Jump to content

Patsu

Members
  • Content count

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Patsu

  • Rank
    barely a beginner

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    being-in-the-world, without taking it for granted.
  1. 3 Striped Primitives

    Thanks for your thoughts, Definitely on some your lip hits the clay. It is a vitrified surface so the bare clay though rough is not sandpapery, it is glassified. I think the less thick glaze stripe at the lip, looks more balanced than bringing the glaze down much lower, as I did on some. Still, perhaps I should have brought the glaze down a bit lower on some.
  2. Neat how this guy uses an arm with a plexi form to shape the interior of the plates after cutting them out of slabs. Maybe done on a plaster bat that's pre-shaping the underside of the plate for uniform results.
  3. True Carl, it's 3 layers of bonded glass, so tough they have mailed it with just a stamp and address on the plate & it does fine. I suppose restaurants don't use it, I haven't been a heavy restaurant goer my life so can't really say. Just wondering where really decent stoneware fits in the spectrum of table ware overall. Plastic melamine stuff is tough but I'm thinking more upscale than that at least. I had some pieces in a consignment shop. The shop was in a bad location and pottery was not moving so I picked them up yesterday. Among the pieces were three identical brown stoneware monkey dishes. After a few pops I decided that I would sacrifice them in order to learn how tough they were. I smashed the rims against each other roughly a dozen times, 2 against 1, then threw the three in a handful across the floor several times. I then inspected them and saw not a chip or crack, though there was some smearing from the floor on one, which wiped off. I then threw them across the floor again, and one hit a metal edge strip on the floor, and broke. The others were unharmed, with no chips. The piece that broke, didn't really chip, it smashed and broke apart, no longer a dish, now unusable. They were glazed on the interior covering the lip, unglazed exterior, maybe a bit thinner or the same as a mass produced monkey dish. I thought it interesting that though the one piece eventually broke completely, it didn't seem to chip. They seemed pretty tough, though it is a tough shape to start with, a small bowl like a monkey dish. A lot of restaurants have carpet to minimize breakage. I don't think that a stoneware bowl could be easily broken falling from table to carpeted floor if it didn't hit something else but, haven't tested enough. I know it really depends on process perfection, glaze fit, strength of body, wedging maybe, type of glaze, within stoneware as a type. The pressure of constant usage in a restaurant is considerable. I worked at Vanelli's on Pier 39 for a few years & I remember we needed more glassware but never got to the point of actually buying it. It was mostly long stemmed glassware that got broken and everyone was careful with the white ceramic dishes.. Hearing what you're saying Chris, that is a neat idea, the chargers. Whoops missed Min's post yeah I imagine platelets lined up nicely and compressed form the best rims compared to slip cast, I haven't done much slip casting. I like thin rims as it happens but not too thin, thicker than the walls.
  4. One of my (admittedly many) blind spots as a potter is, understanding how hand thrown and fired stoneware pottery stacks up against the restaurant industry's common white bone china type product in terms of durability and chip resistance. Considering the 'monkey dish' or soup bowl bought from a restaurant supply outlet as compared to the same product hand thrown of stoneware - which is the stronger, the less apt to chip, and why? And if the mass-produced product is the more durable, how can we as small-scale potters, best approach this level of durability? I went to a restaurant with a date and she got a chip in the chili served in a white china soup bowl, she bit into it and it hurt her - I was incensed, and raised a ruckus. Turns out that upon inspection, most of their white china bowls were chipped, and the staff weren't inspecting or wiping out the bowls before ladling chili into them. I do not currently sell to restaurants as far as I know, but would like to try to, some day. I work in earthenware porcelain & stoneware but far prefer to work with slightly groggy stoneware. My stoneware does not seem to chip like that restaurant ware though I don't know that there's anything particularly special about it.. Apologies if this topic has been beaten to death, I don't have much luck searching on CAD & internet info seems contradictory, apart from Corelle being considered quite tough. Thanks for sharing any thoughts on it. I guess that I have asked about chip resistance before but, not in regard to stoneware.
  5. Blue Rutile is the #1 interesting and dramatic Amaco glaze for me as well, brown clays & glazes also essential for the primal look that I crave to create. Amaco oil spot is an awesome brown glaze; I find that a ramp down stabilizes pinholing in that one. It seems to be designed to pinhole but I like it on interior surfaces. if only those glazes weren't so expensive. I'll have to cheap out & use my own glazes in production soon, saving hugely though it's been a great run lately with amaco & mayco products. Not looking forward to probably having to send glazes and ware out to test.
  6. Thanks for posting, validates the philosophy and aesthetic of the approach that I have taken and I needed that boost right now.
  7. nice form, I have it but haven't used any. how many coats, what was your cone/schedule/clay & did you single fire or apply to bisque I wonder?
  8. Well I looked at the shard at 400X and compared it to the rest of the cone that I did not 'fire.' I see no difference. In this test the candle flame did not affect the piece of witness cone. The mushroomy buildup was fine soot that had no density to it, couldn't even feel it About 8 hours in direct yellow candle flame does not appear to affect a sliver of cone 6 witness cone. Based on this I have to say, I have learned more and now further doubt the possibility of cone 6 glaze melting glaze in a candle lantern. Next test will be of a shard of 06 unfired cone, in the blue flame. If I can't get that to change state then a bead probably isn't going to vitrify in the candle flame either. Here is the 400X video if anyone is interested, rather underwhelming... The test shard is on the left, control shard on the right. hard to hold the pieces still at 400X. https://vimeo.com/106104656 Seems I was wrong in thinking that the lid could have fused to the gallery via a candle flame, but I'm okay with that. Important aspect of the learning process is, admitting when one is not correct!!! Edit - maybe not so wrong after all, gotta love when that happens.
  9. The problem with my experiment was, that the cone shard was not in the blue section of the flame, which is the hottest part. It was above it, in a much cooler location - I didn't want to adjust it as it was fairly miraculous to get those copper wire tips to hold the cone shard in the first place. I have plenty of candles I am aware that there are many varied estimates of the temperature of a candle flame however I believe 2,600F is accurate for the blue flame section of a paraffin candle. I haven't checked it out yet but based on my placement not being perfect,, the cone shard probably has not change state. Still there was a lot revealed. It definitely got red hot, part of it did. Also not that it's a big deal, but I am not trying to develop a perfect physics lesson, just trying to fire a bead in a candle flame which I suspect can be done in the right circumstances. I just need to bisque fire some beads to prep them, then get a bead suspended in the blue part of the flame. I'll try again. Saying that in a vacuum heat radiates out in all directions, was something of a jumbled statement on my part wasn't it. I should have used the term "energy" instead of "heat". I'll post the last timelapse when I get it up on Vimeo; it doesn't reveal much more, just what appears to be more sooty mushrooming. The only sensible explanation that I have read here, for the fusing of dhpotter's candle lantern lid, is that the fused, broken piece existed before the candle was first used, and simply went unnoticed. Obviously the lid had to be removed prior to the candle's having been placed in it. If the ceramic was clearly a fresh break with no soot on it, and still bonded, that would tend to rule out the possibility that it was already there. Fun stuff!
  10. When it's light out, look up. That's how. The nature of radiation passing through the vacuum of space necessitates that it exists in it. Though a vacuum in itself does not store heat. Hmmm. That is to say, though some vacuums can exist where heat may not be transferred through them at some given time, the vacuum of space in eyeshot of the sun, always has radiation passing through it which upon reaching a physical surface, can accumulate as heat. It could be argued that, in a vacuum, heat does not exist even though it can emanate from one source in a vacuum and accumulate at another distant point. What do you think?
  11. Well, that is understandable. It is a small section of the end of a previously fired cone, I used side cutters to snip off some cone. then that wire is copper milled to points. Some interesting things are happening in this process right, there is an electrical current being generated by the flame's impact on this copper wire. So it is always about the nature of the matter, and never about one's " pet perspective. " And so, I am not convinced at this point that the state of the cone shard, has changed at all. If anything, our experiment thus far reveals that significant buildup can occur; this buildup, obviously could accumulate in significant structure as to snap off a bit of ceramic. At this point I wonder if dhpotter would like to comment as to whether the accumulation on the gallery or lid, was possibly present before the first use of the candle lantern or likely not, because that would be the crux of my presumption - if the flaw were not present as an effect of the glaze firing, then there is still no plausible explanation as to how the surfaces could have bonded so permanently. If the material transfer was as solid as I have presumed, then we still have no explanation as to how this remaining bond occurred. Again I am not talking about some sort of crust that breaks off ceramic, it is the bonding that resists the separation attempt with the rubber mallet hit, and the remaining solidity of that inadvertent bond, that suggests that the candle flame bonded the two pieces. That is the presumed condition that has no other explanation. As to time lapse video, I got a lot despite battery swap delays. The firing continues as I type. Unfortunately, several long segments of my video capture have more people than me in the background, which is of my son's room, which is a wreck. I hadn't put much thought into what was in the background of the shot... Recording of the firing continues as I write. Anyhow I'll get it up on vimeo. In the meantime here's a current shot of the firing, Nothing much seems to have changed So here's the link to the video. Got about 85MB of capture, this is 22MB of that. Nothing much changes since the first few minutes. Firing continues as of 10:57 my time. https://vimeo.com/106079104
  12. Well the bead blew apart in the first few seconds, should have predicted that... Now trying a bit of overfired cone 6 witness cone, it seems stabile over the first few minutes. So I've got a time lapse movie camera on it taking a pic a minute over 5 hours. Should be able to tell if the shard changes state at all. Not the best test but I've got no bisque beads to try yet. The bottom of the witness cone shard appears red hot already though it wasn't in this pic. It's now mushrooming or something I think, tried to get a pic of it red hot. Pic below is before the mushrooming. Pretty obvious that this would occur... Doesn't prove anything but, does prove that a candle flame gets at least to cone 6 + and hat the heat work of it can be effectively transferred to ceramic and affect it.. Now I don't know what's going on. Maybe that is soot, really no idea, ha ha. Smells a little funky, Neil can I get a quote on a downdraft vent for this kiln I don't generally leave kilns unattended, but invited out for a few drinks... Hope it all goes to plan! You might be first to the Darwin award dhpotter but I'm right behind ya! Looking this over, this doesn't actually prove that a candle flame gets to 6+. Doesn't prove heat work of a candle can affect ceramic, either. Can't make these calls until the cone is analyzed.
  13. Neil, Oh heh Dhpotter not sure you're up for bragging rights yet but you may be in the running for a Darwin award, be careful! You might put some crumpled layers of aluminum foil under that lantern if you're gonna use it again... I've made a small cone 6 stoneware bead and hit it with a dab of blue rutile glaze. When it dries I'll attempt to fire it in a candle flame, and share the results.
  14. So you're saying, it could happen, there it is then! Right? Propane isn't even hot!
  15. Yeh Nell I believe you are right. Yet still something happened to fuse... Was the lantern in the kiln at the time the candle was burning? Most importantly is the danger of someone losing fingerprints/burning house down while trying to pick off that lid, could happen to anybody who didn't think through what was going on, someone who came into the room etc. I've seen people put plates on top of pans to cook then absent-mindedly grab the plate with their hands 15 minutes later, ouch! At the least it should say "hot surface" or some such on the lid, otherwise it is sort of a trap... I think the experienced potters saying it is unlikely, are correct. I just trip on that if it happened, how else could it have! With the math not working out, I have to say though I still entertain the slim possibility, it is some wafer thin slim possibility! But what did happen!!! Still wonder.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.