View Single Post
Old 04-03-2005, 12:08 PM
Lani McGregor
Posts: n/a
Dammit! the snake oil bottle is leaking...

Originally posted by CynthiaEngland

… they were all big into teaching compatibality..expansion and COE ..and "TOUTING" B/E Tested Compatible Glass! … my first exposure to issues of COE and "fit" was with fusing and Bulleseye...
I’d agree. “Touting B/E”. Boyce was a Salesman and COE = compatibility certainly made fusing easier to grasp for the hobby market. And “easy” is more saleable. But that doesn’t make it correct. But Boyce left Bullseye 20 years ago. And in spite of all the qualifiers that Dan tried to put into GFB1, the demon-child of COE & Compatibility lives on.

Looks like yur company may be guilty after all Lani.. of "spreading the word" in the 80's Fusng Book# I was a "bible" / manual / guide to fusing.. original book had graphs and charts on testing.. and COE.. !!
Yes, but read the qualifiers in that book about how glasses with the same COE may not fit and how COE is only a “starting point”. Seems like our entire market just zipped over that. How come people weren’t screaming “why not?” IMO, because it’s easier to SELL if it’s SIMPLE. Screw ACCURATE.

Therez at CR Loo did do COE charts… and then they were picked up by OCR in their catalog..
We still don’t seem to know HOW Therese came up with her numbers. But you just gave me another piece of the puzzle. I’d wondered where OCR got the numbers on their charts. They are interesting:

How come there’s no “Measured COE” for Gaffer on that chart?

Why, instead, is there this statement from Croucher:

“Gaffer Color range will show very little retardation and thus very little measurable strain, when fused to a typical soda lime glass that measures at 96 x 10-7 (20-300C) and has an annealing range between 450-520C (840-970F).” -John Croucher

Because Croucher knows full well that a COE without the qualifier of viscosity can be very misleading information. So he suggests the viscosities (annealing points) AND the additional qualifier “typical soda-lime glass” needed for the COE to work.

And the other data, according to you, was just lifted off the C & R Loo charts. Well, that information (“90 COE”) is wrong for Bullseye. Why should anyone think it’s right for the other color makers?

Bad Science or not.. seems that Bulleseye Tested Compatible put the concept of COE 'out there' in a huge way.. and it is still out there.. sorta like a Jeannie outta the bottle...too late to put the cork in it.. and yu want to put the cork in the bottle why??
We just want to let the “Jeannie” of viscosity OUT of the bottle and clear up some of the rampant – and increasingly problematic – half-truths that the Salesmen (yes, Boyce was one of the pioneers) have brought into studio glass. This industry – I guess it’s a sign of growth – has gotten rampant with Salesmen. And the users seem perfectly content to accept marketing as technical information.

I may be hyper-sensitive on this issue – having been bashed for years by David W. who believes that every piece of technical data that comes out of Bullseye is a sinister PLOT to control the market – but why would you even ask why we want to “put the cork in the bottle”?

OK, truth is , we’re drilling for Viscosity in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and if we can convince the studio glass community that it’s got value, VISCO-BULL, LLC. is gonna make us richer than King Fahd.

Shit, Cynthia, I knew it would take a blond to figure it out.
Reply With Quote