# DMX safety for non-lights usage



## SanTai (Jun 20, 2012)

We all know the DMX standard clearly state that it should not be used for pyro, machinery or other dangerous stuff.
That is very true, it can however be used for cueing. In my view the most dangerous part of DMX combined with SFX/Machinery is that people used to lights know how to use it. Controlling anything from the booth except lights(and maybe sound and video) is dangerous no matter what kind of controller you use.

So, done with rant so we might be able to discuss the product below without having the usual DMX-Safety talk.

MagicFX | Make your audience scream!

It is a non custom dmx switch pack with a safety channel. If I understand it right, it needs the safety channel to be at a specific value for 3 seconds for the unit to arm. All of us that do pyro know that you do not arm if it is not safe to fire. This should eliminate the problem and risk with signal errors. Am I missing something?

Am I missing something or shouldn't this be safe to use for say confetti launchers, kabukis and similar that are not allowed to fire early and can be dangerous. With some extra safety features it could probably be used for propane flames.


----------



## cpf (Jun 20, 2012)

I'd still say it can be misused - park the safety channel at the magic value (for convenience!) and it's back to being a normal relay pack. 

This is why most potentially-dangerous SFX control systems have a dedicated-hardware, proprietary, impossible-to-avoid-using-even-if-you-just-bypass-it-with-a-brick deadman's switch - it encourages the proper safety practice of having a designated, dedicated (for the required period of time, at least) crew-member nearby at ground level to watch the effect and prevent it from being remotely started if doing so would be dangerous.


But in the end, no matter how many safety features the whatever has tacked on, it's a matter of everyone involved knowing and following safety protocols. It's impossible to engineer out incompetence and unsafe behavior.


----------



## BobHealey (Jun 20, 2012)

When I needed to use DMX to trigger confetti cannons (by plugging them into a relay pack) (for timing purposes, to sync with an lighting and sound effect), I built a pair of deadman's/enable switches for the 120V line between the pack and the unit. I wanted to make sure those that even if the board or the relays went haywire, those things would not fire and launch a load of paper into someone's head or back. I had an enable switch at the stage for the SM, and the deadman's was with me in the light booth because i had an unobstructed view of the entire stage and downrange. Most likely, nothing would have gone wrong just using the relays, but I decided it was better to not fire the effect at all than misfire it. CO2 confetti, not pyro, otherwise I would have done things more safely.


----------



## chausman (Jun 20, 2012)

I still say no. DMX still isn't reliable enough for my taste. Just look at the threads talking about MHs. Most issues are caused by weird reflections or other funky stuff you can't be sure about until you try it out.


----------



## SanTai (Jun 20, 2012)

Okey!
I wanted to discuss the technology. Not how to protect the world from stupid people. But,

That it can be miss used is an extremely unrelevant point. You can disable every safety feature in every system, they are not there to protect from the user. Do you know how easy it is to put the dead mans switch out of play on my Pyrodigital(The most prestigious dedicated pyro controller)? Nothing protects from fools. Sorry cpf, but you are miss informed.

Chausman, sorry to disappoint but on almost all the large flame systems, dmx ARE used for cueing.

BobHealey, you are too far away to have a good view from the booth. Even when doing confetti I would strongly recommend to have your pyrotechnician holding the dead mans switch. He SHOULD know where he should stand.

The interesting thing is, will this protect from reflections at all times the safety is not activated. I believe it should, because my knowledge of electro magnetic field theory, tells me that even in lab distorting the signal in the right way to get a 3 second burst at a specific value is kind of undoable. Am I missing something? Are there more vulnerable parts of the switch pack?


----------



## chausman (Jun 20, 2012)

SanTai said:


> Chausman, sorry to disappoint but on almost all the large flame systems, dmx ARE used for cueing.



As a method of cueing a technician, or actually executing that cue?


----------



## cpf (Jun 20, 2012)

I'm not sure what you're doing with this thread. If you are so well informed and experienced, to the point of categorically declaring that other people are wrong, why are you coming here for an opinion?


----------



## SanTai (Jun 20, 2012)

cpf said:


> I'm not sure what you're doing with this thread. If you are so well informed and experienced, to the point of categorically declaring that other people are wrong, why are you coming here for an opinion?



I am sory for coming on strong, but I wanted to get opinions on the technology since it is essentially a lightning controller. I did not asked for info about pyro controllers. I didn't want a general safety discussion since it has been discussed so many times before. Another reasons is that do not want people buying this switch pack, hook it up to their lightning dmx network and think that is all the safety needed for pyro, confetti, kabuki, machinery or anything else. Discussing safety procedures on the Internet could even be dangerous since it could get people too think that it is enough to have read it in a forum and they do not need supervision of someone with any experience.

I wanted to discuss technology and see if anyone had any experience about other failure points than the one it is supposed to protect from. Strictly the technology.
Sorry for sounding like an ass but I rather be the bad guy on a internet forum, then give some random reader the idea that they know enough. And then we have another Station fire on our hands.


----------



## SanTai (Jun 20, 2012)

chausman said:


> As a method of cueing a technician, or actually executing that cue?



It is NEVER on the same DMX-network as the lights. But, yes it actually executes the cue. There are several safety systems in place and a few dead mans switches(un related to the DMX cueing) but lets not get into that part.


----------



## josh88 (Jun 20, 2012)

Even separate from the lighting it's still Dmx and dmx still isn't safe for running that kind of stuff. Too many variables. Just because because it's separated out from your lighting control doesn't make it any more reliable. I wouldn't run anything off of it personally.

Also how could you know bobhealey doesn't have a good view from his booth? Do you know the distance or where his booth is or what kind of video feeds he has running? His setup would be the only thing I've seen mentioned that I'd be relatively comfortable with. This seems to be a rehash of other discussions we've had


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## SanTai (Jun 20, 2012)

josh88 said:


> Even separate from the lighting it's still Dmx and dmx still isn't safe for running that kind of stuff. Too many variables. Just because because it's separated out from your lighting control doesn't make it any more reliable. I wouldn't run anything off of it personally.



Would you care to elaborate?
Except for the risk of signal error with no error checking, which is what this is made to protect from. Which are the risks?


josh88 said:


> Also how could you know bobhealey doesn't have a good view from his booth? Do you know the distance or where his booth is or what kind of video feeds he has running? His setup would be the only thing I've seen mentioned that I'd be relatively comfortable with. This seems to be a rehash of other discussions we've had



Other setups have not been discussed. About the view, was of course a guess based on my experience of were in a venue the booth is placed.
I have never seen a pyrotechnican rigg the main safety FOH and very seldom at all FOH, then only because of show control cabling. You should always have one person dedicated to the task, even if it is "just" CO2.


----------



## derekleffew (Jun 20, 2012)

I'm not getting in the middle of this, but wanted to offer an anecdote.

Recently, I had a colleague call to ask how to build a terminator, DMX , as he was on a tour and at one stop his confetti cannons accidentally went off just before doors. I directed him to the wiki entry. I didn't tell him I doubted that a terminator would solve his problem, as that's not what he asked. I'm sure I've seen other stories of accidental, unwanted discharge here on CB.

Using a DMX "safety" channel that must be at a specific level or go through a specific sequence, is a good idea, but does not totally mitigate/eliminate the possibility of a misfire. Look up the process of how to soft reset a Cyberlight sometime.


----------



## SanTai (Jun 20, 2012)

derekleffew said:


> I'm not getting in the middle of this, but wanted to offer an anecdote.
> 
> Recently, I had a colleague call to ask how to build a terminator, DMX , as he was on a tour and at one stop his confetti cannons accidentally went off just before doors. I directed him to the wiki entry. I didn't tell him I doubted that a terminator would solve his problem, as that's not what he asked. I'm sure I've seen other stories of accidental, unwanted discharge here on CB.



Heard those as well. However they have always include that the operator did not take any precautions.


derekleffew said:


> Using a DMX "safety" channel that must be at a specific level or go through a specific sequence, is a good idea, but does not totally mitigate/eliminate the possibility of a misfire. Look up the process of how to soft reset a Cyberlight sometime.



Now I have... Now what? You put one channel to one value and then another to zero...


----------



## DuckJordan (Jun 20, 2012)

I would prefer a secured network, Not just a DMX solution. There were reasons (when i worked at a very large pyro firm, think 4th of july at large hotels and such) that we had a key system. No key, no fire. One man with the key if that person where to release pressure on the momentary switch triggered by the key then no fire. It was fired off a 12v relay system. Computer controlled but not DMX. It ran off Ethernet and had error checking as well as a local copy and the remote copy of the "Show File". if it sensed a slight dip in the 12v or a slight increase in voltage the system shut off. I'm sorry but no new information in this thread is relevant, all that device does/is a dead man switched relay. Thats it. Its a lot easier to get a channel to stay at a level than to have someone physically turn a key.


----------



## BobHealey (Jun 21, 2012)

josh88 said:


> Also how could you know bobhealey doesn't have a good view from his booth? Do you know the distance or where his booth is or what kind of video feeds he has running? His setup would be the only thing I've seen mentioned that I'd be relatively comfortable with. This seems to be a rehash of other discussions we've had


I'll be the first to admit what I did wasn't ideal, but based on the sight lines open to me and the onstage crew for the musical, and the time and budget I was operating under, I did the best I could to make the effect as safe as I could. I would not have run it off the DMX device (ETC Sensor rack with R20 module), without the inline switches on the 120V feed to the gun. Would I do it better next time? Yes. Should I have refused to do the effect at all without a real effects controller? Probably.


----------



## SanTai (Jun 21, 2012)

Here you got some info about pyro controllers:

PD:
Pyrodigital Consultants Electronic Firing System

F1:
Welcome to FireOne™ - The Photoshop(r) of the Fireworks Industry!

Galaxis:
Galaxis Showtechnik - Professional Wireless Firing Systems for Pyrotechnics

PD and F1 are the most common in the pro world, with generally PD having a better reputation. Galaxis is a newer system which is made to be wireless. All these are used by mayor companies and have been used at La Ronde. La Ronde have a special PD and F1 setup with amplifiers and what not.


I'm sorry this thread as usual could not hold the topic, that switch pack was never intended for pyro. It was intended for all those usage that yet lack a dedicated controller and were it seems the industry is going to us dmx for cueing.(Flames(NOT pyro), co2, kabuki, konfetti etc.)


----------



## DuckJordan (Jun 21, 2012)

SanTai said:


> Here you got some info about pyro controllers:
> 
> PD:
> Pyrodigital Consultants Electronic Firing System
> ...



Flames are pyro co2 falls under that category here in the us as well.


----------



## SanTai (Jun 21, 2012)

DuckJordan said:


> Flames are pyro co2 falls under that category here in the us as well.



Which legal category it falls under is kind of irrelevant. Pyro controllers are not constructed to regulate how long they fire. They usually just empty a capacitor through the e-match. Makes them useless for a lot of modern SFX machinery, keep in mind that PD and F1 got pyromusicals as their primary purpose. That is why DMX is used. Galaxis got rudimentary possibilities to control this kind of machinery, but it isn't quite there yet, to be useful.

More than the signal error part, have you had any other kind of issues with DMX?


----------



## DuckJordan (Jun 21, 2012)

Yes, I've had no signal what's so ever a loss of control from face plate to processor. And complete random restart of fixtures and console cause by dmx failure.


----------



## SanTai (Jun 21, 2012)

DuckJordan said:


> Yes, I've had no signal what's so ever a loss of control from face plate to processor. And complete random restart of fixtures and console cause by dmx failure.



All of those seems very easy to protect oneself from, part/all depending on what the failure was I believe it is already made to protect from, so that we do not get any catastrophic failures.

To me it feels like, that if you just put an arm switch and a dead mans switch on the AC-power and on the DMX line you've got a good control system that uses DMX. I think I will have to request a datasheet to have a look at have an EE look at.


----------



## DuckJordan (Jun 21, 2012)

To each his own but I wouldn't and couldn't let you in my venue with a dmx controlled pyro rig


----------



## SanTai (Jun 21, 2012)

DuckJordan said:


> To each his own but I wouldn't and couldn't let you in my venue with a dmx controlled pyro rig



I guess you don't do any big Rock shows then...
All companies I have worked with or seen on a stage use it when the systems becomes more complex.

Sigma Services, for example, which I believe are big on flames in the US use it in their products.
For a system with TÜV-sticker look at LunatX.


Can you tell me why?
Or is it just a general it might be dmx black magic voodoo thing?


----------



## DuckJordan (Jun 21, 2012)

I don't trust it and neither does our fire marshal. And I wouldnt call Disturbed and rob zombie small.. Please as a student try not to put your foot in your mouth.


----------



## SanTai (Jun 21, 2012)

I am sorry, I do not see how the fact that I study Engineering on my spare time is relevant. Except that it means that I have knowledge about EM-field theory and high frequency technique, from other sources than wikipedia.

I have also PMed a mod and asked for the thread to be deleted since nothing new has been discussed and I feel that leaving info about how to create parts of this kind of control system could be dangerous. It was not what I intended when I created the thread. I wanted to discuss the specific switch pack mentioned in the first post, we never did that. Now everybody are at a foul mood instead. I'm sorry for that.


----------



## DuckJordan (Jun 21, 2012)

Not foul mood, just don't like being told how my venue operates. Now I'd love to see the switch pack used in a non pyro. Such as a moving dragon head (shrek comes to mind) and other things that may need DMX to control specific functions. If it deals with peoples safety though I wouldn't use DMX for such things.


----------



## MarshallPope (Jun 21, 2012)

Just for conversation, what would be the difference in having a GO button to fire a pyro shot (CO2, Kabuki, et. al.) manually and having someone on a deadman for the couple of seconds surrounding the time needed for the shot to be fired via DMX, for the sake of timing? Maybe with an indicator light to ensure that something hadn't gone horribly wrong and the DMX channel wasn't parked on or something when the deadman was activated?

It just seems to me that the actual method used to trigger the effect isn't as important as the safeties in place allowing the effect to happen.


----------



## DuckJordan (Jun 21, 2012)

The problem comes in the fact that DMX is very non error checking. Sure it could work for a single piece of pyro, but when you have a rig of 200 - 300 different pyro shots. It becomes more apparent why DMX is not a good solution. Would you need a dead man switch for each pyro piece? or would you put it at the start of the line? or maybe you have three different sends going to three different places where would you put the dead man switch? 

I still prefer the old 12 volt system I used for our events. Very reliable, no way to accidentally fire anything. And no way to fire off in the wrong order. While we have used a cue light system to fire pyro...


----------



## Wood4321 (Jun 21, 2012)

I think this thread deserves to stay, as it shows how adamant many of us are when it comes to DMX controlled Pyro!
DMX should never be used to control anything that will cause bodily harm without a deadman switch at that location.

As has been stated by many others, DMX has no error checking at all. 
I assume you know how DMX works, but I saw a great analogy on another bbs, 
(And I greatly wish I remember who said it)

DMX is like this, 
There is a man standing on the corner, and he says "ready" then starts yelling numbers down the hall.
000
000
128
255
255
etc, etc, a total of 512 times. 
Then he says "ready" and then repeats the process, up to 44 times per second.

At no point does he listen back for a response if a command has been received.

There are far to many variables with DMX to use it for pyro.
The only way I would ever consider it is with a dead man switch near every position, with "knowledgeable person" standing next to it.

In any case, no fowl mood either, just adamant about safety.


----------



## Les (Jun 21, 2012)

Woodj32177 said:


> DMX is like this,
> There is a man standing on the corner, and he says "ready" then starts yelling numbers down the hall.
> 000
> 000
> ...



...And at one point, someone decides to join in by shouting random numbers while using the floor scrubber.


----------



## chausman (Jun 21, 2012)

Woodj32177 said:


> DMX is like this,
> There is a man standing on the corner, and he says "ready" then starts yelling numbers down the hall.
> 000
> 000
> ...




Les said:


> ...And at one point, someone decides to join in by shouting random numbers while using the floor scrubber.



I vote this the best DMX analogy ever.


----------



## SanTai (Jun 22, 2012)

First!
Why In HELL would you fire anything or do anything else that MIGHT harm someone WITHOUT a dead mans switch at that location!!!
If you think that having "a dedicated controller" means you can skip that part you are RISKING PEOPLES LIVES!
Maybe this is why we get stuck! I take all these precations for granted, since I have a background in pyro and you in ligh



Ok, if we are too continue we have to clear out the terminology.

Pyro: A pyro effect is fired(most often) by an e-match. "It caries it's own oxygen with it", meaning it can fire in vacuum. Stage Flames and CO2 is not part of this category.

Flames: Flame effects are often propane or a pressurised alcohol. They are released with a solenoid valve and ignited by a pilot flame or a spark when mixed with air("It DOESN'T caries it's own oxygen with it"). Pay attention to the solenoid part.(Not Pyro)

CO2 Jets: CO2 released through a solenoid valve.(Not Pyro)

It is not only I that differ between pyro and flames, take a look at stricktly fx's homepage for example.


DuckJordan Mentiond the number 300. That is most likely pyro effects we are talking about. Since a pyro effect can only be fired once. There are a lot of systems out there for firing pyro.

LET US DROP PYRO CONTROLLERS. Dmx is totally worthless for pyro! Nobody is suggesting using DMX for pyro(see rough definition above).

Moving on too the effects at hand!

Those relevant to look at are those who for example use a solenoid(for example flames)! They can be fired several times, and you extremely seldom have 300 flame units at an event. These CAN NOT in a good way be fired by any pyro controllers, since part of the effect is deciding how long it should be on. This makes it(controller wise) more like a light than pyro. In pyro you have one contact for every cue! If you have 3000 cues in your show you need to have 3000 contacts to make it happen. There is no problem to have 3000 cues(every blink in a chase is a cue) with 10 Par-lights, or flames for that matter.

Do I need to explain that part further or can we drop pyro and move on too flames and other machinery.

I know how DMX works, I know that the reflections come from bad impedance matching and so on and so forth.


Now take a look at MarshallPopes post above.

What happens when you send bad DMX to a reciver that does not got any power? Nothing!
What happens when you get a short circuit in a analog controller? When you arm it to fire, the short circuit fires as soon as it is armed!

You can have errors in the most simple analogue system as well, that is why you do not arm until ready to fire!


----------



## FMEng (Jun 22, 2012)

SanTai said:


> The interesting thing is, will this protect from reflections at all times the safety is not activated. I believe it should, because my knowledge of electro magnetic field theory, tells me that even in lab distorting the signal in the right way to get a 3 second burst at a specific value is kind of undoable. Am I missing something? Are there more vulnerable parts of the switch pack?



I don't think it is all that far fetched to have some kind of noise or signal reflection to get read as a certain value for three seconds. "Kind of undoable" is not the same an impossible. Many performance venues have just the kind of electromagnetic environment to make the slightly possible happen, even if you can't in the lab.

The use of DMX in this way also implies that a microprocessor has the final say in when something detonates. A microprocessor should never be given that level of autonomy because it is too easy for one to go to la la land from a little signal glitch or supply rail sag. There needs be a mechanical switch or a mechanical switch controlling a relay that breaks the circuit to the firing device. Anything else is just asking for an accident. Switches aren't perfect either, but they are about a thousand percent more reliable than any microprocessor based circuit. You can always have a microprocessor making decisions ahead of the switch, but the switch should have the final vote on firing. That's my humble opinion from my 25 years of electronics experience and a BSEET degree.


----------



## DuckJordan (Jun 22, 2012)

Fine, CO2 is fine, flame on the other hand NO, CO2 can be safely turned off at close distance, flame on the other hand not so much. Sorry santai for being a little lost on termonology, but for the sake of the education portion of this forum, Any kind of special effect that involves any discharging from a valve, hole, table, or any other such device including bot not limited to, Confetti, CO2, flame, Pyro, air cannon, streamers, or loud bang effects, Is considered at least in my venues and my county as well as the neighboring counties to be considered "Pyrotechnic effects" under the legal term. Any and all "Pyrotechnic effects" must be approved by both the fire marshal, and myself to be able to use them. The only effect I would consider to be allowable to be fired from a DMX system would be CO2.

