New (2019 version) HC-110 developer not the same?

[pentaxuser]

bnxvs You mentioned in your post #72 that the new HC 110 is an aqueous solution and it is this word aqueous(water) that would appear to suggest that this is the reason that it is thinner and less viscous than the previous version. My impression is that the former HC 110 had less water in it and it is this increase in water than leads people to believe it may not last as long

If there is incontrovertible proof that the additional water in the latest version does not adversely affect its longevity then can you explain this in terms non chemists can understand. For instance, there may be a volume or ratio of water that is needed before longevity is adversely affected and if it can be shown that HC 110 does not have this volume then that is the kind of proof that will help settle the argument. I am using this to demonstrate the kind of proof that may help buyer decide if longevity is affected

It may even be that it is possible to say that longevity is adversely affected and to what extent this is the case, so, for instance, if it can be shown from knowledge of the chemical constituents that the former HC 110 had an almost unlimited life, say more than 10 years but the current version of HC 110 with its constituent chemicals has a life of say not less than 8 yeas then at least buyers of HC 110 can decide if this ensures that it will last longer than the time it takes them to use it all up

If a new bottle will last 8 years but I will have used it up within 6 years at my volume of developing then to me its longevity is irrelevant as I know I can rely on it to last longer than I need it to

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[bnxvs]

I cannot take on my soul such a load to assert that the "new" HC-110 will be stored as long as the "old". Simply because I have no idea about the technology of its manufacture. Naturally, all my conclusions are indirect and based only on the analysis of available information and some experience in drawing up concentrated solutions.
You have to understand that the old and new HC-110 are completely different, in principle, compositions. They have only one common feature - both is phenidone-hydroquinone based solutions. But, old HC-110 waterless, i.e. it contains no water at all, except for the natural amount of impurity to ethanolamines and glycols. And I have strong suspicions that in terms of the amount of hydroquinone, it also differs from the new composition. Simply because hydroquinone is much more soluble in organic solvents.
The new composition is more similar to "Rodinal-like" concentrates, in which long-term preservation is ensured by a large excess of potassium sulfite (which has very good solubility in water). In general, water in this composition does not represent anything particularly scary, since its limited opportunities to be saturated with oxygen and CO2 are completely leveled by an excess of sulfite ions.
In addition, I suspect that the pH of the new HC-110 should be significantly higher than that of the old one to compensate for the lower amount of hydroquinone.
But, as I already wrote above, all these are just my assumptions, and without the opportunity to make analyzes, I cannot say for sure. Unfortunately, I do not have a new HC-110 in order to compare its parameters with the old one, and my requests on various forums to help with this issue remain unanswered. Alas...

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the reply Quite a few here do have the new HC 110 I wonder if anyone of them can supply the information that would help. I cannot as I am not a user but I would like this thread to reach practical answers on important matters such as likely longevity, if this was possible.

If its life was similar to Rodinal and there was chemical evidence to substantiate this then at least we have a rough idea of its likely longevity

pentaxuser

 

[alanrockwood]

I thought that the new HC110 was less viscous because it used a different (though still non-aqueous) solvent compared to the old HC110.

I don't know the specific mechanism of oxidation of the developers in HC110, but from my chemistry training I do know that a lot of chemical reactions are catalyzed in aqueous solutions by either hydroxyl ions (OH-) or hydrogen ions (H+). Some chemical reactions can be catalyzed by either one. In certain non-aqueous solvents there are few if any free hydroxyl or hydrogen ions, and in those solutions any reactions that depend on catalysis by free OH- or H+ will not occur, or if they do occur will do so by an alternative pathway that may be less efficient. It is fairly likely that the stability of HC110 depends on having few if any OH- or H+ ions present in the concentrate, and if so then any alternative formulation contains water is likely to exhibit poor stability.

 

[Alan Johnson]

From its msds HC110 new appears to contain rather less preservative sulfite (the stable form of bisulfite at the stock solution pH) than Ilfotec DDX:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/ilfotec-dd-x-formula.101560/

 

[pentaxuser]

From its msds HC110 new appears to contain rather less preservative sulfite (the stable form of bisulfite at the stock solution pH) than Ilfotec DDX:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/ilfotec-dd-x-formula.101560/

So to a non chemist like me what might that say for new HC110 longevity in comparison with DDX ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Alan Johnson]

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/new-hc-110-formula.169322/page-2
Post 27 gives potassium sulfite 10-20% for 2019 HC110, presumeably the new version.
Post 80 above gives potassium sulfite 30-60% for DDX
Assuming these developers eventually fail by oxidation when left in part full frequently opened bottles, DD-X with more preservative sulfite may last longer.
But DD-X though lasting well AFAIK does not have the same reputation for longevity as the old version of HC110
Nor would HC110 new presumably, although this is not absolutely known yet.

 

[alanrockwood]

I wonder if part of the reason for HC110's long shelf life might be the high viscosity of the liquid. This would likely slow down the diffusion of oxygen into the liquid, which would tend to reduce the rate of deterioration of the developer. This would be in addition to the fact that HC110 uses a non-aqueous solvent system.

 

[pentaxuser]

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/new-hc-110-formula.169322/page-2
Post 27 gives potassium sulfite 10-20% for 2019 HC110, presumeably the new version.
Post 80 above gives potassium sulfite 30-60% for DDX
Assuming these developers eventually fail by oxidation when left in part full frequently opened bottles, DD-X with more preservative sulfite may last longer.
But DD-X though lasting well AFAIK does not have the same reputation for longevity as the old version of HC110
Nor would HC110 new presumably, although this is not absolutely known yet.

Thanks Alan. So If I have understood you correctly this means that DDX may now have as much longevity or possibly more than HC 110. This might come as a disappointing surprise to a lot of "old "HC 110 users.

Doesn't this reduce HC 110 advantages over the likes of the Ilford equivalent to zero and it becomes a straight choice on price or are there still advantages to using HC 110 compared to others i.e. what is HC 110's marketing edge over comparable developers

I wonder how badly this has affected new HC 110 sales?

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

It was always quite revealing to note that HC-110 would not develop film unless you add water.

 

[MattKing]

Doesn't this reduce HC 110 advantages over the likes of the Ilford equivalent to zero and it becomes a straight choice on price or are there still advantages to using HC 110 compared to others

If it is still providing functional equivalence, you will still be able to mimic a large variety of other developers by simply varying dilution.
That, I would suggest, was always the major advantage of HC-110 - particularly in the commercial market.

 

[Alan Johnson]

It was always quite revealing to note that HC-110 would not develop film unless you add water.

This suggests that old HC110 did not contain a significant amount of ionised developing agent and it is this rather than diffusion effects due to high viscosity that accounts for its long shelf life.

 

[pentaxuser]

If it is still providing functional equivalence, you will still be able to mimic a large variety of other developers by simply varying dilution.
That, I would suggest, was always the major advantage of HC-110 - particularly in the commercial market.

Can you say what those other developers are and what the dilutions are to achieve this equivalence. Matt? I had a quick look at Covington Innovations and while he extols the virtues of HC 110 he seemed not to even hint that the key to imitating different developers lay in the dilutions

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[alanrockwood]

This suggests that old HC110 did not contain a significant amount of ionised developing agent and it is this rather than diffusion effects due to high viscosity that accounts for its long shelf life.

My thought is that it is probably both the the low diffusion rate and the lack of ionization that are responsible, with lack of ionization probably being the more important of the two.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Unlike most developers, classic HC-110 is outstanding in its predictability in usage over an exceptionally wide range of dilutions.

 

[MattKing]

Can you say what those other developers are and what the dilutions are to achieve this equivalence. Matt?

Kodak developers that were in commercial use around 1962
I'll search through the materials I have on hand, but it might take a while to find the answers.
That desire to mimic various other developers is the reason for all those strange Kodak prescribed dilutions - "A", "B", "C" etc., etc.

 

[pentaxuser]

Kodak developers that were in commercial use around 1962
I'll search through the materials I have on hand, but it might take a while to find the answers.
That desire to mimic various other developers is the reason for all those strange Kodak prescribed dilutions - "A", "B", "C" etc., etc.

Thanks Matt. Yes now you mention it, I did wonder why there was all those different dilutions but it would look as if it imitated "old days" developers. Maybe the modern ones while not matching the versatility of HC 110 have stolen a march in terms of their own versatility.

The year 1962 may explain why this versatility is no longer mentioned as it is no longer a selling point of HC 110?

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Maybe the modern ones while not matching the versatility of HC 110 have stolen a march in terms of their own versatility.

Well, D-76 is one of them - most likely dilutions A and B.
D-19 and DK-50 are two others.

 

[DREW WILEY]

D76 etc as versatile..... who ya kidding"?

 

[pentaxuser]

D76 etc as versatile..... who ya kidding"?

I got the impression that Matt was referring to HC 110 versatlility and in response to my question was using D76 as an example of what HC 110 was capable of imitating at certain dilutions. The question of D 76 versatility never arose

You're right of course D 76 is absolutely crap compared to its British counterpart which is that reliable-in-a-crisis-with-a-stiff-upper lip stuff known as good old ID11. He then breaks out into "There'll always be an England and "Jerusalem"

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ha. I used to kid a machinist on the Isle of Skye that the whole Brit system of weights and measures was based on how far a Druid priest drunken on mead could throw the head of an ox. Whitworth cubits., left-handed furlongs. Even fluid ounce markings on my beakers are different on one side than on the other. Life would be so much better if Napoleon had won at Waterloo and things would be metric everywhere. I was making an oak machinery stand for the darkroom today, and keep both metric and english blades for my combination square. There was a push here to introduce the metric system in shop classes way back when I was in high school. That was up in the mountains. The hillbilly kids couldn't figure it out. The teacher would ask, "how many pennies in a dime; how many dimes in a dollar?". They'd answer, "ten". So then the teacher would ask, "how many millimeters in a centimeter?" They sit there dumbfounded, and finally someone would reply, "Twelve?". The shop teacher got angry and yelled, "Count your fingers, Dummy!". So he did, "One, two, three.... ten, eleven, twelve." Sure enough, six fingers on each hand. Proof of the genes of those inbred hillbillies were English.

 

[John Wiegerink]

It was always quite revealing to note that HC-110 would not develop film unless you add water.

Matt,
I remember being told that in a photography 101 class many moons ago, but never tested HC-110 to see if it were true. So, will the "new" HC-110 develop film without adding water? I don't use either the old or new, but was just curious??????? JW

 

[MattKing]

Matt,
I remember being told that in a photography 101 class many moons ago, but never tested HC-110 to see if it were true. So, will the "new" HC-110 develop film without adding water? I don't use either the old or new, but was just curious??????? JW

I did test the old stuff indirectly - I had a friend who had tried a clip test with the contents of an old bottle, which of course failed. When I suggested adding a bit of water, the old bottle passed with flying colours!
I still have some old HC-110, so don't have any new stuff to try it with.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I did test the old stuff indirectly - I had a friend who had tried a clip test with the contents of an old bottle, which of course failed. When I suggested adding a bit of water, the old bottle passed with flying colours!
I still have some old HC-110, so don't have any new stuff to try it with.

Matt,
I was just curious so don't run out and buy the "new" Hc-110 just to satisfy my curiosity. I love Xtol-R and won't change. JW

 

[bnxvs]

Del. Sorry.