Return-Path: X-Processed-By: Virex 7 on prxy.net X-Real-To: stagecraftlist [at] theatrical.net Received: by prxy.net (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 4.2.6) with PIPE id 5193217; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:01:10 -0800 X-ListServer: CommuniGate Pro LIST 4.2.6 List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Message-ID: From: "Stagecraft" Sender: "Stagecraft" To: "Stagecraft" Precedence: list Subject: Stagecraft Digest #203 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:00:48 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on prxy.net X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.1 X-Spam-Level: X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.4f2 X-prxy-Spam-Filter: Scanned For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see --------------------------------------------------- Stagecraft Digest, Issue #203 1. Re: USITT Workshop: Let's Get the Show on the Road by Barney Simon 2. Re: House Lighting Control by "Riter, Andrew (Head Ltg)" 3. Re: was trucking in Vancouver by "Riter, Andrew (Head Ltg)" 4. Re: RJ45 and DMX512 by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 5. Re: was trucking in Vancouver (Herrick drags it OT) by Herrick Goldman 6. Re: maintenance by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 7. Re: RJ45 and DMX512 by Jerry Durand 8. Re: maintenance by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 9. Re: RJ45 and DMX512 by "Jonathan S. Deull" 10. Re: RJ45 and DMX512 by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 11. Re: RJ45 and DMX512 by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 12. Re: RJ45 and DMX512 by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 13. Re: maintenance by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 14. Re: Surtitles,,, again by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 15. Dimmer and transformer question by Ron Cargile 16. Re: Surtitles,,, again by Mark O'Brien 17. Re: Surtitles,,, again by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 18. Re: Surtitles,,, again by Stephen Litterst 19. Re: Surtitles,,, again, and again... by Richard Niederberg 20. Re: Dimmer and transformer question by "Daryl Redmon" *** Please update the subject line of your reply to use the subject *** line of the message you are replying to! Please only reply to *** one message subject in each reply. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <41A0A9E3.7010504 [at] JosephCHansen.com> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 09:44:51 -0500 From: Barney Simon Organization: Joseph C Hansen Company, Inc. Subject: Re: USITT Workshop: Let's Get the Show on the Road References: In-Reply-To: Back in the old days, Production arts always loaded the instruments first.... they were on the first floor. The cable and dimmers were on the tail. Everytime I went, I had to make them load the heavy stuff up front to balance the load. And still once or twice I was caught at a weigh station and fined for not having the axles properly weighted. Barney Simon JC Hansen Co, Inc. Drapes, Drops, and Dance Floors ------------------------------ Message-ID: <297C9E3B63B2D3119C8100508B5ED28F1601FF70 [at] exchange2.ubc.ca> From: "Riter, Andrew (Head Ltg)" Subject: RE: House Lighting Control Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 09:35:38 -0800 I've got 3 separate premiere controllers in my building, when 1 system could have run everything. Premiere is immensely powerful, probably more powerful than you need. I think Outlook (also by Strand) has its brains in the dimmer racks, and runs well from there. Same look as Premiere, but less rooms. Premiere can be programmed off-line, then up-loaded to the Premiere controller, but the program isn't all that user friendly. The service tech had to phone Strand Toronto to ask how to do some things in Premiere. A lot of it has to do with the specs. I can't imagine what the three separate systems cost, and what else could have been bought with that money. Or the plethora of switches in some rooms (every 20' down the length of the catwalk). The handy part of the system is that I can take control of the room away from the house light system and have the lighting board in control. This prevents other people activating house lights during the show. Andrew M. Riter Head Lighting Technician Chan Centre ------------------------------ Message-ID: <297C9E3B63B2D3119C8100508B5ED28F1601FF71 [at] exchange2.ubc.ca> From: "Riter, Andrew (Head Ltg)" Subject: RE: was trucking in Vancouver Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 09:38:39 -0800 What??? Rain in Vancouver? Never would have guessed. Too bad the longshoremen emptied the truck. Lucky for you they left it there. Stories in the press right now about Hells Angels, etc, organized crime, controlling the ship yards and container traffic. Andrew M. Riter Head Lighting Technician Chan Centre ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 13:36:44 EST Subject: Re: RJ45 and DMX512 In a message dated 19/11/04 03:05:59 GMT Standard Time, nk [at] looksolutions.com writes: > >>I only see one connector being used for low-impedance microphones. > > > >XLR-3, 1/4" phone jack, 1/8" phone jack... > > 1/4" and 1/8" are only high-impedance (I think). Also 3 and 5-pin DIN connectors, with at least three different locking systems. Apropos 1/4" jacks, there are two sorts. The professional 'B' gauge balanced jacks, extensively used on jackfields (patchbays). These were designed about 100 years ago for telephone exchanges on the Strowger system, and are still in current use. They have a small tip, for hot; an insulating bulge, for not shorting out the local battery when inserting; a ring for cold; and a sleeve for earth (ground). On British film studio (Pinewood) reverses tip and sleeve, to everyone's great confusion. 'A' gauge jacks are similar, with tip, ring, and sleeve all the same size, and are normally used for stereo headphones. There are also 4mm 'B' gauge jacks, used on 'insert jackfields'. These are used to insert devices into the signal path, such as delays, echo machines, and so on. They are of a similar form to the 1/4" variety, but are wired unbalanced. Top for 'go', ring for 'return', and sleeve for 'common'. They has a reputation for unreliability, but you could get more of them into a smaller space. . > > Yes you're right, there are as many examples for non-standard connectors as > for standard, if not more. This is sometimes deliberate, particularly for mains connectors. Big broadcast installations try to keep the mains supply, and the earths, to the sound systems apart from the general purpose ones. This implies using other than normal power connectors. Frank Wood ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 13:39:15 -0500 Subject: Re: was trucking in Vancouver (Herrick drags it OT) From: Herrick Goldman Message-ID: In-Reply-To: And speaking of Vancouver..... My wife and I will be skiing up there in December (Whistler/Blackomb) But we may actually need to take a day off to rest. Do any listers live in Vancouver? Any suggestions of things not to miss? Restaurants, Museums, Shows? -- Herrick Goldman Lighting Designer, NYC www.HGLightingDesign.com "To the scores of silent alchemists who wreak their joy in darkness and in light bringing magic to life, we bow most humbly. "-CDS ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <76.46ade706.2ed23ba9 [at] aol.com> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 13:42:49 EST Subject: Re: maintenance In a message dated 19/11/04 15:55:51 GMT Standard Time, kruling [at] esta.org writes: > I understood you, but you didn't understand me. You missed the forest > by staring at one tree. > > My somewhat ironic comment was about the need for regular > maintenance. We have an expression, "If it ain't broke, don't fix > it." Unfortunately, this too often means that nothing is maintained > until it is broken. Dead shorts that blow SCRs are one problem that > arises from lack of maintenance, but there are other hazards that > follow from no maintenance, and the light output of a luminaire that > isn't tended until its broken also tends to be pretty poor. > Furthermore, it's a pretty expensive waste of time to have to fix > equipment on the spur of the moment because you need it NOW. > Nevertheless, often no maintence until something's broken is standard > operating procedure. It shouldn't be. > > Sure, theoretically one can design an SCR dimmer to survive a dead > short on the end of the load circuit. You do this by having very fast- > acting over-current protection (e.g. silver sand fuses that cost more > than the SCR), grossly over-sizing the SCRs (expensive), and/or > adding resistance to the system to limit the fault current > (inefficient). Several decades ago I stood in a dimmer room and > listened to an Electro Controls engineer complain about the salesmen > who sold systems with "short-circuit-proof" dimmers and who then came > back with the order and expected the engineers to actually design > such a thing, the factory to build it, and the company to make a > profit now that the price had been set and the sale made. > > That was decades ago. Now I never hear an SCR dimmer salesman claim > to have a short-circuit-proof dimmer. The only sales people making > such claims are selling dimmers that use IGBTs or MOSFETs for power > devices. These devices can be shut off at any time; SCRs (unless some > really extraordinary reverse commutation circuitry is used) are > generally condemned to carry the fault current for at least the > remainder of the half-cycle. A male connector with a piece of wire > running between the hot and neutral pins is usually used to show that > an IGBT or MOSET dimmer is short-circuit-proof. The salesman plugs it > directly into the output of the dimmer, and it shuts off. The > salesman unplugs it, and the dimmer turns back on. I haven't seen any > SCR dimmer salesman try this. Of course, dimmers that use IGBTs and > MOSETs usually cost more than SCR dimmers, but they have other > advantages, besides being short-circuit-proof, that may make them a > better choice for some applications. > > I know of no sales person or dimmer manufacturer that would argue > that short-circuit-proof dimmers obviate the need for regular > equipment maintenance. Frank Wood ------------------------------ Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.0.20041121105114.03e87598 [at] localhost> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:00:35 -0800 From: Jerry Durand Subject: Re: RJ45 and DMX512 In-Reply-To: References: At 10:36 AM 11/21/2004, you wrote: >This is sometimes deliberate, particularly for mains connectors. Big >broadcast installations try to keep the mains supply, and the earths, to >the sound >systems apart from the general purpose ones. This implies using other than >normal >power connectors. I had an electronics test floor wired with 20A twist-lock connectors for some mobile freezers we had (for cold testing parts). The compressor noise is NOT something we wanted on any of the computer circuits. Of course, about a week after we opened the test floor the operators got tired of unplugging and re-plugging the freezers once or twice a day. They started bringing in their own adapters and home-quality extension cords and we'd find the freezers running off 25 foot thin (hot) cords plugged into any handy outlet on the other side of the room. I fixed that by starting a campaign of "any outside adapter or extension cord gets cut in half on sight (after unplugging)". After that settled down they started bring in cans of WD-40 to "fix" equipment that they thought should move easier. They also started bringing in big wrenches since we only issued tiny wrenches for the fixtures (same problem as pan nuts, we say finger tight, they use a 10" wrench). ---------- Jerry Durand Durand Interstellar, Inc. 219 Oak Wood Way Los Gatos, California 95032-2523 USA tel: +1 408 356-3886 fax: +1 408 356-4659 web: www.interstellar.com ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <111.3dc32a8c.2ed245e7 [at] aol.com> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:26:31 EST Subject: Re: maintenance In a message dated 19/11/04 15:55:51 GMT Standard Time, kruling [at] esta.org writes: > I understood you, but you didn't understand me. You missed the forest > by staring at one tree. > > My somewhat ironic comment was about the need for regular > maintenance. We have an expression, "If it ain't broke, don't fix > it." Unfortunately, this too often means that nothing is maintained > until it is broken. Define broken. I agree with the saying, but one must tske it in context, and that includes the system design. Obviously, al lantern with a blown bulb, or a dimmer with a blown SCR is broken, and needs fixed. Dead shorts that blow SCRs are one problem that > arises from lack of maintenance, Apart from wiring faults, which always need fixed, the most probeble cause of a dead short is a bulb failure mode. Handling this is a serious engineering problem, and this needs serious engineering consideration. It is really a design problem, which I am not competent to solve. But it involves subjecting the control element in the circuit to no greater stresses than they can withstand. It's an energy question. Fuses, breakers, or SCRs, it's a question of 'I*t^2. Energy. That's what does in fuses and SCRs. Ii als involves cable impedances. Low though they are, they need considered. > Sure, theoretically one can design an SCR dimmer to survive a dead > short on the end of the load circuit. You do this by having very fast- > acting over-current protection (e.g. silver sand fuses that cost more > than the SCR), grossly over-sizing the SCRs (expensive), and/or > adding resistance to the system to limit the fault current > (inefficient). This in inefficient engineering design. It costs more, and it doesn't work well. Several decades ago I stood in a dimmer room and > listened to an Electro Controls engineer complain about the salesmen > who sold systems with "short-circuit-proof" dimmers and who then came > back with the order and expected the engineers to actually design > such a thing, the factory to build it, and the company to make a > profit now that the price had been set and the sale made. Well, this is backwards. I do not believe in systems designed by salesmen. What more can I say! > > I know of no sales person or dimmer manufacturer that would argue > that short-circuit-proof dimmers obviate the need for regular > equipment maintenance. Don't get me wrong. Regular equimment maintenance is needed. But, there is an interface between the electrical side and the electronic side, and even the installation side. And, of course, the side of the users. Let us not forget them. Frank Wood ------------------------------ From: "Jonathan S. Deull" Subject: RE: RJ45 and DMX512 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:53:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Extending this can of worms to a new installation: on multitudes of advice we have specced our new studio theatre, scheduled to open September 2006, using three dedicated parallel homeruns of CAT6 running from a locked server room to each lighting and control position in the theatre, terminating in female RJ45 sockets and appropriately labeled. These are not for computer networks. Our current intention, subject to changing technology when shopping time comes along, is to use our Rosco Horizon laptop-based controller connected by the CAT6 through a power-over-ethernet switch to our ETC Sensor rack and to either Pathport-type nodes or (through as many small small switches as we need), directly to new ACN fixtures. In the considered opinion of this group, is this a good thing? Say yes, please. Jonathan Deull ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <9f.5289a35f.2ed281e8 [at] aol.com> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:42:32 EST Subject: Re: RJ45 and DMX512 In a message dated 19/11/04 19:15:40 GMT Standard Time, psyd [at] cox.net writes: > >Neutrik's EtherCon series. They make both a panel mount female and a > >cable mount male. Pretty darn robust. > > More or less robust than the XLR 5? More or less expensive? easier to > build than and xlr 5 in the dark? Finding one that works is great, but > changing what works now to something that works less well or costs more > seems like a futile excercise. I have to agree. The robustness of a connector depends on many things. The shell is one thing, and the nature of the contacts and the ease of the alignment is another. XLR-3, 4, 5, and 7 I know, together with the AXR speaker connectors, and several of their predecessors, such as the EP range. All robust, all resistant to gorillas who try to mis-orient them, and all easy to terminate or repair. Insulation Displacement Connectors are different. If you are using the right cable, the right tool, and the right connector, they are easy to terminate, and reliable. They are also impossible to repair, other than by cutting off the cable and re-terminating it. The tool and connector are hard to find. XLR connectors will accept anything that will go in the cable clamp, and lock, and need no more than a soldering iron and solder. They are also proof against mis-mating. Frank Wood ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <1dd.31173926.2ed2849c [at] aol.com> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:54:04 EST Subject: Re: RJ45 and DMX512 In a message dated 19/11/04 19:20:01 GMT Standard Time, psyd [at] cox.net writes: > BZZZZT! But thanks for playing. We ahve some nice parting gifts for you in > the back. Tell him what he's won, Johnny! While I agree, they SHOULD be > only high impedence (but why?), there are low impedence inputs on 1/4". > I have also seen trucks that still have a pair of banana's for 12V > accessories. there is no single standard anywhere, it seems... This must be a record, because I find myself agreeing with you twice in ine evening! I have seen all sorts of connectors used for purposes for which they were not intended, or customarily used. This is the killer. I have seen XLR-3 used for 12V NI-Cad batteries, and I have heard of them being used as a universal caonnector. I mean that! Mains, microphones, loudspeakers, whatever. To be fair, they are rated. But the consequences of getting it wrong are frightning. Frank Wood ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <46.5d08f9a9.2ed2865d [at] aol.com> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:01:33 EST Subject: Re: RJ45 and DMX512 In a message dated 19/11/04 19:35:04 GMT Standard Time, jdurand [at] interstellar.com writes: > And then there's my mixer board (famous name) that uses 1/4" for both > balanced and unbalanced, with and without phantom power, depending on how > you wire things and what switch you throw. All I can say, is that that is insanitary, and bad engineering. I used to post about the differences between sound engineering, as generally understood, and Sound Engineering, carried out by people with real engineering qualifications and understanding. It makes a difference. Frank Wood ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <66.4aad5730.2ed288f5 [at] aol.com> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:12:37 EST Subject: Re: maintenance In a message dated 21/11/04 18:43:46 GMT Standard Time, FrankWood95 [at] aol.com writes: > > In a message dated 19/11/04 15:55:51 GMT Standard Time, kruling [at] esta.org > writes: > > > I understood you, but you didn't understand me. You missed the forest > > by staring at one tree. > > > > My somewhat ironic comment was about the need for regular > > maintenance. We have an expression, "If it ain't broke, don't fix > > it." This message has been posted:; My response has not. Yet!. Frank Wood ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <1d0.2cdeb25d.2ed28fc3 [at] aol.com> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:41:39 EST Subject: Re: Surtitles,,, again In a message dated 17/11/04 00:16:33 GMT Standard Time, slitterst [at] ithaca.edu writes: > As to the front projection, it's a fairly common technique on this > side of the pond. I can't think of a single show on which I've worked > (many operas included) where I had the space to set up a rear > projection on the proscenium. The front projection systems I've used > (and occasionally designed) have worked remarkably well. Our stock > surtitle screen is off-white projection screen mounted on a black > flat. That greys out the screen when not in use but the white letters > pop out. I have suggested a technique which I think would work well. I believe in the engineering. I have seen othr proposals, in whose enginering I do not believe. My opinion is supported by the surtitles I have seen, in the ROH, ENO,Toulouse, Chatelet, Bastille, Bordeaux, Glyndebourne. In all these houses, I have seen surtitles: in none, evidence of front projection. I don't know how they do it, althoug I am prepered to bet that the system I proposed is not far out. Frank Wood ------------------------------ Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20041121163955.01b2bfa0 [at] pop.uci.edu> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:53:30 -0800 From: Ron Cargile Subject: Dimmer and transformer question Hello All, I have a question I feel I should already know the answer to, but alas, I don't. I have not been able to find a decent explaination as to what's going on. Here's the situation: On a show that just loaded out, I had seven strings of 24v tivoli-style lights. These strings were fed from Sensor D15AF dimmers thru transformers. The loads on the dimmers averaged about 60 watts. I had 3 transformers check out on me. I replaced 2 of them with bulletproof transformers from my local electrical supply house, and one I replaced with the mfg's transformer. Out of curiosity, I called ETC and asked what they considered the minimum load to put on my dimmers. They said no less than about 10%, so in my case, 150 watts. So I put 575 watt ghost loads on the dimmers and had no more transformer problem. My question is this: What is it about small dimmer loads that would cause the transformers to poop out? Seems to me that that the waveform would be the same regardless of load. There is no other circuitry in the transformers that gave up other than input wires, the transformer, and output wires. I found out later that the transformers are not supposed to be dimmable, yet they worked just fine with the ghost load. Feeling a little dumb. ....Ron ---- Ron Cargile ME, Univ of CA, Irvine ------------------------------ In-Reply-To: References: Message-Id: <9DA48A88-3C21-11D9-9F4E-000393897332 [at] email.arizona.edu> Cc: marko [at] email.arizona.edu (Mark O'Brien) From: Mark O'Brien Subject: Re: Surtitles,,, again Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:58:26 -0700 Or show is closing tonight, and the surtitles were REALLY no big deal. Standard LCD projector on Black painted, eggshell finish MDF. Power-point was used by the student, who also transcribed the translation. She simply followed the score that she had marked. No complaints, and many compliments. For me, it took an hour to build, paint, and hang the screen. Why in the world would anyone would think of coming up with a RP rig, is beyond me. Just my opinion... Mark O'Brien Opera Technical Director University of Arizona, School of Music Tucson, AZ 520/621-7025 520/591-1803 Mobile On Nov 21, 2004, at 5:41 PM, FrankWood95 [at] aol.com wrote: > I have suggested a technique which I think would work well. I believe > in the > engineering. I have seen othr proposals, in whose enginering I do not > believe. > > My opinion is supported by the surtitles I have seen, in the ROH, > ENO,Toulouse, Chatelet, Bastille, Bordeaux, Glyndebourne. > > In all these houses, I have seen surtitles: in none, evidence of front > projection. > > I don't know how they do it, althoug I am prepered to bet that the > system I > proposed is not far out. > > Frank Wood ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <7b.38baa641.2ed29869 [at] aol.com> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:18:33 EST Subject: Re: Surtitles,,, again In a message dated 22/11/04 01:01:04 GMT Standard Time, marko [at] email.arizona.edu writes: > Or show is closing tonight, and the surtitles were REALLY no big deal. > Standard LCD projector on Black painted, eggshell finish MDF. OK, I, am an arrogant bastard, and I'm afraid that you are going to be the sufferer. The technique you propose is a nonsense. I have seen these done by real professionals.I have quoted the theatres. Why in the world would anyone would think > of coming up with a RP rig, is beyond me. Ignorance. Pure ignorance, and perhaps diluted by stipidity. Frank Wood ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:32:48 -0500 (EST) From: Stephen Litterst Subject: Re: Surtitles,,, again In-reply-to: Message-id: <3356.172.157.186.205.1101090768.squirrel [at] 172.157.186.205> References: > For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see > --------------------------------------------------- > > In a message dated 22/11/04 01:01:04 GMT Standard Time, > marko [at] email.arizona.edu writes: > >> Or show is closing tonight, and the surtitles were REALLY no big deal. >> Standard LCD projector on Black painted, eggshell finish MDF. > > OK, I, am an arrogant bastard, and I'm afraid that you are going to be the > sufferer. > > The technique you propose is a nonsense. I have seen these done by real > professionals.I have quoted the theatres. I've had just about enough this time, Frank. The technique he "proposed" is not nonsense. It is a real, working solution that many of us on the list have used in real-world applications. You have acknowledged that you have never done surtitle projection, so it's about time you accepted the results of those of us who have done it repeatedly. We've all been quite patient and accepting of the RP technique your propose. I believe the worst any of us have said is that it takes more work than the technique that we use. You've answered us with arrogance, disdain and a distinct lack of respect for our accumulated PROFESSIONAL experience. I know this concept doesn't exist in your world, but please try, just this once, to acknowledge there are more things on heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. You don't have to admit we're right (although it would be nice) but maybe if you could just stop insisting that techniques we've been using for years can not possibly work. Just had to get that off my chest. Now to go get some 18 yr old Scotch into my gullet. Steve Litterst ------------------------------ Cc: marko [at] email.arizona.edu Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:21:06 -0800 Subject: Re: Surtitles,,, again, and again... Message-ID: <20041121.192113.1852.0.ladesigners [at] juno.com> From: Richard Niederberg Could we lessen this dissension? I have done supertitles using both FP and RP. The quickest way, with the least finesse, was to dust off a very obsolete and very heavy GE Lightvalve 4, and aim it's thousands of watts (when new, decades ago) at a old rolldrop-rigged projection screen with it's back facing the audience. At the resolution required for titles, the Lightvalve blew away a huge Barco and an even bigger Eidophor. /s/ Richard ________________________________________________________________ Juno Platinum $9.95. Juno SpeedBand $14.95. Sign up for Juno Today at http://www.juno.com! Look for special offers at Best Buy stores. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <001601c4d056$061d39c0$6500a8c0 [at] yourfsyly0jtwn> From: "Daryl Redmon" References: Subject: Re: Dimmer and transformer question Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:42:15 -0800 So I put 575 watt > ghost loads on the dimmers and had no more transformer problem. > Is this ghost load a pure resistance? Or is is inductive like the dimmers. It could be that the R/I has changed so much as to make the inrush to the transformers much smaller. Just a thought Daryl Redmon Resounding Light ------------------------------ End of Stagecraft Digest #203 *****************************