Quote from: rassilonsrod on May 22, 2016, 10:34 pm
As we were discussing how well (or not) the sharp panels (such as they were by this stage) fitted the Kelt console...
I wonder how easy it would have been to dismantle that, I was suspecting that it was welded together until Tony's suggestion that the belt could be unscrewed. But as I said, I do wonder if the new belt/ fascia was in front or not. Or perhaps the Kelt frame wasn't underneath after all? Perhaps we won't know until we have figured out more measurements?

As always Marc, you make some very valid points - perhaps, like so many things, the fitting of the remaining Sharp panels to the Kelt framework for The Two Doctors was/is just a rumour.

However, that wasn't really my point. What I was suggesting was that Mr Kelt may have directly copied the proportions of the Sharp Console - over all height, panel widths, size of the central column/rotor, size of the collar, depth of the fascia, etc. Now, if that is the case, then Lespaceplie's suggested dimensions would need only a very, very slight adjustment.

I guess, what I'm asking is: Are the dimensions of the Kelt console - as currently stated by Lespaceplie - correct? Or do they need a very, very slight 'tweak'?

I have no desire to cause offence and I am most assuredly not saying that Lespaceplie is incorrect, I am simply asking a question (albeit a question based on what I think are the correct dimensions of the preceding Sharp Console).

After all, at the end of the day, apart from redesigning the column's innards, all Sharp did was to slightly scale up Brachacki's principal dimensions from 42" to 46". So, why wouldn't Kelt have simply retained these basic - slightly larger - dimensions? (There wasn't much difference in the heights of Pertwee, Baker and Davison - so why not keep the same principal dimensions for the Console that Sharp had used?)

Does that make better sense?

T

Absolutely! It's  not my intention to disagree with anyone. I don't know enough to do that

I just felt the discussion needed some visual material and that gave rise to my questions on top of that

Quote from: rassilonsrod on May 23, 2016, 06:54 am
Absolutely! It's  not my intention to disagree with anyone. I don't know enough to do that

Hahaha! Me neither! 

I've stated elsewhere that I don't like the word "definitive" when applied to things like the Brachacki and Sharp Consoles. These props no longer exist (though parts survive). However, the Kelt Console not only survives but is on display in Cardiff.

All we'd need is for someone to take a tape measure and measure two dimensions only - the length of one side of the fascia and the height from the floor to the underside of the fascia. Everything else could be worked out from that. That's all Matt Sanders and Mark did with the Crich Police Box i.e., take a tape measure with them.

Now, who do we know that works next door to the exhibition?  BTW, on a completely unconnected subject, I wonder if Matt has decided what colour blue he wants to use on his Police Box windows.

T

Quote from: Tony Farrell on May 19, 2016, 09:25 pm
I think I've probably slightly confused matters with a typo in my previous post - I should have written 234 centimeters and not 244 centimeters. (I've modified my post to correct this.) Apologies for this!

That's making me feel less crazy/blind then - ha ha! And it's well within the wiggle room to refine my estimates.

I'm not sure if anyone will find this useful but I have this image:



Which I believe isn't elsewhere in the forum.

I originally thought this was Purple's graphic but it appears not. Can someone help me track down the other screen/monitor version of this? I'm pretty sure both existed but I can't find it... and it isn't here.

Plus the question is, how accurate it this?

Judging from those numbers I'm guessing those measurements are in centimeters? (Millimeters would be too short, and inches would definitely be too long, whether US or UK inches: what are they called again, imperial inch vs. metric inch, or something like that?)

Dino.

Dino.... I think you might be mistaken.

The only metric/ imperial mix is the metric foot (30cm) which the BBC used on their studio plans for a while.

Inches are always inches no matter where they are.

that is true. an inch is always an inch. But decimal inch like 1.625" is the same an imperial inch 1" 5/8.

Quote from: rassilonsrod on Sep 06, 2016, 07:05 am
Dino.... I think you might be mistaken.

The only metric/ imperial mix is the metric foot (30cm) which the BBC used on their studio plans for a while.
Inches are always inches no matter where they are.

Actually Marc all the studios at Television Centre were built using metric feet. Whenever we see the grid lines on studio floor plans from Television Centre, these represent 60 cms by 60 cms (two metric feet by two metric feet). I think this explains why Scarfwearer's plans for the wooden console are fractionally too big (i.e., he's assumed that the grid lines represent two imperial feet by two imperial feet or 609.6 mm by 609.6 mm).

Returning to the Mike Kelt Console, a couple of posts back, I suggested that Mr Kelt had directly copied the proportions of the preceding Kenneth Sharp version of the Console which had sides of 46" in length. 46 inches = 116.84 cms which gives the overall width of the Console as 233.68 cms.

Lescaplie has drawn his plans with the width as 232 cms. So, based on photo which David has posted, at first sight it would appear Lespaceplie is correct (116 + 116 = 232). However, Lespaceplie has 'forgotten' two things - there is a slight gap between each of the control panels on the Kelt Console and the 'inter-locking hexagonal' pattern on the fascia has a depth to it.



If we take the gap between each control panel as being approximately 4 mm and the depth of the 'interlocking hexagonal trim' on the fascia as being approximately 5 mm and add these to the panel width of 116 cms we get 116.9 cms as the 'finished' length of each of the Console's six sides. 116.9 - 116.84 = 0.06 cms (or a 0.6 mm difference).

Based on David's photo, it would appear that I was correct and Mike Kelt did indeed copy the principal dimensions of the Kenneth Sharp Console. For Lespaceplie's plans to be made 100% accurate, all that needs to be done is add the depth of the fascia's 'trim' and factor in the slight gap between each of the panels!

If Lespaceplie makes these two very minor amendments, we'd then have 'hyper-accurate' plans of the Brachacki Tardis, the Brachacki Console and Tardis interior, the Newbery Tardis, the Sharp Console and Tardis interior (when I've finished them) and the Kelt Console and Tardis interior. We've also got the most accurate history of the actual Police Boxes and if I'm proved correct about the history of the Yardley-Jones Tardis, Tardis Builders would then have the most accurate reference section of 'classic Who' of any forum in the world....

Now, that's something to be really proud of!  

T

So, come on Marc my friend, get my TY-J 'article' posted so people can discuss it and then think about 're-jigging' the reference section. Let's show the world just how good the research here on Tardis Builders actually is!

" Tardis Builders would then have the most accurate reference section of 'classic Who' of any forum in the world...."

Surely this warrants some maniacal laughter? 

Well, you're the one who calls himself "Maddavros"! 

Not at Lime Grove or Riverside.... So not all plans follow this idea

I'm hoping to get it posted by the end of this week.

M

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 06, 2016, 11:36 amActually Marc all the studios at Television Centre were built using metric feet. Whenever we see the grid lines on studio floor plans from Television Centre, these represent 60 cms by 60 cms (two metric feet by two metric feet). I think this explains why Scarfwearer's plans for the wooden console are fractionally too big (i.e., he's assumed that the grid lines represent two imperial feet by two imperial feet or 609.6 mm by 609.6 mm).

......


So, come on Marc my friend, get my TY-J 'article' posted so people can discuss it and then think about 're-jigging' the reference section. Let's show the world just how good the research here on Tardis Builders actually is!

Quote from: rassilonsrod on Sep 06, 2016, 01:57 pm
Not at Lime Grove or Riverside.... So not all plans follow this idea

I'm hoping to get it posted by the end of this week.

M

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 06, 2016, 11:36 amActually Marc all the studios at Television Centre were built using metric feet. Whenever we see the grid lines on studio floor plans from Television Centre, these represent 60 cms by 60 cms (two metric feet by two metric feet). I think this explains why Scarfwearer's plans for the wooden console are fractionally too big (i.e., he's assumed that the grid lines represent two imperial feet by two imperial feet or 609.6 mm by 609.6 mm)......
So, come on Marc my friend, get my TY-J 'article' posted so people can discuss it and then think about 're-jigging' the reference section. Let's show the world just how good the research here on Tardis Builders actually is!

Agreed - but I specifically only referred to Television Centre as being built with and using metric feet!

T

I'm not exactly bowing out, but my past work (accurate and less so) was only able to get us so far on any of the props. I'm hoping Tony will take over this one after I make the basic corrections. I haven't shared the measurements of all the panel tiers, but I'm pretty sure they're close thanks to suspiciously convenient numbers. I have some tweaks to the rotor as well.

I sincerely hope that you don't bow out. I - and am sure, many others - greatly admire what you've done especially with things like the highly complex crystaline structures within the Kelt Console's column!

I'll look forward to your 'teaked' posts!

T