? about 96 coe frit
I just stumbled on to Glass Diversions web site and had to buy some of their beautiful frit. I use 104 coe glass rods and was wondering if I use this 96 coe frit will it be compatible? Can I cover the whole surface with the frit, melt it in and use 104 clear frit on top. Will the beads crack? Should I just get some 96 coe rods to use as a base when I use this frit? I'm confused and any help would be great! THANKS in advance
Karen |
Yes. You can use it as surface decoration. Right now nearly all the frit I have is Glass Diversions.
I don't have any issue with a solid color of 104 and a bit of frit. Apparently others do. |
I use the 96 coe frits in my beads all the time, and I encase just about everything. I've never had a problem. It's not only the coe, but the viscosity of the glasses that you're using that will affect compatibility. You have to experiment to find out what works, and what doesn't, just like you do when you're using some of the finicky 104 glasses together.
|
Quote:
Sounds like a good enough reason to buy more glass to me...! |
I use 96 frits all the time. The important thing is to use them THINLY with a generous encasing. The only times I've had compatibility issues have been when I haven't melted the frits into the base very well (relatively large chunks left...chunky LOL), or when I've only done a very thin encasing. And even then, it kinda varies with the frit. Lots of red seems to cause more cracking problems more than any other color.
|
As a rule of thumb, the transparents will cause less problems than the opaques because the transparents have lead in them which makes them play nice.
|
Kismet - did Glass Diversions tell you that if you order any of their multipacks you don't have to purchase the frit identified as in the pack, you can select the frit you want, at no additional cost. What you do is email them first letting them know what frit you want and when they return your email they will have instructions on how to order the frit.
extexnick |
96 frit is NOT compatible with 104 rods. Not in any quantities. You can often get away with using small amounts - but only if you adequately encase it. If you don't encase it, there's a strong likelihood of incompatibility cracks.
http://www.glasscampus.com/tutorials...xing%20COE.pdf |
Quote:
|
Thanks John for those links again. Hopefully this thread will stick around!
|
|
Quote:
The two (viscosity and COE) occur at two different temperature ranges. COE affects the glass at well below the strain point, it is an average of COE's from room temp to 300° C. Viscosity affects the glass at higher temperatures, between the strain point and softening point. In order for glass to be compatible these two properties must offset each other. It's referred to as compensating errors. If the COE of two glasses sets up a strain in one "direction", then the viscosity must cause strain equal and opposite to cancel the effect. Now, to address further your original question. If two glasses with COE's of 104 and 96 respectively, have the same viscosities, then no they won't be compatible. But, those two glasses are compatible if the viscosities are such that they cancel the effect of differing COE's... but important nonetheless. The Reader's Digest Condensed version of the whole thing is... COE's and viscosities are equal -> glasses are compatible COE's are equal and viscosities aren't equal -> glasses are not compatible Viscosities are equal and COE's aren't equal -> glasses are not compatible COE's and viscosities aren't equal -> glasses might be compatible The first of the three links I provided explains this much more eloquently than I, and in much more depth. The other links are discussions regarding other factors affecting compatibility, such as batching, working time/temp and its effect on crystal growth and COE, and other such esoteric brouhaha. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
For me personally, I try things and keep good notes. Folks, what we do is artistic science. It's not as simple as matching COEs: Just because two rods of glass are marked 104 does not mean that they are compatible. Nor does a difference in COE mean they are NOT compatible. I've spoken before of an experience I had with two glasses. TESTED COEs of 104. The viscosity was way off, however. The result was explosive. Literally. I'm STILL picking chunks of glass out of my kiln from that little experiment from three years ago. LOL! ETA: Dennis, I'm always willing to take a risk under certain circumstances. IMO, taking risks is an integral part of being an artist. How do we move our art forward if we're not willing to push the envelope and go where others fear to tread? Yes, I'm a risk-taker. But not all willy-nilly, by a long shot. I am constantly educating myself about glass and all its properties. This gives me the knowledge and power to make good decisions, even when I'm trying something new and potentially risky. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
However, if you use System 96 frit with Systems 96 rods or Systems 96 glass or Systems 96 cullet you KNOW there's nothing to be concerned about. It's not just a case of COE match, but it's tested and assured compatibility. It will always be compatible. No risk. The same if you chose to use Bullseye's assured compatible COE 90. I figure newcomers have enough to worry about with worrying about whether or not the glass they're using is compatible. |
Quote:
Do I propose going about it all willy-nilly and just throwing glass into a piece and selling it? Of course not. What I am saying is that we shouldn't limit ourselves to some standard that really isn't all that standard. We insult ourselves as artists if we do so. The concept of COE as it relates to compatibility wasn't even a consideration until some time in the 60's, wasn't widely known about until well into the 70's, and the flameworking world probably didn't glom onto it until the late 70's or perhaps even the 80's. Here is a marvelous anecdotal discussion of the genesis of COE in the states. Anecdotal, but quite valid, the discussion includes many of the players at that time. As a small aside, one company that is currently at the forefront of compatibility research is Bullseye. A quote from one of the above links... "Although Bullseye glasses are popularly referred to as being of a "90" expansion, Bullseye does not encourage the use of this designation in describing its glasses. The "linear expansion coefficient" is determined by a laboratory test, which expresses the average expansion rate from room temperature to 572ºF (300ºC). It ignores the more important range of expansion for determining compatibility for fusing is the expansion through the annealing and softening ranges. It also ignores viscosity, an important element in determining whether glasses will "fit" each other on fusing. All "90" expansion glasses are not compatible." While this addresses fusing, the points are valid to flameworkers as well. It would appear that Bullseye is looking toward the big picture, their glass is tested compatible. The COE of their glass is apparently 90-ish, but more importantly, the other factors are taken into account so as to create classes that fit. |
Quote:
You'll never hear me spouting the 15% rule (that's the way I heard it several years ago), and I never promote that way of thinking to students. What I do encourage is experimentation and good notes. It's great if something works, but it must be repeatable to be of any use. |
Thanks Tink and John for your well thought out and researched replies to this thread!
|
Apparently Dennis has the most issue with my response. Fact of the matter is System 96 is tested and sold as compatible within the system. Nothing else we have is. That leads me to believe that one should either use just that system, or recognize anything else, even 2 colors of Lauscha (as an example) is an experiment. On a very technical level much of the work we do is an experiment. We some how gloss over suggesting that Lauscha might crack with Moretti because it doesn't for most people. We gloss over a lot of the other technical issues with glass because some newbies start to get confused. As they progress they ask other questions and learn in more detail. I guess we could go back to suggesting everyone read one of the lampworking bibles when people as a general question.
I'll go back to my response. Most people have great luck using the frit with a different COE. There is more to the glass than the COEs matching. As has been mentioned viscosity and I believe lead content as well. |
I think the BEST thing to tell newcomers is to go play! We all learn through experimentation, and some amazing results are made when taking risks and breaking the 'rules.' If this weren't true, we'd still be making medieval-looking beads in medieval ways. Instead, we have vibrant colors, interesting inclusions, and breathtaking designs that never could have happened under 'original' conditions of the Romans or Saxons or Vikings.
In my experience, I've had nearly as many difficulties with 'compatible' glass as 'incompatible.' I still remember the shock I encountered when I got compatibility cracks with a Moretti coral bead encased in Moretti clear. I don't even want to discuss alabastros (which don't even seem to be compatible with each other!). GO! PLAY! LEARN! (and for heaven's sake, take notes and share pictures!) |
Quote:
|
Thank you for posting those links to the Craftweb site. Very fascinating reading. I can't wait to tell my dad about that site. He started blowing glass in 1971 I think, and probably knew a lot of the people posting there. He had a one-man studio until '81 and did all his glass color batching and blowing without any assistants. A lot of the technical stuff he's talked about started to make sense when I read through those links. There really is so much more to glass compatibility than COE. I'm kind of glad that lampworking is less technical though- we can get away with mixing a broader range of glass than the glassblowers and casters can- so I won't need a degree in chemistry to make pretty stuff that won't break. :) (Plus- it's a bead- if it breaks it's not the end of the world. Try, try again, right?)
Thanks again, Kelly PS I was reading somewhere- can't remember- that Lucio Bubacci was mixing COEs in a single piece- like starting with 90 as a foot, then mixing 90-96 for the stem, then 96, then 96-104 mixed, then 104 for the bowl of the piece...and he was successful? did anyone else read this? |
Quote:
Furnace work is really no more or less scientific than flameworking, in fact probably less. There seem to be more flameworking glass manufacturers that treat glassmaking like a science and less like an art than there are furnace glass manufacturers. Compatibility between batch and colors is a constant issue. And I mix glasses regularly in the hotshop. Effetre works great for "cane painting" on a blown piece with a torch. Re: the PS... As I recall it's called "transition glass". Not sure about Lucio specifically, but it is done successfully. The secret is to be sure that the transition is gradual and that the mixing is very complete. |
Interesting thread and lots of good knowledge. I was about to post roughly the same question as kismet when I found this in a search.
I was at the glass store today and was holding a couple pounds of frit but I didn't see a COE on the jars and it was Bullseye, all my rods are Effetre. I guess COE doesn't equate to compatibility and being so new, I'm fine experimenting. I'm not doing anything but practicing now and learning so if I'm not making mistakes it means I'm not learning enough. What I didn't want to do was pay $50 for something that MAY work for me so I left with some gold and silver leaf and some cool mashers. Alas, they didn't have a marble mold which was the whole reason for going in the first place.... |
Bullseye is 90 COE and is not compatible with 104 even in small amounts :).
|
I don't think it's irresponsible to say that frit like Glass Diversions and others sell is fine in small amounts on most 104 glass. It's proven. Hundreds of thousands of beads have been made with that combination. I wouldn't use Bullseye, but I have and do use Kugler. If you have any doubts, just hold on to the beads for a while before you give them away or sell them.
|
I have used lots and lots of frit on 104 rods including Effetre, Vetrofond, & Lauscha. I've occasionally had a cracked bead when I didn't encase thickly enough but most of the time I don't encase and the beads are all still in one piece. Frit it a lot of fun and a great way for a new beadmaker to get a nice bead. Re the compat issues. There is always the "stringer test" to determine what is compatible with what.
Paula |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 9:38am. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.