I think that we should start this by saying that the showmakers and movie crews never bothered to be consistent with weapon effects beyond the beam/torpedo dichotomy. I always thought of phasers/disruptors in a way that one of my professors mentioned: the only difference between plasma and an ionized particle beam is just how coherent the particle stream is. I saw phasers as super-coherent nadion beam with great range, speed, precision, and flexibility in application and particle payload. Conversely, I saw disruptors like beam quasi-shotguns; the beam/pulse is coherent enough only to the point of the target where it then spreads out its destructive power like a shotgun blast. Phasers can be tools while disruptors can never be anything but a weapon. I thought of them as the same thing, but their execution made them different enough to warrant different names. As for the pulsed phase cannons on the Defiant, I saw them as Starfleet using semantics to cover up the fact that they are using disruptors.
i agree and it would be in character for the federation to hide the fact that they were using 'Barbaric' disruptors. that does raise the question are the Starfleet Phaser rifles used in the TNG movies and late Voyager actually disruptor rifles since they fire pulses.
Just came across this channel. It was like finding treasure! I love the content and having the Discoverys Wings of the Red Star likeness was perfect! Thank you!
The difference between a Kill setting and a Stun Setting on a Phaser. Is the Nadions Particles within Phaser Technology. The Electrical discharge that a nadions generate varies on the amount of energy put through them. A Kill Setting. You outright fry someone or something. Stun the discharge from the phaser hit causes basically a shock to the system. It hurts like hell. Though not lethal. Generally speaking. I think there are a few examples a Stun Setting has accidentally killed someone. The energy going through a human's body (for an easy example) can drop them. Now depending on the health and nature of training. Even a human can power through being hit with a single stun. Much like a real-world Taser. Now a Phaser is a tool. That is how Starfleet views the technology. It is not a weapon. While Disruptors. Point and pull the trigger. It is dead. Nothing else to say. Disruptors only have one setting: Kill Everything. Side Note: What is a Nadion? Totally made up magical science thing Star Trek invented and it is covered rather well in Beta Canon.
There are also multiple stun settings. There was another talk about how the tech behind phasers and disruptors is actually fairly similar, but disruptors are easier to build and easier to get to producing more damage, so more of the up-and-coming empires tend to favour disruptors. Starfleet went with phasers because they can stun, cut, heat, or just plain deliver energy; things you can't achieve with a disruptor, but with the drawback that it took centuries of development and refinement to reach parity with even a mid-range disruptor in combat.
Back when there was only tos I often heard the explanation that phasers where an energy weapon that was changed to the molecular frequency of the target. Ie the weapon changed it's frequency phase. Disruptors where a weapon that broke the molecular bonds of matter hence disrupting matter.
Breaking molecular bonds is one thing, disrupting atomic nuclei is something else yet again. I imagine disruptors disrupt atoms, more specifically they affect the strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons together within atomic nuclei.
@@taraswertelecki3786 I'm not propoting that it was correct, science has moved on since then. My point is at that time thats what they came up with hence why they named it the way they did. It was just their explanation to the fictional story. Phasers are more complicated and fragile. Disruptors are cruder but sturdy. As they wrote it. It is what it is, right or wrong just good escapism entertainment.
The difference between phasers and disruptors is in the particles in which each beam uses as a weapon. Phasers use "rapid nadions" while disruptors use anti-protons, hadrons and ions. Rapid nadions push molecules and atomic bonds out of phase with each other and the effect increase's with beam power, while a disruptor literally annihilate atoms. The phaser at stun settings, does not emit enough rapid nadeon particles in the energy beam to destroy matter . The atoms in the target just get slightly pushed out of phase for a tiny moment which is enough to stun the nervous system. At higher setting s however, this phase shift can severely disrupt atomic bonds. There is also a thermal effect with phasers. Chief O'Brian once described it as "the man incinerated right before my eyes"...or something along those lines. Phasers leave burns. Disruptors just rip out chunks of matter Disruptors by design cannot stun. A disruptor type of weapon literally destroys atoms and leave "anti-proton decay" which indicates that disruptors use anti-protons, and not rapid nadeons.The lowest setting on a disruptor would NOT be a stun setting. It may not kill, but you may wish you were. Disruptors are basically anti-matter beams of a sort. Anti-protons and positrons destroying the targets protons or electrons.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 For me I watch Certified Ingame's star trek online let's play and lore videos so sometimes RUclips suggests other sci-fi lore vids from people like you as well.
Originally back in the days distruptors were extreme sonic energy. Both Enterprise and STD threw most cannon out the window. The original 4 years war explained that phasers and photons were invented and quickly distributedted to the Constitution class. This explains why D7 battle cruisers were afraid of Kirks Enterprise in TOS. If you can still find the books based on scripts from TOS some of the weapons are explained and tech. Alot of people also overlook the old big 3 TOS blueprints that were sold back in 70 or so.
i didn't know that was what disruptors were. where is it said that its sonic energy. in this explanation i tried to reconcile FASA to ENT by suggesting that phase cannons are extremely primitive compared to the Phasers used in the 23rd century.
Read in some the books which are at home. I am not home to check storage. Brief search on web refers to Taste of Armaggedon as mentioning they use sonic energy to kill or destroy.
@@wesleycrawford8500 Those may have been specific to that planet. Remember, budgets for TV shows back then were stingy and especially so for sci-fi and other genres that weren't seen as serious works.
In TOS we even got to see a difference in the degree level of stun settings. For the most part Stun knocks a person or persons out (wide angle in Return of the Archons). But then you also see that of merely rendering the person somewhat drunk as with Professor Crater in The Man Trap.
It could be that Phasers, are just a series of Different Laser Frequencies layered on top of each other to control the outcome of the reaction, and to boost beam coagulation. Then with certain advancements, they started integrating particle beams, interweaving the two within a series of pulses to control the reaction of impact. Shaped impacts and variability, all to create desirable outcomes. This however requires a lot of Tuning and Balancing between the various acting fields, but this can be simplified with computers to a degree.
