What to do with DC Pigtails Outside

[n4gry]

Can we vote someone off the forum?

If you put them on your ignore list (in the settings section of your account) their listings will disappear and you wont see them. (as long as you are logged onto the forum)

 

[Daybreak]

Howdy,
OK, now that that is over.
I would not bother. Things have changed in the years. I now have a cell phone that is waterproof. Cell phones from 2 years ago had no such features. Outdoor rated cameras are made so much better today then they were just 3 years ago. With the advent of 3mp IP cameras, and the even higher resolutions (4mp, 5mp, 4K) I really do not think I will be using these cameras I have up now 6 years from now.

but, back on topic.

I also use the coax-seal, or 3m moisture mastic tape. If the connections are hanging out there in the breeze, its best to seal them up.

All portions, the 12v pigtail as well as the rj45 connection.

 

[ServiceXp]

First off, I want to thank you for your service, it's very much appreciated.

Now... I read your posts, and just now reread, and I still don't see the answer to my question?

again:

Overlord can you point me to actual data that indicates an improvement for outdoor designed electronics with desiccant installed?

If you are calling that link to the desiccant advertisement "data" then we can stop right here, we simply have a difference of opinion as to what data is.

The reasons why I thought you may be ignorant (it's not a bad word by the way) about desiccant are 2 fold:

1) You made this comment in the first post (Bold Mine):

You should replace any desiccant packets, at least once every year. Because they become less effective as time goes by. They are basically packets of "sand" and as the sand repetitively becomes wet and then dries out. The sand particles start to breakup and they fracture over time into smaller and smaller sand particles. Causing them to not be able to suck up as much moisture, as they could when they were larger sand particles.

Silca based desiccant (the kind most commonly found) doesn't "dry out" at least not on it's own, its hygroscopic properties and the amount of moisture held is usually proportional to the relative humidity. The only way I know to regenerate (release the "trapped" moisture) is through heat. Typicality temperatures of 200 to 300F over x time will cause this release. I am most familiar with Zeolite spheroids desiccants in my line of work, but I'm pretty sure other react the same.

2) If my math is correct we can easily see that a unit (about 1 ounce) of silca based desiccant @ 80% RH 80F (125 grains = ~8 grams of water) would only take a few weeks to become fully saturated. Now most outdoor camera's meet or exceed IP66 specification so the rate of absorption should be much slower, but maybe 4 to 5 months max??). An interesting test would be to use indicating silica packs to easy test for desiccant saturation.

As a side note: I have noticed that all 4 of my bullet IP camera's (Hiks and Duhua) generate a fair amount of heat during normal operation, so I find it extremely difficult to believe that they would ever reach dew point temperatures under normal weather conditions. Now I don't know if that applies to the other types of camera's.

As for the advertisement goes, it appears to draw the conclusion that moisture is one of the sole cause of dendritic growth. A conclusion that I don't agree with, but that's a subject for another discussion. If you have about an hour to kill is a pretty good watch.

[video=vimeo;100244222]https://vimeo.com/100244222[/video]

All that said.. I AM NOT saying that desiccant isn't appropriate in the correct application, this in my opinion is NOT one of them. The use to prevent mold growth and to limit condensation during shipping and storage is priceless, and I wish more manufactures would use them.

I provided one link to evidence in two of my posts here already. As well as stated that my USAF military electronics training included this fact in my training.

Which is documented in the "About Me" link in all my posts here.

Please feel free to locate and provide any corroborating evidence you can that "I'm ignorant about the absorption volume of these small desiccant consumer packs" as you say. Yet I have stated here, that the USAF trained me in electronics for one solid year. For combat communications equipment maintenance and repair and thanks for the kind words while wasting that time.

Could you NOT have taken the time first to try and locate methods to calculate what amount of desiccant is required for what volume before suggesting I am "Ignorant"?

