CraftWEB Hot Glass Talk

CraftWEB Hot Glass Talk (
-   General Hot Glass Discussion (
-   -   Kugler cullet (

Greg Vriethoff 01-15-2019 10:33 PM

Kugler cullet
1 Attachment(s)
First announcement I've seen. Not much info (none other than what you see in the image).

I don't see any info on their website.

Attachment 5581

Pringle Teetor 01-16-2019 07:12 AM

I was just going to post the same thing. I canít find anything on the web either. Pete, you have you ear to the glass cullet knowledge, do you know anything? Or anything you can talk about yet?

Pete VanderLaan 01-16-2019 08:14 AM

It is coming and I think it will be problematic just based on the size of the things. About the size of a snickers bar, they will most likely explode in the furnace, not a good thing at all for the wire furnace people. That's my opinion. I am aware of testing going on.
Cheyenne asked me my opinion of the cullet scene yesterday and it took a full single spaced page to express it. Fundamentally, importing cullet from Europe is nuts. Without naming the various supplicants, you are going to see expensive stuff. I saw the number $2.00 lb actually being paid.

The trouble I see regardless of price is that none of the cullet makers can meet the weekly demand for the stuff. Tooling up is remarkably expensive and anyone who does that could be knocked out of the competition by yet another startup with better field position. That makes for a scary scenario and invites the notion of a balkanized cullet industry with a variety of manufacturers trying to sell their stuff. That will make for a variety of different cullets, all unhappy with commingling in the furnace with a different glass.
But Kugler is coming, Parriot is coming, cristalica is here and unavailable, gaffer so far is not in, Spruce pine is not in, Oceanside is not in, and there are others. Not a one can meet demand.

The best bet out there is Spruce Pine 87 batch with Erbium snowflake version and today, I believe Olympic Color is their best customer. I melted my formula in the snowflake that SP mixes for me and they mix it better than I can. Talk about easy melting bright high luster long working 96 glass. You need a respirator.

Eben Horton 01-16-2019 08:54 AM

speaking of SP 87, spruce Pine just sourced out a new silica source and lime source that is a higher quality and the same price as the old stuff. The result is a product that is the equivelant of their Texas sand premium batch and will stay the same price as the regular SP 87 w/Erbium.

Art Freas 01-16-2019 12:41 PM

Technical issues aside I agree on the quote "none of the cullet makers can meet the weekly demand for the stuff" however, I think that if there are 3-4 groups in the market together they may meet demand. The question is that given the market can 3-4 suppliers stay in an optimal size range for their product line.

Pete VanderLaan 01-16-2019 01:26 PM

there well may be 3-4 but part of my point is that it would suggest that each studio commit to a specific cullet. I doubt that there will be seamless cordfree compatibility between the variety of products. I suspect it will be quite the opposite. I already experienced difficulty in our crucible if one tried to put Cristalica on top of any other glass. It wasn't a problem that was inclined to go away. So that headache comes down to the studio.

Now it may become the case that a specific geographical area could try to use a specific cullet. That could happen if say, Spruce Pine had a local grown cullet made with bags of Spruce Pine. There would be an attraction to that. I can conceive of someone doing that getting SP batch in the NW but I can't conceive of that working using cullets imported from Germany. Further the German issue still doesn't address the expansions and viscosities of those foreign cullets. Further, if cullet making is balkanized, converting the melt to a usable cullet takes tooling. It will not go well for anyone tempted to put the product in cold water. Have fun fining that stuff out. The whole venture involves tools that are not cheap. Efficiency suggest that the melters be five tons . It also says "Don't turn it off, or up or down. Melt glass". I can visualize one ton melters on the short term. Those puppies are expensive.
And lastly,final pricing. It will not be cheap, no where no how. The smaller the individual markets become will dictate higher prices all by themselves because the manufacturers won't have a volume advantage buying bulk chemicals.

I don't think that the high end glass makers will really be affected by price. If their work costs a lot of money, it won't matter if the individual piece price goes up a couple bucks. It will really affect studios that make widgets and use 25 tons a year.

There's a lot to be said for the obvious: Melt SP87 snowflake.

Dan Vanantwerp 01-16-2019 01:31 PM

I melted some of a recent order of SP87 snowflake. I forgot about the work time of The cost though is Lithium. I just can't believe the stuff is 1% lithium. Can this remain a viable option? Eben, do you worry about this?

I have to wonder if all that lithium allows a guy like Lynn (Brossphate thread) to melt a SP87 based opal phosphate in the presence of so much calcium.

I tried a clear batch on my own but compared to Cristalica the clarity was underwhelming. I had visions of myself endlessly tweaking recipes to find something comparable. But one has to remind themselves that the goal is actually blowing glass. I kind of hate my options right now.

Will Kugler clear be lead-based to more easily match everything...seems Pete V sees this as their compatibility strategy.

Pete VanderLaan 01-16-2019 01:34 PM

I don't think ( without dragging out their formula) the lithium content is 1%. The issue with the phosphate and calcium is the formation of Apatite crystals. The lithium won't affect that either way. While I confess to not being positive, I have trouble imagining the Kugler cullet having any lead in it at all.

SP87 with snowflake is really cheap compared to what cullet will come in at.

Dan Vanantwerp 01-16-2019 02:56 PM

This is from Dave Bross in an older post. It's not the formula, but an analysis and I've read elsewhere that it was near 1%. That's a lotta lithium.

An aggressive melting flux not affecting crystalline formation? Hmmm...

Just so you have them for comparison, here's what Corning's percentage analysis came up with for SP 87. THe numbers are from Frank Wooleys book, Glass Technology for the Studio:

Measured expansion: 94.9

Pete VanderLaan 01-16-2019 03:53 PM

I would not bet the farm on that analysis. My copies of the SP formula are out in the studio and today, I'm like a lizard on a hot rock ( woodstove) and not going out there but here's my reasonable recollection:

The original Labino formula had a high lithium content and it dissolved everything in sight, so the lithium was lowered. This was back when I was getting lithium for around two bucks a pound. These days? last I looked at was $16.00 buck and that is likely low now. I have a lifetime supply so I am not sweating it.
But, going back, that original glass had a linear expansion of 92. To the best of my recollection, the lithium was lowered to .5 percent and the result was SP87 according to E&T calculations which had a different centigrade range for testing. If expanded to 19C-300C, real world is 96.0 , perhaps a sconce lower. I keep samples of SP87 from decades back so that I can compare modern production values. Something anal retentive but handy. I keep samples of all sorts of glass.
I heard from Greg Fidler today about the Kugler samples and as I suspected,
the shape of the bars indeed is an issue in that they have to be preheated or they blow in the pot which wire people won't be able to deal with. I do think they could change the extruder orifice. In conversation with Cheyenne, I don't think he's handling it and was concerned about the high price. As to Parriot The theory is that there would be four distributors. I am once again thinking this to be wildly optimistic and production potential has to be consistent. Any operation that relies on weekend downtime is to be watched closely. I note for the conversations that SP received a container yesterday of Cristalica which sold immediately. The indication was that they had no idea when they would get more and that communication was really spotty.

So, that's the story today America.

Pete VanderLaan 01-16-2019 03:56 PM


Originally Posted by Dan Vanantwerp (Post 142530)
This is from Dave Bross in an older post. It's not the formula, but an analysis and I've read elsewhere that it was near 1%. That's a lotta lithium.

An aggressive melting flux not affecting crystalline formation? Hmmm...

Just so you have them for comparison, here's what Corning's percentage analysis came up with for SP 87. THe numbers are from Frank Wooleys book, Glass Technology for the Studio:

Measured expansion: 94.9

Given the interest in the actual formula of a glass that seems to have intellectual property value, I deleted part of your post. I hope that is understandable. I don't know currently if the information was even remotely accurate. The 1% lithium is however correct.

Dan Vanantwerp 01-16-2019 04:48 PM

Weird. As I mentioned, the analysis was from an earlier post...a very old post.

Given that this info has been on the board for 10 years I'm not sure why it would need to be deleted.

Also, Tom Littleton himself references Frank Wooley's data in the epic COE thread so I think it's pretty reliable.

Dan Vanantwerp 01-16-2019 05:10 PM

You seem to have adopted the memory of Henry Halem rather than the facts given by Tom which were as follows:

Henry: The original SP had very high Lithia as you say suggested by Nick but because the viscosity was so low it ate everyones tanks and pots like pak man. You reduced the lithia and voila SP87.

Tom: Henry, That is not correct. Where did you get your info?

I have to say we got lucky with a short learning curve but we did have Nick's help. The first stuff that got melted at Penland was made to the orginal formula and which had no lithium. As I remember, the stuff was so hard to melt it got cooked at high temp for 24-36 hours perhaps the source of you stories. We were trying a relatively large grain local sand. We tried screening that sand to get a smaller grain but that didn't work. I remember only two people got some of those first runs. We tried changing the source of the sand and added the lithium at the same time and by the way it was the maximum amount suggested. We should have tried changing one thing at a time and used less lithium and then increasing it in a series of tests but that was not done. The result was the 92. We only took out a little soda to make the 87.

Pete VanderLaan 01-16-2019 06:41 PM

If you asked tom today, I don't think you'd have the same answer regarding the lithium. Taking out a little soda would not have changed the formulations as much as a 93 down to and 87.

These days, I'm actively interested in preserving the intellectual property of people I do revere. I don't have the sense that you share that feeling.

Tom naively handed out the formula for the batch back in the early '80's , something I think he profoundly regrets since the industry has capitalized on that. I won't continue to promote that .

Michael Ahlefeldt-Laurvig 01-16-2019 07:01 PM

Are you guys discussing batch or cullet? Why not just do Glasma and be done with it?

Dan Vanantwerp 01-16-2019 07:19 PM

But do you care about the intellectual property of those you do not so revere?

I have been looking at formulas for clear glasses quite a bit recently and reading through these archives. One thing that seems a little fishy is that your NEW batch formula was realized not long after you were brought on board to help bring Cristalica to the states.

Look at the Cristalica tech notes...Barium, lots of Potassium, No lithium...a little Borax, but nothing a little extra nitrate could not resolve. Sound familiar?

Suddenly barium has started to sneak into your posts as a real positive whereas before it was a real crucible issue requiring great skill to melt (see any Glasma posts from Pete).

Were you not "inspired" by the clarity of Glasma and Cristalica? The timing just seems a little odd.

Pete VanderLaan 01-16-2019 07:36 PM

You certainly want to attribute my work as suspicious. Let me be clear.

I approached Cristalica about three years back to become a supplier of cullet and the process was turned over to SP. I had an arrangement that would provide me with a .06 cent royalty to be split between myself and my partner in Shanghai who is a dear friend.

So brought the product in to the US and Tom, Greg and I met at the Corning conference to work out the details. At the time. Spectrum was still running yet in its death throes. It was arranged that samples of the Cristalica would come to me for product evaluation. It arrived, extremely clean for testing and I was initially impressed. On melting, I became far less enthusiastic since I could not fine it out. I tried a lot of approaches. I did defer to SP since they were to receive the bulk of the initial shipment but I was not a happy camper. We experienced sluggish sales and I think that was because Spectrum was still lurching along. I did begin to get feed back, which I also experienced with corrosion from the Cristalica and I began to question Andreea about the boron contenet which was remarkable like the sys 96 that had caused so much trouble. At that time I offered to alter the formula reducing or removing the borax from the formula. That offer was declined which I expected. At that point, for reasons I will not disclose, I withdrew from my partnership with Littleton. It was quite personal.

It remains clear to me that barium will brighten glass. It remains clear to me that lower melt temps can be achieved with borax. It's also clear to me that it's just not a good plan to use borax- period. There are better ways. I did write a formula for Spruce Pine which does not use borax or Lithium John Croucher said it was a glass " he could not find anything wrong with ". high praise when it comes to John . But, it was never a mainstream product since the anticipated lithium shortages or actual rationing never came to be. Tom did not produce it since it was not cheaper than the existing SP87. It still is produced and in my opinion, is a far better glass than SP 87 in that is uses no lithium, no boron and has a far higher luster and good working properties and polishing capacity than SP87. It further doesn't devitrify in casting. It is more expensive than SP87 but is a better glass. It can also be ordered from Spruce Pine. Once Barium goes to 3%, it's a real problem.

The reality is simple. I protect intellectual property from Turds that think it should be public. I will continue to do that despite your insinuations that I have some hidden Agenda. In reality, you really don't know shit.

Lawrence Duckworth 01-16-2019 08:34 PM


Originally Posted by Pete VanderLaan (Post 142538)
In reality, you really don't know shit.


Pete VanderLaan 01-17-2019 06:39 AM

In actuality, I'm an independent. What possessed you to write that?

Lawrence Duckworth 01-17-2019 06:53 AM


Pete VanderLaan 01-17-2019 08:03 AM

Then I continue to not get it.

On the cullet front, there's nothing wrong with Barium beyond it being a heavy metal (lite). What is disastrous is putting Borax in with it in amounts around 3%. It will go after your furnace and your pot.
When Tom asked me to rework the SP, it already had barium in it but no borax at all. The driver is the lithium. I went after the replacement for the lithium which is a heavy lift. I would not describe it as "A little nitrate". It was carefully considered in multiple rewrites of the glass. The barium /calcium ratio was equally considered.

The Cristalica and the GLASMA suffer from using both materials. I think GLASMA is indeed a beautiful glass but really requires operator experience or you'll see stones. Cristalica has been criticised as predicted for dissolving furnace parts. After that criticism, they claimed that they had lowered the Boron content but to the same level as is described on their fact sheet. So, what was it really, or was it really changed? Peter Kuchinke has disowned them at this point.

Spruce Pine is an extremely benign glass when it comes to corrosion compared to others out there.

To clarify, I wasn't brought on board to help bring Cristalica to the States, I contacted them and arranged it. I don't regret doing that but I have been quite disappointed in the glass when compared to the claims they asserted. I would far rather see a Spruce Pine 87 cullet out there. I have no financial dog in that fight.

As to Spruce Pine 's formula being in open view, Tom profoundly regrets naively having ever made it public. I am more than willing to respect the wishes of Spruce Pine on the front over intellectual property and will not encourage violating it.

Dan Vanantwerp 01-17-2019 02:42 PM

I was recently practicing low bowls and made a clear version with Cristalica and one with SP87 w/ Erb. The Cristalica one was clear or "bright" on the edges while the SP87 noticeably was much less so. Eben said they have addressed this with some higher purity materials and the Texas Sand. The analysis I listed for SP87 (from an earlier post) showed a 0.5% of barium which could easily be raised and balanced with all that calcium to find a good modifier middle ground....albeit pricey as barium is north of $1.50/lb. I think you saw that, too.

Your history with barium as a material is a little lacking so I think it's pretty obvious that Cristalica and Glasma were the spark. In two long posts you never denied it. Nothing wrong with inspiration for a new formula but as you once said in reference to Josh Simpson....attribution would be nice. Might be a little sticky though if a NDA was involved.

I don't recall reading any complaints from you about fining it out Cristalica. You were promoting Scott's quick overnight melts as the SOP. Although you have been known to downplay the quality of glass needed by those who make widgets and order in tonnage...pretty damned derogatory of you, really.

As far as the insults, I quickly realized that the PVL list of people called Turds is likely to be a "Who's Who" in glass and beyond. You don't play well with others do you? The pattern throughout this forum is that something sneaks into your business relationships and suddenly you're being taken advantage of. I would absolutely love to hear the other side of the stories.

Pete VanderLaan 01-17-2019 03:45 PM

right now, you're the only one on that list.

So far, you have used my internal run cards to get East Bay to mix a formula of mine and then declined to tell me where you got it. Now, You imply that I'm somehow doing something devious regarding fair review of cullets out there.

Be clear , I have no business relationship with Spruce pine beyond getting .06lb if they mix my formula for anyone. It's more than I ever got from Jim. We are good friends and I'm not expecting it.

Be clear, I have no business relationships with any other cullet company.

I do have friends all over the industry as you may discover. Those friendships are based on fifty years in the trade trying to figure out how things work and then dedicating myself to sharing what of that I can. I've run Craftweb for over 15 years now purely as a method of teaching and disseminating information. The early years were rough but Katie and I worked it out. I have removed very few people from the board. Normally, members write to me privately and ask that I consider removing folks.

You said, a few posts back :

"I tried a clear batch on my own but compared to Cristalica the clarity was underwhelming. I had visions of myself endlessly tweaking recipes to find something comparable. But one has to remind themselves that the goal is actually blowing glass. I kind of hate my options right now."
I think that's probably true. Actually, writing and testing a clear formula is really hard work and it's expensive. If you actually look at clear formulas used in studio glass aimed at a 96 L.E.C. with appropriate viscosity, I think you'll find that there actually aren't a lot of them out there. Most published clear formulations are targeted at production facilities doing high volumes of work. They (published) really don't apply to small shops if they are available to the masses. For much of the time, I've posted formulas as I've worked through them as an open book until recently. Some in the overview are deficient as is the one you have currently. It's part of why I altered it. The entire point of the batch section in Glassnotes IV was dedicated to the notion that making your own glass was not impossible. Most commercial cullets have some real problems, usually in the area of durability but sometimes they fail in specific applications. An example is that SP devitrifies in casting and I've said so many times. It's better than Sys96 or Spectrum premium which assaulted furnaces.

I have great respect for intellectual property and you suggest that's only true if they are people I can benefit from. I don't think that's true at all. Name me an instance where that has occurred. I don't out anyone's work unless they have told me it's OK. I hold formulas for many glass makers and I simply do not reveal them. That includes Tom Littleton's property that his father paid for. I do provide sources that in some instances took me years to find and I have shared them readily when I can. When I can't, it's at the request of the supplier who doesn't feel comfortable sharing the information they gave me as a personal favor. I would say that since I was asked to rework the Spruce Pine concept that the SP batch has barium in it as well.

So be clear I am capable of animus and it's never pretty. After this many years, I can recognize when I need to flex my editorial muscle . It's rare but I can always spot trouble as soon as it appears. At this point, I think you're trouble. Keep it up. See how that goes. I'll continue to cover for intellectual property. So if you think I don't play well with others, by all means ask "others". Maybe it's you.

Eben Horton 01-18-2019 01:56 PM

I canít seem to load the screen shot but it seems crystallica is shipping out chunks of their furnace with their glass now.

Pete VanderLaan 01-18-2019 02:21 PM

what's the source on the screen shot?

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© Opportunity Network. 2008. All Rights Reserved.