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:
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:
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!
I'll pick up any further comments in the next couple of days.
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion everyone.
All the best,
Dave
