Eric Hansen on fri 23 mar 07
Myth...and whatever else...
Aging of clay is maximized in several scenarios - and
geologists and sedimentologists will attest to this.
1) weathering. It breaks up the particles making them
finer.
2) simulated weathering such as blunging; or
3) mechanical grinding of the clay such as
ball-milling or milling dry clay
however, mixing water with dry clay and aging it
doesn't necessarily make the clay more plastic. It
could be that the particles are becoming more wetted
by aging. Interestingly, this can subtract from
maleability as water is being absorbed.
4) aging clay in a slop tank and allowing organics to
grow - to a certain extent the results of this
practice are skewed by the fact that you keep pouring
your slop from throwing - the finest particles of all
- into the batch. The good news is that you should
recycle your clay if you are interested in plasticity,
however clay that has been recycled for 300 million
years has a distinct advantage. So then - ?
5) clay doesn't get more plastic sitting in the bag.
Just throw something!
H A M B O N E
eric hansen
http://americanpotter.blogspot.com
--- pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET wrote:
> Hi Vince, all...
>
>
>
> Oye, been considerably fevered and chilled in turns,
> and quite a bit
> too...plenty of always changing come-and-go achey
> and fatigue and so on
> since getting home...bad BAD recirculated stale air
> on the flights both ways
> ( probably some 'scientist' was payed to say "Hey,
> that's fine, let 'em
> breathe it...it meets the minimum biologic
> requirements" - as long as we
> ignore all the molds, bacteria, viruses, off-gassing
> pastics, and probable
> contaigens of infected passengers getting circulated
> endlessly, which need
> not enter into their usual kind of so called
> "study"...) ...but this topic
> caught my eye...
>
>
> Maybe I missed something here, or misunderstood, or
> am just feeling
> grouchy...and I have only partially scanned some of
> this thread off and
> on...but to me it seems worse than ridiculous for
> 'scientists' to proclaim
> that aging Clay does not improve it, and then to
> say, as an incidental, or a
> grudgeing concession, "Well, if ORGANICS are
> present then it DOES or 'may'
> improve it..."
>
> Well why not just say 'that' in the first place?
>
> Who the hell set the (presumed?) conditions for the
> 'aging' anyway, him?
>
>
> "Science"...just seems to sink more and more into
> having no respectibility
> at all...and less sense.
>
> I guess one can similarly say, "Getting a PHD does
> not improve one's wits,
> or sense, nor is there any need to have had any of
> either in the first
> place."
>
> ...and one would be just as much if not more
> technically 'correct'.
>
>
>
> Too...
>
> ...will someone please write to this so called "Dr.
> Carty" and ask him to
> consult a Dictionary to discover the definition,
> rather than a sadly all too
> tyipcal complaisently acquired and ignorant
> connotation or by now popular
> slang, and mis-use, and gruesome vulgarization, of
> what the term "Myth" (
> actually ) means?
>
>
> Maybe a pre-PC Dictionary, when literacy was
> possible to find of those who
> wrote or compiled it, and, more poignant yet, was
> presumed by the writers of
> those who might consult or read it.
>
> ...or some apt and clearifying passage of Joseph
> Campbell...
>
>
> Not that he will understand what Myth 'means', but
> that he might find
> something at least of what it is not?
>
> And some of what it is not, is casual
> mis-information, false information,
> inherited compromised descriptions or
> unsubstantiated or corrupted
> information of whatever kind, of whatever
> provenance, of whatever
> popularity, or strories 'merely', or errors of
> belief...or superstition or
> low social useage of terms.
>
> Anymore than 'Science' is pedantic stupidity, made
> into praxis and outlook
> and livelihood.
>
> Have him look up 'Science' too...
>
> Sheeesh!
>
>
> Anyway...
>
> Golly...
>
>
> ...sigh...
>
>
> Love,
>
>
> Phil
> el v
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vince Pitelka"
>
> > Wayne Seidl wrote:
> >> However, I do believe we're all on the same page
> here, we're not really
> >> disagreeing.
> >> Best,
> >> Wayne Seidl
> >
> > I'm sure you are correct, Wayne. I have nothing
> against science. I was
> > raised by two emminent scientists. I do think
> that occasionally
> > scientists
> > can develop their pet theories contrary to
> observable reality, but I
> > certainly would not pre-judge Dr. Carty's
> assertions before thoroughly
> > reading the presentation whenever it comes out in
> the NCECA journal. Our
> > beloved Stephani Stephenson originally stated it
> as if Dr. Carty had
> > declared that the idea that aging improves
> plasticity was a myth. That's
> > what I was reacting to.
> >
> > I really like what Richard Aerni said in his post
> tonight: "You can beat
> > a
> > potter over the head with a science book, but if
> the potter's hands tell
> > him/her that something is true, then it is true,
> no matter what science
> > says." There is another beloved member of this
> list who ocasionally tries
> > to beat me over the head with science books with
> no success at all, and it
> > frustrates the hell out of him. I can only go by
> what I observe and
> > experience, and I will believe that before I
> believe contradicting science
> > every time.
> >
> > I am looking forward to receiving the NCECA
> journal. I hope they get it
> > out
> > in a timely fashion.
> > - Vince
> >
> > Vince Pitelka
> > Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee
> Technological University
> > Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
>
>
______________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on sat 24 mar 07
Myth...and whatever else...
Hi Eric,
Respecting No. 4 -
My own naive acceptance has been that to age Clay, one makes a 'soup' of
it...introduces such 'Organics' as by experience will attract appropriately
able Anaerobes...leaves it open for some time for this to get to happen,
stirrs and paddles or agitates it now and then, and then closes it up and
lets it be for however long...and eventually lets it loose it's excess Water
by evaporation.
And one does not add Throwing sop or casual recycle things to it.
Rather, one may if one wishes, make of those their own to-be-aged batch, and
adds what lackings or what as one images it to need composition-wise. Or if
one is already working with aged Clay, one merely re-cycles by whatever
simple means which does not include messing up the Clay which IS aging, if
one can do so without it being left short of it's desired propertys and
quality.
Best wishes,
Phil
el v
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Hansen"
> Aging of clay is maximized in several scenarios - and
> geologists and sedimentologists will attest to this.
>
> 1) weathering. It breaks up the particles making them
> finer.
>
> 2) simulated weathering such as blunging; or
>
> 3) mechanical grinding of the clay such as
> ball-milling or milling dry clay
>
> however, mixing water with dry clay and aging it
> doesn't necessarily make the clay more plastic. It
> could be that the particles are becoming more wetted
> by aging. Interestingly, this can subtract from
> maleability as water is being absorbed.
>
> 4) aging clay in a slop tank and allowing organics to
> grow - to a certain extent the results of this
> practice are skewed by the fact that you keep pouring
> your slop from throwing - the finest particles of all
> - into the batch. The good news is that you should
> recycle your clay if you are interested in plasticity,
> however clay that has been recycled for 300 million
> years has a distinct advantage. So then - ?
>
> 5) clay doesn't get more plastic sitting in the bag.
> Just throw something!
>
> H A M B O N E
> eric hansen
> http://americanpotter.blogspot.com
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
Vince Pitelka on sat 24 mar 07
Myth...and whatever else...
Eric Hansen wrote:
> however, mixing water with dry clay and aging it
> doesn't necessarily make the clay more plastic. It
> could be that the particles are becoming more wetted
> by aging. Interestingly, this can subtract from
> maleability as water is being absorbed.
Sorry Eric, but aging clay DOES necessarily make the clay more plastic for
the reasons I clearly explained several days ago. Organic activity is
inevitable, whether in the slop tank or in the plastic clay, and the
byproducts of that organic activity are acidic, flocculating the clay,
making it "stickier," and thus more plastic. Also, the organic activity
provides a lubricating effect, and also reduces absorption of water into the
claybody. All of these things leads to a much more plastic clay over time.
To deny these things is to deny practical experience with aged clay. Sorry
to be so absolute, but it really is that simple. Clay DOES absolutely get
more plastic sitting in the bag. That is inevitable.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
| |
|
