bill edwards on wed 24 aug 05
I have been asked about this glaze recently and have
discussed it off-list. Didn't remember if it was one I
had archived or not. My lab results aren't listed but
I have all of them from a certified lab using SW601OB
standards for testing water (EPA). I am self
publishing a home grown guide latter only as part of a
more comprehensive writing and for my get-a-ways or
work shops at my studio and occasionally on the road.
This and many more glazes are discussed but technique
is mostly what it's about not just glaze guruing and
drama-tising what I have to offer. It's not a secret
that there's room to grow and explore but I believe in
firm scientific results to back my efforts up and I
have those. We have to strike a balance and there's
some trading off occasionally when it comes to durable
versed aesthetics. Sometimes it works well, sometimes
it flops. Can it always be fixed, NO! Can you get
closer, YES!! And you can always improve or throw out
the bad once you know the facts. But never throw the
baby out with the wash-water without checking first.
Edwards 1234 Glossy Base (c) 01.13.00
Ferro Frit 3134 - 40.00
EPK - 30.00
Silica - 20.00
Wollastonite - 10.00
-------------------------
Total 100.00
Reproduction is permissable without analysis if you
will respect that for now. Your analysis is going to
be different than mine based on your software
data-base anyways but the lab results should remain
pretty close the same if you use the list of materials
that I used. That was one of the key reasons for
creating a clear with reduced components so
duplication could be made easier across the board. We
were at the time discussing glaze travel. I have some
flops too. It takes alot of flopping to get to
flipping.
Now the archives will show some who say the costs were
prohibiting, some will say that there aren't enough
components for a fix. What fix???? One suggested a
feldspar replacement, I had already done that! Its
made for simplicity and the lab reports clearly define
the heavy loads I added which give some pleasing
numbers back, passing the majority of extractables to
include chromium and manganese, boron, iron, cobalt
and nickle (who in their right mind would load nickle
as high as I did anyways?) mixtures of each as well as
copper and as stated failed at the load I placed on it
and passed when reduced by 50% as does most glazes I
have lab tested in the past. Lots of different
opinions about copper but that is one glaze many
potters use who will argue till blue in the face about
manganese and still be using copper and not give it a
second thought. Lets try not to create a show-down
when there's certifiable means to back this up. There
was then, there is now, I chose not to release all the
data. I have done my fair share in releasing things
that I paid for and all I asked was a picture back or
a sample of their fired product or an opinion about
their technique in use.
(EPA regulated DWS for copper is 1.3Mg/L at this
writing Primary regulations)Actually manganese is
listed in the secondary standards and not listed as a
toxic component but more of a technical issue to water
standards. 0.05Mg/L. DO NOT BREATH FUMES OR INGEST or
dust yourself in any of them like a chicken cooling
off in the sun. DO NOT stick your nose in the exhaust
system of a car while running either.
I remember Earl Brunner and others who were really
nice to me at the time and helped me form a better
opinion of myself and the future as I percieved it to
be at the time. Let me suggest this, I made this
public so others could learn from it and perhaps use
it to their liking. I haven't ask them not to repeat
anything unless I have written them privately and
detailed lab reports to them for whatever purpose.
This is how I believe we can work together as potters.
We cannot fix anything unless we have a round table
discussion among potters that lets them debate the use
of a material between each other. What I can add is
this, anyone is welcome to use this glaze, ask me
questions and send me a signed confidential agreement
for the analysis information for this particular glaze
and who, how it was analized. Its clarity is
remarkable and I believe it should be allowed the
chance for others to try now that Frit 3134 is within
the reach of mosts potters pocket books these days.
Component wise, Frit alone is made of many materials
and the analysis for this simple glaze is rather
complex so that old argument is null to me. If I
wanted to fix this glaze I would and I have made
changes based on whatever oxides added at the time
because I am aware on how changing the chemistry can
alter the results for the better or worse. Its one of
hundreds I have written and still as clear as the day
I wrote it. It takes colorants well. How much? I have
the results for those who are willing to contract a
confidential reporting until I release it down the
road myself. Remember, I spent lots of money over the
years doing these things and while I appreciate good
critique I also appreciate leaving things alone where
my record keeping stands and how I decided what was
best for me at the time. Anyone wishing to spend lots
of money to argue this point can do so against
consistent lab reports and show me theirs in the end.
It applies both ways!
We can discuss calcium boron silicate glazes or go
back to GB or use what you are using and not test
anything else because your 100% sure you have the best
there is. This was the kicker that got this started,
replace GB with something that worked, something that
didn't add boron blue to the mix. Something that
didn't craze as often as some glazes and could hold
its colorants to a decent degree. We can alter the
expans. We can alter everything about this glaze, I
can do the same with anyone's out there, you can too!
Then we have to test all the same things over again.
Changing add's complexities, meaning it changes the
course of known values and will need re-examination
when changes take place.
We have come a long ways. Thanks to many of the
wonderful people here, I am still looking and working
towards the next level and really have low
expectations for making my life any easier
financially. But for trying to advance or create art
in my own way is akin to being able to paint my canvas
with my own thoughts and sign my name to it when
finished and the same can be said for pottery. (Mine
might be junk to one person and a treasure to another)
I liked how Vince made an observation about the values
of a non-trained person verses that of one who is well
versed, both are valuable assets and both have a place
in artistic expression. Music and art is it's own
creature and often those on the outside looking in are
my inspiration to carry on further and explore every
possibility in front of me to some extent and
hopefully pull them along with me as many have for me.
After all, I know that my days are numbered and I must
spend them all, well! The value of one day cannot be
bought or traded.
Has anyone found any evidence at all showing that the
human body has been harmed from crazed pottery where
bacterial growth has in fact caused harm or injury? Do
not include cross-contamination since that can happen
on a clean plate. No one has clearly answered this yet
and I would like it for my own research and haven't
found conclusive reference. This isn't to advance
crazed pottery, its to understand how we can make
changes without including FEAR in our craft or
conclusively ending moot points where there is no
scientific data respresenting an assumption or trained
theory regardless of where it comes. Of course we are
all guilty of that including myself.
Usually I add the disclaimer of my theory or IMHO. You
can bet a toxicologist will offer a theory to this
often relating towards the bad, except our good Dr. Ed
who tries hard hard not to scare people to death but
to educate them. Thats how they are trained. We all
have our stronger points. Mine is dogged determination
even in the eye's of failure but I never would forgive
myself for not challenging things enough to get a well
rounded meal from it. Me wrong? YES...I have a pulse
sill. Always wrong, no one can always be wrong can they?
Bill Edwards
Edmar Studio and Gallery
302 South Main St (Shipping)
POB 367 (Mailing)
Camp Hill, Al. 36850
http://apottersmark.blogspot.com/
"!" And I quote that
CampHillBilly
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
| |
|
