From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/29/03-01:40:41 PM Z
Here's the last paragraph of the Keepers of Light gum chapter (p.212).
Crawford has just finished laying out the "Dot Test":
QUOTE:
The dilution of the pigment/gum mixture by the sensitizer actually has no
effect on staining. What is important is the relationship between a
specific amount of pigment and a specific amount of stock gum solution.
Once these two are combined, further dilution by the sensitizer dilutes
both, while the tendency to stain remains constant.
END QUOTE.
So, speaking "scientifically," does anyone around here think the pigment
particles know which are gum molecules and which are sensitiver (ie water)
molecules? Or that totally altering the carefully discovered ratio
doesn't disprove the whole rigmarole?
Rather, the assertion shows that Crawford has noticed the illogic of said
"test" (or at least some of it) and "fixed" it with the power of belief.
Why that belief was so strong, I've addressed before (in brief, the
zeitgeist, & failure to test against a control by the "system"-hungry
authorities promulgating it).
To note that the proportion of sensitiser added when printing varies, from
1/2 part, to 2 or 3 parts, is to state the obvious. And this, we are to
believe, doesn't affect the effect? When the relationship of gum to
pigment is so critical we have to ascertain it by the dot? Hunh?
Meanwhile, Crawford says the "tendency to stain remains constant." Now
even if we believe that he tested that (which would be unusual in itself),
how can we believe or even imagine that a huge change of the gum-pigment
ratio is magically overcome by those who have performed the ritual?
Couldn't we now begin to suspect that the ritual is bogus to begin with?
In fact, no test I've found ever showed that pigment stain is controlled
by the ratio of pigment to gum, although of course if a mix is staining
and you add more pigment you may get more actual stain, & if you use less
pigment you may get less stain. And I suppose if you add enough gum you
may get no stain -- though you'll have a devil of a time getting an even
coat.
I have in fact *doubled* the pigment and gotten less stain. The
explanation for that (not my original thought, suggested by Mike Ware) is
that with more pigment the mix gets more viscous -- & sits on top of the
paper rather than sinking into it. That matters IF you're having a pigment
stain problem, which I rarely have -- some gums stain more than others and
some combinations stain more than others. And a few pigments stain (lamp
black especially) except with a very few gums & papers. To repeat, I've
found that some gums will stain on certain papers and/or with certain
pigments, but not others. But those are the variables that need testing
with a stain problem, not the magical "ratio."
(There's also the fact that with multiple coats, or even from print to
print, different ratios of gum/pigment are called for -- which is the
miracle of gum: It's so FLEXIBLE !)
So here's my hypothesis -- assuming Crawford actually tested varying
dilutions of the gum mix by the sensitizer, I would assume that all his
other ingredients (brand of gum, paper & size, etc.) remained the same.
And since they control the stain (NOT NOT NOT the dilution !), the stain
also remained the same. Which allowed him to draw that illogical
conclusion.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:09:00 PM Z CST