Thanks Danny. So the blade collar slid over the nipple? Is that what you mean? The reason I ask is that I found it curious that the diameter had been reduced to a specific fit. Seemed to me that there must have been a reason.
The OT stunt lightsaber blades research thread
- Thread starter vadermania
- Start date
It’s so hard to explain... no collar on the v2 blade
The nipple is sandwiched between the blade and the bearing. Rod comes through the emitter, through nipple, and out the nipple
Blade slides down over the rod, and sits flush ON TOP of the nipple
Gotcha! Thank you.
I thought this might have been a collar on this reference, as it looked at first glance to be wider than the nipple. But having looked a bit closer I can see that it's actually the right diameter to be the nipple, with the blade sitting on top like you say.
Eyes playing tricks again!
This is exactly how I believe it was made. Paths of least resistance. It's hard to put to words, I think you may know this as you worked on the real thing, but although there may be a million ways to do things with the cast; once you have one in hand, however, you know exactly what you can and should do to it.
Emitter is definitely a separate piece, and if we're talking V2, so is the nipple in it. As I have it, the bore diameter in the hilts are larger than in the emitter. It's to cut down on the drive-shaft catching on the interior bore surface---resistance. The drive shaft spins freely. The collared emitter keeps the emitter and d/s true to spin. That's all.
I think it's better to say he hasn't removed the nipple. He says it moves as one but with grub screws holding it together, why wouldn't it? I don't think he's ever done a full break down of the parts, as far as we know.
The emitter being scratch or cast, I can't presume. My emitters are made from the casts, as that's what I have and that's what the evidence suggests, but that also doesn't prove that it can't be made from stock. I believe that the measurements on the final V2 emitter are too close to the V3/cast for it not to be related and simple "coincidence." Same goes with the pommels. The funny thing with the pommels is that on both the V2 and V3, there is a lot of material removed from them.
I agree with this. How, then, did they bore out so much of the V2? Did the heavy clean-up actually make the V2 more circular, and they were able to bore deeper?
Remember their percentage of success at replicating objects in the machine shop. Scratch made items on this movie never match each other - this is why I doubt they scratch made an emitter and got it to match so well. Not that it's not do-able... just the props we see
Oh yea, I can totally see the nipple set screwed in place preventing the emitter from moving
Last edited:
That's exactly it.
This is one thing that's still bugging me about the V2 emitter. I'm just not seeing how the nipple set screw would prevent the emitter from spinning. If they're two separate parts I mean. The nipple itself would be spinning with the blade, wouldn't it? Are we talking about creating a pressure fit, where friction at the neck holds the rest of the emitter in place? I'm still convinced the emitter spins independent of the nipple and drive shaft.
Theres the fact that the nipple can be seen at different orientations to the emitter plate and also Sir Alec seeming to hold the emitter to prevent it spinning (I could be wrong on that but that's how I see it).
I can't seem to get past these, but I could be missing something.
Am I just wrong in thinking that the emitter was free to spin, regardless of what the blade, nipple and drive shaft were doing?
Last edited:
Mouse Vader
Sr Member
Dave, I think I'm right in that this set up (as pinched from PoopaPapaPalps 's thread) is the current thinking on the V2. In that the emitter is joined to the neck with an internal collar / sleeve (pale gray part). I think this sources directly from Brandon ? This joint is currently loose enough to allow the emitter to rotate by hand. How tight it was in ANH is hotly debated.
I subscribe to this with the exception that I do not think the nipple is contemporary to ANH. I think there was a bearing instead very much along the lines of vadermania 's recent motorised V2 as seen on thd9791 's example here (with exposed d/s).
What I think is seen & mistaken for the nipple (in ANH) is actually the blade's collar (more of thd9791 's work on his V2).
I believe (on my own as usual?) that the bearing was removed & nipple was made as a replacement specifically to hold the whole thing together (as it now does) when it's status was upgraded to hero in ROTJ. I'm sure others will give alternative narratives .
I subscribe to this with the exception that I do not think the nipple is contemporary to ANH. I think there was a bearing instead very much along the lines of vadermania 's recent motorised V2 as seen on thd9791 's example here (with exposed d/s).
What I think is seen & mistaken for the nipple (in ANH) is actually the blade's collar (more of thd9791 's work on his V2).
I believe (on my own as usual?) that the bearing was removed & nipple was made as a replacement specifically to hold the whole thing together (as it now does) when it's status was upgraded to hero in ROTJ. I'm sure others will give alternative narratives
.
My understanding of the construction is fairly similar, but with a few differences. I've got a few theories of my own which I need to get drawn up and written down properly (and which could be completely wrong!).Dave, I think I'm right in that this set up (as pinched from PoopaPapaPalps 's thread) is the current thinking on the V2. In that the emitter is joined to the neck with an internal collar / sleeve (pale gray part). I think this sources directly from Brandon ? This joint is currently loose enough to allow the emitter to rotate by hand. How tight it was in ANH is hotly debated.
