The actuality on

title

10:35 |

The Straight Dope: Was the QWERTY keyboard purposely designed to slow typists?

Dickerson’s regularity - The actuality on - QWERTY history

How is typebar arrangement of Sholes & Glidden? Caligraph's?

07:24 |

How is typebar arrangement of Sholes & Glidden? Caligraph's?

especially 34, AS　

Are they adjacent? or not?

As Sholeg&Glidden:

Dickerson said :

The Truth of QWERTY

Associate Professor Koichi Yasuoka says:

http://slashdot.jp/~yasuoka/journal/440086

How is Rehr's revision? "adjacent typebar is the matter." Barron might think so.

13:17 |

How is Darryl Rehr's revised theory?:

adjacent typebar is the matter.

Rehr's revision:"Sholes needed to do was separate the letter pairs by at least one type bar.（1997）" - The actuality on - QWERTY history

Barron might think so.

BARRON「not be apt to collide with an adjacent ascending type-bar」

W. J. BARRON「type-bar」 「the longer arm of the type-bar」「type-arm」「type lever」Patented May 26, 1891.Filing date: Sep 26, 1888 Issue date: May 26, 1891 - 葉仮名raycy - KliologY

必ずぶつかるといっているんではない。Sholes「less liable to collide」、Barron"apt to""possibility"FAIRFIELD「the accidental jamming together of two type-bars」 - 葉仮名raycy - KliologY

If the typebar arrangement is like Dicherson said as:

The Truth of QWERTY

How is typebar arrangement of Sholes & Glidden? Caligraph's? - The actuality on - QWERTY history

Or

Associate Professor Koichi Yasuoka says:

Rehr's revision:"Sholes needed to do was separate the letter pairs by at least one type bar.（1997）" - The actuality on - QWERTY history

If the typebar arrangement is like Dicherson said as:

http://slashdot.jp/~yasuoka/journal/440086

How is typebar arrangement of Sholes & Glidden? Caligraph's? - The actuality on - QWERTY history

Peter Weil "So, yes, they could and did jam. Beyond this, if they were not perfectly positioned on the ends. ""In addition, the alignment on the S&G easily gets messed up in a position. ""Use and vibration made clashes a more likely problem. "

08:57 |

Peter Weil Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:52 pm

So, yes, they could and did jam. Beyond this, the problem of types

being at different positions on the ends of the typebars added to the

probability that, if they were not perfectly positioned on the ends, clashes

were much more likely. In addition, the alignment on the S&G easily gets messed

up because only one screw holds the bearing in a position that includes a wide

arc relative to its purpose. Use and vibration meant that the typebar angle

tended to change fairly quickly and made clashes a more likely problem.

Yahoo! Groups

Peter Weil says:

• So, yes, they could and did jam.
• Beyond this, the problem of types being at different positions on the ends of the typebars added to the probability that, if they were not perfectly positioned on the ends, clashes were much more likely.
• In addition, the alignment on the S&G easily gets messed up because only one screw holds the bearing in a position that includes a wide arc relative to its purpose. Use and vibration meant that the typebar angle tended to change fairly quickly and made clashes a more likely problem.

How about Caligraph's adjacent typebars?

00:13 |

How about Caligraph's adjacent typebars?

How were their sequential accending chances of adjacent typebar pairs?

Darryl Rehr revised as only the adjacent typebar pairs were the matter on clash problem.