Re: Scientific American "The Bicycle Wheel" 1896



M

Michael

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Lots of familiar pictures of old bicycles turn out to be from articles
> in the much shorter weekly version of "Scientific American," which
> unfortunately has not been digitized.
>
> Damn all microfiche readers and the hideous computer printing
> contraptions lashed to them with rusty digital bailing wire!



Are they like the monstrous things in e.g. libraries for viewing/printing
microfilm, their fiche-fed cousins?
Never saw a *printing* fiche viewer myself (sheltered life). Soon after I took
up genealogy, nearly 20 years ago, I snapped up a brand new, surplus fiche
viewer for $10. It folds up into its own briefcase. Very nifty... and
superfluous, since, to this day, I've never had any fiche to view (as opposed to
"fish to fry").

---
Michael



> "The Bicycle Wheel" by E.D. Sewall appeared Oct. 17, 1896, p. 297-8.
>
> Alas, E.D. labored under the mistaken impression that axles hang like
> monkeys from the upper spokes.
>
> But he meant well and had some nice drawings and a familiar
> explanation of the soggy British dislike for wooden rims.
>
> http://i2.tinypic.com/8ervzbb.jpg
>
> http://i7.tinypic.com/6tzaa1e.jpg
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
 
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:00:31 GMT, Michael <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Lots of familiar pictures of old bicycles turn out to be from articles
>> in the much shorter weekly version of "Scientific American," which
>> unfortunately has not been digitized.
>>
>> Damn all microfiche readers and the hideous computer printing
>> contraptions lashed to them with rusty digital bailing wire!

>
>
>Are they like the monstrous things in e.g. libraries for viewing/printing
>microfilm, their fiche-fed cousins?
>Never saw a *printing* fiche viewer myself (sheltered life). Soon after I took
>up genealogy, nearly 20 years ago, I snapped up a brand new, surplus fiche
>viewer for $10. It folds up into its own briefcase. Very nifty... and
>superfluous, since, to this day, I've never had any fiche to view (as opposed to
>"fish to fry").
>
>Michael


Dear Michael,

Probably the same thing, a microfilm reader mistakenly described as a
micofiche reader--it's the reel to reel microfilm, not the flat card
stuff.

By "monstrous" you probably mean size, but "monstrous" also does
justice to the inconvenience and frustration involved in using the
damn thing.

After the librarian cheerfully explains that the arrow molded into the
loader is indeed pointing the wrong way, you use three lens rings to
zoom, to focus, and to rotate the image.

After that, more intelligent design details take over. Pushing a
paddle switch up moves the picture down and vice-versa, while pushing
a handle in or out moves the image left or right.

Numerous legends about paper size and black corner lines framing the
screen are supposed to show what will be in the scanning field, but
they don't work on the computerized system.

Turn to the nearby computer and enter your 13-digit library id,
followed by your minimum 8-character password so that you can be
limited to the default 3 hours and 35 minutes (no one seems to know
why they picked 215 minutes).

After the librarian finds the scanning program and starts it, you find
a page that you'd like to scan, center it on the screen, zoom to fit
it roughly between the marks, check the focus, turn to the computer,
click on file, pick scan to page from the twenty options, and wait for
about twenty seconds while the reader groans and labors.

An almost pure-white overexposed scan appears on the screen. It's
about the size of a credit card and you can't enlarge it. Several more
tries with what appears to be the exposure control on the reader
produce equally useless results. Luckily, you stumble over a tiny
button next to and LED marked AE, guess that it might mean automatic
exposure, and try it--success! The unreadably small scan on the
computer screen looks reasonably like a printed page, so now we're
ready to print!

File. Print. Yes, I'd like to print to the only printer. Long wait,
then a new program erupts on the screen, explaining that it will cost
$0.10 to print the selected scan and asking if I really want to risk
my money. Yes. Another long wait, then a progress bar that stops and
waits for twenty seconds before it revives. A message then
congratulates you for successfully printing.

But where is the damn printer? After determining that no printer is
visible on the computer or the reader, you walk 120 feet to the
librarian's desk on the nearly deserted 3rd floor and ask the obvious
question. She cheerfully explains that now it's time to learn how to
operate the printer, which is next to her desk.

Put in your 13-digit library id on a computer next to a copier. No
password is required here, but you type the long ID blindly as if it's
a password. Click okay, and a print job appears.

Next, coins are required for the waist-high copier, whose bill changer
slot and coin return are conveniently located at knee height, possibly
to encourage use by basset hounds.

Feed a dime into the copier, admire the display that shows you have
0.10 worth of credit, highlight the only print job, and click on
print.

A message informs you that you must put money in the copier. Puzzled,
you do so, and click OK. The program throws you out and you must start
all over again, entering your 13-digit ID blindly. Eventually, you and
the librarian determine that money can only be added to the copier and
recognized by the computer if the coins are inserted at a particular
point in the process--and then you have to wait a while until the
computer approves your credit. Anything else leads to failure.

Finally, you succeed! Or so the message says. But nothing comes out of
the copier that you fed your dime into repeatedly. It turns out that
the program prints to a computer printer nearby, which isn't working.
The librarian fiddles with things until the printer starts coughing
out pages--and more pages--and more, until a long print job some
employee sent from another station is finished.

Then your page from Scientific American appears.

Sadly, a quarter of each side of the page is missing, so you go back
to wrestle with the zoom adjustment and make more scans until you
figure out that a different lens is needed to make things work.
Astonishingly, the lens swap in and out effortlessly, the only part of
the process that isn't designed to thwart the user.

After a dozen scans or so, you give up and return the reel in its
carton to the file cabinet stuck in the avant-garde corner of the
hideous new library building. Despite having more empty space than the
aircraft museum out at Memorial Airport, the new library is so badly
designed that the huge heavy cabinet was placed in an acute triangular
corner. Marks on the wall show where the one corner of the pull-out
cabinet shelf hits the wall--you can't pull it out far enough to put
the carton back in place, so you have to dig five cartons out, put
your carton in, and then stuff the others back into the gap, one by
one, somewhat like loading cartridges into a magazine.

On the way home to scan the printouts into your own computer and
upload them to tinypic, scheme to bring a digital camera and crude
tripod next time and see if you can sneak around this incredible
nonsense.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:00:31 GMT, Michael <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Lots of familiar pictures of old bicycles turn out to be from articles
>>> in the much shorter weekly version of "Scientific American," which
>>> unfortunately has not been digitized.
>>>
>>> Damn all microfiche readers and the hideous computer printing
>>> contraptions lashed to them with rusty digital bailing wire!

>>
>> Are they like the monstrous things in e.g. libraries for viewing/printing
>> microfilm, their fiche-fed cousins?
>> Never saw a *printing* fiche viewer myself (sheltered life). Soon after I took
>> up genealogy, nearly 20 years ago, I snapped up a brand new, surplus fiche
>> viewer for $10. It folds up into its own briefcase. Very nifty... and
>> superfluous, since, to this day, I've never had any fiche to view (as opposed to
>> "fish to fry").
>>
>> Michael

