Part 8

As the spacing was doubled by the use of but five stop-shoulders, the stops were allowed double the time for entry between the stop-shoulders plus the space that the pin occupied as compared with former method, which was considerably more than double the time allowed for the same function in the old machine.

Besides the redistribution of mechanical functions, another very noteworthy feature is found in these patents which, in the specific means disclosed, constituted another distribution of time for mechanical action. This in the capacity of the machine was what has become commercially known as the “Duplex” feature.

In the old “Comptometer” it was necessary to operate the keys alternately, as a carry from one order to a higher order might be taking place and thus be lost in the action of the higher order wheel while rotating under key-action.

[Sidenote: _Multiplex key action_]

In the machine of the later patents the carry was delayed while the higher-order wheel was under key-action. The construction shown consisted of a latch operated by the actuators, which, when the actuator was depressed, latched up the delivery end of the motor carrying-device so that a carry due to take place at that time would be intercepted until the actuator returned to normal again, at which time the carrying motor device was again free to deliver the carry. This feature allowed the striking of keys in several or all the orders simultaneously, alternately, or any way the operator pleased, which was a great improvement in speedy operativeness.

[Sidenote: _Control of the carry by the next higher actuator_]

While the genus of this elastic keyboard invention consisted of control of the carry by the next higher actuator, the specie of the generic feature shown was the delayed control. The first production of this generic feature of control of the carry by the next higher actuator that gave the elastic keyboard-action is shown in the two Felt patents.

It may be argued that this new keyboard feature was simultaneity of key-action and that simultaneity of keyboard-action was old. True it was old, but the flexible simultaneity was new and depended upon individuality of ordinal control for its creation, and Felt created the ordinal control that gave the flexible keyboard.

Simultaneity of key-action was old in key-driven cash registers; such invention as had been disclosed in this line, however, would defeat the usefulness of simultaneity in a key-driven calculator. The useful feature of depressing keys in several orders at once in a key-driven calculating machine lay only in the increased speed of manipulation that it could offer.

[Sidenote: _Forced simultaneous key-action old_]

Now such simultaneous key-action as had been invented and used on cash registers was not designed with the thought of increasing the speed of manipulation in such machines. The simultaneity of the cash register was designed to compel the operator to depress the keys, which represented the amount of the purchase, exactly simultaneous; otherwise, by manipulation the proper registration could be made to show on the sight-register and a short amount on the total-register. It was a device to keep the clerk or salesman straight and prevent dishonesty.

[Sidenote: _Forced simultaneity applied to a calculator impossible_]

If you have ever watched an expert operator using a “Comptometer,” try to imagine that operator hesitating to select a group of keys and depressing them exactly simultaneously as one is compelled to do on one of the key-driven cash registers. And then, on the other hand, if you have ever seen a key-driven cash register operated, try to imagine its being operated at the lightning speed at which the “Comptometer” is operated.[4]

[4] In making this comparison, the reader should be careful not to confuse the later key-set crank-driven type like that of Pottin described in the preceding chapter. It was the old key-driven type of cash register which contained the forced simultaneity of key-action.

It must be understood that the exact or forced simultaneity of the cash register scheme, if applied to a calculating machine, would lock the whole keyboard if one of any of a group of keys the operator wished to strike was depressed ahead of the others, and would thus prevent the rest of the group from being depressed until the return of the first key.

[Sidenote: _Flexible simultaneity of key-action a Felt invention_]

It is within reason that a locking action of that character would even defeat the speed of key-action that was possible on the old “Comptometer,” since an operator could overlap the key strokes in that machine to a certain extent; whereas the forced simultaneity of the cash register, if applied to the “Comptometer,” would prevent any overlapping or the depression of a second key until the first depressed key returned.

The only simultaneity of key-action that could provide a means of speeding up the old “Comptometer,” or any machine of its type, was a means that would leave key-depression free as to matter of time; one that would be perfectly flexible in group manipulation, offering a complete fluidity of motion such as not to hinder the fingering of the operator.

The purpose of the mechanical means employed to give simultaneity in the cash register was to lock all the keys depressed together and lock all others against depression until the former returned. The purpose of mechanical means employed in the Felt patent was to give perfect freedom of key-action, whereas formerly the key manipulation of the old “Comptometer” was restricted in the freedom of key-action, to the extent of being limited to seriatum action.

The above discussion has been somewhat elaborately detailed to offset statements that simultaneity was old in the key-driven Art. There is no question as to the cash register type of inflexible simultaneity of action being old before Felt patented his flexible type of simultaneity of key-action for a key-driven calculating machine; but any statement intended to convey the idea that Felt’s contribution of the flexible simultaneity of key-action to the Art was not new, must come from ignorance of the facts or malice aforethought.

[Sidenote: _Duplex Comptometer_]

This flexible keyboard “Comptometer” was given the trade name of “Duplex Comptometer;” the term “Duplex” meaning that two keys could be depressed, as distinguished from the seriatum one at a time key-action formerly required. The term, however, fell short of setting forth the capacity of such action, as it was, in fact, not restricted to mere duplex-action--it was really a multiplex key-action having no limit except the lack of fingers on the part of the operator to depress the keys.

The validity of these patents has been sustained in litigation. The technical scope of the mere claims has been disputed, as patent claims sometimes are; but the broad newness and importance of the practical calculative capacity achieved is beyond dispute. The recent machine called the “Burroughs Calculator” has multiplex key-action, but it did nothing to advance the practical capacity of key-driven calculating machines.

[Sidenote: _Introduction of full-stroke mechanism_]

The operation of key-driven machines has always been attended more or less with a feeling that a key-stroke may not have been completed, especially by a novice in operating. Recognition of the possibility of errors occurring through incomplete key-strokes in key-driven adding mechanism was first disclosed as early as 1872 in the Robjohn patent (see page 36), in which a full-stroke device is shown co-acting with the keys.

In the drawings it will be noted that for each key there is provided a ratchet device co-operating with the key to compel a full-stroke. This scheme, like other similar later attempts, was aimed at the prevention of an error in the operation of adding mechanism, but as a means of prevention of an error it was lacking, because unless the operator noticed that the key had not returned the next key depressed would, through the action of the rotor, pull the partly depressed key way down until it was released, when it would rise again, possibly without the knowledge of the operator. There still remained the fact that the occurrence of the error was not made known to the operator until it was too late to correct it.

[Sidenote: _Error signal keyboard_]

That Felt was interested in the solution of the problem for detection and correction of the errors in key-strokes is shown in the several patents issued to him on features pertaining to this subject. After numerous experiments Felt came to the conclusion that it was futile to lock a key in event of a partial stroke and that the solution lay in the locking of the keys in the other orders from that in which the error had been made, thus signaling the operator and compelling correction before further manipulation could be accomplished.

Again we find, as with the simultaneity of key-action, that a question may be raised as to the novelty of invention by those who wish to say that there are full-stroke mechanisms in the key-driven cash register Art that lock the rest of the keyboard. But the key-locks disclosed in the cash register were directed to a continuity of stroke engroup, as distinguished from the individualism necessary to the key-driven calculator.

The mechanical means employed, of course, varied greatly from that which would be of any value in the calculating machine Art, and the theoretical scheme was aimed at a widely different result. Flexibility was necessary.

[Sidenote: _Locking of the other orders by a short key-stroke_]

The feature sought by Felt for his calculator was a signal to the operator that an error had been made--if an error should occur--and to block the operation of any of the other orders until the error was corrected. This he accomplished by causing all the other orders to be locked against manipulation, through the occurrence of an error in a key-stroke; thus preventing manipulation of another order until the error was corrected.

[Sidenote: _Inactive keys locked during proper key-action in cash register_]

Now it may be said that the locking of other orders was old in the cash register; but let us analyze the scheme and action of both. The depression of a key of the key-driven cash register immediately locked all other keys not depressed, and retained such locking-action during depression and until the complete return of such key-depression; thus the keyboard was locked, error or no error.

[Sidenote: _Inactive keys not locked during proper key-action in “Comptometer”_]

A correct depression of a key in Felt’s new invention, as applied to key-driven calculators, does not lock the rest of the keys. In fact, no key of Felt’s invention is locked until an error occurs.

The lock of the key-driven cash register is a lock that takes effect without an error having occurred--one that is always present with respect to the keys not depressed simultaneously, and a feature designed to force simultaneity of group key-action to prevent, as before explained, dishonesty.

The lock of the key-driven calculator inventions referred to are in no way connected with simultaneous key-action--as in the cash register--and never act to lock the other orders except when there is an error in a key-stroke. As the writer has explained respecting the simultaneous feature of the cash register, the locking of the other orders in the cash register interfered with the flexibility of the key-action and for that reason would be impossible in a key-driven calculator, where rapid manipulation is dependent on flexibility.

The scheme of the new key-driven calculator inventions referred to, were designed to allow perfect freedom of individual key-action and to block such action only when an error in any individual key-stroke should be made. There is nothing in common in the two schemes. The time, purpose and mechanical means employed differ entirely.

[Sidenote: “_Controlled-key Comptometer_”]

This new idea of Felt’s is embodied in what is commercially known as the “Controlled-key Duplex Comptometer.” The term “Controlled-key” was coined to fit this broadly new combination, but a word coined to fit the functions of a new mechanism is seldom enough to convey a complete understanding of its true qualities.

Aside from the broad newness of the Felt “Controlled-key” feature referred to, even the mechanical means for safeguarding the individual key-action was new in its application as a full-stroke device. The means employed operated directly on the accumulator mechanism, locking it against registration until the error was corrected, which differed greatly from the devices applied to the keys or actuators designed by others to bring about a similar result. But the locking of all the other orders of mechanism, through any key-action short of a full stroke, as a signal or error, has no mechanical equivalent or simile in the Art.

The Improved Recorder

[Sidenote: _The mass of recorder inventions patented_]

Since the general installation of the recording-adder by the banks, the minds of “get-rich-quick” inventors have been turned toward this type of machine. The result has been that a vast number of patents on such machines were issued, a large proportion of which represent worthless and impossible mechanism purported by their inventors to contain improvements on the Art. Some of these patents on alleged improvements describe and purport to contain features, that, if really made operative in an operative machine, would be useful to the public. But as inventions, they merely illustrate the conceptions of a new and useful feature that can never be of use to anyone until put into concrete operative form.

To describe these features would be useless, as they have not advanced the Art; they merely act to retard its advancement through the patent rights that are granted on the hatched-up inoperative devices or mechanism purported to hold such features.

[Sidenote: _But few of the recorder patents of value_]

Of the vast number of patents issued, but few of the machines represented therein have ever reached the market, and of these machines, except those previously mentioned, there is little that may be said respecting new elementary features that may be called an advancement of the Art. It is to be expected, of course, that the manufacturer of such machines will not hold the same opinion as the writer on this subject. But the fact that the generic principles of recording the items and totals were worked out before they even thought of constructing such a machine leaves little chance for anything but specific features of construction for them to make that may be considered new.

[Sidenote: _Reserve invention as good insurance_]

Another feature to be considered in this line is that while these new manufacturers were working out the “kinks” or fine adjustments, which can only be determined after a considerable number of machines have been put into service, the older manufacturers were working or had worked out and held in reserve new improvements that were not obvious to those new at the game.

It is quite common for manufacturers to have a reserved stock of improved features to draw from. In fact, such a stock is sometimes the best insurance they have against being run out of business by a competitor who places a machine on the market to undersell them. Of course, all manufacturers believe they purvey the best and advise the public relative to this point in their advertisements.

[Sidenote: _Erroneous advertising_]

One manufacturer of a recording-adder, a much later invention than either the Felt or Burroughs recorder, circulated some advertising pamphlets once which contained a statement that their machine was the first visible recorder. A reproduction of this pamphlet is shown on the opposite page. The reader will at once recognize the error in such a statement, as the first Felt recorder was a visible printer.

The statement seems extremely peculiar after paying tribute to Felt as the pioneer in the Art of adding machines. One would suppose that having knowledge enough of the Art to offer such tribute would have left them better advised on the subject of visible recording.

[Sidenote: _Error key_]

The first of the later improvements in the key-set crank-operated recorder were made by Burroughs and consisted of the features which formed a part of Burroughs patent No. 504,963 of 1893. One of these features consisted of means provided in the shape of a special key that when depressed would clear the key-setting, thus allowing of an erroneous key-setting to be corrected by clearing and resetting the correct item.

[Sidenote: _Sub-total_]

Another feature was provision for printing a total at any time without clearing the machine, thus allowing printing of what may be called a sub-total, while the grand total is carried on to be printed later.

[Sidenote: _Repeat key_]

The third feature consisted of means for repeated addition and recording of the same item. The means provided consisted of a key, which, if depressed after setting an item on the keys, would prevent the keys from being cleared; thus by repeated operation of the hand-crank the item set up would be printed and added repeatedly.

[Sidenote: _Locked keyboard_]

The next feature was one of construction, as it was designed to overcome the possibility of the setting of two keys in the same order, by locking all the other keys in that order. The invention was shown applied to the Burroughs machine, but was applied for by Wm. H. Pike Jr., and was issued January 13, 1898.

[Sidenote: _Quick paper return_]

In 1900 Felt perfected a quick paper return for his wide paper-carriage and applied for a patent, which was issued March 11, 1902, the number of which is 694,955. The feature was, that by operating a lever, it served to return the paper after recording a column of items and automatically shifted the carriage ready for the recording of another column of items, thus facilitating speedy operation.

[Sidenote: _Paper stop_]

In March, 1902, a patent was allowed Felt on means to lock the mechanism in a recorder when the paper was about to run out of the rolls; a feature which, in tabulating, served as a check against the paper running out of the rolls and prevented further operation until the paper was shifted to commence a new column of items, thus insuring the printing of each record on the paper which formerly depended upon the vigilance of the operator.

[Sidenote: _Cross tabulating_]

The next feature in the recording machine Art which shows a new operative feature, that may be considered an improvement, is cross tabulating. It consisted of means for horizontal tabulating or recording across a sheet of paper as well as in vertical columns. While this feature was for special use, it served to broaden the usefulness of the recorder in bringing together classified balances by dates with cross-added totals, and many other similar uses. This feature was the invention of D. E. Felt, who applied for a patent April 29, 1901, which was issued October 21, 1902; the patent number is 711,407.

[Sidenote: _Item stop_]

Another special feature serving to broaden the usefulness of the recording-adder was invented by Felt, and may be found in patent No. 780,272, applied for March 30, 1901, and issued January 17, 1905. This feature was a device which controlled the printing of a predetermined number of items which could be set by the operator, and which, when the predetermined number had been printed, would lock the mechanism against further action until the paper was shifted to print a new column.

[Sidenote: _Motor drive_]

Prior to May 9, 1901, there is no record of any recording-adder having been operated by electric motor drive. But on that date Frank C. Rinche applied for a patent showing such a combination with the recorder, which became commercially known as the Universal Accountant. The patent, No. 726,803, was issued April 28, 1903, and is the first of a series issued to Rinche on various combinations of mechanical driving connections.

[Sidenote: _Distinguishing marks for clear, totals and sub-totals_]

A feature common to recording of added columns of numerical items is the distinguishing characters for clear, sub-totals and totals by the use of letters, stars and other marks. The first patent on anything of this nature that has come into general use was applied for June 9, 1903, by A. Macauley, and was issued June 12, 1906. This patent is No. 823,474, and shown connected with the Burroughs recorder to register with a star when the first item is printed if the machine is clear and when a total is printing. Provision was also made for printing an S when a sub-total was printed.

[Sidenote: _Adding cut-out_]

The use of recording-adders is often applied when it is desired to record dates along with tabulating added columns of recorded items. Of course there is no use of adding the dates together, and again if they were allowed to be added to the totals an erroneous total of the columns added may result under certain conditions. Means for automatically cutting out additions at certain positions of the paper carriage in cross-line tabulating was devised by H. C. Peters, and a patent showing such combination operative on the Burroughs recorder was applied for by him May 12, 1904. The patent, No. 1,028,133, was issued June 4, 1912.

[Sidenote: _Self-correcting keyboard_]

With the introduction of the key-set crank-operated feature on the Felt Comptometer, the key action, like in the Burroughs recorder, became a feature to be considered; but unlike the organism of the Burroughs, the Felt construction allowed of the use of a self-correcting keyboard without the possibility of error occurring from its use. This feature is shown in a patent issued to Felt & Wetmore applied for December 27, 1904, and issued May 14, 1907. The patent number is 853,543, and provides a means of correcting errors made in setting the keys by merely depressing the proper key or keys, which will release any previously set in the respective orders.

[Sidenote: _Split keyboard_]

In some classes of recording it is desirable to print more than one column of items without shifting the paper carriage laterally. A means providing for such an emergency is shown in patent No. 825,205, issued to C. W. Gooch July 3, 1906. The patent was applied for December 2, 1905, and shows a means applicable to any order that may intercept the printing of the ciphers in that order, and thereby the ciphers in all other orders to the right from any key depression to the left of such order. This made what has been generally known as the split keyboard, but differs from that now in general use in that it was set to certain orders and not selective at the will of the operator.

[Sidenote: _Dual action keyboard_]

With the coming of the motor-operated recording-adders, the extra time allowed the operator, through being relieved of having to work the crank back and forth, left a lapse of time until the motor finished its cranking of the machine. In other words, there could be no gain in the speed of operation because it took as much time for the motor to operate the machine as it did by human power. In a patent granted to McFarland, No. 895,664, applied for October 19, 1905, is shown a means for utilizing the lapse of time which the operator was formerly obliged to lose while waiting for the motor to finish its operation of cranking the machine. It is shown in combination with the keyboard of the Pike recorder and consists of a change that allows the keys for the next item to be set while the motor is cranking the machine to print and add the item previously set, thus utilizing the time formerly lost.

[Sidenote: _Non-add signal_]