Chapter IV: Part 4

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.

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_]

In adding and recording columns of figures, it quite often happens that it is desirable to print a number without adding it into the total, which may be accomplished in general by depressing the non-add key or knob, or what may be supplied for that purpose. These numbers, however, were not provided with any means by which they could be distinguished from those added into the total until Jesse G. Vincent conceived the idea of printing a distinguishing mark beside them to designate that they were mere numbers not added to the total. The means for accomplishing this feature is shown in patent No. 1,043,883, applied for September 24, 1906, and issued November 12, 1912.

[Sidenote: _Selective split keyboard_]

A new improvement in the split keyboard formerly devised by C. W. Gooch is shown in a patent issued to Wetmore & Niemann applied to the Felt “Comptograph.” This improvement consists of a selective device for splitting the keyboard into four different combinations selective to any combination. The patent was applied for April 24, 1907, and issued February 2, 1915; the number is 1,127,332.

[Sidenote: _Selective printing cut-out_]

In some classes of recording it is desirable at times to cut out the printing of some of the orders and in others the whole of the printing mechanism. Mr. Fred A. Niemann patented a means for such a contingency. The patent was applied for April 24, 1907, but was not issued until March 9, 1920. The feature was shown applied to the Felt Comptograph for tabulating or printing vertically a series of added and footed columns of figures.

[Sidenote: _Grand totalizer_]

It is sometimes desirable to print the sum of all the totals of the footed columns or what may be called a grand total. William E. Swalm, in patent No. 885,202, applied for October 24, 1907, and issued April 21, 1908, shows how this feature may be accomplished on the Burroughs recorder. It consisted of an extra series of accumulator wheels that could be meshed with the regular accumulator wheels, and thus receive actuation resulting in accumulation, the same as the regular wheels. When, however, the regular wheels are zeroized in printing the individual totals, the extra accumulator wheels are left out of mesh. Thus the grand totals are accumulated. The printing of the grand total is accomplished by the meshing of the grand total wheels with the regular and the usual operation of taking a regular total. The regular wheels, however, must be cleared first.

[Sidenote: _Alternate cross printing_]

The shuttle carriage, a means devised to print two columns of figures by printing a number in one column and a sum in the other by alternate action, was the conception of Clyde E. Gardner, and is shown applied to the carriage of the Pike recorder in patent No. 1,052,811 of February 11, 1913. The patent was applied for September 24, 1908, and consists of means for automatically shifting the carriage back and forth.

[Sidenote: _Determinate item signal_]

Another means than that invented by Felt to signal the operator when a predetermined number of items have been recorded, consists of a bell, which rings to notify the operator to that effect. This signal was the invention of J. G. Vincent, and is shown in patent No. 968,005 of August 23, 1910, and was applied for December 3, 1909, as an attachment to the carriage of the Burroughs machine.

[Sidenote: _Subtraction by reverse action_]

Although subtraction has always been accomplished on this type of machine as a means of correcting an error, it was always accomplished on the Burroughs recorder by the use of what is generally known as the complimental method, which, without special provision, is rather objectionable. On the 22d of April, 1910, Wm. E. Swalm applied for a patent which was issued June 4, which shows means connected with the Burroughs machine that allowed subtraction to be made by the direct method by setting the keys the same as for addition. The patent number is 1,028,149.

[Sidenote: _Selective split for keyboard_]

A further improvement on the split keyboard feature is shown in a patent issued to Fred A. Niemann in which is shown an individually selective cipher cut-out that splits the keyboard into any combination at the will of the operator. The said patent is No. 1,309,692, applied for October 7, 1912, and issued July 15, 1919, and shows the improvement in combination with the Felt “Comptograph.”

[Sidenote: _Rapid paper insert and ejector_]

In some classes of listing or tabulating it is an advantage to enter the paper and eject it with a rapidity that will facilitate the handling of a large number of sheets, such for instance as the usual bank statements. In patent No. 1,208,375 F. C. Rinche shows how he accomplished this feature on the Burroughs recorder. The patent was applied for July 21, 1913, and issued December 12, 1916.

Of the named improvements, of course, all are designed to fit the requirements of the machines they are shown as a part of in the drawings of the patent. They are also claimed as adaptable to other machines of the type, but some are so specific to the machine they form an improvement on that they are not adaptable to other makes. Again some give results on the machine they form a part of that was accomplished in a different way in another make.

Most of the improvements named, however, are of such a nature that the broad feature disclosed is adaptable to all makes if mechanism should be specially designed to suit such machines that will function to give the result.

The Bookkeeping and Billing Machine

An outgrowth of the recording-machine Art is represented in a new type of recording machine especially adapted to bookkeeping and the making out of invoices or reports where typewriting combined with arithmetical recording is necessary. This class of work demands a combination of the typewriter with adding and multiplying mechanism, having a capacity for printing the totals of either addition or multiplication.

[Sidenote: _Early Combinations_]

Several attempts have been made to combine the typewriter and adding-recorder; and there have been combinations of multiplying and recording. Another combination that has been used to some extent for bookkeeping and billing is an adding attachment for typewriters, but all these combinations were lacking in one feature or another of what may be called a real bookkeeping machine and billing machine.

The combination of the typewriter and multiple-order keyboard recording-adders was too cumbersome, and the means employed for multiplication on such machines required too many manipulative motions from the operator. In simple cases of multiplication as high as fifty manipulative motions would be required to perform an example on such a machine.

The combination of multiplying mechanism, either direct or by repeated stroke, with the multiple keyboard has been made, but without the typewriting feature they do not serve as a real bookkeeping and billing machine.

The combination of the typewriter and the adding attachment lacks automatic means to print totals. The operator must read the totals and print them with the typewriter. Multiplication on such a combination is, of course, out of the question.

[Sidenote: _First Practical Combination_]

The culmination of the quest for a practical bookkeeping machine is a peculiar one, as it was dependent upon the ten-key recorder, which has never become as popular as the multiple-order keyboard on account of its limited capacity. The simplicity of its keyboard, however, lent to its combination with the typewriter, and the application of direct multiplication removed a large per cent of the limitation which formerly stood as an objection to this class of machine when multiplication becomes necessary.

For the combination, which finally produced the desired result, we must thank Mr. Hubert Hopkins, who is not only the patentee of such a combination, but also the inventor of the first practical ten-key recording-adder which has become commercially known as the “Dalton” machine.

[Sidenote: _Moon-Hopkins Billing Machine_]

His bookkeeping machine is commercially known as the “Moon-Hopkins Billing Machine.” See illustration on opposite page.

The term “Bookkeeping Machine” has been misused by applying it to machines which only perform some of the functions of bookkeeping.

The principle of “Napier’s Bones” may be easily
explained by imagining ten rectangular slips of
cardboard, each divided into nine squares. In the
top squares of the slips the ten digits are written,
and each slip contains in its nine squares the first
nine multiples of the digit which appears in the top
square. With the exception of the top square, every
square is divided into parts by a diagonal, the units
being written on one side and the tens on the other,
so that when a multiple consists of two figures they
are separated by the diagonal. Fig. 1 shows the slips
corresponding to the numbers 2, 0, 8, 5, placed side
by side in contact with one another, and next to them
is placed another slip containing, in squares without
diagonals, the first nine digits. The slips thus
placed in contact give the multiples of the number
2085, the digits in each parallelogram being added
together; for example, corresponding to the number
6 on the right-hand slip we have 0, 8 + 3, 0 + 4,
2, 1, whence we find 0, 1, 5, 2, 1 as the digits,
written backwards, of 6 x 2085. The use of the slips
for the purpose of multiplication is now evident,
thus, to multiply 2085 by 736 we take out in this
manner the multiples corresponding to 6, 3, 7 and
set down the digits as they are obtained, from right
to left, shifting them back one place and adding up
the columns as in ordinary multiplication, viz., the
figures as written down are

12510
6255
14595
--------
1534560

From Napier Tercentenary Celebration Handbook]

Napier’s rods or bones consist of ten oblong pieces
of wood or other material with square ends. Each of
the four faces of each rod contains multiples of one
of the nine digits, and is similar to one of the
slips just described, the first rod containing the
multiples of 0, 1, 9, 8, the second of 0, 2, 9, 7,
the third of 0, 3, 9, 6, the fourth of 0, 4, 9, 5,
the fifth of 1, 2, 8, 7, the sixth of 1, 3, 8, 6,
the seventh of 1, 4, 8, 5, the eighth of 2, 3, 7,
6, the ninth of 2, 4, 7, 5, and the tenth of 3, 4,
6, 5. Each rod, therefore, contains on two of its
faces multiples of digits which are complementary to
those on the other two faces; and the multiples of a
digit and its complement are reversed in position.
The arrangements of the numbers on the rods will
be evident from fig. 2, which represents the four
faces of the fifth bar. The set of ten rods is thus
equivalent to four sets of slips as described above.

It is unnecessary to go into the history of the Hopkins Bookkeeping Machine to show the evolution of the Art relative to this class of machines, as the features that have made such a machine practical were developed by Hopkins himself, and at the present date there is none to dispute the title since his is the only machine having the required combination referred to. The scheme used by Hopkins for multiplication in his billing machine is, as stated, direct multiplication or that of adding the multiples of digits directly to the accumulator numeral wheels instead of pumping it into the accumulator wheels by repeated addition of the digits as is more commonly used.

The direct method of multiplying is old, as a matter of fact, the first mechanical means employed for multiplying worked by the direct method. But its combination with recording and typewriter mechanism invented by Hopkins was new.

[Sidenote: _Napier’s bones first direct multiplier_]

Napier, in 1620, laid the foundation of the mechanical method of direct multiplication when he invented his multiplying bones. The scheme of overlapping the ordinal places is shown in the diagonal lines used to separate units from the tens in each multiple of the nine digits (see illustration, page 179), thus providing a convenient means by which the ordinal values may be added together.

[Sidenote: _First direct multiplying machine_]

The first attempt to set Napier’s scheme to mechanism that would add and register the overlapping ordinal values was patented by E. D. Barbour in 1872. See reproduction of patent drawings on opposite page.

THE BARBOUR MULTIPLIER

The accumulator mechanism of the Barbour machine, including the numeral wheels and their devices for transferring the tens, is mounted in a sliding carriage at the top of the machine (see Fig. 1), which may be operated by the hand-knob.

[Sidenote: Description of Barbour Multiplier]

Extending through the bottom of the carriage are a series of pinions, one for each ordinal numeral wheel, and connected thereto by a ratchet and pawl action. The pinions are each so arranged as to be operative with a gear rack beneath the carriage when the carriage is slid back and forth.

Thus the wheels received action from one direction of the motion of the carriage and remain idle during the movement in the other direction. The degree of motion so received would, of course, depend upon the number of teeth in the racks below encountered by the pinions.

The gear racks employed by Barbour were numerous, one being provided for each multiple of the nine digits, arranged in groups constituting nine sets mounted on the drums marked B (see Fig. 4). Each of these sets contain nine mutilated gear racks, the arrangement of the teeth of which serve as the multiples of the digit they represent.

The teeth of the racks representing the multiples of the digits were arranged in groups of units and tens. For instance: 4 × 6 = 24, the rack representing the multiple of 4 × 6 would have two gear teeth in the tens place and four gear teeth in the units place, and likewise for the eighty other combinations.

Adding the multiples of the digits by overlapping the orders was accomplished by a very simple means, the arrangement of the racks being such that as the carriage was moved from left to right the numeral wheel pinions would move over the units rack teeth of a multiplying rack of one order and the tens rack teeth of a multiplying rack in the next lower order.

By close examination the reader will note from the drawings that the lower one of the sets of multiplying gear racks shown on the drum B, to the left in Fig. 4, is the series of one times the nine digits, the next set or series of racks above are the multiplying racks for the multiples of two, the lowest rack in that series having but two teeth, the next higher rack four teeth, the next rack six and the next eight.

So far no multiple of two has amounted to more than a units ordinal place, therefore these racks operate on a lower-order numeral wheel, and are all placed to the right of the center on the drum B, but the next rack above for adding the multiple of two times five requires that one shall be added to a higher order, and is therefore placed on the left side of the center of the drum.

Thus it will be noted that by reading the number of teeth on the right of each rack as units and those on the left as tens, that running anti-clockwise around the drum, each series of multiplying racks show multiples of the digits from one to four, it being obvious that the racks for adding the multiples of the higher digits are on the opposite side of the drums.

From the layout of the racks it is also obvious that the starting or normal position of the carriage would be with the numeral wheel pinions of each order in the center of each drum, so that as the carriage is moved to the right the units wheel will receive movement from the units teeth of the rack on the units drum, while the tens wheel will receive movement from the units teeth of the tens drum and the tens teeth of the units drum, and so on with the higher wheels, as each numeral wheel pinion except the units passes from the center of one drum to the center of the next lower and engages such teeth as may be presented.

Each of the drums B are independently mounted on the pivot shaft C, and are provided with the hand-operating setting-racks I and E, co-acting with the gears R and D, to help in bringing the proper racks into engageable positions with the pinions of the accumulator numeral or total wheels.

The hand-knob G, Fig. 4, and the gears f, fast to a common shaft, furnish a means for operating the whole series of drums when the right multiple series of racks of each drum have been brought into position.

As an example of the operation of the Barbour calculator, let us assume that 7894 is to be multiplied by 348. The first drum to the right would be moved by its setting-racks until the series of multiplying racks for adding the multiples of four are presented, the next higher drum to the left would be set until the series of multiplying racks for adding the multiples of nine were presented, the next higher drum would be set for the multiples of eight, and the next higher drum, or the fourth to the left, would be set for the multiples of seven. Then the hand-knob G, first turned to register zero, may be shoved to the right, engaging the pinions f with the gears D, and by turning the knob to register (8), the first figure in the multiplier, the racks are then set ready to move the numeral wheels to register as follows: The drum to the right or the units drum has presented the multiplying rack for adding the multiple of 8 × 4, thus it will present three teeth for the tens wheel and two teeth for the units wheel. The tens drum presenting the rack for adding the multiple of 8 × 9 will present seven teeth for the hundreds wheel and two for the tens wheel. The hundreds drum presenting the rack for adding the multiple of 8 × 8 will present six teeth for the thousands wheel and four for the hundreds wheel.

The rack of the thousands drum representing the multiple of 8 × 7 will present five teeth for the tens of thousands wheel and six for the thousands wheel. Thus by sliding the carriage to the right one space, the numeral wheel pinions will engage first the units teeth on one drum, then the tens teeth on the next lower drum and cause the wheels to register 63152. The operator, by turning the knob G to register (4), the next figure of the multiplier, turns the drum so that a series of multiplying racks representing multiples of 4 times each figure in the multiplicand are presented, so that by sliding the carriage another space to the right, the multiple of 4 × 7894 will be added to the numeral wheels. The operator then turns the knob to register three and moves the carriage one more space to the right, adding the multiple of 3 × 7894 to the wheels in the next higher ordinal series, resulting in the answer of 2747112.

There are, of course, many questionable features about the construction shown in the machine of the Barbour patent, but as a feature of historic interest it is worthy of consideration, like many other attempts in the early Art.

THE BOLLEE MULTIPLIER

Probably the first successful direct multiplying machine was made by Leon Bollee, a Frenchman, who patented his invention in France in 1889. A patent on the Bollee machine was applied for in this country and was issued March 17, 1896, some of the drawings of which are reproduced on the opposite page.

[Sidenote: _Description of Bollee Machine_]

Instead of using eighty-one multiplying gear racks for each order as in the Barbour patent, Bollee used but two gear racks for each order; one for adding the units and the other for adding the tens; these racks operate vertically and are marked respectively Bb and Bc. (See Fig. 3.)

The racks are frictionally held against gravity in the permanent framework of the machine, and are moved up and down by contact at each end, received from above by bar Ie, and from below by pins of varying length set in the movable plates Ab.

The bar Ie forms part of a reciprocating frame which moves vertically and in which are slidably mounted the pin plates Ab. These plates are what Bollee called his “mechanical multiplication tables.”

The arrangement of the pins and their lengths are such as to give degrees of additive movement to the units and tens gear racks equal to the multiplying racks in the Barbour multiplier.

The pin plates are moved by the hand-knobs Ab², and the plate shown in Fig. 3 is positioned for multiples of nine.

The means for setting the multiples correspond to the index hand-knob of the Barbour machine, and consists of the crank Am, which, when operated, shifts the whole series of plates laterally. A graduated dial serves the operator to set the multiple that the multiplicand, set by the positioning of the plates, is to be multiplied by.

The accumulator mechanism is mounted in a reciprocating frame which moves horizontally, causing the gears of the numeral wheels to engage first the units racks on their upstroke under action of the pins, and then the tens racks on their down-stroke under the action of the top bar of the vertically moving frame, the downward motion, of course, being regulated by the upward movement it receives from the pin that forces it up.

As may be noted in Fig. 1, the multiplying plates are held in a laterally movable carriage that is shifted through the turning of the multiplier factor setting hand crank Am, by means of the rack and pinion action. This gearing is such that each revolution moves the multiplying plates under a higher or lower series of orders, thus allowing the multiples of a higher or lower order series to be added in the process of multiplication or subtracted in division, as the case may be.

Although the Bollee machine is reputed to be a practical machine, as is attested from the models on exhibit in the Museum of Des Arts and Metiers of Paris in France, it was never manufactured and placed on the market.

[Sidenote: _Bollee’s principle commercialized_]

Bollee’s principle has, however, been commercialized by a Swiss manufacturer in a machine made and sold under the trade name of “The Millionaire,” the U. S. patents of which were applied for and issued to Steiger.

Hopkins constructed his multiplying mechanism on the Bollee scheme of using stepped controlling plates for his reciprocating racks to give the multiples of the digits, but the ingenious method of application shown in the Hopkins patent drawings illustrates well the American foresight of simplicity of manufacture.

During the past ten years there have been a large number of patents applied for on mechanism containing the same general scheme as that of Bollee and Steiger, but up to the present writing no machines with direct multiplying mechanism have been commercialized except “The Millionaire,” which is non-recording, and “Moon-Hopkins Bookkeeping Machine.”

A Closing Word

As previously stated, it is impossible to describe or illustrate the thousands of inventions that have been patented in the Art of accounting machines, and some of the inventors may feel that the writer has shown partiality. The subject of this book, however, has to do only with the Art as it stands commercialized and those who are responsible for its existence.

In the arguments to prove validity of contributions of vital importance to the Art, many other patented machines have been used which really have no bearing on the Art. But the writer was obliged to show their defects, otherwise the misconception derived from articles written by authors incompetent to judge would leave the public in error as to the real truth relative to the Art of the modern accounting machines.