Re: Kodalith fine line developer formula (sort of)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Fulton" <jefulton1@comcast.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: Kodalith fine line developer formula (sort of)

> Judy:
> Dang, if you aint a simple wonder. Thanks for remembering
> and, well,
> gee, have a great Thanksgiving Day . . and, to the rest of
> you, all
> over the world, may the great light shine upon your
> visage.
> Jack
>
>
>
> On Nov 22, 2004, at 7:54 PM, Judy Seigel wrote:
>
>
> Cleaning out a humongous file today to make room for a new
> humongous
> file (1-1/2 square feet costs about $65 a minute around
> here), I came
> across a piece of paper in my handwriting titled "Kodak
> Graphic Arts,
> Kodalith Fine Line Developer" -- and dimly recalled
> getting the info
> from (my note on the bottom says) someone in graphic arts
> division of
> Kodak,
>
> as follows:
>
> #146-5228 $15 A&B enough to make 2 gallons, keeps 3-6 mo
> in stock
> solution
> ________________________________________________________________
>
> contents:
>
> A: 75-80% formaldehyde bisulfite
> 22% hydroquinone
>
> B: 70-75% sodium carbonate
> 10-15% sodium bicarbonate
> 10-20% sodium hexametaphosphate
> less than 1% potassium bromide
> --------------------------------------
>
> in working solution:
>
> 90-95% water
> 5-10% sodium formaldehyde bisulfite
> 5-105 sodium carbonate
> 1% hydroquinone
> less thqan 1% sodium bicarbonate
> ========================
>
> In the same file I found a formula for D-76, which may
> have gotten
> re-buried already. But if it's not published & someone
> wants it, it's
> got to be around here somewhere.
>
> Judy
>
   This is the list of ingredients from the MSDS. It may be
helpful in identifying the type of formula but is not a
"receipe" for making the stuff. It may even have some
ingredients left out which is common for MSDS.
   The MSDS for packaged D-76 indicates it is approximately
the formula published by Kodak as D-76d. This is a buffered
version of the original formula. The reason for the
buffering is to alleviate a problem of increasing activity
with time due to an increase in pH. This is due to a complex
reaction of the Hydroquinone with the sulfite. The buffered
version is quite constant in its activity.
   I don't know what the special properties of the "fine
line" lith formula are. I suspect Ryuji Suzuki could
probably figure out a good substitute formula to accomplish
the same end.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com