[SML] Leviton Dimming Racks

[Rob Graham]

In our space, there is no work light system.  When we're working on
stage, the entire system is online; the lighting configuration is
essentially original to the building.  They replaced the original
(Strand, I think) dimming racks with the D192 currently operating
(using CMX protocol) in 1988.  Needless to say, we're firmly trapped
in the 1990's technologically speaking.  Most of the fixtures are
Colortran 5/50 units; many of them have not seen maintenance in a
number of years.  Three years ago, my predecessor began the process of
specifying  a system.  Those specs called for the iSeries dimmer racks
by Leviton, and a host of new conventional fixtures.

As part of the process, I think its not unreasonable to look at the
long term power, maintenance and operational cost savings by
considering LED, especially in the areas where fixtures are difficult
to reach.  Houselights is completely inadequate, and the overall
system is such that it is very "1968" in the way the system is laid
out.  Four "electrics," two of which are dedicated rows of border
lights/strips.  No true cyc lights.  Two FOH positions, Two FOH coves,
and Two Torm positions at the rear of the proscenium.

Right now I'm operating the system with a two-scene preset board.  Its
time for an upgrade; both technologically and educationally this place
is inadequate for its needs.  Its also not as safe as it should be - I
can't reliably control the house light system because there are
electronic issues between the analog fader station and the D192
processor units.

So, its not a matter of if; its a matter of when.  I'm trying to come
up with a viable solution that my administration will follow through
on that serves the need to get the facility into the current century
technologically, and improves our ability to support the programs
presented in the facility.

Thanks to everyone for your wisdom and expertise; I truly value the
input that you all have to offer.

Rob G.


On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 7:29 AM, Bill Conner via Stagecraft
<stagecraft at theatrical.net> wrote:
> I would agree that savings from efficiency of the  light source are barely
> significant, perhaps house lights and work lights left on for days reducing
> electrical energy costs a little. But not having to climb ladders over fixed
> seats on tiered floors to replace lamps, that is more efficient.
>
>
> On Jul 26, 2016 7:21 AM, "Joe D via Stagecraft" <stagecraft at theatrical.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> Be forewarned that the "energy efficiency" movment has a bit of a
>> checkered past. Compact fluorescents, and earlier LEDs sometimes had
>> lifespans less than that of a traditional lamp, and but cost 10x the price
>> and more.  Wind farms are another whole category of failing to live up to
>> its promises.
>>
>> If a technology takes 10 years to pay for itself, it is likely a very bad
>> investment. But, if the technology can pay for itself in a year or so, then
>> it is a much less risky investment.
>>
>> -Joe
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> For list information see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
>> Stagecraft mailing list
>> Stagecraft at theatrical.net
>> http://theatrical.net/mailman/listinfo/stagecraft_theatrical.net
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> For list information see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> Stagecraft mailing list
> Stagecraft at theatrical.net
> http://theatrical.net/mailman/listinfo/stagecraft_theatrical.net



-- 
Rob Graham
photonguide at gmail.com