Callie Beller Diesel

+1 for the clay being the problem, not the ash. Or at least less the ash. Glazes with clay in them also shrink when they dry, not just your pots. 
Another idea would be to calcine part or all of the ball clay if you don’t want to change any materials. You will have to do a little math to keep the proportions the same, because the calcined clay will weigh less than the raw, but will be supplying the same amount of oxides. 
The low math version of doing this involves weighing the clay you want to calcine, fire it and add it to your glaze bucket. eg, if your recipe has 20% ball clay and you want to calcine half of it, you’d weigh 10% to be fired first and the other 10% as usual. 
 
If you want to figure it out by math, you’ll have to look up the specific LOI (loss on ignition) of the brand you’re using and reduce the weight of the calcinend portion by that amount. 

As someone who chased this particular dragon: no. I played with formulas and firing cycles, and you’re always left with at least some micro bubble clouding. 
Min’s right about the best way to make a glaze look clear over a dark clay body being an amber. If you want to play with marbling, you could try using a buff clay instead of the white. 

I was just reading about calcining materials but only read about alberta slip, I didn't know I could calcine the ball clay. So I would measure out the same amount, but I shouldn't calcine the whole batch? I'll read what you posted before asking too many more questions 😁 Thank you!

I wanted Glazy’s target and solve for something, so I sprang for the membership for a year. The paid version lets you overlay the common limit formulas over the Stull chart. It also lets you overlay the Montmollin fuse charts, which is less helpful, but I digress. 

The limit formula overlays are a nice visual. If you’re not at the place where you want to pay a bunch of money for glaze software, I’m happy to screenshot here for educational purposes. 

I have a full shelf on the bottom, but use half shelves after that.  I fire a lot of plates and platters, I have had no problems spanning the half shelves.  I appreciate the flexibility with the half shelves.  As well as being able to easily heft them into the kiln.
I use kiln washed cookies for my porcelain.

If I understand your design correctly, the monkey's tail is where the bananas hang? If that is the case or even if not, but concern comes to any weight being on the tail. If there is weight on the tail, I believe it would break as the long thin tail. As @Kelly in AKsays you need a thicker tail part where it attaches to the monkey, tapering to the curve. The attachment to the monkey body could be done by a metal pin that would allow the takil to swing. Firing separately is the only method that seems to make sense.
 
best,
Pres

Sometimes the trick is to mix it up again to re-suspend the largest particles as when they settle they pull a lot of the fines with them. Not sure about very thick slips, only really used the technique for getting glazes to 1.7g/ml
Calcium will certainly help flocculate slips.

We had soft water at the last house.
Some clays settle faster than others has been my observation, but every clay I've tried will show some clear at the top within a reasonable time.
How much clear, that's variable; the ones that have just a few inches of clear at the top take much much longer to separate any further.

I’ve always been a fan of using more than one opacifier in a recipe for aesthetic reasons, but the cost offset is nice too. Zircopax and tin lowers the amount of tin you need, and titanium and tin have the potential for a lot of visual depth. Zircopax and titanium give a lovely blue undertone variegation, and some nice visual depth.
The former tech at the studio I work at chose one of Joe at Old Forge Creations’s chrome tin pink recipes for some shop glazes.  The recipe cuts the tin 50/50 with titanium, and works a treat. I don’t super recommend it as a studio glaze if you’ve got mostly beginners, or inadequate glaze room supervision. You have to add epsom and darvan to keep everything dispersed enough for poor mixing to not mess up your bucket chemistry, and that’s a nuisance. But if I liked a lot of opaque bubble gum pink, I’d use it in my own practice without the additives. It’s been pretty well behaved. 

The target and solve function is supposed to get you a chemically identical recipe, one that will *theoretically* look the same. And that’s what’s happened here: all the ratios except for the calculated expansion in the first example are identical, and even those are only off by the faintest amount. 
However, target and solve doesn’t address bucket behaviour, which affects how a glaze applies to the pot, which in turn can affect the final look. Bucket behaviour is affected by things like changes in the total amount of clay, or in the amount of soluble materials. The total amount of clay in the target and solve recipe is a few percent higher than the original, and there’s a bit more soda ash. Not a lot in either case, but it could make this version a bit more prone to crawling than it already is, if applied thickly. 
The straight substitution recipe only has marginally more silica, and a slightly different expansion rate. But again, those changes are small, and any differences in the look of the glaze might depend on the clay body (crazing from expansion rate) and the firing cycle (gloss level from additional silica).
 
