On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 18:24:49 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 14:16:42 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



We cheapskates have to learn patience. g

This rare and little known book is perhaps the most interesting
mechanism/machine design book I've seen. Once I set a search, it took
two or three years for a copy to show up on ebay. While you're doing
the interlibrary loan thing, I'd recommend trying to get hold of a
copy.
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/160819&...loc=04079#tabs

--
Ned Simmons

Did you bring this one up before? I remember the title from somewhere, and
also that there are two copies in New York City libraries that are easy for
me to get to.

Maybe on my semi-annual trip to the NYPL in Manhattan.

It's quite likely I've mentioned it before. It's a shame it's so hard
to find, but I think it's worth the effort.

--
Ned Simmons

"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 18:24:49 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 14:16:42 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



We cheapskates have to learn patience. g

This rare and little known book is perhaps the most interesting
mechanism/machine design book I've seen. Once I set a search, it took
two or three years for a copy to show up on ebay. While you're doing
the interlibrary loan thing, I'd recommend trying to get hold of a
copy.
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/160819&...loc=04079#tabs

--
Ned Simmons

Did you bring this one up before? I remember the title from somewhere, and
also that there are two copies in New York City libraries that are easy
for
me to get to.

Maybe on my semi-annual trip to the NYPL in Manhattan.

It's quite likely I've mentioned it before. It's a shame it's so hard
to find, but I think it's worth the effort.

--
Ned Simmons

Well, thanks, I've put it on my book list and I'll hope to get time to look
into it. The title sounds interesting.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 17:27:58 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Yes, and I suspect it's intentional. They're playing a dicey game with
copyrights and they have a new project going now, in which they had to spend
$7 million of advertising around the world to let authors know that they're
engaged in an opt-out program, to settle a court suit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/bo...20books&st=cse

I can understand somewhat with stuff still under copyright,
but why do crappy work (a good scan/photo takes the same
amount of time as crappy. Turning & positioning takes most
of the time.) with stuff in public domain? I've looked at
what others have done with this using the djvu format and it
is quite good.

For instance, this series of books is pretty good (Turning
and mechanical manipulation intended as a work of general
reference and practical instruction on the lathe, and the
various mechanical pursuits followed by amateurs - 1850):

http://www.archive.org/details/turni...nica01holtuoft

http://www.archive.org/details/turni...nica02holtuoft

http://www.archive.org/details/turni...nica03holtuoft

http://www.archive.org/details/turni...nica04holtuoft

If you want a local copy to peruse, click on the "All Files:
HTTP" on the upper left side and download the djvu version
from the file listing. If you click on the djvu version
directly you will get the stream, which is for use with a
browser plug-in.

This would be the link for volume 1 for instance:

http://ia360939.us.archive.org/3/ite...1holtuoft.djvu

If you need a free djvu viewer there are a couple other
alternatives besides what Lizardtech offers. See:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/windjview/

http://djvu.sourceforge.net/djview4.html

The latter set of tools can create simple djvu documents
also.

You may find this listing of interest too, just don't expect
too much if the original source was Google. The text is
usually readable, but the diagrams and images can be poor:

http://www.archive.org/search.php?qu...iatype%3Atexts

For the Google stuff I've found that the pdf version is
usually a bit better. The djvu versions seem to be based on
the pdf and thus suffer from compression artifacts.

I think I already have some of Fred Colvin's texts. Take a
look at this listing:

http://www.archive.org/search.php?qu...type%3 Atexts

It is a fun place to poke around looking for old books...

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

On 2009-03-09, Leon Fisk wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 17:27:58 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Yes, and I suspect it's intentional. They're playing a dicey game with
copyrights and they have a new project going now, in which they had to spend
$7 million of advertising around the world to let authors know that they're
engaged in an opt-out program, to settle a court suit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/bo...20books&st=cse

I can understand somewhat with stuff still under copyright,
but why do crappy work (a good scan/photo takes the same
amount of time as crappy. Turning & positioning takes most
of the time.) with stuff in public domain? I've looked at
what others have done with this using the djvu format and it
is quite good.

