The TNG Tech Manual figures on phaser output
a) are rather ridiculously on the low side in comparison with the wattage quoted in the actual episodes themselves
b) curiously often speak of joules rather than watts, which is nonsense.
Granted that the authors of the book themselves claim "in-universe" that the book contains deliberate disinformation to fool enemy agents who might have purchased the book... But we might also argue that there are scientifictional elements at play there. The joules quoted are meaningless in describing the amount of weapon output, so perhaps they describe the quality of that output? That is, perhaps the jouleage specifies the "frequency" or "caliber" of the phaser somehow, and the actual wattage is a trade secret or dependent on circumstances and therefore not quoted?
Anyway, since the Enterprise-D never felt particularly threatened by hostile asteroids, we never got true comparison figures on what she could do against inert rock. We saw the phasers perform precision drilling fairly effortlessly, which may or may not suggest that firing with less restraint would make short work of mountains or mountain ranges easily enough - arguably, keeping the effects contained is the demanding part. (Indeed, a primitive phaser in ENT "Silent Enemy" removed a mountain easily - accidentally, even!)
Personally, I feel that Star Wars weapons are intended to be "WWII" style, with each gun having a fixed rate of fire, a fixed caliber, a fixed devastating effect. In contrast, Trek weapons are science fiction tools, with nothing fixed: everything is tailored for the occasion by pressing the appropriate buttons, and thus "firepower" at any given moment depends more on the time of the day, precipitation on the plains of Spain, and the position of trams on San Francisco streets than it does on the design specs of the starship.
Timo Saloniemi
