Just wondering what the general preference is for general atmospheric haze with regard to beam visibility. I've been a die-hard DF-50 user for the longest time, however that's only because it had been the only unit in its class for a while. The Atmosphere uses CO2 as opposed to a compressor, which makes for quieter operation, a smaller particulate (0.5-0.7 microns vs 1 micron), and less residue. It all seems better on paper, but what is your preference and why?
Beam Visibility: DF-50 or Atmosphere APS?
- Thread starterMaxS
- Start date
Sony
Active Member
A LOT of people have an aversion to CO2 for many reasons. Mostly AEA regulations as to how much CO2 can be in the air and particulate counts related to mineral based haze, which is especially important if you are doign a show with AEA actors. Also the fact that neither the DF-50 or MDG have a native DMX interface. For this reason the LaMaitre Radiance Hazer has become the somewhat defacto standard for most theatre shows like plays or musicals because it is AEA Approved (Water Based haze), is way cheaper than both the DF-50 and MDG and it has a direct DMX interface.
Edit: Just found that the DF-50 does have a direct DMX interface now.
Last edited:
As does the MDG,
All my MDG's use the DMX interface.
Also, I have an aversion to the phrase, "water based haze"
No such thing, Call it as it is, Glycol based haze..
Much worse for singers voice, as it drys the vocal cords.
And the amount of Co2 put out by a MDG is minimal,
I have a High output model, running a 20lb tank, lasting between 1 and 2 weeks, 10 shows a week.
Also, if you run the fluid cost per week, the "water base" is much more expensive overall than oil, I use 5 Times more fluid when using water base..
Of course, I am hazing arenas.... if I was in a small ballroom water base might be fine.
I have toured with the Unique's and find them worthless in a large venue application.
YMMV,
everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion,
Josh
All my MDG's use the DMX interface.
Also, I have an aversion to the phrase, "water based haze"
No such thing, Call it as it is, Glycol based haze..
Much worse for singers voice, as it drys the vocal cords.
And the amount of Co2 put out by a MDG is minimal,
I have a High output model, running a 20lb tank, lasting between 1 and 2 weeks, 10 shows a week.
Also, if you run the fluid cost per week, the "water base" is much more expensive overall than oil, I use 5 Times more fluid when using water base..
Of course, I am hazing arenas.... if I was in a small ballroom water base might be fine.
I have toured with the Unique's and find them worthless in a large venue application.
YMMV,
everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion,
Josh
The DF-50 has had the DMX option since at least 2005.
I've seen one tour use the MDG; the rest have all used DF-50s. I've never seen a Radiance on an arena tour. Once when a shop sent two for a one-off, they didn't perform adequately, and the LD insisted they be replaced with DF-50s.
An "oil-less" fluid is available for the DF-50, but I can't recommend it. It has a very short "hang time," compared to the standard fluid.
I've seen one tour use the MDG; the rest have all used DF-50s. I've never seen a Radiance on an arena tour. Once when a shop sent two for a one-off, they didn't perform adequately, and the LD insisted they be replaced with DF-50s.
An "oil-less" fluid is available for the DF-50, but I can't recommend it. It has a very short "hang time," compared to the standard fluid.
In my opinion, the DF-50 provides the best quality of haze compared to any other unit out there. It has a long hang time. Like others have said, you get A LOT of mileage with the fluid. You can run the unit all night and not worry about a refill. The fluid for the DF-50 is much cheaper over the lifetime of the unit compared to other units.
Some people have a hard time with the noise... The only time this should really ever be a problem would be during a straight play. And even then, there typically wouldn't be the need to haze during the run of the show. Haze at the top of the show, and haze during intermission. Done. It will hang... I don't really see many straight plays and drama using much haze anyway.
Some people have a hard time with the noise... The only time this should really ever be a problem would be during a straight play. And even then, there typically wouldn't be the need to haze during the run of the show. Haze at the top of the show, and haze during intermission. Done. It will hang... I don't really see many straight plays and drama using much haze anyway.
Have you tried the MDG?
I find the hang time and quality of haze to be superior to the DF50.
Plus it seems to be much cleaner overall, less residue on fixtures and projectors.
