Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site udenva.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!nbires!boulder!cisden!udenva!showard
From: showard@udenva.UUCP (showard)
Newsgroups: net.startrek
Subject: Re: Transporters:a question
Message-ID: <590@udenva.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-May-85 18:40:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: udenva.590
Posted: Mon May  6 18:40:24 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 10-May-85 08:11:13 EDT
References: <438@nmtvax.UUCP> <375@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: U of Denver
Lines: 24

> A few nights ago, I watched "A Piece of the Action" with a friend. We
> began wondering: when the Enterprise beams one of the crime bosses over
> to where Kirk is, why doesn't the phone that the crime boss is holding
> beam with him?
>  
> Our best explanation was that things that are attached to other things do
> not beam up.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Oh boy .... lets just call these tranporter inconsistencies numerous!!!
> Think about what you said!! this wold mean in the same episode when kirk and
> Spock beam down there phasers wold be left behind.
>    Think of the numerous episodes where someone grabs onto someone else and getts
> beamed along.... If you really want an explaination < which I have never found a satisfying one> try this-- 
>     the transporter is a beam operation if a narrow beam hits an object they that object can be beamed aboard (ie. the beam expands itself to include only the extremities of the beamed object). However, if a wide beam is used then al
> in the beam are 'beamed' aboard. (ie. nearby rocks, people, phasers,etc.)
> that's the best I can do.
>   					Drew Herman (her3) 
> 					@UChicago  <unix>
> from ladyhawk 
>   -- I talk to God all the time and frankly he's never mentioned you.

    How about this:  He let go of the phone when the transporter beam hit him?

--Mr Blore, in-house detective, KAOS Radio, University of Denver