If the book is old enough to have discolorations you can need to
tweak the scan parameters on each page to maximize the contrast in the
print while minimizing the inclusion of changes from the stains and
discolorations. This is especially so if you are scanning to single bit
density (maximum compression possible), though you can get away with
less care when scanning to color -- but the image sizes will be much
larger and much more difficult to compress.

I know this from scanning manuals for various old machine tools.

Given the number of pages in a typical book, having to go
through two or three trial scans for each valid scan can vastly increase
the time the job takes.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 10 Mar 2009 00:03:51 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

snip
If the book is old enough to have discolorations you can need to
tweak the scan parameters on each page to maximize the contrast in the
print while minimizing the inclusion of changes from the stains and
discolorations. This is especially so if you are scanning to single bit
density (maximum compression possible), though you can get away with
less care when scanning to color -- but the image sizes will be much
larger and much more difficult to compress.

I know this from scanning manuals for various old machine tools.

Given the number of pages in a typical book, having to go
through two or three trial scans for each valid scan can vastly increase
the time the job takes.

I've fooled round with this too and tend to agree somewhat.

Pretty much everything I have done is in grayscale and only
4 bit (16 shades) via flatbed scanner. I just try and
concentrate on getting a straight scan and correct the
contrast & brightness after the fact. Always save original
in some lossless format like compressed tiff or png.

It looks like the stuff I currently like is being done with
a camera and then saved in JP2 format (which could be
lossless). I don't know what Google is doing but with the
current crop of cameras on the market I would sure try that
route before using a scanner.

Take a look at the example I gave earlier:

http://www.archive.org/details/turni...nica01holtuoft

especially the all files page:

http://ia360939.us.archive.org/3/ite...ica01holtuoft/

Note this file, "turningmechanica01holtuoft_raw_jp2.zip",
which is around 240 meg. It is 512 images/pages long. They
are taking some pretty good sized images. From what I can
tell 400 dpi. Some other decent books I have are 500 dpi. If
I had a high-speed connection I would download the raw zip
archive and take a better look.

This is a nice book/document in highly compressed djvu
format and completely text searchable. The OCR engine being
used seems to do a pretty good job. I can't see any good
reason why Google can't somehow do the same with their
project.

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

On 2009-03-10, Leon Fisk wrote:
On 10 Mar 2009 00:03:51 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

[ ... ]

Given the number of pages in a typical book, having to go
through two or three trial scans for each valid scan can vastly increase
the time the job takes.

I've fooled round with this too and tend to agree somewhat.

Pretty much everything I have done is in grayscale and only
4 bit (16 shades) via flatbed scanner. I just try and
concentrate on getting a straight scan and correct the
contrast & brightness after the fact. Always save original
in some lossless format like compressed tiff or png.

O.K. I scan on an old HP ScanJet 5p SCSI color scanner.

In the past, I used the HP application which I downloaded for a
Windows system, but recently got the SANE system to work on my Sun Blade
2000, and I find it a lot better -- both the xscanimage (GUI interface),
and the command-line scanimage which is really nice for batch mode,
because it can automatically increment the numbers in the filenames.

It looks like the stuff I currently like is being done with
a camera and then saved in JP2 format (which could be
lossless). I don't know what Google is doing but with the
current crop of cameras on the market I would sure try that
route before using a scanner.

Take a look at the example I gave earlier:

http://www.archive.org/details/turni...nica01holtuoft

Ouch! In xpdf it shows up terribly smeared. Going to Acrobat,
it is a lot more readable, but shows print-through from the other side
of the page -- wrong contrast and exposure settings.

And I don't know how them manage to make it so xpdf (the free
unix-based PDF viewer) turns into terrible smears. Has Microsoft
expanded the PDF format? :-)

especially the all files page:

http://ia360939.us.archive.org/3/ite...ica01holtuoft/

Note this file, "turningmechanica01holtuoft_raw_jp2.zip",
which is around 240 meg. It is 512 images/pages long. They
are taking some pretty good sized images. From what I can
tell 400 dpi. Some other decent books I have are 500 dpi. If
I had a high-speed connection I would download the raw zip
archive and take a better look.

