Craig Martell on tue 23 nov 99
Elizabeth replied:
>let me rephrase, then...
>
>amateur chemists mixing glazes in their studios
>without the rigor of science to back them up
>and explain the eutectics involved in many
>layered chemical blends and reliably predict
>results might as well be voodoo for as much as
>one will obtain repeatable results.
Hey Elizabeth:
I got a black cat bone
I got a mojo too
gonna call up my second cuzzin
lil' John the conqueroo............
Muddy Waters shares a possible approach to eutectics. See also: "I Put A
Spell On You" by Screamin' Jay Hawkins.
Ok, this is not a time for levity. :>) I mix glazes all the
time. Formulate them too. I'm not an amatuer. I'm good at
it. Why? Because I read, listen, learn, ask questions, invest my time in
knowing about what I do and what I want to do. I'm nobody special, I'm
just interested in knowing about the life and driving force below the
surface. A ceramist can be involved with eutectics on several levels, from
not having a clue to actually producing one or two in a lifetime and
realizing that it's happened. You're correct of course in saying that
understanding this system is possibly unreachable. Possibly so! There are
a lot of ceramists that do understand and use science. Whether you want to
deal with any of this or not, it's always there doing what it does. It's
tough to devote time to learning some of this seemingly abstract
theory. There are pots to make and bills to pay but sometimes we take the
time to do it anyway. When problems arise, the more you know, the more
self reliant you are and your chances of solution are so much better. I
like to try and solve my own problems if I can, so I spend a bit of time
with science. It's kind of relaxing after making pots all day. Well, I
could have a beer or something too. And I gotta tell you guys that this
list is an incredible resource for all kinds of info, mystic and non.
>science is great, but it ain't art, & vice versa
There is a connection between the two. What we do isn't science but
science is the study of what we do. A bit of voodoo is nice now and then
though.
regards, Craig Martell in Oregon.....waiting with a nickel in my hand for
Lucy Van Pelt and some psychiatric advice.
Gavin Stairs on wed 24 nov 99
At 12:43 PM 11/23/99 -0500, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Elizabeth replied:
>
>>let me rephrase, then...
>>
>>amateur chemists mixing glazes in their studios
>>without the rigor of science to back them up
>>and explain the eutectics involved in many
>>layered chemical blends and reliably predict
>>results might as well be voodoo for as much as
>>one will obtain repeatable results.
>
>Hey Elizabeth:
>
>I got a black cat bone
>I got a mojo too
>gonna call up my second cuzzin
>lil' John the conqueroo............
>
>Muddy Waters shares a possible approach to eutectics. See also: "I Put A
>Spell On You" by Screamin' Jay Hawkins.
>
>Ok, this is not a time for levity. :>) I mix glazes all the
>time. Formulate them too. I'm not an amatuer. I'm good at
>it. Why? Because I read, listen, learn, ask questions, invest my time in
>knowing about what I do and what I want to do. I'm nobody special, I'm
>just interested in knowing about the life and driving force below the
>surface. A ceramist can be involved with eutectics on several levels, from
>not having a clue to actually producing one or two in a lifetime and
>realizing that it's happened.
Just another bit of eutectic lore. Many have probably come close to a
eutectic once or twice. Remember that glaze that didn't melt, and didn't
melt, and then ran off the pot? That's what you get from a eutectic. It
all melts of a whumpus, and there's nothing to keep it from running. Most
practical glazes are not eutectics. They stand to one side of a eutectic,
close enough to have the lowered solidus (the temperature at which the
first liquid phase appears: and surprise! it is eutectoid to begin with),
but far enough to have an elevated liquidus (the temperature at which all
phases go liquid: this is not a eutectic). In the fuzzy range between
solidus and liquidus, you will find a practical glaze that sticks to the
pot, but comes out more or less mature. Mind you, some glazes probably try
to get by with simple high viscocity, but those glazes will be potential
troublemakers for being sensitive, and prone to pinholes and other defects.
And others depend on the refractoriness of some constituents to delay the
melt, etc. Nothing is that simple, after all.
Gavin
the Gallaghers on wed 24 nov 99
>science is great, but it ain't art, & vice versa
>There is a connection between the two. What we do isn't science but
>science is the study of what we do. A bit of voodoo is nice now and then
>though.
Craig,
I highly agree with your point and will add that there is a bit of "mad
scientist" in every artist, and a type of artistry in every good science
project. If there wasn't, well, not nearly as many exciting things would
ever come of of all that mixing, testing, examining, discovering, etc.,
etc.........
my .02
Michelle
Ray Aldridge on wed 24 nov 99
At 12:43 PM 11/23/99 EST, Craig wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Elizabeth replied:
>
(snip)
>
>>science is great, but it ain't art, & vice versa
>
>There is a connection between the two. What we do isn't science but
>science is the study of what we do. A bit of voodoo is nice now and then
>though.
>
At the risk of walking on gilded splinters...
This is an interesting thread. While I agree with Elizabeth that you don't
have to be a scientist to be a good potter, it's true that making pottery
is probably the most technically demanding art form. To me that's part of
its appeal. That and the pyromaniac aspects....
Has anyone ever noticed how many engineers end up being led astray by
pottery? If Vegas ran a book on "what art form is most likely to be chosen
by an engineer undergoing a midlife crisis and seeking artistic
fulfillment," the smart money would go on pottery.
The technical aspects of clay are irresistable to folks with a scientific
bent, it seems. I worked in a number of forms before settling on clay, and
I'm sure I was heavily influenced by the idea that there was meaningful
experimentation to be found in the field. To a kid who always loved the
lab in school, but whose realworld options for a scientific career had gone
a-glimmering, clay was a wonderful thing. You didn't need a degree and the
backing of enormous academic bureaucracies to make useful discoveries.
I still feel that way. My re-entry into the field has produced a lot more
experimentation than actual pottery, but I'm making progress.
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
Gavin Stairs on mon 29 nov 99
At 08:45 AM 24/11/99 , you wrote:
>... practical glazes are not eutectics. They stand to one side of a eutectic,
>close enough to have the lowered solidus (the temperature at which the
>first liquid phase appears: and surprise! it is eutectoid to begin with),
>but far enough to have an elevated liquidus (the temperature at which all
>phases go liquid: this is not a eutectic). ...
Ivor Lewis caught me out inventing technical terms on this one. Eutectoid
has already been used for something else. It wouldn't be the first time a
term was used for more than one thing, but I won't argue.
What I used the term to refer to is a liquid phase with the eutectic
composition, but off the eutectic point. That is, in company with a solid
phase of different composition. Now you know why I invented a term for it.
Thank you, Ivor.
Gavin
Gavin Stairs on mon 29 nov 99
At 08:45 AM 24/11/99 , I wrote:
>... practical glazes are not eutectics. They stand to one side of a eutectic,
>close enough to have the lowered solidus (the temperature at which the
>first liquid phase appears: and surprise! it is eutectoid to begin with),
>but far enough to have an elevated liquidus (the temperature at which all
>phases go liquid: this is not a eutectic). ...
Ivor Lewis caught me out inventing technical terms on this one. Eutectoid
has already been used for something else. It wouldn't be the first time a
term was used for more than one thing, but I won't argue.
What I used the term to refer to is a liquid phase with the eutectic
composition, but off the eutectic point. That is, in company with a solid
phase of different composition. Now you know why I invented a term for it.
Thank you, Ivor.
Gavin
| |
|
