Originally Posted by
dr.grace
Also, it sounds like you're using a single observation for each condition. Normally, in scientific experiments, you have to repeat them two or three times, at least, to be confident of the reproducibility.
I completely agree with everything you wrote. However, it is likely that my vigorous defense of doing experiments
at all has lead you to overestimate my opinion of them, or my plans on how to interpret negative or positive result. In fact, I am keenly aware of the limitations. My plan vis-a-vis this point you make above was to use initial results as a guide to further investigation only. That is to say, if I note anything suspicious, I would go from there. If I can repeat it, I will do it again and also invite you (generic "you") to do it as well. Then we can interpret it together.
If I never generate anything but negative results, I think you will find that I will not over-interpret that as proof of anything, though I do think it should be taken account of when formulating the simplest explanation of a given failure (Occam's Razor). If these inks never seem to melt latex when we are looking, perhaps the
policy of making ink the defacto explanation, ignoring the possibility of latex anomalies, should be questioned.
Addendum: You do give me an idea for another experimental approach. I could start doing a repeated-dryout exposure, i.e. put a fragment in a vial, put a small amount of ink in, let it evaporate, then repeat (lather, rinse, repeat? Probably). This might make a difference in some cases. The way we have seen some reports of BSB melting feeds, I suspect it becomes more caustic at higher concentrations. Other inks may also see their chemistry change.
Bookmarks