K Raynor on thu 8 dec 05
I have always use ^10 stoneware. Can anyone tell me the positive and
negative aspects of ^6 stoneware.
Kurt
Marcia Selsor on thu 8 dec 05
about half the fuel consumption? If you look at pyrotechnic charts,
the fuel consumption grows exponentially about ^5 if I remember
correctly.
Marcia Selsor
who has fired ^6 reduction since 1980 and has ^6 recipes in Michael
Bailey's Oriental Glazes book. -with nice depth.
On Dec 8, 2005, at 9:20 AM, K Raynor wrote:
> I have always use ^10 stoneware. Can anyone tell me the positive and
> negative aspects of ^6 stoneware.
> Kurt
>
> ___
William & Susan Schran User on thu 8 dec 05
On 12/8/05 11:20 AM, "K Raynor" wrote:
> I have always use ^10 stoneware. Can anyone tell me the positive and
> negative aspects of ^6 stoneware.
Positive - less energy & time to fire to temperature, less strain on the
kiln.
Negative (well, depends on how you look at it) - often requires more
expensive materials (frit) to supply a flux to create a glaze with proper
melt.
Higher temperature glazes often require less (number and cost) materials and
there is often more interaction between materials & clay due to additional
heat work.
-- William "Bill" Schran
Fredericksburg, Virginia
wschran@cox.net
wschran@nvcc.edu
Judy Rohrbaugh on thu 8 dec 05
When I think of Cone 10, I am thinking of reduction, and when I think of cone 6, I am thinking oxidation in an electric kiln. In that case there are differences, esp with glazes.
When I started firing in an electirc kiln, it was at cone 9, a few years later and I was down to cone 6. Personally, I haven't seen any disadvantages at 6, and I think it is easier on the kiln.
Judy Rohrbaugh
Fine Art Stoneware
Ohio
K Raynor wrote:
I have always use ^10 stoneware. Can anyone tell me the positive and
negative aspects of ^6 stoneware.
Kurt
______________________________________________________________________________
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 on fri 9 dec 05
"Higher temperature glazes often require less (number and cost) materials and
there is often more interaction between materials & clay due to additional
heat work."
This was what almost everyone thought at one time - more reaction between
clay and glaze.
If lower fired kilns are cooled slower you get what appears to be this same
interaction.
When John showed some of the test tiles of our glazes - slow cooled - some
potters would not believe they were not fired in reduction.
I think there is still much to learn at cone 6 - in fact more that at cone 10.
It certainly is just as good a place to make functional ware as cone 10 and
it may be - when all the advantages and dis advantages are added up -
better.
RR
Ron Roy
RR#4
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
Phone: 613-475-9544
Fax: 613-475-3513
Sam Kelly on sun 11 dec 05
I also fire to ^9-^10 myself, over the last 3 years I have experimented
with different clay bodies, commercially purchased as well as mixing
bodies with raw materials myself.
Slip cast and wheel thrown pots were examined in gas reduction and
electric from ^5 to ^10, stoneware and porcelain.
The three ways for me to test without spending any money is a gentle flick
with the finger nail and listen to the sound, high pitch is good, dull
thud is failure, waxy shiny clay body is fired to high, how easy it is to
break.
Commercially produced throwing bodies came out the easiest to use, but I
have a stoneware slip casting body that is mixed from raw materials, fires
whiter than commercially avalable, is cheaper and no problems so far at
^10. A ^6 porcelain that also works(its lighter than the stoneware for the
same volume)
I don't see any advantage at ^6 except costs, ^10 is harder and more
durable for me.
Sam
| |
|
