another one. ;-) --From Andoria with Love 21:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ship Phaser Power

I have looked through just about all the material concerning Phaser, how they work, who has them, and their different sizes, 4-12.

We know that with the re-fit of the NCC1701 to NCC1701A that the "Phaser Bank" which was exhaustible (Doomsday Machine) and needed to be recharaged after use, to a direct feed from the warp-core from Star Trek the movie. However, moving from the MK IV, MKVIII, MK X (array?) and MK XII there is no coralary information as to the lower and upper power ranges of these weapons. I feel as though this needs to be addressed. I don't own any of the manuals or other tech books, so could someone add some kind of reference to this issue.66.245.46.170

Even if the tech manuals give this information, it can only be included as background information, and not canon. Please read the content and resource policies if you have any questions. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 17:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Canonically there are a few statements about phaser power. In "Who Watches the Watchers" Riker considered a 4.2 Gigawatt generator sufficient to power "a small phaser bank". In "The Mind's Eye" Data says a Type 3 phaser rifle was using energy at a rate of "one point oh five megajoules per second". In "A Matter of Time" Geordi cautions that it will be difficult to control the ship's phasers to within 0.06 Terawatts. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.56.70.133.

Voyager using phasers at warp

I am currently watching Voyager's Basics, Part 1 and there was a brief sequence where voyager was fighting off two Kazon ships with phasers. judging by how the stars were flying past it looked like they were at warp. I couldn't tell if voyager's nacelles were in the raised position though. what was going on there? --User:82.4.52.14

They were firing phasers at warp. We see the Jem'Hadar do this as well, in DS9: "Valiant", and likely other episodes. --Alan del Beccio 00:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The USS Prometheus and USS Bonchune do the same thing in VOY: "Message in a Bottle". It's a common error in Trek. - Enzo Aquarius 00:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

...which probably makes it not an error at all. ;) -- Cid Highwind 11:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, why would this be an error? Is there some canon source that says phasers at warp are impossible? -- Captain M.K.B. 16:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably due to Will Decker's comment in Star Trek: The Motion Picture in regards to phasers at warp while the Enterprise was stuck in the wormhole effect. - Enzo Aquarius 16:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

...which in the next scene, Decker explained was because phaser power on the ship had recently been funneled through the engines in a new design -- phasers were unable to operate when engines went offline. There was nothing said about warp space inhibiting their function, just the ships own power failure. Kirk's order was erroneous because he was unfamiliar with the refit redesign, not because the phasers would not function in warp space. -- Captain M.K.B. 16:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is possible this concept is being confused with the "Faster than light, no left or right." But there are obviously circumstances that can supersede this "rule"-- as it was clearly seen happening in TNG: "The Wounded". --Alan del Beccio 22:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the little Kazon ships were inside Voyager's warp slipstream at the time, so phasers could work within the warp field only? Maybe it's firing them at a target outside the warp field that isn't possible. The Kazon ships did seem very close. --User:82.4.52.14

Evidently you missed the part where we said that it wasn't an error, and was in fact common practice... secondly, what is a warp slipstream? --Alan del Beccio 04:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, as i understand it, phasers, either beam or pulse, are a form of coherent light, essentially. As such, phaser fire cannot travel any faster then warp 1 (i suppose firing from the aft arreys would still work). As for the warp slipstream, i think you mean warp bubble, and yes, i suppose that one 'could' fire phasers within the bubble, but once the phaser fire exited the warp bubble, it would be spread across millions of kilometers. i dont think a captain would want to fire directly ahead while at warp lest he hit his own phaser fire.

in my opinion, it IS a mistake that the production staff made, probably intentionally, so that there could be high speed chases and firefights – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Farfallen (talk • contribs).

Phaser Cannon?

I belive a page addressing Phaser Cannons such as that seen on the USS Enterprise-D in "All Good Things..." should be added! -- Awar 12:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

I also belive that this page should also feature an article on Phaser Cannons! -- Awar 12:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

Necessary power

I'm not quite sure where this would go, but it definitely deserves a mention somewhere:

La Forge: ...a reactor capable of producing 4.2 gigawatts. Riker: Enough to power a small phaser bank, or a subspace relay station, or... La Forge: a hologram generator.

(TNG: "Who Watches The Watchers")

70.243.215.63 21:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

TOS ship phasers

There has been something of an inconsistency between ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly" and the remastered TOS episodes. In IaMD we saw that the USS Defiant had two phaser emitters on the ventral side of the saucer, near the glowing sensor dome, and also two aft phaser emitters, on the starboard and port sides of the aft sensor dome, just above the hangar bay door. In the remastered episodes, however, we can see that forward phaser beams are emitted by the ring around the lower sensor dome, and, unfortunately, we can also see that photon torpedoes are emitted there. This is not a straightforward inconsistency, because the Defiant and Enterprise could have different emitter systems. But this makes it difficult to upgrade the information in this article, and also in the Constitution-class article, with information based on enhanced visual data on the original Constitution class vessels. Any comments on this?--Skon 18:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say that the weapons configuration as shown by the original series special effects is more canon than the remastered episodes, as they are the original source material. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.168.172.136.

Son'a phasers?

Shouldn't there be a section about the yellow-bolt firing phasers seen in Star Trek: Insurrection that the Son'a use?--Blasterman 18:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

phaser acronym

You say that the term "Phaser" is an acronym for "phased energy rectification", but I'm sure I read in a Star Trek Technical Manual the term came from "phased energy release". Don Holt

PHASed Energy Rectification comes from page 123 of the TNG Technical Manual, IIRC. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 04:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Phaser Settings

I think the Phaser page needs to have more information regarding phaser settings with episode cites. From TOS, I'm very familiar with "set phasers to stun" and "set phasers to kill." Watching DS9 now, I've become aware that Garak's favorite setting (which fits his pragmatic, decisive nature when it comes to self-preservation) is evidently "vaporize" (can't imagine a Starfleet officer ever giving that as a command). He employs this setting in DS9: "Profit and Loss"--using the Ferengi phaser he took from Quark, evidently--and DS9: "Second Skin"--using a Starfleet phaser Sisko gave him. It certainly avoids the problem of having to hide the body. I'm not familiar enough with the entire ST canon, though, to make this enhancement to the article. Were characters vaporized in TOS (and I've forgotten)? By which side? And in the other series? MultiplePOV 00:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a side note, I believe he was using Cardassian hand phasers in both of those cases. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 01:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And they weren't phasers at all, but disruptors, which do seem to default to the "vaporize" setting, and were routinely used by the Cardassians. SwishyGarak 02:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In DS9: "Profit and Loss" Garak takes Quark's weapon from him; then Gul Toran comes along and takes Garak's weapon from him. So it is Quark's weapon that Garak whips out to kill Toran. (He then gives the weapon to Hogue when he sends the dissidents into the airlock.) If something visually tells you that Quark's weapon is a Cardassian disruptor, okay, but otherwise I'd think Quark would have a Ferengi weapon (it's slightly smaller than Garak's). Isn't it phasers that Ferengis use?

In DS9: "Second Skin", Captain Sisko hands Garak (who is unwillingly accompanying the rescue team to Cardassia) a weapon. So unless something visually tells you that Sisko is giving him a Cardassian disruptor, I'd assume it was a Starfleet phaser.MultiplePOV 02:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

All three had the same weapon type in Profit and Loss. --Alan 02:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, Entek's backup (a young Obsidian Order operative) has his weapon set to kill, not vaporize. The young dissident falls back with an audible wump (I'm assuming the DS9 crew believed him dead, not stunned, because they don't bother trying to have him beamed up). When Entek makes a little noise pulling out his weapon, Garak whips back and vaporizes him in a nice special effect (not as instantly as Toran in his episode). I'll have to look at the weapon types again in Toran's scene. MultiplePOV 02:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ferengis also use disruptors, according to disruptor. And in "Second Skin", Garak didn't use a Starfleet phaser from Sisko to kill Entek, it was a weapon that Odo took from the Cardassian. Kira has the Starfleet weapon. You can see it in a screencap at trekcore.com SwishyGarak 02:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Also: you can set edits to "preview" - no need to vaporize the database. SwishyGarak 02:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the information on vaporize. That explains why the Phaser page doesn't mention vaporize. I've got to say, I'm surprised Quark would be so violent--but I guess that if he had to steel himself to shoot someone, he'd want to make sure he got away with it. Does canon say vaporized people leave some trace (for example, just being beamed up leaves some trace--do they call it a "signature"?--for a short while)? But, of course, you'd have to know what area to investigate for the trace. As far as my "vaporizing" the database, I apologize. I'm one of those people who can never see the typos in an e-mail until it's sent. I'll try to catch my errors on preview mode. MultiplePOV 02:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There is evidence left behind after vaporization, per "A Simple Investigation". --OuroborosCobra ^talk 03:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Pseudohuman has added lots of new text to the article. He says phasers can disintegrate humanoids, and cites Star Trek: First Contact. Does anyone know, where/when in that movie this happened? --SwishyGarak 16:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Dialogue statement by Picard "Maximum setting. If you'd fired this, you would've vaporized me." also stated in IAMDpt2 by Archer "From what I'm told, the maximum setting can actually disintegrate a person." --Pseudohuman 17:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For what it's worth, "The Vengeance Factor" shows it onscreen. Riker vaporized Yuta. You can see Riker powering up the phaser. Levels indicated by lights. See [1], after he pushes the lights all the way to the right ("goes to eleven"). SwishyGarak 18:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The reference to "Frame of Mind" where Riker claims to be able to destroy half of the building needs to be removed. His claim is unsubstantiated. First, Riker has no idea of the size of the building in question, and second, it is never demonstrated in any episode that the Type-II Phaser is capable of such a feat. In my opinion, Riker was clearly bluffing.--SierraB109 18:46, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

