greatwazoo42
Master Member
No one's found any new news they want to share so therefore no new posts.
Tom Baker Sonic Screwdriver SHOCKING EVIDENCE!
- Thread starter Jet Beetle
- Start date
Jamanticus
Well-Known Member
I hope the title of this thread go from 'SHOCKING EVIDENCE' to just 'Investigation' then.
greatwazoo42
Master Member
That's up to Jet Beetle.
Jamanticus
Well-Known Member
PeterTheta
New Member
In case this helps dispel or reinforce current thinking, it seems to me in this frame from The Green Death that the bullet is big enough to cast a shadow on the magnet:
Straker
Sr Member
In case this helps dispel or reinforce current thinking, it seems to me in this frame from The Green Death that the bullet is big enough to cast a shadow on the magnet:
Not really. Perspective is everything. Look at his thumb in comparison to the emitter. The entire emitter is is about the size of his thumb. Most people his size and build have a thumb about an inch long from tip to first knuckle. that still makes that bullet look about a half an inch. The only reason this sonic looks bigger is because the sonic is closer to the camera. Look at the pic above from Carnival of Monsters. Different emitter head but even that bullet is only about the diameter of his finger nail or about a half inch. Based on what we know of the total length and the scale compared to the hand holding it we're all pretty sure the bullet was only a half inch diameter with an approximate 3/4 inch ring. Hell, just take a look at the emitter head in Tom Bakers hand in Robot when he was putting it on the sonic. That this looked miniscule.
Jack T Chance
Sr Member
Or, to put it another way....
Jet Beetle was blowing smoke out of his backside.
amounra
New Member
Hate to resurrect a dead(ish) thread, but I was doing some research on making a sonic and ran across all this....very glad it's here 
I didn't know the subject was so controversial....but entertaining, none the less.
I only wished to add a few observations:
a) It seems obvious that, even though the object used for the main handle of this particular prop was modified, it had to have initially been some "found object". I mean, c'mon....if it's such a hassle for everyone else to make one, I can't imagine it would be easier for its creator to make a "one-off".
b) The slanted slot on the bottom of the handle has to be an adjustment for either a shock absorber or a push drill.
c) There was some debate about the original covering material used for the Thunderbirds prop: I don't think it was milled in any way, but wrapped instead. You can see a similar style of wire wrapping if you look at a picture of the base of a violin bow. It is slightly time consuming, but far from hard. This also explains why it's not present when we see it in DW later on....the wrap had merely been removed by that point.
I didn't know the subject was so controversial....but entertaining, none the less.I only wished to add a few observations:
a) It seems obvious that, even though the object used for the main handle of this particular prop was modified, it had to have initially been some "found object". I mean, c'mon....if it's such a hassle for everyone else to make one, I can't imagine it would be easier for its creator to make a "one-off".
b) The slanted slot on the bottom of the handle has to be an adjustment for either a shock absorber or a push drill.
c) There was some debate about the original covering material used for the Thunderbirds prop: I don't think it was milled in any way, but wrapped instead. You can see a similar style of wire wrapping if you look at a picture of the base of a violin bow. It is slightly time consuming, but far from hard. This also explains why it's not present when we see it in DW later on....the wrap had merely been removed by that point.
Last edited:
Straker
Sr Member
Hate to resurrect a dead(ish) thread, but I was doing some research on making a sonic and ran across all this....very glad it's here
I only wished to add a few observations:
a) It seems obvious that, even though the object used for the main handle of this particular prop was modified, it had to have initially been some "found object". I mean, c'mon....if it's such a hassle for everyone else to make one, I can't imagine it would be easier for its creator to make a "one-off".
b) I'm really surprised that nobody has voiced the suggestion that the handle might be made out of a shock absorber of some kind. It seems obvious to me....there's even an adjustment at the bottom for changing the tension (the slot, which was originally covered up before it made it to the set of Who).
