Found! Obi-Wan Kenobi ANH Lightsaber Emitter

Boba Debt

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Originally posted by gw2tulsa@Sep 27 2005, 05:20 PM
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
[snapback]1084988[/snapback]​



Bullocks, it's a fire extinguisher nozzle :)


I can't believe all of the recent discovery that has been happening lately, it's seems to been a new era of discovery
 

amish

Sr Member
Originally posted by Boba Debt@Sep 27 2005, 01:44 PM
Bullocks, it's a fire extinguisher nozzle :)
WIth no offense to anyone, I nearly choked when I saw that....lol

It is a great time to be a collector or even an admirer of all things Star Wars.
 

Prop Runner

Sr Member
Here's another quick & dirty analysis I made:



While the part I marked "OWK EMITTER" in the red box appears to be what we're looking for, the cutaway assembly in Fig. 7 only APPEARS to belong on another area of the combustion chamber (the green box). But keeping in mind that the cutaway view in Fig. 7 is of a non-exploded assembly, you can see how the "OWK EMITTER" interconnector is most likely the one mated to the connector I overlayed in my initial analysis of the diagram. Notice how in Fig. 7 there are two parallel layers of metal skin with jagged edges - one on either side of the "OWK EMITTER" connector. The outer chamber skin on the right in Fig. 7 probably belongs to a protective cowling (not featured in the exploded view). The cutaway metal skin on the left side is represented below by the green lines:



What's missing is the protective cowling or engine cover through which the second connector which I overlayed in red earlier is attached using the threaded connectors between the inter-connectors in Fig. 7. I can't seem to identify this outer skin or cowling in any of the engine photographs - can somebody here help me out?

I'm also not convinced that the B&W photo is a good reference for measurements. There could be lens distortion or depth-of-view compression that may account for the mismatch in length of the emitter's main cylinder.

I think it's clearly time to diplomatically reach out to Rolce Royce jet engine experts, collectors, and aviation museum curators in the hopes that one of them might be able to confirm this part's measurements and possibly allow access to one for scaled reference and detail photos.

- Gabe
 

Serafino

Sr Member
Originally posted by Prop Runner@Sep 27 2005, 10:17 AM
I'm also not convinced that the B&W photo is a good reference for measurements.  There could be lens distortion or depth-of-view compression that may account for the mismatch in length of the emitter's main cylinder.

I think it's clearly time to diplomatically reach out to Rolce Royce jet engine experts, collectors, and aviation museum curators in the hopes that one of them might be able to confirm this part's measurements and possibly allow access to one for scaled reference and detail photos.

- Gabe
[snapback]1085020[/snapback]​
Gabe, great work, and I completely and wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph, but please prove that the degree of difference I illustrated can result from lens distortion or "depth-of-view compression". I bet you can't do the former with a 24 mm lens (which there's no way they used) and the latter not even with a 500 mm lens. It just doesn't work that way.

Not that it matters if we get access to the exact part illustrated on the Derwent drawings. :)
 

Gigatron

Sr Member
Hey PR,

The part with the red arrow is the outer casing of the chamber. It's refered to as the air cannister.

The green arrow is the cut away section of the air canister of the other combustion chamber.

The 2 parts circled in red are indeed the air inlet holes of the combustion chamber.

The part cirled in yellow sits inside the mounting flange boxed in red (the mounting flange is shown in the cutaway diagram and is above and below the part you circled in yellow).

The part you have labeled as threaded connectors appears to be interlocking rings that would keep the intercoupler from seperating. It would sit externally between two combustion chamber assemblies.

Again, I'll try and make this much more clear with photoshop when I get home.

-Fred
 

acerocket

Well-Known Member
Just a thought, has anybody thought to look into the Russian RD-500 jet engine. It was one of the Rolls Royce engines the Russians bought and then reverse engineered for production in Mother Russia. The RD-500 is the copy of the Derwent V (the RR Nene became the RD-45).

I can see over in the ANH flash hider thread passions are running high over those who have now 'spilled the beans' about the found part and are pissed off. To them I say deal with it (and this tirade is in no way aimed at any one person, just a general beef I have). Why on earth would you join a prop "community" and be so self centered you would deny information to the masses because you have some all powerful knowledge and feel you and you alone should know this. What sense of accomplishment is there in claiming after the found part is identified by someone else that you were the one who actually found the part but were keeping it secret - you have only succeded in being the second person to bring the info to the masses, and people don't remember who came in second. Granted, once this knowledge becomes public domain a few of the more over zealous members can ruin the deal for all of us, but that is to be expected in an hobby where accuracy is the number one goal. I myself have no intention of scouring the net for hours looking for the accurate parts. I find fun in this hobby by being able to share info with and help others with their prop building. In regards to the flash hider, I read that thread in disgust at the way some members couldn't type emails fast enough to bother someone who had an original. Please remember that we are a small community of people who share a common passion. Take it easy on the people who have the information. Too many requests (often with a very demanding tone) will get us nowhere fast.
 

Serafino

Sr Member
Acer, sadly in a public forum like this, there are many occasions when the lowest common denominator rules. These days that's a very low standard.

So some people keep secrets in an attempt to make progress and not lose out. I can understand it. Once the mob takes over, things happen which do NOT reflect the highest standards for the hobby, either in terms of behavior, or accuracy.

I haven't followed the problems in the other thread, so this is only in reference to what you've just said. If you post something publicly here, there WILL be people of mediocre judgement who will read it and act on it, guaranteed. That's just the way it is unfortunately.
 

TK171

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by gw2tulsa@Sep 27 2005, 11:56 AM
Bullocks, it's a fire extinguisher nozzle
I always thought it was from an Industrial Garbage Disposal :)

-Gary
[snapback]1085015[/snapback]​

No no no... wasn't it a urinal drain of some sort? :lol
(have to admit, I did see something similar in Jamaica 5yrs ago) silly me..

Yeah.. the RPF is fun again.. Really digging this thread (and the MG81 too)...
 

acerocket

Well-Known Member
Serafino, I agree. There will always be an element of people who react with callous disregard of others when a discovery like this is made. It is human nature to be competitive, but some people can't seem to seperate the need to win from the need to be an a$$hole.

I am all for keeping secrets, I have a few myself. When the time is right, I will share them freely with others. In the mean time, if someone beats me to the punch and announces their discovery first, I am not going to cry foul and belittle the other member for ruining 'my' discovery. In a forum like this where everybody is after the same thing, it is only a matter of time before your secret is common knowledge. Either be the first to share and revel in the glory that comes with discovery, or don't complain when someone else does. Maybe this wisdom comes with age thing has some merit. I used to be one of those win at all cost a$$holes, but now I just enjoy the opportunity to help others.

I don't think it takes reading the other thread to understand the problems, you seem to have a good read on the pulse of this already. I guess what I am really after is a little venting. I have seen this forum take a few downward turns lately and I for one am glad a thread like this comes along to help re-unite some of us for a common goal. I wasn't here in the heyday when a lot of discoveries were made, but I feel that a renewed sense of working together on discovering some items will yield a much more informative forum at the end of the day.
 

Sporak

Sr Member
Gone but not forgotten.
Though thie piece looiks about right...what jumps to my mind is that even if the ring of holes were recessed a bit...it's not angled/beveled. And the discovery was made after the DVD release that this was so.
 

vaderdarth

Master Member
Sporak, how can we determine what the face of the ring of holes looks like from the diagram........for all we know it's beveled too. I was thinking that exact thing when I reviewed the diagram again a few minutes ago. Then again.......until we see the real piece........we still don't have definitive proof it was beveled. Though we sure think so at this time. I just hate depending solely on photographic evidence when the real part is obviously out there.

Peace,

Dave :)
 

Serafino

Sr Member
Right the drawing just shows us the UNDERSIDE of what may be the ring of holes, we don't know jack about what the 'outer' face looks like.

Dave, when the real part may have many variations, depending on ONE found object to contradict photographic evidence doesn't make sense.

We went down the wrong road on the grenade with this thinking for a long time when it was staring us in the face that the lengthwise grooves were symmetrical.

Endless numbers of grenades with inaccurate stems have been made because people based theirs "on a real one"--only it wasn't the right real one.

The evidence for the beveled ring of holes is IMO incontrovertible. The large inner hole is clearly deeper than the outside of the ring, and the holes can still be seen foreshortened in shots taken at an angle where they shouldn't show at all if the ring was flat. If a found part shows up with a flat ring of holes I will still think it very likely that the prop piece was either machined or a different variation was used.

