# are juices for hazers interchangable



## godd2 (Sep 4, 2009)

I have bought a cheap hazer unit so i realize that is part of my problem. right now i am using water based juice for it and not getting what i would like. i was told that oil based is much smaller particles so they hang longer in the air. so my question is does it really what brand of hazer juice(oil based) i buy or do i need to buy it from the company i got the hazer from?


----------



## Van (Sep 4, 2009)

Use *the* fluid or the fluid type for your hazer. Brand is not as important as type. Don not use oil based in a water based machine and vice-versa.


----------



## derekleffew (Sep 4, 2009)

Van said:


> ... Brand is not as important as type. ...


I vociferously disagree. Use only the fluid the manufacturer recommends. Unless you're not concerned about safety or buying a new hazer.


Van said:


> ...Do not use oil based in a water based machine and vice-versa.


The Reel FX DF-50 Diffusion Hazer accepts Reel Oil-less or Diffusion Fluid. I tried the Oil-less and hated it. Had to use twice as many hazers and still only had half the "hang time."


----------



## Dalamar (Sep 8, 2009)

Yup. I'll second that. 

If you bought a brand "A" fogger, use brand "A" fluid. End of story. There are a few factors to take into account when you choose this or that fog machine. You chose budget over the effect; I hate to be that guy, but you've to live with that choice. 

To avoid any kind of heartbreaks, torn shirts, and headaches here's the quick fix: 


READ THE MANUAL. 
That goes for all of us  

cheers!


----------



## wah0808 (Sep 8, 2009)

I believe the key word here was cheap... Many of the cheap fog machine actually say in the manual that you can use 'any fog fluid'. Unfortunately that's not the case in most circumstances. 

I was diagnosing problems with one not to long ago and discovered the problem was indeed the fluid choice. The cheap ones designed to use Glycol 'water based' fluid do not get hot enough to use the oil based fluids. In this case the machine was spewing (hot) un-atomized oil based fluid all over the stage with very little smoke produced. Once it was cleaned and the Glycol 'water based' fluid was used it worked like a charm.

I completely agree to read the manual but when dealing with some cheaper units the manual isn't all that helpful.

Just my two cents...


----------



## Dalamar (Sep 8, 2009)

You are right in that, friend. Some manuals are useless. 



General rule of thumb, however:

Cheap = Glycol (what most of you call wrongly "water based")

and

Glycol ≠ Oil


Oil = MAKE SURE YOUR FOG/HAZE MACHINE CAN USE IT. 

If your fog machine, haze machine, generator, etc... does not use an oil-based fluid TO BEGIN WITH, the odds are very, very, very , VERY likely it _cannot_ take it AT ALL.


----------



## SHARYNF (Sep 8, 2009)

Most folks will divide hazers into two types
one is the Glycol water based (and I don't understand why this is wrong??)
these work based on a HEATER which creates basically a Smoke with a fan that is dispersing it. Not all of them are cheap Martin/Jem units typically use this type of juice. D9ifferent people have different preferences, In general the lack of a residual film from regular use is an advantage of the glycol/water heat based units 

the other variety are the Oil based and USUALLY these are NOT heat based but rather pressure based where the oil is atomized using a high pressure pump 
these have the advantage of not needing a heat up time, but with regular use sometimes a residual film is left behind

Sharyn


----------



## Dalamar (Sep 9, 2009)

SHARYNF said:


> Most folks will divide hazers into two types
> one is the Glycol water based (and I don't understand why this is wrong??)
> these work based on a HEATER which creates basically a Smoke with a fan that is dispersing it. Not all of them are cheap Martin/Jem units typically use this type of juice. D9ifferent people have different preferences, In general the lack of a residual film from regular use is an advantage of the glycol/water heat based units
> 
> ...


 
I'm sorry, but I need to correct you here.

a) *WATER BASED* _doesn't exist_. 

WATER BASED FLUID was a _MARKETING_ expression used by a fluid manufacturer in the mid-eighties to sell a different product. It called it safe and fast disappearing, like water. To be "BASED", a compound needs to contain 50% +1 of said element - water in this case. Have you ever turned your kitchen looking like the second act of the Phantom of the Opera while cooking spaghetti? No. You haven't. That's because water vapour is completely transparent and it requires another chemical - Glycols here - to reflect any light. Glycol based holds true, Water based doesn't.


b) Your categories are erroneous. A Martin / Jem Z-R25 uses glycol and has a heat exchanger... just like an MDG ATMOSPHERE, which uses an oil-based fluid. Both are haze generators. What you're referring to is a different type; the pulverizer (DF-50), thus the messy residues. 

c) No product using a fluid makes smoke. Smoke is the result of combustion: they make FOG, vapourizing fluid.


----------



## derekleffew (Sep 9, 2009)

Dalamar said:


> ...That's because water vapour is completely transparent and it requires another chemical - Glycols here - to reflect any light. Glycol based holds true, Water based doesn't. ...


So what chemical are we seeing when we look at the effects produced by an LN2 system? Nitrogen?


Dalamar said:


> ... c) No product using a fluid makes smoke. Smoke is the result of combustion: they make FOG, vapourizing fluid.


Semantics perhaps, but in order to distinguish the output produced by a City Theatrical AquaFog 3300 vs. a Reel EFX DF-50 vs. an HES F-100, I think the industry (except for the manufacturers!) has somewhat agreed upon the definitions of fog, haze, and smoke as they appear in our glossary.

