Borax Project

[Murray Kelly]

Now you can use all the tubs of hardware store borax in your bath and not worry yourself if that kind of borax is good enough for photography!
Murray

 

[Murray Kelly]

BTW - I had a huge grin when I saw Daisy. My 2 Gd's are way too old to even tollerate a camera these days, more's the pity.
Your'e right - there is a ton of grays in there. Just the way I like it.
Murray

 

[gainer]

Here is a pretty good developer. You need 0.15 g. of Phenidone, 6 grams of ascorbic acid, and 400 ml of borax solution saturated at 20 C. That would be 188 grams of sodium tetraborate decahydrate if you were sure it is the decahydrate, but if there are any lumps in it, you can't be sure, so whether you go through the purification process or are sure that what you have contains only sodium, borax, hydrogen and water, you still don't know how much of the tetraborate you have. Therein lies the virtue of saturated solutions. A saturated solution of borax decanted at 20 C contains the equivalent of 4.71 grams of the tetraborate per 100 ml at any reasonable higher temperature.

I suggest the usual ploy of making a solution of Phenidone in propylene glycol or glycerol. 10 g/l or 1 g/100ml is convenient. It only takes 15 ml of such a solution to make a liter of this soup.

Mix the ascorbic acid and the 400 ml of borax solution with enough water to make 1 liter. Add the phenidone and you are ready to go. What, no sulfite? Yep. Try it without before you add any.

Developing times will be like those you would use for D-76 full strength. A liter of this solution will do 10 to 12 standard rolls if you reuse it. How? The Phenidone is regenerated by the ascorbate, which is in great excess. Phenidone is noy very much affected by bromide in solution. I read many years ago that the activity of a PQ or PC developer would increase somewhat as bromide content rose. I read this in a translation from a Russian paper which was a translation from somebody else, while I was working for NASA, but I did use a similar developer which was much like Crawley's FX-19, though I didn't know it at the time..

 

[gainer]

Incidentally, if you want to get similar performance out by substituting Q for C, you will need sulfite to activate the regeneration of the Phenidone by the Q.

 

[Murray Kelly]

188g seems a lot of borax. Does it need all that to just buffer it? Or is it a matter of 'those damned dots'?
Murray

 

[gainer]

188g seems a lot of borax. Does it need all that to just buffer it? Or is it a matter of 'those damned dots'?
Murray

Yep, it's the dot. The number is 18.8 grams, The saturated solution at 20 C is 4.71%, or 4.71 g/100 ml. I think my city water in Newport News, VA had more stuff in it than this developer.

 

[Murray Kelly]

This stuff is even more dilute than the older formula (0.25/9g/25g - IIRC) which I thought worked so well. Not quite as dilute as PC-glycol altho that has a higher pH.
Soon we'll be taking chems out of the water!
Murray

I think my city water in Newport News, VA had more stuff in it than this developer.

 

[Murray Kelly]

Finally I have a real question. Given what you have said, what would the difference in the pH be of (say) your P-C-Borax developer above using an unlikely but possible scenario that one had a box of pentahydrate versus a box of pure decahydrate and made the developer from one or the other?
Approximately 20g /litre would show a difference of how much pH?
My suspicion is that the single decimal place pH meter wouldn't help one distinguish the one from the other. Yes/no?
Murray

My Borax Project
SNIP)
Borax has 2 possible states of hydration, decahydrate and pentahydrate. If a 100 gram sample of pure borax has pentahydrate and decahydrate mixed, the assay will show a greater weight than 100 grams. If 5 grams of a 100 gram sample are the pentahydrate and the rest the decahydrate, no matter how purely the saple is composed only of sodium tetraborate and water of hydration, the assay will show 101.5 grams of the decahydrate. There is no way you can tell at time of collecting a sample from a large batch of pure mixture how much of each hydrate you are getting.separated from the solid at a low temperature, it will have a constant weight of borax per unit weight of solution at any (reasonable) higher temperature. The weight per unit volume will stay constant enough for most
SNIP

 

[gainer]

Finally I have a real question. Given what you have said, what would the difference in the pH be of (say) your P-C-Borax developer above using an unlikely but possible scenario that one had a box of pentahydrate versus a box of pure decahydrate and made the developer from one or the other?
Approximately 20g /litre would show a difference of how much pH?
My suspicion is that the single decimal place pH meter wouldn't help one distinguish the one from the other. Yes/no?
Murray

It takes a fair amount of change in amount of borax to make a change in pH of a solution of borax. However, the concentration of borax has a greater effect on local dynamic changes in pH than will be seen after equilibrium is reached. Frankly, I am not one to quibble, as PE will testify. However, the difference in number of molecules between 2 grams each of penta- and decahydrate is about 30%, so if you had all penta and thought it was decahydrate, you would be getting the equivalent of 2.62 grams of the specified decahydrate. Would that make a visible difference in the output of D-76? It depends on how sensitive you are to such things. I take it that the purification process would be worth while if one could not buy the Photo grade stuff, of PE and Kirk Keyes would not chastise me for trying to put Photo Formulary out of business by doing it.

 

[gainer]

We like to catalog and categorize things to make general rules about how to change things. We have solvent developers, non-solvent developers, high acutance developers, and on and on. With a good lens sharply focussed on the subject of interest, why should we not be satisfied with what we saw on the ground glass or in the viewfinder? How would you categorize a sulfiteless solution of Phenidone, ascorbic acid and borax in water? I did it to see what would happen. Where's the preservative? How can I have fine grain without a silver halide solvent? Thus far, I have tested only HP5+ and Arista EDU 400, and I have 11x14 prints that show no grain from greater than 6" viewing distance.

Of course, ascorbic acid is an antioxidant. At the pH of borax, one could wait all day and not see any sign of development, but add a pinch of Phenidone and Voila! Is it synergism, or simply rapid regeneration of Phenidone by the ascorbate, or are both the same? Is the ascorbate also a solvent of silver halides? I have read that it is a surface developer which fact makes its grain finer, but it wasn't even a developer until I added the Phenidone. But who cares about all this if it works?

Forgive the ramble.

 

[Murray Kelly]

I was all set to process my 2kg of borax as you describe (except I was planning to return the supernatant to the boiler each time for the next 500g so's not to lose the 47g/l) when I went to Google and found the MSDS for both brands that I have here. They are both described as tetrahydrate 99/100% depending on the brand.
I put away the kettle and borax.
My final move would've been to cool the last supernatant in the photo fridge to get almost all the borax back.
Selling tetrahydrate makes sense commercially - why give the customer the more concentrated pentahydrate if one can sell some water with it?
The P-C-Borax does indeed work well. I especially liked it with Copex rapid as a stand developer. I just don't know how long it lasts, made up. I used it as a one-shot. Borax is much more soluble in glycerine and ethylene glycol - maybe it's possible to make a concentrate?
Murray

 

[gainer]

The problem is not always in what you bought, but in how long and under what humidity conditions it has been kept. When you open the container, if the humidity is low, some of the decahydrate is likely to become pentahydrate. Over the course of time, although the borax can still be considered to be the same purity as when you got it, the water content may not be. Or, it may be. If it's in a saturated solution, you know the equivalent weight % of the decahydrate by the temperature of the solution, but there's a lag. But if you make a saturated solution at a given temperature, let it stabilize, and decant some of the liquid, that part will have that same concentration at any higher temperature. It's really a simple thing to do and is common lab practice where accuracy is important. If your borax is pure enough, there is no need to do the purification steps, but it's still a good idea to keep the saturated solution. It is much simpler to measure out a certain liquid volume to the nearest ml than to weigh out to the nearest 0.1 g. Besides, if you really think 0.1 gram precision is required, you may not get it with a solid that has two possible states of hydration.

 

[gainer]

I was all set to process my 2kg of borax as you describe (except I was planning to return the supernatant to the boiler each time for the next 500g so's not to lose the 47g/l) when I went to Google and found the MSDS for both brands that I have here. Murray

BTW, Murray, what did you expect to gain by putting the supernatant liquid back in the pot? That contains all the garbage that was leached out of the good stuff. Reminds me of my daughter's idea for saving gasoline. She thought of putting a windmill atop her car driving a generator which would drive an electric motor to assist the gasoline engine.

 

[Murray Kelly]

Not only was I going to ensure there was tetrahydrate (not necessarily for long, you tell me) but since the stuff is so pure it was my intention to allow any small amt. of impurity build up in the supernatant as a solution without tossing 47g/l every time. Just being frugal.
My daughter noticed the temperature gauge shoot up and sped home in case it blew up!

Murray

BTW, Murray, what did you expect to gain by putting the supernatant liquid back in the pot? That contains all the garbage that was leached out of the good stuff. Reminds me of my daughter's idea for saving gasoline. She thought of putting a windmill atop her car driving a generator which would drive an electric motor to assist the gasoline engine.

 

[gainer]

SPF-3 VS RODINAL 1+25

Murray, I'm not upset with you for tinkering with my illustrations. I'm posting the comparison that really counts, the one between SPF-3 and Rodinal 1+25. All I have to do now is find where I saved them.

They are "hybrid" photos, using a flat bed scanner at 600 dpi to read 11x14 analog prints. If you print them to 8x10, you should view them from about 6 ft to get proper perspective.

 

[Murray Kelly]

I'm posting the comparison that really counts, the one between SPF-3 and Rodinal 1+25. All I have to do now is find where I saved them.
They are "hybrid" photos, using a flat bed scanner at 600 dpi to read 11x14 analog prints. If you print them to 8x10, you should view them from about 6 ft to get proper perspective.

Now, there's a difference! Not like the almost too close to call Microdol-X comparison in the other thread on the 'dead' metol.
I have to say, tho, I've never used Rodinal that strong and don't know if dilution is a factor. The tonality matches but the detail isn't there. SPF-3 looks good to me.

Given the unusual solubility (amount and curve) my idea was to fractionally crystalise out the tetra and leave any more soluble contaminants in the supernatant. I didn't do it in the end. I merely weighed the plastic pots and contents, making a note under them and will reweigh when I need to open another one up for use. This assumes the contents were indeed tetra as stated on the MSDS to start with.
Murray

 

[gainer]

Now, there's a difference! Not like the almost too close to call Microdol-X comparison in the other thread on the 'dead' metol.
I have to say, tho, I've never used Rodinal that strong and don't know if dilution is a factor. The tonality matches but the detail isn't there. SPF-3 looks good to me.

Given the unusual solubility (amount and curve) my idea was to fractionally crystalise out the tetra and leave any more soluble contaminants in the supernatant. I didn't do it in the end. I merely weighed the plastic pots and contents, making a note under them and will reweigh when I need to open another one up for use. This assumes the contents were indeed tetra as stated on the MSDS to start with.
Murray

The borate part of decahydrate and pentahydrate are identical. The difference is in the amount of water of crystallization. A saturated solution of either one at a given temperature contains exactly the same number of Na2B4O7 molecules. Once you have a saturated solution and have decanted the clear liquid, there is no point in trying to recrystallize the contents, because you are then back at the beginnibg. You still are not certain which of the crystals are pentahydrate and which are decahydrate. You still have to weigh the crystals to make any use of them, whereas the saturated liquid has a known content of the decahydrate per unit of volume and can be measured out with a graduated cylinder.

The terms "pentahydrate" and "decahydrate" have no meaning in solution. However much water of crystallization was taken into a borax solution becomes part ot the solvent water. All you have in solution is Na2B4O7 molecules and H2O molecules. The molecule that entered as the pentahydrate carried 10 molecules of water with it. The molecule that entered as the pentahydrate carried 5 molecules of water with it. Now we have 2 molecules of Na2B4O7 floating around in 15 more molecules of water than we had before. There is no way we can tell which of the borate ions came in which which of the water molecules.

 

[Murray Kelly]

Sorry - confusing my pentas, decas tetras etc. It's all greek to me.:rolleyes: Thinking metaborate. More greek.
I dunno how it's done commercially but I'd presume if there's excess water the deca will form. Commercially it's cheaper to ship 3/4 ton of penta than 1 ton of deca and deliver the same amt. of borate. Therefore one might be led to suspect there is some contamination of deca with penta regularly since it's in the system.
"You still have to weigh the crystals to make any use of them".
Don't think you meant one could tell the difference by weighing the crystals. If you did I don't see how. Naturally one weighs crystals - how else?
Is this one of Plato's Dialogues?
Murray

 

[gainer]

In low huidity it shouldn't take much heat, but a lot of tumbling, to change the deca to penta. Whatever you start with, it's just as easy for me to put enough in a pot of water so that not all dissolves, decant the clear liquid, and note the temperature. As long as you keep it at that or higher temperature, your solution has a fixed % of the equivalent of sodium borate decahydrate. If you can't find the chart at www.borax.com I can send you a copy.

Metaborate is another conundrum. It has two molecular weights which are identified as 4-mole and 8-mole, leading one to believe that these are states of hydration. However, one ghanges to the other in a closed container above a particular temperature and back again as the temperature reduces, obviously with no change of water content, so it is only of academic interest.

 

[gainer]

The molecule that entered as the pentahydrate carried 10 molecules of water with it. The molecule that entered as the pentahydrate carried 5 molecules of water with it. Now we have 2 molecules of Na2B4O7 floating around in 15 more molecules of water than we had before. There is no way we can tell which of the borate ions came in which which of the water molecules.

I goofed and no one took me to task! What is the World coming to? The underlined word should, of course, have been "decahydrate".

Now I have to worry that I don't expand the goof like the editorial correction to a newpaper article: "The reporter said that Officer McGurk, who made the arrest, was a defective on the police force. He should have said that Officer McGurk was a detective on the police farce."

 

[gainer]

Here is an interesting fact. 526 grams of borax decahydrate will dissolve in a liter of glycerol. I dissolved 120 grams in 500 ml, added 10 grams each of Phenidone and ascorbic acid, used 1+50 dilution of this solution to develop Arista Premium 400 for 16 minutes at 70F with excellent results. I think this might be a good stand developer. The pH of the working solution was about 8.5. The borax brings with it the water of crystallization, but at most that would amount to about 56 grams of water. If you have time for such frivolities, it's fun to play with. Even with heat it seems it will not all dissolve, but give it some time.

 

[gainer]

I was reading through a thread on Photo.net from 2004 dealing with accelerants for Gainer's developers. At the time, I had little interest in borax, but used carbonate or TEA. It turns out that the high solubility of borax in glycol is accompanied by formation of boronate esters that will be completely useless as bases. This is most likely to happen when heat is used to hasten solution. It explains why I thought my pH meter had gone bonkers. A working solution did a pretty good job of stand development at 45 minutes, 70 F.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Why use 10g phenidone in 500 ml or 2g/100ml? Was it a typo or does this amount have a detectable different effect? In PC-TEA is only 0.25g/100ml.

 

[Murray Kelly]

And presumably glycerol doesn't affect the buffering ability of borax like glycol?
At 1:50 my scratchings on an envelope indicate there's 5g Borax - 0.4g Phenidone - 0.4g AA per litre (working). My maths has been known to err in the past but is there a decimal place wrong in there?
Long ago I made up some PC-glycerol and it appears to keep just fine. I had no glycol.
Murray

 

[gainer]

Why use 10g phenidone in 500 ml or 2g/100ml? Was it a typo or does this amount have a detectable different effect? In PC-TEA is only 0.25g/100ml.

The pH of this working solution is considerably lower than that of the PC-TEA working solution. I added more Phenidone so I wouldn't have to wait so long. That is what prompted me to try stand development. 45 minutes was in fact somewhat too long, as there is some washing out of the highlight in the "mane" of my great grand daughter's hobby horse. You'll see it if I can get the photo transmitted.