# The TOS Transporter Room



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Do we know definitively...

1) The diameter of the transporter chamber?
2) The diameter of the individual transporter pads the crew stood on?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Startrekhistory.com has some info regarding the fresnel lens they used for the transporter pad. No size is specified, but it apparently comes from a 10,000 watt light, and judging by the picture, I'd guess it's between 18" and 24" in diameter.l


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Based on my studies of the soundstage blueprints as scaled to match some of the more detailed dimensioned individual set blueprints, I make the inner diameter of the chamber at 12'-8" and the pads at 18".

Keep in mind that there is no publicly available dimensioned set drawing of the transporter room. However, I have found that the overall soundstage plan is remarkably accurate and carefully rendered. Its main drawback is the margin of error due to the relatively small sizes of the individual rooms on that drawing. I am speaking here of the large format reproductions distributed by Lincoln Enterprises back in the 70s, not the small one reproduced in TMOST. 

I hope this helps.

M.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Indeed the fresnels are from 10k's.
I see these fresnels almost every day.
I don't remember their exact diameter, but I think its either 22' or 24'.

Mark, I don't know if the print your talking about has dimensions.

I went to the Paramount Website and got the dimensions for Stage 8 (which are accurate to the inch).
I then loaded the ST diagram of that stage into Lightwave and sized it to the dimensions of the stage.
(Those stage diagrams actually have to be accurate for a bunch of reasons.)

I'd have to go back and double check stuff, but I think the transporter pads came out to be 24"

Also, anyone can go to the Mole-Richardson website and look up the specs. of their various lights.
And if you REALLY want your own transporter pad, I'm sure you can buy a fresnel because they do break and we do have to replace them.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

I put together this _quick-n-dirty_ reference for myself (set out on a 10' x 10' grid)...


_Click to enlarge_​
Honestly... I don't think you can go wrong with *MGagen*'s analysis on this. :thumbsup:


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

ClubTepes said:


> Mark, I don't know if the print your talking about has dimensions.


It doesn't. That's why I mentioned I "scaled to match some of the more detailed dimensioned individual set blueprints." I used dimensions off of one of the briefing room set drawings.

When scaled this way, the pads as rendered on the Charlie X Stage 9 BP come out exactly 18 inches. For grins, I did some searching online and initially kept coming up with 10k Big Eyes having 24-inch fresnels. Then I turned up an example of an 18-inch one. I can't say for sure which was used; only that the drawing seems to imply the 18-inch ones. Of course, this may have merely been a case of the draftsman using the nearest size circle template to draw them. The overall dimensions were the critical ones: Can a camera or lighting rig fit in a given area between walls or objects. An incidental measurement like the fresnel pads would not have been quite as critical.



> I went to the Paramount Website and got the dimensions for Stage 8 (which are accurate to the inch).
> I then loaded the ST diagram of that stage into Lightwave and sized it to the dimensions of the stage.
> (Those stage diagrams actually have to be accurate for a bunch of reasons.)


I didn't realize there were official drawings available from the studio. Thanks for the tip. I just went and got them in order to double check my earlier work. Keep in mind that while TOS was filmed on Desilu stages 9 & 10, these are actually numbered differently since Paramount merged the studios. The same stages are now called 31 & 32. I initially grabbed the wrong one and Paramount had erroneously indicated right on the data sheet that current Stage 9 was used by TOS. But no amount of squinting could match up the features shown on the vintage drawings. Then I pulled current stage 31's sheet and there, too it listed TOS as having filmed there. _That_ one is correct. Do you recall which one you actually used for your Lightwave version?

After making a small adjustment to match the stage sizes, I find that the Transporter chamber is 13 feet across, and the pads are rendered as closer to 18-1/2 inches. It may indicate not only the diameter of the fresnel itself, but the bezel around it. Either way, I can't say for certain which is was; merely that the drawing seems to say it was the 18-incher. I'm also not completely sure which scaling technique to trust -- the stage size, or comparing the sets with other dimensioned drawings of those same sets. It bears a little more looking into...

It would be interesting to know who's feet are shown in the image on ST History page:
http://startrekhistory.com/DS8.html

If they are a man's, the lens might be the 24-incher; if a woman's, the 18-incher.

M.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Definitely a woman's, as it's a deleted bit from "Mudd's Women".


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

MGagen said:


> It would be interesting to know who's feet are shown in the image on ST History page:
> http://startrekhistory.com/DS8.html


Elaan of Troyius?


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Thanks to everyone who has responded to my question. This is great stuff!

I am considering making a 1/10 scale transporter chamber as a companion to my 1/10 scale bridge pieces, though the size is daunting as it would come out to be around 15" in diameter (plus wall thickness) and I'm not sure I have room to display that.

I used a couple of the Art Asylum figures that I used in my bridge build to see if 18" or 24" looks more correct. Scaled down to those figures, 24" seems to be too large. 18" looks more correct. The figures, however, have a wider stance than the actors tended to take on the platform (they put their feet closer together), but the figures' feet will, for the most part, just fit into the 18" circle.

Thanks for the link to the transporter pad on the Star Trek History site. That is the best closeup photo of it I think I've ever seen.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Half-sized, but this certainly looks the part, doesn't it?


----------



## bigdaddydaveh (Jul 20, 2007)

The AMT Ertyl Vinyl kits had a transporter pad base for each figure. It would be a fairly straight forward to make a mold and cast it in clear. I can't remember off hand the scale but if they are a bit larger than 1/10 scale you could always cut the diameter down by a couple of lens rings. Just a thought. It would sure be less expensive than buying glass lenses.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

bigdaddydaveh said:


> The AMT Ertyl Vinyl kits had a transporter pad base for each figure. It would be a fairly straight forward to make a mold and cast it in clear. I can't remember off hand the scale but if they are a bit larger than 1/10 scale you could always cut the diameter down by a couple of lens rings. Just a thought. It would sure be less expensive than buying glass lenses.


I'm going to try to score concentric rings into clear sheet styrene using my Silhouette die cutter and see how that comes out, but if that doesn't work, I may have to look into that.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Silly question, but could you count the rings in the link provided by MGagen and find out which lens it matches?


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

MGagen said:


> It doesn't. That's why I mentioned I "scaled to match some of the more detailed dimensioned individual set blueprints." I used dimensions off of one of the briefing room set drawings.
> 
> When scaled this way, the pads as rendered on the Charlie X Stage 9 BP come out exactly 18 inches. For grins, I did some searching online and initially kept coming up with 10k Big Eyes having 24-inch fresnels. Then I turned up an example of an 18-inch one. I can't say for sure which was used; only that the drawing seems to imply the 18-inch ones. Of course, this may have merely been a case of the draftsman using the nearest size circle template to draw them. The overall dimensions were the critical ones: Can a camera or lighting rig fit in a given area between walls or objects. An incidental measurement like the fresnel pads would not have been quite as critical.
> 
> ...


Mark,

All good interesting points.
I'll have to go back and double check my notes.
I do remember for sure that the website said that TOS shot there. (..edit - duh just reread that you said about that - double checking).
All the doors matched up pretty good.
(Granted one or two things might have been different that stage has been there for quite a while and some mods could have been made since the 60's)

The first clue as to the size of the transporter pads was a comment about them being fresnels, but at the time, the info said 5K.

Here is what is pretty darned certain.
Its a Mole light.

I wonder if counting the number of ribs in the fresnel might offer some clue about the actual fresnel used?

Here is a simple test.......draw out 18" and 24" circles.
Stand on them and see which one more closely matches screen grabs.


Your comment about Paramount re-numbering the stages is something I don't know if I considered at the time, so me revisiting the issue is defiantly in order.

PS Mark are you coming up for SEMMEX? if so, we should discuss stuff in person.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

The transporter pads were (or "are" as they still exist) 20" fresnel lenses made of Pyrex. They were from the standard-issue Mole 10K "Tener" lights. Underneath the lenses on each transporter pad were the blast screens. These are heavy-guage wire screens used to protect the lens (and people on the set) in the case of a lamp explosion. 

I first provided this information to the ASAP board back around 2003, and it spread like wildfire, but has not always been repeated accurately, I'm afraid.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Trek Ace said:


> The transporter pads were (or "are" as they still exist) 20" fresnel lenses made of Pyrex. They were from the standard-issue Mole 10K "Tener" lights. Underneath the lenses on each transporter pad were the blast screens. These are heavy-guage wire screens used to protect the lens (and people on the set) in the case of a lamp explosion.
> 
> I first provided this information to the ASAP board back around 2003, and it spread like wildfire, but has not always been repeated accurately, I'm afraid.


So what is the diameter of the bezel?


----------



## Petri Blomqvist (Dec 19, 2001)

Long ago, I made 3D models of some of the sets using the same photogrammetry and 3D overlay methods as I used when working with Gary K. on TOS Enterprise (and am using on the Galileo atm), and for what it's worth, the measurements I arrived at were that the transporter platform was 13 feet in diameter, with 20" pads and 1 1/4" wide bezels around them. The tubes in the ceiling are 1' diameter.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, I guess that settles that...


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

I would go with Trek ACE on this. He has always seemed to...know things. Thanks for the reminder, A.C.E. I had neglected to take down that info at the time.

Petrie's photogrammetry is also another good confirmation. Especially given the 13-foot diameter chamber, which is what the stage diagram implies.

Excellent work all 'round!

M.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

MGagen said:


> I would go with Trek ACE on this. He has always seemed to...know things. Thanks for the reminder, A.C.E. I had neglected to take down that info at the time.
> 
> Petrie's photogrammetry is also another good confirmation. Especially given the 13-foot diameter chamber, which is what the stage diagram implies.
> 
> ...


Thanks to everyone who responded. A wealth of information has been shared here!


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Fozzie -

A good source of info might be the folks that make the New Voyages/Phase II web series. They have a fully built replica of the TOS transporter set. From the couple of episodes I have looked at, it's pretty accurate. James Cawley is known for being a stickler for detail.

You should give them a shout, I'm sure they'd be willing to provide the info you need.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Gemini1999 said:


> Fozzie -
> 
> A good source of info might be the folks that make the New Voyages/Phase II web series. They have a fully built replica of the TOS transporter set. From the couple of episodes I have looked at, it's pretty accurate. James Cawley is known for being a stickler for detail.
> 
> You should give them a shout, I'm sure they'd be willing to provide the info you need.


Not a bad idea...! Thanks.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

So, who knows what's up with that swirly glass that is used in the transporter chamber and that repeating pattern that runs vertically between each pane of glass.

Does anyone know the measurements for that graphic?


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

ClubTepes said:


> So, who knows what's up with that swirly glass that is used in the transporter chamber and that repeating pattern that runs vertically between each pane of glass.
> 
> Does anyone know the measurements for that graphic?


Those panels aren't actually glass and the swirly pattern is known as a "moire" pattern on translucent lenticular sheeting. They were usually available on mylar, plastic, or polycarbonate in rolls (similar to wallpaper). Back in the 70's, I had a fish tank and I found the same pattern in a local aquarium shop, so I used it on my tank because it mimicked the look of the transporter panels.

Edit: I did some online research and came up with something that looks similar. I also updated the text of my this post to correct some of the details. Here is a link to a plastics company that offers a similar product:

http://www.sommers.com/ecommerce/specialties/lenticular-in-rolls-moire/clear-moire-lenticular-in-rolls-polycarbonate.jsp


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Fozzie said:


> I'm going to try to score concentric rings into clear sheet styrene using my Silhouette die cutter and see how that comes out, but if that doesn't work, I may have to look into that.


Hey, Fozzie...take a look at these. 

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&keywords=magnifying%20sheets&page=1&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Amagnifying%20sheets

You'd be wasting the rest of the sheet to get six of them, but you wouldn't have to go to the trouble of scribing all those concentric circles. Just a thought.


----------



## Atlanthia (Jan 24, 2013)

I have been thinking about tackling this build myself but at 1/10 scale to fit the Art asylum figures. It would be a pretty big model but I am looking at the possibility of making a display cabinet with several "floors" and each one displaying a different area of the TOS Enterprise interior sets. It always comes down to *space* which, in my wife's case, is the final straw rather than the final frontier!


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Space (the final frontier) is also what put the brakes on this project as well as expanding my bridge set further. The 3' TOS E and 3' refit eat up a lot of space...

I like the "floors" idea, Atlanthia...


----------



## Atlanthia (Jan 24, 2013)

Thanks, Fozzie 
I thought I could join all the floors up with a turbo lift that could actually ascend and descend between the floors; even if its a simple string winding method, like pulling up a bucket of water from a deep well.


----------

