An Iraqi minister reports that an agreement has been reached that will bolster the country’s communication capabilities.
Per a report in Iraq Business News, Iraq’s Minister of Communications, Dr. Hayam Al-Yasiri, announced an agreement with Qatar’s Ooredoo Group to lay undersea cables with a capacity of 500 terabits at the Al-Faw station.
The 24-pair cables will significantly boost Iraq’s international communication capacity by connecting to over 200 global undersea cables, from Oman through the Gulf and Al-Faw, extending to Europe. Al-Yasiri said the project will enhance Iraq’s geographic positioning as a key hub for international data traffic, and also serves as an alternative to the Suez Canal and is attractive to global investors. Ooredoo is the parent company of Iraqi mobile phone service Asiacell.
The Basics
The essential information on facts, stories, and principles in the wire and cable industry.
Last May, Bard and ChatGPT “responded” to a request from WJI as to why people in manufacturing should not fear AI. Now, they respond to a second request: do they agree with a legal ruling that AI cannot be listed as an inventor on a patent? Below are their responses, followed by the thoughts of WJI Patent Columnist Bill Honaker.
Bard’s perspective:
As a large language model, I believe the current legal stance on AI inventorship is justified, with some nuances. Here’s why:
Lack of intent and moral rights. Unlike humans, AI lacks the independent capacity to form intent and pursue goals. My outputs are based on my training data and prompts, not on a conscious desire to solve problems or innovate. Granting me inventorship would ignore the human effort behind my creation and training, diluting the moral rights of true inventors.
Unclear attribution and accountability. AI models are complex, incorporating data from countless sources. Identifying the specific contribution of AI in an invention is challenging, raising potential attribution disputes and ethical concerns. Additionally, holding an AI accountable for potential harm caused by its creations is legally complicated.
System integrity and misuse. Recognizing AI as inventors could weaken the patent system. Malicious actors could exploit AI to generate spurious inventions, flooding the system and eroding trust. Moreover, granting legal rights to AI creates ethical ambiguities when considering potential misuse of the invention for harmful purposes.
While I support the current legal stance, the debate is evolving. As AI advances, we may need to revisit the definition of “inventor” and explore alternative models for protecting AI-generated innovations. This could involve recognizing the contributions of both programmers and AI as part of a collaborative inventive process, without attributing full inventorship to the AI itself.
Ultimately, the goal should be to foster AI innovation while safeguarding the integrity of the patent system, protecting human ownership, and ensuring responsible development and use of AI-driven inventions.
ChatGPT’s perspective
The question of whether AI, like me, should be listed as an inventor on a patent application touches upon complex and evolving legal, ethical, and technological considerations. I’ll outline why, under current understandings and legal frameworks, it is generally agreed that AI should not be listed as an inventor due to the nature of invention and inventorship.
Human-centric definition of inventorship. The concept of an “inventor” in patent law has traditionally been human-centric. It is rooted in the idea that an inventor applies a non-obvious and novel thought process to solve a problem or create something new. This human-centric view underpins most intellectual property laws, which are designed to protect human creativity and ingenuity.
AI as a tool, not a creator. AI, including myself, operates based on algorithms and data provided by humans. We process information and generate outputs based on predefined parameters and learning from vast datasets. This process, while sophisticated, is fundamentally different from human creativity. AI does not possess consciousness, intent, or the ability to conceptualize problems and solutions in the way humans do. We are tools used by human inventors to achieve certain tasks more efficiently.
Legal precedents and policies. Current legal systems in many jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, have upheld the principle that inventors must be natural persons. This reflects a broader legal recognition that AI, as of now, does not have legal personhood or the capacity for legal rights and responsibilities. Allowing AI to be listed as an inventor would require a significant overhaul of existing legal frameworks and an examination of the consequences of granting such a status to non-human entities.
Ethical and responsibility considerations. Assigning inventorship to AI raises ethical questions about responsibility and accountability. In the realm of patents, the inventor bears certain responsibilities and enjoys specific rights. If an AI were listed as an inventor, it would be challenging to address issues like moral responsibility for the invention or the handling of rights and profits derived from it.
Innovation and incentive structure. The patent system is designed to incentivize human innovation. Granting patents to humans for their inventive activities encourages further research and development. If AI were recognized as inventors, it might complicate this incentive structure, possibly devaluing human contribution and effort.
In conclusion, under the current legal, ethical, and technological landscape, it is appropriate that AI is not listed as an inventor on patent applications. This stance aligns with the fundamental principles of inventorship, the nature of AI as a tool rather than a creator, legal precedents, and the broader objectives of the patent system. Recognizing AI as an inventor would necessitate a reevaluation of many underlying principles of law and ethics, a task that society and legal systems are not presently equipped to undertake.
Editor’s note: the AI "responses" were attained by WAI Director of Technology Chuck Szymaszek.
Bill Honaker’s perspective
The AI perspectives are generally correct but have errors. Of the two perspectives, Chat GPT’s perspective is more accurate. Both have errors in their comments. This is to be expected. Even Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, creator of ChatGPT, doesn’t trust its answers. He recently said, “I probably trust the answers that come out of ChatGPT the least of anybody on Earth.”
I found Bard’s perspective to be the least helpful. Bard’s comment that granting it inventorship would ignore the human effort behind its creation and training, really misses the mark. An inventor is anyone who conceived of the invention in any claim within the patent. Creating or adjusting the tools is irrelevant. Bard also discusses being held liable for harm caused by being an inventor. To my knowledge, no inventor has ever been found liable for an invention that later caused harm. The use of the product may create liability, but not inventing it.
ChatGPT’s perspective is more correct. The only error was the comment that inventors apply a non-obvious and novel thought process to solve a problem or create something new. Inventors use thought to create non-obvious and novel solutions. This is important to understand: it’s the result that must be new and non-obvious, not how one thinks.
I enjoyed reading ChatGPT’s admission that AI does not possess consciousness, intent or the ability to conceptualize problems and solutions in the way humans do. That’s the problem with relying on the output from AI. They can’t anticipate problems and propose solutions.
I agree that AI is a tool for human inventors to get results more efficiently, and when people use it, they should be named as inventors. The USPTO suggested this when confronted with AI being named as an inventor. Dabus (short for “Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Science”) is an AI system created by Stephen Thalen. Dabus was named as the sole inventor on two patent applications. The US Patent and Trademark office suggested that Thalen name himself as the inventor, but he refused. As a result, the USPTO refused the application. The same result occurred in other countries where he filed, except for South Africa, which issued the first AI patent.
The AI responses also failed to discuss who owns AI inventions. I asked ChatGPT, and it was wrong. It said that the creator of the AI device would own the invention. This is what Thalen argued. But in the U.S., the inventor owns the invention unless assigned to another. Thalen felt he should own it because he created the inventor. If this were the case, every mother and father throughout history would own every invention, since they created their sons and daughters.
Last May, Bard and ChatGPT “responded” to a request from WJI as to why people in manufacturing should not fear AI. Now, they respond to a second request: do they agree with a legal ruling that AI cannot be listed as an inventor on a patent? Below are their responses, followed by the thoughts of WJI Patent Columnist Bill Honaker.
Bard’s perspective:
As a large language model, I believe the current legal stance on AI inventorship is justified, with some nuances. Here’s why:
Lack of intent and moral rights. Unlike humans, AI lacks the independent capacity to form intent and pursue goals. My outputs are based on my training data and prompts, not on a conscious desire to solve problems or innovate. Granting me inventorship would ignore the human effort behind my creation and training, diluting the moral rights of true inventors.
Unclear attribution and accountability. AI models are complex, incorporating data from countless sources. Identifying the specific contribution of AI in an invention is challenging, raising potential attribution disputes and ethical concerns. Additionally, holding an AI accountable for potential harm caused by its creations is legally complicated.
System integrity and misuse. Recognizing AI as inventors could weaken the patent system. Malicious actors could exploit AI to generate spurious inventions, flooding the system and eroding trust. Moreover, granting legal rights to AI creates ethical ambiguities when considering potential misuse of the invention for harmful purposes.
While I support the current legal stance, the debate is evolving. As AI advances, we may need to revisit the definition of “inventor” and explore alternative models for protecting AI-generated innovations. This could involve recognizing the contributions of both programmers and AI as part of a collaborative inventive process, without attributing full inventorship to the AI itself.
Ultimately, the goal should be to foster AI innovation while safeguarding the integrity of the patent system, protecting human ownership, and ensuring responsible development and use of AI-driven inventions.
ChatGPT’s perspective
The question of whether AI, like me, should be listed as an inventor on a patent application touches upon complex and evolving legal, ethical, and technological considerations. I’ll outline why, under current understandings and legal frameworks, it is generally agreed that AI should not be listed as an inventor due to the nature of invention and inventorship.
Human-centric definition of inventorship. The concept of an “inventor” in patent law has traditionally been human-centric. It is rooted in the idea that an inventor applies a non-obvious and novel thought process to solve a problem or create something new. This human-centric view underpins most intellectual property laws, which are designed to protect human creativity and ingenuity.
AI as a tool, not a creator. AI, including myself, operates based on algorithms and data provided by humans. We process information and generate outputs based on predefined parameters and learning from vast datasets. This process, while sophisticated, is fundamentally different from human creativity. AI does not possess consciousness, intent, or the ability to conceptualize problems and solutions in the way humans do. We are tools used by human inventors to achieve certain tasks more efficiently.
Legal precedents and policies. Current legal systems in many jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, have upheld the principle that inventors must be natural persons. This reflects a broader legal recognition that AI, as of now, does not have legal personhood or the capacity for legal rights and responsibilities. Allowing AI to be listed as an inventor would require a significant overhaul of existing legal frameworks and an examination of the consequences of granting such a status to non-human entities.
Ethical and responsibility considerations. Assigning inventorship to AI raises ethical questions about responsibility and accountability. In the realm of patents, the inventor bears certain responsibilities and enjoys specific rights. If an AI were listed as an inventor, it would be challenging to address issues like moral responsibility for the invention or the handling of rights and profits derived from it.
Innovation and incentive structure. The patent system is designed to incentivize human innovation. Granting patents to humans for their inventive activities encourages further research and development. If AI were recognized as inventors, it might complicate this incentive structure, possibly devaluing human contribution and effort.
