Amazon Denies Reports That Airport Scanners Ruin Kindle's e-Ink

judgecorp writes "Amazon has poured cold water on the story, but reports insist that Kindles are sometimes rendered useless by airport baggage handling and security checks. Many people report no problems at all but if something is going wrong, the culprit may not be the X-ray scanner, but a static shock."

Comments

Reminds me of when NY sprayed for mosquitos.

[Kenja]

Everyone was told it was perfectly safe, but to cover their cars because it would strip the paint right off.

why just the kindle?

[skydyr]

If this were a problem, wouldn't it also affect nooks and other readers that use e-Ink? The displays are all made by the same company, after all.

Re:why just the kindle?

[Bobakitoo]

"Why just the iphone?"

Because a well know gadget name in the headline get you more advertisement views.

Re:why just the kindle?

[LordKronos]

If this were a problem, wouldn't it also affect nooks and other readers that use e-Ink? The displays are all made by the same company, after all.

Remember when Toyota was in the news for the unintended acceleration thing? Funny, because up until that point, all brands had similar numbers of sporadic cases of UA, but none of them made the news. Then suddenly Toyota makes the news, and out of nowhere, nearly all models of Toyota's began exhibiting the problem at the same time. And it didn't matter if it was a new car just off the lot or a vehicle that had been driven for several years. Suddenly they all started failing at once. Then just as quickly the problem disappeared. But surprisingly, none of the other non-Toyota brands made headlines for similar problems, even though they all experienced it.

So, the answer may very well be that publicity has drawn people's attention to it. Did my nook fail? Well then I guess it was just a piece of crap. Did my kindle fail? Yeah, well then I guess it too was just a....wait a minute...did someone say something about airport scanners? I was at the airport recently. The airport scanners killed my kindle.

Re:why just the kindle?

[gnasher719]

Remember when Toyota was in the news for the unintended acceleration thing? Funny, because up until that point, all brands had similar numbers of sporadic cases of UA, but none of them made the news. Then suddenly Toyota makes the news, and out of nowhere, nearly all models of Toyota's began exhibiting the problem at the same time. And it didn't matter if it was a new car just off the lot or a vehicle that had been driven for several years. Suddenly they all started failing at once. Then just as quickly the problem disappeared. But surprisingly, none of the other non-Toyota brands made headlines for similar problems, even though they all experienced it.

At the time a Mercedes engineer said that on every Mercedes, and in his opinion on every car sold, the brakes are about four times stronger than the engine. In other words, you can bring _any_ car with working brakes easily to a standstill by hitting the brakes hard until the car stands still, no matter what the engine tries. The essential bit is hitting the _brake pedal_ and not any other pedal. And actually stopping the car; if you drive at 70mph with your engine revving and hitting the brake pedal to stay at that speed, then eventually the brakes will overheat and fail.

Re:why just the kindle?

[JohannesJ]

Not necessarily for example if they used fake or Gray /black market parts so prevalent today, they may not have the same resistance to x-ray radiation at the more expensive legitimate parts. Do they even have any engineers on staff who can Identify fake parts ? Do they even test for those ? Major manufacturers and Military have had such problems It would be foolish to think a consumer company cant have even worse problems We also shouldn't assume they used these parts deliberately but who knows ?

Re:why just the kindle?

[hawguy]

At the time a Mercedes engineer said that on every Mercedes, and in his opinion on every car sold, the brakes are about four times stronger than the engine. In other words, you can bring _any_ car with working brakes easily to a standstill by hitting the brakes hard until the car stands still, no matter what the engine tries. The essential bit is hitting the _brake pedal_ and not any other pedal. And actually stopping the car; if you drive at 70mph with your engine revving and hitting the brake pedal to stay at that speed, then eventually the brakes will overheat and fail.

So which is it? Are the brakes four times stronger than the engine, or can the engine overpower the brakes?

On the one hand you say you can bring _any_ car with working brakes easily to a standstill by hitting the brakes hard until the car stands still, no matter what the engine tries, but on the other hand you say if you drive at 70mph with your engine revving and hitting the brake pedal to stay at that speed, then eventually the brakes will overheat and fail.

Re:why just the kindle?

[Obfuscant]

So which is it? Are the brakes four times stronger than the engine, or can the engine overpower the brakes?

Today's words are "chronic" and "acute".

If you push on the brakes hard enough, they will stop the car. The acute usage of the brakes can overpower the engine.

If you ride the brakes, thus both wearing them down and heating them up, the chronic application of braking will eventually cause them to fail and they will no longer overpower the engine.

However, I don't believe that the appearance of ABS has been considered in this claim that they will overpower the car. If the ABS says "no", they will override the four-times-overpower and you'll have a lot less.

Re:why just the kindle?

[zigfreed]

rive at 70mph with your engine revving and hitting the brake pedal to stay at that speed

This is similar to driving with the emergency brake partially engaged. Although the brakes are slowing the vehicle, the brakes will eventually fail at no fault of the manufacturer.

The UA argument is a hypothetical event where the engine is full throttle because the brake petal is pressed. I've gotten this to occur somewhat when driving like crap (flooring the gas causing the automatic transmission to shift down and rpms to kick up, and then slam on the brakes before the clutch disengages) but the vehicle still slows properly.

Because of where it was happening, I assumed the drivers thought the world revolved around them: when vehicles around them slowed down faster then they were, they thought they were speeding up.

Re:why just the kindle?

[tgibbs]

I actually experienced unwanted acceleration in a rental car, not a Toyota. When I took my foot off the accelerator and hit the brake, I felt the engine "fighting" me, rolling into the intersection in spite of the brake. By stomping down even harder on the brake, I brought it to a stop a couple of feet beyond where I intended to stop. I continued to drive the car for a week, and the problem never recurred. I reported it to the rental agency when I returned the car, but only barely. With no repetition, and knowing that the brakes were strong enough to stop the car, I'd almost forgotten about it. I'm certain that if it had been a Toyota, it would have stuck in my mind more firmly.

Re:why just the kindle?

[JoeF]

I have carried my Nook through airport scanners lots of times. No problem whatsoever.
This is unlikely to have anything to do with the e-ink display. It is obviously some other "feature" of the Kindle (just like the "kill switch.")

Re:why just the kindle?

[AK Marc]

If you are driving in *any* car at *any* speed and you put the brake pedal to the floor (even if standing on the accelerator as well), the car will stop. Starting by riding the brakes for some period of time before attempting to actually stop the car can result in brake failure (thus triggering the "working brakes" condition). American cars suck for brakes, often with not-light family cars with drum brakes in the back and undersized solid discs in the front. I managed partial brake failure in a 90's Oldsmobile from two 60-0 stops within 20 seconds. But I tried to trigger fade in my car with drilled/vented large 4-wheel discs and was unable to on a track. But in either car, putting the brake pedal to the floor would instantly lock up the wheels (no matter whether the throttle was open or closed) and bring you to a stop quickly (locking them up slightly less quickly than slightly lesser pressure, but if you have runaway acceleration, a hard, firm stomp of the brake pedal until the car is stopped is by far the safest course of action for 99% of the cases, so there's not much use in arguing about the fraction of a percent of cases where that's worse. It's simple. It's easy. It *always* works. Put the brake pedal to the floor in *any* car, and you will stop, from any speed, and even with the accelerator fully applied.

Is that a little more clear? Any car will stop with application of the brakes, so long as the brakes are working, but riding the brakes can cause brake failure (thus violating the "working brakes" condition previously stated).

Re:why just the kindle?

[AK Marc]

That's the joy of ABS. I've rolled into many intersections (more than one is "many" when you are talking about rolling into intersections) in my Subaru Impreza WRX. There was a TSB about it, "not a safety issue, just a personal preference" of whether to replace the ABS computer with one that worked. The failure was that if one wheel lost traction completely (going over a bump, railroad tracks, or a patch of dirt/sand), the braking would be greatly reduced for about 5 seconds, no application of the pedal would regain full braking, you just keep your foot down and wait until you rolled 20-30 feet further than you intended. "not a safety issue" and "not a recall" were the focus of the TSB letter I took in when I got it fixed. And the fix worked.

Re:why just the kindle?

[knapkin]

I think alot of you are forgetting what driving without ABS is like. Well maybe not, but my experience on the highway on wet roads combined with following distance of the cars around me backs that up. I'd take a car with ABS acting funny every so often (that I can throw into neutral, via clutch or other) over pure analogue brakes any time.

Re:why just the kindle?

[ppanon]

What you're meant to do is turn the damn engine off so the brakes don't overheat and fail!

Well, to be fair you should either disengage the clutch (on a manual transmission) or put the transmission in neutral (automatic transmission) before turning off the engine. Trying to stop a car engine while in gear at high speed is a good way to lose control, trash your transmission, or both. This is actually an easier step for people with a standard transmission because they should already be used to spending a lot of time with their hand on the stick shift while in motion and popping out of gear and into neutral.

In contrast, most people driving automatics probably never spend much time in neutral except for passing from park or reverse into drive, or vice versa. Sure they should probably be in neutral when stopped at most red lights to save wear and tear on the transmission, but the opposite is true when the vehicle is in motion (for both legal and mechanical reasons). So drivers used to automatic transmissions are pretty well conditioned not to think of putting the car into neutral while running. Your recommendation, while correct, therefore goes against the typical learned behaviour of those who drive automatic transmissions. That learned behaviour is the one they are likely to be falling back to under conditions of stress (which would apply with a stuck pedal and runaway acceleration).

So maybe the solution to the problem is to insist that everybody has some competency on driving with a standard transmission and must pass their driver's test with it. By all means start driving lessons with a more forgiving automatic transmission so new drivers can focus their attention on signalling, traffic awareness, and the rules of the road. However basic manual transmission skill also should be learned so that you aren't petrified if you are put into a situation with a runaway engine.

Re:why just the kindle?

[fafaforza]

Probably because eInk and Kindle have been one and the same for a few years now. Companies like Sony, who have had these readers for far longer, never get mentioned. Might be simple reporting, or it might be the simple readers that reporters are reporting to.

Re:why just the kindle?

[Agripa]

At the time a Mercedes engineer said that on every Mercedes, and in his opinion on every car sold, the brakes are about four times stronger than the engine. In other words, you can bring _any_ car with working brakes easily to a standstill by hitting the brakes hard until the car stands still, no matter what the engine tries.

This is certainly not the whole truth for my 2002 GMC pickup. After the engine dies, you get one or maybe two uses of the brakes before the vacuum reservoir is exhausted at which point the brakes become so stiff you literally have to hold onto the steering wheel with both hands and strongly hold yourself down in order to apply enough pressure to the brakes to begin stopping. When I tested this, I was not even able to lock the rear tires pushing as hard as I could.

Conveniently, GMC's anti-theft system prevents restarting the engine or even locks out the engine if you try to restart by just releasing the clutch. You MUST use the starter. You can not push start it either. If you have an almost dead battery or a starter failure, you are SOL unlike every manual transmission vehicle I have owned up until this time.

Had I known of these issues I would never have bought it and I will certainly avoid and recommend against GMC in the future.

Re:why just the kindle?

[nobodie]

agreed, just being told to drive views, move on, folks

Nothing here

[PCM2]

Boy, talk about a flimsy claim. It's as if eWeek couldn't resist running a juicy rumor, so when they couldn't find a single piece of evidence in support of the rumor, that became their headline (thus allowing them to run a story based on the rumor). They couldn't even find anyone to make the claim in a quote.

Let the anecdotal evidence begin. I've sent B&N Nooks (with e-ink displays) through airport security scanners at least a dozen times. No ill effects.

Re:Nothing here

[Baldrake]

Ok, since you asked, here is my anecdotal evidence. I have owned my Kindle for about a year. With daily use, it was worked flawlessly for all of that year, with three exceptions. In each of these cases, the reader froze, and had to be hard-reset and recharged.

All three happened while I was on trans-Atlantic flights.

It's a bit of a coincidence. I personally would not outright dismiss the possibility that there is something going on.

Re:Nothing here

[DocJohn]

I've had both 1st and 2nd generation Kindles and have flown with them each dozens of times. Which means they've been each X-rayed dozens of times.

They both work fine and have never had to be reset. With the 3G radio off, a single charge on either of them lasts weeks, even with daily use.

Kindles are bullet-proof, hardy devices that you can read in direct sunlight. I've even dropped them both, with no damage to either.

This is exactly what an e-reader should be.

--
Psych Central - get your psychology on

Re:Nothing here

[GiantRobotMonster]

What, "some users" isn't good enough for you?

I would say that "some users" have flat batteries.

