New World Rigging Symposium to Take Place at USITT 2019

Stage Directions: ESTA and USITT announce the second New World Rigging Symposium, taking place March 19-20, 2019 in conjunction with the USITT Conference and Stage Expo 2019 in Louisville, KY. Building on the success of this year’s inaugural symposium, the 2019 event will once again provide an opportunity for riggers and those interested in the live entertainment rigging industry to network, discuss current issues and new technologies, and help shape the future of the industry.

The Riggers' Forum is Coming to Leeds

Lighting&Sound America Online - News: Following its success last year, the Riggers' Forum will once again be held at PLASA Focus: Leeds 2014, on Tuesday, April 30, at the Royal Armouries Museum.

PLASA Rigging Conference 2013 Examines International Rigging Standards

Lighting&Sound America Online - News: The final two sessions to be announced at the fourth annual PLASA Rigging Conference both examine aspects of international rigging standards at the event on October 7 - 8, 2013 at ExCeL London.

Bill Sapsis to Lead Rigging for Theatre Workshop for USITT

Stage Directions: USITT Presents, USITT’s series of one-day training sessions, will present a Rigging for Theatre workshop led by Bill Sapsis at the San Diego Civic Theatre on Tuesday, Oct. 1. The class will cover current industry practices and equipment, maintenance, and inspections. The class costs $60 for USITT members.

PLASA Rigging Conference 2013 Welcomes Key Sponsors

Lighting&Sound America Online - News: The fourth annual PLASA Rigging Conference announces that it will be supported by major sponsors for the first time, cementing its growing reputation as an essential event for the industry. Unusual Rigging becomes the platinum sponsor while Outback Rigging is on board as the gold sponsor. The PLASA Rigging Conference takes place October 7-8, 2013 at its new home, ExCeL London.

Rigging Seminar - Synthesis

Question:

For the Synthesis homework's question #4,5,6, do we need to indicate what size of component? we use?
Or we just indicate the name of components?

Answer:

You do need to figure the proper size.

Rigging Seminar - Design Factor

WorkingOnRigging (3:15:47 PM): Hi EProf,
WorkingOnRigging (3:15:56 PM): for the rigging assignment

WorkingOnRigging (3:16:18 PM): "under-hanging an electric from the tension grid"

WorkingOnRigging (3:18:14 PM): which definition of underhanging are we using

WorkingOnRigging (3:20:49 PM): and in general, does the rule of design factor being 10:1 if it is over the audience's head still hold true even if there is a structure there to catch it if it fails

WorkingOnRigging (3:48:24 PM): and when something has been proof loaded, you still take treat it with the same safety factors?

EProf (6:25:50 PM): underhanging

EProf (6:25:58 PM): like, hanging, under

WorkingOnRigging (6:26:18 PM): ok so it is actually under the grid

EProf (6:26:24 PM): yes

EProf (6:26:47 PM): and then, no, if it can't get to the people then 8:1 is fine

WorkingOnRigging (6:27:02 PM): k

EProf (6:27:19 PM): and with proof tested gear, it's judgment call

EProf (6:28:00 PM): but all you know is potentially .000001# less than a failure

WorkingOnRigging (6:28:33 PM): ok...so if i still have a normal design factor, it is still correct

WorkingOnRigging (6:28:39 PM): though may be overcautious

EProf (6:28:51 PM): something like that, yes

WorkingOnRigging (6:29:03 PM): ok thank you

Rigging Seminar - Design Factpr

Question:

If something is proof loaded to 1000#, and we want to use it in a system with a 10 to 1 design factor, how does the 200% of the proof test interact with the 10 to 1 design factor? Do we end up with a 500# WLL for the part since we proofed it at 200% of that, do we end up with a 100# WLL under the logic that the Ultimate Breaking Strength must be greater than 1000# and we are using the more conservative design factor (10 to 1 rather than 2 to 1), or do we end up with a 50# WLL, since the item's WLL is 500# from the Proof Test, and we want to build a 10 to 1 design based on that?

Answer:

So, there's a judgment call here. But if you have a shop built piece of gear that you pull to 1000# without a failure, all you know is that it has gone to 1000# without a failure. In the strictest sense you might then say 1000.0000000000001# could be the minimum failure load and so with a 10:1 design factor the WLL would be 100#.

But for a purpose built piece of gear the rule of thumb is to proof test to 200%. So if I needed something to hold 500# I would pull it to 1000#.

In terms of "confidence" you would need to evaluate the loading condition, look at the potential hazards and decide whether you need a strict interpretation of 10:1 or if the 200% proof test is sufficient.

Rigging Seminar - Design Factor

SundayRigger (1:03:09 PM): hey, can I ask you a couple of questions about the design factor assignment?

SundayAnswers (1:03:13 PM): ok

SundayRigger (1:04:01 PM): for hanging the header flat of a portal, would you consider it above the audience because that is where it would most likely fall?

SundayAnswers (1:04:27 PM): depends where the portal is, yes

SundayAnswers (1:04:37 PM): portal usually over the stage

SundayRigger (1:06:05 PM): when rigging a new lineset, do you use the highest design factor because you do not know what it will be used for in the future?

SundayAnswers (1:06:35 PM): you have to anticipate what it might be used for

SundayRigger (1:08:52 PM): alright, and in class you said proof test to 250% then changed it to 200%, which should we be using?

SundayAnswers (1:09:08 PM): 200

SundayAnswers (1:09:15 PM): 250 is ok

SundayAnswers (1:09:18 PM): miniumum 200

SundayRigger (1:10:20 PM): ok, thank you

SundayAnswers (1:10:32 PM): np

A Chance to Win Free Stuff - And PTM Course Extra Credit to Boot

Rigging Seminar - MA & Double Purchase Assignment

FreeThinkingStudent (9:26:41 PM): so for the final question on our homework for rigging, i decided that a zero g environment would be a fairly safe option for loading counterweight. would this be acceptable if i come up with a way for this to happen?

DownToEarthProf (9:53:13 PM): I think perhaps

DownToEarthProf (9:53:18 PM): that this might be ok

DownToEarthProf (9:53:24 PM): as a second answer

DownToEarthProf (9:53:33 PM): for some type of extra credit

DownToEarthProf (9:53:56 PM): and that your primary answer ought to be something available without a long term research grant

FreeThinkingStudent (9:54:27 PM): okay

Rigging Seminar - MA & Double Purchase Assignment

Hi Professor,
I was wondering about question 3 of the second homework. [the answer I come up with] violates Happy Math.
Thanks

Really nothing says the math has to be happy.