hawktrainer

[hawktrainer]

US Patent 1533300 (1920-1925)

Description

R. BAKER METHOD OF MAKING DECORATIVE ARTICLES Filed Nov. 12, 1920 April 14, 192s. 1,533,300

l WITNESSES: INVENTOR 1/7 WWW-W i9 galplz flake!" ATTORNEY Patented Apr. 14, 1925 UNITED y 1,53 ATENT ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY,

A CORPORATION OF PENNSYLVANIA.

\ METHOD OF MAKING DECORATIVE ARTICLES.

Application filed November 12, 1920. Serial No. 423,647..

To all whom it may concern: Be it known that I, RALPH BAKER, a citizen of the United States, and'a resident of 'Wilkinsburg, in the county of Allegheny and State of Pennsylvania, have invented a new and useful Improvement in Methods of Making Decorative Articles, of which the following is. a specification. p

This invention relates to ornamental arc welding, more especially to utilizing an electric are, such as is ordinarily employed for electric welding, for the formation of deposits to produce receptacles or containers of ornamental and useful shapes.

I have found that metal derived from a fusible metal electrode by the passage of a current therethr'ough may be so deposited in superposed layers as to form various articles of an ornamental and useful nature, it being among the objects of my invention to produce such objects of various designs.

Another object of my invention is to construct walls of receptacles or containers by manipulating a fusible electrode helically to form superposed deposits of metal;

A further object of my invention is to provide mechanlcal control means for manipulating an electrode to obtain predetermined, uniform deposits of metal.

In practising my invention, I generally provide a non-adherent base plate on which the metal is deposited by an arc formed between the base plate and a fusible metal electrode. Thecurrent used is of such magnitude as is consistent with the speed at which the electrode is manipulated and the thickness of the deposit desired, the current value. usually varying from 5,000 to 10,000 amperes per square inch.

In the accompanying drawings which illustrate several embodiments of my invention,

Fig. 1 is a view, in perspective, of an article formed on a metal plate, and con-.

sisting of superposed layers of metal deposited thereon in accordance with my in vention; V

Fig. 2 is a similar view of an article of somewhat different structure;

Fig. 3 is an elevational view of a wall section showing a sequence of deposits formed in accordance. with my invention.

In order td form receptacles or other objects by my method, I provide a fusible electrode of metal placed in a suitable welding circuit. In accordance with this invention, any suitable motion may be given to the electrode to form various configurations built up of superposed layers of metal deposits to form containers.

To form an integral structure, I utilize a non-fusible base plate, and, by manipulating the electrode to form an endless spiral deposit having a lead equal to the. width of the deposit, I form the base or bottom of a container. In forming the side walls, I manipulate the electrode in a circular manner, forming a continuous heli'x of deposited metal having a lead equal to the depth of the of the deposit.

In forming a complete container from deposited metal, I generally utilize a metal base plate of a high thermal conductivity and capacity which rapidly diffuses the heat of the are, thus preventing fusion of the metal deposits to the plate. In some instances, I may utilize a base plate of low thermal capacity or of the same metal as the fusible electrode and allow the deposited metal to adhere thereto to form an integral part thereof.

I establish an are between a fusible metal electrode and a base plate 1 to form a deposit 2 of the desired shape or outline, either round, as shown in Fig. 1, or elliptical, as shown in Fig. 2, or of any suitable contour. By manipulating the electrode to follow the same outline as deposit 2 over and over again, I obtain an endless deposit forming superposed layers

 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc., constituting the walls of the container. A double or extra heavy deposit 9 may be formed as the top layer of theconta-iner, and handles

 10 may be formed on the body, as shown, by superposing deposits in a suitable manner.

I need not necessarily manipulate the electrode by hand. If the electrode is to be manipulated to form a number of articles having like contour, pantographic or other apparatus, such as is used by engravers, may be employed. This invention allows a wide latitude of design and manipulation. 1 The superposed deposits may be combined into any one of a large. num er of designs, patterns, objects of art, utensils, imitations of objects. trimmings for objects, etc.

It is to be understood that, although I have described my invention as including the use of a metallic-electrode weldi'ng arc, it is not limited to the use thereof, but other means for depositing molten metals, in a manner similar to that described, may be used. For instance, a carbon arc may be used in combination with a fusible. metal rod or bar.

I claim as my invention:

1. A method of forming metal deposits into receptacles which comprises establishing an are between a fusible electrode and a metal base, and manipulating said electrode to produce superposed deposits to form the walls of a receptacle.

2. A method of depositing metal which comprises establishing an are between a fusible electrode and a metal base, and manipulating said are on said base to form an endless helix of superposed deposits.

