BS, MS, Piled Higher and Deeper.
I don't have to explain or locate anything. I have it here in 3 texts and I took the excerpt from one and posted it here."
Surely you did, and you called me an idiot for not being able to find the one quote I should have had at hand. See the attachments.
" So, you did post it.
I merely questioned the utility of the data."
And now you are trying to shoot the messenger. Make your question available to ANSI. Maybe they'll listen to you.
"In fact, photograde must apply to all stages of photochemistry, and thus you cannot have a developer photograde and a fixer photograde chemical. "
That is a stupid comment. We have had for years different grades for precision lab work and practical photo processing. You yourself or Kirk said that Kodak used ANSI specs in production.
"Photograde is photograde and a photograde borax must be free of potassium and that should be in the specifications. This alone renders the specification above suspect to me."
before you suspect it, you should look into the probability of potassium being in technical grade borax.
"I'm glad people love your chemistry instructions, but I warn you that there is up to a 20% error in volumetric measurments of solids. This can affect image tone and speed among other things if the error is in bromide being used for a mix of D-72 (Dektol) for example."
Before I "published" the article for Petersens Photographic in 1973, I did statistical sampling tests of the chemicals I proposed fot use. I also did tests where I varied the measurements by more the the 3 sigma amount. I gave methods for determining the number of teaspoons in a pound or other weight unit that came from a manufacture like Kodak so that the variation from one batch could be accounted for.
So, there is playing in the darkroom for fun, and high quality darkroom work.
"For that matter, in emulsion making and coating, I am restricted to what amounts to me as playing due to the limitations in chemicals and equipment available on my budget. But, I do try to keep the lab procedures as correct as possible."
You are not the only quality conscious person around. You may be the only one who believes implicitly in the label on the package you get.
Some information to add to chemical purity questions
Here are two photos I just took. They are digital, forgive that. They merely underscore a point for Analog photographers.
The first, on the left shows 3 mounds of Sodium Chloride. The one on the left is a white powder and is Analytical Grade, the one in the middle is Technical Grade and is lumpy. The one on the right is pure white and consists of pure cubes. It is food grade table salt.
The one on the left is suitable for emulsions or processing solutions. The one in the middle works in most processing applications but cannot be used in emulsion making due to aggregation and fog. The one on the right contains Iodide salts (in various states as pure NaI is unstable) and it contains silicates. It cannot be used in either processing or emusion making. Appearnce wise the one on the right appears to be the best, but it is not.
Now, the second picture shows two mounds of salts, KBr (Potassium Bromide) and both are analytical grade. One, on the right, is a powder and the other consists of cubes. The cubes cannot be measured by teaspoon due to their shape and the difficulty forming an full teaspoon evenly, so I used the small cup in the background.
That cup will contain 17.2 grams of KBr in cubic form but will contain 20.4 grams of the powder. This is the type of error to expect when measuring out solids using spoons.
I test my premises about accuracy and purity by actually running tests.