Zerostat III gun and predecessors?

eli griggs · Apr 5, 2021

Is anyone here using one of these with their camera(s) and what results have you had with pinhole cameras treated with blasts of ionized air from these devices?

Cheers

Donald Qualls · Apr 5, 2021

From the crackling I heard last time I used a ZeroStat (on a vinyl record, roughly 1982), I surely wouldn't use one on the film -- at least not before processing. I'd be concerned about those lightning-shaped static tracks you sometimes get on 35mm or 120 if you wind too fast in very dry conditions...

GRHazelton · Apr 5, 2021

I have a Zerostat; an earlier model. I use it on vinyl records and film; it does help remove dust. I wouldn't say it produces a "blast" of ionized air, rather a stream of ions which neutralize the charge on the surface and the dust which makes the removal of the dust much easier. There are also brushes which use a polonium strip to discharge the charge, the brush then removes the dust, etc. I suppose you could shoot the interior of a camera with the Zerostat, and follow up with some canned air to blow away the dust.

Donald Qualls · Apr 5, 2021

My own preference would be a mini-vacuum after the Zerostat -- for the camera (and I'd avoid it on cameras with lots of electronics; those don't like high voltage), not directly on unexposed film. For film going into the scanner or enlarger, it's fine. Zerostat and a Rocket blower or blow-brush.

GRHazelton · Apr 5, 2021

Donald Qualls said:
From the crackling I heard last time I used a ZeroStat (on a vinyl record, roughly 1982), I surely wouldn't use one on the film -- at least not before processing. I'd be concerned about those lightning-shaped static tracks you sometimes get on 35mm or 120 if you wind too fast in very dry conditions...

Donald, you made a good point. I never really worried about static charges on unexposed film, feeling that unless the film was in a high speed camera static buildup would be minimal. Oddly enough removing the adhesive tape from 35mm which fastens the film to the spool usually produces a noticeable "flash," I've never noticed any effect on the unprocessed film. Of course, as in all thingS, YMMV. BTW, those Zerostats can give you a nasty shock! Best kept away from children....of all ages!

Donald Qualls · Apr 5, 2021

I've seen the blue light travel along as I remove the tape from 35mm or 120, and seen a very distinct fogging where it was (mainly on 120, but only at the contact point). I think the light is faint enough that, coming from the actual film surface as it does, it doesn't get to affect much of the undeveloped halide. I routinely reach the point I can see my hands (as indistint black-on-black blurs) before I finish loading four rolls of 120 on two reels (without any sign of fogging, as far as I can see), so that light can be pretty faint and still very distinctly visible. The human eye is an amazingly sensitive "camera" when fully dark adapted.

GRHazelton · Apr 5, 2021

I also can see my hands "black on black," and the occasional ;pinhole of light. I position my body between the "light" and the film. So far no problem. I do turn my Gralab timer so that the luminous dial faces the wall; probably no worry but why risk it. I was able to score a device meant for a commercial film processor. It has conductive brushes to discharge the film, and a tiny "vacuum" with a filtered exhaust to suck up the dust. It will accommodate 35mm and 120 film. Works beautifully!

Donald Qualls · Apr 5, 2021

I've pretty much concluded the source of the light in my darkroom is outside daylight coming through the half inch plywood with two inches of insultation foam in the window cover. I can see the silhouette of my hands best when against that cover -- but only if I'm loading in daylight (and most in the morning, it's an east facing former window). I need to get around to painting over that cover with the same paint I put on the walls (meant to be a deep neutral gray, it turned out kind of purple), might cut it back a little. Sometimes I get little pinholes at the bottom of the door, too, if I didn't do a good job stuffing the towel in there. I need to mount something permanently down there...

