Re: Quoting Paul Anderson

Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Wed, 5 Jun 1996 02:12:01 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Peter charles fredrick wrote, a propos of my
explanation that the Anderson "pigment in gum test" is worthless &
irrelevant:

> 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.

I doubt this practice has been all that "accepted." It's been in
the books, is all, & I may have made plain I consider that no recommendation.

> 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.!

I believe I have -- as in Anderson's approach, each pigment has to be
tested for each paper, but it has to have the dichromate included as well
as the gum. This is of course assuming you require perfect control.....

> > 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.

Peter, my experience is that each combination works differently. And
speaking of puritanical, some people *like* pigment stain. As I've
suggested here and there, pigment stain is only the great Satan when
you're doing all those coats.....

Judy