Or, maybe, just maybe, he's just right and you're simply advocating ignorance here?
I, the only one coherently connecting the dots, is doing the opposite of advocating ignorance, I assure you. Apparently, there is yet to be a person that even understands, or even read, my actual position. Now who's ignorant.
To answer your question of why there are arrays in the first place if number of emitters doesn't matter, there are two easy answers:
In universe, because it gives greater fire arcs and redundancy. That reason alone is sufficient to explain the existence of arrays, and further explains why later ships continued to have arrays, but inexplicably broke them up when there was no reason to do so. Your belief requires that Star Fleet built an explorer and gave it the best firepower they had, and then when they had an opportunity to make even stronger arrays on their more militaristic ships, they inexplicably made design decisions that lead to much weaker weapons.
No. Array emitter segments have a fire arc of everything they have line of sight with, you don't need them spiraled across the ship to line up a shot if thats all an array is supposed to be good for. If emitters in an array didn't have some cumulative firepower effect, they could get away with mounting about 20 emitters on the whole ship in place of 400+ in array form. Don't even try to justify there being 20 times as many banks then would be necessary. Wile at the same time offering no explanation for why only 1 shot is fired by an array at a time, and why their is a moving glow effect to the firing point that you also have no explanation for.
Whats this more militaristic ship? the sovereign? They aren't in the same weight class, 1 doesn't replace the other, and the galaxy was not built during anything that could be mistaken for a peace time, which is surrey what your implying. And weather a GCS is a dedicated explorer, or dedicated battleship, or anything in between depends entirely on how the basic space frame is later outfitted.
In the real world, they exist because they look cool, full stop. Any "engineering principles" that were used to justify it were simply post-hoc rationalizations. The tech manuals etc were simply created to provide a "refrigerator logic" level of explanation, they don't even hang together with themselves. It was certainly never the intent to create something resembling a set of actual "rules" you could use to extrapolate how the ship "really" works, because the writers and showrunners were never really interested in that. If one day the ship needed to work a certain way for a plot point, then so it would be, even if it didn't make sense in the larger context of the continuity of the show. In other words, in attempting to base your rationale on "knowing" the canon, you've built your argument on a foundation of shifting sand.
Give them a bit more credit, they actually bent over backwards to keep the tech consistent, but its a popular meme that it was all over the place, it really wasn't as far as tech was concerned. Not to mention the phaser effects were particularly consistent, even with the late 80s to the 90s pre cgi vfx they had to work with. The TNG tech manual is the writers bible turned into a fun in universe reference. Its not some TRIBBLE together after the fact bit of technobabble, the guy credited for writing the manual also was a part of making the show, the manual is the second hardest canon in all of trek, next to the shows and movies.
Now, here's the reason it doesn't work the way you say:
With any transfer of energy, there are only three possibilities (well, really, only one, but I want to demonstrate that even if you were "right", you'd still be wrong):
First, the transfer is slightly inefficient, and some of the energy transferred is lost as heat. In the real world, this is how it always works. Given that they talk about power couplings burning out in the show, it seems likely that this is still how it works in the Star Trek universe.
In the real world, power isn't in the form of plasma, running through conduits that magnetically contain it, so not even heat radiates into the pipeing.
Given that, it is literally impossible to get more power by transferring from one emitter to the next than you would get if you just put all that power through the firing emitter directly. Whatever the reason for making long strips of emitters is, it cannot simply be making them more powerful, because it would have the exact opposite effect.
so 1+1 literally isn't 2, gocha. Oh... wait, you actually think im saying 1+0=>1, you literally have no understanding of my bulletproof explanation. As usual, i have to defend my position from people thinking i have some entirely different position. SO tired of this. It really does seem pointless to respond to anyone skeptical, no mater how simple i make it, they cant or wont understand it.
Second possibility, to pre-empt the tired "but it's Star Trek, so physics doesn't apply" - let's assume the transfer is 100% efficient (which, again, is actually impossible AND doesn't match the show). Guess what - number of emitters STILL doesn't matter, because with 100% efficiency you haven't gained any power relative to a single power transfer - you've simply avoided losing any.
Thus, in order to make sense at all, you have to believe that somehow transferring power from one emitter to the next magically adds energy. Literally, it would have to be magic, because no other explanation would do. Even if you decided to run with it - this creates all sorts of other crazy problems that would instantly break the Star Trek universe - for example, if transferring energy from one emitter to another somehow creates more energy, why are there warp cores at all? Why not just power everything by just endlessly looping power between your magical emitters and bleeding off the excess power? Taken to the extreme, these emitters are a source of infinite energy, evidently, which means they should also have infinite mass, which is... you know... bad.
Ignorance of basic tech trek can make you assume all kinds of things. Plasma magnetically contained in a conduit most likely DOES have ZERO loss in transfer, because if it didn't, they couldn't contain antimater in the same type of magnetic fields, and the ship would never be able to vent all the heat EPS conduits would give off.
You OBVIOUSLY missed the part were i said each segment contributes power to the whole, wile the glow passes over them. 1 segment isn't putting its power into an empty, adjacent segment next to them, that would be POINTLESS, and yes, no magic additional energy would be created in that process. Every single segment has an EPS tap running to it, so during the moving glow effect all those powered emitters act like a 1+1+1+1+1+1, etc.
oh and nothing breaks the star trek universe as bad as transporters that can site to site from earth to kronos, thats iconion gateway tier, not to mention a blood transfusion that can CURE DEATH. just saying.
Now, you may try to assert that spreading across the emitters makes the load easier to bear, and thus allows for larger blasts, but that's on face nonsense. The fact of the matter is that ultimately it's always going to come down to the power throughput that last emitter can handle - it doesn't matter if the energy came from multiple sources, or one source - in the end, it's all going through one final transfer, and if that coupling can't carry the power, it will fail.
Most of this is more responding to NOT my position, but the part about there being a limitation on the power throughput that last emitter can handle, obviously isn't an issue. There have been full array moving glow discharges, power drawn from every segment on the largest array, and it fired it no problem. In BoBW, it did dozens of these, one every second or less, for like minutes. This is not a possibly a limiting factor.
If that coupling CAN carry the power, that would negate the need to spread the power out in the first place, because if you can build one power junction that can carry that energy, you can build multiple (indeed, you would have to, in order to make it so every emitter on the array could function). Thus, you could just shunt the power directly - again, whatever the reason is for the arrays, it can't be this.
Oh no it wouldn't, thats the genius of an array configuration over a huge bank, the size of say the entire array, that would be as powerful as the entire array. the array can dump its full power shot in any direction, a bank wouldn't have a fraction of the fireing arc, thats part of what makes arrays so great. Also the packaging of an array is totally scalable at any array length, the internal footprint for a weapon of such power is microscopic compared to centralized weapon banks of similar power, the power feeds are numerous and small, there isn't a gigantic EPS conduits needed to support the single large banks, there isn't a chance the entire saucer section would be flooded by plasma if that huge conduit were to breach, and there isn't any real point of failure in the whole system. even if part of the array were to take a direct hit, all the other emitter segments could function around it, the advantages are endless.
This is why the galaxy X's lance is so stupid. If it was really that powerful to justify it's existence, the tech behind phaser emitters that powerful would be applied to array emitter segments too, instantly making the lance redundant, not ot mention inferior. The lance would only make sense on a small ship that couldn't fit a big 100 to 200 emitter segment array on it, something like a defiant of intrepid.
That even makes some sense, as far as it goes. The problem there is that it doesn't actually prove that the array is more powerful based on the number of emitters, it really only relates it to capacitors. Since the capacitors don't have to be tied to an emitter, it's easy to see how a shorter array with a larger internal store of capacitors (or even simply more effective capacitors) could be more powerful. Moreover, the given rate of fire of the phasers means the capacitor theory has problems - if the warp core can refill the capacitors fast enough to fire off the rapid shots we see on the show, then for all practical purposes it is providing the power instantly, with obviates the need for the capacitors in the first place. Thus, even in this best case scenario, your argument STILL doesn't hold water - the Galaxy arrays are not more powerful because of length, they are more powerful because of the capacity of the attached capacitors, and those capacitors don't necessarily have to be associated with arrays, nor do they seem to be necessary (or practical) given the rates of fire we see on the show.
They don't have capacitors per say, but ALL segments have a direct feed leading off from large eps conduits, and they can all discharge, in the mkX emitter's case 5.1 MW, toward a target or down its neighbor to a designated cumulative discharge point. If there was an 'off site' large capacitor somewhere, you wouldn't need the array, you wouldn't have the moving glow effect, you would just have 1 emitter discharging it all, which is exactly what the tos and tmp era phaser bank ball turrets did. Arrays are a better way, like i explained.
The problem with the longer array theory even besides the physics are incorrect which most people don't know or understand is that it doesn't hold true when tested back against the show.
Let me try a different approach...
The Tech Manual is supposed to describe how things we see on the show work. "In Universe"
So they come up with this theory after reading about arrays that the longer the better or more powerful. (Which is actually just misinterpreting the tech manual and then trying to make an explanation to back up that misinterpretation. But now they base most other deductions off of this misinterpretation. )
They look at scenes of phasers firing and deduce they must be correct but the problem is those shots never confirm nor deny any of that theory.
But then when we come to in show situations, designs and descriptions that contradict the theory they write those dozen or so instances off as bad writing or technobabble nonsense instead of trying see if the theory holds water.
The bigger problem with that is if their theory is based upon the tech manual and the tech manual is based upon all the shows and movies, well then their theory should work for all those specific situations on the shows, Especially when the show is directly talking about phaser output. But it doesn't.
The theory doesn't hold water more than just a few times.
Array length means nothing except a wider firing arc. Its all about the power transfer and output.
You cant actually refute anything, cant point out an actual error in the interpretation, all you can do is speak honeyed words to try to create doubt. Certainly couldn't answer a single question in my post before last.
Oh, a funny thing just occurred to me, if there is no cumulative effect, why are there 2 moving glows leading to each shot? there could only possibly be 1 moving glow if an accumulation of power on an array was not a thing, at least 2 emitters worth of power would contribute to the shot. That's literally checkmate, at least on the most basic, fundamental level.
You cant actually refute anything, cant point out an actual error in the interpretation, all you can do is speak honeyed words to try to create doubt. Certainly couldn't answer a single question in my post before last.
Oh, a funny thing just occurred to me, if there is no cumulative effect, why are there 2 moving glows leading to each shot? there could only possibly be 1 moving glow if an accumulation of power on an array was not a thing, at least 2 emitters worth of power would contribute to the shot. That's literally checkmate, at least on the most basic, fundamental level.
I'm not an expert or anything but I once read this in the TNG tech manual. The longer the array,the more emitters it houses. This has the affect of increasing the damage of the phaser beam once fired. The glow we see from either end of the array on the shows and in movies are the accumilation and rapid increase of energy from either end of the array.
This does mean that the phaser banks on the Galaxy Saucer alone, are rather powerful. Which sorta makes sense doesn't it? Since the ship was supposed to detach in an emergency, wouldn't it have been more prudent to have more array strips on the saucer IF it it didn't matter?
Clearly it must (more emitters=more energy=more powerful shots).
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Lag Watch:
Delta Rising: Warning
Anniversary Event: Severe
Iconian Season: Critical
Wether or not larger arrays equal more power is one thing. It was never literally spelled out in the TM in those words and it was never spelled out in the show in those words (in fact, there is at least one on-screen canon occasion that directly contradicts that theory - however, it was also made under special circumstances and seemed in no way to be regular protocol as it even damaged the emitter, I think). All that is left is interpretation and reasoning which however can only go so far because you mustn't ever forget we're talking about a science fiction show here. It's fictious. They got basically magic devices that can do hubblebabloo if the need arises.
One thing that gets repeated quite often attempting to debunk DDIS stance is the loss of energy involved in "transfering" power across the array, sometimes reasoned by real-life engineering knowledge. While this might be true under current, real circumstances sometimes we just have to accept that the Star Trek universe works in different ways which can just be explained with "they developed transparent aluminium and that can do that". Basically, loss of energy seems to not be a problem in Star Trek at all, for whatever reasons (probably because it isn't important ).
Let me just say, I am not an engineer or physicist. I have a degree in a ecologic science discipline with a biological background. Now, don't let me get started what is wrong when Star Trek tries to explain various enviromental effects, genetical implications (my favourite XD), biological contexts or behavioural analyses of alien species. But I just accept that this world Star Trek takes place in just works that way.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Wether or not larger arrays equal more power is one thing. It was never literally spelled out in the TM in those words
It may not have been literally spelled out as such (I'd have to check again myself), it certainly left me with this impression. Believe me, its been many years since I read it, so it was certainly clear enough to leave me with a lasting impression.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Lag Watch:
Delta Rising: Warning
Anniversary Event: Severe
Iconian Season: Critical
Wether or not larger arrays equal more power is one thing. It was never literally spelled out in the TM in those words and it was never spelled out in the show in those words (in fact, there is at least one on-screen canon occasion that directly contradicts that theory - however, it was also made under special circumstances and seemed in no way to be regular protocol as it even damaged the emitter, I think). All that is left is interpretation and reasoning which however can only go so far because you mustn't ever forget we're talking about a science fiction show here. It's fictious. They got basically magic devices that can do hubblebabloo if the need arises.
its spelled out, its just not spoonfed, because its so obvious. disregard the manual entirely, whats do you SEE happening in the show? there's no question there is an accumulation of power, it could be nothing else.
the only instance that could call what you see in to question is from the nth degree episode, were they isolated some emitters. quite a few actually, actually indicating a cumulative effect from multiple emitters, but calling into question full array discharge being the most powerful shot possible. keep in mind that episode also featured enhanced Barkly doubling shield capacity with a few button presses, an unprecedented improvement that would have shifted the balance of power substantially in the alpha and beta quadrant. also warp drive that got them halfway across the galaxy in a mater of hours, running off the same hardware, just with super genius computer adjustments. these improvements were never seen again, because they basically break the show. though an entertaining episode, i'd have to nominate it for removal from canon, the tech improvements at the snap of a finger are worse then fan fiction tier, and totally ignored by the rest of canon.
though actually the business with the phasers doesn't necessarily contradict any position of mine actually, i haven't even shared the entire SDE theory because its a lot of reading and no one reads my posts, so why bother. i've just kept it as simple as possible.
One thing that gets repeated quite often attempting to debunk DDIS stance is the loss of energy involved in "transfering" power across the array, sometimes reasoned by real-life engineering knowledge. While this might be true under current, real circumstances sometimes we just have to accept that the Star Trek universe works in different ways which can just be explained with "they developed transparent aluminium and that can do that". Basically, loss of energy seems to not be a problem in Star Trek at all, for whatever reasons (probably because it isn't important ).
Let me just say, I am not an engineer or physicist. I have a degree in a ecologic science discipline with a biological background. Now, don't let me get started what is wrong when Star Trek tries to explain various enviromental effects, genetical implications (my favourite XD), biological contexts or behavioural analyses of alien species. But I just accept that this world Star Trek takes place in just works that way.
see, no one reads my posts, i just covered power transfer.
In the real world, power isn't in the form of plasma, running through conduits that magnetically contain it, so not even heat radiates into the pipeing.
Plasma magnetically contained in a conduit most likely DOES have ZERO loss in transfer, because if it didn't, they couldn't contain antimater in the same type of magnetic fields, and the ship would never be able to vent all the heat EPS conduits would give off.
Shelley - Separate the saucer. Assign a skeleton crew to create a diversion.
Riker - No its too dangerous. We may need the power from the saucers IMPULSE ENGINES.
The impulse engines are powered by Fusion reactors.
Why didn't Riker say anything about the missing the large array? BC the array and subsequently the emitters on the array don't create nor store power.
Emitters do what? THEY EMIT!
another comical leap in logic. he probably wanted the ship intact so every reactor could contribute power to deflector pulses, or keeping shields as strong as possible, or because separated overall the parts are weaker then the whole ship in every measurable way. ultimately the saucer sep was done for distraction, not tactical advantage.
The emitters work like capacitors. And at the time loosing the array was not a loss as the Borg already where adapted to most of the weapon frequencies. Riker was looking out for shield and hull integrity so I hey could last as long as possible sovhey could rescue Picard. Destroying the cube was not even in consideration
so? statement still stands they wiped out the fleet therefore had most of the federation weapon frequencies. even when data was cycling through every single one as fast as he could they where barely able to disable the tractor beam. and at that time they where doing so rapid shots they where only using one emitter as they needed a quick charge time instead of charging up the whole array or part of the array and discharging it
well, i bielieve that the theory of drunk is correct, but that a biased opinion, i strongly bielieve that a galaxy class have, at least, the same but probably more firepower than let said a sovereign.
but let play devil advocate here, the guys that said longer is not more powerfull wanted to demonstrate it by saying that the power do not cumulated.
i think you are doing it in the wrong way.
i think it is obvious that the power is cumulated but may not automatically result in superior firepower.
basically, if i anderstand it correctly, the drunk theory tend to show that eatch emiter have a 5.1 energy ( i don't remember the exact term but you known what i mean ) so if this power being cumulate by the 200 emitter it will automatically beat the 7.2 energy of the smaller array ( i don't known 90 emitter? really don't known here ) of the sovereign.
that the conclusion of that argument, but maybe the emiters are not capable to delivers such amount of energy, meaning that the energy do build up but just to a certain point or else the emiter would blow up, somekind of overload if you want.
when they build up the energy along the array they don't use the FULL capacity of eatch emitter to make the big shot, but just exactly what is required to reach the maximal known firepower that the emiter of the ship is capable to handle.
that could then well explained why jordi try to isolated some emiter in one episode, he just try to exeed that " bottleneck" of some sort, to be able to use more of the full potential power of the array.
in that way a galaxy array would not be more powerfull than a sovereign array just because the maximal output would be limited by the "potential capacity" of it emitter.
in that case an sovereign array would be more powerfull until the galaxy get an upgrade to it emiter, then they would have the SAME firepower.
until they find a way for the emitter to be able to use all the cumulative energy of an array, only there a longer array would result in more firepower
the problem with this is that the limitation on the emiter is something that i have made up.
i don't known any document that show that this could be true.
unless drunk known a passage of the tech manual that tell us if there is a limit to the power one emitter can handle
ho and i DO read your post you naughty, well ok i may not anderstand every bit of technical but still!
anyway this was just a theory because we all known that the galaxy array is DA best!
MUWHAHAHAHAHA:D
It may not have been literally spelled out as such (I'd have to check again myself), it certainly left me with this impression. Believe me, its been many years since I read it, so it was certainly clear enough to leave me with a lasting impression.
I think it's not spelled out in a way that's universally acceptable, as this debate is proof. However, I am totally fine with this theory as it also fits perfectly with my canon analysis of ship types and mission profiles in and out of combat situations. I just accept that it is a point people debate about so I'll not necessarily bring it up in discussions.
its spelled out, its just not spoonfed, because its so obvious. disregard the manual entirely, whats do you SEE happening in the show? there's no question there is an accumulation of power, it could be nothing else.
This is my personal theory since I first watched Star Trek as a kid. The effect and sound effect are sci-fi universal for "charging up and pew", but I don't think the TM information straight forward supports it (although it doesn't debunk anything as well). And as you can see it can be interpreted differently.
the only instance that could call what you see in to question is from the nth degree episode, were they isolated some emitters. quite a few actually, actually indicating a cumulative effect from multiple emitters, but calling into question full array discharge being the most powerful shot possible. keep in mind that episode also featured enhanced Barkly doubling shield capacity with a few button presses, an unprecedented improvement that would have shifted the balance of power substantially in the alpha and beta quadrant. also warp drive that got them halfway across the galaxy in a mater of hours, running off the same hardware, just with super genius computer adjustments. these improvements were never seen again, because they basically break the show. though an entertaining episode, i'd have to nominate it for removal from canon, the tech improvements at the snap of a finger are worse then fan fiction tier, and totally ignored by the rest of canon.
That's what I meant by mentioning the genetics example, not just Threshold but basically every single time they play with "genes" without any clue what "genes" are - but it's fine, I just accept it as it's comic book logic, basically. In the same way you have to accept nth degree - it just is that way. The point of the episode was Barclay getting so comic book smart he just can do this (just as the wanderer can create magic super drive by touching and phasing into the ship's computer). The technology stays the same, it's just super duper enhanced by smarts - so smart in fact that it is impossible to repeat and too advanced for even the ship itself to memorize the changes. That's comic book logic. You can't really say "let's ignore that" because unlike Threshold (and a few other things), nth degree has not been "corrected" or was acknowledged to be nonsense. Threshold was acknowledged to be stupid and on-screen dialogue later eliminated the episode from canon. In my opinion it is okay to ingore it under these circumstances. If that didn't happen and you start to sort out things that somehow don't make sense you can just let it be, it's like people saying "TM is not canon" and ignore it entirely, if you get what I mean. You just need to accept nth degree. The phaser modulation be something one of a kind trick and the rest being Barclay being uber.
though actually the business with the phasers doesn't necessarily contradict any position of mine actually, i haven't even shared the entire SDE theory because its a lot of reading and no one reads my posts, so why bother. i've just kept it as simple as possible.
see, no one reads my posts, i just covered power transfer.
On th contrary, I read every single post, yours, edalgo's, everyone's. I mentioned the power transfer thing because you tackled it before in the first place. I didn't necessarily respond to your postings, those, I just wanted to make a general statement
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
The Nth Degree the phaser overload shot was done by Geordi not Barclay.
Uber Barclay magically increased shield power by 300% in that scene so they could fire Photons and not cripple themselves by the blast at such a close range.
Just saying.
Did anybody state otherwise?
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Not you directly but I know others have implied in the past.
While we are at it, I just assume you watched the scene much more recently, does my memory serve right that the charged shot damages/burns out the phasers or do I confuse it with something else?
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
During that rapid shot scene we still see the glow leading up to the shot.
All we know during that scene was Data was trying to change frequencies every shot.
If anything that scene is counter intuitive to the capacitor theory bc if the ship is capable of rapidly transferring power from the EPS grid to the Phaser array and subsequently out that single emitter shot after shot with little to no down time then whats the purpose of a capacitor? The energy is being transferred in and out of the array without down time.
Power in, Power out.
Capacitors are first mentioned in the Doomsday maching
Scotty mentions he had 1 phaser bank recharged when kirk asked for phaser power
If a ship can use 5 phasers using 10 power in each one but can only generate 40 power max to fire weapons charge shields move at warp or impulse speed then the use of a Battery/Capacitor become plain to see
sadly this was not used in the construction manuals
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
During that rapid shot scene we still see the glow leading up to the shot.
All we know during that scene was Data was trying to change frequencies every shot.
If anything that scene is counter intuitive to the capacitor theory bc if the ship is capable of rapidly transferring power from the EPS grid to the Phaser array and subsequently out that single emitter shot after shot with little to no down time then whats the purpose of a capacitor? The energy is being transferred in and out of the array without down time.
Power in, Power out.
but it does not brake down. data being an android was precharging the next emitter for the different frequency before the first one was even firing. that is what the charge up was it was switching through 5 or 6 different emitters to get through all the frequencies with in seconds trying to keep ahead of the borg adaptation and find one they did not have yet. instead of using them in a daisy-chain like normal where 6 or more charge up and then one disperses the power through it
This is why the galaxy X's lance is so stupid. If it was really that powerful to justify it's existence, the tech behind phaser emitters that powerful would be applied to array emitter segments too, instantly making the lance redundant, not ot mention inferior. The lance would only make sense on a small ship that couldn't fit a big 100 to 200 emitter segment array on it, something like a defiant of intrepid.
I take issue with this assumption.
If we consider a Phaser lance to basically be the Sniper Rifle version of the Defiant's Phaser Cannons then that is incompatible with a phaser array and doesn't replace it's function in shipboard weapons.
It's also possible that it's a combination of technologies, Phaser cannons applied to the Beam Array's discharge passing, so that the cannon shot is amplified from the back of the barrel to the emitter. That would certainly account for it's incredible penetrating power.
I'm not an expert or anything but I once read this in the TNG tech manual. The longer the array,the more emitters it houses. This has the affect of increasing the damage of the phaser beam once fired. The glow we see from either end of the array on the shows and in movies are the accumilation and rapid increase of energy from either end of the array.
This does mean that the phaser banks on the Galaxy Saucer alone, are rather powerful. Which sorta makes sense doesn't it? Since the ship was supposed to detach in an emergency, wouldn't it have been more prudent to have more array strips on the saucer IF it it didn't matter?
Clearly it must (more emitters=more energy=more powerful shots).
That isn't what it says in the manual anywhere. If it were, so cleanly stated this wouldn't even be a topic.
An interesting tidbit from the manual in the Mission objectives section-
Tactical Systems to include full array of Type X phaser bank elements on both primary and stardrive (battle) sections capable of 5.1 MW maximum single emitter output. Two Photon Torpedo Launchers required for battle section, one launcher auxiliary in primary hull.
This goes either way honestly. If the maximum power that any emitter can actually fire in any circumstance is 5.1 MW then array length is irrelevant. If they mean the maximum amount that any single emitter could generate on its own is 5.1 MW then the full array barring power loss during the transfer process would be capable of 1.02 GW.
It's interesting if we asked one of the producers back in the day they likely would've said, "Star Trek isn't about how powerful the phasers are." It's reflected in the actual description.
Energy from all discharged segments passes directionally over neighboring segments due to force coupling, converging on the release point, where the beam will emerge and travel at c towards the target. Narrow Beams are created by rapid segment order firing, wider fan or one beams result from slower firing rates. Wide beams are of course prone to marked power loss per unit area covered.
Nothing about the amount of power but all about coverage. Most of the Phaser section is talking much more about the superb fire control, the accuracy, thermal effects, field halos, and target impact. The first paragraph in phaser operations talks about how a Phaser can be used for low energy scan. It seems that the power of the beam is mostly from raw amount of electroplasma provided to the Power Distribution Manifold.
Other interesting information is that the Phaser arrays have a recharge designed for less than .5 recharge time and are to have an endurance of 45 minutes. I interpret that that the ship should be able to fire phasers continuously for 45 minutes before they're dead (which makes you wonder about the old Constellation vs Planet Killer battle). Also relevant is that the saucer section's recharge is the same, but the endurance is 15 minutes, meaning that it only has the third of the staying power relying on the fusion generators alone. That's expected.
However what is probably conclusive evidence about the Enterprise-D's phaser output may very well come from the Tactical maneuvering section.
In describing a theoretical battle against a D'Deridex class warbird on page 127, the warbird is described as attacking with 20 GW Phaser pulses.
It certainly isn't logical that the D'Deridex would be firing several orders of magnitude more powerful weaponry. Note that the TM describes them firing Phasers instead of Disruptors I would presume due to the continued lack of information on Romulan weapons at that time, but that's the caliber that Starfleet was expecting and the Enterprise never once shied away from a Romulan Warbird. Clearly the D'Deridex was a bit more underpowered than Starfleet expected at the time. However the shields are rated for 2.6gw. Seeing as how we never saw a D'D crash through the shields I think it's fair to say their weapons are quite a bit weaker than the analysis. Then came the Scimitar.
That said, 5.1 MW times 200 emitters still yields a 1.02 gigawatt beam, which would be more in line with the threat forces that were expected.
"Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many they are few"
and that is just eh main array. if it also fired the bottom array with 180 emitters with the ability to do 1Gw plus any other smaller array that was in line of site. you can see why i always considered a galaxy used in a war as a siege weapon
The warp core on the Ent-D can produce power upwards of a Terawatt of power as stated by Geordi. "The Masterpiece Society" I believe.
If they want to shunt a quarter or half of that Terawatt of power thru the EPS grid thru an Emitter OR the Deflector dish like in BOBW what does the capacitor on the arrays really matter???????? Simply not burning out your components?
What's more powerful???
Did the array length mean anything in that case???
power had nothing to do with it. they where just trying to disrupt the tractor. and with how small they are depicted in the tech manual he could of been switching between 6 emitters and you never would of noticed sense they are the size of a window on the hull
I, the only one coherently connecting the dots, is doing the opposite of advocating ignorance, I assure you. Apparently, there is yet to be a person that even understands, or even read, my actual position. Now who's ignorant.
You are. I understand your position, it's just wrong. All the nonsense you spout is the equal of Gene Ray attempting to prove that time is actually a cube. It makes sense in your head because you are too irrational and or too ignorant to know otherwise. The world would literally be a better place if you didn't spread this garbage, because it contributes to the general sense among lay people that something that "makes sense" as a rationalization for a pet theory is somehow the same as "knowledge". It isn't.
No. Array emitter segments have a fire arc of everything they have line of sight with, you don't need them spiraled across the ship to line up a shot if thats all an array is supposed to be good for. If emitters in an array didn't have some cumulative firepower effect, they could get away with mounting about 20 emitters on the whole ship in place of 400+ in array form. Don't even try to justify there being 20 times as many banks then would be necessary. Wile at the same time offering no explanation for why only 1 shot is fired by an array at a time, and why their is a moving glow effect to the firing point that you also have no explanation for.
I have an explanation for all of those things. Now I'm going to really infuriate you - I'm not telling you what they are, BECAUSE THEY DON'T MATTER. This is the part you really don't get, and have never gotten - your ability to rationalize why your pet theory is correct is not the question. All the "work" you have done on this? That's worthless garbage - there's no other word for it. You started with the supposition that the Galaxy is the best, and have come up with a nested series of rationalizations for why that is so. So what? That like the people who persist in believing that there's something to this whole Bigfoot myth - it's pathological science. Far from this being any kind of rational discussion, it's simply a matter of who can "imagine harder", and since I am capable of imagining a world in which you are capable of understanding this, it's clear that I have far greater capacity for imagination than you.
Here's my challenge to you - answer the challenges I leveled about why what you're supposing makes sense without resorting to inventing new rationalizations to patch the holes I've poked in your theory. I'm certain you can't, as the rest of your nonsense in this post attests. You haven't "figured it all out", you just make TRIBBLE up as people raise objections. The saddest part is that you are either unwilling or unable (I suspect the later) to understand how that intellectual process is distinct from "figuring things out" in any meaningful sense.
In the end, it boils down to this - at best for you we can both rationalize every single thing to fit our version of "reality" here. The difference is that I recognize that - but my interpretation is more consistent with what we see on the actual show (where the Galaxy class never wins a single fair fight against a contemporary opponent by strength of arms), more consistent with the themes and narratives of the show (both what the writers etc explicitly said, as well as what we can infer from actually watching the show), and more consistent with physics and engineering principles. Your "theory" only has the virtue of being more consistent with what you want to believe, which is more or less why it is garbage. It is, in the parlance of my peers, "not even wrong".
Whats this more militaristic ship? the sovereign? They aren't in the same weight class, 1 doesn't replace the other, and the galaxy was not built during anything that could be mistaken for a peace time, which is surrey what your implying. And weather a GCS is a dedicated explorer, or dedicated battleship, or anything in between depends entirely on how the basic space frame is later outfitted.
Except that the narrative of TNG the series was basically "we're at peace and explorers" and the narrative of the TNG movies was explicitly intended to be more "action" oriented. I mean, you are welcome to believe that the Sovereign wasn't intended by the writers and producers to be the more powerful combat ship, but you'd straight up be objectively wrong. Then again, that wouldn't be uncomfortable for you, since you seem used to it by now. If you honestly think that if you asked the show writers point blank about the narratives, themes, and intentions here that you wouldn't get 100% agreement with what I'm saying and 100% disagreement with what you're saying, then there's no point in anyone communicating with you, because you clearly live in a solipsistic dreamland.
Let's go back to my original challenge - given the explicit fact that the Sovereign was built in response to the threat from the Borg (in universe) and intended by the writers and producers to be a more powerful, "meaner" ship than the Galaxy (in the real world), how does your position on the Galaxy make sense?
Give them a bit more credit, they actually bent over backwards to keep the tech consistent, but its a popular meme that it was all over the place, it really wasn't as far as tech was concerned. Not to mention the phaser effects were particularly consistent, even with the late 80s to the 90s pre cgi vfx they had to work with. The TNG tech manual is the writers bible turned into a fun in universe reference. Its not some TRIBBLE together after the fact bit of technobabble, the guy credited for writing the manual also was a part of making the show, the manual is the second hardest canon in all of trek, next to the shows and movies.
LOL, no, they weren't, and no, they didn't. One week warp drive is destroying subspace, then suddenly that's never heard about again, except as a post-hoc rationalization (sound familiar?). I suppose it's not surprising that since you can't recognize this problem with your own reasoning that you also fall for it when other people do it to you.
In the real world, power isn't in the form of plasma, running through conduits that magnetically contain it, so not even heat radiates into the pipeing.
And this right here is what I mean by embracing ignorance. First of all, plasma is not like... I don't even know what you think it is. Magic, maybe? Whatever. Plasma is a thing we fully understand - it's just a state of matter where gases are excited enough that their electrons become a sort of de-localized "soup". Hell, a standard neon light is a form of "power transfer" by plasma, as is lightning and those stupid lightning balls you see at Spencer's Gifts. Stop trying to defend your idiocy with an appeal to the unknowable nature of plasma, how about?
If you are going to resort to "Star Trek physics isn't real", understand that is tantamount to admitting that what I was saying about how you don't "know" anything here, you just create a series of post-hoc rationalizations that sound good enough to an uncritical mind like yours. If that's what you want to assert, that's fine, just stop pretending that has any intellectual value.
so 1+1 literally isn't 2, gocha. Oh... wait, you actually think im saying 1+0=>1, you literally have no understanding of my bulletproof explanation. As usual, i have to defend my position from people thinking i have some entirely different position. SO tired of this. It really does seem pointless to respond to anyone skeptical, no mater how simple i make it, they cant or wont understand it.
God, really? let me lay it out for you Drunk - are emitters generators? If they are not generators (which we know is the correct answer), then WHERE IS THE EXTRA POWER COMING FROM? You keep saying each emitter adds power, and what everyone with a brain is pointing out is that the power that is coming from each emitter had to come from somewhere else first, and that since (as you admitted below) there's no reason why that same amount of power couldn't be shunted through a single emitter directly, there's no connection between the length of the array and the power it generates. There is certainly a connection between the power behind the beam and the firepower generated, no question, but unless you are going to defend that emitters are now generators in your perfect, flawless interpretation, it simply cannot be possible for them to add power.
The fatal, inescapable flaw with your "bulletproof explanation" is that you don't get the difference between transferring power and generating power. Remember, even if transferring power from one emitter to the next were 100% efficient (and it's not), that still doesn't add extra power, it just means you don't lose any to heat (and since we know the phasers get hot while firing, we know that's not true). In order for each emitter to be adding power, it must be acting as a generator. There simply is no way around that, and it boggles my mind that you can't figure that out.
Ignorance of basic tech trek can make you assume all kinds of things. Plasma magnetically contained in a conduit most likely DOES have ZERO loss in transfer, because if it didn't, they couldn't contain antimater in the same type of magnetic fields, and the ship would never be able to vent all the heat EPS conduits would give off.
You are correct - ignorance of basic facts does make you assume all kinds of stupid, ignorant things. This is why I'm correcting your ignorance. Honestly, a thank you from you would not be out of line, since me destroying you online is a service I provide to you in the hopes that you may one day actually learn that all the time you've spent "figuring this out" has actively made you more ignorant. I've already answered this all above. Plasma's not magic. Phasers get hot. We can freaking contain antimatter NOW. It doesn't take a "special" form of magnetic field (which is a nonsensical concept to begin with) - antimatter is just matter which carries an opposite electrical charge, there's nothing inherently difficult in magnetically confining it. Frankly, this whole little paragraph is just you tossing out words which you evidently don't understand in the hopes that it will continue to sway people, which is, again, you making people actively dumber.
You OBVIOUSLY missed the part were i said each segment contributes power to the whole, wile the glow passes over them. 1 segment isn't putting its power into an empty, adjacent segment next to them, that would be POINTLESS, and yes, no magic additional energy would be created in that process. Every single segment has an EPS tap running to it, so during the moving glow effect all those powered emitters act like a 1+1+1+1+1+1, etc.
Again - are emitters power generators? If yes, that's stupid and false. If no, where is the power that each emitter is adding coming from? If the emitters are just passing along the power from the main generator (which is, in fact, what's happening), then at best that transfer of power is 100% efficient and there's no loss of power relative to just shunting that power directly from the reactor to the firing emitter - but there's also no gain.
Oh, and FYI, below when you say you're not saying anything about the need to spread the power across multiple eps conduits - that' makes the part here about how each emitter has its own eps taps a pointless comment. Each one can have it's own eps all it wants - the generator only generates so much power for each shot. Spreading that power across multiple emitters and then combining it into one blast isn't, in any way, MORE powerful than just putting the power all through a single emitter all at once. At best, with 100% efficient power transfers, it's equally powerful. In "reality", it's only less powerful.
oh and nothing breaks the star trek universe as bad as transporters that can site to site from earth to kronos, thats iconion gateway tier, not to mention a blood transfusion that can CURE DEATH. just saying.
Yes, you're just saying that you hate the JJ Star Trek movies, in a sad attempt to either claim a position as a moral defender of the one "true" Trek, or else in an attempt to make it sound like I'm advocating for the quality of science in those movies (or both). The fact that there are plenty of stupid things that happen in Star Trek (like turning into lizards if you hit warp 10) is further proof of what I said above about the show not being very consistent - it also doesn't answer my charge that if your position was true that would necessarily mean the phaser emitters were somehow capable of acting as power generators, which clearly doesn't match anything we see on the show.
Most of this is more responding to NOT my position, but the part about there being a limitation on the power throughput that last emitter can handle, obviously isn't an issue. There have been full array moving glow discharges, power drawn from every segment on the largest array, and it fired it no problem. In BoBW, it did dozens of these, one every second or less, for like minutes. This is not a possibly a limiting factor.
Good, okay, great - so the maximum throughput of each emitter is not possibly a limiting factor. This means there's no reason I can't just pump the same amount of power that travels along the array into a single emitter directly. This means that your mention of eps conduits above was pointless, and further it means you lose, because if I can dump the power in the single emitter directly, I can get the same power shot without having to transfer from emitter to emitter, which means firepower is independent of array length, and only dependent on the available power to go through the emitter. Since those transfers from emitter to emitter can't intrinsically add power (at best they can only fail to lose it, unless emitters are generators, which they aren't), by conceding this you have demonstrated either that you are wrong, or that you don't understand the difference between transferring energy AND you're wrong. I'm betting on the latter, since I don't think you would have conceded this if you actually understood what you were talking about. Then again, if you understood what you were talking about, I don't think we would be having this conversation in the first place.
Oh no it wouldn't, thats the genius of an array configuration over a huge bank, the size of say the entire array, that would be as powerful as the entire array. the array can dump its full power shot in any direction, a bank wouldn't have a fraction of the fireing arc, thats part of what makes arrays so great. Also the packaging of an array is totally scalable at any array length, the internal footprint for a weapon of such power is microscopic compared to centralized weapon banks of similar power, the power feeds are numerous and small, there isn't a gigantic EPS conduits needed to support the single large banks, there isn't a chance the entire saucer section would be flooded by plasma if that huge conduit were to breach, and there isn't any real point of failure in the whole system. even if part of the array were to take a direct hit, all the other emitter segments could function around it, the advantages are endless.
Okay - point one - earlier you said any individual emitter has fire arc to anything in line of sight. Now single emitter banks have much more limited fields of fire. This again just demonstrates that you are guilty of mistaking on the fly rationalizations for actual thought. Second, if you are right and the advantage of the array is better fire arcs, then I agree with you (because I said literally that exact thing in my last post when explaining why anyone would build arrays). I also pointed out the advantages of redundancy that you mentioned. These are both very good reasons why an array of emitters makes sense, and since they don't require us to accept any crazy or ignorant nonsense to support, I suggest that it's THESE reasons, and not your wholly stupid notion of length = power that form the in universe rational for array design.
I'd also like to point out that in the middle there, where you said this little jem:
'the internal footprint for a weapon of such power is microscopic compared to centralized weapon banks of similar power, the power feeds are numerous and small, there isn't a gigantic EPS conduits needed to support the single large banks,'
Is classic Dontdrunk foolishness. This is you just spouting technobabble in the hopes that you can obfuscate the fact that you don't know what the hell your talking long enough not to be utterly embarrassed on the interwebz (or you honestly think this combination of words makes sense and supports your position, which is even more sad). Here's the deal - insofar as the size of the eps conduit effects the amount of power which can flow through it, that relationship is going to depend on the total cross sectional area through which the power flows. That's correct. The part that is nonsense is the assertion that splitting that cross sectional area up into multiple conduits somehow takes less space. That's an obviously false claim. Picture this - you have a single "thick" straw which has exactly 4 times the cross sectional area of a standard drinking straw. Now take four standard drinking straws and bundle them together - which takes up more volume? I'll give you a hint - it's not the single big straw.
Thus, the multiple small conduits would, in fact, take up more internal space that a single large one. It is true that having multiple conduits spreads that volume out more, which may have some significant design advantages, but even then, that just provides yet another reason why making an array is a good idea which is NOT related to the direct power of the array. That hurts you and helps me, since it helps explain why they would build it that way without having to resort to "it's more powerful".
This is why the galaxy X's lance is so stupid. If it was really that powerful to justify it's existence, the tech behind phaser emitters that powerful would be applied to array emitter segments too, instantly making the lance redundant, not ot mention inferior. The lance would only make sense on a small ship that couldn't fit a big 100 to 200 emitter segment array on it, something like a defiant of intrepid.
This is why your position is so stupid. In order for you to be right, you have to ignore the parts of the canon you considered so trustworthy and consistent above in order to rationalize it working the way you want to. Phaser lance works (in the parlance of pokemon - it's super effective!), so either the canon isn't consistent and you lose because the "physics" you are trying to base your explanation on are nonsense, or the canon IS consistent and you lose because it doesn't support your position. Either way, the point is, you lose.
They don't have capacitors per say, but ALL segments have a direct feed leading off from large eps conduits, and they can all discharge, in the mkX emitter's case 5.1 MW, toward a target or down its neighbor to a designated cumulative discharge point. If there was an 'off site' large capacitor somewhere, you wouldn't need the array, you wouldn't have the moving glow effect, you would just have 1 emitter discharging it all, which is exactly what the tos and tmp era phaser bank ball turrets did. Arrays are a better way, like i explained.
First of all, you clearly don't know what a capacitor is, so, please stop pretending that you do. What you are describing is in no way close to how capacitors work. Capacitors work by storing "extra" charge that can be harnessed later to perform an action that requires more power than the generator is capable of producing instantaneously. As I said, if that were your position, that would sort of make sense, but even then it's a connection between the amount of capacitors behind an emitter, not how many emitters are linked in a series. There's no reason why someone couldn't get the same power output by ditching the series of emitters and just putting all the capacitors under the hull behind the single firing emitter. There may be non-power reasons why an array still makes sense (like the arc/redundancy stuff you stole from me above), but that doesn't make the number of emitters in a series directly relevant to the strength of the beam.
What you are describing is (again) that you have multiple sources of power coming into the same point, from multiple directions. That's not the same thing as "adding power" - all that power came from the same place - the warp core, ultimately. Put it this way - say the core can generate 10 gigawatts for a single blast. If the firing emitter can't handle that power, then there's no point in that - attempting to force all that power through would probably simply overload the emitter. If it CAN handle that (and that's what we both agreed, remember!), then it doesn't matter if the 10 gigawatts comes in one lump in a single transfer, or in 1000 smaller pieces after being split up and sent along the array. It's the same 10 GW at the end that it was at the beginning. In "reality", it would in fact be slightly less, since some of the energy would be lost as heat (phasers get hot while firing, remember!), but even if the transfers were 100% efficient, you don't get MORE than 10 GW of power, you just don't lose any of that to heat. The only way you get more than 10 GW of power is if each emitter is also a generator, which isn't true and doesn't even make sense (since then there would be no need to supply power from the warp core anyway). Hell, even if it were true, that STILL wouldn't mean that length determines power, it would mean power generation determines power - there's no reason the power that the Galaxy generated from the emitters couldn't have been generated somewhere else, with different types of reactors.
"Education"? We're talking about a sci-fi show from the 60's here. Most of the times the authors themselves didn't know how things work, that's why I mentioned the cringeworthy depictions of biological and genetic principles the show sports every single time that comes up.
I don't take sides in this discussion beyond what is shown on-screen is universal sci-fi language for a charged up beam. Captaind3 quoted some more TM explanations which state one emitter is capable of 5.1 MW, 200 would be 1.02 GW (via "charged up shot" as the effect suggests), both main arrays converged ont he same target would be 2.04 GW which is the order of magnitude the ship's shield are capable of withstanding at a signle point on the "shield grid", such a hit would let the shields collapse. I do share the sentiment that a Galaxy class would tactically be a steamroller or siege engine for that matter while other ships could use scatter fire across the board to weaken the "shield grid" at many points simultaneously to overload the shield, the TM states that this is the more efficient way to go I think.
To me that makes enough sense to accept it and move on. I basically have to accept that people can be injected with "genes" which makes their bone structure change in real time in this universe as well. In this theory array length would matter, but considering a phaser emitter can be anything from a flashlight to a energy transfer unit for a living space organism to a huge siege weapon carving out a Borg cube I have no problems accepting that you can use trek magic (or "tragic" ) to overload a single emitter to the point of burning out if the situation requires it.
Maybe I am misinterpreting stuff as written text lacks some hints but I am getting the feeling that you and others are actually enraged about this whole issue, accusing DDIS of taking it to far while figururatively foaming from the mouth. DDIS comes across as reasonable and calm at least to me, even repeating his interpretation multiple times. Since the TM and the shows visuals don't clearly state one or the other (or maybe even a combination of both) theories are true, can't we just all calm down and just have fun discussing fictional concepts, agreeing or disagreeing with one another for this or that reason and shake hands?
I mean we're talking trektalk because it's supposed to be fun and relaxing. When we're seeing rage and namecalling (from either side) we're definitely taking it too far.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
"Education"? We're talking about a sci-fi show from the 60's here. Most of the times the authors themselves didn't know how things work, that's why I mentioned the cringeworthy depictions of biological and genetic principles the show sports every single time that comes up.
I don't take sides in this discussion beyond what is shown on-screen is universal sci-fi language for a charged up beam. Captaind3 quoted some more TM explanations which state one emitter is capable of 5.1 MW, 200 would be 1.02 GW (via "charged up shot" as the effect suggests), both main arrays converged ont he same target would be 2.04 GW which is the order of magnitude the ship's shield are capable of withstanding at a signle point on the "shield grid", such a hit would let the shields collapse. I do share the sentiment that a Galaxy class would tactically be a steamroller or siege engine for that matter while other ships could use scatter fire across the board to weaken the "shield grid" at many points simultaneously to overload the shield, the TM states that this is the more efficient way to go I think.
To me that makes enough sense to accept it and move on. I basically have to accept that people can be injected with "genes" which makes their bone structure change in real time in this universe as well. In this theory array length would matter, but considering a phaser emitter can be anything from a flashlight to a energy transfer unit for a living space organism to a huge siege weapon carving out a Borg cube I have no problems accepting that you can use trek magic (or "tragic" ) to overload a single emitter to the point of burning out if the situation requires it.
Maybe I am misinterpreting stuff as written text lacks some hints but I am getting the feeling that you and others are actually enraged about this whole issue, accusing DDIS of taking it to far while figururatively foaming from the mouth. DDIS comes across as reasonable and calm at least to me, even repeating his interpretation multiple times. Since the TM and the shows visuals don't clearly state one or the other (or maybe even a combination of both) theories are true, can't we just all calm down and just have fun discussing fictional concepts, agreeing or disagreeing with one another for this or that reason and shake hands?
I mean we're talking trektalk because it's supposed to be fun and relaxing. When we're seeing rage and namecalling (from either side) we're definitely taking it too far.
I 100% agree and support your statement!
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
well that was the longest, most moronic, autistic, childish meltdown i ever read, about something not even real, and i thought i took this to seriously. were you even alive when tng first aired?
i don't have time for a long winded rebutle, but here's one thing i can totally debunk, for literally the hundredth time. "They are all about power output baby", is incorrect, because each emitter segment can only channel 5.1 MegaWatts, or 5.1 MegaJoules every second. you cant throw the output of your entire warp core through any one emitter, but you can throw quite a bit of it through say, 200 of them at once? thats why they even bother mentioning what each emitter segment in an array can output, that fact maters because there is a moving glow effect in the show that cant be anything but all those 5.1MW's being combined together.
i cant feel anything but embarrassment that this logic hasn't sunk in for certain people yet, and all the vitriol present in the incoherent rebuttals are like a further multiplier for the embarrassment i feel for them.
I love the Galaxy, especially my T5-U Fleet Galaxy Dread, with all the Galaxy pack toys, the old Borg set (upgraded to Mk XIV), plus the Borg console and cutting beam, and all Fleet Mk XIV weapons. That being said, compared to my similarly equipped T5-U Tac Ody, it is hopelessly outclassed. Kinda feels like a completely upgraded WWI Super Dreadnought Battleship compared to the Iowa class BB's. It's good, until you see what good really is. I expect I will feel the same about my Ody once I get a T6, but I don't see myself putting any more real $$ into the game any time soon. Not because I don't want to support the game, but because I have other things that need to be paid for first, like my kids' college.
Do I think that my fleet Gal-X should be able to roflstomp whatever it comes up against? Hardly. But i'd expect that it would at least be less squishy.
^Unless you're wedded to having three nacelles, seriously try the Andromeda. Way better ship, and you can still skin it as a GCS (with a much prettier model, no less). Seriously, I out-DPSed a Sarr Theln in ISA using quantum torps from the Delta rep and Mk X blue phasers I had fitted to my T4 Galaxy for RP reasons.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
well that was the longest, most moronic, autistic, childish meltdown i ever read, about something not even real, and i thought i took this to seriously. were you even alive when tng first aired?
You are defending something stupid, but that's not really my beef with you. My issue is that the line of reasoning you use is literally intellectual poison. You already have people saying that you sound reasonable, when, speaking as someone who professionally teaches critical reasoning and basic science, it's really just not reasonable at all. What you are doing is simply shifting your explanation and snookering others (and maybe yourself) into thinking it a coherent position because your conclusion hasn't changed. It would be laughable, if it wasn't so infuriating to watch you make people dumber.
Below will be an example, where you flip-flop on something you said earlier because I pointed out how it hurts your argument. Please feel free to not bother reading it either, since I see you are also part of that school of great thinkers who assume "too long" is a reasoned counter argument.
i don't have time for a long winded rebutle, but here's one thing i can totally debunk, for literally the hundredth time. "They are all about power output baby", is incorrect, because each emitter segment can only channel 5.1 MegaWatts, or 5.1 MegaJoules every second. you cant throw the output of your entire warp core through any one emitter, but you can throw quite a bit of it through say, 200 of them at once? thats why they even bother mentioning what each emitter segment in an array can output, that fact maters because there is a moving glow effect in the show that cant be anything but all those 5.1MW's being combined together.
Yeah, no, see, the thing were you said that power throughput wasn't a limiting factor? That's what that was all about. You already conceded that if the firing emitter could handle the full power of the array from along the array, then it doesn't matter where that power comes from. Now not only are you contradicting yourself, you still aren't helping your position. It literally is all about the power. Either the emitter can handle the full power of the array at once (in which case it doesn't matter where the power comes from, it's just a matter of getting the power to the emitter), or else the emitter CAN'T handle the full power from the array, and thus it doesn't matter how many emitters you put in a series. In either case, the max power is a function of only two things - how much power the emitter can handle, and how much power it is being supplied. It is impossible for any other factors to matter, and thus it is impossible for your pet theory to be right.
i cant feel anything but embarrassment that this logic hasn't sunk in for certain people yet, and all the vitriol present in the incoherent rebuttals are like a further multiplier for the embarrassment i feel for them.
log·ic läjik noun
1.
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
a particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference.
the quality of being justifiable by reason.
You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means.
Comments
I, the only one coherently connecting the dots, is doing the opposite of advocating ignorance, I assure you. Apparently, there is yet to be a person that even understands, or even read, my actual position. Now who's ignorant.
No. Array emitter segments have a fire arc of everything they have line of sight with, you don't need them spiraled across the ship to line up a shot if thats all an array is supposed to be good for. If emitters in an array didn't have some cumulative firepower effect, they could get away with mounting about 20 emitters on the whole ship in place of 400+ in array form. Don't even try to justify there being 20 times as many banks then would be necessary. Wile at the same time offering no explanation for why only 1 shot is fired by an array at a time, and why their is a moving glow effect to the firing point that you also have no explanation for.
Whats this more militaristic ship? the sovereign? They aren't in the same weight class, 1 doesn't replace the other, and the galaxy was not built during anything that could be mistaken for a peace time, which is surrey what your implying. And weather a GCS is a dedicated explorer, or dedicated battleship, or anything in between depends entirely on how the basic space frame is later outfitted.
Give them a bit more credit, they actually bent over backwards to keep the tech consistent, but its a popular meme that it was all over the place, it really wasn't as far as tech was concerned. Not to mention the phaser effects were particularly consistent, even with the late 80s to the 90s pre cgi vfx they had to work with. The TNG tech manual is the writers bible turned into a fun in universe reference. Its not some TRIBBLE together after the fact bit of technobabble, the guy credited for writing the manual also was a part of making the show, the manual is the second hardest canon in all of trek, next to the shows and movies.
In the real world, power isn't in the form of plasma, running through conduits that magnetically contain it, so not even heat radiates into the pipeing.
so 1+1 literally isn't 2, gocha. Oh... wait, you actually think im saying 1+0=>1, you literally have no understanding of my bulletproof explanation. As usual, i have to defend my position from people thinking i have some entirely different position. SO tired of this. It really does seem pointless to respond to anyone skeptical, no mater how simple i make it, they cant or wont understand it.
Ignorance of basic tech trek can make you assume all kinds of things. Plasma magnetically contained in a conduit most likely DOES have ZERO loss in transfer, because if it didn't, they couldn't contain antimater in the same type of magnetic fields, and the ship would never be able to vent all the heat EPS conduits would give off.
You OBVIOUSLY missed the part were i said each segment contributes power to the whole, wile the glow passes over them. 1 segment isn't putting its power into an empty, adjacent segment next to them, that would be POINTLESS, and yes, no magic additional energy would be created in that process. Every single segment has an EPS tap running to it, so during the moving glow effect all those powered emitters act like a 1+1+1+1+1+1, etc.
oh and nothing breaks the star trek universe as bad as transporters that can site to site from earth to kronos, thats iconion gateway tier, not to mention a blood transfusion that can CURE DEATH. just saying.
Most of this is more responding to NOT my position, but the part about there being a limitation on the power throughput that last emitter can handle, obviously isn't an issue. There have been full array moving glow discharges, power drawn from every segment on the largest array, and it fired it no problem. In BoBW, it did dozens of these, one every second or less, for like minutes. This is not a possibly a limiting factor.
Oh no it wouldn't, thats the genius of an array configuration over a huge bank, the size of say the entire array, that would be as powerful as the entire array. the array can dump its full power shot in any direction, a bank wouldn't have a fraction of the fireing arc, thats part of what makes arrays so great. Also the packaging of an array is totally scalable at any array length, the internal footprint for a weapon of such power is microscopic compared to centralized weapon banks of similar power, the power feeds are numerous and small, there isn't a gigantic EPS conduits needed to support the single large banks, there isn't a chance the entire saucer section would be flooded by plasma if that huge conduit were to breach, and there isn't any real point of failure in the whole system. even if part of the array were to take a direct hit, all the other emitter segments could function around it, the advantages are endless.
This is why the galaxy X's lance is so stupid. If it was really that powerful to justify it's existence, the tech behind phaser emitters that powerful would be applied to array emitter segments too, instantly making the lance redundant, not ot mention inferior. The lance would only make sense on a small ship that couldn't fit a big 100 to 200 emitter segment array on it, something like a defiant of intrepid.
You just stumbled upon what is LITERALLY my exact position, in the most simple of terms.
They don't have capacitors per say, but ALL segments have a direct feed leading off from large eps conduits, and they can all discharge, in the mkX emitter's case 5.1 MW, toward a target or down its neighbor to a designated cumulative discharge point. If there was an 'off site' large capacitor somewhere, you wouldn't need the array, you wouldn't have the moving glow effect, you would just have 1 emitter discharging it all, which is exactly what the tos and tmp era phaser bank ball turrets did. Arrays are a better way, like i explained.
You cant actually refute anything, cant point out an actual error in the interpretation, all you can do is speak honeyed words to try to create doubt. Certainly couldn't answer a single question in my post before last.
Oh, a funny thing just occurred to me, if there is no cumulative effect, why are there 2 moving glows leading to each shot? there could only possibly be 1 moving glow if an accumulation of power on an array was not a thing, at least 2 emitters worth of power would contribute to the shot. That's literally checkmate, at least on the most basic, fundamental level.
I'm not an expert or anything but I once read this in the TNG tech manual. The longer the array,the more emitters it houses. This has the affect of increasing the damage of the phaser beam once fired. The glow we see from either end of the array on the shows and in movies are the accumilation and rapid increase of energy from either end of the array.
This does mean that the phaser banks on the Galaxy Saucer alone, are rather powerful. Which sorta makes sense doesn't it? Since the ship was supposed to detach in an emergency, wouldn't it have been more prudent to have more array strips on the saucer IF it it didn't matter?
Clearly it must (more emitters=more energy=more powerful shots).
Lag Watch:
Delta Rising: Warning
Anniversary Event: Severe
Iconian Season: Critical
One thing that gets repeated quite often attempting to debunk DDIS stance is the loss of energy involved in "transfering" power across the array, sometimes reasoned by real-life engineering knowledge. While this might be true under current, real circumstances sometimes we just have to accept that the Star Trek universe works in different ways which can just be explained with "they developed transparent aluminium and that can do that". Basically, loss of energy seems to not be a problem in Star Trek at all, for whatever reasons (probably because it isn't important
Let me just say, I am not an engineer or physicist. I have a degree in a ecologic science discipline with a biological background. Now, don't let me get started what is wrong when Star Trek tries to explain various enviromental effects, genetical implications (my favourite XD), biological contexts or behavioural analyses of alien species. But I just accept that this world Star Trek takes place in just works that way.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
It may not have been literally spelled out as such (I'd have to check again myself), it certainly left me with this impression. Believe me, its been many years since I read it, so it was certainly clear enough to leave me with a lasting impression.
Lag Watch:
Delta Rising: Warning
Anniversary Event: Severe
Iconian Season: Critical
its spelled out, its just not spoonfed, because its so obvious. disregard the manual entirely, whats do you SEE happening in the show? there's no question there is an accumulation of power, it could be nothing else.
the only instance that could call what you see in to question is from the nth degree episode, were they isolated some emitters. quite a few actually, actually indicating a cumulative effect from multiple emitters, but calling into question full array discharge being the most powerful shot possible. keep in mind that episode also featured enhanced Barkly doubling shield capacity with a few button presses, an unprecedented improvement that would have shifted the balance of power substantially in the alpha and beta quadrant. also warp drive that got them halfway across the galaxy in a mater of hours, running off the same hardware, just with super genius computer adjustments. these improvements were never seen again, because they basically break the show. though an entertaining episode, i'd have to nominate it for removal from canon, the tech improvements at the snap of a finger are worse then fan fiction tier, and totally ignored by the rest of canon.
though actually the business with the phasers doesn't necessarily contradict any position of mine actually, i haven't even shared the entire SDE theory because its a lot of reading and no one reads my posts, so why bother. i've just kept it as simple as possible.
see, no one reads my posts, i just covered power transfer.
another comical leap in logic. he probably wanted the ship intact so every reactor could contribute power to deflector pulses, or keeping shields as strong as possible, or because separated overall the parts are weaker then the whole ship in every measurable way. ultimately the saucer sep was done for distraction, not tactical advantage.
but let play devil advocate here, the guys that said longer is not more powerfull wanted to demonstrate it by saying that the power do not cumulated.
i think you are doing it in the wrong way.
i think it is obvious that the power is cumulated but may not automatically result in superior firepower.
basically, if i anderstand it correctly, the drunk theory tend to show that eatch emiter have a 5.1 energy ( i don't remember the exact term but you known what i mean ) so if this power being cumulate by the 200 emitter it will automatically beat the 7.2 energy of the smaller array ( i don't known 90 emitter? really don't known here ) of the sovereign.
that the conclusion of that argument, but maybe the emiters are not capable to delivers such amount of energy, meaning that the energy do build up but just to a certain point or else the emiter would blow up, somekind of overload if you want.
when they build up the energy along the array they don't use the FULL capacity of eatch emitter to make the big shot, but just exactly what is required to reach the maximal known firepower that the emiter of the ship is capable to handle.
that could then well explained why jordi try to isolated some emiter in one episode, he just try to exeed that " bottleneck" of some sort, to be able to use more of the full potential power of the array.
in that way a galaxy array would not be more powerfull than a sovereign array just because the maximal output would be limited by the "potential capacity" of it emitter.
in that case an sovereign array would be more powerfull until the galaxy get an upgrade to it emiter, then they would have the SAME firepower.
until they find a way for the emitter to be able to use all the cumulative energy of an array, only there a longer array would result in more firepower
the problem with this is that the limitation on the emiter is something that i have made up.
i don't known any document that show that this could be true.
unless drunk known a passage of the tech manual that tell us if there is a limit to the power one emitter can handle
ho and i DO read your post you naughty, well ok i may not anderstand every bit of technical but still!
anyway this was just a theory because we all known that the galaxy array is DA best!
MUWHAHAHAHAHA:D
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
I think it's not spelled out in a way that's universally acceptable, as this debate is proof. However, I am totally fine with this theory as it also fits perfectly with my canon analysis of ship types and mission profiles in and out of combat situations. I just accept that it is a point people debate about so I'll not necessarily bring it up in discussions.
This is my personal theory since I first watched Star Trek as a kid. The effect and sound effect are sci-fi universal for "charging up and pew", but I don't think the TM information straight forward supports it (although it doesn't debunk anything as well). And as you can see it can be interpreted differently.
That's what I meant by mentioning the genetics example, not just Threshold but basically every single time they play with "genes" without any clue what "genes" are - but it's fine, I just accept it as it's comic book logic, basically. In the same way you have to accept nth degree - it just is that way. The point of the episode was Barclay getting so comic book smart he just can do this (just as the wanderer can create magic super drive by touching and phasing into the ship's computer). The technology stays the same, it's just super duper enhanced by smarts - so smart in fact that it is impossible to repeat and too advanced for even the ship itself to memorize the changes. That's comic book logic. You can't really say "let's ignore that" because unlike Threshold (and a few other things), nth degree has not been "corrected" or was acknowledged to be nonsense. Threshold was acknowledged to be stupid and on-screen dialogue later eliminated the episode from canon. In my opinion it is okay to ingore it under these circumstances. If that didn't happen and you start to sort out things that somehow don't make sense you can just let it be, it's like people saying "TM is not canon" and ignore it entirely, if you get what I mean. You just need to accept nth degree. The phaser modulation be something one of a kind trick and the rest being Barclay being uber.
On th contrary, I read every single post, yours, edalgo's, everyone's. I mentioned the power transfer thing because you tackled it before in the first place. I didn't necessarily respond to your postings, those, I just wanted to make a general statement
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Did anybody state otherwise?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
While we are at it, I just assume you watched the scene much more recently, does my memory serve right that the charged shot damages/burns out the phasers or do I confuse it with something else?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Capacitors are first mentioned in the Doomsday maching
Scotty mentions he had 1 phaser bank recharged when kirk asked for phaser power
If a ship can use 5 phasers using 10 power in each one but can only generate 40 power max to fire weapons charge shields move at warp or impulse speed then the use of a Battery/Capacitor become plain to see
sadly this was not used in the construction manuals
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
but it does not brake down. data being an android was precharging the next emitter for the different frequency before the first one was even firing. that is what the charge up was it was switching through 5 or 6 different emitters to get through all the frequencies with in seconds trying to keep ahead of the borg adaptation and find one they did not have yet. instead of using them in a daisy-chain like normal where 6 or more charge up and then one disperses the power through it
Multiple charges on the array.
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080318130361/memoryalpha/en/images/4/4b/USS_Enterprise-D_phaser_array_power_up.jpg
I take issue with this assumption.
If we consider a Phaser lance to basically be the Sniper Rifle version of the Defiant's Phaser Cannons then that is incompatible with a phaser array and doesn't replace it's function in shipboard weapons.
It's also possible that it's a combination of technologies, Phaser cannons applied to the Beam Array's discharge passing, so that the cannon shot is amplified from the back of the barrel to the emitter. That would certainly account for it's incredible penetrating power.
That isn't what it says in the manual anywhere. If it were, so cleanly stated this wouldn't even be a topic.
An interesting tidbit from the manual in the Mission objectives section-
This goes either way honestly. If the maximum power that any emitter can actually fire in any circumstance is 5.1 MW then array length is irrelevant. If they mean the maximum amount that any single emitter could generate on its own is 5.1 MW then the full array barring power loss during the transfer process would be capable of 1.02 GW.
It's interesting if we asked one of the producers back in the day they likely would've said, "Star Trek isn't about how powerful the phasers are." It's reflected in the actual description.
Nothing about the amount of power but all about coverage. Most of the Phaser section is talking much more about the superb fire control, the accuracy, thermal effects, field halos, and target impact. The first paragraph in phaser operations talks about how a Phaser can be used for low energy scan. It seems that the power of the beam is mostly from raw amount of electroplasma provided to the Power Distribution Manifold.
Other interesting information is that the Phaser arrays have a recharge designed for less than .5 recharge time and are to have an endurance of 45 minutes. I interpret that that the ship should be able to fire phasers continuously for 45 minutes before they're dead (which makes you wonder about the old Constellation vs Planet Killer battle). Also relevant is that the saucer section's recharge is the same, but the endurance is 15 minutes, meaning that it only has the third of the staying power relying on the fusion generators alone. That's expected.
However what is probably conclusive evidence about the Enterprise-D's phaser output may very well come from the Tactical maneuvering section.
In describing a theoretical battle against a D'Deridex class warbird on page 127, the warbird is described as attacking with 20 GW Phaser pulses.
It certainly isn't logical that the D'Deridex would be firing several orders of magnitude more powerful weaponry. Note that the TM describes them firing Phasers instead of Disruptors I would presume due to the continued lack of information on Romulan weapons at that time, but that's the caliber that Starfleet was expecting and the Enterprise never once shied away from a Romulan Warbird. Clearly the D'Deridex was a bit more underpowered than Starfleet expected at the time. However the shields are rated for 2.6gw. Seeing as how we never saw a D'D crash through the shields I think it's fair to say their weapons are quite a bit weaker than the analysis. Then came the Scimitar.
That said, 5.1 MW times 200 emitters still yields a 1.02 gigawatt beam, which would be more in line with the threat forces that were expected.
power had nothing to do with it. they where just trying to disrupt the tractor. and with how small they are depicted in the tech manual he could of been switching between 6 emitters and you never would of noticed sense they are the size of a window on the hull
You are. I understand your position, it's just wrong. All the nonsense you spout is the equal of Gene Ray attempting to prove that time is actually a cube. It makes sense in your head because you are too irrational and or too ignorant to know otherwise. The world would literally be a better place if you didn't spread this garbage, because it contributes to the general sense among lay people that something that "makes sense" as a rationalization for a pet theory is somehow the same as "knowledge". It isn't.
I have an explanation for all of those things. Now I'm going to really infuriate you - I'm not telling you what they are, BECAUSE THEY DON'T MATTER. This is the part you really don't get, and have never gotten - your ability to rationalize why your pet theory is correct is not the question. All the "work" you have done on this? That's worthless garbage - there's no other word for it. You started with the supposition that the Galaxy is the best, and have come up with a nested series of rationalizations for why that is so. So what? That like the people who persist in believing that there's something to this whole Bigfoot myth - it's pathological science. Far from this being any kind of rational discussion, it's simply a matter of who can "imagine harder", and since I am capable of imagining a world in which you are capable of understanding this, it's clear that I have far greater capacity for imagination than you.
Here's my challenge to you - answer the challenges I leveled about why what you're supposing makes sense without resorting to inventing new rationalizations to patch the holes I've poked in your theory. I'm certain you can't, as the rest of your nonsense in this post attests. You haven't "figured it all out", you just make TRIBBLE up as people raise objections. The saddest part is that you are either unwilling or unable (I suspect the later) to understand how that intellectual process is distinct from "figuring things out" in any meaningful sense.
In the end, it boils down to this - at best for you we can both rationalize every single thing to fit our version of "reality" here. The difference is that I recognize that - but my interpretation is more consistent with what we see on the actual show (where the Galaxy class never wins a single fair fight against a contemporary opponent by strength of arms), more consistent with the themes and narratives of the show (both what the writers etc explicitly said, as well as what we can infer from actually watching the show), and more consistent with physics and engineering principles. Your "theory" only has the virtue of being more consistent with what you want to believe, which is more or less why it is garbage. It is, in the parlance of my peers, "not even wrong".
Except that the narrative of TNG the series was basically "we're at peace and explorers" and the narrative of the TNG movies was explicitly intended to be more "action" oriented. I mean, you are welcome to believe that the Sovereign wasn't intended by the writers and producers to be the more powerful combat ship, but you'd straight up be objectively wrong. Then again, that wouldn't be uncomfortable for you, since you seem used to it by now. If you honestly think that if you asked the show writers point blank about the narratives, themes, and intentions here that you wouldn't get 100% agreement with what I'm saying and 100% disagreement with what you're saying, then there's no point in anyone communicating with you, because you clearly live in a solipsistic dreamland.
Let's go back to my original challenge - given the explicit fact that the Sovereign was built in response to the threat from the Borg (in universe) and intended by the writers and producers to be a more powerful, "meaner" ship than the Galaxy (in the real world), how does your position on the Galaxy make sense?
LOL, no, they weren't, and no, they didn't. One week warp drive is destroying subspace, then suddenly that's never heard about again, except as a post-hoc rationalization (sound familiar?). I suppose it's not surprising that since you can't recognize this problem with your own reasoning that you also fall for it when other people do it to you.
And this right here is what I mean by embracing ignorance. First of all, plasma is not like... I don't even know what you think it is. Magic, maybe? Whatever. Plasma is a thing we fully understand - it's just a state of matter where gases are excited enough that their electrons become a sort of de-localized "soup". Hell, a standard neon light is a form of "power transfer" by plasma, as is lightning and those stupid lightning balls you see at Spencer's Gifts. Stop trying to defend your idiocy with an appeal to the unknowable nature of plasma, how about?
If you are going to resort to "Star Trek physics isn't real", understand that is tantamount to admitting that what I was saying about how you don't "know" anything here, you just create a series of post-hoc rationalizations that sound good enough to an uncritical mind like yours. If that's what you want to assert, that's fine, just stop pretending that has any intellectual value.
God, really? let me lay it out for you Drunk - are emitters generators? If they are not generators (which we know is the correct answer), then WHERE IS THE EXTRA POWER COMING FROM? You keep saying each emitter adds power, and what everyone with a brain is pointing out is that the power that is coming from each emitter had to come from somewhere else first, and that since (as you admitted below) there's no reason why that same amount of power couldn't be shunted through a single emitter directly, there's no connection between the length of the array and the power it generates. There is certainly a connection between the power behind the beam and the firepower generated, no question, but unless you are going to defend that emitters are now generators in your perfect, flawless interpretation, it simply cannot be possible for them to add power.
The fatal, inescapable flaw with your "bulletproof explanation" is that you don't get the difference between transferring power and generating power. Remember, even if transferring power from one emitter to the next were 100% efficient (and it's not), that still doesn't add extra power, it just means you don't lose any to heat (and since we know the phasers get hot while firing, we know that's not true). In order for each emitter to be adding power, it must be acting as a generator. There simply is no way around that, and it boggles my mind that you can't figure that out.
You are correct - ignorance of basic facts does make you assume all kinds of stupid, ignorant things. This is why I'm correcting your ignorance. Honestly, a thank you from you would not be out of line, since me destroying you online is a service I provide to you in the hopes that you may one day actually learn that all the time you've spent "figuring this out" has actively made you more ignorant. I've already answered this all above. Plasma's not magic. Phasers get hot. We can freaking contain antimatter NOW. It doesn't take a "special" form of magnetic field (which is a nonsensical concept to begin with) - antimatter is just matter which carries an opposite electrical charge, there's nothing inherently difficult in magnetically confining it. Frankly, this whole little paragraph is just you tossing out words which you evidently don't understand in the hopes that it will continue to sway people, which is, again, you making people actively dumber.
Again - are emitters power generators? If yes, that's stupid and false. If no, where is the power that each emitter is adding coming from? If the emitters are just passing along the power from the main generator (which is, in fact, what's happening), then at best that transfer of power is 100% efficient and there's no loss of power relative to just shunting that power directly from the reactor to the firing emitter - but there's also no gain.
Oh, and FYI, below when you say you're not saying anything about the need to spread the power across multiple eps conduits - that' makes the part here about how each emitter has its own eps taps a pointless comment. Each one can have it's own eps all it wants - the generator only generates so much power for each shot. Spreading that power across multiple emitters and then combining it into one blast isn't, in any way, MORE powerful than just putting the power all through a single emitter all at once. At best, with 100% efficient power transfers, it's equally powerful. In "reality", it's only less powerful.
Yes, you're just saying that you hate the JJ Star Trek movies, in a sad attempt to either claim a position as a moral defender of the one "true" Trek, or else in an attempt to make it sound like I'm advocating for the quality of science in those movies (or both). The fact that there are plenty of stupid things that happen in Star Trek (like turning into lizards if you hit warp 10) is further proof of what I said above about the show not being very consistent - it also doesn't answer my charge that if your position was true that would necessarily mean the phaser emitters were somehow capable of acting as power generators, which clearly doesn't match anything we see on the show.
Good, okay, great - so the maximum throughput of each emitter is not possibly a limiting factor. This means there's no reason I can't just pump the same amount of power that travels along the array into a single emitter directly. This means that your mention of eps conduits above was pointless, and further it means you lose, because if I can dump the power in the single emitter directly, I can get the same power shot without having to transfer from emitter to emitter, which means firepower is independent of array length, and only dependent on the available power to go through the emitter. Since those transfers from emitter to emitter can't intrinsically add power (at best they can only fail to lose it, unless emitters are generators, which they aren't), by conceding this you have demonstrated either that you are wrong, or that you don't understand the difference between transferring energy AND you're wrong. I'm betting on the latter, since I don't think you would have conceded this if you actually understood what you were talking about. Then again, if you understood what you were talking about, I don't think we would be having this conversation in the first place.
Okay - point one - earlier you said any individual emitter has fire arc to anything in line of sight. Now single emitter banks have much more limited fields of fire. This again just demonstrates that you are guilty of mistaking on the fly rationalizations for actual thought. Second, if you are right and the advantage of the array is better fire arcs, then I agree with you (because I said literally that exact thing in my last post when explaining why anyone would build arrays). I also pointed out the advantages of redundancy that you mentioned. These are both very good reasons why an array of emitters makes sense, and since they don't require us to accept any crazy or ignorant nonsense to support, I suggest that it's THESE reasons, and not your wholly stupid notion of length = power that form the in universe rational for array design.
I'd also like to point out that in the middle there, where you said this little jem:
'the internal footprint for a weapon of such power is microscopic compared to centralized weapon banks of similar power, the power feeds are numerous and small, there isn't a gigantic EPS conduits needed to support the single large banks,'
Is classic Dontdrunk foolishness. This is you just spouting technobabble in the hopes that you can obfuscate the fact that you don't know what the hell your talking long enough not to be utterly embarrassed on the interwebz (or you honestly think this combination of words makes sense and supports your position, which is even more sad). Here's the deal - insofar as the size of the eps conduit effects the amount of power which can flow through it, that relationship is going to depend on the total cross sectional area through which the power flows. That's correct. The part that is nonsense is the assertion that splitting that cross sectional area up into multiple conduits somehow takes less space. That's an obviously false claim. Picture this - you have a single "thick" straw which has exactly 4 times the cross sectional area of a standard drinking straw. Now take four standard drinking straws and bundle them together - which takes up more volume? I'll give you a hint - it's not the single big straw.
Thus, the multiple small conduits would, in fact, take up more internal space that a single large one. It is true that having multiple conduits spreads that volume out more, which may have some significant design advantages, but even then, that just provides yet another reason why making an array is a good idea which is NOT related to the direct power of the array. That hurts you and helps me, since it helps explain why they would build it that way without having to resort to "it's more powerful".
This is why your position is so stupid. In order for you to be right, you have to ignore the parts of the canon you considered so trustworthy and consistent above in order to rationalize it working the way you want to. Phaser lance works (in the parlance of pokemon - it's super effective!), so either the canon isn't consistent and you lose because the "physics" you are trying to base your explanation on are nonsense, or the canon IS consistent and you lose because it doesn't support your position. Either way, the point is, you lose.
Oh, good thing I demonstrated why it doesn't work then, eh?
First of all, you clearly don't know what a capacitor is, so, please stop pretending that you do. What you are describing is in no way close to how capacitors work. Capacitors work by storing "extra" charge that can be harnessed later to perform an action that requires more power than the generator is capable of producing instantaneously. As I said, if that were your position, that would sort of make sense, but even then it's a connection between the amount of capacitors behind an emitter, not how many emitters are linked in a series. There's no reason why someone couldn't get the same power output by ditching the series of emitters and just putting all the capacitors under the hull behind the single firing emitter. There may be non-power reasons why an array still makes sense (like the arc/redundancy stuff you stole from me above), but that doesn't make the number of emitters in a series directly relevant to the strength of the beam.
What you are describing is (again) that you have multiple sources of power coming into the same point, from multiple directions. That's not the same thing as "adding power" - all that power came from the same place - the warp core, ultimately. Put it this way - say the core can generate 10 gigawatts for a single blast. If the firing emitter can't handle that power, then there's no point in that - attempting to force all that power through would probably simply overload the emitter. If it CAN handle that (and that's what we both agreed, remember!), then it doesn't matter if the 10 gigawatts comes in one lump in a single transfer, or in 1000 smaller pieces after being split up and sent along the array. It's the same 10 GW at the end that it was at the beginning. In "reality", it would in fact be slightly less, since some of the energy would be lost as heat (phasers get hot while firing, remember!), but even if the transfers were 100% efficient, you don't get MORE than 10 GW of power, you just don't lose any of that to heat. The only way you get more than 10 GW of power is if each emitter is also a generator, which isn't true and doesn't even make sense (since then there would be no need to supply power from the warp core anyway). Hell, even if it were true, that STILL wouldn't mean that length determines power, it would mean power generation determines power - there's no reason the power that the Galaxy generated from the emitters couldn't have been generated somewhere else, with different types of reactors.
Seriously calm down..
thought we where talking about the phasers and not the deflector? or are you just trying to grasp now?
those where just graviton pulses not a highly discharged energy shot from a single emitter the size of a dining table
"Education"? We're talking about a sci-fi show from the 60's here. Most of the times the authors themselves didn't know how things work, that's why I mentioned the cringeworthy depictions of biological and genetic principles the show sports every single time that comes up.
I don't take sides in this discussion beyond what is shown on-screen is universal sci-fi language for a charged up beam. Captaind3 quoted some more TM explanations which state one emitter is capable of 5.1 MW, 200 would be 1.02 GW (via "charged up shot" as the effect suggests), both main arrays converged ont he same target would be 2.04 GW which is the order of magnitude the ship's shield are capable of withstanding at a signle point on the "shield grid", such a hit would let the shields collapse. I do share the sentiment that a Galaxy class would tactically be a steamroller or siege engine for that matter while other ships could use scatter fire across the board to weaken the "shield grid" at many points simultaneously to overload the shield, the TM states that this is the more efficient way to go I think.
To me that makes enough sense to accept it and move on. I basically have to accept that people can be injected with "genes" which makes their bone structure change in real time in this universe as well. In this theory array length would matter, but considering a phaser emitter can be anything from a flashlight to a energy transfer unit for a living space organism to a huge siege weapon carving out a Borg cube I have no problems accepting that you can use trek magic (or "tragic"
Maybe I am misinterpreting stuff as written text lacks some hints but I am getting the feeling that you and others are actually enraged about this whole issue, accusing DDIS of taking it to far while figururatively foaming from the mouth. DDIS comes across as reasonable and calm at least to me, even repeating his interpretation multiple times. Since the TM and the shows visuals don't clearly state one or the other (or maybe even a combination of both) theories are true, can't we just all calm down and just have fun discussing fictional concepts, agreeing or disagreeing with one another for this or that reason and shake hands?
I mean we're talking trektalk because it's supposed to be fun and relaxing. When we're seeing rage and namecalling (from either side) we're definitely taking it too far.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Powe usage =/= power flow capacity
Lets keep it that way
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
i don't have time for a long winded rebutle, but here's one thing i can totally debunk, for literally the hundredth time. "They are all about power output baby", is incorrect, because each emitter segment can only channel 5.1 MegaWatts, or 5.1 MegaJoules every second. you cant throw the output of your entire warp core through any one emitter, but you can throw quite a bit of it through say, 200 of them at once? thats why they even bother mentioning what each emitter segment in an array can output, that fact maters because there is a moving glow effect in the show that cant be anything but all those 5.1MW's being combined together.
i cant feel anything but embarrassment that this logic hasn't sunk in for certain people yet, and all the vitriol present in the incoherent rebuttals are like a further multiplier for the embarrassment i feel for them.
I love the Galaxy, especially my T5-U Fleet Galaxy Dread, with all the Galaxy pack toys, the old Borg set (upgraded to Mk XIV), plus the Borg console and cutting beam, and all Fleet Mk XIV weapons. That being said, compared to my similarly equipped T5-U Tac Ody, it is hopelessly outclassed. Kinda feels like a completely upgraded WWI Super Dreadnought Battleship compared to the Iowa class BB's. It's good, until you see what good really is. I expect I will feel the same about my Ody once I get a T6, but I don't see myself putting any more real $$ into the game any time soon. Not because I don't want to support the game, but because I have other things that need to be paid for first, like my kids' college.
Do I think that my fleet Gal-X should be able to roflstomp whatever it comes up against? Hardly. But i'd expect that it would at least be less squishy.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
You are defending something stupid, but that's not really my beef with you. My issue is that the line of reasoning you use is literally intellectual poison. You already have people saying that you sound reasonable, when, speaking as someone who professionally teaches critical reasoning and basic science, it's really just not reasonable at all. What you are doing is simply shifting your explanation and snookering others (and maybe yourself) into thinking it a coherent position because your conclusion hasn't changed. It would be laughable, if it wasn't so infuriating to watch you make people dumber.
Below will be an example, where you flip-flop on something you said earlier because I pointed out how it hurts your argument. Please feel free to not bother reading it either, since I see you are also part of that school of great thinkers who assume "too long" is a reasoned counter argument.
Yeah, no, see, the thing were you said that power throughput wasn't a limiting factor? That's what that was all about. You already conceded that if the firing emitter could handle the full power of the array from along the array, then it doesn't matter where that power comes from. Now not only are you contradicting yourself, you still aren't helping your position. It literally is all about the power. Either the emitter can handle the full power of the array at once (in which case it doesn't matter where the power comes from, it's just a matter of getting the power to the emitter), or else the emitter CAN'T handle the full power from the array, and thus it doesn't matter how many emitters you put in a series. In either case, the max power is a function of only two things - how much power the emitter can handle, and how much power it is being supplied. It is impossible for any other factors to matter, and thus it is impossible for your pet theory to be right.
log·ic läjik noun
1.
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
a particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference.
the quality of being justifiable by reason.
You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means.