# Syncronized motor control options



## danTt (Oct 31, 2016)

Hi Gang,

Looking into purchasing some new chain motors with syncronized control. Still in the research phase, but I've got a bit of a quick turnaround on this project. Does anyone have specific brands they like/dislike? Any suggestions on companies/vendors to reach out to? Most of my normal vendor's don't do syncronized rigging enough to have strong opinions about anything, and it's a hard thing to blindly reach out about.


----------



## soundman (Oct 31, 2016)

Fixed speed encoded or varible speed?


----------



## len (Oct 31, 2016)

If you find yourself cross-renting to others I would factor in what they have, and make it as close to compatible with their equipment. Your stuff becomes more rentable and their stuff becomes easier to integrate with yours. While I don't use motors any longer, most of the people around here have CM.


----------



## danTt (Oct 31, 2016)

soundman said:


> Fixed speed encoded or varible speed?



Probably fixed spped encoded, though I'm debating that currently as well.


----------



## soundman (Nov 1, 2016)

Motion Lab's Server System is going to be easiest way to go for fixed speed encoded motors. If you already use CM motors and Motion labs 8 ways you have most of the hardware already. The software is rather basic and has some quarks about it but once you get your show built it will be rock solid. 

The DigiHoist line from Kinesys would also fit the bill. You might be able to get a demo from ARS or visit the USA HQ in Atlanta and see for yourself. 

Variable speed options are a little harder to come by, and tend to be more involved for programing and servicing.


----------



## egilson1 (Nov 1, 2016)

Is this for rental inventory or for a installed application?


----------



## danTt (Nov 3, 2016)

egilson1 said:


> Is this for rental inventory or for a installed application?


These would be for portable use around multiple venues, so somewhere in between.


----------



## porkchop (Nov 4, 2016)

In my experience synchronized chain motors are more trouble than they're worth. If they are to be connected to a truss structure rarely are the limits of the capacity pushed to the extent that the rig can't be a bit out of level while going out (For good reason so I'm assuming you rig fits that description). If they're for an effect, usually there is another way to rig the system so that a single motor can be used.

Perhaps that advice doesn't fit your situation and synchronous motors are the only option, but if it was me I'd take a step back and evaluate if there was any reasonable way to avoid them.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Nov 4, 2016)

Thanks Porkchop. I've held off but synchronize and chain motors shouldn't be used in same sentence imho. The loads will vary a lot, and planning for the loads to be somewhat consistent through travel has lead to some spectacular failures.


----------



## Traitor800 (Nov 4, 2016)

Synchronized Fixed speed Chain motors are not worth the effort or money. You don't get great positioning, especially if your motors have different loads on them. Synchronized Variable speed chain motors if done well are excellent at positioning even or uneven loads, but do require a bit more control hardware and programming.


----------



## danTt (Nov 7, 2016)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, everyone. Looking at maybe swapping to variable speed motors instead. Any strong feelings there on companies/control systems/value?


----------



## Footer (Nov 7, 2016)

danTt said:


> Thanks for sharing your thoughts, everyone. Looking at maybe swapping to variable speed motors instead. Any strong feelings there on companies/control systems/value?



Fisher Technical Services is pretty much the end all be all in this area. You'll end up with drum hoists loaded into truss. 

Otherwise, give Kinesys a call, they have what you want. One of my local shops picked up a system last year and seems to like it.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Nov 7, 2016)

Footer said:


> Fisher Technical Services is pretty much the end all be all in this area. You'll end up with drum hoists loaded into truss.
> 
> Otherwise, give Kinesys a call, they have what you want. One of my local shops picked up a system last year and seems to like it.



Except that FTS was bought by Tait a few years back.

I'm not keen on chain motors for overhead use, and prefer the special built entertainment hoists like from Clancy and now ETC, and few others. Much more robust and much more precise positioning. And yes, more expensive. Is a chain motor good enough? Not for me and my liability, especially in a permanent install and with other than the very top technicians in charge.


----------



## soundman (Nov 7, 2016)

Footer said:


> Fisher Technical Services is pretty much the end all be all in this area. You'll end up with drum hoists loaded into truss.



FTSI merged with Tait Towers a few years back. 

For hardware I really like Show Distribution's hoists. It's only three bolts to swap the drive out, and often times for testing you can position the new head close enough to test it before you swap. I use Tait's Navigator to control them and am very happy with that set up. Not sure how the control is with other software. 

Kinesys's elevation drive units are not zero speed. I think the slowest they can go is 10% of the rated speed. It can be a bit of a bummer if you have a big tilt move and one end motor doesnt have to move much and the other end motor needs to travel at full speed. Also last I heard it is still a pain to get parts from the UK. Plus you are subject to the fluctuations of the pound vs the dollar. Upstaging, ARS and Creative Stage Lighting stock Kinesys stuff so there are some options to cross rent or try before you buy. 

Creative Conners are playing around with using their drives to control chain hoists. Certainly their software would be cheaper than anyone else's. Not sure if it is a stock product yet or a job by job basis.

Motion Labs has a system now, I've never seen it in the wild so I can't comment to much on it. 

Cyberhoist had some really solid hardware with the first gen stuff. I haven't used the 2nd gen stuff but have heard good things.


----------



## David Bond (Nov 8, 2016)

Hi All, 
I'm new here but a friend told me I should put in my 2 cents worth so I signed up. I look forward to contributing on these types of discussions and hopefully sharing some experience of load cells, hoist control and general rigging.

Chain motors are fine for overhead lifting. This is proven and generally accepted the world over, provided it is done properly of course. I have seen some winches in theatre use that were sourced from the local surplus/auto parts stores...point is, it has to be done correctly to be safe and this applies to winches, chain hoist, hardware etc..

Kinesys offers synchronised fixed-speed hoist systems with load cell options as well as our well-known variable speed systems (including zero-speed offerings) which can also be monitored by our load cells.

We do have an office and training facility near Atlanta as mentioned above with a warehouse for parts stock, sales stock, training and demos. When I figure out how to post photos I will.

If you don't know the Kinesys DigiHoist line, Libra load cells or the Kinesys brand in general; we manufacture intelligent chain hoist controls (variable or fixed speed) with additional features such as hoist positional feedback, hoist present status, limit status, running direction, phase correction and load sensing (aka load cells). These systems are ideal where the true balance of the load is indeterminate over multiple hoists, or if each hoist’s safe range of operation is dependent on the adjacent hoist(s) taking their proportional amount of the load. DigiHoist systems are also programmable so defined allowable loads can be set, preset positions can be achieved and even show cues for movement during a show can be run.
We work with most major hoist brands (fixed speed and variable) including CM Lodestar, Chain Master, Pointman, EXE, GIS, Liftket and more. I hope this is helpful and please feel free to ask any questions. You can contact us directly as well should you need advice, info or pricing.
[email protected]


----------



## derekleffew (Nov 8, 2016)

Don't know whether this could fit the criteria, but it's out there: https://www.etcconnect.com/Products/Rigging-Systems/Hoists/P75-Self-Climber/Features.aspx .


----------



## David Bond (Nov 8, 2016)

BillConnerFASTC said:


> Thanks Porkchop. I've held off but synchronize and chain motors shouldn't be used in same sentence imho. The loads will vary a lot, and planning for the loads to be somewhat consistent through travel has lead to some spectacular failures.


 Agreed Bill and so load sensing as an integral part of the system is required to do it properly.


----------



## David Bond (Nov 8, 2016)

Traitor800 said:


> Synchronized Fixed speed Chain motors are not worth the effort or money. You don't get great positioning, especially if your motors have different loads on them. Synchronized Variable speed chain motors if done well are excellent at positioning even or uneven loads, but do require a bit more control hardware and programming.


Agreed that the load on each motor will affect the speed of travel and therefore, can affect synchronisation. Variable speed systems can remedy this as you have stated.
That said, encoder resolution can significantly affect the accuracy of any fixed speed system and the controller has to have the ability to deal with higher resolution data output. Not all systems are created equal.


----------



## David Bond (Nov 8, 2016)

soundman said:


> FTSI merged with Tait Towers a few years back.
> 
> For hardware I really like Show Distribution's hoists. It's only three bolts to swap the drive out, and often times for testing you can position the new head close enough to test it before you swap. I use Tait's Navigator to control them and am very happy with that set up. Not sure how the control is with other software.
> 
> ...



We ( Kinesys ) now sell in US dollars from our warehouse near Atlanta which rectifies the issues you mentioned above. You are correct about the elevation1+ system not being true zero speed but we offer zero speed systems too (Velocity/EVO). The cost of zero-speed can exclude many users who don't need it but still want access to variable speed chain motor automation, hence why we offer both. Thanks for the mention and if you need any info, please feel free to get in touch.


----------



## David Bond (Nov 8, 2016)

The photos I mentioned earlier:









Kinesys USA facility



__ David Bond
__ Nov 8, 2016



Kinesys USA Training classroom (Lithia Springs GA)














Kinesys USA Open Day 009



__ David Bond
__ Nov 8, 2016



Kinesys USA Training & Demo facility (Lithia Springs GA)


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Nov 8, 2016)

David Bond said:


> Chain motors are fine for overhead lifting. This is proven and generally accepted the world over, provided it is done properly of course. I have seen some winches in theatre use that were sourced from the local surplus/auto parts stores...point is, it has to be done correctly to be safe and this applies to winches, chain hoist, hardware etc..



I just did a google search on "chain motor overhead lifting" and it doesn't really confirm that chain motors are fine for overhead lifting - implying movement over people. from CM FAQ:
" *Can a CM Lodestar be used to hang loads over people's heads?*
It is preferred that the load always be tied off (dead hung) with auxiliary chains or cable before access to the area beneath the load is permitted. As an alternative, the system may be designed such that malfunction or failure of one hoist's load bearing components does not cause load loss and/or overloading of any other hoist in the system. Note that in such a system, hoist performance and function must be monitored visually or with the use of load cells.
However, both the *CM Lodestar D8+* and *CM Lodestar BGV-C1* feature a 10:1 design factor that allows them to be used for suspending loads above people without a secondary support."

A lot of cracks there.

PLASA here : http://www.plasa.org/nrag/load_suspension.pdf doesn't make it all so clear and limitless as your statement. In any case, your statement should be more qualified like: "A limited number of really special chain motors are sometimes acceptable for overhead lifting." At least the current literature from CM acknowledges the requirement for alloy chain, something they use to resist. http://blog.cmworks.com/understanding-the-difference-between-chain-grades-and-how-theyre-used/

I am not so concerned the use of these by really qualified people, but the problem is - especially with the unqualified "chain motors are fine for overhead lifting" attitude, is that less than really qualified people will try it. We saw it with indoor pyro. Pyro use to not be permitted indoors then some folks - most of whom who happen to benefit form the sale and use of pyro - got a standard approved and accepted. Well, then even common john and jane doe decided if they read the standard they could do it too. And then we have 100 dead in Rhode Island.

Its the attitude that injures and kills. There needs to be a very high bar to jump to be allowed to use chain motors for overhead lifting, with a lot of safeguards and very deep pockets behind the work so when it does go fubar, the victims are compensated.

David - I'm not saying you shouldn't do it - but you are making it sound too easy for any high school teacher (or student) that frequents CB as well as many other unqualified individuals to believe they can do it too, and that's not safe.


----------



## David Bond (Nov 8, 2016)

BillConnerFASTC said:


> I just did a google search on "chain motor overhead lifting" and it doesn't really confirm that chain motors are fine for overhead lifting - implying movement over people. from CM FAQ:
> " *Can a CM Lodestar be used to hang loads over people's heads?*
> It is preferred that the load always be tied off (dead hung) with auxiliary chains or cable before access to the area beneath the load is permitted. As an alternative, the system may be designed such that malfunction or failure of one hoist's load bearing components does not cause load loss and/or overloading of any other hoist in the system. Note that in such a system, hoist performance and function must be monitored visually or with the use of load cells.
> However, both the *CM Lodestar D8+* and *CM Lodestar BGV-C1* feature a 10:1 design factor that allows them to be used for suspending loads above people without a secondary support."
> ...



I agree and disagree, respectfully.

I concur we need to be careful with how accessible potentially dangerous equipment (and partial information) is to unqualified or inexperienced users , especially students, but I didn't say chain hoist lifting operations were easy or without risk. To the contrary I stated that it needed to be done "properly" implying that this is not as simple as it may sound and that a further understanding is required. Hopefully this would help push your point home to the less-experienced reader; that there is a right way and a wrong way. 
The Kinesys chain hoist control systems are designed to increase safety, assist experienced professionals and electronically prevent unqualified users from making potentially dangerous errors. This completely supports the notion of improved safety and risk reduction. I don't think my attitude is one which promotes unsafe practices whatsoever. Righting off chain hoists as unsuitable to all newbies is misleading as they will see them at events and performances which surely is a mixed message and rather confusing.
If anyone read my post and assumes that, based on that post alone (or really only a part thereof that you responded to), I have a lax attitude towards safety and it is all the training they need to have a go at multi-hoist lifts then that is the strongest argument for more regulations. I agree with you that we need to be proactive and responsible as professionals, but I don't agree that I made it sound overly simple to the point of putting lives at risk. I was arguing the point you made about chain hoists, versus winches, not being robust enough or suitable for overhead lifting and that, IMHO, is untrue. Given the number of chain hoists in operation around the world in entertainment applications, I would say they are a widely accepted means of safe lifting. The fact that there are standards and legal regulations for their design and use is a fundamental acknowledgement of this.

On the matter of the regulations, you mentioned BGV D8, BGV D8+ and BGV C1 directives, which are not mandatory standards in the US, but we do work to these standards as required in other markets. They help people quantify what is acceptable and safe and this acknowledges chain hoists as suitable. This directive includes the controls as an integral part of the system safety. The design factor of the hoist is only a part of the directive. Other elements such as encoder reading and load cells to avoid failures as well as a specified level of E-Stop safety integrity (SIL) are all important factors. A hoist designed to be "BGV C1" , be it winch or chain hoist, cannot be "certified" on it's own and must have a suitable control system and data acquisition components to conform. More on this below for those who want further information. The ANSI standards also acknowledges chain hoists as suitable in ANSI E1.6-1 – 2012 Entertainment Technology – Powered Hoist Systems, which also includes wire rope drum winches. 

With all due respect Bill, chain hoists are suitable for overhead lifting but what that statement doesn't mean is that you don't have to read the manual or learn about their proper use. Kinesys makes winches too and don't misunderstand me, they are the right tool for some jobs.

There are many chain hoists on the market, most of which offer BGV D8+ and C1 levels of conformity, but you mentioned CM which is a very popular and respected brand in our industry. These hoists meet strict guidelines and are proven to be robust and dependable. From the CM manual: "Each Entertainment-Lodestar Electric Hoist is built in accordance with the specifications contained herein and at the time of manufacture complied with our interpretation of applicable sections of the *American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code B30.16 *“Overhead Hoists”,* the National Electrical Code (ANSI/NFPA 70), the Occupational Safety and Health Act, British Health Safety Executives, TUV and CE Directive." ...*American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code B30.16 *“Overhead Hoists”. *

From the Kinesys DigiHoist brochure: "Achieving BS7906-1:2001 (British Standard) and D8+ (SQ P2:2010) Compliance with the DigiHoist System.
The DigiHoist controller may be used as part of a BS7906-1:2001 Category A system, for lifting and suspension of
loads above people, and as part of a D8+(SQ P2:2010)system, for suspension of loads above people without the 
need of a secondary suspension. In order to achieve full conformity with the above codes of practice the following 
conditions must be respected:

Category A and D8+ Systems
D8+ Hoist must be compliant with DIN 56950:201 SQ P2-2010.This must include but is not necessarily limit the following:
• Double brakes
• Brakes must act directly to stop the load
of statically indeterminate loads
• Top and bottom limits are recommended
• End of travel stops
• Safety Factor 10:1

Category A 
Hoist must be compliant with BS7905-1:2001 and 
BS7906-1:2005 Category A. 
This must include but is not necessarily limited to the 
following:
• Double brakes
• Brakes must act directly to stop the load
• Top, bottom and ultimate limits
• End of travel stops
• Chain container must be no more than 50% full when 
the hook is fully retracted
• Safety Factor 8:1


----------



## icewolf08 (Nov 11, 2016)

As mentioned, TAIT does now own FTSI, and we do offer both fixed speed and variable speed synchronized chain hoists. The product is called NavHoist and they are accurate to tenths of an inch and meet certifications for overhead lifting. NavHoists are one of our major products and can be found in venues like The MET and Radio City, Disney Parks, and on almost every tour we send out. Most commonly, we sell half ton and one ton units, but if you need it, we can make them bigger.

Of course the caveat is that to get the real control power of NavHoist, you need to run them with our Navigator control software.


----------



## MikeJ (Nov 25, 2016)

@David Bond, Thanks for the info. Kinesys makes some pretty cool stuff. And don't mind @BillConnerFASTC, he usually has pretty good advice, but a lot of the top posters here have extremely fragile egos. They seem to be the big fish in this tiny pond of theater students, and feel the need to tear down any new poster, and prove that they are smarter than you. 

