Talk:Antistatic bag

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology Packaging This article is within the scope of WikiProject Packaging, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of containers, packaging, and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PackagingWikipedia:WikiProject PackagingTemplate:WikiProject PackagingContainers

I removed an external link which was stated to be pointing to ESD bag manufacture, but was in fact linking to a manufactureR with a list of bags for sale. Mikeeg555 (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How badly can a board be damaged by a static discharge? Is it at all safe to keep them not in anti static bags? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.22.121.110 (talk • contribs).

Ordinary (non anti-static plastic bags) are very potent static discharge generators. I'd much sooner leave my board unbagged than slip it into a normal polyethylene bag. And even a tiny static discharge can render your board dead; it only takes one critical circuit getting zapped to death.

Atlant 00:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

static can only destroy something which holds a charge (is connected to power/battery) always remove the clock battery ;) but ram is usually very sensitive to static, but you can safely put a board anywhere as long as it isn't in direct contact with a conductive metal. Markthemac (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.69.15 (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. That is incorrect. Ryan Westafer (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pink (and sometimes green) bags are strictly speaking known as low-charging bags. That is, they do not generate any static themselves, however they do not incorperate a faraday cage and so do not protect a PCB from electric fields which can induce a potential difference and therefore current flow. As such they should not be used for PCBs, only for cable assemblies etc. I will try and find some sources to back me up before adding this information to the article.192.93.164.23 15:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if this is a valid source for the Wikipedia but here you can see actual measurements with both types of bags and see that the information in the article is correct:

http://www.eevblog.com/2012/02/25/eevblog-247-anti-static-bag-myth-revisted/

2001:470:1F0B:64F:D1A7:FCB5:30B7:B65 (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question : Why has nobody actually included the ESD Assocation 20/20 documentation - latest revision - ? ^[1] EOS/ESD Association, Inc. is the only organization accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to write and produce standards on electrostatics." I read lots of "fluff" here in the talk page but without actually referencing the documented standards it is all speculation ....165.225.36.135 (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say an opened bag provides protection similar to that of a closed bag, for the same reason that a metal cylinder gives protection similar to a closed cage. Provided that the discharge is at the bag/cylinder/cage, not at the object inside. In all these cases, what happens is that the charges of the metal tend to redistribute until they succeed to cancel out any externally applied field. This should mean for the example of discharge on a metal cylinder, there will (a) be charges moving through the system (the discharge current) and (b) a redistribution of the "static charges" (electrons of the metal) in a way that causes electric field strength to be zero inside the tube. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this should mean an open ESD bag gives very good protection for any discharge at the bag (not if it's at the object inside).

Also, I'd think the fact that the shileding has a low resistance in itself should give protection, for example if the ESD source can be modeled as 1kV + 1kohms and an object is protected by a semi-open metal object with 1ohm resistance, then the voltage division by itself should bring the E field down by a fcator 1000.

Some discussion is welcome --88.131.22.138 (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-You may be correct that an open bag can still protect from static discharges, however it will not protect a board from electric fields, which can induce a p.d. on the board and hence cause damage with no physical contact from any source. My knowledge of this is only based on a recent training course however, so an authoritative reference source would be useful (192.93.164.23 (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Reply to comment: According to the well-known book on ESD by Dangelmayer (isbn 0-412-13671-6, page 369), electric fields are in reality never a problem. And I also think an open bag does protect against fields depending on the direction of the field vs the place of the bag hole. For example if the bag is like a cylinder and the field is perpendicular to the cylinder. Or a more useful example: any open bag, as long as the object inside it is well hidden, i e not close to the opening (the "lightning conductor" effect will also make sure any discharge in such a case finds it way through the bag, not the object to be protected) --88.131.22.138 (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.201.37 (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

If you are concerned about the bag shorting a powered circuit, measure its resistance. You will find that the bag's resistivity must be very high. True "short circuits" are not a problem. A more likely problem is the bag's proximity to RF circuitry such as antennas. I've deleted the warning statement which was listed on the page.Ryan Westafer (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tested a number of (apparently) metallised anti-static bags with several multimeters, and always found infinite resistance even when the probes are poked deep into the plastic just a millimetre apart. Please can anyone explain this ? Darkman101 (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the metalised bags the resistance is very high, also the conductive layer is very thin.

Metalised bags used for food (eg: potato crisps) have thicker metalisation.

It's hard to make a good contact with such a thin layer of of aluminium, especially to make a contact in two places simultaneously,

If you have access to an insulation tester, try measuring with that. If you have a safe high voltage source (like a piezo sparker) you could observe how the conductive plastic interacts with the path taken by the sparks, and contrast that with non-conductive plastic,

Conductive grid bags should show a more-easily measurable resistance 116.90.140.41 (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor recently tried to merge this article without any discussion or vote. It anyone is interested in a merger, please follow Wikipedia procedures: Wikipedia:Merging Pkgx (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reference, ^[1], describes the tallow amine as "blooming" meaning that it is mixed into the plastic itself and self-replenishes the anti-static coating on the polyethylene bags. It's not a coating, something that could be removed or scratch off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.60.31 (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]