Search results

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the tool experiences using torque during welding as a means of in-process sensing for tool wear. Metal matrix composites (MMCs) are materials with immense potential for aerospace structural applications. The major barrier to implementation of these materials is manufacturability, specifically joining MMCs to themselves or other materials using fusion welding. Friction stir welding (FSW) is an excellent candidate process for joining MMCs, as it occurs below the melting point of the material, thus precluding the formation of degradative intermetallics’ phases present in fusion welded joints. The limiting factor for use of FSW in this application is wear of the tool. The abrasive particles which give MMCs their enhanced properties progressively erode the tool features that facilitate vertical mixing and consolidation of material during welding, resulting in joints with porosity. While wear can be mitigated by careful selection of process parameters and/or the use of harder tool materials, these approaches have significant complexities and limitations.

This study evaluates using the torque the tool experiences during welding as a means of in-process sensing for tool wear. Process signals were collected during linear FSW of Al 359/SiC/20p and correlated with wear of the tool probe. The results of these experiments demonstrate that there is a correlation between torque and wear, and the torque process signal can potentially be exploited to monitor and control tool wear during welding.

Radial deterioration of the probe during joining of MMCs by FSW corresponds to a decrease in the torque experienced by the tool. Experimentally observed relationship between torque and wear opens the door to the development of in-process sensing, as the decay in the torque signal can be correlated to the amount of volume lost by the probe. The decay function for tool wear in FSW of a particular MMC can be determined experimentally using the methodology presented here. The decay of the torque signal as the tool loses volume presents a potential method for control of the wear process.

This work has near-term commercial applications, as a means of monitoring and controlling wear in process could serve to grow commercial use of MMCs and expand the design space for these materials beyond net or near-net-shape parts.

I have been asked by Professor Lonnie Athens to shed light upon those parts of my academic career that may be of interest to sociologists working within the tradition of symbolic interactionism. With this in mind, the present essay offers an account of how I became a scholar whose main focus has for many years been the philosophy and social psychology of George Herbert Mead (1863–1931).

In this chapter, the approach of radical interactionism is juxtaposed against symbolic interactionism, its older conservative turned rival cousin, to highlight primarily the major differences between them. The five key differences identified are as follows: (1) the major progenitors for symbolic interactionism are Mead and Blumer, while those for radical interactionism are Park and, by default, myself; (2) although radical interactionism presumes that domination and power are always of great importance for understanding human group life, symbolic interactionism assumes that they now have only limited importance for understanding it; (3) radical interactionism makes it mandatory for researchers to examine the role of dominance and power during social interaction, whereas symbolic interactionism makes it only discretionary; (4) while radical interactionism stresses the impact of individuals’ and groups’ unstated assumptions on their interaction with one another, symbolic interactionism de-emphasizes their impact on it; and finally (5) radical interactionism discourages, while symbolic interactionism encourages researchers falling into the trap of linguistic phenomenalism. Thus, unlike radical interactionism, symbolic interactionism facilitates sociologists not only falling prey to linguistic phenomenalism, but also conservative and idealistic biases, while allegedly conducting “value-free research.”

Because, for George Herbert Mead, the “social act” is the basic unit of analysis for understanding human social existence, and thereby, his entire body of thought, it demands much more critical attention than it thus far has received from sociologists. Here, his notion of the social act will be critically examined – in terms of his definition of social action, the underlying organizing principle he uses to explain it, the different fundamental forms of social action he identifies, and the basic operating elements that he contends comprise these forms – for the purpose of developing a better conception of social action than he provided. Mead sees social action as organized on the basis of “sociality,” expressing itself in two fundamental forms – “cooperative” and “conflictive.” He also views the cooperative form as comprised of five basic elements – attitudes, roles, significant symbols, attitudinal assumption, and common social objects – while the conflictive form is comprised of only the first four elements. After a critical examination of Mead’s social act is completed, an alternative and improved conception of social action, with domination as its organizing principle, is proffered. More importantly, it is argued that this new notion of social action, termed the “collective act,” provides the grounds for the development of a novel interactionist perspective, dubbed here “radical interactionism,” which is based on the principle of domination rather sociality. Thus, this new interactionist perspective, is dramatically different from the traditional interactionist perspective Mead and Blumer developed.

This chapter seeks to evaluate the charges made by a number of Herbert Blumer's critics who claim that he has in various ways misconstrued or misapplied the social psychological ideas of George Herbert Mead. My examination of these charges leads me to conclude that numerous passages in which Blumer discusses Mead's thought are in fact open to several legitimate objections: Blumer seldom documents or supports his discussions of Mead's ideas by means of specific references to relevant passages in Mead's lectures or writings; he fails to note that his own theoretical project typically begins where Mead's project ends; he often uses the concepts of meaning, interpretation, and “taking the role of the other” in ways that differ somewhat from the uses Mead makes of these notions in his theorizing. Nevertheless, these shortcomings and differences by no means support the arguments of those critics who exaggerate the significance of Mead's so-called behaviorism or of Blumer's alleged subjectivism; nor do they justify the claims of those who fail to see how Blumer's theory of experiential objects, despite its inadequate formulation and development, is a legitimate attempt to extend the account of such objects one finds in Mead's later writings. Blumer, in short, may not always have been a completely accurate interpreter of Mead, but he was in most important respects a faithful, creative, and effective champion of Mead’s social psychological ideas.

The second reading of the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Bill (Lords) came before the House of Commons on April 19th. The measure has passed through all stages in the House of Lords. Mr. Guinness (Minister of Agriculture) said the object of the Bill was to lay the foundation for a better system of marketing home produce by developing arrangements for grading and marking. Anyone who took the trouble to look at the produce now offered for sale must be convinced that very much home produce of excellent quality was spoilt by its unattractive presentment. Foreign supplies, benefiting by their reliability and uniformity, were often far ahead in the appearance they made in our markets. The remedy was to grade home produce so that the poor quality did not depress the value of the better quality. The Ministry of Agriculture had carried out practical experiments on a commercial scale, and demonstrations during the last couple of years at agricultural shows. These demonstrations had taken place with eggs and poultry, fruit, potatoes, pigs, pork and bacon, and farmers had been quick to take up the new idea. In the big centres of population markets were coming more and more to demand bulk supplies and uniform quality. Foreign competition had taught the advantage which was to be found in the condition and reliability of supplies if they were packed in standardised non‐returnable containers. The home producer could no longer afford to stand aside from this movement, and must take steps to comply with modern developments in the markets. If the Bill was passed, the Ministry proposed at once to deal with two branches of production. Already the Ministry had prepared schemes for the grading of eggs which had been developed by the Poultry Advisory Committee of the Ministry upon which producers and distributors were represented. The schemes had been approved by the various interests concerned. Grades had also been worked out for fruit and schemes for applying them provisionally agreed upon with the National Farmers' Union. Clause I. enabled the Ministry to define by regulation grade designations. It would be entirely voluntary, and nobody would need to use the grades, but if they were used, then they would constitute a warranty under which the purchaser would have a remedy if the goods were not up to standard. Under Clause II. the Minister was empowered to prescribe grade designation marks and authorise any person or body of persons to use such marks. The same mark would be used on all standard productions, and would only be authorised in the case of goods of defined standard and quality. To build up this reputation and goodwill of the mark, its use would be safeguarded by being limited to those who would conform to certain conditions. The use of the national mark would be controlled by a National Mark Committee, which would be advised by trade committees representing the various commodity interests. Clauses 3 and 4 dealt with preserved eggs and the cold and chemical storage of eggs, and were for the protection of producers and consumers of new‐laid eggs. The operation of these clauses would be dependent on an order being in force for marking foreign eggs under the Merchandise Marks Act. As Clause 4 stood it was proposed that the eggs should be marked before being moved into the store. He had, however, received representations from the cold storage trade, and proposed to move an amendment in committee to provide that eggs need not necessarily be marked before being placed in these stores, but must be marked before they were moved out. He hoped the Bill would receive support in all quarters of the House. The World Economic Conference which met at Geneva last year stated that the