Craig Clark on tue 26 oct 04
about the elements has not been addressed
I have used ITC one kiln already and treated the elements as per
instructions. As I have stated before I am quite pleased with the way
the product has perfomed. The kiln performs more efficiently and there
has been little or no evidence of wear on the elements. I am about to do
the same to a second kiln and am planning on treating the refractory
blanket in a much larger kiln next month.
That being said, I could not help but latch onto the question that Ivor
raised concerning ITC. As a "non-conductive-refractory-coating" material
it is easy enough to surmise that it works by reflecting back a large
portion of the energy that it recieves. This explains why my kiln with
the ITC fires more easily and evenly. Same, same with application on
kiln furniture, etc.
However, if , as Ivor questioned, the elements are literally encased in
ITC 213 what mechanism is there for the enegy transfer. What keeps the
elements from overheating? I am aware of the basic principles of
emmisivity. I'm still in the dark on this one though. Is it because the
213 will work quickly as a conductor of the heat energy from the coils
but at the same not with convection so that there is a protection from
the atmohphere that results? Is this kinda like some type of
semi-permeable membrane?
Anyone care to weigh in on this
Craig Dunn Clark
619 East 11 1/2 st
Houston, Texas 77008
(713)861-2083
mudman@hal-pc.org
Louis Katz on wed 27 oct 04
about the elements has not been addressed
On Oct 26, 2004, at 8:54 PM, Craig Clark wrote:
> As a "non-conductive-refractory-coating" material
Obviously this is not true. So long as you think of it as
nonconductive, you are certain to be unable to come to any meaningful
conclusions. You may as well think of soft firebrick as nonconductive.
Everything conducts short of a vacuum. Vacuums allow radiation though.
If ITC were non-conductive we would all be painting our houses with it.
Even if it is an excellent emitter, better than anything else in
existence, it would still conduct.
I would not even suggest that this phrase is hype. The ITC police would
come down on me like a ton of traditional refractories.
Trying to think "light".
Louis
Craig Clark on wed 27 oct 04
about the elements has not been addressed
Louis, the quote was from someone elses post. I'm not exactly sure what
the stuff is made of nor do I know what mechanisms come into play for it
to do what it does. This is the basic question that I have. It is not
critical in that I believe that it pretty much does what it is reported
to do even if my own experience with it is anecdotal.
Funny, but I have also been thinking "light". Just don't know enough
about it, "light", to make an informed quess about what is going on. I
know it shouldn't bother me but I really like to know how the things
that I use work.
Any further "light" that you may be able to shed on the issue is appreciated
Craig Dunn Clark
619 East 11 1/2 st
Houston, Texas 77008
(713)861-2083
mudman@hal-pc.org
Louis Katz on wed 27 oct 04
about the elements has not been addressed
Steve, Craig,
Ah, I see.
Electrically I can see it. I reference to heat I cannot. I reread
Craig's post and believe he did not mean it electrically, but I don't
know.
My limited understanding of emisivity is so small that I can't spell it
right.
Things absorb radiation at different rates than they radiate it. A
black car on a clear night will cool to a temperature slightly lower
than the surruonding air. You can find frost at a temperature just
above freezing on a black car in the early morning on a clear night.
The car emits more radiation than it absorbs from the sky.
Some paints emit more visible light than hits them. They somehow
convert non-visible light (IR or UV) into visible wavelengths, the
day-glow colors.
ITC claims high emmisivity on some of their coatings. I have no reason
to disbelieve this, just the effect it might have on a small kiln's
electricity consumption, wall temperature etc.. It is very hard to talk
about ITC products in part because they are always lumped togehter by
the term ITC.
I had some questions about radiation in kilns and evenness of
temperature and I believe it was Ivor who gave me enough information to
straighten me out , maybe two years back?
Louis
On Oct 27, 2004, at 11:52 AM, Steve Slatin wrote:
> Louis --
>
> Hmmmm. Maybe ... just maybe .... we can agree on
> the idea that it's ELECTRICALLY non-conductive?
> And that's what the statement means?
>
> --Steve Slatin
>
> --- Louis Katz wrote:
>
>> On Oct 26, 2004, at 8:54 PM, Craig Clark wrote:
>>> As a "non-conductive-refractory-coating" material
>>
>> Obviously this is not true. So long as you think of
>> it as
>> nonconductive, you are certain to be unable to come
>> to any meaningful
>> conclusions. You may as well think of soft firebrick
>> as nonconductive.
>> Everything conducts short of a vacuum.
>
> =====
> Steve Slatin -- Did you know there is schools
> Where Bop -- and nothing but
> Bop -- are taught?
> Well, there am!
> Sequim, Washington, USA
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______
> 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.
>
>
KE5CVK
| |
|
