Lou Roess on mon 7 feb 05
Hi, having checked the archives and read as much as I can absorb , I'm
wondering if someone who uses Hyperglaze software with MacOSX can tell
me more about it before I fork over $100. My interest is not so much
in formulating new glazes as in determining if the ones I'm using or
contemplating using are within acceptable limits for my cone 6 electric
firings and tweaking them if they're not.
Any help would be greatly appreciated
TIA
Lou in Colorado.
Maurice Weitman on mon 7 feb 05
Hi, Lou,
I'm not familiar with Hyperglaze, although I've heard from loyal,
happy users that's it's a fine program.
My experience is with Insight and Glazemaster, both on OS X. They
both work fine, each having their plusses and minuses. What a
surprise!
They also are both available as a free download and allow one to use
them (I believe with no limitations) for 30 days while evaluating
them.
I don't mean to dissuade you from Hyperglaze, but I wouldn't pay $100
(or any amount, come to think of it) for it without being able to try
it first.
I would understand why you might not want to evaluate all three, but
there may well be some significant reasons, faults, and advantages to
one over the other for your usage, including how easily you may be
able to use and change the limits, but that's an exercise left for
the reader.
Have fun!
Regards,
Maurice
At 11:13 AM -0700 on 2/7/05, Lou Roess wrote:
>Hi, having checked the archives and read as much as I can absorb , I'm
>wondering if someone who uses Hyperglaze software with MacOSX can tell
>me more about it before I fork over $100. My interest is not so much
>in formulating new glazes as in determining if the ones I'm using or
>contemplating using are within acceptable limits for my cone 6 electric
>firings and tweaking them if they're not.
>Any help would be greatly appreciated
May Luk on tue 8 feb 05
Hi Maurice;
Do you use both Insight and Glazemaster now? How do you deal with the
different COE value?
I'm disgruntled about different author using different COE units. Oh well.
Have a good day!
May
London, UK
John Hesselberth on tue 8 feb 05
Hi May,
You can change them into anything you like in GlazeMaster, Insight, and
in the newly reissued HyperGlaze. I suspect some of the other programs
can be customized this way also. Pick a set you like and change them so
they are all the same. The Appendix of the GlazeMaster User's Guide
discusses this in detail.
Regards,
John
On Tuesday, February 8, 2005, at 07:32 AM, May Luk wrote:
> I'm disgruntled about different author using different COE units. Oh
> well.
John Hesselberth
http://www.frogpondpottery.com
http://www.masteringglazes.com
Saultman.com on tue 8 feb 05
HI Lou,
I have Mac OSX. Hyperglaze works well.
I suggest you download a free trial. You can try it for 60 days. All
features work.
Good luck
Dan Saultman
Detroit
On Feb 7, 2005, at 1:13 PM, Lou Roess wrote:
> Hi, having checked the archives and read as much as I can absorb , I'm
> wondering if someone who uses Hyperglaze software with MacOSX can tell
> me more about it before I fork over $100. My interest is not so much
> in formulating new glazes as in determining if the ones I'm using or
> contemplating using are within acceptable limits for my cone 6 electric
> firings and tweaking them if they're not.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated
> TIA
> Lou in Colorado.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______
> 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.
>
Maurice Weitman on tue 8 feb 05
Hello, May,
(How are you??)
I share your disgruntletude. What seems to be an expression of
individuality (as in "I think standards are great! Everyone should
have one.") can certainly be a drag. We used to call it
"re-inventing the wheel" or the N.I.H. -- Not Invented Here syndrome.
I cannot rationalize why there should be more than one way to express
this. It does seem arbitrary, capricious, maybe even religious, like
VHS vs. BetaMax or... well, you know the drill. Maybe we need the
U.N. to step in.
I suppose as long as they're consistent, it doesn't matter much which
system one chooses, except when trying to compare results with others
who use other systems. That's where this becomes tedious and
troublesome.
John must have good reasons for his choice, as I'm sure do Tony
Hansen, Ron Roy, and others. John explains some of this in his and
Ron's Mastering Cone 6 Glazes on pages 69 and 70.
Insight makes it easy to use different values for COE. There's a
file called "overrides.xml" that contains COE values for different
systems. I haven't found anything like that in Glazemaster where
one may change each ingredient's value individually, but that's
really cumbersome.
In Insight, one could use values which appear to be similar to those
used by Glazemaster by selecting "W & G" (West and Gerrow) from its
"COE Set" pull-down if one wanted to remain consistent between the
two programs. Among others built in to the Insight distribution, via
a "COE Set" pull-down option, are Ron Roy's, "English and Turner,"
"Winkelmann and Schott," and "Eppler and Eppler." I never could
remember which Eppler comes first or why Winkelmann gets top billing.
As long as they know, I guess we're okay.
Truthfully, I don't want to spend time trying to figure out which COE
set is better than another. It's too much like esoterica for me
until I find it becoming an issue. In the meantime, I use Ron's set
within Insight, even though I can't remember why. Well... I remember
that at a workshop last summer he told me how he came up with his
values and at the time, it sounded rational to me so that's how I
came to the decision to use them.
If anyone out there has a way to make us gruntled by telling us why
we need all these different sets, I'm all ears.
Regards,
Maurice, in Fairfax, California, where I've been a good boy making
good use of the time I used to spend commuting to Berkeley, doing
physical therapy for my hands and shoulder, have lost 15 pounds in
less than a month by exercising at least once daily and eating much
more sensibly (we'll see how well I do in Baltimore), am almost
caught up with emails and taxes, and where I expect to have my studio
restored by the time I leave for NCECA.
At 12:32 PM +0000 on 2/8/05, May Luk wrote:
>Hi Maurice;
>
>Do you use both Insight and Glazemaster now? How do you deal with the
>different COE value?
>
>I'm disgruntled about different author using different COE units. Oh well.
May Luk on wed 9 feb 05
Hi Maurice;
(Glad you are doing well. I'm fine, just California dreaming. The sky is
very gray over here)
I read the article written by David Hewitt and I vaguely remember why
there's are different units. I can change my COE in Glazemaster. Every now
and then, I open a new book and saw a different number in the glaze recipe,
I just go: "What?! Oh well, here we go again"
You said:"I suppose as long as they're consistent, it doesn't matter much
which system one chooses, except when trying to compare results with others
who use other systems. That's where this becomes tedious and troublesome."
Yes, exactly. Sometimes, I just want to make a quick comparison. In real
life, the number does not mean a whole lot until I fire the glaze in my own
kiln with my own materials. But when somebody just started out learning
glaze calculations, there's just seem to be a sea of numbers and values that
one can drown in. In the beginning, I couldn't tell unity from Mol %. Glaze
maths is not that complicated, really. I think there's a conspiracy started
by a few bearded men with white lab coats and wire rim glasses up on
top...Oops, did I say that?
I guess, what I'd like to see is that the unit and 'system' are more clearly
stated with each recipe. It's really not that hard, innit? When I go to the
market, I can't just say one pound banana, I have to say one pound money or
one pound weight, same thing!!
Kung Hai Fai Choi!
May
London, UK
David Hewitt on wed 9 feb 05
May,
I agree.
While, I think, with most glaze programs you can select which ceramists
coefficients you wish to use. You can in CeramDat. But I think your
point is that some will quote figures which are 10-7/oC while others are
10-6/oC.
The problem is when we quote such figures for a Recipe, in such as
ClayArt, and do not say whose coefficients we are using and what units
we are quoting.
COE figures can be useful in indicting the direction in which a change
in recipe is moving the COE. I do not put so much value, however, on the
absolute figure produced. If you do the calculation for different
ceramist's coefficients you get very significant differences. Mike
Bailey and I did some tests to try and assess whose coefficients were
the most predicable. By and large we cam to he conclusion that English &
turner was as good as any. However it must be remembered that they only
produced oxide coefficients for
K2O,Na2O,CaO,MgO,BaO,ZnO,Al2O3,B2O3,SiO2,ZrO2,and PbO. Some people have
'estimated' the coefficients for other oxides, but you may well not know
that the figures they quote include these 'estimated' coefficients.
The values produced by the different coefficients can be readily seen
from one of the pages in the Glaze Workbook which runs on MS Excel. If
anyone would like to see this I can send them a demonstration version of
The Glaze Workbook to try out different recipes and see clearly the
differences.
The work that Mike and I did is available on my web site under
'Calculating Crazing'
David
In message , May Luk writes
>Hi Maurice;
>
>Do you use both Insight and Glazemaster now? How do you deal with the
>different COE value?
>
>I'm disgruntled about different author using different COE units. Oh well.
>
>Have a good day!
>
>May
>London, UK
--
David Hewitt
Web:- http://www.dhpot.demon.co.uk
John Hesselberth on wed 9 feb 05
Hi Maurice,
You can change the value for each oxide in nothing flat. Look at the
lower left of the Main Menu or on page 72 of the second edition of the
User's Guide.
Regards,
John
On Tuesday, February 8, 2005, at 11:23 PM, Maurice Weitman wrote:
> I haven't found anything like that in Glazemaster where
> one may change each ingredient's value individually, but that's
> really cumbersome.
John Hesselberth
http://www.frogpondpottery.com
http://www.masteringglazes.com
Ivor and Olive Lewis on thu 10 feb 05
An examination of the Plots of Percentage Expansion v Temperature
given by Ron Roy and John Hesselberth in Mastering Cone Six Glazes
leads to the obvious conclusion that Coefficient of Linear Expansion
of glaze is not a uniform property. If it were, all of the plots would
show as straight lines.
There are also the questions of the way in which values given in
various table are obtained. I am highly suspicious of those given for
pure oxides and would like to know how values for Potassium monoxide,
Sodium monoxide, Boron oxide and Lead monoxide were obtained, given
the thermal instability and chemical reactivity of these compounds.
Even if C of E values are determined experimentally for raw materials
such as clay and Felspar values obtained may not be uniform for a
single material or consistent for materials from differing sources.
At best, unless people wish to do their own experimental work,
following the advice of David Hewitt seems reasonable. Select a source
of information which has a high degree of reliability and
respectability.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
S. Australia.
Maurice Weitman on sun 13 feb 05
Hello, John,
At 7:20 AM -0500 on 2/9/05, John Hesselberth wrote:
>You can change the value for each oxide in nothing flat. Look at the
>lower left of the Main Menu or on page 72 of the second edition of the
>User's Guide.
>
>On Tuesday, February 8, 2005, at 11:23 PM, Maurice Weitman wrote:
>>I haven't found anything like that in Glazemaster where
>>one may change each ingredient's value individually, but that's
>>really cumbersome.
I'm familiar with the documentation you cited, and believe I
understand how Glazemaster treats COEs and allows users to maintain
them. In case I've misunderstood your statements, or Glazemaster's
documentation, or the way I understand and use Glazemaster, I
apologize and ask for clarification.
But perhaps you misinterpreted my statement because I omitted a
comma, or you missed the first two sentences of the paragraph you
quoted above.
I believe the complete paragraph does make my point clearer. I wrote:
>Insight makes it easy to use different values for COE. There's a
>file called "overrides.xml" that contains COE values for different
>systems. I haven't found anything like that in Glazemaster where
>one may change each ingredient's value individually, but that's
>really cumbersome.
I meant to say that I haven't found a way in Glazemaster to change a
set or system of COEs en masse, although one may change each
ingredient's COE value individually, but that's really cumbersome.
I agree that in Glazemaster it's a snap to change one ingredient's
COE value. Maybe even two or three. But if I'm working on a recipe
and need to relate it to another person's or recipe's method of
computing COE, I don't want to change each ingredient's COE value
individually and then, when I'm done, change them back.
Insight's method, using extensible sets of COEs that allow me to
easily, instantly, and reversibly swap values from one set to
another, and therefore compare glazes calculated using various COE
values.
In Glazemaster, I wouldn't even try doing it.
Regards,
Maurice
John Hesselberth on mon 14 feb 05
Hi Maurice,
I see your point. I'll put that on the list to consider for the next
upgrade.
Regards,
John
On Sunday, February 13, 2005, at 08:51 PM, Maurice Weitman wrote:
> I agree that in Glazemaster it's a snap to change one ingredient's
> COE value. Maybe even two or three. But if I'm working on a recipe
> and need to relate it to another person's or recipe's method of
> computing COE, I don't want to change each ingredient's COE value
> individually and then, when I'm done, change them back.
>
> Insight's method, using extensible sets of COEs that allow me to
> easily, instantly, and reversibly swap values from one set to
> another, and therefore compare glazes calculated using various COE
> values.
John Hesselberth
http://www.frogpondpottery.com
http://www.masteringglazes.com
| |
|
