search  current discussion  categories  teaching 

calculation education

updated wed 1 mar 06

 

bill edwards on mon 27 feb 06


I think Hewitt is right on this. I have said that in
countless ways and used many methods trying to convey
a simlar statement. John H. wants to apologize and it
will go away or quieten down. Ron wants to move on
because it is taking up space here and possibly more
time than he might be willing or wishing to give to an
already well ridden subject. Mel is throwing up his
arms and others are either taking sides or getting mad
and some don't even know why? I think its ridiculous
to allow a good discussion go without challenge to the
end where their is more reasons than one to keep at it
till we find a solution this time and be done with it
once and for all or shut up when someone else is
putting their recipes out there and quit nit-picking
every 'i' thats not dotted or every 't' not crossed
until everyone agrees that you cannot predict the
outcome of molecular formula without great consistency
in up dating your materials data-base, knowing how to
correctly do that and acquire that information from a
reliable source and deciphering what you just done
without going to school for it at least for a
reasonable period of time. So education is 'KEY' but
to get there from here takes on many different forms.
Some of this is like requesting those who speak out to
add their education levels and which schools they
attended to be able to take part in an open forum
where we should be having the time of whats left of
our lives instead of consistent bickering and jawing.

So the recipe is our best friend regardless of what
anyone else says in my own opinion,y oulss see why if
you read on to the end, but its still my opinion that
becomes abstract under others rules. Ron says it
limits educating others, John seems to agree from
whatever scientific stand-point he is coming from or
otherwise not discrediting his engineering work at
all? I disagree with both of them but its not the end
of the World and I don't believe they are the smartest
two men who ever wrote about glazes but they did
seriously impact the market with a well written book.
And right now they are probably thinking I don't like
them or I have a bone to pick, I like them both and an
very fond of their ability to contribute as freely as
they do, I do wish they wouldn't do it on anothers
dime without adding that same allowance as they take
for themselves regarding others works if they want to
go that route. Since I want new artists to talk to me
about my glazes I have asked the 'guru's not to use my
name, my product or recipes or molecular information
in replying publicly because at this point, I prefer
to be able to reach my conclusions on a one to one
basis since it is I than earned my stripes through my
long hard hours of work. I do wish greatly that novice
potters and non-professional potters dig in deep on
any of the old or newer recipes they may have found
and we can have a day at the beach on them, the good
and the bad. I will include labs with mine that I
publish outside this group forum (some out there have
already been given those labs and were asked to hold
that information off for a little longer) as well when
I publish the book but currently we are looking at
doing e.books and CD before hard cover and I haven't
reached a point where I know the release date for
either. I am way busy on another tangent at present
and its paying the bills and we have good materials
out there to read as is for now. I have asked Ron and
John both to release something new. They have created
themselves an open market for another best seller.

Now lets go back to one of the posts that John
referred to that throws me off a little bit because
Ron says they can get more consistency/education by
doing things the way they are doing them now and thats
limiting in my way of thinking.

LB posted that she fired waxwing brown and it
blistered from MC6G so she thought she might have
mixed something wrong or over-fired it. She lowered
the temperature 15 degree's from what is believed to
be cone 6 heat work. She notes the glaze didn't like a
hard ^6 down based on her information. JH says that
she may not have mixed it wrong after all, that it
will blister when fired too hot or too thick a glaze
is applied. Now in the book and I quote, 'when it is
apploed thickly it is a very attractive, more uniform,
cedar waxwing brown. When applied thinly it can show
some very spectacular crystals, which give it more
varied appearance. Now according to copyright I can
use that kind of language to discuss an issue where it
is pertinent to the information or statement being
made which is in context with the question asked in a
group forum, if it was private it would be between
them and we'd know nothing of the problem, nor would
we get educated from this. I don't see this kind of
information he is currently giving as part of the
original advice given. This is what everyone has been
saying, it reduces a chance for others to work on this
in union and become educated through sharing of
individual discovery. I see it a relatively low
expansion glaze and could be finicky but I don't see
any mention of the same advice as given over the last
few days. If we were doing what is often seen from Ron
we'd be all over that glaze with a fine tooth comb if
it were someone else's glaze being discussed,
especially if there was a problem with the glaze after
it showed great promise and excitement elsewhere.

The above is just an observation, nothing more. We
need to discuss, not dictate or rule because each
person has their own levels they work at. If this
glaze was being discussed others out there could
easily lend their personal techniques that helped them
get from point A on to point B without John H.
throwing me off a little by saying something different
than what is stated in the book written specifically
detailing master cone 6 glazes that seem to have some
that don't like ^6 but might prefer a little less heat
or a change in the formulation to adjust it more to
that temperature range. If I were giving it a
calculated thought without using any calculations
tools, I would simply make this one suggestion and
remember, I am not calculating this at all just doing
this from memory, I would adjust the OM 4 ball clay
and mix it 50:50 ratio with EPK and see if that helps
you out a little. I think it is well worth
experimenting with and someone else can do the
calculations and molecular's on it since my lips are
sealed and the computer I am on tonight doesn't have
the software on it to speculate further.

Or you can do what he suggested and never try this and
never know if it worked or not. These are the kinds of
experimentations you will need and the recipes are
vital to a continuance in education from the ground
up. And I had to manage that off the top of my head
with no chance of calculating it or giving either the
recipe or the molecular information at all.

Bill Edwards
http://apottersmark.blogspot.com/

'Studio Pottery Set-up for Sell, offers considered!'

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com