[abritinthebay]

Ok, in an effort to compile a list of what we have discovered (I'm using the group we, my contribution is typing on this board and trying to help people) since Stefan drew up his awesome plans I thought I'd start this topic.

From what I can tell so far we have these discoveries, if you know of more please list them - if you can describe them please do and I'll edit this post to include more detail:

1. 15 plates on the space, not 14.
2. cyclotron rings are different sizes and spaced unequally (details?)
3. Shelf on powercell fin (details?)
4. Lower strip on crank generator is segmented, but a single piece (better description or image?)
5. PPD is tapered and smoothed on the corner (probably for a better casting pull) (image?)
6. Dale resistor on Ion Arm is actually a Sage M25W for GB1 packs.
7. 1/8" step on the lower powecell portion of the motherboard (see Exoray's post on the V71-X))
8. N-Filter appears to be 2.87" wide not 2.75 (2 1/2" PVC with 2.87 Outer Diameter).
9. Stefan's mobo doesn't seem to fit with his pack measurements as cleanly as expected.
10. Spacer plates aren't all regular sizes (tho this will vary pack to pack, so is minor).
11. Cable clamp is NOT 4" wide, it is (approx) 3.625"

Any more? Any more detail? Having this all in one place will help a lot.

[OAOSwartz]

u listed the shelf on the powercell fin twice, if i'm not mistaken

[loly2kn2]

The curve isnt shown here but is visible on the shot with all parts put together

Pic.JPG

Lawrence

[GB_Wales]

I know the clippard valves are different types, but are the ones used on the packs different sizes?
~gbinuk

[AJ Quick]

All Clippard valves use the same black body.

[abritinthebay]

Plus - Stefans's plans don't particularly deal with the greebles, just the core pack. The detail on things like legris elbows (what they are, and where to put them) is minimal. Which makes sense - that's not the focus of the plans.

However I included the Sage resistor as it seems a pretty major difference.

[GB_Wales]

Ah ok, thanks, just checking!

I felt it was a valid question so instead of starting another thread I thought I'd include it here.

~gbinuk

[abritinthebay]

Really the main thing I'm looking for here is detail - searching through the forum for "cyclotron rings" doesn't really help much!

Anyone able to help with details?

Or more things for that matter?

[Exoray]

Off to a good start and this is about as far as I got originally, but what we really need is details, people who are willing to share measurements of and details of the changes that need to be made... But these can't simply be opinions or tossed up numbers, if the plans are going to be revised at minimum they should be educated guesses based on reference materials...

Take for example the cyclotron rings, yeah we know they are 2 different sizes, but what sizes? I know what sizes I used on my shell, but I'm not 100% confident they are in fact correct, I did multiple overlays of the real packs but it wasn't real conclusive in the end, in fact I purposely made the inner diameter smaller then I suspected because it's easier to correct it larger if need... Also when I did my shell I idealized things, take for example the cyclotron rings, after multiple overlays of their locations I idealized and averaged their location on a grid rather then directly where the overlays fell...

And when I say overlays I mean digital or scaled print outs that are physically measured...

[GhostGuy]

If you want measurements for the cyclotron rings, here's a thread where I attempted to determine that:
http://www.gbfans.com/community/viewtop ... f=2&t=7915

The washers I ended using on my pack were:
2 1/2" OD, 1 3/8" ID
2 1/4" OD, 1 1/4" ID

However, the ID on both should be the same. And as the ID on the smaller one is clearly the more correct of the two, that gives us:
2 1/2" OD, 1 1/4" ID
2 1/4" OD, 1 1/4" ID

Changing this ID inceases the thickness of the larger washer by 1/16". But that's good, because the ring of my larger washer is clearly too thin due to its larger center hole compared to one in the reference photos.

The outer diameter of the smaller washers I have also looks like it might be off. More specifically, it looks slightly too big. Also, the inner hole looks like it might be a big smaller on the pack, and if that hole is smaller then the one on the big washer must be as well.

So, if we shave a further 1/8" off the ID of both, and reduce the OD of the smaller washer by 1/8", that leaves us with:
2 1/2" OD, 1 1/8" ID
2 1/8" OD, 1 1/8" ID

And doing that increases the thickness of the larger washer even more, to the point where we'll have added an eighth of an inch of extra washer materia; all the way around the inside hole. But that's good. Cause it looks to me like if you added that much it would make the thickness of the ring match the reference photos much more closely.


Now, if we look at Stephan's plans, they list the washer size as:
2 3/8" OD, 1 3/16" ID

That's a slightly smaller OD than the big washer, and a slightly larger ID than it. Which means the ring will be thinner than in my corrected measurements above. Which says to me that it might not be thick enough. Also, if the big washer's ID is 1 3/16" then the small washer's ID must also be 1 3/16", and knowing that my smaller washers are too large, and that my 2 1/8" OD is the more likely correct one, an ID of 3/16" paired with that OD is likely to make the washer too thin to match the reference photos.

So, tentatively, I'm gonna say that I think the diamters of the rings are:
2 1/2" OD, 1 1/8" ID
2 1/8" OD, 1 1/8" ID

But the only way to know for sure would be to produce a mockup in Photoshop of those ring sizes on a properly sized cyclotron.

[Exoray]

So, tentatively, I'm gonna say that I think the diamters of the rings are:
2 1/2" OD, 1 1/8" ID
2 1/8" OD, 1 1/8" ID

Well mine are...

2 3/8" OD, 1 1/8" ID
2 1/4" OD, 1 1/8" ID

But, I believe the final ID should be slightly larger probably 1 3/16"

But the only way to know for sure would be to produce a mockup in Photoshop of those ring sizes on a properly sized cyclotron.

I did this multiple times, but the problem is that one they are not all cut the same from pack to pack, second it's real hard to determine the exact edge from all the reference photos I have looked at...

[GhostGuy]

Well mine are...

2 3/8" OD, 1 1/8" ID
2 1/4" OD, 1 1/8" ID

But, I believe the final ID should be slightly larger probably 1 3/16"

I have to wonder... if the ID looks small to you, is adding 1/16" to the diameter even going to make a change you can notice?

I did this multiple times, but the problem is that one they are not all cut the same from pack to pack, second it's real hard to determine the exact edge from all the reference photos I have looked at...

All I want is to be able to look at it, and look at the reference photos and not see obvious differences in the distance to the edge of the pack or the thickness of the washers or the apparent size of the hole. Not gonna be able to tell if you're off by a sixteenth of an inch that way, but it'd be good enough to make me happy.

But right now, I'm pretty sure my washers aren't the right size, so I'm not happy with them.

Well, I'm sorta happy. I mean, the sizes I chose are aesthetically pleasing. Maybe even more so than the real pack's layout. Still...

[Exoray]

I have to wonder... if the ID looks small to you, is adding 1/16" to the diameter even going to make a change you can notice?

Actually I made a typo in haste, I meant 1 3/8", 1 3/16" would have actually been smaller then I had the washers laser cut...

[abritinthebay]

Exoray - as your new pack measurements come from Sean's pack, and Sean's pack was built after he had access to a real pack... I would say that Sean's pack must really be the defacto standard for things like this - more so than Stefan's plans.

Obviously there are some caveats to that, but if Sean's are closer to what we now know is correct than Stefan's then I'd say go with Sean's if we have no other source.

Thoughts?

[GhostGuy]

Actually I made a typo in haste, I meant 1 3/8"

So you think the right ID for both is the same as the ID on my larger washer.

I dunno... I took another look at my pack and the reference photos, and I gotta say, I still think the hole on my larger washer may be too big.

But that's neither here nor there, because I'm almost certain that both using a smaller OD than my larger washer AND using a larger ID than it is the wrong way to go... because the ring of my larger washer definitely looks more narrow than the ones on any of the reference photos I've seen.

So if yours are 1 1/18" ID right now, I'd say that's a good thing, 'cause if the hole was 3/8" instead I think the ring around your larger washer would be too thin.


But jeez, if I look at some of those reference photos which are angled almost head on, the size of the hole on the larger washers looks almost the same size as the Ion Knob. And my Ion Knob is the same size as the hole on my larger washers. So maybe the larger hole is the right size. But if so, to get that extra thickness on the ring you'd have to make the larger washer's OD even bigger, and looking at it... I have to say that mine look like they're pretty much at the limit so far as examining the space between the washers and the edge of the cyclotron and between the washers themselves.

In short, I'm still not confident about what the size is.

[edit]

I just compared your shell to the reference photos of the NY packs, and you know what? It does look like the holes could be bigger. But once you do that... I think your washers might be dead on, with a caveat:

Just to recap:

Your washers are:
2 3/8" OD, 1 1/8" ID
2 1/4" OD, 1 1/8" ID

And you think they should be:
2 3/8" OD, 1 3/8" ID
2 1/4" OD, 1 3/8" ID

But 1 3/8" is the ID on my larger washers which looks too big to me. 1 1/4" ID however is the ID of my smaller washer and that looks pretty good.

So I have a good feeling about these sizes:
2 3/8" OD, 1 1/4" ID
2 1/4" OD, 1 1/4" ID

[Exoray]

Exoray - as your new pack measurements come from Sean's pack, and Sean's pack was built after he had access to a real pack... I would say that Sean's pack must really be the defacto standard for things like this - more so than Stefan's plans.

Yeah but a lot of my shell was rebuilt from scratch by me, and in many cases I deviate from the way it was, I took Sean's measurements into consideration but didn't 100 adhere to them... The cyclotron rings are one example, I completely removed Sean's rings, hand new ones laser cut to my dimensions (consulted with Namebrand) and applied them on an idealized grid I drew on the cyclotron after taking multiple measurements and overlays from the screen used packs... For the overlays I perspective corrected multiple shots of the cycltron and scaled them to real size and literally placed the full size print outs on the shell and made note of dimensions...

I don't have many progress pictures, in fact I have very few, but here is one showing the two lower cyclotron placement... After lots of measurements and overlays you can see where I believed the rings to be, this is by the little tick marks... You can also see where after I had all 4 rings laid out, I squared up the whole layout, equalized and idealized all the dimensions and drew a new grid and placed the rings according to that...

You can faintly see the vertical centerline of the whole cycltron in this pictures as well, everything I did is based off that line as being true...

[GB_Wales]

I know that Sean's pack plans aren't as detailed, but are they more accurate than Steffan's? I thought it was the other way around!!
~gbinuk

[Exoray]

I know that Sean's pack plans aren't as detailed, but are they more accurate than Steffan's? I thought it was the other way around!!
~gbinuk

There are two sets of Sean's plans the public ones and the ones he has based on his hands on measurements from a real pack, this second set is not publicly available...

Stefan's plans are the most accurate publicly available plans...

[Donkey8012]

Why wouldn't he release the actual measurements? That seems kind of odd.

[AJ Quick]

Why wouldn't he release the actual measurements? That seems kind of odd.

He is very busy.

His first plans were based off of measurements taken from a Stunt Pack if I recall.

[enchanted unicorn]

Exoray, I just have to say how impressed I am with your attention to detail on this pack in getting it accurate. A herculean effort imo. I think of my methods for building my pack and I just have to laugh.

[abritinthebay]

Seconded. I can't wait to see the V71-X in person

Ok, well it sounds like honestly your Cyclotron Rings are probably the closest we'll get, given for variance in the actual packs themselves.

Obviously you have a high level of confidence that your measurements are closer to reference material, for the sake of knowing - how do you feel they compare to Stefans and Seans, and what are the measurements (and placement if possible) so I can add them to the top of the thread?

(also, why do you say the ID should be slightly larger? And why didn't you make them that way?)

[Exoray]

Obviously you have a high level of confidence that your measurements are closer to reference material, for the sake of knowing - how do you feel they compare to Stefans and Seans, and what are the measurements (and placement if possible) so I can add them to the top of the thread?

To be totally honest I don't recall the measurements I used, it was all done literally on the cyclotron not on paper, but I know Stefan's plans were pretty damn close...

What I did as I said was to literally take a full size (scaled) blow up of a reference photo and mark the locations of the holes, then I measured/calculated a vertical center line for the cyclotron and pulled horizontal perpendicular lines off the horizontal center line...

At that point I had a squared up grid on the cyclotron, and I also had tick marks were the overplayed reference photos showed them to be, I also referenced Stefan's measurements at this point, and averaged it all together an idealized it...

A little math, a little geometry and a little winging it...

(also, why do you say the ID should be slightly larger?

Because the more I looked at it over and over again I feel they 'could' be a little larger...

And why didn't you make them that way?)

The reason I kept them that size was explained, it's real easy to drill them out bigger, but if I made them bigger to start with and you wanted them smaller you would have to putty and fill all around them...

Here is an overly exaggerated example... Notice if I drill a bigger hole like depicted on the left, no problem, but if I drill a smaller hole like on the right, I need to fill the green area...

[Exoray]

Also in regards to the holes, look at these three reference shots, three different screen used packs... Unfortunately the angles don't match in the photos, but from my best observations and conclusions the holes are not entirely consistent in size...

The middle pack (PH Minnesota) one appears to have smaller holes, then the other two (PH New York left, Sony Studios right)

[Gareee]

Hmmm..... the blue label is even on the wrong side on the bumper of one of those packs!

Makes you wonder if that was a restoration issue, or if they just didn;t take as much care on maintainin g consistancy on the packs during filming.

[Ectofiend666]

*Nevermind.

[Gareee]

nevermind what?

[abritinthebay]

The middle pack (PH Minnesota) one appears to have smaller holes, then the other two (PH New York left, Sony Studios right)

True - the goal I guess isn't to reproduce a specific pack, but to get as close to a "definitive approximation" of all the packs.

Isn't that pack on the left the cruddy replica pack that NY has? Certainly looks completely different to the other two (and newer).

[rockstar232007]

The middle pack (PH Minnesota) one appears to have smaller holes, then the other two (PH New York left, Sony Studios right)

True - the goal I guess isn't to reproduce a specific pack, but to get as close to a "definitive approximation" of all the packs.

Isn't that pack on the left the cruddy replica pack that NY has? Certainly looks completely different to the other two (and newer).

Yeah! and the sticker is on the wrong side of the bumper!

[Gareee]

actually the entire bumper is on upside down