RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,242
Posts: 5,438,851
Members: 24,958
Currently online: 495
Newest member: greatmovies

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 28 2009, 08:46 PM   #16
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Long-Winded Treknology: The Original Series

Praetor wrote: View Post
The one thing I think I'm not particularly clear on, and perhaps you aren't yourself at this point, is whether you plan to treat these separate phases as the evolution of the ship over time, or conclude that the final 'phase' chronologically (I suppose that would be the 11-footer's lit form) is what the ship 'really' looked like?
Actually, for the deck plans I haven't really decided.

I think people who have done the 11 foot model are doing it backwards (and doing everyone a disservice by not doing the model as is or as was) by starting with the series (or later) version. But then again, I'm attempting to document the model itself at this point and not the fictional starship it played on TV.

With the deck plans, because I plan on making their major elements open for anyone to use, I'll most likely do some of the work with the series version in mind. But I'm not limiting myself to that. After all, plans are usually of a ship being built or undergoing major modification.

But in the end, the main question has always been... Jefferies drew up plans of the Enterprise, which included deck heights that matched the sets that were used. Could what we saw on screen work? If it doesn't, I'm sure that major holes would have shown up by now.

I think that if Whorfin is going to do comparative analysis between plans, a strict definition of scale should be set out. For example, overall length is the single worst measurement to work from because the major elements being misaligned will radically throw everything else out of sorts.

The radius of the primary hull is a good choice (and the one I generally use), but the plans (which represented a 417 foot wide primary hull) were 15 inches across, and the 11 foot model was supposed to be four times that (at 60 inches). The actual model is 59.25 inches. So is the 11 foot model's primary hull supposed to be 417 feet across or about 412 feet across?

See, if the 59.25 inches represents 417 feet, then the 11 foot model is actually representing a 943 foot long ship. If it is 412, then we are talking about a length of 932 feet.

We could use the secondary hull length (at 340 feet), which gives us a length of 930 feet (which is starting to make the 412 foot primary hull look right).

How about the warp nacelles? At 504 feet, that would make the ship 935 feet in length.

The major elements seem to be pointing towards a ship who's length is between 930 to 935 feet (averaging about 932 feet). That is not 947 feet, which in turn is why the overall length is the worst number to work from when studying the 11 foot model.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29 2009, 12:35 AM   #17
Whorfin
Lieutenant Commander
 
Whorfin's Avatar
 
Re: Long-Winded Treknology: The Original Series

Dave,

Thanks for dropping by and contributing. I'll work up a response in a day or two, and recreate some version of my zapped post from the other thread. Perhaps I should bundle that in here.

+++++++++

Praetor,

When given the opportunity to acknowledge information what is my characteristic response? Its like waving a red flag before a bull!

If I'm wrong, I'll be very glad to find out about it. I would hope Dave feels the same. My contention has been that everyone has been "in the right", just using different, contradictory information. I'm not entirely content with leaving things simply at "I'm wrong, and my sources are wrong". That may be the case, but I would like to see that clearly demonstrated. Putting the argument on that footing leads me towards a similar, knee-jerk response -- which I will do my best to resist. My main concern is that the discussion be conducted in a reasonable manner, and nobody gets too frustrated. But I expect it will be a very frustrating business.
Whorfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29 2009, 01:00 AM   #18
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Long-Winded Treknology: The Original Series

Whorfin wrote: View Post
Praetor,

When given the opportunity to acknowledge information what is my characteristic response? Its like waving a red flag before a bull!


If I'm wrong, I'll be very glad to find out about it. I would hope Dave feels the same. My contention has been that everyone has been "in the right", just using different, contradictory information. I'm not entirely content with leaving things simply at "I'm wrong, and my sources are wrong". That may be the case, but I would like to see that clearly demonstrated. Putting the argument on that footing leads me towards a similar, knee-jerk response -- which I will do my best to resist. My main concern is that the discussion be conducted in a reasonable manner, and nobody gets too frustrated. But I expect it will be a very frustrating business.
I don't think you're 'wrong,' and I don't think Shaw is saying you're wrong - but he does make a good point about taking into consideration the fact that he's not done yet with his study, and therefore we don't fully know the 'accuracy' of the plans you and most people, including myself, go from. So in that regard, if the goal is 100% accuracy in every way possible, it may fall short.

But I shall await your response.

I'd again also urge you to ignore/alter the window placements if the preponderence of the evidence shifts to favor a deck alignment that contrasts with them.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29 2009, 03:27 AM   #19
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Long-Winded Treknology: The Original Series

Praetor wrote: View Post
I don't think you're 'wrong,' and I don't think Shaw is saying you're wrong - but he does make a good point about taking into consideration the fact that he's not done yet with his study, and therefore we don't fully know the 'accuracy' of the plans you and most people, including myself, go from. So in that regard, if the goal is 100% accuracy in every way possible, it may fall short.
Well, I find it interesting that anyone would feel they could reach any conclusion about anything when all I've been sharing are Cocktail Napkin Sketches of my concepts and ideas so far. Sure, my rough sketches may look like final products... but they certainly are NOT.

