# TOS E Nacelle Rotation Rate



## FyreTigger (May 31, 2005)

For what it's worth, here's one data point for the engine rotation rate of the TOS E.

Spending the day on the couch, sick with a cold, I spent some time watching the original DVD release of various TOS episodes and analyzing the nacelle dome rotation by frame stepping through."Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", provided some pretty crisp views, where the blades could be clearly made out. As Scotty says, "And at warp 10, she's going nowhere, mighty fast!" 

Frame stepping, I found the APPARENT rate of rotation to be 60 rpm. This is based on tracking a specific blade of the port nacelle, and it taking 6 frames to move counter-clockwise from the 12 o'clock position to the 9 o'clock position. Given TOS was shot on film, at 24 fps, that makes 1 revolution per second or 60 rpm.

BTW, before anyone asks, I work in the video field and I have some expertise at analyzing video footage. I know all about pulldown, interpolated frames etc. The rate in this episode is 60 rpm.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Cool. Very useful information.

What color do you think the "blades" are?


----------



## Scotty K (Mar 21, 2011)

I know the scene about which you are speaking of in that particular episode. I was under the impression that that particular scene was a stock shot that had been sped up some to give the impression of great speed (I do recall seeing the exact same shot at a slower speed, although I can't give you a specific episode in which it appeared), so I'm not as certain that one could nail down the rotation rate based on that information. Your math certainly makes sense, though.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

FyreTigger said:


> BTW, before anyone asks, I work in the video field and I have some expertise at analyzing video footage. I know all about pulldown, interpolated frames etc.


I work in the field as well. Nice pre-emptive strike! :thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

FyreTigger said:


> For what it's worth, here's one data point for the engine rotation rate of the TOS E.
> 
> Spending the day on the couch, sick with a cold, I spent some time watching the original DVD release of various TOS episodes and analyzing the nacelle dome rotation by frame stepping through."Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", provided some pretty crisp views, where the blades could be clearly made out. As Scotty says, "And at warp 10, she's going nowhere, mighty fast!"
> 
> ...


OK, fair enough, but then, how do you know the effects shots were done 24 FPS?

It's not uncommon to shoot a little fast in order to give more visual 'weight' to a shot, even out any jitters in tracking, etc. It's more common if there's water involved but sometimes it just looks better shot at 36 FPS or thereabouts.

Then of course there's whatever it's printed off on at the optical printer.

Not saying you're wrong, just saying it might be a good idea to not be quite so declarative with something like this.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Stock footage was sped up and slowed down all the time, depending on the needs of the episode, so the best guide to go by is the slowest example of a given shot, as that one is most likely the closest to the actual speed it was originally shot at, assuming they didn't film it in slow motion in the first place, which is entirely possible.


----------



## FyreTigger (May 31, 2005)

Okay, let me address some points raised...

1) When I say "one data point" and "for what it's worth", I think that sufficiently covers the being "overly declarative". I mentioned my video background because I didn't want to get into arguments about 24 vs 29.97 and pulldown and pulldown removal etc.

2) My interest is in the screen apparent rate. For that purpose, it's immaterial whether it was shot at 24 fps or 2000 fps. TOS was finished on film. And film was always finished at 24 fps in the mid 1960's. That, transferred to video is what was broadcast.

3) This particular shot, I don't think was sped up in post production, unless it was an exact doubling. Speeding up regular motion of something like fan blades tends to introduce temporal artifacts. Remember, 1960's tech here. To double the speed of the footage, you are literally skipping every other frame in the printing process. To speed up by 50%, you would be doing a print-print-skip cadence and that would show in the motion.

4) Fozzie asked what color the blades appeared to be. Keeping in mind that space wasn't even black as TOS appeared pre-remastering, the blades appeared very dark gray in color, and fairly soft edged. The crispness of the blades seems to vary a fair amount between different shots in different episodes and may be affected by the exterior lighting on the frosted domes. Hard to say.

If other folks want to take a close look at other episodes and chime in, that would be great.


----------



## Neo-uk (May 6, 2007)

and we wonder why people laugh at us sci-fi modellers.


----------



## BOXIE (Apr 5, 2011)

Thanks for the info.Some of us appreciate getting interesting facts on our favourite programs.Ignore the nitpickers.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

BOXIE said:


> Thanks for the info.Some of us appreciate getting interesting facts on our favourite programs.Ignore the nitpickers.


Ya know, questioning reasoning and methodology isn't nitpicking. 

To wit, of course everything was printed off at 24fps, but the speed the effect was shot at DOES matter.

and then of course there's the issue of the 24fps film being ported to digital which for broadcast is an effective 30fps. I assume the early DVDs (the laser disc releases might be a better source) were sourced from Paramount's then-current syndication masters and not original film elements.

In the end it's really just an exercise, isn't it? There's no relation whatsoever between the fan effect speed and the 'warp speed'. The fans spin at a rate to invoke the image of propellers and that's what they do. 

The 'real' speed they spun on the shooting stage will forever remain a mystery. 

(I mean, seriously, has there ever been pictures of the control board that ran the model? That's something I'd like to see)


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

This is a subject I'm very much interested in as I'm making my own circuit board for the lights and motor effects. I've been struggling to come up with a rough RPM for me to match so this is very helpful, FyreTigger. 

Have you looked at any other examples to come up with a range/average? The beginning of "The Tholian Web" comes to mind.


----------



## FyreTigger (May 31, 2005)

SteveR said:


> I work in the field as well. Nice pre-emptive strike! :thumbsup:


Thanks! 

I work in post-production software. 

I once wrote a memo about editing with mixed frame rate material, particularly mixing drop-rate and non drop-rate material titled "How to Warp Spacetime and Still Keep Accurate Time"

I opened the memo with the Department of Temporal Investigations ouroboros seal. Funny thing was, I had so many coworkers come to me and tell me that the Star Trek and stardate analogies made the material make sense for the first time.


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

RossW said:


> This is a subject I'm very much interested in as I'm making my own circuit board for the lights and motor effects. I've been struggling to come up with a rough RPM for me to match so this is very helpful,


I would make the engine fans variable since I don't believe the actual RPMs will ever be known and they do appear at different speeds during the show.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

Thank you.


----------



## FyreTigger (May 31, 2005)

RossW said:


> Have you looked at any other examples to come up with a range/average? The beginning of "The Tholian Web" comes to mind.


I did not look at "The Tholian Web" this time. I've looked at it before for general appearance of the nacelle domes. Not a lot of good nacelle close ups come to mind. I think "That Which Survives" is the same footage as "Battlefield", and for the naysayers, the ship is once again at "ludicrous speed".

It would be good to hear more regular examples.

Practically speaking, 60 rpm is 1 revolution per second, which is not an unexpected rate for a motor running off of 60 Hz power.


----------



## wjplenge (Apr 14, 2011)

FyreTigger said:


> ... the ship is once again at "ludicrous speed".


Gah! Don't say that! It's so hard to make lights do plaid!


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

feek61 - that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm using a mechanical rotary encoder (like the volume knob on a stereo) to let me adjust the speed whenever I want. The knob is also a button so that's being used to reverse the direction of the port engine (some shots show the engines rotating in the same direction, other shots show them rotating inwards towards each other) as well as returning the speed to factory default.

I'm using a PIC microcontroller and PWM to alter the motor speed.










The design has been updated since these vids were shot. I'm now using 5 steady on LEDs (amber) and 5 independently blinking LEDs (reds, blue, green, pink) so 10 lights in each nacelle.


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

I always thought that the fan blades flared out from the center as the went back to the back of the dome. The straight thin blades of the PL just don't look right to me. The MR has them getting larger as they go back and it looks perfect. I also did a studio scale shuttlecraft a few years ago but did the nacelle effect on them (using the tapered fan blades) and it looks perfect. Something to consider.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Neo-uk said:


> and we wonder why people laugh at us sci-fi modellers.


