The difference is 1mm.
I believe that's close enough, considering the resolution we're working with.
More comp pics later today.
New thoughts on the Obi ANH 'Reflector'
- Thread starter Serafino
- Start date
The difference is 1mm.
I believe that's close enough, considering the resolution we're working with.
More comp pics later today.
franz bolo
Sr Member
It doesn't fit inside the BP. You have to grind down the threads first.
It does look pretty close to the screencaps though.
FB
Brinn 71
Well-Known Member
MAN! I LOVE threads like this! After witnessing the discoveries of the Han ANH muzzle, the Obi-Wan 'gear' and emitter, and now THIS! It FEELS right. I think you guys are on the right track. I just wish I had the original parts so I could help with this......
GOOD JOB FELLAS! :cool
GOOD JOB FELLAS! :cool
Well I've got the thread down (twenty minutes with a dremel and grinding drum) and it fits snug into the balance pipe.
The job now is to grind down the raised ring.
Hopefully I'll have pics by Monday - I've got a busy weekend ahead and not a lot of spare time...
The job now is to grind down the raised ring.
Hopefully I'll have pics by Monday - I've got a busy weekend ahead and not a lot of spare time...
franz bolo
Sr Member
To me, this makes the most sense of any idea I've heard in the last 8 years.
Like Occamss Razor, the simplest solution is probably correct. I was going to suggest we look at the photos of the known pre-production lightsabers (the ones not used) and look for reflectors or some part that might have made it to the ANH saber.
Given that the saber was made from 6 different parts cobbled together, it makes sense to me that if you had both pieces of the booster that you might use both pieces.
I do agree that the part in question fits inside the clamp perfectly.
But, I know the balance pipe was attached to the grenade neck, the grenade neck is much smaller then the inside of the balance pipe, a silver/chrome cone shaped piece is visible in the movie, the booster has a silver/chrome cone shaped piece, the booster piece would fit both inside the balance pipe and give a mounting point for the grenade......
See where I'm going with this?
Also, if you believe the theory that a wooden dowel was used to hold the saber together I think I dowel could run from inside the booster cone part inside the balance pipe, down the grenade, clamp, and booster, and fit into the square hole in the AS Handwheel.
Like Occamss Razor, the simplest solution is probably correct. I was going to suggest we look at the photos of the known pre-production lightsabers (the ones not used) and look for reflectors or some part that might have made it to the ANH saber.
Given that the saber was made from 6 different parts cobbled together, it makes sense to me that if you had both pieces of the booster that you might use both pieces.
I do agree that the part in question fits inside the clamp perfectly.
But, I know the balance pipe was attached to the grenade neck, the grenade neck is much smaller then the inside of the balance pipe, a silver/chrome cone shaped piece is visible in the movie, the booster has a silver/chrome cone shaped piece, the booster piece would fit both inside the balance pipe and give a mounting point for the grenade......
See where I'm going with this?
Also, if you believe the theory that a wooden dowel was used to hold the saber together I think I dowel could run from inside the booster cone part inside the balance pipe, down the grenade, clamp, and booster, and fit into the square hole in the AS Handwheel.
I've not heard this story before. Are you sure you're not thinking about the wooden dowel used for the blade with the reflective tape?
This also brings up the question: Where in the saber was the motor? Motors in the mid-seventies were about the size of a C-cell battery. Maybe this is what was under the Graflex clamp?
Any thoughts?
Serafino
Sr Member
Just to avoid possible confusion at the change of subject (which should really be a new thread), the blade was mounted in the stunt saber, which as most of you know was an aluminum casting made to look roughly like the hero prop(s).
Motors then, as now, surely came in different sizes, even if it is true that we have a greater selection now.
There certainly would have been more room for a motor in the clamp and 'gear' areas than in the grenade area.
Motors then, as now, surely came in different sizes, even if it is true that we have a greater selection now.
There certainly would have been more room for a motor in the clamp and 'gear' areas than in the grenade area.
Last edited:
Yes, Hero saber = no motor.
Ah, yeah, completely forgot about the stunt :smacks head:
Here's my Booster bearing, cut down from the back and fitted into my original BP.
I think Andres is correct when he suggests the front of the 'cone' area was cut down, showing the larger flat front face inside.
I'm going to be using this on my original parts saber, once this is cut down a little more.
This took Russ five minutes on his lathe.
I know a lot of you guys believe this bearing part was used inside the clamp, the cotter pin wire protruding from the clamp.
I'd rather go down the route of using this component for a visible part of the saber, rather than an estimated best guess as to what's not seen inside the clamp.
I still believe there's a cone in there - and I think these pics bear this out - plus these factors make me believe this part was used.
1. The interior markings. The build-up of whatever it is causing the banding inside the cone.
2. The position of the hole in these comparisions.
3. The part *could* have been on hand for the prop builder if he had a complete booster. The chances are it was and he did, considering the wealth of original firearms used in the production.
I think Andres is correct when he suggests the front of the 'cone' area was cut down, showing the larger flat front face inside.
I'm going to be using this on my original parts saber, once this is cut down a little more.
This took Russ five minutes on his lathe.
I know a lot of you guys believe this bearing part was used inside the clamp, the cotter pin wire protruding from the clamp.
I'd rather go down the route of using this component for a visible part of the saber, rather than an estimated best guess as to what's not seen inside the clamp.
I still believe there's a cone in there - and I think these pics bear this out - plus these factors make me believe this part was used.
1. The interior markings. The build-up of whatever it is causing the banding inside the cone.
2. The position of the hole in these comparisions.
3. The part *could* have been on hand for the prop builder if he had a complete booster. The chances are it was and he did, considering the wealth of original firearms used in the production.
Last edited:
Wow, that looks pretty spot-on to me.
Howard, I've got a radical idea.
We've got to think outside the box.
We're looking at this as an either/or situation.
If the prop maker cut the cone piece off of the booster bearing leaving the ring of holes, is it not a possibility that the 1.5 inch ring and cotter pins was attached to the clamp with solder or glue to help stabalize the clamp? What else would the prop builder have done with it?
When you grap the clamp, it wants to fold inward as it is designed unless the 2 pieces of the flash handle are attached. The grenade keeps it firm at the top, why not attach the bearing ring to the clamp on the bottom to keep the clamp firm and give a mounting place for the booster to rest on?
We've got to think outside the box.
We're looking at this as an either/or situation.
If the prop maker cut the cone piece off of the booster bearing leaving the ring of holes, is it not a possibility that the 1.5 inch ring and cotter pins was attached to the clamp with solder or glue to help stabalize the clamp? What else would the prop builder have done with it?
When you grap the clamp, it wants to fold inward as it is designed unless the 2 pieces of the flash handle are attached. The grenade keeps it firm at the top, why not attach the bearing ring to the clamp on the bottom to keep the clamp firm and give a mounting place for the booster to rest on?
Very interesting, James.
Anything's possible, knowing (or rather not) these crazy 1970s prop guys!
The problem here is the cut would be very close (and these are eyeball estimations BTW) to making the hole too large to match what we see.
Then again if this is the case - perhaps the hole we're seeing is the grenade neck hole, and the cone area sleeves over the very top of the grenade neck?
I don't know - I'll have to get onto Andres regards this - perhaps Chris R also.
If we can establish the size of the hole once the bearing is cut just behind the raised ring, and that hole would allow the neck of the grenade to fit fairly snug, I think you'll be on a winner.
The only problem I foresee is that at the moment with my bearing cut as it is and the comparisons you see above, the back of the bearing sits fairly flush with the first stage of the BP.
Now, if the bearing was cut as you've suggested, there wouldn't be much point to cutting it further at the cone open end as I'm planning to do to match the screen caps.
I hope all this makes sense - a lof of ifs and buts, but (and there's another!) it's wonderful to explore these possibilities.
Anything's possible, knowing (or rather not) these crazy 1970s prop guys!
The problem here is the cut would be very close (and these are eyeball estimations BTW) to making the hole too large to match what we see.
Then again if this is the case - perhaps the hole we're seeing is the grenade neck hole, and the cone area sleeves over the very top of the grenade neck?
I don't know - I'll have to get onto Andres regards this - perhaps Chris R also.
If we can establish the size of the hole once the bearing is cut just behind the raised ring, and that hole would allow the neck of the grenade to fit fairly snug, I think you'll be on a winner.
The only problem I foresee is that at the moment with my bearing cut as it is and the comparisons you see above, the back of the bearing sits fairly flush with the first stage of the BP.
Now, if the bearing was cut as you've suggested, there wouldn't be much point to cutting it further at the cone open end as I'm planning to do to match the screen caps.
I hope all this makes sense - a lof of ifs and buts, but (and there's another!) it's wonderful to explore these possibilities.
vaderdarth
Master Member
looks perfect Howard. I'm extremely satisfied with your results. 
Dave
Dave
Yeah pics look great mate!
Also you got to remember when this thing was made they would of just done any thing to it to make it go together and use what they had laying around.
But again the pics look great, I'm ready to machine what ever design you wanna go with..
Russ
Also you got to remember when this thing was made they would of just done any thing to it to make it go together and use what they had laying around.
But again the pics look great, I'm ready to machine what ever design you wanna go with..
Russ
Serafino
Sr Member
My hats off to you for the hard work Howard and Russ, but I just can’t see how this works.
Here are the problems I have:
‘Blob’ so far doesn’t get explained best by a single theory. Yes it may just be a stain, but in that case it could as easily be on the face of the part as on the inside of a ‘cone’, therefore it isn’t evidence which weighs toward either conclusion.
Those of you who are enthusiastic about this idea–can you explain to me in similar detail why you think Chris' idea doesn't work?
Here are the problems I have:
‘Blob’ so far doesn’t get explained best by a single theory. Yes it may just be a stain, but in that case it could as easily be on the face of the part as on the inside of a ‘cone’, therefore it isn’t evidence which weighs toward either conclusion.
Those of you who are enthusiastic about this idea–can you explain to me in similar detail why you think Chris' idea doesn't work?
Similar threads
