DaveP's Luke RotJ V2 Research/Development Thread 2021

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.


thd9791

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Hey Tom. I'm not sure if I've understood what you're saying there properly, but I've measured the height of the nipple to be the same (or very close) on the shared stunt as it is today. So there's no way the nipple has dropped down to fill the cavity left by the bearing. If that's what you mean? There'd have to be a 7mm difference in the height of the nipple, which would be really easy to spot. I suspect that the bearing was actually left in there to keep everything at the correct hight when glueing everything together to build the duelling stunt. If not, it's been filled with something else. That's how I understand it anyway.
(Shared Stunt never had a nipple, as far as we know.)

Hmm,... Actually the reduced section of a V2 nipple I have here is a little over 7mm.

That is what I'm suggesting, as the nipple served a purpose as a blade adaptor, and we have no way of telling a "collar" from a "nipple" from pictures. The extra bit was probably stuffed into a blade, now that I'm thinking about it, it reminds me a lot of the bushings I've had to make
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

DaveP

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
(Shared Stunt never had a nipple, as far as we know.)

Hmm,... Actually the reduced section of a V2 nipple I have here is a little over 7mm.

That is what I'm suggesting, as the nipple served a purpose as a blade adaptor, and we have no way of telling a "collar" from a "nipple" from pictures. The extra bit was probably stuffed into a blade, now that I'm thinking about it, it reminds me a lot of the bushings I've had to make
Sorry Tom. I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you about the nipple. The Obi stunt blades didn't have a collar from what I can tell. The nipple that's in the V2 today is what was holding the bearing in place on the motorized stunt. It also locked on to the rod when pressure fitting the blade on to the rod. With the motorised stunt, the mechanism had to be pre installed from the pommel end, before attaching the blade at the other. I believe these screws (in the nipple) locked on to the rod in order to protect the mechanism and prevent it from being pushed out of the back whilst fitting the blade.

I covered why I believe it's the current nipple and not a collar a few pages back:

Post in thread 'DaveP's Luke RotJ V2 Research/Development Thread 2021' DaveP's Luke RotJ V2 Research/Development Thread 2021

Visually it's identical. I don't think the narrowing in the nipple was so that it could plug in to a blade. It's actually slightly wider than the base of the blades. I think the reason for the narrowing step was to make it closer to the same diameter as the blades rather than the bearing which is quite a bit wider.

It's not my intention to disrespect your opinion Tom. I hate to disagree on this stuff. I'm just totally convinced that that's the V2 nipple we see on the motorized stunt. Check the video out on the post I linked. It lines up perfectly.
 

thd9791

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Sorry Tom. I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you about the nipple. The Obi stunt blades didn't have a collar from what I can tell. The nipple that's in the V2 today is what was holding the bearing in place on the motorized stunt. It also locked on to the rod when pressure fitting the blade on to the rod. With the motorised stunt, the mechanism had to be pre installed from the pommel end, before attaching the blade at the other. I believe these screws (in the nipple) locked on to the rod in order to protect the mechanism and prevent it from being pushed out of the back whilst fitting the blade.

I covered why I believe it's the current nipple and not a collar a few pages back:

Post in thread 'DaveP's Luke RotJ V2 Research/Development Thread 2021' DaveP's Luke RotJ V2 Research/Development Thread 2021

Visually it's identical. I don't think the narrowing in the nipple was so that it could plug in to a blade. It's actually slightly wider than the base of the blades. I think the reason for the narrowing step was to make it closer to the same diameter as the blades rather than the bearing which is quite a bit wider.

It's not my intention to disrespect your opinion Tom. I hate to disagree on this stuff. I'm just totally convinced that that's the V2 nipple we see on the motorized stunt. Check the video out on the post I linked. It lines up perfectly.
Not at all, don't worry - this is a heavy topic to discuss by the sheer weight of info and the amount we don't know.

That video is comparing The V2 to other stunt sabers. #1 we have no ID of and #3 is not the V2. Is that suggesting they all have the same emitter setup?