View attachment 1363384
I subscribe to this with the exception that I do not think the nipple is contemporary to ANH. I think there was a bearing instead very much along the lines of vadermania 's recent motorised V2 as seen on thd9791 's example here (with exposed d/s).
View attachment 1363385
What I think is seen & mistaken for the nipple (in ANH) is actually the blade's collar (more of thd9791 's work on his V2).
View attachment 1363387 View attachment 1363388
I believe (on my own as usual?) that the bearing was removed & nipple was made as a replacement specifically to hold the whole thing together (as it now does) when it's status was upgraded to hero in ROTJ. I'm sure others will give alternative narratives
The main difference I guess, is that I don't believe the emitter is/was fixed to the nipple. I believe the nipple spun with the blade and drive shaft. The emitter didn't appear to be spinning, which would imply that it was independent of the nipple (and everything else).
I'm also of the view that the emitter plate could have been separate. The central rod is 5/16' by my estimation. I'm yet to find a bearing with a 3/4' OD that would fit over a 5/16' rod. This leads me to think that the bearings could have been wider than the opening in the emitter plate, which makes me think it *could have been* separate.
LOM
Well-Known Member
Oh boy! I've been away for a little bit and lots has happened lol. Some lovely discussions going on here.
Another observation on the V2/V3/Buck for what it's worth: The 3rd valley from the bottom is also the deepest on each saber. If the V2 was machine from scratch, that would be some chance that those are the same.
DaveP There are 20mm OD x 8mm ID x 6mm bearings (I think the saber would be metric as well? 5/16 in is awfully close to 8mm), they are just difficult to find. They come mostly as 'flange' bearings (normal ones seem to be even more difficult to find), which could be why the nipple has a step in it - if they had replaced the bearing with a nipple afterwards based on a flange bearing/blade collar set up as Mouse suggests.
Another observation on the V2/V3/Buck for what it's worth: The 3rd valley from the bottom is also the deepest on each saber. If the V2 was machine from scratch, that would be some chance that those are the same.
DaveP There are 20mm OD x 8mm ID x 6mm bearings (I think the saber would be metric as well? 5/16 in is awfully close to 8mm), they are just difficult to find. They come mostly as 'flange' bearings (normal ones seem to be even more difficult to find), which could be why the nipple has a step in it - if they had replaced the bearing with a nipple afterwards based on a flange bearing/blade collar set up as Mouse suggests.
Well, that changes things... If 20mm OD X 8mm ID bearings exist, and were available back then, no need for the separate emitter plate. That would explain the step in the nipple too like you say. It implies the 20mm opening was a necessity rather than random.
I was looking at standard bearing sizes, and 8mm ID were all coming out larger than 20mm OD.
I'll do a little more research in to those. Thanks!I actually work in mm. I have a habit of checking my measurements against standard imperial measurments too though. Especially with things being made on both sides of the pond. I figured the stunts were made at ILM rather than the UK (I could be wrong?) so would probably have used imperial stock? 8mm and 5/16' are very nearly interchangeable though like you say.
Thanks again. I'll take a look at those and have a rethink.
This is entirely possible.
LOM
Well-Known Member
I get some good results by searching "8x20x6" bearings. Though since they are really uncommon today not sure it would've been any easier to find in the 70s which is what makes me question it a little.
I'm sure that all the V2/V3/Cast hilts during were all made on the UK side of things and not by ILMso I personally prefer metric when thinking about these (Considering Jon Bunker is UK based I'd say that's fairly good evidence that the stunts were made in the UK)
edit for future reference: Yeah I'm almost certain the sabers were designed with Imperial in mind not metric
I'm sure that all the V2/V3/Cast hilts during were all made on the UK side of things and not by ILM
(Considering Jon Bunker is UK based I'd say that's fairly good evidence that the stunts were made in the UK)edit for future reference: Yeah I'm almost certain the sabers were designed with Imperial in mind not metric
Last edited:
Mouse Vader
Sr Member
3/4 x 5/16 inch equates as 19 x 8mm. Here are examples of such I bough within the last year (?) from fleabay. I can't recall how much but given I'm tight not much. Required part code is 698RS (rubber shield) or 698ZZ (metal shield). Generally speaking the cheaper they are they sloppier the actual peices measure.
Mouse Vader
Sr Member
Imperial was still very much in the fore In the UK in late '70's despite the 'official' change over to metric.
LOL. I knew that.
I don't even know why I'd think (or write) that the stunts were made in the US. I'll get my coat. *long day*It’s not like there is a lot to keep straight regarding Star Wars.LOL. I knew that.
Lol
Thanks for this, Mouse. This was really helpful and very good of you to share.
Seems this size is technically a "miniature" bearing, which is why my search was coming up empty. I was searching for 20mm too, whereas 19mm appears to be the more standard size.
This puts the separate emitter plate idea to rest for me I think.
Thanks again!
Similar threads
