At 3:21 AM +0100 3/15/04, Listar wrote:
>Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:14:36 -0500
>From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Dust...
>
>I have experimented recently with using "Swiffer Dusters" to remove dust
>from film before scanning. The Swiffer Duster is about 7x4.5 inches and
>consists of a thick layer of very thin, light blue fibers sandwiched
>between two layers of a white, cloth-like material. The sandwich is
>meant to be stuck onto a plastic handle (included in the box) for use as
>a dusting brush. Dust sticks to the blue fibers like a magnet. I think
>the cloth-like layers are to protect the fine, inner fibers from
>abrasion when sweeping like a brush.
Swiffers are intended for floors and walls, and work great, but are a bit
expensive.
>I cut them into many smaller pieces and then cut off the outer cloth
>layer to fully expose the blue fibers. If you drag this very lightly
>over a piece of film it will remove all the dust like magic.
>
>What I don't know is what these blue fibers might be coated with and
>whether it might somehow damage film in the long run. Nowhere does it
>say; "Caution: Eats holes in photographic emulsions." I've been
>meaning to write the company (Proctor & Gamble) to ask but keep forgetting.
I don't think that the dry Swiffer has any fluids in it. I think it's a kind
of microfiber based soft paper or felt.
Usually there is at least one patent number mentioned on the box, and/or the
product. Looking up the patents will generally tell the story. For US
patents, go to <http://www.uspto.gov>.
At 3:21 AM +0100 3/15/04, Listar wrote:
>Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:36:08 -0500
>From: "Michael R. Collins" <michael789@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] [OT] Swiffer [was Dust...]
>
> >I have experimented recently with using "Swiffer Dusters"
>
>There is a new-ish companion product called Swiffer Wet, that offers
>"pre-soaked cloths [that] easily remove light dirt on your floors
>without rinsing." General category: solution in search of a problem.
>OM content: clearly these are not for cleaning film shot in OM
>cameras...
>
>Now the interesting part. The DIRECTIONS FOR USE on the Swiffer Wet
>package begin as follows: "(for U.S. only): It is in violation of
>U.S. federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with
>its labeling." There is no similar caution for Canadians and
>Mexicans, presumably due to the laxness of the legal systems in those
>NAFTA countries.
>
>So: what U.S. federal law is this? And what "inconsistent" uses would
>constitute violations? And the penalty for such violations? Enquiring
>minds want to know...
I have no idea what law that might be, but the intent of such boilerplate is
simply to immunize P&G against lawsuits from people who use the product in some
odd way and come to grief. There are no P&G Police checking up on P&G
customers. The connection of the law to the matter at hand may also be quite
remote.
The classic (possibly urban legend) story is that of the fellow who tried to
use a rotary lawnmower to trim a hedge, lost control of the lawnmower, mangled
himself, sued the manufacturer, and won.
I do know of people who have fallen off of a ladder, sued the ladder
manufacturer, and won. Now, I use ladders made by that manufacturer (who is
local), their ladders are very well made, and I feel that such suits should be
refused by the courts. Maybe someday; talk of "tort reform" is generally heard
around election time, but little progress is made.
So, if the Swiffer does eat holes in photgraphic emulsions, don't come crying
to P&G. That's what it means.
Joe Gwinn
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|