Return-Path: 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 23139099; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 03:01:59 -0700 X-ListServer: CommuniGate Pro LIST 4.2.10 List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Message-ID: From: "Stagecraft" Sender: "Stagecraft" To: "Stagecraft" Precedence: list Subject: Stagecraft Digest #430 Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 03:01:42 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on prxy.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.3 X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.4f2 X-prxy-Spam-Filter: Scanned For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see --------------------------------------------------- Stagecraft Digest, Issue #430 1. Re: Costuming: How the batsuit works by Herrick Goldman 2. I agree with frank by b Ricie 3. frequency spectrum analyzer by "Andrew Nikel" 4. Re: Portable Lighting Consoles by Gregg Carville 5. Re: 1" X 3" by "Paul Schreiner" 6. Re: 1" X 3" by "Paul Schreiner" 7. Re: Portable Lighting Consoles by "Abby Downing" 8. Re: Stand Environ Dimmers by "Paul Sanow" 9. 1" X 3" by "David R. Krajec" 10. response to new boom position and sound board problem by "David R. Krajec" 11. Re: 1" X 3" by "Scheu Consulting Services" 12. Re: 1" X 3" by "Randy B." 13. Re: 1" X 3" by "Paul Schreiner" 14. Re: 1" X 3" by "Paul Schreiner" 15. Re: More rigging Questions by "Dr. Randall W.A. Davidson" 16. Re: More rigging Questions by "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" 17. Re: 1" X 3" by "Bill Nelson" 18. Re: Rectangular Knock out punches. by "Mt. Angel Performing Arts Center" 19. 1.2K Pebble Convex Fixtures by "Jim Schoenfelder" 20. Re: 1" X 3" by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 21. Re: 1.2K Pebble Convex Fixtures by James Feinberg 22. Re: 1.2K Pebble Convex Fixtures by "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" 23. Re: More rigging Questions by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 24. Re: More rigging Questions by "Dr. Randall W.A. Davidson" 25. Re: More rigging Questions by "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" 26. Re: 1.2K Pebble Convex Fixtures by "Steve B." 27. Re: More rigging Questions by "Paul Schreiner" 28. Re: More rigging Questions by "Scheu Consulting Services" 29. Re: More rigging Questions by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 30. Re: More rigging Questions by Jerry Durand 31. Available raceways and multicable by "Ben Thoron" 32. Re: More rigging Questions by "Scheu Consulting Services" 33. Re: audio cables by CB 34. Re: Sound Levels? by CB 35. Re: Sound Levels? by CB 36. Re: Flashlight Replacement by CB 37. Re: Flashlight Replacement by CB 38. Re: 1" X 3" by "Paul Schreiner" 39. Costuming: How the batsuit works by CB 40. Re: 1" X 3" by Steve Larson 41. Re: More rigging Questions by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 42. Re: More rigging Questions by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 43. Re: audio cables by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 44. Re: More rigging Questions by "Fitch, Tracy" 45. Tour Rigging Responsibilities versus venue by "James, Brian" 46. Re: 1" X 3" by "Bill Nelson" 47. Re: 1" X 3" by "Bill Nelson" 48. Re: sound board problem by "Alf Sauve" 49. Re: Flashlight Replacement by Bruce Purdy 50. Re: Flashlight Hand dimming by "Randy Whitcomb" 51. Re: Rectangular Knock out punches. by Bruce Purdy 52. OT: Internet community addiction? by Bruce Purdy 53. Old Tech Expo Books by J Burch 54. Re: Internet community addiction? by "Tony Deeming" *** Please update the subject line of your reply to use the subject *** line of the message you are replying to! Please only reply to *** one message subject in each reply. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 06:19:13 -0400 Subject: Re: Costuming: How the batsuit works From: Herrick Goldman Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Thanks Steve, Hey ya gotta keep current. Besides it keeps me from reading CB's Spam. And thanks for the business offer. But this is my first week off since February and I'm keeping it that way! -H On 6/15/05 10:51 PM, "Stephen Litterst" wrote: > > First the light-sabers, now this -- apparently business is a little slow > for Herrick. Anyone have any leads on Lighting gigs for him? > > Steve Litterst > > -- Herrick Goldman Lighting Designer, NYC www.HGLightingDesign.com 917-797-3624 "To the scores of silent alchemists who wreak their joy in darkness and in light bringing magic to life, we bow most humbly. "-CDS ------------------------------ Message-ID: <20050616120318.73735.qmail [at] web50601.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:03:18 -0700 (PDT) From: b Ricie Subject: I agree with frank In-Reply-To: >>Myself, I should vote for the beer fund. I need to be hungry to want a pizza: beer I can handle any time. Frank Wood<< Frank, I love it when you make sence... __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail ------------------------------ From: "Andrew Nikel" Subject: frequency spectrum analyzer Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:23:11 -0400 Message-ID: Adam pointed out http://www.winradio.com/ before I could. A friend of mine is out on tour and the Audio Engineer uses winradio to look at all the wireless stuff, of which I'm told there's quite a bit. Andrew Andrew Nikel - Sales City Theatrical, Inc. 752 East 133rd Street, Bronx, NY 10454 Voice: 718-292-7932 x23, Fax: 718-292-7482 email: anikel [at] citytheatrical.com web: www.citytheatrical.com > --------------------------------------------------- > > I ran into a guy touring a couple of years back with a battery > operated, handheld frequency analyzer with a color LCD screen that he > used to look for wireless mic conflicts. IIRC it was around $1000 US > and it looked like a Sony Watchman TV (and actually could watch TV > signals). I remember him saying something about him having a hack for > it to listen in on some restricted frequencies. I don't need that > capability but after a lot of google searching I have come up empty on > anything close. I am looking for something to start watching local > frequencies and see if I can start coordinating my wireless > frequencies a little better. I am not looking for a top of the line > rig but something beyond radio shack. Anyone have any leads for me. > Thanks > > > Greg Bierly > Technical Director > Hempfield HS > > ------------------------------ Message-ID: <2c0e1516050616060016edf2ba [at] mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:00:23 -0400 From: Gregg Carville Reply-To: Gregg Carville Subject: Re: Portable Lighting Consoles In-Reply-To: References: On this subject, As anyone actually used the Marquee? I saw it at LDI a couple years back. It was a leap from Horizon onto a console, still running with a PC. It had multiple cue lists and other good stuff. It looked like it was going to compete with the Express series. Just a thought, Gregg ------------------------------ Subject: RE: 1" X 3" Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:20:26 -0400 Message-ID: <6E497ADB607656479C24E6D7BF6B505A0196C84E [at] exchange.rmwc.edu> From: "Paul Schreiner" > The lumber stock he's referring to is commonly referred to as=20 > 1"x3" lumber. Just in this case, the original poster used the=20 > ACTUAL dimensions of the stock. Like most lumber, 1"x3"=20 > isn't actually 1"thick or 3" wide, although the exact reason=20 > for that varies from storyteller to storyteller. The "LF"=20 > designation simply means linear foot (or feet, depending on=20 > context), and #1, I think, refers to the quality of the wood. >=20 > Anyone care to specify any further, or clarify/correct any of=20 > the above? Okay, a couple of people have chimed in on this, but I'm not sure whose understanding is a little off cuz some of the details don't mesh with what I've been taught (and in turn, teach my students)... Most lumber is designated using "nominal" dimensions, yes, where (for example) 2x4 comes off the shelf as 1.5" thick and 3.5" wide. But it's not drying and shrinkage that causes the discrepancy here. When the logs are chopped up at the sawmill, the rough-cut is very close to the nominal dimension; a rough-cut 2x4 is actually 2" by 4" (or even a hair over; I bought some rough-cut 5/4x6 last fall that was about an eighth of an inch proud in both dimensions). The planing and finishing process that results in a smooth-faced (S4S, or sanded four sides) stick is what "shrinks" the piece down to its actual size. I'm not sure if it's just a regional thing, but all the S4S 5/4 lumber I've seen isn't 1-1/8" thick, but more like 1". For designating different widths on construction drawings, indicating a 1x4 framing piece will mean the shop uses an stick with an actual width of 3.5". If 4" is what is actually desired, it's marked as [3/4"x4" true] (not necessarily with the brackets...it's the "true" that makes the difference). And I may have to look at some old invoices, but I believe one of my suppliers prices out (unit price on the bill) lumber by the board foot, even though when you ask for a quote they'll either quote you by the stick or the linear foot. ------------------------------ Subject: RE: 1" X 3" Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:24:15 -0400 Message-ID: <6E497ADB607656479C24E6D7BF6B505A0196C84F [at] exchange.rmwc.edu> From: "Paul Schreiner" > Went to Home Depot with my Propmaster to buy supplies for=20 > summer projects yesterday. They no longer carry 1' X 3"=20 > unless you want oak or poplar. Is anyone else shakin' their=20 > head in amazement? And to respond to the original post... I've noticed nearly all lumber yards gradually phasing out 1x3 stock over the past few years. It may have something to do with the fact that there's been a coincidental drop in quality since I was in college; what used to be #3 or worse is now being marketed as #2 or better, and with the corresponding increase in knottage it's making it difficult to get 1x3 over 8' in length that doesn't snap in half when you pick it up. ------------------------------ Subject: RE: Portable Lighting Consoles Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:53:54 -0400 Message-ID: <7AE59BA9B8D15D4787EB1C7A2DB6DFBA2A0621 [at] jekyll-sbs.ollsi.local> From: "Abby Downing" I highly recommend the ETC SmartFade series of consoles for the application you described. Portable, lightweight, and easy to use. Check out ETC's website or contact me off list for more information if you are interested in knowing more. Abby ------------------------------ Subject: RE: Stand Environ Dimmers Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:55:31 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Paul Sanow" > -----Original Message----- > From: James, Brian [mailto:bej [at] vt.edu] > Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 8:58 PM snip =20 > One of my systems had a home made bypass in it that allowed=20 > the use of an AMX console to run the dimmers. Unfortunately,=20 > the connector was ripped off the other day. Unfortunately,=20 > who ever put it in left no notes. >=20 > So I have four wires that can go into four wholes, some how. >=20 > All I know for sure is in the dimmer rack it's self, the wire=20 > are connected to terminals 60,61, 62, 63. >=20 Back from vacation, so I hope this is still of some help: E2 Terms Signal Description TA4 A4 41 61 Clock + 3 2 42 62 Clock - 1 4 43 63 Analog Mux 4 3 44 64 Common 2 1 Terminal 60 would be for Environ2 SW B+ Signal from Station 8. You = should not be using it. =20 Your reference to holes made think of the Frogger episode of Seinfeld. = Thanks! Paul *********************************************************** Paul Sanow psanow [at] vls.com Technical Sales www.vincentlighting.com Vincent Lighting Systems 1420 Jamike Ln. #2 Erlanger, KY 41018 (859) 525-2000 x211 FAX (859) 525-2050 *********************************************************** ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "David R. Krajec" Subject: 1" X 3" Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:09:45 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Nah, they still have them. Look where it says 2" X 4"! ;>) David K. ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "David R. Krajec" Subject: response to new boom position and sound board problem Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:15:50 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Thanks to all who responded to my problems. On the boom position - one of the reasons I want a new position is so that I can reach it with out putting the personnel lift on an incline! That, and it will make a better lighting position, but the safety thing is first. And I will have it "professionally" installed. I don't want the liability, thank you very much. On the sound board - again thanks for your input (pun accidental but it works). Specifically, it leaks on all channels no matter the input (CD, computer, minidisc, cassette). Runs "hot" from turn on to turn off. I should mention that the whole system is setup on a sequencer switch so that everything is turned on and off in the proper order. The issues is more of an annoyance than a problem, but it just doesn't seem right. Hope you all have a fun summer. Stay safe! ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "Scheu Consulting Services" Subject: RE: 1" X 3" Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:36:54 -0400 Organization: Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. Message-ID: <000001c57280$d791bcc0$c9fea8c0 [at] ROXY> In-reply-to: >I've noticed nearly all lumber yards gradually phasing out 1x3=20 >stock over the past few years. It may have something to do=20 >with the fact that there's been a coincidental drop in quality=20 >since I was in college; what used to be #3 or worse is now=20 >being marketed as #2 or better, and with the corresponding=20 >increase in knottage it's making it difficult to get 1x3 over=20 >8' in length that doesn't snap in half when you pick it up. I remember back when I worked in a scene shop in the mid-80's, we got = around this quality problem (and some cost issues) by buying 1x12's and ripping = our own 1x3's. The overall quality of 1x12's back then was better than the available 1x3's, and it actually turned out to be cheaper (in large = volumes) to rip them ourselves. (That right, Boyd?) Yes, I know 11 1/2" doesn't divide equally by 3 1/2" (even with saw widths), but we had lots of uses for the scrap, and selectively ripped 1x3's, 4's, 5's, & 6's from selected 1 x 12's. I don't if this still holds today, but is an avenue you might want to explore Peter Scheu Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. www.scheuconsulting.com ------------------------------ Message-ID: <005301c57283$df8d0350$b4504898 [at] GLOBAL.SCJ.LOC> From: "Randy B." References: Subject: Re: 1" X 3" Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:58:36 -0500 Well looked at my local Lumber yard last night and I did find 1x3's but they were labeled as 'Strapping' very poor quality. I think the items I found were intended to be used as temporary bracing etc and not for permanent construction. I think the last time I need 1x3's I ripped my own out of some wider lumber. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Schreiner" To: "Stagecraft" Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 8:24 AM Subject: Re: 1" X 3" > For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see > --------------------------------------------------- > > > Went to Home Depot with my Propmaster to buy supplies for > > summer projects yesterday. They no longer carry 1' X 3" > > unless you want oak or poplar. Is anyone else shakin' their > > head in amazement? > > And to respond to the original post... > > I've noticed nearly all lumber yards gradually phasing out 1x3 stock > over the past few years. It may have something to do with the fact that > there's been a coincidental drop in quality since I was in college; what > used to be #3 or worse is now being marketed as #2 or better, and with > the corresponding increase in knottage it's making it difficult to get > 1x3 over 8' in length that doesn't snap in half when you pick it up. > ------------------------------ Subject: RE: 1" X 3" Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:00:07 -0400 Message-ID: <6E497ADB607656479C24E6D7BF6B505A0196C850 [at] exchange.rmwc.edu> From: "Paul Schreiner" Cc: peter [at] scheuconsulting.com > I remember back when I worked in a scene shop in the=20 > mid-80's, we got around this quality problem (and some cost=20 > issues) by buying 1x12's and ripping our own 1x3's.=20 That's what we do, actually...but my point (which, admittedly, I didn't really make clear) was that it's no longer cost-effective for mills to churn out S4S 1x3 because of the quality issue. When we rip down 1x12 for this, I'm still having to "toss" about 20% of the pieces because at 16' (or even 12') they don't hold together with the knots that do exist safely in the wider stock. Not that I really toss them, mind you, but if I were trying to sell it it'd be wasted lumber. ------------------------------ Subject: RE: 1" X 3" Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:00:55 -0400 Message-ID: <6E497ADB607656479C24E6D7BF6B505A0196C851 [at] exchange.rmwc.edu> From: "Paul Schreiner" > Well looked at my local Lumber yard last night and I did find=20 > 1x3's but they were labeled as 'Strapping' very poor=20 > quality. I think the items I found were intended to be used=20 > as temporary bracing etc and not for permanent construction.=20 Furring strips, maybe? ------------------------------ From: "Dr. Randall W.A. Davidson" Subject: RE: More rigging Questions Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:05:40 -0600 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Au contraire, mon ami. Since 1975 I have met with OSHA in Washington and around the country, and fed info into USITT and all my work. I sit on four committees with OSHA reps from Washington, and we have constantly brought to their attention our work, esp. the Director of Standards for the Dept. of Labor. Senate meetings have also been given input from our work for a number of areas, rigging, Process Management, Chemicals, Health problems of technicians, Pyro, Special Effects, Rockets, Fall Protection, etc. Nearly forty years of input into Washington and District OSHA groups, has given them some knowledge of Entertainment and its ways. Yes, even law suits. We shall continue. However, in the construction industry and other areas dealing with OSHA, they know of much of our work. Many of the congressmen and Washingtoners have family in show biz. Ten Senators that I have worked with and a number of them at the present moment deal with Entertainment issues and have family members involved. Just for information and in my opinion. Dr. Doom -- Dr. Randall W.A. Davidson, Risk International & Associates, Inc. - www.riskit.com Latest workshops for Educational and Entertainment Industry Performing Arts Personnel (Riggers, and Public Assembly and Educational Technicians) www.riskit.com/workshops International Secondary Education Theater Safety Association (ISETSA) - www.isetsa.org -----Original Message----- From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf Of Bill Sapsis Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:21 PM To: Stagecraft Subject: Re: More rigging Questions For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see --------------------------------------------------- OSHA does not mandate anything for flying people. If they knew more about it they would require a hawser about 3" thick to a full body suit that would make the performer look like the Michelin Tire Guy. OSHA mandates in broad strokes. Our industry is much too small at this point to have gained too much of their attention. Even after a large accident, they tend to back away after the initial furor has died down. That's not to say they don't regulate the use of pieces of equipment that we use. There are rules for the use of wire rope and wire rope fittings. There are rules for the inspection and maintenance of motorized equipment. But you will not find anything in OSHA that points directly to flying some yahoo around the stage. And I agree that an 8:1 design factor is a little low for flying people. I'm more comfortable with a 10: 1. To be more exact, I'm more comfortable not flying people at all. I consider myself a professional (go ahead and snicker if you must) and I do not fly people. I leave that to the folks who do only that for a living. There's no point in my re-inventing the wheel. I'm not going to design and build my own harnesses when there are really good people out there doing that, and last but not least, I'd much rather use their liability policy than mine. We will fly anything else however. And we will fly people but only when they are in something that we are flying. A cage, for example. We fly the cage and someone else is responsible for protecting the performer inside it. I'll have to check with Mike but when we flew the Wright Flyer replica at the Hazy Center opening, there may have been a human in it 'acting' as the pilot. I don't remember. Zat help? Bill S. www.sapsis-rigging.com 800.727.7471 800.292.3851 fax 267.2778.4561 mobile Please support the Long Reach Long Riders benefit ride for Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS On 6/15/05 8:54 PM, "J Burch" wrote: > Thanks for the replies to my questions. In our field > it seems as though every house does something a little > differently from the next, so I like to confirm > anything that varies too much from the rest of me > experience. > > I was surprised however, about your recommendation for > a 8-1 ratio. I tend to use a 8-1 ratio for everyday > rigging (understanding that most components are > stamped with a 5-1 ratio), but rely on a 10-1 Ratio > for anything "life-threatening". (generally meaning > something particularly at risk- flying people, or > something prone to unusual flying stresses. > Additionally I was under the impression that OSHA > mandated a 10-1 ratio for lifting people. Am I > misinformed? Overly cautious? ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" Subject: RE: More rigging Questions Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:11:19 -0400 Message-ID: <004301c57285$a94d27f0$6601a8c0 [at] Dell> In-Reply-To: > Au contraire, mon ami. Since 1975 I have met with OSHA in > Washington Wow. That's a long meeting. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <3379.64.28.63.223.1118936678.squirrel [at] webmail.peak.org> In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: 1" X 3" From: "Bill Nelson" > Most lumber is designated using "nominal" dimensions, yes, where (for > example) 2x4 comes off the shelf as 1.5" thick and 3.5" wide. But it's > not drying and shrinkage that causes the discrepancy here. > > When the logs are chopped up at the sawmill, the rough-cut is very close > to the nominal dimension; a rough-cut 2x4 is actually 2" by 4" (or even > a hair over; I bought some rough-cut 5/4x6 last fall that was about an > eighth of an inch proud in both dimensions). The planing and finishing > process that results in a smooth-faced (S4S, or sanded four sides) stick > is what "shrinks" the piece down to its actual size. There is no way that planing the lumber is going to take away 1/2" off the width or thickness of a 2x4. The rough sawing just is not that rough. Wood shrinks a lot when it dries, which is why you see so much checking, cracking, twisting and warping. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:51:25 -0700 From: "Mt. Angel Performing Arts Center" Subject: Re: Rectangular Knock out punches. In-reply-to: Message-id: <42B19FFD.9020907 [at] mtangelperformingarts.com> References: Richard Wolpert wrote: > But if it's just a few punches, I'd >say to go with Frank's offer. > > > Not the best option, but you can get a Greenlee 3/4 square punch (#61007) to punch two square holes 1.25 inches apart, then saber saw the inbetween piece out. Makes nice square corners - Downside is that the 3/4 square punch is about $175. Coolest option is watching the laser CNC cut the holes. Tried doing these once for a friend with our plasma cutter and a template - sorta worked... kinda... Carla ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:44:33 -0400 From: "Jim Schoenfelder" Subject: 1.2K Pebble Convex Fixtures Message-id: Greetings all! I have a show coming over from Europe and they are specifying 1.2K Pebble Convex fixtures. My research is turning up that these are fixtures that have a softer edge than a leko but not as soft as a fresnel. Does any know of an equivalent fixture on this side of the pond or of a way to simulate the output of a Pebble Convex using US fixtures? Thanks in advance, Jim Schoenfelder ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:22:24 EDT Subject: Re: 1" X 3" In a message dated 16/06/05 00:47:15 GMT Daylight Time, cpcroteau [at] kelcom.igs.net writes: > The lumber stock he's referring to is commonly referred to as 1"x3" lumber. > Just in this case, the original poster used the ACTUAL dimensions of the > stock. Like most lumber, 1"x3" isn't actually 1"thick or 3" wide, although > the exact reason for that varies from storyteller to storyteller. The "LF" > designation simply means linear foot (or feet, depending on context), and > #1, I think, refers to the quality of the wood. The reason is, in the UK, that the quoted dimensions refer to the yard's starting point. 3" x 1" PAR (Planed All Round) starts off as 3" x 1" RS (Rough Sawn). This really is of the stated dimensions. You lose about 1/16" off each side in the planing machine, maybe a little more. A random piece of nominal 2" x 1" I have just measured comes out at 1 7/8" x 13/16". I suspect that the finished dimensions may depend on what the guy running the planer had for breakfast! I know that I shouldn't mark out any joints without the actual wood to hand. Frank Wood ------------------------------ In-Reply-To: References: Message-Id: <82c9bca2edf6157c8e47fe54b01718c5 [at] sandiego.edu> From: James Feinberg Subject: Re: 1.2K Pebble Convex Fixtures Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:38:22 -0700 This probably isn't the right solution, but the word "pebble" made me think of Rosco's new-ish glass gobos: http://www.rosco.com/us/patterns/glass.asp --James Feinberg University of San Diego On Jun 16, 2005, at 9:44 AM, Jim Schoenfelder wrote: > I have a show coming over from Europe and they are specifying 1.2K > Pebble > Convex fixtures. My research is turning up that these are fixtures > that > have a softer edge than a leko but not as soft as a fresnel. Does any > know > of an equivalent fixture on this side of the pond or of a way to > simulate > the output of a Pebble Convex using US fixtures? ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" Subject: RE: 1.2K Pebble Convex Fixtures Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:45:43 -0400 Message-ID: <006a01c5729b$3b7c33e0$6601a8c0 [at] Dell> In-Reply-To: > Does any know of an equivalent > fixture on this side of the pond or of a way to simulate the > output of a Pebble Convex using US fixtures? Ellipsoidals, with R132, R140, or R119 (without a sample fixture with which to compare, I'd have all 3 and let the show decide). If you do that, please let us know which was closest. ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <204.3c783f1.2fe31665 [at] aol.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:52:37 EDT Subject: Re: More rigging Questions In a message dated 16/06/05 01:55:03 GMT Daylight Time, jeanburch_td [at] yahoo.com writes: > I was surprised however, about your recommendation for > a 8-1 ratio. I tend to use a 8-1 ratio for everyday > rigging (understanding that most components are > stamped with a 5-1 ratio), but rely on a 10-1 Ratio > for anything "life-threatening". (generally meaning > something particularly at risk- flying people, or > something prone to unusual flying stresses. > Additionally I was under the impression that OSHA > mandated a 10-1 ratio for lifting people. Am I > misinformed? Overly cautious? Where do all these magic numbers come from? Different field, I know, but if I design an amplifier to deliver 100W of continuous sine wave power into an 8 ohm load, it will do that all day and every day. OK, there is headroom, and it will do a bit more than that. But not ten times as much. I think that the tradition came from the days when we didn't understand structural engineering or the strength of materials very well, so we beefed things up beyond all reasonable limits. We know about metal fatigue, and shock loading, now. Stress concentrations figure in the sums, too. Aircraft designers have to be very aware of this. Unneccessary strength means unneccessary weight. The trick is to put the strength where it is needed. The prototype af a WW2 British fighter-bomber failed its initial tests at 88%: the final version at 118%. But still, correctly terminated wires, rated chains and shackles, all ought to withstand their rated loads indefinitely. I should apply a safety (read ignorance) factor myself. All it needs is a jam, and a gorilla on a winch. But 10:1 is over the top. Frank Wood ------------------------------ From: "Dr. Randall W.A. Davidson" Cc: stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com Subject: RE: More rigging Questions Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:00:58 -0600 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Indeed, long and arduous in the Hall of Congress, et al. Sleeping on ornate, marble is not good for the back. Doom -- Dr. Randall W.A. Davidson, Risk International & Associates, Inc. - www.riskit.com Latest workshops for Educational and Entertainment Industry Performing Arts Personnel (Riggers, and Public Assembly and Educational Technicians) www.riskit.com/workshops International Secondary Education Theater Safety Association (ISETSA) - www.isetsa.org -----Original Message----- From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf Of Jeffrey E. Salzberg Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:11 AM To: Stagecraft Subject: Re: More rigging Questions For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see --------------------------------------------------- > Au contraire, mon ami. Since 1975 I have met with OSHA in > Washington Wow. That's a long meeting. ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" Subject: RE: More rigging Questions Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:04:09 -0400 Message-ID: <000001c5729d$ce67aca0$6601a8c0 [at] Dell> In-Reply-To: =20 > Where do all these magic numbers come from?=20 >=20 > Different field, I know, but if I design an amplifier to=20 > deliver 100W of=20 > continuous sine wave power into an 8 ohm load, it will do=20 > that all day and every=20 > day. OK, there is headroom, and it will do a bit more than=20 > that. But not ten=20 > times as much. It's a good question. The difference, as I understand it (and if I don't I'll bet that someone from Pennsylvania, Colorado, or Tennessee will kindly correct me) is = that in your amp design, if a component is not quite up to spec (due to manufacturing error, or weather conditions, or whatever), no one dies. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:06:19 -0400 From: "Steve B." Subject: Re: 1.2K Pebble Convex Fixtures Message-id: <001b01c5729e$198939b0$6401a8c0 [at] SBFF> References: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Schoenfelder" > I have a show coming over from Europe and they are specifying 1.2K Pebble > Convex fixtures. My research is turning up that these are fixtures that > have a softer edge than a leko but not as soft as a fresnel. Does any > know > of an equivalent fixture on this side of the pond or of a way to simulate > the output of a Pebble Convex using US fixtures? Ditto Jeff's comments about having frost available for ellipsoidals. I'd also try to find out the exact fixture so as to determine the available beam spread(s). The typical Euro PC has an adjustable spread and I'd usually recommend zooms with frost as an alternative, or have a set of lense tubes PER FIXTURE available. FWIW, would it be helpful to contact the company in Europe and tell them what you have ?, and let them make some choices ?. I would think that maybe they've encountered S4's before..... Possibly also contact the Royal Ballet of Flanders. They used to travel in the US with their own ADB PC units and I'd venture they might have a suggestion as to what a good US rental shop alternative might be. Maybe contact Strand and/or ETC offices in the UK for advice as well. Steve Bailey Brooklyn College ------------------------------ Subject: RE: More rigging Questions Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:25:46 -0400 Message-ID: <6E497ADB607656479C24E6D7BF6B505A0196C852 [at] exchange.rmwc.edu> From: "Paul Schreiner" > Where do all these magic numbers come from?=20 >=20 > Different field, I know, but if I design an amplifier to=20 > deliver 100W of=20 > continuous sine wave power into an 8 ohm load, it will do=20 > that all day and every=20 > day. OK, there is headroom, and it will do a bit more than=20 > that. But not ten=20 > times as much. Here's basically how I explain it to my students...maybe not 100% perfect, but it's accurate enough to get the message across. =20 Let's say a brand new, out-of-the-box shackle has a 4000# breaking strength. It gets used a few times, dropped a few times, played with a few times. It gets a little older. Would you still trust it not to break until after you hit 4000# of static load? What about the additional forces placed on it during the loading process (the dynamic load from lifting it, for example)? How much of a weight allowance would you place on it to be sure to CYA in all possible permutations of that installation? Under all circumstances? Moving? Static? Theoretically static but maybe not if something goes wrong? Can you do all the calculations in your head for each of these? Once hardware has been used (or handled, or aged), a small fraction of that original strength it started with is lost. Miniscule, perhaps, but the stresses have been applied, and there is no such thing as a perfectly elastic material. When you're talking about multiple pieces of hardware, that's a lot of little numbers to keep track of. =20 So we design in that safety factor to cover all these (and other) contingencies. For static loads of scenery, it's usually in the neighborhood of 5 or 8:1. For people, that goes up to a 10:1 minimum (again, usually). Just like your speaker components will age and eventually fail under what may very well be rated power, the design factor (or safety factor) helps keep that from happening in a situation where people could get hit on the head by Very Heavy Things. ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "Scheu Consulting Services" Subject: RE: More rigging Questions Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:39:44 -0400 Organization: Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. Message-ID: <000201c572a2$c45461e0$c9fea8c0 [at] ROXY> In-reply-to: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com wrote: >Where do all these magic numbers come from?=20 We made 'em up (jeeze...) The "ratios" talked about are really "design factors".=20 I'm not an engineer, but this is my understanding... The design factor is a multiplier applied to the calculated maximum load = to which a component or assembly will be subjected. Thus, by effectively "overengineering" the design by strengthening components or including redundant systems, the design factor accounts for imperfections in materials, flaws in assembly, material degradation, and uncertainty in = load estimates. Appropriate design factors are chosen based on several considerations. = Prime considerations are the accuracy of load and wear estimates, the = consequences of failure, and the cost of overengineering the component to achieve = that factor of safety. For example, components whose failure could result in substantial financial loss, serious injury or death usually use a safety factor of four or higher (often ten). Non-critical components generally = have a safety factor of two.=20 Frank mentioned aircraft engineering... Design factors for aircraft are = kept low (about 1.15 - 1.25) because the costs associated with structural = weight are so high. This low safety factor is why aerospace parts and materials = are subject to more stringent testing and quality control. Please note that I have gleaned (or shamelessly stolen) most of this information for some books and publications I have at hand. Peter Scheu Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. www.scheuconsulting.com ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <1f2.be7d71a.2fe321c3 [at] aol.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:41:07 EDT Subject: Re: More rigging Questions In a message dated 16/06/05 19:05:12 GMT Daylight Time, stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com writes: > The difference, as I understand it (and if I don't I'll bet that someone > from Pennsylvania, Colorado, or Tennessee will kindly correct me) is that in > your amp design, if a component is not quite up to spec (due to > manufacturing error, or weather conditions, or whatever), no one dies. True. But, I weigh about 75Kg. Do you really think that a 3/4 tonne hoist is needed to get me off the ground, safely? Frank Wood ------------------------------ Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.0.20050616115306.02a0f9e0 [at] 192.168.0.13> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:55:48 -0700 From: Jerry Durand Subject: Re: More rigging Questions In-Reply-To: References: At 11:25 AM 6/16/2005, you wrote: >Just like your speaker components will age and eventually fail under >what may very well be rated power, the design factor (or safety factor) >helps keep that from happening in a situation where people could get hit >on the head by Very Heavy Things. I was watching a TV show last night and noticed the camera flying on a boom over the audience. It didn't occur to me before, but a fully gimbaled studio camera can be pretty heavy to be waving over people's heads. I hope someone properly rigs those things and the operator knows what he/she is doing. ---------- 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Available raceways and multicable Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:59:56 -0700 Message-ID: <88919A5358656649A9F6B8E5E8F73661441E90 [at] globe-exchange.theglobetheatres.org> From: "Ben Thoron" Available to good home: -Strand-Century raceways. About 25 pieces, approximately 100-120 circuits total. -4 multi cables 12 gauge /22 wire, about 40' long. Pictures available at: http://globe-web.theoldglobe.org/user_images/multicable.jpg http://globe-web.theoldglobe.org/user_images/raceways.jpg I'll hold onto them for about a week or so. Otherwise they'll be sent to the scrap metal yard. Ben Thoron | technical director | the old globe | 619-235-2260 | 619-231-1037-fax | bthoron [at] theoldglobe.org=20 ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "Scheu Consulting Services" Subject: RE: More rigging Questions Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:01:34 -0400 Organization: Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. Message-ID: <000301c572a5$d0e89180$c9fea8c0 [at] ROXY> In-reply-to: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com wrote: >True. But, I weigh about 75Kg. Do you really think that a 3/4 >tonne hoist is >needed to get me off the ground, safely? You obviously have no understanding of mechanical/structural design factors and how they are used. The 3/4" tonne hoist already had a design factor built into it. So it will lift 3/4 tonne easily and safety. If you weigh 14 stone (just under 200 lb), a 1/4" tonne hoist would be more than twice what you need (did I get my conversions right?). A hoist nameplated/rated at "X" is OK for "X" load, _when the hoist is used as designed_. Design factors are generated by component manufacturers based upon testing and some very narrow criteria. They don't just pull this stuff out of their a... bum. Peter Scheu Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. www.scheuconsulting.com ------------------------------ Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20050616130835.0175e548 [at] pop.west.cox.net> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:08:35 From: CB Subject: Re: audio cables >The first is to use right-angle plugs. XLR shells are available like this, >and unless your troops are really, really stupid hauling on the cable is out. > >The second is to use connectors which have been designed to withstand this >sort of treatment. I don't like the "lets design around idots" technique. It just breeds better idiots. If I have an ongoing problem with connectors getting piulled off, I prefer to lurk and wait. When I see the guy pulling the thing out by the cable, I fully humiliate him in front of all his peers, and then assign him the most heinous and tedious task til the end of time, citing that finding bad connections and re-soldering them is the most heinous and tedious job that I have to do, and if he's gonna make me do mine, I'm making him do his. Once jaws begin to close and the hushed whispering starts, I take the guy aside, apologize for humiliating him in public, and thank him for providing me a method of teaching to pull by the connector that'll last these folk the rest of their natural lives. Usually buy him a beer to asuage the pain of the humiliation as well. In short, I prefer training staff to adapting the gear to work with idiots. (You could replace reversed ground and neutral for cams in place of super strain-relieving connectors, and the whole rant would be relevent in a whole 'nuther context) 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: <3.0.6.32.20050616131343.0175e548 [at] pop.west.cox.net> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:13:43 From: CB Subject: Re: Sound Levels? > To some extent, that's what the guy with his hands >on the faders is for. Yeah, back in your day. Today, everything is done by computer. Very few guys in these positions have their hands on faders, they have thier hand on a mouse. > Tyre noise, wind noise, and engine >noise all conspire against us. The mix that is right for my sitting room isn't >neccessarily right for my car. Then the signal in the car hould be compressed, not the transmission signal. I do understand that the transmitted signal gets compressed a bit to comply with the needs of the transmitter and to stay within the stiff requirements of most AHJ's, but this requires a BIT of compression, not a squash. 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: <3.0.6.32.20050616131541.0175e548 [at] pop.west.cox.net> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:15:41 From: CB Subject: Re: Sound Levels? >Yes, I meant a 64-step switch, with individually wired, high precision >resistors to each stud to create the law. A Painton fader. 'Fader' usually implies something with smooth transition from one level to the next, described by the definition of the verb, 'fade'. 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: <3.0.6.32.20050616132318.018038c8 [at] pop.west.cox.net> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:23:18 From: CB Subject: Re: Flashlight Replacement >>Kramer, you want to chime in on this? > >You talking to me? Uh, no, I meant Thad Kramer. Lurker, sometime poster, and, uhm, 'assistant designer' on the show in question... 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: <3.0.6.32.20050616132708.018038c8 [at] pop.west.cox.net> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:27:08 From: CB Subject: Re: Flashlight Replacement > As CB indicated, my only problem is TOO MUCH brightness. I have learned >to hold the lens end of the Mini Mag in my fist and use my fingers as a >"Light valve". And I thought that was my trick alone... ; > Hold the lens in a fist and open a pinky for a peek, ring finger for a glow, that finger for a beam, and all of them for a 'barn door'? Same technique? 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: RE: 1" X 3" Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:25:36 -0400 Message-ID: <6E497ADB607656479C24E6D7BF6B505A0196C853 [at] exchange.rmwc.edu> From: "Paul Schreiner" > There is no way that planing the lumber is going to take away=20 > 1/2" off the width or thickness of a 2x4. The rough sawing=20 > just is not that rough. >=20 > Wood shrinks a lot when it dries, which is why you see so=20 > much checking, cracking, twisting and warping. I guess then the question should be, is the wood dried before sanding/planing, or after? That, and just how much each of these contributes to the overall loss of dimension... ------------------------------ Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20050616135035.018038c8 [at] pop.west.cox.net> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:50:35 From: CB Subject: Costuming: How the batsuit works I'm guessing that teh feeback eliminator for teh voice amplification uses such secret physics altering techniques that it couldn't be discussed? 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: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:48:47 -0400 Subject: Re: 1" X 3" From: Steve Larson Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Absolutely before. Steve > From: "Paul Schreiner" > > I guess then the question should be, is the wood dried before > sanding/planing, or after? ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <213.2f888fa.2fe3562c [at] aol.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:24:44 EDT Subject: Re: More rigging Questions In a message dated 16/06/05 19:40:31 GMT Daylight Time, peter [at] scheuconsulting.com writes: > Appropriate design factors are chosen based on several considerations. Prime > considerations are the accuracy of load and wear estimates, the consequences > of failure, and the cost of overengineering the component to achieve that > factor of safety. For example, components whose failure could result in > substantial financial loss, serious injury or death usually use a safety > factor of four or higher (often ten). Non-critical components generally have > a safety factor of two. There is also the problem of misuse. You and I look at a sling, say. We look at the loading, and at its components, and decide whether it is up to the job. Not everybody does this. This can lead to overstressing, and that, in turn, to failure well below the design stresses. I have seen knots tied in wire ropes. The remedy for this is not safety factors, reasonable or not. It is training. On both sides of the pond, we are lamentably deficient in this. And in knowing about potential problems. Wer both know about the stresses in bridles, not forgetting the compressive ones in the truss. None of the sums are rocket science. What is needed is an awareness of the potential problems. > > Please note that I have gleaned (or shamelessly stolen) most of this > information for some books and publications I have at hand. As have I. Notably, "Structures", by J. E. Gordon.. Frank Wood ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <7a.7593df8d.2fe35c0e [at] aol.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:49:50 EDT Subject: Re: More rigging Questions In a message dated 16/06/05 20:01:59 GMT Daylight Time, peter [at] scheuconsulting.com writes: > You obviously have no understanding of mechanical/structural design factors > and how they are used. No, I don't It is not my speciality. I suspect that some practitioners are equally deficient. But I do know that using a sledge hammer to crack a nut is foolish. The 3/4" tonne hoist already had a design factor > built into it. So it will lift 3/4 tonne easily and safety. If you weigh 14 > stone (just under 200 lb), a 1/4" tonne hoist would be more than twice what > you need (did I get my conversions right?). Possibly. Converting kilos to stones to pounds in not something I want to do, at this time of night. For all of that, a 75Kg static lift, with a 10:1 safety factor, is 750Kg. Three-quarters of a tonne. Given the safety factors you seem to like, , this seems to imply a lifting capacity of 7.5 tonnes. This seems excessive for one 75Kg body. Frank Wood ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:05:25 EDT Subject: Re: audio cables In a message dated 16/06/05 20:52:46 GMT Daylight Time, psyd [at] cox.net writes: > I don't like the "lets design around idots" technique. Neither do I. But we have to live with them It just breeds > better idiots. If I have an ongoing problem with connectors getting > piulled off, I prefer to lurk and wait. When I see the guy pulling the > thing out by the cable, I fully humiliate him in front of all his peers, > and then assign him the most heinous and tedious task til the end of time, > citing that finding bad connections and re-soldering them is the most > heinous and tedious job that I have to do, and if he's gonna make me do > mine, I'm making him do his. I'm no psychologist, but I think this is a wrong technique. Humiliating someone is never right. > In short, I prefer training staff to adapting the gear to work with idiots. Here, I think you are right. But with tact. Telling someone that he is a damn fool, while satisfying, is no help. Explaining the error may be. Frank Wood ------------------------------ Subject: RE: More rigging Questions Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:12:07 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Fitch, Tracy" > From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf=20 > Of FrankWood95 [at] aol.com >=20 > In a message dated 16/06/05 20:01:59 GMT Daylight Time,=20 > peter [at] scheuconsulting.com writes: >=20 > The 3/4" tonne hoist already had a design factor > > built into it. So it will lift 3/4 tonne easily and safety. If you=20 > > weigh 14 stone (just under 200 lb), a 1/4" tonne hoist=20 > would be more=20 > > than twice what you need (did I get my conversions right?). >=20 > Possibly. Converting kilos to stones to pounds in not=20 > something I want to do, at this time of night. For all of=20 > that, a 75Kg static lift, with a 10:1 safety factor, is=20 > 750Kg. Three-quarters of a tonne. >=20 > Given the safety factors you seem to like, , this seems to=20 > imply a lifting capacity of 7.5 tonnes. This seems excessive=20 > for one 75Kg body. I don't know why I'm willing to wade into this but let me see if I can explain this a bit more for you Frank. As someone pointed out, the manufacturer has rated the lifting capacity of the device using some safety factor already. This means they take what they have tested or calculated to be the ultimate (failure) load of the hoist and divided it by some number. That number is to account for the "shit happens in the real world" factor. (Things like: people add one ridiculously heavy chain to wrap around something, the power supplied to the device is out of tolerance to the low side, the motor manufacturer had an off-day.) Since they can't test every single hoist that goes out the door, they make allowances for variations and come up with a number they say it can safely lift. (because remember, you want it to lift the load, not drop it as it would when exceeding the ultimate load.) Let's say for purposes of argument that the manufacturer used a 4-1 design factor. That means your 750 Kg hoist had an ultimate capacity of 3000 Kg. =20 Your actual load is 75Kg. Given a ten-to-one safety factor, you only need an ultimate capacity of 750 Kg. Assumimg the same manufacturer uses the same 4-1 design factor across their entire product lineup, you need something manufacturer rated as a hoist for 187.5 Kg. Perhaps a 200 Kg or 250 Kg hoist? The trick here is that you eliminate the manufacturer's design factor and choose your own, because you know how serious a failure would be. The manufacturer figures you'd have to replace a piece of equipment -- you know you'd have to replace a person and they're much harder to come by and tough to repair. --Tracy Fitch TD, UNC Charlotte; LD, Everywhere Else ------------------------------ Subject: Tour Rigging Responsibilities versus venue Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:24:32 -0400 Message-ID: From: "James, Brian" So, this may be a real broad question, and I can fill in with more = specifics if needed but...... What are the general guide lines between who is responsible for the = various parts of rigging when a tour show is in a venue? I have had many odd experiences (probably due to being a college venue). Everything from the crew on the tour will not specify or indicate in any = way which rigging wire rope or shackles are to be used for points, to = the next show dictating every aspect. I had one show that would not release the weight of their gear to me and = claimed it was a liability issue for them to make me figure it out (that = show never got rigged, I did not have enough information available to = figure out the weights of their equipment). What are some guidelines that distinguish between the venue's = responsibility and the tours? It seems to me there should be a happy medium some where, if something = falls during a show (knock on wood) we will all spend at least one day = as co-defendants. I also noticed significant differences between rock = and roll shows versus theatrical companies, which also is interesting. Any one have insight to this? ------------------------------ Message-ID: <3424.64.28.60.3.1118967581.squirrel [at] webmail.peak.org> In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 17:19:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: 1" X 3" From: "Bill Nelson" > > The reason is, in the UK, that the quoted dimensions refer to the yard's > starting point. 3" x 1" PAR (Planed All Round) starts off as 3" x 1" RS > (Rough > Sawn). This really is of the stated dimensions. You lose about 1/16" off > each > side in the planing machine, maybe a little more. A random piece of > nominal 2" x > 1" I have just measured comes out at 1 7/8" x 13/16". I suspect that the > finished dimensions may depend on what the guy running the planer had for > breakfast! I know that I shouldn't mark out any joints without the actual > wood to hand. It sounds like the UK starts out with dried dimensions, rather than the wet rough sawn dimension we start with in the US. That would make your finished dimensions larger than here for a given nominal size. The finished dimensions of old 2x4 stock in the US used to be larger than it is now. I have seen pieces that were 1 3/4 x 3 3/4 - e.g only 1/4 inch under nominal size rather than the 1/2 inch that is now standard. Bill ------------------------------ Message-ID: <3597.64.28.60.3.1118972038.squirrel [at] webmail.peak.org> In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:33:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: 1" X 3" From: "Bill Nelson" >> Wood shrinks a lot when it dries, which is why you see so >> much checking, cracking, twisting and warping. > > I guess then the question should be, is the wood dried before > sanding/planing, or after? When I worked in a forest research lab as a student, I saw both planed wood and rough sawn wood sent to the drying kilns, it appears that both methods can be used. I don't know what industry uses. One of the research projects at the university was to determine the differences in final strength of the wood after various drying/finishing regimes. We destructively tested both air dried and kiln dried lots. > That, and just how much each of these contributes to the overall loss of > dimension... From my limited experience, planing removes roughly 1/16" - 1/8" from each surface. So at least half the dimension loss is from drying. Bill ------------------------------ Message-ID: <040501c572e4$cc953e50$0400a8c0 [at] ALFOFFICE> Reply-To: "Alf Sauve" From: "Alf Sauve" Subject: Re: sound board problem Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:32:23 -0400 Just a thought about the sound board that "leaks"on all channels. Common to every channel is the power supply. I'd investigate for open (or missing) capacitors in the power supply and along the power "bus" that supplies voltage to each channel. Could be poorly designed or that some were left out in the manufacturing process, or one or more is open. Alf > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David R. Krajec" > To: "Stagecraft" > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:15 AM > Subject: response to new boom position and sound board problem > > >> On the sound board - again thanks for your input (pun accidental but it >> works). Specifically, it leaks on all channels no matter the input (CD, >> computer, minidisc, cassette). Runs "hot" from turn on to turn off. I >> should mention that the whole system is setup on a sequencer switch so >> that >> everything is turned on and off in the proper order. The issues is more >> of >> an annoyance than a problem, but it just doesn't seem right. > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:03:20 -0400 Subject: Re: Flashlight Replacement From: Bruce Purdy Message-ID: In-Reply-To: > From: CB > And I thought that was my trick alone... ; > > Hold the lens in a fist and open a pinky for a peek, ring finger for a > glow, that finger for a beam, and all of them for a 'barn door'? Same > technique? Exactly! That's how I've been doing it for the past few years. You've been using my system? Should I sue for copyright infringement? ;-) Bruce -- Bruce Purdy Technical Director Smith Opera House ------------------------------ Message-ID: <000801c572fe$f42210a0$6501a8c0 [at] D4D3R151> From: "Randy Whitcomb" References: Subject: Re: Flashlight Hand dimming Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:39:37 -0600 >> Hold the lens in a fist and open a pinky for a peek, ring finger for a >> glow, that finger for a beam, and all of them for a 'barn door'? Same >> technique? I quess many of us have been using this technique. Great minds think alike...Fools never differ. Randy Whitcomb, TD Price Civic Aud. Loveland, CO ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 02:30:04 -0400 Subject: Re: Rectangular Knock out punches. From: Bruce Purdy Message-ID: In-Reply-To: > I habve exactly what you need, Bruce. I bought it from Union > Connector Company some years back and, although slow, it works like a > charm. > > Um...Wanna borrow it? > Thank you Frank, for your kind offer, and thank all of you that responded. I actually have in mind two boxes with 15 or 16 plugs each. I was thinking that if could buy a punch and build it myself it might be cheaper than buying them pre-built. Plus I love do it yourself projects, and it would be another useful tool to add my toolbox. From the responses you all have given, it would appear that such punches are not available on the market currently, and that for the size of the project in mind, I would probably be better off just buying complete boxes pre-made anyway. At least now I know. Thanks again! Bruce -- Bruce Purdy Technical Director Smith Opera House ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 03:18:01 -0400 Subject: OT: Internet community addiction? From: Bruce Purdy Message-ID: In-Reply-To: And I sometimes thought *I* spent too much time reading forums like this! The following article is at: http://tinyurl.com/8fwx9 Bruce -- Bruce Purdy Technical Director Smith Opera House +++++++++++++++++++++++++ by George Simpson, Monday, Apr 25, 2005 8:17 AM EST A WEST NYACK, N.Y. MAN was found dead at his computer apparently the victim of trying to keep up with too many professional forums. Childress H. Wanamaker, 54, an account executive at a New York-based new media company, died of starvation according to the West Nyack coroner's office. Wanamaker's emaciated body was found by Loraine, his wife of 26 years, who told MediaPost she had been bringing her husband meals on plastic trays for weeks, but that he never took the time to eat them. "He was glued to his computer 24/7," she said tearfully. "He was so afraid he was going to miss an opportunity to contribute a comment or start a discussion, that he just stopped eating." She added that Wanamaker's last words were "OK Picard, stick that in your pipe and smoke it..." Computer forensic specialists from SUNY at Cortland discovered that Wanamaker was subscribed to 48 different forums and networking communities including one apparently having to do with the elderly called "oldtimers" and another apparently limited to just 100 people. They also found that he posted a comment into one forum or another on an average of two per minute every hour of the day for the past seven weeks. "He felt under terrible pressure to be part of the online community," said his son, Lucian, who says he tried several times to get his father's attention and lure him away from the computer. "The only time he even looked up was when I told him I had seen Dane Madsen trying to steal his car out of the driveway." Police found what appeared to be an organization chart taped to the wall of Wanamaker's den with lines linking small photos of people unknown to the police including a Tom Hespos and an Adam Boettiger. Neither is considered a suspect in Wanamaker's death. "Once, I thought I had him," said Lucian Wanamaker, "when I said that mom had made cookies, but half out of his chair, he just sat back down mumbling something about two Roman gods; I believe it was Jupiter and Atlas having some sort of titanic battle. 'Let them eat PIE,' he bellowed banging on his keyboard." Computer forensic specialists reported that there was no order or continuity to Wanamaker's forum postings. "It looks like he just sort of randomly commented on whatever was in the discussion string at the time," said Stephen Hall, CUNY-Cortland adjunct professor of intemperate and impulsive behavior. "He let nothing go by unchallenged by his own point of view, nor failed to respond to any other community member asking for advice or a new job. This consumed not only 24 hours a day, but also, apparently, his physical health." In what must be a record, Wanamaker was linked into to over 15,250 other community members, many of whom he exchanged notes with daily. He also contributed to 375 blogs and was expected to start an online column about the impact of interactive communications on health, when he died. A virtual memorial service will be held online at a date to be determined. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <20050617083811.68288.qmail [at] web33304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 01:38:11 -0700 (PDT) From: J Burch Subject: Old Tech Expo Books Greetings I would like to purchase the '87, 91', '93, and '95 copies of the Tech Expo Book from USITT. These are out of print - but I was wondering if anyone on the list would have, or know of, an extra copy laying around somewhere that I could purchase. Feel free to email me off-list. Thanks Jean Burch __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: "Tony Deeming" Subject: RE: Internet community addiction? Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:47:16 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Not one to be insensitive at someone else's misfortune, I had to smile at the final line.... "A virtual memorial service will be held online at a date to be determined." Ynot -----Original Message----- From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net]On Behalf Of Bruce Purdy Sent: 17 June 2005 08:18 To: Stagecraft Subject: OT: Internet community addiction? For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see --------------------------------------------------- And I sometimes thought *I* spent too much time reading forums like this! The following article is at: http://tinyurl.com/8fwx9 Bruce -- Bruce Purdy Technical Director Smith Opera House +++++++++++++++++++++++++ by George Simpson, Monday, Apr 25, 2005 8:17 AM EST A WEST NYACK, N.Y. MAN was found dead at his computer apparently the victim of trying to keep up with too many professional forums. Childress H. Wanamaker, 54, an account executive at a New York-based new media company, died of starvation according to the West Nyack coroner's office. Wanamaker's emaciated body was found by Loraine, his wife of 26 years, who told MediaPost she had been bringing her husband meals on plastic trays for weeks, but that he never took the time to eat them. "He was glued to his computer 24/7," she said tearfully. "He was so afraid he was going to miss an opportunity to contribute a comment or start a discussion, that he just stopped eating." She added that Wanamaker's last words were "OK Picard, stick that in your pipe and smoke it..." Computer forensic specialists from SUNY at Cortland discovered that Wanamaker was subscribed to 48 different forums and networking communities including one apparently having to do with the elderly called "oldtimers" and another apparently limited to just 100 people. They also found that he posted a comment into one forum or another on an average of two per minute every hour of the day for the past seven weeks. "He felt under terrible pressure to be part of the online community," said his son, Lucian, who says he tried several times to get his father's attention and lure him away from the computer. "The only time he even looked up was when I told him I had seen Dane Madsen trying to steal his car out of the driveway." Police found what appeared to be an organization chart taped to the wall of Wanamaker's den with lines linking small photos of people unknown to the police including a Tom Hespos and an Adam Boettiger. Neither is considered a suspect in Wanamaker's death. "Once, I thought I had him," said Lucian Wanamaker, "when I said that mom had made cookies, but half out of his chair, he just sat back down mumbling something about two Roman gods; I believe it was Jupiter and Atlas having some sort of titanic battle. 'Let them eat PIE,' he bellowed banging on his keyboard." Computer forensic specialists reported that there was no order or continuity to Wanamaker's forum postings. "It looks like he just sort of randomly commented on whatever was in the discussion string at the time," said Stephen Hall, CUNY-Cortland adjunct professor of intemperate and impulsive behavior. "He let nothing go by unchallenged by his own point of view, nor failed to respond to any other community member asking for advice or a new job. This consumed not only 24 hours a day, but also, apparently, his physical health." In what must be a record, Wanamaker was linked into to over 15,250 other community members, many of whom he exchanged notes with daily. He also contributed to 375 blogs and was expected to start an online column about the impact of interactive communications on health, when he died. A virtual memorial service will be held online at a date to be determined. ------------------------------ End of Stagecraft Digest #430 *****************************