Magic of Myth ( MoM ) Luke RotJ Hero ( cave build ) lightsaber research, images, reference, & collaborative model builder's discussion.

[Mouse Vader]

Could someone give me dims for the box (& that groove depth). Length doesn't need to be precise but width fairly close. I'd like to have a crack at a flat bottom fit to see how hard it'd be to produce what I'm seeing - if that makes sense. TT's rylo looks to have more clearance than it might have & is too 'tidy' for my liking. I'm thinking the end of the flat (if it is a flat) is going right on the edge of that groove with a paper thin burr that maybe partially missing (missing on far side in this pic),


I don't have a suitable 1.5" cutter & I doubt one would fit my milling collet or I'd try the concave base too. I also have no axe to grind on which method it is and there's good reasoning going on all round. For me it's just that we don't have good enough images of the real thing to push it one way or the other.

Sorry BRR but I'm with TT on comparing photo's this way. Each would have to be taken at the same distance with the same lens & at the same angle for such small differences to be a viable comparison.

 

[BRRogers]

That’s thing: it’s not a small difference. (Relative to everything else I’ve observed on this thing, it’s a big variation)

For example:

Different angle.similar focus.
As long as you choose the same line the information lines up. Here , I’ve placed it at the image split. The base where the back of the box meets the tube
In this case the box is still in the same spot.

I recognize the technique doesn’t apply in all cases, obviously

 

[Mouse Vader]

I do understand what you're on about & that image comparison looks ok but if I look back at the one where it's mean't to have shifted I make box on the right hand side to be shorter (top & bottom) than the left one. Given the large visible Jpeg artifacting on the right one (means an enlrgement from bigger picture) judging a 0.5 - 1mm discepancey as acurate is, for me, very questionable. Photo's can only take us so far.

 

[Verity Cosplay]

Don't disagree that yes, photographs (even using advanced photogrammetry, which we have done) only gets us so far. Resin casting measurements also only is an indicator given resin shrinkage.

Until someone has quality time with the original aluminum prop, it is all educated guess. We can make those guesses as accurate as possible but, it's still a guess.

This is why it is important to use all of the tools and methods at our disposal to try and get to ground truth as close as we can.

 

[thd9791]

I can REALLY see the chamfers on the front edges there

 

[BRRogers]

Cleaner comparison:
I mean.....

How is this not a valid comparison? The box on the left is clearly further forward

 

[Mouse Vader]

Your box alignment is reasonable at the top. I'm not sure what you are lining up with the bottom black line - the mark on the booster?

My thin red line is on the back edge of the black buttons. Given there is perspective difference with the copper strip on the right (almost plan) & the one on the left is leaning more the dif. across my line (given we're at magnification) this a small difference. Much too small call for me.

 

[BRRogers]

Ok: here’s another supporting argument.

Go back through the top of the thread. Look at all the photos.
The whole rail on the arrow side clearly has two positions between all the photos. Front aligned, or back aligned (the rails are shorter than the box)

(Now I didn’t grab timestamps for all the photos I used (or users/sources) although now that we are here I realize I should try to do that)

At some point.... there was some kind of event that MOVED the arrow side rails back, so they weren’t flush with the emitter-side face of the control box... it seems that in photos where that is present, there is also much more oxidization *and superglue residue also.

If the radius on the box is an accepted truth; is it possible that during a mishandling of the prop the box itself was shifted and the arrow-side rail fell off? And had to be re-affixed? But was done so poorly in a moment of desperation and not accuracy?

Worse has happened in a higher field (see the king tut nose debacle)

*discuss* ^_^

 

[BRRogers]

Your box alignment is reasonable at the top. I'm not sure what you are lining up with the bottom black line - the mark on the booster?

My thin red line is on the back edge of the black buttons. Given there is perspective difference with the copper strip on the right (almost plan) & the one on the left is leaning more the dif. across my line (given we're at magnification) this a small difference. Much too small call for me.

View attachment 1051097

This is black button territory: those things are all over the place... they must have been broken off and refixed a million times and the reason I tend to more or less ignore them.

Look at the arrow positions too if need be, they’re pushed up on the left as well...

If you do an image slide comparison the rail closest in perspective is the same length, so the perspective doesn’t affect it much. Like you said it’s close to plan view on both.

Beside the black buttons
No other points on the main body are altered by the shift .
The front of the box Is the only thing that shifts forward, and it reflects everywhere else sans the position of the glued on black buttons and arrow-side-rail.
This would be way easier if you could see the bottom of the box on the right side but the buttons are blocking it.

But anyway. That’s why I hypothesize that it must’ve been dropped by an archivist or other. The box moved, buttons and front rail fell off, and then were re-glued (poorly)

 

[Halliwax]

Impressive how much homework you’ve done Rogers

 

[Trooper_trent]

I also guess the "flat bottom" people are saying that the edges of the box are all chamfered except the bottom edges of the front and back of the box, right? Because if they were chamfered it would look like this

and here's that milled flat spot next to the groove with the box removed if anyone wants to see that. Sorry, still just doesn't seem plausible that that much perfection went into joining those edges so perfectly that not one visual cue was left, yet like E Williams said, then went on to make sloppy uneven rings.

 

[ThreadSketch]

Flat-bottomed box, you make the rockin' thread go 'round

 

[BRRogers]

I also guess the "flat bottom" people are saying that the edges of the box are all chamfered except the bottom edges of the front and back of the box, right? Because if they were chamfered it would look like this
View attachment 1051107

and here's that milled flat spot next to the groove with the box removed if anyone wants to see that. Sorry, still just doesn't seem plausible that that much perfection went into joining those edges so perfectly that not one visual cue was left, yet like E Williams said, then went on to make sloppy uneven rings.
View attachment 1051108

More like this, really

 

[Halliwax]

I also guess the "flat bottom" people are saying that the edges of the box are all chamfered except the bottom edges of the front and back of the box, right? Because if they were chamfered it would look like this
View attachment 1051107

and here's that milled flat spot next to the groove with the box removed if anyone wants to see that. Sorry, still just doesn't seem plausible that that much perfection went into joining those edges so perfectly that not one visual cue was left, yet like E Williams said, then went on to make sloppy uneven rings.
View attachment 1051108

Exactly

 

[Trooper_trent]

View attachment 1051109
More like this, really

So no chamfer on the front side at all then? What’s that other picture then that shows one? I guess I’m confused now.

 

[BRRogers]

So no chamfer on the front side at all then? What’s that other picture then that shows one? I guess I’m confused now.

I’m not sure what this front chamfer business is about.
2 horizontal. ( the backside and under the black buttons)
And 3 vertical. (2 backside, one by the black Button)

 

[Mouse Vader]

still just doesn't seem plausible that that much perfection went into joining those edges so perfectly

It's really not that difficult Esp when all our ref photo's are so poor. If someone can give me a basic width measure I'll prove myself wrong.

BRR - that's a long list ref's you gave. It'll take while for me go through but thanks for giving them.

 

[Mouse Vader]

"flat bottom" people

I don't think there is such a group, I'm playing devils advocate for the flat 'theory' to make sure we're investigating all likely options.

 

[Halliwax]

 

[Trooper_trent]

I’m not sure what this front chamfer business is about.