Those are also the most common errors found with DMX, I've seen controllers send completely wrong data (Not reflections or a short) but bad data from the controller. errors are easier diagnosed and solved on an analogue system than a digital system. When I put peoples lives in danger by deciding to use a system never intended for use by Pyrotechnicians I am no better than a military general who authorizes chemical warfare on a populace.


----------



## cpf (Jun 22, 2012)

@FMEng

Additionally, a microprocessor may be quite stable itself, but the code running on it may make improper assumptions, and there's no real way to for a user to determine if it does or not without extensive testing - or by using it until something goes wrong. Nothing against the company that's selling this, but they aren't exactly Boeing or QNX. 

I wouldn't have any qualms with using this for standard DMX purposes, but when it's attached to something imminently dangerous, I'd rather have a setup designed with safety first and DMX control second, not the other way around.


----------



## ruinexplorer (Jun 22, 2012)

There are a lot of misunderstandings in this thread. Please, let's all be rational in our posts and not get heated (pun intended).

We must not always assume that someone who lists being a student is someone early in their career. Just as we cannot assume that someone who lists themselves as a professional in some manner is a seasoned technician. You will learn if you pay attention to the posts over a long period of time who fits which category (especially if you paid attention when the person originally joined the forum, if you were here then). 

We do base our judgement on our past experiences, unfortunately not many of us have qualified experience in this topic. This is the reason that it was verboten for a long time on the forum. 

This is an international forum and some terminology and the way things are handled are quite different from region to region. It is always good to know where someone is coming from (if they will kindly share that information) so you may understand that communication may be a little difficult. As stated, many people do not stick to strict definitions for pyro (even the AHJs) and will consider anything that creates flame or smoke to fall within the same naming category. 

So, all of that being said, I do in fact work in a professional environment where DMX is used as the control mechanism (not the safety mechanism) for special effects including many types of "pyro" (gerbs of various sorts, aerials, flame generators, foggers). I cannot and will not discuss any other portion of the system as I am neither qualified to do so, nor would my confidentiality agreement with my employer allow me to do so. 

The safety mechanisms are the important part of any system. Human error can come into play in any system as well as electrical/mechanical failures. It is the system design that prevents us from harm in general. So, we can either go about ignoring the DMX portion of this thread and move along to the intention of discussing the quality of a safety device or we can close the thread. However, I do think that those who can only speculate should not offer their opinions as definitives. Since this is a dangerous topic, we need to have serious discussion on the matter.


----------



## Wood4321 (Jun 22, 2012)

Going back to your original post SanTai,
I believe the safety channel is nearly completely worthless, and imbibes the user with a dangerous false sense of security.

I know you feel we have been somewhat harsh with you about the use of "Common Sense" But on an online bulletin board, the amount of common sense available is not known. Plus, when dealing in an online forum, who knows how much common sense the next person that reads it has. I often say the obvious because it is not obvious to everyone that might read this post 2 years later.

In any case, I would not use that switch pack for anything that could cause injury, as I don't believe it comes close to adding enough safety to the system.

Peace,


----------



## DuckJordan (Jun 22, 2012)

to look back on it, this device requires a certain DMX signal and level to be sent to it for it to arm. Whats the difference between a parked channel (at the right value) or recorded into a cue? While that may work great for arming at that cue you aren't providing any safety to the effect. Your operator of your console who may or may not be educated in the effect is now deciding whether its safe or not to fire? As an LD I wouldn't want to have to worry about anything other than lights for a production. Let alone an intensive pyrotechnics or flame effect.


----------



## ruinexplorer (Jun 23, 2012)

Duck, I think that you have missed some crucial information here. The LD would never be responsible for these types of special effects. This would be handled by a separate console dedicated for the purpose of special effects, separate from the lighting network. Yes, the operator could bypass the safety device by parking the channel, and then that person would get fired. Pyrotechnics and other special effects like this do not have the ability to cut corners. 

If you are worried about this, then that is your right to deny an event using this into your space. You have stated that you have experience with analog type systems for pyrotechnics, but do not have experience with many of the other effects which cannot run on an analog system. So, as someone who has jurisdiction over a space (as you seem to have by your claims), then you should probably put it in your facility guidelines that any pyrotechnic effect controlled by DMX will not be allowed into the facility, no matter any other safety precautions, so that you will not need to worry about production companies bringing this into your space. As TD of a roadhouse, our facility had to have a blanket ban on all pyrotechnic effects, so I know how this can affect business. At the same time, I did not have to worry if I did not have appropriate experience in the matter.


----------



## DuckJordan (Jun 23, 2012)

It's stated in our tech packet and known to potential users of our facility id love to learn more as that's the best I can do. If at some point I can become more familiar with the digital systems and the safeties in place I would consider removing the ban on a case to case basis. So i would like to see this discussion continue. It was never my intent to end this discusion or be closed minded about it. I just would prefer more info of this claimed safe use of dmx.


----------



## SanTai (Jun 23, 2012)

DuckJordan said:


> It's stated in our tech packet and known to potential users of our facility id love to learn more as that's the best I can do. If at some point I can become more familiar with the digital systems and the safeties in place I would consider removing the ban on a case to case basis. So i would like to see this discussion continue. It was never my intent to end this discusion or be closed minded about it. I just would prefer more info of this claimed safe use of dmx.



How different product adds safeties to their operation, check with the manufacturer/manual. For custom made effects such as certain flames, check with the company in question. How it is implemented and what extra is added, check with the company firing the effect.
I am not going to go into more detail how a theoretical system could be built or those I have seen are setup.

The reason the standard answer is "call a pro" is that you never have a inexperienced person doing pyro.


Assuming the safety channel works, what are the rest of risks of failure of the product.


----------



## derekleffew (Jun 23, 2012)

MICROH Flame Thrower - YouTube

Colorful DMX Flame Thrower


Flammenwerfer ( 5 fach ) - YouTube

I don't see anything about being listed, by NRTL. 

Just sayin'.


----------



## SanTai (Jun 23, 2012)

The upper clip I belive are some chinse made projectors, you can find them everywhere on ebay. I would be very cautions about using them.

The bottom clip I believe is a projector called 5 Master from a German company called TBF Pyrotec. Their products are used by several major SFX companies. If I remember correctly the 5 Master was used at ESC in Oslo for example.


----------



## SanTai (Jun 23, 2012)

derekleffew said:


> I don't see anything about being listed, by NRTL.
> 
> Just sayin'.



If I understad correctly NRTL are a number of accepted labs for product testing?

I know that at least the Flame Master is tested by TÜV but I do not know if the 5 Master is.


----------



## DuckJordan (Jun 23, 2012)

As per your question assuming the safety is solid then I wouldn't have an issue I don't know the specific manufacture but I would probably have the td of the tour provide a demo as well as explain the procedure. As a standalone system I would want this the only fail safe but would allow use as a secondary safety


----------



## Wood4321 (Jun 24, 2012)

Sorry Duck, 
IMHO, the entire concept of a DMX safety is invalid.
The only way to be safe using DMX controlled effects is to use a safety outside of the DMX signal. 
Once again, there is no error checking in DMX, So there are many ways that a receiver can get the incorrect information.
And when there are lives at stake, There is no excuse for using DMX to control it.
This is just as bad an idea as DMX Chain hoist control.
(Sorry, this is a subject I am adamant about.)
All this being said, I don't have a problem with using DMX for cueing, as long as there are appropriate safety measures taken.
EXTERNAL to the DMX signal.


----------



## ruinexplorer (Jun 24, 2012)

DuckJordan said:


> As a standalone system I would *not *want this *to be* the only fail safe*,* but would allow use as a secondary safety



I think that he agrees with you. I think that his statement was missing the appropriate bolded bits which I added.


----------



## SanTai (Jun 24, 2012)

Woodj32177 said:


> I don't have a problem with using DMX for cueing, as long as there are appropriate safety measures taken.
> EXTERNAL to the DMX signal.



Has anybody ever suggested anything else?(Except when explaining how bad dmx is)


----------



## Chris15 (Jun 24, 2012)

I look at it this way...
The problem I am trying to overcome is a deficiency (lack of error checking) in the protocol. Since it's a protocol problem, my solution must be external to the protocol.
Were the problem that someone could accidentally bump the button and trigger something, then it would be valid to have the "safety" as something within the DMX protocol...

At least that's my take on it...


----------

