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

[thd9791]

Thank you, that's all I meant. Those were invisible to me until this thread, and they're so slight!

There is still the possibility of this being a re-worked Yuma stunt. Lathed body, separately made boxes. Like I said before It seems like the box and body have slightly different curvatures (so small it's obviously a mistake) and the bevels cut into the bottom might have been a decision to make it look more uniform or compact. It would also maybe leave the little gap we see in some B&W photos?

 

[BRRogers]

Well one of those is the arrow plate. There’s no chamfer on that

If I had to guess the bevels were for hand comfort (actors prefer not cutting themselves on props)

 

[Trooper_trent]

ok cool, yeah I was just asking as I wasn't sure what the consensus was. It just occurred to me that if those were also beveled, then maybe all edges were, which made the think the bottom(if flat) would have a noticeable gap. So I was just trying to understand what other people were thinking was going on there.

 

[Mouse Vader]

If I had to guess the bevels were for hand comfort (actors prefer not cutting themselves on props)

I've put in lots of flats on round bar & dovetails & some radiused 'boxes' (iron sights on rifles/pistols) & sharp edges/burrs are always created. Standard practice to knock the corners off & save sliced fingers.

 

[Trooper_trent]

Does this shot not look like it extends PASSED the groove?

and then right up against it again

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 think what Mouse Vader is seeing as part of the lip being knocked off (on the far side in that photo) is actually the curved bottom of the control box overlapping the beginning of the ridge. If it were curved and attached by a screw or something that gave it a little wiggle room, it would be able to slightly rotate. If the shot above in this post with the red arrow is the opposite angle from the one you're talking about, then it's simply a tiny bit uneven and is overlapping the beginning of that lathed groove.

 

[Halliwax]

agreed

 

[BRRogers]

Does this shot not look like it extends PASSED the groove?
View attachment 1051407

and then right up against it again
View attachment 1051408



I think what Mouse Vader is seeing as part of the lip being knocked off (on the far side in that photo) is actually the curved bottom of the control box overlapping the beginning of the ridge. If it were curved and attached by a screw or something that gave it a little wiggle room, it would be able to slightly rotate. If the shot above in this post with the red arrow is the opposite angle from the one you're talking about, then it's simply a tiny bit uneven and is overlapping the beginning of that lathed groove.

In this case:
It looks like it is close to the edge (the fat chamfer makes it harder to tell...)
If it’s the leading edge of the groove or the valley I can’t tell without going into photoshop in detail. It’s not any more than the .5mm

 

[Mouse Vader]

Does this shot not look like it extends PASSED the groove?

That's what it looks like but If you look at the front of the box in the first photo you can see that the chamfer angle is either exactly parallel to the view angle or is a little greater, ie not visible. If you look at the shadows under the brass & T strip are both exactly the same width as at the bottom of the box & it's the shadow that's making the box look like it's projecting into the groove. Also look at the shadow cast by the top angle/brass bar at that end & apply the same effect at the bottom. Is it making the base look long? If you project the chamfer that we see at the front base the same extent at the rear we get perilously close to the groove edge.

Also if you look at the lower picture, our view angle is below centerline so we have a view up at the base edge which is a strong dark line - as if bit of the flat base is overhanging? or has someone just taken the point off the radius / chamfer edge ?

I think what @Mouse Vader is seeing as part of the lip being knocked off (on the far side in that photo) is actually the curved bottom of the control box overlapping the beginning of the ridge.

Either / or. How do we tell ? not from that photo that's for sure.

Have I mentioned I hate interpreting photo's?

 

[BRRogers]

That's what it looks like but If you look at the front of the box in the first photo you can see that the chamfer angle is either exactly parallel to the view angle or is a little greater, ie not visible. If you look at the shadows under the brass & T strip are both exactly the same width as at the bottom of the box & it's the shadow that's making the box look like it's projecting into the groove. Also look at the shadow cast by the top angle/brass bar at that end & apply the same effect at the bottom. Is it making the base look long? If you project the chamfer that we see at the front base the same extent at the rear we get perilously close to the groove edge.

