Argon protected developers.

G

Guest

Guest
A while back I posted a comment about me going to try using Argon gas after opening film developers, to slow down their going off.
Well it works, I have just developed two films in Kodak HC110. The bottle was first opened in January of 2019 and has been used five times since then. After each use I have flowed the gas into the bottle to evacuate all other gas from the atmosphere.
The colour of the contents look the same as an unopened bottle and judging by the look of the negatives, the developer is working as it should.
I also did this with an Adox Rodinal, that bottle also has survived.
I may start this method with my film developer and fixer, pointless with my opened stuff but next time around will have a go.
A small pressurized tank of this inert gas can be purchased at your local welding supply store, such as Airgas. You will need to buy a regulator and hose. Argon is used for Tig welding, I have the biggest cylinder you can use without needing a contract, the small one will last years for this type of use.
If you think it is not worth the expense, remember you can use this gas to stop wine bottles going off. And remember the food industry gives a puff of this gas into almost everything just before sealing the contents.
So there you have it, I am sharing pearls with you all and for free !!!
 
I've thought of using gas before but the expense was what turned me away. I just top up my HC110 bottle using marbles for displacement.
I really would like to try the argon thing on top of some of my favorite hot sauces though.

Phil Forrest
 
Although not inert gas, I wonder if office-supply canned air (some type of fluorocarbon) or hydrocarbons such as butane might work as well for the task?
 
The "Bloxygen" is $12 for a can. Looks exactly like a similar product to protect opened wine. This works quite well for wine. Recommendation for wine is three short puffs and one longer one. It's easy to do, squirt add the cap or cork.
 
JeffS7444 said:
Although not inert gas, I wonder if office-supply canned air (some type of fluorocarbon) or hydrocarbons such as butane might work as well for the task?
Click to expand...

Butane has been suggested in numerous placers and in my use (from the little cans to fill lighters; the canisters for soldering or for camping stoves would also be convenient) at least has not done any harm. I only used it for fixer concentrate, my developer used to be in a bottle that could be squeezed, now I use a concentrate and don't bother with either method.
The inert gas for wine is intriguing and I'll have to order some at some point - to use for wine.
 
charjohncarter said:
Larry thanks for the amazon tip. Do you just guess how much to spray into the bottles?
Click to expand...

I just guess at this point, but I think there are recommendations somewhere for how many seconds to spray into the container based on how wide the bottle is/the exposed surface area. I am doing about two to three seconds for Schott 1 liter bottles. Contractors use these to keep paint in paint cans from going bad, skinning over, and I have used it for that as well.
 
No matter what ideas you come up with instead of using ARGON GAS you are doomed to failure, get your old chemistry books out and look up what INERT means. Come on people remember what you were taught at school, college or university.
I use this gas to weld stainless steel and aluminium, I could weld this stuff in a tuxedo. It STOPS any contamination from getting into the weld by pushing away all other gases.
Butane will contaminate anything it comes into contact with. Anything other than an INERT GAS will contaminate what it comes into contact with.
 
Been using Bloxygen and another brand Wine Preserver for years. I bought several cans and don’t remember the price but seem to remember Wine Preserver was cheaper than Bloxygen. I buy off Amazon.
 
We have a lot of xenon at work. I bet that would do the trick. Argon is a wee bit cheaper though so I’d stick with that. A K bottle of xenon runs us around $100k.

Argon is nice because it is denser than air, so it should displace it as you spray it into the bottle. Same would be true for krypton or xenon.
 
Any INERT GAS will accomplish the desired results. Argon is the easiest to obtain. Photographic chemical bottles are tall and narrow. Once the bottle has been half used only a small amount of the gas needs to be inserted, due to the small surface area of the chemical. It will sit below the oxygen and nitrogen and do the trick as long as it covers the surface of the chemical being protected. Nitrogen is the most abundant gas in our atmosphere, oxygen is a small amount of what we breath in when we respire.
So wine bottles use a small amount but a gallon paint can will need more because of the larger surface area. If you were to syphon out the fluid, there would be no need to keep replenishing the Argon gas !!!!!!
 
Unless you use a control and show a difference you have no idea if your expensive argon has done anything functionally.

Is it new or old formulation HC-110? Was it concentrate, stock, or working developer you gassed? What sort of bottles did you use, or did you top up the Kodak bottle?

The old HC-110 is good for decades (I just finished a bottle with an expiry date of 1989!).

Using inert gas can help where you need it and with the right bottle, but you also might just be wasting your money and gassing harmless developer.

Sorry if this is erratic, it’s been a very long day.

Marty
 
jmpgino said:
No matter what ideas you come up with instead of using ARGON GAS you are doomed to failure, get your old chemistry books out and look up what INERT means. Come on people remember what you were taught at school, college or university.
I use this gas to weld stainless steel and aluminium, I could weld this stuff in a tuxedo. It STOPS any contamination from getting into the weld by pushing away all other gases.
Butane will contaminate anything it comes into contact with. Anything other than an INERT GAS will contaminate what it comes into contact with.
Click to expand...


If you paid attention in chemistry class, surely you can be more specific as to what you mean by "contamination" and how butane contamination is detrimental? What reaction takes place between photo chems and butane?
 
Spluff said:
In the UK, Tetenal sell pretty much the same thing:

https://www.tetenaluk.com/tetenal-protectan-spray-400ml-1-105193

Think it is cheaper to use Wine Preserver though.
Click to expand...

Cheaper yet to just use propane or butane. A canister of propane will last forever, is heavier than air and will displace oxygen at the bottom of the canister.

The Tetenal is just a combination of butane, propane and isobutane. It is not an inert gas at all. (Highly flammable warnings on it)

Shawn
 
Freakscene said:
Unless you use a control and show a difference you have no idea if your expensive argon has done anything functionally.

Is it new or old formulation HC-110? Was it concentrate, stock, or working developer you gassed? What sort of bottles did you use, or did you top up the Kodak bottle?

The old HC-110 is good for decades (I just finished a bottle with an expiry date of 1989!).

Using inert gas can help where you need it and with the right bottle, but you also might just be wasting your money and gassing harmless developer.

Sorry if this is erratic, it’s been a very long day.

Marty
Click to expand...

Hard to argue with any of this, since it’s true. To test using control groups, for HC-110 and Rodinal especially, would take decades since they are not prone to going off even if handled callously. I haven’t seen anyone do those tests and am too old to do them myself, but it would be better if controlled tests were done.

In the interim, I just use it because it “seems” to make sense. Oxygen is very aggressive at, well, oxidizing anything that will give it half a chance. A $12 can of Bloxygen will last me well over a year, so not too expensive if looked at in that way, and it’s no bother. It “seems” to have allowed me to occasionally get by with successfully using some developers which have been used past the date when a more careful person would have tossed them, so perhaps it saved me some money there.
It absolutely works on paint cans, that much can be tested over much shorter time periods, and I have had many occasions to prove that, at least to myself. Developers, I am just extrapolating based on faith, not science.
Considering all that, the way I have looked at it is that in the absence of controlled testing that shows it isn’t effective in prolonging the life of developers, I will probably keep using it. When the truth is unknown, guess! Is how I personally handle this question. Though every time I have squirted a bit into the HC-110 bottle, I have wondered why I bothered.
 
Larry Cloetta said:
Hard to argue with any of this, since it’s true. To test using control groups, for HC-110 and Rodinal especially, would take decades since they are not prone to going off even if handled callously. I haven’t seen anyone do those tests and am too old to do them myself, but it would be better if controlled tests were done.

In the interim, I just use it because it “seems” to make sense. Oxygen is very aggressive at, well, oxidizing anything that will give it half a chance. A $12 can of Bloxygen will last me well over a year, so not too expensive if looked at in that way, and it’s no bother. It “seems” to have allowed me to occasionally get by with successfully using some developers which have been used past the date when a more careful person would have tossed them, so perhaps it saved me some money there.
It absolutely works on paint cans, that much can be tested over much shorter time periods, and I have had many occasions to prove that, at least to myself. Developers, I am just extrapolating based on faith, not science.
Considering all that, the way I have looked at it is that in the absence of controlled testing that shows it isn’t effective in prolonging the life of developers, I will probably keep using it. When the truth is unknown, guess! Is how I personally handle this question. Though every time I have squirted a bit into the HC-110 bottle, I have wondered why I bothered.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with risk mitigation. That is essentially saying ‘excluding oxygen with bloxygen doesn’t not work’. I disagree with ‘Well it works’ when there are no data to say if it does or not. Bloxygen is just argon, so it will exclude oxygen - what we need is comparison to understand what it does.

Marty
 
Well, it “works for me” :)
Just joking, I get it. You’re right, I’m just too old to do the tests myself, but more knowledge is always better than less knowledge.
In the interim, which is all I have, I’m just going with an approach someone suggested to me in another context, that it’s easier to just do it than to argue about it. At least until data suggests there is no longer a reason for the argument to continue.
My approach could well be wrong. As you noted, we don’t know.
 
retinax said:
If you paid attention in chemistry class, surely you can be more specific as to what you mean by "contamination" and how butane contamination is detrimental? What reaction takes place between photo chems and butane?
Click to expand...

BUTANE is a molecule of C4 H10 meaning it is made up of multiple atoms of CARBON and HYDROGEN.
An INERT ELEMENT does not COMBINE WITH ANY ELEMENT. There are no molecules that contain ARGON. It is that simple !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom