Tube vs Rod Implosion

torchgirl · #1 2011-10-30, 9:23am

What benefits are there to doing an implosion from a tube/pulled point vs a solid rod? I've done floral implosions with both and the solid rod was much faster.

LarryC · #2 2011-10-30, 9:27am

Because you are blowing out the end of the tube and expanding the surface area, you can get more detail into a tube implosion. I prefer the look and ease of rod implosions.

Cornbread · #3 2011-10-30, 9:56am

each will yield a little different of a look. I think rod implosions ultimately wind up looking deeper because the color is farther away from the lens of the glass. With tube implosions you can certainly get way more detail. But also with tube, you can implode with what I call a collapse (rather than implosion) or you can pull to a point in the back. For example, see the two pendants in the picture I am going to post in just a few moments.

Cornbread · #4 2011-10-30, 10:06am

both of these pendants were made using a 20mmx2mm tube using the same colors.

The one on the left is what i call a collapse. You basically heat the whole dotted section at once collapsing and condensing the glass in to your typical tube pendant shape. But you can see you have dots rather than "petals" It does implode a bit, but you can still see a separation between the dots.

The one on the right is your typical floral implosion that has been pulled to a point in the back. I got my bubble a little thin when i applied the dots which is why the bottom "petals" have black tips on the them. You just focus the heat from the farthest point of the bubble away from your hand and slowly condense and implode the bubble working your way down each row of dots. It will eventually come to a point in the back on its own.

Both of these are a little sloppy because I was doing a public demonstration recently and just wanted to show the technique more so than show a final product (which was for sale right next to me, ha)

But again, I think the biggest difference to me would be thickness of the lens and depth. tube implosions have shallower lenses because the color is much closer towards the surface. Rods start with a nice amount of glass from the get-go because of the maria.

hope this helps you a bit. It helped me too because it made me think a little bit more about what's actually going on. thanks

jb

Bunyip · #5 2011-10-30, 12:08pm

Tube and rod implosions have very different looks, though one thing I've noticed is that with tubing implosions you can get a look that is similar to a rod implosion, but not so much the other way around.

The primary benefits of tubing implosions then are versatility and a (much) higher level of detail possible. The primary benefits of rod implosions are ease and speed, and a thicker 'natural' lens.

Don't forget that you can add a lens to any tubing implosion if you want more depth. In fact, that's one of the keys to the versatility of the method. You can also speed things up with tubing implosions by working smaller (and thus faster) and lensing them. Just heat up some clear and melt it to the front of the piece. You will have a join line on the sides, and if you don't heat it enough there will be a shimmery plane between the lens and the piece but that can be worked around

My .02 anyway.

Cornbread · #6 2011-10-30, 2:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunyip

Tube and rod implosions have very different looks, though one thing I've noticed is that with tubing implosions you can get a look that is similar to a rod implosion, but not so much the other way around.

The primary benefits of tubing implosions then are versatility and a (much) higher level of detail possible. The primary benefits of rod implosions are ease and speed, and a thicker 'natural' lens.

Don't forget that you can add a lens to any tubing implosion if you want more depth. In fact, that's one of the keys to the versatility of the method. You can also speed things up with tubing implosions by working smaller (and thus faster) and lensing them. Just heat up some clear and melt it to the front of the piece. You will have a join line on the sides, and if you don't heat it enough there will be a shimmery plane between the lens and the piece but that can be worked around

My .02 anyway.

well said sir.

nate-d · #7 2011-10-30, 2:43pm

All of my tube implosions tend to have pointy teeth-like tips, which I think of as an advantage because I can't get them on the rod; now I'm thinking my pointy teeth might be from personal difficulties. I didn't know that you can get the nice rounded 'rodlike' petals from tube implosions. I only tried dots on the tube, haven't tried lines yet.

nate-d · #8 2011-10-30, 2:45pm

Wow, under my name says 'senior member' now. LOL I hope no one thinks I know what I'm talking about.

Bunyip · #9 2011-10-31, 4:56am

Nate -

#1 - The pointy teeth implosions result from the way you place your dots and the way you melt the piece in. If I recall correctly, you get points if you don't blow a big bubble, and then focus the heat more on the side, rather than the end of your piece. I always have to re-discover how to do the pointy ones when I want to do a couple, but when I first tried the tech that was all I could get.

