| The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #380798] |
Wed, 06 February 2019 22:31  |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The diagram of the Selectric printing element in the patent (US 2,895,584) on the
Selectric typewriter shows four bands of letters going around the element which
are vertically symmetric - the letters on the top band are opposite the letters on
the bottom band.
I had thought that the real Selectric typeball had the top band of letters not
opposite anything, and then the second band opposite the bottom band, and the
third band on the equator, thus opposite itself.
I used to have quite a few of them, but now I'm reduced to looking at pictures
on the Web.
In any event, though, looking more closely at those pictures, I see I'm mistaken.
The third band of characters isn't exactly on the equator, but slightly below.
So no two bands are directly opposite each other.
Thus, measuring the minimum distance of the printing surface of a character from
the center of the spherical element is _not_ going to be a trivial matter with
dial calipers, but will instead involve several measurements of both distance
and angle and some calculations. Possibly ball bearings and modeling clay may
even be of help...
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #380829 is a reply to message #380798] |
Thu, 07 February 2019 15:39  |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 10:31:39 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> The diagram of the Selectric printing element in the patent (US 2,895,584) on the
> Selectric typewriter shows four bands of letters going around the element which
> are vertically symmetric - the letters on the top band are opposite the letters on
> the bottom band.
>
> I had thought that the real Selectric typeball had the top band of letters not
> opposite anything, and then the second band opposite the bottom band, and the
> third band on the equator, thus opposite itself.
>
> I used to have quite a few of them, but now I'm reduced to looking at pictures
> on the Web.
>
> In any event, though, looking more closely at those pictures, I see I'm mistaken.
>
> The third band of characters isn't exactly on the equator, but slightly below.
> So no two bands are directly opposite each other.
>
> Thus, measuring the minimum distance of the printing surface of a character from
> the center of the spherical element is _not_ going to be a trivial matter with
> dial calipers, but will instead involve several measurements of both distance
> and angle and some calculations. Possibly ball bearings and modeling clay may
> even be of help...
Bitsavers and other sources may have more recent documentation
detailing the Selectric elements. It's possible the production
design differed somewhat from that of the patent.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #380830 is a reply to message #380798] |
Thu, 07 February 2019 15:40 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 10:31:39 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> The diagram of the Selectric printing element in the patent (US 2,895,584) on the
> Selectric typewriter shows four bands of letters going around the element which
> are vertically symmetric - the letters on the top band are opposite the letters on
> the bottom band.
>
> I had thought that the real Selectric typeball had the top band of letters not
> opposite anything, and then the second band opposite the bottom band, and the
> third band on the equator, thus opposite itself.
>
> I used to have quite a few of them, but now I'm reduced to looking at pictures
> on the Web.
>
> In any event, though, looking more closely at those pictures, I see I'm mistaken.
>
> The third band of characters isn't exactly on the equator, but slightly below.
> So no two bands are directly opposite each other.
>
> Thus, measuring the minimum distance of the printing surface of a character from
> the center of the spherical element is _not_ going to be a trivial matter with
> dial calipers, but will instead involve several measurements of both distance
> and angle and some calculations. Possibly ball bearings and modeling clay may
> even be of help...
>
> John Savard
see
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/typewriter/selectric/
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #380926 is a reply to message #380798] |
Mon, 11 February 2019 10:17 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 8:31:39 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> The third band of characters isn't exactly on the equator, but slightly below.
> So no two bands are directly opposite each other.
Looking more closely at more of those pictures, I now think that I was unduly
pessimistic.
Carefully examining a picture of an Orator element suggests that my original
view, that the third band of characters from the top is at the "equator" of the
element, was correct.
Ordinary capital letters of other typestyles, like Prestige Elite, use mostly
the upper portion of the area available to a character, since cap height is near
the top, while the character baseline is above the lower limit of character
descenders. So those characters, using the upper portion of the arc
corresponding to the curve of the platen, will seem to be angled downwards.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #380955 is a reply to message #380926] |
Mon, 11 February 2019 17:27 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 8:31:39 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> The third band of characters isn't exactly on the equator, but slightly below.
>> So no two bands are directly opposite each other.
>
> Looking more closely at more of those pictures, I now think that I was unduly
> pessimistic.
>
> Carefully examining a picture of an Orator element suggests that my original
> view, that the third band of characters from the top is at the "equator" of the
> element, was correct.
>
> Ordinary capital letters of other typestyles, like Prestige Elite, use mostly
> the upper portion of the area available to a character, since cap height is near
> the top, while the character baseline is above the lower limit of character
> descenders. So those characters, using the upper portion of the arc
> corresponding to the curve of the platen, will seem to be angled downwards.
>
Interesting, that. Also I believe that the lower-case characters on the
lower half are in the same relative positions as the corresponding
upper-case characters on the upper half.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #380959 is a reply to message #380926] |
Mon, 11 February 2019 17:49 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 10:17:38 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> Carefully examining a picture of an Orator element suggests that my original
> view, that the third band of characters from the top is at the "equator" of the
> element, was correct.
If memory serves, Orator did not produce a 'crisp' impression
on the paper as compared to other typefaces.
My college had a specially built jumbo typeface typewriter
(I don't recall the brand). That produced a much clearer
large typing. I assume there'd be a demand for such units
for various reasons, even though they could only do large
type. I thought it was of neat. (They were using it
to type up HELLO MY NAME IS labels when I saw it.)
> Ordinary capital letters of other typestyles, like Prestige Elite, use mostly
> the upper portion of the area available to a character, since cap height is near
> the top, while the character baseline is above the lower limit of character
> descenders. So those characters, using the upper portion of the arc
> corresponding to the curve of the platen, will seem to be angled downwards.
Prestige Elite was my favorite typeface; I thought it looked
better than Courier. Many computer printers had it as a
native font. My dot matrix printer had it and I used it a
lot for correspondence, but unfortunately that printer died.
I recall seeing an IBM publication in which they recommended
various typefaces for different applications. For example,
Letter Gothic, a somewhat sans-serif face, was suggested for
invoices.
They also had a Bookface which looked more typeset.
Many manuals on bitsavers were done by what looks like a
proportional typewriter. I guess for the 1950s it looked
good, but a proportional typewriter wasn't all that great.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #380971 is a reply to message #380955] |
Mon, 11 February 2019 21:21 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 3:27:34 PM UTC-7, Peter Flass wrote:
> Interesting, that. Also I believe that the lower-case characters on the
> lower half are in the same relative positions as the corresponding
> upper-case characters on the upper half.
Lower? Upper?
The shifted and unshifted characters were indeed in corresponding positions, so
that shift would be a single mechanical motion, independent of those involved in
selecting a character.
But that motion was a horizontal rotation of the element through 180 degrees,
and did not involve the tilt that moved between the bands that were one above
the other on the element.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #380972 is a reply to message #380959] |
Mon, 11 February 2019 21:26 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 3:49:22 PM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> My college had a specially built jumbo typeface typewriter
> (I don't recall the brand). That produced a much clearer
> large typing.
IBM made one such typewriter, using a typestyle called "Directory".
> Many manuals on bitsavers were done by what looks like a
> proportional typewriter. I guess for the 1950s it looked
> good, but a proportional typewriter wasn't all that great.
No, proportional typewriters aren't all that great - they use a five-unit
system. In comparison, Monotype, used in professional typesetting, used an
eighteen-unit system, and the IBM Selectric Composer, which provided print that
looked almost like typesetting, used a nine-unit system (it would have been
eleven units if the widest characters hadn't been condensed, so the system had
more than half the resolution of Monotype).
Mid-Century was used in manuals by SDS and DEC, it looks a bit like Futura. IBM
used Documentary, with Charter for small-sized type on the copyright page. All
these are styles for the IBM Executive proportionally-spaced electric typebar
typewriter.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #381050 is a reply to message #380798] |
Wed, 13 February 2019 17:41 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Chris
On 02/07/19 03:31, Quadibloc wrote:
> The diagram of the Selectric printing element in the patent (US 2,895,584) on the
> Selectric typewriter shows four bands of letters going around the element which
> are vertically symmetric - the letters on the top band are opposite the letters on
> the bottom band.
>
> I had thought that the real Selectric typeball had the top band of letters not
> opposite anything, and then the second band opposite the bottom band, and the
> third band on the equator, thus opposite itself.
>
> I used to have quite a few of them, but now I'm reduced to looking at pictures
> on the Web.
>
> In any event, though, looking more closely at those pictures, I see I'm mistaken.
>
> The third band of characters isn't exactly on the equator, but slightly below.
> So no two bands are directly opposite each other.
>
> Thus, measuring the minimum distance of the printing surface of a character from
> the center of the spherical element is _not_ going to be a trivial matter with
> dial calipers, but will instead involve several measurements of both distance
> and angle and some calculations. Possibly ball bearings and modeling clay may
> even be of help...
>
> John Savard
All I remember about those is what an sob it was to replace the tilt or
rotate bands when they break, and the following adjustment. Great idea
for it's time though...
Chris
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #381079 is a reply to message #381050] |
Thu, 14 February 2019 01:32 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 3:41:48 PM UTC-7, Chris wrote:
> All I remember about those is what an sob it was to replace the tilt or
> rotate bands when they break, and the following adjustment. Great idea
> for it's time though...
That's true. And I've heard that the mechanism in the Electronic Typewriter 50
which didn't have the tilt and rotate bands wasn't that long-lasting or
reliable. The 65, 85, and 95 may have improved on that a bit, I don't know.
However, there *was* the Silver-Reed electronic typewriter, and _that_ mechanism
apparently worked well. So there is a sound basis from which to work.
Of course Selectric element typewriters, or even daisywheel typewriters, are
wildly uneconomic today now that we have cheap laser printers and quality inkjet
printers.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #381109 is a reply to message #381079] |
Thu, 14 February 2019 17:53 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 1:32:36 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> Of course Selectric element typewriters, or even daisywheel typewriters, are
> wildly uneconomic today now that we have cheap laser printers and quality inkjet
> printers.
Can't even give them away. Sad.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #381111 is a reply to message #381079] |
Thu, 14 February 2019 18:16 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Chris
On 02/14/19 06:32, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 3:41:48 PM UTC-7, Chris wrote:
>
>> All I remember about those is what an sob it was to replace the tilt or
>> rotate bands when they break, and the following adjustment. Great idea
>> for it's time though...
>
> That's true. And I've heard that the mechanism in the Electronic Typewriter 50
> which didn't have the tilt and rotate bands wasn't that long-lasting or
> reliable. The 65, 85, and 95 may have improved on that a bit, I don't know.
>
> However, there *was* the Silver-Reed electronic typewriter, and _that_ mechanism
> apparently worked well. So there is a sound basis from which to work.
>
> Of course Selectric element typewriters, or even daisywheel typewriters, are
> wildly uneconomic today now that we have cheap laser printers and quality inkjet
> printers.
>
> John Savard
It was a very original and creative piece of engineering and the idea of
a golfball must have fed well into the marketing of the time.
My example was given to me, ex Wang wp system iirc and had two broken
bands. In the early days, when printers were very expensive. Built
a hw interface to hook up to an Apple II, my first letter quality
printer. A few years later, a Laserjet II, the only printer ever
bought new here and spent the whole first evening being amazed at
how good the print quality was. Laser printing was a revolutionary
step.
Still have a couple of dot matrix in store, but used for years...
Chris
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #381117 is a reply to message #381111] |
Thu, 14 February 2019 22:09 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Some antique typewriter collectors are annoyed with IBM for advertising the Selectric as new and
revolutionary at the time. What about the Blickensderfer or the Hammond?
The thing is, though, that the old single element typewriters were harder to type on than regular manual
typewriters, in particular the Underwood Five, which became the gold standard for typing ease and comfort
when it was introduced.
The Selectric was a single element typewriter that was as good a typewriter as a normal electric
typewriter. It was the first of them of which that could be said.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #381137 is a reply to message #381117] |
Fri, 15 February 2019 15:21 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 19:09:03 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc wrote:
>
> Some antique typewriter collectors are annoyed with IBM for advertising the Selectric as new and
> revolutionary at the time. What about the Blickensderfer or the Hammond?
The public eye only sees the company being commercially successful
pushing something "new" into the market.
One example might be that Antonio Meucci, an Italian immigrant to the US,
filed the first caveat (an announcement of an invention) for a "talking
telegraph long before Graham Bell did. But latter is often credited for
the invention of the telephone.
Then there are many people who believe, Apple invented the touchscreen
with the first iPhone (2007 I believe). But the technology goes back to
at least the 1970s when Apple not even existed.
--
Andreas
My random thoughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #381138 is a reply to message #381117] |
Fri, 15 February 2019 16:12 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 10:09:04 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> Some antique typewriter collectors are annoyed with IBM for advertising the Selectric as new and
> revolutionary at the time. What about the Blickensderfer or the Hammond?
>
> The thing is, though, that the old single element typewriters were harder to type on than regular manual
> typewriters, in particular the Underwood Five, which became the gold standard for typing ease and comfort
> when it was introduced.
>
> The Selectric was a single element typewriter that was as good a typewriter as a normal electric
> typewriter. It was the first of them of which that could be said.
I always wondered why no one ever talked about the Teletype
model 33 type element. It wasn't as elegant as the Selectric
and not user-interchangeable, but it still followed the key
idea of having a rotating element, not individual typebars.
Even though the 33 was a 'budget' machine, they seemed to work
out pretty good in actual service and were around for a long
time.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #381139 is a reply to message #381137] |
Fri, 15 February 2019 16:13 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 3:21:45 PM UTC-5, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> Then there are many people who believe, Apple invented the touchscreen
> with the first iPhone (2007 I believe). But the technology goes back to
> at least the 1970s when Apple not even existed.
I remember elevator buttons of the early 1960s which were touch-
activated (no pressure needed).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #381148 is a reply to message #381138] |
Fri, 15 February 2019 20:05 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2019-02-15, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 10:09:04 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> Some antique typewriter collectors are annoyed with IBM for advertising
>> the Selectric as new and revolutionary at the time. What about the
>> Blickensderfer or the Hammond?
>>
>> The thing is, though, that the old single element typewriters were harder
>> to type on than regular manual typewriters, in particular the Underwood
>> Five, which became the gold standard for typing ease and comfort when it
>> was introduced.
>>
>> The Selectric was a single element typewriter that was as good a typewriter
>> as a normal electric typewriter. It was the first of them of which that
>> could be said.
>
> I always wondered why no one ever talked about the Teletype
> model 33 type element. It wasn't as elegant as the Selectric
> and not user-interchangeable, but it still followed the key
> idea of having a rotating element, not individual typebars.
>
> Even though the 33 was a 'budget' machine, they seemed to work
> out pretty good in actual service and were around for a long
> time.
Then there's the Model 35, whose typebox _was_ interchangeable -
plus it was built like a tank. Mind you, the keyboard wasn't
much more fun than a 33's - but that's not the fault of the
printing unit, which was mechanically isolated from the keyboard.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ Fight low-contrast text in web pages! http://contrastrebellion.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #381156 is a reply to message #381139] |
Sat, 16 February 2019 13:29 |
Gerard Schildberger
Messages: 163
Registered: September 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 3:13:27 PM UTC-6, hanc wrote:
> On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 3:21:45 PM UTC-5, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>
>> Then there are many people who believe, Apple invented the touchscreen
>> with the first iPhone (2007 I believe). But the technology goes back to
>> at least the 1970s when Apple not even existed.
>
> I remember elevator buttons of the early 1960s which were touch-
> activated (no pressure needed).
Those elevator buttons (and on the various floors) that were touch-activated
were heat sensitive. They are no long permitted for safety reasons. A fire
on a floor will activate a button (to call for a car), causing an elevator
(car) to arrive at the floor that has a fire, not good if there are occupants
in the car. __________________________________________ Gerard Schildberger
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #381159 is a reply to message #381156] |
Sat, 16 February 2019 15:14 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, Gerard Schildberger wrote:
> On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 3:13:27 PM UTC-6, hanc wrote:
>> On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 3:21:45 PM UTC-5, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>
>>> Then there are many people who believe, Apple invented the touchscreen
>>> with the first iPhone (2007 I believe). But the technology goes back to
>>> at least the 1970s when Apple not even existed.
>>
>> I remember elevator buttons of the early 1960s which were touch-
>> activated (no pressure needed).
>
> Those elevator buttons (and on the various floors) that were touch-activated
> were heat sensitive. They are no long permitted for safety reasons. A fire
> on a floor will activate a button (to call for a car), causing an elevator
> (car) to arrive at the floor that has a fire, not good if there are occupants
> in the car. __________________________________________ Gerard Schildberger
>
I don't know what they used in elevators.
But even in the tube era, there were switches that worked by touch, your
body acting as an antenna to pick up ac line voltage, and the switch would
react to that 50 or 60 cycles on your finger.
There were also capacitance switches, again in the tube era, touching a
panel would put a load on it (the capacitance of your body to ground)
which would then throw something out and activate the power.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #381165 is a reply to message #381148] |
Sat, 16 February 2019 16:27 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 8:06:15 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2019-02-15, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 10:09:04 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> Some antique typewriter collectors are annoyed with IBM for advertising
>>> the Selectric as new and revolutionary at the time. What about the
>>> Blickensderfer or the Hammond?
>>>
>>> The thing is, though, that the old single element typewriters were harder
>>> to type on than regular manual typewriters, in particular the Underwood
>>> Five, which became the gold standard for typing ease and comfort when it
>>> was introduced.
>>>
>>> The Selectric was a single element typewriter that was as good a typewriter
>>> as a normal electric typewriter. It was the first of them of which that
>>> could be said.
>>
>> I always wondered why no one ever talked about the Teletype
>> model 33 type element. It wasn't as elegant as the Selectric
>> and not user-interchangeable, but it still followed the key
>> idea of having a rotating element, not individual typebars.
>>
>> Even though the 33 was a 'budget' machine, they seemed to work
>> out pretty good in actual service and were around for a long
>> time.
>
> Then there's the Model 35, whose typebox _was_ interchangeable -
> plus it was built like a tank. Mind you, the keyboard wasn't
> much more fun than a 33's - but that's not the fault of the
> printing unit, which was mechanically isolated from the keyboard.
The model 35 was based on the model 28, built like a tank
because I believe it was originally a military spec.
To my surprise, the 28 remained in production a long time.
I guess Baudot was hard to kill off, though I would think
customers would've wanted the extra characters of ASCII
and avoid the LTRS/NUM shifting.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #381166 is a reply to message #381159] |
Sat, 16 February 2019 16:28 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 3:18:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote:
> There were also capacitance switches, again in the tube era, touching a
> panel would put a load on it (the capacitance of your body to ground)
> which would then throw something out and activate the power.
A defective electronic device would react to a body touching
it. Sometimes with an old TV touching it would improve reception
(a nuisance), sometimes distort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #381172 is a reply to message #381165] |
Sat, 16 February 2019 18:37 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 16/02/2019 21:27, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 8:06:15 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2019-02-15, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 10:09:04 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some antique typewriter collectors are annoyed with IBM for advertising
>>>> the Selectric as new and revolutionary at the time. What about the
>>>> Blickensderfer or the Hammond?
>>>>
>>>> The thing is, though, that the old single element typewriters were harder
>>>> to type on than regular manual typewriters, in particular the Underwood
>>>> Five, which became the gold standard for typing ease and comfort when it
>>>> was introduced.
>>>>
>>>> The Selectric was a single element typewriter that was as good a typewriter
>>>> as a normal electric typewriter. It was the first of them of which that
>>>> could be said.
>>>
>>> I always wondered why no one ever talked about the Teletype
>>> model 33 type element. It wasn't as elegant as the Selectric
>>> and not user-interchangeable, but it still followed the key
>>> idea of having a rotating element, not individual typebars.
>>>
>>> Even though the 33 was a 'budget' machine, they seemed to work
>>> out pretty good in actual service and were around for a long
>>> time.
>>
>> Then there's the Model 35, whose typebox _was_ interchangeable -
>> plus it was built like a tank. Mind you, the keyboard wasn't
>> much more fun than a 33's - but that's not the fault of the
>> printing unit, which was mechanically isolated from the keyboard.
>
> The model 35 was based on the model 28, built like a tank
> because I believe it was originally a military spec.
> To my surprise, the 28 remained in production a long time.
> I guess Baudot was hard to kill off, though I would think
> customers would've wanted the extra characters of ASCII
> and avoid the LTRS/NUM shifting.
>
The British military were still using ITA2 in the 1980s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #381184 is a reply to message #381138] |
Sun, 17 February 2019 07:12 |
Christian Corti
Messages: 33
Registered: September 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 10:09:04 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
>> The Selectric was a single element typewriter that was as good a typewriter as a normal electric
>> typewriter. It was the first of them of which that could be said.
> I always wondered why no one ever talked about the Teletype
> model 33 type element. It wasn't as elegant as the Selectric
> and not user-interchangeable, but it still followed the key
> idea of having a rotating element, not individual typebars.
And I wonder why noone ever talked about the AEG Mignon from 1903 with
its invention of the single element type cylinder very similar to the
one of the ASR33.
Christian
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #381185 is a reply to message #381182] |
Sun, 17 February 2019 08:20 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Christian Corti <use@reply.to> writes:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> Yes, but those were heat-sensing, and that technology would not work for a touchscreen.
>
> I don't belive that, I have never heard of heat sensing switches. I think
> they were normal capacity sensing switches like those found on some Radio and
> TV sets.
Yep, this was discussed here a few years back. Memories fade.
Those switches may look like they sense heat, but they're
sensing the bodies capacitance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_switch#Capacitance_switc h
A capacitance switch needs only one electrode to function. The
electrode can be placed behind a non-conductive panel such as wood,
glass, or plastic. The switch works using body capacitance, a property
of the human body that gives it great electrical characteristics. The
switch keeps charging and discharging its metal exterior to detect
changes in capacitance. When a person touches it, their body increases
the capacitance and triggers the switch.
Capacitance switches are available commercially as integrated circuits
from a number of manufacturers. These devices can also be used as a
short-range proximity sensor.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Selectric Golfball is Hard to Measure [message #381193 is a reply to message #380798] |
Sun, 17 February 2019 13:03 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2019-02-16, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 15:14:25 -0500, Michael Black wrote:
>
>> But even in the tube era, there were switches that worked by touch,
>> your body acting as an antenna to pick up ac line voltage, and the
>> switch would react to that 50 or 60 cycles on your finger.
>
> I experienced in some modern elevators that I received an electric shock
> before only touching a bottom.
Aha, the #MeToo movement is getting teeth...
> Like in malls where they have a carpet that yourself get charged
> when walking. That shouldn't happen.
Shouldn't happen at home either, but here there's no one to sue.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ Fight low-contrast text in web pages! http://contrastrebellion.com
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