Lteaaoo 3. A method of depositing metal which comprises establishing an are between a fusible metal electrode and a non-adherent metal base plate, manipulating said are spirally to form contiguous layers, and forming an endless helix of superposed deposits thereon.

4. A receptacle comprising superposed layers of fused metal. v

5. A receptacle comprising a spiral deposit of fused metal forming a base of contiguous layers, and superposed layers of fused metal forming the walls thereof.

6. A receptacle comprising contiguous and superposed deposits of fused metal having projections I deposited thereon.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name this 3rd day of N ovemher, 1920.

RALPH BAKER.

[hawktrainer]

Two essays on evolution:

[hawktrainer]

An unseen industry: When Neanderthals turned bone into tools

[hawktrainer]

Evolutionary orientation

When I was a kid my father seemed to have a fascination with human evolution and ancient peoples. I remember he read Donald Johanson’s book “Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind” and excitedly talked about it each night at the dinner table for several nights in a row. We took several trips to the Southwestern US to visit Ancestral Pueblan sites, like Mesa Verde, Canyon de Chelly, etc. We was a geologist for the petroleum industry and I think from that he gleaned an interest in fossils, the history found in rocks, and the amazing ways that humans had inhabited the rock formations on the Southwestern desert of the US.

I had always had a deep interest in how everything around me came into being, but especially anything human-made, so there was certainly an overlap between his interests and my own, and I his excitement impressed upon and transferred to me in a lot of ways. During my teens and much of my 20′s my interest was more in socializing and other things, but my work with coiled basketry and cotton rope rekindled my interest in human evolution in my early 30′s. I understood, or at least had some strong hunch, that the roots of the techniques and materials I was using were quite ancient, and I wanted to get an idea of just how ancient. Quick spoiler alert: we have no real answer, but some of the most current evidence goes back around 50,00 years ago. 

While making that type of work I spend a lot of time listening to podcasts and audiobooks, and gravitated toward science, and nonfiction in general. Carl Sagan’s books and Cosmos series helped me to get an understanding of Deep Time, Big History, and Deep History. These concepts profoundly effected my understanding of everything, and will continue to give me goose bumps and shake me to my core.

Later, in 2014 or 2015, I read Yuval Harari’s Sapiens, after reading Jared Diamond’s The Third Chimpanzee the preceding year. These really lit a fire in me. My knowledge of human evolution had been quite basic, something like the deeply flawed popular 1965 illustration, “March of Progress”. I now see that most people, if they believe in evolution at all, also seem to carry this basic understanding of human evolution, and of evolution in general, which is unfortunate. Anyhow, reading those books introduced me to the idea that not only had numerous other humans species existed (as the genus Homo), but several of them existed concurrently with us (homo sapiens) for many thousands of years.

So, over the last 10 years I have read at least a couple dozen books, and watched countless documentaries and videos around this topic. I can’t seem to get enough of the subject, and have been seriously considering getting another degree in anthropology, though I’m quite hesitant. Through all this reading there have been many changes in my perspective human culture/behavior, past and present. There’s obviously an infinite amount to talk about on the subject (literally, as there will never be “answers”), but one thing has been on my mind a lot lately, enough to take the time to write this.

In speaking and writing about evolution, there is often (maybe even mostly) usage of words/phrases that imply either an intentionality or the sense of being consciously directed by a force/deity/higher power. Perhaps more often, words are used that imply something happened instantly. Of course this appears in most of the articles and videos in mass-media related to evolution, but I’ve noticed in many books written by experts in biology, anthropology, sociology,  and other related sciences. It always irks me because it seems to undermine the very idea of evolution, and thwarts much of the effort to educate people about evolution. Some examples of these types of words often used to describe evolutionary phenomena, which I find to be problematic: 

-strategy (like an animal has an evolutionary “strategy” for survival) -tool (used much like “strategy”) -design (obviously implying some intentional shaping my an outside force or conscious internal force) -created (used in a way that implies active, intentional creation) -suddenly (this is often used in a way that implies things appeared within one generation of even a few years; or that they appeared one time in one place) -missing link (lots of writing about why this is incorrect) -using the word “developed” or phrase “came up with” in reference to some biological feature in a way that implies that an animal or group of animals consciously decided to change their genes. -first (as in “the first neanderthal”, the “first dinosaurs”)

