Truss Tower Lifting System

[743 Fan]

I just came across this new truss tower lifting system video on YouTube and thought I would share, it seems pointless to me as it's yet more kit to drag around the place and seems only to lift 3-4m towers but perhaps there is a bigger version on the way. What do you think?

 

[paulears]

I'd imagine expert opinion will appear on here very quickly in the form of horse's mouth comment, but a few observations.

 

Using the video as the guide to the upscaling of the prototype, mention is made of the purpose, removing human effort. With even a doubling of the test height to something usable, the pulley support arm, would need some additional engineering to make it strong enough when double the length, and if the design was scaled up to concert heights, then would the pulley arm then not need a similar device to erect it? It seems the weight of the pulley support will be the same as the truss being lifted in bigger designs? Power supply and the carrying device would need beefing up considerably. Although it works in the small scale prototype, the physical size compared to the truss being lifted is too big.

 

The pulley arm might be better as a fixed arm (gin pole style) attached to the truss, used as the hauling point for the ground mounted motor?

 

I'm sorry to say, the design appears flawed in many areas.

[trussmonkey]

Not to be little their efforts (and I have watched it without sound too)I would say that its not really new...its just another take on a system commonly used. whilst it does seem to be more kit to drag around it can be very useful and a safer way to lift masts/towers. in the video they use a winch. in reality this could be more trouble than its worth. current systems commonly use a hoist that has pullies in the head block. The hoist then doubles as the means to lift the PA or truss.

 

Check out Summit Steel (now engulfed into PRG) who use something very similar with a hoist.

 

ok just listened to the sound !!! mmmm 20 seconds lift time is fine for the single section of truss they use but it wont work when you start having 10m towers !! just not feasible.

also that small motor they are using may well be fine for the small section of truss and the gauge of it but when you start to get to 10 or 12m towers as is common or 52cm/20" truss then that weedy motor wont last very long. for it to be efficient and stand the test of time it would have to be huge and have much bigger batteries.

 

TM

[kerry davies]

Takes the system used to erect huge steel towers for circus tents and complicates it beyond the "long stick with a fork in the end" self-erecting method they have employed for donkey's years.

 

As Trussmonkey suggests it is nothing new and is an added process with additional bits of kit to go wrong. Good to see them trying but the basis for innovation is an understanding of current practices and equipment and it seems they were insufficiently researched before starting out.

[ramdram]

They could have researched via BR...get plenty of advice on rigging here. (I mean that seriously, saves a lot of messing around.)

 

Had their "tutor" bod suggested a thorough search of the web on all such devices, then got them invited to a "practical" field trip sort of thing to watch the assembly of similar before they started the project it might have resulted in a more original approach.

 

Yes good idea for them trying but might be a bit disappointing for them to discover later they have only re-invented the wheel.

 

(However, that said, there are only so many ways you can do stuff and in some areas the pinnacle of design had been reached some while back.

 

I gather the design of the plough (farming) has not been significantly improved shape wise in centuries. Various doodads such as tungsten tips have been added, but the plough is more or less the same as used by Adam.)

[brainwave-generator]

Had their "tutor" bod suggested a thorough search of the web on all such devices, then got them invited to a "practical" field trip sort of thing to watch the assembly of similar before they started the project it might have resulted in a more original approach.

 

I think the danger with these kinds of 'invent something' projects is that many of the best inventions in this industry have come from spur of the moment "we could really do with X" realisations, and then going off and developing it. Putting students, who do not regularly come across such problems, on the spot and telling them 'you must invent something' will always bring about multiple re-inventions of the wheel.

 

I think the project would be far better done if the University could find 5 or 6 willing industry companies, and get the students to approach them, ask them what common issues they are finding in their product line, and develop a solution from that; with regular consultations with the company, site visits, and an ongoing R&D process. Not just "oh that sounds like fun let's build it".

 

Such a manner of doing things would actually help prepare them for real life project work, rather than being bedroom inventors. Whilst the Glamorgan course looks like a generally good example of live production type courses, I still can't help but think this is another of those examples where the university just can't be bothered to really get stuck in and make a great project, and instead just hand the students a blank piece of paper and a signed cheque and say "see you in 3 months".