For example, I took the time to outline what that cross-section was an attempt at doing when I first introduced it back a year ago...
Shaw (February 29 2008) wrote: View Post
This is some more extensive examples of fitting the actual set plans into the Enterprise using Jefferies approximate deck heights. The one major change in the layout of the decks is in the dorsal, where I went with the window spacing as a reference.


This isn't anywhere close to the final layout, just sizing comparisons of the sets to the ship.
But Whorfin's stated goal was:
Purpose: To determine the overall plausibility of the Dave Shaw (DS) Reconstructed TOS 1701 Deck Placement design within the confines of the modern fan based plan reconstruction of Alan Sinclair (AS) using Canon 11' TOS 1701 studio model window placement and typical human height as metric indicators.
My work has already been getting vetted by some of the most knowledgeable people on the subject, and he starts his analysis with a year old sketch and applies it to plans he isn't truly familiar with... well, that seems sorta off base a little to me.

I'm in the middle of my study... nothing is set in stone yet. I have been sharing my research and in the course of the last year have started with one set of assumptions only to find that they didn't hold up and changed course.

But it is a classic strawman tactic to attempt to lock a person down to the points they want to define you with. Whorfin tried this by defining my plans as being based on Jefferies construction plans, when one of the first course alterations I made was to move to the 11 foot model as a foundation. Why did he do it? He said his explanation was lost, but I'm guessing that he wanted me to fit his preconceptions because he could make his case easier that way.

If he viewed my work the way it was intended (for people to pick and choose what they like and make their own work from it), then he wouldn't have attempted to lock down his vision of my positions (from the past no less) and then hold it up against his idea of the Canon 11' TOS 1701 studio model.

And that doesn't even address the fact that he is almost phobic about change in anyone's work over time.


________________
Whorfin wrote: View Post
If I'm wrong, I'll be very glad to find out about it. I would hope Dave feels the same. My contention has been that everyone has been "in the right", just using different, contradictory information. I'm not entirely content with leaving things simply at "I'm wrong, and my sources are wrong". That may be the case, but I would like to see that clearly demonstrated. Putting the argument on that footing leads me towards a similar, knee-jerk response -- which I will do my best to resist. My main concern is that the discussion be conducted in a reasonable manner, and nobody gets too frustrated. But I expect it will be a very frustrating business.
I think it is important to know if you know your sources are reliable before relying on them.

I scrutinized many plans of the 11 foot Enterprise, mainly because I really didn't want to reinvent the wheel in my work. I did the 33 inch model because it was a mountain no one had attempted to climb, and back then I never thought I was going to attempt the 11 foot model because it was well covered by a number of people.

What I found was that I couldn't count on the work of others for the 11 foot model. And that starting with the work of others led to errors I might not have noticed creep in.

Do you know Sinclair's plans well enough to use them as a reference? I know them very well, which means I know both their strengths and weaknesses. Do you know their weaknesses?

If you need someone else to clearly demonstrate what would be obvious to someone who has studied those plans, then I have to conclude that you haven't really taken the time to study them yourself. You should be able to list the errors of Sinclair's plans for us before relying on them. I know his plans well enough to be able to pick out a CGI model based on them because some of the errors are pretty big.

Study the plans. Don't assume they are the best (which they are not) or that they are the most accurate (which they also are not), assume that they are a very good attempt and go back and figure out where he missed the mark.

You need to learn to do this on your own... after all, we wouldn't want you assuming my 11 foot plans are definitive just because I sidestepped the errors of Sinclair and Casimiro.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

It is time for you to go fishing for errors where you seem to believe there are none to be found. I've pointed out some errors in Sinclair's plans, lets have you point out a few I haven't listed (so no searching my past posts on this subject... that would be cheating!).
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 31 2009, 01:04 AM   #20
Whorfin
Lieutenant Commander
 
Whorfin's Avatar
 
Re: Long-Winded Treknology: The Original Series

Dave,

My reconstruction is based on the original Jefferies cross-section (drawn up around 1967) which is supported by the later Jefferies Phase II cross-section (from 1977). The fact that those ideas were consistent 10 years apart support a logical argument that Jefferies views on that detail (the number of decks and their approximate placement) was unchanging during the run of the original series.
Well...

Source: # Decks (Primary Hull / ID / Secondary Hull)
MJ 1964: 4 / 3 / 4 (Pressure Compartment Schematic)
MJ 1967: 8.5 / 7 / 8
MJ Phase II: 8 / 5 / 8
(ID decks that overlap the secondary hull are counted as secondary hull.)

My first observation is that there is some variability over the years. The second observation is that you use Phase II and the Pressure Compartment Schematic as a basis for your pressure diagrams, and said pressure vessels are not consistent with the "overlapping" compartmentalization in the MJ 1967 cross-section. The final observation is that we have no publicly available internal diagrams of the ship between 1964 and May of 1967 (to the best of my knowledge). So, the internal design you are suggesting existed in 1964 (on a 200' design consisting of 11 decks), vanishes in 1967, and reapears in Phase II. To me this indicates that I am not the only one with "time challenged" studies, as you put it.

My suggestion is to make timelines... when were ideas introduced, when were they dropped (and why), and from there figure out what was the prevailing views during the production of the show. But I'll consider it in light of what your future response is like.

I started out with assumption similar to yours, and a detailed study of the whens and hows brought me to my current position.
As has already been explained, my suggestions are hypothetical, deductive, and generally not tied to a specific date. A general chronological sequence can be given, but it is largely conjectural.

More than a year ago I stopped using Jefferies' plans of the exterior and started using the 11 foot model. The primary difference between what you are doing and what I'm doing is that I decided to start from scratch in a study of the actual filming model itself, study it in every last detail (which includes documenting aspects the viewers of the show weren't supposed to notice) rather than use someone else's plans (like Sinclair's).

Compare what I have been releasing lately with the work of Sinclair or Casimiro and ask yourself why I arrived at different conclusions.
Actually, I've went back and taken a look at what you've release recently. Overall, other than some detailing on various areas (I discussed this at more length in my "lost" response) you haven't been releasing a whole lot. In fact, you stopped releasing updates, and have only relented (for which we are grateful) recently. Frankly the studies I am doing do not lend themselves to piecemeal additions. I think you would have enormous problems with me interpreting your posts, taking various changes to the design you release as partial graphics, and then trying to merge these in to your previous diagrams and represent that as your work. My intention was to do studies using Sinclair, Casimiro, other available works, and then your own 11' study when it was released. The release of the last study only took place when you challenged the validity of my statements, indicating that an alternative to your designs was plausible.

I am currently doing a full (and to the best of my ability, faithful) reconstruction of the 11 foot filming model... as a model. I may be starting with how it was in December of 1964 (for it's short appearance in The Cage), but I'll also be documenting (in later drawings) how it appeared in WNMHGB and the series.

I'll be modifying those plans of the model to represent the fictional exterior of the starship Enterprise for use in my deck plans... which is why I haven't spent much time on the interior aspects lately (waiting until after I have settled on the exterior they are going into first).
If the external plans are faithful, why will they need modification to work with your deck plans? They need modification to indicate the different phases of construction (Pilot I/Pilot II/Production I/Production II-the dome refit). Perhaps that's what you meant.

See, that looks like a massive assumption.

TMoST is not the Writer's Guide, and I've found that TMoST wasn't reflective of everything that was going on behind the scenes in TOS enough to hold it up as a good reference today. Sure, in the 1970s it was the best information that we had to work from... but today we have much better sources.
Not really. To quote Stephen E. Whitfield:

"In May, 1967, Matt Jefferies sent me a copy of The STAR TREK Guide, a set of guidelines laid out by series creator Gene Roddenberry for use by the show's many writers and directors. At that point I considered myself quite familiar with the show, partly because of the work I been doing for AMT and partly because I had seen virtually every episode that had been on the air.

My first reading of The STAR TREK Guide opened up a whole new world to me. Here was an immense wealth of background data totally new to me and equally fascinating. My immediate reaction to that first reading was, 'What a nifty basis for a STAR TREK book!'

Several days later I was in Gene Roddenberry's office, explaining the book idea to him. Gene was immmediately excited by the project. He not only gave it his blessing, but gave me carte blanche access to the studio in order to assist my research for the book"." (TMoST p. 11-12) [capitalization in original]


So TMoST is based on the writer's guide plus full access to the production and its staff. This is why I do not selectively read TMoST, this is why I don't simply accept the parts that agree with a particular theory I might have and ignore or dismiss the parts that do not. Dismissing TMoST, by dismissing aspects that are contradictory, is a perilous and unwise endeavor IMHO.

As for Jefferies and the final design of the 11 foot model... the model was close enough to his plans to go forward with it. But the 11 foot model was not what Jefferies drawings represented even after it was being used, Jefferies continued to use his ideas of how the ship was arranged (he, for example, liked the nacelles further apart than either the 11 foot or 33 inch model's nacelles actually were... and it took nearly 30 plus years before people started noticing)
While Jefferies' concepts, from whatever era, for the model are of great historical interest, the primary object of study is the 11' model itself. I have no interest in retconning the model to match either plans or theories. Correcting its known flaws (asymmetry, any warping, etc) is more than enough. Using the "hero" starboard side (as opposed to the neglected port) is probably the best way to do that in many instances.

Funny, I came to a similar conclusion years ago.

But here is the difference... I see the Jefferies glass as half full while you seem to be obsessing on the fact that it is half empty.
I view it this way: He has concepts before the 11' model was built, he has concepts after (including during the production), but in the final analysis the 11' model trumps any differences with it.

I have said that Jefferies had a changing view of the ship, but for me, the only Jefferies view that matters is the one between the start of production of The Cage (November of 1964) and the end of the original series (June of 1969). I've been interested in what was consistent over that period. The size of the ship didn't change, most of the same sets were used throughout (so the actual set plans are better than Joseph's interpretations... which call for short decks)... in fact it was that consistency that inspired Joseph (a non-fan) to spend as much time on this as he did.
During "The Cage" the ship was much smaller than it was later, at one point as small as 200 feet (TMoST, p. 89, 134). This changed for the second pilot, where the length was set by Jefferies as 947 feet. (TMoST, p. 134) Since we know that other sizes were bandied about during this period (1080 feet for example), presumably these changes would have had some impact on the internal design.

I would go so far as to say that if Joseph hadn't relied on TMoST so closely, that he would have been able to make a more faithful version of his plans and manual to the actual show. But he assumed (like you) that TMoST had some extra special information... when in fact it was a hastily put together collection of Trek stuff to profit on the excitement surrounding the show.
Other than this statement being contrary to the facts, and dismissing the aspects of the Writer's Guide as "hastily put together" (but not specially manufactured???) that disagree with your own theories, what is the point of this statement.

Don't get me wrong... I enjoy reading your analysis (and recall a time when I shared many of those same view points), but I would really appreciate if you would stop mischaracterizing my positions on things. As I said, more than a year ago I started using my early study sketches of the 11 foot model rather than my reconstruction of Jefferies construction plans.
From my perspective I honestly don't see that I have mis-characterized anything, you perhaps you didn't read what I said carefully. I was discussing the internal design of the ship, comparing your approach (which uses Phase II and the pressure diagram as its primary sources). You seemed to take what I said as an accusation that you had never looked at the 11' model. That's not the case. I presented an alternative, and briefly explained why it differed from your own ideas, that is neither a misrepresentation nor inappropriate.

Your views should be able to stand on their own without needing to misrepresent mine to make your points.
Respectfully, your own views should be able to be compared with those of other's without you seeing that as mere incompetence or something underhanded.

Well, it is interesting in that a lot of this depends on Alan Sinclair's drawings being accurate to the 11 foot model. Sadly, they aren't.

Are they the most accurate plans available to the public? I'd have to say that on the whole... no. While both Casimiro and Sinclair have errors (some of which are totally different from each other), overall Casimiro's plans are better.
My intention was to do Sinclair studies, than Casimiro, and eventually your own (when they are finalized). And anything else that seems appropriate. Your assumption that the conclusions solely rests upon AS is a bit unfounded. It would be equally fair to point out that your own claims don't seem fully substantiated and then ignore the fact that you aren't done with your research.

Given that, am I worried that my sketches from more than a year ago don't match up with Sinclair... not really. Sinclair is the worst available window placement reference, so that plus the fact that I stated that the finalized deck placement would have to wait for my finalized exterior plans means those are super old sketches that are at best a general outline of where I was heading.
If you're not worried, there shouldn't be much need for complaint. Here's how this came about. I started a deck study to work from the externals of the ship to the internals (removing and moving as many decks as necessary to align with the window placement). I expected that this would match your own results or be very close. This did not happen. I then checked your own preliminary internal layout and that of MJ 1967. Neither "worked". My intention was to repeat this with Casimiro, but I was in no hurry because your work was preliminary and I intended to "sit on" this information waiting for your final release so I could check that.

In the mean time people are interested in drawing out deck plans NOW. So I just let them know that there might be a viable alternative. If you are wrong in your claims there still is a viable alternative, and in any case people should be allowed to make their own minds up. The 24-deck study stands on its own, your work was referenced as an alternative. When called, I showed my hand, none of this is reason for offense. I did not categorically state that your work was wrong, just that it wasn't compatible to the design it was being compared to.

When were which windows placed where?

The WWWWPW question brings up some interesting aspects of the models history. First, the original windows weren't functioning at all, they were just painted on. The second attempt at putting windows on the model required drilling holes into the wood and using plexiglas tubes to help illuminate them (one would generally assume that those early lit windows are in the same places... but I haven't, so I've been cross checking their placement). The third time around, the producers just wanted more windows, period.
Presumably then, for the production model, MJ was doing this himself rather than having an outside company do the work, or is this incorrect? I'm interested in the evolution of the model's windows and lighting but it has no bearing on the discussion at hand, I wasn't comparing all the versions of the model, just a particular reconstruction of a particular version.

See, originally there were only three rows of windows on the secondary hull... two above and one below the pendant on the side. But Jefferies did draw onto the original plans where he wanted the windows to go (when his hand was forced and Roddenberry insisted on windows). That window placement (which was followed pretty closely on the 33 inch model) is significantly off from the 11 foot model. My original deck levels sketch was based on an early assumption that the original window placement by Jefferies on the construction plans were pretty closely followed in the dorsal. They were not, and when I move from the sketch phase to final placement phase I'll be going off of the final placement of windows that I have reached in my year long study of the 11 foot model (as opposed to using someone else's studies and hoping they were as thorough as I would have liked).
Ultimately, the production version of the model is the most reasonable candidate for resolving any contradictions (should they exist) with the pilot versions. Its unlikely that decks would be added or moved (unless the secondary hull was replaced, which is a possibility), so if we "pretend" its a real ship I would prefer minor retcons to the pilot versions than retconning the production version to match the pilots. But this is irrelevant to historical studies of the model, and only matters from the "fictional" interpretation that this was a real ship.

Please note... very important... Sinclair's windows on the rim of the primary hull are wrong. That is not how the models windows are actually placed, they are actually too close together to make for nice placement for two decks.
Noted and logged.

On a side note... your studies seem to be time challenged.
As mentioned, there's a lot of that going around.

In the case of the 11 foot model, you seem to want to forget that it has three different states for how it appeared on screen, and it reached those states under different conditions. What they were trying to do in the beginning, what they did in the interim, and what was finally done for the series were all greatly effected by environmental factors which often had more to do with how the model looked on screen rather than how true they were being to Jefferies' vision of the ship.
I'm aware there were multiple adjustments to the model. In terms of "environment" there was lighting, film stock, and processing. In turn, you seem to want to criticize specific studies for things that are beyond their scope.

In a very similar manner, you seem to not understand that I am sharing sketches of ideas... works in it's most raw states, trying out ideas to see if they fit or not.
That's why the word "preliminary" is used in referring to these interior layouts. So, no, I do understand, and have made that point clear to my readers. My point should have been equally clear to you.

More than a year ago when I started, I decided not to use Sinclair or Casimiro (for the reason stated above) and so my internal sketches were based on very early external sketches of the 11 foot model. Those raw early external sketches were fine for playing with ideas, but I stated many times that none of that stuff was even close to finalized... in fact, none of that stuff will be used (other than concepts) in the final plans. There are aspects (with relation to the actual filming model) from my sketches a year ago that have no reflection on where things are going... and I stated as much back then.
Well, I'm not the one that stopped you from sharing more recent work. And I understand your time constraints, and am waiting patiently for the final product. But in turn you have to understand that you have put your work out there, and represent it as correct, and are seemingly currently representing it as the only correct public reconstruction despite the fact that its unfinished. Do you honestly think we don't have any right to discuss it? Or criticize it? Even if incorrectly due to a lack of information?

You can't have it both ways, you can't expect to be able to criticize other reconstruction efforts and then expect your own work to be immune from analysis and criticism. You can't critique other people's work with your partial results and then be irate when people talk about it.

Continued on next page due to posting limits
Whorfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 31 2009, 01:06 AM   #21
Whorfin
Lieutenant Commander
 
Whorfin's Avatar
 
Re: Long-Winded Treknology: The Original Series

People who don't understand that I'm sharing the research and thought processes behind all this when reaching conclusions about it have made me consider not sharing this stuff until it is finished.
Which will just exacerbate the current problem. My advice is that if you are going to make demands that your own work not be critically discussed that you stop doing so to other people's work.

Your conclusions based on a sketch of concepts I shared with the community a year ago based on the fact that it was in all possibility not where I was going and ignoring that fact gives me great paws. Are you the only person that doesn't understand that distinction? I don't know.
Your conclusions are very interesting. It doesn't change the fact that between your sketches and AS we are not talking about minor adjustment issues but meters. If you aren't aware of that fact, I'm doing you a favor. I assume you are aware of the fact but believe AS (and anyone else that disagrees is wrong). In terms of your criticism of AS's vertical window placement (ship-wide) you can point me to the appropriate posts, but I have a very good grip on the graphics you currently have available and other than noting a horizontal discrepancy between AS and CC I don't really see anything that has a bearing. AFAIK, you're doing the 11' study, you've stopped releasing information for some time, and your analysis of your 11' study findings and the differences with AS haven't been released. I have ignored your 33" studies because its not the same model. I have done my best to figure things out but if the basis of properly interpreting your work requires that every post you have ever written anywhere on the internet must be read, in case something somewhere was overlooked, you might want to create an FAQ.

But you are looking at what I've been sharing in the same way that you've been looking at the 11 foot model and Jefferies work, so I'm willing to assume that this is unique to how you see this stuff (sort of like trying to watch a movie by overlaying every frame on top of each other and looking at them all at once... and missing the plot because of it). It is an interesting form of analysis where the idea is to hide the important information in a massive flood of details of things that change over time.
I believe the proper legal term for this is "argumentative", i.e., spurious. If by a "massive flood of details" you mean showing clear-cut diagrams and explaining what was found and how the conclusions were arrived at, then guilty as charged. But the plot is there, spoilers and all.

I would be interested in your points of view of life in general. I imagine that the fact that people move from childhood to adolescence to adulthood to middle-age and finally old age runs counter to how you view people. Is the child the same person as the senior citizen all those years later? Most of us understand that the progression of things has profound effects, but that they can still be the same thing over it's lifetime. If you can't see the stages in my work, in Jefferies' work or in the 11 foot model, is this also true of how you see life in general?

Just an interesting question.
I think the proper terms is imaginative. If you're going to charge me a psychiatrist fee at the least you could provide a comfortable couch. The changes you are discussing are irrelevant to the studies, unless you mean that those changes included adding windows at ceiling and floor height. The conceit of the show is that its a real ship. The model has no deck plans, the fictional ship that the characters inhabit does, its as simple as that. I'll be glad to look at the possibility that the source material is wrong, which is the point of specifying the source material and stating that the study is confined to that playing field. On the other hand, if what you mean is that your method of analysis is the only acceptable one, then you are just incorrect.

I think that if Whorfin is going to do comparative analysis between plans, a strict definition of scale should be set out. For example, overall length is the single worst measurement to work from because the major elements being misaligned will radically throw everything else out of sorts.
The analysis is meant, ultimately, to be interpretable as scaleless for most of the studies. However, most readers are not going to be satisfied with that, and for the 24-deck study it was impossible, so the traditional figure of 947 feet was used, as it was dictated by MJ. If one wants to assume that the ship is 1080 feet long, or 200, the scale can be adjusted easily by a simple conversion. I'm answering expected questions by providing provisional answers.

Initially I expected that a simple resizing based on overall length was not going to work. But repeatedly I found that the primary hull was correctly sized compared to overall length. Bow issues showed up with MJ 1967 because the bow is actually curved not simply angled, so I chose to match the portion that best fit the reconstruction of the model. Overall length of the primary hull is not necessarily the best measure because the structure of the disk is covered by the impulse engine housing and not everyone is going to interpret it the same. So yes, overall length, radius from the Bridge center to the bow, bow to hanger fantail, etc. are all checked. This is stated in many of the reconstructions, and if it is not its generally because "fitting" was so trouble free describing it slipped my mind. Assuming there were errors, each pixel of horizontal error would result in a 0.041% (1/2420) error vertically, spread out over all the decks (i.e., much less than one vertical pixel error).

Of course, one could simply use a MKI eyeball on the diagrams to check for problems before bringing forward the complaint, but that wouldn't be as much fun.

The major elements seem to be pointing towards a ship who's length is between 930 to 935 feet (averaging about 932 feet). That is not 947 feet, which in turn is why the overall length is the worst number to work from when studying the 11 foot model.
As mentioned, the comparisons are for the most part scaleless, and deck heights are estimates, primarily intended to give a general idea of head room. In this case, if you are correct that the ship is meant to be 932 feet long instead of 947 feet long this makes a -1.584% difference in deck height. So if I am using the worst techniques, I am only off by about 1.5%.

In general, the argument that my procedures are error-prone and responsible for spurious results are themselves spurious. First, they ignore my actual detailed procedures, as stated. Second, there appears to have been no attempt to confirm that errors actually occurred. Third, even if errors did occur no attempt at estimating the significance or magnitude of said errors appears to have been attempted. Whether this was accidental or a case of foul rhetoric is unknown, though I assume the former.

Well, I find it interesting that anyone would feel they could reach any conclusion about anything when all I've been sharing are Cocktail Napkin Sketches of my concepts and ideas so far. Sure, my rough sketches may look like final products... but they certainly are NOT.
They are conclusion on a preliminary design, as clearly stated on the image, and in the file name of the image, and I sincerely apologize for unintentionally ommitting it from the title of the study (I hadn't intended to publish it at the time, and so it wasn't as polished as normal). If I could correct it I could, but I can't edit it. Feel free to PM a mod and I'll agree to a correction. Or I will make the attempt at your request.

My work has already been getting vetted by some of the most knowledgeable people on the subject, and he starts his analysis with a year old sketch and applies it to plans he isn't truly familiar with... well, that seems sorta off base a little to me.
Well, considering not so long ago you and everyone else were using AS and CC do demonstrate how "wrong" FJ's design was, it seems a bit ironic that you now object to your own work, the most recently available full version that is, getting a similar treatment.

I'm in the middle of my study... nothing is set in stone yet. I have been sharing my research and in the course of the last year have started with one set of assumptions only to find that they didn't hold up and changed course.
Then there's no need to get overly defensive about it. Its preliminary, its labeled as such in more than one place, I'm not pretending otherwise. You're welcome to move your decks wherever you want before the final release.

But it is a classic strawman tactic to attempt to lock a person down to the points they want to define you with. Whorfin tried this by defining my plans as being based on Jefferies construction plans, when one of the first course alterations I made was to move to the 11 foot model as a foundation. Why did he do it? He said his explanation was lost, but I'm guessing that he wanted me to fit his preconceptions because he could make his case easier that way.
No, but it might have something to do with you being offended by another poster, terminating your updates, and only recently relenting. Its hard to know what you aren't told. Or it might be that I missed the post where you explained that your internal diagrams were no longer based on MJ 1967 or Phase II and now were solely based on the 11' model, or maybe I just misunderstood what you said at some point. But my understanding now is the same as when I made the statement (which I believe you in turn misunderstood) and the things you've said in response have largely vindicated it (you carted out the pressure diagram and Phase II ASAP). But it doesn't have to turn into a conspiracy theory.

If he viewed my work the way it was intended (for people to pick and choose what they like and make their own work from it), then he wouldn't have attempted to lock down his vision of my positions (from the past no less) and then hold it up against his idea of the Canon 11' TOS 1701 studio model.
Dave, I'm not locking you down. You, in turn are clearly locking AS and CC out as inaccurate references that should no longer be used. And its not my ideas, its from TMoST, which as the author clearly states is based on the Writer's Guide and interviews with the production staff. I didn't jump in a time machine and change the book.

And that doesn't even address the fact that he is almost phobic about change in anyone's work over time.
??? I have no clue here.

I think it is important to know if you know your sources are reliable before relying on them.
Given that the Hull Pressure diagram, MJ 1967, and Phase II all contradict each other that's a pretty bold statement. Heck, the pressure diagram even manages to contradict itself, by showing two different conditions of the ship at the same time!

Do you know Sinclair's plans well enough to use them as a reference? I know them very well, which means I know both their strengths and weaknesses. Do you know their weaknesses?
They are a reference. CC will be another reference. Your plans when released will be another. Your assumption that your work is better, and seemingly without flaws, is a more interesting claim in my book. I didn't get the memo that everyone else's work was made obsolete by yours and is not to be used. Did anyone else?

If you need someone else to clearly demonstrate what would be obvious to someone who has studied those plans, then I have to conclude that you haven't really taken the time to study them yourself. You should be able to list the errors of Sinclair's plans for us before relying on them. I know his plans well enough to be able to pick out a CGI model based on them because some of the errors are pretty big.
I'm not relying on anything. You don't seem to understand the process by which new information should be processed and vindicated. Comparison with existing data is a first step. Your insistence that your own (unreleased) work is the only reference by which you should be judged is an interesting concept. My own training is scientific. In general, anyone that argues that their new hypothesis (invalidating the previously held ones) is correct because their own research says it is so, and that external comparisons with the competing theories isn't a valid test... well, lets just say it doesn't go over very well.

"Forensic Treknology" is a similar process. Observers make difficult observations under less than ideal conditions without the proper equipment. They analyze the data and form a hypothesis (in the form of plans, etc.). The next step is to compare their work with what has come before and any other competitors. Generally, I think that 'the young pup' doesn't get to start out as 'top dog'. In this case before it is born. You may be the new standard of comparison, but vigorous proclamations to that effect doesn't get you there. At least it shouldn't. This is not to say that your work is not the best, or that it won't be vindicated in the end.

Study the plans. Don't assume they are the best (which they are not) or that they are the most accurate (which they also are not), assume that they are a very good attempt and go back and figure out where he missed the mark.
I'm not, on the other hand you might want to stop putting words in other people's mouths.

You need to learn to do this on your own... after all, we wouldn't want you assuming my 11 foot plans are definitive just because I sidestepped the errors of Sinclair and Casimiro.
You keep talking about my assumptions but you don't seem to be as talkative about your own. There are more than a few, and if any of them are incorrect it would be more than an inconvenience for vetting your work. I would strongly suggest you desist from your normal "blitz" attack response to issues, concerns, even questions about your work and start treating the people on this forum as equals, as colleagues, and perhaps even friends. That's what I'm trying to be, and I apologize that somehow I'm not doing an adequate job.

It is time for you to go fishing for errors where you seem to believe there are none to be found. I've pointed out some errors in Sinclair's plans, lets have you point out a few I haven't listed (so no searching my past posts on this subject... that would be cheating!).
I'm aware there are errors in AS and CC. Perhaps I am not aware of all of them. Considering that at least one of these researchers has declined to accept your own criticism and make changes to their plans it would seem fair to say there is not universal agreement by the experts with you on all points. On the other hand, the discrepancy between the way you handle their work and your own leads me to wonder if you have sufficient objectivity to be the sole reference we are allowed.

Now, that I've answered all your accusations, can we try to get back to being on civil terms?

Regards,

Whorfin
Whorfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 31 2009, 05:14 AM   #22
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Long-Winded Treknology: The Original Series

After writing more than 2000 words in response to the bizarre notions displayed here, I realize that it comes down to a simple reoccurring theme... you don't actually master the facts first. You haven't read anything I've written, and just want to use the pretty pictures.

I've tried in the past to nicely correct you when you misstated my positions... and now I have two full posts of someone who is way out in left field.

What I found, time and again while composing a response was that if you had just read the thread, the details would have been clear. But you made assumptions, and those were how you were going to go forward (mainly because it was easier than researching what was really there).

I'm going to respond specifically to one point because it truly paints you as being way out of the loop on all this...
Whorfin wrote: View Post
Well, I'm not the one that stopped you from sharing more recent work. And I understand your time constraints, and am waiting patiently for the final product. But in turn you have to understand that you have put your work out there, and represent it as correct, and are seemingly currently representing it as the only correct public reconstruction despite the fact that its unfinished. Do you honestly think we don't have any right to discuss it? Or criticize it? Even if incorrectly due to a lack of information?
Please quote me representing it as anything like this.

For me, my research is my research. If I thought that I had the only correct public reconstruction then why would I be spending time and energy making it deconstructable for others to use in their reconstructions? Why would I take the time to do overall deck layouts for a 20 deck ship at about 947', a 24 deck layout for a ship at about 947', a 20 deck layout for a ship at about 1080', and a 24 deck layout for a ship at about 1080'? Why would I take the time to make all of my work open (as in copyright open) for people to copy it for their derivative works?

And most importantly, why are people who don't agree with many of my assertions on where things go waiting for me to finish key aspects of my research?

If I was so certain that my work was the only correct public reconstruction, then why did I state that I was sure that it wasn't. And state that others will come along later and improve on what I'm doing today. The only thing I can say I've done is not repeat the mistakes of others... but I'm sure I'll introduce all new ones that people will find. I was actually hoping that you would find something useful for me, but instead what I got was that you were mischaracterizing things that were discussed at length and giving me nothing but a massive waste of my time.

To say that I am disappointed in you is an understatement. I was hoping for something new, something better, something helpful... and what I got was that you were working from a CliffNotes knowledge of the subject and wasting my time having to cover ground that has already been covered before.

You can rant at your imaginary version of me all you want, but if you can't even get the basics right (about my work or how I've presented it), there is no need for me to read anything else you have to say.




Oh, and not that it matters much, but my name is David, not Dave. Most of my friends know this, and you make my wife cringe when she reads your posts referring to me as Dave.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 31 2009, 10:04 AM   #23
JNG
Chief of Staff, Starfleet Command
 
Re: Long-Winded Treknology: The Original Series

"Look, Dave, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over."

"I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you."
JNG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 31 2009, 09:48 PM   #24
Whorfin
Lieutenant Commander
 
Whorfin's Avatar
 
Re: Long-Winded Treknology: The Original Series

Due to circumstances (that presumably I am not wanted to publicly disclose), there is no point (from my perspective at least) to discussing this matter further. Considering the things that have been said, I certainly agree that's for the best.

Dave is extremely intelligent, talented, and very dedicated to Star Trek. Its unfortunate that we can't agree to disagree on any legitimate points, or -- better still -- to find some common ground.

Its interesting that simply pointing out that different interpretations of the ship/model/plans can/do exist has led to this result. These sort of situations are an example of why 99.9% of my Treknology has been a solitary endeavor and the remaining 0.1% is too often immensely dissatisfying.

When I was young, I was able to watch late night re-runs of Flash Gordon and other old serials, and of course a lot of black and white movies. Whether because of that exposure, or because of the era I grew up in, I can still appreciate those old films, old radio shows, old novels, old comic books, etc. Flaws and all. I don't think that more recent generations have had similar exposure or can have a similar appreciation, and what excites them as viewers is not what the old media was about. The "old" materials I speak of date from the 1950s and earlier. Today, TOS, is getting about as old as those things were to me when I was young. After the lackluster attempt at TOS Remastered, I wonder if it has succeeded at bringing the series to a new generation or just added new boxes to the shelves of old -- getting older -- fans? Will the original Star Trek be just as meaningless and silly as today's generation sees Flash Gordon or Universal's great horror movies? Will a reboot "solve" the problem?

So, as I see it, its up to the fans -- if anyone can keep what the original TOS was about alive, keep it meaningful, keep it from being obsolete. People that don't want to take but give. People who will make fan films and fan series, people who will work into the wee hours of the morning making blueprints and technical manuals -- that hopefully will be freely available to all. People of immense talents that create incredible 3D models, if only to generate a few screenshots or wallpaper for desktops. These people will always understand Star Trek better than business types that are just managing a franchise for maximum profit.

But the problem is to maximize these efforts we need to work together. And people don't often work well together. We are egotistical and irritable. We are opinionated and all too often obsessed. We all feel frustrated and tired in the world we live in, a world that is not Gene Roddenberry's world and seems to get further from it on most days. We are all these negative things and more. But we have to make a choice, that we are not going to be these things today.

Last edited by Whorfin; March 31 2009 at 10:02 PM.
Whorfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 5 2009, 01:42 AM   #25
Whorfin
Lieutenant Commander
 
Whorfin's Avatar
 
Re: Long-Winded Treknology: The Original Series

Praetor (et al.),

Did I answer your concerns about my techniques in a satisfactory manner? Or are there still concerns.
Whorfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10 2009, 12:27 AM   #26
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Long-Winded Treknology: The Original Series

I have no problem, personally. So, are you carrying on then?
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 14 2009, 12:03 AM   #27
Whorfin
Lieutenant Commander
 
Whorfin's Avatar
 
Re: Long-Winded Treknology: The Original Series

Sorry for the delay in replying.

Praetor wrote: View Post
So, are you carrying on then?
"Circuits are overloaded, Cap'n!"

Shortly I hope to have another contribution -- for now its just small game in other threads as I deal with Real World issues. I don't quite know where Dave got the idea that I was going to stop posting, but his arguments against me weren't quite that convincing on this end.
Whorfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2009, 12:51 AM   #28
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Long-Winded Treknology: The Original Series

Where ya been, man? What's up, How'd you like (or dislike) the new movie?
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
blueprints, fan designs, franz joseph, plans

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.