Insight Live Heads Up

[Min]

There is something odd going on with the Insight Live glaze calc software, I've contacted Tony Hansen and he is looking into it. I've noticed the unity formula can be way off. 2 ingredient example below, in recipe 2 the unity formula is vastly different with only a 0.50 increase in the frit. Will repost here when I hear back from Tony Hansen as to a fix.

[neilestrick]

Looks like the first one is wrong. Calcium should be .661 changing to .662.

[Min]

I was working on a recipe for a friend and getting huge differences between the old desktop version of Insight and Insight Live, I was thinking the problem was with the desktop version as that isn't updated any longer but the problem seems to be with the online Insight Live version, or maybe both, at this point I don't know. Something is definitely odd, just want people here to be aware there is a problem with Insight Live, results could be off in their unity formula's.

[Bill Kielb]

@Min

Just looking at this I am not sure of the UMF Calc in either of these.  Doing this by hand and taking my Fluxes as Lithium through Zinc there are some intriguing numbers throughout both of these which differ. Also differs  significantly with the glazy UMF. Interesting!

my question for these results are: 

what levels of Boron do you expect  for cone 04 and cone 6 using this calculator if any?

what si:al ratio is matte or gloss ( if that is even something considered here), using these figures?

[Pieter Mostert]

It looks like the proportions in first one are correct, but it's been normalized with Al2O3 = 1, instead of the sum of the fluxes = 1.

[Min]

Here is another example, the roughly proportional ratio difference from the first example I posted isn't seen here. Insight Desktop versus Insight Live, note the alumina especially. Bill, as the problem isn't restricted to one recipe I'm not breaking down each one, at this point I'm putting Insight on the sidelines until  it gets fixed. It would take far too long to be practical to do each of the recipes I'm working on by hand.

 

 

[Bill Kielb]

@Min

No worries, I agree that the calculation seems erroneous. Desktop version seems correct and Tony likely appreciates the heads up as underlying website product updates can cause headaches often exacerbated by untimely unawareness of the problem. 

I am still curious of the interpretation of the  boron and Si:Al ratio amounts that others may or may not use though. I have never used either of the products but do enjoy perusing his site.

[liambesaw]

Afaik there's no cone estimate on Insight live

[Bill Kielb]

6 minutes ago, liambesaw said:

Afaik there's no cone estimate on Insight live

So do Ratios of Si:Al have a meaning? Same for levels of Boron and flux ratios? Just trying to get other opinions on how these are viewed.

[liambesaw]

Si:Al have a general meaning I guess, for estimating matteness.  I just use the software for substitutions and keeping track of experiments.  Si:Al for matteness is probably more accurate for cone 10 glazes since in cone 6 boron can send a high alumina glaze glossy.  

I've been tinkering with schorl recently and despite it's high boron will not melt by itself at cone 6 because of the high alumina content.  I'm just kind of winging it as I go because I'm not 100% clear on glaze chemistry despite reading about it all the time.  

[Min]

There are limit screens for the range of the glaze that you are working with that can be opened up beside a recipe,  but not a way to enter a cone number per se. 

[glazenerd]

From Glazemaster 3.0

3134 Frit 12.15.               3134 Frit. 12.65
EPK.        35.47.               EPK.        35.47

B2O3.  0.598. 6.62%.      B2O3.  0.600. 6.81%
Al2O3. 1.935. 31.32%.    Al2O3.  1.863. 30.96%
SiO2.   5.437. 51.85%.    SiO2.    5.289. 51.99%

[Bill Kielb]

26 minutes ago, liambesaw said:

Si:Al have a general meaning I guess, for estimating matteness.  I just use the software for substitutions and keeping track of experiments.  Si:Al for matteness is probably more accurate for cone 10 glazes since in cone 6 boron can send a high alumina glaze glossy.  

I've been tinkering with schorl recently and despite it's high boron will not melt by itself at cone 6 because of the high alumina content.  I'm just kind of winging it as I go because I'm not 100% clear on glaze chemistry despite reading about it all the time.  

