David Woof on sat 23 jul 05
been too busy having fun with my pots and kilns to respond sooner, but
damn, maurice, i'm confounded, just yesterday i was cussin and a swearin
tryin to jam that big cone under the dawson kiln sitter rod so i calls
dawson and they tol me the same thing. actually, in the interest of
promoting accurate reading and comprehension, the originator of this small
cones thread was not asking about kiln sitters, but the use of small vs
large cones as witness cones in conjunction with his sitter cone. where
in physical creation do you think that sitter rod gets it's ''pressure''
from? Mr. Andrew Slater in third grade told us it's gravity that causes
matter to exhibit mechanical weight, do you agree? dfwm. Best regards,
david
>From: Maurice Weitman
>To: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>CC: "David Woof"
>Subject: re: which size cones
>Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:45:18 -0700
>
>Greets, folks,
>
>At 1:08 AM -0500 on 7/13/05, David Woof wrote:
>>rick it's subjective, perhaps you could try both and see which you prefer,
>>due to gravity effect there will be a difference of about 1/2 cone between
>>large and small cones of the same designation.
>
>I think it's less subjective than that, David. My understanding is that
>the small cones were formulated by Orton specifically for use in kiln
>sitters to bend later than their similarly-numbered larger size.
>
>The metal rod in the kiln sitter that trips when the cone bends exerts some
>pressure on the cone and makes it bend more quickly.
>
>The Dawson folks told me that it's more the pressure from the rod than
>gravity that will deform the cone in a sitter.
>
>BUT... if someone wanted to use smaller cones as witness cones, and they
>didn't mind that they were harder to read, AND that's all they used so
>their results would be consistent, AND they didn't mind that they wouldn't
>be able to compare their cone numbers with others'... why not?
>
>My $0.02 (in small coins).
>
>Regards,
>Maurice
David Woof
peering over the edge, reverently taking an irreverent look at everything.
Marcia Selsor on sat 23 jul 05
In a pinch I have snapped the big cones in two and used the small
half in a sitter. I save the low fire bottom half of the cone for
cone packes in the big kiln for indicators of body reduction time. I
only do this in a pinch but for bisque firing and body reduction
indicators, it works for me.
Marcia Selsor
On Jul 23, 2005, at 1:26 AM, David Woof wrote:
> been too busy having fun with my pots and kilns to respond
> sooner, but
> damn, maurice, i'm confounded, just yesterday i was cussin and a
> swearin
> tryin to jam that big cone under the dawson kiln sitter rod so i calls
> dawson and they tol me the same thing. actually, in the interest of
> promoting accurate reading and comprehension, the originator of
> this small
> cones thread was not asking about kiln sitters, but the use of
> small vs
> large cones as witness cones in conjunction with his sitter
> cone. where
> in physical creation do you think that sitter rod gets it's
> ''pressure''
> from? Mr. Andrew Slater in third grade told us it's gravity that
> causes
> matter to exhibit mechanical weight, do you agree? dfwm. Best
> regards,
> david
>
>
>> From: Maurice Weitman
>> To: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>> CC: "David Woof"
>> Subject: re: which size cones
>> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:45:18 -0700
>>
>> Greets, folks,
>>
>> At 1:08 AM -0500 on 7/13/05, David Woof wrote:
>>
>>> rick it's subjective, perhaps you could try both and see which
>>> you prefer,
>>> due to gravity effect there will be a difference of about 1/2
>>> cone between
>>> large and small cones of the same designation.
>>>
>>
>> I think it's less subjective than that, David. My understanding
>> is that
>> the small cones were formulated by Orton specifically for use in kiln
>> sitters to bend later than their similarly-numbered larger size.
>>
>> The metal rod in the kiln sitter that trips when the cone bends
>> exerts some
>> pressure on the cone and makes it bend more quickly.
>>
>> The Dawson folks told me that it's more the pressure from the rod
>> than
>> gravity that will deform the cone in a sitter.
