> Are you stating that this test does not work ? .Please don't ask me to
> troll the archive it is much to big for an old chap like myself to go
> through, have mercy.
>Yes, I am stating that it does not work, has no relation to anything, is
totally meaningless, except as an act of ritual purification and
self-mortification.<
> It would be most interesting, to put this one to rest if in fact it does
> not work, have you verified this important piece of information with an
> independent authority.
>Well, that's what I've been trying to do, "put it to rest." As for the
"independent authority," you remind me of the time about 20 years ago I
happened to keel over in a faint. Never happened before, never happened
since, but some months later I mentioned the incident to a doctor. His
only question was, did anybody else witness this "faint." True, I had
about 20 students and 3 colleagues present for the event, but I retain my
faith is knowing when I have fallen to the floor in an abject swoon.<
Quite honestly I cant see what this has to do with the question I asked
What I'm respectively asking from you is simply information, I am in no
way questioning your authority, as an expert gum printer, I would have
thought that was self evident.
The scientific method for testing out a change in excepted practice is for
several experts to conduct independent tests then confer and verify any new
conclusions reached. The research into the authenticity of the Turin shroud
is a classic example of the employment of this principle and procedure
We don't need to worry in your case about you falling on the floor so to
speak!!!
but In mine, that may be a real problem,and we can only hope the floor is
solid ;-)
In your reply you stated that , Mike Ware had tested and agreed that
`Anderson was misinformed, and Terry King had also carried out these tests
and also found that they were incorrect, confronted by these two experts I
can do nothing but agree.
Also I have received confirmation from another source that this is indeed
the case
Now we have some real facts to work on., but unfortunately these are
negative facts we know that the Anderson test for pigment staining does
not work.So what does ? or better still how can we devise a test that
will.!
The list is 500 strong I do not see why we could not form a gum printing
study group to take on issues of this nature. There are a lot of expert gum
printers lurking out there who I am sure would like to take part in a
positive programme of research.
> Also we need some good scientific research To find out what is really going
>on
> inside the emulsion and substrate preferably through the microscope,
> eyeballing is just not good enough.
>In the phrase of my vanished youth, "lots of luck."<
This is a rather dismissive comment , I have already found the use of a
microscope most useful, in research relating to the Fresson Process, a
process which is even more mysterious than the gum, as it has been kept
secret by the Fresson family and others for three generations. I was
fortunate enough to obtain a very small sample of the original Fresson
coated paper and through the generous help of Spike Walker an eminent
British photo - mic specialist , we were able to see where the pigment
layer rested. What it consisted off as far as pigment particles, and its
physical thickness in terms of microns, which could be of great help in
comparative study of similar emulsions and coating technology.
There must be a number of emulsion mechanics and conservators in our midst,
who could provide valuable advice and assistance once they understood the
problems we face.
>
> There are a number problems which we need to get to grips with,
> precisely what happens in the size layer, how can the substrate be
> stabilised from a dimensional point of view, what are the optimum gum to
> pigment ratios, this is where I came in so lets start by putting this one
> to bed first.
>I don't think there is any such animal as "optimum gum-to-pigment ratio,"
as, at least in my tests, I find that each paper, pigment, gum, layer,
dilution, size combination performs differently. It's ineffable, is all..<
I do not accept this philosophy of despair, the silver based processes also
faced similar problems at the beginning, most of these problems have now in
fact been solved by careful scientific methodology.There is no reason why
we cannot do the same if we work together in an open handed manner.
> Once you find a paper that works OK, and a nice gum, and a few civilised
>pigments, you have a*tremendous* amount of latitude in length of soak. And if
>you listen to If too much pigment washes off, there's always another coat.
>Etc. Etc. <
Here we have it you are already beginning to formulate a simple system of
testing!
To try, and test every combination of these constituents would indeed a be
a herculean task , but it is perfectly feasible to have a simple system
that contains known parameters, by which pigment stain could be measured,
a kind of bench mark by which a new combination could be judged. It would
be great if this benchmark arose out of a communal endeavour instigated by
this list.
As for your grey cells judy, they may be slightly older than mine but they
are a great deal sharper :-)
pete