If it is a shock absorber, there are probably a lot of these things out there...and they probably aren't expensive to come by (at least until someone finds out which one!). The size seems a bit off for automotive use, but a spring shock seems like the sort of thing a machinist would have lying around for use as a prop.....
c) There was some debate about the original covering material used for the Thunderbirds prop: I don't think it was milled in any way, but wrapped instead. You can see a similar style of wire wrapping if you look at a picture of the base of a violin bow. It is slightly time consuming, but far from hard. This also explains why it's not present when we see it in DW later on....the wrap had merely been removed by that point.
Yeah, we've been through all of this, thing is it's not hard or even remotely difficult to make the handle, it's like, four parts if you count the spring. Lower grip, upper sleeve, center shaft and spring. I think people just tend to think it's construction is so simple that there has to be more to it rather than what is is. People thought it was a shock absorber for years same with the Yankee drill. There was another thread and a few posts in this thread about the possibility of it being a shock absorber but there's no shock absorber that looks like this so...good luck there.
IMO a shock absorber is a stretch because of how much it would need to be altered. Most shock absorbers have a flat part on the end that a bolt would go through so it can be a shock absorber. You'd need to machine them off, then make the tension to light that you can move the with one finger. I've also never seen a shock absorber that had a stationary center shaft with something that moved around it like a sleeve, usually on a shock absorber the center shaft moves and I've never seen anything the opposite way around and to actually take it apart and retool it just to do THAT? You would be better off making something from scratch to do what you want rather than force something to do what it isn't meant to. Certainly cheaper on a low budget of a UK program.
It's been gone over already that many think it's possible that the handle was wrapped for some reason or another at one point, milled is just a theory that is an alternate to the wrapped handle...but either is inconclusive. I think at this point wrapped is more likely. Unfortunately this is just treading old ground again unless someone finds something that looks more like it that a chiropractic tool but also was in existence around 1965/66 or so to be used on Thunderbirds are Go unlike the chiropractic activator then the accepted theory is that it was a scratch build.
It's been pretty much confirmed by the people alive that were involved in both TB and DW production that the classic sonic was made in house by the propmakers and DEFINITELY NOT a found item. That myth has been laid to rest.
Purpleblancmange's excellent blog goes into far more detail about this as he used to talk to JNT quite a bit about it and he also spoke to those propmaker's involved in the original productions. Everyone agrees that it was entirely made by the prop department for Thunderbirds and was supposed to portray a futuristic screwdriver. Thunderbirds used to make a huge amount of their own props in house.
All this talk about it being a found item that was modified is just unsubstantiated waffle. It is simply not true.
Purpleblancmange's excellent blog goes into far more detail about this as he used to talk to JNT quite a bit about it and he also spoke to those propmaker's involved in the original productions. Everyone agrees that it was entirely made by the prop department for Thunderbirds and was supposed to portray a futuristic screwdriver. Thunderbirds used to make a huge amount of their own props in house.
All this talk about it being a found item that was modified is just unsubstantiated waffle. It is simply not true.
markquested
Well-Known Member
As the above member has said, check out Purpleblancmange's blog -
Classic Sonic Screwdriver – Archive Update « PurpleBlancmange
amounra
New Member
Thanks for pointing me in that direction (although I had already read those posts when I made mine). It remains in my mind that the handle was made from some other object. Why would the open slot at the bottom be machined into the handle, and then be covered? True, perhaps this was an addition by the BBC crew after they ended up with it...but, personally, I don't think so, and I haven't heard any evidence/conjecture/anecdote to suggest it was. Maybe the original manufacturer changed his mind while making it, and decided to cover up.
"Made", not "Found"....well, yeah. It was made. But what was it made out of? Multiple items....yeah....but what were they originally? Why is the bottom of the handle a perfect convex? Lots of other questions, too, hehe.
No big deal. I retract my "shock absorber" proposal after doing a little more looking... I don't think so, now. But I DO think if people keep their eyes open, eventually we'll know what was originally used to make this neat little prop. Maybe I'm less concerned at this point about "what it was made out of", and more concerned about "how was it made". Maybe this guy that made the original Thunderbirds prop was, well, just a freaking genius.
Unfortunately, we'll probably never know for sure. I'll try not to lose sleep, though
Funny....I could have cared less about this before last night. Now I'm all intrigued. Anyway, "on your way, nuttin to see, nuttin to see"....
