Given that 'those who shall not be named" did not pay their patent fees the patent is expired, so it should be safe to write about this topic..
Patents are public, even if you cannot use the information for yourself or commercial use it is available


from the google patents space: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7952697B2/en
quote]2019-01-21 FEPP Fee payment procedure
Free format text: MAINTENANCE FEE REMINDER MAILED (ORIGINAL EVENT CODE: REM.); ENTITY STATUS OF PATENT OWNER: SMALL ENTITY

2019-07-08 LAPS Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees
Free format text: PATENT EXPIRED FOR FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES (ORIGINAL EVENT CODE: EXP.); ENTITY STATUS OF PATENT OWNER: SMALL ENTITY

2019-07-08 STCH Information on status: patent discontinuation
Free format text: PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362

2019-07-30 FP Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee
Effective date: 20190531[/quote]

I think that's the wrong patent.

US8239144B2 is still valid. That's the document that contains the formula for nD,T -> %TDS that I alluded to earlier.

jbviau wrote:Threads like this just make me think of Netphilosopher, a former member. Ever wonder where his posts went here on and CG? A little background reading for those who aren't aware (apologies if it's too off-topic):

It's not off-topic if you're suggesting that this thread should be edited or nuked.

I've certainly wondered exactly what happened to Netphilosopher. I asked him and he wouldn't say. I've read the threads filled with speculation and legal interpretations. But I still don't know what happened.

I don't believe it is illegal to discuss a straightforward mathematical formula that is published in a patent. Or to use advice freely dispensed in a public forum by the owner of said patent.

jpender wrote:What does it say? I don't have permission to open it.

Hmm, this document is about [anonymized]'s math & experiment. I can't find original post about it.

jpender wrote: Now you can look up the patent for the VST refractometer and there find a similar equation, but for coffee. It's different. It also includes temperature, which you can strip out of the equation by setting it to 20°C. When you compare these two, the first for nD to Brix and the second for nD to %TDS, you'll find that the conversion factor varies like this:

Hi,

Thanks for the chart.

I think 0.79 came from pour over review and maybe it will come up with 0.85 when I found someone measuring espresso which I couldn't find out.

I don't know the hybrid version of pal coffee will use 0.85 or so when measuring espresso class condensed liquid so I'll just ask the maker directly and update here after I got the clue.

Thanks so much!

I came across this web page which discusses one of the Atago refractometers and appears to more generally discuss correlating Brix and %TDS for coffee. It's not clear where exactly the data come from but there is a small graph along with an equation posted on the page. When you use that equation to plot the conversion factor it's very similar to what I tried to determine. So maybe I did get it right, sort of. It makes it look like 0.79 is a good number for typical brewed coffee (less than 2% strength). That is at odds with what Vince Fedele posted however, so maybe 0.80 is a better choice, I can't say with any certainty. But I do trust Mr. Fedele to get something like this right.





It would be a heck of a lot easier to just buy a VST refractometer.