The reason their website and business are so obscure is that they are probably moonlighting.
The plasma reactor, or whatever they are claiming they are using for brush activation is an expensive peace of machinery belonging to a company that does some high-tech, it's not something that you'd put in the garage. The guys just decided to make some business on the site, after-hours and that' why all the secrecy is about. It's also why they got swarmed by the orders.
As far as damaging CMOS by static electricity through a slab of glass -it's possible. Remember, dust particles are neutral, the only reason they are attracted to a charged brush is through polarization in a high electric field created by the charges on the brush. The same electric field would polarize glass - a high dielectric constant material, and the whole voltage would concentrate in the thin air gap between the glass and CMOS.
gfiksel wrote:
As far as damaging CMOS by static electricity through a slab of glass -it's possible. Remember, dust particles are neutral, the only reason they are attracted to a charged brush is through polarization in a high electric field created by the charges on the brush. The same electric field would polarize glass - a high dielectric constant material, and the whole voltage would concentrate in the thin air gap between the glass and CMOS.
Again, that's impossible. If the voltage was high enough to damage the CMOS through 2 layers of glass, it would have arced to the metal frame surrounding the sensor chip long before it got to that point, and dissipated. But that level of charge is several orders of magnitude higher than what the brush bristles could possibly hold anyway. Unless you're in the habit of discharging a piezoelectric grill lighter on the surface of the AA filter on a regular basis, there is absolutely nothing to worry about.
It would be nice if someone would remove the word "scam" from the title of this thread, as it is derogatory, accusatory and inflammatory. Judgement before trial. I don't think such scandalizing headlines have a place on FM, nor bold capitalized subject lines also intended to be inflammatory.
Dupolez, you started this thread on this National Enquirer note and never came back once to participate. What is your intent here? What is your reward?
Reminds me of Richard Nixon's Dirty Tricks Gang tactics now rampant around the web, used to bash one product in the interest of another.
I have the sensor brush, and it works. However, I am not convinced that there are not alternate cheaper brushes available, and do not believe in the 'plasma' device. However, it has been mentioned that calling it a scam is uncalled for. It may be, but where is their website?
jonwienke wrote:
Again, that's impossible. If the voltage was high enough to damage the CMOS through 2 layers of glass, it would have arced to the metal frame surrounding the sensor chip long before it got to that point, and dissipated. But that level of charge is several orders of magnitude higher than what the brush bristles could possibly hold anyway. Unless you're in the habit of discharging a piezoelectric grill lighter on the surface of the AA filter on a regular basis, there is absolutely nothing to worry about.
I really don't want to get into arguments here, but I would just be cautious with such cavalieric usage of terms - several orders of magnitude higher.. would've arced to the metal frame...
Besides, it's about 1 cm across the glass surface from the center to the metal frame and only 1mm or so of glass thickness. A high dielectric constant of the glass makes it even smaller effectively and the whole voltage is concentrated across a thin air gap. And I don't even talk about latent damages that can appear later in time.
It's a fact of physics and I don't want to debate it here (it would be my pleasure to discuss it over PM, though). But, if anybody is so confident so they can stick an object that can have 1 kV potential and touch a CMOS with it - go ahead.
For crying out loud, the brush is NOT touching the CMOS. It can't unless you remove the AA filter and the glass covering the sensor proper. I'm not advocating discharging a piezo grill lighter on the surface of the AA filter, I'm simply pointing out that the static charge on the surface of the brush bristles is well below the energy level of a grill lighter by several orders of magnitude. The brush isn't picking up particles merely by being in the mirror box, it has to be brought into contact with the particles for them to stick. The charge field is basically non-existent at a 1mm range from the surface of the bristles, so worrying about CMOS damage is silly. If you're that paranoid, keep cell phones, walkie-talkies, and other radio transmitters away from the camera; the voltage induced in the actual silicon is far more likely to be damaging than a small static charge on the surfase of a brush bristle.
one thing i've noticed here which happens often and turns into a nightmare and i am also a blame too. so many experts so little facts.
1-in going through the manual i have noted at no time is there a static warning.
2-the product is packed in standard packing. no static bags at all.
3- the product is designed to be used in a wild enviroment. no statement discounting this execpt the operative temps.
4- canon designs many products in which non experts in electrical theory must operate in uncontrolled situations using various highly sophisticated circuitry and components with the knowledge that there will be those who will push the limits of their design. in short i think they thought of the variables and designed the camera both electrically and mechanically to hopefully prevent damage to its componentry from its user under normal use. now i think we have seen here that ther are a few determined individuals that no matter what will go well beyond that limit and will pay for it in the end
5- you would think that a company that put so much effort to put 80 some odd seals against water infiltration might of though of a few other aspects too.
I really shouldn't have started this post without the proof of my own first. I will be trying a few art store brushes soon and let you all know what to look for. I was mostly enraged they don't have a single 1.3x brush available. I would even pay up to $20-30 for that. The only option they have is they're ~ $100 kit (can't see exactly how much now since their site is down) which is outrageous.
With all the clue's it is really really hard to believe that this brush is anything special. I could bet my life on it.
RServranckx wrote:
If you do not dare try out the art brushes yourselves, then maybe you should also consider being more careful about making unsubtanciated accusations towards a comany and their products. You know, put your money where your mouth is, and all that sort of thing...
Just maybe they don't want to try the Sensor Brush on their CMOS, either.
sjms wrote:
5- you would think that a company that put so much effort to put 80 some odd seals against water infiltration might of though of a few other aspects too.
Yeah, like maybe how to clean the darned sensor cheaply and effectively.
mt-m wrote:
Then there's a hint that a "Plasma Charger" is used. I don't know what a "Plasma Charger" is. Not sure why it is needed as they stull tell you to use air to charge the brush before each sweep.
Try doing a Google search for the term "Plasma Charger". Eliminate the hits that have to do with the Sensor Brush, and hits associated with sci-fi games, sci-fi comics, sci-fi book, . . . ok, sci-fi anything.
Jeff wrote:
How do you scratch glass (AA filter) with plastic (fibers)? That's what I'd like to know...
Mainly by moving around any dust that hasn't been "sucked up" into the brush.
That's the reason for using a fluid like Eclipse when using a PecPad, too. The last thing you want is to have the dust you're trying to remove scratch the AA-filter.
mrycar wrote:
Will it scratch the sensor? It hasn't yet, but I thought the Pecpads and spatula were good, until the first scratch. So I'll continue and see.
Exactly. No method is guaranteed safe. Other than just blowing (no canned air allowed).
I have one and "charge" it with my Giottos bulb. Works great. I'm sure that it's just some kind of art brush but what ever it is , it does work for 99% of the dust. Once in a while I get a speck that has to be removed via Copperfield technique.
Just a thought on the idea of the sensor brush causing a static discharge ...
I think the individual hairs contain charges that do not act collectively. If they did act collectively, then touching a single bristle to the metal of the camera as you begin to wipe the sensor would immediately discharge the entire brush, rendering it useless. Obviously if the brush lost its charge that easily it wouldn't work at all. too many people, including Rob Galbraith and Michael Reichmann are claiming it works plretty well, so it does do something. I just cannot imagine any way that the hairs can contain enough of a charge to actually zap the sensor through the two layers of glass.
I'm still skeptical of the brush, but I did try it on a particularly dirty sensor. I just wish I could figure out how to get the "water" spots of the corners left from the eclipse fluid. If I could just get the sensor really clean once, perhaps the sensor brush would actually work.
Wayne Fox wrote:
I just wish I could figure out how to get the "water" spots of the corners left from the eclipse fluid. If I could just get the sensor really clean once, perhaps the sensor brush would actually work.
Use a little more eclipse than you normally do and follow up with another swipe with less eclipse. Should get rid of the spots you are refering to.
