Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / July 2004
weight of my water
|
|
Thread rating:  |
whitewave - 10 Jul 2004 11:35 GMT Since the times I'm using in developing films are always shorter of the ones in Digitaltruth, I took infos on the quality of the water coming out from my house. It's heavy, very heavy.
So yesterday I bought 15 litres of distilled water (it costs me about 0.80$ for 4 litres). Next time I'm going to use it to mix ID-11.
Is it right? Or is it better to buy a specific filter for darkroom use?
Are the times for distilled water different from Digitaltruth's ones?
From Italy.
..................................... Marco Baldovin www.whitewave.it
Mike King - 10 Jul 2004 15:55 GMT Water quality is always a variable. III suspect a lot of "serious" darkroom workers use distilled water for mixing developers. And try to always get their distilled water from the same source!
The times in Digital Truth (or any published times for that matter) can only be regarded as a point of departure for any user since your agitation pattern, equipment, personal preferences (and of course water quality!) will affect your final negative contrast and density.
 Signature darkroommike
----------
> Since the times I'm using in developing films are always shorter of > the ones in Digitaltruth, I took infos on the quality of the water [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Marco Baldovin > www.whitewave.it Nicholas O. Lindan - 10 Jul 2004 16:25 GMT > I took infos on the quality of the water coming out from my house. > It's heavy, very heavy. I take it that 'heavy' means 'hard': lots of calcium etc.
> So yesterday I bought 15 litres of distilled water
> Is it right? Or is it better to buy a specific filter for darkroom > use? A filter will not get rid of dissolved minerals. A water softener will trade calcium for sodium and you will get salt water. Salt should result in finer grain ... ?
> Are the times for distilled water different from Digitaltruth's ones? DT's times should be (or so one hopes) for very pure/distilled water.
If the water quality is effecting development then the effect will not be constant. Water quality varies with time of year, temperature, how much algae & bacteria is in the water, how much chlorine added ....
In Cleveland the variation is profound. Since switching to distilled my negative consistency is all I can ask for. Before the switch I cursed the developer, the film, my light-meter, the shutter, the camera, the lens and myself for not being able to produce a consistently well exposed/developed negative.
 Signature Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
Donald Qualls - 10 Jul 2004 18:15 GMT > Since the times I'm using in developing films are always shorter of > the ones in Digitaltruth, I took infos on the quality of the water [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Are the times for distilled water different from Digitaltruth's ones? Distilled water is the best for developing, and for the price it's a bargain.
I use commercially filtered water -- reverse osmosis, activated charcoal, and sub-micron particulate filtered -- with good results for about half the price of distilled, but depending on the local water supply used to feed the filtration dispenser, the result might or might not be acceptable for photography (areas with a lot of iron in the water, for instance, might see enough of it get through the filters to cause problems). Setting up this kind of filtration for whole house is hideously expensive, though -- reverse osmosis filters are quite spendy -- but it might be practical to set up an under-sink unit for darkroom use only; expect to spend more than $500 (US) or equivalent, and take many years to pay it back in hobby use compared to the price of distilled water from the market.
Simpler and cheaper is to buy a commercial distiller made for drinking/cooking water; a unit that will produce 10 liters a day should cost less than $200, possibly as little as $100 (maybe even less where you are -- at least one such unit I'm aware of was made in Italy, if it's still in production), and with regular cleaning will produce water at least as good as what you get in those plastic jugs -- and let you keep 20 liters or more on hand if you want/need that much; operating costs are such that after you work off the cost of the unit (and they'll last decades with a little maintenance) you can produce water for a few cents a liter (at least at American power rates -- I don't know what you pay for electricity in Italy). The unit looks like a large coffee urn, all stainless steel, and can be installed under a counter etc., as long as there's room to get a jug under the tap for filling and to pull it out for periodic cleaning.
Distilled water might produce a change in times compared to what you've been using, but the times on Digitaltruth are just starting times anyway; you should expect to have to adjust those times for your particular thermometer, agitation technique, water purity, even purity of chemicals and measuring techniques if you mix your own developers. Add to that your metering technique that might require adjustment of both EI and developing times to compensate, and you can see that it's impossible to say with confidence whether you'll need to change the times you get from the Massive Dev Chart -- but distilled water, in and of itself, shouldn't make a big difference.
 Signature I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954
Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm
Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect.
jjs - 10 Jul 2004 23:58 GMT Hard water has one advantage to B&W photographers: it washes film faster than soft water. So if you want to save some of the precious filtered/distilled, then use hard water to wash, then do a final brief rinse in filtered water.
Donald Qualls - 11 Jul 2004 04:45 GMT > Hard water has one advantage to B&W photographers: it washes film faster > than soft water. So if you want to save some of the precious > filtered/distilled, then use hard water to wash, then do a final brief rinse > in filtered water. Well, but with the disadvantage that hard water is guaranteed to spot if it dries on your film -- alkalinity improves washing, but you can alkalize wash water (if needed) with a little baking soda. Better still to use an alkaline fixer, to gain the fast wash, and wash with distilled or reverse osmosis filtered water. If you use the Ilford method to wash, you can archivally wash and PhotoFlo treat two rolls of 120 or four rolls of 35 mm in a 32 ounce tank with one gallon of distilled or filtered water, costing between 35 and 90 cents. The Ilford wash takes less than five minutes (fill, invert five times, dump; fill, invert ten times, dump; fill, invert 20 times, dump, and PhotoFlo with fresh water). Nothing gained by using hard water, and too much risk of leaving a little calcium carbonate on the film to dry...
 Signature I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954
Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm
Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect.
jjs - 11 Jul 2004 17:17 GMT > > Hard water has one advantage to B&W photographers: it washes film faster > > than soft water. So if you want to save some of the precious [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it dries on your film -- alkalinity improves washing, but you can > alkalize wash water (if needed) with a little baking soda. [... snip ...] Very well put. Thanks so much for that, Donald. I have saved it and will pursue the technique.
Lloyd Erlick - 11 Jul 2004 17:13 GMT jul1104 from Lloyd Erlick,
>Hard water has one advantage to B&W photographers: it washes film faster >than soft water. So if you want to save some of the precious >filtered/distilled, then use hard water to wash, then do a final brief rinse >in filtered water. Yes, distilled is way too expensive for the whole wash anyway.
The way the final rinse (after a full wash) is done can vary quite a lot. I've often thought the ideal, rather expensive, way would be to do a triple soak of the films in enough distilled to cover them. This would remove most of the minicipal tap water solutes that had soaked into the gelatin.
I don't go that far, though. I don't think enough remains in the film to do any harm. I hang my rolls of film (and prints, too) and squirt distilled water down both sides. It removes any surface beads of tap water (so no water spots), and it even sluices away stuff from the air like fibers and cat hair. I'm really enjoying being cat-less at the moment, but it has always been a factor in my darkroom -- two cats, four decades; they seem to like sticking around me.
regards, --le
 Signature ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________
Dan Quinn - 12 Jul 2004 10:19 GMT > Yes, distilled is way too expensive for the whole wash > anyway. I process a roll of film only now and then. The 1.5 liter of distilled water used for the wash is worth the 30 cents. My water is very hard. If I had to chose, the first and last wash would be the distilled. The silver-thiosulfate complex is realy a part of a sodium or ammonium OR ?? compound. That OR I think could be a problem with some. It could be an element which when combined with the Ag/Thio. complex will precipitate within the emulsion. Bill Troop years ago warned against the use of potassium. His warning was way overblowen as I pointed out. BUT there are other elements out there. Beware! Dan
> The way the final rinse (after a full wash) is done can vary > quite a lot. I've often thought the ideal, rather expensive, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > net: www.heylloyd.com > ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick - 12 Jul 2004 14:04 GMT ...
> If I had to chose, the first and last wash would be the distilled. >The silver-thiosulfate complex is realy a part of a sodium or ammonium >OR ?? compound. That OR I think could be a problem with some. It could >be an element which when combined with the Ag/Thio. complex will >precipitate within the emulsion. ...
jul1204 from Lloyd Erlick,
Yes, it's the unknown we are concerned with. Unknown substances in municipal tap water. Unknown reactions taking place within the gelatin of our materials.
Quite frankly, I don't like drinking water that has unknown substances dissolved in it. I live in a city. It dumps stuff in the lake all the time (through sewers. I said sewers...). I'm ever so sure the municipal water treatment is perfect, and there is no risk. That's why drawing water out of the laek and into the treatment plant is so confidence inspiring. Official statements regarding the 'blob' at the bottom of Lake Ontario are very calming. The dioxin in Lake Ontario is trapped in the blob of sludge at the deepest part of the lake. Obviously the dioxin can't get into the water!
However, there is no escape. One can distill darkroom and drinking water, but bathing water is something else. The skin is the largest organ...
regards, --le
 Signature ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________
Jorge Omar - 12 Jul 2004 13:26 GMT I was having problems with black spots in the negatives until I started using spring water for everything, including wash (Ilford method).
Jorge
> Hard water has one advantage to B&W photographers: it washes film > faster than soft water. So if you want to save some of the precious > filtered/distilled, then use hard water to wash, then do a final brief > rinse in filtered water. Lloyd Erlick - 11 Jul 2004 16:56 GMT >... >Simpler and cheaper is to buy a commercial distiller made for [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >as there's room to get a jug under the tap for filling and to pull it >out for periodic cleaning. ...
jul1104 from Lloyd Erlick,
I used a counter-top water distiller for almost a decade. Your remarks are very much in line with my experience.
When I first purchased my distiller for about C$200, I assumed a service life of one thousand liters, which translated to about twenty cents a liter. Over its service life the cost of electricity rose constantly; I estimate it at around thirteen cents per liter of product water. It may have risen to around sixteen cents. (I'm located in Toronto, Canada, and electricity has been the center of enormous political scandals ... it was one of the factors in the electoral loss suffered by the ruling party provincially. The experience in California has been watched very carefully in my neighbourhood.)
However, I found that the distiller lasted much longer than my first guess. It came to a total of 6500 liters before I abandoned it when I moved. It was a simple device, and I was able to tweak it along quite easily (as it was originally supplied, the plastic fan blade began to tick and clack against the plastic housing as it warmed up in use. I removed the cover and ran it bare.) The fan itself was a simple thing with a motor that was easy to replace, although it never came to that. Eventually the temperature sensing cutoff device failed, but I never got around to fixing it. A cheap and easy fix would have been to simply run the thing through a timer. I was very aware of exactly how long it took to distill a fill-up of about a US gallon, so setting the timer and relying on it wasn't too scary. I'm sort of sorry I pitched it, because in my new digs the landlord picks up the cost of electricity!
These days the best deal on distilled water comes from the local supermarket. Strangely enough, it's on the four liter jugs, which sell for ninety-nine cents. (They are labeled 'steam distilled'.)The big polycarbonate nineteen liter jugs are not significantly cheaper, plus they weigh far too much. And they carry a ten dollar deposit.
I got into the habit of using distilled water for all kinds of things, and finding it superior in all cases. This includes making coffee (damn I wish I could still drink coffee! Cafenol indeed! I can't let that into my darkroom...).
I prefer it for any solution I intend to store, especially selenium toner. I've figured out how to keep my 1+5 dilution of selenium pretty well indefinitely, and distilled water is an important part of it. I also use distilled for making up fixer. And I use distilled water instead of a squeegee on all my film and prints. Certain cleaners, like ammonia for glass, are diluted with distilled water. I never permit any other liquid near my spotting dyes (no spotting brush in the mouth...).
Cleaning the distiller I had was easy. The whole top assembly lifted off, exposing a dinner-plate diameter opening. (It had a large gasket, which I assumed I'd have to replace at intervals. But it lasted the whole life of the unit!) I found that a simple, quick swill and brush-out over the sink kept the deposit inside to a very easily managed level. I stopped using the overpriced cleaner (same as the stuff sold to clean kettles) sold with the distiller, and even stopped using the plain vinegar I substituted later. The frequent (each use) swill and light scrub (plastic bottle brush with no soap or chemical) sufficed for years.
I eventually got so I kept a glass jug of distilled water on my counter for drinking, and another in the fridge if I wanted to drink cold water. People always tell me I shouldn't do this, because of the 'flat' taste. But it was never flat; in fact, it tasted very good. Water 'flavour' is partly dependant on dissolved gases, and the action of the distiller is such as to very strongly promote the dissolution of air in the product water. Compared to the disgusting stuff in tap water, distilled is very tasty. (I should add that for drinking purposes I always passed it through a Brita filter, because the taste of the stainless steel distiller container was quite prominent in the product water. It has the flavour of iron. Obviously the water is not pure in the chemical sense of H and O and nothing else, but it certainly is close enough to pure for our purposes. And part of it is that the human olfactory sense is still pretty good, even though we're not hounds...). I didn't bother with the Brita for darkroom distilled water.
Interestingly, I never found the water went 'bad'. It never became smelly, never developed any flavor at all. A few times I went away for two weeks or more, and left a jug of distilled out on my counter. It was always fine and tasty when I returned. There is nothing in distilled water for micro-organisms to feed on. Distilled water won't go bad.
It was indeed easy to keep twenty liters or so on hand. I just filled up one of those twenty liter white pails that restaurants throw out (zero cost). I had a plastic dipper (zero cost) and always poured the water through a plastic mesh coffee filter (very cheap, but you could get one of those gold-plated ones if high cost is desirable) in case an insect got into the supply (happened once, so I adopted the suspenders to go with the belt.)
I find the water purchased in plastic jugs tastes of plastic, so I still use the Brita...
regards, --le
 Signature ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________
Dan Quinn - 10 Jul 2004 22:22 GMT > I took infos on the quality of the water > coming out from my house. It's heavy, very heavy. Test the ph of your tap water. It may very alkaline. That being the case, the activity of the developer would be increased. Dan
PSsquare - 11 Jul 2004 23:52 GMT To All:
I think that we are getting into erroneously calling high purity water by the incorrect name of distilled water without regard to how it is really obtained. I seriously doubt that the purified water that you are buying is distilled.
I offer this suggestion because I worked in a large research park for over 30 years, and distilled water disappeared from there over 20 years ago. It was too expensive and not always pure enough when the stills needed maintenance. Given that we made the glass stills for many years before that, this was not a poorly thoughtout change. The mineralization of internal surfaces in a water still requires heavy maintenance time. It is my guess that most purified water is either reverse osmosis (RO) or deionized (DI). One of my projects required an ultra-pure nickel plating that needed ultra pure water, similar to that used in producing semiconductors. We opted for DI; easier to operate and much cheaper.
It is my recollection that as water becomes pure the electrical resistance increases, and this is in fact used to quantify the purity in units of Meg Ohms. I believe this will be explained if you websearch for ultrapure water. It might be useful to research the two methods (RO and DI) and then ask your supplier how they really produce the pure water. Then ask them what the minimum Meg Ohm level is for their product.
It would be interesting to post what individual contributors to this group learn with respect to the Meg Ohm level in the "distilled" pure water. We would all be a bit better served if we could come to understand what level of purity, in Meg Ohms, is helpful for high quality film development.
Regards,
PSsquare
> Since the times I'm using in developing films are always shorter of > the ones in Digitaltruth, I took infos on the quality of the water [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Marco Baldovin > www.whitewave.it David Nebenzahl - 12 Jul 2004 06:20 GMT On 7/11/2004 3:52 PM PSsquare spake thus:
> It is my recollection that as water becomes pure the electrical resistance > increases, and this is in fact used to quantify the purity in units of Meg [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > would all be a bit better served if we could come to understand what level > of purity, in Meg Ohms, is helpful for high quality film development. [By the way, most people familiar with the concept use the term "resistance" rather than "Meg Ohm level".]
So what *is* the resistance of pure water, anyway? It would be interesting to compare notes on this. (Would a standard VOM be accurate enough to measure this? or do you need fancy lab instruments?)
 Signature Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it.
- Noam Chomsky
Lloyd Erlick - 12 Jul 2004 13:53 GMT ...
>It would be interesting to post what individual contributors to this group >learn with respect to the Meg Ohm level in the "distilled" pure water. We [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >PSsquare ...
jul1204 from Lloyd Erlick,
I have no quibble with anything you say. I have only looked for water that is better than tap water for some of my darkroom practices.
It's clear that any of the 'distilled' water I've used is not pure in the sense you describe. It always has a flavour of the stainless steel distiller tank if I drink it, so something must be in it. If I buy it, it tastes of the plastic jug.
But if I put a few milliliters on a piece of glass (clean glass - how clean? I've never gone for the nitric acid...) and let it evaporate, I'm satisfied if there is no visible residue.
The easy solution for darkroom purposes is to get distilled water at the supermarket, in a container labeled 'steam distilled'. I've never expected 'absolute' purity, but I've been happy with the results I've had. I would not claim that other types of 'purified' water are no good. If they work for users, they pass the test.
regards, --le
 Signature ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________
Nicholas O. Lindan - 12 Jul 2004 16:40 GMT > It would be interesting to post what individual contributors to this group > learn with respect to the Meg Ohm level in the "distilled" pure water. > We would all be a bit better served if we could come to understand what level > of purity, in Meg Ohms, is helpful for high quality film development. As discussed here before, it is possible to carry this pure water thing to an extreme fetish: triple distillation, water polishing, quartz distillation apparatus, wax bottles ... shades of General Turgidson.
For photo work it likely only needs be as good as, say, Rochester city water. I will add a warning water quality problems can be transient: In Cleveland, water quality affecting development seems to track algae blooms in Lake Erie.
If you are having developing consistency problems, Rodinal at high dilutions results in blank film, water spots are driving you nuts, Tech Pan/Technidol is a seeming impossibility ... then try distilled water. If it fixes the problem, then fine. If it doesn't then don't waste your money. BTW - troubleshooting advice: if the problem still exists with distilled water, stay with the distilled until the real cause of the problem is fixed, then test using tap water again.
Using 'Meg Ohms' to judge water quality leads to fetishism. And an ohmmeter is not the right instrument to make the measurement. You need to measure the resistive component of the AC reactance, platinum electrodes are required ... Sticking ohmmeter probes into a pitcher of water will make just make a battery/plating tank.
Water conductance won't measure non-polar substances, as formaldehyde and biological matter due to, say, algal bloom.
For the required equipment see reference:
http://www.ysi.com/extranet/EPGKL.nsf/Nav1EntryPoint/Applications!OpenDocument
And note the above is not designed to measure water quality pertaining to photography but rather to people (and catfish).
 Signature Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
jjs - 12 Jul 2004 17:07 GMT During the warmer weather I use water from our dehumidfier, and man do I get a lot of water. Sure, I keep the collector disinfected and filter the water before use. It works well enough. Or am I missing something?
Lloyd Erlick - 13 Jul 2004 15:04 GMT >During the warmer weather I use water from our dehumidfier, and man do I get >a lot of water. Sure, I keep the collector disinfected and filter the water >before use. It works well enough. Or am I missing something? jul1304 from Lloyd Erlick,
I did this for years. I collected a bunch of five US gallon cubitainers from the dumpster and eventually had hundreds and hundreds of pounds of water stored (filling a cubitainer immediately gives you a sense of water as weight, not merely volume ...).
I scrubbed out the dehumidifier innards (surprisingly easy, too). I filtered the water before I used it (just a plastic mesh coffee filter, didn't bother with the gold plated version). The one and only problem I ever had was the occasional insect that managed to get into my dehumidifier. Hence the filtering, which for the most part was unnecessary.
I don't think you're missing anything. The drawback for me was the need to store up so much water, because I could only run the dehumidifier part of the year. I had to have enough water to get through the winter. Where I live that is the whole year minus June July and August. Might not even include June. I can't explain why I live so far north. An oversight.
I use distilled water because the tap water is an unknown variable. For photography we do not need absolute purity, just relatively high purity. Relative to tap water, this is easy to achieve. Dehumidifier water is easily superior to tap water. I never used it for coffee, though. Squeamish, I guess, although I happily fish the fruit flies out of my margaritas if I go south.
On the issue of 'purity' -- how pure is the Metol we buy? Probably pretty good if it comes from Kodak. How about the sodium thiosulfate? I doubt the stuff I buy in hundred pound bags is better than ninety five per cent. Ninety seven would be pretty high. Ninety nine would not come in a paper bag. Rarely do we see 'photo grade' described as higher than ninety five per cent purity. So wot th' 'ell ... especially if the impurities in our darkroom water are dissolved gases from the air or flavours from the containers.
I'd be willing to bet that dehumidifier water would make fine drinks, and be absolutely safe to drink, if it was simply boiled before use. I'd also be willing to bet that it would be fine without boiling, and good tasting if it went through a Brita filter, (but why bother?).
regards, --le
 Signature ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________
friend? - 12 Jul 2004 13:57 GMT The purest water in my lab comes from a still, then is polished in Waters unit. That unit consists of cartridges remowing cations, anions and organics, finally filtered through 0.45 micron filter. The output flow is controlled with a megaohmmeter (built in). It should read 18 megaohm when electrodes are 1 cm apart, and electrodes surface is 1 cm˛ each. Such water is deemed pure and disinfected. Any technique that gives water with resistivity of 18 megaohm*cm is equaly satisfactory. For photo applications it is unnecessary, water free of heavy metals (iron, copper, manganium)and sulphides is OK. RO, DI are equivalent in quality, running costs are different. Supermarkets sell demineralised water, ie. free of heavy metals, calcium and magnesium. You do not need better. For most application boiled and cooled water is fine, prolonged boiling will cause most calcium, magnesium and heavy metals to precipitate.
Finally, carbon dioxide will dissolve in pure water and cause resistivity to fall, even though it has no metal ions at all. Resistivity measures all ions, regardless of their properties.
Regards
n Sun, 11 Jul 2004 22:52:07 GMT, "PSsquare" <pschmitt@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>To All: > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> Marco Baldovin >> www.whitewave.it PATRICK GAINER - 15 Jul 2004 05:45 GMT "friend®" wrote:
> The purest water in my lab comes from a still, then is polished in > Waters unit. That unit consists of cartridges remowing cations, anions [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > >> Marco Baldovin > >> www.whitewave.it I have very good well water for drinking, but it is full of calcium and magnesium that combine with sodium carbonate to precipitate calcium and magnesium carbonates. For solutions that require high pH, I can use Calgon or tetra sodium edta. I use a lot of dehumidifier water. It has the advantage over a still in that the water coming in is not full of minerals, and the previously mentioned disadvantage that the air is pretty dry in winter. Then I need a humidifier to feed the dehumidifier. Probably, hanging some wet laundry in the vicinity will do the job. My clothes dryer has a leaky vent that also humidifies the laundry.
friend? - 16 Jul 2004 13:35 GMT ------------------------------------X
>I have very good well water for drinking, but it is full of calcium and magnesium >that combine with sodium carbonate to precipitate calcium and magnesium >carbonates. For solutions that require high pH, I can use Calgon or tetra sodium >edta. you can prepare a developer without Calgon or EDTA salts, then wait a day and decant or filter the solution. Small loss of carbonate is irrelevant in this case.
> I use a lot of dehumidifier water. It has the advantage over a still in >that the water coming in is not full of minerals, and the previously mentioned >disadvantage that the air is pretty dry in winter. dehumidifier is yet another still. I clean my still every 10 or so years,
>Then I need a humidifier to >feed the dehumidifier. Probably, hanging some wet laundry in the vicinity will do >the job. My clothes dryer has a leaky vent that also humidifies the laundry. again, the biggest problem is the presence of certain heavy metals and sulfides, magnesium and calcium are benign, filtration is sufficient.
Nicholas O. Lindan - 16 Jul 2004 16:51 GMT Someone wrote:
> > >I think that we are getting into erroneously calling high purity water by > > >the incorrect name of distilled water without regard to how it is really > > >obtained. I seriously doubt that the purified water that you are buying is > > >distilled. If it says 'distilled' on the bottle it is distilled.
An easy test is to pour out a glass and let it evaporate: with distilled water there will be _no_ residue. If the water you use in the steam iron isn't distilled it is apparent PDQ. 'Distillata', 'Deer Park' and 'Giant Eagle' water available in Cleveland are all distilled.
Much of the local comercial distilled water comes from electrical and steam heat utility plants.
-- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
|
|
|