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 24763782; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 03:02:11 -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-24763776 [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 #525
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 03:01:08 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on prxy.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 
	autolearn=unavailable version=3.0.4
X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.4f2
X-prxy-Spam-Filter: Scanned

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

Stagecraft Digest, Issue #525

 1. Re: Disney in New Orleans
    by "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
 2. Re: Disney in New Orleans
    by "Paul Guncheon" <paul.guncheon [at] verizon.net>
 3. Re: Flame retardant worked well
    by "Bill Conner" <bill-conner [at] att.net>
 4. stairs
    by "Paul Guncheon" <paul.guncheon [at] verizon.net>
 5. Stairs
    by "Bill Conner" <bill-conner [at] att.net>
 6. Re: stairs
    by "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
 7. Re: Stairs
    by Stephen Litterst <slitterst [at] ithaca.edu>
 8. Re: Flame retardant worked well
    by "Simon Shuker" <simon [at] ef-ae.com>
 9. Re: Stairs
    by Jerry Durand <jdurand [at] interstellar.com>
10. Re: Stairwell on Stage
    by "Secore, Scott" <Scott.Secore [at] EKU.EDU>
11. Re: Stairs
    by "Paul Schreiner" <pschreiner [at] rmwc.edu>
12. Re: Flame retardant worked well
    by "Bill Conner" <bill-conner [at] att.net>
13. Re[2]: Stairwell on Stage
    by "Frank E. Merrill" <Lamplighter [at] tcon.net>
14. Re: Stairs
    by Mark O'Brien <marko [at] email.arizona.edu>
15. Re: Stairs
    by "Stephen E. Rees" <Rees [at] fredonia.edu>
16. Re: Flame retardant worked well
    by "Simon Shuker" <simon [at] ef-ae.com>
17. Hazmats continued
    by "Dougherty, Jim" <jdougher [at] middlebury.edu>
18. Re: Re[2]: Stairwell on Stage
    by doran [at] bard.edu
19. Re: Flame retardant worked well
    by MissWisc [at] aol.com
20. Printed/plotted drop
    by Eric Rouse <erictd [at] gmail.com>
21. Re: Printed/plotted drop
    by "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
22. Re: Disney in New Orleans
    by "Josh Ratty" <josh.ratty [at] verizon.net>
23. Re: Disney in New Orleans
    by Charlie Richmond <charlier [at] RichmondSoundDesign.com>
24. Re: Disney in New Orleans
    by "Paul Schreiner" <pschreiner [at] rmwc.edu>
25. VL1000's CMY Color Mixing
    by Shawn King <skingld [at] gmail.com>
26. Re: Disney in New Orleans
    by Bill Sapsis <bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com>
27. Re: Disney in New Orleans
    by Stephen Litterst <slitterst [at] ithaca.edu>
28. Re: Styrofoam stage weights
    by Stuart Wheaton <sdwheaton [at] fuse.net>
29. Re: Styrofoam stage weights
    by "Stephen E. Rees" <Rees [at] fredonia.edu>
30. Re: Stairs
    by Joseph Champelli <joechamp [at] gmail.com>
31. Re: Stairs
    by "Stephen E. Rees" <Rees [at] fredonia.edu>
32. Re: Styrofoam stage weights
    by Joseph Champelli <joechamp [at] gmail.com>
33. Re: Latex paint storage
    by "RD" <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
34. Re: stairs
    by "RD" <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
35. Re: Flame retardant worked well
    by "RD" <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
36. Re: Flame retardant worked well
    by "RD" <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
37. Re: Stairs
    by "RD" <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
38. Re: Flame retardant worked well
    by "RD" <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
39. Re: Stairs
    by "RD" <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
40. Re: Flame retardant worked well
    by "RD" <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
41. Re: Hazmats continued
    by "RD" <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
42. Re: Stairs
    by MissWisc [at] aol.com
43. Re: Disney in New Orleans
    by Bill Sapsis <bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com>
44. Re: Disney in New Orleans
    by "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
45. Re: Disney in New Orleans
    by Bill Sapsis <bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com>
46. Re: Disney in New Orleans
    by "Sam Fisher" <Sam [at] FisherTheatrical.com>
47. Re: VL1000's CMY Color Mixing
    by Ken Romaine <ken.stagecraft [at] gmail.com>
48. Re: Disney in New Orleans
    by Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
49. Re: Disney in New Orleans
    by "Jon Ares" <jonares [at] hevanet.com>
50. Re: Disney in New Orleans
    by "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
51. Re: VL1000's CMY Color Mixing
    by Ken Romaine <ken.stagecraft [at] gmail.com>
52. Re: Disney in New Orleans
    by rwhitco [at] comcast.net
53. Re: VL1000's CMY Color Mixing
    by "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
54. Re: Stairs
    by "RD" <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
55. Re: Disney in New Orleans
    by StevevETTrn [at] aol.com
56. Re: Disney in New Orleans
    by MissWisc [at] aol.com
57. Re: VL1000's CMY Color Mixing
    by James Feinberg <feinberg [at] sandiego.edu>
58. Re: VL1000's CMY Color Mixing
    by Ken Romaine <ken.stagecraft [at] gmail.com>
59. Re: Disney in New Orleans
    by Joseph Champelli <joechamp [at] gmail.com>
60. Re: Disney in New Orleans
    by Charlie Richmond <charlier [at] RichmondSoundDesign.com>

*** 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.

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

Reply-To: <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
From: "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
Cc: kaceytheatre [at] gmail.com ('Kacey Meaker')
Subject: RE: Disney in New Orleans
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 08:21:37 -0400
Message-ID: <004e01c5bd14$aea87b80$6701a8c0 [at] Dell>
In-Reply-To: <list-24748810 [at] prxy.net>



> --I am 
> from Houston and if a Category 5 hit Houston, the situation 
> would be similar, as half of the city is below sea level.

Hmmm.  Houston seems to have sunk about 25' since I left in 1997.



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

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 03:11:37 -1000
From: "Paul Guncheon" <paul.guncheon [at] verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Disney in New Orleans
Message-id: <052801c5bd1b$aaf6e100$c6354104 [at] yourxhtr8hvc4p>
References: <list-24751620 [at] prxy.net>

<<I just get tired of people who disagree with Bush's politics laying all
the blame at his feet, while others get a pass.>>

I have two (probably more) questions/comments/observations about New
Orleans.

"Bush takes full reponsibilility"  What exactly does that mean?  Really?

I think a friend put it right when he said "It means he doesn't have to fire
anymore of his people".

I continually hear the phrase  "the government's bungled response"... the
word "bungle" bothers me in this context.

"Bungle"?  When you stumble on a crack in the sidewalk and drop the eggs,
that's "bungling".

When you can's seem to get a handle on that ground ball and a allow a run to
score, that's "bungling".

When one "bungles", people don't die.

"criminally inept", "butchered","incompetent", or even "pathetic" might be
better.

Laters,

Paul

"Quick, Della! Phone lieutenant Tragg! Mr. Mason's been kidnapped!" Tom said
perilously.



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

Message-ID: <002701c5bd1c$de00b750$6601a8c0 [at] BCA1>
Reply-To: "Bill Conner" <bill [at] bcaworld.com>
From: "Bill Conner" <bill-conner [at] att.net>
Subject: Re:  Flame retardant worked well
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 08:20:06 -0500

Why was the curtain burning and why did it have to be extinguished if it was 
flameproofed?

I believe that if you heat any organic material like cotton velour long 
enough - say at the focal point in front of an ellipsoid - it will 
eventually burst into flame.  The organic material pyrolizes, lowering the 
kindling point, and eventually will burn.  From specific experiences, with 
curtains and stage lights, I'd say 36-60 hours.

I don't know what happens with the inherently flameproof synthetics.

The point is, don't rely on flameproofing.  I regret that the use of borders 
of the coated fibreglass material aren't more common in his country.  They 
would prevent a lot of these incipient curtain fires.

Regards,

Bill 


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

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 03:42:06 -1000
From: "Paul Guncheon" <paul.guncheon [at] verizon.net>
Subject: stairs
Message-id: <052c01c5bd1f$ed5b59f0$c6354104 [at] yourxhtr8hvc4p>
References: <list-24751620 [at] prxy.net>

<<Your onstage stairs need good solid railings.>>

If they're in the design, I agree.   A two or three step down into a "sunken
living room" set probably won't get a railing but a stair unit from second
floor doorway on an exterior alley set would.

Similar rise and run within a stair section is a necessity for ease and
comfort... makes for less tripping than usual.  When I have had to use two
different sections of staircase with different rises and runs, I put a
"transitional " platform or "landing" between them.  Also tell the actors
and whomever about the difference.

It's called rehearsing.

In my opinion, a theatrical set is not a house or an office building.  It is
a specifically designed device for a specific function and different rules
apply.
(Gee... I wonder if anyone will disagree with that idea?)


Generally:

0-30 degrees - ramp
30 - 50 degrees - stairs
50 - 70 degrees - stair ladder
70 - 90 degrees - ladder

Laters,

Paul

"How do we get all the way up there?" said Tom, staring.



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

Message-ID: <002d01c5bd21$8ad85150$6601a8c0 [at] BCA1>
Reply-To: "Bill Conner" <bill [at] bcaworld.com>
From: "Bill Conner" <bill-conner [at] att.net>
Subject: Stairs
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 08:53:34 -0500

The building codes require minimum treads of 11" and maximum risers of 7" 
for most stairs.  One and two family dwellings can be steeper under some 
codes, as can aisles in seating areas if required by sightlines.  Keep in 
mind the 7" X 11" are minimum and lesser risers and greater treads are 
safer.  For the general populace, greater treads probably help more in 
preventing stumbles and resultant injuries from the stumbles than does 
lowering the rise.  Lets face it, even on 11" treads, most of use have to 
turn our foot or let it overhang, both of which lessen stability.  I've 
grown quite fond of a 6 1/2" by 13" or 13 1/2" stair as being very 
comfortable.  Most of the so called formulas while cute and seemingly with 
the wisdom of tested lore, don't hold up under research.

Keep in mind that the measurement of the tread does not include the tread 
under the nosing but is the actual run dimension.

The building codes require the non-uniformity between the greatest and least 
not exceed 3/8", again the worst it can be for minimal safety, not a goal. 
This is usually a problem at tops and bottoms where the floor covering will 
change the rise.  Since most falls happen in the first or last 3 steps, it 
is important to maintain uniformity in the first and last step.

Solid risers are desirable.

