Paul Lewing on wed 5 dec 01
on 12/5/01 12:20 PM, Leslie Wright at wrightleslie@SYMPATICO.CA wrote:
> One can see that in the non-unity
> mode it looks like I'm close to the original recipe less the mgo. While in
> flux-unity Cao has risen substantially as has Al203 and Si02. Is there any
> relationship between the two unity modes? Was I wrong to try and clone the
> glaze using non-unity,and if so why?
Leslie, you're not wrong. That's the way you're supposed to do it in
Insight. This is a quirk of the Insight program; no other calculation
program does it this way. In fact, the term "non-unity calculation" is an
Insight invention.
I, too, often notice that when I do this kind of thing, when I go back to
unity calculation the numbers don't jive. For instance, if you substitute
materials, you have to put it into non-unity to do the substitution, then
put it back in unity when you're done. Often the old recipe and the new one
will have identical non-unity formulas, but the unity formulas will be
different. I've asked Tony Hansen about this a couple of times, but I've
never completely understood his answer (my fault, I'm sure).
But, as you say, the non-unity calculation changes with batch total, but the
unity formula does not. So I think if you keep tweaking it until you get
identical non-unity formulas with also identical batch totals, the unity
formulas should come out identical. I just thought of this, and I can't
wait to try it to see if I'm right. If it works for you, please let me
know.
You're also right that the purpose of the non-unity calculation is to keep
the program from reducing everything to unity before you're done adding or
subtracting stuff. One of the nice things about Insight is that it
instantly adjusts all the other numbers every time you make a change. In
HyperGlaze, for example, you have to list all of the ingredients and then
calculate the whole thing. I believe Matrix calculates after you change
each number, but it never goes into anything but a unity mode. I don't know
how it does that.
But I agree with you that this can be frustrating. If I'm not making huge
changes in a glaze with Insight, I often just leave it in unity mode and
fuss with the numbers till I get what I want.
Paul Lewing, Seattle
Leslie Wright on wed 5 dec 01
Here is an example of a glaze (c/6) that I use on a number of Tucker's clay
bodies that have a similar c.o.e. What I'm trying to do is take MgO out of
the recipe and retain the same relationship of the other oxides as best I
can. Then having acheived this, to add differing fluxes to see their
effect on melt, texture and so on. Indulging myself, I have put the recipes
in both unity and non-unity formats. The flux-unity represents Seger's
form. while the no-unity states that, ( taken from Insight Help Manual),
INSIGHT produces a formula from the current recipe, but does no
recalculation of the oxides. This results in different formula amounts for
different recipe totals, whereas unity calculations maintain the formula
despite differences in recipe totals. Non-unity calculations are valuable
when doing formula to batch derivations. One can see that in the non-unity
mode it looks like I'm close to the original recipe less the mgo. While in
flux-unity Cao has risen substantially as has Al203 and Si02. Is there any
relationship between the two unity modes? Was I wrong to try and clone the
glaze using non-unity,and if so why?
Two Recipes: LREVCJ: lrevcd to new lrevcj & CJ-M:
==================================================
STRONTIUM CARBONATE. 8.19 8.96 8.96%
G-200 FELDSPAR G200. 15.88 16.60 16.60%
CADYCAL............. 6.05 6.63
6.63%
DOLOMITE............ 11.91
WHITING............. 6.99
6.99%
TILE #6 KAOLIN...... 21.46 21.98 21.98%
SILICA.............. 25.79 27.39
27.39%
TITANIUM DIOXIDE.... 3.57 3.82 3.82%
SUPERPAX............ 7.14 7.63
7.63%
========
========
100.00
100.00
NO -UNITY
%w %m
CaO 0.10 6.25 7.53 0.11
6.60 8.12
MgO 0.07 3.13 5.26 0.00
0.15 0.25
K2O 0.02 1.96 1.41 0.02
2.00 1.47
Na2O 0.01 0.56 0.61 0.01
0.58 0.64
SrO 0.06 6.58 4.29 0.06
7.03 4.68
TiO2 0.05 4.43 3.75 0.05
4.60 3.98
ZrO2 0.04 5.42 2.97 0.04
5.65 3.16
Al2O3 0.11 12.56 8.32 0.11
12.63 8.54
B2O3 0.04 3.36 3.26 0.05
3.59 3.56
SiO2 0.81 55.64 62.56 0.85
57.08 65.55
Fe2O3 0.00 0.10 0.04 0.00
0.10 0.04
Cost/kg 0.24
0.20
Si:Al 7.52
7.67
SiB:Al 7.91
8.09
Expan 6.33
6.47
FLUX UNITY %w %m
CaO 0.39* 6.25 7.53 0.54* 6.60
8.12
MgO 0.28* 3.13 5.26 0.02* 0.15
0.25
K2O 0.07* 1.96 1.41 0.10* 2.00
1.47
Na2O 0.03* 0.56 0.61 0.04* 0.58
0.64
SrO 0.22* 6.58 4.29 0.31* 7.03
4.68
TiO2 0.20 4.43 3.75 0.26 4.60
3.98
ZrO2 0.16 5.42 2.97 0.21 5.65
3.16
Al2O3 0.44 12.56 8.32 0.56 12.63
8.54
B2O3 0.17 3.36 3.26 0.23 3.59
3.56
SiO2 3.28 55.64 62.56 4.32 57.08
65.55
Fe2O3 0.00 0.10 0.04 0.00 0.10
0.04
Thank You,
Les Wright
Ababi on thu 6 dec 01
The none unity has one reason to convert material. it is absolutely
technical. you must remember before finishing it to return and save in
the RO unity. Please make this test. on recipe one enter a recipe:
For you convenient I use the standard TMT which is not the one I use.
