View Single Post
  #72  
Old 04-01-2005, 02:03 PM
Lani McGregor
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
(blah blah blah continues….)

I originally asked this question (started in the prior post) because I honestly don’t know for sure whether Glass Fusing Book One is the original source of this bad science. But from what I’m reading on this board, this (early 1980s in the fusing sector) is where the measured COE as a synonym for compatibility first showed up in studio glass.

I would LOVE for someone to find evidence to the contrary, because we’d really like to blame all this crap on someone else. I can’t find it.

Now it’s everywhere. It’s accepted as “biblical” even though it runs counter to users’ own experience.

This is what amazes me here in the Kingdom of Blowing: I can understand why kilnworkers have a hard time understanding viscosity and how it is an equally important factor in compatibility. We put stuff in a box, turn on the heat, close the door and usually don’t have a clue what happens until we open the door and it’s broken or not. Pete, why do you say that blowers’ eyes “glaze over” at the mention of viscosity? Who the hell can’t feel/see the difference between a hard and a soft glass? Why would any blower think that the most OBVIOUS characteristic of a hot glass would not be at least as important as the characteristic he can’t even experience (the expansion between 0-300C)???

Contrary to what we’ve been accused of (thank god you’ve banned David from this board or I’d never have gotten this far), Bullseye is not out to BASH the COE. Jeeezus, how sick does that make us? What next? Do we go mug a Tg? We’re only arguing that divorcing it from viscosity seriously hinders the understanding of what makes glasses fit.

But I never intended this to be an “argument” anyway. I was just hunting for evidence that Bullseye didn’t start this COE = Compatibility mess in the first place. So far, I haven’t found any.


--------
Reply With Quote