Mert & Holly Kilpatrick on fri 31 oct 03
>Dolita wrote:
>This whole issue of CM is great. There is an article on "How to Interpret
a Typical Data Sheet" (P.69). I know there has been much discussion lately
on the composition of certain clays. Most of you have probably seen it by
now.
Interesting that Jeff Zamek's article on clay analyses came out in Ceramics
Monthly magazine just as we were talking about claybody analyses. He is
talking about "data sheets", I'm not sure if that is the same as MSDS
(material safety data sheets) or if this is some additional data available
from companies that mine/refine raw clay. If it is information that is
required to be provided, it is odd that the clay manufacturers would be
required, but not the clayBODY manufacturers.
Tony commented that a chemical analysis of a claybody might not be much use
without information on the physical characteristics of the material. That
information seems to be available on the actual clays.
Well, if I had another lifetime (one in which I were independently wealthy
of course) I would be interested to test glazes on various claybodies with
known analyses and see what I could learn about the interactions. What is
interesting to me is how different one glaze can be on two buff cone 6
bodies which look pretty similar. So of course I wonder what is causing the
difference.
It looks like the Canadian MSDS have more information than the US ones.
Also, some states have right-to-know laws, like NJ, but the data required to
comply is not a chemical analysis. For example, from Standard's 205 clay,
this section is:
Ingredient Listing for New Jersey Worker & Community Right to Know Act:
Chemical Name CAS/CI or DCMA#
Hydrous Calcium Magnesium Silicate 14807-96-6
Hydrous Aluminum Silicate 1332-58-7
Calcite-Ground Limestone 1317-65-3
Alumina Silicate 1344-28-1
Water
Holly
East Bangor, PA
Off to Columbus to visit family and see the famous 21st Century ceramics
show!
| |
|