"Made", not "Found"....well, yeah. It was made. But what was it made out of? Multiple items....yeah....but what were they originally? Why is the bottom of the handle a perfect convex? Lots of other questions, too, hehe.
No big deal. I retract my "shock absorber" proposal after doing a little more looking... I don't think so, now. But I DO think if people keep their eyes open, eventually we'll know what was originally used to make this neat little prop. Maybe I'm less concerned at this point about "what it was made out of", and more concerned about "how was it made". Maybe this guy that made the original Thunderbirds prop was, well, just a freaking genius.
Unfortunately, we'll probably never know for sure. I'll try not to lose sleep, though
Funny....I could have cared less about this before last night. Now I'm all intrigued. Anyway, "on your way, nuttin to see, nuttin to see"....
The slot in the base was machined to incorporate the added retention system when the prop was revised. It was not there originally. Nothing you see on that prop was 'found'. Except the internal spring and the added halo back during latter seasons.
Nothing you can buy off the shelf was used to make this prop apart from the spring and allen screw. It was not made of anything originally except just stock aluminium tubing and bars (of that time) that were machined to the specs of the prop department.
Nothing you can buy off the shelf was used to make this prop apart from the spring and allen screw. It was not made of anything originally except just stock aluminium tubing and bars (of that time) that were machined to the specs of the prop department.
Straker
Sr Member
And the magnet during the later seasons obviously.
But yes, there's no evidence at all to suggest it was made out of found objects unless you want to consider raw materials as a "found" item...in which case, sure, they found some raw aluminum bar and tubing and made it into the prop.
amounra
New Member
@ Straker
Wow, you caught that post fast (like, before I edited it two minutes later).
@ Everyone: obviously you guys have thought about this a lot more than I have.
I am curious, though: how did this "retention" system work, or supposed to work, if it ever did? The groove seems like its on the wrong side, facing the wrong direction, to me....
Also, how does the top extension shaft keep from coming out of the base/handle (that was another detail leading me to prefer the "found" argument, since this sort of thing might be more easily accomplished if the handle was cast instead of milled).
I suddenly feel like I'm debunking UFO sightings or something....
Thanks for all the replies!
Wow, you caught that post fast (like, before I edited it two minutes later).
@ Everyone: obviously you guys have thought about this a lot more than I have.
I am curious, though: how did this "retention" system work, or supposed to work, if it ever did? The groove seems like its on the wrong side, facing the wrong direction, to me....
Also, how does the top extension shaft keep from coming out of the base/handle (that was another detail leading me to prefer the "found" argument, since this sort of thing might be more easily accomplished if the handle was cast instead of milled).
I suddenly feel like I'm debunking UFO sightings or something....
Thanks for all the replies!
Straker
Sr Member
Good timing.
As for the retention system...I don't know. XD As for the center shaft, pretty much the way everyone does it. There's a set screw in the 45 degree cut in the base that you screw into the center shaft to lock it in place...well I SAY everyone but Russ just threads the bottom of the rod into the grip and the set screw is decorative. It's actually pretty easy either way.
Two years on, let's bump this thread again! This seems like the definitive Mark IV sonic screwdriver thread (at least the best one I've found) even though it started as an object found thread.
It seems like the question of the most accurate dimensions is still up in the air (even the Sixteen 12 product had a number of revisions). I only saw it mentioned once in all my reading but the technical manual has a scale drawing of the screwdriver. Is there any reason that it's not to be considered the most accurate?
It seems like the question of the most accurate dimensions is still up in the air (even the Sixteen 12 product had a number of revisions). I only saw it mentioned once in all my reading but the technical manual has a scale drawing of the screwdriver. Is there any reason that it's not to be considered the most accurate?
The technical manual drawing is filled with missing details, so there is no reason to assume the dimensions are accurate. Some of the obvious missing details: the cutout in the back of the cylinder of the emitter, the use of bars instead of screws to support emitter cone and cylinder, the angled cutout on the handle where you can see the spring, the angled flat on the "knob" on the handle, and the "knob" set screw. That's just the most obvious stuff, but that many missing or wrong detail make the accuracy of the whole diagram very questionable in most peoples view.
