Ivor and Olive Lewis on tue 13 apr 04
Dear Michael and Roger,
So far I have not done a trial but I have been thinking about the =
mechanics of the "Divide and Slam Down" method of homogenising and =
optimising clay properties, what ever the purpose it is destined for.
Michael, you propose a minimum of thirty operations giving 2 to power =
30, or 1 073 741 824 which is just a bit more than a billion layers. =
Twenty five operations give 33 554 432 layers.
Right, let's stay with the smaller number and put things in dimensional =
perspective.
Let's say that the block finishes up ten centimetre high. Then we have =
just over 3 million layers, 300 000 per millimetre, 300 per micron(mu)
It is at this point that the logic of individual layers breaks down. I =
would estimate that the thinnest of the clay crystals composing this =
structure would be ten times thicker than the depth of each layer which =
contributes to the structure. I would further suggest the majority of =
clay crystals would be one hundred times thicker than the depth of each =
individual layer. When you then think about the other minerals, the =
blocky stuff, felspars, sand and grog then the size relationship becomes =
somewhat astronomical.
Given the nature of the process it would seem to me that what happens is =
not that we create a uniform structure of layers. Instead I would =
suggest the material becomes progressively disordered with each divide =
and assemble operation. At the point at which you and Roger report an =
optimisation of plastic qualities with a noticeable and measurable =
increase in resistance to penetration I would suggest that there is a =
random distribution of non plastic materials throughout a matrix of =
clay/water which is uniformly plastic.
There are other things I could add but perhaps we should comment and =
criticise this Model first.
Best regards to you both,
Ivor Lewis. Redhill, South Australia
| |
|