If you watch or read anything about evolution try to notice this type of language. You will probably find that it is everywhere. Even when an author is trying to be careful to be accurate, they’re often thwarted by the same pitfalls in thinking about evolution and the nature of how everything came to be as it is. Evolution happens very slowly, over many generations. Genetics and archeology have shown us that there is no purity of species- that all living things are an incredibly complex and always changing blend of ingredients from many sources, and those sources were also all incredibly complex blends. There was no “first” Neanderthal, or dog, etc. What we have defined as a species came about through a gradual series of changes over a very long period of time. Its not like suddenly a Homo Habilis female one day gave birth to a baby Homo Erectus.   Evolution is also basically random and chaotic. The biological traits and behavior of living things were not designed, strategized, or created, given tools, or given abilities. Those traits and behaviors developed randomly over many generations, through the chaos of time and nature. Traits also tend to fade in and out multiple times, very gradually, across time and geography, blending together in complex ways. Furthermore, changes in traits and behaviors brought about by human intervention (such as the many breeds of dogs, or different types of tomatoes for example) are not considered natural evolution. Those are referred to as “artificial evolution” or “selective breeding”, but are often confused with the process of evolution.

Beyond this, there’s a general attitude that evolution = improvement. This seems to arrive from the old idea of evolution as “survival of the fittest”, which sees evolution as a process of “weeding out” species that aren’t well-enough adapted to pressures in their environment. This implies that evolution is a process of optimization, and that the current/latest form of the species is the “best” or most finely adapted or perfected to their specific environment. We don’t have to look much further than our own homo sapiens bodies to see that this isn’t the case. Our bipedalism introduces so many potential orthopedic problems, causes us to move quite slowly, etc., that if evolution were a process of optimization our skeletons and musculature would be very different. 

I’m not a writer, so I’m sure there are many weakness in how I’ve tried to make these points, but in general I hope the idea is getting across. I’m also not an evolutionary biologist - so I’m sure some of what I’ve written is incorrect in a number of ways. There’s so much more to say about this topic, though, and maybe I’ll expand upon this in the future. Learning about evolution has taught me as much about how humans currently tend to, or want to think about and explain the world than how the world actually is/was. My issues with this says a lot about me specifically, perhaps - how my brain works, my insecurities and fears, etc.

[hawktrainer]

(via http://i0.wp.com/themindcircle.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Ganluyan-Temple.jpg)

[hawktrainer]

ancient architecture Ark of Bukhara, Uzbekistan

[hawktrainer]

Making a "Phil" Mug on the pottery wheel — narrated version

[hawktrainer]

Image Credit : Margherita Mussi, Eduardo Mendez-Quintas

[hawktrainer]

via

[hawktrainer]

One time in grad school I was sitting in on a review/critique of work in the sculpture department. We were reviewing an installation that was situated in the sunroom of a private dwelling space on campus. The installation was made so that what appeared to be sections of the wood floor had been raised into the space upon curved steel rods/supports. In undergrad I had studied both art and architecture, though most of my time and effort was directed toward the architecture work. My friends, colleagues, and teachers in the art department there generally related to me as a non-artist (not always of course) and I always wished I could have been more a part of the world/scene/culture in the art department. I chose to attend Cranbrook for grad school because I was given the impression that the architecture department was essentially a sculpture department and my work could be whatever I wanted, and for that time I would emerge with an MArch degree which would help towards my goal of getting a teaching job. I was excited to connect with the artists in other departments, especially sculpture, and being able to sit in on their reviews felt like a privilege and something I had been really looking forward to, like a place were I could feel more “myself” perhaps. During the part of the session in which the discussion had been open for comments from anyone, I commented that it seemed like the wood was being lifted up towards the sun (the roof was a pitched window-wall/skylight like you would expect in a greenhouse) for some reason, and the form of the supports suggested some kind of plant-like root system that was emerging from the ground, seeking light. The professor/department head leading the critique, who seemed to be highly respected and loved by her students, followed up my comment with something to the effect of “uhhh.. ok let’s stick with what’s actually happening here”. It was delivered in a tone that was slightly mocking or questioning my experience of the work as fantastical, silly, weird, crazy, etc. I remember noticing other students looking at me to see how I would react to her comment, with looks of concern. As far as I knew, no guidelines for comments or ground rules for the critiques had been given that would have made my comment out of bounds. I turned red and felt like an idiot, an outsider, an impostor, inept. I didn’t speak in any of the sculpture department reviews after that, and for years questioned my abilities to understand art, or that maybe I wasn’t experiencing it in the correct way. When im invited to speak about others’ work as maybe a guest critic, advisor, mentor, etc. I have to put aside a great deal of anxiety, impostor syndrome, and self doubt, but afterwards it all comes back and I question wether everything I said made any sense, was helpful, insightful, etc. I absolutely love discussions about art, design, and the nature of everything, but they also feel like a trap.

My first time at Haystack was in 2015 and I was fortunate to be leading a basketry workshop there. During the same session there was a visiting artist who was a renowned and beloved illustrator, though I was unfortunately only slightly familiar with her work before that time. Leading up to the session many colleagues had expressed envy that I’d get to meet this artist, that she was one of their heroes, etc., which made me feel like it was indeed a privilege. Sometime toward the middle of the session she hosted a brief drawing workshop on the deck of her cabin at haystack. I was excited at the opportunity to attend, and it felt like it would be a special highlight of my time there. During the session we did some drawing, doodling, or sketching exercises from prompts given to us by the artist. If I remember correctly we were prompted to draw a floor plan of our childhood room, and then write about a significant experience/memory of our childhood room. For me one memory from my childhood that I think about often is a thought-game/fantasy I used to have in which I imagined that I was locked in my room and being watched via camera looking through the AC vent in the ceiling, which broadcast my every move to some authoritarian or deity-like figures somewhere else. In order to be let out of the room I had to arrange every object in the room in a very specific position, which was never revealed to me. It could be that I had to place my toy race car on top of a pair of shorts (which had to be folded or crumpled in a very specific way), which would be positioned on the left edge of my dresser, which had to be angled out from my wall at a specific distance and degree, which was a right angle to my pillow, which was leaning up against the bed with a variety of other object placed around it, etc. etc etc. essentially it was an impossible, never-ending guessing game, but there was a sense that there was a specific way things had to be, which others knew but which I did not know, and that my ability to escape the situation would only come about through accurately intuiting or figuring out this infinite guessing game. This fantasy game led me to create all kinds of interesting installations and object arrangements in my room, spending many many hours doing so, fantasizing if they were “correct”. Sometimes, after hours of arranging, I would go open the door (there was no lock of any kind on the door) and find it would open freely and I would either be reminded that it was just a game, there was no one watching me, or I’d pretend that I had finally won. In both instances, I felt free and stepping out of my room felt like a captive animal being set free, back into the wild. I would take a big breathe of fresh air and appreciate everything around me, my freedom, my expanded environment, much more deeply. For the exercise at haystack, drawing the floor plan reminded me how the placement all the furniture and objects had such a significant importance for me because of this game. I wrote briefly about the game next to my plan drawing. Afterwards we were asked to share about our drawing/writing. I shared mine briefly, and the artist made a comment suggesting that I was crazy, sort of a “you need to get your head checked” type of comment. It wasn’t delivered in a teasing, light hearted, or joking way, but rather with a kind of surprise, concern, there’s-something-wrong-with-you kind of way. She quickly moved on to the next person. I turned red and felt embarrassed, like a weirdo, and questioned if maybe I really was mentally “not well” somehow. I tried to brush it off and continued with the workshop exercises quietly. I tried to not do anything too personal or revealing or unusual after that.

Sketching and delving into the fantasy spaces of my mind for a long time after that felt questionable and I wondered what would be a “normal” or better way to sketch or draw. That started to bleed into other areas of my work in some ways. I didn’t have resentment towards the artists for their comments, but instead I still held them in high regard. They were older, vastly more accomplished, well known, experienced, and celebrated than I ever will be, so I took their reactions/comments as meaningful. They must have been right, and there must have been something wrong with me.

These are just two instances that stand out in my memory, and they popped into my head today after reading something David Berman wrote about his childhood nature that resonated with me. I guess I’ve always placed a lot of weight on what others say, think, or communicate, to a level that affects me in profound and often unhealthy ways. Coming from artists with such shining reputations, these kind of experiences, wether my experience or memory of them is accurate or not, have shaped me in cumulatively and have enveloped the sharing my work and thoughts with a huge amount of anxiety. Of course, there are so many other factors that have also contributed to this and im not singling these out as “the” causes. A few months ago I was evaluated and formally diagnosed with ADHD and I’ve since come to understand that a big part of this anxiety, feelings of being weird/other, inept, or inescapably “different” are common for those with ADHD or other neurodivergent minds. It’s apparently very common for people with ADHD to gravitate towards more creative careers. I’m not writing this about ADHD, but my new knowledge about how my brain works has me reviewing these types of experiences I’ve had and is helping me to experience them in new/different ways. I guess those two experiences stand out in my life as offering numerous insights into my experience of the world, the complexities of social interaction/structure, human behavior and creative output. I’m working to be more accepting of myself and my brain, and not so affected by the views of others; and im wanting to use this space as another channel in which I can expose myself rather than hide in fear.