La Maitre effects

[p.k.roberts]

Maybe then a range of remote splitters, to allow for shorter runs to parallel wired pods?

 

The problem then is that continuity testing becomes a problem.

[scjb]

...and to be honest I have seldom seen a commercial unit being used by any pros at all...

 

Just out of interest... what do you usually see the professionals using?

 

EDIT - still getting used to the quote feature... bear with me!

[paulears]

Maybe then a range of remote splitters, to allow for shorter runs to parallel wired pods?

The problem then is that continuity testing becomes a problem.

And with series wiring continuity testing is easy, finding the problem far more so.

[Brian]

With parallel wiring, testing is possible but the answer is meaningless. You'll never know if you've got a device which isn't going to go so you'll never get as far as fault finding.

 

With series wiring, testing is also possible and the answer you get makes more sense. You'll also know if the effect will go or not. Fault finding is possible.

 

 

I leave it as an exercise to the reader as to which is preferable...

 

1). No devices go at all in a multiple device effect, in an effect that the audience weren't expecting anyways.

 

2). One or more devices fail to go in a multiple device effect, in an effect that the audience weren't expecting anyways.

 

 

And whilst I'm here....

 

please don't use XLR3 for pyro connections - there is at least one documented incident (in a school IIRC) where pyro was plugged onto a comms line. Result = ignition of the device.

[Firemonkey]

As a pro.

I have used about five types of commercial systems, several custom built units of various types, nail boards, bell wire with batteries ( usually in emergency when the system has malfunctioned for one reason or another) etc.etc. Oh, and two commercial systems that have fired channels not 'armed'.

'pods' are only really required if you restrict yourself to the L.M basic material(their pro-stage is hard wire), we frequently use simple brackets to fix the units to, you just have to be sure it is secure.

 

I personally prefer a paralelled slave system with series wiring off each slave, as long as you can test each slave independantly then this ensures your circuits, whether by pre-testing each slave or using an addressed slave system.

 

a pre ordained sequence system could leave you in a situation of having a complete show out of sequence, e.g. if you were unable to fire the first sequence for safety reasons, so you would need to build in a manual overide or stepper in any case.

 

 

In case of insurance claims:- if it is a mains system then it would need to be PAT tested, self powered systems not so but you need to demonstrate a systematic test schedule, e.g yearly testing by a qualified person ( if you are an electrical engineer then as far as I know this may be yourself).

Most incidents in my experience arise from:- malfunctioning units, badly mounted units, bad sight lines and people in the wrong place, operator error, inadequate safety distances for one reason or another.

 

Bets advice I can give is decide the features you want, having found the relevant information (and the info posted above sounds right, but I'm not qualified to confirm it), build it, then test each feature for any conceivable system failure before using it in situ. If you are really worried about claims then document this testing.

 

Good luck.

[p.k.roberts]

self powered systems not so but you need to demonstrate a systematic test schedule, e.g yearly testing by a qualified person ( if you are an electrical engineer then as far as I know this may be yourself).

 

I think that's basically where our problem lies - there is no formal qualification/standard for building/maintaining/testing this kind of kit. It's probably too small a market for, say, BSI to get involved with. Perhaps it would be in our collective interest to lobby the BPA, EIG or ABTT to try to formalise/standardise this.

[kje-kev1459]

Hi again, apologies if the previous posting was a little odd, My point is that there can be no harm in designing and building custom made firing devices, as long as the devices in question are built to certain criteria. With reference to my earlier made comments regarding professional firing systems, I am simply pointing out that there are very few multiple channel units on the market in the U.K that I am aware of(Please correct me if I am wrong). The system I currently use myself (And have built myself) uses a plc to control the output and a hmi to control the peramiters of the output. ie chases etc.

 

I would also like to state that my comments were in no way meant to offend any persons or companies. Apologies are sent if any offence was caused.

 

Regards Kevin

 

ps: Aplogies also for my spelling in that post.

