Brandon Phillips on thu 10 mar 11
Our art dept. is in the market for a new clay mixer, we have a 25 year old
bluebird that still works but has been deemed unsafe, which in a
university setting it is. (sidenote: anyone interested in a 25 year old
bluebird, handyman special, eh?)
I was set on a soldner mixer, I have used them in the past and much prefer
them to bluebirds. My supplier has recommended getting a peter pugger
pm-100 mixer/pugger over a soldner. I have no experience with a PP but
have heard nothing but good things about them. We have no pugmill at the
school but the pm-100 isn't de-airing so I don't know how much of a
benefit that would be, it would certainly make unloading the clay easier I
think.
My concern is the ease/cost of repair if something breaks down. I know I
can work on a soldner, have no idea about a PP. The price is similar
between the two, the PP mixes a little less clay at once than the soldner.
Basically I'm just worried about it holding up as well as the soldner in
an academic setting.
Any advice, suggestions, recommendations would be appreciated.
Brandon Phillips
supportyourlocalpotter.blogspot.com
Vince Pitelka on thu 10 mar 11
Brandon Phillips wrote:
"Our art dept. is in the market for a new clay mixer, we have a 25 year old
bluebird that still works but has been deemed unsafe, which in a university
setting it is. (sidenote: anyone interested in a 25 year old bluebird,
handyman special, eh?). I was set on a soldner mixer, I have used them in
the past and much prefer
them to bluebirds. My supplier has recommended getting a peter Pugger
pm-100 mixer/pugger over a soldner. I have no experience with a PP but hav=
e
heard nothing but good things about them. We have no pugmill at the
school but the pm-100 isn't de-airing so I don't know how much of a benefit
that would be, it would certainly make unloading the clay easier I think."
Brandon -
Peter Puggers are great machines, but the Peter Pugger you are referring to
mixes a LOT less clay than the Soldner. I am assuming you are talking abou=
t
the Soldner professional mixer, because you would not want to consider the
studio mixer for an institutional application (and I am not sure they even
still make the studio model). Do you have a pugmill in the studio? We hav=
e
the big Soldner, and a Bluebird non-deairing pugmill, and it is the perfect
combination for mixing most claybodies. We also have a big Venco for
pugging and deairing porcelain and whiteware bodies, but for most
applications the combination of the Soldner and the Bluebird pugmill is
ideal.
Even if I did not have the pugmill, if I was facing mixing a lot of clay fo=
r
an academic program, I would still get the Soldner. I do not think that an=
y
other mixer can begin to keep up with it. It is very easy to use and easy
to clean once you get used to it. If are interested I'd be happy to send
you a copy of my handout on using it, unloading it, and cleaning it.
I am hesitant to say anything that sounds critical of the Peter Pugger,
because I really think that they are beautiful machines, but I was recently
doing a short visiting artist gig at another university here in Tennessee,
and the clay they supplied for my demos had been mixed in a big non-deairin=
g
Peter Pugger. It had so much air in it that it had to be wedged extra long
in order to restore a reasonable level of plasticity. When we mix
claybodies in the Soldner, we add the full measure of water plus all the
clay materials and then go away and leave it running for an hour or so.
This helps to thoroughly wet the clay particles (not as much as the slurry
method, but better than most mechanical mixers), and then add the feldspar,
flint, talc, grog, sand, or whatever nonplastics. Coming out of the Soldner=
,
I can guarantee that that clay takes a lot less wedging than the clay I was
using out of the big non-deairing Peter Pugger. Now, that certainly is not
any kind of comprehensive comparison, but I have always wondered how the
short pugging barrel on the Peter Puggers is able to compact and de-air the
clay adequately, and now I am wondering if it really can. I hope we hear
from others who use the larger non-deairing Peter Puggers.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
William & Susan Schran User on thu 10 mar 11
On 3/10/11 11:27 AM, "Brandon Phillips"
wrote:
> I was set on a soldner mixer, I have used them in the past and much prefe=
r
> them to bluebirds. My supplier has recommended getting a peter pugger
> pm-100 mixer/pugger over a soldner. I have no experience with a PP but
> have heard nothing but good things about them. We have no pugmill at the
> school but the pm-100 isn't de-airing so I don't know how much of a
> benefit that would be, it would certainly make unloading the clay easier =
I
> think.
The PM100 is 3hp, the Soldner Pro model is 5hp, if just mixing clay is your
concern, then I'd suggest the Soldner Pro is your best bet.
FYI - we have a Peter Pugger VM20 for mixing/pugging recycled clay, don't
mix any new clay and for small school/studios, I would suggest the Pugger i=
s
the way to go.
Bill
--
William "Bill" Schran
wschran@cox.net
wschran@nvcc.edu
http://www.creativecreekartisans.com
bill geisinger on thu 10 mar 11
My situation is a soldner and a peter pugger we use them in combination it
is the best situation I can think of. The vacuum certainly makes it easier
for beginning students. They are both easy to use and easy to clean. BTW
Vince I'd love to get a copy of your handout!
bill geisinger
DeAnza College
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Brandon Phillips wrote:
> "Our art dept. is in the market for a new clay mixer, we have a 25 year o=
ld
> bluebird that still works but has been deemed unsafe, which in a universi=
ty
> setting it is. (sidenote: anyone interested in a 25 year old bluebird,
> handyman special, eh?). I was set on a soldner mixer, I have used them i=
n
> the past and much prefer
> them to bluebirds. My supplier has recommended getting a peter Pugger
> pm-100 mixer/pugger over a soldner. I have no experience with a PP but
> have
> heard nothing but good things about them. We have no pugmill at the
> school but the pm-100 isn't de-airing so I don't know how much of a benef=
it
> that would be, it would certainly make unloading the clay easier I think.=
"
>
> Brandon -
> Peter Puggers are great machines, but the Peter Pugger you are referring =
to
> mixes a LOT less clay than the Soldner. I am assuming you are talking
> about
> the Soldner professional mixer, because you would not want to consider th=
e
> studio mixer for an institutional application (and I am not sure they eve=
n
> still make the studio model). Do you have a pugmill in the studio? We
> have
> the big Soldner, and a Bluebird non-deairing pugmill, and it is the perfe=
ct
> combination for mixing most claybodies. We also have a big Venco for
> pugging and deairing porcelain and whiteware bodies, but for most
> applications the combination of the Soldner and the Bluebird pugmill is
> ideal.
>
> Even if I did not have the pugmill, if I was facing mixing a lot of clay
> for
> an academic program, I would still get the Soldner. I do not think that
> any
> other mixer can begin to keep up with it. It is very easy to use and eas=
y
> to clean once you get used to it. If are interested I'd be happy to send
> you a copy of my handout on using it, unloading it, and cleaning it.
>
> I am hesitant to say anything that sounds critical of the Peter Pugger,
> because I really think that they are beautiful machines, but I was recent=
ly
> doing a short visiting artist gig at another university here in Tennessee=
,
> and the clay they supplied for my demos had been mixed in a big
> non-deairing
> Peter Pugger. It had so much air in it that it had to be wedged extra lo=
ng
> in order to restore a reasonable level of plasticity. When we mix
> claybodies in the Soldner, we add the full measure of water plus all the
> clay materials and then go away and leave it running for an hour or so.
> This helps to thoroughly wet the clay particles (not as much as the slurr=
y
> method, but better than most mechanical mixers), and then add the feldspa=
r,
> flint, talc, grog, sand, or whatever nonplastics. Coming out of the
> Soldner,
> I can guarantee that that clay takes a lot less wedging than the clay I w=
as
> using out of the big non-deairing Peter Pugger. Now, that certainly is n=
ot
> any kind of comprehensive comparison, but I have always wondered how the
> short pugging barrel on the Peter Puggers is able to compact and de-air t=
he
> clay adequately, and now I am wondering if it really can. I hope we hear
> from others who use the larger non-deairing Peter Puggers.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Tech University
> vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
>
Larry Kruzan on fri 11 mar 11
My concern is the ease/cost of repair if something breaks down. I know I
can work on a soldner, have no idea about a PP. The price is similar
between the two, the PP mixes a little less clay at once than the soldner.
Basically I'm just worried about it holding up as well as the soldner in
an academic setting.
Any advice, suggestions, recommendations would be appreciated.
Brandon Phillips
supportyourlocalpotter.blogspot.com
<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>
Hi Brandon,
I've been using a Peter Pugger VPM60 in a production studio for the past 4
years. I've been very happy with it since I hate to wedge clay. My clay
comes out ready for the wheel or slab. Last year I did not use more than 3
or 4 tons of clay (things slowed down a lot) but the three years before tha=
t
saw 5-7 tons of clay through it each year.
No service issues at all.
The PP is a more complex machine than the solder. I feel that the two
machines do different jobs. The soldner is a mixer - plain and simple, that
is all it does. The PP your dealer suggested to you is a pugmil/mixer - the
most important part of it is that it will begin the wedging process for you=
r
students. I don't recall if it deairs or not but I don't think it does.
When I was in school, we have a soldner that we mixed clay in and a peter
pugger that we then ran the clay through to refine it. Although it was not =
a
de-airing machine, it rendered a good solid pug of clay.
The PP we had at school was 20+ years old and still making clay. My Prof
said that the only maintenance it required was greasing it once a semester
and occasional cleanout if a student wanted to run porcelain. It was a
working beast.
Congrats on the funding coupe!
Larry Kruzan
Lost Creek Pottery
www.lostcreekpottery.com
Larry Kruzan on fri 11 mar 11
Now, that certainly is not
any kind of comprehensive comparison, but I have always wondered how the
short pugging barrel on the Peter Puggers is able to compact and de-air the
clay adequately, and now I am wondering if it really can. I hope we hear
from others who use the larger non-deairing Peter Puggers.
- Vince
<<<<<<>>>>>>>
Hi Vince and all,
I have ran many, many tons of clay through my PP VPM-60 pugmill. I can tell
you that if someone pugs the clay out of the machine without adequately
mixing "under vacuum", you will have air in the clay and it will not be
compacted. Since the vacuum chamber is not in the snout, it does not need
the long snout, in fact, making it longer would not result in better wedged
clay. The air is extracted in the big chamber not in the snout like other
machines. The instructions from Peter Pugger give do some simple guidelines=
,
but experience with a particular clay will be the best guide.
Like you, I've tried to use clay that I was rushing through the machine - i=
t
will need wedged. Operating the machine as it is designed is the most
important thing.
I mix my clay to taste,
Place the machine in the vacuum state until the gage does not drop anymore
(around -26 IWC), and allow the machine to mix for 5-10 minutes more at a
minimum before pugging the batch out. It is not unusual for me to mix it fo=
r
longer times depending on if I am mixing dry ingredients or wetted stock.
While I do not know the person who was prepping your clay and I certainly
have no idea of their background, or if that operator perhaps was not real
familiar with the PP, but WAS more experienced with a more conventional
pugmill - they just may have thought that the clay could just be forced
through without the required runtime under vacuum. This will work with the
older designs because of the vacuum chamber and shredder screens in the
snout, but again the PP mixes and vacuums in the same chamber, the snout is
just there for shaping and additional compaction.
Again, I don't mean to disparage whoever was mixing the clay for you.
I tell folks that I'll give up my PeterPugger when they pry it out of my
dead, cold, clay covered hands. LOL
Be well friend,
Larry
In sunny central Florida - Vacation time is sweet!
Pam Barker on mon 14 mar 11
When people visit my small studio the first thing I show them is my Peter=
=3D
=3D20
Pugger. Reclaiming clay in a small space was a huge issue for me and th=
=3D
is=3D20
solved the problem. I can throw almost anything into the hopper and out=3D=
20=3D
comes nicely deaired clay ready for me to throw. No wedging required. =
=3D
Best=3D20
investment in studio equipment I have ever made. I've not had any issues=
=3D
=3D20
with my PP since I got it several years ago. Easy to maintain, easy to c=
=3D
lean.
-Pam
pbarker
Spirited Earth Pottery
| |
|
