These bricks were being extruded in India and the plant was suffering drying cracks. A consultant recommended a high percentage addition of lignosulphonate, at a cost of $800/ton, as a solution. But before adding such a large expense, some obvious changes seemed in order first. The technician knew the plasticity index of the clay (a measurement used for soils) but he did not have records of its drying shrinkage, water permeability, drying strength or drying performance - when problems like this arise such data provides direction and help answer questions. For example, is cracking happening because of lack of drying strength or plasticity or because drying shrinkage is too high. The splitting along the corner of the extrusion is a clue that plasticity could be lacking - that could be solved by a small bentonite addition or reduction in grog. If permeability is low an increase in grog might be needed (if the pugmill can still extrude slugs with a smooth edge and corner). Notice the cracks that start from those splits (lower left). But also notice how the top edge has shrunk while the center section has not. That indicates the drying process is not tuned to subject all surfaces to equal airflow (sure enough, these are being dried outside in the sun and wind). Another factor is cross-section: The round holes create variations in thickness that exceed 300%, square holes with rounded corners would be better. Given the location, economic realities and past success this one change might be enough to make a big difference.

This is possible because Polar Ice, the casting version, behaves like rubber after draining. The rims can be peeled away from the mold and the piece can be completely collapsed to forcibly peel it out of the mold. They could then be opened and dried. To add more insult to the wonky shape large pieces can be broken away at leather-hard stage and then reattached using the slip as glue - the piece will still dry normally! The 1% Veegum is solely responsible for all of this, without it the New Zealand kaolin based slip would be too fragile to even cast this.

Orton says “90 angular degrees is considered the endpoint of cone bending”. First, let's assume the normal: Examination of cones on kiln-opening to verify controller operation. Consider the cone on the left: The tip is touching. But it is also beginning to buckle, which means it was touching for a while before the firing ended. Who knows how long! The second one is not touching but has still fallen a little too far. Why do we say that? The third one, positioned on the Orton guide, has reached the recommended 90 degrees. This demonstrates a good reason why self-supporting cones are much better than standard ones: They are not touching when considered done. And standard cones, when sent in a 3/4" plaque, have a less consistent bending behaviour.

This porcelain is 43% kaolin, 20% silica, 36% nepheline syenite and 1% Veegum. I cast it in a test mold that had been used for a very dark red burning body. The inner unstained section looks no different than the outside after firing to cone 6. This porcelain develops a vitreous surface, it is apparently able to dissolve and absorb the thin film of iron (unlike a stoneware). Kaolins in even very white burning porcelains always contain a small percentage of iron oxide as a contaminant, but as long as it is below about ~0.5% the fired color is not visibly darkened.

This test mold is thin-walled yet I can cast three thick-walled mugs in three hours. This clay is L2596G, a buff burning cone 10 stoneware - the mug on the lower right has been fired to cone 10 oxidation. Achieving 4-5mm thick walls is not a problem if the casting slip employs a large particle kaolin intended for this purpose (e.g. Opticast). The flared lip works as expected, keeping the rim nice and round. No cracks have appeared at handle joins, even for pieces left in the mold overnight. The mold halves mate with each other very well and the seam is easy to remove. The seam on the base is an issue - I have to be careful to line up the halves well before clamping the mold strap - this is a warning for accuracy during the mold production stage. And the possible motive for a three-piece mold.

These are small-scale devices that work on the same principles as industrial ones - thus they put industrial methods of clay processing in the hands of a potter or hobbyist. These products are stainless steel and food grade and most can be used with powders or shurries and have interchangeable screens. The most expensive device here costs $5000 and the least expensive is far less than $1000. The suppliers of each of these also have other similar machines (as well as other types of processing equipment potentially valuable in small-scale ceramic production).

This is part of a project to make a slip-casting mold for a coffee mug. In the slicer, I split the print into two pieces 22mm up from the base. This enabled doing the bottom section right side up and the top one upside down. That drastically cut the amount of support generated (and thus printing time). I scotch-taped the two halves together and filled it with plaster to produce a rigid block mold. The two halves fit so precisely it is difficult to tell where they join. The big benefit of printing it upright like this is that the all-important front face is very flat (there is some warpage on other parts but that does not matter).

This is for making test bars of slip casting clays bodies for use in the SHAB test (to measure drying shrinkage, firing shrinkage and fired porosity). I designed it in Fusion 360 and 3D printed the light-duty rails and case mold. I poured plaster into that to make the two plaster working mold halves (top right). The funnels provide a reservoir so the bars be cast solid. This mold can produce a set of three bars in less than an hour.

The middle front mug is glazed with an 85:15 lead bisilicate:kaolin mix, the G3971 recipe. It is an absolutely "knock your socks off" crystal-clear hyper-glossy surface that transmits the terra cotta color beautifully regardless of whether the clay is smooth or coarse or the glaze thick or thin (this one was applied as a brushing glaze in three coats on L215). My lead testing kit passes it with no detectable lead release. The other pieces are done using brush-on versions of boron-based clear glazes (commercial and made from a recipe). At almost any thickness and whether on L215 or L4170B clouding occurs. The worst one is a commercial three-coater on the right, the best is G1916W (it has 2% added iron as a fining agent for the micro-bubbles). My terra cotta plan: Glaze the inside functional surfaces with that and the outsides with the leaded one (and using a kiln exhaust system).

Left: G3933EF oatmeal based on Ravenscrag Slip.
Right: G3933 oatmeal based on a mix of G2934 matte and G2926B glossy base glazes.
Both have the same added colorants. The Ravenscrag version features several advantages. Most importantly much less tendency to crawl. It has better application properties, the slurry needs less water and it is naturally thixotropic. It has an extra option for adjusting properties: Changing the ratio of roast-to-raw Ravenscrag clay. It is responsive to cooling differences - more matte on slow cool versions of the C6DHSC schedule (e.g. 150F/hr), more glossy on faster cools (e.g. 250F/hr). And, its recipe is adjustable (e.g. raising the MgO if a more persistent matte is needed). And, it looks and feels way better, interacting with dark bodies for richer color and varying in tone more for thinner and thicker sections.