As I recall, There is a photo of a physical Tech Manual phaser prop in the the book "The making on Star trek" by Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry. I have been baffled for over 40 years by the differences between the prop in photo in the book and the props we've seen in TOS. Thank you for solving the mystery.
Hello dalebachman2892. Thanks for the comment. Yes, there is a photo of the Tech Manual phaser in 'The Making of Star Trek' - my best guess is that the photo shows a mock-up of the proposed prop for the production staff to examine.
Franz Joseph apparently got the inspiration of the straight lower line of the phaser from the photo section of the book The Making of Star Trek written by Stephen Whitfield. This was caused by strong shadows that obliterated the curved line and also caused other discrepancies in its appearance.
Ken, I've read The Making of Star Trek, and didn't make the connection, even though I saw the illustration you're referring to. Thanks for the observation - a very cool bit of information!
OK, I pulled out my copy of The Making of.... and looked at the phaser illustrations again. You're obviously referring to the side-view of the P-II next to the Klingon 'hand weapon'. I took a really hard look at that phaser image and I think you're right - the curve behind the grip is there,, but almost impossible to see. So Mr. Joseph may have misinterpreted the design based on the heavy shadowing as you suggest. Even so, the Tech Manual phaser is still an interesting interpretation of the classic TV weapon. BTW did you notice that you can't see the trigger stud in The Making of... illustration? Maybe that's why the Tech Manual phaser has two buttons on the grip instead of the single stud we're all used to seeing....
I made one back in the day from the tech manual drawings. It was all we had at the time. Mine looked just like the one you show but mine was all black, and was made mostly of balsa wood with some hardwood for the beam emmiter and top control. My phaser separated into the hand phaser and lower section. For the time it was pretty good!
Hi. Sorry I took so long to reply. You've made me curious. Your cardboard FJ phaser - was that a DIY project or did the phaser come as a kit? I'm only asking because a few years ago a friend gave me an all paper model of the Enterprise, so I figure there are other paper kits out there.
@@scifi_dragon I traced the FJ pages and cut the phaser from there. As to the 1701, there are a couple paper versions of it around, both TOS and Refit. the one that comes to mind came in a book tha tincluded a D7, phaser, beacon emitter, communicator and a coupe other things.
@@jackphotonCool. I love it when people get creative like you did. My paper Enterprise kit is just the NCC1701, no extras. One of these days, I might even get around to building it.
I have a painted resin reproduction of the phaser II from "The Omega Glory". It's surprisingly accurate to the movie prop for a fan repro. It was purchased in the late 1970's at a Trek Convention in Minneapolis, along with a communicator replica which is also a dummy prop of good quality. Back in the day, Star Trek was hugely popular and I paid to dollar for those props, and I still have them today.
Thanks for commenting. Yes, the 1970s thru the 1990s saw a lot of well made, 'fan replicas' and 'garage kits' come on the market. You could always find something interesting at a Trek con. Many of those products, like the excellent plastic 23rd Century Pistol kit (Phaser-II) have disappeared lately or become so rare and expensive they're no longer worth the price. BTW, did you know the 23rd Cent Pistol was originally marketed as a PHASER-II kit, then a PHAZER-II kit? It only became the 23rd Cent Pistol after Paramount filed law suits charging trademark and copyright infringement. Greedy creeps...
I hope this is not to personal but not having the oppertunity to go to a Star Trek convention in the 70's or 80's, I was wondering what you paid for the phaser and communicator? I heard or read somewhere it was around $100.00 for the phaser back then.
@@dalebachman2892 I paid $150 for the Phaser and $80 for the communicator. That was top dollar Back then. I wasn't exactly rich being a high school student, so you can understand how badly I wanted them. The replicas were high quality and hand made, and the price reflected that. The maker spent time on research and got the details very close to the original props, which was very hard to find back then. As time went on, replicas got generally better.
@@dalebachman2892 I paid $120 for the phaser, and $80 for the communicator. That's a lot of money for a young man in the 70's, no regrets since I was a fan.
The "Tech Manual" phaser drawings were done by Franz Joseph *years* after the initial drawings were used to make the props themselves. The Making of Star Trek was published in 1968 - 7 years later. As such; there is no way that a photo of the "Tech Manual" phaser was in the book. The drawings in the book were used to provide detail to Wah Chang for when he reworked the hero phasers after Desilu's prop team botched their initial attempt. Like many Gen One Star Trek fans; I love the Tech Manual for it's unique place in our lives. But let's not confuse fiction and reality by trying to assert that it was used as inspiration for anything that we saw in the original series. Instead, it is the result of intense study by Franz Joseph to document somethings that had not been documented before.
Thanks for all the info. I never said the Tech Manual was the original design, nor that it was inspiration for the design - only that this particular phaser design appeared in both the Tech Manual and the Making of Star Trek. I would hope anyone curious about the design would read both publications.
Dale - I got this phaser in kit form, unassembled & unpainted. I believe I may have gotten it on eBay and paid about $65 - $70 for it. I'm sure a fully assembled version would've cost me a lot more.
Makes you appreciate the Art Asylum phasers with the rear dial changing the phaser sound, removable p1 with working dial and pop up sight window, bottom trigger and leds
I remember the 70's & 80's when toy makers were slapping 'star trek phaser' labels on any toy ray-gun just to boost sales. The Art Asylum phaser isn't perfect, but as toys go IT'S GREAT! Best toy representation of the TOS P-II ever.
The TOS hand phaser is one of the most powerful weapons in science fiction. Captain Tracey fought off an army of Yangs with a single hand phaser killing them by the 1000s. Kirk boasted that he could conquer planet 894-IV with 100 men armed with phasers. Trelane thought the phaser was a magnificent weapon that could kill millions. The phaser was so powerful that it presented a foil to the writers. It was difficult to put the characters into a situation that they could not simply shoot their way out of. They always had to find a way to nullify the phaser: it does not work for some reason, it was confiscated by the bad guys, etc... In the later series the phaser got nerfed into just being a gun, but I prefer the OP TOS version.
Yes, powerful indeed. The design isn't bad either. I always liked the 'stun setting' - it's a rather nice idea that you can defend yourself without killing, which only adds to the power of this neat weapon.
The front side dial has been also described as the safety switch/lock vs a dilithium chamber. One position, power hard disabled, can't fire. Other position, power connected
Hmm, I've heard the 'dilithium chamber cover' bit before, but I never heard of the 'side dial' being called a safety switch. A shame, because that would've made a lot of sense, especially given how exposed the P-II's trigger is.
Question, having put in the amount of time and effort to get sound and the effect you could call lighting, why wouldn’t you just go with an appropriately sized and powered laser? I own a Wand and bought a laser fitted TOS phaser with a beautiful deep blue beam that can be seen day and night. I ask because the latter is without sound which is a bummer and I’m motivated to add sound to it. Frankly I’d like to build one myself with a more potent laser beam like some featured here on UA-cam. I’m sure it’s tricky but it apparently is doable. I have worked in ST for a few decades and wish I’d had the sense to ask back in my TNG days.
Thanks for the supportive comment, it's much appreciated. Yes, I built it. It started as a solid resin casting - I drilled it out (Dremel) & added the light/sound electronics & trigger button switches + metal parts.
too nerdy for words... dilithium channels the explosion of matter/antimatter into a stream of plasma. Dilithium is NOT a power source in the Star Trek universe!!!
Yup, your comment is 'too nerdy for words'. Let's not get carried away with the 'technical' aspects of Trek. Like they used to say on Mystery Science Theater 3000 - "relax and tell yourself it's just a show".
@@scifi_dragon lol I guess I thought it was interesting to point out that the phaser works on matter/anti-matter annihilation, which also powers the systems on the ship
Well, I don't agree. But, that's the great thing about opinions - we can all have one and they don't have to be the same (if they were this would be a really dull world). "Meh-ul" - Huh? Maybe the after effects of my stroke were kicking in again (no joke). Doesn't matter....
At NYC Trek Cons, I met a lot of folks who worked on TOS. One thing they all agreed on was that there was no systematic record keeping back then. Example - nobody knows exactly how many of any kind of prop was built or used. SO, its easy to understand why different sources (like the book) would have contradictory information.
As I recall, There is a photo of a physical Tech Manual phaser prop in the the book "The making on Star trek" by Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry. I have been baffled for over 40 years by the differences between the prop in photo in the book and the props we've seen in TOS. Thank you for solving the mystery.
Hello dalebachman2892. Thanks for the comment. Yes, there is a photo of the Tech Manual phaser in 'The Making of Star Trek' - my best guess is that the photo shows a mock-up of the proposed prop for the production staff to examine.
Franz Joseph apparently got the inspiration of the straight lower line of the phaser from the photo section of the book The Making of Star Trek written by Stephen Whitfield. This was caused by strong shadows that obliterated the curved line and also caused other discrepancies in its appearance.
Ken,
I've read The Making of Star Trek, and didn't make the connection, even though I saw the illustration you're referring to. Thanks for the observation - a very cool bit of information!
OK, I pulled out my copy of The Making of.... and looked at the phaser illustrations again. You're obviously referring to the side-view of the P-II next to the Klingon 'hand weapon'. I took a really hard look at that phaser image and I think you're right - the curve behind the grip is there,, but almost impossible to see. So Mr. Joseph may have misinterpreted the design based on the heavy shadowing as you suggest. Even so, the Tech Manual phaser is still an interesting interpretation of the classic TV weapon. BTW did you notice that you can't see the trigger stud in The Making of... illustration? Maybe that's why the Tech Manual phaser has two buttons on the grip instead of the single stud we're all used to seeing....
I made one back in the day from the tech manual drawings. It was all we had at the time. Mine looked just like the one you show but mine was all black, and was made mostly of balsa wood with some hardwood for the beam emmiter and top control. My phaser separated into the hand phaser and lower section. For the time it was pretty good!
Great breakdown. I built a cardboard FJ phaser as teen and loved it for years. There were none better at the time. lolz.
Same here. Built mine in the early 80s, say around 1983-84. I still have it.
Hi. Sorry I took so long to reply. You've made me curious. Your cardboard FJ phaser - was that a DIY project or did the phaser come as a kit? I'm only asking because a few years ago a friend gave me an all paper model of the Enterprise, so I figure there are other paper kits out there.
@@scifi_dragon I traced the FJ pages and cut the phaser from there. As to the 1701, there are a couple paper versions of it around, both TOS and Refit. the one that comes to mind came in a book tha tincluded a D7, phaser, beacon emitter, communicator and a coupe other things.
@@jackphotonCool. I love it when people get creative like you did. My paper Enterprise kit is just the NCC1701, no extras. One of these days, I might even get around to building it.
I have a painted resin reproduction of the phaser II from "The Omega Glory". It's surprisingly accurate to the movie prop for a fan repro. It was purchased in the late 1970's at a Trek Convention in Minneapolis, along with a communicator replica which is also a dummy prop of good quality. Back in the day, Star Trek was hugely popular and I paid to dollar for those props, and I still have them today.
Thanks for commenting. Yes, the 1970s thru the 1990s saw a lot of well made, 'fan replicas' and 'garage kits' come on the market. You could always find something interesting at a Trek con. Many of those products, like the excellent plastic 23rd Century Pistol kit (Phaser-II) have disappeared lately or become so rare and expensive they're no longer worth the price. BTW, did you know the 23rd Cent Pistol was originally marketed as a PHASER-II kit, then a PHAZER-II kit? It only became the 23rd Cent Pistol after Paramount filed law suits charging trademark and copyright infringement. Greedy creeps...
I hope this is not to personal but not having the oppertunity to go to a Star Trek convention in the 70's or 80's, I was wondering what you paid for the phaser and communicator? I heard or read somewhere it was around $100.00 for the phaser back then.
@@dalebachman2892 I paid $150 for the Phaser and $80 for the communicator. That was top dollar Back then. I wasn't exactly rich being a high school student, so you can understand how badly I wanted them. The replicas were high quality and hand made, and the price reflected that. The maker spent time on research and got the details very close to the original props, which was very hard to find back then. As time went on, replicas got generally better.
@@dalebachman2892 I paid $120 for the phaser, and $80 for the communicator. That's a lot of money for a young man in the 70's, no regrets since I was a fan.
I wish I was around to purchase the phaser and Star Trek props from back in the day it definitely would made my day.
The "Tech Manual" phaser drawings were done by Franz Joseph *years* after the initial drawings were used to make the props themselves. The Making of Star Trek was published in 1968 - 7 years later. As such; there is no way that a photo of the "Tech Manual" phaser was in the book. The drawings in the book were used to provide detail to Wah Chang for when he reworked the hero phasers after Desilu's prop team botched their initial attempt. Like many Gen One Star Trek fans; I love the Tech Manual for it's unique place in our lives. But let's not confuse fiction and reality by trying to assert that it was used as inspiration for anything that we saw in the original series. Instead, it is the result of intense study by Franz Joseph to document somethings that had not been documented before.
Thanks for all the info. I never said the Tech Manual was the original design, nor that it was inspiration for the design - only that this particular phaser design appeared in both the Tech Manual and the Making of Star Trek. I would hope anyone curious about the design would read both publications.
Dale - I got this phaser in kit form, unassembled & unpainted. I believe I may have gotten it on eBay and paid about $65 - $70 for it. I'm sure a fully assembled version would've cost me a lot more.
Makes you appreciate the Art Asylum phasers with the rear dial changing the phaser sound, removable p1 with working dial and pop up sight window, bottom trigger and leds
I remember the 70's & 80's when toy makers were slapping 'star trek phaser' labels on any toy ray-gun just to boost sales. The Art Asylum phaser isn't perfect, but as toys go IT'S GREAT! Best toy representation of the TOS P-II ever.
Hey, 65CJ5. Thanks for the comment. Very interesting, I love when people figure out how to DIY something - well done.
The TOS hand phaser is one of the most powerful weapons in science fiction. Captain Tracey fought off an army of Yangs with a single hand phaser killing them by the 1000s. Kirk boasted that he could conquer planet 894-IV with 100 men armed with phasers. Trelane thought the phaser was a magnificent weapon that could kill millions. The phaser was so powerful that it presented a foil to the writers. It was difficult to put the characters into a situation that they could not simply shoot their way out of. They always had to find a way to nullify the phaser: it does not work for some reason, it was confiscated by the bad guys, etc... In the later series the phaser got nerfed into just being a gun, but I prefer the OP TOS version.
Yes, powerful indeed. The design isn't bad either. I always liked the 'stun setting' - it's a rather nice idea that you can defend yourself without killing, which only adds to the power of this neat weapon.
The front side dial has been also described as the safety switch/lock vs a dilithium chamber.
One position, power hard disabled, can't fire.
Other position, power connected
Hmm, I've heard the 'dilithium chamber cover' bit before, but I never heard of the 'side dial' being called a safety switch. A shame, because that would've made a lot of sense, especially given how exposed the P-II's trigger is.
The silver photon emitter looks exactly like the Brad Nelson version's emitter.
Question, having put in the amount of time and effort to get sound and the effect you could call lighting, why wouldn’t you just go with an appropriately sized and powered laser? I own a Wand and bought a laser fitted TOS phaser with a beautiful deep blue beam that can be seen day and night. I ask because the latter is without sound which is a bummer and I’m motivated to add sound to it. Frankly I’d like to build one myself with a more potent laser beam like some featured here on UA-cam.
I’m sure it’s tricky but it apparently is doable. I have worked in ST for a few decades and wish I’d had the sense to ask back in my TNG days.
The Tech Manual phaser is based on that very badly cropped photo in "The Making Of Star Trek".
My theory for the side-control is: beam-focus (wide/narrow).
Good a theory as any....But, beam width/focus is controlled by the rotating collar on the beam emitter housing.
@@scifi_dragon Stun/kill?
Pretty cool video. Ignore the trolls. Did you actually build that Franz phaser?
Thanks for the supportive comment, it's much appreciated. Yes, I built it. It started as a solid resin casting - I drilled it out (Dremel) & added the light/sound electronics & trigger button switches + metal parts.
Dilithum crystals aren't the power source, they're how the power is regulated.
lol - true, but to be more accurate, the crystals focus the energy flow. It's fiction, dude, don't spoil it with picky details.
How could he get everything so wrong like the bridge being rotated 36 degrees.
OK, I have to ask - what bridge? This whole video is about a phaser design, there's no bridge in it anywhere.
I have one with the communicator
too nerdy for words... dilithium channels the explosion of matter/antimatter into a stream of plasma. Dilithium is NOT a power source in the Star Trek universe!!!
Yup, your comment is 'too nerdy for words'. Let's not get carried away with the 'technical' aspects of Trek. Like they used to say on Mystery Science Theater 3000 - "relax and tell yourself it's just a show".
@@scifi_dragon lol I guess I thought it was interesting to point out that the phaser works on matter/anti-matter annihilation, which also powers the systems on the ship
Fascinating. Please learn how to pronounce the letter "T." The word is metal, not meh-ul. The Wand Company is in my opinion one of the best replicas.
Well, I don't agree. But, that's the great thing about opinions - we can all have one and they don't have to be the same (if they were this would be a really dull world).
"Meh-ul" - Huh? Maybe the after effects of my stroke were kicking in again (no joke). Doesn't matter....
I never liked that book it almost always contradicted everything we saw in the original Television series.
At NYC Trek Cons, I met a lot of folks who worked on TOS. One thing they all agreed on was that there was no systematic record keeping back then. Example - nobody knows exactly how many of any kind of prop was built or used. SO, its easy to understand why different sources (like the book) would have contradictory information.