Found! Obi-Wan Kenobi ANH Lightsaber Emitter

vaderdarth

Master Member
Holy Crap he's right............I keep forgetting that part of that pic is cutaway........that is a ring and the ring of holes is right there. Can someone scale it with software and count the holes from what is given in that diagram???? It also shows the size of hole in the IG88 head next to the emitter and that would make it very very close to the correct scale in my estimate. Now someone needs to give us some precise measurements of that using the software. :)
 

vaderdarth

Master Member
Nevermind......the more I look at the diagram........the more I see there is no doubt this is the piece. We just need to get our mits on one. This also tells me that the "crimped" tubing is just that.......tubing. to make it hold the grenade piece most likely. :)
 

amish

Sr Member
Looks damn close to me. I had to look at the cut aways several times, but I see the shape and have reasonable belief this could be it. However, I think we need to see the actual part in order to be 100% sure.
 

vaderdarth

Master Member
I just noticed something else.......look at the part with the ring of holes......that part goes inside the "emitter proper" section.......notice the holes around the periphery of that which is hidden inside the tube???? Cool detail eh?? So when we ultimately make this uber accurate old ben emitter.......we can make sure to get those in there too. :)

Also the "step" on that section too. Very critical details. We would never have thought that step existed on that end of it. :)
 

Gigatron

Sr Member
I think if someone can find a way to get in touch the owner of this site http://www.gasturbine.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/derwent.htm , we might be in business. The owner seems to be an expert in Derwent engines. Maybe they have access to an engine or at least can get us pictures of the parts.

We're looking for the combustion chamber inter-coupler. The engine consists of 9 combustion chambers, but only 2 igniters (probably and most likely on opposing sides). These inter couplers allowed the fire to spread into the other chambers.

We're NOT looking for the igniter assemblies themselves. Those are just spark plugs and the mounts.

If anyone lives near an aircraft graveyard (at least one that would have bristish aircraft) we might be able to find it that way as well.

I'll keep looking, let's hope we get somewhere.

-Fred
 

PHArchivist

Master Member
Originally posted by Prop Runner+Sep 27 2005, 07:29 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Prop Runner @ Sep 27 2005, 07:29 AM)</div>
<!--QuoteBegin-Durasteel Corporation
@Sep 27 2005, 07:26 AM
whats up with this line though...Ive seen many prints but this line appears to separate something....
[snapback]1084726[/snapback]​
Drew, because it appears to compress between the parts, I'm thinking it's either a gasket or some kind of lubricant or sealant. It could also be a press-fit item that deliberately deformed the disc when inserted using a hydraulic press (I'm in 100% brainstorm mode here - stretching the limits of my speculation, to be sure...)

For those having trouble connecting my dots... here's where they connect:



- Gabe
[snapback]1084729[/snapback]​
[/b]
Maybe I missed something...

The flanges circled in yellow -- how do you account for the disporportionate thicknesses? In the diagram thhe look much thicker (1/4" or so) but in the photo they look very thin.

Again, perhaps I missed a detail in the thread...
 

cayman shen

Master Member
Now what the hell are we all going to post for April Fools? You could always count on six or seven "Obi-Wan ANH Emitter FOUND." threads. :p
 

Probe Droid

Master Member
These engines are not the easiest things to find info on, are they. I tried scrounging around the British Library's web site figuring if they have info on Dickens's snot rags they'd have some data on these engines. No dice. Maybe I was just searching using the wrong terms, but it's very frustrating. :angry
 

Serafino

Sr Member
Hi all. I agree that this looks HUGELY promising, but there are some things which aren't yet adding up.

I agree that the part in the picture with the grenade looks very similar to this engine part. But that part has the wrong proportions to be the whole emitter. Nate's render shows this quite clearly, assuming he's matched the proportions of the engine part.

Here's my prior analysis of the part in the picture.



Are there variations in this design? The DRAWING shows the correct bevel on 'step 2', although the part in the picture does not.

Also remember that the ring of holes should be recessed in the flange.
 

vaderdarth

Master Member
Serafino.......the only thing we can't bank on is the absense of distortion in that original photo. LFL is notorious for releasing photos that have been size edited....etc... Makes me wonder if their chronicles pic is off too for that matter. It would be quite possible that one engine has a different sized part than the other........but it will take the engine expert to tell us difinitively if that is the case or not. Most of the time the engines are different sizes, but the parts contained within are the same for the most part. Still I'm betting that the piece is right, but the photo is off a bit. They would likely have had access to lots of these parts considering how many are found on that engine. Hence all the IG88 heads found in the trilogy etc....

Dave :)
 

Serafino

Sr Member
Dave--degrees of normal photographic distortion have been accounted for, they are measurable and predictable phenomenae. I've done these recreated photos for my research over and over and matched ellipses in order to match angle of view. Pincussion, barrel and perspective distortion are not enough to account for the differences I'm pointing to. As for LFL distorting photos which have been around in one form or another since the '70's and '80's I think the idea's extremely unlikely.

Furthermore, the proportions of the emitter in the Chronicles pics match up grossly with those of the saber in production photos and screen caps.

I welcome proof and illustrations for claims like this, but because of the work I've done I can't just bow to an assertion that says "well it's 'possible' that we don't really know what we think we know". I didn't buy that in my philosophy classes and I don't buy it here. :) Proof, illustrations, show me.

Believe me I recognize the incredible promise of this line of inquiry, and don't particularly relish standing up as a lone voice saying "not quite". :)
 

Gigatron

Sr Member
To be honest, I don't think that part next to the grenade is the piece we're looking for. It may have been an early piece that they were tinkering with, but I don't think it was the final piece.

If you look at the diagram for the coupler, only the back and flange line up. The rest doesn't make any sense. I'll do something up in photoshop tonight when I get home, but I'm pretty sure they're not the same pieces.


I believe that each chamber has an in and an out as the flame would only travel in one direction. Based on the diagram, it looks like the obi emitter end is always going to be on the same side of the chamber (in other word no chamber will ever have 2 emitter parts).

-Fred


P.S. if they're getting all these parts from the derwent, there's a good chance the gear is from there as well. My money lies on either part of the oil scavanger system or the starter drive assembly
 

vaderdarth

Master Member
Serafino, I'll give you your say here......you are the expert. But I won't be convinced until either the prop shows up (which it won't) or this piece is retrieved and can't be made to match the saber pics perfectly. (My money is on this piece in the diagram).

You cannot deny the diagram matches it 100% No matter what is on that tabletop photo... That may not be the same thing as the diagram at all. My instincts tell me it's at least in the ballpark. With all the lines and bevels and sizes of all the parts shown in the diagram......it just has to be it or it's cousin.
 

Force Commander

Well-Known Member
Couldn't you use the grenade in the picture to prove or disprove distortion? We know what its shape and size are.


Originally posted by Serafino@Sep 27 2005, 10:19 AM
Dave--degrees of normal photographic distortion have been accounted for, they are measurable and predictable phenomenae.  I've done these recreated photos for my research over and over and matched ellipses in order to match angle of view.  Pincussion, barrel and perspective distortion are not enough to account for the differences I'm pointing to.  As for LFL distorting photos which have been around in one form or another since the '70's and '80's I think the idea's extremely unlikely.

Furthermore, the proportions of the emitter in the Chronicles pics match up grossly with those of the saber in production photos and screen caps.

I welcome proof and illustrations for claims like this, but because of the work I've done I can't just bow to an assertion that says "well it's 'possible' that we don't really know what we think we know".  I didn't buy that in my philosophy classes and I don't buy it here.  :)  Proof, illustrations, show me.

Believe me I recognize the incredible promise of this line of inquiry, and don't particularly relish standing up as a lone voice saying "not quite".  :)
[snapback]1084942[/snapback]​
 

vaderdarth

Master Member
My point is.......I could care less about the part in that photo with the grenade.........I'm not 100% on that one........but I am on the diagrammed piece. To our knowledge, there are only two different RR engines that could be this similar.........so it's gotta be one or the other. I do acknowledge that other engines made by the same manufacturer could have the same part, however. It's just that since the IG88 head came off it.........this is the best lead yet.

Dave :)
 

Gary Weaver II

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Remember that IG-88's head isn't the only thing that came from the Derwent engine. You should also remember that the head was originally seen on the Cantina Set in ANH, then tweaked for ESB to be IG's head.

Parts form the Derwent engine can be seen in other parts of ANH. There is a combustion can behind the skeletons of Owen and Beru at the homestead.

Also, the aircover for the front/rear of the engine is also seen on the Lars Family and Mos Eisley landspeeders.

If a major interior set like the cantina and major prop like the landspeeder were made in england from a dissasembled engine it stands to reason that other parts were scattered around as well.

That makes the possibility of the Obi Emitter being one of the Derwent engine parts pretty high. Its the most plausible source yet for the part...

-Gary
 

Gigatron

Sr Member
Here is why I'm almost entirely positive the piece we're looking for is in the coupler assembly.

We know for a fact that the IG88 head came from a Derwent combustion chamber, correct? I'm willing to bet they either had a scrapped engine hanging around or an entire combustion chamber.

If they had an entire engine, they would have had to remove one of the chambers to completely unbolt the intake cover to get to the IG88 head. To get the combustion chamber seperated from the engine, they would have to disassmble the intercoupler. What they were probably left with was the air chamber (outer casing of the combustion chamber), internals and half of the intercoupler.

If they had found just the combustion chamber by itself (which I would think would be more likely - unless bapty had supplied static airplane parts to other movies), it would still have parts of the intercoupler attached. They probably pulled the whole thing apart to see what parts they had. The intake where the burner goes became IG88's head, part of the intercoupler became obi's emiiter and I wouldn't be surprised to see other engine parts used throughout the movie.

-Fred
 

Killdozer

Active Member
Wow, I really didn't have the time to spare for this today, but it's too tempting... Here's what I get, rendering the coupler from the drawings and scaling the flange to match the emitter:



It's close... but not perfect. BUT... this is from the DRAWING, not patterned after a photo. I also only count 10 holes maximum in the ring. This, too, could be different in the actual part.

Great job so far, everyone.:)
KD
 

Serafino

Sr Member
Originally posted by vaderdarth+Sep 27 2005, 08:34 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vaderdarth @ Sep 27 2005, 08:34 AM)</div>
You cannot deny the diagram matches it 100%  No matter what is on that tabletop photo... That may not be the same thing as the diagram at all.  My instincts tell me it's at least in the ballpark.    With all the lines and bevels and sizes of all the parts shown in the diagram......it just has to be it or it's cousin.
[snapback]1084955[/snapback]​
[/b]
Oh but I do deny it. :) The diagram's ring of holes is not recessed, and the 'step 1' is too narrow in diameter, just as on the pictured piece. I agree, it's too close not to be related though. :)

By the way, I'm not an 'expert', I make mistakes all the time and I encourage people to keep thinking about this and calling me on things, I am far from perfect. I'm just obsessed and have an eye for proportion and detail, and a willingness to spend unreasonable amounts of time testing my ideas.

Absolutely agree this is a GREAT lead. The more I look at the ILLUSTRATED interconnector, the more convinced I am that it IS the emitter outer shell. :)

<!--QuoteBegin-Force Commander
@Sep 27 2005, 09:02 AM
Couldn't you use the grenade in the picture to prove or disprove distortion? We know what its shape and size are.
[snapback]1084976[/snapback]​
It's not necessary, you don't get huge drops in length beyond what's normal for the perspective defined by the ellipse shapes, or sudden drops of diameter, it just doesn't happen. What you get is perspective distortion where the elliptical shape shows you the object is foreshortened, or curved or angled lines showing a gradual enlargement or shrinkage due to barrel or pincushion-shaped lens distortion.

Ugh, I wish I had more time for this today, will have to get back to it tonight.
 
Top