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 25687701; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:40:29 -0800
X-ListServer: CommuniGate Pro LIST 4.2.10
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stagecraft-off [at] theatrical.net>
List-ID: <stagecraft.theatrical.net>
Message-ID: <list-25687678 [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 #596
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:38:30 -0800
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-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,
	SEE_FOR_YOURSELF autolearn=unavailable version=3.0.4
X-Spam-Level: 
X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.4f2
X-prxy-Spam-Filter: Scanned

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

Stagecraft Digest, Issue #596

 1. Re: Rigging Certification
    by Samuel Jones <sjones [at] ucla.edu>
 2. Re: Walt Disney AV
    by Norman Lazarus <normanlazarus [at] yahoo.com>
 3. Re: Portable Seating
    by Cosmo Catalano <Cosmo.A.Catalano [at] williams.edu>
 4. Re: Rigging Certification
    by "Peter Scheu" <peter [at] scheuconsulting.com>
 5. Re: The Problem at Hand
    by Loren Schreiber <lschreib [at] mail.sdsu.edu>
 6. Re: Rigging Certification
    by "ladesigners [at] juno.com" <ladesigners [at] juno.com>
 7. Re: The problem at hand
    by Mike McElroy <mikemaccs [at] gmail.com>
 8. Re: Portable Seating
    by Tom Grabowski <tomgrab [at] utpa.edu>
 9. Re: The problem at hand
    by Mark O'Brien <marko [at] email.arizona.edu>
10. Re: The problem at hand
    by Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
11. Re: The problem at hand
    by Mike McElroy <mikemaccs [at] gmail.com>
12. Re: The problem at hand
    by Dale Farmer <dale [at] cybercom.net>
13. Re: The problem at hand
    by Mike McElroy <mikemaccs [at] gmail.com>
14. Re: Andrew's POV on Rigging Cert (was Kristi's thread)
    by MissWisc [at] aol.com
15. Re: The problem at hand
    by Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
16. Re: Rigging Certification
    by Bill Sapsis <bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com>
17. Re: The problem at hand
    by Mike McElroy <mikemaccs [at] gmail.com>
18. Re: Rigging Certification
    by Bill Sapsis <bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com>
19. Re: The problem at hand
    by Dale Farmer <dale [at] cybercom.net>
20. Re: The problem at hand
    by Mike McElroy <mikemaccs [at] gmail.com>
21. Re: Rigging Certification
    by Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
22. Rigging certification
    by Jerry Durand <jdurand [at] interstellar.com>
23. "Not for Lifting" ratings on hardware
    by Brian Munroe <bpmunroe [at] gmail.com>
24. Re: The problem at hand
    by Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
25. Re: The problem at hand
    by Jerry Durand <jdurand [at] interstellar.com>
26. Re: Rigging Certification
    by MissWisc [at] aol.com
27. Re: "Not for Lifting" ratings on hardware
    by "Peter Scheu" <peter [at] scheuconsulting.com>
28. Re: The problem at hand
    by Jim Hyslop <theatre [at] dreampossible.ca>
29. Re: The problem at hand
    by Jerry Durand <jdurand [at] interstellar.com>
30. Re: Rigging Certification
    by Brian Munroe <bpmunroe [at] gmail.com>
31. Re: DMX termination
    by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
32. Re: The problem at hand
    by Jim Hyslop <theatre [at] dreampossible.ca>
33. Re: Rigging Certification
    by Bill Sapsis <bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com>
34. Re: The problem at hand
    by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
35. Re: The problem at hand
    by Mike McElroy <mikemaccs [at] gmail.com>
36. Re: Andrew's POV on Rigging Cert (was Kristi's thread)
    by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
37. Re: The problem at hand
    by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
38. Re: The problem at hand
    by Mike McElroy <mikemaccs [at] gmail.com>
39. Re: The problem at hand
    by Michael Heinicke <mheinicke [at] sbcglobal.net>
40. Re: Rigging Certification
    by Samuel Jones <sjones [at] ucla.edu>
41. Re: The problem at hand
    by Mark O'Brien <marko [at] email.arizona.edu>
42. Re: DMX termination
    by Dan Mills <dmills [at] spamblock.demon.co.uk>
43. questions
    by jdgrams [at] saintmarys.edu
44. Re: The problem at hand
    by Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
45. Re: Got your 6 - Whole Nine Yards
    by CB <psyd [at] cox.net>
46. Re: Andrew's POV on Rigging Cert (was Kristi's thread)
    by Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
47. Certification expanded
    by CB <psyd [at] cox.net>
48. Re: The problem at hand
    by Mike McElroy <mikemaccs [at] gmail.com>
49. Re: Got your 6 - Whole Nine Yards
    by Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
50. Re: The problem at hand
    by Jerry Durand <jdurand [at] interstellar.com>
51. Re: The problem at hand
    by Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
52. Re: DMX termination
    by CB <psyd [at] cox.net>
53. job openings Lighing Design
    by "Waxler, Steve \(waxlers\)" <WAXLERS [at] UCMAIL.UC.EDU>
54. Re: The problem at hand
    by Mike McElroy <mikemaccs [at] gmail.com>
55. Re: Choreographed Light Display
    by CB <psyd [at] cox.net>
56. Walt Disney World Audio Visual Dept.
    by CB <psyd [at] cox.net>
57. Re: Rigging Certification
    by Bill Sapsis <bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com>
58. Re: Got your 6 - Whole Nine Yards
    by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
59. Re: Andrew's POV on Rigging Cert (was Kristi's thread)
    by FrankWood95 [at] aol.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.

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

In-Reply-To: <list-25672639 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-25672639 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <1d4673bd47009368bb51d908678edc59 [at] ucla.edu>
From: Samuel Jones <sjones [at] ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Rigging Certification
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:42:13 -0800

Yes, an imperfect analogy.  First, you admit yourself that it is 
unlikely that someone would pass the bar without law school.  In 
addition, you are not asked to practice law for 2 years _before_ you 
are allowed to take the bar exam, just the opposite.  In addition, if 
it really is a death penalty case, you would be unlikely to accept the 
case, and the judge might not let you do it on your own. (That last one 
is very judge dependent.)  Anyway, the analogy does not hold.  In 
addition, are you saying that certified riggers will never make 
mistakes?  I just suspect that they're a hell of lot less likely to 
make mistakes.  What does the certification test test?  Knowledge?  
Experience?  Good sense?  Perhaps it would be better to allow anyone to 
take the test, get an intermediate certification, and then after a 
certain amount of experience a full certification.  Looking at the 
sample questions, this is a scary test.  I like that.  Let anyone who 
thinks they can pass it and is willing to pay the $600 take the test.  
That is equitable.  (except for the obvious economic inequalities, but 
life's a bitch, and this way part of the inequity is addressed.)  If 
experience is part of the certification it would be best addressed 
separately and not sequentially.  Experience.... hmmm......., who was 
it with?   Were they certified?  No?  Did they know what they were 
doing?  Can't tell unless you know the outfit?  Will there be a list of 
acceptable places to get experience?   I'm not a rigger, but nothing, 
in this long discussion, has come close to showing me why anyone should 
not be allowed to take the test, or assuaged legitimate fears that this 
difficult certification is going to be required of anyone who places a 
head block.

Sam

Samuel L. Jones
Technical Director,
Dance Program, Dept. of World Arts and Cultures, UCLA.
sjones [at] arts.ucla.edu

On Nov 22, 2005, at 9:41 PM, ladesigners [at] juno.com wrote:

> Hmmm... Speaking of a 'bar', I would like to mention that in 
> California, which is arguably the most highly regulated State, you are 
> NOT required to go to ANY Law School or have any real-life legal 
> experience prior to taking the Bar Exam. Your chance of passing may be 
> slim, but you are not barred from taking it just because you avoided 
> some hallowed halls and a bill for $100,000. Yes, it is possible that 
> an inexperienced Rigger who just passed the Rigger's Exam could put 
> someones life in danger, but so could an inexperienced lawyer who just 
> passed the bar exam do so when he or she immediately starts defending 
> death-penalty criminal cases. An imperfect analogy...
>


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

Message-ID: <20051123130031.79169.qmail [at] web51706.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 05:00:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Norman Lazarus <normanlazarus [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Walt Disney AV
In-Reply-To: <list-25676040 [at] prxy.net>

>It been that way at Disneyland Hotel for many years
the PS-AV  (AVHQ)   
>had 
>the a/v contract surprise it took this long.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dale Farmer" <dale [at] cybercom.net>
>
> Norman Lazarus wrote:
>

> >
---------------------------------------------------
> >
> > It seems that the Walt Disney World, Orlando, FL
Audio
> > Visual Dept has been outsourced and the new AV
> > provider is Presentation Services.
>
>     Interesting.  One more sign of the decline of
Disney.
>
>     --Dale
>
>
> 
Having worked for that department I'm surprised it
didn't happen sooner. Unlike Disney Land which was
only one hotel. This included about 12 hotels and
their warehouse.



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com

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

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:19:00 -0500
From: Cosmo Catalano <Cosmo.A.Catalano [at] williams.edu>
Subject: RE:Portable Seating
In-reply-to: <list-25676040 [at] prxy.net>
Cc: JDEMPSEY [at] CSBSJU.EDU
Message-id: <a7efc1d64b8dc3ed596ff0e041830a6b [at] williams.edu>
References: <list-25676040 [at] prxy.net>

Jack--
	Although we do not have long term data, we are very happy with the 
Wenger "Portable Audience Chair" 
(<http://www.wengercorp.com/web/main.html>, you have to poke around on 
their web page to find it).   Here's a photo of them in the theatre (I 
have others if you are interested):  
<http://www.williams.edu/go/62center/centerstage.php>.  It's the larger 
photo on the page.

Don't know their cost, but they are probably not the cheapest option.  
Our audience finds them comfortable, and they look good and seem to be 
solidly made.  A number of options and widths are available.  We had 
custom made bolt down tabs put on the feet.

We have found that used individually--that is not bolted down or locked 
together--that they can start to fold up if someone tips them back onto 
their rear legs.   Of course in our jurisdiction, they need to be 
secured to the floor or locked together in rows...

Storage carts are also available.  They are also a bit heavy...Wenger? 
Heavy?  Who would have thought...

Cosmo


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

Reply-To: <peter [at] scheuconsulting.com>
From: "Peter Scheu" <peter [at] scheuconsulting.com>
Subject: RE: Rigging Certification
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:07:33 -0500
Organization: Scheu Consulting Services, Inc.
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAFIzFiG12TU6sr87xtBG2l8KAAAAQAAAACsYTi1/CZEab5gJSK8xazgEAAAAA [at] scheuconsulting.com>
In-reply-to: <list-25672165 [at] prxy.net>

June,

You've asked a couple of questions that I think go to some very basic
misunderstandings many folk out there have still have about the
certification and the test. This may be a failure on the part of ETCP in
making the intent and requirements crystal clear, maybe not. But these =
are
still out there. There seem to be two major misunderstandings that you, =
and
others, are concerned about:

>ESTA should probably consider
>a second, less rigorous test for day to day riggers
>who don't figure loads for full entertainment systems
>but do still need to know a lot of more basic stuff.)

This is why the ESTA Foundation is developing the Essential Skills =
program.
It may eventually lead to a certification, but that would be a ways off. =
I
could conceive of a certification (or certificate) that quantifies and
qualifies general technical theatre knowledge, skills and experience =
that
many people have but are not recognized for. Like many have pointed out,
lots of folks wear many hats. Fly rail operator one day, props person =
the
next, hanging and circuiting a light plot the third. The old "Jack of =
all
trades, master of none." I would be all for developing an certification
program for these type of technicians. But as we've said before, =
developing
a national (and international, since ETCP does include Canada) and =
legally
defensible certification is very long, very exacting, and very expensive
process (think 5+ years, dozens of volunteer experts and professionals, =
paid
lawyers, contracted psychometricians, and $100K's and up and up and =
up...).

As Bill has said (ad nauseum, to him)... These are baby steps taken to
address very important and far reaching issues in our industry before =
the
"Gubmint" sees a need to step in. The ETCP would much rather use a =
scalpel
than a machete or chain saw to get it right. Patience, my dear friends,
patience...

>You want more people to take the test? You want to
>have more "certified" riggers in the world? I know
>this is radical, but why not just let any random idiot
>who wants to take the test, take the test? If they
>pass, they pass. If it's a good test, as I presume it
>is, then you won't be passing people who don't know
>what the hell they are doing. Why not let the test
>itself be the bar you have to cross?

Because the certification also qualifies and quantifies a person's
experience, not just their knowledge. I'm willing to bet that someone =
with
no rigging experience could memorize Jay Glerum's and Harry Donavan's
textbooks cover to cover and pass the test (which is all written, BTW - =
no
"practical") without ever having stepped in a theatre or arena. If such =
a
person only passed a written test, would you want them designing and =
rigging
points in Atlantic City? I wouldn't. It may be the practice in =
California to
have any schmuck who simply memorizes CA law and legal procedure to pass =
the
bar, but would I want them defending people in capital cases? Where real
lives are at stake? No way.

If you're concerned about what really qualifies as "experience" you need =
to
talk to ETCP. Their criteria is pretty broad, but relevant. Ask them. Go
ahead. I dare you. I double-dare you. They don't bite, you know!

BTW - While I was a Subject Matter Expert for ETCP in developing the =
written
test, I do not officially represent ETCP and my opinions are entirely my
own, and I'm sure worth every penny submitted (all .02).

Peter Scheu

Scheu Consulting Services, Inc.
www.scheuconsulting.com
Tel: 315.422.9984
fax: 413.513.4966


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

Message-Id: <6.1.1.1.2.20051123061912.03cbe698 [at] mail.sdsu.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:26:43 -0800
From: Loren Schreiber <lschreib [at] mail.sdsu.edu>
Subject: Re: The Problem at Hand
In-Reply-To: <list-25676040 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-25676040 [at] prxy.net>

If the platform only needs to tilt and then stop at a given angle, then I'd 
definitely go with pneumatics, rather than the expense of hydraulics. If 
you use a cylinder with a large enough bore you should be able to generate 
enough force to resist any springing, even on 100psi shop air. Noise is not 
a problem--throw a pile of duvatyne on top the the valve. You will be 
surprise at how effective that is.

Hydraulics can be pretty sexy tho'--you know, like a Mazolla Oil party.


Loren Schreiber, Technical Director
School of Theatre, Television and Film
San Diego State University

Long Reach Long Riders announce dates for the 2006 Charity Ride.
Check out www.lrlr.org   for more information, and then join us! 


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

From: "ladesigners [at] juno.com" <ladesigners [at] juno.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:34:48 GMT
Subject: Re: Rigging Certification
Message-Id: <20051123.063526.18865.14101 [at] webmail31.lax.untd.com>

Dear Samuel,
I agree with the majority your post, except the the part about a lawyer =
not being allowed to try a certain case. In my 19 years as a Temporary J=
udge of the Los Angeles Superior Court [including a brief spell hearing =
cases regarding parking and other violations on YOUR campus, years ago] =
and as the President of the Lawyers Club of Los Angeles County, I can tr=
uthfully state that it is extremely unlikely that a Judge, on his or her=
 own motion, would attempt to prevent a willing defendant from utilizing=
 whatever licensed California lawyer who agrees to take the case, as lon=
g as the court doesn't have to pay for that lawyer. The judges of Los An=
geles County, which is the largest court of original jurisdiction in the=
 world, are very diligent in their efforts to assure that there is no di=
scrimination on the basis of gender, age, sexual orientation, national o=
rigin, disability, race, cultural background or on any other basis, incl=
uding the perceived competence of an attorney. When I was a new lawyer s=
tarting out in 1982, I successfully executed the 'Colombo Maneuver' wher=
e, without making any untruthful statements, being much too courteous, a=
nd using vernacular more appropriate for jurors than attorneys, I have l=
ed opposing counsel into thinking that I was fresh off the turnip truck =
so as to trip up their trial strategy, and have consequently won many a =
case for my clients. It is not about me; it is all about serving the The=
atrical client. 'Hollywood Slick' is not always the way to win a case; n=
ot pushing any theory that does not comport with the jury's understandin=
g will go a long way in LA.
/s/ Richard
_______________________
Yes, an imperfect analogy.  First, you admit yourself that it is =

unlikely that someone would pass the bar without law school.  In =

addition, you are not asked to practice law for 2 years _before_ you =

are allowed to take the bar exam, just the opposite.  In addition, if =

it really is a death penalty case, you would be unlikely to accept the c=
ase, and the judge might not let you do it on your own. (That last one i=
s very judge dependent.)  Anyway, the analogy does not hold.  In additio=
n, are you saying that certified riggers will never make mistakes?  I ju=
st suspect that they're a hell of lot less likely to make mistakes.  Wha=
t does the certification test test?  Knowledge? =

Experience?  Good sense?  Perhaps it would be better to allow anyone to =
take the test, get an intermediate certification, and then after a =

certain amount of experience a full certification.  Looking at the =

sample questions, this is a scary test.  I like that.  Let anyone who =

thinks they can pass it and is willing to pay the $600 take the test.  T=
hat is equitable.  (except for the obvious economic inequalities, but li=
fe's a bitch, and this way part of the inequity is addressed.)  If exper=
ience is part of the certification it would be best addressed separately=
 and not sequentially.  Experience.... hmmm......., who was it with?   W=
ere they certified?  No?  Did they know what they were doing?  Can't tel=
l unless you know the outfit?  Will there be a list of acceptable places=
 to get experience?   I'm not a rigger, but nothing, in this long discus=
sion, has come close to showing me why anyone should not be allowed to t=
ake the test, or assuaged legitimate fears that this difficult certifica=
tion is going to be required of anyone who places a head block.
Sam

Samuel L. Jones
Technical Director,
Dance Program, Dept. of World Arts and Cultures, UCLA.
sjones [at] arts.ucla.edu
_____________________________
> Hmmm... Speaking of a 'bar', I would like to mention that in =

> California, which is arguably the most highly regulated State, you are=
 NOT required to go to ANY Law School or have any real-life legal =

> experience prior to taking the Bar Exam. Your chance of passing may be=
 slim, but you are not barred from taking it just because you avoided so=
me hallowed halls and a bill for $100,000. Yes, it is possible that an i=
nexperienced Rigger who just passed the Rigger's Exam could put someones=
 life in danger, but so could an inexperienced lawyer who just passed th=
e bar exam do so when he or she immediately starts defending death-penal=
ty criminal cases. An imperfect analogy...
/s/ Richard

    


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

Message-ID: <90b4c67a0511230700j5f09d5eif6a42095bd788e3d [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:00:33 +0000
From: Mike McElroy <mikemaccs [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
In-Reply-To: <list-25669845 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-25669717 [at] prxy.net> <list-25669845 [at] prxy.net>

A linear actuator, huh?  The features which attracted me to hydraulics
was very high pressure loads and potentially high speeds.  The linear
actuators I'm seeing at the stroke length I need don't provide the
strength or the speed I can get from hydraulics.
Someone else pointed out pneumatics, and I don't want the bounciness
inherent in gas-based power transmission, and while it would achieve
the required effect, I think it would look kind of funny and diminish
dramatic effect if the deck just sort of wobbled even an inch or two.

Would a scissors lift be able to function at an angle?  Would it be
able to lift in this tangential manner?  I don't know exactly what a
scissors-lift is, but if it's what I'm thinking of, it would need to
be connected at two different places on the load to be lifted, and
that's not really feasible.  Hydraulic (and pneumatic and electrical)
linear actuators only need to be connected at one point on the lifting
load, which can be a pivot point for the lift.  I hope I'm making
sense, and not talking out of my butt here.

-Mike

On 11/22/05, Bill Sapsis <bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com> wrote:
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi Mike.  The concept seems basically sound.  I like it all except for th=
e
> hydraulics.  If something goes wrong they tend to be a bit...messy.  Have
> you thought about a linear actuator for this effect?  I bet you can get o=
ne
> that will do a 3' throw for about $500-$700.  With the rest of the riggin=
g
> it might come in a bit under the $1,500.
>
> Just a thought.
> Bill S.
> www.sapsis-rigging.com
> 800.727.7471
> 800.292.3851  fax
> 267.278.4561 mobile
>
> Join the Long Reach Long Riders on their 3rd annual cross country charity
> motorcycle ride.   <www.LRLR.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/22/05 8:19 PM, "Mike McElroy" <mikemaccs [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/=
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Hi everyone!
> >
> > I hope y'all can help me out with this before I get too far in over my
> > head.  My community theatre is doing Titanic in a few months, and I've
> > volunteered to do the set design.  I want to install a minor hydraulic
> > system to provide a visible "slanting" effect for the next to last
> > scene.  The rest of the sinking effect is provided by static tilted
> > scenery.  The power generation side of the system would be set up
> > outside the theatre and sound dampened, with hoses running to the
> > control and actuating side, inside a 6' deep x 12' wide x 4' tall
> > wagon representing the 1st Class Smoke Room ("The Wagon").  Now, I
> > have the following concept for the structure of the Wagon:
> >
> > 6x12 deck on top, 5 or 6" tall steel frame providing underflooring.
> > (That is to say, two 6x12 frames with cross-beams sandwiching some
> > small steel beams to separate the frames and distribute point loads
> > better)
> >
> > The frame would hinge to the actual wagon on a 6' side.  When lowered,
> > the deck fits (approximately) perfectly on the wagon so no hydraulic
> > pressure is necessary.
> >
> > The steel underflooring would be attached to two hydraulic cylinders
> > at about 4-5' away from the hinge (that's just shy of halfway along
> > the deck length) which would rotate the deck along the hinge and lift
> > deck, scenery and actor (only one) to an angle of around 35, maybe 40
> > degrees.  I've crunched numbers on all this, and I think it can work.
> >
> > My question is, do you?  My preliminary budgetting and price checking
> > have said I can build this hydraulic system for less than $1500.  Does
> > anyone have any better ideas?  Lifting one side of the deck with
> > pulleys & mechanical advantage has been suggested already, but I've
> > dismissed it as demolishing any scenic illusion.  Pneumatics have been
> > dismissed for being loud and not easily controlled.  I'd use a
> > flame-retardant hydraulic oil.
> >
> > If I'm missing anything I should be describing, please let me know.
> > This is a big deal to me, and I want it to look as if the ship is
> > actively tilting during this scene.  Does anyone have any
> > better/cheaper/faster/easier ideas?
> >
> > -MikeMac
>
>
>

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

From: Tom Grabowski <tomgrab [at] utpa.edu>
Cc: JDEMPSEY [at] CSBSJU.EDU
Subject: RE:Portable Seating
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:35:44 -0600
In-Reply-To: <list-25676040 [at] prxy.net>
Message-ID: <20051123093544843.00000003552 [at] TGRABOWSKI>

	You might look at church seating suppliers also.  When we built our new ch=
urch 2 years ago the seating committee found several sources for stacking  =
upholstered chairs that locked together.  I know you asked for folding and =
since I was not directly involved with the purchase (other than being a sea=
t tester), they might have folding ones too.  They one we finally bought we=
re not extremely expensive.  They had a wide range of color and options inc=
luding chair carts.  Another nice feature was that when they were locked to=
gether they became like a pew in that you could sit across the seam.  In my=
 current black box the chairs don't lock together so I am constantly losing=
 aisles.  I do not have vendor information at hand but Google found http://=
www.chairtex.com/home.htm which might be the one. =

> ------------------------------
> =

> Subject: Portable Seating
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:40:18 -0600
> Message-ID: =

> <28D62335F7D5D44C8C47692CF001DF5E04E4B176 [at] EMPMAIL.ad.csbsju.edu>
> From: "Dempsey, John" <JDEMPSEY [at] CSBSJU.EDU>
> =

> Here at the College of St. Benedict we are in the midst of =

> adding on to our Arts Center.  The addition includes a Black =

> Box Theater, Music Rehearsal Hall and Dance Studio.  My =

> question concerns seating in the Black Box.  I've got the =

> platforming under control, but am having a tough time coming =

> up with portable seating options.  I want a comfortable, =

> upholstered, folding type chair that is not going to break =

> the bank.  Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> =

> Jack Dempsey, Production Manager=3D20
> Fine Arts Programming/Theater
> College of St. Benedict / St. John's University
> 37 S. College Ave.=3D20
> St. Joseph, MN  56374=3D20
> 320-363-5905 - office=3D20
> 320-363-6097 - fax
> St. Cloud Steward
> I.A.T.S.E. Local #13
> Stagehands=3D20


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

In-Reply-To: <list-25678928 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-25669717 [at] prxy.net> <list-25669845 [at] prxy.net> <list-25678928 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <54194ece3262fb214d442ad96a3cb1f6 [at] email.arizona.edu>
Cc: marko [at] email.arizona.edu (Mark O'Brien)
From: Mark O'Brien <marko [at] email.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:47:35 -0700

I always used to say that hydraulics were good for 2 things  =20
-forklifts & garbage trucks.

I have changed my tune to some degree.  Hydraulics are very good for=20
brute linear force.  Small rigs like this can use small pumps with=20
dedicated valves.  It does not take allot of Hp or flow to make a small=20=

cylinder move with 5k-10k  lbs. of force.=10=10 I use milk cate sized =
pumps=20
that deliver 1/2 gpm.  [at]  1800 psi.

I have mostly eliminated leakage in these systems by doing the=20
following...

Use of hanson type couplings on all hoses & cylinders that need to be=20
taken apart.

Use of compression type fittings.    Say no to threaded pipe fittings=20
whenever possible.

Throw the teflon tape away.  Use only teflon pipe dope.

FWIW,  a small system like this is allot of power for a little bit of=20
money.  A small pump like this usually only needs a furniture pad=20
thrown over it to keep it quiet.  ( Kind of like like a high class pile=20=

of duveteyne )


Mark-O



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

Santos / McGarry in 2006


On Nov 23, 2005, at 8:00 AM, Mike McElroy wrote:

>>> Hi everyone!
>>>
>>> I hope y'all can help me out with this before I get too far in over=20=

>>> my
>>> head.  My community theatre is doing Titanic in a few months, and=20
>>> I've
>>> volunteered to do the set design.  I want to install a minor=20
>>> hydraulic
>>> system to provide a visible "slanting" effect for the next to last
>>> scene.  The rest of the sinking effect is provided by static tilted
>>> scenery.  The power generation side of the system would be set up
>>> outside the theatre and sound dampened, with hoses running to the
>>> control and actuating side, inside a 6' deep x 12' wide x 4' tall
>>> wagon representing the 1st Class Smoke Room ("The Wagon").  Now, I
>>> have the following concept for the structure of the Wagon:
>>>
>>> 6x12 deck on top, 5 or 6" tall steel frame providing underflooring.
>>> (That is to say, two 6x12 frames with cross-beams sandwiching some
>>> small steel beams to separate the frames and distribute point loads
>>> better)
>>>
>>> The frame would hinge to the actual wagon on a 6' side.  When=20
>>> lowered,
>>> the deck fits (approximately) perfectly on the wagon so no hydraulic
>>> pressure is necessary.
>>>
>>> The steel underflooring would be attached to two hydraulic cylinders
>>> at about 4-5' away from the hinge (that's just shy of halfway along
>>> the deck length) which would rotate the deck along the hinge and =
lift
>>> deck, scenery and actor (only one) to an angle of around 35, maybe =
40
>>> degrees.  I've crunched numbers on all this, and I think it can =
work.
>>>
>>> My question is, do you?  My preliminary budgetting and price =
checking
>>> have said I can build this hydraulic system for less than $1500. =20
>>> Does
>>> anyone have any better ideas?  Lifting one side of the deck with
>>> pulleys & mechanical advantage has been suggested already, but I've
>>> dismissed it as demolishing any scenic illusion.  Pneumatics have=20
>>> been
>>> dismissed for being loud and not easily controlled.  I'd use a
>>> flame-retardant hydraulic oil.
>>>
>>> If I'm missing anything I should be describing, please let me know.
>>> This is a big deal to me, and I want it to look as if the ship is
>>> actively tilting during this scene.  Does anyone have any
>>> better/cheaper/faster/easier ideas?
>>>
>>> -MikeMac


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

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:35:39 -0500
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
From: Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BFAA048A.B686%bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-25678928 [at] prxy.net>

> Someone else pointed out pneumatics, and I don't want the bounciness
> inherent in gas-based power transmission, and while it would achieve
> the required effect, I think it would look kind of funny and diminish
> dramatic effect if the deck just sort of wobbled even an inch or two.

    Although I planned to stay out of this thread, as Pneumatics and such
are out of my league, I had to comment on this one.

    You did say it's for Titanic, right? I wouldn't think that a little
bouncyness or wobbliness of the deck would look all that bad. After all, it
is a ship on the water and it's sinking. Doesn't seem like to stable an
environment to me!

Bruce
-- 
Bruce Purdy
Technical Director
Smith Opera House



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

Message-ID: <90b4c67a0511230844j45b7625ag74d452d9dd191cad [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:44:29 -0800
From: Mike McElroy <mikemaccs [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
In-Reply-To: <list-25680373 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-25678928 [at] prxy.net> <list-25680373 [at] prxy.net>

I believe there are three points which discourage that line of thought:

- If the rest of the show is static on the stage, it would look silly
for that one scene to be dynamic.

- The actor's steps would be producing the wobble, and how often do a
200-lb person's steps shake a 1000-ft. cruise ship?

- The audience wouldn't be "drawn in" by separating them from the
action like that.  If they felt like observers from outside the ship,
they may be emotionally detached from the drama going on, and I like
audiences to be drawn in as much as possible.

Do any set designers out there agree with me on these points?  This is
my first design, and I've never recieved any formal training, although
I've been building sets for various shows & companies (as an amateur
hobbyist) for many years.

On 11/23/05, Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> > Someone else pointed out pneumatics, and I don't want the bounciness
> > inherent in gas-based power transmission, and while it would achieve
> > the required effect, I think it would look kind of funny and diminish
> > dramatic effect if the deck just sort of wobbled even an inch or two.
>
>     Although I planned to stay out of this thread, as Pneumatics and such
> are out of my league, I had to comment on this one.
>
>     You did say it's for Titanic, right? I wouldn't think that a little
> bouncyness or wobbliness of the deck would look all that bad. After all, =
it
> is a ship on the water and it's sinking. Doesn't seem like to stable an
> environment to me!
>
> Bruce
> --
> Bruce Purdy
> Technical Director
> Smith Opera House
>
>
>

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

Message-ID: <43849D69.1CA4C48E [at] cybercom.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:48:41 -0500
From: Dale Farmer <dale [at] cybercom.net>
Organization: The  fuzz in the back of the fridge. 
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
References: <list-25669717 [at] prxy.net> <list-25669845 [at] prxy.net> <list-25678928 [at] prxy.net>



Mike McElroy wrote:

> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> A linear actuator, huh?  The features which attracted me to hydraulics
> was very high pressure loads and potentially high speeds.  The linear
> actuators I'm seeing at the stroke length I need don't provide the
> strength or the speed I can get from hydraulics.
> Someone else pointed out pneumatics, and I don't want the bounciness
> inherent in gas-based power transmission, and while it would achieve
> the required effect, I think it would look kind of funny and diminish
> dramatic effect if the deck just sort of wobbled even an inch or two.
>
> Would a scissors lift be able to function at an angle?  Would it be
> able to lift in this tangential manner?  I don't know exactly what a
> scissors-lift is, but if it's what I'm thinking of, it would need to
> be connected at two different places on the load to be lifted, and
> that's not really feasible.  Hydraulic (and pneumatic and electrical)
> linear actuators only need to be connected at one point on the lifting
> load, which can be a pivot point for the lift.  I hope I'm making
> sense, and not talking out of my butt here.

    The platform would be hinged to the wagon at the downstage
edge, the scissors lift would lift the upstage edge.  Just have to
add in some flexible couplings for the attachment points of the
scissors device to handle the changing angles as it lifts.    What is the
director's desire here?  Slowly increasing tilt throughout a scene,
or relatively rapid movement to specified angles during a scenery
change, then hold steady during the scene?

    --Dale



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

Message-ID: <90b4c67a0511230856g12495baen854d013a0f5dfe9f [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:56:10 -0800
From: Mike McElroy <mikemaccs [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
In-Reply-To: <list-25680533 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-25669717 [at] prxy.net> <list-25669845 [at] prxy.net>
	 <list-25678928 [at] prxy.net> <list-25680533 [at] prxy.net>

The 12-foot sides are upstage and downstage, actually.  One of the
6-foot sides would have the hinge, and the other would be free.  I'm
planning on having some painted doorskin or something like that to
mask the internal mechanics from the audience's eyes.  I thought
tilting like this would be better, since there wouldn't be any chance
of anything (god forbid) unfastening itself, falling off the set and
landing on the musicians in the pit.

On 11/23/05, Dale Farmer <dale [at] cybercom.net> wrote:
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Mike McElroy wrote:
>
> > For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/=
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> >
> > A linear actuator, huh?  The features which attracted me to hydraulics
> > was very high pressure loads and potentially high speeds.  The linear
> > actuators I'm seeing at the stroke length I need don't provide the
> > strength or the speed I can get from hydraulics.
> > Someone else pointed out pneumatics, and I don't want the bounciness
> > inherent in gas-based power transmission, and while it would achieve
> > the required effect, I think it would look kind of funny and diminish
> > dramatic effect if the deck just sort of wobbled even an inch or two.
> >
> > Would a scissors lift be able to function at an angle?  Would it be
> > able to lift in this tangential manner?  I don't know exactly what a
> > scissors-lift is, but if it's what I'm thinking of, it would need to
> > be connected at two different places on the load to be lifted, and
> > that's not really feasible.  Hydraulic (and pneumatic and electrical)
> > linear actuators only need to be connected at one point on the lifting
> > load, which can be a pivot point for the lift.  I hope I'm making
> > sense, and not talking out of my butt here.
>
>     The platform would be hinged to the wagon at the downstage
> edge, the scissors lift would lift the upstage edge.  Just have to
> add in some flexible couplings for the attachment points of the
> scissors device to handle the changing angles as it lifts.    What is the
> director's desire here?  Slowly increasing tilt throughout a scene,
> or relatively rapid movement to specified angles during a scenery
> change, then hold steady during the scene?
>
>     --Dale
>
>
>

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

From: MissWisc [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <195.4c29f84e.30b5fa04 [at] aol.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:59:48 EST
Subject: Re: Andrew's POV on Rigging Cert (was Kristi's thread)

FrankWood95 [at] aol.com writes:
<< All this should have been solved at  the design stage. Stage plans and 
vertical sections are needed then, not at the  time of rigging. >>

It is, Frank, But when you tour a show, you  sometimes run into "interesting" 
things. Two examples: 
 
An arena where the roof directly over the performance area is all  windows so 
every point has to be bridled.
 
No loading bridge and you have a 1,500 pound item to raise so you  marry two 
arbors/battons and "bull" the weight into position using a 1  ton chain motor 
to pull the arbor down low enough to be loaded. 
 
In both situations, the tour rigger walked in not expecting the problem.  
Both were able to solve the problem safely using their knowledge. Would I expect  
everyone to know that? No. But as Unkle has said (and the rest appear to 
agree),  there should be at least one person at each venue and on each tour with 
that  level of knowledge. And everyone else should know well enough to stay out 
of the  way.
 
Ability to adapt the design to the venue is an important part of rigging  too.
 
Kristi
 
 
 

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

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:07:48 -0500
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
From: Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BFAA0C13.B68C%bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-25680522 [at] prxy.net>

 > I believe there are three points which discourage that line of thought:
> 
> - If the rest of the show is static on the stage, it would look silly
> for that one scene to be dynamic.
> 
> - The actor's steps would be producing the wobble, and how often do a
> 200-lb person's steps shake a 1000-ft. cruise ship?
> 
Both valid thoughts, and I see where you're coming from. On the other hand,
could Pneumatics do the lifting, but a ratchet type support keep it solid &
steady at each step along the rise?

> - The audience wouldn't be "drawn in" by separating them from the
> action like that.  If they felt like observers from outside the ship,
> they may be emotionally detached from the drama going on, and I like
> audiences to be drawn in as much as possible.
> 
    That goal makes sense as well, but I'm not sure that they aren't already
outside observers when the stage tips and they don't. Now if you want to
emulate one of those interactive rides and tip the entire audience .....

Bruce
-- 
Bruce Purdy
Technical Director
Smith Opera House



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

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:07:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Rigging Certification
From: Bill Sapsis <bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com>
Message-ID: <BFAA0C1F.5716%bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-25672165 [at] prxy.net>

OK.  I'm back.

First.  I never said I was "over" this.  I said I was out of energy and
time.  Might not be a big difference to you but it is to me.

Second.  As noted previously, certification for other grades of riggers
isn't planned.  The Essential Skill program, which I discussed in this forum
and offered a website address so you could go see it for yourself, is
planning on addressing this issue.

Third.  In response to one of Kristi's posts I did indeed address what
qualifies as "rigging experience".  Obviously, I didn't do it well enough.
How's this.

Pulling on ropes.
Hanging anything. 
Un-hanging anything.
Weighting anything.
Un-weighting anything.
Rigging a traveler.
Un-rigging a traveler.
Designing a hanging plot.
Thinking about designing a hanging plot.
Making cable clips.
Making swage fittings.
Buying shackles from Sapsis Rigging.
Buying any rigging (ie..suspension) hardware from Sapsis Rigging.
Buying any rigging hardware from anywhere.
Hanging hoists
Putting truss together.
Taking truss apart.
Making bridles.
Making bridals.  (hmmm.  Maybe not)
Pulling dimmer racks up to the fly gallery.
Running a show from the rail.
Loading in a show at the rail
Striking a show at the rail.
Doing math problems to figure out the load on a bridle.
Getting out a bathroom scale to double check the math you did to figure out
the load on a bridle.
Explaining to your crew why you should wear a hard hat on stage.
Showing your crew the divot in your stage made by a falling counterweight.
Evaluating which rope to use when you come over to hang me.
Designing fall Arrest systems
Using Fall Arrest systems
Hanging in a Fall Arrest system waiting for rescue.
Hanging speakers.  (animate and inanimate)

The list goes on and on.
Anyone else want to add more?  Maybe you could take a look at the Candidate
handbook and review the Content Outline.  There are 3.5 pages of notes on
what the test will cover.  If you do any of those things, ever, that's
rigging.

Third.1  ESTA did not/does not determine what is rigging experience.  In a
sense, you did.  All those surveys helped us determine what should be
tested.  

Third.2  The people who developed the test and the qualifications are one of
us.  They are not outsiders who do not know anything about our business.
They/we/I understand that records aren't always kept for things that we do.
They/we/I understand if you have to estimate sometimes and if things are a
bit vague.  This is not the IRS fer cryin' out loud.

Fourth.  If we did not pre-qualify people for the test; simply let anyone
who strolled up go on in and take it, then there would be a lot of people
taking the test who weren't qualified to take the test.  And they would
fail.  And that failure would be pointless.  All that would happen is that
they would be frustrated, embarrassed and discouraged.  How would you feel
if you sat down to take a test and realized, after reading the questions,
that you did not have a clue.  I know how I would feel and I wouldn't want
that to happen to anyone.


Folks, if you don't like something, that's fine.  Do something to change it.
Got a suggestion?  Talk to the ETCP people.  Peter says that they would be
happy to speak with you and I'll take his word for it.  (Note to self.
Don't sit between Peter and Katie at the next  meeting.) If you are looking
to me to change something because you do not like it, I'm sorry, but that's
not going to happen.

I wasn't taking any of this personally before and I did not think it was an
attack on myself or Peter or anyone else.  But I'm beginning to wonder.

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

Join the Long Reach Long Riders on their 3rd annual cross country charity
motorcycle ride.   <www.LRLR.org>







On 11/22/05 11:56 PM, "June Abernathy" <jea00321 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:

> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> I'm sorry Bill is so over this already, and I'm sorry
> that this thread has managed to seem like an attack on
> Bill, Peter, and their efforts, which I don't think
> any of us intended. I really haven't seen any posts
> from people who have issues with the test itself
> (other than to say that ESTA should probably consider
> a second, less rigorous test for day to day riggers
> who don't figure loads for full entertainment systems
> but do still need to know a lot of more basic stuff.)
> 
> What there is issue with, that neither Bill or Peter
> or anyone else is addressing, is the very central
> question of what qualifies as "rigging" experience, in
> terms of what you need to accrue to be allowed to take
> the test, is still there. Or how you can possibly
> verify that experience. Depending on how tight or how
> loose the definitions of your particular self,
> employer, union local, or whatever are, there are HUGE
> differences. Not to mention what ESTA considers
> qualified rigging experience.
> 
> You want more people to take the test? You want to
> have more "certified" riggers in the world? I know
> this is radical, but why not just let any random idiot
> who wants to take the test, take the test? If they
> pass, they pass. If it's a good test, as I presume it
> is, then you won't be passing people who don't know
> what the hell they are doing. Why not let the test
> itself be the bar you have to cross?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> June Abernathy
> IATSE #321 (Tampa, FL)
> FOH Electrician
> The Lion King National Tour (Gazelle)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com



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

Message-ID: <90b4c67a0511230911ub205ba4sdeedf5cb125b0aa0 [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:11:44 -0800
From: Mike McElroy <mikemaccs [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
In-Reply-To: <list-25680879 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-25680522 [at] prxy.net> <list-25680879 [at] prxy.net>

On 11/23/05, Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>  > I believe there are three points which discourage that line of thought=
:
> >
> > - If the rest of the show is static on the stage, it would look silly
> > for that one scene to be dynamic.
> >
> > - The actor's steps would be producing the wobble, and how often do a
> > 200-lb person's steps shake a 1000-ft. cruise ship?
> >
> Both valid thoughts, and I see where you're coming from. On the other han=
d,
> could Pneumatics do the lifting, but a ratchet type support keep it solid=
 &
> steady at each step along the rise?
>

I worry about too many moving parts and cost at this point.  Why would
I want two different systems working to provide the effect I can get
with just one?

> > - The audience wouldn't be "drawn in" by separating them from the
> > action like that.  If they felt like observers from outside the ship,
> > they may be emotionally detached from the drama going on, and I like
> > audiences to be drawn in as much as possible.
> >
>     That goal makes sense as well, but I'm not sure that they aren't alre=
ady
> outside observers when the stage tips and they don't. Now if you want to
> emulate one of those interactive rides and tip the entire audience .....
>

Sweet.  I'll run it by the director.  ;-)

-MikeMac

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

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:24:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Rigging Certification
From: Bill Sapsis <bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com>
Message-ID: <BFAA100C.571F%bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-25676517 [at] prxy.net>

On 11/23/05 6:42 AM, "Samuel Jones" <sjones [at] ucla.edu> wrote:

> I'm not a rigger, but nothing,
> in this long discussion, has come close to showing me why anyone should
> not be allowed to take the test, or assuaged legitimate fears that this
> difficult certification is going to be required of anyone who places a
> head block.

I am a rigger.

I hereby give you dispensation to take the test.  Go ahead.  Get your $600
together.  I'll clear the way with the ETCP.  But please do not ask for your
money back when you fail and do not go running to your attorney because you
failed. 

Everyone else in the world please note.  This dispensation is for Samuel
Jones only Samuel Jones.  If you are not Samuel Jones and you attempt to
take the test you will have to prove that you are Samuel Jones.  We will use
the point system to determine if you are or are not Samuel Jones.....)

Please for to be explaining to me about these Legitimate Fears ovcer who
will be required to be certified and who won't?  Have you got a crystal ball
hiding in there somewhere?  C'mon, share with the rest of us.  What are the
Power Ball numbers for next week?

We have discussed ad nauseum (thanks Peter) who is responsible for putting
the test together.  They are US!  The people that you fear are going to
require everyone be certified are the very people who understand that not
everyone can or should be certified.  Clear Channel.  PRG.  IATSE.  IAAM.
Etc.  Please, please go look at the list of people who sit on the Council.
Page 30 & 31 of the Candidate Handbook.  I ask you.  Who is left to make the
outrageous decision that everyone should be certified?  It ain't gonna
happen.

I'm doing my best Tim.  Honest I am.

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

Join the Long Reach Long Riders on their 3rd annual cross country charity
motorcycle ride.   <www.LRLR.org>











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

Message-ID: <4384A74E.B75B9911 [at] cybercom.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:30:54 -0500
From: Dale Farmer <dale [at] cybercom.net>
Organization: The  fuzz in the back of the fridge. 
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
References: <list-25680522 [at] prxy.net> <list-25680879 [at] prxy.net> <list-25680972 [at] prxy.net>



Mike McElroy wrote:

> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> On 11/23/05, Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> > For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> >
> >  > I believe there are three points which discourage that line of thought:
> > >
> > > - If the rest of the show is static on the stage, it would look silly
> > > for that one scene to be dynamic.
> > >
> > > - The actor's steps would be producing the wobble, and how often do a
> > > 200-lb person's steps shake a 1000-ft. cruise ship?
> > >
> > Both valid thoughts, and I see where you're coming from. On the other hand,
> > could Pneumatics do the lifting, but a ratchet type support keep it solid &
> > steady at each step along the rise?
> >
>
> I worry about too many moving parts and cost at this point.  Why would
> I want two different systems working to provide the effect I can get
> with just one?
>
> > > - The audience wouldn't be "drawn in" by separating them from the
> > > action like that.  If they felt like observers from outside the ship,
> > > they may be emotionally detached from the drama going on, and I like
> > > audiences to be drawn in as much as possible.
> > >
> >     That goal makes sense as well, but I'm not sure that they aren't already
> > outside observers when the stage tips and they don't. Now if you want to
> > emulate one of those interactive rides and tip the entire audience .....
> >
>
> Sweet.  I'll run it by the director.  ;-)
>
> -MikeMac

    Something that may work also is rather than tipping the whole
thing, is to tilt setpieces so that there is the illusion of tilt to the
audience.   this only works for small angles of perceived tilt.

    --Dale



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

Message-ID: <90b4c67a0511230930l259a916bi5a327d4cc6690651 [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:30:03 -0800
From: Mike McElroy <mikemaccs [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
In-Reply-To: <list-25681200 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-25680522 [at] prxy.net> <list-25680879 [at] prxy.net>
	 <list-25680972 [at] prxy.net> <list-25681200 [at] prxy.net>

I don't think that could be done easily, since the set is shown once
in a non-tilted setting and once again at the end, and I want it to
_visibly_ tilt.

On 11/23/05, Dale Farmer <dale [at] cybercom.net> wrote:
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Mike McElroy wrote:
>
> > For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/=
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> >
> > On 11/23/05, Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> > > For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.ne=
t/>
> > > ---------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >  > I believe there are three points which discourage that line of tho=
ught:
> > > >
> > > > - If the rest of the show is static on the stage, it would look sil=
ly
> > > > for that one scene to be dynamic.
> > > >
> > > > - The actor's steps would be producing the wobble, and how often do=
 a
> > > > 200-lb person's steps shake a 1000-ft. cruise ship?
> > > >
> > > Both valid thoughts, and I see where you're coming from. On the other=
 hand,
> > > could Pneumatics do the lifting, but a ratchet type support keep it s=
olid &
> > > steady at each step along the rise?
> > >
> >
> > I worry about too many moving parts and cost at this point.  Why would
> > I want two different systems working to provide the effect I can get
> > with just one?
> >
> > > > - The audience wouldn't be "drawn in" by separating them from the
> > > > action like that.  If they felt like observers from outside the shi=
p,
> > > > they may be emotionally detached from the drama going on, and I lik=
e
> > > > audiences to be drawn in as much as possible.
> > > >
> > >     That goal makes sense as well, but I'm not sure that they aren't =
already
> > > outside observers when the stage tips and they don't. Now if you want=
 to
> > > emulate one of those interactive rides and tip the entire audience ..=
...
> > >
> >
> > Sweet.  I'll run it by the director.  ;-)
> >
> > -MikeMac
>
>     Something that may work also is rather than tipping the whole
> thing, is to tilt setpieces so that there is the illusion of tilt to the
> audience.   this only works for small angles of perceived tilt.
>
>     --Dale
>
>
>

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

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:35:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Rigging Certification
From: Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BFAA1297.B691%bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-25680887 [at] prxy.net>

    Although I am not a Rigger, and have no intention of taking the test, I
have been following this thread with interest. Thanks Unka Bill for
clarifying matters with your latest post.

    I did want to respond to one point though:

> Fourth.  If we did not pre-qualify people for the test; simply let anyone
> who strolled up go on in and take it, then there would be a lot of people
> taking the test who weren't qualified to take the test.  And they would
> fail.  And that failure would be pointless.  All that would happen is that
> they would be frustrated, embarrassed and discouraged.  How would you feel
> if you sat down to take a test and realized, after reading the questions,
> that you did not have a clue.  I know how I would feel and I wouldn't want
> that to happen to anyone.

    On the other hand, I sometimes like to take a test to see what I don't
know. If I find out what I got wrong - or at least what I had lots of
trouble answering - then I know something that I should study and learn
better. 

    Sometimes I don't know what I know, I just know it. Likewise I don't
know what's really missing from my knowledge base unless I run into a
situation where I need it. Taking a test helps sort all that out.

    No, I'm not even *thinking* about taking the rigging test - even if it
wouldn't bankrupt me. ;-)  Just presenting an alternative POV to your
comment. Sometimes failure is not a bad thing, but rather a learning
opportunity.

Bruce
-- 
Bruce Purdy
Technical Director
Smith Opera House



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

Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.0.20051123092634.03c8bf98 [at] 192.168.0.13>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:39:34 -0800
From: Jerry Durand <jdurand [at] interstellar.com>
Subject: Rigging certification

First, I am not a rigger, I wouldn't trust me to tie a 
shoelace.  This is not meant to say bad things about anyone.

Now, from an outside view the problem I see is having one level 
called "Certified Rigger" that is for the best of the best with no 
other certifications.

To frame this for us outsiders (at least me), it would be like having 
the only driver's license be a Hazmat CDL for the biggest 
trucks.  The way you get it is show that you've been driving cars and 
trucks for several years, then you take the test.  This just doesn't 
sound like a good idea.

It seems to me (again, NOT involved in rigging) that there should be 
an apprenticeship type level (learner's permit), a "normal mortal" 
level (like a regular driver's license), a senior level (like a 
Commercial Drivers License), and a master level (like large 
trucks).  There could also be side certificates for special 
circumstances (like Hazmat).

The lower two certifications could be done by the union locals, but 
should allow non-union members to take the test.  Otherwise the 
states WILL step in.  I can see the insurance companies and major 
tours requiring everyone to have some certification soon, it's the 
way our legal system works.

-- 
Jerry Durand
Durand Interstellar, Inc.
219 Oak Wood Way
Los Gatos, California 95032-2523 USA
tel:  +1 408 356-3886, USA toll free:  1 866 356-3886
web:  www.interstellar.com



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

Message-ID: <b7aa28010511230945n213f46ceqb9deed3941fc44bb [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:45:09 -0500
From: Brian Munroe <bpmunroe [at] gmail.com>
Subject: "Not for Lifting" ratings on hardware

A break from the certification debate for a moment:

What is the difference between a a piece of hardware that has a rating
from the manufacter with a "Not for Lifting" disclaimer and another
piece of hardware with the same rating, but for lifting?

The weight is the same if the force is working horizontally or
verticly.  Is this just a C.Y.A. for the manufacturer in case
something does go wrong?

I am thinking specifically about rapid/quick links.  I recently saw
rapid links used as a connection between an arbor and system cables,
and I have never seen a rating for rapid links that allow for lifting.

Thanks,

Brian Munroe
bpmunroe [at] gmail.com

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

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:54:58 -0500
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
From: Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BFAA1721.B698%bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-25681200 [at] prxy.net>

>> Both valid thoughts, and I see where you're coming from. On the other hand,
>> could Pneumatics do the lifting, but a ratchet type support keep it solid &
>> steady at each step along the rise?
> 
> I worry about too many moving parts and cost at this point.  Why would
> I want two different systems working to provide the effect I can get
> with just one?

    A ratchet device could be quite simple. In fact if the deck simply rises
directly to the "Up" position with no intermediate steps it would be even
simpler. 
    Think a leg or two that are hinged under the deck. when the pneumatics
raise it sufficiently, the leg(s) would have dropped into position. Let off
slightly with the pneumatic pressure and the platform is standing on solid
leg(s).  
    The pneumatic pressure would still be helping to hold it up, but the
leg(s) would keep it steady and solid.

    Of course if you're comfortable with the Hydraulic approach, I'm not
trying to dissuade you. Others far more knowledgeable than I have tried to
discourage  you from that approach, so I'm just addressing the stability
concern with pneumatics.

Bruce
-- 
Bruce Purdy
Technical Director
Smith Opera House



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

Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.0.20051123095651.03ca6f50 [at] 192.168.0.13>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:57:42 -0800
From: Jerry Durand <jdurand [at] interstellar.com>
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
In-Reply-To: <list-25681568 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-25681200 [at] prxy.net>
 <list-25681568 [at] prxy.net>

At 09:54 AM 11/23/2005, you wrote:
>     Think a leg or two that are hinged under the deck. when the pneumatics
>raise it sufficiently, the leg(s) would have dropped into position. Let off
>slightly with the pneumatic pressure and the platform is standing on solid
>leg(s).
>     The pneumatic pressure would still be helping to hold it up, but the
>leg(s) would keep it steady and solid.


You could also just run it up against a hard stop and put in more air 
pressure than you need.  It wouldn't budge a bit.



-- 
Jerry Durand
Durand Interstellar, Inc.
219 Oak Wood Way
Los Gatos, California 95032-2523 USA
tel:  +1 408 356-3886, USA toll free:  1 866 356-3886
web:  www.interstellar.com



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

From: MissWisc [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <2a4.3cc99.30b608e8 [at] aol.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:03:20 EST
Subject: Re: Rigging Certification

peter [at] scheuconsulting.com writes:
<< If you're concerned about  what really qualifies as "experience" you need 
to talk to ETCP. Their criteria  is pretty broad, but relevant. Ask them. Go 
ahead. I dare you. I double-dare  you. They don't bite, you know! >>
 
I sent Katie an email as you suggested... still waiting for a response. But  
it seems Unkle Bill gave a good list. THANKS!
 
Kristi
 

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

Reply-To: <peter [at] scheuconsulting.com>
From: "Peter Scheu" <peter [at] scheuconsulting.com>
Subject: RE: "Not for Lifting" ratings on hardware
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:03:43 -0500
Organization: Scheu Consulting Services, Inc.
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAFIzFiG12TU6sr87xtBG2l8KAAAAQAAAAOqgOJ7kSq0STLdIADSbIPQEAAAAA [at] scheuconsulting.com>
In-reply-to: <list-25681456 [at] prxy.net>

Brian Munroe wrote:

>What is the difference between a a piece of hardware that has=20
>a rating from the manufacter with a "Not for Lifting"=20
>disclaimer and another piece of hardware with the same rating,=20
>but for lifting?

That's a question that needs to be asked directly of the hardware's
manufacturer. Different hardware manufacturers define "Not or lifting" =
or
"not for overhead lifting"...well... differently.

For example... 1/4" proof coil Grade 30 chain, normally used for trim =
chains
to attach lift lines to a pipe batten often comes with the disclaimer =
"Not
for Lifting" (i.e. McMaster Carr). So how come everyone uses and spec's =
it
to be used to terminate lift lines?

A call to a chain manufacturer years ago got me the answer - "Not for
lifting" meant not to be used through a chain hoist or over a sheave. =
The
steel used won't take the wear. Using said chain on a batten as we do, =
is
actually a static condition. No surfaces rubbing against each other.

So call the manufacturer directly and ask them what they mean by "not =
for
lifting". The hardware you are considering my be just fine for your
particular use.

Peter Scheu

Scheu Consulting Services, Inc.
www.scheuconsulting.com
Tel: 315.422.9984
fax: 413.513.4966


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

Message-ID: <4384B0CE.3010008 [at] dreampossible.ca>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:11:26 -0500
From: Jim Hyslop <theatre [at] dreampossible.ca>
Organization: Dreampossible Inc.
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
References: <list-25681200 [at] prxy.net> <list-25681568 [at] prxy.net> <list-25681607 [at] prxy.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-25681607 [at] prxy.net>

Jerry Durand wrote:
> You could also just run it up against a hard stop and put in more air
> pressure than you need.  It wouldn't budge a bit.

I kind of like the hinged legs idea, as a backup in case the pneumatics
or hydraulics spring a leak.

-- 
Jim Hyslop


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

Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.0.20051123101608.03c9e7d0 [at] 192.168.0.13>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:17:20 -0800
From: Jerry Durand <jdurand [at] interstellar.com>
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
In-Reply-To: <list-25681835 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-25681200 [at] prxy.net>
 <list-25681568 [at] prxy.net>
 <list-25681607 [at] prxy.net>
 <list-25681835 [at] prxy.net>

At 10:11 AM 11/23/2005, you wrote:
>I kind of like the hinged legs idea, as a backup in case the pneumatics
>or hydraulics spring a leak.

True, but you should still do like elevators, put a metal valve right 
at the cylinder that restricts the lowering speed.  You should be 
able to cut the hose and have it lower at a safe rate.



-- 
Jerry Durand
Durand Interstellar, Inc.
219 Oak Wood Way
Los Gatos, California 95032-2523 USA
tel:  +1 408 356-3886, USA toll free:  1 866 356-3886
web:  www.interstellar.com



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

Message-ID: <b7aa28010511231020u57cfa74eo59529b1286d4154a [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:20:34 -0500
From: Brian Munroe <bpmunroe [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rigging Certification
In-Reply-To: <list-25681152 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-25676517 [at] prxy.net> <list-25681152 [at] prxy.net>

Samual Jones wrote:

> > I'm not a rigger, but nothing,
> > in this long discussion, has come close to showing me why anyone should
> > not be allowed to take the test, or assuaged legitimate fears that this
> > difficult certification is going to be required of anyone who places a
> > head block.

And Bill Sapsis replied:

> Please for to be explaining to me about these Legitimate Fears ovcer who
> will be required to be certified and who won't?  Have you got a crystal b=
all
> hiding in there somewhere?  C'mon, share with the rest of us.  What are t=
he
> Power Ball numbers for next week?
>
> We have discussed ad nauseum (thanks Peter) who is responsible for puttin=
g
> the test together.  They are US!  The people that you fear are going to
> require everyone be certified are the very people who understand that not
> everyone can or should be certified.  Clear Channel.  PRG.  IATSE.  IAAM.
> Etc.  Please, please go look at the list of people who sit on the Council=
.
> Page 30 & 31 of the Candidate Handbook.  I ask you.  Who is left to make =
the
> outrageous decision that everyone should be certified?  It ain't gonna
> happen.

Bill,

I certainly believe that the certification process is much needed and
an excellent idea.  Prequalifying is a smart idea. I will hopefully be
taking the theatrical test sometime this spring.

But I think that there are legitimate fears that employers are going
to require that you have a certification before you can rig.

Let me quote from Mick Alderson's earlier post about this:

>I would point out that this is already happening.
>
>I am in the same IA Local as Kristi, and we have a venue for which Clear
>Channel is the booking agency. We negotiated a new contract this Fall,
>and Clear Channel was already trying to insert language requiring we
>supply ALL and ONLY Cerified riggers for their shows. We managed to get
>the language changed THIS time partially because the test hadn't even
>been given yet! (Not that any of us could likely meet all the
>requirements, anyway.) But the handwriting is on the wall.

So there is already an example of an employer, Clear Channel, a member
of the cerification council, asking for only certified riggers in a
venue.  And there are far more employers then just the council
members.

Just food for thought.....

Brian Munroe
bpmunroe [at] gmail.com

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

From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <1e8.46ea1047.30b60dba [at] aol.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:23:54 EST
Subject: Re: DMX termination

In a message dated 23/11/05 00:53:46 GMT Standard Time, 
jdurand [at] interstellar.com writes:

> Depends, the new ANSI DMX spec does suggest you be able to withstand 
>  mis-plugging without damage.  This entails high-wattage resistors and 
>  isolated inputs.

Mis-plugging into what? The only other things I have seen with XLR-5 
connectors are some stereo microphones. These usually have current-limited power 
supplies of about 5mA at 48V on a phantom circuit.

There are more options available on XLR-3 connectors, and you have, I 
suppose, to allow for the very non-standard uses to which they are sometimes put. I 
have heard of a touring company which used them for ALL its cables. I do mean 
all:  microphones, loudspeakers, and mains supplies were on XLR-3. 

Frank Wood

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

Message-ID: <4384B51E.7070706 [at] dreampossible.ca>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:29:50 -0500
From: Jim Hyslop <theatre [at] dreampossible.ca>
Organization: Dreampossible Inc.
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
References: <list-25681200 [at] prxy.net> <list-25681568 [at] prxy.net> <list-25681607 [at] prxy.net> <list-25681835 [at] prxy.net> <list-25681931 [at] prxy.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-25681931 [at] prxy.net>

Jerry Durand wrote:
> At 10:11 AM 11/23/2005, you wrote:
> 
>> I kind of like the hinged legs idea, as a backup in case the pneumatics
>> or hydraulics spring a leak.
> 
> 
> True, but you should still do like elevators, put a metal valve right at
> the cylinder that restricts the lowering speed.  You should be able to
> cut the hose and have it lower at a safe rate.

Oh, agreed - I was assuming some kind of safety mechanism would be in place.

I was just thinking more of audience reaction: "Look, Ethel, the ship's
stopped sinking. I guess they plugged the leak."

;=)

-- 
Jim Hyslop


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

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:33:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Rigging Certification
From: Bill Sapsis <bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com>
Message-ID: <BFAA2030.573D%bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-25681975 [at] prxy.net>

Swell.  OK.  I hear you.  I will be taking this directly to the Clear
Channel VP for Theatre Operations.  So Mick, you're sure about this, right?

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

Join the Long Reach Long Riders on their 3rd annual cross country charity
motorcycle ride.   <www.LRLR.org>


On 11/23/05 1:20 PM, "Brian Munroe" <bpmunroe [at] gmail.com> wrote:

>> I would point out that this is already happening.
>> 
>> I am in the same IA Local as Kristi, and we have a venue for which Clear
>> Channel is the booking agency. We negotiated a new contract this Fall,
>> and Clear Channel was already trying to insert language requiring we
>> supply ALL and ONLY Cerified riggers for their shows. We managed to get
>> the language changed THIS time partially because the test hadn't even
>> been given yet! (Not that any of us could likely meet all the
>> requirements, anyway.) But the handwriting is on the wall.
> 
> So there is already an example of an employer, Clear Channel, a member
> of the cerification council, asking for only certified riggers in a
> venue.  And there are far more employers then just the council
> members.
> 
> Just food for thought.....



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

From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <be.349fd0b6.30b617ef [at] aol.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:07:27 EST
Subject: Re: The problem at hand

In a message dated 23/11/05 16:36:27 GMT Standard Time, 
bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com writes:

>     You did say it's for Titanic, right? I wouldn't think that a little
>  bouncyness or wobbliness of the deck would look all that bad. After all, it
>  is a ship on the water and it's sinking. Doesn't seem like to stable an
>  environment to me!

But, Bruce, it's a big ship. Enormous inertia. Everything happens slowly, 
even sinking.

Frank Wood

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

Message-ID: <90b4c67a0511231115o5004020agc4db0e81ba7235ed [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:15:49 -0800
From: Mike McElroy <mikemaccs [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
In-Reply-To: <list-25682122 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-25681200 [at] prxy.net> <list-25681568 [at] prxy.net>
	 <list-25681607 [at] prxy.net> <list-25681835 [at] prxy.net>
	 <list-25681931 [at] prxy.net> <list-25682122 [at] prxy.net>

A little off-topic, but I thought it would be apt.  My father got a
Father's Day card that had a cartoon of the Titanic sinking, with the
bow already halfway submerged.  The caption read: "If Dad had been on
the Titanic...", and there was a speech bubble coming from below the
waterline saying "I think it's working!  Bring more Duct Tape!"

-MikeMac

On 11/23/05, Jim Hyslop <theatre [at] dreampossible.ca> wrote:
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Jerry Durand wrote:
> > At 10:11 AM 11/23/2005, you wrote:
> >
> >> I kind of like the hinged legs idea, as a backup in case the pneumatic=
s
> >> or hydraulics spring a leak.
> >
> >
> > True, but you should still do like elevators, put a metal valve right a=
t
> > the cylinder that restricts the lowering speed.  You should be able to
> > cut the hose and have it lower at a safe rate.
>
> Oh, agreed - I was assuming some kind of safety mechanism would be in pla=
ce.
>
> I was just thinking more of audience reaction: "Look, Ethel, the ship's
> stopped sinking. I guess they plugged the leak."
>
> ;=3D)
>
> --
> Jim Hyslop
>
>

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

From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <84.523504f1.30b61ba1 [at] aol.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:23:13 EST
Subject: Re: Andrew's POV on Rigging Cert (was Kristi's thread)

In a message dated 23/11/05 17:00:53 GMT Standard Time, MissWisc [at] aol.com 
writes:

> An arena where the roof directly over the performance area is all  windows 
so 
> 
>  every point has to be bridled.
>   
>  No loading bridge and you have a 1,500 pound item to raise so you  marry 
two 
> 
>  arbors/battons and "bull" the weight into position using a 1  ton chain 
> motor 
>  to pull the arbor down low enough to be loaded. 
>   
>  In both situations, the tour rigger walked in not expecting the problem.  
>  Both were able to solve the problem safely using their knowledge. Would I 
> expect  
>  everyone to know that? No. But as Unkle has said (and the rest appear to 
>  agree),  there should be at least one person at each venue and on each 
tour 
> with 
>  that  level of knowledge. And everyone else should know well enough to 
stay 
> out 
>  of the  way.

The point I was trying to make is that these problems should have been known 
at the design stage, and catered for. OK, it may need two or more different 
designs to cope with different spaces: that's touring. But that's what a rigging 
designer is for. You were very lucky to have a tour rigger who could. But, I 
say again, with good planning this situation should not arise. 

And what sort of dink designs a performing space with  windows all over the 
top of it?

Frank Wood

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

From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <220.39bc12b.30b61ca3 [at] aol.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:27:31 EST
Subject: Re: The problem at hand

In a message dated 23/11/05 17:12:22 GMT Standard Time, mikemaccs [at] gmail.com 
writes:

> > > - If the rest of the show is static on the stage, it would look silly
>  > > for that one scene to be dynamic.

I don't see this. An ocean liner is substantially static, until something 
goes wrong.

Frank Wood

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

Message-ID: <90b4c67a0511231131y45f76555n87afd3ad89367937 [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:31:07 -0800
From: Mike McElroy <mikemaccs [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
In-Reply-To: <list-25683002 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-25683002 [at] prxy.net>

"dynamic" as in "wibbly".  I do want the scene to be "dynamic", as in "tilt=
y".

-MikeMac

On 11/23/05, FrankWood95 [at] aol.com <FrankWood95 [at] aol.com> wrote:
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> In a message dated 23/11/05 17:12:22 GMT Standard Time, mikemaccs [at] gmail.c=
om
> writes:
>
> > > > - If the rest of the show is static on the stage, it would look sil=
ly
> >  > > for that one scene to be dynamic.
>
> I don't see this. An ocean liner is substantially static, until something
> goes wrong.
>
> Frank Wood
>

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

Message-ID: <20051123194141.44940.qmail [at] web81505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:41:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Heinicke <mheinicke [at] sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
In-Reply-To: <list-25679672 [at] prxy.net>

--- Mark O'Brien <marko [at] email.arizona.edu> wrote:
> Use of hanson type couplings on all hoses &
> cylinders that need to be 
> taken apart.


What are "hanson type couplings"? A quick search of
the McMaster-Carr website didn't turn anything up.

Mike H

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

In-Reply-To: <list-25681152 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-25681152 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <a168b4ce08ee8bfea4101b36e7264e71 [at] ucla.edu>
From: Samuel Jones <sjones [at] ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Rigging Certification
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:48:18 -0800

On Nov 23, 2005, at 9:07 AM, Bill Sapsis wrote:

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

> Folks, if you don't like something, that's fine.  Do something to 
> change it.
> Got a suggestion?  Talk to the ETCP people.  Peter says that they 
> would be
> happy to speak with you and I'll take his word for it.  (Note to self.
> Don't sit between Peter and Katie at the next  meeting.) If you are 
> looking
> to me to change something because you do not like it, I'm sorry, but 
> that's
> not going to happen.
More than fair enough.


>
> I wasn't taking any of this personally before and I did not think it 
> was an
> attack on myself or Peter or anyone else.  But I'm beginning to wonder
I don't know of anyone else on the list who is held with closer to 
universal esteem and respect by its members.  You can stop wondering.


> .On Nov 23, 2005, at 9:24 AM, Bill Sapsis wrote:

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


>
> I am a rigger.
>
> I hereby give you dispensation to take the test.  Go ahead.  Get your 
> $600
> together.  I'll clear the way with the ETCP.  But please do not ask 
> for your
> money back when you fail and do not go running to your attorney 
> because you
> failed.
>
> Everyone else in the world please note.  This dispensation is for 
> Samuel
> Jones only Samuel Jones.  If you are not Samuel Jones and you attempt 
> to
> take the test you will have to prove that you are Samuel Jones.  We 
> will use
> the point system to determine if you are or are not Samuel Jones.....)
I LOVE THIS.  There is the small problem that before sending my last 
post I read the subjects and sample questions on the website, and it 
was immediately clear that I was hopelessly unqualified to take the 
test.  Applause for the website.  I WILL save this email, and when I 
retire, I will take the classes I need to get the info I'm still 
missing and take the test.  I think I will have enough points to 
determine that I am Sam Jones, and of course there will be no other Sam 
Jones taking the test during the years I'm waiting.


> Please for to be explaining to me about these Legitimate Fears ovcer 
> who
> will be required to be certified and who won't?  Have you got a 
> crystal ball
> hiding in there somewhere?  C'mon, share with the rest of us.  What 
> are the
> Power Ball numbers for next week?
No crystal ball, just my own experience with management and the past 
post describing the call that required all the riggers be certified.  
The union dealt with it, but that was before there was any 
certification possible.  I hope the fears are not realized, but they 
are not unfounded.  You have my admiration and respect but you are not 
getting my winning Power Ball numbers.  Oh what the heck, 10, 19, 91, 
8, 21, 47.  How many Power Ball numbers are there anyway?

Sam

Samuel L. Jones
Dance Program, Theater Production Supervisor
Dept. of World Arts and Cultures, UCLA
sjones [at] arts.ucla.edu
(310) 825-5823(w)
(310) 993-4172(c)
(310) 207-0392(h)
===================================================


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

In-Reply-To: <list-25683192 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-25683192 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <e020428ff31b9a315f1d387d8e343015 [at] email.arizona.edu>
Cc: marko [at] email.arizona.edu (Mark O'Brien)
From: Mark O'Brien <marko [at] email.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:04:04 -0700

Sorry, I spelled it wrong.  Hansen is it.

http://coupling.tuthill.com/

Mark-O


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

Santos / McGarry in 2006


On Nov 23, 2005, at 12:41 PM, Michael Heinicke wrote:

> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see 
> <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> --- Mark O'Brien <marko [at] email.arizona.edu> wrote:
>> Use of hanson type couplings on all hoses &
>> cylinders that need to be
>> taken apart.
>
>
> What are "hanson type couplings"? A quick search of
> the McMaster-Carr website didn't turn anything up.
>
> Mike H


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

From: Dan Mills <dmills [at] spamblock.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: DMX termination
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 20:35:36 +0000
References: <list-25669371 [at] prxy.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-25669371 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <200511232035.36374.dmills [at] spamblock.demon.co.uk>

On Wednesday 23 November 2005 00:48, FrankWood95 [at] aol.com wrote:
>
> |But, as has already been said, the possible power dissipation in a DMX
> termination is not a lot. The protocol sends 5V signals, and the terminator
> is specified at 120 ohm. You do the sums. 0.25W resistors are entirely
> adequate, even before you take diversity into account.


**What** diversity? 

The thing is a 5V differential signal which (ignoring the slew rate issues) 
will always present 5V across the line of one polarity or the other!  

0.25W is acceptable (Just), but in the interests of running the thing at well 
below its rating I tend to use cheap 0.6W metal film resistors. 

Regards, Dan.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:38:10 -0500
From: jdgrams [at] saintmarys.edu
Subject: questions
Message-id: <a06230901bfaa80a8f26a [at] [147.53.65.165]>

     Although I planned to stay out of this thread, I had to comment 
on this one.


"dynamic" as in "wibbly".  (Past tense of wobbly?) do want the scene 
to be "dynamic", as in "tilty".
-MikeMac


Enormous inertia. Everything happens slowly,
Frank W


  "hanson type couplings"?
Mike H


  "I think it's working!  Bring more Duct Tape!"
-MikeMac


Hydraulics can be pretty sexy tho'--you know, like a Mazolla Oil party.
Loren S

Are you guys talking about stage craft or your weekend plans????

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

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:40:37 -0500
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
From: Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BFAA3DF5.B6AE%bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-25682682 [at] prxy.net>

>> You did say it's for Titanic, right? I wouldn't think that a little
>> bouncyness or wobbliness of the deck would look all that bad. After all, it
>> is a ship on the water and it's sinking. Doesn't seem like to stable an
>> environment to me!
> 
> But, Bruce, it's a big ship. Enormous inertia. Everything happens slowly,
> even sinking.

    This is true - I guess I wasn't thinking.

Bruce
-- 
Bruce Purdy
Technical Director
Smith Opera House



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

Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20051123133814.00ce6e40 [at] pop.west.cox.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:38:14
From: CB <psyd [at] cox.net>
Subject: Re: Got your 6 - Whole Nine Yards

>the "Whole Nine Yards"  is fighter pilot jargon as well, , , referring to
the 
>27' of machine gun belt / ammo in WWII Fighters, 

...and then there's the story of when kilts became the formal wear that
they are now, instead of the cheap alternative to having someone make the
cloth into pants (possibly the origin of the Scots being, ehm, 'thrifty').
The phrase, "The whole nine yards" is attributed to using the entirety of a
nine yard piece of worsted wool (which is referred to as a great kilt)
instead of the catholic schoolgirl, ehm, wee kilt.
				Chris "Chris" Babbie
				Location Sound
				MON AZ

Delete key training and post trimming done by appointment.  Rates
negotiable, will trade for typing lessons/ADD treatment...

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

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:45:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Andrew's POV on Rigging Cert (was Kristi's thread)
From: Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BFAA3F21.B6AF%bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-25682919 [at] prxy.net>

> And what sort of dink designs a performing space with  windows all over the
> top of it?

    The Geneva NY High School just built a brand new auditorium that opened
this year. They actually have skylights over the auditorium!

    At the moment they are covered with black plastic, but they are talking
about building plywood boxes to put on the roof over the windows.

    Yet another example of regular (Not theatre) architects designing a
theatre with no input from theatre people!

Bruce
-- 
Bruce Purdy
Technical Director
Smith Opera House

 


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

Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20051123134426.00ce6e40 [at] pop.west.cox.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:44:26
From: CB <psyd [at] cox.net>
Subject: Certification expanded

>Now would be the time to bat these questions around and hit a few of 
>the answers towards the Electrical Skills Working Group and the newly 
>appointed SMEs. Before it's after the test and we're asking the same 
>questions.

So, how will this affect us skweeks, who have suddenly discovered (much to
our surprise and chagrin) that we are electricians? It has already taken
away our rental car, and our representation at Dept. Heads meetings, what
else is in store?
				Chris "Chris" Babbie
				Location Sound
				MON AZ

Delete key training and post trimming done by appointment.  Rates
negotiable, will trade for typing lessons/ADD treatment...

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

Message-ID: <90b4c67a0511231257w66080fb8k6ef7f3d45454f96a [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:57:09 -0800
From: Mike McElroy <mikemaccs [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
In-Reply-To: <list-25681568 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-25681200 [at] prxy.net> <list-25681568 [at] prxy.net>

I like this idea of a pair of legs underneath as a failsafe.  The only
potential problem is easy and safe lowering once the show is over.=20
I'll have to ponder it, but I'm still unconvinced of the virtues of
pneumatics over hydraulics.

-MikeMac

On 11/23/05, Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> >> Both valid thoughts, and I see where you're coming from. On the other =
hand,
> >> could Pneumatics do the lifting, but a ratchet type support keep it so=
lid &
> >> steady at each step along the rise?
> >
> > I worry about too many moving parts and cost at this point.  Why would
> > I want two different systems working to provide the effect I can get
> > with just one?
>
>     A ratchet device could be quite simple. In fact if the deck simply ri=
ses
> directly to the "Up" position with no intermediate steps it would be even
> simpler.
>     Think a leg or two that are hinged under the deck. when the pneumatic=
s
> raise it sufficiently, the leg(s) would have dropped into position. Let o=
ff
> slightly with the pneumatic pressure and the platform is standing on soli=
d
> leg(s).
>     The pneumatic pressure would still be helping to hold it up, but the
> leg(s) would keep it steady and solid.
>
>     Of course if you're comfortable with the Hydraulic approach, I'm not
> trying to dissuade you. Others far more knowledgeable than I have tried t=
o
> discourage  you from that approach, so I'm just addressing the stability
> concern with pneumatics.
>
> Bruce
> --
> Bruce Purdy
> Technical Director
> Smith Opera House
>
>
>

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

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:58:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Got your 6 - Whole Nine Yards
From: Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BFAA4239.B6B5%bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-25684271 [at] prxy.net>

> The phrase, "The whole nine yards" is attributed to using the entirety of a
> nine yard piece of worsted wool (which is referred to as a great kilt)
> instead of the catholic schoolgirl, ehm, wee kilt

    And this is the story that I always heard as well.

Bruce
-- 
Bruce Purdy
Technical Director
Smith Opera House



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

Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.0.20051123130031.029ff308 [at] 192.168.0.13>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:02:04 -0800
From: Jerry Durand <jdurand [at] interstellar.com>
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
In-Reply-To: <list-25684433 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-25681200 [at] prxy.net>
 <list-25681568 [at] prxy.net>
 <list-25684433 [at] prxy.net>

At 12:57 PM 11/23/2005, you wrote:
>I like this idea of a pair of legs underneath as a failsafe.  The only
>potential problem is easy and safe lowering once the show is over.
>I'll have to ponder it, but I'm still unconvinced of the virtues of
>pneumatics over hydraulics.

Also remember that depending on how much you actually have to lift 
and how big a cylinder you have or can make, you can use city water 
pressure.  Many old elevators used city water pressure to go up, then 
dumped the water down the drain to go down.



-- 
Jerry Durand
Durand Interstellar, Inc.
219 Oak Wood Way
Los Gatos, California 95032-2523 USA
tel:  +1 408 356-3886, USA toll free:  1 866 356-3886
web:  www.interstellar.com



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

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:08:33 -0500
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
From: Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BFAA4481.B6B9%bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-25684433 [at] prxy.net>

> I like this idea of a pair of legs underneath as a failsafe.  The only
> potential problem is easy and safe lowering once the show is over.
> I'll have to ponder it, but I'm still unconvinced of the virtues of
> pneumatics over hydraulics.

    I can't comment on Pneumatics vs. Hydraulics, as that's not my area of
knowledge, but post-show lowering isn't a problem.

    Add a touch more pneumatic lift to get any weight off the legs, and push
them back a touch as you lower it. the bottom of the legs will slide across
the floor as the platform goes down.

    Now I'm not suggesting crawling under the platform as it lowers, but a
"push stick" or a "Pull string" would make it easy. Probably a two-man job
depending on where the control is, (A Pneumatic guy and a Leg man) but
there's bound to be *someone* around to help! ;-)

Bruce
-- 
Bruce Purdy
Technical Director
Smith Opera House



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

Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20051123140429.00ce6e40 [at] pop.west.cox.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:04:29
From: CB <psyd [at] cox.net>
Subject: Re: DMX termination

>> A pair of the     quarter watt in parrallel, or go to the electronics store
>>  and get the half W 120 Ohm.
>
>Wrong. Two 120 ohm resistors in parallel is 60 ohm.

Of course, Frank.  Then you should use two in parallel and two in series.
				Chris "Chris" Babbie
				Location Sound
				MON AZ

Delete key training and post trimming done by appointment.  Rates
negotiable, will trade for typing lessons/ADD treatment...

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

Subject: job openings Lighing Design
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:12:30 -0500
Message-ID: <F82E136208BD7B4DA7B3F353F1CF3F470267534E [at] ucmail6.ad.uc.edu>
From: "Waxler, Steve \(waxlers\)" <WAXLERS [at] UCMAIL.UC.EDU>

I have two job opening announcements.  These are new positions adding to
our present faculty of eight.  One in lighting Design and the other in
Costume Design and Technology.


POSITION: Lighting Design Faculty

The University of Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music seeks a
full-time, tenure-track lighting designer to join its Theatre Design and
Production Department. This is a new position and will add a second
faculty designer to the lighting area.

APPOINTMENT:
Appointment is expected to be at the rank of Assistant Professor and
will be effective September 1, 2006. Full-time faculty appointments at
the University of Cincinnati run from September 1 - June 30, and the
initial appointment is usually for a period of three years.
JOB DESCRIPTION:
The Theatre Design and Production (TD&P) Department at CCM is part of
the larger Division of Opera, Musical Theatre, Drama, and Arts
Administration (OMDA). As such, TD&P not only offers undergraduate (BFA)
and graduate (MFA) training to its own majors but also produces a large
and ambitious production season for the Departments of Opera, Musical
Theatre and Drama. The division produces a main stage season of two
operas, two musicals and two dramas in two venues: a recently
refurbished traditional proscenium house and the other a modified
thrust. In addition, the division also produces six fully supported
studio productions in a third new space, a highly flexible and fully
equipped studio theatre.=20

It is expected the new faculty member will have primary responsibility
for the undergraduate (BFA) lighting design and technology curriculum.
This will include the teaching of traditional courses in design as well
as the teaching and development of courses in lighting technology. In
addition, the faculty member will supervise undergraduate lighting
design projects; will assist in recruiting efforts for the department;
will design occasional productions at CCM; will teach and develop a
course in Fundamentals of Digital Graphics; and will serve on
appropriate college and university committees.

Submit examples of work by hard copy small portfolio or CD format only,
three letters of reference and academic vitae to:

Lighting Design Search Committee
Att: R. Terrell Finney
University of Cincinnati
P.O. Box 210003
Cincinnati, OH  45221-0003

Review of files will begin January 3, 2006 but applications will be
accepted until the position is filled




Steve Waxler=20
Technical Director=20
College Conservatory of Music=20
University of Cincinnati=20
waxlers [at] uc.edu
http://www.ccm.uc.edu/tdp/=20
513  556-3709




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

Message-ID: <90b4c67a0511231313u3a64881cl51d2197b1bc5627d [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:13:00 -0800
From: Mike McElroy <mikemaccs [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The problem at hand
In-Reply-To: <list-25684503 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-25681200 [at] prxy.net> <list-25681568 [at] prxy.net>
	 <list-25684433 [at] prxy.net> <list-25684503 [at] prxy.net>

An interesting point, although I'm slightly uncomfortable with it for
some reason, possibly because I've never heard of that being done
before.  The surface area of the pistons I'm looking at is about 19
square inches put together, and I think my high-ball estimate for
total force necessary is maybe 8000 lbs (which corresponds to about a
half-ton weight sitting on the very edge of the deck).  So do you
think any city's water mains would be pressurized at ~ 425 psi?=20
Sounds a little high to me, but I'm no plumber.

-MikeMac

On 11/23/05, Jerry Durand <jdurand [at] interstellar.com> wrote:
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> At 12:57 PM 11/23/2005, you wrote:
> >I like this idea of a pair of legs underneath as a failsafe.  The only
> >potential problem is easy and safe lowering once the show is over.
> >I'll have to ponder it, but I'm still unconvinced of the virtues of
> >pneumatics over hydraulics.
>
> Also remember that depending on how much you actually have to lift
> and how big a cylinder you have or can make, you can use city water
> pressure.  Many old elevators used city water pressure to go up, then
> dumped the water down the drain to go down.
>
>
>
> --
> Jerry Durand
> Durand Interstellar, Inc.
> 219 Oak Wood Way
> Los Gatos, California 95032-2523 USA
> tel:  +1 408 356-3886, USA toll free:  1 866 356-3886
> web:  www.interstellar.com
>
>
>

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

Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20051123141047.00ce6e40 [at] pop.west.cox.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:10:47
From: CB <psyd [at] cox.net>
Subject: Re: Choreographed Light Display

>If I were taping the lights, I'd use the onboard mic as a
>synchronization reference, then superimpose the digital audio track from
>the original source in my editing software. 

And spend another hour on the project that you don't need to spend.  I'd
just hook a line out (of whatever source is feeding the trigger for the
lights) to the camcorder and record it in IRT.  Done right, this tape would
require no (zero, squat, nad, $0.00, zip, silch, a whole number less than
one) post tiem.  As I suspect this one did.
				Chris "Chris" Babbie
				Location Sound
				MON AZ

Delete key training and post trimming done by appointment.  Rates
negotiable, will trade for typing lessons/ADD treatment...

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

Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20051123141223.00ce6e40 [at] pop.west.cox.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:12:23
From: CB <psyd [at] cox.net>
Subject: Walt Disney World Audio Visual Dept.

>It seems that the Walt Disney World, Orlando, FL Audio
>Visual Dept has been outsourced and the new AV
>provider is Presentation Services.

Walt is dead.  Another piece of ecidence that Mike is the devil and the
lowest idder will rule the world.  Or what's left of it.
				Chris "Chris" Babbie
				Location Sound
				MON AZ

Delete key training and post trimming done by appointment.  Rates
negotiable, will trade for typing lessons/ADD treatment...

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

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:14:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Rigging Certification
From: Bill Sapsis <bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com>
Message-ID: <BFAA6204.5793%bill [at] sapsis-rigging.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-25681696 [at] prxy.net>

Katie is out of town until Monday, I believe.

Bill S.




On 11/23/05 1:03 PM, "MissWisc [at] aol.com" <MissWisc [at] aol.com> wrote:

> I sent Katie an email as you suggested... still waiting for a response. But
> it seems Unkle Bill gave a good list. THANKS!



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

From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <ba.7e6992a9.30b65517 [at] aol.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:28:23 EST
Subject: Re: Got your 6 - Whole Nine Yards

In a message dated 23/11/05 20:45:59 GMT Standard Time, psyd [at] cox.net writes:

> ...and then there's the story of when kilts became the formal wear that
>  they are now, instead of the cheap alternative to having someone make the
>  cloth into pants (possibly the origin of the Scots being, ehm, 'thrifty').
>  The phrase, "The whole nine yards" is attributed to using the entirety of a
>  nine yard piece of worsted wool (which is referred to as a great kilt)
>  instead of the catholic schoolgirl, ehm, wee kilt.

There may be truth in this. A kilt (feile beg) has a surprising mount of 
material in it, due to the extensive pleating. What you have described is a great 
kilt (feile mor). This is a kilt and a plaid all-in-one. I will check with a 
reference.


Frank Wood

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

From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <292.272e5c.30b656cd [at] aol.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:35:41 EST
Subject: Re: Andrew's POV on Rigging Cert (was Kristi's thread)

In a message dated 23/11/05 20:47:36 GMT Standard Time, 
bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com writes:

>     The Geneva NY High School just built a brand new auditorium that opened
>  this year. They actually have skylights over the auditorium!
>  
>      At the moment they are covered with black plastic, but they are talking
>  about building plywood boxes to put on the roof over the windows.
>  
>      Yet another example of regular (Not theatre) architects designing a
>  theatre with no input from theatre people!

What can I say? Somewhere in the design team, you need a theatre specialist. 
At least someone who understands what theatres do, and how they work. 
Professional or amateur makes no difference. But, you need an architect who is 
prepared to listen.
 

Frank Wood

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

End of Stagecraft Digest #596
*****************************