[Ashley R]

To me, this looks like a rework of something that is already out there.

 

Global Truss manufacture up frames, that using truss helps you build a 'crane' that will do exactly the same thing (Lifting the main towers). Well thats what I thought of the instant I saw the video.

The frame from Global relies on using a chain motor from memory to do the work, instead of a tiny motor that they used.

[brainwave-generator]

To me, this looks like a rework of something that is already out there.

 

Global Truss manufacture up frames, that using truss helps you build a 'crane' that will do exactly the same thing (Lifting the main towers). Well thats what I thought of the instant I saw the video.

The frame from Global relies on using a chain motor from memory to do the work, instead of a tiny motor that they used.

 

Global are by no means the first. Tower lifting frames have been around since the early ground supports. Every manufacturer makes some kind of lifting frame for their towers.

 

For anyone who doesn't know what people are referring to:

 

http://www.appliednn.com/images/l_TLL2.jpg

 

I think they have gone for the fact that it's

a) battery powered

b) easily portable

c) universal

d) freestanding (doesn't need bolting to the truss)

 

All valid points, but it may be that there are good reasons why such a thing doesn't already exist. As has been said, once you get onto 10-12m towers it becomes a much, much larger weight; since you are essentially operating the reverse of a lever.

 

I think though that the fact they used the small trolley and a small winch was probably down to student budget, and proving that the theory and design did work (IE lifting a tower). They probably used a 3m because it was lighter and they didn't need to go out and buy a hefty great machine to do their demo. If the product went commercial I am sure that they would look into a bigger system.

 

 

 

[ianl]

Their main selling point seems to be the abilaty to tip the towers up before the availabilaty of motor power.

 

Great you now have some vertical towers , what comes next, oh yeah, make the truss climb the towers.doh, still no motor power, time for a paid tea break. Hmm on second thoughts wouldnt I have been better having a later start and saving the customer time and money?

 

Back in the real world where , if your doing a rigging job involving motor power, you schedule the power to be there

[indyld]

While it may be flawed and seen to be reinventing the wheel to some, surely this is missing the point?

 

I saw this "product" on display at the Glamorgan showcase, along with all the others. The engineering is technically flawed, but they know that. I asked a few questions about forces in the system which to their credit they admitted they didn't really have the answer to. I don't begrudge people not knowing things, especially when they are attempting something for the first time in a learning environment. They were aware of the current market, as far as I could tell in questioning. They had ideas that didn't make it into production, for reasons of safety and facility.

 

Any sensible person would see that the purpose of the projects are for learning, and so it's not as pointless or ill conceived as the learning has taken place. I spent a few hours quizzing the various stand holders about their contraptions and concepts, where they felt they would make improvements and occasionally gave them a bit of the "grumpy lampy" schtick that they might encounter at a real trade show. Did anyone else from the BR take up the offer to join them?

 

Not being funny, but what is this thread getting at? Other than to tell a bunch of kids that their puny efforts were a waste of time and that attempting things such as mock marketing a self-designed and built product is stupid if it isn't any use. It's like laughing at a five year old because they can't read.

 

Come on.

 

Edit to add: // I find it fairly offensive that the words "tutor" are thrown down in mocking speechmarks. like these kids aren't being taught by anyone with any professional history. I have nothing to do with the Glamorgan course, but I don't see various other "tutors" on other courses that post on the Blue Room being treated with such disdain. If anyone cared to try that same attitude with me, I might have to pull the 20+ year professional industry experience card.

[djw1981]

Was the video part of the project - ie design a product and associated marketing for it; or are they actually looking to launch this as a product. If the former then the video serves its purpose well. If the latter, then the above questions regarding scalability and forces comes into play.

[indyld]

Was the video part of the project - ie design a product and associated marketing for it; or are they actually looking to launch this as a product. If the former then the video serves its purpose well. If the latter, then the above questions regarding scalability and forces comes into play.

 

I'm pretty sure the video and the entire project are for learning purposes only, certainly what I saw of the whole thing.

 

While some of the students were a little optimistic about their product's actual viability and their business ideas, they were no different to all the 14 year old Hire Managers out there. But many of these young upstarts may well go onto actually invent a product or run a hire business. Youthful optimism that you think you can go out and change the world, before everyone in life, and on the Blue Room, tells you not to bother.

 

A few ideas were actually useful, newish and had a market, although things are hard to actually make a business of.

 

Some were a lot less "cooked", but they'd obviously learned a lot in the process.

[Brian]

While it may be flawed and seen to be reinventing the wheel to some, surely this is missing the point?

...

Any sensible person would see that the purpose of the projects are for learning, and so it's not as pointless or ill conceived as the learning has taken place.

...

Not being funny, but what is this thread getting at?

I completely agree.

 

Maybe the warm weather is making people grumpy.

 

 

As someone who has worked in real R&D, as opposed to R&D where people have 'brilliant' ideas and then do sod all about it, I can tell you that you do spend a lot of time re-inventing the wheel. But you're always looking for that 1% improvement. Be it 1% faster; 1% cheaper to build or 1% easier to use. That 1% is what will make people buy yours and not the competition's.

 

You also spend a lot of time doing what's been done just so you can understand it. So you can understand how well the maths translates into the real world. Often a design which looks great on paper turns out to be impossible to build. It's very easy to draw something that you just can't make.

 

If everyone sat around going 'already been done' the human race would still be sitting around in caves.

[BenWebster]

I don't post here much, but as a Student of the University of Glamorgan and a friend of the guys whose product that is I feel I should provide a bit more information on what the actual project was about.

 

At the start of our third and final year of our Live Event Technology course we were told to split into teams of three and design and produce a product from scratch. This product needed to either have not been done before, or benefit the industry in some way by improving on previous designs. Each team consisted of two people from the Live Event course and one person from the Lighting Design course. We were then given a budget of £25 per head and set off on our merry way to see what we could come up with within the next 12 weeks. The budget and time constraints alone may answer a lot of the questions as to why the product appears basic or unfinished.

 

Now along the way there were various interviews and presentations simulating what it would be like to pitch the product in a real world environment, and the Graduate Showcase furthered this. We invited people from various industry related companies, and specific people who may be interested in a specific product. This is where a video was required to be made.

 

the rest of the videos are located on the courses Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/University-of-Glamorgan-Lighting-and-Live-Event-Technology/225463614169719?sk=videos

 

p.s. mine was the AMS - Automated Muting System, and I hope this helps provide a little more information that the video description is missing.

[paulears]

I don't think the tone was wrong - I certainly didn't mean to remotely denigrate their work (it's for something very different - education) - but simply point out a few flaws - as in potential spokes in the works. The other comment I made related to the fact the staff involved are here on the forum.

 

Other than to tell a bunch of kids that their puny efforts were a waste of time and that attempting things such as mock marketing a self-designed and built product is stupid if it isn't any use. It's like laughing at a five year old because they can't read.

I don't think this is what any of the posts actually say. Nobody has remotely started laughing at them from what I can see. I was not aware of any of the background. I went to youtube and watched the link. I treated it like the apprentice - they were making a pitch, and I think their product had a flaw - isn't that what they actually wanted when they made the video, some kind of response?

 

In the video, nobody mentioned any of the negative points - and it's a nicely put together, production wise, resort on a 'new' design, meant to solve a problem.

 

They seemed to know what they wanted - they tried hard to put a coherent presentation together, but as in Lions Den - flaws were revealed. That's it! I don't think anybody turned it personal, did they. There's some interesting points been made that would be interesting to see what the students thought. The drawing from B-G, if they'd seen it, could have possibly helped. It's perfectly possible many people have no idea this is how these trusses are erected. I quite like the idea of a system that can work without power - but the weight and size of the portable/transportable power supply may well be out of proportion in terms of A/Hrs - I don't know.

 

As far as I can see - it's good to get student work talked about like this. They probably would agree with many of the comments here, but at the time they produced it - weren't perhaps aware of how the commons systems work.

 

It's not been personal, just straightforward comments on their presentation - no laughing has been done, and I see no negative spin on what people have posted.