Re:Nothing here

[stanlyb]

My Kobo e-reader is only 1.5 years old, and the e-ink display is $%#%$#$%^. My scientific guess is that it is because of some combination of static electricity and low/high humidity. If you don't get, here more details: When you have low humidity, the probability for static charge increases a lot, this combined with some artificial humidifiers (A/C or sudden change of geo location, like flying with air-plane), could increase the probability of static discharge by ten-fold. The result, i need new e-in reader, the cheaper the better (it would be gone in 2 years, so why bother with the fancy one?)

Re:Nothing here

[SJHillman]

Stop taking flights over the Bermuda Triangle. Problem solved.

Re:Nothing here

[Lehk228]

During flight? Sounds more like an issue of radiation or, depending on when and where, the mobile data uplink getting confused as it flies through far more cells and sees far more cells than it normally would.

Re:Nothing here

[psydeshow]

Ok, since you asked, here is my anecdotal evidence. I have owned my Kindle for about a year. With daily use, it was worked flawlessly for all of that year, with three exceptions. In each of these cases, the reader froze, and had to be hard-reset and recharged.

All three happened while I was on trans-Atlantic flights.

It's a bit of a coincidence. I personally would not outright dismiss the possibility that there is something going on.

Did it get really cold at some point?

My original Kindle always needed a hard reset after I walked to the subway from work in temperatures below freezing.

Re:Nothing here

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it is "radiation". Do people even stop and thing before they write something? You can get you Kindle through an x-ray scanner, and it is OK, but "radiation" on the flight will scramble it, not once, but 3 times!... yeah right. Do you people even have a clue about radiation flux in an x-ray machine (Ie. scanner, whatever), vs. real life???

the mobile data uplink getting confused as it flies through far more cells and sees far more cells than it normally would.

On a trans-Atlantic flight??

Re:Nothing here

[N!NJA]

I own an Archos 5 IMT, which, although doesn't use e-ink, has a touchscreen. Recently, during my first flight with it, I noticed the screen had become completely unresponsive. I was forced to put it aside. The device was working properly the day before, and was back to normal again when I tried it again at the hotel. While not a sample size as large as yours, it's meaningful to me because my device has always worked properly with the exception of that flight.

There might be some component inside these gadgets that is either:

a) affected by the pre-flight scanners.

or

b) the in-flight instruments.

Re:Nothing here

[Anonymous Coward]

Trans-Atlantic means higher altitudes means more cosmic rays.

Re:Nothing here

[chrismcb]

Kindles are bullet-proof,

I would not call the kindle "bullet-proof." I recently returned from a trip, and on the trip back my kindle started to get vertical and horizontal lines in the screen (either the line remained completely on or off) The Kindle was less than 6 months old and Amazon replaced it. But when I called Amazon about the problem they asked me if anything touched the screen. I mentioned that I kept it in my backpack, and they said that might be the problem.

Re:Nothing here

[MightyYar]

Pressure also changes dramatically.

Re:Nothing here

[del_diablo]

The scanner still pushes more more radiation trough it than the flight.

Re:Nothing here

[Zebedeu]

You should've requested the captain to disable all of *his* electronic equipment.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Re:Nothing here

[MightyYar]

Or changes in air pressure, humidity, and Lord knows how many other environmental changes (cosmic rays? 100 other cellphones looking for their towers at 100% broadcast power? static electricity?).

In particular, I know that capacitive touch screens are affected by humidity, and airplanes have notoriously low humidity... like under 10%. Capacitive touch screen specs typically call for at least 5% humidity to work at all, so you might have been just experiencing very low humidity or <ahem> a touchy screen.

Re:Nothing here

[N!NJA]

I think the Archos 5 uses resistive screen. But I agree. It could have been anything else. Even the greater proximity to God.

Re:Nothing here

[oursland]

If it is a radiation issue, I'd like to remind you that airport scanners are a source of radiation. You bring up a very good point about the cell tower. We need more info from the GP about whether or not the 3G modem was disabled or not to rule that out.

Re:Nothing here

[ericloewe]

People regularly fly across the Atlantic, but the X-Ray scanner has a bright yellow warning advising you to not enter it.

Re:Nothing here

[X0563511]

Not enough to matter, unless the unit was airtight (it wasn't)

Re:Nothing here

[markcic]

I the 3 years I have owned mine it has been through an X-ray machine roughly 300 times. It still works.

Re:Nothing here

[cdrguru]

The important thing with Amazon customer service is to never, ever say the "D" word. Whatever happens, you didn't drop it.

Yes, there may be a huge shatter mark in the glass and they will understand when they get it, but customer service will pretty much just replace them as long as you didn't drop it. I have even seen one get replaced after the year warranty was up.

Re:Nothing here

[bmo]

I nominate this for the "BOFH of the Year" answer.

--
BMO

Re:Nothing here

[mikael]

They could prove one way or another using a Van-De-Graaff generator (static), air ionizer (ionized particles), industrial X-ray (x-rays), ultrasound scanner (vibrations), checkout conveyor belt (rubber belt), shop security gates (magnetic fields). Tesla coil might be pushing it though.

Re:Nothing here

[MrTester]

Im curious... Did you have a cover without the light?

I had one of those and was having a problem with locking up and sudden battery drain nearly once a week.
It turns out that the hooks that hold the cover on ALSO provide power to the light in the cover with the light. If the plastic coating on the hook of the lightless cover wears off, it makes some kind of connection that shorts the Kindle out.
From the time that I replaced that cover about 6 months ago with a cover with a light it has not happened again.

I wonder if an airport scanner can induce a charge which increases the chance of this happening?

Re:Nothing here

[blackC0pter]

Soft errors increase as altitude increases. So you are more likely to get random bits in memory, the CPU, etc. flipped at altitude which could cause the device to lockup and require a reboot. Since these were trans-atlantic flights, you were in the air a long time and had an even higher chance of a soft error. If the kindle had ECC memory then this would be less of a concern. But who's going to pay for ECC memory in a e-reader? It's just not necessary. According to wikipedia, you are 1.3x more likely to have a cosmic-ray induced soft error for every 1000ft above sea level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_error

Re:Nothing here

[Tastecicles]

are you an astrophysicist?

Just askin', since it is generally only (very few) astrophysicists that don't consider extraterrestrial X-rays, Gamma rays and higher energy (TeV) radiation in the same vein as quasiluminal atomic nuclei, whereas in fact the definition covers wave as well as particle.

Re:Nothing here

[AlastairMurray]

Further anecdotal evidence: The only time my Kindle has ever crashed was sometime before/during/after a 9 hour flight. I didn't try to use it during the flight but used it earlier in the day, so it could of been either the x-ray or the flight (or coincidence) that crashed it. It was a hard crash that required plugging it into a computer to reset it; just holding the power-switch did nothing.

For the record: it was Kindle3 (non-3G) in an official leather book-style case (the one without the light) and the wireless was off (I always leave it off for battery reasons).

Re:Nothing here

[kesuki]

i've dropped mine twice to hard surfaces at about 3 feet off the ground. they landed on their backs and the unit is fine.

Re:Nothing here

[MightyYar]

I'd bet that many of the components in a Kindle have air pockets, even if only in the molded ICs. Not that I'm suggesting that is the likely culprit, but not many other scenarios have you changing atmospheric pressure, temperature, and humidity so abruptly as an airline flight.

The problems with the kindle

[Oswald McWeany]

The problems with the kindle only occur when the TSA give the kindle a cavity search.

Re:The problems with the kindle

[Reverand Dave]

Exactly, it's not so much that it doesn't work, more than it's scared and unwilling to carry on anymore.

Re:The problems with the kindle

[dstyle5]

"Oh, so your owner is reading Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451."

"Sir, we need to get step into our Assessment Room for further questions."

Re:The problems with the kindle

[Thumper_SVX]

You laugh... but last year my girlfriend was caught up in a detailed customs search on returning to the USA from Ireland because she had quite a large number of books in her backpack. They seriously couldn't understand why she had so many large books with her at once in her carry-on. I can't even remember what the books were off the top of my head, but I think the most subversive thing she was carrying was probably the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy.

This year for our trip to Germany, she got a Kindle. :)

Re:The problems with the kindle

[Svartalf]

I would have a Kindle, Nook, or Kobo for this stuff. I'm still buying paper books, but for travel like that, there's few better answers and it's easier to get around with the device as long as you've a means to charge the device while out and about away from normal AC power.

Re:The problems with the kindle

[rapidreload]

Well of course US customs were confused as to why she had so many books. They probably couldn't comprehend that someone in the US would actually read books, much less several of them.

OK that was probably a cheap shot at the US again, but damnit they deserve it. :)

Re:The problems with the kindle

[RMH101]

I guess potentially they could be one time pads...although when we get to this level of paranoia then the turrists definitely *have* won

Re:The problems with the kindle

[aug24]

qv the Bill Hicks routine where the waitress asked him "Whut yew readin' for?". Took him a moment to realise she hadn't asked what was he reading, but what was he reading for...

Anecdote!=data

[Zerth]

That said, I've taken 3 different kindles(gen 2, gen 3, and the DX) through several airports in the US, plus taken the smaller ones through a few in Europe. Never had any problems after going through the xray.

Well, no problems with the kindles, anyway. Once I got extra screening because the chargers "looked suspicious".

IIRC, the 4th generation of kindles have exposed metal contacts on the back, so static from the rubber conveyor belt sounds much more probable.

Re:Anecdote!=data

[Splab]

"looked suspicious" or their machines needed training?

Just after the iPad 2 came out we where on a business trip to Croatia and a colleague had one with him, they gave his iPad 2 a few more scans to teach the machine how to recognice the iPad. (At least what they told us, might be some weird electronic fetish)

Re:Anecdote!=data

[Amouth]

so they taught/calibrated a security device with a sample of unknown and questionable origin.. yeap.. sounds like security theater to me.

Re:Anecdote!=data

[tgd]

I had my Kindle unknowingly spend several hours *underwater* without any bad effects other than the battery having been killed. A year later, its still fine.

Is been through literally hundreds of XRays, including the "oh my god, I'm starting to glow" kind in third-world cesspool airports, and its never had a problem.

And yes, I know one data point isn't all that interesting on its own.

Re:Anecdote!=data

[MightyYar]

Why, how large a population of people are there who know how to make a dangerous device that looks exactly like something that would come out of Cupertino? Now how many people from that population are unstable enough to bomb an airliner - and go down with it? Now make a Venn diagram, and combine it with Venn diagrams for the people who have also managed to stay away from any list of bad actors. The "theater" seriously diminished the pool of people with the capability and motivation to bring down an airliner.

Re:Anecdote!=data

[Amouth]

right - but this is supposed to be security, something that (if you believe the people pushing it) is preventing passengers from death.. is it really too much trouble to have an actual chain of custody for calibrating the one and only check point for it? we have more stringent requirements for day to day police evidence gathering.

It's not so much that it happened once.. but that it happens at all. If the people of "Questionable Intent" know that this is policy - then they will just make a point of being one of the first ones at a major airport with a modified version of the new "thing to have" device - and make it look right.. then they will have zero trouble getting through.

But again this is security theater so we know that really isn't a problem.. But really if your going to do security do it right..

Re:Anecdote!=data

[MightyYar]

is it really too much trouble to have an actual chain of custody for calibrating the one and only check point for it?

It may or may not be worth the extra trouble, if it weren't so simple to just swab the thing and sniff it for explosives and then teach the machine it's signature. Since I travel on business with a toolkit and spare parts for some specialized equipment, I've seen them react to weird stuff... they always just examine it visually and rub it with the sniffer thing. If there were explosives, presumably the sniffer would catch them. Then again, I don't actually know much about chemistry and it may be possible to hermetically seal the explosives somehow and then clean the device. But presumably this would be yet another circle to add to the Venn diagram that i was referring to before.

I don't think we need to get to a point where there is a zero percent chance of bringing down an airplane. To do that, you'd need all this "theater" along with Israeli-style interrogations of every single passenger. It would be phenomenally slow and invasive... Americans would not tolerate the Israeli methods and I doubt they'd scale well to the traffic in a large airport.

Re:Anecdote!=data

[Amouth]

i don't think you get it -.. for odd unique tools and things visual inspection and bomb swabbing is the right way to do it - for a common mas produced device they should not be calibrating it with a sample of questionable origin.. If your security process is willing to except them calibrating equipment based on samples of unknown origin then that process is flawed and useless.

What good is doing bomb swabbing if the equipment isn't calibrated to check for explosives?

Re:Anecdote!=data

[MightyYar]

for odd unique tools and things visual inspection and bomb swabbing is the right way to do it - for a common mas produced device they should not be calibrating it with a sample of questionable origin..

Why not? Swab the thing of "questionable origin" and call it a day. The chances of a bombmaker getting to an airport machine before the first "real" iPad2 are so infinitesimally small that I doubt it could be worth worrying about. What vector are you worried about? Personally, I find the idea of a government organization trying to get a sample of every single device on the market sampled for the airport machines to be almost Quotidian.

Re:Anecdote!=data

[MightyYar]

I think I "get it". I'll use the iPad 6 as an example. You are worried that a terrorist will be the first one to a machine with a modified iPad 6 so that they can throw off the calibration.

I find that to be almost preposterous, and even if feasible, it would be equally preposterous to expect a government agency to keep a calibration model current for every rev of every device on the market.

Don't think there is a problem

[rickett81]

My kindle has been on many flights. If only the flight attendants would let me read the stupid thing during take-off and landing.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[ColdWetDog]

My kindle has been on many flights.

If only the flight attendants would let me read the stupid thing during take-off and landing.

They want to pay attention during your last few seconds of life (as the plane careens down the runway). You'll only have a few moments left to sign up for the frequent flyer rewards program.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[vlm]

My kindle has been on many flights.

If only the flight attendants would let me read the stupid thing during take-off and landing.

We're getting close to the power levels where they'll let you.

If a small battery can run the thing for a month, even if it channeled all that power into an intentionally interfering signal, it still wouldn't be a problem.

The biggest problem, aside from tradition, is convincing passengers that a milliwatt class Kindle is "low enough" yet the 100 watt gamer laptop is "too high". I could see all the airlines and manufacturers conspiring into releasing devices with green cases, or maybe pink with glitter, if they're "aircraft rated" as being safe. Then they just have to tell stewardesses to look out for gamer laptops with obvious done-at-home spray paint jobs.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[rtfa-troll]

There is no way for them to tell that you are competent to turn off the WiFi etc. Nobody is willing to certify planes safe with electronic equipment running. The landing and take off actually does often rely on correct radio communication. It's only 10 minutes. There actually have been incidents where radio equipment has endangered landing or (see comp.risks archives, for example) caused real accidents.

Please please just read the in flight magazine or stare at the air-host(esses - your choice) bum for a few minutes. Is this so much to ask.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[Enderandrew]

On charter flights, they don't force people to turn off electronics because they don't interfere with anything.

Mythbusters also definitively busted the myth that signals from electronics would disrupt any system on the airplane. They ripped open the plane, removed the shielding and put electronic devices next to unshielded cables and still couldn't cause a problem.

On top of that, many of these devices that we're forced to turn off either don't have wireless signals, or can be put into "Airplane mode" where are wireless signals are killed. The government has decided that stupid fear-mongering should overrule facts and reality.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[rufty_tufty]

Announcement "Please turn off all electronic devices."
Me "Erm my watch doesn't have an off button"

Okay I've never done this but my inner idiot makes me want to.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[sunderland56]

If a small battery can run the thing for a month, even if it channeled all that power into an intentionally interfering signal, it still wouldn't be a problem.

It has at least one, in some cases two, fully functional UHF radio transmitters.

If they make you turn off your phone, why would they not do the same with your Kindle? The Kindle transmits on exactly the same frequencies, with the same power levels, and has far more battery capacity than a phone.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. So have the Mythbusters 'definitively bust' that myth for every airlines planes, in the configurations the airlines use, and indemnify the airlines against against any problems that actually do occur. When that happens, you can say they 'definitively busted' it.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[Baloroth]

Please please don't. Otherwise they might ask us to start taking out the battery next.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[gumbi west]

Theoretically, they make you put away magazines too, I don't see why the Kindle is any different.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[gumbi west]

The shielding may be the problem. The reason we turn off electronics is a single engine fighter jet crash caused by a system using the resonant frequency or the casing for the fire detection system in the engine that lead to a crash.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[PhotoJim]

Bring a real book along with your Kindle. They still work if you drop them, too, which is a bonus.

I use my Kindle to keep up with news and for portability, and I definitely read a lot of books on it, but I still buy quite a few physical books, and I always take one with me when I fly - ideally one that I am just starting, so that I have lots of reading material if I need it.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[tompaulco]

I've NEVER had them tell me to put my book away during takeoff or landing. But I usually buy softcovers, so they are less likely to damage someone if they go flying around the cabin.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[Abstrackt]

They'd probably just make you put it in your checked luggage. Problem solved!

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[chrismcb]

If only the flight attendants would let me read the stupid thing during take-off and landing.

As if the kindle was doing anything different in "off" mode than it is doing during "on" mode, except maybe running a timer. Fortunately they haven't forced me to completely shut it down.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[hawguy]

Bring a real book along with your Kindle. They still work if you drop them, too, which is a bonus.

I use my Kindle to keep up with news and for portability, and I definitely read a lot of books on it, but I still buy quite a few physical books, and I always take one with me when I fly - ideally one that I am just starting, so that I have lots of reading material if I need it.

For me, that kind of defeats the purpose of taking a Kindle with me when I fly - I don't *want* to carry around a bulky book. My Kindle is lightweight (6 oz) and fits neatly into my laptop bag. A book takes up more room and is heavier than the Kindle.

At home I still read paper books because they are often cheaper than eBooks, but when I'm on the road, I almost exclusively read eBooks. I even stopped carrying magazines because of the extra weight in my bag. There once was a time when I'd shove a couple books and magazines in my laptop bag for in-flight reading, but I paid a lot of money for a lightweight, portable laptop. I don't want to carry around paper that weighs almost as much as my laptop.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[micsaund]

And, that would boost the airline revenue thanks to checked baggage fees! Win! erm... nevermind...

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[omnichad]

Even better - the Kindle with Special offers leaves a picture on the screen when it's "off."

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[owlstead]

Anyone turning off his pacemaker, don't forget to register with the Darwin awards first (if applicable).

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[caseih]

Normally what the Myth Busters do is at best anecdotal evidence. They certainly can't do enough testing to be statistically significant in this thing. So no. They have not definitively proven anything about electrical interference. Not even close. As they say, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's likely they are correct that very little interference would happen, but no one is willing to risk certifying that this is so. Nor should you or any other passenger.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[Enderandrew]

Mythbusters did test with and without shielding.

And if we're concerned about the possibility of crashing/shutting down an engine, then that should be enough of a concern not to allow wireless electronic devices, period. But as soon as you're up in the air, it is no longer a concern. I'm not doubting your claim, but I'm not aware of the incident you're referring to. And I believe Mythbusters said their research couldn't come up with a single incident of wireless electronic devices ever interfering with a plane.

The FCC does extensive testing of communication devices before consumers get to touch them. If we need to add resonance frequency testing, so be it. But allowing one freak accident to forever inconvenience billions of air travelers is just plain stupid.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[shutdown -p now]

Kindle has a "disable networking" setting that does same as "airplane mode" on phones.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[Enderandrew]

Mythbusters did research trying to find one recorded incident of a single piece of wireless electronics causing an incident and couldn't find one.

And they went out of their way to try and cause interference, going so far as to send signals at unshielded, exposed wires and couldn't get anything. And a Congressional study couldn't find a single verifiable claim of interference. Please tell me that you have verifiable evidence that it is occurring.

http://travel.usatoday.com/experts/cox/story/2011-10-03/Ask-the-Captain-A-reader-challenges-in-flight-electronics-rules/50634340/1

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[Enderandrew]

They mentioned that they couldn't find a single recorded verifiable claim of interference occurring. Zero examples in the history of recorded flight is pretty statistically significant.

A Congressional study ended up with the same conclusion.

The article I linked to above mentions that Boeing had one incident where flight equipment wasn't working. They suspected a laptop using wireless internet might have been related, so they purchased that laptop and tried to reproduce the condition but were unable to do so.

It should be noted that GoGo in-flight wireless is broadcasting before, during and after take-off with zero problems. But the FAA won't let you use a Kindle in wireless mode, because it might crash the plane even though there is precisely zero evidence to suggest it can cause problems.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[bws111]

What do they call an 'incident'? A crash? 10 seconds of Googling found a report of 75 incidents, including some where the malfunction stopped when the flight crew found devices that were on and had them turned off.

Also, there is a difference between a single, properly functioning device, and the many hundreds of devices that are likely to be found on a real flight. And those several hundred probably include at least a few devices which are not functioning properly.

When dealing with a life-safety issue, the proper course of action is 'irrefutably prove that a problem does not exist', not 'verifiable evidence that a problem does exist'. This would of course include testimony from the designers and manufacturers of the avionics as to exactly why there is not a problem, and what would happen if there were a problem. And no, a couple of TV guys who are not experts in avionics, electronics, or EMI doing some simple experiments and trying to gather anecdotal evidence is not irrefutable proof.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[fahrbot-bot]

Me "Erm my watch doesn't have an off button"

Or pacemaker, insulin pump, etc...

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[bws111]

There are not zero recorded incidents. In July a report was issued documenting 75 instances. The congressional study was in 2000 - the number and varieties of devices has shot up since then.

The problem with relying on anecdotal evidence, which you are doing, is this. Right now, the rule is 'turn off all devices'. Most people do this. A few people will forget, and a few more think they're special and don't do it. On a flight with 200 people, maybe 5-10 devices are left on when they shouldn't be. Now, imagine the rule did not exist. On a flight with 200 people there could easily be 300 devices, between phones, tablets, laptops, games, music players, etc. Do you think your anecdotal evidence of 5-10 devices only causing 75 incidents will still hold true when there are 30 times as many devices active?

The point about GoGo being active is immaterial. The plane was tested and certified with that device active. That is not the same as saying the plane was tested and certified with all devices active.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[bws111]

All Kindles do that

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[Enderandrew]

The whole scare started with one incident that Boeing couldn't reproduce and declared to be a non-issue. But since the media made it a big deal, people attribute issues to wireless devices. There is a difference between anecdotal evidence, and verified evidence. No one has ever reproduced or verified a claim successfully.

And several experts told the Congressional study that they believe it to be impossible. But we live in an overly litigious society where we fear telling anyone that something is safe, because you can be sued for it. That is why the EU doesn't feel comfortable telling people that drinking water helps combat dehydration.

When it comes to life-saving issues, we shouldn't scare people into unconfirmed panics over assumptions that have no basis in reality. The same type of overreactions from a single report led to millions of parents keeping their kids away from vaccines.

You suggest the burden of proof is now to definitively prove that something that doesn't exist, which can not be done. I ask you to provide a verified case, because Congress couldn't find a single one.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[Enderandrew]

God, I just read your article. I can't believe you offered that up.

The article says there is no direct correlation between wireless devices and malfunctions. It said in mid-flight when there were malfunctions, people blamed wireless devices and had the crew tell people to turn them off. There are 75 incidents over the years that could be linked to wireless devices.

But again, what you won't find is a single case where someone investigated it and found it to be reproducible.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[Enderandrew]

No, the article said there were 75 anecdotal claims over the years, and the report stated that there was no direct correlation between wireless devices and malfunctions. Did you opt not to read that part of the article?

Did the choose to ignore the word anecdotal? Even better, one of the cited examples that happened between 2005 and 2009 was a phone and 3 iPods being used during a flight. An iPod pre-2009 was likely not to have a wireless connection at all. But since something malfunctioned on the plane, the first reaction was to tell people to shut off their iPods because people are want to repeat FUD rather than focus on facts. Stating facts might get you sued.

And in your theory that 300 devices would cause problems, you forget that those 300 devices are active mid-flight. If they caused problems it would be documented.

Anecdotal reports or Congressional study?

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[xenobyte]

The only incidents that count are the ones where this sequence occurs:

1) An electronic malfunction is detected.
2) The cabin crew searches and locates someone using on of these 'electronic devices'.
3) The device is turned off
4) The malfunction goes away.

Only then is it likely that there was a connection between the electronic device and the malfunction.

It is highly unlikely that any device left on will cause any malfunction. After all, avionics are heavily shielded and are designed to work through both the higher (ionizing) radiation levels at high altitude and direct lightning strikes.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[DavidTC]

I think it would be pretty funny to make my Nook's lock screen into a copy of the 'Your Nook has been powered down' screen. (And sometimes I want to replace the actual message during power-off with a screen of text, so it looks like it's on.)

Of course, with pretty much every electronic device with a power button, the power button actually works by...electronics. It's not some sort of switch that disconnects the battery and reconnects it. (Those exist, those are the things on old stereos, the 'pen top' switches, that one push puts them all the way in, and another lets them pop out.)

