About a Phone (part 1)

"  The site doesn’t scale to mobile. Unfortunately with over 50% of internet users moving to phones and tablets, google feels like it is priority number 1 to have a website built for mobile.  "

from a recent e-mail - name withheld


Well, maybe not.
And from the look of it, certainly not those seriously interested in the Wareham Forge (or reading this right now, for that matter).

First Statistic : Population of Canada
December 2017 = 36.7 million (1)

Reported number of ‘mobile device internet users’ (so smart phones and tablets)
December 2017 = 24.4 million
December 2018 = 25.7 million (2)

Something to watch here.
1) The number of ‘subscriptions’ is reported at over 30 million.
Other reports indicated that Canada has one of the highest mobile device ownership world wide. But indicated at roughly ‘3 out of 4 people’. Which would put the number of ‘unique owners’ at closer to 27.5 million.
2) A good percentage of these would actually own more than one device - but would count twice here. (I own both a cell phone and a tablet, for example.)
3) A significant number of those would children or teens. The teens clearly show as major users, and warp some of the numbers as this goes along.

But just what are those ‘users’ actually doing?
By the data at Statista.com :

• text message / e-mail
• watching videos
• finding locations (maps)
• games
• mobile banking

https://www.statista.com/statistics/686890/canada-leading-mobile-activities/

You can see general information searching on the internet does not even make up one of the top five uses. (Appears to be less than 1/3 of 'user time')

Ok - and quite importantly here - just what machines are Canadians using to actually ‘surf the web’?
As it turns out, still primarily using actual computer screens :
January 2018 = 55%

https://www.statista.com/statistics/505773/canada-online-traffic-device-share/

The table indicates that only 33 % of unique users are using the internet on small smart phone screens.

Combine that with the reduced fraction (not indicated, but obviously some amount less than 38%) who would be attempting general internet searches.
That makes at best roughly 1/3 of 1/3 of all web site views =
11 % of all viewers.


A double check off my own main web site portals. Stats for operating systems accessing :
’Hammered Out Bits’ - my blog / month of December (2018)

• Android = 14%
• iPhone = 4%

‘the Wareham Forge - main web site / month of December

• Google Android = 3.8% (3)

full site on an iPad mini *

full site on an iPhone *

Now, I had created a separate ‘mobile’ version of the Wareham Forge web site (about a year ago) :

• (should) automatically load when a mobile device is used
• sized to fit the smaller iPhone screen
• stripped to single images and limited text
• links back to the main web site if viewers want any details

view direct at www.warehamforge.ca/mobile

mobile version on iPad mini *

mobile version on iPhone *

Over the entire Wareham Forge web site however / month of December :
Total page views = 24,908
‘Mobile’ page views = 646 (2.5%)
These two sets of numbers seem to work against each other. I may be incorrect on either end :

• Android operating system may not just be on phones ?
• Some mobile users may not be moved to the special mobile versions as intended.

Over the past year especially, from younger (less than 30 year old) people specifically, I have had many suggest I should re-work the entire Wareham Forge web site (!!) so it views 'easier' on those tiny smart phone screens.

(Next : 'Viewing the Universe through a Tiny Hole' )


* Made with use of the Mobile Phone Emulator (by COWEMO)
I made an attempt to match these images to the actual sizes of the devices indicated. I suspect the size of these images will be altered by your own viewing screen.

• iPhone : continues to increase in size, older ones = 13 cm (diagonal)
• iPad mini : (mine is iPad 2) = 20 cm (diagonal)

These also show the vertical arrangement, which is what the mobile site version of the Wareham Forge was designed for. The images used there actually are a size that fills a horizontal view on the iPhone screen.

1) Statistics Canada
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/12-581-x/2018000/pop-eng.htm
An estimate of the current (end December 2018) = 37.1 million
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/canada-population/

2) Statista
https://www.statista.com/topics/3529/mobile-usage-in-canada/

3) The separate statistics sheets for these two sites record and track different information.
The main Wareham Forge site does not track  macOSi  individually

Disneyfication

I have been attempting to complete this commentary since events provoked it in early November. Without a lot of effective result, to be honest. I have decided to publish it as it currently stands. Partially since I see Disneyfication as only one aspect of a set of interlocked cultural elements that I consider major problems today.

Dis·ney·fi·ca·tion

 (dĭz′nē-fĭ-kā′shən)
n.
: 1. The establishment or alteration of business activity to conform with the goals or image of a corporation, especially in the elimination of controversial, sensitive, or potentially offensive activities or material.
2. The presentation of historical or cultural material in an expurgated or distorted fashion in an effort to appeal to a large number of tourists or consumers.

    the Free On-line Dictionary
    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Disneyfication

: the transformation (as of something real or unsettling) into carefully controlled and safe entertainment or an environment with similar qualities
First known use of Disneyfication - 1959

    Merriam-Webster
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Disneyfication
: The alternate term ‘Disneyization’ has the same meaning.
As applied specifically to juvenile entertainment or theme parks, the term appears have been first used in the late 1950’s (specifically related to the Walt Disney company’s operations).  A wider application of the term started being applied by social scientists and cultural critics during the 1990’s :

    The terms are generally used in a negative way, and they imply homogenization of consumption, merchandising, and emotional labor. They can be used more broadly to describe the processes of stripping a real place or event of its original character and repackaging it in a sanitized format. References to anything negative are removed, and the facts are watered down with the intent of making the subject more pleasant and easily grasped.

    Wikapedia

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyfication


In the Wikapedia overview above, ‘emotional labour’ is specifically mentioned. This refers to a specific expectation / requirement of the behaviour of those undertaking ‘content delivery’.  ‘Providers’ are to be expansively enthusiastic of the content and objectives. They are to constantly maintain a ‘happy’ aspect. They are to avoid, at all costs, any comment or behaviour that might possibly prove, in any way what so ever, to be ‘offensive’ to the many individual ‘consumers’.  (1)

‘Happy consumer’ is the ultimate goal under Disneyfication.

I first became aware of the term - and it’s application, at the 1999 Association for Living History, Farm and Agricultural Museums (ALHFAM) annual conference at Waterloo, Ontario. Within the greater community of Museums, especially Living History Museums, ‘Disneyfication’ was then, and remains today, a very derogatory label. 
As more and more business managers have replaced historians as museum directors, this process of diluting, pacifying (and often plain altering), historical fact, for ‘ease of public consumption’, has escalated. The massive growth of ‘edu-tainment’ in popular media is a dominant example of this.


So, I was bit shocked, certainly dismayed (and frankly, a bit offended), when the administrator of a college level course I was a sessional instructor at, used the term in discussion with me last August. Stated as a desirable method and chosen objective of the program I was involved in.
It is massively clear that between myself and this college’s administration that :  “our philosophical approaches to a (name omitted) program are not aligned.”

As important to me personally that the passing of hard won knowledge and experience to a new generation may be, I consider a ’Disneyfication’ approach to be totally incorrect. 
I do not consider students to be ‘consumers’ of a ‘product’.
Education should not be reduced to mere ‘customer satisfaction’.
‘Bums in the seats’ is not the measure of a successful educational program.

I am making a clear distinction here between ‘general interest' * and ‘technical’ programs.
A technical program is being defined here as one with fixed physical objectives, defined skills to be acquired, with certificate or diploma only awarded on full and successful completion. 

• Effective completion of assigned tasks and the demonstration of the acquisition of specific skills is the requirement. 
• An artificial environment of ‘all can do, all will succeed’ does not represent reality - and should not be created (2). 
• The assumption of ‘I paid my fee = I get my certificate’ must be enforced as false. 
• Making a student ‘happy’ is not a requirement of awarding a passing grade.

Otherwise the value of that certificate becomes virtually meaningless to those outside that specific college environment.
* In a ‘general interest’ program, there may be more latitude to consider ‘desire’ on the part of students.


So, Grasshopper…
Examine closely the approaches to teaching a physical skill being described by an Institution and individual instructors.
My (wise?) advice is to avoid those who merely are ‘giving you what you want’.

Beware those who promise easy success.

There are no short cuts to acquiring skill.

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_labor

2)’All people have value’ is something I truly believe.
 ‘All people are equal’ is a lie however - and NOT the same thing.
I personally can not run a mile, my vision is poor, have huge problems with correct spelling. The accurate truth is not all people can do everything, or at identical ability.
(If you are blind - you can not undertake hand forge work. Period.)

Elora Sculpture Project - 2019

... on the generation of an idea.

Climate Change

Mass Extinction Events

'Mecha-Fossil' series : Summer 2015

... more to come!

I have been extremely pleased to have had work chosen for inclusion in the Elora Sculpture Project every year since 2013 :

Layers : 2013

Spears of Summer : 2014

Armoured Fish : 2015

Barrel Turbine : 2016

Hello / Goodbye : 2017

Legacy : 2018

Blooms to Bars - some Data

Regular readers here will have noticed a bit of a theme over the last posts. Again, this whole thing was sparked by two things :
First an attempt to catch up on long promised cutting and distributing some blooms made during combination demonstration / teaching events.
Second how I can't give an simple answer to a simple question (!!). In this case 'How much stuff can you make from a single bloom'.

Now I had undertaken a specific 'Bloom to Bar' project, back in 2012. (1)
When I looked back at my notes - I realised that although I had compiled a massive overview table of the data - I had never actually published this. (The only table available on the web site documentation is from Spring of 2006 !)

