Question for Fog / Haze-Juice Chemists...

[dsli_jon]

Question centers around the *water-based* family of fog / haze-juices... Not-so interested in hearing 'which brand is better', etc, etc - Looking for 'qualified' (people with some in-depth knowledge of the chemical 'other ingredients' actually-used - besides the glycols-listed in all the varying MSDS's, and possibly 'fragrances' - the Info I *can't* find via Google.. ) input on what, if-anything - chemically - makes water-based 'haze' fluid differ from water-based 'fog' fluid, other-than, what appears (via MSDS info..) to only be differences in 'proportional % of glycols-listed to distilled-water'?

..Reason for the question is, in the past, we've always used DF-50s / MDGs for haze, and water-based (Jem / Martin / Lightwave F100s, etc) foggers, but wanna look at starting to use a known-good water-based 'fog fluid', in a water-based hazer (Look Systems Unique..) because it's like $110. a gallon (!) for Look's 'OEM' hazer fluid, but there are plenty of water-based 'fog' juices, that are good-quality / produce good results (ie: we *love* Jem's "iFog", for foggers..) that are ~$50. a gal- or well-less...

..and - of course - any 'OEM' is gonna tell you USE OUR HAZE-JUICE ONLY OR EVERYONE WILL DIE but.. studying the MSDS, it *seems* like the only real-difference (besides possible unnamed 'other ingredients'.. fragrance, possibly?) is again, that 'water-to-glygol proportionality'..

..The haze-fluid seems to be 'thinner' (more watery..) and the fog-fluid seems to be more viscous (more glygol-heavy), just judging subjectively.. Does anyone know, chemically, if it's more 'complex' than that? ie: If, perhaps, 'haze fluid' is generally heavier in one-particular glycol-proportion, (Mono vs Dipropylene vs Triethylene gly)or another? MSDS do not reveal such data, only that any / all may be used... And, what might be the 'long-term consequences' to using a 'thinner' water-based fog-fluid, in a hazer? I'm thinking, based on what few details I can-glean, that it should probably 'be ok', but, I'd rather 'measure twice, pour once'..

Chemically-balanced answers Welcome; Brand-plugs, only, need not apply.. (unless chemically-relevant..
Thx..
j

[The_Doctor]

Question centers around the *water-based* family of fog / haze-juices... Not-so interested in hearing 'which brand is better', etc, etc - Looking for 'qualified' (people with some in-depth knowledge of the chemical 'other ingredients' actually-used - besides the glycols-listed in all the varying MSDS's, and possibly 'fragrances' - the Info I *can't* find via Google.. ) input on what, if-anything - chemically - makes water-based 'haze' fluid differ from water-based 'fog' fluid, other-than, what appears (via MSDS info..) to only be differences in 'proportional % of glycols-listed to distilled-water'?

Was there anything specifically wrong with the advice in the thread linked below?
http://www.photonlexicon.com/forums/...ogging-machine

What you're asking is like what Wikipedia do, demanding only the top cited peer reviewed latest data, formulated as you require it. That kind of service costs top dollar. It's the kind of thing expert witnesses get paid to deliver in a court room. If you want it for free you're going to have to do some digging. Wikipedia seem to scorn 'original research' while totally ignoring that it ALL was exactly that, once. You're asking for the best fruit on the top of the tree to be low hanging. Can't have it both ways.

[dsli_jon]

Was there anything specifically wrong with the advice in the thread linked below?

Well, other than a) it, other than the link You posted, http://www.bigclive.com/smoke.htm ..(Thanks for that..) the thread-itself really-has little to do with what I'm asking. Did I miss something?

..And, b) Even in the external-link article, good-info as it was, only seems to back-up my 'extrapolation', but does not either prove or disprove it, like, for example..
IF there was some manufacturer-reference, somewhere, that factually-stated: 'In-general, Fog-juice will be XX-XX% Glycols-to-Water, and the Glyco-mix typically uses XX% Dipropylene to XX% Triethylene Gly, 'percentage' only varies with Brand / purpose; Haze-Juice is typically-more XX-XX% Glycols-to-Water, and favors [insert Glycol-mix, here..] - see what I am getting at?

..I've 'done the homework', as definitive as I can find, online, and... can't find, anywhere out there, a clear-answer to the question - What is the 'real difference' between the two fluids, other than what you can glean from the MSDS / sites like what you listed..

..If you're suggesting that I've already 'found the answer' (..the 'difference' is just the proportions..) well, Ok, but.. I'd feel better if anyone, in here, who might know for-sure, could validate / counter, from a chemistry-standpoint... None of the manufacturers are willing to publish that info, and, if you ask them 'can I use fog-juice in my hazer', I can extrapolate that the invariable answer: "...follow the manufacturer's direction and only buy our OEM-fluid" is just the standard 'CYA' liability-answer.. But, I'm seeking more of a 'IS there a chemical / proportions / glycols-cocktail used difference, or is it simply gly-to-water %.. And I know there are several very 'chemically-knowledgeable' PL-members (ie: 'Tocket', etc) and thought this would be a reasonable place to ask..

re:

What you're asking is like what Wikipedia do, demanding only the top cited peer reviewed latest data, formulated as you require it. That kind of service costs top dollar. ...You're asking for the best fruit on the top of the tree to be low hanging. Can't have it both ways.

Uh, ok.. Well, since we're neither in a courtroom, nor is this Wikipedia, I'm not sure why asking here is a problem.. I'm only asking that any replies not be 'guesses' / extrapolation - which is no-better than what I am doing, and could well-be 100% wrong - nor just be what I can / have already gleaned from the MSDS... Are you suggesting that you have / would give me the answer 'if I was willing to pay for it'?? Well, fine - if you've got the industrially / chemically-correct answer to my questions, what's your 'price'?

cheers, Doc..
j

[Stiffler]

I believe that different juices have different flash temperatures, which is manufacture specific. And while I'm not a chemist, I can tell you that the REALLLLLY expensive Ultratech haze fluid lasts longer in my Radiance hazer than the cheaper alternatives; so much so that it negates any savings from the cheaper fluid.

[dsli_jon]

Hey Sti -

I believe that different juices have different flash temperatures, which is manufacture specific.

Hmm, ok, but when you say 'different juices', are you meaning "different" = 'fog > fog' (across manuf's), or 'hazer > hazer'? Or, are you saying you've observed 'fog and hazer' fluids seem to have different flash-points (across manuf's) between them? That should be something we could glean from the MSDS', and would be interesting, because then it would lend weight to the 'maybe it's just more water in one vs another', theory..

...I can tell you that the REALLLLLY expensive Ultratech haze fluid lasts longer in my Radiance...

Also, interesting.. Any-way to compare the MSDS-sheet from the Ultratech-juice and the 'generic' you've tried, to see if they *might* list 'proportions' of water-to-gly? (Also, might suggest 'why' one would 'last-longer' (?) ..if one was more 'watery' than another, it might tend to evaporate faster (over time...) or 'flow thru' quicker (?) dunno..

..What I've observed is that the MSDS' are 'pretty broad', when listing those % - like they'll say '5-40%' of 'X' Glycol - on both the 'fog' and the 'haze' sheets.. well, that's pretty-broad, when trying to determine 'which juice is weighted, how', ya know? ..Kinda like how on FDA-required food ingredient labels, somehow manuf's can 'get away' with listing "Spices" (vs listing exactly which-ones..), yet elsewhere in the same 'Ingredients', they will be real-specific (tumeric, cayenne pepper, rosemary, etc, etc)

...I guess in the 'big picture', if there really is not much of a verifiable *chemical-reason* for why one 'must-only use haze-fluid in a hazer', (and fog-flu'd in a fogger..) then, again, extrapolating that it might be 'safe', to use a 'good, known high-quality' fog-juice in a hazer.. I mean, 'iFog', for example, is no 'cheapo-quality' fog-juice.. it's still $45. a gal and works extremely-well.. but that sure beats Unique's $110.! (it's like $50.+ tax for only 2L, out here, anywhere I've hunted..) to me, unless it is 'truly necessary' to use "hazer fluid" in a hazer, that just feels like 'marketing-victimization' to me..

Thanks for the input..
j

[The_Doctor]

Me? I got nothing.

Except the knowledge that ammonium chloride is hazardous because it breaks down to HCL and ammonia if hot enough, that glycerine can leave sticky films and if hot enough can degrade to formaldehyde, that glycols (of which glycerine is actually one type) the modern ones like triethylene glycol leave no film, are generally all the same, do not degrade as dangerously, and if different must conform to food grade materials and such differences would be trade secrets that no-one's going to give us anyway, and may differ only enough to prevent infringing on another trader's claims. The kind of 'qualified' you're asking for probably isn't going to answer you. It's probably been hired at high cost and compelled to sign an NDA.


Good enough?

That link I posted in the other thread is your best shot! Start there, use clues picked up to narrow down further searches. I was actualyl surprised just how good that linked page is. Damn good starting point...

One thing worth looking into is whether the best way to get glycol to make fog or haze is to heat it or 'crack' it with pressure. I saw a couple of suggestions that cracking it, as with oil, might work better than heat. And probably cost more too.

[dsli_jon]

...and such differences would be trade secrets that no-one's going to give us anyway...It's probably been hired at high cost and compelled to sign an NDA....

..Indeed, and that's the 'roadblock' I was hoping to hurtle by casting the net, here.. I mean, PL is quite the phenom of tech-info - for many other disciplines besides lasers.. There are (real doctors, chemists, machinists, software / electronics / electrical / and optical-engineers, mathemeticians, programmers, model-makers, musicians, graphic-designers / illustrators, pilots, both airplane and heli, sailors, heck - nuke-sub techs incredible pulled-pork cookers etc, etc ,etc.. this place is an amazing denizen of info / experience.. Sure, not always '100% spot-on', but... usually, pretty-well 'self-leveling', sooner or later... If these 'subtle fluid-differences' are to be-known, anywhere on teh Interwebz, I'd bet they could / would only be found here..

...in short, 'Don't put it past PL™'

Cheers for the input / links..
j

[The_Doctor]

..Indeed, and that's the 'roadblock' I was hoping to hurtle by casting the net, here.. I mean, PL is quite the phenom of tech-info - for many other disciplines besides lasers.. There are (real doctors, chemists, machinists, software / electronics / electrical / and optical-engineers, mathemeticians, programmers, model-makers, musicians, graphic-designers / illustrators, pilots, both airplane and heli, sailors, heck - nuke-sub techs incredible pulled-pork cookers etc, etc ,etc.. this place is an amazing denizen of info / experience.. Sure, not always '100% spot-on', but... usually, pretty-well 'self-leveling', sooner or later... If these 'subtle fluid-differences' are to be-known, anywhere on teh Interwebz, I'd bet they could / would only be found here..

...in short, 'Don't put it past PL™'

Cheers for the input / links..
j

Doctor Shipman was a real doctor too. Just saying... The good stuff might come from anywhere. So sure, if it comes here (which is as good a place to look as we have, pretty much) then good, it will save me some digging too.

[Stiffler]

MSDS is not an ingredients list, and is certainly not a formula. In my years working in the lighting business, I have found that using the recommended fluid does make a difference. I have also found Look Solutions to be over priced bullshit, and would recommend Base hazers or Ultratech over Look ANY day of the week.

[norty303]

I have also found Look Solutions to be over priced bullshit, and would recommend Base hazers or Ultratech over Look ANY day of the week.

HazeBase Base Hazer Pro and Smoke Factory Tour Hazer are widely regarded to be the same product in (slightly) different configs.
Look Unique and SF Tour Hazer are widely regarded to be the same internals in a different casing (and Unique and Smoke Factory Haze fluids are interchangeable, so pick your cheapest supplier)

Ergo, Look Unique = Base Hazer Pro.

The Look Solutions is the cheapest of the 3 over here, but you don't get it built into a nice case.

All of the people that I know, who use any one of the 3, in any serious capacity have said that if you use the wrong fluid, you get problems.

Although the fluid is nearly 4 times the price of the HD fluid I use in my other hazers, my Tour Hazer II is so efficient I get better value for money from it than the cheaper fluid.
There is a sweet spot in the output curve at around 65% where you get very good output for not much fluid input. If you push harder you start to consume fluid more quickly for not significantly greater gains in output. you're better off adding another hazer at that point.

Jon, I pay ~£40 per gallon over here for a single gallon, so $110 seems high in comparison. I think Haze Base is the more US oriented company, so you might get a better deal on their hazer fluid than the Look Solutions stuff.
You can get 2 gals of Unique fluid for £70 here, and if you order 2 or 3 (and you get a bit of additional discount too) you'll get free shipping I think.
http://www.thomann.de/gb/look_unique_fluid_10l.htm
I make that about half the price of what you're paying for a gallon at the moment.


edit: just did some sums, its 31 euro flat rate DHL up to 30kg to US. If you bought 20l (4 galls) it would cost ~220USD (inc shipping) + whatever your duties are.
So somewhere in the region of 65USD/gall
Thats quite a lot better than you're getting isn't it?