Also if you look at the lower picture, our view angle is below centerline so we have a view up at the base edge which is a strong dark line - as if bit of the flat base is overhanging? or has someone just taken the point off the radius / chamfer edge ?


Either / or. How do we tell ? not from that photo that's for sure.

Have I mentioned I hate interpreting photo's?

Mouse Vader

I love interpreting photos: I feel like I should’ve made this bigger

 

[Mouse Vader]

Your black lines are not referring to corresponding edges.

Inside green circle A I have traced in red the end chamfer from corner of box side to where it meets the hilt. Copied & pasted this same red line to inside green circle B so that red line starts on the corner of the box same as in A. Red line in B terminates on the groove edge.

 

[Halliwax]

 

[Trooper_trent]

LOL I'm taking that advice.

 

[BRRogers]

Your black lines are not referring to corresponding edges.

Inside green circle A I have traced in red the end chamfer from corner of box side to where it meets the hilt. Copied & pasted this same red line to inside green circle B so that red line starts on the corner of the box same as in A. Red line in B terminates on the groove edge.View attachment 1051483

View attachment 1051487View attachment 1051488

Mouse Vader
I guess I have to explain more clearly.

You’ll have to excuse me that I’m making my notes on my iPhone during work-breaks most of the time haha.

Trent was asking if the box was further out. I made the picture to illustrate no, not as far as it might’ve appeared.

The black lines indicate where the vertical box edge *would* be without the chamfer (undeburred corners as you eloquently put it)
The red line indicated where the bottom chamfer hit the box. As you have also subsequently indicated. Maybe that wasn’t clear?
The green line is the radius at the box and the body, to show where the box connection at the body radius would be on both ends.
The yellow line shows the intersection of where a completely un-chamfered box would extend to. THAT hypothetical intersection is the point on the body that the box actually presumably hits the groove. (Another route to the same conclusion, using more lines but also using the same red markers to indicate the corresponding edges you were referring to)

That’s where I was saying it isn’t overextended as the photo might imply but rather on the edge. Where we’ve been discussing it is, within at least .5 mm this whole time.


So, like. We’re saying the same thing: but I have to express that If you’re more focused on rebutting /ignoring/ discrediting my interpretation while redrawing with the similar data in different way. It’s not just playing devils advocate it’s counter-productive and frankly a bit frustrating so...

 

[Dann]

I'm so sorry I opened that can of worms!!!

Those are some MONSTER WORMS!!!

But yeah, I wanna say that what I originally thought was a very small amount of larger diameter material JUST before the groove is likely just the bottom edge of the box butting directly up with that groove, and it's the lighting playing tricks on my brain.

Too many other pics are telling me the rear end of the box reaches all the way to that groove.

 

[Mouse Vader]

Sorry BRR. I just found your line arrangement rather confusing. I did my short line vers. to illustrate my post #388 previously which could also be argued was ignored/rebutted. I'm sure that wasn't your intention - it wasn't mine either. Perhaps we should all take Haliwaxe's advice, at least for a while.

Personally I feel a little as if I've been sucked into an argument inadvertently by just trying to clarify for everyone how the flat base option can give the same appearance as a radiused one.

 

[BRRogers]

Sorry BRR. I just found your line arrangement rather confusing. I did my short line vers. to illustrate my post #388 previously which could also be argued was ignored/rebutted. I'm sure that wasn't your intention - it wasn't mine either. Perhaps we should all take Haliwaxe's advice, at least for a while.

Personally I feel a little as if I've been sucked into an argument inadvertently by just trying to clarify for everyone how the flat base option can give the same appearance as a radiused one.

Sorry yeah, I didn’t mean to get riled up on the internet over a milled surface.
I don’t mean to come off petty.
We ALL have so much invested into these props and ideas that we can get overly passionate and connected to them.
So I apologize for my part in that.
I’m truly not trying to steamroll anyone or ruin the fun.