Non-uniformity and too short of tread ranks right up there with visibility 
for stair safety.  Illumination, high contrast at nosings, glow tape, etc. 
all can help a lot if used well.

Besides the uniform 50 pounds linear foot in any direction at the top rail 
and 200 concentrated at one point on the top rail in any direction, the 
intermediate railings or panels or whatever fills in the space below the 
rail should be designed for 50 pounds per square foot.  Equally important is 
the graspability of the rail.  If you wouldn't want the handle on your 
hammer to be a 2 X 4 because it's hard to hold, don't use it for railings. 
You need to be able to get a good grip on it and remember that a hook hold, 
where you grab under and pull, is equally important to stair safety as 
pressure downward.  1 1/4 pipe, 1 x 1 steel tube, 1 1/2 pipe at the largest, 
are all acceptable for hand rails.  (Guards don't require graspability.)

Falls result in greater loss from injuries than vehicular accidents and 
possibly 100 times as great as from fire, and roughly half occur on stairs. 
It doesn't justify using a nail instead for a bolt because it takes another 
5 minutes or not recutting the stringer.

Regards,

Bill


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

Reply-To: <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
From: "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
Subject: RE: stairs
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:54:12 -0400
Message-ID: <006301c5bd21$a1186c70$6701a8c0 [at] Dell>
In-Reply-To: <list-24752947 [at] prxy.net>


=20
> In my opinion, a theatrical set is not a house or an office=20
> building.  It is a specifically designed device for a=20
> specific function and different rules apply.

...And some of those rules, often, are defined by management's contract =
with
Actors Equity.

>(Gee... I wonder=20
> if anyone will disagree with that idea?)

You had to wonder?



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

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:23:54 -0400
From: Stephen Litterst <slitterst [at] ithaca.edu>
Subject: Re: Stairs
In-reply-to: <list-24753078 [at] prxy.net>
Message-id: <432EC9FA.6090509 [at] ithaca.edu>
Organization: IC-Dept. of Theatre Arts
References: <list-24753078 [at] prxy.net>

Bill Conner wrote:
> ---------------------------------------------------
> The building codes require minimum treads of 11" and maximum risers of 
> 7" for most stairs.  One and two family dwellings can be steeper under 
> some codes, as can aisles in seating areas if required by sightlines.  
> Keep in mind the 7" X 11" are minimum and lesser risers and greater 
> treads are safer.  

I have always tried to build/design stairs by the "rule of 18."  Rise 
+ Run = 18".  That's what "feels" natural to people.  We had a student 
design some huge staircases without the rule (I think he used 19 as 
his number) and none of us could walk comfortably on the stairs.


Steve L.

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

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

From: "Simon Shuker" <simon [at] ef-ae.com>
Cc: bill [at] bcaworld.com ('Bill Conner')
Subject: RE: Flame retardant worked well
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:51:23 +0400
In-Reply-To: <list-24752821 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <20050919145136.8637057E7 [at] mail05.powweb.com>

I have had an instance on an exhibition stand were part of a velvet velour
drape was left sitting on a  light. It ended up with only a perfectly
circular hope with frayed edges because the drape was flame retardant, but
there were no flames ( we are one of the few companies that care about such
things here)

Simon

-----Original Message-----
From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf Of Bill Conner
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 5:20 PM
To: Stagecraft
Subject: Re: Flame retardant worked well

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

Why was the curtain burning and why did it have to be extinguished if it was
flameproofed?

I believe that if you heat any organic material like cotton velour long
enough - say at the focal point in front of an ellipsoid - it will
eventually burst into flame.  The organic material pyrolizes, lowering the
kindling point, and eventually will burn.  From specific experiences, with
curtains and stage lights, I'd say 36-60 hours.

I don't know what happens with the inherently flameproof synthetics.

The point is, don't rely on flameproofing.  I regret that the use of borders
of the coated fibreglass material aren't more common in his country.  They
would prevent a lot of these incipient curtain fires.

Regards,

Bill 




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

In-Reply-To: <list-24753078 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-24753078 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <9C4DA441-499B-4CAE-BD52-76E15757C6A5 [at] interstellar.com>
From: Jerry Durand <jdurand [at] interstellar.com>
Subject: Re: Stairs
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 07:51:14 -0700


On Sep 19, 2005, at 6:53 AM, Bill Conner wrote:

>  Keep in mind the 7" X 11" are minimum and lesser risers and  
> greater treads are safer.

To a point.  I hate the stairs that are more like a slightly terraced  
hill where instead of normal stairs alternating with landings you get  
these WIDE treads and really shallow risers.  THOSE trip me up.

Also just had a friend in the hospital, she went to a movie yesterday  
and the wheelchair ramp had a rut next to it...she got a wheel in it  
and got dumped on the ground.  Watch what's around the entrance and  
exit to stairs, ramps, etc.


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

Subject: Re: Stairwell on Stage
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:03:14 -0400
Message-ID: <346414591B50EE4299DB6686321B8CC701D29332 [at] FACSTAFF.facultystaff.eku.edu>
From: "Secore, Scott" <Scott.Secore [at] EKU.EDU>

>>>>
Bruce Purdy wrote: One other resource I'd HIGHLY recommend if you
haven't already discovered it, is the "Backstage Handbook". Whilst not a
full "How to do it" course on any one topic, it is chock full of useful
reference information about anything you might need to know as a stage
technician. (Including stair construction.)
<<<<<<


May also want to check out "The Stock Scenery Construction Handbook" by
Bill Raoul.=20
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0911747389/qid=3D1127142119=
/
sr=3D2-1/ref=3Dpd_bbs_b_2_1/102-5285681-1453732?v=3Dglance&s=3Dbooks

Tons of great stuff in there...beyond step units too!!

-Scott
TTS
EKU

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

Subject: RE: Stairs
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:17:50 -0400
Message-ID: <6E497ADB607656479C24E6D7BF6B505A0196C96B [at] exchange.rmwc.edu>
From: "Paul Schreiner" <pschreiner [at] rmwc.edu>

> I have always tried to build/design stairs by the "rule of 18."  Rise=20
> + Run =3D 18".  That's what "feels" natural to people. =20

There's three different versions of the Stair Rule that I've heard and
used over the years...

Rise + Run =3D 18"
(2 x Rise) + Run =3D 24"
Rise + Run =3D 17.5" (the version in the Backstage Handbook)

Each of these works fairly well in the middle ranges, but when you get
outside that 35-45 degree rise/run angle all bets are off.

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

Message-ID: <004601c5bd2e$183be190$6601a8c0 [at] BCA1>
Reply-To: "Bill Conner" <bill [at] bcaworld.com>
From: "Bill Conner" <bill-conner [at] att.net>
References: <20050919145136.8637057E7 [at] mail05.powweb.com>
Subject: Re: Flame retardant worked well
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:23:26 -0500

Simon Shuker posted:  "I have had an instance on an exhibition stand were 
part of a velvet velour drape was left sitting on a  light. It ended up with 
only a perfectly circular hope with frayed edges because the drape was flame 
retardant, but there were no flames ( we are one of the few companies that 
care about such things here)"

Was this new or old fabric (more than 3 or 4 years)?  Was it flameproofed 
cotton velour or a synthetic?  How large was the lamp?  Most of the burning 
flameproofed velour I have seen was cotton, new, had a certificate, came 
from a reputable, major manufacturer, and the light was at the bottom of the 
piece.  This would have to mean that you flameproof your own material and 
don't rely on the manufacturer I presume?  Would you care to name a few of 
the companies hat don't "care about such things here"?

I wish someone would set up a leko (the old Colortran 213's with a shorter 
focal length and a 1k lamp work real well) and try this in their parking 
lot.  A boom, couple of side arms, and maybe two yards of Memorable straight 
from the factory.  A web cam would be great.

Bill 


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

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:26:50 -0500
From: "Frank E. Merrill" <Lamplighter [at] tcon.net>
Reply-To: "Frank E. Merrill" <Lamplighter [at] tcon.net>
Message-ID: <291168892.20050919102650 [at] tcon.net>
Subject: Re[2]: Stairwell on Stage
In-Reply-To: <list-24743741 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-24742467 [at] prxy.net> <list-24743741 [at] prxy.net>

Howdy !

Sunday, September 18, 2005, Paul Guncheon wrote:

> I believe some once told me the magic number for the run + rise was
> around 18 - 20 but I wasn't paying attention.

My grandfather described the magic number thusly: "Two risers and one
tread should equal 24 to 25 inches"

His basis was the normal cycle of moving the human legs to climb or
descend a stair.

Best regards,
  Frank E. Merrill
  MERRILL STAGE EQUIPMENT
  Indianapolis
  Established 1946
  www.merrillstage.com 

  Running THE BAT!  Natural e-mail system v.3.60          mailto:Lamplighter [at] tcon.net

   


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

In-Reply-To: <list-24753826 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-24753826 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <02b8a7077cae14cd3ae22c22dddf474b [at] email.arizona.edu>
Cc: marko [at] email.arizona.edu (Mark O'Brien)
From: Mark O'Brien <marko [at] email.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Stairs
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 08:32:46 -0700

I guess I am running a bit long.   I tend to use a bunch of 8" rise 
platforms, stairs, etc.  This would be a carryover from when I did a 
bunch of industrials.  The run for these stairs seems to be in 
increments of 12", again from trying to make things more modular.

This leaves me with a score of 20...  Are we bowling, or playing golf?

I too despise looong runs, and tiny rises. I'll trip over them all the 
time.

Mark-O


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


On Sep 19, 2005, at 8:17 AM, Paul Schreiner wrote:

> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see 
> <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>> I have always tried to build/design stairs by the "rule of 18."  Rise
>> + Run = 18".  That's what "feels" natural to people.
>
> There's three different versions of the Stair Rule that I've heard and
> used over the years...
>
> Rise + Run = 18"
> (2 x Rise) + Run = 24"
> Rise + Run = 17.5" (the version in the Backstage Handbook)
>
> Each of these works fairly well in the middle ranges, but when you get
> outside that 35-45 degree rise/run angle all bets are off.


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

Message-ID: <432EDC27.7000705 [at] fredonia.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:41:27 -0400
From: "Stephen E. Rees" <Rees [at] fredonia.edu>
Reply-To: Rees [at] fredonia.edu
Subject: Re: Stairs
References: <list-24753078 [at] prxy.net> <list-24753316 [at] prxy.net>

Another acceptable formula similar to Steve L's is: 2xRise + Run = 24 
(actually greater than 24" but less than 25").  Like Steve's it keeps 
the proportional relationship of Rise to Run in order.  There tends to 
be more discomfort and unease as you get to the extremes of the formula. 
  Humans are very sensitive to deviation in riser height or tread depth 
in a flight of stairs. As little as 1/8" variance from rise to rise will 
lead to significant discomfort.  You could probably alter the ratios as 
you go from flight to landing to flight but if possible within the 
context of the design, a consistent rise dimension from level to level 
would be desirable from ease of construction and from ergonomic 
standpoints.  I only wish that the architect of our theatre had followed 
it or some other reasonable rule of thumb.  We stumble all over the 4" 
rise with the 16"-20" variable runs all the time in our main theatre.
Best,
Steve Rees, TD
SUNY-Fredonia

Stephen Litterst wrote:

> I have always tried to build/design stairs by the "rule of 18."  Rise + 
> Run = 18".  That's what "feels" natural to people.  We had a student 
> design some huge staircases without the rule (I think he used 19 as his 
> number) and none of us could walk comfortably on the stairs.
> 
> 
> Steve L.
> 



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

From: "Simon Shuker" <simon [at] ef-ae.com>
Cc: bill [at] bcaworld.com ('Bill Conner')
Subject: RE: Flame retardant worked well
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:01:55 +0400
In-Reply-To: <list-24753895 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <20050919160208.816B15864 [at] mail05.powweb.com>

The fabric was brand new and came from J & C Joel in the UK with UK fire
certificates. The light was at the bottom of the piece. 90% of companies in
the Middle East have no concept of safety, be that of employee's or the
public, Only one of the  hotel venues we work in insist on seeing
certificates etc. The European managed production companies tend to have all
the precautions in place, but generally the Asian and Arab ones do not. The
exhibition halls do not ask any safety questions with the exception of load
bearing abilities of 2 story exhibition stands. Price is still very much
king in this part of the world with little understanding of " you get what
you pay for"

-----Original Message-----
From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf Of Bill Conner
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 7:23 PM
To: Stagecraft
Subject: Re: Flame retardant worked well

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

Simon Shuker posted:  "I have had an instance on an exhibition stand were
part of a velvet velour drape was left sitting on a  light. It ended up with
only a perfectly circular hope with frayed edges because the drape was flame
retardant, but there were no flames ( we are one of the few companies that
care about such things here)"

Was this new or old fabric (more than 3 or 4 years)?  Was it flameproofed
cotton velour or a synthetic?  How large was the lamp?  Most of the burning
flameproofed velour I have seen was cotton, new, had a certificate, came
from a reputable, major manufacturer, and the light was at the bottom of the
piece.  This would have to mean that you flameproof your own material and
don't rely on the manufacturer I presume?  Would you care to name a few of
the companies hat don't "care about such things here"?

I wish someone would set up a leko (the old Colortran 213's with a shorter
focal length and a 1k lamp work real well) and try this in their parking
lot.  A boom, couple of side arms, and maybe two yards of Memorable straight
from the factory.  A web cam would be great.

Bill 




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

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:05:10 -0400
Subject: Hazmats continued
From: "Dougherty, Jim" <jdougher [at] middlebury.edu>
Message-ID: <BF5459F6.1A6F%jdougher [at] middlebury.edu>

As I'm a digester (take that as you will), I can't attribute the post, but
in the context of the recent discussion of hazardous chemicals, someone
wrote to "trust your nose".

I know it's a few days late, but I'd like to suggest that to do so would be
to risk your health or life needlessly.  I won't say it's stupid.
Fortunately, the days of really nasty stuff routinely used in theater are a
bit behind most of us, but there are several common chemicals for which your
nose is useless.

Some things smell terribly initially, but one becomes acclimated to the
smell even if amounts of the material don't drop to a safe level.

Carbon monoxide is odorless, as are many other hazards.

Chlorine gas smells horrible, as another lister has pointed out, but by
smelling it you've introduced it to your lungs.  That's what you want to
avoid.  Ditto for a variety of other chemicals like sulfur dioxide (a
component of sewer gas) and ammonia.  Sulfuric and hydrochloric acid are not
meant to be in your lungs.

We have a responsibility to know what chemicals in our shops might do to us,
and should have the common sense to get the heck out of there if something
questionable comes up that we don't know about.  The latter may be the
harder part.  In the US, there is a publication from the Department of
Transportation dealing with all sorts of hazardous materials, mostly
intended for first responders to spills, but it's full of useful
information.  Look at http://hazmat.dot.gov/pubs/erg/gydebook.htm.  As a
side benefit, long road trips are more fun when you know what's in the
tanker truck next to you.

-  Jim Dougherty
ATD, Middlebury College
Volunteer FF/EMT


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

Message-ID: <1127149104.432eee309063d [at] webmail.bard.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:58:24 -0400
From: doran [at] bard.edu
Cc: Lamplighter [at] tcon.net (Frank E. Merrill)
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Stairwell on Stage
References: <list-24742467 [at] prxy.net> <list-24743741 [at] prxy.net> <list-24753931 [at] prxy.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-24753931 [at] prxy.net>

Hey, all,

Well, now...
Bob Syvanen, in Fine Homebuilding's _Stairs_, (Taunton Press, 1995) lists 
these three formulas:
riser + tread = 17-1/2"
riser x tread = 75"
two risers + one tread = 24"
"All of them establish an incline between 33 and 37 degrees. this creates a 
stairway that is comfortable for most people."

Gregory Harrison, in the same book, says "These formulas have been 
eliminated from modern codes because they are far from perfect and 
exclude some safe designs.  You should not rely on them."  Earlier in his 
article, Harrison writes, "The minimum riser height by code is 4 in. and the 
maximum is about 8 in.  Although I know of no code maximum for treads, 
unusually deep treads cause an abnormal gait that can cause missteps and 
a fall.  The CABO One and Two Family Dwelling Code allows treads to be 
only 9 in. deep, which is ridiculous because almost all adult feet with shoes 
exceed this measurement"

I've seen people fall walking on level floors.  People fall walking up or down 
stairs that are built to any of the specs above.  I'd say that consistent rise 
and run are an important key, as most people's feet clear the front of the 
tread by less than 3/8", and our feet and legs develop an expectancy for 
what comes next based on what has come before, even after just one or 
two steps.
I hope this fuel  has been properly applied to this fire.

Andy Champ-Doran
 


> Sunday, September 18, 2005, Paul Guncheon wrote:
> > I believe some once told me the magic number for the run + rise was
> > around 18 - 20 but I wasn't paying attention.
Frank Merrill wrote:
> My grandfather described the magic number thusly: "Two risers and one
> tread should equal 24 to 25 inches"

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

From: MissWisc [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <1c4.310bf15f.30605638 [at] aol.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:58:16 EDT
Subject: Re: Flame retardant worked well

_bill-conner [at] att.net_ (mailto:bill-conner [at] att.net)   writes:
<<Why was the curtain burning and why did it have to be  extinguished if it 
was flameproofed?>> 
 
My gut is that because there was no active flame when the firefighters  
arrived, the reporter thought that the custodians "put it out." 
 

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

Message-ID: <41f0806805091912073a8e1843 [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:07:52 -0400
From: Eric Rouse <erictd [at] gmail.com>
Reply-To: erictd [at] gmail.com
Subject: Printed/plotted drop
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------------------------------

Reply-To: <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
From: "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
Cc: erictd [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Printed/plotted drop
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:29:59 -0400
Message-ID: <000001c5bd50$8997afa0$6701a8c0 [at] Dell>
In-Reply-To: <list-24756216 [at] prxy.net>


> can afford it).  Has anyone made a largeish (21x30) drop 
> using a plotter?  Did you do it on paper
> or other material?   What other challenges were there?

I'd think that fireproofing -- or lack of same -- might be a problem.



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

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:24:34 -0400
From: "Josh Ratty" <josh.ratty [at] verizon.net>
Subject: RE: Disney in New Orleans
In-reply-to: <list-24752751 [at] prxy.net>
Message-id: <008801c5bd60$88a0d940$6600a8c0 [at] Rattys>



-----Original Message-----
From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf Of Paul
Guncheon
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 8:12 AM
To: Stagecraft
Subject: Re: Disney in New Orleans

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

<<I just get tired of people who disagree with Bush's politics laying
all
the blame at his feet, while others get a pass.>>

I have two (probably more) questions/comments/observations about New
Orleans.

"Bush takes full reponsibilility"  What exactly does that mean?  Really?

I think a friend put it right when he said "It means he doesn't have to
fire
anymore of his people".


Well I could be wrong but I have yet to hear Blanco or Nagin take any
responsibility. The way I see it that makes it at least Bush - 1
Blanco/Nagin - 0. I live in a small town north of Boston, MA. I don't
expect the federal govt. to have an evacuation plan for my town or to
help me get out. I don't even expect them to have a plan for getting us
out of Boston, where I work. That's what local and state govt. is for. I
do expect the feds to help out after the disaster and to trust the local
and state officials for the damage assessment and to ask for the proper
help, they are the ones closest and know the area the best. From what
I've read and seen this is where most of the breakdown in the system
occurred.

Josh Ratty 


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

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:50:21 +0100 (BST)
From: Charlie Richmond <charlier [at] RichmondSoundDesign.com>
Subject: Re: Disney in New Orleans
In-Reply-To: <list-24757501 [at] prxy.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0509192246040.9554 [at] viscount.richmondsounddesign.com>
References: <list-24757501 [at] prxy.net>

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Josh Ratty wrote:

> Well I could be wrong but I have yet to hear Blanco or Nagin take any
> responsibility. The way I see it that makes it at least Bush - 1

From my distant (like yours...) vantage point it seems as though they were the 
first to declare emergencies but the responsibility lay with the DHS, due to 
changes made by the Bush government, so even if they wanted to take 
responsibility their hands were tied....  As always, though, there are many 
personal perceptions and stories such as:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4259434.stm

Charlie

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

Subject: RE: Disney in New Orleans
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:54:54 -0400
Message-ID: <6E497ADB607656479C24E6D7BF6B505A0196C96E [at] exchange.rmwc.edu>
From: "Paul Schreiner" <pschreiner [at] rmwc.edu>

> Well I could be wrong but I have yet to hear Blanco or Nagin=20
> take any responsibility. The way I see it that makes it at=20
> least Bush - 1 Blanco/Nagin - 0. I live in a small town north=20
> of Boston, MA. I don't expect the federal govt. to have an=20
> evacuation plan for my town or to help me get out. I don't=20
> even expect them to have a plan for getting us out of Boston,=20
> where I work. That's what local and state govt. is for.=20

Agreed...sorta.  At least until the establishment of this Department of
Homeland Security thing basically threw a federal level on top of the
whole mechanism.  As I understand it, they're the ones now who are
supposed to be coordinating all of these responses even in times of
natural (instead of man-made*) disaster because (among other things)
they've appropriated FEMA and the other disaster-relief-aligned
agencies.

> expect the feds to help out after the disaster and to trust=20
> the local and state officials for the damage assessment and=20
> to ask for the proper help, they are the ones closest and=20
> know the area the best. From what I've read and seen this is=20
> where most of the breakdown in the system occurred.

There's also a question of scale...and I don't think any state has the
resources (and I KNOW no municipality has them) to evacuate or respond
to something of this magnitude by themselves.  Could NYC evacuate the
whole of Staten Island if it became necessary without state and federal
help?

*I'd like to make it known for the record that, while this was what
would normally be construed as a natural disaster, there was a fairly
well-established man-made component.  Consider "man-made" to be
referring to proximate cause only...

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

Message-ID: <84c790f3050919151526eb1538 [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:15:08 -0400
From: Shawn King <skingld [at] gmail.com>
Reply-To: skingld [at] gmail.com
Subject: VL1000's CMY Color Mixing
In-Reply-To: <84c790f3050919145768a86a6a [at] mail.gmail.com>
References: <84c790f3050919145768a86a6a [at] mail.gmail.com>

First time poster, long-time lurker.
=20
 I was not able to search the archives, so I am posting to the
collective wisdom of the list.
=20
 I am wondering if anyone knows of a chart for VL1000's that will tell
you the CMY equivalent to standard Rosco, GAM, and Lee colors.=20
Nothing to be found on the VariLight website.  Google searches have
yielded nothing so far.
=20
I seem to remember using a similar chart when I was using some Studio
Spots 6 years ago, and I can't seem to find the chart in the High End
manual anyways.
=20
 Thanks,
=20
 Shawn King
 Lighting Supervisor
 Dance Theater Workshop
 (212)691-6500 ext 218
www.dtw.org

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

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:37:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Disney in New Orleans
From: Bill Sapsis <bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com>
Message-ID: <BF54B5DB.2ECE%bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-24757501 [at] prxy.net>

OK.  I'm done.  I'm tired of the petty pro Bush -v- anti Bush. IMHO...
Everybody should stop squabbling, reach into your pockets and send some
money to the agency of your choice.

Zat help?????
Bill S.
www.sapsis-rigging.com
800.727.7471
800.292.3851  fax
267.278.4561 mobile






On 9/19/05 5:24 PM, "Josh Ratty" <josh.ratty [at] verizon.net> wrote:

> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf Of Paul
> Guncheon
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 8:12 AM
> To: Stagecraft
> Subject: Re: Disney in New Orleans
> 
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> <<I just get tired of people who disagree with Bush's politics laying
> all
> the blame at his feet, while others get a pass.>>
> 
> I have two (probably more) questions/comments/observations about New
> Orleans.
> 
> "Bush takes full reponsibilility"  What exactly does that mean?  Really?
> 
> I think a friend put it right when he said "It means he doesn't have to
> fire
> anymore of his people".
> 
> 
> Well I could be wrong but I have yet to hear Blanco or Nagin take any
> responsibility. The way I see it that makes it at least Bush - 1
> Blanco/Nagin - 0. I live in a small town north of Boston, MA. I don't
> expect the federal govt. to have an evacuation plan for my town or to
> help me get out. I don't even expect them to have a plan for getting us
> out of Boston, where I work. That's what local and state govt. is for. I
> do expect the feds to help out after the disaster and to trust the local
> and state officials for the damage assessment and to ask for the proper
> help, they are the ones closest and know the area the best. From what
> I've read and seen this is where most of the breakdown in the system
> occurred.
> 
> Josh Ratty 
> 



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

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:40:56 -0400
From: Stephen Litterst <slitterst [at] ithaca.edu>
Subject: Re: Disney in New Orleans
In-reply-to: <list-24758217 [at] prxy.net>
Message-id: <432F3E78.2080209 [at] ithaca.edu>
Organization: IC-Dept. of Theatre Arts
References: <list-24758217 [at] prxy.net>

Bill Sapsis wrote:
> ---------------------------------------------------
> OK.  I'm done.  I'm tired of the petty pro Bush -v- anti Bush. IMHO...
> Everybody should stop squabbling, reach into your pockets and send some
> money to the agency of your choice.

So when are the Long Riders heading down to do a little clean up?  I'm 
planning on heading down over Thanksgiving if I can get someone 
(Habitat, Red Cross, whoever) to put me to work.

Steve L.

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

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

Message-ID: <432F490F.9050606 [at] fuse.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:26:07 -0400
From: Stuart Wheaton <sdwheaton [at] fuse.net>
Subject: Re: Styrofoam stage weights
References: <list-24748292 [at] prxy.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-24748292 [at] prxy.net>

Paul Marsland wrote:

> In one of our venues, we welded 3x3 angle across the
> vertical arbor rods to create a "false" bottom. 

It seems to me that subjecting those rods to that kind of 
localised heating could make a real metalurgical problem. 
Are those arbor rods just mild steel or are they something 
more exotic?

Stuart



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

Message-ID: <432F4E2E.6050107 [at] fredonia.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:47:58 -0400
From: "Stephen E. Rees" <Rees [at] fredonia.edu>
Reply-To: Rees [at] fredonia.edu
Subject: Re: Styrofoam stage weights
References: <list-24748292 [at] prxy.net> <list-24758740 [at] prxy.net>

Can't speak as to the type of steel in the rods, but apart from the 
heating problem, by welding a permanently added feature, you are voiding 
any warranties the manufacturer may have had and, more importantly, you 
have converted the device to a use other than what the maker had 
intended (even if it suits your needs better) In the event of a failure, 
all the liability now rests on your organization and the maker is out of 
the loop, I should think.  Am not an attorney but I know there are 
others who might render an opinion.

Also, the long-term, replaceable and removable nature of the foam pigs 
allows greater flexibility of use it would seem.
Regards,
Steve Rees, TD
SUNY-Fredonia

Stuart Wheaton wrote:
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> Paul Marsland wrote:
> 
>> In one of our venues, we welded 3x3 angle across the
>> vertical arbor rods to create a "false" bottom. 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that subjecting those rods to that kind of localised 
> heating could make a real metalurgical problem. Are those arbor rods 
> just mild steel or are they something more exotic?
> 
> Stuart
> 



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

Message-ID: <621d2eb0050919165250cf0a35 [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:52:35 -0400
From: Joseph Champelli <joechamp [at] gmail.com>
Reply-To: joechamp [at] gmail.com
Cc: bill [at] bcaworld.com (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Stairs
In-Reply-To: <list-24753078 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-24753078 [at] prxy.net>

Bill, in your experience are there guidelines or ergonomic data for
the width of landings used within stair runs?

I've been in some theatre houses that are just plain awkward to
navigate.  The showroom at the Aladdin in Las Vegas comes to mind.  In
that space you have 2 or 3 stairs and then a long landing.  The
landing is too long to take as a step and not long enough for a full
stride.  So you have to take a weird little half-step on the landing
before you take a step.

Joe



On 9/19/05, Bill Conner <bill-conner [at] att.net> wrote:
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>=20
> The building codes require minimum treads of 11" and maximum risers of 7"
> for most stairs. =20
> ...Most of the so called formulas while cute and seemingly with
> the wisdom of tested lore, don't hold up under research.
>=20
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Bill
>=20
>=20


--=20
Joseph Champelli
University of Tennessee
FTSI

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

Message-ID: <432F5360.90609 [at] fredonia.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:10:08 -0400
From: "Stephen E. Rees" <Rees [at] fredonia.edu>
Reply-To: Rees [at] fredonia.edu
Subject: Re: Stairs
References: <list-24753078 [at] prxy.net> <list-24759027 [at] prxy.net>

All,
There is a really fine table to be found in the Architectural Graphic 
Standards book edited by R. Packard and published by J. Wiley and Sons 
In my copy, (Edition 7, 1981) it is on page 9. I don't know where it is 
in edition 10.  There almost certainly have been code changes as well 
but it is a pretty good general guide.
Steve Rees,TD
SUNY-Fredonia

Joseph Champelli wrote:
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> Bill, in your experience are there guidelines or ergonomic data for
> the width of landings used within stair runs?
> 
> I've been in some theatre houses that are just plain awkward to
> navigate.  The showroom at the Aladdin in Las Vegas comes to mind.  In
> that space you have 2 or 3 stairs and then a long landing.  The
> landing is too long to take as a step and not long enough for a full
> stride.  So you have to take a weird little half-step on the landing
> before you take a step.
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/19/05, Bill Conner <bill-conner [at] att.net> wrote:
> 
>>For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
>>---------------------------------------------------
>>
>>The building codes require minimum treads of 11" and maximum risers of 7"
>>for most stairs.  
>>...Most of the so called formulas while cute and seemingly with
>>the wisdom of tested lore, don't hold up under research.
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 



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

Message-ID: <621d2eb00509191741588fa280 [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:41:19 -0400
From: Joseph Champelli <joechamp [at] gmail.com>
Reply-To: joechamp [at] gmail.com
Subject: Re: Styrofoam stage weights
In-Reply-To: <list-24758965 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-24748292 [at] prxy.net> <list-24758740 [at] prxy.net>
	 <list-24758965 [at] prxy.net>

I would also question the longevity of the welds.  After prolonged
vibration and potential shock loads (ever drop a weight onto a stack
and here it go 'clink'?  -> shock load), the false bottom could give
way.  Most likely one weld will fail before the others and there will
be an odd list to the stack, but still...

J

On 9/19/05, Stephen E. Rees <Rees [at] fredonia.edu> wrote:
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>=20
> Can't speak as to the type of steel in the rods, but apart from the
> heating problem, by welding a permanently added feature, you are voiding
> any warranties...

--=20
Joseph Champelli
University of Tennessee
FTSI

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

Reply-To: <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
From: "RD" <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
Subject: RE: Latex paint storage
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:47:10 -0600
In-reply-to: <list-24734669 [at] prxy.net>
Message-ID: <auto-000024759581 [at] prxy.net>

I am sorry to hear that you have had such poor experience  with Loss Control
Insurance people. My ten years being a Senior Loss Control Consultant for
many insurance brokers and carriers ... I believe was one of helping others.
Dr. Doom 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf Of Paul
Guncheon
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 8:10 AM
To: Stagecraft
Subject: Re: Latex paint storage

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

<<Do remember, too, that an insurance inspector's job is to save his
company money by keeping you alive and your shop in one piece.>>

Perhaps I'm somewhat of a skeptic but my experiences with insurance
inspectors suggests that their main reason for inspecting was to find
"violations", no matter how mythical, so they can write you up and the
insurance company can raise your rates.  I've had some pretty incredible
inspections by some rather unpleasant inspectors.

I admit that I have sometimes a cavalier attitude towards some truly
dangerous things.... but I do not consider a can of spray paint to be "bomb
waiting to go off."

Of course, this was the same inspector who wanted us to take down all the
sheets of styrofoam brickwork from overhead storage as he couldn't believe
that the 1/2" steel rod hangers could possibly support the weight of all the
stone.

"How did you get that up there anyway?"

Laters,

Paul

"Is your name Timothy or Russell?" Tom asked timorously.

Laters,

Paul



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

Reply-To: <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
From: "RD" <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
Cc: drkrajec [at] stritch.edu
Subject: RE: stairs
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:47:10 -0600
In-reply-to: <list-24745274 [at] prxy.net>
Message-ID: <auto-000024759587 [at] prxy.net>

And he is absolutely correct. Without railing too much ... railings are
often forgotten in the mix and must be sturdy and tested ... just as in Fall
Protection instances. Doom 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf Of David R.
Krajec
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 12:04 PM
To: Stagecraft
Subject: stairs

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

Welcome to the club, Eric!

You're getting a lot of good advice from the list.  One thing to note:
railings!
Your escape stairs need good solid railings.  Your onstage stairs need good
solid railings.
(Does someone on the list have railing specifications?  I know that it has
support X pounds of lateral force.  Solve for X.  Please site source.)

There have been accidents where railings were pointed out as part of the
problem.  Lawsuits have ensued.  Protect yourself.

We deal with an artistic field of illusion.  But the illusion should not
hurt us.  Or allow us to hurt ourselves.

Good luck.

David K.



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

Reply-To: <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
From: "RD" <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
Subject: RE: Flame retardant worked well
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:47:10 -0600
In-reply-to: <list-24747152 [at] prxy.net>
Message-ID: <auto-000024759595 [at] prxy.net>

DONE. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf Of
MissWisc [at] aol.com
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 4:45 PM
To: Stagecraft
Subject: Flame retardant worked well

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

_http://www.wisinfo.com/postcrescent/news/archive/local_22616215.shtml_ 
(http://www.wisinfo.com/postcrescent/news/archive/local_22616215.shtml)    

Good to know it works like it's supposed to sometimes. HS curtain fire.  
Kudos for it being flame retarded.
 
Hey Doc Doom -- put this one in your file for when you're here next month!!

Nothing like an example from a school 7 blocks away to drive the point
home.
 
Kristi


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

Reply-To: <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
From: "RD" <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
Cc: bill [at] bcaworld.com ('Bill Conner')
Subject: RE: Flame retardant worked well
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:47:10 -0600
In-reply-to: <list-24752821 [at] prxy.net>
Message-ID: <auto-000024759603 [at] prxy.net>

Once again, good advice. Doom 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf Of Bill Conner
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 7:20 AM
To: Stagecraft
Subject: Re: Flame retardant worked well

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

Why was the curtain burning and why did it have to be extinguished if it was

flameproofed?

I believe that if you heat any organic material like cotton velour long 
enough - say at the focal point in front of an ellipsoid - it will 
eventually burst into flame.  The organic material pyrolizes, lowering the 
kindling point, and eventually will burn.  From specific experiences, with 
curtains and stage lights, I'd say 36-60 hours.

I don't know what happens with the inherently flameproof synthetics.

The point is, don't rely on flameproofing.  I regret that the use of borders

of the coated fibreglass material aren't more common in his country.  They 
would prevent a lot of these incipient curtain fires.

Regards,

Bill 


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

Reply-To: <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
From: "RD" <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
Cc: bill [at] bcaworld.com ('Bill Conner')
Subject: RE: Stairs
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:47:10 -0600
In-reply-to: <list-24753078 [at] prxy.net>
Message-ID: <auto-000024759607 [at] prxy.net>

Right on, and do not forget that stairs that are carpeted are many times
more dangerous than those without. Doom 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf Of Bill Conner
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 7:54 AM
To: Stagecraft
Subject: Stairs

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

The building codes require minimum treads of 11" and maximum risers of 7" 
for most stairs.  One and two family dwellings can be steeper under some 
codes, as can aisles in seating areas if required by sightlines.  Keep in 
mind the 7" X 11" are minimum and lesser risers and greater treads are 
safer.  For the general populace, greater treads probably help more in 
preventing stumbles and resultant injuries from the stumbles than does 
lowering the rise.  Lets face it, even on 11" treads, most of use have to 
turn our foot or let it overhang, both of which lessen stability.  I've 
grown quite fond of a 6 1/2" by 13" or 13 1/2" stair as being very 
comfortable.  Most of the so called formulas while cute and seemingly with 
the wisdom of tested lore, don't hold up under research.

Keep in mind that the measurement of the tread does not include the tread 
under the nosing but is the actual run dimension.

The building codes require the non-uniformity between the greatest and least

not exceed 3/8", again the worst it can be for minimal safety, not a goal. 
This is usually a problem at tops and bottoms where the floor covering will 
change the rise.  Since most falls happen in the first or last 3 steps, it 
is important to maintain uniformity in the first and last step.

Solid risers are desirable.

Non-uniformity and too short of tread ranks right up there with visibility 
for stair safety.  Illumination, high contrast at nosings, glow tape, etc. 
all can help a lot if used well.

Besides the uniform 50 pounds linear foot in any direction at the top rail 
and 200 concentrated at one point on the top rail in any direction, the 
intermediate railings or panels or whatever fills in the space below the 
rail should be designed for 50 pounds per square foot.  Equally important is

the graspability of the rail.  If you wouldn't want the handle on your 
hammer to be a 2 X 4 because it's hard to hold, don't use it for railings. 
You need to be able to get a good grip on it and remember that a hook hold, 
where you grab under and pull, is equally important to stair safety as 
pressure downward.  1 1/4 pipe, 1 x 1 steel tube, 1 1/2 pipe at the largest,

are all acceptable for hand rails.  (Guards don't require graspability.)

Falls result in greater loss from injuries than vehicular accidents and 
possibly 100 times as great as from fire, and roughly half occur on stairs. 
It doesn't justify using a nail instead for a bolt because it takes another 
5 minutes or not recutting the stringer.

Regards,

Bill


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

Reply-To: <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
From: "RD" <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
Cc: bill [at] bcaworld.com ('Bill Conner')
Subject: RE: Flame retardant worked well
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:47:10 -0600
In-reply-to: <list-24753895 [at] prxy.net>
Message-ID: <auto-000024759612 [at] prxy.net>

I have just published an article on flame retarding, .... if there is
interest. Doom 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf Of Bill Conner
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 9:23 AM
To: Stagecraft
Subject: Re: Flame retardant worked well

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

Simon Shuker posted:  "I have had an instance on an exhibition stand were 
part of a velvet velour drape was left sitting on a  light. It ended up with

only a perfectly circular hope with frayed edges because the drape was flame

retardant, but there were no flames ( we are one of the few companies that 
care about such things here)"

Was this new or old fabric (more than 3 or 4 years)?  Was it flameproofed 
cotton velour or a synthetic?  How large was the lamp?  Most of the burning 
flameproofed velour I have seen was cotton, new, had a certificate, came 
from a reputable, major manufacturer, and the light was at the bottom of the

piece.  This would have to mean that you flameproof your own material and 
don't rely on the manufacturer I presume?  Would you care to name a few of 
the companies hat don't "care about such things here"?

I wish someone would set up a leko (the old Colortran 213's with a shorter 
focal length and a 1k lamp work real well) and try this in their parking 
lot.  A boom, couple of side arms, and maybe two yards of Memorable straight

from the factory.  A web cam would be great.

Bill 


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

Reply-To: <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
From: "RD" <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
Cc: Rees [at] fredonia.edu
Subject: RE: Stairs
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:47:10 -0600
In-reply-to: <list-24754087 [at] prxy.net>
Message-ID: <auto-000024759627 [at] prxy.net>

I suggest and recommend that you purchase a copy and read it well of THE
STAIRCASE by John Templer. He is the expert in this area. THE expert. I use
his studies in all of my litigation. Dr. Doom  I have recommended this book
to many technicians over the years, and would the person who borrowed my
first copy, please return it. Thank you. Dr. Doom 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf Of Stephen E.
Rees
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 9:41 AM
To: Stagecraft
Subject: Re: Stairs

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

Another acceptable formula similar to Steve L's is: 2xRise + Run = 24 
(actually greater than 24" but less than 25").  Like Steve's it keeps 
the proportional relationship of Rise to Run in order.  There tends to 
be more discomfort and unease as you get to the extremes of the formula. 
  Humans are very sensitive to deviation in riser height or tread depth 
in a flight of stairs. As little as 1/8" variance from rise to rise will 
lead to significant discomfort.  You could probably alter the ratios as 
you go from flight to landing to flight but if possible within the 
context of the design, a consistent rise dimension from level to level 
would be desirable from ease of construction and from ergonomic 
standpoints.  I only wish that the architect of our theatre had followed 
it or some other reasonable rule of thumb.  We stumble all over the 4" 
rise with the 16"-20" variable runs all the time in our main theatre.
Best,
Steve Rees, TD
SUNY-Fredonia

Stephen Litterst wrote:

> I have always tried to build/design stairs by the "rule of 18."  Rise + 
> Run = 18".  That's what "feels" natural to people.  We had a student 
> design some huge staircases without the rule (I think he used 19 as his 
> number) and none of us could walk comfortably on the stairs.
> 
> 
> Steve L.
> 



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

Reply-To: <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
From: "RD" <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
Subject: RE: Flame retardant worked well
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:47:10 -0600
In-reply-to: <list-24754259 [at] prxy.net>
Message-ID: <auto-000024759631 [at] prxy.net>

I find the same conditions and situations as you describe them. Doom

-----Original Message-----
From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf Of Simon
Shuker
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 10:02 AM
To: Stagecraft
Cc: 'Bill Conner'
Subject: Re: Flame retardant worked well

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

The fabric was brand new and came from J & C Joel in the UK with UK fire
certificates. The light was at the bottom of the piece. 90% of companies in
the Middle East have no concept of safety, be that of employee's or the
public, Only one of the  hotel venues we work in insist on seeing
certificates etc. The European managed production companies tend to have all
the precautions in place, but generally the Asian and Arab ones do not. The
exhibition halls do not ask any safety questions with the exception of load
bearing abilities of 2 story exhibition stands. Price is still very much
king in this part of the world with little understanding of " you get what
you pay for"

-----Original Message-----
From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf Of Bill Conner
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 7:23 PM
To: Stagecraft
Subject: Re: Flame retardant worked well

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

Simon Shuker posted:  "I have had an instance on an exhibition stand were
part of a velvet velour drape was left sitting on a  light. It ended up with
only a perfectly circular hope with frayed edges because the drape was flame
retardant, but there were no flames ( we are one of the few companies that
care about such things here)"

Was this new or old fabric (more than 3 or 4 years)?  Was it flameproofed
cotton velour or a synthetic?  How large was the lamp?  Most of the burning
flameproofed velour I have seen was cotton, new, had a certificate, came
from a reputable, major manufacturer, and the light was at the bottom of the
piece.  This would have to mean that you flameproof your own material and
don't rely on the manufacturer I presume?  Would you care to name a few of
the companies hat don't "care about such things here"?

I wish someone would set up a leko (the old Colortran 213's with a shorter
focal length and a 1k lamp work real well) and try this in their parking
lot.  A boom, couple of side arms, and maybe two yards of Memorable straight
from the factory.  A web cam would be great.

Bill 




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

Reply-To: <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
From: "RD" <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
Subject: RE: Hazmats continued
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:47:11 -0600
In-reply-to: <list-24754305 [at] prxy.net>
Message-ID: <auto-000024759637 [at] prxy.net>

Do not trust your nose! Certainly it is sensitive to odors and smells and
various other fragrances .... however if you truly believe the days of
really nasty stuff are behind us, then I invite you to walk along with me on
one of my risk assessments of theaters, esp. in colleges, schools,
performing arts centers, studios, etc. I have been providing these risk
assessments since the middle fifties, and I have not seen any true
diminishing of hazardous chemicals. I truly desire that there were less, but
not what I observe and document. The number of new compounds developed each
year is in the thousands, and they make their way into our lives, i.e.
homes, vehicles, environments, schools, water, etc. and into our working
environments and venues. Not only is this my opinion, but it is factually
true and the evidence is stark. Respectfully, Dr. doom 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf Of Dougherty,
Jim
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 10:05 AM
To: Stagecraft
Subject: Hazmats continued

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

As I'm a digester (take that as you will), I can't attribute the post, but
in the context of the recent discussion of hazardous chemicals, someone
wrote to "trust your nose".

I know it's a few days late, but I'd like to suggest that to do so would be
to risk your health or life needlessly.  I won't say it's stupid.
Fortunately, the days of really nasty stuff routinely used in theater are a
bit behind most of us, but there are several common chemicals for which your
nose is useless.

Some things smell terribly initially, but one becomes acclimated to the
smell even if amounts of the material don't drop to a safe level.

Carbon monoxide is odorless, as are many other hazards.

Chlorine gas smells horrible, as another lister has pointed out, but by
smelling it you've introduced it to your lungs.  That's what you want to
avoid.  Ditto for a variety of other chemicals like sulfur dioxide (a
component of sewer gas) and ammonia.  Sulfuric and hydrochloric acid are not
meant to be in your lungs.

We have a responsibility to know what chemicals in our shops might do to us,
and should have the common sense to get the heck out of there if something
questionable comes up that we don't know about.  The latter may be the
harder part.  In the US, there is a publication from the Department of
Transportation dealing with all sorts of hazardous materials, mostly
intended for first responders to spills, but it's full of useful
information.  Look at http://hazmat.dot.gov/pubs/erg/gydebook.htm.  As a
side benefit, long road trips are more fun when you know what's in the
tanker truck next to you.

-  Jim Dougherty
ATD, Middlebury College
Volunteer FF/EMT


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

From: MissWisc [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <a9.7c1b00a6.3060b777 [at] aol.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:53:11 EDT
Subject: re: Stairs

Lessons from experience...

A "nose" on a  stair adds to the tripping hazard, as does a stair without a 
solid rise. If  there's any kind of lip there, a toe can catch on it. Make the 
edges even,  square and perpendicular at the edges. Use a small amount of glo 
tape on the  corners or edge to make them more visible. If you can, very 
SLIGHTLY round off  the edges, shins will appreciate that and they seem to splinter 
less. A little  sandbox sand added to the paint on the treads can give extra 
traction. One idea  for the escape stairs is to run a string of rope lights 
along the offstage side  - gives a low level of light and outlines each step. Do 
not use gloss paint  (slippery, bad for lighting) nor carpeting/vinyl runners 
(tripping  hazard).

I'd also suggest - 

when it's not possible/necesary to  have a railing, always have a person 
there hand-guiding each person who goes up  or down stairs.  (My preference is a 
handsome gentleman in a tux!) I've  seen folks trip on a two step unit going 
onto a 18" platform in a hotel  ballroom. Not pretty. 

At Mary Kay, Inc. Seminar in Dallas each summer,  the main stage includes two 
huge curved staircases. The company will have men on  every third step or so 
who literally take the hand or arm of each woman as she's  coming down stairs 
so that she doesn't trip. This is in addition to the railing  that is there 
too. Several times I've seen this prevent a  fall.

HTH

Kristi  


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

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:17:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Disney in New Orleans
From: Bill Sapsis <bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com>
Message-ID: <BF54DB60.2EF8%bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-24758270 [at] prxy.net>

As a group we aren't planning anything.  I'm sure the individuals will do
what they can.

Bill S.

www.sapsis-rigging.com
800.727.7471
800.292.3851  fax
267.278.4561 mobile






On 9/19/05 6:40 PM, "Stephen Litterst" <slitterst [at] ithaca.edu> wrote:

> So when are the Long Riders heading down to do a little clean up?  I'm
> planning on heading down over Thanksgiving if I can get someone
> (Habitat, Red Cross, whoever) to put me to work.



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

Reply-To: <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
From: "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
Subject: RE: Disney in New Orleans
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:50:58 -0400
Message-ID: <000e01c5bd85$bf43f890$6701a8c0 [at] Dell>
In-reply-to: <list-24758217 [at] prxy.net>


> OK.  I'm done.  I'm tired of the petty pro Bush -v- anti 
> Bush. IMHO... Everybody should stop squabbling, reach into 
> your pockets and send some money to the agency of your choice.

While there is much validity in that -- and many of us have dug deeply, and
more than once -- there's also validity in keeping the issue in the
forefront of people's consciousness so that this isn't allowed to happen
again.



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

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:54:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Disney in New Orleans
From: Bill Sapsis <bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com>
Message-ID: <BF54F20A.2F07%bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-24760211 [at] prxy.net>

I understand.  But I believe the time for that will be in a few years...come
the next presidential election.

Bill S.
www.sapsis-rigging.com
800.727.7471
800.292.3851  fax
267.278.4561 mobile


On 9/19/05 9:50 PM, "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
wrote:

> While there is much validity in that -- and many of us have dug deeply, and
> more than once -- there's also validity in keeping the issue in the
> forefront of people's consciousness so that this isn't allowed to happen
> again.



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

From: "Sam Fisher" <Sam [at] FisherTheatrical.com>
Subject: RE: Disney in New Orleans
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:19:51 -0400
In-Reply-To: <list-24760673 [at] prxy.net>
Message-ID: <auto-000024760878 [at] prxy.net>


I understand.  But I believe the time for that will be in a few years...come
the next presidential election.

Bill S.


I hate waiting, do we really have to...

Sam Fisher



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

Message-ID: <ce2084ad0509192020f028363 [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:20:07 -0400
From: Ken Romaine <ken.stagecraft [at] gmail.com>
Reply-To: Ken Romaine <ken.stagecraft [at] gmail.com>
Cc: skingld [at] gmail.com
Subject: Re: VL1000's CMY Color Mixing
In-Reply-To: <list-24758001 [at] prxy.net>
References: <84c790f3050919145768a86a6a [at] mail.gmail.com>
	 <list-24758001 [at] prxy.net>

Shawn:

In a previous life, I was an Account Manager for VLPS in NY.
What you are looking for does not exist, at least, not when I worked there.
There are SO many issues with any list of this type - for any automated
luminaire.  The color temperature of the light source (which changes for mo=
st
arc sources over their life), dichroic filter matching from luminaire to
luminaire, the accuracy and repeatability of the DMX output from whatever
console you're using, etc, etc, etc...

So - whilst there are probably lists that have been made that provide the
information you're looking for, they have generally been made by
individuals for a specific set of circumstances, as in for this show with t=
his
rig and this console only.  And with all new lamps.

All that said, there are consoles out there now that allow you to click on =
a
color diagram and have the selected luminaires shift to that color.
These are all approximations, and if you have 12 VL1000s
selected and you click on that diagram, you'll most probably need to
tweak a bunch of units to get them to match.

Hope this helps, even though it probably doesn't.

Ken Romaine
Northeast US Sales Manager - Barco Events
The opinions expressed here are mine - all mine - no matter how
much I want to impose them on the rest of the world.

On 9/19/05, Shawn King <skingld [at] gmail.com> wrote:

>  I am wondering if anyone knows of a chart for VL1000's that will tell
> you the CMY equivalent to standard Rosco, GAM, and Lee colors.
> Nothing to be found on the VariLight website.  Google searches have
> yielded nothing so far.

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

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:25:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Disney in New Orleans
From: Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BF54F971.9D7D%bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-24760673 [at] prxy.net>

> I understand.  But I believe the time for that will be in a few years...come
> the next presidential election.

    Don't worry Bill, he CAN'T be re-elected again - right?

Bruce
-- 
Bruce Purdy
Technical Director
Smith Opera House



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

Message-ID: <000d01c5bd93$e41a05c0$0600000a [at] BRUTUS>
From: "Jon Ares" <jonares [at] hevanet.com>
References: <list-24760947 [at] prxy.net>
Subject: Re: Disney in New Orleans
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:32:13 -0700

>    Don't worry Bill, he CAN'T be re-elected again - right?


But maybe he's hoping John Roberts will overturn that law??   :)

     - Jon Ares
www.hevanet.com/acreative 

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

Reply-To: <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
From: "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
Subject: RE: Disney in New Orleans
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:34:46 -0400
Message-ID: <002601c5bd94$42bae040$6701a8c0 [at] Dell>
In-reply-to: <list-24760998 [at] prxy.net>


> >    Don't worry Bill, he CAN'T be re-elected again - right?
> 
> 
> But maybe he's hoping John Roberts will overturn that law??   :)

It is, thank G-d, not a law, but a constitutional amendment.



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

Message-ID: <ce2084ad05091920367e678f5b [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:36:22 -0400
From: Ken Romaine <ken.stagecraft [at] gmail.com>
Reply-To: Ken Romaine <ken.stagecraft [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Re: VL1000's CMY Color Mixing
In-Reply-To: <list-24760890 [at] prxy.net>
References: <84c790f3050919145768a86a6a [at] mail.gmail.com>
	 <list-24758001 [at] prxy.net> <list-24760890 [at] prxy.net>

My apologies - I have no idea why my reply posted twice.

Ken

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

From: rwhitco [at] comcast.net
Subject: Re: Disney in New Orleans
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 03:40:02 +0000
Message-Id: <092020050340.20568.432F8492000A2E37000050582200751090010C9B0708999D [at] comcast.net>

Don't forget the '06 mid-terms.  He can mess up all he wants as long as Congress lets him do as he pleases.

Some of us can complain and give at the same time.


> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> > I understand.  But I believe the time for that will be in a few years...come
> > the next presidential election.
> 
>     Don't worry Bill, he CAN'T be re-elected again - right?
> 
> Bruce
> -- 
> Bruce Purdy
> Technical Director
> Smith Opera House
> 
> 

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

Reply-To: <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
From: "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com>
Cc: ken.stagecraft [at] gmail.com ('Ken Romaine')
Subject: RE: VL1000's CMY Color Mixing
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:44:49 -0400
Message-ID: <002701c5bd95$a9fa7f30$6701a8c0 [at] Dell>
In-reply-to: <list-24760890 [at] prxy.net>



> The color temperature of 
> the light source (which changes for most arc sources over 
> their life), dichroic filter matching from luminaire to 
> luminaire, the accuracy and repeatability of the DMX output 
> from whatever console you're using, etc, etc, etc...

On the other hand, it would get us into the ballpark....



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

Reply-To: <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
From: "RD" <doomster [at] worldnet.att.net>
Cc: joechamp [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Stairs
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:03:24 -0600
In-Reply-To: <list-24759027 [at] prxy.net>
Message-ID: <auto-000024761251 [at] prxy.net>

Try: the StairCase by John 
Templer, the world's expert on stairs, etc. cannot go wrong. Doom 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf Of Joseph
Champelli
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 5:53 PM
To: Stagecraft
Cc: Bill Conner
Subject: Re: Stairs

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

Bill, in your experience are there guidelines or ergonomic data for
the width of landings used within stair runs?

I've been in some theatre houses that are just plain awkward to
navigate.  The showroom at the Aladdin in Las Vegas comes to mind.  In
that space you have 2 or 3 stairs and then a long landing.  The
landing is too long to take as a step and not long enough for a full
stride.  So you have to take a weird little half-step on the landing
before you take a step.

Joe



On 9/19/05, Bill Conner <bill-conner [at] att.net> wrote:
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> The building codes require minimum treads of 11" and maximum risers of 7"
> for most stairs.  
> ...Most of the so called formulas while cute and seemingly with
> the wisdom of tested lore, don't hold up under research.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 


-- 
Joseph Champelli
University of Tennessee
FTSI


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

From: StevevETTrn [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <12a.65f9dfb7.3060e9a9 [at] aol.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:27:21 EDT
Subject: Re: Disney in New Orleans

In a message dated 9/19/2005 6:39:11 PM Eastern  Daylight Time, 
bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com writes:
OK.  I'm done.  I'm  tired of the petty pro Bush -v- anti Bush. IMHO...
Everybody should stop  squabbling, reach into your pockets and send some
money to the agency of your  choice.

Zat help?????
Bill S.  


What I want to know is what on earth this thread has to do with the subject  
line of Disney in New Orleans???   Other than contributing several  million 
dollars to the relief efforts and offering jobs to people who would like  to 
relocate, I don't think Disney has been any where near the mess.
 
SteveV
Orl, FL

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

From: MissWisc [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <20c.9a432ba.3060eb45 [at] aol.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:34:13 EDT
Subject: Re: Disney in New Orleans

_StevevETTrn [at] aol.com_ (mailto:StevevETTrn [at] aol.com)   writes:
<< What I want to know is what on earth this thread has to do  with the 
subject  
line of Disney in New Orleans???   Other  than contributing several  million 
dollars to the relief efforts and  offering jobs to people who would like  to 
relocate, I don't think  Disney has been any where near the mess. >>
 
I think the reference is that church in the background of the Bush speech  
looked a bit like the Castle at Disney. Let's face it, the whole thing is a  
political dog and pony show. 
 
Kristi
 

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

In-Reply-To: <list-24760890 [at] prxy.net>
References: <84c790f3050919145768a86a6a [at] mail.gmail.com> <list-24758001 [at] prxy.net> <list-24760890 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <0d2a45cebec6e5375cf619241de10bab [at] sandiego.edu>
From: James Feinberg <feinberg [at] sandiego.edu>
Subject: Re: VL1000's CMY Color Mixing
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:35:38 -0700

Huh?  Repeatability of the DMX output?  Of all the possible variables, 
I would have expected DMX values to be a constant.  It's a string of 
numbers.  What makes that not repeatable?  Am I missing something here?

--jamesf

On Sep 19, 2005, at 8:20 PM, Ken Romaine wrote:

> Shawn:
>
> In a previous life, I was an Account Manager for VLPS in NY.
> What you are looking for does not exist, at least, not when I worked 
> there.
> There are SO many issues with any list of this type - for any automated
> luminaire.  The color temperature of the light source (which changes 
> for most
> arc sources over their life), dichroic filter matching from luminaire 
> to
> luminaire, the accuracy and repeatability of the DMX output from 
> whatever
> console you're using, etc, etc, etc...
> <snip>
> Ken Romaine
> Northeast US Sales Manager - Barco Events
>
>
> On 9/19/05, Shawn King <skingld [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  I am wondering if anyone knows of a chart for VL1000's that will tell
>> you the CMY equivalent to standard Rosco, GAM, and Lee colors.
>> Nothing to be found on the VariLight website.  Google searches have
>> yielded nothing so far.


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

Message-ID: <ce2084ad050919215515b8079b [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:55:11 -0400
From: Ken Romaine <ken.stagecraft [at] gmail.com>
Reply-To: Ken Romaine <ken.stagecraft [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Re: VL1000's CMY Color Mixing
In-Reply-To: <list-24761531 [at] prxy.net>
References: <84c790f3050919145768a86a6a [at] mail.gmail.com>
	 <list-24758001 [at] prxy.net> <list-24760890 [at] prxy.net>
	 <list-24761531 [at] prxy.net>

James:

Depending on what console you use, you can get a different DMX value
(between 0 and 255) for a given channel level (on a 0-100 scale).
Each manufacturer has their own way of mapping the 256 DMX levels
to the 100 channel levels.
Now, I'll admit that the differences are (or should be) small, depending
on the luminaire, this can end up looking like two close, but different, co=
lors.

That said, a "color equivalent" chart, if well made, should at least get yo=
u
"in the ballpark", as Jeff Salzberg pointed out..
--
Ken Romaine
Northeast US Sales Manager - Barco Events
The opinions expressed here are mine - all mine - no matter how
much I want to impose them on the rest of the world.


On 9/20/05, James Feinberg <feinberg [at] sandiego.edu> wrote:

> Huh?  Repeatability of the DMX output?  Of all the possible variables,
> I would have expected DMX values to be a constant.  It's a string of
> numbers.  What makes that not repeatable?  Am I missing something here?
>

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

Message-ID: <621d2eb00509192216787402ed [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:16:21 -0400
From: Joseph Champelli <joechamp [at] gmail.com>
Reply-To: joechamp [at] gmail.com
Subject: Re: Disney in New Orleans
In-Reply-To: <list-24738559 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-24738559 [at] prxy.net>

SSBkbyBub3QgYXBvbG9naXplIGJlZm9yZSBvciBhZnRlciB0aGlzIHBvbGl0aWNhbCByYW50LiAg
SWYgeW91IGRvbid0CndhbnQgdG8gcmVhZCBhIHBvbGl0aWNhbCBvcGluaW9uLCBwYXNzIGJ5IHRo
aXMgcG9zdCBvciBzY3JvbGwgZG93bgp1bnRpbCB5b3Ugc2VlIEVORCBQT0wuCgoKT24gOS8xNy8w
NSwgRnJhbmtXb29kOTVAYW9sLmNvbSA8RnJhbmtXb29kOTVAYW9sLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6Cgo+IFRo
ZSBxdWVzdGlvbnMgdGhhdCBuZWVkIHRvIGJlIGFza2VkIGFyZToKPiAgICAgV2h5IHdlcmUgbm90
IHRoZSByZWxpZWYgdGVhbXMgaW4gcG9zaXRpb24gYW5kIHJlYWR5IHRvIHJvbGwgYXMgc29vbiBh
cyBpdAo+IHdhcyBzYWZlPwoKVGltZSBkaWQgYSBwcmV0dHkgZ29vZCBqb2Igb2YgbG9va2luZyBh
dCB3aG8gY291bGQgYmUgaGVsZCBhY2NvdW50YWJsZToKCmh0dHA6Ly93d3cudGltZS5jb20vdGlt
ZS9hcmNoaXZlL3ByZXZpZXcvMCwxMDk4NywxMTAzNTYwLDAwLmh0bWwKCkJ1dCBpbiBzaG9ydCwg
eW91IGNvdWxkIHNheSBsYWNrIG9mIGZvcnNpZ2h0IGZyb20gbG9jYWwgYXV0aG9yaXRpZXMuIApM
YWNrIG9mIGxlYWRlcnNoaXAgZnJvbSBXIHRoZSBwcmVzaWRlbnQuICBFeGNlc3NpdmUgYmV1cmFj
cmFjeSBpbgpESFMvRkVNQS4gIEFuZCBsYWNrIG9mIGNvbW1vbiBzZW5zZSBhbmQgZGlzYXN0ZXIg
cmVjb3Zlcnkgc2tpbGwgd2l0aGluCkZFTUEuCgphbHNvIGNoZWNrIG91dDogCmh0dHA6Ly9lbi53
aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvVGltZWxpbmVfb2ZfSHVycmljYW5lX0thdHJpbmEjRmlyc3RfbGFu
ZGZhbGwKZm9yIGEgcmVtaW5kZXIgb2YgdW5mb3J0dW5hdGUgZXZlbnRzLgoKPiAgICAgV2h5IHdh
cyBub3QgYW4gZXZhY3VhdGlvbiBwcm9ncmFtbWUgaW4gcGxhY2UgdG8gaGFuZGxlIGFsbCB0aG9z
ZSB3aG8gaGFkCj4gbm90IGdvdCBvdXQgYWhlYWQgb2YgdGhlIHN0b3JtPwoKVGhlcmUgd2FzIGFu
IGV2YWN1YXRpb24gcGxhbiwgYW5kIDgwJSBvZiB0aGUgY2l0eSB3YXMgZXZhY3VhdGVkLiAgVGhl
CnBsYW4gZmVsbCBkb3duIG9uIGdldHRpbmcgdG8gdGhlIDIwJSB3aG8gZGlkbid0IGhhdmUgdGhl
IG1lYW5zIHRvIGdldAppbiBhIGNhciBvciB0aGUgc2Vuc2UgdG8gZ2V0IG9uIGEgYnVzLiAgQWxz
byB0aGUgcGxhbiBkaWQgbm90IGluY2x1ZGUKZmxvb2Rpbmcgc2NlbmFyaW9zLiAgUGxhbnMgdGhh
dCB1c2UgYnVzZXMgYXJlbid0IG11Y2ggZ29vZCB3aGVuIHlvdQpuZWVkIGJvYXRzIGFuZCBoZWxp
Y29wdGVycy4KCj4gICAgIFdoeSB3YXMgaXQgbm90IGFudGljaXBhdGVkIHRoYXQgdGhlIGxldmVl
cyB3b3VsZCBiZSBvdmVydG9wcGVkIG9yCj4gYnJlYWNoZWQ/CgpJdCB3YXMsIChodHRwOi8vYW1l
cmljYW5yYWRpb3dvcmtzLnB1YmxpY3JhZGlvLm9yZy9mZWF0dXJlcy93ZXRsYW5kcy9odXJyaWNh
bmVfcHJpbnQuaHRtbCksCiBidXQgd2UncmUgc3BlbmRpbmcgNDAwIGJpbGxpb24gZG9sbGFycyBQ
RVIgWUVBUiBvbiBkZWZlbnNlLCB3ZSBjYW4ndApiZSBleHBlY3RlZCB0byBzcGVuZCBtb25leSBv
biBhIHdhbGwgdG8gaG9sZCBiYWNrIGEgbGFrZSBjYW4gd2U/CgoKVGhlIHRydWUgdGVzdCBvZiBh
bnkgbWFuYWdlbWVudCBzeXN0ZW0gaXMgbm90IGhvdyB3ZWxsIGl0IHdvcmtzIGluCnBlcmlvZHMg
b2YgY2FsbSwgYnV0IGhvdyB3ZWxsIGl0IHdvcmtzIHVuZGVyIGV4dHJlbWUgc3RyZXNzLgoKTm9u
ZSBvZiB0aGUgc3lzdGVtcyB0aGF0IHdlcmUgc3VwcG9zZWQgdG8gYmUgaW4gcGxhY2Ugd29ya2Vk
IHdlbGwuIApESFMsIEZFTUEsIGxvY2FsIGF1dGhvcml0aWVzIC0gYWxsIGhhZCBwcm9ibGVtcy4g
IEkgZG9uJ3QgYmxhbWUgdGhlCmxvY2FsIGF0aG9yaXRpZXMuICBXaGVuIHRoZSBzaCp0IGhpdHMg
dGhlIGZhbiBpbiB5b3VyIGJhY2t5YXJkLCB5b3UncmUKZ2VuZXJhbGx5IHNwZW5kaW5nIGEgbG90
IG9mIHRpbWUgbG9va2luZyBhcm91bmQgZm9yIGEgc2hvdmVsIGFuZCBub3QKcmVhbGx5IGxvb2tp
bmcgYXQgdGhlIHJ1bGUgYm9vayBmb3Igd2hvIHlvdSBzaG91bGQgY2FsbCBmaXJzdCB0byBoZWxw
LgoKQnVzaCBjb3VsZCBoYXZlIGNhbGxlZCBNYXlvciBOYWdpbiBvciBHb3Zlcm5vciBCbGFuY28u
ICBJbnN0ZWFkIGhlIGdvdApyZXBvcnRzIGZyb20gaGlzIHBlb3BsZSBhbmQgZ2VybmVyYWxseSBh
cHBlYXJlZCB1bnByZXBhcmVkLiAgQmxhbmNvCmhhZCB0byB0cnkgbXVsdGlwbGUgdGltZXMgYmVm
b3JlIGFueW9uZSB3b3VsZCBjb25uZWN0IGhlciB3aXRoIHRoZQpwcmVzaWRlbnQuICBUaGF0J3Mg
YmFkIGxlYWRlcnNoaXAuCgpJdCdzIG5vdCBlbm91Z2ggZm9yIGEgcHJlc2lkZW50IHRvIGNyZWF0
ZSBhIGRlcGFydG1lbnQgb2YgaG9tZWxhbmQKc2VjdXJpdHkuICBUaGUgcHJlc2lkZW50IHNob3Vs
ZCBoYXZlIHRoZSBtZWFucyB0byBhY3R1YWxseSBjaGVjayBvbgp3aGF0J3MgYmVlbiBkb25lIGFu
ZCBtYWtlIHN1cmUgdGhhdCB0aGUgY29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgY2hhaW4gb2YKY29tbWFuZCBz
eXN0ZW1zIHRoYXQgd2VyZSBzdXBwb3NlZCB0byBiZSBmaXhlZCBhZnRlciA5LzExIGFjdHVhbGx5
CndlcmUuICBXaGljaCBwcm9ibGVtcyBhcmUgZXhjdXNhYmxlIGFuZCB3aGljaCBhcmUgYm9yZGVy
bGluZSBjcmltaW5hbApzaG91bGQgYmUgaW52ZXN0aWdhdGVkIGFuZCB0aGUgc29vbmVyIHRoZSBi
ZXR0ZXIsIHNvIHRoYXQgdGhleSBjYW4gYmUKYXZvaWRlZCBpbiB0aGUgZnV0dXJlLgoKClllcywg
d2UgYWxsIG5lZWQgdG8gb3BlbiBvdXIgd2FsbGV0cyBhbmQgaGVscCBvdXQuICBCdXQgd2hhdCBk
byB5b3UgZG8KYWZ0ZXIgdGhhdD8gIFdlIEFtZXJpY2FucyBuZWVkIHRvIHRha2UgaGVlZCBvZiB3
aG8gd2UgcHV0IGluIG9mZmljZS4KCkluIDIwMDAgYW5kIDIwMDQsIHRoZSByZWxpZ2lvdXMgcmln
aHQgbWFkZSBzdXJlIEFtZXJpY2FucyBwcm90ZWN0ZWQKdGhlaXIgZ3VucywgcHJvdGVjdGVkIHRo
ZWlyIHVuYm9ybiwgcHJvdGVjdGVkIHN0ZW0gY2VsbHMsIHByb3RlY3RlZAp0aGUgJ3NhbmN0aXR5
JyBvZiBtYXJyaWFnZSAod2hhdGV2ZXIgdGhhdCBtZWFucykgYW5kIHByb3RlY3RlZCB0aGVpcgp0
YXggYnJlYWtzLgoKRXZlbiBub3cgd2UncmUgc3BlbmRpbmcgbW9uZXkgb24gYm90aCBhbiB1bmp1
c3RpZmllZCB3YXIgYW5kIGEglmh1Z2UtCmluZnJhc3RydWN0dXJlIHJlYnVpbGQgd2l0aG91dCBj
dXR0aW5nIG90aGVyIHNwZW5kaW5nIG9yIHJhaXNpbmcKdGF4ZXMuICBEdW1iLgoKQ29tZSAyMDA4
LCB0aGUgcmlnaHQgd2luZyBwcm9wYWdhbmRhIG1hY2hpbmUgd2lsbCBiZSBpbiBmdWxsIG9wZXJh
dGlvbgphbmQgcGVvcGxlIHdpbGwgYmUgc3ViamVjdGVkIHRvIHR5cGljYWwgZmVhciBtb25nZXJp
bmcgYWJvdXQKdGVycm9yaXN0cyBhbmQgJ2xpYmVyYWwgc3BlbmRpbmcnLiAgTm90IG1hbnkgd2ls
bCByZW1lbWJlciBhCnJlcHVibGljYW4gbWFjaGluZSB0aGF0IGNhcmVzIGxpdHRsZSBhYm91dCB0
aGUgcG9vciwgYW5kIHNwZW5kcyBqdXN0CmFzIGZyZWVseSB3aGlsZSBsZWF2aW5nIHRoZSBiaWxs
cyBmb3IgdGhlIG5leHQgZ2VuZXJhdGlvbi4KCkhvcGVmdWxseSBpbiAyMDA4IHdlJ2xsIGZpbmQg
c29tZW9uZSB3aG8gaXMgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCBpbiBwcm90ZWN0aW5nCnRoZSBwb29yIGh1ZGRsZWQg
bWFzc2VzIHdobyBoYXZlIG5vd2hlcmUgdG8gZ28gYW5kIHRoZXJlZm9yZSByZWZ1c2UgdG8KZ2V0
IG9uIHRoZSBidXMuCgpTb3JyeSBmb3IgdGhlIHBvbGl0aWNzLCBidXQgeW91IGtub3cuLi5pdCdz
IGFsbCBwb2xpdGljcy4KCkpvZQoKCi0tIApKb3NlcGggQ2hhbXBlbGxpClVuaXZlcnNpdHkgb2Yg
VGVubmVzc2VlCkZUU0kKCkVORCBQT0wuCg==

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

Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:48:51 +0100 (BST)
From: Charlie Richmond <charlier [at] RichmondSoundDesign.com>
Subject: Re: Disney in New Orleans
In-Reply-To: <list-24760879 [at] prxy.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0509201048190.16953 [at] viscount.richmondsounddesign.com>
References: <list-24760879 [at] prxy.net>

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Sam Fisher wrote:

> I understand.  But I believe the time for that will be in a few years...come
> the next presidential election.
>
> Bill S.
>
>
> I hate waiting, do we really have to...

Nixon was forced to resign....

Charlie

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

End of Stagecraft Digest #525
*****************************