Talk:Stoneware
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reasons for change “Absorbs up to 5% moisture” The more common use is water rather than moisture
“Porcelain from 0 to 3%” By definition porcelain is vitreous and so absorbtions above 0.5%, to allow for surface water on the test piece, shows open porosity
“sand” This is a size of particle and not a mineral, rock of chemical
Flux Surely feldspar would be better
“temper” Should be explained what this is, note the hyperlink lead to “article not found”
Spodumene & wollastonite Their use is not nearly as widespread as quartz which is not listed
Contents |
[edit] “Porcelain from 0 to 3%”
I still object to using simply 0 percent in the article - a range would be more appropriate. Although many modern porcelain bodies near the ideal 0 percent porosity, this was not true in historic times. Chinese porcelains were particularly good and some actually approached zero, but did not achieve it. In all pottery articles, we should make a clear distinction between the modern, chemically refined materials we are blessed with and the "naturally" occuring materials past potters had to work with. Sand, i.e. flint/silica, in your list above is another example of a historic material. Pottery and other ceramic materials are very important in history and archaeology -- and the science related to them sometimes varies quite a bit from culture to culture. Best.........WBardwin 06:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello WB, Thanks for the comments, and to respond “I still object to using simply 0 percent in the article - a range would be more appropriate. “ Porcelain has long been universally recognised as being vitreous. This is enshrined in international standards and by convention. Without going into perhaps excessive detail about the merits and values from water absorption determination a vitreous product should exhibit zero percent. If the water absorption is upto 3% as shown in the previous entry then the item far from vitreous, and therefore does not correlate with definitions of porcelain.
Consider why a user would look up porcelain ... one reason is to find out what it is. However why not include details that some ancient examples may not have been fully vitrifed in a section of historic examples or the development of the material
“In all pottery articles, we should make a clear distinction between the modern, chemically refined materials we are blessed with and the "naturally" occuring materials past potters had to work with.” I’d generally agree though: 1) In appropriate sections or with clear headings 2) Sand, i.e. flint/silica. To ensure clarity explantion would be needed that sand is simply particle size and not a mineral although it is commonly used to refer to quartz of a particularly size range. Also if silica, quartz and flint are noted these terms would need to be explained as they each refer to different materials 3) The use of “chemically refined” is both unncessary and wrong. The raw materials used for ceramics, especially bodies, are most commonly rocks & minerals but not chemicals. Also whilst many raw materials are subject to extensive benification processes but these would not be described as chemical processes. Why not simply substitute “refined” for “chemically refined”
“Pottery and other ceramic materials are very important in history and archaeology” Unquestionably so these should have there own section
“science related to them sometimes varies quite a bit from culture to culture.” The underlying science is constant but knowledge and understanding can be different
Also expansion of "Stoneware is a category of clay and a type of pottery" would perhaps be useful as 1) it is all too easy for clay body and clay to be confused 2) there are a number of ways used to categorise clays including a. Origin - Primary & secondar b. Mineral type - kaolinite, smectite, illite etc c. Application - stoneware, brick etc
In advance of any changes I have also recently contributed to the Discussion on Porcelain and Pyrometric cones ... any thoughts?
Regards Andy
[edit] Water absorbtion
Quote Fired stoneware absorbs up to 5% water that is way too high. That would make article porous when stoneware is vitreous or at least very low absorbtion. I suggest this is changed Theriac 16:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recent IP edits
I reverted recent IP edits trying to "pare" down the article's mention of other clay types. That does not mean the section could not be rewritten to better reflect the actual differences between stoneware and other clay types. This individual may be the same IP user who wants no mention of or links to other methods or procedures on select pottery pages. I've been reverting these type of edits for some time, but the individual does not come to the talk pages when requested. This "purist" approach may have some benefits, but part of Wikipedia's purpose is to help people move from article to article. This may be particulary true in the small "wiki-corner" occupied by pottery articles. I would support a rewrite this section. WBardwin (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Is stoneware chip and scratch resistant?
Can someone tell me if stoneware is chip and scratch resistant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.14.69 (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
