The Early History of Steel

Steel is an alloy that is made by combining iron with a number of other elements, usually carbon. It is one of the most common metals in the world and can be found in a huge number of everyday objects. Steel is used in the manufacture of automobiles, buildings and ships and is often used to make tools. Steel is strong and durable but can also withstand a certain amount of tension. It is also better than other metals at holding a sharp edge. Today 1.3 billion tons of steel is produced annually and is usually made using a blast furnace. Many people think that steel is something of a fairly modern invention - a process that was only invented and refined in the past few centuries. This viewpoint, however, is only half right. The process of steelmaking was improved upon in the last few centuries to make it easily mass producible. However, the invention of steel goes much farther back in history than you might expect.

Humans have been working with iron for thousands of years; this is hardly surprising as it is one of the most abundant elements on Earth. Production of iron probably started around 2000 BC; where previously bronze had been the main hard material used to produce tools and implements (i.e. the Bronze Age). Gradually the production of iron began to overtake the use of bronze. This was mainly because iron was harder, and therefore more useful, than bronze and could hold a sharper edge better. These properties made iron a much better choice to make tools and implements out of and its popularity grew through what we now know as the Iron Age.

Different types of iron have different amounts of carbon in which gives them different properties. Wrought iron has only a little carbon in it (only around 0.02 per cent) which makes it more malleable but not as strong. Cast iron has much more carbon in (around 3-4.5 per cent) and as a result is much stronger but far less malleable - it is almost brittle. Steel comes somewhere in between the two. Steel usually only has between 0.2 and 1.5 per cent carbon in it and is harder than wrought iron but more flexible than cast iron.

Steel production was made more efficient around the 17th century and production was made more inexpensive in the 19th century due to various developments in the process. Though steel did not really take off until the Early Modern period when it could be mass produced, it was being made hundreds of years before this time by people with much less sophisticated technology. One of the earliest examples of steel was found in Anatolia and was dated as being 4,000 years old. Other very early examples include steel dating to 1400 BC found in East Africa most likely made by the Haya people in an early kind of blast furnace.

The most famous of kinds of early steel are wootz and Damascus steel - their fame is possibly down to the air of mystery that surrounds them. Wootz steel was made as early as 300 BC in India and Sri Lanka using a wind furnace that utilised the power of the monsoon winds. Damascus steel was a similar form of steel that many historians believe was made from ingots of wootz steel that had been brought to the Middle East by Indian traders. Damascus steel was widely regarded for its advanced properties and legends grew up around it that it was so sharp and strong that could slice through a rifle barrel. The processes used to make wootz steel and Damascus steel were used for centuries until the methods were lost prior to the 18th century. Many historians have attempted to research the process and many experimental archaeologists have tried to recreate the steel to mostly no avail. The original techniques for these types of steel have been lost for centuries.

It may be surprising to think that steel was produced so early on in history. Though wootz steel and Damascus steel may be the most well-known among metallurgists and historians, there were many other countries making steel at a similar time. The Romans used Noric steel in their weaponry which was well-known for its strength. The Iberian Peninsula also produced steel weapons around the 4th century BC while the Chinese used quench hardened steel throughout the 4th and 3rd centuries BC. By the 1st century AD the Chinese had also created carbon-intermediate steel by melting wrought iron with cast iron. Steel production was made more efficient in the 17th century through the smelting of iron ore into pig iron in a blast furnace. It was also made easier to mass-produce in the 19th century through the introduction of the Bessemer process. These changes and improvements did go some way to revolutionising steel production but the history of steel goes much further back in history than many may think.

© Izzy Evans 2012

If you would like to find out more about the manufacturing of steel then you can visit Steel Suppliers.

View the original article here

Expressing Spiritual Reality

In any number of teachings, spiritual reality is regarded as being indescribable and unexplainable. I think that these teachings are wrong. Spiritual reality is in fact explainable - if you are good enough at explaining.

