Moving Picture World (Jan-Mar 1914)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

284 THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD Projection Department Conducted by F. H. RICHARDSON Operators Union Directory, I. A. T. S. E. EACH union is entitled to have its roster of ofEcers, meeting nights, etc., listed here once per year, free of cost. Preserve this list, as it will not be republished. The mail address of the secretary should be included, and the address of regular meeting-place, if any. Local No. 291, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Claud Bright, president; B. Kulms, secretary; George Lednard, treasurer; H. Chandler, business agent. Meetings held first and third Tuesday nights of each month. Question No. 15. Best answer will be published and names of others sending in replies of excellence will appear in the "Roll of Honor." Explicit permission to use name must be given or only name of city will be mentioned. Suppose you were running a motor generator set and sonvetking went wrong with your voltmeter, so that it would not register. How would you temporarily determine the approximate voltage of the generator? Roll of Honor. I think that it would be well if those answering questions would study them a little more and try to catch their real meaning. There have been a number of replies to question No. 9 which show that those making them understand the proposition, but they have not really answered question No. 9, as it was asked. Taking everything into consideration I think it may be fairly said that W. L. Johnston. Toronto, Canada, did best, in that he made a drawing which really answered the question without any text matter being necessary. Brother L. C. LaGrow, Albany, N. Y., sent in a sketch which would have answered the purpose very well, and he gave explanations for connecting two different types of motor-generator sets. Fort Worth, Texas, sent in some good drawings and undoubtedly understands the matter thoroughly. His sketches are equally as good as brother Johnston's, but are more complicated, therefore I have given Johnston's the preference. John Mason, Toronto, Canada, sent in a correct sketch, as did St. Paul, Minn.; Spokane, Wash., and Henry Joesten, Brooklyn, N. Y., and Chicago, 111. Reply to Question No. 9. By W. L. Johnston, Toronto, Canada. The question: Shozv by drawings or sketches how you would connect the field rheostat, tlie voltmeter and ammeter of a tnotor generator set your employer purchased. What I mean by this is: suppose the device came to you without any instructions (whatever accompanying it, to what and how would you connect the Held rheostat, the ojnmeter and the voltmeter f The answer: Worth Their Weight in Gold. Alphonse Le May, Troy, N. Y., sends 50 cents for two copies of the questions, writes a personal letter, and winds up with: So far the answers to the questions have been very fine, and are worth their weight in gold to any operator. I have many letters commending the questions, and the opposition is rapidly dwindling. I hope brother Le May will find the coming questions and answers to be of equal value with those already published. They will run a year and a half and maybe two years. A Carbon Economizer. W. S. Cox, New Orleans, La., has invented what he calls a carbon economizer, same being designed to allow of the burning of the stub ends of carbons down until they are an inch or less in length. Brother Cox has sent one in for examination and it is mechanically well made. I have no doubt but that it would effect a considerable saving in carbons. By using graphite liberally on the clamp screw I should say this little contrivance would enable the operator to burn his carbon stubs down to a very short length and thus really effect a considerable saving, as the average stub is from 2^ to 3 inches long. There are, however, several things to be taken into consideration in dealing with this kind of proposition, not the least of which is the fact that the operator must have sufficient carbon, and must know that he has sufficient carbon when he starts a reel to finish the projection of that reel. It would be very much better to waste two or even three inches of carbon than to stop the show while a new carbon was inserted, owing to the miscalculation of the operator in trying to burn his stubs too close. My own opinion of this device is that it could be used to advantage in houses whtrre the amperage is not too heavy, say up to 30 or possibly even 35. Beyond this, however, I do not think it would have any considerable value, because carbon burns away so fast on a higher amperage that the operator is unable to do any very accurate figuring. Another thing I don't quite understand is this: Presumably the device is intended to be used in the lower carbon jaw. Now if this is the case its efficiency would be considerably lessened, because this department has always advocated the use of solid carbons below when using d. c. and the longest stub of carbon is almost always at the top, and therefore a cored carbon. Of course it would be possible to use the device in the upper lamp jaw, but I am a little inclined to doubt this being a practical thing to do. Several Kicks. Brother R, C. Wilson, Winnipeg, Canada, sends in reply to question No. 10, and then proceeds to manufacture conservation as follows: Notice spoke-rimmer mentioned for sharpening carbons; have tried this tool and did not find it very satisfactory. By the way, when will some intelligent manufacturer turn out some half-inch solid carbons already pointed? What is the matter with Majestic and Thanhouser films of late? Every sub-title is out of frame with the rest of the film. The brands mentioned are usually beyond reproach, so far as photography and perforations are concerned. Do you think the following would be useful in eliminating flicker? The lens I am using has the back combination at the end of the tube, while the front combination (nearest the screen) is half way in the barrel. This leaves about two or three inches of the barrel not in use. Now, if we cut away a portion of this tube, and make a collar for the shutter, which will enable the same to set back over the end bearing of the shutter shaft, it will enable the shutter to cut the rays at a much nearer point than at present. This, of course, only applies to lenses of 4^^ e. f. or under. How about it? Personally I know of no reason why the solid carbons should not be pointed the same as the cored, and, unless I am mistaken, the Bios are pointed, though I am not sure about this. However, I will take the matter up with the manufacturers at once. I will also write to the film companies named, though I think the trouble is due to the uneven shrinkage of film stock. The Vitagraph had the same trouble recently. As to the lens matter, what you suggest would not directly help the flicker, but indirectly it might, since it would enable you to use a narrower main shutter blade, thus more nearly equalizing the width of the blade, which always tends to reduce flicker. Light Trouble. Park Falls, Wis., sends money for the list of questions and writes: Am running a Power's Six A. Get a good picture with 50 amperes, no volt, 133 cycle current. Cannot get the crater to form as per Handbook. At times the arc is quiet, and then again it will sputter and is very hard to control; is much better when I file the front side of the carbon flat. We run two shows a night; no day work, and I get $15.00 and work at the power plant during the day. Should the test lamp light up to candlepower on the secondary side of my transformer and go down to about half candlepower when I strike the arc? Yes. it should, because before you strike the arc there is no current flowing on the secondary and its voltage, therefore, is the same, or practically the same as the line voltage, but as soon as the arc is struck thC' voltage of the secondary drops to between 30 and 35. As to the crater, I presume you mean that you are unable to get it to form as per C, Figure 98, page 209 of the Handbook. This is either due to faulty setting, poor carbons, or defective cores, though it must be admitted that it is not an easy task to maintain a perfect crater when using only 50 amperes a. c, still you should be able to do it with the Power's Six A lamp, as you can move the upper carbon to any desired position, thus forcing the crater to burn as you want it. Maybe you carry loo short an arc.