[Firemonkey]

self powered systems not so but you need to demonstrate a systematic test schedule, e.g yearly testing by a qualified person ( if you are an electrical engineer then as far as I know this may be yourself).

 

I think that's basically where our problem lies - there is no formal qualification/standard for building/maintaining/testing this kind of kit. It's probably too small a market for, say, BSI to get involved with. Perhaps it would be in our collective interest to lobby the BPA, EIG or ABTT to try to formalise/standardise this.

 

Why do we need to standardise this which just adds another level of unneccesary regulation on our industry?

HSE, both local and national, and most venue safety persons, will ask to see a key safe, dual switch system, isolated from other control systems e.g. lighting/sound DMX, totally under the control of a designated firer with full view of all units and safe zones, or other control methods suitably risk assessed and methodised. surely this is enough? If your not conforming to this then you probably won't whatever regulations are in force ( as is already the case).

We all want to be safe, but lets at least have some common sense and flexibility in our already over regulated lives.

regulations generally impose extra costs on those of us doing our job correctly anyway, making it easier in a competative market for others to get work because they are cheaper.

 

Apart from which, it's largely through enthusiastic amateurs that improved systems develop, these are the people that may become the makers of improved systems for the future, along with a variety of systems for different site/venue applications.

test, test, and test again if need be but god save us from further standardisation!!!!!

[Ike]

Pods in series also have the unpleasant feature of failing more often. One dodgy cartridge, one poor connection and a brilliant effect lost! So controllers with either multiple outputs, that have high current capacity, with bigger psus could be the key.

 

Possibly give the ability to allow the system to be run in parallel, series or a combination of both? Most of the low end professional units are designed to be fired by people with very little electronics knowledge. As long as you designed it so as to prevent the possibility of firing unarmed circuits and make it relatively simple to understand there isn't any reason why you shouldn't add more features.

 

I'm also quite a fan of using mic cables for pyros - I realise many people have a problem with this one, but it is very handy, and does allow 2 circuits down one cable. Anything to get away from the nasty 4 pins that are a real pain to use with decent cable with better current carrying characteristics.

 

As has been mentioned there has been at least one accident relating to the cross-plugging of comms and pyros before today however depending on your assessment of the risks you may decide it suits your purpose. Again the great thing being you can design your system around you and the way you work.

 

Incidentally - the idea of series running with higher voltages does of course require a custom controller, and with a lot of pods, we're getting back to the increased risk of higher firing voltages. A fired pod with exposed terminal that could be touched?

 

Working on the basis that extra low voltage runs to 50V you'd probably still be able to fire more than 50 pyros in a single series circuit on a SELV supply, if I was to fire 50 pyros in parallel it would draw about 25 amps, enough to turn my bell wire into a nice display of its own!

[Firemonkey]

Incidentally - the idea of series running with higher voltages does of course require a custom controller, and with a lot of pods, we're getting back to the increased risk of higher firing voltages. A fired pod with exposed terminal that could be touched?

 

Working on the basis that extra low voltage runs to 50V you'd probably still be able to fire more than 50 pyros in a single series circuit on a SELV supply, if I was to fire 50 pyros in parallel it would draw about 25 amps, enough to turn my bell wire into a nice display of its own!

 

48volts, four 12v motorbike type batteries seriesed, comfortably fires 100 igniters over 100mtres using three slave positions in parallel with 33~ units in series off each slave, military multicore cabling and connectors (quite fine).

you would have to be on a mega show to need more than this.

Systems like pyro-pak use mains voltage down the line with transformer boosters in each slave, others have individual power in each slave for the fire circuit, 9v pp3 or 12v solid.

 

Horses for courses really, I have fired 20 igniters over 100mtrs of bell wire off a new pp3, no sweat.

 

Why is anyone worried about exposed contacts? you should only have current to them as you fire anyway or everything would go off as you arm the system, spectacular but not good practice. So who is touching them when you fire, and why would you fire it if they are?

 

Another system for large cable runs and quantities of igniters is Black Magic, uses pp3 with cap discharge providing ~500volts(I think) at low ampage, also has slave attachment using small cable (12 circuits).

[p.k.roberts]

Why do we need to standardise this which just adds another level of unneccesary regulation on our industry?

HSE, both local and national, and most venue safety persons, will ask to see a key safe, dual switch system, isolated from other control systems e.g. lighting/sound DMX, totally under the control of a designated firer with full view of all units and safe zones, or other control methods suitably risk assessed and methodised. surely this is enough? If your not conforming to this then you probably won't whatever regulations are in force ( as is already the case).

 

All of the things you mention are, of course, the obvious things we would do. My reasons for formalising this would be for the ability to demonstrate this to folks who, like it or not, govern or impact our working lives, whether they be from the HSE, EHO or insurance companies.

Also, as you previously said, "you need to demonstrate a systematic test schedule", but with no formal guidelines for this, what is the pass/fail criteria? What test current should we be measuring, for example?

I certainly don't want to be 'over-regulated' (or should that be more over-regulated), but a common set of standards, mutually agreed, based on our collective best-practice could surely make our lives simpler.

[Firemonkey]

a common set of standards, mutually agreed...

 

aren't these inherent in the references I've already made?

Actual test current would obviously need to be lower than firing current without having to fix it in stone or immortalise it in another tome of regulation.

 

'best practice' is just a new politic catch all phrase, with no real meaning, for overstandardisation in all fields of life, mostly used by politicians trying to create jobs for bureaucrats?

 

apologies for drifting from the point a little, I'll happily pursue this adjunct in another forum or individually should anyone wish.

[p.k.roberts]

apologies for drifting from the point a little, I'll happily pursue this adjunct in another forum or individually should anyone wish.

 

Yes, having reread the OP I think I've been rather drastically drifting off as well ... sorry. This is probably a discussion that needs tocontinue over a pint! :-)

[johnhuson]

I'm going to add to whats already been pretty much said. That is the most dangerous thing about pyro's is the effects themselves and not the controller. If you were to cause injury or worse to someone then chances are it will be with the actual effect itself and not the controller. If this were to happen any ensuing legal actions would concentrate on who and why the effect was fired in a dangerous manner and not wether the controller was from a reputable manufacturer, at the end of the day the controller performed it's function!

 

Obviously there are dangers with building your own firing unit, particularly if it's mains based, but as I say this is least likely to be the issue. If pyro controllers are so electircally complex as suggested by some on here, why is Le Maitre's own two way firing unit a box with a transformer, a key switch, two selector switches and a fire button! Yes it really is that simple, the transformer output isn't even rectified (not that it needs to be).

 

I seem to remember there being a website detailing how to build your own controller, think it might of even been linked to from this site. Wasn't that keen on the design myself as it used jack plugs as the connectors which I didn't like due to the ease of confusion with devices that wouldn't like high voltages up them! Other than that, if safely built and electrically tested on a regular basis then there is no reason why you shouldn't attempt it yourself. After all you can fire a pyro off a 9v PP3 battery!

 

EDIT: Found the website for a DIY controller, can be found here.

[Lincoln]

A compromise to building your own control system would be to use the simplest of commercial systems, for example a Le Maitre 2 Channel unit and be inventive by building a variety of customised switch panels for use with it.

 

To this end, we have done precisely this with one of our 19" rack mounted controllers that uses a ROTARY switch to select 1 of 12 outputs.

 

This design was built initially to make sure that we could only select one output at a time and has since proved extremely useful for (almost!) guaranteeing that we fire cues in the correct order. (with a nod to Paul's reference to the upstage Waterfalls that were ignited instead of the downstage gerbs due to operator finger/eyesight issues)

 

Certainly works for us.

and one day I will post photos...

 

Lincoln