Intrinsically safe cameras (instant, 35 mm , digital)
Paul
potentially explosive atmospheres?
thanks
Paul
jshe...@acadiacom.net
> Has anyone got any leads on cameras that are intrinsically safe, for use in
> potentially explosive atmospheres?
Definitely one without batteries, And I don't believe they've made a digital
without batteries yet.
--
http://www.st-charles.net/thejuke/index.html
http://www.st-charles.net/famille/index.html
http://www.rootsweb.com/~lastchar
lemonade
<opc...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
> Has anyone got any leads on cameras that are intrinsically safe, for use in
> potentially explosive atmospheres?
Probably not. Your main worry would be sparks. These could come either from
electrical switches, or mechanical friction. I would suggest that in any
electronic camera, at the switch junctions there will always be some
sparking. Perhaps not, but I doubt it and wouldn't want to be the one to
make the test.
So, you'd have to go mechanical. Your worry there would be sparks from
mechanical friction in the gear trains, shutter curtains &c. Now, normally
these would all be well lubricated, so perhaps these shouldn't be a
problem. I suppose the more plastic, the better, on the body as well. Also,
the fewer moving parts, the better; perhaps a Leica rangefinder, batteries
if any removed, which though all metal, is very smooth operating.
However, there is also the film, which can build up static electricity as
it is wound, especially if the humidity is low. You'd certainly want to
wind slowly...
You would have to perform unmanned safety tests on any equipment you tried
to use.
--
Due to the intolerable volume of spam these days, I no longer supply a
valid email address.
George Relles
>
> Has anyone got any leads on cameras that are intrinsically safe, for use in
> potentially explosive atmospheres?
>
>
> Paul
Have you considered Nikonos cameras? These are usually used for
underwater photography but they have excellent lenses and can easily be
used on land. More importantly, since they are so well sealed, I can't
imagine how any sparks could get out. In addition, these are mechanical
and don't use batteries so they can't even emit any electrical current.
The new ones are pricey but there are lots of Nikonos I, II and III
models that can be had with lens for less than $250. They are very
rugged and dependable, if a just a bit heavy. Check them out.
mey...@my-dejanews.com
tight", to hold air in and water out, so they might well protect the
environment from any eletrical activity in the camera. The connections
through the case to the camera are all mechanical.
You'd need to investigate the potential for static discharge, of course. Some
of the cases are plastic, and this might be a problem.
HTH,
bob M
> In article <01bddbd0$cea8ee60$4982...@opcwrij.worldonline.nl>, "Paul"
> <opc...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
>
> > Has anyone got any leads on cameras that are intrinsically safe, for use in
> > potentially explosive atmospheres?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Marvin Margoshes
sealed tightly.
Paul wrote in message <01bddbd0$cea8ee60$4982...@opcwrij.worldonline.nl>...
>Has anyone got any leads on cameras that are intrinsically safe, for use in
>potentially explosive atmospheres?
>
>thanks
>
>Paul
Wes Kinard
that for underwater applications). Also might try researching the
technology that has been used at NASA.
Wes Kinard
wes.k...@usa.net
Bernie Swanson
>
> Paul wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone got any leads on cameras that are intrinsically safe, for use in
> > potentially explosive atmospheres?
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > Paul
> underwater photography but they have excellent lenses and can easily be
> used on land. More importantly, since they are so well sealed, I can't
> imagine how any sparks could get out. In addition, these are mechanical
> and don't use batteries so they can't even emit any electrical current.
> The new ones are pricey but there are lots of Nikonos I, II and III
> models that can be had with lens for less than $250. They are very
> rugged and dependable, if a just a bit heavy. Check them out.
Yeah, a pin hole camera would fit the bill...
Frank van der Pol
>
> Has anyone got any leads on cameras that are intrinsically safe, for use in
> potentially explosive atmospheres?
>
> thanks
Could you be more specific about 'potentially explosive'?
The only places I can think of where using a camera would be a
hazard would be an environment that is also a forbidden area for people.
In that case the Nikonos George Relles suggested could be a solution
although this camera has a fully closed plastic body. So it would need
special safe tricks to make it remote controlled.
When safety rules and measures exist and you are allowed to enter such
a place as a human being, it'll be likely that a normal camera
will cause no trouble.
Keep in mind that in all these situations flash could be forbidden.
Not as a result of the flash itself, since this takes place in a closed
environment but because of the fact that safety measures will likely be
triggered instantaneously. (Detectors can't see the difference between
your camera flash and an explosion).
Frank
Lee Bohan
might be the best.
Hell, plastic is cheaper than metal and cheap is the main thing about them.
I'd be amazed if there were any metal on metal components in one. Spend a 15
guilders or so and take one apart to see. Hardly a big loss if you are
wrong...
Cheers,
Lee.
Kym ap Rhys
>
> Paul wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone got any leads on cameras that are intrinsically safe, for use in
> > potentially explosive atmospheres?
> >
> > thanks
>
> Could you be more specific about 'potentially explosive'?
I don't know where the original poster needs to photograph, but one such
place would be a coal mine. You can take nothing containing batteries,
or that might potentially generate a spark into a coal mine as there
*is* flammable gas down there. Another place where such hazards exist is
chemical plants and oil refineries.
A friend of mine who took some photos down a coal mine in Australia had
to use a mechanical only camera (I believe it was a Nikon) and was not
allowed to take a flashgun. He had to put the camera on a tripod and use
light painting techniques with the miner's lamps (Yes, I know these have
lead-acid batteries...)
Likewise, my company uses a mechanical Nikon for photography in chemical
plants where explosive atmospheres exist - the seperate battery powered
light meter has been banned from some sites unless it is in a special
housing.
Another alternative is to have a special 'intrinisically safe' housing
made for camera and flash - but this gets *very* expensive indeed.
Regards
Kym
Frank van der Pol
> I don't know where the original poster needs to photograph, but one such
> place would be a coal mine. You can take nothing containing batteries,
> or that might potentially generate a spark into a coal mine as there
> *is* flammable gas down there. Another place where such hazards exist is
> chemical plants and oil refineries.
I don't denie there is, but the problem is not the existance, but the
concentration reaching a hazardous level. And by the time this
concentration reaches a critical level, no safety precautions will ever
help you since even a nylon shirt or a falling peice of rock can give a
spark which ignites the gas.
> A friend of mine who took some photos down a coal mine in Australia had
> to use a mechanical only camera (I believe it was a Nikon) and was not
> allowed to take a flashgun. He had to put the camera on a tripod and use
> light painting techniques with the miner's lamps (Yes, I know these have
> lead-acid batteries...)
Hmmm... so why the 'no batteries' restriction then? Funny situation.
I've done both photography and videoproduction at refineries and
chemical plants in Rotterdam and at oil rigs in the North Sea. (no
production rigs however) I've also done both in a Nestle powder milk
plant. (Don't laugh you all..., powder milk can be very explosive
because the air in the filling area of the plant contains very tiny dust
particles. When you throw a small handfull of milk powder in the air and
keep a lighter under it, you will most likely get a third degree burn
all over your body. So don't try this at home). A critical concentration
of very fine particles will cause an explosion.
General rules I've encountered when working in these environments:
Exploration and other non production (service) oil rigs: No special
measures but exclusion of open fire. (Although I've seen people do
welding jobs and helicopters with huge exhaust pipes are used to fly the
crew in).
Chemical plants and refineries: Battery powered equipment, non sparking
(electronic) switches. But most important: A guy glued to your crew
constantly measuring gas concentration with an electronic device. When
he in any situation would measure a certain critical concentration of
gas, the whole crew was to switch everything off, abandon the equipment
and leave the area ASAP. No questions asked.
Powder milk factory: No special measures, except for the absolute
exclusion of flash equipment or halogen lighting in the special sealed
can filling area.
I've never been in a mine, but AFAIK they do use ventilation and also
constantly measure gas concentration. Miner's lamps or no miner's lamps,
they probably will switch off and leave the mine when the gas
concentration gets too high.
Frank
Peter Jones
into underwater cameras. If they are water tight, one would think
that there shouldn't be any problems with sparks. Perhaps a
disposable underwater camera, it's made out of plastic.
Peter
le...@lime.org (lemonade) wrote:
>In article <01bddbd0$cea8ee60$4982...@opcwrij.worldonline.nl>, "Paul"
><opc...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
>
>> Has anyone got any leads on cameras that are intrinsically safe, for use in
>> potentially explosive atmospheres?
>
Dennis Elmore
Administration (OSHA) does have one interpretation
letter on this subject. The link to the letter can
be found at:
http://www.osha-slc.gov/OshDoc/Interp_data/I19921112.html
The relevant text is as follows:
3. Q. Can you give an example of an intrinsically
safe camera?
A. Still cameras that operate without
batteries are acceptable for use in process areas.
Video
cameras with telephoto lenses can be used
from points outside the process areas.
Please refer to the linking page for proper
context. I don't know if your question was for
compliance purposes or otherwise.
Contact your local occupational safety and health
agency for more information. I have no personal
experience with intrinsically safe cameras.
This question might also be posed to various
safety groups.
Best Regards.
Dennis Elmore, CIH
Columbia, Missouri
Paul wrote:
>
> Has anyone got any leads on cameras that are intrinsically safe, for use in
> potentially explosive atmospheres?
>
> thanks
>
> Paul
Paul
The camera we want is for taking photos at industrial chemcial sites where
the camera may be refused to come on site unless there is some
certification that it is explosion proof/intrinsically safe (i.e. has an
IEC 79 rating).
Looks like an waterproof camera with Safe lights - but will have to be
tested by an external testing body to determine its rating....
CHeers
Paul
also at (huy...@xs4all.nl)
Thanks again
Brokebob
get certification from the Bureau of Mines must submit the product for tests
before it can be certified. Unless the camera has a sticker attached for the
type of environment that you are interested in the camera is NOT safe!
brok...@aol.com (broke=not working, retired=not working, retired=broke)
M Lebbe
anymore. Metering will be impossible offcourse but with a little aid of a
chart you made and a flexible fim you can do some shooting in the Ex-area.
Flash lights will give the same problems and it will be practically
impossible to make the Exi since they contain a large capacitor which
stores enough energy to ignite any mixture. the only solution would be an
Exd enclosure of 15 kg which is im(possible)practical to carry
M Lebbe
Belgium
Kym ap Rhys
You are right - if you need the certificate, it must be supplied by a
recognised testing body.
Kym
Kym ap Rhys
>
> > to use a mechanical only camera (I believe it was a Nikon) and was not
> > allowed to take a flashgun. He had to put the camera on a tripod and use
> > light painting techniques with the miner's lamps (Yes, I know these have
> > lead-acid batteries...)
>
> Hmmm... so why the 'no batteries' restriction then? Funny situation.
Ithink it is just a 'catch all' situation - batteries are usually in
equipment - miners lamps are checked and tested before being allowed
underground - the other battery powered equipemnt a visitor may have
with them is not - so they are not allowed to take it down the mine -
same thing happens if you visit a closed coal mine that is open to the
public - they ask you to hand in *anything* with batteries in it,
matches, cigarrette lighters and you must used their supplied hats and
lights.
>
> I've done both photography and videoproduction at refineries and
> chemical plants in Rotterdam and at oil rigs in the North Sea. (no
> production rigs however) I've also done both in a Nestle powder milk
> plant. (Don't laugh you all..., powder milk can be very explosive
> because the air in the filling area of the plant contains very tiny dust
> particles. When you throw a small handfull of milk powder in the air and
> keep a lighter under it, you will most likely get a third degree burn
> all over your body. So don't try this at home). A critical concentration
> of very fine particles will cause an explosion.
Yes - any fine powder will do this - there were some horrendous
accidents in flour mills before this was understood.
>
> I've never been in a mine, but AFAIK they do use ventilation and also
> constantly measure gas concentration. Miner's lamps or no miner's lamps,
> they probably will switch off and leave the mine when the gas
> concentration gets too high.
Yes, gas concentrations are measured (and they *still* use the old Davy
lamp - which gives an instant visual clue of gas levels if you know how
to read the flame.) There are two main hazards in coal mines - explosive
gas ('firedamp') and non-explosive gases which can suffocate the miners
('blackdamp') - both are revealed quickly and easily with a Davy lamp.
Regards
Kym
John P. Koch
Paul wrote:
> I would like to tahnk you all for your input...
>
> The camera we want is for taking photos at industrial chemcial sites where
> the camera may be refused to come on site unless there is some
> certification that it is explosion proof/intrinsically safe (i.e. has an
> IEC 79 rating).
>
> Looks like an waterproof camera with Safe lights - but will have to be
> tested by an external testing body to determine its rating....
>
> CHeers
>
> Paul
> also at (huy...@xs4all.nl)
>
> Thanks again
I researched this topic earlier myself for the exact same reason - photos in
chemical plants.
As far as I could find out, there is NO approved, or listed intrinsically safe
camera on the market.
With regard to some of the suggestions you have received:
1. Waterproof does NOT equal explosion proof. The problem in the chemical
industry is flammable vapors and gases, not liquids. Just because a camera is
watertight does not make it vapor tight. I agree that it is less likely to
allow vapor infiltration, but there is no guarantee that it will prevent any
infiltration.
2. Intrinsically safe basically refers to the absence of any ignition sources
capable of igniting vapors in a test atmosphere (usually methane gas). It is
very likely that an all mechanical camera, such as the non-flash disposable
cameras would meet this requirement. Other alternatives would be the
manual-focus mechanical shutter cameras such as the Nikon F2 or FM2 series, or
earlier Pentax models. Remember to remove the meter batteries however.
Again, none of these suggestions carry any official stamp from a regulatory or
testing agency. If you have to have such an approval, I don't think that you
will find one.
3. Your idea of getting a water proof camera tested is workable, however, in
the US, it costs about $25,000 to $40,000 to get this approval from any of the
North American labs, such as Factory Mutual (FM), Underwriters Laboratories
(UL), or the Canadian Standards Association (CSA). I am sure that you can
find a lab to do this certification, but expect to pay heavily for it.
4. Last, and most important (& practical). The way around all of the above
three criteria is to conduct continuous air monitoring while operating your
camera in the process areas. I operate under the control of a "Hot Work
Permit" when I am photographing in chemical process areas. This is a document
that details what operating conditions have to be maintained, where I can go,
what testing (and training) is required, and calls for signatures from
representatives of the operating unit and (typically) the safety department.
This is what an earlier poster had mentioned as having a person right next to
you at all times with a monitoring device. These are the conditions under
which I have taken photos at several chemical plants, operated by some of the
largest corporations in the industry.
M Lebbe
in ex hazardeous area's.
john r pierce
>To be instrinsically safe, an instrument (radio, gas meter, flashlight) would
>have to be certified by MSHA, Mine Safety and Health Administration or similar
>agency to carry an "Intrisically Safe" identifying markings.
...
Did you note the poster was in the Netherlands? I suspect it would have to be
IEC certified. In fact in one of his followups, he mentions IEC 79 rating.
-jrp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This posting has a invalid email address to discourage bulk emailers
Due to the ever increasing volumes of spam, I do not mix mail and news
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken McNair
>
> Frank van der Pol wrote:
> >
> > > A friend of mine who took some photos down a coal mine in Australia had
> > > to use a mechanical only camera (I believe it was a Nikon) and was not
> > > allowed to take a flashgun. He had to put the camera on a tripod and use
> > > light painting techniques with the miner's lamps (Yes, I know these have
> > > lead-acid batteries...)
> >
> > Hmmm... so why the 'no batteries' restriction then? Funny situation.
>
> Ithink it is just a 'catch all' situation - batteries are usually in
> equipment - miners lamps are checked and tested before being allowed
> underground - the other battery powered equipemnt a visitor may have
> with them is not - so they are not allowed to take it down the mine -
> same thing happens if you visit a closed coal mine that is open to the
> public - they ask you to hand in *anything* with batteries in it,
> matches, cigarrette lighters and you must used their supplied hats and
> lights.
I asked if I could take my mechanical camera (Pentax MX with the
meter battery removed) down a coal mine in England; they refused,
and anyway "it's too dark to take a photo of anything down there"
:-(
Cyberferal
it but whether the device is capable of releasing enough energy to ignite an
potentially flammable/explosive atmosphere.
- you will find that the miners lights have armoured glass and that a special tool
is required to open the light to access either the battery or the globe. The
device would have also been tested to ensure the surface temperature does not
exceed the miminum ignition temperature for the area (NOTE different gases ignite
at different temperatures, so the same flashlight may not be suitable for other
areas)
- even a mechanical camera may cause an explosion by something called the thermite
reaction - if the camera contains magnesium or aluminium and it gets dropped and
hits rusty metal, there is a small exothermic reaction produced, which results in
a spark, which can cause an explosion.
- the problem with battery powered devices is twofold:
1. what temperature will the device reach under normal operation? Note if
device is not totally gastight, a hot component inside can ignite the gas
2. the battery, if it falls out (ie you drop device, it smashes...) and gets
shorted out,
can cause a spark. As an example, an alkaline AA cell can momentarily
produce a 200 amp pulse. A NiCad under the same condition can pump out
2000 amps! This is more than enough to produce a spark which will ignite
ANY hazardous atmosphere.
Thus, unless the device has been approved for use in a hazardous area and is
stamped as such, DON'T TAKE IT IN OR USE IT IN SUCH AN AREA.
(unless you want to make the news in a BIG way.....not that you will be around to
enjoy the "fame")
This posting is in no way an invitation to send me any unsolicited mail or
advertising material. I reserve the right to assess a US $500 charge for
reviewing & deleting each unsolicited commercial e-mail.
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to my email address denotes
acceptance of these terms. This postings from me to any NewsGroup neither grants
my consent to receive commercial emailings nor is intended to solicit commercial
email. You have been warned
P.D. >>Cyberferal<