Actually, now that you raise the point, I recall Mike Ware explaining to
me a couple of years ago that *chemically speaking* the number of chrome
thingums in a mix was in *any* event more than necessary to do the job,
and that from the theoretical position there shouldn't even be a
difference in speed. (If I've got that wrong, please don't blame Mike...
this is a recollection of my understanding from some time ago.)
Fairly often by the way, I simply dilute the dichromate when mixing up the
emulsion. I normally use a 26% ammonium dichromate solution, and, let's
say, I want a mix to keep for a while, or the weather is hot and muggy,
which always speeds things up, so I cut it by half with water... or
whatever. I don't think it cuts the speed so VERY much (maybe the excess
particles kick in, like Mike said.)
> Not that I am necessarily doing it any better, but my method is quite
> different from what "the books" suggest: I dilute my gum with water first,
> add pigment till I get the colors I want, THEN add enough dichromate in
> powder form to the mixture. The amount I use is from what Franklin Enos
> taught me, which is about a quarter of what it takes to get a saturated
> solution.
Sam I know we had this discussion before, too, so forgive me (you know
what they say about old age and memory).... as I recall, I said I found
the thought of handling the dichromate in powder every time you mix an
emulsion argued against the method.. Not that you want to bathe in it
either, but the powder does get in the air no matter how careful you are
... and I spend a lot of time in that room, still with the radium nitrate,
uranium acetate, or whatever that ceramic glaze is on the loft. (At Bob
Schramm's urging a while back I tried to find it, but it turned out to be
too deeply buried to locate without calling in a geiger counter.)
But I second Dave's question.... how do you figure "enough"?
cheers,
Judy