Hazer advice

[Wood4321]

If the oil-based machines (crackers) produce particles that are so much smaller than those produced by water/glycol/glycerol based ones I would assume that those smaller particles can and will penetrate deeper into the respiratory system. I can imagine that could lead to increased irritation.

Sorry,
I am unsure of the particle size of a glycol based hazer?
It may be smaller than the size of a DF-50 particle, or even smaller than the particle from an MDG? but I honestly have no idea.
What I do know is that the particle size of the droplets from an MDG are significantly smaller than the particles from an DF-50.
This makes the MDG a significantly cleaner hazer than an DF-50.

The Actors Equity study states as I quoted above, that in "normal concentrations" exposure to mineral oil was not associated with increased respiratory or nasal symptom reporting, as glycol exposure was.
This seems to prove that in most instances, mineral oil hazers will cause less respiratory distress than glycol will.
And you are absolutely correct, it is all about the concentration of haze that causes the distress, however, you need far more glycol haze than oil based haze to get the same effect.
I can run a MDG HO hazer for 4-6 weeks at a time on a single gallon of fluid. in that time 2 unique 2's while creating an uneven haze, will most likely go through 10-20 gallons of fluid each.
Shows such as Cirque's Believe that use the uniques, use 10-20 hazers, and buy their fluid in 55 gallon drums.

As for the haze disappearing from the air,
Once you have put a substance into the air, it will continue to exist in the air, even if it is not visible.
I would suggest with no proof whatsoever, that the glycol will continue to be detectable in the air long after the haze effect has diminished.

Also,
On my tours that used a Unique, I did still have residue on the dichroics of several moving lights, however, it was more of a dried on style of buildup, very unlike the oily buildup that happens with a DF-50.
To be honest it was very hard to clean off, but it wasn't as noticeable than the oil residue.

 

[DuckJordan]

Its worth noting since a lot of electronic cigarettes use glycol. Since I've started using mine the effects have been pretty minimal. At first it was just a weird sensation (watery feeling) then it has gotten progressively better. It may just take the actors and/or artists just a bit of time to get used to whatever you are using. While some may have no experience others have probably been around haze their entire careers. At this point the only difference between glycol and mineral oil to me is the hang time. Mineral oil seems to last much longer than the glycol and cheaper in the long run.

 

[LiveCommander]

I am unsure of the particle size of a glycol based hazer

Just repeating what I've been reading but someone ('niclights') over at at the blue-room forum told me very specifically that

Oil is considerably more expensive, the main advantages being a much smaller particle size (<1 micron, versus approx 20 micron for glycol) for long hang time and is more transparent with less diffusion.

I can totally understand how a much smaller particle size would explain the apparently much longer hang time of oil based haze and better transparency, which are being touted as the advantages of oil based haze pretty much all over the net. The 'expense' part of his statement was in reference to the machines themselves I think.

As for the haze disappearing from the air,
Once you have put a substance into the air, it will continue to exist in the air, even if it is not visible.
I would suggest with no proof whatsoever, that the glycol will continue to be detectable in the air long after the haze effect has diminished.

I'm sure there's some truth in that but it would be nice if someone did (have access to) some actual research on where the particles go. What could explain the glycol particles becoming totally invisible? Is it that they get smaller as they evaporate themselves and break up into invididual molecules that become invisible? What percentage of glycol stays in the air and what percentage falls to the ground and 'condensates' and what happens with if after that?

This seems to prove that in most instances, mineral oil hazers will cause less respiratory distress than glycol will.

If distress is used in this study in the sense of immediate discomfort rather than medical research on the long-term effect on human tissue that is not as comforting as it may seem. Many substances do not cause any immediate distress but are very unhealthy. It's with some reluctance that I use the following as an example but I don't think anyone has complained about (airborne) asbestos (particles) in the past but the stuff is devastating to the human body when inhaled and partly, as I understand, because of the very small size of airborne asbestos particles which allows them to penetrate deep into lungs and stay there. Afaik larger particles are more easily expelled by exhaling. I don't know the actual average or mininum size of asbestos particles though.

 

[Wood4321]

Right,
But the industry has been using oil based hazers for at least 20 years, with not a single health issue attributed to use.
If there was, I think we all would know about it, as every other hazer manufacturer would tell us all about it.
The reason you don't see the manufacturers touting the health issues of the glycol based haze, is that there is not a better option for Fog machines.
And all the manufacturers manufacture fog machines as well as hazers.
Including MDG! Most of the MDG Fog machines do indeed use Glycol based fluid.

Now, that being said, most times fog machines aren't used for an entire show, as hazers are.
I don't believe the irritation I was speaking of has anything do due with the depth of penetration to the lungs.
I believe, (and the research bears this out) that the discomfort shown by performers in a glycol hazed atmosphere, are having issues, based on the fact that the glycol drys out the mucous membranes in both the lungs, as well as the vocal cords.

And comparing aspestos to haze is absolutely ridiculous.
One is a known cancer causing agent, the others are used in food, and able to be safely ingested in reasonable quantities.

 

[Esoteric]

I have read the studies both ways on health issues and there is nothing convincing.

I will tell you about my experiences with gear however and you can relate what you will.

I deal in used gear all the time and I can tell you without fail what units were used with mineral oil haze and what units were used with glycol (water based) haze.

The units used in a mineral oil environment have either a thin, slick, clear, oozing coat of oil or a thick, black, gooey covering of oil (depending on time of exposure and area of exposure). The units used in a glycol environment have no such coating. In addition mineral oil exposed motors will have about half the life expectancy of glycol exposed motors.

In addition when I worked at the PAC we had a $100,000 grand piano. We were not allowed to use mineral oil haze when the piano was out because of the effects.

To me, the smaller particle size and extra linger time are not worth it (and I am a very picky designer).

Mike

 

[David Ashton]

No disrespect intended.
There is NO SUCH THING as water based haze.
It is a marketing term only!
All "water based haze" should be labeled as "Glycol based"
given that haze fluid is a mixture of distilled water and glycol, then either description would seem accurate

 

[LiveCommander]

And comparing aspestos to haze is absolutely ridiculous.
One is a known cancer causing agent, the others are used in food, and able to be safely ingested in reasonable quantities.

I didn't mean to make a comparison between asbestos and mineral oil, glycol or glycerol at all. That's why I wrote I was reluctant to use it as an example. I just wanted to emphasize that immediate physical (dis)comfort is not the only factor to consider.

Perhaps I should have looked for a different example. Maybe something likhe allergies which I believe can sometimes develop after repeated exposure to a substance. Note that I'm not suggesting or implying that people are likely to develope an allergy to mineral oil, glycol, or glycerol . I'm sure we would have known about that after 20 years.

Back on topic: I have found a cheap fazer with DMX, the ShowTec Atmos F350, only EUR 129 / US$ 185. Some of the ShowTec fazers and foggers are re-badged Antari's but I'm not sure if that is the case with this one.

 

[Wood4321]

Right,
But the "Active" ingredient is glycol, not water.
The water is merely a carrier of the active ingredient.

In my opinion, that makes it glycol based, not water based.

 

[Wood4321]

Mike,
Have you tried the MDG?
I have used DF-50's for tours, and my equipment was exactly as you state.
HOWEVER,
When I switched over to MDG's the equipment comes back in pretty much the same state as a water based hazer.
(Crap, I am starting to sound like an MDG Sales guy....)
In any case, I won't be buying any other type of hazer any time soon, especially since the MDG's are built like tanks, and have a 5 year warranty.

 

[Esoteric]

I have not Josh. I am perfectly content with my Magnum and Jem Hazers. I haven't seen a venue yet that they do not work like a charm in.

Mike

 

[Joebar]

Hi there!
I highly recommend Hazebase´s Basehazer pro ,it´s a really good hazer built in to a AMPTown case ,very rugged design and extremely fast warmup time around 30sec. powerfull fan and VERY low on liquid! Been thru a whole bunch of JEM/Martin and Antaris and nothing comes close PERIOD!List price is 970 euros. A bit on the high side i now but for touring and trouble free use it´s a bargain.

hazebase.com

 

[Wood4321]

Hi there!
I highly recommend Hazebase´s Basehazer pro ,it´s a really good hazer built in to a AMPTown case ,very rugged design and extremely fast warmup time around 30sec. powerfull fan and VERY low on liquid! Been thru a whole bunch of JEM/Martin and Antaris and nothing comes close PERIOD!List price is 970 euros. A bit on the high side i now but for touring and trouble free use it´s a bargain.

hazebase.com

Joebar,
Isn't the hasebase basically a rebranded unique hazer in a different box? the electronics look very similar at least..

 

[Wood4321]

I have not Josh. I am perfectly content with my Magnum and Jem Hazers. I haven't seen a venue yet that they do not work like a charm in.

Mike

Fair enough, To each their own,

 

[Joebar]

Joebar,
Isn't the hasebase basically a rebranded unique hazer in a different box? the electronics look very similar at least..

Your right.
Both Unique and Hazebase is built by Ottec (Ottec Technology GmbH) ,so their very much the same.

 

[derekleffew]

I thought of this thread while reading in the latest issue of Protocol about the latest developments in
ANSI E1.5 - 2009 Entertainment Technology - Theatrical Fog Made with Aqueous Solutions of Di- and Trihydric Alcohols .pdf
and
ANSI E1.23 - 2010 Entertainment Technology - Design and Execution of Theatrical Fog Effects

It's tough to argue with a published ANSI standard.

For studies, see http://tsp.plasa.org/tsp/working_groups/fs.html .

 

[LiveCommander]

To close the original topic: I ordered the ShowTec F-350 and tried it out last night.

It's labeled a 'fazer' and that's what it is. If you set it to maximum output it's more like a fog machine (I'm currenty using it with JEM ZR mix) and with the included wireless remote that's all you get, on or off. However if you control it through DMX you can set adjust the output what seem to be 255 discrete steps which could be quite useful to maintain a faze.

Using a large fan to disperse the clouds does help to make the end result look a bit more like haze even at higher output.

I think this unit will serve it's purpose of allowing me to design and test lightshows in our rather spacious rehearsal room (which is actually something like 30x18x15 feet) and I might even use if for some gigs or at least bring it along as a backup or use it as a smoke machine in addition to any hazer we might rent or purchase at a later time.

Thanks everyone for all input. Now on to my next thread because I also tried my new lightsets last night and I wasn't entire pleased with them.

 

[ejsandstrom]

Although it doesn't help with the financial part of your decision, I have the Antari HZ 300 and am happy with the results. Lots of haze and good hang time. It's also pretty frugal with the juice. I probably put about 100 hours on it this last year with shows and classes and I haven't had any problems at all.

Thanks, Joshua, I always appreciate actual information. My anecdotal experience has been that actors/singer complain about the oil-based more, but maybe that's because it's able to get thicker.

I know it is not one of the choices but our HZ300 (antari version and a MBT version) have been flawless.

Please keep in mind that we use our far more than most. Figure 8 hours on Saturday and 12-14 hours on Sunday along with an hour or two during the week. We use around a gallon of fluid a year. We have a gym size auditorium in 10 to 15 minutes for zero to full desired haze level. Granted we have awesome air flow.

Our singers have never once complained about a hazer affecting their voice. And they sing 4-5 songs each service and 5-6 services a day.

It is DMX controlled (On/Off) and I paid around $440 USD for them new.