Weather Resistance

Brave not using a weather proof body:
http://www.photographyblog.com/artic...national_park/

I guess it only creates a problem when the snow melts?

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:31:45 -0700 (PDT), Pat
wrote:

On Jun 10, 11:18*am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
"IP" wrote:
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
IP wrote:
Brave not using a weather proof body:
http://www.photographyblog.com/artic...national_park/

I guess it only creates a problem when the snow melts?

Huh? What makes you think that he's not using a
weather proof body? The lens certainly is.

It's a Canon, and they don't make a "weather proof" body. *It might
be argued to what degree their cameras are weather resistant too, but
that description has at least some accuracy.

It's difficult to tell exactly what body it is from the pic, but it's not a
1. *Granted it looks like it's possibly a 5D II, but exactly how weather
proof that is, is a guessing game. *Personally I wouldn't attempt that with
anything less that a 1 and even then, with those types of shots, I'd still
cover it. *Which is why I'm asking. *He's no new kid on the block and
obviously doesn't seem bothered about it, so I'm curious to know why.

The referenced article is pretty good, with great images. *There
is one small problem, saying that it was wet at -20C, which is
about -4F. *That is excusable for visitors to the Arctic. *They
just can't keep all that "cold" stuff straight! :-)

Canon cameras would perhaps not be the best choice if it indeed
was wet, but he mentioned temperatures ranging from -40C up to
-20C, and that generally means it is relatively dry. *He also
mentioned problems with fogging of lenses and short battery
life. *Those are "operator error" issues more than anything
else, and once again just sort of indicates that he doesn't live
with Arctic conditions all of the time. *Not a big deal.

I see no concern in that particular picture with weather, other
than the clothes he is wearing! *Cameras will work fine as long
as there is a spare battery being kept warm in a pocket, and the
camera is put into a plastic bag before entering a warm
building. *The other trick is don't breath on the camera... :-)

Back in the day, they used to make a battery holder that you taped to
your armpit to keep it warm. It had a cable that ran down your arm
and out to the camera. Mostly it was because batteries weren't as
good then.

There was another problem also. The lubricant in the shutter and lens
mechanisms used to freeze up causing eratic performance and sticking.



Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:31:45 -0700 (PDT), Pat
wrote:

On Jun 10, 11:18*am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
"IP" wrote:
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
IP wrote:
Brave not using a weather proof body:
http://www.photographyblog.com/artic...national_park/

I guess it only creates a problem when the snow melts?

Huh? What makes you think that he's not using a
weather proof body? The lens certainly is.

It's a Canon, and they don't make a "weather proof" body. *It might
be argued to what degree their cameras are weather resistant too, but
that description has at least some accuracy.

It's difficult to tell exactly what body it is from the pic, but it's not a
1. *Granted it looks like it's possibly a 5D II, but exactly how weather
proof that is, is a guessing game. *Personally I wouldn't attempt that with
anything less that a 1 and even then, with those types of shots, I'd still
cover it. *Which is why I'm asking. *He's no new kid on the block and
obviously doesn't seem bothered about it, so I'm curious to know why.

The referenced article is pretty good, with great images. *There
is one small problem, saying that it was wet at -20C, which is
about -4F. *That is excusable for visitors to the Arctic. *They
just can't keep all that "cold" stuff straight! :-)

Canon cameras would perhaps not be the best choice if it indeed
was wet, but he mentioned temperatures ranging from -40C up to
-20C, and that generally means it is relatively dry. *He also
mentioned problems with fogging of lenses and short battery
life. *Those are "operator error" issues more than anything
else, and once again just sort of indicates that he doesn't live
with Arctic conditions all of the time. *Not a big deal.

I see no concern in that particular picture with weather, other
than the clothes he is wearing! *Cameras will work fine as long
as there is a spare battery being kept warm in a pocket, and the
camera is put into a plastic bag before entering a warm
building. *The other trick is don't breath on the camera... :-)

Back in the day, they used to make a battery holder that you taped to
your armpit to keep it warm. It had a cable that ran down your arm
and out to the camera. Mostly it was because batteries weren't as
good then.

There was another problem also. The lubricant in the shutter and lens
mechanisms used to freeze up causing eratic performance and sticking.

Or, at least that was supposed to happen.

Nikon would happily "winterize" a camera by removing all
lubricants. They did warn that the life expectancy was short,
but... :-)

However, I used Pentax film cameras in the 60's and 70's, and
never managed to experience any problems with freezing
lubrication. After the Spotmatic I did keep a Pentax MX to use
in cold weather because it was the last decent Pentax SLR with
an all mechanical shutter. Electronic shutter models would all
freeze up due to cold batteries (but not cold lubrication, as
near as I could tell).

On the other hand, it is absolutely true that cars and trucks
can freeze up without Arctic lubrication. Normal 30 weight
motor oil is jello at below zero temperatures (the engine might
run for 15-20 minutes before it gets any oil at all). Grease
for wheel bearings and differentials that works well in mild
climates turns to cement at -60F, and the vehicles simply won't
move.

But there have been various forms of Arctic grade lubricants
around since the 1960's, including water replacing oils, that
have made all of that a fairly rare problem in practice.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

IP ip@themoon wrote:
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
IP wrote:
Brave not using a weather proof body:
http://www.photographyblog.com/artic...national_park/

I guess it only creates a problem when the snow melts?

And it wouldn't at -20C (-36F) day temperatures.

Huh? What makes you think that he's not using a weather proof body? The
lens certainly is.

It's difficult to tell exactly what body it is from the pic, but it's not a
1. Granted it looks like it's possibly a 5D II,

Based on
| The data cards sometimes missed an image, but I write to
| two cards as a backup so I didn’t lose any images.
it's not a 5DII --- that one only has one card slot.

IIRC only a very few bodies have dual slots so that you can write
to both card simultaneously ...

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
IP ip@themoon wrote:
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
IP wrote:
Brave not using a weather proof body:
http://www.photographyblog.com/artic...national_park/

I guess it only creates a problem when the snow melts?

And it wouldn't at -20C (-36F) day temperatures.

Interesting temperature conversion! :-)

-20C is 36 degrees F below freezing, but freezing is at 32F, so
it is actually -4F.

Your point is correct though, as snow is quite dry at that
temperature.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

PatM wrote:
On the other hand, it is absolutely true that cars and trucks
can freeze up without Arctic lubrication. *Normal 30 weight
motor oil is jello at below zero temperatures (the engine might
run for 15-20 minutes before it gets any oil at all). *Grease
for wheel bearings and differentials that works well in mild
climates turns to cement at -60F, and the vehicles simply won't
move.

A bit of a hyperbole there. 30 weight is okay in that range. 10-w 30

Non-synthetic 30 weight motor oil is literally jello at 0F.

is better, but straight 10 ain't going to kill you. ... and who needs
grease in their bearings at -60F anyway. We get -40 for a few days
but don't take any special precautions.

Speaking of hyperbole, that's a bit much.

I lived near Fairbanks Alaska for a couple decades, and
have seen -40 for weeks, and -60F for many days straight.

Starting vehicles at -40 without "precautions" is a quick way to
need a new engine. Synthetic oil is the only way to go, and
even then it makes good sense to have a heat pad on the oil pan.
Of course the engine *must* have a heater too. Regular 30w
motor oil is literally jello at anything below about 0, and at
-40F will be 10 to 15 minutes before the engine heats it up
enough to actually pump any through the engine.

Grease that is not Arctic grade will mean the vehicles simply
won't move until the temperature goes up.

By comparison to Fairbanks, Barrow is a relatively easy place to
keep a vehicle running when it gets cold. We just don't see
-60F here.

But there have been various forms of Arctic grade lubricants
around since the 1960's, including water replacing oils, that
have made all of that a fairly rare problem in practice.

I've always wondered how much gas it would take to run my van
overnight for, say, 8 hours at an idle. It gets more than 20 mpg but
an even number like 20 is easier for the math. So at highway speeds,
it burns roughly 3 gallons per hour. If I drove for 8 hours straight
I would burst a kidney ... oh, I mean it would burn 24 gallons of fuel
and be preciously near the bottom of the 25 gallon tank. So I know it
would easily idle over night. So it seems, as just a guess, that it
would take about 5 gallons. Anyone have any idea of what it would
really take?

Not a good idea with a gasoline engine. Diesel engines on the
other hand are commonly run 24 hours a day.

Of course around here we tend to let engines idle for hours at a
time on a fairly regular basis during the colder parts of the
winter. For example, in January most of the vehicles parked at
the grocery store will be running while people shop.

The North Slope Borough for several years wanted the on-call
emergency services people to let (Borough owned) vehicles idle
all of the time. They decided a couple years ago that it was
cheaper to plug the vehicles in and keep them warm that way.
The cost of gasoline and maintenance was just too high.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

rOn Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:59:39 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

PatM wrote:
On the other hand, it is absolutely true that cars and trucks
can freeze up without Arctic lubrication. *Normal 30 weight
motor oil is jello at below zero temperatures (the engine might
run for 15-20 minutes before it gets any oil at all). *Grease
for wheel bearings and differentials that works well in mild
climates turns to cement at -60F, and the vehicles simply won't
move.

A bit of a hyperbole there. 30 weight is okay in that range. 10-w 30

Non-synthetic 30 weight motor oil is literally jello at 0F.

is better, but straight 10 ain't going to kill you. ... and who needs
grease in their bearings at -60F anyway. We get -40 for a few days
but don't take any special precautions.

Speaking of hyperbole, that's a bit much.

I lived near Fairbanks Alaska for a couple decades, and
have seen -40 for weeks, and -60F for many days straight.

Starting vehicles at -40 without "precautions" is a quick way to
need a new engine. Synthetic oil is the only way to go, and
even then it makes good sense to have a heat pad on the oil pan.
Of course the engine *must* have a heater too. Regular 30w
motor oil is literally jello at anything below about 0, and at
-40F will be 10 to 15 minutes before the engine heats it up
enough to actually pump any through the engine.

Grease that is not Arctic grade will mean the vehicles simply
won't move until the temperature goes up.

By comparison to Fairbanks, Barrow is a relatively easy place to
keep a vehicle running when it gets cold. We just don't see
-60F here.

But there have been various forms of Arctic grade lubricants
around since the 1960's, including water replacing oils, that
have made all of that a fairly rare problem in practice.

I've always wondered how much gas it would take to run my van
overnight for, say, 8 hours at an idle. It gets more than 20 mpg but
an even number like 20 is easier for the math. So at highway speeds,
it burns roughly 3 gallons per hour. If I drove for 8 hours straight
I would burst a kidney ... oh, I mean it would burn 24 gallons of fuel
and be preciously near the bottom of the 25 gallon tank. So I know it
would easily idle over night. So it seems, as just a guess, that it
would take about 5 gallons. Anyone have any idea of what it would
really take?

Not a good idea with a gasoline engine. Diesel engines on the
other hand are commonly run 24 hours a day.

Even with diesel engines its a good way to glaze bores and increase
oil consumption.

Of course around here we tend to let engines idle for hours at a
time on a fairly regular basis during the colder parts of the
winter. For example, in January most of the vehicles parked at
the grocery store will be running while people shop.

The North Slope Borough for several years wanted the on-call
emergency services people to let (Borough owned) vehicles idle
all of the time. They decided a couple years ago that it was
cheaper to plug the vehicles in and keep them warm that way.
The cost of gasoline and maintenance was just too high.



Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
rOn Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:59:39 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

PatM wrote:

I've always wondered how much gas it would take to run my van
overnight for, say, 8 hours at an idle. It gets more than 20 mpg but
an even number like 20 is easier for the math. So at highway speeds,
it burns roughly 3 gallons per hour. If I drove for 8 hours straight
I would burst a kidney ... oh, I mean it would burn 24 gallons of fuel
and be preciously near the bottom of the 25 gallon tank. So I know it
would easily idle over night. So it seems, as just a guess, that it
would take about 5 gallons. Anyone have any idea of what it would
really take?

Not a good idea with a gasoline engine. Diesel engines on the
other hand are commonly run 24 hours a day.

Even with diesel engines its a good way to glaze bores and increase
oil consumption.

Perhaps so, but compared to what happens if the engine
is shutdown for 5 or 6 hours when it's -60F, that's just
small potatoes.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:09:42 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
rOn Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:59:39 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

PatM wrote:

I've always wondered how much gas it would take to run my van
overnight for, say, 8 hours at an idle. It gets more than 20 mpg but
an even number like 20 is easier for the math. So at highway speeds,
it burns roughly 3 gallons per hour. If I drove for 8 hours straight
I would burst a kidney ... oh, I mean it would burn 24 gallons of fuel
and be preciously near the bottom of the 25 gallon tank. So I know it
would easily idle over night. So it seems, as just a guess, that it
would take about 5 gallons. Anyone have any idea of what it would
really take?

Not a good idea with a gasoline engine. Diesel engines on the
other hand are commonly run 24 hours a day.

Even with diesel engines its a good way to glaze bores and increase
oil consumption.

Perhaps so, but compared to what happens if the engine
is shutdown for 5 or 6 hours when it's -60F, that's just
small potatoes.

True, but a heater is the best answer.



Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:09:42 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
rOn Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:59:39 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

PatM wrote:

I've always wondered how much gas it would take to run my van
overnight for, say, 8 hours at an idle. It gets more than 20 mpg but
an even number like 20 is easier for the math. So at highway speeds,
it burns roughly 3 gallons per hour. If I drove for 8 hours straight
I would burst a kidney ... oh, I mean it would burn 24 gallons of fuel
and be preciously near the bottom of the 25 gallon tank. So I know it
would easily idle over night. So it seems, as just a guess, that it
would take about 5 gallons. Anyone have any idea of what it would
really take?

Not a good idea with a gasoline engine. Diesel engines on the
other hand are commonly run 24 hours a day.

Even with diesel engines its a good way to glaze bores and increase
oil consumption.

Perhaps so, but compared to what happens if the engine
is shutdown for 5 or 6 hours when it's -60F, that's just
small potatoes.

True, but a heater is the best answer.

The kinds of diesel engine equipped devices that are
usually run at idle rather than being shutdown are jet
aircraft, tractor trailer rigs, bulldozers, belly dumps,
as well as smaller vehicles. They are not shutdown when
it is *not* *possible* to heat them sufficiently for
restarting.

Typical construction sites often do not have electrical
power. Other locations, such as small airports, simply
do not have the equipment necessary to keep a large jet
aircraft warm or to restart it if it gets too cold.

A heater is not always the best answer, and sometimes
isn't even a potential answer.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)