Brachacki Original TARDIS Photogrammetry

[galacticprobe]

Or maybe they milled it on a table saw. After all: the rails were 3". You can't buy planed wood that width now in the big box stores as far as I know, and I wonder if you could then?

If lumber sizes were the same back in the 1960s as they are now, you could make a 3" wide plank in several ways. A 1x8 is actually only 7.5" wide (by 5/8" thick). If you ripped the plank to remove 1.5 inches (great for a center divide), you'd be left with a 6-inch wide plank. Now take another 1.5 inches off (for another center divide - useful for the rear doors) and you have a plank that's 4.5 inches wide. Remove another 1.5-inch strip (for a spare center divide, or whatever it might be useful for), and you're left with a 3-inch wide plank.

A little cutting, very little to no waste, and you've got all the wood sizes you need - especially those 3-inch wide pieces for the rails and stiles.

I don't know when the lumber industry started "shaving off" things to make a 2 x 4 into a 1.5 x 3.5. I remember once going into my attic in the house where I grew up in The Bronx and measuring the rafters and other beams (like the walkway joists). All the 2 x 4s were just that. The walkway joists (it wasn't a complete floor) were full 2 x 6s. Granted when my great-grandparents built that house it was 1922, but somewhere between then and (from what my memory recalls) the early 1970s, lumber sizes got smaller, but still kept their original names... which is why we ask for "2 by 4s", even though we're getting 1.5 by 3.5s.

I hope some of this makes sense.

Dino.
P. S.

I just noticed that we forgot to include the base width. It is 55"

Do you also have the base's height (both total, and from ground to start of bevel, and from start of bevel to top of base)?

[ionsith]

This is amazing! I really want to learn how to do photogrammetry. Can I just ask, by how much is the Police Public Call Box sinage inset?

Glad you like it Ian - Slava and I have spent well over a month on this so, it's nice to be appreciated.

To answer your question, the diagrams are drawn at 24 pixels per inch and each 'step' around the sign is six pixels which equates to a quarter of an inch with the signage therefore being set back by a total of half an inch.

Thank you, Tony. The first set of definitive plans, it's so exciting!

  I notice that the door jam on the front elevation is 1" and the sides 0.75"... If I'm reading the plans correctly, are the depth of the steps above the door 0.25" deep, making the uppermost step level with the door jam on the sides but not the front?

[ionsith]

Me again... I'm in the midst of 3D modelling the new dims. Unless I have made a silly mistake, I think the measurement at the top of the plans, from the edges of the post caps, at 47.5" needs to be 47.75", assuming that the post caps are 4.25" wide. At 47.5" it moves them off-centre, at 47.75" they are aligned.

Hope this is helpful (and correct!)

Ian

  Edit: Still adjusting this... Didn't spot the offset of 0.125" on the plans which makes the caps slightly off-centre.

[tony farrell]

Hi Ian - to answer your questions on the plans:

Yes the post caps are off-set (see overhead shot from the Daleks Invasion of Earth and my comment above about the slight variation in their positioning).

Yes the central divider on the doors is an inch deep whereas on the sides it's 0.75 inch.

And to answer Dino's point about the dimensions of the base - these will be included (as I said, I haven't had the time to draw the overhead view of the box (or the rear for that matter)).

T

[lespaceplie]

Did we arrive at final dims for the original lamp setup?

[tony farrell]

I don't see why Slava and I can't do the lamps as well - I'll ask him! 

T

[lespaceplie]

Good! It's for sure undersized in the older versions of the plans.

[tony farrell]

Sorry Gene, I had thought that this had been posted but - for some reason - this has been sat on my computer for over six months 'gathering dust'.

Here you go, one Tardis lamp (it took me and Slava three goes to come up with dimensions which resulted in a satisfactory photogrammetric/wire frame overlay).

Apologies for not posting sooner (but, better late than never ):



T

[galacticprobe]

Thanks for posting that drawing, Tony! At least with the parts I've gathered so far, my lamp's base and struts will be accurate: those, and the dome height on the cap. The lens will be close depending on which one I use. As for lamp cap diameter... well... if I go by the drawings you and Crispin worked on for his "transformable" Brachacki-Original/Brachacki-Altered TARDIS, then my parts will match up, otherwise I'm going to be off from this drawing.

Normally I'd say I can live with being a bit off, but unlike with other members' builds, when it comes to things I've done in the past (not strictly 'Who'-related), I'm a "Rivet Counter" when I look at my things. If I'm off by 1/8th-inch it will bother me until I can set it right. But for now, I'll have to stick with the drawings from Crispin's build. This new drawing will be taped to my wall until I can find a better lens, and better pieces for the lamp cap. Of course, when I finally get my build into full swing, and not moving slower than the glaciers, I plan on having my Brachacki lamp being interchangeable between Season 1 (Fresnel lens with round cap and shallow dome), early Season 2 (same lamp cap, but with the frosted cylinder "lens"), and late Season 2/Season 3 (to the pre-"War Machines" refurb) with the frosted cylinder lens and square cap with smaller-diameter hemi dome.

Many thanks to you and Slava for working these measurements out, and for sharing them.

Dino.

[lespaceplie]

The dims seem good, but I'm not too sure about the lenticular ridges - mostly due to how glass molding works. There's no way those have zero degree angles. There will at least be a gentle slope.

[tony farrell]

I'm fine with that comment Gene; the point here was to produce accurate dimensions/proportions for the Tardis' original lamp housing and lens.

I don't know enough about fresnel lenses to state whether the lenticular edges/rims/facets should be bevelled or not but the point was to test the dimensions of the lamp and housing using wire frames/photogrammetry and the principal dimensions stated in the diagram do give an almost exact match when overlaid onto the available photographs.

So, I think we can say with a high degree of certainty that the visible part of the lens was five inches tall and its central 'bulge' or 'bulb' was 3 inches tall with an outer diameter of 6.75 inches and that the three 'facets' together are an inch tall with an outer diameter - again - at 6.75 inches. 

T

[galacticprobe]

I just took a good look at my best lens, which is very close to Tony's measurements. Starting from the central bulge (the one part on a 360-degree lens I can't remember the name for; on a rotating lens it's a "bull's eye"), moving upward towards the top of the lens, the top edge of the prisms (their actual name) have an angle that gets shallower as you move away from the bulge. Likewise, the underside of the prisms have an angle that starts out almost flat - zero degrees - on the first prism, which has the steepest angle on its top edge, and by the time you get to the topmost prism, which has a very shallow top angle, the prism's underside angle is almost the same as its topside angle. (The reverse is for the bottom set of prisms; basically turn the lens on its head and it's like turning a queen of diamonds playing card in its head... either head.)

I could try to get angular measurements of the prisms (upper and lower edges) if anyone thinks it would be of help, since the primary purpose of those prisms was to focus the light into a horizontal plane at the focal point of the lamp inside, hence the changing angles of the prisms the further they moved from the focal point.

I hope this makes sense. I know it does to me because I've worked with buoys, running lights, and lighthouse lenses during my career so it comes almost as second nature, but to others, sometimes it can be difficult for me to get the explanation across in terms people not familiar with Fresnel lenses can understand.

Dino.

[hartnell_era_builder]

Is there a chance of getting a set of the plans in the layout of the other plans with all the sides and the lamp and base on it or is that not happening?

[tony farrell]

All the information you need is actually here already - it's just dotted around in the previous few posts.  

Slava has kindly provisionally agreed to work with me on the Altered Brachacki Box to create wire frame overlays for the various incarnations of this version of the box but this will obviously take some time as both of us have lives outside of Tardis Builders.

The ultimate aim is for me to rework my history of the Brachacki Box with the updated plans created as a result of mine and Slava's work together. That way the complete set of plans for the box from 1963 to 1975 will be available all in one place and will be consistently presented in my 'house style'.

The other thing to note is the fact that knowledge changes over time. Since I wrote my history of the Brachacki Box, new evidence has obviously come to light - not least of which is a very nice set of photos which were taken in 1967 and have now been bequeathed to the National Museum of Wales; we already have low-resolution versions of these photos here on Tardis Bulders but, I've managed to acquire large, HD, versions which will - I think - aid our understanding enormously.  

Sneak preview below (shush, spoilers)!

As always, open images in a separate tab and use the 'magnifying glass' to see them at full size.





(These are test plans only - wire frames yet to be created to test their accuracy.)

T

[hartnell_era_builder]

Ah well I look forward to seeing them as when I 3D model them it helps to have them all in one picture so I can build the parts in the correct place and size.
I have been able to make a 3 doctors box using your original plans. https://imgur.com/a/fJlZ6Bc