Khaimraj Seepersad on sat 20 jan 01
Mn0 = Manganese [ II ] Oxide [ toxic ]
Mn = Manganese
Mg0 = Magnesium Oxide [ not toxic , but caustic ]
Mg = Magnesium
Magnesium Sulphate = MgS04
Magnesium Carbonate = MgC03 [ magnesite ]
-----Original Message-----
From: will edwards
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Date: 19 January 2001 22:06
Subject: Important to clear this up!
>Hello,
>
>I will make this as clean as possable and of course it is up for grabs. Ron
>Roy stated clearly that why would "I" add a toxin to a glaze in reply to
MnO.
>Mangnesium Sulphate/carbonate, etc.....TOXIN. Remember that part!
>
>Moving on - Lets look back over the archived information and run some
numbers
>on those he posts as well as a few others. Do you see some with levels of
>toxins? Sure you do. How much is too much and what constitutes a toxin and
>what constititues toxic? What level do we need?
>
>Magnesium in the glazes I recently posted that says Edward's 1234 Glossy
and
>both Matt # 2 and # 3. Lets survey them and see what I said.
>
>Edward's 1234 (the easy one) has zero MnO.. Number #2 Has Zero as well and
#3
>has 0.01% (Trace at best) Do we recognize this for food bearing surfaces?
>Matts normally don't fall into that category too well. BUT - Lets also look
at
>food service glazes as well.
>Go to the archives and fish around and you will see this expert advise
being
>given out that contains toxins such as Epsom Salts. Magnesium Sulphate by
>another name. Then we can look at a couple of the other issues when you
>compare apples to oranges.
>
>Frits - Also we are told by Ron that the 2 frits are identical. 3124 and
3134.
>Lets look at this. I will give one example of each and offer you a direct
one
>from ferro or you can go to their site and look. I am certain they are
>up-2-date with their materials since they make frits for major distributors
of
>ceramic tiles and commodes and hoards of other things.
>
>Frit 3124 - 0.021 K2O 0.269 Al2O3 2.555 SiO2
> 0.282 Na2O 0.546 B2O3
> 0.697 CaO
>
>Frit 3134 - 0.317 Na2O 0.632 B2O3 1.476 SiO2
> 0.683 CaO
>
>Sodium is higher in 3134 and boron as well with less SiO2 and no AL203. Now
>some calculations on software can help correct this but also wouldn't it
make
>sense to cut down a little on all that chemical additives that you are
buying
>if you can achieve the goal faster, better, safer? In fact the boron is
>percentile is much higher in 3134 by nearly 10%. Same for the silica.
Calcium
>is lower in 3124 and it also contains a bump of potassium where we don't
see
>this in 3134.
>
>Now remember "I" said this clearly. I don't worry with how much a person
uses
>to manufacture a glaze. I worry that those who think they are perfect and
have
>the full answers are not looking at the needs we potters have right now in
>some glaze ranges. ^6 oxidation glazes is what I work with even though I
have
>years of reduction experience at ^10+. But I have 23 years in manufacturing
>for the artist industry and I am schooled not fooled. I called an old buddy
of
>mine up who is not even interested in clay but he owns a business that uses
>technology like I used and he manufactures till this day. He laughed when I
>mentioned the fact of being told how I should leave a toxin out of my
glaze. I
>think it would take one heck of a lot of magnesium in any form to make it
>toxic enough under any conditions to be called a toxin in the way it was
put
>forth on this message. Fire it, test it and see. But don't scare the living
>day-lights out of innocent people who just have came into the practice of
>glaze technology and clay work!
>
> (SEE HAMER AND HAMER PG.211 in their response to details of Magnesium.)
>It talks nearly the same language as I do on the valid use of it for many
>clays and bodies. I don't see toxin in there for that one in the amounts I
was
>trying to explain. It also replaces some lost qualities of GB when you know
>how to use it. It is tricky but works well in many alkyline bases.