I call it:
Corn _wheel
===========
CORNWALL STONE...... 100.00 100.00%
========
100.00
CaO 0.24* 1.81%
MgO 0.03* 0.14%
K2O 0.34* 4.31%
Na2O 0.40* 3.29%
TiO2 0.01 0.15%
Al2O3 1.19 16.31%
SiO2 9.13 73.80%
Fe2O3 0.01 0.20%
Si:Al 7.68
SiB:Al 7.68
Expan 6.63
I do not have the Cornwall so how can I make the Corn_Wheel?
I start recipe 2 on not unity
I add the feldspar ask him to give me the best of sodium.
another one for the best of K2O
than adjust
EPK for Al2O3
WOLLASTONITE for CaO + Silica
Flint for Silica
I will decrease the wolastonite
Bye bye wolastonite
Add rutile and RIO
I could use some redart instead of the some of the EPK but this is an
exercise. Please look: Both recipes has the same molecular wight. So
is the sum of recipe 2! It would be very hard to rebuild the
recipe using RO unity both sides.
This time I change recipe 2 to ro unity
Oh I see I forgot the magnesium! back to no unity.
Fine, ... add more silica
I will add Quartz as I do not want to touch the CaO
Now I can change back to RO unity check again, re-total the recipe and
save as "Cornwall stone substitute" ( Or delete first the RIO and
Rutile)
This is the greatest function of Insight!
The next time you copy two recipes please make them follow ech other
because it is not readable this "two recipes" option
Ababi Sharon
Kibbutz Shoval- Israel
Glaze addict
ababisha@shoval.org.il
http://members4.clubphoto.com/ababi306910/
http://www.milkywayceramics.com/cgallery/asharon.htm
http://www.israelceramics.org/
---------- Original Message ----------
>Here is an example of a glaze (c/6) that I use on a number of Tucker's
>clay
>bodies that have a similar c.o.e. What I'm trying to do is take MgO
>out of
>the recipe and retain the same relationship of the other oxides as best
>I
>can. Then having acheived this, to add differing fluxes to see their
>effect on melt, texture and so on. Indulging myself, I have put the
>recipes
>in both unity and non-unity formats. The flux-unity represents Seger's
>form. while the no-unity states that, ( taken from Insight Help Manual),
>INSIGHT produces a formula from the current recipe, but does no
>recalculation of the oxides. This results in different formula amounts
>for
>different recipe totals, whereas unity calculations maintain the formula
>despite differences in recipe totals. Non-unity calculations are
>valuable
>when doing formula to batch derivations. One can see that in the
>non-unity
>mode it looks like I'm close to the original recipe less the mgo. While
>in
>flux-unity Cao has risen substantially as has Al203 and Si02. Is there
>any
>relationship between the two unity modes? Was I wrong to try and clone
>the
>glaze using non-unity,and if so why?
>Two Recipes: LREVCJ: lrevcd to new lrevcj & CJ-M:
>==================================================
> STRONTIUM CARBONATE. 8.19 8.96 8.96%
> G-200 FELDSPAR G200. 15.88 16.60 16.60%
> CADYCAL............. 6.05 6.63
>6.63%
> DOLOMITE............ 11.91
> WHITING.............
>6.99
>6.99%
> TILE #6 KAOLIN...... 21.46 21.98 21.98%
> SILICA.............. 25.79
>27.39
>27.39%
> TITANIUM DIOXIDE.... 3.57 3.82 3.82%
> SUPERPAX............ 7.14 7.63
>7.63%
> ========
>========
> 100.00
>100.00
> NO -UNITY
> %w %m
> CaO 0.10 6.25 7.53 0.11
>6.60 8.12
> MgO 0.07 3.13 5.26 0.00
>0.15 0.25
> K2O 0.02 1.96 1.41 0.02
>2.00 1.47
> Na2O 0.01 0.56 0.61 0.01
>0.58 0.64
> SrO 0.06 6.58 4.29
>0.06
>7.03 4.68
> TiO2 0.05 4.43 3.75
>0.05
>4.60 3.98
> ZrO2 0.04 5.42 2.97 0.04
>5.65 3.16
> Al2O3 0.11 12.56 8.32 0.11
>12.63 8.54
> B2O3 0.04 3.36 3.26 0.05
>3.59 3.56
> SiO2 0.81 55.64 62.56 0.85
>57.08 65.55
> Fe2O3 0.00 0.10 0.04 0.00
>0.10 0.04
> Cost/kg 0.24
>0.20
> Si:Al 7.52
>7.67
> SiB:Al 7.91
>8.09
> Expan 6.33
>6.47
>FLUX UNITY %w %m
> CaO 0.39* 6.25 7.53 0.54*
>6.60
>8.12
> MgO 0.28* 3.13 5.26 0.02*
>0.15
>0.25
> K2O 0.07* 1.96 1.41 0.10*
>2.00
>1.47
> Na2O 0.03* 0.56 0.61 0.04* 0.58
>0.64
> SrO 0.22* 6.58 4.29 0.31*
>7.03
>4.68
> TiO2 0.20 4.43 3.75 0.26
>4.60
>3.98
> ZrO2 0.16 5.42 2.97 0.21
>5.65
>3.16
> Al2O3 0.44 12.56 8.32 0.56 12.63
>8.54
> B2O3 0.17 3.36 3.26 0.23
>3.59
>3.56
> SiO2 3.28 55.64 62.56 4.32
>57.08
>65.55
> Fe2O3 0.00 0.10 0.04 0.00
>0.10
>0.04
>Thank You,
>Les Wright
>________________________________________________________________________
>______
>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.
Ababi on thu 6 dec 01
I want to emphasize that this function of Insight is the best way I
know to convert recipes. I wrote before that I work more in Matrix, but
whenever I want to convert a whole recipe and do it fast I use Insight
with the no unity.
Again Matrix might have a better way, but this way gives me an exact
convert ion (as much as possible - because sometimes you get it exactly
but different Si: Al or expansion.
Ababi Sharon
Kibbutz Shoval- Israel
Glaze addict
ababisha@shoval.org.il
http://members4.clubphoto.com/ababi306910/
http://www.milkywayceramics.com/cgallery/asharon.htm
http://www.israelceramics.org/
Ron Roy on mon 10 dec 01
Hi Les - how are you?
I don't use that feature in Insight - I just take away and add materials
till I get a match - but this may be of some use to you helping to figure
this out.
First - clone implies the same glaze but maybe using different materials -
same amount of MgO.
When you are trying to eliminate one flux and have any chance of getting
the same glaze you want to wind up with about the same amount of alumina
and silica and have them in the same ratio as the original. The expansion
will be different unless the substitute flux has the same calculated
expansion as the one you removed. This is an oversimplification and one
reason for that is when you have a greater variety of fluxes you get a
boost in melting - so they say. One way of dealing with that factor is to
replace it with another flux but you are running out of mid range fluxes -
Zinc and Barium are the only two left. The other way is to lower what needs
to be melted - silica and alumina - or increase the boron - that would be
more helpful cause you can keep the expansion from rising too much.
Your two recipes are not the same so of course the unity formulas are going
to be different.
In order to replace the MgO - say with CaO you would have to add more
whiting - as I have calculated it 12.49 - not 6.99
That brings the Al2O3 to .45 as in the original - then I took out some
silica to get the ratio the same - so SiO2 is now 25.89 for a total of
104.00
The ratio is close now and so is the molecular weight and the expansion is
up as expected because CaO has a much higher expansion rate the MgO.
Does that help - if this leads to more question fire away.
Best regards - RR
>Here is an example of a glaze (c/6) that I use on a number of Tucker's clay
>bodies that have a similar c.o.e. What I'm trying to do is take MgO out of
>the recipe and retain the same relationship of the other oxides as best I
>can. Then having acheived this, to add differing fluxes to see their
>effect on melt, texture and so on. Indulging myself, I have put the recipes
>in both unity and non-unity formats. The flux-unity represents Seger's
>form. while the no-unity states that, ( taken from Insight Help Manual),
>INSIGHT produces a formula from the current recipe, but does no
>recalculation of the oxides. This results in different formula amounts for
>different recipe totals, whereas unity calculations maintain the formula
>despite differences in recipe totals. Non-unity calculations are valuable
>when doing formula to batch derivations. One can see that in the non-unity
>mode it looks like I'm close to the original recipe less the mgo. While in
>flux-unity Cao has risen substantially as has Al203 and Si02. Is there any
>relationship between the two unity modes? Was I wrong to try and clone the
>glaze using non-unity,and if so why?
>
>Two Recipes: LREVCJ: lrevcd to new lrevcj & CJ-M:
>==================================================
> STRONTIUM CARBONATE. 8.19 8.96 8.96%
> G-200 FELDSPAR G200. 15.88 16.60 16.60%
> CADYCAL............. 6.05 6.63
>6.63%
> DOLOMITE............ 11.91
> WHITING............. 6.99
>6.99%
> TILE #6 KAOLIN...... 21.46 21.98 21.98%
> SILICA.............. 25.79 27.39
>27.39%
> TITANIUM DIOXIDE.... 3.57 3.82 3.82%
> SUPERPAX............ 7.14 7.63
>7.63%
> ========
Ron Roy
RR# 4
15084 Little Lake Rd..
Brighton,
Ontario, Canada
KOK 1H0
Residence 613-475-9544
Studio 613-475-3715
Fax 613-475-3513
| |
|
