# Marrying Arbors



## bobgaggle (Feb 14, 2018)

Surprisingly, I've never seen it done/done it. Haven't found much in CB about methods, so not sure if it violates rules, but how is this done? There's plenty of material on a standard arbor to u bolt on a piece of steel, but not sure if there's a specific piece of hardware designed for this purpose. I went on Clancy's site and didn't find anything in their products page...

Also, Anyone ever married 2 arbors several linesets away from each other? We're doing a 3d cage/jail cell thing that flies in and probably want it on 2 battens (maybe 4' US/DS between picks)


----------



## derekleffew (Feb 14, 2018)

No, no, and no, Don't ask, don't tell. And not in Bermuda either. Marriage shall be only between one arbor and one batten. For the good of the (hetero-normative) children.


----------



## Amiers (Feb 14, 2018)

Why would you want to marry them?

Even if you have to use two line sets to rig it you still need two flyman/women to bring it in anyways. Making it stiff at the pipe would just complicate it to no end and also not allow you to bring it all the way out.


----------



## bobgaggle (Feb 14, 2018)

points heard, my thought was to make them synchronous so inconsistencies in travel speed between 2 operators could be minimized. Trying to avoid the thing rocking as it comes in. Didn't mention it in the op, but we aren't rigging this. I'm just trying to figure out the problem in my head. We're just building it and shipping it out...


----------



## RonHebbard (Feb 14, 2018)

Amiers said:


> Why would you want to marry them?
> 
> Even if you have to use two line sets to rig it you still need two flyman/women to bring it in anyways. Making it stiff at the pipe would just complicate it to no end and also not allow you to bring it all the way out.


 *@Amiers * You may not need to haul it all the way out. Depending upon the height / length of your load, you may be able to fly it above sight-lines and still be 40' below your 120' grid? As always: It depends. 
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard.


----------



## Amiers (Feb 14, 2018)

I suppose so. But it’s just easier to take it all the way out and not add more complications to the lineset schedule as is.


----------



## gafftapegreenia (Feb 14, 2018)

Amiers said:


> Why would you want to marry them?
> 
> Even if you have to use two line sets to rig it you still need two flyman/women to bring it in anyways. Making it stiff at the pipe would just complicate it to no end and also not allow you to bring it all the way out.



You don’t marry them at the pipe, you marry them at the arbor.


----------



## RonHebbard (Feb 14, 2018)

Amiers said:


> I suppose so. But it’s just easier to take it all the way out and not add more complications to the lineset schedule as is.


 @Amiers Understood. You read like someone who's spent most of his life in spaces with 40' to 60' or 75' grids. (I recall having that same mind-set in those sorts of places) Once your grid is appreciably higher than 100', you'll find yourself not putting pipes in the hole as often. 
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard.


----------



## RonHebbard (Feb 14, 2018)

gafftapegreenia said:


> *You don’t marry them at the pipe, you marry them at the arbor.*


 @gafftapegreenia Not *ALWAYS*. 
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard.


----------



## Amiers (Feb 14, 2018)

gafftapegreenia said:


> You don’t marry them at the pipe, you marry them at the arbor.



How would that even works lol.


----------



## RonHebbard (Feb 14, 2018)

Amiers said:


> How would that even works lol.


@Amiers Quite well, depending upon the loads and the situations.
I went over this in much greater detail in a PM with Mr. Gaggle (Which is where I'd prefer to keep it.)
Toodleoo!
Ron


----------



## gafftapegreenia (Feb 14, 2018)

Amiers said:


> How would that even works lol.



@derekleffew told me once in a PM.


----------



## Amiers (Feb 14, 2018)

I guess we’ll leave it at that then.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Feb 14, 2018)

Balance, balance, and balance. I think each situation is unique and you really need to know what you are doing and know how to analyze the design. One arbor can float if its all designed right.

I'd much rather have enough arbor travel to to tag a trailer to the primary arbor, but then you have to watch out for the loads on each individual component. Just lots of things to watch out for when rigging designed for the weight of one arbor now has more.


----------



## RonHebbard (Feb 14, 2018)

Amiers said:


> I guess we’ll leave it at that then.


 @Amiers @egilson1 @What Rigger? @derekleffew 
Here's my take on marrying pipes Vs. marrying arbors, my take MAY not be correct thus come one, come all. 
Fire at will, I'll volunteer to portray will. 
If / when you marry two, or more, arbors to a single line set, you're potentially over loading the head block for that set, its supporting cables, their attachments to the pipe (Singular) and the pipe itself.
If / when you marry two, or more, pipes (battens if you will), you're sharing the counterweight across multiple head blocks, lift lines and loft blocks, optimistically NOT over stressing any part of your rigging system past its safely designed load limits.
Yes? No*?* Agree*?* Disagree*?* Full of excrement*??* No phuquing way*?* 
Comments: Bring 'em on. Let's have an open discussion and not kill anyone in the process. 
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard.


----------



## gafftapegreenia (Feb 14, 2018)

Ah, @RonHebbard, I think we have a misunderstanding. 

When I’ve seen linesets married, they are physically joined at the arbor but their individual lift lines and battens are still used.

I haven’t yet seen a situation where a a neighboring arbor is disconnected from its lift lines and used as additional weight on a single line set. That concept to me is the same as hanging sandbags on to the bottom of the arbor. A practice that, as you say, could put a risky amount of stress on single components.


----------



## RonHebbard (Feb 14, 2018)

gafftapegreenia said:


> Ah, @RonHebbard, I think we have a misunderstanding.
> 
> When I’ve seen linesets married, they are physically joined at the arbor but their individual lift lines and battens are still used.
> 
> I haven’t yet seen a situation where a a neighboring arbor is disconnected from its lift lines and used as additional weight on a single line set. That concept to me is the same as hanging sandbags on to the bottom of the arbor. A practice that, as you say, could put a risky amount of stress on single components.


 @gafftapegreenia Understood. I've seen people chain two adjacent arbors together with trim chains, load both arbors but only hang their load on one of the battens. I find this too, too scary, right up there with using lead bricks to load more than the design weight on a single arbor. BTW; I still recall when I first read you, I figured your pseudonym implied you were a young "Greenie" in the IA.
Toodeoo!
Ron Hebbard.


----------



## Amiers (Feb 14, 2018)

I could see marrying two arbors next to each other but a 4-5 lineset gap marry would be pretty complicated. I have been thinking about it all day and it still would involve some pretty in depth setup to accomplish and not break everything or someone.


----------



## RonHebbard (Feb 15, 2018)

Amiers said:


> I could see marrying two arbors next to each other but a 4-5 lineset gap marry would be pretty complicated. I have been thinking about it all day and it still would involve some pretty in depth setup to accomplish and not break everything or someone.


 @Amiers "I have been thinking about it all day". Is your head sore yet? 
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard.


----------



## lwinters630 (Feb 15, 2018)

i have married adjacent arbors and battens after getting a professional who designed the arbor involved. Even so, a good marriage takes two people [opeators] to Tango. A long distance marriage will have a lot of impediments to deal with. . . . . . And i haven't a Clew.
Best weshes to the OP


----------



## bobgaggle (Feb 15, 2018)

So there's been a lot of talk on this thread about overloading components on one line set. My idea was to basically make a big 'x' frame that can get u bolted onto 2 distant arbors solely to synchronize their travel. Obviously, what that frame looks like would vary depending on the existing fly system. You'd had to build it out in front of the other operating lines and clear whatever structure may get in the way... Each arbor would be loaded appropriately for the weight on each pipe. In my mind, this would ensure that 2 operators don't vary their travel speed/acceleration relative to each other and keep the flown unit, that's hung on 2 pipes, stable as it flies in out (no rocking US/DS). Granted, whatever the "x frame" is will have some play in it, depending on how its constructed, but it'll stop a big lurch from happening in the flown unit when one operator sneezes or his hand slips on the line or something...

More of a thought experiment at this point, just wanted to see if there was a method for this, other than telling 2 ops to practice the move a lot and do a mind meld to make the fly smooth....


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Feb 15, 2018)

I would think you could link the two arbors with wire rope and blocks more safely. That moving x frame sounds fraught with problems, especially if more than a few sets apart. So likely to put lateral forces on the arbors that the whole system is assuredly not designed for.


----------



## gafftapegreenia (Feb 15, 2018)

I think you’re in the territory of winches and chain hoists. I just don’t think non-adjacent linesets can be safely married without some intense engineering. Basically to do what you want a lot of custom configuring would need to be done to your grid. We do that where I work, but we are also a big regional with a multi million dollar budget so we can afford to re-rig for show specific moves.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Feb 15, 2018)

Reread things. This seems not to be weight, but coordination. It seems the set piece means the intervening sets are not in use. The right way would be to re-rig one set. Remove batten and re-reeve lines to pick up the piece at its corners. Or if you a have walk on gridiron just rig a pot line system for the piece.


----------



## gafftapegreenia (Feb 15, 2018)

BillConnerFASTC said:


> Reread things. This seems not to be weight, but coordination. It seems the set piece means the intervening sets are not in use. The right way would be to re-rig one set. Remove batten and re-reeve lines to pick up the piece at its corners. Or if you a have walk on gridiron just rig a pot line system for the piece.



That’s the direction I’m thinking as well. Stock up on mule blocks!


----------



## bobgaggle (Feb 15, 2018)

yeah that does seem to be the way to go. 1 arbor, 4 lines off the clew routed to wherever the corners of the unit are.

Thanks for the input, the problem seems solved


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Feb 15, 2018)

It always helps to understand the problem rather than just guess at solutions...


----------



## jhochb (Feb 21, 2018)

Good Morning all

I dont consider myself a Rigger and I know his is just a hypithetical discussion but it sounds to me like 4 small chain motors would solve the sync issue.
yes, I know it may not be in the budget.
jumping 4 arbor sounds scary to me as well


----------



## bobgaggle (Feb 21, 2018)

jhochb said:


> Good Morning all
> 
> I dont consider myself a Rigger and I know his is just a hypithetical discussion but it sounds to me like 4 small chain motors would solve the sync issue.
> yes, I know it may not be in the budget.
> jumping 4 arbor sounds scary to me as well



There's more than one way to skin a cat... But while motors can sound ideal, they present different issues to deal with. So, not a wrong idea, just a different one


----------



## RonHebbard (Feb 21, 2018)

bobgaggle said:


> There's more than one way to skin a cat... But while motors can sound ideal, they present different issues to deal with. So, not a wrong idea, just a different one


 @bobgaggle @Jack Hochberg 
Since we're still kicking this around; four motors are noisy. 
Another method is to install blocks, sheaves if you will, at the bottom and top of the two arbors being married then install cable to link the two arbors together such that neither can move without the other. You can still have at least two fly-persons pulling to overcome friction and drag. Also, it's clearly best not to be using the line-sets in between and have them all parked with their battens at the grid and their arbors on their lower end of travel stops. I naively thought we'd flogged this one to death. 
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard.


----------



## jhochb (Feb 21, 2018)

bobgaggle said:


> There's more than one way to skin a cat... But while motors can sound ideal, they present different issues to deal with. So, not a wrong idea, just a different one




Good Morning

I come from the Arena World so motor noise isn't the first thing that comes to mind 8P
I know there are silent systems but that's another issue.

TY


----------



## MPowers (Feb 22, 2018)

First, marry at the arbors is the correct idea. Let each arbor be properly balanced for the load on it’s pipe. 
Next think of the way a parallel bar on a drafting table works. This may be an unknown term to some of those who have grown up with some form of auto cad as the only way to produce shop drawings. For those who have never seen (or heard of) a parallel bar was a long horizontal straight edge on a drafting table that replaced the “T” square and could be moved up or down the table and the edge always remained precisely parallel. This was accomplished by a thin cable (usually about 1/32” dis) that was anchored at one corner and then up and down each side of the table around miniature shives and across the table under or inside the bar. The cable was rigged such that pushing up on one end of the bar, pulled up on the other end. Pushing up or down on the bar caused the entire 24” to 36” or longer, bar to move while staying perfectly parallel. 

Long story short. Rig a 1/4 cable and a few shieves between the arbors in the same manner. Still use two balanced arbors and two operators but allow the parallel rigging to keep the line sets operating in unison.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Feb 22, 2018)

I still think 4 spotted blocks and one arbor is best. I thought about what Michael suggested but it does require no outrigger supports or other framing intervening, and no blocks attached to arbors. What Ron said and I suggest previously is probably the safest marrying approach for non adjacent arbors. And I think one person could run it, leaving other lock open.


----------



## RonHebbard (Feb 22, 2018)

BillConnerFASTC said:


> I still think 4 spotted blocks and one arbor is best. If the weight of the load is within the safe working limit rating of one arbor / head-block assembly. I know one person could run it.


Works for me. 
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard.


----------



## Ben Stiegler (Feb 22, 2018)

Maybe renting some mechanized spot line hoists that can be sync controlled would be an alternative? How much does the jail cell weigh, anyway?


----------