>>
>> BUT... if someone wanted to use smaller cones as witness cones,
>> and they
>> didn't mind that they were harder to read, AND that's all they
>> used so
>> their results would be consistent, AND they didn't mind that they
>> wouldn't
>> be able to compare their cone numbers with others'... why not?
>>
>> My $0.02 (in small coins).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Maurice
>>
>
>
> David Woof
>
Maurice Weitman on sun 24 jul 05
Hello, David (and other small cone fans),
Maybe it's the latitude (I'm in Portland as I type this) or the six
hours I spent on the Willamette and Columbia this afternoon, but I'm
not sure what you're saying (or is it asking?) here.
I was told by someone at Dawson a year ago that the weight of the rod
will exert pressure on the cone and therefore speed its deformation.
In fact, Dawson makes several lengths of rod to correspond to various
kiln wall thicknesses, and for each length of rod, there's a
corresponding counterweight placed on the outside of the rod's pivot
point to counteract the varying weights of the rod on the inside of
the pivot point in the kiln.
Does that answer your "where in physical creation" question?
I agree that the original question was about using small cones as
witness cones, and that's the point I addressed. I meant to convey
that, as Dawson told me, small Orton cones were formulated to bend
more slowly than large cones to counteract the kiln sitter rod's
influence, and that of their horizontal orientation.
And for the record, I don't use a kiln sitter to shut off my kilns;
mine are controlled by Bartlett controllers, and I use the sitters as
extra safety devices with cones at least one and sometimes two higher
than my intended shutoff. I don't trust the accuracy of the kiln
sitter to shut down my firing.
Regards,
Maurice, in northern Oregon, happy to be heading home tomorrow, and
very happy to have spent the last week up here visiting friends and
enjoying the delights of summer in the northwest.
At 2:26 AM -0500 on 7/23/05, David Woof wrote:
>been too busy having fun with my pots and kilns to respond sooner, but
>damn, maurice, i'm confounded, just yesterday i was cussin and a swearin
>tryin to jam that big cone under the dawson kiln sitter rod so i calls
>dawson and they tol me the same thing. actually, in the interest of
>promoting accurate reading and comprehension, the originator of this small
>cones thread was not asking about kiln sitters, but the use of small vs
>large cones as witness cones in conjunction with his sitter cone. where
>in physical creation do you think that sitter rod gets it's ''pressure''
>from? Mr. Andrew Slater in third grade told us it's gravity that causes
>matter to exhibit mechanical weight, do you agree? dfwm.
Rogier Donker on sun 24 jul 05
Large cones in a kiln sitter? Not a good idea....take a look at the Kiln
Repair link on my web site....http://www.donkerstudio.org
Rogier
David Woof on wed 27 jul 05
maurice, there was no ''physical creation question'' for you to answer,
there never was except for my obviously unsuccessful attempt to get you to
think a new thought. so maurice, in some thing of lay terms, gravity is
the physical force involved that causes the sitter rod to exhibit
perceptable mechanical ''weight'' which causes the cone to deform when it
reaches the state of pyroplasticity it was formulated for. in other words
put that rod in zero gravity coditions and attempt to weigh it. gravity also
works on cones in any position. is this important to think about long
enough to have a discussion? not really except that you came out of a
twisted left field to correct out of context with the original posted
question and answer.
i have an issue with this happening on this list where self styled expert
waaanabes clamor, usually with arrogant egos dripping, and nothing
instructional or with a humility directed to draw out the best in each other
which is the essence of the latin root of our english words related to
''educate'' and our collective goal on this list as i understand it.
my post re me ''cussin an a swearin while trying to jam a large cone into a
sitter'' was ment to be an obvious spoof by the less than correct language
used and suggested the question, who would be that stupid to work up a
cussing sweat trying? it was ment to say in a humorous way ''this is
getting stupid, let's stop''.
and another writes a curt "large cones in a sitter, bad idea, see my website
on kiln repair'' i smile, amused, hell i've never tryed it so i'll take
your word for it, i'm sure it's a bad idea.
now let's go play in the mud and end this on a smile and a muddy hand shake.
just like we did in front of the principal in first grade.
me, as i write i'm fan drying a cremation urn, in this arizona monsoon
season, in my air conditioned office. when i close, it's out to the studio,
un-airconditioned, to make my interpretation of mayan masks for the parapet
rain scuppers on a truely gorgeous home a client is building in sedona.
courtyards and old mexican columns and colors, hand treated and carved wood
through out. of course he needs some large ''mayan style'' clay vessels for
the grounds and door stoop. since he has studied mayan hieroglyphic
writing, i will later suggest a five foot stelae secluded somewhere on the
property that tells ''his story''.
mugs are drying, mugs are bisqued and needing glaze. many great posts on
mugs, I agree, fine mugs at a reasonable price are the use everyday
calling cards that bring customers back for the higher ticket items. They
must impel the eye and hand to pick them up in the first place and then they
must feel right to the hand and lips. do they seem to float on the surface
they rest on? they should require no concious effort to hold and comfortably
drink from, just conciouness of ritual and sensual pleasure. i so love the
fact that buyers of mugs for the most part are concious of this quality of
life need. if one simply needs to drink we have our cupped hands, hose
nozzels, and walmart. if one's mugs aren't selling, you don't know your
market, or negative attitude about makeing them is shouting thru the glaze
no matter how pretty. with 90 percent or better of human comunication being
non verbal maybe your face and body aren't radiating pride and excitement
for the chance to share your mudpies. they really buy us. the pot is what
they get to take home. it must represent us well.
>From: Maurice Weitman
>To: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>CC: "David Woof"
>Subject: re: maurice small cone research
>Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:00:43 -0700
>
>Hello, David (and other small cone fans),
>
>Maybe it's the latitude (I'm in Portland as I type this) or the six hours I
>spent on the Willamette and Columbia this afternoon, but I'm not sure what
>you're saying (or is it asking?) here.
>
>I was told by someone at Dawson a year ago that the weight of the rod will
>exert pressure on the cone and therefore speed its deformation. In fact,
>Dawson makes several lengths of rod to correspond to various kiln wall
>thicknesses, and for each length of rod, there's a corresponding
>counterweight placed on the outside of the rod's pivot point to counteract
>the varying weights of the rod on the inside of the pivot point in the
>kiln.
>
>Does that answer your "where in physical creation" question?
>
>I agree that the original question was about using small cones as witness
>cones, and that's the point I addressed. I meant to convey that, as Dawson
>told me, small Orton cones were formulated to bend more slowly than large
>cones to counteract the kiln sitter rod's influence, and that of their
>horizontal orientation.
>
>And for the record, I don't use a kiln sitter to shut off my kilns; mine
>are controlled by Bartlett controllers, and I use the sitters as extra
>safety devices with cones at least one and sometimes two higher than my
>intended shutoff. I don't trust the accuracy of the kiln sitter to shut
>down my firing.
>
>Regards,
>Maurice, in northern Oregon, happy to be heading home tomorrow, and very
>happy to have spent the last week up here visiting friends and enjoying the
>delights of summer in the northwest.
>
>At 2:26 AM -0500 on 7/23/05, David Woof wrote:
>>been too busy having fun with my pots and kilns to respond sooner, but
>>damn, maurice, i'm confounded, just yesterday i was cussin and a swearin
>>tryin to jam that big cone under the dawson kiln sitter rod so i calls
>>dawson and they tol me the same thing. actually, in the interest of
>>promoting accurate reading and comprehension, the originator of this small
>>cones thread was not asking about kiln sitters, but the use of small vs
>>large cones as witness cones in conjunction with his sitter cone. where
>>in physical creation do you think that sitter rod gets it's ''pressure''
>>from? Mr. Andrew Slater in third grade told us it's gravity that causes
>>matter to exhibit mechanical weight, do you agree? dfwm.
>
David Woof
peering over the edge, reverently taking an irreverent look at everything.
| |
|
