D a browski A. Shaw D. Tsoucaris G. Braithwaite E.
|Published (Last):||16 January 2011|
|PDF File Size:||4.36 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.14 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
An hour later they were at home depot buying supplies, and ten hours of furious work later, they had a camera. Nothing gets a project done like avoiding work! See it all happen before your eyes in the video below the break. The frame of the camera is pine and plywood. Rather than elaborately folded fabric, he supported his 6 mil plastic bellows on telescoping rigid rods. The first step, from what we could tell, was to disregard all chemical safety practices.
Then it was put in a bath of silver nitrate to sensitize. Once sensitized the plate was placed in the frame of the focused camera and an astonishing amount of strobe light emitted.
The whole process has to be done under fifteen minutes or the plate cures before it can be used. The photos that come out are seriously cool. Sounds like good rebellious fun yay! Any static electricity can set off a major explosion and fire.
Trained chemists, OK? No high school kids for this project, no matter how smart you think you are!!! I used to hold a can of ether behind my back and spray it directly into the carburetor of the 5hp Tecumseh on my go-cart as impromptu nitrous when I was That or the all the napalm. The 13 year old me was not as safe as the me. Loads of fun! I wanted to see the balloon streak across the yard with fire shooting fire out the back.
OK, I took it off the bottle, pinched it off, let go while putting a match to the gas coming out the end and it blew up. Very loudly.
My own little Hindenburg disaster. I will never forget their reaction, but having raised 3 boys I now understand what was behind it. Because it can be nearly self-igniting, colloidon is a lot worse than napalm. Could these plates be prepared safely? Yes, absolutely. But not the way shown in this video. I have a set of books from 70s and 80s that describe many experiments for both production and use of ether, cyanide, chlorine gas, carbon monoxide, and other quite dangerous chemicals.
One of them describes every photography process from first experiments to first color photographs. Those books were for younger teenagers, and were available in every school library.
Also a friend of mine, who enjoys chemistry, made both nitrogen triiodide, which can explode because of its own weight and ether distillation using gas stove. His worst accident was breaking a vial of ethyl mercaptan. Few months. Every book by this author is about chemistry. And in many of them he describes the ways to make or replace unavailable glassware or syntheses of of chemicals that were hard to get in those dark times of centrally controlled economy.
Nowadays some of them are hard to get because they are either drugs precursors or used for making explosives…. The chemicals involved are not overly hazardous — not that I would bath in them, or drink them, but gloves and eye protection are more than enough personal protection to work safely with them.
You are so, so terribly wrong about this and I hope that nobody dies or spends a year in a burn unit because of your casual, uncaring and misinformed reply to my post. The way the ether solution was handled in the video made me feel physically ill. The sparks from the brushes of a ventilation fan motor would be enough to set this stuff off.
Diethyl ether is the most horrifying combination of volatility and flammability imaginable. There is no other chemical that even comes close to the fire and explosion hazard posed by this stuff. If you disagree, tell me what chemical you think would be worse! Gotta chime in on this one. Ether was used as an anesthetic and it was a very good anesthetic.
The problem was its flammability. Even a static discharge can do the trick. Right off the top of my head carbon disulfide is far more toxic and has a far lower flashpoint than diethyl ether, which is itself middle of the pack as far as explosion hazards are concerned and there are several chemical far worse in this regard.
Furthermore, the individual was wearing the personal protection called for in the MSDS and I saw no evidence of ignition sources in the video. Explosion hazards as they apply to VOCs in general are somewhat complex and depend on a far more complex set of parameters such that sweeping statements of the sort you are making above are largely meaningless. That is also true of chemical toxicity. An idiot can place himself in far more danger fueling a lawnmower or snowblower than I see here without much effort, and this is to say nothing about solvent widely available to the general public for applications like painting.
Kits are sold on the open for the collodion process, that in and of itself indicating that your statement of the hazards is somewhat overblown. Processes like this can be done by an amature quite safely taking the minimum of precautions, as illustrated in the video, which put him at no higher risk than he was using the power saw that he likely used to cut the components for the camera.
Dioxygen Difluoride? On a more serious note, like many extremely flammable compounds I suspect a healthy respect is as important as the proper safety gear — keeping track of the worst case scenario and such… be careful kids! Carbon disulfide, which I used as an example, is a solvent and it is used very much like diethyl ether in similar applications.
It is used in several industrial processes, it even smells somewhat the same. It far more dangerous than diethyl ether both in terms of health impacts and the explosive potential of its vapors. That is not to suggest one can be cavalier about handling diethyl ether but it is far from the most hazardous solvent around. Someone doing a videogame needs to put a FOOF gun in it.
A tank of oxygen, a tank of fluorine, a degree C reaction chamber… Combine the gasses then immediately put the FOOF into a crystal fluorine lined projectile and launch it. Cracking the containment layer on impact will do the job. A container made of crystallized fluorine was the only thing capable of holding fluorine gas until glasses resistant to it were developed.
You would really feel that way after 45 skin graft surgeries and 6 months in a burn hospital.. I like the result. Makes me want to dig out all my darkroom stuff out of the closet and start developing films again. Wonderfully well-done and concise video. I wish more folks were able to produce nicely-planned and tightly-edited material like this. A tintype is made with the wet collodion process, just on blackened tin or aluminum these days. Why do this, other than to make the danger even more fun, well because the light interfering with itself as it reflects off the mercury will generate interference patterns in the emulsion that will record the different wavelengths of light, it will record a color image.
It is possible to obtain a Lippmann photograph without mercury and indeed modern techniques using extremely low light-scattering panchromatic emulsions are the current norm. Ether, mercury, more minor chemical hazards please…… maybe some finely divided aluminium and iodine and a drop of water, or perhaps weedkiller and fertilizer, or maybe some finely ground zinc powder… or concentrated acids, or hydrogen cyanide, or chlorine gas, or sulphur doxide….
I agree there is hazard here, but it is low grade, when compared with some of the things that a kid of the s and could expose themselves too without much effort. Take sensible precautions and work in a well ventilated area outside in the garden if there was anything particularly dangerous, was my preference.
True, but I was actually waiting for somebody to point out how easily you could just plate the emulsion surface with Gallium. You can wash it off with hot water, even the developer could do it if it can be used at Getting the gallium off a Lippmann plate is much easier said than done. A better attack, I think, is to allow a very thin layer of liquid gallium to come into contact with the emulsion and solidify.
When thin enough, it can peel away like a thick foil. That… could be really effective! Much simpler than the wacky contraptions I was dreaming up. Rustoleum Mirror Effect is nearly as good, comes in a larger can, costs less than Spaz-Stix, but does not work on polystyrene. Either should give the same effect as floating the glass plate on mercury.
Both should clean off of glass with lacquer thinner. The reflective coat must be in direct contact with the emulsion because for the effect to work well the correct separation distance is determined by the wavelengths of visible light.
That is why you expose through the back of the glass. I used to make photographic paper to use in a pinhole camera. Dissolve gum arabic in ethanol, brush onto paper, allow to dry FLAT! Turn off the lights, dissolve silver nitrate in distilled water or use tap water and watch the sliver chloride fall to bottom of the mixing vessel , brush onto dry gum-arabic treated paper, allow to dry FLAT!
Keep it in the dark. Mount photo paper into cardboard mat-cut frame, insert into pinhole camera. Choose subject, set up camera, expose for x minutes. Turn off the lights, remove exposed paper, develop with memory blank here , fix with regular photographic fixer solution, wash, dry, viola!
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. By using our website and services, you expressly agree to the placement of our performance, functionality and advertising cookies. Learn more. Report comment.
I Built Myself A 16×20-Inch Camera In 10 Hours