I do agree with you about the noise, it usually can be dealt with, and the crate helps quite a bit.
I just realized I sound like I sell MDG hazers, I do not, I do however own a few of them, as well as a few DF50's and a few Unique 2's (SUCK)
I just feel it is the best hazer available.
Of course others may feel differently.
Joshua Wood
Dalamar
Member
It’s a long post, and since many won’t bother to read… oh well.
On Tours:
The only reason you see less tours with ATMs is because they have to “deal with the CO2 issue”... which is slightly out of sync with reality considering most venues they go to have bars that serve soft drinks and beer on tap, using the same CO2 bottles, etc, etc… More often than not, it's really a question of the production / specifier not wanting to bother. By all means, contact me at work for tips on how to plan a tour that involves scary gas! in the meantime, Here’s a list of a few of the “tours” and acts that did. Successfully.
On the AEA:
AEA is about the only organization still making noise about mineral oil / CO2 and whatnot. Swell. It’s their job to "protect" their members. Given that in their recommendation standards, mineral oil base fluid is listed as a product that needs to be present in lesser density (25mg / m2) compared to most other products (at an average of 40mg / m2), some of you jumped right off the bat to the conclusion that “it must be because it’s more harmful”. Good for you, however wrong that assumption may be. Here’s an alternative (and more accurate) version of this number’s interpretation: it takes less fluid to achieve the same result. Keep in mind there’s the portion of the AEA’s sponsored study that people seem to overlook most of the time: In short term use and in reasonable quantities, all other products are more irritant to the voice than MDG’s fog. Oh, and for those of you wondering if it’s “Equity Approved”: all models are listed in their study, and unless they get the same statute as UL, or other similar laboratories for dictating what is or what isn’t acceptable in manners of safety with law binding authority, we’ll leave that as an informed (if slightly biased too) opinion and move on.
On a personal note, three different (almost independent) studies, from three different groups over the last 30 years have found NO evidence whatsoever of mineral oil being toxic on ANY level. Care to tell me why there’s still ink flowing on this?
On CO2:
CO2 levels aren’t even close to being an issue with the ATM. It’s not harmful at that level, not for human proximity, not for oxygen replacement, not for the environment either, and it would be absolutely wrong and dishonest to imply otherwise. On that note, the CO2 used in the ATM’s (as well as that used in bars and other types of pneumatic devices) DOES NOT “add up to the greenhouse effect gases” but rather is extracted from the air and is therefore already present in the Earth’s atmosphere. But if you must replace it… just because (people are apparently driven by fear more than by facts), there are at least ten (10) types of inert (and noble) gases usable with MDG generators: Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6), Nitrogen (N2), Argon (Ar), Helium (He), Krypton (Kr), Neon (Ne), Radon (Rn), Xenon (Xe) and Ununocitium (Uuo). Yes, that's all the elements in Group Zero (or, as represented here, Group XVIII), plus CO2, N2 and SF6. Here's a link to the Periodic Table of Elements. Aside from Helium making purge cycles sound like train whistle, SF6 having a scary name (and thus being dangerous, right?), and Ununocitium costing as much as your house, the 7 others are readily available.
On the ATM:
Otherwise, an MDG Atmosphere™ is a much, much quieter generator, has a longer life span (average of 23 years for Max 3000 in rental conditions), has the best warranty in the industry (5 years), makes finer haze that lasts longer, uses less consumables (including CO2) than ANY other haze machine / generator, and doesn’t make messes if used properly. Please remember that we, too, manufacture glycol-based foggers.
On my (personal) point of view:
So, yes, I work for MDG – I’ve bills to pay too. Yes, my comment is slightly biased – employer’s inference is unavoidable. Yes, other manufacturers are my competition – so what? Yes, you may dismiss my words as mere opinion, as valid (or not) as that of others. But until you actually bother (I love that theme), try and compare ATM’s with other products and record facts over fiction, anything posted here is also quite biased since it’ll be based only out of hear-say and impressions instead of factual, empirical results.
In the meantime, use DF-50’s, Radiance, or other hazers all you want: it’s your right. However, do not complain about video projectors’ lenses and moving light needing clean-up every 5 performances and costing extra labour (which few take into account when “pricing” the use of fog), refilling every 15 minutes, or artists unable to act in that haze: we've provided you with a solution, even if it involves one more step to use.
On the original question asked:
I root for dust!
PS: Joshua Wood doesn't work for us.... yet!
EDIT: Radon (Rn) This element is radioactive. It cannot be used. I left it in the comment so you get the complete conversation. Thanks Shiben.
On Tours:
The only reason you see less tours with ATMs is because they have to “deal with the CO2 issue”... which is slightly out of sync with reality considering most venues they go to have bars that serve soft drinks and beer on tap, using the same CO2 bottles, etc, etc… More often than not, it's really a question of the production / specifier not wanting to bother. By all means, contact me at work for tips on how to plan a tour that involves scary gas! in the meantime, Here’s a list of a few of the “tours” and acts that did. Successfully.
On the AEA:
AEA is about the only organization still making noise about mineral oil / CO2 and whatnot. Swell. It’s their job to "protect" their members. Given that in their recommendation standards, mineral oil base fluid is listed as a product that needs to be present in lesser density (25mg / m2) compared to most other products (at an average of 40mg / m2), some of you jumped right off the bat to the conclusion that “it must be because it’s more harmful”. Good for you, however wrong that assumption may be. Here’s an alternative (and more accurate) version of this number’s interpretation: it takes less fluid to achieve the same result. Keep in mind there’s the portion of the AEA’s sponsored study that people seem to overlook most of the time: In short term use and in reasonable quantities, all other products are more irritant to the voice than MDG’s fog. Oh, and for those of you wondering if it’s “Equity Approved”: all models are listed in their study, and unless they get the same statute as UL, or other similar laboratories for dictating what is or what isn’t acceptable in manners of safety with law binding authority, we’ll leave that as an informed (if slightly biased too) opinion and move on.
On a personal note, three different (almost independent) studies, from three different groups over the last 30 years have found NO evidence whatsoever of mineral oil being toxic on ANY level. Care to tell me why there’s still ink flowing on this?
On CO2:
CO2 levels aren’t even close to being an issue with the ATM. It’s not harmful at that level, not for human proximity, not for oxygen replacement, not for the environment either, and it would be absolutely wrong and dishonest to imply otherwise. On that note, the CO2 used in the ATM’s (as well as that used in bars and other types of pneumatic devices) DOES NOT “add up to the greenhouse effect gases” but rather is extracted from the air and is therefore already present in the Earth’s atmosphere. But if you must replace it… just because (people are apparently driven by fear more than by facts), there are at least ten (10) types of inert (and noble) gases usable with MDG generators: Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6), Nitrogen (N2), Argon (Ar), Helium (He), Krypton (Kr), Neon (Ne), Radon (Rn), Xenon (Xe) and Ununocitium (Uuo). Yes, that's all the elements in Group Zero (or, as represented here, Group XVIII), plus CO2, N2 and SF6. Here's a link to the Periodic Table of Elements. Aside from Helium making purge cycles sound like train whistle, SF6 having a scary name (and thus being dangerous, right?), and Ununocitium costing as much as your house, the 7 others are readily available.
On the ATM:
Otherwise, an MDG Atmosphere™ is a much, much quieter generator, has a longer life span (average of 23 years for Max 3000 in rental conditions), has the best warranty in the industry (5 years), makes finer haze that lasts longer, uses less consumables (including CO2) than ANY other haze machine / generator, and doesn’t make messes if used properly. Please remember that we, too, manufacture glycol-based foggers.
On my (personal) point of view:
So, yes, I work for MDG – I’ve bills to pay too. Yes, my comment is slightly biased – employer’s inference is unavoidable. Yes, other manufacturers are my competition – so what? Yes, you may dismiss my words as mere opinion, as valid (or not) as that of others. But until you actually bother (I love that theme), try and compare ATM’s with other products and record facts over fiction, anything posted here is also quite biased since it’ll be based only out of hear-say and impressions instead of factual, empirical results.
In the meantime, use DF-50’s, Radiance, or other hazers all you want: it’s your right. However, do not complain about video projectors’ lenses and moving light needing clean-up every 5 performances and costing extra labour (which few take into account when “pricing” the use of fog), refilling every 15 minutes, or artists unable to act in that haze: we've provided you with a solution, even if it involves one more step to use.
On the original question asked:
I root for dust!
PS: Joshua Wood doesn't work for us.... yet!
EDIT: Radon (Rn) This element is radioactive. It cannot be used. I left it in the comment so you get the complete conversation. Thanks Shiben.
Last edited:
shiben
Well-Known Member
Only one issue with this: Radon is not commercially available in bottle quantities, as it is radioactive and responsible for the most lung cancer cases in the US other than smoking. At the moment, it is only produced for calibration of various detectors and whatnot, as again, it is radioactive and not a ton of work has been put into finding industrial processes that utilize it. As you mentioned, SF6 is totally safe, and one can breathe it without problem (though it will make your voice sound deep) as long as 20% Oxygen is in the mix. SF6 is only really dangerous if there is a major arc flash, as it can react and form S2F10, which was considered for a chemical warfare agent. Even so, it is in common use in switchgear in high voltage electrical systems. Interesting points about the Equity safety guidelines. However, they are relevant because AEA contracts do have legally binding ramifications and might state which types of haze you can and cant use.
Esoteric
Well-Known Member
All I know is working in houses of worship over the last decade I have seen too many grand pianos with layers of residue from DF-50s. Switched to water based hazers and have had no issue what so ever with residue build up. I have opened moving lights that have run for 2-3 years in a mineral oil environment and it has taken me months to get all the crap out (and seen the damage it does to electronics). I have several MAC250 units that have been running for over 5 years in a water based environment with no build up what so ever.
After speaking with quite a few Doctors, although there is no study with mass numbers about the effect of oil based haze on people, but I do know of several cases (single digits) of people with asthmea that had severe reactions to mineral oil haze. Is it my responsibility to worry about 1 person out of 10,000 that might see a show? Probably not. Is there a reason that I NEED oil based haze over water based? To me, no. I have filled arena sized venues with water based haze. Just as I avoid strobing lights at the frequencies that commonly cause epilleptic seizures. I believe it is part of my responsibility as an artist.
Also, working with AEA they are VERY picky about these things (at least down here), so I tend to keep their requests in mind.
I do not have an opinion on CO2 yet. But I personally see no need for oil based haze (and I have worked in everything from arenas to 75 seat theaters).
Mike
After speaking with quite a few Doctors, although there is no study with mass numbers about the effect of oil based haze on people, but I do know of several cases (single digits) of people with asthmea that had severe reactions to mineral oil haze. Is it my responsibility to worry about 1 person out of 10,000 that might see a show? Probably not. Is there a reason that I NEED oil based haze over water based? To me, no. I have filled arena sized venues with water based haze. Just as I avoid strobing lights at the frequencies that commonly cause epilleptic seizures. I believe it is part of my responsibility as an artist.
Also, working with AEA they are VERY picky about these things (at least down here), so I tend to keep their requests in mind.
I do not have an opinion on CO2 yet. But I personally see no need for oil based haze (and I have worked in everything from arenas to 75 seat theaters).
Mike
Wow,
Mike you and I must play very different arenas,
I have had no luck with water base in arenas at all.
Completely worthless, and performers have huge problems singing in glycol based haze, as it works as a drying agent.
I know a show in vegas that uses 14 unique 2's to do the job of 1-2 MDG machines. (And they buy fluid in 55 gallon drums)
Have you used a MDG machine? It is a very different animal to the DF50.
I have also cleaned moving lights and video projectors after a year of touring with a DF50, very different from a MDG.
I personally feel that a Oil based has is safer for long term exposure than glycol based haze.
Especially since so much less chemical is being placed into the air to create the same effect.
Joshua Wood
Mike you and I must play very different arenas,
I have had no luck with water base in arenas at all.
Completely worthless, and performers have huge problems singing in glycol based haze, as it works as a drying agent.
I know a show in vegas that uses 14 unique 2's to do the job of 1-2 MDG machines. (And they buy fluid in 55 gallon drums)
Have you used a MDG machine? It is a very different animal to the DF50.
I have also cleaned moving lights and video projectors after a year of touring with a DF50, very different from a MDG.
I personally feel that a Oil based has is safer for long term exposure than glycol based haze.
