Bill Merrill on mon 30 nov 09
How many glaze/clay body calculation softwares are there on the market? =
=3D
Would each one give the same answer to a specific issue? They were =3D
written by someone, that considers themselves to have put absolute =3D
irrefutable information in the program and have perfect "limits" for =3D
every glaze and temperature range to which they are fired.
=3D20
I saw on a materials site recently that a soda spar was a spar high in =3D
Potash. Potash is potash and while most spars have different amounts of =3D
Sodiunm, potassium, etc the dominating number is what is generally makes =
=3D
a spar, potash or sodium. I just wonder if it was a transription error. =
=3D
I wrote the site and never heard from them.
=3D20
Without seeming to belittle these programs, someone had to have written =3D
them. My question was and is : Which calculation software have gotten =3D
high marks in their quality and accuracy? I know many variables are =3D
possible and so many rules of formulation go by the wayside when coming =3D
up with glazes and clay bodies. Some of the best glazes I have used and =
=3D
seen don't fit into a standard idea of what a glaze is supposed to be.
=3D20
I think I would like the use it going from batch to unity as it would =3D
save save me from making a math mistake...or would it? It seems that =3D
you still must know your materials well ,so as to put into the glaze the =
=3D
materials you want to use and what base the glaze must be to achieve =3D
certain colors since the base helps determine the color an oxide can go. =
=3D
I think we forget some time that color is a function of wavelength and =3D
what we really are doing is changing the glaze to reflect the color we =3D
see and to absorb the colors we don't see.
=3D20
Bill Merrill
=3D20
Picasso said " computers are useless.They can only give answers."
William & Susan Schran User on tue 1 dec 09
On 11/30/09 8:04 PM, "Bill Merrill" wrote:
> How many glaze/clay body calculation softwares are there on the market? =
Would
> each one give the same answer to a specific issue? They were written by
> someone, that considers themselves to have put absolute irrefutable
> information in the program and have perfect "limits" for every glaze and
> temperature range to which they are fired.
>
> I saw on a materials site recently that a soda spar was a spar high in Po=
tash.
> Potash is potash and while most spars have different amounts of Sodiunm,
> potassium, etc the dominating number is what is generally makes a spar, p=
otash
> or sodium. I just wonder if it was a transription error. I wrote the si=
te
> and never heard from them.
>
> Without seeming to belittle these programs, someone had to have written t=
hem.
> My question was and is : Which calculation software have gotten high mark=
s in
> their quality and accuracy? I know many variables are possible and so ma=
ny
> rules of formulation go by the wayside when coming up with glazes and cla=
y
> bodies. Some of the best glazes I have used and seen don't fit into a
> standard idea of what a glaze is supposed to be.
I have used GlazeMaster and Insight.
Both are written by folks I trust to have entered accurate information.
Each allow one to enter other materials with formula information one can ge=
t
from the manufacturer.
I don't believe there are any "perfect" limits for glazes.
I see limit formulations as essentially guides.
They provide a range for materials to fall into to provide predictable
results.
Desired results will be different for each potter.
Functional potters want functionally stable glazes.
Others may want a more decorative surface.
I do crystalline glazes and they certainly don't fit the standard idea of
what a glaze should be.
Who in their right mind would want to create a glaze that would run off the
pot? - But that's what I do!
Bill
--
William "Bill" Schran
wschran@cox.net
wschran@nvcc.edu
http://www.creativecreekartisans.com
| |
|
