Rod Wuetherick on tue 19 apr 05
> I don't think learning to do it my hand is necessary by the way - I did
and
> it turned me off doing it for 25 years.
Ron I told Sincultura to learn how to do it by hand first. Then immediately
get some glaze software - I agree with you. But you do agree that someone
should at least try working out a few unity formula and oxide sourcing by
hand 5 or 6 times so as to understand the process? I think doing this a few
times allows one to get way more out of the calculation software when they
do start using it.
peace,
rod
Edouard Bastarache Inc. on wed 20 apr 05
Rod,
I agree with you.
In 1968 when I started making glaze calculation, I did
everything by hand, I did not know how to use a slide
rule and no desk calculator was available.
Then many years later I switch to a desk calculator,
I made all the calculations in my book using this method.
It is only recently that I started using computer programs,
I mean about 5 years ago even if I started messing around
with computers in 1970.
Now I use Glaze4 by Dr. Chris Hogg and GlazeChem
by Bob Wilt.
Later,
"Ils sont fous ces quebecois"
"They are insane these quebekers"
"Están locos estos quebequeses"
Edouard Bastarache
Irreductible Quebecois
Indomitable Quebeker
Sorel-Tracy
Quebec
edouardb@sorel-tracy.qc.ca
www.sorel-tracy.qc.ca/~edouardb/Welcome.html
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/smart2000/index.htm
http://www.digitalfire.com/education/toxicity/
Ron Roy on thu 21 apr 05
Hi Rod,
I have tried to think of how it would help - turned it over in my mind many
times - and connot think of how it can help.
I'm willing to talk about why it could be so if you would care to explore a
bit.
If I thought it could help I would certainly recommend it but I want to be
able to say how and why.
Lets discuss it a bit - anything that would help poters understand and
learn faster I am for.
RR
>> I don't think learning to do it my hand is necessary by the way - I did
>and
>> it turned me off doing it for 25 years.
>
>Ron I told Sincultura to learn how to do it by hand first. Then immediately
>get some glaze software - I agree with you. But you do agree that someone
>should at least try working out a few unity formula and oxide sourcing by
>hand 5 or 6 times so as to understand the process? I think doing this a few
>times allows one to get way more out of the calculation software when they
>do start using it.
>
>peace,
>rod
Ron Roy
RR#4
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
Phone: 613-475-9544
Fax: 613-475-3513
John Hesselberth on thu 21 apr 05
On Thursday, April 21, 2005, at 01:00 AM, Ron Roy wrote:
> I have tried to think of how it would help - turned it over in my mind
> many
> times - and connot think of how it can help.
Hi Rod, Ron,
If I may interject. I'm going to oversimplify and divide the world into
two parts. There are those who are technically curious and those who
are not. We have lots of both on Clayart. I think the technically
curious are prone to want to understand how those numbers are generated
and would have difficulty accepting their meaning if they haven't
worked through it by hand. That would be particularly likely if they
had strong chemistry background. I know I had to work through it once
when I was beginning to study glaze chemistry.
Those who are not technically curious would probably find the process
confusing, tedious, and altogether a frustrating experience. They might
be turned off by having to do what they considered to be 'make work'
when someone has already programmed a computer to do it for them.
Of course, we know of both types of people who use the results to great
advantage. And we also know that there are all different types of
people who learn in very different ways. So I believe doing the numbers
by hand a few times is very useful to some people and not at all useful
to others.
Regards,
John
Kathi LeSueur on thu 21 apr 05
While at Sears today I noticed that they have custom designed dinnerware
in their kitchen department. All of it severely crazed. I'm sure they
would say it's part of the design.
Kathi
David Hewitt on fri 22 apr 05
Ron,
To just add to the pool of thought on this, all the courses which Mike
Bailey has run, and on which I have helped, have all started with doing
an analysis of a recipe into a formula by hand with the participants
having to work through the process.
I think that it adds a great deal to the basic understanding of glazes,
even if it is the only time that they do such a calculation. I think it
also helps a lot to show people what a glaze calculation program is
actually doing and so have more understanding of the answers and their
limitations.
David
In message , Ron Roy writes
>Hi Rod,
>
>I have tried to think of how it would help - turned it over in my mind many
>times - and connot think of how it can help.
>
>I'm willing to talk about why it could be so if you would care to explore a
>bit.
