jrgpots Posted August 21, 2015 Report Share Posted August 21, 2015 I didn't sleep last night. Something was nagging at my mind. Then at 3:30 AM it came to me.....There in no cone 0. The chart goes from 01 to 1 in the blink of the eye. NO CONE 0. How many more nights will I turn in my bed wondering why "0" got neglected. Then my mind drifted to the calender year progression and I noticed "it" happened again. The calender year jumped from 1 BC to 1 AD without a "0" year. I spent the rest of the night racking my brain to find other examples where "0" had been ignored. I fear that may represent a whole month of sleepless nights of pondering the meaning of not having zero. I think ceramics and time are conspiring together and refuse to give us "nothing." If anyone else is wondering what happened to cone 0, enquiring minds want to know. Jed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judy_in_GA Posted August 21, 2015 Report Share Posted August 21, 2015 Now I haven't lost any sleep over it but I have often wondered why the scale is what it is anyway .... 06 to 01 to 1 to 10 etc. Why not start with 1 and go up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colby Charpentier Posted August 21, 2015 Report Share Posted August 21, 2015 The cone system is based on a ratio of Silica and Alumina to Fluxes. Cone 1 is 1 mole Silica (0.1 moles Alumina) to 1 mole of fluxes (the Alumina rises proportionally to the Silica). Cone 2 is 2 moles Silica (0.2 moles Alumina) to 1 mole of fluxes. Cone 3, 3 moles Silica (0.3 moles Alumina) to 1 mole of fluxes. The reason Cone 0 does not exist is because Cone 01 represents the transition from whole number proportions of Silica to fractions less than 1. When the system approaches zero, that's actually a situation where the corresponding cone is all fluxes, no silica/alumina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judy_in_GA Posted August 21, 2015 Report Share Posted August 21, 2015 Thanks for that great explanation! Good to know it's not something arbitrary like US women's clothing sizes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcia Selsor Posted August 21, 2015 Report Share Posted August 21, 2015 I have never really worried about cone 0, but the numbering system is more worrisome. Thanks Colby for that explanation. Now I can sleep better except for the arbitrary system for US women's clothing. Marcia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Campbell Posted August 22, 2015 Report Share Posted August 22, 2015 .... And here I am ... waiting for Orton to introduce heat work numbers ...... woohooo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick White Posted August 22, 2015 Report Share Posted August 22, 2015 And there is no year zero in our western calendar system. December 31, 1BC turns right into January 1, 1AD, and the BC numbers get bigger as they go back in history while the AD numbers get bigger as they come forward in history. Colby's explanation is the technically correct one, but I use the calendar example when explaining it to students who don't give a fig about moles (unless in their lawn) but absolutely need to know that a clay or glaze marked 06 is not suitable for cone 6 midfire work, notwithstanding that there is a numeral six clearly visible on the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.