# Yeah Right!



## elite1trek (Nov 2, 2008)

So my director just called me. She asked if we could drop real bricks from the grid onto the stage (like, with actors on it), so that we could have realistic sounds. :shock:

I told her no, of course. I also explained how the brick on wood would not sound real anyway. She seemed to understand the second point more than the safety thing. 

I just thought I would post this so we could all have a good laugh. 
It does make me worry though, about less safety-concerned venues, that think dropping bricks is acceptable. 

What other crazy stuff have you been asked to do?


----------



## TheDonkey (Nov 2, 2008)

What were the bricks "supposed" to be dropped on to?

But yeah, terribleness.


----------



## elite1trek (Nov 2, 2008)

TheDonkey said:


> What were the bricks "supposed" to be dropped on to?
> 
> But yeah, terribleness.



The show calls for bricks to be dropped onto concrete. I think the director was looking for what she described as "a chalky shattering sound."


----------



## avkid (Nov 2, 2008)

elite1trek said:


> The show calls for bricks to be dropped onto concrete.


But why all the way from the grid?


----------



## elite1trek (Nov 2, 2008)

avkid said:


> But why all the way from the grid?



That's just what she said. The bricks are supposed to come from heaven.


----------



## avkid (Nov 3, 2008)

elite1trek said:


> That's just what she said. The bricks are supposed to come from heaven.


Easy solution: make some out of foam, and drop from the grid accompanied by the proper SFX.

The sfx should be quite easy to capture with basic equipment.


----------



## TheDonkey (Nov 3, 2008)

Correction: Made of foam with the center bored out and filled with something slightly heavy

Pure foam would float down because of air drag >.<


----------



## elite1trek (Nov 3, 2008)

TheDonkey said:


> Correction: Made of foam with the center bored out and filled with something slightly heavy
> 
> Pure foam would float down because of air drag >.<



I am probably going to do that, but attach them to some sort of track line so that they don't hit any lighting fixtures, or bounce around the 2nd electric and hit an actor.

Maybe I will just build some sort of release system on a lineset, so somebody doesnt have to lay down in the grid for half the show. I know you guys won't approve of DMX for this, but does anybody know of a MIDI interface thing that will do this.


----------



## DaveySimps (Nov 3, 2008)

In an old venue I use to work at, the community theatre asked to fly one of their actors on the counterweight system. They were appalled when I repeatedly declined their requests, and went over my head to the executive director of the facility who got mad and gave me a hard time about it, even after I explained the safety implications, and the correct way to go about it (calling Foy or ZFX). Apparently years earlier a previous TD allowed them to do it with their production of Mame. They did so by taking a school yard swing and some rope tired to a batten. I am absolutely amazed someone did not die. 

~Dave


----------



## avkid (Nov 3, 2008)

TheDonkey said:


> Correction: Made of foam with the center bored out and filled with something slightly heavy
> 
> Pure foam would float down because of air drag >.<


I mean like the solid type insulation foam sheets.("blue foam")


----------



## Sony (Nov 3, 2008)

avkid said:


> I mean like the solid type insulation foam sheets.("blue foam")



Even rigid foam floats slowly, it's just not heavy enough. It wouldn't look realistic without a little bit of weight added.


----------



## Van (Nov 3, 2008)

Tripping drop tricks via DMX is perfectly acceptable. Controlling turntables is another matter all together. 
Let's see a brick falling 80' accelerating at 9.8 meters per second per second. And if the average weight of said brick were 5 pounds, that's something like 2.25 kilos...... Yeah that's a recipe for disaster. 

Now as far as dropping foam bricks; I notice we're all saying " Do it like this, then weight them down so they fall better..." Gentlemen, I submit to you that a pound of feathers is not in fact any lighter than a pound of lead, but instead they are the same. 
I would suggest rigging a drop point from a much lower elevation than the grid. Perhaps a drop box on a batten or even a "balloon drop" net between two battens. I would further suggest, for safety's sake, making the bricks out of HD polyurethane foam, or just plain old foam rubber. Your bigger issue , other than needing a good SFX cue, will be controlling the bounce when they hit. If it's possible to have them hit behind a ground row or some other scenic element it's going to greatly contribute to the illusion.


----------



## Sony (Nov 4, 2008)

Van said:


> " Gentlemen, I submit to you that a pound of feathers is not in fact any lighter than a pound of lead, but instead they are the same.



True...but a standard 2" x 4" x 8" brick is going to be a lot heavier then a 2" x 4" x 8" block of foam and air resistance will slow it down accordingly since obviously we are not in a complete vacuum and it's terminal velocity will be a lot lower. Weighing down the block will help it fall at the proper speed while the foam will provide a margin of safety where if it were to hit somebody in the head it wouldn't do nearly as much damage as a solid block of clay beaning you in the head would.

I also suggest if you rig it on a line then run the line through a plastic tube in the block, this will help keep it from getting snagged on the cable and you ending up with a levitating brick in the middle of the show


----------



## icewolf08 (Nov 4, 2008)

Have we all forgotten basic physics? Acceleration due to gravity is a constant. Weight of an object does not affect how fast it will fall. If two object have essentially the same shape and are dropped at the same time from the same height they should hit the ground at almost exactly the same time. If you took a stage weight and a block of wood cut to the same proportions and dropped them, they would hit at the same time. However a heavier object does have more momentum and thus will hit the ground with more force.

Just because a block of foam is lighter than a real brick does not mean that it will fall slower. Now, the porous nature of foam may affect how it falls, but this can be counteracted by painting the foam with Foamcoat or Sculptorcoat. Fill in the surface gaps to make the blocks of foam smooth and it should fall just fine.


----------



## fredthe (Nov 4, 2008)

icewolf08 said:


> Have we all forgotten basic physics? Acceleration due to gravity is a constant. Weight of an object does not affect how fast it will fall.


True, if we lived in a vacuum...

If it's falling far enough, what matters is terminal velocity. This is the point at which the drag _force_ on an object is equal to the _force_ due to gravity. As basic physics teaches us, the _force_ on an object is the product of it's mass and acceleration. So, mass does make a difference.

An easy to visualize (and perform) example. Fill one balloon with water. Fill a 2nd balloon with the same amount of air. Drop them. The water baloon will hit first. (And, make more of a mess )

Of course, if foam and lead bricks were dropped from fairly low, you porbably wouldn't see much difference. If they were dropped from the grid, the lead one would definatly get there first


----------



## Van (Nov 4, 2008)

Gentlemen, The entire point of my post was/is when dropping things onto actors one needs to keep in mind they are fragile. < the actors not the objects.> Weighing down a piece of EPE foam enough to overcome it's inherent wind resistance < since we don't live in a vacuum> will render it a potentially dangerous object. And when it comes right down to it, Foam rubber or Polyurethane foam has much more impact absorption qualities than most other materials. Coat a piece of EPE foam with VSSSD and I guarantee you'll feel it when it whacks you on the head after an 80 foot fall.


----------



## mbandgeek (Nov 4, 2008)

Since we are getting into physics, terminal velocity also comes into play... have you ever heard that an ant can fall off of the empire state building hit the ground and be okay, but drop a human off of said structure... i will not finish the rest of that one. You know where i am going with it though.


----------



## Sony (Nov 5, 2008)

icewolf08 said:


> Have we all forgotten basic physics? Acceleration due to gravity is a constant. Weight of an object does not affect how fast it will fall. If two object have essentially the same shape and are dropped at the same time from the same height they should hit the ground at almost exactly the same time. If you took a stage weight and a block of wood cut to the same proportions and dropped them, they would hit at the same time. However a heavier object does have more momentum and thus will hit the ground with more force.
> 
> Just because a block of foam is lighter than a real brick does not mean that it will fall slower. Now, the porous nature of foam may affect how it falls, but this can be counteracted by painting the foam with Foamcoat or Sculptorcoat. Fill in the surface gaps to make the blocks of foam smooth and it should fall just fine.



This is true...if we were living in a perfect vacuum. The Foam Block will have a lower terminal velocity and acceleration due to gravity because the air has to do LESS work to slow it down. You may not notice the difference from a short distance...but I will bet you $100 that if you were to drop a normal clay brick and a foam brick at the exact same time from your grid iron at least 40 feet in the air...that the foam brick will hit the ground AFTER the Clay Brick. Surface Gaps have nothing to do with it, if you were to cut grooves in a regular clay brick to make it "less smooth" it would fall at the same rate as it did before. 

The fact is that the mass of the object has to overcome the force of air resistance and while surface area does play a part in this Mass is a larger factor. It takes more force from air resistance to overcome the acceleration of a larger mass. If what you were saying is true, then a box made from Regular Paper, the same size and shape of a brick, would fall at the exact same speed and acceleration as a normal Brick...try it sometime...you will find it to be completely untrue.

There is nothing Basic about Real Life Physics...what you get taught in High School is Physics in an Ideal world which doesn't actually exist.

I apologize to the OP for turning this into a Physics debate...


----------



## bobgaggle (Nov 5, 2008)

haha, physics. I think the idea was that its not going to hurt as much if its made out of foam, not how fast it will fall.


----------



## Sony (Nov 6, 2008)

bobgaggle said:


> haha, physics. I think the idea was that its not going to hurt as much if its made out of foam, not how fast it will fall.



Yea, we got side tracked, anyways...I wasn't saying fill the foam brick so it weighs the same as a clay brick. I mean if you hallowed out a small cavity in the center of the foam and filled it with some sand or something it would add a little weight and make it fall more realistically while not affecting the safety of it too much....it would definitely be better then getting hit with a real brick for sure.


----------



## elite1trek (Nov 6, 2008)

The weight of the bricks was not actually in question. But the physics debate was cool. BTW, I have a minor in physics from Towson University. 

Let me just settle this now.

The answer to the debate is...you are all right, and wrong a little bit. 

Surface area has something to do with it, as does mass (not weight).


> Surface Gaps have nothing to do with it, if you were to cut grooves in a regular clay brick to make it "less smooth" it would fall at the same rate as it did before.



Changes in the surface of an object affect its surface area, natural rotation, and all sorts of things. It can def. affect the terminal velocity, but it really has nothing to do with acceleration. HOWEVER, if you did cut grooves in it you would alter the mass, changing the rate of acceleration by a little bit.

It is a bit more complicated that you all seem to make it. If you are up to a bit of a read, these articles pretty much explain it.

Equations of motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Weight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mass versus weight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Terminal velocity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Surface area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Acceleration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Anyway, does anybody here have ideas for tripping bricks via DMX (preferably) or otherwise? Something Electronic, and idiot-proof and actor-proof.


----------



## elite1trek (Nov 6, 2008)

This could also be interesting too, but not really helpful in this situation.

Equations for a falling body - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Van (Nov 6, 2008)

elite1trek said:


> .........
> Anyway, does anybody here have ideas for tripping bricks via DMX (preferably) or otherwise? Something Electronic, and idiot-proof and actor-proof.


 
E=M...... Oh Right we're off physics.
Hey run a search for Drop box I posted a drawing a while back. I know you could do a set up with a DMX decoder and a solenoid really easily. I don't have time right this moment to go into the whole thing, I'll try and post more in a bit. There's a great place for electronic kits and stuff at www.qkits.com last time I was there they had a DMX decoder / receiver for sale rather inexpensive. Try www.ledex.com for solenoids. they have all kinds for all aplications.


----------



## elite1trek (Nov 6, 2008)

Awesome.


----------



## ruinexplorer (Nov 6, 2008)

Depending on your fly system (and if you have a flyman for this show), I would suggest putting a cradle between two linesets. When one lineset goes out, it would dump the contents (faux bricks) of the cradle. Of course if your linesets are too far apart, this could cause problems. While I like the drop box idea, this could provide you with a less technical alternative.


----------



## Van (Nov 7, 2008)

ruinexplorer said:


> ......While I like the drop box idea, this could provide you with a less technical alternative.


 
Oh sure ! Make it Easier! Where's teh fun in that ????


----------



## What Rigger? (Nov 7, 2008)

elite1trek said:


> This could also be interesting too, but not really helpful in this situation.
> 
> Equations for a falling body - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Speaking broadly: EVERYTHING on Wikipedia is WRONG!!!!

Please don't go getting mathmatical information off of a website that is policed by no one. Where any moron can edit/change/add/subtract so-called 'information'. Go to the library. Get a book. Make sure it's current. Then check with someone else who would know, just to be sure. 

If Wikipedia turns out to be correct, then great. If not, at least you'll know better. Don't take any of that shite on face value.

Why am I bent ( yet again)? 'Cause next thing you know, people will be looking to Wikipedia to find out how to calculate bridles, loads, vectors and other gnarly stuff. Don't do it. Thanks.


----------



## TimMiller (Nov 7, 2008)

wrap bricks in foam and then drop them from the grid the foam will keep them from hurting anything.


----------



## Sony (Nov 7, 2008)

What Rigger? said:


> Speaking broadly: EVERYTHING on Wikipedia is WRONG!!!!
> 
> Please don't go getting mathmatical information off of a website that is policed by no one. Where any moron can edit/change/add/subtract so-called 'information'. Go to the library. Get a book. Make sure it's current. Then check with someone else who would know, just to be sure.
> 
> ...



Wikipedia articles have been proven to be not all that much less accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica. Not only that, but it is policed by it's users very heavily, whenever something is changed it posted and it's checked by other users and modified if it is wrong. Now that said, yes it is true it cannot be counted as a CREDIBLE source...HOWEVER on 99% of pages on Wikipedia you can go to the BOTTOM of the page and click links that will direct you TO credible sources which the article contents came from, which you can then cite. If the page on Wikipedia doesn't have any sources cited on the bottom then yes, I wouldn't trust anything on the page. I would also read the cited sources before using any of the information on a Wikipedia page for anything that would be life threatening like electricity or rigging.


----------



## elite1trek (Nov 7, 2008)

What Rigger? said:


> Speaking broadly: EVERYTHING on Wikipedia is WRONG!!!!
> 
> Please don't go getting mathmatical information off of a website that is policed by no one. Where any moron can edit/change/add/subtract so-called 'information'. Go to the library. Get a book. Make sure it's current. Then check with someone else who would know, just to be sure.
> 
> ...




I can cite all my examples from more credible sources if you like...I just picked wikipedia because they have information that I like to call "Quick n Dirty," meaning you can get the general overview of a topic.

As for the bricks dropping, I like the dropboxes, just because of multipurposality (i know thats not a word).


----------

