[alt-photo] Re: Zia standard solutions

Wed Jul 21 06:55:29 GMT 2010

Dear Eric

No one suggested that 'molar' and 'normal' are 'wild out of place concepts'.  

It really would be helpful if Loris or yourself could explain these terms  here in terms that I can pass on to a workshop of intelligent adults who are neither mathematicians nor chemists. Remember that these people have come to make pictures.

Can you do that in as succinctly that I can explain percentage solutions,  e.g. 'take the amount of the substance in grammes and bring it up to 100 ml in water'.

Try it twenty words including 'why it matters'.

Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: EJ Photo <ejnphoto at sbcglobal.net>
To: 'The alternative photographic processes mailing list' <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
Sent: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 0:41
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Zia standard solutions

I am all behind Loris here. If you can understand percentages, you can
understand molar, normal, and why it matters. These are NOT wild out of
place concepts either the math or in any other cognitive sense.

Eric Neilsen
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226

www.ericneilsenphotography.com
skype me with ejprinter
www.ericneilsenphotography.com/forum1
Let's Talk Photography

-----Original Message-----
From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org
[mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of
Terry King
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 4:34 PM
To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Zia standard solutions

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 

_______________________________________________
Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo

_______________________________________________
Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo