Scarfwearer Wooden console plans

[lespaceplie]

The photo is in this thread:
http://tardisbuilders.com/index.php?topic=5965.0

The warp is really more of a dimple surrounding the screw. You can just spot some glare from the curvature. Actually, I think the lower panels are only painted brown and don't even have any wood grain taped on.

[tony farrell]

I see where you're coming from - thanks for the link. However, in the early 1980s we used to sell iron-on wood veneers which came in various widths and wood types - mahogany, walnut, etc. They are still available today and are sold in rolls. Because they are so thin, they are relatively cheap and readily cut with a Stanley knife. It's clear from the screen grabs in http://tardisbuilders.com/index.php?topic=5965.0
that the upper section (writing slopes, drawers and frame) are made from wood so why not the lower sections as well? I wonder therefore if what we are seeing is the inside edge of the counter-sink for the screw head?

Tony

[lespaceplie]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the wood grain was Fablon (a self adhesive sheet). The reason I think the bottom is merely painted a solid brown, however, is the absence of any detail. There isn't much lighting, and the surface is a bit shiny, but it looks awfully plain.

[galacticprobe]

I might have introduced some confusion. The flap portion on the panel is what has the perfect dims.

Okay. I know I am dense at times (been told that many times, especially by the wife), but this is where I start getting confused. You listed the "hinged part" as being 17.5 inches wide (give or take that .1 inch), with the top narrow edge being 10.5 inches wide, and the panel having a 6-inch rise. That would make the non-hinged part of the top panel wider than 17.5 inches where it meets the console's "belt line". That still doesn't provide that 45-degree panel angle. (Calculator aside, drawing it on paper and using the old-fashioned protractor, the 10.5, 17.5, and 6 give a panel angle of a pencil-line-width above 40 degrees.)

If you account for the whole face (upper or lower panel), I'd still say the narrow dim is 10.5 with a rise of 6. That would make the wide dim 17.4, which they probably fudged to 17.5 and filed to fit.

Again, even if the entire upper panel does take into account that "fixed" (unhinged part) in that 17.5-inch wide measure, it doesn't give a 45-degree panel angle with a 6-inch rise and a 10.5-inch narrow-edge top (or bottom panel, if those dims are the same).

Incidentally, the calculator is wonky. If you don't believe me, just try a panel height of 6 and a slope of 45. The resulting middle length should be 8.49 no matter the other measures, but that's not the result it puts out.

This one is difficult to try. The only measurements you can enter into that Calculator are Panel Top Width, Panel Height (rise), and Panel Bottom Width. The rest of the measurements are then calculated for you. There is no way to enter a Panel Slope (angle); the calculator doesn't let you. And the only way to get a 45-degree Panel Slope (angle) with a 10.5-inch top and 6-inch rise is with a Panel Bottom Width of 16.5 inches - which does also give you a Middle Length (top edge to bottom edge) of 7.94 (call that 8 inches) - which is exactly what you estimated. Along those same lines, the only way to get a 45-degree angle with a bottom edge of 17.5 inches (and 6-inch rise) is with a narrow edge of 11.5 inches - and that still gives you that 8-inch top-to-bottom panel length. And unless my stanky old wizzard eyes are really going west on me, the paper drawing seems to match what the Calculator says. (Tony, since you did such a magnificent job with the angles and such on your original Brachacki Console Room set and Console drawings, we might need you to try tackling this one to see how far off that Calculator is, and me for that matter.)

It seems to be putting the middle length in the corner length spot, and the corner length is garbage.

I never bothered with that "Corner Length"; I always felt that if you got the top width, bottom width, and "Middle Length" (top-to-bottom edge length) where you wanted/needed them, then that "Corner Length" would fall into place on its own.

So, just for giggles, can anyone else enter a "Panel Slope" (angle) into that calculator to get other measurements you're looking for? Or is that one of the measurements that only the Calculator can fill in once you've entered your top and bottom widths and panel rise? (Or is it just me?) Otherwise I can't find anything wrong with that Calculator. (And if anyone else has ever used it, have you found it to be wonky?)

As far as the console's height goes, in that screen grab from "Hand of Fear", knowing that Tom Baker is about 6 feet tall (give or take an inch or two - including heels on his boots/shoes), your estimated height of it being about 3 feet tall (total height, not counting the little railing in its crown) looks to be spot on.

And just touching on this aspect of the console:

Oh, I also think this console was mounted on stylised 'claw' feet rather than 'ball' feet.

I've been looking all over the place (internet-wise) for something even vaguely close to what these ball-and-claw feet look like ever since Crispin noticed that detail while building his console. The only place I've seen feet like that was at the end of Cabriole Legs, and at well over $100 US per leg (and you need 6 - that's $600 - what people spend building a full-scale TARDIS replica!), it's a bit cost prohibitive to spend that much money on those fancy legs of that size only to cut off the feet and chuck the rest. Other than that, negative results so far. So unless you know a woodcarver, or are one yourself, or know someone that knows one, I think the only way anyone is going to get feet like these is to find wooden ball feet (even using those fence post tops like Crispin did - I forget what they're actually called), and then sculpt the "claw" bits from clay or some such to fit the ball. Once you've got one set sculpted, make a mould of it and then cast replicas for the feet (so you don't have to sculpt the claws six times), then attach the castings to the balls. Once painted they'll look like a one-piece carved foot.

Dino.

[silverfox]

Looking at those diamond patterns on the panel fascias - I'm thinking it could have been created in the following way:
Using veneer (or possibly Fablon) 4 concentric diamond shapes are cut out and then the first and third of these is rotated 180 degrees and placed back in the pattern. The whole thing is then ironed on, setting the pattern. If you look at the pattern in the wood it seems to follow on from the main part of the panel past the outer diamond shape and into the second etc.

Wouldn't be hard to do as long as you made sure your diamond pattern was perfectly symmetrical.

(If all of that makes any sense?)

I shall try a test in Photoshop later to test the result.

[timewomble]

There's a similar pattern on the Season 14 roundels, and we know those aren't wood, don't we?

[lespaceplie]

I might have introduced some confusion. The flap portion on the panel is what has the perfect dims.

Okay. I know I am dense at times (been told that many times, especially by the wife), but this is where I start getting confused. You listed the "hinged part" as being 17.5 inches wide (give or take that .1 inch), with the top narrow edge being 10.5 inches wide, and the panel having a 6-inch rise. That would make the non-hinged part of the top panel wider than 17.5 inches where it meets the console's "belt line". That still doesn't provide that 45-degree panel angle. (Calculator aside, drawing it on paper and using the old-fashioned protractor, the 10.5, 17.5, and 6 give a panel angle of a pencil-line-width above 40 degrees.)

I can assure you the upper (or lower, for that matter) panels in their entirety are 10.5 at the narrow end, 17.4 at the wide end, have a center length of 8.47,  rise 6, and slope exactly 45 degrees. By slope I mean the angle the panel leans viewed on its side.

If you trim a panel to its hinged size, it's 10.5 / 17 / 8. And speaking of convenient numbers, now that I've moved out the corner strips on the plinths, the resulting upright panels have a measure of exactly 9 x 16. That doesn't seem like a coincidence.

I'll need to upgrade the diagram (maybe PDF time now) and make a paper model. The paper model really helped sell me on the revised dims for the Mike Kelt console.

[galacticprobe]

The plinth's upright panels are only 9 inches wide? (How big is Tom Baker's head? When he's got himself tucked in and fiddling with "things" inside the plinth near the end of "The Hand Of Fear", the panels look wider than 9 inches.) However 16 inches tall looks about right.

Dino.
P. S. Please forgive me for all the questions, but at the start you did say:

I can guarantee these dims exactly zero percent.

as well as:

Also, please jump in.

Am I jumping in too hard? Like you I'm trying to understand this little puzzle box, and I am in full agreement on the panel angle of 45 degrees; screen grab printouts prove that hands down. (Oh, how I wish someone could verify at least a few measurements from Mr. Vincent-Rudzki, without posting any images of course: just a definitive measurement that can be used as a reference for extrapolating other measurements.)

[lespaceplie]

Am I jumping in too hard?

Not at all.

The thing about the plinth panels is that they would necessarily be quite narrow even if the crown was wider. Let's say the crown was actually 22" wide. That only adds 1/2" to the plinth panels.

On the hypothesis of convenient dimensions, I think everything will need to gain the 1/2 inch. That would make the width (minus the 1" thickness added by the belt) 3 feet. That's a bell ringing! A single inch in the works is very much within the wiggle room of photogrammetry based on the res of photos we have.

I update the diagram on the previous page.

[galacticprobe]

The thing about the plinth panels is that they would necessarily be quite narrow even if the crown was wider. Let's say the crown was actually 22" wide. That only adds 1/2" to the plinth panels.

I can see that now. I took a look at some more reference images (there are some decent ones in scarfwearer's old Build Diary) and those panels are rather narrow when viewed straight on. I've got the updated diagram (saved it as "Rev 2"). And thanks for letting me know that I'm not jumping too hard. And on that note... (Here I go again; I can't help it, it's the curiosity in me.)

And not meaning to cloud things any more than they already are with this little puzzle box, but when you say the panels' angles (slope) is 45 degrees, are you referring to them from this view...

...or this view?

(Incidentally, I made sure to rotate that angled arrow by 45 degrees in both annotated images.)

I know these aren't exactly showing the console "edge-on", but hopefully you understand what I'm asking as the panel angle will appear different when viewed from the "flat to flat" width (red arrow image) than it will when viewed from the "point to point" width (yellow arrow image). That could have an effect on some measurements (and could account for some of that "wiggle room").

Dino.

[lespaceplie]

The red arrow shows the slope of the panel.

Speaking of calculations, there are many all-purpose miter calculators out there that work better than the one in this forum. Such a thing is also handy for determining cuts on a police box roof.

[lespaceplie]

This photo proves(ish) a proportion with the crown at 22 wide and inside the belt at 36. There's a little distortion and low res, but assuming the panel slope really is 45 degrees, they'd have to rise 6 inches to meet the crown. Even the proportion of the outer belt (pink line and in a closer plain) checks out.

Getting this close, a 1/2 size foam core model is in order, which might lead into my first full size replica (but don't hold your breath).

[galacticprobe]

Now my brain really does hurt! This little cutie really is a puzzle box! Do you think a 1/2 scale is a good size to test things with? Or would a smaller scale work as well - say a scale of 4 inches = 1 foot? Then the model would only be 1 foot wide and tall because that 1 foot would = 3 feet.

And I'm not expecting you to build a full-scale replica. I'm just watching with eager eyes as you figure out the correct-ish dims for this puzzle box. (I've had no luck at all and I've tried since about 1984 or so!) I thought I'd found the Holy Grail with scarfwearer's plans, but now you've pointed out (and shows in images) that it is at least 6 inches shorter and narrower. (So as the knight said about Donovan in "Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade": "<I> chose... poorly." )

Dino.

[lespaceplie]

A 1:8 in paper is adequate for testing, but the half size would really dispel any camera illusions. I'd just be doing a portion out of foam core scraps anyway. I already tried a partial test in 1:1, but it was only 1/4 of the top surface of the belt and a single panel propped up at 45 degrees. I set it on boxes at the proposed height, and it looked right to me.

Building a full size replica is not so much a mission to prove the dims as it is something I'd like to do just to have a replica to show off. In fact, I'm surprised this console doesn't get more builds. It's compactness makes it house-friendly, easy to transport for display at cons, and it would be super for fan videos.

[galacticprobe]

A 1:8 in paper is adequate for testing, but the half size would really dispel any camera illusions. I'd just be doing a portion out of foam core scraps anyway.

I see that now. Makes more sense to me when you put it that way (as in, bash me over the head with the facts! ).

I already tried a partial test in 1:1, but it was only 1/4 of the top surface of the belt and a single panel propped up at 45 degrees. I set it on boxes at the proposed height, and it looked right to me.

That sounds promising! (Does any of your testing include that hidden drawer in the belt under the writing desk panel, to see how that fits? To me that would be the trickiest part of that belt to build.)

Building a full size replica is not so much a mission to prove the dims as it is something I'd like to do just to have a replica to show off.

I'm right there with you on that! That little puzzle box really was a piece of fine furniture, with some artwork thrown in.

In fact, I'm surprised this console doesn't get more builds. It's compactness makes it house-friendly, easy to transport for display at cons, and it would be super for fan videos.

Again I'm with you. I do have enough room in the front room library for this cutie to fit, if your dims are right and your model tests prove that. I don't think I've got enough skill to build it on my own - I certainly don't have the tools for it - but I've got nearby friends and relatives who do, and say they'd be happy to give me a hand with it. So I'm really wishing you good luck with your work sorting out the dims. (This might hold me over until I can get that Identity Crisis console design worked out, but that one's much larger that the puzzle box, more complex with wiring, and destined for the entertainment center room.)

Dino.