Comments on: TOTAL ECLIPSE OF THE FUN?

By: Lori G.

Lori G. — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:42:54 +0000

Keep yammerin’! It’s important!

By: davidknox

davidknox — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 04:57:00 +0000

Hi Lani-

Maybe an obvious question but you would think that if you maintained all the variables in your manufacturing process on a given glass number that had already proven itself compatible through these kinds of tests, it would remain compatible until something changed within that process or within the raw glass material. I guess I am wondering what would make it suddenly “fail” the compatiblity test if all else was constant in your process?

Cheers- David

By: Lani

Lani — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:52:59 +0000

G….S… Here I thought I was dealing with the absurdity of reducing compatibility to a COE. Now suddenly I find whole glass factories being reduced to alphabet soup.

C, this is where it leads, U all.

By: sunnystrapp

sunnystrapp — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:29:13 +0000

Gee L. what can I add to all of this? Have you tried Hershey kisses fritted down and fused at 230ºC? Its compatable to old formula S. (Not to B,U, and W of course).

–ss–

Profound-ity to follow.

By: Lani

Lani — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:27:31 +0000

“Of the three coe 90 glasses available (B, U, and W), — they do not have the same annealing point — is this a factor? It seems to me that it must be so.”

- and you are correct. The annealing point reflects the viscosity – not the COE – of the glass. This must ALSO be taken into consideration when determining the “fit” between different glasses. I will get to this in future entries. Meanwhile, thanks for staying tuned, and for pointing out what is an important but hugely neglected aspect of glassforming. – Lani