Memory Alpha

Talk:Phaser cannon

36,850pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Isomagnetic disintegratorEdit

I changed this page from my first edit, because the cannon Worf used in Star Trek: Insurrection is actually called a isomagnetic disintegrator. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zsingaya (talk • contribs). 14:14, January 26, 2005

Mirror Defiant weapon? Edit

This page says that the only one use has been shown for these things... however on the Battle of Terok Nor page it says that the mirror universe's Defiant had Phaser Cannons on it. I am not about to change it cause it is just from an article on here, I did not actually notice this myself. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Four (talk • contribs). 17:23, May 10, 2005

I came here from a link on Defiant (mirror) expecting some of the same information. Anybody know what gives? — THOR 09:49, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
The article was originally created solely for the weapon seen on the back of the Argo buggy, in Star Trek Nemesis. Anyone can update it with more information, especially stuff about the Defiant's weaponry. Zsingaya 10:58, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
the Defiants weapons already have a page, Pulse phaser cannon. do we really need two pages for the same system? -Mithril 21:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
If there is a difference between the two, then yes, two different pages are needed, imo. (See phase cannon and pulsed phase cannon). --From Andoria with Love 05:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Pulse phaser cannonEdit

I think some mention could be made of the TOS Enterprise shooting pulsed white phaser blasts (from the nearby/same ports as their phaser beams) in "Balance of Terror" and "Arena" among others; and the Reliant's pulse phaser cannons. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Phaser cannon and pulse phaser cannon - are they the same thing? Zsingaya Talk 08:41, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
probably. on a related note, the reliant does not mount pulse phasers. look at the phaser effect of the Enterprise in Wrath of Khan, it has the same look and results. the 'pulse' look is just the standard phaser effect of that time. the seemingly high amounts of damage is a result of both ships being unsheilded during the fights. (the enterprise was hit before it can raise sheilds, the reliants having been dropped remotely, and finally both ships sheilds negated in the nebula.) Mithril 06:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I very much agree, though you should realize phaser blasts -- shipboard or handheld -- were all kinds of colours during TOS from episode to episode, artist to artist. (With the advent of Remastered, the "official" colours could be considered blue for the Ent, red for hand phasers.) But anyways, it's pretty obvious that the Ent-A had pulse capabilities, and that's far before the Dominian War. This should be changed. -- 15:35, December 6, 2006
The color of the phaser beam can be easily dismissed as what frequency of the electromagnetic band being used. On the technical discrepancy in the phaser cannon on the Reliant. It has four cannons. It is stated that "15 bolts are the standard burst." Is that the number of shot per cannon or sum of all cannons being fired? If it is the later, it either needs to be 12 or 16 bolts or something divisable by 4. In DS-9, there are plenty of scenes of the four by four discharges rom the phasers. I have never seen a 15 shot per cannon scene, though based on the technical discription the is no reason why it could not fire a sustained fire of 15 pulse burst. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaggrat (talk • contribs).
I added the burst reference and I think it was pretty clear with simultaneous=all cannons firing simultaneously 15 times so 60 bolts total delivered. After this Dax said: "...we fired a standard burst...". I added a clarification just to make it clearer. The normal simultaneous 4 or 5 shots is then propably the "short burst" or something. --Pseudohuman 20:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Phaser phaser rifle Edit

This article should cite the pulse phaser rifles seen in First Contact. The Pulse Phaser Cannon article already describes the starship weapons as seen on the Defiant... -- 18:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

About the MergeEdit

So, why is this suggested? Is the two articals considared covering the same thing?--Terran Officer 02:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Um... They describe the same weapon system on the USS Defiant. The articles are almost identically, with the same content worded differently. --6/6 Subspace 21:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I must correct myself. They DO refer to the exact same weapon platform, but they are cumulative, rather than redundant (I assumed redundant, since half of both articles are simply referring to the USS Defiant's weapons). Either way, they belong in the same article. --6/6 Subspace 09:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I merged the three pages because they were all essentially the same, HOWEVER, I am not sure if this name is any more canon than "phaser cannon", OR "pulse phaser cannon" because I don't recall ANY references to ANY of these terms, with regards to the Defiant phasers or the Argo cannon. --Alan del Beccio 01:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, after a year, I figured I would revisit this, and I did find references to phaser cannon, but no references to "pulse phaser". I found the phaser cannon reference to the Argo cannon in the script and subsequently found two VOY references to the term, which I guess legitimizes it as the most accurate name. --Alan del Beccio 19:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Phaser cannon from All Good Things Edit

Why is there No page for Phaser Cannons as was seen on the USS Enterprise-D in "All Good Things...", it insteads redirects to this page why?-- Awar 12:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

Read the talk page entries above. Please also note that you do not need to leave the same message on three separate talk pages? -- Sulfur 13:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The Talk entries above dont adress this issue. There seems to be a difference between a Phaser Cannon and a Pulse Phaser Cannon. The weapon fired from the "Galaxy-X" Enterprise in "All Good Things..." was a beam weapon, not pulsed. There also was a similar instance in the TNG episode "Darmok" where a phaser-type weapon was fired from the forward Phton Torpedo / Probe Launcher. It seems to me that this article should be renamed "Pulse Phaser Cannon" , and a new "Phaser Cannon article created for these weapon systems. It would also need to differentiate between a Phaser Cannon and a Phase Cannon.Riddick 20:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The weapon fired by the Enterprise in "All Good Things" was never given a canon name, in dialog, script or otherwise, to assume it is this name or anything else, is just that, an assumption. --Alan 20:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The only name I can come up with for the AGT-phaser comes from a 6-page long article on the visual effect sequence of AGT from the Dec 1994 issue of Cinefantastique. There are interviews from everyone involved, and the only name used of that phaser is a discriptive "futuristic super phaser" and even thats not given as a direct quote from anyone. --Pseudohuman 06:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

PNA Edit

Alan above, says there are two Voyager references to "phaser canons", but is there anything to suggest that Defiant's weapons are phaser canons or "pulse phaser canons"? (Alan's gone, so we can't ask him what they were...)

The Argo reference is valid from a production materials POV, so it can stand, but the rest of this needs a bad rewriteor to be massively pruned.Capt Christopher Donovan 03:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am not. And no, there does not seem to be any specific references to the Defiant's weapons being called "phaser cannons" nor especially "pulse phaser cannons, or really, anything other than "phasers". This title was chosen because it was the only canon term that would even begin to apply. I suggest if the information is moved or removed, that it be given a section on phaser array (per reference "Behind the Lines"). --Alan del Beccio 05:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be acceptable to me, provided the use of "pulse" prior to "phaser canon" could be justified.Capt Christopher Donovan 06:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is the exact opposite of what I had said. --Alan 15:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It would seem there was an overlooked clue in "Shattered Mirror" regarding the "type" of phaser that was on the USS Defiant/Defiant – "According to our reports, it's of unknown classification and carries an impressive weapons array -- some kind of improved photon torpedoes, multi-targeting phaser banks..." That of course being a descriptive name versus an actual name, one would assume. --Alan 22:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote Edit

"You starship captains are all alike. You can stare down the barrel of a phaser cannon, but you can't stomach a simple medical exam."
The Doctor (VOY: "Body and Soul")

Um, I really don't like the quote for this. It isn't even really about phaser cannons, it is about medical exams. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I thought it was the kind of quote that mentions phaser cannons in a slightly humorous way in every day conversation, and seeing that episode you really dont know what phaser cannons exactly are, so the article picks up on that and continues to explain what they are. I thought it worked... no objections to removing it, but it wasn't IMO as bad as some of the quotes people are trying to add these days. --Pseudohuman 15:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And I vehemently oppose some of the quotes people are adding these days, and have a "kill on sight" policy ;-) --OuroborosCobra talk 22:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed Edit

  • Judging from the visual effects, the firing rate can apparently be set anywhere from 4 (Star Trek: First Contact) to 12 rounds per second - does someone want to verify this and write it as fact instead of interpretation?
  • It is not clear if firing a standard narrow phaser beam from a cannon would require as much modification. - unknown problem
  • It is possible the nadion emitters are a part of the phaser array, possibly an alternative term for phaser emitters. - it's possible
  • It is not clear how this weapon actually differs from the technology of the 24th century phaser rifles as they all also have similar phaser bolt firing capability as demonstrated by the cannon - unknown problem

Removed the above with a request on the first one. — Morder (talk) 20:31, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

I added all of those. First one is a fact, and no one should remove stuff because they are too lazy to verify them for themselves, the others are just atuff I felt should be pointed out, but you can argue they are unnecessary statements too. Bolt firing capability of rifles is relevant I think. I'll write those two back as facts. In "Valiant" and "Tears of the Prophets" we do indeed see the ship firing those concentrated rapid fire bursts a few times, while in FC the ship fires at a more relaxed rate at the Borg cube. --Pseudohuman 23:01, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

First of all the last three - if they're unknown then we don't add them. period. It's possible is simply speculation and shouldn't exist unless stated in canon that nadion emitters are part of the phaser array and not your opinion that they are. If you wish to add items that you know to be true you shouldn't state "Judging..." just simply state it as fact and be done with it and you won't run into this problem again. — Morder (talk) 00:05, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, however, Phasers have been stated to be nadion particle beam weapons and Phasers have been stated having phaser emitters so nadion/phaser emitter seems to be synonymous. I'm not arguing you are wrong or that it should be stated in the article, just pointing out my rationale. --Pseudohuman 16:15, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

That's fine and I don't see a problem with the notes just the problem with stating it's "unclear" :) — Morder (talk) 16:41, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

  • But the lectures of Tony ferrer clearly shows that the weapon was a phase cannon, not a phaser weapon. This was seconded by abdul salsalin, another star trek enthusiast."
See MA:NOT. - Archduk3 07:21, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

More powerful?Edit

Which one is more powerful??? A disruptor cannon or a phaser cannon!?!? The preceding unsigned comment was added by KantonianEmpire21300 (talk • contribs).

