Re: Unusual cyanotype formula

To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: Re: Unusual cyanotype formula
From: Alberto Novo <alt.list@albertonovo.it>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:11:04 +0200
Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
Delivered-to: alt-photo-process-l-archive@www.usask.ca
In-reply-to: <A3220716044347A68DA1DE9EC5E117A1@marco94a29799a>
List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
References: <A3220716044347A68DA1DE9EC5E117A1@marco94a29799a>
Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca

It is the same composition reported in
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Cyano/cyano.html
under "Dick Sullivan’s Recommended Formula", but in sciencecompany the Fe Am Citrate is 10 times lower. I believe it is a transcriprion error from the Sullivan's formula, whose volumes are 100 cc.
Alberto

Can someone here evaluate this unusual formula for Cyanotype chemistry found here:
http://www.sciencecompany.com/photo/cyanoformulas.htm
I'm referring to "Recipe #3: A modern variation"
This recipe uses weak concentrations of Ferric Ammonium citrate and Potassium Ferricyanide, but adds small amounts of Oxalic Acid and Ammonium Dichromate.
Can these two additions compensate for the weaker concentrations of the "main" ingredients? Or is the recipe simply misprinted?
TIA
Marco

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Unusual cyanotype formula
  - From: Marco Milazzo <marcomilazzo@elp.rr.com>

References:
- Unusual cyanotype formula
  - From: Marco Milazzo <marcomilazzo@elp.rr.com>