Transactions of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers (1929)

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.

46 Transactions of S.M.P.E., Vol. XIII, No. 37, 1929 Mr. John G. Jones: I think Dr. Mees' suggestion hits the point. Take two gears for example, the number of teeth in mesh are not all in contact. Mr. Jones: Modify the definition then to read as suggested: (Modified definition read) Mr. Taylor: Don't you have to go through and say ''the greatest number of teeth in contact," because as the sprocket moves it is one tooth more or less? Mr. Jones: I think in reply to that we are trying to clarify the useage of the term which is proper in our literature. The number of teeth in contact is taken as the thing we have defined. If we further complicate it by saying it is the greatest, it is more ambiguous. "^" Mr. Taylor: I don't agree. President Porter : Are you ready for the question as amended ? Mr. Clark: According to that drawing, if you rotate that two degrees that way, the upper tooth goes out of mesh. Mr. Jones : That is the way they want to define it. Mr. Clark: How would it be to say ''the maxium number of teeth in mesh at any one time?" Mr. Friedman: If we say at the base of the tooth? Mr. Ross : I think the title as given is clear because it states that the tooth is in contact, so why assume that the sprocket has moved ? The fact is that only one tooth is in contact with the film, the remainder are in mesh. Mr. Jones: The term we are attempting to clarify, because it has been used in the previous literature on standards is the number of teeth in contact with the film. Only one tooth is in contact with the film. Mr. Ross : "Would you please read the revised definition again ? (Definition repeated) It seems to me that the last five words describe the whole thing and make it clear. President Porter : I have two suggestions to make here : One is that in view of the fact that only active members are allowed to vote, that the discussion be confined to active members. Also, we are not going to get anywhere by suggesting two or three different definitions, and it is practical to refer this matter back to the committees for further study if the body as a whole is not sat