Got it, thanks! As I have said I am not familiar with the software so I really don’t know it’s predictive capability.

My question is still relevant as others have their methods and they are successful so I am trying to learn what they are. To me if folks aren’t following the trends in Stull then they have some other method or lots of exceptions to remember (range limits?) or maybe lots and lots of test fires. All are legit, just trying to figure out how the InSite folks design and alter. Substitution I get.

thanks for  the feedback!

[Magnolia Mud Research]

When working with silicate melts, outside of the studio pottery discipline, the atomic ratios are the important variables and the Si:Al atomic ratio is high on the ranking list. In fact the alkali:Al atomic ratio is very important to melt viscosity.     Remember a glaze is just a mixture of element cations distributed in a sea of oxygen anions.  

The Si:Al atomic ratio is just another way to present the Silica:Alumina ratio. the difference is just a constant.  

Min:  Has Tony Hanson released the estimated "It's fixed" time?  

LT
 

[Bill Kielb]

18 minutes ago, Magnolia Mud Research said:

When working with silicate melts, outside of the studio pottery discipline, the atomic ratios are the important variables and the Si:Al atomic ratio is high on the ranking list. In fact the alkali:Al atomic ratio is very important to melt viscosity.     Remember a glaze is just a mixture of element cations distributed in a sea of oxygen anions.  

The Si:Al atomic ratio is just another way to present the Silica:Alumina ratio. the difference is just a constant.  

Min:  Has Tony Hanson released the estimated "It's fixed" time?  

LT
 

Excellent - So with respect to glazes constrained by common fluxes  Si:Al is significant and what are the limits or trends if any? Maybe none. Are there guidelines for Boron requirements or trends with fluxes outside of colorant effect and COE or flux ratio? I see these items in Bold in the calcs above but  curious what they might mean to others?  Of course there may be no common meaning or trend, that is also possible.  Maybe I am overthinking this a bit?

[Min]

2 hours ago, Magnolia Mud Research said:

Min:  Has Tony Hanson released the estimated "It's fixed" time?

Nope. I emailed him a couple days ago, it was just yesterday a.m. that he said he will check into it, don't know how long these type things take. If I hear anything I'll update this thread.

update:  he figured out one issue so far. With the barium glaze above there are 2 different material data definitions for the spar. 

[High Bridge Pottery]

Before I saw a stull chart anything around 8:1 ratio was a good gloss. To me the stull chart is showing the same thing, silica compared to alumina. Lots and lots of tests is the best way to design/alter.

[Magnolia Mud Research]

4 hours ago, Bill Kielb said:

I see these items in Bold in the calcs above but  curious what they might mean to others? 

What is more important is the meaning intended by the individual that designed the software, or designed the algorithm used in the model that the software is trying to calculate.  Too many software packages assume that every user knows everything the writer has in mind when something appears in such-and-such location, in color number 7, and in cell so-and-so of the output table. 

Joel has mentioned the Stull chart, and the data are useful, if one stays within the range of the actual data set and meet the assumptions used by Stull; i.e. extrapolate with caution.  Yes, Stull did use the Silica / Alumina ratio; but Stull did not have the data and understanding available after a century of research by the geologists and glass makers. 

The UMF model essentially ignores more than half a century of progress in silicate melt research. The UMF model may be an OK teaching tool, but has too many exceptions to be used for prediction of melt properties.  I use Insight (and other glaze calc packages) because of the materials databases and it (they) usually gets the total oxide analysis right, but I do not believe the model(s) beyond that. 

The most recent silicate melt model summary is probably found in the book by Bjorn Mysen and Pascal Richet ("Silicate Glasses and Melts, Properties and Structure". Elsevier, 2005) and in the documentation of the Mark Ghiorso's MELTS software suite used in the igneous petrology disciplines. 
 

Joel commented: 
 

1 hour ago, High Bridge Pottery said:

Lots and lots of tests is the best way to design/alter.

I don't seriously disagree.  But his conclusion begs this question: 
"Why use a glaze computer model if all we can get is "lots and lots" of experiments?" 
A reliable model should reduce the number of experiments significantly.  

LT

P.S. 
I am not a model builder in the sense of converting quantitative data into correlations that can be coded into software for the internet or one's cell phone.  I am an advocate of model building for the purpose of reliably predicting performance in various ceramic processes including glazes and clay bodies.  I believe that the studio ceramics discipline is lagging far behind other disciplines in using computer modelling to predict outcomes. 

Further discussion on modeling probably belongs in a different thread.   

 

[curt]

Si:Al and Stull etc is an interesting discussion but probably merits its own thread.  

Perhaps we should keep this thread just for observations and solutions on the Insight issues?

[Bill Kielb]

1 hour ago, Magnolia Mud Research said:

What is more important is the meaning intended by the individual that designed the software, or designed the algorithm used in the model that the software is trying to calculate.  Too many software packages assume that every user knows everything the writer has in mind when something appears in such-and-such location, in color number 7, and in cell so-and-so of the output table. 

Joel has mentioned the Stull chart, and the data are useful, if one stays within the range of the actual data set and meet the assumptions used by Stull; i.e. extrapolate with caution.  Yes, Stull did use the Silica / Alumina ratio; but Stull did not have the data and understanding available after a century of research by the geologists and glass makers. 

The UMF model essentially ignores more than half a century of progress in silicate melt research. The UMF model may be an OK teaching tool, but has too many exceptions to be used for prediction of melt properties.  I use Insight (and other glaze calc packages) because of the materials databases and it (they) usually gets the total oxide analysis right, but I do not believe the model(s) beyond that. 

The most recent silicate melt model summary is probably found in the book by Bjorn Mysen and Pascal Richet ("Silicate Glasses and Melts, Properties and Structure". Elsevier, 2005) and in the documentation of the Mark Ghiorso's MELTS software suite used in the igneous petrology disciplines. 
 

Joel commented: 
 

I don't seriously disagree.  But his conclusion begs this question: 
"Why use a glaze computer model if all we can get is "lots and lots" of experiments?" 
A reliable model should reduce the number of experiments significantly.  

LT

P.S. 
I am not a model builder in the sense of converting quantitative data into correlations that can be coded into software for the internet or one's cell phone.  I am an advocate of model building for the purpose of reliably predicting performance in various ceramic processes including glazes and clay bodies.  I believe that the studio ceramics discipline is lagging far behind other disciplines in using computer modelling to predict outcomes. 

Further discussion on modeling probably belongs in a different thread.   

 

Sounds interesting but too indeterminate as an answer to my question.. I agree, bad spot for this, I think I will list and start another thread and try and list with greater clarity.

[Min]

I heard back from Tony Hansen today, he figured the problem is with AutoUnity. If fluxes are higher than Al2O3 they are unified. If Al2O3 is higher it is unified. So the fix is to use RO Unity if fluxes are higher than the alumina content.  Strange quirk but problem solved.

[Magnolia Mud Research]

OK

[neilestrick]

56 minutes ago, Min said:

I heard back from Tony Hansen today, he figured the problem is with AutoUnity. If fluxes are higher than Al2O3 they are unified. If Al2O3 is higher it is unified. So the fix is to use RO Unity if fluxes are higher than the alumina content.  Strange quirk but problem solved.

In your original post, both recipes are showing Auto Unity, but one unified the Alumina while the other unified the fluxes even though the Alumina was higher in both.

I've never heard of unifying the alumina.

[Min]

I know, I don't know why the program is being goofy when AutoUnity is used and I guess Hansen doesn't either. His workaround is to use the RO Unity function instead of AutoUnity. When I entered that the figures come out correct.

"I've never heard of unifying the alumina." If you are looking at just clay, epk for example, the fluxes are going to be so low that using a R2O3 unity does make sense. I agree that for glaze purposes having the fluxes in unity is the most useful and common approach.