John Sankey on sat 23 feb 08
"in my opinion, it's not worth the effort to be
"technically/scientifically correct" if, for all practical
purposes, there is only one that we ever encounter"
Now that I know there is indeed a tin monoxide, I couldn't
disagree more. Words are to communicate. If using the wrong term
can result in a miscommunication, it should be avoided at all
costs.
Potters normally use either molar nomenclature (e.g. manganese
dioxide) or colour (e.g. red iron oxide) for our chemicals. We
should use tin dioxide or white tin oxide for the stuff we use in
pottery.
John Sankey
--
Include 'Byrd' in the subject line of your reply
to get through my spam filter.
Timothy Joko-Veltman on sun 24 feb 08
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:40 PM, John Sankey wrote:
>
> Words are to communicate.
Yes, but most of the time, "perfect" specificity is not required in
communication, and in most general contexts inhibits it. As I said,
among potters, we have a shared context. Black tin oxide is a virtual
non-entity in that context, so what's the point in talking about it?
Just as in foreign languages though there are frequently words hard to
translate into other languages, we don't worry about it much because
usually they do not impinge on the context of our everyday
communication. The moment it moves into context (ie., discussion of
translation or cultural norms), then it becomes worth it. Anyway, I
think we've now moved fairly OT ....
Regards,
Tim
Taylor Hendrix on mon 25 feb 08
One character's take on things:
"The best words are those that reveal nothing."
_The Year of the Death of Ricardo Reis_
Taylor, in Rockport TX
On 2/23/08, John Sankey wrote:
..
> Now that I know there is indeed a tin monoxide, I couldn't
> disagree more. Words are to communicate. If using the wrong term
> can result in a miscommunication, it should be avoided at all
> costs.
...
John Sankey on mon 25 feb 08
>> Words are to communicate.
> Yes, but most of the time, "perfect" specificity is not required in
> communication, and in most general contexts inhibits it. As I said,
> among potters, we have a shared context.
But that was precisely the reason why I raised the issue here - this
thread began with a miscommunication among potters. That's why we
potters should use one of the simple but accurate nomenclatures for
tin, to avoid confusing other potters as it did in this instance.
That's not OT at all.
John Sankey
--
Include 'Byrd' in the subject line of your reply
to get through my spam filter.
John Hesselberth on tue 26 feb 08
On Feb 25, 2008, at 2:24 PM, John Sankey wrote:
>>> Words are to communicate.
>> Yes, but most of the time, "perfect" specificity is not required in
>> communication, and in most general contexts inhibits it. As I said,
>> among potters, we have a shared context.
>
> But that was precisely the reason why I raised the issue here - this
> thread began with a miscommunication among potters. That's why we
> potters should use one of the simple but accurate nomenclatures for
> tin, to avoid confusing other potters as it did in this instance.
> That's not OT at all.
I have found it is usually best to follow the saying "When in
Rome...." Communication is aided by talking with other potters in
terms potters use and understand. Words often have different meanings
in different disciplines. No one discipline has the "authority" to
select the words we use to describe something. 99.9% of potters who
mix glazes know exactly what tin oxide is. If it is called tin
dioxide it will almost invariably result in confusion and the
question "did you mean titanium dioxide?" When talking to chemists
you might be better off to call it tin dioxide.
Regards,
John
John Britt on tue 26 feb 08
John,
You are 100% correct. Knowing and using proper terminology is basic.
Anything other than that leads to confusion.
John Britt
Earl Krueger on wed 27 feb 08
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:17 AM, John Hesselberth
wrote:
> 99.9% of potters who mix glazes know exactly what tin oxide is. If it is
> called tin
> dioxide it will almost invariably result in confusion
>
John,
Then one could argue that 99.9% of potters need to change their ways.
Chemists
use the name tin dioxide for a reason; it is unambiguous.
When I first started learning about pottery and glazes terms like "whiting"
or
"flint" really bugged me. Because of my chemistry background I couldn't
understand why people didn't just use calcium carbonate or silicon dioxide.
Then after I learned more I realized that the physical form of the compound
was important as well as the atomic composition. So, I have come to terms
with the use of common names for materials since I see some value to it.
Earl Krueger
Veneta, Oregon, usa
but I still cringe when I hear soda ash or blue vitriol or sulphurated
potash or such.
makes me think I'm still back in the alchemy days.
John Post on wed 27 feb 08
I call pottery chemicals the names that my supplier lists them by in
their catalog.
As an example I ask for either green nickel carbonate or black nickel
oxide. I add the color to the name because that is how the supplier
lists it and I want to get the correct stuff sent to my studio.
Tin oxide will be tin oxide to me as long as that is how my supplier
lists in the catalog.
John Post
Sterling Heights, Michigan
http://www.johnpost.us :: cone 6 glaze website ::
http://www.wemakeart.org :: elementary art website ::
Paul Haigh on thu 28 feb 08
Tin dioxide is also properly called tin (IV) oxide by chemists.
hey wait- I'm a chemist. Huh :)
If you call up and order "tin oxide", I won't tell anyone.
Paul Haigh
Londonderry NH
| |
|
