Found! Obi-Wan Kenobi ANH Lightsaber Emitter

Originally posted by lonepigeon@Oct 5 2005, 09:26 AM
PS - The ring of holes is NOT beveled. That recent "discovery" is actually false.
Don't worry Serafino, I will explain and all will become clear. ;)
[snapback]1090123[/snapback]​
Chris,

The image I posted above and DVD screen caps DO suggest either a counterbore or countersink "taper" on the side of the Ring of Holes that's hidden in the cutaway diagram. I'm reposting my analysis from page 4 of this thread:

hole_analysis.JPG


Notice that the thickness of material in the enlarged hole appears to be 1/4 to 1/3 the thickness of the RoH.

I know the illustrator could have just mucked up that little detail, but add that to the photographic "evidence" and I still have to believe there's SOME metal removed, but I'd of course be glad to be wrong if the real piece has no bevel. Then again, if an inteconnector from a Mark 8 has no bevel, that doesn't mean a Ring of Holes from a Mark 5 or a different RR engine might...

I eagerly await your explanation and photos. :)

- Gabe
 
Fortunately i have a group of guys here at the university who love to reverse engineer things. they are Star Wars fans as well so it is a labor of love for them.


i don't care what it take or how much it costs to do this....i am dedicated to an exact replica..
 
The flange on the prop is very thin. If the drawing is any indication of the thicknesses involved, that 2nd layer attached to the crush ring is not there.

Perhaps the crush ring was removed entirely and the ring of holes glued back in place? If this would allow the ring to be angled/off-kilter, that might explain all the features of the ring of holes--the visual cues that read 'bevel', the pattern of holes appearing off-center, etc.

Gabe good call on the idea of a press-fit interior tube. Suddenly that pattern seems pretty clear in the pic of the prop.
 
Let's look at the real part for the first time shall we?

Drumroll please............


obi_emit_side.jpg

obi_emit_frontquarter.jpg

obi_emit_rearquarter.jpg
obi_emit_rear.jpg


My contact notes the following the pics:
1. The first thing you will notice is that the ring of holes that appears inset or cavitated in the photos of the original prop (and all replicas) is not apparent. On closer inspection, it becomes clear that this is because of a separate ring that is set into the familar cavity. You can see the faint join line between the two in the "front" jpg, and this is also visible on the inside of the tube section, at the right depth compared to the Obi-Wan prop. You can also detect a slight colour difference between the outer flange and the piece that sits inside it (which is drilled with holes matching those that must be beneath). It's stuck in there pretty good, as they say, but it is a separate piece that could be removed. Potentially difficult I'd say.

2. On a related note, check out the attached diagram of the interconnector assembly, within which this is one of the opposing interconnector components. It is sectioned, and hints strongly at the inset (and unwanted for your purposes) ring I refer to above.

3. The iron oxide corrosion is deposited from the combustion chamber it had been mounted into, not the metal that the interconnector is made from. The tube section is dirty and stained, but should clean up nicely. Any other marks are superficial. It's just a hunch, but I have a feeling Obi-Wan's scorch marks, visible in photos I've seen on the web, are the result of the engine it was part of having some serious problems and "blowing" this ring. Not, as you will already know, as the result of being part of a gas torch or other tool.

-------
I note the following:

The ring of holes has a lip...
It seems obvious once I looked at the prop pics again.
Now the ring of holes shown in the prop pic likely comes out to reveal another ring of holes in the darker metal (visible in underside view). I believe this second ring of holes has the same lip.
This lip is what's been deceiving us into believing there's a bevel.

Look at the slight pitting and wear in the middle section, just like the real prop. Like my contact said the rust is actually deposited from the pieces that were surrounding it. The interconnector itself is fine.

I'm so giddy about this thing.
I likely don't have a source for multiple original parts yet, but there are some leads to follow up on. I marked the images so I can use them when following my leads. I don't need a ton of people circulating these pics to Derwent owners across the world quite yet.

I'm just amazed that the emitter and correct handwheel have been found this year, not to mention the MG81 nozzle. This is best year for discoveries since the grenade....
 
Great pics and info, Chris... :D

Looks like the lip is what I mistook for the thickness of the inner tube being pressed into the Ring of Holes (and what others felt accounted for a bevel). That means it's definitely a 2-piece assembly: the outer flanged interconnector and the inner tube/Ring of Holes (which is now evidently one piece instead of two).

From your photos there doesn't seem to be anything between the RoH and the flange, so that pretty much obliterates the crushed ring theory. Can you tell if there's anything between the two parts, or might the diagram have exagerated the thickness of that layer, whatever it was (sealant? grease? epoxy?) Please ask your source if he can reconcile the cutaway diagram with the actual part in this regard.

I'll modify my 3D CAD model and post my interpretation in a little while. :)

Once again - EXCELLENT WORK. :thumbsup

- Gabe
 
Rawesome.

Tis a good day to be on the RPF.

There should be offical medals for those putting in the hard work to find the actual parts.

Seriously.
 
BTW - Serafino, note that the "flange" is quite a bit thicker than previously thought.
Look again at the top edge of the actual prop photo to see that it's correct.
The "thin edge" of the flange is actually a highlight off the front edge bevel.
What was previously thought to be a wide bevel on the backside is actually the real thickness of the flange.
 
:D :cry :thumbsup :love :lol

Chris what an awesome moment. Congratulations..

Unbelievable, great work Chris and everyone. :cheers
 
Originally posted by lonepigeon@Oct 5 2005, 11:34 AM
BTW - Serafino, note that the "flange" is quite a bit thicker than previously thought.
Look again at the top edge of the actual prop photo to see that it's correct.
The "thin edge" of the flange is actually a highlight off the front edge bevel.
What was previously thought to be a wide bevel on the backside is actually the real thickness of the flange.
[snapback]1090437[/snapback]​
Wow Chris that one's gonna take a while to sink in. I see the flange appears to have small bevels on both sides, could what we took to be the 'edge' have been the front bevel? Have to look that over some more. :eek
 
Originally posted by Serafino@Oct 5 2005, 11:36 AM
:D  :cry  :thumbsup  :love  :lol

Chris what an awesome moment.  Congratulations..

Unbelievable, great work Chris and everyone. :cheers
[snapback]1090439[/snapback]​

you forgot :eek

awesome work everyone. Whate a great day to be a spectator.

-cris
 
This thread is more than 18 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top