Return-Path: <stagecraft-report [at] theatrical.net>
X-Scanned-By: RAE MPP/Clamd http://raeinternet.com/mpp
X-Scanned-By: This message was scanned by MPP Lite Edition (www.messagepartners.com)!
X-Real-To: stagecraftlist [at] theatrical.net
Received: by prxy.net (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 4.2.10)
  with PIPE id 24130118; Tue, 09 Aug 2005 03:01:24 -0700
X-ListServer: CommuniGate Pro LIST 4.2.10
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stagecraft-off [at] theatrical.net>
List-ID: <stagecraft.theatrical.net>
Message-ID: <list-24130115 [at] prxy.net>
From: "Stagecraft" <stagecraft [at] theatrical.net>
Sender: "Stagecraft" <stagecraft [at] theatrical.net>
To: "Stagecraft" <stagecraft [at] theatrical.net>
Precedence: list
Subject: Stagecraft Digest #483
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 03:01:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 
	autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on prxy.net
X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.4f2
X-prxy-Spam-Filter: Scanned

For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
---------------------------------------------------

Stagecraft Digest, Issue #483

 1. Re: Make fire from water
    by Stephen Litterst <slitterst [at] ithaca.edu>
 2. Re: Make fire from water
    by "Tony Deeming" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
 3. Re: Make fire from water
    by IAEG [at] aol.com
 4. Re: Make fire from water
    by "Jim at TheatreWireless.com" <stagecraft [at] theatrewireless.com>
 5. Re: Make fire from water
    by "Tony Deeming" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
 6. Re: Hindenburg (was fire from water)
    by Stephen Litterst <slitterst [at] ithaca.edu>
 7. Re: Make fire from water
    by Mike Brubaker <mdbrubaker [at] insightbb.com>
 8. Re: Make fire from water
    by Stephen Litterst <slitterst [at] ithaca.edu>
 9. Re: Make fire from water
    by "Tony Deeming" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
10. Re: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)
    by "Jim at TheatreWireless.com" <stagecraft [at] theatrewireless.com>
11. Re: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)
    by "Tony Deeming" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
12. Re: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)
    by "Chris Warner" <bearz2 [at] cox.net>
13. Re: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)
    by "Paul Schreiner" <pschreiner [at] rmwc.edu>
14. Re: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)
    by Mark O'Brien <marko [at] email.arizona.edu>
15. Re: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)
    by "Jim at TheatreWireless.com" <stagecraft [at] theatrewireless.com>
16. Re: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)
    by "Tony Deeming" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
17. Re: rehearsal mirrors & sprung floor
    by "Michael Finney" <mfinney [at] thinkwelldesign.com>
18. Re: rehearsal mirrors & sprung floor
    by Scott Parker <scparker [at] gmail.com>
19. Re: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)
    by "Bill Nelson" <billn [at] peak.org>
20. Re: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)
    by Mike Brubaker <mdbrubaker [at] insightbb.com>
21. Hazers....?
    by seanrmc [at] earthlink.net

*** 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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 09:16:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Stephen Litterst <slitterst [at] ithaca.edu>
Subject: Re: Make fire from water
In-reply-to: <list-24073314 [at] prxy.net>
Message-id: <1257.172.129.190.180.1123506969.squirrel [at] 172.129.190.180>
References: <list-24071404 [at] prxy.net> <list-24073314 [at] prxy.net>

> ---------------------------------------------------
 > I think the _unburned_ Hydrogen was not the main source of
> their troubles...
>
> And in fact later studies have shown that the fire was from
> the flammable outer covering of the dirigible.

Most likely ignited by poor grounding between the sections of skin. 
Further reasons to make sure you have a good earth ground at all times.

Steve Litterst


------------------------------

From: "Tony Deeming" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
Subject: RE: Make fire from water
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 14:19:52 +0100
Message-ID: <ODEMKLAMIBKNHPJLNKDPCEIPCOAA.deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
In-reply-to: <list-24116575 [at] prxy.net>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net]On Behalf Of Stephen
> Litterst
> Sent: 08 August 2005 14:16
> To: Stagecraft
> Subject: Re: Make fire from water
> 
> 
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> > ---------------------------------------------------
>  > I think the _unburned_ Hydrogen was not the main source of
> > their troubles...
> >
> > And in fact later studies have shown that the fire was from
> > the flammable outer covering of the dirigible.
> 
> Most likely ignited by poor grounding between the sections of skin. 
> Further reasons to make sure you have a good earth ground at all times.
> 
> Steve Litterst
> 
> 

You jest, right....?
Grounding issues on an airship??

