Tetenal revival project

[Ballinderry-Michael]

Maybe you could just put the nozzle on a butane lighter gas bottle?

As this is Adox's thread, I'd rather not consider that kind of alternative to Protectan.

 

[takilmaboxer]

Already noted before your post ;-)
This is tricky though because the stabilizer is no longer available and we have to make it. I am not sure that we can compete in price with the the other versions of HC 110 out there (including the Fotoimpex version) if we go back to the "good old stuff". But we would know how to in case there is a demand.

Was it the stabilizer that gave it the very long shelf life?

 

[Nopo]

Already noted before your post ;-)
This is tricky though because the stabilizer is no longer available and we have to make it. I am not sure that we can compete in price with the the other versions of HC 110 out there (including the Fotoimpex version) if we go back to the "good old stuff". But we would know how to in case there is a demand.

Was it the stabilizer that gave it the very long shelf life?

Intrigued by the possible answer, as I always thought it was the total lack of water in the solution.


Carlos

 

[E76]

Already noted before your post ;-)
This is tricky though because the stabilizer is no longer available and we have to make it. I am not sure that we can compete in price with the the other versions of HC 110 out there (including the Fotoimpex version) if we go back to the "good old stuff". But we would know how to in case there is a demand.

Ilford sells their version for $90 per liter. So even if you were to land somewhere in the middle you may still find a market. Low volume users would especially appreciate it, as the cost of buying fresh developer over one that keeps for a long time will quickly make up for any price difference.

 

[mshchem]

As this is Adox's thread, I'd rather not consider that kind of alternative to Protectan.

As the piezoelectric ignition is incorporated into the gas trigger I would be willing to pay for the Protectan

I have used my wife's little butane torch that is safer, but those little canisters of butane are expensive!

 

[Anon Ymous]

As the piezoelectric ignition is incorporated into the gas trigger I would be willing to pay for the Protectan

I have used my wife's little butane torch that is safer, but those little canisters of butane are expensive!

Ah, no, it's a butane can with a nozzle, not a lighter. The one you use to refill lighters. Almost looks like a spray can, but the nozzle is different.

 

[mshchem]

Ah, no, it's a butane can with a nozzle, not a lighter. The one you use to refill lighters. Almost looks like a spray can, but the nozzle is different.

Yeah, one would need to orient the cylinder so you would get gas not liquid

 

[koraks]

Was it the stabilizer that gave it the very long shelf life?

Intrigued by the possible answer, as I always thought it was the total lack of water in the solution.


Carlos

You might want to check this post by @alanrockwood who gives a very plausible explanation of the longevity of syrupy HC110: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ng-as-the-original.195416/page-2#post-2744431

I don't know what the supposed stabilizer is that is referred to here; the MSDS of the Kodak HC110 from 2016 doesn't list anything that's particularly outlandish or difficult to source for an industrial player, as far as I can tell. What's challenging mostly is the production process, which puts it firmly beyond reach of home users and small-scale "mom & pop" style manufacturers. It's possible that a compound that's of no safety concern or present in extremely small amounts is left out of the HC110 MSDS, or that one was present in some other version whose MSDS I haven't seen.

I'm sure someone can correct me if I'm wrong on any of the above assumptions.

 

[Nopo]

Thanks for the link, @koraks



Carlos

 

[Lachlan Young]

You might want to check this post by @alanrockwood who gives a very plausible explanation of the longevity of syrupy HC110: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ng-as-the-original.195416/page-2#post-2744431

I don't know what the supposed stabilizer is that is referred to here; the MSDS of the Kodak HC110 from 2016 doesn't list anything that's particularly outlandish or difficult to source for an industrial player, as far as I can tell. What's challenging mostly is the production process, which puts it firmly beyond reach of home users and small-scale "mom & pop" style manufacturers. It's possible that a compound that's of no safety concern or present in extremely small amounts is left out of the HC110 MSDS, or that one was present in some other version whose MSDS I haven't seen.

I'm sure someone can correct me if I'm wrong on any of the above assumptions.

Going off the Henn/ Surash patent, the 'stabiliser' likely means the SO2 Diethanolamine adduct (which fulfills the role sulfite normally does) and/ or the HBr gas that's added to it. I think you can see where the manufacturing challenges lie.

It might simply be easier to back-date and make more environmentally friendly DK-50/ DK-60a versions (ie replacing the metaborate) - as those were, after all, what HC-110 was designed to replace.

 

[MattKing]

It might simply be easier to back-date and make more environmentally friendly DK-50/ DK-60a versions (ie replacing the metaborate) - as those were, after all, what HC-110 was designed to replace.

Actually, HC-110 was designed to replace a number of different developers - all in one very small, and commercially convenient package.
The SO2 Diethanolamine adduct (which fulfills the role sulfite normally does) and/ or the HBr gas that's added to it are what made the packaging possible.

 

[mshchem]

The original HC-110 is what someone out there needs to manufacture.
It's amazing stuff. I ran a 1 gallon "tank" for several years. Kept the dilution "B" in an amber 1 gallon bottle in a cellar darkroom. I replenished it with the HC-110 replenisher. I think in the day, Kodak sold more of the replenisher than the developer concentrate the solution kept that well.
We will see what happens.

 

[Steven Lee]

The original HC-110 is what someone out there needs to manufacture.

It's been done. It's called Ilfotec HC. There is not a single person on the Internet who ever reported a bottle of HC going bad. Everyone who switched from HC-110 to HC is reporting identical-or-better results. What else does anyone want?

I am quite puzzled by this developer not getting enough love for some reason. On paper it offers identical benefits to HC-110. It sports a real datasheet, something that most of B&W chemistry on the market today cannot brag about. It comes from a stable company that's focused on B&W. And yet people keep mourning over HC-110. Why? Just let it die and rest in peace like its father Kodak did. A modern replacement is readily available at your local photo store.

 

[mshchem]

It's been done. It's called Ilfotec HC. There is not a single person on the Internet who ever reported a bottle of HC going bad. Everyone who switched from HC-110 to HC is reporting identical-or-better results. What else does anyone want?

I am quite puzzled by this developer not getting enough love for some reason. On paper it offers identical benefits to HC-110. It sports a real datasheet, something that most of B&W chemistry on the market today cannot brag about. It comes from a stable company that's focused on B&W. And yet people keep mourning over HC-110. Why? Just let it die and rest in peace like its father Kodak did. A modern replacement is readily available at your local photo store.

One quick test. If Ilfotec Dilution B smells like my elementary school music teacher's breath then I'm a believer. Where's Ilfotec being made now?

 

[halfaman]

Going off the Henn/ Surash patent, the 'stabiliser' likely means the SO2 Diethanolamine adduct (which fulfills the role sulfite normally does) and/ or the HBr gas that's added to it. I think you can see where the manufacturing challenges lie.

It might simply be easier to back-date and make more environmentally friendly DK-50/ DK-60a versions (ie replacing the metaborate) - as those were, after all, what HC-110 was designed to replace.

AFAIK the adducts made with SO2 and HBr are the way to induce highly insoluble sulfite and bromide ions into TEA or DEA base of the syrup. But they are needed in the aqueous working solution for the usual reasons (silver solvent, development restrainer, etc.), not in the concentrate itself.

 

[brbo]

Where's Ilfotec being made now?

The bottle says "Germany". So...

It comes from a stable company that's focused on B&W.

yeah!

 

[miha]

I might add Negafin to the list. A discontinued powder developer claiming full speed with perceptol-like fine grain. I know @ADOX Fotoimpex purchased a large lot of it some 20 years ago.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

It's been done. It's called Ilfotec HC. There is not a single person on the Internet who ever reported a bottle of HC going bad. Everyone who switched from HC-110 to HC is reporting identical-or-better results. What else does anyone want?

I am quite puzzled by this developer not getting enough love for some reason. On paper it offers identical benefits to HC-110. It sports a real datasheet, something that most of B&W chemistry on the market today cannot brag about. It comes from a stable company that's focused on B&W. And yet people keep mourning over HC-110. Why? Just let it die and rest in peace like its father Kodak did. A modern replacement is readily available at your local photo store.

From Ilford´s own research documents comparing Ilfotec to HC110 (June 1989):

The reason that Ilfotec HC is not more widely used, is that there are doubts about the photographic and chemical equivalence with HC110. Since Ilfotec HC was based upon chemical analysis of HC110 and was product developed to give similar results (i.e. Ilfotec HC is supposed to be the same as HC110), this is surprising. However recent chemical analysis has highlighted chemical differences.

So this has been going on for a while. Further down in the documents, the differences are analysed. The main points are that early versions of HC110 worked splendidly with Tri-X but slightly less good with HP5. So Ilford tweaked their HC to be optimal for Ilford films (makes total sense to me). However Kodak (aparently) kept changing the formulary and the stabilizing system so that from the early 80ies on there were literally no differences in how the two products work on each film.

Ilford never quite figured the exact composition- so they made theirs simply match. This is common practice. However they are not 100% identical and whilst a bottle going bad on the shelve is a very strong scenario I would expect minor differences in the keeping properties of the tank solutions and possibly in developing times @ very high dilutions.
For me this can be neglected. This all more of a nice anectode. I love going through those old reports and the "battles" between what once was an industry.

 

[koraks]

This all more of a nice anectode.

And thanks for sharing it; it's informative as well as entertaining!

 

[miha]

Ilford never quite figured the exact composition- so they made theirs simply match.

This is a very strong sentence, especially as it comes from you. Are you able to back it up? Thanks.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

This is a very strong sentence, especially as it comes from you. Are you able to back it up? Thanks.

I do not understand the question

 

[miha]

I do not understand the question

Please back up your claims on Ilford's failed attempts on copying HC110.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

Please back up your claims on Ilford's failed attempts on copying HC110.

There are no failed attempts. Did you read my post? We ARE what is left of Ilford Switzerland in case you have forgotten this.

 

[Ballinderry-Michael]

Miha, what the OP said was perfectly clear. Look at the paragraph in italics for back-up.

 

[miha]

Anyone can write in italics. I'm simply asking @ADOX Fotoimpex to back up what they wrote on Ilford trying to figured out the exact composition (of HC110) but failed.