Wirenet Image Band
wirenet.org mobile image band

Wire Journal News

News

Dave Troy has joined REELEX Packaging Solutions as vice president of sales & service, a newly created position that will see him focus on the company’s sales and service structure. He previously served for nine years as director of marketing and business development for Emerson Discrete Automation’s Branson Welding and Assembly division, and prior to that he worked for 10 years for Fujifilm Holdings America Corporation, as director of marketing. He holds a BBA degree in marketing/business from Western Connecticut State University and an MBA from the University of Connecticut School of Business. The new position allows Tim Copp, vice president of business development, to spend more time on marketing and product development. Based in Patterson, New York, REELEX Packaging Solutions, is the creator/licensor of REELEX® packaging and a manufacturer of take-ups, dancers, accumulators and payoffs.

American Wire Group (AWG) has named Scott Taylor as vice president of regional sales for its renewable energy division. He will be responsible for AWG customers for new construction, repower, operations and maintenance capacities in the wind, solar and battery energy storage industries. He has more than 20 years of experience in engineering, sales management and business development in wire and cable manufacturing and distribution sectors. He holds a degree in electrical engineering from Tennessee State University and an MBA from Kennesaw State University. Based in Miami, Florida, the American Wire Group supplies wire and cable, hardware, equipment, and accessory solutions.

Brad Johnson has been promoted to Chief Operating Officer (COO) of both Superior Essex Communications and Essex Brownell. As COO, he will collaborate with the presidents of both business units to achieve their 2024 objectives as well as develop new growth strategies for each division. He joined the company in 1997 as vice president of sales, and became senior vice president of sales in 2003, then was named president of Superior Essex International LP in 2016. He will continue to serve in that position in the interim. He holds a degree in business administration from the Indiana State University Scott College of Business. Along with Essex Furukawa Magnet Wire, Superior Essex Communications and Essex Brownell are part of Superior Essex, a global leader in cable and wire technology based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Derek Nicholson has been named a regional manager for OmniCable, responsible for leading the St Louis commercial team. He has more than 15 years of electrical experience, having previously worked for LEDvance and Grainger. He holds a business degree from the University of Kansas and an MBA from Baker University. Based in West Chester, Pennsylvania, OmniCable is a distributor of wire and cable, electrical products, and value-added services.

Rob Cook has been promoted to director of new business development for Xaloy LLC, responsible for new business development initiatives from acquiring new customers to expanding product sales. Melissa Greenway was named OEM account manager. She joined the company in 2021 as an inside sales specialist. She previously worked for three years as a government sales specialist for Robeck Fluid Power. Based in Paluski, Virginia, Xaloy manufactures screws, barrels, and front-end components to sectors that include wire and cable.

Veronica Braker has joined Southwire as its new executive vice president of operational excellence. She has three decades of experience in leading teams focused on operations, environmental, health and safety (EHS), reliability and maintenance, capital expenditure and more. She is a Lean Six Sigma certified Master Black Belt and practices Lean as a discipline in how she approaches strategy and operational planning. She most recently was senior vice president of global operations at Archer Daniels Midland Company, where she led a global operations team, as well as the centers of excellence that included EHS, Quality, Maintenance, Capital and Process Optimization. She previously held leadership roles at Clorox, General Electric, BASF Corporation, Flint Hills Resources, and Milliken & Company, among others. She currently serves as the Board Chair for the Women in Manufacturing Education Foundation. She previously served on the National Board of Directors for Women in Manufacturing, the advisory board for Women in Food and Agriculture and National Association of Manufacturer’s Board of Directors and Executive Council. She holds a B.S. degree in chemical engineering from Christian Brothers University. Based in Carrolton, Georgia, Southwire is one of the world’s largest producers of wire and cable.

Dr. Peter Schmidt, managing partner at TROESTER for many years, has handed over the position of CEO to Thomas Holzer as part of the corporate strategy to maintain continuity in the management of the company and stimulate future development. Schmidt will continue to serve as managing partner and CFO. Holzer, who has been with the company since 2021, previously was managing director at Voith in Heidenheim and in the Asia region before joining TROESTER. Bernd Pielsticker will continue to manage the operational business as Chief Operating Officer. Based in Germany, TROESTER supplies complete cable production lines as well as individual cable machines, such as winders, accumulators, caterpillars, capstans in various sizes and designs. 

Last modified on March 7, 2024

The WAI has rescheduled the date for the Points Meeting for Interwire 2025 to allow for greater participation. The date has been shifted from March 21 to April 4, which will provide more time for exhibitors to be able to take part.

Exhibitor representatives get to pick first in order of their accumulated points from past participation. The booths will be assigned by WAI staff. Later, other companies wanting to exhibit can seek a booth by either going directly to the event website, interwire25.com, or contacting WAI Sales Director Shannon Timme.

Last modified on March 7, 2024

Avery Caraker, a process engineering technician at the Du Quoin, Illinois, plant of the Prysmian Group, is the 2024 Wire Link Traveling Scholarship winner. Caraker, who joined Prysmian as an intern in 2021, accepted his current job in 2022 and has completed his degree in electrical engineering. He also is a member of the Illinois Army National Guard. The two-week award program will see him attend wire Düsseldorf and provide a report for WJI’s June issue.

Last modified on March 7, 2024

Members of the WAI’s New England Chapter, the Association’s first founded and largest chapter, were treated to a stirring speech about manufacturing in Connecticut, hear about its 2023 activities and more at its annual dinner on Jan. 25 at the Mohegan Sun Casino in Uncasville, Connecticut.

Following a reception where members got to meet up with their chapter colleagues, the event started with outgoing 2023 Chapter President Jessica Foss, Electric Cable Compounds, Inc., welcoming attendees. She thanked all the chapter members who have volunteered for different programs as well as the companies that have pitched in, providing essential support.

For the 2024 meeting, that included Platinum Sponsors James Monroe Wire & Cable Corp and Wire & Plastic Machinery Corp., Gold Sponsors Carris Reels and Multi Cable Corp.; Silver Sponsors Conneaut Industries Inc., Flourogistx and Electric Cable Compounds Inc.; and the Bronze Sponsor was W. Gillies Technology. A special callout went to Lloyd & Bouvier for its generous $2,000 sponsorship for the event.

The new chapter president, Ryan Carbray, Alphagary, introduced the keynote speaker, but speaking at different points in the program, he covered a lot of ground. “The WAI New England Chapter board will continue to organize and support opportunities to bring this regional industry together and strengthen our fraternity,” he said, noting that it could not be done without the continued leadership and support from the chapter members. The other officers for 2024 are Vice President Michael Roussel, ExxonMobil, Annaliese Sviokla, Gem Gravure Co., and Thomas Rosen, Wire & Cable Consulting, LLC.

Carbray highlighted the chapter’s achievements in 2023, which include the continuation of the scholarship program and another successful golf tournament. In 2023, the chapter awarded six scholarships of $2,500 each. One of the 2024 chapter scholarships will go to either an intern or employee in the industry who is pursuing continued education at a college or university. He reminded attendees that applications for the 2024 scholarship must be sent by March 31.

Scholarship winners for 2023 were Kyle Albrinck, son of Alice Albrinck, Teknor Apex; Amarra Cruz, daughter of Luis Cruz, Times Microwave Systems; Katherine Fritz, daughter of James Fritz, Marmon Industrial Energy & Infrastructure Group; William Goyette, son of Richard Goyette, MassMEP; Roma Kale, daughter of Rina Patel, Marmon Industrial Energy & Infrastructure Group; and John Stecker, grandson of David Stecker, a WAI Past President.

Carbray also introduced the members of the newly elected 2024 Board. New members include David Fisher, James Monroe Wire & Cable Corp.; Thomas Rosen, Wire & Cable Consulting LLC; and Paula Butkevich, Hueson Corp. Re-elected/returning board members include Lori Parent, Cable Components Corp.; Jim Evans, Web Industries Inc.; and Jeff Lawrence, Custom Wire Products. Continuing board members include Jessica Foss, Annaliese Sviokala, Jon Mello, Cheryl Stewart, Joel Cacopardo, Mike Mathiasen, Michael Sarni and Michael Roussel.

Carbray also thanked the members who helped make the chapter’s fund-raising efforts a success. He also singled out fellow Board Member Jim Evans, who heads the Annual Golf Tournament Committee, for outstanding work. He then introduced the keynote speaker, Paul S. Lavoie, Chief Manufacturing Officer for the State of Connecticut, who had been mingling with the audience and remained there later, talking to attendees.

Lavoi talked about the biggest problem in the manufacturing industry being labor and finding people to work. He discussed alternative ways to strengthen the workforce such as collaborating with local schools to attract talent or offering flexible/shortened shifts to accommodate parents whose children take priority.

Up next for the New England Chapter is its annual golf tournament. Look here for more details on that, as well as a future educational program this year, or go to the chapter web page. 

Last modified on March 7, 2024

Members of WAI’s New England, Southeast, Midwest and Ohio Valley chapters do not have a lot more time to submit scholarship applications from their respective chapters: applications must be received by March 31.

For more details on applying or the requirements, contact WAI Member Services Manager Corey Flynn at tel. 203-453-2777, ext. 128, or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Last modified on March 7, 2024

  

Madison, Connecticut, USA – February 27, 2024 – The Wire Association International (WAI), Inc. announces two Keynote Speakers for Wire Expo 2024, which will be held at the Mohegan Sun Resort & Casino, Uncasville, CT, USA, June 11-12, 2024.

On June 11, H.O. Woltz III, Chairman, President, and CEO of Insteel, will deliver his Keynote Address “Success based on committing to continuous improvement and a passion for manufacturing.” Mr. Woltz will provide a status report on the challenges and opportunities facing the ferrous wire industry. He will draw from his 45 years in the industry including more than 30 years as CEO and numerous business cycles.

In addition, Mr. Woltz will be honored at Wire Expo as the 2024 recipient of the WAI Champion’s Award, which recognizes an industry executive for his support of the Wire Association and its mission.

On June 12, Keynote speaker Paul Furtado, COO, Prysmian North America will present “Elevating operations: Paving the way to manufacturing excellence.” His presentation will outline key elements of on-going efforts to optimize operational processes through the Prysmian Operating System (POS) approach, including how to build employee engagement and a culture of continuous improvement strategies in creating focus, transparency, and alignment throughout the organization. It will highlight specific tools such as strategy deployment and leverage internal systems an approach centered around core manufacturing principles and maximizing teams’ capabilities.

Commenting on the conference, WAI Executive Director Steven Fetteroll said “WAI is honored to have these executives involved to inspire each day of Wire Expo. Their individual messages on improvement and excellence are echoed in the rest of the conference program.”

For further details, visit website: www.wireexpo24.com and contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. for further details.

WAI, founded in 1930, is a not-for-profit association with more than 2000 individual members in 50 countries. The association serves the educational needs of the wire and cable manufacturing industry through a variety of products and services. WAI manages the Interwire Trade Exhibition and Wire Expo and publishes the Wire Journal International and the Wire Journal International Reference Guide.

Media Contacts: Janice E. Swindells, Director Marketing & Corporate Communications, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Tel.: 001-203-453-2777, x. 117; Steven J. Fetteroll, Executive Director, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Tel.: 001-203-453-1777.

Last modified on March 7, 2024

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 modified on February 6, 2024

The WAI Poland Chapter’s XI International Seminar, held Nov. 23-24, 2023, continued the chapter’s rich tradition of staging technical events, drawing more than 80 attendees from 25 countries. Attendees also heard about a new award named after one of the four listed founders of the chapter in 1997.

Chapter President Jan Pilarczyk said that the seminar, held at the MEALURGIA Hotel in Radomsko, saw hearty exchanges among participants. The attendees came from 25 companies, domestic and foreign.

The first day saw a memorable presentation by U.S. steel industry veteran Robert J. Glodowski, the 2002 winner of the WAI Mordica Award, who is now the principal of RJG Metallurgic LLC. His talk, The Evolving Technology of Steel Rod Manufacturing, was well received for the detail that it went into. That evening he was presented the Poland Chapter’s Professor Marian Schneider Award, which is the highest honor.

Pilarczyk noted that support from Glodowski, along with steel industry veteran Robert Shemenski, both winners of the Professor Marian Schneider Award, along with Eugeniusz Filipczyk, were instrumental in the Poland Chapter being created in 1997.

Of note, Glodowski’s presentation was translated into Polish by Piotr Milewski, of WireCo World Group, whose profile appears on the opposite page. Milewski also presented a paper the next day.

Also receiving the Professor Marian Schneider Award was Jan Krnáč, who made a presentation at the conference, Analysis of possibilities to improve the quality of drawn steel wires intended for the production of needles. The author and co-author of 14 publications and contributions to national and international conferences, including publications in foreign professional journals, Krnáč helped develop drawing technologies for new production equipment, using a holistic approach to achieve better technological properties.

The program included a panel discussion on the condition of the steel industry in the era of political and economic destabilization in the post-Covid period and in the face of war in Ukraine. The audience also heard about the creation of a new Poland Chapter award honoring the late Henryk Dawid, the 1957 founder of DAWID company, a producer of sieves and wire meshes. The idea came from his son, Jerzy Dawid, and Maciej Górak, the Chapter’s vice-president. The statuette has the WAI logo on the globe that emphasizes the global nature of the organization promoting the winners.

Henryk Dawid, who died March 29, 1999, at age 69, attended Interwire in Atlanta in 1997. Two years later, at Interwire 1999, the WAI Association’s Board of Directors approved the establishment of the Poland Chapter. In the application, Henryk and Jerzy Dawid were listed as two of the four founders, along with the late Prof. Bogdan Golis and Pilarczyk.

Last modified on February 4, 2024

Members of WAI’s New England, Southeast, Midwest and Ohio Valley chapters have until March 29 to submit scholarship applications from their respective chapters.

For more details on applying, contact WAI Member Services Manager Corey Flynn at tel. 203-453-2777, ext. 128, or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Applications must be received by March 29. Below are photos of 2023 recipients. N

Last modified on February 4, 2024

Last year, WAI’s Ohio Valley Chapter (OVC) announced that it would launch a scholarship program, administered by The Wire Foundation, with plans for two $1,500 awards. It now is carrying out that mission, and as part of that is re-issuing a call for applications for the first time.

The chapter, which covers the states of Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania (west of State College), and New York (west of Rochester), has joined the New England, Southeast and Midwest chapters in offering the program. “This is a good cause for the chapter and a big moment for all our members,” said OHC President Tom Maxwell.

Per the OVC outline, eligible applicants are academically qualified high school seniors or college students who are children, grandchildren, or dependents of WAI Ohio Valley Chapter members in good standing. Scholarships will be awarded up to $1,500 per recipient with preference for one to be for a two-year accredited technical school or associates program enrollee and/or the other to be for an accredited four-year college or university enrollee. The student must either be a graduating high school senior or currently enrolled in an accredited two- or four-year technical school, college or university.

Applicants must provide an essay (300-500 words) as to why they deserve the scholarship, their official transcript, and a resume of community service involvement, high school and/or college activities and three references. Any planned field of study is acceptable, and no financial information is required; however, special circumstances will be considered. For more details on applying, contact WAI Member Services Manager Corey Flynn at tel. 203-453-2777, ext. 128, or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Applications due by March 29. They can be submitted to https://bit.ly/ OH24Scholar.

Last modified on February 4, 2024

The WAI Poland Chapter’s XI International Seminar, held Nov. 23-24, 2023, continued the chapter’s rich tradition of staging technical events, drawing more than 80 attendees from 25 countries. Attendees also heard about a new award named after one of the four listed founders of the chapter in 1997.

Chapter President Jan Pilarczyk said that the seminar, held at the MEALURGIA Hotel in Radomsko, saw hearty exchanges among participants. The attendees came from 25 companies, domestic and foreign.

The first day saw a memorable presentation by U.S. steel industry veteran Robert J. Glodowski, the 2002 winner of the WAI Mordica Award, who is now the principal of RJG Metallurgic LLC. His talk, The Evolving Technology of Steel Rod Manufacturing, was well received for the detail that it went into. That evening he was presented the Poland Chapter’s Professor Marian Schneider Award, which is the highest honor.

Pilarczyk noted that support from Glodowski, along with steel industry veteran Robert Shemenski, both winners of the Professor Marian Schneider Award, along with Eugeniusz Filipczyk, were instrumental in the Poland Chapter being created in 1997.

Of note, Glodowski’s presentation was translated into Polish by Piotr Milewski, of WireCo World Group, whose profile appears on the opposite page. Milewski also presented a paper the next day.

Also receiving the Professor Marian Schneider Award was Jan Krnáč, who made a presentation at the conference, Analysis of possibilities to improve the quality of drawn steel wires intended for the production of needles. The author and co-author of 14 publications and contributions to national and international conferences, including publications in foreign professional journals, Krnáč helped develop drawing technologies for new production equipment, using a holistic approach to achieve better technological properties.

The program included a panel discussion on the condition of the steel industry in the era of political and economic destabilization in the post-Covid period and in the face of war in Ukraine. The audience also heard about the creation of a new Poland Chapter award honoring the late Henryk Dawid, the 1957 founder of DAWID company, a producer of sieves and wire meshes. The idea came from his son, Jerzy Dawid, and Maciej Górak, the Chapter’s vice-president. The statuette has the WAI logo on the globe that emphasizes the global nature of the organization promoting the winners.

Henryk Dawid, who died March 29, 1999, at age 69, attended Interwire in Atlanta in 1997. Two years later, at Interwire 1999, the WAI Association’s Board of Directors approved the establishment of the Poland Chapter. In the application, Henryk and Jerzy Dawid were listed as two of the four founders, along with the late Prof. Bogdan Golis and Pilarczyk.

Gallery

Contact us

The Wire Association Int.

71 Bradley Road, Suite 9

Madison, CT 06443-2662

P: (203) 453-2777