# Bussard motion blur study



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Others may have done this before but I wanted to see for myself how shutter speed affects the look of the bussard spinner. So, I took a series of photos at different shutter speeds and you can see the tapered look does happen even with straight lines for the "fans".


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Nice comparison.:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

The cameras that filmed the _Enterprise _utilized 175-degree shutter angle, which resulted in a shutter speed of nearly 1/50 of a second exposure.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Now THAT is an excellent piece of detective work.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

That looks nice - but don't the Master Replicas do the same with tapered blades?

At least that's the way it looks on the YouTube vids....

I don't think motion blur is in dispute - but it does not prove or disprove any tapering in the blades because they are not mutually exclusive. Plus the taper, if any, wouldn't be huge anyway.

Unless somebody has a clear pic of the bussards with the production fans in them at a stand-still, this seems to be "any way you want to do it" on your model.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

As I said I just wanted to see for myself how the motion blur looks and share the images.

The same shots would have to be done with tapered blades to compare, logically tapered blades would add even more taper to the motion blur, but each blade would have a darker center line. 

If someone wants to send me a free Master Replicas Enterprise I'd gladly take the pictures and share them.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Understood - the images are good.

But there are so many other variables - like, are the motors in the MR or PL light kit spinning at proportionately the same speed as the 11ft production motors? Faster or slower would affect the image. Is a comparison footage of the Big E in the show sped up or slowed down?

Too many "other" things to account for before one could reach a logical conclusion, logically arrived at. 

Unless there is a conclusive pic from that period....


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

J_Indy said:


> But there are so many other variables - like, are the motors in the MR or PL light kit spinning at proportionately the same speed as the 11ft production motors? Faster or slower would affect the image. Is a comparison footage of the Big E in the show sped up or slowed down?


Changing the frames per second doesn't change the blur unless you are using a bad TV (slow frame response time), on film it's the shutter speed of the camera that matters. 

If we knew the RPM of the original motors and the shutter speed of the camera then more detective work could be done. Although I'm not sure even the stills from the HD transfers are clear enough even for that. That's the biggest problem, you can adjust shutter speed to compensate for different RPM and get the same look, but unless you have a really clear original frame for comparison it doesn't really matter.

I'm sure the effects guys knew how blur made spinning things look on film, I guess the questions are did they think it would be so bad on TV that they needed to add taper to get straight black lines? Or did they know that the end product was TV and a fine detail like that would be lost, so why do the extra work?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

MartyS said:


> If we knew the RPM of the original motors and the shutter speed of the camera then more detective work could be done.


Go back and read post #3 if you want to know the shutter speed. I'm not sure about the exact RPM of the spinner motors. I don't remember them being particularly fast. Since I do not light my models with the Polar Lights light kit (the timings are all wrong), I do not know the rotational speed of the motors they use in their light kit in comparison.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Trek Ace said:


> Go back and read post #3 if you want to know the shutter speed. I'm not sure about the exact RPM of the spinner motors. I don't remember them being particularly fast.


Did you ever see them spinning with the naked eye? That would be cool.
Due to strobe effect you can't judge RPM from video unless you can find a distinguishing feature that could be tracked completely around, but even then we don't know if the frame rate was kept constant throughout the process of compositing the effects.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

MartyS said:


> Changing the frames per second doesn't change the blur unless you are using a bad TV (slow frame response time), on film it's the shutter speed of the camera that matters.
> 
> If we knew the RPM of the original motors and the shutter speed of the camera then more detective work could be done. Although I'm not sure even the stills from the HD transfers are clear enough even for that. That's the biggest problem, you can adjust shutter speed to compensate for different RPM and get the same look, but unless you have a really clear original frame for comparison it doesn't really matter.
> 
> I'm sure the effects guys knew how blur made spinning things look on film, I guess the questions are did they think it would be so bad on TV that they needed to add taper to get straight black lines? Or did they know that the end product was TV and a fine detail like that would be lost, so why do the extra work?


Excellent questions. 'Filming miniatures archeology' should be an actual academic study. 

I'll throw this out there for context consideration:

1. Is it instructive to look at the paint and deco of the model? There's very very subtle work there that overall would not show on 1960s NTSC color televisions. Does that paint job inform us that they desired to do a job better than bare minimum needed, just because they could?

2. recall the technology level of the time. Whenever possible they used 'off the shelf' items- Automobile bulbs, Christmas tree lights, mirror bits broken from something likely bought at the corner Woolworths. The motors in the nacelles were SOMETHING handy and common. Were the fan blades custom or something else that happened to be the right size/shape? Recall, too, this all was retrofitted to the existing model. 

Time and money were a consideration. A couple of motors sitting around the shop were more likely than running out and buying brand new. I thought I saw somewhere a pic of one of the nacelles taken apart and it struck me how...it looked weird to me for some reason. almost unsafe. real jackleg mechanics. 

Are there ANY pics of the nacelle lit but not spinning from the '60s? ANYTHING with the dome off? I'm guessing not or there wouldn't be this questioning, huh? 

Wait, there was something....aw, crap. I was thinking of that early '70s War of the Worlds promo film, with the hilarious "here is the work studio of our production" with the bits of Star Trek miniatures laying about, there was one of the nacelles behind Jefferies as he showed off a painting, but it's nose down! (if you have the video captured it's roughly at the 7:25 mark)

So much for that idea. Can't help but think resting that nacelle on its dome couldn't have been too good an idea


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Steve H said:


> Time and money were a consideration. A couple of motors sitting around the shop were more likely than running out and buying brand new. I thought I saw somewhere a pic of one of the nacelles taken apart and it struck me how...it looked weird to me for some reason. almost unsafe. real jackleg mechanics.


Yeah, the pictures I've seen the parts look like they came off old cars or motorcycles. For some reason they look out of place, like you were expecting to see finely machined parts... Clunky spinning parts and lots of pieces of broken mirror glass glued near it, definitely give it an unsafe look.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Hypotheses:

1. Since linear velocity increases linearly with radius, straight blades will appear tapered when rotating. If the angular velocity w and blade thickness t stay constant, the width of the sweep s should increase linearly with the radius of the blade. r * w * t = s
This seems to have been confirmed with photographs and 3D simulations of straight bustard blades.

2. However, under the same conditions, tapered blades will appear curved when rotating.
This has not been confirmed, but graphing the sweep of a hypothetical (linearly) tapered blade has produced a curved shape. 
If the thickness t increases with radius, the curve will not be linear, but will be concave upward. Will it be quadratic? I don't know, because my math is rusty.



Anyway, I'm thinking the original blades were straight, since I don't recall having seen curved blades in photographs or moving images.

Make sense? Or am I off here?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

SteveR said:


> Hypotheses:
> 
> 1. Since linear velocity increases linearly with radius, straight blades will appear tapered when rotating. If the angular velocity w and blade thickness t stay constant, the width of the sweep s should increase linearly with the radius of the blade. r * w * t = s
> This seems to have been confirmed with photographs and 3D simulations of straight bustard blades.
> ...


Makes sense to me. Is it instructive to reference propeller driven aircraft? Because every movie I've ever seen with prop planes they look like there's a taper to the blades and obviously this is not the case.

And of course as a pilot (former or current) both Jefferies and Roddenberry would be quite familiar with that image. *

It just strikes me that from several considerations it's logical to believe the blades were straight.

*note: Roddenberry likely said "I want it kinda like this", I have no idea if Jefferies had any input but I suspect from a mechanical POV he may have been consulted. Did the original maker do all the retrofitting lights/wiring etc. or is that documentation part of what has been lost to time?


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

I'm not sure about that, you need to calculate distance traveled per unit time for each point along the edge, the difference for a tapered edge would be the starting point. So I'm thinking it would be additive, not multiplied. So the blurred taper would be more pronounced but still a straight line.

You could go nuts and calculate the distance needed at a certain RPM and shutter speed so the trailing edge of the tapered blade doesn't pass the starting point of the leading edge while the shutter is open. If calculated just right it would give you a straight black line down the center of the motion blurred fan blade. Of course with straight blades you could just lower the RPM so you get less blur and more black, then adjust frames per second on the camera to get the RPM you wanted it to be in the effect. Witch one fits "time and money" the best? For me straight blades fit better with the idea of "what was lying around" than custom designed ones.

It's fun to theorize but without some really clearly defined images showing the shape of the blur it's not really possible to say definitively.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Allow me to toss another issue on top of this. 

What, exactly, WAS the shape of the 'fan'? I'm still unclear on that specific aspect on the original miniature. 

We know that Polar Lights/R2 represents this part with an inner dome that spins around. It's a decent idea and it works but is it what was used back in the '60s?

See, I'm just not sure. I guess I'd think you'd see some kind of artifact of that, an inner dome spinning around, but maybe not, with the paint and the frosted (?) clear and studio lights and the effect lights. 

I don't see how it could be a flat disc spinning inside the dome, those lines are FAR too sharp in the way they conform and curve along the surface to be projected shadow. Also, the effect would look different as the camera angle changed and we KNOW that doesn't happen, so that idea seems right out. 

A spinning 'cage' isn't illogical other than the effort needed to make such a thing. You'd want a ring at the 'base' to keep everything aligned because if one of the blades bent it would throw everything off. 

So, by deduction, lines (painted? tape?) on a smaller dome inside the nacelle dome seems the most reasonable? 

But...wait a moment. We have no pics of the actual fan, the dome removed, right? We DO (if I recall) have a pic of the motor. That grubby beast of a motor. What does the shaft, the driving spindle, look like? Did it end in a threaded tip, or was it more a tube? Did it look like it reached to the dome or was it stubby? AARRGGH. Why can't I recall where I saw that pic?

OK, sorry. Why it matters. A stubby spindle implies that the fan was closer to the lights. A longer spindle says the attachment point was closer to the apex of the dome. Which would have been hidden by the original spires that were there. I refuse to say warp nipples. 

Oh, bother. I'll just go back in time with a HD digital camera and take pics as it was built. That'll solve everything. Then I'll just nip over to 20th Century Fox for when the various Irwin Allen shows were in pre-production...


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

MartyS said:


> I'm not sure about that, you need to calculate distance traveled per unit time for each point along the edge, the difference for a tapered edge would be the starting point. So I'm thinking it would be additive, not multiplied. So the blurred taper would be more pronounced but still a straight line.


You may be right, sir! Here's a 3D rotating sphere with an image of tapered blades mapped onto it.




It just goes to show: all the data in the world won't help if the construct ("multiplicative") is faulty.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Trek Ace said:


> The cameras that filmed the _Enterprise _utilized 175-degree shutter angle, which resulted in a shutter speed of nearly 1/50 of a second exposure.


Now thats an interesting piece of info.

I'm not disputing at all, but I am curious as to the source of the info.

Again - not disputing. Just very curious.

I'm in the Grip/Electric departments on features, but I work closely with the camera guys.

So I'm curious as to what camera was used and did it have a variable shutter angle (some do and some don't).

I don't read every piece of Trek trivia, so I don't know if all this was printed anywhere.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Steve H said:


> A spinning 'cage' isn't illogical other than the effort needed to make such a thing. You'd want a ring at the 'base' to keep everything aligned because if one of the blades bent it would throw everything off.


Wow, now that I think about it I really like that cage idea.

Thinking about how much light gets to the apex of the dome you have to think there's nothing solid nearby, not even the spindle that would hold a spinning dome. A bunch of D shaped wire sections soldered together would be pretty easy to make, and could be spun from down near the base where the lights are. Any shadows from the supporting wires down near the lights would be too diffuse to see, only the darker ones from the wires near the dome would show up. Some 8 or 10 gauge wire would probably be about right...


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

MartyS said:


> Wow, now that I think about it I really like that cage idea.
> 
> Thinking about how much light gets to the apex of the dome you have to think there's nothing solid nearby, not even the spindle that would hold a spinning dome. A bunch of D shaped wire sections soldered together would be pretty easy to make, and could be spun from down near the base where the lights are. Any shadows from the supporting wires down near the lights would be too diffuse to see, only the darker ones from the wires near the dome would show up. Some 8 or 10 gauge wire would probably be about right...


Right right right because now I think of it, if there was a spindle running to the tip of the dome wouldn't that throw a shadow? 

That light is fairly intense and the dome isn't THAT opaque. 

What am I missing? what am I forgetting?

It's not noticeable on the PL kit because the inner dome is a clear part with a clear spindle. Right?


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

So we can rule this out, then?



How about this?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

SteveR said:


> So we can rule this out, then.
> 
> 
> 
> How about this?


Do you mind if I tell you how impressed I am by your speed and ability to grasp ideas I fumble and stumble around trying to explain, when the picture is crystal clear in my head? I am filled with envy and wish I had these skills. 

And, further speculation. Might the spokes supporting the bottom rim of the cage cast a slight shadow that could result in the 'blades' appearing tapered?


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

I don't know how they actually did the bussard effect, but this picture of the Christmas light sockets after the Big E arrived at the Smithsonian suggests (to me, anyway) that the inner fan spun on the motor like twirling an open umbrella. 

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb..._model_inner_workings_of_the_nacelle_caps.jpg

The light sockets (and missing lights in the picture) would have protruded into the canopy of the inner dome of the fan blades, so any support at the base like sprockets would have interfered with the rotation. The shaft for the dome doesn't look thick enough to cast a noticeable shadow, especially because there are the 5 non-blinking lights of the bussard that are always on, and evenly spaced around the axle of the motor, canceling out any directional shadow casting.

But that's just an opinion....


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Steve H said:


> Do you mind if I tell you how impressed I am by your speed and ability to grasp ideas I fumble and stumble around trying to explain, when the picture is crystal clear in my head? I am filled with envy and wish I had these skills.


Heh -- thanks, but it was _your_ concept of the "D" that led me to make the second image. Your words were clear to me! :thumbsup:



Steve H said:


> And, further speculation. Might the spokes supporting the bottom rim of the cage cast a slight shadow that could result in the 'blades' appearing tapered?


That's a tough one, but I think that motion blur has shown us that straight blades don't need any help to look tapered when moving. Hmm ... but I think that blades close to the bulbs would cast soft shadows, and multiple shadows, while blades close to the dome would cast sharper shadows that would seem single. 

It looks as if J_Indy may be adding support for image #1. After a fashion.

Good discussion. Let me know if you need any more images to express ideas.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

Re camera: Here is the big E being photographed with a Michell camera. According to published specs, most Michell models had a fixed shutter angle, at 24fps the exposure was 1/51 sec.










Re fan blades: Here are two period shots that seem to show straight blades.


















It's my understanding that the fan blades were never meant to be seen as such. They were there as an interruption device, to make the lights appear to flicker and move. There are many scenes where the lights appear to be swirling around the dome, when it's just the rotation of the blades. The shape wouldn't be critical for this effect, so it makes sense to just make them out of some metal strap material. Tapered blades wouldn't add anything to the effect, and would make the clear spaces where the lights show through smaller.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

robn1 said:


> According to published specs, most Michell models had a fixed shutter angle, at 24fps the exposure was 1/51 sec.
> 
> Re fan blades: Here are two period shots that seem to show straight blades.
> 
> ... They were there as an interruption device, to make the lights appear to flicker and move. ... The shape wouldn't be critical for this effect, so it makes sense to just make them out of some metal strap material. Tapered blades wouldn't add anything to the effect, and would make the clear spaces where the lights show through smaller.


Terrific. Thanks! :thumbsup:


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

J_Indy said:


> The light sockets (and missing lights in the picture) would have protruded into the canopy of the inner dome of the fan blades, so any support at the base like sprockets would have interfered with the rotation. The shaft for the dome doesn't look thick enough to cast a noticeable shadow, especially because there are the 5 non-blinking lights of the bussard that are always on, and evenly spaced around the axle of the motor, canceling out any directional shadow casting.


I thought they used Christmas tree lights, those old style bulbs were only an inch or 2 high, and that central hub doesn't seem to protrude all the way up to where the dome would be.

I still like the cage idea, but maybe with a profile more like this:


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

MartyS said:


> I thought they used Christmas tree lights, those old style bulbs were only an inch or 2 high, and that central hub doesn't seem to protrude all the way up to where the dome would be.
> 
> I still like the cage idea, but maybe with a profile more like this:


The remaining part of the axle doesn't have to traverse the whole length to the inner dome if there is an attachment piece from the dome that protrudes back to mate with the axle.

(Lord only knows - like in Raider of the Lost Ark, I'm just making stuff up as I go... )


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

MartyS said:


> I still like the cage idea, but maybe with a profile more like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

J_Indy said:


> The remaining part of the axle doesn't have to traverse the whole length to the inner dome if there is an attachment piece from the dome that protrudes back to mate with the axle.


That's still a lot of hardware up high in the dome that would probably cast a shadow, it's got to be something lower or more open at the top.

If the quote about the idea for the spinners was to bounce light around, similar to what the mirror shards were for, then that goes back to having flat shiny strips of metal held out somehow.

If I wanted to do that I'd probably build something like this (best I can do quickly in FreeCAD):


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Actually, the back end of the bulbs do cast a shadow - toward the back of the dome. If you watch the side view of the nacelles, the rear of the dome is always less brightly lit than toward the front (the shadow is also partly due to the motion blur of the fans). Also, to my eye, it looks like they sand-blasted the center of the dome a bit more than the rest - like they wanted to hide the connection point of the blades by making the front more opaque. They would do that from the inside of the dome, of course (if they actually did do it), so you wouldn't notice a change in texture from the outside.

The CAD pic looks good - but why not just make the inside part of the blades polished like mirrors to bounce light backward so it can be bounced forward again (kind of like how the eyes of dogs and cats glow in low light because the light bounces around in their eyeballs a 2nd time).


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I get that the point of the fan blades was to interrupt the light ala Forbidden Planet, an obvious touchstone for much of early Trek development, but I do recall some interview, some article that PART of the reasoning was to get that 'spinning prop blade' look going, it wasn't so much a happy accident as part of the design. 

Thicker blades, a spinning metal dome with holes in it (a colander?  ), these would have achieved 'random flicker' just as easily but the design chosen does create defined, noticeable 'blades'. 

Sorry I have no link to an article. This is a problem with being a fan that was contemporaneous with the show, I've read a LOT of stuff over 50 years... 

(and I read every single thing I could find, too. Didn't we all?)


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

J_Indy said:


> The CAD pic looks good - but why not just make the inside part of the blades polished like mirrors to bounce light backward so it can be bounced forward again (kind of like how the eyes of dogs and cats glow in low light because the light bounces around in their eyeballs a 2nd time).


Yes, that was what I was thinking, the inside would be polished, with all those random shards of mirror and spinning reflectors above them it would bounce the light around. And the colored blinking lights do seem to move around when you can actually notice them in a shot.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

MartyS said:


> Yes, that was what I was thinking, the inside would be polished, with all those random shards of mirror and spinning reflectors above them it would bounce the light around. And the colored blinking lights do seem to move around when you can actually notice them in a shot.


I'm not sure on this idea. I mean, for NOW, today, a contemporary build, it's cool, but for back then? It seems too much work, too finicky for minor results. 

Robn1 called it an 'interrupter' device. Think to the space drive effect of the C 57-D in Forbidden Planet. I don't think the 'blades' reflected light, just covered over them as they blinked. A shutter if you will. There would likely be some reflection from the inside of the dome however. 

You know, the more we discuss this, the more amazing and complex it seems for what was, mechanically, a very simple effect. Steady lights, blinking lights, a rotating fan-like device. That simple deconstruction doesn't begin to hint at the final as-seen effect


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Steve H said:


> I'm not sure on this idea. I mean, for NOW, today, a contemporary build, it's cool, but for back then? It seems too much work, too finicky for minor results.


Wouldn't be all that much work or be finicky. We are not talking about very high speeds here, so it wouldn't have to be super strong. Polishing some sheet metal and shearing off a bunch of strips wouldn't take long. Make a form to bend them and attach the supports, could have a bunch of them made in less than a day pretty easily.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Are their any shots that have the clapper and the shot info on them like the ones used for the Jupiter 2, that showed 96, 116 and 180 FPS?


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

MartyS said:


> That's still a lot of hardware up high in the dome that would probably cast a shadow, it's got to be something lower or more open at the top.
> 
> If the quote about the idea for the spinners was to bounce light around, similar to what the mirror shards were for, then that goes back to having flat shiny strips of metal held out somehow.
> 
> If I wanted to do that I'd probably build something like this (best I can do quickly in FreeCAD):


Like this?


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Steve H said:


> Right right right because now I think of it, if there was a spindle running to the tip of the dome wouldn't that throw a shadow?
> 
> That light is fairly intense and the dome isn't THAT opaque.
> 
> ...


I thought the motors were standard windshield wiper motors.

Anyway, I'm willing to bet that there was a spindle.
It MAY have thrown a shadow, noticeable if only a single light were lit.
But since there were constantly lights flashing and some that stayed on, the shadow would likely be lost in the spinning blades.
Also, with the proximity of the bulbs to the spindle, one might not at first recognize it AS a shadow, as at that distance of the bulbs from the spindle might make any shadow look like a big pie wedge, blending right in to the motif anyway. 

I will agree that a good question is....... was their an inner dome (like we put on the 1/350 kit) or wasn't there.
If there was, then the fan blades could be any shape.

However, if there wasn't an inner dome, then my feeling is that the fan blades were straight pieces of metal bent into half circles, intersecting and overlapping in the middle.
I don't remember the actual number of blades at the moment, but lets say 10 blades. That might mean 5 pieces of metal intersecting in the middle with a bolt passing through to the spindle.
Having the metal taper in the center would only create weakness and increase chances of any deformation.

As for the idea of them bending, and the cage idea, my personal solution would be a band of metal running around the base, connecting the ends of all the fan blades so that they didn't snag on anything.

I personally don't worry about the speed, because I think that the speed varied.
On the kit, we looked at different speeds, balancing what looked 'right' to our eye and not how it might look if filmed with a motion picture camera that used film.
Simply because 99.99% of people are going to enjoy their model 'live' and not film it, to view it.

And also having to take into consideration motors available, gear ratios, budget etc. We defiantly passed on some that didn't look like they had the right speed. And we passed on some that were simply way too noisy. Ultimately it was up to the individuals personal opinion.

I did a sequence of 236 frame grabs from the beginning of 'The Ultimate Computer' (I think) when the Enterprise was leaving the space station, that I used to help me understand the effect for my lightwave model.
We referenced that study while creating the kit.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

SteveR said:


> Like this?


Yes, something like that is what I'm thinking now. Seeing a full circle of them maybe the blades would be a little less wide.

That allows for a decent sized mounting plate that isn't too high, has line of sight from each bulb past the apex of the dome. If I were doing it I'd use polished brass sheet and either threaded rod or brass rod (soldering would be faster than drilling and bolting).


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

MartyS said:


> Yes, something like that is what I'm thinking now. Seeing a full circle of them maybe the blades would be a little less wide.
> 
> That allows for a decent sized mounting plate that isn't too high, has line of sight from each bulb past the apex of the dome. If I were doing it I'd use polished brass sheet and either threaded rod or brass rod (soldering would be faster than drilling and bolting).


Maybe with a ring at the apex to stiffen it a bit and bring them together there.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

SteveR said:


> Maybe with a ring at the apex to stiffen it a bit and bring them together there.


You guys are way too concerned with how strong and rigid it would be, each light piece of sheet metal wouldn't not need that much support, and doesn't need to bear any load, just low speed spinning.

That could be the reason they didn't survive. They didn't stand up to being knocked around in storage.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

So is there a preference? Column or no column?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

MartyS said:


> You guys are way too concerned with how strong and rigid it would be, each light piece of sheet metal wouldn't not need that much support, and doesn't need to bear any load, just low speed spinning.
> 
> That could be the reason they didn't survive. They didn't stand up to being knocked around in storage.


And THIS goes to something I have to get off my chest.

I have to apologize, because all through this thread I had, somehow, been working off a wrong assumption.

See, I was treating the discussion as archeology, decoding the past from fragments and hints. I was thinking of the Enterprise in the same way as the Jupiter II or Seaview, a stripped husk with bits of random stuff remaining and nothing but speculation on how this or that worked. Pottery shards trying to be reassembled to illuminate a time in history.

But it's not. The Enterprise still lives, albeit with a questionable restoration. Even with missing bits there's so much more to it than the Irwin Allen vehicles. The Enterprise was never 'cut down' to make another ship, nor holes cut into it to turn it into a 'building'. The miniature is mostly the same as it was in 1966. 

So, what did the restoration people do to replace the fan blades? DID they replace them? Does the effect look the same or did they cheat and just focus on the lights?

If there is to be something like a vote to build a consensus on the fan blade question, I would lean to whatever is the most simple. 

Watch, someone will chime in with how they used an accessory common in studio lighting at the time, some kind of moving gobo used with an inky or some such thing, and it didn't 'survive' because they pulled it off the model to go back to the lighting department. 

(and the domes went to the cafeteria for the salad bar.  )


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Steve H said:


> So, what did the restoration people do to replace the fan blades? DID they replace them? Does the effect look the same or did they cheat and just focus on the lights?


It's pretty well documented that the spinners and deflector dish were missing when it got to the Smithsonian in 74. So no one that did any restoration has had the originals to look at. At some point those red domes were put on, not sure if that was when it was loaned out before it got to the Smithsonian or after.

There are some pictures of when it was being reassembled at the Smithsonian the first time that show the shafts still there, but from head on it's hard to tell how far they come out.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

I did not read through the thread, but I was just wondering how such a subject could be discussed for 3 whole pages. lol.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Ha, yeah, I was just sharing some interesting pictures I took, things went on a bit from there.....


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Geeks "R" us?


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Anybody know who did the Master Replicas version and can ask why he made the blades tapered? 

After reading all this, maybe they actually WERE straight - but it would be interesting to know why they are not on that model.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

J_Indy said:


> Anybody know who did the Master Replicas version and can ask why he made the blades tapered?
> 
> After reading all this, maybe they actually WERE straight - but it would be interesting to know why they are not on that model.


Was that model motorized? Using taper to simulate motion is a thing that is done sometimes. Although it's usually done in paint so you can get the shading correct.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

MartyS said:


> Was that model motorized? Using taper to simulate motion is a thing that is done sometimes. Although it's usually done in paint so you can get the shading correct.


Yes - lights and (apparently) LLOOUUDD motors.


A funny thing just occurred to me....

IF the blades actually WERE straight - it would eliminate the 1 thing I thought Miarecki actually got right in his "restoration".


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

J_Indy said:


> A funny thing just occurred to me....
> 
> IF the blades actually WERE straight - it would eliminate the 1 thing I thought Miarecki actually got right in his "restoration".


Ha, more reason to hate that guy! 

So unfair, it really was the fault of the Smithsonian for hiring a modeller instead of someone that does restoration. But they wanted a pretty "thing" to put in the gift shop and that's what they got. To bad someone didn't think "would we reupholster Archie bunkers chair to put it in the gift shop?".

But now I'm getting off track.

After looking at some of the pictures of the spindles, they are so low resolution it's really hard to tell how far up they go, but they are at least half way up to the outer dome. And it's really hard to see but looks like threaded rod at the tip.

So this would be my latest profile:


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Thought I should probably explain the reasons I keep going for a "rod and sheet" design rather than an inner plexiglass dome one.

The only way I can see a dome not producing a shadow at the apex would be if the attachment point was fairly small. That means creating a threaded hole in the plexiglass that is perfectly aligned so the dome spins true. That would mean using a pretty big lathe to do the drilling and tapping, maybe they had one large enough in the model shop, maybe they didn't.

Next reason is it would be much easier to make adjustments to the thing if it were just rod and sheet metal, using a dome you are stuck with the size and shape of the dome you get, to make a change (closer or farther from the outer dome for example) you have to buy a new dome.

The last reason is cost, plexiglass domes were way more expensive back then than some sheet metal and rod.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

MartyS said:


> Ha, more reason to hate that guy!
> 
> So unfair, it really was the fault of the Smithsonian for hiring a modeller instead of someone that does restoration. But they wanted a pretty "thing" to put in the gift shop and that's what they got. To bad someone didn't think "would we reupholster Archie bunkers chair to put it in the gift shop?".
> 
> ...


Threaded on the end = windshield wiper motors. 

Logic says whatever was used they didn't extend the shaft on the motor. That's a starting point isn't it?

but nobody answered one of my questions. Does the 'restored' Enterprise at the Smithsonian Air and Space have 'fan blades' and did they wire all that to work, or did they just set up the lights and call it good?


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Steve H said:


> Threaded on the end = windshield wiper motors.
> 
> Logic says whatever was used they didn't extend the shaft on the motor. That's a starting point isn't it?


While they may have been windshield wiper motors, since the spinners didn't go back and forth they obviously didn't use the gear box that is typically attached to them.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

Steve H said:


> ...but nobody answered one of my questions. Does the 'restored' Enterprise at the Smithsonian Air and Space have 'fan blades' and did they wire all that to work, or did they just set up the lights and call it good?


Yes, the fans did spin at the time of the Star Trek exhibit, '91 I think it was, I saw it. But I recall the light effect didn't look much like it did in the show.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

robn1 said:


> Yes, the fans did spin at the time of the Star Trek exhibit, '91 I think it was, I saw it. But I recall the light effect didn't look much like it did in the show.


That must have been after the Miarecki restoration in 92, since they were missing when it got to the Smithsonian in 74, all the years it was hanging from the ceiling it had those solid red domes installed.

What he installed were shiny metal strips on a dome, they obviously were not shiny on the outside during production or the bright studio lights would have been reflected back instead of what we see, dark lines.


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

MartyS said:


> That must have been after the Miarecki restoration in 92, since they were missing when it got to the Smithsonian in 74, all the years it was hanging from the ceiling it had those solid red domes installed.
> 
> What he installed were shiny metal strips on a dome, they obviously were not shiny on the outside during production or the bright studio lights would have been reflected back instead of what we see, dark lines.



This raises the question--what color were the original strips? Aluminum? Black?

I could seem them being aluminum or silver, with the heavy backlighting from the bulbs making them appear much darker.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Gregatron said:


> This raises the question--what color were the original strips? Aluminum? Black?
> 
> I could seem them being aluminum or silver, with the heavy backlighting from the bulbs making them appear much darker.


No way to know unless some pictures of them surface.

They must have been painted black on the outside, or perhaps they were farther inside than we think, because if they were like what was installed in 92 they would have reflected the studio lights as they spun, have a look at any of the flash photos taken by people visiting it and you can see the strips reflecting back.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

You realize what this means, don't you....Don't You???

The ramifications are severe and potentially disastrous....

IF the blades were actually straight - that means that the crew currently tasked to restore the Grey Lady to her former glory for the 50th anniversary of the show MUST NOT REUSE Miarecki's replacements!!!

Instead, they must, using the proof-positive of their own research, fashion the correct blades for use at the 2016 unveiling.

Because - the model is unlikely to be worked on again for another 50 YEARS!!!

And the inaccuracy would linger and be sanctified, confounding future historians and Trivial Pursuit players.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

J_Indy said:


> And the inaccuracy would linger and be sanctified, confounding future historians and Trivial Pursuit players.


Unless they can track down someone alive that actually saw the darn things, we will probably be stuck with what is there now. If they don't intend to light it ever again, then I hope they at least paint those strips black so it will look closer to the on screen look when people take pictures of it.

But this brings up the other glaring inaccuracy that I really hope they correct, the "don't read this" jokes that were added instead of the proper access panel decals. Those make me more angry than the overdone grid colors.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Well - then the blades were definitely tapered.

I know this because I see the past by seeing the future.

After the 2016 Smithsonian Restoration that corrected the previous inaccuracies, it is undeniable that the blades are tapered.

All modellers should therefore future-proof their TOS E models by building them with tapered blades - or be found later to be in possession of an inaccurate model.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

J_Indy said:


> All modellers should therefore future-proof their TOS E models by building them with tapered blades - or be found later to be in possession of an inaccurate model.



It's NOT inaccurate, it's "personalized".


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

J_Indy said:


> Well - then the blades were definitely tapered.
> 
> I know this because I see the past by seeing the future.
> 
> ...


Logical. Flawlessly logical.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

SteveR said:


> Logical. Flawlessly logical.


I am honored.




And very disturbed....


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

J_Indy said:


> Well - then the blades were definitely tapered.
> 
> I know this because I see the past by seeing the future.
> 
> ...


You must have visited an alternate time line, for my visit to the PAST showed me that the blades are actually CURVED, and it is the motion that makes them seem straight and slightly tapered.

The builders showed me the kitchen appliance they took the part from, it was actually a whipping whisk for industrial blenders. It's a kind of blender that hasn't been made since the late '50s. 

I had to leave before they noticed the Sony GoPro I had hidden in a Polaroid 'Swinger' camera.

I hope the Time Police don't read this before my trip over to 20th Century Fox...

:tongue:


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

I'm not sure if this helps, but has anyone seen the article "Voyage to the Bottom of the Starship Enterprise Miniature" from 1972? I found it a while back on the Wayback Machine site. (Look for http://web.archive.org/web/20060703121136/http://members.aol.com/IDICPage/1972Voyage.html[6/27/2011 ) In it is a description of the 11-foot prop as it existed in 1972, and it says:*
"How tough was it getting the​​​​Enterprise’s lights, including the spinning lighting effect in the​
forward engine nacelles, working again? "We struggled only as much as you might when your Christmas lights would blow on a series circuit, and it still wouldn't light up. When we would get it working again in the nacelles, the turning action would cause the lights to loosen up again. We were constantly having to pull it apart. We didn't want the kids to be disappointed." But did the spinning nacelle domes, whose rotational speed could be varied by the control box, make a lot of​*​​​​*noise? "Not really. I was surprised--it only had a mild whirring sound, as I recall. Maybe a handblender*​
*on low--not quite that loud." The original Christmas lights that came with the model were **blown, and where do you find Christmas lights in April? Not to worry; resourceful GWC students**located replacement sets at a local store.*​ *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, and this **rotated at various controlled speeds. The starboard nacelle interior dome rotated clockwise, while **the port side rotated counter-clockwise. Ten multicolored miniature Christmas lights were in each **nacelle dome, just behind the rotating interior hemisphere. **Did you keep the *​​​​*Enterprise **lights running all day long? Or just sporadically? "(We) only ran the **lights--the engines--when we had people coming through. Or, if we decided to show it off to **someone special." Did they conduct a lot of heat? "No , not much that I recall. There were quite a*​
*few lights in the side, in addition to the Christmas lights in the engines."*

To me, that says the 11-footer's Bussard effects were created much the same way Polar Lights uses in the 1/350th kit.

Larry


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

LGFugate said:


> I'm not sure if this helps, but has anyone seen the article "Voyage to the Bottom of the Starship Enterprise Miniature" from 1972? I found it a while back on the Wayback Machine site. (Look for http://web.archive.org/web/20060703121136/http://members.aol.com/IDICPage/1972Voyage.html[6/27/2011 ) In it is a description of the 11-foot prop as it existed in 1972, and it says:*
> "How tough was it getting the​​​​Enterprise’s lights, including the spinning lighting effect in the​
> forward engine nacelles, working again? "We struggled only as much as you might when your Christmas lights would blow on a series circuit, and it still wouldn't light up. When we would get it working again in the nacelles, the turning action would cause the lights to loosen up again. We were constantly having to pull it apart. We didn't want the kids to be disappointed." But did the spinning nacelle domes, whose rotational speed could be varied by the control box, make a lot of​*​​​​*noise? "Not really. I was surprised--it only had a mild whirring sound, as I recall. Maybe a handblender*​
> *on low--not quite that loud." The original Christmas lights that came with the model were **blown, and where do you find Christmas lights in April? Not to worry; resourceful GWC students**located replacement sets at a local store.*​ *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, and this **rotated at various controlled speeds. The starboard nacelle interior dome rotated clockwise, while **the port side rotated counter-clockwise. Ten multicolored miniature Christmas lights were in each **nacelle dome, just behind the rotating interior hemisphere. **Did you keep the *​​​​*Enterprise **lights running all day long? Or just sporadically? "(We) only ran the **lights--the engines--when we had people coming through. Or, if we decided to show it off to **someone special." Did they conduct a lot of heat? "No , not much that I recall. There were quite a*​
> ...



Nice Archeology!!

I remember reading this too - a long time ago, and forgot all about it!

Funny thing - those nacelle bands in those pics can still tilt either way (straight or slight taper) to me....


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Great find.

_"A conglomeration of electrical cables fed from the box to the ‘guts’ of the model (through its port side) to work all of its lights and the ‘engines,’ which were really just tiny (teardrop, multicolored) Christmas lights inside plastic covers that revolved for effect. I was very disappointed to find that the Smithsonian chose not to display any of this since it really was the fun part of the display," he said. "_


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Wow, finally a first hand account of them. So domes with black lines, yup, pretty much just like the PL 1:350 kit!

Wonder why those domes were missing 2 years later when it got to the Smithsonian?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

LGFugate said:


> I'm not sure if this helps, but has anyone seen the article "Voyage to the Bottom of the Starship Enterprise Miniature" from 1972? I found it a while back on the Wayback Machine site. (Look for http://web.archive.org/web/20060703121136/http://members.aol.com/IDICPage/1972Voyage.html[6/27/2011 ) In it is a description of the 11-foot prop as it existed in 1972, and it says:*
> "How tough was it getting the​​​​Enterprise’s lights, including the spinning lighting effect in the​
> forward engine nacelles, working again? "We struggled only as much as you might when your Christmas lights would blow on a series circuit, and it still wouldn't light up. When we would get it working again in the nacelles, the turning action would cause the lights to loosen up again. We were constantly having to pull it apart. We didn't want the kids to be disappointed." But did the spinning nacelle domes, whose rotational speed could be varied by the control box, make a lot of​*​​​​*noise? "Not really. I was surprised--it only had a mild whirring sound, as I recall. Maybe a handblender*​
> *on low--not quite that loud." The original Christmas lights that came with the model were **blown, and where do you find Christmas lights in April? Not to worry; resourceful GWC students**located replacement sets at a local store.*​ *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, and this **rotated at various controlled speeds. The starboard nacelle interior dome rotated clockwise, while **the port side rotated counter-clockwise. Ten multicolored miniature Christmas lights were in each **nacelle dome, just behind the rotating interior hemisphere. **Did you keep the *​​​​*Enterprise **lights running all day long? Or just sporadically? "(We) only ran the **lights--the engines--when we had people coming through. Or, if we decided to show it off to **someone special." Did they conduct a lot of heat? "No , not much that I recall. There were quite a*​
> ...



*clap clap clap clap*

As I said, lots of vintage stuff published, who knows what all has been digitized?

Best of all, there is absolutely no agenda even possible here. Not someone who had an idea and pushed it regardless of actual evidence, not guessing in the dark, but actual 'off the cuff' account of an event. 

So. Inner dome, lines painted on it. Seems like 'the end' to me. 

(of course we have the speculation of how that dome was threaded to the motor...  )


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Steve H said:


> (of course we have the speculation of how that dome was threaded to the motor...  )


Thick plexiglass takes threads really well, I do it all the time, bolts into it can take quite a bit of torque without breaking. Also with the right cement you can bond two pieces and make them look like one, perfectly clear. So it would be easy to bond a cylinder to the inside to use as extra material to thread into, and have it stay clear.


----------

