Is Darth Vader's saber blade painted (ANH) & blade flexing.

[Mouse Vader]

Thanks for sharing your theories. Let's go easy on Brandon. He owns the darned thing and has done extensive work documenting these films. He can't share everything, nor does he have to.


There is obviously a gap in our V2 knowledge about the nipple. Either Brandon was mistaken or we are, and the nipple/plate are one unit. The nipple was sort-of a collar to raise the anchor of a blade and make it more secure. Other versions of this do exist, some stunt blades apparently contain collars at the bottom as well, and I think these are all the same experimental type of system. I'm still digging around myself trying to figure some of this out in other threads. If it was part of the emitter, it would explain the set screws underneath the emitter rim, much like Anakin Starkiller's latest V2 run.

The little-block clamp being on another prop is not damaging evidence. I've said it a few times before, pieces of props got swapped around, and there is little to show they had multiples of weird parts unless they are cast greeblies (blasters).


Looking at the emitter plate, I can guess strongly that it is the V2. I just don't see why the emitter couldn't have just come loose or skipped under the set screws, leaving it stationary. These things were faulty.

I'm glad you took so much time going through everything, a lot of us have been on this ride a while, and its smart to build on or evolve the work thats already been done. If we threw out conjecture without analyzing it these threads would be very short and very few new ideas would come to light.

I posted at 12.36am it took you app.45min to find, read & compose your reply.

Well constructed & considered criticisms only please not hurried pat put downs & half baked, contradictory patronisation please, however politely put. I expected better from you.

It’s also not unthinkable that there were more then one clamp with that missing lever piece. There was just a Vintage Graflex on eBay not long ago with that same missing piece.
I

Useful info, thanks. A possible inherent weakness, though not severe enough to be common?.

As I point out If you are relying on such a features uniqueness to link the V2 to ANH, when that uniqueness disappears so does the certainty of your link. Fortunately there is the picture of a motorised V2 type with the long lever which currently is unique (but uniqueness is never guaranteed as we've just found out). Unfortunately it's a still, so no help on the emitter spin front.

Without the motor what keeps the rod from sliding out

In Brandon's post # 703 he merely states :
There's a hole in the end of the nipple, and in that hole fits a rod that is secured at the other end of the piece (in the motor chamber.)[my emphasis]

So secured some how but he doesn't say exactly how.

,and Brandon has shared some things but

We should pay close attention to what he has shared too. In post #703 he gives a clear description of how the emitter & nipple are now. If you listen to the video I linked to, from 0.23 he makes it clear that in ROTJ a different prop was used when a bladed shot/action was required & we can see from B's description that the V2 currently can't take a blade & that what is present now are replacement parts - presumably for ROTJ.

I believe he made a mistake to presume that these replacement parts some how bear a relation to what was formerly present, and my belief is based on the new static emitter evidence, so I see how he gets to where he got. (OMG is B fallible like the rest of us mortals?)

As Kurtyboy has just pointed out (yet again) there is zero positive evidence for a powered spinning emitter, there are 2 positive pieces* of evidence for it being static. The balance of probability has shifted, there's no dishonor or weakness in changing one's view to fit new evidence, it's how science & research are meant to work. Human nature, unfortunately, is to cling to what you know.
* three pieces - I'd forgotten about his stickman clip.

in a previous post that obi one would hold his thumb on the emitter to slow the speed down.

&

I just don't see why the emitter couldn't have just come loose or skipped under the set screws, leaving it stationary. These things were faulty.

These are arguments are known in debates as 'appeals to special reasons (or circumstance)'. They have limited value, which is that they are plausible, but sad to say are generally regarded as desperate measures to keep afloat a sinking ship & multiple uses (esp the same one used more than once applied to hypothetical mechanisms, thd9791) only make matters worse. Plausible does not equate to probable.

I am now completely lost when it comes to how it is together today

Understandable. Too many conjectures & misquotes will do that. Clearing some of the fog was one of my primary aims in my post #217. B's #703 post is quite clear on the emitter arrangement - if in doubt refer back to it. Try and avoid appeals to special reasons.
As Mentioned elsewhere B owns the 'damn thing'* - he's also taken it to bits, so what he has shared has to be taken as primary source material. Keep it at the top of your thinking.

*woops misquote should read 'darned thing' - sooo easy to do I know.

 

[thd9791]

I posted at 12.36am it took you app.45min to find, read & compose your reply.

Well constructed & considered criticisms only please not hurried pat put downs & half baked, contradictory patronisation please, however politely put. I expected better from you.

None of this is okay, please stop speaking to people this way or the mods are going to get involved.

 

[Mouse Vader]

a lot of us have been on this ride a while, and its smart to build on or evolve the work thats already been done.

No it's not OK, the offense went both ways, I was returning the favour.

You equate time served on the forum with ability which is false logic. What if the work that's already been done has errors in it? Sometimes a fresh pair of eyes, & differing perspective can shake things loose. I'm NOT saying your work to date is wrong I AM saying I've a right to criticise irrespective of how long I've been a member & that my opinions shouldn't be belittled.

I'm after the same thing as you are - accurate info. Cut & thrust critique is part of honing good theories. So is citation - yet people here get the hump when asked to provide it. It's basic research protocol. I've been given more that one put down over these basic research requirements which is also not OK.

 

[steven giunta]

Fortunately there is the picture of a motorised V2 type with the long lever which currently is unique (but uniqueness is never guaranteed as we've just found out). Unfortunately it's a still, so no help on the emitter spin front.

I believe the picture you are talking about does not have the long lever.thats just a nail pushed through the hole and bent to keep it in. ANH Vader lightsaber had the exact same setup .

Why are you so convinced that is tge v2 in that video and not the v3?they had multiple stunts,I’ve seen at least 3.the v2,the v3,and another stunt with the transistors in the clamp.i would argue that it is the v3 being used before I’d argue the emitter didn’t spin.

I also do not think Brandon is unfallible,sure he could be wrong.but considering he is one of the few people to hold the prop ,he might be the only person to see what is going on inside ,and he probly paid a small fortune for it so I’m sure he did hours upon hours of research ,I’m gonna take him at his word that the whole thing spun.

 

[Mouse Vader]

believe the picture you are talking about does not have the long lever.thats just a nail pushed through the hole and bent to keep it in.

This is my referred to picture.



The lever looks very 'levery' to me in this close up crop - arrowed is the lever pin? Also I have now noticed the far side clamp bar is missing (circled). Is this a feature of the V3?
Thanks for making me look at it again.

Why are you so convinced that is tge v2 in that video and not the v3?they had multiple stunts,I’ve seen at least 3.the v2,the v3,and another stunt with the transistors in the clamp.i would argue that it is the v3 being used before I’d argue the emitter didn’t spin.

I'm happy to accept whatever fits the evidence. The insistence on this being V2 is coming more from others than me. The consensus I've experienced here is that the V3 had no motor.
There is no evidence forthcoming for an emitter/blade combo that spins under power now or then or spins at all in ANH.

Which scenes are known to be of the V3 please?

“The nipple is part of the whole emitter unit. There's a hole in the end of the nipple, and in that hole fits a rod that is secured at the other end of the piece (in the motor chamber.) The two allen screws on either side of the nipple thread into a groove that runs around the end of the rod, and then the whole emitter spins around the rod.”

I hold that the above quote from Brandon is accurate... (Post#703)

The nipple & emitter are one piece. The nipple has hole in it containing the rod that secures it to the body & the emitter spins around the rod & not with it. Clearly from this arrangement the V2 can’t take a blade. There is nothing in any of this that is a clear indication that the V2 emitter as it is now bears any relation to how it as in ANH.

& that the above conclusions I draw from it are too.

,he might be the only person to see what is going on inside

He may well be but he has given a clear description of the emitter arrangement & a general description of the motor chamber. They don't permit a powered spinning emitter as they are now nor the ability to hold a blade. They have to be replacements if the V2 was Alec G's stunt saber at any point.

I also do not think Brandon is unfallible,sure he could be wrong.but considering he is one of the few people to hold the prop ,he might be the only person to see what is going on inside ,and he probly paid a small fortune for it so I’m sure he did hours upon hours of research ,I’m gonna take him at his word that the whole thing spun.

When Brandon drew his conclusions that the emitter spun, the static emitter evidence was undiscovered, new evidence has a history of upsetting things.
By all means let us agree to disagree.
I will continue to defend my position until evidence is presented that persuades me otherwise.

 

[kpax]

Fantastic and interesting info on this thread that I was never aware of!

Does Brandon’s “v2” info and video/ image comparison mean the grenade part of ob1s saber is not correct or that it was used on the static hero only?

Again, thanks to all for a very interesting thread!

 

[Trooper_trent]

I just happened to see this thread for the first time today and see there's a lot of interesting info being discussed.
Just to make sure I understand before I add myself to the discussion, here are the main points summarized as far as I can tell.
1. the Obi-Wan bladed lightsaber in ANH that has long been known to have a spinning blade, is seen to clearly be rotating whereas the Emitter piece is not.
2. That particular prop is also currently understood to be the V2, which was also later used by Mark in ROTJ for a large portion of the film.
3. are you suggesting that the emitter piece CANNOT rotate? or that it can, and is simply not seen to do so in any of the ANH clips where the blade is seen to be rotating?

My my understanding was that the blade was fixed directly to a collar that was attached to the motor shaft. The emitter section is a separate piece and absolutely can rotate. But whether it was ever afixed to the blade so that the emitter itself also rotated I do not now. If the emitter was loose and freely spun on its own, independently of the blade, then it would most likely start spinning when the blade was turned on from simple friction. This may be a perfect explanation for the gaffers tape as well as a reason for Alec Guiness to hold it the way he did.

Again, I'm just trying to understand exactly what is being posited here. If you're saying the emitter could spin but didn't (either from being held by A.G. or by gaffers tape) then I agree with you. If you're saying the emitter CAN'T spin (i.e. it's locked in a single position) then I disagree and there is a ton of evidence to support it being able to spin. Or if you're saying it's a different prop altogether and it's not the V2, there's several years of research to disagree with that as well. I'm just trying to catch up after having read the entire thread this morning and want to make sure I understand the bullet points.

 

[kpax]

Was this ever discussed? What is it? Maybe the on switch?

 

[Trooper_trent]

View attachment 1001240 Was this ever discussed? What is it? Maybe the on switch?

Yep, Power switch. It has been discussed quite a bit on the V2 threads and replicated in many builds. It's a power switch, the hole of which was later plugged with the cone knob when it was used in ROTJ.

 

[kpax]

Thanks for the reply.

Reminds me of the phaser 1 detachment pin...

 

[Mouse Vader]

Firstly thd9791 - I have upto now really enjoyed the discussions I've had with you on this forum, I'd rather that continue.
I'm perfectly willing, if you are, to disregard what's been said recently - on both side - as aberrant behavior & to draw a line under it, bury the hatched you name it.
What say you?

 

[Mouse Vader]

1. the Obi-Wan bladed lightsaber in ANH that has long been known to have a spinning blade, is seen to clearly be rotating whereas the Emitter piece is not.

This is correct. Spinning blade - static emitter. See Kurtyboy's three video clips this thread.

2. That particular prop is also currently understood to be the V2, which was also later used by Mark in ROTJ for a large portion of the film.

This is an assertion made by Brandon in the above linked 'celebrations' video. Ie the bladed prop in the duel used by AG is the V2. It has turned into a real bone of contention.

3. are you suggesting that the emitter piece CANNOT rotate? or that it can, and is simply not seen to do so in any of the ANH clips where the blade is seen to be rotating?

I am suggesting that an inability of the emitter to rotate is an equally likely explanation for the evidence.

The flack I'm receiving is that it does rotate (conveniently) in all shots where it's not visibly static & all sorts exceptional circumstances are being proffered to support that view. There is no footage, so far proffered, that shows a spinning emitter.

I keep repeating:- The emitter as it is now does freely rotate. Brandon says so in his posts. I have no problem with that.
My Caviat 'as it is now' seems to be being ignored.

The emitter arrangement as described by Brandon* - As it is now - does not permit the fixing of a blade. The hole in the 'nipple' is occupied by the rod that attaches the emitter to the body. What we see in the nipple hole is not the sawn off blade shaft it has previously been stated as being, it is that rod.
*#703 see above

Logic dictates that, if this hilt was used by Alec G as a bladed motorised stunt (which is what is being claimed) then the emitter/nipple arrangement it has now has to be a replacement made post ANH duel filming as it can not accept a blade.

There is no evidence that the current emitter configuration bears any relation to that which it replaces.

It may do - it may not. There is no way to tell which.

Brandon's opinion in his post* is that it the emitter/nipple were fixed to the motor drive shaft (implying they both rotated together with the blade) this opinion is being touted as fact - it is not, it's Brandon's opinion.
*#698

I'm pointing out that he made this opinion prior the the 'discovery' of static emitter footage, & in conjunction with the fact the emitter has been replaced means this hypothesis is not as likely as it may once have been.

I provide an alternate hypothesis in my post#217 that I hold is at least equally likely & requires no special circumstances.

Or if you're saying it's a different prop altogether and it's not the V2, there's several years of research to disagree with that as well. I'm just trying to catch up after having read the entire thread this morning and want to make sure I understand the bullet points.

I'm making no assertions as to what prop the spinning blade / fixed emitter belongs to. Only that such behavior is evident; that a spinning emitter is lacking evidence in ANH & that the current emitter arrangement being present in ANH is also now lacking evidence as I've shown in Brandon's post that this arrangement can't accept a blade.

 

[Trooper_trent]

This is correct. Spinning blade - static emitter. See Kurtyboy's three video clips this thread.


This is an assertion made by Brandon in the above linked 'celebrations' video. Ie the bladed prop in the duel used by AG is the V2. It has turned into a real bone of contention.


I am suggesting that an inability of the emitter to rotate is an equally likely explanation for the evidence.

The flack I'm receiving is that it does rotate (conveniently) in all shots where it's not visibly static & all sorts exceptional circumstances are being proffered to support that view. There is no footage, so far proffered, that shows a spinning emitter.

I keep repeating:- The emitter as it is now does freely rotate. Brandon says so in his posts. I have no problem with that.
My Caviat 'as it is now' seems to be being ignored.

The emitter arrangement as described by Brandon* - As it is now - does not permit the fixing of a blade. The hole in the 'nipple' is occupied by the rod that attaches the emitter to the body. What we see in the nipple hole is not the sawn off blade shaft it has previously been stated as being, it is that rod.
*#703 see above

Logic dictates that, if this hilt was used by Alec G as a bladed motorised stunt (which is what is being claimed) then the emitter/nipple arrangement it has now has to be a replacement made post ANH duel filming as it can not accept a blade.

There is no evidence that the current emitter configuration bears any relation to that which it replaces.

It may do - it may not. There is no way to tell which.

Brandon's opinion in his post* is that it the emitter/nipple were fixed to the motor drive shaft (implying they both rotated together with the blade) this opinion is being touted as fact - it is not, it's Brandon's opinion.
*#698

I'm pointing out that he made this opinion prior the the 'discovery' of static emitter footage, & in conjunction with the fact the emitter has been replaced means this hypothesis is not as likely as it may once have been.

I provide an alternate hypothesis in my post#217 that I hold is at least equally likely & requires no special circumstances.


I'm making no assertions as to what prop the spinning blade / fixed emitter belongs to. Only that such behavior is evident; that a spinning emitter is lacking evidence in ANH & that the current emitter arrangement being present in ANH is also now lacking evidence as I've shown in Brandon's post that this arrangement can't accept a blade.

Gotcha! Thanks for clarifying. I (as well as maybe others) did originally miss the "as it is now" specifier. Having made the V2 weathering stencils, i had to spend countless hours pouring over screen grabs trying to line up every tiny little paint chip, and it is very evident that the emitter can NOW freely spin.
I think there is agreement that the prop owned by Brandon, which is known as the V2 has an emitter that spins freely in its current configuration. That emitter and nipple are supposedly one piece (or are at least currently mechanically locked) and is secured to a rod (set screws) which is attached to the body (unknown attachment method). The fact that the rod has discerning marks on it that never change orientation compared to the emitter plate or nipple, yet the emitter plate and sides have discerning marks that DO change orientation compared to the body, indicates that while the rod is attached at the body, it is allowed to still spin. In other words the emitter, nipple and rod all rotate as a single assembly, as opposed to the emitter/nipple rotating around the rod/body assembly.
So a method of construction that would allow a motorized, spinning rod, within a fixed emitter as of the production of ANH but then evolved to a static hilt with a freely rotating emitter (held still by gaffers tape) by the time of ROTJ is what we're trying to determine in order to link the two as being the same prop (despite all of the other similarities like motor holes, wire holes, long lever, missing clamp side, paint wear, etc)


I can see two distinct possibilities that do not require the entire piece to have to be replaced.
1. the emitter and body WERE a single piece and the blade and collar had a shaft that fit down into the emitter (similarly to what was posted earlier) where the shaft was accepted by the motor (still don't know how it was secured). This spun only the blade when turned on. Then at some point, that weak area of the thin neck snapped, separating the emitter from the body and they simply held it still with a combination of gaffers tape as well as having the blade installed for additional stability. Then during ROTJ, a blade was cut off, the collar and shaft were permanently bonded (a single piece according to Brandon, as well as fits the visible separation between emitter plate and nipple) to the emitter and reattached to the body, putting it in its current configuration where the emitter can freely spin.

2.the emitter and body have always been separate pieces from day one, designed in a way to come apart to aid in installing the blade. Perhaps the emitter unscrewed so that a set screw could be tightened to secure the blade's shaft to the motor socket, then threaded back down over it to hide the set screw. If that threading was stripped or too weak, or it was just a flawed design, you'd end up with what used to be a static emitter that could now spin with the blade.

 

[Dann]

Trent, that first possibility you talk about is what I tend to think happened, but I like your second theory, too!

It makes sense, since we don't know how the blade was secured inside the body, and I don't think there are any clues that we can see on the outside of the body.

Maybe an important clue is hiding under the clamp..

 

[Dann]

Mouse, what makes you believe that the rod that's currently in the hilt was not at one time a full length stunt blade, (or rod that extended past the nipple for stunt blades to be attached to) and that it was hacked off at the end of the nipple/collar, not the neck? That's what I always assumed. It makes the most sense to me.

What if, after ANH, during production of ESB, the motor was removed, and some other apparatus (possibly what's still inside the hilt today) was installed to secure a round stunt blade, like what we see in the photos of Mark and Bob practicing?

Then when it came time to use the hilt as a belt hanger for Jedi, the blade was simply hacked off right at the nipple/collar?

 

[Mouse Vader]

The fact that the rod has discerning marks on it that never change orientation compared to the emitter plate or nipple, yet the emitter plate and sides have discerning marks that DO change orientation compared to the body, indicates that while the rod is attached at the body, it is allowed to still spin.

This is new information for me and it contradicts Brandon's statement in the post I've been quoting (#703) which states that:
"... and then the whole emitter spins around the rod."
It certain makes this a much more knotty situation.

Just been going over what you've put again:

which is known as the V2 has an emitter that spins freely in its current configuration.

should this not read 'emitter & rod' ? in view of the quote I start with.

Also if Brandon has removed the emitter from the rod, what's the likelihood of him replacing it in exactly the same orientation regarding discerning marks on emitter & rod face?

Both your scenario's a plausible, I'm sure if I put my mind to it I could come up with others. Your second is less complex than the 1st which requires several special circumstances to be accomplished, so is preferable.

They both would show a static emitter in ANH.
The problem I've been having is other members are insisting the emitter was a spinning unit in ANH. This is unsupported by any of the evidence that is currently available to me & both Kurtyboy & I have repeatedly asked for evidence of emitter spin in ANH. None has been forthcoming.

Mouse, what makes you believe that the rod that's currently in the hilt was not at one time a full length stunt blade, (or rod that extended past the nipple for stunt blades to be attached to) and that it was hacked off at the end of the nipple/collar, not the neck?

The existing blade type you allude to have collars of their own which are required to accommodate their attachment grub screw, this sitting next to the nipple would produce an overall length of metal that I'm not seeing in the ref. photo's I have.

I've been doing extensive research on ANH blades, the little primary inf there is indicates they weren't that strong, a full length blade of the type I think your referring to would make replacing a blade overly complex.

 

[Dann]

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying.

First, when you say the blades I "allude" to have collars of their own. Well, we've seen pics of Mark with the Yuma stunt, with what look like two nipples, one stacked atop the other, haven't we? Is this what you mean when you say "overall length of metal"?

I'll have to look for that pic of Mark with the "double nipple stunt" , but regardless, I'm saying that I think the V2 nipple IS the blade's collar (which became part of Luke's Jedi hilt when the blade was hacked off), since originally, this was an Obi-Wan stunt, a stand in for a hilt with a flat top. So, there wouldn't be a double nipple situation with this hilt.

What reference pics are you referring to? Pics from which movie?

And I'm not talking about ANH era blades when I'm talking about there being a full length blade in the hilt that could've been sawed off at the edge of the nipple/collar. I'm talking about ESB fighting blades.

 

[Trooper_trent]

Sorry for the edits, the multiple quote thing was causing formatting issues so I switched your original statements to bold and my responses in normal text.


This is new information for me and it contradicts Brandon's statement in the post I've been quoting (#703) which states that:
"... and then the whole emitter spins around the rod."
It certain makes this a much more knotty situation.

I think that's a semantics issue and just his choice of words meaning the rod being the axle that the emitter turns around. There is a chip in the rod that's always in the same place compared to the rest of the emitter, no matter what position the emitter is in compared to the rest of the body. The Pop Culture Quest video is where this is most apparent.


Just been going over what you've put again:
should this not read 'emitter & rod' ? in view of the quote I start with.

Sure. Yeah I meant it as a simple statement to clarify that the emitter now spins compared to ANH when it may not have spun. So again, semantics and word choice.


Also if Brandon has removed the emitter from the rod, what's the likelihood of him replacing it in exactly the same orientation regarding discerning marks on emitter & rod face?

That's irrelevant to the point I was making, which was just to show that the rod itself spins with the emitter, as can be seen in the previously mentioned Pop Culture Quest video. from shot to shot the paint chips on the emitter clock differently to chips on the body, showing that it has indeed rotated, but the rod never clocks compared to the emitter. So it doesn't matter what position he tightened it back up in. I'm just going off of the various shots of that one video.


Both your scenario's a plausible, I'm sure if I put my mind to it I could come up with others. Your second is less complex than the 1st which requires several special circumstances to be accomplished, so is preferable.

Meh... they're both just as plausible to me. in one scenario, it was one piece and broke. In the other scenario, it was two pieces and the fixture between them broke or was faulty.


The problem I've been having is other members are insisting the emitter was a spinning unit in ANH. This is unsupported by any of the evidence that is currently available to me & both Kurtyboy & I have repeatedly asked for evidence of emitter spin in ANH. None has been forthcoming.

Hmmm... could it be simply that others could have mistakenly thought you guys were talking about the blade spinning? I have to admit, when I first hopped in here and skimmed the thread, I initially thought it was yet another discussion of people "rediscovering" that Obi-Wan's blade had a motor in it and others were arguing that. To me, I read "Anyone got any videos of the emitter spinning?" and a response of "Yeah, obi-wan's spins, you can even hear the motor" indicates others also initially thought as I did, that someone was asking for elementary examples of the motor working, not specifically that the EMITTER portion was locked irrespective of the blade.
So I think the confusion might be that there's a level of attention to word usage that might be having too much weight put on to it and semantics are being argued where maybe they shouldn't be in what might otherwise be perceived as light discussion. It's easy for details to get lost the longer an explanation gets.


The existing blade type you allude to have collars of their own which are required to accommodate their attachment grub screw, this sitting next to the nipple would produce an overall length of metal that I'm not seeing in the ref. photo's I have.

I'm suggesting the collar could have BECOME the nipple. As in the emitter plate had a shallow recess in it where the collar sat, with a smaller hole, large enough for the rod. Whether the emitter was a single unit with the body or not, at some point it became separated as it is now. When referring to the emitter and nipple, Brandon's term of "all one piece could be read as the emitter/nipple were machined out of a single piece of stock, or as "it doesn't come apart" meaning it has been epoxied or in some other way permanently affixed to the emitter. As you yourself pointed out (and many others have in previous years when replicating this prop) there is a visible gap between the nipple and the emitter plate that indicates separate pieces even though they may currently be "all one piece" as in glued together or threaded or JB welded or whatever.


I've been doing extensive research on ANH blades, the little primary inf there is indicates they weren't that strong, a full length blade of the type I think your referring to would make replacing a blade overly complex.

I don't see how it would be overly complex. If the rod itself spun, then the blade and collar would slip down over the rod and tighten with set screws. This may be a case where a simple picture is worth a thousand words. I've had a rough day at work so I'm not up to drawing it up at the moment. But from what I've always understood of how the thing goes together (and again, this is YEARS of us all looking at this thing from many points of view) it's not as complex as we're making it. I see your point about their being conflicting statements but I think it may be due to what I mentioned before in that there may be too much weight given so offhanded comments like "revolves around the rod" or "all one piece."
Perhaps if I feel up to it later I'll sketch up what I mean.

 

[Anakin Starkiller]

I believe that Brandon is mistaken that the emitter and nipple are one piece. We have close up shots from ANH that show the set screws in different alignment from where they are today. I think that these two parts have just become locked together.

What I'm seeing is an emitter and a nipple that are separate parts and sometimes the set screws holding them together cause bother emitter and nipple to spin together, and sometimes those set screws come loose causing the nipple to spin with the blade while the emitter head rest stationary on the windvain/neck section.

 

[Trooper_trent]

I believe that Brandon is mistaken that the emitter and nipple are one piece. We have close up shots from ANH that show the set screws in different alignment from where they are today. I think that these two parts have just become locked together.

What I'm seeing is an emitter and a nipple that are separate parts and sometimes the set screws holding them together cause bother emitter and nipple to spin together, send sometimes those set screws come looks causing the nipple to spin with the blade while the emitter head rest stationary on the windvain/neck section.

Yes, Thanks Dan. That's what I'm trying to say. You just did it with far fewer words LOL.

Excuse the crude drawings.