shibuichi
Mike S
alloying shibuichi. I was so impressed with the pictures of the metal
that I went right out to the studio and alloyed and rolled out a
couple of ounces. Great stuff, but I have a couple of questions for
anyone who has used the alloy:
1) What is the correct pronunciation of shibuichi?
2) There was a weird thing that happened while I was annealing a
piece at about 10 guage: I pressed down lightly on a bent piece with
a pair of tweezers while it was red hot, and it broke in two!
Is this normal behavior for 68/32 shibuichi?
The piece that broke is now quite malliable -- easy to bend back and
forth without breaking at room temperature, and reticulates into warts
just as it should.
What's up with that?
Alberic
stevens4000Remo...@earthlink.net wrote:
1-My best attempt is "she-bu-eechy" (The final ichi sounds like "itchy"
except with an "E" sound instead of an "I" sound.)
Japanese puts the stress on the first syllable, not the middle like
English.
2-Silver (and most of its alloys) are hot short.
Meaning: they're very brittle when hot.
How bad it is depends on the alloy, but I wouldn't be too shocked to
hear that Shibuichi was really hot short.
Cheers-
Brian
--
To Email Me, there are no numbers of any sort in my real address
Mike S
<albe...@mindspringsix.XVI.com> wrote:
>2-Silver (and most of its alloys) are hot short.
>Meaning: they're very brittle when hot.
>How bad it is depends on the alloy, but I wouldn't be too shocked to
>hear that Shibuichi was really hot short.
>
Thanks for that information, Brian. Another interesting thing
in the article: Mr. Cooperman advises the use of a neutral flame for
the alloying. Pumping non-feffous metals full of oxygen gave me the
willies, but the idea is to make it easier for the alloy to torch
texture as the silver releases oxygen, creating little craters and
warts. I risked using a small feather, though, so that metal would be
more sound, and I can still get the texture. A very strange alloy,
indeed!
Cheers,
Mike S.
http://home.earthlink.net/~stevens4000/
abrasha
>
> Got my copy of Lap Journal yesterday, with an article by Cooperman on
> alloying shibuichi. I was so impressed with the pictures of the metal
> that I went right out to the studio and alloyed and rolled out a
> couple of ounces. Great stuff, but I have a couple of questions for
> anyone who has used the alloy:
>
> 1) What is the correct pronunciation of shibuichi?
>
In the Japanese language every syllable is pronounced. SHEE-boo-ee-chee
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com
Andrew Werby
Mike S wrote in message ...
Mr. Cooperman advises the use of a neutral flame for
>the alloying. Pumping non-feffous metals full of oxygen gave me the
>willies, but the idea is to make it easier for the alloy to torch
>texture as the silver releases oxygen, creating little craters and
>warts. I risked using a small feather, though, so that metal would be
>more sound, and I can still get the texture. A very strange alloy,
>indeed!
>
>Cheers,
>Mike S.
>http://home.earthlink.net/~stevens4000/
[I always thought the neutral flame (with the feather) was more reducing
than the hard bright flame that's just blue- called an oxidizing flame. When
adjusting an oxy-acetylene torch, you give it more oxygen and the feather
gets smaller and disappears. More gas, and you get the "neutral" flame. A
true reducing flame would be too smoky.]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
Mike S
<and...@computersculpture.com> wrote:
Right. I wanted to give the metal even less oxy than a neutral flame.
This is normal for non-ferrous metals. The feather protects them from
the oxygen in the air. A neutral flame sometimes varies a bit over a
few minutes, and you have to be very careful that you don't let it
slip into oxydizing -- at least with normal alloys.
The deal with this alloy is: The silver is allowed to soak up oxy;
then, after you roll it out, you can torch texture it. The silver
releases oxy, making pimples and craters -- at least according to a
theory in one of the articles. Perhaps the author recommended a
neutral instead of oxydizing flame because he didn't want to
completely eat up the metal, just let a little oxy get in.
But I used a deoxydizing flux and a carburizing flame, and still was
able to torch texture it. Perhaps it worked because the silver that
I used had been reclaimed from sweeps according to Untracht's
procedure. This envolves an extra melting, and it may have soaked up
some oxy during that.
The alloy depletion guilds [?silvers?] nicely, by the way. It is 32%
silver (fine), 68% copper.
Weird stuff.
Radagast
I've been following the shibuichi thread with interest. So much so I
decided to mix up some. I have a small 100 gram batch in the form of an
finger sized ingot.
Now what to do... I'm not experienced in rolling mill use and have
never made metal sheet out of non-sheet pieces. I've only a little
experience with jewelry/metals at all. I will have access to a rolling
mill, an anvil and hammer, and I own a torch. I'm not sure if I should
use the hammer and anvil to help get it into a shape the rolling mill
will accept easier. I also don't know how often I should anneal it. I'll
be able to ask my jewelry instructor in a week, but I was hoping to get
a head start on that.
All suggestions, comments, ridicule, and non tax-deductable donations
cheerfully accepted.
Thanks,
Glenn
--
For me to get e-mail, send it to radagast at my-deja.com,
the webmail.bellsouth.net domain is a spam trap.
"To believe our beliefs are permanent truths
encompassing reality is a sad arrogance."
-- Ursala K. LeGuin/Lao Tzu
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
adam
not concerned about the uptake of oxygen, and de-oxidise with a small (0.5%)
phosphorus in the form of Copper-Phos from a bronze foundry. The deliberate
oxidise/de-oxidise system prevents in uptake of hydrogen, which is less
likely to be present in an oxidising flame.
Also the melt spends a way shorter time getting up to the molten stage, and
being molten before the pour, so that's always good for it.
Try other alloys:
50/50 Ag/Cu is quite the springy metal, nice for pin wire.
Try making the eutectic alloy of silver and copper - Ag 78.2% Cu remainder -
it acts as a pure metal, that is its liquidus is the same as its solidus.
Unlike sterling silver and the majority of silver solders which have a 'pasty
stage' or 'freeze range' where they are neither solid nor liquid.
A pasty stage is handy if you want to control where the solder goes, or want
a deliberate fillet in the join, or if your joins are not great. But the
eutectic (recommended by Oppi Untract as a solder) hard solder needs a very
close joint (the best sort of joint anyway) and will run into the tiniest
space like lightning.
Brian ][
Mike S
<rada...@webmail.bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I will have access to a rolling
>mill, an anvil and hammer, and I own a torch. I'm not sure if I should
>use the hammer and anvil to help get it into a shape the rolling mill
>will accept easier.
Yes, unless you have a powered rolling mill, you will save work by
hammering on the ingot. I have found that at the earliest stages of
hammering, using the rounded end of a ball peen works better than the
flat side. It really spreads the ingot in all directions.
> I also don't know how often I should anneal it.
Whenever the metal seems to stop moving, and particularly if you
begin to see cracking anywhere. The article didn't mention a
particular annealing temperature for the alloy, but I found that
going to a dull red followed by a cool to black heat (no more glow)
and a quinch in water worked fine.
>"To believe our beliefs are permanent truths
> encompassing reality is a sad arrogance."
> -- Ursala K. LeGuin/Lao Tzu
>
This is an interesting quote, in some ways similar to Russell's
paradox:
If Ms. LeGuin and Mr. Tzu believed the sentence,
and if the sentence was true,
then they they held false beliefs
about their own sentence.
Mike S
<rada...@webmail.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>I'm not sure if I should
>use the hammer and anvil to help get it into a shape the rolling mill
>will accept easier.
Be sure to wear eye protection. Little ingots tend to fly very
easily. Earplugs will help, too.
Radagast
>> <great info snipped>
> and a quinch in water worked fine.
>
> >"To believe our beliefs are permanent truths
> > encompassing reality is a sad arrogance."
> > -- Ursala K. LeGuin/Lao Tzu
> >
> This is an interesting quote, in some ways similar to Russell's
> paradox:
>
> If Ms. LeGuin and Mr. Tzu believed the sentence,
> and if the sentence was true,
> then they they held false beliefs
> about their own sentence.
>
Thanks for the great info, I'll let you know how it worked out.
Now for something completely off-topic...
As to the quote, I only see a paradox if Lao Tzu considered it a
permanent, unchanging truth. In Taoism there is the general feeling that
nothing is unchanging. Ursula may have believed it or not, she was the
person translating the version of the Tao Te Ching the quote was from.
If it had supporting evidence, it wouldn't be considered belief, but I
am not sure that accepting something as very probable (which I do for
the quote) would still be considered belief.
Thanks again,
Glenn
--
For me to get e-mail, send it to radagast at my-deja.com,
the webmail.bellsouth.net domain is a spam trap.
"To believe our beliefs are permanent truths
encompassing reality is a sad arrogance."
-- Ursala K. LeGuin/Lao Tzu
Daniel Conlin
always make a person stop and think.
[sorry if I should have taken this off the group]
[[moderators note... Yes, this is a bit off topic. But as artists, I doubt that
a bit of mental gymnastics is ever such a bad thing. Lets just not let this
drag on TOO long... PWR]]
Mike S <stevens4000Remo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> >"To believe our beliefs are permanent truths
> > encompassing reality is a sad arrogance."
> > -- Ursala K. LeGuin/Lao Tzu
> >
> This is an interesting quote, in some ways similar to Russell's
> paradox:
>
>
> If Ms. LeGuin and Mr. Tzu believed the sentence,
> and if the sentence was true,
> then they they held false beliefs
> about their own sentence.
>
> >
Mike S
<rada...@webmail.bellsouth.net> wrote:
[[ Peter, I'll post this email, if you prefer. ]]
[[moderators note, same as I added to the other post on this thread today, ...
Yes, this is a bit off topic. But as artists, I doubt that a bit of mental
gymnastics is ever such a bad thing. Lets just not let this drag on TOO long...
PWR]]
>
>Now for something completely off-topic...
>
>As to the quote, I only see a paradox if Lao Tzu considered it a
>permanent, unchanging truth. In Taoism there is the general feeling that
>nothing is unchanging. Ursula may have believed it or not, she was the
>person translating the version of the Tao Te Ching the quote was from.
>
>If it had supporting evidence, it wouldn't be considered belief, but I
>am not sure that accepting something as very probable (which I do for
>the quote) would still be considered belief.
>
Even if we accept relativist truth theories we still have to be
careful about how we talk about them -- because if
we allow a sentence like Russell's paradox
of self membership --
"This sentence is false," --
which is true if false and false if true,
then our linguistic mechanism breaks down, and we have no rational
tool with which to talk about the world.
There are a couple of ways of trying to get around Russell's paradox.
Russell's answer was to create a heirarchy of languages, each of which
was allowed to make comments on the lower level languages, but none of
which could make comments about themselves.
His paradox also helped lead to the development of modal logic and
intentional logics.
Godel's proof also has to do with self reflexive sentences.
------------------
Now, back to the quotation:
"To believe our beliefs are permanent truths
encompassing reality is a sad arrogance, "
seems problimatic, because the sentence, applied reflexively, claims
that it, itself, is not a permanent truth -- or at least that we
shouldn't believe that it is. Because of the use of the intentional
term 'belief,' it may just escape being a proper paradox, but it
forces some very strange beliefs upon anyone who accepts it as true.
You might enjoy having
a look through my website's philosophy links (at the bottom of
the "About Me" page at http://home.earthlink.net/~stevens4000/),
and look up:
Russel's paradox,
Modal Logic,
Intentional Logic, and
Godel's proof
under a couple of the encyclopedias there.
Cheers,
Mike S.