Camera Motor EMF - Cause for concern?
Locked
 
|
I have really gotten into photography in the last couple of years.
With the advent of digital cameras, I am able to take pictures without dealing with developing chemicals, or the cost of many takes in film to keep one shot. I was recently gifted (birthday gifted) a Digital SLR Camera. It works very well and takes great pictures. First thing I did was check it's EMF output. Very low electrical fields. That can be dealt with simply. Great!, I thought. Then I check it's magnetic fields. And I thought, "sh*t!". Because naturally whenever the lens focuses automatically, or the shutter opens to take a picture, there is a burst of a magnetic field from the motor. I can't BELIEVE I didn't think of this before. Gah... It jumps to about 35 milligauss on average (meter up against the camera, just like the face of whoever's using it - this is the kind where you look through the viewfinder, it's not a point and shoot where you use the screen). Do I have reason to be concerned about these bursts of magnetic fields? I mean, it's not constantly against my head, and they last for perhaps a second or less at a time, only when the shutter fires. I can even get away from the motor focusing the lens most of the time by using manual focus and adjusting it by hand. Unfortunately, I can't just take this thing apart and try and shield the motor from the inside, myself. There is a very thin and flexible foil called Met Glas that sounds like it could be used for such a purpose, but it's the matter of getting it inside that's the issue. Maybe I can find a technician who's willing to do it?...Hmm... I can theoretically shield some parts of the camera from the outside with this material. But - what are your thoughts on these brief magnetic fields? Best, R. |
Re: Camera Motor EMF - Cause for concern?
|
|
I wouldn't sweat over 35 milli gauss for such a short duration, unless
your taking dozens of consecutive pictures. It usually takes 30 seconds to several minutes before I react to 35 milli gauss @ 60 Hz. Are you electrosensitve? If so you should know if the camera affects you. Eli --- In [hidden email], "rticleone" <rticleone@...> wrote: > > I have really gotten into photography in the last couple of years. > With the advent of digital cameras, I am able to take pictures without > dealing with developing chemicals, or the cost of many takes in film > to keep one shot. > > I was recently gifted (birthday gifted) a Digital SLR Camera. It > works very well and takes great pictures. > > First thing I did was check it's EMF output. Very low electrical > fields. That can be dealt with simply. Great!, I thought. > > Then I check it's magnetic fields. And I thought, "sh*t!". Because > naturally whenever the lens focuses automatically, or the shutter > opens to take a picture, there is a burst of a magnetic field from > motor. I can't BELIEVE I didn't think of this before. Gah... > > It jumps to about 35 milligauss on average (meter up against the > camera, just like the face of whoever's using it - this is the kind > where you look through the viewfinder, it's not a point and shoot > where you use the screen). > > Do I have reason to be concerned about these bursts of magnetic > fields? I mean, it's not constantly against my head, and they last for > perhaps a second or less at a time, only when the shutter fires. I > can even get away from the motor focusing the lens most of the time by > using manual focus and adjusting it by hand. > > Unfortunately, I can't just take this thing apart and try and shield > the motor from the inside, myself. There is a very thin and flexible > foil called Met Glas that sounds like it could be used for such a > purpose, but it's the matter of getting it inside that's the issue. > > Maybe I can find a technician who's willing to do it?...Hmm... > > I can theoretically shield some parts of the camera from the outside > with this material. > > But - what are your thoughts on these brief magnetic fields? > > Best, > > R. > |
|
|
In reply to this post by R. Ticle
I have heard of people reacting to cameras.
What's probably important is the field inside your skull, i.e. try to put the meter where you brain is, not right up to the camera. But I would not want 3 milligauss even. Short exposure is better than long, but pulses can be bad. Having a screen on the back may be better, although a smaller screen could be safer compared to the new big ones. Bill On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:19 PM, rticleone <[hidden email]> wrote: > I have really gotten into photography in the last couple of years. > With the advent of digital cameras, I am able to take pictures without > dealing with developing chemicals, or the cost of many takes in film > to keep one shot. > > I was recently gifted (birthday gifted) a Digital SLR Camera. It > works very well and takes great pictures. > > First thing I did was check it's EMF output. Very low electrical > fields. That can be dealt with simply. Great!, I thought. > > Then I check it's magnetic fields. And I thought, "sh*t!". Because > naturally whenever the lens focuses automatically, or the shutter > opens to take a picture, there is a burst of a magnetic field from the > motor. I can't BELIEVE I didn't think of this before. Gah... > > It jumps to about 35 milligauss on average (meter up against the > camera, just like the face of whoever's using it - this is the kind > where you look through the viewfinder, it's not a point and shoot > where you use the screen). > > Do I have reason to be concerned about these bursts of magnetic > fields? I mean, it's not constantly against my head, and they last for > perhaps a second or less at a time, only when the shutter fires. I > can even get away from the motor focusing the lens most of the time by > using manual focus and adjusting it by hand. > > Unfortunately, I can't just take this thing apart and try and shield > the motor from the inside, myself. There is a very thin and flexible > foil called Met Glas that sounds like it could be used for such a > purpose, but it's the matter of getting it inside that's the issue. > > Maybe I can find a technician who's willing to do it?...Hmm... > > I can theoretically shield some parts of the camera from the outside > with this material. > > But - what are your thoughts on these brief magnetic fields? > > Best, > > R. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
In reply to this post by jaime_schunkewitz
Hi there,
well, it's about 35 on average, but it very briefly peaks of over 100 - although that could be well exaggerated by the old design of the meter, it's hard to accurately tell. I do not like to say I'm electrosensitive. I know that in some cases or places I don't feel great, such as a day in the city has usually left me feeling "wacked out"...but given the overall chaos of a city, and the super high RF levels, that's probably no surprise for anyone not accustomed to it...I'm not keen on spending hours on a computer, and I move away from appliances when possible, but that may just be my own sense of self preservation, because of all of what I've learned. Don't like being around towers, obviously!!! Even it's psychological. Rooms or stores fully lit by fluorescent tubes are something I stay in for as little time as can be, and I've felt aggravated by working in close proximity to CFL bulbs. They do, of course, also give off a harsh, crappy light, and I know what else. I feel things sometimes, but it's difficult to correlate them to something else, exactly. I'm fortunate not to have some reactions like some people here do. I sometimes wonder how much of what I feel is because of what I know, like, I have tended a lot to emphasize the negative, or to feed what I fear happening, with fear. It's a bad habit. ;) Somewhere, there's a thread where Robert Thinker among others share their thoughts on focus and intent and manifestation. They're all things I've struggled with in regards to my health and view of the world. I'm still working on them. My goal is to strengthen myself as much as possible so as not to react to things, but also - to avoid them as much as I can, ie, avoiding cities, towers, wireless anythings, crappy lighting, hot-spots, etc., and to stop people from hurting themselves, or me. I'm always preaching to people, prevent, prevent, prevent! Use the Precautionary Principle! How many lessons does humanity need to repeat before we demand and apply it to what needs it's application? Ahem, so to summarize, I'm not EHS. I feel some things, but I do my best to practice avoidance, and to heal and be as strong as I can when I am exposed to things. I hope to educate people and help them bring about change through awareness. And if I can do something like shield a magnetic field, why not? Even if it's for my own peace of mind...although I really am glad to hear other's voice their opinion that it's probably nothing to worry about. I can't say that I feel any ill effects from the camera. Best, R. --- In [hidden email], "jaime_schunkewitz" <jaime_schunkewitz@...> wrote: > > I wouldn't sweat over 35 milli gauss for such a short duration, unless > your taking dozens of consecutive pictures. > > It usually takes 30 seconds to several minutes before I react to 35 > milli gauss @ 60 Hz. > > Are you electrosensitve? If so you should know if the camera > affects you. > > Eli > > > > --- In [hidden email], "rticleone" <rticleone@> wrote: > > > > I have really gotten into photography in the last couple of years. > > With the advent of digital cameras, I am able to take pictures > without > > dealing with developing chemicals, or the cost of many takes in film > > to keep one shot. > > > > I was recently gifted (birthday gifted) a Digital SLR Camera. It > > works very well and takes great pictures. > > > > First thing I did was check it's EMF output. Very low electrical > > fields. That can be dealt with simply. Great!, I thought. > > > > Then I check it's magnetic fields. And I thought, "sh*t!". Because > > naturally whenever the lens focuses automatically, or the shutter > > opens to take a picture, there is a burst of a magnetic field from > the > > motor. I can't BELIEVE I didn't think of this before. Gah... > > > > It jumps to about 35 milligauss on average (meter up against the > > camera, just like the face of whoever's using it - this is the kind > > where you look through the viewfinder, it's not a point and shoot > > where you use the screen). > > > > Do I have reason to be concerned about these bursts of magnetic > > fields? I mean, it's not constantly against my head, and they last > for > > perhaps a second or less at a time, only when the shutter fires. I > > can even get away from the motor focusing the lens most of the time > by > > using manual focus and adjusting it by hand. > > > > Unfortunately, I can't just take this thing apart and try and shield > > the motor from the inside, myself. There is a very thin and > flexible > > foil called Met Glas that sounds like it could be used for such a > > purpose, but it's the matter of getting it inside that's the issue. > > > > Maybe I can find a technician who's willing to do it?...Hmm... > > > > I can theoretically shield some parts of the camera from the outside > > with this material. > > > > But - what are your thoughts on these brief magnetic fields? > > > > Best, > > > > R. > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by BiBrun
Hey Bill,
There is a 2.5" screen on the back, but because this is an SLR style camera, it has to be held up to the head to "shoot", because you look directly through the optical viewfinder. The screen is always off when taking the picture. I hear you - I don't feel anything from using the camera, and most people here so far have said they probably wouldn't worry about it. It may not even go as high as it shows, because it's an outdated meter. But - like I said in my last reply to someone else, I'd still rather shield it. Best, R. --- In [hidden email], "Bill Bruno" <wbruno@...> wrote: > > I have heard of people reacting to cameras. > > What's probably important is the field inside your skull, > i.e. try to put the meter where you brain is, not right up > to the camera. But I would not want 3 milligauss even. > Short exposure is better than long, but pulses can be bad. > > Having a screen on the back may be better, although a smaller > screen could be safer compared to the new big ones. > Bill > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:19 PM, rticleone <rticleone@...> wrote: > > > I have really gotten into photography in the last couple of years. > > With the advent of digital cameras, I am able to take pictures without > > dealing with developing chemicals, or the cost of many takes in film > > to keep one shot. > > > > I was recently gifted (birthday gifted) a Digital SLR Camera. It > > works very well and takes great pictures. > > > > First thing I did was check it's EMF output. Very low electrical > > fields. That can be dealt with simply. Great!, I thought. > > > > Then I check it's magnetic fields. And I thought, "sh*t!". Because > > naturally whenever the lens focuses automatically, or the shutter > > opens to take a picture, there is a burst of a magnetic field from the > > motor. I can't BELIEVE I didn't think of this before. Gah... > > > > It jumps to about 35 milligauss on average (meter up against the > > camera, just like the face of whoever's using it - this is the kind > > where you look through the viewfinder, it's not a point and shoot > > where you use the screen). > > > > Do I have reason to be concerned about these bursts of magnetic > > fields? I mean, it's not constantly against my head, and they last for > > perhaps a second or less at a time, only when the shutter fires. I > > can even get away from the motor focusing the lens most of the time by > > using manual focus and adjusting it by hand. > > > > Unfortunately, I can't just take this thing apart and try and shield > > the motor from the inside, myself. There is a very thin and flexible > > foil called Met Glas that sounds like it could be used for such a > > purpose, but it's the matter of getting it inside that's the issue. > > > > Maybe I can find a technician who's willing to do it?...Hmm... > > > > I can theoretically shield some parts of the camera from the outside > > with this material. > > > > But - what are your thoughts on these brief magnetic fields? > > > > Best, > > > > R. > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > |
|
|
Maybe it has a manual focus mode?
Bill On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM, rticleone <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hey Bill, > > There is a 2.5" screen on the back, but because this is an SLR style > camera, it has to be held up to the head to "shoot", because you look > directly through the optical viewfinder. The screen is always off > when taking the picture. > > I hear you - I don't feel anything from using the camera, and most > people here so far have said they probably wouldn't worry about it. > It may not even go as high as it shows, because it's an outdated > meter. But - like I said in my last reply to someone else, I'd still > rather shield it. > > Best, > > R. > > > --- In [hidden email] <eSens%40yahoogroups.com>, "Bill Bruno" > <wbruno@...> wrote: > > > > I have heard of people reacting to cameras. > > > > What's probably important is the field inside your skull, > > i.e. try to put the meter where you brain is, not right up > > to the camera. But I would not want 3 milligauss even. > > Short exposure is better than long, but pulses can be bad. > > > > Having a screen on the back may be better, although a smaller > > screen could be safer compared to the new big ones. > > Bill > > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:19 PM, rticleone <rticleone@...> wrote: > > > > > I have really gotten into photography in the last couple of years. > > > With the advent of digital cameras, I am able to take pictures without > > > dealing with developing chemicals, or the cost of many takes in film > > > to keep one shot. > > > > > > I was recently gifted (birthday gifted) a Digital SLR Camera. It > > > works very well and takes great pictures. > > > > > > First thing I did was check it's EMF output. Very low electrical > > > fields. That can be dealt with simply. Great!, I thought. > > > > > > Then I check it's magnetic fields. And I thought, "sh*t!". Because > > > naturally whenever the lens focuses automatically, or the shutter > > > opens to take a picture, there is a burst of a magnetic field from the > > > motor. I can't BELIEVE I didn't think of this before. Gah... > > > > > > It jumps to about 35 milligauss on average (meter up against the > > > camera, just like the face of whoever's using it - this is the kind > > > where you look through the viewfinder, it's not a point and shoot > > > where you use the screen). > > > > > > Do I have reason to be concerned about these bursts of magnetic > > > fields? I mean, it's not constantly against my head, and they last for > > > perhaps a second or less at a time, only when the shutter fires. I > > > can even get away from the motor focusing the lens most of the time by > > > using manual focus and adjusting it by hand. > > > > > > Unfortunately, I can't just take this thing apart and try and shield > > > the motor from the inside, myself. There is a very thin and flexible > > > foil called Met Glas that sounds like it could be used for such a > > > purpose, but it's the matter of getting it inside that's the issue. > > > > > > Maybe I can find a technician who's willing to do it?...Hmm... > > > > > > I can theoretically shield some parts of the camera from the outside > > > with this material. > > > > > > But - what are your thoughts on these brief magnetic fields? > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > R. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
Hi Bill, it does indeed have manual focus, and I've been using it,
besides, I think it's good to be able to do that - auto this, and auto that these days... - but it would be nice to be able to use autofocus for low light or fast moving objects. Thing is, every time the shutter gets opened to take a picture, there's the same magnetic discharge, I guess because the shutter's electronically controlled. Still working on finding someone who can help. I can't imagine it'd be too difficult to do with the knowledge of how to open one of these up, I just need a willing person. I've sent out a lot of emails, but the weekend's just ending here, so I've got to wait a bit. Best, R. --- In [hidden email], "Bill Bruno" <wbruno@...> wrote: > > Maybe it has a manual focus mode? > Bill > > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM, rticleone <rticleone@...> wrote: > > > Hey Bill, > > > > There is a 2.5" screen on the back, but because this is an SLR style > > camera, it has to be held up to the head to "shoot", because you look > > directly through the optical viewfinder. The screen is always off > > when taking the picture. > > > > I hear you - I don't feel anything from using the camera, and most > > people here so far have said they probably wouldn't worry about it. > > It may not even go as high as it shows, because it's an outdated > > meter. But - like I said in my last reply to someone else, I'd still > > rather shield it. > > > > Best, > > > > R. > > > > > > --- In [hidden email] <eSens%40yahoogroups.com>, "Bill Bruno" > > <wbruno@> wrote: > > > > > > I have heard of people reacting to cameras. > > > > > > What's probably important is the field inside your skull, > > > i.e. try to put the meter where you brain is, not right up > > > to the camera. But I would not want 3 milligauss even. > > > Short exposure is better than long, but pulses can be bad. > > > > > > Having a screen on the back may be better, although a smaller > > > screen could be safer compared to the new big ones. > > > Bill > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:19 PM, rticleone <rticleone@> wrote: > > > > > > > I have really gotten into photography in the last couple of years. > > > > With the advent of digital cameras, I am able to take pictures > > > > dealing with developing chemicals, or the cost of many takes in film > > > > to keep one shot. > > > > > > > > I was recently gifted (birthday gifted) a Digital SLR Camera. It > > > > works very well and takes great pictures. > > > > > > > > First thing I did was check it's EMF output. Very low electrical > > > > fields. That can be dealt with simply. Great!, I thought. > > > > > > > > Then I check it's magnetic fields. And I thought, "sh*t!". Because > > > > naturally whenever the lens focuses automatically, or the shutter > > > > opens to take a picture, there is a burst of a magnetic field > > > > motor. I can't BELIEVE I didn't think of this before. Gah... > > > > > > > > It jumps to about 35 milligauss on average (meter up against the > > > > camera, just like the face of whoever's using it - this is the kind > > > > where you look through the viewfinder, it's not a point and shoot > > > > where you use the screen). > > > > > > > > Do I have reason to be concerned about these bursts of magnetic > > > > fields? I mean, it's not constantly against my head, and they last for > > > > perhaps a second or less at a time, only when the shutter fires. I > > > > can even get away from the motor focusing the lens most of the time by > > > > using manual focus and adjusting it by hand. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I can't just take this thing apart and try and shield > > > > the motor from the inside, myself. There is a very thin and flexible > > > > foil called Met Glas that sounds like it could be used for such a > > > > purpose, but it's the matter of getting it inside that's the issue. > > > > > > > > Maybe I can find a technician who's willing to do it?...Hmm... > > > > > > > > I can theoretically shield some parts of the camera from the outside > > > > with this material. > > > > > > > > But - what are your thoughts on these brief magnetic fields? > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > R. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > |
|
|
In reply to this post by R. Ticle
Just returned from 4 days at CenterParcs uk, 1st worry the car journey,
renault scenic bad, very bad ! I took to taking out the fuses of the worst circuits ie those at head level, to remove these I had to extract the engine imobiliser fuse, but only once car was running, this knocked out wipers and heater and sun roof motors, I was basing the effect on trifeildmeter readings that were very high at head level. However I realised that the most offending component was the alarm sponder thing ! when it began to rain and got cold on home journey I was in hell, the feeling is a total body dread almost to blood level ! While in traffic jam I could take no more and took the roof plastic away to reveal the beast ! the ultrasonic or something like that peice of black electronics - 2 seconds and I disabled it without toucing a fuse 1 minute later I knew I was only dealing then with brutish emf, which I can hold out for a lot longer - this alarm module is sick stuff I can only assume that it runs evan when people are in the cabin, if I could up the power on this it would surely make a wonderful crowd control device !!!! Does anyone know the specifics on the workings of the ultrasonis alarm component here ? I can know drive the car with a reasonable sense of relaxation. Also in the apartment we stayed in, 15 CFLS, my children were agitated, and neddless to say I was quickly unhinged and on the road to sickville, good thing I could access the well layed out electrical switch board ! Finally, when in one of the dome type constructions ie the one that was all steel girders, steel roof, low E glass, the effect of internal radiation from mobiles was most apparent, I felt like telling the maagement to get with it, and protect their staff let alone innocent non mobile addicts ! The place was cooking, expect to find illness walking that way ! Paul UK [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
If you're talking about the receiver for the door lock remote,
a lot of cheap receivers emit at roughly the same frequency they receive, as they mix a reference frequency and demodulate. But some cars have built in cell phones, and BMW has one with built-in radar! Bill On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:18 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote: > Just returned from 4 days at CenterParcs uk, 1st worry the car journey, > renault scenic bad, very bad ! I took to taking out the fuses of the worst > > circuits ie those at head level, to remove these I had to extract the > engine > imobiliser fuse, but only once car was running, this knocked out wipers > and heater > and sun roof motors, I was basing the effect on trifeildmeter readings > that > were very high at head level. However I realised that the most offending > component was the alarm sponder thing ! when it began to rain and got cold > on > home journey I was in hell, the feeling is a total body dread almost to > blood > level ! While in traffic jam I could take no more and took the roof > plastic > away to reveal the beast ! the ultrasonic or something like that peice of > black electronics - 2 seconds and I disabled it without toucing a fuse 1 > minute > later I knew I was only dealing then with brutish emf, which I can hold > out > for a lot longer - this alarm module is sick stuff I can only assume that > it > runs evan when people are in the cabin, if I could up the power on this it > > would surely make a wonderful crowd control device !!!! Does anyone know > the > specifics on the workings of the ultrasonis alarm component here ? I can > know > drive the car with a reasonable sense of relaxation. > > Also in the apartment we stayed in, 15 CFLS, my children were agitated, > and > neddless to say I was quickly unhinged and on the road to sickville, good > thing I could access the well layed out electrical switch board ! Finally, > > when in one of the dome type constructions ie the one that was all steel > girders, steel roof, low E glass, the effect of internal radiation from > mobiles was > most apparent, I felt like telling the maagement to get with it, and > protect > their staff let alone innocent non mobile addicts ! The place was cooking, > > expect to find illness walking that way ! > > > Paul UK > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
In reply to this post by R. Ticle
Ah- I just realized it probably has some kind of linear motor
to move the mirror and shutter. These can be awful, and unfortunately not too easy to shield. If the field is parallel to the back face of the camera, try a piece of mu metal on the back, and wrap it around an inch or so on the edges. Cut out holes where needed. I have not tried holding mu-metal for long periods so you might need to put something else over it, or not keep your hand on it. But, I'm guessing you'll be lucky to get a factor of 2 or 3 improvement, which is worthwhile if you're set on this camera, but may not be enough to really make it safe. Bill On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 4:37 PM, rticleone <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Bill, it does indeed have manual focus, and I've been using it, > besides, I think it's good to be able to do that - auto this, and auto > that these days... - but it would be nice to be able to use autofocus > for low light or fast moving objects. Thing is, every time the > shutter gets opened to take a picture, there's the same magnetic > discharge, I guess because the shutter's electronically controlled. > > Still working on finding someone who can help. I can't imagine it'd > be too difficult to do with the knowledge of how to open one of these > up, I just need a willing person. I've sent out a lot of emails, but > the weekend's just ending here, so I've got to wait a bit. > > > Best, > > R. > > --- In [hidden email] <eSens%40yahoogroups.com>, "Bill Bruno" > <wbruno@...> wrote: > > > > Maybe it has a manual focus mode? > > Bill > > > > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM, rticleone <rticleone@...> wrote: > > > > > Hey Bill, > > > > > > There is a 2.5" screen on the back, but because this is an SLR style > > > camera, it has to be held up to the head to "shoot", because you look > > > directly through the optical viewfinder. The screen is always off > > > when taking the picture. > > > > > > I hear you - I don't feel anything from using the camera, and most > > > people here so far have said they probably wouldn't worry about it. > > > It may not even go as high as it shows, because it's an outdated > > > meter. But - like I said in my last reply to someone else, I'd still > > > rather shield it. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > R. > > > > > > > > > --- In [hidden email] <eSens%40yahoogroups.com><eSens%40yahoogroups.com>, "Bill Bruno" > > > > <wbruno@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I have heard of people reacting to cameras. > > > > > > > > What's probably important is the field inside your skull, > > > > i.e. try to put the meter where you brain is, not right up > > > > to the camera. But I would not want 3 milligauss even. > > > > Short exposure is better than long, but pulses can be bad. > > > > > > > > Having a screen on the back may be better, although a smaller > > > > screen could be safer compared to the new big ones. > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:19 PM, rticleone <rticleone@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I have really gotten into photography in the last couple of years. > > > > > With the advent of digital cameras, I am able to take pictures > without > > > > > dealing with developing chemicals, or the cost of many takes > in film > > > > > to keep one shot. > > > > > > > > > > I was recently gifted (birthday gifted) a Digital SLR Camera. It > > > > > works very well and takes great pictures. > > > > > > > > > > First thing I did was check it's EMF output. Very low electrical > > > > > fields. That can be dealt with simply. Great!, I thought. > > > > > > > > > > Then I check it's magnetic fields. And I thought, "sh*t!". Because > > > > > naturally whenever the lens focuses automatically, or the shutter > > > > > opens to take a picture, there is a burst of a magnetic field > from the > > > > > motor. I can't BELIEVE I didn't think of this before. Gah... > > > > > > > > > > It jumps to about 35 milligauss on average (meter up against the > > > > > camera, just like the face of whoever's using it - this is the > kind > > > > > where you look through the viewfinder, it's not a point and shoot > > > > > where you use the screen). > > > > > > > > > > Do I have reason to be concerned about these bursts of magnetic > > > > > fields? I mean, it's not constantly against my head, and they > last for > > > > > perhaps a second or less at a time, only when the shutter fires. I > > > > > can even get away from the motor focusing the lens most of the > time by > > > > > using manual focus and adjusting it by hand. > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I can't just take this thing apart and try and > shield > > > > > the motor from the inside, myself. There is a very thin and > flexible > > > > > foil called Met Glas that sounds like it could be used for such a > > > > > purpose, but it's the matter of getting it inside that's the > issue. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe I can find a technician who's willing to do it?...Hmm... > > > > > > > > > > I can theoretically shield some parts of the camera from the > outside > > > > > with this material. > > > > > > > > > > But - what are your thoughts on these brief magnetic fields? > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > R. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
Bill - can you please explain what you mean by a "linear motor", and
why they are difficult to shield? I'm not sure how to tell if the field is parallel to the back of the camera. It's kind of all around it, but seems more so to near where the batteries are... R. --- In [hidden email], "Bill Bruno" <wbruno@...> wrote: > > Ah- I just realized it probably has some kind of linear motor > to move the mirror and shutter. These can be awful, and > unfortunately not too easy to shield. If the field is parallel > to the back face of the camera, try a piece of mu metal > on the back, and wrap it around an inch or so on the edges. > Cut out holes where needed. I have not tried holding mu-metal > for long periods so you might need to put something else over it, > or not keep your hand on it. But, I'm guessing you'll be lucky > to get a factor of 2 or 3 improvement, which is worthwhile if > you're set on this camera, but may not be enough to really > make it safe. > > Bill > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 4:37 PM, rticleone <rticleone@...> wrote: > > > Hi Bill, it does indeed have manual focus, and I've been using it, > > besides, I think it's good to be able to do that - auto this, and auto > > that these days... - but it would be nice to be able to use autofocus > > for low light or fast moving objects. Thing is, every time the > > shutter gets opened to take a picture, there's the same magnetic > > discharge, I guess because the shutter's electronically controlled. > > > > Still working on finding someone who can help. I can't imagine it'd > > be too difficult to do with the knowledge of how to open one of these > > up, I just need a willing person. I've sent out a lot of emails, but > > the weekend's just ending here, so I've got to wait a bit. > > > > > > Best, > > > > R. > > > > --- In [hidden email] <eSens%40yahoogroups.com>, "Bill Bruno" > > <wbruno@> wrote: > > > > > > Maybe it has a manual focus mode? > > > Bill > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM, rticleone <rticleone@> wrote: > > > > > > > Hey Bill, > > > > > > > > There is a 2.5" screen on the back, but because this is an SLR > > > > camera, it has to be held up to the head to "shoot", because you look > > > > directly through the optical viewfinder. The screen is always off > > > > when taking the picture. > > > > > > > > I hear you - I don't feel anything from using the camera, and most > > > > people here so far have said they probably wouldn't worry about it. > > > > It may not even go as high as it shows, because it's an outdated > > > > meter. But - like I said in my last reply to someone else, I'd still > > > > rather shield it. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > R. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [hidden email] <eSens%40yahoogroups.com><eSens%40yahoogroups.com>, "Bill Bruno" > > > > > > <wbruno@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I have heard of people reacting to cameras. > > > > > > > > > > What's probably important is the field inside your skull, > > > > > i.e. try to put the meter where you brain is, not right up > > > > > to the camera. But I would not want 3 milligauss even. > > > > > Short exposure is better than long, but pulses can be bad. > > > > > > > > > > Having a screen on the back may be better, although a smaller > > > > > screen could be safer compared to the new big ones. > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:19 PM, rticleone <rticleone@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I have really gotten into photography in the last couple > > > > > > With the advent of digital cameras, I am able to take pictures > > without > > > > > > dealing with developing chemicals, or the cost of many takes > > in film > > > > > > to keep one shot. > > > > > > > > > > > > I was recently gifted (birthday gifted) a Digital SLR Camera. It > > > > > > works very well and takes great pictures. > > > > > > > > > > > > First thing I did was check it's EMF output. Very low electrical > > > > > > fields. That can be dealt with simply. Great!, I thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then I check it's magnetic fields. And I thought, "sh*t!". Because > > > > > > naturally whenever the lens focuses automatically, or the shutter > > > > > > opens to take a picture, there is a burst of a magnetic field > > from the > > > > > > motor. I can't BELIEVE I didn't think of this before. Gah... > > > > > > > > > > > > It jumps to about 35 milligauss on average (meter up against the > > > > > > camera, just like the face of whoever's using it - this is the > > kind > > > > > > where you look through the viewfinder, it's not a point and shoot > > > > > > where you use the screen). > > > > > > > > > > > > Do I have reason to be concerned about these bursts of magnetic > > > > > > fields? I mean, it's not constantly against my head, and they > > last for > > > > > > perhaps a second or less at a time, only when the shutter fires. I > > > > > > can even get away from the motor focusing the lens most of the > > time by > > > > > > using manual focus and adjusting it by hand. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I can't just take this thing apart and try and > > shield > > > > > > the motor from the inside, myself. There is a very thin and > > flexible > > > > > > foil called Met Glas that sounds like it could be used for such a > > > > > > purpose, but it's the matter of getting it inside that's the > > issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe I can find a technician who's willing to do it?...Hmm... > > > > > > > > > > > > I can theoretically shield some parts of the camera from the > > outside > > > > > > with this material. > > > > > > > > > > > > But - what are your thoughts on these brief magnetic fields? > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > > R. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > |
|
|
A regular tri-field won't tell direction of the field. A buzz-stick, or if
you get a tri-field with external probe can. If you can see the windings of the motor, you may be able to figure out direction, but I gather you have not opened it up? I guess there will have to be a current loop at the batteries. Most motors have an axle that spins, but a linear motor just uses an electromagnet to pull something in a straight line. With a round motor, the fields tend to cancel at large distances, and wrapping the whole thing with mu metal can work (if the motor doesn't overheat). Wrapping a linear motor should help, but the geometry may not lend itself, plus a lot of the field tends to be perpendicular. In some cases a thick layer of copper or aluminum can help, in other cases that could make the motor not work as well. I have an old SLR that you have to cock the spring. The electricity is only for the meters. But it needs film! Bill On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 5:23 PM, rticleone <[hidden email]> wrote: > Bill - can you please explain what you mean by a "linear motor", and > why they are difficult to shield? > > I'm not sure how to tell if the field is parallel to the back of the > camera. It's kind of all around it, but seems more so to near where > the batteries are... > > > R. > > --- In [hidden email] <eSens%40yahoogroups.com>, "Bill Bruno" > <wbruno@...> wrote: > > > > Ah- I just realized it probably has some kind of linear motor > > to move the mirror and shutter. These can be awful, and > > unfortunately not too easy to shield. If the field is parallel > > to the back face of the camera, try a piece of mu metal > > on the back, and wrap it around an inch or so on the edges. > > Cut out holes where needed. I have not tried holding mu-metal > > for long periods so you might need to put something else over it, > > or not keep your hand on it. But, I'm guessing you'll be lucky > > to get a factor of 2 or 3 improvement, which is worthwhile if > > you're set on this camera, but may not be enough to really > > make it safe. > > > > Bill > > > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 4:37 PM, rticleone <rticleone@...> wrote: > > > > > Hi Bill, it does indeed have manual focus, and I've been using it, > > > besides, I think it's good to be able to do that - auto this, and auto > > > that these days... - but it would be nice to be able to use autofocus > > > for low light or fast moving objects. Thing is, every time the > > > shutter gets opened to take a picture, there's the same magnetic > > > discharge, I guess because the shutter's electronically controlled. > > > > > > Still working on finding someone who can help. I can't imagine it'd > > > be too difficult to do with the knowledge of how to open one of these > > > up, I just need a willing person. I've sent out a lot of emails, but > > > the weekend's just ending here, so I've got to wait a bit. > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > R. > > > > > > --- In [hidden email] <eSens%40yahoogroups.com><eSens%40yahoogroups.com>, "Bill Bruno" > > > <wbruno@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Maybe it has a manual focus mode? > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM, rticleone <rticleone@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hey Bill, > > > > > > > > > > There is a 2.5" screen on the back, but because this is an SLR > style > > > > > camera, it has to be held up to the head to "shoot", because > you look > > > > > directly through the optical viewfinder. The screen is always off > > > > > when taking the picture. > > > > > > > > > > I hear you - I don't feel anything from using the camera, and most > > > > > people here so far have said they probably wouldn't worry > about it. > > > > > It may not even go as high as it shows, because it's an outdated > > > > > meter. But - like I said in my last reply to someone else, I'd > still > > > > > rather shield it. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > R. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [hidden email] <eSens%40yahoogroups.com> > <eSens%40yahoogroups.com><eSens%40yahoogroups.com>, "Bill Bruno" > > > > > > > > > <wbruno@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I have heard of people reacting to cameras. > > > > > > > > > > > > What's probably important is the field inside your skull, > > > > > > i.e. try to put the meter where you brain is, not right up > > > > > > to the camera. But I would not want 3 milligauss even. > > > > > > Short exposure is better than long, but pulses can be bad. > > > > > > > > > > > > Having a screen on the back may be better, although a smaller > > > > > > screen could be safer compared to the new big ones. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:19 PM, rticleone <rticleone@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have really gotten into photography in the last couple > of years. > > > > > > > With the advent of digital cameras, I am able to take pictures > > > without > > > > > > > dealing with developing chemicals, or the cost of many takes > > > in film > > > > > > > to keep one shot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was recently gifted (birthday gifted) a Digital SLR > Camera. It > > > > > > > works very well and takes great pictures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First thing I did was check it's EMF output. Very low > electrical > > > > > > > fields. That can be dealt with simply. Great!, I thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then I check it's magnetic fields. And I thought, "sh*t!". > Because > > > > > > > naturally whenever the lens focuses automatically, or the > shutter > > > > > > > opens to take a picture, there is a burst of a magnetic field > > > from the > > > > > > > motor. I can't BELIEVE I didn't think of this before. Gah... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It jumps to about 35 milligauss on average (meter up > against the > > > > > > > camera, just like the face of whoever's using it - this is the > > > kind > > > > > > > where you look through the viewfinder, it's not a point > and shoot > > > > > > > where you use the screen). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do I have reason to be concerned about these bursts of > magnetic > > > > > > > fields? I mean, it's not constantly against my head, and they > > > last for > > > > > > > perhaps a second or less at a time, only when the shutter > fires. I > > > > > > > can even get away from the motor focusing the lens most of the > > > time by > > > > > > > using manual focus and adjusting it by hand. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I can't just take this thing apart and try and > > > shield > > > > > > > the motor from the inside, myself. There is a very thin and > > > flexible > > > > > > > foil called Met Glas that sounds like it could be used for > such a > > > > > > > purpose, but it's the matter of getting it inside that's the > > > issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe I can find a technician who's willing to do it?...Hmm... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can theoretically shield some parts of the camera from the > > > outside > > > > > > > with this material. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But - what are your thoughts on these brief magnetic fields? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
Hey Bill - dang, you really know your stuff!
Well, a retailer in Toronto connected me with a technician from the company itself, and there's also an electrical engineer or two I can try, plus the myriad of custom magnetic shielding companies I've contacted. Thanks for your ongoing advice! Best, R. --- In [hidden email], "Bill Bruno" <wbruno@...> wrote: > > A regular tri-field won't tell direction of the field. A buzz-stick, or if > you > get a tri-field with external probe can. > > If you can see the windings of the motor, you may be able to figure out > direction, > but I gather you have not opened it up? > > I guess there will have to be a current loop at > the batteries. > > Most motors have an axle that spins, but a linear motor just uses > an electromagnet to pull something in a straight line. With a round > motor, the fields tend to cancel at large distances, and wrapping the > whole thing with mu metal can work (if the motor doesn't overheat). > Wrapping a linear motor should help, but the geometry may not lend > itself, plus a lot of the field tends to be perpendicular. In some > cases a thick layer of copper or aluminum can help, in other cases > that could make the motor not work as well. > > I have an old SLR that you have to cock the spring. The electricity > is only for the meters. But it needs film! > > Bill > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 5:23 PM, rticleone <rticleone@...> wrote: > > > Bill - can you please explain what you mean by a "linear motor", and > > why they are difficult to shield? > > > > I'm not sure how to tell if the field is parallel to the back of the > > camera. It's kind of all around it, but seems more so to near where > > the batteries are... > > > > > > R. > > > > --- In [hidden email] <eSens%40yahoogroups.com>, "Bill Bruno" > > <wbruno@> wrote: > > > > > > Ah- I just realized it probably has some kind of linear motor > > > to move the mirror and shutter. These can be awful, and > > > unfortunately not too easy to shield. If the field is parallel > > > to the back face of the camera, try a piece of mu metal > > > on the back, and wrap it around an inch or so on the edges. > > > Cut out holes where needed. I have not tried holding mu-metal > > > for long periods so you might need to put something else over it, > > > or not keep your hand on it. But, I'm guessing you'll be lucky > > > to get a factor of 2 or 3 improvement, which is worthwhile if > > > you're set on this camera, but may not be enough to really > > > make it safe. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 4:37 PM, rticleone <rticleone@> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Bill, it does indeed have manual focus, and I've been using it, > > > > besides, I think it's good to be able to do that - auto this, > > > > that these days... - but it would be nice to be able to use autofocus > > > > for low light or fast moving objects. Thing is, every time the > > > > shutter gets opened to take a picture, there's the same magnetic > > > > discharge, I guess because the shutter's electronically controlled. > > > > > > > > Still working on finding someone who can help. I can't imagine it'd > > > > be too difficult to do with the knowledge of how to open one of these > > > > up, I just need a willing person. I've sent out a lot of emails, but > > > > the weekend's just ending here, so I've got to wait a bit. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > R. > > > > > > > > --- In [hidden email] <eSens%40yahoogroups.com><eSens%40yahoogroups.com>, "Bill Bruno" > > > > <wbruno@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Maybe it has a manual focus mode? > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM, rticleone <rticleone@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Bill, > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a 2.5" screen on the back, but because this is an SLR > > style > > > > > > camera, it has to be held up to the head to "shoot", because > > you look > > > > > > directly through the optical viewfinder. The screen is > > > > > > when taking the picture. > > > > > > > > > > > > I hear you - I don't feel anything from using the camera, and most > > > > > > people here so far have said they probably wouldn't worry > > about it. > > > > > > It may not even go as high as it shows, because it's an outdated > > > > > > meter. But - like I said in my last reply to someone else, I'd > > still > > > > > > rather shield it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > > R. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [hidden email] <eSens%40yahoogroups.com> > > <eSens%40yahoogroups.com><eSens%40yahoogroups.com>, "Bill Bruno" > > > > > > > > > > > > <wbruno@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have heard of people reacting to cameras. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's probably important is the field inside your skull, > > > > > > > i.e. try to put the meter where you brain is, not right up > > > > > > > to the camera. But I would not want 3 milligauss even. > > > > > > > Short exposure is better than long, but pulses can be bad. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having a screen on the back may be better, although a > > > > > > > screen could be safer compared to the new big ones. > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:19 PM, rticleone <rticleone@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have really gotten into photography in the last couple > > of years. > > > > > > > > With the advent of digital cameras, I am able to take pictures > > > > without > > > > > > > > dealing with developing chemicals, or the cost of many takes > > > > in film > > > > > > > > to keep one shot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was recently gifted (birthday gifted) a Digital SLR > > Camera. It > > > > > > > > works very well and takes great pictures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First thing I did was check it's EMF output. Very low > > electrical > > > > > > > > fields. That can be dealt with simply. Great!, I thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then I check it's magnetic fields. And I thought, "sh*t!". > > Because > > > > > > > > naturally whenever the lens focuses automatically, or the > > shutter > > > > > > > > opens to take a picture, there is a burst of a > > > > from the > > > > > > > > motor. I can't BELIEVE I didn't think of this before. Gah... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It jumps to about 35 milligauss on average (meter up > > against the > > > > > > > > camera, just like the face of whoever's using it - this is the > > > > kind > > > > > > > > where you look through the viewfinder, it's not a point > > and shoot > > > > > > > > where you use the screen). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do I have reason to be concerned about these bursts of > > magnetic > > > > > > > > fields? I mean, it's not constantly against my head, and they > > > > last for > > > > > > > > perhaps a second or less at a time, only when the shutter > > fires. I > > > > > > > > can even get away from the motor focusing the lens most of the > > > > time by > > > > > > > > using manual focus and adjusting it by hand. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I can't just take this thing apart and try and > > > > shield > > > > > > > > the motor from the inside, myself. There is a very thin and > > > > flexible > > > > > > > > foil called Met Glas that sounds like it could be used for > > such a > > > > > > > > purpose, but it's the matter of getting it inside that's the > > > > issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe I can find a technician who's willing to do it?...Hmm... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can theoretically shield some parts of the camera from the > > > > outside > > > > > > > > with this material. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But - what are your thoughts on these brief magnetic fields? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > |
«
Return to ES
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |