Lampwork Etc.
 
Send a PM to CorriDawn!

LE Live Chat

Enter Live Chat

No users in chat


Frantz Art Glass & Supply

Caber Light


 

Go Back   Lampwork Etc. > Library > Safety

Safety -- Make sure you are safe!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 2005-06-22, 8:21am
MikeAurelius's Avatar
MikeAurelius MikeAurelius is offline
Safety ALWAYS
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 2,401
Default Boroscopes - important information

Some of you may be aware that a couple of years ago, I documented the fact that Boroscopes (as manufactured and sold by Phillips and various distributors) did not provide the safety to the glassworker that the manufacturer claimed it did. http://www.auralens.net/e_phillips3.cfm

Last week, a totally independant test was done by a fellow glassworker who also works at an optical testing facility. This test proved that the information I provided several years ago is in fact true.

As a result, Generations Glass has discontinued selling the product and is recommending that anyone who is wearing Boroscopes add additional filtration in the form of welders clip on's.

You can read the whole thread on www.thegldg.com here: http://www.thegldg.com/forum/showthread.php?t=206

If you are wearing Boroscopes of any kind, I strongly recommend that you read the thread at TheGLDG, and take the steps recommended by Kristian Turley.

This product, in my opinion, is unsafe for borosilicate workers.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 2005-06-22, 11:02am
starlia's Avatar
starlia starlia is offline
Life in the slow lane
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Driftwood, TX & Enid, OK
Posts: 665
Default

Thank you for this information. I've been wearing welding goggles since I started working with boro but I'm sure someone will reap rewards from this message.
__________________
Starlia


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 2005-07-22, 5:59am
catman's Avatar
catman catman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 18, 2005
Posts: 20
Default a question

hi Mike,
I have a question:
I bought some 2nd hand equipment from a scientific-lamp-worker,
who bought lots of stuff from a retiering glass-blower.

One of the items I bought was a protective clip-on.
it has a pale light-blue tint, which turns to purple-pink when
seen under flourecent light.

he couldn't tell me the origin of it, because he didn't ask the old man.

i use it, it filters the sodium flare alright, my eyes feel OK, but I don't work too often.

I have no idea what I have in hand.

it doesn't LOOK old, but one can't tell.
can you help me identify it?

thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 2005-07-22, 6:56am
MikeAurelius's Avatar
MikeAurelius MikeAurelius is offline
Safety ALWAYS
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 2,401
Default

It is either didymium or ACE (AUR-92). These are soft glass filters, not for borosilicate glass.

By your description, it is most likely didymium, which is the "original" filter that was used for many years. It does not have any IR filtration and for this reason should not be used for borosilicate (pyrex) work unless you use additional filtration, such as a welder's clip on filter (shade 3 or greater).
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 2005-07-22, 9:22am
Mr. Smiley's Avatar
Mr. Smiley Mr. Smiley is offline
boro color bender
 
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
Default

I was under the impression, that the boroscopes had shade 3 or shade 5 welders filtration already. I'll go read the other threads, but I've used the shade 5 and love them. I have my eyes checked every year by a good eye doctor... every one should, regardless of vision problems. If you are working any type of glass, make an appointment. It's much better to catch something early.

Keep in mind, this is only for boro workers. Soft glass people don't need the UV and IR filtration.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Truth is, everybody is going to hurt you; you just gotta find the ones worth suffering for." -Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 2005-07-22, 11:03am
MikeAurelius's Avatar
MikeAurelius MikeAurelius is offline
Safety ALWAYS
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 2,401
Default

Brent - the trouble is that Phillips "claimed" that they were Shade 3/Shade 5. In order to meet the ANSI standards for claiming shade number protection, there are very stringent transmission numbers for IR transmission that absolutely HAVE to be met. The original information I posted on the Aura Lens website, and the follow up test information posted on The GLDG shows that the Boroscopes DO NOT meet the ANSI standards for either Shade 3 OR Shade 5. Phillips cannot claim a shade number equivalency for these filters because they do not meet the ANSI standards for those shade numbers.

The biggest problem with IR is that the damage is cumulative. It builds up over time. Every person has a different threshold of damage at which point the damage begins to affect the physical structure of the eye in an obvious fashion.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 2005-07-22, 11:35am
Mr. Smiley's Avatar
Mr. Smiley Mr. Smiley is offline
boro color bender
 
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
Default

Do you have any information on what range IR is transmited in for using boro color and fuming? The numbers would make more sense if I knew at 12" fuming gold / silver or using boro color put out xyz IR transmision. Has this been measured? That way, I know what I need filtered in the first place. My point is... whether or not, Phillips are a true shade 3 or a shade 5 by ANSI standards, they may still filter out what I need them to. Even if it's just to a lower more exceptable level.

