Why do 3134 and 3195 - which on paper have the same level of boron - calculate totals differently

[mr_glazy_man]

According to frit data sheets, 3134 and 3195 have almost the same amount of boron. Yet, when I go to calculate them in Glazy (I want my 3124 to be more runny, so I’m increasing boron) with equal amounts of each across two recipes, the total boron is different. Why is this?

 

[Bill Kielb]

51 minutes ago, mr_glazy_man said:

According to frit data sheets, 3134 and 3195 have almost the same amount of boron.

They look different to me, 3195 on top, 3134 underneath I believe

3195 has more silica, more alumina (10X), almost double the boron, very similar sodium and calcium. The percentage boron are similar but that percentage is based on how much of the other stuff is in the recipe. Total boron is not quite double for the 3195. 3195 is a cone 06 glaze basically, add some clay to suspend. I am not clear what you are doing actually combining Frits. In the recipes above boron has gone up from 0.58 to 0.67.  Boron at 0.45 basically gets you cone 04 melt.

Edited November 6, 2022 by Bill Kielb

[mr_glazy_man]

It’s clear I don’t understand this well enough, because looking at the frit data sheets, I see those Boron levels to be the same. Is it that the total molecular weight is different between the two? I mean, why does the frit data sheet express these as a percentage in a comparison table, if they are not representative of the absolute values of each ingredient. 
 

Basically what I’m trying to do is have my glaze run more fluidly, so that spreads and  fills the area between the ridges of my Cuenca style tile. At the moment, my glaze is melting just fine but if I apply it thickly, it will not melt and spread; it’s too stiff. I’m therefore positing that I need to “destiffen” the melt by removing alumina or increasing boron so that it melts much earlier. I’m aware this may be misguided however, and an alternative approach might be preferable.

[Bill Kielb]

4 hours ago, mr_glazy_man said:

f they are not representative of the absolute values of each ingredient. 

It’s just molar math. A mole of something contains 6.022 X 10 (raised to the 23rd power) of something. Atoms, molecules, particles.  Since the components such as silica, Alumina etc…. Contain different grams per mole relating everything to moles is the great chemistry unifier to grams. Now the mixture of each substance can be compared accurately. Use the formula amounts, they are there to make everything relatable to grams.

The formula weight for 3195 = 339.82 and the formula weight for 3134 = 195.57. The formula amount ends up to be the actual how much of a component is present even though the two formulas vary significantly by weight and  have different portions by percentage.

4 hours ago, mr_glazy_man said:

Basically what I’m trying to do is have my glaze run more fluidly, so that spreads and  fills the area between the ridges of my Cuenca style tile. At the moment, my glaze is melting just fine but if I apply it thickly, it will not melt and spread; it’s too stiff. I’m therefore positing that I need to “destiffen” the melt by removing alumina or increasing boron so that it melts much earlier

Your logic is good, but I will say once your glaze is melted you are depending on gravity to make the glaze move. Melting it a bit earlier can give gravity more time to pull this glaze down or for it to break and flow across ridges. But glazes are stiff for other reasons. A popular one being how much Silica and alumina are present. Thick applications help because they help gravity pull everything downward. If the fired viscosity is stiff though, it wont be enough to move it and melting earlier only provides more time for it to perhaps move slowly. Reducing the silica and alumina Will definitely affect the viscosity  but also can lead to glazes with less durability.

If your glaze is melting now and you melt it one or two cones earlier and it still will not move, it’s likely too stiff and additional boron will not necessarily make it runny.

Lots of testing using lots of care when making runny glazes is always good advice, else ruined kiln shelves, wares, basically heartache …..

Look at Glazy runny glazes and observe the commonality. Cone 6- 10 and then:  Low silica, low alumina, both, high R2O values,  None of those chemistry traits are great for durability though.

Edited November 6, 2022 by Bill Kielb

[Hulk]

Hi Mr. Glazy Man,

You wrote: "...so I’m increasing boron... with equal amounts of each across two recipes, the total boron is different. Why is this?"

Good question!

Looks like Glazy is depicting Boron's Unity %, which isn't same as percent by weight*.

Looks like the Ferro information sheet depicts Boron % by weight.

Hence, equal weights of Frit 3195 and Frit 3134 do supply very nearly the same weights of Boron.
Indeed, I've copied your glaze formula to GlazeMaster (the software I'm using) and toggled the 3134 and 3195 Frit amounts 0% and 25%

                  Unity    Weight    Mole
3134
B2O3    .575       15.48        14.07

3195
B2O3    .679      15.58        14.37

Hope that helps?
The Boron weight percentage is very close, however, two very different glazes.

Adjusting your glaze to behave how you wish, that's the challenge.

Likely, it would be possible to shuffle the ingredients such that you are changing just the one oxide component, with all others staying the same in reference to each other, however, that may require using different materials. Even when changing just one oxide percentage by weight, the outcome may still surprise!

*Unity, a helpful idea.
The explanation that made sense to me, in Susan Peterson's book, The Craft and Art of Clay: A Complete Potter's Handbook; I still refer to it.
I like Tony Hansen's article: Unity Formula (digitalfire.com) ; see also related articles, linked at the bottom of the page... 

Edited November 6, 2022 by Hulk
distinguish Glazy Man and Glazy (website_)

[mr_glazy_man]

Thanks for the explanation @Bill Kielb and @Hulk. I will need to dive deeper into this, because it’s hard for me to wrap my head around the concept. Lucky I love this subject!

I suppose my next question (and forgive my oversimplification of it) is: pound for pound of material, is the absolute boron amount I’m getting almost the same? I.e if I have a full scoop of 3195 and a full scoop of 3134, am I getting equal melting power from both? Or is the 3195 boron still double in that scoop?

[Hulk]

By weight, pound for pound, looks like the amount of Boron is very close between the two Frits.
Scoops, if by volume, not sure there.

Melting power, not sure there either, two different glazes.

[mr_glazy_man]

If the total boron supplied is equal per pound of material, why do we perceive 3195 to be the superior boron source? In the context of weighing out recipes, 3134 and 3195 are the same, with many of the others (3124, 4131) being rather similar. Why not just base total ingredient contribution against the real world paradigm of weighing out ingredients by the pound/kg?

I understand melting power is different because of other ingredients (and lack thereof), but speaking purely of boron, I’m getting the same amount scoop for equal scoop. 

[Bill Kielb]

2 hours ago, mr_glazy_man said:

understand melting power is different because of other ingredients (and lack thereof), but speaking purely of boron, I’m getting the same amount scoop for equal scoop. 

This may help or this may confuse you. We use the UMF to understand our glazes chemically. So in your example above the boron went from 0.58 to 0.67 a significant change even though the same weight of each compound was used. The relationship under UMF is relative and is a comparison of atoms. Here is a quick how to calculate UMF that may shed some light. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyLjAg1_8_4
 

 

[Min]

Might be easiest seeing the info side by side.

When we work on glazes with calc programs we put the recipe in and most often ask for a Unity Molecular Formula (UMF) to show which oxides are present and their amounts. Although we can show the amounts in relation to each other in a few different ways, UMF means the fluxes add up to 1.00  There are other formats we can use also, Molar, RO Unity, R2O3 Unity, Non Unity. UMF and Molar are probably the most common methods.

So, taking the 2 frits that are being discussed, I put 1lb / 454 grams of each frit into the recipe boxes in the charts below. This could have been 1 gram or 1,000,000 grams, doesn't matter, the data will remain the same. See where it says "Auto Unity", this means UMF, that is to say the fluxes will equal 1.0 when added up. Everything else is in relation to the fluxes of 1.0

Now have a look at the percentage column, these figures line up exactly with those of the Ferro Chart posted above. This is the percentage of each oxide within the frit. If you look at your Glazy charts above you can see boron is included in the R2O3. 

 

[Callie Beller Diesel]

11 hours ago, mr_glazy_man said:

why do we perceive 3195 to be the superior boron source?

It’s not superior or inferior. They’re all tools with different applications. A hammer is only better than a wrench if your goal is to hit nails.  Frits are used to supply certain materials in certain proportions, because all glazes depend on keeping proportions of combined atoms within certain ranges to do what we want them to do.

To really highlight what Min illustrates above, take a look at the relative amounts of alumina and combined other fluxes in those 2 frits. Both 3195 and 3134 are roughly half silica, and about 22-23% boron. But frit 3195 has more relative numbers of alumina molecules and fewer combined other flux molecules than 3134. That means this frit will lead a to a stiffer melt if just substituted gram for gram in a recipe of 95% frit and 5% clay, despite having slightly more boron. Alumina is used to stiffen the melt, and fluxes, well, do what they say on the box.

[Kelly in AK]

Our ingredients are always several elements combined. They do not behave the same as if you could just put those elements together. To crudely illustrate, using silica and alumina in lieu of kaolin will not produce the same result. 

Strive to understand the balance of elements in your materials, including frits. It helps you make glaze without having to intimately know every substance and what it does in combinations at a particular temperature or atmosphere. You can look at the material analysis of something and make informed judgments without ever having used it. 

It’s also important, though, to know the materials well, especially when things don’t do what you expect. For example, tin is a less effective opacifier in reduction, iron becomes a powerful flux, etc. In other words, intimately knowing every substance you use (and some you don’t) is a good thing. 

Advice: Don’t limit yourself by relying on one or another approach exclusively. 

3124 and 3195 have alumina. 3134 essentially doesn’t. Lots of boron in both. You want runny, reduce the alumina. What is the problem here? Is this a software question or a glaze question? 

Oh goodness. I think my “grumpy old man” just came out. Haha!