>
> Dear Michael,
>
> Probably the same thing, a microfilm reader mistakenly described as a
> micofiche reader--it's the reel to reel microfilm, not the flat card
> stuff.
>
> By "monstrous" you probably mean size, but "monstrous" also does
> justice to the inconvenience and frustration involved in using the
> damn thing.
>
> After the librarian cheerfully explains that the arrow molded into the
> loader is indeed pointing the wrong way, you use three lens rings to
> zoom, to focus, and to rotate the image.
>
> After that, more intelligent design details take over. Pushing a
> paddle switch up moves the picture down and vice-versa, while pushing
> a handle in or out moves the image left or right.
>
> Numerous legends about paper size and black corner lines framing the
> screen are supposed to show what will be in the scanning field, but
> they don't work on the computerized system.
>
> Turn to the nearby computer and enter your 13-digit library id,
> followed by your minimum 8-character password so that you can be
> limited to the default 3 hours and 35 minutes (no one seems to know
> why they picked 215 minutes).
>
> After the librarian finds the scanning program and starts it, you find
> a page that you'd like to scan, center it on the screen, zoom to fit
> it roughly between the marks, check the focus, turn to the computer,
> click on file, pick scan to page from the twenty options, and wait for
> about twenty seconds while the reader groans and labors.
>
> An almost pure-white overexposed scan appears on the screen. It's
> about the size of a credit card and you can't enlarge it. Several more
> tries with what appears to be the exposure control on the reader
> produce equally useless results. Luckily, you stumble over a tiny
> button next to and LED marked AE, guess that it might mean automatic
> exposure, and try it--success! The unreadably small scan on the
> computer screen looks reasonably like a printed page, so now we're
> ready to print!
>
> File. Print. Yes, I'd like to print to the only printer. Long wait,
> then a new program erupts on the screen, explaining that it will cost
> $0.10 to print the selected scan and asking if I really want to risk
> my money. Yes. Another long wait, then a progress bar that stops and
> waits for twenty seconds before it revives. A message then
> congratulates you for successfully printing.
>
> But where is the damn printer? After determining that no printer is
> visible on the computer or the reader, you walk 120 feet to the
> librarian's desk on the nearly deserted 3rd floor and ask the obvious
> question. She cheerfully explains that now it's time to learn how to
> operate the printer, which is next to her desk.
>
> Put in your 13-digit library id on a computer next to a copier. No
> password is required here, but you type the long ID blindly as if it's
> a password. Click okay, and a print job appears.
>
> Next, coins are required for the waist-high copier, whose bill changer
> slot and coin return are conveniently located at knee height, possibly
> to encourage use by basset hounds.
>
> Feed a dime into the copier, admire the display that shows you have
> 0.10 worth of credit, highlight the only print job, and click on
> print.
>
> A message informs you that you must put money in the copier. Puzzled,
> you do so, and click OK. The program throws you out and you must start
> all over again, entering your 13-digit ID blindly. Eventually, you and
> the librarian determine that money can only be added to the copier and
> recognized by the computer if the coins are inserted at a particular
> point in the process--and then you have to wait a while until the
> computer approves your credit. Anything else leads to failure.
>
> Finally, you succeed! Or so the message says. But nothing comes out of
> the copier that you fed your dime into repeatedly. It turns out that
> the program prints to a computer printer nearby, which isn't working.
> The librarian fiddles with things until the printer starts coughing
> out pages--and more pages--and more, until a long print job some
> employee sent from another station is finished.
>
> Then your page from Scientific American appears.
>
> Sadly, a quarter of each side of the page is missing, so you go back
> to wrestle with the zoom adjustment and make more scans until you
> figure out that a different lens is needed to make things work.
> Astonishingly, the lens swap in and out effortlessly, the only part of
> the process that isn't designed to thwart the user.
>
> After a dozen scans or so, you give up and return the reel in its
> carton to the file cabinet stuck in the avant-garde corner of the
> hideous new library building. Despite having more empty space than the
> aircraft museum out at Memorial Airport, the new library is so badly
> designed that the huge heavy cabinet was placed in an acute triangular
> corner. Marks on the wall show where the one corner of the pull-out
> cabinet shelf hits the wall--you can't pull it out far enough to put
> the carton back in place, so you have to dig five cartons out, put
> your carton in, and then stuff the others back into the gap, one by
> one, somewhat like loading cartridges into a magazine.
>
> On the way home to scan the printouts into your own computer and
> upload them to tinypic, scheme to bring a digital camera and crude
> tripod next time and see if you can sneak around this incredible
> nonsense.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel


Our local council had a large map on display which showed a proposed
mountain bike route. I took a photo of it with my new digital camera,
uploaded it to my computer, and from there traced a route for my GPS.
Was perfectly accurate.

Elmo
 
Beauteous, Carl!

I grabbed your lovely prose to send to a sister who goes genealogy and who will
surely recognize the tussle.

I have had plenty of knock-down-drag-outs with microfilm viewers over the past
20 years. (As does pretty much anyone who does genealogy.) I quickly learned to
look for original documents first and scan those. For that purpose I take an
ancient black-and-white HP ScanJet II with my laptop. Copies are therefore
free, also easy to make since I know my scanning software. Certain public
servants, believing that my use of a scanner instead of their reader/printers or
copiers threatens their job and livelihood, have tried barring said use. In all
cases, my knowing the HMFIC (military term meaning The Boss) cleared the way.

Hope you can somehow get your hands on original S.A.'s. Enjoy reading your
posts about cutting-edge technologies.

---
Michael


[email protected] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:00:31 GMT, Michael <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> Lots of familiar pictures of old bicycles turn out to be from articles
> >> in the much shorter weekly version of "Scientific American," which
> >> unfortunately has not been digitized.
> >>
> >> Damn all microfiche readers and the hideous computer printing
> >> contraptions lashed to them with rusty digital bailing wire!

> >
> >
> >Are they like the monstrous things in e.g. libraries for viewing/printing
> >microfilm, their fiche-fed cousins?
> >Never saw a *printing* fiche viewer myself (sheltered life). Soon after I took
> >up genealogy, nearly 20 years ago, I snapped up a brand new, surplus fiche
> >viewer for $10. It folds up into its own briefcase. Very nifty... and
> >superfluous, since, to this day, I've never had any fiche to view (as opposed to
> >"fish to fry").
> >
> >Michael

>
> Dear Michael,
>
> Probably the same thing, a microfilm reader mistakenly described as a
> micofiche reader--it's the reel to reel microfilm, not the flat card
> stuff.
>
> By "monstrous" you probably mean size, but "monstrous" also does
> justice to the inconvenience and frustration involved in using the
> damn thing.
>
> After the librarian cheerfully explains that the arrow molded into the
> loader is indeed pointing the wrong way, you use three lens rings to
> zoom, to focus, and to rotate the image.
>
> After that, more intelligent design details take over. Pushing a
> paddle switch up moves the picture down and vice-versa, while pushing
> a handle in or out moves the image left or right.
>
> Numerous legends about paper size and black corner lines framing the
> screen are supposed to show what will be in the scanning field, but
> they don't work on the computerized system.
>
> Turn to the nearby computer and enter your 13-digit library id,
> followed by your minimum 8-character password so that you can be
> limited to the default 3 hours and 35 minutes (no one seems to know
> why they picked 215 minutes).
>
> After the librarian finds the scanning program and starts it, you find
> a page that you'd like to scan, center it on the screen, zoom to fit
> it roughly between the marks, check the focus, turn to the computer,
> click on file, pick scan to page from the twenty options, and wait for
> about twenty seconds while the reader groans and labors.
>
> An almost pure-white overexposed scan appears on the screen. It's
> about the size of a credit card and you can't enlarge it. Several more
> tries with what appears to be the exposure control on the reader
> produce equally useless results. Luckily, you stumble over a tiny
> button next to and LED marked AE, guess that it might mean automatic
> exposure, and try it--success! The unreadably small scan on the
> computer screen looks reasonably like a printed page, so now we're
> ready to print!
>
> File. Print. Yes, I'd like to print to the only printer. Long wait,
> then a new program erupts on the screen, explaining that it will cost
> $0.10 to print the selected scan and asking if I really want to risk
> my money. Yes. Another long wait, then a progress bar that stops and
> waits for twenty seconds before it revives. A message then
> congratulates you for successfully printing.
>
> But where is the damn printer? After determining that no printer is
> visible on the computer or the reader, you walk 120 feet to the
> librarian's desk on the nearly deserted 3rd floor and ask the obvious
> question. She cheerfully explains that now it's time to learn how to
> operate the printer, which is next to her desk.
>
> Put in your 13-digit library id on a computer next to a copier. No
> password is required here, but you type the long ID blindly as if it's
> a password. Click okay, and a print job appears.
>
> Next, coins are required for the waist-high copier, whose bill changer
> slot and coin return are conveniently located at knee height, possibly
> to encourage use by basset hounds.
>
> Feed a dime into the copier, admire the display that shows you have
> 0.10 worth of credit, highlight the only print job, and click on
> print.
>
> A message informs you that you must put money in the copier. Puzzled,
> you do so, and click OK. The program throws you out and you must start
> all over again, entering your 13-digit ID blindly. Eventually, you and
> the librarian determine that money can only be added to the copier and
> recognized by the computer if the coins are inserted at a particular
> point in the process--and then you have to wait a while until the
> computer approves your credit. Anything else leads to failure.
>
> Finally, you succeed! Or so the message says. But nothing comes out of
> the copier that you fed your dime into repeatedly. It turns out that
> the program prints to a computer printer nearby, which isn't working.
> The librarian fiddles with things until the printer starts coughing
> out pages--and more pages--and more, until a long print job some
> employee sent from another station is finished.
>
> Then your page from Scientific American appears.
>
> Sadly, a quarter of each side of the page is missing, so you go back
> to wrestle with the zoom adjustment and make more scans until you
> figure out that a different lens is needed to make things work.
> Astonishingly, the lens swap in and out effortlessly, the only part of
> the process that isn't designed to thwart the user.
>
> After a dozen scans or so, you give up and return the reel in its
> carton to the file cabinet stuck in the avant-garde corner of the
> hideous new library building. Despite having more empty space than the
> aircraft museum out at Memorial Airport, the new library is so badly
> designed that the huge heavy cabinet was placed in an acute triangular
> corner. Marks on the wall show where the one corner of the pull-out
> cabinet shelf hits the wall--you can't pull it out far enough to put
> the carton back in place, so you have to dig five cartons out, put
> your carton in, and then stuff the others back into the gap, one by
> one, somewhat like loading cartridges into a magazine.
>
> On the way home to scan the printouts into your own computer and
> upload them to tinypic, scheme to bring a digital camera and crude
> tripod next time and see if you can sneak around this incredible
> nonsense.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
 
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:01:29 GMT, Michael <[email protected]> wrote:

>Beauteous, Carl!
>
>I grabbed your lovely prose to send to a sister who goes genealogy and who will
>surely recognize the tussle.
>
>I have had plenty of knock-down-drag-outs with microfilm viewers over the past
>20 years. (As does pretty much anyone who does genealogy.) I quickly learned to
>look for original documents first and scan those. For that purpose I take an
>ancient black-and-white HP ScanJet II with my laptop. Copies are therefore
>free, also easy to make since I know my scanning software. Certain public
>servants, believing that my use of a scanner instead of their reader/printers or
>copiers threatens their job and livelihood, have tried barring said use. In all
>cases, my knowing the HMFIC (military term meaning The Boss) cleared the way.
>
>Hope you can somehow get your hands on original S.A.'s. Enjoy reading your
>posts about cutting-edge technologies.
>
>---
>Michael


Dear Michael,

I tried the camera yesterday, screwed onto a makeshift stand.

Alas, the automatic flash didn't illuminate the screen very well, but
the bright white spot in the middle of the picture did serve to draw
attention away from the reflection on the glass of the rest of the
room and several other lights.

So I went back to the absurd rigamarole for making copies of the
screen. With more practice, I got better, but the copies are nothing
to brag about.

I noticed several other people using the inferior microfilm readers
nearby, all of them jotting notes by hand. The librarian had warned
them that those machines would eat their dimes and spit out near-blank
copies instantly, since the built-in toners on those machines are
empty and the library is emphasizing the wonderful computerized system
that's driving me mad.

Eventually I got so good that I uncovered more problems. The machine
eventually loses its ability to scroll down or begins drifting
aimlessly upward, but a power off and on again fixes that. No solution
except repeated scans was found for the white scan of death, a
stubborn overexposure on the order of a super-nova, no matter what the
exposure settings were.

As a final insult, the network's printer queue ate my final scan,
leaving me to run through the ritual at the printer several times and
feeling baffled. The kindly librarian reassured me that this sometimes
happens when the administrator clears certain problems.

Unfortunately, the older Scientific American doesn't seem to have been
digitized and put on CDROM for sale.

Now I'll stop whining and put something up in a new thread.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 

Similar threads

T
Replies
2
Views
421
UK and Europe
Ozark Bicycle
O