A Klingon disruptor cannon of a Bird-of-Prey was more powerful. At least when the two were compared at the beginning of "Favor the Bold". The Rotarran destroys an attack ship with three shots = 6 bolts. The Defiant fires four times to destroy an attack ship = 16 bolts. --Pseudohuman 20:48, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
I'm assuming you are talking about the powerful Vor'cha Class attack cruisers. Very tough and powerful ships, but very expensive to build. Only 6 named vessels are identified as canon, the rest non-canon. Nighthawke 21:31, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
Jem'Hadar fighter aka. attack ship. --Pseudohuman 22:02, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Pseudohuman, Are you Saying that Disruptor cannons are nearly 2 to 3 times more powerful than Phaser cannons?– KantonianEmpire21300 01:05, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Thats how it appeared in the episode, But even if phaser cannons are less powerful in a single bolt, they seem have a faster firing rate and there is more of them so the combined power of both arrays seems to be approximately the same. --Pseudohuman 01:20, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

But needless to say. What if there are two different types of ships with one having single firing disruptor cannons and the other having single firing phaser cannons of two waring species... Which species would all of you users of this wikia think would win with fire power alone?– KantonianEmpire21300 01:28, January 2, 2010 (UTC) (All of your opinions would be gratifying)

I know this debate is years old, but I don't think a Bird-of-Prey's disruptor cannons are more powerful than the Defiant-class pulse phasers. In "Way of the Warrior", the Defiant is in a pitched battle with multiple birds-of-prey and destroys one with three burst of phaser fire, whereas the bird-of-preys, though formidable, didn't cause serious damage to the Defiant until the shields were down and the ablative armor had failed. And even then, there was a Vorcha-class attack cruiser in the mix as well. It is just my opinion, but I think as demonstrated repeatedly in DS9, the Defiant's pulse phasers were far more powerful than a Klingon bird-of-prey's torpedoes/disruptor cannons. Certainly there were many inconsistencies in firepower on DS9, where birds-of-prey could be blown apart by single torpedo hits, or armor thickness, etc. 19:35, December 19, 2012 (UTC)
Yes I agree the ablative hull and shields of the Defiant make it more durable compared to other ships of the same size. But the defenses have nothing to do with how effective its weapons are. --Pseudohuman (talk) 23:15, December 19, 2012 (UTC)
Respectfully Pseudohuman, I think you either misunderstood me or don't understand what I wrote. Let me try this again. There is no way that a Klingon bird-of-prey's disruptors are more powerful than a Starfleet pulse phaser cannon. As I wrote three months ago, the Defiant destroyed a bird-of-prey with only three bursts of phaser fire, whereas three birds-of-prey couldn't make much of a dent in the Defiant's shields until they were lowered. And yes defenses are linked very much to weapon effectiveness, because working in coordination, they keep the ship together. Only after the Defiant's shields were lowered did they sustain damage (plasma leaks on decks 2, 3 and 5 and the loss of the cloak and aft torpedo launcher). Despite the "pounding" (Sisko's words), the ship still had shields after they beamed Dukat and the Detapa Council aboard and could still go to warp. Also single photon torpedoes from DS9 destroyed birds-of-prey during the First Battle of Deep Space Nine. I think the Defiant's phaser cannons are far more powerful than a Klingon bird-of-prey's weapon systems. Prove me wrong. 22:41, March 4, 2013 (UTC)
Watch the beginning of "Favor the Bold". The Rotarran fires 6 disruptor cannon bolts at a Jem'Hadar attack ship from behind and destroys it, after this the Defiant fires 16 phaser cannon bolts at another attack ship from behind and destroys it. That is all this note is based on. This happens in the same episode, in the same scene. Neither Jem'Hadar attack ship was fired at before this in the episode. --Pseudohuman (talk) 01:09, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Pulse ReferenceEdit

The reference to Pulse Phasers on the Miranda class comes from the DS9 tech manual. As such, the DS9 tech manual refers to the Miranda class as it appeared during the Dominion War. It is entirely possible that the class was refitted during the war to carry pulse phasers. This could have happened at the same time as the class received the "glowing nacelle light" refit. The Mirandas likely would not have had pulse phasers prior to that time, as that would contradict the history established for the Defiant.The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dixs (talk • contribs).

That is how it appears to be based on the accounts of the apocryphal USS Samson (β). Sadly DS9TM doesn't specify, so we can only speculate if the reference is of Mirandas having a weapons refit at some point, or that Mirandas had some type of older model pulse phasers all along. Canonically we only see them use the standard phaser emitters during the Dominion war so we can't really tell. --Pseudohuman 20:00, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
I've always assumed that the idea for the TM of pulse phasers on the Miranda class came from the appearance of the USS Reliant's attacks in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:03, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
Early fan-blueprints such as the one by David Nielsen from 1983 calls them phaser cannons [1] I have no idea if he invented the term himself at the time or got it from somewhere. Would be interesting to know.--Pseudohuman 23:56, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki