Charlotte_R

It's great to see the discussions that are going on here! Having used metal cable ties, they are not a meaningful solution to this issue - they are very permanent and difficult to remove. I like the idea of using spare hook clamps as cable supports, as well as safety cables. At the risk of spouting off words that I learned on my 6-day 2391 course, BS7671 is a quasi-statutory document. You don't have to follow it, but if you didn't and something went wrong then you'd definitely have to justify yourself in front of someone in a curly wig. On the same note, BS7671 does apply to temporary installations; BS7909 is effectively an addendum to apply the document specifically to the entertainment industry.

Something I've been wondering for a while is how people are managing the requirements of clause 521.10.202 of bs7671 which states: "Wiring systems shall be supported such that they will not be liable to premature collapse in the event of a fire" In a situation where you can run cables along the top of a box truss and through the pickups or are picked with steel strops, I feel comfortable that the requirements are met; but what do you do to prevent premature collapse of the supply cables when rigging from scaffold bars? My understanding of the history of this regulation is because of the deaths of firefighters caught in cables which feel to head height. There's an element of common sense: if we assume that a cable will double in length due to the heating effects of a fire, if we use short cables between units then if it won't get to head height with the expansion and melting of the supports I feel that we've met the requirements as firefighters can't get caught up in it. But sometimes the cables travel odd routes or are rigged low where in the event of fire they could droop to a point where they could ensnare someone in the building. It feels like the obvious solution is to provide extra safety cables which we just wrap around the cables and bars; but obviously that brings a cost implication. What are you doing to comply with the regs? (Posted to general technical chat because I think that this equally applies to signal / data cables as to power).

I've got an event coming up where we want to use multiple small screens using either qlab or a media server. I was just wondering if there's a device that will take one output from the media server and split it into segments rather than having lots of outputs from the media server? (And, mainly, whether that's cheaper?)

I wear blacks because I find that it's the easiest option. In fairness, I have shorts and cargos that are black so it's only the addition of a plain black t-shirt. (I tend to buy them cheaply in bulk - fruit of the loom ladies value weight are good). Personally, I feel like some people wear branded t-shirts to show off who they have worked for and make themselves look important, so I have a personal policy on branded workwear: I will wear workwear provided by a company when I'm working for them but not when I'm not working for them. If I don't have appropriately branded workwear, I wear plain clothing. I will occasionally wear other branded workwear if nobody can see it (eg, outside gig in winter).

Yeah, Robe have done pretty much that exact thing. And then they built a controller which mimics the way that you hold a followspot. It's called a Robo spot.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaIeUHGfV-M (PS, no affiliation to Robe other than liking their products)

Yeah, I studied electrical engineering at uni and then went on to work as an electrical engineer in the railway so I went on the 7909 course on the basis that it was basically a tick in the box and quickly discovered that it wasn't! To be competent at something, you need the theoretical knowledge and experience of working with it in the real world; but as I said earlier, there were a lot of people on my course who just didn't fill me with confidence that they had either. BS7909 doesn't teach electrical theory - it teaches how to apply BS7671 to a temporary power system. BS7909 has to be all things to all people: it covers design, installation and testing of some very complex systems. There are things that we do in this industry that are very specialised - for example, exporting power between electrical environments - and that require a lot of thought. With the greatest will in the world, it's more than a 3-day course can cover for someone well versed in electricity; for someone with little prior knowledge, it's probably a total waste of time. I decided to do my 2391-52 because I felt like I was testing stuff without the knowledge of what I was actually testing. Why do we do it how we do it? I understand the reasoning behind only testing a sample of the circuits you put in, but I don't like the idea and I don't think I've worked with anybody who doesn't at least aim for 100% testing. Fair enough, there might be limitations to what you can test; but I don't like the idea of going and testing the bare minimum. Also, I'm starting to come to the conclusion that we should start testing earth spike resistances, which is something that was brushed over on my 7909 course (and not covered in great detail in my 2391 either, in fairness). The earthing to something by putting a clamp onto it is a nice idea, but again not necessarily practicable in the real world: how do you know that the thing you're clamping to is actually earthed at all? You state that the cost is about £2k. I'd suggest more. In reality, you need your 18th edition to be effective (you're signing off to the 18th edition after all). And you need the literature. Then you need equipment: a multifunction tester (or lots of individual testers) and test leads. These don't come cheap. I would estimate that I've spent £5k on this stuff over the last year and there's still things I need to buy (eg, earth spike test kit). I will hold my hands up to buying things that are nicer than I need (Megger 1741 when I could have gone for a cheaper model, matching plug adaptors to lots of different types of plugs rather than the slightly cheaper option of just building plugs to 13a sockets, etc).

I did my BS7909 in February / March and I think it was really useful... but I have a background in electrical engineering and so I knew most of the theory. There were quite a lot of people on the course who struggled who didn't have that same background. I felt that, while the course gave me a lot more knowledge about the application of electricity in live events, the training about testing was cursory at best. Because of that, in September I did my C&G 2391-52 and am in the process of joining a competent person scheme. BS7909 is a good shout, but personally I found it lacking.

I sometimes work as a dimmer tech for production companies and I mix hot and dimmed power because I think that makes it easier on the trusses. I just make sure that I turn on all the hot power first and confirm that all of the intelligent fixtures are powered and none of the generics are before turning on the dimmed power. Surely that kind of protocol could be adopted? I've worked in a few venues that have that system, but I've only done a little bit of cassying or been with the production and had a house tech so I've never personally had to do the changing over; but could you adopt a similar system?

I rarely come across 15a power at the moment. Most stuff I do is live events where everything is on 16s, or places with smart dimmers that can change between hard, dimmed, switched power etc. They're the tricky ones, I suppose, because they mean that a socket can be any kind of power and change from event to event.

+1 for that. People still turn up with CDs and weird media.

At the moment, maybe. But in 5 years time, I'm sure that it won't be hugely out of reach. I remember hiring and using Mac 250s at sixth form and they weigh 22.5kg so I'm sure that if we managed it then other schools can. I didn't mean to derail the thread, but I just think it's interesting to think that in 5-10 years time this won't be an issue.

I was talking about ground control followspots in general, not just the Robe solution. I just think that the Robe products seem a bit more accessible - I probably wouldn't be able to spec one of the big PRG ground control followspots in my work, but I might be able to spec a Robe one if I required it. Also, the idea of using a proprietary light seems really good. Ground control followspots are pretty niche at the moment, but I can definitely see times when they would be useful and I think that over time, we'll move away from traditional followspots.

I'm sure that you could. But I'm really excited about ground control followspots, personally. Originally, I thought that they were a very niche piece of equipment that might be useful for replacing truss ops on big rigs but I'm starting to see them as a viable solution for a lot of venues. I worked in a venue where they'd virtually got rid of the followspots because there wasn't a fire escape route from the op positions (I think that their reasoning was a bit flawed, personally, but there we are) but this kind of setup would allow them to have the followspots in optimal positions with an operator backstage. Also, because the Robe system uses their standard range of fixtures it means that investment in the system would give the designer of a show that didn't need followspots two extra moving head profiles at front of house. So I think that this is a game changer. It may not be much use in the short term for school productions and the like, but in 5 years the hire cost will probably have come down enough to make it a good option.

Robe were showing off their robo spot at Plasa last week. Maybe you could look into hiring a couple of those?

I like the remote controlled car idea, although I think you should get a second puppet (if possible) in order to make the car a permanent thing (ie, rather than just sitting the puppet on top). I think that would allow you to pad the puppet out, or even add some animatronics to be able to do some minor controlling of the puppet. The main problem that I see is that the puppet could be too small to be easily seen?