# The only truly Canon Length of the TOS E is 960.83 feet long...



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

In the D-7 thread uss columbia asked a question about the official length of the Klingon D-7.

To which Phil responded there was a scaled drawing of it compared to the Enterprise in TMOST and that the same drawing appeared onscreen.

Which makes the drawing canon, of course.

I don't remember anyone in the series saying the ship was 947 feet long that I can recall. I may be wrong about that. It's happened before. 

I checked an old Lincoln Enterprises poster that had dimensional callouts listed as a 710 foot length for the D-7.

I decided to checkout the TMOST drawing, both from my poster and the one printed in TMOST.

On both of them I noticed that one Klingon nacelle is longer then the other, and that the length of the D-7, depending on which nacelle you used, would be approximately 226 or 230 meters, depending on which length nacelle you used.

That didn't jive with what has been printed on my Lincoln Enterprises or another poster I have with callouts listed as 710 feet.

So I decided to apply the scale to the TOS E and find out what I got.

The scale from the only canon measurement of the TOS E, seen onscreen and printed in TMOST, 

puts the length of the TOS E at 960.83 feet long.

Unless there were other mentions of the 947 foot length somewhere onscreen,

*the only truly canon measurement for the TOS E puts the ship at 960.83 feet long! *

Discuss amongst yourselves...


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Oh give me a break! The Lincoln Enterprises poster is now canon?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Pay closer attention. I compared *both* the TMOST drawing and the exact copy of it that was printed on my poster.

The only reason I even mentioned the Lincoln poster was as an explanation as to how I came to measure the TMOST drawing, which as Phil pointed out, appeared onscreen.

Try to keep up with the rest of the class, young man.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Anybody who wants a copy of the properly scaled TMOST drawing, I scaled it to 1 pixel per 1 Real World inch accurate to the scale included, 

just email me and I'll email it back to you. 

Or you can do what I did and scan the paperback TMOST drawing and increase it until you get 2400 pixels between the center of the slashes underneath zero and 200 feet.

If you scan the paperback edition at 600 DPI and increase the pixel count by 446.0966542751 percent, that should get you there too. Unless there is some variance in editions, which is possible I guess.

To check you have scaled accurately, just make sure you have 2400 pixels between the center of the slashes between zero and 200 feet. 

Then you can block out, copy and paste whatever you want into a new image. Then check the pixel width. Divide the pixel count by 12 and you have your length in feet.

Also make sure you level your scan beforehand, of course. 

I'm astonished no one thought to check this before now.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Also, if someone has room to host it somewhere and link to it in the thread just email me, by changing it from greyscale to B & W I have gotten the file size down to under 600k.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ I'll host the image for you when I get it.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

From another thread:


Chuck_P.R. said:


> There is no joke. You need to read what I wrote more carefully.
> 
> I did not say the Lincoln Enterprises poster was canon.
> 
> ...


I thought you were saying you took the 710' as canon and then determined the size of the 1701 accordingly (which would be a joke alright, especially since the same poster that said 710' probably also said 947').
I misunderstood. In fact, it seems, your statements about the poster saying 710' had nothing to do with your 960' assertion. The 960' is simply based on the scale bar in the canon image. Correct?

And the way I read your post now, I think you're saying the D7 measures 226 or 230m based on the canon image only. Right?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Correct.

I got the 710 length statement from a poster that included the TMOST overhead drawing, but it also had other callout measurements - including the length of 710 feet on other views.

I decided to then check the callout length measurement of 710 feet that appears on several different Paramount approved(but non-canon) posters, and make sure the TMOST scaled drawing agrees with that length.

It does not. More shocking, the scale doesn't agree with non-canon statements made elsewhere that the length of the TOS E is 947 feet.

Roddenberry might have told the design staff to make the ship the 947 feet that is quoted everywhere,

but when you scale the only canon, seen on screen measured drawing of the TOS E you'll find that the TOS E comes out to be 960 feet, not 947.

I am quite surprised no one else picked up on this before now. It's not some weird printer error either. The same drawing that appears in TMOST also appears at a larger size on my poster. When I rescale it, my larger version printed by a totally different printer then the people who did the paperback, it also matches the drawing I scanned from TMOST exactly.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I'm astonished no one thought to check this before now.


People have. I recall it distinctly from the older "how long is the 1701" threads, but I'm too lazy to find an exact post. Due to the small size of the graphic in TMOST and the distortion in them, measurements from the scale are not very accurate.

You're claiming a 1.3% increase in 1701 size from 947' to 960.83'. I think it's highly questionable that you can get this level of precision from a tiny, probably distorted image. But I haven't seen your scaled image yet.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

The *TMoST* illustrations as printed in the book are distorted. The originals are not:










This was scanned from the original artboard illustration, and comes courtesy of *MGagen*, who was kind enough to share it with me a few years ago.

Everyone can believe as they like, of course. But this illustration confirms a figure very close to 947 feet.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

You can get Chuck's image here.

(For some reason, neither IE nor Firefox will display it (reporting errors in image), but if I save it and then view it with another program it's fine. Might be a problem with the mime-type set by my web server. I'll check on it when I get a chance. For now, click save-link-target-as.)


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I've also seen Mark's clean one before, but it's a different picture from the one that appeared on screen. Does anyone have an undistorted, high-resolution version of it?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

That is not the canon "seen onscreen" drawing I'm talking about.

That is a totally different drawing.

The one I'm talking about is the overhead TOS/Klingon drawing that appeared onscreen.

The whole crux of the issue is that the one I'm talking about is the one that is canon.

I've got tons of stuff showing the enterprise to be 947 feet, but none of it made it onscreen to my knowledge.

I've got three different copies, and while one has heavier lines then the others, the scaling is exactly the same.

None is lined so heavily that they cannot be properly scaled.

There appears as if the original had a crease in it near the bottom Klingon nacelle, accounting for the screwed up bottom nacelle.

But other then that apparent crease, there is no distortion.

I know that the one below says 947 feet. But that one was not seen onscreen to my knowledge.

The one that was seen onscreen clearly scales the TOS E to 960 feet.



aridas sofia said:


> The *TMoST* illustrations as printed in the book are distorted. The originals are not:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> I've also seen Mark's clean one before, but it's a different picture from the one that appeared on screen. Does anyone have an undistorted, high-resolution version of it?


I just emailed you one, as you asked.

The only distortion is that it appears that the original was creased at the very bottom near the edge of the bottom Klingon nacelle.

There is no other apparent distortion whatsoever.

If one were to flip and insert the top Klingon nacelle for the image of the part of the bottom nacelle where the page appears to have been creased, you would have a perfect drawing.

That small crease that only effects part of one Klingon nacelle cannot be said to make the entire drawing distorted. 

The rest of the image is perfectly undistorted. 

It uses those stylistically heavy lines that I hate so much, but all that is required is that you measure from the center of those lines.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

i know this one wasn't onscreen. But its the best there is at the moment -- I'm saying the one that _was_ onscreen and was published in *TMoST* was *distorted* in its publication. It's *not representative of the original that was onscreen*. You would need to find the *original* or an *undistorted scan of the original* that was onscreen in order to ascertain what the (God I retch when I type this damned word) _canon_ length.

This is the best I can do at the moment, but it ain't gonna cut it for deriving measurements:



















Saying this illustration is significant for anything other than determining the intended length is extremely dicey at best, since the illustration departs significantly from the model as built. *jefferies* said it was 947 feet to Whitfield, and showed us it is 947 feet by his scale bar. Taking measurements of this illustration to circumvent what he stated would at least depend on an undistorted illustration, and also an illustration of the canon (there I go again) 11 foot model.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

aridas sofia said:


> i know this one wasn't onscreen. But its the best there is at the moment -- I'm saying the one that _was_ onscreen and was published in *TMoST* was *distorted* in its publication. It's *not representative of the original that was onscreen*. You would need to find the *original* or an *undistorted scan of the original* that was onscreen in order to ascertain what the (God I retch when I type this damned word) _canon_ length.
> 
> This is the best I can do at the moment, but it ain't gonna cut it for deriving measurements:
> 
> ...


I don't agree that the ones in TMOST are distorted, except for part of the Klingon port nacelle.

The scales appear to be positioned exactly the same, and it now occurs to me that they used the heavy black lines so it would be visible on TV. Had they used regular blueprinting lines you'd probably see absolutely nothing on your set at home.

If they distorted the images in some way(a claim I don't see any evidence of) then they distorted the scales in the same manner. The scales on the two drawings from TMOST appear to be in exactly the same place as the scales in your pictures above. Your pics don't seem to vary in any way from the TMOST pictures.


The second image is exactly the one I was talking about.

I believe it was shown on the main bridge viewscreen once, too in B & W.

If you scale it out, it comes to 960 feet, give or take an inch.

I'll be happy to email you the file if you want.



BTWay, _the first image's scale is does not put the TOS E at a length of 947 feet either_. It puts the TOS E as a hair under 940 feet.



So I guess since both scales were seen onscreen I was incorrect that there is only one "canon" length.


We get to choose between a 940 length or a 960 length.


Personally I'd go for the 960 foot length.


Makes more sense then 940 feet, the other canon length. 


Also, I think I have those exact color images somewhere.
I'll see if I can find them, but I don't expect them to differ.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Ooops, before uss columbia askes, I decided to measure the D-7 in the first sideview picture.

Not only does that scale make the TOS E out to be under 940 feet,

but it tremendously increases the size of the D-7 from what has been previously stated as a canon length of 710 feet to a length of 735.83333 feet or 224.0534 meters.

Yet another weird D-7 measurement.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

I'm not debating whether it is 947 canon feet -- no amount of arguing with anyone is going to change that fact, even if the ghost of *Matt Jefferies* rose from the grave and proclaimed it to be different. That one is settled far more than, say the Greg Jein NCC numbers. I'm not saying that illustration onscreen is distorted. I am saying -- and know it to be true -- that the illustration *as printed* in *TMoST* ended up being distorted. I doubt it was intentional, and likely happened in the composing of the pages. * MGagen* pointed this out to me and I checked his claim, and was surprised it was the case. Like many things, it had slipped by me.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Distorted in what way?

I have a poster that doesn't have the screwed up Klingon nacelle on it, but is otherwise the same. Other then being much sharper. The lines are blurrier in the TMOST version, but the center of the lines on the ships and in the scale are in exactly the same places.

Is the crease that screws up the Klingon nacelle in the overhead view what you are talking about?

If that is not it, please explain the distortion you are talking about.

Also, what distorted drawing are you talking about? The one Mark gave you an undistorted version of, but which never appeared onscreen anyway?

If you are talking about a distortion in one of the two seen-onscreen images other then the screwed up Klingon nacelle, please explain in what way that image is distorted.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Ooops, before uss columbia askes, I decided to measure the D-7 in the first sideview picture.
> 
> but it tremendously increases the size of the D-7 from what has been previously stated as a canon length of 710 feet to a length of 735.83333 feet or 224.0534 meters.


Chuck is a mind-reader! 
I was indeed thinking of asking how well the two images canon images agree with each other, and I saw your answers before I needed to ask.
Do you have a scaled image of the side view image as well? (Email it to me and I'll post it, too.) (In case anyone missed it with the flurry of posts, I did post a link to Chuck's scaled image hosted on my server.)


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Distorted in what way?


The saucer is out of round (by 5%), for one thing.

BTW, one shouldn't put too much stock in "Okudagrams" -- they tend to just use what's handy. If you take them too seriously, you'll believe there really is a giant rubber ducky on the E-D, that the 1701 has "one deck per hump," that a bunch of the FJ prints are canon, etc.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

In addition to the saucer being out of round, I noticed that her nacelles differ in length by 0.6%. (This isn't much, but the difference between 947' and 960.83' is only 1.3%.)


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

You really shouldn't joke about FJ.

I think Roddenberry attempted to majorly mess over FJ by trying to get FJ make a set of blueprints for him to illegally sell through Lincoln Enterprises while ignoring FJ's questions as to who had the rights to Trek for about a year. 

FJ had to go to Paramount to find out that they, not Roddenberry, held the rights. On top of that FJ's the only guy I've ever heard of to ever cut a deal with Paramount to retain 100% of the rights to a book he did using Trek(the Tech Book). Gotta admire the guy! 

Then all of a sudden once FJ finds out Roddenberry had been stringing him along for almost a year and almost talked him into allowing Roddenberry to publish an illegal set of blueprints, everybody in Roddenberry's inner circle suddenly started disrespecting and belittleing Franz Joseph. 

Sounds like sour grapes, piled upon some serious dishonesty, to me.

But on the other stuff...

There is no Rubber Ducky on the Enterprise D!?!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Actually, I believe the Roddenberry/Schnaubelt exchange was that Roddenberry didn't think that the SFTM would sell all that well - if at all - so gave his blessing for Mr. Schnaubelt to negotiate his own deal. Thus, the FJD works are Trademarked and owned by his daughter, Karen Dick. 

I don't have time to read thru it all, but you can find several articles at Trekplace.com that go in to detail.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I meant no disrespect of FJ! I admire his work. I like the fact that the U.S.S. Columbia, NCC-621 was canonized from FJ's work (the diagram appeared in an "Okudagram" and the name and registry were in Epsilon 9 background chatter).
We really should probably call them Franzograms or (Schnaubeltograms) instead of Okudagrams!
Still, background audio and background graphics don't deserve the same weight as foreground material.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> Actually, I believe the Roddenberry/Schnaubelt exchange was that Roddenberry didn't think that the SFTM would sell all that well - if at all - so gave his blessing for Mr. Schnaubelt to negotiate his own deal. Thus, the FJD works are Trademarked and owned by his daughter, Karen Dick.
> 
> I don't have time to read thru it all, but you can find several articles at Trekplace.com that go in to detail.


That's where I got my info. Interviews with FJ and his daughter.
FJ wrote and called Roddenberry several times over an 11 month period asking him if he was the owner of Trek. All the while Roddenberry was getting review versions of his blues.

FJ had to talk to Paramount legal to get his answer and find out Roddenberry no longer had the rights to Trek and was selling tons of Paramount stuff illegally.

I still remember going to a convention in the 70's at the time that Paramount very first started to crack down on fan produced memorabelia, books and blueprints. Roddenberry tried to brag that he was taking up the fight on behalf of fan producers in order to convince Paramount not to sue any of them.

I guess he was arguing with Paramount and trying to get them to not sue, considering the fact that it's unlikely anybody was a bigger offender then his own company Lincoln Enterprises... 

Don't get me wrong. I'm sorry for Roddenberry that he made such a bad deal with Paramount and lost the rights to Trek.

But that was not FJ's fault, and he shouldn't have been disrespected by Roddenberry's crew as he was just because he didn't make the same kind of mistakes Roddenberry had made when negotiating with Paramount.

FJ was very unfairly mocked by Roddenberry's hangers-on for no other reason then he was very successful. 

FJ's blues and then techmanual made the top of the best sellers lists.
It's quite possible that without FJ's two works showing that books about a TV series that had been off the air for six years could make the top of the best seller list, Trek would never have made a comeback.

Now we take it for granted. But in 1975 the blueprints of a fictional craft from a TV series that had been off the air for half of a decade making the top of the best sellers list was viewed as a cultural phenomenon.

Until then the mainstream media had never paid much attention to Trek fans.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> Chuck_P.R. said:
> 
> 
> > I'm astonished no one thought to check this before now.
> ...


What the heck, I was bored.
Start here and read posts 137, 139, 142, and 147. (It's been discussed elsewhere, too, probably in the older 1701 scale thread that no longer exists or in one of the two bridge threads, or on trekbbs. I always remember what I've seen but not necessarily exactly where or when.)


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Actually, it's not discussed in any of the posts you listed.

What is discussed is the drawing.

But not a single person in any of those posts actually applied the scale included in the drawing.

One person even says the scale confirms a length of 947 feet.

They were clearly assuming it did. They did not bother to actually measure the dimensions of the drawing.

Everyone has seen that drawing, I'm not talking about a conversation about the drawing's existence.

What I'm talking about is someone doing the calculations and figuring out that the drawing's scale indicates a length of 960 feet in the overhead view, in the other view 940 feet.

Neither one of those drawings bears out a length of 947 feet.

That's my point, not simply whether the drawing has been discussed before.

Everyone in those posts just assumed the drawing I'm talking about indicates 947 feet.

No one in those posts noticed or said anything about it actually indicating no such length.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I think that, from a *legal *standpoint regarding canonicity, Chuck has a very valid point. :thumbsup:


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I don't know about "canon" and I could care less about it. In anything but scifi modeling, you always see how closely parts of the "real" thing match up with your scale model, not only in appearance, but in scale. The Enterprises (TOS and Refit) just don't work in their supposed scales. The only actual sizes we have for anything related to Trek is for the shuttlecraft and the TOS shuttlebay. The TOS shuttlebay as Jeffries drew it doesn't fit into the E as Jeffries scaled it. The E is about 35% too small to contain the shuttlebay.
There was 1979 Andy Probert sketch of the TMP standard and long range shuttles in circulation here in Hobbytalk somewhere just lately. Probert's dimension for the standard shuttle, the one that should fit inside the bay, is 40'. The PL shuttle at ~1 1/4" long would then be ~ 1/426 scale, not 1/350. That's about 22% smaller than it should be. 
Somewhere along the line, it's pretty obvious that when Roddenberry decided that the E was twice as big as when the miniatures were made, the Enterprise went the route of the Gemini 12 becoming the Jupiter 2 or the Seaview gaining a flying sub hangar. 
The Enterprise simply doesn't work. 
If you actually try to model the shuttlebays and put then inside, you'll see. 
I have a 1/726 scale hangar bay ready to go into my 1/537 Refit and there's just no way of reconciling those differences. I'm putting my perfectly scaled 1/350 scale bay into what appears to be a 1/426 scale PL kit. (Edit: actually I'm not - it won't fit. I've built it as a standalone model and am squeezing a second drastically narrowed version into the PL kit.)
If the Es size enlarges by even 20%, maybe the bridge will actually fit where it's supposed to be and there won't be tissue paper thin walls between the command crew and vacuum. (Why are the decks like 12 feet deep while the bridge has no clearance whatsoever? It just doesn't make sense.)
Making the Es trying to "work" must be the 2000s version of debating the number of angels that could fit on the head of a pin. 
I guess I'm a modeler, not a theologian.


----------



## portland182 (Jul 19, 2003)

starseeker said:


> I'm a modeler, not a theologian.


Can you say that like De Forest Kelley?

Jim


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

starseeker said:


> ... The TOS shuttlebay as Jeffries drew it doesn't fit into the E as Jeffries scaled it. ... If the Es size enlarges by even 20%, maybe the bridge will actually fit where it's supposed to be and there won't be tissue paper thin walls between the command crew and vacuum.


Re: the bridge, please see the recent Does the bridge fit in a 947' ship" thread. (Or if you're bored, go read this one.

On the shuttle bay, there's been lots of old and recent discussion here and elsewhere, with lots of flame . If you filter through the noise, you'll find that the gist is that the model of the hangar and the lens used made the bay look too large; the model was intentionally distorted (forced perspective / to accomodate cammera/lighting). The Jefferies diagram in TMOST is of the distored model not of the "real" hangar. However, a workable though snug bay does fit. The Phase II cross section (available on cloudster) by Jefferies in '77 shows a version that fits and probably matches the designer's intent for the "real" shuttle bay on the original 1701. In the remastered Galileo 7 episode, CBS did a CGI hangar that comes closer to fitting. The size of the shuttle is also at issue: it's stated to be 24'; the miniature seems to agree; the full-size exterior seems larger; the full-size interior is larger still and clearly won't fit in the exterior.



> I'm a modeler, not a theologian.


Yes, "canon" is overrated. Sensibility and believability are more important. The official word on Trek canon is that it's in the mind of the observer, which of course is the real case whether officially sanctioned or not. Still, it can be fun to look at consistency/inconsistency of what we've seen and heard in the shows.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Actually, it's not discussed in any of the posts you listed.
> 
> What is discussed is the drawing.
> 
> ...


That one person is David Winfrey, whom I'm sure you respect.

He does indeed imply that he did indeed use the scale to measure the length of the ship, just as you did. He just didn't claim that the result is accurate to five significant digits as you do! When he says that the diagrams confirm a length of 947 feet, he's right! To reasonable precision, the images do indeed confirm this size pretty closely. Based on your stated measurements from these images, you get 940' and 960.83' -- both less than 1.5% different from the actual 947'. That's agreement within a very reasonable tolerance. Such agreement, though not accurate to the 0.01 foot, lends considerable weight to the veracity of the 947' claim.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

BTW, recall from that thread that the primary candidate sizes discussed were 947' vs. 1072' or 1080' (i.e., 1/96 scale times 134" as-built or 135" as specified).

David Winfrey's statement about confirming 947' can be interpreted to mean that of the those choices, 947' is the one confirmed by the canon.


----------



## Commander Dan (Mar 22, 2001)

uss_columbia said:


> BTW, one shouldn't put too much stock in "Okudagrams" -- they tend to just use what's handy. If you take them too seriously, you'll believe there really is a giant rubber ducky on the E-D, that the 1701 has "one deck per hump," that a bunch of the FJ prints are canon, etc.


...or that the refit Enterprise is a Constitution-class ship.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Wow! Nothing like being late to the party.

_ For the record_, the scans I provided privately to a couple of our members were not intended to be posted online (and never have been by me) because they actually come from the Profiles in History auction catalog. Professional level image processing was able to tease out a lot of detail from them. 

What's remarkable about these images is that they are direct scans of the original artboards used to make both of the images seen in the above screen caps and the drawings found in TMOST. They also present almost no distortion (unlike the TMOST copies); and they included both crop marks and details of the illustration boards they are drawn on. This enabled me to remove what tiny bit of distortion there was and also scale them to the original size.

The screen caps show backlit litho negatives that were shot from the artboards and displayed with colored gels taped behind them. The only variance is that the words "Star Trek" were either added later, or more likely, were covered by white paper when the negatives were shot.

As far as the widely disparate sizes between the two views that Chuck mentions, I'm afraid I don't see it. A careful scaling of the artboard image yields a length of about 950 for each. Keep in mind that's working up from a small 200 foot scale rule. A two foot margin of error when working that way is to be expected. However, if we assume the 947 figure is correct, scale the drawing that way, then look at the ruler we find it matches up perfectly. 

To Starseeker I would say: What's amazing is_ how well_ the Enterprise _does_ fit together -- _when_ you look back to Matt Jefferies original concepts. It's really only when the necessary compromises of TV production come into play that we become stuck with improbabilities. A case in point is one you brought up: The shuttlecraft. In this case, we have an exterior set piece and an interior set that were actually designed to a consistent scale. The drawing in TMOST shows how cramped it was intended to be, with a figure walking the aisle hunched over due to the low ceiling. But TPTB decreed that the actors needed to be able to stand up in the interior set, so even though it was already being built, they "raised the roof" -- changing the angle of the front interior wall, eliminating any line of sight for the pilots, leaving us with unnaturally low chairs and giving "canon headache number 39" to fanboys everywhere.

M.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> That one person is David Winfrey, whom I'm sure you respect.
> 
> He does indeed imply that he did indeed use the scale to measure the length of the ship, just as you did. He just didn't claim that the result is accurate to five significant digits as you do! When he says that the diagrams confirm a length of 947 feet, he's right! To reasonable precision, the images do indeed confirm this size pretty closely. Based on your stated measurements from these images, you get 940' and 960.83' -- both less than 1.5% different from the actual 947'. That's agreement within a very reasonable tolerance. Such agreement, though not accurate to the 0.01 foot, lends considerable weight to the veracity of the 947' claim.


 

Actually that's not what Winfrey said. While I like and respect Dave he actually argued that the entire graphic could not be considered canon, even though it appeared onscreen, because it used a scale of feet instead of meters. Which was an absurd argument. 

He never bothered to check the measurements. Probably because he holds the unscrutable position that if something appeared in English units it's not canon. Go figure.

Now onto the statement about 960 and 947 being the same.

Maybe in these days when kids are given trophies for bothering to show up in school, praised for being smart when they show no extraordinary ability or even effort, our culture has gotten to the point where 

people pat on the back those who can not get basic math right, give them an A for effort and pass them on to make room for the next soon-to-be-deluded student; the general public might agree with you.

But I'm not the general public.

Our popular culture that has degraded our educational system to the point we are laughing stocks in terms of math and science among the western, and a few eastern, countries due to it's assertions that close enough is good enough.

In today's schools competition is a dirty word, being precise and accurate is something that is no longer demanded in most schoools unless you have the money to send you children to parochial or private schools.

*But math is still math. It is the one area that should not be dummied up and made to appear that it has anything to do with opinion. *

Unless you want to live in a country where engineers, doctors, air traffic controllers, architects and others build and do things "close enough."

*This entire issue is about numbers.*

*Saying that a drawing that shows an object to be 960 feet long shows it to be 947 feet long because 960 feet is less then two percent off is just plain wrong.*

A one percent difference in something that is supposed to be 947 feet long is a *big* difference.

If you doubt that consider what would happen if during the construction of a battleship they didn't get each and every bulkhead precisely in the proper place. 

Math is either right or wrong. Thirteen feet longer is thirteen feet longer.

Spend hundreds of thousands of dollars building a home and make the mistake of building it a measely thirteen feet onto an implacable neighbor's property.

You'll then quickly see just how much being off thirteen feet off can matter as your neighbor forces you to tear down the side of your house.

This entire discussion is centered around math. When you're talking math, saying 960 is equal to 947 is just not correct.

Try to land a fighter jet onto the deck of the 947 foot Aircraft carrier Enterprise at an angle that brings your aircraft below the landing deck level ten feet short of the deck and see how much an extra thirteen feet can matter.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> *Saying that a drawing that shows an object to be 960 feet long shows it to be 947 feet long because 960 feet is less then two percent off is just plain wrong.*
> 
> A one percent difference in something that is supposed to be 947 feet long is a *big* difference.


Except we aren't talking about something that is 947 feet long. We're talking about a drawing that is what? 1, 2 feet long. 

If you draw something at 1/1000 scale, the difference between 947' and 960' is 0.156 inches. Do you really think that a diagram, drawn by hand, which was not going to be used to build a fully functioning, full scale ship is going to be that precise?

EDIT: Just read early postings on this thread. If I'm reading it right, the original drawing was a 1/2400 scale. At that scale, the difference between 947 and 960 is 0.065 inches.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

MGagen said:


> Wow! Nothing like being late to the party.
> 
> _For the record_, the scans I provided privately to a couple of our members were not intended to be posted online (and never have been by me) because they actually come from the Profiles in History auction catalog. Professional level image processing was able to tease out a lot of detail from them.
> 
> ...


Actually I have a very clean version of the drawings also seen in TMOST.
I have no idea which drawing you are talking about, as there are three different ones being discussed.

I also have a version of the drawing posted by Aridas that is cleaner then the one you gave him. So don't feel guilty about it being posted.

If that's what was auctioned then whoever bought it paid for an original of which there are much sharper copies of in existence.

Both the overhead view and the other drawing you gave her appear in an old Lincoln Enterprises two sided poster that allegedly was created for the writing staff.

I actually had a pretty good scan of the negative side view. I've hunted for it but it seems that it was one of the files I had on my old hard drive that was fried by Katrina. I had gotten it from a guy who said he got it from someone who was working with Geoffrey Mandel on his first star chart. He was supposed to use it for some outline views but decided to make newer ones instead. I bought a copy of the star chart when the guy sent me that scan, intending to compare and see what he was talking about. I just now realize I never did check the star chart I bought on Ebay(the older version, not the new one). Now I can't even find the darn star chart! 

Anyhow, I'll email the guy and see if I can get another copy.

I was disappointed when I saw Aridas' colored screengrab. I had not known at the time I got it that it had appeared onscreen. I didn't even check to see if it was a color file, I assumed it was a greyscale plain ole negative.

It's good to know that I wasn't missing anything and the colors were from a gel and not directly attached to the drawing.

Hopefully I can contact him and get another scan of it.

I haven't bothered to check the one you gave her, maybe that one or the side view is the one you are talking about, but it is not true that the overhead view scales anywhere near 947 feet.

I posted the TMOST scan instead of the overhead from that clearer poster view because other then the heavier lines in the TMOST they match up the same if you measure from center of the line to center of the line.

The one I have from the poster uses thiner sharper lines, but that is the only difference between the two.

Scaling via selection of the center of the exterior-most lines, neither in the clean version of the overhead, nor in the one with thicker lines in TMOST will the TOS E scale come out to 947 feet, the overhead view scales to 960 feet, give or take a couple of inches.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BEBruns said:


> Except we aren't talking about something that is 947 feet long. We're talking about a drawing that is what? 1, 2 feet long.
> 
> If you draw something at 1/1000 scale, the difference between 947' and 960' is 0.156 inches. Do you really think that a diagram, drawn by hand, which was not going to be used to build a fully functioning, full scale ship is going to be that precise?
> 
> EDIT: Just read early postings on this thread. If I'm reading it right, the original drawing was a 1/2400 scale. At that scale, the difference between 947 and 960 is 0.065 inches.


I have a much larger and sharper version then in the TMOST drawing.

However it nonetheless overlaps the TMOST drawing perfectly, the thinner lines hit dead center apon the thicker lines in the TMOST drawing.

Maybe years ago sitting at a drafting table with a ruler it would have been difficult to scale such drawings.

I scaled both drawings to 2400 pixels per the 200 ft scale. I.E. 1 pixel per real world inch.

And yes, you can properly scale such drawings and figure out the length to about an accuracy level of 2-4 Real World inches.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I have a much larger and sharper version then in the TMOST drawing.
> 
> However it nonetheless overlaps the TMOST drawing perfectly, the thinner lines hit dead center apon the thicker lines in the TMOST drawing.
> 
> ...


Exactly what was the scale of the original drawing? That is the important factor here. 

And yes, it was harder years ago to scale things. If I understand your claims, these drawings were made 40 years ago. Which is my point.

And an important thing to remember is that there was no reason for the drawings to be accurate down to 1/100 of an inch. 

You're logic seems to be backwards. The drawings are a representation of a supposedly real ship. You're assuming the drawings are accurate down to .001 inches and scaling it up precisely. This is like translating a sentence into Japanese and then back to English. There are just going to be too many inaccuracies (no matter how small), to be this precise.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BEBruns said:


> Exactly what was the scale of the original drawing? That is the important factor here.


The scale of the drawing is independent of the size of the drawing.

Not trying to be smart here, but the scale of the drawing is indicated by ...

the scale *on* the drawing. 

See^^^. I smiled when I said that! :lol:


As far as the size of the original drawing, who can possibly know?

Neither the poster(even though it's much clearer, not much bigger but much clearer) I have on which it appears nor the TMOST versions are originals.

But I doubt that whoever drew the original did so on the back of a napkin. I'm sure it was reduced from a larger drawing.

But it's impossible to know how big the originals were. According to MGagen they were reduced from Artboard drawings, but how big those artboard drawings were who can tell?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BEBruns said:


> And an important thing to remember is that there was no reason for the drawings to be accurate down to 1/100 of an inch.


You've hit apon a major point:

*accurate to what?*

That is a question *we assume* we have an authoritive answer to.

We do not.

There was never any statement in the series that the ship was 947 feet long.

How can anyone argue that something is inaccurately scaled because it doesn't show a length of 947 feet,

when there is no statement or graphics in the show to place the length at 947 feet?


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Whether or not it is stated in the show itself, the 947' is from an authorative source. Nowhere on the show was it stated that Kirk's middle name was Tiberius and he came from Iowa. But it was an accepted part of his background and eventually was canonized in the movies.

You are making the claim that the 947' figure is inaccurate. But the evidence you present is simply not precise enough to prove that point. You can use it to say the length is approximately 960', but the margin of error is great enough that 947' could be just as accurate.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BEBruns said:


> Whether or not it is stated in the show itself, the 947' is from an authorative source. Nowhere on the show was it stated that Kirk's middle name was Tiberius and he came from Iowa. But it was an accepted part of his background and eventually was canonized in the movies.
> 
> You are making the claim that the 947' figure is inaccurate. But the evidence you present is simply not precise enough to prove that point. You can use it to say the length is approximately 960', but the margin of error is great enough that 947' could be just as accurate.


Where is this fictitous margin of error coming from?

It's a simple matter of math - counting pixels. 11520 pixels - one for each inch, in my scan. You might not start at the center of the line you are measuring as precisely as I have, but you're not going to be too many pixels off unless you're intentionally careless, and even then you aren't going to get a big difference.


But I'll happily accept *any *proof you have that the overhead drawing - when scaled according to the scale included - can make the ship 947 feet long.

Heck, I'll make it easy for you:

show me how you can say the ship is less then 958 feet. You don't even have to show it getting down close to 947.

You must use absolutely nothing but the drawing itself.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BTWay, uss columbia, you said you posted that scaled image, but I can't find a link anyware...


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

BEBruns said:


> Exactly what was the scale of the original drawing? That is the important factor here.


According to MGagen, the original artboard was scaled at 1" = 96' (1/1152 scale).

But Chuck's image is a rescaled scan of the distorted image in TMOST. (I pointed out earlier that in his image the saucer is 5% out of round (which is enough to be very obviously out of round at a glance), and the nacelles differ in length by a small amount as well.)

If we could measure the original artboard drawings, we'd likely find that the length is very close to 947' in both views. (MGagen, based on good images of the original artboard, says they are very close to 950' if you go by the 200' scale bar; or the 200' scale bar is very, very close to 200' if you go by the 947' ship length, which is the more reasonable direction to go -- measuring the largest known distance for higher accuracy.) The negatives shown on screen might have distortions relative to the original artboard drawings (which would make the distortions "canon"  ). And of course the original artboard drawings don't exactly match the as-built models.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> BTWay, uss columbia, you said you posted that scaled image, but I can't find a link anyware...


It's back a couple of pages.



uss_columbia said:


> You can get Chuck's image here.
> 
> (For some reason, neither IE nor Firefox will display it (reporting errors in image), but if I save it and then view it with another program it's fine.)


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Heck, I'll make it easy for you:
> 
> show me how you can say the ship is less then 958 feet. You don't even have to show it getting down close to 947.
> 
> You must use absolutely nothing but the drawing itself.


Let's have you answer your own challenge, shall we:



Chuck_P.R. said:


> BTWay, _the first image's scale is does not put the TOS E at a length of 947 feet either_. It puts the TOS E as a hair under 940 feet.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> BTWay, uss columbia, you said you posted that scaled image, but I can't find a link anyware...





uss_columbia said:


> It's back a couple of pages.


Mayhap someone else in this thread needs to pay closer attention to what's going on....


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> Let's have you answer your own challenge, shall we:


Actually now that I double check it should be 941.6 feet, give or take a couple of inches. Even half asleep I was still close.


I'll be happy to email you the file and you can tell me where I have gone wrong.

How's that?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

The occasional friendly jab aside, let's remember to respect each others thoughts and opinions and to not offer up a condescending attitude towards others. If it looks like the other guy is getting a bit worked up over something, perhaps it has become time for everyone stepping back away from their keyboard for a bit and getting a little perspective. 

To whit: *I will not hesitate to lock this thread and give people who Can't Play Nice With Others a 10 Day Time out*. *Lloyd and Rob won't hesitate to do the same in my absence. * 

Please continue w/the discussion and keep it friendly.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ I like your style, Griff! Drop in and deliver a quick shot and then tell everybody else not to do the same! :lol:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ What he said...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

*Poke head into thread*

*see exactly what I expected*

*Back out slooowly*


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^^^ Lmao!


----------



## DX-SFX (Jan 24, 2004)

I've only just jumped into this thread and haven't read it all but there is always a danger of picking one on screen item and calling it definitive upon which all further assumptions are made. There are profile silhouettes of the Enterprise on the bridge by the turbo lift. In fact they're more frequently on screen and therefore equally valid if not more despite not matching the other drawings. To arbitrarily take your pick of one particular on screen item might suggest some of the many possibilities but it can never be called proof while other equally strong evidence exists.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

The images we are talking about are the only seen-onscreen ones I'm aware of that have scales in the image. I'm totally open to hearing about other information, images etc from the series. 

If you can find any others that also have something intended to indicate scale please share them. I'm open to considering any on air image or on air dialogue about that from the series.

There are only two scaled images that I'm aware of so far, so it's not a matter of choosing one from tons of different images. As far as I know there are no other scaled references. It's not really a matter of choosing these as opposed to others intended to show scale, as there so far doesn't seem to be others.


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

Yes - these do seem to turn into shooting galleries fairly quickly...

(Dons body armor and releases safety...)


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Where is this fictitous margin of error coming from?


From the fact that the drawings were made by hand with pen and ink and manually placed staight edges, etc. From the fact that the scale measurements would be calculated with sliderules.

Going back to high-school math, I think this is really a matter of accuracy versus precision. No one is disputing that the drawing is accurate, but you are basing your calculations on them being precise down to less than 1/1000 of an inch.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

uss_columbia said:


> ^ I like your style, Griff! Drop in and deliver a quick shot and then tell everybody else not to do the same! :lol:


Just trying to keep the peace, more than anything. As StarCruiser said, these things get heated fairly quickly because of the passions involved. I've been guilty of that, myself. 

My jab at Chuck was done tongue-in-cheek and meant as nothing more than a friendly jab. I've got no problems with such as long as they aren't meant to be condescending and/or get someone really riled up. I see a lot of that here, as well. Playful jabs are one thing, cheap shots are a totally different game and - again - given how passionate a lot of us are on these subjects they can ignite some flames pretty quickly.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Griff, 

you do know Star Trek is just a TV show, right?

Don't get so worked up. :tongue:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

You mean Orion Slave Women _aren't real_?!?  

Oh, man...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BEBruns said:


> From the fact that the drawings were made by hand with pen and ink and manually placed staight edges, etc. From the fact that the scale measurements would be calculated with sliderules.
> 
> Going back to high-school math, I think this is really a matter of accuracy versus precision. No one is disputing that the drawing is accurate, but you are basing your calculations on them being precise down to less than 1/1000 of an inch.


I'd be interested in knowing how you came up with that number.

But it's not important. Physical size is irrelevant. 

I get the kind of argument you are trying to make.

You are trying to explain why the scale doesn't produce a measurement of 947 feet, and discussing degrees of proportional correctness.


But in doing so you are missing my point.

To understand my point you have to put what you think to be fact out of your mind and pretend you never heard that the ship was 947 feet long.

You are still comparing the drawing to your preconceived idea of how big the ship should be.

My point is that when you look at the drawing *without distracting yourself with preconceived notions* the true margin of error(more like sloppyness) would be a few pixels, which in the drawing I have amounts to maybe a foot total if you were way off the center of the lines straddling both ends of the drawing. You'd have to be way off the obvious center of *both* ends of the drawing to be off that much.

The drawing is the drawing. The scale is the scale.

If you would refrain from trying to use outside sources to measure the drawing it would be clear that the length of the object in question, based on the scale in question gives us a length of 960 feet.

The scale is a static object. The drawing is a static object.
The center of the lines at both ends of the scale are discernable.
The center of the lines at both ends of the drawing are discernable.

There could be a technically introduced distortion of 3 pixels on the left-most lines and 3 pixels of the right-most lines. So there might be a technical margin of error of 6 pixels or six inches.

Anything more then that is not a matter of not being able to measure accurately, but not trying to.

It is easy to accurately determine the width of the scale relative to the width of the ship. They don't change. They don't flucuate. They are finite.

If the picture were twisted in some sort of swirling fashion like those used to obscure the faces of witnesses, then maybe the scale would be undeterminable.

The center of the lines of the drawing can be found reliably. The center of the lines of the scale can be found reliably.

This drawing has a finite scale.

The fact that there may be other drawings does not make this drawing in any way difficult to properly size.

I'm pretty sure I know how this scale came to be applied in a manner that makes the ship 960 feet in the overhead view.

But because someone didn't apply a scale that makes the drawing read 947 feet is not an issue of accuracy.

It has no effect on being able to properly scale the drawing with the scale given.

It's inaccurate to say that the drawing can not be accurately measured.

It has a static discernable scale the center of whose starting line and ending line can be found. It has a static discernable drawing the center of whose lines can be found; to which the scale can be accurately applied.

The scale can be measured the drawing can be accurately measured.

If you would not compare the drawing to other outside information and just look at it and measure it that would become clear. 

I'll gladly email you a high resolution version of the file to look at. If you want a copy just email me.

I realize it is difficult to put what we know about other sources of info out of your mind.

I felt the same way for a few minutes. So I know how you feel.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck, you betray a blissful ignorance about real world issues regarding the scale at which a drawing is made. A ten foot long drawing might be able to depict the degree of accuracy you claim; a ten inch one simply cannot. The vagaries of pen thickness, the thickness of the rulers and drawing tools, The angle at which the pen touched the paper, even the roughness of the artboard can and does introduce a serious lack of precision. You're thinking on the issue is comptelely abstract -- with no connection to real life issues of the drawing. I take it you've never actually had any drafting training.

Let me clear up a few misconceptions:

The image Aridas posted, on second look, may not even be the one I sent him. My image shows some traces of halftone screening. I also do not believe I have ever shared the full color, full resolution images I made.

There was some question raised about which images I referred to in my post. The images I refer to include: the top view of the E & Klingon, The side view of the E and Klingon, the multi-view of the E itself with no dimensions, and the section view with the overhead comparison to the aircraft carrier. The specific images I mentioned were the originals of the two that were seen in on the screen in the show.

The auction images are MOST DEFINITELY of the original artboards. They show the entire board, the pencil drawn crop marks, the Zipatone screen cut onto the aircraft carrier image, the rub-on transfer lettering. Some of them even show the percentage markings at which they were photographed for TMOST.

The exact scale of each drawing is discernable from internal evidence.

THE DRAWINGS SOME FOLKS ARE SPLITTING HAIRS OVER DEPICT THE SHIP ONLY ABOUT TEN INCHES LONG.

I'm definitely one who likes to be in the "exact knowledge" camp. But in this case, Chuck, you're barking up the wrong tree. These measurements are not being dealt with in the rarefied heights of abstract mathematics. This is a real world example of built-in lack of precision. Margin of error IS a mathematically quantifiable issue. You're leaving it out of your calculations.

M.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

aridas sofia said:


> i know this one wasn't onscreen. But its the best there is at the moment -- I'm saying the one that _was_ onscreen and was published in *TMoST* was *distorted* in its publication. It's *not representative of the original that was onscreen*. You would need to find the *original* or an *undistorted scan of the original* that was onscreen in order to ascertain what the (God I retch when I type this *GOSH DERN IT* word) _canon_ length.
> 
> Saying this illustration is significant for anything other than determining the intended length is extremely dicey at best, since the illustration departs significantly from the model as built. *jefferies* said it was 947 feet to Whitfield, and showed us it is 947 feet by his scale bar. Taking measurements of this illustration to circumvent what he stated would at least depend on an undistorted illustration.


Have you checked your email lately?

You never know what you might find in there.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

MGagen said:


> Chuck, you betray a blissful ignorance about real world issues regarding the scale at which a drawing is made. A ten foot long drawing might be able to depict the degree of accuracy you claim; a ten inch one simply cannot. The vagaries of pen thickness, the thickness of the rulers and drawing tools, The angle at which the pen touched the paper, even the roughness of the artboard can and does introduce a serious lack of precision. You're thinking on the issue is comptelely abstract -- with no connection to real life issues of the drawing. I take it you've never actually had any drafting training.


Really? I've never presumed to insult you MGagen.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would return the favor.

Again, accurate compared to what?

No one wants to answer that question.

You are claiming a margin of error and inaccuracy based on comparing the drawing to a length that never appeared in the series.

If you would stop doing that and measure the drawing in question you will find that in both drawings the ship scales far beneath and far above the 947 foot length (in relative terms).

You cannot measure that drawing and say that you cannot find the center of the lines of the drawing and the center of the lines of the beginning and ending hash marks of the scale.

You are stating that these features cannot be accurately found in the drawing?



Again, no one wants to measure the actual drawing.

They want to say it is inaccurate based on totally outside information.

Try measuring the drawing instead of repeating information that does not exist in the drawing or anywhere on screen.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Here are some supper low res versions of some 400 DPI scans. There are considerable file posting limits here so I'm posting low res versions.

According to the source, he had access to two different versions of negative transparencies. One was black and clear. The other black and clear but was colored.

His may not be the exact set seen onscreen, he claims several copies of the black and clear transparencies were produced. The colors look similar to what was onscreen but that doesn't mean anything as he had to scan it with a backlit scanner and I'm sure the brightness of the scanner was different then however the one that did appear onscreen was backlit.

He claims the copies he had access to were colored via the use of very thin translucent silkscreening ink or dye.

For some reason he says his copy had the colors painted on the front of the transparency and not the back where at least ignorant old I would expect it.

His did not have any gels attached.

However, as I said before these may not be the exact ones seen onscreen, but he believes them to be from an original set.

Particularly interesting is the fact that even though the drawings are different sizes the scales are the same size. In neither drawing does the E scale out near 947 feet, however.

I thought some of you might like to see them.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Note: not only did I have to reduce the file size, I had to use JPEG compression, which I now notice has introduced weird looking breaks in many of the lines.

I'll email uss columbia a higher res set. If he can't host them perhaps he can at least attest to their sharpness.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Here are some supper low res versions of some 400 DPI scans. There are considerable file posting limits here so I'm posting low res versions.


For what it's worth, here are Chuck's full-size images: top and side.

(I notice that this image is slightly less distorted than the TMOST scan: the saucer is only 2% out of round rather than 5% and the nacelle length mismatch (on the 1701) is only .4% rather than .6%.
I also noticed that the ships are not perfectly square with the page in either picture, but the difference is only about 1/2 degree, which will provide only a miniscule additional error when measured on the square.)

Chuck: Please understand that noone doubts your ability to measure these drawings accurately. Your measurement precision is the least of the uncertainty. The image itself contains lots of uncertainties, including the distortions already noticed (that are probably not in the original artboard), the accuracy of the original drawing (which is only 10 inches), and the fact that the Enterprise drawn doesn't represent the as-built ship.
You have noticed that the size of the ship depends on which drawing you measure: either 941.6 or 960.8. Assuming these measurements are perfectly precise, that gives you a margin of error of at least 19.2 feet, meaning the canon length is likely to be between 941.6 and 960.8 feet. Barring other information, we might be tempted to accept the mean; but we do have other information. So, we're left with 947' with the canonized images doing absolutely nothing to discredit this, indeed lending their support.

Edit: fixed the links (I forgot to paste in the filenames before).


----------



## scotthm (Apr 6, 2007)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Again, no one wants to measure the actual drawing.
> 
> They want to say it is inaccurate based on totally outside information.
> 
> Try measuring the drawing instead of repeating information that does not exist in the drawing or anywhere on screen.


According to the drawings that you have provided, 100' does not equal 100'.

Take the scale bar from 0' to 100' and compare it to the scale bar from 100' to 200'. You will find that they are not the same length. (See attached images.)

Which 100' section of the scale bar did you use to make your measurements, the first or the second?

---------------


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ Good point! I had failed to include this in my lists of uncertainties.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Really? I've never presumed to insult you MGagen.
> 
> I would greatly appreciate it if you would return the favor.


I don't get that Mark is intentially insulting you, Chuck. I think he's just sort of taking a playful, friendly jab. However, since you've taken it that way, I'll ask Mark - and other folks - to not do so in the future, if only in this thread.... 


> Again, accurate compared to what?
> 
> No one wants to answer that question.


I think he's meaning "compared to general engineering drawings" or the standard of making & interpreting such drawings. I might be wrong and don't mean to put words in Marks mouth. However, that's the intent that I get from what he's said in his post above. 

At this point, I have to point out as an outside observer that you don't seem to be "listening" to what other folks are saying while you're telling other folks that they aren't keeping an open enough mind on the subject of the length. At the very least, you're coming across as someone too wrapped up in your own machinations on this subject to stop and think about what other folks are saying - several of whom have working backgrounds that deal with such drawings. Basically, you're too close to this discovery to see that your hypothesis is flawed. 



> Again, no one wants to measure the actual drawing.
> 
> They want to say it is inaccurate based on totally outside information.
> 
> Try measuring the drawing instead of repeating information that does not exist in the drawing or anywhere on screen.


I think you're making an assumption about what Mark's done. He doesn't say if he's measured your drawing or not. Regardless, from my little bit of knowledge on the subject - gleaned mostly from following similar discussions in the past - it seems to me that any printings made of any images by a home printer would be subject to some distortions. Unless you're using an engineering computer, you'll get those distortions.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

I'm going to take another stab at this, and then decide whether I'll have to flee this thread and the others like I have the TrekBBS. Life is just too short to get this wrapped up in something I know is being misunderstood, and can't seem to do anything about. 

The full size drawing Chuck created from the TMoST images is enlarged far beyond the size it was when originally drawn. That means small defects in the original illustration -- even things like the thickness of the ink on the vellum and the shadow it will cast -- will be magnified. Add to that the fact that this is at best a sixth generation copy -- original to stat to plate to printed image to scanned image to screen image -- and you can see the major problems with trying to extrapolate scale information. I rechecked my scans and they manifest all kinds of differing distortions. I repeated Chuck's exercise and got figures as wildly diverging as 920', 960' and 950' depending on the quality of the image I use. 

And I have to agree with MGagen's comment that it is wholly inappropriate to even use these illustrations to derive precise scale length. The scale bar reflects scale down to ten foot increments -- that is telling us the drawing is only to be used to gauge distances within ten feet -- nothing more precise is possible. AND THAT IS WITH THE ORIGINAL DRAWING, NOT THE NTH GENERATION COPY.

Trying to ascertain length down to the fraction of an inch from these images is worse than trying to find the track of Oswald's bullet on the Zapruder film -- that information might be there, but it is wholly obscured by surrounding "noise" that it's wholly and inextricably immersed within. On Jefferies' illustration, the best we can do IF WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL is get within ten feet of what he is trying to communicate.

I can only say this -- the guy that drew the illustration said the ship was 947 feet long, and the best reproductions of his illustration confirm a length pretty close to that figure -- certainly within the ten foot accuracy he is indicating by his scale bar. That has always been good enough for me, and remains so.

Oh, and BTW Chuck... it's "he," not "she."


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

scotthm said:


> According to the drawings that you have provided, 100' does not equal 100'.
> 
> Take the scale bar from 0' to 100' and compare it to the scale bar from 100' to 200'. You will find that they are not the same length. (See attached images.)
> 
> ...


I what I mentioned earlier, I used neither and both.

Quite simply put as I said before I measured and used the entire scale, not a small piece of it, as that is a strategy designed to introduce a greater margin of error.

If you will read a couple of different post I made earlier, and check the earlier postings that uss columbia made of the high res file I made,

You will notice that a couple of times I have specifically said that it is measured scaled so that the center of the line of the zero hashmark and the center of the line of the 200 foot mark is equal to 2400 pixels.

I was aware that there was an offset in the centerlines of the TMOST drawing I had at the time, and on the poster drawing I had at the time, and in these newer files.

In the process of scaling both of the two earlier prints so that both of their scales yield 2400 pixels between the center of the 0 and 200 hashmarks, I accidentally did what apparently was done by the same people who created the negatives.

As I also pointed out a couple of posts ago, if you look at the new files that are supposed to be from originals, while they obviously applied uniquely created scales, both scales are the same size between the points of 0 to 200.

Again, it had been apparent to me that the scale in the overhead drawing had the middle centerpoints shifted somehow.

But if you will compare the two scales from both drawings you will find that the points from 0 to 200 are exactly the same width.

Apparently whoever was tasked to create the graphics had created two "0 to 200" scales and either didn't notice, or had not enough time to change the fact, that the drawings on the negatives were slightly different sizes.

That does not mean that it is not clear that 0 to 200 on both drawings' scales are not intended to mean 0 to 200.

Their total lengths are identical. Cut out and overlap both scales and that will be apparent.


While I did not tend Drafting University, it makes the greatest sense to me that one would use the entire scale to measure what was intended by the artist, not a smaller part of it.

I'm including three comparisons for inquiring minds. They all use the latest images I have(which I believe is the most authoritative).

The Overhead view's scales, which I copied twice and flipped the entire scale so that it was compared against itself.

The Sideview scales, done exactly the same way.

And all the comparisons combined.

Note that the total widths of the 0 to 200 scales of both drawings are only four pixels different is size. The centerpoints on the 0 to 200 marks the same width apart on both drawings, give or take one or two pixels.


On another issue. An explanation has occurred to me why there are slight variances in all three of the prints of the images while the centerpoints of the lines and general proportions seem unaffected.

My friend mentioning that the negatives looked to be colored via silkscreening ink painted onto the front of them(again, why the front I haven't a clue).

The black and white prints, or copies of them that eventually were used in the different publications in which they were printed -

could very well have been created via silkscreening. Silkscreening used to be a tremendously common way of getting the best mass produced copies possible.

If you silkscreen something on the right paper(or cloth for that matter), you get a beautiful copy. Use the wrong paper or cloth, you get a blurry version of the exact same image, but everything stays centered.

Removing the silkscreen at varying times and the black and white images are also effected or bleed differently.

That would explain why there are at least three different versions of these drawings that have widely varying degrees of crispness on the prints, yet the lines remain in the exact same place on each.

Just a theory, but I think at least some of the distortions in the black and white TMOST drawings may be due to a silkscreening process being poorly used at some point.

I believe there is a good chance the negative versions of these images that remained untinted and were black & clear were probably used to make silkscreened black and white print copies.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

You seem to be assuming the center of the existing line is where the original line was located. That's a logical but misleading assumption. Because the various shadows, distortions and corruptions that are introduced when a copy is made of a copy is made of a copy are not evenly distributed, the original line isn't in the center of the existing line. On one part it might be to the right, on another in the center, and a little further along, to the left. And this kind of fluctuation is happening all over the illustration. 

Plus, you have to remember that the thing wasn't ever meant to resolve to finer than ten foot increments in even its original form.

The best you can do is take the artist at his word that his intended length was 947 feet, and then interpret the illustration accordingly. Scale and weigh the lines, interpret the fluctuating thicknesses and undulating curves with that figure in mind.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

One thing I learned in my career, as a Handrail Layout Fitter, is no two measuring tools, will yield the same measurement. And as an QC inspector, in Steel Fabrication Shops, one fitter's tape, would be off from mine. 

My point is, that you will never get the correct measurment, no matter which scale you use. You will get close, or an average of it. 

For me, I except the 947 feet length as the true length. Everywhere I have read, it is stated the same, so it is after 40 years, the factual length.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> I don't get that Mark is intentially insulting you, Chuck. I think he's just sort of taking a playful, friendly jab. However, since you've taken it that way, I'll ask Mark - and other folks - to not do so in the future, if only in this thread....


I think I addressed it. No need to make it more then what it was. I have a great amount of respect for MGagen personally and his opinions. 

Apparently he has never proposed opinions on a Trek technical issue and then had someone who disagreed with him on that Trek teck issue go after him personally instead of questioning his argument.

Oh wait... I seem to remember some guy that had a disagreement with him on something to do with the TOS E bridge...

But I'm sure that guy never went after MGagen personally or questioned how educated or smart he was. 

Weird. I must be imagining that. 

MGagen wouldn't intentionally do the same kind of thing his buddy Captain April used to do to him...


Seriously though, the reason I called him on it wasn't to involve you or blow it out of proportion.

*I just wanted to have what I was saying be the subject of scrutiny*, not how much drafting training I have.


*I know all the reasons that someone who may have been trying to come up with a size of X might create a scale that ends up not adding up to X.*


What MGagen failed to take into account

is what I have said several times but which everyone except perhaps Perfessor Coffee has not acknowledged...

*I am not trying to measure these drawings against any other outside sources of information.*

As a result, it is not an issue as to whether they are accurate compared to any other drawings.

I am not interesting in comparing these drawings to other drawings.

*Therefore any argument that they don't add up to 947 because of yada, yada, yada...*

*pick and insert any reason as to why they don't add up to 947 feet *

*- is moot to me.*

_I do not care that the drawings don't add up to 947 feet._

Again, unlike virtually everyone else, I am not trying to compare these drawings to other drawings.

Therefore I have no reason to try and explain away their measurements.

I don't understand why that is so hard to understand.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

I'm not saying to compare them to anything. I'm saying to take them alone, as they are, and let the scale bar -- properly interpreted -- be your guide. That scale bar is limited to ten foot increments. Right there you have a problem if you want to get a lengthwithin less than ten feet of the intention. Assuming 947', it is going to come out anywhere from 940' to 960', just as we have found to be the case. You're lucky it isn't even worse -- I found it to resolve to 920' in one of my scans. It _should be worse_ -- because the drawings have been recopied so many times.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

aridas sofia said:


> Oh, and BTW Chuck... it's "he," not "she."


Sorry about that! I know better and keep trying to not do that, but with that Sofia being part of your monicker I sometimes slip up without meaning to.

I am totally understanding what you are saying Aridas.

The only, very simple point I've been trying to make is that these images are the only ones we saw on screen in the series that is intended to show the size of the ship...

and further that those drawings scale the ship to about 960 or 940 feet.

There are a dozen different ways someone working in the TOS production department could have made these mistakes.

I'm aware of them.

My only point is that this is what ended up onscreen - however it got there - and it doesn't agree with other outside information.

They nonetheless do appear onscreen, and I thought it was interesting that the images that appeared onscreen add up to approximately 960 or 940 feet.

I understand all the dozen different ways this could have happened, but it happened nonetheless.

I simply thought it interesting and wanted to note that the only onscreen image(now that I know of the second one - images) intended to show how big the TOS E was doesn't add up to what might be expected.



At the beginning of all this all I expected was for at least one person to look at the drawing with an open mind,

to perhaps for just a tiny brief moment refrain from trying to explain the dozen different reasons that the drawing is what it is...

and say, "Yep, that's interesting. It does look like it adds up to about 960 feet in this drawing."


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I'm about done with this.

I hope at the very least you all enjoy the puuuuuuurty colored scans. The ones that uss columbia has hosted for me and linked to in post #70 and which I'll repeat the links to here. 

Enjoy them.

http://www.visionaryproducts.com/~pjh/images/400%20PPI%20color%20TOS%20E%20&%20D-7%20OVERHEAD.PNG

http://www.visionaryproducts.com/~pjh/images/400%20PPI%20color%20TOS%20E%20&%20D-7%20SIDEVIEW.PNG

^^^^^ As uss columbia pointed out with the other files he linked to...
You may have to right click on the links and choose "Save Target As" and save it to your hard drive before opening. My browser doesn't seem to display the files, though when I download them from the above links and saved them before opening them they worked.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> At the beginning of all this all I expected was for at least one person to look at the drawing with an open mind,
> 
> to perhaps for just a tiny brief moment refrain from trying to explain the dozen different reasons that the drawing is what it is...
> 
> and say, "Yep, that's interesting. It does look like it adds up to about 960 feet in this drawing."


Yep, it is a bit interesting though not surprising that these drawings we all know read perhaps 940' and 960'.
Now, let's put this to bed, shall we?

Enough canon, bring on the cannon. 

BTW, at first, I seriously thought you meant this thread to be a joke.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

If the drawings show a length between 940 and 960 feet, and the accuracy is +/- ten feet, what is the likely intended length? 

Not 940', and not 960'. Somewhere in between... ya' know...like ten feet from either extreme. 

940+10. 

Or 960-10.

If the stated length is ~950' and this nth generation copy resolves within +/-10' of 950' what is the logical conclusion? 

The onscreen illustration reveals the length is some -- any -- number between 940' and 960'. Any number at all -- because of that scale bar's ten foot increment. 

I'd pick 947' as the canon length, because it is within that ten foot range on that onscreen drawing, and it has so much other evidence from outside the drawing bolstering it.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

aridas sofia said:


> The scale bar reflects scale down to ten foot increments -- that is telling us the drawing is only to be used to gauge distances within ten feet -- nothing more precise is possible.


Small point here. That is not really the case.

I had a friend who did CAD work for an oil company who was constantly correcting drawings done by engineers.

I had the opportunity to examine tons of blueprints that were printed and required to be scaled to a tremendous precision.

Many of them involved twisting mazes of pipes junctions etc and many many of them had scale bars to give the reader a sense of scale.

These drawing were required to be accurate to a ridiculous degree due to the danger of them not being precise.

*Because the smallest blocks in a drawing scale may represent ten feet does not mean that the drawing is only meant to be read as accurate to within ten feet.*

Scale bars exist to give a sense of scale.

The size of scale bar blocks have nothing to do with relating the smallest reliable subdivision of that drawing.

I've seen drawings of huge platforms and small junctions, all 100% accurately printed. 

The scale bar blocks on none of those drawings were anywhere near the smallest increment to which you could rely apon them.

Actually, the whole idea of a scale bar is to give a large but accurate sense of scale.

The idea that a drawing is only accurate to the smallest block in a scale bar is actually silly if you think of it.

Take for example a 350th scale drawing of the 1000 ft refit.

In metric(304.8 meters) it would be 87.086 centimeters long rounded off. Due to line placement issues the drawing might be off by perhaps .01 centimeters

A drafter might decide to apply a scale bar that is 80 centimeters long to give it a sense of scale. He then subdivides the blocks into four twenty centimeter blocks. He then takes one of the 20 centimeter blocks and subdivides it into five blocks that are 4 centimeters wide.

So does that now make that 87.086 centimeter drawing only accurate to 4 centimeters?

No. The drawing is still accurate to .01 centimeters.

No matter how big or small the drafter decides to draw the smallest blocks of a scale bar on that drawing - 4 centimeters, 2 centimeters, 8 centimeters... the degree of accuracy is still .01 centimeters.

People use large blocks of (hopefully) accurately drawn blocks and bars in order to give a sense of scale.

That is why they are called scale bars.

The size of the smallest block in that scale bar is only meant to help get a sense of scale.

It has nothing to do with indicating the smallest percentage to which a drawing can be relied apon.

If you think about it, that would be totally silly! 

What good is a scale bar if the scale bar needs to have segments that are as small as the smallest reliable measurement?


----------



## scotthm (Apr 6, 2007)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> What good is a scale bar if the scale bar needs to have segments that are as small as the smallest reliable measurement?


What good is a scale bar where the 'halfway' point is not equidistant between the ends? Not very.

---------------


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

scotthm said:


> What good is a scale bar where the 'halfway' point is not equidistant between the ends? Not very.
> 
> ---------------


I've already shown both scale bars to be the exact same width. You fail to mention that one of them is exactly equidistant.

If someone in the process of printing measurements on two different blank yardsticks offsetts the machine that places the inch positions so that on one of the yardsticks the numbers are shifted.

I guess the yardsticks suddenly are no longer one yard long?

Really. You are not that ... challenged.


I believe you are feigning misunderstanding in order to take a cheap swipe in order to try and counter a 100% valid point I am making about Aridas' scale bar comment.

I believe Aridas and I are capable of discussing this without taking any of this personally or acting like it's some kind of contest.

Whether or not you can is up to you Scot.


----------



## scotthm (Apr 6, 2007)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Really. You are not that ... challenged.
> 
> I believe you are feigning misunderstanding in order to take a cheap swipe in order to counter a 100% valid point I am making about Aridas' scale bar comment.


What I'm saying is that if the subdivisions of the total scale bar are not accurate then you can't be sure of any measurement less than the total length of the scale bar. 

We can _estimate_ the measurement, but not with much confidence. The best you could say in this case is that the Enterprise is 800 plus _about 150 feet._

---------------


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

This thread is going in the wrong direction. Time to close it.


----------