8-))

TD


------------------------------

From: IAEG [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <ee.18bdc7b0.3028b7b3 [at] aol.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 09:27:15 EDT
Subject: Re: Make fire from water


In a message dated 8/8/05 9:20:40 AM, deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com writes:

<< You jest, right....?

Grounding issues on an airship?? >>

static build up, , and the dispersal of that charge , is always a big issue 
in all aircraft if I am not mistaken, and I know that aircraft fueling trucks 
go through an extensive "grounding" process before letting the spout of the 
fuel hose touch the fuselage, , 

but I am certain that there are others on the list that can speak to that 
issue better than I


I have to say, , years ago, , I flew ( as a passenger ) in a small Cessna 
over the field at Lakehurst NJ, , ( with some pretty violent thunderstorms 
floating around ) and it was pretty sobering to look down from only about 1,400 ft 
and see the configuration of white stone markers on the ground that indicate 
where the Hindenberg fell, , 

quite a sight

very best,

Keith Arsenault

IAEG -  International Arts & Entertainment Group 
Tampa, Florida

------------------------------

From: "Jim at TheatreWireless.com" <stagecraft [at] theatrewireless.com>
Subject: RE: Make fire from water
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 09:54:30 -0400
In-Reply-To: <list-24116693 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <20050808135435.RKXA2981.tomts43-srv.bellnexxia.net [at] p3m866>

> static build up, , and the dispersal of that charge , is 
> always a big issue in all aircraft if I am not mistaken, and 
> I know that aircraft fueling trucks go through an extensive 
> "grounding" process before letting the spout of the fuel hose 
> touch the fuselage,

This is also an issue for cars.  In cold dry winters, the #1 cause of fuel
explosions in self-serve gas stations is drivers who latch the fuel nozzle
then get back in their car during fueling.  When they get out, they've often
built up a charge in their clothing, which sometimes sparks and ignites fuel
vapour when they remove the pump from the car -- especially if the first
thing they touch is the nozzle.  For safety, you should not get back in your
car.  If you have let go of the nozzle for any reason, you should discharge
your body to a grounded object away from the nozzle before touching it
again.  Severe accidents happen more often than you think.

To avoid this problem, many gas stations disable the latch on self-serve
pump nozzles.  But that doesn't stop people from stuffing their gas cap
under the lever to make it stay on.

Here's a video news clip with some frightening images of what can happen:
http://www.wltx.com/video/player.aspx?aid=10081&bw=

Jim



------------------------------

From: "Tony Deeming" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
Subject: RE: Make fire from water
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 15:03:41 +0100
Message-ID: <ODEMKLAMIBKNHPJLNKDPMEIPCOAA.deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
In-reply-to: <list-24117066 [at] prxy.net>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net]On Behalf Of Jim at
> TheatreWireless.com
> Sent: 08 August 2005 14:55
> To: Stagecraft
> Subject: Re: Make fire from water
>
>
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> > static build up, , and the dispersal of that charge , is
> > always a big issue in all aircraft if I am not mistaken, and
> > I know that aircraft fueling trucks go through an extensive
> > "grounding" process before letting the spout of the fuel hose
> > touch the fuselage,
>
> This is also an issue for cars.  In cold dry winters, the #1 cause of fuel
> explosions in self-serve gas stations is drivers who latch the fuel nozzle
> then get back in their car during fueling.  When they get out,
> they've often
> built up a charge in their clothing, which sometimes sparks and
> ignites fuel
> vapour when they remove the pump from the car -- especially if the first
> thing they touch is the nozzle.  For safety, you should not get
> back in your
> car.  If you have let go of the nozzle for any reason, you should
> discharge
> your body to a grounded object away from the nozzle before touching it
> again.  Severe accidents happen more often than you think.
>
> To avoid this problem, many gas stations disable the latch on self-serve
> pump nozzles.  But that doesn't stop people from stuffing their gas cap
> under the lever to make it stay on.
>
> Here's a video news clip with some frightening images of what can happen:
> http://www.wltx.com/video/player.aspx?aid=10081&bw=
>
> Jim
>
>
>
Interesting.
At the risk of igniting (pun intended!) an old debate, has anyone got any
similar evidential footage of how much of a danger cellphones have been
PROVEN in gas station accidents? I've never seen anything this side of the
pond (UK) but as I've never seen anything on static causing fires like this,
I'm not entirely surprised!
On the gas pump issue, though, I can't recall the last time I actually found
a UK petrol pump WITH a latching nozzle trigger..... Not for years, anyway.

TD



------------------------------

Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:14:48 -0400
From: Stephen Litterst <slitterst [at] ithaca.edu>
Subject: Re: Hindenburg (was fire from water)
Message-id: <42F768D8.3DA6D882 [at] ithaca.edu>
Organization: IC-Dept. of Theatre Arts
References: <list-24116627 [at] prxy.net>

Tony Deeming wrote:
> ---------------------------------------------------

> > Most likely ignited by poor grounding between the sections of skin.
> > Further reasons to make sure you have a good earth ground at all times.

> 
> You jest, right....?
> Grounding issues on an airship??

In flight, airships build up a substantial static charge that is
usually discharged through a rope/chain that touches the ground as the
airship approaches.  The Hindenburg's skin was made up of hundreds of
panels of cellulose coated in aluminum powder.  The current theory is
that several of the panels had poor electrical connections to the
others, so that when the grounding line touched down, the poorly
connected panels arced to their neighbors, igniting the fire.

Steve Litterst
King of trivia


-- 
Stephen C. Litterst
Technical Supervisor
Ithaca College
Dept. of Theatre Arts
607/274-3947
slitterst [at] ithaca.edu

------------------------------

Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.0.20050808093253.01d298e0 [at] mail.insightbb.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 09:35:45 -0500
From: Mike Brubaker <mdbrubaker [at] insightbb.com>
Subject: Re: Make fire from water
In-Reply-To: <list-24117171 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-24117066 [at] prxy.net>
 <list-24117171 [at] prxy.net>

The MythBusters on the Discovery Channel did a show on this issue a 
few months ago.  They tried all sorts of things to get the cell phone 
to ignite the fuel vapors--and determined that the cell phone thing 
is an urban legend.  I don't remember what they finally had to do to 
the setup to finally ignite the fuel.  I think that it involved an 
enclosed space, a vapor spray, and a spark actuated by a cell phone 
(but the phone itself wouldn't do the job).

Anyone else see that show and can remember better than I?

Mike

At 09:03 AM 8/8/2005, Tony Deeming wrote:

>At the risk of igniting (pun intended!) an old debate, has anyone got any
>similar evidential footage of how much of a danger cellphones have been
>PROVEN in gas station accidents? I've never seen anything this side of the


------------------------------

Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:50:22 -0400
From: Stephen Litterst <slitterst [at] ithaca.edu>
Subject: Re: Make fire from water
Message-id: <42F7712E.80E533DA [at] ithaca.edu>
Organization: IC-Dept. of Theatre Arts
References: <list-24117066 [at] prxy.net> <list-24117171 [at] prxy.net>
 <list-24117503 [at] prxy.net>

Mike Brubaker wrote:
> 
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> The MythBusters on the Discovery Channel did a show on this issue a
> few months ago.  They tried all sorts of things to get the cell phone
> to ignite the fuel vapors--and determined that the cell phone thing
> is an urban legend.  I don't remember what they finally had to do to
> the setup to finally ignite the fuel.  I think that it involved an
> enclosed space, a vapor spray, and a spark actuated by a cell phone
> (but the phone itself wouldn't do the job).
> 
> Anyone else see that show and can remember better than I?

My recollection is that they couldn't get the cell phone to ignite no
matter what.

But the static spark I believe they ignited with a homemade Leyden
Jar.  

Steve L.


-- 
Stephen C. Litterst
Technical Supervisor
Ithaca College
Dept. of Theatre Arts
607/274-3947
slitterst [at] ithaca.edu

------------------------------

From: "Tony Deeming" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
Subject: RE: Make fire from water
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 15:55:46 +0100
Message-ID: <ODEMKLAMIBKNHPJLNKDPIEJACOAA.deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
In-reply-to: <list-24117503 [at] prxy.net>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net]On Behalf Of Mike
> Brubaker
> Sent: 08 August 2005 15:36
> To: Stagecraft
> Subject: Re: Make fire from water
> 
> 
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> The MythBusters on the Discovery Channel did a show on this issue a 
> few months ago.  They tried all sorts of things to get the cell phone 
> to ignite the fuel vapors--and determined that the cell phone thing 
> is an urban legend.  I don't remember what they finally had to do to 
> the setup to finally ignite the fuel.  I think that it involved an 
> enclosed space, a vapor spray, and a spark actuated by a cell phone 
> (but the phone itself wouldn't do the job).
> 
> Anyone else see that show and can remember better than I?
> 
> Mike
> 

Have to say that surprises me not!
Thanks



------------------------------

From: "Jim at TheatreWireless.com" <stagecraft [at] theatrewireless.com>
Subject: RE: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:03:15 -0400
In-Reply-To: <list-24117732 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <20050808150321.JTBD26128.tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net [at] p3m866>

I'm hesitant to agree with the fire chief, but he says it was cellphone
ignition in this case:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/14/tech/main617547.shtml

I've only been to the UK a couple of times, but it was very damp both times.
It's a lot less likely for static to be a problem then.  US gas station
fires are in the dry states, not the humid ones.

Jim

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf 
> Of Tony Deeming
> Sent: August 8, 2005 10:56 AM
> To: Stagecraft
> Subject: Re: Make fire from water
> 
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see 
> <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net]On 
> Behalf Of Mike 
> > Brubaker
> > Sent: 08 August 2005 15:36
> > To: Stagecraft
> > Subject: Re: Make fire from water
> > 
> > 
> > For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see 
> > <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > The MythBusters on the Discovery Channel did a show on this issue a 
> > few months ago.  They tried all sorts of things to get the 
> cell phone 
> > to ignite the fuel vapors--and determined that the cell 
> phone thing is 
> > an urban legend.  I don't remember what they finally had to 
> do to the 
> > setup to finally ignite the fuel.  I think that it involved an 
> > enclosed space, a vapor spray, and a spark actuated by a cell phone 
> > (but the phone itself wouldn't do the job).
> > 
> > Anyone else see that show and can remember better than I?
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> 
> Have to say that surprises me not!
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 



------------------------------

From: "Tony Deeming" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
Subject: RE: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:11:05 +0100
Message-ID: <ODEMKLAMIBKNHPJLNKDPGEJBCOAA.deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
In-reply-to: <list-24117838 [at] prxy.net>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net]On Behalf Of Jim at
> TheatreWireless.com
> Sent: 08 August 2005 16:03
> To: Stagecraft
> Subject: Re: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)
>
>
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm hesitant to agree with the fire chief, but he says it was cellphone
> ignition in this case:
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/14/tech/main617547.shtml
>
> I've only been to the UK a couple of times, but it was very damp
> both times.
> It's a lot less likely for static to be a problem then.  US gas station
> fires are in the dry states, not the humid ones.
>
> Jim
>
This one does intrigue me - there's no mention of whether the guy was at the
pump itself - maybe he too picked up a static charge somehow? To be honest,
I get a LOT of static pickup from my own car (regardless of the humidity)
but that usually discharges as soon as I put a hand on the door to close
it - I never ever leave the car door open when I'm not in it!

Another point on the video about the static ignitions was that the
newsreader said that colder weather was more conducive to static, which did
surprise me a little....

TD



------------------------------

Message-ID: <004b01c59c31$19a9b4d0$6401a8c0 [at] chris>
From: "Chris Warner" <bearz2 [at] cox.net>
References: <list-24117948 [at] prxy.net>
Subject: Re: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 08:51:54 -0700

Anyone watch myth busters analysis on this issue? They filled a chamber with
gasoline vapors, and tried rubbing fur, various undergarment materials, and
the like, even tried to call a cell phone, and could not make the gasoline
go.  *shrug* was an interesting experiment.

Chris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tony Deeming" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
To: "Stagecraft" <stagecraft [at] theatrical.net>
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)


> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net]On Behalf Of Jim at
> > TheatreWireless.com
> > Sent: 08 August 2005 16:03
> > To: Stagecraft
> > Subject: Re: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)
> >
> >
> > For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I'm hesitant to agree with the fire chief, but he says it was cellphone
> > ignition in this case:
> > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/14/tech/main617547.shtml
> >
> > I've only been to the UK a couple of times, but it was very damp
> > both times.
> > It's a lot less likely for static to be a problem then.  US gas station
> > fires are in the dry states, not the humid ones.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> This one does intrigue me - there's no mention of whether the guy was at
the
> pump itself - maybe he too picked up a static charge somehow? To be
honest,
> I get a LOT of static pickup from my own car (regardless of the humidity)
> but that usually discharges as soon as I put a hand on the door to close
> it - I never ever leave the car door open when I'm not in it!
>
> Another point on the video about the static ignitions was that the
> newsreader said that colder weather was more conducive to static, which
did
> surprise me a little....
>
> TD
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 8/4/2005
>
>



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 8/4/2005


------------------------------

Subject: RE: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:54:08 -0400
Message-ID: <6E497ADB607656479C24E6D7BF6B505A0196C8AC [at] exchange.rmwc.edu>
From: "Paul Schreiner" <pschreiner [at] rmwc.edu>

> > station fires are in the dry states, not the humid ones.

> Another point on the video about the static ignitions was=20
> that the newsreader said that colder weather was more=20
> conducive to static, which did surprise me a little....

Why?  Colder air holds less water vapor...lower humidity =3D drier air =
=3D
more static potential...

------------------------------

In-Reply-To: <list-24118524 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-24118524 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <29de5b001beff20e758d76bf30ad41fe [at] email.arizona.edu>
Cc: marko [at] email.arizona.edu (Mark O'Brien)
From: Mark O'Brien <marko [at] email.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 08:56:20 -0700

As for the cellphone, Snopes has this to say.

http://tinyurl.com/73ew


Mark O'Brien
Opera Technical Director
University of Arizona, School of Music
Tucson, AZ
520/621-7025
520/591-1803 Mobile



------------------------------

From: "Jim at TheatreWireless.com" <stagecraft [at] theatrewireless.com>
Subject: RE: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 12:01:09 -0400
In-Reply-To: <list-24117948 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <20050808160115.GYCE21470.tomts22-srv.bellnexxia.net [at] p3m866>

> Another point on the video about the static ignitions was 
> that the newsreader said that colder weather was more 
> conducive to static, which did surprise me a little....
> 
> TD

The cold air itself, outside, is not directly the problem.

When you heat that cold air, the result is warm air with a much lower
relative humidity.  Thus, the air inside a heated car is dry and much more
conducive to static charges generated by clothing, etc.

Jim



------------------------------

From: "Tony Deeming" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
Subject: RE: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 17:09:54 +0100
Message-ID: <ODEMKLAMIBKNHPJLNKDPIEJCCOAA.deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
In-reply-to: <list-24118625 [at] prxy.net>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net]On Behalf Of Jim at
> TheatreWireless.com
> Sent: 08 August 2005 17:01
> To: Stagecraft
> Subject: Re: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)
>
>
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> > Another point on the video about the static ignitions was
> > that the newsreader said that colder weather was more
> > conducive to static, which did surprise me a little....
> >
> > TD
>
> The cold air itself, outside, is not directly the problem.
>
> When you heat that cold air, the result is warm air with a much lower
> relative humidity.  Thus, the air inside a heated car is dry and much more
> conducive to static charges generated by clothing, etc.
>
> Jim
>
Ah
Now THAT makes more sense!
8-))



------------------------------

Subject: Re: rehearsal mirrors & sprung floor
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:25:19 -0700
Message-ID: <AE704B0123616D4BBE8BD0A464A0FD2925B09C [at] ESERVER.mail.local>
From: "Michael Finney" <mfinney [at] thinkwelldesign.com>

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 Scott Parker <scparker [at] gmail.com> wrote:

<<Greetings, I may have a grant coming and I need to ballpark price out =
a wall of rehearsal mirrors and a dance floor. Has anyone recently done =
a 25'+/-  wall o mirrors? Or, a 25'x30' floor?>>

I just (about 30 days ago) did a similar sized floor in Minneapolis - =
2x4 sleepers laid flat  [at]  12" O.C. on foam pads (over concrete), double =
3x4 ply floor (AC T&G underlayment, birch top, Bondo filler for screw =
holes), Rosco Adagio floor.  We were fortunate in that the concrete =
floor was very level (out less than 1/4", with no high points), so =
shimming and leveling costs were minimal.  Finished cost was around $55 =
a square foot if you factored the labour in at "prevailing wage" (we had =
some donated labour).  A "basket weave" floor would have easily doubled =
that cost, but would have been overkill in this application.  A double =
T&G wood "plank" floor would also have driven up the costs significantly =
so we didn't go that route...although I fell in love with a studio floor =
in Wyoming that was using 4" larch boards for the floor.  Tight grain, =
beautiful colour, and it was all taken from sustainable growth timber.

Mirrors were about $12.50 per square (again factoring in labour at =
"prevailing wage").  We had a solid backing wall, so we were able to =
frame the mirrors pretty easily.  You might want to add $1.50 per square =
foot if you need reinforce the wall or add sub-framing.

Michael Finney
Thinkwell Design & Production
mfinney [at] thinkwelldesign.com
www.thinkwelldesign.com
=A0



------------------------------

Message-ID: <90d9c99805080812232aed9b9d [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 15:23:33 -0400
From: Scott Parker <scparker [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Re: rehearsal mirrors & sprung floor
In-Reply-To: <list-24120491 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-24120491 [at] prxy.net>

Thanks everyone. This info has been very helpful...
Scott


--=20
Take care, Scott

=09Scott C. Parker
=09Professor/Technical Director
=09Dept. of Performing Arts
=09Dyson College of Arts and Sciences  [at]  Pace University
=09Office/shipping: 41 Park Row, 1205F
=09Mailing: 1 Pace Plaza=20
=09New York, NY 10038
=09212-346-1423  Fax: 914-989-8425

------------------------------

Message-ID: <1970.64.28.51.22.1123556630.squirrel [at] webmail.peak.org>
In-Reply-To: <list-24118406 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-24117948 [at] prxy.net> <list-24118406 [at] prxy.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 20:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)
From: "Bill Nelson" <billn [at] peak.org>

> Anyone watch myth busters analysis on this issue? They filled a chamber
> with gasoline vapors, and tried rubbing fur, various undergarment
> materials, and the like, even tried to call a cell phone, and could not
> make the gasoline go.  *shrug* was an interesting experiment.

I have noticed that the people on Myth Busters are a bit short on
scientific knowledge. That show is a perfect example.

While gasoline vapors are easy to ignite, the fuel/air ratio must be in a
rather narrow range. If I recall correctly, the percentage of fuel for
most hydrocarbons is in the range of 1%-8%, with automotive gasoline being
in the range of about 1.5%-7.5%. Ease of ignition depends on the ratio,
tending to be easiest near the middle.

One of the problems facing people wanting to adapt hydrogen for vehicles
is the high flammability range, from about 4%-75%.

Did they have a grounded discharge electrode in the chamber? If not, you
can build up all the static charge you want. Unless it can create a spark
containing the necessary energy concentration, nothing will happen.

The problem is similar with a cell phone. A spark would have to be
created, possibly from an arching battery contact. Again, there would have
to be sufficient energy in that spark.

Bill


------------------------------

Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.0.20050808223213.01d34ad0 [at] mail.insightbb.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:34:01 -0500
From: Mike Brubaker <mdbrubaker [at] insightbb.com>
Subject: Re: cellphone gas ignition (was Make fire from water)
In-Reply-To: <list-24126239 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-24117948 [at] prxy.net>
 <list-24118406 [at] prxy.net>
 <list-24126239 [at] prxy.net>

As I recall, they pointed those very issues out.  They were getting 
sparks, just not with enough energy to ignite the fuel-oxygen mix.

Mike

At 10:03 PM 8/8/2005, Bill Nelson wrote:

> > materials, and the like, even tried to call a cell phone, and could not
> > make the gasoline go.  *shrug* was an interesting experiment.
>
>I have noticed that the people on Myth Busters are a bit short on
>scientific knowledge. That show is a perfect example.
>
>While gasoline vapors are easy to ignite, the fuel/air ratio must be in a
>rather narrow range. If I recall correctly, the percentage of fuel for
>most hydrocarbons is in the range of 1%-8%, with automotive gasoline being
>in the range of about 1.5%-7.5%. Ease of ignition depends on the ratio,
>tending to be easiest near the middle.


------------------------------

Message-ID: <22859471.1123564720143.JavaMail.root [at] elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 01:18:40 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
From: seanrmc [at] earthlink.net
Reply-To: seanrmc [at] earthlink.net
Subject: Hazers....?

Hello all....

So, I'm looking for a new hazer.  We currently use a DF-50, but we get fairly regular complaints about the noise.

Setting is Proscenium LORT space doing (often long ~3+ hour) straight plays.  Even with soft goods up, you can hear the DF-50 (in a double walled, foam lined box) cycle on and off from the back of the house.

We get requests for the MDG Atmosphere as an alernative, but I'd prefer not to have to deal with CO2 replacement costs/time/hassle, etc.  

So....

We're in the process of installing distributed compressed air (compressor in the parking garage beneath the theatre).  Is there another product (or adaptation of one of the above products) that would allow us to use the distrubuted compressed air, instead of either an onboard compressor or tanks of gas?  Some other option I'm missing?

Thanks all!

--Sean

Sean R. McCarthy
seanrmc [at] earthlink.net


------------------------------

End of Stagecraft Digest #483
*****************************