[alt-photo] Re: Zia standard solutions

[Terry King]

Loris



I am talking about solution strengths and how to express them  simply and accurately.  


It is both inappropriate and unhelpful to overcomplicate the issues. 


I am  talking about unnecessary complexity in manuals and how these things should be expressed on this list.


One can express the concerns you raise without this resort to specialist jargon which, I repeat, is quite unnecessary in forums such as this.


As to the maths my point had nothing to do with the importance of maths but whether it was, in the context, either relevant or necessary.  


You should stop and consider what is is or is not  relevant or helpful to those subscribers to this list who are neither chemists nor mathematicians.


Was the jargon you employed in your answer to Jago's question in any way relevant or necessary.


Remember, Loris, the picture is our objective.


Terry


















-----Original Message-----
From: Loris Medici <mail at loris.medici.name>
To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
Sent: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:36
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Zia standard solutions


I think you've missed the point of the question Terry. I suggest that you re-read the whole question... Christina's message effectively changed the topic; we aren't talking about how to interpret % solution strengths anymore, and we definitely aren't talking about the simplicity or complexity of manuals... 
 
If you want to do something, with also understanding what you are doing, you MAY actually need a little more knowledge than what is provided in the manuals ect. "Stoichiometry" is a chemistry term which can be looked up in the web, and there are many simple (to someone that had their Chemistry 101 class) explanations present. Since we are dealing with raw chemicals and do chemical / photochemical reactions while working, I think we need some - minimum - compulsory chemistry knowledge. If, not we risk to harm ourselves and/or others... 
 
If a single person in this list will lookup for the term "stoichiometry" in the web, after my "pointy hat" behaviour of using it "at this level" (What you're taking us for, BTW?), to me that means I've done good... 
 
I'm not even try to argue with you on how much math is important in many aspects of life (including art), let alone in our currently technical context. People should've been loving it instead of intimidating by math... 
 
See the book: "The Art of Mathematics" by Jerry P. King for a good account on the issue and many more eye opening information: 
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Mathematics-Dover-Books/dp/0486450201 
 
Regards, 
Loris. 
 
20.07.2010 22:05, Terry King yazmış: 
> Loris 
> 
> There is a definitive answer. Use percentage solutions. 
> 
> When the manuals confuse by not using the right terms, I agree that all one can do is test for yourself. 
> 
> Incidentally, all this stuff about 'stochiometric balance' and 'molecular equivalence' in discussions at this level is inappropriate. It really is the worst kind of 'pointy hat 'stuff.  This kind of jargon does not impress.  It reminds me of the prospective platinum printer who told me that he had decided, after reading a well known manual on the subject, that he had decided not to take up platinum printing as he did not understand the maths!  Of course all the maths in the manual were quite unnecessary in the making of good platinum prints. 
> 
> Terry 
_______________________________________________ 
Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo