Alisa and Claus Clausen on wed 8 nov 00
Adding to Jonathan's post, I follow mostly of what he describes,
as far a 100 gram batches being adequate and rounding off decimals.
I make many tests a year, if I have to guess, I would guess 20 every 2 =
weeks,
multiply that by 25, if I get a cold, so let us say 500. I certainly do =
not want to
use more raw materials than necessary, because so much of it is wasted =
on=20
glazes that do not work for me.
I think the 100 grm. batches are quite enough for covering test bowls =
and tiles and
the accuracy is fine. I find with my tests that I can sub. materials, =
round up to=20
the next round decimal, and some other flucuations, and the results are =
usually
similar to the "original" receipe results as posted. I do pay good =
attention to
colorants amounts, but also round them if they are calling for example =
,99 of
something. Honestly, could there be a difference at 1.? I also do the =
eyeball
dividing of 24 and 35%, by measuring out 1.0 gram, on the tare weight of
a piece of plastic, and divide it with a knife like Jonathan suggests.
I do not go too high up in absolute exactness sometimes, because I want
to see how flexible a glaze can be, and most of them seem to have quite
a good margin for substituting local frits, feldspars, etc. I would not =
like a=20
glaze if it had to be precise to the 100th of a decimal.
Most of the differences in a glaze I see after a firing have more to do =
with=20
the firing and clay type, than an extra gram of this or that.
I also use a "stick blender" or whatever they are called, very easy to =
use,
takes up no space and fits in the disposable glaze cups.
Good luck,=20
I have tests in the kiln now and hopelessly many more to go,
Best regards,
Alisa in Denmark
I just realized why my spelling my be poor. I do not wear my glasses
and I should.
| |
|