The best way to be able to describe spiritual reality comes from better right brain - left brain integration. There are many ways to achieve that; but my favorite one is extended metaphor. Metaphor allows one to draw comparisons between parts of the universe that aren't normally compared. And this makes it possible to see common themes - common themes that are part of the underlying reality that is common to all.

In 1995, I went on the Internet as DR. ROCKET and used extended metaphor based on that theme left and right. Soon everything was about nuclear weapons and half-lives and silos and black holes and supernovas. What started basically as a joke went to a large-scale extended metaphor that sometimes produced meaningful observations. Pretty soon I was writing things that people described as transcendent - by virtue of using extended metaphor to see deeper into underlying reality and demonstrate the underlying themes.

A lot of art, from surrealism onwards, has been about expressing not things in physical world but states of mind. The large part of the reason is that, with photography and video, it is possible to capture real-world objects precisely; which means that there is less demand for paintings that describe the physical world. Thus a lot of the art has been about reproducing not physical objects but mindsets. That is because mindsets cannot be photographed, and it takes artistic expression to transmit them.

Does that mean that there is no merit for realist art? Absolutely not - in fact there is now a style of sculpture called super-realism that produces sculptures that look like they are alive. Some of the most beautiful artwork I've seen came from a lady artist named Julia Howard, who photographed things in the real world and used them to express feelings and mindsets. She could look at a flower, a path, even peeled paint on the door, and turn it into a work of art. She married the realistic with the emotional to photograph emotional themes in the physical world. This was one way of explaining, or at least expressing, the spiritual - by finding its representations reflected in the physical world. She found a way to visually express emotional reality, motivating me to do the same thing through poetry that I wrote about her.

Some of the most profound expression of spiritual themes is found in the literature of Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Dostoyevsky was an epileptic, which means that he constantly had right brain and left brain in contact with one another. I've also known a poet in America - named 13 of Nazareth - who also is epileptic; and his descriptions of spiritual meanings are brilliant and profound. In both cases, there is strong left brain-right brain integration. And that makes spiritual reality that one feels verbally expressible.

All in all the spiritual themes are expressible; they just aren't typically easily expressible. They require an effort to be expressed. And whether this is done through photographs, through painting or through poetry and philosophy, it is a doable and worthwhile project.

View the original article here

Mary Parker Follet - Dynamic Administration

Mary Parker Follet occupies a prominent place in the comity of thinkers on administrative thought though she is less known in comparison to other thinkers. She initiated studies on industrial groups. Traditionally the social and political scientists concentrated on the studies of the state or the society but her studies were concentrated on the industry. She evolved principles of human association and organization in the context of industry. Her prominent works include The Speaker of the House of Representatives (1909), The New State (1920), Creative Experience (1924) and Dynamic Administration (1941). Dynamic Administration was posthumously edited by Metcalf and Urwick. Her views will be discussed under the following heads:

Idea of Constructive Conflict & the Ways of Resolving It

Follet gives quite important place to conflicts in her writings. According to her, conflicts are result of "socially valuable differences" and these are normal processes which may occur in any activity of the organization. Conflict should not be seen with any biases. It is neither good nor bad. It is just the appearance of difference which should be capitalized upon. As all polishing is done by friction, similarly conflicts could also be constructive and could enrich all. Follet gives three ways of dealing with conflict. These are described below:

A. Domination - It means victory of one side over the other. This seems to be the easiest way of resolving conflicts but it is not successful in the long run. The "repressed wishes" of the dominated always rebel against the dominator whenever it is possible.

B. Compromise - People settle most of their conflicts through compromise only. Each party to the conflict gives up a little in this method to resolve it. This quite wide accepted way of resolving conflict still people are reluctant to go for it as it involves losing something.

C. Integration - In this method two desires are integrated and there is no need to sacrifice its desires on any side. Follet favors this method of resolving conflict in comparison to other two methods. Domination is not preferable due to obvious reasons, compromise does not create something new but integration gives rise to the new ideas and innovation in social relationships. Integration also solves the problem permanently as it strikes at the root of the problem. In sum, integration is "win all" situation.

Steps in the Process of Integration

Follet gives there are following steps in the process of integration. These are as follows:

1. The first step is to bring the differences into open instead of suppressing them. The immediate necessity in resolving conflict is to understand and identify the nature of conflict.

2. Second step is to divide the whole conflict into smaller constituent parts. Sometimes the opposite process may be followed.

3. Third step is the anticipation of the conflict. It means knowing which way the conflict would head once the proposals are prepared and presented to the parties. It is like a game of chess where all moves are pre-calculated. "Circular" not linear response is required in anticipation of conflict.

Though Follet proposes integration as the way to resolve conflicts permanently still is alive to the problems in the whole process. Lack of inventiveness, habit of enjoying domination and use of proper language etc. are some of the problems. She emphasises on the proper training to resolve all these issues. According to her, courses on the art of co-operative thinking should be there both for the managers as well for the workers to master the art of integration.

The Law of Situation: Depersonalising Orders

Follet was concerned about too much of "Bossism" in giving orders. To avoid it she was suggested depersonalising orders. For this law of situation was proposed by Follet. According to this law, the order should not be given by one person to the other, rather both the order giver and the order taker should take the order from the situation. This law gives importance to the authority of the situation rather than the authority of the individual. Further Follet insists that the orders should be integral to the situation i. e. they should keep pace with the situation and should not be static. This will be possible only when the orders are taken from the situation and not externally.

Concept of "Power-with" rather than "Power over"

Follet terms power as the "ability to make things happen, to be a causal agent, to initiate change". She distinguishes "power-over" from "power-with". The former represents coercive power while the latter represents the co-active power. Power-with is better as people wish to be seen as working with someone rather than under someone. Also it promotes better understanding, reduces friction and encourages co-operation. According to Follet it is not possible for people to get rid of power over concept. But this can be accomplished by following the law of situations, functional unity and integration. Functional unity means that within his own sphere of functions, everyone has authority and responsibility for accomplishing those functions.

Functional Unity: Authority of Function

As already mentioned, functional unity means that for each allotted function each has authority and responsibility which go with that function. Further as authority rests with the function and not with the individual, authority/power cannot be delegated. Power is the result of knowledge and ability so it cannot be delegated. According to Follet, derivation of authority from some central authority should be replaced by the "authority of function" in which each individual has final authority within the allotted functions. Authority can be conferred on others but this is not delegation. According to her, delegation of authority should be an "obsolete expression". Like authority responsibility also flows from the situation. In the overall scheme of the things according to functional unity, the question that should be asked is "for what is he responsible rather than to whom is he responsible".

Concept of Leadership according to Follet

According to Follet the concept of leadership has also undergone significant changes due to the changing circumstances and new concepts such as human relations etc. Leadership does not come from the official status or position but from the attributes like encouraging initiative and energizing group. According to her such people are not just found at positions of power but throughout the organisation. She categorises three types of leaderships - leadership of position, leadership of personality and leadership of function. In modern organisations, those possess expert knowledge & skills and not the ones who have formal authority and personality actually lead. This is due to the fact that they take leadership due to the situation. It is the reason they can give orders even to

those in higher ranks. Follet lists three important functions of a leader. These are - coordination, definition of purpose and anticipation.

Critical Evaluation of Mary Parker Follet

Mary Parker Follet is called as one of the earliest behavioralists as she was among the earlier scholars to analyze the organizational behavior. Still some writers on organization theory have classified her as 'classical' thinker. She was criticized for not seeing the organizational processes in the social context. Some scholars regard her inconsistent in her approach as her ideas were not well organized. She analyzed the process of conflict resolution in detail and gave a new concept of integration. She negated the "Trait Theory" of leadership and advanced the situational variable to leadership. She conceived leadership to be function of three variables - the leader, followers and the situation. Situational control was the best form of control according to her.

Follet also gave the concept of "Cumulative Responsibility" which should be imbibed in the workers. According to this concept, realization of just the individual responsibility is not enough rather the workers should be made to realize "joint responsibility" which sensitizes them towards other units also. This automatically solves the problem of co- ordination also.

