Kirk uses EK-labelled Borax from a jug how old? Gainer uses fresh 20 Mule Team. For years I used Mallincrodt Borax from a cardboard canister with a metal screw top for my DK-25R replenisher. That container had been on the photo shop shelf for a long time before I bought it for 29 cents in 1965. I have used 20 Mule Team for my DK-25R for many years. Kirk sez his has gotta be good because the Great Yellow Father say so. Pat, he say 20 Mule Team be pure enough to use for making eye-drops.
Why don't youze guys put this discussion in the can and go out and make some photographs?
John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA
This won't tell you a whole lot, but it is a start: http://webstore.ansi.org/FindStandar...on=1&PageNum=0
Originally Posted by Anscojohn
Hey!! Knock it off!!! I'm really enjoying this!!! A nine page disscussion on the purity of Borax is so friggin APUG, it should be plated in gold and framed. (I mean.. er... silver.)
That's just, like, my opinion, man...
I agree, don't knock it off.
By standing on the sidelines, one can learn heaps by just listening to the main speakers going back and forth.
the Wright Bros. were known for debating things back and forth...they'd even switch sides in whatever argument they were having
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Maybe it should be plated in silicon (silly con) because we are in the digital age.
Basically, what we apparently have is a guy who failed chemistry trying to teach some experienced chemists right from wrong regarding chemistry and lab technique. I'm as interested in this thread as you guys. But, for different reasons. I sincerely believe in leaving a legacy in which people know how to do things right, but at the same time can have fun in the darkroom.
From a practical and personal standpoint, the formulas that I developed (pun unintended) while at Kodak have sold in the millions of dollars world wide. This is from guesstimates over the lifetimes of the several products. But on the other side of the coin, I still restrict myself to paper airplanes. In other words, age has given me the wisdom to avoid comments in fields which are outside my field of expertise.
I continue to develop products which are apparently selling well considering todays markets. I am working with my good friend Bill Troop and others to perfect several new products to improve fixing, washing and developer life (usability). I am also helping the Formulary set up a line of emulsion making equipment and chemicals. I want to leave a quality legacy for analog photographers no matter what happens to the major companies.
So, in a way, I have a vested interest in giving the 'right' answers here and everywhere I post, but you are certainly and obviously free to do whatever you want. And, BTW, some people send me notes in which they express the fear of contacting me. They think it is a bother to me. I welcome any and all questions and will answer and do research as far as my time will permit. Also, BTW, I am not always right, but if I err, you will see my apology and correction posted on APUG.
Ron and Gadget:
Thank you for both sharing what you share, and caring so much about what you know.
For what it's worth, I think you are both right.
Ron, because the strict standards you refer to are important to understand.
Gadget (I don't think I know your actual first name), because for those of us who understand the advantages and disadvantages of replacing the technically correct, with the more easily obtainable, your approach makes wonderful sense.
As Ron has been known to say, "Use whatever works for you". I think that is what Gadget is saying.
It is just (as Ron is currently saying) be sure you have an appreciation for the risks.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. You are entirely corerct.
You just used the argument from authority. What do chemists have to say about photography that is so authoritative? So far as I have seen, no chemical tests have been cited to show that there is a difference between technical grade of 20 Mule Team brand and Kodak's photographic grade of years ago, or even of today. If there is a difference, it is not likely to be in the percentage of borax decahydrate, but in the other ingredients that total less than 1% in both cases. It is not likely to be in abrasiveness, because 20 Mule Team borax is claimed to be non abrasive. It is not likely to be in chlorine or phosphate, at least not in Kodak's favor, because these are definitely stated to be not present in the mule crap. (I got tired of spelling it out.)
Originally Posted by Kirk Keyes
I'll bet that if you chemists decided to produce a photo grade of borax from the raw material, you would follow exactly the procedure used by the makers of the mule crap. I'll further bet that you will not call that bet because you don't know their procedure and dare not find out what it is. If this doesn't get you to check your ASS-U-MEd facts, nothing will.
I'm not trying to teach you anything about chemistry. I'm trying to get you to use what you know in a logical manner, not just authoritatively. You can quote your education and work experience all you want, but if you cannot back up your statements with numbers, you won't convince an engineer.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Don't make too much of that failure. I could have repeated those two courses. I had a 3+ average in all my other course work, including Chemical Engineering lab, inorganic qualitative and quantitative analysis, welding, machine shop, etc. I passed English by exam. I had to in order to live with my father, a Professor of English at WVU. I did not change to Aeronautical because it was easier.