There are gaps in all these stories (pun intended). I don't see the purpose of the V2 emitter hole being wider than the nipple. If it were to keep a bearing in there they would have machined it to fit. I also don't see how the nipple acted in my scenario either to be honest, the screws holes today would be up inside the blade. There is some key info we're missing.
 

PoopaPapaPalps

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I would have to disagree about it breaking, especially at the neck at any point. If it were a solid cast at one point in time, it would take some concerted effort to break it at the neck and it wouldn't be a clean break. If the d/s was in it, it'd be even more effort but both efforts would have the serious consequences on both the emitter and the main hilt; it wouldn't just break but break in a very specific crumble-y way. The structure of cast metal is very far apart, it's not dense like steel or even rolled alu is; it doesn't break clean. It kind of tears like bread rather than breaks.

If it were to break, it would have been under heavy mechanical strain and by then the whole grenade (certainly the windvane) and emitter would have to be replaced and machined from either a new cast or new stock. From what's available publicly, I've yet find anything that shows the V2 from ANH differed drastically from today's. It would be one hell of a coincidence and a stroke of real luck to come up with the same dimensions from wonky cast-hilts twice.

The missing screws in the emitter don't surprise me though. They are easy to strip. It wouldn't be a shock at all to know that the nipple was epoxied into the emitter to make it solid.

(For what it's worth, I'm leaning heavy in the camp that the V3 started life as a single static piece.)
 

DaveP

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Not at all, don't worry - this is a heavy topic to discuss by the sheer weight of info and the amount we don't know.

That video is comparing The V2 to other stunt sabers. #1 we have no ID of and #3 is not the V2. Is that suggesting they all have the same emitter setup?

There are gaps in all these stories (pun intended). I don't see the purpose of the V2 emitter hole being wider than the nipple. If it were to keep a bearing in there they would have machined it to fit. I also don't see how the nipple acted in my scenario either to be honest, the screws holes today would be up inside the blade. There is some key info we're missing.

Hey Tom.

I'm aware that at least one of the images is the mystery stunt (which could well be the top half of the V2 for all we know).

I guess that is what I'm saying, yes. These stunts came from the same mould. Regardless of whether or not they are all in fact the V2, what the video demonstrates is that dimensionally, they're either the same or very close. And the emitter (nipple) set-up does appear to be the same also.


I would have to disagree about it breaking, especially at the neck at any point. If it were a solid cast at one point in time, it would take some concerted effort to break it at the neck and it wouldn't be a clean break. If the d/s was in it, it'd be even more effort but both efforts would have the serious consequences on both the emitter and the main hilt; it wouldn't just break but break in a very specific crumble-y way. The structure of cast metal is very far apart, it's not dense like steel or even rolled alu is; it doesn't break clean. It kind of tears like bread rather than breaks.

If it were to break, it would have been under heavy mechanical strain and by then the whole grenade (certainly the windvane) and emitter would have to be replaced and machined from either a new cast or new stock. From what's available publicly, I've yet find anything that shows the V2 from ANH differed drastically from today's. It would be one hell of a coincidence and a stroke of real luck to come up with the same dimensions from wonky cast-hilts twice.

The missing screws in the emitter don't surprise me though. They are easy to strip. It wouldn't be a shock at all to know that the nipple was epoxied into the emitter to make it solid.

(For what it's worth, I'm leaning heavy in the camp that the V3 started life as a single static piece.)

Hi Palps.

wouldn't dream of questioning your knowledge of these cast stunts and how the actual metal behaves. It's very interesting to hear, and I appreciate the input! :)

I'm not necessarily talking about one single, catastrophic impact though...

What I'm talking about is repetitive lateral strain resulting in a gradual weakening and eventual failure at the weakest (thinnest) point, which is literally millimetres thick:


WEAK POINT.jpg


I guess the important thing isn't so much *how it broke* (although that is important and interesting), The important thing for me is that it definitely began as one piece, and at some point between ANH and ROTJ became two.

Without the existence of a bushing, I don't think that's debatable. I did think (very briefly) that Sir Alec Guinness could have been keeping everything aligned and running smoothly by holding at the neck:

cropped.jpg


This wasn't always the case though (most notably the initial switchover as seen in the Making of Star Wars documentary)

It makes far more sense to assume that the emitter and body are actually one single piece at this point.

Why wouldn't they be? They were cast that way. What practical reason would there be for intentionally separating them?




Anyway... I must apologise. I won't be able to reply to anything else now for the rest of today. It's my birthday, so I'm on strict orders! :D


I'll pick up any further comments in the next couple of days. (y)

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion everyone.


All the best,

Dave
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Mr Mold Maker

Master Member
How are you intending to “break” the emitter off for the run?
I do find it hard to accept the break theory myself as an owner of Palp’s cast saber, but I’m not anywhere close to knowledgeable on this saber or any for that matter. I just want my saber to do the nice spinny-spinny..

Happy birthday as well!
 
Last edited:

Gerard2567

Active Member
The only way to test this theory... Is by quite literally, breaking a cast aluminium lightsaber...

If only we had a member on here who would do blasphemy...
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Halliwax

Legendary Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Why do you have a 351 Windsor camshaft, and why would you break it you monster :lol:
I dragged raced and followed the circuit back in the early 2000s. I was changing cams on a weekly basis. I have tons of these laying around

That one there made 702 to the rear wheels, first time I hit 700hp, sonI was going to make a lamp out of it.

The more important question is why do I have a 351 in my driveway.. :p


956CCB96-475E-40BB-9018-433C7F3ACD39.jpeg
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Gerard2567

Active Member
I dragged raced and followed the circuit back in the early 2000s. I was changing cams on a weekly basis. That one there made 702 to the rear wheels, first time I hit 700hp, I was going to make a lamp out of it.

The more important question is why do I have a 351 in my driveway.. :p


View attachment 1502068


I feel like we're going backwards. All the oldman stuff- we do young. The young stuff, we do old.
 

Gerard2567

Active Member
Is there some reason dropping would cause it to break but numerous whacks while dueling wouldn't?

I really can't be bothered doing the F=ma formula but essentially:

The hilt is solid thus has little elastic energy (Edited to be more specific)

The dueling rods flex therefore can withstand heaps of kinetic energy. (More elastic)

When a shaft is inserted into the blade, most of the kinetic energy is distributed between the rod and the hilt itself. Because the rod is the part that is struck with each hit, it absorbs most of the energy, where maybe 10% of it gets distributed throughout the entirety of the hilt.

When the rod is removed and you're left with just the hilt, you have something that poses very little ability to release energy.

So if you were to drop a say 400gram solid aluminum bar with a thinned section onto the ground (Or thrown as demonstrated in ROTJ), the added gravitational pulls create extra force onto the object, so when it comes to a sudden stop, there are 2 forces acting against it, where the least amount of resistance will try to flex, but because it can't flex because of its rigidity, it will instead snap, as the force exerted is higher than the tensile strength of the grain.
 

ggriffaw

Sr Member
I really can't be bothered doing the F=ma formula but essentially:

The hilt is solid thus has little elastic energy (Edited to be more specific)

The dueling rods flex therefore can withstand heaps of kinetic energy. (More elastic)

When a shaft is inserted into the blade, most of the kinetic energy is distributed between the rod and the hilt itself. Because the rod is the part that is struck with each hit, it absorbs most of the energy, where maybe 10% of it gets distributed throughout the entirety of the hilt.

When the rod is removed and you're left with just the hilt, you have something that poses very little ability to release energy.

So if you were to drop a say 400gram solid aluminum bar with a thinned section onto the ground, the added gravitational pulls create extra force onto the object, so when it comes to a sudden stop, there is still a force pulling down the hilt, where the least amount of resistance will try to flex, but because it can't flex because of its rigidity, it will instead snap, as the force exerted is higher than the tensile strength of the grain.
Thanks for the explanation. It's surprising how fragile things like that can be with certain forces but can take beatings in other ways.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Top