ShelyBie@aol.com on sat 11 may 96
Can anyone reccommend a good program for glaze calculation for a PC? Is
Foresight or Insight very different? Does either allow storage of recipes?
Thanks in advance.
Shelly Bieber
Robin & Lesley Blythe-Lord on thu 3 apr 97
I have used adapted a spreadsheet for glaze calculation for some time now
but feel that I might be re-inventing the wheel. In any case I want to
make glazes, not computer programmes.
What would anyone recommend in the way of Glaze Calculation software for
the Macintosh. User friendly, powerful and informative. Not a beginners
only programme. I am particularly interested in Crystal glazes so the
programme must allow unbalanced recipies to proceed.
Robin Blythe-Lord
EMail: Robin@ateliers.demon.co.uk
Sylvia See on fri 4 apr 97
Hi Robin;
I have been using Tony Hansen's Insight and Foresight programs for several
years now and can't imagine life without them. You can check his sight out
at the following: http://www.digitalfire.com/
He has just upgraded his program and I believe the Beta testing is still
active allowing you to check out the program before purchase. He has a Mac
version.
Sylvia See Claresholm Alberta sylviac@telusplanet.net
I really like my bifocals
My dentures fit me fine
My hearing aid works perfect
But Lord I miss my mind!!!!
Mervyn and Kaye Mitchell on fri 4 apr 97
The only program I have used is Insight, available from IMC, Medecine Hat
(yes, there really is such a place), Alberta, Canada. Quite powerful and
flexible. The Windows version works great, but the Mac version I acquired
about 3 days ago tends to bomb my Performa 5260/120. Might work fine with
older Macs though. The IMC people seem helpful and I hope we can sort this
problem out because I like the software.
A beta version is available (with documentation) free from the IMC website,
http://digitalfire.com
Hope this helps.
Merv Mitchell
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I have used adapted a spreadsheet for glaze calculation for some time now
>but feel that I might be re-inventing the wheel. In any case I want to
>make glazes, not computer programmes.
>
>What would anyone recommend in the way of Glaze Calculation software for
>the Macintosh. User friendly, powerful and informative. Not a beginners
>only programme. I am particularly interested in Crystal glazes so the
>programme must allow unbalanced recipies to proceed.
>
>Robin Blythe-Lord
>
>EMail: Robin@ateliers.demon.co.uk
Mervyn and Kaye Mitchell
2244 June Road
C19, S291, RR#2
Courtenay
BC V9N 5M9
Home: (250) 339 7004
Work: (250) 334 5042
Fax: (250) 334 5018
Please send email replies to: mitchell@nic.bc.ca
Wendy Hampton on fri 4 apr 97
Have you tried Hyperglaze? You can get detailed information from Richard
Burkett (he is on this list).
Regards,
Wendy from Bainbridge Island WA
Bob Hanlin on mon 7 apr 97
Robin:
I would suggest INSIGHT from IMC in Medecine Hat, Alberta. I use it and
like it very well.
At 10:34 AM 4/3/97 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I have used adapted a spreadsheet for glaze calculation for some time now
>but feel that I might be re-inventing the wheel. In any case I want to
>make glazes, not computer programmes.
>
>What would anyone recommend in the way of Glaze Calculation software for
>the Macintosh. User friendly, powerful and informative. Not a beginners
>only programme. I am particularly interested in Crystal glazes so the
>programme must allow unbalanced recipies to proceed.
>
>Robin Blythe-Lord
>
>EMail: Robin@ateliers.demon.co.uk
>
>
Bob Hanlin
bhanlin@ionet.net
Oklahoma City, OK
Tony Hansen on mon 7 apr 97
> The Mac version of INSIGHT I acquired about 3 days ago tends to bomb my
> Performa 5260/120. Might work fine with older Macs though.
Try selecting the INSIGHT icon in the Finder and choosing Get Info.
Increase the preferred and minimum amount of memory allocated to INSIGHT
to
3000K, that should get it working for you. Trim that down later to 2500K
if you need to.
--
Tony Hansen, IMC thansen@mlc.awinc.com
-Long live short email messages-
Rick Malmgren on tue 8 apr 97
Robin,
Wendy, Merv and Sylvia have all given great suggestions to your questions
about software for the Macintosh. You also might want to check out
HyperGlaze's web page
http://members.aol.com/hyperglaze/index.html
Another very good program for the Macintosh is Matrix. It was written by
Lawrence Ewing of New Zealand. Lawrence is on ClayArt . His email
address is LEWING@tekotago.ac.nz. He has demo versions of his program
for $5, and you may be able to download the demo version for free. Check
with him about the details.
Rick
--------------------
Rick Malmgren
Severn, Maryland USA
RMalmgren@juno.com
John Hesselberth on tue 29 oct 02
Hi Everyone,
Well, I've done it. I just couldn't make peace with the available glaze
software programs that are out there. While they are all good in their
own way, none had the combination of features that I wanted. So I wrote
my own. It is designed to be both a recipe database and a glaze
calculation program. It has some features you won't find in other
programs; it omits some of the features I didn't ever use in some of the
other programs.
I have polished it enough that I am considering making it available for
sale. But I need some help. I need a dozen or so people (no more than
20 at an absolute upper limit) who are interested in giving it a good
test drive. It is written to run on both Macs and PCs so I need people
who have both types of computers and the various variants of the
operating systems for both (Windows 98 and up and Mac OS 8.6 and up
including Jaguar).
If you are interested and are willing to donate a few hours to working
this thing over in the next month please write to me OFF-LINE at:
john@frogpondpottery.com
I will need to know 1) what program you are using now (if any), your
degree of familiarity with Seger unity calculations, 3) computer type
and processor speed, and 4) operating system.
Those who help me will get a free copy of the program when (if) it goes
commercial. Of course, if it doesn't go commercial, you can keep the
last test version for your own personal use if you wish.
Please understand, though, I have to limit the number of participants.
It is not first-come, first served. I need a good cross section of
experience levels, computer types/speeds and operating systems. So, if
this turns out to be an extremely popular offer I will have to say
"sorry" to some of you.
Let me hear from you if you're interested.
Regards,
John
http://www.frogpondpottery.com
http://www.masteringglazes.com
John Post on tue 29 oct 02
Hi John,
I run windows 98 at home on a 1.4 gig amd with 256 megs of ram. I also have
a 600 megahertz Dell laptop running windows 98 with 196 megs of ram. At
school I have access to an apple that runs 9.0. It's not very speedy for an
apple, it has only 64 megs of ram. And on occasion I have access to I-books
that run OsX well as 9.0, although there is very little school software for
OSX at the moment.
I am currently running Glazchem and I am pretty happy with it. I tried the
upgrade to it, and it had too many bells and whistles that I did not need.
I am very comfortable with unity formula calculations and think of most of
my glazes in these terms.... If I am selected, it will be interesting to see
what you have put together...
Cheers,
John Post
John Hesselberth on wed 30 oct 02
Wow, I am overwhelmed. More than 50 people have offered to help in the
first 24 hours and emails are still coming in. I will sort through all
the responses this weekend and get back with everyone no later than
early next week. Unfortunately I will have to say "sorry" to quite a few.
Thanks for the wonderful response,
John
http://www.frogpondpottery.com
http://www.masteringglazes.com
=3D?iso-8859-1?B?VGlnIER1cHLp?=3D on sat 6 aug 11
Dear Mudbuds=3D2C
With all possible respect to everyone who chases the "ideal" glaze software=
=3D
=3D2C there is NO "best" program except self-education. By that=3D2C I do =
not =3D
mean that you sit in a corner and try to divine how to make a glaze=3D2C bu=
t =3D
that you get some education=3D2C then EXPERIMENT. Try the recipes that oth=
er=3D
s have formulated. Adjust for your kiln and firing method. Play with it. =
=3D
Make mistakes. LEARN. KEEP NOTES!
Calculating proportions is the easy part. Working out the correct ratios f=
=3D
or a certain cone is the harder part. Most of the glaze recipes posted on =
=3D
Clayart are in percentages. That is=3D2C all the ingredients in the base g=
la=3D
ze add up to 100. Then add colorants. From there=3D2C working out the amo=
un=3D
ts of each material to add to your glaze is a matter of stubby No. 2 pencil=
=3D
and paper=3D2C or a glaze software program.
Personally=3D2C I started out in college with a notebook and a stack of 5x8=
c=3D
ards in a file box. I still have them--about 800+ cards with recipes for c=
=3D
lay bodies=3D2C glazes that mature at different cones=3D2C slips=3D2C kiln =
wash=3D
=3D2C and ideas. They are divided into several categories=3D2C and sorted =
alph=3D
abetically. That box was my original "computer." I learned to make out th=
=3D
e card with the essential information and worked out the amounts required f=
=3D
or various batch sizes--100 gm=3D2C 500 gm=3D2C 1000 gm=3D2C 5000 gm=3D2C a=
nd 10=3D2C=3D
000 gm in a table on the card. A LOT of stubby No. 2 work! Results of exp=
=3D
eriments are noted on the back of the card=3D2C successes as well as failur=
es=3D
. (Thomas Edison learned MANY ways you could NOT make a filament for the i=
=3D
ncandescent light bulb.)
Then along came the computer.
I transferred a lot of my early work to Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets for the fa=
=3D
ster calculation capabilities and ease of storage. Unfortunately=3D2C tech=
no=3D
logy rapidly outstripped my talents=3D2C and I discovered glaze calculation=
s=3D
oftware. There are now many programs available for glaze calculation=3D2C =
mo=3D
st of them easy to use=3D2C highly accurate=3D2C and of moderate cost. I p=
redi=3D
ct that someday soon=3D2C one of you geniuses out there will figure out an =
"A=3D
p" for your 4G SmartPhone (tm)=3D2C and all my work in my database of more =
th=3D
an 3=3D2C000 glazes will fit in the palm of my hand. (Gotta get busy!)
You'll notice that I started with a pencil and basic math skills. For me=
=3D
=3D2C that's the way I start off teaching my students to calculate glaze re=
ci=3D
pes. Work with the basics first=3D2C then the harder stuff will fall into p=
la=3D
ce more easily.
I can see the advantage of a beginner having a "slipstick" to do proportion=
=3D
al calculations. It reduces the frustrations. But=3D2C I feel it's better=
t=3D
o learn the basics before you move into more advanced stuff. Sometimes=3D2=
C =3D
when some of the discussions on Clayart break out into the more technical d=
=3D
iscussions=3D2C I race to my library to consult some chemistry books. Stil=
l =3D
learning! Still having fun!
More of the experienced potters on this forum have "found" their glazes and=
=3D
stick with them. Mayor Mel's preference for Rhodes 32 is well-documented=
=3D
=3D2C and his experimentation with iron-bearing glazes is phenomenal. I co=
ns=3D
tantly ponder on the magnificent ancient Chinese glazes that were formulate=
=3D
d without the use of much math skills at all. How did they do that?
I do not specifically advocate the use or non-use of any electronic methods=
=3D
of calculating or storing your glaze computations. What works for you is =
=3D
best for you. If using Post-It (tm) notes on your studio wall is what you =
=3D
prefer to do=3D2C by all means=3D2C have at it!
I wish you all much success in your quest for the glaze of your dreams.
Tig Dupre
in Port Orchard=3D2C WA
=3D
Frances Howard on sat 6 aug 11
Hi Tig,
I wonder if the ancient Chinese used an abacus to calculate their gla=3D
zes? I=3D20
have just looked this up and am surprised by the number of mathematic=3D
al ways=3D20
in which it can be used, multiplying and decimals are easy (if you ca=3D
n do it=3D20
which I can't!). The ancient world seems to have used it a lot. star=3D
ting=3D20
nearly 3000 years ago.. Frankly it looks very mysterious to me, quit=3D
e=3D20
extraordinary. Apparently it was much in use in the Song and Ming ti=3D
mes=3D20
too, so I wouldn't be surprised if some of those glazes were helped a=3D
long by=3D20
it. It would be interesting to find some pottery depicting one.
Which makes me wonder if anyone decorates their pottery with a comput=3D
er or=3D20
ipad/ipod or a spacecraft etc etc. for future generations to consider=3D
?=3D20
It's quite uncommon to see anything contemporary on pottery really, b=3D
ut=3D20
might be fun for people a thousand years from now!
-----Original Message-----=3D20
=3D46rom: Tig Dupr=3DE9
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 12:58 PM
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Glaze Calculation Software
Dear Mudbuds,
With all possible respect to everyone who chases the "ideal" glaze so=3D
ftware,=3D20
there is NO "best" program except self-education. By that, I do not =3D
mean=3D20
that you sit in a corner and try to divine how to make a glaze, but t=3D
hat you=3D20
get some education, then EXPERIMENT. Try the recipes that others hav=3D
e=3D20
formulated. Adjust for your kiln and firing method. Play with it. =3D
Make=3D20
mistakes. LEARN. KEEP NOTES!
Calculating proportions is the easy part. Working out the correct ra=3D
tios=3D20
for a certain cone is the harder part. Most of the glaze recipes pos=3D
ted on=3D20
Clayart are in percentages. That is, all the ingredients in the base=3D
glaze=3D20
add up to 100. Then add colorants. From there, working out the amou=3D
nts of=3D20
each material to add to your glaze is a matter of stubby No. 2 pencil=3D
and=3D20
paper, or a glaze software program.
Personally, I started out in college with a notebook and a stack of 5=3D
x8=3D20
cards in a file box. I still have them--about 800+ cards with recipe=3D
s for=3D20
clay bodies, glazes that mature at different cones, slips, kiln wash,=3D
and=3D20
ideas. They are divided into several categories, and sorted alphabet=3D
ically.=3D20
That box was my original "computer." I learned to make out the card =3D
with=3D20
the essential information and worked out the amounts required for var=3D
ious=3D20
batch sizes--100 gm, 500 gm, 1000 gm, 5000 gm, and 10,000 gm in a tab=3D
le on=3D20
the card. A LOT of stubby No. 2 work! Results of experiments are no=3D
ted on=3D20
the back of the card, successes as well as failures.. (Thomas Edison=3D
=3D20
learned MANY ways you could NOT make a filament for the incandescent =3D
light=3D20
bulb.)
Then along came the computer.
I transferred a lot of my early work to Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets for =3D
the=3D20
faster calculation capabilities and ease of storage. Unfortunately,=3D
=3D20
technology rapidly outstripped my talents, and I discovered glaze=3D
=3D20
calculation software. There are now many programs available for glaz=3D
e=3D20
calculation, most of them easy to use, highly accurate, and of modera=3D
te=3D20
cost. I predict that someday soon, one of you geniuses out there wil=3D
l=3D20
figure out an "Ap" for your 4G SmartPhone (tm), and all my work in my=3D
=3D20
database of more than 3,000 glazes will fit in the palm of my hand. =3D
(Gotta=3D20
get busy!)
You'll notice that I started with a pencil and basic math skills. Fo=3D
r me,=3D20
that's the way I start off teaching my students to calculate glaze re=3D
cipes.=3D20
Work with the basics first, then the harder stuff will fall into plac=3D
e more=3D20
easily.
I can see the advantage of a beginner having a "slipstick" to do=3D20
proportional calculations. It reduces the frustrations. But, I feel=3D
it's=3D20
better to learn the basics before you move into more advanced stuff.=3D
=3D20
Sometimes, when some of the discussions on Clayart break out into the=3D
more=3D20
technical discussions, I race to my library to consult some chemistry=3D
books.=3D20
Still learning! Still having fun!
More of the experienced potters on this forum have "found" their glaz=3D
es and=3D20
stick with them. Mayor Mel's preference for Rhodes 32 is well-docume=3D
nted,=3D20
and his experimentation with iron-bearing glazes is phenomenal. I=3D
=3D20
constantly ponder on the magnificent ancient Chinese glazes that were=3D
=3D20
formulated without the use of much math skills at all. How did they =3D
do=3D20
that?
I do not specifically advocate the use or non-use of any electronic m=3D
ethods=3D20
of calculating or storing your glaze computations. What works for yo=3D
u is=3D20
best for you. If using Post-It (tm) notes on your studio wall is wha=3D
t you=3D20
prefer to do, by all means, have at it!
I wish you all much success in your quest for the glaze of your dream=3D
s.
Tig Dupre
in Port Orchard, WA
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1391 / Virus Database: 1520/3815 - Release Date: 08/06/=3D
11
ivor and olive lewis on sun 7 aug 11
Is there a connection between styles of Glaze Calculation and Glaze
Invention ??. Or, to put it another way, has anyone ever designed a new and
unique glaze formulation solely using either the longhand form of
calculating Seger and Unity formulae or one of the glaze calculation
programmes ?? The published exceptions I am aware of are those given by Ro=
n
Roy and John Hesselberth in their ground breaking book, "Mastering Cone 6
Glazes" . The major portion of the rest seem to be derivatives.
As an exercise I trolled through several glaze recipe books to check how
many recipes owed their origin to the Bernard Leach Seger Cone 8 Limestone
Glaze. The high proportion of clones seemed to indicate that there was more
Glaze tweaking and substituting to make local materials to fit, or addition=
s
by way of experimentation or to avoid common defects such as crazing and
pin-holing than original experimentation .
Regards to all empiricists.
Ivor Lewis,
REDHILL,
South Australia
wschran@COX.NET on sun 7 aug 11
Ivor,
All glaze calc programs that I have tried out are based on the seger unity =
formula.
Have not run across any with a "new" system. John & Ron's book, Mastering C=
one 6 Glazes, addressed the concept of controlled cooling for crystal devel=
opment, creating depth in the glaze. I selected Glaze Master, their glaze c=
alc program, because it intuitively made more sense to me. I also use this =
program with my students. Since I personally know John & Ron, if I have any=
questions I can go straight to the authors.
Bill
---- ivor and olive lewis wrote:
> Is there a connection between styles of Glaze Calculation and Glaze
> Invention ??. Or, to put it another way, has anyone ever designed a new a=
nd
> unique glaze formulation solely using either the longhand form of
> calculating Seger and Unity formulae or one of the glaze calculation
> programmes ?? The published exceptions I am aware of are those given by =
Ron
> Roy and John Hesselberth in their ground breaking book, "Mastering Cone 6
> Glazes" . The major portion of the rest seem to be derivatives.
> As an exercise I trolled through several glaze recipe books to check how
> many recipes owed their origin to the Bernard Leach Seger Cone 8 Limeston=
e
> Glaze. The high proportion of clones seemed to indicate that there was mo=
re
> Glaze tweaking and substituting to make local materials to fit, or additi=
ons
> by way of experimentation or to avoid common defects such as crazing and
> pin-holing than original experimentation .
>
> Regards to all empiricists.
> Ivor Lewis,
> REDHILL,
> South Australia
Paul Lewing on sun 7 aug 11
On Aug 6, 2011, at 11:23 PM, ivor and olive lewis wrote:
Or, to put it another way, has anyone ever designed a new and
unique glaze formulation solely using either the longhand form of
calculating Seger and Unity formulae or one of the glaze calculation
programmes ?
I'm not sure if this is what you mean or not, but I've invented a
number of new recipes using glaze calculation software. In fact, now
whenever I need a glaze recipe that's different from anything I have
in my files, I start by designing a Seger formula to do what I want.
One of the glazes I did this way used Mt. St. Helens volcanic ash. I
put in an analysis of the ash into my database, and designed a glaze
that had as much of that as would work, then filled it out with
whatever I needed to melt at the correct temperature and fit my clay
body. It worked on the first try. Of the three glazes that I
regularly use that I designed this way, one needed a tweak in the
second round of tests, but the other two I got the final recipe on the
first try.
By the way, I use Insight for this. I have Glazemaster and Hyperglaze
and I used to have Matrix when it was a Mac program. For inventing
and tweaking glazes, I like Insight best. For some other things, I
think others do better. I once led a discussion group at NCECA about
using calculation software and everyone there agreed on two things.
One: any program was better than none. Two: everybody liked best that
program that they saw first.
Paul Lewing
www.paullewingtile.com
www.paullewingart.com
Steve Slatin on sun 7 aug 11
Ivor --
The lack of definitions in your question makes it meaningless.
What constitutes a "new and unique" glaze? Would it have to
include a new molecule? A new source of that molecule? A
new percentage of that molecule, or of that source? A new
surface effect? =3D20
Obviously, if you require that everything in the glaze be
'new' there are no new glazes (and, for thousands of years,
have not been). After all, they pretty much all have a glass
former, a stabilizer, and a flux ... and there are only so
many of each on earth.
Oh, by the way, why do you presume that Leach's Limestone
glaze is 'new?' It's a fine glaze, but it's very simplicity
implies strongly that it's a reiteration of a centuries' old
approach ....
Steve Slatin --=3D20
N48.0886450
W123.1420482
--- On Sat, 8/6/11, ivor and olive lewis wrote:
> Is there a connection between styles
> of Glaze Calculation and Glaze
> Invention ??. Or, to put it another way, has anyone ever
> designed a new and
> unique glaze formulation solely using either the longhand
> form of
> calculating Seger and Unity formulae or one of the glaze
> calculation
> programmes ?? The published exceptions I=3DA0 am aware of
> are those given by Ron
> Roy and John Hesselberth in their ground breaking book,
> "Mastering Cone 6
> Glazes" . The major portion of the rest seem to be
> derivatives.
> As an exercise I trolled through several glaze recipe books
> to check how
> many recipes owed their origin to the Bernard Leach Seger
> Cone 8 Limestone
> Glaze.
douglas fur on mon 8 aug 11
FH
This tangential to the point of going OT...
I got curious from the thought "Gee ya always hear about Roman Numerals but
what about the Greeks?" I ended up at a website on math history at ST.
Andrews University in Scotland here an article described the greeks using
letters alpha beta etc to stand for numbers. As for fractions there wasn't
a standard notation but each mathmatician made up their own system. So all
their work calculating Pi and the circumference of the earth was done
without written numbers.
I guess the lesson is to make the most from what you've got. So for my
glaze calculations its an old large button calculator from a garage sale.
Concequentlly for me Pi is 3.14159. Not that that's Better than 3.14 but 15=
9
is a diagonal on the key pad. I enjoy this coincidence of geometries and
punch in the extra digits.
DRB
Seola Creek
David Finkelnburg on tue 9 aug 11
Ivor,
Your question implies the common criticism of glaze calculation--that i=
t
inhibits recipe creation.
Of course you will find a pattern in published (and unpublished) glaze
recipes. Firing temperature and speed dictate the materials/recipe,
regardless of how the recipe is created.
Glaze calculation is not necessarily useful for creating new, unique
glazes, though it shouldn't be ruled out as a useful method of screening
chemically identical glazes masquerading as unique because they are made
with different raw materials. If one is truly looking for unique glaze
effects, a logical testing grid such as a bi-axial, tri-axial or as the wor=
k
of the wonderful Ian Currie showed, a quadraxial blend of materials, is
probably more useful.
However, the fact is glazes will always need, in general, more than 5
times as many moles of silica as alumina and a flux ratio of about 0.7 mole=
s
of CaO to 0.3 moles of KNaO to be glossy at high fire. Nigel Woods showed
ancient Chinese glazes followed that pattern. Hermann Seger found the same
things. Leaded glazes have a different pattern. So do borosilicate glazes.
The Chinese artists were certainly not using glaze calculation of any sort.
They just did what works.
Glaze calculation is a tool which can help make glazes that work. It
only stifles creativity when the user permits that.
Good glazing!
Dave Finkelnburg
http://www.mattanddavesclays.com
-----------------------------
On Sun, 7 Aug 2011 15:53:21 +0930, ivor and olive lewis <
iandol@WESTNET.COM.AU> wrote:
Is there a connection between styles of Glaze Calculation and Glaze
Invention ??. Or, to put it another way, has anyone ever designed a new and
unique glaze formulation solely using either the longhand form of
calculating Seger and Unity formulae or one of the glaze calculation
programmes ?? The published exceptions I am aware of are those given by Ro=
n
Roy and John Hesselberth in their ground breaking book, "Mastering Cone 6
Glazes" . The major portion of the rest seem to be derivatives.
As an exercise I trolled through several glaze recipe books to check how
many recipes owed their origin to the Bernard Leach Seger Cone 8 Limestone
Glaze. The high proportion of clones seemed to indicate that there was more
Glaze tweaking and substituting to make local materials to fit, or addition=
s
by way of experimentation or to avoid common defects such as crazing and
pin-holing than original experimentation .
| |
|