And -- I can't view jp2 images. I guess that I need to download
some more libraries and re-compile some programs.

Hmm ... the only programs which I can find for jp2 (jpeg2000)
have a .exe extension -- and the only source for them is for Windows, so
I'll have to wait a while before I can do anything with these.

This is a nice book/document in highly compressed djvu
format and completely text searchable.

"ddjvu" hits a problem:

================================================== ====================
ddjvu: [1-15108] Corrupted IFF file (Illegal chunk id).
================================================== ====================


The OCR engine being
used seems to do a pretty good job. I can't see any good
reason why Google can't somehow do the same with their
project.

Well ... if they have to use an image format which is not widely
supported, I'm out of luck at least.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 10 Mar 2009 21:46:14 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

snip
And -- I can't view jp2 images. I guess that I need to download
some more libraries and re-compile some programs.

Hmm ... the only programs which I can find for jp2 (jpeg2000)
have a .exe extension -- and the only source for them is for Windows, so
I'll have to wait a while before I can do anything with these.

This is a nice book/document in highly compressed djvu
format and completely text searchable.

"ddjvu" hits a problem:

================================================== ====================
ddjvu: [1-15108] Corrupted IFF file (Illegal chunk id).
================================================== ====================

See if there is anything you can use for viewing djvu from
this page:

http://djvu.sourceforge.net/djview4.html

They mention a binary for Debian towards the bottom of the
page. Also a link for a Java version over along the left
side.

I shied away from the djvu format for years and only
recently became interested. It does a really nice job on old
books if done properly.

Jpeg 2000 (jp2) files have been around for awhile already. I
know GraphicsMagick has support for it. Seems to me that is
available for Unix type systems.

Some info/history and possible sources he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000

I only mentioned the jp2 files to give you an idea of how
much data they are getting from their image taking. I am
curious to look over that data. May just have to suck it up
and download one of the smaller archives sometime and take a
peek inside.

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

On 2009-03-11, Leon Fisk wrote:
On 10 Mar 2009 21:46:14 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

snip
And -- I can't view jp2 images. I guess that I need to download
some more libraries and re-compile some programs.

Hmm ... the only programs which I can find for jp2 (jpeg2000)
have a .exe extension -- and the only source for them is for Windows, so
I'll have to wait a while before I can do anything with these.

This is a nice book/document in highly compressed djvu
format and completely text searchable.

"ddjvu" hits a problem:

================================================== ====================
ddjvu: [1-15108] Corrupted IFF file (Illegal chunk id).
================================================== ====================

See if there is anything you can use for viewing djvu from
this page:

http://djvu.sourceforge.net/djview4.html

Hmm ... it is now downloaded, but I need to build two other
packages to go under it:

djvulibre-3.5.21.tar.gz
qt-x11-opensource-src-4.5.0.tar.gz

They mention a binary for Debian towards the bottom of the
page.

A Debian binary will amost certainly be an x86 binary, not much
use on an UltraSPARC III CPU. :-) So, I'm going for the sources instead.

The qt-x11 claims to support Sun's Solaris, so we'll see. Only
the 32-bit version, but the UltraSPARC can run both 32-bit and 64-bit,
with the 64-bit being a bit faster.

Also a link for a Java version over along the left
side.

Hmm ... might be able to use that.

I shied away from the djvu format for years and only
recently became interested. It does a really nice job on old
books if done properly.

When I got it some years ago, it was for some downloaded manuals
for old equipment -- Electronics test equipment, IIRC

Jpeg 2000 (jp2) files have been around for awhile already. I
know GraphicsMagick has support for it. Seems to me that is
available for Unix type systems.

I don't have GraphicsMagik, but I do have ImageMagick, and it
was one of the ones which I tested on the jp2 files I downloaded. It
simply complained that I did not have a codec for jpeg-2000.

Getting newer software is such a pain when I have to download
and compile a half dozen libraries before I can compile the desired
software. And often, those half dozen libraries need another half dozen
before I can compile *them*.

It might be easier to load them into the OpenBSD systems, which
tend to have a lot of the libraries as pre-compiled packages.

Some info/history and possible sources he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000

I stumbled across that while trying to find the libraries which
I needed. Here is the major killer paragraph:

================================================== ====================
JPEG 2000 has been published as an ISO standard, ISO/IEC 15444. As of
2008, JPEG 2000 is not widely supported in web browsers, and hence is
not generally used on the World Wide Web.
================================================== ====================

I just found and got the java version as well, so we'll see how
that goes first. If that fails, I may spend a while before attacking
the full compilation sequence, because I'm about to go in for cataract
surgery, and don't know how well I'll be able to work until that is
over. The first one this week, the second about a month later.

O.K. I've still got to compile the qt package to use the
java version. I'm tossing it at the compiler, but if I hit any
problems, it is going to wait until after the surgeries are complete. :-)

I only mentioned the jp2 files to give you an idea of how
much data they are getting from their image taking. I am
curious to look over that data. May just have to suck it up
and download one of the smaller archives sometime and take a
peek inside.

It is a big collection. The zipfile is 239MB in size, and took
a long time to unzip because it created a lot of files. I've blown the
directory of files away for the moment, and will recreate it when I have
something to use on it.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 11 Mar 2009 21:48:31 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

snip
The qt-x11 claims to support Sun's Solaris, so we'll see. Only
the 32-bit version, but the UltraSPARC can run both 32-bit and 64-bit,
with the 64-bit being a bit faster.

Good luck with all of that. Sorry I'm not much help. I'm
pretty good at keeping my old WinNT4 running, but that
doesn't help you any.

snip
I don't have GraphicsMagik, but I do have ImageMagick, and it
was one of the ones which I tested on the jp2 files I downloaded. It
simply complained that I did not have a codec for jpeg-2000.

ImageMagick is suppose to have support for jp2 now. It turns
up (jp2) here and there nowadays. I wouldn't knock yourself
out trying to support it. Sooner or later though you will
need it for something you really want.

snip
Getting newer software is such a pain when I have to download
and compile a half dozen libraries before I can compile the desired
software. And often, those half dozen libraries need another half dozen
before I can compile *them*.

I can relate in a way. A lot of the Windows stuff won't
directly run on NT4 anymore. MS has seen to it that the
newer compilers they sell don't build compatible executables
unless you jump through hoops first. Thus most programmers
don't bother making builds that are compatible with the NT4
libraries/dll's. With a bit of creative hacking I can
sometimes get them to run anyway...

snip
================================================== ====================
JPEG 2000 has been published as an ISO standard, ISO/IEC 15444. As of
2008, JPEG 2000 is not widely supported in web browsers, and hence is
not generally used on the World Wide Web.
================================================== ====================

Every so often I see people requesting for Opera to start
supporting jpeg 2000 directly. I follow/read several of
their newsgroups. Eventually I suspect it will be supported
by one of the big web browsers. The rest will have more
incentive to follow suit then.

snip
O.K. I've still got to compile the qt package to use the
java version. I'm tossing it at the compiler, but if I hit any
problems, it is going to wait until after the surgeries are complete. :-)

Best of luck with the eye surgery. Your comments and
expertise will be missed, hopefully for only a very short
while

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

On 2009-03-12, Leon Fisk wrote:
On 11 Mar 2009 21:48:31 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

snip
The qt-x11 claims to support Sun's Solaris, so we'll see. Only
the 32-bit version, but the UltraSPARC can run both 32-bit and 64-bit,
with the 64-bit being a bit faster.

Good luck with all of that. Sorry I'm not much help. I'm
pretty good at keeping my old WinNT4 running, but that
doesn't help you any.

Nope -- but I expect problems with newer software standards. :-)

snip
I don't have GraphicsMagik, but I do have ImageMagick, and it
was one of the ones which I tested on the jp2 files I downloaded. It
simply complained that I did not have a codec for jpeg-2000.

ImageMagick is suppose to have support for jp2 now. It turns
up (jp2) here and there nowadays. I wouldn't knock yourself
out trying to support it. Sooner or later though you will
need it for something you really want.

O.K. Perhaps I'll get the latest and try my hand at compiling
it -- assuming that it does not require the same libs which I'm already
having trouble compiling.

The "qt" package compile halted wit the following summary of
errors:

================================================== ====================
"glextensions.h", line 188: Error: GLsizeiptr is not defined.
"glextensions.h", line 188: Error: A declaration does not specify a tag or an identifier.
"glextensions.h", line 188: Error: Use ";" to terminate declarations.
"glextensions.h", line 188: Error: A declaration was expected instead of ")".
"glbuffers.h", line 142: Warning: GLRenderTargetCube::failed hides the virtual function GLTextu:failed() const.
"glbuffers.h", line 153: Warning: Identifier expected instead of "}".
================================================== ====================

At least it is all in a single file -- perhaps I can dig through
it and find the problems. O.K. Line 188 says:


================================================== ====================
typedef void (APIENTRY *_glBufferData) (GLenum, GLsizeiptr, const GLvoid *, GLenum);
================================================== ====================

so perhaps I need to find where GLsizeiptr is supposed to be defined.
Whatever it is, it is screwing up the syntax of that line.

And it turns out to be in the "demos" subdirectory, so I could
probably live without it. :-)

snip
Getting newer software is such a pain when I have to download
and compile a half dozen libraries before I can compile the desired
software. And often, those half dozen libraries need another half dozen
before I can compile *them*.

I can relate in a way. A lot of the Windows stuff won't
directly run on NT4 anymore. MS has seen to it that the
newer compilers they sell don't build compatible executables
unless you jump through hoops first. Thus most programmers
don't bother making builds that are compatible with the NT4
libraries/dll's. With a bit of creative hacking I can
sometimes get them to run anyway...

There -- it is a case of Microsoft apparently intentionally
making support more difficult.

Here -- it is writers of packages depending on a ton of other
packages which typically come with some linux distribution or other, but
which you have to find, fight through the linux/unix differences, and
force to compile before you can move on to the next stage.

It used to be fairly easy to wade through all the open source
programs and to get most of them to work. Now, there are so many
choices, some mutually incompatible, that it is getting more and more
difficult -- almost easier to write the software from scratch yourself. :-)

snip
================================================== ====================
JPEG 2000 has been published as an ISO standard, ISO/IEC 15444. As of
2008, JPEG 2000 is not widely supported in web browsers, and hence is
not generally used on the World Wide Web.
================================================== ====================

Every so often I see people requesting for Opera to start
supporting jpeg 2000 directly. I follow/read several of
their newsgroups. Eventually I suspect it will be supported
by one of the big web browsers. The rest will have more
incentive to follow suit then.

Hmmm .... I just downloaded and installed Opera 9.64. I wonder
whether that was a security hole fix, or a significant addition?

I do know that they have two problems with the static version
for Solaris:

1) A file is present, but not in the directory which the install
script looks in.

2) It uses an option to grep "-q" which is not present in the
standard version -- only in the version in /usr/xpg4/bin/.

The solution to the first is adding a symlink before running the
script.

The solutions to the second a

a) Add "/usr/xpg4/bin/" in front of "grep" the one place
where the "-q" option is used.

b) Add to the start of the script a line adding
"/usr/xpg4/bin/" to the beginning of the path.

I've reported this problem to them once or twice, but it
continues to occur.

snip
O.K. I've still got to compile the qt package to use the
java version. I'm tossing it at the compiler, but if I hit any
problems, it is going to wait until after the surgeries are complete. :-)

Best of luck with the eye surgery. Your comments and
expertise will be missed, hopefully for only a very short
while

Thanks!

