Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: UV sterilizer for cleaning lenses/cameras

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Singapore, near NUS
    Posts
    398

    Default Re: UV sterilizer for cleaning lenses/cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    But it's OK man. You obviously have a monopoly on "crazy ideas" and obviously are so intelligent that you thought of something that thousands and thousands of scientists and camera/lens manufacturers never thought of because obviously they don't have your level of genius, of "sense of continuity" (even if that is a misuse of that word when used in your context).

    So let us all bow down to the grand master who has proven physics and biology to be incorrect, and has a camera sensor and lens that can absorb broken down organic matter. *bow*
    Look, I posted asking for feedback on a possibility. You were the one who jumped in and asserted it was a placebo and what I suggested was impossible.

    Get your facts straight man.

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toasty

    And I've already countered your so-called explanation. You seem to have trouble remembering that yourself.
    1) Fungus quantity and the associatd performance degradation varies continously. There are cases where the fungus is sufficient enough to cause softness and lack of clarity. The fungus does exist in this state at some time between the spore state and the full-blown state. When hit at this state you are clueless as to what the effect could be.
    2) The example of C->CO2, is to show that your statement that you need bacteria and fungus to break down matter is false. You can break down by a variety of mechanisms that you have failed to consider. It does not imply that you need a blow torch. That is your ridiculous example.
    3) Incorrect, it is shown by you. The C-CO2 example shows that you do necessarily need fungus or bacteria to decompose, nor that you necessarily decompose into solid material. It is possible for things to decompose into gaseous material, or even in other ways that you are totally oblivious to.
    4) But you are ignorant of what happens to the fungus when it dies before it has attached itself firmly to the lens.

    Just admit it: you don't know. That is the mature thing to do.
    LOL.

    1. Nope I am not clueless, you are. Like I stated, it has to be large enough to occlude a microlens. It is not a linear progression, that's just your clueless concept.

    2. And what happens to the remaining 80% of carbon? That's right, you need bacteria and fungus to make it biologically available again. The blowtorch was based on your example of fire, which is as ridiculous as everything else you've said.

    3. I already answered this in point 2. But obviously you know of "other ways" that have escaped scientists for centuries.

    4. No I'm not. Because the spore has to attach itself to the lens at the first germination stage before it even begins to spread. Therefore your example shows how ignorant you are.

    Just admit it. You are clueless, don't know, and enjoy being detached from reality and coming up with ideas that violate physics and science in general. You are using 1% of knowledge you read on Wikipedia to freely invent the remaining 99%.

    Now please go to school like a good boy, and do your homework instead of daydreaming, OK?
    Alpha

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toasty

    Look, I posted asking for feedback on a possibility. You were the one who jumped in and asserted it was a placebo and what I suggested was impossible.

    Get your facts straight man.
    Yes. You asked for feedback on a possibility. I gave you feedback. You continued arguing with fairytales of sensors and lenses reabsorbing broken down fungal matter, etc

    Get your facts straight (so far you've been missing them all), the only one spouting nonsense here is you.
    Alpha

  4. #24

    Default

    To be precise about the fire example: when discussing the decomposition of fungal matter, I was staying within the logical, real-world example of a camera lens and sensor. You, on the other hand, brought in a forest fire as an example. Which is why I said that to achieve the same effect as the forest fire in a camera and lens would need a blowtorch. Which clearly has no place in the discussion and was just a sign of your desperation and immaturity to try to "win" a point, even at the expense of logic and common sense.
    Alpha

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Singapore, near NUS
    Posts
    398

    Default Re: UV sterilizer for cleaning lenses/cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    LOL.

    1. Nope I am not clueless, you are. Like I stated, it has to be large enough to occlude a microlens. It is not a linear progression, that's just your clueless concept.

    2. And what happens to the remaining 80% of carbon? That's right, you need bacteria and fungus to make it biologically available again. The blowtorch was based on your example of fire, which is as ridiculous as everything else you've said.

    3. I already answered this in point 2. But obviously you know of "other ways" that have escaped scientists for centuries.

    4. No I'm not. Because the spore has to attach itself to the lens at the first germination stage before it even begins to spread. Therefore your example shows how ignorant you are.

    Just admit it. You are clueless, don't know, and enjoy being detached from reality and coming up with ideas that violate physics and science in general. You are using 1% of knowledge you read on Wikipedia to freely invent the remaining 99%.

    Now please go to school like a good boy, and do your homework instead of daydreaming, OK?
    1 Who said anything about a linear progression. You really do not understand the concept of continuity. Let me try to make it simpler for you:
    Point A is where the fungus on the lens has no impact on the picture
    Point B is where the fungus obscures the picture
    somewhere between A and B, it goes through all the stages from slight fuzziness, lack of clarity, softness to obscurity. At that point radiating the fungus could improve the photo.

    2. The carbon is ash and blows away. Regardless, your point it moot. The point is that the way fungus breaks down is not necessarily the way you think it is.

    3. You answered from your own fantasy world. You are ignorant of what happens to the fungus when it dies.

    4. You don't know by what mechanism the spore attaches to the lens. You don't know that it won't dettach when the fungus dies at a certain point of its development.

    The person making assertions is you (that what I'm suggesting is wrong). The person seeking information is me (I'm not seeking your false information like you provide, but real information). Hence you are the one who needs to admit ignorance. I have not asserted this is the way it is. I am saying that it is not impossible. You are saying it's impossible.

    >To be precise about the fire example: when discussing the decomposition of fungal matter, I was staying within the logical, real-world example of a camera lens and sensor.
    You asserted that you need bacteria and fungus for things to breakdown which I gave the counter-example to show that is not correct. You took the counterexample on the tangent and failed to address the point addressed by my counter example to talk about the blowtorch which does not address the point made by my counterexample at all.

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Singapore, near NUS
    Posts
    398

    Default Re: UV sterilizer for cleaning lenses/cameras

    Bottom Line:

    You don't know by what mechanism the fungus breaks down, into what it breaks down, or what happens to it thereafter.

    Everything else is moot.

    Unless you know, why don't you go watch something on you-tube?

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toasty
    Bottom Line:

    You don't know by what mechanism the fungus breaks down, into what it breaks down, or what happens to it thereafter.

    Everything else is moot.

    Unless you know, why don't you go watch something on you-tube?
    It's really interesting to watch two grown men slug it out on the innernets.


  8. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Singapore, near NUS
    Posts
    398

    Default Re: UV sterilizer for cleaning lenses/cameras

    Really? I thought I was stupid enough to be arguing with a teenager.

    That said, I've had enough, and it's clear I'm not getting the response I wanted, so I'm just gonna close the thread.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •