Page 1 of 3

Eureka

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 9:30 am
by Steve Immerman
Well, I think I've solved the hazy irid sandwich problem. In short, it's the silicon carbide grit.

After innumerable failures with silicon carbide (both 120 and 220 grit), I changed the grit in my blaster to 120 aluminum oxide and blasted, cleaned and fired the same way I had been.

Came out perfect. The difference in appearance between using the two blasting mediums is dramatic.

I also, blasted and firepolished some pieces, including deep purple transparent, black, and clear. They also came out looking better than the ones I blasted and firepolished with the silicon carbide. Less little tiny pits on the surface.

So, I would question the conventional wisdom that these abrasives are interchangeable when used for glass fusing.

Steve

ps. anybody want to buy some almost-new silicon carbide grit?

Re: Eureka

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 9:53 am
by Ron Coleman
Steve Immerman wrote:Well, I think I've solved the hazy irid sandwich problem. In short, it's the silicon carbide grit.

After innumerable failures with silicon carbide (both 120 and 220 grit), I changed the grit in my blaster to 120 aluminum oxide and blasted, cleaned and fired the same way I had been.

Came out perfect. The difference in appearance between using the two blasting mediums is dramatic.

I also, blasted and firepolished some pieces, including deep purple transparent, black, and clear. They also came out looking better than the ones I blasted and firepolished with the silicon carbide. Less little tiny pits on the surface.

So, I would question the conventional wisdom that these abrasives are interchangeable when used for glass fusing.

Steve

ps. anybody want to buy some almost-new silicon carbide grit?


Good going Steve. Nice to have one that works.

It sure would be interesting to see a microscopic view of the surfaces created by the two different blasting media. This one is weird for sure. Either surface contamination from the media or a difference in the blasted texture.

Ron

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 10:00 am
by Steve Immerman
Ron,

My theory is it is the texture of the blasted surface. I was going to see if one of my friends has one of those Intel digital microscopes that connects to the USB port of the computer and compare the surfaces- but now the silicon carbide is out of the blaster, and it's a real project to put it back in.

Steve

Nikki and the Microscope

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 10:17 am
by Beth
I had the honor of visiting Nikki O'Neill's fungus laboratory last week, and there was this very new and very amazing microscope . . . (also a neat antique one).

If someone would send her two small samples (silicon carbide and aluminum oxide), bet she could get the differences in a photo and post them.

(Nikki, if this happens, can I come see?)

Beth
P.S. For you magneteers, Nikki's was the detailed pate de verre leaf with spirit face. . .

Re: Eureka

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 10:32 am
by Pam Hrycyk
Steve Immerman wrote:Well, I think I've solved the hazy irid sandwich problem. In short, it's the silicon carbide grit.

After innumerable failures with silicon carbide (both 120 and 220 grit), I changed the grit in my blaster to 120 aluminum oxide and blasted, cleaned and fired the same way I had been.

Came out perfect. The difference in appearance between using the two blasting mediums is dramatic.


Steve, I'm glad you figured out the problem but now I'll be worried about Brock's Pilchuck auction piece. He posted earlier that he was in the middle of it and used silicon carbide to blast.

Pam

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 10:36 am
by Barbara Muth
Steve Immerman wrote:Ron,

My theory is it is the texture of the blasted surface. I was going to see if one of my friends has one of those Intel digital microscopes that connects to the USB port of the computer and compare the surfaces- but now the silicon carbide is out of the blaster, and it's a real project to put it back in.

Steve


Maybe Tony could supply the silicon carbide surfce. I would love to see the difference. Glad you solved things Steve, this should add a lot to your upcoming work! i'll be sneaking a peek at your website.

Barbara

Re: Eureka

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 10:37 am
by Steve Immerman
Pam Hrycyk wrote:
Steve, I'm glad you figured out the problem but now I'll be worried about Brock's Pilchuck auction piece. He posted earlier that he was in the middle of it and used silicon carbide to blast.

Pam


Pam,

I don't have a good feeling about his piece either.....

Steve

ps you should be getting something from me in the mail soon.

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 10:41 am
by Pam Hrycyk
How exciting. Now I'll probably be meeting the postman at the post box every day!!

Thanks
Pam

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 11:03 am
by Nikki ONeill
I'd be thinking how neat neat it'd be to see the difference betweent he effects of the two abrasives up c.ose (thanks for the prompt, Beth). If anyone want would like to see a photo, I'll take a look and photograph the samples with a digital stereomicroscope. My bigger compound microscope is not yet wet up yet, but will be soon. I'm sure we'll be able to see some differences with the dissecting scope. So if anyone would like to send a couple of samples, e-mail me and I'll send you my address. The images in this year's copy of the Nikon microscope calendar are amazing and may be of interest to some. You may be able to get a copy by request on-line...I'll check and post later. Nikki

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 11:04 am
by Nikki ONeill
Ooops..should have spell checked the reply. Sorry folks.
Nikki

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 11:15 am
by Glenda Kronke
I have one of those Nikon calendars from about 10 years back and it is one of my favorites! It had photos of contest results. PLEASE let me know how to get another one! The microscopic photos of different elements and things is facinating! I am even trying to duplicate some of them in fused glass with some interesting results. A couple of months ago I did a search in 'google' tm but can't find the site now. It was incredible and great inspiration! Maybe on of you guys that is a search wiz can find it and post it?

glenda

OT/Microscope photos

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 1:12 pm
by Glenda Kronke
Sorry, I know this should probably go in the 'Spab' location- Thanks Nikki for the link to website (see silicon carbide vs aluminum oxide results). My calendar was from 1992 and I have been trying to duplicate 18th prize in glass. It nature beautiful! *Will direct any additional comments to Spab. Sorry
glenda

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 1:35 pm
by Tony Smith
I'd be more than happy to supply the silicon carbide blasted sample... just let me know what the parameters are (glass type, color, pressure, nozzle diameter, grit size, etc...). It may take me a week or two to get to it since I'll be out of town for the next week and a half.

Tony

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 1:59 pm
by Steve Immerman
I can send one blasted with Aluminum oxide. Would it be better on black or clear?

Steve

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 2:13 pm
by Nikki ONeill
Tony and Steve:
Off the top of my head, black would probably be better to see fracture differences, but it could be incredibly beautiful to see what the glass it would look like in clear. (The scopes are equipped with reflected and transmitted light, as well as Nomarski, i.e.polarized, optics). There might be lots of light reflections. When you get a chance, send a couple of labeled samples and I'll see what I can do. I'll be in Roger Thomas's class at Vitrum this weekend and might get a chance ato make a couple of aluminum oxide samples from Judy and Kevin's blaster.
Nikki

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 2:20 pm
by Nikki ONeill
Tony and Steve: Check your WGB inbox for a message.
Technology and this board are so cool.
Nikki

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 2:22 pm
by Brad Walker
Nikki O'Neill wrote:Tony and Steve: Check your WGB inbox for a message.
Technology and this board are so cool.
Nikki


Here's how cool it is, Nikki. You don't even have to tell them to check the inbox. The software will actually do it for you!

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 3:39 pm
by charlie
Steve Immerman wrote:I can send one blasted with Aluminum oxide. Would it be better on black or clear?

Steve


there's plenty of dissecting microscopes around a hospital, aren't there?

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 5:45 pm
by Brock
I'm going to be very interested in these results also, although I'm not sure how much credence to give these simple tests. We have had problems using SiC, but we've also used it successfully. We've never this kind of problem with AlOx. To me, fire polishing is fire polishing, and all marks should be gone, unless it's a cleaning issue. I have, many times, fire polished glass with blasting and dremelling with perfect results. Brock

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 5:56 pm
by Nikki ONeill
Brock: I'm sure we'll get something out of it, even if it's knowing how many fractures can fit on the pinnicle of a silicon carbide fragment. (good mag question??) Not really knowing much, you'd think that any flameworked surface would look similar. What we're not controlliing for is the length of the blasting time and the age (particle size) of the silicone carbide, both of which may affect surface structure of the blasted sample. But we're getting into a thesis project here, and this is supposed to be art. as has been said. :)
Have a great weekend.
Nikki