Hopefully. I'll be at least spending a month with unbalance
vision. The cataracts have shifted the natural focus from "sharp at a
distance" to "sharp at 10", and the replacement lenses are supposed to
give me something close to "sharp at a distance" again, so one eye will
be very different from the other.

But if the surgery goes well (I've apparently got rather
advanced cataracts, and this made it difficult to get a good measurement
of the lens capsules, and may make removing the remains of the old lens
more difficult as well), then I should have the eye on the side which
faces the computer monitor (on an arm beside my chair, and quite
difficult to switch to the other side) back to somewhere that I can use
my own glasses instead of my wife's glasses for the computer.

I found it interesting that the cataracts shift the focus.
Apparently they add volume in the lens cell, thus making it fatter and
thus shifting to a much closer focus.

Thanks again,
DoN.

P.S. Scheduling my surgery for 8:45 AM, with me needing to be at the
surgery at 7:15 AM, and with me accustomed to going to bed at
2:00 AM and getting up at 12:00 or 1:00 PM means that I'm going
to get very little sleep tonight. :-(

At least the *surgeon* should be quite alert, which is what
matters. :-)

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 12 Mar 2009 20:39:24 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

snip
Hmmm .... I just downloaded and installed Opera 9.64. I wonder
whether that was a security hole fix, or a significant addition?

Just a quick follow-up that may answer this question:

http://www.opera.com/docs/changelogs/linux/964/

I've been using the Opera 10 alpha since last December. They
are up to the 4th build now. The Windows version seems to be
quite stable. More info here if you care to fool with it:

http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/

And good luck getting some sleep. I normally get up ~5:45am.
I will have my early morning walk done, simple exercises and
probably some coffee already by the time you get to the
hospital

Good luck with it!

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

On 2009-03-12, Leon Fisk wrote:
On 12 Mar 2009 20:39:24 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

snip
Hmmm .... I just downloaded and installed Opera 9.64. I wonder
whether that was a security hole fix, or a significant addition?

Just a quick follow-up that may answer this question:

http://www.opera.com/docs/changelogs/linux/964/

O.K. Security patches. I should have expected that with the
increment in the third digit. :-)

I've been using the Opera 10 alpha since last December. They
are up to the 4th build now. The Windows version seems to be
quite stable. More info here if you care to fool with it:

http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/

Looks interesting. But the only version for Solaris is for the
Intel version, not the UltraSPARC version.

I guess that I could try it on the Intel-based Mac Mini, but I
almost never use the Mac for web browsing, and the one who does at the
moment (my Rent-A-Daughter) is using Safari, so there is little point to
trying that.

I notice several of the noted problems for the current one are
associated with the mail functions, which I don't use in a browser
anyway. :-)

And good luck getting some sleep. I normally get up ~5:45am.
I will have my early morning walk done, simple exercises and
probably some coffee already by the time you get to the
hospital

Good luck with it!

Thanks!
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

"Leon Fisk" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 17:27:58 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Yes, and I suspect it's intentional. They're playing a dicey game with
copyrights and they have a new project going now, in which they had to
spend
$7 million of advertising around the world to let authors know that
they're
engaged in an opt-out program, to settle a court suit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/bo...20books&st=cse

I can understand somewhat with stuff still under copyright,
but why do crappy work (a good scan/photo takes the same
amount of time as crappy. Turning & positioning takes most
of the time.) with stuff in public domain? I've looked at
what others have done with this using the djvu format and it
is quite good.

For instance, this series of books is pretty good (Turning
and mechanical manipulation intended as a work of general
reference and practical instruction on the lathe, and the
various mechanical pursuits followed by amateurs - 1850):

http://www.archive.org/details/turni...nica01holtuoft

http://www.archive.org/details/turni...nica02holtuoft

http://www.archive.org/details/turni...nica03holtuoft

http://www.archive.org/details/turni...nica04holtuoft

If you want a local copy to peruse, click on the "All Files:
HTTP" on the upper left side and download the djvu version
from the file listing. If you click on the djvu version
directly you will get the stream, which is for use with a
browser plug-in.

This would be the link for volume 1 for instance:

http://ia360939.us.archive.org/3/ite...1holtuoft.djvu

If you need a free djvu viewer there are a couple other
alternatives besides what Lizardtech offers. See:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/windjview/

http://djvu.sourceforge.net/djview4.html

The latter set of tools can create simple djvu documents
also.

You may find this listing of interest too, just don't expect
too much if the original source was Google. The text is
usually readable, but the diagrams and images can be poor:

http://www.archive.org/search.php?qu...iatype%3Atexts

For the Google stuff I've found that the pdf version is
usually a bit better. The djvu versions seem to be based on
the pdf and thus suffer from compression artifacts.

I think I already have some of Fred Colvin's texts. Take a
look at this listing:

http://www.archive.org/search.php?qu...type%3 Atexts

It is a fun place to poke around looking for old books...

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

Wow. 'Lots of stuff to look at. I have the DjVu plug-in but it only worked
for a few pages and then crapped out. But I could see what you mean; the
quality was quite good.

That Colvin book list looks pretty complete. My old boss at _American
Machinist_, Andy Ashburn, knew Colvin and may have worked for him. It's a
little vague in my recollection.

He sure was prolific. I wonder when he had time to write for the magazine.
g

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:25:55 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Wow. 'Lots of stuff to look at. I have the DjVu plug-in but it only worked
for a few pages and then crapped out. But I could see what you mean; the
quality was quite good.

Get one of the djvu reader programs I had links to. I prefer
the WinDJView one because it is pretty fast on my old
computer.

That Colvin book list looks pretty complete. My old boss at _American
Machinist_, Andy Ashburn, knew Colvin and may have worked for him. It's a
little vague in my recollection.

If you (or anyone else for that matter) gets this version of
"American machinists' handbook and dictionary of shop terms"
by Colvin in the djvu format it is text searchable (using
WinDJView at least):

http://www.archive.org/details/americanmachinis00colv

Direct link to the djvu version (~20mb):

http://ia311241.us.archive.org/2/ite...nis00colv.djvu

It was a competitor to the Machinery's Handbook at the time.
Well worth having around for reference.

He sure was prolific. I wonder when he had time to write for the magazine.
g

Just go look in the mirror Ed, should answer that last
question

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

"Leon Fisk" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:25:55 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Wow. 'Lots of stuff to look at. I have the DjVu plug-in but it only worked
for a few pages and then crapped out. But I could see what you mean; the
quality was quite good.

Get one of the djvu reader programs I had links to. I prefer
the WinDJView one because it is pretty fast on my old
computer.

That Colvin book list looks pretty complete. My old boss at _American
Machinist_, Andy Ashburn, knew Colvin and may have worked for him. It's a
little vague in my recollection.

If you (or anyone else for that matter) gets this version of
"American machinists' handbook and dictionary of shop terms"
by Colvin in the djvu format it is text searchable (using
WinDJView at least):

http://www.archive.org/details/americanmachinis00colv

Direct link to the djvu version (~20mb):

http://ia311241.us.archive.org/2/ite...nis00colv.djvu

It was a competitor to the Machinery's Handbook at the time.
Well worth having around for reference.

Yes, I have several editions. And I was the fifth (I think) editor since
1955 to try to revise and update it. I spent roughly a year on it in 1981 -
1982, and finally decided that it was so far out of date that the research
and writing time wasn't worth it. Someone did finally do a re-write, but I
got one look at it and didn't think the results were worth it, either.

Too bad. It was the standard for machine shop methods for decades.
Machinery's Handbook had more numbers.


He sure was prolific. I wonder when he had time to write for the magazine.
g

Just go look in the mirror Ed, should answer that last
question

Ha! Well, having written chapters of three McGraw-Hill technical books, I
have to say that the time spent per page on that kind of book writing far
exceeds the casual writing here. It's a heck of a lot of work. Colvin must
have been a workaholic.

--
Ed Huntress