Here I will help you do what you should have done first. Before starting out so condescending instead:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=desiccant+amount+calculator

I mean really. Do you normally by default assume that someone is ignorant and need to state so ("Publicly") prior to and before doing any research on the subject matter knowing the person has already stated they spent one solid year in USAF electronic training to repair combat communications electronic equipment which has to endure all outdoor weather conditions?

Please feel free to locate other evidence on your own. Using the search engine of your choice.

Note: My current supporting evidence here, exceeds the lack of no ("Zero") corroborating evidence of any kind. For those disagreeing with my USAF training and evidence already shown here. Minus only their words alone.

So, until I see evidence from a respected source corroborating "Their words only". That my current evidence is wrong. Someone else can play:

"Search Engine Evidence Secretary"

I've already well exceeded the lack of no corroborating evidence by any respected source, by anyone claiming I am wrong about this. So, the other side has a lot of catching up to do first. Besides blowing "Hot Air" without even substantiating that they have any formal education or training in this subject matter to make their personal statements anything more than their "feelings".

These are not my feelings. This is what I have been taught by my USAF military training and what has been and is well documented for many decades and continues to be documented in todays time. By other respected sources. Worldwide.

Don

 

[DaveP]

Some tangents are obtuse ... and some aren't

 

[ServiceXp]

I answered your question by providing a link to a list of desiccant online calculators that can do these types of calculations for you.

Don

So....
This:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q...unt+calculator

answered this:

Overlord can you point me to actual data that indicates an improvement for outdoor designed electronics with desiccant installed?

Ok, I understand now...

 

[n4gry]

The best answer so far that I have seen Is coax seal! BTW: It also seems to be the only answer to the original question....

 

[fenderman]

Thank you.

I answered your allegation by providing a link to a list of desiccant online calculators that can do these types of calculations ("You requested") for you. So that you could do these calculations yourself. Prior to needing to insult people first, next time.

Yes generally most information about this subject matter is driven by advertising. Generally geared toward selling other products besides desiccant. But the facts on this subject matter are still presented by those companies, as they attempt to sell other solutions. Namely theirs.



Actually, silica ("sand") based desiccant as I have clearly stated the entire time that is the type of desiccant I am and have been referring to all this time. Does dry out:

http://www.gore.com/MungoBlobs/151/187/Gore_PTV_WhitePaper_US_e.pdf

I am more then sure that during some point in your life. That you have touched both dry and wet sand, with some part of your body. Proving, that sand can and does dry out.


While I don't agree with your math. You a using a single packet of desiccant, to reach your conclusion. I have always suggested using 2 packets of desiccant not one packet of desiccant inside the IP Cameras housing.

http://www.electronics-cooling.com/2007/05/moisture-permeation-in-electronics/



Unfortunately, many major IP Camera manufacturers disagree with you. Including but not limited to companies like Cisco. Because they have for many years placed desiccant inside their IP Camera models housings and continue to place descant packets inside many of the IP Camera models housings that they sell. Even sealed IP Camera housings and even IP Camera models which meet or exceed IP66 standards.

Please feel free to do some research on this, because it's a fact and not speculation and/or conjecture on my part.

My focus here is on IP66 based IP Cameras and IP cameras that don't even meet IP66 standards. There are newer methods being used for IP Cameras which meet or exceed IP67 based standards:

http://www.iscwest.com/__novadocuments/73004?v=635588469108570000

Don

Since you keep editing your posts with new info...
The desiccants placed inside cameras by manufacturers are there for shipping purposes and to protect the lens from fogging on initial use...when the camera is not being used and not generating heat is more susceptible to moisture buildup....How do you come to the conclusion that they are there to extend the life of electronics is beyond me.
the proof is in the pudding - they dont recommend changing the packs every year!
My sneakers also come with desiccants in them - i dont store them with desiccants...

 

[fenderman]

This is not true.

Because one can achieve the same benefits, by placing the desiccant in side the shipping container or the sealed bag. There is not need to go to the extreme of placing the desiccant inside the actual cameras sealed housing.

But, once again nice try to obscure the facts again

Don

please point me to where they tell you to change the pack each year? Have you determined that the placement in the box would have the same effect? where is your testing?
You need to stop making things up.

 

[fenderman]

Fenderman,

With your incessant and well documented ignoramus based tirades of failed attempted character assassination attempts on me and equally well documented inability to correctly read virtually any data and information, I produce and provide.

It's been a proven waste of my time and energy to help you find/locate anything and I'm more than sure you can get the help you seem to need. To find out what frequency silica ("sand") based desiccant packets should be swapped out. In cases like this.

The frequency silica ("sand") based desiccant packets should be swapped out is not like determining when a food product is safe to consume. It depends on how often you have major temperature swings, high humidity and so on. So there is no firm "Change By" date that applies to all geographic areas of the world. That said. It's generally safe to use a 1 year timeframe when dealing with typical IP Camera housings and 2 descant packets of the size I have been referring to here. Which maybe overkill in some areas of the world but be safe for others.

I wish you luck on your quest.

Note: Saying that you are a well documented ignoramus and saying that it's also well documented that you have an inability to correctly read virtually any data and information, I produce and provide. Is not "making things up" as you claim. It's substantiated fact by simply using you own words in many if not most responses to my posts in this forum.

Don

Call me all the names you wish...i don't need your luck. My ONLY goal here is to prevent wasting the time of forum users who may take your gospel for granted and attempt to follow your silly direction....
I will say this unequivocally - ADDING DESICCANT PACKETS TO A CAMERA HOUSING AND CHANGING THEM EVERY YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTENDING CAMERA LIFE IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME. You disagree so be it, as I have stated many times before, I simply dont care for or value your opinion on this matter or any other.
Each and every time you post nonsense I will make sure to advise users to disregard the advice. Thats the beauty of this forum i can do that without you running to the mods to shut me down....
If you wish to post this idiocy without being called out you are welcome to post it on your foscam forum that you control or over at cam-it where mods ban anyone who disagrees.
Oh and before you tell me to read your "about me" page, I could care less for that load of pretentious crap.

 

[code2]

You base this on what formal documented education and/or training?

I can assure you that desiccant packets will and do extend the life of any IP Cameras used outdoors, anywhere worldwide. All places worldwide have high humidity or dew during a given year.

Click for more details

While outdoor IP Cameras are designed for outdoor use. They all have maximum humidity ratings. Which in any given year are usually exceeded more than once. Causing shorter outdoor IP Camera lives. When desiccant packets are not used to compensate for that.

Don

No offense but posting your resume in the military to with a argument doesn't help.

 

[fenderman]

No offense but posting your resume in the military to with a argument doesn't help.

Plus I don't see anything in that military resume of yours documenting you have any qualifications on desiccant packets or and formal training with them.

Code2, how dare you second guess the uberoverlord - dont you know that he has a full year of training. In that time, he studied desiccants from renowned world experts in depth....
They also studied the affects of desiccants on ip cameras built by hikvision to withstand 95% relative humidity - yup they were WAY ahead of their time.

 

[fenderman]

Please provide links from respected sources to support your claim as I have done. Talk is cheap and all you do and have done here is Talk, Talk, Talk.

Without them we are back at using the typical "Fenderman says" which in many cases have turned out to be false and misleading.

If I can do it. You should be able to supply links as well. After all, you say I'm a "Dolt".

So what's your issue finding links from respected sources that your claim is correct?

Don

I need to find a company that makes a profit from not selling desiccant, maybe then they will publish a paper refuting it...till then I wont take anything published by a desiccant maker seriously. Furthermore, unless you test the effect on IP cameras that are designed to withstand 95 percent relative humidity - the "evidence" you provide is COMPLETELY worthless.

 

[code2]

Code2, how dare you second guess the uberoverlord - dont you know that he has a full year of training. In that time, he studied desiccants from renowned world experts in depth....
They also studied the affects of desiccants on ip cameras built by hikvision to withstand 95% relative humidity - yup they were WAY ahead of their time.

Im not defending your side either. I really don't care. I just get annoyed when someone feels the need to broadcast their military career to win a argument over 10 cent silicon packs. The military isn't the end all and nor right in every subject either. they know their shit but i can name multiple things they are completely clueless on.

To each it their own tho he uses them they hey good for him it you don't use them thats good for you too.

 

[fenderman]

Im not defending your side either. I really don't care. I just get annoyed when someone feels the need to broadcast their military career to win a argument over 10 cent silicon packs. The military isn't the end all and nor right in every subject either. they know their shit but i can name multiple things they are completely clueless on.

I didnt say you were...I dont really need a defense..its common sense...its been done this way in the industry for years with no ill effects.

 

[ServiceXp]

Call me all the names you wish...i don't need your luck. My ONLY goal here is to prevent wasting the time of forum users who may take your gospel for granted and attempt to follow your silly direction....
I will say this unequivocally - ADDING DESICCANT PACKETS TO A CAMERA HOUSING AND CHANGING THEM EVERY YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTENDING CAMERA LIFE IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME. You disagree so be it, as I have stated many times before, I simply dont care for or value your opinion on this matter or any other.
Each and every time you post nonsense I will make sure to advise users to disregard the advice. Thats the beauty of this forum i can do that without you running to the mods to shut me down....
If you wish to post this idiocy without being called out you are welcome to post it on your foscam forum that you control or over at cam-it where mods ban anyone who disagrees.
Oh and before you tell me to read your "about me" page, I could care less for that load of pretentious crap.

I'm pretty sure most reading this thread can easily weed through the unfounded assertions the overlord is making. He is simply braying, thinking he's proven a point on a subject that he's ill equipped for.

 

[fenderman]

I'm pretty sure most reading this thread can easily weed through the unfounded assertions the overlord is making. He is simply braying, thinking he's proven a point on a subject that he's ill equipped for.

Agreed....

 

[fenderman]

Amazing that you would make such commentary since you have not provided any links to respected sources that say I am wrong and that in fact you are right.

Please don' lose sight of the fact that I suggest using desiccant inside the cameras sealed housing as well as with the cameras connectors for any IP outdoor camera. Located anywhere in the world.

Don

No one has lost sight of your recommendation - we just think its INSANE.
We dont have to prove you wrong. You need to prove you are right! You have not done so. You have not tested the effects of desiccants on ip cameras designed to withstand 95% relative humidity! You have ZERO evidence - None. The info you provided is completely useless.

 

[fenderman]

One more time.. Please read slowly... Your source did not test ip cameras rated for 95 percent humidity... Your source is therefore worthless. End of story. Furthermore your sources are not respected. You cited an advertisement distributed by a desiccant maker.

Sent via Taptalk

 

[fenderman]

95 percent is a requirement because that is what these cameras are rated for. I will say this again your links and data are worthless...

Sent via Taptalk

 

[fenderman]

Please read all my supporting links from respected sources that I have presented and provided here. There is no need to test for only 95 percent humidity.

Much like I did by supplying supporting links from respected sources here for my claim. If you are making a claim that 95 percent humidity is a requirement here. Provide links from respected sources also confirming your claim.

I also suggest you read all my links here. Because some provide correct humidity data and test results using specific levels of humidity with IP Cameras.

Don

Furthermore, your above statements are purposeful misrepresentations.
You state - "Because some provide correct humidity data and test results using specific levels of humidity with IP Cameras."
The whitepaper did not study the effects of moisture on the long term reliability of ip cameras at all..
in fact the paper concludes that "These tests demonstrate that use of a desiccant pack in a sealedsecurity camera is not an effective long-term solution to avoidcondensation. The desiccant pack will become saturated, at whichtime it will release its moisture back into the enclosure, creatingcondensation that compromises image quality."
Since you have absolutely NO idea how long it would take the silica pack to reach maximum absorption you may actually be causing damage to the camera.
The paper is also written by a maker of competing technology, rendering it completely useless.
So let me get this straight aside from not corroborating your opinion...the "respected sources" you cite are two manufactures who are trying to sell the products? You are kidding right?