Just our wives.


----------



## Scotty K (Mar 21, 2011)

SteveR said:


> Just our wives.


Boy, ain't _THAT_ the truth!


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

Would it help to compare the nacelle RPMs to the blinking of the nav lights in a given scene? If the film was sped up that would also show in the blink rate of the nav strobes wouldnt it? Ross- your vid rocks...love the effect you acieved!


----------



## FyreTigger (May 31, 2005)

feek61 said:


> I always thought that the fan blades flared out from the center as the went back to the back of the dome. The straight thin blades of the PL just don't look right to me. The MR has them getting larger as they go back and it looks perfect. I also did a studio scale shuttlecraft a few years ago but did the nacelle effect on them (using the tapered fan blades) and it looks perfect. Something to consider.


Good point. And I've thought about that. To my eye the TOS on screen blades are indeed tapered. Paublo's (amazing) work, not to the contrary, I'm thinking the judicious use tapered, masked paint, or carefully cut tapered aluminum duct tape is the way to go.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

FyreTigger said:


> For what it's worth, here's one data point for the engine rotation rate of the TOS E.
> 
> Spending the day on the couch, sick with a cold, I spent some time watching the original DVD release of various TOS episodes and analyzing the nacelle dome rotation by frame stepping through."Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", provided some pretty crisp views, where the blades could be clearly made out. As Scotty says, "And at warp 10, she's going nowhere, mighty fast!"
> 
> ...


But, working in the video field, you forgot that there are 30 frames of video in one second.
This is 1/2 of the 60 hertz cycle that electricity cycles at here in the USA.

So, if it took 6 frames for the blade to move 90 degrees, and there are 30 frames of video in one second. 
30 goes into 6, 5 times.
Then that is 1.25 rotations per second.
1.25 X 60 seconds = 75 rpm.

So the rate is actually 75 rpm.

Personally, I like the notion that the blades speed varies with the rate of travel of the ship.
So really, any speed will work.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Another good episode, can't recall the name, is the Zephram Cochrane one, when Scotty has to find the Galileo and Uhura points out that it's a mighty big galaxy... That has a nice approach over the saucer.... Metamorphosis!


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

It is a simple matter to install a potentiometer for speed control, and another switch to reverse the polarity on the circuit to reverse the spin. The rate of spin will be variable and shouldn't matter.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

ClubTepes said:


> But, working in the video field, you forgot that there are 30 frames of video in one second.
> This is 1/2 of the 60 hertz cycle that electricity cycles at here in the USA.
> 
> So, if it took 6 frames for the blade to move 90 degrees, and there are 30 frames of video in one second.
> ...


Film frames don't work that way on DVDs.

Playing a DVD 'at speed' results in a 24-frame source reproduced at 29.97 frames per second using "pulldown" to interpolate the frame rate.

However, the solid, progressive 24-frame rate is also "flagged" on the DVD. So, during frame-by-frame or slow-motion playback, only the original 24 film frames are displayed, without the additional fields, thereby resulting in accurate, 1:1 film frames being displayed sequentially. Therefore, stepping through frames on a DVD is accurate to the film source frame rate of 24 frames = 1 second.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Just to muddy things up a bit more, I don't think the fans spun at one set speed. The speed was variable, due to it being powered by some sort of variable power source (my guess is either a dimmer switch from a lighting board or maybe something from a model railroad set; probably the lighting dimmer switch, since that would be something they'd already have on hand and could handle the power requirements of that puppy), so it's different from shot to shot, even without the film speed being altered.


