Andrew_M_Casto@PROGRESSIVE.COM on fri 15 oct 04
Carl, Louis, Ivor and others,
Thanks for understanding - after a few reads Ivor's original post,
I think you all are likely correct that I misundertood
Ivor's use of the word "exploit".
And so to Ivor I send my appologies assuming this was
the case.
For the record, I would agree with Louis that
there seems to be some rampant ITC patriotism
going on here, whatever the reason. I have read many posts
on this list, and even though I know none of you face
to face, I have come to trust and admire the advice
that is given here. This leads me to believe that
this is indeed great stuff, but I don't think that should
justify silencing dicussion on the issue...dissenting views
included.
I did learn by the way, that the reason not to use an ITC
substitute is the fear of it falling off the kiln onto my pots...and
that it is unneccessary on hard brick surfaces...which was
actually what I was going to with it originally. Ironic.
So, thanks for the imput. It helped.
Andy
Ivor and Olive Lewis on sat 16 oct 04
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for your kind words, I accept them without reservation.
My personal feeling is that ITC's products are not what they are made
to appear to be......
The reason for this is that we generally use refractories to enable
heat containment, that is, as insulators. If this were the case for
the ITC substance that is sprayed onto Kanthal or Nichrome elements in
an electric kiln they would cause the metal to overheat. But there is
a need to prevent heat containment while at the same time preventing
diffusion of reducing gases from the chamber to the oxidised surface
of the metal elements.
So questions about fundamental principles need to be asked. Perhaps
those who have access to the literature would discriminate among the
various principles. Which examples enable heat containment, which
examples enhance heat dissipation, which examples are impervious to
gas diffusion.
Sincere regards,
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
S. Australia.
| |
|