>
>All Earth metals are toxic to some extent. LD/40 and TLV and many other
>standards are used to express or imply those issues. You would have to
remove
>talc, wollastonite and dolomitic materials from the glazes in any amount to
>save your self from FREE silica and magnesium oxide and carbs in several of
>these mentioned above. Oops - that means we need to consider taking the
Silica
>out as well! Is it the intact amount used by the potter or the end-user we
are
>talking about? Now that stuff needs to be discussed for real.
>
>Everyone person who has read my posts knows that I am an avid researcher.
They
>know I agree with Ron and others like Tom and John H. I also have the same
>legal and ethical obligations to act in the best interest of the people and
>that would mean I must have been in the business or I wouldn't know all
this.
>I don't copy it for crying out loud from Ron or Tom because too much of it
>like the toxin issue he responded to me about is not valid in the language
>used. It needed a much better analogy other than what was portrayed.
>
>Making paranoid statements - Also why would either of these two people make
it
>a point to tell clayart with or without adding my name to their attachments
>how dangerous it would be legally to use their wonderful information that
is
>scientifically exact. All the lab reports apparently are in on each of the
>glazes they post to this site. Or are you willing to live with the
calculated
>versions of that and rely on mathematical perfection for deciding what is
safe
>or not. Its like propylene glycol where I have seen some real serious
>misunderstandings on what it is. I sent a reply but it never got the time
or
>space of the net. (That happens)
>
>I use MATRIX and another software I had from my old company but I also use
the
>labs where I made friends and trust them. I also mix glazes and prepare
>studies for other people that are considering manufacturing them. What, how
>can that be? Its what I do for a living other than defend my statements by
no
>other choice than here and work as a director for arts in the time I have
>left.
>
>The Book - It is all about simplifying and understanding cone ^6 glazes and
>how we can over-come many old GB problems using information made for normal
>everyday people who don't want to have all those complications surrounding
>their fun filled and full lives. It brings choice the same as everyone
elses
>ideas do. No one wants to copy invalid information or information that is
>subject to random thoughts. I know of only one person who has posted lab
>reported glazes and I commend this person even though they are a friendship
>among those willing to deny me my contributions without my constant
rebuttal.
>
>Now can we move into a better frame of mind Ron and Tom and understand no
one
>would take your glazes and use them in a book without expressed, written
>approval from both of you. (I am speaking for myself but I do have
permission
>from a publisher to use information that might have you in it. Should I
take
>that out? Ok - I will take that out!) Nor do any of the people I know want
to
>be reminded of such silly statements in regards to how mean you may get if
>they do what you are only suspect of. (Where's the proof?) Bad for business
in
>the long run, it can come back on you! Good for me however because
publicity
>is publicity. I just don't care if I make a red penny from what I publish.
It
>wasn't my goal my friends. MY goals are simplier than you ever thought. It
is
>for the people and by the people with lab reported results that back them
up.
>
>Take care and understand that I have no hard feelings. Just don't mis-lead
>people using my name and glazes either and all will work out. It isn't up
for
>bargaining.
>
>Why would they (Ron and Tom) not have contacted me directly as I have said
>before in many statements? It saves face when a misunderstanding is
>developing. Actually why didn't they say this when I contacted them????
Many
>questions?
>
>Disclaimer - Nothing I contribute is to assumed perfect for any given
purpose
>or use. I don't FIX glazes for people but will offer to help them
understand
>theirs when I can. I do research and study the effects of glazes used in
Cone
>6 firing. My efforts have been at no charge in the past nor have I ever
>promoted my service for sale. I am one regular potter who likes people and
>see's a way to slowly make the adjustment from old ways of thinking by
>removing GB from glazes using the simpliest of terms and methods. I too,
have
>glazes in my own use that contain 10 compounds or more and I hate them but
I
>need them from time to time. All material and exchanges made when
referencing
>information and making changes to a glaze or inventing a glaze needs to be
>tested by an approved lab for with standards set by ASTM D-4236 and within
>guides set by FDA and FEDERAL drinking water standards. No recipe can be
made
>known to man with math without the physical evidense to support the
>calculations of said materials in exact conditions.
>
>William Edwards
>Alchemy 101
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
>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.
>
| |
|
