Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / February 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Borax vs 20 Mules

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Lew - 05 Feb 2004 22:24 GMT
These are Formulary Divided D-76 questions.
1. How many grams of 20 Mule Team does it take to make a gram of pure borax?
2. Teaspoon equivalent?
-Lew
nicholas t - 06 Feb 2004 00:36 GMT
> These are Formulary Divided D-76 questions.
> 1. How many grams of 20 Mule Team does it take to make a gram of pure borax?
> 2. Teaspoon equivalent?
> -Lew

1. 20 Team mule borax *is* borax.
2. 4gms per teaspoon will get you to where you need to go...
Gregory W Blank - 06 Feb 2004 00:54 GMT
> These are Formulary Divided D-76 questions.
> 1. How many grams of 20 Mule Team does it take to make a gram of pure borax?
> 2. Teaspoon equivalent?
> -Lew

It is pure borax, or pure enough,... no need to convert.
Signature

LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

See VC & Camera Arts Magazines for outstanding imagery
at www.viewcamera.com or www.cameraarts.com

Patrick Gainer - 06 Feb 2004 01:18 GMT
> These are Formulary Divided D-76 questions.
> 1. How many grams of 20 Mule Team does it take to make a gram of pure borax?
> 2. Teaspoon equivalent?
> -Lew
Yes, but do not use Boraxo, which is a hand cleaner with other stuff in
it, including an abrasive.
Dennis O'Connor - 06 Feb 2004 12:48 GMT
Hey, I was wandering down the aisle at the local Meijer's (a chain
supermarket in Michigan) and lo and behold, they have Arm and Hammer WASHING
SODA on the shelf... Big boxes of it.. El cheapo...  Anyone who is in dire
straits let me know and I can arrange to buy a couple and ship em to you -
though shipping may run up the tab...
denny

"Patrick Gainer" <pgainer@rtol.net> wrote in message > Yes, but do not use
Boraxo, which is a hand cleaner with other stuff in
> it, including an abrasive.
lloyd@the-wire.com - 06 Feb 2004 04:13 GMT
>These are Formulary Divided D-76 questions.
>1. How many grams of 20 Mule Team does it take to make a gram of pure borax?
>2. Teaspoon equivalent?
>-Lew

feb504 from Lloyd Erlick,

'Pure' borax? Depends what that might be.

Borax is commercially available in three states of hydration. One can
buy anhydrous, pentahydrate and decahydrate.

The correct form to get is decahydrate. That is what is sold in
supermarkets (unfortunately not in Canadian supermarkets, though. The
stuff isn't seen here much.) Photographic formulas seldom stipulate
the hydration, but it is taken for granted to be the decahydrate. In
photo discussion, the word borax is understood to mean borax
decahydrate. No compensation for the weight of the water of hydration
should be necessary. It dissolves in room temperature or warm water
fairly easily and quickly (it's a laundry additive ...). Therefore,
the mules are pulling the righteous stuff. (I hate to think I'm
addicted to my darkroom because of Ward Bond, Sundays at my
grandmother's...).

The decahydrate is most often used commercially because it does not
absorb water from the air, does not cake, and if kept covered and
clean will not suffer in storage. It's also availble in huge
quantities at all times because it's used to do laundry, so it's
relatively cheap.

The pentahydrate form is fine, although a calculation and adjustment
might have to made on the weight, depending on how finicky one is. The
pentahydrate has the sad characteristic of absorbing water from the
air. It will eventually cake and solidify. I don't know how long this
process takes; if it's years, fine, if it's weeks, well, why hunt for
pentahydrate when deca is at the store? Penta is to be avoided unless
it can be used up quickly and is priced attactively.

Do not buy anhydrous borax. Not even if the price is attractive. Not
even if they pay you to take it. It will not dissolve in water during
your lifetime. You can add all the cosolubilizing agents you like. You
can dispose of it if you are mixing enough cement (it's way more
expensive than sand, though...). I have learned this the hard way and
no one else needs to follow my example. (If it screws up your cement,
don't talk to me about it.) Anhydrous borax might be considered 'pure'
borax, but it's not useful in the darkroom.

I don't know offhand what a teaspoon of decahydrated borax would
weigh. Most powders seem to be in the four or five grams per teaspoon
range. In most of the applications of borax in the darkroom,
especially fixers, the exact weight is not critical. Enough or more
than enough is the goal. Maybe for a developer it should be weighed
carefully, but even there I'm sure spoon equivalents will work fine.
I'd use four (maybe five...) grams per ordinary slightly round
teaspoon, and hope if there was error it would be toward slight
excess.

There is more at www.borax.com. Here's a quote:

---
Rio Tinto Borax operates California’s largest open pit mine in Boron,
California - one of the richest borate deposits on the planet. The
company supplies nearly half the world’s demand for refined borates,
minerals essential to life and modern living.

Borax traces its roots to California’s Death Valley, where borate
deposits were discovered in 1872. The twenty mule teams Borax used to
haul ore out of the remote desert...

regards,
--le
---
_______________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits,
2219 Gerrard Street East, unit #1,
Toronto M4E 2C8 Canada.
                ---
voice 416-686-0326
lloyd@the-wire.com
http://www.heylloyd.com
_______________________________________
Gregory W Blank - 06 Feb 2004 05:38 GMT
> There is more at www.borax.com. Here's a quote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> deposits were discovered in 1872. The twenty mule teams Borax used to
> haul ore out of the remote desert...

Out of curiousity without going to the site how are borates essential to life?
Signature

LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

Patrick Gainer - 06 Feb 2004 06:08 GMT
> > There is more at www.borax.com. Here's a quote:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> --
> LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
For one thing, they provide a living for a number of people who mine,
process, deliver and sell them. Other than that, since they are mined
mostly from Death Valley, maybe they just exist in such concentrations
to keep some harmful elements from spreading.
Gregory W Blank - 06 Feb 2004 12:03 GMT
> > Out of curiousity without going to the site how are borates essential to life?

> For one thing, they provide a living for a number of people who mine,
> process, deliver and sell them. Other than that, since they are mined
> mostly from Death Valley, maybe they just exist in such concentrations
> to keep some harmful elements from spreading.

Then maybe we should not be taking them from where they belong?
Signature

LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

Patrick Gainer - 09 Feb 2004 02:50 GMT
> > > Out of curiousity without going to the site how are borates essential to life?
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> --
> LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
I was thinking of crazies who go to Death Valley without proper
precautions.
Dennis O'Connor - 09 Feb 2004 12:38 GMT
Patrick, with your Formula B / Phenidone from the Unblinking Eye article, do
you remember what your normal developing time was/is for TMX?
I'm at 7:30' and getting negs that look to be close to a stop over, yet if I
soup them in D76 I get get negs that are pretty much on the button...
My pattern is constant inversions for the first ten seconds, then one
inversion every ten seconds for the remainder of first minute, then 4
inversions over a ten second period, at minute intervals until done...

denny
Patrick Gainer - 09 Feb 2004 19:31 GMT
> Patrick, with your Formula B / Phenidone from the Unblinking Eye article, do
> you remember what your normal developing time was/is for TMX?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> denny

You say they look overexposed compared to D-76? That is how they should
look. Sulfite-free developers often give more film speed. If you mean
they look overdeveloped, start at 6 minutes and work up if necessary.
Dan Quinn - 10 Feb 2004 10:16 GMT
> You say they look overexposed compared to D-76? That is how they should
> look. Sulfite-free developers often give more film speed.

 He's comparing a phenidone developer with a M/Q. You don't think it
is the phenidone giving that higher density?

 "Sulfite-free developers often..." That's a little tricky. Might not
that be due to being also "often" free of metol and hydroquinone?  Dan
Patrick Gainer - 10 Feb 2004 17:13 GMT
> > You say they look overexposed compared to D-76? That is how they should
> > look. Sulfite-free developers often give more film speed.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>   "Sulfite-free developers often..." That's a little tricky. Might not
> that be due to being also "often" free of metol and hydroquinone?  Dan
It could be. It is possible to use 10 times more metol than pheindone in
the same formula. It has been a long time since I did so. I remember
remarking at the time that the MC developer was about as active as D-76.
Look at Unblinkingeye.com and see if I showed the H&D curves for both.
Patrick Gainer - 11 Feb 2004 03:38 GMT
> > > You say they look overexposed compared to D-76? That is how they should
> > > look. Sulfite-free developers often give more film speed.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> remarking at the time that the MC developer was about as active as D-76.
> Look at Unblinkingeye.com and see if I showed the H&D curves for both.
I looked. I did not make the comparison between the metol and phenidone
versions. I guess I will have to.
Patrick Gainer - 12 Feb 2004 00:27 GMT
> > You say they look overexposed compared to D-76? That is how they should
> > look. Sulfite-free developers often give more film speed.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>   "Sulfite-free developers often..." That's a little tricky. Might not
> that be due to being also "often" free of metol and hydroquinone?  Dan
I just finished the test. I used a step density wedge. Developed two
strips of HP5+, one in metol-C-carbonate and the other in
phenidone-C-carbonate, each for 8 minutes at 70 F. When I plot the
curves, the only real difference is in base+fog which is 0.29 for metol,
0.38 for phenidone. The curves are otherwise parallel all the way up.
Surprised me too.

The formula:
1 tsp pHPlus (sodium carbonate)
1/2 teaspoon ascorbic acid
0.2 grams (3.5 grains) metol

or

2 ml of 1% phenidone in propylene glycol.
Jorge Omar - 12 Feb 2004 01:23 GMT
Partick

Do you think some benzotriazole would be advisable with phenidone?

Thanks,

Jorge

> I just finished the test. I used a step density wedge. Developed two
> strips of HP5+, one in metol-C-carbonate and the other in
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> 2 ml of 1% phenidone in propylene glycol.
Patrick Gainer - 12 Feb 2004 05:27 GMT
> Partick
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> >
> > 2 ml of 1% phenidone in propylene glycol.

Not worth the trouble or expense. You can make this developer for leaa
than 50 cents a gallon. That much difference in density won't affect the
grain noticeably.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.