Snail Scott on tue 12 dec 00
At 05:24 PM 12/12/00 +0000, you wrote:
>Cindy Strnad wrote:
>
>> There are, of course, advantages to either ^9 or ^6. You will have a few
>> more options as to color at ^6.
>
>I wonder if this is really true. I think most people assume it's true,
>because the way it's usually done is that the people who are firing to
>cone 6 are firing in oxidation, and the people who are firing to cone 9
>or 10 are firing reduction.
>Paul Lewing, Seattle
>
Color changes from ^6 to ^9 in Ox: the red/pink/
purple stains don't hold up well. (Also some yellows,
as you said, but not all.)
-Snail
Charles on tue 12 dec 00
Bret,
Cone 6 is a fine temperature to work at. There are many possibilities
for glazes, many recipes already available. It will save you a considerable
amount in firing costs, take less time. I won't say it is better, but if
your primary objective is to save some energy, it will work and you will
still have lovely glazes. All of my work is fired to Cone 6 in an electric
kiln. I have recipes and pictures and processes posted on my webpage. Feel
free to make use of it.
-Charles
Visit my webpage...
http://www.thecreativeoasis.com/Hughes/hughes.html
----- Original Message -----
From: Bret Hinsch
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 3:07 AM
Subject: cone 9 vs cone 6 ox.
> I'm currently doing cone 9 functional ware in oxidation. Cone 6 seems to
be
> increasingly popular, and I don't want to waste energy, so I'm considering
> switching from cone 9 to 6.
>
> Are there any obvious advantages or disadvantages to either cone 9 or 6 in
> oxidation? Is there any real difference between the two other than energy
> cost? I'd like to know if anyone has any opinions about which alternative
> is better before I switch clay.
>
> Bret
>
____________________________________________________________________________
_________
> Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Wade Blocker on tue 12 dec 00
Paul,
I have been working with clay for well over 30 years. I have had a gas
kiln which I fired to cone 9 or l0.
Presently I have a high fire electric kiln- a Skutt. I have fired in
oxidation to cone 8 to 10, and in the last decade cone 5 and 6 oxidation.
My glazes have been changing over the years.I am not a production potter
and like to experiment with glazes. Otherwise it would be just too boring
for me. Generally, after a few years, I change all my glazes.
In my gas kiln there were the usual oriental glazes, copper red,
tenmokus, and celadons. I used a cone 10 porcelain body and my work was
thrown.
When I fired to cone 8 to 10 in my electric kiln I also used a porcelain
body, artificial copper reds, lots of blue glazes and Albany slip based
ones.
About 12 years ago I started firing at the cone 5 to 6 level, occasionally
higher if I wanted to use an older glaze recipe.
The clay I now use is white stoneware. I no longer work on the wheel -
so everything is handbuilt. I discovered stains,found recipes in CM and
books, and with the addition of commercial glazes my ware is far more
colorful and interesting than in the past.
About 25 years ago I had the privilege of visiting Beatrice Wood in her
Ohai, CA studio. She had about 2 dozen nondescript pots sitting on a table.
She told me that she needed to reglaze them. That information did not take
hold for a long time, since I did not associate luster firings on
earthenware with anything I did.
An article in CM about multiglazing finally brought this to my attention.
Since then about half of my ware undergoes multiple firings with all sorts
of glazes.Until I am satisfied, a piece can be
glaze fired three or more times.
My kiln does not require to be rewired as frequently as when I fired to
cone 10, nor does a firing take me that long.
I hope this answers your question. Mia in chilly ABQ
Bret Hinsch on tue 12 dec 00
I'm currently doing cone 9 functional ware in oxidation. Cone 6 seems to be
increasingly popular, and I don't want to waste energy, so I'm considering
switching from cone 9 to 6.
Are there any obvious advantages or disadvantages to either cone 9 or 6 in
oxidation? Is there any real difference between the two other than energy
cost? I'd like to know if anyone has any opinions about which alternative
is better before I switch clay.
Bret
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
Ken Chin-Purcell on tue 12 dec 00
Bret,
> Are there any obvious advantages or disadvantages to either cone 9 or 6 in
> oxidation?
Last year I asked a similar question. Take a look at: http://www.potters.org/subject28839.htm
The thread "why not cone 8" also has some good info: http://www.potters.org/subject21625.htm
I sided with Ray Aldridge and Ron Roy and now fire cone 8.
-- Ken Chin-Purcell
Kendall Frye on tue 12 dec 00
In my experience, the cone 6 glazes don't move as much. Therefore you have
to work harder to get an even coat of glaze if that's what you want.
Kendall Frye
>From: Bret Hinsch
>Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
>To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>Subject: cone 9 vs cone 6 ox.
>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 02:07:00 -0600
>
>I'm currently doing cone 9 functional ware in oxidation. Cone 6 seems to
>be
>increasingly popular, and I don't want to waste energy, so I'm considering
>switching from cone 9 to 6.
>
>Are there any obvious advantages or disadvantages to either cone 9 or 6 in
>oxidation? Is there any real difference between the two other than energy
>cost? I'd like to know if anyone has any opinions about which alternative
>is better before I switch clay.
>
>Bret
>_____________________________________________________________________________________
>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
>http://explorer.msn.com
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
>melpots@pclink.com.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
Dave Finkelnburg on tue 12 dec 00
Bret,
You asked which is better for firing, C6 or 9? "Better" is probably
not the word you want to use with this question. It's way too subjective,
and the answer will always elude you.
The difference between Cone 6 and 9 is obviously energy, as you note,
but also what will melt at Cone 6. You'll use more flux, less silica and
alumina, in general. I've fired at both temperatures and in my limited
experience found right away that not only does the clay body have to be
formulated differently, but the glazes and colors can change dramatically.
Another generalization--you'll tend to get brighter colors as you fire at
lower temperatures.
I have glazes I like better at cone 6, others I like better at cone 10.
You'll find the same thing. If energy saving is really important, why not
go to cone 3 or 4 and really save power? :-)
Try some lower fire clay and glazes and see what you think.
Good potting!
Dave Finkelnburg
Idaho Fire Pottery.com.
Cindy Strnad on tue 12 dec 00
Bret,
There are, of course, advantages to either ^9 or ^6. You will have a few
more options as to color at ^6. More assurance of complete melt and
vitrification at ^9. I fire mostly to ^6 and have done some experimentation
at ^10. Though I will continue to experiment, I am happy with ^6 ware. As
you said, it does give one an energy savings, and if it takes away a few
treasured glazes, it gives back many more.
Cindy Strnad
Earthen Vessels Pottery
RR 1, Box 51
Custer, SD 57730
USA
earthenv@gwtc.net
http://www.earthenvesselssd.com
NLudd@AOL.COM on tue 12 dec 00
Bret (taoyijia@HOTMAIL.COM) wrote
>Are there any obvious advantages or disadvantages to either cone 9 or 6
>in oxidation? Is there any real difference between the two other than
>energy cost? I'd like to know if anyone has any opinions about which
>alternative is better before I switch clay.
Perhaps your location matters. As for me, until a clay supplier in California
sells midrange stoneware bodies as good (I hear) as Tucker's or Highwater's
out east I am sticking with cone ten. Otherwise I'd definitely try the cone
four to six range. It's the clay that is the reason I go to cone ten and
accept the higher firing cost.
Ned
In Chico, California
Ababi Sharon on tue 12 dec 00
Next week I will make my first^9 firing it will be for a special
purpose.Usually I fire to ^6 and describe my works, decorating. In the
wares,
wherever there is a possibility, that will be used for food or drink, I put
a
glaze with friendly ingredients. I did not learn the new limit formula of
John Hesselberth and RR. If you ask for colors, I would not hassitate to
change the cone. If you use the high cone for foodsafe ware and your income
is good, I would think twice to change it. I invite you to my photo
album, the title, CERAMIC PIECES , first page the first 4 pieces, as well as
the title AS GLAZED Different ^6 glazes. Welcome to 6!
Ababi Sharon
www.photoisland.com
ID: sharon@shoval.org.il
Password:clay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bret Hinsch"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 10:07 AM
Subject: cone 9 vs cone 6 ox.
> I'm currently doing cone 9 functional ware in oxidation. Cone 6 seems to
be
> increasingly popular, and I don't want to waste energy, so I'm considering
> switching from cone 9 to 6.
>
> Are there any obvious advantages or disadvantages to either cone 9 or 6 in
> oxidation? Is there any real difference between the two other than energy
> cost? I'd like to know if anyone has any opinions about which alternative
> is better before I switch clay.
>
> Bret
>
____________________________________________________________________________
_________
> Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
PurpleLama@AOL.COM on tue 12 dec 00
In a message dated 12/12/00 2:29:10 PM, NLudd@AOL.COM writes:
<< Perhaps your location matters. As for me, until a clay supplier in
California
sells midrange stoneware bodies as good (I hear) as Tucker's or Highwater's
out east I am sticking with cone ten. Otherwise I'd definitely try the cone
four to six range. It's the clay that is the reason I go to cone ten and
accept the higher firing cost. >>
Perhaps we need to establish a clay buying co-op in California.
Shula
Redondo Beach, CA
Paul Lewing on tue 12 dec 00
Cindy Strnad wrote:
> There are, of course, advantages to either ^9 or ^6. You will have a few
> more options as to color at ^6.
I wonder if this is really true. I think most people assume it's true,
because the way it's usually done is that the people who are firing to
cone 6 are firing in oxidation, and the people who are firing to cone 9
or 10 are firing reduction. In reality (I think) it's the switch in
atmosphere that means you can get fewer colors, not the switch in
temperature. I know you lose the antimony yellows and non-encapsulated
cadmium down around cone 01, but I don't know that there are any other
colors that disappear just because of the increased temperature.
I've done high-fire reduction and mid-range oxidation, but never
high-fire oxidation, which is what Bret's question was about. What
little cone 9 or 10 oxidation work I've seen seemed to me to be as
colorful as cone 5 or 6. I'd be interested if anyone out there can
comment who has really done extensive testing at these two temperatures,
both in oxidation.
Paul Lewing, Seattle
Marcia Selsor on wed 13 dec 00
Dear Paul,
Having fired cone 6 reduction for 20 years I agree it is the atmosphere
that limits the colors. Even using stains on pieces, there are stains
that won't hold in reduction.
Marcia
Paul Lewing wrote:
>
> Cindy Strnad wrote:
>
> > There are, of course, advantages to either ^9 or ^6. You will have a few
> > more options as to color at ^6.
> snip
I know you lose the antimony yellows and non-encapsulated
> cadmium down around cone 01, but I don't know that there are any other
> colors that disappear just because of the increased temperature.
> I've done high-fire reduction and mid-range oxidation, but never
> high-fire oxidation, which is what Bret's question was about. What
> little cone 9 or 10 oxidation work I've seen seemed to me to be as
> colorful as cone 5 or 6. I'd be interested if anyone out there can
> comment who has really done extensive testing at these two temperatures,
> both in oxidation.
> Paul Lewing, Seattle
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
--
Marcia Selsor
selsor@imt.net
http://www.imt.net/~mjbmls
http://www.imt.net/~mjbmls/Tuscany2001.html
Craig Martell on wed 13 dec 00
Paul Lewing remarked:
>In reality (I think) it's the switch in atmosphere that means you can get
>fewer colors, not the switch in
>temperature.
> I'd be interested if anyone out there can comment who has really done
> extensive testing at these two temperatures, both in oxidation.
Hi Paul:
I believe you're correct about atmosphere being the bigger deal than
temperature. I did cone 10 ox in an electric kiln for several years and
got most of what I've seen done at cone 6. I made some chrome tin red
glazes that worked very well. For yellows, I used praseodemium (sp?) and
titanium and they came out pretty well. Never tried any of the
encapsulated stuff because it wasn't available at the time I was firing ox.
later, Craig Martell in Oregon
Leona Stonebridge Arthen on thu 14 dec 00
At 8:45 AM -0500 12/12/00, Kendall Frye wrote:
> In my experience, the cone 6 glazes don't move as much.
In addition to moving glazes, I find the glazes I use to be more forgiving
at the higher temperature. I also make functional kitchen ware and find
that the tighter clay I get at cone 9 makes for a more durable product. I
have accidentally dropped pots on the floor in my studio and not had them
break. I have a concrete floor.
Leona
---
Leona Stonebridge Arthen
leona@javanet.com
Worthington, Massachusetts/USA
Jim Cullen on thu 14 dec 00
I have this problem too, but at Cone 6...the ugly pots bounce and those
gallery-ready pots break in an instant. In fact the uglier they are the
higher and more bounces they withstand. Why is that????
KEEP CENTERED
Cullen
Naperville, Illinois
mail to: jcullen845@ameritech.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leona Stonebridge Arthen"
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: cone 9 vs cone 6 ox.
> At 8:45 AM -0500 12/12/00, Kendall Frye wrote:
> > In my experience, the cone 6 glazes don't move as much.
>
>
> In addition to moving glazes, I find the glazes I use to be more forgiving
> at the higher temperature. I also make functional kitchen ware and find
> that the tighter clay I get at cone 9 makes for a more durable product. I
> have accidentally dropped pots on the floor in my studio and not had them
> break. I have a concrete floor.
>
> Leona
>
>
> ---
> Leona Stonebridge Arthen
> leona@javanet.com
> Worthington, Massachusetts/USA
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
| |
|
