6 years......with inkjet

[Kirk Gittings]

Some people asked for some images refered to in the OP. Here is one-though the actual print in a warm tone Piezography ink on mat paper and has a different "look" to it.

[paulr]

And you, I think, have waaaaaay to much confidence in the ability of the government to be an unbiased entity. That is, precisely, what government will never be, in my opinion, where employment is determined by keeping the right people happy; people who have their own special interests to keep other people happy, and so on, and so on.

This kind of rhetoric could be used to discredit anything. It's not helpful. I suspect everyone here can agree on this: human beings are biased. Individually or in groups, in the public sector, the private sector, in our bedrooms, laboratories, or missile command centers.

Even when we try to be unbiassed, we are pretty good at creating modes of inquiry that have structural biases built in (look up "experimental bias" ... it's interesting).

What science gives us is a whole tool set and methodology for compensating for the effects of those biases. Various forms of blind testing and experimental controls are among these. So is full disclosure: if there is a sponsor with a vested interest, this must be disclosed. This will of course attract closer scrutiny than if the sponsor were a disinterested party. Full disclosure includes the methodology and the data. A properly documented experiment can be duplicated by any other lab.

It's never infallible, because it's done by humans (see above). You will find examples of mistakes that somehow made it through many levels of scrutiny and peer review. You'll also find examples of fraud. Luckily, the most eggregious examples almost always end the careers of the responsible researchers. The point is, none of this has anything to do with whether or not the employer is in the public or private sector.

All else equal, I'd prefer the public sector. Who is more likely to sponsor unbiased research ... the National Institute of Health or Merck?

[rdenney]

The issue I raised does relate to how evaluations are done, but "how" is a direct consequence of who does them. Specifically, I contended that only an appropriate government entity like the LOC has / should have the virtually unlimited resources (compared to private non-profits) necessary for performing evaluations on all relevant characteristics over a full spectrum of conditions.

They would be prohibited from reporting results for specific products, however, or even constructing an evaluation aimed at making that distinction.

They might support research into testing methods aimed at their own archive, and such research will usually be available if you ask for it.

In my line of work, we almost always have to set up peer-exchange groups or work through professional societies to do this sort of thing. I'm not sure the federal government is as empowered as you think it is or should be. I've spent a good chunk of my year this year helping deflect criticism (from Congress) resulting from the mere impression (mistaken) that some people gained from things we said that they thought favored a particular product in an industry.

Rick "thinking the Smithsonian would be more likely to fund studies of art permanence" Denney

[MHMG]

Specifically, I contended that only an appropriate government entity like the LOC has / should have the virtually unlimited resources (compared to private non-profits) necessary for performing evaluations on all relevant characteristics over a full spectrum of conditions.

Institutions like LOC have very large budgets indeed, but those budgets are spread thin over many worthy activities. Major Museums, Libraries and Archives tend to allocate the majority of their funds to patron services, exhibits, etc. Preservation research funding takes a back seat. Moreover, the bosses that direct those research funds tend to rightfully favor research on materials that are already represented in high quantities in the collections. The newest technologies have to become "old" and be well represented in the collections before any managerial attention begins to be directed to working on them as preservation worthy research. Thus, the hope with regard to LOC funding inkjet media research may come true in perhaps another decade or two, but I can assure everyone the funding will not be "virtually unlimited". Meanwhile, independent labs like WIR and AaI&A are doing their best to pick up the slack.

[Brent Long]

Paul and Rick,

You both make good points, and one's that I agree with. My wording was very general, trying to get Sal to see something (though I think he already knows).

Anyway, my only direct government contact/work was at the very lowest level; an enlisted military man; an accountant, though. I only had a few million to "play" with, but even then, the waste is obvious and much.

Mind you, I worked for great people, and I agree that it's the exception rather than the rule when government workers are full-on corrupt. Most are good workers, trying to do a good job, for the most part. But, that's the category that I was in myself, along with the people that worked around me. And still, it was a precedent that we waste money.

Now that is the very nook and cranny of it all. I was at the bottom of the bottom. But, I had a job to do, and part of that was to spend money for things we didn't need, or know what we would do with, just so we wouldn't "lose" it.

Now what I describe doesn't necessarily relate directly, I know. It's purely anecdotal. Nonetheless, I would say that the higher one gets up in the government, the potential for like problems, and much worse, increases. One problem you begin to deal with is the problem of power. A power tripping honcho can undo a whole lot of otherwise potentially very good work. And, said honcho may even be a really nice guy or gal.

The key word in it all, I think, is bias. But, as has been stated, bias can exist anywhere, and go genuinely undetected by those who most exhibit it. And our circumstances which feed our biases are so subtle that it's impossible to even know what they all are.

Anyway, the government isn't the answer. But, I don't mean to say the government couldn't possibly be, or become, the answer. This goes for the private sector too, of course. What I think the answer is is this: The proof is in the pudding. We just have to evaluate the evaluaters and test the testers and check on the checkers to get a fair idea of what the truth is, or where it is likely to be found.

Example: I heard about Jon Cone inks. I went to Inkjet Mall and read their claims. Do you think I ordered because they talked up their product? Ha! Not in a million years. I searched here. I searched other forums. I read what other USERS were saying. I came across Jon's posts talking to customers, and potential customers. In other words, I researched to see if it seemed likely that what Jon Cone says his research shows was true.

And that's all we can do. And that is, at least partly, what we're doing here, now.

And . . . my ink arrived today.

[Brent Long]

Who is more likely to sponsor unbiased research ... the National Institute of Health or Merck?

Well, since you say "unbiased", neither. I could answer the question if you say "less biased", however. But then we've not gotten our ivory tower just yet either.

[Tyler Boley]

Great image Kirk, wish I could see the prints...
Tyler

[Sal Santamaura]

...you, I think, have waaaaaay to much confidence in the ability of the government to be an unbiased entity. That is, precisely, what government will never be, in my opinion...

...Specifically, I contended that only an appropriate government entity like the LOC has / should have the virtually unlimited resources (compared to private non-profits) necessary for performing evaluations on all relevant characteristics over a full spectrum of conditions.

Bold italics added when quoting.

They would be prohibited from reporting results for specific products, however, or even constructing an evaluation aimed at making that distinction...I'm not sure the federal government is as empowered as you think it is or should be. I've spent a good chunk of my year this year helping deflect criticism (from Congress) resulting from the mere impression (mistaken) that some people gained from things we said that they thought favored a particular product in an industry...

Institutions like LOC have very large budgets indeed, but those budgets are spread thin over many worthy activities...

...My wording was very general, trying to get Sal to see something (though I think he already knows)....Anyway, the government isn't the answer. But, I don't mean to say the government couldn't possibly be, or become, the answer...

I suspect that the "something" Brent was trying to get me to see I didn't already know and don't accept.

This is a very difficult line of discussion to engage in while remaining mindful of the politics prohibition here. However, having been told by a moderator that it's less about politics than government in general and is germane to factors that influence research, I'll plod onward.

In my opinion, it is appropriate that government, the LOC in particular, take the lead in this and similar research. It should be provided a research budget that, compared to what private non-profit projects can raise, is virtually unlimited. It should be not only freed from restrictions against conducting, but mandated to conduct exhaustive comparative evaluations of specific products. If the factual results thereof favor some people (manufacturers) at the expense of others, so be it. Let objectivity rule. Congress' objections stem not from any sense of fairness, but reflect a concern that results favor other than the specific people who "own" them.

In my "ivory tower," there would be no need for Consumers Union. The US government, in full compliance with its constitutional mandate to promote the general welfare, would provide extensive objective information on all products and services available in this country. Given my previously posted observation about how I'm just as out of step with the rest of the world on this matter as on most other subjects, not to mention electoral trends of recent years, we'll be relying solely on whatever inkjet stability data WIR and AaI&A provide for a long, long time.

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks Tyler.

[rdenney]

In my opinion, it is appropriate that government, the LOC in particular, take the lead in this and similar research. It should be provided a research budget that, compared to what private non-profit projects can raise, is virtually unlimited. It should be not only freed from restrictions against conducting, but mandated to conduct exhaustive comparative evaluations of specific products. If the factual results thereof favor some people (manufacturers) at the expense of others, so be it. Let objectivity rule. Congress' objections stem not from any sense of fairness, but reflect a concern that results favor other than the specific people who "own" them.

What is it about research that defies objectivity? Let me repeat: What confirms the truth of science is that it is reported transparently enough to be verified by repetition. Transparency enables repetition, and repetition confirms results.

Government is pretty good about transparency. But when it is spending all the money on research, there will never be repetition, because nobody will ever be motivated to confirm results. If government funding is comparatively unlimited, as you suggest, then there can be little competition.

A Consumer's Union can only exist in the private sector, and remain trustworthy. The only complaints I've ever heard about the Consumer's Union attack its technical accuracy, not its integrity. Government would be incessantly attacked on both fronts. On the other hand, government gets accused of bias and corruption at every turn. There has never been a government on this planet that most of its people trusted to find truth and report it truthfully. Private-sector entities sometimes fare better, and sometimes do not. The position or reputation of the researcher will never be a reliable basis for evaluating its results.

Rick "who is not talking about waste" Denney