lili krakowski on fri 8 jan 10
Anyone wonders that I am writing so much today. Because I either write, =
=3D
or clean the house. (Questions?)
Recipe Name: OTTO'S PINGING TURQUOISE
ALL calculations by GlazeMasterT
This glaze crazes. Well! How about that! Scurrying off to GlazeMasterT
I find 75 is the minimum "acceptable" COE , and that the Alumina =3D
Silica content here is at top level.
Recipe Name: otto pinging turquoise
61.5 Nepheline Syenite
20.9 Strontium Carbonate
6.6 Ball Clay--Old Mine #4
7.7 Flint
3.3 Lithium Carbonate
4 Bentonite
Additives
3.5 Copper Carbonate
Unity Oxide
.133 Li2O
.298 Na2O
.093 K2O
.014 MgO
.037 CaO
.425 SrO
1.000 Total
.5 Al2O3
.005 Fe2O3
2.52 SiO2
=3D20
Coefficient of Expansion 88.9 Interestingly, when the copper carb is =3D
calculated in we get "only" 85.7 COE. (I calculate colorants in when =3D
there is a problem.)
Still, off we go: =3D20
Otto new turquoise
44.4 Feldspar--Kona F4
23.1 Strontium Carbonate
4.2 Lithium Carbonate
19 Kaolin--Calcined
3.7 Talc
2.8 Flint
3.5 Copper Carbonate
.167 Li2O
.151 Na2O
.068 K2O
.087 MgO
.062 CaO
.465 SrO
.499 Al2O3
2.203 SiO2
77.2 Exp
I think this would be an ok starting point for testing. And a question =3D
to the experts. How come we never calcine feldspars? Or would that then =
=3D
require ball milling?
(Will anyone notice if I don't dust? Mmmm?
Lili Krakowski
Be of good courage
| |
|