BillConnerFASTC said:


> I just did a google search on "chain motor overhead lifting" and it doesn't really confirm that chain motors are fine for overhead lifting - implying movement over people.



YEP....Googling something...that qualifies you as an expert on this forum.


----------



## Fountain Of Euph (Nov 26, 2016)

MikeJ said:


> @David Bond, Thanks for the info. Kinesys makes some pretty cool stuff. And don't mind @BillConnerFASTC, he usually has pretty good advice, but a lot of the top posters here have extremely fragile egos. They seem to be the big fish in this tiny pond of theater students, and feel the need to tear down any new poster, and prove that they are smarter than you.
> 
> 
> YEP....Googling something...that qualifies you as an expert on this forum.



No, @BillConnerFASTC is an expert based on his experience, education and certifications, and his 2600 posts on this forum back that up. He is a consult by trade, and is under no obligation to give out his professional opinions, which he makes good money from giving to his clients, to strangers, for free, on the internet. If this is a ego trip, its a very strange and potentially costly one...

I am student, but also a actively working professional who is here to learn from MANY MANY much more experienced professionals across the world. This is not a small pond, but a vast ocean...

What we have here is a case of two professionals disagreeing on the safest way to go about a situation. Both have valid opinions based on there occupations and experience. Personally I have rigged chain motors for rigging over the stage under the supervision of a certified rigger, and I have found them less than stellar. This being said, my expertise is in lighting/audio/staging, and not as a rigger, and so I would take the information on this thread, filter it based on my experiences and my knowledge of the posters, and make a informed decision based on that.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Nov 26, 2016)

MikeJ said:


> @David Bond, Thanks for the info. Kinesys makes some pretty cool stuff. And don't mind @BillConnerFASTC, he usually has pretty good advice, but a lot of the top posters here have extremely fragile egos. They seem to be the big fish in this tiny pond of theater students, and feel the need to tear down any new poster, and prove that they are smarter than you.
> 
> 
> YEP....Googling something...that qualifies you as an expert on this forum.



I was looking for the documents produced by the chain motor manufacturers which when I last checked a few years ago stated - in very fine print - do not use for overhead lifting. CM was last one I checked and I was curious if they had changed their instructions.

Readers can review the profiles of the posters and check the credentials and decide for themseleves who is credible, and even contact them directly, at least the ones like me who are not anonymous.


----------



## danTt (Nov 26, 2016)

It's always interesting to me to look at the amount of items we use on a daily basis that state "Do not use for overhead lifting"--and many motors are part of this. From my research recently, I believe the magic standards to look at (and these are all european standards, I don't believe there is a US one yet), Hoists that meet the "BGV-D8" standard (which is most standard run of the mill chain motors) are not designed for lifting above people. It is expected that you will reinforce them with a secondary pick (steel to the grid maybe?) if you are going to use them in a way that will involve supporting a load above people.

The BGV-D8+ standard makes motor requirements a bit stricter, and allows for suspension of static loads above people. It requires a double brake and places restrictions on the clutch and brake positiion and raises the "safety factor". 

For the suspension of moving loads above people, hoists are supposed to be designed to meet "BGV-C1" standards. This again raises the requirements on design factor, requires loadcell monitoring, limits, and the introduction of an "E-Stop" into the system. 

Now, something I've seen discussed in detail (and never to a definite conclusion) is what exactly "overhead lifting" is defined as. A single point lift is agreed to be overhead lifting if people are under it--but what if the system is designed in such a way that the failure of one motor does not cause the system to fail catastrophically? Is there then an appropriate amount of redundancy built into the system to allow using it without a steel backup? Is the redundancy of motors an acceptable secondary backup? That seems to be a point of debate still.

Again, most of this comes from my recent dive into all of this information, and may or may not be entirely accurate. It's quite difficult to find definitive answers when it comes to rigging--because no one wants the responsibility when things go wrong of having provided information that led to an error. Of course, the result of this is that we instead have every theatre in the country reinventing their own rigging standards, but hopefully that starts changing.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Nov 26, 2016)

I feel overhead lifting is fairly clear, and while it might be possible in a court of law to convince jurors to something other than the obvious and literal meaning, it seems risky. I know that some view trim chains on a batten as not overhead lifting, because if multiple points, but the chain manufactures say it is in their opinion. So I guess you have to decide for yourself. Since I work forself and am financially liable for my actions, unlike an employee whose employer is ultimately liable, I'm probably more conservative in my choices and recommendations.

