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

Re: NO;DE;ST;HI;TU;OP;RS;AB;EFare the most frequent bigrams,if typebar in alphabet

Expand Messages
  • W.A.
    At the risk of being quoted in an article without my consent, there is a logical fallacy here. There is exactly as much evidence that the N O gap was
    Message 1 of 36 , Jan 6 8:09 AM
      At the risk of being quoted in an article without my consent, there is a logical fallacy here. There is exactly as much evidence that the "N" "O" gap was caused by a typebar clash as there is that Sholes was called away from his typewriter by a knock at the door from a one-legged, door-to-door penny farthing salesman, during which time Sholes' cat jumped up on the table and walked across the spacebar.

      And the far-left "A" just looks like the carriage jumped the margin when it was returned. It's irrelevant to the argument.

      ~Alan

      PS: Sholes and the Thick Enough Paper would make an excellent name for a rock band.


      --- In TYPEWRITERS@yahoogroups.com, "raycy.japan" <raycy.japan@...> wrote:
      > http://www.google.com/search?hl=ja&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=%22Is+this+paper+thick+enough%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
      > In the famous letter that Sholes delightedly wrote with pen about the success type-writing on the Thick enough Paper, there we might see typing trouble between "N" and "O", which is most frequent letter pairs when typebars in alphabetical order. (Bcause of some trouble with, an "A" is far left out of
      > frame also, I guess.)
      > >>>http://f.hatena.ne.jp/raycy/20110104124353
      > >>http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=tEsAMggMKoMC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA19&output=embed
      > >http://kygaku.g.hatena.ne.jp/raycy/20110103/1294004669
      >
      > This might be an evidence that jam had occurred on the Sholes and the fellows' typewriter on early stage.
    • raycy.japan
      Why so wabbling was the S&G? Because the S&G didn t have opened-eye-shaped connecting points on the key-levers with the wire pulling up to the type-bar.. One
      Message 36 of 36 , Jul 26, 2012
        Why so wabbling was the S&G? Because the S&G didn't have opened-eye-shaped connecting points on the key-levers with the wire pulling up to the type-bar.. One of the reasons..

        DR wrote that the typebars of S&G did clash and JAM , even if of the up-strikes made in the 1880s did not jam almost.
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TYPEWRITERS/message/47769
        DR> Sure, the 1880s typebars, improved mechanically, did not jam.
        DR> But they DID jam in the Sholes prototypes. S&Gs, too .
        DR> From my experience with Sholes & Gliddens (I have owned four of them over the years), the type bars were indeed likely to clash and jam.
        DR> However I can confidently say that machines of the the 1880s (like the Rem 2) were much better and far less likely to jam. I wouldn't say they "never" jammed, though.


        Why so different? S&G vs. the 1880s


        One of the reasons might be the difference of the connecting point with the wire on the top of the key-levers each.

        If the connecting point is on the orbital plane of the typebars each, that is the best position to place.

        The placement was shown by Sholes on the patent, filing year: 1881.
        http://www.google.com/patents/US558428?printsec=drawing#v=onepage&q&f=false

        This is the pattern that the side-effect of pulling force to type-bars may be minimized or almost nothing.


        But in the S&G days, the connecting point was not cared much to put on concerning with the orbital plane of the typebar movement. Maybe, Jenne or Clough didn't matter enough, in the beginning at least.

        The patentUS470874 drawing by Glidden preserve the placement of the connecting point on the S&G , and we living in the 21th do know. The repeated pattern by four key-levers each..
        http://www.google.com/patents/US470874
        Fig. 6. Look at the placement of parts a: the rim connecting with the operating wire B'.
        http://www.google.com/patents?id=6-VvAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA4&img=1&zoom=4&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U21bArMFtkOqEOgVxjGdgTDtoznGA&ci=669%2C970%2C190%2C119&edge=0

        We may confirm the pattern by the picture of the S&G in the ScienceWorks, Melbourne.
        http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PkGO0mPawLY/UASySZSmxwI/AAAAAAAAShc/9AbljkLkFhk/s1600/MelbourneFeb2011+012.JPG
        http://oztypewriter.blogspot.jp/2012/07/thinking-of-you-in-america-smithsonian.html


        ~rj
        http://qwerty-history.g.hatena.ne.jp/raycy/20120726/1343277428
        http://qwerty-history.g.hatena.ne.jp/raycy/20120725/1343182439


        --- In TYPEWRITERS@yahoogroups.com, "dcrehr" <dcrehr@...> wrote:
        >
        > Let's take a look at this. From the posted website:
        >
        > "experience of Associate Professor Koichi Yasuoka
        >
        > Typewriters in the 1880s with QWERTY keyboard had typebars to swing up to hit the back of paper. They are called upstrike typewriters and their typebars never jam."
        >
        >
        > This is apparently (it is not stated explicitly) intended to counter the argument that letters inside the early Sholes machines were rearranged in the type basket to prevent them from jamming... and when the keys were subsequently connected, the QWERTY keyboard was the result.
        >
        > Do you see the problem? The professor is comparing typewriters of the 1880s with the Sholes hand-made prototypes dating prior to 1872 or so! Sure, the 1880s typebars, improved mechanically, did not jam. I'll buy that. But they DID jam in the Sholes prototypes. S&Gs, too (although I'm sure it was worse in the prototypes). The professor's asserthion
        >
        > In addition the problem was not only jamming, but CLASHING. You can get an idea of what the clashing was like by wiggling your index and middle fingers back and forth. See how they rub together? The typebars on the early Sholes prototypes likely did the same thing. Sometimes they jammed, sometimes they didn't, but even the clashing would have cut down on a typist's speed.
        >
        > From my experience with Sholes & Gliddens (I have owned four of them over the years), the type bars were indeed likely to clash and jam. Of course, when I had these in my hands, they were more than 100 years old, so I can't say how they would have behaved when new. However I can confidently say that machines of the the 1880s (like the Rem 2) were much better and far less likely to jam. I wouldn't say they "never" jammed, though.
        >
        > The website also says that the T and H - an often used letter pair - are "adjacently placed" on the keyboard. They are? I would not call them adjacent. I don't have an upstrike typewriter handy. Can someone look inside to see if the T and H typeBARS are adjacent? I don't think they are.
        >
        > The assertion in some places that the frequent pairs were placed as far apart as possible is certainly not true by simple observation. However, All that was required was to have them separated by one place and the jamming problem was solved. S&G owners... try this out on your machines. Hit keys with adjacent type bars quickly in succession and observe the clashing. Now, hit keys with type bars separated by one position and see how the problem virtually disappears. (Of course, ANYONE can make typebars jam on any typewriter by whacking them all up to the printing point at once).
        >
        > Although I know of no primary source documentary material to precisely confirm the letter-pair strategy in creating the QWERTY keyboard (the earliest reference to it that I remember was in a London Science Museum booklet), the story makes a lot of sense.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.