Custom Tennant Sonic Build

[Rassilon]

How about having the LED soldered directly on wires stuffed into the central head stalk to hold it upright and straight and accessed by popping off the lens? It's the most direct way and how the original prop was and how MFX did it.

How many time would the lens fall out before you glued it in to stop that from happening.
Then you have the issue of how to make the transmitter and ball joint.

Cost also comes into it, you are all forgetting that, there are expensive ways to make parts and there are cost-effective ways.

I’m trying to make it the cost-effective ways.

Not only that I’m going to make them into a KIT to do so you or the members have to be able to assemble them without any difficultly.

This is the only Logical design to use to achieve this, I can see no other way, or I would not have gone this way.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Next Design Question,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[Anakin Starkiller]

You're probably right. The responsible thing to do would probably be to ignore any possibility that a member is a recaster and just assume that any similarities in design are due to coincidence

I'm by no means saying ignore the possibility or re-casting. What I'm saying is that the specifics of the accusation should be addressed in specific details. When one member posts that there are many details that point to recasting, but does not assess or examine the specific details made by the accuser it creates an air of suspicion and doubt that lingers even if the specific accusations proove to be false. If there was a design feature that was on Rassilon's sonic that was not on the original sonic prop and that was a "tell" from CT's design, then that would raise suspision to me. But so far what I'm seeing is that both Rassilon's and CT's design are good replicas of the original prop, so how does this mean re-casting?

Jedibugs, you wrote "Rassilon's screwdriver design contains a great many design elements (more to do with how it is assembled than any exterior appearance) that do not appear on any screen-used Sonics" This is a very vague statement and is not true. There is ONE aspect of CT's sonic that he is claiming is his unique design: the fact that the emitter head screws onto the ball coupling--which Rassilon is saying is just what made sense to him to connect those two parts. All of the other points of contention are over elements that ARE present on the original prop.

 

[Rassilon]

I,m not as fast with typing as bull dog is with his mouth but
I am more than pleased to answer any design questions that any of you have.

Put be pacific in you design questions.

As I no at the end I have not Recast any Sonics from BD

I welcome you inquiry.

Because this is only helping my project by removing doubt.

I still have not posted any REAL images of what I’m build, is any one listening, you are all talking about something that I have not even produced as yet.

 

[Rassilon]

This is the only logical design to bring these two parts together, in a cost effective way.

The Acrylic rod that the ball joint attachés to, once again this is the only way that this part can be attached to the ball end, by having a step machined into the acrylic rod so it inserts up inside of the ball end.

By doing it any other way will not see it strong enough and will brake free with harsh use, as my design will allow you to take the Sonic with you and plug into a PC, as it will incorporate a flash drive.

Or is that Recasting due to bull Dag coming up with that idea as well.

Here are some more images for Bull dog to go nut's over, that's the transmitter housing, looks nothing like bull dogs transmitter housing on his sonic, as it is more screen accurate but have customized it to make it cheaper to manufacture, and is close to what you would see on the TV show, this is what I’m manufacturing, and not the earlier design version that is incorrect and not screen accurate and was only a step design..

 

[LeAngeSolitaire]

How many time would the lens fall out before you glued it in to stop that from happening.
Then you have the issue of how to make the transmitter and ball joint.

Cost also comes into it, you are all forgetting that, there are expensive ways to make parts and there are cost-effective ways.

I’m trying to make it the cost-effective ways.

Not only that I’m going to make them into a KIT to do so you or the members have to be able to assemble them without any difficultly.

This is the only Logical design to use to achieve this, I can see no other way, or I would not have gone this way.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Next Design Question,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The lens is held on by friction. No glue needed.

 

[LeAngeSolitaire]

I'm by no means saying ignore the possibility or re-casting. What I'm saying is that the specifics of the accusation should be addressed in specific details. When one member posts that there are many details that point to recasting, but does not assess or examine the specific details made by the accuser it creates an air of suspicion and doubt that lingers even if the specific accusations proove to be false. If there was a design feature that was on Rassilon's sonic that was not on the original sonic prop and that was a "tell" from CT's design, then that would raise suspision to me. But so far what I'm seeing is that both Rassilon's and CT's design are good replicas of the original prop, so how does this mean re-casting?

Jedibugs, you wrote "Rassilon's screwdriver design contains a great many design elements (more to do with how it is assembled than any exterior appearance) that do not appear on any screen-used Sonics" This is a very vague statement and is not true. There is ONE aspect of CT's sonic that he is claiming is his unique design: the fact that the emitter head screws onto the ball coupling--which Rassilon is saying is just what made sense to him to connect those two parts. All of the other points of contention are over elements that ARE present on the original prop.

Actually, if you read what CT wrote he said he put in deliberate tells including, from what I can understand, the distinctive angle of the rear tip and the size of the slider plate. But the upper and lower cylinders in the head is a unique CT thing as no one spotted them but him and I remember everyone here arguing over it until he finally provided proof of their existence.

 

[Anakin Starkiller]

But the upper and lower cylinders in the head is a unique CT thing as no one spotted them but him and I remember everyone here arguing over it until he finally provided proof of their existence.

Look at the pic I'm attaching. Is this what you're saying reveals that Rassilon is a re-caster?

 

[LeAngeSolitaire]

Look at the pic I'm attaching. Is this what you're saying reveals that Rassilon is a re-caster?

No actually I'm not. I'm not even sure what you're pointing out. I was talking about what is inside the head. CT talked about it here http://celestialtoystore.blogspot.com/2010_06_01_archive.html

 

[Anakin Starkiller]

So, the first point that CT says reveals that his work has been recast is

"1) The shallow lens cap recess - The original was much deeper. I put that in as it allowed me to fix the height in which the lens cap would sit as the original prop's lens varied in the height it was installed."

But, didn't Rasslion show us all in his second post here http://www.therpf.com/f9/custom-tennant-sonic-build-130690/#post1979040 that he was planning on using those vintage led lenses that he found as the emitting lens for his sonic?
It looks to me from this pic http://www.therpf.com/attachments/f9/custom-tennant-sonic-build-100_1628.jpg-73455d1320312195
that the depth of the lens cap recess on Rasslion's deisgn is determined by his desire to use the lens caps that he found in his build. Not his desire to copy CT's work.
Look at the bottom drawing in this pic http://www.therpf.com/attachments/f9/custom-tennant-sonic-build-100_1628.jpg-73455d1320312195
The depth of the lens cap recess is designed to allow the found item lens to fit into the emitter properly.

 

[Anakin Starkiller]

No actually I'm not. I'm not even sure what you're pointing out. I was talking about what is inside the head. CT talked about it here The Celestial Toystore: June 2010

Ok. That detail isn't something that only comes from CT's sonic. You can see it on then prop used in the 11th hour here.

 

[LeAngeSolitaire]

Ok. That detail isn't something that only comes from CT's sonic. You can see it on then prop used in the 11th hour here.

You can see it on plenty of pics once it has been pointed out. I couldn't until it was and I honestly doubt you could either and I certainly couldn't see the upper one.

 

[Anakin Starkiller]

In his blog CT's second point is

2) The bisected strut - This is a feature that I pointed out, I provided proof in the form of the Aztec pictures. Until I did, the Aztec sonic was unheard of and no one even knew they made the sonic let alone knew their website.

Now to me, this cannot be construde as re-casting a fan made piece.
If you point out a detail found on an original prop, you do not have any intellectual ownership over knowing that the detail exists. I don't even know how you could make an arguement to the contrary. Look at any research thread here. People look at reference pictures and comment on the details that they see. Then other people recognize those details and our knowledge of the prop increases. That's the way the RPF works. If we were going to argue that when one person highlights a detail on an original prop and shows it to the internet community it is recasting for other members to see these details and incorporate them into their builds, then we might as well shut down the RPF because no research could function here.


When Neil Gorton pointed out that the periplex tube on the season 4 Tennant prop was cloudy because the center had been drilled out without oil, and CT changed his design to replicate this, instead of contending that there was a second solid tube running down the shaft, was this recasting because he was using information pointed out by another member here in his build? No. He wssn't. That is not recasting.
http://celestialtoystore.blogspot.com/2010/06/two-wires-and-humble-pie-for-breakfast.html


Secondly, Aztec's website has been up for a while and they have been public about displaying their involvement with the show, and so I don't know how any fan-boy could claim intellectual ownership over publicizing the fact that Aztec made two of the props for the show and that they have a website displaying their work.

 

[LeAngeSolitaire]

When Neil Gorton pointed out that the periplex tube on the season 4 Tennant prop was cloudy because the center had been drilled out without oil, and CT changed his design to replicate this, instead of contending that there was a second solid tube running down the shaft, was this recasting because he was using information pointed out by another member here in his build? No. He wssn't. That is not recasting.
The Celestial Toystore: Two wires and humble pie for breakfast.

Good point but credit to him, he admitted he was wrong and publically apologised for it and attributed this to Gorton.

 

[Anakin Starkiller]

You're right. He did. And then he incorporated Neil's observation about the original prop into his design. There was nothing wrong with that. CT was not recasting Neil then when he looked at the info Neil had posted and then incorporated that info into his design then. So, why would Rassilon be recasting CT if he had seen details in the original prop that CT had been aware of and incorporated those details into his design?(and I don't know if he did since I don't know Rassilon or the process that he went through to come up with his design)

Re-casting is a word that means something quite specific. It means making a mold off of another member's word and then using that mold to produce cheap easy copies. Some poeple have argued that to buy another members machined pieces and then use those pieces and a set of calipers to quickly come up with a duplicate design is not much different from re-casting and should be discouraged on this board because it hurts the commnity. But if we are goind to expand the meaning of the word to mean noticing details on an original prop that another member has drawn your attention to and then building your own model with those details of the original prop replicated therein, the word would really become meaningless and the RPF couldn't function if every post that pointed out details present on original props gave the poster some sort of exclusive claim over replicating that piece.

Dan

 

[LeAngeSolitaire]

You're right. He did. And then he incorporated Neil's observation about the original prop into his design. There was nothing wrong with that. CT was not recasting Neil then when he looked at the info Neil had posted and then incorporated that info into his design then. So, why would Rassilon be recasting CT if he had seen details in the original prop that CT had been aware of and incorporated those details into his design?(and I don't know if he did since I don't know Rassilon or the process that he went through to come up with his design)

Dan

It seems to me like you're just picking the things that are easiest to explain away. It's easy to look at abstract points and explain them away but when looked at as a whole, it looks pretty clearcut to me. Seriously, have you read the other points? I'm open minded but that is some pretty heavy proof.

 

[Anakin Starkiller]

If the individual points on which an argument it based do not hold up, then the conclusion is invalid. You're saying that it seems clear that Rassilon re-cast CT's sonic. I'm asking you which points in CT's argument seem persuasive to you, and you're saying, look at his blog. If Rassilon is accused of re-casting, the burden of proof is on the accuser. CT has made his claims, it is up to us to evaluate those points. You are saying you are convinced. I'm asking what points convince you. If CT's claims cannot stand up to scrutiny, his argument is invalid.

Dan

 

[phez]

Selling/trading of recast items
Deliberately recasting another member’s creation without consent is not supported by this community.
Selling freely distributed paper props is considered a digital form of recasting.
If anyone believes their item has been recast by a member, they are encouraged to provide proof to the RPF Staff, with the understanding that the burden of proof lies solely with the accuser and that members will be considered innocent unless clearly proven otherwise by the aggrieved party.

Here is the procedure, why waist time posting in this thread when it accomplishes nothing. Put the evidence together and ask for a judgment call.

I have no idea if internal design aspects constitute recasting or not and we are not going to solve that one here. Recasting as far as I know is dumping rubber over, directly scanning, etc. Maybe measuring and deriving parts for your own plans that are similar but different than the original work might be recasting but where is the line drawn with that???

It looks like these are going to be done and sold unless the mod's say otherwise so if you believe it is recasting just boycott the piece, if you don't, buy one if you want. I think the whole discussion is more about a metal Sonic being available for half the price of the only other metal Sonic currently available. Every time a new piece comes out that costs someone some sales we hear recast. Sometimes it is Sometimes it is not, let the mod's look at the proof and decide.

I am not really into the whole artistic license (re-engineering) thing when it comes to my propreplicas (just exactly what was used on the show) but for the people who are, more power to them.

 

[LeAngeSolitaire]

If the individual points on which an argument it based do not hold up, then the conclusion is invalid. You're saying that it seems clear that Rassilon re-cast CT's sonic. I'm asking you which points in CT's argument seem persuasive to you, and you're saying, look at his blog. If Rassilon is accused of re-casting, the burden of proof is on the accuser. CT has made his claims, it is up to us to evaluate those points. You are saying you are convinced. I'm asking what points convince you. If CT's claims cannot stand up to scrutiny, his argument is invalid.

Dan

Pretty much all his points stand up to scrutiny. The very distinctive rear end and the mistakes on the measurements that Rassilon replicated are two very compelling ones. You just don't like the guy because he doesn't like you and refuse to see the merit of what he is saying. In my mind, Rassilon drastically changing his design says everything you need to say otherwise he would have kept it as is. Just saying.

 

[rollerboi]

IMO, just as an outsider looking in and not affiliated with any particular camp, there does seem to be merit to CT's accusations. 1, 2, or even 3 similarities.. possible. 8? Stretching it, especially when you consider the modified angle of the end tip, the slider plate, and the overall dimensions.

There seems to be this (general) assumption that if someone is making a replica of the screen-used item, having measured and handled said item, then using their work is akin to using the screen-used item. This is very wrong, especially when tells are incorporated and replicated, and I sincerely hope such is not the case here.

At any rate, hope you're able to work it out and come up with an even better design that's closer to the SU original.. cheers!

 

[Rassilon]

Pretty much all his points stand up to scrutiny. The very distinctive rear end and the mistakes on the measurements that Rassilon replicated are two very compelling ones. You just don't like the guy because he doesn't like you and refuse to see the merit of what he is saying. In my mind, Rassilon drastically changing his design says everything you need to say otherwise he would have kept it as is. Just saying.

You sir are a NUT and a cross threaded one at that,

It would seem clear to me as it would to other members that, no matter how much it is explained to you, no matter how much and how clear it is to every one, that I have not Recasted you will still follow bull dogs rants. "very sick individual"

You think CT Alis Bull Dog, is the only person capable on this planet, of produce anything, you think that no one has any observation what so ever, to work anything out for them selves, other than him.

Anakin Starkiller has pointed out to you some design features on my CUSTOM not hung up on exact measurements to the micron 10th Doctors sonic, and clear to him, but no not you all you can go on about is, and I quote “he has made some very good points”.

LeAngeSolitaire
Why are you on this forum? You are of no real value what so ever, you criticize anyone and everything to do with the Tennant sonic you have not made any contribution other than claim bull dog CT as been the only living God to have made the Tennant Sonic, and as such he is the only person that should be aloud to build them.