Best advice from here is to try them both and see which one you like better. Glaze software eliminates some physical testing, but  not all. 
 

I’ve always been a fan of using more than one opacifier in a recipe for aesthetic reasons, but the cost offset is nice too. Zircopax and tin lowers the amount of tin you need, and titanium and tin have the potential for a lot of visual depth. Zircopax and titanium give a lovely blue undertone variegation, and some nice visual depth.
The former tech at the studio I work at chose one of Joe at Old Forge Creations’s chrome tin pink recipes for some shop glazes.  The recipe cuts the tin 50/50 with titanium, and works a treat. I don’t super recommend it as a studio glaze if you’ve got mostly beginners, or inadequate glaze room supervision. You have to add epsom and darvan to keep everything dispersed enough for poor mixing to not mess up your bucket chemistry, and that’s a nuisance. But if I liked a lot of opaque bubble gum pink, I’d use it in my own practice without the additives. It’s been pretty well behaved. 

I rarely need to level the base of a pot, if the pot has a foot ring (most om mine do) I don't try and level the entire base. I trim as usual then when I have the foot ring trimmed to width I trim a bevel into both the inside and outside of it then just use a loop tool to cut off the tip of it. Since it's just a very small amount of clay getting cut off it's easy to hold the tool level to do this.

 

The target and solve function is supposed to get you a chemically identical recipe, one that will *theoretically* look the same. And that’s what’s happened here: all the ratios except for the calculated expansion in the first example are identical, and even those are only off by the faintest amount. 
However, target and solve doesn’t address bucket behaviour, which affects how a glaze applies to the pot, which in turn can affect the final look. Bucket behaviour is affected by things like changes in the total amount of clay, or in the amount of soluble materials. The total amount of clay in the target and solve recipe is a few percent higher than the original, and there’s a bit more soda ash. Not a lot in either case, but it could make this version a bit more prone to crawling than it already is, if applied thickly. 
The straight substitution recipe only has marginally more silica, and a slightly different expansion rate. But again, those changes are small, and any differences in the look of the glaze might depend on the clay body (crazing from expansion rate) and the firing cycle (gloss level from additional silica).
 
Best advice from here is to try them both and see which one you like better. Glaze software eliminates some physical testing, but  not all. 
 

This came up the other day, might help. https://community.ceramicartsdaily.org/topic/41668-midfire-clay-short-when-recycled/  Given your reclaim is already on plaster slabs if it is still fairly wet I'ld put it back into a bucket with some more water and add the blunged bentonite or ball clay/bentonite and slurry mix it again with the plasticizers. The smaller the clay particles the greater plasticity you will get from them, bentonite is much finer than ball clay which in turn is much finer than EPK. 

Yeah, I'm thinking in this case that might not work as well for the OP here as they are looking to speed up the drying time and defloc's slow it down.

Gum is added specifically to make them brush nicely and to harden the surface so that added layers don't pick up the previous layer. Part of what makes that work is that you have a higher water content in the glaze, plus the gum itself makes the glaze slimy and slows down drying. That is definitely a problem when it comes to spraying, so I would first see if any of the glazes you like to use are available in dry form so that you can mix them without any gum. If not, then I think you're just going to have to spray them in thinner layers, letting each layer dry between applications. Or you can start mixing your own glazes.

The only thing that might make a difference is the slight increase in silica but my hunch is it won't be significant enough to make a difference, testing will tell.
Given there is no added standalone silica in the recipe to reduce it and get closer to an identical UMF you would need to reduce some of the silica while keeping the other oxides balanced. This is what the Target and Solve function did with it, reduced the silica by reducing the Nepheline Syenite then increased the Minspar (it has less silica than Nepheline Syenite) to rebalance the Sodium and Potassium then adjusted the Ball Clay to adjust the alumina and rebalance the silica. 
As well as how the glaze behaves in the bucket particle size and how well they melt comes into play also. 

Final photo!  Got my old Seeley's porcelain slip all reconstituted beautifully.  Here are the medallions poured and cleaned up and bisque fired  for the show awards.  The three smallest are intended to be jewelry pendants.  All of these can be kept as porcelain bisques or custom glazed at some later time.  Now back to casting more of them for my event in July!

Oh my Gerd.  I -FINALLY- managed to locate pottery plaster.  What a PITA.  I usually can get it locally for about $20 per 50 lb bag if I pick it up at Highwater Clays in Asheville (a long drive for me but worth it).  But of course they have been out of it and backordered for bloody ever due to ongoing COVID foo backups.  So I finally broke down and called all around until I found Kruger Pottery just got in a load.  Whew!  My big event is in July and I have clayed up so many molds that I didn't dare order rubber until I could be sure I could also get more plaster.   The $100 shipping on two bags hurts but at least it's on it's way!  Hopefully Highwater will eventually get some in and I can get a few more bags yet but without the shipping charges.  Fun, fun.
I did mention that this thread might be better placed in the mold making and slip casting forum... 

The target and solve function is supposed to get you a chemically identical recipe, one that will *theoretically* look the same. And that’s what’s happened here: all the ratios except for the calculated expansion in the first example are identical, and even those are only off by the faintest amount. 
However, target and solve doesn’t address bucket behaviour, which affects how a glaze applies to the pot, which in turn can affect the final look. Bucket behaviour is affected by things like changes in the total amount of clay, or in the amount of soluble materials. The total amount of clay in the target and solve recipe is a few percent higher than the original, and there’s a bit more soda ash. Not a lot in either case, but it could make this version a bit more prone to crawling than it already is, if applied thickly. 
The straight substitution recipe only has marginally more silica, and a slightly different expansion rate. But again, those changes are small, and any differences in the look of the glaze might depend on the clay body (crazing from expansion rate) and the firing cycle (gloss level from additional silica).
 
Best advice from here is to try them both and see which one you like better. Glaze software eliminates some physical testing, but  not all. 
 

Something a little different just finished up in my studio this week!  'Smitten' medallion (small plaque) , sculpted by Rebecca Turner, produced in earthenware ceramic by Marge Para, and custom glazed by myself as a show donation for Clinky Mania Live 2024 in Titusville, FL this May.  All work done in the kiln using underglazes, then satin clear, followed by some overglazes to punch up the colors in the cat.  This ceramic medallion measures 3.5 by 5 inches and is going to public auction to benefit the show.    Photo displayed is MUCH larger than the actual piece!
I don't do many donation pieces anymore as I am just too busy but this is to help support a good friend's last year of hosting this show series for equine ceramics.  With all the heavy storms up here we've had in these mountains the past week it's been hard to fire either of my kilns with so many power outages and all the lightning.   But I finally got it done!  

After you slam it down, don't go directly into an upward coning. Instead start with a forceful pressing down into the hockey puck shape.  Then proceed with coning. This helps with adhesion.

I spoke with my supplier last week, and they said that Plainsman has a 4 year supply IF no one hoards it. Mike at Ceramics Canada has said he won’t sell more than a 50 lb bag at a time unless you’ve been making your own clay body with it. 
So please don’t panic buy. Give everyone ample time to reformulate behind the scenes while still using their current stock.

I don’t know if this is still holding true with newer folks, but mason stains used to be considered “cheating.” 
Absurd purist ideas aside, sometimes they can give rather flat “candy coating” results if they’re not modified somehow, or used in an off label way. Off label usually meaning in a lower concentration or with less/no zircopax than usually recommended if you want them to give a more translucent result, or combining them with some rutile to give visual depth, etc.  And of course, you’ve already encountered the varying base glaze requirements for making sure they turn out as intended. Glaze testing can get really pedantic and boring, and it’s easy to get turned away if you don’t see some kind of positive or interesting result on the first round or 2. 
 

I don’t know if this is still holding true with newer folks, but mason stains used to be considered “cheating.” 
Absurd purist ideas aside, sometimes they can give rather flat “candy coating” results if they’re not modified somehow, or used in an off label way. Off label usually meaning in a lower concentration or with less/no zircopax than usually recommended if you want them to give a more translucent result, or combining them with some rutile to give visual depth, etc.  And of course, you’ve already encountered the varying base glaze requirements for making sure they turn out as intended. Glaze testing can get really pedantic and boring, and it’s easy to get turned away if you don’t see some kind of positive or interesting result on the first round or 2.