Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,837   Posts: 1,582,458   Online: 756
      
Page 1 of 17 123456711 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 163
  1. #1
    rmazzullo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    263

    stepper motor / PC control of emulsion making

    Hello,

    I am a new member to this forum, and have been catching up on the technical information presented here as fast as I can.

    First, I wanted to thank 'photo engineer' for posting as much information as he has so far to date. The importance of these contributions cannot be overstated.

    From what I am reading on this forum, it seems like the process of emulsion making on a small scale would benefit tremendously from using small stepper motors, servos, solenoids, etc (machine control) to keep certain steps in this process more exact and repeatable. There are plenty of off the shelf components, subassemblies, and free software to take care of most steps (more precise injection of ingredients, timed sequences, mixing, heating, cooling, coater transport, paper or film movement, etc). And you wouldn't need a machine shop to put this all together. And, you would use a PC to control and monitor the process. If you were to perfect this, you could maybe modify the same small scale coating apparatus to coat more than one emulsion at the same time (ok, maybe not right away).

    I am aware that the basic idea of making emulsion and coating is to do this by hand, and I know some (or most) of the idea of machine control is a bit much for some folks. I am just suggesting that the idea of using electromechanical control in very small scale emulsion making may not be difficult at all. There are companies that specialize in supplying smaller motion control components for the hobbyist (or small scale operator). There is also e**y as a source of parts. Once the system is created, it can be duplicated by who ever wishes to. If you have more precise control over certain steps in the process, you could tailor the results any way you like.

    That is, of course, if the emulsion gods are kind to you that day, and assuming every other variable (ingredient quality, etc) is in your favor.

    Your thoughts?

    Thanks,

    Bob Mazzullo

  2. #2
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,530
    Images
    65
    Bob;

    Stepper motors with geared pumps (gravimetric) or peristaltic pumps (volumetric) can be used in making emulsions. Other types of slow speed motors can also be used. All you need is a control method. Burr Brown makes an excellent control board for the PC that does just this. All of these have certain advantages and disadvantages.

    However, few people want to get into this complex of an operation as it also would imply feedback control of flows to control things precisely as it can fly out of control with even small errors. There are other problems inherent in this as well such as pump chatter to name one.

    I could give a whole workshop on this subject alone, as it was one of my specialties for about 15 years.

    My approach was KISS and I have adhered to it in all of my formulas. The total investment for making my emulsions would be well under $1000, but I suspect that your approach could run up as high as $5000 or more and it would take a lot of time. A single peristaltic pump (new) might run $250 alone.

    I assure you that a single run emulsion such as I make can be done in as little as 1 hour including full prep time and cleanup, but an emulsion as you describe might take as much as a full day for setup (including programming the equipment), running and teardown - cleaning. BTDT.

    Just debugging problems associated with line fill and line purge would create an interesting bit of research for you up front. After all, if you are adding 100 ml of chemical, you can't leave 10 ml in the line and some systems will not deliver without a 'head' of fluid behind them.

    But, I don't want to discourage you from trying, and if you are interested in pursuing it, I am here to help as much as I can.

    PE

  3. #3
    rmazzullo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    263
    PE,

    I am very interested in investigating this. My plan is to attend your workshop, and learn all I can how the process is done manually, and what's involved. I know I will have many questions for you in the meantime.

    Thanks again,

    Bob Mazzullo

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    28
    If a vacuum-driven approach is used, then fluid pumps are not required, right? All that is needed is flow measurement and regulation.

    (Yes, I know this is absolutely not needed for home stuff, but the idea of cottage industry is one I enjoy...)

    A small controller utilizing dynamic fuzzy logic should do a good job of regulating flows. Designing a system that continuously coats plates is a little more challenging. However, Eastman did it in the 1880s. Therefore, a system must be feasible. Whether it fits into my bathroom is a different question.

  5. #5
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,530
    Images
    65
    Brian, I'm not quite sure what you mean by a vacuum driven approach for pumping fluids into a vessel for making emulsions.

    Could you elaborate?

    A continuous plate or film coater has its size mandated by rate of coating and speed of drying. In some ways it is easier to design a plate coater than a film coater and easier to design either than design an automated emulsion making setup. OTOH, coaters are often much larger than making apparatus due to the dryer, even the fully automated variety of making station.

    PE

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    169
    I suspect that the primary benefit would not be to be able to recreate the hand-process of your existing method, PE, but to gain enough control to do more sophisticated emulsions, fully pan films, etc.

    I also suspect that the greatest benefit would be simple-homebrew-but-not-full-production sorts of ideas. e.g. a stepper motor into a leadscrew into a syringe instead of a proper peristaltic pump. (Assuming, of course, you can properly linearize the process). Sure you need to refill the syringe after each batch, but we're not talking about trying to compete with Ilford or Kodak here..

    I suspect that it would be easy to assemble sufficent amounts of hardware to do the job and control it via computer...... but the software to do it properly... that's hard.

  7. #7
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,530
    Images
    65
    Wire;

    The leadscrew into a syring is an excellent method of automation and probably better than any of the others, provided the proper syringe is used.

    Having a pan film however, has nothing to do with automation, sorry to say. The pan sensitization takes place long after the making of the emulsion and is merely a dump and stir. It is coating the pan emulsion by hand that is he problem and requires an IR lab for fog prevention.

    We used a syringe system at Kodak for small makes or small additions to large makes. That is essentially what I am duplicating but with manual operation which works well enough at up to 600 ml. Beyond that, syringes would still work, but then the problem becomes one of mixing and the type of delivery, and that is one of the essences of my workshop. Method of delivery is critical as is stirring. This is also scale dependant and is something I have not discussed here on APUG at all to this point.

    With some emulsions, I have seen up to 4 or even more delivery systems running at one time with a very particular method of delivery to prevent 'hot spots' in chemistry. No matter how accurate pumped delivery is, if a hot spot develops, the emusion is scrap. Sometimes this even includes the use of geometrically placed inlets and baffles.

    Delivery systems may be running Silver, Salt 1, Salt 2 and dopant, and in addition the flow rates of 1 or more may be ramping up or down (at different rates) and may start and shut down for specific periods of time. I know of formulas that include upward and downward ramps in concentration as well, and I have never mentioned this before on any forum.

    In addition to those 4 flows mentioned above, base and acid may be run for specified times for kick starting ammonia digestion, temperature may ramp up and down in a specific fashion, and a UF ultrafiltrator may kick in and out periodically to maintain a given ionic strength.

    So, in the final analysis, with the methodology described in this thread, you can move from the 40s and 50s to the 60s and 70s, but not much beyond the 80s, and certainly not into 90s technology.

    And, one of the big features of control is the control circuitry with a measurment device and feedback loops (for both pH and pAg). You need an algorigthm and the right PID setting for each factor for the proper flows to prevent oscillation of the 1 - 3 salts being delivered to prevent undue banding in the emulsion and any acid or base.

    Gee, I'll bet the Director of Research at Ilford is drooling right now....

    I encourage you interested parties to try, and I'll try to answer what questions I can when problems arise.

    I think that one of the threads here already has a block diagram of a simple emulsion process. Just multiply delivery systems by about 3 and control systems by 2 and you are approaching modern 90s making.

    PE

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    169
    Okay, I think I forgot about the whole coating-pan-film part... And tuning PID is mostly what I was referring to with the software taking forever...

    The problem, of course, is that if you can spend a few weeks hunched over the soldering iron to build the electronics and run a GPL'd software package and get an improvement in home-emulsion-screwing-around, that's one thing.... but auto-tuning-PID software is going to shoot the price up awful high.

    I know one can source ready-made pH sensors with digital output... but what about pAg sensors? and are the ready-made pH sensors adequate for the purposes they'd be used for?

    I guess the big question is... with levels of automation acquired through dedicated screwing around, could one potentially control the pAg levels well enough to do T-grained films or at least consistent cubic grains with no K-grain?

  9. #9
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,530
    Images
    65
    Wire;

    No, there are no really good pAg sensors around but there are good pH sensors.

    Yes, you can build - program a good PID loop and tuning software. It isn't that hard.

    No, you don't need one if you really want to do this. There is a short cut.

    Yes, you can make a pretty good t-grain emulsion but it may be a bit "Klunky" and you can probably make it pretty mondisperse and repeatable.

    Yes, I can get you help on converting a unit that reads millivolts to a meter for pAg control, but it will take a lot of solder, and a lot of silver and electrode know how. Yes, I know how to contstruct a decent model from the Debye Huckle equations for this job.

    But, in the long run you want to use vAg control for precision and accuracy.

    I think what you really want is the ability to make something mid 60s to mid 70s which will be a decent t-grain and moderate process control.

    This will take 2 pumps (peristaltic) and a batch of solenoid controlled valves, 4 addition systems and vAg detection with manual control. We can talk about addition methods later.

    What do you want, a free book on-line?

    PE

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    28
    Hi, PE! I was thinking that instead of using a fluid pump to move chemicals, why not let them flow into a vacuum? Then there wouldn't be any pump agitation. Since the vacuum is pulling the chemicals into the mixing container, it would also remove air bubbles and such, right?

    (BTW, if I can pay for this information with home-roasted coffee, please let me know. I am currently roasting Ethiopia Harar, but I also have Tanzania Songea, Zimbabwe AAA from Dandoni Estate, and Uganda Bugisu.)

Page 1 of 17 123456711 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin