glasses for boro: Phillips boroscopes or Aura Lens?? - Page 2

twiggyinaz · #31 2008-12-23, 8:31pm

I did a google search in hopes to find a chart that shows the shades of the didy lenses.

How do I know if mine have faded? I have Philipps and find them comfortable, but they are a couple years old and wonder if I need to replace them. They filter well, I see no flare whatsoever, I can see straight through the flame.

I have used a ss minnow up until a couple weeks ago and am now using a cricket, soft glass only.

My concern is that the fading would be gradual, so I have nothing to compare my glasses and their protection to.

Any info or a link would be appreciated and probably appropriate for this thread.

Dale M. · #32 2008-12-24, 9:22am

Generally doing soft glass work, there is not much IR radiation or UV radiation to worry about. The UV and IR comes at the higher temperatures usually associated with working borosilicate glass.

The main reason to use a tinted lenses with soda lime glass is to block the orange "flare" around the bead while working it in the flame...

Unless you have sensitive eyes its generally accepted that the equivalent didymium or ACE (202 I think) are good enough for soft glass work.

Also the feature of having a protective lenses between your eyes and your work to prevent flying chips and shards from entering eyes cant be overlooked either....

Dale

twiggyinaz · #33 2008-12-24, 9:49am

Dale,

Thank you! Great answer!

I feel so much better about my glasses. I am a safety nut, and sitting behind the torch worrying about using questionable eyewear is not my idea of enjoying lampworking. I have 202's and will keep using them until I hit the lottery or break them because they fit perfectly.

Cosmo · #34 2008-12-24, 10:38am

Quote:

Originally Posted by twiggyinaz

I did a google search in hopes to find a chart that shows the shades of the didy lenses.

How do I know if mine have faded? I have Philipps and find them comfortable, but they are a couple years old and wonder if I need to replace them. They filter well, I see no flare whatsoever, I can see straight through the flame.

I have used a ss minnow up until a couple weeks ago and am now using a cricket, soft glass only.

My concern is that the fading would be gradual, so I have nothing to compare my glasses and their protection to.

Any info or a link would be appreciated and probably appropriate for this thread.

If you are working on small items, you don't really have anything to worry about. I routinely make 2" marbles with the flame on my CC raging, and I do a lot of fuming, so there is a lot of light that my glasses are subjected to.

twiggyinaz · #35 2008-12-25, 3:27pm

This is good to know, thank you so much, I love being in the company of such knowledgeable cool righteous men!

AVC-Ed · #36 2009-02-10, 12:53pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Smiley

If you knew why Aura won, you'd tell the story differently. Phillips didn't even show up. They could have won the lawsuit, but they didn't need to. Mike had filed suit against a company that didn't exist any longer. They restructured the company and changed ownership and it wasn't financially worth the court battle and lawyer fees to fight it anyway. Auralens won by default and then couldn't collect against a company that was no longer in existence. He was pissed... but Auralens didn't invent the process that they patented... they just got a patent for this industry specific use of somebody elses idea. Not belittling the product Auralens produces at all... it's a good product. So is Phillips.

This is incorrect.

1. Phillips did not restructure the company until the day AFTER the court case. It was done to avoid paying the very large settlement that Aura won. This is a very easy thing to discover, all you have to do is look at the date the new company was formed and compare it to the date of the judgment by the US District Court in Minneapolis. Phillips had no defense, that is why they didn't bother to show up, and instead of manning up and paying for their illegal acts of trademark and copyright violations (yes, Phillips stole trademarks and copyrighted information from Aura Lens), they chose to run and hide. As Mike wrote at the time, "What does that say about the people who run Phillips?"

2. Aura's patent covers the process of manufacturing the specific lens elements to form the AGW series filters. You can look it up if you want, US Patent number: 6,612,697. The patent covers the products that Bob and Mike Aurelius INVENTED. It was never anyone elses idea, if it had been, the patent would never have been issued by the Patent Office.

Mr. Smiley · #37 2009-02-10, 6:00pm

Ed, that's one way to look at it... and you're entitled to that view of things. I see things differently and I've gathered information from a lot of people. I don't think Mike "invented" anything. It is a use specific patent... laminating two lenses to get a desired filter is nothing new. I honestly don't care one way or another about who won what lawsuit. After observing and dealing with both companies, I've made my decision... and that's what we all have to do. Make our own decision. The last thing I need is to go round and round on forum land again.

AVC-Ed · #38 2009-02-11, 6:52am

Quote:

I don't think Mike "invented" anything. It is a use specific patent... laminating two lenses to get a desired filter is nothing new.

But you would be wrong with that assumption. It is the fact that the lens elements had never ever before been put together that makes it a unique invention. The patent itself says "Description of the invention". (bold for emphasis). Once again, if was "nothing new", it could not have been patented. Perhaps you don't understand what the word invention means?

Wiley · #39 2009-02-11, 2:17pm

I noticed that yinzer's post disappeared.... hmmm.

Take a peek at this thread for further information regarding the change from Aura Lens to AVC.

http://www.talkglass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24339

Mr. Smiley · #40 2009-02-11, 2:31pm

I fully understand what the word "invention" means... I also understand a little bit about the patent process. I understand a bit about math too... and testing IR. Maybe you can ask Mike how the discussions are going with the "university" about his equation to calculate IR exposure. Maybe you can ask Mike how the real life testing is going. Pardon me if I don't believe you or Mike... I've had personal experience with proving Mike wrong. Took a year, but he finally admitted the equation he was presenting to this industry as "fact", was flawed and WAY off base. Of course it was skewed in his favor... IF that was an honest mistake, I would think he'd have found out the truth... done some research and POSTED accurate information for this industry by now. I guess the truth doesn't make Phillips look like the devil or scare people his way. It's really sad to watch all of this go down. Mike's Dad is one heck of a good guy from what I have been told by many. Sad to see his hard work destroyed.

Like I said, I've been waiting a very long time for accurate information to come out about our IR exposure. So if you can get your orders caught up and your customer service nightmares under control, please get us some actual numbers... and have Mike double check the math before he posts it on the forums as fact.

I do hope you can get some things under control... it's kind of put up or shut up at this point. If Aura can turn things around, it'll be good for everybody.

AVC-Ed · #41 2009-02-11, 2:45pm

Brent, from what Mike tells me, it was you who wanted a university study. Weren't you going to get the money together to get the testing done?

Right now, Mike is standing by the calculations that are posted on the Aura website. I've looked them over, and the numbers presented are EXAMPLES of how to do the calculations, nothing more. That's basic physics being shown there. If you have a better formula, or a different way of presenting it, I'm sure everyone would be pleased to see it, but don't sit there and tell everyone that the math is flawed and there are errors, because there aren't.

What is presented here: http://www.auralens.net/e_gwtechnical2.cfm has yet to be refuted by anyone. By all means Brent, if you think it is wrong, then show all of us how it should be done.

If you want to use a smaller torch, plug the numbers into the formula. If you want to use a smaller piece, plug the numbers into the formula. That formula is for a large torch (which Mike notes in the document), and a fairly large working piece, which Mike also notes. I'm not sure what you think is wrong about it, perhaps because it DOES make the Phillips product look bad, I don't know. But the formula is correct.

Mr. Smiley · #42 2009-02-11, 3:05pm

Double speak... the equation was proved to be wrong and Mike admitted it a long time ago. It was Mike that said he would talk to his University buddies to get a correct equation for determining the IR exposure from a flame. Size doesn't matter if the equation is wrong to begin with. The only thing I said I would do is work with the ISGB or anybody else to do the actual testing. I said I would volunteer to be the test rat and melt glass and take actual readings.

I'm not going to show you the math again. Mike obviously doesn't want the math to be corrected. The equation can be wrong if that's the same one. I'm honestly not going to click on that link and work through it again. Unless Mike updated it, it's wrong... it's been admitted to as wrong and it can stay wrong for all I care. I've got bigger things going on in my life.

Phillips has my respect and business. That's not because I don't like Mike, it's because they have handled things the way I think a company should... and Mike hasn't. Take care and if you're a real person stepping in to handle things, Good luck.

Mr. Smiley · #43 2009-02-11, 4:48pm

Ok, I did click the damn link...

This is false...

"The flame alone contributes 0.375 Watts per square centimeter at the eye."

This would mean that the flame alone (as in just lighting the torch), contributes more than the working and non-working areas combined.

0.138 is the combined total for the working and nonworking areas according to this calculation... I can tell you from personal experience that the IR being calculated here is wrong... way wrong. There is no way the calculation for the IR reaching our eyes due to the flame is correct. There is a real need for testing. If you are a real life person and you want to make things better, please clear up some of the past mistakes. Don't believe everything Mike tells you. These figures are confusing to anybody that is bad at math... heck, they are confusing to people who aren't. This is science... not guessing. It is a real life thing that can be measured. It's not up to me as a simple flame worker to run these tests. It's up to those businesses selling an item to protect us from IR exposure. If you don't even really know what we're being exposed to, how can you tell us what is or isn't adequate? Step up and give us real data. Work with the ISGB. Phillips already told me they would help with proper testing, but nothing has been done to initiate those tests. As a flame worker, I'd really appreciate somebody stepping up.

Mr. Smiley · #44 2009-02-11, 4:51pm

If you want to test this equation, sit down and light a torch. Put your hand about 40cm away from it. Then put some glass in it, get it molten and test the heat then... it's not rocket science. You'll see that the gather of molten glass produces way more IR than the flame alone. The flame may be producing a LOT of IR, but your eyes are not in line to receive that IR... see this is where I have a problem with theory... it doesn't translate when a heat source is directional.

By the way... IR is heat. You can feel it.

AVC-Ed · #45 2009-02-12, 6:43am

Thank you for your comments. I will review this with Mike and respond back later (today hopefully).

pam · #46 2009-02-12, 7:57am

Hi Ed,

Welcome to the lampwork community! Here is a link where this was discussed.

http://www.lampworketc.com/forums/sh...ht=calculation

And Brent, here is your post regarding testing IR levels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Smiley

Thank you,

Let us know what you find out Mike.

I'm working on getting the IR levels tested. I'll let you know how that progresses.

AVC-Ed · #47 2009-02-12, 8:37am

Thank you and thank you, Pam. Helps clear up some of the linkage and who said what.

We don't have access to TAM (and really don't want to, so I have no idea what was said over there, or if that thread even exists any longer).

If someone would be kind enough to capture it in an e-mail format, I'd appreciate seeing it. It can be sent to: sales@auralens.com.

Also, Pam, I believe you still are involved with the ISGB, correct? I signed up for the ISGB forum last week and I still have not received any indication that my application has been approved. Are you able to check into that and see what is going on, if so, thanks in advance!

Wiley · #48 2009-02-12, 9:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVC-Ed

Thank you and thank you, Pam. Helps clear up some of the linkage and who said what.

We don't have access to TAM (and really don't want to, so I have no idea what was said over there, or if that thread even exists any longer).

If someone would be kind enough to capture it in an e-mail format, I'd appreciate seeing it. It can be sent to: sales@auralens.com.

Also, Pam, I believe you still are involved with the ISGB, correct? I signed up for the ISGB forum last week and I still have not received any indication that my application has been approved. Are you able to check into that and see what is going on, if so, thanks in advance!

Just an FYI ... the thread does still exist on TAM.

Regarding the ISGB... I'm a little surprised after Mike's comments regarding the ISGB on his blog:
"I decided to vote with my feet. The membership of Aura Lens Products ended at midnight on 12/31/.2007. It will not be renewed."

I'm just curious....

pam · #49 2009-02-12, 9:30am

I'm sorry, Ed, I am no longer involved with ISGB other than as a member, so I can't help you. You might try calling the office or emailing the president at president@ISGB.org.

AVC-Ed · #50 2009-02-12, 9:42am

Thank you pam.

Mr. Smiley · #51 2009-02-12, 2:01pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by pam

Hi Ed,

Welcome to the lampwork community! Here is a link where this was discussed.

http://www.lampworketc.com/forums/sh...ht=calculation

And Brent, here is your post regarding testing IR levels.

and I believe I followed up some where and stated that I talked to Phillips... Ryan said he would help with the process and I would have talked to the ISGB myself, but you were president... or becoming president. Why didn't you do anything? Why isn't the ISGB doing anything? I did come back some where and state this was far more than an individual lampworker should have to do on his own and that the companies making this product should work in conjunction with the ISGB or some other larger more resourceful glass organization. Seriously... why hasn't somebody that isn't an end user stepped up here? This is just silly.

Mr. Smiley · #52 2009-02-12, 2:04pm

and here's Mike's quote... has the university returned his call yet? This post was 11/9/2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeAurelius

On the IR issue as posted above:

Brent and I are discussing certain aspects of the calculations on TAM. He's made a couple of very good points that I'm taking into consideration.

At this point in time, my position is that Brent is probably correct to a point. The 67% basis for heat from the flame is most likely wrong, but how wrong, I don't know yet.

I've got a call placed to the physics department of the local university and I'll be discussing mass calculations of radiant heat on solids versus plasma (flame). Once I have a better handle on things, I'll be able to present a much more coherent response to this issue.

For now, I'd like to have folks temporarily ignore the issue of IR transmission as it relates to soft glass.

AVC-Ed · #53 2009-02-13, 9:57am

Sorry for not getting back to you on this. Mike's mother is having some health issues (not life threatening, thank goodness) and he hasn't been able to spend any time on getting additional information for me to post.

He did say however that yes, the university did respond back to him, but they didn't have the proper equipment to do any type of testing of the equation for flame plumes. It is on his white board "To Do" list, but not near the top.

Mr. Smiley · #54 2009-02-13, 7:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVC-Ed

Right now, Mike is standing by the calculations that are posted on the Aura website. I've looked them over, and the numbers presented are EXAMPLES of how to do the calculations, nothing more. That's basic physics being shown there. If you have a better formula, or a different way of presenting it, I'm sure everyone would be pleased to see it, but don't sit there and tell everyone that the math is flawed and there are errors, because there aren't.

What is presented here: http://www.auralens.net/e_gwtechnical2.cfm has yet to be refuted by anyone. By all means Brent, if you think it is wrong, then show all of us how it should be done.

If you want to use a smaller torch, plug the numbers into the formula. If you want to use a smaller piece, plug the numbers into the formula. That formula is for a large torch (which Mike notes in the document), and a fairly large working piece, which Mike also notes. I'm not sure what you think is wrong about it, perhaps because it DOES make the Phillips product look bad, I don't know. But the formula is correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVC-Ed

He did say however that yes, the university did respond back to him, but they didn't have the proper equipment to do any type of testing of the equation for flame plumes. It is on his white board "To Do" list, but not near the top.

Ok, so which is it? Is he standing behind the math or is he waiting for the correct information? Call me very confused as to what Aura's current position is. If you are unsure of the equation, you might want to take it down, post an apology and repost when you have something solid.

AVC-Ed · #55 2009-02-16, 7:21am

Not sure why you are confused, Brent. You asked if he'd heard back from the university, and I answered you.

Mike stands by the calculations and sees no reason to take it down, much less post an apology. He stands by the statement that he made that soft glass workers don't need to worry about IR unless they are working huge pieces.

Mr. Smiley · #56 2009-02-16, 10:57am

So, he's standing behind a formula he's admitted is flawed. Ok, good to know that's how he wants to handle the information he provides to his customers. I can honestly say that surprises me... and I thought I had heard it all.

AVC-Ed · #57 2009-02-16, 11:14am

That's certainly your right to think that way, Brent. Not everyone does.

Have a great day!

pam · #58 2009-02-16, 11:25am

What happened to sunshine and rainbows and hearts and respect for everyone!

Mr. Smiley · #59 2009-02-16, 11:41am

Since when is asking for clarification disrespectful? Mike said the formula is flawed. The university folks said they do NOT have a formula for determining the IR emitted by a flame. The shock that this formula is still being posted as fact by what is supposed to be a leader in IR protection is genuine.

If this is the case, then yeah, Aura lost any respect I had for them... but I haven't been disrespectful. There's a difference.

This is their SPECIALTY. Not only should they know what they are talking about, but any information they pass along as fact should be bullet proof. That's my opinion... maybe my standards for a safety eye wear company are too high. Maybe it's enough to just post something that might be close... maybe, we'll check, it's probably wrong, but we're gonna call it gospel.

AVC-Ed · #60 2009-02-16, 12:50pm

Quote:

The university folks said they do NOT have a formula for determining the IR emitted by a flame.

Please go back and re-read what I wrote. What I wrote was that they did not have the equipment to do any type of testing of the equation for flame plumes. That is far different from what you wrote.

Please Brent. If you are going to go off on a rant, at least rant about what I actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote. You are in fact being disrepectful in this case because you are throwing a tantrum based on your misunderstanding of the facts, and you are attacking Mike and his company for doing something YOU believe is wrong, when in fact, your basis for understanding is flawed. I'd appreciate an apology, as I'm sure would Mike.