|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
- I agree that more references are needed. However, the article should be tagged with Refimprove instead of Unreferenced, as the latter is reserved for articles that have absolutely zero references, and this article currently has two. I've taken the liberty of making that change and, since there are different camps of thought (and no consensus) about where the template should be placed, I put it in the references section to prevent clutter at the top of page. Can you help to add some quality references? Lambtron (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- You make a valid point, yet there is another line of thinking that regards the reference section as the best place for Refimprove in cases (like this) where the article is reasonably well written and largely devoid of dubious "facts". Here's just the most recent of several discussions about this: template talk:Refimprove#Template on top or in the reference section. Lambtron (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
(indent) Thanks for your input, Found4dollar. I respect your opinion and do not mean to offend, but the proper forum for discussing template placement is on the template talk page. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to comment there? Or better yet, use that forum to establish a consensus for Refimprove placement policy, which does not currently exist. Lambtron (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Woah. you are the one that brought this up on this talk page. I was just stating that i support Daemon Lotos' desire to place it at the top of the page on this article, considering that it is such a large article and has only 2 references. People should be informed of that as soon as they get to the page, and not have to scroll all the way down to find it. You yourself stated that there is no consensus in the greater community as to where it should be placed, and for this once instance I support it being at the top. Currently you are the only one on this talk page that disagrees.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Clearly, placement of this template is a hot topic! For that very reason, this conversation doesn't belong here -- it belongs on the template talk page. Otherwise our valuable time will be squandered on uncohesive, duplicated discussions of the pros and cons of Refimprove template placement on the talk pages of every article that uses it. That approach will seriously crimp our productivity, and it doesn't do anything to solve the root problem. Rather than carrying on here with further debate, polling other editors to try to reach consensus about this particular article, ad infinitum, it strikes me as being much more productive to focus on reaching consensus about the template itself. That will not only resolve the issue here, but everywhere the template is used now, and in the future. Lambtron (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The article fails to address some important issues about counterweights:
- How much do they weigh? That is, for a given standard footprint, is there a standard weight per unit thickness (and if so, what is it)?
- Yellow paint seems to be used for certain fixed loads, apparently regardless of the load weight. Are any other colors used?
- The article states that they are made from either lead or steel. Does lead have any safety issues, and is it being phased out because of that?
- What happens when everything (including the batten) is removed from a line set, and how are counterweights configured for this?
- Counterweight details have been added to the article, per your request. Yellow is the standard color for permanent counterweight on an arbor, as it is the most noticeable color. Steel bricks are more common because they are cheaper per pound than lead. Battens are not removed from counterweight line sets in normal rigging practice. —Catsquisher (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
First let me say it is a great article. However, I believe your claim that in double purchase systems the hand line is at 2-1 movement ratio to the batten is incorrect. Certainly in my experience this is not the case. I do not want to just edit the paragraph as it is possible that some systems are set up that way. But I believe it is most common to have the handline follow the 2-1 pulley set up which then means that the hand line has to be pulled twice as much to move the arbor bringing the handline and batten movement relationship back to a 1-1. I will do my own research as I am only familiar with the systems I work on, and come back and edit myself if it has not been done already.Daturtleman (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Also the statement that the handline is in a 2-1 force ratio is I believe incorrect. The handline is strictly for moving the arbor, all mechanical advantage comes from the weight ratio of batten to arbor. Once again this is my understanding and it is possible that some systems are set up differently than in my experience. Will do further research before changing the text of the articleDaturtleman (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to all the contributors to this informative article. There remain a number of issues, besides the lack of references noted above. I'd be happy to take a crack at a some of them, but thought I'd list a few before doing so, in case there are objections:
- I recommend reordering the article for clarity, with hemp rigging first, then counterweight, then motorized (corresponding with historical development).
- Mention should be made of historical relationship between ship rigging and stage rigging.
- The distinction between hemp rigging and pinrail rigging is a false one. Pinrails are integral to standard hemp rigging, not a separate form of rigging.
- There is a distinction between block and sheave that the article conflates. A sheave is the grooved wheel that spins within a block. The block is the entire pulley assembly including side plates, shaft, flange bearings, support angles, pipe spacers and sheave(s).
- The section on "Multi speed" systems is a bit confused. "Double-purchase" is the standard term and should replace the one used. These systems do not create a mechanical advantage. These systems suffer a mechanical disadvantage to deal with space limitations. It is twice as hard for a flyman to operate a double-purchase lineset because the inertia of the doubly-heavy arbor is greater (and the risks of a runaway lineset are correspondingly greater). They are generally avoided unless fly or stage space is severely limited.
- The section on motorized systems is confused. Counterweight systems may be provided with motor assists (e.g. dedicated winch, capstan winch, or custom system). Lineshaft winches (with drums), point hoists, and chain hoists are common forms of motorized rigging.
- Hand (and drill) operated drum winches are also used on occasion in theatrical rigging.
- Steel grid decks were traditionally down-facing C-sections, but heavy-duty bar grating is much more prevalent today.
- Etc. Catsquisher (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Those are all good ideas. The only thing I am unsure of is the proposed organisation. I first visited here to learn about counterweight because it is used everwhere my limited, non-professional experience has taken me, and I knew practically nothing about it. At the time, though, the article was a disaster, so I ended up researching outside sources and largely re-writing it (and adding photos), with greatly expanded coverage of counterweight since that was my primary interest. Counterweight seems to have the most widespread usage, so a sensible organisation could conceivably order systems according to usage. Those detailed sections could be preceded by a "History" section, which would present system types in chronological order and discuss the historical relationships you mentioned. You seem quite literate and knowledgeable, though, so I'm confident that whatever you decide will be acceptable. Lambtron (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response Lambtron. I'm leaning towards reorganization. Hemp rigging is, as you noted, less and less prominent, but still widely used in one form or another. In any case, counterweight rigging evolved, and borrows many components, from hemp rigging. Addressing it first will provide context that enriches understanding. By the way, I just noticed that the "Parts of a fly system" title is a bit misleading. Something like "Fly system infrastructure" may be more appropriate. Hope to make my first pass at it all within the next few days. Catsquisher (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
No Discussion Regarding Stability and Strength of Supporting Superstructures
The recent catastrophic failure of the (portable/erected on site) superstructure supporting the fly system (at the Indiana State Fair August, 2001) suggests most strongly that this matter should be addressed in this article. Permanent indoor fly system installations do not face the lateral loads of outdoor winds, however the matters of suspending considerable weight (directly over the performers and audience) which, nearly universally, requires supplementary bracing, should be addressed, here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Structural engineering is probably the best place for such a discussion, though it might deserve a mention here, too, if this article covered portable fly systems. Lambtron (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Lambtron that another article would best address these concerns. Permanent indoor fly system infrastructures of the type this article addresses are, in fact, typically designed to account for wind, snow, seismic and/or other applicable loads. That is because structural members often perform double-duty, e.g. loft block beams typically double as roof beams. The live loads of the fly system are a part of the loads that a structural engineer will account for in the comprehensive design of a buildings structure. I added a paragraph on beam design to address structural design a little bit more, but the article's thrust is elsewhere.
- Temporary structures, such as the failed rigs prominent in the news recently, are typically not designed for inclement weather because building codes for temporary structures are not as stringent as for permanent structures. The difference in code requirements reflects a few assumptions: temporary structures have a lower probability of exposure to extreme conditions; temporary structures are typically smaller; event organizers will close a venue when necessary; making temporary structures meet the specifications of permanent structures is cost-prohibitive. The extent to which those assumptions are valid and where lines should be drawn are questions of public policy. —Catsquisher (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)