----------



## FyreTigger (May 31, 2005)

Trek Ace said:


> Film frames don't work that way on DVDs.
> 
> Playing a DVD 'at speed' results in a 24-frame source reproduced at 29.97 frames per second using "pulldown" to interpolate the frame rate.
> 
> However, the solid, progressive 24-frame rate is also "flagged" on the DVD. So, during frame-by-frame or slow-motion playback, only the original 24 film frames are displayed, without the additional fields, thereby resulting in accurate, 1:1 film frames being displayed sequentially. Therefore, stepping through frames on a DVD is accurate to the film source frame rate of 24 frames = 1 second.


Thank you Trek Ace, you are absolutely correct. Most DVD/BluRay players do pulldown removal on stepping. And I do have a good quality player.

In any case, after over 25 years in the field, I do recognize the difference between a mixed 3:2 pulldown frame and a regular frame (once you know what you are looking at, temporal aliasing is about as hard to miss as an elephant in your living room). And I was looking at clean, non pulldown frames. 

So, sorry Club Tepes, no, my math isn't wrong. I stand by my original analysis and math for THE EPISODE IN QUESTION.

For those interested, the Wikipedia article on 3:2 Pulldown (transfer of 24 fps film material to 29.97 video is fairly informative):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down

But I'd still love to hear if anyone has conflicting EVIDENCE from other episodes. I've quoted one example from one episode. I've no idea at this point whether this is typical or an outlier.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

FyreTigger said:


> To my eye the TOS on screen blades are indeed tapered.


The screencaps from _Battlefield_ on TrekCore seem to show straight blades from the center axis, possibly tapering at the other end, but that may be an illusion?

http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=90&page=5


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

Thanks onigiri!


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

SteveR said:


> The screencaps from _Battlefield_ on TrekCore seem to show straight blades from the center axis, possibly tapering at the other end, but that may be an illusion?
> 
> http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=90&page=5


I did a forensic analysis back when the 1/1000 first came out.

1) Screen caps. I took a lingering head-on shot (can't remember which episode) and used the astrophotography trick of image stacking to increase resolution/reduce grain. As I added frames, the blades took a distinct "straight line" character. I know this is not the best evidence...

2) Verbal description and photos from Craig Thompson, that fellow who displayed the original miniature (still in near-original condition with the original nacelle guts in-place) at his school. He describes the inner dome as being "bisected by black strips." Paraphrasing to the best of my memory. He didn't say "wedge."

His photos of the displayed ship(I only have double-jpg'd stuff off the web... but it's all I got) also show them to be more like strips than wedges.

3) "What would I have used given time and budget constraints?" The domes are about 6 inches in diameter. If I grabbed a roll of black electrical tape and stuck it on that inner dome, it would sure look a lot like black strips! Quick and cheap.

4) My analysis is nothing compared to the work of Gary Kerr and the myriad others who have had access to superior references. If Gary thinks they're strips and not wedges, I would tend to believe it!

5) motion blur of a strip on a rotating dome looks like a wedge.


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

Not sure that Mr. Thompson would be so detailed in his description to note that the strips were straight or wedged. I know that those parts were missing by the time the Enterprise got to the Smithsonian so there is no proof either way. To me they look better wedge shaped; be it because of "motion blur" or shadowing or if they really were wedge shaped. Thus that is what I will do because it looked that way on TV and quite frankly I think it looks "right" (because I have already tried it both ways, lol).




















Don't mean to hijack the thread!!! I will shut-up now, lol


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Also there was a little shaft end 'bump' on the end of the domes visible on the outside, correct?


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

The domes on the Big E at the Smithsonian (though these were restored in 1991 and not the originals), look to have flared fan blades. Hard to tell in pictures. However, I don't think the flare is enough to warrant changing anything.


----------



## tardis1916 (Mar 24, 2004)

Is there any info on what is different between the production and the restoration of the filming minature?

I live close to DC and may stop by sometime this week to take a look at the model for inspiration.


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

The only part of the original paint job left is the top of the saucer; everything else has been repainted. I think the B/C deck is the original one but was repainted. The bridge, defector dish and front of the engines have all been replaced and are not original. The lighting was replaced (but not used at all now), the little grill inserts on the engines replaced and various other things as well have been "fixed." Still, she is impressive to see in person.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

The new lighting was used during the Star Trek Exhibit at the Smithsonian in 1991 after the restoration. It looked very impressive lit up and the Bussards were especially impressive. It is too bad they don't still keep it lit up on display.


----------



## Chris Pike (Jul 23, 2005)

Another key point, as raised by Model Man Tom, and clear on those screen caps, is that the centre is clear so the strips end some way before meeting in the middle


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

Yes, the strips do not go to the middle. On the refurb there is a screw at the center but no way of knowing if the raised part that we see in the clip above is a screw or some sort of dimple on the dome itself.

That is a cool view front view; not sure why that scene was only used once.



I know it is not relevant to the original but here is a photo showing the fan blade tapering out toward the back on the restored version:











Maybe Gary can chime in and give us some insight!!!!


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

^^^ Not sure if those are actual fan blades/strips or painted on the inside to simulate the effect for a static shot. Gary probably knows the real deal on the filming domes or has the best insight.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Steve Mavronis said:


> ^^^ Not sure if those are actual fan blades/strips or painted on the inside to simulate the effect for a static shot. Gary probably knows the real deal on the filming domes or has the best insight.


In this particular picture of the studio model at the Smithsonian, they did spin. I remember seeing them in action during the 1991 exhibit when they had her all lit up. However, these are the restored versions and not the originals.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

I was pretty pleased with my theory...

But I might be wrong... :hat:

Wow, I looked at the date stamp on my file... 2004! Time flies.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Trek Ace said:


> Film frames don't work that way on DVDs.
> 
> Playing a DVD 'at speed' results in a 24-frame source reproduced at 29.97 frames per second using "pulldown" to interpolate the frame rate.
> 
> However, the solid, progressive 24-frame rate is also "flagged" on the DVD. So, during frame-by-frame or slow-motion playback, only the original 24 film frames are displayed, without the additional fields, thereby resulting in accurate, 1:1 film frames being displayed sequentially. Therefore, stepping through frames on a DVD is accurate to the film source frame rate of 24 frames = 1 second.


Really!?!.... So I stand corrected, with mud on my face.

Now I have to recalculate everything I've ever counted that way.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

TrekFX said:


> 5) motion blur of a strip on a rotating dome looks like a wedge.


That's sold me, because the outer edges of the strips move faster across the film frame than the inner edges (for a given rotational speed).


----------



## tardis1916 (Mar 24, 2004)

I got to see her at the 1991 exhibit too. It was pretty awesome. :thumbsup:


----------



## FyreTigger (May 31, 2005)

TrekFX said:


> I was pretty pleased with my theory...
> 
> But I might be wrong... :hat:
> 
> Wow, I looked at the date stamp on my file... 2004! Time flies.


I'm sold on solid strips!

Are there any photos anywhere of the supposedly orange painted domes?


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Something else to consider when you're calculating the "correct" rpm's of the fan blades: 

Richard Datin said that the original concept was to ramp up the intensity of the lights & speed up the rotation of the fan blades as the Enterprise accelerated to higher velocities. Unfortunately this idea never came to fruition, presumably because of the usual culprits, a lack of time & money. The idea of varying the lights & fan motors makes sense to me (based on my limited expertise in warp propulsion engineering), and I'd incorporate it into my model - if I ever had time to build one.

Gary


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Gary K said:


> Something else to consider when you're calculating the "correct" rpm's of the fan blades:
> 
> Richard Datin said that the original concept was to ramp up the intensity of the lights & speed up the rotation of the fan blades as the Enterprise accelerated to higher velocities. Unfortunately this idea never came to fruition, presumably because of the usual culprits, a lack of time & money. The idea of varying the lights & fan motors makes sense to me (based on my limited expertise in warp propulsion engineering), and I'd incorporate it into my model - if I ever had time to build one.
> 
> Gary


I would assume (and yes, always a risk, that) it's like the 'key light' in the Phaser Cannon hanging off the bottom saucer dome. It's a good idea but not really practical unless they filmed a greater number of stock shots. As you say, time, money. Much easier to take an existing underside angle and just super the phasers needed for a specific shot.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I am already working to be able to adjust the fan blade speed. My brother-in-law is an electronics wiz and told me to call him when I get the light kit in.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I'm pretty sure that I am going to attempt this too, its too cool not to and I want a crack a syncing it with the warp speed sound fx!


----------



## wjplenge (Apr 14, 2011)

Making the spin rate adjustable isn't difficult, the syncing to the engine sound is more difficult but it depends what you mean by syncing. It wouldn't be that bad to increase the engine volume as speed increases, but making the engines sound faster and not just louder you'd need to playback your soundtrack faster which has the mostly undesirable effect of raising it's pitch much like playing a 33 1/3 record at 45 or 78.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

wjplenge said:


> Making the spin rate adjustable isn't difficult, the syncing to the engine sound is more difficult but it depends what you mean by syncing. It wouldn't be that bad to increase the engine volume as speed increases, but making the engines sound faster and not just louder you'd need to playback your soundtrack faster which has the mostly undesirable effect of raising it's pitch much like playing a 33 1/3 record at 45 or 78.



Ah... not if its digital. 

But I don't think that is necessarily so just by the nature of the sound effect. It already increases in pitch and intensity. matching to that should be straightforward.


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

Steve H said:


> I would assume (and yes, always a risk, that) it's like the 'key light' in the Phaser Cannon hanging off the bottom saucer dome. It's a good idea but not really practical unless they filmed a greater number of stock shots. As you say, time, money. Much easier to take an existing underside angle and just super the phasers needed for a specific shot.



Is the little red phaser cannon thingie illuminated during TOS? It kinda looks that way to me in some shots.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Straight or tapered? 
Here's a test of a rotating 3D sphere textured with straight strips, without and with motion blur:


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

SteveR said:


> Straight or tapered?
> Here's a test of a rotating 3D sphere textured with straight strips, without and with motion blur:


Just the way propeller blades look in motion. So if you are building a model of the E with static blades make them fatter at the rim; i they spin, make them thin.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

SteveR said:


> Straight or tapered?
> Here's a test of a rotating 3D sphere textured with straight strips, without and with motion blur:


Another factor to consider: the inner domes may not have been concentric with the outer domes. If the center of the inner dome is located forward of the center of the outer dome, then the shadows cast by the outer edges of the fan blades will be slightly wider & more diffuse than the shadows closer to the center.

Gary


----------



## shopper (Dec 6, 2003)

You may want to consider a Pulse Width Modulation circuit which is useful in regulating the rotation speed of the Nacelle motors-much smoother than using a potentiometer by itself. I used the PWM circuit on my Rod.com TOS Communicator prop build to control the speed of the moire' motor.

In addition to tackling the Nacelle rotation effect, I plan on working on adding 2, 445nm blue lasers with the appropriate sound effects. Simon Mercs (Papa Smurf) has done the laser install to one of his 1:350 Refit commissioned builds awhile back.

Shopper
a.k.a. Safetyman on TPZ


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Trekkriffic said:


> So if you are building a model of the E with static blades make them fatter at the rim; if they spin, make them thin.


The wisdom of Solomon, there. :thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Gregatron said:


> Is the little red phaser cannon thingie illuminated during TOS? It kinda looks that way to me in some shots.


Honestly not sure. Heck, a year ago I didn't even know it existed! Witness the power of the Hobbytalk BBS!


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Gregatron said:


> Is the little red phaser cannon thingie illuminated during TOS? It kinda looks that way to me in some shots.


Yes. Doug Drexler told me that when he first saw it years ago all that was left was a red grain-of-wheat bulb dangling from a couple wires.

Gary


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

This should answer a few questions...



> *From The IDIC Page, via the Wayback Machine:*
> 
> *The delivery of the Enterprise model from the studio to the college was not exactly by space-warp. "I seem to recall a flat-bed truck. I believe it was GWC’s," Thompson remembered. "The day it was pulled out, the props department had it out and ready for us." The Enterprise model was in four pieces: the saucer section, the secondary hull, and the two warp engines. "It was in pieces, but not difficult to put together," he added. GWC maintenance gave them a large nut and bolt, missing from the original, to connect the saucer section to the interconnecting dorsal and secondary hull. Several large Enterprise decal replacement sheets came with the model, and there was also a large control panel--a converted electrical junction box.
> 
> ...


----------



## GKvfx (May 30, 2008)

Gary K said:


> Something else to consider when you're calculating the "correct" rpm's of the fan blades:
> 
> Richard Datin said that the original concept was to ramp up the intensity of the lights & speed up the rotation of the fan blades as the Enterprise accelerated to higher velocities. Unfortunately this idea never came to fruition, presumably because of the usual culprits, a lack of time & money. The idea of varying the lights & fan motors makes sense to me (based on my limited expertise in warp propulsion engineering), and I'd incorporate it into my model - if I ever had time to build one.
> 
> Gary


Correct me if I'm wrong Gary, but I believe all the lighting on the TOS Enterprise - the beauty light, the light on the bluescreen, the window lights, navigation lights, warp nacelles, etc, were recorded on the same piece of film at the same time. So, another thing to consider was the filming speed of the camera. From all appearances, it seems that the camera dolly was human powered. That means they are likely filming at 12, 18, or 24fps, depending on the amount of light they are using. One of the neat side effects of MOCO units developed in the 70's is that you could vary the exposure time greatly - using less light (but more time) to expose your model. And the ability to do separate passes with dedicated exposures for things like lights. Talking to some of the SW / BSG guys, it appears that the filming times on _those_ shows was something in the neighborhood of 1sec/frame - far too slow to get a smooth move if done by a human being ala: Trek TOS.

Gene

PS - Gary - the work you and your team did on the Enterprise kit is astounding. Well done.


----------



## FyreTigger (May 31, 2005)

GKvfx said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong Gary, but I believe all the lighting on the TOS Enterprise - the beauty light, the light on the bluescreen, the window lights, navigation lights, warp nacelles, etc, were recorded on the same piece of film at the same time. So, another thing to consider was the filming speed of the camera. From all appearances, it seems that the camera dolly was human powered. That means they are likely filming at 12, 18, or 24fps, depending on the amount of light they are using. One of the neat side effects of MOCO units developed in the 70's is that you could vary the exposure time greatly - using less light (but more time) to expose your model. And the ability to do separate passes with dedicated exposures for things like lights. Talking to some of the SW / BSG guys, it appears that the filming times on _those_ shows was something in the neighborhood of 1sec/frame - far too slow to get a smooth move if done by a human being ala: Trek TOS.
> 
> Gene
> 
> PS - Gary - the work you and your team did on the Enterprise kit is astounding. Well done.


All of this is in and of itself very interesting, and very important if you are trying to accurately restore the historically important, original studio miniature (as the Smithsonian should have done).

But most modelers are more interested in reproducing screen appearance and for that, reproducing APPARENT speed is more important. For that, on screen evidence is really the only thing of value.

Captain April has supplied evidence (from IDIC and Chris Thompson) that the original rig provided for varying the engine speed. And of course, the engine speed could have been affected by either over or under cranking the camera. So we know rotational speed could have varied episode to episode.

My original data point is theoretically an outlier relative to the speed of the ship (warp 10+ was only seen in a handful of episodes). It seems like we need a wider survey of TOS episodes. Unfortunately, clear and crisp nacelle domes seem like a rarity. The oft used starboard profile view was clearly a pilot version of the model (unlit, red/orange painted domes with spikes).

Divide and conquer? Engine dome colors could be surveyed at the same time. Anyone game?


----------



## GKvfx (May 30, 2008)

Sorry, my point (which I forgot to make in my last post) was, due to those camera frame rate variables, we can't really tell what the hell they were intending to do. I like the idea of the rate varying according to the speed of the Enterprise. But watching the show I notice quite a few instances where they slowed down (double printed) certain shots, not to slow down the spin rate of the nacelles, but to make the shot a few beats longer. So, getting an "accurate" spin rate may be difficult, and like so many things in SF and Trek, you just have to go with what looks good to you.

Gene


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

I also think of the rear over the warp pod shots when the ship rips away from Balok's ship, the nav lights blink at a furious rate, as opposed to a similar shot of the ship approaching K-7. I am glad that I still have my original DVDs with th original effects. I'm watching season one, so I'll double check on spin rates that I find there. I also have the HD-DVD season one, with the cgi ship, which I have problems with, but time is ameliorating my perceptions. Someday, I'll get the BluRay set.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Gary K said:


> Yes. Doug Drexler told me that when he first saw it years ago all that was left was a red grain-of-wheat bulb dangling from a couple wires.
> 
> Gary


Sounds like the Grinch was there... "And all that he left was a red bulb and some wires..."




Captain April said:


> The nacelle domes were white translucent hemispheres. Removing the exterior nacelle domes, there was a clear interior hemisphere with black lines that bisected the hemisphere


That's the statement I was trying to quote. Thanks for clarifying my paraphrase. Someday I'll teach the parakeet to remember better.

Something I find very interesting in this statement (forensically...) is his specific description of colors. White translucent outer. Black lines. Clear inner.


----------



## JHauser (Jan 3, 2013)

shopper said:


> You may want to consider a Pulse Width Modulation circuit which is useful in regulating the rotation speed of the Nacelle motors-much smoother than using a potentiometer by itself. I used the PWM circuit on my Rod.com TOS Communicator prop build to control the speed of the moire' motor.
> 
> In addition to tackling the Nacelle rotation effect, I plan on working on adding 2, 445nm blue lasers with the appropriate sound effects. Simon Mercs (Papa Smurf) has done the laser install to one of his 1:350 Refit commissioned builds awhile back.
> 
> ...


Hello, I new to this forum and came across this specific thread searching for the rotation speed of the bussard collectors. 

I was also planning on using some form of pulse width modulation and I wanted to operate the lighting and motors by RF remote control. What I am working with is a DC 12V 3x4A Mini RF Wireless Remote Controller Dimmer for LED RGB Strip Light. $8.99 shipped on eBay.

Not only is it cheap and wireless, but because it is for RGB LEDs it has basically three channels @ 4a each. The remote is designed to be able to change the colors of the LEDs by varying average value of the voltage (actually there is only a 12v supply, but with the PWM you're dropping the ground to vary the voltage -any one can step in hear and clarify this better if they like). What I found is that there's a 5 input selection range with the remote that I can maintain a 12v to feed the main board to power the IC chips and other LEDs and bussard LEDs while being able to select either a 4.4v (14 rpm), 8.5v (39 rpm), 10.8v (54 rpm) and 12.3v (63 rpm) to the motors. The last channel I'm using for the LEDs inside the nacelles. Those have two different voltage outputs in that same range. So what I can do is have a setting that I preferred and be able to turn it on or off with the remote or be able to turn on all the lighting effects, than add the bussard motors at their lowest speed and then I can advance the speed three more times. I modified the leads on the board so it's a plug-in add-on.

I found it to be a very simple, cheap and elegant way to do what I want. I thought I would pass it on.


----------



## JHauser (Jan 3, 2013)

Here's the before and after photos.


----------

