New HC-110 Formula

[billtroop]

If it's not viscous, it's not HC-110.

the Arista/legacy Pro L110 is also less viscus and easier to pour. It is made in USA, I believe by Unicolor, (Photo systems INC) I wonder if KodakAlaris is switching suppliers to the folks who make that, for fear of the German change of control at Tetinal? from what was written about HC110 in the past, some of the intermediate stages are almost explosive before the reactions all settle down.

photo systems also seems to be the supplier for the rest of Freestyles range of "Kodak Chemical Clones" which all "work the same" but may not be identical.

Sadly, I tend to have to get my supplies by Mail order from the US, so I end up with th eUS market stuff.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Minor correction Ron since people will be referring to your remarks on this subject for years to come, I think you meant DEA not TEA in this case.

Thanks for the correction Bill. Now, IDK whether to edit the original or not.

PE

 

[AgX]

The DEA-sulfur complex is a little hard to make, but Ilford and Tetenal have both managed to do it.

I know of no hint that Tetenal ever made any synthesis beyond a plain adduct. I would appreciate to learn the contrary.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The DEA complex is the adduct by another name.

It is confused by non-chemist reporting in the press and by others.

PE

 

[AgX]

I know. But if its make it would be difficult it would be beyond the capacity of Tetenal (to my understanding).

 

[Alan9940]

Would someone verify that the old catalog number of the thick yellow syrup HC-110 is 5010541? When I last bought it, I decanted the stock into smaller amber glass bottles and recycled the original container. I just bought 3 bottles to ensure I have enough for the amount of Tri-X I have in the freezer and want to ensure I'm getting the old formula. I doubt that the new formulation is even in the general supply chain, yet, but thought I'd verify anyway.

Thanks!

 

[ant!]

Would someone verify that the old catalog number of the thick yellow syrup HC-110 is 5010541? When I last bought it, I decanted the stock into smaller amber glass bottles and recycled the original container. I just bought 3 bottles to ensure I have enough for the amount of Tri-X I have in the freezer and want to ensure I'm getting the old formula. I doubt that the new formulation is even in the general supply chain, yet, but thought I'd verify anyway.

Thanks!

The bottle I bought today (Made in Germany, no "new formula" on label, not looking like the new bottle on B&H) has this catalogue number, yes. This matches also the old version catalogue number at B&H.

The new has on the B&H website the number 1058692.

 

[odell1618photography]

From the pentax forums:
"FWIW...I went to the B&H and noticed that there are two listings for HC-110, the 2019 version (tall bottle and clear, prod# 1058692) along with the traditional version (squat bottle and yellow, prod# 5010541). So...if you want the old stuff, it is still available."

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums...hc-110-available-us-market.html#ixzz5whxXGXzy
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums...-reformulated-hc-110-available-us-market.html

 

[Lachlan Young]

The DEA complex is the adduct by another name.

It is confused by non-chemist reporting in the press and by others.

PE

Out of interest, how dangerous is the process of manufacturing the adduct? Going by your comments here, I take it that it requires a specialised/ dedicated reactor vessel that is presumably considerably more costly than the setup necessary to manufacture D-76 or Xtol?

 

[Louis Nargi]

I have been using HC-110 for years I hope it act the same

 

[NedL]

If it's not viscous, it's not HC-110.

True enough.
I'm not sure we actually know that the new formula isn't in glycol even if it's a little thinner. It might still have great storage properties.
I guess in a couple years we'll all know.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Out of interest, how dangerous is the process of manufacturing the adduct? Going by your comments here, I take it that it requires a specialised/ dedicated reactor vessel that is presumably considerably more costly than the setup necessary to manufacture D-76 or Xtol?

Well, to follow the formula exactly, you use Sulfur Dioxide gas and Hydrobromic Acid gas and bubble those into the organic alkali.

It needs a trained chemical engineer and good equipment. It also needs equipment resistant to those chemicals especially.

But, thinking this through, the borate there might react with one of the other chemicals to form a "slime" like chemical. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/...dventures-in-chemistry/experiments/slime.html

So, borate might dissolve without the need for water. IDK. This is a new formulation and I don't have the urge to experiment.

PE

 

[markbau]

[QUOTE="Sal Santamaura, post: 2203240, member: 8985"

Why the need to make this about me rather than address facts/science? An absence of good answers?

I enjoy both chemical and digital photography. I practice both. After working with darkroom chemicals, I dispose of them properly. How about you?[/QUOTE]

Because it is about what YOU and I do that matter. My house is connected to a modern sewerage plant so no problem tipping tiny amounts of B&W chemicals down the drain. I try to do concrete things that matter like catching the train to work and I avoid buying things that are needlessly imported vast distances. (Can you believe that in Australia you can buy water in heavy glass bottles that come shipped from Norway) It always amuses me to see big SUV's adorned with climate change bumper stickers. Not to mention that nasty cleaning chemicals that people routinely use and dump down the drain. Sorry but you're not going to shame me for tipping what probably amounts to 4 litres per week of D76/Ansco130/D72, Ilford rapid fixer and heavily diluted Selenium toner, down the drain

 

[mgb74]

I don't use HC-110 a lot, but I always like having some around. So what frustrates me is that Kodak eliminated the 16 oz bottle of HC-110 and now they change the formula that will likely (I realize we don't know for sure yet) affect it's legendary longevity.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Officially the stock solution of HC-110 has a shelf-life of 6 months when stored in full, tightly closed bottle. So as long as the new formulation meets this, from the pov of producer it's as good as the older formulations.

 

[Alan9940]

Officially the stock solution of HC-110 has a shelf-life of 6 months when stored in full, tightly closed bottle. So as long as the new formulation meets this, from the pov of producer it's as good as the older formulations.

I believe that figure is when mixing a stock solution from concentrate. I've used HC-110 for 40 years and can assure you that the syrup concentrate lasts significantly longer than 6 months.

 

[MattKing]

It is telling that Kodak has never provided information about storage life for the HC-110 concentrate - just the "use before" date printed on the outside of more modern bottles.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

I believe that figure is when mixing a stock solution from concentrate.

The technical data sheet J24 for HC-110 doesn't say anything about the storage life of the concentrate. It talks only about the storage life of stock solution and working solutions. As long as the stock & working solutions of the new formulation have similar storage life as those of previous formulations, the manufacturer can say the new formulation is consistent with previous ones even if the new concentrate doesn't survive beyond six months. It was never officially guaranteed to survive beyond six months.

 

[alanrockwood]

I wonder if the new HC-110 is the same thing as LegacyPro L110.

I have two concerns. One is whether the new HC-110 will have the same shelf life as the old version. Several other people have raised this concern.

The second is whether the new HC-110 would be a drop in replacement for the old HC-110 in "tortured" HC-110 applications. For example, a while back I worked out an approach where acid (vinegar) at a certain concentration was included in the prepared developer in order to slow down the development rate.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The alkali is so different in this version, I doubt if it would do the same thing when vinegar is added. IDK, just saying.

PE

 

[Alan9940]

I have two concerns. One is whether the new HC-110 will have the same shelf life as the old version.

I have used LegacyPro L110 in the past and can assure you that the shelf life of this concentrate doesn't even come close to old HC-110. The L110 product goes off in about 6 months, depending on storage conditions.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...you're not going to shame me for tipping what probably amounts to 4 litres per week of D76/Ansco130/D72, Ilford rapid fixer and heavily diluted Selenium toner, down the drain

I don't have to shame you. You just publicly shamed yourself with that sentence from the end of post #88.

 

[mgb74]

No doubt Kodak is "within the letter of the law" with respect to HC-110 longevity. But we all know, and Kodak certainly knows, that old HC-110 lasted a long, long time. And it was a significant part of the value of HC-110 to consumers. Think of all the forum posts you've read that touted HC-110's longevity in a positive light.

If that has changed, I feel that calling the new formulation HC-110 is at least a bit deceptive. Not that they are the only consumer products that does this, nor is this (if in fact it is the case) the most flagrant example of feature downsizing. But still disappointing - if it is true.

 

[NB23]

cheaping out is the name of the game.

If they could build Bridges and Houses out of plastic bags, they would.

 

[markbau]

I don't have to shame you. You just publicly shamed yourself with that sentence from the end of post #88.

I seriously doubt that I have publicly shamed myself by describing what the vast majority of B&W workers do with their used chemicals. Please enlighten us as to how YOU dispose of your B&W chemicals.