No, the switch in any modern device, from an iphone to a Nook to a laptop, is attached to an always powered bit of circuitry.

Which, of course cannot be turned off. At least not without physically removing or draining the battery...and often you can't do that.

The entire idea of 'on' and 'off' needs to be redefined. People need to not be operating radios during takeoff and landing, and they need to not be having big heavy things in their laps during that time either, due to the possibility of being thrown around. That's what the rules should be.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[DavidTC]

Uh, no.

Yes, that's what causing the clicking in speakers, the wiring is picking up interference.

Please note this has nothing to do with the receiving being a radio, and is simply due to magnetism from your phone hitting the wires. Which, if the wires are not straight (And they never are), will cause an electric current. Which is then amplified by the amplifier. (Duh, that's what it's for.)

But if your cell phone can cause magnetism in wiring twenty feet away, you should probably go and have yourself treated for radiation burns. Also, I don't know why you didn't noticing something was wrong when sending a text message fired nearby computer hard drives.

I mean, at that level, you're walking about with something about as strong as an MRI machine.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[gumbi west]

I realize that you might like to get information from a TV show, but IEEE argues that these devices are potentially very dangerous to safe operation.

"Yet our research has found that these items can interrupt the normal operation of key cockpit instruments, especially Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers, which are increasingly vital to safe landings. Two different studies by NASA further support the idea that passengers' electronic devices dangerously produce interference in a way that reduces the safety margins for critical avionics systems."

BTW, I only know of the test pilot because I used a NASA plane and had to get some electronics certified for flight and the guys got to talking, I'm not going to have a link for you.

Re:Don't think there is a problem

[gumbi west]

I have had them ask me to put away a portfolio for landing. Basically a hard cover book plus pen.

Re:E-Ink screen failures

[PCM2]

e-Ink screens definitely can and do fail. The question is whether an airport scanner can make them fail.

Me, I'm thinking it's much easier to break your screen by packing your Kindle poorly than to break it by exposing it to X-rays or microwaves, but it's easier to get Amazon to replace your Kindle if you can grab a headline.

Physical damage

[vlm]

Kindles are sometimes rendered useless by airport baggage handling and security checks. Many people report no problems at all but if something is going wrong, the culprit may not be the X-ray scanner, but a static shock.

Maybe, just maybe, its because they beat the heck out of it or dropped it and don't want to admit it and don't think anyone would guess what they did and would agree with a witchcraft-level explanation. Just maybe...

Re:Physical damage

[jafo]

That sounds very plausible. A friend of mine dropped her kindle onto the concrete. There's no physical sign of the damage (she doesn't know exactly which way it landed), but when she tried to turn it on the display was totally messed up. It also gets hot right in the middle between the screen and the keyboard. But looking at it, there is no obvious sign that it was dropped.

So why does Amazon bother denying anything?

[hellfire]

Okay this article is weird.

It starts with the conventional "idiots who don't understand science think x-rays damage their electronics". But it quickly switches to the "more likely a static shock" line which is much more feasible. But then why is this a story? Static shock affects all electronic devices, the Kindle is no different.

Then it goes into a "eWeek licks Amazon's balls happily" advertisement about how awesome the kindle is, which has no place in an article like this. Why the hell go this far? And then Amazon out and out denies the problem even exists. They don't say "it could be static shocks which no device is immune from." They use the "a bunch of other people don't have a problem" fallacy to deflect the issue. While it does nothing for me, that's kind of stupid because it will stir up the conspiracy theory wonks like a storm of bees.

Looks like this article was written for eWeek by an Amazon Marketroid, not by Steve McCaskil, which makes sense now that I think about it. Deflect and deny rather than address.

Re:So why does Amazon bother denying anything?

[TheDarkMaster]

Well, a x-ray beam can cause very bizarre bugs on electronics, if are strong enought (or the device do not have proper shielding)... If the bean is strong (or the device is very sensitive), you can even fry the electronics

Re:So why does Amazon bother denying anything?

[hawguy]

Okay this article is weird.

It starts with the conventional "idiots who don't understand science think x-rays damage their electronics". But it quickly switches to the "more likely a static shock" line which is much more feasible. But then why is this a story? Static shock affects all electronic devices, the Kindle is no different.

If it's true that a static buildup from the drive belt is killing Kindles, that seems like poor electrical shielding (or the eInk display is particularly sensitive to static). I have a cheap Dell Netbook that gets zapped by static from my hand at least once a week in the winter and it's never had a problem.

However, my Kindle has been through dozens of flights with no ill effects, so I'm not so sure this is a real problem.

Amazon pouring cold water on the Kindle?

[thomasdz]

Yes... Pouring cold water on the kindle would probably be bad for it. Well... I guess not distilled cold water, but cold water from the Amazon river would definitely kill it. The piranhas would also munch on your fingers.

Re:during take-off and landing

[Anonymous Coward]

The power levels have nothing to do with the safety risk of being smacked in the face by some wayward gadget during a rough landing.

Does X-Ray Equipment Create Static Charge?

[dietdew7]

Often when I pick up my things from the TSA conveyor I get a static shock. So far my laptop has survived, but what causes that static? Is it because of the X-Ray machine or is the rubber belt acting like some kind of Van De Graaff generator?

You're lucky

[Quila]

Imagine if you'd been reading a porn comic when it froze.

Dumb slashdotters

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, then the slashdot readership is fucking stupid then.
A gadget name makes it less likely that i'll click, because it will seem less genuinely newsworthy.

Re:Dumb slashdotters

[M0j0_j0j0]

What is a gadget?

Re:Dumb slashdotters

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, then the slashdot readership is fucking stupid then. A gadget name makes it less likely that i'll click, because it will seem less genuinely newsworthy.

Did you just find out why nobody read the articles? The slashdot readership is fine, but slashdot is only reporting on existing articles. It is as good as the media are in general. If you don't like nerd stuff becoming mainstream, maybe it is because you are a hipster? Try reading 4chan's technology board, i heard all the posts are of superior quality.

Xrays CAN damage electronics, scrambled my PDA

[neurocutie]

I've had first hand experience with airport Xrays damaging/corrupting my electronics, specifically a instant-on mini laptop that used SRAM as its memory. It happened not just once or twice but three times. I believe it would have to do with the strength of the Xrays and the depth of the charge wells or the size of current that would need to be opposed in order to flip bits. This happened a while ago (15 years) and hasn't happened recently, although I think I remember airport Xrays also scrambling one of my old Palm Pilots once, so let's hope the intensity of the Xrays used has gone down and the memories used are more hardened against Xrays (or cosmic rays, etc).

Re:during take-off and landing

[Dan Ost]

Exactly this.

If you weren't an anonymous coward, I would have modded you up.

interfere with sleeping patterns

[chrismcb]

and does not interfere with sleeping patterns if read in bed

I don't understand this quote, how do other devices interfere with sleeping patterns? Are they implying other devices require the screen to be backlit? But the kindle requires the screen to be front lit by an exterior light.

Re:interfere with sleeping patterns

[itsdapead]

I don't understand this quote, how do other devices interfere with sleeping patterns?

You can run Tetris/Bejeweled/Angry Birds/Plants v Zombies and view pr0n on them :-)

Re:interfere with sleeping patterns

[DavidTC]

What interferes with sleeping patterns is, supposedly, laying around in bed with the lights off when you're not trying to sleep. Which is something you can't do with eInk, but can do with a backlit device.

Of course, almost all 'interferes with sleeping pattern' stuff is bogus. Sleep studies are only done on people who have trouble sleeping. (Duh.) They don't magically mean that everyone should do those things.

If you have trouble getting to sleep, one of the ways to try to fix it is to keep 'your bed' and 'in darkness', and especially those things together, as things you do solely when you're trying to sleep, so they act as natural triggers for you. Do not lay in bed for any purpose other than sleep, and if you can avoid it do not hang out in darkness for any purpose other than sleep, and see if it helps after a week. Or you can do 'in bed' and 'darkness' tests individually.

If you're not having trouble getting to sleep, don't worry about it at all.

Re:during take-off and landing

[tgd]

I'd rather be hit by a 5oz Kindle than a 4lbs hardcover.

Re:Well, yeah.

[hawguy]

rendered useless by airport baggage handling

I went to Disney a few years ago, and i had my bag searched.

I was just thrilled to get to my hotel and find out that my bag had been searched, as well as my camera. They took the damn thing apart, and so I have no pictures of that vacation

I'd imagine they do something stupidly similar with Kindles.

I'm assuming this was a film camera? Every quality film camera I've owned loads the film on the takeup spool upon loading, then as you take photos, it winds it back into the canister - so if someone opened the camera, I'd only lose a photo or two since the rest would be safely inside the canister.

But even if they did manage to expose the entire film that was in the camera - are you saying that you'd only taken 24 (or 36) photos on your whole Disney vacation? Every time I've been to Disney I shot that many pictures on the drive to the parking lot.

We need a Bezos demo

[Anomalyst]

Showing that the whingers are holding it wrong.

Mass hysteria again

[kriston]

Toyota somewhat respectfully did release results from the so-called "sudden acceleration" problem. In one specific case, where the retired state trooper killed himself and his family in a Lexus, the in-car computer recorded several seconds of full application of the accelerator pedal before the data stopped recording. We're not talking about the throttle, we're talking about the user input device, the accelerator pedal, that was at full application. Of course, it was operator error, and everyone knew that from the beginning. It's sad.

"[T]he verdict is in," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "There is no electronic-based cause for unintended high-speed acceleration in Toyotas." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20031069-503544.html

So, yes, this is mass hysteria. Same thing happened to Audi/VW back in the early 1990s where claimants insisted their Audis' cruise control caused cars to plow into buildings when moving from a parking space. Audio/VW's solution was to prevent shifting without simultaneous application of the brake pedal. On newer Audis these instructions are on the display in big, bright letters.

Re:Mass hysteria again

[Gordonjcp]

I know that on two VW vans fitted with automatic gearboxes (very uncommon though they are) the gear selector is blocked by a solenoid in P and N unless you put your foot on the brake.

Re:Mass hysteria again

[TechwoIf]

Are you sure it wasn't the software fault thinking the accelerator was press all the way down, hence the full power and recording of the event of pedal was at full pressed?

Re:Mass hysteria again

[kriston]

Would it help if I also point out that the brake pedal indicated zero application? In these cases surviving drivers always claim to be "standing" on the brakes but in reality the brake pedal and brake system instrumentation reflects *zero* application on both.

Mass hysteria is usually real.

Oh, to keep on topic, I own a Kindle and it goes through X-ray machines regularly and it's perfect. It's also got a non-lighted cover with painted metal clips and the battery never dies. *Shrug*

Amazong customer service

[chi_features]

I would just like to say that it was an absolutely superb customer service experience dealing with my broken Kindle when this flight-related problem happened to me. Seriously, this will keep me going back to Amazon-branded goods where beforehand I didn't really care. So while an article like this is important to highlight potentially unresolved widespread problems, it's also worth mentioning what the company does about it... and what they do about it to the 99% ;)

Re:during take-off and landing

[fahrbot-bot]

I'd rather be hit by a 5oz Kindle than a 4lbs hardcover.

Insert Porn joke here...

Re:Well, yeah.

[JimFive]

Every quality film camera I've owned loads the film on the takeup spool upon loading, then as you take photos, it winds it back into the canister

I have never seen a camera that worked this way. Every film camera I've had, from snapshot cameras to SLRs from Nikon and Minolta have wound on to the spool and then needed to be rewound back into the canister when you had filled the roll.
--
JimFive

Re:Well, yeah.

[hawguy]

Every quality film camera I've owned loads the film on the takeup spool upon loading, then as you take photos, it winds it back into the canister

I have never seen a camera that worked this way. Every film camera I've had, from snapshot cameras to SLRs from Nikon and Minolta have wound on to the spool and then needed to be rewound back into the canister when you had filled the roll.
--
JimFive

I had a very short history with 35mm film cameras - my first was a Canon 35mm point and shoot in the late 80's, then I upgraded to a Canon Rebel in 1990 or '91 (then went digital around 2000 and never went back, though I still use some of the same lenses I used with my original Rebel). Both film cameras wound the entire film on the takeup spool to protect against exposure if the camera back was opened, so I assumed all the manufacturers did that on their non-entry level cameras. Dad had some SLR - (Nikon? Pentax? I can't remember which) that did the same thing.

If it is truly static shock killing it

[Khyber]

Then Amazon's little reader has a SEVERE design flaw.

Time to hire competent electronics people.

Glad you can't to that to my equipment.