Griffworks, you are correct that my initial post was indeed a "where did you get that info" post. Any other intention was assumed.I just followed the logical order of what I saw. after all would they have mounted the lights in a random order? NO! 6 lights, and then the 6 lights on the fusion core makes a total of 12 lights.Y3a, considering your explanation, I'll consider your "six lights beneath the dome" assertion to be opinion. I don't believe guessing an answer of "no" to the question "would they have mounted the lights in a random order" and then further guessing that it must be six lights because there are six lights in the core to be a conclusive and definitive answer to number of lights and their arrangement.

Regarding not being able to find the stuff you read decades ago because it wasn't important at the time, that's understandable, but the fact is that it's important now as evidence to support conjecture, and even then, the less contemporaneous an interview was, the more fallible it is. Plus citing an article you read decades ago is introducing another memory to the equation, which adds to the fallibility.

For example, L.B. Abbott has said that the Space Pod was dropped from a two foot diameter Jupiter 2, that the meteors in the pilot were animated and optically added and that the four foot Jupiter 2 was powered externally by the support wires.

The first two statements I've cited are known to be false because of a) the existence of the 4' J2 rigged for dropping the Space Pod and b) the visual evidence on film of the meteors being filmed along with the J2 in the pilot.

I suspect the third statement to be false as well, otherwise, what are the two platforms in the hero four foot miniature for? (Visible in the "J2 autopsy" video.)

This incorrect information comes from an L.B. Abbott interview by Jeff Blair in LISFAN #1, pages 15, 16 and 25.

There are other things you have stated that I don’t believe are accurate, for example, that the lights are “auto back-up lights” and that the small miniature also had six lights.

The bulbs in the fusion core had a candelabra base whereas automotive bulbs are typically dual contact bayonet bases (candelabras shake loose with driving vibration). From scenes like the orbit around the large spaceship in The Derelict, you can see that the small miniature exposes ten light sources at any given time.

I also find your statements about the hero J2 being dropped requiring the need for the two 4’ J2’s to share a fusion core after that; the chasing fusion core being designed for higher film speeds; and “the rotating shaft had separated from the light holder part of the core” to be dubious. I’d love to see citation on those. [BTW, on the last one, I’d say it’s more likely that the battery for the motor became disconnected with all the shaking.]

Regarding standards, I'm happy to adhere to he same that I expect. If I've made any definitive statements, point them out and I'll cite the source or explain how I know what I know regarding the particulars.

Chris

Since I have no idea what is inside the smallest J2 All any of us have is assumptions. I can see a single slow blinking light in the bubble. OK, so that means it probably had a blinking light - an assumption. What other methods available in the 1960's could it be?
10 lights in the fusion core? I still think the light source was a single non-moving one, and the light emitted from the core was reflection and the core had another part which spun inside, and had a different number of holes for light that worked with the holes in the outer fusion core body to provide the movement.

Back to the 6 lights under the spinning "V". From the angle you have to look into the bubble from almost above, you can see lights in a circular pattern. the spacing of those lights is uniform, but true, you can't see all 6 lights. My assumption is that they would have uniform spacing. The automobile back-up lights were usually smaller than the brake lights used in most 1960's cars, and had single filiments, not dual ones. They may have been bayonette, or other style of connector. We don't know.

We Do see photographic evidence of a change in appearance of the fusion core, but not a change in filming speeds when reading clapper info. Originally, we did see 6 lights in the fusion core. As they burned out we just came to accept that the real Jupiter 2 was having problems. The chaser also looked just like the one on the pod dropper. Same visual effect.

The lights and continuous operating aspects (spinning parts and lights)were powered by onboard batteries, and turned on and off by a switch in the back of the J2. The support wires provided the power for the gear, as that would be the only contact to the model during filming. 12 volt was a common DC voltage for lots of DC powered items in transportation.

Well rats!!! I spent part of today going through my motion SPFX clips and the 3 clips I really needed are corrupt, so I have to re-steal them out of the DVD's!!!! Sorry Chris, I was gonna get the bubble lights for you and the lil Jupiter 2 stuff so we could go through it all. I will try and get the clip looking down on the Jupiter to see the lights and I'll explain what I see and why I say it's 6 lights.

BTW - your info on the interior consoles and knobs n such is really impressive.

Heres a twist. Were the Batteries on the Hero a pair of 12v motorcycle/small boat batteries or were they 6v batteries? In the 1960's there were motorcycle battery sizes in both 6v and 12v. Depending on wiring, they could have used between 6v, 12v or even 24v for the interior stuff.

Since we know that they didn't use radio control stuff for the landing gear, the next best solution would be the external support wires to provide power to whatever system they used for the raising and lowering of the gear. As I said before, it's the only way they had to work the gear. I don't know what voltage they used, but assume 12v as that would power the lights. 6v would be too low except for bulbs used in pre-WWII and a little after cars, and 24 volts would cook the bulbs unless resistors were used, but why if you were trying for as bright as you could.

I look at what the requirements must have been and try and match it to the middle of the road technology used in the models from the Seaview, to the Spindrift to the Jupiter 2.

Sure it's a study in deductive reasoning. It has worked for me for most of my life.

Consoles and knobs, huh? Obviously you're a member of the Lost in Space Props Yahoo group.... If so, then you're probably aware that I typically don't leave any stones unturned. :)

Anyhow, the batteries could easily have been 6V lantern batteries, unfortunately, the evidence isn't there (or hasn't surfaced) to tell for sure. What we can see (from the J2 Autopsy video) is that someone bothered to mark the polarity on the platforms for the batteries. Polarity doesn't matter for lights, so there must have been a motor involved with the internal batteries. And it's not out of the question that that the batteries were in series and operated both the lights and motor. For that matter, they could have been two 6V batteries in parallel just to get extra amp hours. We just don’t know. What we do know is that there are two switches at the rear for controlling the lights and motor. (Two switches are visible from inside on the J2 Autopsy, location of switches is visible from the outside while the four footer exits The Derelict and operation by a technician is visible in LIS Forever effects footage.)

The bulbs could easily have been anywhere from 2 to 28 volts in this application. Many variations of bulbs existed (now and in the 60’s) regarding voltage, base, envelope, MSCP, filaments, amps and life. And chances are that they were overdriven for extra brightness (which would shorten their life; there’s actually an exact formula for figuring how much). 6V bulbs would not “be too low except for bulbs used in pre-WWII”, and 24 volts would not “cook the bulbs unless resistors were used”, provided you used 24 or 28 volt bulbs matched with the proper power. (28V was and is common in aircraft.)

The only possible evidence I can offer for the lights is that I have one of the bulbs from the chaser fusion core. If it still works (or is marked) I can see what voltage it runs at. If I recall it is a clear G4 bulb with candelabra base with outer surface frosting added by the studio. I'll pull it from storage and post the details here.

For the landing legs, if we're going to deduce anything about their operation from the footage, I think that they the are operated by wire, like a puppet, not by motor. There is at least one scene in the LIS Forever effects footage where the J2 is lifting off form the dirt and the legs fall open as the fuselage lifts away from the ground. They are then pulled into the retracted position. Also consider that for landing, the legs do not have to support the body; you just have to stop lowering the boom.

For the light under the dome, there is an extend shot of the four foot J2 in the Land of the Giants proposal reel (Fantasy Worlds of Irwin Allen DVD). In this shot, you can clearly see the rotating disk bent into a V in the dome and just one light beneath it. It is periodically exposed and blocked by the spinning V-disk. Any other lights you see are reflections of the stage key and fill lights off the outer surface of the dome.

As a side note, one bad thing about the effects footage on the LISF and FWoIA DVDs are that they suffer from being encoded with a 3:2 pulldown. What you get are frames 1, 2, 2-3, 3-4 and 4, repeat. This process converts 24 frames per second to 30 frames per second for NTSC, but as you can see, you never get a clean shot of frame three with this method, frame three is shown twice, once with frame two and once with frame four, but never by itself. I have a manual away around this by taking the odd field from the 2-3 frame and the even field from the 3-4 frame and putting them together, but it’s a pain in the ass and not practical to do for an entire scene. (If anyone has an automated method or tool for splitting and combining frames fields, please let me know.)

Looking forward to the discussion and whatever evidence you come up with.

Chris

Can anyone supply information as to where one can buy the "J2 Autopsy" and "LIS Forever" DVD's that are always mentioned? If they are available and a link can be posted....that would be a great help.

Thanks.

Gar

Consoles and knobs, huh? Obviously you're a member of the Lost in Space Props Yahoo group.... If so, then you're probably aware that I typically don't leave any stones unturned. :)

YEP! I had no idea as to the parentage of the set eqpt. until reading through the stuff.

Anyhow, the batteries could easily have been 6V lantern batteries, unfortunately, the evidence isn't there (or hasn't surfaced) to tell for sure. What we can see (from the J2 Autopsy video) is that someone bothered to mark the polarity on the platforms for the batteries. Polarity doesn't matter for lights, so there must have been a motor involved with the internal batteries. And it's not out of the question that that the batteries were in series and operated both the lights and motor. For that matter, they could have been two 6V batteries in parallel just to get extra amp hours. We just don’t know. What we do know is that there are two switches at the rear for controlling the lights and motor. (Two switches are visible from inside on the J2 Autopsy, location of switches is visible from the outside while the four footer exits The Derelict and operation by a technician is visible in LIS Forever effects footage.)

The bulbs could easily have been anywhere from 2 to 28 volts in this application. Many variations of bulbs existed (now and in the 60’s) regarding voltage, base, envelope, MSCP, filaments, amps and life. And chances are that they were overdriven for extra brightness (which would shorten their life; there’s actually an exact formula for figuring how much). 6V bulbs would not “be too low except for bulbs used in pre-WWII”, and 24 volts would not “cook the bulbs unless resistors were used”, provided you used 24 or 28 volt bulbs matched with the proper power. (28V was and is common in aircraft.)

The only possible evidence I can offer for the lights is that I have one of the bulbs from the chaser fusion core. If it still works (or is marked) I can see what voltage it runs at. If I recall it is a clear G4 bulb with candelabra base with outer surface frosting added by the studio. I'll pull it from storage and post the details here.

Very cool.

For the landing legs, if we're going to deduce anything about their operation from the footage, I think that they the are operated by wire, like a puppet, not by motor. There is at least one scene in the LIS Forever effects footage where the J2 is lifting off form the dirt and the legs fall open as the fuselage lifts away from the ground. They are then pulled into the retracted position. Also consider that for landing, the legs do not have to support the body; you just have to stop lowering the boom.

It looks as if that clip also shows the gear lifting the model off the ground before the smoke starts. Since we know the model had 3 wires to support it, where were the gear wires? the uniformity in which the gear raises and lowers suggests a motor.

For the light under the dome, there is an extend shot of the four foot J2 in the Land of the Giants proposal reel (Fantasy Worlds of Irwin Allen DVD). In this shot, you can clearly see the rotating disk bent into a V in the dome and just one light beneath it. It is periodically exposed and blocked by the spinning V-disk. Any other lights you see are reflections of the stage key and fill lights off the outer surface of the dome.

As a side note, one bad thing about the effects footage on the LISF and FWoIA DVDs are that they suffer from being encoded with a 3:2 pulldown. What you get are frames 1, 2, 2-3, 3-4 and 4, repeat. This process converts 24 frames per second to 30 frames per second for NTSC, but as you can see, you never get a clean shot of frame three with this method, frame three is shown twice, once with frame two and once with frame four, but never by itself. I have a manual away around this by taking the odd field from the 2-3 frame and the even field from the 3-4 frame and putting them together, but it’s a pain in the ass and not practical to do for an entire scene. (If anyone has an automated method or tool for splitting and combining frames fields, please let me know.)

Looking forward to the discussion and whatever evidence you come up with.

Chris

You can get "Lost in Space Forever" and "The Fantasy Worlds of Irwin Allen" DVDs from Amazon.com (perhaps cheaper elswhere).

For the Autopsy video/DVD; that was a video made by a private individual in the 90's during the J2's restoration and offered for sale about five years ago. I just shot off an email to the last address I had for him. It didn't bounce back as bad, so hopefully he'll still offer it and I'll be able to pass on the contact info.

Chris

It looks as if that clip also shows the gear lifting the model off the ground before the smoke starts. Since we know the model had 3 wires to support it, where were the gear wires? the uniformity in which the gear raises and lowers suggests a motor.I don't think the gear are doing any lifting, they're just hanging there slack.

A cable to move the gear could have easily run up adjacent to one of the three support wires.

Regarding uniformity, I think the gear movement is anything but. Check when the gear drops for landing in "Ghost Planet", there's a bit of jerkiness to it.

But jerky or not, neither rules out (or suggests) either a motor or hand control.

If you want to take the best piece of evidence for making an educated guess, look at the effects footage where I think they're hanging and you think they're lifting.

Now with that in mind, what makes more sense? That the gear is on a motor with enough torque to snap the weight of the J2 up off the ground quickly (remember this was filmed at high speed); Or that the gear hangs freely and is retracted with a wire.

Now think about what is easier to construct, motorized gear that is beefy enough to support the weight of the J2, batteries, light motor, etc., or something that just pivots on a pin with a wire and gravity.

Now think about what is cheaper.

Now think about what would be the minimum you would need to film.

I know that this won't make for the fully functional replica that you've imagined, but in my opinion based on the visual evidence this is how the hero operated. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that shows that the gear was controlled by a motor.

One last thing: The footpad covers could have been designed to hold the gear in the closed position so the wire for retracting the gear didn't need to be held taut for flight.

Chris

I don't think the gear could actually support the model unless it was on the counterweighted mike boom. I have looked at 3 SPFX clips where the wires show up well, and i don't see any dual cables. I know the SPFX shots are slowed down, and I took mine and sped them back up.

When I got my copy of the J2 Autopsy, I 'remastered' it by sharpening it and such. I also took all the 4 foot SPFX clips from LIS Forever, and first showed the sped up to real speed shot, then 2 shots of it untouched, and another that was sped up, but looked more 'real' to me. So you'd see all clips 4 times. I sent a copy to Henry Prentiss and I can't remember who else just for info. It also had copies of all my tweaked photos n such.

When you look at the positions of the pulley wheels and such, both on the back of the leg, and on the top of the "A" frame above the gear well, it suggests the legs are pulled down under torque.

As far as motor usage in the FOX models..... Did they use them to open the FS1 doors on the seaview? Did they use the same thing on the Pod Dropper? Did the Spindrifts light diaplay use a motor? I am just of the opinion that motors were used in the various models. mechanical systems inside would be easier to manage than those outside that might have to be attached and tweaked before each use.

I have looked at 3 SPFX clips where the wires show up well, and i don't see any dual cables.I don't think there is enough resolution on the DVDs to show a difference between one wire or two. Hell, the gear and gear door wires could have been monofilament fishing line for all we know since they didn't need to support any kind of weight.
When you look at the positions of the pulley wheels and such, both on the back of the leg, and on the top of the "A" frame above the gear well, it suggests the legs are pulled down under torque.I don't get that inference at all from the position of the pulleys.

The J2 that was refit for the Space Pod didn't have any motor evidence in it that I'm aware of and I'm not sure if the LotG or VttBotS models used motors or not, but even if they did, that wouldn't make or break the case of a gear motor in the hero J2.

And I definitely don't think that mechanical systems inside for the gear would be easier to manage, especially when you take into consideration that they would need to operate four to seven times as fast as they appeared on film to take into account the high film speed.

Did you ever try and get a motor to move something that fast and stop immediately with precision? Whereas it's pretty easy to pull a wire and let it go. :)

Chris

I don't think there is enough resolution on the DVDs to show a difference between one wire or two. Hell, the gear and gear door wires could have been monofilament fishing line for all we know since they didn't need to support any kind of weight.
I don't get that inference at all from the position of the pulleys.

The J2 that was refit for the Space Pod didn't have any motor evidence in it that I'm aware of and I'm not sure if the LotG or VttBotS models used motors or not, but even if they did, that wouldn't make or break the case of a gear motor in the hero J2.

And I definitely don't think that mechanical systems inside for the gear would be easier to manage, especially when you take into consideration that they would need to operate four to seven times as fast as they appeared on film to take into account the high film speed.

Did you ever try and get a motor to move something that fast and stop immediately with precision? Whereas it's pretty easy to pull a wire and let it go. :)

Chris

I did scale RC airplanes for a decade, and have a bunch of hobby experience in many other areas too. (I wanted to be a second unit cinematographer and have read as much behind the scenes junk as I could find. I have been reading and collecting Cinefex for it's entire run.)

I also do a bunch of Brass HO scale team locomotives- both repairs, modifications and builds from kits, and I used to build Vent Dummys and build magic props too.

I have used fast servos in my 2 foot Lunar Models J2 so I could reproduce the fast gear movement. Quicktime allows me to speed up playback to the speed indicated on the clapper so I can get that pretty close....So I understand the problems and have looked at the remains of the J2, but I also noticed the outlines of simple pulley wheels around the edges of the inside that suggest a single motor/gearbox pulled the gear down, and rewound to allow the gear to retract.

For systems that require fast starting and stopping, usually the item has a 'stop' built onto it to allow for the slight over-run of a motor, or a clutch system.

The cleverness and such of the original prop makers when it gets into teeny details like this may one day surprise us. The pulleys are set to lower the gear when the wire is pulled, not to raise the gear if you look at the positions from the side of the gear well. the footpad doors and the legs were all pulled to open/drop the gear, not to raise the gear. Springs were probably used for that.

The cleverness and such of the original prop makers when it gets into teeny details like this may one day surprise us. The pulleys are set to lower the gear when the wire is pulled, not to raise the gear if you look at the positions from the side of the gear well. the footpad doors and the legs were all pulled to open/drop the gear, not to raise the gear. Springs were probably used for that.Your point about stops is taken, but, correct me if I'm wrong, I do not believe fast servos like you describe were available 45 years ago. And if you want to take into consideration the cleverness of the prop designers / makers, don't you think they'd be smart enough to figure out that they didin't need any motors for the gear, just a gravity drop and manual retract?

Perhaps I would be enlightened if you could post a screen cap showing the pulley positions that you believe supports your position that motors must have been used.

Chris

Haven't been here in a while. This is a great discussion! I hope you two continue it and that no one misconstrues it as anything but a great discussion.
From the little I know about the Seaviews and Flying Subs (David Merriman and photos), there were no motors involved with the miniatures. The FS bay doors were opened by a diver using a hand crank that fitted into a receptacle between the top back fins. There were batteries built into the 18 foot Seaview to provide lighting. There are pictures out there of a diver operating the Flying Sub claw manually from behind the sub.
Not that any of that means anything as far as the J2 is concerned. A history of mechanical effects being operated externally on other shows points to a trend but is still wholly inconclusive.
The Profiles in History catalogue description of the Spindrift miniature describes the rotating internal drum that created the flickering rear engine lights as still working and being extremely loud.
They never, ever went for cheap when they built their miniatures. They did go for sturdy, tho. David Merriman says the miniatures looked awful when viewed up close, as they were never meant to be viewed up close. But they were built to withstand a beating. The J2 did blow its lighting, but the lighting mechanism still had to be built to stand up to some pretty rough handling.
My 2 cents, which probably isn't worth that: the J2s landing gear were manually operated, either by puppet wires or a wire release that engaged a spring loaded or clockwork device. They operated as a single unit however it was done.
The dome light could have been a single central bulb under the spinning mirror (which could also have been the constant light source for the scrim). How was the scrim backed? How was it prevented from flickering as the fusion core lights spun? Are the multiple lights seen through the top dome the spinning fusion core lights below?

... When I got my copy of the J2 Autopsy, I 'remastered' it by sharpening it and such. I also took all the 4 foot SPFX clips from LIS Forever, and first showed the sped up to real speed shot, then 2 shots of it untouched, and another that was sped up, but looked more 'real' to me. So you'd see all clips 4 times. I sent a copy to Henry Prentiss and I can't remember who else just for info. It also had copies of all my tweaked photos n such...


Mark --

I still have that DVD and keep it handy! It's really cool to see how fast they could actually retract those legs on the "speeded-up" footage you edited.

Great video!

--H

I'm thinking that Me n Chris will be able to have a working Jupiter 2 in about 45 more pages! LOL!!

I'm thinking that Me n Chris will be able to have a working Jupiter 2 in about 45 more pages! LOL!!

Well, at least you can take your time discussing it and not clogging things up over on the Moebius forum! It's been interesting reading so far, though.

--H

Okay, I swung by storage an pulled the original fusion core bulb. And the good news is that IT STILL WORKS!

I powered it with 1.5V and got a little glow, 3V was dimly lit, and 4.5V was lit, but obviously not its brightest. I'm not going to go any further than that.

This tells me that it is either a 5V, 6V or 6.3V bulb. The envelope is .553" diameter which means it's within spec for a G4-1/2, candelabra base.

The bulb may have been factory frosted as it's pretty evenly coated. On top of that even coating, there is some other frosting or paint that is missing in a lot of areas.

The best I can make out for the markings is that it's a GE bulb that may end in "1".

So it looks like those batteries in the J2 would have had to be 6V each.

Chris

More specs on the bulb:

G4-1/2 (.553" diameter globe)
E10 screw base
Frosted glass
.450 amps at 4.8VDC
(would be .460 amps at 5V)
(would be .509 amps at 6V)
(would be .516amps at 6.15V)
(would be .523 amps at 6.3V)

Resistance of the filament is about 1 ohm.

I don't have any tools to measure the candle power.

Chris

Can you take a really close-up picture of it?

The LIS Props forum has been pretty interesting too. I had no idea about the SAGE stuff and knobs, parts, whats missing, how they must have played 'musical panels' on the Jupiter 2 set and such. Chris really knows his stuff.

Thanks... :)

Here's a link to the closest photo I could get:

http://www.ChrisPappas.com/boards/origj2light.jpg

Chris

...Here's a link to the closest photo I could get:
Gone, already.

I missed the picture too. :(

I'm sure everyone has already seen this picture below - I assume Chris's picture was one of these type bulbs? 'Least they appear 'frosted', like Chris described his as being.

http://jupiter2.freeyellow.com/TempStuff/GregJeinPodDropperInnerCore.jpg

I just recieved my 18" jupiter 2 and I am looking for a fusion core .But when I went to the voodoo fx site they said it's currently unavailable .Looks like they are redoing it? Monsters in motion has a fusion core available.Is anyone here familiar with that one? Can anyone recomend it?
Thanks.Xman64

Well..looks like I'm answering my own question and I'm going to go with the voodoo fx. Just got off the phone with Randy and he was very friendly and very helpful. Plus I would rather do business with someone who is into the hobby and not just someone at some customer service desk.
anyway Happy New Year to you all.
Xman64