I am inclined to agree with the idea that molecular adhesion is the
glue that holds the dust to the sensor. It is interesting that N is
using a coating with nonstick properties. C seems to be more in the
camp of a conductive coating that bleeds off static electricity. I do
think the property of a charged brush seems to have something going
for it in at least attracting and holding dust on the brush until can
be taken out of the camera and cleaned. It just occurs to me though
that touching it to any grounded part of the camera will discharge
any electrostatic charge in the brush and it no longer matters.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Mar 22, 2007, at 10:36 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> You obviously haven't closely read the paper at the link I sent.
> If you
> read the first two pages closely you'll see that he's not a firm
> believer in static charges having much to do with dust on sensors
> nor in
> Visible Dust's claims that their cleaning methods with brushes are
> enhanced by blowing air through the bristles to *build* a static
> charge,
> not eliminate one.
>
> He is a firm believer in molecular adhesion being the principal glue
> holding dust bits to sensors as well as molecular adhesion (to the
> brush) being the force that will remove the dust bits. He also uses
> physical force to remove the dust from the brush after it has
> picked it
> off the sensor... he raps the ends of the bristles across the back
> of a
> clean table knife.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|