Talk:Electrostatic detection device

Compromising legibility?

Can a simple rolling pin compromise the quality of a series of impressions left behind on one or more pieces of paper?

Properly removed from a typewriter, a platen could probably do the very same job, although a little bit harder to press down on.

Can an ESDA device distinguish between the points a rolling pin is first applied to a sheet of paper, and where it leaves off?

I have no idea why you are asking this but it would not be too difficult to test. If I have some time in the next while, I'll do a little testing and try to answer your questions. Can you elaborate upon why this is of interest to you? RB Ostrum 15:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Scope of page

I don't understand why there is any reference to an Electron Microscope on this page. This is completely unrelated to the purpose or functionality of an ESDA device, which is to detect and visualize latent indentations in a sheet of paper. Using an EM for this purpose is ridiculous given the field-of-view provided (and other reasons). Similar technologies such as CLSM or optical interferometry could also be used, in theory, but aren't for the same reason. An EM should not be considered as an alternative to the ESDA in any way.

FWIW, an ESDA will detect and visualize fresh fingerprints (as I recall that was the original intent/goal of the F&F design) but it is not intended or used for that purpose as a general rule. It certainly does not permit direct evaluation of sequencing relative to inks or fingerprints. As for the ability of an EM to do this, I would like to see appropriate references added to this information but, again, that's irrelevant to the issue of how an ESDA works.

It can also be used to visualize other things such as footprints (though not as indentations). I will dig up the appropriate references and add this info to the page.

The page should probably also discuss limitations of the ESDA (such as secondary/transfer indentations) as well as alternative devices. Technically speaking, the term 'ESDA' is proprietary to Foster & Freeman (UK). There are (or were) other devices on the market such as the IMEDD (Indentation Materializer Electronic Detection Device) by Kinderprint (?) or the Docustat DS-210 by Projectina CH (edited by RB Ostrum 16:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)). Other information to consider would be the pros/cons of different development methods. I think a few images would help so I will create some to add to the page.

Anyway, my main point is that the reference to Electron Microscope should be removed completely. The information could be put on the page for Electron Microscope, or on its own stub; but it doesn't belong here. RB Ostrum 15:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above comments, I propose that the entire 'See Also' section be deleted since the info is completely unrelated to the stated article topic (see WP:Scope). As a side note, the information provided is unsourced and disputable. — RB Ostrum. 16:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done In the absence of any comments to the contrary and in line with WP:BB I have deleted this section from the article. — RB Ostrum. 15:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal -- rename topic to EDD

I propose that this topic be renamed to 'electrostatic detection device'. Strictly speaking, ESDA is a registered trademark owned by Foster and Freeman Limited, UK. Search the TESS database (do a 'Basic Word Mark Search' using ESDA as keyword) for more information.

The more generic and hence appropriate term would be electrostatic detection device, or EDD. Although not used very much due to the nearly ubiquitous nature of the actual ESDA, there is at least one good reference in the literature — see The Use of an Electrostatic Detection Device to Identify Individual and Class Characteristics on Documents Produced by Printers and Copiers--A Preliminary Study by G. LaPorte, Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume 49, Issue 3 (May 2004).

The term ESDA can be either removed entirely or placed into a subsection with other similar devices like Kinderprint's Indentation Materializer Electrostatic Document Device (IMEDD), or the Docustat DS-210 by Projectina CH. — RB Ostrum. 02:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above justification and in the absence of any comments to the contrary, I am going to be bold and rename this topic. — RB Ostrum. 15:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proper lead

This article really needs to have a proper lead. The present section could probably be split into a short lead and a section discussing the theory and/or physics of the process; following Seward (1999) and Tanaka (2000), for example. The section on 'practical use' could also used some clean-up. I should be able to dig up appropriate references for most of the missing citations but I don't personally have time to do major work on this so any takers? — RB Ostrum. 20:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. I set up a lead section and a "How it works" section. The latter still needs considerable work. — RB Ostrum. 01:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Pressure

I am going to delete the following statement from the beginning of this article:

For instances where two or more handwriting styles can be found mixed into a single document, and features of one handwriting style depart from the features of another's, EDD can help reveal the differences in pressures employed between the individuals responsible for the writing samples otherwise unified on a single exemplar.[citation needed]

While it might be possible to use an EDD for this purpose, I have never heard of any examiner doing so and, more important, I cannot find a reference in the literature to support this use. If someone can provide a legitimate reference, then feel free to put the sentence back in. Until then, it's gone. — RB Ostrum. 01:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Status Change

I've upgraded the article status from Stub to B Class because many recent additions have been made, boosting the overall quality. Photographic visuals would be desirable to properly show the capabilities of this type of instrument. TimothyPilgrim (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]