Jump to content

Joseph Fireborn

Members
  • Content Count

    2,645
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Joseph Fireborn

  1. For sprayed yes, because you could measure the amount you put into the container to spray, but then you would have to say your getting 100% onto the pot. which is unrealistic unless your holding the gun point blank. of course you could do this or atleast estimate the amount going on a pot say like 75% or something, then add that into your calculations, but its not very scientific. 

    I guess you could do it for dipping as well, by weighing the container after the dip to see the amount of liquid weight removed, then see how much 1 ml weighs and do the math.

  2. On a flat tile you know how many grams will be on the tile based on how many ml you add to it right? So if your adding 2ml of glaze fluid and that contains x amount of glaze per ml then you can work out the rough math. In reality, what is the point of it because application on real pots is never done this way. It is either sprayed, dipped, or poured all of which would be absurd to try to measure. 

  3. On 11/26/2017 at 1:40 PM, glazenerd said:

    Joseph:

    if you are going to keep it as accurate as pottery studio standards allow: perhaps  apply. Glaze glaze in grams per square inch. Or some degree of recordable standard of glaze.

    I was doing that before. I was putting 2ml in each cube, which I could tell you the dry amount in. I can tell you the amount of glaze per the area of the tile. But I won't continue doing that because in a potters world that really never matters. So it really isn't worth it unless I am writing lab grade scientific documentation, which I am not.

    Plus once I start dipping the 2ml thing will be thrown out the window.

  4. 26 minutes ago, curt said:

    I can imagine three levels/depths of glaze, maybe cascading down from high to low if the glaze is fluxy, or sticking to three seperate levels if too stiff to run?

    That is what I am hoping for. I am still going to run vertical tiles this first go around just to see how well that works as well. Once I figure out my trench blueprints and tile designs for vertical later this afternoon. 

    4 hours ago, High Bridge Pottery said:

    One day I will get round to making this idea.

    I agree that this seems like a good solution, my issue is that your still going to have massive runs in the c corner to catch on those vertical tiles. I thought about this design for a good bit as well. It would definitely work for the majority of the grid, although I think brushing is slow. I would rather mix a slightly larger batch and dip, or find narrower cups maybe. I thought about just making my own cups out of clay so that I can label each cup with the grid corner amounts and also have a shape so that 40ml is tall enough to dip a tile, so a narrow tall cup. I am not sure how well it would work though. I like to look through the clear cups to make sure all the fluids are even across the cups. Although I have never adjusted one because of this.

    I have data projects out the wazoo to work on this weekend so I am just rolling tiles today and I will be mixing the grids up next weekend. 

    I have a small hand held extruder, but I haven't made any kind of L shaped tile. My plan is to roll out slabs, then cut uniform rectangles, mark them so they have a little texture, then fold them to a slant like:

     tile.png.3a2638cefaa036f2baa07878ef1176f1.png

    This will be the shape of my main glaze tiles, it will also be the shape of my currie tiles in the trench, except it wont have the flat foot on the bottom since they will sit in the grid trench.

    This way I slow down the flow of the glaze slightly since it will be on a slight incline.  

    The green line indicates where I will put some marks for texture, and the red line will have some type of line so that I know that is where to dip the tile to. This way all the tiles will have uniform dipping distance so that when I fire them I can see the melt and flow of the glaze. I am probably going to make some kind of angle mold so that I can bend tiles to uniform bend every time. Probably will use foam for this as well. Quick and easy.

    Trying to make all this as scientific as I can so that I can get the most information possible.

  5. Well, I got my slab roller setup this weekend and I went out and bought 2 dollars worth of kids play foam. I ended up building this:

    IMG_20171126_090144.jpg.5eb20a4106cf10afa9badcf5b46be37c.jpg

     

    Which is three square foams thick. The triangle on the bottom right being the highest point. I rolled out a slab this morning then put this over it and rolled it through:

    DSCN6393.JPG.a60526c86975a6010a5acc490adbbf22.JPG

    DSCN6394.JPG.e15c61b3a9c780dacaa4102df2bb36e8.JPG

    I am pretty happy with it. This wasn't fully impressed as I adjusted the roller back up. This is a 1/4'' thick tile which I think is about right. I love how easy it is to make a tile with texture now. You can see the gentle slopes left by the foam and the ridges I have decided to use.

    If this works well I can adapt even a better one maybe. I am hoping this removes the need for the vertical tiles, but if it doesn't I am making them today to see how all that is going to work as well. Just wanted to post this for an update to all my thoughts about the foam and roller stuff. Sorry if the pictures are blurry, I don't use my actual camera much anymore and my phone died.

    Thanks to @Min for the article that gave me the information on what material to use! Worked well for version 1.

  6. @Pieter Mostert

    After looking at the tiles for a while, I have to say my favorite tile is number 9. It looks like there is a mix of red and blueish spotting. It seems when the spots get bigger they have red in the center otherwise they look greenish blue. I know most of them have this same thing, but not on this darker background, which I find appealing. Really brilliant. As far as the chemistry and melt stuff goes, no idea. Hope you figure it out.

  7. More off topic here:

    I agree that glazes can be very hard to photograph. Usually the more interesting the glaze the harder it is to photo correctly, so there is a major problem there. But with some good note taking and detailing it should be doable to a point. 

    Glazy is awesome and Derek Au has a lot of great articles and free stuff he shares, the issue with everything that I see involving online recipes is that all the information they contain besides what cone it was fired to, is picture and recipe. There is never a schedule, an application process, what clay body, what glazes go good over it etc. So what ends up happening is you take a recipe and mix it up, then fire it and you get something completely different. So you just abandon it right away the majority of the time.

    What we really need in the glaze testing world is a standard for sharing. Basically a uniform method of sharing a glaze recipe that includes more than just: here is a picture, cone6, recipe, and good luck.

    However again, this is mostly unlikely as I think most potters who do the work for their own glazes probably don't want to share as there isn't much in it for them besides their work being duplicated which seems to be really popular. Glaze tiles are like humble brags in all honesty. Look at this! Then 10 people ask how you got it, and the author never responds. I have even done this if I am being honest here. Now I mostly refrain from posting anything interesting to avoid this whole conflict. 

    Further, you get into the topic of most single glazes are pretty boring, the real interesting stuff comes from layering glazes. Which is an entire new combinational monster to document and test. 5 glazes is 5! (120) combinations of possibilities with just a single over layering. It can get daunting insanely fast. There is no perfect solution.

    I would at least like some type of standard along the lines of the following information to submit a recipe:

    • Name
    • Firing Type (Soda, Wood, Salt, Electric, Gas, ETC)
    • Clay Body Name
    • Schedule: (Default Controller, Slow Cool)
    • Type of Surface: Matte, Satin, Glossy
    • Application Thickness: (1 layer, 2 layer, 3 layer)
    • Glaze Flow: (Runny, Normal, Stiff)

    I could go into more detail for my own glazes, but I mean these 7 points are super easy to provide and could drastically improve the glaze recipe world. If you don't wanna submit this information why even share a recipe in general?

    Ideally if I was building a software for sharing I would include some way to create schedules inside of your user profile, so that when you upload a tile you can just link one of the schedules you use with it. This would include the firing type as well to avoid extra process, and you could also have clay types that you work with. This way it would just be checking a few boxes or clicking a few drop downs, then typing the name, layers, and flow. Done. You should even be able to set defaults if your one of the type of people who shares often usually its going to be on x body, with y schedule and z firing type.

    What is even more important is later when people test things over other things the linking of data between glazes is of utmost importance. Say you like John's Blue, and you then test a glaze over it called Red Purple or whatever, when you upload the red purple tile, you can upload a tile with it over johns blue and tag johns blue, so that later when someone else comes along and is looking at johns blue they can see the variations from other glazes and vice versa . We are seriously lacking this information. 

    Edit: Removed potential breaking of rules.

    If I am going to be pumping out thousands of glaze tiles and layering combination test and such, what am I going to do with all of it? Just because I don't like a tile and I trash it doesn't mean another person wouldn't like the glaze and all the variations and modifiers that go over it.  I cleaned out my garage and I had over 400 small containers of glaze test batches from 3 years of glaze testing. This isn't including all the line blends and stuff that I had done in solo cups that dried and got tossed into my waste bucket.

    Anyways back to Currie discussion? Did you ever do more oilspot test with that cone 4 oilspot? I would love to see it on a pot. 

    Edit: Upon reading this I realized the 400 containers sounded like a brag. I meant for it to show how horrendous I was at testing glazes in a good manner. I would just mix up 100g batch of a recipe and then if I wanted to test darkening it by 1% I would get another container, mix 100g again and test it. Never knew about all these volumetric and dry batch measuring processes.  So I am sure other people are doing the same horrible mistakes. 

  8. It is all so complicated when you factor in storage. I am not sure how well the trench plan will work. I will know more next week after I run a grid. Currently I am to busy with term projects to fool with anything.

    I am not sure I am too worried about the storage of tiles long term.  I am assuming the C tiles will be mostly useless as vertical observations, but I don't want to jump to conclusions quickly. I was mostly thinking about documentation of the vertical tiles by picture, description, and surface type. Then trashing them. Otherwise I think I might get overrun with tiles pretty fast. I am going to be firing 100+ tiles for each grid basically. 35x3 + the flat tiles.  I cant imagine keeping everything. There has to be some rigorous documentation somewhere. I was actually thinking about building some type of webapp for it or something. I love programming, but I only love it when I have an actual use that I need to resolve.

     This is probably going off topic, but I find that the way we test and record glaze data is really bad. Before and after glaze shots are super important for actual pieces along with the process of application. I usually do all this on paper, but a few months later I never can remember what went with what because there isn't a picture beside the description of the pot and if I kept every interesting test tile or pot I had made I would be out of room. I usually take a picture and label it.

    I tried doing this inside of insight, but I didn't feel like it was intuitive enough. I want something that flows much easier and I get tired of how insight does a few things. So I basically quit using it for glaze documentation and more for glaze development. I think I have said this before, but what I want in an app is a simple process of application methods, pictures of before and after, surface qualities and color variations. 

    For example you have a glaze your working on. You create a page or whatever for it.

    On the page you have: Glaze Name, Description, Cone, etc .. basically all the ways you want to categorize it for searching through glazes.

    Then you have pictures of the base and grid tiles in high resolution. Then you put up work that was glazed in this glaze, including before and after shots with your notes. This way you could look through and see how you glazed a pot to get that effect. 

    Then I would like to also have an area of tiles with color variations of line blends and such. 

    And finally any time you find a good modifier to go over it you document those tiles as well and they appear in both glaze topics.

    So 2 years later you want a good matte base glaze that goes well with say: a fake ash glaze or something. You could search by tag: matte, fake ash and it would bring up tiles that had those tags together. Or you could just go to the fake ash section and look at tiles that had other bases that went well under it.

    This way over a life time you could record everything really well. I highly doubt this would be marketable though as most people don't do enough testing to warrant paying money for it. But for my personal use I think it would be wonderful. It would be fun to build as it would be pretty simple to do. Basically a database and a bunch of queries for the pages and then just display it in a simple static page load no reason to get all fancy. 

  9. @curt

    Well said!

    I agree on the material waste. Not a big deal. 1200g of materials, mostly cheap flux, clay and silica are not a huge issue. At most I would assume a Currie test cost $6-7, and that is pushing it. I would say the average cost of a Currie grid test is around $3-4 in clay and glaze materials. The real issue is time. You spend a good hour and half doing the original tile, then if you do any additional mixes using the addition method I outlined you spend another 20 minutes for each additional mixing and such. So time is definitely the real issue here.

    For mixing the cups and test tiles. I am going to try slanting the cup so that the cup has more depth for the tile to go down into. I am also going to dip the tiles first then do the syringes. Because I just need a tiny amount to do a syringe, but I need a large amount for the dips. So I figure I will mix the cup I am working on, dip 3 tiles. Then syringe out 6ml and put 2 ml on each grid tile for that number.  It will definitely add time to the overall process probably a good 30 minutes of additional time, but the grand plan is to see everything possible in one firing! 

    If the slanted cup doesn't work, I will do what you are thinking and just increase the corner batches significantly so that the cups can have 60-70ml in them (500-600g corner batches). With the extra glazes in the cup from increasing the corner batches I can then default back to the incremental method I outlined. Because I can syringe out the entire cup and put back 40ml into the cup, squirt the rest into a waste bucket. Then I can have the ml needed to do incremental blending for SiC/colorants as each cup will contain the 40ml for easy blending. So even that will not be a waste. Of course now I am talking about 3-4 hours of work, and another issue of no verticle SiC tiles. lol.

    If we all keep this discussion going and continue to post any ideas and discoveries I am sure we can continue to optimize the process. 

    Happy Thanksgiving to you all.

  10. Just now, oldlady said:

    yes, craft foam is one of my favorite things to use.  it comes in different thicknesses.  the stuff from dollar tree is so thin it is about like a postcard, get the stuff from michaels or somewhere like that if you have one nearby.  try putting a tic-tac under a square for your slope.

    My slab roller will be here Friday. I have some projects to work on for school, but once its gets here I will probably try something like a tictac something to give it a little surface texture. 

  11. 26 minutes ago, oldlady said:

    joseph, had a sudden inspiration!:o  scrabble tiles!   do not know the size of the cell you intend to use but if you glue scrabble tiles or some small, uniform sized wooden items to a backing, you can use that as your pattern.  work out the details for your slope and done!  all at once, no fiddling.

    @oldlady

    Thanks for the idea. The scrabble tiles is genius but they need to be bigger.

    Min showed me this last night. http://debuse-on-the-loose.blogspot.ca/2013/01/how-to-custom-texture-mats.html

    I think that is the direction I am going to try. I gave up on the idea of adding some type of vertical surface on the grid itself and moved onto just using vertical tiles. However I still think this foam mat stuff could work brilliantly for creating a tile. I will probably just have to make several layers of squares in order leave an impressive deep enough for a grid tile to hold 2ml of glaze.  But I can imagine getting my slabs rolled through with this perfect foam imprint on top of them. How amazing!

  12. @curt I definitely agree being able to tilt the tile and look at it in different lights and such is very important. Also just being able to feel the surface of each glaze and take a butter knife to it to see how each one changes in surface strength is really nice. 

    With that being said it requires some guess work on the "what is the next step" part of thinking. When you only get information on the flat surface you have to infer the look of the vertical surface. Sometimes this is easy and sometimes it has been completely different than what I predicted. So in order to maximize the test I think some type of vertical surface is really needed. Otherwise you could be completely missing something totally amazing on a vertical surface that looks bland when flat. I mean that is the real issue here, as scientist we should look at all possible outcomes and explore all the data we can within reason. If we don't see all the glazes vertical as well, how can we know what all we are missing? We both know from doing these test that even tiny amounts of changes in the ratios can bring apart completely different surfaces and some that are remarkable and are snuggled right between two similar cells. If we are going to go through the work of mixing the grid, doing the cups, adding the fluid to the grid and firing the tiles, should we not go one step further and test every single tile vertical as well? I think we should if our desire is to find every possible remarkable glaze that we can. 

    I understand that most people(99%) would think it is way too much work to run tiles on every single glaze and clay body. I am talking about 105 vertical tiles and 3 grids each time I run a Currie test now(3 clay bodies). The issue is that we have the glaze for the tiles. It is sitting there for us in a cup ready to be dipped. Why don't we do it? I wish Currie was alive so I could ask him over email. I assume he probably kept it simple because like Neil and others have mentioned in this thread, a lot of the glazes produced by the grid method are mostly useless for dinnerware. But if we are only working for dinner ware, we would be excluding discovery of glazes for half of the ceramic field who do sculptural work and pieces not designed for food. 

    There is definitely a problem with running glaze test consisting of 100% flux. What is the point of it at all? Well I am not sure, but I intend to find out. I imagine in the end I might end up abandoning this idea all together. But I can't find any documentation on the net of someone actually trying this over a long period of testing. As far as catching the glaze run off for the really fluxy C corners. I think the rectangle test tiles in a trench slab should work fine. The best part about the flat rectangle tiles is they have no base to stand on, so after the firing, they can be laid out flat in the same pattern as the flat grid and look at how they change vertically across the grid as well. Even the ones that get stuck can just be broken loose from the trench slab. 

    Most of this is theory. I will test soon and report back as always. Hopefully it will prove worth it. 

    The one problem I think I will run into is thin glaze on top of the vert tiles. I am thinking about bisquing the tiles separately and to a really low cone like Cone 015 so that they are super absorbent. As when we normally test tiles we do things like, dip once, dip twice, dip the corner the third time or something. I don't have time to do that for 105 tiles!  I am hoping that  a tile fired to cone 015 will absorb glaze so quickly I can do a single long dip and get a thick surface that will resemble something between the second and third dip or a normal test. I am probably going do to a gradient dip. Dip the entire tile in for 3 count then do like a 3 count as I pull it out so that it goes from thinner to thicker on the way out.

    The last problem that I don't enjoy is I won't be doing incremental additions like I was before with SiC. Because I can't control the amount of glaze I am removing each time therefore I won't know within reason what amount of base still remains in the cup. Which means I won't be testing SiC as much as I had hoped to. My main plan for further SiC testing is just to find the glazes that I enjoy then do volumetric blending of SiC later on for the 2nd firing, this really bothers because again, I am missing results! If I wasn't going to do the work on 3 clay bodies I could continue to do the incremental testing, but my purpose for this is to explore, and having different backgrounds for glazes makes massive differences.

    ANYWAYS!

    I understand the desire to hold true to what Currie came up with, it is a brilliant solution to discovering glazes and looking at surface change as ratios change. It is probably my favorite thing to do. I still have tiles sitting on my desk right now that I go through often under studio lighting.

    But if we don't question things and push forward to better solutions why are we even testing glazes! :huh:

    I appreciate all the discussion and discovery talk. This thread has been wonderful to partake in. Definitely a great one. I value all your opinions!

  13. @oldlady

    I don't really want to buy the texture mats or add any type of thing to the surface. I really just want to be able to roll a slab through and have my mold instantly made at the same time. However I doubt that is a reality unless I figure out a way to do it with foam and plastic or something. I am going to try a few things to try to make it a happen, but if it doesn't end up working then I can just do it the way I have been doing it. 

    ----

    My real concern is getting more information out of a test with minimal effort but accurate results. I think I might have a solution to that as well. 

    Now that I have a slab roller and I can roll a slab to the same thickness every time it means I can create uniform test tiles that are the same thickness as well. So I roll out a slab, put ruler over it and cut out a bunch of rectangles that are flat. Then I will just roll a slab of clay take a tool(made from the slab size I want) and make 7 trenches that are the same width as the tiles that I am using.

    Something like this:

    gridforvert.png.83b830763d8109e5edb230683e2262cc.png

    Then when I do a currie test I will have 2 tiles side by side, and 35 test tiles that are just rectangles. I will mix the cup with milk frothier, syringe the glaze into the square, then dip the tile into the cup and then place it into the trench on the other tile in the same place as the grid. Thus if any glaze runs or what ever it will be contained. This is a really fast way for me to get the all the information in a single firing! Of course it is doubling the amount of work per grid and it will eliminate the ability for me to do incremental test, but that is ok since I am going to be doing this three tiles: black ice, standard 365 and redrock. So I can't really use my incremental method since I will be draining the cups. So I wont be wasting all the glaze without all the information that I wasn't getting before.

    This also keeps me from having to mix the batches up again later for any interesting tiles I wanted to test and it solves me from having to have another firing. So even though it is more work up front I will get more details in one firing. Which means I can use the 2nd firing to test the glazes in combinations with other modifier and base glazes that I think go well with certain types of glazes.

    One problem I think I might have is depleting the cups so that I can't dip the tile. However I think I might just mix the cups, dip the 3 tiles for each clay and then do the syringe for each clay. So I will do all 3 grids and all 3 tiles for each cup. This way I only have to mix the cup one time per total 3 grid tiles and 3 test.

    I think I am going to try this as soon as I get my slab roller *hopefully this week*. 

  14. @Magnolia Mud Research I am not too worried about kiln space. My kiln is practically always been fired for test since ive had it. It is 2.7CuFT. So I can fit a lot of test in there. I also fire vertical tiles as well after I run a grid test. I find several glazes I like on most grid test and I follow up with vertical test. The issue is that a lot of them end up being a poor example of what the glaze on the grid shows, I am sure we all know this. It is part of the problem with the grid method. It is fantastic to get a general idea of what is going on with the glaze, the melt, the coloring, and the surface, but it doesn't really show the true appearance of the glaze unless you only work in flat tiles. I have talked about this before. I would like to get the most information possible without sacrificing the grid for what it is. I think that a small mountain doesn't really change the results of the grid much at all but it does give a slight bit of information about what starts happening when the glaze gets the chance to be slightly vertical.

     I think it would allow me to better predict which glazes to further test with vertical tiles. Which would save me time, effort, kiln space and materials. Over a life time of testing this can add up to a lot of time. I don't like wasting time, so I try to avoid it as much as I can. 

    The difficulty I am having is I don't want to carve 35 tiles with an indent. I thought about stamping the master mold with some type of stamp to create the small mountains. I don't know if this would distort it or not as they need to be pretty deep. Then I have the same problem with the grid tile itself being rolled over the mold. How can I be sure that the clay is going down in the mold. I would have to start with a rather thick piece of clay and roll over it several times. Again. Difficulties. Maybe the best solution is just to dip 35 tiles and fire them on a slab of clay to get a vertical test at the same exact time. It is a thought.

     

  15. LT,

    All the slabs I have made up until now have been handmade by beating the clay into a square shape with my palm quickly, throw pulling it until its pretty much even, then I take two dowels and roll pin it even cut the slab and then lay it over my mold that I carved out of clay and bisque fired. I then roll it over 1 time and I have a uniform grid. I flip it onto a board and pull off the bisque tile mold and done. 

    What I would like to do is make a slab with my slab roller like normal, then just lay a mold on top of it and roll it through the slab roller 1 time and have a perfect mold without all the effort. I really want them the same exact size and I want them the same thickness and uniform shape. This is so that I can stack them with wadding between them for extra space in my kiln for the other tiles I am going to be firing.

    I did some experimenting a few months back with the idea of a standard tile but with a mountain that was sloped on it. Here was what I tested, although I never ended up carving the large slab I prepared for this grid. 

    This was just an example I made quickly the actual tile would have more flat area around the mountain and in the front. I was thinking something like a 1.5'' grid square with .5'' of it being the mountain and the rest being flat. Just looking at this example you can see how much more information is shown just by the slight decrease. The glaze is clearish and glossy on a vertical surface, but matte and grey when on a flat surface.

    Sorry for the blurry pictures.

    IMG_20171119_181824.jpg.bfcd2eb5a4c70907495f811685634d71.jpg

    IMG_20171119_181759.jpg.e6dff94baedc2aa7aea6d0bf1de5b923.jpg

  16. @Min I don't think any idea is garbage. All ideas start somewhere. 

    I totally didn't get what you were saying now that you retyped it. That makes more sense. I see what your saying. To cut some foam squares the same as the grid tile. Glue them to a flexible plastic or something then roll the clay over that, as it would push into it. That makes perfect sense and could work really well. Brilliant!

  17. @Min This is a good idea, but I am not exactly sure what your saying.  I was thinking of some type of foam, as it wouldn't crack under the pressure. 

    Edit: I just reread what you said. That might actually work. I think I understand now.

    I have another friend who showed me some kind of way to make a soft plastic mold. Basically I would make a grid out of clay, then use clay to make a mold of that counter grid. Then put it in a box and pour out some type of silicon/plastic type material that sets. But it never gets super hard. It might be more trouble than it is worth. I tried my best to find some type of custom silicon mat type company online and I couldn't find anyone who could do the job. I found plenty of people selling all types of clay silicon mats that were already cut, but no one who would make a custom one.  The only issue with silicon is it is probably to soft for making grids. I don't know all of this type of thinking is new to me. But I definitely need to make grids faster, as I am going to be doing 12 or so a week if I can keep to my testing production plan.

    I need to figure out how I am going to modify the grid tiles first. There is no reason not to have some type of slight elevation inside of each of the 35 grids. It makes no sense to not have some type of slope in it. I am sketching ideas currently. But mostly I have been focusing on throwing jars and lids lately. I am kind of entranced with the design of a jar.

    Just for reference this is the type of mat I would like to use. https://www.chineseclayart.com/Store/Textures It seems to be perfect for the job as it is a type of rubber plastic. It seems to leave deep impressions and would work really well.

  18. @oldlady

    You are inside my head. I am currently looking into a method to place the mold on top of a slab then roll through again. If I can't figure it out I will go back to the previous method of making a slab then placing it on top of the bisque mold I am using now, then rolling pin pressure into the mold.

    I am thinking some type of silicon or softer plastic mold that is slightly flexible that can handle going through the roller. If I actually figure it out I will definitely post it.

  19. 6 hours ago, High Bridge Pottery said:

     I still remember the first tile I tried and spending 3 hours weighing out each individual glaze for each cup because I was clueless. 

    hahaha. I can imagine doing that. I now think of everything in terms of volume + dry mixing. Now that I have the ability to calculate a ratio of wet to dry in a mix. I can easily estimate the dry amount needed to add. It is fantastic what a little work will lead you to discover improvements in your processes. When I used to mix glazes for testing colorants. I would weigh out 5 batches individually.... now I just mix up a batch, and do a certain ml into each one, calculate the dry ingredients in that cup and mix the appropriate % I want to add. So much better. 

    I am really enjoying the exploration aspect. I recently decided to give up any real pursuit of being a production potter in order to be a glaze and surface scientist potter profession thingy?! I am actually studying chemistry makeups of ingredients now in my Out of Earth Into Fire book. That isn't to say I don't think production pottery isn't awesome, it is. It just isn't where my heart is in this world of ceramics. I was talking to a friend about his business and stuff and I was telling him to quit beating his head against the wall trying to force something that he doesn't want to do, and just adapt to what he wants to do. Then on the way home I realized that I am not even taking my own advice.

    The whole idea of electric kilns and what they can do is still in its infancy. They are beautiful machines that produce consistent glaze results, it is up to us to figure out the rest of the glaze equations.

    My slab roller should arrive this coming week I think. I estimate I will be making hundreds of tiles very soon. Lots of testing!

  20. @Min I read through his document several times. Lots of really good information.

    That last sentence you pasted: "I found that as the silicon carbide size became smaller, there was more glaze melt, less surface texture from the glaze bubbling while giving off oxygen during the chemical processes and weaker reduction." 

    I think this has a lot of merit to look into. I am curious if I can increase the SiC amounts greatly since the surface is suffering from less bubbling from the finer meshes of SiC. I wonder if you can increase it and still have a smoother surface but start to get the same reduction effects. Eventually I will test this. Maybe in the coming weeks. Particularly around the perfect Silica and Alumina ratios that seem to promote the reduction but not the surface bubbles.

    For the others:

    Is there a general interest for me to continue posting these SiC grids? I am going to be running a bunch of them along side normal grid test every few weeks. I will start posting the higher resolution pictures in the future however.  If people feel like I am just posting useless information by posting my grids I will stop linking them. I find them interesting, but maybe this isn't the place to continue to link them? 

    I am also going to adapt my grid this week as well to have more information in the cells, some type of vertical change. Also they will be more uniform thanks to my new slab roller coming.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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