WarmGlass.com

They do number their batches and put the numbers on their full sheets. In the past, I had to get information from them about the batch conformation to assure that I would not get color shift when I slumped their glass. They were recycling some of their waste glass into some of their batches and glass from those batches (especially the ambers) would change color significantly when they were brought up to slumping temperatures. They keep track of the batches that have recycled glass in them and even if they don't have that information, you can test a small sample of a numbered batch and rest assured that the rest of the glass in that batch will perform similarly.

Testing is great......until you buy a bunch of glass that DOESN'T test as expected. Now what? You are stuck with a bunch of product that is useless unless you are also a stained glass artist, mosaic artist or general glass hoarder.

Why bother trying to save a dollar and get stuck with a bunch of useless product. Support the company that without them there wouldn't be the industry that we know and love.

Rick, I have absolutely been there and done that. I've tested float glass, found the test pieces were 'good' only to find the delivered glass behaved completely differently..... randomly....and sometimes not so randomly throughout the delivered crate of glass. That is enough to make anyone run to tested compatible Bullseye.

I apologize for thinking that there might be alternatives for 96 COE users. I didn't understand that Bullseye "believers" would be quite so intolerant of other alternatives. I have a lot of 96 glass that I would like to use and do not plan on switching to Bullseye in the near future if I can help it. The original post did not ask advice about whether to switch or not but rather how to find 96 compatible glasses and whether Kokomo could be a usable alternative. Could we stay on that course if possible and not condemn the search for other possibilities?

Marty wrote:Terry- That's a tall order. Does Kokomo date their batches and number their sheets? Do they do any testing? Are they interested in testing for compat.?
We'd be working in the dark unless they started formulating for fusing and keeping track of their stock.

From the Facebook FGF post that I mentioned above, it sounds like Kokomo would entertain the idea to start producing tested-compatible glass if there were enough interest.

As to Terry's questions, there's enough tested compatible glass available that I am not really interested in doing a lot of testing around Kokomo at this time. If push comes to shove, sure, but right now, System 96 and BE are still available, with Wissmach coming on the scene with more and more glass.

Dana

Terry Gallentine wrote:I apologize for thinking that there might be alternatives for 96 COE users. I didn't understand that Bullseye "believers" would be quite so intolerant of other alternatives. I have a lot of 96 glass that I would like to use and do not plan on switching to Bullseye in the near future if I can help it. The original post did not ask advice about whether to switch or not but rather how to find 96 compatible glasses and whether Kokomo could be a usable alternative. Could we stay on that course if possible and not condemn the search for other possibilities?

Did you go to FB and read the post that I mentioned? Lots of good info in there.

As far as System 96 tested-compatible glass... I have always been a system 96 user, and plan to continue. There are still manufacturers of 96 COE tested-compatible glass -- both Uro and Wissmach. Wissmach is inexpensive, and there have been reports of very good results in fusing it with System 96. I've worked with it a little and have seen no issues with compatibility (my complaints, as mentioned above, is that it seems brittle when breaking out, it's more irregular/textured, and the luminescent burns off at higher temps, even when fired face down). Uro is more expensive, yes, but I guess you get what you pay for. My expectation is that Wissmach and Uro will both continue to expand their product line.

Dana W.

Thanks Dana but I attended the J. Ring talk and found only some of the information helpful. The information about using Spray A to address devitrification put some folks off from further investigation. It is necessary for security when fusing opals but I only use transparents. The information that I received from my glass dealer about Wissmach was that they seemed unable to fill orders in a timely manner even before the Spectrum problem. I understand that there are those out there who have been using Bullseye for many years and it has been an excellent glass for them but I am merely looking into other possibilities.

Terry, my point was if you are having to test all the glass before using it, when does it become time and cost efficient? Especially if you make an assumption that the supplied glass is going to be compatible because you tested some of it successfully. I started using Bullseye when it was the only game. I have not followed the progress other makers have made since those early days. I got tired rather quickly of doing stringer pull testing.

Terry, I didn't mean to imply that I was intolerant of any alternatives. I just don't see the value in buying something that may not work that cannot be returned nor likely used for anything useful. I can certainly understand your reluctance to switch especially if you have a significant amount of 96 glass. If there is a proven alternative that is consistent and successful go for it.

I just can't imagine putting a significant amount of time, money and kiln space into a piece "Hoping it'll Work"

Good luck moving forward however you proceed.

Rick, tell me about it. How do you get enthused to cut, prepare and fire 400 square feet of float glass, which I currently have in the 'hoping it will work' category?

At least with Terry's Kokomo he has possibilities for other uses should the glass he purchase not test well for kiln firing. The alternative uses for badly firing float glass are not so easy to creatively find.

yes , i did only with solid opalescent colors, blue, yellow, orange and res with uro 96 on top in case of vitrification and the thickness, large pieces too. just full fuse never try to slump it

Hi Terry, no ideas about sheet alternatives (I just ordered what I assume will be my last crate of clear s96 which should last me a year). For frit and powder I've been using gaffer for the past 12 months with good results, i'm using mainly transparents ( lead base) and firing up to 6 times with s96 sheet with no compatibility issues / devit.

Marty wrote:Terry- That's a tall order. Does Kokomo date their batches and number their sheets? Do they do any testing? Are they interested in testing for compat.?
We'd be working in the dark unless they started formulating for fusing and keeping track of their stock.

The information on FB indicated they are willing to begin testing and producing compatible glass, if there is interest.

Dana

my experience is that Kokomo opals do not react nicely to fusing temperatures - severe devit. Wispies are no better. Transparents and streakies are a bit better and do need devit sprays. Their compatibiilty is variable within their own range. How they would fit to System 96 is therefore suspect.
Either you pay for tested compatible range of glass, or you pay with your own time to test for compatibility. And you will have to test each sheet, as the compatibility within their own range is variable.

Terry Gallentine wrote:I apologize for thinking that there might be alternatives for 96 COE users. I didn't understand that Bullseye "believers" would be quite so intolerant of other alternatives. I have a lot of 96 glass that I would like to use and do not plan on switching to Bullseye in the near future if I can help it. The original post did not ask advice about whether to switch or not but rather how to find 96 compatible glasses and whether Kokomo could be a usable alternative. Could we stay on that course if possible and not condemn the search for other possibilities?

There is no problem. Uroboros is continuing the production of System 96 glass. The choice seems to be between using glass from Uroboros and testing other glass that might be compatible. People are merely pointing out the difficulties in using glass that is not tested for compatability by the manufacturer.

A forgotten issue but one that is remembered by the early adopters of Bullseye glass is that while testing for compatibility in the early days there were some issues.
These same issues could impact those who are now looking for alternatives to Bullseye or for that matter trying to get a system 96 to work with something else.

The issue was that certain colours would test compatible for the first fusing firing but then with the additional heat work added by a kiln forming firing, the COE's can shift and result in fractured work.
Bullseye claims something like 3 firings with compatibility. I always try and keep heat work to a minimum and complete a piece in 2 firings. I learned my lesson in the 1980's and have not forgotten it.

So for those that still want to take chances with 'other glasses', I would strongly suggest minimizing heat work.