Especially since so much less chemical is being placed into the air to create the same effect.
Joshua Wood
Esoteric
Well-Known Member
Yeah, in college I was a DF-50 only guy. Then I saw what it did to the machines and to people (and Grand Pianos) and decided I had to try other options.
I guess we must. I have done shows at the Frank Erwin Center, Garland Special Events Center, American Airlines Center, Dallas Convention Center, and others and have never had a problem filling the space with a Le Maitre Stadium Hazer.
I have never had talent mention any problems with water based haze. In addition, I have spoken with a few ENT doctors vis a vis the problems with water based vs oil based haze, and they are all in agreement that there is harm done by mineral oil based haze to the human body (amplified with emphazymia, asthema, or other chronic lung problems) while there are no effects with a water based haze solution. Being a performer (singer) myself I prefer a water based haze to the mineral oil while performing and have never experienced this drying effect.
I have never used the Unique 2 (DF41?) and I have never used an MDG machine, never seen a need for it. I avoid all the problems of the DF50 with water based haze and have never had a problem filling a space.
In addition I can control water based haze much better. I can keep it where I want it, in the density I want it, and when I don't want it, it doesn't take half an hour to dissipate. If there is one thing I hate it is things that I can not control, hence another reason to love water based haze.
I don't see why you think that sugar water would be more harmful than mineral oil? Every Doctor (internist and ENT) that I have ever talked to about it feels that the water based soluations are safer in the short and long term. The chemical itself is harmless (as verified by every CE I have spoken to about this issue) so you could have mass amounts of water based fluid with no ill effects. The argument that it takes more particulate to generate the same effect really doesn't make a lot of sense, since it is a harmless particulate.
Mike
I guess we must. I have done shows at the Frank Erwin Center, Garland Special Events Center, American Airlines Center, Dallas Convention Center, and others and have never had a problem filling the space with a Le Maitre Stadium Hazer.
I have never had talent mention any problems with water based haze. In addition, I have spoken with a few ENT doctors vis a vis the problems with water based vs oil based haze, and they are all in agreement that there is harm done by mineral oil based haze to the human body (amplified with emphazymia, asthema, or other chronic lung problems) while there are no effects with a water based haze solution. Being a performer (singer) myself I prefer a water based haze to the mineral oil while performing and have never experienced this drying effect.
I have never used the Unique 2 (DF41?) and I have never used an MDG machine, never seen a need for it. I avoid all the problems of the DF50 with water based haze and have never had a problem filling a space.
In addition I can control water based haze much better. I can keep it where I want it, in the density I want it, and when I don't want it, it doesn't take half an hour to dissipate. If there is one thing I hate it is things that I can not control, hence another reason to love water based haze.
I don't see why you think that sugar water would be more harmful than mineral oil? Every Doctor (internist and ENT) that I have ever talked to about it feels that the water based soluations are safer in the short and long term. The chemical itself is harmless (as verified by every CE I have spoken to about this issue) so you could have mass amounts of water based fluid with no ill effects. The argument that it takes more particulate to generate the same effect really doesn't make a lot of sense, since it is a harmless particulate.
Mike
Dalamar
Member
You're right: I'm no chemist and I have misled you with Rn, and I can't speak expertly about Uuo either. Disregard them. Regardless, the point was that there are plenty of alternatives to CO2, if it's an issue, and N2 is usually the one preferred.
AEA contracts have legal rammifications, but the AEA is not as an authority in safety measures and quality approbation, like the UL, as I said. We tend to respect their wishes, but they do not hold the monopoly on truth and wisdom and, sometimes, we may know a thing or two they don't. But then again, I'm no expert in that field either, am I?
jhdesynz
Member
Own a DF-50 and use it with oil based fluid. Get minor complaints occasionally, but usually only from the "Diva"-ish types. Most performers (myself included) don't even notice it except for the refridgerator hum it makes.
I have used both the Neutron Star and Radiance hazers and like them, but the haze is too subject to the temperature of the air and the air currents. If you're in a room with more than one level of seating, it gets interesting.
I have used both the Neutron Star and Radiance hazers and like them, but the haze is too subject to the temperature of the air and the air currents. If you're in a room with more than one level of seating, it gets interesting.
