# Stupid Star Trek Question **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 20, 2004, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-star-trek-question/280820 "2004-12-20T17:13:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-star-trek-question/280820/21 "2004-12-21T01:51:52Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > …why not have Worf use that batlef (yes I know that is misspelled)… I don’t know how to spell it either, but didn’t he do that in _First Contact_ when they were fighting outside the ship against the guy who was pilot for the movie? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-star-trek-question/280820/22 "2004-12-21T04:08:27Z")
[Batleth](http://www.anviltree.com/batstylbatax.html) 😃 ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-star-trek-question/280820/23 "2004-12-21T04:30:14Z")
Nothing to add. Just have to post in every Trek thread. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Ephemera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Ephemera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ephemera)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-star-trek-question/280820/24 "2004-12-21T11:30:23Z")
> [@tracer](#): > > Which Type are the phasers that look like Dustbusters on _TNG_? Type I. > [@The Long Road](#): > > Forget guns, how about a freakin Samurai sword, bayonet or even a pointy stick? People in this thread are speculating that the Borg would develop some form of Kevlar body armor to defend. Well, unless they covered up their entire bodies, it would have been better than shooting phasers to make pretty lights when it hit the Borg. I assume the organic kevlar line was a joke but the point still remains that they would have adapted eventually. If the Borg were particularly vulnerable to pointy sticks, Picard would have known but they weren’t so he didn’t. The holodeck scene was a red herring… physical weaponry is no more effective against them than energy based weaponry. > [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > I don’t know how to spell it either, but didn’t he do that in First Contact when they were fighting outside the ship against the guy who was pilot for the movie? That was a mek’leth. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-star-trek-question/280820/25 "2004-12-21T11:45:12Z")
Rifles usually can be aimed more accurately than pistols, for what that might be worth. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-star-trek-question/280820/26 "2004-12-21T12:19:10Z")
> [@The Long Road](#): > > Forget guns, how about a freakin Samurai sword, bayonet or even a pointy stick? People in this thread are speculating that the Borg would develop some form of Kevlar body armor to defend. Well, unless they covered up their entire bodies, it would have been better than shooting phasers to make pretty lights when it hit the Borg. Getting close enough to fight them with swords would’ve been very risky, since in _First Contact_ they had the ability to just shoot those things into people’s necks and Borgify them. Yick. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-star-trek-question/280820/27 "2004-12-21T12:50:53Z")
I’ve always found the “adaptation” ability more than a bit ridiculous, especially when it comes to direct physical damage. If I tried pushing Borgs off the top of the Chrysler building, would they eventually start to bounce? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-star-trek-question/280820/28 "2004-12-21T13:30:29Z")
> [@tracer](#): > > Which Type are the phasers that look like Dustbusters on _TNG_? I have to contradict Aesiron - they’re Type II. They’re what the traditional TOS pistol had morphed into by the TNG time - the “average” sidearm. ---
**Author:** ![Ephemera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Ephemera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ephemera)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-star-trek-question/280820/29 "2004-12-21T13:44:27Z")
No. They’re Type I. Article on [phasers](http://ditl.org/picweapon.php?11) and some [pictures](http://ditl.org/picweapon.php?11.2). Also, some pictures of phaser ---
**Author:** ![Ephemera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Ephemera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ephemera)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-star-trek-question/280820/30 "2004-12-21T13:45:41Z")
No. They’re Type I. Article on [phasers](http://ditl.org/picweapon.php?11) and some [pictures](http://ditl.org/picweapon.php?11.2). Also, some pictures of phaser [rifles](http://ditl.org/picweapon.php?11.4). ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-star-trek-question/280820/31 "2004-12-21T14:00:20Z")
> [@Aesiron](#): > > No. They’re Type I. Article on [phasers](http://ditl.org/picweapon.php?11) and some [pictures](http://ditl.org/picweapon.php?11.2). > > Also, some pictures of phaser [rifles](http://ditl.org/picweapon.php?11.4). Neat site. But he’s talking about the “dustbuster” Phasers, which are, according to your cite, Federation Type **2** phaser circa 2367. Here’s a quicker-loading, more straightforward [site](http://www.ricksternbach.com/tngprops.html). ---
**Author:** ![Ephemera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Ephemera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ephemera)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-star-trek-question/280820/32 "2004-12-21T14:28:56Z")
Sternbach’s site, while nice, is about props and doesn’t give any information about their usage in Trek’s universe which is what the OP was asking for. Plus, on dial-up, it’s not loading any faster for me than [ditl.org](http://ditl.org), the more germane site, is. And since I’m unfamiliar with “dustbuster” being a term for the bulky S1 Type IIs and a google image search shows that dustbusters are often shaped like both Type Is and Type IIs, this argument’s rather pointless as either is correct since \*\*tracer \*\*asked which “looked like a dustbuster” not which was “the dustbuster”. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-star-trek-question/280820/33 "2004-12-21T14:41:10Z")
> [@Aesiron](#): > > Sternbach’s site, while nice, is about props and doesn’t give any information about their usage in Trek’s universe which is what the OP was asking for. Plus, on dial-up, it’s not loading any faster for me than [ditl.org](http://ditl.org), the more germane site, is. > > And since I’m unfamiliar with “dustbuster” being a term for the bulky S1 Type IIs and a google image search shows that dustbusters are often shaped like both Type Is and Type IIs, this argument’s rather pointless as either is correct since \*\*tracer \*\*asked which “looked like a dustbuster” not which was “the dustbuster”. While the new Dustbusters are tending to be sleeker, they’re still more closely related to the Type II. I mean, Jiminy Cricket… a Google Image Search for ‘Dustbuster’ even turned up pictures of Star Trek Type II Phasers, for crying out loud! [http://www.startrekuniformguide.com/props2.html](http://www.startrekuniformguide.com/props2.html) - upper right [http://members.aol.com/IDICPage/GemKirk50.html](http://members.aol.com/IDICPage/GemKirk50.html) [http://www.edmiarecki.com/Formatting/pr02.html](http://www.edmiarecki.com/Formatting/pr02.html) (and, as an aside, an amusing picture of Gadget Hackwrench and Monterey Jack from Rescue Rangers, tooling around in a little vehicle made from a modified Dustbuster.) The correlation between the Type II and the Black and Decker Dustbuster is much clearer with the older versions of the Dustbuster, such as the one pictured in this article : [http://www.nasatech.com/Spinoff/spinoff2001/johnson\_mill.html](http://www.nasatech.com/Spinoff/spinoff2001/johnson_mill.html) ---
**Author:** ![Ephemera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Ephemera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ephemera)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-star-trek-question/280820/34 "2004-12-21T14:50:16Z")
I am only pointing out that Type Is are reminiscent of dustbusters too, not that Type IIs aren’t. Being unfamiliar with the term and more familiar with newer models of dustbusters, it’s fairly easy to see the confusion. ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-star-trek-question/280820/35 "2004-12-21T14:52:57Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > I’ve always found the “adaptation” ability more than a bit ridiculous, especially when it comes to direct physical damage. If I tried pushing Borgs off the top of the Chrysler building, would they eventually start to bounce? I don’t see why not, they’ve done things at least that clever/stupid with forcefields before now. It’d just be like having a borg force field stop a bullet, but more so. ---
**Author:** ![Ephemera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Ephemera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ephemera)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-star-trek-question/280820/36 "2004-12-21T15:41:21Z")
By the way, here’s an appropiate [quote] ([http://www.dailywav.com/0304/scifimovies.wav](http://www.dailywav.com/0304/scifimovies.wav)) from Captain Archer on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-star-trek-question/280820/37 "2004-12-21T16:05:49Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > I’ve always found the “adaptation” ability more than a bit ridiculous, especially when it comes to direct physical damage. If I tried pushing Borgs off the top of the Chrysler building, would they eventually start to bounce? Do not taunt _Happy Fun Borg™_ ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-star-trek-question/280820/38 "2004-12-21T22:13:19Z")
> [@NoClueBoy](#): > > Do not taunt _Happy Fun Borg™_ Dude, if _that_ ain’t a sig line in waiting, I don’t know what one is. ---
**Author:** ![mmatushe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mmatushe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmatushe)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-star-trek-question/280820/39 "2005-01-05T04:19:48Z")
back on topic… my (slightly dated) copy of the trek encyclopedia gives two possible explanations for using the type III rifles over type II or I: 1. “Federation phaser rifles can be mofidied to emit an expanding energy pulse. The pulse does not harm equipment, but does affect some living beings.” (See DS9 episode “The Adversary”) 2. “In 2372, a standard-issue Starfleed type-3 phaser rifle had…miltiple targer aquisition.” The phaser had a wide-beam setting, but I do remember one instance where Seven of Nine used a phaser rifle to take down multiple people at once. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-star-trek-question/280820.md?page=1)