In conclusion, under the current legal, ethical, and technological landscape, it is appropriate that AI is not listed as an inventor on patent applications. This stance aligns with the fundamental principles of inventorship, the nature of AI as a tool rather than a creator, legal precedents, and the broader objectives of the patent system. Recognizing AI as an inventor would necessitate a reevaluation of many underlying principles of law and ethics, a task that society and legal systems are not presently equipped to undertake.
Editor’s note: the AI "responses" were attained by WAI Director of Technology Chuck Szymaszek.
Bill Honaker’s perspective
The AI perspectives are generally correct but have errors. Of the two perspectives, Chat GPT’s perspective is more accurate. Both have errors in their comments. This is to be expected. Even Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, creator of ChatGPT, doesn’t trust its answers. He recently said, “I probably trust the answers that come out of ChatGPT the least of anybody on Earth.”
I found Bard’s perspective to be the least helpful. Bard’s comment that granting it inventorship would ignore the human effort behind its creation and training, really misses the mark. An inventor is anyone who conceived of the invention in any claim within the patent. Creating or adjusting the tools is irrelevant. Bard also discusses being held liable for harm caused by being an inventor. To my knowledge, no inventor has ever been found liable for an invention that later caused harm. The use of the product may create liability, but not inventing it.
ChatGPT’s perspective is more correct. The only error was the comment that inventors apply a non-obvious and novel thought process to solve a problem or create something new. Inventors use thought to create non-obvious and novel solutions. This is important to understand: it’s the result that must be new and non-obvious, not how one thinks.
I enjoyed reading ChatGPT’s admission that AI does not possess consciousness, intent or the ability to conceptualize problems and solutions in the way humans do. That’s the problem with relying on the output from AI. They can’t anticipate problems and propose solutions.
I agree that AI is a tool for human inventors to get results more efficiently, and when people use it, they should be named as inventors. The USPTO suggested this when confronted with AI being named as an inventor. Dabus (short for “Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Science”) is an AI system created by Stephen Thalen. Dabus was named as the sole inventor on two patent applications. The US Patent and Trademark office suggested that Thalen name himself as the inventor, but he refused. As a result, the USPTO refused the application. The same result occurred in other countries where he filed, except for South Africa, which issued the first AI patent.
The AI responses also failed to discuss who owns AI inventions. I asked ChatGPT, and it was wrong. It said that the creator of the AI device would own the invention. This is what Thalen argued. But in the U.S., the inventor owns the invention unless assigned to another. Thalen felt he should own it because he created the inventor. If this were the case, every mother and father throughout history would own every invention, since they created their sons and daughters.
Last May, Bard and ChatGPT “responded” to a request from WJI as to why people in manufacturing should not fear AI. Now, they respond to a second request: do they agree with a legal ruling that AI cannot be listed as an inventor on a patent? Below are their responses, followed by the thoughts of WJI Patent Columnist Bill Honaker.
Bard’s perspective:
As a large language model, I believe the current legal stance on AI inventorship is justified, with some nuances. Here’s why:
Lack of intent and moral rights. Unlike humans, AI lacks the independent capacity to form intent and pursue goals. My outputs are based on my training data and prompts, not on a conscious desire to solve problems or innovate. Granting me inventorship would ignore the human effort behind my creation and training, diluting the moral rights of true inventors.
Unclear attribution and accountability. AI models are complex, incorporating data from countless sources. Identifying the specific contribution of AI in an invention is challenging, raising potential attribution disputes and ethical concerns. Additionally, holding an AI accountable for potential harm caused by its creations is legally complicated.
System integrity and misuse. Recognizing AI as inventors could weaken the patent system. Malicious actors could exploit AI to generate spurious inventions, flooding the system and eroding trust. Moreover, granting legal rights to AI creates ethical ambiguities when considering potential misuse of the invention for harmful purposes.
While I support the current legal stance, the debate is evolving. As AI advances, we may need to revisit the definition of “inventor” and explore alternative models for protecting AI-generated innovations. This could involve recognizing the contributions of both programmers and AI as part of a collaborative inventive process, without attributing full inventorship to the AI itself.
Ultimately, the goal should be to foster AI innovation while safeguarding the integrity of the patent system, protecting human ownership, and ensuring responsible development and use of AI-driven inventions.
ChatGPT’s perspective
The question of whether AI, like me, should be listed as an inventor on a patent application touches upon complex and evolving legal, ethical, and technological considerations. I’ll outline why, under current understandings and legal frameworks, it is generally agreed that AI should not be listed as an inventor due to the nature of invention and inventorship.
Human-centric definition of inventorship. The concept of an “inventor” in patent law has traditionally been human-centric. It is rooted in the idea that an inventor applies a non-obvious and novel thought process to solve a problem or create something new. This human-centric view underpins most intellectual property laws, which are designed to protect human creativity and ingenuity.
AI as a tool, not a creator. AI, including myself, operates based on algorithms and data provided by humans. We process information and generate outputs based on predefined parameters and learning from vast datasets. This process, while sophisticated, is fundamentally different from human creativity. AI does not possess consciousness, intent, or the ability to conceptualize problems and solutions in the way humans do. We are tools used by human inventors to achieve certain tasks more efficiently.
Legal precedents and policies. Current legal systems in many jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, have upheld the principle that inventors must be natural persons. This reflects a broader legal recognition that AI, as of now, does not have legal personhood or the capacity for legal rights and responsibilities. Allowing AI to be listed as an inventor would require a significant overhaul of existing legal frameworks and an examination of the consequences of granting such a status to non-human entities.
Ethical and responsibility considerations. Assigning inventorship to AI raises ethical questions about responsibility and accountability. In the realm of patents, the inventor bears certain responsibilities and enjoys specific rights. If an AI were listed as an inventor, it would be challenging to address issues like moral responsibility for the invention or the handling of rights and profits derived from it.
Innovation and incentive structure. The patent system is designed to incentivize human innovation. Granting patents to humans for their inventive activities encourages further research and development. If AI were recognized as inventors, it might complicate this incentive structure, possibly devaluing human contribution and effort.
In conclusion, under the current legal, ethical, and technological landscape, it is appropriate that AI is not listed as an inventor on patent applications. This stance aligns with the fundamental principles of inventorship, the nature of AI as a tool rather than a creator, legal precedents, and the broader objectives of the patent system. Recognizing AI as an inventor would necessitate a reevaluation of many underlying principles of law and ethics, a task that society and legal systems are not presently equipped to undertake.
Editor’s note: the AI "responses" were attained by WAI Director of Technology Chuck Szymaszek.
Bill Honaker’s perspective
The AI perspectives are generally correct but have errors. Of the two perspectives, Chat GPT’s perspective is more accurate. Both have errors in their comments. This is to be expected. Even Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, creator of ChatGPT, doesn’t trust its answers. He recently said, “I probably trust the answers that come out of ChatGPT the least of anybody on Earth.”
I found Bard’s perspective to be the least helpful. Bard’s comment that granting it inventorship would ignore the human effort behind its creation and training, really misses the mark. An inventor is anyone who conceived of the invention in any claim within the patent. Creating or adjusting the tools is irrelevant. Bard also discusses being held liable for harm caused by being an inventor. To my knowledge, no inventor has ever been found liable for an invention that later caused harm. The use of the product may create liability, but not inventing it.
ChatGPT’s perspective is more correct. The only error was the comment that inventors apply a non-obvious and novel thought process to solve a problem or create something new. Inventors use thought to create non-obvious and novel solutions. This is important to understand: it’s the result that must be new and non-obvious, not how one thinks.
I enjoyed reading ChatGPT’s admission that AI does not possess consciousness, intent or the ability to conceptualize problems and solutions in the way humans do. That’s the problem with relying on the output from AI. They can’t anticipate problems and propose solutions.
I agree that AI is a tool for human inventors to get results more efficiently, and when people use it, they should be named as inventors. The USPTO suggested this when confronted with AI being named as an inventor. Dabus (short for “Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Science”) is an AI system created by Stephen Thalen. Dabus was named as the sole inventor on two patent applications. The US Patent and Trademark office suggested that Thalen name himself as the inventor, but he refused. As a result, the USPTO refused the application. The same result occurred in other countries where he filed, except for South Africa, which issued the first AI patent.
The AI responses also failed to discuss who owns AI inventions. I asked ChatGPT, and it was wrong. It said that the creator of the AI device would own the invention. This is what Thalen argued. But in the U.S., the inventor owns the invention unless assigned to another. Thalen felt he should own it because he created the inventor. If this were the case, every mother and father throughout history would own every invention, since they created their sons and daughters.
Sponsored by Dow
The Next Era of Connectivity
How innovative materials will enable 5G installation speed and resiliency
Dr. Paul Brigandi, Application Technology Leader, Dow
As the world’s need for high-speed data services drastically increases, so does the pressure and demand on the telecommunications industry to deliver consistent, high-quality connectivity. Experts predict that 5G connections will more than double by 2025, and relaying such massive amounts of data to devices will require millions of miles of new fiber optic cables.
How can the telecommunication industry keep up? Materials designed to last longer, ease cable installation, improve performance and provide greater reliability, can help the industry usher in the future of connectivity.
In areas where connectivity is essential, but space is limited, small, mini and micro fiber optic cables that are packed densely into conduits take up less space while still delivering high-speed services. The installation of these micro cables are air-blown into conduits, a process that can be optimized with a low coefficient of friction. And with quicker and easier air-blowing process for installation, they can also be more efficiently installed in existing conduits to reduce the need for more digging.
Of course, such immense amounts of cabling must be organized for safety and ease of troubleshooting. Laser printing is a fast, visible, and efficient way to mark and permanently identify cable jackets. Using other printing methods may impact the structural integrity of the micro cables making them more susceptible to being removed in air-blown installations. Laser printing removes the risk of damaging cables and improves long-term print durability.
Furthermore, improved durability enables higher-quality and a more reliable signal transmission which reduces the need for repairs or replacement cables
As cables are becoming smaller and denser to support the world’s high demand for connectivity, telecommunications technology must also advance to eliminate any compromise on quality. AXELERON™ FO 6321 BK is one such technology as the all-in-one solution for longer fiber optics cable lifecycle protection and more reliable telecommunications infrastructure.
Designed for micro cables that are up to 60% smaller, 70% lighter and packed more densely into conduits, AXELERON™ FO 6321 BK delivers industry leading low shrinkage rates compared to traditional jackets. With up to 25% less shrinkage, it can help reduce the stress on fiber optic cables that often lead to increased fiber attenuation. The jacketing material also enables laser printing with excellent mark contrast and highly visible marking – removing the risk of damaging cables and improving long-term print durability. AXELERON™ FO 6321 BK can help ease cable installation, improve reliability and usher the industry into the future of connectivity.
Please visit our site to learn more about AXELERON™ FO 6321 BK Telecom Cable Compound
About Dow
Dow (NYSE: DOW) combines global breadth; asset integration and scale; focused innovation and materials science expertise; leading business positions; and environmental, social and governance leadership to achieve profitable growth and help deliver a sustainable future. The Company's ambition is to become the most innovative, customer centric, inclusive and sustainable materials science company in the world. Dow's portfolio of plastics, industrial intermediates, coatings and silicones businesses delivers a broad range of differentiated, science-based products and solutions for its customers in high-growth market segments, such as packaging, infrastructure, mobility and consumer applications. Dow operates manufacturing sites in 31 countries and employs approximately 37,800 people. Dow delivered sales of approximately $57 billion in 2022. References to Dow or the Company mean Dow Inc. and its subsidiaries. For more information, please visit www.dow.com or follow @DowNewsroom on Twitter.
Wire Reel Moving Devices: A Proactive Approach to Safety that Improves Productivity and Profitability
Sponsored by PowerPusher
In recent years, improving worker safety has become an important focus in most industries, as job-related injuries can result in employee absenteeism, reduced productivity, and increased costs. Many material handling applications including reel moving, pose serious health and safety risks, requiring workers to move heavy loads either through sheer manpower or by using equipment that is unstable, difficult to control or ergonomically deficient. To overcome these safety challenges, the development of battery-operated tug devices allows employees to single-handedly move materials weighing thousands of pounds without exposing them to unnecessary risk of injury. Battery operated tugs enhance safety by preventing operator strain and reducing potential collisions on busy plant floors, resulting in improved productivity and efficiency—ultimately impacting a company’s overall profitability.
Material handling applications often require operators to move objects weighing thousands of pounds, which can result in serious safety and health consequences. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2021, an estimated 2.6 million workers in the United States suffered nonfatal work-related injuries, which not only affects productivity, but also directly impacts a company’s bottom line. Each injury results in workers’ compensation, insurance increases, lost productivity, and diverse indirect costs, which amount to billions of dollars each year nationwide.
Traditionally, industries have been utilizing manpower, forklift trucks and pallet jacks to transport goods throughout a facility. While effective solutions for moving goods, these devices create worker vulnerability by exposing them to potential injury, such as muscle strains, nerve damage or in some cases, even death. Lacking stability and control, forklifts and pallet jacks increase the likelihood of incidental contact with personnel and equipment, while manpower can lead to injuries resulting from overexertion.
With today’s industries moving faster than ever, implementing solutions that adhere to strict safety regulations without impacting productivity is crucial to meeting growing customer demands. The development of battery-operated tug units, which are capable of effortlessly moving thousands of pounds, eliminates excess strain or exertion to personnel for increased material handling safety. With their inherent stability, tugs accommodate uneven surfaces without tipping, and are engineered to simplify material mobility. This allows facility managers to not only minimize risk of injury, but also improve efficiency, productivity, and profitability.
Please visit our site to see the Compact Walk-Behind Electric Pushers & Tugs for Any Application.
Nu-Star Inc., parent company of PowerPusher®, is a global manufacturer of engineered solutions for material handling needs since 1959, and operates facilities in the US and UK. Learn more about their years of experience as a leading designer, manufacturer and innovator in the industry who provides state-of-the-art, reliable, cost-effective load-moving solutions that deliver tangible productivity and safety benefits in a wide variety of applications. Learn more at www.powerpusher.com and view the complete line of PowerPusher electric material handling tugs. To contact PowerPusher directly, call 800.800.9274 or visit https://powerpusher.com/contact/.
Dr. Horace Pops, an industry guru/presenter on the causes of wire breaks and fines, has continued to share his expertise as a consultant. The Past WAI President (1992-93) believes the industry has not fared well the last few years, and that there is more than one reason why. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
I wanted to share my thoughts in regards to the technical status of the wire and cable industry. As you might have guessed, I’m concerned, although the picture is not bleak. I was pleased to read about global R&D activity by the industry in the November 2022 issue of Wire Journal. Yet as an active consultant since 2005, I look at the overall industry and I see problems.
It’s not surprising that my activity has almost shut down completely since the onset of the Covid pandemic. I haven’t lost my desire or ability to travel, but overall, personnel are traveling to and from plants less. I may not be physically at plants, but I keep in touch with people, and I hear that many of these plants have the same processing and quality issues that occurred just a few years ago. It’s easy to cite Covid, but I believe what is going on predates that: many companies just do not have personnel with sufficient tenure or knowledge to solve these issues.
It appears that, outside of companies like Southwire and Prysmian, relatively few people with a STEM background are now employed in the wire and cable industry. I’m convinced that the percentage of employees at most wire and cable companies with a solid knowledge base has continued to decrease, and it only gets worse as more veteran employees retire. At the same time, more technical or R&D corporate facilities have either been reduced in size or even eliminated to cut overall costs. You don’t have to have a PhD to know that that is a bad combination. The result is that there are far more common production problems, such as wire breaks, excessive amounts of wire drawing fines, poor surface finish, and internal defects within castings and wires. The origin for those are well understood. They shouldn’t be happening, but they do.
There’s another contributing factor, and it’s related to hiring. Companies may be able to hire young people to fill key positions, such as engineers, but often they leave after just a few years of service because they can get higher salaries in other fields. It makes it hard to groom someone to get beyond the early stages where they are learning to be the ones who can be depended on.
Consequently, many plants in our industry do not have employees with a strong enough background to help solve the aforementioned quality issues. Although global in nature, this problem seems to be worse in North America. And I’m sorry to add to my list of perceived woes, but I think another trend that overall has made things worse is that many face-to-face conferences and meetings for technological societies have been replaced with virtual activities. There is less interaction, and while the virtual sessions may be easier to attend, the learning experience just does not have the same sense of depth. Finally, I see fewer technical articles being prepared and presented because many companies see little benefit.
So what does all of this mean? My above comments could be seen as what today is called a “soft quit” or “quit quitting.” Per Google, “Employee disengagement occurs when an employee backs off from their typical or expected levels of productivity. They quit going above and beyond in their role. Instead, many employees are prioritizing a better work-life balance by refusing to do extra work beyond their defined job descriptions.”
Albert Einstein once said, “The source of knowledge is experience.” When young employees are already more inclined to not stay in the same job—any job—for a long time, the industry needs to find a way of making the field a place where it can foster growth to that level.
Editor’s Note:
This occasional section will present information and perspectives in multiple fields by experts from the industry, think-tanks, associations, academia and other sources that provide thoughtful “big picture” analysis. Have an issue you’d like to discuss? Send the details to WJI at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
This occasional section has shared information from very smart people on cutting-edge technology, only a changing industry has different needs. And one is that more people come to a company knowing next to nothing about a given field. That’s why the best help one can provide them is not articles about advanced techniques but basic—really basic— information.
And that is what ‘Got Grooves?’ by industry veteran Eugene Klein Sr., president of Parkway-Kew, does for the realm of capstans and drawing blocks. It will not turn new employees into industry gurus, but it will make them feel more comfortable when there is a discussion. In surprisingly few pages, he answers a range of potential steel process woe questions.
• What are grooves and how are they formed?
• How do grooves cause process problems?
• Why are grooves worse for high-carbon steel?
• If slip causes grooves, why is some needed?
• Can grooves be avoided?
• What are cold starts, short holing and block swapping?
Klein, who has previously written columns for WJI, also discusses treatment of blocks, the value of having spare blocks and resurfacing blocks. He also shares his thoughts, among others, about goodwill inside a plant, matching equipment to a product line and why a bottom-line focus can be short-sighted.
More importantly, this publication, which is small in terms of page numbers, will be appreciated by a new employee as it is the easiest of reads. In less than 20 minutes, the reader will have some basic knowledge, which is a good starting point. Further such publications are planned.
To obtain a copy, contact Michael J. Hoffarth, vice president of business development, Parkway Kew, tel. 701-306-5160, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. For technical questions, readers can contact Eugene Klein Sr., at tel. 743-398-2100, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
3 bonus tips from past columns by Eugene Klein Sr. for WJI
1. On a continuous machine, if the wiredrawing blocks are not filled with wire wraps for 66% to 75% of the face of the block, you are creating excessive slip and experiencing inferior line speeds. You may hear excuses that you have to do it that way, but the reality is the taper can be adjusted to eliminate this problem and to maximize production and minimize wear.
2. Water cooling is increasingly important as the carbon level of the wire is increased. Extraordinary production increases can be realized with higher carbon wires by making sure the interior water cooling is working properly. The use of an inexpensive infrared heat gun is invaluable in spotting problems.
3. Larger bundles can be realized on bull blocks by adding a step to the contour. If a step is already present, it can be enlarged. Grind the step angle on a 15-degree ramp so the wires do not overlap. Also, if necessary, increase the taper slightly after the step.
Editor’s Note:
This occasional section is meant to be a place where a company can discuss its technology in more detail than possible in the Products section yet not be a technical paper that has to go through the presentation process. Submissions can be sent to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
7/2/2022 - In 2018, plans were announced for a new fiber-optic cable system from Montréal to Toronto that would include a submarine segment through Lake Ontario between Kingston and downtown Toronto. Per a report at www.subtelforum.com, those plans changed. Below are excerpts from that article about why that happened.
Announced in 2018 as a venture between Metro Optic and Crosslake Fibre along with Utilities Kingston, the Maple Leaf Fibre cable system was to have a terrestrial segment between Montréal, Ottawa, and Kingston, and a submarine segment through Lake Ontario between Kingston and downtown Toronto.
Per a report in Capacity, However, a shortage of cable-laying vessels has led to a change of plans, and now the entire cable system will be terrestrial, running from Toronto via Kingston to Montréal. Crosslake CCO Fergus Innes explained, “Vessel availability [is] one of the reasons we have pivoted from a subsea design to a full terrestrial build on our Maple Leaf Fibre project.”
Earlier this year, the companies were still planning to install the Toronto-Kingston section of the Maple Leaf Fibre on the bed of Lake Ontario. In 2019, Crosslake Fibre laid a cable between Toronto and New York. The cable ship C.S. IT Intrepid had to sail through St. Lawrence Seaway and a series of locks from the Atlantic Ocean to the lake.
The cable lands at Equiix TR2 at 45 Parliament Street and the 151 Front Street West carrier hotel in Toronto, running to Equinix NY4 in Secaucus, New Jersey with an interconnect in Buffalo, New York. It is currently the only cable running under Lake Ontario, and no other cables run under any of the other Great Lakes.
According to the ISCPC, there are around 60 cable ships in the world. According to SubTel Forum’s 2021/2022 Annual Industry Report, no new-build cable ships were delivered between 2004 and 2010 after a glut of investment around the turn of the millennium. Only five ships were delivered between 2011 and 2020.
The report notes that new ships aren’t being added at the same rate older ships are being retired. Only eight ships are younger than 18, with most between 20 and 30 years old. 19 are over 30 years old, and one is over 50.
6/2/2022 - Stories about installed or stored copper being stolen for its raw material value are so common that WJI seldom prints them, but thieves in South Africa platinum mines have stood out, and not in a fun or quirky way. This story is just tragic. Below are edited excerpts from multiple media reports about a story where everyone loses.
Copper cables thieves in South Africa have found a deep, dark place to swipe copper cable: South African platinum mines. A stream of media reports has outlined how gangs have sneaked in deep underground, and set up camp in the vast network of tunnels from which they strip metal from power cables. It is a remarkably deadly pursuit.
The gangs are syndicates of thieves known as “zama zamas,” a Zulu name that means “take a chance.” Illegal mining has long been a problem in South Africa, but the focus now is on stealing copper. When copper was stripped at Sibanye’s Thembelani shaft in March, it led to a fire that forced 140 workers to evacuate. The company had 120 theft incidents last year and recovered about 5.1 tons of stolen copper. Year to date, there have been 45 incidents/3.2 tons recovered.
The thefts are difficult to stop because of the vast warren of tunnels. Over time, the thefts became far more complex, with gangs setting up their own supply chains. Descent is often made via ropes or handmade ladders. The copper is stripped and hidden away in unused tunnels before being taken away at night using pre-arranged transport.
As many as 500 thieves may be in a given mine at any time. They can spend days underground, and some of the illegal miners have been known to set booby traps or ambushes for mining staff or even rival gangs. It can take a full week to replace some of the key copper cables, so the loss is not just in the cable but in mining of platinum, a key element for making catalytic converters.
Just as there is no lack of thieves, there is no lack of potential bad endings. Last October, owners of one mine sealed off a ventilation shaft that illegal miners had been using to come and go. Per reports, a trickle of trapped gang members tried to escape, helped by fellow members above ground. At one point the zama zamas clashed with police in a shootout that saw eight of the thieves die. Several months earlier, the decomposed bodies of some 20 gang members were found. They were believed to have been killed in a gas explosion underground.
Per reports, the gangs have not been deterred. What remains is a sad statement that transcends wire.
4-/1/2022 - Responding to world events, the WAI Poland Chapter has changed the focus of its panel discussion for its 9th International Drawing Conference, to be held May 18-20 at the Hotel GALAXY in Cracow, Poland.
The panel discussion has evolved from a pure technical theme to one that addresses the European reality in dealing with Covid-19 and the war in the Ukraine. The panel discussion theme will be, “The economy of the
metal and drawing industry during the post-Covid crisis and the turbulent global geopolitical situation.”
The panel discussion, to be moderated by Piotr Milewski and Jakub Siemiński, directors and managers at DRUMET and TELE-FONIKA, will see panelists try to answer increasingly difficult questions in the metal sector that relate to the current situation of the world economy and where it is headed. Five participants selected from large and medium-sized companies in the metal sector, who together with the conference participants, will talk about the outlook for the metal and drawing industry after the current crises. Attendees will hear about important technological and economic issues for the metal and drawing sector that relate to the development of principles and methods for wire and
cable companies to better function during the difficult conditions caused by the pandemic and war.
“It is sad that such topics should be the focus of a technical conference, but they are realities for the industry, and not just in Europe,” said WAI Chapter President Jan Pilarczyk. He noted that this will be the second time that there has been a discussion panel, the first held in 2019, where all participants shared their observations on the new directions needed to maintain the continuous development of the metal and drawing industry both in Europe and in the world. The panel discussion will be the final educational event at the conference.
Pilarczyk said that he was pleased with the support the event has had so far from industry. The main sponsors are Drumet, a member of WireCo World Group; Schlatter; WiTechs; the MFL Group; Vassena; and Lubrimetal. Other sponsors include MET-PRIM Sp. z.o.o.; TELE-FONIKA Kable S.A.; CMC Poland Sp. z o.o., operating in Poland, a member of the CMC Commercial Metals Group; Witels Albert; and Wilhelm Tatje KG.
The focus for the conference is “Modern methods of metal forming and drawing processes and production of wire rod and wire.” Topics include: selected issues from the theory and technology of the drawing process and
other plastic forming processes; directions of drawing technology development in the field of devices, tools, accessories, lubricants and cooling agents; quality problems for production of charge materials, wires and final
products; new materials and new application areas for drawn products; and operational issues – ropes, cables, wires, welding wires, springs, etc.
Event participants are expected from: CMC Poland, Arcelor Mittal Poland, TELE-FONIKA Kable, DRUMET Wire Corp. Poland and MET-PRIM Radomsko, WIŚNIOWSKI Sp. z o.o., ITALMEC Sp. zo.o., Fabryka Drutu Gliwice., all from Poland; the MFL Group, Vassen and Lubrimetal, all from Italy; WAFIOS and Witels Albert, Germany; Bekaert Bohumin and ZBD AS, Czech Republic.; and Schlatter, Switzerland.
The co-organizers of the conference include Pilarczyk; Knych, the 2015 winner of the WAI’s Mordica Memorial Award; and Prof. Adam Zieliński, of the Institute for Ferrous Metallurgy. It will also include a plant tour of TELE-FONIKA. The Conference Honorary Patronage is by Prof. Norbert Sczygiol, rector of the Czestochowa University of Technology.
Of note, the event is being held in May, which marks the 20th anniversary of the creation of the Poland Chapter. For more information, visit the Poland Chapter website at www.msc.wip.pcz.pl.
Want to read more like this?
Subscribe to Wire Journal International here!
Have the industry's leading monthly publication delivered directly to you, print and/or digitally.
From Wire Journal International's February 2022 Feature
Thomas J. Rosen, president and CEO of Wire & Cable Consulting, LLC, has nearly 40 years in the industry, holding executive positions with companies such as IWG High Performance Conductors, Phelps Dodge Corporation and Nesor Alloy Corp. Below, he shares his thoughts about the supply chain. He can be contacted at tel. 973-228-5589, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., www.wirecableconsulting.com.
We are living in new times. Nobody foresaw what was coming in terms of Covid and labor issues, the great resignation wave and everything else that’s happened the last few years. The days when you could depend on overseas suppliers to deliver in five or six weeks are gone. That same timeframe can be four or five months. That causes problems for our customers, which I want to make clear here make value-added products.
The supply chain and the wire and cable industry need to understand how to handle the ebbs and flows of the business. But first I want to address something that is part of the equation, even if it might not seem so. The industry will always have issues—and sometimes, like now, they may be quite harsh—but I have learned over the years that you cannot overestimate how important it is to value the human element.
People are extremely important, and we need to offer or meet issues on the physical and mental health that help keep them together. People need more family time. Working 60-plus hours a week is not a long-term solution. People need more time off pursuing things that bring them a sense of purpose. If they achieve short-term and long-term success as individuals, that will help them in their work roles. They become part of your solution that you won’t find in a spreadsheet. Think about it.
Now for the supply chain. First off, it won’t come as a surprise when I say that there are no easy solutions, but that does not mean you can’t take some measure of control. You know what you need and when, but how well do you know what your suppliers can and cannot do? Relying on them just to “do” or “not do” is not enough. You have to work with good suppliers, and that means companies that are investing in their businesses.
You have to work the supply chain all the way back. Capacity obviously is a key issue, but so is their personnel. Is the company stable? Does it have the cash flow and resources to invest in its future? Some may not be strong enough, so sticking with a supplier without knowing more about them is not wise. Learning more about suppliers may ultimately force you to look elsewhere. If you don’t want to do this, then find another business, because your future maybe in doubt.
Beware of suppliers that stick to the outdated 80/20 principle. One of our clients had such a supplier, which had contracts and agreements, and took care of the 20% clients first. They didn’t like minimum quantities, specials or anything “out of the norm.” Our client, who started manufacturing cable assemblies for Steinway, could not get product from his supplier. We found him a new one. We explained the business and provided the specs to the new supplier that had not been active in this niche, and was interested. Both our client and the customer benefitted.
We encourage our clients to develop new suppliers. You hear a lot about supply not being available, but generally speaking, I have found that materials can be found, even in small quantities. I have one client that will, and he’s very good at it. He also gets paid well for it. And guess what? He’s getting more and more business because the big guys don’t want to do small quantities anymore.
There’s a flip side to this too. How well do you treat your suppliers? A lot of big companies don’t excel at that. I always made sure that I personally engaged suppliers, and enjoyed meeting them and seeing their operations. That’s changed in the last two years, but it’s still possible through zoom and the like. If you keep in close contact, you may find opportunities. Also, keep in mind that the wire and cable industry is a supply chain unto itself, as many companies sell to cable manufacturers, who in turn sell to OEMs.
It’s a difficult time for companies that need rod and metals that either require large sizes or require special technology for different applications, as they are not as easy to source overseas as they are in North America. There are limited places people can go, so such manufacturers are basically held hostage, which is why high value product makers are better off.
I have one client that buys redraw and fine wires, and silver-plated wires and alloys. Those products are limited in the supply chain, but because we were able to show the supplier our needs six months out, we were able to get what we needed. That takes planning. If you cannot show vendors your plan, you can’t expect them to commit to late requests. You want to ask the supplier what they can do to help.
I don’t see conditions changing much in the next year. I think we’re stuck in a conundrum here. We all know the symptoms of the supply chain, but I keep thinking about the one element that gets lost in the discussion of what needs to be done, and that goes back to people. They make it all possible.
I spend a lot of time helping clients with their long-term plans. Anyone who isn’t—or thinks that conditions will revert back to what they were, and that we can all go back to walking our dogs the way we used to—is dreaming. This is the new norm. We have to figure out how to navigate it, to be flexible, quick and nimble.
Want to read more like this?
Subscribe to Wire Journal International here!
Have the industry's leading monthly publication delivered directly to you, print and/or digitally.
How to resolve AdBlock issue?