This is topic Alternative Energy in the projection suite 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=004920

---

Posted by David Graham Rose (Member # 1450) on 05-20-2003, 02:23 PM:
 
Greetings All

I have recently been sitting on a Film Council board here in the UK and one of the tasks awarded to my research group has been the investigation of the use of alternative energy sources in the projection room.

As a prelude to my forthcoming round of research on this matter, I would like to take this opportunity to ask members of this forum whether or not they have had any experience in this matter.

The only instance of 'alternative' energy sources that I have encountered over here is back in 1958 when the Star Group of Companies, who operated a number of theatres in the UK at that time, attempted to convert the motor-generators at the Studios 1&2 Milford Haven, Pembs., to run on water power. This involved the use of water wheels, geared favourably and coupled to the rotor of the a.c. motor. A contactor was used to power an electromagnet which in turn held a large an arm at the end of which was a water wheel. On failure of power the contactor would open, thus killing the power to the electromagnet causing the arm to drop and the water wheel to lower into the race of the adjacent flour mill.

Unfortunately for Star Cinemas, this system did not work, since the time between the power failing, and the wheel gaining sufficient momentum to provide the necessary e.m.f. in the motor generator was too great.

Possibly, but having not yet carried out any calculations on a hypothetical mathematical model of this system, a sustained immersion in water and an auto changeover switch for power failure would have been more succesful. I have pictures somewhere of this system, but at present the I.T. Department has my scanner in for repair, so I will post them when next it is retrieved.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-20-2003, 03:42 PM:
 
Since the light source often uses the most energy of any component of the projection system, it would be interesting to study the feasibility of a solar light collector to use as a light source during daylight hours. Possibly something like a large parabolic mirror that could be aimed at the sun and focus the light onto a fiber optic bundle to transmit it to the projector. Feasible, but probably not practical.

A bit more whimsical would be a theatre powered by its audience using treadmills or stationary bicycles -- lose weight while you watch the movie.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-20-2003, 05:58 PM:
 
I could seriously see someone doing that. It would generate (yes, a pun) a huge amount of publicity. Each bike/generator would have a meter that expresses how much power they are generating while a sign would explain the total amount needed to keep the show on. Depending on the attendence you could make the audience responsible only for different tiers of power, from just the projector motor, to the entire amount including platter, soundrack, and lamp. You'd only cut the lamp over to them when there is ample power that isn't going to drop out. Blowers of course would be on the utility at all times!
 

---

Posted by Greg Pauley (Member # 503) on 05-20-2003, 06:16 PM:
 
Would this make people buy more concessions because they are working off calories or the fact that sweat and popcorn don't go together would cause less sales?
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-20-2003, 07:51 PM:
 
Sounds like somebody's been watching too much of The Matrix!
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-20-2003, 08:02 PM:
 
Quit yer nay-saying and lets make with the power calculations!

We could always tie to the grid (since it would be alternator / rectifier / inverter anyway) and simply display what percentage of the load the audience is generating (or exporting to the neighboring conventional screens).
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 05-21-2003, 12:07 AM:
 

quote:

---

...simply display what percentage of the load the audience is generating (or exporting to the neighboring conventional screens).

---

quote:

---

I've always felt that there must be some way to harness the heat exhausted by the xenon lamphouses. 3kwx20 screens is an enormous amount of heat that's wasted

---

A heat exchanger would not be that hard to implement. (Must still vent the potential ozone vapors outside). Using outside air to cool the lamps, rather than conditioned indoor air would also save energy.

Air-to-Air heat exchangers:

http://www.deschampstechnologies.com/products/productRecord.php?product_ID=22&

http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumerinfo/refbriefs/ea5.html
 

---

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 02-28-2005, 03:39 PM:
 

It has been 649 days since the last post.

 

---

Posted by Don Cross (Member # 2980) on 02-28-2005, 03:39 PM:
 
Time to bring this one out of the archieve...

Even with the large power requirements of a theater for: the electrical power mostly going to the booths, heating and cooling, etc... It would still be very easily possible to run a theater from alternate energy sources.

Even in an area that has mostly cloudy skies most of the time solar cells would work for most (if not all) of the electrical. Depending upon the square footage of the roof, it could also work in properly heating the building. A "green house" type of concept could be used for heating and also to pull the heat from a building in the summer.

Such systems have been made to work for houses of all sizes, and for assisting in commercial and retail applications. Most systems could easily pay for themselves in about ten years.
 

---

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 02-28-2005, 03:59 PM:
 
I could see this with the current "spinning" wave at the gyms and workout clubs. You go, workout, and watch your favorite movie while you provide the power.

Also, has anyone thought of degsigning a projector like a car...with a alternator or something of the such...I know it probably wouldn't make much sense, but maybe something could come of it.
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-28-2005, 04:28 PM:
 
I use solar panels at a cabin in the desert and it's pretty expensive to get power that way. I am able to produce about one 20 amp 110vac circuit using 5 panels (420 watts total @ 16 vdc). That not much for all the batteries and solar panels that I've had to buy (about $6000 for all the stuff including inverter) One of the problems I had was the inverter not putting out a "true" enough AC sine wave. IMHO it would be pretty much out of the question to juice all the equipment necessary to "put on a show" using solar.
At the Seattle Center Science Pavilion they had a bicycle generator hooked up to a bank of light bulbs, that you could get on and pedal. It was all I could do to run one 60 watt bulb BRIEFLY. It really makes you appreciate how much "energy" it takes to produce a little electrical power
 

---

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 02-28-2005, 06:11 PM:
 
The simple solution is to use a self-contained nuclear reactor unit. Those puppies will power your projectors for 5000 years and only costs about a hundred bucks to install.

The only minor problem is your booth staff melting, but you can sweeten the pot for them by upping the pay rate to 7 bucks an hour. They have to memorize the manual on nuclear physics in order to deserve such a high pay rate though...
 

---

Posted by Don Cross (Member # 2980) on 02-28-2005, 06:19 PM:
 
One could almost but a former cold war nuclear sub from the former Soviet Union and then have it shipped over.



Note the icons looking a bit green
 

---

Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 02-28-2005, 08:24 PM:
 

quote: Dean Kollet

---

I could see this with the current "spinning" wave at the gyms and workout clubs. You go, workout, and watch your favorite movie while you provide the power.

---

Hmmm...the multiplex I do my film-festival work at is next door to a very busy YMCA. If it was (excuse the pun) within my power, their fleet of LifeCycles could be put to a very good secondary use...
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-28-2005, 08:55 PM:
 
It's funny because Lifcycles (at least the kind I know about) are nothing more than a pedal powered generator. The generator powers the electronics system when you pedal. The computer simulates pedaling uphill by slapping different values of resistors in-line with the generator output.

It wouldn't be that hard to connect them all up to the projectors in your booth. Then, when you turned on a projector, all the people pedaling in the gym would suddenly end up peddling uphill!
 

---

Posted by Ken Russell (Member # 2491) on 03-01-2005, 01:39 PM:
 
Making use of otherwise wasted energy sounds like a great idea. But… how much is really needed to get the image on the screen and the sound in the auditorium? My guess is, at a minimum, six to ten kilowatt. That’s a lot of peddling or solar panels measured in acres by my estimation. Turn it around. If we can abandon the traditional rock and hammer methodology of getting the presentation out and make the process as efficient as possible, how little energy could we get away with? And, given that, what are the possible alternative energy sources? Simple things such as replacing incandescent lamps with fluorescent go some of the distance. If 99% plus of the energy put into the lamp house passed through film gate I would imagine that the required energy would be measure in the hundreds of watts versus thousands as it is today. I have no idea if this could be made to work but imagine a gas laser with a tube having the cross section equal to that of a scope film frame. Then get rid of the shutter and strobe that laser 48 times a second in time with the intermittent. For that matter, why continue count on bouncing an image off a surface at all. I know, if it could be done some one would have already done it… Or not… Focus on increasing the efficiency of the speakers and you can reduce the power needed to drive the amps. We humans seem so ready to accept what has been done as the basis and sum of what can be done while dismissing what has yet to be done as impractical or even impossible.

Ken
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-01-2005, 11:27 PM:
 
There is a huge amount of wasted energy inherant in our power distribution system itself because of the need to transmit electricity at high AC voltages. It's efficent for transmission, but inefficient for actual use. Almost every electrical component needs to take household 115vac and convert it back down to what it really needs and that is almost always 12-24VDC and now with computers, 5vdc. If at the local level energy could be deliverd closer to the voltage and format that most electrical equipment needs, that loss which occurs in the conversion from high voltage to low, alternating to direct current, would be practically eliminated.

This is what happens in the house trailer industry. Manufactures offer every imaginable type of equipment and applicance that you would find in your home....but they all run on 12vdc. If that could be applied to whole cities, think of all the energy that would be saved just by eliminating all those the transformers, not to mention the tons of copper. And of course now with super high intensity LED technology taking off and it becomes viable to replace many types of energy sucking incandescents with super bright LEDs, using low voltage DC as the primary electrical service to households would be a natural.

Didn't electrical service at one time consist of both DC and AC? In the Loew's Kings booth in Brooklyn, I recall along with the AC service, there was a huge DC service panel that fed the three 35mm lamphouses as well as a followspot. 48V straight from Con Edison thru to the ballast resistors and the carbons -- imagine....no generators, no rectifiers, no hum, no nuttin.
 

---

Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 03-01-2005, 11:58 PM:
 
Wikipedia: War of Currents

Historically, DC would have required "tons of copper" to transmit over long distances, a task AC could perform without much sweat with a few transformers here and there. Solid-state power converters are helping to make efficient long-distance transmission of DC a reality, though...
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 03-02-2005, 12:55 AM:
 

quote: Frank Angel

---

but they all run on 12vdc. If that could be applied to whole cities, think of all the energy that would be saved just by eliminating all those the transformers, not to mention the tons of copper.

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

Didn't electrical service at one time consist of both DC and AC? In the Loew's Kings booth in Brooklyn, I recall along with the AC service, there was a huge DC service panel that fed the three 35mm lamphouses as well as a followspot.

---