GRHazelton · Apr 5, 2021

My darkroom is an upstairs bath, used mainly for guests, so I can't make any real modifications. I have a sweep on the bottom of the door to the hall, but there are still some pinholes of light. A towel does a good job. Our guests have so far adjusted well to the Beseler 23 enlarger hulking on long vanity, and the adapter for washing film on the shower head pipe. I do tell them to LEAVE THE BOXES OF PAPER AND JUGS OF CHEMICALS ON SHELVES UNDER THE SINK ALONE, on pain of something awful. So far so good. Blocking light from the one window is a problem, fortunately it is in the tub area, which is separated from the enlarger, etc, with a door. A rolled up towel does the job there.

Urs Gantner · May 17, 2021

Does anybody use a ionized air gun before scanning (i meant something bigger than a zerostat)? And if yes, what are your experiences?

AgX · May 17, 2021

Donald Qualls said:
My own preference would be a mini-vacuum after the Zerostat -- for the camera (and I'd avoid it on cameras with lots of electronics; those don't like high voltage).

What high voltage?
At such devices high voltage is applied at a dipole within a nozzle through wich an airstream is let. Even if such stream of then ionizised air is blown onto micrelectronices I do seee any harm possible, but the contrary.

Donald Qualls · May 17, 2021

I don't know that there's no local high voltage in that ion stream -- and integrated circuits that aren't protected can be destroyed by a static discharge you can't feel or hear.

Pieter12 · May 17, 2021

GRHazelton said:
I have a Zerostat; an earlier model. I use it on vinyl records and film; it does help remove dust. I wouldn't say it produces a "blast" of ionized air, rather a stream of ions which neutralize the charge on the surface and the dust which makes the removal of the dust much easier. There are also brushes which use a polonium strip to discharge the charge, the brush then removes the dust, etc. I suppose you could shoot the interior of a camera with the Zerostat, and follow up with some canned air to blow away the dust.

Properly used, the Zerostat does not touch anything. I doubt it would affect unexposed or undeveloped film.

gone · May 17, 2021

I don't think you can buy anything w/ polonium anymore. It's a very radioactive element that was used to kill the former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko. It only takes a tiny, tiny amount to kill someone.

Pieter12 · May 17, 2021

momus said:
I don't think you can buy anything w/ polonium anymore. It's a very radioactive element that was used to kill the former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko. It only takes a tiny, tiny amount to kill someone.

I have been using the Static Master brushes for years. I'm not dead yet. And I don't think most of the others using these brushes have succumbed to radiation poisoning. You would have to ingest the polonium for it to be noxious.

AgX · May 17, 2021

Donald Qualls said:
I don't know that there's no local high voltage in that ion stream -- and integrated circuits that aren't protected can be destroyed by a static discharge you can't feel or hear.

The idea by using ionized air is just to discharge surfaces of microlectronic elements before any discharge through those elements can take place.

AgX · May 17, 2021

Pieter12 said:
Properly used, the Zerostat does not touch anything. I doubt it would affect unexposed or undeveloped film.

The general risk at using electrical ionisators nearby unprocessed film is the light emission of corona discharge at the charging stage. At some ionisators that corona is even just the cause for applying them as in suface treatment before coating.

bdial · May 17, 2021

Pieter12 said:
I have been using the Static Master brushes for years. I'm not dead yet. And I don't think most of the others using these brushes have succumbed to radiation poisoning. You would have to ingest the polonium for it to be noxious.

As I recall, the polonium in a Static Master is encapsulated in ceramic beads so that even if you were to ingest them they would pass through. I'm not going to test that, however.

As for the Zerostat, I had one for use with LP records, and so far as I could ever tell, it had no effect on the static. Mileage may vary though.

M Carter · May 20, 2021

I think a lot of people don't use the Zerostat properly, since there's no instructions. If you hear it clicking, you're doing it wrong (my understanding is that the clicks are there to tell you you're squeezing it too fast).

I weigh small amounts of powdered chemicals in the little condiment cups that come with take-out orders; they're very static prone. It's fun to hit them with the 'stat and watch all the grains of ferri suddenly detach and fall away.

Zerostat III gun and predecessors?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency