Water damage

[munim]

Kelly, that for pointing the facts. Thermodynamics may have been one of my worst subjects while at

Mizzou, but I do know for sure my lenses will gain condensation the moment I take them out of my

airconditioned lab into the 100% RH Malaysian air. Same thing with my wife's glasses, the fog the

moment she steps out of the car....just to show that airconditioned air IS dryer. And I make it a habit of

hanging damp towels under the a/c vents when staying in hotels...

[ShunCheung]

<p>Raden, Tom, and Kelly, this thread is about water damage to Sabin's D300 body and 24-70mm lens. If the three of you would like to discuss/debate about airconditioning and thermodynamics, please find the appropriate forum.</p>

[michael_watt1]

<p>This might sound odd and such, but, you can also if it is still wet, get a buch of isopropyl alchol. The higher the alcohol percent the better. Then you can submerge the equipment (sounds weird, i know) BUT the theory behind it is that the alcohol diplaces the water and also dries up water. Granted the equipment will still have to be sent in more than likely. I learned a hard lesson myself. I took my camera out of my vehicle and it feel to the ground like slow motion and busted the body and the lens. (I was up for a upgrade anyway). Now I wear my neck strap like my underwear. The camera never leaves my neck and it is around my neck before I take it out of the vehicle and on and on. Good luck.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>BTW, Sabin, I tried to send you e-mail, but your address @westnet.com.au seems to be no good.</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>It strikes me given the cost of these two pieces that sending it straight off to Nikon is what I would do. I mean, what if you do it wrong and the moisture causes mildew and stuff? Are you always going to wonder if your images are compromised if you do it yourself? I would.</p>

<p>I'd send it off.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>@Kelly and Raden - Sorry, but you are both wrong on the fact that the air immediately after it exits and AC has a very high relative humidity. The reason is probably that you are either (a) not distinguishing the cold air immediately after it exits the AC unit from the general air in the room, and/or (b) not distinguishing the total water content of the air from the relative humidity. </p>

<p><strong>Calculations (...skip this section if you are not interested in the details):</strong><br>

<small>

<p>The easiest way to see what's going on is to do a short calculation. Lets assume that we have an air conditioned room that starts at 30 C (86 F) and 70% RH, and we then turn on the AC unit. To make the calculations easy, let's assume that the room is well sealed, ie, no air can enter or leave the room except by passing through the air conditioner.</p>

<p>Open this URL: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/watvap.html. Next, go down to the 30 C row of this table, and go over to the 4th column. This table tells you that if the RH of the room was initially 100%, there would be 30 grams per cubic meter (g/m^3) of water in the room. However, since the initial RH was assumed to be only 70%, this means that the initial density of water in the air of the room was 0.7 x 30 = 21 g/m^3.</p>

<p>Next, let's see what happens to these numbers after 20% of the air in the room has passed through the AC unit. Let's assume that the temperature of the evaporator fins is as cold as possible without the fins icing up, ie, 0 C. Refer again to the table, but look at the 2nd line (ie, 0 C). This tells you that even if the RH of the air that is exiting the AC unit has a RH of 100% (as I stated), the absolute water content has been greatly reduced from 21 g/m^3 to 4.85 g/m^3, ie, a bit less than one quarter ( = 4.85 / 21) of its initial value.</p>

<p>If the room has a volume 100 m^3, and 20% of the air (ie, 20 m^3) passed through the AC unit, this means that the absolute water content of the air in the room is now:<br>

[(80%) * (100 m^3) * (21 g/m^3) ] + [(20%) * (100 m^3) * (5 g/m^3)] = 1780 total grams of water (i.e., 17.8 g/m^3).</p>

<p>The room temperature has also dropped, and to a good approximation (ie, assuming the same value of heat capacity, perfect mixing, no heat transfer to the outside, etc.), can be calculated in an analogous manner:<br>

[(80%) * (30 C) ] + [(20%) * (0 C)] = 24 C</p>

<p>To calculate the RH of the room after 20% of the air has passed through the AC unit, we need data for 24 C. Unfortunately, the previous table only presents data in 5 C temperature increments, so we can either use it and approximate the value at 24 C, or use this more accurate calculator:<br>

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/relhum.html (scroll about 60% down the page)</p>

<p>Both methods show that the saturated vapor pressure at 24 C is 21.8 gms / m^3. Since we have just calculated that the actual water content of the air is 17.8 gms / m^3, this means that the RH of the room is now 17.8 / 21.8 = 81.6 %. </p>

<p>In other words, while the temperature has dropped, and the absolute amount of water in the room has also dropped, the RH has actually increased from 70% to 81.6% under the simple assumptions stated above, ie, no heat or air leaks from the room. </p>

<p>The real world is not this perfect. In particular, heat from the outside is always leaking into an air conditioned room through the walls, windows, etc. When this happens, the temperature does not drop as much as calculated above. In the above example, lets assume that because of heat leaks, the temperature only drops by half of the value we calculated. In other words, instead of dropping 6 degrees (from 30 C to 24 C) when 20% of the air has been processed, it only drops by 3 degrees, ie, from 30 C to 27 C. At this temperature, the saturated water content is 25.86 g/m^3, so the RH is 17.8 / 25.86 = 68%, and the RH has indeed dropped.</p>

 

</small><br>

<strong>Conclusions:</strong></p>

<p>The above calculations demonstrate the seeming paradox of how an AC unit can put out cold air at extremely high (ie, 100%) relative humidity, but yet it always reduces the total amount of water in the air of the room. The calculations also demonstrate how an air conditioner can either increase the relative humidity (ie, in a thermally well insulated room) or decrease it (ie, with poorer insulation -- the more typical case that Kelly correctly described).</p>

<p>This brings us back to Raden's suggestion to put an article that needs to be dried in front of the cold air exhaust from an AC unit. Unfortunately, this is not the best way to dry things. There are many reasons for this. The 100% RH issue discussed above is only one of them. A second issue is that cooling an article dramatically slows down the rate of outgassing of water from the article. However, probably the easiest way to see this is to ask how many clothes driers operate by passing cool air over the clothes. In fact, no drier operates this way. They all use heat.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>PS - Sorry for the length of the above. I teach engineering thermo to college seniors and it's easy to give too many details. If you don't care about the calculations, just skip over them to the "Conclusions" section.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Shun - I wrote my last msg before seeing your comment on finding another forum. My intent was to dispel a very, very common misconception about using an AC to dry things out, but I fully understand your point, so please feel free to delete my last message. I'll email it to Kelly and Raden.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Tom, no worries.</p>

<p>I am no expert on water damage on photo equipment. However, I find some of the answers on this thread very questionable. If people have experties in this area, I am sure we welcome their suggestion. Otherwise, the OP has a camera and a lens that are both in the $1500 range. I sure hope that none of the suggestions here will make the problem worse and/or delay him from getting those items fixed properly, if possible. I am sure that Nikon repair is dealing with such water damage on a regular basis and they should know how to fix them better than anybody else.</p>

<p>I was going to send e-mail to the OP suggesting him to send those items to Nikon ASAP, but that e-mail was rejected.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Shun, thank you. </p>

<p>I'm not sure why, but it seems that a large number of questionable "folk remedies" are inevitably suggested when it comes to drying things. Your suggestion is undoubtedly the best. </p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[JRCrowe]

<p>Silica Gel is used widely in Telecommunications Industry to dry out cable and equipment. It absorbs moisture like crazy. I would imagine a few packets with the camera and lens in a sealed plastic bag would remove most of the moisture. It is also reusable by placing the packets in the oven to dry them out again. I googled Silica Gel and Olympus offers packets for around $6 each. Lots of camera equipment comes packaged with Silica Gel. I would have lens detached from the body and the more Silca Gel the better. I would give it a couple of weeks to dry out. I do agree that Nikon repair should look at it also.</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>If you are an amateur, I suggest for the future that you consider adding coverage to your household or renters insurance. In the USA, optical and electronic equipment are usually excluded from coverage in the boilerplate language that most policies are written around, or the policy has a silly, low limit. For less than $60/year all of my cameras and lens and photographic equipment are covered. I learned this lesson from a friend in our photo club who had such insurance when she dropped a very expensive Canon lens in a puddle. The lens was toast, but the insurance paid for a replacement.</p>

<p>For anyone who cannot afford to replace expensive gear easily, where acquiring the equipment was a sacrifice, perhaps for years of saving, I cannot emphasize how important a peanut sum like $60/year is in comparison to the risk of damage, including just being clumsy enough to drop one's gear. The Australian market hopefully should not be too much different. (Professional insurance is another matter.)</p>

<p>On the wet side with the equipment, the camera is likely a loss if it was submerged long enough for water entry. I hope otherwise. The lens is sealed better, but is not watertight either. Fast withdrawal may have limited the entry. I second Shun's suggestions. A call to Nikon Australia, and shipping it out <em>post haste</em> if they think it is worth your while.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p>Dave Ralph</p>

[Sabin]

<p>As some of you have mentioned, probably sending the equipment to Nikon to asses the damage will be the best way to deal with this. My initial question was put out there to see if there was any way of minimising the damage (if that was in any way possible) by drying it quicker and not doing something that would increase the chances of me causing even more damage. At the end of the day I should have looked into getting some kind of insurance for my equipment, I do not own a lot of equipment but what I have purchased was of good quality and relatively expensive. I am usually very careful with my equipment but accidents do happen. This has been an expensive learning curve for me. Contacting my insurer will be one of the first things I do once I purchase a new camera and lens to see if they do offer any cover for this type of equipment (in Australia) I assume they do.<br>

I have changed my internet provider and I do not have access to that email address Shun that's why it could not be delivered, I do apologise. I have since changed my email address on this site so this should not happen in the future.<br>

Shun I am not sure why the person from Nikon thought that the lens would stand less of a chance than the camera to be salvaged, I am assuming here but I think the camera itself would be better sealed that the lens hence less of a chance of a lot of water entering. I have taken the battery and memory card out as soon as I got out of the water and I have plugged the card in my computer and it works, it did not get wet, however I am sure that some water has definitely entered the lens and even other parts of the camera. Thank you all once again for all your suggestions, it is very much appreciated.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have left a couple of CF memory cards in their little plastic cases in my pocket, and they went through the washing machine wash cycle. I forget whether they went through the dryer as well or not, but both memory cards continued to work 100% fine afterwards.</p>

<p>If water got into your lens between the lens elements, even though you dry it out, most likely there is water streaks left on the elements. In that case you'll have to take the lens apart and clean the elements anyway. Therefore, there is no point to let it sit and hope that it will dry up, as rust may develop and your problem can get worse.</p>

<p>As I have said before, I am strongly against buying unnecessary insurance. When it comes to things such as liability, you have no choice but to buy insurance because sometimes it is required by law and sometimes your liability could be huge. However, when it comes to camera equipment insurance, keep in mind that whatever the insurance company pays you comes from the collective premium, minus their overhead and profit. At least in the US, you see all sorts of TV commercials from insurance companies: Aflac (the duck), MedLife, AIG (before) .... When you buy insurance, you are paying for your own damage plus all of those overhead such as TV commercials and the salaries of those who work there .... It should be very obvious that you are much better off paying only for your own equipment damage when that happens without paying for all of those overhead year after year.</p>

[mark gamba]

<p>Hi All,<br>

I've been shooting in wet to extremely wet conditions most of my career. The best and most reliable technique I've discovered is to use the oven. DO NOT put the equipment in the oven. Open the door, place a nice thick dry towel on the door, open up each piece of equipment to the utmost possible without using a screw driver. Turn the oven on to 200 degrees F. Periodically rotate the equipment, you will note that the side facing the oven is substantially warmer. The concept is to heat your equipment up to the point it would be on a hot summer day in a hot dry climate. It will vaporize the water and drive it off. If the equipment becomes to hot to touch, you are doing it wrong. Do this AS SOON AS POSSIBLE after the wetting so the least amount of damage is done to the equipment. In the case of total submersion for an extended time, get it into the shop as quickly as possible AFTER doing this. In the case of submersion in salt water, first re-submerge it in fresh water. Even dry salt will corrode the camera, though I must say that total submersion in salt water is rarely rescueable. Most camera repair guys will tell you to deliver a camera that has been submerged in salt water to them, submerged in fresh water. My assignments are such that I've never had that luxury. This technique has only failed me in times when I could not use the technique within hours of the wetting. Good luck!</p>

[Sabin]

<p>Thank you Mark for your suggestion. In the mean time I have sent both the camera and lens to Nikon Australia for servicing and after they had a look at both have advised me that it would not be cost effective to have either one of them repaired. The cost of repair would exceed the replacement cost. So a couple of days ago I received back my equipment and strangely enough there were still small droplets of water in my lens. I have kept both the camera and the lens on the dash board of my car in full sun for two days and today for the first time since the accident I inserted the battery and a CF card in my camera and to my amazement it does still work. The lens on the other hand does not. You have to force the lens to zoom in and out (manually) but it can still be focused and also there are water marks on the inside glass.<br>

As for the camera the only thing that I found that does not work is the inbuilt flash. I have attached my SB900 to the camera and it does fire just fine so it seems that it might just be the globe (is that what you call it?) from the inbuilt flash that might have shorted out. If the is the case can it be replaced?<br>

I have not had enough time to play around with it for too long but I'll try it out this weekend with another lens and I'll post some photos. I still can not believe it still works. Whether this is only temporary and it will fail catastrophically in the near future remains to be seen, I won't get my hopes up.</p>