Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,869   Posts: 1,629,338   Online: 781
      
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 62
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17,413
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    14
    westly,

    the filtration system PE mentioned --- he also suggested was inefficient.
    a waste hauler can sell you a "ironcore" trickle tank.
    it will last for several years, and get you down to between 1 and 3 parts / million which is where you want to be.
    don't look for anything but "ironcore" filters because the other ones channel.
    that means, if you don't run liquid through the filter all the time, the filter dries out, and doesn't work right.

    a trickle tank is basically a big filter, not a double bed filter that PE suggested, but
    a simple metalic filter. you pour your spent fixer and washwater
    into it, and it removes the silver, replacing the silver with iron. when it is "spent" you can bring it to your hauler for replacement.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,730
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    i guess so ..
    but unless "joe" can get that "stuff" and do it himself, and it is pretty much FREE
    seems like he is just gonna dump as he is already doing ... he doesn't see the costs related to his dumping

    not to be a pita PE, but "joe" doesn't wanna spend money on anything
    but gear, and building a "mixed bed resin and organic resin filter"
    seems like a lot of work ...
    having a waste guy come to the house every few years costs about $25 a year - it is painless and he doesn't
    even want to do that ...

    at least you are giving "joe" an option too bad he doesn't care
    (this should land me on a few more ignore lists)

    I always find it fascinating that "Joe" is someone else and not the poster.

    Fact of the matter is, either you are responsible and treat the World properly, instructing by example, or you don't.

    Sorry, don't mean to pick on you specifically, but the automatic assumption that "common" people don't care is, frankly, an elitist viewpoint that is also defeatist.

    In the the USA, people are saturated with the culture of convenience. but it seems to me that if you give them a convenient way to be environmentally responsible, most at least try to be responsible.

    Yes, a lot of recycling bins probably wind up in a landfill and mismanaged, but the alternative is automatic and absolute pollution without those potential processes. Were "Joe" so incredibly apathetic as you state, the programs would hardly exist at all.

    I think a lot of blame for irresponsible pollution should be laid at the feet of consumer advertising; they spend 99% of their advertising time telling you, you "must have and use this" and 1% of their time urging you to use their products "responsibly".

    Yes, the consumer should have some knowledge of the product and the consequences of their misuse, but when corporations place profit margin above and beyond public safety, you wind up with flashy commercials of grinning socialites promoting toxic chemicals to be sprayed on dandelions (rather than bend their lazy ass over and pull it out) and all caution buried in impenetrable leagaleeze and tiny print disclaimers on the container.

    That is why you find a toxic witches brew of chemicals no rational chemist would store next to one another in garage and garden shed cupboards across the USA, and I would assume to a lesser extent, the rest of the World.

    Yet, because you don't have Kodak or Illford on the TV every 10 minutes showing a socialite plucking a fiber print from an archival washer just prior to "hitting the town", most people I know who are not photographers make the automatic assumption that photochemicals are just short of biological warfare in your basement.

    It all comes back to the ignorance of the public on basic physical and chemical properties of everyday objects and solutions.

    Just today, the TV "news" shows (and I do say that tongue in cheek) here in the USA are jibbering and pointing their fingers at a fire in Dallas, Texas where they are astounded and shocked at a fire in a propane dealer that caused massive damage in a inner city area. Sadly, it seems several people lost their lives when natural gas cylinders were somehow ignited and started to explode, but it seems their shock and dismay is reserved little for the victims, but much for the fact that such a facility would be located inside the city limits of a large metro area.

    Yet, these are undoubtedly the same people who will complain bitterly if they cannot run down to the local quickie mart and pick up a bottle of natural gas for their home grill.

    Yeah, that rack full of 40 x 15 gallon LPG tanks are totally inert until you transport home to grill then it becomes magic burger juice...

    In the end, traditional photochemical practice appears to only survive through inertia and the apathy of the public; certainly NOT because of an educated opinion.

    It would seem the only way we could ever win the right to exist is through education of the general public and easy availability of reasonably convenient methods of environmentally sound chemical disposal.

    PE is that resin bed a trade secret?

  3. #43
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rural NW Missouri
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,953
    Quote Originally Posted by copake_ham View Post
    As an aside - this evening I replaced the toner cartridge of the HP printer I use at home.

    It's relatively new (1-1/2 years) and hasn't seen too much use so this was the first replacement.

    I opened the box with the new cartridge and did the swap out. I was about to throw out the brochure inside the box when I realized that it felt "kind of heavy" for simple newsprint.

    So I opened it and found a prepaid UPS return label attached to a multi-lingual brochure explaining how to return anything from one to twelve cartridges for recycling.

    Who knows where they will wind up? But congrats are due to HP for at least trying to do the right thing.

    Oh, and yes, I realize that "built into" the price I paid for the cartridge was the UPS charge etc. - but, so what? If its disposal is handled "properly" it's a sunk cost anyway and both HP and I can feel better for having taken the trouble.

    It's the small steps that change the consciousness that are important.
    Sometimes reusing is better than recycling. I've refilled my HP laser toner cartridges for many years. Refilled cartridges suffice for most uses. Likewise, instead of recycling tin cans and plastic and glass bottles and buying them back as remanufactured products, they can be used or adapted in many applications. Sixtyfive years ago, when America didn't have the option of dumping our waste overseas, we said, "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." That saves money and the environment today, too.

  4. #44
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,160
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    westly,

    the filtration system PE mentioned --- he also suggested was inefficient.
    a waste hauler can sell you a "ironcore" trickle tank.
    it will last for several years, and get you down to between 1 and 3 parts / million which is where you want to be.
    don't look for anything but "ironcore" filters because the other ones channel.
    that means, if you don't run liquid through the filter all the time, the filter dries out, and doesn't work right.

    a trickle tank is basically a big filter, not a double bed filter that PE suggested, but
    a simple metalic filter. you pour your spent fixer and washwater
    into it, and it removes the silver, replacing the silver with iron. when it is "spent" you can bring it to your hauler for replacement.

    It is inefficient due to the cost of the units sold commercially vs their capacity. They are designed for low levels of salts. But basically, you just run the chemistry through a standard carbon/resin filter available from the local hardware store for removing (filtering) material from your water. It is a deionizer in essence.

    The one I designed at EK was high capacity and used a mixed bed ion exhchange resin to remove both positive and negative ions and also an organic resin to remove all organics. It was much more efficient, but the store bought ones can do the job in a pinch.

    PE

  5. #45
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,160
    Images
    65
    Kino;

    The resin I used is commercially available, but I've forgotten the names of the 3 resins used. I may be able to dig them up. It is not a trade secret.

    PE

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17,413
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Kino View Post
    (this should land me on a few more ignore lists)

    I always find it fascinating that "Joe" is someone else and not the poster.
    i just used the name instead of typing in "what's his face"
    i mean no disrespect to any of the joe's out there

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,730
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Kino;

    The resin I used is commercially available, but I've forgotten the names of the 3 resins used. I may be able to dig them up. It is not a trade secret.

    PE

    We used a cation exchange resin on the Lipsner Smith Film Cleaning machines; wonder if that was one of them?

    Found this: http://www.massengineers.com/Documen...0excangers.pdf
    any relevance to our topic?

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,730
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    i just used the name instead of typing in "what's his face"
    i mean no disrespect to any of the joe's out there
    Sorry, that was unnecessarily snotty on my part. I understood what you meant; apologies...

  9. #49
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,160
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Kino View Post
    We used a cation exchange resin on the Lipsner Smith Film Cleaning machines; wonder if that was one of them?

    Found this: http://www.massengineers.com/Documen...0excangers.pdf
    any relevance to our topic?
    Kino, the resin I bought was a 3 part mixture. One part was a mixed bed resin which was a mixture of anionic and cationic resin beads. The other part (3rd component) was a neutral porous material that sucked up any organic materials. It was similar to activated charcoal only more efficient. That is one reason why the hardware store variety is less efficient. It uses charcoal and only one resin; it has lower capacity, but it is less expensive. I have not tried to work out any conditions for these filters, but have a batch of them in the DR waiting for a chance to do the work.

    PE

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17,413
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Kino View Post
    Sorry, that was unnecessarily snotty on my part. I understood what you meant; apologies...
    no worries, people call me joe all the time so i know where u are comming from!

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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