>
>If I thought it could help I would certainly recommend it but I want to be
>able to say how and why.
>
>Lets discuss it a bit - anything that would help poters understand and
>learn faster I am for.
>
>RR
>
>>> I don't think learning to do it my hand is necessary by the way - I did
>>and
>>> it turned me off doing it for 25 years.
>>
>>Ron I told Sincultura to learn how to do it by hand first. Then immediately
>>get some glaze software - I agree with you. But you do agree that someone
>>should at least try working out a few unity formula and oxide sourcing by
>>hand 5 or 6 times so as to understand the process? I think doing this a few
>>times allows one to get way more out of the calculation software when they
>>do start using it.
>>
>>peace,
>>rod
>
>Ron Roy
>RR#4
>15084 Little Lake Road
>Brighton, Ontario
>Canada
>K0K 1H0
>Phone: 613-475-9544
>Fax: 613-475-3513
--
David Hewitt
Web:- http://www.dhpot.demon.co.uk
Taylor from Rockport on fri 22 apr 05
Ron,
I'm going to have to agree with others here on the list who are advocating
the sharpening up of pencils before using glaze software.
Pencil calculations are not difficult. Teadious yes, difficult no. If one
can ballance a check book, figure a 15% tip, or calculate shrinkage from a
clay bar, one can pencil calculate. When you get the raw data from the
mine analysis or use emperical formulas from a table then plug them into a
formula, YOU are calculating a glaze. When you plug in a desired formula
into a glaze program the PROGRAM is doing the calculating.
What one learns by calculating handwise is not the same thing that one
learns by tweeking glaze formula in a program. They are just different
things. A person does learn a lot of things doing either, but the programs
are black boxes while the pencil calculatons lay things bare.
I encourage everyone even partially serious about being a good potter or
ceramic artist to manipulate SEVERAL glaze recipes on paper. I have found
method 2 for calculating unity formula under "Calculations" in _The
Potter's Dictionary of Materials and Techniques_ very easy. IT is on page
48 in the third edition. This method uses mine analysis to calculate unity
formula and is pretty good. Ron, you thought so at least when I did some
calculating practice and had the list check my work.
my 2 pesos worth.
Taylor in Rockport, TX
>In message , Ron Roy writes
>>Hi Rod,
>>
>>I have tried to think of how it would help - turned it over in my mind
many
>>times - and connot think of how it can help.
>>
>>I'm willing to talk about why it could be so if you would care to explore
a
>>bit.
>>
>>If I thought it could help I would certainly recommend it but I want to be
>>able to say how and why.
Louis Katz on sat 23 apr 05
I am not convinced it is necessary to use paper. I also not convinced
that is not necessary. Lots of variables. What students, what teacher,
what purpose. How long?
Clearly everyone thinks that people need to understand what they are
doing, not just how. And you can have someone that can do it without
understanding with a piece of paper as well as computer.
My personal take is that understanding what a mol is, really
internalizing it, is the key.
Louis
KE5CVK
now having met a gallery owner whose father was a dragon jar decorator,
the daughter of a ceramic sculptor, a clay gallery owner, and My friend
Suwanee's webmaster, all in Thailand, all on Ham radio over the
internet. Ham is a lot like Clayart. I am going to what they call an
Eyeball meeting in Thailand as opposed to an on the air meeting.
Louis
On Apr 22, 2005, at 4:31 AM, David Hewitt wrote:
> Ron,
>
> To just add to the pool of thought on this, all the courses which Mike
> Bailey has run, and on which I have helped, have all started with doing
> an analysis of a recipe into a formula by hand with the participants
> having to work through the process.
>
> I think that it adds a great deal to the basic understanding of glazes,
> even if it is the only time that they do such a calculation. I think it
> also helps a lot to show people what a glaze calculation program is
> actually doing and so have more understanding of the answers and their
> limitations.
>
> David
> In message , Ron Roy writes
>> Hi Rod,
>>
>> I have tried to think of how it would help - turned it over in my
>> mind many
>> times - and connot think of how it can help.
>>
>> I'm willing to talk about why it could be so if you would care to
>> explore a
>> bit.
>>
>> If I thought it could help I would certainly recommend it but I want
>> to be
>> able to say how and why.
>>
>> Lets discuss it a bit - anything that would help poters understand and
>> learn faster I am for.
>>
>> RR
>>
>>>> I don't think learning to do it my hand is necessary by the way - I
>>>> did
>>> and
>>>> it turned me off doing it for 25 years.
>>>
>>> Ron I told Sincultura to learn how to do it by hand first. Then
>>> immediately
>>> get some glaze software - I agree with you. But you do agree that
>>> someone
>>> should at least try working out a few unity formula and oxide
>>> sourcing by
>>> hand 5 or 6 times so as to understand the process? I think doing
>>> this a few
>>> times allows one to get way more out of the calculation software
>>> when they
>>> do start using it.
>>>
>>> peace,
>>> rod
>>
>> Ron Roy
>> RR#4
>> 15084 Little Lake Road
>> Brighton, Ontario
>> Canada
>> K0K 1H0
>> Phone: 613-475-9544
>> Fax: 613-475-3513
>
> --
> David Hewitt
>
> Web:- http://www.dhpot.demon.co.uk
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______
> 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.
>
>
Louis Katz
http://www.tamucc.edu/~lkatz
Ron Roy on sun 24 apr 05
Dear David,
Thank you for your opinion on this - as you know I have great respect for
you and your contributions to our understanding.
When I do my glaze courses I have to continually make decisions about what
to include. The question that I wrestle with is - how to impart enough
understanding so that there is a good chance of the participants continuing
on with calculation - and being able to use it in their work.
Do you think - given the short period of time in the classroom - that doing
the math is a worthwhile exercise?
You say it gives a basic understanding of glazes - do you think there is
any better way to impart this understanding?
As you can see - I am still trying to understand just what it is about
calculating by hand that gives understanding and just what that
understanding is?
Thanks again - best wishes - Ron Roy.
>Ron,
>To just add to the pool of thought on this, all the courses which Mike
>Bailey has run, and on which I have helped, have all started with doing
>an analysis of a recipe into a formula by hand with the participants
>having to work through the process.
>
>I think that it adds a great deal to the basic understanding of glazes,
>even if it is the only time that they do such a calculation. I think it
>also helps a lot to show people what a glaze calculation program is
>actually doing and so have more understanding of the answers and their
>limitations.
>
>David
Ron Roy
RR#4
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
Phone: 613-475-9544
Fax: 613-475-3513
Ron Roy on sun 24 apr 05
Hi Taylor,
Thanks for this - but I am still wondering - what is it that you learned
from doing the calculation - that has helped you understand about clays and
glazes?
I can understand someone wanting to know what the computer is doing - in
other words the math - but how does that lead to any kind of knowledge that
is useful for say finding a cure for crazing?
I actually want to understand this - is it worth the time in a computer
course - to teach everyone to calculate by hand - considering time is
limited?
I provide a 30 page work book to everyone in any course I teach - in that
book there are examples of how to do all the calculation by hand by the way
- there have been students who did the calculations - and I gave them
credit for doing it - but some of the best students did not of course. It's
why I don't think it makes any difference.
RR
>I'm going to have to agree with others here on the list who are advocating
>the sharpening up of pencils before using glaze software.
>
>Pencil calculations are not difficult. Teadious yes, difficult no. If one
>can ballance a check book, figure a 15% tip, or calculate shrinkage from a
>clay bar, one can pencil calculate. When you get the raw data from the
>mine analysis or use emperical formulas from a table then plug them into a
>formula, YOU are calculating a glaze. When you plug in a desired formula
>into a glaze program the PROGRAM is doing the calculating.
>
>What one learns by calculating handwise is not the same thing that one
>learns by tweeking glaze formula in a program. They are just different
>things. A person does learn a lot of things doing either, but the programs
>are black boxes while the pencil calculatons lay things bare.
>
>I encourage everyone even partially serious about being a good potter or
>ceramic artist to manipulate SEVERAL glaze recipes on paper. I have found
>method 2 for calculating unity formula under "Calculations" in _The
>Potter's Dictionary of Materials and Techniques_ very easy. IT is on page
>48 in the third edition. This method uses mine analysis to calculate unity
>formula and is pretty good. Ron, you thought so at least when I did some
>calculating practice and had the list check my work.
>
>my 2 pesos worth.
>
>Taylor in Rockport, TX
Ron Roy
RR#4
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
Phone: 613-475-9544
Fax: 613-475-3513
David Hewitt on sun 24 apr 05
Ron,
Yes, I think that doing at least one or two calculations as part of a
glaze course is essential to being sure that the participants can
appreciate what a glaze program actually does. You have got to have
confidence in any program if you are going to put any faith in the
answers. We all know the maxim, "rubbish in and you get rubbish out", so
you must be confident with what you are working.
This also leads on nicely to appreciating the function of alumina and
silica and the basic oxides. Mike Bailey in his latest book, "Oriental
Glazes", has a chapter on the use of plotting alumina and silica and
showing he position of some other key raw materials. This is what he
ends up with in his glaze courses. It brings everything very nicely
together in a most meaningful manner.
I am currently adding such plotting to my CeramDat program and I think
that it will be a most useful addition. If events, due to my wife's
illness, had not meant that I would be kept over in King's Lynn for the
last month and for perhaps another month in the future, I would have
completed the new version of CeramDat. I only have my laptop with me and
all the programming material is on my home computer, which if you
appreciate the geography of the UK, is on the other side of the country.
When I am back I could send over to you copy of one Mike's course notes
if he is agreeable.
David
In message , Ron Roy
writes
>Dear David,
>
>Thank you for your opinion on this - as you know I have great respect for
>you and your contributions to our understanding.
>
>When I do my glaze courses I have to continually make decisions about what
>to include. The question that I wrestle with is - how to impart enough
>understanding so that there is a good chance of the participants continuing
>on with calculation - and being able to use it in their work.
>
>Do you think - given the short period of time in the classroom - that doing
>the math is a worthwhile exercise?
>
>You say it gives a basic understanding of glazes - do you think there is
>any better way to impart this understanding?
>
>As you can see - I am still trying to understand just what it is about
>calculating by hand that gives understanding and just what that
>understanding is?
>
>Thanks again - best wishes - Ron Roy.
>
>>Ron,
>>To just add to the pool of thought on this, all the courses which Mike
>>Bailey has run, and on which I have helped, have all started with doing
>>an analysis of a recipe into a formula by hand with the participants
>>having to work through the process.
>>
>>I think that it adds a great deal to the basic understanding of glazes,
>>even if it is the only time that they do such a calculation. I think it
>>also helps a lot to show people what a glaze calculation program is
>>actually doing and so have more understanding of the answers and their
>>limitations.
>>
>>David
>
>Ron Roy
>RR#4
>15084 Little Lake Road
>Brighton, Ontario
>Canada
>K0K 1H0
>Phone: 613-475-9544
>Fax: 613-475-3513
>
>
>
--
David Hewitt
Web:- http://www.dhpot.demon.co.uk
Taylor from Rockport on mon 25 apr 05
Hey King Ron,
I don't have any study to which I can refer. I'm going on gut here, using
what I've seen teaching everything from English to clay to educators. The
more relationships that can be drawn, the better learning takes place.
Intimate exposure to the basics of an area of knowledge seems to be a good
place to start. I think it's something like learning how to work
multiplication and long division on paper before using a calculator. Once
one "gets" (whatever that means) multiplication and long division, one no
longer needs to do it on paper. He or she is now freed up to learn more
complex math skills with the aid of the calculator. I think pencil glaze
calculations give me exposure to relationships that I can make in an
intimate fashion. Something that the programs don't facilitate.
I haven't even started to talk about the repitition of basic facts that are
good to know, like silica's mol weight, or the oxide constituents of clay.
Do about 10 paper calculations with in house materials and believe me, you
remember what's in the bags.
I could for sure be super wrong her and that's okay too because I know that
no harm has come to me from sharpening my pencil and doing a few simple
math problems.
Let's keep this going, my King.
Taylor in Rockport,TX
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 00:43:35 -0500, Ron Roy wrote:
>Hi Taylor,
>
>Thanks for this - but I am still wondering - what is it that you learned
>from doing the calculation - that has helped you understand about clays and
>glazes?
>
>I can understand someone wanting to know what the computer is doing - in
>other words the math - but how does that lead to any kind of knowledge that
>is useful for say finding a cure for crazing?
Lee Love on wed 27 apr 05
Taylor from Rockport wrote:
>Hey King Ron,
>
>
How 'bout: "Il Papa delle Glasse di Ceramica" (the Pope of Ceramic
Glazes, not to be confused with: "La papa delle glasse di ceramica", The
Potato of Ceramic Glazes.) *haha!* ;-)
Forgive me Father, for I have just finished a woodfiring and am somewhat
batty.
>I don't have any study to which I can refer. I'm going on gut here, using
>what I've seen teaching everything from English to clay to educators. The
>
>more relationships that can be drawn, the better learning takes place.
>
As you know from your teaching experiences, we all learn the best in
different ways. Pencil really works for you. Keep at it! But frankly,
most potters would probably get better creative mileage from their
pencils if they learned to draw with them.
Good, nicely functional glazes, are pretty easy to develop. But having
the eye to recognize good form is a lot harder to come by.
--
李 Lee Love
大
é±— in Mashiko, Japan http://mashiko.org
http://hankos.blogspot.com/ Visual Bookmarks
http://ikiru.blogspot.com/ Zen and Craft
Ron Roy on fri 29 apr 05
Hi Taylor,
Thanks for helping me think this through.
I find - that if I try to teach calculation by hand I wind up having to
teach the math - which takes up valuable time - away from what I feel are
the essentials.
So now I have to define essentials - and you are right about knowing what
oxides are in what materials.
So in my glaze book there are 4 pages of the material analysis we mostly
use - with the oxides lined up for each. That way you can find out about
nearly all the materials - not just the ones in the glaze you are
calculating - and you can compare which would be best. Easy to make
comparisons between materials in other words.
The other essential is knowing the function of each oxide in a glaze - and
you learn nothing about that by calculating.
So I am thinking we are talking about two different situations here - home
schooling and classroom.
My contention is still - it would be counter productive to teach
calculation in the class room situation - most potters will get very little
from it and the time is better spent on more important aspects.
I would recommend anyone who is trying to do it at home to get a copy of my
booklet or at least do their own lists of materials and oxide functions.
For those who still think that learning to do the math is important - why
not - but believe me - it made no difference to me - I can't remember how
to do it and it would add nothing to my understanding. Knowing the
molecular weight of an oxide has very limited usefulness anyway - besides -
I have them listed in my book and they are in most texts.
Best regards - RR
>I don't have any study to which I can refer. I'm going on gut here, using
>what I've seen teaching everything from English to clay to educators. The
>more relationships that can be drawn, the better learning takes place.
>Intimate exposure to the basics of an area of knowledge seems to be a good
>place to start. I think it's something like learning how to work
>multiplication and long division on paper before using a calculator. Once
>one "gets" (whatever that means) multiplication and long division, one no
>longer needs to do it on paper. He or she is now freed up to learn more
>complex math skills with the aid of the calculator. I think pencil glaze
>calculations give me exposure to relationships that I can make in an
>intimate fashion. Something that the programs don't facilitate.
>
>I haven't even started to talk about the repitition of basic facts that are
>good to know, like silica's mol weight, or the oxide constituents of clay.
>Do about 10 paper calculations with in house materials and believe me, you
>remember what's in the bags.
>
>I could for sure be super wrong her and that's okay too because I know that
>no harm has come to me from sharpening my pencil and doing a few simple
>math problems.
>
>Let's keep this going, my King.
>
>Taylor in Rockport,TX
Ron Roy
RR#4
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
Phone: 613-475-9544
Fax: 613-475-3513
Taylor from Rockport on sat 30 apr 05
Hey King Ron,
You have been at this WAY longer than I have and know what best works in
your classroom.
I was coming at this a little differently, so let me explain my thinking.
I don't think either method of calculating will 'teach' you how to correct
for example crazing in a glaze or why some white glazes turn pink
sometimes. You are right there. To me those are discrete pieces of
information that I could get in any number of places. Many of the pottery
books that treat glaze at all mention the traditional cures for crazing.
In fact, any glaze lesson could be learned empirically for that mater.
What do yo think got people like Tichy and Seager started? Distrete pieces
of information are either stored in books and tables or memorized: to cure
crazing add silica to glaze or clay body.
HOW all those bits hang together under my slowly balding pate is another
story. I see, for me, some initial pencil and paper calculating as a way
of understand and forming an overarching framework, what mod. educators
love to call construct (they love paradigm too). I'm talking general
outlines and nets of understanding. Mama Lili might even call it the
gestalt of glaze. Once that framework is built the need for constant
pencil and paper calc is unnecessary in my view. This is when the software
comes into its own. It is lightening fast and is a tool that speeds up the
dirty work.
Perhaps you view your and John's program as a teaching tool. I can see
that, though I still think some of the most rudimentary generalities are
not experienced that way.
I'm curious, what are the things you feel you would have to cut out of a
class if you were to teach paper and pencil calculating. You answer would
let me understand your priorities.
my sword, m'lord,
Taylor in Rockport, TX
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:21:45 -0500, Ron Roy wrote:
>Hi Taylor,
>
>Thanks for helping me think this through.
>
>I find - that if I try to teach calculation by hand I wind up having to
>teach the math - which takes up valuable time - away from what I feel are
>the essentials.
>
...
URL Krueger on sat 30 apr 05
Ron,
Do people really understand how chlorine bleach makes their
clothes whiter? Or how baking powder makes their cakes
rise? For most people I would say no, but they use these
chemicals and get good results anyway.
The serious baker who wants a cake as light as air that
melts in your mouth will learn about all of their
ingredients. They will take the time to understand which
wheats make better flour for their cakes and why and how
baking powder works.
How will this help them to make a better cake? Perhaps by
knowing that baking powder is activated by liquid they may
stir the batter less and decrease the time from when they
add the liquid to when they pour the batter into the pan.
They may not even consciously think about this. Some part
of their brain may tell another part "don't dawdle" but not
tell it why. If you ask them how they make such good
cakes they may not be able to tell you.
Having spent a good deal of time studying chemistry
calculating glazes was pretty intuitive for me. I built
and used my own spreadsheets to remove the tedium from the
process before eventually buying a program. Has
understanding the why's and how's of doing this helped me?
I don't know. What I do know is that the calculation
process and the numbers produced hold no mysteries for me.
The interpretation of these numbers, however, is still not
intuitive to me. I took a cone 10 glaze and put it into
Insight. The numbers produced fit within the cone 6 limits
from your's and John's book, except the Calcia is just a
little high. So, what makes this a cone 10 glaze versus a
cone 6 glaze. Will it melt at cone 6? The answer to this
eludes me by looking at the numbers. I will just have to
try it and see what happens.
So, I believe that understanding the calculations is a good
thing but is not necessary. For most people I feel it
would be better to spend your limited time on developing a
feel for what the numbers are really telling you and how to
adjust a glaze to acheive a desired result. That is the
part I am still struggling with.
Just my novice opinion.
--
Earl K...
Bothell WA, USA
Maurice Weitman on sun 1 may 05
Taylor wrote, in part, to Ron:
>Perhaps you view your and John's program as a teaching tool.
Hi, Taylor,
In case I correctly parsed your sentence, you may not be aware that
Ron has nothing to do with John's GlazeMaster program.
Back to the advantage of doing calcs by hand first, I am probably not
your typical computer user; I have used and worked with them since
1961. I found no advantage to having done some glaze calculations by
hand either before or after having used a glaze calc program.
Using pencil or computer, one can just as easily internalize that
increasing an ingredient with more silica than alumina will increase
a recipe's Si:Al ratio. Knowing one's ingredients and their effect
in a recipe is the key, not that one has at one time added or
multiplied some numbers.
We're talking about multiplication and division, no??? If it gives
one pleasure and/or confidence to have done or continue to do the
calcs manually (or semi-manually if one uses a calculator -- let's
not go there, please), I say pleasure thyself.
Regards,
Maurice
Ron Roy on tue 3 may 05
Hi Earl,
Understanding what works and what does not is the trick of it all of course
- and the more you do it the more you understand - we all have our own
limit sets in our heads based on what we read and what we know.
Some of us will become expert with certain kinds of glazes - the ones we
actually do.
What's for certain is - the more you do the more you understand. If you are
actually looking at the molecular formula of what you have done the faster
you will understand.
Knowing how to do the calculation or how to use a program adds nothing to
the understanding of clays and glazes.
I think your last paragraph is very helpful in all this .
Knowing your materials is helpful as is knowing how to calculate or work a
calculation program - or a speed sheet. Understanding the results in terms
of mols or percent through understanding the function of the oxides and
observing results is the gist of the exercise.
How you get there is unimportant in other words - understanding is what you
want and will get if you stick with it.
I have a big advantage - I've been changing clays and glazes now for 15
years and can see the results. It is why I have such confidence in the
technique - because I have seen it work in many ways.
I know what it was like to do it by guessing - I think of that as darting
the board in a dark room. Now the lights are on and I can see the board.
RR
>The interpretation of these numbers, however, is still not
>intuitive to me. I took a cone 10 glaze and put it into
>Insight. The numbers produced fit within the cone 6 limits
>from your's and John's book, except the Calcia is just a
>little high. So, what makes this a cone 10 glaze versus a
>cone 6 glaze. Will it melt at cone 6? The answer to this
>eludes me by looking at the numbers. I will just have to
>try it and see what happens.
>
>So, I believe that understanding the calculations is a good
>thing but is not necessary. For most people I feel it
>would be better to spend your limited time on developing a
>feel for what the numbers are really telling you and how to
>adjust a glaze to acheive a desired result. That is the
>part I am still struggling with.
>
>Just my novice opinion.
>--
>Earl K...
Ron Roy
RR#4
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
Phone: 613-475-9544
Fax: 613-475-3513
Ron Roy on tue 3 may 05
Hi Taylor,
Adding silica to cure crazing is certainly an option - but they also should
have said - keep the ratio the same - and sub in fluxes with lower
expansion rates is even better sometimes - or sub in boron for high
expansion fluxes.
It was all so simple - and it hardly ever worked because we did not know
how many other oxides were present and in what quantities - calculation
tells you that - which is why it's so much better.
In the end - with calculation - there is no magic, no guessing no poking
around in the dark. It is an intellectual process and you can see where the
pieces are on the board and what they can do.
Until you are at the stage of seeing the pieces for what they are - the
temptation is to still believe in the "magic" and the process and the
romance. It's why so many still think that line blends, triaxials etc. are
the answer. It's the shot gun approach - you can still learn about clays
and glazes that way - but you have to do the calculations and look at the
results to learn what happened.
As Maurice said - It's John's program - I'm not selling any program - I'm
not selling anything - I'm saying calculation is a great way to understand
clays and glazes - no I'm saying more than that - I'm saying calculation is
the best way to understand clays and glazes - as long as you look at the
fired results.
The problem in a calculation course is time - it's a race. Foster enough
understanding of what to do in the time available - so everyone will go
home with enough understanding to start getting results - I feel if I spend
two hours calculating by hand I have to chop off two hours of understanding
what the oxides do in a glaze.
Anyway - thanks for writing all that Taylor - food for thought - you are
helping me with my priorities - my next glaze course will be better for it.
My next glaze course is just down the road at Loyalist College in
Belleville by the way - on the north shore of Lake Ontario - in July - if
anyone wants to check it out the url is below - if you have any questions
you also have my email address.
www.loyalistfocus.com
RR
>I don't think either method of calculating will 'teach' you how to correct
>for example crazing in a glaze or why some white glazes turn pink
>sometimes. You are right there. To me those are discrete pieces of
>information that I could get in any number of places. Many of the pottery
>books that treat glaze at all mention the traditional cures for crazing.
>In fact, any glaze lesson could be learned empirically for that mater.
>What do yo think got people like Tichy and Seager started? Distrete pieces
>of information are either stored in books and tables or memorized: to cure
>crazing add silica to glaze or clay body.
>
>HOW all those bits hang together under my slowly balding pate is another
>story. I see, for me, some initial pencil and paper calculating as a way
>of understand and forming an overarching framework, what mod. educators
>love to call construct (they love paradigm too). I'm talking general
>outlines and nets of understanding. Mama Lili might even call it the
>gestalt of glaze. Once that framework is built the need for constant
>pencil and paper calc is unnecessary in my view. This is when the software
>comes into its own. It is lightening fast and is a tool that speeds up the
>dirty work.
>
>Perhaps you view your and John's program as a teaching tool. I can see
>that, though I still think some of the most rudimentary generalities are
>not experienced that way.
>
>I'm curious, what are the things you feel you would have to cut out of a
>class if you were to teach paper and pencil calculating. You answer would
>let me understand your priorities.
>
>
>my sword, m'lord,
>
>Taylor in Rockport, TX
>
>On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:21:45 -0500, Ron Roy wrote:
>
>>Hi Taylor,
>>
>>Thanks for helping me think this through.
>>
>>I find - that if I try to teach calculation by hand I wind up having to
>>teach the math - which takes up valuable time - away from what I feel are
>>the essentials.
>>
>...
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>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.
Ron Roy
RR#4
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
Phone: 613-475-9544
Fax: 613-475-3513
| |
|
