Paul Herman on thu 15 oct 09
Hi Marian,
After all this reading, I accept that "flocculation" is not a good
term to describe what we do to our plastic clay bodies when we add
epsom salts, hydrochloric acid or vinegar. Dennis Parks used to say
throw a glass of cheap red wine in each batch. But that leaves me out
here in the howling wilderness with no term to describe what it is I
do (epsom salts added to clay mixing water.) So please help me out
here and make an offer for an appropriate word. Should we just say "I
dope my clay" even though that brings up images of shady horse races
and hypodemic noodles, etc? By the way, I have read that word to
describe adjusting the acidity/alkalinity of clays. From some
industrial source I think.
One of the things that comes to mind here is that you are a hand
builder of clay, and not a thrower of pots on the potter's wheel. If
you were a thrower, I think it would be more evident to you that this
dope we put in our clay has a profound effect on the working
qualities, and why we get all worked up about it. When a clay body has
too much alkali in the mix (exacerbated by my slightly alkaline and
sulphur bearing desert geothermal water) it gets thixotropic and it's
very difficult to make anything tall on the potter's wheel. Impossible
in fact. The clay gets all wobbly and slumps. With a healthy dose of
dope (epsom salts) the plastic clay holds it's shape at several times
the height.
I very much enjoy reading your posts and have learned some good
things. But here I am out here in the howling wilderness, looking for
a word.
Best wishes,
Paul Herman
Great Basin Pottery
Doyle, California US
www.greatbasinpottery.com/
On Oct 15, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Neon-Cat wrote:
> These science-types will just keep going, they and their buds, until
> they unravel mysteries and figure out what caused discrepancies. If
> one follows a thread sometimes one can get right down to near
> current publications and see what point the science gals and guys
> are arguing over. Sometimes very minor things. They can get all
> excited and go back and forth just like we do on clayart. Testing,
> methodology, technology, all has gotten better. New discoveries are
> made all the time. Scientists are able to "see" things they were not
> able to see in the past.
lili krakowski on thu 15 oct 09
Ok. You are being very goodnatured, and I admire that.
I do and will tease you, exactly because I see the clay/pottery world =3D
from the exact opposite side. But never mind. I know that there are =3D
ClayArters who actually known an ion from an eon, a colloid from an =3D
adenoid and so on. And while I adhere to the Arts & Crafts model of =3D
clay, etc., and your posts often remind me of table talk in my parents' =3D
house, I think that what you doing is swell...Where do you find the =3D
time...
I do have question: Again and one more there is an alarm out about =3D
cancer and cellphones. Now this subject has been "researched" =3D
forever...and every report is different. Why, when something is a =3D
recurrent theme, would a 20 year old study be inappropriate?
And yes, I knew about bentonite in wine...
Back to research on Chelm...
=3D20
Lili Krakowski
Be of good courage
May Luk on fri 16 oct 09
Hello Marian;
Science is always in!
I don't know what is going on with this thread, but I just ran into this:-
"In science you are never proved correct. You only have the best explanatio=
n
until a better one turns up. That's part of the fun of the game."
From my favorite book Civilization and the Limpet by Martin Wells (p. 187)
May "We Are Scientist" Luk
Brooklyn NY
P.S. We are Scientist is a band
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Neon-Cat wrote:
> [...]
> And hey, I'm now into discussing only that about which I have practical
> experience -- science is out, experience is in.
> [...]
>
>
>
--
http://twitter.com/MayLuk
http://www.flickr.com/groups/handmade_mugs/
James Freeman on fri 16 oct 09
Marian...
The scholarly article you keep dismissing was written not by me, but
by actual, credentialed soil scientists in the employ of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. A google search on their names will turn
up dozens of peer reviewed scientific papers and books published by
them either jointly or individually. While I don't think I'd give too
much weight to their word on pottery forming techniques, they might
know just a bit about their own field. They seem to be accepted by
other soil scientists as "the real deal".
The article was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal,
meaning that the editors and the other scientists found the methods
and the results to be meritorious. True, it was written in 1987 (not
exactly the dark ages), and though you seem to insist that this
disqualifies the work, I will point out that in the years since it's
publication it has been cited as authoritative in 70 other peer
reviewed, published, scientific papers (you may easily verify this
through Google Scholar). These 70 additional scientists and groups of
scientists, as well as their own reviewers, apparently all missed the
authors' glaring errors too. It's a good thing we have potters in
this world whose hobbies include science, or our scientists would be
constantly leading us astray.
You have written pages of impressive jargon, but of course other than
possibly the two credentialed chemists on the list that I know of, we
as potters have no way of knowing if it is correct or not, a fact that
you seem to count on. I look forward to reading your refutation of
Goldberg and Glaubig's methods and findings in a peer reviewed
scientific journal. Perhaps also the published and peer reviewed
results of your own experimental verification of your theories as
suggested by Vince. I trust you will provide us with links to these
papers once they are published. Until then, please stop trying to
argue with me, as they are not my words. You are arguing with the
messenger.
Have a great life.
...James
--
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I
should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/clayart/
Neon-Cat on fri 16 oct 09
Dear James, to take that article out of the context of how we are using a w=
=3D
eak acid in a clay body and cite it as a justification for the use of a ver=
=3D
y specific term in our non-suspended applications serves no purpose. Who pu=
=3D
t hallucinogens in your cream? I was not arguing with you or the article, j=
=3D
ust discussing what we're doing -- in context.=3D20
And hey, I'm now into discussing only that about which I have practical exp=
=3D
erience -- science is out, experience is in.=3D20
You have a delete key, or did you forget?=3D20
That cream is a kicker!
Marian
--- On Fri, 10/16/09, James Freeman wrote:
> From: James Freeman
> Subject: Re: An offer of cream to Neon-cat
> To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Date: Friday, October 16, 2009, 11:38 AM
> Marian...
>=3D20
> The scholarly article you keep dismissing was written not
> by me, but
> by actual, credentialed soil scientists in the employ of
> the U.S.
> Department of Agriculture.=3DA0 A google search on their
> names will turn
> up dozens of peer reviewed scientific papers and books
> published by
> them either jointly or individually.=3DA0 While I don't
> think I'd give too
> much weight to their word on pottery forming techniques,
> they might
> know just a bit about their own field.=3DA0 They seem to
> be accepted by
> other soil scientists as "the real deal".
>=3D20
> The article was published in a peer reviewed scientific
> journal,
> meaning that the editors and the other scientists found the
> methods
> and the results to be meritorious.=3DA0 True, it was
> written in 1987 (not
> exactly the dark ages), and though you seem to insist that
> this
> disqualifies the work, I will point out that in the years
> since it's
> publication it has been cited as authoritative in 70 other
> peer
> reviewed, published, scientific papers (you may easily
> verify this
> through Google Scholar).=3DA0 These 70 additional
> scientists and groups of
> scientists, as well as their own reviewers, apparently all
> missed the
> authors' glaring errors too.=3DA0 It's a good thing we
> have potters in
> this world whose hobbies include science, or our scientists
> would be
> constantly leading us astray.
>=3D20
> You have written pages of impressive jargon, but of course
> other than
> possibly the two credentialed chemists on the list that I
> know of, we
> as potters have no way of knowing if it is correct or not,
> a fact that
> you seem to count on.=3DA0 I look forward to reading your
> refutation of
> Goldberg and Glaubig's methods and findings in a peer
> reviewed
> scientific journal.=3DA0 Perhaps also the published and
> peer reviewed
> results of your own experimental verification of your
> theories as
> suggested by Vince.=3DA0 I trust you will provide us with
> links to these
> papers once they are published.=3DA0 Until then, please
> stop trying to
> argue with me, as they are not my words.=3DA0 You are
> arguing with the
> messenger.
>=3D20
> Have a great life.
>=3D20
> ...James
> --
> James Freeman
>=3D20
> "All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of
> advice.=3DA0 I
> should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be
> believed."
> -Michel de Montaigne
>=3D20
> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/clayart/
>
| |
|
