[Coral-List] [EXTERNAL] USACE used bad science to rule out useful instrument for siltation monitoring

[Ulf Erlingsson]

Terri,

The SediMeter was invented for and used in my doctoral dissertation in 1990 at the Department of Physical Geography at Uppsala University, arguably the prime department for quantitative geomorphology in the world (according to American scholars, since we Swedes surely are biased according to you). The head of the department was sitting in the Nobel Prize committee, and I've since worked with him using the SediMeter (his main competitor in consulting was the USACE, by the way). In my thesis the SediMeter was used to detect erosion and sedimentation events on a millimeter scale, and nobody put its usefulness for that purpose in question during the public dissertation. Thus, to go from a measured standard deviation of 0.82 mm, to a conclusion that it's only useful for centimeter-scale measurements, is contradicted by some of the foremost scientists in the field, those who were the opponents at my dissertation (including one who has written a beach erosion software in collaboration with USACE). It's not the measurements themselves that are outrageous, its the totally unfounded conclusions.

Best,

Ulf Erlingsson, Ph.D.
President and CEO
Lindorm, Inc.
10699 NW 123 St Rd
Medley, FL 33178

http://lindorm.com
ceo at lindorm.com
+1-305 888 0762 office
+1-305 308 6334 mobile
BB PIN 2BEC98FE




On 2016-01 -23, at 13:49 , Jordan-Sellers, Terri SAJ wrote:

> Dr. Erlingsson - I would recommend that you provide your device to an independent 3rd party (I believe you provided 3 devices to the researchers at ERDC in 2012) and have them run studies both in the lab and field. Then they can publish the results. That would remove any concerns about the results being biased (as it appears you are accusing USACE researchers of finding your device incapable of measuring sediments as you claimed it would as a way to limit its use on USACE projects). Any results that you publish would hardly be considered unbiased, as you are attempting to sell this device and make money off of it.
> 
> It also appears as though you are accusing the researchers at ERDC of conducting fraudulent studies and publishing fraudulent technical memorandums. It seems to me that 2 years after the publication of these memoranda, when the results were not what you wanted them to be, you have sour grapes and accuse the review team of bad science.  I have forwarded your posts from this list to those researchers at ERDC so that they are aware that you are defaming their reputations.
> 
> Respectfully - 
> 
> Terri Jordan-Sellers