I suspect it was not a bluff but instead was taken by the writer of that ep from the TNG tech manual which states 650 cubic meters of rock can be disintegrated per shot at the max setting. And I think when we saw Data destroying a complete miles long aqueduct system in "The Ensigns of Command" with a single shot is proof enough that the hand phaser has that kind of power in it against basic structures. --Pseudohuman 19:19, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Data actually destroyed the pumping station. He says he can, but does not say how long it would take. In addition, we don't know (unless confirmed or denied by the writers) if the chain reaction shooting up the aqueduct is because of the phaser blast, or if it is a side effect (electrical or plasma discharge) of Data shooting the control station.--SierraB109 20:58, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Removed

Removed the following as speculative:

It has been suggested among fans that a significant amount of nadion particles are merely a byproduct of the liberation of EM energy. This would account for the visibility of a phenomenon that normally takes place outside the visible sprectrum, though the sheer magnitude or frequency of the energy could be equally responsible. Unfortunately, the basis for either theory is questionable.--31dot 12:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Kelvin phasers

Does anyone remember if there was a line in the movie that stated the Kelvin had phasers? For example, did any of the of the crew say "Fire phasers!" or "Phaser ready!" or "Phasers have no effect" or something like that? --From Andoria with Love 09:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Robau says "Fire all phasers!" just after the Kelvin is first hit. -- Michael Warren | Talk 10:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) --From Andoria with Love 22:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Also the weapon turret and the visual effect were identical to that seen on the Enterprise. We know that Kirk stated similar dialogue before mowing down the Narada at the end so the Enterprise definitely had phasers. I'd say you're pretty safe calling them phasers. What I don't know is what that bluish white stuff was. Looked like an energy weapon but it could have been just about anything.--Hribar 23:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The bluish white stuff were the phasers, according to this page. However, this article says the red beams were phasers and the other weapons are pulse weapons. --From Andoria with Love 23:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the reference to the USS Kelvin above mention of the alternate reality caused by Nero's incursion. How it was written previously made it seem like the Kelvin's phasers were a result of Nero's incursion, which would be incorrect because in the prime reality, all Kelvin-class starships would have had the same phaser configuration. --Italianajt 20:18, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

The "proximity blast cannons" could very well be pulse cannons. That tech pre-dates the Defiant's phaser cannons and is also presumably phaser technology. --Pseudohuman 06:28, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Odd section "Starship phasers"

Anyone knows why this section begins with {{film|11}})? Apparently something referring to the latest motion picture was removed and it seems to be lost in the article's history. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 15:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Phaser vs Disruptor?

Is there a technological difference between a phaser and a disruptor? Romulan weapons are always referred to as disruptors, and never as phasers. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.237.226.73.

As far as I can tell, both are directed energy particle weapons, and canonically they haven't gone into details on what the difference is. But the Deep Space Nine Technical Manual gives the technical info on the Klingon hand disruptors at least, that they shoot out a high energy particle stream that becomes disruptive to matter due to its instability that releases the streams contained energy. Where as, phasers just seem to fire a stable beam of energetic nadion particles. Componentwise the disruptors have a forced-energy particle generator, waveguides and an accelerator stage between the power cell and the emitter, where as starfleet phasers have a plasma accelerator that focuses the energy from the power cell to a prefire chamber before the emitter fires the beam. --Pseudohuman 23:18, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

Removed speculation

I removed this segment of speculative text from the background

A Klingon warrior is hit by a phaser blast.

Phasers are often seen vaporizing or disintegrating matter. However, if vaporization were, in fact, occurring, a tremendous amount of heat would be liberated by the sudden conversion of a great deal of biomatter to vapor. For instance, if a person were instantly vaporized into carbon-dioxide, enough heat would be released to seriously injure or destroy objects within a radius of several meters. The nadion effect may result in matter-neutrino conversion, resulting in exotic particles. This is one possible explanation for the varied effects phasers seem to have on their targets (particularly the Klingon soldier who is thrown through the air by Kirk's phaser blast in Star Trek III).

The images included above in the description of the Type-1 power settings are most of the few times we clearly see the damage caused by higher settings less than those causing vaporization of the target. Most of the time the production team just used "squib" explosions at the point of impact, with no other damage to the target (probably for budgetary reasons).

--Pseudohuman 23:57, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

I think some of the second paragraph is valid, as it includes non-speculative production info. --Defiant 00:24, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

Type II Phaser Yields: How Much Energy?

I'm looking at some of the higher phaser yields and I'm wondering how much energy you'd require for this level of damage

Setting 11: Can vaporize approximately 10m^3 of rock per blast: This is effectively a mass of rock that's about 2.154435m x 2.154435m x 2.154435m, or 7.07 ft x 7.07 ft x 7.07 ft in size for comparison.

Setting 12: Can vaporize approximately 50m^3 of rock per blast: This is effectively a mass of rock that's about 3.684m x 3.684m x 3.684m, or 12.0867ft x 12.0867ft x 12.0867ft in size to put it into perspective

Setting 13: Can vaporize approximately 90m^3 of rock per blast: This is effectively a mass of rock that's about 4.4814m x 4.4814m x 4.4814m, or 14.7027 ft x 14.7027 ft x 14.7027 ft in size to put it into perspective

Setting 14: Can vaporize approximately 160m^3 of rock per blast: This is effectively a mass of rock that's about 5.429m x 5.429m x 5.429m, or 17.8111 ft x 17.8111 ft x 17.8111 ft in size to put it into perspective

Setting 15: Can vaporize approximately 370m^3 of rock per blast: This is effectively a mass of rock that's about 7.1791m x 7.1791m x 7.1791m, or 23.5533 ft x 23.5533 ft x 23.5533 ft in size to put it into perspective

Setting 16: Can vaporize approximately 650m^3 of rock per blast: This is effectively vaporizing a rock mass that's about: 8.66042m x 8.66042m x 8.66042m or 28.4134 ft x 28.4134 ft x 28.4134 ft in size to put it into perspective

Now I don't know what kind of rock is specified but the most common types of rocks are sedimentary rocks and the most common of those are shale, sandstone, and conglomerate rocks. My question is how much energy do you need to vaporize that much rock? 69.127.45.17 01:23, August 18, 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea, but the way it is specifically stated in the Manual is that with setting 16 for example 650 cubic meters or more of rock/ore, that has a weight of 6 grams per cubic cm, are explosively uncoupled with a 0.28 second discharge from a phaser. The discharge time varies between settings. However it should be noted, that this is only a reference book and not something canon they have based on previous episodes, or followed up on in the series, since in the series what ever is fired at seems to heat up and calmly vaporize, while the Manual states it should basically explode into dust. --Pseudohuman (talk) 07:32, August 18, 2013 (UTC)

6gm/cm^3? Most rocks have a specific gravity in grams/liter... that would be some dense rock.

As for vaporize, this site says vaporize; the manual said vaporize and the term explosively decoupled have been used. Since they seem to be used interchangeably, it would appear the result would be a vaporization that's explosive (and when you vaporize stuff it does expand) 69.127.45.17 02:08, August 30, 2013 (UTC)

In "Regeneration" at least the kill setting is said to be 5 megajoules, and 10 megajoules is according to that episode enough to penetrate personal shielding. I dont know how much a vaporization setting would be... Page 123 of the TNGTM goes on to state that a type II phaser is limited to directing a phaser beam of only 0.01 megawatts... --Pseudohuman (talk) 03:44, August 30, 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking the best answer would be to simply use the amount of energy it would take to vaporize 650 cubic meters of sedimentary rock in the time period.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.127.45.17.

Unfortunately, that's quite an absurd amount of energy; conservative assumptive estimates are around 1x10^12 joules. SHC of planetary crust material is around 630 j kg^-1 K-1 and a density of about 2,100 kg m^-3 with a boiling point in the area of 1,430 K.

Problem is when you get to terajoule energies, you've gone well above the fusion threshold. Nuclear and quantum effects come into play and you can't get an accurate result from Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics. To put it plainly, 1,400 tonnes of rock shouldn't just decouple, it should explode like a mid-level nuclear weapon, well into the hundreds of kilotonne range. 90.199.198.248 13:38, February 8, 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is interesting but not very relevant to changing this article, which is the intended purpose of talk pages. 31dot (talk) 14:16, February 8, 2016 (UTC)