Due to her multi-dimensional focus, Urwick has described Follet as a "woman who had a universal mind." Though her ideas on integration were termed as illusory as they were good to look at but difficult to achieve still her contributions were phenomenal and she was in fact ahead of her times.

Mary Parker Follet gave many more theories on public administration. Read More about it on http://gkbasic.com/

View the original article here

Regulatory Challenges in Humanitarian Organizations

After the Hurricane and Super Storm Sandy many of the federal relief efforts, like FEMA, were brought in and allowed to cut through bureaucracy and red tape to deliver the goods. In the trucking industry, the Department of Transportation, gave waivers on all trucks due to the 'hours of service rules'. This meant that truck drivers could drive more than eight hours at one time. The rescue relief efforts had to do this or they could get supplies and, things like fuel for the gas stations. Often the trucks had to be rerouted, which took up huge amounts of time even though they may only be traveling a few hundred miles.

What many people don't understand is that this problem happens in business all the time. All the rules and regulations slow down the supply chain and the flow of goods. It's interesting that the government doesn't understand that regulations hurt free-market enterprise and getting things done, but when the government wants to get things done in a hurry they realize they must forgo all the regulations. That is interesting isn't it?

Now then, there are always regulatory challenges in humanitarian efforts, and these are things that humanitarian organizations go through all the time regardless of which country they are assisting. It hardly matters if the humanitarian organization is large or small, they need bureaucrats and politicians running block for them so they can get their work done. Otherwise they get caught up in all the rules and regulations, and are dead in the water unable to help those people they are assigned to give assistance and relief efforts to. Consider if you will all the issues in our own society and civilization;

Laws
Red Tape
Bureaucracy
Rules and Regs

Humanitarian organizations after natural disasters especially have to move very quickly. If they are bogged down filling out forms, or unable to do certain things because there is some rule impeding their progress, then nothing gets done, and no one gets helped. Hurricane Super Storm Sandy (2012) was a perfect example in the aftermath in Lower Manhattan, Atlantic City, and other places in New Jersey. The authorities had to take charge, and completely dismiss large numbers of rules and regulations just to do what they needed to do.

If they were unable to bypass those laws and all that red tape, and bust through the blob of bureaucracy, they wouldn't have been able to help anyone, much less themselves. If they would have waited until everything was right, all the forms were filled out, and everything was done by the book, more people would have been without power, water, food, and perhaps even frozen to death or drown in the aftermath. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Humanitarian Help. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/

View the original article here

The Victims Of Nobel Prizes: Maugham, Joyce And Greene

Learn why eminent classic writers like William Somerset Maugham, James Joyce, and Graham Greene did not receive the Nobel Prize in Literature. What happened behind the scenes? Why were they denied the Prize in Literature? Are they not worth it? Here are the interesting facts dug out from the history of Nobel Prizes. Read on... they make good reading.

Why was it the famous classic writers William Somerset Maugham, Graham Greene and James Joyce were denied the Prize when they truly deserved it? Is it because their works are inferior and did not possess literary merits? Is it because they did not produce the most distinguished works of idealistic tendency, which Alfred Nobel clearly stipulated as a criterion in his will?

If one peeps behind the scenes and read between the lines, he will learn that the judges or members of the Selection Committee of the Nobel Prizes are mere mortals filled with high-flying vanities, prejudices, petty rivalries, frailties all mixed up with intelligence, honesty, wisdom and courage.

Hedin, one of the powerful judges on the Nobel Committee with his shortsightedness delivered his judgment on William Somerset Maugham as 'Too popular and undistinguished'. When questioned about James Joyce (1882-1941), Hedin reportedly remarked, 'Who is he'?

And William Somerset Maugham (1874-1965) cannot be too popular and undistinguished at the same time. If he is popular he is distinguished, if he is unpopular he is undistinguished. William Somerset Maugham truly deserved the Nobel Prize for his 'Of Human Bondage'.

Such a soul-stirring semi-autobiographical classic 'Of Human Bondage' © 1915; the story revolves around a club-footed youth who genuinely falls in love with a beautiful girl. He then goes beyond his means to give anything in this world to win her. In return, he often finds himself being snubbed by her derisively and ruthlessly exploited suffering humiliation in the process. Yet he takes everything in his stride. And the way this club-footed youth reasons with his soul and justifies his actions and indulgences makes the novel a more moving classic. This is also in a way a semi-autobiography. Truly a masterpiece that is full of literary merit 'Of Human Bondage' that deserved the Prize.

In 1974 too, Graham Greene {1904-1991} of England, Vladimir Nabokov of Russia and Saul Bellow of United States were hot contenders for the Nobel Prize in Literature. But Eyvind Johnson and Harry Martinsonboth Sweden nationals and who are unknown outside their home country were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. But does anyone know that these two authors were Nobel Judges themselves. What an Irony!

The 2012 Nobel Prize in Literature

The 2012 Nobel Prize in Literature has been awarded to Chinese author Mo Yan whose citation read as, "who with hallucinatory realism merges folk tales, history and the contemporary". Mo Yan is a pen name while the real name is Guan Moye. "Mo Yan" in Chinese language means "don't speak".

This article is published in my personal blog http://writersden-jay.blogspot.in/ under the category of Human Interest Features. There are several more articles of such nature in my blog, which you will find them interesting to read on.

View the original article here

The Decline Of Old Science

Science was doing remarkable progress during the days of the Hellenistic period from around 300 BC to 300 AD. Just consider the following examples:

In astronomy, Claudius Ptolemy had built a very accurate model of the universe, which in spite of a couple of evident flaws, was adopted for every purpose; from astrology to navigation, during the next fifteen hundred years.In Geography, Eratosthenes had measured the circumference of the Earth with astonishing precision.In Mathematics, Euclid had put together all ancient geometrical knowledge in his compilation book Elements, which served as a reference text until the arrival of Renaissance.In Engineering and applied Mathematics, Archimedes had built incredibly accurate mechanical devices for military defense and come really close to differential calculus with his method of exhaustion.

But that trend of advance was interrupted at the end of the Classical Era, and didn't fully gained momentum again until the rediscovery of Aristotelian natural philosophy and in fact until the arrival of Renaissance.

An immediate, important and legitimate question arises: Why did scientific progress in antiquity come to a halt?

Very frequently we hear that the main reason for this decay was the establishment of Christianity as official religion of the Roman Empire. The case supposedly rests on the documented negative reaction against existing pagan science. Some even say science was persecuted by law.

Such a question deserves a legitimate answer and the truth is very different from that simplistic approach.

There were two groups of causes that lead to this situation:

Cultural and religious change: There was indeed a turn for the worse in that sense and everything that had originated in paganism was rejected because it usually contradicted Scripture (the Bible). Academies were closed and even though there were never written laws against science; the atmosphere was unbearable for scientists. For instance, many of them were denounced as wizards for their simple use of astronomical instrumentsDeterioration of daily material conditions because of constant warfare. The continuous threat of barbaric invasions from outside and of heresies from inside created a climate of interminable riots, fights, military actions, persecutions which made life very precarious. People had no other choice but concentrating on daily survival. No resources were left for education and science.

As a result of these causes, science entered a period of stagnation which in Western Europe lasted until the arrival of the XIII century, when medieval harsh material conditions were alleviated a little by some advances in agriculture (new plough devices, better water mills) and scholars were able to spare some time to study the new copies of ancient Greek texts that were coming from Toledo (Spain) and Constantinople.

There were, by the way, some written laws against the art of Mathematica on the Theodosian and Justinian law compilations, from 400 and 500 BC respectively. Only Mathematica in old Latin, didn't mean mathematics but astrology or divination.

http://areasubliminal.com/category/english/

Science, Superstition and Communication

On my website you'll find a lot of interesting related material: extended texts, catchy videos, imaginative podcasts, instructive mind maps, beautiful images, keen comments from visitors; in English and in Spanish. I bet you won't regret a visit.

View the original article here