improvement of agriculture must, in the first place, be the work of agriculturists themselves. Amongst the methods suggested at the conference was the standardisation of agricultural produce in the interests both of the producers and the consumers. The three political parties in this country in their published programmes had recently stressed the importance of grading and standardisation. He did not suggest that marking alone could restore the agricultural industry to prosperity, but the proposed reforms must be of great assistance. The Bill was not brought forward as an emergency cure, but the proposed developments were absolutely necessary if the producer was to secure a fair return. Mr. A. V. Alexander moved: That, whilst this House is in favour of a proper system of grading and marking agricultural produce and is prepared to consider proposals to this end, it objects to the second reading of a Bill containing provisions relating to the marking of imported eggs contrary to the findings of the standing committee of inquiry appointed under the Merchandise Marks Act.— Speaking on behalf of the co‐operative movement, he said it was impossible to buy level grades of home produce in sufficiently large quantities and with a sufficient guarantee of continued supply to fill the distributing centres. But he doubted whether the proposals of the Bill were adequate to meet the situation. In the Dominions the grading was carried out by Government officials. Regarding eggs, he believed the Government had adopted an entirely wrong procedure. It had tried deliberately to get behind the findings of the committee set up to deal with the application for the marking of eggs.—Mr. Macquisten, speaking as an egg consumer, asked what right Mr. Alexander had to prevent him knowing where his breakfast egg was laid. There was far too much deceit of customers all through the retail trade.—Sir J. Simon asked if the Bill was not put forward in flat defiance of the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Eggs set up by the Ministry of Agriculture. That Committee said that if the best imported eggs were marked they would derive more advantage than home‐produced eggs, unless a substantial improvement were first effected in the home methods of grading and marketing. He did not imagine that the British barn‐door fowl was not as capable of doing her duty as the corresponding lady in other parts of the world, but were the facts as these experts stated?—Mr. Macquisten: Were these gentlemen egg‐growers? Mere evidence is no guarantee because the Leader of the Opposition did not know whether a hen cackled before or after laying an egg.— Sir J. Simon: This report in very straightforward terms asserts that to mark the best imported eggs in the present state of affairs is not going to produce the good results desired by this Bill. The Committee say as their principal recommendation: “An Order in Council (Marking Order) in respect of eggs should only be made when sufficient improvement has been made in the collecting, grading, packing and marketing of British eggs to remove, or at least mitigate, the danger of the best imported egg obtaining a better market in the United Kingdom than the home‐produced egg.” It is no good to say that we want to help the poultry farmer when there is this report warning us that if we adopt this very natural course we may be doing a very foolish thing. I want to know what the Government says in face of that report in justification of what they are doing.—Mr. Lloyd George regarded the Bill as a very important step towards marketing produce. Unless they had improvement in marketing, every scheme to assist the agricultural industry must prove a failure. At present we were importing £327,000,000 worth of produce of the very kind which the climate of this country would enable us to produce. Marketing was the first essential in solving the problems of the agricultural industry. The next thing was grading. With better grading better prices would be secured. He was very glad the Minister of Agriculture had introduced the Bill, and he hoped it would be passed.—Mr. Guinness, in reply, pointed out that the Bill did not lay down any regulation as to the marking of foreign eggs or any other produce. Its purpose was to enable us to get better grading, packing and standardisation of our own produce. Whether foreign eggs were marked or not the Bill would enable British eggs to be properly graded, but long before eggs were graded under the Bill he hoped to see the grading of this year's apple crop, with the same excellent result on prices as was found last year in the case of the experiment that was tried. He could also reassure Sir J. Simon that, far from upsetting the recommendations of the Committee, the Bill aimed at carrying them out. The debate had suggested that there had been a nefarious plot to get behind the Committee, and that his action in trying to carry out the recommendations of the Committee was a menace to the purity of English public life. No attempt had been made to interfere with the discretion of the Committee.—On a division the amendment was defeated by 237 votes to 97, and the Bill was read a second time.

George Herbert Mead is an exemplary figure in sociology, and is central to sociological conceptions of the self and social action. However, other important aspects of Mead's thought have been largely neglected, including his remarkably sophisticated and sociological theory of scientific knowledge. Traditional accounts of the sociology of science identify Thomas Kuhn, and his predecessor, Ludwig Fleck, as pioneers in the social analysis of scientific knowledge, allowing the modern constructionist school of science studies to emerge. This article challenges this history by showing Mead's awareness of the sociological aspects of scientific knowledge in papers that predate both Kuhn and Fleck. Finally, Mead's position attempts to avoid sociological relativism, and offers instead a pragmatist foundation to approach the study of science.

The place of G. H. Mead’s works in symbolic interactionism is both central and paradoxical. It stands at the very foundation of Hebert Blumer’s initial invention of symbolic interactionism with respect to Mead’s social behaviorism and has been discussed and debated ever since because of the problems caused by such a presumed direct filiation. Returning to Mead in order to broaden the perspective offered by Blumer is a must and has to face some fundamental issues raised in this context. This article starts by examining the ontogenetic and phylogenetic processes involved in Mead’s concept of society, in order to show the multiple dimensions involved in significant symbols. An illustration of Mead’s wider perspective is given in reference to the feminist movement as analyzed first by Mead’s student, Jessie Taft, and goes back to the origin of the movement with Mary Wollstonecraft. This leads to the analysis of the debate about the place of power in symbolic interactionism, initiated by Peter M. Hall, and addresses the alternative between domination and emancipation. This alternative has been worked out by Lonnie Athen’s radical symbolic interactionism analysis of domination on the one side, and by Kathy Charmaz and Norman K. Denzin on the other side of emancipatory symbolic interactionist practices. Another solution is proposed to this alternative, with the analysis of power being intrinsically constituted by domination and emancipation, in their respective contribution to the understanding of the symbolic dispositions of autonomy – a concept that remains relatively undeveloped in Mead’s works.

The pattern of prosecutions forfood offences has changed very little in the past decade. Compositional offences have rarely exceeded 5 per cent and, since the 1967 batch of regulations for meat products, are mostly in respect of deficient meat content. Food hygiene offences have also remained steady, with no improvement to show for all the effort to change the monotony of repulsive detail. The two major causes of all legal proceedings, constituting about 90 per cent of all cases—the presence of foreign matter and sale of mouldy food—continue unchanged; and at about the same levels, viz. an average of 55 per cent of the total for foreign matter and 35 per cent for mouldy food. What is highly significant about this changed concept of food and drugs administration is that almost all prosecutions now arise from consumer complaint. The number for adulteration as revealed by official sampling and analysis and from direct inspectorial action is small in relation to the whole. A few mouldy food offences are included in prosecutions for infringements of the food hygiene regulations, but for most of the years for which statistics have been gathered by the BFJ and published annually, all prosecutions for the presence of foreign matter have come from consumer complaint. The extent to which food law administration is dependent upon this source is shown by the fact that 97 per cent of all prosecutions in 1971 for foreign bodies and mouldy food—579 and 340 respectively—resulted from complaints; and in 1972, 98 per cent of prosecutions resulted from the same source in respect of 597 for foreign matter and 341 for mouldy food. Dirty milk bottle cases in both years all arose from consumer complaint; 41 and 37 respectively.

G. H. Mead's social, developmental, and emergent conception of language and mind is a foundational assumption that is central to the interactionist tradition. However, the validity of this model has been challenged in recent years by theorists such as Albert Bergesen, who argues that recent advances in linguistics and cognitive psychology demonstrate that Mead's social theory of language learning and his theory of the social nature of mind are untenable. In light of these critiques, and drawing on Chomsky's debates with intellectuals such as Jean Piaget, John Searle, and Michael Tomasello, this chapter compares Chomsky's and Mead's theories of language and mind in terms of their assumptions about innateness and the nature and source of meaning. This comparison aims to address the major strengths and weaknesses in both models and shed light on how interactionists might frame these conceptual challenges in future theoretical and empirical research.