Talk:Pyrometric cone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thank you for your message. As you note Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia, however the changes I have made to the entries have been to correct errors in what have most certainly not been “existing accurate information”, and these have included: 1. Cones are made of "chemically refined clay" This is meaningless and shows ignorance of how ceramic raw materials and processed and used 2. More than clay is for cones. A range of compositions of different minerals dependent on their rating 3. The entry only mentions Orton cones where other manufacturers exist 4. There is no mention of other pyrometric devices 5. Your messages describes “Wedgewood” .. at least spell the name correctly: Wedgwood 6. I corrected an entry on earthenware, not least to replace the suggestion that potash is an ingredient. Have you ever formulated a body ... if you had you would know that the use potash, or potassium carbonate, is unknown 7. Earthenware again: classically most is not red as many examples are white or off white Kiln entry: they do not ‘chemically refine clay objects’ For a start the objects will be comprised of more than just clay, and again “chemically refine” is a meaningless. Although not definitive something better would be ”To induce permanent physical and chemical changes that converts a relatively weak and porous material consisting of innumerable particles into a strong, single mass composed on a glassy phase interspersed with pores and crystalline material.” 8. Change entry on soft –paste porcelain. The original entry suggested the glass was used .. correct for the early developments but with the very occasionally exception, such as Belleck, its not been used for 200 years. Similarly for soapstone and lime
And with respect your statement "as a working potter, I can assure you that I will evaluate and discuss your contributions and that worthy material" is arrogant. To refer back to your statement that Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia" Have you ever considered that others may have better understanding of the subject than yourself, yet you deem yourself to a worthy moderator?
I’m sorry that my contributions are not welcome, not least as I thought Wikipedia was an open source. How many other knowledgeable contributors do you wish to exclude?
Thank you for coming to the talk page. Although I have done little work on this page, and earthenware is not my area of expertise, I will continue to revert until we arrive at some agreement. Please provide your sources and do not delete images, references and large chunks of material without explanation. That is considered vandalism on Wikipedia. An "edit war" - where people constantly delete and revert is also inappropriate. Your implications that I am arrogant for defending work here -- most of which is not mine -- suggests that you are setting yourself up as the expert. I am not a monitor -- but I will uphold Wikipedia guidelines and practices. So, work on small segments of each article, provide a written source, and you will have more success. The ceramic/pottery articles here are generally deficient in many ways and could use work. But the work on Wikipedia is collaborative and works toward concensus. Please read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and consider registering as a user. Then your contributions will carry more weight and, if necessary, you can request arbitration on some of your concerns.
Yes, I am a working potter, with over 20 years experience, but if you work in clay as well you must realize there are many ways of accomplishing the same goals. I have formulated clay bodies and glazes and have used many different materials. Potash was used prehistorically and historically in earthenware, although I am aware that is is rarely used in modern products. Earthenware in many areas of the world is red -- very high iron content. If you want to make the distinction for other areas of the world, please be specific and include it in existing text. Your points deserve discussion and inclusion, for example the information on other cone manufactures. Please add it -- but don't replace wholesale. As you seem to have valuable information, I hope that you will consider sticking around. WBardwin 00:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, WB and AAA, I think I might have reverted one of AAAs changes to the Porcelain article the other day, which was perhaps being too brutal. But I think it would be helpful to discuss things before saving major edits. To AAA I'd say, you're a guy who obviously knows his stuff when it comes to ceramics (a lot, lot more than me, I'd guess) so let's all get together and collaborate. On the topic of Pyrometric cones, the article doesn't make it clear why (some) potters prefer them to thermocouples. What can they tell you that thermocouples can't? One other thing, I came across a reference the other day to the use of pyrometric cones made from loess being used by Northern Song potters, 800-years before Seger. I can pop this in the article if you like. Regards, Nick.--Nick 10:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello WBardwin, Thank you for your response my rather long message. And in reply and expand upon each point:
Yes I did find you comment “... I will evaluate and discuss your contributions and that worthy material" to be arrogant. However the nature of the medium prevents free following discussion and so misunderstandings can occur; if my interpretation was flawed then I apologise. I’m sure that my message could also be similarly misread as I certainly do not hold myself to be an expect; and my personal view is to distrust anyone that does whatever the subject. However the entry on pyrometric cones contains errors and to be useful reference needs significant rewriting
Your request to provide sources is difficult. I’m sure you can appreciate from your years distilling accumulated knowledge to a few references is impossible. I am also very strongly against just quoting a single document, and certainly the Hamer and Hamer that seems to be the only one used for all pottery / ceramic articles is a rather poor choice as itself contains errors and perpetuates myths that should not be encouraged.
I would agree there are many ways of accomplishing the same goals but all share underlying principles.
The designation of terminology can be seen to be in two groups: 1) by convention after wide scale use, and 2) agreed and recognised standards. Earthenware exists in both, and reference includes “non-vitreous and opaque” The range of colours produced is too wide to be a meaningful characteristic. And yes whilst red bodies are widely found the bulk of global production would be described as off white
The listing of potash for a raw material with no caveat to its historic or the type of compositions that have been widely used for 100s of years could only cause confusion to readers
My comments about the existing entry on pyrometric cones include: 1. “Chemically refined clay” - Cones are formulated from a specific and controlled mixture of raw materials with each rating of cone having a different formulation. Whilst the raw materials used will include clays, along with other minerals, that will have been subject to benefication processes the term “Chemically refined” approaches the meaningless and indicates a lack of understanding of the processes used by the author 2. I’m glad that recently the text has been modified to reflect that both time and temperature have an influence. However the phrase “... has reached a desired temperature” is still likely to encourage this widespread misunderstanding 3. These use of other types of commercially produced pyrometric devices, including bars and rings, should be included 4. The section on Orton seems to be more an advertisement for that company than an entry in an encyclopaedia as no other manufacturers are noted and the sentence “The ceramic industry had a need for a calibrated visual device” incorrectly suggests that such devices were not already in production before their own supply
And a minor correction is that whilst Josiah Wedgwood was unquestionably highly inventive and made incalculable contributions to ceramics his election to the Royal Society was because of his pyrometric devices alone and not because “one of several” innovations
Kind regards, Andy
Hello Nick, Thank you for you message, and to answer your question “why (some) potters prefer them to thermocouples.” Many use both because they gauge different properties or characteritsics. Thermocouples are used to measure temperature whilst pyrometric devices are commonly said to measure heat work. This itself is a rather woolly concept but essentially results from the combined effect of time and temperature; very simply a comparable result on glaze / body can be achieved by firing to a high temperature for a short time as to a low temperature for a long time. Kind regards, Andy
- Hello Andy, so cones provide an indication of maturity, rather than of raw temperature? Thanks. --Nick 09:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello Nick, Your right that cones, and of course other pyrometric devices, gauge more than raw temperature but I don’t think ‘maturity’ is really the best description. The behaviour of a cone and the ware one is attempting to fire to maturity are idependent. I’ll be interested if you can better phrase this but: “ ... the final characteristics of a ceramic material are influenced by the firing schedule, and this includes temperature, rate of temperature increase and duration at temperature” Kind regards, Andy
Hello all, I've be waiting for contribution to my earlier comments ... but in the abscence I've ammended the entry. More still to be donw, and a little tidying up I'm sure, but any thoughts? Regards, Andy
- Hello Andy, just to remind you of my comment above, I came across a reference the other day to the use of pyrometric cones made from loess being used by Northern Song potters, 800-years before Seger. Regards, Nick. Nick 20:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nick, Have you got the reference? I'm a little cautious about adding something myself from source I don't have so can you include? Regards, Andy
Hello Andy, All, I had it from Kerr and Wood, Page 117, who say "At a number of Northern Song dynasty kiln site in both Shensi and Shansi provinces, archaeologists have excavated small cones of fired loess about five centimetres high. These would have been set in ring-shaped supports and placed amongst the wares and saggars in the stoneware and porcelain kilns. During firing they would have been watched by the firemen through spyholes set in the kiln walls. When the cones melted the kiln-watchers would know that the settings had reached a certain temperature, and would control their kilns accordingly [100]. These pyrometric cones made from loess anticipate a similar invention by the great ceramic chemist, Hermann Seger, by some 800 years [101]". [100] and [101] are the references that K&W cite, one Shui Jisheng, and Seger, respectively. In pinyin Shensi is Shaanxi and Shansi is, er.. Shanxi. Regards, Nick. Nick 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Which ASTM?
The Orton Pyrometric Cone is the only cone currently made in accordance with the ASTM Standard... Can someone tell me with which ASTM standard Orton cones are said to comply? I think that without this information the quoted statement can't be allowed to stand. Regards, Nick. Nick 11:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Only Orton cones are traceable to Standards.... Come on now, this is even more dishonest than what was there before. What standard? This article isn't supposed to be a free advertisment for Orton, good as I'm sure their cones are. Regards, Nick. Nick 14:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Only Orton cones are traceable to Standards... is more specific than the previous line, as it references the publication that declares it a standard, but is meant as a placeholder until I can research and find the exact ASTM number (have you ever tried searching their database? it reads like stereo instructions!
Good luck with the search, to be honest I haven't been able to find any national standards or international standards, ASTM, CEN, ISO, et cetera, for pyrometric cones. Which is odd, perhaps there aren't any, but I could very well be wrong about this. Oh, by the way, what didn't you like about my words on corrections that might need to be applied when changing from one set of cones to another? Not bothered about it, just curious. Regards, Nick. Nick 14:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I know the standard exists, but I've discussed the topic with 3 ceramic engineers, and have gotten 3 different ASTM numbers. astm c-24 is the standard for PCE, which is the only standard to include the term "pyrometric", however I'm being told the standard is written in a general manner that more address temp variation. I think I'm close. As for the diff cones, I was attempting to keep the playing field level by eliminating too many references to specific cone manufacturers (as andy and you have pointed out), even tho that phrase did so as an example. please elaborate on the phrase i used if you think the message can be delivered more efficiently. -stuph
I'm still looking for standards for pyrometric cones too, but without any luck. I did come across this document though: http://www.autex.spb.ru/download/wavelet/books/sensor/CH32.PDF which has some very useful words on temperature measurement and includes a section on cones (it's good, have a look). I don't doubt that Orton operate quality systems in accordance with the ASTM standards for such systems (and that their systems are accredited by some independent third-party) but I'm beginning to wonder if there really is an ASTM for cones. If there isn't a standard then Orton must have an internal one of their own, but I'm not sure how far one could reasonably expect someone else's cones to meet the requirements set by this. Just a thought at this stage. Regards, Nick. Nick 10:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Nick & Stuph, Chipping in with my contributions:
ASTM standard C24-01 does relate to the use cones but, and to quote, “ ... the determination of the Pyrometric Cone Equivalent (PCE) of fire clay, fireclay brick, high alumina brick, and silica fire clay refractory mortar by comparison of test cones with standard pyrometric cones under the conditions prescribed in this test method.” So being a specific use of cones is it of direct relevance to a background article on cones which I think the wikipedia entry should be
There is another standard which could be referenced, BS 1041-7:1988. This relates to various temperature and heat measuring instruments andincludes pyrometric devices
I think the pdf at autex.spb.ru which Nick listed is worth referencing although I would have prefered a strong caveat in it about pyrometric devices not measuring temperature
It would be worth stressing at the start of ‘Numbering Method’ in the current entry that this is specific to Orton cones with other makes having their own
Stuph, as I’ve noted in the discussion page I think you were a little heavy with the editing on Josiah Wedgwood so I've now merged yours with the earlier which I hope you’re OK with
Regards
Andy
andy:
i can't see any changes to the wedgwood section. i dont know what has been merged.
if this is a history lesson, then the numbering method may not apply at all. if we are discussing the current state of pyrometric cones, the numbering system is not specific to orton cones, it is the accepted standard industry wide. i suspect this is an overview of cones, thus the subsection for history. with that being said, an 022 is the coolest everywhere. variations exist, and some cheaply manufactured (home made cones) can drift over time. however, at a heating rate of 270 deg f /hour, most cones will be +- 1094 f. hence the phrase "Thus, when using cones made by different manufacturers, corrections for the differences will be necessary." ask any glaze manufacturer what they mean when they say "cone 6" and you'll see my point. this also ties into my reference to the standard. the standard is necessary to keep temp variation low and eliminate drifting. I know its out there, I will find the details. but imagine for a second if no standard existed. if every batch of cones made were simply tested against the previous batch, the temp could drift up or down whatever your normal variance is, times the number of batches you've made. its like making a copy of a copy of a copy. I would prefer cone manufacturers to grab the standardized (or original) cone and do QA against that.
if this standard isn't an ASTM (which might have been an assumption on my part), it is a certified standard. as it stands now, the line "traceable to Standards established in 1956 by H.P. Beerman at the National Bureau of Standards" is a direct quote from the Journal of American Ceramic Society, Vol. 39 1956, as quoted in the article. since the NBS has since become the NIST, there is some trouble getting info on standards prior to 1960. Stuph
Hello Stuph,
Thank for your response to my message. I think perhaps your comments such as ...accepted standard industry wide and ask any glaze manufacturer what they mean when they say "cone 6" may well be true for some parts of the world but not all. Prefacing the ‘Numbering Method’ by noting this information is for Orton cones would be helpful and would not be detrimental to the information
I fully agree control measures are needed to ensure consistency of cones between batches. However there is a considerable difference between comparing Orton cones & home made cones than Orton & cones from other manufacturers
At the moment I feel the entry reads too much as an advertisement for Orton’s products rather than an encyclopaedia entry. I have no quibble with Orton’s products but there are other cones and other pyrometric devices
Regards,
Andy
Hello stuph,
Your last edit for Pyrometric devices was: The history of pyrometric devices includes key figures such as English potter Josiah Wedwood in 1782, German ceramics technologist ...
I merged this with my earlier entry to give Although Pyrometric devices were invented by the English potter and scientist Josiah Wedgwood in 1782, which led him to be elected a fellow of the Royal Society, other key figures include...
Regards, Andy
[edit] More on standards
Hi Stuph, thanks for adding the link to Orton's site. It appears then that there isn't an ASTM for pyrometric cones. However, the manufacture and control of Orton cones is carried out in accordance with procedures developed with the NBS in 1956 and the cones are tested using a furnace controlled in accordance with procedures worked out with the NBS in 1980. This is my reading, is it yours too? I note their intention to implement an ISO 9000 quality system. All good stuff, but I still think your words could do with some amendments (eg. I think you are using the word accuracy where you might mean precision). Only Orton cones... Do me a favour, blow that Only away <g>. Regards, Nick. Nick 18:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nick, Hi Stuph I'd agree with Nick somewhat as the entry currently is in danger of looking a bit too much like a promotional article for Orton ... nothing against them at all but I just think wikipedia shouldn't be an advertisment. I missed " ... their intention to implement an ISO 9000 quality system" If that's true I'm absolutely amazed they haven't been registered for years already. Also have you seen there's a link on their website to wikipedia's Pyrometric Cone? You don't work for Orton do you Stuph? :-) Kind regards, Andy
hi guys. i've pulled together as much info as I could. when i started, the page was all of three paragraphs long. please edit, as you see fit, to keep the article correct. Stuph 19:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Stuph, there's loads of good words in what you've written, we owe you thanks for this. Hello Andy, I'm not sure what the system is for certifying and accrediting quality systems in the USA (the only quality scheme I ever wrote was certified by the BSI and accredited by NACCB, as it was then). I'm sure we'll agree some wording that will keep everyone happy. Regards, Nick. Nick 21:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nick, Surely ISO 9000 is Worldwide? I go back to BS5750 days but I thought this had been modified / swallowed up to create an international QA standard. As an aside there is a dedicated QA accreditation service for the ceramics industry; CICS http://www.ceram.co.uk/certification/certification.htm. Regards, Andy.
Hi Andy, I just can't remember exactly what happen when with quality standards. BS 5750 changed its name to BS 9000 and then pretty much unchanged became adopted as an EN (EN-9000) with the Europeanisation of standards. Thanks for the link. Regards, Nick. Nick 18:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
