|
Safety -- Make sure you are safe! |
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-16, 1:32pm
|
![Mr. Smiley's Avatar](image.php?s=914b112a18ab101f23ad27d8c3a4141d&u=63&dateline=1304374783) |
boro color bender
|
|
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
|
|
Hold the phone... Mike said that the equation is flawed, not you... now he says it isn't and he hasn't run a single test or talked to anybody that backed it up. It's flawed and if you want to back it as fact, that's your right... but it doesn't make it right.
I'm not throwing a tantrum... you are reading it wrong. Genuinely surprised at the choices Aura is making on this issue, but not upset.
__________________
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
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-17, 6:36am
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 09, 2009
Posts: 253
|
|
Quote:
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.
|
Yes, he did. But you are being extraordinarily unreasonable by demanding a retraction. He's already stated there may be a problem with the flame calculations.
But the whole point of the exercise was to show that the Phillips filter products do not filter IR, and no matter what numbers you plug into the formula, the Phillips filters routinely fail the test.
It is obvious that there is a personal problem between you and Mike. That's fine. But please stop trying to defame the company because of your personal squabble with Mike. I don't see you working at trying to resolve the issue of either the flame calculations or the personality problem. All you seem to be content to do is sit on the sidelines and throw rocks at whatever Mike does, especially when Mike himself is unable (but not unwilling) to respond to your comments. You have a history of calling him out for whatever reason, but it doesn't belong here. Take it out in the alley and resolve it between yourselves. Please.
__________________
Ed Peterson
Sales Manager
Aura Visual Concepts, Inc.
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. : LE2009
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-17, 2:33pm
|
![Mr. Smiley's Avatar](image.php?s=914b112a18ab101f23ad27d8c3a4141d&u=63&dateline=1304374783) |
boro color bender
|
|
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
|
|
The only personal problem between myself and Mike spawn from how he has handled this situation. Period. It's wrong for a business to use anything remotely questionable to defame their competition. I was actually getting ready to order glasses from Mike when this subject came up. Before then, there were zero hard feelings. ZERO.
__________________
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
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-17, 2:35pm
|
![Mr. Smiley's Avatar](image.php?s=914b112a18ab101f23ad27d8c3a4141d&u=63&dateline=1304374783) |
boro color bender
|
|
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
|
|
I see the new management for Aura is acting just like Mike did. As far as I'm concerned, using faulty math in any form and presenting it as fact is down low and dirty. Especially when you are supposed to be an expert on this stuff.
__________________
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
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-17, 3:19pm
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 18, 2008
Location: Jimmietown, NY
Posts: 65
|
|
I also agree that if the calculations could be wrong, as Mike clearly stated, they should not be posted as fact on your website..... Weather or not Phillips product is inferior.... I have used Aura's products exclusively and have recommended them to everybody, but i must say business practices as of late as well as random numbers plugged into a formula intended to make your product look superior has left a very sour taste in my mouth
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-17, 3:53pm
|
Cali4nia baby
|
|
Join Date: Aug 22, 2008
Posts: 205
|
|
hmmm.... so Ed when do ya get any "work" done? posting here and melting pot etc. all day doesn't leave much time to "improve"(repair?) the company ......imho
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-17, 6:34pm
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 21, 2008
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 867
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Smiley
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
|
I don't have a dog in the fight regarding Auralens vs Phillips, but I do have other reasons to be interested in the information shown on Auralens's page. I am very confused by your statements throughout this post, Brent. I've read the post Pam quoted and what you've written here: What part of the equation, specifically, do you feel is wrong? I haven't seen yet where you state what, exactly, you think is wrong and how, exactly, you feel it should be modified. Is your issue the equation itself or the assumptions in some of the numbers being plugged into it? For example, is your beef with the numbers stated for IR wattage/cm2 at various temperatures? Or is it the basic exposure equation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Smiley
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.
|
Since when is a flame NOT an isotropic radiation source (or the hot glass for that matter)? It's linear in shape, certainly, but that doesn't make it non isotropic. I therefore don't understand your 'directional' statement, nor do I understand your statement 'your eyes are not in line to receive that IR'. If you can see the light, and there's no IR filter inbetween your eyes and the flame, for an isotropic source that emits IR, your eyes would logically be exposed to IR as well as visible.
I personally don't mind if you disagree publically with an analysis such as that posted on Auralens's site, so long as you provide your own facts and data for similar open review. Otherwise, your statements come across as just unfounded assertions and therefore merely add to any confusion.
Linda
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 1:03am
|
![Mr. Smiley's Avatar](image.php?s=914b112a18ab101f23ad27d8c3a4141d&u=63&dateline=1304374783) |
boro color bender
|
|
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
|
|
Linda, as stated, I did run the math about two years ago. I should have saved all of that, but I didn't. The part of the equation I have a problem with is the calculation for IR by the flame. It's off... way off base. According to these numbers, I believe it was already over the TLV by 16 times with a minor sized flame. Anybody that has ever sat down to light their torch knows you do not have a blast of heat when you simply light your torch. I mean you do have a blast of heat... but it's directional and does not hit your face in a normal torching position.
Run some numbers and see for yourself. It's not just a wee bit off... it's gonna be lucky if it's in the same state. What we need are real life IR levels. It might be a bit more than what I can do, but this testing should not be out of reach for the ISGB or the companies making these glasses to protect us from IR. We need real life numbers... not just some formula borrowed and spliced from other industries. It doesn't fit... it doesn't work... it's flawed and it's been presented as fact. I don't know how much clearer I can be.
As far as the other parts of the equation, where Mike is "estimating" the IR emitted by the working piece, I don't know how accurate that is either. He's plugged random sizes in at estimated temps... this may be closer, but again, it's only a guess.
I think we deserve much better than flawed equations and guesses... don't you?
__________________
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
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 5:13am
|
![Mr. Smiley's Avatar](image.php?s=914b112a18ab101f23ad27d8c3a4141d&u=63&dateline=1304374783) |
boro color bender
|
|
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVC-Ed
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.
|
Nobody is arguing this point with you or Mike. Soft glass workers do not need to worry about the calculations we are discussing. This discussion is NOT about the ACE lens material. Both Aura and Phillips use the exact same lens material for their soft glass filters.
The argument about IR pertains ONLY to boro workers and the darker lenses to protect them.
IF YOU ARE A SOFT GLASS WORKER- you don't need to hurt your brain or try to figure out who's right... you can relax and buy either Aura or Phillips and you're good to go. No worries for you. You are safe with either choice... just so that's clear and doesn't get confused.
__________________
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
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 5:18am
|
![Mr. Smiley's Avatar](image.php?s=914b112a18ab101f23ad27d8c3a4141d&u=63&dateline=1304374783) |
boro color bender
|
|
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
|
|
I will get the transmission charts for the new Green ACE that Phillips is using for their boro filters now. The charts and data Mike gathered to plug into his "equation" is old and a non issue these years later. Phillips has improved it's lens material greatly for their boro glasses and that's another thing that's not been mentioned. If you're going to compare one product to another, you've got to have yup to date data on the competition. Ford can't compare it's 2009 gas mileage to Chevy's 2004 gas mileage to make it look better. Let's stick to comparing oranges to oranges.
__________________
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
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 7:34am
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 09, 2009
Posts: 253
|
|
E-mail from Mike this morning:
Quote:
Ed -- to answer your questions:
This whole issue has gotten pushed way out of proportion by Brent. I'm not sure what his agenda here is, but in any case, let's look at the issue.
1. The radiance paper was put together for borosilicate workers, and only those who work fairly large, essentially anything larger than a normal sized fist. The document was never intended for use by beadmakers, as should be obvious to anyone who actually READS the document for what it says instead of what they think it says.
2. Even if you take the flame calculations out of the picture, the total radiance from just the example piece alone is .138 watts per square centimeter at 16 inches. Further, assuming the 55% IR transmission of the Phillips Shade 3, that reduces the .138 to 0.076 and the 40% of the Phillips shade 5 to 0.0552. Since the TLV is .010 watts per square centimeter, that means the Phillips Shade 3 passes more than 7 times the TLV and the Phillips Shade 5 passes more than 5 times the TLV. And that's without the flame calculations. This tells me that Brent is attempting to cloud the issue in order to draw attention away from this very damning fact.
3. Brent also is comparing apples to oranges in order to further cloud the issue, and that is the size of the flame. If you look at the size of the flame I used in the example, you will see that it has based on a flame that has a base measurement of 1 inch, and 8" long. This was based on my own Bethlehem Tiger Shark, a medium sized torch. Brent is attempting to say that this compares to a Nortel Minor and that is definitely not true. Further, he says that on a minor torch, you can put your finger right next to the flame, and once again, clouds the issue. Yes, on a Minor you can do that. But not on a medium to large sized torch with an 8" or longer flame. The fact of the matter is that on a flame that sized, even 5" can be uncomfortable, and on larger torches, 12" or more space from the flame is necessary because of the radiant heat of the flame. For Brent to say that there is essentially no radiant heat from a small flame is silly and flies in the face of real world physics.
Flames of any kind are radiant heat generators, in all directions from the flame. Since visible light is a component of the spectrum being generated by the flame, the very fact that you can see the flame at all tells us that there is heat being generated. The formula that is used in the calculation is the standard Black Body formula for radiant energy generators. A perfect example of this is the resistance heater found on many electric stove tops. When cold, it is black. As it heats up, it begins to glow a deep dark red, then becomes more brighter red, to orange. If it were able to get hot enough without the thermostatic controls, it would move to yellow, then to green etc through the spectrum. Our eyes would see it as turning "white hot" meaning that all the colors of the visible spectrum are being generated. This would be a temp in excess of 4000 degrees.
And I'll also note for the record that once again, if the document is read carefully, that the numbers provided are examples to show the math. If the reader chooses to do some measurements and plug in their own numbers, it would be a good exercise to check what their own radiation exposure is, and I encourage anyone who is interested to do so.
Brent has indicated that he is going to get the numbers for the current product that Phillips is selling. That's all well and good, but totally ignores the hundreds, if not thousands of pairs of spectacles out there in the real world that are using the older product. And since no one except Phillips knows how many pair of these they sold over the years, and how much remaining stock of this older glass they still have (and may still in fact be selling), there is a very real danger to anyone using the Phillips product unless they can have the pair they currently own independently tested for transmission in the IR range.
I hope this resolves any and all questions on this issue.
My mom is having surgery on Thursday, so I won't be in at all that day.
|
__________________
Ed Peterson
Sales Manager
Aura Visual Concepts, Inc.
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. : LE2009
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 8:39am
|
![Mr. Smiley's Avatar](image.php?s=914b112a18ab101f23ad27d8c3a4141d&u=63&dateline=1304374783) |
boro color bender
|
|
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
|
|
Thanks Mike for clearing up the fact that you are ONLY talking about boro workers and working an object larger than your fist.
I have not tried to cloud any issue... just clear it up for the bead making community of glass workers.
I have never said a flame does not radiate some heat, that would just be silly. I have said that it does not radiate the heat towards our eyes, as described in your formula.
The fact of the matter is that you claimed Boroscopes were inadequate for ALL boro work and that is just not the case... that has been my argument with you all along.
I am glad you are at least admitting to some of the points I have had to argue in the past. It's a start.
Now all of the bead makers can relax... they have nothing to fear... and they can stop doing advanced math.
__________________
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
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 8:49am
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 09, 2009
Posts: 253
|
|
Quote:
Thanks Mike for clearing up the fact that you are ONLY talking about boro workers and working an object larger than your fist.
|
I got that in my first reading of the document. What part of
Quote:
For the working area, let’s assume that the temperature of the glass is 2200 degrees (which is a radiance of 25 Watts per square centimeter), and the area being worked is 5 centimeters by 10 centimeters (or 50 square centimeters). We’ll keep the same working distance of 40 centimeters
|
and
Quote:
For the nonworking area, let’s assume that the temperature of the glass is 1100 degrees (which is a radiance of 3 Watts per square centimeter), and the nonworking area equal to the working area, or 50 square centimeters). Remember that if you are building a large piece, the nonworking section will continue to grow, so keep that in mind. We will also keep the same working distance of 40 centimeters.
|
did you not understand?
The working area described is 2 inches by 5 inches, with a similar sized area as non-working. That's 20 square inches. That's a pretty big piece, Brent.
Quote:
I have said that it does not radiate the heat towards our eyes, as described in your formula.
|
And you would be incredibly wrong by making that statement.
If you can see the flame (or the source of the heat), you are getting exposed to it. Energy radiates in all directions, it is non-coherent (as opposed to your argument, which is incoherent), and travels in a sphere outwards in all directions. That is basic physics, Brent.
__________________
Ed Peterson
Sales Manager
Aura Visual Concepts, Inc.
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. : LE2009
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 9:17am
|
![Mr. Smiley's Avatar](image.php?s=914b112a18ab101f23ad27d8c3a4141d&u=63&dateline=1304374783) |
boro color bender
|
|
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
|
|
Ed, I am not incredibly wrong... and I'm sure real life IR testing would back that up. Since you are now in control of a safety product that is supposed to be protecting us from a very specific danger, I suggest you do the proper research on what you're product is guarding us against. Without even knowing what our exposure levels are, you can't say one way or another if a product is sufficient or over kill. You can not tell us what we need and that is your J-O-B. Not mine.
If you are a real life human being with the name Ed Peterson, you are acting just like Mike, handling the industry and your end users just like Mike did and you will have the same problems Mike had.
Mike underestimated this industries members and the ability of some of us to do math, understand complex equations and basics physics. Don't make the same mistake Ed. We are not all as dumb as Mike anticipated when he posted these "scientific" findings several years ago.
__________________
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
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 9:56am
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 09, 2009
Posts: 253
|
|
All I can tell you to do is to look at a simple candle.
How come the wax melts? Not because the flame contacts the wax, but because of the radiated heat UNDERNEATH the flame. If the flame doesn't radiate in a sphere around the flame, then the wax should not melt.
Ask some large scale boro workers. I'm sure you know a few. Find out from them why the use such things as blast shields, and cream up with sunblock. Ask them if they are getting radiated heat in their face. Then tell them that it is all imaginary and you don't believe it.
Mike suggests you stand beside a Delta or Python and see how close you can get your hands much less your face, all the way around, not only perpendicular to the flame, but behind it as well.
How come Mike Plane dresses in an Aluminum suit when he works his glass? Because of radiated heat from the torch (and the work).
I find it very difficult to believe that you don't think that heat is radiated out from a torch in all directions. I know you want this to be wrong, but you aren't using common sense. Linda is correct in her statements above, and she's not connected with Aura in any way whatsoever.
__________________
Ed Peterson
Sales Manager
Aura Visual Concepts, Inc.
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. : LE2009
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 10:00am
|
![Mr. Smiley's Avatar](image.php?s=914b112a18ab101f23ad27d8c3a4141d&u=63&dateline=1304374783) |
boro color bender
|
|
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
|
|
Ok, I did a little math... since we're talking about beads here on a predominately bead maker board...
I plugged in 3 square centimeters for the equation. That's a pretty descent sized boro bead for most folks. Since there really is no non-working area for this size, that can be done away with... and until we know what the flame actually produces in terms of exposure, I am not going to include it in this example.
E = 25 * ( 3 / 10053)
Which reduces to: E = 25 * .0002984
Which results in: E = .00746
If all things are well with your equation, then when we plug our own numbers into it, well, we haven't even gotten to the TLV of .010 when we make a pretty big boro donut bead. According to this we don't need protection from this level of IR exposure...
I'll be very interested in seeing what comes of the IR testing... if it even happens. Things don't look quite as scary for the bead industry all of a sudden... time and research will reveal all truths...
__________________
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
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 10:06am
|
![Mr. Smiley's Avatar](image.php?s=914b112a18ab101f23ad27d8c3a4141d&u=63&dateline=1304374783) |
boro color bender
|
|
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVC-Ed
All I can tell you to do is to look at a simple candle.
How come the wax melts? Not because the flame contacts the wax, but because of the radiated heat UNDERNEATH the flame. If the flame doesn't radiate in a sphere around the flame, then the wax should not melt.
