Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [TYPEWRITERS] Sholes & Glidden Type-writer Question

Expand Messages
  • Flavio Mantelli
    I do not think it is a coincidence: I have a 1878 Sholes model for US patent #207557 (August 1878) that was made to demonstrate an improvement in the typebars.
    Message 1 of 16 , Nov 24, 2010
      I do not think it is a coincidence: I have a 1878 Sholes model for US
      patent #207557 (August 1878) that was made to demonstrate an improvement
      in the typebars.
      Patent models were made only to demonstrate the
      idea and show the invention, therefore, they did not need to be complete
      and fully working typewriters.

      This specific model is a two-row keyboard machine with 12 keytops only
      and guess what, the words "Sholes Typewriter" can be made using only
      these 12 letters!

      --- Gio 25/11/10, Ned Brooks <nedbrooks@...> ha scritto:

      Da: Ned Brooks <nedbrooks@...>
      Oggetto: Re: [TYPEWRITERS] Sholes & Glidden Type-writer Question
      A: TYPEWRITERS@yahoogroups.com
      Data: Giovedì 25 novembre 2010, 05:43







       









      On 11/24/2010 5:45 PM, David Sadowski wrote:

      > So, it is entirely a coincidence that the word "typewriter" can be

      > made using only the top row letters?



      A cosmic mystery.... Some say there are no coincidences. The same line

      suffices for the phrases "you wept" and "queer type" and "you quit" and

      no doubt other iconic slogans.

      >

      > ------------------------------------

      >

      > ++ Typewriter collecting is fun ++Yahoo! Groups Links

      >

      >

      >

      >

      >

























      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Alan Seaver
      So why aren t the S, H, & L in Sholes also on the top row? They would fit perfectly. Or the N in Gliddon on the 2nd row along with the Sholes characters?
      Message 2 of 16 , Nov 25, 2010
        So why aren't the S, H, & L in "Sholes" also on the top row? They
        would fit perfectly. Or the N in "Gliddon" on the 2nd row along with
        the "Sholes" characters? No, I think that the arrangement informed
        the idea, not the other way 'round. Remember, this model was five
        years after the QWERTY arrangement was developed.

        ~Alan


        On Nov 25, 2010, at 1:52 AM, Flavio Mantelli wrote:

        > I do not think it is a coincidence: I have a 1878 Sholes model for US
        > patent #207557 (August 1878) that was made to demonstrate an
        > improvement
        > in the typebars.
        > Patent models were made only to demonstrate the
        > idea and show the invention, therefore, they did not need to be
        > complete
        > and fully working typewriters.
        >
        > This specific model is a two-row keyboard machine with 12 keytops only
        > and guess what, the words "Sholes Typewriter" can be made using only
        > these 12 letters!
        >
      • dax@surewest.net
        Has the type basket in the Sholes and Glidden always been cast iron or did they change at some point (serial number)? Dax [Non-text portions of this message
        Message 3 of 16 , Nov 25, 2010
          Has the type basket in the Sholes and Glidden always been cast iron or did
          they change at some point (serial number)?



          Dax







          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • raycy.japan
          Thanks a lot for your reply. I ve cited your comments already on web. http://qwerty-history.g.hatena.ne.jp/raycy/archive?word=Weil And I introduced your
          Message 4 of 16 , Dec 5 5:13 PM
            Thanks a lot for your reply.
            I've cited your comments already on web.

            http://qwerty-history.g.hatena.ne.jp/raycy/archive?word=Weil

            And I introduced your opinion like follows:
            the messy typebar clashing was a problem to change key arrangement, but it was not only reason, but one of many reasons.
            http://qwerty-history.g.hatena.ne.jp/raycy/20101125/1290642214


            I had used frontstike mechanical typewriters 35years ago or so on, now I do not have nor use any though.

            --- In TYPEWRITERS@yahoogroups.com, Peter Weil <pmweil@...> wrote:
            >
            > Looking at my S&G (ser. # 807A), I think clashing did occur if people typed fast enough and / or the alignment of typebars and types did not hold (which was the usual situation). The design did not imagine touch typing, and, if you only use two fingers, the likelihood of jamming goes down (even lower with one finger). But early on typists became faster even with two, much less four finger techniques. So, yes, they could and did jam. Beyond this, the problem of types being at different positions on the ends of the typebars added to the probability that, if they were not perfectly positioned on the ends, clashes were much more likely. In addition, the alignment on the S&G easily gets messed up because only one screw holds the bearing in a position that includes a wide arc relative to its purpose. Use and vibration meant that the typebar angle tended to change fairly quickly and made clashes a more likely problem. So, Yasuoko's model may be technically accurate for a combination of one-finger slow typing and perfect alignment of both the typbars and the type on the end of each.
            >
            > Peter
            >
            > On Nov 24, 2010, at 4:34 PM, raycy.japan wrote:
            >
            > > Do their typebars jam or not? Mr. Darryl Rehr says they Do jam. Associate Professor Koichi Yasuoka says not.
            > >
            > > http://qwerty-history.g.hatena.ne.jp/raycy/20101112/1289582004
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.