BradS
Allowing Ads
Brad;
Now, tell me, what would you say in my place?
PE
Brad;
Thanks for a very reasoned answer. I appreciate the thought that went into it. It taught me a lot as well.
PE
Nope, he moved to Photo Net.
However, Jim, having now chimed in...
What would you do if you were me?
I'm interested.
PE
Well, Sandy, you make stock solutions of your Pyrocat series and from there on it is volumetric measurements to make the working solution. You see the virtues of both. There are some chemicals that are best made into stock solutions.
Well, then we know why products sometimes are a real nightmare. I have a friend who is an engineer and sometimes I will make something out of wood per his design.
If I understand what you just said, for example, the engineer request from me a wood block, 12 inches by 12 inches by 12 inches, and I delivered a woodl block 11.5 inches by 12.5 inches by 11.90 inches, its OK?
As they say, size matters.
I could not build a house or a cabinet or a clock!
But you could build an airplane? There must be something being lost in the translation or I am never going to fly again.
I certainly am not trying to insult you but it just seems screwy to me.
Ha, but then again, I am not an engineer.
Remember what John Heywood wrote way back in 1546:
"A man maie well bring a horse to the water, But he can not make him drinke without he will."
Keep showing us to the water PE. Some of us are thirsty.
I am an aerospace engineer; I am hardware/software systems engineer; I am a safety expert for NASA and the FAA; I have written books of nuclear safety for the NRC; I am not a photo/film engineer.
I have gone to the trouble to buy a scale to weight 200g with 0.1 gram of accuracy and a 1k scale to weight to 0.2 grams of accuracy. I am here to learn how to process film and prints correctly, accurately, and consistantly.
I am not here to read the vomiting of a self proclaimed expert from outside the photographic field pontificate on the advantages of mixing chemicals in a toilet bowl using questional and inconsistant methods on the cheap!
Am I being direct enough to get through?
Steve
I am an aerospace engineer; I am hardware/software systems engineer; I am a safety expert for NASA and the FAA; I have written books of nuclear safety for the NRC; I am not a photo/film engineer.
-----
I am not here to read the vomiting of a self proclaimed expert from outside the photographic field pontificate on the advantages of mixing chemicals in a toilet bowl using questional and inconsistant methods on the cheap!
Am I being direct enough to get through?
Steve
thank you for trying to teach all of us to be correct, and passing it on correctly. Our society wants(demands) shortcuts--something some of us are NOT willing to do.Brad;
You are right.....
Of course, if we don't pass things on correctly to the following generations, they are doomed to doing it incorrectly and this level of accuracy will slowly degenerat. So, what would you do if you were me? Would you teach the wrong things? Give inaccurate formulas? I am trying to teach, and others seem to not care. This is a tough position to be in for me. Especially when Patrick says that "since 1973 the solution has given me the same activity" when in fact, he may be using the same batch of chemicals or he may not have made exact side-by-side comparisons. IDK.
If you use the same ingredients from the same bottle with the same crystal habit, this method will work, but if you change batches or crystal size or habit, then the volumetric measures can be off by 20%.
Now, tell me, what would you say in my place?
PE
Sure, I have nothing against volumetric measurements when precision is not needed. That works fine for me with many solutions, like fixer and clearing agents, and it should work fine with many paper developers. That won't work with film developers that require small quantities of a certain chemical, like phenidone, potassium bromide, benzotriazole, etc. And if you make stock solutions of these chemicals, which I do for testing purposes, you still need a decent scale to measure.
I just don't see any point to this type of measuring given the small expense of a decent scale. But if someone else wants to work that way, who am I to criticize. I merely pointed a source to a decent electronic scale for about $30 that I would recommend over spoon measurement. I am not making an artistic or philosophical statement, just a practical comment.
Sandy King
classic....the scientist vs the engineers.
For whatever it is worth any engineer worth his salt will immediately point out that a product or process that is not robust against minor variations is worthless...or simply put, un-economic, not feasible.
and... sheesh! guys, the OP asked a simple question....and all but one jumped on him for measuring his chems with a teaspoon. Nice. What a nice bunch of helpful folks....:rolleyes:
For the OP, I looked up the density of Ammonium cloride and found it to be, 1.5274 g/ml . I figure a standard teaspoon is 5ml so, I get 7.6 grams per teaspoon. In a similar fashion, I get 8.5 grams per teaspoon for sodium citrate.
I niether went digital nor moved to photo net I was simply trying to find an answer to my question and availing myself of as many sources as possible. I am sorry I have seemed to have caused a great debate as that was not my intention. For what its worth I have used D-23 made with teaspoon measuring and have never experienced a problem. I have had sticky shutters and fogged film etc, etc, etc,.After reading all this, the OP has gone digital.
I niether went digital nor moved to photo net I was simply trying to find an answer to my question and availing myself of as many sources as possible. I am sorry I have seemed to have caused a great debate as that was not my intention. For what its worth I have used D-23 made with teaspoon measuring and have never experienced a problem. I have had sticky shutters and fogged film etc, etc, etc,.
Actually I did find it in post 9 just didn't realize it would cause such a firestorm!Hopefully, you found the info you're lookign for (see last sentence of post #9).
Brad.
I agree with Bruce. Why measure with a teaspoon when the cost of accurate scales is so inexpensive.
Have a look here, for example. http://www.balances.com/
Sandy King
The reason is convenience. PE made the important point - how much inaccuracy can you stand? It takes some time and effort to accurately weigh each ingredient. Usually, it is absolutely necessary. But when the recipe can stand the inaccuracy, volumetric measurement is easier and faster.
Wow! This certainly has turned ito a fight!
This is the problem with those not knowing science or the scientific method.
PE
Actually I did find it in post 9 just didn't realize it would cause such a firestorm!
classic....the scientist vs the engineers.
For whatever it is worth any engineer worth his salt will immediately point out that a product or process that is not robust against minor variations is worthless...or simply put, un-economic, not feasible.
and... sheesh! guys, the OP asked a simple question....and all but one jumped on him for measuring his chems with a teaspoon. Nice. What a nice bunch of helpful folks....:rolleyes:
For the OP, I looked up the density of Ammonium cloride and found it to be, 1.5274 g/ml . I figure a standard teaspoon is 5ml so, I get 7.6 grams per teaspoon. In a similar fashion, I get 8.5 grams per teaspoon for sodium citrate.
If it is that critical, the OP will find out soon enough by experimental test of the hypothesis "This amount should work."I would have to ask "What crystal form are you using for these densities? Is it the pure crystal or the ground powder?".
And here we go again!
PE
Actually I did find it in post 9 just didn't realize it would cause such a firestorm!
If it is that critical, the OP will find out soon enough by experimental test of the hypothesis "This amount should work."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?