Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,276   Posts: 1,534,786   Online: 822
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    rmazzullo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    263

    I am completely gobsmacked...

    PE,

    Thank you for this very interesting and informative post. Obviously I haven't come up with anything new, since Kodak had their own version running 25 years ago, (with simpler controller boards running process control almost 35 years ago!!) but it definitely shows that the idea discussed here has merit, and can be done on a small scale. In fact, there is a whole lot of information that can be derived from this post and the patent(s) that describe other portions of this technology. This post provides tons of incentive.

    Once I get hold of proper vAg electrodes and flowmeters, the idea will come that much closer to realization. The other components needed are not as difficult to spec out and acquire.

    While this may be outside of what can be discussed publicly, if you are able to can you please tell us if 'emulsion design' using software was limited by mixing vessel or mixer geometry, or were predicted results obtained regardless of differences in design?

    Thanks again for contributing great technical and historical background on these subjects.

    Bob M.

  2. #12
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Bob;

    We had several different mixing vessels (Kettles) at Kodak world-wide. We had many different types of mixers at different scales. With proper mixing and with the proper speed control (energy input), the mixing was not a problem. We were more concerned with high speeds causing splash or cavitation. We had volume/speed models to warn of splashing, but the cavitation was not a problem with our final mixer design.

    Kettle geometry solved the kettle shape problem. This included proper placement of baffles, electrodes and mixer along with inlet jets. With that solved for a given kettle, the shape was relatively unimportant.

    This is why patents so often say "this can be done by one skilled in the art". I had to learn this with time and older wiser people teaching me as well. I am sure that some companies have not solved these problems. At Kodak we rarely saw a problem like this after the basics were understood.

    BTW, I am working on costing out several automated system designs and if I can, I will post them.

    Now that you have seen Lin, what do you think of his work? There was a whole team working on this and they all patented their work about the same time IIRC. I guess you have not found any of those.

    PE

  3. #13
    rmazzullo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    263

    everything but the kitchen sink

    Hello PE,

    The Lin patent looks like a complete blueprint for a PC-controlled process control system. I had envisioned a derivative of something like this, but I certainly didn't have any of the details yet. It discloses manufacturers and model numbers of the hardware and electrodes used in this example. Apparently, it even gives you charts for addition rates to avoid renucleation. The referred patents fill in more blanks. An example of everything but the software itself. I am going to have to read this one again. Slooowwwly.

    Thanks,

    Bob
    Last edited by rmazzullo; 05-07-2007 at 12:28 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: restating subject matter again..didn't want to sound like a know it all.

  4. #14
    rmazzullo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    263

    still no word -- inquiring minds want to know....

    Quote Originally Posted by ryuji View Post
    Originally Posted by Ryuji
    Well, like any project, this is doable if you set a realistic goal. But to make an emulsion design software without tedious experimental calibration, you'll need something Kodak and Fujifilm do not have.

    Quote Originally Posted by rmazzullo View Post
    And what on Earth could that possibly be? Are you implying that you know, and can do better than, Kodak and Fuji? If so, then you must have done this work before. Can you provide some evidence to back this up?
    It appears that evidence is not forthcoming to put to rest these very interesting, yet unsubstantiated, claims. What could Kodak and Fuji, with their millions and millions of dollars in available resources and whatever was spent in research, and literally thousands of researchers with decades of experience and accomplishments up the wazoo, possibly be missing?

    Thanks,

    Bob M.
    Last edited by rmazzullo; 05-07-2007 at 11:13 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: rephrasing the question

  5. #15
    rmazzullo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Now that you have seen Lin, what do you think of his work? There was a whole team working on this and they all patented their work about the same time IIRC. I guess you have not found any of those.

    PE
    PE,

    I am searching for the other patents. I have a sneaking suspicion other parts of the puzzle may fall into place. Definitely worth a look.

    Thanks,

    Bob

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2
    rmazzullo:

    Isn't Ryuji just suggesting that even Fuji and Kodak had to go through a detailed calibration routine, and that you would need to come up with some magic technique that both companies had missed, rather than that Ryuji personally had come up with this magic bullet, but was hiding it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryuji View Post
    Well, like any project, this is doable if you set a realistic goal. But to make an emulsion design software without tedious experimental calibration, you'll need something Kodak and Fujifilm do not have.

  7. #17
    rmazzullo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by James Packer View Post
    rmazzullo:

    Isn't Ryuji just suggesting that even Fuji and Kodak had to go through a detailed calibration routine, and that you would need to come up with some magic technique that both companies had missed, rather than that Ryuji personally had come up with this magic bullet, but was hiding it?
    James Packer:

    This is your first post on APUG since you have joined and you specifically address me and target this topic. How very interesting. What, no questions about emulsions or developers or fixers?

    Ryuji had said that software did not exist to perform simulations, or emulsion design, and it did. In 1982. He was incorrect. I had indicated that Kodak had this technology via the listed patents, and more directly, PE had detailed the timeline of the development and the design of the software in his post.

    If I had misinterpreted his wording regarding the comment about Kodak and Fuji, I would then like to know exactly what he meant.

    Bob M.
    Last edited by rmazzullo; 05-07-2007 at 07:27 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: restated the question

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by rmazzullo View Post
    Ryuji had said that software did not exist to perform simulations, or emulsion design, and it did. In 1982. He was incorrect. I had indicated that Kodak had this technology via the listed patents, and more directly, PE had detailed the timeline of the development and the design of the software in his post.

    If I had misinterpreted his wording regarding the comment about Kodak and Fuji, I would then like to know exactly what he meant.
    1. I didn't say that. I'm glad to know that at least one person in the world could read that correctly.

    2. Your definition of "simulation" and "design" are not consistent with the usage of those terms in the technology. The Kodak patent you mentioned do not do either of them. They are process control methods.

  9. #19
    rmazzullo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryuji View Post
    Well, like any project, this is doable if you set a realistic goal. But to make an emulsion design software without tedious experimental calibration, you'll need something Kodak and Fujifilm do not have.
    Ryuji,

    Can you please explain in clear terms what you mean by this statement? What is it exactly that I will need that Kodak and Fuji do not have, and how do you know this?

    Further, I have not yet located any posted examples of your emulsion making efforts, or people who have seen this work or your formulas; whether they are workers, assistants, users, etc. Can you please direct me to a current URL where I can see these examples? Or better yet, can you please post samples of your work to this forum?

    Bob M.
    Last edited by rmazzullo; 05-07-2007 at 09:41 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: restated question once again.

  10. #20
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Bob;

    Kodak software does both simulation and design. It then generates code that interfaces with the process control software and hardware to facilitate the making of the software. The similation assists in the design.

    The correct usage is like a CAD/CAM program as stated above. I hope that post made it clear.

    In fact, to be specific, there is a window called SOF (State of the Formula) which was popped up during the design phase to view the status of the simulation. In addition, a graph was supplied and after the process the simulation and the run-time data were compared. This told of hardware errors or software errors in the simulation, or even in PID errors in the feedback loop.

    I don't know of any publication of the work. I had a patent application at the same time as Lin, and several others, but we decided not to patent or disclose the simulation software or the design software.

    So much for that!

    PE

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin