Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Tin Man Lamphouse

This is topic Tin Man Lamphouse in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004900

Posted by Greg Pauley (Member # 503) on 05-16-2003, 02:37 PM:

Just installed this zeiss lamphouse in the Keith Albee Theatre, Huntington, WV. had to laugh after mounting the blue exhaust fan on top and standing back and taking a look. [Big Grin]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-16-2003, 03:05 PM:

Now if it only had a heart! [Cool]

Outside of the lamp looks almost new! What kind of light are you getting out of it? I recall they were tough to align.

Posted by Greg Pauley (Member # 503) on 05-16-2003, 04:05 PM:

This is a technalight conversion (see sticker on lamphouse) which I think you got a chance to see recently. Robert Miniaci from RFS mention that you were at one of his IMAX installs a few weeks ago. Using a 3000wt on a 46ft matte screen getting 10-14-10 on scope with a few amps left to boost. Robert is like the mad scientist of light and he came in and did the alignment after the installed. This lamphouse is built like a tank, I guess the German engineers knew how to build them back in the day. Nice Bright Picture!

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 05-16-2003, 04:15 PM:

That is a great looking lamphouse!

I just came back on a trip from Louisville, KY about 2 weeks ago where I had spent the day at Hadden Theatre Supply. They had just recently restored a 1970's era Strong lamphouse that was absolutely gorgeous. Completely stripped the thing, and applied a new powder coat finish to the exterior. New "guts" inside and out. It looked really sharp.

Seeing Josh and Paul's photo's of their recent trip to the Strong plant made me envious. When I got to Hadden, I found almost exactly the same set-up there. They take old Century's and XL's, strip them down to the bare casting, bead blast, prime and re-poweder coat all the castings and fittings. When they are done... it's amazing. I had never seen a "new" projector before. I just wish I had the money to have them give my machines a face lift.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-16-2003, 07:57 PM:

It should be noted that James Greenwell is the remanufacturing operation at Hadden. Every projector, soundhead, and lamphouse that comes out of there is by his hand.

Ed Wyatt, who grew up in the watchmaking profession, is the talent behind the intermittent rebuilds. Eddie's intermittents purr.

A good deal of Hadden's reputation is built on these two gentlemen. I've never known more skilled craftsmen, and they rarely get the credit due them. [thumbsup]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-16-2003, 08:31 PM:

"They take old Century's and XL's, strip them down to the bare casting, bead blast, prime and re-poweder coat all the castings and fittings."
_________________________________________________________________
The powder coating aspect is fine, and the best way to go for finish, especially on X-L's. Its also more enviromentally friendly as well. But the bead blasting part is a BIG NO-NO! Main castings and anything with precision machined surfaces should only be stripped by dunk stripping in appropriate paint removers!! Blasting any presision surface on a Simplex, or Century....especially on alumnium machines, will alter the dimensions of the machined surfaces. I have even seen a sandblasted mainframe for an X-L warp!! Its quite easy to actually measure how much it alters these dimensions by placing a main casting on a granite plate and using appropriate gauges for measurement. Sure rebuilt machines almost always look nice, but be sure they were refinished and rebuilt correctly before you buy any, and first and formost be sure the main casting was not blasted.
Mark @ CLACO

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-16-2003, 10:00 PM:

I can't speak for what anyone else is doing, but the guy at Hadden has been remanufacturing these machines for over 10 years now with no problems -- Centurys and XLs alike. He's had over 40 years experience with projection equipment and knows what he is doing.

Soaking the castings in solvent was tried early on and it didn't really do a good enough job for this application. There is no sandblasting; he uses a special media that disintegrates on impact, and critical surfaces are protected.

All parts are installed new, and if one of those new parts doesn't meet his exacting requirements, it's rejected. The finished machines are super-quiet and project rock-steady images -- they are definitely precision remanufactured. I would put them up against any machine, new or used, foreign or domestic.

Which gets back to what I said earlier, James Greenwell doesn't get enough credit for his good work.

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 05-16-2003, 10:09 PM:

Someone with skill and the right size nozzle can blast an XL without disturbing the important machined surfaces. There's no paint on those surfaces anyway so there's no reason to attack them. Covering them with tape will mark them (when the paint is going you have a hard time telling where there wasn't paint...) and by using a fine nozzle and moderate pressure avoiding them isn't difficult.
I've seen some disastrous examples of overzealous blasting on motorcycle engine cases though, you can't just assume the operator knows what to do.
Keeping the new coating (paint or powder) off the machined surfaces and out of the threaded holes is another detail that takes some skill. Plus, the heat cycle needed to fuse powder coating can warp complex castings if done carelessly.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-16-2003, 10:45 PM:

First off this is not meant to be a critique of someone elses work. I'm sure the rebuilds that alot of technicians out there do are absolutely first class, and that some are more than likely questionable. This is all only meant to draw attention to the problems associated with Sand Blasting alumnium castings of equipment used in our industry. Indeed many non-critical castings can safely be blasted if you like as they are not close tolerance castings!

I have yet to find a media that doesn't alter the metal surface at least somwehat. Medias that remove the paint are going to at very least frost the unfinished, and underlying surfaces...which is changing the precision surface that was done in machining! Plastic bead is useless....the only thing I have not tried as of yet is high pressure water jet paint removal as there are not many places that do this.

I've personally done ALOT of sandblasting in the past and consulted with countless companies and salesman that CLAIM to have the best stuff, but I can definately tell you that media that will remove paint and not alter the underlying surface simply does not exist. The media has to be harder than the paint you're removing to get any results. Also very frequent media changes are required with really soft media as it quickly turns to dust!!

Dave Mccauleys way will work to some extent, but makes the chore even more time consumming than the norm. I gave up blasting pretty much completely along time ago except for very minor bead blasting of small parts only on occasion, or if the surface finish calls for it.

Tim:
First off, the term Sand Blasting is really a generis term and does not necessarily mean that one uses actual sand. There are hundreds of different blasting medias available on the market today, and yes, some are actually sand, but most of them are actually sand derivitaves. DuPont Star-Blast is a good example of a very popluar sand derivitave blasting media. Solvent alone does not work to remove paint. It may soften it somewhat but baked enamel as is on these castings can be a pain to remove. There are many dip chemical methods that allow you to strip paint off castings yourself that work very well and are ALOT less time consumming, and most importantly safe for the person doing the rebuild, and for the enviroment. Many are available in 55 gallon drums. Most of this old paint, especially black wrinkle, contains a good deal of lead that only special dust collection systems are capable of removing and not re-exhausting back into the atmosphere that you and your employees are breathing.

A good place to start is a place called Redi-Strip.....
http://www.redi-strip.com/index.htm
I have used them to strip hundreds of sets of castings in past years with no problems....plus.....its cheaper to have them do it than it is PAY ANOTHER EMPLOYEE to perform the merciless task of sand blasting day in and day out. He can be performing more important tasks for whom ever he works for.
Overall, on a large scale, or for just one projector dip striping is the far better route for everything involved and no changes to the metal occur at all. Just remember that you also have to legally dispose of those tired 55 gallon drums of chemical stripper!!
Mark

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-17-2003, 09:52 AM:

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to get 14fl on a 46 screen most super 80's or xenex2's do it blindfolded.
Any theatre that spent money on a xenosolII was had. The sienmens ignitors are virtually imposible to get in North america and most other one are hard to fit in.
It always amazes me when there is so much good used equipment out there people waste money on some junk

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-17-2003, 11:10 AM:

Mark, you misunderstand. He's protecting the machined surfaces, he knows what he's doing - I don't know how else to say it. And, yes, the media turns to dust very quickly, it's designed to.

His shop is very well equipped and was installed for this applicaiton, you really have no idea. Everything, every step of the process, is in an enclosed, filtered booth - no one breathes anything. By the way, he does all the work himself, nothing is "sent out".

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-17-2003, 07:17 PM:

Tim,
I'm REALLY glad that I don't work there [Eek!]

!!! It takes special filtering equipment that even on a small setup costs tens of thousands of dollars just to filter out lead and other hazardous metals. Regualar dust systems as is used on 95% of the media blast systems out there are not capable of filtering it out. The health hazard of performing your own blasting is DEFINATELY not worth it, nor is it from a dollar standpoint.
Mark

Posted by Greg Pauley (Member # 503) on 05-18-2003, 12:15 AM:

“It doesn't take a rocket scientist to get 14fl on a 46 screen most super 80's or xenex2's do it blindfolded.
Any theatre that spent money on a xenosolII was had. The sienmens ignitors are virtually imposible to get in North america and most other one are hard to fit in.
It always amazes me when there is so much good used equipment out there people waste money on some junk”

Gordon,
You’ll be glad to know that I didn’t waste any money on the xenosol lamphouse, it was a freebie from Robert Film Service along with a spare sienmen ignitor. Robert has about 30 of the ignitors laying around his shop in case you run across a stupid operator that buys one of these lamphouses [Wink]

. We installed this vertical lamphouse because of the steep incline of the Keith Albee’s main booth to test what it would do on the life of the bulb and constancy of light over the life of the bulb. So far the lamphouse is great and the ignitor is very smooth. Your right about the Xenex 2 and Super 80, I removed a Xenex 2 for the zeiss lamphouse which had the Technalight conversion glass reflector installed and we were getting in the 20's on this same screen if we ran the 3000 wt bulb at max amperage. Robert installed his Technalight reflector kit in two super 80's in our Park Place Stadium Cinemas in Charleston, WV on the same trip and we were getting in the high 20's on a 44ft screen. We had to turn down the amps to get the readings down to around 18fl on scope which is a little high but I like a bright picture with excellent resolution and contrast. Plus this give you a lot of head room to turn up the amperage over the life of the bulb to keep the light in smpte standards.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-18-2003, 02:01 AM:

quote:
It takes special filtering equipment that even on a small setup costs tens of thousands of dollars just to filter out

Mark, you're making a lot of assumptions. Even $100,000 is but a drop in the bucket to this place.

I'm not exaggerating.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-18-2003, 09:52 AM:

Save some more money buy a Kinoton lamphouse or the newer ernamann horizontal which are as efficient and also newer ignition technology
All those xenosols are left overs from Expo67 in Montreal
For years Phillips sold a xenobloc conversion kit that used there glass collector and a siemens ignitor for retrofitting lamphouses and they did produce excellent light

Also if you have a step downward angle you may be exceeding the downward angle for a verticle lamp as you have no magnetic stabalization. For very step angles one is better to rewire the lamphouse to place the anode at the back of the reflector and live with the light loss of the anode shadow on the collector (this is standard in all spotlights)

If your xenosol is still verticle oriented lamps then it is probably the originial reflector

On the issue of glass reflectors if they are european there is predominently only one actual supplier of the blanks and coatings usless they use one of the chineese ones and there coatings are very iffy at best

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-18-2003, 02:47 PM:

Tim,
It saddens me to think that 100K is a drop in the bucket to anyone....especially in light of how may people in the world starve to death daily!!
Mark

Posted by Greg Pauley (Member # 503) on 05-18-2003, 03:43 PM:

The glass reflectors used in the technalight system is a new reflector Robert has manufactured to his specs and uses a different mount than the existing mount in the converted lamphouse . They are multi layer and should last for 20 years barring any bulb explosion. I don’t remember where he said they were manufactured, but it wasn’t China. Robert is not the kind of guy who would settle for poor quality workmanship. I’ve had one for about a year and half with no loss of light which you can’t say about the metal reflector that comes in the strong or xenex 2 lamphouses. The reflector is only one of several things changed to allow you to drop bulb sizes and increase your light output. I think his website will be up sometime over the next week or NCS is the distributor for USA sales.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-18-2003, 03:54 PM:

I have never noticed much light loss with metal reflectors over time if they are cared for. Glass reflectors are not that difficult to design as they are basically an ellipsoide the focus of it is based on 2 conditions the size of spot of light you require and the shadow of the electrode on the collector and that varries dependiong on the lamp. That is why a 1K lamphouse with a 1K lamp will normally produce more light than a 7K lamphouse would with a 1K lamp

Posted by Greg Pauley (Member # 503) on 05-18-2003, 04:51 PM:

The next time you install a new Super 80 or Xenex 2 or any other lamphouse using a metal reflector with a 4k ++7K bulb take a reading and go back after a 18 months of operation and slap a light meter on the screen and I’ll bet you’ll be looking at a 30% to 50% loss due to the reflector. [Eek!]

I think you are over simplfying the glass reflector design, I don’t know of anybody other that technalight that will allow you to drop bulb sizes and increase your light output. I know he is lighting a full IMAX screen with 35mm and getting smpte levels with a 4200wt bulb. I’m not a salesman for technalight, just a customer who thinks it’s a great advancement in an area of projection which hasn’t had any new ideas in years. [Smile]

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 05-18-2003, 05:25 PM:

I have never seen anywhere close to a 50% light loss from any reflector. If you're losing that much light it might be time to clean the dirt off of the reflector. [Smile]

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-18-2003, 05:37 PM:

No problem lighting those Imax screens as they are silver high gain so it is much easier than one thinks the tough one is like at cinesphere 84' image on a 20 year old matte white and we still get 10fl centre and 8 in the corners with new 7K lamps and a standard ultra80
If you were to replace a ultra80 with say an kinoton or ernamann lamphouse you can easily drop a bulb size

Posted by Greg Pauley (Member # 503) on 05-18-2003, 05:58 PM:

Don’t have any experience on the kinoton or ernamann lamphouses are they vertical or horizontal? Daryl, thanks for the reminder about cleaning the reflector. [Big Grin]

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-18-2003, 06:14 PM:

They are horizontal

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-19-2003, 01:35 AM:

Mark, funny you should say that. I happen to agree with you on that point, my friend, but that's another topic (for off the forum)! [Smile]

This unsung craftsman has nothing to do with the money - he's very hard working and toils endless hours. The end product performs like a Swiss watch. But now we're getting back to my original comment - he doesn't get enough credit for the fine, precision work he does... instead, it seems like the guy with the $$$ is the only one who gets the kudos.