Paul Borian on wed 10 feb 10
i recently stopped using the score and slip method for handles altogether,
after about 10 years of using for every single handle.
Scoring takes more time, leaves little shards of clay everywhere that stick
to pots and also requires the score lines to be smoothed out by hand after
the handles are put on, and sometimes even after that they are visible on
the finished pots; and the slip is messy, getting all over the hands, then
pant legs, then drying up and flaking off into dust...
so i mixed up a batch of "magic water" and now i just dip the ends of the
handles in it and stick them on and smooth off the edges, and that's it.
For casseroles and baking dishes i put them on before they get leather
hard, but i did it that way when i was scoring & slipping too - then when
they get leather hard i flip them over and trim the bottom edge and also
burnish the base because my clay has a lot of grog.
anyway, i have done hundreds like this already and not lost any handles at
all. It's a little quicker and a little cleaner and works just as well.
So, i am just wondering why so many use the score and slip method? is there
any advantage? The only reason i was doing that, as i mentioned in a
previous post, is because that is just how i learned.
Comments?
paul
Dan Hill on thu 11 feb 10
Hi Paul
It sounds like you do your attachments when your pots are still wet or soft=
.
When you are attaching handles at leatherhard it seems to me that scoring
and slipping becomes necessary.
It is amazing that there are so many approaches to something as simple as
attaching a handle to a pot.
Dan Hill
Hill Pottery
www.wilnogardengallery.com
>i recently stopped using the score and slip method for handles altogether,
> after about 10 years of using for every single handle.
> Scoring takes more time, leaves little shards of clay everywhere that
> stick
> to pots and also requires the score lines to be smoothed out by hand afte=
r
> the handles are put on, and sometimes even after that they are visible on
> the finished pots; and the slip is messy, getting all over the hands, the=
n
> pant legs, then drying up and flaking off into dust...
>
> so i mixed up a batch of "magic water" and now i just dip the ends of the
> handles in it and stick them on and smooth off the edges, and that's it.
>
> For casseroles and baking dishes i put them on before they get leather
> hard, but i did it that way when i was scoring & slipping too - then when
> they get leather hard i flip them over and trim the bottom edge and also
> burnish the base because my clay has a lot of grog.
>
> anyway, i have done hundreds like this already and not lost any handles a=
t
> all. It's a little quicker and a little cleaner and works just as well.
> So, i am just wondering why so many use the score and slip method? is
> there
> any advantage? The only reason i was doing that, as i mentioned in a
> previous post, is because that is just how i learned.
> Comments?
>
> paul
>
ivor & olive lewis on fri 12 feb 10
Dear Dan and Paul,
Contrasting and comparing the technology and science of these two competing
processes yields interesting information.
For more than twenty years I have used air thickened deflocculated slip
which has the consistency of thickened cream. This contains a lower
proportion of free water than leather hard clay. This preparation has the
instantaneous properties of Superglue.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis,
Redhill,
South Australia
Paul Borian on fri 12 feb 10
most of the handles are actually put on when leather hard - it was only the
casseroles that i put handles on before that stage, mostly just because it
is more convenient for me.
So, for my clay body at least, i learned that it is not necessary to score
and slip - just dip the ends of the handles in the "magic water" and stick
them on.
paul
On Feb 11, 2010 7:52am, Dan Hill wrote:
> Hi Paul
> It sounds like you do your attachments when your pots are still wet or
> soft. When you are attaching handles at leatherhard it seems to me that
> scoring and slipping becomes necessary.
> It is amazing that there are so many approaches to something as simple as
> attaching a handle to a pot.
> Dan Hill
> Hill Pottery
> www.wilnogardengallery.com
> i recently stopped using the score and slip method for handles altogether=
,
> after about 10 years of using for every single handle.
> Scoring takes more time, leaves little shards of clay everywhere that
> stick
> to pots and also requires the score lines to be smoothed out by hand afte=
r
> the handles are put on, and sometimes even after that they are visible on
> the finished pots; and the slip is messy, getting all over the hands, the=
n
> pant legs, then drying up and flaking off into dust...
> so i mixed up a batch of "magic water" and now i just dip the ends of the
> handles in it and stick them on and smooth off the edges, and that's it.
> For casseroles and baking dishes i put them on before they get leather
> hard, but i did it that way when i was scoring & slipping too - then when
> they get leather hard i flip them over and trim the bottom edge and also
> burnish the base because my clay has a lot of grog.
> anyway, i have done hundreds like this already and not lost any handles a=
t
> all. It's a little quicker and a little cleaner and works just as well.
> So, i am just wondering why so many use the score and slip method? is
> there
> any advantage? The only reason i was doing that, as i mentioned in a
> previous post, is because that is just how i learned.
> Comments?
> paul
ivor & olive lewis on sat 13 feb 10
Dear Paul Borian,
Are you able to explain the science and technology involved when using
"Magic Water" ?
What, by the way, are the ingredients of this product ?
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis,
Redhill,
South Australia
Vince Pitelka on sat 13 feb 10
Ivor Lewis wrote:
"Are you able to explain the science and technology involved when using
'Magic Water?'"
Ivor -
No one seems to be able to explain the science, while many people agree tha=
t
it works. A vinegar slip works very well too, and yet Magic Water
deflocculates and vinegar flocculates. It doesn't make sense.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Vince Pitelka on mon 15 feb 10
Marian Neon-Cat wrote:
"Why are you so adamant that vinegar is a flocculant? Did you state
this in your book? In the many months and years this has been tossed
around on clayart have you come up with a mechanism for same?"
Hi Marian -
I've got a far better way to proceed on this. I am not a scientist. Most o=
f
what I know is based on 41 years of practical experience in clay, so the
things I talk about are the things that work, based on experiential evidenc=
e
and "reasonable" theory. I have referred to vinegar and Epsom salts as
flocculants because other sources identify them as such and because they ac=
t
like flocculants in their effect on clay particles.
So, you obviously have a broad command of science, and I would love to have
you explain to us why vinegar is not a flocculant, and why it helps in
joining clay. You have a gift for explaining the highly-scientific in
accessible terms, and that is much appreciated here on Clayart.
Thanks -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Neon-Cat on mon 15 feb 10
Vince wrote: "No one seems to be able to explain the science, while
many people agree that it works. A vinegar slip works very well too,
and yet Magic Water deflocculates and vinegar flocculates. It doesn't
make sense."
Dear Vince,
Why are you so adamant that vinegar is a flocculant? Did you state
this in your book? In the many months and years this has been tossed
around on clayart have you come up with a mechanism for same?
I could tell you how vinegar aids clay joining and/or fracture healing
and even how it helps clay body workability but it would require that
you give up the idea that it is by vinegar promoted flocculation, an
idea that some of you guys just don't seem to want to let go. I'm
curious as to the mental mechanisms behind this little stumbling block
to increased general understanding of how some of our materials
actually work.
If it is a matter of me not having ten PhDs and scores of publications
under my beltless middle, and forty years in the business of clay
work, I can say that all the ideas I've previously presented are a
matter of accepted general science you could verify for yourself if
you checked. I do understand that there is a basic lack of knowledge
among some regular posters as to basic concepts involving acids, pH,
solubility, and a host of other things. Yet you all use the terms of
science to bolster your positions. Going further requires that
individual go further and dig deeper themselves if we are to fight it
out along the lines of science and fighting and arguing, although a
seeming delight to many, is not my thing. Or you could except an
alternate explanation presented in fairly easy to comprehend terms. It
really is not all that difficult in a general way although the subject
matter is quite complicated and not much discussed among potters.
Others on list may know and not post for the same or similar reasons I
have given. Others who once caught glimpses of how it all works seem
to have drifted off-list entirely, archived messages their only
footprint.
So what's the hitch? I am happily exploring wheel-throwing and know
how vinegar works (and Magic Water, too, although it works differently
than vinegar). What would be my possible motivation for spending time
typing when I could be working if everyone on-list is already so
dead-set on vinegar as a flocculant? Right motivation is everything to
me. That new ideas may take hundreds of years to be accepted is the
reality and meanwhile some people like vinegar and/or Magic Water and
don't much care how they work. Why then these questions that keep
coming back? You were hoping for some scientific proof that you are
right? Would a slight reorientation of thinking really be so bad? The
why behind good results for those that use either vinegar or Magic
Water won't at all change their expectations for continued good
results. I get good results without using either, but the how and why
is interesting.
I love Mel's concept of learning together, but gee, it seems an idea
hard to put into practice on this list at this time. My questions are
relevant not only to this topic at hand but to anyone who might wish
to post something contrary to main-stream Clayart thinking on other
subjects. What I seem to be hearing is the old idiom "children (those
with less than 20 years or so in clay) should be seen and not heard".
I like hearing from a variety of posters at all levels of experience.
Each contribution is a piece of the grand puzzle and gives clues to
working within an evolving and dynamic ceramic tradition. The great
bread thread was marvelous and I enjoyed that even though I don't have
an oven and don't bake bread -- so many respondents, so many ways of
making and baking bread. Were that our other topics so well
represented.
One note of caution for anyone with chronic granulomatous disease
(CGD) -- acetic acid bacteria of the species Granulibacter
bethesdensis has been identified as an agent of invasive human disease
specific in CGD. Scientists are now watching this common bacteria as
an emergent human pathogen and those with a claim of CGD might want to
limit their use of vinegar with regard to clay.
Marian
Neon-Cat
Terrance on mon 15 feb 10
I wrote;
It is always good to fire an arrow into someone from time to time but I t=
=3D
hink=3D20
this time you fired a cannon. There was no need to go into this tirade. =
=3D
I think=3D20
you were a bit hard on some of us on the list.
Yet. You did not explain your knowledge of why? Bla, bla bla.
Terrance
This was in response to Neon-Cat's remarks. In all the excitement I forg=
=3D
ot=3D20
about naming my target.
Eve Rose on mon 15 feb 10
Neon-Cat wrote:
>I could tell you how vinegar aids clay joining and/or fracture healing
>and even how it helps clay body workability....
>(snip)
>...I am happily exploring wheel-throwing and know
>how vinegar works (and Magic Water, too, although it works differently
>than vinegar).
>
>
I am really interested in knowing these things about vinegar and magic
water. Could you elaborate, please?
Eve
Terrance on mon 15 feb 10
It is always good to fire an arrow into someone from time to time but I t=
=3D
hink=3D20
this time you fired a cannon. There was no need to go into this tirade. =
=3D
I think=3D20
you were a bit hard on some of us on the list.
Yet. You did not explain your knowledge of why? Bla, bla bla.
Terrance
Neon-Cat on tue 16 feb 10
What a sweet note, Vince. And the responses by some of the others are
also much appreciated.
When I have a little more time I'll be happy to post a bit about how
vinegar works to help potters, complete with a few handy new
buzz-words. I'm being a little selfish with my time this year,
concentrating on skills development, that and staying afloat. I gotta
make a few things, have a little fun in the learning and so linger
awhile here on clayart. Potters and other clay workers are, for the
most part, great people and I'm hooked on this whole clay-deal.
Marian
Ron Roy on tue 16 feb 10
It's east to see why anyone believes vinegar is a flocculant. All you
have to do is make up a cup of slip - say as thick as heavy cream -
any clay you want to use will do. Start adding drops of vinegar while
stirring - the slip will get thicker.
We all know that adding soda will deflocc a slip and make it thinner -
so it's only natural that we call the thickening by vinegar
flocculation.
RR
Quoting Neon-Cat :
> Vince wrote: "No one seems to be able to explain the science, while
> many people agree that it works. A vinegar slip works very well too,
> and yet Magic Water deflocculates and vinegar flocculates. It doesn't
> make sense."
>
> Dear Vince,
>
> Why are you so adamant that vinegar is a flocculant? Did you state
> this in your book? In the many months and years this has been tossed
> around on clayart have you come up with a mechanism for same?
| |
|
