William Lucius on fri 4 jan 02
I fire at cone 6 for the simple reason that my native white and gray clays
bloat and/or melt at any higher cone. I prefer a neutral to slightly
reducing atmosphere because it gives character to the exposed clay body and
results in a pleasing richness in the glaze. I fire to cone 6 reduction for
the same reason that I dig and process my own clays, tempers and slips and
compound my own glazes - I insist on full engagement in the process from
beginning to end (now if I can just get interested in marketing the end
product).
Cone 6 reduction firing requires a fuel-burning kiln, an appropriate glaze
and a reduction firing procedure. I found that the hardest part was working
out the firing procedure. I fire in oxidation to 900 degrees celcius (my
pyrometer reads the temperature of the middle of the kiln), at which point I
restrict the air flow into the burners and also damper the exit flue.
Noticable back pressure at the peep holes and a slight sooting around the
kiln cracks is normal. Using the pyrometer I chart the temperature of kiln
every 1/2 hour on a piece of graph paper, adjusting the rate of gas flow up
or down to maintain a heat increase of approximately 100 degrees/hour. When
cone 4 begins bending I reduce the burner air flow further and also reduce
the flue opening. If the temperature rise stalls I adjust the air flow to
ensure a slow heat rise until cone 6 is completely bent, at which time I
turn off the gas, fully close the flue and write "firing complete" on the
time temperature graph.
Any questions?
William A. Lucius
Institute for Archaeological Ceramic Research
845 Hartford Drive
Boulder, CO 80305
iacr@msn.com
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Jeff Tsai on wed 5 jun 02
I am confused by the last post bearing the same subject line by Terry.
It had not content except a repost of one of Craig's messages from January.
Was the question in the subject line...i.e, "why don't people do cone 6
reduction?"?
Just wondering if it was a "hit the wrong key" thing, and what the question
was.
-jeff
Steve Dalton on thu 6 jun 02
on 6/5/02 3:31 PM, Jeff Tsai at DemJeffHQ@AOL.COM wrote:
"why don't people do cone 6 reduction?"?
> -jeff
Jeff,
I've tried ^6 reduction and I've found that many of the clay bodies
available to me up here are not suited for such. Many of them contain an
extra amount of iron for that 'reduction look,' and an extra amount of
feldspar or anyother flux to get it to vitrify better. Personally, if you
ask me, there's nothing better than a good, hard ^11 reduction.
--
Steve Dalton
Clear Creek Pottery
Snohomish, Wa
sdpotter@gte.net
Susan Fox-Hirschmann on thu 6 jun 02
Well.....about all this ^6 reduction,
I am scheduled to do a weekend workshop
on just that topic!
Will inform you all at its completion.
Susan fox hirschmann
annandale, VA
>From: Steve Dalton
>Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
>To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>Subject: Re: Why not Cone 6 Reduction?
>Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 11:01:03 -0800
>
>on 6/5/02 3:31 PM, Jeff Tsai at DemJeffHQ@AOL.COM wrote:
>
>"why don't people do cone 6 reduction?"?
> > -jeff
>
>Jeff,
>
>I've tried ^6 reduction and I've found that many of the clay bodies
>available to me up here are not suited for such. Many of them contain an
>extra amount of iron for that 'reduction look,' and an extra amount of
>feldspar or anyother flux to get it to vitrify better. Personally, if you
>ask me, there's nothing better than a good, hard ^11 reduction.
>--
>Steve Dalton
>Clear Creek Pottery
>Snohomish, Wa
>sdpotter@gte.net
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
>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 your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
sgoldate@melbpc.org.au on thu 6 jun 02
Hi Folks,
I guess the clay would have to be suitable. Why not formulate one that suits
your own needs? I have successfully done con=
e 4 reductions, with a clay body of my own, including with a cone 4 copper
red glaze. The body is a porcelaineous stonewa=
re, so it's a creamy white to light grey in reduction. The benefit of the
lower firing temperature is twofold - 1. saving=
in fuel and 2. much easier for the average kiln to get to that temperature!
I think more people should work in the range=
Maybe if they did, we would gain more knowledge and experience and then get
even better results.
Steven
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Steve Dalton sdpotter@GTE.NET
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 11:01:03 -0800
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Why not Cone 6 Reduction?
on 6/5/02 3:31 PM, Jeff Tsai at DemJeffHQ@AOL.COM wrote:
"why don't people do cone 6 reduction?"?
> -jeff
Jeff,
I've tried ^6 reduction and I've found that many of the clay bodies
available to me up here are not suited for such. Many of them contain an
extra amount of iron for that 'reduction look,' and an extra amount of
feldspar or anyother flux to get it to vitrify better. Personally, if you
ask me, there's nothing better than a good, hard ^11 reduction.
--
Steve Dalton
Clear Creek Pottery
Snohomish, Wa
sdpotter@gte.net
____________________________________________________________________________
__
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
| |
|
