The above Ad will no longer appear after you Sign Up for Free!

Fogger vs. Hazer Question

Discussion in 'Special Effects' started by Captainbaldy, Jan 18, 2009.

  1. Captainbaldy

    Captainbaldy Member

    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Green Bay, WI
    Hello,
    In my venue we use foggers about 20 hrs a week and i am getting a residue build up on some equipment from the fog. The equipment is about 40 to 60 feet away from the fogger. Would i get less of a residue if i switched to a Hazer or would it leave more of a residue?
     
  2. dannyn

    dannyn Member

    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    4
    I would think that you would get less residue from a hazer beacuse the fog is not as dense.
     
  3. len

    len Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,709
    Likes Received:
    204
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    It is the same answer as the "will a hazer set off a fire alarm more or less easily than a fogger?" The answer depends on a lot of factors, most of which are venue specific. In general, haze builds up a little less, but especially when you first change it out and are less familiar with a hazer, you might overuse it.
     
  4. gafftaper

    gafftaper Senior Team Senior Team Fight Leukemia

    Messages:
    12,493
    Likes Received:
    2,475
    Occupation:
    Theater Manager & T.D.
    Location:
    Seattle, Washington
    A lot also depends on the quality of the machine and the type and quality of fluid you use.

    What type of fogger and fluid are you using now? It could be a better fogger and fluid would help and still give you the look you want.

    Tell us what effect are you trying to create with your foggers? It could be that a hazer is more appropriate for your needs or it could be that a hazer will not give you the look you want.

    How large is the space? Does it have a lot of airflow through it or is it sort of stagnant?

    Do you have a decent budget both for initial purchase and ongoing fluid purchases? I believe a good quality hazer is going to run you $1000 and up. Switching to a cheap hazer won't solve your problem. Buying a good hazer but using cheap fluid won't help either. If you can't afford the machine and the fluid then you are better off to just giving up and planning to regularly clean your gear.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2009
  5. bwhiteford

    bwhiteford Member

    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Brookeville, MD
    I'm going to hazard a guess that you're using oil based fog in your fogger. If I recall correctly, oil based fog is much more likely to leave a residue as it falls to the ground. Water based fog shouldn't have this problem. I suppose you could check to see if your foggers will accept a water based fog.
     
  6. len

    len Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,709
    Likes Received:
    204
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    On other thing, fog and haze have different looks to them. So if you like the more instantaneous, thicker cloud of a fogger, you may not like the look of a hazer, which is more for accentuating light beams and shouldn't be as visible.
     
  7. Dalamar

    Dalamar Member

    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    hi there.

    I'm sorry to be that guy, but I'll have to say that you are wrong in this assesment. May I have your permission, kind sir, to correct you? =)

    The type of chemical used in generating haze or fog isn't resposible for build-up and residues. Particle size is. Oil-based fluids are NOT more likely to gather residues, but Oil-based fluid "crakers" (should read pulverizers) are. In Laymen's terms, a good quality haze generator, even mineral-oil based, is better than a mineral oil-based "cracker". Much, much better.

    Also, as stated in several other threads, "Water-based" hardly exists. It's a marketing strategy used in the early 80's to define DEG or TEG-based fluids. (Diethylene or Triethylene glycols). To be X-compound-based, a fluid must contain a higher proportion of a given chemical to be designated as such. And in most cases, Glycol-based fluids hazers and foggers will use up to 20 times the amount of fluid used in a good quality mineral oil-based fluid. In all likelyhood, which do you think will leave more residue?

    The main problem is that we're using cheap tools to try to get professional effects. It's like buying a Chevrolet and expect Ferrari results. It's just not going to happen... ****! /cry

    So, Captnbadly, my guess is that you are actually using a glycol-based (Water-based, as everyone call'em) fogger, which will use something like 1 pint / hour of fluid, 20 hours a week... that's 20 liters of distilled water and Glycol that is expelled in your air per week. I'd also guess that your ventilation system is getting quite clogged at the filters and doesn't nearly suffice to ventilate at its rated CFM. Your filters get wet, soggy, mucky, and the ventilation docks are coated with a film of dust and particles? am I right?
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2009
  8. Dalamar

    Dalamar Member

    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada

    Forgive me for the wall of text here, but I think I can make a case here.

    Not a year ago, I had to make a calculation for a potential client that said, in short (Brands are ignored here. it's not an infomercial) "Hazer X is cheaper to run than Hazer Y, because fluid is cheaper, the machine is cheaper and it doesn't use CO2". The results are... interesting.

    Also, the average life span of (HAZER Y) is anywhere between 12 to 15 years, if your model is an early one (grey casing), perhaps more if your model is more recent (purple casing). The generator is made for being roughed up on tour and in rental houses. If it is used as a stationary unit, used within operating parameters, there is no reason to change the generator. Even to non-CO2 models. Especially to those, I should say. If you think the operating costs would be lower, please bear with me for a minute.

    At full intensity, the (HAZER X) hazer uses (10.54) 11ml of fluid per minute, so 660 ml per hour.
    http://www.martin.com/spec/compositespec.asp?pp=1&popspec=1&extratext=on&bullets=on&photo=on&region=US&lang=0&product=Magnum2500Hz

    The (HAZER X)'s reservoir holds 2.5 liters. So you have 3.8 hours of autonomy


    At full intensity, the (HAZER Y) use 55ml per HOUR.
    At full intensity, you have about 45 hours of autonomy on a standard CO2 bottle.
    The (HAZER Y)’s reservoir holds 2.5 liters. You have 137.5 hours of autonomy http://www.mdgfog.com/pdf/atmosphere-aps-series_e.pdf


    Considering:
    If each jug of fluid is sold at an average of 40$. Each jug is 4 liters (4000ml)

    You need 6.5 jugs of (HAZER X)'s fluid to make 45 hours of fog (260$)
    You need 0.62 jugs of (HAZER Y)'s fluid to make 45 hours of fog (24.75$).. and a refill of CO2… about 20$. For a total of about 45$.

    So, it costs 5.78$ / hour to run a (HAZER X) to the (HAZER Y)’s 1.00$ / hour including CO2. And I haven’t added the 6 jug changes done by a tech, the room it takes to store them, etc.

    The only reason one should elect to go for a (HAZER X) type (or any other brand other than (HAZER Y)) would be to have fast dissipating haze, which completely defeats the purpose of an atmospheric effect. Since our hang times last about 12-15 times longer than anyone else’s product (our particle size allows it), you can use a minimal amount of fluid ((HAZER Y)’s are usually used at 10%- 20% intensity in a studio) to the other’s 100% intensity.



    In other words, Buying the right product once helps solve headaches. Direct relation, no doubt. =)
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice