Hypercat vs Pyrocat MC [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 00:20

For those of you who are curious about the real differences between Hypercat and Pyrocat MC, I have some curves that demonstrate their respective characteristics in a very graphic way.

A friend was kind enough to email me some curves Sandy King posted for some of the litter of Pyrocats, and I have a curve for Hypercat that makes for an interesting comparison. King doesn't give information regarding developer dilution, or temperature, but being somewhat familiar with his testing practices, I'll speculate that the dilution
is the standard 1:1:100, the development temp is 72F, and agitation is rotary, probably in BTZS-type tubes.

The Hypercat curve was generated as follows:

Film-FP4+

Developer-Hypercat

dilution- 1:3:200

time- 7:30

temp.- 70F

agitation- Rotary, Jobo

densitometry- blue diffuse

About dilutions and concentrations

While Hypercat and Pyrocat MC are very similar in formulation, it can be confusing to decipher their respective dilutions, because Hypercat is 2X as concentrated as Pyrocat MC, and Hypercat uses a 20% sodium carbonate solution as its B solution, while Pyrocat MC uses a 75% potassium carbonate solution. For clarity of comparison, the developers as tested contain/ liter of working solution:

Pyrocat-MC

catechol .5g

metol .025g

ascorbic acid .04g

potassium carbonate 7.5g

Hypercat

catechol .5g

ascorbic acid .025g

sodium carbonate 3g

The curve for Hypercat was generated during tests for optimum carbonate concentration. All of the tests were developed identically in my Jobo ATL 2 Plus processor, for 7:30/70F, but the carbonate concentration varied from 1:1:200-1:12:200, and it is the carbonate concentration that appears where development time usually does. So, where it says "Curve=3:00", that indicates the dilution was 1:3:200, and not that the film was developed for 3:00 minutes.

similarities

Contrast and SBR are equivalent for a common paper ES, flare density, and speed calculation method.

Differences

Film speed-

For an equivalent normal contrast, Hypercat gives an EFS (Effective Film Speed) of 160-, and Pyrocat-MC gives an EFS of 125+. This is not a big difference, but might surprise some who have read Sandy's claims that Hypercat loses speed compared to the Pyrocats.

Development times-

For normal contrast, an equivalent dilution and development method, Hypercat requires 7:30 min @ 70F, and Pyrocat-MC requires 10:00 min/72F. This might surprise a lot of people, considering Hypercat contains no secondary reducer, and 60% less carbonate than Pyrocat MC.

Stain-

Hypercat produces more image stain than Pyrocat MC. Metol and ascorbic acid both reduce stain formation, and Pyrocat MC contains more than 2X as much combined ascorbate and metol, as the ascorbic acid content of Hypercat.

Fog-

Hypercat produces less fog than Pyrocat MC, probably because it uses less than 1/2 as much alkali as Pyrocat MC. Didn't Haist say something like -"If you have too much fog, you have too much alkali"?

Sharpness-

Hypercat is sharper than Pyrocat MC. Because Hypercat uses no secondary reducer, it tans and stains more efficiently than Pyrocat MC.

Grain-

Hypercat produces finer grain than Pyrocat MC, because it stains more efficiently, works at a lower pH, and contains no metol.

I think Pyrocat MC is a very good developer, but in my experience, and in comparative testing, Hypercat performs better. There are very few single-agent developers, fewer single-agent tanning/staining developers, and none like Hypercat, that are made up in glycol and produce full film speed.

The formula:

Hypercat A

catechol 10g

ascorbic acid .5g

propylene glycol 90ml

Hypercat B

distilled water 750ml

sodium carbonate 200g

distilled water to 1 liter

mixing A

Add the catechol and ascorbic acid to the glycol at room temp, heat to

125-150F with stirring until dissolved. Allow to cool to room temp

before storing in a plastic container. The color of the stock solution

should be clear to very light amber.

To make a liter of 1:3:200 working solution, add 750ml water, 5ml Stock A solution, and 15ml stock B solution to mixing container, and top up with water to 1 liter. Enjoy.

Jay

Jorge Gasteazoro

2-Aug-2006, 01:08

I dont know Jay, without seeing the family of curves for your test it is hard to compare the two. From your SBR 7 chart I see that you get a b+f of 0.28, this is not any different from what I get with pyrocat HD. I would suggest you post the curve for Sandy's SBR 7.4 along with yours so we can make a better comparison, since I am unable to see what you acertain. Your IDmin is 0.39, taking a guess from Sandy's family of curves his IDmin seems to be about the same....so, I am having a hard time seeing your claims from these curves you posted.

Don Hutton

2-Aug-2006, 05:38

I'd suggest that if would like these "comparisons" to be worth anything, you go to the trouble of testing both under indentical conditions instead of simply publishing someone else's tests without their permission. The fact that you haven't bothered to actually test both yourself under indentical conditions makes any conclusions completely without basis.

Colin Graham

2-Aug-2006, 07:33

sanking

2-Aug-2006, 09:02

Given the history of Jay and Sandy, the only beleivable tests are going to come from a much removed third party. I realize that pyro developers have something of a finite pool of consumers to draw from, but the oneupmanship and vituperation are starting to feel like the Cola wars.

I fully agree with you. Even I am getting sick of this staining developer discussion and may start looking for a good traditional alternative.

In this case, however, in the start of this thread there is a clear violation of intellectual property rights and I have sent a message to the LF forum informing them of that fact. The rules of participation at both APUG and the LF forum protect intellectual property rights.

1. APUG
APUG.ORG Terms of Use Agreement
http://www.apug.org/forums/faq.php?faq=legal#faq_new_faq_item

4. The APUG Services contain Content of Users and other APUG.ORG licensors. Except for Content posted by you, you may not copy, modify, translate, publish, broadcast, transmit, distribute, perform, display, or sell any Content appearing on or through the APUG Services.

2. LF Forum statement on intellectul property rights
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/faq.php?faq=vb_board_usage#faq_copyright_faq_item

What About Intellectual Property Right
By submitting materials to this site, you you are representing that are you are the owner, or are authorized by the owner to do so. As a consequence, all the material posted in this site is assumed copyrighted by their respective authors, and shouldn't be reproduced without permission and proper credit by any means, including framing.

Sandy King

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 09:17

Jorge,

I use 35mm film for my testing, which has a base density of about .2, and Sandy uses 120 or sheet film, which have far less base density, as you know. I'm not sure how the BTZS softwatre calculates B+F, but my density for step 21 is .23, and I don't know how B+F can be higher than that. I don't know how to separate out one curve from the family Sandy posted without his raw data, but I don't think it's too difficult to look at his SBR 7.4 curve separately, and compare the data for that curve against mine.

Don,

I have tested both developers under identical conditions; exposing my tests in my sensitometer, developing them in my Jobo ATL 2 PLus, and measuring them with my Noritsu DM-1 densitometer. I can't make conditions any more identical with my facilities, which are more than adequate to the task. I used Sandy's data for his developer, which he claims it's accurate, useful data, and my data for my developer, for which I claim the same. Sandy always attacks my testing to refute my data, and I thought it might be interesting to see the two side-by-side. I can post my own data for both developers, but my data for Pyrocat MC is substantially similar to Sandy's. The fact that you put comparison in quotes, and assumed I haven't "bothered" to do my own testing reveals your own biases very clearly. Some people believe what they want to believe, and for them, comparative data is a waste of effort.

Colin,

it is in no one's interst to post faulty data for their own developer, which is one reason I used Sandy's data for his developer. If we post faulty data, our developers will not be effective in use. It just doesn't make any sense to do that. I posted this comparison because Sandy has made a lot of theoretical claims for my developer that are not borne out in testing, or in actual use. If I simply said, "Sandy is wrong about my developer", without providing any data, I assure you I would be roundly criticized for it. Anyone who cares enough about this comparison to want to know the truth of it, can perform their own tests, as both formulae are published, so you don't have to take my word for it, or Sandy's.

Jay

Don Hutton

2-Aug-2006, 09:22

Sorry Jay

I actually have trouble believing that you have tested them under identical conditions - if you had, I don't understand why you wouldn't have used that data instead of simply purloining Sandy King's data? Seems very odd that you would rather publish inoformation here which is of no merit ("integrity"?) due to potential process differences if you already have the identical data.

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 09:25

Sandy, you're back!

I knew you couldn't stay away, it's too much fun here. I'm not sure you have a legal leg to stand on regarding intellectual property rights, as you gave permission to use your data at apug, without giving any limitations or restrictions. Have I misrepresented your data in some way, or are you just not pleased with the comparison? If you're looking for a good non-staining developer, I can make a few suggestions.

Jay

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 09:32

Don,

Sandy cannot refute his own data. It's that simple. He claims it's accurate and reliable, so what's the problem? BTZS testing removes "potential process differences" to the extent that's possible, and Sandy has written about the transferrability of this kind of data. I'd be happy to post my own data for Pyrocat MC if it will make you more comfortable, but I suspect that would be a wasted effort where you're concerned. If you don't like my data, or Sandy's, generate your own and post your results for the rest of us.

Jay

Brian Ellis

2-Aug-2006, 09:33

D76 anyone?

Don Hutton

2-Aug-2006, 09:34

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 09:36

Brian,

do you mean D-76, D-76H, Divided D-76, or how about E-76?

Jay

Don Hutton

2-Aug-2006, 09:41

Actually Jay, I know that my testing using Pyrocat HD does give me slightly differenty results to Sandy's testing - although I am still 100% satisfied. I am not stupid enough to expect my results to be identical to his, because I know that out test process is significantly different - I use a Jobo and he uses tubes which are rotated considerably slower than the slowest setting on any Jobo.

Our processes are a little different: I therefore accept slight differences in results to be largely attributable to these differences which is why I made the suggestion that what you published here is without merit unless you simply do identical testing. To refute any claims about your "process" you could instead have simply published that data which you claimed you had. Instead you launch into your usual low-level tirade...

And please don't bother with your data now thanks - I know enough to not waste my own time thanks.

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 09:43

"It is in no one's interst to post faulty data for their own developer".

"Sandy has made a lot of theoretical claims for my developer that are not borne out in testing, or in actual use."

Strange: I know of not one single person - apart obviously from yourself Jay - who uses Hypercat, yet I personally have met many (in excess of 20) and know of many, many more people who use Pyrocat HD and are very satisfied with it. If both of your claims above are true, Jay, then the only conlusion that one could draw from the widespread traction of Pyrocat HD and the lack of traction for Hypercat is that in fact you have published faulty data about Hypercat!

Don,

unfortunately, both your information and logic are flawed. I'll concede that there are many more users of Pyrocat HD than of Hypercat, but by your logic, Sandy must have published faulty data about Pyrocat HD or there would be more users of his developer than D-76. the formula for Pyrocat HD was published about a decade ago, while the new Hypercat formula was published a few months ago. Give it time.

Jay

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 09:44

And please don't bother with your data now thanks - I know enough to not waste my own time thanks.

That's what I thought.

Jay

Kirk Keyes

2-Aug-2006, 09:45

IWhat About Intellectual Property Right
By submitting materials to this site, you you are representing that are you are the owner, or are authorized by the owner to do so. As a consequence, all the material posted in this site is assumed copyrighted by their respective authors, and shouldn't be reproduced without permission and proper credit by any means, including framing.

Sandy - Doesn't fair use come into play here? Afterall, Jay credits you as the originator of the graph.

Anyway, Jay, you really should do side by side testing yourself when trying to make comparisons.

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 09:55

Sandy - Doesn't fair use come into play here? Afterall, Jay credits you as the originator of the graph.

Anyway, Jay, you really should do side by side testing yourself when trying to make comparisons.

I have done side-by-side testing. I'll post that info in a new thread.

Jay

Don Hutton

2-Aug-2006, 09:56

"unfortunately, both your information and logic are flawed."

!!!!! Yes Jay - I know the information is flawed - they are direct quotes from you! Actually, if you understood logic and English, you'd realise that there is no flaw in the inference. The fact that the logic makes no sense to you proves that one or both of your statements are simply untrue.

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 10:09

Don,

your flawed information was in regard to the number of Hypercat users. Your flawed logic was in your conclusions. You suggested that the only reason for one developer to have fewer users than another is that the formulator published faulty data for his own developer. I made no such claim. I said that Sandy had made faulty claims about Hypercat, which is a much different thing. It is no one's interest to post faulty data for their own developer, but if one wants to dissuade others from using another's developer, making false claims, or posting faulty data for the other's developer might do the trick. Get it? I didn't think it was a difficult concept to grasp, but perhaps I've overestimated you. Better luck next time.

Jay

Don Hutton

2-Aug-2006, 10:13

Here's my closing tip Jay:

From your reply to Jorge:
"I'm not sure how the BTZS softwatre calculates B+F"

It doesn't - you measure it. Your grasp of what you are doing with your BTZS testing does not seem convincing to me that I should put any faith in any of the "numbers" you produce from your testing!

sanking

2-Aug-2006, 10:17

Sandy - Doesn't fair use come into play here? Afterall, Jay credits you as the originator of the graph.

Kirk,

Do you really think that copying something as complicated as a family of film curves and posting the file without permission is fair use? Do you think one would have the right to do that from another source, say from a photography magazine or from a published book? I don't think so.

Without any question DeFehr violated rules about protection of intellectual rights at both APUG and the LF forum.

Sandy

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 10:18

Don,

have you used the BTZS software? If so, maybe you can answer a question. If step 21 measures .23, where does the .28 that appears on the graph come from? I supposed a calculation, but I'm open to alternative suggestions.

Jay

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 10:19

Kirk,

Do you really think that copying something as complicated as a family of film curves and posting the file without permission is fair use? Do you think one would have the right to do that from another source, say from a photography magazine or from a published book? I don't think so.

Without any question DeFehr violated rules about protection of intellectual rights at both APUG and the LF forum.

Sandy

Sandy, you gave permission to use your data, in writing. Case closed.

Jay

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 10:25

Sandy,

it's very interesting that you have no comments other than to cry about your precious graph being used. No comment on the substance of the comparison? Interesting.

Jay

Ralph Barker

2-Aug-2006, 10:48

It is unclear to what extent the fair-use doctrine, usually held to apply to conventional editorial/news contexts, applies to the Internet, but it is clearly superceded in this case by the terms of use of both forums. As such, the graph of Sandy's data has been deleted.

Don Hutton

2-Aug-2006, 10:52

To be honest, Jay, I have no idea where your data comes from. When I input a step 21 number into my software, that number shows up on my charts as the B+F co-ordinate. Perhaps there is something wrong with your "copy" of the software?

I am somewhat astounded that you publish data on this forum based on testing done with 35mm films which has a considerably thinner Estar base than sheets films. I would expect that different film base would change some important details in the results.

Don,

have you used the BTZS software? If so, maybe you can answer a question. If step 21 measures .23, where does the .28 that appears on the graph come from? I supposed a calculation, but I'm open to alternative suggestions.

Jay

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 10:53

Ralph, I'm shocked that you would come down in Sandy's favor. I defer to your legal prowess. I'll post my own data in a new thread, and this link to Sandy's data at apug:

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=27497&page=6&pp=10&highlight=pyrocat

Anyone who is curious can find Sandy's data there.

Jay

Scott Rosenberg

2-Aug-2006, 10:54

sandy, please don't make the mistaken assumption that the attitudes of the most vocal amongst us represents the population at large. there are scores of individuals that do not weigh in when threads degrade into the childish exchanges we are seeing here lately, but value your contributions greatly. i know i am not alone in saying that your extended absence, if you choose to make it so, will be regretted here.

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 10:57

To be honest, Jay, I have no idea where your data comes from. When I input a step 21 number into my software, that number shows up on my charts as the B+F co-ordinate. Perhaps there is something wrong with your "copy" of the software?

I am somewhat astounded that you publish data on this forum based on testing done with 35mm films which has a considerably thinner Estar base than sheets films. I would expect that different film base would change some important details in the results.

Don,

I'll ask Phil Davis about the B+F calculation. My copy of the softwatre is the latest edition, and might differ from yours.

What important details do you imagine might be affected by the differences in FP4+ in35mm and in sheets? According to Ilford, there are none.

Jay

Don Hutton

2-Aug-2006, 11:06

Well, according to published information from Ilford:

FP4 plus 35mm - 0.125mm/5 mill acetate base - no mention of anti-halation coating

FP4 plus sheet films - 0.18mm/7 mill polyester base - with anti- halation coating

Seems to be some differences there (although I have read that these result in slightly different development times etc, I have never done any testing of this personally - when I am testing things, I try to eliminate variables, but maybe that's just me...?)

But I am sure your "source" at Ilford must know better...

BTW, my source is here: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006216115141521.pdf

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 11:15

Don,

how do these differences, if indeed they do exist (I'm sure 35mm FP4+ includes an AH layer), manifest in film development? According to Ilford, development times are the same for all formats, but you must already know that, given the link you posted. Whenever possible, as with Ilford films, I test using 35mm film, because it's much more efficient to do so. Some films, particularly EU films, do exhibit meaningful differences between formats, and for those films it is important to test within a given format. Seems like your picking nits, and have nothing of real merit to add here. Why the hostility?

Jay

sanking

2-Aug-2006, 11:22

Sandy,

it's very interesting that you have no comments other than to cry about your precious graph being used. No comment on the substance of the comparison? Interesting.

Jay

When you were banned from the APUG forum for using a second and false identity to attack me I decided that I would have nothing else to say about any of your developers. Since that time I am not aware of any comments I have made about any of your formulas, either favorable or unfavorable. If you believe they are useful, promote them as you will. I have tested your formulas and understand how they work and their qualities, but I would not consider posting the comparison data, which includes curve families, here or anywhere else. Those who trust me and my methodology would belive me, you and persons who support you would not, so what purpose would be served by the comparison? The same will be true if you choose to post comparision data.

I have made the decision that I will not post on the LF forum any more about developers, staining or other, to avoid any further contact with you. I plan to rejoin the LF forum to discuss matters such as alternative photography, lenses, LF/ULF equipment, digital negatives and other such matters about which I have some expertise. I will limit my substantive posts on developers to the APUG forum, where you are banned and can not participate. However, my discussions there will not include comparisons of your formulas with any others, or comments or discussions about you. I am certain that many here on the LF forum would appreciate it if you would extend me the same courtesy.

Sandy

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 12:02

Sandy,

Since you're determined to keep harping on it, and for the record, I did not use "a second and false identity " to "attack" you, at apug or anywhere else. If you can prove that accusation, you should do so. Anyone who's been paying attention knows I'm very candid and would never use a false identity. Talk about, or don't talk about anything you like, and I'll do the same. Your constant attempts to silence me are wasted effort.

Those who trust me and my methodology would belive me, you and persons who support you would not, so what purpose would be served by the comparison? The same will be true if you choose to post comparision data.

Believe it, or not, there are those who are capable of remaining objective, and for whom such a comparison might be useful. Your supposition that no one is capable of objectivity is very revealing.

Since that time I am not aware of any comments I have made about any of your formulas, either favorable or unfavorable.

You have made comments about catechol/ascorbate-only developers which could only refer to Hypercat, unless you know of others.

However, my discussions there will not include comparisons or discussions of either you or your developers.

You've said this before, but have recently referred to me and my developer there, where you feel secure in the knowledge I cannot defend myself or my developer. How very brave of you. I understand completely why you don't want to engage in a discussion comparing any of the Pyrocats, and especially Pyrocat MC to Hypercat, but in the end, your participation is not necessary. Both formulae are published, and anyone interested in doing so can make the comparison for themselves. In fact, some have made the comparison, and have concluded, as I have, in favor of Hypercat.

Has anyone else noticed that there has been no discussion about the developers compared, but has focussed almost entirely on personal attacks, and nit-picking testing methodology? I am ready to discuss these developers when anyone else is. These discussions are what we make of them, and too many seem to want to focus on personal issues, and then cry when the thread devolves. You have only yourselves to blame.

Jay

sanking

2-Aug-2006, 12:27

Sandy,

Since you're determined to keep harping on it, and for the record, I did not use "a second and false identity " to "attack" you, at apug or anywhere else. If you can prove that accusation, you should do so. Anyone who's been paying attention knows I'm very candid and would never use a false identity. Talk about, or don't talk about anything you like, and I'll do the same. Your constant attempts to silence me are wasted effort.

Jay

Jay,

"Since you're determined to keep harping on it, and for the record, I did not use "a second and false identity " to "attack" you, at apug or anywhere else. If you can prove that accusation, you should do so. Anyone who's been paying attention knows I'm very candid and would never use a false identity."

Then perhaps you should contact Sean to set the record straight so you can start posting on APUG again.

"You've said this before, but have recently referred to me and my developer there, where you feel secure in the knowledge I cannot defend myself or my developer. How very brave of you."

Where was it that I referred to you and your developers, Jay? So far as recall I have not made any reference to your formulas by name for months. Not on this forum and not on APUG. If you can show otherwise, please do so.

"Has anyone else noticed that there has been no discussion about the developers compared, but has focussed almost entirely on personal attacks, and nit-picking testing methodology?"

Why would anyone seriously waste their time talking about the comparison you made? The testing conditions were very different. You make conclusions without knowing what format film I used, how many emulsion batches were used, the age of the the films, type of agitation I used, etc. etc. There are so many variable you don't know the mere thought that anyone should spend any significant time talking about comparisons in this context is absurd.

Sandy

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 12:41

Sandy,

I'm not interested in posting at apug; the burden of proof rests with you, since you're the one making accusations.

Where was it that I referred to you and your developers, Jay? So far as recall I have not made any reference to either you or your developers by name for months. Not on this forum and not on APUG. If you can show otherwise, please do so.

Sandy

No problem, Sandy.

Sandy King, 7-28-06

Over on the LF forum there was some discussion of the Pyrocat-M and Pyrocat-MC formulas. If you read the thread you will see that Jay DeFehr, who was banned from this list for attacking me with a false identity, now claims that I have taken full credit for the Pyrocat-MC formula. DeFehr further claims that the Pyrocat-MC formula preceded the Pyrocat-M formula, which is clearly not true.

Readers of this thread will know that I have fully acknowledged Pat Gainer's collaboration in the development of the Pyrocat-MC formula, for which I am fully appreciative and have freely acknowledged. Pat sent me a note on April 19 about the formula, and I quote: "It is nothing like Hypercat. I will not make this formula public. It is mostly your work. If you want to get someone to produce it, like P. F. or just make it public, go ahead."

Is it your memory that's going, or your honesty?

Jay

Don Hutton

2-Aug-2006, 12:44

"how do these differences, if indeed they do exist (I'm sure 35mm FP4+ includes an AH layer), manifest in film development?"

I don't for a minute believe that I am equipped to answer that - but I also don't promote myself as an expert on these things. I am merely suggesting to you, that if you wish to promote yourself with research and testing which you hope will satisfy people's curiosity enough that they may try your potions, you should apply more thought to your testing methodology and eliminate any obvious possible inconsistency.

I'm just a consumer here - not a self proclaimed super hero developer developer. If you spent less of your time displaying how inconsistent your processes are and less time depracating the work of others, you may find that more consumers would show an iota of interest in the product you are promoting (if indeed, that isn't at the end, just yourself).

Don,

how do these differences, if indeed they do exist (I'm sure 35mm FP4+ includes an AH layer), manifest in film development? According to Ilford, development times are the same for all formats, but you must already know that, given the link you posted. Whenever possible, as with Ilford films, I test using 35mm film, because it's much more efficient to do so. Some films, particularly EU films, do exhibit meaningful differences between formats, and for those films it is important to test within a given format. Seems like your picking nits, and have nothing of real merit to add here. Why the hostility?

Jay

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 12:54

Don,

when you try to make a point, it's always best if you have a point. If you're not qualified to comment, then don't comment, otherwise you just look like another King-worshipping sycophant with no real point of view of your own. You petty little insults are typical of one who has run out of intellectual ammunition, and is content to make an ass of himself. I've never been so much as impolite to you before you started in on me here. What do you hope to gain by attacking me?

Jay

Jorge Gasteazoro

2-Aug-2006, 12:58

Ok guys, I have put Simmons and Atherton in my ignore list and I apologise to all for the past pissing matches, I now see how droll the can become.

Jay,

I agree with Don, while I commend your efforts in creating new developers you really should do your own testing when you want to post comparisons, you cannot use Sandy's data for that. I know, I know, one of the wonderful things about the BTZS is that data can be extrapolated, but it will lend greater cerdibility to your efforts if you do your own work when testing other people's developers.

Sandy,

What are you doing? This is never going to end and the two of you will never come to an agreement, why continue this pissing match? I am not saying that you should give up, all I am saying is that you should take the option not to continue to participate in something that obviously upsets you, move on bud and do your thing!

sanking

2-Aug-2006, 13:04

Sandy,

I'm not interested in posting at apug; the burden of proof rests with you, since you're the one making accusations.

Jay

"I'm not interested in posting at apug; the burden of proof rests with you, since you're the one making accusations."

Yes, and I still believe in the tooth fairy. You were banned from APUG. That is fact, pure, simple and with no salt or pepper. If you could post at APUG you would.

As for the comment about Hypercat, that is a direct quote from a message to me from Pat Gainer, dated April 19, and I quote: "It is nothing like Hypercat. I will not make this formula public. It is mostly your work. If you want to get someone to produce it, like P. F. or just make it public, go ahead." That was not my comment about Hypercat, but what Gainer had to say. And it was made in the specific context in which you claimed that Pyrocat-MC preceded -M, which is totally false, and if you bothered to ask Pat you would know that it is false.

Sandy

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 13:05

Jorge,

I have done my own testing. I included Sandy's data because it was available, and "from the horse's mouth", as it were. Incidentally, do you think the reaction will be substantially different when I post my own data for Pyrocat MC, or will that discussion be plagued by testing methodology nit-picking and personal attacks as well? I think I know the answer, but I intend to post the information anyway.

Jay

Don Hutton

2-Aug-2006, 13:07

"If you're not qualified to comment, then don't comment" Fortunately Jay, I don't believe that this is my area of expertise, so I don't comment except when opinions supported by dodgy methodology are given as definitive proof. If you really want to be perceived as an "expert" or someone qualified to comment - behave like one - having a consistent testing methodology will carry you far further than am ignorant defense of an inconsistent one.

I assure you, intellectual ammunition and presumption of supplies thereof are way beyond the scope of your expertise - I'd suggest sticking to poor test methodology and bad manners - both areas of obvious natural aptitude....

Jorge Gasteazoro

2-Aug-2006, 13:15

Jay, there are many here who use and are familiar with the BTZS testing method. If other people dont understand the methodology then it is up to them to get up to speed. For example from your previous post I saw that you have a personal speed point (PSP) of 2.4, that tells me that you have done your calibration for testing consistency. This is all I need to know, but the fact remains you need to do the testing on your own under your conditions. If someone wants to refute your results then the ball is on their court, it is up to them to do the testing and try to duplicate your efforts, if it matters that much to them.

If Sandy disagrees with your results then he is welcome to post his own data, but to tell you the truth, I see this as a never ending circle jerk......

Jorge,

I have done my own testing. I included Sandy's data because it was available, and "from the horse's mouth", as it were. Incidentally, do you think the reaction will be substantially different when I post my own data for Pyrocat MC, or will that discussion be plagued by testing methodology nit-picking and personal attacks as well? I think I know the answer, but I intend to post the information anyway.

Jay

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 13:16

Sandy,

you're back peddling. You said:

Where was it that I referred to you and your developers, Jay? So far as recall I have not made any reference to your formulas by name for months. Not on this forum and not on APUG.

You're either senile, or a liar. When you refer to me by name, and post a message from Pat referring to Hypercat, you're making references to me and my developer. Need I define reference?I thought you were once an academic, and a vocal advocate and defender of forum integrity? Or is that just when it suits you?

Jay

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 13:20

Jorge,

duly noted. I will post my Pyrocat MC data.

Jay

Kirk Keyes

2-Aug-2006, 13:24

sanking

2-Aug-2006, 13:32

Sandy,

you're back peddling. You said:

You're either senile, or a liar. When you refer to me by name, and post a message from Pat referring to Hypercat, you're making references to me and my developer. Need I define reference?I thought you were once an academic, and a vocal advocate and defender of forum integrity? Or is that just when it suits you?

Jay

You made false accuations against me, and I quoted a message from Pat Gainer to prove you were wrong. Sorry if it rubbed your ego the wrong way. But it is hard not to touch your ego, it seems to extend all over the planet.

If you have a problem with what I quoted, I suggest you contact Pat about it.

And contrary to your earlier misrepresenation, this was not done on another forum where you could not defend yourself, but on this forum where you initiated a totally malicious and unprovoked attack on me.

In case you missed it the first time, what I quoted is directly from a message from Pat Gainer, and in taliking about the Pyrocat-MC formula he said,

"It is nothing like Hypercat. I will not make this formula public. It is mostly your work. If you want to get someone to produce it, like P. F. or just make it public, go ahead."

Also, if you have any further misinformation about the origin of Pyrocat-M, -MC you probably should contact Pat before making a further ass of yoursellf.

Sandy

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 13:54

Sandy,

you lied. I don't have any problem with you referencing either me or Hypercat, except when you lie about either, and do so where I can't defend myself or my developer. You said you hadn't referenced either me or Hypercat, either here or at apug, I didn't ask you not to, I just pointed out that you lied about it, that's all. When you post a reference, you're making a reference, understand?

And contrary to your earlier misrepresenation, this was not done on another forum where you could not defend yourself, but on this forum where you initiated a totally malicious and unprovoked attack on me.

the quote I posted was from APUG. Are you lying again?

I don't have any problem with Pat, whatsoever. Pat Gainer is an inspiration to me, and an original thinker, unlike yourself. If Pat says Hypercat is nothing like Pyrocat MC, I'll take his word for it, but since you're obviously a liar, how can I be sure he said anything of the sort? My testing, and yours, show some similarities, and some differences between Hypercat and Pyrocat MC, with the differences favoring Hypercat. Characterise those differences any way you like. If you feel more comfortable saying Pyrocat MC is nothing like Hypercat, by all means say so. Both formulae are published and people can make up their own minds regarding the similarities, and differences, and keeping in mind that Hypercat was published first.

Jay

sanking

2-Aug-2006, 14:03

Sandy,

the quote I posted was from APUG. Are you lying again?

Jay

OK, please quote any messages on APU here where I mentioned either you or the name of any of your formulas? Limit yourself to the posts since you were banned from APUG for attacking me with second and a false identity.

You can not do that, can you?

If not, you are lying again, as you have clearly lied with reference to the reasons you can not post to APUG. So what will this be, two time, three times, four times a liar?

Sandy

sanking

2-Aug-2006, 14:07

Sandy,

What are you doing? This is never going to end and the two of you will never come to an agreement, why continue this pissing match? I am not saying that you should give up, all I am saying is that you should take the option not to continue to participate in something that obviously upsets you, move on bud and do your thing!

Jorge,

I am sure you are right. And on another day I plan to follow your good advice.

However, when one get really engaged with the issues and just resigns oneself to the waste of time, the engagement ceases to upset.

Sandy

Jay DeFehr

2-Aug-2006, 14:10

Sandy,

take your meds. I posted a quote from apug dated 7-28-06 in this very thread. I'll repost it here for the mentally infirmed:

Sandy King, 7-28-06

Over on the LF forum there was some discussion of the Pyrocat-M and Pyrocat-MC formulas. If you read the thread you will see that Jay DeFehr, who was banned from this list for attacking me with a false identity, now claims that I have taken full credit for the Pyrocat-MC formula. DeFehr further claims that the Pyrocat-MC formula preceded the Pyrocat-M formula, which is clearly not true.

Readers of this thread will know that I have fully acknowledged Pat Gainer's collaboration in the development of the Pyrocat-MC formula, for which I am fully appreciative and have freely acknowledged. Pat sent me a note on April 19 about the formula, and I quote: "It is nothing like Hypercat. I will not make this formula public. It is mostly your work. If you want to get someone to produce it, like P. F. or just make it public, go ahead."

I've put my name, and the name of my developer in bold type, so you can't miss it.

You can not do that, can you?

I've done it twice now. You might want to see a Geriatrician.

Jay