Peter has put this in perspective. Thanks much Peter.
The syringe will work best at our scale. If you go over 1 liter, then you will have to use pump delivery. We used peristaltic pumps at 10 L volumes but also syringes. Above 10 L, say 100L and 1000L we used more traditional centrifugal pumps with geared motors that delivered by gravimetric flow.
In all cases except syringes, some sort of pulsation had to be contended with, and the solution differed with pump. At small scale we used tygon tubing and recalibrated for every run, and at large scale we used stainless tubing. That route gets expensive fast.
Our solutions to these problems were also quite expensive.
Here are additional facts on automated emulsion making.
Emulsions with mixed halides generally end up with banding unless the addition of both halides is carefully controlled. You have missed this point totally, I think.
If you add silver, and then a bromoioide, it bands if the halide is controlling. Kodak had many solutions to this.
If you put the iodide into the kettle, it ends up all in the center and must be 'churned' to the surface by using ammonia or other silver halide solvents (Kodak had 2 unique solutions to this problem)
If you make a bromoiodide that is not banded or core shell or 'converted' you must have a smooth addition of silver and iodide, with bromide doing the controlling. This is a key to this type of making. Agfa used methods very old compared to those used by Kodak. I know nothing about the Ilford methods.
Pulsations introduced by pumps must either be minimized, evened out or eliminated by some means. Elimination is possible as noted by Peter in his exellent post, by several means. We used some of these, but there are many more of them that can and must be used, especially at smaller scale.
This is why I have said it can be done, but is expensive and time consuming. Ryuji has posted elsewhere that he is doing automated precipitation but when I asked him to post examples, he appears to have refused and may now be ignoring my posts completely.
I have offered publicly and privately to work with him, but he has refused my offers in the strongest terms in all instances.
I believe that both of us together may be able to offer a good, workable automated method of making monodisperse emulsions or t-grains for about $5000 in equipment. It is possible. I am also willing to work with anyone else on a 1:1 basis.
In the mean time, I continue to stress that older emulsions from the 20s to the 40s or 50s are more in keeping with what the average hobbyist might attempt, but advanced experimenters can move beyond this. I continue to be willing to help, but caution you that use of automation is a difficult road. I am willing to help anyone, but if they ignore my help, suggestions, or consider me unable to 'produce' I will be unable to help you all in the long run. I cannot do all of this myself.
Pursuant to this, I have mentioned before, I am willing to develop a workshop covering these advanced topics, but due to the limited interest in even the fundamental workshop, I am not willing to go ahead with the 'advanced' version. This is all very expensive when one considers the cost of just the silver involved.
Someone jokingly said to me that if one more major B&W producer quits making film or paper, people will beat a path to my door. I don't expect that to be true as by that time, I will be long gone - hoping for a long lifetime for analog photography.
But, in the mean-time, I will do what I can.
Now, for a specific hint. If you want to automate, and if pulsations are a problem, a very narrow inlet orifice with back pressure minimizes the pulsations. HINT:HINT:HINT..... You go from there.
After I posted this, I realized I forgot one important point.
I want these ideas to go to the public, not to the private companies. I don't want to pass on this information, only to have them become secrets of a big company.
Hi PE, thanks again for adding more value to this thread. One day somebody must gather all the piecemeal bits of info into one requirements spec. document.; There is an obvious need for this when more than one person is trying to understand the proposed system(s).
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Perhaps I'll cobble one together when I have time, although others are welcome to do this 'cause I'm not about to come across much spare time in the near future.
Your HINT a the end of the post reminds me of this piece of equipment that is used for calibrating or measuring mass flow rates of gases. It relies on the principle of "Critical Flow". Although I thought critical flow only applied to gases. Well perhaps I'll look into that another day.
Why don't you guys start a Wikibook? (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page) . These forums are fine for discussing specific problems, but it's the worst format for pressenting the information you are aiming to gather.
Originally Posted by PeterB
Anyone who contributes to these forums could transcribe information into the wikibook in a logical place. Minor copyright problems are solvable
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
This US patent 5442562 seems to be related to the topic you are discussing...the example at the end of the patent is particularly relevant.
The patent can be view and download as a PDF at:
Wow, that is great to be able to view the specific patent with so much detail !! I knew I could do this, but the Google GUI is SO much more user friendly that the USPTO one.
Originally Posted by Emulsion
Did you know that Eastman Kodak Company has only filed 33 patents in the last 2 years, but a total of over 600 patents from June 2003 until May 2007 !! (Google Patent search won't return more than 600 hits for one date range)
One could have a field day trawling through the patents (while suitably refining one's search parameters) to get ideas for designing automated emulsion making systems.
If only I had more time on my hands....
Wait until you discover what is lurking in the other Kodak patents, some before 1960.
Last edited by rmazzullo; 05-17-2007 at 12:22 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: restated question