FWIW, I like this one!


http://extranet.mole.com/public/index.cgi?cmd=view_item&parent=1899-1901-1998&id=28257


----------



## gafftaper (Sep 9, 2009)

Hey godd2, exactly what type of cheap hazer did you buy? With more information we may be able to get you more specific advice. 


derekleffew said:


> Semantics perhaps, but in order to distinguish the output produced by a City Theatrical AquaFog 3300 vs. a Reel EFX DF-50 vs. an HES F-100, I think the industry (except for the manufacturers!) has somewhat agreed upon the definitions of fog, haze, and smoke as they appear in our glossary.



I want to attempt clarify what I think just happened there between Sharyn, Dalamar, and Derek (and hopefully help keep the peace). Derek and Sharyn are both long time pro users of fog/haze products. Dalamar works for fog haze manufacturer MDG (Makers of quality products and we are very happy to have him here by the way). The manufacturers, concerned about the perceived safety of their products, seem to typically have more technical definitions about things like fog, haze, and smoke. While typical users have more loose definitions, based more on appearance. In a sense both sides are right, depending on what standard you are measuring buy. 

On a humorous side note, a search for MDG revealed this site as the #2 hit. It's a page from the National Defense Industrial Association's "Mega Directory". I love this quote.

> MDG is a company globally recognized as the leader of the fog/smoke production industry. We design and manufacture the most reliable fog generators since 1980. Safe, non-toxic fog of overwhelming intensity can be generated and are therefore perfect for use in training fire fighters. They are able to fill large areas quickly and maintain 0 visibilities as long as needed for SCBA training and testing, ventilation procedures, and acclimation to smoke/fire conditions. Due to the unique nature of MDG Fog production, the fog perfectly simulates conditions produced in actual fire situations. It is the perfect tool for testing light sensitive automatic fire warning systems. The MDG system is able to create large amounts of fog outdoors to simulate gas clouds for hazardous materials training.


Sounds like you fog guys get to have a LOT of fun!


----------



## Dalamar (Sep 9, 2009)

derekleffew said:


> So what chemical are we seeing when we look at the effects produced by an LN2 system? Nitrogen?
> 
> Semantics perhaps, but in order to distinguish the output produced by a City Theatrical AquaFog 3300 vs. a Reel EFX DF-50 vs. an HES F-100, I think the industry (except for the manufacturers!) has somewhat agreed upon the definitions of fog, haze, and smoke as they appear in our glossary.


 
Saying "LN2" system is too large to answer, but, if what you are refering to is a low lying fog system using LN2 (Liquid Nitrogen), what you're saying is the crystalisation and condensing of H2O vapour in the warmer air... then, you see the refrigirated GLYCOL produced by the generator. 

And, with all due respect, your definition of Fog, as is appears in your Glossary, is simply wrong - coming from a manufacturer or not. That of the ESTA is accurate, and so that of Webster's. Let's not mix definitions lest we end up in a state of mental vagueness or bewilderment....


----------



## Dalamar (Sep 9, 2009)

gafftaper said:


> Hey godd2, exactly what type of cheap hazer did you buy? With more information we may be able to get you more specific advice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Well, for one, I've never hidden where I hailed from nor whom I work for. That's relatively besides the point. 

Understand this: we don't "make definitions" for perception. We describe what we do with the best words the language gives us. End of story. We call it fog because that's what Webster's dictionary defines as a "vapourized fluid billowing in a cloudlike manner", not because we find it safe or pretty. If anyone has ulcers with that because it doesn't fit "CB's glossary", your beef is with Robert Collins or the Saxons in the early ages of English language, not with Martin, Jem, Sweefog (Not SweeSMOKE) or MDG. 

Fog is fog. Smoke = fire. And if you're making smoke, then your machine's on fire and someone should put it out, fast. 

That said, you're all allowed to use the words you want. That's probably why there are ~600,000 in the Complete Oxford's. Let's just make sure we all talk the same talk and it's as accurate as it can be. 

I'm not sure what's funny about our description in the military thing there... care to explain? =)


----------



## SHARYNF (Sep 9, 2009)

It is not uncommon in theater or special effects to call the "producing device" by what the effect LOOKS like to the audience. So if you want to create a burning fire effect on stage using a gobos/rotators and gels and a Martin magnum 2000 to call the combination a fire and smoke machine. 
As far as water vs oil based, it is not unlike calling paints water based or oil based, it is a short cut comment that does not have to be scientifically correct.

Our english language with now a million words have many many oddities where the precise meaning is sometimes is totally opposite to the words

For instance why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway? 
Wny are Prisoners in the prison but Jailers keep the inmates in the Jail?
Why doctors call what they do PRACTICE
If you are mad at someone going slower than you they are an idiot, but if they go faster then you they are a Maniac 

If George Washington is the Father of our country, is his brother Lawrence the Uncle of our country 

or why in England the Pavement is the Sidewalk, but in the US the Pavement is the road?
Or why is the first floor in US the ground floor and the First Flow in UK the our second floor?
All fun, (some thanks to G Carlin)

Sharyn


----------



## derekleffew (Sep 9, 2009)

SHARYNF said:


> ...All fun, (some thanks to G Carlin)...


Flight Attendant: "Okay everyone; get on the plane."
G. Carlin: "Not me; I'm getting IN the plane."

How can flammable and inflammable mean the same thing? Why buy a hot water heater?
Changing gears: "Yesterday I played a blank tape at full blast. It drove my neighbor the mime crazy."


----------