Frankly, if the manufacturer says don't use their product in a certain way, I won't recommend contravening that.


----------



## MikeJ (Nov 26, 2016)

That's fine. I understand completely people not wanting under qualified persons to get in over their heads, especially where safety is concerned. But, disputing industry standards, and calling out people who are obviously experts as "unqualified" and jumping to the unfounded conclusion that other users have a dangerous "attitude" towards rigging safety, is quite unprofessional, and does not help anyone.

Maybe some people don't realize that posts often read as demeaning and arrogant, but a lot of posts on this forum are, and it turns people off.

I'll leave this alone now. But if you feel like people are not using this forum as much anymore, and industry professionals and manufacturers stay away, it's because of threads like this.


----------



## David Bond (Nov 29, 2016)

I think @danTt and @BillConnerFASTC are correct to question things when safety is involved and this forum is a great way to do so. I don't take things too personally and hope I didn't come across that way. If I was doing or saying something that was wrong I would appreciate someone informing me of it. Intelligent discussion is positive and required for us to keep our industry moving forward and avoid injuries. If the dialog stays informative and doesn't judge unfairly, "on with the show" I say and I feel lucky to have the means to respond/contribute. Hopefully anyone who reads this takes away the notion that it isn't as simple as just buying the machinery (chain hoist or winch), there are safe products available on the market, you need to do your homework, consult professionals and all of this is achievable and quite common.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Nov 29, 2016)

I agree David. I worry about people with good intentions but too little or no actual experience feeling that they can do stuff that should be left to people with experience. Like the ETCP certifications, people talk about the exam, but I still maintain the real value is the documented experience requirement. The apprentice/journeyman system is still the best means of passing along knowledge and gaining experience. It just seems like before you fly a truss on chain motors you ought to have seen a few rigged and operating, not just try it on your own for the first time.


----------



## David Bond (Nov 29, 2016)

Yes @BillConnerFASTC , I concur. When I was in the UK I was on the National Rigging Advisory Board for the Nation Rigging Certificate program (PLASA's equivalent to the ETCP program) and that program requires practical exams as a major part of the certification. The big difference there is shorter distances and economical access to training/exam centres and assessors. 
Even with an NRC certification, a newly certified rigger is not necessarily equally proficient or knowledgeable as a world-class head rigger with years on the job.
A driver's licence doesn't make you a pro race car driver and you are statistically more likely to have an accident within the first year or so of passing your test. Typically, a "learner's permit" requires supervision before you can drive solo. I feel practical experience and education are both prerequisites to working unsupervised in the field we operate in. Aptitude and basic math/physics knowledge also plays a huge part. Luckily there are lots of experienced pros willing to share knowledge and guide newcomers in our industry, as well as weed out those who are a danger to themselves and others. Some slip through the proverbial net of course and we should all try to limit this as much as possible.


----------



## David Bond (Nov 29, 2016)

danTt said:


> From my research recently, I believe the magic standards to look at (and these are all european standards, I don't believe there is a US one yet), Hoists that meet the "BGV-D8" standard (which is most standard run of the mill chain motors) are not designed for lifting above people. It is expected that you will reinforce them with a secondary pick (steel to the grid maybe?) if you are going to use them in a way that will involve supporting a load above people.


There are ANSI standards to refer to for the US but they are not regulations as in some other countries...just to confuse the issue! : )


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Nov 29, 2016)

I sometimes wish the pros didn't make it look do easy as it seems to mislead the novice into thinking it is easy and that they can do it.


----------



## RonHebbard (Dec 9, 2016)

MikeJ said:


> @David Bond, Thanks for the info. Kinesys makes some pretty cool stuff. And don't mind @BillConnerFASTC, he usually has pretty good advice, but a lot of the top posters here have extremely fragile egos. They seem to be the big fish in this tiny pond of theater students, and feel the need to tear down any new poster, and prove that they are smarter than you.
> 
> 
> YEP....Googling something...that qualifies you as an expert on this forum.


How's everyone's "fragile egos" today @David Bond?
Tooodleoo!
Ron Hebbard.


----------



## David Bond (Dec 9, 2016)

RonHebbard said:


> How's everyone's "fragile egos" today @David Bond?
> Tooodleoo!
> Ron Hebbard.


 
All good here Ron. thanks for checking up on me.


----------