For non-pointy dots, try watching the following videos. Click on the LE link, and watch the one on blowing a bubble first if you're unsure about your technique there. I also I posted this elsewhere, so it's in quotes - it's an excellent tutorial, either as a refresher or for someone just learning:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunyip

...here's a great FREE resource on tubing implosions and designs, you might want to watch this video by Brent "Mr. Smiley" Graber.

Link to post on LE: http://www.lampworketc.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=138695

Direct Link to Video: http://vimeo.com/6303406

I think you will find yourself having many interesting insights. I know I did. If you're not sure about pulling the point and blowing the bubble for your tubing implosion he has a brief demo of that posted as well.

#2 - You can change that title under your user settings. If you don't live in Tamarac, you're not a "senior" in my book.

nate-d · #10 2011-10-31, 6:50am

Thanks! I'll check out the vids.

LarryC · #11 2011-10-31, 8:01am

Quote:

Originally Posted by nate-d

All of my tube implosions tend to have pointy teeth-like tips, which I think of as an advantage because I can't get them on the rod; now I'm thinking my pointy teeth might be from personal difficulties. I didn't know that you can get the nice rounded 'rodlike' petals from tube implosions. I only tried dots on the tube, haven't tried lines yet.

This is all dependent on technique, though. I would think ANY difference in result between the two could be compensated for with changes and improvements in technique. Want more detail in your rod implosions? Learn to apply the initial detail finer. Want more lens on the tubes? Learn to condense and lens cleaner and thicker. Thoughts? By the way for me this was one area where aside from initial setup, vids did not do much for my progress. Subtle changes in heat, angle, etc. make huge changes in the outcome and these are hard to observe.

Bunyip · #12 2011-10-31, 10:03am

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryC

Want more detail in your rod implosions? Learn to apply the initial detail finer. Want more lens on the tubes? Learn to condense and lens cleaner and thicker.

Gotta partially disagree with that. Differences in technique certainly can improve your outcome in those departments, but surface area means an awful lot. Simple geometry tells us that a bubble will have approximately twice the workable area that maria of similar radius would have, and you can much more easily go large with bubbles than with a maria. Going bigger than 1.5-2" maria is kind of a pain.

Cornbread · #13 2011-10-31, 10:07am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunyip

Going bigger than 1.5-2" maria is kind of a pain.

I've been wanting to try to do some tube implosion marbles. The only way I can get any kind of a sizable marble is with a maria about 3" and to get any depth out of it you have to make sure it's as flat as possible. But I need to pick up some bigger tubing in heavywall.

LarryC · #14 2011-10-31, 10:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunyip

Gotta partially disagree with that. Differences in technique certainly can improve your outcome in those departments, but surface area means an awful lot. Simple geometry tells us that a bubble will have approximately twice the workable area that maria of similar radius would have, and you can much more easily go large with bubbles than with a maria. Going bigger than 1.5-2" maria is kind of a pain.

I routinely go up to or over 2" across for the initial setup on my rod implosions without any pain or discomfort

Again, this is based on technique. Kabuki gets a huge amount of very fine distinct detail in his rod compressions (implosions). I think this is way overstated.

J.Meader · #15 2011-10-31, 12:12pm

What size tubing do you prefer for implosions? and why?

Bunyip · #16 2011-10-31, 12:15pm

Obviously, rod compressions (implosions) are more suitable to some things, like John Kobuki-style work, and tubing is more suitable for others...so I guess I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure what your argument is though - if you work very fine on a 3" diameter maria, you end up with about 7 square inches of surface area. With a 3" diameter bubble you get about 14 inches of area to work with. Why not work fine there too?

LarryC · #17 2011-10-31, 1:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunyip

Obviously, rod compressions (implosions) are more suitable to some things, like John Kobuki-style work, and tubing is more suitable for others...so I guess I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure what your argument is though - if you work very fine on a 3" diameter maria, you end up with about 7 square inches of surface area. With a 3" diameter bubble you get about 14 inches of area to work with. Why not work fine there too?

Because as you condense that 14 inches down you end up losing a lot of that fine detail because you have to heat the bubble enough to condense. With a solid maria you can't work as fine but you heat the face less so more detail is actually retained on the rod. In my experience it is often a wash and it just comes down to which technique you are more comfortable with. Is there anything you can do with one and NOT the other that you are aware of?

cheng076 · #18 2011-11-01, 11:35am

Never been able to blow out the maria...

LOL!!

Bunyip · #19 2011-11-01, 11:59am

^^ LOL! (you can do it though. stuff npuff, cheng. I bet you could do a compression-style stuff n puff!)

To each his own, Larry. I can see that you're ready to defend your position to the death here, while I'm just discussing the relative merits of each technique and how they affect my preferences. Both work. Both have different strengths and weaknesses. All I know is that I find working on a bubble is more versatile and that it's a lot easier to for me than a maria because I can leave twice as much space between elements and achieve the same level of detail even if I use larger design elements.

And sure - there are designs that only possible (or at least only easily possible) using one technique or the other. Do what works best.

LarryC · #20 2011-11-01, 12:24pm

I am thinking this went right by you. just looking for some discussion that comes from personal experience and observation.

Cornbread · #21 2011-11-01, 12:42pm

Larry what do you mean you lose detail in a bubble? the wash out? I'm trying to figure out what that means exactly.

LarryC · #22 2011-11-01, 1:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornbread

Larry what do you mean you lose detail in a bubble? the wash out? I'm trying to figure out what that means exactly.

Yup. I have to heat the bubble on a tube setup to condense much hotter than I typically heat the face of the maria on a rod implosion. I think that "wash out" is a good term for it. I am by no means an expert on any of this

Just trying to get a better understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Cornbread · #23 2011-11-01, 1:43pm

are you saying the color disappears?

LarryC · #24 2011-11-01, 2:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornbread

are you saying the color disappears?

Nope. Just softens and I lose a lot of detail.

Cornbread · #25 2011-11-01, 3:09pm

ahh ok. I get what you're saying. well...I guess it just depends on the look you're going for. I've never really thought I lost detail in a tube implosion because I've known what to expect. When i draw something on a bubble I know it's going to be pulled to a real tight space and a big circle will actually look like a tiny circle. or for dots - same thing. For rod implosions, what you draw on the maria is almost exactly what you get. When I want certain style pendant, I can only get that style with a maria and visa-versa with a tube.

I don't think you necessarily lose any detail in a tube implosion, I think it just makes whatever you draw/dot/scribble, much smaller.

The big difference here in the debate I think would be the terminology. "Detail" is not really a relevant term for both sides of the debate. Larry is correct about detail - what you draw is what you get when it comes to marias. For Chris- I think the correct term would be "information". how much information you can draw on a maria as opposed to a tube. The winner is clearly a tube...but detail is up for interpretation of the artist. If you want a 100 dot implosion, you better have an enormous maria or a regular sized tube. Most would opt for the tube. But if you want 5 nice big dots to implode for a flower of some sorts, a maria would be best because you'd have to cover a ton of space on the bubble to get only 5 dots to fill the whole pendant with color.

I think Larry is correct and Chris is correct. Both are defending different terminology to describe benefits of one over the other.

I may have not said that in the clearest and best possible way. But i just want to make sure that everyone understands that "detail" and "information" are not the same thing...even though they sound like it.

LarryC · #26 2011-11-01, 3:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornbread

I think Larry is correct and Chris is correct. Both are defending different terminology to describe benefits of one over the other.

I may have not said that in the clearest and best possible way. But i just want to make sure that everyone understands that "detail" and "information" are not the same thing...even though they sound like it.

I think your interpretation is 100%

Bunyip · #27 2011-11-01, 4:20pm

I'll go with that too. I like the information comparison. One qualification, the less you implode your bubbles, the less things get pulled. That frogspawn look is a good example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryC

I am thinking this went right by you. just looking for some discussion that comes from personal experience and observation.

probably did, and I thought that's what we were doing. Text can be awkward at times for communication.

torchgirl · #28 2011-11-01, 7:32pm

Wow thank you all so very much for the detailed explaination. I need to make a few w/same color and dots, trying to put heat different place to see different results. I do like the "tooth" pointed in effect and did that once but wasn't really sure how I got it. Very helpful information!

istandalone24/7 · #29 2012-08-10, 4:21am

"and if you don't heat it enough there will be a shimmery plane between the lens and the piece but that can be worked around "

HOW? every time i joint a backing on a boro lens of some sort i get a shimmery irredescence that looks like crap, and no matter how hot i get them before joining i get the same effect.
any ideas? am i just not getting both halfs hot enough?

Bunyip · #30 2012-08-10, 7:23am

The hotter the lens and the art are before being joined, the better.

You can work around it, as noted, usually by making sure that the viewing angle is as close as perpendicular to the plane of the join. Building up a border at the join and further up the lens is one way to do this, so that you have to look straight in to the marble to see the art.

Or just join 'em white, almost liquid hot, and minimize issues.