Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post

You asked why I thought that the standard you published for Borax was trivial and useless for photo products. I pointed to the fact that it had no standard for presence of potassium salts and was therefore unsuitlable for application to fixers.

You questioned the authority on fixers and indeed the use in fixers, or in fact, any problem with the use of potassium alum in fixers.

So, I iterated the problems and gave the literature references which you also questioned. Then, I posted the data from the reference itself.

So, by line chapter and verse, I have tried to point out the error in the poor standard you posted, and you replied with what was essentially "yes, but" or "I can't find a reference".

So, that is how this took place. I questioned the standard and stated my reasons for both developers and even more importantly for fixers. You refused to accept my answers as being either factual or correct, and so I gave instances to prove my case.

I have tried to tell you that I did NOT publish the ANSI-PMA standard. I did not question the literarure references except to note that one of them is not in my copy of the third edition of "The Theory....." on the page you quoted or anywhere else. And it has not appeared there by some miracle since then. And instead of replying with the date of printing of your copy, you chose to ridicule my intelligence and my knowledge of chemistry. I'm sure your copy has a later printing date than mine, which is the fifth printing of the third edition.

I don't mind your questioning of the ANSI Standard, but please don't blame me for it. It specifically applies to most common photographic uses, and has more disclaimers than the stuff that is supposed to make a utility pole out of a penis.