'Conclusions' - Blooms to Bars - c 2018

I have dug around through my notes and various past blog reports. There are likely a few individual attempts missing. You can see that in many cases, the compaction / refining process has not been carried out to its full sequence into a 'perfect' working bar. Only some of those bars had gone on to completed objects. (2)

A much more complete version of this table has been (just) published on the main documentation. This includes links back to each of the individual smelt events, plus links to the objects as created.

Some Observations :

Bloom Yield :
This is based on raw ore to finished bloom.
- Quality of iron ore is an important element in overall yields. The majority of the smelts here used our proven 'DARC Dirt' analog (red iron oxide).
- Most of the smelts were on the lower ore volume end, most typically using 30 kg ore addition. It has been shown that there will be a rapid increase in bloom size, as additional ore is added (The two 'Smeltfest 06' blooms were created using roughly 45 kg ore, for example).
- All the smelts listed are using the 'Sauder & Williams' system of high air volumes, supplied by electric blowers. This method certainly results in higher yields than those typically found with use of various human powered air systems. (3)
- The standard here is the blooms have undergone a single compaction series, hand hammered, from the initial extraction heat.

To / Welds :
My own normal process is :

Bloom / Section compressed to 'Plate'

Plate cut & folded, welded and drawn to a 'Book'

Book has been welded and drawn to a 'Billet'

3rd Weld series, flattened at 90 degrees to last series

Welded / Drawn / Flattened to finished Working Bar

The sequence shown above is for #9 on the table, but does represent a general pattern I undertake.  (This full sequence is shown in detail on a blog post)

'Welds' here refers to one complete weld series, not an individual forge weld. My normal practice is to make my first weld using a lighter hand hammer. This allows me both control and speed, but not as good penetration. The result is more of a 'tack' weld, which will (mostly) seal the seams between pieces. I then follow up with a heavy 'consolodation' weld, using the air hammer. Due to the irregular shape of blooms, especially at the compaction of plate and plate to 'book' There are likely to be additional welding heats taken to forge in the fractured edges. Taken together, there may be 3 or 4 individual welding heat cycles to each of the 'sequences' as recorded here.
This is important, but there is a clear relationship between number of weld sequences and yield. A casual observation is roughly 10 % of the mass is lost for each weld sequence I have undertaken.

As you see, a number of these sequences were only taken to the first step, bloom to plate. This done specifically, as the intent was to create bowl forms from the material. As a raw material turned into artistic forgings, I specifically chose to retain flaws in the 'finished' bars.
Again this would skew any attempt to calculate an average loss.

Total Return :
This may be the more interesting number of the table. The number here is based on the loss of ore to bloom, then again from bloom to bar = ore to bar.
Taken overall, the rough average here is about 30% working bar from ore. I would not present this as definitive (especially given the variables discussed above), but at least suggests some earlier reported figures (as low as 10% return) may not be truly representative.

Obviously, the major flaw in these numbers is the result of the dominance of purely modern methods and especially machine tools :
- use of electric blowers for smelt air
- coal forge for the bloom to bar phase
- use of hydraulic press and air hammer for consolidation and bloom to bar phase

Ideally, this work should be continued, working closer and closer to all historically accurate tools especially. (4)


( 1)

Blooms to Bars : Supported by a Grant from the Ontario Arts Council

(2) It is obvious here that my main stress has been to testing various historic based furnace systems. To that end, each smelt is typically using a dependable, but smaller volume, of ore - the standard is 30 kg.
To date, I have produced about 75 individual blooms. You can see that only 15 of these have been worked down into a 'bloom to bar' sequence.
(This is not actually either the full number of sequences - or the correct total of objects I have created from bloom iron. Looking back, I can see several work sessions never had detailed notes recorded at the time!)

(3) The difference in yields between machine air and human air is dramatic. Typically, our own tests with variations of 'Viking Age' bellows systems have produced yields in the 15 - 20% range. The same furnace / ore / sequence, only with increased air volumes from electric blowers more typically produces yields in the 25 - 30 % range. A clear example is the listed Vinland 2 (electric) @ 27% and Vinland 4 (human) @ 8% - where everything else was virtually identical.

(4) Fortunately, others in the Iron Smelting / Living History community have also been working on the same problems :
Gotz Breitenbucher, a member of the wider Experimental Iron Smelting community (based in Norway)
Črtomir Harald Lorenči, who had expanded his work through academic studies into Early Irish ironworking / smelting
Thijs van de Manakker, one of the originals in this field. Thijs (from the Netherlands) has well documented his work via video on YouTube
Note that these are hardly the only experimenters in the field! These people had made recent comments / contributions to things I have posted here.