Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
Monthly Archives: April 2007
|
While barreling through Southern California this weekend, we collided with a jolly mob at Cal State Fullerton, enjoying a remarkable exhibition: |
|
A thread started on the popular Warm Glass Bulletin Board about experimentation, failure and success seems like a good reason to wander away for a moment from my COE rant where I’m probably leaving the impression that I think the misunderstanding of COE was the biggest goof-up ever at Bullseye. Not likely. We mess up so much and so regularly that it’s hard to identify the real award winners here. But this is one I especially like:
|
|
After dragging you tediously through how we test for compatibility, what the COE is, how it is tested and what it does NOT tell us, the obvious question is: So, who ever suggested that matching COEs could identify compatibility in the first place? We did.
Yes, this entire mess started at Bullseye. We made a mistake. We (actually, it was Dan Schwoerer and Boyce Lundstrom. I wasn’t here at the time, Your Honor) believed that matching the LEC would insure that glasses “fit” when fired together. |
|
I was about to unmask the fools who started the COE mess when I got a private email asking me why I was making such a fuss about compatibility standards when – by our own admission – Bullseye’s are likely tighter than they need to be. First of all, that wasn’t quite the point of my rant, but I’ll take a momentary detour here to explain why this stuff matters… |
|
I’ve got a brilliant vet. She’s coming to our home to help Ed “pass over”. I wish there were a glass doctor who’d do the same thing for the sick old myth of the COE. Fat chance. This misunderstanding about compatibility and the Coefficient of Expansion has been around for longer than many people have been fusing. They were raised on it. Sadly, it may be around forever, mucking with basic technical information in our field and making it harder for users to solve problems when they occur.
|
|
I’ve gotten a few reminders that my blog is stalled. My excuse of sorts: Some of you know Ed. He’s the fifteen year old serial slasher and resident Grump who’s lived with us – and our visiting artists – for as long as we’ve had a formal artist program and a place to house them here at our Portland hillside home.
Ed’s a Collector. He’s drawn blood from the elite of the glass art world. His preferred method has always been the bed-snuggle followed by the lightening-swift jaw-lock on exposed flesh, should the recipient have the audacity to roll over in his/her own bed. |