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)