Yeah. Most, if not all, non-lethal weaponry can be pretty lethal given the chance. Which is why it's so often referred to as less lethal. I mean, you could hit someone with a low power taser right in the gut only to have them fall face first onto a sharp object. Or you could hit them straight in the heart by accident. It happens.
One weapon system that is not covered here is one that fires a beam of anti-protons or anti-neutrons, a particle accelerator from hell. It was featured in the episode of the original Star Trek Series, The Doomsday Machine where an alien robotic weapons miles long rips apart planets and any ships that gets in its way.
Thing about the lasers we here about in FASA Trek and the Phase cannons of Enterprise is that I think they're the same thing. Knowing how people are, most likely, people saw phase cannons and thought them to be laser cannons and the name stuck even if they're still early particle beam weapons. This also explains how FASA lasers can actually damage early Klingon shields during the Four Years War and can move through a ship's navigational deflectors unlike how Picard said lasers couldn't hurt a starship or even penetrate the navigational deflectors of one. Later development of the Phase Cannon led to the development of actual phasers that were placed on ships like the Loknar-class and such.
May be non cannon but in Prelude to Axanar they talk about how the Andorians were more the willing to give Starfleet phaser technology, which would explain why TOS phasers are blue beams instead of the previous red with the phase cannons.
i like that explanation it fits especially well with how modern military's share tech and equipment even incorporating different components into their own vehicles the M1 Abrams its American made with British armor and a German gun. so i think its a realistic interpretation of how the early federation would work.
Phasers are phased energy beam weapons that use a rapidly vibrating phase pulse that shakes things apart on a subatomic level. Energy level determines how much damage it does or doesn't cause. Disrupters just breaks the subatomic bonds
In real life, not science fiction, it's easy to ionize the air with a laser and then send high voltage (lightning) electricity along the ionized path. This could happen in events that are measured in thousandths of a second. That is how I think the stun setting was intended to work.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 It's actually called an Electrolaser, and if wikipedia is to be believed, there have been experiments with the technology as early as the 80ies. It's not a practical device due to power- and size limitations. Maybe when we have power cells the size of a 9V battery, capable of powering an electric car the power requirements can be meet.
What about the colors of the whole topic.. are they only for menacing eye candy, or would there be a reason to have a specific color in accordance to intensity levels ? ... white being hottest ?.. IDK
if this interests you, the techlore behind minovsky particle weapons in the Gundam Universal Century timeline is actually quite detailed and unique. particularly how they got around the problem of MS reactors not having the power supply (and the equipment is quite large, too,) to actually "load the bullet", so to speak (firing it is much easier and less power-hungry). the Unicorn Gundam's beam magnum is a rather ingenious application of the technology in how it combines it with a more 'traditional' mechanical 'action'. if you find a clip of it in action close-up (the first battle with the Sinanju has a couple) you'll know what I mean
Modern lasers that are mounted on military ships are mainly to destroy incoming missiles. They can be used to destroy tanks and artillery pieces but mostly they are used to destroy incoming naval weapons. Currently there is no defense for lasers and they are only for defense purposes.
I had always thought that phasers fired a stream of ions, so a low setting would act like a taser but a high setting would vaporise you. I also presumed that disruptors worked in a similar way but that they were much more crude (as they have less settings) - hence why we see more species using disruptors compared with phasers. The word phaser in universe is short for phased disruptor as I understand it.
So since the word Laser is actually an acronym for Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation-then is the word Phaser an acronym for something else as well? I’ve always wondered this, Venom Geek Media 98.
The official modern canon explanation is that PHASER is an acronym for PHASed Energy Rectification (don't quote me on it, but I think early TOS production or pre-production writings might have had it meaning something else. It's been a while since I read behind-the-scenes stuff dating that far back).
OK, you need to correct the remark you made at 2:16 when you say that we see an example of a collimated beam traveling to the target and then an energy pulse is transferred through the beam in the first episode of Star Trek: Enterprise - Broken Bow. That is not what happened! As you said at 2:20 they were in the time-distortion room, but what you seem to fail to understand was the nature of the time-distortion. What we were seeing in that room was a shadow or reflection of the future appearing a moment before it actually did. We didn't see a collimated beam traveling to Archer in preparation for the energy pulse, what we saw was a future shadow of the phase pistol beam hitting a future shadow of Archer then we saw the actual beam being fired and Archer getting out of the way!
thats an interesting way of looking at that scene and definitely makes sense. i always thought the room 'stretched' time but it 'foreshadowing' does make sense.
In broken bow, the enterprise isnt equipped with its phase cannons yet. they appear to be plasma/particle cannons of some sort similar to what the freighters you see in 'fortunate son' etc carry.
@@jamieslingsby9907 You are mostly correct. However, if you turn your attention to season 1, episode 12 "Silent Enemy", Tucker and Reed state that they left Earth in "Broken Bow" with one nonoperational phase cannon prototype onboard that they where going to get working and then build two more from scratch. The Enterprise already had the ports available for the phase cannons. This conversation was about the phase pistol used in "Broken Bow".
Phasers actually get their name from the fact they were originally meant to be photon masars, or in laymans terms "lasers". However when laser became a common term it was felt that phasers should be something different hence why lasers where put on a lesser position. Although reallly a laser is only as good as the amount of energy you put in, so unlike a phaser where you need 50 of them focusing all that energy into a single beam could be rather devastating.
The phasers used by older Klingon battle cruiser’s or phasers or not disruptors some older Klingon battle cruiser did have phasers put in to see which was better to try out that
You make the argument that phase cannons could have been used along side lasers as the phase technology isn't quite ready to replace lasers until the advent of the phaser. However, you have no support for this argument. We never see lasers being used as weapons in ST:ENT as far as I know by anyone. Everyone is using some kind of particle cannon (which seems analogous to phase cannons) or disrupters which appear to be used almost exclusively by the Klingons at that time. As for the phase cannons we never see them causing issues due to inefficiency or use. Heck, the crew builds two phase cannons from scratch to complement the one prototype they had on board. None of them failed due to being produced outside of a dedicated factory, so making and installing them can't be that hard. You have to understand that while the creators of ST:ENT were going for a prequel, they didn't think it would be was interesting or attract as many old Star Trek fans without the staple technologies of phasers, photon torpedoes, transporters, cloaking devices, and time travel. So they gave some of these technologies a retro makeover to seem like the primitive first editions and called it a day.
so the idea that the two technologies were concurrent really stems from trying to satisfy the Cannon Facts and the Lore of things like FASA which helps to fill in the gaps. there is at least one time where in ENT they use a Phase Cannon effect for what is supposed to be a plasma cannon i believe its in ENT 'Awakening' in that instance do we believe a shuttle has a phase Cannon? or did the effects guys get it wrong?
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Ok, if you are trying make official canon and old licensed material work together that is fine. However, your video seems to focus solely on ST:ENT with only a vague reference to "beta canon". This is insufficient as ST:ENT completely ignores lasers as weapons and displays phase/particle cannons as a fully realized weapon system. If you are trying to make a historical compromise that will permit the use of lasers along side phase cannons until the advent of the phaser's maturity you need to recognize the discrepancy of ST:ENT in this view and clearly point out the "beta canon", like FASA, that supports your vision. Then you need to state your compromise that will allow the two histories to work together and you need to clearly state that this is your opinion/vision/head canon and it doesn't technically fit with either history (especially ST:ENT). Otherwise, it just seems like you jumped into this half-cocked. By making your own compromise history, you are actually in good company. William Shatner, Captain Kirk himself, along with Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens created a compromise history when they wrote their book "Academy: Collision Course". There it is stated that phase cannons once were the premier weapons technology, but ran into a dead end while laser weapons continued to progress and made a comeback in the late 22nd and early 23rd centuries. Only with the development of the phaser did lasers weapons become truly obsolete.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 I think it's a phase particle Beam with a laser guidance system and you know the laser probably does pretty good amount of damage the once it locks on the real damage comes
There was another video I saw that actually explained this pretty well. Phasers actually emit charged particles. They aren't plasma weapons. More of a radiation gun than anything else.
Ok... Nad idear of stunning I had a long time ago. Due to the original series, I always thought: Killing: burns a hole throu your opponent on a really small spot. Stun: how it always light up the hole body. It just heats the body till your pain is to big. Or your metabolism collapses
In star trek the undiscovered country yeomens burt and samnos are killed by phasers set to stun fired at close range. McCoy even states that he wonders why they were not vaporised.
They're more like particle beam cannons that work on the principles of weak atomic forces and heisenberg uncertainty principles of drawing energy from the void. Want you take you have to give back. Just two different ways of achieving it
The "phase cannon," is clearly much less than a phaser. Also much more than a lazer. So heavier particles are phased into the beam. For a far more effective weapon. Comparing the two would be like comparing an early muzzle loading cannon with a 5" bore. To the US Navy's 5"/62 gun. One, however somewhat similar; is vastly more destructive than the other.
It's all to do with the difference between guns that fire "rays" and guns that fire "subatomic particles"...but on the other hand, physicists assure us that they're fundamentally the same thing: the "wave/particle duality"...all very confusing...
In Star Trek enterprise during the founding of the Federation the blue boys and Dorians gave humans their weapons technology that’s why the phaser beams in the original series are blue with a pointy eared crew refuse to give humans their weapons technologyUntil quite a while later maybe even 50 years after the Federation was founded the Balkans finally give over their weapons technology within able to start way to develop more powerful particle beam Tayser and I can’t read game
ruclips.net/video/L5r3v7uicC8/видео.html You say a phaser does much higher damage in a individual shot than a disruptor yet when kira was explaining phasers to disruptors to Tora Ziyal she said phasers don't do as much damage as a disruptor but is more versatile more complicated and is more prone to complications. While the disruptor does more damage not as accurate but very reliable and less settings. Think of a phaser as a M16 (5.56mm rounds higher rate of fire more accurate and requires regular cleaning and prone to weapon jams and a disruptor as a AK47 (7.76mm has higher penetration not the most accurate you can drag it through the dirt and still works less prone to weapon jams.
so in that specific instance i think it depends on the phaser/ disruptor. i think disruptors being normally set to kill generally have more stopping power than a phaser on the lowest kill setting . but given that a Phaser can vaporize a target (although im sure this depletes the power cell significantly) i think we have to acknowledge that phasers can be more powerful. also i think there is a big difference between the ship mounted weapons and the rifles. i do agree with the comparison to the M16 and AK47 and i would definitely like to do a video specifically on the various phaser and disruptor rifles.
I like a lot of your content, But i think you need to redo this video. great concept however you have failed to deliver. Your research is way off and you came across like your guessing as your not structured in your delivery. Not trying to troll you offering some feedback. Ps loved the wing series on the Klingons.
Navy boys always have this huge chip on their shoulder: only a tiny fraction of your branch faces the enemy, and you have to reach back eighty years to find some glory, otherwise Navy is just an office job. Why did you create the Marines, Sea Bees, SEALS?? JEALOUSY Army, 2001-2004, 11C
Bro did you even do any research before deciding to make a video on this topic? I only ask because the information you've presented here is mostly wildly inaccurate. The difference between the two is not simply a matter of "propellant", they're two completely different technologies designed to accomplish a similar goal, which is to impart energy into a target primarily for the purpose of causing physical damage whether in the form of thermal damage or violent fragmentation. Both disruptor and phaser technology come in a variety of forms (cannons, banks, emitters, arrays) and can use all sorts of different power sources - or "propellants" if you will - to achieve a desired power output. For example most factions such as the Romulan Star Empire or Klingon Empite employ the use of disruptors for their ship based weapons as well as their handheld weapons (usually just referred to as "plasma disruptors" which seem to be the most common, although it doesn't always specify what type of plasma). Most handheld disruptors do not have a "stun" setting due to their exclusively destructive nature, however some designs may incorporate the ability to stun such as the Cardassian Phase-Disruptor rifle/pistol. The Dominion uses a purple polaron based disruptor for their ship based weapons. Those who do not use disruptor type weapons likely use phasers, which are arguably the most common type of directed energy weapon in the galaxy. Users include Starfleet, Vulcans, Ferengi, Bajorans, etc. Starfleet phasers and most other common phaser systems operate by discharging beams of excited nadion particles (a fictional subatomic particle). Ferengi phasers on the other hand were actually plasma based, differentiating them from most other forms of phaser technology. Starfleet was also working on a type of plasma phaser in the mid to late 24th century as a part of a weapons development program that had been established to counter the threat of the Borg. As far as the differences between the two are concerned, disruptors are more exclusively tailored to fill the role of a weapon while phasers are far more versatile being capable of serving as both a weapon and a tool. Disruptors function by rapidly exciting/weakening the molecular bonds of the target material resulting in a violent, often explosive chain reaction (often described as "thermal shock"). Phasers also functioned by imparting energy into a target, but at varying levels of power outut and wavelengths that could be controlled much more precisely in order achieve a desired effect aside from destruction or disintegration. It's also been noted within the realm of ship to ship engagements that disruptors are far more effective at destroying matter compared to phasers, while phasers tend to be much more effective at draining and depleting shields. That's why it's more common to see Starfleet and similar ships intially attack with phasers until enemy shields have been sufficiently weakened or collapsed entirely, at which point they will fire a volley of photon torpedoes to greatly cripple or actually destroy an enemy vessel (afterall antimatter warheads tend to be much better at blowing stuff up). Most phasers also posses the capability of a "disruptor setting" which enables them to function in manner akin to a disruptor type weapon, which again further illustrates and highlights their versatility. There were also specialized variants of phaser technology such as the "pulsed phaser cannon" such as those equipped on Defiant class ships. Unlike typical Type 10 phaser arrays found on other Starfleet vessels, the pulsed phaser cannon was a modified version of the current phaser technology designed specifically to be used as a weapon and to be more powerful than traditional phaser beam arrays, which made it ideal for hammering through enemy shields as quickly as possible. The Defiant class was also equipped with three 'Type 10' phaser (beam) arrays to supplement the four forward-facing pulsed phaser cannons with one forward array, one aft, and one on the dorsal hull enabling a near 360° firing arc and the ability to engage multiple targets at once. The earlier iteration of this technology was the "pulsed phase cannon" and was installed on early Starfleet vessels such as the NX-01 Enterprise during a refit, replacing the earlier "phase cannons". Also you seemed to somewhat dismiss the early versions of the phase cannon such as those installed on the NX-01, but in reality their power was nothing to scoff at. The installation of phase cannons on the NX-01 greatly improved its offensive capabilities and finally gave the Enterprise some legitimate "bite" in combat. There are a few videos out there that discuss this particular topic in detail and I highly recommend checking them out. Far too many fans seem to discount the amount of power these particular weapon upgrades brought to the Enterprise and other early Starfleet ships, so I recommend looking into this a bit further. I mean just look at the output specifications for example, their power is crazy considering just how seemingly limited early Starfleet seemed to be by comparison. You keep mentioning lasers in the same breath as these other weapons technologies as well, but they are by no means the same or even similar. Disruptors and phasers are both particle weapons while a laser is nothing but focused light energy that doesn't produce any secondary radiation other than heat. It is really quite antiquated by comparison... Oh and Star Wars blasters seem at least somewhat similar to disruptors, but are otherwise a different technology. In some ways blaster tech seems to be even more simple/straightforward than disruptor tech but that's just me.
You do bring up some good points & ideas, but unfortunately, you are kitbashing explanations. Disruptors have nothing to do with Antiprotons; they are called disruptors because they disrupt molecular bonds, in a violent manner that also superheats the materials being hit. Most licensed books are consistent in their definitions and usage. Rate of fire may be fixed for some weapon models, but it is not a constant for a given weapon type. It is variable, and more advanced models have more options & settings. Plasma is not an an accelerant; Plasma Weapons actually fire plasma to strike a target with plasma, which does the damage. It is the futuristic high-tech version of "Burn them with fire!" Basically, the different 'Beams' are either beams of directed energy, charged matter streams, or a combination of the two. Star Wars is a whole other discussion, as instead of 31 flavors of beams by myriad writers, they are relatively more realistic & simple. 90% of the beam weapons in SW are Lasers, regardless of how fancy/powerful/exotic they may be. 8% are Ion weapons, 2% are Masers/others.
I think that we should start this by saying that the showmakers and movie crews never bothered to be consistent with weapon effects beyond the beam/torpedo dichotomy. I always thought of phasers/disruptors in a way that one of my professors mentioned: the only difference between plasma and an ionized particle beam is just how coherent the particle stream is. I saw phasers as super-coherent nadion beam with great range, speed, precision, and flexibility in application and particle payload. Conversely, I saw disruptors like beam quasi-shotguns; the beam/pulse is coherent enough only to the point of the target where it then spreads out its destructive power like a shotgun blast. Phasers can be tools while disruptors can never be anything but a weapon.
I thought of them as the same thing, but their execution made them different enough to warrant different names. As for the pulsed phase cannons on the Defiant, I saw them as Starfleet using semantics to cover up the fact that they are using disruptors.
TOS phasers did have a disruptor setting. So maybe the Defiant's cannons were a 24th century application of that option.
deinekes9, I agree on all points!
i agree and it would be in character for the federation to hide the fact that they were using 'Barbaric' disruptors. that does raise the question are the Starfleet Phaser rifles used in the TNG movies and late Voyager actually disruptor rifles since they fire pulses.
Well said
Love all of the technical videos!
Just came across this channel. It was like finding treasure! I love the content and having the Discoverys Wings of the Red Star likeness was perfect! Thank you!
The difference between a Kill setting and a Stun Setting on a Phaser. Is the Nadions Particles within Phaser Technology. The Electrical discharge that a nadions generate varies on the amount of energy put through them. A Kill Setting. You outright fry someone or something. Stun the discharge from the phaser hit causes basically a shock to the system. It hurts like hell. Though not lethal. Generally speaking. I think there are a few examples a Stun Setting has accidentally killed someone. The energy going through a human's body (for an easy example) can drop them. Now depending on the health and nature of training. Even a human can power through being hit with a single stun. Much like a real-world Taser.
Now a Phaser is a tool. That is how Starfleet views the technology. It is not a weapon. While Disruptors. Point and pull the trigger. It is dead. Nothing else to say. Disruptors only have one setting: Kill Everything.
Side Note: What is a Nadion? Totally made up magical science thing Star Trek invented and it is covered rather well in Beta Canon.
i thought so. so Armour would probably be an effective countermeasure especially against stun settings.
Phaser on stun at close range would kill. This is seen or speculated in Star Trek VI the undiscovered country.
There are also multiple stun settings. There was another talk about how the tech behind phasers and disruptors is actually fairly similar, but disruptors are easier to build and easier to get to producing more damage, so more of the up-and-coming empires tend to favour disruptors. Starfleet went with phasers because they can stun, cut, heat, or just plain deliver energy; things you can't achieve with a disruptor, but with the drawback that it took centuries of development and refinement to reach parity with even a mid-range disruptor in combat.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 if I recall Zefram Cochrane had been stunned after he was drinking which resulted in a hangover.
Back when there was only tos I often heard the explanation that phasers where an energy weapon that was changed to the molecular frequency of the target. Ie the weapon changed it's frequency phase. Disruptors where a weapon that broke the molecular bonds of matter hence disrupting matter.
i think that still holds true and is perhaps a good benchmark for the differences between them.
That could explain things like Cardassian Phase-Disruptors.
They would effectively be both a phaser and a disruptor in strict technical senses.
Breaking molecular bonds is one thing, disrupting atomic nuclei is something else yet again. I imagine disruptors disrupt atoms, more specifically they affect the strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons together within atomic nuclei.
@@taraswertelecki3786 I'm not propoting that it was correct, science has moved on since then. My point is at that time thats what they came up with hence why they named it the way they did. It was just their explanation to the fictional story. Phasers are more complicated and fragile. Disruptors are cruder but sturdy. As they wrote it. It is what it is, right or wrong just good escapism entertainment.
Totally amazing video I enjoyed it very much... I love the sound of Starfleet Starship phasers especially that of the TOS Constitution class phasers
The difference between phasers and disruptors is in the particles in which each beam uses as a weapon. Phasers use "rapid nadions" while disruptors use anti-protons, hadrons and ions. Rapid nadions push molecules and atomic bonds out of phase with each other and the effect increase's with beam power, while a disruptor literally annihilate atoms. The phaser at stun settings, does not emit enough rapid nadeon particles in the energy beam to destroy matter . The atoms in the target just get slightly pushed out of phase for a tiny moment which is enough to stun the nervous system. At higher setting s however, this phase shift can severely disrupt atomic bonds. There is also a thermal effect with phasers. Chief O'Brian once described it as "the man incinerated right before my eyes"...or something along those lines. Phasers leave burns. Disruptors just rip out chunks of matter
Disruptors by design cannot stun. A disruptor type of weapon literally destroys atoms and leave "anti-proton decay" which indicates that disruptors use anti-protons, and not rapid nadeons.The lowest setting on a disruptor would NOT be a stun setting. It may not kill, but you may wish you were. Disruptors are basically anti-matter beams of a sort. Anti-protons and positrons destroying the targets protons or electrons.
Please keep up the fantastic work! I love your channel.
Bloody great channel!
Yes. All of the yes.
I love this channel. Great find. :)
glad you enjoy. i'm intrigued how did you come across me? (it helps to understand how the Algorithm is working these days.)
@@venomgeekmedia9886 For me I watch Certified Ingame's star trek online let's play and lore videos so sometimes RUclips suggests other sci-fi lore vids from people like you as well.
I love the Martini Henry rifle you showed, I have three and they are fun to shoot.
Originally back in the days distruptors were extreme sonic energy. Both Enterprise and STD threw most cannon out the window. The original 4 years war explained that phasers and photons were invented and quickly distributedted to the Constitution class. This explains why D7 battle cruisers were afraid of Kirks Enterprise in TOS. If you can still find the books based on scripts from TOS some of the weapons are explained and tech. Alot of people also overlook the old big 3 TOS blueprints that were sold back in 70 or so.
i didn't know that was what disruptors were. where is it said that its sonic energy. in this explanation i tried to reconcile FASA to ENT by suggesting that phase cannons are extremely primitive compared to the Phasers used in the 23rd century.
Read in some the books which are at home. I am not home to check storage. Brief search on web refers to Taste of Armaggedon as mentioning they use sonic energy to kill or destroy.
@@wesleycrawford8500
Those may have been specific to that planet.
Remember, budgets for TV shows back then were stingy and especially so for sci-fi and other genres that weren't seen as serious works.
In TOS we even got to see a difference in the degree level of stun settings. For the most part Stun knocks a person or persons out (wide angle in Return of the Archons). But then you also see that of merely rendering the person somewhat drunk as with Professor Crater in The Man Trap.
It could be that Phasers, are just a series of Different Laser Frequencies layered on top of each other to control the outcome of the reaction, and to boost beam coagulation. Then with certain advancements, they started integrating particle beams, interweaving the two within a series of pulses to control the reaction of impact. Shaped impacts and variability, all to create desirable outcomes. This however requires a lot of Tuning and Balancing between the various acting fields, but this can be simplified with computers to a degree.
Yeah. Most, if not all, non-lethal weaponry can be pretty lethal given the chance. Which is why it's so often referred to as less lethal. I mean, you could hit someone with a low power taser right in the gut only to have them fall face first onto a sharp object. Or you could hit them straight in the heart by accident. It happens.
One weapon system that is not covered here is one that fires a beam of anti-protons or anti-neutrons, a particle accelerator from hell. It was featured in the episode of the original Star Trek Series, The Doomsday Machine where an alien robotic weapons miles long rips apart planets and any ships that gets in its way.
yeah thats an interesting one. i didn't mention it because it doesn't seem to fit a particular category other than Exotic OP energy weapon. EOEW.
Excellent video.
Thing about the lasers we here about in FASA Trek and the Phase cannons of Enterprise is that I think they're the same thing. Knowing how people are, most likely, people saw phase cannons and thought them to be laser cannons and the name stuck even if they're still early particle beam weapons. This also explains how FASA lasers can actually damage early Klingon shields during the Four Years War and can move through a ship's navigational deflectors unlike how Picard said lasers couldn't hurt a starship or even penetrate the navigational deflectors of one. Later development of the Phase Cannon led to the development of actual phasers that were placed on ships like the Loknar-class and such.
May be non cannon but in Prelude to Axanar they talk about how the Andorians were more the willing to give Starfleet phaser technology, which would explain why TOS phasers are blue beams instead of the previous red with the phase cannons.
i like that explanation it fits especially well with how modern military's share tech and equipment even incorporating different components into their own vehicles the M1 Abrams its American made with British armor and a German gun. so i think its a realistic interpretation of how the early federation would work.
Phasers are phased energy beam weapons that use a rapidly vibrating phase pulse that shakes things apart on a subatomic level.
Energy level determines how much damage it does or doesn't cause.
Disrupters just breaks the subatomic bonds
Sort of a Blade vs a Hammer type deal then?
@@nicholasmiller5643 something like that yes
In real life, not science fiction, it's easy to ionize the air with a laser and then send high voltage (lightning) electricity along the ionized path. This could happen in events that are measured in thousandths of a second. That is how I think the stun setting was intended to work.
like i say im no physicist so its interesting to know that there may be a element of truth to it.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 It's actually called an Electrolaser, and if wikipedia is to be believed, there have been experiments with the technology as early as the 80ies.
It's not a practical device due to power- and size limitations.
Maybe when we have power cells the size of a 9V battery, capable of powering an electric car the power requirements can be meet.
Then it follows that in space the stun setting on a phaser will not work.
What about the colors of the whole topic.. are they only for menacing eye candy, or would there be a reason to have a specific color in accordance to intensity levels ? ... white being hottest ?.. IDK
Probably. Yeah indicative of the relative DPS. So TOS phaser have a relatively high output.
if this interests you, the techlore behind minovsky particle weapons in the Gundam Universal Century timeline is actually quite detailed and unique. particularly how they got around the problem of MS reactors not having the power supply (and the equipment is quite large, too,) to actually "load the bullet", so to speak (firing it is much easier and less power-hungry). the Unicorn Gundam's beam magnum is a rather ingenious application of the technology in how it combines it with a more 'traditional' mechanical 'action'. if you find a clip of it in action close-up (the first battle with the Sinanju has a couple) you'll know what I mean
Sir? Could I please see a comparison between the weapons you mention here and Star Wars' turbolasers?
Modern lasers that are mounted on military ships are mainly to destroy incoming missiles. They can be used to destroy tanks and artillery pieces but mostly they are used to destroy incoming naval weapons. Currently there is no defense for lasers and they are only for defense purposes.
I had always thought that phasers fired a stream of ions, so a low setting would act like a taser but a high setting would vaporise you. I also presumed that disruptors worked in a similar way but that they were much more crude (as they have less settings) - hence why we see more species using disruptors compared with phasers. The word phaser in universe is short for phased disruptor as I understand it.
So since the word Laser is actually an acronym for Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation-then is the word Phaser an acronym for something else as well?
I’ve always wondered this, Venom Geek Media 98.
The official modern canon explanation is that PHASER is an acronym for PHASed Energy Rectification (don't quote me on it, but I think early TOS production or pre-production writings might have had it meaning something else. It's been a while since I read behind-the-scenes stuff dating that far back).
OK, you need to correct the remark you made at 2:16 when you say that we see an example of a collimated beam traveling to the target and then an energy pulse is transferred through the beam in the first episode of Star Trek: Enterprise - Broken Bow. That is not what happened!
As you said at 2:20 they were in the time-distortion room, but what you seem to fail to understand was the nature of the time-distortion. What we were seeing in that room was a shadow or reflection of the future appearing a moment before it actually did. We didn't see a collimated beam traveling to Archer in preparation for the energy pulse, what we saw was a future shadow of the phase pistol beam hitting a future shadow of Archer then we saw the actual beam being fired and Archer getting out of the way!
thats an interesting way of looking at that scene and definitely makes sense. i always thought the room 'stretched' time but it 'foreshadowing' does make sense.
In broken bow, the enterprise isnt equipped with its phase cannons yet. they appear to be plasma/particle cannons of some sort similar to what the freighters you see in 'fortunate son' etc carry.
@@jamieslingsby9907 You are mostly correct. However, if you turn your attention to season 1, episode 12 "Silent Enemy", Tucker and Reed state that they left Earth in "Broken Bow" with one nonoperational phase cannon prototype onboard that they where going to get working and then build two more from scratch. The Enterprise already had the ports available for the phase cannons. This conversation was about the phase pistol used in "Broken Bow".
Phasers actually get their name from the fact they were originally meant to be photon masars, or in laymans terms "lasers". However when laser became a common term it was felt that phasers should be something different hence why lasers where put on a lesser position. Although reallly a laser is only as good as the amount of energy you put in, so unlike a phaser where you need 50 of them focusing all that energy into a single beam could be rather devastating.
The phasers used by older Klingon battle cruiser’s or phasers or not disruptors some older Klingon battle cruiser did have phasers put in to see which was better to try out that
You make the argument that phase cannons could have been used along side lasers as the phase technology isn't quite ready to replace lasers until the advent of the phaser. However, you have no support for this argument.
We never see lasers being used as weapons in ST:ENT as far as I know by anyone. Everyone is using some kind of particle cannon (which seems analogous to phase cannons) or disrupters which appear to be used almost exclusively by the Klingons at that time. As for the phase cannons we never see them causing issues due to inefficiency or use. Heck, the crew builds two phase cannons from scratch to complement the one prototype they had on board. None of them failed due to being produced outside of a dedicated factory, so making and installing them can't be that hard.
You have to understand that while the creators of ST:ENT were going for a prequel, they didn't think it would be was interesting or attract as many old Star Trek fans without the staple technologies of phasers, photon torpedoes, transporters, cloaking devices, and time travel. So they gave some of these technologies a retro makeover to seem like the primitive first editions and called it a day.
so the idea that the two technologies were concurrent really stems from trying to satisfy the Cannon Facts and the Lore of things like FASA which helps to fill in the gaps.
there is at least one time where in ENT they use a Phase Cannon effect for what is supposed to be a plasma cannon i believe its in ENT 'Awakening' in that instance do we believe a shuttle has a phase Cannon? or did the effects guys get it wrong?
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Ok, if you are trying make official canon and old licensed material work together that is fine. However, your video seems to focus solely on ST:ENT with only a vague reference to "beta canon". This is insufficient as ST:ENT completely ignores lasers as weapons and displays phase/particle cannons as a fully realized weapon system.
If you are trying to make a historical compromise that will permit the use of lasers along side phase cannons until the advent of the phaser's maturity you need to recognize the discrepancy of ST:ENT in this view and clearly point out the "beta canon", like FASA, that supports your vision. Then you need to state your compromise that will allow the two histories to work together and you need to clearly state that this is your opinion/vision/head canon and it doesn't technically fit with either history (especially ST:ENT). Otherwise, it just seems like you jumped into this half-cocked.
By making your own compromise history, you are actually in good company. William Shatner, Captain Kirk himself, along with Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens created a compromise history when they wrote their book "Academy: Collision Course". There it is stated that phase cannons once were the premier weapons technology, but ran into a dead end while laser weapons continued to progress and made a comeback in the late 22nd and early 23rd centuries. Only with the development of the phaser did lasers weapons become truly obsolete.
👍
@@venomgeekmedia9886 I think it's a phase particle Beam with a laser guidance system and you know the laser probably does pretty good amount of damage the once it locks on the real damage comes
@@ChrisSmith-qx6wt This is a good, albeit unsupported compromise.
There was another video I saw that actually explained this pretty well. Phasers actually emit charged particles. They aren't plasma weapons. More of a radiation gun than anything else.
The disruptor is based on gravitons.
Is there a... "Intensity" control possibility at all though ?
Ok... Nad idear of stunning I had a long time ago. Due to the original series, I always thought:
Killing: burns a hole throu your opponent on a really small spot.
Stun: how it always light up the hole body. It just heats the body till your pain is to big. Or your metabolism collapses
And it would explain how resilient Vulkans are.
In star trek the undiscovered country yeomens burt and samnos are killed by phasers set to stun fired at close range. McCoy even states that he wonders why they were not vaporised.
thats interesting although i don't recall the scene. that would make them much more akin to rubber bullets. hardly a 'stun setting' though.
have any of you guys ever played star Fleet battles it's a very old board game
I still have mine.
They're more like particle beam cannons that work on the principles of weak atomic forces and heisenberg uncertainty principles of drawing energy from the void. Want you take you have to give back. Just two different ways of achieving it
The "phase cannon," is clearly much less than a phaser. Also much more than a lazer. So heavier particles are phased into the beam. For a far more effective weapon. Comparing the two would be like comparing an early muzzle loading cannon with a 5" bore. To the US Navy's 5"/62 gun. One, however somewhat similar; is vastly more destructive than the other.
Captain, they are now locking *Lasers* on us
Phasers are far more destructive than disrupters cannon has stated this many times , disrupters are for disrupting shields and disabling ships
What happened to the Masers?
Aren't those coherent beam weapons that use microwave energy?
@@lanebowles8170 yes
am i right thinking Masers already exist for crowd control? i wounder how would they work in ship to ship combat?
Oh my!
You got to look at the pulse phasers relatively short-range brother it means most of that propellant is Angel the front
It's all to do with the difference between guns that fire "rays" and guns that fire "subatomic particles"...but on the other hand, physicists assure us that they're fundamentally the same thing: the "wave/particle duality"...all very confusing...
SNORE!
How about a torpedo episode next, please?
thats definitely on the agenda although less necessary because torpedoes are much better explained and defined.
Has anyone from section 31 ever snuck into the weapons room and modified the phase pistols and rifles to kill on the stun setting?
that would be a convenient setting. remember Phasers have 3 Settings; Stun, Kill, And everything else.
Disrupters DISRUPT the bond between the atoms of the target. A phaser simply uses radiation intensity to destroy or melt what it hits.
At least the phazer is more believable than Spocks' vulcan nerve pinch.
In Star Trek enterprise during the founding of the Federation the blue boys and Dorians gave humans their weapons technology that’s why the phaser beams in the original series are blue with a pointy eared crew refuse to give humans their weapons technologyUntil quite a while later maybe even 50 years after the Federation was founded the Balkans finally give over their weapons technology within able to start way to develop more powerful particle beam Tayser and I can’t read game
...oh my...
ruclips.net/video/L5r3v7uicC8/видео.html
You say a phaser does much higher damage in a individual shot than a disruptor yet when kira was explaining phasers to disruptors to Tora Ziyal she said phasers don't do as much damage as a disruptor but is more versatile more complicated and is more prone to complications. While the disruptor does more damage not as accurate but very reliable and less settings.
Think of a phaser as a M16 (5.56mm rounds higher rate of fire more accurate and requires regular cleaning and prone to weapon jams and a disruptor as a AK47 (7.76mm has higher penetration not the most accurate you can drag it through the dirt and still works less prone to weapon jams.
so in that specific instance i think it depends on the phaser/ disruptor. i think disruptors being normally set to kill generally have more stopping power than a phaser on the lowest kill setting . but given that a Phaser can vaporize a target (although im sure this depletes the power cell significantly) i think we have to acknowledge that phasers can be more powerful. also i think there is a big difference between the ship mounted weapons and the rifles. i do agree with the comparison to the M16 and AK47 and i would definitely like to do a video specifically on the various phaser and disruptor rifles.
Which is stronger: "heavy stun" or "light kill"...? 😂
I like a lot of your content, But i think you need to redo this video. great concept however you have failed to deliver. Your research is way off and you came across like your guessing as your not structured in your delivery. Not trying to troll you offering some feedback. Ps loved the wing series on the Klingons.
i always welcome feedback. thanks.
First! Do I win a phaser?
Navy boys always have this huge chip on their shoulder: only a tiny fraction of your branch faces the enemy, and you have to reach back eighty years to find some glory, otherwise Navy is just an office job.
Why did you create the Marines, Sea Bees, SEALS?? JEALOUSY
Army, 2001-2004, 11C
Pharser. .isl laser . Parical. Been combo. Gun. But disrupter is. .gamma . Rayy . plasma . Teachium okay nine tynine. Ergery . Been or . Pul es.
Bro did you even do any research before deciding to make a video on this topic? I only ask because the information you've presented here is mostly wildly inaccurate. The difference between the two is not simply a matter of "propellant", they're two completely different technologies designed to accomplish a similar goal, which is to impart energy into a target primarily for the purpose of causing physical damage whether in the form of thermal damage or violent fragmentation. Both disruptor and phaser technology come in a variety of forms (cannons, banks, emitters, arrays) and can use all sorts of different power sources - or "propellants" if you will - to achieve a desired power output. For example most factions such as the Romulan Star Empire or Klingon Empite employ the use of disruptors for their ship based weapons as well as their handheld weapons (usually just referred to as "plasma disruptors" which seem to be the most common, although it doesn't always specify what type of plasma). Most handheld disruptors do not have a "stun" setting due to their exclusively destructive nature, however some designs may incorporate the ability to stun such as the Cardassian Phase-Disruptor rifle/pistol. The Dominion uses a purple polaron based disruptor for their ship based weapons.
Those who do not use disruptor type weapons likely use phasers, which are arguably the most common type of directed energy weapon in the galaxy. Users include Starfleet, Vulcans, Ferengi, Bajorans, etc. Starfleet phasers and most other common phaser systems operate by discharging beams of excited nadion particles (a fictional subatomic particle). Ferengi phasers on the other hand were actually plasma based, differentiating them from most other forms of phaser technology. Starfleet was also working on a type of plasma phaser in the mid to late 24th century as a part of a weapons development program that had been established to counter the threat of the Borg.
As far as the differences between the two are concerned, disruptors are more exclusively tailored to fill the role of a weapon while phasers are far more versatile being capable of serving as both a weapon and a tool. Disruptors function by rapidly exciting/weakening the molecular bonds of the target material resulting in a violent, often explosive chain reaction (often described as "thermal shock"). Phasers also functioned by imparting energy into a target, but at varying levels of power outut and wavelengths that could be controlled much more precisely in order achieve a desired effect aside from destruction or disintegration. It's also been noted within the realm of ship to ship engagements that disruptors are far more effective at destroying matter compared to phasers, while phasers tend to be much more effective at draining and depleting shields. That's why it's more common to see Starfleet and similar ships intially attack with phasers until enemy shields have been sufficiently weakened or collapsed entirely, at which point they will fire a volley of photon torpedoes to greatly cripple or actually destroy an enemy vessel (afterall antimatter warheads tend to be much better at blowing stuff up).
Most phasers also posses the capability of a "disruptor setting" which enables them to function in manner akin to a disruptor type weapon, which again further illustrates and highlights their versatility. There were also specialized variants of phaser technology such as the "pulsed phaser cannon" such as those equipped on Defiant class ships. Unlike typical Type 10 phaser arrays found on other Starfleet vessels, the pulsed phaser cannon was a modified version of the current phaser technology designed specifically to be used as a weapon and to be more powerful than traditional phaser beam arrays, which made it ideal for hammering through enemy shields as quickly as possible. The Defiant class was also equipped with three 'Type 10' phaser (beam) arrays to supplement the four forward-facing pulsed phaser cannons with one forward array, one aft, and one on the dorsal hull enabling a near 360° firing arc and the ability to engage multiple targets at once. The earlier iteration of this technology was the "pulsed phase cannon" and was installed on early Starfleet vessels such as the NX-01 Enterprise during a refit, replacing the earlier "phase cannons".
Also you seemed to somewhat dismiss the early versions of the phase cannon such as those installed on the NX-01, but in reality their power was nothing to scoff at. The installation of phase cannons on the NX-01 greatly improved its offensive capabilities and finally gave the Enterprise some legitimate "bite" in combat. There are a few videos out there that discuss this particular topic in detail and I highly recommend checking them out. Far too many fans seem to discount the amount of power these particular weapon upgrades brought to the Enterprise and other early Starfleet ships, so I recommend looking into this a bit further. I mean just look at the output specifications for example, their power is crazy considering just how seemingly limited early Starfleet seemed to be by comparison.
You keep mentioning lasers in the same breath as these other weapons technologies as well, but they are by no means the same or even similar. Disruptors and phasers are both particle weapons while a laser is nothing but focused light energy that doesn't produce any secondary radiation other than heat. It is really quite antiquated by comparison...
Oh and Star Wars blasters seem at least somewhat similar to disruptors, but are otherwise a different technology. In some ways blaster tech seems to be even more simple/straightforward than disruptor tech but that's just me.
You do bring up some good points & ideas, but unfortunately, you are kitbashing explanations. Disruptors have nothing to do with Antiprotons; they are called disruptors because they disrupt molecular bonds, in a violent manner that also superheats the materials being hit. Most licensed books are consistent in their definitions and usage.
Rate of fire may be fixed for some weapon models, but it is not a constant for a given weapon type. It is variable, and more advanced models have more options & settings.
Plasma is not an an accelerant; Plasma Weapons actually fire plasma to strike a target with plasma, which does the damage. It is the futuristic high-tech version of "Burn them with fire!"
Basically, the different 'Beams' are either beams of directed energy, charged matter streams, or a combination of the two.
Star Wars is a whole other discussion, as instead of 31 flavors of beams by myriad writers, they are relatively more realistic & simple. 90% of the beam weapons in SW are Lasers, regardless of how fancy/powerful/exotic they may be. 8% are Ion weapons, 2% are Masers/others.
Aimed sorry