[alt-photo] Re: DESICCATE! DESICCATE! DANCE TO THE MUSIC!

[Peter Friedrichsen]

If it is essential to keep a chemical dry, I use silica gel packed 
into a 35 mm film canister. I assault the canister with a hot needle 
dozens of times, then pour the silica gel in after sifting out the 
fines. My source of silica gel is a plastic 1kg container of additive 
free cat litter sold as silica gel crystals, something which I bought 
about 7 years ago -a lifetime supply. I think a load of that quantity 
should keep a 1 lb qty of chemical dry for 100s+ of open -close 
cycles if the container's air space volume is reasonable- a beer keg 
size may fail here.

Caveat on hydrated salts -they may dehydrate. Not sure if AT is 
hydrated but I believe it is not.

Peter Friedrichsen





At 04:41 PM 07/28/2010, you wrote:
>DEAR LIST,
>         This thread has been very interesting.  When I first posted with the
>"Desiccate" subject, I received two posts with suggestions as to how to keep
>my powder dry (Ammonium Thiocyanate, that is) and the rest, under the same
>"subject" were of a different nature.
>         But, if I may return to the topic, does anyone else have any
>suggestions how to keep my pound of Ammonium Thiocyanate from turning into a
>plastic jar of solution with some crystals at the bottom?
>                 CHEERS!
>                         BOB
>
>-----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
>ender100 at aol.com
>Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 4:06 PM
>To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
>Subject: [alt-photo] Re: DESICCATE! DESICCATE! DANCE TO THE MUSIC!
>
>Hi Diana,
>
>
>My apologies, if you took my post personally-it isn't about you.  I think
>your post and the thread it belonged to just popped some issues related to
>the list up above the level of animal awareness in my brain.... or perhaps
>even vegetable awareness, so I hit respond rather than taking the time to
>start a new thread and look up the list address.  So my sin is probably
>laziness.  I hope you didn't feel that I "jumped on you" and will forgive my
>sin.
>
>
>But then, we did all benefit by learning more about you personally from your
>reply, so it wasn't a total loss.  Also, I appreciate that you are a "direct
>person."  Directness is a good thing.
>
>
>So again my apologies for the misunderstanding that led to you having to
>spend time writing such a complete and intelligent response.  But apparently
>you felt we did find some common ground of agreement so that is good.
>
>
>Probably my sense of humor is an acquired taste-as my children could
>certainly attest to-but then they were a captive audience and I had years to
>brainwash them.  Now, my daughter Kaddiddlehopper, seems to be bent on
>passing it on to the next generation.  Hopefully this will not lead to
>worldwide conflict.  Maybe that is why I usually identify weird comments
>that strike me as humorous by the tag line "hehehehe", which in this case I
>failed to do-and look at the consequences of that failure-you could have
>probably made 3-4 gum prints in the time you took to reply.  But I am glad
>for your gracious reply.
>
>
>Don't they say that music is just pure mathematics?  But then, I too
>digress.
>
>
>Maybe we should all start posts with "I'm new to the list"?
>
>
>Back to my closet.
>
>
>Best Wishes,
>
>
>Mark Nelson
>www.PrecisionDigitalNegatives.com
>www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com
>PDNPrint Forum @ Yahoo Groups
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Diana Bloomfield <dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net>
>To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
><alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
>Sent: Wed, Jul 28, 2010 2:11 pm
>Subject: [alt-photo] Re: DESICCATE! DESICCATE! DANCE TO THE MUSIC!
>
>
>Hi Mark,
>
>Just to clarify-- my comment wasn't really about the "creativity of [my]
>marital relationship" (or, perhaps that comment was an attempt at being
>amusing?-- I honestly can never tell); it was, rather, a comment that once
>one gets to a certain level, those who are at that level consider
>mathematics to also be highly creative (as creative, in its own way, as--
>say-- the visual arts).  I suspect that's true for those in the sciences as
>well.  I remember when our daughter was in high school, and one of only 3
>females in her advanced physics class-- she was good, but I remember her
>saying that she would never go into that field, because-- although she was
>good at it-- she didn't nearly have the vision and imagination that a few of
>her classmates (who did go on to be physics majors in college and on into
>graduate school) had, and she felt that would always hold her back-- in that
>particular field.  That's just a little aside.  The follow-up post I made to
>my original post was really just an explanation that, since I might have
>implied math and science aren't creative, too, I do know they are and can
>be-- and didn't want anybody jumping on me about that comment.  Of course,
>it never dawned on me I'd have to explain that little explanation as well--
>but, what  do you know, here I am having to do just that.
>
>On to the topic at hand-- I am in complete agreement with what you write
>here.  I have no idea why you felt the need to write that to me,
>specifically in response to what I just wrote.  Perhaps this is just the
>nature of emails/posts, which are so different from dialogue when people are
>in an actual room, talking to each other.
>
>While I absolutely do appreciate, like to understand, and value the
>chemistry involved in alt processes-- I will, once again, say that had
>anyone ever talked about molarity, or attempted to teach a beginning alt
>process class in that way to me (yikes-- all those equations?!)-- again, I
>would have most certainly bolted for the nearest exit, and never ventured
>further.  I would have (wrongly) assumed that alt processes required more
>math and chemistry than I was willing to contemplate.  The key word here,
>Mark, is "beginning."  I also suspect that Loris's students are quite
>different from the ones I find myself teaching.
>
>I agree that there is a "need for tolerance" on topics, and I was stunned by
>the quality of the discourse on this particular topic.  I often wonder if
>people would have a real dialogue with others in the same way, were they
>speaking to each other in "real life."
>
>But . . . nothing I said in my earlier post suggested that I think topics
>should be shut down, that topics on science or chemistry are inappropriate
>or "silly," or that whatever anybody might write is pointless, stupid, or
>"off-bounds."   I choose not to talk about step wedges and equations, but
>that's just me.  I read most every post here, regardless--even detailed
>comments on processes about which I know nothing-- hell, I didn't even use
>the delete key when we got to pink thongs-- or was it a thong?  Hmm . . .
>
>But I digress.  My point is-- I agree with you.  What made you think I
>didn't?   Just because I said I would have been turned off by all that
>chemistry in a beginning alt photo class/photography class?  Well, I would
>have been.  And I personally wouldn't teach a beginning printing class that
>way, either.  That's not to say that anything anyone has written about all
>this is wrong, or how someone else might teach is wrong, or what they've
>said is "inappropriate."   Frankly, I don't think what I've said is, either.
>And if I ever thought I had the ability, in a post no-less, to shut down a
>conversation-- then, wow-- I'm a better writer than I ever knew possible.
>
>I will say that I've taken all kinds of classes over the decades with some
>really excellent teachers-- amazing artists, some of whom are actually
>"famous" and some of whom aren't-- but all really good at what they do, and
>how they teach in a classroom.  I'm thankful that I've always learned
>something in every art class I've ever taken, and that not one of those
>teachers has ever sent me running for the exit.
>
>One last point-- I'm a pretty direct person, Mark-- in emails, posts, and in
>real life.  Whatever I post here, I'd also say the same thing in person.  No
>double meanings, no "inside" jokes, and no reading between the lines with
>me.  What I say is usually what I mean, and mostly it's just my opinion.
>
>To answer your last question, though, I suspect the reason so many list
>members don't post and only lurk-- is because they're terrified of
>expressing an opinion, and then having someone else post, and first, of
>course, mention how long they themselves have been a list member, and then
>go on to "attack" the poster and post they're commenting on, based on ideas
>and opinions that the poster never actually expressed or thought.  Yep,
>that's what I think.  Again, just my opinion.
>
>Oh wait.  I forgot.  :)   Carry on.
>
>~Diana
>
>On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:52 PM, ender100 at aol.com wrote:
>
> > Hi Diana,
> >
> >
> > I won't venture to comment on the creativity of your marital >
>relationship, but I would like to comment about posting on the list > and
>what is "appropriate."
> >
> >
> > When I first came on the list I enjoyed lurking and gleefully read > all
>the posts until one day the topic of Pyro came up and there were > seemingly
>endless posts on the topic.  Since I did not use Pyro, it > wasn't all that
>interesting and eventually I thought I would have to > shoot myself if I
>read another post on the topic.  Later it was gum > stain tests that tested
>my ability to maintain concentration.  > However, since that time I've
>totally reversed my views on this issue.
> >
> >
> > I feel at this point that there is a real need for tolerance on > topics
>and even the quantity of posts on topics.  I am not saying > that pissing
>matches on topics are appropriate, unless they are > truly entertaining and
>witty.  True, every list has a few compulsive > responders, but that is the
>nature of the human condition.
> >
> >
> > Through the benevolence of people like Kees, Gord before him, and >
>others, we have an alt photo list.  Beyond that, the list, in a > sense,
>belongs to "the people"  and members should be able to post > and discuss
>whatever they feel is relevant, as long as it is > reasonably on topic.
>Though, I do find that little anecdotes that > people share about their
>personal lives, such as Chris's pink > thongs, makes them more "real" and
>helps to fill in the blanks > regarding who the list members are.
> >
> >
> > I think posts about the art, the craft, and the science of alt photo >
>should all be welcomed-I don't see that any one category should be >
>considered less appropriate.  The recent molarity polarity > discussions
>have been interesting to some and not so to others, but > then what
>difference does that make.  Is there a topic that Everyone > is passionate
>about and wants to discuss?  I doubt it.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps I am a bit sensitive to the issue of the "science" of alt > photo
>being considered a silly topic in light of the Sarah Palin/Tea > Party
>movement "ignorance of science and facts" is to be applauded-> but then that
>is venturing off-topic.  As they always say, you have > a Delete Key if you
>don't want to read a thread on the list.  We use > our personal "delete key"
>all the time (without thinking about it > twice) when we read the news,
>choose a book, watch television, and > surf the web.
> >
> >
> > I think that placing topics off bounds or silly does more to hurt > the
>list than help the list.  It inhibits people.  The list had, I > believe
>over 500 members, of which only perhaps 10% posted > regularly.  Why don't
>the rest of the members post?  Do they fear > they will be laughed at or
>made fun of or branded wackos for > venturing to post a thought or question
>that someone who posts > frequently might criticize?
> >
> >
> > I say give peace a chance...ooops, wrong topic... I say give people > a
>chance to express themselves freely on the list as long as they do > it in a
>respectful fashion.  If they don't, the list owner can > easily bounce them
>off, as Gord did in the past when "unnamed" > persons pushed the rhetoric
>beyond the limits of respectful > discourse.  Clearly a small percentage of
>people have an adolescent > need either be the center of attention and will
>foment arguments > just to remain there, or have past grudges that cause
>them to return > to the list for revenge and to destroy the list-but they
>are easily > deleted too by the list owners Big Delete Key in the Sky.  ;)
> >
> >
> > OK, back to my closet.
> >
> >
> > Best Wishes,
> >
> >
> > Mark Nelson
> > www.PrecisionDigitalNegatives.com
> > www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com
> > PDNPrint Forum @ Yahoo Groups
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>
>_______________________________________________
>Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo