Part 7

But two-motion calculators, from Leibnitz down to date, have always been constructed so that the primary or first action involved merely the setting of the controlling devices and performed no function in the supplying of power to operate the mechanism which does the adding. With such machines the load was thrown on to the secondary action.

This, of course, made the primary action of setting, a very light action, especially when keys came into use, and as there are several key depressions to each secondary or crank action, it may be understood that while the action of Felt’s printing or paper shift-lever was light, the action of the keys which were called upon to perform most of the work was much harder than it would have been if his adding mechanism had been designed on the key-set crank-operated plan of the regular two-motion machine such as illustrated in the Pottin or Burroughs patents described.

Thus, when Burroughs applied the Felt recording principle to his key-set crank-operated adding mechanism, he produced a type of recording machine which proved to be more acceptable from an operative standpoint than the recorder made by Felt; and yet the writer has read testimonials given by those who had both the Felt key-driven recorder and the Burroughs key-set crank-operated recorders, who claimed they could see no advantage.

Probably the best proof lies in the fact that Felt finally abandoned the key-driven feature in his recorders, as may be noted from the later-day “Comptograph.”

THE FIRST PRACTICAL BURROUGHS RECORDER

The first Burroughs patent to show the successful combination referred to was No. 504,963, applied for May 5, 1892, and issued September 12, 1893. The printing scheme, however, while indicated in the said patent, was applied for in a divisional patent, No. 505,078, issued on the same date. Drawings from both these patents are shown on opposite page.

[Sidenote: _Description of first practical Burroughs recorder_]

The new printing device, as will be noted, instead of operating at the bottom of the machine, operates at the rear and prints the paper against a roll mounted outside of the casing.

Outside of adopting the Felt method of printing, the general scheme of construction used in the machine of the former-described Burroughs patent was maintained, except that the levers D, used to drag the denominational actuators down, were omitted, and a series of springs, one for each actuator, was supplied to pull such levers down as are released by key-depression when the common actuator drops under crank action.

Thus the description previously given will suffice for a general understanding of the mechanical functions of the adding mechanism and the general scheme for the setting up of the type in these later patents.

The construction of the type sectors, the printing-hammers and the trigger-latches used to retain the hammers against the action of their operating springs is best shown in the drawings of patent No. 505,078 on page 136. Fig. 1 shows the normal relation, while Fig. 2 illustrates the same mechanism in the act of printing.

The type sector as shown in drawings of patent No. 505,078 is marked K, while in the drawings of No. 504,963 it will be found marked 611ᵃ. They are formed from a continuation of the denominational actuators for the total register in the same manner that the type-wheel gear racks h, of the previously described Burroughs patent were formed.

The type u, are arranged on movable blocks marked 618, which are shown held in their retracted or normal position by springs 682, but when pressure is brought to bear against these type blocks in a direction outward from the sector, the spring 682 will give and the type blocks will slide outward in the slots provided to guide their action.

The paper, as will be noted, is fed from a roll, up between the type and the printing-roll 599, in the same manner as the paper of a typewriter, and through the interposition of an ink-ribbon between the type and the paper, the pressing of the type against the ink-ribbon, paper and roll gives imprint.

The pressure brought to bear on the type is through the hammer-blow of the printing-hammers 715, of which there is one for each ordinal printing sector. These hammers are pivoted to the rod 701, and are spring-actuated through the medium of the pin 741, the lever 716, and spring 780, which, combined with the cam-slot w, in the printing-hammers, serve to force the printing-hammers into the position shown in Fig. 2.

The printing-hammers are normally retracted and latched by a series of trigger latches 117, through the latch-tooth b, which engages the lever 716 at v.

Each trigger-latch 117, is pivoted on the rod 700, and provided with an overlapping lug as shown in Fig. 4. These overlapping lugs, like those described on the trigger-latches in the Felt patent, serve as an automatic means of filling in the ciphers in the same manner as described in the Felt machine.

The means for tripping the overlapping trigger latches naturally differed from the means shown in the Felt machine, as the Burroughs machine was not key-driven.

A very ingenious means for the tripping of the trigger-latches is shown, consisting of the dogs 718, and rock-frame 711, and tie-rods 703-704, which co-operate with a cam-shoulder y on the arm of the printing-sectors, to remain neutral or to disengage the trigger-latches through a reciprocating action, shown in dotted lines in Fig. 1, patent No. 505,078.

The tripping action takes place at the end of the forward motion of the actuating hand-crank through connections not shown in the drawings.

It may be understood that on account of the overlapping of the trigger-latches of the printing-hammers that if, as described in relation to the Felt recording-machine, one of the trigger-latches in any order to the left of the units order should be tripped, it would cause all the trigger-latches to the right to be also tripped, and the printing-hammers thus released to spring forward, giving an individual hammer-blow for each type impression.

Thus, if the five-hundred-dollar key should be depressed, only the trigger latch in that order need be tripped. This is brought about through the fact that normally the tripping-dogs 718 are held out of tripping engagement by the cam surface y of the type-sector, as the rock-frame in which the dogs are mounted is moved forward in its tripping action. But as the hundred-dollar order type-sector has been lifted through the setting of the (5) key in that order, it allows the tripping-dog to engage the trigger-latch of that order, and through the overlapping feature of the trigger-latches to trip and print the ciphers to the right.

It will be noted that the application of the printing-hammers varied in detail from that of Felt much the same as placing the latch on the gate post instead of on the gate. In the generic principle, however, the individual hammer-blow for each individual impression was maintained.

[Sidenote: _Date of use of first practical Burroughs recorder_]

There have been many conflicting statements made regarding the date of the first Burroughs listing or recording machine, which is probably due to the fact that the statements were not qualified by such terms as “practically operative” or “legible recording.”

Dates given as that of the first Burroughs recording machine range from 1884 to 1892. In a book published by the Burroughs Co. in 1912, under the title of the “Book of the Burroughs,” there was a statement that the first practical machines were made in 1891.

H. B. Wyeth, at one time sales agent for the Burroughs Co., and whose father was president of the company in 1891 and several years thereafter, testified in court that the first sale of a Burroughs recording machine was made about December, 1892. Corroboration of his testimony is set forth in a Burroughs advertisement which appeared in the February number of Office Appliances Magazine in 1908, a reproduction of which is shown on the opposite page.

That Burroughs was experimenting as early as 1885 is no doubt correct; and that in this respect he antidated Felt’s first attempt to produce a recording-adder, is not questioned. But when it comes to the question of who produced the first practical recording-adder, there is no room for doubt in face of the evidence at hand.

Introduction of the Modern Accounting Machine

As the reader has been carried along through the tangle of mechanical efforts of the men who have racked their brains to produce means that would relieve the burden of those who have to juggle with arithmetical problems and masses of figures in the day’s accounting, there was one phase of subject that has not been touched upon. While these inventors were doing their best to benefit mankind and, without doubt, with the thought of reaping a harvest for themselves, the public, who could have been the prime beneficiary, did not hasten to avail themselves of the opportunity.

[Sidenote: _Opposition to the use of machines for accounting_]

In the early days, when the key-driven calculator was marketed, and later when the recording-adder was also placed on the market, the efforts of the salesmen for each of these types of machines, in their endeavor to interest possible purchasers, were met with anything but enthusiasm. Of course, now and then a wide-awake businessman was willing to be shown and would purchase, but ninety-nine out of the hundred who really had use for a machine of either type could not at that early date be awakened to the fact.

Although the calculator and the recording-adder are indispensable factors in business today, and have served to improve the lot of the bookkeeper and those employed in expert accounting in general, they met with very strong opposition for the first few years from employers of this class. It was strongly evident that the efforts of book-keepers and counting-house clerks to prevent these machines entering their department were inspired by the fear that it would displace their services and interfere with their chance of a livelihood.

Again, men of this class, and even those in charge of large departments, took the mere suggestion that they had use for a calculator or recording-adder as an insult to their efficiency, and would almost throw the salesman out. Others would very politely look the machine over and tell the salesman what a wonderful machine it was, but when asked to give the machine a trial, they would immediately back up and say that they had absolutely no use for such a machine; whereas possibly now the same department is using twenty-five to a hundred such machines.

[Sidenote: _Banks more liberal in recognition_]

Of the two classes of machines, the recording, or listing machines, as they are commonly called, although a later product, were the first to sell in quantities that may be called large sales. This was probably due to the fact that they were largely sold to the banks, who have always been more liberal in recognizing the advantages of labor-saving devices than any other class of business.

The presence of these machines in the bank also had a tendency to influence business-men to install recorders where the key-driven calculator would have given far greater results in quantity of work and expense of operating. In these days, however, the average businessman is alive to his requirements, and selects what is best suited to his needs instead of being influenced by seeing a machine used by others for an entirely different purpose. The theory of using the printed list of items as a means of checking back has blown into a bubble and burst, and the non-lister has come into its own, not but what there has always been a good sale for these machines except for the first four years.

[Sidenote: _Improvements slow for first few years_]

On account of the years it took to educate business into the use of these two types of accounting machines, and the fact that the sales of both were small at first, there were few improvements for several years, as improvements depend upon prosperity.

Such changes as have been made since were largely aimed at refinements, but there are some very noteworthy features added to the performance of both types of machines, which are explained and described in following chapters, where the subject will be treated under the class of machines they affect.

The High-Speed Calculator

As previously stated, the calculating machine was old when Felt improved the Art by combining the key-drive with a plurality of co-operative orders of adding mechanism. The advantage in the machine he produced existed in the great increase in rapid manipulation which it offered over the older Art, especially in addition. To improve upon Felt’s contribution to the Art of calculating machines from a commercial standpoint demanded a combination that would give still greater possibilities in rapid manipulation.

[Sidenote: _Felt improvements on Comptometer_]

The patent records show that Felt again came to the front and gave to the public a new machine containing many new combinations of highly-organized mechanism that produced the above-named result. The patents showing these features are Nos. 762,520 and 762,521, the two patents being divisional patents of the same machine.

Although there were several patents on key-driven calculators issued to others and a key-driven calculator placed on the market, which was sold to some extent, none of these calculators offered anything that would increase the possibility of more rapid manipulation than was to be had from Felt’s old Comptometer.

[Sidenote: _Scientific distribution of functions_]

There is one feature about the machine of these two divisional patents which stands out very prominently to those acquainted with the fine points of the physical laws of mechanics. It is a feature that was not printed into the specifications. It may be found only in the time allowed for the mechanical movements to take place, which shows that theoretical reasoning was the foundation for the distribution of the functions in the machine of these patents into increments of time, and that the arrangement of mechanism was especially designed to carry out this primary theoretical reasoning. While it is obvious that such procedure must accompany successful invention of mechanism, it is seldom that we find such fineness displayed as may be found in the timing of the mechanical functions of the later Comptometer.

The force of the above statement may be realized by study of the mechanical motions of the old Comptometer and then trying to improve on them to attain greater speed of operation. Such a possibility would depend on more rapid key-strokes.

According to the physical laws of force and motion, to attain greater speed of action demanded a decrease in resistance. Thus, less key resistance must be attained to increase speed of operation.

Felt probably knew from experience that lighter key action could not be had by juggling with springs or by polished surfaces. He was also aware of the infinitesimal space of time allotted to each function, as the parts of the mechanism flew about in the merry dance they performed in whirling the numeral wheels around while under the manipulation of an expert operator. He couldn’t see the parts work--he could only theorize when there was trouble; thus he alone knew the difficulties to be met in attempting to make a more rapid calculator.

To describe the mechanism of the new machine from drawings of these patents would leave the reader still in the dark. What was really accomplished can best be understood by reference to the mechanical action in the old Comptometer.

In order that the reader may understand the significance of what was accomplished, let him consider this fact; that the key action of the old “Comptometer” measured as high as eighty-six ounces to a key depression, while in the new machine made under the two named later patents the key depression was reduced to but twenty-two ounces maximum, or a little over a fourth of the power required to operate the keys of the old “Comptometer.”

[Sidenote: _Power consumed by old carrying method_]

Facts show that a very large part of the resistance met with in the key depression of the old machine was caused by the high tension of the springs which performed the carrying. This high tension was necessary on account of the extremely small fraction of a second allowed for the performance of their function of supplying the power that turned the higher wheel in carrying.

By referring to the description of the inoperative features of the Hill machine (page 25) a parallel example of the time for the carry of the tens in the old Comptometer may be found, showing that but a ¹/₁₆₅ of a second was the allowance.

The carrying means employed in the old Comptometer consisted of levers with dogs or pawls hinged on their free ends, which co-acted with the ten pins of the higher numeral wheels to ratchet them forward a step at a time. The power for supplying such ratcheting action, in the delivery of a carry, was produced in a spring attached to the carrying-lever to actuate it.

[Sidenote: _Cam and lever carrying mechanism_]

The means used to produce the power in the carrying-lever actuating springs, or best termed carrying springs, was through the turning of an envolute cam attached to the lower order numeral wheels, which, acting upon an arm of the carrying levers, forced them away from the wheels, and thus tensioned the carrying springs. The cam and lever is best shown in Fig. 7, page 130.

The timing of the delivery of the carry, as the numeral wheel passed from nine to zero, was brought about by the high point of the cam passing from under the arm of the carrying lever, which, when released, allowed the carrying springs to act and ratchet the higher wheel forward a tenth of a revolution.

This form of carrying action had a peculiarity of reaching a certain set tension when three wheels were employed, so that for all the wheels employed in greater numbers no higher tension was required and no lower tension could be attained. Another feature about this type of transfer device was the fact that to get the set tension as low as possible required that at least eight-tenths of the rotation of the lower wheel should be utilized in camming back the carrying lever or storing the power for the carry. A decrease in this timing meant an increase in the resistance offered in turning the lower wheel by the steeper incline of the cam, and when the wheel in turn received a carry, the increase of resistance increased the work of carrying, and so on by a geometric ratio.

[Sidenote: _One-point carrying cam impossible_]

In a recent patent suit, a physical test was made as high as three orders with a one-point cam; that is, a cam operating to store power during a one-tenth rotation of the lower wheel (not an uncommon combination as shown in patents that have been issued), and it was found that by the time the third carrying was reached the springs were so large and powerful that to turn the next wheel would require a railway-coach spring, and that under the same ratio a fifty-four ton hydraulic press would be required to depress the keys in the eighth order.

The foregoing illustration of the idiosyncrasies of mechanical construction offer a good example of why perpetual motion is not possible, viz., that no mechanism was ever made that would not consume a certain per cent of the power delivered to it, through friction and inertia. Of course, expert knowledge of the physical laws of mechanics allow of the application of force along the lines of least resistance, and it is with this feature that the new improvements in the Comptometer have to do.

[Sidenote: _Felt’s improved method of carrying_]

It would seem that the old carrying means could not be improved upon under the circumstances, but Felt conceived a means which gave more time for the storage of power for the carry and all kinds of time for its delivery, which decreased the power required for carrying by a very large per cent. The means he devised was a motor-type of carrying mechanism that could receive and deliver power at the same time without interference. Thus the full revolution of the lower wheel could be utilized in storage and the same amount of time could be consumed in delivery if necessary, but it was never required.

This tremendous reduction in power required to turn the higher wheel in a carrying operation so decreased the resistance of turning the numeral wheels that the former means used to control the wheels during actuation was unsafe; that is, the old method of jabbing the stop detent between the pins of the numeral wheel to stop it was not dependable with the increased speed that the numeral wheels revolved, under the reduced resistance.

Again, the feature of time was at issue. The wheels could be whirled at tremendous speed or at a very slow speed. A sudden jab at a key with the finger sent the numeral wheels kiting ahead of the rest of the mechanism so that the detent could not be depended upon to enter between the right pins, which would result in erroneous calculation.

In the new machine, we find that to overcome this unevenness of action, Felt reversed the ratchet action of the denomination actuators, so that no wheel action occurred on their down-stroke under the action of the keys, but on the upstroke of the actuators the numeral wheels were turned by the power of the actuator springs stored by the key depression, thus giving an even set rotating action that could not be forced and that could be controlled by a stop detent.

As the timing of this stop-action was coincident with the stopping of the actuators on their upstroke, the actuator was used to perform this function in combination with a detent device that could be released from the wheel independent of the actuators to allow a carry to be delivered.

[Sidenote: _Gauging and controlling prime actuation_]

A feature worthy of note connected with this change is displayed in the method in which Felt overcame the timing of the stop action of the actuators in the downward action they received from the keys, which would have been as hard to control as it was to control the wheels under direct key action.

[Sidenote: _Alternating stop scheme_]

The scheme he devised gave more than double the time to perform the function of intercepting the lightning action with which the actuators moved under a quick key-stroke. The scheme shows a dual alternating stop-action constructed by the use of two stops acting at different levels and co-acting alternately with five equi-spaced stop-shoulders on the front end of the actuators, which were also arranged in different levels.

The two stops were actuated by the keys in a similar manner to the single stop which co-operated with the pins of the wheel in the old “Comptometer,” except that the odd keys operated one stop while the even keys operated the other.

Thus in the new “Comptometer” the (1) key acted to throw the higher level stop into the path of the lowest stop-shoulder on the actuator, and the (2) key acted to throw the lower level stop into the path of the same stop-shoulder on the actuator. In the same manner the (3) and (4) keys caused the odd and even stops to engage the next higher stop-shoulder on the actuator and so on with the rest of the keys.