I understand the damage takes years, that's why I go every year and have my eyes checked. I think every glass blower should... soft glass workers, less often.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Truth is, everybody is going to hurt you; you just gotta find the ones worth suffering for." -Bob Marley

Last edited by Mr. Smiley; 2005-07-22 at 11:56am.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 2005-07-22, 2:16pm
MikeAurelius's Avatar
MikeAurelius MikeAurelius is offline
Safety ALWAYS
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 2,401
Default

Good question Brent, and the answer is why it is so important to block IR.

(I'm going to go slow here and lead you by the hand, this is nothing personal, just easier for the layman to understand, ok?)

First, IR or InfraRed, is heat energy. Everything around us puts out heat energy of some kind, there's no way around it. The only exception is in far intergalatic space where the temperature is absolute zero, where all atomic movement is frozen.

As things (people, dogs, pavement, glass) heat up, they begin to emit IR from the very far end of the spectrum, way out beyond 1 billionth of an inch wavelength. This is considered "cold" IR.

As the thing warms up further, and gets around 200 F or so, a slight red glow begins, this is the temperature at which you can begin to see the "effect" of heat. At this point, the item is radiating IR from the very far end of the spectrum into the visible red of the spectrum.

At this point, the more heat, the higher the temperature, the more the color of the item moves toward orange, yellow, green, and then finally blue, and beyond that UV. Once the items hits about 4,000 degrees or so, it is radiating across the entire spectrum.

Radiation always starts at the low end of the IR spectrum, furthest away from the visible portion of the spectrum.

To our eyes, the most hazardous portion of the IR spectrum is from about 2,500 nanometers to around 950 nanometers. Visible light starts at about 750 nanometers (very dark red) to 400 nanometers (near ultraviolet). The temperatures at 2,500 nanometers are approximately 100 F.

The problem is that this radiation varies in intensity and by the mass of the piece that is being worked. This is why, for the most part, soft glass lampworking doesn't require much in the way of IR protection. The temperatures are relatively low, the pieces are small, and there is very little extraneous "additional" radiation, such as may be found from fuming.

Borosilicate, on the other hand, requires much higher temperatures, for much longer time periods, the pieces tend to have greater mass, and there is a lot more "extraneous" radiation, not only from fuming, but also from the metals often found in the glass, added as colorants.

Fuming temperatures are relative low, but the visible light radiation is high due to the metals being evaporated and having visible light flares. This is why borosilicate eyewear has to have a two-pronged filtration, full IR filtration to protect the eye from the hazardous IR radiation, and strong visible light filtration to remove the various spectra from the metals burning off.

Tests have been done on the spectra put out by all sorts of glassworking, kiln work, hot shop (traditional glassblowing) and torch work. Every single test has indicated very high levels of IR radiation (of couse, it's hot!).

So, to answer your question, if you are working borosilicate glass of any kind, once the glass begins to glow in the visible range, you are being exposed to ALL the ranges in the IR spectrum.

This is why it is so important that the filter eyewear follow the ANSI standards, and filter out the maximum amount of IR radiation. When these standards were first developed, they were for metal workers, welders mainly, who were exposed to IR radiation on a regular basis. The size of the welding rod and amperage, or size of the cutting tip and thickness of the metal are the guidelines that were originally used to determine the proper shade. And, as the rod got bigger, or the metal got thicker, of course more heat was needed, and therefore more IR filtration.

Here's what ANSI says a shade 3 filter MUST do, in order to be called a shade 3:

Transmit Average visible light of 13.9%, average UV of 0.07%, and average IR of 9%.

A shade 5: Transmit 3.16% visible, 0.02% UV, and 2.5% IR.

This is where the problem is. By calling something a shade 5, the expectation is that the filter is blocking 97.5% of the IR radiation. The product in question does not. It blocks approximately 60%. Is this enough? It depends on a lot of factors. But here's the problem: the sunglass effect.

With a dark lens, the pupil opens up wide to allow more light to enter the eye. When the lens also transmits high levels of IR energy, more of this energy enters the eye because the pupil is wider open than normal. So, potentially, any in IR is offset by the wider opening of the pupil of the eye.

The darker the lens, the wider the pupil opens. It then becomes a vicious circle.

Hope this answered your question.

Last edited by MikeAurelius; 2005-07-22 at 2:20pm. Reason: clarification
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 2005-07-22, 2:57pm
Mr. Smiley's Avatar
Mr. Smiley Mr. Smiley is offline
boro color bender
 
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
Default

Thanks for taking the time to write all that Mike. I would be really interested in seeing a test where the IR was measured through the different lenses while flame working boro... like 12" away from the piece. I know the lab tests set it up under specific situations... and I would prolly really want to be wearing your glasses when I look into the lab equipment producing those IR levels. I'm just not so sure about the real world application of it all just yet. I'll do some more research. I know most of this data was collected for the metal working industry and it's tough and expensive to really test all of this stuff under new conditions. Thanks for taking the time to write out your answer.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Truth is, everybody is going to hurt you; you just gotta find the ones worth suffering for." -Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 2005-07-23, 8:20am
MikeAurelius's Avatar
MikeAurelius MikeAurelius is offline
Safety ALWAYS
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 2,401
Default

Quote:
I'm just not so sure about the real world application of it all just yet.
Ok, I must admit to being confused here...what's not to understand?

When the lenses are tested with a spectrophotometer, the machine generates a single wavelength of light and passes it through the material being tested, then measures the resultant strength of the beam, compares it to the original strength, and you have transmission/absorbtion.

Real world or test apparatus, the result is the same - this is basic physics. Glass performs exactly the same under test situations as it does in 'real world' applications. If it didn't, there wouldn't much need for test apparatus, would there?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 2005-07-23, 9:01am
Mr. Smiley's Avatar
Mr. Smiley Mr. Smiley is offline
boro color bender
 
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
Default

Mike, I'll say it another way. You're not understanding the question.

IR does not travel on forever. It can only travel so far. Do you have the information on what IR is actually reaching your eyes at a working distance? This information is NEEDED in order to understand what filtration we actually need.

Boro work produces IR in these wave lengths tested... but how far from the object glowing white hot? 1" 3" 12" 18" 24"??? There has to be a chart or one scientifically done, in order to maintain your claims that boroscopes are truely dangerous.

I bring this up, because I know that distance plays an important role in IR exposure. If your tests don't show real IR exposure while working at the torch, the test is not really important to the real world application. Mercedes has a car that is bullet proof. It's really no safer than any other car, unless you're getting shot at. For them to make a claim that it is unsafe to drive to the grocery store in another vehicle is just plain wrong... can they say it's safer... sure... but can they say the others cars are innadequate? Not unless you are in Iraq.

So, show me proof that I have these levels of IR reaching my eyes (while I'm on the torch), that were tested. Is that a simple enough question?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Truth is, everybody is going to hurt you; you just gotta find the ones worth suffering for." -Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 2005-07-23, 10:06am
BillBrach's Avatar
BillBrach BillBrach is offline
Professional Bead Pimp
 
Join Date: Jun 11, 2005
Location: Gainesville & Cape San Blas, Florida
Posts: 406
Default

IR falls off at the square of the distance...

This means that whatever IR energy that exists at 6" will be 75% LESS at 12". Whatever exists at 3", will be almost 94% LESS at 12" !!

So, like Brent, I agree you have to know HOW MUCH IR there is a SPECIFIC distance. Then the amount of IR at YOUR working distance can be calculated.

And also, in ALL of the information that Mike has desseminated on the subject of Boroscopes, NONE of it has said anything about the actual levels of IR getting to ones eyeballs.

Are there generally accepted levels of IR radiation, and if YES, what level of IR do the Boroscopes ACTUALLY pass on to the eyes ??

The RELATIVE level between two pairs of lampworking glasses (Phillips vs. Aura's) is practically meaningless, it is the ABSOLUTE level that the eye "cares" about. If the Boroscopes are BELOW what is a generally acceptable limit, then what difference does it make if they are *better* or *worse* than Brand X, Y or Z ??
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Another Analog Brain in the New Digital World" - me
"The fact that nobody understands you doesn't make you an artist" - PopCap Zuma game, Level 12-7

Last edited by BillBrach; 2005-07-23 at 10:10am.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 2005-07-24, 11:53am
kbinkster's Avatar
kbinkster kbinkster is offline
PyronamixK
 
Join Date: Jun 24, 2005
Location: Spatula City
Posts: 4,196
Default

Quote:
"The fact that nobody understands you doesn't make you an artist" - Zuma game, Level 12-7
Hehe. Bill, I saw that on Zuma, too.

Out of curiosity, I would like to know what the parameters were for the testing. How far was the lens from the IR source? How far was the reader from the lens?

No one is doubting the test results. It is clear that at whatever distances they were performed, AuraLens offered more IR protection than Boroscopes. But, I think that the distance thing plays an important role in real-life application.

No one would argue that a five point harness, an air bag, and a roll cage offers superior protection in a roll-over crash than a seat beal and an air bag. But, do you really need it (even if you drive all day)? Taxi drivers don't.

Also, I would like to know if AUR 286s offer more protection than ACE lenses with flip-down welders' shades (glass, not faded plastic). There is no doubt that they are more comfortable for some.

And for the record, I have NO affiliation with Phillip's Safety. I do not even own a pair of Boroscopes.

Last edited by kbinkster; 2005-07-24 at 11:55am.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 2005-07-25, 10:05am
MikeAurelius's Avatar
MikeAurelius MikeAurelius is offline
Safety ALWAYS
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 2,401
Default

The methods of calculating IR radiance at the eye can be found here:

http://www.auralens.net/e_gwtechnical2.cfm

I calculated an example, read the document to follow along. The total radiance to the unprotected eye is .513 watts per square centimeter (this includes the distance calculations).

Here are the results with the protection factors of various filters:

Phillips Boroscopes Shade 3 passes an average of 55%, so 55% of 0.513 = 0.282
Phillips Boroscopes Shade 5 passes an average of 40%, so 40% of 0.513 = 0.205

Aura Lens AGW 203 passes an average of 3.4%, so 3.4% of .513 = 0.017

Aura Lens AGW 286 Shade 5 passes an average of 1.5%, so 1.5% of .513 = 0.008

The NIOSH/OSHA TLV for IR radiation at the eye is 0.010 watts per square cm. The Phillips filters pass better than 20 times that amount.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 2005-07-25, 11:53am
BillBrach's Avatar
BillBrach BillBrach is offline
Professional Bead Pimp
 
Join Date: Jun 11, 2005
Location: Gainesville & Cape San Blas, Florida
Posts: 406
Default

So, you REALLY don't have any ACTUAL measurements of IR energy getting through a pair of Boroscopes ?? It looks to me to be a bunch of calculations done on a lot of "guesstimates" as to what might actually be happening with a real torch.

I see a few things wrong with your assumptions. Just using common sense tells me these are not quite valid assumptions:

1. The flame is tapered, so it isn't really as big on cross-section as you say.

2. The flame temp is not linear from the torch out 8". The average temp is much lower than 3500 degrees.

3. And who the hell has a 2200 degree HOT ZONE 4 INCHES SQUARE ?? Thats 2/3's the size of a playing card !! Damn few people on this forum I'm sure. That goes for a torch with a 1" DIAMETER flame too.

I, for one, would like to see you do the calculation for a reasonable torch that the average person might own, say a Lynx or a Minor. Assume a flame size of 3/8" cross-section by 6" long, and a working object of say, a 1" diameter bead.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Another Analog Brain in the New Digital World" - me
"The fact that nobody understands you doesn't make you an artist" - PopCap Zuma game, Level 12-7

Last edited by BillBrach; 2005-07-25 at 12:12pm.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 2005-07-25, 12:23pm
Mr. Smiley's Avatar
Mr. Smiley Mr. Smiley is offline
boro color bender
 
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
Default

By your calculations Mike, your retinas are the least of your problems... a flame that large with a piece of molten glass that huge, would set your head on fire if you tried this in real life... don't try it kids. Now, how about reworking them in a real life scenario... I guess that wouldn't make boroscopes look bad, now would it?

It's just a real shame that you have tried these scare tactics on bead makers too... I can almost see your point with some of the really large scale boro workers. Better safe than sorry... but to post this on a bead making board... come on.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Truth is, everybody is going to hurt you; you just gotta find the ones worth suffering for." -Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 2005-07-25, 1:01pm
MikeAurelius's Avatar
MikeAurelius MikeAurelius is offline
Safety ALWAYS
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 2,401
Default

Yeah...I figured that both of you would pull some idiotic response like this, go figure...

3500 degrees is the average temperature of a oxygen/propane flame

2200 degrees is the working temperature of borosilicate glass

1" x 8" is a typical borosililcate glassworking torch flame -- we are talking a medium size torch here, certainly not a Minor bench burner.

As far as working size? Well, considering that most boro workers tend to work on large pieces, a working area of 2 " x 4" isn't that far out of range, especially considering when someone is working with 40 mm or larger rod or tubing.

And it was posted here, Brent, because YOU, sir, brought the arguement over here, from the Boro board. You want someone to blame, look in the mirror.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 2005-07-25, 1:32pm
Mr. Smiley's Avatar
Mr. Smiley Mr. Smiley is offline
boro color bender
 
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
Default

I didn't bring it here. I followed your link in the first post from here to the boro board... So, where do you get that I brought the argument here??? You're a funny fellow there Mike.

You posted this information that pertains only to a select few boro workers on a bead board... is business so bad, you've got to try and scare "everybody" into buying your glasses. These conditions you put up as proof only apply to a select few working big boro and the working distance is really short as well. I would REALLY like to see you recreate your "real life" equation... you better have tough skin.

It's really about half as much IR reaching your eyes if you put the work out about 10 more inches... and we're still talking raging fire, that would melt a mandrel in a heart beat! With a mass of glass, that would win worlds largest boro bead contests world wide- LOL

Do me a favor Mike, rework the numbers and show how you'll get IR damage working a boro bead... on a smaller torch... would you have to be close enough to burn your nose???
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Truth is, everybody is going to hurt you; you just gotta find the ones worth suffering for." -Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 2005-07-25, 1:42pm
Dale M.'s Avatar
Dale M. Dale M. is offline
Gentleman of Leisure
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: A Little Bit West of Yosemite Valley
Posts: 5,200
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeAurelius
Yeah...I figured that both of you would pull some idiotic response like this, go figure...
Can you not just answer the question as it was asked.... Intead of dancing around the actuall figures/distances...

I guess that makes three of us on this board alone that are "idiots' now....

Dale
__________________
You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Vendor-Artist-Studio-Teacher Registry

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
San Francisco - A Few Toys Short of a Happy Meal

Last edited by Dale M.; 2005-07-25 at 1:44pm.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 2005-07-25, 3:22pm
BillBrach's Avatar
BillBrach BillBrach is offline
Professional Bead Pimp
 
Join Date: Jun 11, 2005
Location: Gainesville & Cape San Blas, Florida
Posts: 406
Default

Mike,

I hope you don't think that we are "ganging up" on you. As you know, there is a tremendous amount of "mis-information" out there on lampworking and eye safety. I for one REALLY just want to know the truth.

Also, Kimberly's question about using a #5 welders clip-on's on top of the standard ACE glasses has not been answered either.

And, I have a question I've been meaning to ask for a long time. Do regular polycarbonate prescription glasses offer any IR protection, and how about if the prescription glasses were glass instead of polycarbonate ?? If the lense materials are both the same thickness, is glass or polycarbonate a better IR filter.

edit: according to the link you posed above, your AGW-203 exceed the government-suggested IR levels. Is this correct ??

Bill
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Another Analog Brain in the New Digital World" - me
"The fact that nobody understands you doesn't make you an artist" - PopCap Zuma game, Level 12-7

Last edited by BillBrach; 2005-07-25 at 3:36pm.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 2005-07-25, 11:00pm
kbinkster's Avatar
kbinkster kbinkster is offline
PyronamixK
 
Join Date: Jun 24, 2005
Location: Spatula City
Posts: 4,196
Default

I posted this on another forum where this discussion is ongoing...

What I don’t understand is how in the world the lampworking industry ever made it before AUR filters? What happened to all those eyes that worked for years and years with only didymiums and the occasional welders’ shades (for quartz)? Go visit a quartz shop and look at what they’re wearing. The biggest hi-tech scientific shops in the country to this day still use didymiums (with welders’ shade 6 when they work quartz). If they were so inadequate, then why would they have them in those shops and why would distributors still sell them? Maybe it’s because the scientific shops still buy them. Given the published test results, why isn’t every eyewear distributor clamoring for more AURs to sell? Why isn’t every scientific shop equipping itself exclusively with AURs?

After asking around, I found that there are scientific and artistic lampworkers all over the country using didymium lenses for their work who have had no ill effects after decades of full-time torch work. How can that be? According to the Mike, everyone who puts a rod of boro into a flame should be scared to death that their eyes will be irreversibly damaged after a few short years of work. He asserts that didymiums offer no protection against damaging IR. That seems to be true. But, what if IR is not an issue? What if, given the rate IR drops according to distance, there is very little, if any harmful IR entering your eye at normal working distances? The tests mentioned earlier use a model 16” away from an incredibly hot source. In reality, do most boro workers rage a piece that close to their face? When doing detail work that may require one to view a piece closely, one generally turns the flame down and works much, much cooler. When one works small-scale (like Mike’s “realistic” dillies), one does not rage the flame. When one really rages a piece, one looks more like someone riding down the road on a Harley with a big set of ape hangers. It just doesn’t seem that the lenses were tested under practical conditions.

Seriously, I see the “living legends” of the glass world with their sight still intact after years and years of working boro day in and day out using just didymiums (long before AURs were ever available) – legends like Steven Selchow, Lewis Wilson, Bill Rasmussen, Paul Stankard, Robert Mickelson, Haans Fraebel, Bob Snodgrass, etc. just to name a few. These guys were our Guinnea Pigs, so to speak, in real-life trials. They’re the living proof of what really goes on behind a torch under practical conditions.

And, yes, I know that some will point out that furnace blowers get cataracts. I understand that furnace blowers do indeed have problems, but their work environment is totally different and many of those guys don’t wear any eye protection. They constantly look into blazing HOT FURNACES, throwing off who knows how much IR, at HUGE masses of HOT glass, checking to see when the batch is ready, often without any IR protection. Their gathers are immensely larger than those of the typical lampworker. These are just not the same conditions that lampworkers work under. Given that so many lampwork artists and scientific lampworkers who basically did not shield their eyes from IR are still walking around today without guide dogs or canes, the scare tactics we’ve been subjected to seem rather unwarranted.

The thing that also stands out is that Mike is coming onto forums frequented mainly by beadmakers. Beads, pendants, and small sculptures (what a majority of us here make) are not the same as big, huge, hot gathers of glass that other glass workers make. I do not feel that our exposure is the same. Therefore our risk is not the same. Yet, we are being scared into thinking that if we don't invest in a $300 pair of Mike's glasses, we'll all be doomed. I'm not telling anyone to buy or not to buy something. You have to make that decision for yourself. I just resent being scared into something by a salesman very adept at using charts, graphs, and big numbers.

Last edited by kbinkster; 2005-07-25 at 11:07pm. Reason: added a couple of legends and corrected a typo
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 2005-07-26, 3:32am
BillBrach's Avatar
BillBrach BillBrach is offline
Professional Bead Pimp
 
Join Date: Jun 11, 2005
Location: Gainesville & Cape San Blas, Florida
Posts: 406
Default

Kimberly,

And think about people that have been oxy-acetylene welding for a long time. This is very similar to lampworking, but with a much larger flame and much larger "hot work" areas.

As it appears from Mike's numbers that the largest portion of the IR comes from the flame and the hot work, then all of these people should be blind too.

I'm also troubled when a respected manufacturer resorts to lawsuits and postings of this type of information about a competitor. I understand the right for Aura to defend themselves, but I still don't like the tactics and I feel that it "dirties" the entire industry. I believe that a company ought to conduct itself by playing UP the merits of its products, and not by tearing down the less meritious products of other companies. I've seen this backfire many, many times.

And believe me, I'm NOT accusing Mike of lying, I'm just reminded of the famous quote below any time I see somebody trying to "make a case" using statistics.

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
-- Mark Twain (1835-1910), [Samuel Langhorne Clemens] American author, humorist

I truly believe that Mike's scientific data is extremely accurate. Our American politicians are infamous for this technique. I'm simply saying that statistics can be a two-way street.

Bill
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Another Analog Brain in the New Digital World" - me
"The fact that nobody understands you doesn't make you an artist" - PopCap Zuma game, Level 12-7

Last edited by BillBrach; 2005-07-26 at 3:56am.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 2005-07-26, 6:14am
MikeAurelius's Avatar
MikeAurelius MikeAurelius is offline
Safety ALWAYS
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 2,401
Default

Quote:
legends like Lewis Wilson, Bill Rasmussen, Paul Stankard, Robert Mickelson, Haans Fraebel, etc. just to name a few.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Lewis Wilson, Paul Stankard, Robert Mickelson, et al, all wear, at a minimum AGW-186. I just did a prescription pair of AGW-186 for Milon Townsend. Lewis wears AGW-286. He has several pair, in different frames, depending on what particular project he's working on.

I can drop names, too, Kimberly. But somehow, I don't need to make up fake information about what these well-known artists wear. I KNOW.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 2005-07-26, 6:17am
MikeAurelius's Avatar
MikeAurelius MikeAurelius is offline
Safety ALWAYS
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 2,401
Default

Quote:
And think about people that have been oxy-acetylene welding for a long time. This is very similar to lampworking, but with a much larger flame and much larger "hot work" areas.
Yep, and why do they wear welding filters to protect their eyes? TO CUT THE IR!

You seem to have a problem with mathmetical equations Bill. I don't understand this. Is there something inherently WRONG with using an equation (and one that has been proven and accepted by the industry, I might add) to calculate exposure?

Ok, you don't like my "example". Fine. Shoot me what you believe to be more realistic numbers, and I'll be happy to run the exact same calculation with those.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 2005-07-26, 6:31am
MikeAurelius's Avatar
MikeAurelius MikeAurelius is offline
Safety ALWAYS
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 2,401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillBrach
Mike,

I hope you don't think that we are "ganging up" on you. As you know, there is a tremendous amount of "mis-information" out there on lampworking and eye safety. I for one REALLY just want to know the truth.

Also, Kimberly's question about using a #5 welders clip-on's on top of the standard ACE glasses has not been answered either.

And, I have a question I've been meaning to ask for a long time. Do regular polycarbonate prescription glasses offer any IR protection, and how about if the prescription glasses were glass instead of polycarbonate ?? If the lense materials are both the same thickness, is glass or polycarbonate a better IR filter.

edit: according to the link you posed above, your AGW-203 exceed the government-suggested IR levels. Is this correct ??

Bill
Clear lenses, glass or plastic, do not offer IR protection, period. If you are talking about dyed polycarbonate lenses, similar to the ones used on welding clip on's, the protection level decreases fairly linearly with exposure to radiation.

Yes, the AGW-203 DOES exceed, by a small amount, the standard. Our literature clearly states "NOTE: This filter is *NOT* designed for advanced techniques such as fuming, or with intensive flare colors without additional filtration such as our 7520 welders clip on flip up."

I find it interesting that you point this out on my product, yet you do not do the same for the Phillips product...very interesting indeed. And yet you claim not to be "ganging up"...hmmmm...

Kimberly's question has been answered many many times, in many many places. To answer it, yes, providing that GLASS welding shade 5 is used, this would be a totally safe filter.

I have noted over the past several years, that every time I produce information that shows unequivably that the Phillips product is unsafe, there are always a handful of people out there raising "if, ands, or but's". I don't mind honestly asked questions about techniques and processes, but I don't see that here. What I see is an attack on something that you yourself asked for. You asked me for the data. I provided it. Now you don't like it, so you proceed to attack the method, the delivery, and the messenger.

The method, as I mentioned above, is a forumula, generally accepted by the industry. You claim "So, you REALLY don't have any ACTUAL measurements of IR energy getting through a pair of Boroscopes ?? It looks to me to be a bunch of calculations done on a lot of "guesstimates" as to what might actually be happening with a real torch."

There are no "guesstimates" here. These are very real numbers. We know the energy put out by a heat source, we can quibble about the distance and the size of the heated area, and we know the transmission values of the product.

Take those numbers, run them through the formula and you have the energy level.

I don't understand what is so wrong with using a formula to calculate this. It's done all the time.

The eyeglasses you wear to correct your vision? Calculated with several formulas. Do you believe black holes exist? They cannot be observed, the only way to know they exist is by the use of formulas.

I can go on, but I see that it is pointless to continue this conversation. You have your own beliefs, clearly stated, I have mine. We will have to agree to disagree.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 2005-07-26, 7:58am
BillBrach's Avatar
BillBrach BillBrach is offline
Professional Bead Pimp
 
Join Date: Jun 11, 2005
Location: Gainesville & Cape San Blas, Florida
Posts: 406
Default

Mike,

As I've said many times to people, I don't doubt the validity of the data that you paid for, that was done by the "independent optics lab". I have not seen the raw data and in fact don't WANT to see it. But, if I were Ryan Phillips, I'd certainly be asking you for a copy of it.

Additionally, those "industry accepted equations" you mention DO NOT substitute for actual MEASUREMENTS of IR passing thru a pair of Boroscopes (or any other pair of safety glasses for that matter). That is what I want to know. Can you understand that it is my eyes care that about the IR coming into them, and not some stupid equation. Equations should NOT be substituted for the real world.

And, I have NO problems with the equations and example that you presented, other than the fact that the example numbers you made up are VERY UNREALISTIC with respect to the average lampworker, much less the lampworkers on this board.

Until I see numbers from ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS of IR behind glasses running in front of a big torch, I will never be convinced by a bunch of "equations" intended to do no more than 'impress' the public.

Can you imagine General Motors saying something like "We have calculated that the new Bazoomga 6000 will get 15 miles per gallon", instead of actually measuring it in "realistic" field condtions (which we all know that the automakers DO measure gas mileage, but under field conditions that give them the highest MPG). Just giving an example of why actual measurements are MORE IMPORTANT than theoretical equations.

Bill
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Another Analog Brain in the New Digital World" - me
"The fact that nobody understands you doesn't make you an artist" - PopCap Zuma game, Level 12-7

Last edited by BillBrach; 2005-07-26 at 8:04am.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 2005-07-26, 8:07am
BillBrach's Avatar
BillBrach BillBrach is offline
Professional Bead Pimp
 
Join Date: Jun 11, 2005
Location: Gainesville & Cape San Blas, Florida
Posts: 406
Default

Oh, you also asked about other torch conditions.

Why not try your calcuations on a typical torch, lets say a Minor. Use 1/4" diameter of the flame, 4" long flame hot zone, and a 5/8" diameter workpiece.

I think this is more closely what most people are doing. It might still come out over but I'd bet it is damn close to being within the limit.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Another Analog Brain in the New Digital World" - me
"The fact that nobody understands you doesn't make you an artist" - PopCap Zuma game, Level 12-7
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 2005-07-26, 8:13am
kbinkster's Avatar
kbinkster kbinkster is offline
PyronamixK
 
Join Date: Jun 24, 2005
Location: Spatula City
Posts: 4,196
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeAurelius
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Lewis Wilson, Paul Stankard, Robert Mickelson, et al, all wear, at a minimum AGW-186. I just did a prescription pair of AGW-186 for Milon Townsend. Lewis wears AGW-286. He has several pair, in different frames, depending on what particular project he's working on.

I can drop names, too, Kimberly. But somehow, I don't need to make up fake information about what these well-known artists wear. I KNOW.
Mike, re-read my post... carefully. I thought I did a pretty good job of spelling things out. Is it a reading comprehension problem, or are you having trouble with your eyes? Maybe you should consult an optometrist or opthamologist, you know, a degreed professional. I said that these people were using didymiums for years and years before your filters were available.

I'm not the one who needs to lie (make up fake information or twist real information) to convince someone of something.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 2005-07-26, 8:18am
MikeAurelius's Avatar
MikeAurelius MikeAurelius is offline
Safety ALWAYS
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 2,401
Default

Sorry Bill, but a minor does not fall into the range of a "normal" torch for working borosilicate glass. It can be done, but it isn't done fast or easy.

And as for equations, once again, you miss the mark. Does GM test EVERY SINGLE CAR for gas mileage? No they don't. They test a sample, then apply the data from the sample to the automobile/truck/suv in question.

And that is exactly what has been done in this instance. A test was done on a random sample of both mine and Boroscopes. The data was then applied identically. The results speak for themselves.

Boroscopes shade 3 pass 55% IR energy, shade 5 pass about 40%. Those are hard facts.

The calculation of the energy from the torch is a hard fact as well. Ok, let's say that the energy reaching the lenses is .25 watts per square centimeter. Boroscopes are still going to pass 10 time MORE IR radiation than the NIOSH/OSHA standard calls for with exposures exceeding 16 minutes.

Oh, and Phillips has the data. It was given to him long ago.

As I've said, I'm done arguing with you. I've far more important things to do with my time than waste it on you.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 2005-07-26, 11:10am
BillBrach's Avatar
BillBrach BillBrach is offline
Professional Bead Pimp
 
Join Date: Jun 11, 2005
Location: Gainesville & Cape San Blas, Florida
Posts: 406
Default

Hey Brent,

PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD, it is fruitless. I'm going to go talk to one of my cats instead. At least they pretend to understand what I'm saying.

edit: Mike, you are wrong again. GM TESTS many automobiles of a particular model, to get the MPG numbers. My father-in-law worked at the Proving Grounds in Detroit. They run them 24/7 to do this. And Mike, the word TESTS is in caps because they ACTUALLY MEASURE the gas mileage, and not MAKE UP gas mileage based on some theoretical EQUATIONS.

Thats what I'm trying to get across, the actual IR levels from a running torch were NOT measured in your optics lab tests. You have "implied" results based on LAB tests from a lab IR source, NOT ACTUAL FIELD TESTS on a running torch !!

Bill
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Another Analog Brain in the New Digital World" - me
"The fact that nobody understands you doesn't make you an artist" - PopCap Zuma game, Level 12-7

Last edited by BillBrach; 2005-07-26 at 2:04pm.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 5:01am.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Your IP: 18.204.227.250