Just to clarify
Mouse we were saying the same thing on that subject.
#387 where I had originally posted the picture as a thumbnail I reposted full size in #389
Only because I assumed you mightve not noticed/seen going into #388 not trying to ignore or rebut.
Like I said if you just didn’t see it or it wasn’t clear; that’s on me and my fat phone fingers.

Regarding the flat. It’s certainly a viable technique, and I think we’re all at the same page on it.
If I may recap

It *could’ve been* what they did if they chose to.
But TheRPF (doing as we do here) want to eliminate all the possible options to ensure that the collectively assumed one *has* to without a shadow of doubt be true.

If the flat bottom box is in consideration, a loosened/sliding box proves that’s not the case (hence under my suspicion an attempt to prove that visually)

Or assuming the radiused bottom; proving the geometry is flattened along the back groove edge would eliminate that possibility.

Unfortunately we just need to examine the prop again in person, or find a HD set of clear photos of that back seam specifically to put this line item fully to bed.

What’s the next point?
Ah.
New can of worms

How about control box grey rail construction?
I’m pretty sure each grey rail isn’t simply one T Bar but a set of smaller angles, channel, flat bar, and or squares that were glued together.

Aaannnddd... *go!

 

[Dann]

It's difficult to tell, there's so much old dried up glue in the grey rail areas.

I originally theorized and built some rails from various shapes, and I still think it's possible that's what's going on, but more recently I've been making them from just modified tees. Not necessarily because that's what I think they are, but simply because it's a simpler, more straightforward way for me to get the look I want.

Filing the stem of the tees down on either side (which ends up being the surface that makes contact with the box top edges and on the other side, the bottom face of the circuit card, and also removing a bit of material from the sides that make contact with, or pinch the side edges of the card), or using an exacto to scrape layers of material away definitely helps get that slightly wonky look.

In some pics of the real prop, it looks like it could be a grey angle, with a bit of simple square bar glued on top of it, to help pinch the sides of the card. Or an angle, with another angle flipped over and glued on top, basically creating a tee.

I think D48thRonin posted these pics awhile back, with the arrows. Sorry buddy, I don't seem to have copies of these shots sans the yellow arrows, but at least they point in the general direction I'm referring to!

But in these pics, I could see two pieces of different thickness angle glued back to back, with the thicker piece on top.

And this b&w pic is pretty good...

 

[ARKM]

IMHO, the screen used hilt is probably a bit thick, if not solid in the lower half and they probably milled a flat for the activation box. It makes sense as that's the simplest and quickest way to do it and does not require a special bit (a 1.5" ball mill which may not have existed in the early '80s *shrugs*) or barring that, using a 1.5" diameter end mill and standing the box on end which would not have been an easy way to machine it as that small part would want to shift in the vise under the extreme movements of such a large end mill. Having tried both methods with both mill bits (ok, so I only used a 1" dia. end mill for the vertical test), while making a beveled bottomed activation box myself, I can attest to this. The ball mill was way easier to use and of course slotting the hilt for a flat bottomed activation box (which I've also done), was also very simple and easy to do.

However, that said, a beveled bottom would be more conducive for an electronics install in the hilt itself as you don't need a thicker wall in the hilt to be able to mill the slot to the appropriate depth for a flat bottomed box. Since this hilt is supposed to be "install friendly", that larger inside diameter may be needed to properly fit the electronics and chassis. Definitely something to consider when deciding how the activation box will be made and mounted. Screen accuracy may have to be ignored in this issue to make everything work for electronics.

 

[thd9791]

For the raised rails - I've noticed the rails' profiles are not the same and rather ugly. Like I'm not even sure how the card would fit into the prifile on one of them. I'll get some photos and post them (feels like the ugly shaped track on the ESB Snow Lightsaber situation)

 

[thd9791]

They look like this to me, really round, or undefined. Dann, yours look clean and they look like they work. Idk how these could really work, like where would the card sit reliably?