If it's possible for a flat ring of holes to look beveled, then it's possible for someone to prove it photographically. I encourage people to do just that. Prove me wrong. :)
 

Sporak

Sr Member
Gone but not forgotten.
Right or wrong, it was my first thought...

Yes, it does look like the emitter...every angle on the flanges etc are there...
 

Prop Runner

Sr Member
Ok, guys - consider this my sacrifice to the cause, because I put off paying work to do it. :)

So here's our cutaway:



Here's my interpretation in 3D CAD:



Basically two Obi Wan emitters, rings with holes, and their inner thin-walled tubes facing each other.

Now please nobody jump down my throat for not getting all my proportions, dimensions, and perspectives right - I can already tell that the ring with holes is too thick, and the sliced flanged connector on the combustion chamber rides up a little too much into the inter-connector (it was placed in an arbitrary location when I exported the image, so it can be easily fixed to match Fig. 7).

Now, if my interpretation is correct, my cutaway assembly model is missing some sort of sealant material or gasket that accounts for the gap between the connector flanges in Fig. 7, and that creates a press-fit seal between the ring with holes and the inside wall of the connector. However, if that material is pliable, the ring can be pushed into the connector so that it's just underflush, the way we're accustomed to seeing it on the Obi Wan saber emitter.

Based on this interpretation (and BY NO MEANS am I saying it's absolutely correct), here's how I interpreted the emitter/inter-connector subassembly:



And as an exploded assembly:





And now from the front:



Now... Compare to the hero:





What at first definitely looks like a step in the bottom two screen captures Sarafino enhanced, may be nothing more than the concentric-looking blemish seen in the side-by-side B&W photos directly above.

- Gabe
 

vaderdarth

Master Member
I know man.......I've been staring at it all day long now and it all appears to be there. No detail seems missing. :)
 

Gigatron

Sr Member
Here are some work ups showing how all the parts are related on the engine both internally and externally. I've tried to color coordinate to show relation between cutaway diagrams and exploded diagrams so everyone can exactly hoe everything relates to each other. I know it's not the greatest contribution to the thread but I'd like to be part of the history in the discovery of this piece :p





-Fred
 

Serafino

Sr Member
Gabe, thanks for the sacrifice. The apparent 'step' coincides with the location in other pictures of the 'reflector'. I think there's something in there, whether it's always the same thing I don't know. Maybe for some scenes the painted the reflector black, maybe it was just reflecting black unlit space above the set in those Death Star scenes, dunno.

'Step 1'--the part that fits inside, and is closest to the grenade--is proportionately too small on this thing. But the outside is just too close for coincidence (he said, preaching to the choir...)

By the way–has anyone got scaling info. for this thing? It would be pretty sad if we were getting hysterical over an ‘emitter’ that’s entirely the wrong size.
 

Prop Runner

Sr Member
Originally posted by Serafino@Sep 27 2005, 10:53 PM
By the way–has anyone got scaling info. for this thing?  It would be pretty sad if we were getting hysterical over an ‘emitter’ that’s entirely the wrong size.
[snapback]1085205[/snapback]​
I think we're pretty safe regarding the scale. Just look at the overall engine size compared to a person, and see the area of the combustion chambers:


The dude's hand is basically resting up against this circled area:





Fred: thanks for the colorization and part labeling - maybe now we can all agree on conventional part names, lol. However, I believe that if you look closely, the pale purple which you think might be the assembly next to the grenade is simply another inter-connector's inner thin-walled tube (see my 3D CAD cutaway assembly). Think of two Obi-Wan emitters facing each other, only with their "holy rings" slightly pushed out. This is how I believe it should be (feel free to change your colors accordingly if you agree :) ):



One last analysis, albiet a minor one...

I believe there might still be a slight taper on the outside surface of the ring with holes, which is not portrayed in Fig. 7:



Also, everybody should keep in mind that the cutaway diagram is an artist's interpretation. I've seen my share and even helped my clients' marketing, manufacturing, and training departments create them by working together with a technical illustrator. They are often simplified representations, and care is not always given to the correct proportions and dimensions. In the case of our Fig. 7, that may apply to the number of holes and their correct orientation. For example, look at the one hole closest to the right edge on the inside wall of the inter-connector's inner tube: the perspective is completely off - the concentric inner curve should be facing the other direction...

- Gabe
 
Top