More Fogger questions
- Thread starterBogo1229
- Start date
The 2000 has a higher output capacity BUT they both have to use heat to generate their output which means they periodically have to go into a "cool down" mode to keep from burning up. I don't think there is a unit on the market that will produce a fog continuously for hours on end.
You also might want to think "hazer" which produces a finer, longer lasting atmospheric over a longer period of time. I've been using this stuff for 23 yrs and every audience I've encountered, especially older crowds (40+) gag and choke when they see that heavy thick cloud of fog whereas a mild haze kinda sneaks up on them without notice!
You also might want to think "hazer" which produces a finer, longer lasting atmospheric over a longer period of time. I've been using this stuff for 23 yrs and every audience I've encountered, especially older crowds (40+) gag and choke when they see that heavy thick cloud of fog whereas a mild haze kinda sneaks up on them without notice!
Dalamar
Member
I'm sorry, but I was not going to remain quiet on this thread, but you guys need to understand how foggers work.
First you need to understand the nature of the chemical ingredient you're using. When using any glycol-based (that's your fluid) chemical, the inner temperature drop rate of the heating module is increased exponentially as Glycol evaporation produces an exothermic reaction. In Layman's terms, it releases heat. A lot of it too.That's why many Glycols are used as industrial and automotive coolants (Prestone).
Secondly, to produce any amount of "denser", more visible fog, most foggers require a substantial amount of Glycol to be evaporated.
So, to make a fog effect look realistic with Glycols, you need a lot of coolant to go through a heating module. Anything strikes you as self-defeating? Yup, the heating module is continuously cooled down by the very chemical used to make fog. It requires a lot of energy (most foggers use 1200W and 1500W modules) to maintain the evaporation temperature, and even then, sometimes, it needs a breather to warm back up.
Essentially, manufacturers have often elected to opt for a higher volume of fog produced at the expense of longevity of the effect. In most theatrical application, that choice is sound, as many effects last much under 10 seconds. However, you seem to indicate this isn't the case here. So, if continuity is of importance, then you need to find a generator (like our own MDG Minimax) which trades off overall output for consistency.
I hope I didn't add to the confusion and cleared a few things out.
First you need to understand the nature of the chemical ingredient you're using. When using any glycol-based (that's your fluid) chemical, the inner temperature drop rate of the heating module is increased exponentially as Glycol evaporation produces an exothermic reaction. In Layman's terms, it releases heat. A lot of it too.That's why many Glycols are used as industrial and automotive coolants (Prestone).
Secondly, to produce any amount of "denser", more visible fog, most foggers require a substantial amount of Glycol to be evaporated.
So, to make a fog effect look realistic with Glycols, you need a lot of coolant to go through a heating module. Anything strikes you as self-defeating? Yup, the heating module is continuously cooled down by the very chemical used to make fog. It requires a lot of energy (most foggers use 1200W and 1500W modules) to maintain the evaporation temperature, and even then, sometimes, it needs a breather to warm back up.
Essentially, manufacturers have often elected to opt for a higher volume of fog produced at the expense of longevity of the effect. In most theatrical application, that choice is sound, as many effects last much under 10 seconds. However, you seem to indicate this isn't the case here. So, if continuity is of importance, then you need to find a generator (like our own MDG Minimax) which trades off overall output for consistency.
I hope I didn't add to the confusion and cleared a few things out.