Ask some large scale boro workers. I'm sure you know a few. Find out from them why the use such things as blast shields, and cream up with sunblock. Ask them if they are getting radiated heat in their face. Then tell them that it is all imaginary and you don't believe it.
Mike suggests you stand beside a Delta or Python and see how close you can get your hands much less your face, all the way around, not only perpendicular to the flame, but behind it as well.
How come Mike Plane dresses in an Aluminum suit when he works his glass? Because of radiated heat from the torch (and the work).
I find it very difficult to believe that you don't think that heat is radiated out from a torch in all directions. I know you want this to be wrong, but you aren't using common sense. Linda is correct in her statements above, and she's not connected with Aura in any way whatsoever.
|
I can stand near a delta, python or any of the larger torches all day. Some closer than others for sure, but that doesn't make your equation accurate. Yes, I know a lot of larger boro workers... I've done large boro work myself. I can also turn the torch off and there is very little change when I've got a 4 or 5" gather of boro smokin hot. The suits and sleeves are needed when you go large, but it's because of the piece entering the flame and becoming a radiant heat source. The piece will also redirect some of that heat energy from the torch, but your calculation can not and will never be accurate for determining the IR exposure from the flame. I'm sure there is a formula, but this is not it. The real formula would be way more complex... so complex that taking real life readings is much easier.
Is Aura willing to pony up some research money and get this testing done?
__________________
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
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 10:08am
|
![Mr. Smiley's Avatar](image.php?s=914b112a18ab101f23ad27d8c3a4141d&u=63&dateline=1304374783) |
boro color bender
|
|
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
|
|
Ed, they put a little metal wire in the wick of most candles, so the heat from the flame is conducted down into the wax. Without it, there can be issues with the wax melting enough to feed the candle. Yes, there is some radiant heat from the flame of a candle, but most of that is directional as well.
__________________
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
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 10:14am
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 09, 2009
Posts: 253
|
|
As Mike said before, this formula had absolutely NOTHING to do with beads. Nothing. You even accepted that statement above, and then you had to go and prove it for yourself. Congradulations.
It's obvious that you aren't interested in discussing this, you are just looking for an argument. Good day, sir.
__________________
Ed Peterson
Sales Manager
Aura Visual Concepts, Inc.
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. : LE2009
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 10:22am
|
![Mr. Smiley's Avatar](image.php?s=914b112a18ab101f23ad27d8c3a4141d&u=63&dateline=1304374783) |
boro color bender
|
|
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
|
|
I'm not arguing. I'm doing EXACTLY what you said to do... plugging in numbers that pertain to the size of the work most people do on THIS board. Sorry it didn't look ominous and scary enough for you.
__________________
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
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 10:25am
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 21, 2008
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 867
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Smiley
Anybody that has ever sat down to light their torch knows you do not have a blast of heat when you simply light your torch. I mean you do have a blast of heat... but it's directional and does not hit your face in a normal torching position.
|
Brent, this statement makes no sense at all, even for a minor, as you mention, and you have again avoided my question about your claim of 'directionality'. OF COURSE there is a blast of heat when lighting ANY torch, differences being only a matter of amount. And OF COURSE the IR will hit your face in a normal torching position. Standard black body radiation theory and the isotropic behavior of light as a particle tells you that it will, and again, it's only a question of amount, which is precisely what Mike's example was trying to estimate. The only way it could be 'directional' as you claim is if someone went to the trouble of shooting their flame down a tube with a specialized index of refraction at IR to guide the radiation or decided to mount a polarizer to their torch (and why would anyone want to do either??). You're making a strong absolute statement that doesn't make physical sense as if it were fact. Bad form if you're trying to disagree with someone on technical grounds.
Now, if what you're really trying to say is that the magnitude of the IR levels will change depending on the cross section of the flame being viewed or the distance from the flame, that I can accept..... but again that's precisely what Mike's exposure equation says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Smiley
What we need are real life IR levels. It might be a bit more than what I can do, but this testing should not be out of reach for the ISGB or the companies making these glasses to protect us from IR. We need real life numbers... not just some formula borrowed and spliced from other industries. It doesn't fit... it doesn't work... it's flawed and it's been presented as fact. I don't know how much clearer I can be.
|
How much clearer? You can be MUCH clearer. You're merely making unsupported, unproven statements. And I still can't figure out from either what I've excerpted to respond to or the main body of your response to me what your SPECIFIC issue is. You have not answered my question on this, either.
Is your biggest concern the IR levels vs temperature that Mike used as his example? If so, then I can understand your interest in testing....but why wouldn't flame characteristics from welding be applicable (welder's flames are not exempt from black body radiation theory....it would just be a difference in absolute temperature based on the difference in fuels would it not??) and wouldn't this information already exist from scientific glassblowing? It's not as if boro and quartz working is a brand new industry. And since this is performed in industrial settings regulated by OSHA and other health organizations where there is likely to be measured IR levels to support safety regulations, what's wrong with using an existing body of knowledge and how could scientific boro work NOT be applicable??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Smiley
Linda, as stated, I did run the math about two years ago. I should have saved all of that, but I didn't.
....
I think we deserve much better than flawed equations and guesses... don't you?
|
Frankly, I have to give Auralens a great deal of credit for having the courage to publically share their rationale and supporting analysis for their product. And remember, most of what was posted was merely an example of how to apply the exposure equation (to which you don't seem to object, although you're not at all clear) which could be modified for various torch flame sizes. Most companies would keep this proprietary. I think they have done lampworking a great service by being so open. Phillips, on the other hand, has provided no similar supporting information that I could find on their website. I'm not saying their products are bad, mind you, just that they have no similar corroborating analysis. And even if they did, I saw nothing on their site that would explain some of the degradations users of their products have observed and posted here.
Ed has posted a reasonable response from Mike, and you have provided NO facts or data to suggest that Auralens's products aren't just as suitable for boro work as Phillips. In fact, based on this quote from your response to me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Smiley
The part of the equation I have a problem with is the calculation for IR by the flame. It's off... way off base. According to these numbers, I believe it was already over the TLV by 16 times by 16 times with a minor sized flame
|
I would have to infer that you think Auralens may have OVER designed their products and that they may be safer than required, especially for a boro worker with a larger flame.
Rather, your posts sound like you've got some kind of personal issue with Mike that has nothing to do with the quality of the Auralens product.
So Brent, if you feel so passionately about this, and if you have a better analytic approach, go dig up your math and post it.
Linda
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 11:32am
|
![Mr. Smiley's Avatar](image.php?s=914b112a18ab101f23ad27d8c3a4141d&u=63&dateline=1304374783) |
boro color bender
|
|
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
|
|
Linda, you aren't following and you're assigning things to my posts that aren't there. I am not saying the flame produces zero IR. I'm saying the calculation exaggerates that greatly and is not accurate. Without having IR sensors and doing the real life testing, I can not show you how far they are off. What I can do is explain why I know they are off... if you sit down to your torch and light it, please take notice of the heat you feel coming off the flame. You can do this at varying distances. IR is light, but more specifically, it is a specific wave length and can be felt as heat. Now, get a gather of glass hot and feel the difference. Black body radiation theory comes into play here. As the heat from the flame is absorbed, it begins to radiate in all directions as it is released. This is when things start to get warm for your hands and face. But not until then. If you want to test just how much a part of the equation is based on this radiant heat, versus the flame, get a large gather HOT and turn off your torch. With the flame out of the equation, the IR doesn't drop much instantly... of course it tapers off as the piece cools, but it should drop by 2/3 INSTANTLY if this equation was any where close and it does not.
I have nothing personal against Mike. I am a boro worker and instructor. If anybody is going to use figures to try and show people they need to buy super pricey safety gear to even try boro or work it on a smaller scale, it better darn well hold water and not be for financial gain. I come in contact with people who are scared to death of boro and IR exposure all the time and it's directly related to how Mike has presented this information to the industry. It's not accurate and it's not alright with me to scare my fellow lampworkers (and possible students) into thinking they need a specific brand of very expensive glasses to do this safely.
__________________
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
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 12:29pm
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 21, 2008
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 867
|
|
Do not patronize me, Brent. I am eminently capable of both reading what you wrote and understanding the flaws in your discussion. As far as I'm concerned, you've been way out on the jw axis of the imaginary numbers plane throughout this discussion (not that you brought any numbers...). As a working engineer who actually builds sophisticated IR instruments, I need no lecture from you on the principles of physics or the properties of IR, or of glass for that matter. You clearly don't understand them particulary, as has been evidenced throughout this thread. Until you bring facts and data - and a discussion that has technical merit - you are not credible. Period.
If you've been the one explaining Auralens's page, it's no wonder people may feel confused and frightened. You're obviously not objective. I have no idea what your history is with Mike, nor do I care. I know neither you nor Mike, but to someone just reading from the outside, it sounds very much like you have a personal issue. I give high marks to any company willing to put their analysis out for public review, and also willing to have their product independently tested. If I were you, I'd drop this discussion. Your comments have approached libel, in my opinion, and the Auralens folks have been pretty reasonable with you.
My appologies to the boro folks on this thread for participating in high-jacking the original discussion. I think your own collective experiences, as posted here, are valid and valuable. I would look to that experience and that of the scientific glassblowing community to guide you in your personal choices.
Linda
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 12:41pm
|
![Mr. Smiley's Avatar](image.php?s=914b112a18ab101f23ad27d8c3a4141d&u=63&dateline=1304374783) |
boro color bender
|
|
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
|
|
Linda, what numbers have you brought? I have discussed this with other people who are also in the scientific field. I do not currently work in the field, my industry is glass. I am not patronizing you. I am explaining my position which is in fact something you asked me to do. If you build complex IR equipment, then by all means please get with the ISGB and do some real life testing. That is what we need. You claim that since OSHA regulates similar industries, that they have the numbers... please present them. Link to OSHAs information would be great... back up what you are saying with facts. You say you can and I'm not saying you can't, but I do want to see it.
My words have come no where near libel. If they had, Mike would be threatening me with a lawsuit... he's wired that way. I have said absolutely nothing that is untrue. Mike's information as presented is probably something Phillips could sue over. I doubt they will... but if anybody should be worried, it's Aura. I'm totally comfortable with everything I've said here.
__________________
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
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 12:57pm
|
![pam's Avatar](image.php?s=914b112a18ab101f23ad27d8c3a4141d&u=308&dateline=1138465888) |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 15, 2005
Posts: 2,251
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMLinda
Do not patronize me, Brent. I am eminently capable of both reading what you wrote and understanding the flaws in your discussion. As far as I'm concerned, you've been way out on the jw axis of the imaginary numbers plane throughout this discussion (not that you brought any numbers...). As a working engineer who actually builds sophisticated IR instruments, I need no lecture from you on the principles of physics or the properties of IR, or of glass for that matter. You clearly don't understand them particulary, as has been evidenced throughout this thread. Until you bring facts and data - and a discussion that has technical merit - you are not credible. Period.
If you've been the one explaining Auralens's page, it's no wonder people may feel confused and frightened. You're obviously not objective. I have no idea what your history is with Mike, nor do I care. I know neither you nor Mike, but to someone just reading from the outside, it sounds very much like you have a personal issue. I give high marks to any company willing to put their analysis out for public review, and also willing to have their product independently tested. If I were you, I'd drop this discussion. Your comments have approached libel, in my opinion, and the Auralens folks have been pretty reasonable with you.
My appologies to the boro folks on this thread for participating in high-jacking the original discussion. I think your own collective experiences, as posted here, are valid and valuable. I would look to that experience and that of the scientific glassblowing community to guide you in your personal choices.
Linda
|
Thanks, Linda. Your analysis of the problem is right on and I very much appreciate your input.
__________________
Pam
"It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it." Johann Wolfgang Von Goeth
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
My Blog To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 1:02pm
|
![Mr. Smiley's Avatar](image.php?s=914b112a18ab101f23ad27d8c3a4141d&u=63&dateline=1304374783) |
boro color bender
|
|
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
|
|
It's much easier to try and discount all of this as a personal issue, but it's not accurate. When we finally have the real numbers, everybody will see the truth. No smoke and mirrors can save this equation from real life testing. This is not some impossible thing to measure and I sincerely hope we can cut through the BS and get the testing done.
__________________
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
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 3:59pm
|
![Mr. Smiley's Avatar](image.php?s=914b112a18ab101f23ad27d8c3a4141d&u=63&dateline=1304374783) |
boro color bender
|
|
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
|
|
Let's see if I can clear it up so it makes even more sense to people reading all of this.
Aura says you do not need IR protection if you are working soft glass. Many of the soft glass workers on this forum use a Minor burner to make beads. So, I'm going to use Auras equation for calculating the IR exposure from just the flame, but I'm going to put the numbers for a minor burner into it.
The flame calculation is this: For a 3500 degree flame, Radiance is 75 Watts per square centimeter. If the flame is .5 inch wide at the base and (for example) averages 6” long, the area of the flame is 3 square inches, or 19.3548 square centimeters. The distance of 16” equals about 40 centimeters.
Plugging into the formula above, E = 75 * ( 19.3548 / ( 2 * 3.14159 * 402) )
Which reduces to: E = 75 * ( 19.3548 / 10053 )
Which further reduces to: E = 75 * .0019252
Which results in: E = .14439
The flame alone contributes 0.14439 Watts per square centimeter at the eye.
Ok, so if this equation is correct, then when working soft glass on a minor burner, you are already over the TLV by 14 times and would need IR protection. The flame does not care if you are melting boro or soft glass in it.
How do you explain this Ed? Linda?
I don't understand how you can say this formula is correct or even close and still say soft glass workers don't need to worry about IR exposure.
__________________
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
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 4:26pm
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 21, 2008
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 867
|
|
Physics isn't smoke and mirrors, Brent.
You continue to evade direct questions.
You, not I nor anyone else, have called someone else's work into question, therefore the burden of proof is on you. You keep claiming 'the equation is wrong' in a public forum, yet you won't specifiy what part of it you disagree with and provide no specific quantifiable alternative as intellectual integrity would demand. Good scientific practice dictates that one perform a prediction prior to making a measurement to ensure that any measurement is consistent with reasonable expectations and was therefore performed correctly. You claimed earlier you could do the math - so do it. You've even claimed to have done an analysis, yet you do not produce it. That's the real smoke and mirrors: loud claims that someone else is wrong, but conveniently, no proof offered to the contrary.
Without a specific, objective alternative equation or theory, you're just stirring a pot. You have provided no different evidence that would advance this community's understanding on this topic or that might lead to better eyewear, nor have you offered ANYTHING substantive that would help a reader of this thread make an unbiased or equitable decision on choice of eye protection.
It's easy to throw chaff, Brent. It's far harder to be constructive. Posting your rebutting analysis for open discussion and for the benefit of all would be constructive.
I look forward to seeing your analysis. Until then, I want to thank the other folks who've shared their experiences here.
Linda
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 4:34pm
|
![Mr. Smiley's Avatar](image.php?s=914b112a18ab101f23ad27d8c3a4141d&u=63&dateline=1304374783) |
boro color bender
|
|
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
|
|
So, I don't have to prove it wrong, I have to do the work of others and post the correct equation? That is not scientific in the least bit. Equations and theories are proven worng without presenting an alternative all the time.
Did you read my last post? I don't have to know the right answer to know this one is wrong. My last post clearly shows proof as provided by Auras claim that we do NOT need IR protection in order to work soft glass. I used a soft glass flame to show that if their equation is correct, it directly contradicts their other statement about not needing IR protection for soft glass work.
Can you or anybody else explain which one of Auras claims are correct? Do we need IR protection for soft glass work or is the equation wrong?
__________________
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
|
![Old](lwe/statusicon/post_old.gif)
2009-02-18, 4:44pm
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 21, 2008
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 867
|
|
I was typing during your response.
Ed and I happen to be different people, Brent, if you hadn't noticed. I don't know Ed and have no affiliation with his company. At no point did I say soft glass lampworkers do not need to be concerned about IR. I've argued the converse elsewhere in LE.
Of course it's good scientific practice to post what you believe is correct, and why you believe so. How else do you think a body of knowledge is advanced? And you don't have to know the right answer to know this one's wrong???? Chaff, Brent, chaff.
Linda
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 1:23am.
|